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

No.

It would be similar to cases where Christian missionaries target desperate people in desperate lands, and under the gun of starvation, will accept Christianity. Islam considers any conversion to a faith under the flag of duress as invalid.

ejdavid wrote: Andalus - You wrote: "It would be similar to cases where Christian missionaries target desperate people in desperate lands, and under the gun of starvation, will accept Christianity. Islam considers any conversion to a faith under the flag of duress as invalid." One big difference. These missionaries offer food, not a bullet through the head. In addition, if you ask those people if they consider themselves Christian most would say yes. These Christians are bribed to be Christians, not threatened. Big difference.

Or offer slow death by refusing to give food to those who are starving if they decide not to convert and thus cause them death.

Those missionaries must be happy for so many "liberated" souls in poor and troubled places around the world

ejdavid, this section is where you can sincerely ask questions to learn about Islam. This is not the place to tell us how morally superior missionaries are compared to others. Your question was answered by Brother Andalus: "Islam considers any conversion to a faith under the flag of duress as invalid."

Peace

ejdavid wrote: Andalus - You wrote: "It would be similar to cases where Christian missionaries target desperate people in desperate lands, and under the gun of starvation, will accept Christianity. Islam considers any conversion to a faith under the flag of duress as invalid." One big difference. These missionaries offer food, not a bullet through the head.

Starvation is the bullet.

The Food is the protection.

The protection comes at the price of accepting their beliefs.

The differences are subtle, but the principle is identical.

In addition, if you ask those people if they consider themselves Christian most would say yes. These Christians are bribed to be Christians, not threatened.

Contradiction. How can someone who is of a thing be bried to be of the thing?

This very irrational statement implies that you are full aware of the deception, and wish to white wash it.

Big difference.

Not by a long shot!  

I have to agree with this one.  That is why my church sends humanitarian aid in without missionaries.  We often send our food and supplies through Islamic foundations so that there is no coercion or expectation attached to the aid.

Its also why I shy away from places like Christian Children's Fund.  My humanitarian aid should not come with strings.

Angela wrote: I have to agree with this one.  That is why my church sends humanitarian aid in without missionaries.  We often send our food and supplies through Islamic foundations so that there is no coercion or expectation attached to the aid. Its also why I shy away from places like Christian Children's Fund.  My humanitarian aid should not come with strings.

Hi Angela!

To be fair and for clarification, I acknowledge that there are Christian groups that try and do real good for the sake of doing good. And there are numerous reports of these good charity organizations running into angry locals due to bad groups who have came in and caused problems.

ejdavid wrote: Andalus - You wrote: "This very irrational statement implies that you are full aware of the deception, and wish to white wash it." 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.

Purposely targeting a group of people because they are weak and incapable of making any kind of personal stand due to the threat of death from starvation is not only desperate, but dishonest.

To purposely target such people as a way to force your theology is intellectually bankrupt.

To hold food over a starving person as a means to force convert someone is using the threat of death.

It really is that simple.

Islamic theology teaches that someone cannot be forced converted.  

runner wrote: Andalus wrote: ejdavid wrote: Sirs: Two Fox News reporters recently converted to Islam at gun point. Does Sharia law provide that these conversions are binding? No. It would be similar to cases where Christian missionaries target desperate people in desperate lands, and under the gun of starvation, will accept Christianity. Islam considers any conversion to a faith under the flag of duress as invalid. Do you know of any Christian missionaries who deny food to hungry people who will not convert?  Every group that I know of offers aid to whomever needs it regardless of whether they convert or not and would reject those who do that. This is an entirely different circumstance than offering aid to people who will not tolerate their presence, is it not?

I do not keep a list of the multitude of names of the many groups that exist. I do know of incidents where it does happen.

The toleration is due to the fact that the target group of missionaries are those who are not in a position to be intolerant.

ak_m_f wrote: runner wrote: Andalus wrote: ejdavid wrote: Sirs: Two Fox News reporters recently converted to Islam at gun point. Does Sharia law provide that these conversions are binding? No. It would be similar to cases where Christian missionaries target desperate people in desperate lands, and under the gun of starvation, will accept Christianity. Islam considers any conversion to a faith under the flag of duress as invalid. Do you know of any Christian missionaries who deny food to hungry people who will not convert?  Every group that I know of offers aid to whomever needs it regardless of whether they convert or not and would reject those who do that.This is an entirely different circumstance than offering aid to people who will not tolerate their presence, is it not? Remeber the missionaries had christmas when Tsunami struck. http://in.rediff.com/news/2005/jan/24shoba.htm follwoing article taken from yahoo.com Villagers furious with Christian Missionaries Samanthapettai, Jan 16 (ANI): Rage and fury has gripped this tsunami-hit tiny Hindu village in India's southern Tamil Nadu after a group of Christian missionaries allegedly refused them aid for not agreeing to follow their religion. Samanthapettai, near the temple town of Madurai, faced near devastation on the December 26 when massive tidal waves wiped it clean of homes and lives. Most of the 200 people here are homeless or displaced , battling to rebuild lives and locating lost family members besides facing risks of epidemic,disease and trauma. Jubilant at seeing the relief trucks loaded with food, clothes and the much-needed medicines the villagers, many of who have not had a square meal in days, were shocked when the nuns asked them to convert before distributing biscuits and water. Heated arguments broke out as the locals forcibly tried to stop the relief trucks from leaving. The missionaries, who rushed into their cars on seeing television reporters and the cameras refusing to comment on the incident and managed to leave the village. Disappointed and shocked into disbelief the hapless villagers still await aid. "Many NGOs (volunteer groups) are extending help to us but there in our village the NGO, which was till now helping us is now asking us to follow the Christian religion. We are staunch followers of Hindu religion and refused their request. And after that these people with their aid materials are leaving the village without distributing that to us," Rajni Kumar, a villager said. The incident is an exception to concerted charity in a catastrophe that has left no one untouched.(ANI) http://in.news.yahoo.com/050116/139/2j1rp.html

Assalam Aleikum Br.

Jazakallahu khair for your link.

This kind of incident occurs a lot more than most westerners think.

ejdavid wrote: Andalus: Once again I stipulate the obvious: "...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."

WHo said anything about bribing? You "snuck" that term in. We are not talking about bribing. We are talking about researching and targeting a group of people who are in the most desperate postion in their lives and under the threat of death from starvation, using food as a means to convert.

There is nothing superior about it.

Islam, as a theology, teaches that any coerced conversion is wrong, and not legitmate. Incidents are extremely rare compared to the example I have presneted. The action of missionaries is widespread and a part of the theology.
Superior is word that I would not use when it comes to such an intellectually bankrupt method for finding converts.

Unlike the Muslim kidnappers, those missionaries did not threaten anyone with death.

They did. Accept our message and practice our faith or suffer from starvation and disease.

They simply offered to feed those who would convert. When they left with their food, they did not take any additional food with them.

Strawman. I never argued that they would take any additional food with them. Whether or not they took any additional food does not effect my thesis one way or the other.

According to your logic, an armed Muslim missionary could sequester all the local food and demand conversion, and it would be the same as the Christian situation you describe.

No, according to my logic, Christian missionaries look for desperate, deprived, and starving people to seek out converts from, which is just as bad as what uneducated individual Muslims did using weapons. The real difference is that in the Islamic faith, coercion by holding food from starving people or pointing a gun in order to convert is unlawful and unacceptable. While with the many missionary, evangelical groups, they use the Pauline letters to justify such acts as using starvation to convert.

The comparison is silly. You should be ashamed of yourself....

Your attempt at obfuscation is intellectually dishonest.  

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?

Your mastery of obfuscation is more readily observed. That has become clearer.

Both have used the fear of death to push their faiths. The real difference is that Islam prohibits this.  

Hope this helps.

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.

Offering charity is no longer worth a damn if it is being used to coerce people, with the fear of death, to accept a faith. It does not have any positive meaning. It is simply meaningless.

You are trying to imply that the means justify the end as long as someone lives longer.

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

Seeking a group of people out due to their desperate condition, and putting food in their face along side a bible is coercion under the distress of death, and just like the example you gave along with your original question, the answer is, the conversion is not real until the person believes.

Your ability to give a passing grade to western missionaries and white wahs what they do, just because someone lives, is rubbish. The person with a gun to their head also lives if they accept another faith under duress.

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?  

ejdavid wrote: So I will ask you a sincere and simple question. Do YOU object to Christian missionaries taking in orphans?

No I don't, but this isn't the issue you brought up or discussing  

ejdavid wrote: 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.

This is generalizing from the particular. We have already established that there are legit Christian groups.

The scope of the thread is the binding agreement with accepting a faith under the coercion of death,m whter it be through starvation or a bullet. In either case, Islam prohibits using coercion as a means to convert, and does not recognize a conversion under such circumstances.

ejdavid wrote: I Am Out Of Here!

Good, may God quide you in a true direction...

ejdavid wrote: 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.

More masterful obfuscation.

1) This is called a false analogy. Christian activists are coming from CA with gifts is may or may not the same (you should clarify and then establish why it is relevant) as Christian missionaries who purposely target the most desperate of the world as a way to use basic sustenance of life as a means to coerce these peoples into converting to their faith.

2) In Islam, we do not have "missionaries. Furthermore, Islam prohibits the use of direct force as a means to spread the faith.

3) The Christians from CA are not oppressed people who are trying to free themselves.

Hope This Helps. 

ejdavid wrote: RECKONING Someday the diety will ask: "Did you feed orphans or bomb commuter trains." All else is commentary.

Or bomb entire villages? Or use terrorism to contain communism? Or policies that starve and deprive nations? If Gd asks this question, I fear that many US Christians will be having a great deal of trouble.

ejdavid wrote: 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!

That is a real nice deflection!

Now back to the point. Many Christians use the Pauline letters as an excuse to use deceitful, and questionable means to convert people. As longh as it is for Jesus, how can Gd possibly hold you accountable?

You are deflecting from the point by trying to show how nice the gifts are.

ejdavid wrote: Angel Good. Now for the issue EYE brought up. I contend my family's India charity work converting Hindus with matterial incentive IS supperior to shooting Hindus who do not convert to Islam.

Why do you need to convert is my first question?

2nd, why do the hindus need to convert to get the material incentives, if you truly want to help, why don't you just give the materials away? 

What you are saying is that unless the hindus convert they will not get the materials / food that they (desparately) need. Hence they will die slowly and you see this as superior some how  

If they agree to convert then the hindus will get materials and live, this is making them do something against their will, (just as with those fox news reporters being threatened with a gun) how do you know they are not just agreeing to get the materials to live by? they are obviously poor and need help and if you are desparate and want a way out even if something is slightly better, some people will do anything to get resources.

And anyway, Charity work either by religious people or not should not be used like this, I believe it is wrong.

Tell me how do you see this as right?  

This all came up because Muslim kidnappers DID convert the FOX newsmen at the threat of death.

And after when the reporters were released, did they go back to their former beliefs ?

That threat IS different and inferior to what my family does in India. If you disagree, I really, really want you to continue saying so before the entire world.....

yes I disagree, I don't agree with converting people with material/food incentives just so they can live any more than having a gun pointed at you. Both are under duress. Both are desparate. Can you not see that? and both are inferior just that one is more passive than the other.

Obviously you are Christian and therefore believe in Jesus, would have Jesus did this? As I understand it Jesus gave help to those who needed it and didn't ask for anything in return or that you have to convert to get help. 

Is this being shown to the hindus? If not, why not? and if it is, then I go back to my 1st & 2nd question in this post?  

One is aggresive per say and one is passive resisitent. They both are their own form of manipulation.  What happened to the reporters is NOT accepted by the Moslem community, whereas it is accepted by a certain percentage of the Christian community.

No prophet of God would do either.

ejdavid,

1 Furthermore then we beseech you, brethren, and exhort you by the Lord Jesus, that as ye have received of us how ye ought to walk and to please God, so ye would abound more and more.

EJDavid,

To paraphrase Addison DeWitt, you are dramatic and full of self-importance.  You�re magnificent!  (You are also quoted below.) 

I think, for better effect, your �Full Disclosure(s)� might better be called �Act One, Scene Two,� etc.  That�s just a suggestion, from one of your more ardent, though recent fans, me.

As well you should be!  In the words of that other dramatist, Oscar Wilde, the only thing worse than being talked about (or �watched�) is not being talked about!

I think it probably has more to do with your wild-eyed, Albert Einstein on a bad hair day look.  I know that always gets me into trouble!  Me saintly American mum says that I look �too European� and I am thus always stopped, searched and seized.  Once a pompous official told me that, because my eyes are so bright and shiny, I look stoned.  Be that as it may (or may not), I, in return, told him that the pupils of his eyes have the narrow, elongated look of a reptile ...

I think your being both detained and searched at the airport is probably more related to your having tried to board the plane with a wounded clay pigeon squawking on your shoulder and with those screaming, Islamic maniacs you had taken on board as prisoners of war.  

That is not very reassuring!  What if it wasn�t �our guys� who did it?

I can�t wait!  Please bring us plenty of these installments.  We were, at times, sort of lacking proper �dialogue� around here and now we have the possibility of a full script!

Signed:

Servie, a fan

ejdavid wrote: Angel - You wrote that when my family supplies food, an orphanage, trinkets and entertainment it is not supperior to what the Muslim gunmen did to the FOX reporters. If that is the case, then I worry for both your intellect and your soul.

ejdavid, now you pose 2 scenerios with the outcome of death for not converting, remember? one for islamic militants threating with a gun and the other christian missionary using food (may not be seen as entirely threatening but still it is coecision!).

Now, (puting aside your family as I don't want to offend I don't fully know what they do), now you put down in your scenerio a christian charity group (you didn't name any) that gives food and other materials if the people convert, otherwise if they don't conert the people do not get the food and materials hence they will die eventually. You also put down the islamic group to convert using a gun, if they don't then they get shot, dying immediately. Both are inferior and as I said earlier I do not agree with it.

is there something wrong with that, you seem to think so,

You also wrote: "...how do you know they are not just agreeing to get the materials to live by?" I don't and I don't care. Perhaps they are pretending to convert to get the food, clothing, education and trinkets. Who cares? They may continue to be Hindus in their hearts, and no one will harm them.

But you posed that to get the materials/food they have to convert vs having to convert at gun point. Both are being coerced.

were not the two fox reporters released ?? even thou they "supposedly" converted to Islam at gun point ?? perhaps they to were pretending.

You also wrote: "...Tell me how do you see this as right?" IMHO, I do not particularly like outsiders raising the standard of living of selected individuals. Sort of like winning a lottery.

huh?

what has that got to do with the thread?? 

However, have you ever met many people who themselves objected to winning a lottery.

I have seen many stories that people have regretted winning the lottery as it ruined their lives than making it better.

Does that change things?

And I repeat, the local authorities approve for the various reasons listed above. Do you REALLY believe these same authorities would believe the same thing if Muslim gunmen came in? Whether they actually shot anyone or not? You also wrote; "Obviously you are Christian." It is not obvious at all, and I have already expressed my concerns about raisning one poor person above the others. Who am I, however, to deny unexpected wealth to a poor community, like orphans. Clearly, the local authorities actually aprove, for all the reasons I have previously provided. I will defer to the Hindu (or other) authorities who have jurisdiction in this matter. Do you defer to the elected representatives, or their appointed authorities. Presumably Islam does not recognize such political arraingements by voters.

ejdavid, you have gone from speaking about christian missioneries to just your group, I haven't stuck to your group alone I spoke in general, although I used it as an example BUT NOT meaning to impose that they are doing bad, I don't know what your group does, so please don't get offended or the need to defend it. I know you put it up to show that christians seem to be better than the islamic miltants. Hence I came (with your equiry at the start and the scenerios you used) with that neither one is better than the other as both are using coercision to convert - one with food/materials and the other with a gun - and if they don't will die.

But since you came with this:

You also wrote: "...how do you know they are not just agreeing to get the materials to live by?" I don't and I don't care. Perhaps they are pretending to convert to get the food, clothing, education and trinkets. Who cares? They may continue to be Hindus in their hearts, and no one will harm them.

And that the two fox reporters are still alive after forcefully converting to islam (and not in their hearts) no harm is done well at least phyiscally.

So I say what was the whole point of the thread. 

Yo! DJ, er, I mean, EJDavid!  It�s, like, who�s Steve?

Serv

.

Ladas......

Lada, Zhiguli....it's all Russian for.... "I don't dare be an athiest, my prayers are the only thing holding this together!"

Servetus wrote: Yo! DJ, er, I mean, EJDavid!  It�s, like, who�s Steve? Serv

lol!, I was woondering about that too

ejdavid wrote: Angel All I said is converting people at gun point is different and inferior to what my people do. Specifically fund an orphange, and provide various matterial goods to those involved.

okay. 

What in the living h*ll is there to argue about here?

were we arguing  

Sign*Reader wrote: Andalus: IM disappointed in your mod'ship, you violated your own rule on this section that " Non-Muslims can ask questions about Islam, but discussion can not take place here".

It is not my rule. If I were to dot every i and cross every t, the forum simply would not have any serious dialogue. Personally, I allow a thread to run its own course until it gets too agressive, or mods recieve too many complaints, or modes make an collective opinion, or adim does not like it.

Here ejdavid threw a bait and you and others bit that; were taken on a wild goose chase which ended up like the comic strip non sequitur or rather I would say a Special Olympics.

Actually, you are correct that it was a bait, and the original question used a rhetorical trick that clearly shoed bad intention.

But I was not taken on any wild goose chase.

What some fail to see is the forest beyond the treeline. When a post enters the forum like that, I have several rational choices:

1) close the thread

2) delete the thread and close it

3) directly respond to the thread's points

3) is the most rational. My reply is not necessarily to the contributor, but to those who come here to observe and investigate. After the contributor failed to seriously reply and make a solid case for the original claims, it will be apparent to anyone who reads as an observer what the stance of Islam actually is, and the masterful obfuscation that was attempted in return. I have no other claim to the thread beyond my participation. If you feel the thread is causing problems, then please do bring this to light and I will be happy to close it.

I ask you not to wish for such exacting adherence to the rules, as then more people will complain that the forum is overly moderated. The rules are there to protect and provide a bases from which to bring about some kind of order. I am not a machine and will not cling to them as Moses did with the ten commandments. They are a guide. I invite you to bring up any problems you find to any of the mods, and I promise to hear you out if you bring something up to me.

Kindest Regards 

Oh Jeez. Put me down with the dyslexic who pondered if there really was a dog.

Good one, EJDavid!

Serv