Muhammad's little quislings

I’m going to respond to two comments that landed in the moderation queue. Jonathan also sent a message on Facebook to one of our team members.

Please quit slandering Dearborn, Mi. I would love to have a discussion about Dearborn in particular. Your sources are not reliable. I am a lifelong resident of the area. Sharia law is not being implemented in Dearborn. Acts 17 has done more harm to the gospel than you realize, but don't let facts get in the way of a good narrative.

By JOnathan on The Ground Zero mosque on 12/25/10

Your theory is a veiled ad hominem attack. So in other words, because somebody doubts the veracity of Act 17's story of what happened in Dearborn, MI the person is possibly a liberal Christian or not willing to fight for his faith? Have you ever considered that truth is truth whether it is spoken by a muslim or Christian? In this case, Acts 17 acted dishonestly. I know of several evangelical groups who do work on a daily basis in east dearborn not just drive by attention mongering that Acts 17 takes part in. Acknowledging that fact in no way means a person is siding with Islam rather than Christianity. It isn't about siding with Muslims. It is about siding with the facts of a certain situation.

By JOnathan on Dhimmitude in Dearborn on 12/25/10

A few observations:

i) As far as slander is concerned, there is also the possibility than Jonathan (and other critics) is slandering Acts17. So that allegation cuts both ways. For that matter, one could also say that Jonathan, as well as Ali ElHajj, have leveled ad hominem attacks on Acts17.

ii) The use of “sharia” or “dhimmitude” in a title or a headline is simply a form of shorthand. I don’t think anyone is arguing that Dearborn is a Muslim theocracy. That’s not the point.

Rather, in modern times, Islam has resorted to an incremental strategy. It doesn’t stage an overnight takeover. Rather, there’s a process of infiltration. Muslims game the system. They initially vie for “equal rights” and “tolerance” for “diversity.”

But they also exploit and extend liberal policies involving speech codes and hate crimes. We see this happening in Europe and the United Kingdom. This is conspicuous when the target celebrities like Mark Steyn and Oriana Fallaci, but imagine all the other cases that go unreported, involving nobodies who lack the wherewithal to fight back.

Muslims are also trying to use the UN to get international laws passed which discriminate against Christians. That way, they can circumvent the popular will of holdouts like the US.

There’s no mystery what happens to Christians and Jews when Muslims come to power.

The fact that Michigan is a traditional bastion of the Democrat Party makes it all the easier for Muslims there to game the system.

In situations like this you always have dupes, quislings and patsies who play along with the enemy. They compliantly hop into the pot and blissfully drift off as the water is slowly brought to a boil. 

Read Ali's blog. Lots of pertinent information.

Let’s take him up on his advice. When I mouse over to Ali ElHajj’s blog, what do I find?

Before we get to the specifics of the Acts17 incident, what else do I find there?

1. Ali admits that he wasn’t an eyewitness to the events. Therefore, he relies on hearsay information. Nothing necessarily wrong with that. But why should an outsider like me assume his second-hand sources are more credible than other secondhand sources to the contrary?

Moving along:

2. He uses poisonous labels like “Islamophobia.”

3. He defends the Ground Zero mosque.

4. He thinks our gov’t should revoke the tax deduction for US donations to Israeli settlements.

 This alone suggests to me that Ali is an Arab chauvinist. He sees the world through his ethnic prism.

And what does he say about the Acts 17 incident?

Acts17 has a confrontational style.  Now, they claim they were not confrontational and their videos (once released by the police) will bear this out.  Let's grant this.  The problem is last year's "outreach" was so outrageous that the ministry wore out its welcome in Dearborn.  The community does not want Act17 there and their mere presence is considered a threat to the public peace.

In short, Acts17 lost the right to be heard.

http://alielhajj.com/?p=38

1. To say that Acts17 is a threat to the public peace is circular. Indeed, it conjures up the familiar scene of the “Arab street” rising up in protest against some imagined slight to “The Prophet.”

It’s ironic to see Ali defend Dearborn Muslims by imputing to them a lynch-mob mentality.

2. In what sense did Acts17 lose the right to be heard? Does he mean the moral right to be heard? Or the legal right to be heard?

Continuing:

So then, why can't Nabeel Qureshi and David Wood get along at the Arab Festival? As I wrote in my previous post: a history of aggressive verbal confrontation. Last year, Qureshi and Wood went to the the Arab Festival in Dearborn armed with cameras. They were expecting confrontations and, as their own videos showed, they found the confrontations they expected and sought. They were escorted out of the festival by security and later produced a video titled "Arab Festival 2009: Sharia in the US". The title of the video was preposterous as their being escorted out of the festival had nothing to do with Sharia. They were a nuisance and were removed because they were confrontational and argumentative.

This year, they returned to Dearborn where they were immediately identified and, unfortunately but expectedly, were debated and questioned (sometimes aggressively) by some individuals in Dearborn. This had little, if anything, to do with Qureshi and Wood being Christian, or because they were missionaries, and it had nothing to do with an oppression of their constitutional rights. They were not the only Christians there this year or last year, but they were the only Christians last year who were confrontational.

Moreover, the title of their video "Sharia in the US" is offensive to Dearborn's residents. Simply stated, the conclusion that Sharia is coming to Dearborn is divorced from reality. Sharia is not coming to Dearborn; Dearborn's residents do not want it, and Dearborn's police is not the instrument of its implementation.

http://alielhajj.com/?p=403

What’s ironic about this version of events is that Ali is unwittingly corroborating the very thing he seeks to refute.

1. Notice the choice of words: “armed” with cameras–as if a camera were lethal weapon. Surely there are lots of folks at the Arab festival with digital cameras and cellphone cameras.

2. Or consider the statement that “They were expecting confrontations and, as their own videos showed, they found the confrontations they expected and sought.”

What does it tell you about Dearborn Muslims if they are so easily incited? Again, it’s like those images we constantly see on the news of Muslims rioting in the streets over some perceived outrage.

3. Or consider this statement: “This year, they returned to Dearborn where they were immediately identified and, unfortunately but expectedly, were debated and questioned (sometimes aggressively) by some individuals in Dearborn.”

It makes it sound like Acts17 was crossing the border into a police state where they were detained for questioning by the authorities. Indeed, isn’t that exactly what happened?

How does Ali think he’s helping his cause with these statements? It’s counterproductive. It makes it sound as though Dearborn is morphing into the West Bank.

4. And notice the paradox. We have an Arab immigrant (Ali ElHajj) treating a native-born American (David Wood) as if he’s the outsider when he dares to visit an American city. The foreign national treats the native as if the native no longer belongs in the country of his birth. This is dhimmitude in the making. The coercive process of Islamification in America.

Continuing:

When the Christians arrested arrived in Dearborn this year, they were immediately identified and faced the anger of the city. The question for the police was: "Is the presence of these individuals, and their behavior, a danger to the public peace?" not "How do we stop Christians from proselytizing in Dearborn?"

Mr. Gingrich, in America we have the freedom of speech but we also have the expectation of the virtues of honesty and civility. When these virtues are bypassed, anger, fear, and hatred are not far behind. One cannot enter a city, attack its residents, then inaccurately portray the city and label such behavior evangelism.

http://alielhajj.com/?p=699

This is exactly how Muslims take over. Through intimidation. Thuggery. The threat of violence. Capitulate to our demands or else!

And we routinely see civil authorities in Europe and the United Kingdom responding with a policy of appeasement. “We mustn’t do anything to set them off!”

Ali is treating Dearborn like a Muslim tinderbox that only needs a Christian match to make it explode.

Notice how he characterizes the attitude of Muslims there: “anger, fear, hatred.” He himself describes them as seething hotheads.

Should we replace American democracy with a Muslim mobocracy? Time is running out.