I have a response to this at Huffington Post.

Just one part:

First of all, under orthodox Islamic law, the punishment for apostasy can only be carried out by the state. Luttwack, with his facile understanding of Sharia, clearly doesn’t understand this. The clerics Luttwack is talking about can’t just stroll up to Obama and stick him in the sand. They have to go through the established procedural norms of Islamic criminal law which is inherently tied to the functioning of a state apparatus. This means that a country like Saudi Arabia or Iran or Pakistan would have to indict Obama on apostasy charges in their courts. Obviously this is not going to happen, because none of these countries have jurisdiction over Obama. Not only is it asinine for any of these countries to make such an indictment, it doesn’t make sense under international law — which, in case Mr. Luttwack has forgotten, is what the world is suppose to abide by. Luttwack’s affirmation of Islamic law over and above international law should raise concerns, not only about his expertise, but also his allegiances.

Read the whole thing.

Here is the introductory post on the subject. Stop by tomorrow.

If you haven’t done so, please become a registered user of Eteraz.Org. The siste is dedicated to activist Islam.

Registered users can comment, and create reader diaries. You don’ thave to use your real name. Pseudonyms are fine. Blogging is the ultimate channel for the exchange of ideas because identities don’t matter, only ideas do. Go here to register.

Here are some of the recent pieces of interest on the site.

“Open Letter to Western Muslims” by Ali Eteraz
Ali Eteraz calls forward-thinking Muslims to arms in this widely publicized and acclaimed essay.

“The Progress of Science” by Prof. Mohammad Fadel
A scholar of Islamic law debates the reasons it takes so long for discredited ideas to disappear in modern religion.

“The Lost Jihad: Love in Islam” by G. Willow Wilson
The author explores the Islamic principle of spiritual love in this provocative essay.

“We Need More Than Glossy Books On Islamic Poetry” by Thabet
An essay addressing the inadequacy of Muslim academia in a time when action, not words, are most needed.

“Whither Palestine?” by Aziz Poonawalla
Thoughts on the future of a struggle marked by violence against innocents, by the author of City of Brass.

Plus all of novelist Haroon Moghul’s writings, and reader diaries by site users all over the globe.

This urgent issue has brought me back from my vacation.

You may know that this has been a contentious issue in Pakistan. I wrote about a prominent religious reformist getting shot in the mouth (link below).

I have been in correspondence with individuals who are involved in the Women’s Protection Bill. While on one hand they have had to contend with the religious establishment, they have also ran into opposition by some liberal groups, and international NGO’s like Human Rights Watch, who find the proposed amendments inadequate.

What the reformists are trying to explain, however, is that while total repeal of the bill would be wonderful, politics is a process, and that means taking whatever progress that can be gotten right now. While concerns about the fact that the bill is being pushed through by a dictator (Musharraf) are valid, they are unfair in light of the tremendous abuses that will be alleviated if this bill is passed. In the short term, the reformists — and those backing the bill — need our support. Later, more progress can be made.

I am setting forth below a link to an op-ed (among others) which will appear in Pakistani press tomorrow. It cogently explains the situation and asks for international support. The reformists need to be recognized for the good they have achieved despite the enormous difficulties, and not to be criticized for what they have failed to achieve. Brown versus Board of Education was the work of a sustained legal attack by the NAACP starting in the late 20’s. Western NGO’s and Women’s Rights Organizations should be cognizant that the step towards gender equity and equality will not be one long one but will occur over a period of time. The best thing to do right now is to support the efforts of the reformists and later carry their torch further. It would be a terrible tragedy if after decades of efforts the amendments were tabled due to inadequate support by progressives. Well intentioned people around the world need to express their support. Here are some important links. I would be grateful if you could say anything about this situation. Feel free to publish this email, or link to any of the links below or publish them in full on your site. This is real life Muslim reform at work and it needs all the support and encouragement it can get. These are the kind of things that the MSM does not cover for which responsibility falls to bloggers.

Op-Ed appearing later this week in Pakistani press

The Right To Own Women – Longer Article by Sofyan Sultan

Women’s Protection Bill Cheat Sheet

Shooting A Shaykh In The Mouth (About Reformist Cleric Shot)

I can also make a copy of the bill available upon request.

Please see this link.

If you aren’t anti-war by this point, you need to at least become anti-Bush-running-the-war.

Now I have proof that I was correct and that other measures/solutions are necessary.

It also elucidates my views of the War in Iraq.

Needless to say, the younger generation of American Muslim (immigrants) thought the bloc-vote was wrong and expressed their contempt by voting for Nader. In the end, nothing good came out of either the bloc vote or the protest vote. Professor Sami Al-Arian, formerly one of the most active of the immigrant Muslims in the Bush camp, ended up with the entire DOJ going after him. Not only that, but his son was thrown out of a meeting with Karl Rove due to “security concerns.� But even aside from him, the single Muslim aide in the White House was dismissed after 9/11. And we know what happened to Nader and his supporters.

Then in 2004, Muslims really didn’t have a collective voice and voted on an anti-Bush platform.

There are two camps in American-Muslims. One, which just wants to be left alone, make its money, not be harassed from the authorities, and for America to take a peaceful approach to the rest of the world. It will pretty much vote for anyone who assures them these things.

The other, to which I belong, is the more “engaged� American Muslim, who is aware that in some cases America does have to intervene (Bosnia), who agrees that civil liberties are important, but who also wants to take a measured and tough (not merely belligerent) stance against Muslim extremism (both in its international and domestic variety). We are Muslims who feel that while Islamic theology doesn’t need a ‘reformation’ (largely because we are fideistic), its social, legal, and culture components certainly need overhaul. We disapprove of the way Muslim tyrants, terrorists, and demagogues are treating the rest of Muslims (and the world). We disapprove of the way they exclude women, gays, and minorities from discourse in the Muslim world, and how they stifle creativity and enterprise within American-Islam by having a myopic vision of what it means to be a “good� Muslim.

Read the rest at my blog and feel free to leave a comment.

The idea of an ICC is good: to hold individuals (and not states) responsible for violations of International Human Rights Law. The U.S., along with Iraq, Libya, et al., oppose it. England and France both support it. The U.S. want that an individual can only be liable if the state first consents. Obviously that strips the entire point of the ICC. The U.S., in the alternative, wants that any potential case should be approved by the Security Council. Even the British and the French don’t agree with that (which means we are in agreement with Russia and China on human rights).

I came across a good article which addresses many of the points of the U.S.

Second, U.S. leaders fear that an international prosecutor might bring politically motivated charges against U.S. officials. The concern about politically motivated prosecutions of U.S. (or other) nationals is understandable, but the treaty contains four important safeguards to address this concern.

* The court’s jurisdiction will be limited to the most serious international crimes, like genocide and crimes against humanity, and their commission must have been authorized policy by the state for the prosecution to proceed. The United States was closely involved in defining the relevant crimes and in establishing high thresholds to limit the court’s role.

* The proposed court is a court of only last resort. Under the principle of complementarity, the court will not be allowed to act when national judicial systems are available and willing to prosecute suspects. If a state carries out its obligation to investigate a suspected crime, even if it decides there is no reason to prosecute a suspect, the international court cannot intercede. The only exception allowing independent court action is when a state intentionally tries to avoid its international obligation by shielding a criminal from responsibility, as has been the case in Serbia. Because the international court is not designed to supplant effective national judicial systems such as U.S. military and civilian courts, it is extremely unlikely U.S. nationals would ever come before the international court.

* The prosecutor will be accountable to oversight by a panel of judges who will ensure that investigation by the prosecutor is warranted.

* Safeguards exist in the procedures for electing judges, who are to be highly respected justices of impeccable credentials, and for selecting the prosecutor, as well as for his or her removal if the prosecutor engages in politically motivated investigations.

These four safeguards should ensure that the United States would not be subjected to unwarranted charges.

Third, the United States claims that the court’s prosecutor has too much independence to launch investigations, because he or she could do so without a Security Council decision. But if the draft treaty had stipulated instead that the prosecutor could act only with a Security Council referral, then the Council role would surely have politicized the court, treating permanent members like kings, and putting them, as well as all those they would shield with their veto, outside the law. Again, this would be such an extreme violation of fair legal practice that France and Britain, although permanent members enjoying the veto power, both parted company from the United States on this question.

I think people in the states have to recognize the symbolic value of their government’s failure to adhere to international norms. The question is this: do we want to be seen as part of the world, or as better than the world? If the answer to that question is the latter, then are we surprised that the world doesn’t like us?