Sharia: Coerced C&#111;nversi&#111;n Binding?

Quote Hanan

Thanks(0)

Quote

Posted: 01 September 2006 at 11:11pm

Edited by Hanan

ejdavid

Senior Member

Joined: 28 August 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 173

Post Options

Thanks(0)

Quote

Posted: 02 September 2006 at 7:21am

Hanan - You seem to have missed one of my posts. In it I described an actual Indian Christian charity run by my sister and her husband. I told you no one dies by not accepting the charity in that part of India. Also, the entire community benefits from fron the influx of new wealth.

Furhter, I believe the centerpiece of their activity is the orphanage founded by my brother in law's father. It would be incomprehensible to me if you or andalus would object to that sort of work. It is one case where these people are actually saved from possible death by this work.

ejdavid

Senior Member

Joined: 28 August 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 173

Post Options

Thanks(0)

Quote

Posted: 02 September 2006 at 7:37am

Hanan - You wrote: "It seems to me that this guy just wants you to admit how inferior and uneducated you are compared to him. His arguments are so invalid they just limped across my screen on crutches."

The arguements are not invalid, and I am glad both of you are posting for all the world to see and to compare with mine. For instance, you simple assert the villagers in my example would all slowly starve to death when the missionaries leave; it sounds to me you think shooting them first would be a virtue.

In fact, in almost all food shortage situations, when people die more food is available for the rest. Accordingly, I will, for arguements sake simply stipulate half the villagers die when the missionaries leave, and ther rest survive on the remaining rations. That STILL leaves the "Muslim village" with 250 more dead people.

In fact, my family does not opperate in areas where starvation takes place very much at all. Accordingly, they simply add to the total wealth of the community. Finally, I would like you to tell me if you believe the orphanage work should be abandoned because of these "forced conversions". I gather you also believe a slow death from starvation would be preferable to placing them in the facility? Or would you simply have uneducated Muslims shoot them first as a humanitarian virtue.

I know many Muslims tell us Muslims love death as much as Westerners love life. But this is rediculous.

ejdavid

Senior Member

Joined: 28 August 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 173

Post Options

Thanks(0)

Quote

Posted: 02 September 2006 at 9:04am

FUN TO BE HAD BY ALL

I really like these discussions. You believe your arguements are self evident and mine are silly, and I believe the same about yours. Accordingly, anyone who stops in to read this forum will be entertained, AND informed as to various positions on this conversion issue.

Speaking of fun, I have a story to tell. My sister has migrain headaches, and the last time she went to India people said she should go to a city hospital for tests. This was a good idea because India has advance medical facilities, and compared to the US, the cost is very reasonable.

The Indians suggested an MRI. My sister joked that all the doctors came running to watch because they now had a white girl who wanted her head examined. Apparently they were all pleased to find she had a brain very much like an Indian brain. However, nothing was diagnosed concerning the headaches. But a good time was had by all!

ejdavid

Senior Member

Joined: 28 August 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 173

Post Options

Thanks(0)

Quote

Posted: 02 September 2006 at 9:18am

Incidentally, the non-Christian Indian authorities seem pleased to have my family and their projects, though I do not know if these authorities are Hindu, Muslim or some other religion. However, I believe they aprove for several reasons.

First, the missionaries take some of the plentiful orphans off their hands. In addition, they bring added wealth and provide some jobs for the local constituents. Always a good thing in an election. And finally, when my family shows up from California, they are something of an exotic entertainement for everybody. In some cases, the people have never even seen a Westerner before!

What fun! How can you dissaprove!

Angel

Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 03 July 2001
Status: Offline
Points: 6641

Post Options

Quote Angel

Thanks(0)

Quote

Posted: 02 September 2006 at 9:40am

ejdavid wrote:

Sirs:

Two Fox News reporters recently converted to Islam at gun point. Does Sharia law provide that these conversions are binding?

I would say no, and that goes for any other religious group, I�d say.

ejdavid wrote:

I am clear and explicit in my posts. I do no dissimulate in anything I say. For instance, I discuss people who are at risk of death by starvation.

I explicitly say bribing as many people as possible with whatever food is available for the task is different and supperior to threatening them with actual and immediate death. This is neither dissimulation nor white wash.

How is it different and superior ?

I see none, one is a slow death, while the other (with a gun) is immediate, both are the same otherwise.

Andulas is right, why do you seem to be opposing him ?

ejdavid wrote:

Andalus

I wrote: "Unlike the Muslim kidnappers, those missionaries did not threaten anyone with death." And you replied "They did. Accept our message and practice our faith or suffer from starvation and disease."

You are simply wrong. For some reason you seem entirely unable to fathom the deep and real differences between possitive and negative incentives. Offering to reduce the overall mortality rate by providing food for converstion does not kill any additional people if the offer is refused.

Very big and very real difference, not subtle at all. Your inability to see that is quite worrisome.

Huh? Positive and negative incentives??

If those who refuse food because they are not going to convert will eventually die of starvation, how is that a positive incentive ??

It seems if you want to live you convert and accept the food.

Also if you want to live and not die by a gun, you convert and stay alive.

Not so much difference, I guess one is more passive than the other

ejdavid wrote:

Andalus

Perhaps a simple analogy will suffice. Lets stipulate 1)Christian missionaries with food and 2)"uneducated individual Muslims [with] weapons" enter similar villages with 500 inhabitants each. In both cases the offer of conversion is refused. In both cases, the two sets of missionaries carry out their stated policies.

When the Christians leave there are still 500 inhabitants in the village. When the "uneducated individual Muslims" leave, the village is entirely depopulated.

Does THAT make the diffence any easier to understand?

I understand it, but it is flawed.

You see if the 500 inhabitants refused to convert to Christianity, then the Christians will turn away and leave, then that means no food, and so are still starving � will lead to death at some point in time.

And by the way using food is despicable, of course people will do anything for food in a situation like that, converting this way is under duress.

In the other scenario, death is quick. Perhaps this is more better since you won�t endure a long slow death by starvation. It is still despicable and under duress.

Do you understand?

~ Our feet are earthbound, but our hearts and our minds have wings ~

ejdavid

Senior Member

Joined: 28 August 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 173

Post Options

Thanks(0)

Quote

Posted: 02 September 2006 at 9:49am

Finally, I just can't resist this last post. I know it is unChristian of me, but when Christian activists show up in India from California they bring food, trinkets and entertainment. When Muslim activists show up form Pakistanb or Cashmir, they bomb commuter trains.

IMHO, this rather bad Islamic PR.

ejdavid

Senior Member

Joined: 28 August 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 173

Post Options