The Reporting of Information of Events associated with Islam

​

 

There was once a civilized country named France!


​

 

Finland's Multicultural Left

​

 

​

 

​

 

The Council of Thuban Tony Bermanseder

Why did a country like Sweden with a 800 year plus history suddenly transform itself from being proud of its Viking roots and northern mythology into a self-questioning culture in the 1930?
And what was likewise occurring around the western world now trapped in the claws of political correctness and 'white male culture' hating feminism?
What is the difference between a matriarchial 'dont hurt my feelings' tyranny and a patriarchial 'protect my place, family and country' form of jurisprudence?
It was the 'women vote' to create an emotion based form of government, rather than one based on logic and rationality.

​

David M. Rountree shared L'Aura Njghs's post.

12 hrs ·

Here is why liberals shouldn't be allowed to vote. A reflection of the success of the liberal education system in America. Meet our future leaders.



L'Aura Njghs
13 hrs ·

LMAO! Ya gotta watch this!!


Trump's Sons Kill a Triceratops on Hunting Safari - Liberals Believe, And They're Very Upset



Donald Trump's two sons, Donald Jr. and Eric, have killed a Triceratops, and other Dinosaurs on a…
Share
youtube.com

 

ISIS's First Step: Conquer Rome, Defeat Christianity


ROME -- The Islamic State has a plan to conquer Rome. Yes, it might sound crazy, but ISIS believes the conquest of Rome is central to its mission.
They believe it is necessary to fulfill what Islam teaches was the prophecy of Muhammed and to prepare the return of the Muslim messiah: the Mahdi.



http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2015/October/ISISs-First-Step-Conquering-Rome-Defeat-Christianity

"ISIS thinks that Rome is one of its primary goals and is in its timetable," Robert Spencer, author of The Complete Infidel's Guide to ISIS, said.
"It has a timetable where in the 10 years, by the year 2025, it hopes to bring about Armageddon, the final struggle between good and evil or between the Muslims and the non-Muslims," he explained. "And that one of the chief stepping stones to that Armageddon battle is the conquest of Rome, which they think they're going to be able to do with the next five years, by 2020."


Two Cities, One Mission

Muslim scholars say Muhammed prophesied that the two great Roman cities would be conquered: Constantinople and Rome. Constantinople is now Istanbul, a Muslim city.
Rome remains to be conquered.
"Once Rome is conquered, in this view, within the next five years, then Israel will follow shortly after. They also believe that during this time period they're also going to conquer Saudi Arabia and Iran," Spencer said.

Now, before you laugh, consider that phase one of the Islamic State's plan to take Rome may already be underway: flooding Europe with ISIS fighters under the cover of the current refugee crisis.
"They're not talking about doing it by conventional armies; they're talking about doing (it) by overwhelming these lands with sympathizers from within, and in influx of people from outside," Spencer said.
"And that's something we see happening right now in Europe. And so it's not that far outside of the realm of possibility that they could at least make these attempts," he continued.
The Islamic State reveals part of its plan in its publication "Black Flags From Rome." It will use sleeper cells and expects to get help from Muslims serving in European armies and from non-Muslim sympathizers.
It also wants to fire missiles into Italy that it has captured on the battlefield.


Islamic Armageddon

This is a threat that is hard for Italian and foreign policy expert Emaneule Ottolenghi to be concerned about. He said Europe has more pressing problems because of ISIS.
"The concern should be commensurate to the reality of the threat," he said. "The Islamic threat does not pose that kind of threat today. My main concern is with the lone wolf terrorist who plots a terror outrage against a school, against a supermarket, against a shopping mall, against an airport."
And it certainly is hard to see how ISIS could conquer Rome, a city of 3 million people in a nation of 60 million people. But it is not hard to see ISIS attempting it.
The conquest of Rome has been a primary goal since the beginning of the Islamic State.
"They think that the conquest of Rome will be the complete sign of Islam's superiority over Christianity and defeat of Christianity," Spencer said.
They also see the fall of Rome on an eschatological timeline that will culminate in a battle against the infidel armies near Dabiq, Syria; their version of Armageddon, according to Spencer.
"And they think that once this battle takes place at Dabiq, this final battle which they see coming 10 years from now 2025, then the Muslims will battle the non-Muslims in this town in northern Syria," Spencer said.

"And then Jesus, the Muslim prophet, and Mahdi will return to the Earth, and they will together conquer and Islamize the world," he said.


Celebration by Killing

If their plan for Rome succeeds, ISIS says it will throw homosexuals from the top of the leaning tower of Pisa.
But the main event, as they see it, will be the beheading of the Pope in St. Peter's Square, broadcast and live-streamed to a horrified international audience.
Spencer said a member of ISIS recently said "'Once we take Rome we are going to carry out mass beheadings in St. Peter's Square."
"And so this is the plan, to convert St Peter's Square into a huge site of executions to people judged to be enemies of Allah, chief among them the Pope, in order to cow and frighten the rest of the world into submitting to their rule," Spencer said.
It's a plan that, for now, has little chance of success.

But in his new book, The ISIS Apocalypse, author and expert William McCants says ISIS has recently taken a longer term view of the conquest of Rome and the return of the Mahdi, and is willing to wait in order to build up its forces.
ISIS is now next door to Italy in North Africa. More importantly, Islamic State fighters are reportedly already inside Italy, some posing as refugees, going about their lives, waiting for the day when the battle for Rome begins.



Well dumbass, feel free to open the Vatican's Gates to all the refugees from the Middle East you can.


Fox News
22 hrs ·
Pope Francis said each refugee "has a name, a face and a story, as well as an inalienable right to live in peace and to aspire to a better future" for their children.
Pope: welcoming refugees helps keeps us safe from terrorism

Published September 17, 2016
Associated Press
Facebook0 Twitter0 Email Print

VATICAN CITY – Pope Francis has encouraged Europeans to welcome refugees, calling authentic hospitality "our greatest security against hateful acts of terrorism."
Francis Saturday spoke to alumni of Jesuit schools in Europe who were in Rome for a conference on refugees.
The pope said: "I encourage you to welcome refugees into your homes and communities, so that their first experience of Europe is not the traumatic experience of sleeping cold on the streets, but one of warm welcome."
Telling his audience that more than 65 million persons are forcibly displaced around the world, he advised going "beyond mere statistics."
He said each refugee "has a name, a face and a story, as well as an inalienable right to live in peace and to aspire to a better future" for their children.


Pope: Welcoming Refugees Helps Keeps Us Safe From Terrorism
Francis Saturday spoke to alumni of Jesuit schools in Europe who were in Rome for a conference on refugees.
foxnews.com



Comments



Judy Conklin They do - in their own country!!!




Tony Bermanseder

The islamic eschatology describes its timeline to conquer Rome in 2020. The popes head will be in jeopardy then, according to to islamist 'scholars' of the 'Malhama' as the 'times of the end'.

​

 

Australia’s PM warns against “seeking to demonize or denigrate all Muslims”

September 17, 2016 2:06 pm By Robert Spencer 71 Comments

Turnbull is repeating a common Leftist/Islamic supremacist talking point: that to discuss how jihadis use the texts and teachings of Islam to justify violence and make recruits among peaceful Muslims is “tagging all Muslims with the crimes of a few.” Turnbull also doubtless has in mind Trump’s proposed moratorium on Muslim immigration, which in the Left’s view is punishing all Muslims for the crimes of a few, although no one has come up with any plan for distinguishing jihadis from peaceful Muslims.

Turnbull also repeats another increasingly common talking point when he says: “Seeking to demonize or denigrate all Muslims or seek to alienate all Muslims and suggest they’re somehow not part of Australia, or shouldn’t be in Australia, is exactly what the extremists and terrorists are saying to the Muslim community.”
No one is actually seeking to demonize or denigrate all Muslims. I’ve been accused for years of saying that all Muslims are terrorists or terror sympathizers; no one has yet produced a quote from me to substantiate this claim, but it is nonetheless often made, because the claim itself is actually an attempt to discredit foes of jihad terror.
But Turnbull’s talking point here is that to speak honestly about the jihad threat is “playing into the hands” of jihadis. The idea is that saying that Muslims shouldn’t be in Australia will make Muslims who are in Australia think they’re not welcome, and lead them to join terror groups. It doesn’t seem to occur to Turnbull that if that is really what they would do, then they didn’t really have much of a problem with the terror groups in the first place — and that itself is problematic.

Turnbull’s formulation of this point is just a slightly more sophisticated version of what London Mayor Sadiq Khan said: “We play straight into the hands of those who seek to divide us, of extremists and terrorists around the world, when we imply that it is not possible to hold Western values and to be a Muslim.” Khan’s statement assumes that Muslims will be more likely to join jihad terror groups because of what we say and don’t say, and so does Turnbull’s. In Turnbull’s world, as in Khan’s, we have to watch what we say, because saying the wrong thing will drive Muslims to jihad. It’s all up to us. The idea that Muslims might join jihad groups for reasons of their own that have nothing to do with what we do or don’t do doesn’t occur to them. It’s always the Infidel’s fault, and the Infidel’s responsibility.



“Aussie PM warns colleagues against ‘demonizing’ Muslim-Australians in Parliament,” Xinhua, September 16, 2016 (thanks to Lookmann):

CANBERRA, Sept. 16 (Xinhua) — Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has warned Parliamentary colleagues that going out of their way to ostracize Muslims is ‘playing into the hands’ of extremist terror groups such as Islamic State (IS)….
“Tagging all Muslims with the crimes of a few is fundamentally wrong and it’s also counter-productive,” Turnbull told Macquarie Radio on Friday.
“Seeking to demonize or denigrate all Muslims or seek to alienate all Muslims and suggest they’re somehow not part of Australia, or shouldn’t be in Australia, is exactly what the extremists and terrorists are saying to the Muslim community.”

Turnbull’s comments come after controversial One Nation Senator Pauline Hanson took aim at Australia’s immigration policy. she called for a ban on Muslin immigration to Australia as the nation is at risk of being “swamped” by those of Islamic faith.
She was later joined by lower House MP George Christensen who questioned why some factions of the Islamic society are hesitant to embrace “Australian vales”.
“Why did they choose to come to Australia in the first place?” Christensen said in Parliament on Thursday.
“It is not necessary to travel halfway around the world to come to Australia and demand that Australians change their culture, their society and their laws to match those of their former homeland.”…
“We are the most successful multi-cultural society in the world, Australian Muslims are part of that successful multicultural society,” Turnbull told Macquarie Radio on Friday.


Reza Aslan claims that since 2002, right-wing terrorists have killed far more Americans than Islamic terrorists
Muslim who slashed NY cop with meat cleaver was deemed "not a terror threat" after screaming "Allahu akbar" outside synagogue

 

Hugh Fitzgerald: In Erdogan’s Turkey, Kemalism is Temporary, Islam is Forever

August 1, 2016 2:17 pm By Hugh Fitzgerald 36 Comments



The Ottoman Empire, the Sick Man of Europe in the nineteenth century, finally was put out of its misery by military defeat in World War I, to be replaced by the enlightened despotism of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, a war hero at Gallipoli, who established a provisional government in Ankara as the head of the Turkish National Movement, and successfully thwarted the Allies who had threatened to move on the Turkish heartland in Anatolia.

Ataturk systematically instituted political, economic, and cultural reforms, to create a modern, secular, nation-state in what was left to the Turks – Anatolia and the sliver of European Turkey — after the Ottoman Empire dissolved. Ataturk’s reputation as a hero of the fighting in the Dardanelles made it possible for him to impose his vision of a post-Ottoman Turkey. And because the Turkish defeat in the Great War so incontrovertibly revealed the weakness of the Ottoman state, the reforms that he pushed to modernize and secularize the Turkish state, even though revolutionary in the Muslim context, were also hard to oppose. His first important secular act was the dissolution of the Caliphate in March 1924. This was a tremendous blow to Islam, but non-Turkish Muslims were in no position to force a secularizing Turkish leader to maintain the Caliphate, and in any case, the Arabs in the Middle East – remember Lawrence of Arabia? – had, thanks to the help of the British, just removed their Turkish overlords in Arabia, Syria, and Iraq, and certainly would not miss Turkish rule. Ataturk and his associates wanted to make sure that, as a contemporary account put it, “the Turkish nation would be absolute master in its own house, and […] it should retain neither pretensions nor liabilities outside what it regards as the proper boundaries of its own ‘national home.’”
Ataturk lost no time in constructing the new, republican and secular Turkish polity that would replace the collapsing Ottoman regime. This new polity depended for its legitimacy on how well it reflected the will of the people, expressed through the ballot box, rather than, as orthodox Islam demanded, the will of Allah as expressed in the Qur’an. Turks were no longer subjects of a Sultan, but citizens of a republic. Offices were no longer hereditary, but won through elections. The Sharia was abandoned as the source of all law. The Sharia law codes were replaced, by adapting European laws and jurisprudence to meet the needs of the new republic. Civil laws were now based on the civil code of Switzerland, the Turkish penal code now modeled on that of Italy, and business laws based on the German model.

A major part of Ataturk’s program was to give women full civil and political rights, in direct defiance of the subordinate role they had under the Sharia. He managed to do this by degrees, first giving them the right to vote in local elections in 1930, and then in 1934, giving them the right to vote in all elections. Universal suffrage was thus instituted in Kemalist Turkey even before it came to some states in Western Europe, such as Switzerland. The rules of inheritance were changed from that mandated in the Sharia, so that women could now inherit equally with men. The wearing of the hijab was discouraged, though not forbidden outright. Polygamy was banned. Coeducation was introduced in all the state schools, and girls were subject to the same rules for compulsory education as boys.

Above all, Ataturk made secular education a priority. Thousands of schools were built, primary education made free and compulsory, open to both girls and boys, and the contents of the curriculum made determinedly secular. Existing universities were expanded; new ones were built. These tended to be, and have remained right up to the present day, centers of Turkish secularism. Madrassas lost much of their former importance, as the expansion of the network of free state schools and academic high schools offered a more attractive alternative.

Everywhere he could, Ataturk tried to limit the power of Islam. He ordered the dissolution of the Sufi orders. He had religious headgear and regalia banned outright, including the fez, the turban, and the veil (see the Hat Act of 1925), all connected to the earlier Ottoman order. He could not have dared to suppress religion outright, but he wanted to apply the French principle of laicite as his model of modernity: mosque and state would be kept as separate as possible. Non-Muslims were given the same civil and political rights as Muslims. But in order to make sure that this separation of mosque and state stuck, Ataturk paradoxically had to inject the state into religious affairs by monitoring the mosques. He especially wanted to make sure that the khutbahs, often highly charged political sermons given during Friday Prayers, were vetted in advance by the secular authorities. He had the Qur’an, together with a tafsir or commentary, translated into Turkish. This had two consequences: first, it undercut the “Arab supremacism” inherent in Islam (non-Arabs had been taught that the only valid version of the Qur’an was that in Arabic) and second, the Turkish version of the Qur’an, and the tafsir that supplied an interpretive gloss on the text, resulted in a version not quite as violent as the Arabic original.

Instead of ignoring or dismissing, as Muslims are taught to do, the pre-Islamic period of Turkish history as of little or no interest, being from the Time of Ignorance, or Jahiliyya, Ataturk encouraged the collection and study of pre-Islamic artifacts in Anatolia, as part of creating a national narrative that included the pre-Islamic peoples. This, too, constituted part of Ataturk’s breaking with Islamic tradition. And in a kind of replacement theology, the cult of “the Turk” replaced that of Muslims as “the best of peoples,” and the cult of Ataturk replaced that of Muhammad.

Ataturk was himself a military man, and the Turkish army became the protector of Kemalism whenever it appeared to be threatened. Despite the conservative (i.e., Islamic) nature of much of the Turkish population, any government that moved away from Kemalism would face the threat of a coup by the generals. And they meant business: after one coup in 1950, a prime minister was hanged. And right up to the time of Erdogan, the triumph of Kemalism seemed complete – not only to the Turkish secularists who now ran the universities and peopled the media, but to the Western governments that regarded Turkey as a staunch member of NATO, and whose generals would meet like-minded Turkish generals, often at the Defense Ministry in Ankara, just as Western journalists and academics would meet their Turkish counterparts, also deep believers in the changes wrought by Ataturk and his epigones. It seemed obvious that Kemalism was there to stay. These Western generals, journalists, academics, did not meet with, were scarcely aware of, that other Turkey, of farmers in the countryside, and the rural poor who had migrated to cities, and even a conservative Islamist middle class, the “silent majority” who were devout Muslims unreconciled to Kemalism, but still lacked a champion who could maneuver around the generals.

That champion was Erdogan. In 1997, he famously declared – and was jailed for ten months for doing so – that “the mosques are our barracks, and the minaret is our bayonet.” That prison sentence turned Erdogan into a martyr, and six years later, with his AKP Islamist party victorious, he was appointed Prime Minister. In 2003, the generals still held a great deal of power. But Erdogan, a devout Muslim, had clear ambitions to unravel Kemalism, slowly but systematically. He cleverly exploited Turkey’s candidacy to join the E.U., which required limiting the power of the Turkish military, doing so ostensibly to meet the requirements of the E.U., but in fact to make it harder for the military to oppose his anti-Kemalist campaign. Historians will shake their heads at the heedlessness of the European powers, who treated these limits on the Turkish military as a welcome “move toward greater democracy,” failing to understand that in the Turkish context, the military defenders of Kemalism were the only ones who could prevent a backslide into Islam. He moved slowly, at first, mainly by filling the state institutions with his own men, removing many from the officer corps, firing or intimidating journalists, treating all those who opposed him and his party as enemies of the state who might be fined, or summarily discharged, or even jailed.

Erdogan has managed – slowly, stealthily — to have 17,000 new mosques built by the government since he first came to power. What particularly has alarmed secularists is the giant mosque the government is now building, more than 150,000 square feet in size, high on a hill on the Asian side of the Bosphorus. Muslims have always believed that an imposing physical presence for mosques helps to impose their message as well, and as is well known, under Muslim rule Christians and Jews were forbidden to build their houses of worship higher than any nearby mosques. He has accelerated, since the attempted coup last month, his determination to root out all secularists from the army, the media, and the educational establishment. A decade ago, Turkish generals would not promote to the upper ranks of the military those who were judged to be “too devout.” Now those generals have been cashiered, and some are to be tried as traitors, while officers who support Erdogan have been put in their place. been reversed.

In 2013 Erdogan ended the ban on the wearing of the hijab in the civil service jobs and government offices, including universities. He has publicly insisted that women are “to be treated differently from men” because of their physical weakness. Several of his closest advisors have two wives; one of them – Ali Yuksal — has four. Apparently the official ban on polygamy – admittedly never fully enforced in the countryside – is being flouted at the highest levels of government.
Above all, Erdogan has reintroduced much more religious content to Turkish schools. His government was aiming, he said in February 2012, at “raising pious generations.” Beginning that month, his government embarked on a wholesale reform designed to Islamize Turkey’s education system. In the regular state schools, the amount of time now given to religious instruction has steadily increased. But even more important than that has been the way that the enrollment in the imam-hatip schools, which were originally intended to prepare imams and preachers for Turkey’s mosques, has steadily grown. These imam-hatip schools provide 13 hours of Islamic instruction each week along with the regular curriculum. Here is how, according to Svante E. Cornell, Erdogan managed to triple the enrollment of the imam-hatip, or religious, schools:


The reforms [by Erdogan] turned “religious schools from a selective option to a central institution in the education system.” This is the case because the reforms introduced entrance examinations for all high schools except the imam-hatip schools. Thus, all students who do not qualify for other schools would have no choice but to enroll in religious schools.
In August 2013, over 1,112,000 students took the placement test for 363,000 slots in regular, academic high schools. Those that did not make the cut had to choose between secular vocational schools, imam-hatip schools, and a variety called “multi-program high schools”. But the latter are only available in remote areas, and do not even exist in the entire province of Istanbul. In other words, parents and students were forced to choose between vocational schools and religious schools. As a result, 40,000 students were automatically enrolled in imam-hatip schools against their will, including numerous Alevi and Armenian students, neither of whom are Sunni Muslims
When the AKP was first elected in 2002, 65,000 students studied in imam-hatip schools. That number grew to 658,000 in 2013. In May 2015, Bilal Erdoğan, the President’s son, who is (informally) in charge of the Türgev foundation that is spearheading the expansion of imam-hatip schools, announced that the number of students had reached one million.


Erdogan thus managed, by cleverly manipulating the requirements for each category of school, to expand the number of imam-hatip graduates from 65,000 to one million. It’s an astonishing feat, and for those who remain loyal to Kemalism, deeply frightening.
The coup that was just crushed, with Erdogan supporters coming out on the street, and the subsequent roundup of tens of thousands of coup-supporters, suggest that the power of Erdogan and his party, to continue their evisceration of the military, the educational establishment (especially university faculties), and the media, cannot be stopped. Almost every other day thousands of new arrests and new discharges (especially from the army’s officer corps) are announced. And the re-Islamisation continues as well.

What did the failure of the coup signify?

Some have suggested that the coup’s failure was solely the result of the coup plotters being unused to the age of social media. In the past, an old fashioned coup only required army tanks to take over the television stations and a few government offices, and then broadcast to an easily-intimidated population news of their seizure of power. Now the proliferation of social media makes that impossible, for one can go to Facebook or Twitter to discover a competing narrative, or be called on to go out into the streets to support the supposedly overthrown regime – which is exactly what happened.

But it was not only a failure of tactics, but of understanding how far Erdogan and the AKP have moved Turkey, with the support of many Turks, away from Kemalism and away from its former alliance with the West. An early sign of this was when the Turkish Parliament refused the American military permission to deploy the 4^th infantry into northern Iraq in 2003, which shocked American officials who had been used to dealing with a loyal member of NATO. Disturbing to American officials, too, has been the extraordinary popularity in Turkey of the two movies Valley of the Wolves: Iraq and Valley of the Wolves: Palestine, the first full of anti-American and anti-Semitic conspiracy theorizing, the second a similar hate-filled tale of brave Turks taking revenge on a villainous Israeli general who supposedly ordered the attack on the Mavi Marmara. Israel, once a partner of Turkey, has under Erdogan become the object of sustained vilification: in July 2014, Erdogan appeared before the lawmakers in Parliament wearing a Palestinian scarf and accusing Israel of having “surpassed Hitler in barbarism.”

Many more, and much bigger mosques, more than a million students in the imam-hatip schools, hijabs and veils back in vogue, polygamy practiced among the President’s cronies, conspiracy-theorizing movies about the Americans and Israelis, demonstrations by pro-Erdogan civilians at the Incirlik air base and 7,000 Turkish military police who have surrounded that American base and briefly blocked all access – all this suggests that Turkey is returning to its inner essential Islam, and that there is nothing the West can do about it. Just as the “real” Iran turned out to be not that of the secularizing Shah, but that of Khomeini and his successors, the “real” Turkey turns out to be not that, as many so mistakenly assumed for so long, of Ataturk and Kemalism, but rather that of Erdogan, and orthodox Islam.

Like the Kemalists, Erdogan has used the domestic intelligence agency MIT to eliminate his critics, giving it nearly unlimited powers, so that it can wiretap telephone conversations and access the data of government agencies and companies without court order. Erdogan’s political opponents are treated as enemies of the state. Journalists who are critical of him or his government have been arrested or fired. Every day brings more news of the firing or transferal to other posts of judges, prosecutors, and police officers. Social media is repeatedly blocked. The latest coup attempt has given Erdogan the excuse he needed to engage in a full-scale purge of the Turkish military which, some have pointed out, will weaken the army at a time of great turmoil all around Turkey’s neighborhood.

“The mosques are our barracks, and the minaret is our bayonet.” That sentence earned Erdogan a prison sentence in 2003. Now he is sentencing to prison those who disagree with that Islamic sentiment. Every day brings fresh news of Erdogan’s massive crackdown on those who remain loyal to the ideals of Ataturk. So far, since the failed coup, Turkey has suspended or removed more than 60,000 people from jobs in the military, security services, judiciary and media, with additional tens of thousands of teachers being dismissed. For the first time in 80 years, the muezzin’s call to prayer can be heard from within the Hagia Sophia. Kemalism, the most successful effort to modernize a Muslim state through taming the power of Islam, has turned out to be temporary, while Islam, thanks to the ruthless cunning of Erdogan and the bland complacencies of the West, appears — at this dismal point in Turkey’s modern history — to be forever.




The Islamic State reveals why it hates us, and so do their Islamic supremacist cohorts
Video: Robert Spencer at the Reagan Ranch Center on why it matters to call it "Islamic terrorism"

 

Hugh Fitzgerald: Pope Francis To ISIS: Tell Us What You Really Think

August 4, 2016 3:19 am By Hugh Fitzgerald 88 Comments



Dada and Surrealism may have outlived their welcome in Parisian salons, but they have found a warm welcome on Papal planes, and at the Vatican itself. The Pope has yet again delivered himself of more of his no-longer-surprising, but always disturbing, comments on Islam. He has said in the past that Islam is a “religion of peace” and that “Islam has nothing to do with violence.” Last month at a press conference he finally recognized that there is indeed a “war” going on in the world, “but it’s a real war, not a religious war. It’s a war of interests, a war for money. A war for natural resources and for the dominion of the peoples.” That war, not a war mandated by the Qur’an, but a war that has nothing to do with Islam, is what the Pope insists is roiling the world today. It can’t possibly have anything to do with religion, for “every religion wants peace,” said a Pope who has chosen to forget centuries of religious warfare, between Protestant and Catholic, in Europe, and to overlook more than 1,400 years of religious warfare between Muslim and Christian, Muslim and Jew, Muslim and Hindu, Muslim and Buddhist.


How does he know that Islam is peaceful? Oh, he just knows. And he had a private meeting in May, a little “dialogue” where, as he put it, “the meeting is the message,” with Ahmed Al-Tayeb, the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar University, who assured him that Islam was as peaceful as all get out. No one in the Pope’s retinue brought up some of Al-Tayeb’s less soothing statements, such as this remark about Jews: “Since the inception of Islam 1,400 years ago, we have been suffering from Jewish and Zionist interference in Muslim affairs. This is a cause of great distress for the Muslims.” Al-Tayeb has also claimed that Jews consider non-Jews to be “extremely inferior” and that Jews “practice a terrible hierarchy, and they are not ashamed to admit it, because it is written in the Torah – with regard to killing, enslavement, and so on.”

These remarks are all part of the public record, located by a quick google click. But perhaps the Pope should have focused on Al-Tayeb’s remark that “the Quran said it and history has proven it: ‘You shall find the strongest among men in enmity to the believers to be the Jews and the polytheists.’” The “polytheists” in question are the Christians, especially the Catholic Christians, guilty of “shirk” (which deserves death in Muslim theology), that is, polytheism, because they believe in the Holy Trinity, which in the Muslim view ascribes “partners” to God. Most Christians, of course, do not think of Christianity as polytheistic, but it’s the Muslim view that matters here, and the Qur’anic injunction upon which it is based.
Reporters on the plane flying back to Rome from Warsaw asked the Pope why he never uses the world “Islam” to describe terrorism or other violence.

“It’s not right to identify Islam with violence. It’s not right and it’s not true,” he replied.
“I don’t like to talk of Islamic violence because every day, when I go through the newspapers, I see violence,” the pope said, in apparent reference to news of crime in the predominantly Catholic country of Italy.
“And these are baptized Catholics. If I speak of Islamic violence, then I have to speak of Catholic violence.”

So let’s try to get this straight. If, for example, a man in Milan kills his wife in a crime of passion, or a robber shoots a jeweler in Palermo, according to the Pope these are examples of “Catholic violence,” and the Pope feels that if he speaks “of Islamic violence, then I have to speak of Catholic violence.” This is nonsense. The scope and scale of Islamic violence, over 1,400 years, leading to tens of millions of victims all over the world, are completely different in kind from the intra-family or criminal violence which the Pope wants us to believe proves that Catholic violence must be mentioned in the same breath as Islamic violence. The jihadists of Charlie Hebdo, San Bernardino, Fort Hood, the kosher market, Bataclan, Amsterdam, Madrid, London, and of course New York and Washington, were not acting in violation of Islamic norms but according to them, in furtherance of them, whereas the “baptized Catholics” who kill their wives or a jeweler during a robbery are violating Christian norms.
The clearest Islamic response to the Pope’s insistence that there is no such thing as a “war of religion,” that the war in question is, “like all wars” — in the Pope’s unwaveringly Marxist analysis — a war over resources of all kinds (natural resources, land, money, subjugation of peoples), is that which has just appeared in the 15^th number of Dabiq, the magazine of the Islamic State. It is one long scream of hatred against Christians, the “arrogant disbelievers,” including by name Pope Francis, calling on Muslims to “pray for Allah’s curse to be upon the liars.” “Break your crosses” these Christians are urged, give up Christianity and embrace Islam:

“[Christians] have the option of trying to cling to the transient luxuries of this life, rejecting the truth in favour of either paying jizyah [tax] to the Islamic State or continuing to wage a futile war against it.
“Alternatively, they can heed the warning of Allah that the worldly life is not guaranteed even for those who pursue it at the expense of their salvation, and thus choose to embrace Islam, champion the truth, attain the mercy of their Lord, and enter the Gardens of Paradise.”
The article also warns those in the West that they will be “crushed” by the Islamic State, and the “war against Islam will neither succeed nor benefit you. You will fail because you fight against those who have allied with Allah.”And Dabiq foresees attacks all across Europe in this fight that will end in Islam’s complete victory.
It continues: “Do you claim that Jews and Christians follow the right religion and that they will enter the kingdom of heaven? There is no proof for this.” ISIS-inspired massacres in the US, including those in Orlando and San Bernardino, were committed, according to Dabiq, by Muslim “knights.” calling those who carried out the killings “knights”. One ISIS fighter – a convert from Christianity – encourages others to “follow the example of the lions in France and Belgium, the example of the blessed couple in California, and the examples of the knights in Orlando and Nice.”

Thomas Williams has described Dabiq’s frontal assault on Pope Francis:

“This is a divinely-warranted war between the Muslim nation and the nations of disbelief,” the Dabiq authors state in an article titled “By the Sword.”
The Islamic State attacks Pope Francis by name for claiming that “authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Quran are opposed to every form of violence” –what he thought conciliatory, Dabiq finds offensive — for “Francis continues to hide behind a deceptive veil of ‘good will,’ covering his actual intentions of pacifying the Muslim nation.” I wonder if this reaction will confuse the Pope still further.
Pope Francis “has struggled against reality” in his efforts to portray Islam as a religion of peace, the article insists, before going on to urge all Muslims to take up the sword of jihad, the “greatest obligation” of a true Muslim.
Despite the obviously religious nature of their attacks, the article states, “many people in Crusader countries express shock and even disgust that Islamic State leadership ‘uses religion to justify violence.’”
“Indeed, waging jihad – spreading the rule of Allah by the sword – is an obligation found in the Quran, the word of our Lord,” it reads.
“The blood of the disbelievers is obligatory to spill by default. The command is clear. Kill the disbelievers, as Allah said, ‘Then kill the polytheists wherever you find them.’”
The Islamic State also reacted to Pope Francis’s description of recent acts of Islamic terror as “senseless violence,” insisting that there is nothing senseless about it.
“The gist of the matter is that there is indeed a rhyme to our terrorism, warfare, ruthlessness, and brutality,” they declare, adding that their hatred for the Christian West is absolute and implacable.
The fact is, even if you were to stop bombing us, imprisoning us, torturing us, vilifying us, and usurping our lands, we would continue to hate you because our primary reason for hating you will not cease to exist until you embrace Islam. Even if you were to pay jizyah [tax for infidels] and live under the authority of Islam in humiliation, we would continue to hate you.”

Has Pope Francis been shown any of this? What would it take for him to grasp its significance, and not try to find ways to dismiss it? Is he aware of how many Muslims, of every income and educational level, all over the world, have, despite great obstacles, managed to join ISIS, first in Iraq and Syria, then in Libya, and most recently, to become “knights” of ISIS in the West, committing their acts of mass murder and suicide in Europe so as to “strike terror in the hearts” of the Infidel enemy?
ISIS may be a “sick and twisted ideology” to non-Muslims trying to exculpate Islam itself, but it looks to many Muslims a lot like a particularly violent but doctrinally orthodox version of Sunni Islam, with the same Qur’an that all Muslims read, without any dilution of its message, or any nuance of niceness to please or fool non-Muslims. The Pope, instead of offering up his knee-jerk tu-quoque view that all religions are the same (Islam is peaceful, Islam has nothing to do with violence, the real Islam has nothing to do with terrorism) should set himself a course of study, beginning with the Western scholars of Islam of the non-apologetic school, such as C. Snouck Hurgronje, Henri Lammens, Samuel Zwemer, Joseph Schacht, and others who wrote during the century, roughly 1870 to 1970, before the Great Inhibition set in. That would enlighten him more than any meeting with Al-Tayeb. He owes it to his flock – he’s still their shepherd – not to lead them astray.
His recent comment that “if I speak of Islamic violence I have to speak of Catholic violence” inspired one exasperated Frenchman to create the hashtag @HaussmannParis #PasMonPape which translates as “#not my Pope.” It’s the top trending hashtag in France, and in Belgium too. The Pope better watch out. By their hashtags shall ye know them.

"Robert Spencer's new and indispensable book on the mullahs -- and their aims of global conquest"
Obama secretly paid $400-mil "ransom" to Iran that Democrats called "a deal for taxpayers"