AMERICA'S DANGEROUS LURCH TOWARDS ISLAM

Date: 12 May 2008

Comment:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/12/opinion/12luttwak.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

May 12, 2008
Op-Ed Contributor
President Apostate?
By EDWARD N. LUTTWAK

Chevy Chase, Md.

BARACK OBAMA has emerged as a classic example of charismatic
leadership  a figure upon whom others project their own hopes and
desires. The resulting emotional intensity adds greatly to the more
conventional strengths of the well-organized Obama campaign, and it
has certainly sufficed to overcome the formidable initial advantages
of Senator Hillary Clinton.

One danger of such charisma, however, is that it can evoke unrealistic
hopes of what a candidate could actually accomplish in office
regardless of his own personal abilities. Case in point is the
oft-made claim that an Obama presidency would be welcomed by the
Muslim world.

This idea often goes hand in hand with the altogether more plausible
argument that Mr. Obama's election would raise America's esteem in
Africa  indeed, he already arouses much enthusiasm in his father's
native Kenya and to a degree elsewhere on the continent.

But it is a mistake to conflate his African identity with his Muslim
heritage. Senator Obama is half African by birth and Africans can
understandably identify with him. In Islam, however, there is no such
thing as a half-Muslim. Like all monotheistic religions, Islam is an
exclusive faith.

As the son of the Muslim father, Senator Obama was born a Muslim under
Muslim law as it is universally understood. It makes no difference
that, as Senator Obama has written, his father said he renounced his
religion. Likewise, under Muslim law based on the Koran his mother's
Christian background is irrelevant.

Of course, as most Americans understand it, Senator Obama is not a
Muslim. He chose to become a Christian, and indeed has written
convincingly to explain how he arrived at his choice and how important
his Christian faith is to him.

His conversion, however, was a crime in Muslim eyes; it is "irtidad"
or "ridda," usually translated from the Arabic as "apostasy," but with
connotations of rebellion and treason. Indeed, it is the worst of all
crimes that a Muslim can commit, worse than murder (which the victim's
family may choose to forgive).

With few exceptions, the jurists of all Sunni and Shiite schools
prescribe execution for all adults who leave the faith not under
duress; the recommended punishment is beheading at the hands of a
cleric, although in recent years there have been both stonings and
hangings. (Some may point to cases in which lesser punishments were
ordered  as with some Egyptian intellectuals who have been punished
for writings that were construed as apostasy  but those were really
instances of supposed heresy, not explicitly declared apostasy as in
Senator Obama's case.)

It is true that the criminal codes in most Muslim countries do not
mandate execution for apostasy (although a law doing exactly that is
pending before Iran's Parliament and in two Malaysian states). But as
a practical matter, in very few Islamic countries do the governments
have sufficient authority to resist demands for the punishment of
apostates at the hands of religious authorities.

For example, in Iran in 1994 the intervention of Pope John Paul II and
others won a Christian convert a last-minute reprieve, but the man was
abducted and killed shortly after his release. Likewise, in 2006 in
Afghanistan, a Christian convert had to be declared insane to prevent
his execution, and he was still forced to flee to Italy.

Because no government is likely to allow the prosecution of a
President Obama  not even those of Iran and Saudi Arabia, the only
two countries where Islamic religious courts dominate over secular law
 another provision of Muslim law is perhaps more relevant: it
prohibits punishment for any Muslim who kills any apostate, and
effectively prohibits interference with such a killing.

At the very least, that would complicate the security planning of
state visits by President Obama to Muslim countries, because the very
act of protecting him would be sinful for Islamic security guards.
More broadly, most citizens of the Islamic world would be horrified by
the fact of Senator Obama's conversion to Christianity once it became
widely known  as it would, no doubt, should he win the White House.
This would compromise the ability of governments in Muslim nations to
cooperate with the United States in the fight against terrorism, as
well as American efforts to export democracy and human rights abroad.

That an Obama presidency would cause such complications in our
dealings with the Islamic world is not likely to be a major factor
with American voters, and the implication is not that it should be.
But of all the well-meaning desires projected on Senator Obama, the
hope that he would decisively improve relations with the world's
Muslims is the least realistic.

Edward N. Luttwak, a fellow at the Center for Strategic and
International Studies, is the author of "Strategy: The Logic of War
and Peace."

000000000