Necessity & sufficiency & Islam; Barack Obama is an apostate!
Mark Kirkorian points out that Barack Obama is a Muslim apostate:
Several implications: first, Obama’s has a unique opportunity – even a responsibility – to speak out on behalf of former Muslims under threat of death for converting to other faiths. Second, there are likely to be even more lunatics trying to kill him than there would be otherwise. And third, how would a President Obama be greeted by, say, the king of “Saudi” Arabia? Probably the same way a President Lieberman would be, and that could actually be a big selling point in his favor, but it’s something we can’t just pretend doesn’t exist.
By a broad interpretation Kirkorian is correct to assert that Obama would be considered an apostate by many Muslims if the facts of his biography were to be presented before them (I am an apostate as well by the definition that is being assumed here). Additionally, his conversion to another religion is also highly problematic, non-religious individuals who nevertheless do not opt-out of Islamic identity/culture and turn toward aggressive atheism or another religion are tolerated to some extent in many Muslim societies. Converts to other religion though are seen as a more obvious affront.
But there’s a big problem with Kirkorian’s inferences: they exist in in a vacuum of the true distribution of empirical data and take Muslim axioms at face value. This is common among many conservative American intellectuals who wish to rebut the anodyne reassurance from the mainstream that Islam is “really a religion of peace.” So fixated on countering the “Islam is peace” propaganda conservative intellectuals don’t bother to learn much about how the religion is actually practiced to compare the facts to the various inferences they make about how it would be practiced. If you look at a list of former Muslims you note several politicians, most prominently Carlos Menem, the former president of Argentina. Menem of course had good relations with the Arab world.
What gives here? We know that some apostates are threatened with death, or even killed. Context matters. Many of the attacks on apostates have other factors which serve to push Muslims to action upon their avowed axioms. The Afghan convert to Christian, Abdul Rahman, wasn’t the most mentally stable individual. In the Muslim world apostasy and blasphemy laws are often enforced or implemented opportunistically; quite often there are other reasons that principals bringing the charges have for prosecution (e.g., confiscation of property).
I do think it is important that the Mark Kirkorians of the world point out the illiberalism which is accepted within the Muslim world. But that being said, I do worry that they take their own rhetoric a bit too literally. After all, consumption of alcohol does exist within the Muslim world, to the point where a king of Saudi Arabia had to abdicate because he couldn’t mask his addiction anymore. To some extent I wonder if a certain Anglo-American naivete about the relationship between word & deed is at work here; a tendency to take as concrete assertions which are embedded & expressed within the constraints of practical day to day realities. On the other hand, I also think part of the issue is that when you are outside of a culture you only see the explicit axioms which are averred and are unaware of the implicit pragmatism which defines day to day life. Finally, it is important to note that though I think that the Islamic attitude toward apostasy is not sufficient to explain the outbursts of violence and intimidation to those who leave the fold, it is necessary.
Labels: Religion
It’s obvious that there is always a gap between religious ideals and actuality. But the ideal can nevertheless have a huge impact on the actual.
For example, there have certainly been Buddhist kings and warriors. And yet, on the whole doesn’t Buddhism seem to deserve its reputation as a peaceful religion? Doesn’t there seem to be something intrinsically peaceful about Buddhism, something inherent in its formal teachings, in its ideals?
I think Buddhism does deserve its reputation, and I think that Islam likewise deserves its reputation as the most aggressive and intolerant of the world’s major religions. It’s true that most Muslims (like most people everywhere) are decent people, and it’s true that most Muslim countries don’t actually execute apostates. But the formal requirement is there, and it’s universally accepted by all schools of Muslim law. How could this not help but grease the slide into violent fundamentalism?
And yet, on the whole doesn’t Buddhism seem to deserve its reputation as a peaceful religion? Doesn’t there seem to be something intrinsically peaceful about Buddhism, something inherent in its formal teachings, in its ideals?
which is why buddhist societies are so peaceful? you know, like japan, thailand sri lanka or burma? ;-) there’s some reality to the generalization that you talk of i think, but the shape of the distribution needs more fleshing. i think the diff. between buddhism & islam is that japan was not a fundamentally buddhist society in the same way that most muslim societies are muslim (thailand though is a good analog), so japanese violence was not in the name of the buddha. that being said, oda nobunaga destroyed a lot of institutional buddhism during the 16th century because of its association with military monks. the mongols became no less violent after their conversion to buddhism (manchu gunpowder beat them into peace). but perhaps you’ve done more reading than me, i’d like to hear a more fully fleshed argument on this….
(also, someone needs to do psychological tests on people of different religions, but no one has done this research from what i can tell)
Only somebody with an EQ of 3 would think Obama is going to be received in the muslim world the same way as Leiberman. If this is “conservative logic” — it is severely broken. I don’t have data on hand, but I’d bet $$ that as soon as a poll of the muslim world is done — comparing the presidential candidates, obama will do pretty well. Mostly because of his story, kenyan, muslim relatives, immigrant. But also, because he was the only one willing to talk to the iranians before dropping bombs.
the implicit pragmatism which defines day to day life
We’re not talking about day-to-day life here. And the other motives for acting against apostates, that you talk about, are likely to exit for the President of the United States. That is, where tensions do exist, some in the Islamic world will make use of the fact in a way that becomes important to US policy.
That is, where tensions do exist, some in the Islamic world will make use of the fact in a way that becomes important to US policy.
i think the blackness will nullify. muslim non-blacks are racist, but they tend to be consciousness-raised enough about black treatment in the USA to give special dispensations and allowances. they already often have been affected by the myth that all black americans are the descendants of forced apostates (that is, the slaves were muslim).
The ancestral village of Obama Sr is full of churches and has no mosque. I wonder Mr Obama Sr, an alcoholic, would be considered a Muslim. Religion is very fluid in Africa, and they are not taken too seriously (as you seem to be doing) by the Arabs.
I wonder Mr Obama Sr, an alcoholic, would be considered a Muslim. Religion is very fluid in Africa, and they are not taken too seriously (as you seem to be doing) by the Arabs.
obama’s father was an avowed atheist, though from a muslim family, as evidenced by his name. the luo tribe are predominantly christian today, and it is likely that there are people of both major religions in his family (if odinge claims to be a cousin that would mean he has non-muslims closely related on his kenyan side since odinge has been slandered for being an uncircumcised, therefore non-muslim, luo). as for religion being fluid, since most africans were not christian or muslim 3-4 generations ago but today are mostly christian or muslim, obviously. but that doesn’t mean that they don’t take religion seriously, judging by the fact that nigerians like to boast that their main export besides oil are pastors. but ‘serious’ means different things to different groups; korean catholics & kenyan catholics can both take their religion seriously but behave in very different manners as dictated by the priorities in their culture. as for how seriously i take religion, please spare me your psi-mind reading powers.
Zogby did a poll, I believe last week, that showed most Muslim Americans who will vote Democrat support Obama.
http://bsimmons.wordpress.com/2007/07/02/obama-the-choice-of-arab-and-muslim-americans/
How in the world is he a muslim? Is there any evidence that he did pronounce the shahadah even once in his life?
The only “evidence” I can find for it is in the Daniel Pipes article, containing such eyebrow-raising statements as the following:
“Interviews with dozens of former classmates, teachers, neighbors and friends show that Obama was not a regular practicing Muslim when he was in Indonesia” ? implying he was an irregularly practicing Muslim.
Similarly, Daniel Pipes is not a regular baby-eating neo-nazi – implying….
Apparently, the strongest piece of evidence is that he “occasionally” went to the mosque with his stepfather on Fridays. Colour me underwhelmed.
JohnB: it’s true that most Muslim countries don’t actually execute apostates. But the formal requirement is there…
IIRC the idea of stoning blasphemers comes from Moses, not Muhammad. Fundamentalism is not a result of the text – it is an attitude towards the text.
Religion is a matter of style as much as substance. Maybe more.
How in the world is he a muslim? Is there any evidence that he did pronounce the shahadah even once in his life?
one line of reasoning among muslims is that you are muslim if you father is a muslim. if anyone obama’s patriline declared the shahada than he is muslim, because muslims once muslim can not leave the religion. an extreme reductio ad absurdum would be a case of a coptic christian boy, i believe in the 19th century, who hummed the shahada when a prayer call was going up. people on the street heard him, and witnessed that he was now a muslim. but he continued to profess the beliefs of a copt and would not recant, so he was executed for apostasy. that’s obviously not typical, but it shows the principle.
in reality very few muslims are agitated over apostasy in implausible cases like obama’s. even cases where adult men who were raised as believing muslims freely apostized for political opportunism, such as carlos memen, did not result in bad relations with the arab world or state visits. that being said, i would hold that many muslims would not reject the principle of apostasy laws as invalid (some would). people such obama, if they made it a cause, could perhaps push for muslims to acknowledge the lack of justice of the principle instead of simply engaging in pragmatic compromise. as i alluded to above, the enforcement of these laws is often very opportunistic, so removal of the principle would go toward squelching these sorts of outbursts.
note: an analogy here might be the “freedom” accorded to non-calvinists during the dutch republic. on the one hand, a pragmatic acceptance of pluralism was the order of the day, but on the other hand all non-calvinist religious had to keep a low profile. for example, catholic “churches” in cities such as amsterdam were constructed within apartment complexes which looked to be residences from the outside. at the end of the day the principle that calvinist was the one true religion which should receive public support reigned and true pluralism waited until legal equality. that is, when principle followed pragmatism.
[hey, can we wait up on the explicitly political comments? that sort of thing tends to send threads off track really quickly -razib]
So far from what I can gather, Obama’s having some “secret Muslim” past has been a problem for Christians in America, not Muslims ….uhm anywhere. There’s a chain-e-mail being passed around saying that because Obama went to a “madrassah” as a kid, that he is a secret Muslim, and he’s going to impose Shariah on the US and all that. Most Muslims in America at least, I would bet don’t know much about his past, and I highly doubt that this would affect his relations with Muslim countries. Also, Obama isn’t Christian now because he rejected Islam, I highly doubt he was raised Muslim. He has a similar track to a rapper named Napolean who is now a very pious Muslim. Napolean was born to Muslim parents, who died when he was young, and he was raised Christian, not being exposed to anything Islam related. Only difference is Napoelan later embraced Islam and Obama has not.(This will probably be the first… and last time the rapper Napolean will ever be mentioned on gnxp lol)
As for the principle of apostasy, I mean I would bet that throughout Muslim history, there has been more persecution between Muslims for not having the right views than people getting killed for leaving Islam outright. I mean theres a lot of people in the Muslim world who are functionally no different than atheist/agnostics you find in the West and nobody is out killing them. If you mean like beligerrent athiests who want to post their anti-Islamic diatribe all across the town, yeah they’d probably get censored by the ideal Islamic government but I don’t see how thats different from a lot of other largely European countries. In Germany, you can’t promote anarchy or criticise the German state. In many countries in Europe, if you deny the Holocaust, you will get imprisoned. Most cultures have their sacred cows and for Muslims it is Islam. As long as Muslims allow freedom of expression where it is most important (for people to voice injusices, to lobby to the governemnt, etc) then I don’t see why a ban on anything condemning Islam would be that big of a deal.
Also Razib, isn’t law a lot like religion in that getting rid of “principles” doesn’t make a difference, people will justify in this case killing apostates anyway? I don’t understand why getting rid of the hadiths that mention treatment of apostates would make any more difference than getting rid of verse from the Quran that say “fight the unbeleivers.” At least If I’m understanding you correctly.
there has been more persecution between Muslims for not having the right views than people getting killed for leaving Islam outright.
the two are part of the same spectrum. e.g., was the persecutions against alevis because they were muslim heretics, or because they were apostates against islam?
I mean theres a lot of people in the Muslim world who are functionally no different than atheist/agnostics you find in the West and nobody is out killing them.
the bigger problem is conversion to other religions. e.g., the targeting of apostates in the UK seems to be toward those who become christian more than those who are atheist or non-practicing. in some muslim majority countries conversion to other religions is acceptable (indonesia), but in many any hint of conversion attempts can be capitally sanctioned (as evangelical crypto-missionaries discover on occasion).
Also Razib, isn’t law a lot like religion in that getting rid of “principles” doesn’t make a difference, people will justify in this case killing apostates anyway? I don’t understand why getting rid of the hadiths that mention treatment of apostates would make any more difference than getting rid of verse from the Quran that say “fight the unbeleivers.” At least If I’m understanding you correctly.
first, the threats to kill apostates are more problematic in islam right now. there are outbreaks of hostility in places in india from hindus, and 19th and 20th century sri lanka had a buddhist kulturkampf against conversion to christianity (a substantial proportion of christian sinhalese did convert to back to buddhism). but in these cases any physical threat is ad hoc or non-existent (the therevada counter-response was in the form of preaching and polemics and the connection of buddhism to sinhalese nationalism to such an extent that patriotism and buddhism were assumed to be necessarily tied together); in hinduism apostasy is not grounds for execution, and in fact, hindu purity taboos mean that apostasy is very easy (hindus forced to convert to islam during the mopilla rebellion in kerala during the 1920s had to be “purified” by arya samaj cuz local temples refused to admit them again). islam has a very specific apostasy meme, but, as i implied above its major utility is less to to forcibly convert all apostates then to opportunistically show up to persecute individuals in interpersonal disputes.
we have an empirical test re: the importance of principle, as only muslims have a widespread meme that apostates should be sanctioned with death today. and it is only in muslim and communist countries that christian missionaries are subject to systematic persecution or threat of death. buddhists, hindus, etc. are often quite hostile to christian missionaries, but the response is generally more restrained (anti-missionary laws which make propagation more difficult). there is an intersection between the response of muslims and non-muslims, and i suspect that the intersection defines a normal cultural response to alien ideas. in much of africa and in indonesia muslims accept competition with christians, though grudgingly. the muslim attitude toward conversions to other religions is historically contingent; the analogy that scholars use to justify death is that it is treasonous. leaving islam would have reinforced the christian and jewish communities that early muslims had ruled, and from they derived numerical advantage over time through conversion. and it is in those muslim nations where that historical legacy is the strongest, the middle east, that apostasy is the biggest issue. that being said, in the modern world this is not necessary, and obviously arab christians pose no threat as they are demographically trivial now. so why do these laws persist? some of it is inertia, but as i note above the laws are opportunistically used by individuals, just as blasphemy laws were in pakistan to persecute christian neighbors whose property one might be able to repossess.
most religions are filled with contradiction. as people famously state ‘there is no compulsion in religion’ in islam, so muslim scholars simply declare capital punishment for apostasy as punishment for treason against the muslim nation. this is totally unpersuasive to non-muslims of course, but that’s irrelevant. the key is to get muslims to emphasize elements which are in keeping with liberal values, just as christians and other groups have been forced to do over time. those scholars who sincerely believe islam does not sanction capital punishment simply reject the analogy to the muslim nation and so prioritize the no compulsion in religion principle.
note: an analogy to the persecution of non-muslims and converts to non-muslim religions can be found in places like korea and japan. in both these lands christian martyrs were created by the extremity of the persecution, but the persecution was not on religious grounds but through political rationale. that is, some japanese diamyos encouraged christianity, and originally assumed it was a novel sect of buddhism. the turn against the religion was tied to tokugawa iyeasu’s perception that catholicism was undermining his rule and served as a tool through with the iberian powers would conquer japan. in other words, the rationale for persecution was exactly what muslim scholars give, treason to the nation (the forcible registration of all japanese families during the tokugawa period with buddhist temples had to do with forcing christians into apostasy, not enforcing buddhist piety). one can see similar dynamics occurring in reconquista spain, where the muslim minority was viewed less as a purely theological threat than an strike against national unity. ergo, the forced expulsion around 1600 of the community as a whole.
obviously these sorts of rationales are not appropriate to the modern world, nor are they relevant. but muslim nations, and muslims as a whole, still adhere to the norms which arose to enforce these sorts of dynamics. in practice all it does is undermine liberal values and encourage communal and interpersonal tension. the problem is greatest in the middle east, in india, indonesia, many african countries, muslim converts to other religions live public lives without threat to their life. i know of no case in the middle where this is true, and the posthumous conversion to islam of christian arab nationalists like michael aflaq shows the connection of religion to nationalism extant there.
p.s. there are plenty of nations where missionaries can be faced with fines or possibly even prison because the laws are structured to maintain the status quo. but only in muslim and communist countries (i’m thinking mostly north korea here, as cuba and china have mellowed a lot on religion) is death a major consequence. that’s not something you can ignore. if you are an evangelical in russia you face fines & harassment. if you are an evangelical missionary in egypt preaching to muslims,* well….
* which is my protestant missionaries have generally targeted local christians.
Really, against modernity?
Is modernity an “idea” or is “modernity” what has happened over the last 200 years throughout the world?
If it’s the latter, believe me the Muslim countries aren’t any worse shape than a lot of other places, b. I mean China is successful in terms of economics but human rights violations out the ass. Definitely not liberal. Nazis were modern too, Commies were modern and friggin materialists talking about how religion is gonna go away and yadda yadda yadda. It’s not gon go away though anytime soon from what I can see.
You really are arguing against a very abstract picture. Outside of Iran and Saudi, most of the human rights violations come from secular regimes. Yes,Egyptian authorities might threaten missionaries trying to convert Muslims with death, but they also tortured and anally violated Sayyid Qutb, leader of the Muslim Brotherhood. Even when the Muslim Brotherhood tried to gain seats during democratic elections, their supporters were jailed and votes were rigged. So other than Iran , Saudi, and scattered village councils in places like Northern Nigeria or rural Pakistan or Bangladesh, how would any of this make any difference?Most of the Muslim world is run by militaries and bureacrats. And not militaries with curved swords and turbans, people with modern weapons and training at West Point. They are run by bureaucrats mostly educuated at elite Western universities.
I would still like to see some numbers about death threats against missionaries and deaths of people who left Islam. I personally don’t think it’s a big problem and not something that Obama if he were to become Prez should address. There are other pressing issues like Muslims blowing themselves up and killing other Muslims. There probably isn’t any but it;s okay to write big overblown paragraphs about phenomena that doesn’t happen like that in the vague Muslim world.
i never said this was a big issue. we talk about things we’re interested in on this blog, not stuff that matters to the lives of most people.
On about three separate instances my dad has asked me whether I think Obama is really secretly a Muslim because he keeps getting chain-emails saying so. I’ve tried explaining that it’s silly and he’s been going to a Christian church that he claims was a huge influence on him (perhaps not for the best, considering the Farrakahn business), he’s married to a Christian and raises his kids Christian, but a lot of people are very willing to believe goofy things about him without any evidence.
Rushdie is in India now, and his hosts the industrial house “Godrejs” have been picketed. Some Muslim organisations have called Muslims to boycott all Godrej products(viz, Soaps, tooth pastes etc).
Rushdie called his detractors “Goondas”(=hooligans).
Christianity in India is taking up Hindu forms, Names, and religious worship patterns. In course of time it might become so much Hinduised, that Christians might become a Caste.
Very interesting point, kjs. Christianity in India taking on Hindu forms implies malleability–the freedom to evolve. Something similar happens to Christianity in Africa, and if the comment above is to be believed, the same happens to Islam in Africa.
Islam is badly in need of radical fragmentation and decentralisation, a la the protestant reformation in Christianity. This will happen when the Persian Gulf sponsors and quasi-enforcers of fanatical Shia and Sunni Islam are impoverished by a lack of market for their only valuable commodity–oil.
This is from Times of India. There are similar reports from other parts of India, where Hindus have participated.
Hindus participate in Muharram
21 Jan 2008, 0355 hrs IST,Faizan Ahmad,TNN
MUZAFFARPUR: On the tenth day of Muharram, the first month of Islamic calendar, Shia Muslims across the world spend the day in mourning to commemorate the 1327-year-old martyrdom of Hazrat Imam Hussain, his family and followers. Here on Sunday, a group of Hindus participated in the Muharram procession with equal veneration.
They claim their lineage to Hussaini Brahmin sect. And, from this year, they have revived their centuries-old tradition of shedding tears in the memory of the martyrs of Karbala — which their ancestors used to do. Mostly Bhumihars, the group marched barefoot from Bara Imambara in Brahampur locality here beating their chest and chanting “Ya Hussain”.
They also carried a banner proclaiming their sentiments towards the Imam and his martyrdom. “Our ancestors also fought in support of Imam Hussain and sacrificed their lives in Karbala and we are equally pained at the historical martyrdom,” said Bhumihar Brahmin Mahasabha convenor Arun Kumar Sharma.
References in several books and records confirm that some Hindus did join Imam Hussain, the grandson of Prophet Mohammad, when he was through a bloody battle against Yezid at Karbala (in Iraq) on October 10, 680 AD.
The sect, which was later named Hussaini Brahmin, had settled on the banks of river Euphrates. Subsequently, they returned to India and assumed various titles like Datts, Mohiyals, Tyagis and many others. They also practised an intriguing blend of Islamic and Hindu traditions.
This was the first time in recent memory that the people claiming the lineage joined the Muharram rituals in this part of the country. The late Sunil Dutt, who belonged to Hussaini Brahmin sect, used to attend Muharram processions.
Asked why this practice remained discontinued for decades Sharma, a practising lawyer, said: “We can say this was the fault of our fathers and grandfathers who did not teach us about this aspect of our historical and cultural heritage.”
Marching in the procession ahead of the band of young Shia youths injuring their chest and back with blades fixed to chains, small daggers or even razors, Upendra Prasad Shahi said, “The battle of Karbala was a war to save humanity and faith. We are proud that our ancestors, too, sacrificed their lives.”
Legend has it that Rahab Sidh Datt had fought on behalf of Imam Hussain in the battle of Karbala, sacrificing his seven sons in the process. Rahab was the leader of a small band of career-soldiers living near Baghdad at the time of the battle of Karbala. In his novel “Karbala”, Munshi Prem Chand mentions about Hindus fighting for Imam Hussain and referred to them as descendants of Ashwastthama, son of Dronacharya.
The Hussaini Brahmin sect is today a rapidly vanishing community. The younger generation of the clan are said to be abandoning their ancestral heritage, some seeing it as embarrassingly deviant. “We should, rather, feel proud of this tradition,” said Sharma who has painstakingly pursued his caste people to help revive this heritage. “Before the advent of Islam, we had blood relations with the people of the Arab world,” Sharma claimed.