Sunday, December 26, 2010

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.


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.


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.


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.

14 comments:

  1. What is the point of your shorthand titles of posts other than to insinuate what the title conveys?

    The Baptist State Convention of Michigan Language Ministries passed out 1500 gospel tracts during the Arab Festival in Dearborn. The people in involved with this ministry are unapologetically Christian and are on the front lines of ministering to the population of the metro Detroit area on a daily basis. They were not harmed. No incidents took place. They did not water down the gospel message. They do so with gentleness and respect according to 1 Peter 3:15-16.

    http://www.facebook.com/pages/BSCM-Language-Ministries/170198156333428?v=wall

    Check out their ministry. They do a lot great work in reaching non english speaking groups.

    Claiming that Muslims in Dearborn want sharia law is not true. When false claims were made about a group by those proclaiming the gospel, Christ is no longer the stumbling block. The stumbling block was the behaviour of Acts 17. Proclaiming the gospel with boldness is something Christians are commanded to do, but it must be done with gentleness and respect. Making false claims is not an example of respect.

    Are cameras a necessary component to spread the gospel at the Arab Festival?

    It is quite possible the police acted inappropriately in this instance. However, to say that Dearborn is slowly being taken over by Muslims using "dupes" like me is something that would make the John Birch Society blush.

    The vast majority of Muslims in Dearborn/Dearborn Heights are Lebanese Shiites. They are also very liberal (not always politically liberal), in their religious views. Lebanese women dress the same way American women do. Their kids listen to the same music the normal American kid listens to. They watch the same movies American kids watch. I guess that is all part of their modern strategy to bring the US under sharia law.

    Would you be willing to come to
    Dearborn and share the gospel with Muslims? I would gladly take you up on the offer.

    ReplyDelete
  2. You told us to go to Ali's website to confirm your claims. I took you up on the offer. What I found at his website unwittingly disconfirmed your claims.

    I already rose to your challenge. Your challenge backfired–badly.

    By your reaction you demonstrate that you are arguing in bad faith.

    ReplyDelete
  3. My claim that Dearborn isn't under sharia law and that the community at large there doesn't want it?

    My challenge didn't backfire at all.

    Tell me why the other Christian groups passed out gospel tracts and witnessed without being harmed or harassed? Give me a theory on that?

    Is it in the least possible that Acts 17 acted inappropriately at all?

    ReplyDelete
  4. "In situations like this you always have dupes, quislings and patsies who play along with the enemy."

    Dupes, quislings, and patsies are just politically incorrect terms for theological and political liberals, for progressives, and for Democrats.

    And pastor Dan Phillips makes the interesting observation that the term "moderate" is used by people who don't have the courage and guts to call themselves liberals.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I am familiar with the situation in Dearborn, as the information has been disseminated online. Having said that, I have seen the videos that Acts 17 has produced. I don't know these folks, but my impression of David Wood, based on those videos, is that he's a wiseguy (that is, a smart---). I may be totally wrong, but it's just the way he comes across to me in the videos. It has something to do with his bearing, his demeanour, that rubs me the wrong way.

    So is it possible that Acts 17 members behaved inappropriately? The answer to me is yes, since we are all sinners.

    Do radical and other devout Muslims consistently and deliberately misrepresent what others believe, and do they create circumstances in order to stir up trouble with "infidels?" The answer again is yes because they are only bound by their laws to behave well and be honest with fellow Muslims. To the infidel, it is the Muslims' sworn duty to lie, cheat, steal and otherwise disrupt and cause harm to them for the purpose of advancing their "great" religion. What makes it "great," I'll never know, unless it's because they've managed to snooker, or cajole through threat of violence, a helluva lot of people into their bogus system.

    I sincerely hope I was not unclear regarding my thoughts on these matters, while at the same time desiring to see the followers of Muhammad turn from their idolatries to worship and serve the living Lord Christ.

    ReplyDelete
  6. In a letter to the editor, Joe Carey of California said:

    “I will never return to Dearborn. My experience last year with the hostility I received, simply because I am a Christian and chose to share my belief with others, is unacceptable. It is unfortunate that the events of this year have tarnished the image of Dearborn, likely irreparably. But these events merely confirmed for me my impression after my experience last year: that Dearborn is not a city that is tolerant, open to all, welcoming.”

    http://www.dearbornfreepress.com/2010/07/25/debate-about-free-speech-in-dearborn-continues/

    ReplyDelete
  7. Jonathan, what do you make of this? Are you at all disturbed by it?

    http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2009/jul/09072708

    Do you have any specifics on how Acts 17 was acting inappropriately? (ie. did they block people's paths? Did they follow them around shouting at them? Just one verifiable instance.) Or are you assuming they were guilty, despite their exoneration, on the basis that someone else who was witnessing wasn't also mistreated? That's messed up.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I wasn't at the Arab Festival. I don't know firsthand how Muslims in Dearborn think about Sharia Law, although I can guess based on how Muslims have consistently behaved in other countries around the world.

    However, the group that I work with, who has been taking the gospel to Arab Muslims for several years now (and is not associated with JOnathan's group), had people in Dearborn at the Arab Festival. I've heard Christians I respect, like Dr. White, speak well of what Acts 17 did there. The people we had there frankly had concerns about their methods.

    We have developed methods that are particularly effective for speaking the gospel to Arab Muslims. These methods were developed in part by Arab believers as well as full-time missionaries to the Middle East. We have years of seeing many come to Christ as a result of speaking the gospel openly to Arab Muslims. Our methods even allow this in closed countries because we have discovered how to do this so that it feels safe for Muslims to talk to us, particularly if they are interested in knowing the truth about Christ. Consequently, I can see how it may seem that such methods represent an acquiescence to some form of subtle dhimmitude.

    Perhaps there is value in the Acts 17 method. I can't say because I don't know what kind of results they get. I can say that there is value in other less attention-getting methods.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Jim,

    Do you have any examples of what you think they did wrong? I've only seen what's on the videos, of course, but I have to say there's nothing in them that I find in the least bit confrontational or wrong. In fact, Nabeel Qureshi seemed to go out of his way to be charitable to everyone he was talking to.

    And I do find it somewhat ironic that you mention you have materials developed by Arab believers, because that's exactly who Nabeel is :-) So is Nageen Mayel, who was arrested simply for having a camera on a public sidewalk.

    Seriously, there is absolutely nothing in the videos you can point to to say, "See, Acts 17 did something wrong here." It's just not there. But you can feel free to watch them and point out where they did wrong if you'd like :-)

    ReplyDelete
  10. Peter,

    I wouldn't say that they did anything ethically wrong. But I do have have an example of something that seems pretty obvious: cameras. Arabs (at least those from the Arabian Peninsula - I don't know much about this with Arabs from other places) consider it impolite if not downright offensive to take their photo or a video of them without their permission. They generally give permission in most circumstances, but they typically don't like it at all if they aren't asked. So when we are ministering directly to Arab Muslims we don't use cameras.

    Also, if we are talking to an Arab Muslim who is genuinely interested in the gospel, it can be a matter of security for that person to not have so overt a record of their interest. If their family found out, it could mean their death. So for most of what we do, cameras are unhelpful because Arabs interested in the gospel shy way from such evidence of their interest.

    What I find odd is that Nabeel should know this. Uninvited or unapproved cameras at an Arabic event, even without the gospel being proclaimed, are sure to be provocative. This is probably the reason the people I talked to question the methods of the Acts 17 folks.

    From what I see in the videos, Nabeel, as an Arab, is very good at speaking with Arabs. Arabs are actually very good conversationalists within the conversational protocol with which they are familiar. The Americans in our group have to learn some of the rules of good conversation with Arabs like how to hold your right hand to indicate with you are still completing an idea so you aren't interrupted. With a little practice, some in our group have become quite good at it. Arabs are actually very gracious in a lively conversation.

    However, I know it doesn't seem that way to most Americans. You probably don't have a problem with it because of your daily work with polemics. Most Americans can't stomach good polemics either.

    But our group does recognize a difference between conversation as a spectator sport and a quieter setting. We learn how to categorize a conversant as someone who is interested or someone who is intentionally trying to waste our time, for example. The open debate with Arabs is necessary; we recognize this. While we haven't seen it yield great results directly from an evangelistic standpoint, we have noticed that where there's an open debate attracting a crowd the big opportunity is among the people on the outskirts. Here can be found those who are interested in the truth but not too invested in one side or another. These are more open to the gospel. One-on-one interaction with someone like this can help them have their specific concerns answered and demonstrate a love that they didn't think possible from a Christian as the clear gospel is shared.

    And that's a thing that we have seen yield perhaps the greatest results. With interested Arabs, speaking the truth in love goes farther than a good argument. And Arabs are well intelligent enough to know when it's genuine.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Peter,

    I wouldn't say that they did anything ethically wrong. But I do have have an example of something that seems pretty obvious: cameras. Arabs (at least those from the Arabian Peninsula - I don't know much about this with Arabs from other places) consider it impolite if not downright offensive to take their photo or a video of them without their permission. They generally give permission in most circumstances, but they typically don't like it at all if they aren't asked. So when we are ministering directly to Arab Muslims we don't use cameras.

    Also, if we are talking to an Arab Muslim who is genuinely interested in the gospel, it can be a matter of security for that person to not have so overt a record of their interest. If their family found out, it could mean their death. So for most of what we do, cameras are unhelpful because Arabs interested in the gospel shy way from such evidence of their interest.

    What I find odd is that Nabeel should know this. Uninvited cameras at an Arabic event, even without the gospel being proclaimed, are sure to be provocative. This is probably the reason the people I talked to question the methods of the Acts 17 folks.

    continued...

    ReplyDelete
  12. ...

    From what I see in the videos, Nabeel, as an Arab, is very good at speaking with Arabs. Arabs are actually very good conversationalists within the conversational protocol with which they are familiar. The Americans in our group have to learn some of the rules of good conversation with Arabs like how to hold your right hand to indicate with you are still completing an idea so you aren't interrupted. With a little practice, some in our group have become quite good at it. Arabs are actually very gracious in a lively conversation.

    However, I know it doesn't seem that way to most Americans. You probably don't have a problem with it because of your daily work with polemics. Most Americans can't stomach good polemics either.

    But our group does recognize a difference between conversation as a spectator sport and a quieter setting. We learn how to categorize a conversant as someone who is interested or someone who is intentionally trying to waste our time, for example. The open debate with Arabs is necessary; we recognize this. While we haven't seen it yield great results directly from an evangelistic standpoint, we have noticed that where there's an open debate attracting a crowd the big opportunity is among the people on the outskirts. Here can be found those who are interested in the truth but not too invested in one side or another. These are more open to the gospel. One-on-one interaction with someone like this can help them have their specific concerns answered and demonstrate a love that they didn't think possible from a Christian as the clear gospel is shared.

    And that's a thing that we have seen yield perhaps the greatest results. With interested Arabs, speaking the truth in love goes farther than a good argument. And Arabs are well intelligent enough to know when it's genuine.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Jim,

    You said...

    Arabs (at least those from the Arabian Peninsula - I don't know much about this with Arabs from other places) consider it impolite if not downright offensive to take their photo or a video of them without their permission.

    Are you then seriously suggesting that taking someone's picture is an actionable offence under the law in Dearborn, MI? What's at issue is not whether Acts 17 behaved inappropriately, but whether they broke the law. Are you suggesting they were arrested for taking pictures of people? Your comments raise a number of red flags for me on this issue.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Pilgrimsarbor,

    No. I'm not suggesting anything. I won't speculate on why the police did what they did. I haven't heard that it's against the law to arm yourself with a camera in Dearborn, MI, although it would almost seem that way.

    All I said was that cameras are generally not helpful for evangelism among Arabs.

    ReplyDelete