Time to tell the Truth about Islam

"Islamic radicals have a very good case that their version of Islam is truer to the original than the moderate version. The proper way to undermine their ideology/theology is not to cast doubts on their interpretation of Islam, but to cast doubts about the truth of Islam itself."

by William Kilpatrick, The Turning Point Project � August 30, 2015

The important thing about a religion, said C.S. Lewis, is not whether it makes one feel good, but whether it is true. This observation came to mind while reading a recent piece by Rev. James Schall, S.J., titled �Speaking Honestly about Islam.�

Schall suggests that we haven�t been telling the truth about Islam because to do so violates the feel-good principle that currently rules Western societies. According to the feel-good principle, self-esteem is the highest value. And therefore every person, culture, and religion has an inalienable right to feel good about oneself/itself.

People hew to the Islam-is-peace line because they don�t want to give offense and also because they don�t want to be accused of a hate crime. It�s a well-founded fear. In many Western societies, numerous individuals�and some of them very prominent individuals�have been put on trial for the crime of criticizing Islam: Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant in Canada, Geert Wilders in the Netherlands, Lars Hedegaard in Denmark, and Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff in Austria, to name a few. In several cases, the defendants were informed that truth was no defense. The accuracy of their criticism, they were told, was beside the point (the point being that they had said hurtful things).

Honesty is the best policy, according to the old maxim, but many Western governments have adopted a deliberate policy of prevarication in regard to Islam. Hardly a day goes by when some Western leader or other isn�t explaining away the latest jihad attack as having nothing to do with Islam.



It�s not that leaders are doing nothing about the problem of jihad. A number of European countries have belatedly launched deradicalization programs aimed at countering jihadist ideology. For example, UK Prime Minister David Cameron recently announced a five-year plan to defeat Islamic extremism.

The trouble with these programs is that they can�t let go of the lie. The central feature of most of these initiatives is the enlistment of moderate Muslims in a campaign to convince potential jihadists that Islam has nothing to do with jihad (or else to convince them that jihad, correctly understood, is nothing more than an interior spiritual struggle).

This puts the Muslim leaders who are willing to sign up for such campaigns in a difficult spot. They are in essence trying to defend a largely indefensible position. While it�s true that Islam can be practiced peacefully (and, thank God, that�s the way most Muslims practice it), that can only be done by ignoring some of Islam�s fundamental teachings. As Fr. Schall observes, �it is senseless to pretend that a jihadist vision is not found in the Qur�an.�

He continues:

What has to be faced by everyone is not the �violence� of Islam, but its truth. We may not �like� a jihadist view of the Qur�an. But we denigrate the dignity of ISIS and other violent strains in both Sunni and Shiite branches of Islam that clearly see that their interpretation of Islam has legitimate roots in the Qur�an, in Islamic history, and in the judgment of many authoritative commentators.

To some extent, Schall is playing the devil�s advocate. He does not really believe in the dignity of ISIS, but he does suggest that their beliefs are honest. What is the basic attraction that draws young men and women to Islamic movements? Schall replies that the main motivation is the perception that the Qur�an is true. Most jihadists wage jihad because they believe that is what Allah wants them to do.

Moderate Muslims and Cafeteria Catholics

A campaign based on the dubious notion that Allah does not command jihad is a hard sell. Both sides�the moderates and the radicals�can quote scripture to defend their positions, but the jihadists seem to be able to quote it much more extensively and convincingly. Many of the moderates are akin to cafeteria Catholics. They have a family or cultural attachment to Islam, but they don�t have a thorough knowledge of their faith, or any great desire to follow all its commands. They have a more Westernized and subjective understanding of Islam than their fundamentalist brethren, and are inclined to say things like �That�s not my Islam� when condemning jihadist violence.

In other words, for some moderate Muslims, Islam is more of a personalized construct�a religion made in the image of their own subjective inclinations. The comparison to cafeteria Catholics is useful because it helps us to better understand the relation of the moderate Muslim to his religion. The liberal Catholic is accepting of abortion and same-sex marriage and so he is convinced that the Church will eventually come around to the same position. The truly moderate Muslim would never resort to violence and so he convinces himself that his religion must therefore be a religion of peace. In short, the moderate Muslim adheres to what author Stephen Kirby calls �fantasy Islam.�

Because it�s based in fantasy, the whole effort to convince jihadists and would-be jihadists that Islam is a religion of peace seems doomed to failure. Granted, many Western leaders don�t really believe what they�re saying and look upon their anti-radicalization projects merely from a pragmatic point of view. But even looked at from a purely practical standpoint, it�s doubtful that a strategy based on such a massive lie can succeed.

Muslim leaders, of course, are caught in a bind on this issue. On the one hand, they need to please their Western hosts; on the other hand, they can�t afford to repudiate large parts of Islamic scripture and tradition. But Western leaders and opinion-makers have fewer constraints. They might consider telling the truth for a change. It might prove in the long run to be a much better strategy than the current self-defeating one. Islamic radicals have a very good case that their version of Islam is truer to the original than the moderate version. The proper way to undermine their ideology/theology is not to cast doubts on their interpretation of Islam, but to cast doubts about the truth of Islam itself.

That may seem like an impossible undertaking, but one thing that works in favor of the truth-telling strategy is that, despite their violence, many jihadists do seem to be truth-seekers. There is abundant evidence from their letters, diaries, blogs, Facebook pages, and last testament videos that they believe they have discovered what God truly wants them to do. For this reason, they may be more likely candidates for conversion to a higher truth than many a lukewarm Muslim.

The Turning Point Project is dedicated to educating Catholics and other Americans about the threat from Islam by arming them with the information and analysis necessary to meet the challenge.  Learn more here...

This article originally appeared in the August 30, 2015 edition of National Catholic Register.

The Migrant Crisis: Compassion and Common Sense

"The big picture is that we may be witnessing the beginning of the end of Europe. Historians and journalists have been writing about the coming Islamization of Europe for some time now, but as years pass, the timeline keeps moving up... Now, with the new flood of migrants, another revision may be in order."

by William Kilpatrick, Crisis Magazine � September 17, 2015

(Photo credit: REUTERS/Yannis Behrakis)

Other than the large numbers involved, one of the most striking features of Europe�s migrant crisis is the level of discourse surrounding it. There is an emotionalism about the subject which doesn�t seem quite appropriate to the gravity of the situation. Momentous issues are being decided on the basis of what Peter Hitchens calls �an emotional spasm.�

That�s not to say the plight of refugees shouldn�t call up emotions. The problem comes when news analysts, government officials, and church representatives present the situation as a Dickensian dilemma which leaves one with no choice other than to side with Scrooge or with Tiny Tim.

The clinching argument for many was the image of a drowned Syrian child that went viral. There should, of course, be no doubt about what to do if you spot a drowning boy in the water, or if a hungry person shows up at the door. But the photo tells us absolutely nothing about what sort of immigration policies governments should adopt. It could be argued that if European immigration policy were less liberal, and its welfare allowances less generous, fewer people would risk their lives to get there.

And what about the images we don�t see�images of the European victims of ill-considered immigration programs? Right now I�m looking at a photo of an 87-year-old Dutch man lying in a hospital bed, his face beaten black and blue. He and his 86-year-old wife, both of them Holocaust survivors, were attacked in their apartment by two men of Moroccan descent who threw them on the floor, kicked them repeatedly, and shouted: �Dirty Jews! From now on, your property is ours.� The husband and wife, who had been living independently, are now confined to wheelchairs at a rehabilitation center.

Such photos aren�t featured on the evening news. Nor are the photos of bruised and bloodied rape victims in Sweden�which, thanks to Muslim immigration, is now the rape capital of the Northern Hemisphere. In Rotherham, England, Pakistani gangs raped 1,400 teenaged girls over a fifteen-year period�but you would have to do some searching before you�d find any stories about the plight of the victims. That�s because the story doesn�t fit the standard narrative about peaceful Muslims seeking a better life and good schools for their children.

There are many such people, of course. But, as is now clear, the great majority within the current wave of migrant-refugees are young, single men. The media still favors close-ups of Madonna-like women with children, but the wide-angle lens presents quite a different view.

The big picture is that we may be witnessing the beginning of the end of Europe. Historians and journalists have been writing about the coming Islamization of Europe for some time now, but as years pass, the timeline keeps moving up. The original forecasts predicted the Muslim takeover of the continent would happen sometime within this century; next, the day of reckoning was moved up to the mid-century mark; and then, as the picture became clearer, to circa 2030. Now, with the new flood of migrants, another revision may be in order. Michel Houellenbecq�s new novel, Submission, forecasts the election of a Muslim president in France in 2022.

Though the media tends to treat the immigration crisis as something from out of the blue, it has been building for years. When combined with high birth rates for Muslims and collapsing birth rates for native Europeans, it spells a massive transformation of European culture. Some would say that the transformation is intentional. In their 2009 book, Modern Day Trojan Horse: The Islamic Doctrine of Immigration, Sam Solomon and Elias Al Maqdisi point out that, historically, Muslims have used migration as a tool of conquest. In a 1974 speech at the United Nations, former Algerian president Houari Boumedienne predicted:

One day, millions of men will leave the Southern Hemisphere to go to the Northern Hemisphere.� And they will not go there as friends. Because they will go there to conquer it.

In light of the threat to European civilization, it is strange that so many commentators see the crisis mainly as an opportunity for welcoming the Other, overcoming irrational fears, and proving one�s compassion. Unfortunately, Catholic leaders seem to have joined this one-sided chorus of voices. Take, for example, comments by Fr. Matthew Gardzinski, who is in charge of the migrants� section for the Pontifical Council for the Pastoral Care of Migrants and Itinerant Peoples. In an interview with Catholic News Agency, Fr. Gardzinski expresses a rather rosy view of migrants. �While one country loses the persons who migrate,� he notes, �the receiving country gains their ideas and creativity.� He seems, however, to have a less sanguine view of Europeans. According to the article, he is concerned about �xenophobic, restrictive, or fearful attitudes.� What stands behind the fear? �Is it really something objective,� he asks, �or is it something more subjective, because I feel threatened, or challenged?�

�Is it really something objective?� Fr. Gardzinski might try asking the rape victims in Rotherham or Sweden. His concern, however, is not with existential realities, but with psychological states. He sees Europe�s migration crisis as being more in the nature of an identity crisis��the challenge to build your own identity� along multicultural lines. Presumably, that�s to be done by overcoming one�s irrational fears (�Islamophobia� in the lingo of psychology). The point he misses is, that this is not a crisis of identity for Europe, it�s a crisis of survival�a crisis that could very well result in the end of Christianity on the continent.

Many Catholic leaders have cast the refugee situation as a case of compassion versus intolerance. It�s much more complicated than that. But just as it�s difficult to ignore the image of the drowned boy, it�s difficult to argue with reminders that the Holy Family were refugees in Egypt, that the Jews were admonished to love the foreigner �because you were foreigners in the land of Egypt,� and that Christ told his disciples that in welcoming a stranger they were welcoming him.

But what if there are 44 million strangers in the land? That�s the estimated number of Muslims living in Europe (including Russia) as of 2010. Some of them are well-integrated into European society, but many others are not. They live in �no-go� zones; their women wear burqas; they speak Arabic, or Farsi, or Turkish; and their first allegiance is not to Germany or France, but to the ummah (the global Muslim community). Though they may have lived in Europe for years, they are still, in effect, strangers. Many seem unacquainted with Western standards of right and wrong�like the Muslim man in the UK who, after raping a thirteen-year-old girl, was spared a prison sentence when he explained to the judge that he didn�t know it was illegal.

Peter Hitchens recently observed that many of Europe�s �most influential people are set on committing a sentimental national suicide.� European and American elites seem to think that the only question at issue in the current crisis is �Will Europeans be compassionate?� But other crucial questions need to be asked, such as �Will Europe survive as Europe?�

Another question to ask is this: �Will Christianity in Europe survive the combination of Muslim immigration and European na�vet�?� It�s true that the Church has a duty to remind Christians of their obligation to help the needy, but is there a Christian duty to collaborate in the destruction of Christianity? To ask whether European Christianity can survive might seem to be an overly alarmist question. Yet it was a question that was ever present to Europeans in past centuries�particularly those who lived on the southern and eastern borders.

It�s no coincidence that Eastern Europeans are more resistant to Islamic immigration than those living in the West. Poles, Slovaks, and Hungarians have a long history of struggle with Muslim invaders. It�s estimated, for example, that Muslims enslaved a million persons from the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth between the fifteenth and eighteenth centuries.

If that seems like ancient history, consider that it was only twenty-five years ago that the East Europeans broke free of Communist rule. Having recently been enslaved by one totalitarian ideology, they are not anxious to repeat the experience with another oppressive system. As the Poles and Hungarians understand, caliphs and commissars can be equally unpleasant. Their recent subjugation by Communist overlords has no doubt refreshed their memories of earlier invaders.

One wonders what it will take to remind the Catholic Church of its own centuries-long struggle with Islam. The modern Church was quick to understand the totalitarian nature of communism. Catholic clergy, academics, and journalists were, on the whole, much more astute about the Communist menace than their secular counterparts. Yet they have been painfully slow in awakening to the dangers inherent in Islam. Let�s hope that will soon change.

_______

William Kilpatrick taught for many years at Boston College. He is the author of several books about cultural and religious issues, including Psychological Seduction; Why Johnny Can�t Tell Right From Wrong; and Christianity, Islam and Atheism: The Struggle for the Soul of the West. His articles have appeared in numerous publications, including Catholic World Report, National Catholic Register, Aleteia, Saint Austin Review, Investor�s Business Daily, and First Things. His work is supported in part by the Shillman Foundation. For more on his work and writings, visit his website, turningpointproject.com

Mosques and Massacres

Orthodox Christians may wish to study and share this fine summary of the linkage between mosques and outbursts of Muslim jihad terror attacks. We must face and admit the undeniable fact that there is murderous evil at the core of Islam. It is commanded in the Quran, was lived by Muhammad, is preached in the mosques, and is the cause behind the new age of martyrdom we have entered into.

Related: Challenging Mosque Expansions - The Time is Now (Includes direct links to four recent studies showing 80% of mosques in the U.S. teach offensive jihad and Islamic supremacism) 

Mosques and Massacres
by William Kilpatrick, Crisis Magazine � July 28, 2015

On June 26, Saif Rezgui walked on to a beach in Tunisia and opened fire on German, British, and Irish sunbathers in front of the Imperial Marhaba resort hotel, killing 39 and wounding dozens more. If various world leaders are to be believed, the massacre had nothing to do with Islam. In response to the attack which left thirty British citizens dead, Prime Minister David Cameron said the terrorism �is not in the name of Islam. Islam is a religion of peace.� A day later, Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott assured the world that �what�s being done by Daesh [the Islamic State] has nothing to do with God, it has nothing to do with religion.�

There was one notable exception to the usual nothing-to-do-with-Islam mantra. Immediately after the attack, Tunisia�s prime minister, Habib Essid, ordered the closing of 80 mosques.

Of course, the leader of a 98 percent Muslim country can�t be expected to understand Islam nearly as well as the leaders of Britain and Australia. Nevertheless, Essid�s action provides food for thought. Mosques, after all, do have something to do with Islam. �Some mosques continue to spread their propaganda and their venom to promote terrorism,� Essid reportedly said. �No mosque that does not conform to the law will be tolerated.�

According to a Reuters report, Rezgui was �a dedicated student from a stable family who enjoyed partying and practiced break dancing.� Until, that is, �he appeared to have come into contact with extremist preachers about six months ago.�

Where do you meet extremist preachers? In extremist mosques, of course�the same sort of places attended by the two terrorists who two months previously had killed 21 foreign tourists at the Bardo Museum in Tunis. According to Reuters, �the two Bardo gunmen were also radicalized in their local mosques by hardliners.�

Another indication that the beach massacre might have had something to do with Islam is that Rezgui only targeted foreigners. As he pursued the tourists, he shouted to Tunisians to �get out of the way.� Might that have had something to do with the fact that the Tunisians were likely to be Muslims and the tourists were likely not? One other confirmation of the religious motivation for the attack came from the Islamic State. A spokesman for IS praised the attack as an operation against a �bordello��a reference to the immodest dress of the beachgoers. Apparently, cartoons of Muhammad are not the only thing that hardline Muslims consider as provocation sufficient to warrant murder.

Not all mosques are centers of extremist radicalization. On the other hand, it�s likely that the average Westerner grossly underestimates the percentage of radical mosques. Fr. Samir Khalil Samir, an Egyptian Jesuit who is also an expert on Islam, writes:

In many Muslim countries � the mosques are monitored by the police on Friday. There is a simple reason for this: many political decisions start from the mosque during the Friday khutba [sermon]. Historians of Islam know that many riots and revolutions were launched from the mosques and that jihad is often proclaimed during the khutba.

Not coincidentally, many of the Arab Spring demonstrations in 2011 were set in motion from mosques following Friday prayers. And again, it�s probably no coincidence that Rezgui scheduled his massacre for a Friday during the holy month of Ramadan.

It�s tempting to think that the mosque-mayhem connection is something that�s peculiar to Arab societies, but four separate studies of American mosques revealed that about eighty percent of them provide extremist literature and occasionally feature extremist preachers. While this doesn�t mean that every American mosque is a hotbed of terrorism, it does suggest cause for concern. For example, two very prominent American mosques which have long been thought to be of the moderate mainstream kind are now known to be connected with numerous terrorists, some of them of the high-profile variety. Major Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood jihadist, was mentored at the Dar Al-Hijra Mosque in Falls Church, Virginia. So were three of the 9/11 hijackers. And the person who was mentoring them was Anwar Al-Awlaki, who later became one of the chiefs of operations for Al-Qaeda in Yemen. Meanwhile, the Islamic Society of Boston has two mosques (one in Boston and one in Cambridge) which were attended by the Tsarnaev brothers and nearly a dozen other known terrorists, including the founder of Boston�s Islamic society, Abduraham Alamoudi, who is currently serving a twenty-three-year prison term for terror-related activities.

Christians assume that mosques, like churches, are simply places of prayer. Many of them are, but many mosques are also places of recruitment and radicalization�staging areas for jihad. Subsequent to the beach massacre, weapons caches were found in forty Tunisian mosques. As a popular Muslim poem puts it, �The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets, and the faithful our soldiers.�

Not all Muslims think of mosques in this way, but as Prime Minister Essid understands, a not insignificant number do. He is not alone in this assessment. As Fr. Samir notes, Muslim governments have historically kept a close eye on mosque activities. Muslim leaders may give lip service to the notion that violence has nothing to do with Islam, but their actions tell a different story. Western leaders need to start paying attention.

William Kilpatrick � 'Needed: A New Church Policy Toward Islam, Part 1 of 3'

I was revisiting this outstanding 3-part series today, and realized I somehow posted #3 as #1, and that I never actually posted Part 1!  Therefore, I am reposting it now.

Perhaps this is providential, as I think this is one of the best works on the subject of how the Church should approach the challenge of Islam.

William Kilpatrick wrote these articles for a Roman Catholic audience, but the questions raised are equally pertinent for Orthodox, Coptic, and all Eastern Christians. Indeed, everyone can profit by his patient reasoning. 

I humbly urge any Orthodox hierarchs and clergy reading this to spend some time with this series, and add these issues to your synodal and deanery agendas. 

Part One of a Three Part Series. See Part 2, Part 3.

Needed: A New Church Policy Toward Islam

By William Kilpatrick, Crisis Magazine � January 28, 2015

PART 1: THE DILEMMA

In a speech to Egypt�s top Islamic authorities, President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi called for a �religious revolution.� Why? Because he believes that Islam has problems: �That corpus of texts and ideas that we have sacralized over the centuries � is antagonizing the entire world.� He continued: �Is it possible that 1.6 billion people should want to kill the rest of the world�s inhabitants�?� He then warned the assembled imams not to �remain trapped within this mindset� but to �reflect on it from a more enlightened perspective.�

However you interpret el-Sisi�s remarks, it�s clear that he believes the problems of Islam are not the fault of a tiny minority. He seems to think that a great many are to blame, and he particularly singles out Islamic religious leaders, whom he holds �responsible before Allah� on �Judgment Day.� And, most tellingly, he refuses to indulge in the this-has-nothing-to-do-with-Islam excuse favored by Western leaders. Rather, he states that �the entire umma [Islamic world]� is �a source of anxiety, danger, killing and destruction for the rest of the world� because of �the thinking that we hold most sacred.�

By contrast, after his visit to Turkey, Pope Francis compared Islamic fundamentalists to Christian fundamentalists and said that �in all religions there are these little groups.� A little over a year ago in his apostolic exhortation, he joined the ranks of those who say that terror has nothing to do with Islam by observing that �authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence.�

So the leader of the largest Muslim country in the Arab world thinks that the entire Islamic world is suffused with dangerous and destructive thinking, and the leader of the Catholic Church thinks terror is the work of a few misunderstanders of Islam.

Or does he?

It�s very likely that when world leaders say that terror has nothing to do with Islam, many of them do so for reasons of state. In other words, they are afraid that if they say anything else they will provoke more violence.

Is this the case with the Pope? My guess is probably not. The Pope does not seem the type to dissemble. He, along with many of the bishops, seems to genuinely believe that Islam is a religion of peace that has been hijacked for nefarious purposes.

One of the unspoken hopes of Church and secular leaders is that by saying Islam is a religion of peace... eventually even the Islamists will believe it and begin to act peacefully.

Still, even if many prelates do entertain doubts about the peaceful nature of Islam, it can be argued that the present policy of saying positive things about Islam makes sense from a strategic point of view. A great many Christians live as minorities in Muslim lands, and the wrong word might put them in danger. After Pope Benedict�s Regensburg reference to the violent nature of Islam, Muslims took out their anger on Christians living in their midst. And things have worsened since then. Christians in Iraq, Syria, Nigeria, Pakistan, and elsewhere already live at peril of their lives. Why make it any worse for them?

There�s another argument for this power-of-positive-thinking approach, although it�s an argument that�s best left unsaid. One of the unspoken hopes of Church and secular leaders is, undoubtedly, that such an approach will set in motion a self-fulfilling prophecy. Keep saying that Islam is a religion of peace and eventually even the Islamists will believe it and begin to act peacefully.

Of course, jihadists aren�t the main target of this strategy. Even if hardcore Islamists remain unmoved by this flattering of their faith, the tactic will�or so it is supposed�have the merit of reinforcing moderate Muslims in their moderation. If Catholic prelates were to start criticizing Islam itself instead of the terrorist �betrayers� of Islam, they would risk alienating peaceful Muslims. A hardline policy might even have the effect of pushing moderates into the radical camp. Better, from a strategic point of view, to stress our commonalities with Muslims. If they see us as a brother religion, they are more likely to protect the Christians in their midst.

Whether or not this is the reasoning at the Vatican, I don�t know. But such a strategy is not without merit. In Islam, blasphemy and slander are taken quite seriously and any criticism of Islam or its prophet can be construed as blasphemous. Slander is defined even more loosely. One of the most authoritative sharia law books defines it as �saying anything about a person that he would dislike.� That covers a lot of territory. So the argument that drawing attention to the violent side of Islam will only incite further violence is a compelling one.

On the other hand, there are good reasons for questioning the Church�s accommodative approach. The primary and most practical one is that it doesn�t seem to have worked. The let�s-be-friends approach has been in place even since Vatican II, but other than dialoguers congratulating themselves on the friendships they have made, it hasn�t yielded much in the way of results. Christians in Muslim lands are less safe than they have been for centuries. So, for that matter, are Muslims themselves.

What�s wrong with the diplomatic approach? Well, look at it first from the Islamic point of view. Islam is a religion that respects strength. It was spread mainly by the sword. To say that it is a peaceful religion might elicit reassuring responses from those Muslims who, like their Western counterparts, are constrained by diplomatic protocols, but from others it elicits scorn. The Ayatollah Khomeini put it this way: �Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those are witless.�

Muslims of Khomeini�s ilk don�t care whether or not others think of Islam as peaceful, they only care whether God is on their side. A weak response from the enemy, whether on the battlefield or from the pulpit proves that he is. Appeasement on the part of prelates reinforces the conviction held by many Muslims that Christianity is an inferior religion, not worthy of respect. By the same token, it reinforces the belief that Islam is the superior religion, deserving of special respect. �Allahu akbar� doesn�t mean �let�s dialogue�; it means �God is greater� and its specific meaning to Muslims is that their God is greater than your god. Duke University recently reversed its decision to allow the Muslim Student Association to chant the call to prayer from the massive chapel bell tower, but if the decision had held it would not have been seen as a sign of Duke�s commitment to cultural diversity but as a sign that it is on the road to submission. Duke was founded by Methodist Episcopalians and was originally called Trinity College. The Muslim call to prayer includes the words �Allahu akbar,� and the Allah they call upon is decidedly not a Trinity.

Islam, which considers itself to be the best religion on the planet, is also the touchiest religion on the planet. The way you show Islam respect is not by treating it as an equal but by treating it with deference. Not doing or saying anything to offend Muslims might seem like a wise strategy, but once you adopt it, you�re already on a slippery slope. Islam has an insatiable appetite for deference, and there is no end to the things that offend Muslims. The word �Islam,� after all, means submission, and that, ultimately, is how non-Muslims are expected to show respect. Catholics who are worried about offending Islam might note that in Saudi Arabia the mere presence of a Catholic church is considered offensive. Will the wearing of a cross by a Christian student at Duke someday be considered intolerably offensive to the Muslim students? How much of your weekly salary would you be willing to wager against that eventuality?

Muslims who are disaffected from Islam aren�t likely to convert to another religion which proudly proclaims its commonality with the faith they would love to leave.

Of course there are many Muslims who are tolerant and open-minded, but in much of the Muslim world they keep their open-mindedness to themselves. What about them? The Church�s current �diplomatic� policy runs the risk of increasing their sense of hopelessness. Islam is an oppressive religious and social system. Many Muslims feel trapped by it. President el-Sisi acknowledged as much when he urged Egypt�s imams not to �remain trapped within this mindset.� When Christian leaders won�t acknowledge the oppression, it reinforces the �trapped� Muslim�s belief that he has nowhere to turn. The problem is compounded when Church leaders insist on expressing their respect for Islam and their solidarity with Islamic religious leaders. Muslims who are disaffected from Islam aren�t likely to convert to another religion which proudly proclaims its commonality with the faith they would love to leave.

The current approach is unlikely to win over many Muslims. At the same time, it�s likely to alienate a lot of Christians. For one thing, it does a disservice to Christian victims of Islamic persecution. As I observed in a previous column:

Such an approach also tends to devalue the sacrifices of those Christians in Muslim lands who have had the courage to resist submission to Islam. It must be highly discouraging to be told that the religion in whose name your friends and relatives have been slaughtered is prized and esteemed by the Church.

That�s not to say that Church leaders shouldn�t exercise discretion in what they say. During World War II, Vatican officials understood that saying the wrong thing about the Nazis could result in retaliation against both Jews and Catholics. On the other hand, they did not go out of their way to express their esteem and respect for Nazis and thus risk demoralizing Christians who lived under Nazi control. In order to protect Christians and Jews in Nazi-occupied Europe and later in Communist-controlled Eastern Europe, the Vatican did exercise a degree of diplomatic caution. But that diplomacy was based on an accurate understanding of Nazi and Communist ideology. It�s not at all clear that today�s Church leaders possess a correspondingly clear-eyed understanding of Islamic theology/ideology. The current outreach to Islam seems to be based more on wishful thinking than on fact. And, as Pope Francis himself observed in Evangelii Gaudium, �Ideas disconnected from realities give rise to ineffectual forms of idealism� (232).

�Ideas disconnected from realities� is a good way to describe the Church�s Islam policy. That policy does not seem to have done much to prevent persecution of Christians in Muslim lands. How about Catholics who do not live in the danger zones? Catholics who live in the West and rely on the Church for their understanding of Islam can be forgiven if they still remain complacent about the Islamic threat. That�s because there is absolutely nothing in recent official Church statements that would lead them to think that there is anything to worry about. Lumen Gentium? Nostra Aetate? The Catechism of the Catholic Church? Evangelii Gaudium? All discuss Islam, but not in a way that would raise the slightest concern. The Catholic who wonders what to think about Islamic terrorism and then consults his Catechism only to find that �together with us they adore the one, merciful God� will likely conclude that terrorists are distorting and misinterpreting their religion. Confident that the Church has spoken definitively on the matter, he�ll roll over and go back to sleep.

It�s ironic that a Catholic can get a better grasp of the Islamic threat by listening to a short speech by Egyptian President el-Sisi than by listening to a hundred reassuring statements from Catholic bishops.

Conversely, Catholics who do not rely strictly on the Church for their assessment of Islam are in for a bout of cognitive dissonance. On the one hand, they know what the Church says. On the other hand, they can read the news and note the obvious discrepancy. As time goes by and as car bombings and beheadings occur at more frequent intervals in the West, dissonance is likely to be replaced by disrespect. Church officials who keep repeating the one-sided narrative about �authentic� Islam will lose credibility. Catholics won�t necessarily lose their faith, but it will be sorely tested. At the least, they will stop trusting their bishops on this issue. The trouble with �ideas disconnected from realities� is that they eventually do bump up against realities, and when they do, the bearers of those ideas lose respect. A good case can be made that Catholic leaders should pursue a policy geared toward weakening Muslims� faith in Islam (a proposition I will discuss in the next installment), but the current policy seems more likely to undermine the faith that Catholics have in their shepherds. It�s ironic that a Catholic can get a better grasp of the Islamic threat by listening to a short speech by President el-Sisi than by listening to a hundred reassuring statements from Catholic bishops.

Of course, it�s not enough to simply criticize the Church�s current policy without proposing a viable alternative option. That�s something I propose to do in my next column.

William Kilpatrick: 'How to Alienate Moderate Muslims'

"If the moderate Muslim was inclined to resist the radicals, he will be less likely to do so if he looks around and notices that no one else is resisting... Why should he stick his neck out?"

William Kilpatrick makes a compelling case for resisting encroaching Islamization and the creeping advance of sharia culture in America.

See also my post, Freedom, Provocation and Targets: 'No Cartoons Required'

How to Alienate Moderate Muslims
by William Kilpatrick, Crisis Magazine � May 26, 2015

The winning cartoon of Muhammad. I post this because I still can!

The recent �draw Muhammad� contest in Garland, Texas not only drew fire from two armed jihadists, it also drew fire from Christian leaders and media critics. One of the chief objections was that events of this type will alienate moderate Muslims and possibly drive them into the radical camp.

It can just as easily be argued, however, that caving on the cartoon issue is more likely to result in a defection of moderate Muslims than the drawings themselves. And caving seems to be the order of the day. The Muhammad art exhibit and cartoon contest has been roundly criticized not only by the usual suspects in the liberal media but also by conservative journalists and conservative religious leaders such as Franklin Graham. In general, the critics say that free speech is a wonderful thing, but that it should never be used to insult what is most sacred to others.

When Franklin Graham registers his disapproval, it�s undoubtedly because he genuinely believes that it�s wrong to mock another person�s deeply held faith. On the other hand, when secular opinion-makers voice the same concern, it�s probably because they are genuinely afraid. Any moderately informed moderate Muslim knows that secular pundits have no problem if someone mocks the things held sacred by Catholics or Mormons [or Orthodox!]. He will understand that what�s at issue is not whether religion is insulted, but whether Islam is insulted. And, if the most powerful players in the media are afraid of Islam, why wouldn�t he be?

If the moderate Muslim was inclined to resist the radicals, he will be less likely to do so if he looks around and notices that no one else is resisting, except for a handful of people whom the media has labeled as �haters.� Why should he stick his neck out? If the supposed guardians of free speech who are relatively safe from retaliation nevertheless bow to Islamic law, then prudence suggests that he do the same. The constant kowtowing to Islamic demands has the result of putting increased pressure on the moderate Muslim to do some kowtowing of his own. He won�t necessarily join forces with the jihadists, but neither will he do much to oppose them.

One of the ways that the ever-helpful mainstream media is helping the public come to the �right� conclusion about the Garland event is by neglecting to say much about the context surrounding it. Three months before the cartoon contest, Islamic activist groups staged a �Stand with the Prophet� rally in Garland calling for restrictions on speech that is offensive to Islam. It was held in the same room in the same conference center. So the Muhammad art exhibit didn�t pop up out of nowhere. It was a response to the earlier event.

The cartoon contest is best understood not as a gratuitous provocation of Muslims, but as a wake-up call to non-Muslims. It was meant, in part, to show just how far down the road to capitulation we have gone. If we have to abide by Islam�s rules about drawing Muhammad, we may be further down the road than most realize.

Where�s the line at which Americans will take their stand against encroaching Islamization? Judging by the media reaction to the Garland event, the right to robustly criticize the prophet is a line too far. What then? Will Americans draw the line when Muslims request that the sculpture of Muhammad be removed from the Supreme Court chamber? Probably not. Why make a fuss? How about demands for sharia law courts? I�m guessing that many Americans won�t find it difficult to convince themselves that Muslims should be allowed to settle disputes among themselves in their own courts of law. Burqas on buses? Compulsory courses on Islam? Court imposed fines for critics of Islam? All along the road to complete sharia compliance there will be numerous places where one might draw the line�and numerous reasons why it will be deemed prudent not to.

Islam is a religion that respects strength. As Osama bin Laden famously said, �When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature, they will like the strong horse.� This is not simply the idiosyncratic view of one extremist. As Lee Smith writes in The Strong Horse, it �represents the political and social norm� of the Middle-East. And of much of the rest of the Muslim world, as well. When Muslims view the controversy surrounding the cartoon event, they look upon it not as a contest between the forces of tolerance against the forces of �hateful� provocateurs, but as a contest of Islam against non-Islam. The Muhammad cartoon exhibit was a battle in a campaign to see whether or not Islam will dominate. The event organizers understand that. And so do most Muslims.

Many Americans think that if the contest organizers lose the opinion wars, then pluralism is the winner. Most Muslims will look at the issue in a different way. A defeat for the organizers makes it more likely that there will, indeed, be no future for those who slander the prophet of Islam. And that means not much of a future for those moderate Muslims who have only a lukewarm regard for the prophet.

The craven reaction to the cartoon incident comes on top of a number of other Western capitulations to sharia culture, if not always to sharia law. In view of these numerous victories, the moderate Muslim will reasonably conclude that militant Islam is the strong horse. When he places his bets for a secure future for himself and his family, he will place them on the side that looks to be the winning side.

If the citizens of the West are interested in keeping moderate Muslims moderate, they had better start showing more backbone when it comes to defending their freedoms. Many American Muslims no doubt hope that they can continue to live in a sharia-free society. But if their fellow Americans continue to kick the can down the road, it will become increasingly dangerous for them to express that hope. The surest way to push moderate Muslims into the arms of the radicals is to signal to them that if they resist sharia, they�re on their own�they can expect little sympathy and even less in the way of government protection. The response to the cartoon controversy suggests that no one will cover your back if you stand up to extremists. After all, it will be argued, people who won�t conform to Islamic norms are just asking for trouble.

William Kilpatrick: 'Needed: A New Church Policy Toward Islam [Pt. 3]'

Here is the final installment of William Kilpatrick's important three-part series advocating for a fearless, faith-based, and vigorous Church policy towards Islam. Although writing for a Roman Catholic audience, Kilpatrick's observations apply equally to the Orthodox Church:

"Theologically, Islam is a house of cards. It can�t stand up to examination, which is why Islam�s guardians go ballistic at the least hint of criticism. Nevertheless, Catholics [and Orthodox] should start making the case while there is still time � before the questioning of Islam becomes a crime, or before the Islamic world goes ballistic in the literal sense of the term."

Read and share widely, along with Part 1 and Part 2. 


Needed: A New Church Policy Toward Islam [Pt. 3]
by William Kilpatrick, Crisis Magazine � February 11, 2015

In his book America Alone, Mark Steyn observed that �there is no market for a faith that has no faith in itself.� He was referring to Christianity�s loss of faith in itself as exemplified by the decline of Christianity in Europe and the corresponding rise of Islam�a faith that does have faith in itself.

A new Church policy toward Islam should be geared toward reversing that situation�that is, undercutting Islam�s faith in itself while at the same time strengthening the faith of Christians. Many others have written about the second half of the equation, so let me concentrate on the first. How do you sow the seeds of doubt in the minds of Muslims?

I�ve already addressed the objection that sowing doubts is not a nice thing to do. Many Catholics seem to believe that religion is ipso facto a good thing, which means that weakening someone�s religious faith would be a terrible thing to do. Yet history provides many examples of religions that seem best consigned to the past�for example, the child-sacrificing religion of the Carthaginians and the human-sacrificing religion of the Aztecs.

Catholics are reluctant to put Islam in the same category as the Carthaginians for two reasons: First, Islam is a very big religion�the faith of a billion and a half people. Second, Islam bears a superficial similarity to Christianity; Muslims believe in one God and they �revere� Jesus. Yet it�s estimated that some 270 million people have been killed in the name of Islam over the centuries�far more than the combined total of all those killed in the name of Nazism or communism. It�s not politically correct to compare Islam to totalitarian ideologies, yet many respected authorities including Catholic authorities, have done just that. Consider this entry from the 1910 edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia: 

In matters political, Islam is a system of despotism at home and aggression abroad�. The rights of non-Muslim subjects are of the vaguest and most limited kind, and a religious war is a sacred duty whenever there is a chance of success against the �Infidel'.

As I suggested in the previous column, a new policy toward Islam should be based on the assumption that Islam is an ideological enemy, just as communism once was and still is. The idea is to wean people away from the ideology by undermining and discrediting it, and also by offering a better alternative. Because Islam has proven itself to be a totalitarian system, we should try to weaken faith in it just as, during the Cold War, the West (with considerable help from the Catholic Church) attempted to weaken faith in communism.

Once you�ve studied up on Islam, the first thing you realize is that the key to sowing the seeds of disbelief is Muhammad himself... If he is discredited, Islam is discredited. 

But it�s difficult to give other people second thoughts about their religion if you don�t know the first thing about it yourself. And there are numerous indications that Catholic authorities are badly informed about Islam�else why do they continue to maintain, in the face of overwhelming evidence, that Islam is a religion of peace? So the first thing that Catholics need to do is to get up to speed on Islam.

Getting up to speed means that you won�t be thrown for a loop the next time a Muslim apologist (or a Catholic defender of Islam) quotes the Koran to the effect that �there shall be no compulsion in religion� (2: 256). You could confidently reply that that verse is cancelled out by the Koranic doctrine of abrogation (2: 106). Or you could point out that the non-compulsion clause doesn�t square with the apostasy laws. Islamic authorities are universally agreed that the penalty for apostasy is death. It seems safe to say that most rational people would agree that the prospect of being killed if you leave Islam is a form of compulsion. For the exact citation about the penalty in one of the most authoritative Islamic law books see Reliance of the Traveller 0.8.1 and 0.8.2.

Another Koranic verse that is frequently used to reassure Islam illiterates is this one: �We laid it down for the Israelites that whoever killed a human being � shall be regarded as having killed all mankind� (5: 32). That sounds fine unless you happen to be familiar with the next verse:

Those that make war against God and His apostle and spread disorder in the land shall be slain or crucified or have their hands and feet cut off on opposite sides (5:33).

The trouble is, too many Catholics, including a great many in the Catholic leadership, aren�t familiar with the Koran or, for that matter, with the Sira, the Hadith, or the Islamic law books. They seem content to rely on whatever Islamic apologists tell them about Islam. All that is necessary to deconstruct and dismantle the political-religious ideology of Islam is readily available in the Islamic sources, but Catholics first need to become acquainted with them.

Once you�ve studied up on Islam, the first thing you realize is that the key to sowing the seeds of disbelief is Muhammad himself�he who must not be maligned. The prophet is Islam�s main prop. The whole religion rests on his veracity. If he is discredited, Islam is discredited. We often hear of the five pillars of Islam, but Muhammad is the essential pillar. And he is a surprisingly fragile one. He is Islam�s link to the Almighty, but also its weakest link.

Islamic leaders intuitively understand this. Which is why any cartoon or criticism of Muhammad is met with displays of rage and fury. An attack on Muhammad is an attack on the whole faith. As some experts on Islam have suggested, criticism of Muhammad is a more serious offense than criticism of Allah. To get an idea of Muhammad�s centrality, consider that there is no corresponding outcry among Muslims when Jesus is mocked or caricatured in a cartoon. Yet, according to Muslims, Jesus is also a great prophet and is, in fact, considered to be the greatest Muslim prophet after Muhammad. The truth, however, is that the Muslim Jesus plays a relatively minor role in Islam. For strategic reasons, the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation�s anti-blasphemy resolutions are formulated to protect all prophets from slander, but in practice the only prophet that matters is Muhammad.

Jesus�the real Jesus, that is�has survived a good deal of mockery over the centuries. More to the point, he has survived the tests of critical and historical analysis that have been applied to Christian scripture. If anything, the examination has served to strengthen the case for the trustworthiness of the New Testament accounts. It�s highly unlikely, however, that Muhammad could survive a similar examination. That is why, from a survivalist perspective, it ought to be undertaken.

For example, did he even exist? Contrary to what is commonly supposed, the case for the historical Muhammad is not nearly as well-established as the case for people who lived long before him such as Julius Caesar, Cicero, Alexander the Great, Aristotle, and Pericles. Some scholars have suggested that the stories about Muhammad are more legend than fact, and some suggest that Muhammad was the creation of Arab conquerors who needed to invent an historical and theological justification for their conquests. 

Revelations about Muhammad�s� character are the main reason that Muslims leave Islam.

In any event, there is little historical or archaeological evidence to confirm the traditional story of Muhammad. The question of his existence is an avenue of inquiry that merits further exploration. Yet, curiously, few seem willing to explore it. However, there are some exceptions. Some books on the subject for a non-scholarly audience are Emmet Scott�s Mohammed and Charlemagne Revisited, Norbert Pressburg�s What the Modern Martyr Should Know, and Robert Spencer�s Did Muhammad Exist? (which includes a helpful bibliography of scholarly sources). Was Muhammad more myth than man? If so, the next pertinent question is the one raised by Spencer: �Are jihadists dying for a fiction?�

If Muhammad did exist as traditionally portrayed and if the canonical accounts of his life are accurate, then there are some questions about his character and credibility that need to be asked. 

According to Raymond Ibrahim, revelations about Muhammad�s� character are the main reason that Muslims leave Islam. Muhammad is supposed to be the perfect man, and it comes as a shock to many Muslims when they discover he was far from perfect. A youngster�s first encounter with Muhammad is likely to come in the form of hagiographic stories that describe him as noble and saintly. It can be sobering to eventually learn that Muhammad ordered mass executions of defenseless people, traded slaves, permitted rape, married a six year old, married his own daughter-in-law, and engaged in deceit and trickery. And that�s only the short list. Fr. Zakaria Botros, a Coptic priest whose TV show is broadcast to the Arab world, sometimes presents a catalogue of Muhammad�s sexual habits and then asks his Muslim audience: �Is this the prophet I follow?� It�s a good question to put to the members of an honor culture because if the leader you are following is a dishonorable man, then your own honor is at stake if you continue to follow him.

Of course, when evaluating a prophet, the most important character trait to consider is honesty. Did Muhammad really receive a revelation from the angel Gabriel, or did he make the whole thing up? We have only his word for it. There is no other corroborating evidence. Here is where the historical-critical method comes in handy. Exhibit A is the Koran. It�s supposed to be the eternal word of God. Muslims say that Muhammad couldn�t possibly have invented it because he was (supposedly) illiterate. The proof that God wrote it, they say, lies in its inimitable style: who else but God could write so well? This is a little hard to swallow because, although there are beautiful passages in the Koran, much of it does look as though it were written by a semi-literate merchant. Well, that�s a little harsh. It�s more accurate to say that it seems to have been written by someone with a flair for poetic language, but with little sense of composition and with limited storytelling ability. Here are a couple of scholarly assessments:

His characters are all alike, and they utter the same platitudes. He is fond of dramatic dialogue, but has very little sense of dramatic scene or action. The logical connections between successive episodes is often loose, sometimes wanting; and points of importance, necessary for the clear understanding of the story, are likely to be left out. (C.C. Torrey, The Jewish Foundation of Islam, New York, 1933, p. 108) 

The book aesthetically considered is by no means a first-rate performance�indispensable links, both in expression and in the sequence of events, are often omitted � and nowhere do we find a steady advance in the narration � and even the syntax betrays great awkwardness�. (Theodor Noldeke in Encyclopedia Britannica, 11^th ed., Vol. 15, pp. 898-906)

The Muslim comeback to such quibbling is that people who can�t read classical Arabic can�t possibly appreciate the Koran. The soaring style and lilting language of it are simply lost on the Arabic-challenged. In short, if you don�t speak Arabic, then who are you to judge?

When I first came across this argument, it seemed to make sense�for a few minutes, anyway. Then I remembered that I don�t read Greek either, but when I read Homer in translation I can usually distinguish the parts where he is telling a ripping good story from the parts where he is merely nodding. For that matter, I don�t read Russian, but when I read Tolstoy in translation I can appreciate the beauty of his descriptions while noticing at the same time that he occasionally goes on too long about peasants cutting hay in the fields. You don�t have to read French to appreciate Balzac or Italian to appreciate Manzoni. Why is Arabic the only language that doesn�t translate?

There are tedious passages in the Bible, too. Most of us, I daresay, tend to skip over the �so-and-so-begat-so-and-so� parts. But this does not present a serious problem for Christians since most do not consider the Bible to be a word-for-word dictation from God. Likewise, the fact that parts of the Bible are problematic from a scientific point of view doesn�t vitiate the authenticity of the scriptures. The human writers of the Bible were limited by the scientific knowledge of their times. However, when the Koran says that the earth is flat and is composed of seven layers, Muslims are faced with a problem. On the one hand, Allah, the author of the Koran, would have unlimited scientific knowledge; on the other hand, he is uttering obvious scientific falsehoods.

If the tools of textual criticism were applied to the Koran, it would be difficult to avoid the conclusion that it is a fabrication�if not of Muhammad�s making, then of someone else�s. One glaring clue is that the author of the Koran, whoever he was, keeps insisting that it�s not a fabrication. The phrase �this is not an invented tale,� or some variation thereof, is repeated dozens of times in the Koran. For example, verse 10:37-38 declares �This Koran could not have been devised by any but God�. It is beyond doubt from the Lord of the Universe. If they say: �He invented it himself,� say, �Bring me one chapter like it.�� The net effect of all these self-referential attestations to the authenticity of the Koran is to cast doubt on its authenticity. It�s as though your neighbor is telling you a fish story and feels compelled to assure you at regular intervals that �It�s the God�s honest truth. I swear!� The more he protests the truth of his account, the more you doubt it.

If Muhammad is the key to casting doubts about Islam, Jesus provides the path out of Islam. 

Whether out of fear or out of politeness, the Koran has not been subject to the searching examination that historians, archaeologists, linguists, and textual critics have applied to the Bible. To put it bluntly, it would never survive such an examination. The same holds true of the Jesus of the Koran. He is not a believable character. In fact, he hardly rises to the level of a character. He is more like a disembodied voice than a person. The portrait of him in the Koran is so one-dimensional that to call him a stick figure would not do justice to sticks.

Which brings us to the other Jesus�the real one. If Muhammad is the key to casting doubts about Islam, Jesus of Nazareth provides the path out of Islam. The penalty for converting away from Islam is death, so it takes a fairly compelling reason to convert�such as Jesus himself. According to various reports, a surprisingly high percentage of Muslim conversions to Christianity result from a dream or vision of Jesus�the Christian Jesus, that is.

This suggests a promising avenue of approach for evangelists, apologists, and theologians. Instead of congratulating Muslims on revering the same Jesus we do (it�s not the same Jesus), try to introduce them to the real story of the real Jesus. Most Muslims aren�t familiar with the Gospel story. Most have learned that the Bible should not be consulted because they are taught that Christians and Jews have thoroughly corrupted the text. The true story, they believe, is the story of Jesus that�s presented in the Koran. And since it�s not a very interesting story, they can be forgiven if they think that Jesus is not a particularly compelling figure.

So, one of the first orders of business is to convey the story of Jesus, whether through the Gospels or in film or in simplified story versions. How exactly this message should be conveyed is a matter I will leave up to Christian professionals who know more about media and communications than I do. 

However, it�s important to remember that Muslim countries have high rates of illiteracy. Audio and visual messages are more likely to have an effect. One other thing to keep in mind is that Islam is a religion that emphasizes power. For that reason it seems important to underscore the power of Christ�the casting out of demons and moneychangers, the healing of the lame and blind, the raising of the dead, the fearlessness in the face of authorities, the final triumph over death itself. And, of course, Muslims need to be informed that at the Last Judgment, it is Jesus Christ, not Isa, who will do the judging.

Who is the real Jesus and what is the true account of his life? A Muslim who becomes acquainted with both versions�the Gospel account and the Koranic account�gets to see that Jesus of Nazareth is a far more compelling figure than the Isa of the Koran. What�s more, he is a far more believable person than Isa. As I wrote elsewhere:

In using Jesus for his own ends, Muhammad neglects to give him any personality. The Jesus of the New Testament is a recognizable human being; the Jesus of the Koran is more like a phantom. When did he carry out his ministry? There is not a hint. Where did he live? Again, there is no indication. Where was he born? Under a palm tree. That�s about as specific as it gets in the Koran. In short, Muhammad�s Jesus is a nebulous figure. He seems to exist neither in time nor in space. In the Gospels, you meet Jesus of Nazareth; in the Koran, you meet someone who can best be described as Jesus of Neverland.

In short, the Gospel story has the ring of authenticity. It provides an abundance of geographical and historical detail. It pays close attention to persons, places, and events. When Jesus and his disciples converse, it actually sounds like human conversation rather than (as in the Koran) cryptic voices from the ethersphere. Conversely, the author of the Koran seems to know almost nothing about the life of Jesus�not even the names of his disciples. Set against the Gospel story, the story of the Muslim Jesus rings exceedingly hollow�which may be one reason that there are no Bibles for sale in Saudi Arabia.

There is much more than can be said on the subject of casting doubt among the followers of the prophet. For instance, any theologian worth his salt could have a field day taking apart the idea that seventy-two virgins await the martyr in paradise. But the upshot is that the case for Christianity is considerably stronger than the case for Islam. Theologically, Islam is a house of cards. It can�t stand up to examination, which is why Islam�s guardians go ballistic at the least hint of criticism. Nevertheless, Catholics should start making the case while there is still time�before the questioning of Islam becomes a crime, or before the Islamic world goes ballistic in the literal sense of the term.

Which brings us to the subject of Church diplomacy�a subject which I don�t have space to discuss here. What I�ve outlined above are some theological initiatives that Catholics should be taking. I�ve left aside the whole issue of Vatican diplomacy because it�s a subject unto itself.

In a future column, I plan to address the question of how the Church can apply various types of diplomatic pressure.

_______

William Kilpatrick taught for many years at Boston College. He is the author of several books about cultural and religious issues, including Psychological Seduction; Why Johnny Can�t Tell Right From Wrong; and Christianity, Islam and Atheism: The Struggle for the Soul of the West. He is also the author of a new book entitled Insecurity. His articles have appeared in numerous publications, including Catholic World Report, National Catholic Register, Aleteia, Saint Austin Review, Investor�s Business Daily, and FrontPage Magazine. His work is supported in part by the Shillman Foundation.

William Kilpatrick � 'Needed: A New Church Policy toward Islam [Pt. 2]'

Kilpatrick's analysis and proposed policy shift applies as much to the Orthodox Church as it does to his original Roman Catholic audience. Consider this excerpt:

"Church policy should at least be redirected toward telling the truth to fellow [Orthodox]. Right now, [Orthodox Christians] are being seriously misled about the nature of Islam...  The bishops don�t necessarily have to censure Islam, but they also don�t have to talk about their esteem for it... You can express your respect for Muslims, but do you really want to express your respect for Islam?"

See also: Part 1, Part 3.

'Needed: A New Church Policy toward Islam [Pt. 2]'

by William Kilpatrick, Crisis Magazine � February 4, 2015

In my last column, I promised to propose an alternative to the Church�s current policy toward Islam. The main question I raised then can be put this way: If there is something in Islam itself that is conducive to violence, should Church leaders say so, or should they, for prudential reasons, keep echoing the secular mantra that Islamic violence has nothing to do with Islam?

The prudential consideration actually cuts both ways. By taking a more forthright stand, you risk offending moderate Muslims and possibly endangering Christians who live in Muslim lands. On the other hand, by rushing to the defense of the Islamic faith, you risk confusing Christians and lulling them into complacency at a time when they need to be on their toes.

The pope�s recent comments about the Muhammad-mocking Charlie Hebdo cartoons illustrate the dilemma. After insisting that �you cannot kill in the name of God,� he added, �You cannot provoke, you cannot insult the faith of others, you cannot make fun of the faith.� �We have an obligation to speak freely,� said Francis, �but without offending.�

There�s the rub. What if the ideology or religion you wish to talk freely about has an infinite capacity for being offended? What if all discussion is out-of-bounds? Not just ribald and deliberately offensive cartoons, but calm and reasoned analysis of religious texts and teachings? As Pope Francis says, it�s not a good idea to gratuitously provoke others, but what�s missing from his observation is an understanding of the current context surrounding discussions of free speech.

The larger context is that Islam wants to shut down any speech critical of Islam in any way. By �Islam,� I don�t mean every Muslim in the world. But how about the OIC�the Organization of Islamic Cooperation? Comprised of fifty-seven Muslim-majority nations and the Palestinian Authority, it�s the largest Islamic body in the world and also the largest bloc at the UN. What�s the chief project of the OIC? According to one observer, �For more than a decade, �the collective voice of the Muslim world� has spread the belief that any insult directed against the Muslim faith or its prophet demands absolute suppression.� The OIC has relentlessly pushed its agenda in the UN by lobbying and by passing resolutions to prohibit the defamation of religion. Unfortunately, the OIC�s idea of what constitutes an insult is considerably broader than the pope�s. So is the penalty for insult. Whereas the pope will merely reproach you, the OIC wants to put you in jail. Its goal is to criminalize criticism of Islam and to punish Islamophobia with prison.

Not only is this a convenient way to silence people, it�s also an effective way of squelching any investigation of radical Muslim activities. Fear of being thought offensive has already put a crimp on national security measures to combat terrorism. As just one example, the NYPD�s very effective surveillance program of Islamist gathering sites was attacked as Islamophobic and was subsequently shut down. The brave new world envisioned by the OIC is not conducive either to free speech or security. It�s not just that you won�t be able to say that the emperor has no clothes, you won�t be able to point out that he�s carrying an AK-47 and a rocket launcher and has plans for an imminent attack on unbelievers.

"If we are seeing the beginning of a worldwide attack on Christianity, then the first duty of bishops is not to preserve Muslims from offense, but to preserve Christianity."

Church leaders have to consider that saying the wrong thing might endanger Christians living in Muslim-controlled territories. They also need to consider that not saying anything carries the risk that the whole world will become a Muslim-controlled territory. It�s a risk that some bishops seem willing to take. On a number of occasions, Catholic experts on the Islamist threat have been blocked from speaking to Catholic audiences. In Europe, a Catholic archbishop has forbidden Catholics to participate in anti-Islamization groups. According to some intelligence analysts, terrorist sleeper cells in the West are now under orders to activate themselves. Catholics, it seems, are under orders to stay asleep.

This tamping down of any critical views of Islam might still be the prudent thing to do, but only if you make the assumption that Islam has no interest in expanding its power. If, as Father James Schall recently observed, one of the main thrusts of the Islamic faith is to bring the House of War (non-Muslims) under the control of the House of Islam, then the prudent thing would be to acknowledge as much and act accordingly.

Once again, it�s a matter of grasping the larger context. What kind of situation are we in? Is it still a business-as-usual world�the kind of world in which we can afford to give priority to concerns about sensitivity and inclusivity? Or have we entered a new age�a new age not unlike those old ages of long ago when Christianity had to fight for its life? If we are seeing the beginning of a worldwide attack on Christianity, then the first duty of bishops is not to preserve Muslims from offense, but to preserve Christianity.

So let�s consider an alternative and, hopefully, more realistic strategy. The strategy is based on the assumption that Islam, not just radical Islam, is a threat to Christianity. The Muslim world can go through periods of quiescence in which Islam itself recedes into the background, but radicalism is part of the genetic structure of Islam. Any true �reform� of Islam is going to be of the �operation-was-successful-but-the-patient-died� variety. That is, if you were to eliminate all the violent, supremacist, and misogynist elements in Islam�s basic texts you wouldn�t have much left.

"We should work at discrediting Islam just as Western leaders, clergy, and intellectuals once worked to discredit other totalitarian ideologies such as Nazism and communism."

In a sense, the reformation of Islam has come and gone. During much of the last century, Islam was honored more in the breach than in the observance. Partly because of Westernization and partly because secular leaders kept a lid on Islam�s aggressive side, Muslims were able to develop a more moderate practice of Islam. But, as many observers have noted, this more moderate Islam really amounted to a loss of faith in Islam. Muslims began to think of themselves primarily in terms of their national or ethnic identity rather than as Muslims. Egyptians, for example, typically took more pride in the pyramids than in Muhammad�s conquests. As a former Iraqi cabinet minister put it, �It appeared to be only a matter of time before Islam would lose whatever hold it still had on the Muslim world.�

"Jihad for the sake of Allah is not some unfortunate deviation from the true faith, it�s an integral part of that faith.

To put it bluntly (although for prudential reasons you might want to blunt your bluntness) Church policy should be aimed at weakening faith in Islam. This is the reverse of the current policy, which is built on the assumption that there is a good (authentic) Islam and a bad (inauthentic) Islam and we should therefore reinforce Muslims� faith in �true� Islam and encourage them to go deeper into it. This, as I�ve argued before, is an impossible project. �Good� Islam and �bad� Islam are as intimately related as Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, and Mr. Hyde always predominates in the end.

Put another way, we should work at discrediting Islam just as Western leaders, clergy, and intellectuals once worked to discredit other totalitarian ideologies such as Nazism and communism. Jihad for the sake of Allah is not some unfortunate deviation from the true faith, it�s an integral part of that faith. As long as the faith is taken seriously, jihad will be taken seriously. The jihad won�t stop until the belief system that inspires it is undermined and dismantled. It is greatly in our interest that Muslims begin to take their faith less seriously. Thus, it is necessary to undertake the difficult and subtle work of discrediting Islam. Among other things, this discrediting process would involve questioning the authenticity of Muhammad�s revelation, questioning his character and reliability, and even questioning his existence.

Naturally, such an approach would provoke anger among many Muslims, so before adopting it it�s important to think about ways to implement it that would minimize the fallout. One thing to consider is the question of who should bell the cat. As I�ve said elsewhere, the pope and prominent bishops are probably not the best ones to deliver the message. Were the pope to publicly question the moral authority of Muhammad, the result would likely be mass rioting and murder. On the other hand, if some Catholic layman were to do it via some satellite program beamed to the Arab world, the blasphemy charge couldn�t be pinned on Catholics in general.

"What I am recommending is not an in-your-face... frontal assault on everything Muslims hold dear, but rather a slow process of desensitization by which Muslims get used to the idea of Islam being subject to criticism."

In fact, someone has been doing just what I describe, and he has been highly successful in converting Muslims to Christianity. However, he�s not Catholic and he�s not a layman. Father Zakaria Botros is an elderly Coptic priest whose Arabic-language TV show is broadcast from the U.S. to the Middle East. Fr. Botros says he wants to help reasonable Muslims who are searching for the truth to wake up to the truth about Islam. He does it by referring mainly to Islamic sources because, as he puts it, �Muslims have no greater enemy than their own scriptures�which constantly scandalize and embarrass Muslims.� It also helps that he�s able to make his points in a very engaging manner. According to Islam cleric Ahmed al-Qatani, six million Muslims convert to Christianity annually, many of them persuaded by Fr. Botros� public ministry.

"The case against Islam is, as Fr. Botros points out, embedded in mainstream Islamic sources."

A hundred Fr. Botroses could do a lot to change Muslim minds without providing mobs an excuse to burn down the nearest church. A thousand would be even better. Not that every one of them needs to be an Arabic-speaking televangelist. David Wood is a Christian whose website, Answering Muslims, features short fireside chat-type videos aimed at English speaking Muslims. Wood is thoroughly versed in Islamic theology, and he has a low-key �inquiring-minds-want-to-know� style which is hard to resist. His many informative and often entertaining videos are readily available on his site or on YouTube. Catholic apologists are matchless when it comes to discussing what�s wrong with secularism, but they might want to check out Answering Muslims for some pointers on discussing what�s wrong with Islam.

The point is, the task of truth-telling should be outsourced so that the Vatican doesn�t become the focus of manufactured mob rage. The Vatican can still work behind the scenes to encourage Catholics to cast a more critical eye on Islam. In addition, Rome should give tacit permission for theologians and laymen to move beyond the limited horizons of �together-with-us-they-worship-the-same-God� thinking. Of course there will be risks, but one of the advantages of a widely dispersed critique of Islam is that the risks are spread out. Moreover, theological and historical discussions, whether in print or on video, are not as eye-catching to Muslim mobs as intentionally offensive cartoons.

"The first time a Muslim hears the flaws of Muhammad discussed, he might well be angry. But how about the third time? The twentieth time?"

What I am recommending is not an in-your-face Charlie Hebdo frontal assault on everything Muslims hold dear, but rather a slow process of desensitization by which Muslims get used to the idea of Islam being subject to criticism. Some of Fr. Botros� effectiveness lies in his ability to cite Islamic sources to which his Muslim audiences cannot very well object. But much of it resides in his ability to condition them to accept criticism of Muhammad. The first time a Muslim hears the flaws of Muhammad discussed, he might well be angry. But how about the third time? The twentieth time?

The desensitization approach can be very effective�as Catholics should know. Every year around Christmas and Easter, we are treated to subtle and not-so-subtle media attempts to undermine faith in Christianity. I can�t recall the actual titles of all those Time and Newsweek cover stories or all those holiday special TV reports, but they go something like this: �The Hidden Gospels,� �The Real Jesus,� �The Secret Life of Mary Magdalene.� 

These �expos�s� are meant to instill doubts, and they do. It might strike Christians as unfair to employ the same techniques against Islam. And it would be if Christians had to resort to using the same dishonest tactics. But whereas the tissue-thin evidence presented by the media relies on dubious sources, the case against Islam is, as Fr. Botros points out, embedded in mainstream Islamic sources. An article about the many wives (and concubines) of Muhammad might be offensive, but it would have the advantage of being factual. Or, for a somewhat less sensitive subject, how about a piece on the growing archaeological evidence that the story of Islam�s �Golden Age� is considerably exaggerated?

"The objective is not to make Muslims angry, but to make them uncomfortable with their faith... 

"Our aim should not be to separate Muslims from radical manifestations of their faith, but to separate them from their faith�albeit gradually."

Fortunately, some in the mainstream media have begun to question the established narrative about Islam. Coincidentally, many of them happen to be Catholic�Michael Coren of the Sun News TV network, Bill O�Reilly, Sean Hannity, Megyn Kelly, and Jeanine Pirro of Fox News. They have begun to ask the essential questions: Are Muslim apologists telling the truth? Is Islam really a peaceful religion? Does the problem lie only with a handful of radicals or is there something wrong with Islam itself? The drip-drip-drip effect of raising these questions night after night should not be underestimated. If enough people in the West were to engage in low-confrontational (�I�m only raising the question�) examination of Islamic tenets and do it often enough, the doubt level could be raised considerably.

And that is what we should aim at doing. The objective is not to make Muslims angry, but to make them uncomfortable with their faith. If enough questions are raised, some, at least, will begin to ask the same questions. To reiterate the main point, our aim should not be to separate Muslims from radical manifestations of their faith, but to separate them from their faith�albeit gradually. The former is an impossible task because Islam is essentially a radical religion. For proof, look at Saudi Arabia, the quintessential Islamic state. It�s the most Islamic nation in the Muslim world and also the most radical. Although the Saudi government knows enough to publicly condemn the attack on Charlie Hebdo, it does not hesitate to imprison its own blasphemers. While the Saudi Ambassador was marching in the �Je Suis Charlie� rally in Paris, back in the home country a young blogger, Raif Badawi, was receiving the first 50-lash installment of his 1000-lash sentence for �insulting Islam.� Saudi Arabia also conducts amputations (for thieves) and beheadings (for apostates) on a weekly basis in public squares. Moreover, bibles, rosaries, and churches are strictly forbidden. When you encourage Muslims to go deeper into their faith, what you get is places like Saudi Arabia. Or, in the Shia Muslim world, places like the Islamic Republic of Iran.

If all of the above still seems too confrontational toward Muslims to suit ecclesiastical tastes, then Church policy should at least be redirected toward telling the truth to fellow Catholics. Right now, Catholics are being seriously misled about the nature of Islam. Popes and prelates don�t have to go around poking holes in the Islamic narrative, but neither should they be reinforcing it. The bishops don�t necessarily have to censure Islam, but they also don�t have to talk about their esteem for it, or to dwell on its (supposed) similarities to Christianity. You can express your respect for Muslims, but do you really want to express your respect for Islam?

Christians can be put in danger if Muslims are overly antagonized, but they can also be endangered by being fed sleep-inducing bromides. Many Catholics are just now waking up to the fact that there really is such a thing as sharia law and that it�s spreading fast. Other Catholics are discovering that, contrary to what they learned in Catholic schools and colleges, jihad is not an interior spiritual struggle but something far more ominous. Other Catholics are still asleep. When the Caliph comes knocking at the door to collect the jizya, will they even know what a caliph is or what jizya means?

The untenable situation that so many Christians now find themselves in is due in part to the Church�s failure to give them a fuller account of Islam. If bishops had been more attuned to the dangers, Christians might have been better prepared for them. But precisely because the Church did take an �official� position on Islam, and because that position was one-sided and simplistic, Catholics were left much further behind the curve than they might otherwise have been.

I don�t pretend to know the climate that prevailed in the Nigerian Church prior to Boko Haram, or in the Church in Iraq prior to the advent of ISIS, but my guess is that, because the Church is universal, the local bishops would have conveyed to their people more or less the same message that was conveyed to them from Rome. In other words, �Don�t worry, Muslims worship the same God that we do; the tiny minority of extremists that make trouble for us don�t represent the true Islam.� This reassuring narrative (�Islam means peace�) is not the only problem. The general lack of preparedness has been compounded by another one-size-fits-all explanation of events. Many in the Church have been overly concentrated on another narrative�the one that says that the Arab-Israeli conflict is at the root of Muslim discontent. Since this was the same explanation being offered by many secular experts, it seemed a reasonable supposition. The result, however, was that many Church leaders failed to take note of the dynamics within Islam itself that lead to violence.

The time has come to consider a new policy�one that alerts Christians to the dangers while at the same time sowing the seeds of doubt about Islam in the minds of Muslims. The policy calls for the dangerous work of discrediting Islam, but it is nevertheless the safer alternative. A continuation of the current policy is likely to prove much more dangerous. The proposed approach is based on the simple principle that honesty�even though it should be tempered with tactfulness�is still the best policy. In the next and last installment of this series, I�ll suggest some concrete ways for the Church to implement a more sensible strategy in regard to Islam.

_______

William Kilpatrick taught for many years at Boston College. He is the author of several books about cultural and religious issues, including Psychological Seduction; Why Johnny Can�t Tell Right From Wrong; and Christianity, Islam and Atheism: The Struggle for the Soul of the West. He is also the author of a new book entitled Insecurity. His articles have appeared in numerous publications, including Catholic World Report, National Catholic Register, Aleteia, Saint Austin Review, Investor�s Business Daily, and FrontPage Magazine. His work is supported in part by the Shillman Foundation.