Does Being Born Muslim Help Obama With Islamists? No, But a Spine Might

Would Barack Obama have an advantage in dealing with Islamists, since his father was Muslim and Obama was raised Muslim for part of his childhood?  The answer is a definite no.

First of all, there is no appeasing Islamists.  Their entire purpose is to foment as much murder and mayhem as possible, and steps toward appeasement merely encourage them.

Second, in the eyes of Islamists, Obama will be seen as something even worse than an infidel.  He will be seen as an apostate:

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.

Likewise, under Muslim law based on the Koran his mother's Christian background is irrelevant.

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.

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).

With few exceptions, the jurists of all Sunni and Shiite schools prescribe execution for all adults who leave the faith not under duress; the recommended punishment is beheading at the hands of a cleric, although in recent years there have been both stonings and hangings.  ....

It is true that the criminal codes in most Muslim countries do not mandate execution for apostasy (although a law doing exactly that is pending before Iran's Parliament and in two Malaysian states). But as a practical matter, in very few Islamic countries do the governments have sufficient authority to resist demands for the punishment of apostates at the hands of religious authorities.

For example, in Iran in 1994 the intervention of Pope John Paul II and others won a Christian convert a last-minute reprieve, but the man was abducted and killed shortly after his release. Likewise, in 2006 in Afghanistan, a Christian convert had to be declared insane to prevent his execution, and he was still forced to flee to Italy.

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 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.

Does this mean that Obama should be denied the presidency on grounds that Islamists won't like him?  Of course not.  That would be mere appeasement, and appeasement is useless.

What this means as a practical matter is that Obama will not be able to use mere powers of persuasion to make progress in dealing  with Islamist regimes such as Iran and the Palestinian authority.  This isn't his failing; nobody can make progress merely by appeasing terrorists.  Those who think that our problem with Islamists is simply that we aren't being nice enough are living in a dream world.

As always, the only way the United States or other Western democracies can make progress in dealing with terrorism-sponsoring states is through overwhelming strength, common decency that fights only those battles that are necessary and builds alliances in the meantime, and consistency of purpose. 

Does Obama have the backbone it will take to act as a strong leader in the war on terror?  So far, he's shown no evidence of any backbone whatsoever.  Maybe that's a function of the fact that he's had a relatively comfortable life in relatively peaceful, prosperous times in American history.  Obama wasn't conscripted into the Army, thankfully, and didn't join voluntarily, and he's had no major challenges to overcome in life.  What will Obama do when he's in a pinch? Will he fight or cave in?

From what I know of Obama so far, he has very little fight in him.  In that regard, maybe his nomination battle with Hillary Clinton is doing Obama some good.  It's not the kind of battle in which human lives hang in the balance, but it may just be the toughest battle he's faced so far.

Update 1:  Ed Morrissey on the folly of Obama's proposal to talk with America's enemies:

Given the importance that Obama places on this approach to foreign policy — he seldom fails to mention it as an example of the “change” he’ll bring to Washington — one wonders why the media hasn’t pressed him on this rationalization. Obama isn’t merely saying that he’ll reinstitute diplomatic relations with Iran, which would emulate our relations with the Nazis and the Japanese prior to Pearl Harbor. Obama wants to have meetings without preconditions with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has publicly spoken of his desire to annihilate a key ally of the US, as well as Hugo Chavez, Raul Castro, and any number of thugs and tyrants. When did FDR, Truman, and Kennedy do that? Answer: never.

As I pointed out on Wednesday, even diplomatic contact didn’t help FDR with Japan and Germany. The Japanese used diplomatic negotiations as a stalling maneuver to get its Imperial Navy in place to destroy our Pacific Fleet in 1941. Our diplomatic relations with the Nazis only encouraged America Firsters and Nazi sympathizers like Charles Lindbergh to claim that Hitler had no animus towards the West and that he could be a bulwark against Bolshevism.

Maybe Obama could ask the Czechs how well unconditional talks worked for them during Munich. Neville Chamberlain insisted on holding peace talks to avoid war in Czechoslovakia, which could have defended itself as long as it held the fortifications in the Sudetenland long enough for Britain and France to beat Germany from the rear. Instead, Chamberlain carved up Czechoslovakia without its permission, and six months afterward, Hitler swallowed the rest of it whole. FDR, meanwhile, remained steadfastly neutral diplomatically until 1939, when he began clandestine support for the UK.

Negotiations with tyrants almost always leads to appeasement, which only postpones war until the tyrant is strong enough to wage it most effectively. It results in many more deaths and far more destruction because it gives the initiative and the timing to the tyrants, while building their credibility at home. William Shirer noted that the Germans were astounded when Hitler repeatedly bluffed the West during the years from 1935 to 1939, figuring each bluff would be called and Hitler destroyed as a political force. By the time he rolled into Poland unopposed except by the outmatched Poles, who expected actual military assistance from Britain and France, Germans would follow Hitler anywhere, convinced of his invincibility.

That’s what Obama’s “new approach” to foreign policy promises. It’s Neville Chamberlain without the umbrella. It certainly isn’t FDR or Truman.

Update 2:  Jack Kelly adds:

Sen. Obama is on both sounder and softer ground with regard to John F. Kennedy. The new president held a summit meeting with Soviet leader Nikita Khruschev in Vienna in June, 1961.

Elie Abel, who wrote a history of the Cuban missile crisis (The Missiles of October), said the crisis had its genesis in that summit.

"There is reason to believe that Khrushchev took Kennedy's measure in June 1961 and decided this was a young man who would shrink from hard decisions," Mr. Abel wrote. "There is no evidence to support the belief that Khrushchev ever questioned America's power. He questioned only the president's readiness to use it. As he once told Robert Frost, he came to believe that Americans are 'too liberal to fight.'"

That view was supported by New York Times columnist James Reston, who traveled to Vienna with President Kennedy: "Khrushchev had studied the events of the Bay of Pigs," Mr. Reston wrote. "He would have understood if Kennedy had left Castro alone or destroyed him, but when Kennedy was rash enough to strike at Cuba but not bold enough to finish the job, Khrushchev decided he was dealing with an inexperienced young leader who could be intimidated and blackmailed."

It's worth noting that Kennedy then was vastly more experienced than Sen. Obama is now. A combat veteran of World War II, Jack Kennedy served 14 years in Congress before becoming president. Sen. Obama has no military and little work experience, and has been in Congress for less than four years.