Browse Our Articles & Podcasts

The Root Cause of Islamic Violence

Pope Francis’ most recent comments attempting to separate Islamic religious beliefs from Islamic violence are deeply misleading. They are not just slightly or partially incorrect, but dangerously wrong.  They stand in direct contradiction to the Church and her saints’ long history of experience and understanding of the Islamic world.

In the context of yet another airplane interview — this time returning from World Youth Day in Poland, Francis was asked to discuss the threat posed by Islamic violence — now occurring with alarming frequency throughout the world — against the backdrop of the murder of French priest Fr. Jacques Hamel at the hands of jihadis as he offered Mass. I have included the full text of the pope’s comments below in block quotes, broken into sections to allow for my commentary:

I don’t like to speak of Islamic violence, because every day, when I browse the newspapers, I see violence, here in Italy… this one who has murdered his girlfriend, another who has murdered the mother-in-law… and these are baptized Catholics! There are violent Catholics!

This answer is a complete diversion. Of course there are violent people in any religion, race, or culture. This fact is an undeniable result of our fallen nature on account of original sin. So yes, there are violent people everywhere.

But what makes Islamic violence unique are its origins and purpose. Where it comes from, to whom it is directed, and how it is justified cannot merely be ignored or dismissed. In an Islamic context, the use of violence against another is rooted in the Islamic understanding of the person. Per Islamic theology, man is a mere creation, made not in the image of God, but as a mere animal. His humanity is believed to be an extrinsic quality that is bestowed upon him with his creation, but is not a permanent part of him. Rather, it is the Islamic belief that to be a human is to be a Muslim in good standing.

As far as non-Muslims are concerned, Islam regards them as men and women who by their own will have mutilated themselves by rejecting Islam. It is therefore permitted to kill these unbelievers on account of their non-belief. In the case of children, the teaching of Islam is that since they did not have a “choice” in their “apostasy,” they may legitimately be taken from their families and forcibly converted to Islam.

When it comes to the Muslim treatment of other Muslims, it is believed that a Muslim who either does not practice Islam or who practices a heterodox form of Islam makes himself an apostate and can be treated the same as a non-Muslim. While violence is not mandated in Islam, it is wholly permitted and no moral penalty is attached to the use of it. It is a permissible individual choice, and one Muslim cannot, in a moral sense, tell another Muslim not to use violence against a non-Muslim if he so wishes.

The perfect model for Islamic behavior and life is none other than Muhammad himself. Christians say “What would Jesus do,” and Muslims say “What would Muhammad do.” Muhammad is even called “al-insan al-kamil,” meaning “the perfect man” because all his actions are regarded as a perfect model for human behavior. The question when evaluating the morality of Islamic action according to their own internal system of belief therefore becomes, what did Muhammad do? By all of the orthodox Islamic accounts, Muhammad was a mass-murderer, a pedophile, a necrophile, a serial rapist, a man who claimed he was possessed by demons, a highway robber, a liar, a deceiver, and a tyrant who placed his concept of divine beatitude at the service of his own acquisition of power, money, and sex in this life with the promise that these same ill-gotten pleasures would endure perpetually in the afterlife. As St. Alphonsus Liguori said, “the Mahometan paradise is fit only for beasts, for only filthy sensual pleasure is there.”

Pope Francis’ statement is simply false. In the Islamic system of belief, violence is given a divine blessing in a way that no other religion does.

If I speak of Islamic violence, I must speak of Catholic violence . . . and no, not all Muslims are violent, not all Catholics are violent.

Catholic violence? Which Catholic violence is that, exactly? I have never seen a Catholic blow up a bus of Muslim school children while screaming “JESUS IS LORD,” or use dull blades to behead countless Muslims in internet videos — all while praising the saints — or any number more of the gruesome things that are a daily suffering for Christians and others living in Muslim lands. To the contrary, in my many years of studying Islam, I have seen Muslims do these things regularly, and with impunity.

To even suggest that an equivalency exists between Islamic brutality and some imaginary “Catholic violence” is a blasphemy against the true God and an insult to those persons who suffer under the very real oppression of Islamic tyranny.

It is like a fruit salad; there’s everything. There are violent persons of this religion… this is true: I believe that in pretty much every religion there is always a small group of fundamentalists. Fundamentalists. We have them. When fundamentalism comes to kill, it can kill with the language — the Apostle James says this, not me — and even with a knife, no?

Again, Francis uses “fundamentalism” as a pejorative, as he has so often done before. But this is not an accurate usage of the term.

The word “fundamentalism” finds its origin in a Protestant series of books published in the early 20th century. These books set out to articulate the “fundamentals” of Protestant belief. As such, “fundamentalism” in a modern sense means a belief in the fundamentals of faith — not a bad thing in relation to a faith worth believing in.  As mentioned earlier, however, for a Muslim, “fundamentalism” means the denial of the humanity of non-Muslims and the supremacy of Islam — all of which leads to heinous violence, cultural incompatibility, and more. The fundamentals of Islam are thus not favorably disposed toward a peaceful world, or toward the co-existence of Muslims and non-Muslims.

In a Catholic sense, “fundamentalism” could simply be another term for “orthodoxy.” Catholic “fundamentalism” is admittedly in short supply today, but is necessary. Catholic “fundamentalism” — following the fundamentals of the Faith — is a path to holiness. All of the saints, blesseds, and holy men and women of the Church were fundamentalists; they practiced the very essence of what the Catholic Faith teaches. The more “fundamentalist” a Catholic becomes, the more they grow in faith, hope, and charity.

A Catholic fundamentalist will probably offer a daily Mass and rosary for you.

A Muslim fundamentalist would attack and behead you.

These two types of fundamentalism could not be more different. To treat them as the same thing is a diabolical deception.

I do not believe it is right to identify Islam with violence. This is not right or true. I had a long conversation with the imam, the Grand Imam of the Al-Azhar University, and I know how they think . . .

It is ironic then, that this is the same imam who said that apostates from Islam must be executed. This is not unique or surprising, despite Francis’ ignorance of it. Such thinking is Islamic doctrine, and has been for 14 centuries.

If Pope Francis really knew about Islam, he would be aware of taqiyya, which is the doctrine that allows Muslims to lie to non-Muslims for the advancement of Islam. In severe cases, there is even the doctrine of muruna, a sub-branch of taqiyya that permits for the open violation of Islamic law in order to advance Islam among non-Muslims.

This is one of the principal reasons why Muslims cannot be trusted. Their religion allows them to lie to others for their own gain, and it is not considered sinful.

They seek peace, encounter . . . The nuncio to an African country told me that the capital where he is there is a trail of people, always full, at the Jubilee Holy Door. And some approach the confessionals — Catholics — others to the benches to pray, but the majority go forward, to pray at the altar of Our Lady… these are Muslims, who want to make the Jubilee. They are brothers, they live… When I was in Central Africa, I went to them, and even the imam came up on the Popemobile…

Muslims in sub-Saharan Africa are very different from those in the rest of the Muslim world. African Muslims have proven themselves to be the most open to becoming Christians, and right now the biggest missionary expansion into Muslim territory is taking place in this area. So yes, it is no surprise that many Muslims are approaching the Faith, and this is certainly to the good. However, in the larger world there has been increased violence perpetrated by Muslims upon the citizens of the (post-Christian, but still identifiable with Christianity) west, because Islam sanctions this.

I also write for, the website of Walid Shoebat, self-described as a former “radicalized Muslim willing to die for the cause of Jihad” until he converted to Christianity, and now works to expose the harsh realities of Islam. Practically every day, we are reporting on some heinous act of Muslim violence in regions dominated by Muslims. For the unquestioning majority of cases, they are (a) Muslims attacking Christians because (b) they are “infidels” and (c) they are wholly unprovoked.

We can coexist well… But there are fundamentalist groups, and even I ask… there is a question… How many young people, how many young people of our Europe, whom we have left empty of ideals, who do not have work… they take drugs, alcohol, or go there to enlist in fundamentalist groups.

Muslims do not co-exist well with others. There are periods of peace in which Christians and Muslims get along well, but they never last, because Islam is a religion which seeks, as a matter of its own ideology, complete domination over all non-Muslims. To conflate the patience of many Muslims in achieving Islamic aims with peace and harmony is a mistake. With Islam, it is only a matter of time — and of achieving a demographic majority — before the mask comes off and the true goals of Islamic dominion are asserted.

The idea that the Islamic religion is ancillary to violence perpetrated by Muslims could not be further from the truth. It is the Muslims from good homes with a strong religious upbringing who are the most likely to become terrorists. This has been shown to be so repeatedly, because the violence of Islam is a natural fruit of its anti-human dogma, and as such, a person who has been well-formed in Islamic teaching will be more likely to become radicalized. On the other hand, a Muslim who has been poorly formed or is not particularly devout in their religious practice is far more likely to be secular, “moderate,” or apostatize completely.

The claims that economic disadvantages, unemployment, or lack of education are the catalysts for Islamic violence have been repeatedly shown to be wrong. It is a more attentive study of the Islamic faith, or some event that moves a Muslim to a more devout practice of that faith, that most often leads to radicalization.

One can say that the so-called ISIS, but it is an Islamic State which presents itself as violent . . . because when they show us their identity cards, they show us how on the Libyan coast how they slit the Egyptians’ throats or other things… But this is a fundamentalist group which is called ISIS… but you cannot say, I do not believe, that it is true or right that Islam is terrorist.

It would be nice to identify those “Egyptians” as “Christians,” because that is the reason why ISIS beheaded them.

Yes, ISIS is a fundamentalist group. They are faithful Muslims doing what Muhammad did. If you don’t believe me, read the first biography of Muhammad ever written — The Life of Muhammad by Ibn Ishaq. You will find little difference between Muhammad’s actions and those of ISIS. Or read the critique that the Islamic State has just published in response to Pope Francis’ attempts to frame Islam as a religion of peace. It is a complete rejection of his claims, and it quotes Islamic teaching to bolster its case.

Yes, it’s true that not all (or even most) Muslims are terrorists. However, terrorism is an inherent part of Islam. Terrorism is a means by which to compel men to join Islam.

Izoard: Your concrete initiatives to counteract terrorism, violence?

Pope Francis: Terrorism is everywhere. You think of the tribal terrorism of some African countries. It is terrorism and also . . . But I don’t know if I say it because it is a little dangerous… Terrorism grows when there are no other options, and when the center of the global economy is the god of money and not the person — men and women — this is already the first terrorism! You have cast out the wonder of creation — man and woman — and you have put money in its place. This is a basic terrorism against all of humanity! Think about it!

I have thought about it for 18 years actually. I began my intensive study of Islam in 1998. I have spent more than half of my life in this field, so I can say I know a few things about it.

Islamic terrorism is not about money. Or education. Or politics. Those are, at best, influencing factors. They are not the root cause.

The root cause is Islamic theology. The same theology that denies the intrinsic nature of man and instead places eternal beatitude in pursuing the path of a 7th century Arabian madman who is regarded as the perfect model for humanity when he was one of the most inhumane men who ever lived.

The problem is Islam and the Muslims, since it is through the Muslims that Islam’s power is able to be made manifest on the earth. 

We can love people all we want and be good to them, but it does not mean they will be good to us. In the case of Islam, Muslims regard Christian charity and mercy as weakness, and they exploit it to advance themselves and Islam at our expense.

Mercy, something which Pope Francis talks about a lot, is but one part of love, which is the nature of God (1 John 4:8). The other part is justice. While justice without mercy is legalism, mercy without justice is license. Both are sins.

Jesus said to St. Faustina that “he who refuses to pass through the door of my mercy must pass through the door of my justice.”

The Catholic Church’s hierarchy in modern times has been merciful to Muslims to the point of licentiousness. For the honor of God and the dignity of the Faith, with regard to what Islam and Muslims have done, a strong dose of justice is necessary and long overdue. That begins with allowing ourselves to understand the truth of what we face, not covering it over with wishful thinking.

Originally published on August 3rd, 2016. 

79 thoughts on “The Root Cause of Islamic Violence”

  1. GREAT piece. Succinct and piercing the political fog of the deceptions of cultural marxism.

    When our Pope speaks as he does, he is an embarrassment to any man who has taken the time to inquire into the ideology of Mahometanism.

    And one can NOT claim what has been done and said the past one-half century by the Hierarchy has arisen from ignorance about the character of Mahomet or the Ideology of his most faithful adepts for Ecclesiastical history is replete with the teachings of saints, scholars, and Popes about the nature of Mahometanism.

    From the Pope down to our local Bishops and the Pastors of the Local Franchise of Dead Diocese Inc, America, ALL have failed in their duty to protect the sheep and to teach them the truth; worse, they have added and abetted our sworn enemies by telling sweet sounding lies and yet they purport to be all about love.

    Lord have mercy…wadda load of crap they have been delivering to us these past 50 + years.

  2. Brilliant! THANK YOU for this clarity of thought!! I plan to print LOTS of copies, pass them to my “catholic” friends & parish priest who’ve been out to lunch on this issue & leave them in my local parish vestibules.
    Also, can you tell me how to obtain a hardcopy of your book? It is unavailable at Amazon. Thank you, again, & GOD BLESS YOU!!

      • A powerful and compelling article. Although only a few Muslims murder with their own hands, it would seem that the profession and propagation of Islamic beliefs as true amounts to aiding, abetting or counselling (assisting or encouraging) murder.

        In the English legal system, the principal and his accessory are indicted in identical terms and get the same sentence if convicted.

  3. “…and when the center of the global economy is the god of money and not the person — men and women — this is already the first terrorism.”

    Even as he rightly acknowledges the idolatry of money as being sinful, he spectacularly fails to identify what should be the centre, goal and end of all human activity i.e. once again, in his new religion, the human person takes the rightful place of God.

    Unless God and His law, His justice, His integrity, His mercy, His honesty are placed at the centre of even economic activity, then it is bound to be fruitless and fail to achieve a good end. It isn’t all about man – it is all about God first – and if He is made the centre of everything we do, then the man who is made in His image and likeness will truly reap the blessings of everything that flows from that.

  4. “By all of the orthodox Islamic accounts, Muhammad was a mass-murderer, a pedophile, a necrophile, a serial rapist, a man who claimed he was possessed by demons, a highway robber, a liar, a deceiver, and a tyrant who placed his concept of divine beatitude at the service of his own acquisition of power, money, and sex in this life with the promise that these same ill-gotten pleasures would endure perpetually in the afterlife.”


  5. Realizing that Islamic history is not Mr. Bieszad’s discipline, I would suggest that he gives far too much credence to the traditional Islamic narrative “of a 7th century Arabian madman.” We simply don’t have credible historical evidence for any 7th century Arabian prophet corresponding to the person portrayed in traditional Islamic literature. 7th and 8th century Christian sources don’t provide any evidence of a new belief system called “Islam,” a new people called “Muslims” or a prophet called Muhammad. The first legends of such a person begin to appear in the 9th century, and most of the pseudo-biographical details were added even later. Although there may well have been bits and pieces of what we now call Koranic materials floating around the middle east in the 7th and 8th century, they were at that time understood as part of the heterodox (East Syriac) pre-Nicene Christian beliefs held by some persons in that region. A foundational origin myth involving an Arabian ‘prophet’ was layered on top of those materials beginning in the 9th century. If a friend orders his life according to the logic of “what would Luke Skywalker or Darth Vader do,” it seems that our first act of charity would be to point out that neither of those persons exists outside of George Lucas’s fictional screenplays.

      • I think Mr. Bieszad’s analysis of Islamic theology is spot on target. I didn’t actually intend to question Mr. Bieszad’s qualifications, his proficiency in Arabic, or his knowledge of the foundational texts (note: If he is also fluent in Syro-Aramic then he is also able to read many of the Koranic materials in what is likely their original language).

        Memorizing the foundational texts, however, doesn’t actually tell us anything about the historicity of the events narrated in those texts. For example, one could memorize the Iliad (in the original Greek), but that wouldn’t tell us anything about whether Achilles ever existed or if his mother were really the sea-goddess Thetis. Likewise, knowing the Islamic materials backwards and forwards doesn’t necessarily tell us if the main character of those narratives is a historical or mythical person.

        Based on this article, it seems that Mr. Bieszad is merely assuming (rather than demonstrating) the historicity of the Islamic origin narrative. I question (on historical rather than theological grounds) whether that assumption is warranted. I don’t happen to think that it is warranted, and I base that on the very small (but it seems growing) number of historians who have dared to critically probe the standard Islamic origin narrative. Conceding the historicity of the Islamic narrative, I would suggest, is far too generous of a concession to make to Islamists. I think it also makes a difference to Mr. Bieszad’s theological analysis. If Islam is all the invention of a historical, yet perhaps mad, man, then that leads to one set of conclusions. If that man, however, is a fictional creation of several historical authors over time, that may well lead to a different set of conclusions.

        • And just what would that “different set of conclusions” be? Would it in any way, for example, save our current pope from the accusation of spouting perfect rubbish about the whole Mohammedan question? I don’t think so. In other words, aside from academic considerations, what possible difference does it make that Mohammed was a real or merely an imaginary fraud? The Mohammedan-inspired beheadings, rapes, genital mutilation, honor killings, misogyny, and deadly suicide attacks will continue to be very real for us all.

          • Exactly, in the same way that we can argue over the existence of Buddha, but we cannot argue the existence of Buddhists.

        • It would be very odd, I think you’d agree, to study a subject in such depth and for so long but never to inquire as to the provenance of the texts.

          Of course he knows the history. It’s part and parcel of his study of Islam. But I see he’s here to make his own defense, and frankly, I’ll only get in his way.

        • Irrelevant.

          The sweep of Islam across North Africa, thru Spain to the borders of Western Europe, across Asia Minor to Central Asia and the vast archipelagos of the East is what matters.

          Oh, and the immensely stupid statements of our existing Pope Saladin, who is encouraging the colonization of western Europe.

          Even if the historicity of Muhammad himself is proven to be false {by whom, Western historians?}, do you really think that matters one bit to the hundreds of millions of its adherents?

    • Your assumption is that Muhammad did not exist. This an old debate and, like the debate over Christopher Luxembourg’s thesis that the houris virgins of the Koran are “white raisins,” has been debunked a long time ago.

      As far as “credible sources,” credible to whom? The earliest complete Islamic sources (Al- Waqidi’s Kitab Al-Maghazi and Ibn Ishaq’s The Life of Muhammad) from the 8th century say the same, and the Muslim scholars who came after all agree. The Muslims who wrote these and other sources are sincere and well documented. If you want Christian sources, Atheist writer Robert Hoyland’s Seeing Islam as others saw it is a great place to start.

      To say that Muhammad did not exist is about as credible as saying Jesus did not exist.

      • Thank you Andrew for your thoughtful response. I don’t assume that Muhammad does not exist, I only observe that the Muhammed doubters would seem to make better use of the extant evidence and to bring a more robust methodological discipline to their research than the Muhammad affirmers.

        As for Christoph Luxenberg (itself a pseudonym), who is, incidentally still publishing, his investigation of early Islamic manuscripts was/is hardly limited to houris virgins (I suspect that he is at least equally well known for his work on the inscription in the Dome of the Rock, among others).

        As for Robert Holyand, I have seen his work and I also have seen Karl-Heinz Ohlig’s attempt to revisit many of those same Christian texts (“Evidence of a New Religion in Christian Literature ‘Under Islamic Rule’?” published in English in 2013). Ohlig’s critical rereading yielded significantly different conclusions from Holyand. (I would be curious to hear your own assessment of Ohlig’s revision).

        Merely, citing Al Waqidi and Ibd Ishaq as sources doesn’t establish the historicity of their accounts any more than citing Homer establishes the historicity of the Odyssey.

        Comparing Jesus to Muhammad is bit daring (even on a blog site) both theologically and historically. The new testament has been subject to a withering barrage of critical-historical analysis over the last two centuries. The Islamic origin narrative has only very recently begun to be subjected to anything remotely resembling that, and only with not-insignificant difficulties, which is why e.g. Luexenberg does not publish under his real name. Now from a theological perspective, your comparison is a bit more problematic: Christ is He Who Is; He is being itself, an incomparably different ontological category than a mere creature (even if we assume that the creature in question is historical).

  6. Such clear thinking! Thank you for this.
    (I wish you could/would send a copy to the Holy Father; if he only read some of it, matters would improve.)

    • I actually dont think it would. If he ignored what the imam said about execution then what makes anyone think that when he reads this he would change?

      He wont.

  7. A great article! Cafeteria Moslems just like Cafeteria Catholics do not truly practice their faith. They are lukewarm Moslems who have one foot in their religion and one foot in the culture they are residing in.

    The truMoslems believe as their leader did and you can see their fruits…

  8. Pope Francis’ characterization of Mohammedanism and Christianity in Italy in this interview is so skewered and cockeyed that it has to be a deliberate attempt to mislead. No one today can possibly be ill-informed enough to say seriously what he did, “perfectos disparates” in the language of his homeland. This is especially so since he boasts a decent education and long stays in Europe. There is simply no excuse for such nonsense.

  9. The Pope is a relativist who only feels free to insult and attack faithful Catholics. That he would even think that it is alright to equate the violence that stems FROM belief in Islam to Christianity is horrid.

  10. Hi Andrew – great work, as always. I don’t know if you’ll remember me but we had dinner once with mutual friends in West Hartford (James Brislin and Mike Kokozska).. a while ago now. I thought what you had to say on this topic was fascinating at the time, and the years since have only served to prove you right. Great to see you are doing well and helping out a lot of the publications that I read!
    Keep up the great work–much needed in these strange times.
    Travis Searles

  11. THIS IS THE MOST AWESOME ARTICLE I HAVE EVER READ! love love love this. This is great. Finally! TRUTH SPOKEN! this pope is so stupid. I cant BEGIN to describe what a stupid dimwit.

  12. Mr. Bieszad has provided concrete evidence about what Islam really is and what devout Muslims whio follow the Koran to the letter do and have done. I have pointed out that Nostra Aetete, the Second Vatican Council document that “claims” Muslims worship the same God as Christians (when they clearly reject Christ as God’s Son) has been used to obliterate over a thousand years of Catholic teaching about Islam and Catholic history of fighting Islam. Second Vatican Council uber alles! Pope Francis is all about the Second Vatican Council. I know my Catholic history. I know about Pelayo, Charles “The Hammer” Martel, Queen Isabel the Catholic, Servant of God, Don Juan of Austria, and my hero of history, Jan III Sobieski, King of Poland, Liberator of Vienna and dealer of death to the Ottoman Empire.

    The esteemed Roman Pontiff, while attending the events at World Youth Day in Krakow, has the unmitigated nerve and gall to lecture Poland to let in more Muslims. This proves the willful ignorance – or stupidity – of the Roman Pontiff about Polish history and its wars against pagans, Lutherans, Orthodox, Nazis, Communists and Muslims while remaining true to the Catholic Church. Pope Francis, whose home country let in Nazis at the end of WWII, never lectures Argentina to let in Muslims. Nor does he say a peep to Spain, Portugal, France, Germany, etc. about abortion or homosexuality.

    • I don’t think the Poles are going to take any notice of his appeal to let more Muslims in. They have let some Christian refugees in. I read a moving account from one Syrian Christian about his joy at being able to walk the streets of Warsaw in safety. I doubt if any Christian nation which has experienced the horror of Islamic rule will ever let Muslims in, if they have any choice in the matter.

  13. The Israelites were ordered by God to obliterate the Canaanites because they defiled the land with child sacrifice. They were warned that should they start such an abomination, they too would be razed.
    Europe has embraced Molochism with gusto – the UK alone offers about 190,000 unborn children through surgical abortion and countless more by chemical means.
    Along come the muslims, who might be pagans but do not abort their babies.
    Coincidence? Maybe…

  14. The Pope is rightfully wary of appearing to condemn Muslims for Islam. There’s no question that the Quran sanctions violence against the infidel. There is no questions that world over several thousand Muslims (mostly young men) have been willing to commit acts of suicidal terror against the innocent – and they sincerely believe they follow their faith. The Atlantic did an article a few months ago that argued that ISIS was coherent theologically in the world of Wahhabi Islam. ISIS spokesmen congratulated the author for getting it right.
    But beware the press. Benedict was utterly truthful at Regensburg for warning about violence and Islam. It doesn’t matter that he was criticized because his statement was careful and obviously true. That said, I could easily see how a badly put comment could make it appear that the Catholic Church considers Islam inherently guilty of violence against the innocent. It most certainly isn’t. Most Muslims wouldn’t think of strapping on a bomb or shooting up a night club. What is disturbing is how rarely Muslim leaders loudly condemn such violence. (Of course that would put them in danger in many parts of the world.) That said, how many Catholics know the difference between mainline Sunni and Wahabi Islam? How many Catholics know that most victims of Islamic terror have been Muslims?
    I would like Francis to tell the truth, but that seems to come very hard for him. Consider this statement as coming from of the same loony part of the Pope’s mind that generated the bizarre claim about null marriages. What the Church should be doing is urging Muslims to be stronger in their protests. Just don’t expect Francis to do it.

  15. I am not catholic but an agnostic (not in a western sense) but I agree with this article. Surely Islam supports, propagates and approves of violence against non believers (as per their definition) and that’s the real problem. We are fighting with people who are willing to die. Even though all Muslims are not terrorists, majority of them have backward thinking.

  16. Have no fear, for Mary is near. Refer to the miraculous image of Our Lady of Guadalupe – Our Mother stands on a black crescent moon, which symbolically represents both Islam and the occult. Both to be overcome by her in a final and decisive victory, the amazing manner of which will stun he who is evil to the core.

    Praise be to The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit, for the gift of Mother Mary Immaculate.

  17. A contentious topic for all of us, particularly at the moment for an Englishman.

    What to say? I have lived in five Islamic and / or Moslem-majority countries, and I make the following observations with a fairly high degree of certainty:

    1. There is no grace in Moslem countries. They are as empty of grace as the desert is of green things. (Except that the desert is not empty, but full of demons, as Scripture tells us).

    2. Moslems always make a public show of piety to non-Moslems, often very ostentatiously, but it’s all on the surface. No depth to it. Anger always seems close to the surface.

    3. The modern West is what the Russians call a “bardak”, a moral anarchy recalling the brothel. We have to admit this. However, it is the Islamic countries where gross hypocrisy in the moral life rules as the norm. As the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia notes, “It is hardly necessary here to emphasize the fact that the ethics of Islam are far inferior to those of Judaism and even more inferior to those of the New Testament” (

    4. Moslems are wholly ignorant of the Bible, though they accept it as a “holy book”.

    5. I personally believe that given the very poor return on centuries of evangelisation, the Moslems’ claim to be the descendants of Hagar and Ishmael should be taken seriously. They are therefore condemned out of their own mouths and are fit only for God’s punishment.

    • If Hilaire Belloc was still living, he’d have a fatwa issued against him for writing The Great Heresies, in which he classifies Islam as a Christian heresy, NOT a separate religion.

      Tidbit for everyone: Get The Great Heresies by Hilaire Belloc.

  18. Can someone explain this please? Does it refer to confession or something else?

    Jesus said to St. Faustina that “he who refuses to pass through the door of my mercy must pass through the door of my justice.”

  19. As we see every day everywhere the West-European ((brainwashed) people are begging muslims to come to their homes, to take
    them over after a while, about a 20-30 years when islamists will become
    the majority.
    In the same time, now, the very same West European
    people, to begin with their leaders, who all must have a roots in the
    Christianity, totally don’t care about the persecutions, torture and
    killing world-widely Christian brothers, who suffer just from muslims.
    So the question is, what’s really going on here and now!?
    the answer is not so difficult. This, already pagan West world (YES,
    world without the true, genuine Christian Faith, intentionally or
    unintentionally becomes the pagan world) deserves to be punished by its
    greatest enemies and haters.
    Because we who consider ourselves as
    God’s people, we turn our back to God’s and insult him much worse than
    God’s people in the past.
    Those people whom God because of their many
    sins, without grace has delivered into the hands of their greatest
    haters like Mesopotamians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Egyptians…

    this, in these days a very pagan West don’t go back to God first and become again Christian
    nations, then the West will be punished by those most severe punishment, executed by the hand of the most worse savages
    in the world,- the islamists!
    Because we, Christians are NOT doing
    our own holy duty which is,- helping those savages to become the real Christians,
    the real children of God, and because we are NOT doing that, but we are doing
    many other godless things, and all other kind of sins against the God,
    just those savages will be our ‘correctors’.
    We should pray, very often and very much
    for the conversion of the hearts of all Western people and all other pagans
    from the East and the whole World!

      • I cannot understand why Pope St. John Paul II allowed a mosque to be built in Rome. I will never be able to get over that.

        • I did not realize his permission was needed and that he gave it. He must not have read the Qu’ran, nor been aware of the voluminous commentary throughout the ages, much of it by saints, on the moral squalor of Islam. If he turned a blind eye, that is most tragic.

  20. “Pope” Francis with his intentional misleading and confusing ideas about Catholicism, Islam, and politics is a menace to the teachings of the Catholic Church and the world at large. In him the smoke of Satan has materialized.

    • Personally – and contrary to what a number of popes have said – I believe that Islam is a creation of the one whose name must not be spoken.

  21. It’s hard to know whether his Holiness is naive about Islam or just being “pastoral” and trying hard not to offend the growth sectors of the Church in Africa or Asia.

    • He understands what Islam is about. He supports them because he and the muslims have the same enemy – the Catholic Church.

  22. One wonders what exactly was happening in the Arabian Peninsula in the 3rd and 4th Centuries. Besides various pagan tribes, there was a large Jewish settlement in Yemen; Nestorians and other Christian heretics lived in Jeddah, the Levant, as well as what is today Medina. The remnants of various Babylonian religions existed from Persia to Nineveh and the tip of the Persian Gulf. Islam exploded out of a few small towns, and very quickly conquered most of the Arabian Peninsula. It continued to spread into Egypt and all of North Africa before eventually spreading into the rump of the Byzantium Empire, that is Judea and Syria.

    It is most definitely a religion based on the sword. Theologically, I agree with those who call Islam a religion based upon both Christian and Jewish heresies.

  23. Thanks for featuring Andrew Bieszad again. Always enjoy his articles.
    I wish there were more lectures or interviews available with him.

  24. Francis is not ignorant or uninformed. He must appease the Muslems because he plans for them to be part of th new one world religion and new world order which is his agenda.

  25. If the next Pope says something along the lines of this article, I will have hope. If he spews lies in continuity with Bergoglio, I will conclude that the chastisement of the Church is just getting started.

  26. “While violence is not mandated in Islam, it is wholly permitted”. I don’t think this is correct. The Koran and the other basis of Islamic jurisprudence and polity the Hadith, clearly mandate violence against unbelievers.

  27. Well while there may be something to this at the same time I recall back in the early ’60’s and before I never heard of any Islamist terrorist bombers then. I did hear of Jewish terrorists like Menachim Begin who used terrorism. In fact and one can look it up, the British mandated government of the Palestine area, of which included the territory now called Israel, had a poster out with a hefty reward for anyone bringing Menachim Begin in either dead or alive. And I frequently hear Christian Americans say that what we needed to do was to nuke the Islamic countries in order to stop terrorism. And I understand that this country is running out of bombs to drop on Middle Eastern countries that we have bombed for the last 15 years. The thing is, it seems, that people from all time can always find reasons for justifying terrorism they inflict on others. It is so easy to find excuses to inflict horrors on others, and to place all the blame on others. Revenge is not an emotion that only Muslims feel. Personally I condemn all terrorism by anyone. I recall during WWII when the Japanese used torture on Americans and we were shocked and attributed it to the Japanese character. And now we have used torture and I have heard Christian, even Catholic Americans defend this. But then I have always found history interesting, as it does provide a perspective.

  28. Believing, traditional, Catholics, let this sink in and repeat it to yourself often—the Pope doesn’t give a damn about us, he doesn’t give a damn about Catholicism, he doesn’t give a damn about how many Christians and priests are murdered by the mohammedans… He is a Marxist, materialist. The revolution is the only thing that matters to him…now go on about your business of loving Christ and His Church and stop clinging to the fantasy that Bergolio will change.

  29. One can only hope Pope Francis is appealing for the natural human desire for hope and peace in Muslims……perhaps using a form of ‘taqiyya’ himself to convince Muslims their religion is peaceful, as some kind of first step to spiritual victory.
    Perhaps Islam can never be defeated without a victorious spiritual awakening …..but maybe this will occur when Islam enivitably implodes from within, having first over run Europe and indeed Rome, where upon their sharia fuelled hate is spiritually rejected and physically defeated by all people, having only brought hate, fear, barbarity and satanism.

  30. It should also be noted that Pope Francis was comparing, in virtually all cases, non-practicing Christians to practitioners of Islam


Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Popular on OnePeterFive

Share to...