11 comments

1. So as they try to convince
   people of their good intentions.
   But unlike the Christian faith and gospel proclamation that doesn’t demand or force but only proclamation.
   Islam on the other hand says,
   Convertor pay taxes or get the sword you infidels.

   Reply ↓

2. Here is my non=nested response.

   Does Raymond Ibrahim love Muslims? A cursory examination of his writings reveals him to be an unabashedly harsh critic of the religion of Islam, and its inevitable political implications as (this is my own opinion) a humanistic power-religion. It is not obvious from his publicly accessible bio that he has ever lived anywhere outside of the USA, being born in this country in 1973 to immigrant parents. R.I. has made a living being a polemicist against Islam, and coordinately an ardent defender of “the West” and various traditionally “conservative” American institutions (like a strong military). Philosophically or ideologically he intertwines “Christianity” with the wider culture in Europe and America that has hosted and often (in the past) actively promoted its virtues as a cultural bastion and State-ally.

   It is at this point that my criticism of R.I. finds an echo in T. David Gordon’s comments quoted on the HB the next day, from an article nearly two decades old, https://heidelblog.net/2026/06/christian-nationalism-is-a-sign-of-decline-not-renewal/ In my opinion, the main for reason R.I. to be critical of JDH and TC in their comments has everything to do with what he sees as their naïve rehabilitation of Islamic-oriented governmental authorities (he himself makes no distinction respecting time and places for distinct seats of that authority) and their relations with institutional churches (especially the larger or dominant ones). In fact, R.I. thinks its tragic that possibly the West is in danger of severing its ties to Christendom, which decoupling could go faster (rather than reversing) the more audiences are swayed by platitudes from those platformed by TC.

   Furthermore, R.I. finds equally disturbing the thought that lack of unstinting approval of the secular State of Israel–as a singular beacon of “western values” in the Middle East–is prima facie evidence of decline of principle. This issue, as contrasting values in the population lead to public division at the governmental level, thus serves in his mind as a line of moral demarcation. “Christianity” stands on one side; while the other side is apostasy, socio-religious indifferentism, political and military anemia, “leftism,” and “antisemitism.”

   Some of us have actually lived in the M.E., have family members who live there today, and know others both native and missionary who live and work in the Arab world. It is hard to exaggerate the difference such factors can make–going far beyond partisan political staked-out positions of what is acceptable for “conservatives” to hold–in shaping the outlook for what a “good American” or a serious Christian may have. Especially if he is not bound to a culturally blinkered position, prepared to have his non-doctrinal opinions pre-shaped and handed over to him by experts, never to be questioned.

   I deplore the destruction of the church and eradication of Christians in places in the M.E. One such place is Iraq, where the western invasions of 30+ years ago followed by the even bigger war 20+ years ago saw the obliteration of not just the Christian communities generally, but the disappearance of the tiny confessional Presbyterian witness of that country. That’s what will often happen when a stable society that permits minorities to flourish, that even promotes its own “secular” identity is attacked by outside forces and ends up in internal civil strife. In my studied judgment: the single biggest factor contributing to the resurgence of a once nearly moribund Islamic militancy has been western political and military meddling. The church there has suffered more because of it.

   The church and Christians are second-class citizens in every Muslim dominated country, though the degree of suffering varies tremendously. But this is less an “Islamic” problem, and more a general reality; as for instance believers deal with similar hostility in Hindu-dominated India, or officially “atheist” China. However for the M.E. specifically, it is also a fact that the church and Christians are second-class citizens in modern Israel.

   It is a fact that certain fanatical Jewish sects (and many secularist) advocate for “morally acceptable deception” against Christians as well as Muslims, and representatives of other countries. It is not fair to single out–as R.I. does–an Islamic doctrine (which many Muslims know nothing about) that supposedly allows for this kind of deception, while whitewashing the same thing if done by rabbinic Jews or so-called Christians. Or allows that warfare makes for a special case, so “its OK when we do it,” when all sides tend to carve out exceptions for themselves that justify deception “of necessity.”

   I could go on, but I will cease this long comment-reply to the invitation to respond. I do love Muslims, even if at times they may individually or as a State act contrary to my or my loved ones best earthly interest. I believe there is but one moral and ethical system, grounded in God’s natural law, that governs private persons and collective agencies. I make no exceptions for “my side” in any conflict. The West, the East, and Middle nations in this world are all bound to answer for their evil deeds to the King of kings. There is no special dispensation for the West, for the USA, for Israel, or for Iran or any other government on earth. All men will give account for their actions, whether taken in aggression or in self-defense; whether justly proportional or horrendously disproportional.

   Reply ↓

   • Bruce,

     Can’t we love Muslims and pray and work for their conversion while simultaneously warning about the violent, militarily aggressive nature of Islam since its foundation and the consequences of misunderstanding the nature of the Islamist threat to the USA and to Israel?

     Is it not true that secular Israel is the single most tolerant, diverse, and enlightened nation in the Middle East? Palestinian Israelis are certainly better treated and live better lives than under Palestinian authority?

     Reply ↓

     • Instead of thinking mainly in terms of militaristic or expansionist Islam, it would help the analysis to think first in terms of militarism, expansionism, and humanistic imperial designs more generally. Then, note how ideology–e.g. religious or philosophical–is employed in various ways to lend motive and justification to furthering those designs.

       Internationalist communism once presented its geopolitical rivals with an apparently potent, “eschatologically driven” front aimed at domination. Long after its out-facing aims were scaled back significantly, and the Soviets internally recalibrated due to the limits reality imposed on their aspirations, the old rivals were still marketing communism’s threat as current.

       Expansionist Islam’s historic high-water mark was the Ottoman seige of Vienna. It was not so long ago, as history is measured. But there was a major retreat that followed, and several centuries of political and military decline, during which the remnant of that rule fragmented or was dismembered by colonial powers.

       Today, Turkey is the rump of the Ottoman empire, and Iran remains its perennial rival. Both peoples and their territories are natural poles, poised to dominate their quarter of the world. This is just a fact of history and Providence.

       Of these two Muslim-dominated states, one is expansionist-internationalist; the other hasn’t fought a war outside its own territory in generations. The former is a member of NATO, which alliance has fought numerous “actions” since WWII far from its borders (all manifestly in self-defense, of course). The latter has fought one major conflict in the 20th century against a neighbor State which invaded and used the chemwar assets supplied them by NATO (and who refused on religious grounds to manufacture and use their own chemical weapons in retaliation).

       The point is simply this: one cannot just latch on to a single historic perspective on “Islam” and define all countries that make it their State religion as violent and irrational. This is actually quite an “unChristian” perspective on human nature and governments, if I may be so bold.

       The USA is not the only nation on earth that has legitimate allies and interests, even if it is the one nation that acts as if it needs to treat with none, but only impose its will on every case by any means including threats, intimidation, and force. That’s called “bullying” in the real world. The Melian Dialog shouldn’t be taken as guidance for proper international relations. Worse still, the SoS of the USA stated 3mo. ago that his nation initiated violence, because its “junior parter” had already cocked its fist to throw a first-punch, and in this manner had “forced” the hyper-power to act. This behavior calls into question both wisdom and rationality for the act. Image-bearers were annihilated as a result, including many innocent persons. Who answers for this to the Most High?

       Suggesting that there are rational actors on the opposite side in this current conflict often brings forth ridicule. Same for the proposal that a population of millions of displaced people who are not Israeli citizens, but who have been wholesale prevented by Israelu authority from going to their deeded land, farms, orchards, houses–who are victims of systemic maltreatment, not perpetrators of it, made subject to collective punishment in violation of norms of dispute resolution–the notion that there might be a measure of truth in this regard is recast as “antisemitism, ” the equivalent of prejudicial and murderous contempt.

       But it is that limit on conducting an unbiased evaluation of all facts in the case that is unreasonable. It is irrational and self-serving. It is ruled out of court, and the possibility must be entertained by the sober-minded that it is so because a full accounting would not support the dominant narrative.

       I’m saying that the last 40yrs has seen the disappearance from “legitimate” discourse of even the concept that the Palestinians (non-Jewish natives) may have honest and terrible grievances. No, they are seen as guilty of degenerate existence and of corrupt leaders; their massacre is deserved. In a profound and perverse twist on history and exegesis, they are renamed “Amalek” and receive the same sentence from the powers that overawe in that region.

       In conclusion, I do not agree that the modern, secular Israeli State is rightly described by all those beautiful adjectives: “most tolerant, diverse, and enlightened nation.” Realistically, the only way to make such a generalization would be to travel to all the countries in the region, and sample the fare across the board. Including, inquiring where possible of the serious and unaffected Christians living in each place.

       I do not fear any contradiction, that those Palestinian Christians who have chosen to remain close to home, and many beside them who have fled to safer locations ouside their homeland, do not in the main regard the Israeli overlords as benevolent masters.

       It is a western fantasy that no sensible person could prefer the life he knows outside the West, to the objective superiority of life in the lap of our decadent luxury. It’s a dismal fact that a considerable percentage of migration to western shores results from people in distant lands being robbed of their local security and comfortable familiarity (even if “poor”) by outside forces that refused to leave them in relative peace, as a diversionary method of gaining influence and control in the sphere of strategic geopolitics for world financial and military domination. This is the way of the World, which is perishing.

       Reply ↓

       • Just wanted to say I really appreciate your comment

         Reply ↓

     • I am quite frankly shocked at this comment. The amount of abuse of Christians and those not Jews that the Israeli government tolerates is astromonical.

       Reply ↓

       • Ben,

         I am aware of the challenges faced by Christians in Israel but relative to the rest of the Middle East, Christians are rather better off in Israel. It is arguable that, before the war in Iraq, Christians were relatively better off in Iraq because Saddam favored them for his own political reasons but otherwise Christians are not better off in Saudi Arabia or in any other ME country of which I’m aware. Israel is the only Western-style government in the ME. Christians were better off in Lebanon before the Islamists occupied the country but they are not better off now because of Islamic persecution.

         The Palestinian problem is a real one and Palestinian Christians do not receive sufficient recognition but it’s also true that no one else in the ME is as tolerant of the Palestinians as Israel. After the shocking assault on Israel Egypt shut the gate locking Palestinians in. None of the other surrounding nations will admit the Palestinians because, frankly, they are a hotbed of political radicalism and trouble.

         I’m not defending the sinlessness of Israel. I understand that the Particular Baptist congregation is Tel Aviv had to go to the Israeli Supreme Court to build a church building. The pastor is a dear friend. But I also know that they are better off there than anywhere else in the ME.

         Just as we pray for the conversion of Muslims (and for Christians suffering under Muslim persecution) we should also pray for the conversion of the Jews. We can do both and we can politically realistic about what is actually happening on the ground in the ME.

         Reply ↓

3. R.Ibrahim is, in my view, an unreliable guide, generally. He is correct that JDH is seriously wrong again (hence, also TC), but focuses on the wrong fact. Hall promotes Webbon and that Ogden outfit near the end of the interview, in addition to some clumsy handling of the biblical text.

   Reply ↓

   • Bruce,

     Ibrahim is well informed about the history and theology of Islam. He shows that Hall is once again talking through his hat.

     I’ve already addressed Hall and Webbon in other pieces, e.g., Contra Webbon et al.: Denying That Jesus Is A Jew Denies His True Humanity (Part 1)

     I’ve been reading Ibrahim re Islam for a while. Why do you say that he’s generally unreliable?

     Reply ↓

     • I’ve seen a post here on the heideblog Dr. Clark (wether you were quoting someone or you yourself said it I do not know), in it the poster said that the view that the dark ages came about because of the Muslim conquests (a view that Raymond Ibrahim apparently holds) was historical revisionism.

       I say none of this in an accusatory or gotcha way, I’m honestly just curious if you hold to Raymond’s position or the poster. I’m really interested in his stuff and find it very helpful. His historical analysis of what is happening is very interesting and frightening.

       Reply ↓

       • Oseias,

         I am persuaded by the view that says that the so-called “dark ages” were the result of the Islamic aggression against the West. Islam has been a violent, aggressive religio-political movement since its inception. The Islamic jihad against the West from the inception of Islam disrupted trade and caused an economic and intellectual depression. Most, not all, Muslim “discoveries” were pirated from the West.

         Reply ↓

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