More about cowardice or cash?

WALLACE TOM Jr. (2015) Refuting Islam, The Christian Patriots Guide to Exposing the Evils of Islam, Bellingham, Fundamental Publishers.

The book review continues... 

Chapter Four: Taking A Stand

In a Culture of Cowards, Mr. Wallace opines that if (paraphrased) someone criticizes Islam that he/she will be labelled in a negative way as in offensive. (31).

I can grant this proposition. At this point in Western society it is often considered non-politically correct and conservative, to critique Islam negatively.  As I wrote in the last review (January 15 2018), there are financial considerations to why many politicians will not critique Islam negatively.

Cited

'I would opine that Western governments are very concerned with economy and investment. If persons from Islamic countries can bring investment money into their Western nations, especially, 'money talks'. Religion is a significant concern, in a political context when it is considered radical, in other words, a threat to the Western secular 'status quo'.
---

In regard to many of these cases is this more about cowardice or cash?

I would add that Western business people, besides politicians, would also have more interest in Muslims for their investment funds, as opposed to being very concerned with Islamic theology. For the most part, there is only concern from the powers that be, in Western society, when in particular, the financial system is challenged by opposing views such as radical Islam that uses violence and terrorism.

Radical Islam does not have enough military force to overtake the West and take away freedom, but radical Islam can disrupt the economy.

Mr. Wallace opines that there is cowardice from the pulpits of America (31).

By all means, when appropriate, I reason that Christian, Biblical pastors should explains the differences between New Testament theology and the theology of the Qur'an and the Sunnah. As I respectfully mentioned June 7 2017:

Cited

As a very brief, non-exhaustive, explanation, I reject Islam because it is chronologically later (claimed) revelation than the New Testament and Hebrew Bible. It is originally from Arabia, not Israel and Europe and not within the traditions of the Hebrew Bible and New Testament. Islamic doctrine rejects essential New Testament doctrine, such the trinity and deity of Jesus Christ, the atoning and resurrection work of Jesus Christ.

In contrast, the new covenant of the New Testament replaces and amplifies the old covenant of the Hebrew Bible. If it replaced with outright contradiction, illogic, it would be void. The New Testament is viewed as progressive revelation from the Old Testament. The Bible is not 'flat', but neither would outright contradiction be intellectually tenable.

Yet, Islam, in part claims the divine validity of the Hebrew Bible and New Testament, while denying and contradicting certain biblical essentials. This is fatal contradiction. The importance of this should not be overlooked. Being an Abrahamic, monotheistic faith in no way counters this fatal objection. The New Testament, for example, having thousands of manuscripts in whole or in part for support which would be contradicted outright by later Islamic rejection of the trinity and salvific work of Jesus Christ.

For me the popularity of Islam is irrelevant as a truth claim. I would place more credibility in a supposed, hypothetical, religious worldview which presented something new and denied the divine inspiration of the previous biblical revelation which it contradicts in regard to certain essential theology.