DING DING DING DING DING!!!!! -13.... How High can this go???
What? Quoting columns from the liberal New York Times are you?
But just to set the record straight, this letter in the NYTimes is in answer to Luttwak's column. Luttwak is NOT an expert on Islam, this person is:
To the Editor:
Like the Jewish legal tradition, Islamic law is a conversation represented in dynamic and diverse schools of thought. Edward N. Luttwak speaks of an essentialized Islamic law that does not exist.
Nevertheless, there is no dispute among Muslims that Islam is not an ethnic affiliation, nor is it passed through the gene pool. A Muslim parent is morally responsible for raising his or her child within Islam; children, for their part, have no legal culpability. There is no legal obligation by a child to affiliate with the Muslim community.
Islam does not consider Barack Obama ever to have been part of the Muslim community. Apostasy has no relevance here.
Ingrid Mattson
Hartford, May 12, 2008
The writer is president of the Islamic Society of North America, the largest umbrella Muslim group in the country.
Shaw's another dupe for Islamic taqqiya.
In Islam, being a Muslim is passed from father to child. Obama's father (and stepfather, for that matter) was Muslim. Obama's school registration in Indonesia has his religious affiliation listed as "Muslim", and he attended Islamic religious studies in that school, (which was a Catholic school that permitted its students to pursue whatever religious studies they signed up for).
Personally, I don't think Obama is a practicing Muslim today (nor do I think he is a practicing Christian either), but he WAS a Muslim and was publicly known to be so during his formative years in early education.
But since Obama will do everthing in his power to ensure a weak America, I have no doubt that radical Muslims, as shown by Hamas endorsing him, will give him a pass according to the enemy (Obama) of my enemy (a strong America) is my friend (Obama) philsophy.
Atheling: I doubt Shaw knows what "taqqiya" means nor how it could be applied in the letter he cites.
atheling-
Thanks for the excellent summary of Daniel Pipes' smear of Obama.
Obama has not ever been nor is he now a Muslim.
But the sort of inneundo Pipes peddles will be a part of the campaign come November.
Artie: Once again, your comment is at variance with the truth and accepted fact.
But I suppose YOU know better than Edward Luttwak and the NY Times.
Something tells me the paint fumes are getting to you.
Arthur, go pound sand, you nitwit.
Pipes is a helluva lot smarter and more credible than some dumbass "art" dealer in Seattle.
Mike, care for an opinion of a legal scholar on Shari'a? Dr. Sawma to be precise.
http://myrtus.typepad.com/myrtus...e-of-
relig.html
Though I doubt a scholar who has written on how misunderstood the Q'uran is will be believed by those who do not want to face an unpalatable truth. Sen. Obama is the son of a Muslim and hence Muslim. He was baptised Christian by Jeremiah Wright, which in the Q'uran makes Sen. Obama an apostate to that faith. His father, who abandoned Barack, later became an atheist. Which makes Obama's father also an apostate. Hence they both can be killed by any good Muslim and Islamic imans would absolve the killers of sin.
Some of the commenters here remind me of Ibn on Najia's blog.
Atheling says Obama is not a practising Muslim today. I say Rev John Hagee and any of his dispensationalist "Christian Zionist" ilk are not practising Christians, and they are far more dangerous, being in plentiful supply, than the occasional practising Muslim.
Mike wondered:
But I suppose YOU know better than Edward Luttwak and the NY Times.
Funny how you tend to agree with the NY Times when they support your agenda.
The reason a great many people around the world, the Middle East included, want to see Barrack Obama elected is that they are eager to deal with a US administration not teeming with neo-con war mongers.
Quite simple really.
Luttwaks argument is absurd (not surprising for a Reagan era fossil). On the one hand 'Islamists' want him dead because he's an 'apostate' while Hamas 'endorses' his candidacy.
Only in Mikes World.
And thanks for the kind words Atheling. You really have the soul of a poet.
Arthurstone,
Don't expect consistency or logic from these people.
Anna: Thanks for that link:
http://myrtus.typepad.com/myrtus...e-of-
relig.html
Though I doubt much of that analysis will sink in with our Obamapologist crowd.
Hamas goal = weak America
Hamas endorses Obama
Obama = weak America
I know simple logic is lost on the libs but figured I'd try and make it as basic as possible.
Hamas is only doing what it can for self survival even if that means putting aside apostate punishment for the moment.
Let me re-phrase your argument Mr. Tiger:
"I don't like Hamas."
"I prefer they all should be killed."
Leave anything out?
“Tehran has created a situation in which anyone who wants to attack its atomic facilities will have to take into account that this will lead to bitter fighting” on the Lebanese, Palestinian, Iraqi and Persian Gulf fronts. That is a sophisticated strategy of deterrence.
The Bush team, by contrast, in eight years has managed to put America in the unique position in the Middle East where it is “not liked, not feared and not respected,” writes Aaron David Miller, a former Mideast negotiator under both Republican and Democratic administrations, in his provocative new book on the peace process, titled “The Much Too Promised Land.”
I'm voting for Bob Barr or Nader, but perhaps Obama will sit at a negotiating table with Iran and sue for peace on Iran's terms, enabling America to exit semi-gracefully with far less bloodshed than if McCain exits soaked in it.
As usual, Hoopie and "Arthur" have it backward.
Need I remind "Arthur" that it's terrorists who chant "DEATH TO AMERICA."
None of us wish them harm if they were peaceful.
It's like the old cartoon: If the Arabs laid down their arms tomorrow peace would break out in the Middle East. If Israel laid down it's weapons tomorrow, every Jew would be killed.
It's interesting that idiot appeasers like Hoop and "Arthur" defend genocide.
Mike typed:
It's interesting that idiot appeasers like Hoop and "Arthur" defend genocide.
Hmmmmm.
So urging our leaders to negotiate (inevitable) in good faith (as has worked with others eager for "Death to America", Libya, N. Korea) is defending genocide.
Only in Mike's America.
Wish Zbig could read your ravings Mike.
I really do.
Careful Arthur, Presidents Carter and Clinton have also negotiated with North Korea. What has happened? The nuclear program progressed even as danegeld was offered to get it stopped and thousands of Koreans starved to death. And still people demand that President Bush negotiate more. Why should he? North Korea has never negotiated in good faith. And they never will untill they do solemnly believe that the United States is earnest in keeping its word. If others do believe the US is serious about protecting its intersts and the interests of its allies, then perhaps the Peoples Republic of China and the other countries negotiating with North Korea to end its nuclear delusions will finally force the hermit kingdom to accept some real politik before that whole area comes crashing down.
Unfortunately there are far too many enablers of tyranny protesting the liberation of North Korea from government mandated genocide. Hence encouraing the North Koreans to hold fast and for the likes of the PRC to make motions while doing nothing, knowing this diverts US attention from other things like the expansion of PRC power across the globe.
And why exactly did Libya come to the negotiation table??? B/c of taking out Saddam showed them that we weren't going to let terrorists actions and their supporters have a free ride anymore, not b/c we capitulated to a despot or terrorists like Obama wants to do.
And yes Arthur, if they continue to claim that they want me dead then I'd rather they be dead first. Nice job in ignoring my very simple basic logic and confirming simple logic is impossible for lunatic libs.
CajunTiger wondered:
And why exactly did Libya come to the negotiation table???
http://www.meforum.org/article/886
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/
bgn...425.htm#foreign
http://
www.washingtonmonthly.com...10.suskind.html
peace through strength Artie... Works every time it is tried. But only by Republican presidents.
Mike opined:
But only by Republican presidents.
I seem to recall a great deal of peace and prosperity between 1992 and 2000.
Go figure.
Thanks to the train Reagan and Bush put on the tracks.
Artie...it helps if you actually read the full article before you send then b/c every single one of them said to differing degrees that Iraq played a part in speeding up Libya's change of heart. So, thanks for proving my point for me.
CajunTiger.
Iraq? Why I can remember when Saddam Hussein was our very best friend on that particular block. Can't you?
Read the articles yourself.
And pay particular attention to the Suskind piece.
He's a real journalist.
Oh sureeeee! Talk convinced Libya to give up WMD.
And I bet you think the Easter Bunny is real too Artie!
P.S. a "real journalist"? Whoopee! All that means is that he's a card carrying lefty with an agenda.
Thanks for revealing that tid bit.
Suskind sums it up beautifully:
Of course, neither Bush nor Gadhafi was really telling the truth. The key to the agreement between the two sides—all but written into the fine print—was that each would get to “save face.” Naturally, this is always a primary goal of nations and their leaders, whether they are democratic or authoritarian. And so the White House worked diligently to make the case that Libya’s disarmament would not have happened without the show of force in Iraq. As the Bush administration well knew, however, the breakthrough had occurred mainly because a resistance to “reward[ing] bad behavior” had, for once, been overcome. In other words, much to the chagrin of White House hawks, the disarming of Gadhafi wasn’t due to the Bush administration following its “new rules” for angrily confronting rogue states. It was due to the Bush administration setting them, for once, aside.
You'll be interested to learn Suskind won a Pulitzer in 1995 writing for that bastion of Marxist thought, the Wall Street Journal.
It's amazing how selective your reading is these days "Arthur."
It seems you ONLY read those articles which you have plucked from the left wing hate factory floor that support your warped and delusional world view.
Mike typed:
It seems you ONLY read those articles which you have plucked from the left wing hate factory floor that support your warped and delusional world view.
Precisely. That devious organ of the radical left the Wall Street Journal.
Busted.
"Arthur" You are such a timewaster. You're starting to bore me.
Commenting by HaloScan
