How could an organization that claims to speak for God and to be led by the Holy Spirit be so indefatigably committed to a lie? For it isn’t only Bruno Forte: the Pope has said the same thing, and it’s the official policy of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which winks at dissent on any number of actual Church teachings, but moves ruthlessly to suppress voices that dare to suggest that maybe Islam is not a Religion of Peace. It appears as if protecting the image of Islam is more important to Church leaders today than teaching the contents of their own faith.
Here are some salient quotations from the Qur’an:
2:191-193: “And slay them wherever you come upon them, and expel them from where they expelled you; persecution is more grievous than slaying. But fight them not by the Holy Mosque until they should fight you there; then, if they fight you, slay them — such is the recompense of unbelievers, but if they give over, surely Allah is All-forgiving, All-compassionate. Fight them, till there is no persecution and the religion is Allah’s; then if they give over, there shall be no enmity save for evildoers.”
4:89: “They wish that you should disbelieve as they disbelieve, and then you would be equal; therefore take not to yourselves friends of them, until they emigrate in the way of Allah; then, if they turn their backs, take them, and slay them wherever you find them; take not to yourselves any one of them as friend or helper.”
5:33: “This is the recompense of those who fight against Allah and His Messenger, and hasten about the earth, to do corruption there: they shall be slaughtered, or crucified, or their hands and feet shall alternately be struck off; or they shall be banished from the land. That is a degradation for them in this world; and in the world to come awaits them a mighty chastisement.”
8:12: “When thy Lord was revealing to the angels, ‘I am with you; so confirm the believers. I shall cast into the unbelievers’ hearts terror; so smite above the necks, and smite every finger of them!’”
8:39: “Fight them, till there is no persecution and the religion is Allah’s entirely; then if they give over, surely Allah sees the things they do.”
8:60: “Make ready for them whatever force and strings of horses you can, to terrify thereby the enemy of Allah and your enemy, and others besides them that you know not; Allah knows them. And whatsoever you expend in the way of Allah shall be repaid you in full; you will not be wronged.”
9:5: “Then, when the sacred months are drawn away, slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them, and confine them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they repent, and perform the prayer, and pay the alms, then let them go their way; Allah is All-forgiving, All-compassionate.”
9:29: “Fight those who believe not in Allah and the Last Day and do not forbid what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden — such men as practise not the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book — until they pay the tribute out of hand and have been humbled.”
9:111: “Allah has bought from the believers their selves and their possessions against the gift of Paradise; they fight in the way of Allah; they kill, and are killed; that is a promise binding upon Allah in the Torah, and the Gospel, and the Koran; and who fulfils his covenant truer than Allah? So rejoice in the bargain you have made with Him; that is the mighty triumph.”
9:123: “O believers, fight the unbelievers who are near to you; and let them find in you a harshness; and know that Allah is with the godfearing.”
47:4: “When you meet the unbelievers, smite their necks, then, when you have made wide slaughter among them, tie fast the bonds; then set them free, either by grace or ransom, till the war lays down its loads. So it shall be; and if Allah had willed, He would have avenged Himself upon them; but that He may try some of you by means of others. And those who are slain in the way of Allah, He will not send their works astray.”
Think these are just a bunch of verses taken “out of context” and that they’re interpreted in a benign manner by Islamic authorities? Think again. The authoritative sources in Sunni Islam, the schools of Sunni jurisprudence (madhahib), all teach warfare against unbelievers:
Shafi’i school: A Shafi’i manual of Islamic law that was certified in 1991 by the clerics at Al-Azhar University, one of the leading authorities in the Islamic world, as a reliable guide to Sunni orthodoxy, stipulates about jihad that “the caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians … until they become Muslim or pay the non-Muslim poll tax.” It adds a comment by Sheikh Nuh Ali Salman, a Jordanian expert on Islamic jurisprudence: the caliph wages this war only “provided that he has first invited [Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians] to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya) … while remaining in their ancestral religions.” (‘Umdat al-Salik, o9.8).
Hanafi school: A Hanafi manual of Islamic law repeats the same injunctions. It insists that people must be called to embrace Islam before being fought, “because the Prophet so instructed his commanders, directing them to call the infidels to the faith.” It emphasizes that jihad must not be waged for economic gain, but solely for religious reasons: from the call to Islam “the people will hence perceive that they are attacked for the sake of religion, and not for the sake of taking their property, or making slaves of their children, and on this consideration it is possible that they may be induced to agree to the call, in order to save themselves from the troubles of war.”
However, “if the infidels, upon receiving the call, neither consent to it nor agree to pay capitation tax [jizya], it is then incumbent on the Muslims to call upon God for assistance, and to make war upon them, because God is the assistant of those who serve Him, and the destroyer of His enemies, the infidels, and it is necessary to implore His aid upon every occasion; the Prophet, moreover, commands us so to do.” (Al-Hidayah, II.140)
Maliki school: Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406), a pioneering historian and philosopher, was also a Maliki legal theorist. In his renowned Muqaddimah, the first work of historical theory, he notes that “in the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force.” In Islam, the person in charge of religious affairs is concerned with “power politics,” because Islam is “under obligation to gain power over other nations.”
Hanbali school: The great medieval theorist of what is commonly known today as radical or fundamentalist Islam, Ibn Taymiyya (Taqi al-Din Ahmad Ibn Taymiyya, 1263-1328), was a Hanbali jurist. He directed that “since lawful warfare is essentially jihad and since its aim is that the religion is God’s entirely and God’s word is uppermost, therefore according to all Muslims, those who stand in the way of this aim must be fought.”
This is also taught by modern-day scholars of Islam.
Majid Khadduri was an Iraqi scholar of Islamic law of international renown. In his book War and Peace in the Law of Islam, which was published in 1955 and remains one of the most lucid and illuminating works on the subject, Khadduri says this about jihad:
The state which is regarded as the instrument for universalizing a certain religion must perforce be an ever expanding state. The Islamic state, whose principal function was to put God’s law into practice, sought to establish Islam as the dominant reigning ideology over the entire world. … The jihad was therefore employed as an instrument for both the universalization of religion and the establishment of an imperial world state. (P. 51)
Imran Ahsan Khan Nyazee, Assistant Professor on the Faculty of Shari’ah and Law of the International Islamic University in Islamabad. In his 1994 book The Methodology of Ijtihad, he quotes the twelfth century Maliki jurist Ibn Rushd:
Muslim jurists agreed that the purpose of fighting with the People of the Book … is one of two things: it is either their conversion to Islam or the payment of jizyah.
Nyazee concludes:
This leaves no doubt that the primary goal of the Muslim community, in the eyes of its jurists, is to spread the word of Allah through jihad, and the option of poll-tax [jizya] is to be exercised only after subjugation [of non-Muslims].
“L’Osservatore Romano accuses Charlie Hebdo of ‘distorting faith,’” by Domenico Agasso, Jr., La Stampa, January 5, 2016 (thanks to David):
…Speaking to news agency AdnKronos, the theologian and secretary general of the Synod of Bishops, Mgr. Bruno Forte, described the French weekly’s choice as “distressing, as well as unfounded” . “The potential for violence can, if anything, become detached from an authentic religious experience, certainly not encouraged or incited by it. As Pope Francis has said, killing in the name of God is to act against God’s will.”
“It offends the sensitivity of all people, not only Christians, Jews or Muslims. It also offends those who despite not being believers sense how important it is to respect the religious conscience and dimension in life. Hence this act is strongly condemned,” he added.
Forte added that the French newspaper’s insinuations “are far from the truth, because all religions, not just Christianity, but also the Jewish and Muslim faiths, preach non violence in the name of God. If anything, one shows violence by adopting an ideological stance, claiming to possess the truth, judging and excluding others. Religions are faced with the mystery of God and therefore have a strong antidote against such attempts: the supremacy of the Lord whose will we must all obey”.

Stefan Jetchick says
I was surprised after reading the headline of this article, but then I saw the name “Bruno Forte”. OK, now I understand!
Bruno Forte, as far as I know, is a sodomite and a heretic. That explains a lot!
MM says
Indeed. Although I don’t know if he’s a sodomite. But in general we should state that those confused minds who sell us to Islam are usually the ones who don’t believe in Catholic Doctrine anyways and are keen to abandon every substantial content of the faith of the millenniums. Their thoughts are part of the smoke of Satan who entered the church as stated by Blessed Pope Paul VI.
MM says
On the same time it is also clear that a terror attack is not an education camp. Meaning that Charlie Hebdo’s drawing a Jesus-like looking terrorist with blood in the face and the Eye of Providence watching from above is far from anything better than Forte’s statement. It’s the same multicultural whitewashing of Islam, just from the radical atheist side. On turn Pope Francis’ “killing in the name of God is to act against God’s will” becomes true if it is not directed to the critics of Islam but to the Islamists.
Ginger says
Yep, one of the Frankie’s Praetorian guard who tried to skew by sleight of hand and downright lies the results of the Synod on the Family.
Ex-muslim says
Ex-muslims, are totally disappointed with Catholic church and don’t consider it a Christian church but as a corrupt and ignorant secular club. Read on the link below the most famous ex-muslim who was baptized by Pope Benedict and why he had to leave the Catholic church shortly afterwards:
http://www.johnthavis.com/a-prominent-convert-leaves-the-church#.Vo2dW0_Tw4E
Christianblood says
Ex-muslim
Modern Catholic and Protestant churches are more like left-wing, morally relative, secular social services and Christianity in the Western world today is a 45 minute affair, four fast songs and a slow one, announcements, a nice 30 minute grace message, out the door, and off to eat. Very few discern. Even fewer are warriors. Many come to the popular church. Very few attend the unpopular prayer meeting. Fasting is considered old school and not healthy. In contrast, the Orthodox Christianity is conservatively militant, deeply spiritual and homogenously traditional. The Orthodox faith becomes for the believer not only a religious and a spiritual path but also a worldview, an identity and it permeates all your life and they way you think and behave and it gets into your blood, your DNA and your very identity and worldview and no the slightest secular liberal agenda can get into your system.
Joan Chakonas says
Amen amen amen. Thank you for your beautifully succinct sum of it all.
Beth says
Warriors?
Kathleen says
So many articles in PewSitter today by those that purport to be Catholic, they are actually enemies of the Church.
Benedict says
How could the Vatican say such a thing. Living in denial. Christians are being crucified, and are having their heads chopped off and they say this. What a bunch of loonies. Being Catholic, I am surprised at their statement.
cheekturner says
What was once known as the R.C. Church, has now disintegrated into the P.C. Church. Don’t be surprised at their statement; expect far more nonsense from that direction. And please remember… they do not, repeat NOT, represent the Catholic Church.
mortimer says
Bruno Forte has no idea of the DOCTRINE OF ABROGATION which entirely moves the tolerant goal posts of the ‘Meccan’ Koran to the JIHADIST goal posts of the ‘Medinan’ Koran.
Bruno Forte displays his near total ignorance of Islam by showing he is unaware of this BASIC DOCTRINE of Islamic exegesis.
Pong says
Being a catholic, you support their statements.
jihad3tracker says
Here is a brilliant — and I don’t use that adjective very often — essay by Deborah Tyler, published December 28 in American Thinker, on why people cannot face the truth about Obama.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/12/why_people_cant_face_the_truth_about_obama_.html
The same reason applies to why some many persons who “should be smarter” deceive themselves about Islam — although there may be additional elements in their denial.
BTW, American Thinker is a superb resource for coverage of crucially important events and issue. Put it in your bookmarked webpage cookie jar.
celticwarriorcanada says
And I thought AN UNEDUCATED CLERGY was a problem in 16 Century Europe ! NO wonder there was A PROTESTANT REFORMATION !!!
john spielman says
Dear Robert ; please send Bruno Forte and Pope Francis your narrative and inform them to READ THEIR BIBLE for the apostles Paul and John would describe islam as a doctrine of Satan and from the antichrist
Bridget Ames says
It is disappointing that representives of the Vatican have the powerful positions they have, but the church has dealt with many like this in Her time. Many of us in the Church have our eyes wide open to the truth.
jewdog says
I’m very offended by his assertion that Judaism preaches non-violence in the name of God. The Torah is replete with righteous battles and great victories over enemies of the Jews. Pacifism is considered a sin by most Jewish scholars and the highest mitzvah is death in defense of the Jewish people.
NYgal says
Really, that’s your problem? The violence of the religious Jews? Where?
As we are seeing Christians literally nailed to crosses, the antisemite in you has problem with Judaism? Well, so does obviously the Vatican and it has had for almost two millennia.
I think, what we are seeing now is the God finally loosing his patience with antisemitic RCC and saying: ‘go ahead hypocrites self destruct. And the same goes for the Muslims who are slaughtering each other by the thousands, as we speak.
gravenimageg says
NYgal, jewdog is *not* anteisemitic–he is proudly Jewish himself. He’s saying that Jews have the right under Judaism to defend themselves.
I take jewdog’s point, but I hardly find Forte’s comments about Judaism the most troubling things he has said.
Jack Gordon says
His “problem” is that he is a rabid anti-semite. His life is based on an imaginary conspiracy of “da JOOOOS” who are everywhere and all powerful. In short, he would be in a tight white jacket if society were still sane. Since it isn’t presently, we should ignore him and other lunatics like him, consign him to the fringes of society and polite conversation, an embarrassment to all of us.
gravenimage says
jewdog is *not* an antisemite–he is Jewish himself, and not of the self-hating variety. Check out his posting history here.
Beth says
jewdog, you’re probably either Catholic or Muslim but whatever. You’re offended that Judaism is non-violent?? lol When Jewish people fight, they have been attacked and are defending themselves. Never, in the history of the world, has a Jewish person attacked indiscriminately. Judaism teaches to “turn the other cheek”, and the Jewish people, throughout time have done that. Catholics and Muslims should learn from how Jewish people have and will always conduct themselves. With love, class, dignity, and compassion for mankind.
Angemon says
Beth, turning the other cheek comes from the Sermon on the Mound.
samdav7 says
LOL
This is funny
Hey Mr. Bruno Forte, when it comes to your knowledge about other religions, I give you minus ten, that’s for sure.
cs says
They will spin it forever.
Dave says
Its not my fathers church nor Our Father s church any more…
“..How could an organization that claims to speak for God and to be led by the Holy Spirit be so indefatigably committed to a lie?..” All Catholics need to be asking that question and act accordingly when they don’t get a just reply.
cheekturner says
Spot on. This is not my father’s church or Our Father’s Church by several country miles. And has not been so for over fifty years. Vatican 11 set the rot, with “pope” J.P.11 also stating that Muslims claim to believe in the God of Abraham (as do Jews and Christians) and consequently would be part of God’s plan of salvation. Jesus must have had it wrong when he said “…no-one can come to the Father except through me”.
Mary says
The Church has no guaranteed protection of the Holy Spirit when explaining non-Christian religions. The Church’s charism has to do with Christianity, not with Islam. So, as a Catholic, I don’t take this guy’s opinion seriously at all.
Jerry in Minneapolis says
If it’s one thing we’ve learned in the fight against radical islam, it’s that the world’s leaders have no problem with bold-face lying to hide Islam’s evils and violence. I don’t need some bishop who’s dedicated his life to a delusional fiction to tell me about Islam, I go to a straight-talking intellectual like Robert Spencer for that.
It seems that all our western leaders are suffering from Stockholm Syndrome, trying so hard to see the best in Islam’s supremacist hate and intolerance. Never mind that muslims are mass murdering and conducting jihad war daily, both culturally and militarily; never mind that we are in a constant state of jihad tension and are having our civil liberties chipped away for Islam; never mind that Europe is at the point of no return for stopping the Islamization of the entire continent. Let’s just keep telling ourselves the truth ain’t true and our justified fears ain’t justified, it will all be fine. NUTS. The West is getting its head cut off and what do our “leaders” do? they act like village idiots and ignore this Nazi-like destruction of our culture and nations and instead blame the victims! It’s become a hate-crime to love your country and family more than religious bigotry and violence! Our leaders are leading us straight to an Islamic hell.
I’m a firm believer in karma, these leaders will have much to pay for betraying human rights and sound morality.
Rees Lloyd says
While I have great respect for the Church, this teaching on Islam is a prescription not just for surrender to totalitarian fascistic Islamic government under Shariah Law, it is a prescription for political, cultural, and physical suicide, and the death of freedom. I thank Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch for citing the Koran, chapter and verse, as it teaches not “peace,” but genocide of those not submitting to Islam.
Adrian says
OMG, wrong on so many levels… I guess the Catholic churches getting big bucks from governments for resettling “refugees” are happy to trade off our safety for their 30 pieces of silver….
Islam’s “God” is clearly described in the Quran as a sadistic, non-loving deity who is not concerned with salvation, who demands and rules by fear, and who can’t wait to be “left alone” to torture unbelievers and hypocrites predestined for eternal fires… here is the sick ‘deity’ from Quran: “Unbelievers are worst of the beasts… deaf and dumb… if Allah had found anthem ANY GOOD, he would have made them listen” (Sura 8:22-23) How sick is that? what relation is that to the merciful God of Jesus?
And for the Vatican to use the word “non-violence” in the same sentence with anything about Islam is insane…
Sad, sad, sad…. no wonder many faithful are leaving the Church.
Adrian says
in them = anthem
William says
Islam is a religion of peace and it is also a “religion” of violence. Some Mohammedans follow the peaceful part and a heck of a lot follow the violent part. What is the matter with these Catholic clerics. They are not telling the whole truth. And if they lie about this, what else do they lie about.
Jack Diamond says
The Charlie Hebdo cover is chickenshit too. Depicting “God” as a terrorist, not Allah, indicting “religion” instead of singling out Islam alone for having a deity who thirsts for the blood of disbelievers and promises Paradise for those who deliver him corpses. Attacking all religion as equally bad is the mirror image of defending all religions as equally good, when it is only Islam that mandates warfare against non Muslims and their subjugation, when it is only Islam terrorizing the world– with the object of inducing the attitude of dhimmitude, a pattern going back many centuries meant to achieve one effect: fear disguised as respect.
Bruno Forte, a disgrace. Kindness to the wolf is cruelty to the sheep.
ECAW says
Very well said!
Adrian says
great post, Jack Diamond… but i wonder why the Hebdo magazine chose to go generic with “God” rather than the Pirate Muhammed (or is that a subliminal pirate hat he is wearing?)… obviously they do not want another attack, so are they now hiding behind generic cartoons? If so, Stage One of Dhimmitude is accomplished…
as for the Vatican’s motives, they were ticked off about a cartoon that could be applied to them… but instead of pointing out the difference between Christianity and Islam, they went down the “chicken shit” road you described…
NYgal says
The reason they use a generic “God” is because the term is used exclusively by Jews and Christians and there is not a chance of members of those groups appearing at the paper’s offices with guns and knives.
Mirren10 says
**Excellent** points, Jack.
gravenimage says
Jack, you are quite right that Charlie Hebdo is off base with depicting “god” as violent. Several of their cartoonists said in the wake of the Jihad massacre that they would no longer draw Muhammed.
I understand their fear–but deflecting it onto generic “religion” is ludicrous.
Bruno Forte might be a meretricious fool, but he and his fellow Catholics are not going to go on a rampage murdering journalists and cartoonists.
Denial and whitewash of the violence of Islam from two sources here. Madness all around.
john spielman says
I believe that the spirit of the antichrist is alive and well in almost all western leaders who state such obvious lies, unless opposed by righteous people, the country will be forced to accept sharia law of demonic islam
Mathew Solo says
Where does politicking come from…even in the age of powerful kings…those who had desires for taking the kings rights were very busy…whispering in ears and plying all manner of deceit…to win those perceived as useful to their cause…and this done even when the king’s leadership was best for those governed…the deceitful whisperers and those that listened to the whispers all knew they were wrong in wanting power…yet regardless of the facts they continue their politicking.
The origin of politics—
So it all began…( the seal of perfection…full of wisdom and perfect in beauty )—
( I established You…You were on The Holy mountain of God [Governmental Seat] )—
( You were perfect in Your ways from the day You were created…until iniquity
[ lawlessness ] was found in You…By the abundance of Your trading [ politicking ]…You became filled with violence within and You sinned [ broke the law ]…therefore I cast You out as a profane thing out of the Mountain Of God [ government of god ] )—
( Your heart was lifted up because of Your beauty…You corrupted Your wisdom for the sake of Your splendor )—
( You defiled Your sanctuaries [ most sacred parts of holy places] by the multitude of Your trading [ politicking ] )—
Taken from — Ezekiel 28: 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18.
( How have You fallen from heaven…O Lucifer…son of the morning! )—
( For You have said in Your heart…I will ascend into heaven…I will exalt my throne above the stars of God [ Angles ]…I will sit on the mount of the congregation…I will be like the Most High)—
( Who made the world as a wilderness [ uncomfortable situation: a place, situation, or multitude of people or things that makes somebody feel confused, overwhelmed, or desolate] and destroyed its cities…Who did not open the house of his prisoners. )—
Taken from — Isaiah 14: 12, 13, 14, 17
So a very powerful Spirit Being has rebelled…has been found guilty of a serious crime and banished to live on this earth…He roams the earth like a hungry lion…He destroys Our efforts to live in peace among others…He imprisons both Mentally and physically those that live on the earth…He broadcasts His very thoughts through the air…humans are not able to resist this genius at mind ploys…but He is not the almighty God Who made Him…and restrains him…or He would have helped us to be completely destroyed long ago.
God’s plans for man’s future stays right On schedule and will accomplish exactly what He wants…nothing can change it….or stop God from adding many members to His family.
Politicking thrives amongst humans…for now…but its time is almost up.
ECAW says
This is from the Catholic Encyclopedia (1908 edition):
“In matters political, Islam is a system of despotism at home and aggression abroad… 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.”
What the hell happened in the last 100 years?
Mary says
Interesting to hear this perspective from a century ago! Glad you posted it.
Wellington says
“What the hell happened in the last 100 years?”
Vatican II (1962-1965) happened, ECAW, and is the genesis of the rot which is now extensive in the Roman Catholic faith. Seen from this perspective, Pope John XXIII, who called Vatican II into being during his pontificate (1958-1963), could quite arguably be seen as one of the most destructive popes in the entire history of the papacy, though the present Pope is giving him good competition here. In retrospect, Benedict XVI (John Paul II as well though John Paul did not have the realistic understanding of Islam that Benedict did) was nothing more than a valiant but ultimately failed rearguard action to stem all the silly and malevolent influences inaugurated by Vatican II, which opened up the door to moral relativism in the Catholic Church (it also effectively killed off the beauty of the Latin Mass). Were I a traditional, conservative Catholic it would break my heart to see what has happened to my Church over the past half century. I have to wonder if there will eventually be a mass exodus from the Church since its leadership has become about as foolish as that of the Anglican Church and certain other mainstream Protestant denominations, which denominations have experienced mass exoduses from them.
Moral relativism functions as a mortal danger to Christianity. In our present world moral relativism is all over the place in Christianity and thus this religion is in significant danger in the West. And it couldn’t come at a worse time since Islam is resurgent after a lethargy of centuries. Not looking good.
ECAW says
Thanks Wellington.
gravenimage says
Excellent post, ECAW.
Jaladhis says
Pretty soon the Vatican will be holding masses facing Mecca to show respect that murderer and rapist Mo/allah!! and may even ask all catholics to convert to Islam! Total morons!!
cheekturner says
The vatican does not hold masses, and hasn’t done so since the novus ordo of Paul V1. And neither do the majority of “catholic” churches, worldwide, celebrate Holy Mass at all.
ainu888 says
I preferred Benedict in this respect. He tried to speak his mind on Mo once, before being smacked down by the thought police in the media.
Ciudadano says
Islam spreads by violence, fear and hate. Fighting Islam with violence and hate makes Islam stronger and Christianity weaker.
ECAW says
How about fighting it with violence and love?
Jaladhi says
So we should stop fight and just submit to Islam???? Nah – Islam needs to be eradicated. Period. There is no love in Islam – only hate for all human beings!! Spreading the truth about Islam should be one weapon we should employ first in the fight of its eradication!
gravenimage says
Good thing we didn’t fight Fascism with violence…sarc/off
Ciudadano, there is a big difference between unprovoked violence and using violence only *defensively*.
Lucy says
Well it won’t be the first time there are bad clerics in the church, or bad popes for that matter. The truth always comes out. REmember the Templars got executed because the pope was too cowardly to face the King of France. The documents of said they never did anything. It took a long time to come out but it did.
Angemon says
Said the people in Yatrib who invited the muslims in…
dragaozao says
Yes! One of these days we will see the Vatican defending also the acient religions who demanded human sacrifices… after all, they are all religions, aren’t they? So they all have to be right… any timne these people talk, I get closer to atheism.
Beth says
drag, the Jewish people never did human sacrifices.
grace begley says
If I was Catholic, I would renounce due to poor leadership.
cheekturner says
If you were Catholic you would not accept the likes of Forte and Bergoglio as leaders but rather as imposters, usurpers and non-Catholics.
Michael F Poulin says
Pope Gregory XVI on May 8th, 1844 states the following in his encyclical Inter Praecipuas:
“Experience shows that there is no more direct way of alienating the populace from fidelity and obedience to their leaders than through that indifference to religion propagated by the sect members under the name of religious liberty.”
Marty says
I accept that Judaism & Christianity in most forms give believers pleasure.
But seriously folks, can’t we see that all religions are man made & a
form of pre scientific politics.
The Catholic Church has paid for great art & also produced great
wickedness. Many of my closest friends are Catholics/ex Catholics.
I think when it comes to Islam, the Jews & Protestant non conformists
get it about right.
The civilised Western World should accept its Judeo Christian traditions &
recognise Islam as a hostile & evil series of doctrines.
In the groveling UK it is now proposed to move school & college exam dates
because mohammedan immigrants are fasting.
They never worried about indigenes, like me, who suffered with Hay Fever
during the exam period.
gravenimage says
Catholicism opposed the depredations of Islam for most of its history. This whitewash of Islam is new–and is the same “political correctness” one finds with many Jews, Protestants, and secularists all throughout the West. This is not just a Catholic failing.
Michael F Poulin says
Here’s how the last real Pope spoke about the pursuit of scientific knowledge : Pope LEO XIII Immortale Dei –
“…But, as all truth must necessarily proceed from God, the Church recognizes in all truth that is reached by research a trace of the divine intelligence. And as all truth in the natural order is powerless to destroy belief in the teachings of revelation, but can do much to confirm it, and as every newly discovered truth may serve to further the knowledge or the praise of God, it follows that whatsoever spreads the range of knowledge will always be willingly and even joyfully welcomed by the Church. She will always encourage and promote, as she does in other branches of knowledge, all study occupied with the investigation of nature. In these pursuits, should the human intellect discover anything not known before, the Church makes no opposition. She never objects to search being made for things thatminister to the refinements and comforts of life. So far, indeed, from opposing these she is now, as she ever has been, hostile alone to indolence and sloth, and earnestly wishes that the talents of men may bear more and more abundant fruit by cultivation and exercise. Moreover, she gives encouragement to every kind of art and handicraft, and through her influence, directing all strivings after progress toward virtue and salvation, she labours to prevent man’s intellect and industry from turning him away from God and from heavenly things.”
Mathew Solo says
The total submission that Rome requires has been expressed by many popes, but none said it more clearly than Nicholas I (858-67):
“It is evident that the popes can neither be bound nor unbound by any earthly power, nor even by that of the apostle [Peter], if he should return upon the earth; since Constantine the Great has recognized that the pontiffs held the place of God upon earth, the divinity not being able to be judged by any living man. We are, then, infallible, and whatever may be our acts, we are not accountable for them but to ourselves. “
Popes… and their clergy during the times of Emperors were among the very rare few who could read and write…Roman Emperors often used them to administer…they used the emperors to gain real power and Influence…like all ordinary men they sought dominance and achieved it through feigning religion…they portend humility…they love preeminence among of men… they deny the authority of God…and crave the worship of men…no man should want a title belonging only to God…and risk much to ignore a direct Order from Christ to call no man father…there is only one Holy Father…He Is God the Father…and no man.
Emperor Constantine the Great is now just Constantine the dead and
waiting to be resurrected some day by a Real God who would laugh
if ask to see any greatness at all in a mere flesh and blood man.
Mirren10 says
”In the groveling UK it is now proposed to move school & college exam dates
because mohammedan immigrants are fasting.”
Not quite. The ‘Equality Unit’ says this:
**Staff and students have no absolute right for their belief to be accommodated as the needs of the institution must be balanced with the beliefs of the individual. Ultimately, judgment of whether an institution has fulfilled its legal obligations will rest with the courts.**
Adjusting exam schedules
Institutions should be prepared to consider significant adjustments to their exam schedules and think creatively about assessment methods in order to eliminate disadvantage to particular groups. Early planning with input from religious leaders and groups will help institutions to address the needs of religious students fairly to ensure that no student is unreasonably disadvantaged.
**However, for many institutions altering the dates of major exam periods, or organising the timetable to allow each student to take exams at the time that best suits their religious requirements may not be a proportionate response.**
This guff is all down to the insane Equality Act. Goes with allowing ‘sufferers’ from so-called dyslexia additional time to complete their exams. Pernicious nonsense, all of it.
worldcitizen1919 says
The Vatican likely read these verses and it became obvious that attacking innocent people is not supported in the Quran and that the only form of war is to attack if they are attacked first.
2:190
“And fight for the cause of God against those who fight against you: but commit not the injustice of attacking them first: God loveth not such injustice”
4:75
75 Why should you not fight in God’s cause and for those oppressed men, women, and children who cry out, ‘Lord, rescue us from this town whose people are oppressors! By Your grace, give us a protector and give us a helper!’?
Similar translations point to self defense.
(22:39) PERMISSION [to fight] is given to those against whom war is being wrongfully waged
For, if God had not enabled people to defend themselves against one another [all] monasteries and churches and synagogues and mosques –in [all of] which God’s name is abundantly extolled –would surely have been destroyed [ere now].
N J Dawood
Fight for the sake of God those that fight against you, but do not attack them first. God does not love aggressors.
Permission to take up arms is hereby given to those who are attacked, because they have been wronged.
ECAW says
Just because there are verses in the Koran which sanction defensive warfare doesn’t mean that there are not also verses which sanction offensive warfare solely because the opponents do not believe in Allah (eg 9:5, 9:29)…as I’m sure you know.
Why would you even bother trying to deceive us like this? Do you think we haven’t read the accursed book?
worldcitizen1919 says
If you read the Quran thoroughly then you would know that it clearly forbids any type of killing except if attacked and that the instructions to kill are to go after those who have attacked them not just people who disbelieve or other innocents.
The Quran forbids murder like the Bible.
6:151
that you shall not kill your children because you cannot support them
stay well away from committing obscenities, whether openly or in secret; do not take life, which God has made sacred, except by right.
8:61
But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah: for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all things).
17:31
You shall not kill your children for fear of want.[1] We will provide for them and for you. To kill them is a grievous sin.
[1]. An allusion to the pre-Islamic custom of burying alive unwanted newborn girls.
(N J Dawood)
17:32
Neither slay the soul which GOD hath forbidden you to slay, unless for a just cause;
ECAW says
I have read the effing thing thoroughly. In fact I helped in producing a version which highlights the most hateful, murderous verses to save others time:
http://www.koran-at-a-glance.com
so don’t just repeat your assertions which any fool can expose as deceptive sleight of hand or outright lying.
worldcitizen1919 says
I truly admire and respect the trouble you’ve gone to to research this subject. It shows a willingness to look further than just what everyone else says.
My research turns up a different view but never the less it’s one worth considering.
There is no verse in the Quran which specifically states that it abrogates any other verse.
Not one.
There are no written abrogated laws of the Quran. The Verse must clearly state for instance
I Allah decree that passage 43 is now substituted by passage 50 and passage 43 is null and void.
Without official written authority from the Quran itself no one not even Muhammad Himself can alter one Word of the Quran.
That’s why to this day Muslims still profess Jihad and have no knowledge of it s abrogation because they only accept Muhammad.
The only way the laws of the Quran can be abrogated is by God sending another Messenger with another Book and replacing it which He has done with Baha’u’llah Who abrogated the Quran and replaced it with the Most Holy Book and His Authority has not been accepted by the Muslim world so they continue as they did 1400 years ago.
You have to point to an actual written legal and official abrogation in verse form in the Quran not by association or interpretation as any scholar can say this or that verse doesn’t apply anymore and is abrogated by this and that law.
There is not one written verse in all the Quran that says it abrogates another verse. That is people’s wishful thinking but not the facts.
It reminds me of the Christian who told me the Bible said Buddha was a false prophet. I asked her to show me where. She hastily got out her Bible and said ‘there’. It spoke about false prophets. I replied but where is the name Buddha mentioned? Red faced she turned page after page then gave up. Although Buddha appeared 500 years before Christ the Bible never condemned Him so if the Quran doesn’t have a verse that actually says ‘this verse abrogates that verse, let it be known to all’ then in all likelihood its conjecture, assumption and supposition but not legal,proof.
ECAW says
WC – That was a mean trick responding with friendliness and respect 🙂
I suppose I should admit that you are not trying to deceive us mendaciously as a Muslim would but only as an unfortunate result of your having managed to deceive yourself.
You bring up abrogation. Well, Allah doesn’t specifically say “I have abrogated verse x with verse y” but he does admit to doing it (2:106 etc) and someone had to save Allah’s blushes. After all he also said:
“Then do they not reflect upon the Qur’an? If it had been from [any] other than Allah, they would have found within it much contradiction.” (4:82)
Therefore it was necessary for someone to iron out the many contradictions to avoid it becoming obvious that it was from someone other than Allah.
But even so, my argument doesn’t rely on 9:5 and 9:29 abrogating most of the peaceful sounding verses. You said the Koran ONLY sanctions defensive warfare and I pointed out that it ALSO sanctions offensive warfare…a point you haven’t addressed. The fact that sura 9 was Mohammed’s last substantive sura does imply that it was his final word.
But let’s look at other evidence, for instance ibn Ishaq’s biography of Mohammed. In chapter 6 defensive warfare is sanctioned:
‘Allah therefore permitted Muhammad to fight and to aid his against those who tyrannized over them. The first verse which came down permitting him to wage war and to shed began, ‘Permission is granted unto those who fight they have been oppressed, and Allah may aid those who have been driven from their homes merely for saying “Our Lord is Allah”.’
Then in chapter 11 Allah orders offensive war:
‘A year after his arrival in Medina , and thirteen years after his ‘call’, the apostle of Allah prepared himself for war in obedience to the command of Allah that he should attack the idolaters. He was then fifty three years old.’
Too long after Mohammed to be taken seriously? How about the Ridda Wars carried out by the first Caliph, Abu Bakr. These were conducted to force reneging tribes to recommit to Islam. Were they attacking the Muslims? No they were not. Did Abu Bakr, Mohammed’s best friend, so misunderstand the Koran as to think “defensive” meant “offensive”?
Still not close enough to Mohammed? How about the undisputed letters Mohammed sent to neighbouring rulers containing offers they would be wise not to refuse, for instance this one to John ibn Rubah and the Chiefs of the Christians of Aylah:
“I will not fight against you until I have written thus unto you. Believe, or else pay tribute. And be obedient unto the Lord and his Prophet…. Ye know the tribute. If ye desire to have security by sea and by land, obey the Lord and his Apostle, and he will defend you from every demand, whether by Arab or foreigner, saving the demand of the Lord and his Apostle. But if ye oppose and displease them, I will not accept from you a single thing, until I have fought against you and taken captive your little ones and slain the elder.… Harmala hath interceded for you. As for me, if it were not for the Lord and for this (intercession of Harmala), I would not have sent any message at all unto you, until ye had seen the army….”
Would you call that defensive warfare?
worldcitizen1919 says
Truly I respect and admire you. I think you’re much better than the person that just calls me an idiot (even though I probably am) and then tells me I’m wrong and to get lost.
At least you have the intelligence to verify and try and check out everything which is what we were all given minds for. So you use your mind and are not just owned by others. That is a good quality.
Ok. The first one about self defense that is agreed upon.
The next one, the Caliphs. You are 100% correct that the Caliphs waged offensive warfare and not only that they committed atrocities and destroyed churches and committed all sorts of war crimes.
Baha’is do not accept the Caliphate as the legitimate successors to Muhammad but Ali and the 12 Imams.
The atrocities committed by the Caliphs is undisputed however they did not represent Islam but Abu Bakr seized power at Muhammad’s death even though Muhammad requested a document to record His Will and He was closest to Ali His Son In Law.
A third of the Imams were either assassinated or poisoned by the caliphs who’s ambition was to conquer by the sword even though Muhamad and the Quran gave no such permission. The Caliphs acted ON THEIR OWN with no verse in the Quran to support their offensive nature.
The Caliphate is described as the beast in Revelation with the number 666 when militant Islam began with Mu’awiya proclaiming himself to be the first Umayyad in the year 666 A D. To this day it is the Caliphate which is Sunni Islam which is what Isis want to recreate.
The King’s letters
Some of the Kings embraced Islam after hearing about its teachings and some embraced it after asking questions and were satisfied. But all without force.
The letter which you quote concerns claims a Muslim ambassador was killed by the Byzantines and through the trade route they then heard of a large force amassing. There is no record of this except on the Muslim side. When they found there was no army despite that Muhammad gave them an ultimatum and my understanding is they had already Killed an ambassador so they had initiated hostilities first thus giving Muhammad the right to invoke the clauses of self defense in the Quran.
But of all the Kings that were given letters they were not attacked by Muhammad in His lifetime. The Caliphs did as they pleased and were not the successors of Islam but butchered their way through lands.
Today the world is threatened mainly by the caliphs who want to rule again. Iran is another story.
ECAW says
WC
A. You say “Ok. The first one about self defense that is agreed upon.”
My point was that offensive war is sanctioned in the Koran as well as defensive war. Is that what you are agreeing to? I that case you are giving up your claim that only defensive war is allowed. But you later say “the caliphs who’s ambition was to conquer by the sword even though Muhamad and the Quran gave no such permission”. Which is it?
B. So you say that Abu Bakr betrayed Mohammed’s peaceful teachings. I had never heard that before and think it calls for fairly clear evidence since in Mohammed’s lifetime Abu Bakr was as close a follower as there was. It sounds like special pleading.
C. But Ali was a peaceful follower of the peaceful Mohammed – despite being Mohammed’s greatest warrior and taking part in all the campaigns from Mohammed’s criminal beginnings as a caravan raider to the slaughter of the Banu Qurayza until the end of Mohammed’s career by which time he had gained control of nearly all of the Arabian peninsula, all by self defence according to you. Sorry, it is not credible.
D. I believe you have confused the Byzantines with the Christians of Aylah. In my understanding Mohammed went to fight the Byzantine army but, finding them not there, decided to subjugate the small fishing community of Aylah on the Red Sea to make the trip worth his while. The letter he wrote them is clearly just the sort of intimidation you would expect from any other warlord or the Mafia. The fact that Mohammed did not make war on them is not due to their embracing his teachings but obviously their surrender as a sensible reaction to Mohammed’s blood curdling threats.
Or try the letter to Jaifer, King of Oman:
“Peace be upon him who follows true guidance; thereafter I invite both of you to the Call of Islam. Embrace Islam. Allâh has sent me as a Prophet to all His creatures in order that I may instil fear of Allâh in the hearts of His disobedient creatures so that there may be left no excuse for those who deny Allâh. If you two accept Islam, you will remain in command of your country; but if you refuse my Call, you’ve got to remember that all your possessions are perishable. My horsemen will appropriate your land, and my Prophethood will assume preponderance over your kingship.”
Was Mohammed doing something other than threatening offensive warfare there?
I hope you will answer all four of these points so that we can agree on what we agree about and what we do not agree about.
worldcitizen1919 says
According to a Shi’ite tradition, while Muhammad was enroute back from Mecca to Medina after His ‘farewell pilgrimage’, He stopped at a watering place and called ‘Ali to Him. ‘Then it was that he took Ali’s hands and raised them’ saying,
”Whoever has me as his master has Ali as his master. Be a friend to his friends, O Lord, and be an enemy to his enemies. Help those who assist him and frustrate those who oppose him.”
The Shi’ite Religion by Dwight M. Donaldson, London: Luzac & Company, 1933, p. 5.
Letters to the Christians and King of Oman. They are inconsistent with all the other letters given by Muhammad to the Kings where He made no such threats.
ECAW says
Is that it? I’ve clearly been wasting my time.
worldcitizen1919 says
Muhammad never attacked anyone offensively. You and others are claiming that but have no records to prove that as all His military expeditions were DEFENSIVE. He only taught self defense and God only oermitted self defense in the Quran. Aggression is forbidden in the Quran 2:190 very clearly.
Ayala was part of the Nyzantine Empire and there were Chrustians who had killed Muslim missionaries. That letter was in response.
The letter to the King of Oman is a prophecy, warning and prediction that if the King does not submit to Islam He will fall from power anyway and eventually Islam will win. Like the Letter to Napolean III from Bah’u’llah below. Muhammad knew the thoughts and heard the prayers of everyone.mHe was a prophet. He knew who was an enemy and who was not.
Baha’u’llah wrote to Napoleon in similar fashion. try and understand both Muhammad and Baha’u’llah knew the thoughts and prayers of these Kings. Baha’u’llah told Napolen what Napolean had prayed to God but that in his heart he had lied to God. Read this it’s very interesting. Then He goes on to tell Napolean that his kingdom will be taken away as a punishment!!!!!!
““O King! We heard the words thou didst utter in answer to the Czar of Russia, concerning the decision made regarding the war (Crimean War). Thy Lord, verily, knoweth, is informed of all. Thou didst say: ‘I lay asleep upon my couch, when the cry of the oppressed, who were drowned in the Black Sea, wakened me.’ This is what we heard thee say, and, verily, thy Lord is witness unto what I say. We testify that that which wakened thee was not their cry but the promptings of thine own passions, for We tested thee, and found thee wanting.
This is Baha’u’llah’s THREAT to Napolean and if you look at HISTORY it all came true. It is in this spirit that Muhammad warned the Kings as Muhammad heard their prayers.
Baha’u’llah’s THREAT to Napolean III which came true but Baha’u’llah was a Prisoner and had no army. Baha’u’llah was Christ returned in the glory of the Father.
“For what thou hast done, thy kingdom shall be thrown into confusion, and thine empire shall pass from thine hands, as a punishment for that which thou hast wrought. Then wilt thou know how thou hast plainly erred. Commotions shall seize all the people in that land, unless thou arisest to help this Cause, and followest Him Who is the Spirit of God (Jesus Christ) in this, the Straight Path. Hath thy pomp made thee proud? By My Life! It shall not endure; nay, it shall soon pass away, unless thou holdest fast by this firm Cord. We see abasement hastening after thee, whilst thou art of the heedless.”
Excerpt From: Bahá’u’lláh. “Proclamation of Bahá’u’lláh.” Bahá’í eBooks
.And I will set my throne in Elam, and will destroy from thence the king and the princes, saith the Lord. (jer 49:38) Baha’u’llah was from Elam Iran .
Muhammad was not an ordinary man as you maintain.He heard the prayers of kings and knew their hearts and secret ambitions and so if he wrote a harsh letter it was with perfect justice although we do not know all the facts especially what Muhammad knew.
gravenimage says
More crap from Muslim apologist “worldcitizen1919”;
The Vatican likely read these verses and it became obvious that attacking innocent people is not supported in the Quran and that the only form of war is to attack if they are attacked first.
2:190
“And fight for the cause of God against those who fight against you: but commit not the injustice of attacking them first: God loveth not such injustice”
……………………………
This is not, of course, what this Sura says at all. This from Sahih International’s translation:
“Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors.”
What is “transgression” here? Pretty vague. Certainly, the Qur’an is *full* of conquest and Muslim’s attacking first.
More:
4:75
75 Why should you not fight in God’s cause and for those oppressed men, women, and children who cry out, ‘Lord, rescue us from this town whose people are oppressors! By Your grace, give us a protector and give us a helper!’?
……………………………
“Oppressed” here means any Muslims who haven’t conquered the Infidels. This is Muslims pleading for Jihadists to attack Infidels.
More:
Similar translations point to self defense.
(22:39) PERMISSION [to fight] is given to those against whom war is being wrongfully waged
……………………………
Qur’an 22:39 says, “Permission [to fight] has been given to those who are being fought, because they were wronged. And indeed, Allah is competent to give them victory.”
Who is “being wronged” under Islam? Muslims who face resistance from their victims.
“worldcitizen1919” has already said that anyone who dared to resist the depredations of Muhammed was “evil” and deserved to be enslaved or murdered.
More:
For, if God had not enabled people to defend themselves against one another [all] monasteries and churches and synagogues and mosques –in [all of] which God’s name is abundantly extolled –would surely have been destroyed [ere now].
……………………………
Of course, it is pious Muslims who are destroying Churches and Synagogues and other-sect Mosques–not decent Infidels.
worldcitizen1919 says
Look. I can’t say it more clearly than this. We Baha’is only support good for all humanity nothing else and that if any religion is the cause of war and bloodshed it would be better it be abolished. Islam, is RIGHTFULLY being rejected for today because it was meant for 1400 years ago. But it was right for that time and from God for THEN. The world will never accept Islam now because the needs for our age are different. People who reject Muhammad now based on things like Holy War etc are 100% RIGHT. We don’t want or need it. We need peaceful not violent solutions.
Baha’is don’t believe in evil or slaves and that all must be respected whether they have a belief or no belief.
I don’t care if people don’t believe in Muhammad and people who reject Him that’s their right. And they are not evil for rejecting Him. That’s their right.
But to contend Muhammad and the Quran are evil is vain and false and is not supported by the verses of the Quran. All evil comes from man not God so any evil comes from Muslims not the Quran.
Islam was right for 1400 years ago but not for today as is abundantly clear.
“Religion should be the Cause of Love and Affection
Religion should unite all hearts and cause wars and disputes to vanish from the face of the earth, give birth to spirituality, and bring life and light to each heart. If religion becomes a cause of dislike, hatred and division, it were better to be without it, and to withdraw from such a religion would be a truly religious act.”
“For it is clear that the purpose of a remedy is to cure; but if the remedy should only aggravate the complaint it had better be left alone. Any religion which is not a cause of love and unity is no religion. All the holy prophets were as doctors to the soul; they gave prescriptions for the healing of mankind; thus any remedy that causes disease does not come from the great and supreme Physician.”
Excerpt From: Bahá, Abdu’l. “Paris Talks.” Bahá’í
gravenimage says
This is what worldcitizen1919 had to say about Muhammed enslaving and murdering people:
worldcitizen1919 says
January 1, 2016 at 11:33 pm
At the time it was the classic good versus evil. Sincere Chrisitians and Muslims and Jews all united.
The only ones that were fought were the attackers and oppressors whether they were idolaters or Christians and Jews who sided with them. But those who did not attack the innocent were not attacked.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/12/robert-spencer-at-breitbart-allahu-akbar-doesnt-mean-what-media-says-it-means#comment-1351868
In other words, it was only those who did nothing to resist the horrifying depredations of Islam that this poster considers innocent–those who *did* resist he deems “evil”.
Anyone who wants can check out this thread, where this apologist for Islam reveals more, probably, than he ever intended.
worldcitizen1919 says
Those who did not attack Muslims were NOT ATTACKED and left alone.
Anyone who attacked Muslims was fought whether they were Chrisitan, Jew, or isolator. Jews and Chrisitians were not attacked unless they assisted
Enemies who were attacking zmuslimMuslims or harboured thrm or gave thrm supplies that assisted thrm to kill Muslims.
Muslims were innocent and if they were attacked by ANYONE they were told to respond.
Chrisitians and Jews and unbelievers who DID NOT ATTACK Muskims were not mistreated.
That’s what I was saying so please don’t try and twist and misconstrue my words.
I’m clear in my mind that I do NOT support any type of slavery/savagery. That’s absurd!! And utter nonsense.
You already have negative views of the Quran and Muhammad so it’s likely you will also have negative views about anything I say because I stand for the truth that the Quran was from God and so was Muhammad.
Resist and ATTACK and KILL are two different animals. People who KILLED Muslims were fought. Those who DID NOTHING is referring to those who did not KILL Muslims or other innocents.
E Ward says
Dear World Citizen—you say .” We Baha’is only support good for all humanity nothing else.” I believe Baha’i are allowed 2 wives and do not allow women to enter their highest ranks. If this is true, then your statement is only 50 percent true.
worldcitizen1919 says
Good comments. Much appreciated. Yes they are very valid points and I will try to answer them as best I can.
The quote you refer to is from the Baha’i Holy Book revealed by Baha’u’llah around 1873 and which is the ‘blueprint for a world civilisation’
“63 God hath prescribed matrimony unto you. Beware that ye take not unto yourselves more wives than two. Whoso contenteth himself with a single partner from among the maidservants of God, both he and she shall live in tranquillity”
Excerpt From: Bahá’u’lláh. “The Kitab-i-Aqdas.”
While the text of the Kitáb-i-Aqdas appears to permit bigamy, Bahá’u’lláh counsels that tranquillity and contentment derive from monogamy. In another Tablet, He underlines the importance of the individual’s acting in such a way as to “bring comfort to himself and to his partner”. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, the authorized Interpreter of the Bahá’í Writings, states that in the text of the Aqdas monogamy is in effect enjoined. He elaborates this theme in a number of Tablets, including the following:
“Know thou that polygamy is not permitted under the law of God, for contentment with one wife hath been clearly stipulated. Taking a second wife is made dependent upon equity and justice being upheld between the two wives, under all conditions. However, observance of justice and equity towards two wives is utterly impossible. The fact that bigamy has been made dependent upon an impossible condition is clear proof of its absolute prohibition. Therefore it is not permissible for a man to have more than one wife.”
As to your second comment. Women are eligible to participate in all elected bodies and appointments except the Universal House of Justice. We don’t know why but are told it will become evident in the future in this Writing from Abdul-Baha
“The House of Justice, however, according to the explicit text of the Law of God, is confined to men; this for a wisdom of the Lord God’s which will ere long be made manifest as clearly as the sun at high noon.” (Selections from the writings of Abdu’l Baha (rev. ed) Haifa: Bahá’í World Center, 1982), p. 80)
gravenimage says
worldcitizen1919 wrote:
Chrisitians (sic) and Jews and unbelievers who DID NOT ATTACK Muskims (sic) were not mistreated.
……………………..
This is only true if you don’t consider the horrors of dhimmitude to be mistreatment.
More:
I’m clear in my mind that I do NOT support any type of slavery/savagery. That’s absurd!! And utter nonsense.
……………………..
This is entirely contradictory. You have made it clear that you revere the foul “Prophet” Muhammed, and he regularly enslaved his victims:
When the tribe of Quraiza was ready to accept Sad’s judgment…Sad said, “I give the judgment that their warriors should be killed and their children and women should be taken as slaves.” The Prophet then remarked, “O Sad! You have judged amongst them with (or similar to) the judgment of the King Allah.”
–Bukhari
The “Prophet” himself seizes one of the woman for use as a sex slave:
The apostle had chosen one of their women for himself, Rayhana bint Amr, one of the women of Qurayza, and she remained with him until she died, in his power. The apostle had proposed to marry and put a veil on her, but she said: “Nay, leave me in your power, for that will be easier for me and for you.” So he left her. She had shown repugnance towards Islam when she was captured and clung to Judaism.
–Ibn Ishaq, p. 466
And here’s the Qur’an, sacralizing the rape of sex slaves:
And who guard their modesty – Save from their wives or the (slaves) that their right hands possess, for then they are not blameworthy, But whoso craveth beyond that, such are transgressors.
— Qur’an 23:5-7
Qur’an 4:24, 33:52 and 70:30 say the same thing.
Here’s the “Prophet”, handing out sex slaves like party favors to his foul “Companions”:
The apostle gave Ali a girl called Rayta; and he gave Uthman a girl called Zaynab; and he gave Umar a girl whom Umar gave to his son Abdullah.
–Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 878
And this was no the only occasion–Muhammed was sent two slave girls, Maria the Copt and her sister. Muhammed gave the sister away to one of this thuggish “Companions”, Hassan ibn Thabit.
He repeatedly raped her, and finally impregnated her.
He had other slave concubines, as well:
Abu ‘Ubaydah said: He had four (concubines): Mariyah, who was the mother of his son Ibraaheem; Rayhaanah; another beautiful slave woman whom he acquired as a prisoner of war (Whom He later freed and married); and a slave woman who was given to him by (His wife) Zaynab bint Jahsh.
— Zaad al-Ma’aad, 1/114
So you may not support any type of slavery, but your “Prophet” Muhammed–whom you hold up as an ideal–sure as hell did.
worldcitizen1919 says
The Quran makes it clear that sex slavery and lust and prostitution are forbidden and that slaves are to be married only if they are not immoral sexually.
This is what the authoritative Word of God says. Not to marry lustful unchaste women and a proper marriage not to have them as secret lovers or adulteresses or for illicit sex. – read below. Different translators make it abundantly clear the Quran abhors lust, illicit sex, prostitution, fortification and marrying them without their family’s permission or without a dowry. On both sides the intention must not be for lust or illicit sex. Couldn’t be any clearer that the Quran denounces these practices.
4:25 They should be chaste, not lustful, nor taking paramours: when they are taken in wedlock, Yusuf Ali
4:25 And as for those of you who, owing to circumstances, are not in a position to marry free believing women, [let them marry] believing maidens from among those whom you rightfully possess. And God knows all about your faith; each one of you is an issue of the other. Marry them, then, with their people’s leave, and give them their dowers in an equitable manner –they being women who give themselves in honest wedlock, not in fornication, nor as secret love-companions.
Muhammad Asad
4;25
If any of you does not have the means to marry a believing free woman, then marry a believing slave—God knows best [the depth of] your faith: you are [all] part of the same family so marry them with their people’s consent and their proper bride-gifts, [Make them] married women, not adulteresses or lovers.
Abdul Haleem
4:25 Whoever of you cannot afford to marry the acknowledging independent women, then from those young women whom you have contractual rights. God is more aware of your faith; you are equal to one another. You shall marry them with the permission of their family and give them their wage in kindness, to be protected, not for illicit sex or for taking lovers.
Edip Yuksel Layth Saleh al-Shaiban Martha Schulte-Nafeh
CogitoErgoSum says
The Christian God consisting of Father, Son and Holy Spirit is not the same as the god which Muhammad called Allah. Once that fact is recognized everything else falls in place. Allah is not God and the words which Muhammad delivered by way of the Quran should not be received by Christians (or anyone else) as coming from God. The angel Gabriel did not speak to Muhammad and the Holy Spirit did not guide Muhammad to the truth. Muhammad’s “god” is an entity which leads its followers down a path of twisted half-truths and lies. In a different world the god of Islam wanted to be God but failed and has now settled for being worshiped as a god in this world. Muhammad was this entity’s prophet as Islam is this entity’s religion and deceit and violence are this entity’s trademark. The trademark of this god becomes imprinted upon those who follow this god too closely. Non-violence is NOT a trademark of this god and this god’s religion does not come from THE GOD.
mortimer says
Unread, unaware, unacquainted with Islam’s source texts!!!
Does that make Bruno Forte an instant expert on Islam? Just reading the all the important texts of Islam takes several years. Studying them and understanding them takes half a lifetime.
Bruno Forte certainly is educationally unprepared to comment on Islam. He is presumptuous.
Oceanside says
“It appears as if protecting the image of Islam is more important to Church leaders today than teaching the contents of their own faith.”
Yes. Because the Vatican is essentially a geo-political organization intent on establishing the NWO.
The real intent of the Catholic Church helps explain the often conflicting messages that its leaders regularly send.
This link explains more detail. It is long but worth watching.
No Fear says
Thanks , will watch later after work
Walter Sieruk says
When this Vatican spokesmen state such a outright false statement he had exposed just how very ignorant he must actually on the subject of the nature of Islam. For he needs to wake up and have a reality check. For the every foundation of a for Islam is the Koran. The Koran instructs the non-Muslims should be”Be killed or crucified or have their hands and feet cut off…” Surah 5:33. That is really harsh ,and harsh too the extreme . Still this is Ha extreme harshness is Koranic. As in 9:123. which teaches “O you how believe ! fight those of the disbelievers who are close to you, and let them find harshness in you…” Likewise ,This “holy book “of Islam teaches in 47:4. “Whenever you encounter the unbelievers strike off their heads until you make a great slaughter among them.” Many other places as found in the Koran that also contain instruction for violence and killing as in 9:5,111,112. Shame on that Vatican spokesmen for making such a outlandishly false statement that Islam teaches “non-violence.” Islam is centered and based on the Koran which is a book of much violence
bobm says
were they not participants and foster fathers to islams very beginnings?
bobm says
the face of antichrist becomes clearer..this spirit will wear scarlet, crimson, robes of silver and gold.. even the high fish hat….chrislam..
Salome says
The Quran does teach non-violence–to be practised by the dhimmis, on pain of getting their hands and feet chopped off, or being cruficied, and of collective punishments of all the dhimmis, including the wholesale rape of their womenfolk.
Infidela says
Because god lives within, and god has nothing to do with religion. You find god by embarking on a journey of sel lf-discovery. That’s where you’ll find the spark of the divine. Get away from religion, it’s all a scam.
Edward says
Yes, Infidela I lean towards to what you say. Established religions, especially in this era that balks our spiritual beliefs because of the extensive secular and insincere gobbledegook we are exposed to daily.
“Because god lives within” is a profound thought of yours…….for in the creation account found in Genesis is the beginning of our humanity. The “Image of God” creation gift to His human creations, given to us as a token of LOVE is the state that bonds us all with Him forever.
“In theological anthropology the hybridity of human nature is seen in the concept of the image of God itself. Humans are both formed “from the dust,” and stamped with the divine image” – Wikipedia
The great theologian Augustus said “that the Image of God is the center of humanity”…reflecting on his perspective we can say that we as humans can revere our Creator on our own in spite of our distance from establish religions. Yes its healthy, psychology wise, to be part of a religious community but it can be cumbersome at times when many egos destroy the purpose of unity at times. Religion association timeout has strengthen many faithful‘s who have seen their greatest fruition by this action. Greater when we become sincerely adamant to know more about our Creator through our acquired learned knowledge!
No Fear says
Nazism teaches non-violence in the name of Adolf Hitler.
Edward says
After reading this eye opening and benchmark like treatise of Mr. Robert Spencer’s has prompted me to write this comment. Drastic in thought perhaps, but I believe there’s a need for a new religious restart of our cognizant of our Heavenly Creator in America. An effort to recognize the absolute truth by our own acquired intelligence and not by others who are maligned biased:
You know, I’m honestly pissed off with all religious central authorities. Considering how they are selling us out to other faith’s by those that eventually will lead us to extinction, by our prominent leaders of our individual churches.
At this point, I rather would like to become an incognito devout CATHOLIC in heart and mind; not a Sunday only practicing one that is prone to be indoctrinated to believe what the authoritative members wants us to believe that is not the absolute truth!
I would rather want the US Constitution to enact a moratorium and ban of all public active recognized religious churches/centers activities, including private religious gatherings in the US …..of all faiths.
Since our free wills cannot be adjudicated, our self consciouses should not be tempered with as far as the US Constitution is concerned. Our own religious faith is no body’s business….a protocol only between our Creator and us ….His human creations!
In conclusion:
The concept here is to pave a flat playing field, thus giving the incentive of others to voluntarily move away from this neutralized religious zone…..going to other countries that allows them to openly practice their own religion(s) without abatement.
Continued religious education will be an issue, where bibles, religious artifacts and other articles would be banded. Personally, I believe that God’s Divine Discernment will continue our religious cognizant of HIM!
Please note: I mentioned of a moratorium experiment that perhaps will take decades to see good results. Thereafter, if success follows this courageous effort the US Constitution will be expected to return to its original status……as our Founding Father’s envisioned prior to 1776!
GOD BLESSES AMERICA!
gravenimage says
I would rather want the US Constitution to enact a moratorium and ban of all public active recognized religious churches/centers activities, including private religious gatherings in the US …..of all faiths.
………………………..
Ah, yes–ban the public practice of all religions. That will, no doubt, stop Islam in its tracks. sarc/off
Also, the idea that this was the vision of the Founding Fathers is simply bizarre.
Edward says
Laying out the plan again; is to:
“enact a moratorium and ban of all public active recognized religious churches/centers activities, including private religious gatherings in the US …..of all faiths.
The concept here is to pave a flat playing field, thus giving the incentive of others to voluntarily move away from this neutralized religious zone…..going to other countries that allows them to openly practice their theocracy culture there.
—————————————————
“Ah, yes–ban the public practice of all religions. That will, no doubt, stop Islam in its tracks.”
It will not be an automatic stop to their planned objectives, but a way to rid Islam from our turf as a détente!
As an example; Islam always seeks fertile ground, like the US, to plant their seeds of destruction to propagate their religion. By stemming their growth here in America they will seek other geographical locations to accommodate their needs.
Don’t forget gravenimage, these dessert rats DNA is that of a nomad! Always seeking the next food resources or waterholes. In this case their quest is to try to propagate their maligned cultural lifestyle.
“Also, the idea that this was the vision of the Founding Fathers is simply bizarre.”
Read again gravenimage. I hope your second read will activate your thinking!
“Please note: I mentioned of a moratorium experiment that perhaps will take decades to see good results. Thereafter, if success follows this courageous effort the US Constitution will be expected to return to its original status……as our Founding Father’s envisioned prior to 1776!’
For the moratorium experiment is for now to discourage the stay of any adherent of Islam wanting to forcibly dominate America.
‘Thereafter, if success follows this courageous effort the US Constitution will be expected to return to its original status……as our Founding Father’s envisioned prior to 1776!’
This experiment has nothing to do with the events of 240 years ago, but proposed to firmly secure the legacy of our Founding Fathers who lived during the 1776 epoch!
gravenimage says
Russia was officially atheist for decades under the repressive Soviet Union.
If you believe this discouraged ravening Jihadists there, you understand little about history.
Turning non-violent religious people–Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, et al–into criminals is not going to end the scourge of Islam.
Edward says
gravenimage says,
“Russia was officially atheist for decades under the repressive Soviet Union.”
Check this out, gravenimage…this being part of Islam’s past history in the Soviet Union.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_the_Soviet_Union’
I hear that Putin is enamored with a President of one of the former USSR’s Muslim’s country. Putin is say that he loves men with a lot of assertive power. Btw, recently he said the same of Donald Trump.
DPH5175 says
I have long since given up on Catholicism simply because it appears to have given up on itself. If the Church refuses to call Satan out as the liar and deceiver that he is…if in fact the Church tells us that we should believe the lies and deceptions of this monster, even though we see them for what they are, then though it breaks my heart I will have to acknowledge that the Catholic Church is not what I thought it was. It is wholly inconceivable that Christ in the face of the Sanhedrin or before Pilate would turn to his followers and say to them: ‘though they deny who I am and from their wickedness it is clear they are possessed by the devil I want you to ignore all I have previously taught and live under a false peace’. Either Christ is the Way the Truth and the Life or He is not. Politicians, the media and now the Church have abandoned the sheep to the wolves we must look for new shepherds or perish.
Michael F Poulin says
The Vatican II church is not the Catholic Church. That is the sense you have and you are correct. Traditional Catholics, on the other hand, reject the innovations of the man-centered Vatican II cult. Try read Archbishop Lefebvre “Letter to Confused Catholics” as a start.
gravenimage says
Vatican spokesman: Islam teaches “non-violence in the name of God”
……………………………
But…but…maybe if they say it often enough Muslims will believe it’s true!
Or maybe it will just lull Catholics and other Infidels into a false sense of security.
And that Bruno Forte is using this meretricious load of claptrap to excoriate Charlie Hebdo–a publication that had twelve of its staff brutally murdered in the name of the Muslim “god”–makes this all the more morally bankrupt.
Michael F Poulin says
Here we go again – another idiotic statement from a Katlick cleric who’s in way over his head – and up past his bedtime. These Vatican II clergy, including the moronic Jorge Bergoglio, and the “cardinals” in his inner circle don’t even know or teach the Catholic faith, how can they even make an intelligent comment on someone else’s religion? They seem simply not qualified and lacking in even basic cognitive skills, and are more interested in their personal popularity with the world.
The essence of the mission of the Modernist heretic scumbags currently running the institution referred to as “The Roman Catholic Church” is to utterly to do away with Christian institutions and to install in society the supremacy of man to the exclusion of God.
Michael F Poulin says
Pope Leo XIII, affirms in his encyclical “Satis Cognitum”: “Nothing is more dangerous than the heretics who, while conserving almost all the remainder of the Church’s teaching intact, corrupt with a single word, like a drop of poison, the purity and the simplicity of the faith which we have received through tradition from God and through the Apostles.”
Michael F Poulin says
What did St. Peter Mavimenus tell the Mohammedans? Did he say, “We worship the same God, all is well” No! He told them the truth, he put it this way to them “Whoever does not embrace the Catholic Christian religion will be damned, as was your false prophet Mohammed.”
Matthieu Baudin says
We haven’t been abandoned on a scale like this since the days of the Medici.
gravenimage says
More idiocy from Bruno Forte:
“If anything, one shows violence by adopting an ideological stance, claiming to possess the truth, judging and excluding others”
So claiming to possess the truth–surely something the Catholic faith *should* do–is more “violent” than gunning down twelve unarmed journalists and cartoonists, as pious Muslims did to the staff of Charlie Hebdo?
Moral insanity, whether one is Catholic or not.
Ross Busby says
I want what the Vatican Spokesman is smoking.
Mathew Solo says
Puff…Puff…Pass…right!
Michael F Poulin says
Just more evidence that Vatican II was a fraud – all this shit comes from Vatican II. It’s not what the Catholic Church taught for centuries before the 1960’s. Traditional (i.e. authentic) Catholics reject all of it.
TH says
As far as I know, Bruno Forte is not an official Vatican spokesman. He is Archbishop of some place in Italy. However, before being a bishop he was a Professor of Theology and in fact has written some good books on the Trinity and other matters. However, his recent positions are very strange.
The Vatiican has embassies in most countries. Maybe if thousands of people were to send letters to them protesting against this kind of ridiculous and false statements which are predudicial for the Church and for humanity, they might realize that something is up. However, while Bergoglio is Pope, I don’t think much can be done.
Mark A says
I’m Catholic and I’m not surprised by this.
We had a lecture on Islam in our parish church given by a priest from a Muslim majority country. It was dhimmitude exemplified.
He said Islam “is a religion of peace” but then said that in the country he came from Christians had to keep a room in every church for the exclusive use of Muslims, and avoid offending Muslims by not ringing church bells, being very restrained in outward displays of Christianity and basically accepting second class status. I asked him to explain the apparent contradiction between “religion of peace” and the perceived requirement to behave in the way he described to avoid “giving offense to Muslims.” No explanation was offered.
I also asked this priest about 9:29 and some the other Koran verses mentioned in this article and was told I misunderstood Islam. No clarification was offered to correct my alleged misunderstanding.
I was the only one at this lecture who questioned any of what the priest was saying. Everyone else seemed to accept it without question.
So I’m not surprised at all that a Vatican spokesman is talking like this.
Jura says
I am not surprised. Vatican dreams of converting muslims.
In my european homeland I remember a Catholic priest telling, that Catholic Church is here to guide the migrants and build bridges between native Europeans and the migrants (vast majority of whom is muslim).
Remember: huge numbers of Europeans are agnostic.
gravenimage says
Good for you for speaking out, Mark.
duh_swami says
Religious supremacist bigotry is running wild…
‘Everyone knows more about religion than you do…give them a chance and they will tell you all about it’…
Personally I have little use fir your ‘holier than thou’ massive ego trips…
One purpose of religion is to get you over yourself…How’s that working out for you?
Edward says
“Personally I have little use fir your ‘holier than thou’ massive ego trips”…
Hey duh_swami, I’m putting in my share of what’s expected of me as a believer. I can say, that I’m grateful of the many blessings received through many of my years….I survived a fatal plane crash in Alaska and managed many personal death threats aimed at me and my whole family without lethal weapons. Yes, I’m very thankful.
Ephesians 6:15 wearing for shoes on your feet the eagerness to spread the gospel of peace! Btw, this happens to be my personal shared project.
Personally, I don’t believe we should accept strive in the Middle and Far East to be the ‘STATUS QUO’ as many wants it to be!
Trials and tribulations should not be the norm in humanity, if we can help it’
I’m giving back what I have received!
E Ward says
Lots of heat without light on this comment section. If your religion excludes 50 percent of the population from its decision making, it needs to go back to the drawing board. I don’t care what religion you espouse. Additionally all religion needs to call a spade a spade. We don’t need any more Homer Simpsons saying,”Lets not fight. We’re ALL right.” Doh! (ie Islam is a religion of peace.) My objections to Islam are based on my love of equality and freedom of speech. Muslims are not the only sinners on these issues, they are just the worst I have encountered. God is love, equality, truth and freedom of thought and speech. And don’t tell me I’m going to hell. I’m not buying it.
Edward says
The Islamic, Roman Catholic Church and Rick Warren’s Saddleback Churches believe that Islam is a “religion of peace”.
I have a question:
How many of the other 2197 religions believe in their hype?
Another question: How many other religions mistrust or hate Islam’s theocracy?
Breaking news….oh no! I forgot to mention Liberals/politicians stand on Islam as well!
Pong says
Catholic church has been in bed with islam for a long time. From the posts one can see that catholics find all sort of excuses to stay catholics and put the blame on individuals in the catholic hierarchy. Communists used to do very much the same thing. I don’t care what your believes are, but belonging to a criminal institution and consider yourself a decent person requires quite an acrobatic morality. Your attempts at self righteousness is pathetic.
Edward says
Pong says: “Catholic church has been in bed with islam for a long time. . From the posts one can see that catholics find all sort of excuses to stay catholics and put the blame on individuals in the catholic hierarchy.”
Pong before you continue your rant against Catholics read the entire church history I will suggest; it will reset your mindset about older Catholics most likely.
Thanks to ECAW (January 6 2016 at 10 28 am) for bringing this up to our attentions.
“This is from the Catholic Encyclopedia (1908 edition)”
“In matters political, Islam is a system of despotism at home and aggression abroad… 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.”
“What the hell happened in the last 100 years?” ECAW rightfully complained!
————————————–
When I was born (1935) Catholic Encyclopedia had the same mindset as then. This was the pre Vatican 11 era. After then the Catholic Church was infiltrated by the secular vision that has ushered of what earlier Catholics bitch about now. Yes bitch about, the post Vatican 11 effects that has caused our present and dangerous dilemma brought upon us due to the present Islamic maligned mindset quest of world domination!
Yes definitely, blaming the present Roman Catholic hierarchy for letting an external influence control the destiny of Catholicism.
They shamefully failed to recognize the culprit mentioned on::
Ephesians 6: 12 “For it is not against human enemies that we have to struggle, but against the principalities and the ruling forces who are masters of the darkness in this world, the spirits of evil in the heavens.”
Edward says
Error: it should be Vatican II. Sorry.
Aussie Infidel says
The ignorance and naivety of the Catholic Church in regard to Islam is unbelievable.
The Secretary General of the Synod of Bishops, Mgr. Bruno Forte, accuses Charlie Hebdo of “distorting faith”. That’s ridiculous! Islam was simply a distorted version of Judeo-Christianity from its inception, concocted by its warlord prophet. Charlie Hebdo was simply drawing attention to this dysfunctional religion. Forte also says it is “important to respect the religious conscience and dimension in life.” But respect for a religion, or anything else in this world, has to be earned, not demanded. Those who have been harmed by a religion, certainly will not respect it. Perhaps Forte needs to experience some of Islam’s “non-violence” a little closer to home.
Pope Francis has said, “killing in the name of God is to act against God’s will.” But Islam is the exception to the rule. Does Francis not understand that subjugation of all other religions – including his own – is a fundamental tenet of the faith? It’s happened already to the ‘Eastern’ Byzantine branch of his church, with the conquest of Constantinople in 1453.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Constantinople
“And fight them until there is no fitnah (opposition) and [until] the religion, all of it, is for Allah. And if they cease – then indeed, Allah is Seeing of what they do.” (Q8:39).
“And when the inviolable months have passed, then kill the polytheists (Pagans & Christians) wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush … ” (Q9:5 SI). One of the verses in the so-called ‘sura of the sword’.
Surely Francis is also aware that Italy and all other Mediterranean countries, were under continual attack by Muslims for over a thousand years. Does Francis think that by keeping out of the ‘firing line’ and not offending Muslims, he will be safe? Only last month, Muslims planned to assassinate him. I have many Catholic friends – all avid anti-Islamists – and all appalled by the attitude of their pontif.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/12/muslims-plotted-murder-of-pope-this-will-be-the-last-pope
“And how many cities have We destroyed, and Our punishment came to them at night or while they were sleeping at noon.” (Quran 7:4 SI).
Mgr Forte added “the French newspaper’s insinuations ‘are far from the truth, because all religions, not just Christianity, but also the Jewish and Muslim faiths, preach non violence in the name of God’.” Have these Bishops been so brain-washed by dawah or ‘interfaith dialogue’ that they believe this erroneous nonsense? Have they already become dhimmis, prostrating before the mullahs? Have they not read the Quran for themselves? Or the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam? While it’s true, that most other religions preach non-violence to others, in Islam that applies only to other Muslims. Non-Muslims (kafirs, unbelievers, infidels) are “the worst of creatures.” (Q98:6), and may be killed with impunity. Muslims are absolved of any wrongdoing if they kill kafirs – and sometimes are commanded to do so.
“And you did not kill them, but it was Allah who killed them. And you threw not, [O Muhammad], when you threw, but it was Allah who threw that He might test the believers with a good test. Indeed, Allah is Hearing and Knowing.” (Quran 8:17).
“O Prophet, fight against the disbelievers and the hypocrites and be harsh upon them. And their refuge is Hell, and wretched is the destination.” (Q9:73).
“When you encounter those [infidels] who deny [the Truth=Islam] then strike [their] necks.” (Q47:4).
The Reliance of the Traveller – a Sunni manual of Islamic law, says:
“o5.4 There is no expiation for killing someone who has left Islam” … even when someone besides the caliph kills him.
o8.1 When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed.
o8.2 In such a case, it is obligatory for the caliph (A: or his representative) to ask him to repent and return to Islam. If he does, it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is immediately killed.
o8.4 There is no indemnity for killing an apostate (or any expiation, since it is killing someone who deserves to die).
Muslims often quote from the Quran as a ruse, while hiding their true intentions in their Manual of Sharia Law – which they know most kafirs do not read. The law for apostates, usually also applies to unbelievers in general.
Forte claims, “If anything, one shows violence by adopting an ideological stance, claiming to possess the truth, judging and excluding others.” What does he think Islam does?
“And whoever desires other than Islam as religion – never will it be accepted from him, and he, in the Hereafter, will be among the losers.” (Q3:85).
“And when the inviolable months have passed, then kill the polytheists (Pagans & Christians) wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush …” (Q9:5 SI). One of the verses in the so-called ‘sura of the sword’.
“And do not insult those they invoke other than Allah, lest they insult Allah in enmity without knowledge … .” (Q9:108).
“And they were not commanded except to worship Allah , [being] sincere to Him in religion, inclining to truth, and to establish prayer and to give zakah. And that is the correct religion.” (Q98:5).
“Muhammad said: ‘Whoever changes his Islamic religion, then kill him’.” (Bukhari 9:84:57).
Forte also comments, “Religions are faced with the mystery of God.” No, they aren’t! That’s just an assumption. Religions, like everyone else, are faced with the mystery of ‘life, the universe, and everything” (as Douglas Adams put it in his Hitchhikers’ Guide to the Galaxy). Religions have simply assumed that some supernatural God created it all – it was the only way out of the dilemma for scientifically illiterate people – and then they concocted elaborate systems of faith around those assumptions. But the truth of the matter is that despite the latest scientific theories, no one yet knows how everything got here – and probably never will. Nevertheless, the religions all believe that they are the ‘one and only true faith’, and at least one of them – Islam – is prepared to use violence to subjugate all the others.
Like many apologists for Islam, Forte simply displays his ignorance. He seems to think that since Judaism, Christianity and Islam are all monotheistic creeds, they all worship the same God, and are all more or less the same. But nothing could be further from the truth. The God of Islam and Muhammad is very different from the God of Abraham, Moses and Jesus. Allah is simply a ‘wolf in sheep’s clothing’.
TruthWFree says
You are well versed in Islam and I agree with almost everything you say, but this universe did not come about without a supreme being IMO and Jesus Christ’s eye witnessed miracles shows He had power over the elements.
Aussie Infidel says
TruthWFree, Thanks for the compliments, but I am no ‘Islamic scholar’. Nor would I want to be – I couldn’t think of anything more useless or a waste of time. What little I’ve learned, has come about through associating with Muslims (and a few ex-Muslims) over half a century, and reading their unholy books; and of course, books by other infidels like Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller, Nonie Darwish, M A Khan, Ayan Hirsi Ali, Mark Durie and others. The pity is that we have to waste any of our precious time combating such an evil ideology.
On the question of the beginning of the universe, until I can meet this God person, who others believe exists, and have him explain how he performed his celestial conjuring trick, I’ll continue to remain a ‘true infidel’. Why should I have to believe in a God to be good? Despite all the ‘divine’ commandments in the Bible, and laws on our statute books, our jails are still full of criminals – and increasingly, many of them are Muslims.
James Stamulis says
The pope and vatican is in bed with Obama and the NWO to create a one world government, currency, religion and they ar as far from God as you can get. Yesterday the mayor of Philly said that POS that shot the cop has nothing to do with Islam showing the democrats have joined in on selling out the world. Remember these are the first people to call patriots who have not hurt anyone or destroyed anything terrorists while black lies matter are civil rights champions! We need a second revolution yesterday!
worldcitizen1919 says
What’s wrong with world unity and world peace??
Elimination of war and povert from the money saved from no war. What’s wrong with that?
The USA emerged from a civil war and united what’s wrong with that? The USA became the greatest most just peace loving nation on earth with freedoms and human rights. So the entire world unites and freedom and human rights becomes universal. What’s wrong with that?
Say for instance the Declaration of Human Rights becomes a world constitution affording everyone equal rights what’s wrong with that?? Jerusalem the world capital so no more fighting over who gets it. The world owns it.
Full employment free universal healthcare and free universal education.
Why should humanity suffer poverty, disease, war when it can come together and get rid of these things??
worldcitizen1919 says
You think the world leaders are going to halt world unity and peace for a 1000 criminals or even a few million people? It’s just not going to happen.
The word’s destiny was set in the Bible and the process is well underway and maybe after some war or catastrophe war will be once and for all abolished.
Think………….
League of Nations ended 1st WW
United Nations established after the 2nd WW
???????????????! After. ???!!!!!!!!!!! World unity and peace and world disarmament will result from the next crisis
Then this prophecy will come true……
Isaiah 2:4
they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.
A golden age of humanity will emerge from this chaos.
Our Blessed Virgin Mary Pray for Us. says
the true Catholic and Apostolic Church is under attack from within and without by the illuminati who controls the masons, modernists, liberals, novus ordo missae new mass worshipers and francis worshipers, Traditional Catholics rise up for war is beginning.
worldcitizen1919 says
Matthew 5:9
Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
The pope only is being a peacemaker and trying to bring people together who have hated each other for centuries and still do..
The Vatican is only trying to end over a 1,000 years of wars and hostilities which the world is sick and tired of. We don’t want wars and conflicts anymore so we have to learn how to get along and it’s not easy but the prize is world peace. Honestly nobody wants another war or crusades except fools.
It’s about time we all grew up and tried to find ways of ending conflicts not starting more. We must have justice above all. But not more of the same war and hate. It’s getting so old.
dvo99 says
“THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS AGAINST THY NEIGHBOUR! -YAHWEH