"Diluted" Muslims

An email interaction with a correspondent who signs off as Jeff (England) introduced me to the term "diluted" Muslim. Jeff further explains this phrase thus:

I have called for encouragement of the creation of 'diluted' Muslims. A small minority young 2nd generation UK Muslims are already what I might call 'diluted'. I know a few. The likes of Hirsi Ali and Irshad Manji are examples of 'diluted' Muslims...Some are atheists, others barely are religious, some even practice other religions. By a diluted Muslim I mean a Muslim who was a practicing Muslim but no longer does in any significant way. I know a few personally so I can state for a fact they exist.

Jeff then equates "diluted" Muslims with "diluted" Christians and Jews. I think he's trying to call them cultural Muslims, since I believe we do have cultural Christians, those who don't necessarily practice the religion, but are content to live in and follow the mandates of a Christian society.

Still, I put Jeff to task by saying:

KPA: There is no telling that these so-called atheist Muslims/diluted Muslims (or cultural Muslims) will not at some point pick up the Koran at a moment of cultural alienation.

Jeff: ABSURD!

Well, if Jeff is going to lump the Irshad Manjis onto his list, as well as the plethora of "Westernized" Muslims who, according to Jeff are "Muslims who [were] practicing Muslims but no longer [do] in any significant way" [my emphasis] I think we have to think about his coining yet another term that ill-defines Muslims (moderate, radical, Islamofascists being the few that have stuck so far), which will not get us any closer to dismantling this huge problem.

Jeff's premise really is that we cannot get rid of the Muslim or Islam problem, and we should find allies amidst these diluted groups.

Here is another point I made to Jeff regarding the "diluted" ones:

KPA: Their agendas, like I pointed out above, will not be to participate in the Western culture, and to save it at a crucial moment, but to carve their own multicultural niche in the society they're living in.

Jeff: If anything, these ex-Muslims (a minority I acknowledge) are bigger supporters of the West than you or me. Ali Sina and Hirsi Ali, Wofa Sultan and others are risking their lives daily and have expressed their love for western culture time and time again. As has Brigitte Gabriel, a Lebanese Christian immigrant to the West who also opposes Islam. C'mon man, give these people some credit and respect even if you oppose Islam and Muslims coming to the West.

Besides erroneously calling the Arab Christian Brigitte Gabriel an ex-Muslim, and now confusing "ex" with "diluted", Jeff says:

Saving 'White Christian Civilization' is no longer a realistic option. America, the UK and the West are going to be multi-racial and multi-religious forever.

I put this scenario to Jeff, about his compromising position:

KPA: By the way, your set-in-stone assertion that we are now a full blown multicultural society with no going back can be disputed. Many Indians and Chinese, disappointed with life in Canada and the US, are going back. People travel back and forth much more now, and are beginning to see what they're missing living in alienated cultures. Many other factors, including native (not native Indian) Americans and Canadians beginning to see the light, especially in these difficult economic times, are turning things back - look at the H-1B visa debacle in the States.

If you give up, you cannot take advantage of moments like these. I think we are in the right, and "they" are in the wrong. That is surely a strong enough impetus to go on!

Jeff: Stop the 'giving up' bullshit label, it won't wash with me. Ditto the 'defeatist' label. I am a realist and am trying to deal with a complex 'battlefield' situation while too many of you 'traditionalist conservatives' want to live in fantasy land blogging away with your fantasy suggestions about what needs to be done....

Why is it that in the blogosphere, people you have never met, and never even corresponded with, take the liberty to use epithets at whim and will?

By the way, Jeff initiated the email, and I didn't buy his "diluted" Muslims, and I still call his attitude defeatist (dhimmi!) for giving up before even trying.

InControl: A Christian (Sort of) Magazine

Here is a new Canadian online magazine which calls itself InControl Magazine and whose first lines define it thus:

InControl Magazine online is a Christian-based website that provides Canadians and International users with contemporary practical day-to-day online tools and resources that are geared towards helping people take control of everyday issues from a Godly perspective and consequently finding liberty in dealing with everyday encounters.

In the fourth paragraph of its "about us" page, here is what it says:

We believe that all religions lead to the same God. And because of that no one is excluded from being a part-taker of InControl Magazine. Although InControl Magazine is Christian-based, the content is consciously selected to serve all religions (Judaism, Muslim, etc)...

It is also geared toward:

A new, different and creative Christian magazine primarily for teens and generation Y.

I'm not sure if the ultimate agenda of InControl is to give the "Christian" youth a bit of slack, or if it is to attract the attention of other non-Christian theists. But, I think they're playing a dangerous game. Theologically, of course they have been proven wrong on the "God" issue. The God of the Muslims is different from the God of the Jews and the Christians. Even if they declare their similarities loudly, Muslims will not agree, and will not join.

So what is happening is that the Christian youth they convince to be more relaxed followers of Christ will be left with a wide open option on the true nature of God.

These irresponsible, and to be frank, flat out deceivers, are more dangerous than atheists, who at least call themselves something concrete and tangible.

I'm not sure what is ultimately the plan of these pseudo-Christian liars. But, given the force of atheism, and the even bigger energy of Islam, young people are prone to be hijacked by all kinds of things these days.

I've noticed that those who lack a strong fundamental belief are easy targets for those who propose strong fundamental beliefs. These days, it isn't even atheism. The big contender is Islam. People don't stay non-religious or half-religious for long. Yes, even atheism becomes a form of belief. But even stronger than that is Islam.

I sent the following letter to the editors:

To whom it may concern:

I read your new online magazine with great interest, and I thought it would be a strong force against the double-edged sword of atheism and Islam that is facing young people today. Both these groups have strong campaigns which attract young people to their sides (for example, look at the "atheist" bus ads now in view throughout Toronto, and the many recruiting methods of Islam including TV shows and sitcoms.)

Christianity is doing very little of that. In fact, it is one of the most timid movements of them all, and since it is in constant fear of being maligned by other groups, it conspicuously scales down its messages for outreach.

Your magazine is doing exactly that. Rather than put out a forceful message that Christians believe in the Old and New Testaments, and nothing else, you become all-inclusive and, with your illustrative phrase: “We believe that all religions lead to the same God”, you accommodate anyone who believes in some kind of God

By declaring the gods of Muslims and other theists as being similar to that of the Judeo-Christian God, you are not only theologically incorrect, you are also sending a dangerous message to the very youth you're trying to reach.

Islam is a strong and aggressive religion. It needs just a crack to get in, and once in, it will act precipitously and aggressively to take hold of the innocent bystanders. You have opened this crack by including Muslims as part of your magazine's focus, and thus endangered the Christians who participate. This is very irresponsible behavior.

If you wish an ecumenical magazine, please say so. Otherwise, Muslims (and other non-Judeo-Christian believers) have no room in a review that calls itself "Christian-based". It will only confuse your readers, and it might (although I pessimistically predict that it will) cause them to have a change of heart and leave Christianity altogether.

We need strong, confident messages from Christian leaders; not wishy-washy, unclear, sentimental messages about "All religions lead to the same God". That is false and deceitful, and will only spiritually harm your readership.

Sincerely,

Kidist Paulos Asrat