Melkite Archbishop: "The doctrines of Islam dictate war against unbelievers"

Mainly Yes, with an occasional No, especially toward the end, with far too rosy a view of the treatment of both Jews and Christians. Perhaps someone should send him a copy of "The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam" -- he's lived it, now he can read about it.

There is that misleading business about Jews "living in peace" (yes, but under what onerous and insecure conditions did they live?) and the backdating a separate "Palestine" that until recently existed not in the consciousness of Muslims, who gave "Palestine" no special significance, but only in the religious and historic memory of Jews as Eretz Israel or Judea. Of course, three was that single spot, on the Temple Mount, from which the point of take-off and re-entry for the "Miraj" or Night Journey of Muhammad on his aller-retour to the Seventh Heaven, placed there, no doubt for reasons of Realpolitik, by the Ummayyad caliph sitting in Damascus, Abd el-Malik).

There is the implication that Islam can be, when taken literally, very dangerous, but also the implication that somehow Islam can be taken other than literally. How? At this point, how can the hundreds of millions of extremely primitive and primitivized Believers (and not the few millions who are not primitive nor primitivized) ever jettison Hadith and Sira, and what's more, offer up a bowdlerized Qur'an, stripped of its Jihad verses, that will stick?

Considering the kind of conditiions this Bishop grew up in, considering how he must have had to take into account all sorts of considerations and duties to his flock, the above is quibbling.

This is a remarkable statement, all in all. There are non-Christian Christians in the Middle East, what are rightly termed the islamochristians such as Michel Sabbagh and the very busy Naim Ateek, promoting the Islamic agenda (for that is what pushing the Lesser Jihad against Israel amounts to). But there are also others, not islamochristians, but properly fearful of Muslim responses, Muslim aggression, Muslim vindictiveness. It is only when there is little to lose, as now, when the full menace of Islam threatens to pursue Middle Eastern Christians even in what they once regarded as their safe havens in France, in England, in Canada, in Australia, in the United States, that the duty becomes one of alerting the unwary Infidels in those countries, as best one can, in as measured a way as one can, to the meaning and menace of Islam.

This guy will either get crucified (no pun intended) by the press or they'll completely ignore it

i think it will be the latter. which is a shame, cos he clearly knows what he's talking about.

Off the point:
I have a question for the scholars of the koran.
Back in the eighties when we got into Lebanon, I remember that there were some Americans and westerners that were kidnapped by Islamic terrorists. It was a three way religious war. The Islamic terrorists killed some hostages, but western Industry and government secured some releases with blood money and releases of islamic terrorists held in jail.
Sometime during that process, the islamics decided to kidnap a Soviet Ambassador or other high ranking soviet diplomat. Instead of negotiating or making a payoff. The soviets kidnapped and castrated several young relatives of the suspected kidnappers. The soviet offical was released quickly.
My question: I remember statements at the time to the effect that as a Muslim you need to have offspring to mantain your blood line or else you cannot go to paradise upon your death (or something to that effect). Was that just some sort of misinformation or does it have basis in the koran. I doubt, at this time, any western government would ulitize this strategy against "innocent" relatives, but could this be some interesting way to attack the problem of kidnapping and heheadings.

Truth from the Greek religious leaders! Armenians & Greeks are very numerous in Boston and close to it. New England is very strong with victims of the Ottomans.

Like Christians, Muslims are obligated to "convert nonbelievers." Unlike Christianity, however, "the doctrines of Islam dictate war against unbelievers." Jihad, or holy war, is justified as self-defense whenever Islam is threatened — be it by a conquering power or an offensive cartoon.
Archbishop Cyril Salim Bustros, Melkite Greek Catholic Eparch of Newton, Massachusetts
___

A relegious leader that has read, watched, heard and understand the violent threat of the cult of Islam.

God bless him.

Hope he has body guards.

The Texican.
Freedom, the only choice at any cost.

I was reading the Washington Times on the train last night and came across an article that was talking about how even the mullahs in Iran are distancing themselves from the new president. Then I saw a phrase that drew my interest. In the article, an arab scholar said that Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was spending 25% of the Iranian budget on short-sighted projects. The scholar then stated that Ahmadinejad is thinking short term because he will leave the long term goals to the 'Hidden Imam' when he returns.

I thought to myself, 'What the hell is the Hidden Imam'?

I did some research and here is an excerpt from an online article about this. This is what the Shiite muslims actually believe:

The Hidden Imam, however, will eventually leave his Greater Occultation and appear (zuhur ) to the world of humanity. This return is the most significant event in the future for the Shi'ite faithful and has thunderous eschatological consequences. This return will occur shortly before the Final Judgement and the end of history. Imam Mahdi will return at the head of the forces of righteousness and do battle with the forces of evil in one, final, apocalyptic battle. When evil has been defeated once and for all, the Imam Mahdi will rule the world for several years under a perfect government and bring about a perfect spirituality among the peoples of the world

Here is another educational presentation about the 'Hidden Imam'

http://www.yamahdi.com/audvid/vdo/hidden.htm

I'm sorry folks and call me crazy, but to me, this strongly indicates what the Book of Revelation refers to as the anti-christ who will appear towards the end of time and persecute the world for three years before Christ returns.

We are witnesses to the fulfillment of prophecies as outlined in the Book of Revelation.

Perhaps this guy could have a word with the Archbishop of Canterbury, who is not so much asleep as in a coma:

http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/releases/060227a.htm

Show me the evidence to the contrary, and then I'll believe in the "Religion of Peace." Until then, I'll put more faith in my lying eyes...

GrimReaperxxx -- If Westerners believe the tidal wave of Islam will be broken against the retaining wall of Western Secular laws, social pluralism and tolerance, I believe they are sadly and dangerously misguided. The worst crime Islam has perpetrated against us will be to drag us down into the gutter where Muslims live and fight -- either that, or we will fall victim to their barbaric onslaughts and erosions.

You may already know this, but FYI: the genitals were shoved into the mouths of said relatives, and the resulting suffocation was the cause of their death. No one can say the KGB wasn't thorough. I'm not necessarily advocating such measures, but I am certain that the brutality of our actions against Muslims will need to increase exponentially if we have any hope of actually turning the tide of Islam's Jihad. Our measures so far have proved completely ineffective, if the rise in "Islamic radicalism" is any indication -- (and it seems like that's a pretty good indicator -- reasonable?)

If so-called Wars to instill democracy such as Afghanistan and Iraq are supposed to turn the tide of Islam's Jihad... where is the evidence for it? I see none. I see "radicalism" on the ascendancy.

If the patient unequivocal application of secular laws and standard legal proceedings against terrorists, financiers, and promulgators is somehow supposed to turn the tide of Islam's onslaught... where is the evidence? I see none.

If allowing Muslims into our midst is supposed to somehow magically transform Islam's central thesis of supremacism, exclusion, and violence into a "religion of peace"... where is the evidence this is happening? I see none.

If the so-called "moderate Muslims" are waging a war against their so-called "extremist Muslim" brothers, and instructing them on the "true" interpretation of Islam, the one the "moderates" maintain is the true Islam, the "peaceful Islam", then where is this effort being waged? I see none. What I see is Muslims coming on TV and lecturing US with angry jabbing index fingers and furrowed brows -- lecturing us about how wrong our interpretation of Islam is -- I don't see them excoriating their violent brethren --- If they are waging this war, where is the evidence? I see none.

If our "moderate allies" in the Muslim world are doing anything to turn the tide of Islamic "radicalism"... where is the evidence? I see the exact opposite -- I see "Muslim leaders" in every Muslim country fomenting more hatred of infidels, feeding every lie and alleging every calumny against us, and wrapping themselves in the Koran to outdo each other to prove their Muslim-ness. I see no evidence they are turning the tide of Islam's Jihad, I see every evidence they are amplifying their efforts to conduct their Jihad against us.

But of course these disagreeable little facts will be twisted by the Muslim apologists, and their West-loathing abettors and the rise in "Islamic extremism" will be blamed on our actions in the West, and NOT on the Muslims themselves or Islam.

I believe our choice is a binary one: Become far more ruthless in our resistance against the Muslim Jihad, or eventually allow them to erode our society and eventually rule the smoldering slag heap they have created out of what once was the glorious West.

Burneweb -- you may also find it interesting that the 12th Imam -- I think he's called the "Mahdi" will pop out of a well! That's right -- the guys gonna pop out of a well... so I guess he's lurking in some dark dank hole somewhere --

I am not a believer in the depiction of Armageddon in Revelations. I do however believe that mythology (no offense to Christian believers) offers a window into mankinds deepest nature and potentials. I believe that the deeply held belief that Armageddon (or some version of complete and final destruction) is a story about man's knowledge that he has the ability to destroy himself.

Whereas in prior times, this notion was not really born out by man's capacity to carry out his own destruction, today we have the capacity -- And now, for the first time in history, humanity is living cheek by jowl with none of the former buffers and separations... And we have the ways and means to destroy ourselves.

Combining the Apocalyptic beliefs of Muslim maniacs, the unprecedented global infiltration of the Muslim 5th column shock troops in our lands (that is, "infidel" or enemy lands to the Muslims) and the presence of WMD in the hands of Muslim leaders, and you have all the components for the 4 Horsemen of the Apocalypse...

Interestingly, Mr. Bin Laden has often been photographed on a white horse -- and the image of an avenging Muslim warrior astride awhite horse is a popular and recurring theme in Islamic cosmology.

Isn't it bizarre then, with Bin Laden's proclivity for living in caves (wells?) for enjoying propaganda depicting him astride a "pale" horse, and doing everything in his power to bring about the deaths of unprecedented humans in the West -- Hollywood makes this stuff up all the time -- This guy is out of central casting: the perfect archetype of the anti-Christ from Christian cosmology.

The 4th Horseman of the Apocalypse is the Pale Rider -- Death -- He is popularly depicted riding a "pale horse" whose color is slightly greenish (green being favored among Muslims as a symbol of Islam) -- While I find this all highly coincidental -- I can understand the inferences some might make -- And it's not comforting in the least to believe that this is simply mythology -- after all -- Evil figures such as Bin Laden, with the aid of huge numbers of Muslims in our midst -- only needs the means to trigger something horrific -- something that would look so much like Armageddon that any distinctions between myth and reality would altogether disappear and shrivel to nothingness after the holocaust which would be unleashed.

I believe our choice is a binary one: Become far more ruthless in our resistance against the Muslim Jihad, or eventually allow them to erode our society and eventually rule the smoldering slag heap they have created out of what once was the glorious West.
Posted by: jsla at March 15, 2006 11:52 AM
___

Agree, which probably doesn't shock anyone on this site.

JSLA, two good posts. Keep it up.

The war with Islam is coming.

Be prepared be armed be ready.

The Texican.
Freedom, the only choice at any cost.

basically a good statement but he gets soft at the end. He apparently did not present the dhimmi status with proper frankness.

Burneweb,

The Shiites in Iraq who are sometimes trying to kill us, other times pretending to work with us, and meanwhile mass-murdering Sunni Muslims -- these Shiites are also inspired by this eschatological figure, the Hidden Imam and/or the Mahdi.

Consider Muqtada al-Sadr who for a long time was fighting against us in Iraq and may still be instigating covert insurgency against us.

Muqtada al-Sadr doesn't call his legions the "Mahdi Army" for nothing:

"Many Shias believe [that] the Mahdi, who is like the Shia Messiah, disappeared in the ninth century from Najaf and they're expecting his return to Najaf. And one of the reasons why they're fighting so bitterly is because many of Muqtada al-Sadr's followers believe that the Mahdi, the Shia messiah, is about to return.
They say this often, he's going to return to kill the Americans, to defeat the Americans and the Jews who are occupying our country. You hear that statement from Muqtada al-Sadr's associates very, very often."

-- The journalist Nir Rosen, speaking at a round-table on August 12, 2004, on the PBS Newshour with Jim Lehrer. Mr. Rosen also added that by all accounts, al-Sadr has tens of thousands of Shia Muslims who follow him.

P.S.: the Shiites of Iraq are being funded and probably trained by Iran.

JSLA - my understanding of the fourth rider is that it is The Pest. But you would think the fourth would be the final arbiter and The Great Equalizer.

War, Famine, Pestilence and Death

Why is al Sadr not in an Iraqi jail or in the ground by now? Which fortified compound, excuse me, which mosque is he hiding in? Someone on the payroll must know that.

"Armenians & Greeks... New England is very strong with victims of the Ottomans."
-- from a posting above

Yes.
But being a victim or the descendant of victims is not enough, if one fails to understand the impulse that gave rise to the behavior that caused those victims. One wonders what the Greek government comprehends about Islam. It has offered no objection to, and even seems to be supporting, the admission of Tureky to the E.U. (though Greek Cypriotes are not). Does it not worry about 80 million Muslim Turks being free to move about the E.U.? Successsive Greek governments have also pursued pro-Arab and anti-Israeli policies, which perhaps can be explained by payoffs to certain individuals and businesses, or perhaps reflect the inability to connect the Lesser Jihad against Israel with the Jihad, within the Ottoman Empire, directed at Greeks as well as other non-Muslims.

And there is not one Armenian community in exile, but several diffent communities (and there are always those who do not consider themselves part of a "community" and should not be placed in it without their express permission). Culturally most advanced are those who received solid Soviet educations, having arrived either from former Soviet Armenia itself, now an independent country worth supporting (worth supporting a lot more than Iraq is worth supporting, or Egypt, or Pakistan, or certainly "Palestinian" entities). Others may have arrived from Paris, as part of the Armenian diaspora now leaving Europe as the countries of that contient worrisomely islamize. Others are the descendants of those who arrived in the United States in the first few decades of this century. Still others arrived during and after the Lebanese Civil War between Christians and Muslims, from Beirut. And still others have come from Haleb (Aleppo) and other places in the Middle East, including Iran, which is turning out to be for Armenian Christians what it was for them in Tabriz during the reign of Shah Abbas, and not like Tabriz in the fond childhood memories of Vartan Gregorian.

Some are keenly aware of the massacres that began in 1915 by Muslim Turks, but less aware of those committed in 1894-96 by the Muslim Kurds. Some who ended up in the Christian parts of Haleb may be well aware of the problem of Islam, knowing that if the Alawite rule is overturned and the "real Muslims" take over, it's over for the Armenians. Some, who ended up in Beirut, may have internalized certain dhimmi attitudes, and may think that while the Turks were bad, since they ended up in Beirut and swallowed some of the islamochristian nonsense going around. Of course, such people would have had to forget the least discussed part of the Armenian genocide, which is that which continued, as Armenian refugees, often with few men along, were kidnapped, raped, or murdered by Arab marauders as they straggled through the Syrian desert, before reaching the safe haven either of Chrsitian villages, or Christian quarters of Beirut and Haleb.

It is not enough to have been a victim of the Ottomans. One needs to know what prompted such behavior, by Kurds, by Turks, by Arabs. Why did the Kurds (and Turks) in 1894-96 do what they did? For that matter, why did the massacres of the Maronites in Damascus in 1860, when it was under Ottoman rule? What prompted the Turks to massacre Armenians, especially priests and their wives, with such glee, and also to kill 300,000 Greeks in Smyrna, while Western warships rocked on the waves just offshore? What prompted the Arab marauders who saw the Armenian women and girls as fair game, as loot to be seized, just like the Janjaweed do today with the non-Arab, and therefore inferior, black African Muslims of Darfur?

Islam. Islam. Islam. Christian men can be killed, and their women, and their property, taken, once they have lost their status as "protected people." And it is very easy to lose that status. It could be wartime panic, as some suggest. It could be peacetime planning to get rid of a pesky Christian presence. It could be because there is that line line of refugees, and they are Christians, and we are Muslims, and their men are gone, and no can stop us or even see us, so what more do we need by way of justification?

our additions:

--It is the sources of Islamic orthodoxy (the Kuran, Hadiths, Sira) that are ABSOLUTIST.

--Islam becomes somewhat LESS absolutist when it comes to devaluing human life. There are varying degrees of tortures, corporal punishments, executions that differ more by degree of brutality and pain inflicted on the supposed criminal than anything else.

--Islamic ideology is set up in such a way that it cannot be modified. Muslims are breaking Islamic doctrines by opting to not follow the Kuran's more violent commandments. Literal interpretations are the only accurate ones.

--Islam decrees violence towards plenty of its members too. Note the carnage in Iraq currently. Also note how murderous such Islamic regimes as that of Saddam Hussein's, the Taliban, Sudan's, Pakistan's, and innumerable others are or have been in the recent (and distant) past. Millions of the victims of these cruel regimes have in fact been Muslims.

--Killing is part and parcel of Islamic ideology. This becomes evident in any study (even the most casual) of Islamic history. Islam shows no sign of letting go of this tendency. particularly as it has NO ideological grounds for doing so.

--Islam is not known to itself to have created anything cultural. What cultures there are in the Islamic empire existed PRIOR to Islam's invasion and occupation of those lands (Iran, Java, Egypt etc.).

--the 'people of the Book' have rarely been spared the violence of the sword of Islam. Notice Ousamah bin Looney Tunes calls American infidels and few if any Muslims in the Islamic empire take issue with that. Notice too, that the Kuran calls for the extermination of all followers of the Judaic faith. The 'people of the book' can thus be considered de facto infidels.

--Allah never once directly interacted with mankind. So its existence is open to question.

--the prophet Muhammed never prophecied anything and was chiefly a serial murderer (usually of Jews) and a career criminal. Such behavior is generally condoned (if not deemed praiseworthy) in the Kuran if one examines it closely.

--Islam is legalized murder and copnspiracy to commit multiple homicides. This is the opposite of what the Abrahamic faiths Christianity and Judaism teach.

--Islam does NOT worship the Judeo-Christian deity Yahweh--it worships allah. Allah is the Babylonian moon-god also known as Baal. Thus Islam is falsely claimed to be an Abrahamic faith. It is no such thing. Which explains why it is so utterly removed from Judeo-Christianity.

Very positive, thanks to God

RS from article: And the Qur'an also says that Christians who believe that Jesus is the Son of God are under God's curse (Sura 9:30), but let that pass.

Actually thats too important to pass on. If Jesus 'is' the 'Son of God', Allah cant be God, because he had no sons. Apparently he had a few daughters, but no sons , dont even ask who was his wife. YHVH (God) in the Bible said he had a son and was proud of him. It is important to Islam to always keep Jesus in an inferior position to Mohammad. If they dont do that, Jesus will eclipse Mohammad, muslims will start believing that Jesus really is the Son of God, and that will be the end of Islam. The good part is the billions of converts to Christianity.
Dont look for this to happen soon...

While appreciating the strong comments of this Bish, I wish he and others would drop their obligatory references to 'the Peoples of the Book'. Together 'the Peoples of the Book' constitute about a third of humanity. Those Hindus, Bhuddists and atheists who are generous to their fellow men stand a better chance at heaven than any number of outwardly pious peoples of the Book. This is endorsed by Jesus Christ Himself, in the parable where he speaks of " I was hungry and you fed me, naked and you clothed me etc.. ".

"the strong comments of this Bish..."
-- from a posting above

Once upon a time, and a very good time it was, nicens little boys not only did not refer to a Bishop as "this Bish" but if in doubt when writing or addressing a letter to a high-ranking cleric of a particular church, would ask their mothers on what page of Emily Post's Book of Etiquette could be found the precisely proper mode of salutation to be employed, for all kinds of excellencies and highnesses. And their mothers would tell them , and they would look, and they would learn. Never would it have occurred to those nicens little boys to refer to a Bishop, whether Melkite or Nestorian or Roman Catholic, as a "Bish."

Would Evelyn Waugh, or a dashing Englishwoman trying to track down the exact place in Ethiopia from which Pushkin's great-grandfather might have come, after having been granted an audience with the Abuna of the Ethiopian Coptic Church (not to be confused with the Coptic Church of Egypt), in a letter intended for a friend still at home, back in Blighty, on Primrose Hill, in Hampstead Heath, in old Londinium, have scribbled such a phrase as "I met with the Bish today"? Of course not.

You sho nuf Bish slapped that guy...

"'So we see through centuries Jews living in peace with Muslims in all the Arab countries: Syria, Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon, Egypt and North Africa,' the archbishop said."

At "peace"? Not exactly the way to describe the subserviant life of a rather useful (jizyah paying, educated) minority at the hands of a very tyranical majority. Someone should refer the archbishop to Spinoza's definition of peace -- a state of being without fear of harm, and not merely the absence of hostilities (i.e. actual state of war).

someone above said.....if we have any hope of actually turning the tide of Islam's Jihad.
IF, we have any hope, how can we have hope when our own are traitors against us,, then there is the media and on top of that there is the left which seems hell bent on assisting Islam to take over....
I would love to hear what people think, as I am getting stinken scared about this take over...
It would appear to most of us out here that they are trouble, and we are scared simply because our leaders of the west, dont seem to realise the dangers we are up against..

Please, does anyone think that there is any hope... ????

Does anyone see our leaders being aware of what is going on...

Then bush wants to let muslim alies buy up ports, (we all know that even some of our own are traitors let alone Muslims who will obviously stick with their brothers when push comes to shove).
then there is Pakistan weekly spills 9/11 beans

New Delhi, March 12: The Pakistan foreign office had paid tens of thousands of dollars to lobbyists in the US to get anti-Pakistan references dropped from the 9/11 inquiry commission report, The Friday Times has claimed.
Then there is the western media allowing a sheik or prince to have a huge amount of shares in the America media,,, come on,, what is up....
can anyone give me any hope for the future????and I am not talking about spiritual hope, as I well and truely know and believe in that one..

There is hope. Think of those who died on 9/11. Think of those fighting and dying in Iraq and Afghanistan today when you read this. I believe America is consecrated. This speech is short, but oh so very sweet:

Gettysburg Address
Gettysburg, Pennsylvania
November 19, 1863

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

-Abraham Lincoln