Telling the Truth About Islam

Why has it become so maddeningly difficult to make judgments about other people? About the actions especially of people who want to kill us? Indeed, whose stated aim is to bring the Great Satan (i.e., America) to its knees, and then to cut off its collective head? Is it too much of a stretch to imagine bearded men who bellow “Allahu Akbar!” (that blood-curdling “God is the Greatest!” jihadist jingle), just moments before blowing up busloads of women and children, as being animated by a passion for radical Islam? Yet such is the mindset of so many opinion-makers in the media today that they simply will not make the connection.

The problem is not recent. When Newsweek’s Evan Thomas weighed in some years back following the Fort Hood massacre, in which a Muslim by the name of Nidal Hasan murdered a dozen or more people, he positively recoiled from having to identify the obvious origins of Maj. Hasan’s homicidal rampage. “I cringe that he’s a Muslim,” reported Thomas.  “I think he’s probably just a nut case.”

The government apparently agreed, calling the multiple terrorist killings a case of “workplace violence.” This notwithstanding Nidal’s own insistence that he be regarded as a solider in the growing Army of Allah, intent on targeting American soldiers in the name of holy jihad.

That so many journalists and reporters exhibit their skills in traversing these minefields is no doubt due to the long practice they’ve had in perfecting the art of selective suppression. Of which the earliest and still most egregious example is the front-page headline that ran in the New York Times following the arrest of one Mohammed Salameh for his involvement in the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center: “Jersey City Man Is Charged in Bombing of Trade Center.”

Imagine a comparable headline reporting the capture, say, of Adolph Hitler, architect of the Final Solution, in which the editors are at pains to avoid any reference to his passion for Nazi ideology, lest it leave in its readers’ minds the invidious impression that ideas have consequences. “Ex-Bavarian Paper-Hanger Arrested for War Crimes.” Would that about cover it?

Perhaps we’re expecting rather a lot from the secular sages in mainstream media. Why should their standards be any higher than the public to whom they pander? Maybe not. But when it comes to the Catholic Church, aren’t the standards supposed to be high? I mean, by the Church’s own admission, she is the keeper of the tablets. And so when Churchmen fall short of the very standards God himself sets—in the authoritative accents of whose Name they speak—the resulting crash of credibility is pretty hard to contain.

Have I someone in mind here? Yes, I do. A whole panoply of people, in fact, who work for the National Conference of Catholic Bishops (NCCB)—which, incidentally, has enjoyed a shelf life far in excess of whatever usefulness it might once have exercised on behalf of individual bishops. So let’s get rid of it. By year’s end perhaps? What a nice Christmas present that would be to give to the Bishops, who are quite beleaguered enough without the added encumbrance of a national conference co-opting their job as Shepherds of souls.

In the meantime, the paper trail from some of the Conference’s more recent statements do not invite confidence in its capacity either to lead or to think. For example, back in August, a USCCB Committee on Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs (CEIA), chaired by Auxiliary Bishop Dennis J. Madden from Baltimore, released a brief statement on the urgency of continuing the dialogue with our Muslim brothers and sisters. What we need here, he seemed to be saying, is more sweetness and light. And the upshot, of course, is that since we’re all equipped with an equal set of credentials already (after all, asked the authors of the statement, had not “Both Jesus and Muhammad loved and cared for all whom they met, especially the poor and oppressed”?), there’s really nothing to keep us from building still more “networks of dialogue that can overcome ignorance, extremism, and discrimination and so lead to friendship and trust with Muslims.”

Have they completely lost their bureaucratic minds? Do the authors of such feel-good flapdoodle really not know anything about the religion of Islam? Forget the so-called silent Muslim majority we pretend to ourselves represents the lion’s share of Islam. The fact is, Islam remains fundamentally and unmistakably a religion of violence. The murderousness of Muslim theology is not an accidental or episodic affair, such as from time to time overcomes the better angels of their nature. It is entirely intrinsic to the beliefs all Muslims profess.

How could it be otherwise when its founding document, the Koran, is replete with what can only be described as the poisonous rhetoric of hatred and intolerance? If we are reviled by so much of the Muslim world, it is because the children of the Prophet have been carefully coached to regard everything in the West (except our technology) as loathsome and therefore deserving of destruction.

Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home: an evil fate.   (Koran 9:73)

Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Deal firmly with them.   Know that God is with the righteous. (Koran 9:123)

Is this the message of Shalom? Do we now get to walk hand in hand into the sunset singing Kumbaya?   And there is more. Think of all those timorous souls who still hesitate to strike out at the infidel in their midst. God help them. Islam is utterly unforgiving. Not only of those who happen not to be Muslim, but of their own kind who decline the use of the sword with which to smite the enemies of Allah. Indeed, the penalty for those who dare to deviate from the purity of Muslim doctrine is death. The apostate having placed himself beyond the pale, the task of taking him out becomes a matter of simple justice. When that crazy Ayatollah Khomeini ordered the death of the writer Salman Rushdie in reprisal for his literary sins, there was no outcry from the Muslim world. For those who read and revere the Koran, such things make perfect sense.

So while the disagreements we have with the Islamic world continue to fester in all sorts of politically and militarily unpleasant ways, the root cause behind every dispute is always the same. It is the fact that we inhabit two diametrically opposed universes of faith. “Whoever knows the Old and New Testaments, and then reads the Koran,” wrote Pope Saint John-Paul II in Crossing The Threshold Of Hope, “clearly sees the process by which it completely reduces Divine Revelation” (italics in the original). And while it is true, as the pope goes on to say, that among the “most beautiful names in the human language are given to the God of the Koran,” it cannot finally satisfy because such a God, “is ultimately a God outside of the world, a God who is only Majesty, never Emmanuel, God-with-us. Islam is not a religion of redemption” (again, italics in the original).

It is very instructive, I think, and not a little duplicitous, that while the statement issued by the NCCB cites this remarkable book written by the late Pope, indeed, praising its author for acknowledging the prayerfulness of Muslims, it includes none of the sentences quoted above. Such omissions, it seems to me, mutilate its larger message.

So what have we got here but two peoples intractably divided along theological lines. Open the Koran anywhere and see how it bristles with contempt on nearly every page for those whom Allah himself is already bent on “mocking,” “cursing,” “shaming,” “punishing,” “scourging,” “judging,” “burning,” “annihilating.” In upholding the truth of the text divinely dictated through the mouth of the holy Prophet, Islam can do no less than unleash the dogs of war.

Have we the courage to say so? Will our leaders insist, in the teeth of the bloody terrorists who commit evil acts licensed by their religion, that not only are they to be held accountable for what they do, but also for the ideas that justify what they do? “Not to act in accordance with reason,” wrote Pope Benedict in his now famous Regensburg Address (September 12, 2006), “is contrary to God’s nature.” In reminding us of the evils of irrational violence, most particularly in the name of religion, he had dared to put the question in a way that forces Islam to face the dilemma in which it now finds itself. If it be the case that Muslim teaching empties even the Godhead itself of reason, and thus the unfettered exercise of Allah’s all-powerful will trumps even the Logos itself, then if follows that sheer irrationality becomes a category inscribed at the heart of the religion of Islam. There are a billion or more people on the planet at this moment who believe that, as Benedict put it, “God himself is not bound even by his own word, and that were it God’s will, we would even have to practice idolatry.” Can we honestly hold dialogue with these people? It will take heaps of grace to move that discussion along. The grace of conversion.

(Photo credit: Akhtar Soomro / REUTERS)

Regis Martin

By

Regis Martin is Professor of Theology and Faculty Associate with the Veritas Center for Ethics in Public Life at the Franciscan University of Steubenville. He earned a licentiate and a doctorate in sacred theology from the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas in Rome. Martin is the author of a number of books, including Still Point: Loss, Longing, and Our Search for God (2012) and The Beggar's Banquet (Emmaus Road). His most recent book, also published by Emmaus Road, is called Witness to Wonder: The World of Catholic Sacrament. He resides in Steubenville, Ohio, with his wife and ten children.

  • OneTimothyThreeFifteen

    Secularism doesn’t realise that the only ‘antidote’ to Islam is Christianity, because it treats all religion as equal – as irrational moral frameworks – and so throws out the cure with the disease.

    • Trazymarch

      Maybe they see Islam as “antidote” to Christianity? It’s quite suspicious how many of secularist have positive opinion of Islam

      • Fred

        Poll them again after they have been subjected to Sharia, those that live to tell about life under oppression that is.

      • autdrew

        the enemy of my enemy is my friend. The secularists/leftists/marxists/gay agenda all think that they can use islam to beat the west and implement each of their various philosophies. Little do they know that they would be the first victims as non believers or worse.

  • Sam

    Thank you for the excellent article, you are absolutely correct.

  • ForChristAlone

    I am no apologist for Donald Wuerl but I do commend him for off-text remarks he made at the Catholic University of America last week in which he questioned the silence in the Church over the outrageous rape and murderous atrocities committed by Islamists against Christians in the Mideast. I guess Catholics in America might have a few things to say about Islam when we have rapes and more beheadings by Islamists on Main Street USA.

    • AnneM040359

      BINGO! We have WINNER!

      Sadly, it will have to take more indiviual attacks to take place in the USA before Americans say, “enough is enough.”

  • AnneM040359

    Excellent article! Thank-you!

  • Tomacz Tesla

    Correct! Islam and Liberalism have one thing in common: their believers must be able to hold contradictory thoughts at the same time. They also have something else in common in that none believes in final authority and in doing so foments anarchical beliefs. I do believe that “the Beast and the False Prophet” mentioned in St. Johns Apocalypse are respectively Liberalism and Islamism. How did we get to this point? Because of the German Reformation that started the ball rolling. The Protestant attack on authority opened the proverbial can of Worms: Illuminism, the French Revolution, Marxism, Freudian beliefs, Darwinism, Nihilism, etc. all came from there. Islam was simply waiting in the wings since they were repelled in Viena and Lepanto; they were expelled form Spain and It took 500 years but finally Modernism managed to open the door to them via political correctness. To defeat both curses there is only one way: the West must return to its Catholic roots. If we abandon our traditions something will fill the vacuum. The problem began inside the Church with Protestantism and got worse as the centuries went by. A united Christian front is the only thing that can defeat both curses and that is up to us. We ask the Lord – now more than ever – for the grace of Christian unity.

    • Trazymarch

      “Correct! Islam and Liberalism have one thing in common: their believers
      must be able to hold contradictory thoughts at the same time.” By contradictory thoughts thoughts in case of Liberalism you meant Equality and Liberty right?

      “How did we get to this point? Because of the German Reformation that started the ball rolling.”

      It’s hard to say what started the ball rolling. Was it ( like Richard Weaver suggests) nominalism? Or maybe ( like Nicolas Davila suggests) averroism? It could be as well Niccolo Machiavelli works.

      • Tomacz Tesla

        The mysterium inquitatis has been at work since the beginning of the Church. The German Reformation is responsible for the rebellion against papal authority. That was followed by rebellions against kings, princes, nobility, bourgeoisie, and … sin 1968 the rebellion against all kinds of authority. The whole thing is a demonic crescendo and its original and now hidden motivation is the rebellion against God the Father now translated into a rebellion against any paternity whatsoever. The simultaneous contradictory thoughts in the Liberal and Islamic minds are many. I think they share this: trying to have order without authority. That is the most important. Protestantism for the most part shares that thought with Liberalism and Islam. Equality and Liberty are possible if one is thinking of equality before the law and freedom under God but Liberalism those concepts that to impossible extremes because they are not “under God.” Eventually the Liberal mind has to create a god to keep things functioning. Their god of choice it’s usually blunt force.

      • Anthony

        Protestant Reformation to Enlightenment to Free Masonry to Friedrich Nietzsche to atheistic Communism. If you haven’t read Nietzsche, keep avoiding it. We could go over all the philosophies, how they tie in, etc….I don’t feel like it. =) Maybe someone else can take on the task. Anyway, all rebellion to proper authority at the end of the day.

    • Proteios

      I disagree. I think the beast is the beast – the false prophet you got right.
      “the Beast and the False Prophet” mentioned in St. John’s Apocalypse (I think) refer to mohommed who listened devotedly to Satan. Satan may have fooled mohommed into thinking it was heaven he was taken up to. I dont know. Discerning spirits must be tough. But in the end, noone can read the Quran and not think it was inspired by evil, unholy fear and one phrase that permeates every word..”I want to be like thee”
      Words directly from the father of all lies and inherent within every word of the book mohommed wrote. A mere man who fashioned himself as above Christ.

      • Tomacz Tesla

        I was not stating doctrine. That was merely my opinion and you have all the right to disagree with me.

      • Jcar

        You are dead on. The muslim religion hangs on to some truths to get into our minds. Its like the troyan horse. That is how it has converted Christians over milenia, especially in the remote regions where education lacks and where people can be bullied without impunity.

      • autdrew

        Indeed, when mo first heard the voices in his head, it is said that he ran to his (much older, wealthy) wife Khadijah, hid his face in her skirts and said that he had heard jinn talking to him. It is she who convinced him that he was being used as a prophet. Little did she know what she would inflict on the world.

    • BXVI

      I agree with this, with one caveat. The Church was corrupt, which provided a plausible basis for the Protestant rebellion. I believe the rebellion was more about politics that theology, but we must admit that the many abuses within the Church gave the movement legs that it never should have had. The good that came out of this, of course, was the Catholic Counter-Reformation, which was desperately needed and which created a flowering of the faith which provided an incedible renewal within the Church. Now, of course, what the “reformers” should have done was work within the Church to eliminate abuses and corruption. But, they didn’t and now here we are. The West is intellectually and morally bankrupt because the Protestant Rebellion naturally and inevitably led to the current state of affairs, a combination of: 1. outright secularism and atheism; 2. watered down Protestant religion where each group re-makes God to reflect their own image; and 3. a divided Catholic Church where perhaps a majority of those who self-identify as Catholic have an essentially Protestant mindset with regard to the subject of authority (i.e., I can decide for myself what to accept and reject of the Church’s teachings).

      • DE-173

        Every heretic is a doctor of the Church gone horriblty wrong.
        My paraphrase of somebody’s else’s idea.

      • reddog44

        BXVI, and Tomacz, you guys are barking up the wrong tree. To blame the German Protestant “reformation” on today’s ills shows how inadequate the Catholic Church is at dealing with internal problems. There is more liberalism within the Catholic Church than there exists in many Protestant churches. You were never able to sweep all the dissidents out of the house and you allow for a very broad spectrum of opinions & beliefs within the Church. The cafeteria Catholics do you no justice and take away all your credibility.

        I think you both need to re-read history and see how corrupt the Catholic Church was and that the reformation was absolutely necessary.

    • Paul

      So you’d prefer the Western world reverted to theocracy? That’s exactly what radical Islam wants.

      • Tomacz Tesla

        I simply want Islam and Liberalism to go to the dustbin of History so we can return to a Christian West and a natural economy like in pre-modern times. The way things are going we are possibly about 3 to 2 years away from that.

        • Paul

          How incredible vague and unrealistic! What exactly is a “natural economy”? And what are we “3 to 2 years away from”? Utter piffle.

          • kentgeordie

            You can disagree without being offensive

            Sent from Samsung Mobile

            ——– Original message ——–

            • Paul

              Some ideas deserve ridicule. And these ones are ridiculous. Nothing offensive whatsoever about what I said: it was directed at the ideas, not at a person. The cry of “offense” is a common first defense when bad, ‘sacred’ ideas are challenged.

  • The problem is that Islam is not one religion. Catholicism is united. Islam is more like Protestant Christianity, with 30,000 sects.

    • Trazymarch

      Not really… There are two big islam denominations: Sunni and Shia. Sunni is like 75% up to 90% of islam population. I would say islam is more united than christianity in general.

      • Even the Sunning and the Shi’a are bowen up into smaller sects. There is no central authority, no Pope of either.

        • DE-173

          “Even the Sunning and the Shi’a are bowen up into smaller sects.”

          Do you mean “blowing up”?

          • No, was typing on my cell phone. Spelling of “broken” fixed, too bad, “blowing up” was a good pun of what happens with the Muwahiddun version of these sects.

            • DE-173

              “”blowing up” was a good pun”

              That’s where I was going.

      • Anthony

        Yes, think about how strong the Church will be if Our Lady converts them to the Faith as she did the pagans in Mexico! They have the zeal, they just don’t have the Faith.

        • From my point of view, they don’t even really have the faith:
          http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/2011/05/update-on-muwahiddun-and-islamic.html

          On that page, you’ll find a chart of the four main schools, along with the 40 most popular sub sects.

          Notice that the Sixth Pillar Muslims- those who have an extreme version of the doctrine of Jihad- don’t even make the cut to be on the chart. They are a very small minority- but an extremely DANGEROUS minority. The doctrine of Tahwid means that no other religion can be allowed to survive.

          • Speak the Truth

            Wow, Theodore you are really educated. Perhaps you should start your own blog on “Islam watch” so we can monitor these nuts.
            I would definitely subscribe to your blog!

            • Link is in the message above. Islam posts are marked keyword Muwahiddun

    • AnneM040359

      ….Or rather two versions of the same story, “sunni” and “shia”.

      • Those are only the main two, there are a hundred lesser versions of the same story, all contradictory to one another.

        • AnneM040359

          ….Even though the Saudis run the main shrine(s) in Islam.

          • And are opposed by the Tahwid Wahhabi, who are also Sunni. And by ISIS, who is so Tahwid that they have a stated goal of invading Mecca, tearing down the Kabba, and eliminating the hajj that they see as ancestor worship, and they are also Sunni.

            • AnneM040359

              Yes, that is what I have been reading about, which does surprise me, considering that Mecca is the home and capital of Islam.

              • It does not surprise me, because I understand the theology of the Tahwid. It’s a Sola Gracias, Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura religion. ANYTHING outside of Grace, Faith, and Scripture to the Tahwid is to be destroyed by order of Allah. That’s why ISIS tore down the Shrine of Jonah in Ninevah. It was outside of the individual connection to Allah. To an extreme Tahwid, even the mosque is a competitor with worship to Allah.

                • Axilleus

                  Sounds like some Protestants I have encountered…

                  • I started researching Islam back in high school, but got really interested after 9-11-2001. After reading about the Tahwid (those who claim that no earthly authority should be able to command anybody in the realm of morals and that any worship save that to Allah alone is a heresy) I quickly noticed the similarity between those “Sola Jihadists” and our own fundamentalists (including a propensity for prooftexting from the Quran!).

                    I’m not sure which way the heresy went- but I’ve recently heard a theory that Martin Luther had some contact with the Arabian Peninsula, and that he got the concept of Sola Scriptura from them. I’m not sure if that is true, but it sure would explain the similarities.

                    • Axilleus

                      I don’t know how the communication went at the beginning but there are a lot of weird similarities between Islam and Protestantism (at least certain strands of Protestantism), too many for my liking: from the way Protestants treat the Bible like Muslims treat the Qur’an, to the propensity for fundamentalism and fanaticism, and even to teetotaling.

                      I would also note that in the decade after Martin Luther posted his 95 theses on the door of the Wittenberg Cathedral the Ottoman Sultan Suleyman the Magnificent began the first Turkish march into central Europe that culminated in the first siege of Vienna in 1529.

    • DE-173

      The problem with Islam isn’t its divisions, but it’s existence.

      • It’s existence is one of the divisions.

        It is, after all, a Christian heresy.

        • DE-173

          What?

          • Mohammed, in his early life, lived in Jerusalem among the Christians and the Jews. One reason why the Qu’ran mimics the Bible in so many respects, is precisely because Mohammed was intimately familiar with the Christian scriptures.

            • DE-173

              What?

              • Go read St. John Damascene. http://www.stpeterslist.com/11698/islam-as-a-christian-heresy-8-quotes-from-st-john-damascene-a-d-749/

                It is not my job to educate you, you have to at least try to educate yourself.

                • DE-173

                  It’s your job to make a clear and coherent point, and avoid whatever turns your statements into inane rants.

                  • Saints are incoherent but Von Mises is not? No wonder you worship mammon.

                    • DE-173

                      No, Saints are usually coherent, but you are apparently having one of your tantrums.

                      I’m not disputing Islam as a heresy, I’m disputing this statement:
                      “One reason why the Qu’ran mimics the Bible in so many respects”.

                      Did you read this, before resorting to irrelevant ad hominems?

                      “When you say the Koran mimics the Bible, and then snottily post a link to a Saint who said Mohammed wrote many ridiculous books, then you don’t even understand the question.”

                      You buttress your arguiment with the assertions that Mohamed wrote nonsense (he did). I don’t find the Bible to be nonsense, and the etiology and structure of the Koran has no resemblance to the Bible. If there is any mimickry, Mein Kampf has more than a passing resemblance to the Mohammedian tract.

                      As for your extraneous insertion of a poorly conceived insult: I find Von Mises to be dense and nearly impenetrable, but not quite as tedious as your flailings.

                      You worship mammon. That’s why you sacrified your credibility
                      rather than part with a few quid.

                    • The reason St John Damascus gives for the superstition of the Ismaelites being a Christian heresy is precisely because many stories in the Quran mimic the Bible. They are the same stories told through a heretical lens.
                      So I see no cause for your “anybody who is not a radical laze Faire capitalist is crazy” meme attempt to hijack the thread.

                    • DE-173

                      I’m beginning to believe including the word “asylum” is the appropriate description of your personal blog. Inserting ANY mention of Von Mises into a discussion of the Koran is certifiably insane.

                  • I was unaware that the concept of Islam being a Christian Heresy- which has been shown by multiple Christian theologians over the past 1400 years- was even controversial, let alone “spiraling out of control”.

                    Why do you have such a problem with the Church?

            • Ronk

              Not “intimately familiar”, he only had a vague idea picked up from casual contacts with Jews and Christians (mainly heretics).

            • autdrew

              He did not live in Jerusalem. He was in close contact with Jewish tribes in Arabia (imagine that!) and a heretical clergy man Christian. These are where he got his radical misunderstandings. When he was in his early, convert by niceness, campaign to the Christians & Jews, he had his few followers pray in the direction of Jerusalem. He was convinced (by his jinn) that the testaments of each group would find mention of him in their scriptures. When they didn’t, he became furious, accused them of changing their Holy texts to exclude him, he considered that to be the utmost sin. Not long after that, we lost the “there is no compulsion in religion” & it was replaced with the “slay them where you find them” mo.

    • Thomas J. Hennigan

      Islam is divided, mainly the sunni and the shiites. However, when it comes to jihad, they are all in agreement. In reality it is not first and foremost a religion. It is a totalitarian political and social ideology, which has a religious dimension. If it were only a religion it would not concern us, but politically it want total domination of the whole world and in the procees is willing to kill millions, as it has done in the past. Dialgoue with Islam is a pipe dream. They expect the other party to accept their positions.

      • I know quite a few American Sunni who are decidedly NOT in agreement with the Sixth Pillar of Jihad. Likewise, the Sufi, who are neither Sunni nor Shi’a, are moslem but reject even the other five pillars of Islam.

  • kentgeordie

    Great idea to abolish the bishops’ conferences. Let’s make it a world-wide movement. Let’s give back the bishops their personal powers and responsibilities.

    • DE-173

      But it’s so much easier to issue some grandeloquent statement after lots of committee meetings and votes.

  • AdMaioremDeiGloriam

    Awesome article! Let us never refer to Muhammed as a, “Prophet”. He is a, “false prophet”. To refer to him as anything other than a false prophet would be the denial that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

    • James Sanderson

      He is a prophet only to those who follow Islam.
      For Christians, he is no prophet for the time of the prophets is over, their promise fulfilled in birth and death of the Christ.
      Yet, it must be noted that Jesus is referred to in the Koran some 100 times. Here’s one passage: 3:55 Behold! Allah said: “O Jesus! I will take thee and raise thee to Myself and clear thee (of the falsehoods) of those who blaspheme; I will make those who follow thee superior to those who reject faith, to the Day of Resurrection: Then shall ye all return unto me, and I will judge between you of the matters wherein ye dispute.”

      • AnneM040359

        Tell that to the Middle Eastern Christians who were driven out by ISIS, which is now the TRUE FACE of Islam.

    • AnneM040359

      AMEN, Mohammed is NO PROPHET and Jesus has WARNED against false prophets. You are right to call Mohammed a false prophet.

  • Fred

    Were you reading my mind just now?

  • droolbritannia

    “I cringe that he’s a Muslin,” reported Thomas. “I think he’s probably just a nut case.”

    Did a reporter really call someone a ‘Muslin’?

  • droolbritannia

    Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be there home: an evil fate. (Koran 9:73)

    Shall be ‘there’ home? Who wrote this? Was no editor or proofreader available? Sorry, but this reads like a very rushed blog, not a thoughtful article. Apart from the apparent typos, t’s hard to read. Needs work.

  • DE-173

    “Have they completely lost their bureaucratic minds? Do the authors of such feel-good flapdoodle really not know anything about the religion of Islam?”

    “For example, back in August, a USCCB Committee on Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs (CEIA), chaired by Auxiliary Bishop Dennis J. Madden from Baltimore, released a brief statement on the urgency of continuing the dialogue with our Muslim brothers and sisters.”

    Was it an accident that this article was posted on the same day as another was posted on the “Leadership Crisis”?

  • Guest_august

    We say that the Lord our God wishes that all men be saved.
    But when non-Christians, including Muslims, hear about Jesus of Nazareth, and they do not
    take time out to find out what he really represents. And if they are not
    diligent enough to research and learn about him; to see if there is any
    truth in his revelation. But then on that Day when they come before the
    Throne of the Lord Jesus, what do we expect Jesus to decide?
    http://www.popeleo13.com/pope/2014/10/05/category-archive-message-board-135-will-many-be-saved-2/

  • Kathy

    So whom is the USCCB trying to help? The Muslims or the Democrat party come November?

  • JohnE_o

    When that crazy Ayatollah Khomeini ordered the death of the writer
    Salman Rushdie in reprisal for his literary sins, there was no outcry
    from the Muslim world.

    You are mistaken:

    http://www.amazon.com/For-Rushdie-Essays-Writers-Defense/dp/0807613541

    From Publishers Weekly

    The 91 Arab and Muslim writers in this collection have labelled
    Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses absurdly brilliant, ponderously dull
    and extremely offensive, sometimes all in the same essay. Many of these
    commentators have never even read the book, living as they do in
    countries where it has been banned. Yet all have taken up the cause of
    the writer, who for five years has lived under the late Ayatollah
    Khomeini’s infamous fatwa , or sentence of capital punishment. Many
    particularly resent Khomeini’s subversion of Islamic law to terrorist
    ends, especially when directed at a British author who is no longer a
    practicing Muslim. Others use their pieces to inform Western audiences
    about the numerous unsung martyrs to creative expression in the Middle
    East, from the Egyptian intellectual Farag Foda to the Saudi Arabian
    poet Sadiq Melallah. A few contributors criticize the Western media for
    seizing upon the Rushdie affair as a symbol of the intolerance Islam
    preaches, when Khomeini’s followers by no means constitute a majority of
    believers. All of the 91 authors, however, recognize the importance of
    free and open discourse and bemoan the wave of Islamic fundamentalists
    who have turned their backs on human rights altogether. As the Libyan
    writer Amin Maalouf writes, “No doctrine dies from being criticized, or
    even attacked; but it can die from being made impermeable to criticism.”

    Copyright 1994 Reed Business Information, Inc.

    From Library Journal

    In this important collection of letters, poems, and essays, 91
    Arab and Muslim writers call for the right to free expression in
    totalitarian political regimes and urge solidarity with the still-exiled
    Salman Rushdie. Several themes recur: the political and religious
    illegitimacy of Khomeini’s fatwa; exile as the human condition; and the
    conflict between fiction and fundamentalism. The book presents, for the
    first time, the reactions of Muslim writers to The Satanic Verses, as
    well as to Khomeini’s subsequent reaction to the book. While many of the
    writers disagree with Rushdie’s ideas, all defend his right to express
    them. In addition, by recalling the deaths of Egyptian writer Farag Foda
    and Algerian writer Tahar Djaout, the book forcefully reminds us that
    in the worlds of these writers acts of writing are acts of courage. More
    powerful than the recent Rushdie Letters (LJ 4/1/ 93), the book should
    be read by all those engaged in the struggle to maintain the right to
    free expression.
    Henry L. Carrigan Jr., Westerville P.L., Ohio
    Copyright 1994 Reed Business Information, Inc.

    Looking forward to either Mr. Martin’s agreement on how he was wrong on this point or his explanation on how this isn’t “really” an outcry from the Muslim world.

    On his larger point – a billion Muslims aren’t going to convert to Christianity, so the West is going to have to figure out a way to contain the extremists with the help of the majority of Muslims who would rather not have to deal with the extremists either.

  • Anthony

    I a revert to the Faith, and have a great love four Our Lady. I attend the Traditional Mass. I just wanted to preface the comment I am about to make with that background. I hope that Mr. Martin and everyone will consider and research what I say, because it is serious. Please keep in mind the U.S. government told Priests on military bases that they would be imprisoned if they had Mass.
    I have no love for the Islamic heresy, but please consider the souls we are talking about. They can be confused, and used just like everyone else. Mohammed Salameh was found not guilty in court, and the whole WTC 93 affair was quietly swept under the carpet. Why? Salameh was a contact used by the FBI to catch potential terrorists. His specialty was explosives. He began to suspect he was being used by the natorious three letter agency, and was recording their phone conversations. The agreement was he would build an explosive up to specs, but not with the actual explosives. They later contacted him telling him to include the explosives. I have heard the tapes myself, but I can’t find them right now, but I did find this piece from the New York Times.
    http://www.nytimes.com/1993/10/28/nyregion/tapes-depict-proposal-to-thwart-bomb-used-in-trade-center-blast.html
    Jesus prayed for his enemies on the cross. Lets make sure we pray for ours. They are in the government, outside of the government, and from all walks of life. We live in a pagan nation. We shouldn’t be under any illusions about what is happening in our country. We will be persecuted by the Muslims, and by our own government.

  • Elaine Steffek

    And still, many continue to live in denial about these facts. That only “the extremists” are the violent ones.
    If you want the truth and the facts about the true nature of Islam, check out Debbie Schlussel’s blog.

    • autdrew

      She is fantastic. She is from my hometown and very close to Dearbornistan. I grew up just over the Dearborn/Detroit border on the Detroit side. The were also one of the first attacked over nativity scenes back in the early 80s. Debbie pulls no punches

  • cestusdei

    We must start telling the truth loud and clear. Lives and souls depend upon it.

  • Fred

    This story should make everyone’s day and make crystal clear where allegiances lie. I didn’t read where the separation of church and state crowd protested, maybe they will later (ha). Funny, the only outreach to the Catholic church that I can think of was to lie about federal funding for abortion to get the un-affordable care act passed by the gullible, and of course to use our churches to criticize us while we sheepishly comply with demands to cover up our offensive crucifixes.

    http://kfor.com/2014/10/04/oklahoma-muslims-receive-special-praise-from-white-house-officials/

  • Kalpurnia

    We once had the courage to tell the truth about Islam, but the truth was deleted from all daily Roman missals in 1965! Tomorrow is Our Lady of the Rosary. Remember Lepanto.

    • ForChristAlone

      aka our Lady of Victory

  • DE-173

    The USSCB really is worthless.

    Madden turns 75 next March. One hopes his resignation is accepted.

  • why zee

    great article !!

  • Watosh

    If there were no Muslims, we would have to invent them in order to distract peoples attention to the totalitarian government the feds are constructing. I expect soon anyone who does not say lets kill all the Moslems, will be accused of aiding and abetting terrorism.

    Now some in the Moslem world have said some inflammatory things and done horrible things like beheading. We don’t consider though someone blown apart by a drone strike as horrible, merely collateral damage. Then there is the old German excuse which they used to defend killing hostages in occupied land which was “The killings we did were the fault of the the people in such and such a village because we told them if they sabotaged us, we would kill some villagers and they sabotaged us and therefore they are the ones responsible for the killing of their people. I have heard variations of this theme from some Americans when someone brings up the number of Iraqi children starved to death because of our sanctions from 1991 to 2003. And of course one is met by the charge of being guilty of moral equivalence should they mention some horrors we caused.

    You may believe this or not, I am not defending or condoning Muslims behavior, merely, just merely suggesting to those who try to whip up a frenzy against all Muslims. Misguided as they are, some are are not all completely evil.

    I notice this article does not mention that a very influential Sheiks, Abdallah-bin-Bayyahissued a Fatwa against ISIS in which he said, “This is addressed to the young men who bear arms against their own nations and destroy both country and countrymen. You have abandoned all values and made enemies of the world. We call on you to phase, reflect, and heed this counsel for the sake of all who want good for our community.”

    Not too, Andrew Bacevich, retired from the Army with the rank of Colonel, and had a son who was killed as a soldier in Iraq, and is now a professor of history, points out “Syria has become the 14th country in the Islamic world that U.S. forces have invaded or occupied since 1980.” He scutes Iran, Libya, Lebanon, Kuwait, Iraq, Somalia, Bosnia, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Sudan, Kosovo, Yemen, Pakistan and now Syria. Now some will scream that we were in some of these countries to liberate them or protect them. The point is WE had bombed or stationed strops in these Moslem countries since 1980. During this time no Moslem troops invaded the U.S. and no Moslem military from a Moslem government ever bombed the U.S. during that time. Yet we act as if Moslem forces were building up on our shores, preparing to launch an invasion. Our leaders and our press fill the airways with talk of the Moslem threat to us. Is it too much to think maybe some Moslems consider us a very real and serious threat to them?

    I mean I was in high school when the U.S. was threatened by the enormously capable and well equipped military forces of Nazi Germany and Japan threatened us. I fail to get hyper about a few thousand Moslems armed with captured or contributed American arms.

    Yes many Moslems might want to kill Christians, and have killed Christians, and I certainly do not feel we should do nothing, just as I do not believe the only other alternative is to kill all the Moslems.

    And too I am aware that the greatest blood letting of Christians took place between 1914 and 1918, and this bloodletting was done by their fellow CHRISTIANS. On a single day, August 22, 1914, the French lost twenty-seven thousand men killed in battles in the Ardennes and at Charleroi. In that war some 10 million became military fatalities. This was a war between countries that considered themselves largely Christian at that time, Germany, Russia, England, Austria Hungary, Italy and the United States. Turkey was a Moslem nation involved but, the main military fatalities were done by fighting between the Christian countries mentioned. So when all I hear about is how Christians have been killed and are killed by Moslems, I feel this provides a little perspective.

    In each of these European combatants the religious leaders in those countries blessed their counties cause, and supported the war.Philip Jenkins in his book, “The Great and Holy War” cites statements made in each of these countries by their religious heads, and some of their utterances were as wild a statement as we see Moslems making. Jenkins says that the only religious leader who acted as a religious leader was Pope Benedict XV, who adamantly condemned the war, and tried to booker a peace. He failed and many believe his agony over the war led to his death. Jenkins also notes the Pope was the only religious leader who did not live in a country engaged in the war. He went on to say, “Generally, when religious leaders had a primary identification with a state–as most did– they not only abandoned words of peace and reconciliation but advocated strident doctrines of holy war and crusade, directed against fellow Christians.” Now in view of this I question whether emotion or reason should guide our statements and understand that the intemperet remake by Moslem leaders are a uniquely Moslem reaction to threats.

    Where did the idea that blessed are the peacemakers go? Is it a weakness for a Christian to forgive one’s enemies? Where do the gospels advocate bombing one’s enemies to extinction? Are Christs words merely and elective? Yes self defense is a legitimate
    Christian option, but being a Catholic places limits, or should place limits on the reposes we make. There are certain burdens being a Catholic places on us. Certainly while recognizing threats is prudent, whipping people into a frenzy is not a Catholic response. The greatest threat from the Moslems now is that they are outproducing more Moslems and represent a demographic threat to the Western world and its encouragement of abortions and its treatment of marriage.

    • JohnE_o

      I mean I was in high school when the U.S. was threatened by the
      enormously capable and well equipped military forces of Nazi Germany and
      Japan threatened us. I fail to get hyper about a few thousand Moslems
      armed with captured or contributed American arms.

      Thank you for this remarkably sensible statement in the face of so much hysteria!

      • johnalbertson

        Right – just “a few thousand Moslems.” And how many Moslems did it take to attack the World Trade center, the Pentagon, and kill thousands?

        • JohnE_o

          Hey, if you want to live in fear, thinking a billion people are out to kill you personally, be my guest.

          But the reality of the situation is that the vast majority of Muslims really don’t give a rip about you or about destroying The West.

          • JP

            You are right. It’s only about 300 million.

          • DE-173

            “But the reality of the situation is that the vast majority of Muslims really don’t give a rip about you or about destroying The West.”
            Well if you say so, well then I’ll sleep better tonight.

        • Sarah

          Almost 12 years and many a million deaths later, the US and its NATO allies have made public their plan to start withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2014. The war in Afghanistan has been an abject failure, orphaned both on the military and the public relations fronts, with the loss of life, property, and infrastructure being colossal.

          More importantly, contrary to initial claims, the global war on terror has not made the world a safer place. Instances of terrorism have continuously been on a rise, engulfing one after another the countries neighboring Afghanistan. Lest we forget, almost all subsequent wars waged by US and NATO have had their genesis in the war that was thrust onto Afghanistan after 9/11.

          Much of America’s foreign policy since 9/11 has been based on the assumption that it was attacked by Muslims on that day. This assumption was used, most prominently, to justify the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. In fact every war fought by US and its allies during the first decade of the third millennium has been founded in the post-9/11 doctrine of preemption.

          It is now widely agreed that the use of 9/11 as a basis for attacking Iraq was illegitimate: none of the hijackers were Iraqis, there was no working relation between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, and Iraq was not behind the anthrax attacks. But it is still widely believed that the US attack on Afghanistan was justified. For more than a decade now, the corporate media around the world has consistently been forcing this fantastic narrative as an undisputable fact. It seems likely that the indoctrination will increase to new levels as spin-doctors try to justify the Afghanistan withdrawal plan and prove that the ‘war on terror’ has been a success unmatched in human history.

          The stage has been set for a massive ploy of psychological and media war to be unleashed on the unsuspecting minds of the masses. For example, as recently as in 2011, the New York Times while referring to the US attack on Iraq as a “war of choice,” called the battle in Afghanistan a “war of necessity.” Time magazine dubbed it “the right war.” And in 2009, Barack Obama was reported to have said ‘one reason to wind down our involvement in Iraq is to have the troops and resources to “go after the people in Afghanistan who actually attacked us on 9/11.”

          In 2012, after his reelection, Barack Obama was reported to have said ‘The war against terror has been won, with the main perpetrators, including Osama Bin Laden, brought to justice.’ ‘We will continue to fight Al-Qaeda on all fronts and support the cause of freedom and human rights around the world’, he added, giving us a glimpse of what the US and its NATO allies have in store for the world in general and for the Middle East in particular, in time to come.

          The assumption that America was attacked by Muslims on 9/11 lies behind the widespread perception of Islam as an inherently violent religion and therefore of Muslims as guilty until proven innocent. This perception surely contributed to attempts to portray Obama as a Muslim, which was lampooned by a controversial cartoon on the July 21, 2008, cover of The New Yorker. There has also been a steady increase in reported incidents of Islamophobia, ranging from hate speech against Muslim communities to incidents of insulting the Qur’an and the prophet of Islam.

          As could be illustrated by reference to many other post-9/11 developments, including spying, torture, extraordinary rendition, military tribunals, America’s new doctrine of preemptive war, and its enormous increase in military spending, the assumption that the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were attacked by Muslim hijackers has had enormous negative consequences for both international and US domestic issues. In light of the unfolding events it becomes essential to recap the real ‘facts’ about 9/11, which served as the pretext for the whole campaign named ‘war on terror’.

          Is it conceivable that 9/11 was not done by Muslims? Insofar as Americans and Europeans would say “No,” they would express their belief that this assumption is not merely an “assumption” but is instead based on strong evidence. When actually examined, however, the proffered evidence turns out to be remarkably weak. This can be illustrated by means of 12 questions.

          1. Were Mohamed Atta and the other hijackers devout Muslims?

          The picture of the hijackers conveyed by the 9/11 Commission is that they were devout Muslims. But this portrayal is contradicted by various newspaper stories. The San Francisco Chronicle reported that Atta and other hijackers had made “at least six trips” to Las Vegas, where they had “engaged in some decidedly un-Islamic sampling of prohibited pleasures.” These activities were “un-Islamic” because, as the head of the Islamic Foundation of Nevada pointed out: “True Muslims don’t drink, don’t gamble and don’t go to strip clubs.”

          2. Do Authorities Have Hard Evidence of Osama bin Laden’s Responsibility for 9/11?

          Mystery shrouds the character of Osama bin Laden even after his alleged death. Whatever be the truth about the devoutness of the hijackers, one might reply, there is certainly no doubt about the fact that they were acting under the guidance of Osama bin Laden. The attack on Afghanistan was based on the claim that bin Laden was behind the attacks, and the 9/11 Commission’s report was written as if there were no question about this claim. But neither the Bush administration nor the Commission provided any proof for it.

          Two weeks after 9/11, Secretary of State Colin Powell, speaking to Tim Russert on “Meet the Press,” said he expected “in the near future . . . to put out . . . a document that will describe quite clearly the evidence that we have linking [bin Laden] to this attack.” But at a press conference with President Bush the next morning, Powell reversed himself, saying that although the government had information that left no question of bin Laden’s responsibility, “most of it is classified.” According to Seymour Hersh, citing officials from both the CIA and the Department of Justice, the real reason for the reversal was a “lack of solid information.”

          It is often claimed that bin Laden’s guilt is proved by a video, reportedly found by US intelligence officers in Afghanistan in November 2001, in which bin Laden appears to accept responsibility for planning the attacks. But critics, pointing out various problems with this “confession video,” have called it a fake. General Hamid Gul, a former head of Pakistan’s ISI, said: “I think there is an Osama Bin Laden look-alike.” Actually, the man in the video is not even much of a look-alike, being heavier and darker than bin Laden, having a broader nose, wearing jewelry, and writing with his right hand. The FBI, in any case, obviously does not consider this video hard evidence of bin Laden’s responsibility for 9/11.

          Therefore, the White House, the British government, the FBI or the 9/11 Commission have not provided solid evidence that Osama bin Laden was behind 9/11.

          3. Was evidence of Muslim hijackers provided by phone calls from the airliners?

          Many readers may think that there can be no doubt that the airplanes were taken over by al-Qaeda hijackers, because their presence and actions on the planes were reported on phone calls by passengers and flight attendants, with cell phone calls playing an especially prominent role.

          The most famous of the reported calls were from CNN commentator Barbara Olson to her husband, US Solicitor General Ted Olson. According to CNN, he reported that his wife had “called him twice on a cell phone from American Airlines Flight 77,” saying that “all passengers and flight personnel, including the pilots, were herded to the back of the plane by . . . hijackers [armed with] knives and cardboard cutters.”

          Although these reported calls, as summarized by Ted Olson, did not describe the hijackers so as to suggest that they were members of al-Qaeda, such descriptions were supplied by calls from other flights which stated the hijackers to be ‘Middle Eastern-looking men’ and ‘Having an Islamic look’. From these calls, therefore, the public was informed that the hijackers looked Middle Eastern and even Islamic.

          There was, however, a big problem with these reported calls: Given the technology available in 2001, cell phone calls from airliners at altitudes of more than a few thousand feet, especially calls lasting more than a few seconds, were not possible, and yet these calls, some of which reportedly lasted a minute or more, reportedly occurred when the planes were above 30,000 or even 40,000 feet. This problem was explained by some credible people, including scientist A.K. Dewdney, who for many years had written a column for Scientific American.

          Multiple lines of evidence, therefore, imply that the cell phone calls were faked. This fact has vast implications, because it implies that all the reported calls from the planes, including those from onboard phones, were faked. Why? Because if the planes had really been taken over in surprise hijackings, no one would have been ready to make fake cell phone calls.

          4. Was the presence of hijackers proved by a radio transmission “from American 11?

          It might be objected, in reply, that this is not true, because we know that American Flight 11, at least, was hijacked, thanks to a radio transmission in which the voice of one of its hijackers is heard. According to the 9/11 Commission, the air traffic controller for this flight heard a radio transmission in which someone told the passengers: “We have some planes. Just stay quiet, and you’ll be okay. We are returning to the airport.” After quoting this transmission, the Commission wrote: “The controller told us that he then knew it was a hijacking.” Was this transmission not indeed proof that Flight 11 had been hijacked?

          It might provide such proof if we knew that, as the Commission claimed, the “transmission came from American 11.” But we do not. According to the FAA’s “Summary of Air Traffic Hijack Events,” published September 17, 2001, the transmission was “from an unknown origin.” The Commission’s claim that it came from American 11 was merely an inference. The transmission could have come from the same room from which the passenger calls originated.

          Therefore, the alleged radio transmission from Flight 11, like the alleged phone calls from the planes, provides no evidence that the planes were taken over by al-Qaeda hijackers.

          5. Did passports and a headband provide evidence that al-Qaeda operatives were on the flights?

          However, the government’s case for al-Qaeda hijackers also rested in part on claims that passports and a headband belonging to al-Qaeda operatives were found at the crash sites. But these claims are patently absurd.

          A week after the attacks, the FBI reported that a search of the streets after the destruction of the World Trade Center had discovered the passport of one of the Flight 11 hijackers, Satam al-Suqami. But this claim did not pass the giggle test. ‘The idea that this passport had escaped from that inferno unscathed,’ wrote one British reporter, ‘would test the credulity of the staunchest supporter of the FBI’s crackdown on terrorism.’

          Also found on the ground, according to the government’s evidence presented, was a red headband. This was considered evidence that al-Qaeda hijackers were on Flight 93 because they were, according to some of the phone calls, wearing red headbands. But besides being absurd for the same reason as was the claim about the passport, this claim about the headband was problematic for another reason. Former CIA agent Milt Bearden, who helped train the Mujahideen fighters in Afghanistan, has pointed out that it would have been very unlikely that members of al-Qaeda would have worn such headbands:

          The red headband is a uniquely Shi’a Muslim adornment. It is something that dates back to the formation of the Shi’a sect. . . . It represents the preparation of he who wears this red headband to sacrifice his life, to murder himself for the cause. Sunnis are by and large most of the people following Osama bin Laden and they do not do this.

          We learned shortly after the invasion of Iraq that some people in the US government did not know the difference between Shi’a and Sunni Muslims. Did such people decide that the hijackers would be described as wearing red headbands?

          6. Did the information in Atta’s luggage prove the responsibility of al-Qaeda operatives?

          The evidence that is said to provide the strongest proof that the planes had been hijacked by Mohamed Atta and other members of al-Qaeda is the two pieces of Atta’s luggage that were discovered inside the Boston airport after the attacks. The luggage was there, we were told, because although Atta was already in Boston on September 10, he and another al-Qaeda operative, Abdul al-Omari, rented a blue Nissan and drove up to Portland, Maine, and stayed overnight. They caught a commuter flight back to Boston early the next morning in time to get on American Flight 11, but Atta’s luggage did not make it.

          This luggage is said to have contained much incriminating material, including a handheld flight computer, flight simulator manuals, two videotapes about Boeing aircraft, a slide-rule flight calculator, a copy of the Koran, and Atta’s last will and testament. This material was widely taken as proof that al-Qaeda and hence Osama bin Laden were behind the 9/11 attacks. When closely examined, however, the Atta-to-Portland story loses all credibility.

          One problem is the very idea that Atta would have planned to take all these things in baggage that was to be transferred to Flight 11. What good would a flight computer and other flying aids do inside a suitcase in the plane’s luggage compartment? Why would he have planned to take his will on a plane he planned to crash into the World Trade Center?

          The biggest problem with the story, however, is that it did not appear until September 16, five days after 9/11, following the collapse of an earlier story. According to news reports immediately after 9/11, the incriminating materials, rather than being found in Atta’s luggage inside the airport, were found in a white Mitsubishi, which Atta had left in the Boston airport parking lot. Two hijackers did drive a blue Nissan to Portland and then take the commuter flight back to Boston the next morning, but their names were Adnan and Ameer Bukhari. This story fell apart on the afternoon of September 13, when it was discovered that the Bukharis, to whom authorities had reportedly been led by material in the Nissan at the Portland Jetport, had not died on 9/11: Adnan was still alive and Ameer had died the year before.

          Given this history of the Atta-to-Portland story, how can we avoid the conclusion that it was a fabrication?

          7. Were al-Qaeda operatives captured on airport security videos?

          Still another type of evidence for the claim that al-Qaeda operatives were on the planes consisted of frames from videos, purportedly taken by airport security cameras, said to show hijackers checking into airports. Shortly after the attacks, for example, photos showing Atta and al-Omari at an airport “were flashed round the world.” However, although it was widely assumed that these photos were from the airport at Boston, they were really from the airport at Portland. No photos showing Atta or any of the other alleged hijackers at Boston’s Logan Airport were ever produced. We at best have photographic evidence that Atta and al-Omari were at the Portland airport.

          Therefore, video proof that the named hijackers checked into airports on 9/11 is nonexistent.

          8. Were the names of the “hijackers” on the passenger manifests?

          What about the passenger manifests, which list all the passengers on the flights? If the alleged hijackers purchased tickets and boarded the flights, their names would have been on the manifests for these flights. The passenger manifests that were released to the public included no names of any of the 19 alleged hijackers and, in fact, no Middle Eastern names whatsoever. These manifests, therefore, support the suspicion that there were no al-Qaeda hijackers on the planes.

          9. Did DNA test identify five hijackers among the victims at the Pentagon?

          If a Boeing 757 could have traveled at 500 mph at ground level, it would have caused enormous damage to the grass and the ground, including producing substantial furrows from the low hanging engines, yet photos taken immediately after the alleged impact show the grass surface as smooth and unblemished as a putting green. The purported debris began showing up later and may have been dropped from a C-130 that was observed circling the building.

          Moreover, the lack of positive identification of the alleged hijackers in DNA tests is consistent with the autopsy report, which was released to Dr. Thomas Olmsted, who had made a FOIA request for it. Like the flight manifest for Flight 77, he revealed, this report also contains no Arab names.

          10. Has the claim that some of the “hijackers” are still alive been debunked?

          Another problem with the claim that the 19 hijackers were correctly identified on 9/11, or at least a few days later, is that some of the men on the FBI’s final list reportedly turned up alive after 9/11. On September 22, 2001, the BBC published an article by David Bamford entitled “Hijack ‘Suspect’ Alive in Morocco.” It showed that the Waleed al-Shehri identified by the FBI as one of the hijackers was still alive. The following day, September 23, the BBC published another story, “Hijack ‘Suspects’ Alive and Well.”

          11. Were bin Laden and al-Qaeda capable of orchestrating the attacks?

          For prosecutors to prove that defendants committed a crime, they must show that they had the ability (as well as the motive and opportunity) to do so. But several political and military leaders from other countries have stated that bin Laden and al-Qaeda simply could not have carried out the attacks. General Leonid Ivashov, who in 2001 was the chief of staff for the Russian armed forces, wrote:

          Only secret services and their current chiefs-or those retired but still having influence inside the state organizations-have the ability to plan, organize and conduct an operation of such magnitude . . . Osama bin Laden and “Al Qaeda” cannot be the organizers nor the performers of the September 11 attacks. They do not have the necessary organization, resources or leaders.

          Mohamed Hassanein Heikal, the former foreign minister of Egypt, wrote:

          Bin Laden does not have the capabilities for an operation of this magnitude. When I hear Bush talking about al-Qaida as if it was Nazi Germany or the communist party of the Soviet Union, I laugh because I know what is there.

          Similar statements have been made by Andreas von Bülow, the former state secretary of West Germany’s ministry of defense, by General Mirza Aslam Beg, former chief of staff of Pakistan’s army, and even General Musharraf, the president of Pakistan until recently.

          12. WTC 7: The Smoking Gun of 9/11

          Given the fact that WTC 7 was not even hit by a plane its vertical collapse at virtually free-fall speed, which was preceded by explosions and involved the melting of steel, was still more obviously an example of controlled demolition. For example, Jack Keller, emeritus professor of engineering at Utah State University, who has been given special recognition by Scientific American, said: “Obviously it was the result of controlled demolition.” Likewise, when Danny Jowenko-a controlled demolition expert in the Netherlands who had not known that WTC 7 had collapsed on 9/11-was asked to comment on a video of its collapse, he said: “They simply blew up columns, and the rest caved in afterwards. . . . It’s been imploded. . . . A team of experts did this.”

          The destruction of Building 7 of the World Trade Center had to have been an inside job.

          Conclusion

          As a decade-long phase of the war imposed on false pretenses begins to come to an end in Afghanistan, starting 2014, the question of who benefitted from 9/11 is no longer unsolved. In the last 12 years or so, the world has witnessed rich dividends reaped by USA, Western Europe and Israel on the political, diplomatic, territorial and economic fronts as a result of these wars. Afghanistan, Iraq and their Muslim neighbors have, on the other hand, been victims of violence, bloodshed and atrocities committed by the US and its NATO allies. The Western military machine has been stampeding all around the globe with its feet stained with the blood of millions of innocent Muslims.

          The official version with all its proffered evidence that America was attacked by Muslims on 9/11, when subjected to critical scrutiny, appears to have been fabricated. If that is determined indeed to be the case, the implications would be frightening. Discovering and prosecuting the true perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks would obviously be important. People’s confidence in the moral integrity and political correctness of the West would crumble. The most immediate consequence, however, would be a reversal in those attitudes and policies that have been based on the assumption that America was attacked by Muslims on 9/11.

          • JGradGus

            I was wondering how long it would be before someone from the tinfoil hat squad posted something . . .

            • DE-173

              Aluminum in the hat and lead between the ears.

      • DE-173

        It is wrong, and completely insensible.

    • GG

      “You may believe this or not, I am not defending or condoning Muslims
      behavior, merely, just merely suggesting to those who try to whip up a
      frenzy against all Muslims.”

      In a pig’s eye. You deflect, offer moral equivalence, and explain away a threat that is growing, persecuting Christians in large numbers, and destabilizing our world.

      And you offer the example of Abdallah-bin-Bayyahissued as if that is some great thing. Unbelievable.

  • I don’t know about irrational. It strikes me as being very rational if the objective is spreading Islam. It certainly has had a high success rate since the seventh century. But it is unarguably brutally violent.

  • Sarah
  • Sarah

    Almost 12 years and many a million deaths later, the US and its NATO allies have made public their plan to start withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2014. The war in Afghanistan has been an abject failure, orphaned both on the military and the public relations fronts, with the loss of life, property, and infrastructure being colossal.

    More importantly, contrary to initial claims, the global war on terror has not made the world a safer place. Instances of terrorism have continuously been on a rise, engulfing one after another the countries neighboring Afghanistan. Lest we forget, almost all subsequent wars waged by US and NATO have had their genesis in the war that was thrust onto Afghanistan after 9/11.

    Much of America’s foreign policy since 9/11 has been based on the assumption that it was attacked by Muslims on that day. This assumption was used, most prominently, to justify the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. In fact every war fought by US and its allies during the first decade of the third millennium has been founded in the post-9/11 doctrine of preemption.

    It is now widely agreed that the use of 9/11 as a basis for attacking Iraq was illegitimate: none of the hijackers were Iraqis, there was no working relation between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, and Iraq was not behind the anthrax attacks. But it is still widely believed that the US attack on Afghanistan was justified. For more than a decade now, the corporate media around the world has consistently been forcing this fantastic narrative as an undisputable fact. It seems likely that the indoctrination will increase to new levels as spin-doctors try to justify the Afghanistan withdrawal plan and prove that the ‘war on terror’ has been a success unmatched in human history.

    The stage has been set for a massive ploy of psychological and media war to be unleashed on the unsuspecting minds of the masses. For example, as recently as in 2011, the New York Times while referring to the US attack on Iraq as a “war of choice,” called the battle in Afghanistan a “war of necessity.” Time magazine dubbed it “the right war.” And in 2009, Barack Obama was reported to have said ‘one reason to wind down our involvement in Iraq is to have the troops and resources to “go after the people in Afghanistan who actually attacked us on 9/11.”

    In 2012, after his reelection, Barack Obama was reported to have said ‘The war against terror has been won, with the main perpetrators, including Osama Bin Laden, brought to justice.’ ‘We will continue to fight Al-Qaeda on all fronts and support the cause of freedom and human rights around the world’, he added, giving us a glimpse of what the US and its NATO allies have in store for the world in general and for the Middle East in particular, in time to come.

    The assumption that America was attacked by Muslims on 9/11 lies behind the widespread perception of Islam as an inherently violent religion and therefore of Muslims as guilty until proven innocent. This perception surely contributed to attempts to portray Obama as a Muslim, which was lampooned by a controversial cartoon on the July 21, 2008, cover of The New Yorker. There has also been a steady increase in reported incidents of Islamophobia, ranging from hate speech against Muslim communities to incidents of insulting the Qur’an and the prophet of Islam.

    As could be illustrated by reference to many other post-9/11 developments, including spying, torture, extraordinary rendition, military tribunals, America’s new doctrine of preemptive war, and its enormous increase in military spending, the assumption that the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were attacked by Muslim hijackers has had enormous negative consequences for both international and US domestic issues. In light of the unfolding events it becomes essential to recap the real ‘facts’ about 9/11, which served as the pretext for the whole campaign named ‘war on terror’.

    Is it conceivable that 9/11 was not done by Muslims? Insofar as Americans and Europeans would say “No,” they would express their belief that this assumption is not merely an “assumption” but is instead based on strong evidence. When actually examined, however, the proffered evidence turns out to be remarkably weak. This can be illustrated by means of 12 questions.

    1. Were Mohamed Atta and the other hijackers devout Muslims?

    The picture of the hijackers conveyed by the 9/11 Commission is that they were devout Muslims. But this portrayal is contradicted by various newspaper stories. The San Francisco Chronicle reported that Atta and other hijackers had made “at least six trips” to Las Vegas, where they had “engaged in some decidedly un-Islamic sampling of prohibited pleasures.” These activities were “un-Islamic” because, as the head of the Islamic Foundation of Nevada pointed out: “True Muslims don’t drink, don’t gamble and don’t go to strip clubs.”

    2. Do Authorities Have Hard Evidence of Osama bin Laden’s Responsibility for 9/11?

    Mystery shrouds the character of Osama bin Laden even after his alleged death. Whatever be the truth about the devoutness of the hijackers, one might reply, there is certainly no doubt about the fact that they were acting under the guidance of Osama bin Laden. The attack on Afghanistan was based on the claim that bin Laden was behind the attacks, and the 9/11 Commission’s report was written as if there were no question about this claim. But neither the Bush administration nor the Commission provided any proof for it.

    Two weeks after 9/11, Secretary of State Colin Powell, speaking to Tim Russert on “Meet the Press,” said he expected “in the near future . . . to put out . . . a document that will describe quite clearly the evidence that we have linking [bin Laden] to this attack.” But at a press conference with President Bush the next morning, Powell reversed himself, saying that although the government had information that left no question of bin Laden’s responsibility, “most of it is classified.” According to Seymour Hersh, citing officials from both the CIA and the Department of Justice, the real reason for the reversal was a “lack of solid information.”

    It is often claimed that bin Laden’s guilt is proved by a video, reportedly found by US intelligence officers in Afghanistan in November 2001, in which bin Laden appears to accept responsibility for planning the attacks. But critics, pointing out various problems with this “confession video,” have called it a fake. General Hamid Gul, a former head of Pakistan’s ISI, said: “I think there is an Osama Bin Laden look-alike.” Actually, the man in the video is not even much of a look-alike, being heavier and darker than bin Laden, having a broader nose, wearing jewelry, and writing with his right hand. The FBI, in any case, obviously does not consider this video hard evidence of bin Laden’s responsibility for 9/11.

    Therefore, the White House, the British government, the FBI or the 9/11 Commission have not provided solid evidence that Osama bin Laden was behind 9/11.

    3. Was evidence of Muslim hijackers provided by phone calls from the airliners?

    Many readers may think that there can be no doubt that the airplanes were taken over by al-Qaeda hijackers, because their presence and actions on the planes were reported on phone calls by passengers and flight attendants, with cell phone calls playing an especially prominent role.

    The most famous of the reported calls were from CNN commentator Barbara Olson to her husband, US Solicitor General Ted Olson. According to CNN, he reported that his wife had “called him twice on a cell phone from American Airlines Flight 77,” saying that “all passengers and flight personnel, including the pilots, were herded to the back of the plane by . . . hijackers [armed with] knives and cardboard cutters.”

    Although these reported calls, as summarized by Ted Olson, did not describe the hijackers so as to suggest that they were members of al-Qaeda, such descriptions were supplied by calls from other flights which stated the hijackers to be ‘Middle Eastern-looking men’ and ‘Having an Islamic look’. From these calls, therefore, the public was informed that the hijackers looked Middle Eastern and even Islamic.

    There was, however, a big problem with these reported calls: Given the technology available in 2001, cell phone calls from airliners at altitudes of more than a few thousand feet, especially calls lasting more than a few seconds, were not possible, and yet these calls, some of which reportedly lasted a minute or more, reportedly occurred when the planes were above 30,000 or even 40,000 feet. This problem was explained by some credible people, including scientist A.K. Dewdney, who for many years had written a column for Scientific American.

    Multiple lines of evidence, therefore, imply that the cell phone calls were faked. This fact has vast implications, because it implies that all the reported calls from the planes, including those from onboard phones, were faked. Why? Because if the planes had really been taken over in surprise hijackings, no one would have been ready to make fake cell phone calls.

    4. Was the presence of hijackers proved by a radio transmission “from American 11?

    It might be objected, in reply, that this is not true, because we know that American Flight 11, at least, was hijacked, thanks to a radio transmission in which the voice of one of its hijackers is heard. According to the 9/11 Commission, the air traffic controller for this flight heard a radio transmission in which someone told the passengers: “We have some planes. Just stay quiet, and you’ll be okay. We are returning to the airport.” After quoting this transmission, the Commission wrote: “The controller told us that he then knew it was a hijacking.” Was this transmission not indeed proof that Flight 11 had been hijacked?

    It might provide such proof if we knew that, as the Commission claimed, the “transmission came from American 11.” But we do not. According to the FAA’s “Summary of Air Traffic Hijack Events,” published September 17, 2001, the transmission was “from an unknown origin.” The Commission’s claim that it came from American 11 was merely an inference. The transmission could have come from the same room from which the passenger calls originated.

    Therefore, the alleged radio transmission from Flight 11, like the alleged phone calls from the planes, provides no evidence that the planes were taken over by al-Qaeda hijackers.

    5. Did passports and a headband provide evidence that al-Qaeda operatives were on the flights?

    However, the government’s case for al-Qaeda hijackers also rested in part on claims that passports and a headband belonging to al-Qaeda operatives were found at the crash sites. But these claims are patently absurd.

    A week after the attacks, the FBI reported that a search of the streets after the destruction of the World Trade Center had discovered the passport of one of the Flight 11 hijackers, Satam al-Suqami. But this claim did not pass the giggle test. ‘The idea that this passport had escaped from that inferno unscathed,’ wrote one British reporter, ‘would test the credulity of the staunchest supporter of the FBI’s crackdown on terrorism.’

    Also found on the ground, according to the government’s evidence presented, was a red headband. This was considered evidence that al-Qaeda hijackers were on Flight 93 because they were, according to some of the phone calls, wearing red headbands. But besides being absurd for the same reason as was the claim about the passport, this claim about the headband was problematic for another reason. Former CIA agent Milt Bearden, who helped train the Mujahideen fighters in Afghanistan, has pointed out that it would have been very unlikely that members of al-Qaeda would have worn such headbands:

    The red headband is a uniquely Shi’a Muslim adornment. It is something that dates back to the formation of the Shi’a sect. . . . It represents the preparation of he who wears this red headband to sacrifice his life, to murder himself for the cause. Sunnis are by and large most of the people following Osama bin Laden and they do not do this.

    We learned shortly after the invasion of Iraq that some people in the US government did not know the difference between Shi’a and Sunni Muslims. Did such people decide that the hijackers would be described as wearing red headbands?

    6. Did the information in Atta’s luggage prove the responsibility of al-Qaeda operatives?

    The evidence that is said to provide the strongest proof that the planes had been hijacked by Mohamed Atta and other members of al-Qaeda is the two pieces of Atta’s luggage that were discovered inside the Boston airport after the attacks. The luggage was there, we were told, because although Atta was already in Boston on September 10, he and another al-Qaeda operative, Abdul al-Omari, rented a blue Nissan and drove up to Portland, Maine, and stayed overnight. They caught a commuter flight back to Boston early the next morning in time to get on American Flight 11, but Atta’s luggage did not make it.

    This luggage is said to have contained much incriminating material, including a handheld flight computer, flight simulator manuals, two videotapes about Boeing aircraft, a slide-rule flight calculator, a copy of the Koran, and Atta’s last will and testament. This material was widely taken as proof that al-Qaeda and hence Osama bin Laden were behind the 9/11 attacks. When closely examined, however, the Atta-to-Portland story loses all credibility.

    One problem is the very idea that Atta would have planned to take all these things in baggage that was to be transferred to Flight 11. What good would a flight computer and other flying aids do inside a suitcase in the plane’s luggage compartment? Why would he have planned to take his will on a plane he planned to crash into the World Trade Center?

    The biggest problem with the story, however, is that it did not appear until September 16, five days after 9/11, following the collapse of an earlier story. According to news reports immediately after 9/11, the incriminating materials, rather than being found in Atta’s luggage inside the airport, were found in a white Mitsubishi, which Atta had left in the Boston airport parking lot. Two hijackers did drive a blue Nissan to Portland and then take the commuter flight back to Boston the next morning, but their names were Adnan and Ameer Bukhari. This story fell apart on the afternoon of September 13, when it was discovered that the Bukharis, to whom authorities had reportedly been led by material in the Nissan at the Portland Jetport, had not died on 9/11: Adnan was still alive and Ameer had died the year before.

    Given this history of the Atta-to-Portland story, how can we avoid the conclusion that it was a fabrication?

    7. Were al-Qaeda operatives captured on airport security videos?

    Still another type of evidence for the claim that al-Qaeda operatives were on the planes consisted of frames from videos, purportedly taken by airport security cameras, said to show hijackers checking into airports. Shortly after the attacks, for example, photos showing Atta and al-Omari at an airport “were flashed round the world.” However, although it was widely assumed that these photos were from the airport at Boston, they were really from the airport at Portland. No photos showing Atta or any of the other alleged hijackers at Boston’s Logan Airport were ever produced. We at best have photographic evidence that Atta and al-Omari were at the Portland airport.

    Therefore, video proof that the named hijackers checked into airports on 9/11 is nonexistent.

    8. Were the names of the “hijackers” on the passenger manifests?

    What about the passenger manifests, which list all the passengers on the flights? If the alleged hijackers purchased tickets and boarded the flights, their names would have been on the manifests for these flights. The passenger manifests that were released to the public included no names of any of the 19 alleged hijackers and, in fact, no Middle Eastern names whatsoever. These manifests, therefore, support the suspicion that there were no al-Qaeda hijackers on the planes.

    9. Did DNA test identify five hijackers among the victims at the Pentagon?

    If a Boeing 757 could have traveled at 500 mph at ground level, it would have caused enormous damage to the grass and the ground, including producing substantial furrows from the low hanging engines, yet photos taken immediately after the alleged impact show the grass surface as smooth and unblemished as a putting green. The purported debris began showing up later and may have been dropped from a C-130 that was observed circling the building.

    Moreover, the lack of positive identification of the alleged hijackers in DNA tests is consistent with the autopsy report, which was released to Dr. Thomas Olmsted, who had made a FOIA request for it. Like the flight manifest for Flight 77, he revealed, this report also contains no Arab names.

    10. Has the claim that some of the “hijackers” are still alive been debunked?

    Another problem with the claim that the 19 hijackers were correctly identified on 9/11, or at least a few days later, is that some of the men on the FBI’s final list reportedly turned up alive after 9/11. On September 22, 2001, the BBC published an article by David Bamford entitled “Hijack ‘Suspect’ Alive in Morocco.” It showed that the Waleed al-Shehri identified by the FBI as one of the hijackers was still alive. The following day, September 23, the BBC published another story, “Hijack ‘Suspects’ Alive and Well.”

    11. Were bin Laden and al-Qaeda capable of orchestrating the attacks?

    For prosecutors to prove that defendants committed a crime, they must show that they had the ability (as well as the motive and opportunity) to do so. But several political and military leaders from other countries have stated that bin Laden and al-Qaeda simply could not have carried out the attacks. General Leonid Ivashov, who in 2001 was the chief of staff for the Russian armed forces, wrote:

    Only secret services and their current chiefs-or those retired but still having influence inside the state organizations-have the ability to plan, organize and conduct an operation of such magnitude . . . Osama bin Laden and “Al Qaeda” cannot be the organizers nor the performers of the September 11 attacks. They do not have the necessary organization, resources or leaders.

    Mohamed Hassanein Heikal, the former foreign minister of Egypt, wrote:

    Bin Laden does not have the capabilities for an operation of this magnitude. When I hear Bush talking about al-Qaida as if it was Nazi Germany or the communist party of the Soviet Union, I laugh because I know what is there.

    Similar statements have been made by Andreas von Bülow, the former state secretary of West Germany’s ministry of defense, by General Mirza Aslam Beg, former chief of staff of Pakistan’s army, and even General Musharraf, the president of Pakistan until recently.

    12. WTC 7: The Smoking Gun of 9/11

    Given the fact that WTC 7 was not even hit by a plane its vertical collapse at virtually free-fall speed, which was preceded by explosions and involved the melting of steel, was still more obviously an example of controlled demolition. For example, Jack Keller, emeritus professor of engineering at Utah State University, who has been given special recognition by Scientific American, said: “Obviously it was the result of controlled demolition.” Likewise, when Danny Jowenko-a controlled demolition expert in the Netherlands who had not known that WTC 7 had collapsed on 9/11-was asked to comment on a video of its collapse, he said: “They simply blew up columns, and the rest caved in afterwards. . . . It’s been imploded. . . . A team of experts did this.”

    The destruction of Building 7 of the World Trade Center had to have been an inside job.

    Conclusion

    As a decade-long phase of the war imposed on false pretenses begins to come to an end in Afghanistan, starting 2014, the question of who benefitted from 9/11 is no longer unsolved. In the last 12 years or so, the world has witnessed rich dividends reaped by USA, Western Europe and Israel on the political, diplomatic, territorial and economic fronts as a result of these wars. Afghanistan, Iraq and their Muslim neighbors have, on the other hand, been victims of violence, bloodshed and atrocities committed by the US and its NATO allies. The Western military machine has been stampeding all around the globe with its feet stained with the blood of millions of innocent Muslims.

    The official version with all its proffered evidence that America was attacked by Muslims on 9/11, when subjected to critical scrutiny, appears to have been fabricated. If that is determined indeed to be the case, the implications would be frightening. Discovering and prosecuting the true perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks would obviously be important. People’s confidence in the moral integrity and political correctness of the West would crumble. The most immediate consequence, however, would be a reversal in those attitudes and policies that have been based on the assumption that America was attacked by Muslims.

  • Think the inability to call the Mohammedan religion “evil” might have anything to do with Vatican II’s teaching on ecumenism?

    • autdrew

      Yes. Some take ecumenism to the extreme. I may disagree with my Protestant brothers & sisters on this or that, but we all have a love and devotion to Christ. Buddhists generally just want to live in peace & harmony with the world and I have nothing against that. I can admire the LDS for their commitment to family & their faith (though I can wholeheartedly disagree on doctrine, it is civil). Jews mainly just want to be left alone.I think that is ecumenism. islam got thrown in their despite out 1500+ years of history with them. We treat it as just another Protestant like sect and ignore all of the past. The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. In this case, current behavior.

  • Axilleus

    Let us speak the real truth my friend: Islam was born in the seventh century on the edge of the Catholic world. It was the culmination of three centuries of heretical development that denied the Trinity and the Incarnation. It took root outside the Church and it has the book dictated by Muhammad’s angel who called himself Gabriel, so it took on the appearance of a new religion, but it is nothing more than the dark twin of the Church: the Cain to the Catholic Able and the Esau to the Catholic Jacob. We must pray for their conversion. I never hear the pope or the bishops or even but a scant few priests ever publicly pray for the conversion of the Muslim peoples and for their liberation from this dark error. Pray for them and pray for the end of this thing however it must come.

    • JohnnyCuredents

      And looking at Pope Francis’ statements regarding the desert heresy, I think we are unlikely to hear any priest or bishop anywhere urge us to pray Mohammedans be converted. The Vatican is so steeped in ahistorical irenic babble that I doubt I will read soon sensible comments from there about the odious religion concocted by Mohammed. In recent times, only Benedict’s address in Regensburg comes close to reasonable discourse by a Roman pontiff concerning Islam.

      • Axilleus

        You’re probably right. So much of the hierarchy is so immersed in worldliness right now that it will have to be one of those movements that bubbles up from the laity and those usually take time. We shall see.

        Benedict XVI didn’t even really say anything at Regensburg, yet he still got so pilloried by the Islamists and their sympathizers in the formerly Catholic world that the Vatican has just decided to shut its mouth and isn’t likely to open it again anytime soon.

  • BXVI

    The “Prophet” Muhammad was a profoundly evil man. Anyone who reads the “official” biographies of Muhammad would know what I mean. He was a warlord who committed murder, ordered assassinations, tortured people, stole the wealth of conqured tribes, took sex-slaves and allowed his warriors to do the same; demanded 20% of all booty captured by his men for himself; “married” a six-year old and consummated the marriage when she was nine; claimed that God gave him a special dispensation to take more “wives” than any other man; claimed that God gave him a revelation that he could take a nephew’s wife as his own; ordered the beheading of an entire village of 800 jewish boys and men; had hot coals heaped on the chest of a captured foe to force him to tell the location of his people’s hidden wealth; bought, sold and traded slaves. I could go on and on. He was an evil monster. And yet, he was supposedly the perfect man whom every Muslim man is supposed to emulate. Islam is evil at its core because Muhammad was an evil man who led a profoundly evil life.

  • fides249

    There is a 34-minute about the conversion of a Muslim Imam (priest) to Catholicism. Interesting that some Muslim beliefs about Jesus and Mary (Miriam) are the same as Catholics. But no wonder since Mohammed was helped by an Arian heretic monk to assemble the Holy Word of Islam, the book Koran.

    Here’s below the YouTube link:

    http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WjUXd4qW9mg&feature=youtu.be

    If cannot get linked then google ‘Mario Joseph’ (Christian adopted name of the Imam) in YouTube.

    • DE-173

      “Interesting that some Muslim beliefs about Jesus and Mary (Miriam) are the same as Catholics. ”
      What?

  • Sarah

    What’s the difference between this rabid rabbi’s incitement to genocide and Kilpatrick’s sophistical posion?

    The good Rabbi gives us all a front row seat into the Jewish “heart of darkness trip” he is on. He puts collective guilt on steroids on full display below. Even the nice Muslims he says, they are guilty for what the bad ones do.

    These Jihaddi Jews are really into the collective guilt thing, a kind of empowerment trip they are continually on. We are all Palestinians to them, and no…not nice neighbors to have.

    Thank you Rabbi. I will add you and your congregation to the reparations list for Palestine, and even 9-11. But unlike you I will not go after all Jews.

    Why bother with an innocent when there are plenty of guilty ones around to discuss extermination with, a lifetimes work in itself? Is that why Abe Foxman and AIPAC, or Rupert Murdoch even, never call us at VT?

    And one last thing Rabbi…have you ever heard of the term “negative Jewish stereotype? Have you ever wondered where the term came from? It was created by and for, people like you. Might I suggest a name change for you sir, to… “Rabbi Loon”

    __________________________________

    The Israeli Navy gunboat people wanted to be able to say they bagged a few.

    A notable American Rabbi says all Muslims are criminals, and calls for a global genocide against them. In a recent sermon, Rabbi Shalom Lewis of Congregation Etz Chaim in the Atlanta suburb of Marietta, Georgia, said Muslims were guilty and should be “exterminated.”

    The Rabbi fashioned his speech as a sequel to astonishingly racist remarks he made three years ago in which he compared Muslims to Nazis. “They are coming,” he warned at the time.

    “Three years later on this bima, on this very same day, standing at this podium, I cry out not ‘Ehr Kumpt – they are coming,’ I cry out, ‘Ehr daw – they are here’,” Lewis said. “The fury of ultimate evil is upon us and we must act – not to contain it. Not to degrade it. Not to manage it. Not to tolerate it, but to exterminate it utterly and absolutely,” he added.

    The Rabbi said that while not all Muslims were “committed Islamists” and “terrorists,” but all were guilty.

    He accused 50 million Muslims around the world of being “murderers” who “embrace terror” and are “planning to slit our throats, blow us up or forcibly convert us” to Islam.

    “But what disturbs me is, where are the other 950 million Muslims who are not terrorists? Who are not bomb-blasting, acid-throwing zealots?” the Rabbi asked.

    “A silent partnership is no partnership. Sin is not just in the act of commission – it is also in the act of omission. Most Germans were not Nazis – but it did not matter. Most Russians were not Stalinists – but it did not matter. Most Muslims are not terrorists – but it does not matter,” he added.

  • Timothy O’Donnell

    Thank you for your courage. Islam has proven to be a danger to humanity. We must pray for their conversion and raise our defenses.

  • s;vbkr0boc,klos;

    I had a bumper sticker on my car. ALL I NEED TO KNOW ABOUT ISLAM I LEARNED ON 9/11. I now have a new car…. and no bumper sticker. Sharia law IS IN EFFECT ALREADY. And enforced right here in America.

    • AnneM040359

      Yet folks like Pamela Geller is getting the truth out via the bus transportation side ads. Good job Pamela!

      • 1Indioviejo1

        Robert Spenser, a Catholic himself is the leading exponent of the Barbarous Satanic Cult called Islam which is a Totalitarian Ideology masquerading as a religion. It seems like the laity has more courage than our clergy.

  • I_M_Forman

    Dude, you’ve hit the nail on the head ! How exquisitely well put ! Thank you and thank you again.

  • Kelleiys

    In reality, the only point this group has to worry about is writing beneficial college admissions essays which will permit them to attend the college of their dreams.essaydragons research paper writing service is trusted writing provider for the students….

  • TheInformer

    Ah, well, when Bishop Robert McManus of Worcester, Massachusetts is too much of a frightened _____ that he dis-invites Robert Spencer. What do you expect?

    Cowardice is such a disgusting and dangerous vice.

  • Joe from Pittsburgh

    Dear Dr Martin,
    I follow all your columns and admire ther Chistian gentleness and humanity. But this one is out of character. Not only is this scaremongering, and dishonest picking one or two verses is not really fair, like citing only the OT on the Amalekites. more worryingly, what you and so many commenters are saying about Islam here is against Vatican II and Nosta Aetate, which means you are appoching dissent an heresey. Surely your legitimate anger at the actions of one Mulims should not lead you into error and hatred. Please good people ont let your anger lead you into dissent. Read Nostra Aetate, and pray to the Lord to tun back from
    error. An unfortunate and sad article, not your usual good on red, dr. Martin. Take care nd God bless.

    • BuddyLuv

      Thanks Dhimmi!

    • autdrew

      I believe what is unfortunate is the willingness to overlook terrorists attacks all around the world, from the 1960s to the present. The only thing they have in common is that they, themselves, say their religion compels them to make war on the unbelievers until all the world religion is allahs & that they believe in the last day. Just a short list, Berlin Olympics, Iran hostages, numerous plane hijackings in the 80s, Beirut, Lockerbie, Berlin disco bombing, Somalia, 1st WTC bombing, kidnappings and murders of aid workers or tourists in Indonesia, Embassy bombings in Africa, Khobar towers bombing, USS Cole, 9/11, Beslan,London, Spain, Bali, the murder of the soldier in London.Fort Hood, Boston, Oklahoma. But the problem is the article. Umkay

  • CharlesinCCA

    Personally, I am convinced that the tenets of Islam are both errant and aberrant. This conviction was solidified by the address given to a packed house of Roman Catholics present to take in the ecumenical wisdom of a so-called and introduced Muslim Iman deliberately invited into monthly events celebrating our parish sesquicentennial. (Initially I couldn’t believe the pastor had a clue what he was doing by orchestrating the invitation.)
    This Iman glibly outlined that “THE” prophet revealed the fulfllment of revelation appropriates the BVM and the Lord Christ as faithful Muslims, as well as the Patriarchs and Prophets (blest) of the OT. The Iman explicated a reasoning that somehow seemed very palatable to my fellow parishioners by their warm reactions. (Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme! I kept thinking to myself as I was parboiling with the contorted semantics of the Iman.) I left at intermission.
    That said, the commonality between the HRCC/Orthodox belief systems and Islam must be acknowledged: the mandate to convert the entire world population to believer status in the respective orthodoxies. In that, it must be admitted that, over time, dogmatic and revealed testimony of Christian belief also appropriated those same patriarchs and prophets to aid and abet the tenet of messianic fulfillment through Christ’s Passion, Death and Resurrection; “He descended into Hell….”
    Okay, Christianity has its eschatological end that isn’t fundamentally all that different from islam’s.
    But the problem isn’t so much the ends, but the means. Sure, adherents to both belief systems have forsaken the plow for the sword over eras repeatedly toward each other and other apsostacies. And Christians can cherry pick the red lines uttered by our Lord that serve, out of context, to justify violence against human foes as well as the enemy.
    However, when He Himself was put to the test by the finest “minds” of his human era, he unequivocally stated that every soul was bound first to love God, and second, his neighbor as if s/he were Himself (tossing in a little MT25.)
    That’s the game changer edified in many other elsewheres in the NT (I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me.)
    I am unaware of any aspect of Islam that ultimately calls for the total surrender and sacrifice that Christ called the greatest love, for which his faithful followers are martyred yet and still daily around the whole planet, most at the poisoned hearts and hands of religious fanatics who’ve twisted righteous sacrifice into irrationales for suicidal murder.
    That is not “of God.”

  • Morningstar4

    Islam–not Islamism–has very effectively insinuated itself in the west over the past generation if not earlier. Lawfare and hiding and isolation, even death, is the penalty for those brave enough to call Islam out in Western countries not in the US (though the US is not exempt). The past twenty years are achingly ripe for film-makers and story-tellers to tell myriad stories of those who are Muslim, living amongst us or in their own lands. Where are these stories? Instead (for those who haven’t given up on storytelling), we get the usual pap of feminism and multiculti triumphalism combining to defeat the usual suspects–evil Nazis and other assorted “privileged” whites who are the bane of history. Benedict and John Paul, amongst other senior Catholic spokesman (I think of, among others, Cardinal Pell), have interpreted the situation astutely. Their messages leave their powerful marks, picked up and digested by writers of our day (think, to take only a few examples, Mark Steyn, Robert Spencer, David Solway at PJ Media) who, thank the Lord, carry on their Sisyphean tasks. Before it’s too late and we or our descendants are living under Sharia and Christians in the West, not just Syria and Iraq, are being martyred, we must wake up.

  • Jcar

    Shelf life of the UsCCB? Are you nuts. You think things are not chaotic wnough? These men have navigated through some of the most turbulent waters in the history of the church in America and I may say, of the world. The fact that we still have a church is a Miracle. The gates of hell are on the move and you want to take apart what we have left of the leadership. Well, well, well. You don’t agree with their politics? Maybe that is a good quality in a leader. Doing things because you believe they are right, not popular. Is it not the point you are trying to make?

    • kentgeordie

      Bravo! It’s always good to hear a contrarian viewpoint expressed with conviction. I have to say, you are the first person I have ever heard sticking up for episcopal bureaucracies.
      But I still do not quite agree that the office of bishop is best exercised collectively. Bishops should answer to the Holy Father and to God, not to the majority vote of their conference.

      • GG

        Yea, let’s hear it for dissenters and traitors.

    • ForChristAlone

      What department of the USCCB do you “work” for? Yeah, we’ve had it with the USCCB. They accomplish nothing other than to waste the people’s money and get into bed with Big Government.

    • GG

      Too funny. The Left wing dissenters have populated that group for decades. That is not Christian. That is anti Christian.

    • DE-173

      “The fact that we still have a church is a Miracle. ”
      Now what did Belloc say about the Church existing DESPITE deficient leadership.
      You really aren’t trying to say the miracle is attributable to the USSCB, right?

  • hammar

    islam’s koran is the complete opposite of God’s Word the Bible and liberalism is the complete opposite of a moral life. You can blame other people for your habits and sins but from the Son of God’s Judgement Seat all will be held accountable. Fear God!

  • Fatima Rising

    Fatima is a Muslim name. She is a revered woman in Islam, the daughter of Mohammed.

    After the annihilation of New Babylon ‘in one day’ with victory, promised by Our Lady of Fatima, for Holy Russia, Islam will be a great force for modesty of dress for women and wholesome abstemious culture.

    Unlike the babbling Babylonians of that nation founded by evil Freemasons and secret society members Washington, Paine, Jefferson and Franklin.

    Yesterday, the US supreme court furthered sodomy….

  • Shawn

    Wow. I am surprised to see such a blatant rejection of the teachings of the church. Nostra Aetate speaks very highly of the Islamic Faith and “pleads with all to forget the past, and urges that a sincere effort be made to achieve mutual understanding; for the benefit of all men, let them [Christians and Muslims] together preserve and promote peace, liberty, social justice and moral values.”

    Also I think the Hitler analogy was spot on. We should never forget that he was a baptized and confirmed Catholic, and Germany was a Christian nation. I assure you all the atrocities carried out by Muslims today-and there are many awful things happening-but they pale in comparison with what happened during the Holocaust under the watch of a “Christian” nation.

    Oh, and let us also sight some Bible passages out of context to prove how violent Christianity is. For Christ tells us, “Do not think that I have come to bring peace upon the earth. I have come to bring not peace but the sword. For I have come to set a man ‘against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law;” Mt 10:34-35 and let us look to Christ’s example of peace… “[Jesus] found in the temple area those who sold oxen, sheep, and doves, as well as the money-changers seated there. He made a whip out of cords and drove them all out of the temple area.” Jn 2:14-15. And that does not even scratch the surface of the God sanctioned violence we can find in the Old Testament.

    The hatred and ignorance being spewed be this article is sickening as are all the supportive comments. I would expect this type of ignorance from someone like Bill Maher, but not from faithful Catholics.

  • D.A. Howard

    Having performed apologetics with hundreds of muslims, they are all the same: those muslims who take their faith seriously and murderous. Those muslims who do not are compromisers. One need only read history to see their “prophet” was a murderous as Al Qaeda.

  • veritasetgratia

    one of the most irritating aspects of misinformation being widely disseminated amongst the Catholic community is the practice of inviting secular speakers (of sociology or anthropology etc.) to come give talks on Abraham the father of Christians, Jews and Muslims. Though Abraham lived approx 1920bc and Mohamed approx 680ad, that does not seem to pose a problem to these people, and the community lap it up and it gets regurgitated in more and more Catholic circles.

  • reddog44

    As a conservative
    Lutheran, I agree 100% with what you are saying, and the world and the Church
    would be wise to heed these warnings.

    Another helpful resource is the Book entitled “Why we Left Islam”
    edited by Susan Crimp and Joel Richardson, this gives a first -hand account of
    why the problem is with Islam itself and not the radicals. The message is the same, beware!

  • Samuel

    On September 24, 2014, the United Nations passed a resolution paving the way to open-ended “anti-terror” warfare against the Islamic State (IS), the “network of death”, promising a war that will “last for years”.

    The “war on the Islamic State” is a lie. It is the same fetid Big Lie that is the “war on terrorism”, reheated and updated with new, bloodier special effects, new propaganda, a familiar but revised cast of demonic villains and a new military attack calendar.

    Three thousand lives were sacrificed on 9/11 for the fabricated “war on terrorism” against “Al-Qaeda” and Osama bin Laden. Now, thirteen years of continuous imperial onslaught and tens of thousands of deaths and atrocities later, the “Islamic State” escalation will topple Syria, Iran, transform Iraq, and provide yet another pretext to wreak havoc anywhere else the empire wishes.

    But it is the same lie, built on the same propaganda cornerstones: the myth of the “outside enemy”, the threat of “Islamic terror”, eternal pretexts to galvanize public opinion behind an Anglo-American agenda of conquest and war that will never end.

    It is the same lie, founded upon the idea that “Islamic terrorists” are enemies of the West, when, in amply documented fact, these terrorists are the West’s finest foot soldiers and military-intelligence assets.

    The Islamic State, like Al-Qaeda and all entities that comprise the “Islamic Jihad” is a creation of the CIA and Anglo-American intelligence (Pakistan’s ISI, Saudi intelligence, British MI6, the Israeli Mossad, etc.). The various jihadist militias and military-intelligence assets and fronts—IS, Al-Qaeda, Al-Nusrah, etc. are “American made”, openly supported and utilized by the United States and its allies, as they have been continuously from the Cold War to this very second. These forces are carefully manipulated and guided weapons for US-NATO. Terrorists are instrumental to the ongoing US-led covert and overt operations in Syria. Terrorists run by the US and CIA destabilized and toppled Libya, are integral to coming regime changes. Under both direct and indirect orders of US-NATO sponsors and handlers, these “demon hordes” are, and will continue to be, the leading military-intelligence assets behind every major geostrategic action in the region.

    The IS joins Al-Qaeda as today’s favorite “boogeyman” target. The war masks the true intent, which is the toppling of Syria and Iran, and onward.

    The “terrorists” are depicted in propaganda as either villains or “freedom fighters”, depending on the day and the military theater. The horrific acts of the death squads, including beheadings and other atrocities, are standard operating procedure in CIA black operations, terror techniques going back to the Vietnam War and the Phoenix Program, and are done upon orders of US and US-allied military-intelligence. Decapitations of Syrian civilians have been ongoing for years, to media silence. The recent spate of beheadings of Americans and British have been selectively carried out (and in some cases staged) for propaganda purposes. Political theater designed to galvanize the dimwitted, ignorant masses to support massive retaliatory war.

    According to recent polls, four out of five registered American voters overwhelmingly support military attacks against the Islamic State. The acquiescent, ignorant American masses, still irretrievably pacified by the propaganda “shock and fear” effect of 9/11, enthusiastically back any “retaliation” against “bad guys who cut off heads” and “threaten America”, and have no problem sending American youth to the front lines to be cannon fodder. They are “defending freedom”. The American sheeple believe—even love to believe—the Big Lie. Whereas the citizens of Hong Kong and in other countries take passionately to the streets to fight for their democracy, the average American has long abdicated his and her duty as an informed, vigilant citizen. Far too busy shooting nude selfies on handheld gadgets—their brains addled by inane entertainment, and Hollywood celebrations of the national security apparatus—to care.

    So-called liberals and progressives also back action against the Islamic State. The few who have any inkling that Islamic terror is a product of the US war machine wind up wringing their sweaty hands over the red herring of “blowback”: the tired idea that the US created but lost control of a Jihadist force that it now must contain. It is bogus. These militias are the American empire’s key foot soldiers and operatives, the leading force behind plans to topple Syria, just as they were in Libya. This is not blowback, but a well orchestrated military-intelligence operation, cloaked beneath a criminal conspiracy that is maintained by an ironclad elite consensus.

    Islamic terrorism “stops” the minute that its sponsors at CIA, MI, ISI, etc. stop using it. The war itself stops when the elites who have planned this Final Solution to seize control of the last remaining oil supplies on the planet—the very life blood of the Anglo-American empire—stop, and give up their war of conquest and greed. The entire apparatus collapses. But this will not happen in this lifetime. Not even in the event of planetary calamity.

    To threaten humanity, to pretend to wage war against boogeyman that they themselves created, and continue to support and use: only those of world class evil could conceive of and carry out this horror.

    The American network of death goose-steps to the abyss

    With each passing day, more of the Anglo-American empire’s veneer falls away, revealing the violence at its core.

    Leading the charge in front of the United Nations, the mendacious President Barack Obama thundered:

    “No God condones this terror. There can be no reasoning—no negotiation—with this brand of evil. The only language understood by killers like this is the language of force.”

    Here was a performance directly out of the playbook of the Third Reich and Bush/Cheney, brimming with threats, false morality, pseudo-religious claptrap, and invective directed against the perceived enemies. Here was Obama being who he really is, a war criminal. The ghost of Hitler has to be envious.

    No God condones deceit. No God condones the terror of the Anglo-American empire’s war of conquest. No God condones the extermination of tens of thousands of lives in more than a decade of imperial conquest for oil.

    There is no reasoning—no negotiation—with the criminal leadership of an empire that will thrash and kill to the brink of extinction. There is no reasoning—no negotiation—warmongers who have wiped out entire swaths of humanity.

    There is no reasoning—no negotiation— with an empire so desperate and out of answers thatgangsterism replaces the rule of law, and false flag operations constitute foreign policy.There is no reasoning with those who could, in the span of just a few months, set off false flag destabilizations in Syria, false flag operations in support of a neo-Nazi cabal in Ukraine, plan and cover up the false flag shootdown of Flight MH-17 (blamed on Russia), support the bombing and conquest of Gaza by Israel (blamed on Hamas, in the wake of the murder of Israeli teenagers by ISIL terrorists), and set off the “sudden” rise of the Islamic State.

    There is no reasoning—no negotiation— with an empire that must and will stop at nothing to control every inch of the Eurasian subcontinent, and destroy all opposition along the way, including potential nuclear confrontations with Russia and China.

    There is no reasoning—no negotiation— with the functionaries and enablers of this empire—in governments, in media, everywhere. There is also no reasoning—no negotiation— with the cognitively impaired sheeple.

    There is no reasoning—no negotiation— with the killers, the world planning orchestrators speaking the “language of force”; these “great men and women” who hold humanity in contempt.

    There is, indeed, no reasoning—no negotiation—with this brand of evil.

  • c matt

    The article is fine so far as it goes. But why stop at the NCCB? The Same JP II that says Islam is not a religion of redemption agrees that we worship the same God, and kissed the very Koran containing the injunctions to violence you correctly point out. There was a brief, timid call by B XVI for Islam to re-examine itself. Frankie seems to think there is nothing dialogue with Islam can’t solve. So, for all your valid criticisms of the NCCB vis-a-vis Islam, they equally apply to the recent occupants of the Roman See.

  • Rick

    Thank you Regis Martin for clarity on this subject a clarity that not even the Pope or the Bishops of our Church have the strength of faith or the courage of conviction to announce to the world. Our current Pope just elevated John Paul II to sainthood who kissed a Koran and praised the Islamic religion as one that worships the same God as the Catholic Church, that is also stated the the new Catechism. Our Church is a mess. We need a Trent II but I don’t known if we have the leadership to do it. I can think of only a few Cardinals and Bishops that have the courage to lead the Church in this chaos. God help us, because the Lavander Mafia we have leading the Church now are not the shepherds we need right now, but they are the leaders the Church deserves at this time. Maybe Cardinal Burke can modernize and reactivate the Knights of Malta (Hospitallers) because we need them. Their horses will be Pavlov helecopters and their swords will be replaced with M-4’s and SAWs.

  • Richardson McPhillips

    In fairness to ‘moderate Muslims’, I think that when the Koran talks about killing infidels and unbelievers, it does not mean faithful Jews and Christians. Of course this might constitute throwing Hindus and everyone else under the bus….

    • autdrew

      Actually it does. It allows Jews & Christians the option of living as dhimmi, less than 3rd class citizens. They must pay the jizya tax on their knees and feel themselves humiliated. There are all sorts of laws the dhimmi must follow, such as special dress codes, not being allowed to ride horses, no bells on churches, requiring the state’s permission to improve or rebuild a church. They believe in collective punishment so if one member of your Christian town insults a muslim or mo, they are all in for potential punishment, up to and including massacre. This happened recently in Egypt. If you could not pay your taxes, you could be sold into slavery. Of course all of this could stop if you just convert. The nice verses re the “People of the Book” are abrogated by later verses calling for their treatment as described. The Hindus, OTOH, were not even given that. They are polytheists and therefore, not People of the Book. I highly recommend the book “The Legacy of Jihad” edited by Dr. Andrew Bostom. It is a compilation of first hand accounts of both the jihadists and the victims, translated and compiled without much commentary. The section on the conquest of the Indian subcontinent is so awful that I can only read it in small bits.

  • Maria Gabriela Salvarrey Rodri

    “It will take heaps of grace to move that discussion along. The grace of conversion.” Exactly! Why don’t we stop dialoguing so as to coexist and start evangelizing so as to convert. That is what St. Francis wanted to do.

  • Jeff

    “…it cannot finally satisfy because such a God, “is ultimately a God outside of the world, a God who is only Majesty, never Emmanuel, God-with-us. Islam is not a religion of redemption”

    As opposed to the god inside the world who commanded in Deuteronomy 13:8-10 – “Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hear him, neither shall thine eye pity him, nor show mercy, nor keep him secret:
    But thou shalt even kill him: thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and then the hands of the people.
    And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die…

    What was the sin of this person who was to be so mercilessly slaughtered? Promoting another religion besides the worship of the ever-loving Yahweh.
    Face it, Islam is a religion whose holy book preaches savagery and still practices savagery – Judaism and Christianity are religions whose holy books preach savagery but have ceased to practice it (the followers of the Prince of Peace after approximately 1750 years of butchering each other like hogs in a slaughterhouse) because they realize that secular civilization is vastly superior to a Bible-based tyranny. There are literary and cultural differences between Yahweh and Allah, but there are NO moral differences. Jesus accepted without question the barbaric character of his ‘father in heaven’, so as long as Christians wish to link their savior to the god of the Old Testament, any redemptive intent on his part was merely a bribe to a monster.
    May future generations have the wisdom to flush all of these desert demons back to the sewer from which they came.

    • Desert Sun Art

      This pertains to someone who is trying to lead someone away from God. Not to someone who simply believes differently and is minding their own business. It would have been considered devious for someone, and still is devious, to knowingly try to lure another away from the One, True God. Islam, OTOH, orders the slaying of unbelievers-simply because they are unbelievers-regardless of whether they are trying to win others away from Islam.

  • Sarah

    I have read or heard countless of analysts in the last few weeks discussing the war on Islamic State (IS).

    Unquestionably, putting an end to IS is a step in the right direction. But if anyone has the delusion that defeating IS militarily is the answer, I suggest they take a look at Afghanistan and Waziristan in Pakistan.

    After more than a decade of war and bombardment, the “defeated” Taliban has expanded into Pakistan while Al Qaeda sprouted in Iraq, Libya and now in Syria. The killing of Bin Laden brought us Al Baghdadi, the self-proclaimed new Muslim Caliph.

    The powers that helped the Taliban and Al Qaeda to fight the Soviets, and then used Israeli lies to destroy Iraq, are unqualified to put an end to IS.

    Instead of air strikes, the international community must first consider drying the swamp that allows IS to flourish.

    IS is the product of regional politics and foreign invasions combined with US and Western powers’ unchecked diplomatic and financial support for the “Jewish State” (JS). IS flourishes thanks to Western pandering of JS as an exceptionalist state beyond reproach, defying UN resolutions with complete impunity.

    For the majority of people in the Arab and Muslim world, there is no difference between a dagger held to the neck of innocent Westerners by an IS member or a blown-up brain of a six-month-old baby by American-made JS planes.

    The JS slaughter of innocents, the continued starvation diet imposed on women and children in Gaza, the appropriation of Muslim and Christian properties in the holy city of Jerusalem and land confiscation in the West Bank to benefit “Jewish only” colonies are lifelines for IS.

    IS exploits peoples’ anger to recruit frustrated young men and women, aiming to establish a utopian religious state, just as the Zionists have done.

    How could the West accept JS’s claim of a special covenant with a god to displace non-Jews from their homes, but deny IS the right to claim the same with their god? IS and JS are two states proclaiming monopoly over the absolute truth to justify the most abhorrent acts in the name of God.

    Western support for JS while it condemns IS must stem from hypocrisy, racism or both.

    While almost everyone knows about IS’s crimes and self-righteous interpretation of religion, JS’s crimes are sanitised and very few are exposed to its pretentious monopoly on God.

    In the JS, the late chief rabbi Ovadi Yosef, founder of a major Israeli party, proclaimed once that Israel’s god created non-Jews for the sole purpose of serving “the People of Israel”. He went further in a religious sermon to explain that gentiles were like “one’s donkey”, they live to work and plough so a Jew can “sit like an effendi”.

    About killing Palestinians, the Israeli chief rabbi said: “It is forbidden to be merciful to them. You must send missiles to them and annihilate them. They are evil and damnable.”

    Explaining Hurricane Katrina in the US, Yosef blamed the disaster on African Americans’ lack of “enough Torah study”.

    “Black people reside there… (God said) let’s bring a tsunami and drown them,” he said.

    This is the philosophy of a highly decorated Jewish authority in JS, Talmudic scholar and a spiritual leader for the closed club of the “effendi” chosen race.

    Muslim scholars have joined forces to unequivocally condemn IS acts. But where are the Jewish and Western voices to condemn JS excesses against Christian and Muslim Palestinians?

    War might force IS to retreat, but the jihadists’ idea will grow for as long as the US continues supplying oxygen to regenerate bacteria in a cesspool replenished by Western double standards. IS and JS share the same philosophy, the only difference is point of reference.

  • lambchowder

    “Why has it become so maddeningly difficult to make judgments about other people?”
    Because people who are tempted to do so seldom if ever use an objective, dispassionate method of doing so, and so have to be kept in check before their bad ideas affect public policy.

    “About the actions especially of people who want to kill us?”
    Gross oversimplification

    “Is it too much of a stretch to imagine bearded men who bellow “Allahu Akbar!” (that blood-curdling “God is the Greatest!” jihadist jingle), just moments before blowing up busloads of women and children, as being animated by a passion for radical Islam? ”
    Usually they say this when they kill a tank load of imperialist invaders, but taking the least charitable view is ok if it suits your purposes. At least you said radical Islam, although its mostly reactionary Islam.

    “Yet such is the mindset of so many opinion-makers in the media today that they simply will not make the connection.”

    The mindset of so many pundits is not to make the distinction between radical and moderate.

    This is a very snippy, unappealing blog

    • autdrew

      I’m sorry, but the victims of the Bali bombings, for instance, were imperialist invaders? Funny, they thought they were tourists smdh

  • Tony Phillips

    I can see how Hitler might have been a ‘Bavarian Ex-Paper-Hanger’, but not an ‘Ex-Bavarian Paper-Hanger’. Can anyone become an ‘Ex-Bavarian’? Especially Hitler, who came from Austria.

    • Sarah

      Bali was a false-flag operation.

  • Jonathan Quist

    Absolute fear mongering, anyone who talks about Islam as a monolithic entity has no idea what they are talking about. One thing that Islamists have right is that America IS the great Satan and has corrupted Christianity and the Western Tradition, which is a far greater evil than embracing another false tradition. The corruption of the best is always the worst.

    • Sarah

      Excellent, Jonathan! It’s like praying in a whorehouse to be on this blog, it’s so full of demonic tribal hatred. That these people call themselves followers of Christ is a sick joke.

  • AnneM040359

    Excellent article! Thank-you and God Bless!

  • Wendell Clanton

    “Can we honestly hold dialogue with these people (muslims)?”—Nope.

MENU