Another Jesuit strays off the reservation. No matter how ruthlessly Pope Francis and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops work to suppress any challenge to their new iron dogma that Islam is a Religion of Peace (which they appear to believe in more fervently than they do their own creed, as they enforce adherence to it much more strictly), reality keeps breaking though their fog of disinformation. What will they do? No doubt work all the harder to make sure that voices that challenge their ridiculous fantasies do not get heard.
“Let them alone; they are blind guides. And if a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit.” (Matthew 15:14)
“Have I then become your enemy by telling you the truth?” (Galatians 4:16)
“Realism and Islam,” by James V. Schall, S.J., Catholic World Report, April 17, 2016:
…we recall recent events from “9/11”, the bombings in Spain, England, Mumbai, Bali, Fort Hood, San Bernardino, twice in Paris, Lahore, and Brussels, not to mention the persecutions and beheadings in Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen, Nigeria, Libya, Somalia, Chad, Syria, and the Sunni/Shiite inner-Muslim battles. What is the most plausible way to judge such continuing violence and its origins? To make this assessment, we have to acknowledge that Islam, in principle, is actually and potentially violent throughout its entire history. The basic reason for this method is obedience to the Law of Allah, not love for violence itself.
On the basis of evidence and theory, we cannot conclude from the fact that Islam is a “religion” that therefore it is not “violent” or is so only by abuse of its own founding. It is possible to be a religion and to espouse violence. (Were this not so, we would have to exclude many key passages on the Old Testament itself.) We cannot obscure what is there and affirmed to be there by Muslims themselves. Realism means that we can and should call what happens by its proper name. It also means that, if we cannot or will not make this proper naming, we are not realistic. We will inevitably suffer the consequences of our failure to state the truth of what is there.
These things are said not to promote counter violence against Muslims or to justify Muslim violence against others. Rather it is to respect Islam’s insistence that all those inside and outside of its enclosure be subject to the law of the Prophet. Whether we like it or not, this vision of world rule that is proper to Islam can only be called “religious” in nature. It is rooted in and promoted as a worship of the god called Allah. Not to take this wording seriously is unrealistic. The Muslims who claim that they can read their religious texts as if such violence is not advocated and justified may be applauded for trying to mitigate the historic record. But the fact is that those who see this violence as essential to the religion have the better side of the argument and are the better witnesses to what historic Islam stands for.
II.
What is argued here, then, is not to be unfairly “critical” of Islam. On the contrary, it is written with considerable admiration for the zeal, consistency, and effectiveness displayed over the centuries by Islamic armies and law. And while it may be politically incorrect to state these things, they need to be stated and are in fact the truth—things that both Muslims and non-Muslims need to hear and consider. The designated and determined goal of the conquest of the world for Allah has been reinvigorated again and again in world history from the time of Mohammed in the seventh century. These revivals and expansions, which have only been temporarily halted by superior counterforce, have roots in the Qur’an itself and in its commentaries.
What we witness today, much to our surprise, is but another step in the historic world mission that Islam envisions for itself as the will of Allah, a goal that inspires the real and recurrent vigor that is found in its history. The reason we do not call it what it is lies not in Islam but in our own very different concepts of philosophy, religion, and law. In this sense, it is our own culture that often prevents us from being ourselves political realists.
Many believing Muslims, likely more than we are willing to admit, are tired and frustrated at having their religion’s principles denied. Outside observers are unwilling to believe or imagine that what Muslim advocates say about themselves, both in their founding texts and in their historic actions, is true. World conquest over time is what they hold must be achieved.
In other words, whether they be Muslim or otherwise, many people refuse to acknowledge that violence is proposed and carried out in the name of Islam. Outside Islam, it is called by the peculiar word “terrorism”. It is rarely called what it is, namely, a religious endeavor to conquer the world as an act of piety. Muslims, in this central tradition, are not “terrorists” just for the fun of it. That is insulting and resented. They practice what we call “terror” because they see themselves carrying out the will of Allah, even sometimes to their own death in doing so. Those who, in the process, kill “infidels”—that is, any non-Muslim or Muslim who does not accept true Islam—is considered to be a “martyr” to the cause of Islam. Only if Islam is not true can these ritual killings be seen as the objective evil that they are.
A subtle philosophic theory (called “voluntarism”) purports to justify this usage of what we call terror for religious purposes. The principle of contradiction cannot hold in a “revelation” that contains, in its texts, contradictory commands, as does the Qur’an. Allah then must become pure will, not bound by Logos or reason. Hence Allah is not limited by any distinction of good and evil. The Muslim blasphemy laws that threaten with death anyone who violates this claim arise from this source.
Allah’s mandate to Islam is progressively to subject the world to his will and to the law based on it. Terror will end and true “peace” will result only when all are submissive to Allah and live under Muslim law in all its details. What we outside of Islam call acts of violence are considered within it to be the carrying out of Allah’s will. Gruesome beheadings of Christians, however innocent, are seen as acts of justice. They are acts of “virtue” in this sense. The people who cannot understand this religious charge given to Islam, whether they be themselves Muslim or not, are themselves both unrealistic and dangerous. Their own presuppositions prevent them from recognizing and judging the real issue. They also prevents them from doing anything effective to hinder this expansion of Islam into Europe, Asia, Africa, and America….
We see well-equipped modern armies, with inept and not seeing political leadership and with little motivation of forces, out-fought by young armed zealots in pick-up trucks who can, with their followers, threaten every train station and public building in Europe, Africa, Asia, and America. As they planned, they have managed to turn the whole world into a battleground of fear. The cry “Allah be praised!” is heard after every act of destruction. It is quite clear by now, or should be, that no cultural artifacts—be they books, buildings, statues, or paintings—will be allowed to exist. They are seen to be contrary to Allah’s will, no matter what they are or when created. In this sense, the Pyramids, the Buddhist statues, the library in Timbuktu, the Vatican, and the monasteries in the deserts, Canterbury, the towers in New York, the kosher markets in Paris, and the airports in Brussels are equally subject to destruction. Everything must be protected because everything is now threatened.
Not only are individual Christians eradicated but so are the statues of their saints. The reason for this destruction is “religious”. Such things ought not to exist. We have here a literal application of the belief that nothing should be allowed public or private space that does not correspond with strict Muslim beliefs. Provisional tolerance of Christians and Jews if they accept second class citizenship and pay heavy fines is merely temporary until the conquest is complete. Such zealous destruction to do the will of Allah, in other words, is considered to be an act of piety. If someone is going to oppose such acts, it cannot be done on the grounds of opposition to “terror” or that it is unreasonable. Ultimately, it depends, as Augustine learned with the Donatists, on a conversion and rejection of the theology that justifies it.
IV.
Whether Islam, in its origins, is a rereading of Jewish, Nestorian, and Christian texts (as it probably is) can be disputed. First, Islam claims to be a literal revelation of what is in the mind or being of Allah. In this sense, what is in the text must always remain in the text. It cannot be changed or “reinterpreted” to leave out those multiple passages that propose and justify violence in the name of the expansion of this religion. This advocacy of violence, which has been practiced in Islam from its seventh century beginning, has a purpose. This purpose is, ultimately, religious and pious. Whether the Muslim notion of “heaven,” where its martyrs go, is primarily this-worldly or transcendent, can also be disputed. In any case, the concept of heaven is very earthy sounding. This picture is not, as such, an argument against its truth.
The message contained in the Qur’an is that the world should bow in submissive worship to Allah. This purpose abides and recurs over the centuries because it is there in the text. Men may temporarily neglect its zealous pursuit, but the text itself always contains the mission for others to find and pursue. There will always be those who realize that the mission of world conquest in the name of Allah is not complete. This realization is why, so long as it exists unrefuted, the Qur’an will always produce what we call “terrorists”. What we see now is little different from what has been seen throughout the centuries wherever Islam is found.
In this view, the world is divided into an area of peace and an area of war. The former is where the law of Allah rules politically, religiously, and culturally, where no other philosophy or faith has any right to be present. All signs of alien religion, art, artifact, and people are eliminated through forced conversion or death. Sometimes, Christians and Jews can be allowed to stay alive provided that they accept second class citizenship and pay taxes. This situation, in practice, is the basic constitutional rule in all existing Muslim states, even in those that reject ISIS or other approaches to eventual conquest of the world. Once Islam has conquered, it has always followed the same principles. In its history, certain famous battles have turned back Muslim conquests for a time, sometimes for centuries. But this relative inertness is only on the surface. As long as the book exists, its goals will again and again inflame prophets, imams, politicians, and the young men to recommence the conquest of the rest of the world.
In conclusion, what is argued here in terms of political realism is that we must understand the religious nature of Islamic expansion and the methods used to achieve it. By trying to abstract these motivation from the soul of this particular religion, which is, on this score, unlike most others, only makes it impossible to describe what in fact is going on in the mind of the adversary that is Islam. Wars are first fought in minds—and this is a war. It is not World War III; rather, it is an extension of the wars that Mohammed first launched against Byzantium, Persia, Syria, eventually North Africa, even to India, Spain, the and Balkans.
The Muslim protagonists of today realize how close they were several times in the past to conquering Europe as the next step in world conquest. What they see today is a very realistic opportunity to succeed where their ancestors failed. They, though also idealists, are (often unlike ourselves) realists. That is, they see what our minds really hold. And they see that they are largely empty of what really counts in this world: a true conception of God. Their only fault is that of choosing a false understanding of the real God. Aside from this “small” issue, one cannot help but admire, and fear, a blind faith that so abides over time and place without the real presence of the Logos whose incarnate presence in the world is explicitly denied.

ICH says
man o man they always look like crazy dogs !
abad says
They certainly do!
Which is why Muslims simply do not belong anywhere in the western world. They can all return to their sandbox in the Middle East with their camels and goats.
Custos Custodum says
Please, no cynophobic hate speech on this site.
Ninsuna says
Haha…. good one, wish I’d thought of it!
Ninsuna says
There is no reason to insult dogs that way!
jihad3tracker says
CAN WE ALL SEND SOME PRAISE AND ENCOURAGEMENT TO THE JESUITS MENTIONED ???
They will almost certainly get plenty of hatred from the human slime who toss “Islamophobe!” and “Racist!” out immediately if a person exhibits the courage which these examplars show.
And, if you are Catholic, consider forwarding a copy of your email to the prelate at your local church.
mortimer says
Agree with j3t: It is important to encourage those Jesuits who speak from knowledge. Who knows if they can influence those other Jesuits who speak about Islam without doing the basic reading list!
Fr Henri Boulad, SJ, of Cairo is an expert on Islamism and jihad. He lived in Muslim-majority countries all his life. He wrote about the intrinsic connection of Islam to violence:
“JIHAD IS NOT A FRINGE PART OF ISLAM or an APPENDAGE. IT CONSTITUTES A MAIN OBLIGATION FOR A BELIEVER. Some wish to interpret this term in a reductionist manner, as if jihad were merely inner, spiritual warfare, a battle against one’s passions and instincts.
But no, the texts are clear: it is well-and-truly a fight with the sword and so it’s not by accident that Saudi Arabia or well-known Islamist groups present a sword on their crests.
In Islam, we see the ideas of force and of power. (cf. Koran 2.216 – 217; 3.157 -158; 3.169; 8.17; 8.39; 8.41; 8.67; 8.69; 9.5; 9.29; 9.41; 9.111; 9.123; 47.35; 59.)
Islam is imposed by force and generally has only yielded to force.
It’s a fact: historically, Islam was spread by coercion and by violence.” – Henri Boulad, SJ
cs says
You are right, I think we should support those opinions, praising the author(s).
Lynda says
Fr James Schall is the best political philosopher of this time. He does think that Islam should be stopped at all costs. I love this priest and the world will be poorer when he is no longer with us. Since he retired he seems to have felt the freedom to speak out about Islam one way or another.
He holds it to be non-rational, voluntarist and to hold a false notion of God. He is so clear because he has the depth of theology and philosophy in light of political thought to wrap the whole thing together with such certainty.
Lynda says
I might also add that in one of Fr Schall’s latest writings he make the point that most Catholicism (speaking I suppose in the American context or Western context) has fallen into the ethos of the times. He said that there ‘are very few’ who believe in the actual Christian Revelation. Meaning in its exclusive claims of Redemption through Christ.
I think this is true. What we have is a more practical Christianity concerned with being relevant in the world through symbolic actions and social justice initiatives. No more are we on about the need to Baptise and convert toward Christ and away from the world.
sahani says
ISlam is war code of Arab world to destroy each nation using local fools and convert them to islamic army and make them follow islam and fight for islam. Goal is destroy local traditions and establish islam Our leaders are fools don’t understand war games.
Jay Boo says
The Pope has placed his foot fetish desires above all else.
duh_swami says
If you don’t obey sharia, you aiin a Mahoundian…If you do obey sharia you will look like the guys in the photo…
Save yourself from ugly…apostate today…
linnte says
Wow! This is exactly correct in a nut shell! Great article!
Jay Boo says
The ‘Way’ rises above the ‘Law’
Spiritual versus Carnal
Islam, the Slave Trade ideology founded by a pimp procuring a 72 virgin disgrace.
Custos Custodum says
Love that picture. Pretty sure none of the three guys can actually READ and understand Arabic.
As Robert Spencer has pointed out, some Muslims, particularly in Pakistan and Bangladesh, learn to chant the Qur’an but have no idea what most of the sentences actually MEAN.
خَليفة says
Go Jesuits – they are known for their intelligence. Need an exorcist? Chances are he’s a Jesuit priest.
DFD says
خَليفة says: “…Need an exorcist?…”
Hi Kalifat,
Are you asking Merkel or Obama?
خَليفة says
I think each could use an exorcist as they each appear to be demon possessed.
Charli Main says
What they need is excising——-permanently.
Salome says
Jesuits are always well educated. Whether this translates into ‘intelligence’ or not is another matter. The Pope is a Jesuit and is typical of a large number of them–affected by neo-Marxist liberation theology, albeit watered down in the Pope’s case. But a good Jesuit, though rare, is, as is seen in the case of Fathers Schall and Carreira, exactly what is needed in the front line of debate.
Jack Diamond says
Some welcome truths, though I’ll pass on admiring their blind faith and zeal in submitting to
AllahMuhammad’s calls to murder. Non-Muslims talk about things like human rights. Muslims know Allah has rights and they come first. They also know, because Allah tells them, that Allah has enemies and Allah hates those enemies and so should the slaves of Allah hate them. Hate them and fight them, because they are obligated to, because Allah strikes them and punishes through the hands of the Muslims. (Quran 8:17 “it was not you who slew them, it was Allah who slew them”).
We (infidels) have this “fundamental” problem with Islam: Islam has a fundamental problem with us.
“He does not love the unbelievers.” (30:45) –uh-oh, Allah does not love us.
“Thou wilt not find any people who believe in Allah and the Last Day, loving those who resist Allah and His Messenger, even though they were their fathers or their sons, or their brothers, or their kindred.” (58:22) –Allah really, really does not love us.
{one might note in Islamic law’s life-value-index, ex. the ‘Umdat al-Salik, a Muslim may be killed for killing a fellow Muslim but no Muslim can be put to death for killing a non-Muslim (or apostate)}
“O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty.” (9:123)
“Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies of Allah and your enemies and others besides, whom ye may not know.” (8:60) –sounds like violence, sounds like war.
“Not equal are those of the believers who sit at home… and those who strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allah with their wealth and lives” (4:95) –the prime directive is this war and participating in it.
“fight them until there is no more fitna (unbelief, worshipping others beside Allah), and religion is all for Allah” (8:39) –the end-game. The end of the infidels.
mortimer says
Jack Diamond wrote: “The end of the infidels.”
You are making Islam sound genocidal.
Jack Diamond says
Genocidal like the hadith about when the Muslims will kill off the last of the Jews, hiding behind the rocks and trees, genocidal like the envisioned return of Jesus/Isa proclaiming Islam, breaking the Cross, and ending any “protection” afforded the Christians (paying ransom for their lives and continuing in their faith). Meaning convert or die.
Genocidal as the Verse of the Sword; as Muhammad saying he’s come with a sword to fight and kill people until they recite the Islamic creed. Qur’an 3:19, the only religion before Allah is Islam, and 3:85, if a person even desires another religion besides Islam it will never be accepted of him and he is doomed in the Hereafter. This is Allah’s Right because all humans are created Muslims (7:172-173) and are renegades if anything else. And Allah hates them.
But the mullahs can say it so much better. Some highlights from Islam Q&A:
“Islamic faith is based on the separation of Muslim and kafir and that the kafir is an enemy of Allah forever until he embraces Islam discarding his kufar. Allah has forbidden the believers from pledging any allegiance to the kuffar or showing them any affection even if they were their fathers, brothers, children, kinsmen or the spouses.
“One of the basic principles of belief in Islam, on which all the Muslims are agreed (ijmaa’) is that there is no true religion on the face of the earth apart from Islam. It is the final religion which abrogates all religions and laws that came before it. There is no religion on earth according to which Allah is to be worshipped apart from Islam. (3:85) After the coming of Muhammad, Islam means what he brought, not any other religion.. (and that) the Holy Qur’an is the last of the Books to be revealed…it abrogates all the Books that came before it, so there is no longer any revealed Book according to which Allah may be worshipped apart from the Qur’an. It is obligatory to believe that the (Torah & Gospels) have been abrogated by the Qur’an, and that they have been altered and distorted with things added and taken away.
“One of the basic principles of belief in Islam is that we must believe that every Jew, Christian, or other person who does not enter Islam is a kafir…and regarded as enemies of Allah, His Messenger, and the believers, and that they are the people of Hell.”
–Sheikh Muhammad Salih Al-Munajjid
ECAW says
Not only does Allah not love us but he actually hates us:
“…and their unbelief does not increase the disbelievers with their Lord in anything except hatred;” (35:39)
“…Certainly Allah’s hatred (of you) when you were called upon to the faith and you rejected, is much greater than your hatred of yourselves.” (40:10)
pdxnag says
Wonderful article. Looks like I might be able to print it out to hand to a few people as a tame introduction to the unfortunate conclusion that Islam is indeed evil, and cannot just be ignored.
“Only if Islam is not true can these ritual killings be seen as the objective evil that they are.”
Muslims committing mass slaughter in the name of Allah think they are not evil, but good. Perspective matters. Such is the nature of belief in religion that makes it so repulsive to me.
Jack Diamond says
Then what of mass slaughter for the beliefs of politics?
“To do evil you must believe you are doing good” Solzhenitsyn said in the context of the Gulag Archipelago and the liquidation of millions in the social engineering utopian-project that was the (atheist) Soviet Union. The mass slaughters of the 20th century, Hitler-Stalin-Mao, done in the belief they were doing a greater good, were not done in the name of religion. To paraphrase Chesterton, those who do not believe in God don’t believe in nothing, they believe in anything.
‘It’s not enough to love mankind, you must be able to stand people’ is another bit of 20th cent. folk wisdom. It is the sanctity and worth of the life of a single human person, or lack thereof, that is everything. Not mankind. Not the Ummah.
TJ says
Good job Robert for exposing them for ignoring the murderous words in the koran. I was just thinking the other day about the difference in the treatment of Moses between Jesus and the Koran. When Jesus recalled Moses from the other world, it was to have him be present for a miracle of the transfiguration. A benign event. The koran recalls Moses differently. He is used in a story which reads like a fable and at the end of the story people are inspired to kill their own kid if they reject islam and the exaggerations in the book. This is a plain exchange of the miraculous for the murderous. When the pope and the bishops deny the exchange of the miraculous for the murderous in the koran, they project murder on us all. The laws of this country need to support the innocent victims of koran inspired murder, not the people who purvey it.
Marcel Berube says
Dr Spencer, thanks for the photo of the three peaceful men . They are truly Allah’s men : I feel fear in my heart.
Annak says
I am truly impressed with such Jesuits. Well done sir ! A non-leftist Jesuit ???All the Jesuit Priests I knew back when I was aRC were liberal , into ” Liberation theology”” sensitivity training” etc. and even when young I never trusted them….something I sensed about them. Compared to the other Priests and nuns I knew and grew up with who were basically,in my experience,harmless and very sincere.
Well he is against the opinions of his own “Pope” ,the first Jesuit to become such, and the powerful elite handlers that put him there after whisking Benedict away smartish; so this should be interesting if nothing else. Which side will win in the RCC,the truth about Islam or lies?
Round 2 coming….
Michael Copeland says
“Violence is the heart of Islam”,
Ayatollah Yazdi.
ECAW says
Rev Schall has been saying this sort of thing for a while now:
“The Islamic State and the broader jihadist movements throughout the world that agree with it are, I think, correct in their basic understanding of Islam. Plenty of evidence is found, both in the long history of early Muslim military expansion and in its theoretical interpretation of the Qur’an itself, to conclude that the Islamic State and its sympathizers have it basically right.”
http://www.crisismagazine.com/2014/time-take-islamic-state-seriously
fido says
Why is it that obvious reality is so difficult to see today? Well, it’s not hard to see, but like the emperor’s new clothes it’s difficult to get people to acknowledge it.
Islam, we’re it a new ideological creation of some cult leader today, would be roundly criticized by virtually all people as some retrograde cult to be, most probably, declared illegal and labeled an evil cultish movement to be criticized and marginalized. Instead we have millions of judgement impaired hypocrites and idiots actually defending this abomination of a “religion”.
Never mind though…it and it’s followers will be utterly and completely destroyed as God, the REAL God, has assured us in the Bible.
citycat says
I believe the power to be not in God but in the communal spirit of the group. Whether that can be over all Earth i don’t know.
The spirit being relative to the minds of the disciples, which minds may be influenced by any writing, songs, actions etc there within the group. E.G. Inspiring latin hymns, Buddhist chantings, red Indian dance, etc and also any philosophies and tales, etc etc.
Devotion gives power.
United we stand
citycat says
@ Jack Diamond
“those who do not believe in God don’t believe in nothing they believe in anything”
i take you’re not an Atheist
those who do not believe in God, majorly, do not believe in believing.
There’s a difference between voluntarily not believing in God, and forcibly not believing in God, like in communism, i believe.
The statement is as the old example explains-
all dogs being animals does not make all animals dogs.
All communists being atheists does not make all atheists communists.
As the two are often equated as being related thus.
Ok
Jack Diamond says
“believe in anything”, as in finding purpose and the meaning of life in utopian schemes and absolutist political ideologies. Serving a cause greater than oneself, except an inhuman one, and thereby exchanging one’s birthright for a mess of pottage. One could make an argument about the importance of each person being made “in the image of God” {NOT Allah/Satan} in actually preventing murder and mass slaughter, but I won’t bother. It’s fine to believe in not believing. To have faith in not having faith. Though you might end up like those nihilists in The Big Lebowski, getting your ear bit off by John Goodman. Life is funny that way.
R says
This is an excellent read.
Rotten Eye says
And the Earth became infected with the vile Muslim. The skies were dark with soot and the smell of death. And people lived in fear. Grain did not grow and the animals were sick.
And it came to pass, the Earth says: “I am sick and my life is unhappy when the Muslim walks and breathes my air. All good men, find the Muslim and Strike at the neck of all Muslims!!”
If the dirty Muslims hides behind a rock or tree, the rock or tree will cry out: “Come! Look here! There is a dirty Muslim hiding here! Come and smite him. Strike at his neck! For surely they are sons and daughters of Pigs and Monkeys!”
And the Muslim fled like a crazy man with fear in his eyes and terror in his mind! But he was not swift enough. For the Earth found and catch every one of the Muslim. And the Muslim was struck at his neck. And the Muslim blood flowed like a the river Nile. Until all Muslims on Earth were smited.
And Lo, Behold. The world became clean and fresh when the Muslims were no more.
And the earth was happy.
And people lived in peace and the Earth was good.
WorkingClassPost says
This priest’s long winded and laborious attempt to rationalize islam just shows why the real issue is so simple.
Was Mohammed the antiChrist?
From that assertion all else is clear if the answer is yes, for no good nor value can possibly result from his abominable being.
I the answer is no, then such such hand-wringing and soul searching is valid and there can be no absolute Truth, because there will always be room for debate.
I have no doubt.
Emilio De Luigi says
I have to point out one fundamental thing: It is a fact that, as James Schall points out, we are daily facing with “Islam’s insistence that all those inside and outside of its enclosure be subject to the law of the Prophet.”.
But that is not an exclusive position of Islam: it is common to the three Judaic religions, namely to Judaism proper, Christianity, and Islam. This is spelled throughout the entire Bible, and it is built in the concept of the “people of God” that permeates the entire Jewish history. It is also stated clearly in the Catholic doctrine, that proclaims that when Jesus came on earth, he did two important things: gave to the Catholic Chruch God’s agency on earth, and imposed an obligation on all human beings to accept that agency and accept that he is the son of God. Check the Catholic Encyclopedia, please. The history of the Church in Europe, for more than 1700 years, proves that abundantly. This rotten principle of supremacy is built in the religions themselves. The conclusion is that we have to reject, not only Islam but any religion, because a study of various other religions show that, bottom line, all of them are supremacists. The fact is that religions are just tools in the hands of clerics and rulers that use them, to control people. A theocracy cannot by its own principle be a just society and certainly a democratic society.
ECAW says
Jainism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism and Shintoism are supremacist? I never guessed.
patriotliz says
In other words, Islam is the religion of Satan.
https://youtu.be/WIojqsHBWko
TruthWFree says
Very wordy but gets to the root that Islam is FALSE. Not only is it false, but my studied opinion is that it was revealed by Satan to Muhammad. Even he thought he was possessed at first but wife Khadija convinced him it was from God. The allah god denies Jesus divinity and death on the cross (lies against the Gospels written 700 years earlier) and the hate filled teachings are 100 degrees opposite Christ’s teachings. Add to this taqiyya, Islam allah god sanctioned lying and deceit to further Islam. By Jesus words, “Satan is the father of all lies”…I conclude the allah god of Islam is Satan.
citycat says
@ Jack Diamond
yeah, being atheist does not exclude one from the collective nonsense, nor from the goodness in a human.
I’m not saying you are wrong for believing in a God. I don’t see it. God is beyond definition, so no chat there, or would that be no backchat. Ha. Definitions like “he created everything” or “breathed life” into stuff, are debateable, but “HE” is beyond definition.
An argument that someone who is now passed on did commune with God, and therefore one can’t chat to that person. And God is a HE?
I was talking to a Christian who was propagating Christ in the town square. He said the most thing that he wanted was to talk personally with Jesus.
Mel Kesser says
There is a great cd out by Lighthouse Catholic Media, called, Proofs for the Existence of God. It is based on physics, philosophy, life after death and more. The talk is by Fr. Robert Spitzer. . Explains how modern scientific findings and recent medical studies support what is clearly understood through Chrisian Faith. Visit .LighthouseCatholicMedia.org
Fessitude says
A fine analysis by James Schall of the violent jihad — but no mention of the other seemingly non-violent forms of jihad. This deficit leads to a statement like this:
“The Muslims who claim that they can read their religious texts as if such violence is not advocated and justified may be applauded for trying to mitigate the historic record.”
Should we applaud Muslims who (claim) that their religious texts are not violent? Or should we suspect them of taqiyya in order to advance the jihad against us on their way to world conquest, knowing they need to infiltrate in mass numbers over a long arc of time in order to make up for their comparative weakness in military strength? Choosing the first is putting a bullet in a revolver, spinning the chamber, holding the gun up to your loved one’s head, and pulling the trigger. Choosing the latter is to put the gun down and figure out another way to defend your family.
icefalcon says
To some degree, this restores my faith in the Society of Jesus. I no longer give to my alma mater, Marquette U., because of their very public embrace of the pro-choice and marriage redefinition agenda. Thank God, all hope is not lost!
R Khawaja says
Mr.Robert
You are one of the hate mongers who needs his publicity nothing else.Your stories are based on hate only.If you don’t learn to respect others then do not expect same
Peggy says
His stories are based on fact. Your eyes don’t see? Your ears don’t hear? Ours do and we see and hear it all.