William Kilpatrick and Raymond Ibrahim: 'Defenders of Faith and Family'

William Kilpatrick's stirring, in-depth review of Raymond Ibrahim's newest book, is itself a vigorous rallying cry to defenders of Western Christian Culture against not merely Islamic supremacy or terrorism, but against the anti-Christian, anti-family and anti-human Progressive, Leftist agenda.

Defenders of Faith and Family

Like today’s leftists, the Ottoman Turks wanted to turn Christian children against their parents; but one man turned the tables on them.

by William Kilpatrick, Crisis Magazine

Christianity was saved in Europe solely because the peoples of Europe fought. If [Europeans]…had not possessed a military equality with, and gradually a growing superiority over the Mohammedans who invaded Europe, Europe would at this moment be Mohammedan and the Christian religion would be exterminated. 

—Theodore Roosevelt

I came across Roosevelt’s observation in Raymond Ibrahim’s recent book, Defenders of the West: The Christian Heroes who stood against Islam. At a time when Islam once again seems poised to conquer Europe—this time by dint of immigration and higher birthrates—Ibrahim’s book serves as a timely reminder that this clash of civilizations is far from over.

Defenders of the West focuses on eight individuals who fought against Islamic armies at various times in past centuries. Interestingly, Ibrahim himself can be considered a modern-day “defender of the West” or, more accurately, “defender of the faith.”

I say this because the faith can’t be effectively defended unless Christians first realize that it needs defending. Much of Ibrahim’s work concerns the oppression of Christians by Muslims all over the world but particularly in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East—a story that relatively few Western Christians are familiar with.

Ibrahim, of course, also writes about the continuing threat to the West—to Europe and the Americas. 

William Kilkpatrick: 'See No Islam, Hear No Islam'

New Catholic title on Apologetics omits any consideration of Christian witness to Muslims, or the impact of Islam on Christians.

See No Islam, Hear No Islam

by William Kilkpatrick, Turning Point Project, November 15, 2022

A significant omission in an otherwise good book.

The New Apologetics is a collection of 41 essays by noted Catholic apologists.

It’s a valuable book for those who are interested in spreading the Christian faith in a time of secularism and relativism, as well as for those who merely wish to deepen their own faith.

However, I do have one large caveat. None of the 41 essays deals with Islam. And that, to my mind, is a major omission. Although, The New Apologetics begins with a discussion of threats to Christianity—such as atheism, moral relativism, and scientific materialism—one of the biggest threats is ignored.

For example, the first essay discusses the “nones”—those who claim no religious affiliation. This group is expanding rapidly and it is pulling most of its membership away from Christian Churches. As their numbers increase, the number of those who identify as Christians declines.

I agree that the problem of the “nones” needs to be urgently addressed, but there is another category of “nones” that is equally important, but is absent from the pages of The New Apologetics. I am referring to all those Christians who are “nones” in the sense that none of them is any longer among the living because they have been killed by Muslims in the name of Allah. For example, in Nigeria alone, 18,000 people have been killed by Islamic terrorists in just the last two years (2020-2022). If the rest of Africa is added on, it’s now possible to speak of a Christian genocide in that continent.

Presumably, [Catholic apologists] don’t want to be put in a position where they might have to contradict the notion that Islam is a fellow Abrahamic religion that reveres Jesus and embraces the same values that Christians do.

The spread of Islam is not just a threat to Africans. Many other parts of the world are under the same threat. Because of the rapid increase in the Muslim population, even Europeans are now at risk of violence.

The essay on the “nones” makes much of the fact that in the U.S. between 1970 and the present, the number of “nones” has increased from three percent to twenty-five percent. But during an even shorter time frame, the percentage of Muslims in numerous European cities has increased by approximately the same amount. In Marseille, the second largest city in France, the percentage of Muslims is closer to 40 percent.

The essay points out that almost 40 percent of those under thirty in the U.S. are “nones”. But the same holds true in many of Europe’s major cities in regard to the Muslim population. According to Giulio Meotti, Islam is now the dominant religion among children in Birmingham, Leicester, Bradford, Luton, Slough and the London boroughs of Newham, Redbridge and Tower Hamlets.

Meanwhile, “Mohamed” has been one of the most popular names for baby boys in Europe for many years. Due to the high birth rate, there are now more Muslims at Friday services than Catholics at Sunday Mass in many cities in France and England.

If Islam really were the religion of peace that Catholic prelates and professors make it out to be, then the discrepancy in birth rates between Muslims and Christians might be no great cause for alarm. But rising crime rates among Muslims in Europe suggest that Islam is not a religion of peace but of aggression.

William Kilpatrick: 'Europe Is Falling to Islam. Will America?'

"Once legitimate criticism of Islam becomes a hate crime punishable by imprisonment, opposition to the Islamist agenda will quickly dry up. And the pace of change will continue to speed up."

William Kilpatrick surveys recent developments and draws ominous conclusions concerning the Islamization of the West. As always, essential reading from one of Christianity's most incisive writers on Islam.


Europe Is Falling to Islam. Will America?

BY WILLIAM KILPATRICK | DEC 2, 2019  |   Turning Point Project

“Within five years,” said former French Interior Minister Gerard Collomb, “the situation could become irreversible.”

He was referring to the rising tide of violence resulting from Muslim immigration. His comment was from an interview that took place almost two years ago. If Collomb’s calculations are correct, France only has a few years “to avoid the worst.”

Significant social change usually takes place over the course of many decades, but sometimes gradual trends enter into an acceleration phase, and massive social transformations take place in a matter of years. A few years ago, who would have imagined that the demands of the transgender “community” would become the determining factor in the decisions of school boards, corporate boards, and athletic associations? Who would have thought that the “right” of boys to enter the girls’ locker room, or the “right” of drag queens to conduct story hours in public libraries, would someday outweigh all other considerations? Yet, here we are.

Thus far, the Islamization of several major European states has been a gradual process. But there are signs that this trend is now set to accelerate. After a 9/11-style plot was recently foiled by French intelligence services, the new Interior Minister, Christophe Castaner, revealed that 60 such attacks had been foiled since 2013.

Meanwhile, 235,000 complaints for rape or attempted rape were filed in 2018; this was 62,000 more than in 2016, and an astonishing 225,000 more than in 2005. In 2018, there were also more than a thousand anti-Christian attacks (mostly, the desecration of churches), and 541 anti-Semitic acts—up 64 percent from 2017, and a shocking statistic when one considers that Jews make up less than one percent of the French population.

William Kilpatrick: 'Beware of Muslims Bearing Pamphlets'

"The chief danger of Muslim proselytizing is not that it leads to a flood of conversions to Islam, but that it confirms our complacency about it. It reinforces the consoling but unexamined assumptions that are already prevalent in our society, namely, that Islamic values are just like our own, that Islam is a moderate religion, and that there’s nothing whatsoever to worry about."

The "True Islam" campaign by the Ahmadiyya Islam Sect is smooth and deceptive taqiyya, to be avoided and distrusted at all costs. William Kilpatrick explains why in this important article.


Beware of Muslims Bearing Pamphlets

by William Kilpatrick, Crisis Magazine, June 3, 2019:

“True Islam is a religion that wholly rejects all forms of terrorism.”

So says an online pamphlet put out by the True Islam Campaign. The pamphlet lists ten other truths about “true Islam,” including “True Islam believes in the equality, education, and empowerment of women,” “True Islam encompasses the universal declaration of human rights,” and “True Islam recognizes no religion can monopolize salvation.”

Each truth is accompanied by a page or so of text providing verses from the Koran and other Islamic sources to support the assertion.

The True Islam Campaign says that it hopes to counter the menace of extremism which, it says, is fueled by ignorance of Islam. Thus:

Extremists like ISIS depend on ignorance of Islam to grow. That’s why the more people know about Islam’s true teachings—and what Muslims truly believe—the less they’ll fall for ISIS’s propaganda.

The pamphlet even comes with an invitation to an Iftar dinner (the dinner that ends the fast each day during Ramadan): “Be our dinner guest. Meet your Muslim neighbors. All welcome.” The invitation also includes a “Find a Mosque near you” button.

Who could object? Americans believe that the vast majority of Muslims are moderate, and this looks like just the group to make the moderate case.

As you may have guessed, however, I do have some objections.

Although the campaign claims to express “the values, beliefs, and ideals of the entire Muslim community,” it decidedly does not speak for the global Muslim community. Since the campaign is sponsored by the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community in the U.S., and since all the Ahmadiyyas in the world make up only about 1 to 1.5 percent of the worldwide population of Muslims, they can hardly claim to speak for the “entire Muslim community.”

What’s more, the Ahmadiyya (or Ahmadi) sect is widely regarded as a heretical group, and is often targeted for persecution by other Muslims. It’s no wonder that the Ahmadis are concerned about extremists, as they themselves have long been victims of extremist violence.

But it’s not just the extremists who consider them heretics. Mainstream Muslims do as well.

William Kilpatrick: 'Sauron Comes to Middle England'

"The Lord of the Rings is set in mythical Middle Earth, but, metaphorically speaking, Sauron now seems to be quite active in Middle England... The spiritual landscape has also changed, and the change has been dramatic... The story of the Islamization of England has also been one of betrayal."

Roman Catholic writer William Kilpatrick does a great service in this article, taking us on a tour of the once Christian and tranquil English landscape, now conquered by minarets and Muslim rape gangs, and cowed into fear by Sharia-zones, stabbings and acid attacks in London and other major cities, and betrayed by the ruling class and Christian hierarchy alike.

It would seem Sauron is winning. And, to quote Elrond, "Our list of allies grows thin."

Still from the film, TOLKIEN, showing an uncowed young J.R.R. Tolkien standing before the rising menace of a dark lord during the battle of the Somme, in France during World War I. 

Sauron Comes to Middle England

by William Kilpatrick, Turning Point Project, June 1, 2019:

"The title 'Sauron comes to Middle England' is not meant to imply that Muslims are an evil people. It’s meant to imply that there is something wrong with their religion as well as with the British authorities who facilitate its spread."

Tolkien, the new biopic about the master storyteller’s life, has come under criticism for giving the impression that Tolkien’s service in World War I was the decisive influence on his work. In fact, Tolkien was far more influenced by other factors—in particular by his love of mythology, and by his strong Catholic faith. Before her untimely death, Tolkien’s widowed mother had appointed Fr. Francis Morgan of the Birmingham Oratory to be the guardian of her two sons. As a result, Tolkien spent many hours during his formative years in the rich Catholic culture of the Oratory. With its deep Catholic themes, The Lord of the Rings owes more to Birmingham than to Tolkien’s brief experience of trench warfare in France.

The Lord of the Rings is set in mythical Middle Earth, but, metaphorically speaking, Sauron now seems to be quite active in Middle England. The Midlands of England and its capital Birmingham have caught the attention of his all-seeing eye. The kind of struggles that are depicted in the trilogy now seem to be playing out in Tolkien’s boyhood home.

What I have in mind is not the struggle to preserve England’s green and pleasant land from environmental despoilers. The Birmingham skyline has changed, of course. It now looks like that of any other large metropolis. And much of the shire lands that surrounded Birmingham in Tolkien’s youth have been eaten up by urban sprawl. But urbanization is the least of the city’s problems.

The spiritual landscape has also changed, and the change has been dramatic. There are now 175 mosques in the Birmingham area, with five in the Edgbaston section where Tolkien spent his teen years. Muslims make up about 22 percent of the population of the city, and, by some estimates, they will be a majority within 20 years. There are already more Muslim children living in Birmingham than Christian children.

Some of the more impatient members of the Birmingham Muslim community aren’t waiting for majority status to roll around before they establish control. An investigation by the London Telegraph in 2014 revealed an extensive plot by Muslim teachers, school governors, and activists to take over 21 city schools and Islamicize them. The plot, which was code-named “Trojan Horse” by the conspirators, involved replacing head teachers with radical Muslim faculty, segregating classrooms by sex, and introducing Islamic prayers.

Birmingham has also been touched by the Muslim rape gang epidemic which has ravaged the English Midlands. A 2017 article in Birmingham Live reported “a worrying escalation of the abuse of young schoolgirls, typically aged around 13 to 14.” According to the report, gang members were filming and sharing the rapes. Another report revealed that gang members were using tasers on their schoolgirl victims.

William Kilpatrick - 'The Church and Islam: Dangerous Illusions'

"Church leaders... have taken every opportunity to praise Islam, to declare their solidarity with it, and to join in various Islamic initiatives, such as the campaign against 'Islamophobia'. Judging by the Church’s great solicitude for Islam, one would think it was the most persecuted faith on earth, rather than one of the chief persecutors."

The below article by William Kilpatrick, while directed specifically towards Roman Catholic leaders, can be read with profit by Orthodox Christian hierarchs, clergy, and educators as well.

The Church and Islam: Dangerous Illusions

by William Kilpatrick, Crisis Magazine, April 25, 2018:

Pope Francis meets with Dr. Muhammad al-Issa, Secretary General of the Muslim World League, on September 20, 2017. (Photo credit: CNA / L’Osservatore Romano)

When I first began writing about the Church and Islam, I devoted a lot of space to describing ways that Church leaders could resist the spread of Islam. It seemed only a matter of time until they would wake up to the need to resist. As it turned out, however, that assessment was overly optimistic.

The immediate task, as I soon learned, was not to find ways to counter Islam, but to convince the Church’s hierarchy that Islam ought to be resisted. There’s no use talking battle strategies to people who won’t admit that they have an ideological enemy.

The enemy is not Muslims per se, but a belief system adhered to by the majority of Muslims, albeit with varying degrees of commitment. Although Islam does not easily lend itself to moderation, many Muslims manage to practice their faith in peaceful ways. Others merely give it lip service, and still others are on fire with a passionate zeal to spread it—by fire and the sword if necessary.

The idea of opposing dangerous ideologies is not foreign to Americans, but the idea of opposing an ideology that is also a religion is more problematic. It has become increasingly problematic now that we live in an era in which merely disagreeing with another’s opinions is tantamount to a hate crime. 

So, just for the record, critiquing Islam does not mean that one hates Muslims. Criticizing Islam is not the same as criticizing Muslims, any more than criticizing communism is equivalent to criticizing Soviet-era Russians. One can acknowledge the humanity and good intentions of others without having to endorse their ideology. And if their ideology or belief system presents a grave danger to others, it would be wrong not to criticize it. Of course, one should employ tact and prudence when offering such criticism.

William Kilpatrick: 'Islam: A Giant Step Backwards for Humanity'

"It’s not just that many clergy... fail to appreciate the deep differences in theology between Islam and Christianity, they fail to grasp the deep cultural and human differences that flow from the theological differences. To put the matter bluntly, Christianity is a humanizing religion and Islam is not."

William Kilpatrick looks at fundamental differences between Christianity and Islam in this especially illuminating article, especially appropriate for the Advent Season.

Islam: A Giant Step Backwards for Humanity

by William Kilpatrick, Crisis Magazine, October 31, 2017


One of the big mysteries of our day is how so many supposedly enlightened Catholics have managed to get it so wrong about Islam for so long. It’s understandable that in the 1960s, when the Islamic world was relatively quiescent, Catholics might entertain the high hopes for Islamic-Catholic relations expressed in Nostra Aetate. But this is 2017 and in the intervening half century a lot of water has passed under the bridge.

Given all that has transpired in the interim—9/11, daily terror attacks, the accelerating Islamization of Europe, and the development of nuclear weapons by Pakistan and Iran—it seems that Catholics deserve to know more about Islam than the brief treatment presented in Nostra Aetate or the even briefer treatment in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The Catechism’s forty-four words on the subject end with the reassurance that “together with us they [Muslims] adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day” (842). Unfortunately, that has been interpreted by a good many clergy and laymen to mean “go back to sleep and don’t worry about a thing.” To get an idea of how nonchalant the Church leadership has been about providing guidance on Islam, consider that the Catechism devotes about five times as much space to a discussion of man’s relationship with animals than it does to the Church’s relationship with Muslims.

It’s not just that many clergy and lay Catholic leaders fail to appreciate the deep differences in theology between Islam and Christianity, they fail to grasp the deep cultural and human differences that flow from the theological differences. To put the matter bluntly, Christianity is a humanizing religion and Islam is not. That statement needs some qualifying, of course; but there is enough difference between the Christian vision of the human person and the Islamic vision, that Catholic leaders should be extremely careful before declaring common cause with Islam. The many declarations of commonality and solidarity with Islam that now routinely issue from the lips of Church leaders only serve to confuse and mislead Catholics.

Theologically, the most significant fact about Islam is that it is an anti-Christian movement. That’s one of the main themes in Nonie Darwish’s book, Wholly Different. Darwish who grew up in an Islamic society and subsequently converted to Christianity, contends that Islam is a counter-revolutionary faith: a rejection of core Bible beliefs. As she puts it:

[Muhammad] didn’t just quietly reject the Bible. Instead, he launched a ferocious rebellion against it… Islam is a negative religion, consumed with subversion. It is a rebellion and counter-revolution against the Biblical revolution.

The Biblical revolution was not only a revolution in our thinking about God, but also a revolution in our thinking about man. The most revolutionary moment occurred when God took on our humanity and became one of us. As Pope St. John Paul II observed, the Incarnation not only reveals God to man, it reveals man to himself.

In rejecting the Incarnation, Muhammad also rejected the heightened status of humanity that flows from it. This is not to say that this was his intention from the start. Islam didn’t begin as an anti-Christian theology, but it was almost inevitable that it would develop that way. Muhammad considered himself to be a prophet, and he wanted very much to be recognized as such. The trouble is that a prophet has to have a prophetic message. And, after Jesus revealed himself as the Son of God and the fulfillment of all prophecy, there wasn’t much left to say in that line.

Realizing this, Muhammad set about to retell the story of Jesus, recasting him not as the Son of God but as another—and lesser—prophet. This demotion of Jesus thus cleared the way for Muhammad’s claim to prophethood. (Faced with a similar problem, the Reverend Sun Myung Moon, the founder of the Unification Church, came up with a similar solution. In his telling, Jesus failed in his assigned task of marrying and creating a perfect family, thus leaving it up to Moon to carry out the unfinished mission.)

Jesus is in the Koran, but he has, in effect, been neutralized. He is not divine, he was not crucified nor resurrected, and he plays no role in the redemption of the human race. In fact, there is no suggestion in the Koran that mankind needs to be redeemed. One has to believe in Allah and his messenger (Muhammad) and obey Allah and his Messenger, and Allah will probably (there is no certainty) admit him to paradise. But one does not have to be born again.

We talk about “radical” Islam, but, in a sense, there is nothing radical about Islam. It does not require a radical transformation of the self as does Christianity. In Islam, man is not made in the image of God. Consequently, there is no call to holiness, no requirement that “you … must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Mt. 5:48). The radical transformation in Christ which prepares one for communion with God is not necessary since man’s destiny is not union with God, but union with maidens in paradise. There is no need of spiritual transformation because heaven is simply a better version of earth.

That’s one way of looking at human destiny. But the Christian view is altogether different. Saint Paul wrote “we … are being changed into his likeness from one degree of glory to another” (2 Cor. 3:18), and “though our outer nature is wasting away, our inner nature is being renewed everyday … preparing us for an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison” (2 Cor. 4:16-17). Whatever one may think of the truth of the Christian message, the message is that humans have a very high calling. The difference between this vision of man and the rather low estimate of human potential contained in the Koran is profound. It’s a wonder that so many Catholics are willing to dilute that vision for the sake of creating an illusory moral parity with Islam.

Islam’s lack of interest in human transformation begins with the lack of human interest in the Koran. Although it was composed some 600 years after the Gospels, it contains none of the drama of the Gospels—no divine drama and no human drama. Instead, it is a collection of disconnected statements, warnings, and curses, interspersed with Muhammad’s own versions of stories borrowed from the Bible.

Even when he retells these stories, Muhammad seems largely incapable of infusing the prophets and heroes of the Bible with personality. Indeed, the only character in the Koran that Muhammad seems truly interested in is himself. In order to emphasize his humility, Islamic apologists like to say that Muhammad is only mentioned four times in the Koran. I haven’t counted but that seems about right. Nevertheless, Muhammad manages to mention himself on nearly every page—sometimes as the “Messenger,” sometimes as the “Apostle,” sometimes as the “Prophet,” and nearly always as the indispensable intermediary between Allah and men. This repeated emphasis on his role as a prophet is also found in the hadith collections. For example, “I have been sent to all mankind and the line of the prophets is closed with me” (Sahih Muslim, book 004, number 1062).

Other than Allah, Muhammad is the main person of interest in the Koran. Which brings us back to the place of Jesus in the Koran. The truth is, he plays only a minor role. He is mentioned as one of the prophets on several occasions, and on a few other occasions he is given some lines to speak. On one of these occasions he assures Allah that he did not ever claim to be God: “I could never have claimed what I have no right to” (5:116).

Jesus has a place in the Koran, but only because he knows his place. His role is to remove the main obstacle to Muhammad’s claim of prophethood. Who better than Jesus to renounce Jesus’ claim to Sonship and thereby clear the way for Muhammad to be the seal of the prophets?

But, in stripping Jesus of his divinity, Muhammad also managed to strip him of his humanity. The Jesus of the Koran is simply not an interesting person. Indeed he hardly qualifies as a person. He seems more like a disembodied voice. When Christians hear that Jesus is in the Koran, they assume that he must be someone like the Jesus of the Gospels. Thus they can reassure themselves that although Muslims don’t accept Christ’s divinity, they will at least become familiar with his life. Anyone who bothers to read the Koran, however, will be quickly disabused of that notion. There is no life of Jesus in the Koran. There is no slightly altered version of the gospel story. Indeed, there is no story at all—just a few brief appearances in order to make the point that Jesus is only a man, not the Son of God.

This abbreviated treatment of Jesus in the Koran is matched by a diminished view of the human person. In Islam, man is little more than a slave of Allah. He can achieve paradise, but paradise is essentially a heavenly harem. According to the Christian vision, man’s destiny is union with God. According to the Islamic vision, man’s destiny is to copulate.

In rejecting the Christian doctrine of the Incarnation, Muhammad also rejected the Christian vision of a redeemed humanity. The fact of the Incarnation raised the status of man immeasurably—“no longer a slave but a son, and if a son then an heir” (Gal. 4:7). That’s why Christmas carols are so full of joy. As one hymn reminds us, the night of our Savior’s birth becomes the moment at which “the soul felt its worth.” Thanks to Muhammad’s dismal vision, however, all this is missing in Islam—no “joy to the world,” no “hark the herald angels sing,” no “ding-dong merrily on high.”

In light of the comparative bleakness of the Islamic vision, it is difficult to understand why so many Catholic prelates and theologians insist on identifying Islam as a fellow faith with which we have much in common. Likewise, it’s not easy to comprehend why so many of them want to declare their solidarity with Islam.

Theologically and humanly, Islam represents a giant step backwards. It would take us back to a time when the idea of human dignity was considered laughable—to a time when slavery was unremarkable and women were valued less than men and sometimes less than animals.

In a sense, Muhammad’s rejection of the Incarnation is a replay of a primal story. In Milton’s Paradise Lost, Lucifer’s rebellion is brought on by God’s announcement that he had begotten a Son. Lucifer, who ranked very high among the angels, was nothing if not prideful. In modern terms we might say that he couldn’t stand the competition. Neither, it seems, could Muhammad—a man so obsessed with pride of place that he identifies himself as Allah’s close confidant on nearly every page of the Koran.

Like Lucifer, Muhammad rebelled against the Sonship of Christ. For if Christ is the Son of God, Muhammad is out of a job. Consequently, there are numerous passages in the Koran that deny the Trinity and the Sonship of Christ, and that curse those who do believe.

The price that the followers of Muhammad incurred was the loss of the heightened sense of humanity that the Incarnation brings. The central dramatic event in history is the birth of a baby boy who also happened to be the Author of life. He came so that we might have life and have it more abundantly.

But why did Muhammad come? He reveals nothing that hadn’t already been revealed in the Old Testament. In almost all respects, the Koran is simply old news. The only new element is the “revelation” that Muhammad is God’s final prophet. The good news of the Gospels is that God had become one of us; the big news of the Koran is that Muhammad has become a prophet.

Compared to the tremendous and wondrous revelations in the New Testament, that’s small potatoes. Again, one has to wonder why so many modern clerics are intent on drawing a moral equivalence between Christianity’s life-giving faith and Islam’s life-denying, rule-bound system. Perhaps they should read the Koran. Or, better yet, perhaps they should re-read the Gospels.

___________

William Kilpatrick taught for many years at Boston College. He is the author of several books about cultural and religious issues, including Why Johnny Can’t Tell Right From Wrong; and Christianity, Islam and Atheism: The Struggle for the Soul of the West and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Jihad. 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

William Kilpatrick - 'A Dark-Forces Assault on the Church?'

"The current situation of the Church vis-à-vis Islam is due in part to a dual assault—one aimed at heightening Islam’s traditional aggressiveness, and the other aimed at weakening the Church’s traditional defenses. The result is a kind of dance of death: a ramping up of Islamic militancy matched by an exaggerated emphasis on tolerance, openness, and welcoming on the part of Catholics."

William Kilpatrick's analysis is specifically directed towards the Roman Catholic response to Islam, but his insights may be profitably applied by Orthodox Christians inclined to "think of Muslim migration as no different from other migrations... simply a question of being welcoming or unwelcoming, of being charitable or uncharitable."

As Kilpatrick notes, "Many Muslim leaders view migrations in a different light. For them it is not a question of loving one’s neighbor, it is a question of who is to be master."

A Dark-Forces Assault on the Church?

William Kilpatrick, Crisis Magazine, October 2, 2017:

For we are not contending against flesh and blood, but against the principalities and powers … against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. (Eph. 6:12)

It’s not easy to discern the role played by the spiritual hosts of wickedness in world affairs. No one knows with any certainty what is going on in that realm, or what part the principalities and powers play in shaping events. But these are exceedingly strange times—so strange that it is difficult to make sense of some of what is happening from a this-worldly perspective. So it seems worthwhile to try to understand some phenomena from an other-worldly viewpoint.

One of the strangest developments of our times is the Church’s response to Islam and Islamic migration. Since the response runs entirely counter to the Church’s historical response, it seems legitimate to wonder if other-worldly forces are at play. If that’s the case, it should not be unexpected. Christ promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church, but the implication of his words is that hell would surely try.

William Kilpatrick: On the Civilizational Struggle With Islam

Another landmark analysis of our war against Islam and the enemy of mankind, by the peerless, towering William Kilpatrick. 

Some excerpts:

"We should want Muslims to be uncomfortable with their faith—uncomfortable to the point that they begin to doubt it... 

"The sheer volume of Islamic violence is difficult to ignore. As a result, more and more people now realize that criticism and challenge of Islam is fully justified. They realize that it should be Muslims who are put on the defensive, not the so-called 'Islamophobes'... 

"In a sane society, Islam and its representatives would be put on the defensive, not critics of Islam. Instead of exonerating Islam of responsibility for Islamic terror, non-Muslims should pressure Muslims to justify the tenets of Islam that call for violence."

Or urge them to repent, leave their barbaric and false religion, deny their bloodthirsty god and false prophet, and turn to Jesus Christ in the Orthodox Church.

On the Civilizational Struggle With Islam

by William Kilpatrick, Crisis Magazine, April 4, 2017:

In February, female members of an official Swedish delegation to Iran donned headscarves and long coats so as not to offend their Iranian counterparts. At about the same time, Marine Le Pen, the leader of France’s National Front Party, cancelled a meeting with Lebanon’s Grand Mufti after he insisted that she wear a headscarf. “You can pass on my respects to the Grand Mufti,” said Le Pen, “but I will not cover myself up.”

The contrast neatly captures two different responses to the ongoing Islamization of Europe. Le Pen represents resistance, and the Swedish delegation represents appeasement. So far, the party of appeasement holds the upper hand. Shortly after her gesture of defiance, the European Parliament voted to lift Le Pen’s immunity from prosecution (as a Member of Parliament) for tweeting images of Islamic State violence. Like the Swedish delegates’ gesture of obeisance, this too is an act of appeasement. It signals to the Muslim world that Europeans will take it upon themselves to punish those who criticize Islam.

There may be cases where appeasement works to placate an enemy, but it never seems to work against an implacable foe. In May, 1938, while competing in Berlin, the English national football team gave the Nazi salute when the German national anthem was played. They did this, reluctantly, on orders from their own foreign office. It was one of numerous futile gestures of appeasement offered up to Hitler.

Some historians have suggested that Hitler could have been stopped if the Allied Powers had confronted him earlier before he had time to build up the Wehrmacht. That’s probably true. The best time to fight a war is while you still have a good chance of winning it. This applies also to the ideological struggle now going on between the West and Islam. 

William Kilpatrick: 'Multiculturalism: Islamic Style'

"European Christians and secularists who think that opening their borders to millions of sharia-shaped migrants is going to result in increased diversity ought to take a lesson from the experience of Christians in the Middle East. If Muslim colonization of the West follows suit, it’s not just Christmas songs and celebrations that will be endangered, but Christianity itself."


See also William Kilpatrick's December 28, 2016 article over at The Catholic Thing, Our Responsibility to Criticize Islam (h/t Tim Furnish):

"The very argument that criticism of Islam will drive moderates into the radical camp suggests that criticism is needed. If Islam is such a hair-trigger religion that the slightest offense might radicalize adherents, there is something radically wrong with the religion itself."

Multiculturalism: Islamic Style

by William Kilpatrick, Crisis Magazine, December 30, 2016:

A nun grieves the day after a bombing during Mass at St. Mark’s Coptic Cathedral in Alexandria, Egypt on December 10, 2016. (Photo credit: CNS photo / Amr Abdallah Dalsh, Reuters)

“Schoolchildren banned from singing Silent Night over fears it will offend other religions.” So reads a headline in the Express. Instead of singing the lyrics which might “offend other religions,” schoolchildren in Bresciano, Italy were told to hum the tune.

If you have trouble guessing what other religion might take offense, it probably means that you’ve spent the last eight years in the Galapagos Islands studying the evolution of finches. Either that, or you work for the State Department. Those who have been paying attention know that the religion in question is Islam. The new rule, to paraphrase Robert Spencer, is “When in Muslim countries, do as the Muslims do, and when in non-Muslim countries, do as the Muslims do.”

Thus, in one Italian town, “Silent Night” can’t be sung, and in another, a priest has cancelled a traditional Nativity scene at the local cemetery out of respect for Muslim graves. Meanwhile, in Sweden, the traditional St. Lucy’s Day celebration has been cancelled by several towns and cities so as not to offend other religions. In response, Sweden’s Muslim community has decided to cancel all festivities connected to the celebration of Eid al-Fitr, out of respect for Christians.

I made up that last sentence, of course; Muslims don’t seem to worry overmuch about offending other religions or, for that matter, about offending secular sentiments. As is increasingly apparent, multiculturalism is a one-way street. Christians are expected to make concessions and yield up cultural territory while secularists (on the one hand) and Islamists (on the other) use multiculturalism as an excuse to engage in cultural land grabs.

In reality, multiculturalism is a one-way street to a monoculture. Secularists do not wish for a society with a rich diversity of thought and belief. What they are working toward—as can be seen most clearly on college campuses—is a complete uniformity of thought. To the extent that secularists are interested in other cultures, they are interested in using them to undermine the Judeo-Christian, Greco-Roman inheritance. Muslims also desire a monoculture—although a decidedly non-secular one. However, they are quite willing to take advantage of multicultural orthodoxy in order to advance their own agenda.

William Kilpatrick: 'The Prophet Who Stole Christmas'

Do Muslims truly "love and revere" Jesus? Do we really, as one Muslim apologist insists in his annual holiday message, “have more in common than you think?” Not if you compare the Muslim Jesus with the true Jesus in the Gospels.


The Prophet Who Stole Christmas
by William Kilpatrick, Crisis Magazine, December 16, 2016:

Behold! The angels said: O Mary! God giveth thee glad tidings of a Word from Him. His name will be Jesus Christ, the son of Mary, held in honor in this world and the Hereafter and in (the company of) those nearest to God.

“Before searching for this quote in the New Testament, you might first ask your Muslim co-worker, friend, or neighbor for a copy of the Qur’an … the quote is from verse 45 of chapter 3 of the Qur’an.” So writes Ibrahim Hooper, the communications director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). It’s the introduction to his holiday message and it’s offered as proof that “Muslims also love and revere Jesus.”

Every year around Christmastime, Hooper’s message is reprinted and with it his assurance to Christians that “We have more in common than you think.” But there’s a hitch to this message of hope. That’s because every year during Christmastime, other Muslims have a tradition of slaughtering Christians and burning down their churches—preferably on Christmas Day. If you’re a Christian living in Nigeria, Egypt, or Pakistan, Christmas Day brings both joy and trepidation. Other Christians in the Muslim world live in constant fear of abduction, rape, forced marriage to Muslims, confiscation of property, beatings, and blasphemy convictions. As Raymond Ibrahim has ably demonstrated in his monthly series on Muslim persecution of Christians, the Muslim world is permeated with a climate of hatred towards Christians.

Which raises a question: why haven’t they gotten the message—that is, the message that Muslims “love and revere Jesus”? Well, they have. Except that the Jesus they revere is not Jesus of Nazareth, but the Jesus of Muhammad’s imagining.

William Kilpatrick: 'Blind Violence and Blind Guides'

"The bishops are not guilty of [Islamic jihad] atrocities. But they are guilty of grossly misunderstanding Islam and the threat it poses... They need to seriously consider whether Jesus’ warning about blind guides might apply to some of them. Their hearts, we must assume, are in the right place, but their heads are in the sand."


by William Kilpatrick, Crisis Magazine, July 18, 2016:

(Photo credit: Sasha Goldsmith via AP)

“Pope Francis condemns more ‘blind violence’ after Nice attack,” reads a headline from a Catholic news agency.

On behalf of the Holy Father, Cardinal Secretary of State Pietro Parolin, sent a telegram to the Bishop of Nice expressing the Pope’s sorrow:

As France was celebrating her national holiday, the country was again struck by blind violence, this time in Nice, claiming many victims, including children. Once again condemning such acts, His Holiness Pope Francis expresses his profound sadness and his spiritual closeness to the French people.

With all due respect to the Pope and his Vatican advisers, it is they who are blind. They have shut their eyes to the role that Islam plays in motivating terrorist attacks like the one in Nice that left 84 dead and over 200 injured.

William Kilpatrick: 'Good Islam vs. Bad Islam'

"The assumption that there is a sharp divide between Good Islam and Bad Islam is a comforting [but] also a dangerous illusion. In the short run, holding such an assumption will make us feel good about our broad-mindedness. In the long run, we will be very sorry for having played this dangerous game of let’s pretend."

John Kerry and Grand Imam Ali Mustafa Ya’qub at the Istiqlal Mosque in Jakarta, Indonesia, Feb. 2014. (photo credit: US Department of State)

Good Islam vs. Bad Islam
by William Kilpatrick, Crisis Magazine, May 4, 2016:

The February 11 edition of FrontPage Magazine contains an insightful piece by Daniel Greenfield on our failed counterterrorism strategy. Our policy, he wrote, is based on an artificial distinction between “Good Islam” and “Bad Islam.” Our aim, he continued, is to “convince Good Islam to have nothing to do with Bad Islam.”

Ironically, as Greenfield observed, “our diplomats and politicians don’t verbally acknowledge the existence of Bad Islam.” Instead they claim that the “bad Muslims” (the terrorists) aren’t really Muslims at all. To paraphrase various world leaders, the terrorists have “nothing to do with Islam,” “speak for no religion,” and have completely “perverted” the meaning of Islam. Technically, they’re not bad Muslims, because they’re no kind of Muslim. At least, that’s what the theory says.

In other words, our strategy is based on a circular argument: if you start with the premise that Islam is a peaceful religion, then those who break the peace cannot, by definition, be followers of Islam. They must be motivated by something else: grievances over imperialism, lust for power, or even some kind of psychological defect.

William Kilpatrick: 'Our Amazing Capacity for Self-Deception'

The Da Vinci Code’s version of the Christian story is an almost total fabrication. On the other hand, many of its false accusations about the Catholic Church are actually true of Islam.

by William Kilpatrick, Turning Point Project, March 24, 2016 

(The title for this re-post comes from a slightly edited version of the same article in Crisis Magazine. The article originally appeared in Catholic World Report under the title, "Breaking the Code.")

Two years after the Islamic jihadist attack on the World Trade Center, a book appeared which purported to reveal a conspiracy to cover up the truth about a major world religion. According to the book, powerful people, both inside and outside this male-dominated, woman-hating religion, had conspired to falsely represent it as a religion of piety and peace.

At the time, the book and its author were widely hailed for finally breaking through the code of silence which had long protected this ancient institution from criticism.

Islam? Er, no. The repressive, misogynistic religion at the center of The Da Vinci Code is the Catholic Church. Do you really think any major publisher would dare to publish a work claiming that Islam is a fraud? That was tried in 1988 with the release of Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses. The resulting attack on two translators, one publisher, and an entire hotel-full of people (see the “Sivas Massacre”) convinced publishers not to make that mistake again. Yet Rushdie’s criticisms of Muhammad were almost incidental to the main plot of his story and were fairly mild compared to Dan Brown’s all-out assault on Catholicism. Dan Brown has been a celebrity ever since, and Salman Rushdie, with a fatwa hanging over his head, has been under police protection.

Looked at in perspective, the enormous popularity of The Da Vinci Code (both the book and the movie) presents us with a massive irony. Just at that moment in time when a truly misogynistic religion was spreading rapidly all over the globe, the opinion-makers decided to focus their ire on the faith that had markedly elevated the status of women. And just when Islam’s historical penchant for silencing dissenters was once again on display, the trend-setters decided to vent their spleen on an institution which for decades had given a respectful hearing to the dissenters in its midst.

William Kilpatrick: 'Was Muhammad a False Prophet?'

by William Kilpatrick, Crisis Magazine, February 17, 2016:

Beware of false prophets who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves (Mt. 7:15).

Would “false prophets” include Muhammad? It’s an impolitic question to ask in these politically correct times, but, thanks to political correctness these are also highly dangerous times. Since a good deal of the danger emanates from the religion Muhammad founded, it seems reasonable to ask if he was a false prophet. And if he was, does that mean that Islam is a false religion?  And if it is, why are Catholic leaders so keen on declaring their solidarity with Islam?

It’s a case of either/or. Either the New Testament account of Jesus is true or Muhammad’s account is true. Since they contradict each other, they both can’t be true.

William Kilpatrick: The Vast Majority Myth

"The majority of Muslims aren’t waiting to see which side is the most tolerant or which side takes in the most refugees; they are waiting to see which side is winning."

William Kilpatrick discerns why the "Tiny Minority of Extremists" may not be as tiny as we would like to think, and why the "Vast Majority of Peaceful Muslims" is neither a realistic nor comforting concept.

The Vast Majority Myth
by William Kilpatrick, Crisis Magazine, December 15, 2015:

We often hear it said that the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful and reject violence. That proposition is worth examining because if it’s not true there is cause to worry. Of course, you should be worried already. Even if only a small percentage of the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims are prepared to use violence, that still works out to a large number. However, if the vast-majority thesis doesn’t hold up, you might want to order a Kevlar vest from Amazon, or, if you’re the accommodating type, you could start practicing the Shahada—the Islamic declaration of faith.

There is a good deal of polling data to suggest that the vast majority of Muslims are not just your standard-issue vast majority. For example, Pew polls of public opinion in Pakistan and Egypt show that the vast majority (about 82 percent) favor stoning for adultery, amputation for theft, and death for apostates. So, even if a majority in these countries are not personally inclined to violence, they have no problem with the violent application of sharia law.

But rather than rely on polling data, let’s look at some other ways of assessing the “vast majority” proposition. For some perspective, here are some other “vast majority” propositions that just popped into my head:

Proposition 1. The vast majority of people are peaceful until they’re not. 

Proposition 2. The vast majority of people go with the flow. 

Proposition 3. The majority of people in any society are women and children.

With the exception of the third proposition, there is no empirical evidence for these propositions, but they seem just as reasonable as the proposition that the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful—a supposition which also has no empirical support. However, Proposition 3 does lend credence to the “vast majority of Muslims” thesis since women and children are, for various reasons, less inclined to violence than adult males. It would therefore be reasonable to say of any society that at least a majority are peaceful.

But people who are peaceful today will not necessarily be peaceful tomorrow. It’s probably safe to say that the vast majority of Hutus were behaving peacefully before the Rwanda genocide of 1994 … and then they stopped behaving peacefully. Using clubs, machetes, and, occasionally, guns, the Hutu managed to kill about 800,000 Tutsi in the space of one hundred days. It’s likely that the vast majority did not take part in the killings, but, by all accounts, a sizeable number did, and an even greater number were complicit. According to reports, most of the Tutsi victims who lived in rural villages were murdered by their neighbors.

So, in line with Proposition 1, the majority of the Hutu were peaceful until they were not. And, in line with Proposition 2, the majority of the Hutu went with the flow—the flow, in this case, being in the direction of mayhem. It should be noted, however, that there were powerful incentives to go with the flow. Moderate Hutus who declined to join in the killing were often killed by their fellow Hutus as a warning to others.

Although women took part in the slaughter, Proposition 3 would suggest that the majority of them did not. And if you combine the women with the children, the elderly, and the moderates, it is reasonable to assume that the majority of Hutu did not participate in the carnage. That, however, would have been small comfort to the Tutsi. The more you think about it, the less comforting it is to know that the vast majority of any population won’t take up arms against you.

William Kilpatrick: 'Humility and Hubris'

In this well reasoned article, William Kilpatrick urges "humility before the facts." And one of the most undeniable facts of the last fourteen centuries continues to be Islamic persecution of Christians, to the point of near eradication in lands which were nearly 100% Christian at the dawn of the seventh century. Kilpatrick urges Catholic bishops:

"Will Christianity in Europe survive successive waves of Muslim migrants? Considering what’s at stake, the attitude of the Pope and numerous European bishops is puzzling. We expect bishops to remind their flocks of the duty to help those in need. But we also expect them to warn Christians when there are grave dangers involved."

See also my article, On Refugee Crisis, Christian nations should be 'Wise as Serpents'.

Humility and Hubris

by William Kilpatrick, Crisis Magazine, September 29, 2015:

Much has been written about the Pope’s humility, and he himself has often spoken about the need for humility. Yet it is possible to detect a certain amount of hubris in the positions he takes on political and scientific matters.

For example, it takes a certain level of hubris for a man to take a public stand on the threat of global warming when he has no background in the subject, and when the evidence for global warming is sketchy. On that score, it would be interesting to know if the Pope or his advisers subscribe to the “hockey stick” model of global warming promoted by Dr. Michael E. Mann of Penn State University, and later given a starring role in Al Gore’s documentary An Inconvenient Truth. If they do, are they aware that scores of eminent scientists and climatologists are now deserting the Mann model faster than retirees are deserting the frozen-over country otherwise known as the Northeast.

I’m not saying that the Pope is puffed up with pride—just that he must be awfully sure of his opinion to promote the global warming scare at just the point in time when so many prominent scientists are beginning to have their doubts. “The ecological crisis threatens the existence of humanity,” said Pope Francis. Yet the earth has been warming and cooling for millions of years, and will likely continue to do so for a long time to come.

Moreover, one has to be decidedly sure of oneself to stress the urgency of addressing this hypothetical hyper-crisis when there is another ominous and much more obvious threat to global safety. The pope has spoken about the persecution of Christians and other minorities in the Middle East and Africa, but not with the same urgency he reserves for environmental issues. When speaking of the genocide being committed in the name of Islam, Pope Francis tends to use the language of moral equivalence. Thus, when addressing Congress he lamented:

Our world is increasingly a place of violent conflict, hatred and brutal atrocities committed even in the name of God and of religion. We know that no religion is immune from forms of individual delusion or ideological extremism. This means that we must be especially attentive to every type of fundamentalism…

“Religion?” What religion might that be? Although Pope Francis is quick to condemn rapacious capitalist corporations for the crime of environmental destruction, he lets Islam off the hook for the “brutal atrocities.” Rather, he spreads out the blame for “violent conflict” to include generic fundamentalists from every religion. Could be Catholics. Could be Mormons. Could be Buddhists. Best not to look too closely.

The Pope seems quite sure about things that are widely debated. He is sure that global warming is an imminent threat, and he is sure that violence has nothing to do with Islam. Pride, as they say, goeth before a fall, and, in a way, the pope’s sublime assurance that he is on the right side of the issues helps open the door for even more violent conflict. But before going into that, let me say a bit more about hubris—or, to be specific, liberal hubris.

When it comes to strictly theological matters, it’s not wise to try and fit popes into liberal and conservative categories. But otherwise it seems safe to say that on many political and economic issues, Pope Francis (along with others in the hierarchy) tends to line up with liberals and with the big government solutions that liberals favor. The hierarchy often simply borrows the liberal analysis of problems, assuming that a great deal of thought has gone into the analysis.

But anyone who has dealt with liberals knows that, with some exceptions, they are more interested in feeling good about their policies than in checking to see whether the policies work. What allows them to skip over the details is the presumption that they are highly intelligent, because all the smart people—in government, in the universities, and in media—agree with them. The thinking process for liberals consists largely in checking around to see what other liberals are saying. In brief, if your intentions are good, and if all the best people are of the same mind, there’s no need for further research.

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.

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.

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.