Tweet
OBAMA, 9/11, AND FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE
By Andrew G. Bostom
American Thinker
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/09/oba ma_911_and_freedom_of_consc.html
Sept 11 2008
WA
During an interview with George Stephanopoulos of ABC News which aired
Sunday September 7, 2009, Barack Obama bemoaned what he claimed were
insidious Republican attempts to "promulgate," falsely, his "Muslim
connections." Senator Obama then made a minor gaffe (at ~ 2 minutes
50 seconds, here), in his half-hearted exculpation of Senator McCain:
"John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith." Stephanopoulos,
who earlier defended McCain against Obama's general anti-Republican
allegations, then corrected Obama's misstatement with instantaneous,
politically-correct alacrity, reminding the Democratic Presidential
nominee, "...[you meant] your Christian faith." And certainly the
full context of the discussion makes clear Obama was not in any way
acknowledging some personal embrace of Islam, when he responded,
"What I meant to say, he [McCain] hasn't suggested that I am Muslim."
But the self-aggrieved, whining tone of Senator Obama's interview
struck me as particularly inappropriate occurring just four days
prior to his scheduled appearance with Senator McCain at Ground Zero,
in lower Manhattan. Both men will suspend their Presidential campaigns
to be present at a joint, non-partisan event, Thursday, September 11,
2008, commemorating the 7th anniversary of the cataclysmic acts of
mass-murdering jihad terrorism on September 11, 2001.
Those savage attacks represent a jihadist assault on our core Western
values-prominently among them, the freedom of conscience Barack Obama's
personal biography epitomizes-despite his apparent obliviousness to,
or denial of, this reality.
Sober, independent analyses by academics, including published essays
in The Christian Science Monitor, and The New York Times, concur that
Obama's childhood experience of Islam -- as perceived by Muslims from
Islamic societies, in particular -- has two critically important,
and inter-related ramifications: his status as a Muslim; and more
ominously, as an apostate from Islam.
During his childhood years in Indonesia, Barack Obama was enrolled
as a Muslim (see here, here, here, and here) at his primary schools
(this is confirmed, conclusively, in a registration document -- which
the Associated Press photographed -- made available on Jan. 24, 2007,
by the Fransiskus Assisi school in Jakarta, Indonesia, demonstrating
that his Muslim step-father listed Obama's boyhood religion as Islam),
and also attended the mosque during that period.
Tine Hahiyary, a former teacher at one of these schools, claimed that
the young Obama actively took part in "mengaji" classes (consistent
with devout Islamic education), which instruct students to read the
Koran in Arabic. And the Indonesian daily Banjarmasin Post interviewed
Rony Amir, a Muslim classmate of the young Obama, who characterized
Obama as "...previously quite religious in Islam." While disputing
Obama's childhood Muslim religiosity, a subsequent Chicago Tribune
report still concedes that the young Obama was at least an irregularly
practicing Muslim, who occasionally prayed with his step-father in
a mosque.
Irrespective of Obama's Muslim devoutness as a child, one must also
bear in mind how contemporary (and classical) Islamic Law views the
offspring of any marriage between a Muslim man (Obama's birth father
and step-father were both Muslims), and a non-Muslim woman. Sheikh
'Abdus-Sattar Fathallah As-Sa`eed, professor of Koranic Exegesis
and Koranic Sciences at Al-Azhar University -- for more a thousand
years, the pre-eminent center of Sunni Islamic religious education
-- in a recently issued a fatwa (June 20, 2002), reiterated plainly
the Islamic principle that paternity determines (Muslim) religious
identity for a child born of a Muslim father, and a non-Muslim wife:
There is nothing wrong, as far as Islam is concerned, that a Muslim
man marries a Christian woman, but he should stipulate (in the marriage
contract) that any children from the marriage will be Muslims.
Not surprisingly then, as Daniel Pipes has assiduously documented,
the predominant understanding about Obama in Islamic societies is that
the Democratic Presidential nominee, at minimum, has "Muslim origins"
(as stated explicitly for example in the Egyptian newspaper, Al-Masri
al-Youm). Libyan dictator Mu'ammar al-Qaddafi has referred to Obama
as "...a black citizen of Kenyan African origins, a Muslim, who had
studied in an Islamic school in Indonesia."
Analyses by Al-Jazeera have called Obama a "non-Christian man," made
reference to his "Muslim Kenyan" father, and observed, tellingly,
that "Obama may not want to be counted as a Muslim but Muslims are
eager to count him as one of their own."
Pipes also notes how Arabic discussions of Obama occasionally mention
his Arab Muslim middle name (Hussein), cryptically, "with no further
comment needed." Moreover, even the American Muslim leaders Sayyid
M. Syeed, president of the Islamic Society of North America, and
Lewis Farakhan of the Nation of Islam, apparently view Obama as a
Muslim. Speaking at a conference in Houston, Syeed encouraged Muslims
that, regardless of the outcome of the American Presidential elections,
Obama's candidacy reinforces the notion that Muslim children can
"become the presidents of this country." Farrakhan claimed Obama was
"the hope of the entire world," and compared him to his religion's
founder, Fard Muhammad, "A black man with a white mother [who] became
a savior to us."
Political scientist Shireen Burkhi, and historian Edward Luttwak have
warned that this widespread perception of Obama's Muslim identity
in Islamic societies may readily engender a dangerous sentiment --
the belief that Obama is an apostate from Islam. And as Daniel
Pipes recently demonstrated, the subject of Obama's apostasy has
already been raised in the Arab Muslim media. Not only did at least
one Arabic-language newspaper publish Burki's article, Obama was
described as "a born Muslim, an apostate, a convert to Christianity,"
in Kuwait's Al-Watan, while Syrian liberal Nidal Na'isa denoted Obama
as an "apostate Muslim," repeatedly, in the Arab Times.
The recent case of Abdul Rahman illustrates, starkly, why any
perception of Obama as a Muslim "apostate" raises -- or should raise
-- fundamental awareness about the yawning gap between Islamic, and
Western conceptions of freedom of conscience. Rahman's predicament made
eminently clear that Islamic societies do not accept the putatively
universal standard for freedom of conscience as defined, for example
in The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 18,
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion;
this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and
freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or
private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice,
worship and observance.
When in March, 2006, the unassuming Mr. Rahman faced death at the hands
of our Afghan allies for the "crime" of converting to Christianity, it
was no fluke, not a brutal Afghan variant on the practice of "tolerant"
Islam. Death for apostasy is part and parcel of Islamic scripture
and tradition. The poignant travails of this Afghan Muslim convert
to Christianity -- who was willing to die for the basic expression of
his freedom of conscience, and whose life was only spared upon being
granted asylum in Italy -- demonstrate a uniquely Islamic fusion of
absurdity and denial: in light of Koran 2:256 ("There is no compulsion
in religion"), and repeated claims that Islam is characterized by
freedom of belief and creed, devoid of compulsion, why has apostasy
from Islam always been punished so harshly, for thirteen centuries,
into the present era?
Ibn Warraq's seminal 2003 study of apostasy, past and present, Leaving
Islam (p.31), distinguishes transient doubt -- edified by discovering
the "truth" of Islam -- from apostasy.
Doubt is a very good passageway, but a very bad place to stop
in. However, apostasy is a matter of treason and ideological treachery,
which originates from hostility and hypocrisy. The destiny of a person
who has an inborn handicap is different from the destiny of one whose
hand should be cut off due to the development of a dangerous and
infectious disease. The apostasy of a Muslim individual whose parents
have also been Muslim is a very infectious, dangerous and incurable
disease that appears in the body of an ummah (people) and threatens
peoples lives, and that is why this rotten limb should be severed.
And punishment by death for apostasy from Islam is firmly rooted
in the most holy Muslim texts -- both the Koran, and the hadith --
as well as the sacred Islamic Law (the Shari'a). Koran 4:89 states:
They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so
that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them
friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they
turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them,
and take not from among them a friend or a helper.
One of the most authoritative Koranic commentators, Baydawi
(d. 1315/16) interprets this passage thus: "Whosoever turns back
from belief (irtada), openly or secretly, take him and kill him
wheresoever ye find him, like any other infidel. Separate yourself from
him altogether. Do not accept intercession in his regard" (cited in
Zwemer, The Law of Apostasy in Islam, 1924, pp. 33-34). Ibn Kathir's
(d. 1373) venerated commentary on Koran 4:89 concurs, maintaining that
as apostates have manifested their unbelief, they should be punished
by death.
These draconian judgments are reiterated in a number of hadith (i.e.,
collections of the putative words and deeds of the Muslim prophet
Muhammad, as compiled by pious Muslim transmitters). For example,
Muhammad is reported to have said "Kill him who changes his religion"
in hadith collections of both Bukhari and Abu Dawud. There is also a
consensus by all four schools of Sunni Islamic jurisprudence (i.e.,
Maliki, Hanbali, Hanafi, and Shafi'i), as well as Shi'ite jurists,
that apostates from Islam must be put to death. Averroes (d. 1198),
the renowned philosopher and scholar of the natural sciences, who was
also an important Maliki jurist, provided this typical Muslim legal
opinion on the punishment for apostasy (vol. 2, p. 552):
An apostate...is to be executed by agreement in the case of a man,
because of the words of the Prophet, "Slay those who change their
din [religion]"...Asking the apostate to repent was stipulated as a
condition...prior to his execution
The contemporary (i.e., 1991) Al-Azhar (Cairo) Islamic Research
Academy-endorsed Shafi'i manual of Islamic Law, 'Umdat al-Salik
(pp. 595-96) states:
Leaving Islam is the ugliest form of unbelief (kufr) and the
worst...When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily
apostasizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed. In such a case, it
is obligatory...to ask him to repent and return to Islam. If he does
it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is immediately killed.
Warraq (p.19) has summarized how convicted apostates have been killed,
typically by the sword (i.e., beheading), although
... there are examples of apostates tortured to death, or strangled,
burned, drowned, impaled, or flayed. The Caliph 'Umar [d. 644] used
to tie them to a post and had lances thrust into their hearts, and the
[Mameluke] Sultan Baybars II (1308-09) made [their] torture legal.
Sir Henry Layard, the British archaeologist, writer, and diplomat
(including postings in Turkey), described this abhorrent spectacle
which he witnessed in the heart of Istanbul, in the autumn of 1843,
four years after the first failed iteration of the so-called Tanzimat
reforms designed to abrogate the sacralized discrimination of Islamic
Law, as practiced in the "tolerant" Ottoman Empire:
An Armenian who had embraced Islamism [i.e., common 19th century usage
for Islam] had returned to his former faith. For his apostasy he was
condemned to death according to the Mohammedan law. His execution
took place, accompanied by details of studied insult and indignity
directed against Christianity and Europeans in general. The corpse was
exposed in one of the most public and frequented places in Stamboul
[Istanbul], and the head, which had been severed from the body,
was placed upon it, covered by a European hat.
Finally, within our current era, Sheikh Muhammad al-Ghazali (1917-96),
an important 20th century Egyptian cleric, then an official of
Al Azhar University, supported -- consistent with Islamic Law --
the July 1994 vigilante murder of secular "apostate" Egyptian
writer Farag Foda. Testifying on behalf of Farag Foda's murderer,
al-Ghazali stated, unabashedly, that Foda's apostasy represented,
"... a danger to society and the nation that must be eliminated. It
is the duty of the government to kill him."
Ibn Warraq writes as a mature, intrepid secular Muslim
"apostate," and scholar of Islam, which affords him unique,
important perspectives. Clearly, Warraq's writings and the apostate
testimonials he has compiled are unsparing in their frank criticism
of Islamic dogmas and jurisdictions. However, these passionate
critiques also reveal the deep, unbroken affection Warraq and his
fellow apostates maintain for the individual men and women in their
former societies. These brave apostates should never be associated,
disingenuously, with bigoted, non-Muslim xenophobes who have surfaced
in the West. Warraq speaks for truly courageous intellectuals
from Muslim societies who support profound reforms of Islamic
institutions. And Warraq's most recent book, "Defending the West" is a
celebration of the "golden threads" woven through Western culture --
rationalism, universalism, and self-criticism -- which he defended
passionately in the wake of the Danish Muhammad cartoons debacle:
The west is the source of the liberating ideas of individual
liberty, political democracy, the rule of law, human rights and
cultural freedom. It is the west that has raised the status of women,
fought against slavery, defended freedom of enquiry, expression and
conscience. No, the west needs no lectures on the superior virtue of
societies who keep their women in subjection, cut off their clitorises,
stone them to death for alleged adultery, throw acid on their faces,
or deny the human rights of those considered to belong to lower
castes... By defending our values, we are teaching the Islamic world
a valuable lesson, we are helping them by submitting their cherished
traditions to Enlightenment values.
Ibn Warraq's formal childhood experience of Islam mirrored Barack
Obama's -- it was no more extensive. Yet despite copious evidence to
the contrary, Barack Obama has gone to great lengths to deny even a
nominal childhood Muslim upbringing. These repeated, often shrill and
accusatory denials are accompanied by a disturbing, if predictable
silence: not once has Senator Obama celebrated the remarkable freedom
of conscience he had here in America to decide in his mid to late
20s that he would practice Christianity openly, and devotedly, absent
any consideration of his childhood Muslim background.
Mr. Obama has thus far squandered the unparalleled opportunity to
highlight and extol a profoundly important virtue of this flawed,
but still great country of ours, personified by his life story:
America's singular, unwavering support for true freedom of conscience.
Surely if Obama is to live up to his followers (and his own)
pretensions of being a "transformative" figure, then he should be
ready to elucidate, frankly, the utter lack of freedom of conscience
in the Muslim world, relative to the US; why his own life trajectory
demonstrates this difference; and how the fight against global jihadism
is, at its core, about the protection of this most profoundly important
Western ideal. Let us hope that Obama's involvement with the 7th
annual commemoration of September 11, 2001 will give him pause to
reflect upon these matters, and discuss them, becoming a true "agent
of change." And should Senator Obama need any further inspiration,
I suggest he have a long conversation with Ibn Warraq.
Andrew G. Bostom is the author of The Legacy of Jihad (Prometheus,
2005) and The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism.
Comments Perhaps we should just apply Occam's Razor to this
question...he has not done so because he is a Moslem, and not an
apostate to the religion at all.
And as far as I am concerned, someone of that persuasion (Islam)
should not be candidate for any position of power in the United States,
esp. not President. Obama is a disaster waiting to happen if elected,
either way. His association with Farrakhan alone disqualifies him,
and the fact that he is as close to the highest office in the land
as he now is represents a travesty in and of itself.
Posted by: Rudy Bowen | September 11, 2008 02:04 AM
Anyone remember what day this is?
HEADS UP WHERE THE SUN DON'T SHINE SYNDROME
There are still some people who believe we never landed on the moon,
that JFK was killed by the CIA, even that the world is flat, people
who can best be described as suffering from the HUWTSDS Syndrome,
otherwise known as the Heads Up Where the Sun Don't Shine Syndrome.
That malady has existed for centuries and is not difficult to
diagnose. All it takes is a simple question, namely, Are you serious?
Usually, those stricken with HUWTSDS Syndrome are fairly harmless
to themselves and society and most often evoke ridicule rather than
sympathy. The chief danger is that it is very contagious, mainly
among the ignorant and naive.
Once in a great while, the syndrome, if not dangerous, reflects
a certain venom in the afflicted. Such is the case with those who
suffer from HUWTSDS with regards to the events of September 11th,
2001 in the United States.
There's no need to recount the events of that day since most Americans
are still painfully aware of what happened, which, in a few words,
was easily the most horrific, unprovoked attack in our history.
Even so, those far removed from the 3 Ground Zeroes, in Manhattan,
in Washington, and in Pennsylvania, if they haven't forgotten that
day, have set it on the back burners of their memories, in hopes,
perhaps, that if they don't think about it, it will become less real,
less upsetting, and less threatening.
That's all forgiveable and understandable although it doesn't change
reality. Nor does forgetting make a recurrence less likely. That
recurrence could be far more deadly and devastating and backburnering
the memory could very well lead to a serious case of HUWTSDS.
It seems most of those terminally afflicted with the syndrome are
in fact very far away, in the Mid East, mainly, but also in Europe
and elsewhere. This report and poll results on who perpetrated that
coordinated and soul-less assault on an innocent nation tells much
more about those polled than it does about the attack:...
(To read the rest of this article, please see http://genelalor.com/.)
Posted by: Gene Lalor Berlet98 | September 11, 2008 02:27 AM
Just a short comment on that last paragraph extolling Mr O to support
the struggle against religious oppression etc: WHEN PIGS FLY!!
Posted by: Rich K | September 11, 2008 04:38 AM
Rich K
with or without lipstick???
NEVER FORGET what was done on 9/11/01.
NEVER FORGET who did it.
Posted by: wargammer2005 | September 11, 2008 08:51 AM
God Bless America and those that fight and die for her freedom. May
we be victorious against the evil scum who seek to destroy us.
Posted by: Eric Shirley | September 11, 2008 09:06 AM
Just a great piece Mr. Bostom. It is evident you have done your
research well. As to the O'Bumbler getting it ("Let us hope that
Obama's involvement with the 7th annual commemoration of September 11,
2001 will give him pause to reflect upon these matters"), I doubt it!!
As I reflect on this day, I can say that good can come from tragedy: I
have a son and a daughter in the United States Marine Corp, because of
9/11. They love this country and are willing to give of themselves so
that this will not happen again. Thanks to President Bush, it has not.
Posted by: Robert C. | September 11, 2008 11:26 AM
While I have no truck with Barack Obama, we do have to protect his
life as we should anyone, especially a witness of conscience. Whether
he is embarrassed by his possible early Muslim identity or not is
his business. The simple fact is some in the Muslim world believe
he is a Muslim who professes a belief in Christianity and, thus,
is an apostate worthy of death.It should be remembered that, since
he made his "little green book" manditory for the citizens of Lybia,
Mu'mmar al-Qaddafi is regarded as a apostate, as is Farrakhan for
his odd view of Islam.
Posted by: Walt | September 11, 2008 01:07 PM
9/11/08
Not one attack in 7 years.
THANK YOU, GEORGE BUSH!!!
Posted by: Va. | September 11, 2008 02:26 PM
I think that apostasy is only punished by death if the individual
decides to leave Islam after puberty (their definition of
adulthood). So, assuming that BHO has left the religion, his conversion
to Christianity may not be a death sentence.
Posted by: ken | September 11, 2008 04:14 PM
God Bless George Bush and all the heroes of 9/11. I remember the day
vividly...maybe too vividly. I am one of the tens of thousands in
the NYC metro area who saw the towers burn and collapse from afar. My
nephew was on the plaza and saw the falling bodies and fled for his
life. He's permanently scarred. Anybody that witnessed that surreal
obscenity still can't absorb what they saw. The Manhattan skyline is
permanently disfigured. If you ever saw the towers from street level
and craned your neck up at those matching behemoths or saw their tops
from 40 miles away...it's still unbelievable. I remember hearing on
the park radio that entire fire battalions were lost. Stunning. The
first estimate of the death toll was 25,000...we were looking at a
ghastly funeral pyre. I lost a friend...Keith Burns...a young vital
happy man...a newlywed. Murdered by low-life dirtbag extremists.
I googled up the infamous Jay Rockefeller memo where the Dummyrats
decided to politicize national security for the good of the party. They
saw a strategic opening...what cold heartless bastards would even think
of such a treason...only a billionaire dictator loving Rockefeller
and America hating Marxists. The creeps have been relentless in
their smearing of Bush. Goddamn their skeevy black hearts...today
especially. I'd love to weave nooses for them. Seriously.
Sarah Palin has these weenie lightweights shaking in their
Birkenstocks...she embodies the patriotism explosion that
followed. Patriotism = Conservatism. Uh-oh! It burned bright in
Alaska but was snuffed out by the MSM dis-information machine in the
lower 48 ASAP. God Bless Gov.Palin and her achingly normal family and
pray for her son Track as he deploys for Iraq...today of all days. A
sign perhaps?
By Andrew G. Bostom
American Thinker
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/09/oba ma_911_and_freedom_of_consc.html
Sept 11 2008
WA
During an interview with George Stephanopoulos of ABC News which aired
Sunday September 7, 2009, Barack Obama bemoaned what he claimed were
insidious Republican attempts to "promulgate," falsely, his "Muslim
connections." Senator Obama then made a minor gaffe (at ~ 2 minutes
50 seconds, here), in his half-hearted exculpation of Senator McCain:
"John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith." Stephanopoulos,
who earlier defended McCain against Obama's general anti-Republican
allegations, then corrected Obama's misstatement with instantaneous,
politically-correct alacrity, reminding the Democratic Presidential
nominee, "...[you meant] your Christian faith." And certainly the
full context of the discussion makes clear Obama was not in any way
acknowledging some personal embrace of Islam, when he responded,
"What I meant to say, he [McCain] hasn't suggested that I am Muslim."
But the self-aggrieved, whining tone of Senator Obama's interview
struck me as particularly inappropriate occurring just four days
prior to his scheduled appearance with Senator McCain at Ground Zero,
in lower Manhattan. Both men will suspend their Presidential campaigns
to be present at a joint, non-partisan event, Thursday, September 11,
2008, commemorating the 7th anniversary of the cataclysmic acts of
mass-murdering jihad terrorism on September 11, 2001.
Those savage attacks represent a jihadist assault on our core Western
values-prominently among them, the freedom of conscience Barack Obama's
personal biography epitomizes-despite his apparent obliviousness to,
or denial of, this reality.
Sober, independent analyses by academics, including published essays
in The Christian Science Monitor, and The New York Times, concur that
Obama's childhood experience of Islam -- as perceived by Muslims from
Islamic societies, in particular -- has two critically important,
and inter-related ramifications: his status as a Muslim; and more
ominously, as an apostate from Islam.
During his childhood years in Indonesia, Barack Obama was enrolled
as a Muslim (see here, here, here, and here) at his primary schools
(this is confirmed, conclusively, in a registration document -- which
the Associated Press photographed -- made available on Jan. 24, 2007,
by the Fransiskus Assisi school in Jakarta, Indonesia, demonstrating
that his Muslim step-father listed Obama's boyhood religion as Islam),
and also attended the mosque during that period.
Tine Hahiyary, a former teacher at one of these schools, claimed that
the young Obama actively took part in "mengaji" classes (consistent
with devout Islamic education), which instruct students to read the
Koran in Arabic. And the Indonesian daily Banjarmasin Post interviewed
Rony Amir, a Muslim classmate of the young Obama, who characterized
Obama as "...previously quite religious in Islam." While disputing
Obama's childhood Muslim religiosity, a subsequent Chicago Tribune
report still concedes that the young Obama was at least an irregularly
practicing Muslim, who occasionally prayed with his step-father in
a mosque.
Irrespective of Obama's Muslim devoutness as a child, one must also
bear in mind how contemporary (and classical) Islamic Law views the
offspring of any marriage between a Muslim man (Obama's birth father
and step-father were both Muslims), and a non-Muslim woman. Sheikh
'Abdus-Sattar Fathallah As-Sa`eed, professor of Koranic Exegesis
and Koranic Sciences at Al-Azhar University -- for more a thousand
years, the pre-eminent center of Sunni Islamic religious education
-- in a recently issued a fatwa (June 20, 2002), reiterated plainly
the Islamic principle that paternity determines (Muslim) religious
identity for a child born of a Muslim father, and a non-Muslim wife:
There is nothing wrong, as far as Islam is concerned, that a Muslim
man marries a Christian woman, but he should stipulate (in the marriage
contract) that any children from the marriage will be Muslims.
Not surprisingly then, as Daniel Pipes has assiduously documented,
the predominant understanding about Obama in Islamic societies is that
the Democratic Presidential nominee, at minimum, has "Muslim origins"
(as stated explicitly for example in the Egyptian newspaper, Al-Masri
al-Youm). Libyan dictator Mu'ammar al-Qaddafi has referred to Obama
as "...a black citizen of Kenyan African origins, a Muslim, who had
studied in an Islamic school in Indonesia."
Analyses by Al-Jazeera have called Obama a "non-Christian man," made
reference to his "Muslim Kenyan" father, and observed, tellingly,
that "Obama may not want to be counted as a Muslim but Muslims are
eager to count him as one of their own."
Pipes also notes how Arabic discussions of Obama occasionally mention
his Arab Muslim middle name (Hussein), cryptically, "with no further
comment needed." Moreover, even the American Muslim leaders Sayyid
M. Syeed, president of the Islamic Society of North America, and
Lewis Farakhan of the Nation of Islam, apparently view Obama as a
Muslim. Speaking at a conference in Houston, Syeed encouraged Muslims
that, regardless of the outcome of the American Presidential elections,
Obama's candidacy reinforces the notion that Muslim children can
"become the presidents of this country." Farrakhan claimed Obama was
"the hope of the entire world," and compared him to his religion's
founder, Fard Muhammad, "A black man with a white mother [who] became
a savior to us."
Political scientist Shireen Burkhi, and historian Edward Luttwak have
warned that this widespread perception of Obama's Muslim identity
in Islamic societies may readily engender a dangerous sentiment --
the belief that Obama is an apostate from Islam. And as Daniel
Pipes recently demonstrated, the subject of Obama's apostasy has
already been raised in the Arab Muslim media. Not only did at least
one Arabic-language newspaper publish Burki's article, Obama was
described as "a born Muslim, an apostate, a convert to Christianity,"
in Kuwait's Al-Watan, while Syrian liberal Nidal Na'isa denoted Obama
as an "apostate Muslim," repeatedly, in the Arab Times.
The recent case of Abdul Rahman illustrates, starkly, why any
perception of Obama as a Muslim "apostate" raises -- or should raise
-- fundamental awareness about the yawning gap between Islamic, and
Western conceptions of freedom of conscience. Rahman's predicament made
eminently clear that Islamic societies do not accept the putatively
universal standard for freedom of conscience as defined, for example
in The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 18,
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion;
this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and
freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or
private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice,
worship and observance.
When in March, 2006, the unassuming Mr. Rahman faced death at the hands
of our Afghan allies for the "crime" of converting to Christianity, it
was no fluke, not a brutal Afghan variant on the practice of "tolerant"
Islam. Death for apostasy is part and parcel of Islamic scripture
and tradition. The poignant travails of this Afghan Muslim convert
to Christianity -- who was willing to die for the basic expression of
his freedom of conscience, and whose life was only spared upon being
granted asylum in Italy -- demonstrate a uniquely Islamic fusion of
absurdity and denial: in light of Koran 2:256 ("There is no compulsion
in religion"), and repeated claims that Islam is characterized by
freedom of belief and creed, devoid of compulsion, why has apostasy
from Islam always been punished so harshly, for thirteen centuries,
into the present era?
Ibn Warraq's seminal 2003 study of apostasy, past and present, Leaving
Islam (p.31), distinguishes transient doubt -- edified by discovering
the "truth" of Islam -- from apostasy.
Doubt is a very good passageway, but a very bad place to stop
in. However, apostasy is a matter of treason and ideological treachery,
which originates from hostility and hypocrisy. The destiny of a person
who has an inborn handicap is different from the destiny of one whose
hand should be cut off due to the development of a dangerous and
infectious disease. The apostasy of a Muslim individual whose parents
have also been Muslim is a very infectious, dangerous and incurable
disease that appears in the body of an ummah (people) and threatens
peoples lives, and that is why this rotten limb should be severed.
And punishment by death for apostasy from Islam is firmly rooted
in the most holy Muslim texts -- both the Koran, and the hadith --
as well as the sacred Islamic Law (the Shari'a). Koran 4:89 states:
They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so
that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them
friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they
turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them,
and take not from among them a friend or a helper.
One of the most authoritative Koranic commentators, Baydawi
(d. 1315/16) interprets this passage thus: "Whosoever turns back
from belief (irtada), openly or secretly, take him and kill him
wheresoever ye find him, like any other infidel. Separate yourself from
him altogether. Do not accept intercession in his regard" (cited in
Zwemer, The Law of Apostasy in Islam, 1924, pp. 33-34). Ibn Kathir's
(d. 1373) venerated commentary on Koran 4:89 concurs, maintaining that
as apostates have manifested their unbelief, they should be punished
by death.
These draconian judgments are reiterated in a number of hadith (i.e.,
collections of the putative words and deeds of the Muslim prophet
Muhammad, as compiled by pious Muslim transmitters). For example,
Muhammad is reported to have said "Kill him who changes his religion"
in hadith collections of both Bukhari and Abu Dawud. There is also a
consensus by all four schools of Sunni Islamic jurisprudence (i.e.,
Maliki, Hanbali, Hanafi, and Shafi'i), as well as Shi'ite jurists,
that apostates from Islam must be put to death. Averroes (d. 1198),
the renowned philosopher and scholar of the natural sciences, who was
also an important Maliki jurist, provided this typical Muslim legal
opinion on the punishment for apostasy (vol. 2, p. 552):
An apostate...is to be executed by agreement in the case of a man,
because of the words of the Prophet, "Slay those who change their
din [religion]"...Asking the apostate to repent was stipulated as a
condition...prior to his execution
The contemporary (i.e., 1991) Al-Azhar (Cairo) Islamic Research
Academy-endorsed Shafi'i manual of Islamic Law, 'Umdat al-Salik
(pp. 595-96) states:
Leaving Islam is the ugliest form of unbelief (kufr) and the
worst...When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily
apostasizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed. In such a case, it
is obligatory...to ask him to repent and return to Islam. If he does
it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is immediately killed.
Warraq (p.19) has summarized how convicted apostates have been killed,
typically by the sword (i.e., beheading), although
... there are examples of apostates tortured to death, or strangled,
burned, drowned, impaled, or flayed. The Caliph 'Umar [d. 644] used
to tie them to a post and had lances thrust into their hearts, and the
[Mameluke] Sultan Baybars II (1308-09) made [their] torture legal.
Sir Henry Layard, the British archaeologist, writer, and diplomat
(including postings in Turkey), described this abhorrent spectacle
which he witnessed in the heart of Istanbul, in the autumn of 1843,
four years after the first failed iteration of the so-called Tanzimat
reforms designed to abrogate the sacralized discrimination of Islamic
Law, as practiced in the "tolerant" Ottoman Empire:
An Armenian who had embraced Islamism [i.e., common 19th century usage
for Islam] had returned to his former faith. For his apostasy he was
condemned to death according to the Mohammedan law. His execution
took place, accompanied by details of studied insult and indignity
directed against Christianity and Europeans in general. The corpse was
exposed in one of the most public and frequented places in Stamboul
[Istanbul], and the head, which had been severed from the body,
was placed upon it, covered by a European hat.
Finally, within our current era, Sheikh Muhammad al-Ghazali (1917-96),
an important 20th century Egyptian cleric, then an official of
Al Azhar University, supported -- consistent with Islamic Law --
the July 1994 vigilante murder of secular "apostate" Egyptian
writer Farag Foda. Testifying on behalf of Farag Foda's murderer,
al-Ghazali stated, unabashedly, that Foda's apostasy represented,
"... a danger to society and the nation that must be eliminated. It
is the duty of the government to kill him."
Ibn Warraq writes as a mature, intrepid secular Muslim
"apostate," and scholar of Islam, which affords him unique,
important perspectives. Clearly, Warraq's writings and the apostate
testimonials he has compiled are unsparing in their frank criticism
of Islamic dogmas and jurisdictions. However, these passionate
critiques also reveal the deep, unbroken affection Warraq and his
fellow apostates maintain for the individual men and women in their
former societies. These brave apostates should never be associated,
disingenuously, with bigoted, non-Muslim xenophobes who have surfaced
in the West. Warraq speaks for truly courageous intellectuals
from Muslim societies who support profound reforms of Islamic
institutions. And Warraq's most recent book, "Defending the West" is a
celebration of the "golden threads" woven through Western culture --
rationalism, universalism, and self-criticism -- which he defended
passionately in the wake of the Danish Muhammad cartoons debacle:
The west is the source of the liberating ideas of individual
liberty, political democracy, the rule of law, human rights and
cultural freedom. It is the west that has raised the status of women,
fought against slavery, defended freedom of enquiry, expression and
conscience. No, the west needs no lectures on the superior virtue of
societies who keep their women in subjection, cut off their clitorises,
stone them to death for alleged adultery, throw acid on their faces,
or deny the human rights of those considered to belong to lower
castes... By defending our values, we are teaching the Islamic world
a valuable lesson, we are helping them by submitting their cherished
traditions to Enlightenment values.
Ibn Warraq's formal childhood experience of Islam mirrored Barack
Obama's -- it was no more extensive. Yet despite copious evidence to
the contrary, Barack Obama has gone to great lengths to deny even a
nominal childhood Muslim upbringing. These repeated, often shrill and
accusatory denials are accompanied by a disturbing, if predictable
silence: not once has Senator Obama celebrated the remarkable freedom
of conscience he had here in America to decide in his mid to late
20s that he would practice Christianity openly, and devotedly, absent
any consideration of his childhood Muslim background.
Mr. Obama has thus far squandered the unparalleled opportunity to
highlight and extol a profoundly important virtue of this flawed,
but still great country of ours, personified by his life story:
America's singular, unwavering support for true freedom of conscience.
Surely if Obama is to live up to his followers (and his own)
pretensions of being a "transformative" figure, then he should be
ready to elucidate, frankly, the utter lack of freedom of conscience
in the Muslim world, relative to the US; why his own life trajectory
demonstrates this difference; and how the fight against global jihadism
is, at its core, about the protection of this most profoundly important
Western ideal. Let us hope that Obama's involvement with the 7th
annual commemoration of September 11, 2001 will give him pause to
reflect upon these matters, and discuss them, becoming a true "agent
of change." And should Senator Obama need any further inspiration,
I suggest he have a long conversation with Ibn Warraq.
Andrew G. Bostom is the author of The Legacy of Jihad (Prometheus,
2005) and The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism.
Comments Perhaps we should just apply Occam's Razor to this
question...he has not done so because he is a Moslem, and not an
apostate to the religion at all.
And as far as I am concerned, someone of that persuasion (Islam)
should not be candidate for any position of power in the United States,
esp. not President. Obama is a disaster waiting to happen if elected,
either way. His association with Farrakhan alone disqualifies him,
and the fact that he is as close to the highest office in the land
as he now is represents a travesty in and of itself.
Posted by: Rudy Bowen | September 11, 2008 02:04 AM
Anyone remember what day this is?
HEADS UP WHERE THE SUN DON'T SHINE SYNDROME
There are still some people who believe we never landed on the moon,
that JFK was killed by the CIA, even that the world is flat, people
who can best be described as suffering from the HUWTSDS Syndrome,
otherwise known as the Heads Up Where the Sun Don't Shine Syndrome.
That malady has existed for centuries and is not difficult to
diagnose. All it takes is a simple question, namely, Are you serious?
Usually, those stricken with HUWTSDS Syndrome are fairly harmless
to themselves and society and most often evoke ridicule rather than
sympathy. The chief danger is that it is very contagious, mainly
among the ignorant and naive.
Once in a great while, the syndrome, if not dangerous, reflects
a certain venom in the afflicted. Such is the case with those who
suffer from HUWTSDS with regards to the events of September 11th,
2001 in the United States.
There's no need to recount the events of that day since most Americans
are still painfully aware of what happened, which, in a few words,
was easily the most horrific, unprovoked attack in our history.
Even so, those far removed from the 3 Ground Zeroes, in Manhattan,
in Washington, and in Pennsylvania, if they haven't forgotten that
day, have set it on the back burners of their memories, in hopes,
perhaps, that if they don't think about it, it will become less real,
less upsetting, and less threatening.
That's all forgiveable and understandable although it doesn't change
reality. Nor does forgetting make a recurrence less likely. That
recurrence could be far more deadly and devastating and backburnering
the memory could very well lead to a serious case of HUWTSDS.
It seems most of those terminally afflicted with the syndrome are
in fact very far away, in the Mid East, mainly, but also in Europe
and elsewhere. This report and poll results on who perpetrated that
coordinated and soul-less assault on an innocent nation tells much
more about those polled than it does about the attack:...
(To read the rest of this article, please see http://genelalor.com/.)
Posted by: Gene Lalor Berlet98 | September 11, 2008 02:27 AM
Just a short comment on that last paragraph extolling Mr O to support
the struggle against religious oppression etc: WHEN PIGS FLY!!
Posted by: Rich K | September 11, 2008 04:38 AM
Rich K
with or without lipstick???
NEVER FORGET what was done on 9/11/01.
NEVER FORGET who did it.
Posted by: wargammer2005 | September 11, 2008 08:51 AM
God Bless America and those that fight and die for her freedom. May
we be victorious against the evil scum who seek to destroy us.
Posted by: Eric Shirley | September 11, 2008 09:06 AM
Just a great piece Mr. Bostom. It is evident you have done your
research well. As to the O'Bumbler getting it ("Let us hope that
Obama's involvement with the 7th annual commemoration of September 11,
2001 will give him pause to reflect upon these matters"), I doubt it!!
As I reflect on this day, I can say that good can come from tragedy: I
have a son and a daughter in the United States Marine Corp, because of
9/11. They love this country and are willing to give of themselves so
that this will not happen again. Thanks to President Bush, it has not.
Posted by: Robert C. | September 11, 2008 11:26 AM
While I have no truck with Barack Obama, we do have to protect his
life as we should anyone, especially a witness of conscience. Whether
he is embarrassed by his possible early Muslim identity or not is
his business. The simple fact is some in the Muslim world believe
he is a Muslim who professes a belief in Christianity and, thus,
is an apostate worthy of death.It should be remembered that, since
he made his "little green book" manditory for the citizens of Lybia,
Mu'mmar al-Qaddafi is regarded as a apostate, as is Farrakhan for
his odd view of Islam.
Posted by: Walt | September 11, 2008 01:07 PM
9/11/08
Not one attack in 7 years.
THANK YOU, GEORGE BUSH!!!
Posted by: Va. | September 11, 2008 02:26 PM
I think that apostasy is only punished by death if the individual
decides to leave Islam after puberty (their definition of
adulthood). So, assuming that BHO has left the religion, his conversion
to Christianity may not be a death sentence.
Posted by: ken | September 11, 2008 04:14 PM
God Bless George Bush and all the heroes of 9/11. I remember the day
vividly...maybe too vividly. I am one of the tens of thousands in
the NYC metro area who saw the towers burn and collapse from afar. My
nephew was on the plaza and saw the falling bodies and fled for his
life. He's permanently scarred. Anybody that witnessed that surreal
obscenity still can't absorb what they saw. The Manhattan skyline is
permanently disfigured. If you ever saw the towers from street level
and craned your neck up at those matching behemoths or saw their tops
from 40 miles away...it's still unbelievable. I remember hearing on
the park radio that entire fire battalions were lost. Stunning. The
first estimate of the death toll was 25,000...we were looking at a
ghastly funeral pyre. I lost a friend...Keith Burns...a young vital
happy man...a newlywed. Murdered by low-life dirtbag extremists.
I googled up the infamous Jay Rockefeller memo where the Dummyrats
decided to politicize national security for the good of the party. They
saw a strategic opening...what cold heartless bastards would even think
of such a treason...only a billionaire dictator loving Rockefeller
and America hating Marxists. The creeps have been relentless in
their smearing of Bush. Goddamn their skeevy black hearts...today
especially. I'd love to weave nooses for them. Seriously.
Sarah Palin has these weenie lightweights shaking in their
Birkenstocks...she embodies the patriotism explosion that
followed. Patriotism = Conservatism. Uh-oh! It burned bright in
Alaska but was snuffed out by the MSM dis-information machine in the
lower 48 ASAP. God Bless Gov.Palin and her achingly normal family and
pray for her son Track as he deploys for Iraq...today of all days. A
sign perhaps?