"It was the most beautiful day of my life. I was reborn. This was a radical choice, which has changed my entire past and has begun a new life. On that day, the Magdi Allam inside me, who believes unambiguously and unquestionably in the principles of liberty and choice, was reborn in the framework of religion."

Such a statement is fitting for any convert to Islam, and if heard uttered by someone who has newly embraced Islam, smiles, feelings of warmth, and shouts of "Allahu Akbar" would fill the mosque or Islamic center in which they were uttered. Yet, there was no such adulation on the part of Muslims; no such feelings of warmth inside; no shouts of "Allahu Akbar." In fact, I am sure there were shouts of "La'anahu Allah" (may God curse him) all across the Muslim world, because the words quoted above were those of a Muslim who converted to Catholic Christianity.

Yet, this was no ordinary conversion, and this was no ordinary Muslim. It was that of Magdi Allam, the most famous (non-practicing) Muslim in Italy, and a leading writer and intellectual. Allam has gained notoriety for his staunch support for Israel and fierce condemnation of radical Islam. In 2003, Hamas declared a death sentence on him because of his criticism of terror attacks in Israel, and he has been under round-the-clock guard ever since. Over time, he came to the conclusion that there cannot be a "moderate Islam":

"I asked myself how it was possible that those who, like me, sincerely and boldly called for a 'moderate Islam,' assuming the responsibility for exposing themselves in the first person in denouncing Islamic extremism and terrorism, ended up being sentenced to death in the name of Islam on the basis of the Koran. I was forced to see that, beyond the contingency of the phenomenon of Islamic extremism and terrorism that has appeared on a global level, the root of evil is inherent in an Islam that is physiologically violent and historically conflictive."

As a result, he converted to Christianity and was baptized by Pope Benedict XVI himself, in Saint Peter's Basilica itself, during Easter Midnight Mass, the "mother of all masses," itself. Writing in Ha'aretz, Adi Schwartz comments that "the exalted public ceremony transformed the event into a clear political statement."

And everyone braced for an angry Muslim backlash. For his part, Allam immediately went on the offensive, saying that his conversion "liberated" him from "darkness," and that he "realized that Islam is not compatible with core values such as respect for life and freedom of choice." The Vatican publication L'Osservatore Romano, wrote: "There are no hostile intentions toward a great religion like Islam." The Holy See's chief spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, said that Mr. Allam's comments about Islam "remain his personal opinions without in any way becoming the official expression of the positions of the Pope or of the Holy See."

Yet, why should Muslims be outraged by his conversion? What are we afraid of?

Indeed, some Muslims who heeded his call to renounce violence and espouse the true, moderate Islam feel betrayed. Prominent Italian Muslim preacher Yahya Sergio Pallavicini, who joined Mr. Allam (when he was a "Muslim") on several occasions to renounce extremism, said "One day he's saying that moderate Islam exists, the next day he's saying the whole religion is violent. Is he suggesting that the only choice for Muslims who renounce terrorism is to be baptized by the Pope next Easter?" He makes a good point.

Nevertheless, Magdi Allam's conversion, as public (more public than that of former British Prime Minister Tony Blair) and political as it was, should garner absolutely no anger or fury. No stone should be thrown; no tire burnt; no glass broken; no call for his death should be made. If Magdi Allam decides to leave Islam, that is his business, and he will answer to God for his decision. No one should brace for an angry response, because an angry response is completely unnecessary.

If Mr. Allam left his nominal Islamic faith for Catholicism because Islam, as he claims, "is not compatible with core values such as respect for life and freedom of choice," then he is either being wilfully decietful or is completely and utterly ignorant of the very basic tenets of Islam, curious for someone who was born into the faith.

A cursory reading of even a poor translation of the Qur'an would reveal that Islam places the sanctity of human life at the utmost of importance:

And do not take any human being's life - [the life] which God has willed to be sacred - otherwise than in [the pursuit] of justice... (17:33)

And do not kill yourselves, for God has been merciful to you. (4:29)

Furthermore, the freedom to choose one's own spiritual path is tantamount in the Qur'an; one only has to look, and it is quite obvious that Allam has either chosen not to look or is completely blind:

Unto every one of you have We appointed a [different] law and way of life. And if God had so willed, He could surely have made you all one single community: but [He willed it otherwise] in order to test you by means of what He has vouchsafed unto you... (5:48)

For had God so willed, He could surely have made you all one single community; however, He lets go astray that wills [to go astray], and guides aright him that wills [to be guided]; and you will surely be called to account for all that you ever did! (16:93)

There shall be no coercion in matters of faith. Distinct has now become the right way from [the way of] error... (2:256)

Say [O Muhammad], 'The truth is from your Lord:' Let him who wills believe it, and let him who wills, reject (it). (18:29)

If it had been your Lord's will, they all would have believed - all who are on earth. Will you, then, compel the people, against their will, to believe? (10:99)

The evidence is overwhelming: Islam firmly upholds freedom of choice in matters of faith. Indeed, some Muslims do not, but their sins do not speak for the entire faith. Rather, their sins are an affront to the principles of Islam. Yet, Allam does not seem to know this, and he continues to rail against Islam as an "intolerant" faith, so much so, that the Vatican has distanced itself from Allam and his comments.

Yet, in no way, shape, or form should the Muslim community be bent out of shape by Allam's conversion. Even if the head Shaikh of Al Azhar University converted to Catholicism, it would not diminish the truth of Islam's message one iota. The Qur'an is quite confident in the truth it speaks, and so should it be with its adherents. "The right way has now become distinct from [the way] of error," the Qur'an says, and "the truth is from your Lord. Let him who wills, believe it, and let him who wills, reject it."

All will stand before God and account for his or her actions, and that includes Magdi Cristiano Allam.

While many Muslims support Apostasy as being punishable by death, there is no such injunction in the Qur'an. And, yes, Mr Allam, like everyone else, is certainly free to choose his move away from Islam, whether to Atheism or another religion (although how the Bible qualifies as being a less violent book is beyond me). However, the Pope's participation in a public 'show' of this is condemnable because he has politicized the issue greatly and harmed the chances of inter-faith dialogue (if there really were any). Distancing itself later, after abrasive statements or acts, is part and parcel of the current Papacy's system.

In any case, if Faith is really a personal matter, shouldn't a move away from it, or a shift of ideologies within the larger web of Faith, also be a private matter? Why hold a Pomp & Glory show at conversion?

Apostasy was (and still is although less hot in the local media) a major issue here in Malaysia. so much so that the Malaysian government's mishandling of it is cited as one of the causes for major losses by the ruling coalition suffered in the recent general election.

the landmark case was that of Lina Joy (in case anyone wants to search this). but there were also many others. the typical story is that of a non-Muslim who converts to Islam to marry a Muslim then after being divorced wants to convert back to their original religion. Is this really apostasy, by definition?

what is of more significant concern to me is to ask them why do they want to convert out of Islam? Did they not sincerely convert to Islam in the first place? or did they feel abandoned in a time of desperation when they needed the faith the most?

Yes, if a thinking adult feels they want to commit apostasy, then they have every right to do so. but we as a community need to look within and see how did society fail him/her? where was the support when there was a cry for help?

The ignorance of some "Muslims" -- whose only claim to Islam is inherited -- never ceases to amaze me. They know nothing of the faith except what they see on TV. They illogically confuse the actions of those individuals acting idiotically as representatives of that faith and, hence, are personally ashamed to be considered a Muslim. To quote Bruce Springsteen, "May God have mercy on the man who doubts what he is sure of."

BTW - When did Tony Blair convert (I'm assuming) to Islam? This news never made it across the pond.

Blair converted within Christianity from Anglicanism (Church of England) to Roman Catholicism. Both are extremely close in theology though a bit different in terms of management. I believe that his wife was Catholic before this conversion. I would have to disagree that Blair's conversion was not high-profile. It received more publicity than did Allam's conversion at least in the USA. Unlike my own instruction and conversion, Blair had a rather high profile RCIA instructor, the Archbishop of Westminster.

So what. Why is this such a big deal? For those of us who are happy as Muslims, that's great. For those who aren't, let them change their faith. That's between them and Allah. None of our business.

I have read other articles criticizing Pope Benedict XVIII's welcoming of Mr. Allam into the Catholic Church at Easter Vigil Mass. My thought is what give's muslims the right to expect the Pope or any other person of faith to consider altering the functions of their religion if it might offend muslim sensibilities. Sheikh Qaradawi has weighted in as well with a not so surprising condemnation.

Do muslim religious leaders or communities have the same thought process? Everyday, religious symbols of varying faiths are confiscated from people entering or transiting through Saudi Arabia and destroyed. The country with the Two Holiest sites of Islam does not seem to care what non-muslims think of this process or how it creates animosity and hatred of Islam. Would any Islamic figure alter an aspect of the Hajj or an Eid celebration so as not to offend non-muslims?

The Pope is a bright and intelligent man from what I know. He will speak or do what reflects the mission of the Catholic Church; which is to spread the Good News of Salvation through Jesus Christ. The welcoming of Mr. Allam would have been a non-event had not the Press recognized this man. The Vatican did not "parade him out like some trophy" to the world. He was brought into the Church that night like thousands of others were around the world at Easter Vigil Mass.

If muslims are serious about interfaith dialogue and respect of other religions, then may I suggest an article on why Saudi Arabia and thus Islam justifies the destruction of religious items including Bibles or why non-muslims are jailed, beaten, and deported for exercising their right to worship, pray, or read their own religious text. In light of today's condemnation of the film Fitna, isn't it hypocritical to allow one form of insult to be condemned and not the other?

If there is going to be improvement in relations between the muslim and the non-muslim world, then muslims committing offenses need to be held accountable as well.

Respect and Reciprocity.

I wonder if Magdi Allam will be taking up the cause of his Catholic brothers and sisters in the Congo?

I doubt it because Magdi Allam is a strong supporter of Israel.
Israel has a major role in fueling and benefiting from the violence in the Congo.

See http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_keith_ha_080207_the_gertler_steinmet.htm

ND,

How come you have nothing to say about how while Western countries preach human rights and democracy, they engage in regime change (even of democratically elected ones) and support brutal dictators and kings who do their bidding?

How come you have nothing to say about how the United States accepts trillions of dollars of investment money from the Saudis? The United States also makes billions of dollars selling weapons to Saudi Arabia. The Saudis do not have the qualifies personnel to operate the weaponry. Saudi Arabia is a storage place for the weapons that the Untied States uses in its military interventions of death and destruction in the Middle East and surrounding regions.

ND- you are complicitly silent when it comes to examining the other side of the US/SAUDI corruption coin-

while christianity ignores completely the heart and intention of tha actor- concentrating only on actions- islam concerns itself with the intentions of the actor.


consider the pope's past responses to islam and muslims- his insertion of a comment made in 1391 by the last byzantine emperor, Manuel II Paleologus in his speech at Regensburg, shortly after he became pontiff-

"Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only EVIL and INHUMAN, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."

the pope is known for his intellectual prowess- however no one could assume his intentions were positive towards islam- a religion that has just numerically eclipsed catholicism and has not gone unnoticed by the vatican-

by using an obsure 600 year old quote,(from an emperor whose empire was being overtaken by muslims- hardly an impartial intellectual) without the "persian scholars" response- is intellectually dishonest- or at least grossly unfair.

the muslim response?
drafting the letter of peace called "A Common Word" by 138 muslim scholars.

we must assume the intelligence of the pope- to imagine that his very public baptism of a known muslim hater- is a provocative statement to muslims-
to suggest that being singled out for baptism by the pope himself is a "normal" course of action is simply not true.
that is what made it stand out, and deliberately so.

but, ultimately- quite unimportant in the scheme of things.

the muslim response?
a loud and universal YAWWWN.


as to muslims expecting catholics to alter, in any way- the function of their religion- that is ridiculous.

however- to have some awareness that an act may offend sensibilites (and refrain from such offense) is just good manners- especially when the actor (pope) has deliberately offended them in the past.

i suggest you look at some italian publications and determine that the intentions were certainly not gracious- but an underlying triumphant anti-islamic statement.

you seem to be very concerned about the rights of saudis (or actually it is mostly guest workers) to carry a bible- but no concern over the US alliance with them that accepts (as noted by randall jones) trillions of dollars from them, and allows the US to store weapons there to kill muslims around the region.

of COURSE muslims are very vocal about those policies, both freedom and huan rights AND military complicity.

as for your statement-
"Would any Islamic figure alter an aspect of the Hajj or an Eid celebration so as not to offend non-muslims?"

every Ramadan, i watch the tv, and the media to hear one tiny single acknowledgement that 10 illion muslims in america are observing a 30 DAY HOLIDAY.
there is never a whisper- never a "Happy Eid" flashing across my tv screen-
as if it doesnt exist at all-






but it is unimportant.

I'm beyond being perpelexed by the many so-called Muslims who tire of the 'violence and extremism' and decide to call it quits. By 'so-called' I mean they were alleged Muslims in the sense that they never understood the religion in the first place. Though I was 'born' and raised a Muslim I had to consciously school myself in the religion. If I went solely by what I gleaned from Muslims around me I would be too disgusted with Islam to give it a chance.

When someone like Allam gains notorierity by writing about Islam you would think he had the basics of the religion down. Apparently not! While he criticized the extremists he obviously regarded them the epitome of Muslims.

And I do agree with you. If the man wants to leave the religion thats between him and his creator. In anycase I don't consider such conversion genuine. To be genuine and sincere makes it impossible to miss out on the core values of the Qur'an which are the exact opposite of what people like him claim to be running away from.

Spot on MRS.A! There are some people out there who think Muslims should be too ashamed of their religion to have opinions about others.

Oooh, the double standards. The double standards!

Dear Mrs.A,

Please forgive me but I failed to realize that my schedule to respond to a question was set by your watch. Now that I am sufficiently corrected that my time is not my own but actually yours, I will be more than happy to defer like a good little dhimmi.

1. I would disagree that Christianity ignores completely the heart or intention of the actor.
A. You were not there during the 9 months of preparation for entry into the Catholic Faith.
B. When did you become God to look into a person's heart and mind.

2. As for the Pope, read his entire document and think about what it the intention is. It is about using reason to counter violence.

2a. The Pope is free to express his opinions as he likes. Muslims do not self-censors to avoid offending Jews, Christians, Buddhist, Taoist, Atheist, ect. ect.

2b. The quote was justifiable. It was the muslim army who was INVADING A SOVEREIGN NATION because Allah said so. Read further about the atrocities committed by the muslims who INVADED Constantinople. I would be happy to point you to resource if you like.

2c. What makes you think it was direct towards muslims and Islam. The audience was not to either. It is muslims who took a short paragraph and exhibited behavior very similar to the muslims who invaded Constantipole....burning, destruction, death.

2d. I'm so happy your proud that muslims outnumber Catholics.

2e. "Who's empire was being overtaken by muslims"...MY GOD! The hypocrisy of muslims. You bemoan and lament Colonialism in the ME by European powers but you bury your heads in the sand and put on rose colored glasses when your own history is rampant with the very colonialism that Islam imposed on sovereign nations in the name of ALLAH.

3. "A Common Word" NO! The initial muslim response was burning Churches and Killing Christians. Have you read the document? I have. I hope it does foster dialogue between the religions but there must be respect and reciprocity.

4. The Pope and any other Christian clergy or religious person has the right to exercise their religious functions free of intimidation or duress from outside forces or elements.
Muslims would not alter their religious practices as not to offend others.

4a. This baptism is only provocative because the Press made it public. He was one of many who were welcomed into the Church that at Easter Vigil Mass. The man had a right to partake in the ceremony.

4b. If the muslim world got a good yawn out of it then why are you so upset?

4c. If you think it is ridiculous that Catholics think muslims want them to alter their religious practices, then the call that he should not participated at the Vatican but gone somewhere else?

5. Deliberate and accidental are two different things and it depends on perspective. The Pope and any other religious leader from any other denomination are free to speak in their capacity as they represent their faith. You may not like what is said but in this post, you have not attempt to avoid offending me. You can argue that you didn't but then again, it is a matter of perspective.

5a. Good manners is part of respect and reciprocity.

6. As for the Italian press Mrs A., you can an article that supports your position either way. Congratulation on finding such an article. I found some that supported mine.

7. Again, you misinterpret my post. I am in no way defending the Saudi's. I do believe non-muslims should be able to practice their faith free of harassment or fear of imprisonment. Muslims in the West are free to build mosques, cultural center, and schools. The same should be afforded non-muslims in Saudi Arabia.

7a. Have you ever read Machiavelli? There is a saying, "Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer." The United States has had a relationship with the Saudis since the US and Britain helped to pump oil out of the ground. As our gas prices keep going up, we see how oil dramatically effects the world economy. Nations act in their own best interest, Free, Third World, Communist, Islamic, ect. If you don't like the United States involvement in Saudi Arabia then buy an electric car. Otherwise, if you drive a combustion engine vehicle and put gas in it, then you have no right to complain.

7b. As for storing arms to kill muslims. The number one killer of muslims in the world are other muslims.

8. I will not argue the number of muslims in the United States. I don't believe it is as high as 10 million. For the sake of argument, what is it in comparison to 300 million. Islam was not part of the religious fabric of the United States when it was founded. It was founded on JudeoChristian principles. Yes, there is freedom of religion. The Government does not recognize ANY religion as the official religion of this country. The United States does not owe muslim a "Happy Eid."

ND- yes, ive read the speech several times- its pretty dry- and ostensibly it is supposed to be on reason- that's why his departing from reason and trying to point a finger at the 'other' is such an ungracious manner was so lamentable.
go read it again, and see how really out of place to the speech thoses statements were.

you are massively mistaken ND-
the pope does NOT have a right to speak as he likes- he is the shepherd of the flock of a billion people- and bears a great responsibility to lead their spiriutual lives in the correct direction-
he has become the mouthpiece and viceregent of god's word on earth- when he speaks ex cathedra it is not as he likes-
he is bound by the doctrines of mother church- and her representative-

John Paul II- would not have had it in his heart to make such a negative statement- hiding under any guise- as a prophet being a bringer of what is evil and inhuman-

and he certainly wouldn't go back 600 years to justify a prejudice
that is why he was beloved by the world (including me)

you're not going to try to arrogate yourself to the position of telling me who i can or cannot love, are you?


i read machievelli years ago- and have never once found any reason to quote the bad prince.

i find it telling that you align our government with machievellian standards- and truly seem to think this is a valid position to take.
i agree- ruthlessness and greed and corruption are our hallmarks-
it is sad that you report this with no shame-

i dont have a car- nor do i intend to get one-
so- by your own allowance- i have the right to complain?

thanks- but i critique- complaining is for whiners.

you said you were offended, but didnt say how- so i assume i did not offend you.

however- you have still avoided saying anything of substance on the hypocrisy of worrying about crucufuxes in saudi- but ignoring the millions of displaced and massacred in the world-

at the hands of the american miltary machine-

"War is a profession by which a man cannot live honorably; an employment by which the soldier, if he would reap any profit, is obliged to be false, rapacious, and cruel.
Niccolo Machiavelli (1469 - 1527)"

i find it very sad that you, and the pope- seem to be going backwards- hundreds of years- to express and justify current biases.