Donald Sensing has an interesting post (with interesting comments) on what the religious status of Steve Centanni and Olaf Wiig is today:

...were the forced confessions of Islam by Centanni and Wiig valid?

I would not count them as valid because there is no reason to believe from the men's reports that they experienced a religious change of heart. That is, the men's confession did not spring from faith in Allah, it was a deed done from fear of their lives.

But, let us remember that the basis of Islam, indeed the very meaning of the word, is "submission," not faith. There is no concept of original sin in Islam as there is in Christianity; indeed, while original sin is the conceptual glue that holds Christian doctrine together, it is entirely rejected in Islam. Christianity teaches that original sin cannot be remitted by any human works, only by the works of God, namely, Christ dying and resurrected. Hence, no deeds human beings can do can bring them to salvation. Thus, wrote St. Paul, "If you believe in your heart that Jesus was raised from the dead and confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, you will be saved." Note the order: confession follows a change of heart, an affirmation of belief. Without the change of heart the confession's utterance is of no value.

But in Islam, the confession's utterance is unconnected to a change of heart. In fact, a change of heart is wholly irrelevant. The confession stands alone and its only point is that it is done, not that it is believed. The entire edifice of salvation theory in Islam is built on one thing alone: human submission to perform deeds ordered by Allah. Islam does not teach that Allah desires human beings to love him; they are commanded to obey.

There are a lot of interesting issues here, one of which is that some Christians would consider them insufficiently faithful, in that they valued their life over their faith (this assumes, of course, that both men were/are Christians--it certainly wouldn't apply to me, since I have no faith other than provisional materialism). They might point out the relatively recent example of the young Christian woman at Columbine who refused to renounce her lord at gunpoint, and died.

As one WoC commenter points out, in the mentality of the enemy, we have once again showed ourselves to be weak and insufficiently devoted to our own beliefs (a microcosm of the larger societal problem of a soft multi-cultural post-modern Europe and much of America, unwilling to defend our own values). It was another demonstration of being, in Osama's formulation, the "weak horse." I'm not, of course, saying that the men had some sort of patriotic duty to take a bullet for the team--I certainly wouldn't have, but it's a symptom of just how difficult it will be to win this war, and persuade the enemy that they've lost.

More practically, in many places in the world, including Gaza and the West Bank, these two men are now apostates and liable to be killed under sharia law (remember the Christian convert in Afghanistan?), because they have since renounced their "conversions." I wouldn't go back to the Middle East if I were them. Their statements of encouragement for other reporters to continue to cover Gaza and "tell the story of the Palestinian people" (is that really the job of a so-called objective news reporter?) may sound nice to PC western ears, but it will have little effect in making the region safer for them, or others. Such words will also be interpreted as a sign of weakness by the enemy.

And I should say that I find tedious the argument that, because there were forced Christian conversions in history (e.g., during the Crusades and the Inquisition), Christians are hypocritical in criticizing this. One is history. The other is happening today. The point is that Christianity has largely evolved from a Middle Ages mentality. In the twenty-first century, Islam (or much, too much of Islam) remains firmly within it.

I wouldn't go back to the Middle East if I were them.

They should probably stay out of Europe, too. They'd be safer covering the South American drug cartels.

What I'd like to know is, where are the so-called "moderate Muslims" who should be denouncing these forced conversions? If a Catholic priest is found diddling an alterboy, anyone and everyone Catholic who doesn't condemn him is deemed a secret pedophile. The same goes for Mormons who are required to absolutely condemn the fringe polygamists out in the desert, lest they be deemed to be yearning for the good 'ol days of Brigham Young. Yet the "moderate Muslims" can remain completely silent on any abuse of their religion.

As time goes on, my ability to give Muslims in general the benefit of any doubt in these matters diminishes with each new event of this type.

Raoul, I am becoming more convinced each day that the "moderate Muslim" is a rare creature indeed.

If a Catholic priest is found diddling an alterboy, anyone and everyone Catholic who doesn't condemn him is deemed a secret pedophile.

If pedophile priests had Biblical sanction to kill parishioners who ratted them out to the police, you wouldn't hear many of the faithful complaining. We see the same behavior in ethnic communities with ethnic gang activity. You may not be involved yourself, but you aren't going to talk to the cops if you know what's good for you. Even absent threats of violence, the bond to the ethnic community is stronger than the bond to the larger society, so they don't rat out "their" people.

I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt. I'm sure a substantial percentage simply agree with the terrorists but don't want to get their hands dirty, and even more approve of their goals but not their methods. Any way you slice it, it's bad news, and we're probably going to have to encourage adherants of the "faith" to leave us at some point in the not too distant future. Right now it's for our own safety. After the next attack, it will be for theirs.

This is definitely not Brother Bush's faith based initiative. It's not a faith issue at all, just a force issue. In that sense Islam is no different than any other totalitarian system. Regardless of the cultural, religious or political angles, the Middle East as a whole is not willing to embrace democracy.

The US needs to change it's strategy from promoting democracy to destabilizing Islamic regimes and regions. Today.

I had a crack pipe dream that Centanni "might" tell the Arabs to shove Islam up Allah's ass, but the MSM just can't get it, even when forced to join up at the point of a gun.

From what I understand, the process of becoming a Muslim is not as a result of weeks or months of Koranic studies, followed by a heartfelt public declaration of leaving your old life behind. But by merely saying two things: That there is no god but Allah, and Mohammad is his prophet. (Maybe in some minds by even typing those words I am now muslim).

The key is "saying". Not "meaning" or believing. Merely saying those things is the so-called conversion. And there is no turning back.

Steve should not go back to the middle-east. He will be in continued danger.

Anyone who thinks they should've held out and refused to even say the words, needs to remember the crew of the Pueblo. Under the right pressure (and the wrong end of an AK-47, or memories of decapitated captives counts as such), many people, understandably, will say whatever their captors want to hear, to survive. (which is why torture is of limited effectiveness in interrogation)

How it will be seen in the Middle East in general, I can't say, but most in the West likely didn't believe it, the moment they heard it.

Proxima:

The Shahada has to be in Arabic.

...

Sadly, "There is no compulsion in religion." (Koran 2:256) has been abrogated by :

"Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection." (Koran 9:27)

Source: http://etext.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/HolKora.html

Surah #2 was revealed in Mecca. Surah #9 was revealed later on in Medina after Mohammed raised an Army. The forced conversion was perfectly A-OKAY in the eyes of 1400 years of Islamic legal tradition.