Terrorists For Obama
So Hamas, amongst others, digs Obama.
But then…
Telegraph Blogs - Holy Smoke - Barack Obama ‘could face Islamic execution’, by Damian Thompson
Barack Obama may be a Christian, but in the eyes of the Islamic world he is a Muslim apostate and could face execution if he is elected president. That’s the view of Edward Luttwak in an extraordinary comment article in the New York Times today.
Obama was born to a Muslim father and converted to Christianity. That conversion, writes Luttwak, “was a crime in Muslim eyes; it is irtidad or ridda, usually translated from the Arabic as ‘apostasy’, but with connotations of rebellion and treason. Indeed, it is the worst of all crimes that a Muslim can commit, worse than murder (which the victim’s family may choose to forgive).
“With few exceptions, the jurists of all Sunni and Shiite schools prescribe execution for all adults who leave the faith not under duress; the recommended punishment is beheading at the hands of a cleric, although in recent years there have been both stonings and hangings.”
Diversity!
Luttwak, a military strategist known for his maverick views, concedes that no Muslim government is likely to prosecute a President Obama for apostasy – but Islamic law prohibits punishment for any Muslim who kills an apostate. Luttwak’s conclusion:
“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.”
Oh ho.
“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.”
This is fascinating stuff – and not just because Luttwak is on to something. Why has the New York Times chosen to run this article at such a sensitive moment? Any ideas?
Well, they did endorse Hillary, even if they then promptly threw her under the novelty bus. But that can’t be it.
Update (5.14):
You know who else is gonna wanna kill him…
Curtsy: Power Line
May 14th, 2008 at 1:40 am
In the early 80s Luttwak wrote a brilliant book anatomising the failure of the Soviet economy, and forecasting the collapse of the whole system within a matter of a few years. This was at a time when the CIA was still taking Soviet economic statistics at face value, and liberal opinion thought Luttwak was nuts. Since he was proved so triumphantly right, liberals really can’t stand him.
Ronald Reagan, on the other hand, thought he might be onto something.
May 14th, 2008 at 5:12 am
The groundwork was done by von Mises, and later Hayek, at the beginning of the 20th century, in particular von Mises’ paper in 1920 on “The impossibility of economic calculation in a socialist commonwealth”. Von Mises proved with logical rigour that a socialist economic system cannot garner the potential gains from trade - the cornerstone of a functioning economy - and hence could not function. It was a very unpopular message at the time, but Lenin provided a proof by demonstration - although the existence of Lenin’s proof was not widely known in the west at the time.
Hayek is generally recognised as one of the great geniuses of the 20th century, but von Mises, who is less well known, was smarter.
May 14th, 2008 at 9:09 am
Good heavens, the philosopher-engineer has his thinking cap on.
So if liberals really can’t stand him, it goes back to the final question again, made doubly interesting: Why’d the Times publish this?
May 14th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
Sheesh. Sweetie? Can hardly believe that one.
May 14th, 2008 at 10:40 pm
I know. Even ~I~ took offense at that and I’m not exactly a feminist’s feminist. I mean, what is this, the 1950s? “Don’t worry doll,” except not even Ike would have said something like that.
May 15th, 2008 at 3:50 am
Oh come on. The great Jo Bjelke Peterson - a Kiwi of Dutch descent and longest serving premier of Queensland - used to refer to press conferences as “feeding the chooks” - as often as not during the press conference.
May 15th, 2008 at 8:28 am
Jo Bjelke Peterson! Waves of nostalgia! Wonder what the chooks made of it?