The Facts
Posted by Ilan Goldenberg
The NYT Public Editor takes down the terrible editorial by Edward Luttwak in their op-ed pages a couple of weeks ago arguing that Obama would be seen as an apostate in the Islamic World and would therefore alienate the entire Middle East.
All the scholars argued that Luttwak had a rigid, simplistic view of Islam that failed to take into account its many strains and the subtleties of its religious law, which is separate from the secular laws in almost all Islamic nations. The Islamic press and television have reported extensively on the United States presidential election, they said, and Obama’s Muslim roots and his Christian religion are well known, yet there have been no suggestions in the Islamic world that he is an apostate...
With a subject this charged, readers would have been far better served with more than a single, extreme point of view. When writers purport to educate readers about complex matters, and they are arguably wrong, I think The Times cannot label it opinion and let it go at that.
I admit that as someone who blogs regularly, there are times when I write about things that are outside my area of expertise. And I think that is OK. It's part of the nature of blogging and the public exchange of ideas, as long as you don't take yourself too seriously, keep an open mind and are willing to listen to those more expert than you.
But there are certain issues, which as a non-expert I wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole. They are simply too important, too controversial and too complicated to write without a comprehensive base of knowledge. Making bold assertions about another religion that you do not really understand is near the very very top of that list.
Hands and feet cut off, nails stuck in their eyes, and left to die of dehydration was the fate for ex-Muslims under the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).
It was the practice of the Prophet to have ex-Muslims mutilated then left to die, according to the sahih hadith, the most trusted transmission of what he said and did.
The history of Prophet-authorized mutilation and execution is recorded in Muhammad ibn Isma’il al-Bukhari, The Translation of the Meanings of Sahih Al Bukhari, Arabic-English, vol. 4 trans. Muhammad Muhsin Khan (Chicago: Distributed by Kazi Publicatoins, c. 1976-1979) Book 52, Number 261:
A group of eight men from the tribe of Ukil came to the Prophet and then they found the climate of Medina unsuitable for them. So, they said, “O Allah’s Apostle! Provide us with some milk.” Allah’s Apostle said, “I recommend that you should join the herd of camels.” So they went and drank the urine and the milk of the camels (as a medicine) till they became healthy and fat.
Then they killed the shepherd and drove away the camels, and they became unbelievers after they were Muslims.
When the Prophet was informed by a shouter for help, he sent some men in their pursuit, and before the sun rose high, they were brought, and he had their hands and feet cut off. Then he ordered for nails which were heated and passed over their eyes, and they were left in the Harra (i.e. rocky land in Medina). They asked for water, and nobody provided them with water till they died.
(Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 261)
http://www.muslimaccess.com/sunnah/hadeeth/bukhari/052.html
Posted by: E. Trashorama | June 02, 2008 at 08:23 AM
Hands and feet cut off, nails stuck in their eyes, and left to die of dehydration was the fate for ex-Muslims under the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).
It was the practice of the Prophet to have ex-Muslims mutilated then left to die, according to the sahih hadith, the most trusted transmission of what he said and did.
The history of Prophet-authorized mutilation and execution is recorded in Muhammad ibn Isma’il al-Bukhari, The Translation of the Meanings of Sahih Al Bukhari, Arabic-English, vol. 4 trans. Muhammad Muhsin Khan (Chicago: Distributed by Kazi Publicatoins, c. 1976-1979) Book 52, Number 261:
A group of eight men from the tribe of Ukil came to the Prophet and then they found the climate of Medina unsuitable for them. So, they said, “O Allah’s Apostle! Provide us with some milk.” Allah’s Apostle said, “I recommend that you should join the herd of camels.” So they went and drank the urine and the milk of the camels (as a medicine) till they became healthy and fat.
Then they killed the shepherd and drove away the camels, and they became unbelievers after they were Muslims.
When the Prophet was informed by a shouter for help, he sent some men in their pursuit, and before the sun rose high, they were brought, and he had their hands and feet cut off. Then he ordered for nails which were heated and passed over their eyes, and they were left in the Harra (i.e. rocky land in Medina). They asked for water, and nobody provided them with water till they died.
(Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 261)
http://www.muslimaccess.com/sunnah/hadeeth/bukhari/052.html
Posted by: E. Trashorama | June 02, 2008 at 08:24 AM
Why are people so upset about the argument that an apostate like Obama by virtue of his father being a Muslim is punishable by death. There are many who took offense with this observation saying that they are totally wrong and that they should examine the Shariah and consult Muslim theologians, but gave no cogent explanations why the argument is wrong.
Just look back to 2 years ago in US and NATO-controlled Afghanisthan. A Muslim was condemned to death by the AFGAN COURT for converting to Christianity from Islam. This in a country that survives due to the sacrifice and money of US and NATO. He barely escaped after an appeals court gave him a bail (under pressure from the Afgan govt and US govt) and he was wisked away in minutes to Italy and safety where he lives incognito. I rest my case.
Posted by: sam | June 02, 2008 at 09:48 AM