In a move that should be shocking to precisely no one, the Islamic State has issued a critique of Pope Francis’ recent denial that the violence they perpetrate is justified by the Islamic religion:
In the most recent issue of Dabiq, the propaganda magazine of the Islamic State, ISIS criticizes Pope Francis for his naïveté in clinging to the conviction that Muslims want peace and that acts of Islamic terror are economically motivated.
“This is a divinely-warranted war between the Muslim nation and the nations of disbelief,” the authors state in an article titled “By the Sword.”
The Islamic State directly attacks Francis for claiming that “authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Quran are opposed to every form of violence,” saying that by doing this, “Francis continues to hide behind a deceptive veil of ‘good will,’ covering his actual intentions of pacifying the Muslim nation.”
Pope Francis “has struggled against reality” in his efforts to portray Islam as a religion of peace, the article insists, before going on to urge all Muslims to take up the sword of jihad, the “greatest obligation” of a true Muslim.
Despite the obviously religious nature of their attacks, the article states, “many people in Crusader countries express shock and even disgust that Islamic State leadership ‘uses religion to justify violence.’”
“Indeed, waging jihad – spreading the rule of Allah by the sword – is an obligation found in the Quran, the word of our Lord,” it reads.
“The blood of the disbelievers is obligatory to spill by default. The command is clear. Kill the disbelievers, as Allah said, ‘Then kill the polytheists wherever you find them.’”
The Islamic State also reacted to Pope Francis’s description of recent acts of Islamic terror as “senseless violence,” insisting that there is nothing senseless about it.
“The gist of the matter is that there is indeed a rhyme to our terrorism, warfare, ruthlessness, and brutality,” they declare, adding that their hatred for the Christian West is absolute and implacable.
The fact is, even if you were to stop bombing us, imprisoning us, torturing us, vilifying us, and usurping our lands, we would continue to hate you because our primary reason for hating you will not cease to exist until you embrace Islam. Even if you were to pay jizyah [tax for infidels] and live under the authority of Islam in humiliation, we would continue to hate you.
I tweeted about this last month, when Francis called the beheading of Fr. Hamel “absurd”:
It’s only absurd if it doesn’t make sense. This does. https://t.co/27AvwpOMPnhttps://t.co/UKSmMLg7EK
— Steve Skojec (@SteveSkojec) July 26, 2016
Last year, I wrote about the Islamic State’s ambitions for the Vatican, and how the bureaucrats in Rome had better wake up:
In what is an ongoing frustration for many Catholics, the Vatican continues to insist on friendly relations with Islam. It started with Nostra Aetate #3 and Lumen Gentium #16, neither of which are particularly compatible with what the saints previously said about Islam. Since the Second Vatican Council, this innovative understanding of a religion Catholic thinkers like Belloc have characterized as a “great heresy” continues to spiral. In Evangelii Gaudium #253, Pope Francis asserts that “authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence.” More recently, there has been common prayer in the Vatican gardens (where the imam went off-script and used subversive, anti-Trinitarian language in Arabic).
Meanwhile various Islamic groups have been talking about conquering Rome.
It’s time for Catholics — and especially our leaders in Rome — to wake up. These militants intended to target Pope Benedict in 2010; some believe that Pope Francis may be an even bigger target today.
We are called to love our enemies. This is why the message in the video we posted earlier this week is so powerful. But we must also be honest enough to call our enemies enemies.
Catholics have sought the conversion of Muslims for fourteen centuries. But they have also fought them with arms. The reason Europe is not under Sharia law (yet) today is because of the valiant armies that marched under the banner of the Cross, who won critical battles against Islamic armies at Lepanto, at Malta, at Zenta, at Vienna, and more. The Spanish fought Islamic invasion in their own country for eight hundred years. Islam is a religion that spreads, assimilates, and consumes. If it is not resisted, it conquers. The very word “Islam” itself means “submission.”
When your house is broken into in the middle of the night by a man who has been publicly proclaiming that he’s going to come in and kill you and your family, it might not be in your best interest to attempt “dialogue” with him once he’s already inside. Still, if you feel that it’s important to talk him out of doing something stupid, your side of the conversation is going to be a lot more persuasive if you’re pointing a loaded gun.
I don’t know if Francis is aware, but there’s no charism of the papal office that makes a pope infallible when it comes to his interpretation of another religion. When it comes to a toss-up between listening to the people who are actual, Koran-carrying Muslims from the Middle East vs. a Modernist Jesuit in Rome who doesn’t even understand his own religious teachings, I’m going to go with those closer to the source.
Islam is supremacist ideology writ large: they will convert you, conquer (and subjugate) you, or kill you. Whatever it takes. But they will never tolerate you being anything other than a Muslim. We need to get that through our heads. They’re telling us out loud, in public. We just have to listen.
Steve Skojec is the Founding Publisher of OnePeterFive.com. He received his BA in Communications and Theology from Franciscan University of Steubenville in 2001. His commentary has appeared in The New York Times, USA Today, The Washington Post, The Washington Times, Crisis Magazine, EWTN, Huffington Post Live, The Fox News Channel, Foreign Policy, and the BBC. Steve and his wife Jamie have eight children. You can find more of his writing at his Substack, The Skojec File.
If there’s any humor in this, it is that ISIS believes Francis’s public statements on Islam are in reality a cunning rope-a-dope strategy to disarm and pacify Muslims. They seem worried that Muslims will listen to him – thus the need to write the article. Whatever else one says about ISIS, they appear almost pathologically paranoid.
I do not think they are paranoid one iota, They are, however, insisting it is they, not a Christian, who understands Islam.
How can anyone use a rope-a-dope strategy with a killer who thinks himself entirely justified?
The Pope organises prayers in the Vatican Garden and an Iman speaks the truth and everybody clams-up.
The Pope speaks in favor of soccer games for peace and any other number of anthropocentric enterprises that willingly ignore the EASILY known truth about Mahometanism and we call that rope-a-dope?
I call it a complete and utter failure of duty.
I fear that Francis is not so cunning. I suspect he sincerely believes his own ‘modern’ version of Islam. I also suspect that he is far more concerned about using his version of Islam as a foil to highlight the flaws of traditional Christianity and continue his struggle to push Catholicism “forward” into a bright modernist future of pastoral (and dogmatic) “surprises.” Thus, Islamic “radicalism” is always paired with Christian “fundamentalism,” which remains his actual target and primary preoccupation.
I suspect ISIS may be less paranoid than merely vigilant. Unlike Catholicism (or its sister Orthodoxy), Islam has neither a canon (meaning rule of interpretation, from the Greek kanon i.e. a straight rod) nor a hierarchy. What It has are a set of source texts, whose interpretation is perpetually subject to contention. This means that ISIS has to continuously police the borders of their interpretations, which actually are very close to the predominant interpretations across geography and time, and by no means inconsistent with the source texts themselves.
What would be far more interesting than ‘modernizing’ Islam (which is just layering secular mythology over the Islamic tradition), would be to be peel back the accretions of Iranian mythology (and just plain fiction) that were added in the 9th and 10th centuries, and get to down to the heterodox Christianity that is most likely at the bottom. There is a reason why the Church fathers have traditionally dealt with Islam as a Christian heresy.
Francis is really into ‘Chrislam’.
Francis knows exactly what he is doing. He plays dumb but is as cunning as a fox. He is a progressive idealogue socialist, like his son Obama. He needs to be removed from his position. The Holy Spirit inspires the choice of a pope but will not force his will. Hence we got Francis due to cardinals who serve the Enemy of Man.
I agree with you Hilary..he is as cunning as a fox. He is a Marxist through and through, and if you recall it was some 20-30 years ago that another pope came out and said the feminists had gone too far in their equality quest. My hunch is that the Jesuits, aka, liars, and PF is one of them, have their plan to sic Syrians, Somalians and others onto American women to put them in their place. About 30 years ago I read a terrific book on Terrorism and its causes. Turns out that terrorism is always directed at women, to keep them servile, voiceless and submissive. Makes sense the pope is in line with ISIS, if this is the true purpose of terrorism. But the fact remains if you have read the quran, hadith and sura, women are lower than dogs, hence, women should have no rights, no education, no way to make a living. At the same time, the arabs/turks and other moes are for the most part pedophilic and homosexuals, thus, proving their hatred/misogyny of women—sounds sorta like RC clergy?? I.E, Madonna/Whore complex!
There is no guarantee that the Holy Spirit will “inspire” the choice of a pope. No way. God does not make mistakes (He leaves that to conclaves) nor does He contradict Himself. The only guarantee we have in relation to any pope is that he will not define any heresy as binding on Catholics. That’s it, pure and simple.
We only know of Islam’s origins through Muslim sources from over about 200 yrs since the beginning. And there is a consensus that it was a specific EXPERIENCE in a cave around Mecca that started the whole thing. Muslim accounts relate that Muhammad went there for some reason and “met” an intruder who entered the cave, either the Devil or an evil jin (a being that can be either good or evil) or some a strong young man or an invisible agent who grasped him with clawed hands between his back and chest and forced him to confess there was only one God (Allah) and he made Muhammad his last prophet, which when he submitted and agreed (cried “uncle” here fits) was immediately released, and M fled in terror to his wife some 15 yrs his eldeand told her he was accosted by a devil, the SHE told him THAT IT WAS NOT THE DEVIL etc. but the Archangel Gabriel!. This CAME NOT FROM A CHRISTIAN SOURCE -some 600 yrs AFTER the Incarnation. It is NOT thus a Christian heresy, but a new input from a malevolent agent interopreted to him by his wife. Of course it has all the signs of a satanic source. When reassured by his wife WHO MAYBE HAD EXPOSURE TO CHRISTIANITY SUPERFICIALLYbecause of her caravan trade to Damascus , he then gets swell headed. So MADE TO SUBMIT BY FORCE AND THEN FLATTERED BY HIS ROLE, you have the evolution of the KORAN in trances and events which followed..
(There’s a secularized Iranian named Aslan who has recently written an explanation of Islam, who studied at Jesuit U of Santa Clara , where he learned the historical-critical method from the Jebbies to reject Christianity and apply it to Islam to account for the latter rather well., His writings are well known.
I think you’re really off-base here.
I don’t disagree with theological disagreement with Islam; being a Catholic obviously means disagreeing with many, many facets of the Muslim faith, and as a Catholic, I agree with every teaching of the Church.
But it seems silly to me to, as your article suggests, take as authoritative the ISIS propaganda magazine’s interpretation of Islam.
By analogy, I see OnePeterFive.com articles as frequently making sweeping generalizations that fall short of characterizing the faith of the Roman Catholic Church (and my own, corresponding Catholic conviction). In a word, I think that many of the articles on this website are arrogant. But I don’t take your interpretation of Catholicism as the only one or the correct one. It seems reasonable to me to not take ISIS’s interpretation of their own faith as the only one or the correct one. I honestly don’t want Muslims to judge my faith based on what they read on OnePeterFive; I’ll not judge them based on what I see excerpted from Dabiq magazine.
Argue with them, evangelize them, call a spade a spade and fight the Muslims that threaten violence. But we have enough reason to do all that without questioning the Holy Father’s logic and fairness when he states, simply and truly, that we shouldn’t allow a radical interpretation to characterize an entire religion.
Unless it is stopped, the radical interpretation of Islam will become the only interpretation and the law of the land.
And I, for one, can agree with you that the radical interpretation (and its violent adherents) should be stopped; but stopped “with malice toward none, with charity for all, and with firmness in the right as God give us to see the right.”
Nicolas George, why not read a few website articles, where orthodox Catholics discuss Islam. I would suggest you begin right here on 1P5, and google The Dialogue Delusion, by Andrew Bieszad.
“In The Dialogue Delusion, Islamic scholar Andrew Bieszad explains the flaws in our approach to Islam as merely another religion that can be engaged with as part of an interfaith conversation. Reaching back to his own experiences with Muslims and the teachings of Koran, he sheds light on this essential problem now facing the Christian world anew”.
If you don’t trust IP5, try The Catholic Thing, website. The essays by priests and laypeople are basically those who have a good grasp of their subject matter.
I would certainly encourage you to read up on Islam, and then decide if Pope Francis is correct or not.
The word “radical” is completely wrong – it is not radical but “orthodox” Islam as it has been believed and practiced and taught for centuries.
Suggest 1P5 readers read Islam 101 by Gregory M Davis which is available at
Will do…. thanks!
It’s hard to see what point you are trying to make here by quoting Lincoln’s second inaugural address. There were circa 750,000 combatant dead and an additional 50,000 civilians (most at the hands of Lincoln’s armies) – 3,000,000 casualties of one form or another in all. The war crimes of Lincoln are also well documented in Sheridan’s Shenandoah Valley and Sherman’s Georgia campaigns. All that from a ‘non-malicious’ and ‘charitable’ war of conquest to prevent one set of polities from separating from another set of polities, all of whom were previously united in a voluntary federal union. By that logic the EU should now be preparing to wage war on the UK.
Finally, based on the best evidence we have, Lincoln was not even a Christian, so it’s an open question as to which “god” he is invoking in your quoted excerpt, perhaps a deified “Union” that demands blood sacrifice.
It is not a radical interpretation. It is what Islam is
Catholic Encyclopedia Islam entry
In matters political Islam is a system of despotism at home and aggression abroad. The Prophet commanded absolute submission to the imâm. In no case was the sword to be raised against him. The rights of non-Moslem subjects are of the vaguest and most limited kind, and a religious war is a sacred duty whenever there is a chance of success against the “Infidel”. Medieval and modern Mohammedan, especially Turkish, persecutions of both Jews and Christians are perhaps the best illustration of this fanatical religious and political spirit.
The problem is that the radical interpretation happens to be the moderate one. Mainstream Islam is the one that wants infidels converted or dead.
Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the head of the so-called Islamic State of Iraq and Syria has a Doctorate in islamic Studies and he says that the jihad engaged in by he and other most faithful Mahometans is not only fully justified but a religious duty.
But Mr Skojec is the arrogant one, huh?
The leader of ISIS is an Islamic Doctor while I’ll wager you have never read the Koran, any hadiths or any sira but you are insisting YOU know better.
You’re absolutely right; I have not studied Islam as much as Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. I would believe you if you told me that you personally have studied Islam much more than I have.
But bottom line: I think Pooe Francis’s characterization is fair and merciful and that we can oppose the ideology of both Islam and radical Islam without questioning the sincerity of millions of peaceful Muslims all over the world.
Pope Francis ought to go read the Koran.
All Pope Francis would be right about is that there are Muslims who have broken away from the faith of their ancestors to adopt a more liberal version of Islam whereby they might be peaceful. In other words, they are the Protestant version of Islam.
Orthodox Islam however, is the stuff ISIS follows to the letter, following in the footsteps of its original prophet Mohammed and his own actions as well as those of his direct descendent after his passing for hundreds of years.
THAT is the true Islam. The peaceful Muslims are technically Heretics of their faith. One need only ask “What would the Prophet Mohammed do?” if one wished to know the true interpretation of Islam.
Thus when Pope Francis says that there are people who identify as Muslims who are peaceful, he is correct. When he tries to argue that true Islam is not violent, he is DEAD WRONG! And when he tries to implicate Christians for the same crimes as true Islam, he speaks slanderously and attacks the integrity of the Catholic Church, as if the teachings of the Church can somehow be equally as interpretive of violence as real Islam.
Pope Francis is also playing a dangerous game because reality isn’t matching up with his imagination, and does ill repute to the Office of the Papacy by destroying it credibility when billions of people can see for themselves that Islam, properly understood does lead to the violence we are seeing. And even were it not so, the Pope further encourages those peaceful Muslims to continue in their false religion.
There is a bumper-sticker level thought that applies here: radical Mohammedans throw homosexuals off tall buildings; peaceful (or moderate) Mohammedans observe from the sidewalk below. The problem is the Koran, not the violent or pacific disposition of its followers.
Bell rings, ding! Wrong answer NG. If there are any so called good muslims around the world it is only due to their ignorance of the quran, hadith and sura. I know in Indonesia the sexes have a holiday where men/women go into booths to have sex with as many as they want…you won’t find many muslims doing the dirty like that, and in fact, you might find your plain old vanilla moe killing someone who’d do such a thing. FACT is that imams in this country/US are putting out youtubes telling Americans they are flat out wrong to suggest that ISIS is different. They say ISIS is doing pure islam!
One must question the sincerity of Francis in his objectives, Nicholas. Is he acting as an agent of Truth, upholding that which “is”? Or, rather, is Francis, for whatever sincerely held belief – perhaps that going along to get long is the only option at present – serving as the premier arbitration master? (If it is the latter, then Francis is a sitting Pope who is not being true to his duty of state.)
Sorry, Nicholas, but even in corporations one must look to the root cause of problems. To dismiss the root and disregard the rotten fruit is to be fired, often in the wake of employees with devastated 401Ks and utter financial ruin. (The executives in these cases often leave in the disgrace of multi-million dollar severance packages.)
So, while it may greatly appeal to the heart to assign good will, in the proper sense, to all, it is not accurate. It can be, in fact, very dangerous. It is dangerous, Nicholas. Like a father proclaiming it charitable to welcome in a half dozen homeless rapists into his home wherein his virgin daughters are expected to wait on said individuals. (We are to avoid the occasion of sin, Nicholas, to include the temptation of unchecked zeal that leads fathers of families to believe that their primary duty no longer lies in protecting their children, but saving the entire world at the expense of those children specifically entrusted to their care by God Almighty.)
No one would doubt the sincerity of an abused child who longs to be reunited to his/her abuser parent. But it is absolutely NO charity not to understand that attachment while, at the same time, correcting the dysfunction so that the child will not cleave to that which is abuse out of misguided sentimentality.
Unfortunately, a great many unlearned and dumbed down people are not willing to disturb their comfort zone to look at the harsh reality that we’ve invited into our midst. The “Can’t We All Just Get Along,” motto that belies fallen human nature and the duty to teach, endure, and oppose has seeped in with the fluoride put in the water system.
Pope Francis’s characterization is one intended to pacify, not inform. Somewhat like assuring passengers on the Titanic that another ocean liner will surely come to the rescue and so there is no need to get on one of the life boats or scrabble about for some other means to survive the freezing ocean. Sadly, Francis seems to go so far as to mock those who would “think” to look for such means, as if engaging the intellect and the will were some anathema. (Better to jump off the cliff at Satan’s behest, putting God to the test as it were.)
Bottom Line: Nobody is questioning the sincerity of those who may modify their adherence to the Muslim religion to make their way in the modern world. But the fact remains that the Koran demands that which is inconsistent with peaceful living. The “peaceful” Muslim is one who does not adhere to Islam – just like the “devout” Catholic who supports gay marriage and abortion is one who does not adhere to the Catholic Faith. Just like the Catholic prelate who refuses to preach, teach, and uphold the Truth, but rather advocates shutting any light whatsoever to be “officially” put under a lead bucket.
You have a gift, of rational thinking, as do others in this post. It seems to me, that the rise of Obama, and Pope Francis was destined for our time in history. The deprecating of our society, ( loss of the moral compass, etc.), the return of the califate, are all coming together, like the alignment of the stars. Confusion, and mayhem, are beginning to reel their ugly heads. The future for christians, is bleak. The one who should be lifting us up, encouraging us to remain steadfast, to fight the good fight, to pray harder, fast and say the rosary, well, he’s just not there. In fact it’s the opposite. Deny we have a problem, with sin in the world, deny we are being threatened with genocide of Christianity. Talk in fluffy words, that have very little meaning to the average person. And now finally, placate the enemy! Refuse to listen to their very own words! It feels like the Pope has turned his back on his people. When the Antichrist calls all the so-called peaceful moderates to slay their Christian neighbors throats, to rise up for their god. It will be to late. We will be on our own. May God be with us all!
It seems to me the Christian version of Zionism, wherein individuals push the requisite geopolitical buttons to manifest a kingdom of sorts on Earth. Christ’s reply, “My Kingdom is not of this world,” is no longer welcome, nor is the requisite foreboding of just what it means to attempt to put God to the test.
The reign of Christ the King is misunderstood to be some earthly realm of power structure wherein the Catholic Faith will feature as the closest of courtiers, other “beliefs” will circle like positive and negatively charged particles around that nucleus.
But we will never be alone. Certainly not in the dank prisons of confusion and seeming abandonment into which we are thrust. God is closest to a person in those circumstances if one understands where to look. If one truly has “the” Faith, not just faith in systems whom those assigned to protect are tearing apart with jubilant grins.
It will be okay. Not because of these destroyers, but in spite of them.
As a person from the east with a family history of personal and ancestral engagement with Muslim over the centuries, I find it hard to debunk what’s said in Dabiq. They know their religion well and are following it like their own ancestors did. The Quran supports every single thing that they do. Islamic history is replete with Quranic inspired conquest and mayhem in different corners of the world. Our good friends the Saudis aren’t much different from ISIS.
I think our biggest problem is that people like you can’t even entertain the possibility that ISIS follows a purist form of Islam that Mohammed himself would approve of.
With that said, I’d have no problem promoting a false Islam which is watered down and devoid of Mohammed’s maniacal impulses and lie through my teeth and say it’s true Islam if that’s what it takes to placate his modern followers.
Thank you for your comment, Paramchand. I hope you will comment here often.
Al Hazar University in Egypt is the Maohmetan counterpart to the Vatican and it was there that ISIS was hatched.
Lord have mercy!!!
The desire to ignore the obvious is painfully depressing. Why have SO many Catholics allowed the enemy to cultivate their minds?
What has changed about Mahometanism in the past FOURTEEN CENTURIES?
Nada. Zilch. Zero.
Ok, I’ll take that back. What has changed is that where once Catholics knew and had a healthy hatred of Mahometanism, they now have been lied to for over fifty years to such an extent that they think their mortal enemy is their friend.
Reading these responses would be like standing beside a man looking up into the sky at an airplane sky-writing a profession of love by one man for a woman and then having this conversation:
Me, That pilot did a good job writing that; it can be seen for hundreds of miles no doubt.
He: What are you ranting in about. I don’t see anything
Me. You’re joking. It is right in front of you wth huge letters, each of which are over one hundred feet long.
He. All I see are clouds….
Me. Can’t you differentiate between the letters and the clouds and the sky in the background?
He Differentiating is discriminating and discrimination is wrong. Those letters and the clouds are all the same.
I have retracted my previous comment myself.
There is really no point in engaging fools who want to be apologists for Islam at this point.
These people are suffering from either EWS (Extreme Wimp Syndrome) or DCD (Diabolical Cognitive Darkness). Having discussions with such people seems a complete waste of valuable energy.
We’re on the same team, brother.
I understand where you’re coming from. Just as it would be unfair to judge all Catholics based on the actions of a few individuals on the fringes of Catholicism – e.g. the Antisemitism of a Bishop Williamson – so, too, would it be unfair to judge all Muslims based on the actions of a few individuals on the fringes of Islam – i.e. ISIS, Al-Qaeda, Boko Haram, the Taliban, the Mujahideen, Hizbollah, etc. Perhaps one may even see this as called for by the words of Our Lord:
“Judge not, that you may not be judged, for with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged: and with what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again.” (Matthew 7:1-3)
Our Lord also said the following:
“Judge not according to the appearance, but judge just judgment.” (John 7:24)
When it comes to judging the essence of Islam, we should not look to groups such as ISIS or Al-Qaeda. You are completely correct in observing that these groups are in disagreement with the overwhelming majority of Muslims today. They cannot, therefore, be taken as representative of Muslims as a whole.
Instead, in order to judge the essence of Islam, we must look to the greatest authority in Islam: Mohammed himself. All Muslims agree that Mohammed is the ideal example for all Muslims to follow, as the Quran itself states this (33:21).
Who, then, was Mohammed? I invite you to undertake a critical examination for yourself. Andrew Bieszad (MA in Islamic Studies from Hartford Seminary) has put together a very helpful list of resources here: https://onepeterfive.wpengine.com/islam-101-crash-course/
I have undertaken such an examination. And it is my opinion that the Islamic sources which contain historical information on the life of Mohammed reveal him to be a man who actively engaged in what all civilized peoples consider unethical martial conduct – ranging from asymmetrical warfare to the breaking of treaties to genocide – in order to further the spread of his religion. He encouraged the taking of slaves, polygamy, child marriage, torture, rape and the bodily mutilation of the vanquished. All of this is recorded in the Quran and the Hadith, and explained by highly respected Muslim scholars as necessary – and, therefore, moral – actions either performed or condoned by Mohammed in order to defeat the “unbelievers” and establish Islam.
If we look out into the Muslim world today, we see that most Muslims do not engage in this kind of activity. We do, however, see certain groups of Muslims doing a very good job of imitating Mohammed as the blasphemous, rapacious, bloodthirsty warlord that the historical sources reveal him to have been. And those groups go by names such as ISIS, Al-Qaeda, Boko Haram, the Taliban, the Mujahideen, Hizbollah, etc.
Thus, while we should not take ISIS propaganda as an accurate portrayal of what most Muslims believe, we can and must take it as an accurate portrayal of what the true followers and emulators of Mohammed believe.
In short: ISIS is pure, unadulterated Islam as it was preached by Mohammed himself. ISIS knows it, we know it, anyone who has studied the historical record knows it. That most Muslims and an increasing number of Catholics want desperately to ignore it doesn’t change the fact that it is true.
And that is judging Islam not according to appearance, but justly.
You make good points of the Mohammedan religion. At the same time, on what basis do you bash Bishop Williamson for “Antisemitism?” How do you define the term?
I could have written “alleged” or “supposed”, but didn’t want to get into it here, as this is really not the place for such a discussion.
Antisemitism aside, which is debatable, Bishop Williamson is a traditionalist bishop. A staunch traditionalist of Catholic theology, doctrine, and dogma. In that way, Traditional Catholicism is similar to the orthodox Islam of ISIS. ISIS are the true believers. They are practicing what is true Islam. The most traditionalist and authentic version of the Islamic religion. Just how Traditional Catholicism is the true religion of Catholicism. Traditional Catholics and ISIS are serious about their religions. They are the true Catholics and Muslims.
You and the pope are on the same page when it comes to Mohammedanism, viz. you are both wrong. Neither of you is judging this false religion by its own texts but rather by your desire that it not be what it clearly is. Read the last three paragraphs of the post by Rad Catholic below. He has it exactly right so there is no need to repeat what he says.
Read the Koran and see how ISIS quite accurately put the fullness of it into practice. Don’t fall for the modern propaganda.
With all due respect, I think you have (perhaps unknowingly) a ‘protestantized” or “religionized” Catholicism at the bottom of your analysis. The Church is the Mystical Body of Christ; it is not a set of propositions, a body of beliefs, or an “ism” to which individuals give or decline to give their assent. Neither is it a set of source texts (the Bible) to which each individual applies his reason to yield his own private set of interpretations. It is not, therefore, a “religion” in the modern sense of the word. We have a Canon of Truth, an Apostolic Tradition, and a Deposit of Faith, which not even a Pope can alter.
Islam, on the other hand, comprises various related bodies of beliefs and practices which draw their inspiration from a common set of source texts. There is no “authentic” or “true” or “essential” Islam to which we can compare ISIS’s version of Islam. We can only compare it to other versions of Islam (historical and contemporary) and to the contents of those common source texts.
When Pope Francis arbitrarily conjures an “authentic” Islam out of thin air, we can and must question the logic (and fairness) of that exercise. We can and must question Francis’s necessarily strained and selective reading of the Islamic source texts, which is a hermeneutical exercise on par with Marcion’s or Thomas Jefferson’s editing/rewriting of the new testament.
The duty of charity that we owe to the adherents of Islam is one of truth. Pace Francis, we don’t actually have any role to play in the ongoing secularist project of “religionizing” Islam, meaning de-politicizing it and reducing it to a set of private interior beliefs about the creator and the next life. Despite what Francis wishes, our role is not to reconcile or fit Islam into modernity. One serves the Truth best rather when one demythologizes the Islamic origin myth and attacks the grave theological errors on which that myth is constructed.
Incidentally, I wonder how many Muslim scholars would accept your characterization of Islam as a “religion,” which is a Western Enlightenment concept with no echo in Islamic tradition (or even in the Arabic language before colonial contacts).
Nick wake up! Francis is a progressive idealogue socialist wanting the new world order complete with removal of air conditioners. He wants to dictate how money is disbursed and wants to have global laws and enforcement. He is Obama’s chaplain. Not sure what Catholic Church you belong to but make know mistake, 1P5 is the real one. Francis is bruising and battering the body of Christ and needs to be removed before we wake up with women priests soon.
This type of thinking evidences the writer, sad to say, is woefully ignorant of Islamic history. He should read Islam’s invasion of India in 1100. Never in the annuls of recorded history has such barbarity been noted. Libraries destroyed, millions enslaved for sexual purposes, millions more butchered, and Islam hasn’t changed. World conquest is their only stated goal. You feminize and soften things that are in reality razor sharp and true, making your conscience feel better certainly, but doing a great disservice to the truth.
However, going to Muslim sources, I think one can see that the original origin was Muhammad’s experience in the cave near Mecca, that scared him to death and was explained to him by his wife.
Do you have a link to the first source you are quoting?
The issue is available here:
From Islam 101 by Gregory M Davis:
” Volume 7, Book 62, Number 88; Narrated Ursa: The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death).
According to the hadiths, this girl took her dolls with her to Mohammed’s house to play with, when the Prophet wasn’t bathing with her and fondling her. Bukhari (6:298)
Muhammad posed this question to one of his followers who had married an “older woman” instead of opting to fondle a child:
Muslim (8:3460) – “Why didn’t you marry a young girl so that you could sport with her and she sport with you, or you could amuse with her and she could amuse with you?” ”
It seems for the “peaceful” Muslim it is OK to molest little girls.
Pope Francis should have an ecumenical meeting with ISIS leaders. After all he believes that it is the meeting is important! And are they not also sheep to be accompanied? Don’t we have much that we can learn from them? Perhaps he can explain to them that while they know full well what Islam says they perhaps have some difficulty understanding and following the rule, and perhaps it is all those theological doctrines and doctors of Islam that stand in their way. Maybe if they have better economic opportunities they might be planting trees and flowers and distributing these to the poor and marginalized. Even some words might be exchanged. What they need is a more pastoral Islam. One that has the smell of the sheep and goes out to the peripheries and doesn’t shut itself in within the sepulchre white walls of the mosques. Perhaps even the prophet Mohammed might’ve exclaimed about Jihad and cry out to Allah that “I was deceived!” What he should have really done was a jihad against unemployment and on behalf of the environment. He could’ve taken a jizya from the capitalist pigs. Instead of cutting heads, ISIS should make a mess and create chaos in a different wholesome way. All those youth they have employed to grow to be trained killers can instead build shelters and go door to door raising money. Etc. etc. So much to talk about. I hope the Pope is getting his plane ready to visit them in Libya. The Americans are still fighting there to no avail because they can’t remember who are the guys on the peaceful moderate rebel side that Francis speaks of, while Syria will soon be free of ISIS thanks to Russia and Assad, so obviously the peaceful members must be in Libya.
“And are they not also sheep to be accompanied?”
They are not sheep; they are wolves. It’s the duty of a shepherd to protect the flock from the wolves.
Best post I’ve ever seen on the absolute ‘ABSURDITY’ of this Pope. Perhaps someone in his ‘circle of friends’ can persuade him to ‘dialogue’ with Isis, mano a mano.
Early after his election, Pope Frances stated that he could be naive at times; I think that is what’s going on.
But it is also a failure to understand theologically and spiritually WHAT IS THE ORIGINAL SPIRIT IN THE RISE OF ISLAM: it is satanic. Why? Because it arose 600 yrs AFTER CHRIST, (“Whoever denies that Jesus is Lord has the spirit of anti-Christ); has no miracles to attest to being sent by God, appeals to the carnal passions of males, and spread overwhelmingly and immediately by violence or the threat of violence (cf. Aquinas in S. contra gentiles early in the book).
Also, the reality of Natural Law and the remnants of Christianity in the populations conquered have mitigated Muslims somewhat, along with oddly secularist tendencies in the West which still have a sense that every human being is valuable, a specific Christian teaching in wold history..
Perhaps if the Popes (till now 8) had consecrated Russia AS REQUESTED By O.L. of Fatima we would have seen by now something very different. In the absence of that and more, a new war of defense is NECESSARY as a factor in their conversion.
I don’t think it is naivette. After all he blasted Benedict for his Regensburg address. It’s cluelessness.
….not cluelessness. Not at all.
The only absurd violence is that meted out against logic and Truth as reality is scourged at the pillar.
I address that IMMEDIATELY AFTERWORDS: “But it is also a failure to understand theologically and spiritually WHAT IS THE ORIGINAL SPIRIT IN THE RISE OF ISLAM:”
That is true. My error.
Nothing makes me doubt Francis’ judgement more than his pronouncements concerning “refugees” in Europe and his thoughts about Mohammedanism. The advice he’s given Europeans concerning the current Mohammedan invasion of the continent is nothing short of catastrophic. The irenic pap he has offered the world concerning the false religion of Mohammed would be laughable if he didn’t hold such a high office and if he weren’t speaking from the bully pulpit of the Vatican. I have no choice but to conclude that in all this he hasn’t the slightest notion of what he is talking about, that ideological nonsense has replaced solid thought.
Very true. Francis’ flower power new church has obviously become the laughing stock of Islam; I hope and pray that all Catholics wake up quickly and recognize this.
The real power to challenge Islam has been invested in our Mother Mary by The Trinity of God – and with the tens of thousands of people world over who pray the rosary daily, do penance and who fast in reparation for the sins of men.
We will not fear – we simply keep abreast of developments and keep our hearts and minds firmly fixed on The Kingdom of Heaven – and pray patiently and expectantly for the restoration of hope in all mankind.
Yes, as at Lipanto, prayer AND military power, the former being the most causal.
It stems from a failure to distinguish personal charity towards others and the Common Good of the whole society to be protected (the Pope HAS said that innocent people need to be protected). The latter point is specifically the job of the civil authorities (the FIRST Crusade was the result of the Byzantine Emperor begging the Pope to send help against the Seljuk Turks invading Anatolia); in calling for a Crusade, that Pope changed the purpose and spiritualized it to something more noble, heavily indulgenced,.I have no doubt that reality will oblige secular authorities to act and Pope Frances will see that is necessary, because things have been allowed to go too far by the secular authorities.. .
Correct me if I’m mistaken, Pete, but I think I remember this pope actually criticizing moves by secular authorities to prevent further “immigration” of this kind. If what has happened to date in Europe isn’t enough to convince the pope that decisive action is necessary, I can’t imagine what would.
You are not LISTENING to him. Like Our Lord he speaks CONCRETELY to the person or audience before him and makes a particular point in ordinary language. He does not usually say the complementary point at that moment, BUT LATER IN ANOTHER CONTEXT he DOES. You just have to wait for the other shoe to drop and remember what he said before and keep them both together. If you haven’t discovered this, you’ll miss judge him. BTW, he naturally makes a point by exaggerating, as do Most all of the Mediterranean peoples, unlike the understatements of, say, the Brits.
Uh, please, Pete. Pius XII and Paul VI were both “Mediterranean” men and they never spoke as exaggeratedly or as incoherently as this pope does almost every day. As for the rest here, imagine this: I walk into a bank with a gun in my hand and the guard on duty asks me what it is. I answer only “a roscoe” (gun in “ordinary language”); I plan to tell him later when I leave that I was just returning it to the bank president who previously loaned it to me. If I did something this foolish, I would very likely get shot. Pope Francis seems to make a practice of speaking this foolishly all the time if we take your explanation above at face value.
What you indulge in your post is called special pleading. It is too contrived by half and only serves to highlight the enormous deficiencies of this pope’s approach to his office.
The Pope just said yesterday “I don’t know, I talk too much”! How’s that for honesty!
St John XXIII said he was not infallible, drawing the astonishment of his hearers, to which he responded “because I am not going to define any new infallible teaching”.
Excuse me, I am half Italian and half Irish, and I know of what I speak. Your objection does not obtain, because MY statement was not a universal statement with no exceptions (like all dogs are animals) but a GENERALIZATION (a large % of a sample fits the inductive experience). It’s the realm of credible judgments, which we make every day, leaving room for exceptions –saw one today on Pewsitter; the estimation that 11 million Indonesian Muslims favor sharia law out of a population of c. 150 mil souls.or more.
St Thomas instructs us that the angels are not rational (which he says is the lowest level of knowledge) THEY ARE INTUITIVE.grasping all that is obtainable by reason and more in one higher intuition,nor are they passionate (they are not body-persons moved by a bodily nature) though they have inspirations of spirit in the will. Moreover, love is also intuitive, grasping all at once the goodness of persons, which relates to communio in the Church by grace.
It looks like you and others here are fixated on logic and reason oblivious to intuitions of the spirit, especially needed in understanding PEOPLE.,which rationality is deficient in grasping. Sheep know the voice of their shepherd, the common believers knows if the Shepherd loves them, THAT’S WHY the Pope is the “most popular man on the planet” according to the head of China, who accepted the Pope’s request to fly over China to reach the Far East and return, whereas before when St JPII asked he was refused by the previous rulers.
In the spiritual life, the passionate and the rational are put in the beginner’s level , while the illuminative and unitive are higher, being spiritual and saintly. Catholicism can not be reduced to the rational or logical levels. This Pope certainly can’t be fitted into the small boxes exhibited in this websight.
Pete, I’m Irish but I speak Spanish fluently; I lived in Spain enough years to know what the “Mediterranean spirit” is all about. Here is my advice to you based on these realities and 70+ years on this planet: leave the bullsh*t behind and return to thinking like a sentient human being. The pope was right this time 100%: he talks far too much. He should close his mouth and humbly accept the fact that he has done a miserable job as pope to date. Perhaps one year of self-imposed silence is what is needed now. The mumbo-jumbo about his being he most popular man on the planet only makes my point more forcefully. Elton John is also very popular, but I doubt you or anyone with half a brain would raise that as an argument for his being “right” in any sense of the word; ditto for the four-flusher from Chicago, B Hussein Obama. And you know you are probably barking up the wrong tree when you have to rely on the “head of China” and his decisions to buttress your argument.
Please address the REASONS the Pope is the most popular man on the planet. You just did that automatic logic with no content that makes you look smart. Comparing Elton John with any pope let alone this one is downright ridiculous.
“and humbly accept the fact that he has done a miserable job as pope to date” oh, yeah, that must be so because you say so infallibly, very convincing…
I detect you are deficient in minimal reverence to try to dialogue with. All REAL RELIGION IS BASED ON REVERENCE. Perhaps you should refrain from being a pundit on the Pope until you attain sufficient filial respect for the Universal Pastor God has permitted to hold that position
Ps. Aquinas was a sentient being, and a genius regarding Tr
Clearly the pope is “the most popular man of the planet” because there are more people around like you today than there used to be. It’s a familiar phenomenon. Once most people turned to the likes of J S Bach or Antonín Dvořák for their music; now we find that taste for the likes of Elton John has universally supplanted that felicitous inclination. But, as they say, de gustibus non est disputandum.
Pete, I’m sorry, but this “debate” is over. Your sentences reveal you are a man very much in love with his inner voice and his own keyboard. I have neither the ability nor the patience to unpack circumlocution of the caliber of “I detect you are deficient in minimal reverence to try to dialogue with. All REAL RELIGION IS BASED ON REVERENCE.”
Try your papolatry on others. As for me, frankly it turns my stomach.
At Lepanto the Pope was on the side of Catholics and asked for a rosary crusade. Now the Bishop of Rome wants the other side to win. How things change…
Come on, the Pope is not Obama; he naively thinks that goodness can win, AND HE IS RIGHT ABOUT THAT REGARDING MUSLIMS THAT HAVE SUFFICIENT HUMANITY IN THEM (those who attended Catholic Mass in solidarity after the killing a venerable Priest), but the dialogue won’t work with those dominated by a Satanic spirit: the fierce anger has turned to hate.
Francis is worse than Obama. Is there a call to conversion to the One Holy Catholic Apostolic faith? No way. Is there a call to defend against Islam? No way, in fact the reverse, let them all in. Francis won’t even say “Islamic violence”, in line with all modernists and Marxists. Naive thou art at best.
The Muslims who are “moderate” are precisely those who reject the actual words and instructions of the Koran because they live more by the natural law written in our hearts. However, how many speak out against the usual terrorism of their religion? Have you read the Koran? I have. Have you read St. Thomas Aquinas on Islam?
Scroll up to my previous post and I explicitly refer to Aquinas on Mohammedism, as he calls it in the Summa Contra Gentiles.
You ignore all the other points on Islam. Aquinas spoke of a religion of violence, the “prophet” being a brigand I think. That people make excuses for Francis Islamic behavior says much.
The “Muslims” who attended the memorial services in France were overwhelmingly from the Ahmahdi sect, which is regarded as heretical by most other Muslims. They are heavily persecuted in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Here in Britain, a Sunni Muslim has just been sent down for 27 years after the savage murder of an Ahmadhi shopkeeper in Glasgow. The victim’s crime? He had wished his Christian customers a Happy Easter.
Between the actions of the world’s government leaders and the Pope, I cannot help but believe that they want ISIS/Islam to do harm.
ISIS Rejects Pope’s Interpretation of Their Own Religion???
I think Catholics (true Catholics) reject the Pope’s interpretation of our own religion too!!!!
Makes one’s head spin trying to make sense of certain explanations of Islam and Catholicism.
Let us not fear our enemies for they are men of “good will”.
Let adulterous “marriages” receive The Blessed Sacrament for they are “faithful” to one another, even more faithful than Sacramental Marriages.
How about Faithful to God’s Commandments?
Prayer/The Eucharist/The Rosary/Penance/Fasting is at this point in time, our only recourse.
As far as I know, Pope Francis never kissed the Koran or specifically asked St. John the Baptist to “protect Islam” as did St. John Paul II. The last 5 or 6 popes have all tried to ensure that the opinions held by the Islamic State who adhere to the school of Wahhabism remain a tiny minority of adherents of Islam.
First and most importantly, Islam is an outrageous lie perpetrated by a false prophet and not, as some pretend, “the third great Abrahamic religion.” There is no more reality to it than there is to Mormonism. That there are many more millions Mohammedans than Mormons doesn’t change that fact in the least. The notion that one can keep large numbers of a religion’s adherents from committing nauseous atrocities by humoring them and condoning a lie is repugnant. The Koran speaks for itself and it speaks in violent terms regardless of how many popes may kiss it or ask protection for the vile sect it governs.
You hit the nail right on the head. Exactly correct.
Newman, John Henry (1801-1890) in Vol.1 of his Historical Sketches, (page 69) writes, “A
new religion had arisen in Arabia. The imposter Mohamet, announcing himself the Prophet of God, was writing the pages of that book, which was to subdue half the known world.” Newman is only one of many prominent Church scholars which plainly state the cruel and malicious intentionality of Islam, which is world conquest. Let that sink in. Their goal is what it’s always been. World conquest, be it by the sword or by peaceful immigration. This Pope is on a careful and pre-determined mission and it sadly isn’t about Jesus, the Mass, Mother Mary, or anything else vaguely reminiscent of true and established Catholicism. Beware this Pope. He is dangerous and I fear, beneath his feigning beatific smile lies a scheming heretic.
Have you seen the Pope at his Liturgies? LISTENED TO his homilies? It appears you haven;t. He uses ORDINARY language. His approach is spiritual and quite reflective and PEOPLE LISTEN.
Where ever the Jesuits went at the very start of their order, THEY FIRST LISTENED TO THE PEOPLE THEY WENT TO, DREW UP DICTIONARIES OF THE PEOPLE’S ,LANGUAGES.and taught them to read and write their own tongues. They then explored how they understood things. Of course, THEN, the Jesuits could begin to transmit the Faith in dialogue, How can you expect people to listen to you otherwise?
Respect for the other is the BASIS of transmitting the Faith. Not many know that when the Maryland colony was established two English Jesuits came with the Catholics AND PROCEEDED WITH THIS STRATEGY, CONVERTING SOME 200 OF THE LOCAL INDIANS. ( a French Jesuit before them established a similar Mission on the Ste. Croix Riviere on the Coast what became the borderline between Canada and Maine — a generation later Boston Puritans attacked and massacred ONLY the Catholic Indians and the priest). Why are you MISSING ALL THIS? Pope Francis is CLASSICALLY Jesuit.with a demanding EXAMEN of his actions and discernment of the Will of God. He is quite Spirit oriented.
Pete Salveinini: He is quite Spirit oriented, I’ll give you that, but it isn’t the Holy Spirit the man is possessed with. To imagine anything other is to betray both good logic and sound Catholic judgement. He is a liar and a deceiver, and clearly exhibits it. Beyond this there is something else at work, something distinctly at cross-purposes with Christ. One example is his deliberate ignorance of the nature and fabric of Islam. This is not a trivial thing.The background of the Islamic State occupying large areas of Europe began when Muslim crusaders, called Moors, invaded Spain in 711 AD. Thousands of churches were burned, God alone knows the number slain, and enslaved. In 846 AD just 46 years after Charlemagne was crowned Holy Roman Emperor in Rome’s old St. Peter’s Basilica, 11,000 Muslims on 73 ships invaded Rome and attacked the Basilica. They desecrated the grave of St. Peter. A miracle saved Rome at the Battle of Ostia in 848 AD. Muslim Saracen raiders sailed from Sardinia with a fleet to invade Rome. Pope Leo rallied the cities of Amalfi, Gaeta and Naples to send ships to block the mouth of the Tiber River near Ostia. Muslims fiercely attacked and were winning when suddenly a violent storm arose, dividing the Christian fleet from the Muslim attackers. The Muslim ships were severely damaged and scattered. It was the famed Battle of Ostia. Muslims continued to raid and Pope John VIII (872-882) proved unsuccessful in rallying a defense. Muslims continued to plunder the coasts of Italy, and in 883 AD, they destroyed the renown Monastery of Monte Cassino, dragging it’s abbot, St. Bercharius, to the altar where they killed him. They destroyed the abbey of San Vincezo in 884, and the abbies of Farfa and Subiaco in 890. Pope John X rallied Byzantines, Lombards, Gaeta, Capua, Salerno, Beneventum and other Italian States and personally led the troops into the field to stop the Muslims at the Battle of Garigliano River in 916 AD., but later Muslims captured Reggio and Calabria, selling inhabitants into North African slavery. In 1100, Muslims killed 2,000 in Cordoba, Spain. In 1106, Muslims massacred every one of the 5,000 Jews in Granada, Spain. In 1189, Muslims raided Libson, Portugal, and enslaved 3,000 women and children. In 1191, Muslims attacked Silves, Portugal, enslaving another 3,000. The Catholic Orders of Montjoie, and Calatrava, were organized to ransom back Christian slaves. It took over 700 years to drive Muslims out of Spain. In 1453 Muslim Ottoman Turks conquered Constantinople. In a mere 100 years after Mohammad’s death, his followers subjugated North Africa, the Holy Land, Persia and Spain, from the Indian Ocean to the Atlantic Ocean. And this fails to mention the Islamic rape and decimation of India in 1100 AD. So Pete, while it’s apparent your need to believe the man called Francis is sincere, he is a betrayer and worse, a deceiver. The goal of Islam is and has always been world domination. It matters little if it is by Moors wielding curved scimitar swords, or today’s strap-on suicide vests, or by immigration. Their goal is world conquest, and also the demise of the Holy Roman Catholic Church, and as well the death of all Christians. This Pope is facilitating this, he is bringing about Islamic domination. So no, Pete, the things you shared, while I am certain they were well intended, were wrong, misplaced, ignorant, and extremely dangerous.
I know all this history too, (Cf”Jihad against the West” 2009 by a French SECULARIST author Fregosi and note the date 2yrs before 9/11)
Whatever is freely asserted without facts is freely denied, and I deny your extreme almost paranoid rash judgment about the Pope, (and what is YOUR Spirit oriented piety? Do you pray 3 rosaries a day? Do you rise at 5am and meditate on the liturgical reading prayerfully for 2 hrs, followed by Holy Mass?
Do you make the Ignatian examen twice during the day?etc and do you have a deep piety towards the Blessed Mother?)
What you manifest is objectively slanderous rash judgment that on the face of it is serious matter for the confessional!.
The whole world sees the goodness of this man. and you project such judgmentalism that one finds the Pharisees doing to Jesus.
Obama has been caught in lies, hidden agendas, as has Hilary Clinton, and is a demagogue from his first speeches.
Look at what you are doing? Can’t you see the difference between an honest person, and the opposite?
In direct response to your evil assertions, perhaps the Pope is doing something very similar to what St John Paul II did immediately before the First Gulf War, send emissaries to Saddam, urging him not to invade Kuwait, Of course, it was going to be ignored and the Saint probably KNEW that, but then God ALSO SOMETIMES offers LAST CHANCE GRACES THAT HE SEES WILL BE REJECTED BY THOSE WHO ARE BENT ON EVIL.
Cardinal Vingt-Trois denounced ISIS as Moloch worshippers. Yet Al-Azhar refuses to declare them apostates. If idolatry is apostasy, and ISIS are not apostates, then all Muslims are idolaters.
Al-Azhar (The Mahometan equivalent of The Vatican) created ISIS and intellectually defends it and there can be no doubt the jihadis are saints in the false religion of Mahomet.
Far from”hijacking” islam, the Jihadis terrorists are the most faithful followers of Mahomet, the perfect man in Islam; although, to be fair to Mahomet, he was also a caravan robbing jew-killing psychotic pedophile who peed like a girl and drank camel urine with his milk and yet still found plenty of time to drool and babble incoherently.
Muslimes are owned lock, stock and barrel, by Lucifer himself.
PF has now moved from the level of absurdity to demented. ISIS telling the truth while PF is caught babbling delusional nonsense.
Lord, have mercy on us.
‘delusional nonsense’ that is BTW, deadly dangerous FOR CHRISTIANS, AND ESPECIALLY FOR CATHOLIC CHRISTIANS. He seems to be inviting ‘caliphate’ instead of trying to diffuse it, and not a ‘caliphate’ by ISIS alone! After all, some ‘baptized Catholics’ are radical murders too, you know!! This statement of his reflects the statement of Homeland Security when they said that ‘radical Christianity’ is a terror threat. Hmm…..strange indeed how he is echoing the radical ideology of our own progressive administration. He’s now crossed the line from being a possible apostate to the faith to being a true danger to Christians.
You are imputing too much by not seeing a simpler understanding pf the Pope
Just posted this comment …but also replying to you with the same
French reaction to Pope’s comment: Hashtag#PasMonPape
I was listening to the outtakes of an audio book that I like, When the voice actor started reflecting upon his own character. His character, Gwain Masia, had been fighting the false gods of his people for years, believing them only intelligent beasts. But they DID have supernatural power, and not all of their followers were just playing at devotion, and the priestess who led them was an ancient, shapechanging demon, obvious to all but him.
“Oh, Gwain, you haven’t even figured out that she’s basically the devil. This is why a materialist will NEVER be equipped to fight a holy war.”
The big plot twist of the tale is he spent the whole time convincing the most oppressed to rise up against the false gods, but instead, she hijacks the revolution. The priestess convinces. What people she had been oppressing To overthrow her Most elite devotees, and become her most elite worshipers in their place.
Francis is not equipped to fight, or even UNDERSTAND a holy war. The catholic church is supposed to oppose Islam and seek to free it’s devotees. Instead, it turns their faith on its head and tells them they’re being Muslim wrong, and enshrines violent dogma as the way to peace.
CHRIST is the Prince of Peace, and we lose the spiritual war we wage when we pretend there are other ways to peace.
Why is Francis so closed minded? If a pantheistic cult that communes with The Force purported to try and bring balance to the world by use of it’s energy… And if a sect sprang up years later who claimed that the only thing that they want to commune with Is the new wave CD tracks on the car stereo, would he claim that Jedism is merely an appreciation of music? Why would he discard the *longstanding* original understanding of faith based on the transient and new?
The catholic faith must forsake icons and prayer to saints, it’s sola fida ad sola scriptura, now. Because protestants say so and longstanding tradition and dogma mean nothing.
Actually, that sounds very jesuity.
No one in their right mind should agree with Pope Francis on the nature of Islam and it’s long range plan of world wide conversion, domination and total control. The Catholic Church itself has had a similar goal, or it did before Vatican II, with the significant exception that it’s mission stopped at conversion. Islam is fundamentally a political program not a real religion at all. Pope Francis should realize this. If he doesn’t he should be removed from office as he opening the way for Muslim conquest.
I don’t know if Francis is aware, but there’s no charism of the papal office that makes a pope infallible when it comes to his interpretation of another religion.
This is gratuitous rudeness and disrespect. Of course he is. Thing is that many Muslims disavow IS, which, for example has burnt people to death, something that the Koran forbids.
Well while Europe is not under sharia law today, it is under liberal secular law, so I wouldn’t feel too releived.
And liberal secular law today is paving the way for sharia law tomorrow.
By golly the threat of sharia law seems to be a bogeyman for many. I would say in my lifetime the Muslims have more to be feared from the West than the west has to be feared of Muslims. A few years back it was “The Russians are coming. the Russians are coming.” Today the cry is Sharia Law is coming, Sharia Law is coming.” Some say this will be eclipsed by our decision to overthrow the Russian government and make Russia a part of the Empire, and our government and our press are busy demonizing Putin every chance they get once the warmongers now believe Russia is a greater obstacle to our Empire than the Muslim countries we have left in ruins. Incidentally have you noticed the connection between the vast refugee influx from these Muslim countries we have bombed and invaded?
Another irony. at the same time some are screaming that the Muslim religion is a dangerous threat, we have overthrown all the secular Muslim governments that existed in the Middle east except we haven’t overthrown the Syrian government which had been a country that protected the christians in its midst and instigated a civil war in order to overthrow that government. some Catholic bishops in Syria have begged the U.S> not to overthrow Assad, but we have our agenda.
I mean when the IRA was assassinating British officials and planting bombs in England, one didn’t hear that all this terrorism was being caused by the Catholic I.R.A., or that the IRA was going to make the world Catholic. There was no money in that.
But we spend more money than the next eight largest countries spend on their military establishment. Our military budget is enormous, even obscene, so our military and our defense organization need to scare the American people, who are probably the most frightened people in the world, so they put their machine in place scare people and you can see that it is working.
They realize that many American Catholics will fall for this idea that the Muslims are out to take us over. They want to defend the faith and so they are panicked at the thought the Muslims are at the gates of Vienna Austria. They are assisted by our law enforcement game of finding unstable people and encouraging them to do a terrorist act while screaming “Allah akbar.” Look at the record.
And of course there are some vicious Muslims too, like there were vicious Italian immigrants like Al Capone and the Mafia, and there were vicious Jewish immigrant Bugsy Segal , and the Irish gangsters like this fella recently captured from New England, Whitey Bulger, who committed terrorist acts in the past. And anyone committing a terrorist act should be hunted down and pushed.
Actually, the problematic assertions are contained in Evangelii Gaudii, supposedly penned by Francis.
His remarks go well beyond the affirmations made in cursory remarks concerning the supposed ‘professed’ devotion to Abraham and to the One Merciful Father on the part of Muslims mentioned in Lumen Gentium and Nostra Aetate.
The latter two documents do not deny or necessarily ignore enduring hermeneutical problems and their implications concerning the Qur’an about its ‘authentic’ or ‘canonical’ interpretation as well as with the syncretic sources or origins of various sections of the Qur’an as an historical text.
Francis, on the other hand, seems to precisely do this for the sake of his own ideological vision.
It is always good to look at thing from all angles. Now to say we must be honest enough to call our enemies enemies may seem to make a lot of sense. Few Americans would argue with this. To say we should love one’s enemies sounds goofy, unreasonable and make us easier prey for our enemies. Most all Americans would agree with this.
Yet the fact is that the admonition to love one’s enemies is something that Christ gave us. To say one the one hand that we should love ones enemies, yet we must not forget they are our enemies seems to represent a waffle. It represents the feeling that loving one’s enemies is impractical, even suicidal and something we don’t feel comfortable with at all. And I can understand this feeling. To love one’s enemies seems goes against common sense, it leaves us defenseless. So we tend to give this admonition lip service while we set out to destroy our enemies.
Let us see where that has led us. In September 1, 2001 the Al Qaeda movement was led by Osama Bin Laden and a few followers, most of whom were living in a some remote caves in Afghanistan and the reason they were in Afghanistan is to serve as “freedom fighters” against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, something we gave our complete support.
Then these Al Qaeda members sponsored an attack on the American World Trade Center and their affiliates many of whom we trained here in the USA how to fly the airplanes that were used to destroy the World Trade Center. They murdered horribly around 3,000 Americans in the process.
We felt we had to avenge this attack and we needed to destroy these enemies. Now the Afghans themselves were not involved in this attack. The members of Al Qaeda were mostly Arab Saudi Arabians as was Osama Bin Laden, and 15 of the 19 hijackers that were on the planes they crashed into the wold Trade Center were Saudi Arabian. None were Afghan, none were Iraqi’s.
So we took our sledgehammer and smashed Afghanistan, during which about 3,000 Afghans were killed who had nothing to do with the 9/11 attack. Fifteen years later we still are fighting in ‘Afghanistan. Then we invaded Iraq who had no connection with the attack on the World Trade Center and Iraq did not allow any Al Qaeda types in Iraq at that time. And we took the sledgehammer in Iraq to make Americans safer. Today ISIS, a derivative of Al Qaeda controls Iraq’s second largest city and Iraq has many Muslim terrorists running around. We then decided the ruler of Libya was our enemy even though there were no Al Qaeda or ISIS in his government so we bombed the Libya rebels so Gaddafi could be overthrown. Now ISIS has such strong presence in Libya that we are now bombing Libya again. There were no Moslem terrorists in Syria under Assad when we decided Assad was our enemy, even though Assad protected the many Christians living in Syria, and decide Assad must go. today we have all sorts of Moslem terrorists, including Nushra(Sp?) which has ties with Al Qaeda , and whom we are giving money and equipment to.
So maybe this idea of knowing who are enemies are has not seemed to be very helpful in determining our policies. Or maybe we need to be honest enough to recognize who are enemies really are. Sorry to be so long, but ….Well are we safer today than we were in 2001? So maybe hating our enemies is not always productive.
Anyone here remember the “troubles” in Northern Ireland? A very tiny number of Northern Irish Catholics were willing to commit acts of terror for independence but the British still needed a huge police state presence to counter them. If ISIS succeeds in their mission to turn this into a greater Islam v. the West war, Northern Ireland will pale in comparison.
That is a vast, colossal understatement.
You are a bit overly diplomatic (in my opinion):
One could well replace “particularly compatible” with “other than opposite” … And you wouldn’t be even a smidgen less truthful.
The fellows who did V2 had parents or grandparents who lived with the reality of a formidably militant islam. How they could commit the errors you highlight, unless with foresight and so ostensible malice, defies explanation.
This is what happens when you have a Pontiff that is clueless or in denial or wearing rose goggles
ISIS, the best US/Israeli intelligence operation to date.
Jean-Claude Juncker, president of the European Commission:
“The migrant crisis and jihadist terrorism are of little importance, we will never renounce open borders.
It is perfectly obvious to anyone that ISIS, that is one of the many branches of Islam which has chosen openly the violent options open to all Muslims, that they ISIS, and other groups of course,have opted for the violent ones .
I can understand their getting a bit miffed that anyone should consider otherwise
On a horrible way, this is incredibly predictable. Bergoglio will know far better than ISIS about Islam, as will most of the pseudoelite pseudointelligencia.
They’ll never read the ISIS statement or just declare that they know better.
That’s how progressives must censor the world and do they stay insulated from reality.
If this doesn’t lift the veil on the cognitive dissonance — or should I say “the utter madness” – of the current pontificate, nothing does.
If he wants to strike the pose of the twenty-first century martyr pope he had best remember that he won’t be going down alone – there are innocents relying on him to act as a moral authority and unifier in our resistance to barbarian aggression.
What am I saying? “Moral authority and unifier” appear not to be in the job description for the current pontificate.
It appears that the French have reacted to the Pope’s comments, and even the BBC is reporting on the hashtag ‘PasMonPape” .
Got this from Mundabor’s blog….
In this article, Hugh Fitzgerald nails the absurdity of the pope’s comments regarding Mohammedanism. Sufficient evidence now casts doubt on the pope’s ability to reason properly when confronted by everyday realities, regardless of what we think of his theology. https://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/08/hugh-fitzgerald-pope-francis-to-isis-tell-us-what-you-really-think
Here is the original source, page 74. http://www.clarionproject.org/factsheets-files/islamic-state-magazine-dabiq-fifteen-breaking-the-cross.pdf