Cross-posted on the ReligionDispatches blog. Go straight to the statement in response to Edward Luttwak's "apostasy" Op-Ed HERE.
-----
On May 12, senior associate for the Center for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS) Edward "Give War a Chance" Luttwak published a now infamous Op-Ed in the New York Times declaring that Muslims around the world are likely to consider a president Barack Obama an apostate, thus jeopardizing his and the nation's security.
The idea for this Times Op-Ed wasn't birthed in the mind of Luttwak, a man with no discernible background in Islam. In fact, it breathed its first breath on the day after Christmas, 2007, when lunatic fringer Daniel Pipes concocted the smear in his Front Page magazine, ostensibly to keep the words "Muslim" and "Obama" in the same sentence for just a little bit longer. Thanks to the New York Times it seems to have worked.
Shortly after the Op-Ed's appearance Ingrid Mattson, Daisy Khan, Hussein Rashid, Ali Eteraz and probably numerous other Muslim scholars and writers responded, all noting more or less the same thing: that this is a poor read of Shari'a and that the Muslim world is far too variegated to make such a sweeping statement.
Along comes Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na`im, one of the world's foremost Islamic Jurists, Professor of Law and Senior Fellow of the Center for the Study of Law and Religion at Emory University and author, most recently, of Islam and the Secular State: Negotiating the Future of Shari'a. You'd think that a scholar of such renown would have no trouble getting published as an authority on Islam in order to set the record straight.
You'd be wrong. According to the email Religion Dispatches received from An Na'im on the 29th of May, he's had considerable difficulty: "please consider the attached draft op.ed. that I prepared some two weeks ago but have not succeeded in getting it published." [Update: Since RD published the statement on 5/29 Reuters' blog has written an article on it].
Imagine an opinion piece from a liberal Muslim think-tank associate analyzing the prospects of a conservative Jewish candidate in light of the Torah--say Deuteronomy 13:6-10, which calls for the killing of apostates--and then imagine one of the world's foremost Jewish scholars having trouble getting his analysis published.
A week after Luttwak's salvo the Christian Science Monitor dipped its toe into the brackish water by publishing another think tank-inspired Op-Ed by Shireen Burki making similar claims about Obama and apostasy. Burki, her faculty page notes, is an academic fellow for the neocon-friendly Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.
Well, ReligionDispatches has now posted a version of the Op-Ed that An-Na`im was unable to publish in response to these allegations, signed by professor/blogger Juan Cole, HuffPo contributor Ali Eteraz, syndicated columnist Mona Eltahawy, Islamica magazine editor Firas Ahmad, altmuslim founder and editor Shahed Amanullah and numerous others--all within the first 24 hours.
Below is the opening to the statement. On the page are instructions for signing...
Suggestions that Presidential candidate Barack Obama was a Muslim seemed to have subsided when his controversial pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, walked onto the stage. But even as Obama defended his Christian faith, and his choice of churches, speculation about his connection to Islam continues on-line as well as within the mainstream press, including an Op-Ed entitled "President Apostate" in The New York Times (May 12, 2008) by the military strategist and historian Edward Luttwak (and, exactly a week later, in a May 19 Christian Science Monitor Op-Ed entitled "Barack Obama-Muslim Apostate?"). Now, as if to flip the Muslim coin, Mr. Luttwak, Ms. Burki, and others speculate that Muslims will hold Mr. Obama to a higher religious standard because he does not embrace the religion of his father.
Mr. Luttwak argues that... Read more...
NY Times is still one of the more above-the-fray medias, but it's funny how so many of the media entities nowadays will just publish controversial or irrelevant crap just to seem that their 'fair and balanced", like Faux Noise.
Since when presenting alternative points of views means misleading your audience about the facts?
And speaking of decent media outlets not being decent, NY Times has yet to take responsibility for biting the bait from the Bush administration on the pre-war intelligence "leak".
For John McCain, we know nothing about his faith. He has sought out the support and attempted to incur favor from contraversial right wing religious nuts. Having once denounced these men for what they were, McCain's penache for political expediency led him to the front door of these men's churches. Having to have now rejected the support he once garnered, he explains that "he wasn't a member of their churches for 20 years."
I say exactly. Whatever you think about Rev. Wright, you don't know much about him. Did you know Rev. Wright was a Marine for six years? That he fought in Viet Nam? For this - HIS - country! UnPatriotic? He earned his right to say questionable and contentious things about his country - it is a right protected by the Constitution! Sen. Obama's spiritual path led him to Rev. Wright. God isn't mad at him, the sheppard is doing his job. That path did not stop at Trinity or with Rev. Wright. Rev. Wright played a significant role in the Obama's life, sure enough. But not more than any pastor at any church.
McCain argues that only in attending the church of Hagee or Parsley for twenty years would the instances be comparable. I argue that in seeking out men of questionable character, McCain is offending American good will.
Not to inject race into the conversation, but in black communities, it is believed one must be twice as clean, twice as prepared, you must do twice as much to get credit from your white counterparts. The questions regarding Obama, his former pastor and now church would never be asked to ether Hillary Clinton or John McCain.
For 15 years, Hillary Clinton has been part of a secretive religious group that seeks to bring Jesus back to Capitol Hill. This group named the "Fellowship," and otherwise known as the "Family" {believes that the elite win power by the will of God, who uses them for his purposes. Its mission is to help the powerful understand their role in God's plan.} Doesn't sound that scary at the surface, but when you consider its far-right membership and learn of some of its business dealings worldwide, you might think it worthy of SOME press coverage. But because these are the insider-Washington elites, that isn't likely.
Too bad it still can't be that way, as probably with most voters it IS a non issue.
It took three weeks..and it probably won't undo the effect the first piece had on readers.
A concerted effort should be made to hold the MSM accountable. Its just not on.
by Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na`im was rebuffed. The intent is to promote misinformation about Obama and to keep Americans uninformed about Islam. The intent from Luttwak was to frighten and inflame.
Thank you for the links and sources.
Is it just me, or are others appalled (and embarrassed at how we must look to the world) at how many people in America are EXTREMELY xenophobic?? Seems that Senator Obama's candidacy has brought the xenophobic, fearmongerers out of the woodworks!