Converting To Islam At Gunpoint Is Harmless

"Martyrdom of St Erasmus" by Dieric Bouts the Elder ca.1458, Sankt Peterskerk, Louvain

 

Omri Ceren is one of my favorite bloggers. His own blog Mere Rhetoric is a must read, and he also co-bloggs @ Joe Katzman's estimable Winds Of Change. Today he sent me an e-mail, as usual hitting at the core and hitting hard with his brilliant post "Just Because You Were Forced at Gunpoint to Convert To Islam Doesn't Mean You Were Harmed In Any Way". Watch out for Omri, he is the new shining star of the Blogosphere 

We know we said we were done for today, but really, these people have just lost it:

Two journalists kidnapped in Gaza were released unharmed today after being forced at gunpoint to say on a videotape that they had converted to Islam. The two journalists from Fox News - Steve Centanni, 60, an American reporter based in Washington, and Olaf Wiig, 36, a freelance cameraman from New Zealand - were held for 13 days in an abandoned garage in the Gaza Strip as hostages of a previously unknown group calling itself the Holy Jihad Brigades.

You idiot! You total blistering idiot! Being forced to convert is a harm. It might be the oldest harm short of death - being forced to renounce your faith and your god. Millions of people - literally millions - have died rather than deign to utter words that would force them to give up their faith. No wonder liberal journalists are utterly baffled by fully half of the United States - they don't think having to give up your religion is harmful. We are beyond certain that if Muslim prisoners at Gitmo were forced to convert away from Islam as a condition of their release, the New York Times would not be putting the phrase "released unharmed" into their lede. Way beyond certain. There's a deeper explanation for how paragraphs like this can get written. It's not really bias, as much as it is the blind spots imposed by any ideology. And within that dynamic are questions about the degree of myopia and the room for self-reflection that particular ideologies allow. But don't worry about that right now. Just bask in the beauty of the phrase "forced at gunpoint to say... that they had converted to Islam... were released unharmed"

The liberals have replaced religion with politics, it's hardly surprising that they don't feel threatened by converting to Islam, after all politics is so all-defining and of such paramount importance to them that it defines who they are. Faithless is in, it's cool, it's liberating....into the abyss they go. But it is important for us to know that they are not afraid, that they are brave, that there is no imminent threat and that we are simply fear-mongering at best and bellicose at worst. Do we "need to return to the Iberian peninsula of the 14th and 15th century when the Inquisition forced conversion or the Herodian forced conversions that rent apart society for no purpose" to prove it? I sincerely hope not.

As I have now joined the elite ranks of anti-idiotarian bloggers who have been labeled "Nazis" for having the temerity to identify Islamofascists as the true heirs of the Third Reich, and a racist, a xenophobe, as well as of course an Islamophobe, for daring to be in favor of preserving our sovereignty, free of Shari'a oppression, and a bellicose Christian for having the audacity to advocate it vociferously, whilst still confirming my Christian beliefs, I feel the Democrats have now been uplifted to new dizzying heights of verbal lunacy as the elections approach and they desperately rummage around for scraps of policy to cling on to.

So now even keeping English as a unified language is racist. It seems like this verbal disease is spreading through the Democratic party, down from the very highest ranks, who have proven constitutionally incapable of reining in their superciliousness, and spreading the hyperbolic invectives through the ranks to the Democratic foot-soldiers, like a deadly virus. Have these people gone completely mad? According to my friend the gracious Neo-neocon, some time ago, anger is still in style on the left side of the world.

The Conversion video, courtesy of AllahPundit, and a must read on the Fox journalists' Islamic conversions from Andrew Bostom.

Dean Barnett @ Hugh Hewitt's is on the same page

Interesting locution there, “released unharmed,” no? This comes from the newspaper that believes that a Christmas crèche 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.

Donald Sensing, the inimitable blogger from One Hand Clapping, who should be on everyone's blogroll, is blogging some more wisdom @ Winds of Change today

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.

Comments

[Alcohol Rehab]

The notion of conversion is very skewed and distorted in almost every religion. But no one should be forced to convert. Why are you confusing history with Present?

[Kenny]

2 very quick points because right now I'm single-parenting 7 kids while my wife is in Asia and there is NO spare time for me.

1. I would, quite literally, die before even pretending to convert to Islam at gunpoint. Wouldn't even require much thought. There are worse things than death and publicly renouncing my faith -- even with fingers crossed -- is one of them. Probably a majority of devout Christians throughout the centuries have taken that line. These two reporters probably do not in fact feel themselves harmed; but then they probably are not from the Fact orientation when it comes to religion, and if a faux conversion achieves the desired results (in this case staying alive)...well, isn't that what religion is fundamentally about to most post-Christian Americans -- getting what you want out of it whether there's any factual truth to the words you're mouthing or not?

2. The faith-vs.-works distinction, in any but a pastoral context (which is the context of both the Pauline letters that are appealed to by the Faith party and the Jacobin letter that is appealed to by the Works party) is a classic example of naive theology, combining the logical fallacy of bifurcation with that of confusion between univocal and analogical speech. People who get into arguments about whether it's faith or works that saves are rather like people who argue about free will vs. predestination/the sovereignty of God, and both classes of quarrelsome persons are logically equivalent to non-scientists arguing bitterly over whether light is a wave or a particle.

The correct answer to the latter question is, of course, that light is itself, and nothing else, but with a caveat that then has a further caveat. The caveat to the short answer is that in certain contexts light is usefully thought of as analogous to an ocean wave, while in other contexts light is usefully thought of as analogous to a grain of sand on a beach. The caveat to the caveat is that if you push those analogies outside of the contexts in which they are useful you break them and get wrong answers. Part of being a competent physicist is knowing when to apply which analogies (that is, which equations give you the right answers to which questions).

In the same way, the correct answer to the question of free will vs. predestination is that our relationship with God, while (literally for lack of a better word) "personal" and therefore analogous with human relationships, is unique and not capable of being captured adequately in human categories (all of which categories are based on direct experience of human relationships). But this short answer, as well, comes with a caveat, and then a caveat of the caveat. The caveat to the short answer is that in certain contexts it is useful to think of our relationship with God as analogous to the relationship between a free citizen and a person whom he ought to obey but is not violently forced to obey (hence the passages that imply something we naturally refer to analogically as "free will"); but that in other contexts it is most useful to think of our relationship with God as analogous to the relationship between an absolute monarch and his subjects (hence the phrase "the sovereignty of God"). In fact sometimes it's useful to apply an analogy to the relationship between a husband and a wife, or between a father and a son, or between a shepherd and his sheep, or even between a potter and the clay out of which he is making a chamberpot. The caveat to the caveat, obviously, is that if you try to push those analogies further than the context in which they were intended to use, you will break them and come to false conclusions.

Which brings us to faith vs. works. Whenever you are tempted to congratulate yourself on the outstanding virtue that has made you deserving of God's favor, Paul is there to say that in this context you must remind yourself that it is by grace you are saved, through faith, and that not of yourselves: it is a gift of God, so that no man can boast. But whenever you are tempted to tell yourself that it doesn't really matter whether you sin or not because you're saved by faith not by virtue, there is James to remind you sternly that "faith" without works is dead, and to ask the sarcastically rhetorical question, "Can such faith save you?" (And of course Paul doesn't disagree in the slightest with James, which is why he says, "Don't be deceived; God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. The one who sows to please the flesh, from the flesh will reap destruction."

Christian "faith" is not nearly so much belief in a set of factual propositions (though that is a prerequisite to mature Christian faith) as it is a relationship of mutual trust and trustworthiness between oneself and God. And even at its most shallowly intellectual level, it is not assent to the truth of a proposition so much as it is enough confidence to act as though the proposition were true. A person who genuinely in his heart believes in the propositions of Christianity, and genuinely trusts in God's goodness and the validity of God's commands, can hardly continue to live as if there were no God or as if God had no objection to hedonism -- faith without works is dead. Yet at the same time the kind of virtue that springs out of person's desire to prove to himself that he is good enough to deserve God's favor, is fundamentally polluted at its source and damns rather than saves, since those who believe themselves healthy don't bother with the doctor who could save them -- it is by grace we are saved, through faith, and not by works. The dichotomy is as false a dichotomy as is the dichotomy between light-as-wave and light-as-particle -- if, that is, you insist on forcing the two analogies into competition rather than treating them, as they were intended, as complementary analogies for a reality richer than can be expressed when the very limited resources of human language are used univocally. The people who have it right are the people who say things like, "Work as if it all depends on you; pray as if it all depends on God." Tell me your context and I'll tell you the appropriate analogy to apply. Try to set one analogy up in competition with another to see which is "right" and which is "wrong" and I'll tell you as charitably as I can that you are a fool.

Probably way too much technical philosophical language there but I don't have time to be plainer. Also you should not leap to the conclusion that since God-language is ineluctably analogical there is therefore nothing you can say about God that is genuinely false -- but I really don't have time to discuss the nature of analogical falsehood or why it is generally speaking as analogically false (i.e., productive of false conclusions and self-destructive behavioral choices) to refer to God as our "Mother in Heaven" as it is univocally false to say that Jesus was a woman.

[antimedia]

My perverse mind thinks thus. Muslims are supposed to protect dhimmis (although they are second-class citizens), so as long as the journalists were not Muslims, their kidnappers could not kill them. (This, of course, is ignored by the terrorists, who kill everyone.) Now that they have converted, the Muslims in Gaza who kidnapped them can, in good conscience, kill them, because they will be apostate Muslims, having not been faithful to their new beliefs.

But that's just me. :-)

[LilMissIndie]

Jason, my initial response was so long that I thought it would amount to proselytizing on Alexandra's ticket and might lead to a huge misdirection in the thread. In short, it is true. I had to admit that I was a sinner (Romans 3:23), be willing to repent (Mark 1:15), and then accept Christ as my personal savior through the grace of God. Any good works I do are as a result of accepting salvation, not in exchange for. If you are further interested in the what, why, and how of it, this http://www.equip.org/hanksays/whatmustido.asp (sorry, I don't have the ability to link) may help.

[Jess1dering]

JASON P.,
Keep checking back, please.
I'd bet my bottom dollar that you'll enjoy a variety of responses on that question. :)

[JasonP]

Thanks, Mac Brachman, that helps.

[Always On Watch]

In one breath, Centanni told of being forced to convert; in the next he said something like, "Not that Islam is the problem, of course."

ARRGGGHHH!!!

[bernie]

Equally, for a woman there should be no harm in giving up her virginity at the point of a gun.

After all, one can surgically repair the hymen as easily as one can reclaim their prior religion.

Disclaimer for liberal idiots: ;)

[mac Brachman]

To JasonPappas: My understanding is that in the Protestant tradition, at least the Lutheran one, and closely-related ones, salvation is through grace (a free gift from God) demonstrated by faith alone, and his "faith not works" formulation was one of Luther's primary points of disagreement with Rome. He was specifically against the notion that sins could be absolved by the Catholic rite of confession (now known as reconciliation), which requires the intercession of a priest rather than from God or Jesus directly. Luther was of course most especially angered by the then-centuries-old practice of the selling of indulgences, whereby wealthy Christians bought their freedom from sins by making large endowments to churches, which in practice meant setting up priests in very un-Christ-like lifestyles. The Calvinist tradition in my understanding differs in presuming that souls are preordained for heaven or hell prior even to birth, and neither faith/grace nor works will change the outcome. I'm a largely secular, agnostic Jew raised in a very Reform synagogue (though I'm married to a devout but theologically and politically liberal Lutheran), so my understanding and/or memory may be flawed in this regard.

Off topic: today's best read on the Middle East situation, for me, was Dana Milbank's column in today's Washington Post (Tues. 8/29), which I read online. It seems the esteemed Profs. Mearsheimer and Walt, the learned scholars who propagated the "working paper" entitled "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy" of recent renown (or notoreity) were recently making the rounds in D.C., predictably blaming the Lebanon war, the Iraq situation, and everything but the poisoning of wells and the blood-ritual slaughter of Christian children on Israel and its U.S. supporters. Mr. Milbank engages in a very nice socratic dialogue with the honorable academics in which he thoroughly dissects their meretricious tripe. It is available at washingtonpost.com.

As for conversion from Islam to a non-Islamic religion, this is considered apostasy, as it was in medieval Christianity. In a number of Islamic traditions, it is considered grounds for immediate execution. Malaysia is the site of a case recently in the news about an ethnic Malay woman, born Muslim, who converted to Christianity after meeting and marrying a Christian man while traveling outside Malaysia. In Malaysia, ethnic minorities (largely Chinese and Indian) may practice any religion, but all ethnic Malays (who make up about 55-60% of the population) are considered Muslim regardless of what religion they practice or whether they practice one at all. The woman, from the news reports I have read, has not been threatened with criminal prosecution, but has been informed that her desire to have her conversion to Christianity and her Christian marriage recognized by the Malay state has been rejected. This at least seems mild compared to the case a few months ago concerning the Afghan man who converted to Christianity and was basically told he would not be allowed to live as a Christian in his native land (and who was threatened with death). Shalom to all. Mac Brachman

[JasonPappas]

"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."

Is that really true? Does Christianity believe that deeds are not required, living a certain way does not help, but only belief counts? Or is this just a viewpoint of some Christian sects? I'd like to know how central to the religion is the doctrine of the inherent sinfulness of each human being. References appreciated.

[Ghost Dansing]

"As I have now joined the elite ranks of anti-idiotarian bloggers who have been labeled "Nazis" for having the temerity to identify Islamofascists as the true heirs of the Third Reich, and a racist, a xenophobe, as well as of course an Islamophobe, for daring to be in favor of preserving our sovereignty, free of Shari'a oppression, and a bellicose Christian for having the audacity to advocate it vociferously, whilst still confirming my Christian beliefs, ....."

Oh, whoever called Alexandra a nazi just doesn't get the whole thing...and it is a ridiculous moniker for her challenges to Islamic Fascism...doesn't make sense.

The Islamic extremism that is causing all this heartburn is yet another anti-Liberal movement, that, while very dangerous, has for itself more commonalities with anti-Liberal movements of the past than anything Alexandra is capable of thinking or saying. I would say Alexandra is a Liberal. If you think about the similarities between the anti-Liberal movements of the past, reflected in the following excerpts, you may see why:

As an aftershock of WW I, "...antiliberal movements took root in Europe and in small degree even in the United States. As the years went by, though, those same movements spread to other places and eventually to every remote spot where Western culture had also spread--that is to say, almost everywhere. The antiliberal movements flourished in several different versions, sometimes in versions that seemed utter opposites of one another."

"The Communist insurgency in Russia, dating from the world war itself, was merely the first. Then came Italian Fascists, German Nazis, the Spanish crusade to re-establish the Reign of Christ the King, and so forth, each country producing movements of its own based on local mythologies and customs."

"Antiliberal movements of the left and the right saw in one another the worst of enemies (except when they saw one another as allies and brothers, which did happen). Yet each of the movements, in their lush variety, entertained a set of ideas that pointed in the same direction."

"The shared ideas were these: There exists a people of good who in a just world ought to enjoy a sound and healthy society. But society's health has been undermined by a hideous infestation from within, something diabolical, which is aided by external agents from elsewhere in the world. The diabolical infestation must be rooted out. Rooting it out will require bloody internal struggles, capped by gigantic massacres. It will require an all-out war against the foreign allies of the inner infestation--an apocalyptic war, perhaps even Apocalyptic with a capital A. (The Book of the Apocalypse, as André Glucksmann has pointed out, does seem to have played a remote inspirational role in generating these twentieth-century doctrines.)"

"But when the inner infestation has at last been rooted out and the external foe has been defeated, the people of good shall enjoy a new society purged of alien elements--a healthy society no longer subject to the vibrations of change and evolution, a society with a single, blocklike structure, solid and eternal."

"Each of the twentieth-century antiliberal movements expressed this idea in its own idiosyncratic way. The people of good were described as the Aryans, the proletarians, or the people of Christ."

"The diabolical infestation was described as the Jews, the bourgeoisie, the kulaks, or the Masons. The bloody internal battle to root out the infestation was described as the "final solution," the "final struggle," or the "Crusade." The impending new society was sometimes pictured as a return to the ancient past and sometimes as a leap into the sci-fi future. It was the Third Reich, the New Rome, communism, the Reign of Christ the King. But the blocklike characteristics of that new society were always the same. And with those ideas firmly in place, each of the antiliberal movements marched into battle."

"The wars that ensued, one after another in the decades after World War I, likewise shared a number of characteristics. Certain of the antiliberal movements succeeded in capturing a national state, from which they launched their wars in a more or less conventional manner: thus, the Nazis in Germany and the Communists in Russia. It was possible, as a result, to describe the twentieth-century wars in nineteenth- or even eighteenth-century terms--as wars of nation-states against one another, perhaps in alliance with other nation-states, bloc versus bloc. But the antiliberal movements were never fully synonymous with national states. The Franco-Prussian War of 1870 was genuinely a war between national states in the old-fashioned style."

"But the war between France and Germany in World War II was complicated by Nazism's ability to call on sympathizers and co-thinkers all over Europe, including in France--which is one reason why the French went down to defeat. Communism was likewise an international affair, even if simpleminded analysts on the anticommunist side found it comforting to picture communists all over the world as mere agents of a reconstituted Czarist Empire. Likewise the Warriors of Christ the King, who may have described themselves as narrow nationalists but nonetheless drew their support and even their Warriors from all over the Latin world. And the twentieth-century wars displayed one other pertinent trait. The liberal side in those wars, the side that stood for a liberal and democratic society, was never entirely sure of itself."

"The liberal side was internally divided. On the liberal side, there were always people, sometimes in large numbers, who suspected that the antiliberals might be correct in their view of liberalism and might even have justice on their side. And so the twentieth-century wars were ideological in a double sense. There was the struggle of liberalism against its enemies; and there was the struggle of liberalism against itself, a self-interrogation, which was liberalism's strength as well as its weakness."

"The present conflict seems to me to be following the twentieth-century pattern exactly, with one variation: the antiliberal side right now, instead of Communist, Nazi, Catholic, or Fascist, happens to be radical Arab nationalist and Islamic fundamentalist. Over the last several decades, a variety of movements have arisen in the Arab and Islamic countries--a radical nationalism (Baath socialist, Marxist, pan-Arab, and so forth) and a series of Islamist movements (meaning Islamic fundamentalism in a political version). The movements have varied hugely and have even gone to war with one another--Iran's Shiite Islamists versus Iraq's Baath socialists, like Hitler and Stalin slugging it out. The Islamists give the impression of having wandered into modern life from the 13th century, and the Baathist and Marxist nationalisms have tried to seem modern and even futuristic."

"But all of those movements have followed, each in its fashion, the twentieth-century pattern. They are antiliberal insurgencies. They have identified a people of the good, who are the Arabs or Muslims. They believe that their own societies have been infested with a hideous inner corruption, which must be rooted out. They observe that the inner infestation is supported by powerful external forces. And they gird their swords. Their thinking is apocalyptic. They imagine that at the end they, too, will succeed in establishing a blocklike, unchanging society, freed of the inner corruption--a purified society: the victory of good. They are the heirs of the twentieth-century totalitarians. Bush said that in his address to Congress on September 20, and he was right." (He's just incompetent in prosecuting the war, and belongs to a Political Party that undermines American Liberal values in its own right).

http://www.prospect.org/print-friendly/print/V12/18/berman-p.html

To the extremist, the Liberal seems weak...and indeed within the tolerant heart of Liberal Democracy is the seeds of its potential undoing...that has been exploited time and time again. However, in the end, it is only Liberalism that can accomodate diverse, heterogenous societies.

And, in the end it was not Communism that defeated the Nazis...and not the Nazis that defeated Communism. A Liberal Democracy has long supplanted Franco's Phalange.

Liberal Democracies can wage war, and win without becoming just like the extremist enemy...without compromising its Liberal values. However, Liberal Democracy MUST BE what is truly valued...not egocentric ideas of racial or religious grandeur...the mind of a hegemon; a potentate... the mind of "ethnic cleansing", pure races and pure religions, and perfect political orders.

Liberalism has long been the flower of civilization upon which those in jack-boots loved to tread.

I suspect Borislav Pekic believed in Liberal Democracy who saw that the extreme Leftest, and Extreme Rightist were, in the end, the same character...and that Liberalism required a maturity and grace in thought and action that cannot be found in extremist rhetoric, or the totalitarian fruition of the extremist's dream.

"I think of him often when I have some upstart liberal on my blog falling about, knocking furniture around the room and telling me how I don't understand what fighting for liberty and freedom of speech is all about. Perhaps I don't know or understand this new form of socialism liberals today call their own precious democracy, and perhaps I don't even want to." Alexandra

Perhaps not of Socialist bent...but a Liberal she is.

[jess1dering]

"As I have now joined the elite ranks of anti-idiotarian bloggers who have been labeled "Nazis" for having the temerity to identify Islamofascists as the true heirs of the Third Reich, and a racist, a xenophobe, as well as of course an Islamophobe, for daring to be in favor of preserving our sovereignty, free of Shari'a oppression, and a bellicose Christian for having the audacity to advocate it vociferously, whilst still confirming my Christian beliefs, ....."
CONGRATULATIONS !!! I read the above linked commentary on you, Alexandra. The thing that strikes me is how hateful those words are. That hate-drenched style seems to be an ear-mark of leftie commentary. I swear it's a spirit symptom just as fascism is a spirit phenomena. I sincerely congratulate you on the response you recieved from such a person. It's as it's been for many , many years. Some people hate the light with a violent, black-hole hatred. None of us should be suprised. I am not. Still, it hurts me to see such hatred directed at decent, brave, honest souls.
Last night two people were standing behind me in line. They were having a lovely conversation . Her grandfather had just died. The fellow she was talking to was recently out of prison and a new follower of Y'Shua. He was talking about how nice heaven must be: no more pain, misunderstanding, separation,
temptation. Her observation tickled me . "Yes, and no more mean people !!! " That WILL be nice, won't it.

[Ghost Dansing]

Crusader, personally, I think this whole "conversion" thing is a Muslim scam to get us all to send $25.00 to "Hideout Cave" ICO Osama Bin Laden for the "Idiot's Guide to Islam".

Don't do it, the discount price is only $17.06 from the Islamic bookstore at Yahoo.

http://islamicbookstore-com.stores.yahoo.net/b7072.html

ISBN:0028642333
Author: Yahiya Emerick
Publisher: Alpha Books
Pages: 383 Binding: Paperback

CIG to Islam reveals fascinating facts about Islam, showing readers that Muslims, so often demonized in the U.S., are more like “us” than we think; they accept both the Old and New Testaments as holy books and accept Moses and Jesus as prophets. The book offers tips on Muslim culture, actual quotes from the Qur’an, the Prophet Muhammad, and prominent scholars, and answers to questions regarding everyday life from the Muslim perspective.

Includes:

The Qur’an - the Muslim Bible or something more? A day in the life of a Muslim - prayers toward Mecca and keeping halal The Islamic dress code and life ceremonies - and Ramadan and Hajj, the two Islamic holidays The life of the Prophet Muhammad - and 1400 years of Islamic history More than one type of Muslim - the Sunnis, the Shi’as, and the Sufis Islam in the modern world - cultural revivalism and politics The other side of the coin - the Arab-Israeli conflict and Islam.

I prefer the Sufi Sect. I wonder if you get your choice of sects?

"The origin of the name Sufi probably goes back to the term suf, which refers to imple woolen cloaks. The original Sufi were basically mystics - people who followed a pious form of Islam and who believed that a direct, personal experience of God could be achieved through meditation and self-discipline."

Being a Liberal, I probably wouldn't make a very good Wahabbi.

"The followers of Salafist Islam, such as Wahhabis, oppose all practices not sanctioned by the Koran. Wahabbism is named after Abdul Wahab, a religious thinker who two centuries earlier had fought the influence of Sufism in Sunni Islam.

Note: Information on Sufis found on the "Global Security" site is a little mixed up... they say Sufis are like Wahhabis...I'm not really sure where that came from...they couldn't be more different. Salafis in general are opposed to both Sufism and Shi'a Islam, which they regard as deviations.

"Wahhabis look at Sufi Islam as a deviation from the original Islamic rules. This view of Islam rejects "magical rituals," pilgrimages to saint shrines, or recitations of the Koran in cemeteries -- all activities that had become commonplace among the Sufi orders."

"Wahhabis deny the role of the teacher, which for the Sufi is very important. They also deny the cult of the saints and pilgrimages to the saint shrines that are widespread among the followers of Sufi Islam. The inner link with God, typical for the Sufi followers, is denied by the Wahhabis."

"Wahhabis follow the old concept of jihad, meaning the holy war to convert the infidels. The Sufis have another interpretation of jihad. They see it not as a war against the infidels, but as a war that a Muslim has to fight against his own defects to try to reach perfection."

"The word Dervish, especially in European languages, refers to members of Sufi Muslim ascetic religious fraternities, known for their extreme poverty and austerity, similar to mendicant friars."

"The term comes from the Persian word Darwīsh (درویش), which usually refers to a mendicant ascetic. This latter word is also used to refer to an unflappable or ascetic temperament (as in the Urdu phrase darwaishana thabiyath for an ascetic temperament); that is, for an attitude that is indifferent to material possessions and the like."

"Also, a dervish is a whirling dance, which is the practice of the Mevlevi Order in Turkey, is just one of the physical methods to try to reach religious ecstasy (majdhb, fana). Mevlevi comes from a Persian poet whose shrine is in Turkey and who was a Dervish himself. After reaching Fana, they are unaware of the world around them, and have made a connection with Allah." Doing a dervish is dizzying.

If a prisoner is forced to convert, I think they should get to pick which sect.

[Crusader.NoRegrets.]

It just occurred to me that this may be a way to completely mess with the Ayatollahs. We could say we have now converted to Islam, but Allah just gave us a vision, and he has instructed us to observe the ways and customs of the "prophet" Christ!!!

So we are Muslims, but we continue to read the Bible, go to Church, and proclaim Christ as the son. If they say we are not Muslim, we claim "yes we are, we converted, you know".

[Crusader.NoRegrets.]

Does Islam have some sort of approved ritual by which conversion is actually considered valid? ie. What does it actually take?

Presumably the victims could argue they were told to say that they had converted, which is not the same thing as actually having converted? I don't know enough about Islam to be able to tell if those people are now Muslims.

If their conversion is considered "valid" whatever that means, by Muslims, whatever that means, then they can't "unconvert" on penalty of death. So since they are actually most likely atheist or agnostic anyway, what does their conversion really mean, other than the lapsed status of so many of the world's Catholics, for example? Even if they are considered Muslims now, they are exhorted to be "good" Muslims, but presumably there is no widespread forced worship,... yet.

[Liquid]

Great stuff Alexandra!!!

It's so sad that people around the world heard about this act of "forced conversion" at gunpoint and that some can still allow the word "peaceful" in the same sentence with Islam! What's the message here? Overlook the forced evil act that is their ultimate goal for the entire world and what ever you do, if you have a comment about it or an opinion about it, make sure you call it "nice" and 'respectfully' call it "peace"! Yeah...that's the message! Welcome to dhimmitude<--coming to a town near you!

Over and over Islamist continue to produce the fruit of violence and kidnappings in the name of Allah--but the "Liberal Lefties" refuse to criticize them and the source that the islamist reap it all from -- instead the Lefties continue to be 'useful idiots for their cause' that hold it's "victimhoody bloody hand"

You know, I use to think it was mere ignorance on their part, since they live in fantasy and hate everything Bush, but somewhere in the back of my mind, I held out hoping that in time they would catch on to it with incident after incident that these savages provided in the depth of their evil acts, but even with all the examples presented, it seems to have nothing to do with an abundance of insight because Islam's doctorine that is being used to create the world's jihadist serial killers has a fan club! Is it a fan club of deserved respect? NO...it's one of fear. The Lefties refuse to see it as a pure evil enemy because let's face it...they can't be bothered long enough to stop their Bush hating right now to face the real enemy honestly because in their weak minds; there is only enough fear to go around these days for them and they have chosen who they will dread first because in their demented minds, "hating Bush" might buy them brownie points. Appeasment is their solution to all problems...including the kind of problems that want to slice off their heads! They look at this journalist situation and figure well, it happened in gaza, but what they will not sink into their brains is that this is what they will do in the west if given the opportunity. They might laugh off the conversion bit because, well, being athiest or agnostic seems a safe haven for them, but in the end, after they have been used for their purpose by the savages, they will have no use for them. When are they going to understand this? Probably never!

[brian]

Another scenario:

Liberal journalists kidnapped somewhere in the heartland of America. At the point of a gun, they are forced to call in to the Rush Limbaugh Show and utter a phrase that is abhorrent to their closely held beliefs, against all their expensive journo-school training and generally repulsive to them.

Mega Dittos Rush.

The journalists were later released unharmed.

[olivia clemens]

"As I have now joined the elite ranks of anti-idiotarian bloggers who have been labeled "Nazis" for having the temerity to identify Islamofascists as the true heirs of the Third Reich, and a racist, a xenophobe, as well as of course an Islamophobe, for daring to be in favor of preserving our sovereignty, free of Shari'a oppression, and a bellicose Christian for having the audacity to advocate it vociferously, whilst still confirming my Christian beliefs, I feel the Democrats have now been uplifted to new dizzying heights of verbal lunacy as the elections approach and they desperately rummage around for scraps of policy to cling on to."

I'm with her. :)

Many Democrats have become useful idiots and some are even harming our nation and western civilization. Let them be the first to convert.

But I think when it comes down to it, it will be the American female who will be foremost at the barricades because we are not going back to those dark days where our worth was less than a goat. No way.

Let the Democrats reconcile the trade of a goat for a female slave and a sack of salt in their flighty ideas of human rights and tolerance of diversity. Maybe they can find harmony between atavistic treatment of humans and the right to cultural practice, but I won't. And many sisters will urge their men to fight for their status as equals in this society.

Maybe that is what it will take - for the women of America to recognize the threat this virulent Islam poses to the future of their daughters at the mercy of those who casually consider women as property and no better than footstools.

[Sonar]

"The prelude to Tristan and Isolde reminds me of the Italian painting of the martyr whose intestines are slowly being unwound from his body on a reel." Eduard Hanslick (1825-1904), 1868

These kidnappers should be subjected to interminable Vagner.

[David]

Warning: nancypants who have an emotional invesatment in moral relativity and multi-culti bushwah may need to take their medication before reading further.

Once again, pointed observations the enemies of the West in general and Christianity and Judaism in particular will NOT answer honestly. Particularly, "Have these people gone completely mad?"

Let me essay a brief answer.

No. At least not for the most part. Some have chosen apparently insane positions out of animus for Christianity (or Judaism or the West, more generally). Some out of a desire to enhance their own positions, bank accounts, etc. Still more are simply stupid. Useful idiots.

Does any of that qualify as insanity? No. Perhaps other things ranging from simple stpidity through the venial and on to true evil.

Like the Mohameddans who venerate The Butcher of Medina: some are simply ill-informed and stupid, some are simply feathering their nests and others are outright evil. All are a part of the whole bag, and thus either evil or enablers of evil.

[Ghost Dansing]

Thanks Mac. I didn't realize that Ari is a member of the Republican Jewish Coalition!

http://www.rjchq.org/Biography.asp?formmode=SingleBio&ID=48, and is President of Ari Fleischer Communications, Inc.

From the WIKI: "In December 1979, USSR invaded Afghanistan, after the pro-Moscow Afghanistan government placed by a 1978 coup was overthrown. There are many theories as to why the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. Some believed the Soviets were attempting to expand their borders southward in order to gain a foothold in the region. The Soviet Union had long lacked a warm water port, and their movement south seemed to position them for further expansion toward Pakistan and India in the East, and Iran to the West.

The Carter Administration, and many Republicans and Democrats alike, feared that the Soviets were positioning themselves for a takeover of Middle Eastern oil. Others believed that the Soviet Union was fearful that the Muslim uprising would spread from Iran and Afghanistan to the millions of Muslims in the USSR.

After the invasion, Carter announced the Carter Doctrine: that the US would not allow any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf.

Carter terminated the Russian Wheat Deal that had been intended to establish trade with USSR and lessen Cold War tensions.

The grain exports had been beneficial to people employed in agriculture, and the Carter embargo marked the beginning of hardship for American farmers.

He also prohibited Americans from participating in the 1980 Summer Olympics in Moscow, and reinstated registration for the draft for young males.

Carter and Zbigniew Brzezinski started a $40 billion covert program of training Islamic fundamentalists in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Reagan would later expand this program greatly to combat Cold War concerns presented by Russia at the time.

In retrospect, this contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union. Critics of this policy blame Carter and Reagan for the resulting instability of post-Soviet Afghani governments, which led to the rise of Islamic theocracy in the region, and also created much of the current problems with Islamic fundamentalism."

Ari Fleischer, like most Republicans, is ideologically inbred and weak on historical context. His assessment of Carter the Carter Administration's Foreign Policy is childlike.

Also, he's looking for Republican contracts for his company, and the Republicans are trying to woo Jews away from the Democratic Party with tough pro-Israeli rhetoric.

If you want a comprehensive statement about Carter's position, read:

"Stop the Band-Aid Treatment; We Need Policies for a Real, Lasting Middle East Peace" By Jimmy Carter; Washington Post, Tuesday, August 1, 2006; Page A17

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/31/AR2006073100923.html

"It is inarguable that Israel has a right to defend itself against attacks on its citizens, but it is inhumane and counterproductive to punish civilian populations in the illogical hope that somehow they will blame Hamas and Hezbollah for provoking the devastating response. The result instead has been that broad Arab and worldwide support has been rallied for these groups, while condemnation of both Israel and the United States has intensified."

I don't think Jimmy Carter is a big fan of hisballa...and he has done many good things for Israel both in and out of Public Office. Just because he sees both sides of an issue, and what's more, sees when effects, no matter how righteously pursued, are counterproductive, doesn't mean he's a "bad guy".

[RunningRoach]

Alexandra,

Scene: Gunman, with pistol pressed against Steve’s head while Steve is face down on floor, handcuffed, hog tied and blindfolded.

Gunman: “Are you ready to convert?”

Steve: “What? What? Convert to what? I just went through this. Where am I?”

Gunman: “Shut up and answer my question!” “Are you ready to convert?”

Steve: “Tell me first, where am I!”

Gunman: “Alright, already! You’re at Temple Beth Israel, in New Jersey. Are you ready to convert?”

Steve: ”Convert! Convert to what? How did I get here?”

Gunman: “We kidnapped you from Victoria’s Secret. The salesgirl is one of our agents. Remember the soda she gave you?”

Steve: “Crap! I thought she was hitting on me!” “What do you want?” “Is that gun loaded?”

Gunman: (Making metallic noise.) “Yes!” “We want you to become a Jew!”

Steve: “A Jew? A Jew? You want me to become a Jew? What is that horrible smell?”

Gunman: “Lox. Breakfast is being served downstairs. Yes a Jew. Are you ready to convert?”

Steve: “Yuk. Do I have to eat that stuff?”

Gunman: “Yes, or I will force it down your throat now, Steve, unless you answer me!”

Steve: “Ok. Ok. Just a few questions.”

Gunman: ”Oi vey. What? What?”

Steve: “Do I have to wear one of those….a … beanies?”

Gunman: “Of course! It will hide that developing bald spot.”

Steve: “Do I have to stop eating pork chops?”

Gunman: “Of course, you idiot!”

Steve: “Do I have to buy another set of dishes?”

Gunman: “You will keep a kosher kitchen!”

Steve: How about a Big Mac or a cheeseburger, or lasagna or chicken parmesan, or clams and spaghetti?

Gunman: “Sorry, none of that.”

Steve: “Look, I just went through this! Do I really have to do it again?”

Gunman: “It is for the greater good.”

Steve: “But now I’m Moslem. How do I get out of this?”

Gunman: “ No sweat. Our God is a forgiving God. He has a progressive policy of ‘Don’t ask… Don’t tell.’”

Steve: “Great! Why are you doing this?”

Gunman: “Well….I have a sister, a twin sister, and she is in love with you. She saw your broadcasts from Iraq and well….”

Steve: “Wait a minute. Wait a minute! I have….a..a…girlfriend….no a fiancé….no. wait,..a wife! I can’t get involved with your sister!”

Gunman: “Sure you can. I am a Rabbi, my brother is a lawyer, my uncle is a judge, and my cousin is an accountant. No problem. And by the way, she is a dog groomer and a virgin!”

Steve: A virgin? “Do you have a picture?”

Gunman: “Sure I do. Here, take a look at this. And while you are admiring her, roll over. I need to take a small piece of your skin.”

Steve: “She is…. Well… That’s not a gun it’s a garlic press!”

Gunman: “Hold still!”

Steve: Nooooooooooooooooooooo!

JCC

[mac brachman]

Thanks to Ghost for his ohsobrilliant distinctions. A thought: these two gentlemen were (nominally) Christian, and so they were given the choice: convert or die. One wonders what the fate of a Jewish journalist or visitor (e.g., Danny Pearl, Scott Berg) would have been. Let me guess: would you like us to sever your head quickly or slowly? Sorry, my paranoia is surfacing. On another note, I'd like to recommend highly Davids Medienkritik blog (which dissects the left/anti-Israel/anti-U.S. bias of much of the German media) which published a letter by Ari Fleischer, Bush's former press sec., to our esteemed Nobel Peace Laureate, former Pres. Jimmy Carter, who availed himself of Der Spiegel, the German weekly, to deliver a much-publicized anti-Israel diatribe. Here it is in full, and I apologize in advance to Alexandria and blog readers/posters for simply copying/pasting in full, but my computer skills are still wanting in many regards:

Fleischer Rips Carter in Letter

Following up on our posting of August 17:

President Bush’s former press secretary lambasted Jimmy Carter for saying Israel’s military response to Hezbollah attacks had no legal or moral basis.

Ari Fleischer’s letter to Carter, dated Monday, rebukes the ex-president for his remarks in an Aug. 15 interview with Der Spiegel.

Carter accused Israel of lacking “any legal or moral justification for their massive bombing of the entire nation of Lebanon.”

Carter equated Palestinian and Lebanese prisoners with the soldiers Hezbollah captured in the July 12

raid that launched the war. “Israel is holding almost 10,000 prisoners, so when the militants in Lebanon or in Gaza take one or two soldiers, Israel looks upon this as a justification for an attack on the civilian population of Lebanon and Gaza,” Carter said. “I do not think that’s justified, no.”

Fleischer said those words “are music to Hezbollah’s ears and your message is a blow to long-term peace. Your condemnation of Israel, the victim, only encourages Hezbollah, the attacker, to bide its time and attack again.”

Fleischer, who is Jewish, was Bush’s press secretary from 2001-2003. (Source)

I found the complete letter of Fleischer in Naomi Ragen's newsletter:

August 21, 2006

The Honorable Jimmy Carter

The Carter Center

453 Freedom Parkway

Atlanta, Georgia 30307

Dear Mr. President:

I just read the transcript of your interview with the
German magazine, Der Spiegel, in which you accuse Israel of
launching an "unjustified attack on Lebanon."

Even after the interviewer reminded you that Israel was the
first to get attacked, you charged Israel with lacking "any
legal or moral justification for their massive bombing of
the entire nation of Lebanon."

As someone who served in the White House as a spokesman for
a President, I am reluctant to criticize another President,
but in this instance my conscience compels me to do so.

Mr. President, your words are music to Hezbollah's ears and
your message is a blow to long-term peace.

Just as you underestimated the threat of the Soviet Union in
the 1970s, you underestimate the threat of radical Islam
today. Your condemnation of Israel, the victim, only
encourages Hezbollah, the attacker, to bide its time and
attack again.

Ahmed Barakat, a member of Hezbollah's central council, last
week told the Qatari newspaper as-Watan that "Today Arab and
Muslim society is reasonably certain that the defeat of
Israel is possible and that the countdown to the
disappearance of the Zionist entity in the region has begun.
The triumph of the resistance is the beginning of the death
of the Israeli enemy."

I was raised a Democrat but I changed parties in 1982
because I believed your policies and the nuclear freeze
movement invited increased Soviet militarism and
adventurism. President Reagan's military build-up and
credible threat of the use of force helped bring about the
demise of Communism and brought freedom and a better life to
hundreds of millions in Central and Eastern Europe. It also
secured a lasting peace.

I'm sorry to see you articulate about Hezbollah and its
aggression the same weak world-view that encouraged Soviet
aggression. As Ronald Reagan showed us, peace through
strength is the only formulation understood by those bent on
destruction.

I understand your longing for peace and your fond hope that
Hezbollah can be reasoned with. However, when you call
Israel's defense "an attack", when you call what is
justified "unjustified", and when you call morality immoral,
I conclude that the pro-defense, strong foreign policy
lessons of the 70s and 80s remain unacceptable to you.
Also, when you criticize Israel for targeting so-called
"civilian" areas in Beirut and other areas where Hezbollah
hides its operations, the result would be - if Israel
listened to you - the creation of safe havens from which
more violence and rocket attacks would be planned and
launched.

Sadly, Hezbollah today is planning its next war. For the
sake of peace, Israel deserves your praise, not your
condemnation.

Sincerely,

L. Ari Fleischer

August 28, 2006 at 01:39 AM | Permalink

[Ghost Dansing]

It should be made clear to all those engaged in irregular military activity, including the taking of captives, that their conduct will be subject to the Geneva Conventions, and their behavior in violation impeachable as war crimes and subject to the sanctions of International Law.

"The fourth Geneva Convention ("Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War") covers all individuals "who do not belong to the armed forces, take no part in the hostilities and find themselves in the hands of the Enemy or an Occupying Power".

Protected civilians MUST be:
- Treated humanely at all times and protected against acts or threats of violence, insults and public curiosity.
- Entitled to respect for their honour, family rights, religious convictions and practices, and their manners and customs.
- Specially protected, for example in safety zones, if wounded, sick, old, children under 15, expectant mothers or mothers of children under 7.
- Enabled to exchange family news of a personal kind. - Helped to secure news of family members dispersed by the conflict
- Allowed to practise their religion with ministers of their own faith. Civilians who are interned have the same rights as prisoners of war. They may also ask to have their children interned with them, and wherever possible families should be housed together and provided with the facilities to continue normal family life. Wounded or sick civilians, civilian hospitals and staff, and hospital transport by land, sea or air must be specially respected and may be placed under protection of the red cross/crescent emblem.

Protected civilians must NOT be:
- Discriminated against because of race, religion or political opinion. - Forced to give information.
- Used to shield military operations or make an area immune from military operations.
- Punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. - Women must not be indecently assaulted, raped, or forced into prostitution."

For more on the Geneva Conventions:
http://www.ppu.org.uk/learn/texts/doc_geneva_con.html

[Jeremayakovka]

I seriously question whether "Stockholm Syndrome" is a legitimate or useful criterion by which to judge what occurs within hostages' minds - concerning the term's objective merits, its applicablility (or possible lack thereof, considering Islamic captivity) as well as any harm caused by the its generic popularization. Is it time to scrap the term?

[jess1dering]

John,
I couldn't believe it when I read one of the kidnapped journalists came out of that horrible ordeal, and we all know it had to be sheer terror for them, proclaiming the virtues of Islam !!??!!
Rich,
You made me laugh right out loud IN THE LIBRARY !! You hit the nail right on the head. They DO have a religion which they feel very strongly about. I couldn't have described it better than you did though.
ALEXANDRA,
Awesome posts as always. God bless you.

[Ghost Dansing]

I'm sure the journalists using the term "unharmed" meant it in a relative sense...abduction and confinement is in itself "harm".

However, I will note that "Religious Dilemma" is an interrogation technique some in the U.S. Armed Forces are trained to deal with in the course of resistance.

Points of effect are very individual...especially psychological...a point already made above, some would die rather than accept Islam...and some would say whatever to walk free... Personally, I would reserve my judgement on individual choices made in such circumstances.

"SERE (Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape) is a U.S. military training program developed at the end of the Korean War to provide service members with training in the Code of Conduct, survival skills, evading capture, and dealing with being taken prisoner. It was created by the Air Force but was expanded to the Army and the Navy after the Vietnam War. The school is intended to train aircrews, special forces, and other service members who operate in dangerous areas and are thus more likely to be captured."

"The actual techniques used in the school have been classified by the US government, but several official sites exist to give a general overview of the curricula. The training has been widely reported to provide a realistic simulation of harsh and abusive interrogation techniques. The SERE program has been reported to involve the following elements:

- extreme temperatures
- waterboarding - being tied to a board with the feet higher than the head and having water poured into the nose
- noise stress - playing very loud and disonant music and sound effects. Recordings have been reported to include babies wailing inconsolably, cats meowing, female orgasms, and irritating music (including a record by Yoko Ono)[1]
- sexual embarrassment
- religious dilemma - given the choice of seeing a religious book desecrated or revealing secrets to interrogators.
- flag desecration
- prolonged cramped or restrictive confinement
- sleep deprivation/starvation
- excrement familiarization/humiliation
- mock execution
- overcoming food aversion (eating bugs, roadkill, dumpster diving, urine drinking)
- height/water/enclosed spaces
- physical beating
- "stress inoculation""

Read more at the WIKI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SERE

[Michael van der Galien]

Alexandra I agree completely. I posted about it and called it "one of the most denegrating videos the kidnappers could come up with". A commenter at the moderate voice, told me that i was being a little bit dramatic.
Then I reminded him of the fact that their conversion was under gunpoint. He hadn't realized that. After I reminded him, his attitude changed immediately.

The MSM mentions it on the one hand, but also seems to be conveniently ignoring it.

John: I don't think that Centanni suffered from the Stockholm syndrome. His 'affection' wasn't, in the least, aimed at the ones who kidnapped him I think. I'd want to know his answer to the question: "do you think that your kidnappers should be caught and punished severely?"
He didn't think about the kidnappers as such, in my opinion, but strictly about the 'Palestinians' who were not the kidnappers.
As I understand it, he wasn't exactly negative towards them before he was kidnapped.
In other words: his attitude probably did not change.

I could be wrong of course, but I'm only willing to accept you interpretation of his words, if you can back it up with direct quotes from him about the kidnappers.

[Jeremayakovka]

So this post's title is ironic. Good, because I was afrad this issue (of the violence of the conversions - both the threat of violence and the violence that is the coerced conversion) had gotten swept under the rug. Thanks for the round-up.

rich is on the right track for translating reality into liberalthink for the mspiritually challenged.

Having become acquainted with several Palestinians here in the States, I too can attest to a basically "human" or "decent" traits among most of them. But declarations of "some of my best Palestinian friends are moderates" is not what's at stake here. They just don't cut it.

Vital thread, Alexandra.

[rich]

If you find no value in religious beliefs changing religions is like changing your shirt.

To get liberals to understand you have to put this into a perspective they would understand.

Tell them its like forcing the reporters at gunpoint to say:

"Abortion is murder."

or "George W. Bush is a great President."

Then they may start to get it.

[John Werntz]

Michelle Malkin [Sorry, no permalink, you just have to login to her blog and scroll way down to Johnny Dollar ] has posted a transcript of the most revolting portion of his videoclip of the statement that Steve Centanni made just before his release. It is the sorriest example of the Stockholm syndrome you will ever encounter. He gushes about what wonderful, lovely people the Pallys are, and urges his colleagues in the media to get on the bandwagon and spread the good word. This is Michelle's transcript:

I just hope this never scares a single journalist away from coming to Gaza to cover this story because the Palestinian people are very beautiful, kind-hearted, loving people who the world need to know more about and so do not be discouraged. Come and tell the story. It's a wonderful story. I'm just happy to be here. Thanks for all your support.

What conceivable excuse is there for this praise of people who cheered when Saddam's scud missiles hit Haifa and Tel Aviv, who danced in the steets in a delirium of joy on 9-11?  Unless he explains that the Pally broad standing behind and to his left had the point of a stiletto against his kidney at the time, he is finished as a journalist.