New Yorker magazine "Osama Obama" cover--Wow!

[Perd Hapley]

In my estimation, the notion that BHO is a Muslim is an insult to Muslims.  Even the militant ones. 

Ouch!

 

It sounds funny, but I should have said especially the militant ones.  I'm not joking.  Such is my regard for left-wing religion.  Conservative Muslims (even militants), much as I might disagree with them, are at least somewhat forthright.  The mushy-headedness of these people that follow a religion they don't actually believe in.  Ugh. 

[yesitsloaded]

GD America right? Or are we supposed to have forgotten about Rev. Wright by now?

[roo_ster]

In my estimation, the notion that BHO is a Muslim is an insult to Muslims.  Even the militant ones. 

Ouch!

 

It sounds funny, but I should have said especially the militant ones.  I'm not joking.  Such is my regard for left-wing religion.  Conservative Muslims (even militants), much as I might disagree with them, are at least somewhat forthright.  The mushy-headedness of these people that follow a religion they don't actually believe in.  Ugh. 

What fistful wrote.

[m1911owner]

I think he's probably telling the truth when he says that he's not a Muslim.

But...  His father was a Muslim.  Under Muslim law (as I understand it), if his father was a Muslim, so is he.  And further, he was raised in Muslim schools. 

So I think he's lying when he says that he's never been a Muslim.  (And under the "once a Muslim, always a Muslim law, he's still a Muslim as far as Muslim law is concerned.)

[De Selby]

I think he's probably telling the truth when he says that he's not a Muslim.

But...  His father was a Muslim.  Under Muslim law (as I understand it), if his father was a Muslim, so is he.  And further, he was raised in Muslim schools. 

So I think he's lying when he says that he's never been a Muslim.  (And under the "once a Muslim, always a Muslim law, he's still a Muslim as far as Muslim law is concerned.)

Not even close-there is no such law.  Daniel Pipes, FYI, is not an Islamic law expert or anything of the sort.

The only law in this area is that a Muslim father has the burden of teaching his kids Islam. 

The only possible way for one to become an apostate in Islam is to willingly and intelligently accept the beliefs of the religion, and then to willingly and intelligently reject them; full capacity and understanding is necessary for both counts, hence, people who are born to a Muslim family and who decide they don't care about religion or want to be something else are not ever apostates.

[longeyes]

"Willingly and intelligently?"

Houston, we have a semantic problem.  Muslims, like the rest of us, are what they do, not what they think.  And apostasy is punished in the Islamosphere--as you know.

[De Selby]

"Willingly and intelligently?"

Houston, we have a semantic problem.  Muslims, like the rest of us, are what they do, not what they think.  And apostasy is punished in the Islamosphere--as you know.

Yeah, actually I do not know that, because...it isn't, for the most part.  There are easily millions of people in majority Muslim states that are former Muslims who are now atheists, smaller numbers who are converts to Christianity and non-Muslim sects.  There is no mass slaughter of these folks, nor is it even a live issue in most places.  Saudi Arabia is about the only consistent exception to that rule.

Interestingly, "you are what you do, not what you think" is the legal rule adopted by the Muslim Brotherhood, and other followers of Ibn Taymiyya and Sayid Qutb.  The more conservative Islamic groups believe that personal beliefs are flatly irrelevant to establishing and Islamic state, and that any inquests into one's conscience are improper.  It's behavior that matters; the rest is a matter to be dealth with via the educational system, in their view.

[Scout26]

News flash folks:  If the Muslim radicals magically took control, they would....abolish any income tax, tax at 2 percent of one's wealth, and fight communism as a form of odious barbarism.

In terms of economic programs, which most people seem to be most concerned with when talking about Obama, the people on this board are by and large absolutely identical in beliefs to the Islamic radicals. 

Yes, of course there are differences between the Islamic radicals and the economic libertarians on social issues, but in terms of economic policy they are the same-no state interference with private money, extremely low taxes, etc. 

Obama is less like the Muslim radicals, in other words, than many people who post on this forum, with respect to his economic policy. 

Can you explain a little about Muslim banking policies/practices.......

[longeyes]

Then we can agree on something: let us be judged by the cultures we have created, as actually practiced day to day, in full flower.

[De Selby]

News flash folks:  If the Muslim radicals magically took control, they would....abolish any income tax, tax at 2 percent of one's wealth, and fight communism as a form of odious barbarism.

In terms of economic programs, which most people seem to be most concerned with when talking about Obama, the people on this board are by and large absolutely identical in beliefs to the Islamic radicals. 

Yes, of course there are differences between the Islamic radicals and the economic libertarians on social issues, but in terms of economic policy they are the same-no state interference with private money, extremely low taxes, etc. 

Obama is less like the Muslim radicals, in other words, than many people who post on this forum, with respect to his economic policy. 

Can you explain a little about Muslim banking policies/practices.......

There are lots of complicated contract rules which I don't and most people don't understand, but the basics are as far as I know, the basic rules are no interest from just trading cash or instruments (you need to actually have a profitable business underneath it), and no gambling, as in with stock trades or loans.

They're mostly irrelevant today though, and have been for a long time.  It wasn't even possible in any Muslim country to do shariah banking until relatively recently, and now it's more like a fad for the rich and pious than anything else. 

This seems to be a decent article on the subject:  http://www.metimes.com/Business/2008/04/24/islamic_finance/6986/

[seeker_two]

Obama's religion is the same of any (Chicago) politician.....he worships at the altar of increasing political power and influence....and hopes to achieve the (post-electoral) afterlife of cushy private-sector speaking jobs or lifetime appointments to SCOTUS......

See Bill Clinton or Phil Graham for examples.....

[MicroBalrog]

So let's count the Muslims again.

207 million Muslims live in Indonesia. Indonesia is a Presidential republic. Its constitution guarantees religious freedom, and its government cooperates fully with the US in fighting radical Islamic terrorism. Al-Quaeda considers itself at war with Indonesia.

159 million Muslims live in Pakistan. Pakistan is a militaristic craphole, where the punishment for honor killings involves a long drop and a short rope. It is an ally of the United States, and receives United States funidng and weaponry. Al-Quaeda is at war with Pakistan.

157 million Muslims live in India, which is the world's most populated democracy. India is not in any way hostile to the US.

132 million Muslims live in Bangladesh, which is parliamentary democracy. Religious freedom is guaranteed in the country's Constitution, though sometimes violated - religious proselytism is discouraged, and hate crimes sometimes committed. There is no systematic oppression of Christians or anybody else.

70 million Muslims live in Egypt, a militaristic craphole, but an ally of the United States. Religious freedom is protected (except for radical Islam). Christians are not harassed.

68 million Muslims live in Turkey, a parliamentary republic (though with de-facto military rule behind the scenes). A powerful ally of both the US and Israel. Freedom of religion is constitutionally guaranteed.

Just here I've listed over two-thirds of the world's Muslim population, who do not oppress Christians, behead gay whales, or want to kill Americans.

Sorry, the idea that the Islamic world represents some form of overriding threat to the United States, the West, Cute Puppies, and Our Way of Life, of the same level that the Nazis were, is a pile of nonsense.

[Jamisjockey]

GD America right? Or are we supposed to have forgotten about Rev. Wright by now?

How dare you judge a man by his self described "mentor"!!

Obama is less like the Muslim radicals, in other words, than many people who post on this forum, with respect to his economic policy. 

I'm not sure if you understand how laughable most of what you post is.

[longeyes]

Just here I've listed over two-thirds of the world's Muslim population, who do not oppress Christians, behead gay whales, or want to kill Americans.
Sorry, the idea that the Islamic world represents some form of overriding threat to the United States, the West, Cute Puppies, and Our Way of Life, of the same level that the Nazis were, is a pile of nonsense.

Perhaps you have not read the polls that indicate a substantial percentage of Muslims, globally, are down with jihadism?  The issue is not ALL Muslims, the issue is that tens of million, perhaps hundreds of millions, of people are sworn to hostility against the West and support violent opposition.  Closed societies that lack free inquiry and espouse militancy against "outsiders" constitute, in my mind, a very definite threat, especially when seriously armed and seriously well-financed.

I think your characterizations of general "tolerance" in some of the nations you mention are fatuously romanticized.

[Dntsycnt]

The statisticians at Gallup say their sample - calibrated to reach illiterate and educated, urban and rural, male and female - is representative of 90 percent of the world's 1.3 billion Muslins, within a plus or minus 3-point margin of error.

Among the Muslims surveyed, 7 percent condoned the 9/11 attacks

What distinguishes them is not their perception of Western culture or freedoms, but their perception of US policies. Even radicals say they support democracy. But 63 percent of radicals do not believe that the United States will allow people in the region to fashion their own political future without direct US influence.

Source: Who Speaks for Islam? What a Billion Muslims Really Think, published by Gallup Press, ISBN: 978-1-59562-017-0

Articles quoted (since I don't have the book on hand): http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0517/p12s04-wogi.html  http://www.cleveland.com/entertainment/plaindealer/karen_long/index.ssf?/base/entertainment-0/1205569971148590.xml&coll=2&thispage=1

[agricola]

I guess they didnt see the Guardian's cartoon from earlier this year:

[MicroBalrog]

Closed societies that lack free inquiry and espouse militancy against "outsiders" constitute, in my mind, a very definite threat, especially when seriously armed and seriously well-financed.

Re-read my post, then. Nowhere did I claim that Iran poses no thread at all to the civilized world. However, Iran, Al-Quaeda, and their buddies, combined, do not compose a thread so intimidating that protecting against them should be the first order of concern for the conservatives (that is, you and me. I view libertarianism as a sub-type of conservatism, perhaps I'm wrong.)

As for well-armed:

The most modern aircraft in Iran's service is Mig-29, a 1983 design. Iran has 29 of these.

In fact, Iran has not more than 70 recent fighters.  It has 250 fighter aircraft when you count anything and everything, even old, beaten clunkers.

Israel has 500 aircraft.

Excuse me if I refuse to be afraid.

[De Selby]

GD America right? Or are we supposed to have forgotten about Rev. Wright by now?

How dare you judge a man by his self described "mentor"!!

Obama is less like the Muslim radicals, in other words, than many people who post on this forum, with respect to his economic policy. 

I'm not sure if you understand how laughable most of what you post is.

I don't understand how that's laughable, because it's an easy fact to verify.  The Jihadists rival McCarthy in their anti-communist and pro-free market rhetoric.

Just because you aren't aware of a fact, doesn't mean it's laughable for someone else to cite it.

[De Selby]

Just here I've listed over two-thirds of the world's Muslim population, who do not oppress Christians, behead gay whales, or want to kill Americans.
Sorry, the idea that the Islamic world represents some form of overriding threat to the United States, the West, Cute Puppies, and Our Way of Life, of the same level that the Nazis were, is a pile of nonsense.

Perhaps you have not read the polls that indicate a substantial percentage of Muslims, globally, are down with jihadism?  The issue is not ALL Muslims, the issue is that tens of million, perhaps hundreds of millions, of people are sworn to hostility against the West and support violent opposition.  Closed societies that lack free inquiry and espouse militancy against "outsiders" constitute, in my mind, a very definite threat, especially when seriously armed and seriously well-financed.

I think your characterizations of general "tolerance" in some of the nations you mention are fatuously romanticized.

Uh, how does claiming that there are not insane killing sprees against everyone else point to "general tolerance"?  You can have a violent, corrupt society without any of those things he listed.

Sure, there are lots of radical anti-American views and support for them.  But that has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with politics. 

[Dntsycnt]

Sure, there are lots of radical anti-American views and support for them.  But that has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with politics.

In the enormous Gallup poll previously cited, it was found that when radicals tried to justify their violence, they invariably gave political reasons.  Those who were against the radical violence gave religious reasons.

While I despise all religion, and it is certainly a contributing factor, I'm not so sure it's the problem here.

[De Selby]

Sure, there are lots of radical anti-American views and support for them.  But that has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with politics.

In the enormous Gallup poll previously cited, it was found that when radicals tried to justify their violence, they invariably gave political reasons.  Those who were against the radical violence gave religious reasons.

While I despise all religion, and it is certainly a contributing factor, I'm not so sure it's the problem here.

Yep-that is a good resource you posted. But the facts will not get in the way of people's ideology, and the ideology among many here is "Muslims hate non-Muslims!"

[agricola]

Sure, there are lots of radical anti-American views and support for them.  But that has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with politics.

In the enormous Gallup poll previously cited, it was found that when radicals tried to justify their violence, they invariably gave political reasons.  Those who were against the radical violence gave religious reasons.

While I despise all religion, and it is certainly a contributing factor, I'm not so sure it's the problem here.

It is and it isnt.  Often in fairly recent history, due to the savage nature of the ruling cliques in almost any muslim state you care to mention (at one time or another), the only place where grievances against the regime (or events elsewhere) could be espoused was from the pulpit within the mosque.  As sometimes happens when the Church gets involved in politics in the West, the religion and original political grievances became intertwined. 

There is also of course the ongoing "investment" by Wahabbi groups in mosques around the world, which both seeks to spread a version of Islam and an interpretation of world politics alongside it.

[longeyes]

I wasn't talking about just Iran with its antiquated MIGs.  I was talking about radicals with the kinds of small nukes and smallpox vials that can really ruin your day.

When politics and religion are fused, then we have a problem.  And isn't that what is going on?

[MicroBalrog]

I wasn't talking about just Iran with its antiquated MIGs.  I was talking about radicals with the kinds of small nukes and smallpox vials that can really ruin your day.

Again: There will ALWAYS be someone out there who can seriously ruin your day. There ARE threats.

But these guys  are nothing on the level of the Germans or Soviets. They are not an existential threat to the West, making their destruction the number one priority.

I believe stuff like rolling back the New Deal and achieving liberty in my lifetime is far more important.

When politics and religion are fused, then we have a problem.  And isn't that what is going on?

So when are we going to end the participation of Orthodox Jewish parties in Israeli politics?

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I wasn't talking about just Iran with its antiquated MIGs.  I was talking about radicals with the kinds of small nukes and smallpox vials that can really ruin your day.

Again: There will ALWAYS be someone out there who can seriously ruin your day. There ARE threats.

But these guys  are nothing on the level of the Germans or Soviets. They are not an existential threat to the West, making their destruction the number one priority.

I believe stuff like rolling back the New Deal and achieving liberty in my lifetime is far more important.

I don't recall the Germans or the Soviets ever carrying out successful military attacks against against major American cities.

I will certainly agree that ending the New Deal and recapturing liberty is vital.  I think you're wrong to ignore the threat of modern terrorism.  I would say that both are equally important.  It doesn't matter how many liberties you've regained if you die because your government wasn't willing or able to protect you from foreign attack. 

We formed a government both to preserver our liberties and to provide for the common defense.