Islamicize Me!

This is a sequel to my post on the "Islamicize Me":

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2018/06/muslim-mockumentaries.html

I've now watched White's two responses to that series. I also watched the long ramshackle response by Wood, Vocab Malone, and Jon McCray.

1. I haven't watched the "Islamicize Me" series, so I'm not evaluating that series. I'm just discussing general principles.

   I haven't watched the series because I'm not the target audience for the series. I'm not Muslim. I'm not a secular progressive who's in denial about Islam. I don't need to be convinced that Islam is evil and Muhammad is a false prophet. What I know about the series is secondhand based on what supporters and critics say about it.

2. One issue raised by "Islamicize Me" is analogous to the situation of Christian filmmakers. There's a bit of a dilemma. A Christian filmmaker needs to be able to realistically depict life in a fallen world. It can't be confined Disney Princess stuff. On the other hand, a Christian filmmaker can't go as far as unbelievers. Can a filmmaker produce a slasher movie like Saw (which I only know from reviews)?

   A limit on the Christian depiction of evil is that we ourselves have a capacity for evil, and realism can be a pretext for voyeurism. The danger is to strike a match in the tinderbox of our own capacity for evil. So there are certain depths of depravity that Christians need to avoid for their own sake, since they too can be enticed by evil.

3. That said, "Islamicize Me" consists in part of tasteless, gross-out humor (because it's exposing and spoofing the gross, tasteless nature of Muslim ethics). As such, it lacks voyeuristic appeal (for normal people). It's not in danger of crossing that line.

4. On a related note, showing is more graphic than telling. That's why some visual depictions are inappropriate while corresponding verbal descriptions may be appropriate.

5. However, that cuts both ways. Because images have an impact that words lack, there are lots of people who don't get it unless and until they see it. Acting out certain injunctions in the Hadith makes it real and palpable in a way that dry verbal analysis does not. Pictures can reach some people where verbal descriptions bounce right off them.

6. To some degree, the skits in "Islamicize Me" are simulations. Let's take a comparison. Like many people, I saw that video clip of ISIS putting a man in a cage, drenching him in gasoline, then setting him on fire. In addition, there are said to be videos floating around the internet which show ISIS beheading Coptic Christians. Taking them down to the beach and sawing their heads off. (I haven't seen the video.)

   Unlike "Islamicize Me", that's not simulated. That's the real thing. Moreover, what they show is objectively far worse than the stuff in the Hadith that "Islamicize Me" is lampooning.

   So I'm curious: does James White think it's inherent wrong to have videos which document actual atrocities by Muslims? Does he think it's inherently wrong to watch those videos?

   If White thinks it's justifiable to sometimes show what jihadis actually do, then a fortiori, is it not justifiable for David Wood to produce "Islamicize Me"? That's an argument from the greater to the lesser. If the greater is warranted or permissible, is the lesser unwarranted and impermissible?

   Vocab Malone uses the example of placards with gruesome photos of aborted babies. Another example is footage of the Allies liberating concentration camps, where you seen the starving cadaverous prisoners.

   And regardless of what he thinks, I think it's morally licit and even necessary to actually show what jihadis are capable of doing. To graphically document what happens when Muslims are consistent. But if that's justifiable in the far worse case of recording actual atrocities, then satirical simulations of lesser transgressions are sometimes justifiable.

7. There's an elementary and important distinction between making fun of people and making fun of positions. Does White think we're supposed to treat every position with utmost respect? To take a comparison, if transgenderism is ludicrous, is it wrong to mock something that's ludicrous?

8. In addition, are people always off-limits? Is Muhammad sacrosanct for Jews and Christians? For instance, 1 Pet 3:15 is hardly a prohibition against dissing Muhammad. 1 Pet 3:15 is about how you address the living, not the dead. Unless you subscribe to postmortem salvation (White doesn't, does he?), it's too late for Muhammad to repent. You don't need to be winsome to Muhammad. He's toast.

9. If you have a false religion that's centered on a charismatic founder, if the religion is a personality cult, then the religion is inseparable from the character of the founder. You can't discredit Islam (or Mormonism) as a false religion without discrediting Muhammad (or Joseph Smith) as a false prophet.

10. The complaint about "Islamicize Me" is similar to SJWs who allege that if you criticize LGBT ideology, that's tantamount to "hating" gays. That's homophobic and transphobic.

    But as libertarians and conservatives constantly explain, critiquing a destructive or self-destructive ideology is hardly equivalent to hating personal representatives. If you warn about the dangers of drug addiction, that doesn't mean you hate drug addicts. Actually, that means you care about drug addicts.

11. Wood contends that "Islamicize Me" is a preparation for evangelism. You need to remove intellectual impediments before Muslims will take the Gospel seriously. Whether or not "Islamicize Me" is a good vehicle, the basic principle is valid.

12. Wood said "Islamicize Me" has a two-pronged aim: saving souls and saving lives (my terminology).

    Put another way, there's more than one potential audience for Wood's videos. Muslims are a target audience.

    But secular progressives in denial about the threat posed by Islam constitute another albeit indirect audience. Many of them may be unlikely to watch his videos, but his videos provide ammo for Christians who get into debates with secular progressives. When they scream "Islamophobia", you point them to Wood's correctives, or make use of his evidence and arguments.

13. Evangelism isn't the only justification. We have a standing duty to protect the innocent from foreseeable, avoidable harm. We have a standing duty to protect our families and neighbors from gratuitous harm. Taking precautionary measures to curtail the spread of sharia and jihad is morally legitimate.

14. Wood argued that the "Islamicize Me" is a nonviolent alternative to WWIII. Which is better: peaceful pushback or bloody warfare? Satire or letting the Muslims win? Wood mentioned that demographics favor Muslim dominance by sheer fertility rates, so it's urgent to take action before it's too late. Before everyone is subjugated.

15. White accused supporters of "Islamicize Me" of failing to provide a biblical justification for the series while preemptively discounting biblical justifications by saying we're not authorized to say and do the kinds of things that apostles and prophets did. But that's a rather duplicitous allegation. First charge them with failing to provide a biblical justification, but when they do provide a biblical justification, dismiss that in advance.

16. In addition, White's objection either proves too much or too little. To say we're not entitled to emulate prophets/apostles in every respect surely doesn't entail that we're not entitled to emulate prophets/apostles in any respect. If St. Paul uses doxologies, does that prohibit us from using doxologies?

17. In many cases, the reason we don't emulate apostles/prophets is not because we shouldn't, but because we can't even if we tried. If I can't foresee the future, then I can't emulate a prophet who can. That's not a question of what's permissible but what's possible. The reason I don't heal the sick the way Peter and Paul did is not because I'm not allowed to do so, but because I lack the miraculous ability to do so. Not a question of divine authorization, but divine empowerment.

18. The point of citing prophetic/apostolic example is to demonstrate that there's nothing intrinsically wrong with that practice. If, under divine inspiration, Ezekiel uses lewd imagery to shake sinners out of their complacency, then there's nothing inherently wrong with doing that.

    But if it's not inherently wrong, then when that's right or wrong depends on circumstances. It's permissible under analogous circumstances. If a given action isn't inherently obligatory or prohibitory, then what makes it licit or mandatory is the situation.

19. White accused supporters of "Islamicize Me" of substituting pragmatic justifications for biblical justifications. However, critics of "Islamicize Me" are alleging that the series is off-putting to Muslims. Counterproductive. Wood says, to the contrary, that his provocative, satirical videos have been effective tools in conversion.

    Wood is offering a pragmatic defense in response to a pragmatic objection. He's responding to the critic on the critic's own grounds. If that's wrong, then both sides are wrong. It's self-incriminating to complain that Wood resorts to a pragmatic defense of his methods if you're raising a pragmatic objection to his methods. Be consistent!

20. White's sidekick, Rich Pierce, broached the question of whether Wood et al. have proper ecclesiastical oversight for "Islamicize Me". That raises a number of issues:

    i) Who does White report to? He's one of three elders at his church:

    http://www.prbc.org/about/elders.htm

    He doesn't seem to have a religious superior that he's answerable to. Moreover, it looks like a buddy system rather than an independent accountability system.

    ii) Is Rich suggesting that Christian laymen need to submit a script to their pastor for prior review? Does White do that? Isn't White ad libbing much of the time?

    iii) Wood is a known quantity. A YouTube star. Are his elders in the dark? If they don't know what he says, it's because they have other priorities.

    iv) This is a diversionary tactic. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that Wood is insubordinate. But that's logically unrelated to whether "Islamicize Me" is unsuitable.

    v) Is Rich suggesting that laymen require pastoral authorization for what they say? To suggest that what David presents must be preapproved by his pastor implies a very authoritarian ecclesiology, with a sharp distinction between clergy and laity. Moreover, it suggests a unilateral accountability system where the congregation answers to the elders, but the elders never answer to the congregation.

    vi) As a matter of fact, Rich is dissimulating. He said on Twitter:

    If you think that this stuff is worthy of christian behavior then you need to have a talk with your pastor. If you pastor agrees...you need a new pastor.
    
    The producers of this work should be ashamed before God. The fact that they so are so zealously defending speaks volumes.

    — Rich Pierce (@RichardCPierce) June 8, 2018

    So on his view, elders have no final authority. If Wood's pastor agrees with what he's doing, then Wood should ditch his pastor! Notice that Rich is advocating insubordination. But in that event, the whole business about ecclesiastical oversight is a sham. Rich doesn't believe what he's saying.

In sum, it's possible that "Islamicize Me" is unnecessarily rude and crude. I don't have an informed judgment to offer on that score. I'm just discussing general principles.