The Leftist-Muslim nexus laid bare for all to see.

Once again, HuffPo writer labels Christians who hold Christian beliefs ‘Islamophobes’


By J.E. Dyer  May 19, 2016

wrote about this at the end of January, when Craig Considine accused Christians who don’t accept Mohammed as a prophet of being “Islamophobes.”

Now Huffington Post has teed up a theologian, Ian Mevorach, to make the same accusation, based on the modern left’s psychosis about “Islamophobia” – which for all intents and purposes is considered to be at play whenever anyone disagrees with a Muslim about anything. (H/t – again: Robert Spencer)

I don’t have time to write at length on this today.  But perhaps we can get a conversation started.  I will point out to begin with that this is a dangerous theme.  Establishing it as if it’s a mainstream argument, via online media, is a way of enabling it to creep into the general public consciousness, so that people become inured to it and react less and less.

Yet such made-up “phobias” are held to be actionable: the basis for identifying “hate crimes” and “discrimination,” and whatever other things leftists can think of to sue people over, and destroy their livelihoods and their right to freedom of thought and speech.  So this is not a mere criticism being lodged here.  HuffPo’s articles lay the groundwork for taking real action against Christians who simply hold their traditional, biblical beliefs about God and His prophets.

Here is Mevorach’s proposition:

Historically, most Christian theologians—including John of Damascus, Thomas Aquinas, Dante, Nicholas of Cusa, and Martin Luther—have seen Muhammad not as a “Spirit of Truth” but as a “Spirit of Error,” a false prophet or heretic. There are many Christians today who respect the Islamic tradition and would never make such an offensive statement about Muhammad.

However, the majority of Christians still maintain a fundamentally Islamophobic position on Muhammad. So I believe that the time has come for peacemaking Christians to contradict this position directly. Changing our view of Muhammad—so that we recognize him as a true prophet rather than discredit him as a false prophet—would effectively inoculate Christians against Islamophobia and would help to establish a new paradigm of cooperative Christian-Muslim relations.

Notice that Mevorach takes as his premise that it is “offensive” to consider Mohammed a false prophet (or a heretic — a different thing from a false prophet — although Christians rarely invoke that word today).  This is to assume an Islamic point of view that cannot be established by any absolute standard.  Westerners, in contrast to Islamic culture, don’t regard it as “offensive” in any actionable way to deem people heretics.  To call someone a heretic is to express an opinion, which the subject may or may not find offensive – and if he does, the offense is at most a social solecism.  Governments don’t take action against false prophets or heretics.  The age of burning “heretics” at the stake is long behind us.

But for Islam, offending its view of Mohammed as a prophet is actionable.  It doesn’t take calling Mohammed a heretic to offend Islam; all it takes is saying Mohammed wasn’t a true prophet of God.

More here.

2 Responses

  1. Mohammed was a military commander who wrote a war manual. The war manual is a supremacist document. How dare anyone suggest that such a violent pig be some sort of communicator with the creator of the world. Mohammed was a plain criminal.

Leave a Reply to Trire Man Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.