William Kilpatrick has written an insightful article concerning the influx of Muslim migrants into Western nations, including America. As usual, when it comes to understanding Islam, one need only look to historical precedents — beginning with prophet Muhammad himself, whose example 98% of all refugees being accepted into the U.S. follow. The key excerpt from Kilpatrick's article follows:

As concerns the Syrian refugee crisis, Christians are regularly reminded that the Holy Family were once refugees in Egypt. Yes, but the culture brought into the world by the Holy Family is worlds apart from the one introduced six centuries later by Muhammad. Let’s not forget that the Holy Family were once refugees. But in regard to the present crisis there’s another and perhaps more appropriate analogy to consider: Muhammad and his followers were also once refugees. He and his group of about 100 men, women, and children had long overstayed their welcome in Mecca. According to Muslim chroniclers, they had to flee in order to avoid persecution. Fortunately for Muhammad, the more “enlightened” citizens of Medina extended an invitation to the Muslims to come and live in their city. It is not recorded whether or not they held up large “welcome refugees” banners as is now the custom at European train stations, but they soon enough experienced the kind of regrets that Europeans are now having. Muhammad gradually acquired wealth and converts, and within a half-dozen years he was the master of Medina. Those Medinans who were not exiled or slaughtered were thoroughly subjugated. Muhammad then used Medina as the launching pad for his conquest of all Arabia. Within a century of his death, his followers had conquered nearly half of the civilized world.

Moreover, why was Muhammad "persecuted" in the first place, as Islamic hagiography holds? Because he was telling the people of Mecca how to live their lives — that is, by abandoning their gods and traditions and accepting his "revelations," now known as Sharia. So they drove him out, he was accepted as a "refugee" in Medina, and the rest is history — a history that continues repeating itself till the present day.

For more historical precedents, read "Europe Should Learn Ethiopia's Islam Lesson," and see how the African nation's hospitality to Muhammad's disciples ended.

Coptic Solidarity

During an open discussion at Cairo University held on December 2, Dr. Ahmed al-Tayeb, the Sheikh and Grand Imam of Al Azhar — and thus Egypt’s foremost authority on all things Islamic — was again asked why Al Azhar refuses to issue a formal statement denouncing the Islamic State of lapsing into a state of kufr, that is, of becoming un-Islamic, “infidel.”

In response, Tayeb said that the only way Al Azhar could do this is if a Muslim formally rejected the fundamental principles of Islam, such as the shahada—that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his messenger—and Islamic scriptures.

He then rhetorically asked what would be the situation (according to Sharia) of a Muslim who accepts the fundamentals of Islam but who also commits great sins, such as drinking alcohol: would they be denounced as “infidels”?

Sheikh Al Azhar responded by saying that it depends on the various views of the Sunni schools of Islamic jurisprudence (primarily the four madhahib). Some say that such a Muslim (who drinks or commits other sins) becomes an infidel while others are unsure and leave his fate to Allah.

Tayeb then quoted Koran 5:33: “Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment.”

However, Tayib concluded by saying, “Al Azhar cannot accuse any [Muslim] of being a kafir [infidel], as long as he believes in Allah and the Last Day—even if he commits every atrocity,” adding: “I cannot denounce ISIS as un-Islamic, but I can say that they cause corruption on earth. ISIS believes that those [Muslims] who commit the great sins are kafirs and can be killed. Thus if I denounce them of being un-Islamic, I fall into the same [trap] I am now condemning.”

As critics point out, however, Al Azhar is often quick to denounce as “infidels”—or at least “blasphemers”—those secular Muslims who merely critique portions of the Islamic heritage. Yet here is the Islamic world’s most prestigious university refusing to denounce ISIS as un-Islamic–even as most Western politicians, at their head U.S. President Obama, insist that ISIS "is not Islamic."

In short, Tayeb’s comments further bolster the argument in Egypt that Al Azhar sees “liberal” Muslims as more dangerous and un-Islamic than ISIS — which should not be surprising considering that many former students have denounced the Muslim world's most renowned university for teaching and legitimizing all the atrocities that ISIS commits.