Luttwak: Obama as Muslim Apostate

The New York Times published an op ed by Edward Luttwak, of the right-center the Center for Strategic and International Studies, who asserted that Obama is an apostate in the eyes of Muslim. Because he was born to a Muslim father, Luttwak claimed, Muslims would view Obama as guilty of the worst crime, that of rejecting Islam. Thus, contrary to the common view that Obama's Muslim name and roots could improve relations between the USA and Muslim nations, Obama posed a risk. In fact, he would be the likely target of assassination attempts, and the Muslim security officers in other nations would not be able to protect him.

Because no government is likely to allow the prosecution of a President Obama — not even those of Iran and Saudi Arabia, the only two countries where Islamic religious courts dominate over secular law — another provision of Muslim law is perhaps more relevant: it prohibits punishment for any Muslim who kills any apostate, and effectively prohibits interference with such a killing.

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. 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.

That an Obama presidency would cause such complications in our dealings with the Islamic world is not likely to be a major factor with American voters, and the implication is not that it should be. But of all the well-meaning desires projected on Senator Obama, the hope that he would decisively improve relations with the world’s Muslims is the least realistic.

The logical conclusion from Luttwak's claims is that Obama is "damned if he is, damned if he isn't" a Muslim.

Today, the public editor of the Times reports that, after some fact-checking, Luttwak was wrong, and the paper should not have published the piece.