I’ve joined a Christian debating team called Codgers and recently found myself enjoying the new experience of leading on a couple of Muslim/Christian debates. The first topic was ‘Islam or Christianity: Which offers comprehensive solutions for Britain?’ with Adnan Rashid of the Hittin Institute (here); the second was ‘Jihad on trial’ with Sami Zataari of the Muslim Debate Initiative (here).
They’ve been well-attended and amicable affairs with friendly relations across the faiths. The Muslim organisers are pleasant guys (yes, only guys, no girls of course – this is Islam) who seem genuinely interested in grappling with the issues. They undoubtedly see the debates as Islamic da’wah (call to Islam, or Muslim proselytism) but there’s nothing wrong with that. The events provide for open argument and discussion, with a level playing field for all sides.
The debates themselves were robust and illuminating, the main result for me being a new understanding of what a wooden rule-bound religion is Islam – at least, the Islam promoted by my debating opponents. It is amazing how little Muslims refer to spiritual things or to invisible matters of the Spirit, and the Islamic after-life seems entirely carnal; paradise is where they (Muslim men; women are much more likely to be found in hell according to Muhammad [Sahih al-Bukhari hadith 1.301; 7.125; and 8.554]) will be rewarded with up to 72 virgins, fresh-faced boy servants, rivers of milk, wine and honey, an abundance of fruits, dates and pomegranates and a life of leisurely luxury the Quran and reliable Hadith tell us, but with apparently few signs of Allah.
My guess is that the negative social impact of such primal, corporal, unspiritual Islam is the root reason why so many of the 57 Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC) countries are failing states – an issue I have begun to address (here). It is also one of the reasons why Islam is certainly no more appropriate for Britain than the materialist ideological secularism (read atheism) that dominates public life today.
My involvement with the Muslim Debate Initiative led me to peruse the blog of one of their organising team, Paul Williams, an intelligent mild-mannered English convert to Islam. There I received a shock.
In his 14th August post under the astonishing question ‘Should Apostates Be Executed?’ (here) Williams writes, “I’ve been mulling over this issue recently, and although I’m no scholar, I would like to outline the arguments for and against executing apostates in an attempt to clarify some of the arguments involved…”
What? “Should apostates be executed?” “Arguments for and against executing apostates.” I couldn’t believe what I was reading! Was this a sick joke? An apparently decent human being brought up in a civilised society was asking seriously whether someone who leaves their religion should be killed. Should slaves be shipped to the West Indies? Should witches be burnt at the stake? Should gays be stoned? Should traitors be hanged, drawn and quartered?
Williams didn’t have time to finish his article on this “hot issue” as he calls it (yes, he really does; check the article yourself) – so instead he posted an historical survey of the subject by Tim Winter. But Williams’ question is in the present tense and posed in 21st century Britain. The subject may possibly be a hot issue in countries like Sudan and Afghanistan but it is shockingly offensive in the UK and alarming for the growing number of ex-Muslims in this country. It is by definition a life-threatening question for many that simply shouldn’t be asked.
As an example, I can highly recommend ‘The Imam’s Daughter’ by Hannah Shah (here for Times review). It’s unputdownable. It’s a sickening but ultimately heart-warming true story about the conversion to Christianity of an Imam’s daughter here in England, her abuse at the hands of her father and his attempts to kill her because of her change of religion. I’ve met ‘Hannah’ – not her real name for obvious reasons – and she’s a very courageous young woman. You can buy her book here.
Regrettably Hannah’s case is far from unique. A few months ago another UK Muslim convert to Christianity – who was born and bred in Newham – sat in my front room telling me how the Imam of an East Ham mosque had indicated to her face that the consequence of her apostasy should be death. And this was from a pillar of the community in Newham!
A few weeks previously I had sat in a coffee bar in Stratford with a further Muslim convert to Christianity who was about to move out of London partly for similar personal safety reasons.
None of these British-born citizens needs an intelligent mild-mannered Englishman asking publicly whether apostates should be executed.
So how come Williams’ normal moral framework has so collapsed that he can seriously ask such a question? How has his conscience become so seared and insensitive?
Sadly, the culprit is clearly his conversion to Islam.
November 9th, 2009 at 10:20 pm
Whatever happen to ‘Love your enemies’? I feel that Mr Criag is doing the samething what he excuses some Muslims of doing. That is he is demonising them by demonising their faith. Haven’t we learn anything from the Jewish Holocaust in Europe?
November 10th, 2009 at 1:22 am
Craig completely distorts the purpose and content of my blog. I encourage readers to read my post for themselves in its entirety and not be swayed by his tendentious comments.
Craig’s post, sadly, represents a growing trend in the West: a species of Christianity that is right wing, intolerant, culpably ignorant of the real teaching of Islam; a Christianity that relentlessly demonises Muslims. It’s rhetoric is often indistinguishable from the rants of the British National Party. For a prominant example of the new (?) Christian fascist discourse visit the evangelical site answeringmuslims.com. I fear that Craig is sleepwalking straight into this fetid world.
Nevertheless, I will be responding in detail to Craig’s comments on my own blog. Also the Muslim Debate Initiative, which he maligns in one particular paragraph, will be issuing a statement in due course.
November 10th, 2009 at 6:00 am
Regular twisting and hate-mongering that one has come to expect of Alan Craig. Craig should also mention why the death penalty for apostasy– if it is so cruel, barbaric, unethnical and immoral in his eyes– is prescribed by God in the Old Testament. Nevermind the fact that most Christians (Craig included) believe that such laws have been abrogated, but abrogation does not solve the moral problem and question of “Why would a moral God prescribe something immoral?”, even if it was a very, very long time ago for a particular group of people. These are some of the inconsistent views and statements of evangelical Christians that have never made sense to me.
November 10th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are unaware that Dr. Tabasum Hussain of Canada is a female and an active member of the M.D.I. team. In actual fact, M.D.I. has been trying relentlessly to set up a women’s debate between one of their female members and a female Codger, but the Codgers have evaded and stalled on this for some time now.
Alan, now that you are a member of the Codgers, why don’t you set up that women’s debate for– say– sometime in March? The M.D.I. is willing to provide the venue, whether in London U.K. or Toronto, Canada. What say?
November 10th, 2009 at 6:57 pm
The yardstick of spirituality is action. Without action, any claim of spirituality is fake. “by their fruit you will recognize them. (Luke)” Can you find a greater nation of greedy, banking swindling, baby aborting, drunk, promiscuous, blaspheming, porn cherishing, war mongers than Alan’s christian West?
November 11th, 2009 at 12:10 am
Sean, I thought the MDI organising team is Abdullah, Paul and Sami – all blokes. Is that wrong?
Regarding the women’s debate, I’m not involved in organising it but I’m unaware that Codgers is dragging its feet. A real problem as I understand it is that Tabasum is not in this country again until sometime around the middle of next year. That slows things down. But I think the debate is definitiely on then – at least it is from the Codgers side.
Alan
November 11th, 2009 at 1:07 am
In response to Sean’s comment about debate with Dr. T. Hussain, Codgers are in talks with Tabasum, Sean. The last email correspondence was a week an a half ago. We are certainly not stalling, but as you can appreciate, people’s schedules do not always match. Do stayed tuned for updates!
November 11th, 2009 at 1:23 am
Bob the Builder! You have made an obvious mistake – the West isn’t Christian – it may have a Christian heritage, but it certainly , as a rule, does not follow the principles taught by Christ! This is a common mistake made by Muslims. BTW – have you checked the consumption of porn in ’so called’ Muslim countries – it’s through the roof! What’s the old adage: check the plank in your own eye before you point out the log in another’s. The obvious point is that porn is a problem the world over – and Christ has the answer: Rom. 12:1-2, check it out, it may clear a few things up.
November 11th, 2009 at 1:23 am
The debate is on (and always has been) with Tabasum, but Tabasum is out of country, so we wait for her return. Tabasum will let us know when. No-one has been dragging their feet on either side… I know this, because I’m the one debating Tabasum!
November 11th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
Alan, Dr. Hussain is a female and is also an “organiser”, whatever it is that you mean by that. She is organising her own debate. Just because she doesn’t get up on a ladder and parrot the male speakers at Speaker’s Corner doesn’t mean that she’s not a part of the core team. Islam however has preserved the flavour of traditional Judaism and Christianity and does not usually put women in the frontlines of battle. That being said, however, Dr. Hussain has opted to participate in an all-women’s debate. My understanding is that the Codgers are not enthusiastic about doing this and are dragging their feet; that is the news that is now circulating in Muslim circles and in particular amongst British Muslim women that are interested in following this.
November 11th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
Carmen: Are you seriously trying to use that “take the plank out of your eye” argument against Muslim societies when it comes to porn? Let us suppose for a minute that Muslims consumed more porn (in terms of the percentage of Muslim viewing vs. the percentage of western viewing), this still wouldn’t change the fact that it is the West that is the greater producer of porn films and seen as the industry leader. California, not Baghdad, spearheads the production of such films. Rich corporate America, not poor God-forsaken Pakistan, is the one that has an endless supply of women willing to be mock-raped by three men and then have it circulated as a dvd to the entire world.
The fact that it is in large part the Muslim (Islamic or otherwise) governments that have arrested or at least hampered the development of indigenous porn industries is of course not a negative point in my eyes, so don’t bother with that. Rather it is to the credit of Muslim societies that both their populaces as well as their governments still have a strong sense of traditional sexual morality and that their leaders and governments must at least publicly stand on the side of truth and decency, even if in the privacy of their own homes it might be a different story. Even if this is just “for show” (which will be your next argument), it still reflects the fact that there is still greater God-consciousness and shame (not a bad word at all) present in those societies on some level. It is unfortunate that the economic and political ethics overall in most Muslim nations have not kept up pace with the (socially established and dominant) sexual ethics.
It is hardly an argument to say something like “Oh, but there’s lots of gays in Egypt”. In a righteous society, evil exists but knows where it belongs. We know that fornication exists, but it belongs in the gutter. Rats exist in London, but we don’t have a problem with them as long as they know their place and stay in the gutters. The minute you become indifferent to rats running around your living room floor, however, that makes a statement about you. In a similar manner, our fornicators and gays know where they belong– on the sidelines and in the shadows, not on a “pride” parade down Main Street.
Compare this with (ex)”Miss California 2009″ Carrie Prejean whose biggest mistake was not her recently surfaced sex tape (and she is a born-again Christian who goes on a whole rant against pornography in her just-released book!) but rather the mistake of publicly stating that she is against gay marriages! The rest of what transpired was basically a ruse to punish her for that statement and to relinquish her of her title. What happened to free speech here? Well the public basically spoke and let Prejean know exactly where she belongs– on the sidelines, in the shadows, in the gutter. *That* is the difference between modern Christian/secular nations and traditional Muslim ones. It is decency and traditional morality that belongs in the marginal shadows in London, Paris, New York, etc. To be acceptable to the mainstream, one must publicly stand on the side of what is often times wrong. That is why even your leader Jay Smith has appropriated secular language and modeled many of his slogans on secular humanist ideals and objectives in an effort to jump on the secular bandwagon to join in a common fight against Islam. Don’t tell me that– even going back 40 years– there was any Christian preacher at Hyde Park or on a pulpit in some church that shouted “We love gays! We love homosexuals!” But the always-changing goal-posts of Christianity have allowed Jay and his team to do even that! Paul of the NT, on the other hand, does not hint at any love when he clearly condemns homosexuals (not “just the sin”).
On a sidenote, Prejean’s morals even as a born-again Christian are still so skewed that she still sees her being robbed of the Miss California title as some type of wrongful punishment. It doesn’t for a moment cross her mind (or her church’s?) that having the title taken away from her and not having to walk down a catwalk half-naked is actually a *good* thing and should be spiritually relieving! It is as if a spiritual blindness has hit all westerners, including evangelical Christians, that no amount of reference to the Bible or traditional Christian culture can dispel or cure. Bikinis are cool, hijabs are awful. It’s as simple as that. Anyone who sees things differently is a pervert of some kind.
If you thought about this long and hard, you would realize that Jesus (and certainly Paul as well) would be much more comfortable with the public sexual morality of Muslim countries as opposed to the public sexual morality of (what you refuse to call) Christian/Western nations. Jesus and Paul saw the “abaya” and the “hijab”, but they never saw a woman in a mini-skirt let alone a man french-kissing another man or a woman getting romped by three men. Even the prostitutes of Jesus’ time had more modesty than this.
So it is truly hypocritical to try to use that “plank” argument against Muslims here. Such a comment probably issues out of the same mindset that wants to put all the blame on drug and gun crimes on poor blacks. Never mind the people who manufacture those guns and give the gun stores licenses to operate in black ghettos; never mind the people who fly the drugs in on corporate chartered planes.
I suspect that a lot of that research on Muslim consumption of porn is skewed anyhow. I remember one study on “porn” that counted the number of times there were searches on the word “sex”, although this is not necessarily porn related. You can do a search on “sex” on any Islamic website search engine and probably find relevant hits (which have nothing to do with porn). Try searching for “sex” in sunnipath.com, for instance. Sex and porn are not the same thing.
A very interesting article on this issue is at http://www.janchipchase.com/blog/archives/2009/10/afghanistan-porn-norms-strateg.html and how porn is making its mainstream entry into Afghanistan in the wake of America’s “liberation” of that nation.
By the way, I think you quoted that plank/log saying wrong, unless you are admitting that it is indeed a log that the Christians have in their eye and not just a little splinter.
November 11th, 2009 at 6:33 pm
Carmen: I didnt say I’m muslim. The tiny overwhelmingly christian island of britain peddles 1/20th of the worldwide porn industry (frisky bishops excluded). They murder 200,000 unborn babies per year. And an uncounted number of innocent civilians around the world. They join the other majority christian nations in weaponising, pushing and using more arms around the world than anyone else, with pre-programed nukes pointing at civilian cities. It has more drunkard teens than any other country in the world. A quarter of its women have experienced rape or attempted rape. The greed of its business men has left entire nations bankrupt. Leave aside stepping back through its history of bloody war and plundering collonisation. What has Britain’s proud christian heritage achieved except evil? These are the “fruits” of the faith, spirituality, and heritage of its people.
November 12th, 2009 at 1:34 am
You’re a Brave man Alan, You have opened a can of worms but this need to be debated. I well written a measured post, we must openly discuss apostasy.
I’ve met Paul talked about the authenticity of the new testament and apart from his condescending attitude, I also found him well mannered. He did the classic thing of relying on liberal western scholarship (which denies the miraculous and therefore the Qur’an) to attack the bible.
I’m disappointed by all the silly name calling in the comments. Don’t just call Alan a hate-monger deal with what he says! Or at least prove how he is one.
Dealing with Tobys old Testament comment, the first thing to note is in Christianity apostasy is not a “hot issue”. Christians aren’t even asking whether apostates should be executed . Otherwise Paul himself would be be worried for his life! The problem is that Paul a respected Muslim convert is asking the question.
Dealing with the question of of why what is morally wrong now, was right in the old Testament. It’s a big topic and isn’t really suited to a comment under a blog. Here is my late at night through blury eyes punt at giving a brief answer – it’s not easy!
The key to understanding, is getting a grasp on the old and new covenants and how Christ fulfills the old covenant perfectly. I won’t go in to that here.
But here are few points. Firstly God hasn’t changed his character. God is always holy and loving. His white hot holiness means he can’t accept anything other than perfection, All of us deserve death – this is the same now and in the past. In the past this is shown partly in the harshness of the law. This is all picture of the God high standards and righteous eternal punishment. We can see how seriously God takes sin when we see what Christ went through when he bore other sin on the Cross.
God has always been loving and remains so, the harsh laws deter us from evil. They also drive us to our knees knowing we are unable to keep them. He also chose to forgive people who were incaple of keeping the law. We can see the greatest act of love when Christ chooses to be punished instead of us.
So Gods character remains the same but the situation changes. You have to remember that OT society was a theocracy which pointed to Christ. The NT context is a plauristic state in which the church focus’ on what Christ has done. God says it’s mine to avenge. The law is no longer on tablets of stone to be enforced by might but written on believers hearts.
November 12th, 2009 at 7:06 am
God, so terrible.
Peace is so important.
November 12th, 2009 at 11:17 am
Sean, you must not have read my response – I am the one debating Tabasum and I’m not dragging my feet, nor is Tabasum. As already stated in my previous posting, the debate is next year and the main hitch is that Tabasum is out of country. We wait on Tabasum to tell us when she is in country from the spring next year. The debate happens when Tabasum is here.
If there is any news about Codgers dragging their feet in Muslim circles, then it is as a result of gossip. Gossip is sin.
November 12th, 2009 at 11:40 am
A few thoughts from a Christian perspective as a reflection on the Old Testaments teaching.
1) Christains read the Old Testament through Jesus – we dont enforce the death penalty today becuase we think Jesus took it for us.
2) Biblical Doctrines have Biblical applications -I cant think of any example in the New Testament of the church seeking the death penalty. The New Testament church doesnt apply it this way (Annias and Saphira are not an exception as their death was direct from God)
3) The Old Testament was a theocracy – the new testament envisions a seperation of Church and State – the state having the job of punishing crimes (romans 13). The Old testament had a nation where everyone shared the same worldview – we have a plurality of worldviews under the same government. Punishing apostasy in a plurlaistic society is harder to justify.
4)the focus in the New Testament is not so much on earthly punihsments – but on eternal rewards and punishments(see Galatians 1). Hope thsi helps
November 13th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
Sean, I hope my short reply will satisfy: I had said to sum up my comment ‘that porn is a problem the world over’. Whether it is the West creating it or Muslim countries consuming it – porn is a problem. What Is Islam’s answer to deal with the problem of porn? Christianity’s answer is clear (I had noted Rom. 12:1-2 as one place to go to find the answer). This is not about pointing fingers – this is about addressing a problem of ’sin’ (an ugly word, I know, and not understood in the same way by Muslims and Christians). Sin(resulting in separation from God: the Christian understanding) is entrenched in the human heart – Christ addresses that sin. I fear Islam does not – it may provide ‘outward’ band-aid solutions, but I fear it does not address the sin entrenched in humanity. My quoting of the plank/log verse was to show, as I believe Christ did when he said this,that we are all ’sinful’. The question is where do we find the remedy for that sin?
November 13th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
Bob the Builder, I fear you mistake Christians with Christian Government (which don’t exist!). Have you read the history of William Wilberforce, CHRISTIAN abolitionist? Have you read the history of Martin Luther King Jr – Minister and and equal right campaigner? Or , how about the Interntional Justice Mission (http://www.ijm.org/whoweare)? And, we can’t forget Mother Teresa!
You need to look at Christians – not governments. This is the problem when Church is married to State – the Church becomes corrupt, we see this since the time of Constantine. I agree that in the West atrocities take place – but don’t blame Christians, blame greed (which the Bible speaks against), blame hunger for power and money(which, again, the Bible speaks against). Blame the fallen nature of humanity! This fallen nature is in evidence the world over and Christ brings a solution to it!
November 14th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
Carmen: My point was this: In the article alan the christian supremacist claims the supremacy of christian spirituality (using an example of “failing states”). The bible gives you a test — examine its fruits (“by their fruit you will recognize them”). So you would expect the works by christian majority nations with a “strong christian heritage” to be blindingly righteous. But as you seem to agree, the fruits of this majority christian nation are far from it. Hence according to your biblical maxim, their collective faith is spiritually bankrupt.
November 14th, 2009 at 8:40 pm
UPDATE
In the light of Mr Craig’s article above about my alleged views on apostasy I have written a further piece which clarifies what I understand to be the teaching of the Qur’an and the Sunnah on the subject of apostasy.
Craig will doubtless continue to disapprove of my views. But after further reflection I am satisfied that they reflect the authentic teaching of Islam.
Paul Williams
bloggingtheology.wordpress.com
November 16th, 2009 at 10:49 pm
Alan
I have read your post on my blog today. I confess to being a little tired of your (deliberate or just reflex?) distortions of my position on apostasy.
To reiterate: the position that Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi is taking is not simply to execute individuals who change their faith. No. It concerns those who openly declare a revolt against the state/community, which is akin to treason.
What you ignorantly describe as ‘a medieval notion’ is in fact the biblical penalty for apostasy (i.e God commanded it), and the Christian church, both Catholic and Protestant executed apostates and heretics for most of it’s long and bloody history. So you are in the ironic position of rejecting a clear biblical commandment and the teaching and practice of some of the greatest Christian theologians of all time such as Aquinas, Calvin and Luther.
But I think the real cause of your animus against me is psychological. You just can’t accept that a white middle-class Englishman (ie someone just like you) can convert to Islam. Deep down in your unconscious you probably feel that I have crossed over a civilisational divide that should not be crossed, that I have committed the sin of cultural betrayal.
The irony in all this of course is that Jesus was no nice white Englishman, but a Middle Easten Jew (who in the gospels advocated the death penalty), a man just as foreign to your culture as Muhammad was (peace be upon them both)!
Now to business.
You challenge me to a debate.
I am not an Islamic scholar and do not posses the requisite skills and knowledge to debate anyone on the issue of ‘executing apostates’. My speciality is Christology, the Bible and Christian theology. I am always happy to debate or discuss these subjects with Christians even at an academic level.
But speaking on behalf of the Muslim Debate Initiative (MDI) WE DO accept the challenge. Abdullah has put himself forward and would be happy to debate you.
We will be in touch to discuss the venue and date etc.
Paul
November 17th, 2009 at 9:21 am
Paul,
You have taken down or moved your offending post and you decline personally to debate the subject. Can I hope therefore you’ve come to see how your intervention on the issue simply adds to the atmosphere of threat and intimidation for ex-Muslims?
Ah yes, the “psycological”… “deep down in (my) unconscious” argument. I’ve been waiting for it and it’s taken 7 days to arrive! I simply want other Brits to see what happens to someone who has lived and breathed the UK’s liberal (in the good sense) cultural atmosphere and then converts to your sort of Islam. You make my case for me.
However I’ll be delighted to debate with Abdullah. He and I have enjoyed debating each other on an Islamic TV station.
Alan
December 6th, 2009 at 12:04 am
I think Richard Dawkins adds some fascinating fuel for the fire!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1b0QKO1rJQ
On an unrelated point I find it slightly funny when he says that scripture shouldn’t be used to encourage morality. He then advocates the teaching of the golden rule instead. The irony is that this is taught in scripture! (Luke 6:31).
December 10th, 2009 at 7:33 pm
The irony in all this of course is that Jesus was no nice white Englishman, but a Middle Easten Jew (who in the gospels advocated the death penalty), a man just as foreign to your culture as Muhammad was (peace be upon them both
Yet those who’ve never sinned cast the first stone.
Mohammed and Jesus have nothing in common and are not to be considered as being in the same category. The difference is very easy to spot and can be resumed as follows: Jesus took an unfortunate nine year old girl and raised her from the dead, whereas Mohammed pinned one down and raped her. Mohammed’s example, and a most disgusting and repugnant one it is, provide ample and tangible proof that he is not of the Abrahamic line, and that his claims to prophethood, to being the “seal” of the Hebrew prophets are but empty, boastful lies.
End of story.
All four schools of islamic ‘jurisprudence’ advocate the death penalty for apostasy, and they do so for some very obvious reasons. Islam is brittle, incoherent and full of imperfections, flaws and contradictions, all of which tend to sow doubt in the minds of “believers”, in ways Christianity simply never could. These harsh penalties are a reflection of islam’s inherent weakness and are designed to ruthlessly keep people in the fold. We should remember that the moment this “much-loved-perfect-example-for-all-time” died, the entire Arabian peninsula broke out into a violent, open revolt against islam’s dikatas, and it was a revolt that took several years and much blooshed to supress. One thinks of present-day events in Iran.
As an Iranian ex-pat and former Muslim ( now Christian) I completely concur with Mr Craig’s astute observation that Islam lacks almost any sense of spirituality in the way, say, a Buddhist or a Christian understands the term. When a belif system prides itself on being a “whole-way-of-life”, and when it dissolves the separation between the temporal and the spiritual, then that “belief” system morphs into just a plain old ideology, one driven by little more than worldly greed, avarice, conquest and material gain. It is no coincidence, for example, that the most violent, blood-thirsty, imperialistic and aggressive form of Christianity, that of Spanish Catholicism, was nurtured, developed and exported from a region of Europe, the Iberian Pneinsula, that had spent centuries suffering under the Muslim yoke, Muslim oppression. The conquistadors may have called themselves Christians, but their aims, their cold-blooded techniques, war tactics and strategies were entirely jihadist in nature.
The next time Mr Craig debates Muslims, I suggest he refer them to the writings of Magdi Allam, a form egyption Muslim and convert to Christianity. He is one of the best jouranlists/writers in not just Italy, but in all of Europe.Another individual with a unique perspective on Islam and Christianity is the Balkan film-maker, Emir Kosturica, former bosnian Muslim, but now a Christian.
I could cite many other such converts, but what I,d like people to remember most is that those westerners who do convert to islam tend to be mentally weak, have authoritarian tendancies and are sometimes not all that stable or intelligent. Muslim converts to Christianity tend, on the other hand, to be highy educated, mentally stable and intellectually vibrant. All of the Iranian converts from Islam to Christianity (and there are 1000s and 1000s of them) that I,ve met are all highly educated and with strong, stable psyches. Their Christianity was a lifeline that allowed them to rejoin civilisation.
January 4th, 2010 at 4:31 pm
Hi Alan,
I just wanted to post a correction on the “big reward” that martyrs get in Islam. It’s apparently 72 mansions each containing 72 beds and with each bed you get 72 virgins so you have a total of 373,248 virgins.
Must be bloody big beds
So if you thought suicide bombers were carnal animals before what do you think of them now. Apparently the main reason for martyrdom though is because 70 members of your immediate family will guarantee salvation by your first drop of blood.
If you google Walid Shoebat he is an ex PLO islamic terrorist that has since brought Christ into his life for over 35 years now. He was a driver for Yasser Arafat. I got these islamic details from one of his youtube videos. Maybe you should invite him or one of the other Ex-terrorists/ Islamic Apostates as a surprise guest
One thing about Choudhary is at least he is honest about what he wants. I hate to think how many muslims in the UK are contemplating Jihad and hiding it with their Taqiyya.