Dead man walking.

Posted by: AllahSnackbar at March 23, 2008 10:07 AM

I really like This Pope, he's doing what needs to be done.

Posted by: general pershing at March 23, 2008 10:19 AM

So is this what prompted Bin Laden's recent recording accusing Benedict of helping in a "new Crusade?"

Posted by: vergescue at March 23, 2008 10:26 AM

'He is an adult, free to make his personal choice,' the Apcom news agency quoted the group's spokesman, Issedin El Zir, as saying.

Does that mean that adults making personal choices can only exist in a country not ruled by Sharia Law?

Inquiring minds want to know..............

Posted by: tanstaafl at March 23, 2008 10:55 AM

This was given some surprisingly large coverage this morning on Fox News (video tape and commentary). Dead apostate walking.

They are reporting on the reaction to Fitna da Movie also.

Posted by: Pelayo at March 23, 2008 11:14 AM

>>then there was this French doctor, and then there was that Englishman Marmaduke Pickthall, and that Italian -- as if proving to the world and to themselves just how fantastic Islam must be. The list is slim, and of course filled mostly with the psychically marginal, of a type or types we all recognize. --Hugh

The "psychically marginal?" IOW - nutty as a fruitcake, bats in the belfry, off their rocker, nobody home?

Yes, I see that. Non compos mentis is the only way in which one not born into Islam would voluntarily convert to it. The only.

Posted by: darcy at March 23, 2008 11:57 AM

He better up his protection.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at March 23, 2008 12:39 PM

'He is an adult, free to make his personal choice,'

With this comment, Issedin may be opening a big can of worms across the muslim world.

Mass conversions for muslims desperate to leave islam without the threat of death. Riots against Issedin for having contradicted the Koran which makes him an apostate. Denials of such freedom from Imams everywhere and the Grand Mufti, exposing and overturning the lies of "personal choice" in their religion.

Nice can of worms. Popcorn and a comfy chair.

Posted by: TallyP at March 23, 2008 1:12 PM

Magdi Allam's conversion is even better than making Rushdie a Knight. And what a great touch, the Pope doing it himself. Muslims now have so many things to be upset over, it's a wonder any of them sleep.
This is fighting fire with fire, a slick method of causing the Ummah to consume itself until extinguished...

Posted by: duh_swami at March 23, 2008 1:34 PM

It is sad that a personal decision like Magdi's is newsworthy. I do applaud the Pope's decision to publicly welcome him into the church. I just hope Pope Benedict has the strength to keep on the course that he has chosen. I can imagine how unpopular it is to choose to act on principal these days.

Posted by: Jerry M at March 23, 2008 1:39 PM

He is an adult, free to make his personal choice

This is Good. As in 'Great', actually, for here's the great challenge to Islam over apostacy we need. Yes, he'll need protection, and that protection will be well worth it.

I think this is a mastery move by the Pope. God bless Him, and may he live long.

Apostacy is one of the things that Islamic leaders fear most, for it erodes their prestige and their power base when adherents decide that Islam is bad for them and leave. It's the ultimate insult to Muhammad and Allah (note the dual :)

High profile cases like this encourage others, many others, to follow suit. Islamists will then have to decide if they'll engage in terror killings of the 'insulters' or just give up. My guess is, unfortunately, that we will see some killings. Which, on the other hand, puts Islam in a bad light.

Maximum protection and publicity.

Posted by: Henrik at March 23, 2008 3:04 PM

Hugh -

"Etcetera" [sic] is two words: "et cetera". For the rest of you, it is also not: "eck cetera".

Yeah, yeah, I know M-W.com has an entry for "etcetera". But Hugh is a classicist. Please, people. Let's be serious.

Posted by: HotSpur at March 23, 2008 3:10 PM

I think that in a Latin phrase "et cetera" alone is acceptable. But becauuse "et cetera" almost often appears in English simply as an abridged "etc." then, by extension, writers in English have allowed themselves, over time, to let "etcetera" stand in for "et cetera" without a sense of its violating an English rule. Compare "vademecum" and "vade mecum."

There is an entire essay by the celebrated historian of early English law, F. W. Maitland, devoted to teasing out the meaning "etc." [or "et cetera], the particular one that ends the list of thrones, powers, and dominions that are part of the royal title. I can't remember the essay's name. But it does have "etc." or possibly "et cetera" in the title.

I could add more, but there is no need. It can be summed up as, in essence, etcetera.

Posted by: Hugh at March 23, 2008 3:51 PM

France,

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/015160.php

I just read the other day Iran is getting worried about all the Christian converts.

"The King is coming"
Happy Easter!

Posted by: Joe Schmoe USA at March 23, 2008 3:54 PM

When more Muslims begin to leave Islam, it will show it for what it is, a weak and brittle religion that uses the threat of death agianst those who leave. This what also makes it a cult.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at March 23, 2008 4:35 PM

"The Union of Islamic Communities in Italy — which Allam has frequently criticized as having links to Hamas — said the baptism was his own decision.
'He is an adult, free to make his personal choice,' the Apcom news agency quoted the group's spokesman, Issedin El Zir, as saying. [...]" -- from this article

Yup, remember, there's no compulsion in the religion of peace, just deadly consequences.

Posted by: RalphInfidel at March 23, 2008 5:02 PM

Don't get way over your head Magdi, you are just trying to sell your paper and books, 99.99999% of muslims don't care that you left Islam and in fact are happy you did, so we no longer have to worry about your hypocrisy and hypocrites are far more dangerous than apostates. As for the violent religion of Catholicism that you choose, guess what recently one of your co-religionist and a priest at that, was sentenced to 1500 years for killing thousands of people in Rwanda:

Rwandan priest gets life for 1,500 dead - Yahoo! News

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080313/ap_on_re_af/rwanda_genocide

Moreover, Catholicism still holds the record for the most killings of Christians, much more than muslims, and is blamed for the fall of Constantinople to the Muslims universally by almost all Eastern Orthodox Christians, because of the Catholic Crusaders sacking it back in 1204 causing irreversible damage:

The Crusaders took the city on April 12. The crusaders inflicted a horrible and savage sacking on Constantinople for three days, during which many ancient and medieval Roman and Greek works were either stolen or destroyed. Despite their oaths and the threat of excommunication, the Crusaders ruthlessly and systematically violated the city's holy sanctuaries, destroying, defiling, or stealing all they could lay hands on; nothing was spared. It was said that the total amount looted from Constantinople was about 900,000 silver marks.

Speros Vryonis in Byzantium and Europe gives a vivid account of the sack of Constantinople by the Frankish and Venetian Crusaders of the Fourth Crusade:

The Latin soldiery subjected the greatest city in Europe to an indescribable sack. For three days they murdered, raped, looted and destroyed on a scale which even the ancient Vandals and Goths would have found unbelievable. Constantinople had become a veritable museum of ancient and Byzantine art, an emporium of such incredible wealth that the Latins were astounded at the riches they found. Though the Venetians had an appreciation for the art which they discovered (they were themselves semi-Byzantines) and saved much of it, the French and others destroyed indiscriminately, halting to refresh themselves with wine, violation of nuns, and murder of Orthodox clerics. The Crusaders vented their hatred for the Greeks most spectacularly in the desecration of the greatest Church in Christendom. They smashed the silver iconostasis, the icons and the holy books of Hagia Sophia, and seated upon the patriarchal throne a whore who sang coarse songs as they drank wine from the Church's holy vessels. The estrangement of East and West, which had proceeded over the centuries, culminated in the horrible massacre that accompanied the conquest of Constantinople. The Greeks were convinced that even the Turks, had they taken the city, would not have been as cruel as the Latin Christians. The defeat of Byzantium, already in a state of decline, accelerated political degeneration so that the Byzantines eventually became an easy prey to the Turks. The Crusading movement thus resulted, ultimately, in the victory of Islam, a result which was of course the exact opposite of its original intention.

(Vryonis, Byzantium and Europe, p.152).

(From me: READ THE LAST TWO SENTENCES ABOVE, IT SAYS EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW.)

According to Choniates, a prostitute was even set up on the Patriarchal throne.

LASTLY, I reject Christianity not because of the actions of christians but because the concept of Salvation(the fact that you are not held accountable for your own deeds and that even if you make the smallest of sins you are condemned to hell so that someone completely innocent has to "die" for your sins) and the concept of God(the trinity, because 3 never will equal 1 ever, and even a six year old will tell you that). Using Magdi's argument that he rejects Islam because of the violence committed in its name, one can then argue that Europe is justified for rejecting Christianity during the Enlightment because of the violence committed in its name and same goes with every other religion.

Posted by: Ro at March 23, 2008 5:49 PM

The poster just above might wish to read further in the work of Speros Vryonis, about the role of Islam in Turkey, and what it meant for the Greeks and other non-Muslims. He would likely not be quite so impressed with Vryonis as he is now. And he might, on the matter of the Trinity, listen to the late Jaroslav Pelikan on this concept, which Muslims appear to believe turns Christians into polytheists (which is passing strange, given that they also keep up a steady drumbeat of Interfaith propaganda, directed at Christians, that keeps stressing that Islam is one of the "three monotheistic faiths," "one of the abrahamic religions"-- repeated ad nauseam.

That there has been violence in the history of Christianity no Christian denies. That Jesus Christ himself was not violent, did not preach violence, and was completely, unalterably opposed to what Muhammad, that warrior who used every wile -- "war is deception" -- to conquer those who would not submit to him, and even discovered in the Qur'an rules about slavery, and rules about the disposition of loot (riches, women) taken in raids on non-Muslims, both practiced and preached.

Posted by: Hugh at March 23, 2008 6:01 PM

By now, I think it is surely necessary to suspect that, not only
is it occurring to the Muslim mind that Islam "isn't really so wonderful", but, what may be more meaningful to that mind, that it isn't true.

So far, we haven't had an explosion of rage over Mr Allam's conversion, but we will have one over Geert Wilders' film, and of course we have had a number of them recently over everything from unfunny Danish cartoons to naming a teddy bear Mohammed.

Neither repeated explosions of rage over nothing, nor sentences of death for "apostasy" and "blasphemy", are suggestive of confidence - confidence that one's faith is of divine origin, or that it is capable of surviving without the help of threats and crimes.

I wonder what it means, in the long run, that Islam seems today to be characterized much more by nagging doubt than outraged belief? Is it dying? Or will it do anything to survive?

Posted by: Novalis at March 23, 2008 6:06 PM

By now, I think it is surely necessary to suspect that, not only
is it occurring to the Muslim mind that Islam "isn't really so wonderful", but, what may be more meaningful to that mind, that it isn't true.

So far, we haven't had an explosion of rage over Mr Allam's conversion, but we will have one over Geert Wilders' film, and of course we have had a number of them recently over everything from unfunny Danish cartoons to naming a teddy bear Mohammed.

Neither repeated explosions of rage over nothing, nor sentences of death for "apostasy" and "blasphemy", are suggestive of confidence - confidence that one's faith is of divine origin, or that it is capable of surviving without the help of threats and crimes.

I wonder what it means, in the long run, that Islam seems today to be characterized much more by nagging doubt than outraged belief? Is it dying? Or will it do anything to survive?

Posted by: Novalis at March 23, 2008 6:07 PM

The letter of Magdi Allam to the Corriere della Sera, describing his conversion:

«Approdo di un lungo cammino
Decisivo l’incontro con il Papa»

Caro Direttore, ciò che ti sto per riferire concerne una mia scelta di fede religiosa e di vita personale che non vuole in alcun modo coinvolgere il Corriere della Sera di cui mi onoro di far parte dal 2003 con la qualifica di vice-direttore ad personam. Ti scrivo pertanto da protagonista della vicenda come privato cittadino. Ieri sera mi sono convertito alla religione cristiana cattolica, rinunciando alla mia precedente fede islamica. Ha così finalmente visto la luce, per grazia divina, il frutto sano e maturo di una lunga gestazione vissuta nella sofferenza e nella gioia, tra la profonda e intima riflessione e la consapevole e manifesta esternazione. Sono particolarmente grato a Sua Santità il Papa Benedetto XVI che mi ha impartito i sacramenti dell’iniziazione cristiana, Battesimo, Cresima ed Eucarestia, nella Basilica di San Pietro nel corso della solenne celebrazione della Veglia Pasquale. E ho assunto il nome cristiano più semplice ed esplicito: «Cristiano».

Da ieri dunque mi chiamo «Magdi Cristiano Allam». Per me è il giorno più bello della vita. Acquisire il dono della fede cristiana nella ricorrenza della Risurrezione di Cristo per mano del Santo Padre è, per un credente, un privilegio ineguagliabile e un bene inestimabile. A quasi 56 anni, nel mio piccolo, è un fatto storico, eccezionale e indimenticabile, che segna una svolta radicale e definitiva rispetto al passato. Il miracolo della Risurrezione di Cristo si è riverberato sulla mia anima liberandola dalle tenebre di una predicazione dove l’odio e l’intolleranza nei confronti del «diverso», condannato acriticamente quale «nemico», primeggiano sull’amore e il rispetto del «prossimo » che è sempre e comunque «persona»; così come la mia mente si è affrancata dall’oscurantismo di un’ideologia che legittima la menzogna e la dissimulazione, la morte violenta che induce all’omicidio e al suicidio, la cieca sottomissione e la tirannia, permettendomi di aderire all’autentica religione della Verità, della Vita e della Libertà. Nella mia prima Pasqua da cristiano io non ho scoperto solo Gesù, ho scoperto per la prima volta il vero e unico Dio, che è il Dio della Fede e Ragione.

Il punto d’approdo
La mia conversione al cattolicesimo è il punto d’approdo di una graduale e profonda meditazione interiore a cui non avrei potuto sottrarmi, visto che da cinque anni sono costretto a una vita blindata, con la vigilanza fissa a casa e la scorta dei carabinieri a ogni mio spostamento, a causa delle minacce e delle condanne a morte inflittemi dagli estremisti e dai terroristi islamici, sia quelli residenti in Italia sia quelli attivi all’estero. Ho dovuto interrogarmi sull’atteggiamento di coloro che hanno pubblicamente emesso delle fatwe, dei responsi giuridici islamici, denunciandomi, io che ero musulmano, come «nemico dell’islam», «ipocrita perché è un cristiano copto che finge di essere musulmano per danneggiare l’islam», «bugiardo e diffamatore dell’islam », legittimando in tal modo la mia condanna a morte. Mi sono chiesto come fosse possibile che chi, come me, si è battuto convintamente e strenuamente per un «islam moderato », assumendosi la responsabilità di esporsi in prima persona nella denuncia dell’estremismo e del terrorismo islamico, sia finito poi per essere condannato a morte nel nome dell’islam e sulla base di una legittimazione coranica. Ho così dovuto prendere atto che, al di là della contingenza che registra il sopravvento del fenomeno degli estremisti e del terrorismo islamico a livello mondiale, la radice del male è insita in un islam che è fisiologicamente violento e storicamente conflittuale.

Parallelamente la Provvidenza mi ha fatto incontrare delle persone cattoliche praticanti di buona volontà che, in virtù della loro testimonianza e della loro amicizia, sono diventate man mano un punto di riferimento sul piano della certezza della verità e della solidità dei valori. A cominciare da tanti amici di Comunione e Liberazione con in testa don Juliàn Carròn; a religiosi semplici quali don Gabriele Mangiarotti, suor Maria Gloria Riva, don Carlo Maurizi e padre Yohannis Lahzi Gaid; alla riscoperta dei salesiani grazie a don Angelo Tengattini e don Maurizio Verlezza culminata in una rinnovata amicizia con il Rettore maggiore Don Pascual Chavez Villanueva; fino all’abbraccio di alti prelati di grande umanità quali il cardinale Tarcisio Bertone, monsignor Luigi Negri, Giancarlo Vecerrica, Gino Romanazzi e, soprattutto, monsignor Rino Fisichella che mi ha personalmente seguito nel percorso spirituale di accettazione della fede cristiana. Ma indubbiamente l’incontro più straordinario e significativo nella decisione di convertirmi è stato quello con il Papa Benedetto XVI, che ho ammirato e difeso da musulmano per la sua maestria nel porre il legame indissolubile tra fede e ragione come fondamento dell’autentica religione e della civiltà umana, e a cui aderisco pienamente da cristiano per ispirarmi di nuova luce nel compimento della missione che Dio mi ha riservato.

La scelta e le minacce
Caro Direttore, mi hai chiesto se io non tema per la mia vita, nella consapevolezza che la conversione al cristianesimo mi procurerà certamente un’ennesima, e ben più grave, condanna a morte per apostasia. Hai perfettamente ragione. So a cosa vado incontro ma affronterò la mia sorte a testa alta, con la schiena dritta e con la solidità interiore di chi ha la certezza della propria fede. E lo sarò ancor di più dopo il gesto storico e coraggioso del Papa che, sin dal primo istante in cui è venuto a conoscenza del mio desiderio, ha subito accettato di impartirmi di persona i sacramenti d’iniziazione al cristianesimo. Sua Santità ha lanciato un messaggio esplicito e rivoluzionario a una Chiesa che finora è stata fin troppo prudente nella conversione dei musulmani, astenendosi dal fare proselitismo nei Paesi a maggioranza islamica e tacendo sulla realtà dei convertiti nei Paesi cristiani. Per paura. La paura di non poter tutelare i convertiti di fronte alla loro condanna a morte per apostasia e la paura delle rappresaglie nei confronti dei cristiani residenti nei Paesi islamici. Ebbene oggi Benedetto XVI, con la sua testimonianza, ci dice che bisogna vincere la paura e non avere alcun timore nell’affermare la verità di Gesù anche con i musulmani.

Basta con la violenza
Dal canto mio dico che è ora di porre fine all’arbitrio e alla violenza dei musulmani che non rispettano la libertà di scelta religiosa. In Italia ci sono migliaia di convertiti all’islam che vivono serenamente la loro nuova fede. Ma ci sono anche migliaia di musulmani convertiti al cristianesimo che sono costretti a celare la loro nuova fede per paura di essere assassinati dagli estremisti islamici che si annidano tra noi. Per uno di quei «casi» che evocano la mano discreta del Signore, il mio primo articolo scritto sul Corriere il 3 settembre 2003 si intitolava «Le nuove catacombe degli islamici convertiti». Era un’inchiesta su alcuni neo-cristiani che in Italia denunciavano la loro profonda solitudine spirituale ed umana, di fronte alla latitanza delle istituzioni dello Stato che non tutelano la loro sicurezza e al silenzio della stessa Chiesa. Ebbene mi auguro che dal gesto storico del Papa e dalla mia testimonianza traggano il convincimento che è arrivato il momento di uscire dalle tenebre dalle catacombe e di affermare pubblicamente la loro volontà di essere pienamente se stessi. Se non saremo in grado qui in Italia, nella culla del cattolicesimo, a casa nostra, di garantire a tutti la piena libertà religiosa, come potremmo mai essere credibili quando denunciamo la violazione di tale libertà altrove nel mondo? Prego Dio affinché questa Pasqua speciale doni la risurrezione dello spirito a tutti i fedeli in Cristo che sono stati finora soggiogati dalla paura.

Magdi Allam
23 marzo 2008

Posted by: Hugh at March 23, 2008 6:13 PM

Also Sprach Hugh: "I think that in a Latin phrase "et cetera" alone is acceptable. But becauuse "et cetera" almost often appears in English simply as an abridged "etc." then, by extension, writers in English have allowed themselves, over time, to let "etcetera" stand in for "et cetera" without a sense of its violating an English rule. Compare "vademecum" and "vade mecum."

You probably already know this Hugh, but in English there is only one word with two consecutive u's in it, and that is vacuum, which I, by nature abhor doing, which is also why I had children, so that they could do the vacuuming for me

Posted by: Jauhara Al-Kafirah at March 23, 2008 6:22 PM

Excuse me Hugh, yes Jesus was relatively peaceful person according to Gospel as was Muhammad when they were both weak. Muhammad was fierce when he had power when he needed to be, and merciful at the same time forgiving many people who plotted his death when he conquered Mecca and even praying at the grave of one his known enemies and asking for his forgiveness (the king of the hypocrites Abdullah Ibn Ubay).

Now again, Jesus of the bible may have been "peaceful" during his ministry, although he did make such ambiguous statements such as in Matthew 10.34-35:

34. Think not that I(Jesus) come to send peace on earth. I came not to send peace, but a sword.35. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.

The missionary, so as to retain the impression of the "meek and gentle Jesus", "the Prince of Peace", pleads that the SWORDS were spiritual! If
the swords were spiritual, then the "garments" must also be spiritual, for in a verse later on Jesus tells his disciples to sell their garments for swords:

"He said to them, 'But now if you have a purse, take it and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.
(From the Bible, Luke 22:36)"

If the disciples of Jesus were to sell their SPIRITUAL garments to buy SPIRITUAL swords, in that case they would all become SPIRITUALLY naked!
One does not lop off peoples physical ears with spiritual swords.

Furthermore, according to Revelation when Jesus comes back and is all powerful he will come back with "SWORD STICKING OUT OF HIS MOUTH" and massacre all of his enemies with his army of angels even children:

14And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. 15And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. 16And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS (Rev 19:14–16, KJV).

Posted by: Ro at March 23, 2008 6:27 PM

What a profound statement of childlike faith. That was truly moving, and thank you Hugh for posting his letter.

Posted by: Jauhara Al-Kafirah at March 23, 2008 6:28 PM

B16 is the super most awesomenest in town. He certainly does have Islam's number. But JPII had Islam's number also and I don't doubt the two of them had some very good conversations on the matter. I believe when JPII was encouraging us over and over "be not afraid" that the Islamic threat that he knew was coming was probably #1 up on his list of fears he wanted to give us hope against.

Um, did that sentence just make sense? I'm tired.

Posted by: Dumpling at March 23, 2008 6:30 PM

Moreover, you can not compare Prophet Muhammad to Jesus, because Muhammad spent 23 years in his ministry while Jesus just 3 years. It is more fitting to compare Muhammad to Moses, who both enforced "God's Law" and ruled over people and waged war. And reading the accounts of Moses and his orders he gave to Joshua when it come to war, slavery and looting, Moses makes Muhammad look like Ghandi!

For example, in verse sited in the bible, hardly biased in favor of Muslims, it says:"The LORD said to Moses, 'Take vengeance on the Midianites for the Israelites…. The Israelites captured the Midianite women and children and took all the Midianite herds, flocks and goods as plunder. They burned all the towns where the Midianites had settled, as well as all their camps….(Moses ordered):

"Now kill all the boys. And kill every women who has sleptwith a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a
man." Numbers 31: 1-18

Deuteronomy 20:13-20
13 And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword (even the
unarmed ones):
14 But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and
thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.
15 Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which are very far off from thee, which are not of the cities of these nations.
16 But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:
17 But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the
Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee:
18 That they teach you not to do after all their abominations, which they have done unto their gods; so should ye sin against the LORD your God.
19 When thou shalt besiege a city a long time, in making war against it to take it, thou shalt not destroy the trees thereof by forcing an axe
against them: for thou mayest eat of them, and thou shalt not cut them down (for the tree of the field is man's life) to employ them in the
siege:
20 Only the trees which thou knowest that they be not trees for meat, thou shalt destroy and cut them down; and thou shalt build bulwarks against the city that maketh war with thee, until it be subdued.

In the following verses we see the following:

1- All men, including the unarmed ones, were to be executed (Deuteronomy
20:13).

2- All women and children were to be taken as spoils of war (Deuteronomy
20:14).

3- For the others, kill and destroy every creature that is breathing -
that is all men, women, children and animals (Deuteronomy 20:16-17).

Another verse says:
"All who would not seek the LORD, the God of Israel, were to be put to death, whether small or great, man or woman. (From the NIV Bible, 2 Chronicles 15:13)"

However, when it comes to looting in the bible we also have the story of the Prophet Eleazar taking 50% of his men's share (Numbers 31:28-29).

By the way looting is forbidden in Islam. Muslims have been instructed by the Prophet not to pillage or plunder or destroy residential areas, nor harm the property of anyone not fighting. It has been narrated in the Hadith: "The Prophet has prohibited the Believers from loot and plunder" (Bukhari, AbuDawood). His injunction is: "The loot is no more lawful than the carrion" (AbuDawood). AbuBakr Siddeeq used to tell soldiers on their way to war: "Do not destroy the villages and towns, do not spoil the cultivated fields and gardens, and do not slaughter the cattle."

Posted by: Ro at March 23, 2008 6:38 PM

Had Ro not appeared at 6:22 p.m., coming between your first and your second posting, I would have been delightedly able to discover, and in English, two consecutive you's.

Posted by: Hugh at March 23, 2008 6:39 PM

See on the subject of two adjacent u's in English here:

http://people.scs.fsu.edu/~burkardt/fun/wordplay/uu.html

Even if one discounts most of them as Latin, surely the word "continuum" is now a full-fledged member of the English language. And there may be a few others in that list, including a Hawaiian word or two which are now used by English speakers, and for which there is no substitute.

Posted by: Hugh at March 23, 2008 6:44 PM

Is there any way the Mohammedan Taqiyya peddler "Ro" can be gotten rid of?

"By the way looting is forbidden in Islam" -Ro

LOL! Mohammed is one of the BIGGEST LOOTERS in history! Mr. Caravan-Raider Booty Mohammed! Oh, the false prophet loved the property of others! Mr. Booty Mo! Mr. Thief Mo! LOL!

Posted by: darcy at March 23, 2008 6:53 PM

I would like to add the word "uuuuummmm" as an inadequate response to the above comeback.

Posted by: Jauhara Al-Kafirah at March 23, 2008 6:54 PM

He is conducting the time-honored Muslim tactic of psychotic warfare known as, "Since I can't dazzle them with my brilliance, I will baffle them with my bullshit."

Posted by: Jauhara Al-Kafirah at March 23, 2008 7:13 PM

Ro wrote: " Moreover, Catholicism still holds the record for the most killings of Christians, much more than muslims, and is blamed for the fall of Constantinople to the Muslims universally by almost all Eastern Orthodox Christians, because of the Catholic Crusaders sacking it back in 1204 causing irreversible damage: "

Give me some facts to support your loose claims. The majority of the historical claims that you made in your post are completely wrong.

It is true that the Latin Catholics killed many Greek Orthodox Christians in 1204 but not in record amounts- as you falsely claimed.

It is regrettable that the soliders from Latin Europe were hedonistic during the sacking of Constantinople and lost sight of the original purpose of the crusades, namely to engage in a holy defensive war against Muslims who were aggressive and violent towards Christians.

But the sinful actions of Latin soliders during the sacking of Constantinople should not be used as leverage to condemn Roman Catholicism.

Pope John Paul II apologized and asked forgiveness for the sins committed during the sacking of Constantinople.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1312723.stm

Ro wrote:
" As for the violent religion of Catholicism that you choose, guess what recently one of your co-religionist and a priest at that, was sentenced to 1500 years for killing thousands of people in Rwanda:Rwandan priest gets life for 1,500 dead - Yahoo! News"

The genocide in Rwanda of Christians was not about religion- it was about tribal conflicts.

Christians killed Christians in Rwanda in the same way that Muslims kill Muslims in many parts of the world ( E.G. Iraq, Sudan ) where tribal affiliation has supreme importance.

Ro wrote: " LASTLY, I reject Christianity not because of the actions of christians but because the concept of Salvation(the fact that you are not held accountable for your own deeds and that even if you make the smallest of sins you are condemned to hell so that someone completely innocent has to "die" for your sins) and the concept of God(the trinity, because 3 never will equal 1 ever, and even a six year old will tell you that)."

The theology of the Trinity is not hocus pocus science fiction. The Trinity is an authentic Christian theology revealed by God's Spirit, the Holy Spirit.

The Trinity is the true nature of God in His fullness.

Here's a way to understand the Trinity:

There are things in life that are triune in nature but one. For example: An egg is one but with three distinctions. You have the yoke, the white, and the shell, but all three composite the one egg. Another example: A piece of fruit such as the peach has three components. A peach has the outer layer (the skin), the inner layer (the juicy stuff known as the meat), and the core. All three components composite the one peach.

Other things that we have in our everyday lives that are triune is water. Water is one substance that can be liquid, gas, and solid distinctly or all at the same.

If an egg, a peach, and water can have three distinct things and all be one at the same time, than the Almighty should have no problem. The word Trinity is way of explaining the belief in one God revealed through three distinct persons. Some people get all hung up on the issue of the Bible teaching there is only one God. No where does the Bible state God is only one person, but it does say God is one in Deuteronomy 6:4. The word for one there is the Hebrew word Echad, which means a composite unity. For examples of this consider Genesis 1:5, Genesis 2:24, Ezra 2:64, Ezekiel 37:17 where the same Hebrew word Echad is used and means one in unity, not in number.

The Bible teaches there is one Church but many members and there is no problems with understanding this, yet when it comes to God some seem to have problems.

Jesus says, " Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Posted by: Johnathan at March 23, 2008 7:29 PM

Ro- Muhammad should never ever be compared to Ghandi.

Muhammad used violence to pursue his religious objectives.

Ishaq:510. "When the Apostle looked down on Khaybar he told his Companions, and what into error they throw, and Lord of the winds and what they winnow, we ask Thee for the booty of this town and its people. Forward in the name of Allah.' He used to say this of every town he raided."

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 512:
Narrated Anas: "The Prophet offered the Fajr Prayer near Khaibar when it was still dark and then said, "Allahu-Akbar! Khaibar is destroyed, for whenever we approach a (hostile) nation (to fight), then evil will be the morning for those who have been warned." Then the inhabitants of Khaibar came out running on the roads. The Prophet had their warriors killed, their offspring and woman taken as captives. Safiya was amongst the captives. She first came in the share of Dahya Alkali but later on she belonged to the Prophet . The Prophet made her manumission as her 'Mahr.'"

Ishaq:288 “The Quraysh said, ‘Muhammad and his Companions have violated the sacred month, shed blood, seized property, and taken men captive. Muhammad claims that he is following obedience to Allah, yet he is the first to violate the holy month and to kill.’”

Ishaq:327 “Allah said, ‘A prophet must slaughter before collecting captives. A slaughtered enemy is driven from the land. Muhammad, you craved the desires of this world, its goods and the ransom captives would bring. But Allah desires killing them to manifest the religion.’”

8:12: (Shakir). “When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.”

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 260:
Narrated Ikrima:
Ali burnt some people and this news reached Ibn 'Abbas, who said, "Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, 'Don't punish (anybody) with Allah's Punishment.' No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet [Muhammad] said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.' "

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."

Posted by: Johnathan at March 23, 2008 7:45 PM

Ro,

As a goodwill gesture, I think that the Turks should return the Hagia Sophia to the Eastern Orthodox, don't you?

You wrote, "Moreover, you can not compare Prophet Muhammad to Jesus, because Muhammad spent 23 years in his ministry while Jesus just 3 years."

It isn't a question of quantity, but quality. Mohammad spent 23 years consolidating power in his "ministry" of lies, thefts, and murders, while Jesus spent 3 years in his ministry of healing and deliverance, even raising the dead, which Mohammad acknowledged (even though he rejected as corrupt virtually everything else in the New Testament because it contradicted his supposedly "divine" revelations.)

Funny also that you would quote Rev 19:14–16, since you believe that when Jesus (Isa) returns he will not return as "KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS," but will instead be subservient to al Mahdi.

"LASTLY, I reject Christianity not because of the actions of christians but because the concept of Salvation(the fact that you are not held accountable for your own deeds and that even if you make the smallest of sins you are condemned to hell so that someone completely innocent has to "die" for your sins) and the concept of God(the trinity, because 3 never will equal 1 ever, and even a six year old will tell you that)."

You misunderstand and misrepresent Christianity. It is precisely because we are held accountable by God for our sins, the just penalty for them being death, both physical and spiritual, that God would become human so as to pay that penalty for us because we could not. This is God's gift, forgiveness of sin.

You are taught, on the other hand, that you have to do all sorts of good deeds in the hope that they will outweigh the bad, and Allah will reward you with Paradise, but not even Mohammad had any assurance that he would qualify. Do you?

As for the Trinity, 1 X 1 X 1 = 1. The Christian God is 1 cubed: Father; Son; Spirit. The Father eternally begets the Son. The Father is not the Son; the Son is not the Father, yet "To see me is to see the Father," Jesus said. The bond of love between the two is the Spirit, a third person. Put another way, the Father speaks, what is spoken is the Son, the Word, and the breath that forms the Word is the Spirit. Now, that wasn't so hard, was it?

Posted by: Lex at March 23, 2008 8:15 PM

Magdi Allam's statement about his conversion:

http://mediacenter.corriere.it/MediaCenter/action/player?uuid=98d378b6-f8f1-11dc-8874-0003ba99c667

Posted by: Hugh at March 23, 2008 8:18 PM

Ro,

I should also point out that Christians are not bound by the Mosaic Covenant, but by the new commandment that Jesus gave that we are to love one another as he exemplified, but I understand why you would appeal to the Torah as a justification for the bloody predations that Mohammad engaged in repeatedly: "Allah desires killing them to manifest the religion."

Hmm, how many must die before "the religion" is fully manifested?

Posted by: Lex at March 23, 2008 8:32 PM

Sorry I posted my thing twice. I'm trying to use a Mac. Grrrrrrr.

Posted by: Novalis at March 23, 2008 9:20 PM

Here is an excerpt from an interview Magdi Allam gave to an Israeli paper when his book "Viva Israele" was published:

"Those who like me and more or less agree with me see it [the book "Viva Israele"] as a provocation. 'What did you need this for, don't you have enough problems?' they asked. Those who don't like me and condemn me for my opinions see this as additional proof that I am a traitor to the Arab cause and an enemy of Islam, have sold myself to Israel and work for the Mossad. But for me, 'Viva Israele' is a song of praise to Israel's life and to everyone's life. My book opens with the words: 'What you are about to read is a declaration of faith in the sanctity of life, 'the sanctity of life of every human being.'"

Allam was not always a defender of the Jewish state. "'Zionism' was a dirty word for me," he admits in his book. For years he considered Israel an aggressive, racist, colonialist, immoral entity, and he accepted the methods of the Palestinian struggle and its leader Yasser Arafat, "without criticizing the fact that Fatah adopted the path of terror extensively inside and outside Israel." After emigrating from Egypt to Italy in 1972, he even enlisted actively for the Palestinian cause, writing, lecturing and participating in demonstrations by the Italian left: "I also shouted 'Long live Palestine! Long live the Palestinian resistance!'" he writes in the book. "My passion for the Palestinian cause was strong, as was my enthusiasm for Arafat's personality."

In his new book he describes his long road from profound admiration for Arafat and "the prophet of pan-Arabism," Gamal Abdel Nasser, and strong support for the Palestinian cause, to his unreserved support for Israel. "I want to tell you about my slow and tortured path from the ideology of lies, tyranny, hatred, violence and death, to the culture of truth, freedom, love, peace and life, until it ripened into absolute certainly that defending the sanctity of life is more than ever in keeping with defending Israel's right to exist," he writes. At the end of this "slow and tortured path" he reached the conclusion that the Arab countries' refusal to recognize Israel during the 1950s and 1960s hurt the Palestinians, and that Arafat was a tyrant, a megalomaniac, corrupt and corrupting, and the worst disaster to befall them.

Regarding the present situation in Gaza, Allam says he never had any illusions about Hamas. "I thought it was a big mistake to allow a terror organization to participate in elections. Condoleezza Rice and Tony Blair deluded themselves in believing that Hamas' very participation in the government would turn the group into a pragmatic political power," he says. "Instead, it turned out that Hamas will never recognize Israel's right to exist, will not relinquish terror and will not honor international agreements signed by the Palestinian Authority. Hamas wants absolute rule in order to impose sharia and to revive the international Islamic caliphate. As it pushes for absolute rule, it does not hesitate to massacre its Palestinian brothers in Gaza. It will try to do the same thing in the West Bank."

Do you believe the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can be solved before the "ideology of death" is uprooted - that even if Israel returns all the territories it occupied in 1967, it will continue to live by the sword?

"The Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon and Gaza demonstrates that the problem is not the need to withdraw from territories occupied in preemptive wars, but rather the Arabs' lack of desire to recognize Israel's right to exist. Israel erred in 1967 when it accepted the formula of territory for peace, and thus placed its very existence up for public auction. Experience teaches that the right to life cannot and should not be a subject for negotiation and bargaining. No negotiations should be held with extremists and terrorists who deny Israel's right to exist."

Interrogation trauma

Allam believes the defeat of the Arabs during the Six-Day War was the watershed between the waning of pan-Arabism and the rise of pan-Islamism. Allam, who was then 15, remembers the war, the brainwashing, the deceptive Egyptian propaganda machine, the blind admiration of Nasser and the masses he joined in the streets calling on Nasser not to resign. He devotes a substantial part of his book to the war: three autobiographical chapters seasoned with the fragrances, sounds, colors and flavors of his beloved Aunt Adreya's home and the streets of Naguib Mahfouz's Cairo - a colorful, pluralistic and tolerant city where girls wore miniskirts and boys sported Beatles haircuts.

This was the city where he was detained, interrogated and imprisoned at age 15 by the Muhabarat, the secret services, on suspicion of spying for Israel, because of his relationship with a Jewish girl, also 15 and "the first true love of his life." "The trauma of that interrogation at the Muhabarat barracks accompanied me until that day on Christmas Eve 1972, when I left Egypt to continue my studies in Italy."

In the book you lovingly describe your childhood. Do you miss Egypt? Do you visit often?

"I miss an Egypt that no longer exists and that continues to live inside me thanks to the memories, the songs of Umm Kulthum, the novels of Naguib Mahfouz and the films of Yusuf Shahin. I long for the social fabric that embodied a genuine love of others and a simple life where emotion was more important than money. Unfortunately, for reasons of personal security, I haven't been back to Egypt since 2002."

Regarding the question of the Islamization of Europe, Allam says, "Europe is already a bastion of Islamic extremism. Just look at attack on Mike's Place in Tel Aviv, which was carried out by British suicide bombers drafted by Hamas; the massacre by Islamists in Madrid and in London; the slitting of director Theo Van Gogh's throat in Amsterdam; and the dozens of Islamic terror attacks that were prevented in Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Belgium and Holland.

"This bastion exists thanks to a widespread network of mosques, Koran schools, financial bodies and charitable institutions linked to the Muslim Brotherhood; Moroccan, Tunisian and Algerian Salfists; Saudi Wahabis; Al-Qaida jihadis and Pakistani groups. This multicultural Europe, which has trampled its values and betrayed its identity, is satisfied with reacting to the obvious terror, which is only the tip of the iceberg, but is afraid to deal with terror's ideological and organizational roots."

Why don't we hear the voices of the moderate imams?

"Because they're afraid. They're a minority and they're afraid. Only a handful of Islamic intellectuals, journalists, women and clerics have shown courage and condemned terror and Islamic extremism, and as a result they were sentenced to death by the terrorists. But make no mistake, even those moderates who condemn Islamic terror often legitimize terrorists who massacre in Israel. They feel there is good terror, which massacres Israelis, and bad terror, which threatens their lives."

What do you believe is the best way to deal with the Iranian threat?

"Israel has to prevent the Nazi-Islamic government of [Ali] Khamenei and [Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad from acquiring nuclear weapons. I don't place my faith in the United Nations and I have no illusions about the Bush administration, which now wants only to leave Iraq without losing face. And of course I don't count on a weak, cowardly and divided Europe. I believe Israel is the last bastion in Islamic terror's war against all of human civilization. Therefore I hope Israel will have a strong national unity government, determined to confront the most serious threat to world security since World War II."

Last year, when he came here for his fourth visit, in order to receive the Dan David Prize, he visited Yad Vashem. This was "an experience that left an indelible impression on me," he says. "I hope that some day Israel will capture Ahmadinejad and force him to live the rest of his life between the walls of Yad Vashem."

Posted by: Hugh at March 23, 2008 10:54 PM

We have some great candidates for International Anti-Dhimmi of the year, and the year is young . . .

Maker of "the Film"
or
Presider of "the Baptism"

I would add "the Apostate" but I realize that Apostates are a different category than Dhimmis

God protect the Pope
God bless us all

Posted by: JSobieski at March 23, 2008 11:02 PM

Magdi Allam ... was baptised by the Pope himself, which puts the Vatican squarely front and center. If anyone still needed proof that Benedict has got Islam's number, whatever little pretend pieties about Interfaith-Healing may come out of the Vatican, this is surely it.

Posted by Hugh

I agree with you, Hugh, on the question of fact in that statement, but I don't agree that this kind of thing is the necesary (much less the only way - or even a desirable way) of prooving that and, as I've said in another thread on this site tonight, I strongly disagree with the assumption that the symbolism and propaganda value of Brother Allam's baptism by the Pope outweighs the costs that it may exact in lives of vulnerable Middle Eastern Christians in the orgy of Islamist rage that may follow. Though I respect the fact that theological considerations are not properly part of the work of this site, in terms of the consideration of Catholicism as a belief system counterveiling the dead weight of Islam I think some respect to considerations of sacramentology and ecclesiogy are worthy of mention nonetheless if for no other reason than because it can be argued that Benedict has not strengthened his church but weakened it by undermining the dignity and meaning of the sacramental life in a move that sets a precedent in favour of the use of the Sacraments as a platform for political statements. So I note here that the vast majority of converts entering the Church are received by their parish priest, and Mr. Allam's baptism would be just as powerful a sign of the mystery of faith that it manifests if it had been given by such a lesser figure instead; this is its true power - not the fame, prestige or blunt political influence of its minister.

No one needs to see the Supreme Pontiff in order to become a Catholic, and the involvement of the Pope adds nothing necesary to the meaning and effect of the Sacrament. Benedict's proper role in the anti-Islamist struggle is not to use the Sacraments as an affront to the Muslims but to continue to defend the freedom of conscience in religion, to further denounce and argue against the use of violence and religious terror, and most importantly, to make clear statements defining the proper relations between the Church and Islam and the proper theological response to Islam's challenges to the Christian faith. In that role, calm, lucid, reasoned and convincing statements, marked hopefully by a high degree of prophetic insight and theological clarity, have primacy over dramatic gestures.

At the moment I'd say one of the tasks of top priority for Benedict to tend to in terms of this role as the primary guardian and overseer of the faith of his flock is to contain the apparent or at least potential drift of the Church into the Islamist agenda for the curtailment of free expression portended in the dreadful joint statement signed by Cardinal Tauran of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue along with the head of the dialogue group of Al Azhar University in Cairo. I would welcome your response to that document's provisions on the matter of restricting "disrespect toward religions" as I have long been hoping that Jihad Watch would give some serious consideration to this document and its implications, but so far, despite several emails to Robert Spencer and several mentions of it on various threads, to no avail. But I think that by not taking up this matter, all of you who have influence at Jihad Watch overlook the reality that the "little pretend pieties about Interfaith-Healing" and other platitudes that the Vatican throws in the direction of the Ummah are not just harmless indulgence but statements with the potential to cause real harm and to mislead many with tragic results.

For your convenience, and the enlightenment of other readers who may not be familiar with it, I provide it (once again) here:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/interelg/documents/rc_pc_interelg_doc_20080226_cairo-declaration_en.html

In the meantime, in assessing the fallout of Magdi Allam's conversion, I think we should all consider this opinion from the Assyrian community and any others like it from Christians - and those sympathetic to them - on the ground in areas where Islam predominates. You are right in suggesting the Muslim apologists in the West will likely try to make sour grapes out of Mr. Allam's conversion, but the dynamic is an entirely different one in the Middle East. There, minority Christian groups like the Assyrians are likely to once again suffer a violent and viscious backlash and I think we should never (never!) overlook that in deciding how we state our case to Muslims in the West. Please have a look at one Assyrian news source's opinion on the handling of Mr. Allam's conversion.

http://www.assyriatimes.com:80/engine/modules/news/article.php?storyid=3312

I certainly admire and welcome the courage of Magdi Allam but I find the arguments that his reception into the Church ought to have been effected in a much less conspicuous manner quite compelling at this point, and worse, I fear that Benedict's gesture may prove to be not so much courageous as foolhardy and irresponsible. I'd like to hear some considered and thoughtful responses from Robert Spencer and others with strong ties to Middle Eastern Christian communities to Assyriatimes' position on this before I applaud what has happened in these events.

Posted by: templar at March 23, 2008 11:25 PM

templar:

Your points are well made, but in the final analysis, we have already lost if given two options, we automatically pick the option least likely to provoke (e.g. least likely to ME Christians at risk). Given that yardstick, we will always stay quiet to avoid offense.

I believe that Jihad will ultimately be defeated by Christianity in contrast to West---and under such a framework, it is important that Christians and doubting Muslims know that Muslims are welcome to convert, and that Muslims do in fact convert to Christianity every day.

Posted by: JSobieski at March 23, 2008 11:41 PM

Sometimes, templar, the bravest act which sears itself into the minds and hearts of millions, is the foolhardy act. The single man in Tiananmen Square standing in front of all the tanks of China was foolish, and its outcome was utter futility, but it was a singular act of one man's condemnation of his country's tyranny. If a man cannot express his deepest beliefs publicly and without fear in a free society, what does it matter if he lives from day to day in perpetual fear under tyranny?

Posted by: Jauhara Al-Kafirah at March 23, 2008 11:50 PM

Darcy: I will never understand your animus towards lunar deities. I kinda like Diana the huntress. When Muslims throw the doors to ijtihad irrevocably open, when they renounce the bandit Muhammad as a role model, and when they abandon the pipe dream of Islamic supremacy, they get to keep the Black Rock and the Moon. Deal?

Ro: You would do well to keep your rhetoric simple and friendly. A little humor would be nice.

The Trinity is an undemanding concept. Thinking in threes obviates the dangers of dualism. When you say that God is singular, you fall into the trap of seeing things in black and white with no shades between, and life is just not like that. When you see God in three, there is always room for spirited discourse.

The difference between you and me is that I am free, and you are not. Though some here may fulminate that I’m a heretic, I am in no danger if I read Anne Rice’s “Christ the Lord, the Road to Cana”, and see Christian narrative as divine allegory. No roving bands of Catholics will stone me if I choose to go to church here:

http://www.dignityny.org/about_us/index.html

Bennie doesn’t like me, but that gives me the joy of attending Mass in a catacomb. When I was in the second grade, there was a story about an ancient Roman kid named Marius, who clutched the Eucharist to his heart to keep it from harm. Thanks to Bennie, I get to be that kid.

Yeah, I feel uncomfortable with the sword stuff in the New Testament. But, see? I’m free to feel discomfit about some of the things Jesus said. Are you free to question Muhammad when he sounds like a brigand?

Keep posting, but remember: brevity and wit are next to godliness.

Posted by: skevin at March 24, 2008 12:08 AM

At least Jesus didn't come promising a future full of demented and delusional kumbayah, though I am sure that many of His modern redactors on Planet Berkely think that He did.
He was simply fortelling the future. He knew that there would be possibly violent divisions within families, between brothers and fathers and mothers and sisters. It isn't a boast, but a sorrowful realization of what it will mean to be His follower. Unlike Islam, where you magically convert by reciting the fatiha, and voilà! you are Muslim,(forever, don't forget to read the fine print, people) Christ warns those who want in on all the glory to count the cost. Sure, He is meek and His yoke is gentle, but the bastard whipping your back while you plow this earthly domain isn't so nice. Christ demonstrated His love for us by being obedient unto death.
Magdi counted the cost, and soberly accepted the invite. Possibly unto death.

Posted by: Jauhara Al-Kafirah at March 24, 2008 12:22 AM

Jauhara Al-Kafira:

Of course you're right about that. I just feel that the choice of martyrdom should be reserved for the Assyrians and others to make for themselves, as did the brave Chinese man in Tiannmen Square, rather than be imposed upon them by decisions made in the West. I don't condemn Mr. Allam, but Benedict XVI, for this.

Posted by: templar at March 24, 2008 12:30 AM

In reality, my brother, when we make the choice for martyrdom, it is because we will have only one choice: Live with a bowdlerized, emasculated Christian church that is defined by the Powers that be, or choose your faith, and with it death.
This is how it has always been. In China, the faux Church is infested with spies, just as the accepted Church of the Soviet Union was likewise filled with spies. The true believers always go underground. Sometimes, as in Rome, quite literally. The muslim wishing to convert to Christianity stays away from the Chaldean Church, and if he tried, would be turned away, out of fear on the part of the Christians. In the underground churches, who have no pope, no visible presence, the muslim wishing to convert will find a home. Just as Christian converts have over the centuries.

Posted by: Jauhara Al-Kafirah at March 24, 2008 12:42 AM

@Ro

I will not bore you with a long and needless reply.

I am just passing along to you what I have received, how Christ died for our sins was buried and on the third day rose from the dead, all according to the Word of God. He appeared first to Peter then to the twelve. After that he appeared to more than 500 at once. Many validated what they saw years later. Afterward he appeared to James, then all of the apostles. Next he appeared to a major persecutor of the Christians, Paul the apostle (kind of like you). And finally he has appeared to me from reading the Word of God.

And here is the amazing part he will come to you as well. This is the Easter message.

BIG DIFFERENCE!

Posted by: Im.mad.as.HELL! at March 24, 2008 2:13 AM

@Ro

I will not bore you with a long and needless reply.

I am just passing along to you what I have received, how Christ died for our sins was buried and on the third day rose from the dead, all according to the Word of God. He appeared first to Peter then to the twelve. After that he appeared to more than 500 at once. Many validated what they saw years later. Afterward he appeared to James, then all of the apostles. Next he appeared to a major persecutor of the Christians, Paul the apostle (kind of like you). And finally he has appeared to me from reading the Word of God.

And here is the amazing part he will come to you as well. This is the Easter message.

BIG DIFFERENCE!

Posted by: Im.mad.as.HELL! at March 24, 2008 2:13 AM

@Ro

I will not bore you with a long and needless reply.

I am just passing along to you what I have received, how Christ died for our sins was buried and on the third day rose from the dead, all according to the Word of God. He appeared first to Peter then to the twelve. After that he appeared to more than 500 at once. Many validated what they saw years later. Afterward he appeared to James, then all of the apostles. Next he appeared to a major persecutor of the Christians, Paul the apostle (kind of like you). And finally he has appeared to me from reading the Word of God.

And here is the amazing part he will come to you as well. This is the Easter message.

BIG DIFFERENCE!

Posted by: Im.mad.as.HELL! at March 24, 2008 2:15 AM

@Ro

I will not bore you with a long and needless reply.

I am just passing along to you what I have received, how Christ died for our sins was buried and on the third day rose from the dead, all according to the Word of God. He appeared first to Peter then to the twelve. After that he appeared to more than 500 at once. Many validated what they saw years later. Afterward he appeared to James, then all of the apostles. Next he appeared to a major persecutor of the Christians, Paul the apostle (kind of like you). And finally he has appeared to me from reading the Word of God.

And here is the amazing part he will come to you as well. This is the Easter message.

BIG DIFFERENCE!

Posted by: Im.mad.as.HELL! at March 24, 2008 2:15 AM

Sorry for the multiple post. Late at night I guess.

Posted by: Im.mad.as.HELL! at March 24, 2008 2:19 AM

Dear Hugh

yet again I have been given occasion to rejoice that I took the trouble, many years ago, to learn Basic Italian. I have just spent about half an hour slowly reading through Magdi Cristiano Allam's article that you thoughtfully posted above.

I hope many other lurkers or posters who have the Italian, will also enjoy it.

As I read it, I had cause to wonder whether (at some time in his life, perhaps while attending that Christian school in Egypt, long ago) Signore Allam may have read Bunyan's 'Pilgrim's Progress', whether in English or in an Italian translation.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at March 24, 2008 8:18 AM

Hugh wrote, "If anyone still needed proof that Benedict has got Islam's number, whatever little pretend pieties about Interfaith-Healing may come out of the Vatican."

What would an atheist know about pieties, pretend or otherwise?

templar,

Do you know that Pope Benedict XVI is NOT Magda Allam's "parish priest?"

You believe in freedom of conscience and expression, but you deny it to the Pope! Presumably, Allam asked the Pope to baptize him, but your dhimmi-esque argument is that the Pope should have begged off for fear of hurting Muslim sensibilities and further inflaming the zombies.

I'm reminded of the furor over Pope Pius XII, and the accusation that he did not speak out forcefully enough against the Nazis, so tell me, do you forgive Pius' prudential judgment, even as you condemn Benedict's "dramatic gestures?"

Posted by: Lex at March 24, 2008 8:57 AM

Darcy: I will never understand your animus towards lunar deities. I kinda like Diana the huntress. When Muslims throw the doors to ijtihad irrevocably open, when they renounce the bandit Muhammad as a role model, and when they abandon the pipe dream of Islamic supremacy, they get to keep the Black Rock and the Moon. Deal? --skevin

Hi skevin! Sure, I love Greek mythology - but we don't worship either Zeus or Diana or Apollo etc. We don't commit horrible deeds in their names and then feel ourselves justified because our holy book told us to feel that way!

So, it's not that I dislike "lunar deities," it's that I dislike "Allah" the murder-god of the Qur'an taken by charlatan Mohamet from pagan pre-Islam. I dislike that the Mohammedans won't even admit that "Allah" is only the pagan moon god of pre-Islamic Arabian mythology, and therefore doesn't exist.

Well, I think you get my point. Hey - when Muslims renounce Mo and Allah and Islamic supremacy (!) what a day of joy for the whole world that will be! Sure, sure - the meteorite, the moon deity of Arabian lore, fine, keep'em as relics from the Mohammedan past.

Posted by: darcy at March 24, 2008 9:04 AM

Magdi Allam converted...wow! I actually gasped when I read that. I can't say that I was really surprised, but on the other hand, I was, especially that it was so public.

"You cannot have Magdi Allam and Abdul Rahman, and at the same time, continue to allow in large numbers of those who are very likely to support those who would harm either or both."

Tell that to our corrupt, deluded, do-nothing politicians... :(

Posted by: margheri at March 24, 2008 9:05 AM

Lex:

In response to your question about knowing that the Pope is not Magdi Allam's parish priest, I thought I knew that, but to my great surprize I thought wrong. I would not have thought that St. Peter's is actually considered a parish church, but I looked it up in response to your question and found out that, lo and behold, it is!

I do doubt that the Pope can be thought of as the parish priest though, since his Cathedral Church, as Bishop of Rome, is St. John Lateran. The relationship between the Roman Pontiffs and the Lateran Basilica is however, in the present day, more of a formality than a meaningful concrete reality. (In any case the Parish Priest in charge of a cathedral church and in charge of any other clergy serving there is usually the rector appointed by the Bishop, the Bishop himself being the supreme pastor of the entire diocese.) Since the Pope most often presides over the Roman Church from St. Peter's it is no surprize that he would conduct the baptism of adults there, just as he has conducted sacramental rites of all kinds in that location, but you and I both know, I am sure, that at many of the liturgical events held in St. Peter's many of the most intimate participants, such as lay ministers, readers, those selected to receive communion from the hand of the Pope, etc, are in reality pilgrims, visitors and tourists, sometimes from a wide variety of international locations, and they sometimes even appear to be selected to highlight regions of the world suffering from conflict or crisis, or that are otherwise in the news of the day. My assumption remains that Magdi Allam was singled out for that unique honour for the same reason - the focus that his conversion brings to global issues.

On the question of the Pope's freedom of conscience, I am in no way denying him that right. In fact there is no such question anywhere in view in any of this. For a variety of reasons, the matter of who is the appropriate minister of a particular sacrament for a particular group or individual among the faithful often becomes a sensitive issue that can be the subject of some dispute, speculation and controversy. Sometimes this is regulated by canon law, as in the jurisdiction of a parish priest to preside at weddings, in which he is restricted to presiding only at marriages involving either a groom - or in the case of a mixed marriage, a Catholic party - who is properly a member of his own parish as determined by the geographic boundaries of the parish. All parish priests are bound by this restriction unless they have permission from the pastor of the outside parish or from the Bishop to the point that it evan invalidates the marriage if a priest presides over a wedding of someone outside his parish without the correct authorization. There is also the rule that rectors of seminaries do not hear the confessions of their own students (I know of this one from my own personal experience) unless a seminarian is in imminent danger of death. There are any number of grounds that can be invoked to determine that a particular minister, including the Pope, is not the person most appropriately designated to preside over a particular sacrament, or any other act of the Church, in a particular case. None of this has anything to do with the Pope's conscience. Nor is it my legitimate right of conscience to demand that any particular minister of the Church, including the Pope, should be the one to confer a sacrament on me in a particular case, as it is not Mr. Allam's. It would be an infringement of the Pope's freedom if he were coerced or pressured to exclude Mr. Allam from entering the Church, and it would also be an infringement of Mr. Allam's freedom if he were denied conversion to the Catholic faith by the Church, but nowhere in any of my writings have I said this ought to have happened. I am as pleased as anyone to see Mr. Allam's conversion take place and, as a Catholic, I am as pleased as anyone to welcome him into the fold of the Church. The question of whether the Pope needed to be the one to preside over his baptism and profession of faith is another matter.

Regarding Pius XII, I have always maintained that it is easy to see, with hindsight, things that that Pope might have been able to do differently so I have generally refrained from condemning Pius on the question of his intervention, or lack thereof, for the Jews, but Benedict’s decision to personally baptize Mr. Allam is not nearly so clouded by the fog of war as the events in the latter part of WWII are. I do condemn Pius for tying the hands of Catholic opposition to Hitler in Germany with the “Reich Concordat”.

Finally, if you want to talk about “dhimmi-esque” policy, a good suggestion would be to consider the Vatican’s absurd policy of insisting on the territorial integrity of Iraq. Iraq is entirely an artificial, inorganically constructed monstrosity created by British imperialism that has nothing to do with the interests or cultural characteristics of the peoples who live within its borders. It should be dismantled, and parceled out into separate homelands for the Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds, and Assyrians. I can’t help but suspect that the Vatican’s opposition to the creation of a separate Assyrian homeland, and its whole absurd pro-Arabist ideology in the region, is prompted by fear that the Chaldean Uniate Church, which was created by carving a vast chunk out of the ancient Assyrian Church of the East several centuries ago, would suffer the effects of a sectarian backlash in an independent Assyria, as has often happened to Rome‘s mishandled interests in the Christian East at the hands of nationalist movements. If I am right about that, that is a significant and understandable concern, but the Holy See can do better than to uphold, as the only possible response to the problem, an imposition on the Chaldeans of a schizophrenic denial of their ancient Assyrian heritage in favour of the “Arab Christian” avatar. Unfortunately, its is Rome, and her Sovereign Pontiff, that is playing the dhimmi in this matter, not I, and with consequences far greater on the ground, than anything I have said about the baptism of Magdi Allam. Benedict may be impeding the Church, and the real work of the Spirit among Iraq's Christians, with that policy every bit as much as Pius XII did in Germany.

Posted by: templar at March 24, 2008 2:24 PM

P.S. I have always considered Pius XII, as I do consider Benedict today, to be a man of great personal holiness, worthy of the veneration of the faithful, and tremendously admirable in many respects, issues like this notwithstanding.

Posted by: templar at March 24, 2008 2:41 PM

templar,

My understanding is that Allam never was a Muslim, so he can't be condemned as an apostate by the Islamonazis, but DOES IT MATTER? They will believe whatever the hell they want to believe about him, and act accordingly.

Hamas wants him dead for his criticism of suicide bombing. Other Muslims would no doubt like to see him killed because he is a staunch critic of Islam, his conversion only serving to make them hate him even more.

Benedict thought that he "needed to be the one to preside over (Allam's) baptism and profession of faith," and that's fine with me, because neither he nor Allam are responsible for the murderous zeal of Mohammad's spiritual children who are offended by EVERYTHING that doesn't comport with the hell on earth that they've created.

Tell me, should Jesus have toned down some of his more caustic rhetoric because he knew that it would eventually mean the executions of many of his disciples?

Recall that Jesus said to not fear those who can kill the body and do no more. This was not his true home. Nor is it ours.

I agree with you that preserving the territorial integrity of the British invention known as Iraq doesn't make much sense. On the other hand, was Saddam right to claim Kuwait as Iraq's 19th Province?

Sectarian bloodbaths are endemic to the region...

Posted by: Lex at March 24, 2008 10:17 PM

What would an atheist know about pieties, pretend or otherwise?"
-- from a posting above

You might be quite surprised to discover the company I keep.

Posted by: Hugh at March 24, 2008 11:38 PM

Hugh, what does the company you keep have to do with your snide comment about the Vatican's "pretend pieties?" Why not call the whole Church thing a farce and its members fools and be done with it?

Posted by: Lex at March 25, 2008 12:09 AM

You don't read carefully. My phrase "pretend pieties" meant, of course, as the context clearly shows, the "pieties" of the usual, Interfaith-Healing Racket sort, that Benedict and Tauran do not believe in for one minute, but will outwardly engage in so as to pretend, to their Muslim interlocutors, that the mixture is as before.

You apparently have missed that point entirely, and think I have made some kind of general comment on real pieties. Of course I have not. Don't misread praise as blame.

Posted by: Hugh at March 26, 2008 11:33 PM

Europe has been historically intolerant and insecure with Islam and Muslims in general. Thus they took great efforts to kill, and convert Spanish Muslims, Italian Muslims, and Muslims living in Malta and Sicily in the 1500s. The concept of one nation and one religion. True there were wars not just against other religions but also within religions - the crusaders sacked then Constantinople on the way to Juresalem. The massacre of Hughenots in France to eradicate the Protestant Nobility. It is amazing that Muslims survived today in Bosnia, Albania and Kosova. There are still minorities living like third class citizens in Greece, Bulguria and in much of Eastern Europe. In contrast indegenious Christian communities still exist today in Egypt, Iraq, Syria etc. If Muslims wanted they could have also wiped out these populations few hundred years back. However, Islam respects the teaching and followers of Jesus (PBUH); Muslims will not lower themselves to that of some European extremists who are insecure in thier own skin about Islam and are spilling hate against Muslims and their Prophet. When I see this hate and venom the only thing that stands out is that are these people really Christians- or a group of Neo-conservatives similar to the ones that carried out the holocaust, wiped out the aboriginals in the Western Hemisphere, and seek out enemies to justify their existence. The World is pularistic and it takes many branches to co-exist together.

Posted by: Riz at March 26, 2008 11:38 PM

The absurdity of the last comment hardly needs a reply. The reason there are Muslmis in Kosovo and Bulgaria and Greece is because of the Ottoman conquest; locals converted, when the pressure of being a dhimmi simply became too great. It was the same in India, conquered by Muslim invaders. They killed tens of millions of Hindus, but wanted to leave the rest alive to pay the Jizyah and be, essentially, slaves to Muslim masters. But they did convert some, or rather, some converted in order to join the victors, not the vanquished. It is these who became the Muslims of India, and of what is now Pakistan and Bangladesh. All of their ancestors were non-Muslim, and most of them were Hindus. But the treatment of non-Muslims under Islam was at times so unendurable that some succumbed, and became Muslims.

North Africa was once entirely Christian, but after centuries of Islam that population became almost entirely islamized and, what's more, the indigenous Berbers, or some of them, became arabized. While most of Egypt's Arabs are really of Coptic descent, there still remain about 6-8 million Copts. They had it better under the old regime, not only that of fat and decadent Farouk, but under Lord Cromer and the British who came to make the Egyptian civil service less corrupt and more efficient (from 1882 to 1922), and ever since the early 1950s, as Egypt's Muslims begin their retreat back into Islam, as a way of securing themselves mentally in a world too disappointing and confusing, the situation for the Copts becomes more difficult. As for Muslim "tolerance" we can see that at work with the Maronites in Lebanon, and the Assyrians and Chaldeans in Iraq, as well as with the Copts, and all kinds of smaller Christian or gnostic groups -the Mandeans, or even non-Christian groups, such as the Yazidis (450 Yazidis were massacred by Muslims in Iraq just last year), and of course the Jews, who had lived and endured ill-treatment in many Arab lands (none as bad as in Yemen, where they were essentially chattel slaves) could not conceivably survive today in Arab lands.

The poster above has it all wrong, has it in fact backwards. But what did you expect?

Posted by: Hugh at March 27, 2008 12:09 AM