About R. Scott Clark
R. Scott Clark is the President of the
Heidelberg Reformation Association, the author and editor of, and contributor to several
books and the author of many articles. He has taught church history and historical theology since 1997 at Westminster Seminary California. He has also taught at Wheaton College, Reformed Theological Seminary, and Concordia University.
Read more» He has hosted the Heidelblog since 2007.
Is Gaffney a bit too conspiratorial? I remember years ago him criticizing Grover Norquist over his supposed affiliation with certain Muslims (like his wife) and his attempts to help them infiltrate certain aspects of American life. I think it was a CBN report (Pat Robertson’s organization). I just clicked this video and saw at least four pictures of Norquist. I think Gaffney is popular on conservative talk radio, but I don’t know how seriously he should actually be taken.
It seems he also contributed, at least at one time, to the idea that Obama is not a legitimate president due to his birthplace.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/12/08/meet-frank-gaffney-the-anti-muslim-gadfly-who-produced-donald-trumps-anti-muslim-poll/#comments
Alberto,
That’s essentially ad hom. Gaffney has been working on Islam for a long time. The thing I like about his site is that they document things very well. The Muslim Brotherhood is funding mosques in the USA. Islam does not teach a separation of mosque and state. My friends in Nigeria can tell you how dangerous mosques are to the safety of Christians since, in the mosques they plan murderous raids against Christians. The MB’s Explanatory Memorandum is not a conspiracy theory (which theory I reject in principle). It is a fact. It was introduced into evidence in the trial of the Blind Sheik after the 1993 WTC bombing.
The West needs to get to grips with Islam. We need to learn their history, their ideologies, and their documents. Islamism isn’t going away. It isn’t going to become more peaceful. It isn’t going to assimilate.
No, that is not an ad hominem argument. I’m not attacking or attempting to counter an argument of his by attacking him. I am questioning whether his statements are also mixed with conspiratorial and false things; I am questioning his reliability.
I am not saying people don’t need to understand Islam, nor am I stating that Gaffney never says correct things about Islam. My impression is that he says truthful things and can present good arguments, but he also has thrown out conspiratorial things that tarnish his credibility. I already mentioned two specific thing. Concerning Norquist, that seems to be the reason he was banned from CPAC (at least for some time). And on the birther stuff, a link with audio between him and Diana West is available in the WP article I previously put up.
And if you read that WP article, you will know he “accidentally” invited a white supremacists to talk about Muslim immigration to his radio program. Again, that goes back to his reliability and diligence.
I wasn’t going to say anything further, but you brought it up. You mentioned your friends in Nigeria and the mosques there. Are you saying that Mosques here are just as dangerous? Are you attempting to convince people of the need to oppose the construction of mosques? Should we as a society impose limitations on Islamic proselytizing? If the answer is yes, then I don’t see how any of that can be effectively opposed by our society without restricting the religious liberty of Muslims, except if you wish to do that by banning further Muslim immigration.
Are you conflating Islam and Islamism in your last paragraph (not to mention the various kinds of Muslims)? Are you saying Muslims won’t assimilate (whatever that means because not all define assimilation the same way), of whatever type, including Ahmadi Muslims? Saying Islamists won’t assimilate is obvious, but saying Muslims in general won’t is another.
Alberto,
We may look at some of these issues differently.
Early on it was not clear what the president’s immigration status was. There was at least some reason to think that it was ambiguous and, to make matters worse, the president was deliberately coy. In political terms it was a trap into which some people fell. I don’t know when Gaffney said what he did but he wasn’t alone. After the fact, it’s easy to laugh at those who got it wrong.
Gaffney isn’t the only one who has expressed concern about Norquist. Others have been complaining about his relationship to Islam for some time. I haven’t looked into it but I don’t know that his opposition to Norquist is evidence that he’s not reliable.
I’ve been watching and reading Gaffney for years. I don’t think he has any sympathy with white supremacy. Fault his diligence but accidents happen.
Yes, I think it’s legitimate to worry about the mosques in the USA. It wasn’t Methodists who flew planes into buildings on 9/11. The 9/11 attackers all went to mosques in the USA. No one turned them in. One study (maybe the only one) found that something like 84% of American mosques distribute literature advocating violence and the imposition of Sharia. Have you read the Qur’an? If we count it and the Hadiths, there is plenty there about which to worry. The MB is actively funding mosques as is Saudi Arabia.
If “Islamic Study Centers” are places where Muslims plot violence (and that’s what happened in Boston and it happens in Nigeria and elsewhere) then we have reason to be concerned. We cannot simply assume that they agree with us about the value of a secular state. We need to have an honest conversation about religious freedom and freedom of speech. In the Cold War we tracked and prosecuted communists because they advocated and worked for the overthrow of the government of the United States. ISIS and AQ have stated their intent to do the same. Islam is not just a religion—it’s a political theory—and the line between Islam and Islamism is blurry at best.
I understand that there are liberal Western Muslims who do not accept the traditional interpretation (a very reasonable and quite possible the correct interpretation) of the Qur’an. I also understand that they are not the dominant force in global Islam and that they are capable of being “turned.” It has already happened in the USA and we have every reason to think that it will happen again.
I am grateful for the civil and military service of loyal American Muslims. I am also reasonably worried (on the basis of San Bernardino and Ft Hood and Paris etc) that global Islam sees the West as a place to be conquered and it clearly is not easy to tell who among the Muslims really believes in the American pluralistic system and who wants to impose Sharia. I worry that too many Americans, under the influence of sloppy “World Religions” courses think that all religions are fundamentally the same and don’t sufficiently appreciate the danger that Islam and Islamism presents to a pluralist, secular civil society.