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.

William Kilpatrick: Insulting Religion

"Because Islam has consistently proven itself to be an enemy of Christianity, 'less Islam' is an idea that Catholics [and Orthodox] need to seriously consider... It’s very much in our interest to sow the seeds of doubt about Islam in the minds of Muslims."

Another excellent article by one of the keenest Christian critics of Islam. I consider Kilpatrick's writings to provide a framework for the Orthodox Church in how to deal with the threat of Islam to the Church.  Not merely "Radical Islam," but Islam itself.

More articles by William Kilpatrick:

• Needed: A New Church Policy Toward Islam
• Taking the Islamic Challenge Seriously
• Has the Church in the US Succumbed to the Charms of Islam?

Insulting Religion
by William Kilpatrick, Crisis Magazine — May 13, 2015
Thanks to Raymond Ibrahim
Cartoons not in original article; compiled by Creeping Sharia.

We often hear it said that it is simply wrong to insult the faith of 1.3 billion Muslims. Why, then, isn’t it wrong to insult the faith of 2.2 billion Christians? It’s done every day, and sometimes the insults are hard to take. Christians are understandably upset when art exhibits feature crucifixes immersed in urine or portraits of Mary covered with dung.

It doesn’t require a Ph.D. to figure out why the secular word condemns insults to Muslims but countenances insults to Christians. It’s because the latter won’t come after you with machetes and assault rifles. If Islam were truly a religion of peace, it’s likely that most secularists wouldn’t give a fig about Muslim sensitivities.

Still, having themselves been the target of religious insults, Christians can sympathize with Muslims when their religious sensibilities are assaulted. It follows that many Christians will have scant sympathy for the organizers of the recent Muhammad Art Exhibit and Cartoon Contest in Garland, Texas. Christians wouldn’t like it if atheists exhibited unflattering cartoons of Christ. To be consistent, they should also protest when the founder of Islam is similarly caricatured. That seems to be the general line of argument advanced by critics of the exhibit.

Freedom, Provocation and Targets

The Muslim predisposition towards jihad means “no cartoons required.”

by Ralph H. Sidway

The ultimate provocation:

A Coptic Orthodox monk makes the Sign of the Cross.

The recent Muslim jihad attack at a Muhammad Art Exhibit and Contest in Garland Texas has generated strong reactions across the political spectrum. Four of us in my church recently had a fairly rigorous discussion of some of the issues involved, with two believing the cartoon contest needlessly provoked Muslim anger, and myself and one other siding with a strong commitment to freedom of speech/expression. You can’t escape this debate. It is literally everywhere, and will likely grow in significance in the days ahead.

Although there are many expected responses along partisan lines, there have been some surprises on both the conservative and liberal ends of the teeter-totter. For example, some Fox News personalities have openly blamed Pamela Geller, the “Draw Muhammad” event coordinator, for provoking the jihad attack. (Ms. Geller has written an articulate defense, which has been published as an op-ed by TIME, Inc.)

On the flip side, MSNBC’s “All In” host Chris Hayes, in a somewhat torturous apologetic, advocated for being provocative when it flushes out extremist would-be murderers:

My feeling, though, in the wake of this, is that there’s some part of me that feels that if the thing you’re worried about is doing an event that will provoke two people rolling up in body armor and automatic weapons trying to murder people, then it actually weirdly is important that you do that… I don’t care if it was a provocation, if what it’s provoking is attempted murder, because I want to live in a society that that is essentially not okay and not tolerated.

Ryan Mauro of The Clarion Project ably cuts through the fog of words surrounding the Garland Texas jihad attack:

The media's focus on the Mohammed drawings contest misses the mark. Whether or not one agrees with holding the event is irrelevant as to why this attack happened. It happened because of the desire to find a target; not because of the target itself.

Mauro is absolutely correct: when you’re a Muslim striving to follow as perfectly as possible the Koran and the example of Muhammad, the dar-al-Harb is filled with targets. With ISIS commanding Muslims in America to wage jihad against non-Muslims, there will be some takers who will do just that.