Unless he has better ideas

Edward Luttwak, of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, has an interesting article on the possibilities of an Obama presidency, this morning, in the International Herald Tribune.

Apostate president?

"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. (Some may point to cases in which lesser punishments were ordered - as with some Egyptian intellectuals who have been punished for writings that were construed as apostasy - but those were really instances of supposed heresy, not explicitly declared apostasy as in Obama's case.)

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.

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 Obama, the hope that he would decisively improve relations with the world's Muslims is the least realistic."

That last argument would be true, unless his policies are better, that is. That's why it's so important to keep our eyes on the ball and engage in a more substantive policy debate than these foolish little diversions like who is the most charismatic.

Whose policies would be better for the world and for America? Which ideas might be better? What policies and ideas have these candidates not been thinking about that might be constructive? And, most importantly, what policies and ideas have all of us not been or been thinking about that might be constructive?

The fact that we are focussed elsewhere is a sign of our arrogance. It is a presumption that we know more than we do about the challenges we face. And it is that arrogance that is undermining democratic progress and America's role in that in the world, today.

A humble commitment to an honest and genuine discussion about policies, ideas, and what might or might be be good and effective versions of either is where our focus needs to be today and always, to be frank.

It really is better ideas that matter in the world. Because it ideas that offer us some vision of where we are going amidst of world of perpetual uncertainty.

Liberty is one of the more important ideas that we have lost sight of recently. Liberal democracy, generally, is an idea that we have subsumed to our more naked and self-centered ambitions, lately. And much of the talk of law and rules has been a function of this loss of focus and a rationalization for power and a poor presumption that it can do more than it really can do in this world.

A President Obama or a President McCain, like a President Sarkozy or a Prime Minister Brown or a President Calderon or a Chancelor Merkel, might have leadership to offer, in the form of better ideas, better policies, and a genuine commitment to liberal and democratic values, if they choose to engage the discussion and debate about those ideas, policies, and commitments more honestly.

That is the choice that America and all liberal democracies face, these days.

To choose to do so would certainly be wiser and have better consequences for those with an eye on American leadership. It would sort through ideas to find better, more honest, and effective policies. It would engage differences honestly and offer more opportunity for humility in the face of the options and our understanding to choose between them. To choose otherwise would be foolish and have consequences, as well (and already does).

Perhaps America is ready to make a better choice with its elections.

But, if not, there are consequences for that, as well.