I recently received the following email message:
I think whoever posted the things about Dearborn, MI practicing sharia law really needs to re examine what was posted. I have some interesting information about what happened at the Arab festival in Dearborn. I live in Dearborn Heights, MI which borders Dearborn. I am willing to link to you news articles and send you other information that will change the perspective of what happened that weekend. We as Christians have to represent what is true. I don't believe everything was represented accurately on triablogue.I don’t live in or near Dearborn, so I’m not qualified to venture a personal opinion of the situation. But I will say the following:
1. I happen to know David Wood, one of the participants. I don't know him terribly well, but to the best of my knowledge, David is a very credible spokesman, and I’d certainly take his word over the word of someone I don’t know.
(For that matter, I'd take his word over the word of some folks I do know, but that’s another issue for another day.)
2. Beyond his personal credibility, David has a collaborative blog where you can find detailed info on this incident, including video footage.
3. If you type "Dearborn" in the search box at Jihad Watch, you can instantly pull up collaborative evidence.
4. Lydia McGrew has also turned her formidable talents to blogging on this topic (among other issues).
5. Moreover, we can evaluate the claim based on the modus operandi of Islam. Islam is a religion bent on world denomination. And it uses two tactics: conquest or infiltration. What it cannot defeat in battle, it tries to subjugate through infiltration-like a python slowing choking the life out of its prey.
6. From what I've read, Dearborn already has an expansive and expanding Muslim population. In addition, Muslims tend to exert disproportionate influence, both because they inspire fear (e.g. violent rioting), and because the political establishment panders to religious "minorities" as a mark of its multicultural enlightenment.
7. One might also ask why professing Christians would side with Muslims over other Christians. I have two theories:
i) Liberal Christians (I used the word advisedly) pride themselves on their promiscuous tolerance of all things unchristian.
ii) You also have professing Christians who cave under social and political pressure. It's easier to follow a policy of appeasement or betrayal than pay the cost of discipleship.
Needless to say, these two theories are not mutually exclusive.
"One might also ask why professing Christians would side with Muslims over other Christians."
ReplyDeleteIf a Muslim tells the truth and a Christian lies, I side with the Muslim. To do otherwise is to side with Satan and against Christ.
That begs the question of which side is lying. I'd add that lying is pious duty in Islam:
ReplyDeletehttp://answering-islam.org/Index/T/taqiyya.html
I'm not sure I see a substantive difference between life under sharia law and life under the Christian Reconstructionist (who would advocate death for gays, blasphemy - however you define it - and making false prophesies). Maybe the way death is administered is different (Muslims still seem to prefer more crude methods like rocks), but the result is still the same, more or less.
ReplyDeleteAlthough Reconstructionism isn't totally within the mainstream, I can't recall any popular Christian pastor publicly repudiating it.
Is it because Muslims are doing the "right" thing for the "wrong" god?
JAMES SAID:
ReplyDelete"I'm not sure I see a substantive difference between life under sharia law and life under the Christian Reconstructionist (who would advocate death for gays, blasphemy - however you define it - and making false prophesies)...Although Reconstructionism isn't totally within the mainstream, I can't recall any popular Christian pastor publicly repudiating it."
I expect that Pat Robertson, for one, would be quick to repudiate XRecon if he was sentenced to death for all of the dubious predictions he's made over the years. Not to mention any number of other Televangelists who have the same track record. Likewise, I doubt Ted Haggard would appreciate XRecon penalties for sodomy and adultery.
"That begs the question of which side is lying. I'd add that lying is pious duty in Islam."
ReplyDeleteYou posed the question "why professing Christians would side with Muslims over other Christians". I did not beg it, I answered it. If the Muslims are telling the truth, the professing Christians have a Christian duty to side with them over and against any Christians who say otherwise.
This has nothing to do with whether lying is a pious duty in Islam. It has everything to do with whether defending the truth is a pious duty in Christianity.
I have not commented at all on the incident in Dearborn (which happens to be very near where I live).
Your comment is in the context of a post on the Dearborn incident. So it's not hard to connect the dots.
ReplyDeleteTo be fair, some Muslims have told the truth about Ergun Caner. There is no Christian fellowship outside of truth. Many Muslims do recognize a duty to lie when it suits the purposes of Islam. Apparently some Christians do too.
ReplyDeleteAs for Dearborn, I don't know David or any of his group, but I see the value in what they do. I've heard the reason why they use cameras and that's fine. One effect of using cameras is that it attracts a type of Muslim that is difficult to reach with the gospel and I applaud David's group for being willing to go head-to-head with them as they carry out the great commission.
But cameras also keep some Muslims at bay who are more open to the gospel and who fear retribution for their interest. So it is fruitful also to have quieter ministries that provide a safer environment for them.
JIM PEMBERTON SAID:
ReplyDelete"To be fair, some Muslims have told the truth about Ergun Caner."
They told the truth to discredit him as an apostate turned evangelist.
Apparently, a few people still aren't convinced that people have lied about us.
ReplyDeletePlease follow the link to our blog. We have video footage of exactly what we did, and it clearly refutes what the Mayor, Police, etc. said we did.
If video footage isn't enough, well, I don't know what would convince you.
Your comment is in the context of a post on the Dearborn incident. So it's not hard to connect the dots.
ReplyDeleteIf you think I was talking about Dearborn, you mistakenly connected the dots. You asked a broad question that had nothing to do with ''these'' Muslims in ''these'' circumstances or ''certain'' Christians in a ''specific'' situation. I answered with an "if".
They told the truth to discredit him as an apostate turned evangelist.
When an evangelist is discredited by the truth, the main problem is not Muslims.
Apparently, a few people still aren't convinced that people have lied about us.
I have paid no serious attention to events in Dearborn, so I don't need convincing one way or the other. I'll trust my fellow Christians on this one.
What I can tell from all that I know about this Dearborn fiasco is that freedoms have certainly eroded in your country. I pray that God keep your land glorious and free.
SRNEC SAID:
ReplyDelete"If you think I was talking about Dearborn, you mistakenly connected the dots. You asked a broad question that had nothing to do with 'these' Muslims in 'these' circumstances or 'certain' Christians in a 'specific' situation. I answered with an 'if'."
To the contrary, the Dearborn incident was the explicit and repeated topic of the post. That's the context. And that's really hard to miss.
"When an evangelist is discredited by the truth, the main problem is not Muslims."
Once again, you miss the point. They tell the truth when it serves their purpose, and dissimulate when it doesn't.
So if it comes down to a question of who's telling the truth about what really went down at the Arab Festival, there's a standing presumption against the credibility of Muslim witnesses.
You asked a hypothetical question ("why would"), to which I gave a conditional answer ("if"). I did not miss the context, I just answered your question. Is my answer wrong? Do you think we should side with lying Christians against Muslims who are telling the truth?
ReplyDeleteOnce again, you miss the point. They tell the truth when it serves their purpose, and dissimulate when it doesn't.
So? I got that. Maybe you missed my point: lying or defending it serves Satanic purposes. If Muslims are enemies of the faith, it only follows that lies like Ergun Caner's serve their purposes. So, again, who's the real problem here?
So if it comes down to a question of who's telling the truth about what really went down at the Arab Festival, there's a standing presumption against the credibility of Muslim witnesses.
In my last comment I said, "I'll trust my fellow Christians on this one." Did you miss it? I presume against the Muslims, but if I had reason to believe they were telling the truth I would have to take their side. This was the point of my first comment, in answer to your question.
Your original post presumes that those Christians who side with the Muslims over other Christians must be doing so in bad faith. But Christians must be faithful to the truth and not to lies, even if our own brothers are lying. And I'm not saying they are in this instance.