Will Sri Lanka be a wake-up call for the West?

Church leaders have rightly condemned white supremacists, but seem not to have noticed that Islam is, historically and ideologically, a supremacist religion.

A person mourns near a victims grave at Sellakanda Catholic cemetery in Negombo, Sri Lanka, April 23, 2019, two days after a string of suicide bomb attacks on churches and luxury hotels across the island. (CNS photo/Athit Perawongmetha, Reuters)

I haven’t yet seen Hotel Mumbai, but I was surprised to learn of its release last month. The surprise was on two counts: first, that anyone had dared to make a movie that depicts Muslims as terrorists, and, second, that the terrorists hadn’t been transformed, for politically correct reasons, into white supremacists from rural Virginia.

The story certainly merits big-screen treatment. In November 2008, ten heavily armed members of an Islamic terrorist organization laid siege for four days to the city of Mumbai. Their most iconic target was the majestic Taj Mahal Palace Hotel which could be seen on televised news reports with smoke billowing from its upper floors. Altogether, 164 people were killed and 300 wounded.

I remember thinking at the time that Mumbai would be a turning point. People would finally wake up and take decisive action to counter the ideology that led to the carnage in India’s largest city. But I had thought the same thing after the London tube and bus bombings (2005), the bombings of four commuter trains in Madrid (2004), the attack on an elementary school in Beslan, Russia which left more than 330 dead (2004), and, of course, after 9/11.

But here we are, eleven years after Mumbai, eighteen years after 9/11 and 35,000 deadly Islamic terror attacks in-between, and I don’t think we’ve made any progress in understanding the threat.

And that’s the optimistic assessment. The truth is, we’re not simply back where we were in 2001. We’ve actually regressed. Today’s average college graduate has a poorer understanding of the enemy we face than his counterpart of eighteen years ago. The ‘woke’ generation is alert to every variety of “microaggression,” but it seems oblivious to the most macro aggressive force on the planet. That’s because the politically correct crowd have now gained a much tighter control of the narrative. In the early days of the “war on terror,” it was still permissible to say that our terrorist enemies were inspired by the more radical teachings of the prophet Muhammad. The forces of obfuscation had not yet shifted into high gear, and the term “Islamophobia” had not yet been turned into a club with which to beat Islamosceptics into submission.

Although President Bush assured us that Islam is a religion of peace, it didn’t seem so to many in America at the time. Indeed, Islam looked to be an aggressive religion, and it was still possible to say so without fear of being denied a public platform or of losing one’s job.

Since then, the narrative has shifted nearly 180 degrees. “Islamophobia,” which initially seemed nothing more than a PR ploy, is now an ironclad doctrine. The slightest criticism of Islam brings swift retribution. When a guest on Fox News began to speculate that the fire at Notre Dame Cathedral might have been purposefully set, he was immediately shut down by host Shepard Smith. Likewise, when Catholic League president Bill Donahue began to speculate in the same direction, Neil Cavuto abruptly cut him off. The religion that must not be named is now setting the parameters of public discourse.

In the days immediately following 9/11, Muslims were suspected of being aggressors, but they are now defended as victims—of Islamophobia, hate crimes, discrimination and worse. This narrative was bolstered on March 15 when a deranged white supremacist killed 50 Muslims in two mosques in New Zealand. From the month-long worldwide coverage, one would think that this was simply the worst example of a long campaign against mosques that must now finally be brought to an end.

But that is not the case. Attacks on mosques by non-Muslims are a rarity. The New Zealand attack was essentially a one-off, not part of a pattern. Meanwhile, a very obvious pattern of attacks on Christian churches by Muslims had been unfolding for years. But, by and large, the media refused to look at it.

The media has given only minimal attention to the hundreds of attacks on Christian churches in recent years in Nigeria, Egypt and elsewhere. Nor has it paid much attention to the hundreds of churches that have been vandalized, desecrated and torched in France alone in the last year. It wasn’t until the fire at Notre Dame Cathedral that most Americans first learned of the string of attacks on French churches. And even then, they had to pay close attention. It was a brief mention of these church desecrations which caused Neil Cavuto to hang up on Bill Donahue lest viewers learn too much.

Of course, some Muslim attacks on Christians are so blatant that even the mainstream media can’t ignore them. But they can downplay them. Such is the case with the horrific attacks on three Christian churches, and three luxury hotels in Sri Lanka on Easter Sunday by Muslim terrorists. As a number of columnists have observed, the mainstream media dragged a basketful of red herrings across the story in an effort to throw readers off the scent. Mark Steyn points out that the lead sentence in The Economist was:

It has been nearly ten years since the guns fell silent in Sri Lanka’s civil war. But bloodshed returned with a vengeance…

A number of other news reports began with the same lead. If you didn’t read beyond the lead, you’d think, “It’s those darned Tamil Tigers again. Haven’t they done enough damage?”

In the meantime, several presidential candidates didn’t think the story of hundreds of Christians being killed in church was worth mentioning at all. The day after the bombings, CNN hosted a Town Hall for five Democrat candidates. Not a single one mentioned the horrific attacks. Nor did the CNN anchors see fit to even raise the question. Jihad terror against Christians is, apparently, not a big issue for Democrats or for CNN.

What will it take to wake up people to the gravity and extent of the jihad threat? Will it take a more massive attack on the scale of Mumbai? More devastating attacks on churches and hotels like the ones that occurred last week in Sri Lanka? Or will it take another 9/11—only this time on a larger scale with even more loss of life?

We assume, of course, that at some point everyone will wake up, and decisive action will be taken. But that’s not necessarily so. For some—in press rooms, in broadcast studios, in universities, and in government—it may well be that nothing will wake them up. In what Samuel Huntington called “the clash of civilizations,” many have, in effect, already chosen sides. Their automatic defense of Islam is part of a worldview that is based on fear or dislike of Christianity and the West, and faith in diversity. They are so committed to this narrative that no evidence to the contrary will shake their faith. They may see some problems with Islam, but, like Walter Duranty, the New York Times correspondent who covered-up Stalin’s forced starvation of millions in Ukraine, they are willing to tell lies for the sake of an illusory future harmony.

If you wait for the mainstream media to wake up, you might be waiting for a long time. But where else shall we turn for guidance? There are some world leaders who seem to grasp the situation: Victor Orban, Sebastian Kurz, Matteo Salvini, Donald Trump, and others. But they are a minority. Many other world leaders, by contrast, seem clueless about Islam. They continue to implement policies—such as increased immigration—that will lead to the death of their own cultures.

In times past, people could look to the Catholic Church for guidance regarding Islam. But not anymore. Amazingly, jihad terror seems to be a secondary issue for the Church. Even though the Church is one of the jihadists’ main targets, the bishops’ radar is focused elsewhere—on climate change, on the needs of the LGBT community, and, ironically, on “Islamophobia.”

Indeed, some Church leaders are intent on portraying Islam as a beleaguered fellow faith. Many seem more interested in defending Islam from criticism than in defending Christians from violent attacks. Thus, key members of the hierarchy have consistently maintained that attacks carried out in the name of Allah have nothing to do with Islam, and Pope Francis has drawn a moral equivalence between Islam and Christianity on more than one occasion.

This policy betrays either a deep ignorance of Islam, or else a willingness to conceal the truth. If Church authorities are lying, they undoubtedly justify it to themselves as a ‘noble lie’—a lie told for the benefit of others. Perhaps, they fear that the truth might provoke a “backlash” against Muslims which would set in motion a cycle of violence. Perhaps they hope to create a self-fulfilling prophecy whereby Muslims come to believe all the positive things said about their faith, and strive to act accordingly. Or, perhaps, Church leaders fear that a frank discussion of Islam would only provoke more Islamic violence against Christians.

Whatever the reasons, the strategy of prevarication is not working. Church authorities continue to praise Islam as a religion of peace and justice, and Arab leaders applaud the pope for his defense of Islam, yet Muslim attacks on Christians keep escalating. And not just in Iran, Nigeria, Egypt, Indonesia, the Philippines and Sri Lanka, but also in Europe.

Meanwhile, the odds for the backlash which secular and Church leaders fear, are increasing. As it becomes more apparent that Church leaders won’t tell the truth about the threat, and that the state won’t protect them, more people will, unfortunately, be tempted to take matters into their own hands.

The point is, the current head-in-the-sand approach of pretending (or actually believing) that jihad has nothing to do with Islam, only serves to fuel the jihad. The repeated assurance that jihadists are a tiny minority who misunderstand their religion only guarantees that Christians will be unprepared for the next attack. They were certainly unprepared in Sri Lanka. As the Archbishop of Colombo, Malcolm Ranjith said: “It’s very difficult and a very sad situation for all of us because we never expected such a thing to happen and especially on Easter Sunday.”

Especially not on Easter Sunday? If the archbishop was acquainted with the activities of jihadists, he would know that they prefer to attack churches on Christian holy days such as Easter, Palm Sunday, and Christmas, and he might have taken precautions. But in the current climate, simply taking precautions might be seen as an act of distrust toward one’s Muslim neighbors. As Robert Spencer asks in a recent article, “Would it have been Islamophobic to have Sri Lankan churches guarded for Easter?”

The doctrine of jihad—the belief that Muslims have a religious obligation to fight unbelievers—is subscribed to by a significant percentage of Muslims worldwide. It is solidly based in the Koran, the Hadith, and the Sira. Moreover, it is rooted in Islamic history. The history of Islam—a history with which today’s non-Muslims are mostly unfamiliar—is largely a history of jihad. By one estimate, up to 80 million people in India alone lost their lives to jihad over the centuries. Considering Sri Lanka’s close proximity to India, it might be expected that the Archbishop of Colombo would know some of this history. But the Archbishop does not seem to be the inquiring type. Three days after the attack, he met with several Islamic ambassadors who assured him, he said, that the bombings had “no connection to Islam.”

Church leaders have rightly condemned white supremacists, but seem not to have noticed that Islam is a supremacist religion which considers Muslims “the best of people” (Koran 3: 110), and non-believers, “the worst of creatures” (98: 6). Unbelievers are also “unclean” (9: 28), “ignorant” (6: 111). “helpers of the devil” (4: 76), like “cattle” (7: 179), and, in the case of Jews who displeased Allah, “transformed into apes and swine” (5: 60). Meanwhile, Islamic law books which are available on Amazon, and widely consulted for guidance, assert that the value of a Christian or Jew is one-third the value of a Muslim.

Since the same law books, together with the Koran, present jihad as the best deed a Muslim can perform after belief in Allah and Muhammad, it should come as no surprise that jihad attacks are so frequent and widespread. There is even less reason to be surprised when we consider that jihadists are guaranteed immediate entrance to paradise and the company of 72 virgins.

Yet, like the Archbishop of Colombo, people continue to be surprised. But, of course, archbishops and cardinals have less reason to be surprised than most. After all, religion is their territory.

At some future point—perhaps in as few as fifteen or twenty years—subjugated Christians in Europe and other parts of the Western world will wonder why no one had given them warning. Why, they will ask, hadn’t previous generations learned the lessons provided by Mumbai, Madrid, London, Beslan, New York, Orlando, Paris, Nice, Brussels, Bali, Nigeria, Egypt and Sri Lanka?

Catholics, especially, will wonder why their shepherds had felt no obligation to inform them.

If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!

Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.

About William Kilpatrick 81 Articles
William Kilpatrick is the author of several books on religion and culture including Christianity, Islam, and Atheism: The Struggle for the Soul of the West (Ignatius Press) and What Catholics Need to Know About Islam (Sophia Institute Press). For more on his work and writings, visit his Turning Point Project website.


  1. A very hard hitting article indeed. I am from India, and feel the entire church heirarchy is delusional. We have been taught since Vatican 2 that dialog is the means to build bridges. Clearly the bridges we build are being blown up by our dialog partners and the alienation is worse than when the dialog started.

  2. With a few exceptions, Catholic Bishops and Cardinals give the impression that you have to be both brainless and spineless in order to “qualify” for the job.

    A man who is capable of fatherly concern does not respond to mass atrocity by saying “it is very difficult and sad.” A healthy father responds with righteous anger at the crime against his home.

    “Difficult and sad” is the very same “canned” public response used by most Bishops and Cardinals when pretending to be “shocked” by homosexual predators (and occasional adulterers and fornicators) among the clergy and episcopacy.

    Archbishop Ranjith seems to be content, like most Bishops and Cardinals, to pretend that REALITY is NOT happening.

    I have no doubt that Pope Francis and Cardinal Parolin are pleased with “his tone.”

  3. There was a poll taken in Germany a few years back where a majority of the people said they would not defend the country if attacked by a generic enemy. When you think about that it not that surprising . The only thing Germans and all Europeans hold sacred is their four to six weeks of vacation each year.

  4. The reason why the West won’t wake up is that it doesn’t want to wake up, afraid of what it will discover if it does.

    It would first discover that Christianity is the only true religion and that it condemns the Sexual Revolution.

    Then, it would have to ask God’s forgiveness for what must be done to the Muslims in order to restore peace to the world.

  5. More fear-mongering for clicks! CWR in top form! One’s civil liberties are a small price to pay to keep on exterminating brown people.

    • Joe K., has anything changed with regards to Islamic doctrine which would discourage/prohibit Muslims from forcing Christians, through taxation or even death, to submit to their theocracy?

      • Has anything changed with regards to Kilpatrick’s logical conclusion throughout his many articles that 1 billion Muslims must be exterminated in order to secure Christian peace?

        It’s tiresome to see so many people beat around the bush. Just say what you want instead of obfuscating. Or better yet, let’s not keep on writing articles whose underpinnings yearn for mass genocide.

        • Joe K:

          Should I consider you to be knowledgeable about Islam?

          For instance, should people reading your comments consider you well informed about major polling organizations who publish polls of values held by Muslim people in various countries?

          Is there any reason, for example, for peace-loving people to be opposed to Palestinian influence in US organizations and political parties?

        • “Has anything changed with regards to Kilpatrick’s logical conclusion throughout his many articles that 1 billion Muslims must be exterminated in order to secure Christian peace?”

          Stop projecting your errors in logic on others.

    • Joe K, Islam is not a race or skin color. It is a totalitarian ideology like Fascism, National Socialism and Communism, and like them it must be challenged, fought and defeated.

  6. The RIDDLE OF ISLAM, finally, is that it’s a collage—textual, biographical and historical. Unlike the Gospels—which consistently do not advocate conquest in this world—the Qur’an conflates peace with conquest. Where worldly conquest is a betrayal of Christ, jihad is directly embedded in the Qur’an.

    “Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you” (Q9:123; see also Q 8:34; Q 2:187/191; Q 8:39; Q 9:5; Q 47:4; Q 2:193).

    And inseparable from the accreted text, many biographical and historical CONTRADICTIONS include these:

    Until the age of fifty-three, Mohammed peacefully opposed polytheism in Mecca, but then his last ten years of military expansion from Medina and across Arabia; the first compact of Aqaba where the host tribes of Medina agreed to protect Mohammed from Mecca, but then a year later he reciprocated (the second compact of Aqaba) and agreed to protect the tribes of Medina from their many opponents—is this obscure mutation a fateful historic tipping point (?); and the later admixture of violent invaders, e.g., assimilation from Asia of the Seljug Turks who helped precipitate the Crusades. Etc. etc. (In fairness, it was Mohammed who, in but one example, first forbade his Bedouin allies from continuing to bury alive any unwanted female babies.)

    The net result is spectrum-Islam which DOES NOT EXCLUDE and even enables terrorism. (Such pre-modern fluidity reminds some of our upstart, post-modern fluidity: the gender theory spectrum.)

    Catholic clericalism (a bit like Islamic clericalism?) seems to lack a grip, or even an operational curiosity about the irreducible difference between FAITH in the self-disclosing and historical person of Christ as testified indirectly in the Bible, and the eclectic RELIGION of Islam as based directly on the Qur’an and hadiths. The Triune oneness of God versus the duopoly oneness of mosque and state.

    How, now, to proclaim the full Gospel while ALSO protecting the Christian remnants in the Middle East (and across the globe)? In this context, what does it mean when the announced late-June REFORM of the CURIA: (a) demotes the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, while (yes, agreeably) elevating Evangelization, then (b) elevates the Secretariate of State over a levelized field of dicasteries, while (c) combining the Congregation for Catholic Education and the Pontifical Council for Culture—Cardinal Parolin’s facile “paradigm shift” and “anthropological cultural change”?

    A damage-control CHAMELEON CHURCH? For the foreseeable future, are the laity to settle for yet more accommodation to the world in both the secularist west (detaching faith from morals) and, now at the interreligious level, the “diversity” of a flattened Catholic narrative as one among many others, all surely peaceful to the core?

  7. A great and very important article. In the list of where Militant Islamic terrorist attacks happened, you forgot Manchester England where an islamic suicide bomber exploded at a pop concert and were many of the victims were young children … and STILL there is dialogue this, dialogue that and skirting around the REAL CULPRITS of the piece! Sickening. Enough is enough. Less dialogue, more hard hitting TRUTHS of our Catholic Faith and what is happening in the world by our priests and religious!

  8. A very brave article which in the near future may get you charged with writing hate speech. In England, you might already be eligible for arrest.

    A lot of money and an incredible PR campaign turned Islam into the religion of peace. Christians, especially Catholics, are constantly being beaten over the head with quotes from the Gospels taken in isolation “turn the other cheek” “love your enemies”..etc. This is done by secularists, who have no problem advocating the slaughter of millions of children in utero; but also by our shepherds; especially the Pope, who seems to have no interest in keeping his flock safe. We, Catholics, are lambs left on our own. The wolves are circling, the shepherds have opened the gates and are smiling as they see the sheep being slaughtered.

    This is a sad time for Catholics, we must pray that God send us good shepherds,

  9. Will the $500,000 peter’s pence money given by this pope to the George Soros backed migrant marchers attempting to illegally enter our country be a wake up call to American Catholics that the current Bishop of Rome holds them in complete contempt?
    This Vatican bleeds corruption.

  10. The answer to the question posed by the article’s title is NO. Most likely,, though, we can expect to hear a great deal about growing “Islamophobia” and anti-Muslim bigotry & hate, etc., etc., etc.

  11. Well, it appears that Joe K is not ready to answer responsive questions or comments.

    Is this just the case of an Internet “hit-n-run” driver leaving the scene?

  12. I haven’t read the article, yet. Because the answer is a blindingly obvious “No”. And chief among the Islamopandering cowards, deceivers, Pollyannas and fantasists, are Paul VI, JP2, B16, and PF.

    This is not a “personal attack”, but a putting of the blame where it lies. The untruths about Islam uttered by the Popes are demonstrably untrue, utterly inexcusable, and appallingly irresponsible. And that is without getting started on the deceitful ambiguity of CCC 841, and of its source in Vatican 2. For far too long, excessive reverence for the Papacy has shielded it from well-merited censure by Catholics. That time, it seems, is now ending. And thank goodness for that.m

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

All comments posted at Catholic World Report are moderated. While vigorous debate is welcome and encouraged, please note that in the interest of maintaining a civilized and helpful level of discussion, comments containing obscene language or personal attacks—or those that are deemed by the editors to be needlessly combative or inflammatory—will not be published. Thank you.