The two most important of your comments are as follows:
1. "The first is one of crass material interest on the part of Muslims and marginality in the case of non-Muslims"
2. "public profession of views which go against majority [Umma] norms"

If I am reading this right: As long as BHO does what the most vocal members of the Umma want, then the Umma will treat him as they treated Menem. But if he should go against what these fellows want, then people like Qaradawi will broadcast religious opinions about irtidad.

(I'm picking on that Jordanian Shaykh, al-Qaradawi, because he's the kind of Muslim whose followers are often seen on TV threatening violence - not because I think he's representative. Some Sufi mystic from the Balkans isn't going to care as much whether BHO was non-Muslim, anti-Muslim, pro-Muslim or whatever. Qaradawi's clan are the like of those whom Luttwak is worrying about.)

Of course if someone who was never Muslim, like McCain, were to go against Qaradawi et al then we could also expect death sentences from such quarters.

So the question is: would a fatwa against an apostate who "made war on [Qaradawi's] God and His Apostle" be viewed as more binding on Muslims than a fatwa against a Person Of The Book who did it? I suspect that Qaradawi's disciples would expect not much less than anti-Islam from a non-Muslim, and would resent it more from a former-Muslim.

Leiberman is going around telling everyone Hammas has endorsed Obama. I can't even believe the amount of time you guys are wasting on this.

Obviously the world is not black and white.

I'd have thought that the Clintons are a bigger threat.

I suspect that Qaradawi's disciples would expect not much less than anti-Islam from a non-Muslim, and would resent it more from a former-Muslim.

there may be some differences on the margins. the references to leiberman might illustrate a dynamic: a convert is judged in terms of relative scale. conservatives love him despite the fact that overall he's probably more liberal than any moderate republican (who they revile), while liberals hate him despite his liberalism on social issues. but like i said, on the margins. most of the distribution obama's status makes little difference.

Yes, my analysis of the issue is extremely close to that of Razib's, with the Carlos Menem analogy being pretty determinative in my own mind.

It's pretty funny to me that both American political camps seem remarkably ignorant and dishonest in their wild claims and counter-claims in this matter.

And I'd guess that the marginal increase in the likelihood of Obama being assassinated by some Muslim fanatic on these grounds is pretty negligible, especially when compared with the pretty sizable likelihood of domestic assassination attempts from various rightwing fanatics.

Luttwak's whole thesis has been completely trashed and refuted as total BS by, among others, Ali Eteraz in this post:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ al...s_b_101337.html

Luttwak seems to not have a leg to stand on, and it's embarrassing that the NYT would publish an article that fact-checking would have shown to be complete nonsense.

Steve Sailor has had quite a lot to say about Obama over the past 6 months or so. Everything I have read about Obama on Sailor's website as well as everywhere else in NO WAY suggests that Obama was ever a muslim. If anything, Obama was raised on the western self-effacing liberal-left mentality that was expressed by his mother and maternal grandparents. His father had very little influence in his life given that he abandoned him and his mother when he was 2 years old.

It is true that Obama attended a madrassa school during his time in Indonesia. However, this means nothing as, at the time (early Suharto era), the madrassas were the only place kids could get an education unless their parents were wealthy enough to send them to a "secular" private school. There was, and still is, no "public" school system in Indonesia other than the madrassas.

Also, consider that this was the time that Suharto was consolidating his power (following the ouster of Sukarno) and that any kind of dissent from the official state ideology of Pancasia was not tolorated at all. It is highly unlikely that the madrassas of Indonesia were pushing anything like the "radical" Islam that we see today during this time.

Obama is no more of a muslim than myself or anyone else in this blog.

Luttwak seems to not have a leg to stand on, and it's embarrassing that the NYT would publish an article that fact-checking would have shown to be complete nonsense.

ali makes a lot of good points. but, i think that it isn't true that luttwak has no leg to stand on. islam, and islamic views, are those of 1.3 billion people. there is a diversity of views. the attitudes toward apostasy that luttwak details don't emerge out of a vacuum. when it comes to religion interpretation is key; and people have different interpretations. my point with this post is that people will often interpret so as to make their own lives easier. but 'easy' is contextual.

Obama is no more of a muslim than myself or anyone else in this blog.

obama is as muslim as i am. that is, i don't consider myself muslim, and i doubt anyone would reasonably be able to consier me a muslim, but people with a more ethnic idea of what religion is may consider me a muslim.* several readers of this weblog have done that, and i've had to correct them (people from jewish and hindu backgrounds, for example, seem to fall into that tendency more often than those from christian backgrounds because judaism and hinduism are more predicated on family origin than a specific set of beliefs).

obama's 'muslimness,' tenous though it is, might emerge in the proper context. the fact that he has muslim ancestors might be viewed positively by some (as i believe reza aslan observed when he talked to some iranians who were surprised & happy to learn that his father was from a muslim background). OTOH, as david ross noted above it might emerge as a cudgel for those who would attack america. but overall, it's a marginal substantive issue when it comes to the islamic world. though not in american elections obviously.

* the people who run alt.muslim labeled me a muslim (i.e., as a muslim would defended the publication the danish cartoons). and several readers of this weblog as well as co-bloggers have referred to me as muslim. i've corrected that impression, but i think it suggests that the idea that islam has something to do with ancestry exists among both muslims and non-muslims. but definitions are never cut & dried.

it's sailer btw ;-)

This is my conspiracy theory,

The powerful cash rich Roman Catholic Church is behind Obama.

Nancy Pelosi and Richardson (catholics) both want Obama to win.

Because they know that Hillary with her general americana supporters are hard to beat.
The roman catholic mafia church has been trying to install a catholic
for presidency. Kerry didnt win. Now its McCain.

Can you imagine how much money they would get from this rich country?
Can you imagine how money they would save from the pedophilia cases when McCain pardons them?


Coming from a poor catholic country, I dont want this country to become another catholic
country. Please, please, please, save us from the Mafia Catholic Church.

Also there are rumors, that the San Diego drug bust led by another italian who is one of the
contributors of Obama.

http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/Ar...eb8c50f3556a41/

Can anybody research how many students gave '25 dollars' each to Obama?

Whoever wins, Obama or McCain, my bet they would be "taken out".
I dont know how but I do hope that McCain should be taken out.

So Im just going safe- Hillary with Obama as VP.

Because if Obama wins against Hillary, I bet McCain will win considering how many
catholic supporters are out there, brainwashed-since-birth-Catholics like my Mom who kept giving
the italians her last penny. Grrr...

LM,

That's quite the little theory you got there, with the flimsy, paranoid connections between some small-time fratboy drug pusher, the Speaker of the House, and the Pope himself. Not to mention its rampant stereotyping of Catholics and its comparison of the church to the Italian Mafia. It totally stands up to logic. Really. Now, I think I speak for all Catholics when I say shut the f*ck up or we will crush you.

I wonder if Mr. Ciaccio isn't half Hispanic. From that profile picture you linked to, he looks like he has some American Indian ancestry. Or is the fact that he went to San Diego State University throwing me off?

By the Gods I hate these arguments, and is a reason I've stopped listening/reading some on the right. It doesn't affect my election decision whether or not a bunch of religious zealots want him dead for apostasy. Neither does it affect my thinking because his middle name is "Hussein" or that he's a "crypto-muslim". And I just think many on the right are shooting themselves in the foot for focusing on these petty issues and not on the fact that Obama is inexperienced.

Now, I think I speak for all Catholics when I say shut the f*ck up or we will crush you.

Youre an idiot who instead of offering a different argument chose vulgar words to silence a critic. I was a catholic, well i still am since I have never hopped into another religion. Emphasis on Catholic Church not individual catholics.

Here's proofs you're an idiot:
1) you fail to understand what I meant.
2) you are another vulgar mafiosi styled creature who just wants me to shut up.
3) You didnt offer any argument why the conspiracy theory is impossible.
4) Last name is Italian, google it.

IDIOT.

uh...OK; just got a call from the vatican, must close thread....