A double standard for Islam?

If you’re a relativist who believes that there are no universal standards, then you have no right to criticize Islam.

(Photo: Muhammad Nouman | Unsplash.com)

Consider the following headline: “Mississippi: Atheist faces execution for insulting Jesus on Facebook”.

The alert reader will immediately recognize this as a piece of fake news. Which it is. I made it up myself.

But it’s based on a real headline. The recent headline reads as follows: “Nigeria: Atheist faces execution under sharia for insulting Muhammad on Facebook.”

Mubarak Bala, the President of the Humanist Association of Nigeria, and an atheist, was arrested in Kaduna for “insulting Prophet Muhammad.”

Now, if it was true, the first headline would elicit universal outrage. It would be front-page news in all the major Western newspapers, and the lead story on the evening news. CNN, NBC, and the BBC would spin the story as a typical example of Christian bigotry. And commentators would call for the arrest of the responsible Mississippi authorities, and possibly for an investigation of Christian churches in the state.

The second headline, however, only elicits a ho-hum reaction. Even though it’s a true story, it’s not considered important enough to be carried by most Western news outlets.

There are two reasons for this response. One is that Western media shy away from such stories for fear of being branded “Islamophobic.” They tend to ignore news that puts Islam in an unflattering light. The other reason is that journalists prefer news that is unexpected and out of the ordinary: the “man bites dog” type of story. But the arrest of a man in a Muslim country who blasphemes Muhammad is the kind of thing we’ve all come to expect.

Actually, Nigeria is not officially a Muslim country. About half the population is Muslim and the other half is Christian. But the current president of Nigeria is a Muslim and Kaduna where Mr. Bala was arrested is in a Muslim area. So, fifty percent is close enough for some Muslims to think that they can impose sharia law on everyone. Indeed, in Europe which is less than 10 percent Muslim, Europeans who live in Muslim areas are expected to conform to certain aspects of sharia law. The writ of sharia has a long reach.

But I digress. The point about the fake headline and the real one is that we have a double standard for Islam and Christianity. We give Muslims a pass for behavior we would never countenance in Christians or Western citizens.

Here’s another recent headline: “Pakistan minister calls for beheading of blasphemers.”

Ali Muhammad Khan, who is Pakistan’s minister of state for parliamentary affairs, tweeted, “Beheading is the only punishment for those who mock Prophet Muhammad.”

Here is how a roughly equivalent story in the U.S. might be headlined: “Head of Senate Rules Committee demands death penalty for those who mock Jesus.”

It’s a headline we never expect to see. But we’re not surprised or particularly perturbed when a Pakistani authority say something similar. When it comes to Islam and its representatives, we’ve learned to apply a more lenient set of rules.

A classic example of this double standard for Muslims and non-Muslims was the Rushdie affair. When Salman Rushdie’s novel, The Satanic Verses, was published in the United Kingdom in 1988, it provoked outrage and even violence among Muslims. Because it allegedly blasphemed Muhammad, the book was banned in numerous Muslim countries, and a number of bookstores in both the U.S. and England were bombed.

Then, in 1989, the Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa calling for the death of Rushdie and his publishers. Shortly after, Iranian officials offered a $6 million reward for killing Rushdie. Although Rushdie himself benefited from police protection, others were not so lucky. The Japanese translator of the book was killed on July 11, 1991. The Italian translator was seriously injured in a stabbing attack on July 3, 1991. And the publisher of the Norwegian edition barely survived an attempted assassination in 1993. It’s also likely that the Turkish translator of the book was the intended target when a mob set fire to the Hotel Madmak in Sivas, Turkey. The 1993 massacre resulted in 37 deaths.

But, of course, none of this could have been known in 1989 when the world weighed in on Khomeini’s fatwa. At first, the West rallied to the defense of Rushdie. No Western government banned The Satanic Verses, and many politicians, particularly in Great Britain spoke up for Rushdie’s right to freedom of speech. So did many prominent authors and publishers. After the assassinations, however, the literary establishment changed its tune, and began a program of self-censorship. In the following years, numerous books that were deemed offensive to Islam were cancelled or else pulled from the shelves. And, particularly in Europe, the book banning continues to this day.

Many prominent Jewish and Christian leaders, however, gave Khomeini the benefit of the double standard right from the start. They seemed more concerned with Rushdie’s irreverent attitude toward Islam than with his freedom of expression. Robert Runcie, The Archbishop of Canterbury opined that Rushdie was guilty of blasphemy; and L’Osservatore Romano, the Vatican newspaper criticized Rushdie for offending millions of Muslims. At the same time Christian leaders had little to say about the violent reaction of Muslims to the book such as the bombing of bookstores and the mob attack on the American Cultural Center in Islamabad which occurred two days before the fatwa was issued.

Many in the Church had already adopted the double standard toward Islam. No Christian or Jewish leader would have defended an archbishop or chief rabbi who did what Khomeini did, but somehow it seemed a less serious matter for a Muslim cleric to order another man’s death.

Indeed, some Catholics seemed envious. I remember reading some conservative Catholic columnists at the time who thought Rushdie was asking for it; and a couple of my acquaintances thought it too bad that the Church couldn’t handle the dissenters in its own ranks in the same way. Liberal Catholics were also upset by Rushdie—not because of the blasphemy (which didn’t bother them), but because of his insensitivity to diversity. By the late Eighties, liberals were already putting a higher priority on diversity than on freedom of speech.

In short, a number of Christians made excuses for behavior—Khomeini’s fatwa—that would have been entirely unacceptable in a Christian leader. We know it would be unacceptable because fifteen years after the publication of Rushdie’s veiled criticism of Islam, there appeared another extremely popular work of fiction, which was no less than an all-out attack on Christianity, and, in particular, on the Catholic Church.

By almost any measure, Dan Brown’s best-selling The Da Vinci Codewhich has sold some 80 million copies—presents a blasphemous portrayal of Jesus. Moreover, his challenge to Christian belief was a very effective one. A poll of Canadian readers found that fully one-third of them believed Brown’s manufactured version of Christian history to be the true one. Meanwhile, in contrast to the response to Rushdie’s book, very few in the secular world expressed any concern that The Da Vinci Code might be offensive to hundreds of millions of Christians.

The book certainly called for a strong response from the Catholic Church. And many Catholics did respond with vigorous criticism of Brown. Yet no one expected to open their morning paper and read: “Pope pronounces death sentence on Dan Brown for blasphemy.” And, of course, no such headline ever appeared.

If the pope had made such a pronouncement he would have been immediately and strongly condemned not only by secular leaders, but also by Christian leaders. In addition, it’s highly likely that prominent voices would have demanded that he be tried before the International Criminal Court (ICC) for incitement to murder (in fact, years later, Geoffrey Robinson, a high ranking UN jurist did ask the British government to detain Pope Benedict XVI when he visited England, and remand him to the ICC for “crimes against humanity;” but these supposed crimes had nothing to do with Dan Brown).

By contrast, when Ayatollah Khomeini actually did issue an incitement to murder, the world’s response was fairly restrained. Yet there can be little doubt that the fatwa was intended to result in Rushdie’s death. Here is an excerpt:

I am informing all brave Muslims of the world that the author of The Satanic Verses…along with all the editors and publishers aware of its contents, are condemned to death. I call on valiant Muslim wherever they may be in the world to kill them without delay, so that no one will dare insult the sacred beliefs of Muslim henceforth. And whoever is killed in this cause will be a martyr, God willing.

The West’s differing responses to The Satanic Verses and The Da Vinci Code is quite telling. Of the two books, The Da Vinci Code offered a much more sweeping, and far more widely read indictment of a major faith. Yet, aside from a handful of Catholics, few commentators seemed concerned that Catholics might be offended. By contrast, many Westerners expressed outrage over Rushdie’s offense to Muslims.

After Khomeini’s fatwa, Rushdie went into hiding for almost a decade. After the success of The Da Vinci Code, Dan Brown went on the celebrity circuit, and continued to write bestsellers, content in the knowledge that the Church would not be dispatching albino monks to track him down.

In the wake of bookstore bombings and attempted assassinations, Western publishers adopted a policy of self-censorship that had the effect of enforcing Islam’s blasphemy laws. But there was no corresponding censorship after The Da Vinci Code controversy. Indeed, publishers rushed to cash in on a spate of Da Vinci-like anti-Christian/pro-goddess books. No one, it seemed, was worried about the possibility of Vatican retribution.

I have been referring to the West’s disparate treatment of Islam and the West as a “double standard,” but, in a sense, it’s not. The double standard only comes into play when two parties who share the same standards are judged differently for the same behavior. But if the two parties have completely different standards, the issue becomes complicated. If you believe that there are universal standards which apply to all people of all cultures, then it’s fair to judge Islam harshly. On the other hand, if you’re a relativist who believes that there are no universal standards, then you have no right to criticize Islam when it violates Western/Christian norms.

Since relativism is the road most taken in the modern world, it’s easy to understand the reluctance to criticize Islam. After all, as is commonly said, “they have a different culture.”

The fact that we don’t hold Islam to the same standards is a tacit acknowledgment that they do, indeed, have different standards, and therefore—at least from a cultural relativist standpoint–they shouldn’t be held to ours.

The irony is that while we tacitly accept the reality that Islamic values are quite different from our own, many in the West, and particularly in the Church, still insist that we share the same values. Currently, the Vatican-backed Higher Committee of Human Fraternity seems to be working on the assumption that Islam and Christianity share the same humanistic values. One wishes that were so, but the fact that the West consistently judges Islam by a different, and lower standard, suggests that it is not. Increasingly, what we see is not a sharing of values, but a subordination of Western and Christian standards to those of Islam.


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 71 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). His new book, What Catholics Need to Know About Islam, is available from Sophia Institute Press.

21 Comments

  1. “The fact that we don’t hold Islam to the same standards is a tacit acknowledgment that they do, indeed, have different standards, and therefore—at least from a cultural relativist standpoint–they shouldn’t be held to ours.”
    But they certainly hold us to their standards.

    • And they hold us to ours as well.
      As someone said: “When I was in power you demanded your rights and freedoms because that was according to my principles; when you came to power you took away my rights and freedoms because that was in accord with your principles.”

  2. We read that “Currently, the Vatican-backed Higher Committee of Human Fraternity seems to be working on the assumption that Islam and Christianity share the same humanistic values.”

    Pope John Paul II’s effort in 1990 toward theological integrity at least in Catholic universities (partly a response to the adolescent Land O’ Lakes declaration) is related: “On an even more profound level, what is at stake IS THE VERY MEANING OF THE HUMAN PERSON” (Norms for Catholic Universities, italics in the original).

    Warning is given against both nihilism AND multicultural relativism: “Among the criteria that characterize the values of a culture are, above all, the FULL MEANING of the human person and his or her liberty, dignity, sense of responsibility and openness to the transcendent.”

    Christian culture is FAITH in the person of Jesus Christ, the Incarnation, and therefore the elevation of human nature to a new and gifted level (“the very meaning of the human person”).
    The BELIEF of Islam imposes an entirely different premise—the unbridgeable chasm between God and Man: “Let God be God, and Man be man.” The difference is irreducible to any common “humanistic” values, except perhaps at the truncated/decapitated level of various humanitarian alliances done for the common good.

    A distinction between some “followers of Islam” and Islam itself?

    But the implicit Islamic worldview is that other religions are simply being brought along by historical osmosis—the new language of equivalent “cultures,” all as imperfect versions of itself (its self-understanding as the religion before “religions”).

    In the long run, any cultural/humanistic (distinguished from humanitarian) leap to religious “pluralism” is THE PATH TO DHIMMITUDE, multi-colored letterheads and chandeliered gatherings notwithstanding. Islam replaces natural law with its partly similar, but radically different self.

  3. Not only the Messenger of Allah صَلَّىٰ ٱللَّٰهُ عَلَيْهِ وَآلِهِ وَسَلَّمَ, but all the Messengers, like the son of Mary عَلَيْهِما ٱلسَّلَامُ too – if someone insults them, then the criminaL will to be executed. The U.S is not a christian country, so your argument is not valid. An entire nation could have their treaty void if they insult Allah or His Messengers. PeoplE know MuslimS are the people of God and are serious about Islam. As for christians tHey seem to be eager witj christianity only when Muslims are around out of Spite, otherwise they are tattooed degenerates filling stadiums on sundays while the churches are empty.

    • Dear Tawhid,
      thank you for confirming the violence and intolerance of the Islamic faith.
      Such was and is the legacy of the preaching of the arabian “prophet”.
      Such was not and is not the legacy of the preaching of the risen Son of God and Saviour of the world.

    • With an optimism that today looks naïve, Jean Guitton quoted the MUSLIM EL AKKAD (1956):

      El Akkad: “It ALL COMES DOWN TO to knowing whether one should hold strictly to the fundamental religious values which were those of Abraham and Moses, on pain of falling into blasphemy—as the Muslims believe; OR WHETHER God has called men to approach him more closely, revealing to them little by little their fundamental condition as sinful men, and the forgiveness that transforms them and prepares them for the beatific vision—as Christian dogma teaches” (Jean Guitton, The Great Heresies and Church Councils [New York: Harper and Row, 1983], 117).

      Lacking humility, and “invalid” (a term you like), is the perception that “people know that Muslims are the people of God;” and it’s invalid—simply false—again to say that “the U.S. is not a Christian country” (by the census, 76 percent Christian). Former-President Obama might want to “recalibrate” (an elitist term he liked) his invalid pronouncement on this elementary point.

      Near the time of his death, the real Muhammed’s favorite wife asked if he at least might be entered into heaven through compassion alone, not needing the mercy of God. With admirable transparency, three times he solemnly replied: “Neither shall I enter paradise unless God cover me with his mercy.”

      As with el Akkad (above), a valid (!) place for all of us, including “followers of Islam,” to start.

  4. Islam, along with homosexuals, feminists and certain ethnic minorities, are according to the ideology of the Lunatic Left, categories of Designated Victims whose “plight” is always to be believed and who may never be subject to any form of criticism or ridicule. Far from creating “tolerance”, this attitude will inevitably create a climate of resentment and contempt against the new designated classes of ubermensch.

    • Excellent comment, Mr. Johann du Toit!! Radical Islam’s “values” are the same, exact, identical “values” as tyrants, psychopaths, serial killers and all mass murderers. Death is at the core of their devotion and the core of their agressive, intimidating proselityzing (you know, the real, toxic, agressive proselityzing that Pope Francis never condemns in Islam but implicitly accuses us Christians of using). Death is Islam and Islam is Death turned into an imperialistic, world-dominating religion.

      Radical Islam is Death and promotes the acceptance, tolerance, inclusion, mainstreaming and “sancification” of MURDER in the name of a very false political religion. How is it even possible that ANYONE says that Christianity and Islam share the same values and that Islam is a “religion of peace”? How is such TOTAL INSANITY possible?

      First, we are SENTIMENTALLY willingly deluded and SENTIMENTALLY willingly cowardly. Islam is a violent religion that advances on the backs of our cowardice. In the past, Islam didn’t have it as easy because disguised, “sanctified” cowardice was not held as a Christian “value”. Now it is. Why? We live in a “culture” today totally intoxicated with the Sentimental Orgy of Delusion, False Victimhod and Cowardice. It’s the SENTIMENTAL Murder-Enforced Hybrid of Good and Evil.

      This Insane Sentimental Orgy infects everything and made abortion legal, extreme feminism popular, the homosexual infiltration of the Church possible, homosexual marriage legal, sexual castration/remanufacturing acceptable, socialism/communism popular again, etc., etc. That Sentimental Orgy is the Sexualized Perversion of the Human Heart, giving us a truly demonic, addictive, sexualized “satisfaction” every time we are compromising, “inclusive”, “tolerant” and cowardly toward sin and evil. In REALITY, every time you yield to it in any way, form or manner, you are particpating in Satan’s Evil Orgasmic Delight that leads to Eternity in Hell. Remember that and always pray DAILY for COURAGE straight from the Sacred Heart of JESUS, the Immaculate Heart of Mary and the Most Glorious Heart of Joseph. Emmanuel, JESUS, God is with us!!

      • “First, we are SENTIMENTALLY willingly deluded and SENTIMENTALLY willingly cowardly. Islam is a violent religion that advances on the backs of our cowardice. In the past, Islam didn’t have it as easy because disguised, “sanctified” cowardice was not held as a Christian “value”. Now it is. Why?

        Prior to the Incarnation we see Man’s understanding of the righteousness of God manifest by Prophets, such as, in Elijah’ murderous blood bath of the vile prophets of Baal, with all their wives and innocent children. Similar to when James and his brother John wanted to call down fire on a Samaritan town; they were rebuked by Jesus. Prior to this rebuke Jesus called James and John, Boanerges, which meant “sons of thunder” (Mark 3:17) – probably a reference to the positive side of their bold and zealous personalities, similar to your personality Phil.

        A Personal understanding of 1 Kings 19:11-12
        A wind there was (of Pride), rude and boisterous, that shook the mountains (Heavens) and broke the rocks (Holy precepts) in pieces before the Lord, but the Lord was not to be found in the wind (of my bluster). Nor in the storm (High expectations of life) and earthquake (Of self-made foundations/delusions) leading to the Fire (of suffering/Reality of the selfhood) and after the fire, the whisper of a gentle (Uplifting) breeze

        For men of good intent On the Worldly plain It is natural to want prevail over evil (especially in others) to call to account and punish those who do evil, this desire comes from a worldly feeling of self-righteousness but as seen by Elijah’s inspired self-realization, God is known through His gentleness, as in a gentle breeze.

        Jesus says “Learn from me for I am meek and humble of heart”

        So, the battle has to be fought on the Spiritual Plane if it is to bear lasting fruit, we do this this when we walk with the Holy Spirit in humility. (St Bernard, Humility; a virtue by which a man knowing himself as he truly is, abases him-self).

        At Pentecost we see the Holy Spirit descend and then separate onto the Apostles conferring within them (and now to those who serve Him) the power of Truth. The Truth bears witness to Itself and needs no embellishment, as those who are of the Truth hear His voice. It could be said that authority comes with Truth and those who serve It. (As manifest in a humble heart)

        So, mankind needs to see the light of the Holy Spirit at work within us, as only a humble Priesthood/Church can lead mankind away from evil, as a humble heart (Church) will never cover its tracks Or hide its short comings, and in doing so confers authenticity (Holiness), as it walks in its own vulnerability/weakness/brokenness in trust/faith before God and mankind. It is a heart (Church) to be trusted, as it ‘dispels’ darkness within its own ego/self, in serving God (Truth/Love) first, before any other.

        Christ reveals that the Holy Spirit will “convince the ‘unbelieving’ world of sin, and of justice and of judgement;” he will “teach…all truth;” and will “glorify” Christ.

        Words of condemnation have their place, but it is the whisper of a gentle breeze’ bearing witness to the Truth, in a humble heart, which glorifies God as it permits others to see and believe in His merciful gentle ‘living’ Face/heart, which leads others to contemplate/know/follow Him in humility also.

        While reflecting “a servant is no greater than His Master”

        kevin your brother
        In Christ.

        • Mr. Kevin Walters, after carefully reading your pontifications in your comments about different articles through time, I have noticed that they are ALMOST ALWAYS at the service of those ideas, philosophies and politics that are AGAINST the TRUE Catholic Gospel of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Your disguised attempts are too long to mention, but I’ll remind readers of your stubbornness at calling us to stop calling Priests “Father”, etc., etc., etc. You look like a want-to-be cult founder in search of a cult inside the Catholic Church. 

          You look for ultra-popular anti-Catholic, anti-Truth, anti-Reality ideas and then dress them up in INSANELY SENTIMENTAL Catholic garb, just like the mocking, despicable and obscene image of the “Santa Muerte”, a skeleton dressed as the Virgin Mary. You are one of the very best examples of what I wrote in my comment that you just responded to. Now you take blind, at-all-costs PACIFISM and disrespectfully wrestle the Bible to SENTIMENTALLY fit your narrative, AGAIN. I already know your “greatest” trait is your total refusal to accept TRUTH, so while I’m definitely addressing YOU, I am mostly addressing the readers at CWR so that they are better and better equipped to spot prospective infiltrators and falsely Catholic leaders. 

          The readers here are doing very well on their own (I saw you got a well deserved pummeling recently) but a Real Catholic never stops learning and never resists Authentic Truth, like YOU do. PACIFISM is one of the most nefarious, vicious and poisonous SENTIMENTALIST infiltrators of the Church. The Catholic Church IS NOT BUDDHIST/PACIFIST and as long as it remains loyal to JESUS it will never be. JESUS most important mission was to “destroy the works of the Devil”, (1 John 3:8). That’s not ever a pacifist “soft breeze”. JESUS was tough with the Apostles and called Peter “Satan” when he tried to block the way to the Cross. That’s not a pacifist “soft breeze”. 

          JESUS called the Pharisees, etc. “serpents”, “white-washed tombs”, “sons of Satan” (John 8:44-45), etc. That’s not a pacifist “soft breeze”. JESUS called the pagan woman asking for help a “female dog” to shake her up and test her Faith (Matthew 15:21-28). That’s not a pacifist “soft breeze”. JESUS talked about Hell more than anyone in the whole Bible. That is not a pacifist “soft breeze”. I could go on like that for days. We are today no better than they were back then, as the prideful try to deny (1 John 1:8). 

          JESUS IS NOT a SENTIMENTAL PACIFIST and neither should the Church ever be. PACIFISM is not Catholicism and the only “soft breeze” PACIFISM brings is the soft breeze of DEATH from the rotting internal bowels of HELL. JESUS TRUE Humility and that of all His Saints (like mild-mannered Mother Theresa who condemned abortion to the very faces of its greatest promoters: the Clintons) does not ever lead to PACIFISM, which is the greatest enabler of evil. Real Humility is not ever a hypocritical, self-glorifying, holier-than-thou charade. It CONFRONTS evil, no matter what name calling, caricatures, demonizing or much worse we get (Matthew 5:11). JESUS is not a feeling, JESUS IS TRUTH!! (John 14:6).

          • Thank you, Phil, for your response. The thrust of my Post was an attempt to respond to your comment “In the past, Islam didn’t have it as easy because disguised, “sanctified” cowardice was not held as a Christian “value”. Now it is. Why? Which I believe I have demonstrated the ”Why” in giving a personal understanding of 1 Kings 19:11-12. You see this understanding of ”a gentle breeze” as Pacifism. I do not, rather this gentleness emanates from a self-aware humble heart, one which can glorify God and say

            “Father forgive them they know not what they do”

            As here we see His understanding of the human heart and the compassion that He had for all of mankind. Reflected in Isaiah 42:3 “He won’t break off a bent reed or put out a dying flame, but he will make sure that justice is done”
            There is no self-righteous anger, rather a call for mercy and insightfulness for all those sinners who dwell in darkness. Which was manifest in His total self-giving on the Cross, for all men.
            As with the Centurion also “The people dwelling in darkness have seen a great light, and for those dwelling in the region and shadow of death, on them a light has dawned”

            As you will be aware, having read my posts that I am also a great admirer of St Mother Teresa and yes, she did indeed confront the promotors of abortion (The Clintons) as all Christians should do, but it was not in a ranting emotional bluster, driven by self-righteous indignation. See the link
            https://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/how-mother-teresa-challenged-hillary-clinton-on-abortion

            An extract from the article, the parts highlighted in bold text emanate from a gentle humble heart which is what my post is all about.

            “This was not the end of the relationship, which Hillary has always looked back upon with fondness. In the short time she had left on earth, Mother Teresa continued to try to change Clinton’s view on abortion. According to Hillary, “she sent me dozens of notes and messages with the same gentle entreaty. She dealt with the first lady with patience and kindness, but firm conviction: “Mother Teresa never lectured or scolded me; her admonitions were always loving and heartfelt,” wrote Hillary, adding that she had “the greatest respect for her opposition to abortion.” Mother Teresa saw in Hillary a potentially huge convert to the pro-life cause, and never gave up, but to no avail”

            I take umbrage with the statement “to no avail as only God knows the full long-term effects that the actions of Mother Teresa will have had on Hilary Clinton and those around her, as those who walk with Holy Spirit, produce good fruit, the seeds of which are often sown unseen within human hearts, at the time of their encounter with Him.

            Mother Teresa will have known this and trusted in the workings of the Holy Spirit knowing that all enlightenment comes from God and because of this she would not have been driven to distraction or bitterness as the peace that He gives to His true disciples, cannot be taken from them.
            It could be said that these actions by Mother Teresa spring from “a gentle breeze” living (Dwelling) within her heart.

            I hope and pray that this post will give you some clarity in what I am trying to convey to you Phil.

            Sincerely
            kevin your brother
            In Christ

          • Mr. Kevin Walters, I am well aware that there’s more than abundant enough words of tenderness, hope, joy, praise, mercy, forgiveness, salvation and redemption in the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, but to OVEREMPHASIZE those holy words and PUSH THEM TO THE EXTREME is DEVIOUS, is not Truthful and is not Catholic. It is a wolf-in-sheep’s-clothing, the same old wolf-dressed-as-Catholic, lowly PACIFISM.

            You are presenting Mother Theresa’s soft approach as the ultimate standard but that’s conveniently one sided and idolatrous. The Ultimate Standard is JESUS and no one else. Her softness never betrayed JESUS-Truth but yours DOES. Softness and “charity” that betrays Truth is EVIL (John 12:5-6).

            JESUS is both the Lion of Judah and the Lamb of God all at once and at the same time. Only in minds split by self-glorifying, self-sanctifying, self-serving sin, lies and deviousness do they see God as split as well, an extremist one-sided cartoon. This is mostly based on the old worn out Protestant tactic of taking verses out of immediate context or the whole context of the whole Bible, and then pushed to the extreme of PACIFISM (or any other), then claiming not to be doing it. Satan is the lord of extremes (all you need to turn a virtue into a sinful vice is to push it to the extreme).

            Either you have some of the poorest self-awareness/maturity ever or you are intentionally betraying the Truth for SENTIMENTALIST approval, popularity and “glorification” of yourself. That’s not Catholic, not now, not ever. May God bless you and help you be free of yourself and all sin (1 John 1:8), as well as help all of us. Bye for now.

        • I enjoy your posts and think there is much genuine Christianity in them. Not so much those from your critics who seem hyper militant. This despitespite the fact I hate Islam.

          • Thankyou Daniel for your encouraging comment, for which I am most grateful.

            kevin your brother
            In Christ

      • “Radical Islam”? Check the following from an article I wrote about 5 years ago:

        How to Tell the Difference Between Radical Islamic Doctrine and Moderate Islamic Doctrine

        The terms “radical Islam” and “moderate Islam” have been bandied about in the Western world for many years, and the presumption in the use of these terms is that “radical Islam” teaches violence and terrorism and anti-Western values while “moderate Islam” teaches peace and harmony and pro-Western values. Below is a handy comparison chart so you can actually see some of the differences for yourself.

        Radical Islam Teaches the Following:

        Muhammad is the ideal human being. One way we know this is because he married Aisha when she was 6 years old, but he considerately waited until she was 9 before consummating his marriage to her.

        Muhammad is Allah’s prophet.

        Muhammad is superior to Jesus Christ who was only a prophet and not God.

        Jesus Christ was not crucified.

        Sharia Law should be the law of every land.

        Death is the punishment for apostasy from Islam.

        The Quran is the perfect word of Allah that was dictated word for word to Muhammad.

        All true Muslims follow the commands of the Quran.

        Muslim husbands are commanded to beat disobedient wives.

        Muslims are commanded to wage jihad against non-believers in Islam. This includes killing them, torturing them, and humiliating them…unless they convert to Islam.

        But on the other hand….

        Moderate Islam Teaches the Following:

        Muhammad is the ideal human being. One way we know this is because he married Aisha when she was 6 years old, but he considerately waited until she was 9 before consummating his marriage to her.

        Muhammad is Allah’s prophet.

        Muhammad is superior to Jesus Christ who was only a prophet and not God.

        Jesus Christ was not crucified.

        Sharia Law should be the law of every land.

        Death is the punishment for apostasy from Islam.

        The Quran is the perfect word of Allah that was dictated word for word to Muhammad.

        All true Muslims follow the commands of the Quran.

        Muslim husbands are commanded to beat disobedient wives.

        Muslims are commanded to wage jihad against non-believers in Islam. This includes killing them, torturing them, and humiliating them…unless they convert to Islam.
        __________________

        Now that you know some of the “differences,” it should be easy to understand what people mean when they refer to the teachings of “radical Muslims” and the teachings of “moderate Muslims.” It’s pretty obvious, isn’t it? No wonder people like former President Bush and President Obama declare that Islam is a “religion of peace.” They are basing this claim on the significant “differences” between the teachings of “radical Islam” and “moderate Islam.”

        It should also be easy to now understand why we are not at war with Islam itself or “moderate Islam,” nor should we even criticize or question any of its doctrines. It’s only “radical Muslims” with their “different teachings” that we in the West can oppose. Otherwise, we are simply bigots engaging in Islamophobia. Clear?!

        *Next article under consideration: setting forth the differences between “radical Nazism” and “moderate Nazism” that were prevalent during the Nazi regime in Germany from 1933 to 1945. Thank God we only went to war with “radical Nazism” and not Nazism or “moderate Nazism” – the “ideology of peace.”

  5. I am just beginning to read a book entitled ‘TheClosing of the Muslim Mind’, and it is illuminating to say the least.

    Meanwhile – go to http://WWW.MEMRI.ORG for a sample of what is going on in the mid-east. MEMRI stands for Mid East Media Research Institute, more than a little of it is seriously scary.

  6. Many times people who criticize any aspect of Islam, especially Mohammed or Allah, tend to wind up dead, and that undeniable fact would temper many of those who would criticize Islam.

  7. Left liberalism excuses and/or denies crimes of Muslims in the same manner as it has been done with crimes of socialism (both international – remember the outrage sparked by Solzhenitsyn’s revelation of existence of Gulag and his description of collaboration between Kerensky and the revolution of 1917 – and national – the dirty little secret of Margaret Sanger and the Third Reich).

    And one can expect the very same background: left liberalism’s will to power aims to utilise another inferior ideology – Islam – to do the dirty work.

  8. The other reason these actions are not need is that we have justifiably low expectations both of Muslims and African or Muslim governments.

  9. There is only so much that one can say in any article, but just for the record I would like to comment on this quote “They tend to ignore news that puts Islam in an unflattering light. The other reason is that journalists prefer news that is unexpected and out of the ordinary: the “man bites dog” type of story.” Opening a different can of worms, I would like to say that in the current Western media there is a double standard because the powers that be favor an anti-Christian agenda which is rather sneaky but apparent to anyone who watches closely their reporting. An excellent example is the BBC. It is hardly a peripheral outlet, but the double standard is blatant — an insult to intelligent listeners who can see they are treated as fools being led along a garden path.

2 Trackbacks / Pingbacks

  1. A double standard for Islam? - Catholic Mass Search
  2. LATE FRIDAY EDITION – Big Pulpit

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.


*