The below article, by the ever-incisive William Kilpatrick, is written for a Roman Catholic audience, but the questions raised apply to all Christians. Secular leaders, too, can profit by his patient reasoning.
Part One of a Three Part Series.
Needed: A New Church Policy Toward Islam
By William Kilpatrick, Crisis Magazine
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.
Editor’s note: In the image above, Pope Francis meets with the Grand Mufti of Istanbul Rahmi Yaran during his three day state visit to Turkey last November.
Angemon says
This was a great read, can’t wait for the follow-up.
Dr John says
Me to. I have passed this on to my Priests at my Church. I wish that Robert would start up a parallel “Catholic Defence League”. This could be promoted in Churches around the world.
Brian says
There is already the Catholic “Defence” League…Just called the Catholic League, under the presidency of Bill Donahue….
SEE:
http://www.catholicleague.org/
AND:
https://www.facebook.com/CatholicLeague
eib says
The Catholic League is only prolife, it does not & has not chosen to defend orthodoxy in Christianity against Islamic attack. They have the courage to disparage women, but no courage against terror.
Rob says
On You tube there is a comment from Prof Bernard Lewis about mosques in the West – especially the US.
He was asked if a Saudi visiting the US would be impressed by the plurality of American society and the freedom that shows itself in mosque-building. They would compare this with the situation of churches in their own country and want to change things
Prof Lewis responded that one or two liberal and educated Saudis might think that, but all the others would say that mosques in the US are the normal order of the eventual supremacy of Islam.
Lee says
Interesting. A leading Islamic educator Dr.Zakir Naik explained that the reason non-Muslims let mosques get built in our countries, despite churches etc being banned in the ideal Islamic State, is because deep down we think Islam must be the one true religion, saying:
“…in religious matters *only we* know for sure that we are right – they are not sure [about their non-Muslim religions]. If they have been sure then why should they have allowed wrong things to be preached?” – See from 2.34 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPh4eVOrrEE
I.e. if we really had been sure about our non-Muslim beliefs, and necessarily thought Islam was wrong, why would we allow it to be preached? This p.o.s cannot conceive of tolerance – as no Muslim can.
PRCS says
From his point of view–he’s absolutely correct.
Given, from his point of view, that Islam is the final and one, true religion, it would be illogical to allow other, obviously inferior, outdated religions to be preached in a Muslim state/country/nation.
The idea of tolerance for any religions except Islam makes no sense to him (how many of the world’s 1.2 billion other Muslims believe this as wholeheartedly as he does is anyone’s guess).
In a recent news item (I paraphrase) an uber liberal college student declared that any and all “conservative” ideas, values and teachings–being outmoded, and worse–should be eliminated from “the classroom”.
Put Naik’s views and that student’s thinking together, and we have a problem.
Westman says
As an Agnostic I find some amusement in the picture where there are only two people dressed in white with white hats; each hat having some relation to Religious Ethnicity.
I’m looking forward to more Islamic Pope-look-a-likes in the future. Every Mufti and Imam should have a white outfit because the white is symbolism for having one’s sins washed away by Christ and becoming white as the driven snow. Maybe the Pope will enjoy a little Kitman and not tell them.
Jack Gordon says
It’s clear from your jejune comment why you might think you are “an agnostic” (there is, of course, no such animal in the universe). In fact, you’re just lazy, too lazy even to think straight.
Michael Copeland says
A helpful 12 minute video sets the differences out clearly:
Answers 03 | Jesus vs Muhammad – YouTube
Video for Answers 03 jesus versus Mohammed▶ 12:44
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajfs7Tp35rQ
abad says
If Islam is the Religion of Peace then why are its followers so violent?
umbra says
… violently peaceful religion? Those who it finds disagreeable suffers violence. Some victims who have died from its violence may then experience some peace.
Ephesian says
A quote from someone much wiser than myself..”Jesus Christ died for us,Allah wants you to die for him”. This may upset Roman Catholics,but for this Pope to be hob-nobbing with an Islam in the vain hope that he can change them is quite frankly,ridiculous.
particolor says
What’s that standing there Grinning next to El Papa ?? 🙂
Catherine says
Christ Himself said: “Let your ‘yes’ be ‘yes’ and your ‘no’ ‘no’; anything further is from the evil one” [Matt. 5:37]. The policy of misrepresenting the true nature of Islam is wrong simply because it is a lie. As part of a “strategy” or not (for example), for Pope Francis to declare in Evangelii Gaudium [#253] that “Authentic Islam and a proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence” is unconscionable simply because it is false. It is a lie. Either Pope Francis is utterly ignorant of the history and nature of Islam (my guess). Or he is willfully misrepresenting the truth. And that is a lie.
Forget all the “strategies”; they are for the soft-headed and the cowardly. As St. Josemaria, founder of Opus Dei, once said: “Will power…Energy…Example. What needs to be done is done. Without wavering and without worrying about what others will think” [The Way #11]. That is the forthright, manly attitude that is needed in dealing with Muslims today. Anything less will be completely ineffectual, as Kilpatrick rightly points out the [post-Vatican II] Church’s ‘strategy’ heretofore has been. What good is all the “dialogue” and pretending that Islam is peaceful, if Muslims continue to kill and otherwise persecute Christians on a massive scale all over the world? Nonsense, I say. Just speak the truth plainly and be done with it. The Church needs to heed Christ’s words and example and simply speak the truth forthrightly and not try to follow some quisling “strategy”. That would be effective.
Kepha says
As a Protestant “fundamentalist”, I am not amused by the Pope’s moral equivalence game. He’s doing all the running he can to keep a respectful five paces behind his cultured despisers, and he ought to know it. It’s all the worse when those despisers are so complacently ignorant about Christian beliefs of ANY shade that they think the immaculate conception is the same as the virgin birth and that the three persons of the Trinity are three old men sitting on a cloud. Shame on the Pope.
My Protestant side’s martyr, William Tyndale, held in _The Obedience of a Christian_ that falling in a holy war is no ticket to paradise, since the Bible does not say so. Could that be why we don’t have Christian fundamentalists driving car bombs into Holly wood movie studios or NY media outlets? Where do we have an equivalent voice anywhere in the Dar-ul-Islam?
As for Islam, our stance is that an Islamic Reformation is when Muslims turn to Jesus Christ as he is offered in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments.
Something tells me that the current Pope is not his church’s sharpest knife; nor its most effective pastor.
thelmalou says
I’m glad someone has the patience to parse out various approaches to Islam. I have always thought myself rational and patient. And yet, do you remember the movie where people open their windows and yell, “I’m mad as hell, and I’m not going to take it anymore?”. I’m almost there.
Furthermore, the pope is not dumb. Nowadays dumb people never get to be pope. They may be evil, cruel, dishonest or whatever. They are never dumb. The pope does not think Islam is a religion of peace.
umbra says
The present pontiff is ideologically progressive. This translate to intellectually dumb … dishonest, negligent, foolish, etc.
Malcolm says
Please umbra, do no not be ridicules, practising Catholics love and are loyal to our Pope. We might disagree with the Hierarchy’s politics of the world but we agree with the teaching of the Church.
Ephesian says
Thelmalou….which book is the Pope reading,the Bible or the quran? He is,to all intents and purposes,”God’s representative on earth”(not my words)and so,he should not be having ANY dialogue or whatever people want to call it,with ANY representative of islam,full stop.Does he think he is going to change them? Does he think that he is wiser than satan? I’m afraid I agree with umbra…in my book this DOES make this man intellectually dumb,dishonest,negligent,foolish…and a lot of other things too.This Pope is supposed to be a ,no,THE Shepherd of his people?
Matthieu Baudin says
Thankyou Ralph, it’s an excellent article to promote discussion. The ‘religion of peace’ line aped by governments around the world seems to have originated in the U.S. following 9/11 and appears to reflect both a deference for monotheism and a determination not to be dragged into a religious war with a potential adversary of hundreds of millions of adherents. There are a handful of other significant monotheistic faiths besides Judaism and Christianity. If the church is to honestly examine the nature of Islam, it’s relationship to violence and it’s central religious texts then I feel it would be useful to also compare and contrast Islam’s credentials with the smaller monotheistic traditions.
dumbledoresarmy says
I do believe the tide is beginning to turn.
Straws in the wind, and all that.
Here is Kilpatrick, a Catholic, talking sense.
Among the Anglicans, we have the astute Australian scholar, Rev Dr Mark Durie, with his book on the dhimma “The Third Choice: Islam, Dhimmitude and Freedom”. He doesn’t use angry language; yet somehow the cool clarity with which he describes and anatomises the highly-elaborated system of sacralised and deliberate Abuse – which could really be called a slow-motion Shoah – which Islam inflicts on captive peoples is the more horrifying because of his calm tone that allows the facts – about both the doctrines and the practice – to speak for themselves.
And I think there are, and will be, others, and slowly, slowly, they are beginning to get a hearing.
It is up to us to find the truth-tellers, wherever they are, and spread their words far and wide like so many Johnny-Appleseeds.
PS – As regards politicians: don’t look at those on the front bench; look really really closely at the back benches, all over the West. I think that when the resistance begins in the political sphere – the fightback against Islamisation – it will come from there. In the houses of review such as the Senate (in many Western countries) or the House of Lords (UK), and among the backbenchers, the obscure MPs, many of them representing rural and regional electorates; and not a few among them, whether in the Upper or Lower Houses, Independents. Some of them, here and there, in Australia and the USA, and quite probably stepping forward in the UK and Canada, are former soldiers.
it is these people that the Islamosavvy *must* not forget or overlook; it is *these* people we have to try to educate, and encourage.
Malcolm says
Excellent piece: of writing, evaluation of our Church thinking.
Christians, in Moslems communities cannot dialogue through fear of death or constant harassment.
There needs to be a re-evaluation of thinking from the Hierarchy, which is causing confusion to the realities that Christians and secular populations are experiencing on the ground.
There is a hope of interpreting the positive peaceful aspects in the Koran in a Christian context which is not how the Imams and Muslims in general see it.
Prinz Eugen says
Calling islam “peaceful” will not alter their evil barbarity — they see that their lies are being accepted.
The pope must stand at the head of his Church to OPPOSE the onslught and bloody advance of islam. He is trying to appease everyone, so will come out looking like Neville Chamberlain.
Sultan Barry is planning on making a moslam nation in the US — and misguided and confused babblings
by religious leaders in the west is aiding and abetting the process.
xavier says
Hi all,
Yup goo article. It made me think of Robert Reilly,s book on the closing of the Muslim mind.
Basically we need not only to unleash drones but Aristotle as well. Watch their heads explode as they have to think through logic and epistomological arguments
xavier
voegelinian says
“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.”
Why does Kirkpatrick limit himself to the choice of an Either/Or — either world leaders are ignorant of the problem of Islam, or they are strategically moderating their rhetoric anxiously to avoid provoking the Islam they know is, in fact, a problem.
<i<Pace Kirkpatrick, it’s more likely to be an incoherent combination of both. One wonders if Kirkpatrick is forced into his Either/Or because of the Explanatory Vacuum so many in the Counter-Jihad labor under — the vacuum that has failed to recognize positive content to the worldview of PC MC; but rather insists on explaining the prevalent Western myopia to negative factors (leading some to rush into that vacuum with the overzealous positive content of a conspiracy theory).
voegelinian says
correction: that should be Pace Kirkpatrick…
(For those who don’t know what “pace” means in that context, it would be nice if there existed an international electronic medium capable of searching the meanings and history of nearly every term under the sun… perhaps some day they will invent one…)
Angemon says
voegelinian posted:
“Why does Kirkpatrick limit himself to the choice of an Either/Or — either world leaders are ignorant of the problem of Islam, or they are strategically moderating their rhetoric anxiously to avoid provoking the Islam they know is, in fact, a problem.”
Except he didn’t do that.