• Why Jihad Watch?
  • About Robert Spencer and Staff Writers
  • FAQ
  • Books
  • Muhammad
  • Islam 101
  • Privacy

Jihad Watch

Exposing the role that Islamic jihad theology and ideology play in the modern global conflicts

William Kilpatrick — ‘Needed: A New Church Policy toward Islam, Pt. 2’

Jun 4, 2015 12:42 pm By Ralph Sidway

In our times and culture, speaking truth is so radical a concept that the following sounds almost revolutionary. As with Part 1, these questions and discussions apply to all Christian communions, and indeed all free peoples:

“Church policy should at least be redirected toward telling the truth to fellow Catholics. Right now, Catholics are being seriously misled about the nature of Islam…  The bishops don’t necessarily have to censure Islam, but they also don’t have to talk about their esteem for it… You can express your respect for Muslims, but do you really want to express your respect for Islam?”

 See Part 1.

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

by William Kilpatrick, Crisis Magazine — February 4, 2015

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

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

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

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

 The larger context is that Islam wants to shut down any speech critical of Islam in any way. By “Islam,” I don’t mean every Muslim in the world. But how about the OIC—the Organization of Islamic Cooperation? Comprised of fifty-seven Muslim-majority nations and the Palestinian Authority, it’s the largest Islamic body in the world and also the largest bloc at the UN. What’s the chief project of the OIC? According to one observer, “For more than a decade, ‘the collective voice of the Muslim world’ has spread the belief that any insult directed against the Muslim faith or its prophet demands absolute suppression.” The OIC has relentlessly pushed its agenda in the UN by lobbying and by passing resolutions to prohibit the defamation of religion. Unfortunately, the OIC’s idea of what constitutes an insult is considerably broader than the pope’s. So is the penalty for insult. Whereas the pope will merely reproach you, the OIC wants to put you in jail. Its goal is to criminalize criticism of Islam and to punish Islamophobia with prison.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“The objective is not to make Muslims angry, but to make them uncomfortable with their faith…

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

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

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

If all of the above still seems too confrontational toward Muslims to suit ecclesiastical tastes, then Church policy should at least be redirected toward telling the truth to fellow Catholics. Right now, Catholics are being seriously misled about the nature of Islam. Popes and prelates don’t have to go around poking holes in the Islamic narrative, but neither should they be reinforcing it. The bishops don’t necessarily have to censure Islam, but they also don’t have to talk about their esteem for it, or to dwell on its (supposed) similarities to Christianity. You can express your respect for Muslims, but do you really want to express your respect for Islam?

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

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

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

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

_______

William Kilpatrick taught for many years at Boston College. He is the author of several books about cultural and religious issues, including Psychological Seduction; Why Johnny Can’t Tell Right From Wrong; and Christianity, Islam and Atheism: The Struggle for the Soul of the West. He is also the author of a new book entitled Insecurity. His articles have appeared in numerous publications, including Catholic World Report, National Catholic Register, Aleteia, Saint Austin Review, Investor’s Business Daily, and FrontPage Magazine. His work is supported in part by the Shillman Foundation.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • More
  • Click to share on Skype (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)

Follow me on Facebook

Filed Under: Catholic Church, Islamic Jihad, Islamic supremacism, Muslim persecution of Christians, Qur'an Tagged With: muhammad, Pope Francis


Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Comments

  1. mortimer says

    Jun 4, 2015 at 1:01 pm

    One-way tolerance is subservience.

    One-way respect is submission.

  2. mortimer says

    Jun 4, 2015 at 1:06 pm

    William Kirkpatrick wrote: “I’ll suggest some concrete ways for the Church to implement a more sensible strategy in regard to Islam.”

    How about the words of Fr Henri Boulad SJ of Alexandria, Egypt?

    “Islamism is not a caricature, nor a counterfeit, nor a heresy, nor a fringe or atypical phenomenon versus classical, orthodox, Sunnite Islam.

    To the contrary, I think Islamism is naked Islam, Islam without a mask and without paint, Islam perfectly consistent and true to itself, an Islam that has the courage and lucidity to go all the way to its ultimate conclusions and final implications.
    Islamism is Islam in all its logic and in all its rigor. Islamism is present in Islam as the chick is present in the egg, as the fruit is present in the flower and as the tree is present in the seed.

    But what is Islamism?

    Islamism is political Islam, the bearer of a project for a model society and whose aim is to establish a theocratic state based on Sharia, the only legitimate law—since it is divine—since it was revealed and enshrined in the Koran and Sunna—it’s a law that applies to everything.

    Here is an all-inclusive and all-encompassing project, one that is total, totalizing and totalitarian.”

    • ploome says

      Jun 5, 2015 at 4:21 am

      ‘islamism’ is some distortion Christians have invented so as not to offend muslims- not understanding that ‘islamism’ is bare naked islam!

      As Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan said : “There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that’s it”
      In fact, there is only One Prophet Muhammad, and there is only One Allah, and there is only One Quran, and there is amongst Muslims only One Islam, hence there can be Only One Muslim. A Moderate Muslim is an oxymoron because there is no such thing as a “Moderate Islam.”

      Why are Christians in the west, determined to define islam for muslims?

  3. Theodoric says

    Jun 4, 2015 at 1:06 pm

    Massacre Memory Lane…

    The vile “Prophet” Muhammad To The Women Of The Banu Qurayza:

    “It has take me the better part of a day, in stifling heat, to behead your six hundred husbands and grown sons, one by one. WHEN are you going to APOLOGIZE?”

    https://drawthevileprophet.wordpress.com/2015/05/08/prophet-muhammad-to-the-women-of-the-banu-qurayza/

    • TruthWFree says

      Jun 5, 2015 at 12:51 pm

      Did that false murdering robbing pedophile prophet really say that? Is it in the Hadiths?

  4. Bill says

    Jun 4, 2015 at 1:10 pm

    This of course should be held true with Protestant pastors such as Pastor Chuck Baldwin who continue to tell everyone that Muslims in America have never done us any harm.

    His continued stand is in support of a satanic religious cult such as Islam as “Tolerance” is required if one is a Constitutionalist first which he is. God says “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!” Isaiah 5:20

    And God also says directly to him and anyone else who holds to the we must tolerate the evil of Islam that “He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the LORD.”

    So by supporting the satanic cult of Islam in America and telling his pew sitters that Islamists and Muslims in America have never done us any harm, God says that he is an abomination to Him.

    And in conclusion, The Bible tells us that God not only condemned Sodom and Gomorra for tolerating evil, but also condemned Babylon, Gibeah, Egypt, and other nations for the same God that condemned Eli, because he was tolerant of the vile behavior of his sons, still condemns those who are tolerant of evil just as this pastor (and other pastors0 tolerate Islam and what he and they call the peaceful Muslims in America.

    • mortimer says

      Jun 4, 2015 at 1:42 pm

      Many Christian leaders are naïve and uninformed about Islam and unqualified to speak on the subject. They use their own speculation and guessing to come to invalid conclusions and then present this wishful thinking as FACT.

      It’s appalling. However, many Christian clergy are becoming well-informed about Islamic terrorism and persecution against Christians. There’s hope that things are turning around.

      • Kepha says

        Jun 4, 2015 at 9:22 pm

        The issue is whether or not people believe in divine grace.

        A lot of clergy are trying to live down a supposedly “bigoted” past, during which missions were sent with the aim of bringing non-Christian peoples to Christ. The liberal meme sees this as cultural arrogance, “racism”, and disrespect for “the other”. These same clergy are those who have reduced the Gospel to a code of ethics in which you buy your way into heaven by being good. The Bible, by contrast, sees the advent of Jesus the Messiah as God’s gracious gift, whereby those dead in their trespasses and sins are made alive and brought to God through the atonement and resurrection (these being of infinite worth due to Jesus’ being God incarnate).

        However, a lot of us Christians, both clergy and lay, continue to believe that Jesus Christ remains the way, truth, and life, the only way to the father. Of course, if he was just another nice guy, such a claim (made by Jesus himself) would be appallingly arrogant. However, if Jesus is indeed God incarnate and Messiah of Israel, we must heed him, rather than demand that he change to suit our whims.

        As for persecution, a lot of us remain very much aware of the dangers posed by Islam–and have known about such things even before coming here.

        Still, our desire is not for vengeance, but that those lands between the western end of the Great Wall and the Mediterranean, the northern half of Africa, an even the Arabian Peninsula itself be reconciled to Christ.

  5. Catherine says

    Jun 4, 2015 at 2:06 pm

    Since this series of articles is being directed to a Catholic audience primarily, may I add the following. As good as Kilpatrick’s analysis is (and in my opinion it is very good), I believe the hour is later than he or most Catholics realize. Unfortunately, due precisely to the naive, ill-informed, and cowardly approach of church leaders for the past fifty years or so, Islam has grown and strengthened while Catholics were kept asleep. The enemy is now at the gates. Think about it: Pamela Geller, simply for exercising her right to freedom of speech, is now under the real threat of death by Muslims in our very own country.

    So, while I agree with Kilpatrick’s recommendations about trying to get Muslims to “come around” in so far as that is possible, the fact is, it is much later in the game than that. The enemy is truly at the gates. Anyone who has kept themselves informed over the past ten or fifteen years should know this. So what is a true Catholic to do?

    I recommend going directly to the Lord and begging for His help. We Catholics should recognize the ‘signs of times’ and in a very real way “put on sackcloth and ashes” and repent and call on the Name of the Lord, begging His mercy. How to do this, practically? “Go to your room and pray to your Father in secret. And your Father, who sees in secret, will reward you”. We all need to repent of our sins and reform our lives. The Old Testament example of Nineveh comes to mind. They repented before the Lord and God spared them. What to do? Back to the basics: Get to confession regularly, maybe every month at least, as Our Lady of Fatima recommended. Get to Mass every day if possible, or as often as our schedule permits. Say the Holy Rosary every day. Turn from our sins sincerely and do penance for them. What to do? Go to Our Lord directly. Go to Our Lady and St. Joseph. Beg them for the graces to live your Christian vocation fully. Pray before the Blessed Sacrament, imploring Our Lord to bring an end to this horrible persecution.

    To my mind, the hour is indeed much later than Kilpatrick and the overwhelming majority of Catholics realize. As counter-intuitive as it might appear to the typical post-Christian American, the most practical thing we can do right now is what the Ancient Israelites did when they realized that the Lord was displeased with them and about to punish them severely. Namely: repent sincerely of our sins and turn back to the Lord with our whole heart. Pray, go to Confession, go to Holy Mass, go to Our Lady in the Holy Rosary. If even half of Catholics did these things, God Himself would bring Islam to its knees. The problem is, we focus on the “practical” things (meaning human measures) and forget that God is in charge. I pray every day that God will “bring an end to this horrible persecution, bring an end to Islamic State, bring an end to Islam.” There are already thousands of websites and blogs, thousands of books and speakers telling us about the evils of Islam. How many people are there doing penance for their sins and on their knees praying?

    Islam, like ‘the Assyrian’ of Isaiah 10, is a scourge in the hand of God. And God is about to unleash His wrath on the world in the form of Muslim hordes doing “the will of their father.” Read John 8: 42-47. The hour is later than we think.

    • Malcolm says

      Jun 5, 2015 at 6:45 am

      Catherine says

      “Namely: repent sincerely of our sins and turn back to the Lord with our whole heart. Pray, go to Confession, go to Holy Mass, go to Our Lady in the Holy Rosary. If even half of Catholics did these things, God Himself would bring Islam to its knees.”

      Well said, we have done this many times in history, pherhaps we tend to do this to late although there are many young Catholics who are doing this now.

      What I do know if Catholics wage any initiative as defensive strategy against Islam, atheist, secularist, Protestants, every other religion will condemn us as they have done, since the catholic crusades.

      We will have offspring’s of former Catholics such Luther, Henry, France, Germany, the Brits, USA, the BBC, CNN, the New York Times who will condemn us for the next thousand years.

      The evidence is on this site of vile ant-catholic sentiment. You cannot deal or trust those who are rabid on both sides of the fence.

  6. Bridget Ames says

    Jun 4, 2015 at 3:31 pm

    Many of us are well aware of the misinformation out there on the wonderful dignity of all religions. It is Hersey to claim all religions are equal, unfortunately common sense does not reach all the Roman Curia the same. Religious Pluralism is a dangerous ideology that has bled into the minds of some Superiors. If all religions were equal I would be having a whole hell of a lot more fun, then taking on suffering.

  7. eduardo odraude says

    Jun 4, 2015 at 3:54 pm

    Excellent article. It has the virtue of being simultaneously radical and moderate. He suggests taking a prudential approach, but one that fearlessly recognizes that the problem is not “radical” Islam, but Islam itself. He takes into account the dangers to Christians in the Muslim world if we antagonize Muslims with cartoons and so on, and he suggests ways to undermine Muslim faith without creating riots that massacre Christians. An attempt at a very balanced, responsible, careful, realistic approach to a grave totalitarian danger.

  8. Angemon says

    Jun 4, 2015 at 4:02 pm

    Superb follow-up.

  9. William says

    Jun 4, 2015 at 4:03 pm

    Because communism confronted us over a longer time period than Nazism, it was possible to mount a strategy of discrediting the former over the latter. The latter fortunately was quickly discredited as a result of losing the war. The West, and in particular the U.S., expended great effort to discredit the communists, namely the Soviet Union and Red China. The effort was directed both within and without. The effect was that the sentiment in the West was definitely anti-communist throughout most of the period when the campaign was conducted. Most people in the West would not have wanted to live under a communist system of rule. That system was rejected overwhelmingly. It was an effective campaign that was carried out. The West also conducted various campaigns to discredit the system among those living under communism, one among them was broadcasting radio stations to the people living under communist control. I am not sure how effective those measures were in changing the people’s attitudes toward communism and their rulers. I believe the hard reality of living under the communist system was in itself its own source for its demise.

    It is that situation of the past that I apply to the ideas in the article here. The suggestion that people with authority in the West avoid elevating Islam and avoid respecting it is important and it would be equivalent to what we did during the Cold War. It was only those on the fringe, mostly communists themselves, who advocated for the Soviet Union and communist China. If there were general expressions of respect and equivalence for the communists, the West would have been completely demoralized and probably would have become communists also.

    I believe discrediting Islam should be like what happened in the West with communism, except with less emphasis on discrediting the ideology among its adherents. Place the greatest effort on discrediting Islam within the West. It will only strengthen us. Let the adherents live the consequential misery that their belief brings them. If left alone, and if we remain strong and confident, they will crumble. Islam is like a parasite. It lives off others, especially weak ones.

  10. selahgreene says

    Jun 4, 2015 at 4:46 pm

    “The Bishops don’t have to censure Islam, but they also don’t have to talk about their esteem for it.” If Bishops, Popes, Priests, or Pastors have esteem for evil, then the church is irrelevant. Or, at least the leadership is irrelevant. It appears that many ‘leaders’ of the church are already following the Beast.

    We’re talking about a false religion with a 1400 year history of slaughtering Christians, with official enmity against Christians and Jews expressed in their holy book, their commentaries (the Hadith), and by their Imams, specifically calling for the deaths of Christians and Jews. This is an imperialistic false religion that conquered the entire Mediterranean for 700 years, that slaughtered 3 million Christians in Armenia, Turkey, and Syria just 100 years ago. This is a false religion with a made up moon god and a caravan raider as their prophet, which subjugates half of its own population to slavery (women), and which has set out deliberately and systematically to silence the Bishops, Priests, and Pastors, and all of their flocks.

    Yes, why would the good Priestly ones want to censure evil? After all, it’s not as if the Bishops, Priests, and Pastors are actually shepherds expected to protect their flocks from wolves. Censuring the wolves wouldn’t be nice and wouldn’t be inclusive, and that is what the modern ‘Christian’ church has devolved into – a warm and fuzzy group hug where evil does not exist and nobody is offended.

    Bishops, Pastors, and Priests need to follow the example of our High Priest, Jesus, who had harsh words for the Pharisees, those of His own faith, who opposed God’s way. He called them evil, fools, dead men, lawless, liars, murderers, abominable, children of hell, broods of vipers, hypocrites, persecutors, robbers, idolaters, sons of Satan, torturers and a generation of vipers. Jesus spoke the truth; He wasn’t the least bit worried about who might be offended. He also had a word in Rev. 21:8 for those who refuse to confront evil: Cowards. And He condemns those cowards who refuse to defend their flock against the wolves to “the lake that burns with fire and brimstone.”

    Far too many shepherds in the church today deny that evil exists, even when that evil is in our faces every day and promising to eradicate Christians, and is currently effectively doing just that in the Middle East. These wolves are butchering our brothers and sisters by the thousands, and we are concerned with being nice and not offending them? That is pure, abject cowardice.

    • Ephesian says

      Jun 5, 2015 at 3:18 am

      selah…..absolutely correct! My brother goes to an evangelical church and they are aware of the curse that is islam,yet,say that the perpetrators of beheadings,etc are “extremists” and so on,and that Christians shouldnt tar all muslims with the same brush and we shouldn’t criticise their religion.It’s not even a religion!

  11. RonaldB says

    Jun 4, 2015 at 5:18 pm

    Yes, it’s a very good article, with a lot of points worth considering.

    I agree with those who say the hour may be too late for subtle solutions. The “golden age” of Islam the author described was actually the golden age of no Islam, where secular dictators clamped down on violent Islam and outlawed groups like the Muslim Brotherhood. The Western countries, having expelled the Muslims from outposts like Spain, kept them out, by and large.

    The Muslim populations could very well see their backwardness. They had to live or die in Muslim countries, so no wonder Islam became to be de-emphasized.

    But, with the disintegration of the defenses of the West, their weaknesses have become their strength. Their ridiculous habit of marrying first cousins produces low-intelligence, genetically damaged drones who cannot control rage, have numerous expensive medical problems, and are unable to comprehend, let alone appreciate, logical presentations on the self-contradictions of Islam. What the West does is to allow them to immigrate, and takes the responsibility for their support and treatment.

    Furthermore, these damaged drones are not really good for anything except violence. If they see an event labeled as “anti-Islamic” by their leaders, their first response is to grab a gun, knife, anything at hand, and go kill.

    This is where I am going. The hour is very late to apply the non-confrontational solution proposed by Kilpatrick. Would it provoke “days of rage” to propose, or implement, a complete ban on Muslim immigration? Probably, even though it says nothing about Muhammad or even Islam..just that we don’t want them here. But, if we don’t completely stop Muslim immigration, the war is lost anyway. Remember, it’s as much against sharia law for a kuffar to discuss Islam at all, as it is to slander Muhammad. Once sharia is implemented, or even respected, research into the origins of Islam and the existence of Muhammad will be illegal.

  12. Kepha says

    Jun 4, 2015 at 5:33 pm

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

    Good suggestion.

    Speaking as an Evangelical with some knowledge of missionary endeavors, I can’t help but note that people like Rev. Boutros and David Wood, while discussing the problems with Islamic theology, don’t go around calling people “raghead”.

    • eduardo odraude says

      Jun 4, 2015 at 6:26 pm

      They don’t speak of “ragheads,” but as you know, David Wood and Rev. Boutros are both pretty confrontational. They both pull no punches about Muhammad and Islam.

      So Kilpatrick is in a way all for confrontation, at least the kinds that are strategically useful to us and that are less likely to get Christians in the Islamic world killed. Kilpatrick supports the idea of Muslims being educated (in the David Woods and Rev. Boutros way) about what their own core texts say, as long as it is not the Pope doing the educating. Kilpatrick supports that approach because Muslims are less likely to riot and kill if one simply shows them their own core texts (as Boutros and Woods do), which can make Muslims increasingly uncomfortable with Islam, and desensitize them to hearing criticism. By contrast, if one draws cartoons of Muhammad, the Muslims riot and kill Christians. So that method might not be getting the most bang for our counterjihad buck.

      • RonaldB says

        Jun 4, 2015 at 7:15 pm

        I recognize your concerns for people under the auspices of Islam. To be living under Muslims is to be a hostage…no two ways about it.

        But, let me look at it from another perspective.

        The beginning of jihad is “dawah” or the spreading of Islamic faith through Islamic teachings, conversion, and immigration. Remaining non-violent, dawah also involves the breaking down of the target society’s spiritual confidence in itself and its institutions. Dawah is used as long as necessary to minimize the force that jihad needs to apply to win.

        So, as important as the hostages living in Muslim lands are, what is more important is the will of Americans, and other Westerners, to resist physical or cultural invasion, and to assert their own legal, political, and social systems as superior, at least for them.

        So, we may have two objectives not completely compatible with each other: bring doubt to Muslims about the suitability of Islam while not endangering hostages living under Islam; and to maintain and assert our robust confidence in our own institutions and philosophy.

        I think we are in enough danger that our primary focus should be on strengthening our own confidence and our own borders. When we hold a cartoon exposition on Muhammad, it brings the violent Muslim cretins out of the woodwork prematurely, and alerts Americans as to what we face within our borders. It also impels pride in our own tradition: every form of advocacy is legal and supported in America.

        If we expel Muslim non-citizens and refuse entrance to Muslims to the US, it will undoubtedly make it more dangerous, at least for awhile, for Christian hostages.

        But, if we once more erect real borders, we may go back to the secular rulers of the last century, who saw the obvious primitive character of Islam, and wanted to rule over a society more advanced than what Islam would permit. Unfortunately, it is the meddling of stupid, evil Western leaders that helped in great part to pave the way for the present Islamic political upheavals.

        • Kepha says

          Jun 4, 2015 at 9:25 pm

          Eduardo and ROnald:

          When it comes to disgust with the current leaders of the West, count me in.

  13. Marken says

    Jun 4, 2015 at 6:18 pm

    “The first time a Muslim hears the flaws of Muhammad discussed, he might well be angry. But how about the third time? The twentieth time?” Exactly. This is just one reason I believe criticizing mahammad is a civic duty. DUTY!

  14. profitsbeard says

    Jun 4, 2015 at 6:45 pm

    Calling it a Death Cult, -a totalitarian, intolerant, misogynistic, imperialistic. bloodthirsty Death Cult would be a good start.

    • dumbledoresarmy says

      Jun 5, 2015 at 6:31 am

      Yes.

      Because it IS a Death Cult: not just “the religion of blood and war’, which is what Sir Winston Churchill called it in his book “The Story of the Malakand Field Force” (about war against mohammedan raiders on the northwest frontier of the British Raj in the 1890s), but a full-blown human sacrifice/ death/ ritual murder cult, right up there with the defunct murder cults of the Aztecs and the Thuggees.

      It’s just that it’s harder to see it for what it is, because it is better at masking itself during those times or in those places where the Ummah is not quite strong enough to do exactly as it wants, to whomever it wants.

      Our current Aussie PM has dubbed “Islamic State” a Death Cult, and fools are excoriating him and making fun of him for so doing.

      Me, *I’m* annoyed with him for an entirely different reason: because he’s not going far enough, he’s not just cutting to the chase and saying, look, people, the whole damn *thing* – Islam – is a Death Cult. Period. Because, as I have just said, it **is**.

      Any system that believes that the only sure-fire way of avoiding the torments of the grave/ getting to ‘paradise’ is by **ritually murdering non-adherents** is a death cult, a cult of murder. Adding the extra wrinkle that it’s even better if you immolate *yourself* even as you set about ritually immolating those dirty unbelievers, shows us even more clearly that Islam is all about the adoration of Thanatos.

  15. Jax Tolmen says

    Jun 4, 2015 at 6:47 pm

    I believe this is the most well balanced and effective approach so far conceived by the counter – Jihad. Hopefully the hour is not too late to see it bear fruit; and have it spread through the secular elements of society as well.

    To those saying God will deal with this, and that we waste too much time coming up with Earthly solutions; does God not work through us? I’m an atheist personally, but I’m under the impression that God is meant to be a guiding force – Not some monotheistic version of Zeus hurling lightning bolts.

    If it comes to a point where lightning needs to be thrown to survive – I for one will be throwing that lightning myself, instead of waiting for someone/something else to do it. If that means I’ll burn, then so be it.

  16. vlparker says

    Jun 4, 2015 at 10:38 pm

    I agree with the people who are saying “Too slow. Too late”. But it is better than what the church is doing now, which is worse than nothing.

  17. No Fear says

    Jun 5, 2015 at 2:55 am

    “You cannot provoke, you cannot insult the faith of others, you cannot make fun of the faith.”

    Of course you can. The source texts of Islam say that Mohammed was a thief, liar, murderwer, torturer, encourager of rape of non musims, pedophile. His earliest biography tells us he was a killer of Jews.

    Insulting the faith of Mohammedans is a MUST!

  18. dumbledoresarmy says

    Jun 5, 2015 at 3:08 am

    Terrific article.

    Both parts of Mr Kilpatrick’s article need to go viral.

    Especially and primarily all of us who are Christians, or who are not Christians themselves but have friends-and-relations and other social contacts who are Christians, need to be sharing it with other Christians…and I mean Christians, not just the subset of Christians who are Catholics.

    If you’re Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican/ Episcopalian – send Mr Kilpatrick’s article, all of it, to your Bishop and to your parish clergyperson, with a brief covering letter stating bluntly “This is IMPORTANT”.

    If you belong to any other branch of the church, make sure whoever’s in charge of your congregation gets a copy. Mr Kilpatrick’s advice, generally considered, needs to be heard by *all* clergy.

    William Kilpatrick is sober and informed and accurate and lots and lots of people need to hear him.

    Let’s hope – and PRAY – that more William Kilpatricks, more Zakaria Botroses, more Mark Duries, will be raised up, quickly, from all over the Church Universal. From among Catholics, Orthodox and Protestant.

  19. Matthieu Baudin says

    Jun 5, 2015 at 8:11 am

    “… The Muslim world can go through periods of quiescence in which Islam itself recedes into the background, but radicalism is part of the genetic structure of Islam..”

    Very well expressed. Islamic Societies seem to go through periodic oscillations; from pious, aggressive and confrontational; to a relative retreat from the rigorous application of Islamic law and tradition. It seems to be the case that the more notable achievements made within some Islamic societies over the centuries have occurred in spite of Islam; encouraged by able administrators and scholars working largely outside of the narrow confines of the faith.

    Thanks again Ralph for bringing William Kirkpatrick’s ideas forward in order to shake up the current malaise.

  20. Charles Martel says

    Jun 5, 2015 at 10:20 am

    David Wood of Answering Islam is one of many exceptionally bright counter-jihadists who are educating the public on Islamic doctrine. I like to recommend the following comparison of Jesus vs. Muhammed from
    thereligionofpeace.com:

    http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/Jesus-Muhammad.htm

  21. bullfrogger says

    Jun 5, 2015 at 8:53 pm

    Here’s a novel approach . For once , just tell the truth and let the chips fall where they may . Sure , there could and probably would be negative consequences but at the end of the day it is still the truth .

    • Kepha says

      Jun 6, 2015 at 9:57 am

      Tell the truth, bullfrogger? We live in an age in which Bruce Jenner can do some cutting and change his wardrobe to become a “woman” when every cell in his body yells, “XY!”

      The patron saint of our age is Pontius Pilate. He has the way, truth, and life literally right under his long, Roman nose, but he asked, “What is truth?”

      • Kepha says

        Jun 6, 2015 at 9:58 am

        Oh. I forgot. Pilate then went on to have the Truth crucified.

      • Angemon says

        Jun 6, 2015 at 10:47 am

        Kepha posted:

        “We live in an age in which Bruce Jenner can do some cutting and change his wardrobe to become a “woman” when every cell in his body yells, “XY!””

        That’s because, you know, gender identity is a social construct and there’s no difference between men and women other than the ones forced on them by society, much like all religions are the same and teach the same things, and…

        Bleargh! I need to go and gargle bleach to get rid of the bad taste that left in my mouth. I can’t believe some people wolf that crap down by the spoonful.

        • Joseph says

          Jun 6, 2015 at 11:02 am

          @ Angemon
          Bleargh! I need to go and gargle bleach to get rid of the bad taste that left in my mouth. I can’t believe some people wolf that crap down by the spoonful.
          ———————————————————————–
          Maybe they chase that crap down with “Wheaties”. I don’t know how old you are so I don’t know if you remember the cereal boxes.
          https://www.google.com/search?q=bruce+jenner+wheaties&biw=1680&bih=882&tbm=isch&imgil=D_yCsFfoXy2EiM%253A%253Bq7vuWint5a2IoM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fmegynkelly.org%25252F85378%25252Ffrom-wheaties-to-froot-loops%25252F&source=iu&pf=m&fir=D_yCsFfoXy2EiM%253A%252Cq7vuWint5a2IoM%252C_&usg=__jxqZ1mU383aJdaWDkfYdyq78xtQ%3D&ved=0CCkQyjc&ei=KwtzVbjuO4HRsAWE8IGYBQ#imgrc=D_yCsFfoXy2EiM%253A%3Bq7vuWint5a2IoM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fi0.wp.com%252Fmegynkelly.us%252Fa0k-content%252Fuploads%252F2015%252F02%252FBruce-Jenner_Froot-Loops.jpg%253Ffit%253D600%25252C400%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fmegynkelly.org%252F85378%252Ffrom-wheaties-to-froot-loops%252F%3B500%3B384

        • Angemon says

          Jun 6, 2015 at 11:06 am

          😀 😀 😀

  22. Farhat Zubair Siddiqui says

    Aug 22, 2015 at 7:08 pm

    Look as a convert to Christianity it never ceases to amaze me how the West accepted Christianity but failed to accept its Spirit. Let me explain…….

    Do you believe Jesus the third one in the Godhead, the Holy Trinity was also by virtue the Last Prophet and he was more, for it is spoken in Revelation about him ” I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.” 19:10

    Isaiah says of him “Bind up the testimony, seal the law among my disciples.” Isaiah 8:16, meaning Jesus was the seal of the prophets, the end of prophecy, the end, period.

    “Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to SEAL UP THE VISION AND PROPHECY…..” Daniel 9:24

    Armed with this knowledge how come you accept Muslims into your countries and allow them their religion, whose first word of faith is a blasphemous denial of the deity and prophethood of Christ.

    Just as repentance and baptism in the name of Jesus initiates a man into being a disciple of Jesus, similarly Islam has the Shahada or the formula. Something that you have to utter with your lips in order to enter into Islam, do you know what that phrase means? do you?

    In order to become and remain a Muslim one has to utter this blasphemy against Christ and it is this recitation in Arabic: “There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his prophet’ period.” Ok so there is no Yahweh, no Jehovah, no Elohim, no LORD, no KYROS, you get it? Allah is god for them and he has no son, and the one and only last prophet is Muhammad.

    Why is that none in Christian lands ask for Muslims head for this blasphemy, I tell you why, because you think you are oh so civilized and mature and broad-minded, you do not realize that by his being in your land Islam has conquered you already, the process has begun with the first mosque being built n any Christian land, for a mosque is not a place of worship of them, but conquered territory from the heathen, and there is more. The next blasphemy is never to call Jesus the Son of God, if a Muslim did he has apostatized and is liable for death……………

    Is thins not the worst kind of dishonor in the face of Jesus Christ and Christianity and what do you see in the Christian world, for centuries Muslims have been welcomed, they have been prominent position in governments and position of powers. I could go on and on

FacebookYoutubeTwitterLog in

Subscribe to the Jihad Watch Daily Digest

You will receive a daily mailing containing links to the stories posted at Jihad Watch in the last 24 hours.
Enter your email address to subscribe.

Please wait...

Thank you for signing up!
If you are forwarding to a friend, please remove the unsubscribe buttons first, as they my accidentally click it.

Subscribe to all Jihad Watch posts

You will receive immediate notification.
Enter your email address to subscribe.
Note: This may be up to 15 emails a day.

Donate to JihadWatch
FrontPage Mag

Search Site

Translate

The Team

Robert Spencer in FrontPageMag
Robert Spencer in PJ Media

Articles at Jihad Watch by
Robert Spencer
Hugh Fitzgerald
Christine Douglass-Williams
Andrew Harrod
Jamie Glazov
Daniel Greenfield

Contact Us

Terror Attacks Since 9/11

Archives

  • 2020
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2019
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2018
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2017
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2016
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2015
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2014
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2013
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2012
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2011
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2010
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2009
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2008
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2007
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2006
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2005
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2004
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2003
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • March

All Categories

You Might Like

Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Recent Comments

  • janicevanguilder on New study reveals that Muslim religiosity strongly linked to hatred towards the West
  • Boycott Turkey on Greece, Cyprus, Egypt, France and UAE conduct joint military exercises amid rising Turkish threat
  • Yogi on EU Parliament members call for firing of border agency director for preventing illegal migrants from entering Europe
  • Hoi Polloi on Why so many Muslims can’t wait for Biden to get inaugurated
  • Hoi Polloi on EU Parliament members call for firing of border agency director for preventing illegal migrants from entering Europe

Popular Categories

dhimmitude Sharia Jihad in the U.S ISIS / Islamic State / ISIL Iran Free Speech

Robert Spencer FaceBook Page

Robert Spencer Twitter

Robert Spencer twitter

Robert Spencer YouTube Channel

Books by Robert Spencer

Jihad Watch® is a registered trademark of Robert Spencer in the United States and/or other countries - Site Developed and Managed by Free Speech Defense

Content copyright Jihad Watch, Jihad Watch claims no credit for any images posted on this site unless otherwise noted. Images on this blog are copyright to their respective owners. If there is an image appearing on this blog that belongs to you and you do not wish for it appear on this site, please E-mail with a link to said image and it will be promptly removed.

Our mailing address is: David Horowitz Freedom Center, P.O. Box 55089, Sherman Oaks, CA 91499-1964

loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.