May I submit to you a piece I posted on my blog recently about this very issue of 'Die or Convert.'

As it appeared on the LA Times (in the print edition,) in appreciation of the sign of the times, I now leave you with an Op-Ed piece written by the politically incorrect Bill Maher. However, the article is nowhere to be found at latimes.com or anywhere on the internet. Strange!

"PRAISE ALLAH AND PASS THE HAIR GEL by Bill Maher

If converting to Islam is all it takes to get the terrorists off our backs, then all I have to say is, if you can't beat'em, join'em. This week, when two Fox News journalists were released by their kidnappers in Gaza, I was shocked. Fox News has journalists? No, the shocking part of it was that all these two Westerners had to do to get the blade literally off their necks was say they were now Muslims.

Apparently, becoming a Muslim is a lot like becoming a black peacher - all you have to do is claim you're one, and that's good enough. Just recite a two-line pledge that literally takes seconds. For you Republicans, that's less than the time it takes to have intercourse with your wife or mistress.

I know what you're thinking: "Bill, if we convert to Islam, doesn't that mean the terrorists have won?" Well, sort of, but it's a win-win, because they get to declare victory and we get to take hair gel on the plane!

Plus, we're not really converting to Islam; please, I saw what that did for Cat Stevens' career. No, we're just telling our enemies what they want to hear and trying to convince them we're something we're really not - or as Hillary Clinton calls it, "campaigning,"

If you want to convert to Judaism, it's a huge hassle. You've got to find a rabbi, study the Torah, get circumsized, go to dental school. But Muhammad made joining his team simple: You just recite a two-line pledge. Which would you go for: a two-line pledge or circumcision? And you Jews for Jesus, if you think leaving the tribe for Jesus was bad, imagine how much this will tick off your parents.

And the best part: Nothing would really have to change. We're not asking Americans to disrupt something essential in their daily lives, like changing their e-mail address. We'd be Muslims in name only, instead of what Americans are now - Christians in name only. I mean, look around, we don't care for the poor, or defer to the meek, or avoid judging people - it's not like we're that committed to Christianity. Seriously, is the Koran that different from the New Testament? Sex is bad, women are inferior, and when in doubt, blame the Jews.

Even conservative Christians can get behind this - Islam has more of everything they love. Pray five times a day? Where do I sign up? Thank you, Jesus . . . I mean Allah. All the intolerance and moral certitude with half the calories; speaking of which, if we put our women in burkas, maybe it'll encourage Nicole Ritchie to eat something. And on the back of the burka we could write "Juicy." Because, come on, we're still Americans. I'd also like to see a more sporty burka with no panty lines that would make women feel pious and fresh, or the "Wonder Burka," designed to lift and denigrate.

We're a nation in thrall to religious fanatics anyway; does it really matter which religion we're in thrall to? Koran, Bible - what's the diff? They're both full of moral pieties and codes of conduct nobody follows anyway, so let's pick the one that lets us take hair gel on the plane!"

Bill Maher is the host of HBO's "Real Time With Bill Maher."

It's amazing how non-Muslims do not know true Islam any more than Muslims do. I too wish everyone health and happiness, as well as peace.

Wow. Excellent job as usual, Mustafa. Dr. Bostom has truly lost it - he even makes Robert Spencer look reasonable. I was wondering if you could take a shot at responding to Mr. Aikman. I can't quote line and verse, but his argument that there is no charity towards adversaries in Islam seems false to me. I also wish a scholar of Islam (like yourself) would tackle the issue of reason in Islam as well. I see that topic arise often.

hello Mr. Akyol
You did a pretty good job the other day on Frontpage.com, considering that the opposition was 3x bigger. But this is not the issue here. Actually, what matters are facts ad good arguments. And here I have to say, your job was not particular brillant.
You actually try to cherrypick (not more or less than the others) some verses that could help you, but orthodoxy, actual facts and even some logical and factual errors make it evident that what you are telling is not corresponding to reality. I would hope that you were right as I would hope that you could represent an opportunity, but in reality, situation is hopeless. Either your point of view is unislamic or you are just apologetic. Here is it why:
Did you ever ask yourself how was it possible that such a clear book as the qur�an (that presents itself as clear evidence) needed to be backed up by the hadiths and by the sira? It seems evident that lots of severe contradictions are present in the �for you- presumably holy book. And even if you put these contradictions into perspective and into context (this is actually what lots of imams are actually doing while doing da�wa in non-muslim countries, putting the qur�an into context means beeing apologetic and friendly when you are weak), this doesn�t solve the problem. Hence the need of beefing up the unclear nature of the revelation. While saying that you don�t accept the post-qur�anic writings or the rule of abrogation, you are dealing a severe blow to the autenthicity and integrity of the qur�anic message. An example: you don�t accept the concept of abrogation, but actually this is a concept that is stated in the qur�an itself!!!! So it seems that you don�t even accept the qur�an. So the fact that you are telling yourself muslim would mean actually that you don�t believe in anything exept that God exists! As you don't� accept the sunna, all (sound and non authentic) hadiths, and even the very qur�an.
Regarding the issue of conversion. It really seems to me that you are closing both of your eyes to the clear evidence that comes out from a) the qur�an+hadiths+sira and thus the example of Mohammed (ok ok, you accept just part of it, as if you would create your own religion), b) the whole islamic history (that of course had as well outstanding moments, especially while meeting with non-muslim religions) c) the strong orhodox argumens in the hands of the salafists.
The issue of 2:256 is taken as islamic propaganda and taqyya by the kafirs and abrogated by the salafists (that stands on solid exegetic ground). Thus everybody that starts a dialogue with this verse is already badly �classified�, except by the utopists that �all religions are the same�, the left and the naif ones. You state that it is very clear from a qur�anic view that forced conversion is not islamic. But if it were so clear, why is it �as Spencer and Bostom cleary point out- that a) it happened and happens, b) that it is taken as reasonable by the muslims themselves that somone with a scimitar at his neck �of course� would like to get muslim c) that there is no outrage in any islamic country about these facts? Do I have to remember you that there has been no-one and I repeat no-one that said anything against the recent beheading of an orthodox christian priest in Iraq, while at the same time everyone was outraged (killing accidentally people, catholic priests (ye ye even in your country) and nuns) just bcs Benedict XVI said that violence is against religion or bcs of some caricatures? Again, if 2:256 were real and actual, why is there no freedom of religion in all muslim countries? I don�t have to bring to you the example of KSA, but of any other islamic country (you know of the �recent� incarceration of Bahaa El Din Al Akkad, a 57 year old egyptian, ex-muslim sheikh bcs of his conversion to Christianity in Egypt)? It seems to me a non-sense to say that there is no compusion, while in reality there is and no-one is outraged about that!

Moreover, you are right on the wrong path when you talk that the political issue is to be separated from the religious one. As you know, this separation doesn�t e didn�t exist, and the only �aberration� in this case is Turkey. It is wrong as well that the dhimmi status has been given to Hindus and Buddhists. Hindus are taken as idolaters while Buddhists are taken as atheist. And while talking about dhimmis, you tend to forget that the obligation to convert is obvious if you don�t accept the two options you get: death or dhimmi status. Is it so difficult to see that there is no freedom of choise? And sorry, but the context you talk about surah 9 is patently very wrong. It is well known that it has to do with the Byzantines, and about a rumour spread in Medina about an army that would have been ready to attack them (but never existed, so it seems that even Allah got it worong that time! Bizarre!)�there has never been a treatry with the Byzantines at that time, there has never been a broken treatry and there has never been an attack by the Byzantines�so it goes along that it doesn�t talk about a defensive holy war, but about an offensive one, except if you want to change logic.

You tell us about the division of religion and state affairs, and that this could be possible! But you don�t elaborate on this. I know sometimes verbal discussions are sometimes difficult to manage so I don�t blame you. But if it would be possible why is there no example in any islamic state of this? Why do you need a military surveillance of the religious affairs in even a �secular� state like Turkey? Are you really shure that without this hard control the actual �relative� freedom �n Turkey would be possible? And if you speak about freedom of religion, why don�t you advocate for example for the opening of an christian-orthodox seminar in Turkey (you should know it is forbidden for the time beeing)? Are you really so liberal to go down the streets and protest about this issue?
Did you ever, at least for a nano-second, have a minimal doubt about the possibility that the problem might lie in islam itself, instead of looking for excuses?
Frankly, I hope that every muslim would be like you. In this case the world would be a pre-tasting of the paradise, but I suppose that it would be empty of islam as well
Greetings
echnaton

Wow! First, Mr Akyol is to be congratulated for taking on this debate. Not because he is debating 3 people at the same time, more so is the reason that Moslem community at large provide plenty of ammunition, and continue to prove the arguments of the other side to be correct.

I guess one can read the debate text in two different contexts. First, debate on the Kuran content only. Secondly, Islamic community perception of what the Kuran says or doesn�t say.

I say, Mr Akyol has presented a stronger argument in the first, weaker one in the latter. I think many practicing (Turkish) moslems do not discern the differences between Kuran and Hadiths. Hence, the first part of the debate becomes a moot point. So, I�m not as easily able to sort out the Kuran from the post-Kuranic Islamic hadiths as Mr Akyol does. The traditions of living lives by these hadiths for hundreds of years, make it normal for the most moslems to think and feel what the hadiths demand.

I think if and only when there is a complete freedom of discussing religious ideas, can there be reason to hope that the needed reforms may take place. For example, I do not think, Mr Akyol (I may be wrong!) would be able to travel to Bingol, Van, and Konya, even as a Turk, freely discuss his views.

I await with great anticipition the result of the Mr Ali Bardakoglu�s reforms. Thus giving much needed traction to the work of people like Mr Akyol.

Celal

So your basically saying Mr Akyol is a bad Muslim for not believing in forced conversion or offensive war? If the west wants the "Muslim reformation" it shouldn't really encourage this notion, because it will only lead to more extreme Muslims.

"t is well known that it has to do with the Byzantines, and about a rumour spread in Medina about an army that would have been ready to attack them (but never existed, so it seems that even Allah got it worong that time! Bizarre!)�there has never been a treatry with the Byzantines at that time, there has never been a broken treatry and there has never been an attack by the Byzantines�so it goes along that it doesn�t talk about a defensive holy war, but about an offensive one, except if you want to change logic."

Yes, there was rumour that the Byzantines were preparing to attack the Northern border (This isn't mentioned in the Qu'ran to my knowledge) The attack didn't materialize, but during this time pagan tribes in Southern Arabia broke thier treaties and begun attacking Muslims, to which Muhammed gave them 4 months to renounce thier actions before attacking. I really don't understand your point relating to this.

Greetings from Greece. Religion has divided us in Muslims, Christians, Buddhists etc. We need to consider outselfes as humans, and forget about the religious differences. Our life is short, its meanigless to spend it in conflicts. Peersonally I don't care if it is Christ, Allah, or Buddha the one that is above us. Can we live in peace? that's the question.

Mustafa, Greetings and thank you for your articulation of a view of Islam that is under heavy attack by powerful, influential and passionate members of your own faith. Along with the panelists in this forum I pray that your views will prevail. Unfortunately, along with them, I am not optimistic.

I wish to add one observation. I have noted a seemingly well-orchestrated attitude by many Muslims I have encountered on the internet in recent months. This attitude is one that seems to reclassify Christians from being people of the book into being classified at "pagans" or "idolators." Central to these charges is the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. Secondary to these charges is the assertion that Jesus was himself a Muslim and that those who call themselves "Christians" are not really authentic "people of the book" at all.

These points, if taken, remove Christians from any protection that "book" status might have otherwise give them. Under the more lethal interpretations of the Qur'an/Hadiths (as cited by others in this forum) that would make Christians fair game for either forced conversion or for targeting for death.

Even if (one can dream) your views on Islam are widely held I am inclined to believe that they are being overwhelmed and shunted aside by the views of Wahhabism and other so-called radical Islamist interpretations of the Muslim faith.

As always, I thank you for your willingness to defend Islam from those who would use it as a club to beat the rest of the world into submission.

Selamin Aleykum Mr.Aykol

I've read your debate and you have done a great job. I would like to help you by answering stuff in the debate that you overlooked (for future references):

"Koran 9:5, which offers pagans the stark “choice” of conversion or death: “Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.”"

This one made me laugh. This verse is nothing about forced conversion, it is about war. It saddens me when "intelligent" people make such mistakes. If the pagans repented, they would have been spared because that means they would be on the side of the Muslims! Let us look at verse 9:4

Koran 9:4
(But the treaties are) not dissolved with those Pagans with whom ye have entered into alliance and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor aided any one against you. So fulfill your engagements with them to the end of their term: for God loveth the righteous.

The "sacred"-should be "forbidden"-months refer to the treaties. This treaty was actually broken by the Arab Pagans. Here is a Sale translation of it:

Sale, Koran 9:5
And when the months wherein ye are not allowed to attack them shall be past, kill the idolaters wheresoever ye shall find them, and take them prisoners, and besiege them, and lay wait for them in every convenient place. But if they shall repent, and observe the appointed times of prayer, and pay the legal alms, dismiss them freely; for God is gracious and merciful.

Allah knew that these people would have broken the treaty, actually, I think even the Muslims expected such would happen.

Also, it is always implied, especially from the Sunnah, that we can not kill innocent people. If the soldiers just surrendered, and not killed anyone, they would have been also spared.

Dr.">http://www.islamonline.net/livedialogue/english/Browse.asp?hGuestID=ls0mM5”>Dr. Jamal Badawi says:
This aya has been frequently quoted out of its textual and historical context.

1. The aya has nothing to do with compulsion in religion.

2. It deals with mushrikeen which means idolatrous people who have nothing with Jews and Christians (see 98: 1) which means a clear distinction between mushrikeen and People of the Book.

3. The aya does not even include all idolatrous people nor idolatrous Arabs at the time of the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) since it excludes those idolatrous Arabs who did not engage in murder and hostilities against Muslims. See for example verse 4 in Chapter 9.

4. The reason for fighting those idolatrous Arabs is not because they rejected Islam but because they broke the treaty of Hudaybiya and murdered innocent people. In fact the reason for fighting is given in verse 10 and 13, which shows that fighting them was because of their aggression and not because of their rejection of Islam. As far as the ending of verse 5, "that if they repent, establish prayer and paid the poor-due, then leave them alone", this does not mean that they must accept Islam to be left alone but it seems to indicate that since their aggression was promoted in the first place by hateful and irrational aggressive hate of the message of Islam that if they willingly accept Islam then the reason for their aggression will be voided not that it is a condition or stopping the war against them. Resorting to war and battlefield in Islam is only allowed to repel aggression or severe oppression. That simply gives another option for them, either to stop aggression and remain idolatrous or to willingly accept Islam and become brethren in faith.

There is absolutely no contradiction between the two verses you mentioned.

Now, Mr. Spencer, who thinks is a scholar in Islam also said:

"When he was master of Medina, some livestock herders came to the city and accepted Islam. But they disliked Medina’s climate, so Muhammad gave them some camels and a shepherd; once away from Medina, the herders killed the shepherd, released the camels and renounced Islam. Muhammad had them pursued. When they were caught, he ordered that their hands and feet be amputated (in accord with Qur’an 5:33, which directs that those who cause “corruption in the land” be punished by the amputation of their hands and feet on opposite sides) and their eyes put out with heated iron bars, and that they be left in the desert to die. Their pleas for water, he ordered, must be refused (Bukhari 8.82.794-797; 9.83.37)."

This was even funnier. They were not "tortured" because they renounced Islam, Spencer ignores the whole story and jumps to the end where it says they renounced Islam.

First, they lied to Prophet Muhammad(pbuh)
Two, they betrayed Prophet Muhammad(pbuh)
Three, they killed the Shepard.
Four, they released the livestock.

It is obvious that their intention before converting to Islam was to betray Islam and the Prophet(pbuh) anyways. Notice the hadith says:
"But they disliked Medina’s climate"

It seems like they were spies, as spies were sent to kill Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) before and couldn’t because he was well protected. So instead they killed the Shepard.

Also, we know that they killed the Shepard, but we don't know how exactly so we can assume that they killed the Shepard in an odd way.

No crime, specially betrayal and murder, should go unpunished!

Mr. Aykol, you did a very good job defending Islam. Robert Spencer says Islam is evil and forgets everything about Christianity (I think he is a Christian.) We know that that Christianity doesn’t practice “hate” but their Bible is full of it!

For example, “Turn the other cheek”:

1 Samuel 15:2-4
2 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.
3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.
4 And Saul gathered the people together, and numbered them in Telaim, two hundred thousand footmen, and ten thousand men of Judah.

For example, “Love thy neighbor” and “Freedom of Religion”:
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:
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.

Wow right? It does not stop there.

For example, “Freedom of Religion”:

Deuteronomy 13:6-9
"If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying: Let us go and worship other gods (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other, or gods of other religions), do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people."

2 Chronicles 15:13
"All who would not seek the LORD, the God of Israel, were to be put to death, whether small or great, man or woman."

The thing is, this is the “Biblical God” ordering these killings! He doesn’t even do it himself, he tells the Israelis to do it! Imagine babies getting “smite” by swords! You would think it was only 1 or 2 but there is a lot more.(No wonder China plans to rate the bible Mature.)

Anyhow, you don’t have to use my method of debate because they might accuse you of diverting the debate from the real topic. I only do it when I “clear” all of the misconceptions represented.

For more misconceptions on Islam cleared go here: http://www.load-islam.com/artical_det.php?artical_id=414§ion=wel_islam&subsection=Misconceptions

@Bird of Paradise;

You raise a good point. However, it wouldn’t matter in war either way. We can’t kill innocents no matter what.

Saheeh Bukhari
Volume 004, Book 052, Hadith Number 257.
Narrated By 'Abdullah : During some of the Ghazawat of the Prophet a woman was found killed. Allah's Apostle disapproved the killing of women and children.

Even though most people generalize, including me(sorry), we can’t say that Christians are pagans because not all Christians practice Trinity.