Skip to comments.Muslims to journalists: "Convert or Die!"
Posted on 08/30/2006 4:05:31 AM PDT by PRePublic
Muslims to journalists: "Convert or Die!"
Convert or die. That is the message that Muslim terrorists sent by freeing two kidnapped journalists only after they “converted” to Islam on videotape at the point of a gun. The International Herald Tribune reported,
“I’m really fine, healthy, in good shape and so happy to be free,” Mr. Centanni told Fox News. He said the two were forced at gunpoint to say that they were converting to Islam and took Muslim names.
“I have the highest respect for Islam,” he said. “But it was something we felt we had to do because they had the guns, and we didn’t know what … was going on.” …
Centanni said that the men were forced to make videotapes decrying American policies and converting to Islam.
But this feel-good moment has a sinister undertone, impossible to ignore: We live in an age when the fastest-growing religion on Earth includes a mushrooming contingent of adherents who are determined to spread their faith through medieval methods.
Convert or die is hardly a new message; it has been employed by religions in spurts throughout the ages. Sadly, those spurts represent the bloodiest chapters of human history.
To this point, the response from those being so blackmailed has been no more confrontational than that of these journalists, who simply did exactly as they were told. However, we can expect that in short order, Western resistance—particularly within continental Europe—will solidify. Evidence of a coming backlash is already building.
"Islam" means "submit". There is nothing ambiguous about it.
Those who choose to ignore this in order to be politically correct do so at their own (and everybody else's) peril.
I'd be curious to know what were their religious convictions were before the forced conversion.
I doubt that they were gung-ho Christians. But by "converting" they also renounced modern all modern Western secular belief - in things such as individual liberty, equality, and free will - by submitting themselves to Islam and thus to sharia, Islamic law. Islam is both a political system and a religious cult, and they accepted it.
I think this is a terrible precedent, and I think we're going to see more and more kidnappings and attacks where the Muslims demand that their victims convert. After all, it was pretty easy in this case; while the reporters were roughly treated and no doubt uncomfortable and afraid, it doesn't even sound as if they were tortured or seriously beaten or abused. Just the threat of it was enough to get them to publicly renounce their principles, thus proving to the Muslim mind that we in the West have nothing that is really important to us and for which we will fight.
What difference does that make?
Anything done at the point of a gun is coercion and should be ignored.
And it shouldn't be a surprise at all! They're just reliving their early history, aren't they?
It means nothing. Let's not get carried away because a couple of guys didn't want to die over a phony, coerced "conversion."
No "principles" were renounced.
It's terrorism nonetheless. I consider myself a very devout Christian, and I would like to think that, were I in the same situation, I'd reject their demand, thereby (very likely) risking my life. But who knows how I'd react? And if I did "go along" with it out of fear, could I look myself in the mirror from then on? I think I'd be very, very ashamed. What does one do?
Yes, they were. If you accept sharia, which is what one does in an Islamic "conversion," you cannot possibly accept Western principles. Many people throughout history have died rather than renounce their principles by publicly adhering to their opposite.
Who knows what any of us would do if actually living through such a situation? But facing life with the idea firmly in mind in advance that it does not matter what you adhere to, what you say, what you do, so long as you survive with your destroyed, emasculated integrity dooms you to failure at the very beginning. I have been very surprised by the many people on this forum who say that they would say or do anything, no matter how it violated what they believed, if it let them survive.
Remember, these guys hadn't even been seriously tortured; they were afraid, threatened, and simply decided to do an end-run around the whole problem because to them it wasn't particularly important anyway. If we all have that attitude, then prepare to have your kids grow up under sharia.
Belief in a void, perhaps.
They did NOT accept sharia.
And we are not going to be living under sharia, or accepting it, either.
But facing life with the idea firmly in mind in advance that it does not matter what you adhere to, what you say, what you do, so long as you survive with your destroyed, emasculated integrity dooms you to failure at the very beginning.
Oh for Gawd's sake! You believe that any jack-leg with a gun pointed at your head forces you to compromise your integrity?
This was a phony situation, a phony, coerced "conversion," and it was publicly renounced the minute Centani and Wieg got in front of a microphone.
Neither man has any reason to feel "emasculated" for not supplying blood for a bunch of renegade Islamists.
All coerced "confessions" are phony, but many people have resisted them and emerged with their integrity. Others have not resisted and have been killed anyway, and died knowing that they had given away the only thing left to them.
My point, which no one seems to be willing to answer, is where we draw the line. If we go into a battle already decided that we will surrender to the enemy as soon as the going gets tough, we are never going to win.
Perhaps, but I suspect that having submitted verbally and publicly also lessens one's will to fight later.
This is complicated by the fact that we are living in a time when words have lost their meaning ("Look at me. I did not have sex with that woman," for example...) and lying is assumed to be normal practice. In fact, we can practically assume somebody is lying unless we have absolute proof otherwise. The result is that people don't feel that what they say really matters.
My feeling is that it does, and that sooner or later, we have to decide at what point we simply dig our heels in and refuse to be coerced. That doesn't mean that we're going to necessarily be brave enough to resist when the time comes, but at least we're going to try.
Maybe he won't after he finds out the punchline. A forced conversion is considered a valid conversion in Islam, and apostasy necessitates the death penalty.
I'd also like to know what's "medieval" about forced conversions. The Catholic Church has always rejected the validity of forced conversions.
Explain that to those who have been martyred for their faith.
And you liken Centani's "conversion" as a denial of his faith? I wouldn't.
I never said that. I just think when you make a statement that forced conversion doesn't really count, it flies in the face of Catholic/Christian teachings, and diminishes those who take very seriously their faith in God.
Christ died for us. Are we not obligated to do the same for him?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.