Is the Benedict Option Islamic?

Diane beat me to the BINGO buzzer on Tom's insightful comment (RTWT) and so I decided to do a whole post on my thoughts. The key point to me was the so-called Benedict Option as “an application of the emotion of fear to today's circumstances”. After pondering this, Pikkumatti rhetorically asked “Hasn't ‘fear of the modern world’ been the prime source of conflict in the Islamic world over the recent past?”

That sent my mind racing back about seven years ago when Daniel Nichols made an interesting prediction – somewhat humorously – about Dreher’s religious future. I consider Nichols to be very intelligent and possessing a keen insight into the nature of spiritual things, although I disagree with him about mostly everything touching political matters. His prediction was Dreher’s next step would be to convert to Islam out of frustration at the state of evangelical Christianity. At first I frowned at this as being over the top and unlikely, even as the vehicle to make an intended point. But it seems to me now like he might have been onto something.

Muslims practice a form of colonization as part of their living out of the hijrah when they emigrate. So you will see places where Muslims are overrepresented like Dearborn, for example, or even my old nabe in North Olmsted. It’s about more than just safety in numbers; they actively resist assimilation and start pushing for the acceptance of Sharia law. You can see that happening big time in England, and it's starting to happen here. They are masters at this, and polls show that a majority of Muslims in America would prefer to be under Islamic law.

Do Christians – or Catholics in particular – want to live under a theocratic system? Obviously not, since many Catholics don’t even listen to the magisterium on moral issues. Protestants don't because “look what happened in the middle ages,” a sentiment with which I provisionally agree. So liberal Catholics get involved in social justice concerns, Conservative Catholics join pro-life groups and religious freedom defense funds, American protestant Christians proliferate new, exciting, democratically-run denominations. But all of this represents reaching out, not erecting barricades. Very few members of any of these Christian subgroups are interested in establishing gated ghettos. Why not? They aren't scared enough to circle the wagons. Fear is noticeably missing from Christianity.

Islam is different because of the motivation of fear.

In what is arguably G. K. Chesterton's greatest book, The Everlasting Man, he mused that the cross as “a thing at right angles pointing boldly in opposite directions” was an apt symbol of Christianity, the circle or wheel was the symbol of the eastern religions, symbolizing a closed world at the mercy of cyclic impersonal forces, and the swastika was like a cross turning back into a wheel. It can be seen that the crescent and the scimitar have replaced the swastika in the 21st century, and so the Islamist move back toward the circle of violence and fear is succeeding where the Nazis failed.

So when the Benedict Option is seen to be a circling of the wagons I think there is at least a hint of the motivation of fear. When the objection is made by proponents of the Benedict Option that it's not a retreat from public life, well, neither is the hijra, although it might appear as one to the ignorant observer. It is a waiting game. It is a resettlement as Ann Corcoran argues in the book I linked to. I'm sure there would be even stronger objections to the suggestion that the Benedict Option would be a Christian version of a no-go zone, but there is sort of a compound-ish, commune-ish vibe hidden beneath all the “strategic withdrawal” veneer.

I don’t believe that Dreher will convert to Islam and I definitely would never predict that. But I do think he wishes, perhaps earnestly, that Christians would be more like Muslims especially in the fear department. Si vis pacem para bellum, of course. But the question is how does one prepare? If Christians were determined to resist by actively not being part of society rather than keeping themselves “unstained by the world”, there would be a lot more acceptance of a need for the so-called Benedict Option on their part.

Tom Tommorow's artist conception of Rod Dreher

[Here is some recently-published related reading material which readers may wish to read and comment on.]

Political Correctness is not correct; Muhammad was not a prophet

Dennis Prager has mentioned this on his show many times, and I'm glad it is in print now. Catholics like Ross Douthat have been saying and writing "The Prophet Muhammad" for years now, and it was irksome for me to hear Michael Medved, who is Jewish, refer to the founder of Islam as a prophet the other day. Excerpt:

When Jesus is mentioned, the media never refer to him as "Christ, the Lord" or as "the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ." Just "Jesus." In fact, "A.D." ("anno Domini" -- "year of our Lord") has been completely dropped by the very academics and media who always write "The Prophet Muhammad."

When the media discuss Joseph Smith, the founding prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (the Mormon Church), they don't refer to him as "the Prophet Joseph Smith." Why not? Is there a single difference between his title and roles in Mormonism and Muhammad's in Islam?

And Jews refer to Moses as "Moshe Rabbeinu," Moses our Teacher. Why don't the media?

This was not the case in the past. When I studied Islam and Arabic in college, professors referred to the founder of Islam as "Muhammad." And virtually none of the great biographies of Muhammad -- even among those recommended on Muslim websites -- have the words "the Prophet Muhammad" in their title.

There is only one possible reason and that is Political Correctness -- Western elites bending over backwards on behalf of Muslims and Islam in ways they never would for another religion.

The reason that Islam gets special treatment is that Islam breeds fear of one kind or another in anyone treating with it. It is a religion almost entirely spread by the sword since it doesn't really offer anything different than other religions to anyone without a penchant for superiority or violence. To those brought up in the religion there is a fear of leaving, to those outside the religion... well, need we said anything more than no-go zones?

Public Intoxication

I was ruminating on Paul Zummo's post from yesterday detailing the irony of Eugene Robinson's hand-wringing remark about Sarah Palin: "What the GOP should worry about is the intoxication that adoring crowds often induce in politicians." Obviously we wonder where he was during the fevered campaigns of 2008, of which this instant classic blog site might serve as a reminder.

I'm afraid that if we had the opportunity to bring this up to Mr. Robinson, the irony would be lost on him. He would probably respond that Barack Obama was not going to be intoxicated by an adoring crowd because, in the language of the street, he really is "all that", whereas Sarah Palin is merely some lady up in the wilderness. Maybe he would challenge us to produce a picture of Obama donning a lampshade or staggering down the stairs of a DC lounge shortly after one of his rallies. But who needs to do that? One visit to the aforementioned Obamamessiah site provides quotes from the man himself such as "We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek." Also: "This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal." Also: "...a light will shine through that window, a beam of light will come down upon you, you will experience an epiphany, and you will suddenly realize that you must go to the polls and vote for Barack Obama." These are delusional remarks to make even for a man who aspires to be the chief of the executive branch.

I think Obama supporters would dismiss this all, however, and say that these were "just words" spoken the heat of a campaign, it was all figurative speech, etc, etc. Then that brings us back to the question, "What's wrong with Sarah Palin having enthusiastic followers now?" Hmmm. Why don't they just admit that they disagree with a woman who has a large following of a certain type of American citizen? That's what we do routinely with Obama, a President with higher approval numbers than it seems like his success-failure ratio should warrant. I think it's just that ridiculing the right has become the staple of the left, and it's so much easier than bringing up substance and forming arguments.

A good question for so-called "moderate" Muslims

Pam Meister asks a good question in her article about "Draw Mohammad Day":

Where are those Muslims who are not part of the violent threats? Are they condemning those making them? If so, we should commend them. If not, we should ask why they are silent.

There is no voice of moderation in the Muslim community. No voice. If there are moderate Muslims they are scared and silent.