Orlando posed a puzzler yesterday: if you shut the Camp Delta prison, what do you do with inmates who have committed no known war crimes or acts of terrorism, but who still pose a security threat? How do you keep them from taking up arms or otherwise waging jihad against the U.S. and its allies?

It's triflingly simple: Ask them to promise not to.

"Huh?" I can hear you all saying. "That's crazy talk, acanuck. What's to stop them from breaking their word?" Well, first of all, the concept of "parole" has an honored place in Arab and Muslim history. It resonates.

There's the well-documented story of Balian d'Ibelin, a Christian commander captured by Saladin (Salah ad-Din to his friends). Freed in exchange for a promise never again to fight Saladin, he went back to besieged Jerusalem to pick up his wife and kids. While there, the Christian inhabitants pleaded with him to take over the defence of the city, and the bishop "relieved" him of his oath. Balian finally gave in, but wrote to Saladin apologizing for breaking his word. When the city fell, Saladin spared his life, earning praise throughout Christian Europe. He freed Balian again, but this time demanded a ransom -- cash up front.

But, you say, these Guantanamo inmates are not necessarily noble adversaries like Saladin. Some, at least, are would-be killers. OK, let's make it harder for them to break their word. These guys claim to want universal sharia (Islamic law), right? Let's bring Islamic law into the equation. Before offering Guantanamo prisoners parole, the Obama administration should request a fatwa. That's an advisory opinion from respected Muslim scholars. Two questions: Is it permissible for them to accept such an offer? And, if accepted, is such a pledge morally binding?

Islam has no central authority, like the pope speaking ex cathedra. But there are scholars whose rulings are widely accepted in the Sunni world (most Gitmo detainees are Sunni), like the sheik of the al-Azhar mosque in Cairo. (He's not, from what I can tell, considered a puppet of the Egyptian government, so his decision would not be politically suspect.)

Am I certain of a positive result? Hey, I'm not an Islamic scholar, I just play one on TV. But even the act of seeking such an opinion would earn Obama brownie points. And if the answer to both questions is yes, we're off to the races. I'm sure folks like Osama bin Laden would reject such a ruling, maybe even issue their own contradictory fatwa. But that would just underline the fact bin Laden lacks the training and authority to make any religious rulings. Win-win. 

Suppose, after being paroled, some of these guys do turn (or return) to jihad? Great! You can't buy that kind of PR. There are just 240 to start with. Only a small proportion (one in seven, a DOD report suggests) are likely recidivists, and we know who they are, so we can keep them under surveillance. The incremental harm they can do is negligible. And if we catch them at it, we'll make sure the world knows about it. It proves they are bad Muslims and not to be followed.

Meanwhile, Obama gets to carry out his pledge to shut Gitmo, and in the process saves much of the $80 million cost -- not to mention the political hassle -- of shipping the detainees Stateside. It's all upside, Mr. President. Give it a shot.