Conversations on conversion
Alexandra is incensed at Bill Maher for making light of forced conversion to Islam.
Maher isn’t one of my favorites (surprise, surprise, you say), and I don’t really tend to follow his shows. But in a comedy routine (video here; starts at minute two), Maher said:
New rule: If converting to Islam is all it takes to get the terrorists off our backs, then all I have to say is, “Lalalalalalala! [ulalates loudly]”…Now, I know what you’re thinking: “Bill, if we convert to Islam, doesn’t that mean the terrorists have won?” Well, sort of, but it’s a win-win, because they get to declare victory, and we get to take hair gel on the plane. Plus, we’re not really converting to Islam. We’re just telling our enemies what they want to hear, and trying to convince them we’re something we’re really not…And, it’s so simple to convert this way. You know, if you want to convert to Judaism, it’s a huge hassle. You’ve got to find a Rabbi, study the Torah, get circumcised, go to dental school. But, Mohammed made joining his team easy: two line pledge, and you’re in.
Maher loves to be controversial, and this rant is no exception. He goes on to add that conversion doesn’t matter because Americans are Christians in name only and don’t fulfill most of the obligations of Christianity, and that one religious fanatic is much the same as another.
To treat Maher’s charges with a seriousness they perhaps don’t deserve, he ignores the fact that imperfection in religious observance (charity, for example, and other kindly acts) is the rule for humanity across the board, not just in the case of Americans. He also ignores the major differences between fanatical Christians and fanatical Moslems and fanatical Jews, especially in their attitudes towards conversion, but in many other respects, as well.
Most of us can agree with Maher, however, that allowing religious fanatics of any stripe to be in charge of government would be a bad thing. The disagreement arises in the definition of “fanatic.” Some, no doubt, believe that all Zionists are by definition religious fanatics. Some, no doubt, feel that the entire anti-abortion crowd–not just those who murder abortionists–are religious fanatics.
I happen to believe that not all religious fanatics are the same. And I think the evidence is clear that present-day Islamist fanatics are louder, more numerous, more powerful in their own countries, more willing to use coercion to force beliefs and practices on others, and more intent on killing very large numbers of people in their desire for religious hegemony.
That attitude towards religious hegemony–and the best means to go about achieving it, if desired–is another huge distinction between the three Abrahamic religions. Even though he’s not trying to be serious, Maher touches on a very fundamental and important difference among the religions as far as conversion goes, and it’s not a tangential one. The distinction goes to the heart of what each religion is in modern times–how it sees itself, its message, and its mission in the world.
Judaism makes conversion difficult for a reason. Islam makes it extremely easy for a reason. Christianity occupies a middle ground for a reason (the issues and history are far more complex than can be dealt with in this post, so the following is, quite naturally, a simplification).
Judaism has a “live and let live” attitude towards other religions. Here’s a statement of the Jewish point of view:
Judaism, unlike say Christianity and Islam, is not a proselytising religion. Because it teaches that the righteous of all nations shall enter the gates of heaven, it does not have any compelling urge to rescue non-Jews from hell and damnation. There is a requirement in Jewish law to ensure the sincerity of a potential convert. Essentially, [the religious authorities] want to be sure that the convert knows what he is getting into, and that he is doing it for sincerely religious reasons.
Christianity is a proselytising religion. In modern times it does so through nonviolent means–persuasion, preaching, missionary work–although in the past coercion was sometimes involved. The idea behind both the nonviolent and the violent conversions was that Christianity was the only way to salvation, and thus it was incumbent on Christians to spread the faith.
The same is true of Islam. Islam’s early tradition is one of jihad through martial conquest, giving defeated peoples “of the Book” (Christians, Jews) a choice: conversion, dhimmitude, or death. The choice for infidels was simpler: conversion or death. This was done despite verses in the Koran framing religious choice as something that should not be coerced. As in much of Islam, there are other contradictory hadiths–for example, the Verse of the Sword–that seem to prescribe forced conversion.
There is no question that Islam is a religion with a mainstream–not a fringe–belief that everyone on earth should ultimately become Moslem. In fact, it considers conversion to be a misnomer; the proper word might be reversion, since it is also believes that everyone on earth is actually born a Moslem. Islam is also the only religion of which I’m aware that considers death the punishment for renouncing the religion.
As a group that has been subjected to forced conversions for centuries–both at the hands of Christians and from Moslems–Jews have long pondered the dilemma of the reluctant potential convert. Should one resist to the death? Or is a far more serious version of Bill Maher’s suggestion (“We’re not really converting to Islam”) acceptable: pretended conversion, allowing the convert to live and to practice Judaism in secret, hoping at some future date to become openly Jewish once again?
The great Jewish rabbi-philosopher Maimonides pondered the issue in the twelfth century, writing his “Epistle on Forced Conversion.” Maimonides had an extremely personal interest in the topic, since he himself had been forced to convert to Islam in Spain in order to save his life, after which he fled that country, ending up in Egypt and returning to the practice of Judaism. His answer is that it is best to leave the area, if possible, rather than to convert, but that conversion is acceptable and forgivable in order to save one’s life, especially if the intent is to practice secretly and/or to ultimately emigrate and practice the religion openly once again.
Some who are not religious may find it hard to understand what all the fuss about forced conversion is. But most probably realize that forced conversion is an affront to freedom of belief and practice, which includes the freedom to not believe and to not practice. And even Maher, in his lucid moments–and I’m sure he has a few–would agree that any religious group bent on forcibly and aggressively imposing both its belief system and its practices on others is one that must be vigorously fought against and defeated. Conversion at the point of a sword–or a gun–is the unmistakable marker of such a religious group. And such conversion seems to be the exclusive province of Islamist totalitarians these days.
I’m afraid that both you and (especially) Maher are overlooking one small detail: While Islam may frown upon forcible conversions, that admonition doesn’t translate into not recognizing such conversions as valid and binding upon the converted. From a recent post on Winds of Change:
But, let us remember that the basis of Islam, indeed the very meaning of the word, is “submission,” not faith. There is no concept of original sin in Islam as there is in Christianity; indeed, while original sin is the conceptual glue that holds Christian doctrine together, it is entirely rejected in Islam. Christianity teaches that original sin cannot be remitted by any human works, only by the works of God, namely, Christ dying and resurrected. Hence, no deeds human beings can do can bring them to salvation. Thus, wrote St. Paul, “If you believe in your heart that Jesus was raised from the dead and confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, you will be saved.” Note the order: confession follows a change of heart, an affirmation of belief. Without the change of heart the confession’s utterance is of no value.
But in Islam, the confession’s utterance is unconnected to a change of heart. In fact, a change of heart is wholly irrelevant. The confession stands alone and its only point is that it is done, not that it is believed. The entire edifice of salvation theory in Islam is built on one thing alone: human submission to perform deeds ordered by Allah. Islam does not teach that Allah desires human beings to love him; they are commanded to obey.
The two Fox reporters may think they pulled a fast one on their captors, but it’s just a matter of time before Islamists in America or elsewhere call their bluff (perhaps by “inviting” them on a little trip to do a little jihad, or merely by checking up on their behavior and activities during the next Ramadan). Once that happens, all bets are off.
I find it interesting that comedians like Maher and Jon Stewart are where most young liberals get their news.
If you question what they are saying, you get the usual “but their just comics” but this has infected the larger Democrat Party. They have become totally unserious in very serious times.
Regarding the forced conversions and pursuant to Joshua’s “submission” point above.
Islam regards apostasy as a very grave sin. In most schools of Sharia jurisprudence it is equivalent to treason and is punishable by death.
Interesting that Judaism suggests that in-name-only “conversions” are acceptable if they are to save one’s life (at least, if Maimonides is representative of mainstream Judaic thought). I was aware that many Jews throughout history had kept their Judaism secret to avoid persecution, but I wasn’t aware of the line of thought that allowed for false “conversions” at sword point to save one’s life.
Mainstream Christian thought tends to be that it would be better to allow oneself to be killed than to renounce the Christian faith, even if one didn’t mean the renunciation. There have been exceptions, I’m sure — but that’s clearly the mainstream line of thought in Christianity. Look, for example, at the vast number of Christian martyrs throughout history: most of them were offered a choice “Renounce Christ or die” and chose death rather than renouncing Christ. The first recorded Christian martyr, a bishop named Polycarp, is recorded as having said, “Eighty and six years have I served Him, and He never did me any injury: how then can I blaspheme my King and my Saviour?” (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0102.htm) Millions of others throughout history expressed a similar sentiment: that they would rather die than renounce Christ.
The contrast between those that Christianity and Judaism celebrate as martyrs (who chose to die rather than give up their faith, or who weren’t offered a choice but were just plain killed for their faith), and those whom Islam celebrates as martyrs (who chose to kill those they considered the enemies of Allah, either killing themselves or being killed in the process) couldn’t be starker.
Oops – I meant “one of the first” recorded Christian martyrs, not *the* first. The honor of being first may well belong to Stephen, whose martyrdom is recorded in the Bible, in Acts chapter 7. And there were many others before Polycarp, but we don’t have records of many of their names.
In Jewish history, there were so many forced conversions that the Day of Atonement opens with the prayer “Kol Nidre,” a prayer that specifically asks God for the forgiveness and abrogation of those false vows.
I don’t know who wrote this prayer. Maybe it was Maimonedes.
This “let’s just cross our fingers when we convert” punchline seems to be making the rounds in the, er, reality-based community. I ran across this just before I saw the Maher piece:
It’s frivolous, of course, but I think the net result will be to spread awareness about what the jihadis really have in mind (In Maher’s case, anyway).
I sure wish Centanni and Wiig would publically repudiate their “conversion.”
Kol Nidre, as I recall, is a relatively recent prayer/song from the 17th or 16th century, originating in Poland. I’m sure someone else reading this has much better info on it. I mostly remember because I was surprised at its relatively late date: I, too, had assumed it was ancient.
Anyway, even if one vows falsely to be a Jew, the only punishment is that one is not recognized as a Jew. It is ludicrous to think that one would be condemned to death for such false vows.
“any religious group bent on forcibly and aggressively imposing both its belief system and its practices on others is one that must be vigorously fought against and defeated”
Should we not include the great fanatic secular religions of the 20 c.? Communism and its practitioners have certainly forced a belief system worldwide.
I wonder what will happen when all the leftists who, from their statements, attitudes and actons, have allied with the terrorists have to go, eventually, to the terrorists and say, “see what we have done for you, we are allies.” I wonder what their reward will be? A little warmer cell while awaiting execution, first place at the execution ground, or maybe they get to be the first slaves instead of being killed outright? I wonder.
Those Islamists inviting us to convert would not be satisfied with us just stating that we are Muslim. Conversion would mean submission to sharia.
Maher assumes that Islamists would be as patient with a cafetaria version of their religion as Christians and Jews are. Why shouldn’t he assume that? Haven’t Islamists shown themselves to be as patient as Christians and Jews with artistic blasphemy against their religion?
It doesn’t matter if it’s changing religion or changing my socks. The founders of our nation did not fight and die so that foreign tyrants can tell us what to do. The men who went overseas for the World Wars did not fight and die so that foreign tyrants can tell us what to do.
For myself, give me liberty or give me death.
Snowonpine is right on target. There won’t be any gay rights parades under shariah law, that’s for sure. In fact, there will be lots of hanging and beheading and stoning of them. I wonder if Iran has hung any more gay teens in Public lately? They strung up a 16 yr. old girl for adultery. Them mullahs don’t fool around when it comes to sin, no sir!
Bushmert vs. Sheikh Adam Pearlman: Dude, Where’s My Caliphate?
Three days ago, “Seikh Azzam Al-Amrikiyy” a former heavy-metal punk from south California known as Adam Gadahn-Pearlman, addressed his fellow Americans through a sleek Al-Qaeda video clip calling on them to convert to Islam and warning of the consequences if they tried to stop the “rebirth of the glorious Mohammedan Caliphate” [The Arab-Islamic empire of old]…
Precisely a year ago, on the fourth anniversary of 911, when Gadahn-Pearlman emerged as the new “Islamo-fascist” boogeyman in the Neocon press, British journalist Jane Bradley wrote the following:
“In the case of the CIA and Al-Qaeda, it is becoming increasingly difficult to separate the goals, strategies and even membership of these two groups, despite their alleged, bitter and mutual enmity. The convergence of personnel and the remarkable proclivity of Al-Qaeda to promote Anglo-American/Israeli business interests by blowing things up or issuing communiques just at the right time and just at the right place […] It is part of an on-going scare campaign of fake and bluster terrorism designed to remind Americans of the ‘threat’ posed by al-Qaeda. […] Gadahn-Pearlman is an illusory (and cartoonish) demon custom-made for right-wing paranoids who buy into the neocon ‘clash of civilizations’ scam.”
Today, President Bush seemed intent on proving that Jane Bradley’s analysis is right on the money: addressing the Military Officers Association of America, Bush said that Al Qaeda’s vision was to create a “unified totalitarian Islamic state that can confront and eventually destroy the free world.”… and that Bin Laden had declared Iraq “the capital of the caliphate.” [sic]
Tellingly, in that highly surreal speech, Bush insisted that “We know what the terrorists intend to do because they’ve told us”.
Hmm…Frankly, I sometimes wonder if it’s the other way round!
The above is drive by trolling. Don’t bother responding.
Speaking of trolls, where’s ol’ Pete been with his gruesome numbers anyway??
To determine the true purpose of a process, look at the results, not at the claims made by its users. Users don’t have to understand the process to use it, and in the Islamic conversion process, it’s preferable that they don’t.
It’s a filter, designed to screen out and kill all the inspired and motivated people in areas dominated by Islam, and leave behind only the people who work for no higher cause than staying alive.
This, plus the other processes that are part of the Islamic religion, make it just as dangerous as Communism was, and by the same token, make it just as difficult for leftists to recognize the danger it represents.
They will realize what they have lost only after it is long gone and civilization’s benefits, from 80-year life spans to indoor plumbing, are just rapidly fading dreams.
Goesh,
Regarding that 16-year-old girl who was hanged for adultery in Iran — I believe she had actually been raped.
The Left will not “win” this struggle. They will never suffer under Islamo-fascist victory; never suffer forced conversions.
If the Left is “successful” at stopping Bush & America from enFORCING the Nuclear-Non-Proliferation Treaty signed by Iran, then Iran will get nukes. (99% in 5 years.)
More likely, the Left will “allow” Bush to go after Iran, then complain about him being a war-monger, yada yada.
If Iran gets nukes; I think only 1-4 years before a nuke is used on a Western city–Tel Aviv is my thought/ expectation, though Moscow, Mumbai, and Miami are all possible, too (80%?- 95%, estimate varies daily)
If Iran does NOT get nukes, the slowly stabilizing Iraq will infect the Shia of Iran with a desire for true democracy and freedom — in 5 – 10 years the Iranians will throw off the mullahs (which is why 1-they want Iraq to continue to fail, and 2-they want nukes before they lose power). (60-90%)
Finally, after Iran gets nukes, and a Western city is mushroomed — then the Left will be ignored as Islamo fascists are attacked.
I think Iran should be attacked BEFORE a nuke goes off.
Not much in the way of debates in the last day or so. Did somebody get out the ban stick?
Not all Christian groups are evangelical, some are predestinationist. The evangelical sorts, even the major fundamentalist evangelical sorts (or perhaps *especially* evangelical fundamentalists) reject salvation for those who do the right things and say the right words if they haven’t experienced spiritual rebirth. Other, more traditional churches, have the concept of the visible and invisible church. The visible is who we see. The invisible church are those who God sees when He examines our hearts.
It’s been a *very* long time since the Holy Roman Empire was declared Christian by the Emperor and whole crowds of people or soldiers made “Christian” by a priest with a bucket of water to say some words no one understood and fling the water so everyone got at least a drop on them.
Anyhow, cryptic Jews are interesting to me. It seems that a very lot of them came to America from Spain, figuring that pretending to be Christian was even safer at a distance. I’ve read accounts of people just now, in New Mexico, discovering that their heritage is actually Jewish after 300 years of going through all the rites of Catholicism. (Family members who weren’t considered safe to tell when they reached a certain age simply were *never* told.)