Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Obama - Apostate president?
iht.com — As the son of the Muslim father, Obama was born a Muslim under Muslim law as it is universally understood. It makes no difference that, as Obama has written, his father said he renounced his religion. With few exceptions, the jurists of all Sunni and Shiite schools prescribe execution for all adults who leave the faith not under duress.
Barbrady- 10 diggs
- digg it
- ssn697, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2"Of course, as most Americans understand it, 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."
Since when should I give a ***** about Muslim "law"? Same as Catholic "law" it means nothing to me.
You do realize that this story states that Muslims will hate Obama for converting to Christianity, don't you? - kaoru777, on 05/13/2008, -1/+3You do realize that this article is stupid and irrelevant.
- NoDrama, on 05/13/2008, -1/+1To: Editor, New York Times
Re: EDWARD N. LUTTWAK's submission, published on May 12, 2008
"President Apostate" is a smear masquerading as an Op-Ed piece, asserting that Senator Barack Obama is, according to Muslim law, a Muslim. Also by Muslim tradition (although not yet law), because he has converted to Christianity, he should be beheaded. It is a mistake to conflate his father's rejected Muslim heritage with Op-Ed pieces suggesting he'll be welcomed as a new face for American by Muslim leaders.
He does not live "under Muslim law." Obama is a native citizen of the U.S.A., and by all evidence a practicing Christian. End of storyline.
Will Obama be seen as a different sort of leader than George W. Bush if he's elected President? Naturally, he will be, as neither the son of privileged old money nor solely caucasian ethnically. This is a man of the world, but a citizen of the U.S.A. where the First Amendment to our constitution guarantees freedom to practice any religion one so desires despite the fact that a study by Cornell in 2004 showed 40% of Republicans favored forcing registration of Muslims to track there whereabouts.
That the Times would publish such sensationalistic tripe is a sad testimony on the state of journalism in the 21st century. Are we to pick our next President out of fear? Are we to doubt the competence of the Secret Service to protect whoever that President is?
Are we to understand that the New York Times is the new Fox network? - JoanDark, on 05/13/2008, -1/+1I believe NYT is in the Clinton machine.I have thought so ever since THEY ENDORDSED HER!!!
WHY???Brack is SO their type of candidate.
One reason:graft.
Now THIS is the last straw.
And it is so OLD NEWS:
A Jew is a Jerw no matter whether we convert or etc.
In fact being a Jew is not even a religoius thing, it is a racial thing.Nazisd killed us whether we were observant Jews or noew, whether we were full-blooded or not.
I am a Jew, my kids are half Irish.But guess what?If it were Hitler's heyday, my kids would be shoveled in, because the mother was a Jew.
As far as WILLIAN Luttvak, I've seen some good stories from him.But this MORE than cancels them.This is the MOTHER of vile, sleazy, sensatialist journalism, and a horrible example of twisting facts(IE--how does one CONVERT from a religion one never practiced or knew nothing about??).
I'm completely appalled, and I can NOT believe NYT would print this TROUBLEMAKING piece of *****.
I would write this at NYT but THEY are "no longer accepting comments".
I WILL write to editor, you can BET on it.
joan - GretaG65, on 05/13/2008, -1/+1This absolutely is a smear column pretending to be an op-ed. Shame on you NYT for publishing this...disgusting!
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by