Part XXIV: Terror in London, Nihilism, Islamic State

Part XXIV: Terror in London, Nihilism, and the Islamic State

by Abu Daoud

Some time ago I received an e-mail from a colleague and friend with ministry experience in the UK and Africa. He asked some questions about Islam, terrorism, and the Islamic State. I thought I would share my answers to his questions with you all. His questions are in italics.

I am (rightly or wrongly) slightly put off by some Christians who are very anti-Islam and see ISIS as the true face Islam. But I wonder if ISIS is not a Western phenomenon in many ways?

You are right in that many Christians are indeed very anti-Islam. I think it is important to not assume that ISIS is 'the' face of Islam. On the other hand, to dismiss it as 'not Islam at all' as all the pols in the UK (and many in the USA) do--that is clearly wrong too. When I share with Christians here about Islam, which I do often, I encourage them to form Christ-centered relations with Muslims. If Muslims are in fact the enemies of the Church, then we know how to treat them--love your enemy. If, on the other hand, they are merely our neighbors, we also know how to respond to them--love. The witness of the love of God in the life of a Christian is powerful and strong and is the main thing we see drawing Muslims to Christ around the world today.

As to ISIS being a Western phenomenon, I would say no. Islamic State has a very real and valid claim to trying to emulate the very first generations of Muslims, even with all their brutality and terror. Muhammad himself said, "Allah has made me victorious through terror." So why would Muslims not do this today? He, as the founder of Islam, imparted a very specific DNA to his community, and while it can mutate and change, it can only go so far. Same thing with Jesus and Christianity. Churches that become so divorced from the original praxis and doxa of the Church eventually die out (Church of Scotland, for instance) or become distinct religions (Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses). IS in killing and terrorizing and raping is following the Qur'an. They are doing it more literally than most Muslims do (thank God), but there is no question that they have a Qur'an warrant for everything they do. 

If there is one area where the IS is Western, or modern, really, it is in their use of Internet and media. They are very good at this. This is a key reason why IS has been successful in doing what Al Qaeda (another important reform movement in 20th Century Islam) was not able to do.

I am also perplexed about the horrible bombings in Europe, and occasionally in America, which are seen as expressions of Islam rather than as expressions of a nihilistic Western culture - in which maladjusted and non-practising Westernised Muslims, usually drug addicts, seem to go crazy. The Anders Breivik, Thomas McVeigh and Columbine rampage killings seem to fit into the same category of deranged young men taking their frustrations out on society. 

So the question is, can we believe people when they tell us why they are doing what they are doing? Breivik and McVeigh told us why they did what they did, and neither had to do with Christianity or the Bible or Jesus. They were motivated by nationalism or racism, if I recall the two cases. Similarly, when Muslims carry out attacks they are quite clear about why they are doing what they are doing. What warrant do we have to say that they do not in fact understand their own motives? Their answers are very clear and they cite the Qur'an and the hadith carefully. It is true that some of them (especially in Europe) are not well-educated. But many of them came from lives of frug use and morality and their decision to wage Jihad was part and parcel of their reformation as they left those things behind. In Christian circles it is not uncommon to hear of a drug-addict or criminal who had a dramatic conversion experience and went on to become an evangelist or pastor. We simply have the Muslim parallel here. 

Is it perhaps really nihilism that motivates these young men (and increasingly, women)? Nihilism is a philosophical school that asserts that all religious and moral principles are to be rejected, and that life is meaningless. Now that is certainly not what these men and women believe. It is precisely because they believe that they are called to assert the absolute triumph of Allah and his Prophet that they are called to "slay the unbelievers wherever you find them" (Qur'an 9:5) and "fight in the way of Allah" (Qur'an 2:190) "until the religion--all of it--is for Allah" (8:39). After all, as the Prophet, the ideal human and template for all human action, said, "Paradise is in the shade of swords." Whatever that is, it is not nihilism. It is rather a community of young men who are rejecting the nihilism of the secular West which can no long alert any absolute truth about anything at all. They are rejecting that nihilism and they hate it--as they should, for it is inhumane and hopeless--and then they are taking up a great and noble quest: to establish the absolute of reign of Allah over the whole earth--until all religion--all of it--is for Allah.

So, on the contrary, it is against nihilism that these men strive.

It is also incorrect to conclude that these people are doing this out of thuggery. Some do come from that background. But many of the most eminent mujahidin were well educated. All of the 9/11 men were, the men who executed the July 7 operation in the London Tube were too. The head of Al Qaeda is a medical doctor. The Caliph himself holds a PhD in Islamic Studies. Many more examples could be given.But that sword cuts both ways (it always does). If we dismiss their sincerity and devotion because they are not educated, then we must surely toss out the window most of the Apostles and that uneducated peasant girl, Mary. Are you ready to do this? Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

As to 99.9%, that is certainly wrong. Also, the word 'terrorism' is misleading. One man's terrorism is another man's struggle for freedom. What the West calls terrorism, many Muslims don't. In the UK alone there are 26,000 Muslims under the surveillance of MI5. One of the recent attackers at the London Bridge had been on that list, but there were other 'higher priorities' to deal with, so they stopped monitoring him. That doesn't equal .1% at all. 

Thanks for the questions! Very good. And let me know what you think. I'm glad to continue this conversation.

David Virtue interviews Abu Daoud on Sharing Jesus with Muslims in America

I was very pleased to be interviewed by David Virtue earlier today on my recent book Sharing Jesus with Muslims in America. Read it all HERE.

Also, please do share it, and leave your comments on David's page rather than here.

Here is a taste of the interview:

VOL: Can moderate Islamists co-exist with Christians? 

DAOUD: The Muslim world is trying to figure out what moderate Islam is. I don't really know what that means. Does it mean Islam without shari'a? Then it's not Islam anymore. Does it mean a-political Islam? Islam is and always has been an empire and legal system as well a religion. Like the Ayatollah said, "Islam is politics, or it's not Islam." 

But we certainly can form relations with Muslims in America. You may be worried about cultural queues and what is appropriate or not. Well, get the book because we cover all that. In the end, if you are acting out of love and charity then any missteps will be forgiven. 

Just start praying every morning, "Lord, give me a Muslim friend." Not the most eloquent prayer, I know, but just do it. Let God surprise you!

Read the rest of it HERE.

Abu Daoud's new book: Sharing Jesus with Muslims in America

Dear Friends,

I am very happy to share with you this new book which is available both in print and Kindle editions through Amazon.

The Muslim population in the United States is growing quickly, and there are no signs of this growth slowing down. So how should Christians respond? With fear? With tolerance? By ignoring Muslims?  Or with boldness, hope, and the Good News of Jesus Christ, clearly the biblical answer. For centuries the church did not go to Muslims with the gospel because Christians thought it was too dangerous or too difficult. Now God is bringing Muslims to America where Christians can lead them to Christ. But when I share this opportunity with churches around the country, I'm asked, “But how? How do I meet Muslims? How can my church make the connections?” This book seeks to answer those questions and more. If you are a Christian, I hope you will open your heart to God’s plan for Muslims in your community.  You can start by reading this book.

Muhammad, anxious about his own eternal fate

Recently ran across this interesting hadith, which shows just how worried Muhammad was about his own eternal fate:

Narrated Masruq:

‘Aisha said that a Jewess came to her and mentioned the punishment in the grave, saying to her, "May Allah protect you from the punishment of the grave."

‘Aisha then asked Allah’s Apostle about the punishment of the grave. He said, "Yes, (there is) punishment in the grave."

‘Aisha added, "After that I never saw Allah’s Apostle but seeking refuge with Allah from the punishment in the grave in every prayer he prayed." 

Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 2, Book 23, Number 454

A liturgy for the Baptism of a convert from Islam

Greetings, 

Here is part IV of my series on sacraments and mission, which I started many years ago for St Francis Magazine. This one contains an introduction summarizing why I think that liturgy is valuable for those engaged in mission to and among Muslims, and then contains a liturgy for baptism (of an adult) based on the Book of Common Prayer of the Episcopal Church (USA), which yes is very liberal, but the liturgy in the Prayer Book  is very good.

So check it out, try it out if you are doing any work among Muslims, and let me know what you think.

'Mission and Sacrament, Part IV: A Liturgy for the Baptism of Muslims, to be Conducted on the Feast of Pentecost' in St Francis Magazine Vol 10:2, June 2014.

The first three articles can be found (in order) here, here, and here.

Peace,

Abu Daoud

Why the rise of Extermism among Muslims in the Middle East?

Why the rise of Extermism among Muslims in the Middle East?
by Abu Daoud

I was recently asked to comment on this topic, and here is what I wrote

There is a complex web of reasons, but I think overall here are the main reasons:

1. The failure to achieve success by copying European models, including capitalism and communism. Capitalism cannot work in the ME because it requires a) rule of law, and b) freedom to form new businesses and c) creativity to invent new products. All of these are lacking because of deeply ingrained traditions of favoring one's own religion or family or tribe. I do trace this back to Islam (a lot of people don't), where the dhimmi system forces people to discriminate against non-Muslims, and where the shari'a is clear that women are worth less than men, and of course the Arabo-centric facet of Islam, which more or less implies that God is an Arab, because his book is in Arabic and cannot be translated, and thus Arabs are (in reality, not in theory) better than non-Arabs. (This last reason is why lots of Berbers and Pakistanis and Iranians have left Islam, by the way.) 

2. Regarding creativity, I feel that Islam clearly suppresses it because when you cannot ask basic questions about God and his prophet and book, then at a basic level you are taught not to be critical and analytical. This then overflows from the area of religion into other areas like commerce and computer science and so on. I trace this back historically to the victory of asharites over the mu'atazila and the affirmation of bila kayf--that certain doctrines must be affirmed but without asking why. The doctrine of al insan al kamil (the ideal or perfect man) comes up here too, because a quick glance at Muhammad's life shows he is clearly not perfect.

3. A related, but minor, point: commerce was hindered in the Ottoman Empire because the formation of corporations was legally impossible. So there was no incentive to form large international businesses, because upon the owner's death it had to pass on to his sons, whether they were good or bad. This has been remedied, but centuries too late.

4. This rise of independent nation states and authoritarian governments. One of the most unfortunate aspects of society in the ME is the tendency to always blame others for any problem that takes place, rather than to try to address problems as far as on can. Anyway, with the end of European hegemony countries were formed and to a real degree free to govern themselves. It is true they were never entirely free to do as they please, but this does not matter--no country (or person) is entirely free to do as they please. So authoritarian governments arose and they did not prosper, at least not to the extent that some people thought they should. I too attribute this to the very DNA of Islam. When Muhammad died there was right away a great struggle between the Shi'a and the Sunni, and we also see this principle operating in the wars of apostasy or hurub al ridda. Historically one finds that Islamic societies over the long term alternate between authoritarian governments and anarchy/tribalism. The period of European colonialism artificially enforced Western practices of government and business that were foreign to Islam. And when Europe left, these traditions started to deteriorate. Authoritarian governments silenced public discourse, but they could not or would not silence the discourse of Islam, including Islamic reforms which we in the West call radicalism or extremism, but which are really just reformed Islam.

5. The problem of natural resources. Egypt's population in 1900 was about five million, today it is about 80 million. Many of the countries in the Middle East do not have the natural resources to feed their enormous populations. Right now Egypt imports over 50% of its wheat. That is an amazing number. This naturally results is large numbers of unemployed young men, many cannot get married because they don't have a job. With the reformed Islamic militant ideology (a more accurate term than fundamentalist, I think) present, the opportunity to be part of something new and good and powerful (like the Caliphate) is attractive. This is not so much a reason for the Islamic reformation (to radicalism) but is a key reason that right now it is easily able to get recruits. The Middle East has a demographic profile that makes economic prosperity almost impossible in many countries, coupled with the non-critical education (mentioned above) and the lack of rule of law

6. One often hears that the Arab-Israel problem is at the heart of the problems in the region. I think that even if all Israel-Palestine was again ruled by Muslims and the Jews who arrived by Aliyah were made to leave and then a lot of European and American Jews would leave voluntarily this would not solve anything at all.  Indeed, even if every Jew left and every Palestinian refugee returned and all those apartments in Tel Aviv and Haifa were given to them, it would not decisively change the dynamic described above. I do believe, as unpopular as it is to say so, that many of the problems we see in the ME today can be traced to the very heart of Islam--the life and practice of Muhammad.

More than you wanted to hear I think! Why do you ask? I liked the book Sandcastles: Arabs in search of the Modern World by Milton Viorst on this topic. They have it at the library at St George's College in Jerusalem. I still think that reading Qutb's Milestones is the best intro for people who want to know more. His writings are like those of Martin Luther, sometimes brilliant, sometimes with gaping holes of logic.

My predictions on the Arab Spring, from January 2012

Hi All,

I was recently going over this interview I did with Don Warrington at Positive Infinity for another interview I'm doing right now, and I was struck by how I nailed the Arab Spring all the way back in January of 2012. Check this out:

6) Where do you see MENA going, especially in view of events such as the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq and the Arab Spring?

This is the million-dollar question, isn’t it? First, the people who protested didn’t take political control, so as much as they wanted freedom and democracy, they just won’t get it, I’m sorry to say. The Egyptian elections were demonstrably corrupt, though the international press has not said so—I have no idea why. The Islamists will take power and they will not let it go. And why is this surprising? That is precisely what Muhammad did—engaged in diplomacy and compromise and so on, but once he had power he was ruthless. In the end, an Islamic society cannot be a free society. Islam and freedom are mutually exclusive.

The question I have is this: will it be like Iran? After the revolution in `79 Islam had a chance to prove itself in the political arena, and Islam, unlike Christianity, makes substantial guarantees in this area. Hundreds of thousands of Iranians have concluded that Islam failed—it did not deliver politically so it must be false in terms of its religious and spiritual claims too. They have turned to Christianity some of them, and some to secular humanism or atheism. Will this happen in these newly Islamist states? Perhaps. I pray it will. Islam’s love of political power may well be its Achilles’ heel. Meanwhile, that means the native Christians need to stay as long as they can, and foreign missionaries like me need to stay no matter what. I will do it. Maybe the kids and wife need to go back to the US, I will do everything I can to stay here even if all hell breaks loose.

Anyway, if you didn't read the interview when it came out, I think it contains a good summary of my own philosophy of mission and opinions regarding the Arab world today: here are Part 1 and Part 2.

Did Saints Peter and Paul believe in insider movements?

I answer that the Biblical witness clearly leads to the answer no:

Further, the mixed churches in cities like Rome and [the region of] Galatia were likewise errors. These believers, both Jews and non-Jews, had mistakenly supposed that they in some way had come into a new oikos and a new identity, and Paul, lacking wisdom as usual, taught them these things. Indeed, a triumph of IM hermeneutics and practice would have meant that Peter should have been victorious when Paul confronted him. Indeed, Paul, in violating kashrut was stepping needlessly outside of his oikos, while Peter himself was honoring his God-given identity as a Galilean Jew. 

In the end though, it was the faith—the apostolic faith—that was victorious. A faith which understood that in Jesus a new community had come into being demanded allegiance above and beyond one’s own community of birth. Or as one African pastor put it in those early centuries: you cannot have God for your Father without having the Church for your mother.

From my recent article on insider movements.

Insider Movements, Jeff Morton, Kevin Higgins, Dave Bogs and Rebecca Lewis

Insider Movements, Jeff Morton, Kevin Higgins, Dave Bogs and Rebecca Lewis
by Abu Daoud

As a contributing editor of St Francis Magazine I have the privilege (and duty) to write at least one substantial article per year. All my previous SFM articles can be found in the menu to the right of the main blog text. My recent article started as a mere book review of Jeff Morton's recent book Insider Movements: Biblically Incredible or Incredibly Brilliant?

The material in this book unfolded itself into an article-length article (which is also a review) concerned with 'insider movements'. In his book, Morton particularly takes on two of the main proponents of IM: Rebecca Lewis and Kevin Higgins--hence the full title (and biblio):

Abu Daoud. 2013. "Rebecca Lewis and Kevin Higgins against the Ropes: sounding the death nell of the insider movements and the victory of Apostolic faith" in St Francis Magazine 9(4), August, pp 1-7.

(Yes, that is "Abu Daoud" and not "Daoud, Abu.")

The article also takes on Dave Bogs, who is the gatekeeper of the 'Insider Movement' entry at Wikipedia, which is well-curated and totally inaccurate. It is a good reminder as to why Wikipedia is not allowed to be used in academic papers!

Here is an excerpt:

If you journey over to Wikipedia and check out the Insider Movement entry, you will enter the personal fiefdom of one Dave Bogs. If you click on the ‘view history’ tab you will find that anything he does not like is deleted (by him). His justification for this is invariably that a significant number of people have said that the article is balanced. If you click on the ‘Talk’ tab (next to the ‘Article’ tab) you will find that a bunch of people went to Wikipedia between March13th and 17th of 2012 and left positive comments on the article. Is it possible that Dave or someone else was teaching a class on IM, and that the students were told to log in to Wikipedia and endorse the article as ‘excellent, concise’ and so on? (p. 4)

Dear Dave Bogs, please leave a remark here and clarify the situation. I won't delete your material like you do with the poor souls who try to fix the IM article at Wikipedia. As Christians, dialogue is a fine way to work this out, but your control of the Wikipedia site makes this impossible.

Anyway, check out the entire article here, and let me know what you think. If Kevin Higgins or Rebecca Lewis or Dave Bogs would like to leave any comments, they are most welcome.

Find it a Scribd or download the PDF from St Francis Magazine.

Message from a Christian of Syrian Ancestry to the Americans

Message from a Christian of Syrian Ancestry to the Americans

by Abu Daoud (8/2013) 

Today I was running errands and I happened by my local pharmacy to pick up some stuff for the family. The man there is a Greek Catholic Christian of Syrian ancestry and he told me about how his ancestors had migrated from Syria to where I am, back in the days of Ottoman Empire. 

We got to talking and, as often happens with this sort of thing, he became rather impassioned and started to tell me his thoughts in detail about what was going on in Syria. He told me, You are American, you voted for this guy (President Obama)!  I promised him I would relay his message to people in the USA as best I could. So here I am, trying to do that. I don’t necessarily agree with everything he says, of course. But I did think that people in the USA (and elsewhere, too) would be interested to hear the unvarnished thoughts of an Arab Christian whose ancestral home is Syria, in Wadi al-Nasara (it’s on Wikipedia). 

His main source of frustration was that, in his mind, the Obama administration was actively funding the genocide of Middle Eastern Christians. He felt that the USA and the UK were arming terrorists (Jabhat al Nusra, which is a branch of the Syrian rebels, and is affiliated with Al Qaeda) who were killing Christians. He said that these people were beasts and monsters, and that he hoped that Al Assad would kill them all. Not just beat them or chase them out. But kill them. He believes that the Obama administration is lying then they say that they think they are supporting Syrians fighting against Al Assad, because in fact they know that these people are foreigners (from Pakistan, Afghanistan, the Gulf, the USA, Europe) and not Syrians. He mentioned the famous video clip of one such fighter cutting open a man’s chest and then taking out his heart and eating it, which, yes, really exists. He said, when I’m hunting and I see a wounded animal, I kill it. I don’t feel good about it, but I do. The implication is that these Al Qaeda people are wounded beyond recovery—their humanity irrevocably damaged.

He says that before the revolution he didn’t much like Al Assad, but now he likes him. This is because Syrian regime left the people alone, and didn’t enforce religion on anyone. 

I explain that the Obama administration says they only want to support the liberal, secular democratic rebels, not the terrorists who are bent on destroying Christianity in Syria (though they are working together). The logic behind this explanation seems so entirely incoherent to him that he concludes it is a lie: the Obama administration (and John McCain as well, it appears) is merely saying this to cover their tracks. The logistics of giving weapons to one portion of an army while keeping them from another portion of the same army (and a more powerful and larger portion, at that) is ridiculous, and no one would ever think that is a realistic goal, he said.

Based on this evidence—the Obama administration’s clear and unequivocal support (in his mind) for a branch of Al Qaeda bent on eliminating Christianity from the region, he concludes that Obama must be a Muslim—there is no other logical way of explaining it all. He concludes that he hates Obama. He says his wife’s parents are in Canada and he could have easily emigrated, but he loves this land and will not leave. He wants American Christians to know about his point of view.

I told him I would tell you, and I have. I will leave the evaluation of his opinions to you. As for me, he told me to pass this on, so please link to this or copy and paste. The material is not my own.

--Abu Daoud

Missionary Secrets 5: How to fruitfully insult the Prophet

Missionary Secrets 5: How to fruitfully insult the Prophet
by Abu Daoud

It has become accepted in many missionary circles (among Muslims, at least, an that's me folks) that one should never, ever insult the Prophet. If you do it, then as Mazhar Mallouhi, evangelical turned Jesusy-Muslim, said, it is like telling someone their mother is ugly (that is from St Francis Magazine). Actually, normally he is right. Normally you touch Muhammad and that is the end of the conversation. So I appreciate his insight.

Here is a missionary secret which took me like eight years to learn: there are ways to do this fruitfully and to God's glory and to the good of the person you are speaking with. It is not an easy procedure though.

First, you need to earn the right to be heard. Say you're in Cairo, for instance. Demonstrate a knowledge of the history of the place. Show that you know a lot about Egypt and the people there. And this is the hard part: you actually need to really know this stuff. You really need to know about Chalcedon and arrival of Arab Imperialism (ie, Islam) and the Fatimids an Mamlukes an so on. You need to show that you know about the contemporary challenges faced by Cairenes: that Egypt imports more than 50% of its wheat, that the currency has become very weak, and so on. You also need to show that you know more about the Qur'an and Islam than your hearer. Not in a pompous, bossy way of course. Finally, you need to be able to do all of this by mostly asking questions and (really) listening to their answers (and really caring about what they say--there is no substitute for sincerity).

Once you have done all of this, you probably have earned the right to fruitfully insult the Prophet. This happened to me today where I'm staying, over a lengthy conversation. The speaker was emphasizing how Christians and Muslims get along well, and the proof was that Muhammad took Christian wives an the shari'a allows this. I told him, "With all respect and sincerity [that doesn't sound so corny in Arabic], the Prophet's Shari'a is precisely the reason I could never become a Muslim. That a Muslim man can take a Christian wife, but a Christian man cannot take a Muslima wife is injustice in my view. The Shari'a is not stable--sometimes it is generous and sometimes harsh. Sometimes it is peaceful but other times violent. The path that our master the Messiah [I don't even say Jesus because then I have to choose this or that] taught is one of love and perfect peace. The Prophet's Shariah is the reason I could never be a Muslim."

Was he mad? Of course not. He knows well that what I said was true. I left the guy with a Bible in Arabic and the location of a decent local church. Hopefully he will read and/or visit.

And here is the clincher--always end up with Jesus (sayyidna al masii7). Emphasize his love and the closeness of his God. Don't say something stupid like Islam is a violent religion, or Muhammad was "a violent man." Sure he was, but at times he was generous and kind.  The beauty of Messiah's way is that we was consistent. Muhammad (and hence his Shariah) were not. Muhammad (and Islam) are unstable and can't be depended on. In other words, they are not worthy of one's faith.

So there you go. You can fruitfully insult the Prophet. Just make sure you know what the heck you're talking about (history, contemporary politics) before you do, and make sure to earn a hearing, and make sure to bring it back to Jesus.

Debunking Edward Said

Readers of this blog know I despise Said's Orientalism... But here is more:

Nadim al-Bitar, a Lebanese Muslim, finds Said‘s generalizations about all Orientalists hard to accept, and is very skeptical about Said having read more than a handful of Orientalist works. Al-Bitar also accuses Said of essentialism, "[Said] does to [Western] Orientalism what he accuses the latter of doing to the Orient. He dichotomizes it and essentializes it. East is East and West is West and each has its own intrinsic and permanent nature…." 

The most pernicious legacy of Said’s Orientalism is its support for religious fundamentalism, and on its insistence that "all the ills [of the Arab world] emanate from Orientalism and have nothing to do with the socio-economic, political and ideological makeup of the Arab lands or with the cultural historical backwardness which stands behind it".

Debunking Edward Said

Demography in England and Wales, and the end of British culture

Demography in England and Wales, and the end of British culture
by Abu Daoud

I have pointed out from time to time where I see things going in Europe. I don't necessarily think that it will be majority Muslim in the near future, but I do see the proliferation of de facto Islamic area-states, which you already see all over the place in France, Sweden, the UK and Germany (among others). Indigenous European populations (English, Irish, French, etc) are stagnating or (as is becoming more and more the case) actually in decline for a number of complex reasons which touch on de-Christianization, the proliferation of artificial birth control, the sexual revolution, and, recently, the economic downturn and emigration.

I also have opined that current figures of ethnic Europeans mask the true dimensions of this loss of European identities and the concurrent Islamization of portions of Europe. (Of course, I know that not all immigration to Europe is Islamic, but even if it Indian Hindu or African Christian, that does indicate a weakening of the strength of an given culture to perpetuate itself and influence others.) I say this because the ethnic Europeans are, for the most part, disproportionately old and will start dying off quickly in the coming years.

What matters is not so much the percentage of the population you have, but the percentage of the young population you have.

And with that in mind, here are some interesting figures on England and Wales, from here. These are from 2002 through 2009, and I suspect that birth rates from white people have gone down with the economic downturn. That may well be the case for minorities as well, but anyway, I don't have that information. What we do have says,

The White (British) population stagnated at 45.7 million, while the Irish population declined. 'Other' white population (I'm guessing a lot of Poles) did grow at 4.3% per year. I think that Poles are done coming in though, and the ones who wanted to come have come.

While the (white) British and Irish populations stagnated and declined, respectively, note the rapid yearly increase, through fertility and immigration, for the following groups:

Black African 6.2%
Asian Pakistani 4.1%
Asian Indian 3.9%
Asian Bangladeshi 4.0%
Other Asian (presumable includes people from most of the Middle East): 5.7%
Chinese 8.6%

What does this tell us? I think that with the soon-to-be-obvious dying off of more white folks, and the rapid increase of non-indigenous (and mostly non-Christian) population in the UK, I think we can look forward to a day when a common culture in the UK does not exist (already common in large portions of London and Manchester and so on). Being British will mean nothing more than carrying a British passport, and historically British institutions will continue to become increasingly irrelevant (Church of England, anyone?). The West Midlands, for instance, already has an Asian plurality (40%) and a white minority (32%).

Am I being racist? I'm not really evaluating these changes as positive or negative. I'm just predicting that British culture, which historically is indeed to specific ethnic groups who followed Christianity to some extent,  will soon (40 years?) become a strange and quaint thing, like an Assyrian village in Iraq, an Egyptian Jew, or a Huguenot town in France.

Let us wait and see.

Missionary Secrets 3: we don’t have answers

Missionary Secrets 3: we don’t have answers

by Abu Daoud (5/2013)

I sat around smoking water pipe with a guy considering a long-term career in the mission field today. He is a friend of mine, a bit younger than me, but not much. But I have been out here for going on a decade, and he and his young family are only here short term.

He asked me questions. We were there to talk about life and pray together. (Yes, at a hookah bar—I’m all about religion in the public square…maybe I’ve been too influenced by Islam? Who knows, and who cares?)

How do you handle the stress? Me: Go on vacations outside of dar al islam?

What if the local churches don’t build you up? Me: You find fellowship in…your family? Old friends? The liturgy at my church sustains me, but you don’t go to a liturgical church, so…not sure…

Who are the mature Christians who can build you up? Me: here? Not many…there are older people but they are just passing through and don’t really grasp the local context. Maybe some European monk over at that church? Maybe your missions agency will be of help. In the end, you are alone.

I would never answer questions like this to a sponsoring church. I mean, I would not hide it, but this is not the stuff of Sunday School or sermons, is it? But here we are, serving, still.

May God give us many more years in the Middle East.

Christoph Bilek responds to Magdi Cristiano Allam leaving the Catholic Church

Magdi Cristiano Allam, an Egyptian in Rome, was famoulsy baptized by Pope Benedict XVI some years ago in St Peter's Basilica on Easter Eve. Such a public and clear affirmation of religious conversion from Islam to Catholic Christianity at the time was celebrated by some, and criticized by others (including by some Christians, who felt it was provocative and disrespectful). I saw it as positive and said so on this blog.

Brother Allam, however, recently announced he is leaving the Catholic Church, seeing quite rightly that most of the time, even in Europe, Catholic clergy have no interest in welcoming or baptizing seekers from a Muslim background. This is a shame to the Catholic Church, and caused me to write an open Letter to Pope Benedict XVI on Catholic Witness to Muslims, which I'm guessing has been read by all of ten people.

Recently, however, another important Catholic ex-Muslim, Mohammed-Christophe Bilek, native of Algeria an founder of the Fellowship of our Lady of Kabyle, has written a letter to Magdi begging him to reconsider his position, while acknowledging that his complaints about the Catholic Church are largely accurate.

The entire letter is in French, but you can read a Google translation (which is not too bad) if you don't read French. There is a lot of detail in the letter but here are some parts that I found of special interest:

The complaint of Magdi is here:

But I understand the meaning of the message: you need to create an institution that encourages Muslims to overcome fear, to be baptized publicly and to openly live out their new faith. We are both aware that the real problem is the native [European, Catholic] Christians, because they are the first to be afraid. There are many complaints from Muslims who wished to be baptized, but are faced with the refusal of Catholic priests because they do not want to violate the laws of Islamic countries that prohibit and punish by imprisonment, sometimes death, the work of evangelism or the one who commits the "crime" of apostasy [2] .

And part of Bilek's response is here:

Yes, it is now time to ask the question: do we [converts from Islam] have our place in the Church, as well as Europeans, or are we [ex-Muslim] Christians second class citizens to be concealed? [...] 

Does our baptism, freeing us from the darkness of sin, not also granted us the freedom of the children of God and quality of being brothers of Christ? Would we still amenable to Sharia? 

These questions need clear answers, and must be given, so that there is no ambiguity, the pontiff himself. 

Of all religions it is Christianity that is the most attacked, of all Christian denominations it is the Catholic Church that is most mistreated. 

Dear Magdi Cristiano Allam, you are aware that within the same [Church] there rise opponents who seek to undermine it. Do we not have a responsibility to alert and avoid fatal excesses in the area we know? 

Who can argue that he loves Muslims brothers more than we do? First because we have the same origin, but also because we want them to become like us, children of God through Jesus Christ? 

I think it is our duty to speak publicly with and to see the Holy Father, that we conversing on these critical issues for the salvation of men. [...] Our demand to meet publicly with the Holy Father is legitimate.

In other words, he wants a public and clear statement from the Roman Bishop on the reception of Muslims into the Catholic Church. God bless these brave men! And may Magdi Cristiano Allam return to Rome and not give up on her. When she does awake to the glory of the mission to Islam, she will become a great and positive force in this important ministry.

Gay Marriage, Love and Taxes

Gay Marriage, Love and Taxes
by Abu Daoud

I suppose I should have learned to expect this from America, a nation of takers and whiners. (Ok, mostly, not entirely.)

The argument goes like this, it is not fair to same-sex couples that they not be able to get married because they cannot enjoy the same tax breaks that traditional couples enjoy.

Yes, and this is fine. Traditional couples can (and usually do) produce offspring who will become the tax-payers of tomorrow. It is entirely logical for a country to privilege such couples with tax benefits because it is in the interest of the state for population to stay steady or increase. SS couples may adopt or do IVF or whatever, but their relationship cannot be fruitful. When traditional couples don't have kids it is the exception and it is because they stop them from being conceived, kill them before they are born (abortion), or because their bodies do not function correctly (sad to say).

All of this comes back to the fundamental error in American thinking: that marriage is somehow fundamentally about love and feelings. Sorry people, but a country that is convinced of such a silly and ridiculous idea deserves to decline into decrepitude and senility. From the point o fthe view of the State, marriage is beneficial because it provides a future generation for a given society who will be well-rounded and well-adjusted. If mom and dad love each other, very nice. If they don't, but they treat their marriage covenant with respect, then that can be happy and good and blessed as well.

Sorry I'm frustrated people, but I am. It is sad to see one's own country become such a bastion for foolishness under the guise of a love for freedom and 'equality'.

Arabs and Jews? Israel and Palestine?

A younger Christian and friend of mine recently posed this question to me:

I know a lot of Messianic Jews and gentiles who pray for Israel, as we should but they DAMN the ARABS. When I say 'For God so loved the World...' and to pray for the innocent Arabs, I'm told that Satan is using me to spread lies... your opinions sir?

And this was my response:

There is a whole movement undermining Christian Zionism today. Check out the material by Stephen Sizer, for instance. It is very good. Also, remind people that in 1 Peter it is Christians who are 'a chosen people' and that Paul said, 'For neither circumcision nor non-circumcision matter--what matters is a new Creation!'

The history of Israel is much darker than most Americans know. Ultimately only the Christian faith has the power to overcome the animosity between Jews and Arabs. Neither Islam nor Judaism have the radical command to love the enemy. There is no political solution.

What do you think? Anyone living in the Middle East (it matters not which country) has to tackle these questions sooner or later.

On the Retirement of Pope Benedict XVI

The bishop of Rome and successor of Peter has, for all his conservatism, has broken new ground once again.

The first time was with his ability and willingness to confront Islam at Regensburg, as I wrote in Islam, the Pope, and History.

The second time was when he allowed for the establishment of ordinariates for marginalized and abused anglo-catholics in the Anglican Communion.

This third time is in resigning his episcopate, as most bishops do sooner or later. But he has done it with class, after much prayer I'm sure, and according to the laws of his Church.

I have said before, and will say again, that in my opinion Pope Benedict XVI was the only European leader head of state or head of church who actually understood Islam and had the balls to confront it.

My only beef with him is that he never responded to my open letter to him regarding Catholic witness to Muslims. But then again, he is and was a busy guy...

May God bless him and keep him, and provide another excellent pastor for the Church of Rome.

Abu Daoud: Short, Sharp and Shocking

Short, Sharp and Shocking
by Abu Daoud

Normally when I'm talking with M's I take an irenic approach, but I have also learned that sometimes you meet someone who wants to talk about religion with you but from a combative point of view. This happened the other day and I felt in my spirit that I should take a short, sharp, and shocking approach (I learned this from an Egyptian pastor). One can hope that something you say will stick in the person's head and over time lead to a genuine openness and questioning attitude. John the Baptist and Jesus used this approach quite often when they were talking with the self-righteous folks of their day.

Sitting in his shop this man started off with what he thought were the weaknesses of our faith. I had pulled up the Sermon on the Mount (Mt 5-7) on his computer, in Arabic, and told him to read it, which he did not want to do. And then he pointed out how our book is translated, while his book is the same all over the world (in Arabic). Time for some apologetic judo-using his argument against him: Yes, I said, praise be to God that our book is translatable and people in any place can read it in their own language and pray to him in their own language, whereas his deity understood only Arabic. "You speak Arabic and another language, I speak three languages, and yet your god only hears prayers in Arabic." I responded (kindly, by the way). 

...

Read the rest at VirtueOnline and leave your comments over there please.

Vol 8/6 of St Francis Magazine is out...

The December 2012 issue of St Francis Magazine is now out. Slimmer than some previous volumes, but still with some good material:

Evangelism through the eyes of Jesus in Luke 5:1-11 and holistic evangelism for the 21st century: Towards life, justice and equality… but not as we know it, by John Baxter-Brown

Translating ‘Son of God’: insights from the early church, by Donald Fairbairn

How does Christianity ‘subversively fulfil’ Islam? by Chris Flint 

The failure of multiculturalism: a review of Londonistan: How Briatin has created a terror state within, by Melanie Phillips, reviewed by Tony Foreman

Forming missionaries in Jordan: an interview with a former Anglican missionary to the Hashemite Kingdom, by Duane Alexander Miller

I am especially interested in Tony Foreman's review of Londonistan. I have spent time in London from time to time and feel that the future of the West is in many represented in fast forward and in miniature (if you can call London a miniature). Also, Fairbairn's article on 'Son of God' looks interesting. I am not in the area of translation myself, but I know full well how important this issue is for everyone involved (including Arab Christians who on the whole do NOT want the term 'Son of God' translated out of the NT).


Anyway, check out the material, and let me know what you think.


--Abu Daoud