There’s a self-professed Christian blogger at Huffington Post who thinks you are an Islamophobe if you don’t agree that it’s perfectly compatible with Christianity to see Mohammed as a prophet.
Robert Spencer at Jihad Watch calls Craig Considine out for the following passage, in Considine’s post “Why a Christian can view Muhammad as a Prophet” (emphasis added):
Basically, me admiring Prophet Muhammad isn’t “enough” for Muslims; in their eyes, I must take a few concrete steps towards Islam to be fully recognized as a “true believer.” Otherwise, I’m just a weirdo Christian who respects Muhammad, but doesn’t recognize him as a “the man.”Christians, on the other hand, have called me “pseudo Catholic” and “infidel” for my positive writings about Muhammad. For these Islamophobes, I’m quite simply a heretic. There’s no way around it.
Spencer parses this precisely:
Note Considine’s usage of the smear term “Islamophobe.” An “Islamophobe” is supposedly someone who has an irrational hatred of Islam — and for what did his Christian interlocutors earn this label? They called him a “pseudo-Catholic” and “infidel” for his “positive writings about Muhammad.” Considering Islam’s rejection of the divinity, crucifixion, resurrection and salvific mission of Christ, it’s perfectly reasonable for these Christians to have considered Considine to have departed from the faith by writing positively about Muhammad. But to Considine, it only means that they hate Islam.
Spencer goes on to discuss other aspects of Considine’s basically irrational, impressionistic mish-mash of sentiment, and his critical essay is worth the full read.
But I want to stay for the moment on the seemingly stray reference to Islamophobia, because it’s not merely something random that doesn’t matter.
We can expect to see it – or rather hear it – as a drumbeat arising against Christendom. Much of the West’s ruling structure has already bought off on the dynamic of “Islamophobia,” by which all objections to the gradual enforcement of new, “Islamic” social norms are silenced. There can be no principled objections to these norms, which must be allowed to bind non-Muslims. There can only be Islamophobia at work: by definition, an unacceptable hatred, which can’t be the basis for asserting either liberty from “Islamic” norms, or the enforcement of different norms.
Until now, in the United States, the “Islamophobia” dynamic has encroached mainly on the realm of secular activities. We’ve assumed that our constitutional commitment to freedom of religion means that there won’t be any encroachment on the beliefs of other faiths. The faiths themselves may compromise, of course. But the Islamophobia dynamic is enforced on the public through the decisions of government functionaries – and surely, in their hands, that “freedom of religion” commitment still protects us.
There is no way – right? – that our public institutions would use the Islamophobia dynamic to literally tell Christians they don’t get to say Jesus finished the saving work of God for our age of men. Surely there can never be a time when Christians will be pressured to affirm Mohammed as a prophet of God…
Read the rest by J.E. Dyer at LibertyUnyielding.
Photo credit MohammedJ