The Catholic Church is “like a sleeping giant—a powerful force for good that is asleep to the dangers posed by Islam’s stealth advance,” writes leading Catholic commentator William Kilpatrick in his new book, What Catholics Need to Know about Islam. He provides essential reading for both Catholics and others about the West’s historic and newly urgent struggle against Islamic jihad.
“Christendom has a 1,400-year history of resisting Islamic invasions” since Islam’s emergence in the seventh-century, the former Boston College professor notes. Across these centuries the Catholic Church has been the West’s principal defender. Today Catholics should “once again lead the resistance to Islam’s totalitarian incursions.”
However, ever since the 1962-1965 “Second Vatican Council, Church leaders have presented a smiley-faced version of Islam that emphasizes its commonalities with Catholicism and leaves out its alarming elements.” Today the” chief proponent of this bowdlerized view of Islam is Pope Francis.” He “has been in the forefront of recent Catholic efforts to present all religions as roughly equal, and equally good.”
Contrarily, Kilpatrick warns that “most of the supposed similarities between Islam and Christianity are quite deceptive.” For example, “Christianity and Islam are miles apart when it comes to sexual ethics. Islam sanctions polygamy, easy divorce for men, child marriage, and, in times of war, sex slavery.” More generally, Kilpatrick observes that the “textual, historical, and statistical evidence that Islam is an aggressive religion is overwhelming,” which means that the modern West is “in the middle of a new Cold War.”
Such equations of Islam with totalitarian ideologies like Communism have fallen on many deaf ears, Kilpatrick notes. Rather, “you have ten megatons of wishful thinking: priests, prime ministers and Hollywood celebrities assuring us that Islam is more peaceful than Christianity, more feminist than Gloria Steinem, and more caring than the Red Cross.” In Western countries like “England, child rape and acid attacks are just the price society pays for its vibrant diversity, but speaking your mind on Facebook is a hate crime” as “politically correct policing is the order of the day.”
For the West, Kilpatrick stresses, the “chief danger from Islam comes not in the form of armed jihad but in the form of stealth jihad—the jihad that never sleeps.” “Why bother hijacking planes and ships when you can hijack American legislatures, media, schools, and other key institutions” through “cultural jihad,” he asks. In America for example, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, “CAIR is just one of an alphabetsoupful of Islamic organizations that work tirelessly to transform American society into a sharia-compliant society.”
Facing this onslaught, the “West is strong militarily but weak ideologically,” Kilpatrick mourns. “America once had cultural confidence” to win the Cold War culture war against Communism.
Since then, as “Islamic countries have been busy raising a generation of devout warriors, the West has raised a generation of social justice warriors who are convinced that their own civilization deserves to be eliminated.”
Among these woke, Kilpatrick perceptively observes, “Leftists see Islamists as natural allies in their war to defeat Judeo-Christian values.” Accordingly, Bible-based conservatives face a “Two-Front Culture War” versus Leftists and “jihad culture warriors.” “Like the leftist culture warriors, these new culture warriors operate under the banner of civil rights.”
Ironically, secular relativists have enabled jihad, Kilpatrick observes. “The moral relativism of the West is one of the chief reasons why the Islamic cultural jihad has been so successful.” Collapsing birthrates show how especially the “decline of Christianity in Europe created a population vacuum and a spiritual vacuum, both of which Islam soon began to fill” primarily with immigration.
Secularists also offer jihadists a useful strategic model. “Ten years ago it didn’t seem as if the LGBT movement had a chance of enforcing its nuttier notions,” Kilpatrick warns. Nevertheless, like LGBT individuals,
Muslims in America are less than 2 percent of the population, but they are backed by a worldwide Muslim population of 1.7 billion. They are also backed by the same powerful forces that back drag-queen story hours and boys in girls’ locker rooms—namely media, academia, courts, big business, big tech, and prominent politicians.
In response, Kilpatrick has “emphasized the importance of casting doubts on Islamic beliefs, just as we cast doubts on Soviet communist ideology during the Cold War.” He extensively examines Islam’s numerous unbelievable elements, like the Quran’s fraudulent claims to literary perfection. “Islam is a fragile belief system” and “cannot stand up to questioning, and thus, questioning is not allowed.”
Kilpatrick differentiates his rejection of Islamic doctrine from more nuanced views on Muslim individuals and specifies that, “just for the record, critiquing Islam does not mean that one hates Muslims.” “While it’s true that Islam can be practiced peacefully (and, thank God, that’s the way most Muslims practice it), that can be done only by ignoring some of Islam’s fundamental teachings,” he notes. Correspondingly, many Muslim “moderates are akin to ‘cafeteria Catholics.’ They have a family or cultural attachment to Islam, but they don’t have a thorough knowledge of their faith or any great desire to follow all of its commands.”
Kilpatrick has therefore provided an excellent cultural call to arms for a West beleaguered by forces from within and without. “No matter how many soldiers we send to fight in the Middle East, the main battle in the clash of civilizations is being waged in America’s classrooms,” he accurately assesses. The West’s salvation demands a “recovery of the Judeo-Christian belief that God is a God of love, justice, reason, and goodness—and that we are made in His image (a concept that does not exist in Islam).” Kilpatrick’s book is indispensable to those who would follow his rousing invocation of Ephesians 6:11 to “put on the full armor of God.”
andrew mckendrick says
Maybe a better title would be , “What Catholics used to know about Islam”
mortimer says
Indeed, but the real problem is that MANY DO KNOW, but they are being stifled by a smug, uninformed leader.
RichardL says
sounds like a great book. The guys I know who teach at BC are all leftards who think Jesus was like Che Guevara. Sickening.
AnnChristine says
Tell all Catholics to visit BARE NAKED ISLAM
And JIHAD WATCH More Islamic History written here than anywhere I have seen on the internet It is a rude awakening——-Politicians are also welcome perhaps some of the written word will penetrate their Dhimmi Skulls!!
mgoldberg says
I don’t know what has become of the Catholic theologian and Professor, George Weigel. I have a copy of his book, ,’Faith, Reason, and the War against Jihadism’- a call to action. Does anyone have any info on this man what has become of his writings and place in teaching?
gravenimage says
Weigel is still active:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Weigel
His “Faith, Reason, and the War against Jihadism” is important.
b.a. freeman says
since SJWs are so hyperactive on wikipedia, i am surprised that the article is still there, and does not seem to have been twisted by them to any great extent. since this is my first exposure to mr. weigel, however, i’m not really in any position to know for certain. it’s just that the content of the article does not seem too insulting to him.
thanks for the introdution, mgoldberg; i will be checking out his writing. and thanks for the link, GI; i’ve downloaded the article for comparison with future versions.
gravenimage says
Thanks.
DVult says
FULL armor not “follow” armor. Nevertheless, VatII in the garbage and full armor it be.
SKA says
Dr. Ian Smith’s courses on Christian polemics of Islamic doctrine could be the basis for a focused ideological offensive against the creeping coup d’etat of Shari’ah in the West.
mortimer says
William Kilpatrick is right. If the combine intellectual power of Roman Catholic intellectuals were applied to Islam, the problem of jihadism would virtually cease to exist.
Intellectuals need to do to the Koran the sort of form criticism and historical revisionism that was done to the Bible.
The Koran is self-consciously a book of DIRECT REVELATION (read: ‘mythology’), rather than of historical or scientific facts. The Koran is a book of SPIRIT-DICTATION and thus is PURE MYTH.
It can easily be deconstructed.
Sylvia Drummond says
Any catholic counter attack against mohammedanism won’t be led by the milk and water pope who thinks, like so many do, that appeasement is the way forward. Mohammedans are violent criminals by western standards and deportation should be standard practice when dealing with them.
Zimriel says
Orthodoxy used to be solid as well – in fact, they were in full communion up to 1054. But I get the feeling that every argument made here against our common opponent will apply across the Mediterranean.
Cynthia in California says
I’m not sure why you say that Orthodoxy “used to be solid” on anti-Islamic ideology. I’ve only been Orthodox for five years (adult convert), but I know that we have some troparia (short songs in honor of a saint, occasion, or specific miracle) calling down “woe” on Moslems. Yes, that’s the spelling in the troparia.
Mauricio says
The popeists used to have that same prayer: “woe to muslims…” . I read it in one of my great grandmother’s devotional book actually…..until a pope removed it like a century ago and forbade praying that moving forward.
gravenimage says
Alas, there is a lot of pandering to Islam in many high-ranking Orthodox circles, as well. One example:
“Four Principles from Patriarch Kirill on Islam, Western Immorality, and Interfaith Dialogue”
“The Moscow Patriarchate looks forward to continued dialogue and strengthened relations with Muslim leaders, especially given the rapid decline of morality in the West…”
https://myocn.net/four-principles-patriarch-kirill-islam-western-immorality-interfaith-dialogue/
jewdog says
Just look at the contrast between Martin Luther King and Black Lives Matter. Rev King was a Christian pastor who embodied the Judeo-Christian ethic of respect for human dignity (as God created all humans in His image), the possibility of redemption of all human beings, and the tactic of non-violence. His program was specifically aimed at unjust laws and practices and was ultimately persuasive, pragmatic and successful.
In contrast, Black Lives Matter draws on the Marxist theory of class warfare and is aligned in spirit and tactics with Islamist groups. It exploits real or alleged cases of racism to collectively demonize its opponents in a way that is reminiscent of Islamic extremist groups. Despite its attraction to many well intentioned but naive people, it is essentially divisive, violent and hateful. It has no coherent program, and ultimately will accomplish nothing.
The prominence and respect that BLM (or ANTIFA) gets is a troubling testament to the devolution of our culture and serves to underline some of the insidious tendencies discussed by William Kilpatrick.
b.a. freeman says
[BLM] has no coherent program, and ultimately will accomplish nothing.”
—
i’m afraid that i must disagree with U on that point, JD; U are correct if and only if we free people are able to block their immediate aims. since they are marxist, we may rest assured that the true goal of BLM is to introduce as much chaos and violence as possible into society – as part of the larger goal of destruction of that society (which, of course, they never reveal publicly). destruction as an end is stupid, but not if U have a plan to implement *after* the destruction. and as we have seen again and again, all marxists (and nazis, and fascists, and *every* possible flavor of socialist) have such a larger goal, and that goal is construction of a socialist “society” (as dysfunctional as islamic “society”) made up of “new” socialist people. and because people can’t be changed by human diktat, such “societies” will always be degrading dictatorships.
as has been noted before, socialists are pragmatic, and will cooperate with future enemies who are also enemies of the current society (the enemy of my enemy is my (current) friend). hence, self-motivated attackers of the current order are encouraged and given political cover by the hard-core left (“intersectionality” was an ingenious – and evil – idea) because *no* *aid* from the left is required. aid in the form of importing more of the ummah is extracted from the victim society – us – via taxation, and *NOBODY* in the national legislature opposes it, because they have all been prevented from being exposed to the truth about islam by the leftist indoctrination they received at all levels of “education” in this and other westernized countries. as free people, we are *WAY* behind in this game. education is the key (as the socialists well know – they have conquered our education system and made it an indoctrination system), but there is probably too little time for that to succeed (it took the socialists 5 or 6 decades in most westernized countries). the only hope that i see for a peaceful resolution is for free people to expose the hard-core left so often that even the indoctrinated, nominally-leftist man-in-the-street begins to grasp the truth. if we fail, then we are doomed to civil war II, with no guarantee that the truth will win.
James Lincoln says
b.a. freeman,
A very chilling analysis – best to err on the side of caution and assume that your analysis is correct…
jewdog says
Thx, I stand corrected, I should have written: BLM will accomplish nothing positive.
gravenimage says
Grim stuff–but accurate.
GreekEmpress says
William Kilpatrick—Yay! Another Catholic that gets it!!
James Lincoln says
One of the best and most important feature articles I have ever read here at Jihad Watch.
A concise article, jampacked with very important information.
A great take-home is when Kilpatrick states:
“…the West is strong militarily but weak ideologically…”
Some Western countries more than others, but this *all* has to change…
gravenimage says
+1
RandyE says
A Christian Catholic that sees the danger of Islam, unlike the current “Pope” – leader of the church, but for God or Satan?
“For the West, Kilpatrick stresses, the ‘chief danger from Islam comes not in the form of armed jihad but in the form of stealth jihad—the jihad that never sleeps.'”
The American Democrat party demagoguery discounts the threat for short term gains, ignoring and underestimating the long term damage to the USA and World!
gravenimage says
William Kilpatrick Makes the Catholic Case for Counter-Jihad
………….
Good to hear!