Sunday
Aug232009
Who Said That?
Sunday, August 23, 2009 at 09:35PM 
"We, as Christians, humbly seek to join Muslims in this observance of Ramadan as a God-honoring expression of peace, fellowship, and neighborliness. Each of us will have at least one Muslim friend who will serve as our partner in the fast. These friends welcome us in the same spirit of peace, fellowship, and neighborliness."
Leave your guess in the comments section below. Please, no google searches or cheating. Answer to follow next week.
Update on Sunday, August 23, 2009 at 09:41PM by
Kim Riddlebarger
Kim Riddlebarger
This is a recent quote from Brian Mclaren's blog. He sees no problem with celebrating Ramadan? Amazing.
http://www.brianmclaren.net/archives/blog/ramadan-2009-part-1-whats-going.html
Reader Comments (56)
It depends on whether you're living in Dar al-Harb or Dar al-Islam. Michigan is still considered Dar al-Harb for now. In 20 years, who knows? My point is, it depends on the ratio of Muslims to non-Muslims in an area. I'm not sure how many infidels are still living in Dearbornistan, but a lot of Muslims moving into an area tends to drive out the indigenous infidels, which is strikingly consistent with the history of Islamic "expansion" for the past 1300 years. The North African states as well as the Levant used to be almost entirely Christian areas.
As the late historian Samuel Huntington noted
"The interactions between civilizations vary greatly in the extent to which they are likely to be characterized by violence. Economic competition clearly predominates between the American and European subcivilizations of the West and between both of them and Japan. On the Eurasian continent, however, the proliferation of ethnic conflict, epitomized at the extreme in ‘ethnic cleansing,’ has not been totally random. It has been most frequent and most violent between groups belonging to different civilizations. In Eurasia the great historic fault lines between civilizations are once more aflame. This is particularly true along the boundaries of the crescent-shaped Islamic bloc of nations from the bulge of Africa to central Asia. Violence also occurs between Muslims, on the one hand, and Orthodox Serbs in the Balkans, Jews in Israel, Hindus in India, Buddhists in Burma and Catholics in the Philippines. Islam has bloody borders."
I guess I just can't see repeating "Muslims make great neighbors" when so few people throughout history seem to have had your experience. Thank you for your solitary data point, though. I don't know of any paleoconservatives making the claim you're making, but I'll certainly go browse Takimag to see if I can come up with some.
By "paleo" I was thinking even older than Taki, as in Luther's preference for a wise Turk over a foolish Christian. But the traditionalism of Darryl Hart's "Old Life" or "Front Porch Republic" also seem quite cognizant of an older ethic that nurtures more tolerance than paranoia. And I'll take Hart's skepticism for GRusalem over the fear of Dearbornistan.
I'd be really interested to hear your definition of paranoia and how it applies to what I've said. Usually, the knee-jerk reaction of liberals like yourself is to allege "paranoia" whenever they're presented with facts inconvenient to their beliefs. I suppose I could recommend a book or two that might inform you better, but something tells me information isn't what you're after.
Sorry, paranoia, fear and loathing and religious bigotry just don't seem to comprt very well with pilgrim theology.
"Facts?" What are we supposed to make of Muhammad's ethnic cleansing of pretty much everyone non-Muslim during his life in Arabia and (per Surah 3:23), his status as the Muslim par excellence - an "excellent model of conduct?" When you read "facts" like that in the Qur'an and Sunnah, do you say to yourself, "Gee, Mohammed made a great neighbor! So did all of the Caliphs after him who emulated him and all of the similar Muslims who conquered non-Muslims throughout history!! And options of conversion, death, or dhimma offered to infidels don't really sound that bad!" I mean, you really can draw your own conclusions on stuff like that. It may not be "bad" in your world. What conclusions do you draw of the "facts" surrounding Muslim persecution of Pakistani Christians and Coptic Christians? Is there some alternative conclusion I should be exploring? Should I be looking at the situation in Darfur and concluding, contra George Clooney, that everything's ok?
"Sorry, paranoia, fear and loathing and religious bigotry just don't seem to comprt very well with pilgrim theology. "
Like I said, what are your definitions and how do they pertain? Now you're just repeating Olbermannesque talking points like a mindless drone.
Whenever a liberal uses the terms you just used, I know it's time to don a raincoat.
Wouldn't you agree that sinners sin because they are sinners and not because they happen to also be Muslims, that all jihadists are Muslim but not all Muslims are jihadists (just like all theonomists are Christian but not all Christians are theonomists)? Wouldn't you agree that sinners who happen to be Christians also have an unsavory history against their neighbors?
I have no problem acknowledging the bona fides of your historical facts, but it seems to me that if someone is so interested in historical record he'll also come across things inconvenient to his premise that true religionists aren't just as sinful as idolaters, said the mindless drone.
Love the dialog between Zrim and Walt. I am not sure of Walt's theological beliefs but I know he is at odd's with Zrim's politics and civil beliefs. Easy on the L word though Walt. I do not think Zrim is the type of liberal you might be referring to. That is the beauty of 2K theology- you can disagree on your politics but perhaps be on the same boat theologically. From what I know of Zrim's politics he is not to happy with either political party and would advocate throwing out all the partison politicians and start over with new political parties that decentralized political power to the states. As far as Muslim's making good neighbors I am still a bit uneasy on that one but I think I understand what Zrim is getting at- besides Zrim loves the role of the contrarian. Although I find after figuring out what he is saying (which can be a task in itself) that he makes a lot of sense- of the common type that is.
It most certainly is Brian Mc Laren
Of all slurs, “liberal” is one of my favorites. But “Lutheran” has to be number one.
Re your uneasiness about Muslims making good neighbors, my point to Walt, as much as he protests, is this: jihadists always make bad neighbors, while Muslims typically make good neighbors but always bad Christians. And this latest idolatrous McLarenism suggests some professing Christians aren’t much better at true religion either.
I get your drift and would agree with all you said. To be called a double L may qualify you for h-e double L toothpicks. I'm regressing back to my childhood. Unfortunately, a lot of the dialog between Christians ends up in mudslinging. Along with weak on sanctification T-shirts I also have become an advocate of Hoagie and Stogie get togethers to improve our debating skills. Something which I could improve on also.
Try answering some of my questions and then I'll try answering some of yours.
"jihadists always make bad neighbors, "
Given the lofty place of jihad in the mind of Mohammed, (as evidenced in the Qur'an and Hadith), I'm not as optimistic about the dichotomy you've drawn between "jihadists" and "Muslims." You seem to believe that Muslims view jihad as a bad thing, or if not, you imply it with what you write.
Defensive jihad is fard'ayn (obligatory). As recent history has shown "defensive" is a term with the broadest meaning. Muhammad himself said that the shortest expressions with the 'widest meanings,' so I guess the "defensive" jihadists of late have been taking Mo to heart.
"I am not sure of Walt's theological beliefs but I know he is at odd's with Zrim's politics and civil beliefs."
I don't find politics particularly interesting. The political spectrum is a big mobius strip. I simply think the dual-citizenship to be exactly that - a dual citizenship. I don't find scoffing at the obligations towards a civil kingdom to be in keeping with proper citizenship in the civil kingdom. Nor do I think that every civil kingdom matter is in a shade of gray, otherwise we might be able to sit here and discuss whether one particular ethnic group deserved their Zyklon B amongst other things.
"Easy on the L word though Walt."
No, I'm good. I think I'm on pretty solid footing here.
“...I'm not as optimistic about the dichotomy you've drawn between ‘jihadists’ and ‘Muslims.’ You seem to believe that Muslims view jihad as a bad thing, or if not, you imply it with what you write.”
Yes, I think this marks our different outlooks. You are collapsing the terms, I am distinguishing them (similar to the way all theonomists are Christians but not vice versa, or how all cultists are sectarians but not vice versa). I don’t know what Muslims think of jihad. But the implications of what you write are that it’s only a matter of time before my Muslim neighbors, co-workers and friends will decide to chop my head off. Not only do I think that suggestion is about as likely as my Mormon neighbors trying to brainwash me after they lure me into their secret temple, it strikes me as stirring up anti-neighborly sentiments against neighborly folk and disturbing the peace of the city, so to speak. Moreover, if they ever do chop my head off, that’s their sin, not mine.
“I don't find politics particularly interesting. The political spectrum is a big mobius strip. I simply think the dual-citizenship to be exactly that - a dual citizenship. I don't find scoffing at the obligations towards a civil kingdom to be in keeping with proper citizenship in the civil kingdom.”
Despite John’s suggestions, I’m not much of a politico either. However, I do find helpful and wise those with political-ideological perspectives that question the ethics of regime and dominion and are more sympathetic to the ethics of pilgrimage and sojourn; I think to worry as you seem to about the encroaching Muslims is to reveal the former. It may be that you and I are fellow 2Kers who agree that nurturing good citizenship is proper but have opposing views on how that is applied (2K allows for civil disagreement within the ranks and/or agreement without). So, if you want sympathy against the jihadists, no problem. But I draw the bright line at incriminating my good, Muslim neighbors.
Wait for it....
"I don’t know what Muslims think of jihad."
There it is.
I really don't need to say anything else.
The point in admitting a certain ignorance was actually to say that I can really only go by another's behavior. My Muslims may very well think I should be chopped up, but even if they do, I don't really care so long as they don't do it. And if they do (chop me up) that crime is on them, not on me for being less than premptive about it.
Suffer an analogy: I must authorize employees time sheets. Most of my employees demonstrate honesty, so I have very little reason to assume the worst and be preemptive. But somebody could say to me, "You know, seasonal employees like yours have every reason to cheat you. In fact, here's a history of how plenty have done so and why, etc." That's all interesting, but my employees simply never have. Why would I treat them with suspicion when the actual employees under me have never given me reason to? If I were them (golden rule, anyone?), I'd fairly well resent my employer assuming the worst of me because some yahoo dredged up some history about "people like me" and started looking over my shoulder. If anyone cheats me, they'll be punished and the relationship will change. But I'd rather engage in more genuine relations and get stung than be disengenuous for the sake of saving every last hair on my backside.
I think you hit the nail on the head with the ethics of regime and dominion vrs. the ethics of pilgrimage and sojourn scenario. First of all, I am not sure many know what you are talking about when you say that and secondly we all carry around elements of both in our heads. These issues need to be clarified and debated so we can recognize and become more aware of what we are saying and why. Kind of like knowing what you believe and why you believe it.