Muslims to Potentially Call for the Blood of Obama

Obama just can't win.

First he was criticized for being too "in" with the Muslims. He was accused of being one, of being indoctrinated at an Islamic madrassa in Indonesia, of expressing sympathy for the Palestinians, and for the endorsements of Hamas. While Obama has replied by shoring up his "I love Jesus" cred and declaring himself no less a friend of Israel than Clinton, the insinuations continue.

Now, an op-ed in the New York Times goes the other way: Obama would piss the shit out of Muslims. The author, Edward N. Luttwak of the conservative thinktank Center for Strategic and International Studies, begins by benignly praising Obama's charisma and well-organized campaign - this so we know that what follows isn't an attack on Obama, just fact.

Theoretically speaking, Luttwak posits, Muslims the world over would demand Obama's blood, should he become president.

What? Oh, I'm sorry, Luttwak's position is a bit more nuanced:

As the son of the Muslim father, Senator Obama was born a Muslin 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...

Wow! who knew that you could be born Muslim? However do the babies say the shahada? As far as I know, Obama has never had said the shahada (profession of faith), and therefore has never even been Muslim. Islam is not a religion; not a race.

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 the Arabic as "apostasy," but with the connotations of rebellion and treason.

Oh my god you're using Arabic! And well enough to scoff at simple translations of "ridda", since you know the connotations as well! Bravo! But, since Obama has never actually been Muslim - can he really be an apostate?

Indeed, it is the worst of all crimes that a Muslim can commit... the recommended punishment is beheading at the hands of a cleric... It is true that the criminal codes in most Muslim countries to no mandate execution for apostasy.

But that last part doesn't matter because we all know that Muslims are thirsting for blood no matter what the criminal codes of their countries say! He goes on to mention two famous cases of apostates: an Iranian man in 1994 and an Afghani man in 2006. Luttwak does allow that even Iran or Saudi Arabia would probably not prosecute President Obama, but

...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.

Right. The incredibly lengthy and seemingly unending election has not provided opportunity enough to get to know this new guy - despite the fact that al-Jazeera has been inundated with coverage of the race, which is only displaced by news from Gaza or Lebanon. And naturally, Obama's being an "apostate" would hurt America's war on terror and rapport with the Muslim world more than the man who started a war, calling it a "crusade," and is overflowing with love for Israel. As for exporting democracy and human rights abroad - I don't think the US could be doing much worse than currently, so why not try the apostate?

The worst part about this article is that is sees the "Muslim world" as a vast monolith, mentioning only Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Afghanistan to represent this massive and diverse region. The Muslims themselves are not individual people, with the ability to say, measure a man's supposed apostate-ness versus his policy in deciding whether or not to stone him, but a herd of sheep expected to bleat hatred once the secret is out. It is obvious that Luttwak has not spoken to a single Muslim, but who needs to when scripture tells you everything you need to know about the adherents of a religion?

While Syria is not representative of every Muslim country, every person I've talked to here about the American election is now solidly behind Obama. They note his international background, how he wants to pull troops out of Iraq, and his being black, which I'm told "is a good step for America". A few people have told me that they hope his having Muslim family in Kenya means he will be less biased against Muslims than the current administration. In Tunisia, another, very different Muslim country, I only spoke on the subject with two people, when they brought it up, asking me if I was going to vote Obama since they want him to win.

But what do I know? I'm no thinktank. So take your pick: either Obama is too sympathetic to The Muslims (and thus, terror) or he's going to cause them to all go batshit insane and hurt the wonderful democracy-spreading America's been up to lately. Either one is obviously a valid reason to Vote McCain.