See update at end
It's great news, of course, that Fox News Channel reporter Steve Centanni and his videographer, Olaf Wiig, have been released by their Islamist captors kidnappers unharmed. However, their release came at a price:"We were forced to convert to Islam at gunpoint," Centanni told FOX News. "Don't get me wrong here. I have the highest respect for Islam, and I learned a lot of good things about it, but it was something we felt we had to do because they had the guns, and we didn't know what the [blank] was going on." ... [B]efore the journalists' release, a new video was released, showing Wiig and Centanni dressed in beige Arab-style robes. Wiig, of New Zealand, delivered an anti-Western speech, his face expressionless and his tone halting. The kidnappers claimed both men had converted to Islam.
The way to convert to Islam is very simple. One simply utters the confession, "There is no god but Allah and Muhammed is in prophet." The confession is one of the "five pillars of Islam," that every Muslim is required to do. (The other four are making a pilgrimmage to Mecca, giving alms, praying daily while facing toward Mecca and fasting during the Islamic month of Ramadan.)
In Western jurisprudence coerced confessions are invalid in courts of law. This has not always been true, of course; for example, confessions resulting from torture were considered valid during the Inquisition and other times of the Middle Ages. But generally, coerced confessions of conversion to Christian faith, as opposed to confessions of juridical guilt, have never been thought valid. There have been exceptions. Again, I think the Inquisitiion was one, and during some of the eastern European anti-Jewish pogroms of later centuries, some Orthodox priests offered to baptize Jews to save them from persecution. These would have to count as coerced "conversions," although it was not the church, but civil authorities, doing the coercion.
So - were the forced confessions of Islam by Centanni and Wiig valid?
I would not count them as valid because there is no reason to believe from the men's reports that they experienced a religious change of heart. That is, the men's confession did not spring from faith in Allah, it was a deed done from fear of their lives.
But, let us remember that the basis of Islam, indeed the very meaning of the word, is "submission," not faith. There is no concept of original sin in Islam as there is in Christianity; indeed, while original sin is the conceptual glue that holds Christian doctrine together, it is entirely rejected in Islam. Christianity teaches that original sin cannot be remitted by any human works, only by the works of God, namely, Christ dying and resurrected. Hence, no deeds human beings can do can bring them to salvation. Thus, wrote St. Paul, "If you believe in your heart that Jesus was raised from the dead and confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, you will be saved." Note the order: confession follows a change of heart, an affirmation of belief. Without the change of heart the confession's utterance is of no value.
But in Islam, the confession's utterance is unconnected to a change of heart. In fact, a change of heart is wholly irrelevant. The confession stands alone and its only point is that it is done, not that it is believed. The entire edifice of salvation theory in Islam is built on one thing alone: human submission to perform deeds ordered by Allah. Islam does not teach that Allah desires human beings to love him; they are commanded to obey.According to the Koran, “humans have been created with a sound nature and provided by God with a true religion that enables them to have fullness of life through close communion with God in this world and the next. ... God’s revelation to Muhammad and Muhammad’s words and actions, as gathered in “authenticated” Hadith, provide rules of correct action; unlike in Christianity, where original sin precludes salvation without God’s grace, here man’s nature enables him to act in ways that merit God’s grace. While not easy to follow, the rules do not demand anything that people are incapable of accomplishing through their own capacities; the rules guide men to paradise.
So according to the precepts of Islam, were Centanni's and Wiig's confessions valid? Any Muslim, not just their captors, considers it so [see update, below]. That they were uttered "at gunpoint" is not inherently objectionable. The guns simply enabled the two newsmen to understand that submission to Allah was required of them. Regardless of what Centanni or Wiig may think or believe, a lot of Muslims now consider them to be of their religion.
Update: I will confess to being overbroad in claiming that "any Muslim" would consider the two newsmen's confessions as valid. Certainly, their captors did and so announced it to the world. But I wrote too hastily. Whether forced conversions in Islam are considered valid by Muslims is a matter of controversy within Islam's history. Thanks to PD Shaw's comment for linking to an explanation of jihad by Abd-al-Masih:
Idolatry is the greatest evil that exists, so warfare is considered legitimate as a means to rid the world of this evil. Idolators may be forced to convert to Islam, on pain of death or enslavement. It is an act of piety (in Islam) to make converts in this way [but] Christians and Jews, should be granted a certain measure of toleration within the Muslim community, e.g. it is contrary to Muslim law to convert a Jew or Christian by force... .
Christians and Jews have historically not been considered idolaters in Islamic history since Muslims claim that the God of Abraham and the God of Jesus is the same as the God of Muhammed. The captors of Centanni and Wiig would have presumptively considered them Christian, but that may not have mattered when it came to coercion. Consider Shaw's citation of present-day Egyptian textbooks:
If a Protected Person [Dhimmi] is forced to convert to Islam, his conversion is valid. If a Harbi [non-Muslim alien] is fought against and converts to Islam - it is valid... If the [same] Dhimmi returns [to his former religion], he is not killed [like an ordinary apostate], but imprisoned until he converts to Islam [again], because there is doubt regarding his belief [when he was forced to convert]. There is a possibility that it [i.e., his forced conversion] was sincere, so he is to be killed as an apostate. It is [also] possible that he did not believe [in Islam while having been forced to convert] and then he [should] be a Dhimmi and shall not be killed... Selections for the Explanation of [the Book of] "Selection", Grade 10, (2002) p. 168 (Azharite)
Naturally, the defenders of the kidnappers have rushed to drag out the tired old quote from the Quran that "there is no compulsion in religion," but I would suggest that how most Muslims define "compulsion" and non-Muslim Westerners define it don't line up too good. Also, here's an interesting point: what would the western media's reaction be if the US started requiring Gitmo prisoners to be baptized into the Christian church as a condition of their release? And, as Dean Barnett points out, what was being said by the media that Centanni and Wiig were "released unharmed"?
Interesting locution there, “released unharmed,” no? This comes from the newspaper that believes that a Christmas crčche or a prayer uttered before a high school football game is a violation of the highest order. And yet being forced to adopt another faith at the point of a gun doesn’t rise to the level of “harm” in the Times’ judgment.
Good question.
Peter Hopkirk's excellent "Great Game" books has numerous examples of British and Russian adventurers/diplomats/soldiers who were forced to convert under threat of death during their 19th century Central Asian explorations. At least in one case, I believe a British explorer publicly recanted his conversion as the result of torture and was then recaptured. He was either decapitated or buried up to his neck and had horses run over him.
Unfortunately, the Fox newsmen should probably avoid returning to the region.
It's not a confession, though. It's making a statment of believed fact. To make a statment of belief, you have to actually believe it - otherwise you're just mouthing words - so the question is whether Centani and Wiig actually believe there is only one God, and Mohammed is his prophet, not the circumstances underwhich they uttered the statment. I bet they're not athiests or polytheists, so probably are actually technically sincere about the 'no god but god' part, but probably aren't so sure about the prophet status of Mohammed part.
That's pretty much it.
Centanni and Wiig are on tape submitting. Anything uttered by them thereafter that sounds like, 'no I'm not a muslim', will translate into an automatic death sentence at the hands of the first jihadi group that makes line-of-sight contact with them.
Jihadis don't do nuance.
In Judaism a forced conversion to Judaism is invalid. This is well established in Jewish law. However not all things that Western thinking would consider "involuntary" are so thought in Jewish law. For example, a man can only divorce by his own will - a court cannot grant a woman a divorce. However a court CAN direct a man to be flogged for failing to grant a divorce - a divorce granted under such circumstances is "voluntary" This stretch was made because the rabbis had to find an out to what to them was a particularly difficult aspect of biblical law - the ability of a man to unreasonably refuse his wife a divorce.
The fully grasp the rationales behind distinctions like this, one must actually study Jewish law in some detail.
I would suggest that to understand Sharias views of involuntary conversions, one would actually have to ask someone versed in Sharia. I would not go by some speculative reasoning on the part of someone who isnt actually versed in Sharia. Sharia, Jewish Halacha, and anglosaxon common law, all have the charecteristic of leading to results that often seem counterintuitive to those who look at them without sufficient training.
'I would suggest that to understand Sharias views of involuntary conversions, one would actually have to ask someone versed in Sharia. I would not go by some speculative reasoning on the part of someone who isnt actually versed in Sharia. Sharia, Jewish Halacha, and anglosaxon common law, all have the charecteristic of leading to results that often seem counterintuitive to those who look at them without sufficient training.'
WTF?!?!?!?!
Okay, you whistle up 30 sharia scholars who say a 'forced conversion' is invalid. Then the hezbos, or IJ, or AQ, or the MB's, or any jihadi group whistles up their pet iman who says: apostate.
Bang. End of discussion.
You do understand the nature of our foes, right?
Well Gee, this seems to make things a lot easier.
I remember being on an internet chat room a few months ago. The subject was Islam, and being brought up in a Protestant home, I had no problem with the "one God" part. Now that I am older and more liberal in my religions views, maybe Mohammed was his prophet. What do I know? So I said the magic words.
Whammo! Now I am a Muslim. Who knew? Wonder if I get any kinds of benefits, like towing insurance?
I say we all just say the magic words, then, just like magic, we can all become the moderate Mulsims we keep wondering about!
Seriously. If the definition of being a Muslim is this broad it is no wonder that they count so many people as Muslims around the world. Heck. I became one and didn't even know it.
One tires of the ignorant commenting as authorities through the cloud of their prejudice.
Koran 2:256 says "Let there be no compulsion in religion . . "
The Koran is the ultimate authority in Islam.
The esteemed 19th century Islamic scholar Abdullah Yusuf Ali, adds as commentary: "Compulsion is incompatible with religion: because religion depends on faith and will, and these would be meaningless if induced by force . . "
Islam is unfortunately ridden with distorted belief, just like those Christians who believe in the "Rapture."
According to legend, Charlemagne mass-baptized a Saxon army by driving them into a river. The Saxons kept one hand raised, so that their sword-arms would remain pagan.
Just thought of that because I noticed that Steve and Olaf were holding up their trigger fingers. If the head-choppers ever get ahold of me, that's the way I'm going to do it.
More from the Koran, 10:99:
_If it had been the Lord's Will,
They would have all believed -
All who are on earth!
Wilt thou then compel mankind,
Against their will, to believe!_
From the commentary by Abdullah Yusuf Ali on this verse:
"Men of faith . . . must guard against the temptation of forcing faith . . . Forced faith is no faith."
I'm not religious, so it's not my God vs. their God, the way it is for the Rev. I just like a certain fidelity to the truth.
A forced conversion to Christianism hasn't ever been formally considered valid, at least in Western Europe. Nevertheless, during riots, such conversions have occurred and sometimes have been tolerated, though, in the end, they led to the problem of heresy among new Christians, that is, the converted ones went back to their former religion in secret.
I'll preface this by saying that this comment comes from the ease of my comfy chair...
These guys just proved to the Islamofascists how decadent and weak the West is. Countless Christians over the centuries have gone to their deaths rather than submit to this sort of coersion. I believe a few Crusades were launched to save Christians from such practices.
I daresay that the IF's have even less respect for these men than they did before they "converted". In their minds, the IF's would happily die rather than forsake their faith, such as it is. They cannot understand a person who is so weak that they would denounce their God at the point of a gun.
...Centanni told FOX News. "Don't get me wrong here. I have the highest respect for Islam, and I learned a lot of good things about it...". Sounds like the Stockholm Syndrome.
CPT is on the right course. You can't sit here invoking logic when you're dealing with a death cult.
Two different issues are being mixed up.
It is forbidden to force a human being to convert to Islam. It is forbdiden to drink alchohol. It is forbidden to do a lot of things.
The question is whether or not a forced conversion is valid.
One argument is that jihad against idolatry is the more important scriptural mandate:
Along these lines of reason, the forced conversion of dhimmis (jews, christians, etc.) is often distinguished from that of non-believers:
Azharite 10th Grade textbook
So once again we are in the absurd position of saying that Islam, like Communism, is something that "hasn't been tried yet". And pretending that a teeny-tiny minority of bogus Muslims run all Islamic countries, write all Islamic law, and engage in terrorism in their spare time.
When you have a gun pointed at your head, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that Islam is not what the Koran says, it's what Muslims do. And by their fruits ye shall know them.
"Okay, you whistle up 30 sharia scholars who say a 'forced conversion' is invalid. Then the hezbos, or IJ, or AQ, or the MB's, or any jihadi group whistles up their pet iman who says: apostate."
I dont know how to whistle up Sharia scholars. However it was Rev Sensing who brought the matter up, and didnt cite a single scholar on the matter. Since then weve had one person who cited a Koran text that sounds like it wouldnt allow for conversion by force, but that also was not an actual legal ruling.
Only PD Shaw has actually cited a source on Sharia law, and that gives the indications that the conversions would be considered kinda, sorta valid. Shaws source, IIUC, is neither the most "liberal" nor the most reactionary source. Id certainly be interested in seeing the full range of opinion, and the rationales for each.
But I stand by the fact that the original post did not cite legal opinions, which is what is relevant. It would be as if Rev Sensing tried to guess what Orthodox Jews could eat, by reading Leviticus and speculating, instead of actually consulting a source on Kashrut. Wed get halacha according the school of Sensing, not anything that told us anything about what ANY Jews actually do. Somehow we accept this kind of reasoning wrt Islam, cause of the manifold problems Islam has - and yes, Im quite aware of who and what our enemies are. I also think the threat from Salafist terrorism, and the related threats from Khomeinism and pan-arab nationalism, are serious enough to want to be precise in our investigations of the Islamic world.
ArabNews out of Saudi Arabia in their story about the release of the two journalists mentioned that their conversion was coerced.
GulfNews out of Abu Dubai did not see fit to print that little bit of information in their story about the release of the journalists.
It would seem to me that if all Muslims would agree that it doesn't make a difference if the conversion was at the end of a gun or not, then why does that fact need to be hidden?
There are many examples of "forced conversions" at swordpoint being considered valid.
For example, all of the Middle East, Al-Andalus, Sicily, Southern Italy, Southern France, North Africa, the Balkans etc were forced conversions. Anyone in Spain for example who renounced the forced conversion and went back to their old religion was killed in various Mediaval ways.
See the accounts of the Jewish philosopher Maimondes (sp?) for example.
Of course it's valid. The Prophet himself forced conversions at swordpoint. This is Islam as much as the pending death sentence for the woman who left Islam to convert to Christianity and marry a Christian in Malaysia, the sentence on the Afghani convert, or the hanging of a 16 year old for "immorality" ... honor killings, stonings, etc. That's all Islam. It is what it is.
re magic words
The magic words that there is only one God, and Mohamed is his prophet (the Shahada), need to be understood within the context of Man's innate predisposition to Islam. This predisposition is called fitrah.
In a world of innate goodness, the central conflict in Islam becomes the danger of forgetting:
Fitra: The Islamic Concept of Human Nature.
Thus reciting passages from the Koran, even when one doesn't understand Arabic, has an important role in reminding one of divine law already etched on one's soul. From this background its clear that the recitation of the Shahada might be viewed as more powerful than just a bunch of words.
Fitrah is alien to Christian conception of original sin (as discussed by the Islamic scholar in the second article). The notion of subconscious predisposition to Islam is probably also alien to non-Christians.
NahnCee:
The coercion wouldn't need to be hidden if it weren't important.
But it also wouldn't need to be reported if it weren't important. So the fact that it wasn't reported says nothing about its importance.
PD: I'm a little confused.
If in passing, I say something like "I don't see what the big deal is. Why can't we all get along? I don't have a problem with the view that there is only one god and Mohammed was his prophet"
Does that make me a Muslim? It justs sounds too stupid to be true. I still consider myself a Christian (although a non-observing one). Heck, at this rate, I could end up being Jewish and Hindu by the end of the year. Then all I need is some sort of multiple personality disorder, and I'll be kicking the heck out of myself by Christmas.
the defenders of the kidnappers?
I point out a couple of well-known passages from the Koran directly contradicting what the Rev-er-end wants to kick off his Two Minutes Hate with, and the Rev-er-end says it's a "tired old quote," and I'm a "defender of the kidnappers."
If the quote was so tired and old, why didn't you mention it in your first post, Rev-er-end?
Here's another "tired old quote," from Matthew 19:, and elsewhere: You shall not bear false witness.
Another reason why I think religion is BS, many of the rev-er-ends are charlatans and haters.
Does this now imply that if they don't follow Islamic law they could be subject to Apostasy (a death sentence according to Charles)?
Does [saying the Shahada] make me a Muslim?
No, I don't think so. I believe the declaration should be sincere. But jihadists have been known to require the Shahada to be repeated multiple times or over a period of at least 24 hours to ensure sincerity. "Are you sincere?"
You could ask the question in another way. How stupid are the kidnappers to believe that the mere recitation of the Shahada is enough to make anyone a muslim?
I think the answer is twofold: (1) the Shadada is one of the pillars of Islam and thus has a uniquely important role when compared to other religions and (2) Islam's essentially positive view of human nature.
None of which is meant to imply that the jihadist view is the only view of forced converstions. Its just the view that I believe is being taught in religious schools in places like Egypt, Pakistan and Sudan where we find lots of forced conversions today.
"Does that make me a Muslim? It justs sounds too stupid to be true."
How's that for multi-cultural sensitivity?
A central aspect of the belief system of nearly 1.6 billion people and you think, "It just sounds too stupid to be true."???
Seriously, it doesn't matter what you think of it, it is the natural consequence of what they believe. If you believe that salvation is the result of works and not faith, then it naturally doesn't matter whether you believe any of the things that you say or do - it only matters that you do them. So if you go through all the motions thinking the whole time, "This is a load of crap.", its the largely the same as if you fervently believed in the righteousness of everything you did. Most Islamic scholars would probably say that the one is better than the other only in that in the latter case you enjoy your submission. But that hardly matters.
Take a walk in thier shoes and imagine you sincerely believe this stuff. If it doesn't matter whether or not someone believes, only that they do, then converting someone by force - who might otherwise not do what was the will of Allah - is just about the nicest thing you can do for them. It's equivalent to forcing your rebellious child to eat his vegetables and otherwise do the things that are healthy for him. It doesn't really matter if he likes them, likes you, or believes that vegatables are 'yucky', what matters is that he's been 'saved' by doing it.
Whatever you think of the belief system, it is not 'stupid', in that its something which demonstratably highly intelligent people can believe or even come to believe. Any pious Christian can tell you that there are aspects of the Islamic belief system which are ntellectually 'easier' to grasp and which are less confusing than what Christians believe - which is another belief system which whatever you think of it demonstratably highly intelligent people have sincerely believed. I believe that what they believe is wrong, but I don't consider them stupid for believing it.
No, you can believe that the belief system is 'wrong' or even 'evil', but you can't just dismiss it as stupid. That's unfair. Likewise, you can't brush aside all religious belief as being the same and hope to understand anyone's sincere religious belief. If anything, its dismissing all religions as being 'the same' which is 'stupid' and the sort of thing which no intelligent and informed person could believe.
As for you being a Moslem, I think you have to say the exact words. Saying something similar to the exact words isn't good enough. It's a prescription. Altering the recipe doesn't result in the same product.
PD says nope, a simple recitation is not enough. Celebrim says yep, that's all it takes, you insensitive clot. But I got the words wrong.
Dag. I'm not even a good Muslim. Because I got the words wrong maybe I'm a member of some sort of strange sect of Protestant-Muslims. I hope we get ID cards. Or at least funny hats.
Practically speaking, this seems to be a problem for public figures, like the reporters. If I understand this correctly, some Muslims will view this as a conversion and some will not. So the Fox guys probably shouldn't get caught again by the folks who think they converted.
I can't comment on Islamic theology, sorry. I know that Christian theology looks for a belief in the heart, a conversion, a re-birth, etc. But the Koran, after all, is "The Recitation" so who knows? In such enlightened times, however, if the nutjobs want a few million people to say something they obviously have little belief in, then that sounds ineffective and counter-productive to their assumed plans to actually convert people. Maybe back in the day, in 1200 or something, Islamic conversions at the tip of a sword meant something to all concerned. But today? Most westerners are fat, lazy, and apathetic about even their own beliefs, much less those of others. Look at the Iranians. Led by total crazy people. But a large part of the people just want their satellite TV, cellphones, and I-pods. You think they are as "on fire" as the mullahs?
By "stupid" I meant using a tactic that does not advance your own strategy. I respect their right to believe whatever they want: I just think their evangelism methodology could use a little polishing.
I guess I could start my own religion. To join, you just say "I'd like a Big Mac". I bet within a day or two, I'd have ten million new members.
"None of which is meant to imply that the jihadist view is the only view of forced converstions. Its just the view that I believe is being taught in religious schools in places like Egypt, Pakistan and Sudan where we find lots of forced conversions today."
I think this is entirely correct. I would not say that acceptance of forced conversions are universal. For example, the official Saudi religious scholars reject forced conversion, and it least in theory (thier own theory) they have preemience of place and dignity amongst Sunni Immans.
The problem with the official Saudi stance which makes it less than credible, is that they also deny that forced conversions have ever taken place in Islam, they deny that forced conversions are still taking place in Islamic countries, and they insist in the same Fatwa - in a country which forbids the practice of Christianity on pain of death - that Islam is the only system of belief which gaurantees religious freedom.
This compells me to believe that what they define as "compulsion" and "freedom" are very different than how I define them.
PD Shaw:
The Fitrah you describe is hardly alien to Christianity. Much Christian doctrine describes an innate knowledge of God in each individual, that is antecedent to experience and even existence.
Neither is the idea of original sin alien to Islam. The writer you quote above nicely recapitulates it with his idea that Satan (or Mom and Dad, they seem to be synonymous here) tempts each individual into sin - "sin" in this case being Judaism or Christianity. You can split philosophical and theological hairs all you want, you get the same existential situation.
These parallels are not surprising, given that Islam originated as a sort of simplified Christianity, in which all the controversial issues of Mohammed's day (the Trinity, the nature of Christ, the nature of sin and salvation, the nature of the priesthood) are pared down to single formulas.
Where Islam radically differs from Christianity, of course, is the mechanism of salvation. To most Christians, salvation does not end the possibility of sin, nor does it absolve a person of all future responsibility for his acts. It is contrary to all the main Christian religions for an individual to be the agent of his own salvation, still less for an individual to achieve salvation by flying a plane into a building full of people.
Another major distinction between Christianity and Islam, which is painfully apparent in world politics, is that Christianity since the Middle Ages has coexisted with a secular world. Martin Luther noted that adopting the Christian religion did not turn Europe into a political utopia; on the contrary, its government was somewhat inferior to that of the Muslim Turks. That was because Christianity operated in an entirely different realm (Faith) than that which governed the secular world (Reason).
The insight that Godliness is not the same as competence, and that Allah will not solve your social and political problems for you, is still muted in the Islamic world.
Glen: Neither is the idea of original sin alien to Islam.
Glen, I've read many Muslim writers that have argued that Islam is better because it doesn't ascribe to the unfair doctrine of original sin. As you probably know, the story of the Creation in the Koran has a decidedly different resolution. I won't disagree that these writiers often charicature the doctine. (And I would question whether many Christians today would say that they believe in original sin) Still, I've never read anything that reconciled original sin with Islam.
This is an interesting article on the role of original sin in jihad. From one of the footnotes:
Rev. Sensing blogged about the article here.
It occurs to me that many fundamentalist Islamic people are fairly primitive and superstitious by western standards. The "magic words" being one example.
Here is a product for example, that gives westerners a vial of dehydrated pig's blood to keep in their pocket. If a suicide bomber attacks, presumably they are sprayed with pig's blood, which would be very bad for them, I guess.
I wonder how much mayhem the west could cause just by using whisper campaigns along these lines. If the kidnappers really thought the recitation was enough, what else would they easily believe?
observer:
Here's some other tired old quotes:
slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them, and confine them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they repent, and perform the prayer, and pay the alms, then let them go their way;
(9.5-6)
I shall cast into the unbelievers' hearts terror; so smite above the necks, and smite every finger of them!
(8.12)
Say to the unbelievers, If they desist from their unbelief, what is now past shall be forgiven them; but if they return to it, they have already before them the doom of the ancients! Fight then against them till strife be at an end, and the religion be all of it God's.
(8.39-42)
The question always has been, which verses take preeminece or how are the verses reconciled? The actual haters preach that the sword verses are the most important. And they lay the path of salvation before the faithful in a sea of blood.
PD Shaw:
What these writers are trying to assert is that Muslims believe that human beings are inherently good, while Christians believe them to be inherently evil. This also happens to be The Fool's Definition of the Difference Between Liberals and Conservatives.
If it were so, then most Liberals would be eager to line up with the Muslims against the misanthropic Christian menace. And they would be welcome to this definition if all Muslims were harmless soft-center liberals who prattle happily about the importance of self-esteem. Unfortunately the Jihadist presents a somewhat more challenging aspect.
If this belief in inherent goodness is a fundamental operative concept in Islam, then why does Islam not excel at charity, tolerance, and love? Why does it not - above all other religions - abhor the death of unbelievers, if those unbelievers are inherently good (even godlike) creatures who have merely been led astray from their true nature? Victims of an error that is so easily corrected? If human beings are stamped with the essence of Allah, is not a Muslim who kills a non-Muslim killing Allah himself?
And yet it was Jesus Christ, not Allah or Mohammed, who said, "As ye do unto the least of my children, so do ye unto me." What's up with that?
If the Christian supposedly regards human beings as evil, and the Muslim regards them as good, then why does the Christian speak of "love" and the Muslim speak of "obedience"? That's a complete logical inversion, because by all rights it should be the other way around.
I suppose I could take a page here from the hoary conservative critique of socialism and say that it's always the people who claim to revere human nature that wind up driving actual humans (who never live up to their standards) into gulags and mass graves. Or as they used to say, "The loudest cries for liberty come from slave owners." But I don't necessarily believe that, either, because in both politics and religion there is often a huge gap between what people say and what they really believe.
A typical Christian who lives his faith believes that his closeness to God will lead him to love good works and despise sin. It does not guarantee that he will consistently do good works or avoid all future sin. The Christian regards himself as continually dependent upon God. That's the difference between God and cough medicine.
Is this a "negative" view of human nature, which contrasts poorly with a "positive" view offered by Islam? Explain, and illustrate with examples, please. (Jesus adds, "Better yet, parables!")
Erm, does The Inquisition ring a bell? More than a few Jews were encouraged by the threat of torture or death to convert to Christianity, in numbers large enough to make Conversos/ Marranos an identifiable subgroup. Many would later be discovered in modern times to have 'family traditions' that survived through hundreds of years, such as lighting candles on Saturdays. Some of those conversions were also more, ah, openly and fully insincere. There were penalties for that, of course, if caught or even suspected.
So no, this isn't too stupid a doctrine to be possible, and despite the pious platitudes, conversion under duress has a long history and will be accepted as valid if the religion is fanatical enough or the situation makes it highly expedient to do so. If you're facing religious fanatics, it's one of the first things one should expect.
As Coptic Christians and Indonesian Christians would be the first to tell you. But you'd have to ask.
You can saee parallel examnples in the West itself, where Liberals call it "sensitivity training," or "dispositional assessment" and use its threat (or that of star-chambers/kangaroo tribunals that obey no rules for evidence or protection of the accused) to purge unbelievers from their domains (most recently, schools of education that train teachers) or create paper converts to their own religion.
The best response to that sort of thing involves bullets. Preferably in the heads of the people demanding such things, until it is understood that this is too dangferous a game and that those they wish to convert are not their lawful prey (NB paper duress measures call for paper bullets, but the point - career deaths until the game is grasped as too dangerous - remains valid)
Remember this"
"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity".
Now it appears that forced conversions are considered a good thing.
Nice to see Ann Coulter vindicated by the terrorists.
"There is no Devil but Satan, and Mohammed is his prophet."
Much more like it.
One last point, and I feel it is a critical one.
The vid of Centanni and Wiig converting to islam was not meant to impress you [in the West]. It's primary impact is for the jihadi's target audience.
What you saw were two men uttering a declaration, against their will.
What the jihadi's audience saw were two infidels with no strength of faith submitting to the 'one true faith'. A hardcore jihadi would rather eat a bullet rather than renounce his faith. They saw no such equivalent resolve in Centanni and Wiig.
The message of the vid: our enemy's will is weak, their faith is weak. We will triumph.
Now it's up to you to prove them wrong.
#17 from PD Shaw: "Fitrah is alien to Christian conception of original sin (as discussed by the Islamic scholar in the second article). The notion of subconscious predisposition to Islam is probably also alien to non-Christians."
That's a big "definitely" on that.
On the validity of forced conversion is in Islam - Muhammed (pbuh) obtained conversions by terror and force, and it's been OK ever since. If conversions by the sword were not valid, it would not be legitimate for those converted by the sword to visit Mecca. As far as I know, nobody has ever suggested such a thing. Arab history has endless examples of forced conversion, mass and individual, none questioned. (And I know "Arab" is not the same as "Muslim", but I'm just going by the focus of the history books I read.) In contemporary practice, forced conversion is common in Sudan and pretty much anywhere it is practical, and Muslim states do not oppose it. So it was valid in the beginning, it is valid now, and it has been valid at all times in between.
For the sake of fairness and reason, I would like to point out that there is and was a great deal of good in this, and no I am not being ironical or sarcastic.
From the point of view of people about to be killed for being of the wrong religion, the simple path into Islam is a great blessing. (For many, not for martyrs and for stubborn pagans of course.) This is as opposed to many pagan religions, where if you were not of the community you could join it (in almost all cases), but not quickly and trivially on a battlefield. Quickly and trivially is exactly what you want if someone is going to saw your head off otherwise.
Which would you rather: if you don't say "shiboleth" right you die, no reprieve; or there is an out if you recite this formula about Allah and his Prophet (pbuh) and in effect join the winning team instantly? (Naturally there will be follow up religious instruction - but if you are being assimilated into the winning side, maybe that's not such a bad thing.)
We are almost all of us descended from people who in one way or another, at one time or another, said "Thor no more" or the equivalent, and joined the winning team through pressures including force and fear. The greater part of mankind is genetically inclined not to die, and to consider an opportunity to escape violent death to be a Good Thing. People in enough danger want to be off the hot seat, and if you former co-religionists don't like that, tough, it's not their necks.
Cases like this have added to the honour of Islam (a religion of proud winners) and the shame of pretentious infidels, whose holy men were shown up as mere charalatans when faced with Muslim steel. That's a win/win outcome!
Sabbatai Zevi
Also, since that - fear and force, pressure and inducements - is really what it is about in so many cases, I think that the Muslim approach of just saying "this is OK, and many of our ancestors probably converted for the same reason" (plus the consoling doctrine of fitrah, which implies that it is never pure fear but also memory of inner truth) is better than the Christian approach of still obtaining conversions by the sword - and then denying that conversion from fear was legitimate, and picking endlessly, sadistically at the sincerity of the converts.
In a very broad brush sense, that was what the Inquisition was about. (Yes there were multiple inquisitions - let's not get into that.) It is better if your religion doesn't have something like that in it.
Re: #34 from CPT. Charles.
Amen to that.
I think this should settle it for any reasonable person.
Reciting the Shehada in Gaza, By Andrew G. Bostom
Thanks to
Michelle Malkin
I don't think that it is well-settled that all Muslims consider modern day Christians as People of the Book. For instance, at least Wahhabi Sunnis would object to such a characterization, inter alia, because modern day Christians profess the Trinity, which is deemed to be idolatry as Mohommed's understanding of God is that of a unitary God.
This objection is all the more curious because most if not all Wahhabis would assert that the Koran is a divine manifestation of God's creative word or logos. In Christianity, God's logos takes two forms:
1) the pre-existent word takes the form of the Holy Spirit; and
2) the word made flesh takes the form of Jesus. If the Trinity is idolatrous, why then is the Wahhabi's Duality of God not idolatrous? I'm open to education here. I really don't know the answer to this.
Glen: If the Christian supposedly regards human beings as evil, and the Muslim regards them as good
I'm probably punching above my intellectual weight here, but I don't think Christians regard human beings as inherently evil. Unfortunately, I am not sure that there is a single accepted interpretation of original sin because it seems to lie near the intersection of disputes which created the major schisms in Western Christendom. It is a strong inclination to sin or to depravity. A moral flaw in our genetic makeup.
In Islam, a child is born with "the believing nature...it is his parents who make him into a Jew or a Christian." It is his or her environment which might lead him astray. In a well-ordered, just environment, this would not be a problem.
The idea of man as naturally good and the desire to reform society to recreate that ideal state (through submission to the common will) does sound Leftist, as in Rousseau.
There is no compulsion in religion, only in jihad.
The Muslim Crusades
Jim (#16), Joe K (#31)
AFAIK forced conversions to Christianity have never been recognized as formally valid by the Church. That is a huge difference from Islam.
Jim,
For example, all of the Middle East, Al-Andalus, Sicily, Southern Italy, Southern France, North Africa, the Balkans etc were forced conversions.
That is, in my opinion, highly inacurate. For instance, in Al-Andalus lived many Christians, the Mozarabs (and Jews, such as Maimonides). Again, neither Muslims, who simply could flee southwards, nor Jews were usually forcibly converted in the Christian kingdoms that conquered Al-Andalus, except during riots, that is, when mobs stormed Jewish quarters; maybe because, as I said before, the Church did not formally recognize them as true conversions. It had its importance.
Moreover, forced conversions, such as the ones that happened during the 1391 rioting in Spain, brought the matter of heresy among new Chrisitians, creating new problems to the rulers of those kingdoms and making the Christians of those supersticious days to develop a mistrust towards any converted (marranos).
The kings finally introduced the Inquisition, and the people simply changed his anti-jewishim into antisemitism, that is, even after a true conversion they were discriminated, not because their religion, but because their ancestors, their "race".
With this civil conflict roaring for a century, finally the Catholic kings decided to apply the same solution that have carried out England and France and expell the Jews in 1492, letting stay the ones who converted, even when most of the population did not welcome them. There were no direct forcing then either in Spain, although it is true that in Portugal in 1497 Jews were mass-baptized.
J Aguilar:
I think Jim (#16) was making specific reference to Maimonides an important Jewish philosopher born in Cordoba who was forced to flea Spain in 1160 after the Almohads conquered Muslim Spain and non-Muslims were given the choice of conversion, exile or death. He is usually brought up in discussions about whether al-Andalus really was a golden age of tolerance. I don't think anybody thinks the Almohad dynasty was tolerant, but they weren't the only Muslim dynasty either.
I think Abd El-Rahman I, who was some kind of founder of Al-Andalus, was tolerant. Trained in Baghdad, he had sound political skills and he used them to build a kind of government based on a balance between Muslim factions (Yemenis, Arabs, Moors, Muladies...), Christians (Mozarabs) and Jews. He knew that was the only way to end the Civil War among Muslims that was going on then and survive in Iberia, which had then a Christian majority.
His succesors kept the same structure in their kingdom, suffocating occasional Christian and Muslim's faction uprisings. I am afraid Abd El-Rahman clearly acknowledged tolerance as an obligation, not a choice. Only a few Muslims have had in history his political vision.
This ended when the kingdom finally melt down in 1003. Sucesive invasions from Africa brought extremists that tolerate no longer other religions. I think at those same years Jews living in Mesopothamia also suffered persecutions. Something changed then in Islam.
Taking up again the main issue of the article, just remark that forced conversions there were never formally allowed by the Vatican, and when carried out, brought more problems than solutions, they nurtured antisemitism and civil unrest up to a point, I think, not fair exit could be found.