Obama’s Muslim ‘past’ still hanging around
-
- May
- 15
I keep hearing people talk about an odd op-ed in the NYT last week, which argued that many Muslims will see Barack Obama as a former Muslim who gave up the faith and is thus an apostate.
Edward N. Luttwak, a fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, wrote:
As the son of the Muslim father, Senator Obama was born a Muslim 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.Of course, as most Americans understand it, 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 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).
I was mystified by this argument. More importantly, so are many Muslim scholars.
Among several letters to the NYT was this one from Ingrid Mattson, president of the Islamic Society of North America:
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.
Hussein Rashid, a PhD candidate in Harvard University’s Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations, wrote a more lengthy response here.
Part of his essay includes:
Sen. Obama is an exceptionally charismatic speaker who was NEVER a Muslim. Although he was born to a Muslim father, his father renounced his faith. To be a Muslim is not a legal status that is transmitted by birth, like Judaism is confirmed through the mother. A child can be raised as a Muslim, but still renounce the faith when she reaches the age of comprehension without penalty. To be a Muslim is a voluntary act that must be taken on with full knowledge of what is entailed. In this instance Sen. Obama was not even raised as Muslim. He did not choose to leave the faith, he was never part of it. One can argue that his father was an apostate, but the son cannot be responsible for the acts of the father, that is “Muslim law as it universally understood.”
This entry was posted
on Thursday, May 15th, 2008 at 11:05 am by Gary Stern.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Share and Enjoy: 
| 
Print
| 
Email
The world of religion, we don't have to tell you, is vast. The purpose of this blog is for Stern to note, flag and comment on some of the more interesting religious developments on the scene – weighty and quirky, somber and laughable, far away and just down the road. He won't interpret Scripture, take sides in conflicts or judge anyone. But he will take advantage of the journalist's license to observe.
