razib
-
01:48:24 pm on May 12, 2008 | # | |
president apostate? the column reflects accurately i think the rather primitive attitude toward compulsion in religion (or lack of) in most muslim nations. but like many of these sorts of analyses it neglects psychological and social sophistication; the only other apostate (from islam) head of state who visited the arab world was carlos menem, and i don’t think there were major issues with assassination here. additionally, it tends to be a fact that apostasy and blasphemy laws in the muslim world generally end up enforced for two reasons: 1) the non-muslim is too vocal in proclaiming their faith or even has the temerity to attempt to convert muslims, 2) or, they are marginalized in some way so that these laws are used to screw them over (e.g., they’re insane, they have property you want, etc.).
-
Tag this post
aziz 2:32 pm on May 12, 2008 | #
Ali Eteraz just debunked the Luttwak article at the HuffPo - theres simply no basis whatsoever to the argument that Obama is an apostate by virtue of his father’s faith.
There is nothing to enforce here, and even if there were, it would only be within jurisdiction of a court of Islamic law, not some lone whacko (who cant get close to the President regardless of why he wantsto kill him). I dont think Obama will be arrested in Pakistan upon arrival and dragged off to trial.
As Ali notes, this is Muslim Smear 2.0. Theres nothing accurate about it at all.
razib 5:14 pm on May 12, 2008 | #
Ali Eteraz just debunked the Luttwak article at the HuffPo - theres simply no basis whatsoever to the argument that Obama is an apostate by virtue of his father’s faith.
i don’t agree with ali. i think there is a basis for what ali is saying; but i think there is a basis for what luttwak is saying too. muslims don’t agree on everything, luttwak overgeneralizes in one direction, but i don’t think as an empirical matter ali’s pushback is totally accurate either.
razib 5:19 pm on May 12, 2008 | #
As Ali notes, this is Muslim Smear 2.0. Theres nothing accurate about it at all.
i disagree with this too. i can speak from personal experience; some muslims take the whole apostasy business really seriously on a personal level and make all sorts of bizarro threats based on it (this has only occurred to my knowledge to anyone in the USA when interacting with people raised in other countries, never american muslims). if this sort of behavior never occurred to the point of triviality then non-muslims would never credit overgeneralizations like luttwak’s. as it is, many muslims have serious issues with the compulsion in religion stuff (the same applies to christians too over the long term; which is why most secularists object when christians contrast islam and their own religion when it comes to coercion).
Ali Eteraz 8:58 pm on May 12, 2008 | #
Razib:
I think nearly every case of apostasy prosecution in the Muslim majority world go through the court system. I find it very unlikely the Obama would be so prosecuted.
Your post on your blog recognizes that powerful people get treated differently.
Now, it is in fact the case that in the Muslim majority world, weak people do get killed by vigilantes and fundamentalists — the kind of people whom I think you’re talking about from personal experience. However, you should note that their killing *legally speaking* is murder (though yes, many times the legal system lets them off easy).
Let me give you an example. A man in Iran recently stoned his girl to death in a case of honor killing. He was found guilty of murder, *even though* as you and I both know, Iran sanctions stoning its adulterers.
Islamic law makes a distinction between vigilante/state action, and I think in today’s nation states that distinction is even more solidly enforced.
razib 11:10 pm on May 12, 2008 | #
i concede the legal point. my own point would be that luttwak’s perspective does not emerge out of a vacuum; there’s a strong cultural antipathy to the idea of apostasy in the muslim world which in many nations results in an atmopshere of fear akin to what christians go through in china. you know this since you have argued against it. admitting luttwak’s falsity in characterization, it is still understandable to me why he would have the impression he does.
zero 2:54 am on May 13, 2008 | #
HankDennemann sums it up the best in his following comment (at Ali Eteraz’s rebuttal page):
“Am I the only one that finds it unsettling that the author, in explaining away this controversy, harps on technical reasons that Obama could not be killed for being a non-Muslim, rather than arguing how preposterous it is for any religion to call for the death of people who choose not to practice it? The author presumes as a matter of course that this Islamic law is valid, and that journalists’ objections to it are rooted in their unfamiliarity with its implementation.
Is that really the problem? If we just explained to these journalists that under Islamic law, people can be killed for being non-Muslim, but they can only be killed by the state, would that clear everything up? Because, after all, killing people for the religion they choose isn’t intrinsically barbaric, it is only barbaric when it is done willy nilly by the hoi polloi. When the state does it, it is fine.
Lest there be any doubt, the journalists here–and people like me–are not using these objections as a way to levy underhanded attacks on immigrants. We are attacking the tenets of a law mired in the dark ages, one that is too violent and irrational to exist in the modern era. Exhibit A to that conclusion is this article, written by someone whose attempt at reason is undermined entirely by the monstrous predicate he takes for granted: namely, that killing people for not being a Muslim is acceptable under any circumstances.”
razib 10:56 am on May 13, 2008 | #
zero, you need to make a case to barbarians in their own language. i’m not sure that the emergence of religious liberty in the muslim world will play out the same way it did in the west during the enlightenment; that was enforced to a great extent by aristocratic or elite-run states (the people rioted when parliament wanted to give roman catholics liberty in the 18th century). from a utilitarian prespective arguing for religious neutrality through religiously neutral arguments really isn’t going to be fruitful; you need to argue for religious neutrality through religious language…. (obviously one reason that church-state separations argue that it benefits and aids religion)