Father Z picks up on reports of the extreme Muslim terrorist group Isis leader saying the following about conquering Rome:
(He) saw this at The Telegraph:
Rome will be conquered next, says leader of Islamic State
Muslims have been called to flock to the Islamic State to gather for a battle against non-believers throughout the world
Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the self-proclaimed leader of the Islamic State stretching across Iraq and Syria, has vowed to lead the conquest of Rome as he called on Muslims to immigrate to his new land to fight under its banner around the globe.
Baghdadi, who holds a PhD in Islamic studies, said Muslims were being targetted and killed from China to Indonesia. Speaking as the first Caliph, or commander of the Islamic faithful since the dissolution of the Ottoman empire, he called on Muslims to rally to his pan-Islamic state.
“Those who can immigrate to the Islamic State should immigrate, as immigration to the house of Islam is a duty,” he said in an audio recording released on a website used by the group formerly known as the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham.
“Rush O Muslims to your state. It is your state. Syria is not for Syrians and Iraq is not for Iraqis. The land is for the Muslims, all Muslims.
“This is my advice to you. If you hold to it you will conquer Rome and own the world, if Allah wills.”
Having claimed the title of “caliph”, Baghdadi appealed to “judges and those who have military and managerial and service skills, and doctors and engineers in all fields.”
He also called on jihadi fighters to escalate fighting in the holy month of Ramadan, which began on Sunday. “In this virtuous month or in any other month, there is no deed better than jihad in the path of Allah, so take advantage of this opportunity and walk the path of you righteous predecessors,” he said. “So to arms, to arms, soldiers of the Islamic s, fight, fight.”
My final comments: Keep in mind that Constantinople, the Rome of the Eastern Church, was conquered by Muslims and the Cathedral Church the Hagia Sophia was taken over by them and turned into a Mosque. The symbolism of this Muslim take-over would have been as shocking as taking over St. Peter's Basilica in Rome by Muslims. As well the city's name was changed to Istanbul. What would Rome's name become? Islamaroma?
40 comments:
The first stage of the Conquest was set in 1960, when Western couples began taking the contraceptive Pill.
Fr. McDonald, you need to begin learning العربية for future visits to you ancestral homeland!
Muslims taking over a Rome won't be a problem. We believe in the same God, remember?
Marc, you are correct and since this is the case I suspect that it would be better for Muslims to take over Roma rather than the Southern Baptists who believe in the Triune God. They would rename St. Peter's Via Della Conciliazione Baptist Church or worse yet Vatican Hill First Baptist Church! I'll take the Muslims any day!
Also, the Protestants would remove all crosses from St. Peter's roof and replace them with weather vanes! Give the Muslim symbol any day!
It's just too bad Muslims are so violent when they take over stuff. But, then again, we took over their stuff in rather violent ways in the past too.
Why can't we just all get along?
By the way, do you think the Muslims agree that we all believe in the same God?
Marc, we believe as Catholics that Jews, Muslims and Chritians believe in the God of Abraham. Now, we know that even Christians who have broken full communion with the Catholic Church can become heretical or heterodox in what they believe about God. I suspect we can say the same about Muslims and Jews in their view of the God of Abraham and we would say that Jews are orthodox in this regard, while Muslims are more like the Mormons vis a vis the Jews.
I know what the certain churchmen have said about Muslims. I happen to disagree with them.
That is not the point: I'm wondering if you think that Muslims agree that we worship the same God.
Muslims do not believe in the same God as us. Just because they say they do does not mean it is so. So, keep thinking that if you like until the knife reaches your carotid or your jugular and then it won't matter.
I heard a sermon once in which the preacher said, "Do you remember when the prophet said, "I will lift the skirts of the Israel above her head…." Do you want a blunt translation of that…I'm gonna' show your a** to the world." Well, the Church is doing a great job of that all by herself.
I am not an expert on mainline Islam or on the extremists in that religion. Keep in mind that many people associated the IRA when they were a terrorist organization in Ireland with being Catholic. Many associate the KKK as a branch of Christianity. But to say that all Christians are KKK or all Catholics are IRA would be a stretch.
I doubt that Muslims think they worship the same God as Jews and Christians, but I don't know that to be fact or that we can say this across the board for the various sects of Islam.
I do know that there are some Eastern Orthodox branches who don't believe Catholics are going to be saved and our sacraments are invalid and some Protestants who think that we worship the devil and not God. So Marc, what are your thoughts on the pan Islamic question about their God and our God?
Ok, it might be helpful to review the basics: Islam is a socio-economic-political-theological world view. There is no separation between Mosque and State. Sharia Law is not their equivalent of Canon Law. It's more akin to the Constitution.
Within Islamic theology there are 2 main groups: Sunni and Shiia. The difference is political mainly - SHia believe in hereditary succession of the supreme ruler (both civil and theological) whereas Sunni did not believe leadership is hereditary.
Only the minority Shia thus have a set hierarchy with which we could theoretically negotiate and settle disputes. The Sunni branch (a majority world wide) always reserve the right to rebel against any ruler who could be accused of apostasy.
Thus the Wahabi (sunni) branch, the Muslim Brotherhood, AQ, ISIL, etc. are more Protestant than Catholic in the sense that there's no fixed method of leadership succession. Leaders seize power.
The theology posits the existence of a Caliphate, not individual and independent nation-states. Like the Jewish temple's obliteration caused a huge theological crisis, the collapse of the Ottoman Empire/Caliphate likewise caused a huge theological crisis in the early 20th Century.
By and large it's the aggressors who gain followers - so it means nothing to claim "the vast majority are peaceful" if this vast majority cannot shun, shut up, or shoot the hot heads.
Psychologically, the aggressors feel aggrieved and thus justified in their hostility - not unlike the first generation communists overthrowing the Tsar or first generation Jacobins. They may stand on theologically and philosophically weak ground (like the LGBTQ partisans here) but they are utterly convinced of the justice of their cause and utterly convinced that theirs is the winning side, the inevitable wave of the future.
I believe the future in the West belongs to neither the Muslims nor the secular hedonists. The louder and quicker a group goes from persuasion to coercion, the less likely it is to endure against the inevitable reaction.
Unfortunately, in the East, this means warfare utterly crushing this Caliphate. In the West I suspect it will happen within 5 years as the scientific claims of the LGBTQ movement are called into question and then repudiated as crock. It turns out that the so-called "proof" studies done in the 1950s-70s' supposedly proving sodomy and SSA to be harmless and good were not conducted using the scientific method. Pop that bubble and the whole enterprise begins to implode as the implications filter through society.
Pop the bubble of Islamic hegemony through aggressive conquest (i.e. Israel) and the same dynamic begins to work. If their violent leaders lose wars and can't bring home the booty, the interior dynamic of Islam rips itself apart.
The Constitution of Indonesia, whose population is majority Muslim, states ‘ThestateisbasedonbeliefinOneGod’,andthat‘Thestateguarantees the freedomofallresidentsto embracetheirown religionandtoworshipaccordingtotheirownreligionandbeliefs’.
In Malaysia, 61% Muslim, the law and jurisprudence is based on English common law and Sharia is applicable only to Muslims.
Turkey: The Turkish Constitution of 1982 maintains Turkey's firm commitment to the principle of secularism, known as laiklik. The document guarantees religious non-discrimination and makes no reference to any particular creed. Rather, it repeatedly emphasizes the inviolability of the Republic's secular status. This is manifest from the Preamble, which calls for the non-interference of religion in affairs of state, to Article 136, which establishes the Directorate of Religious Affairs and calls upon it to operate in accordance with the principle of secularism. In addition, Article 24 in conjunction with Article 14, specifies that the exercise of fundamental rights, including freedom of worship, is not protected if it endangers the secular nature of the state. Moreover, political parties that challenge the principle of secularism are banned by Article 68, and members of the assembly and the president are required to swear an oath of loyalty to the secular Republic articulated in Article 81. Finally, Article 174 prohibits the modification of Atatürk's Reform Laws, which "safeguard the secular character of the Republic".
Anonymous, I grant that exceptions can be found in the Muslim world's 57 states with respect to Shariah vs. secular law and allegiance.
But...
While Turkey was mostly secular (following the collapse of the Ottoman empire) it is becoming sectarian again. While it was becoming secular there was this little issue called "Armenian genocide" to deal with. So much for rights of minorities.
Indonesia...yeah, well let's just mention 'East Timor' and genocide. This happened in modern times. We didn't hear too much about this in 1999 because I suppose it was politically inconvenient but still, it happened.
Malaysia: yes, they've a rule of law..but again, what is the trend and how do non-Muslims fare in those lands?
Bottom line, it would be wonderful if the silent majority was peaceful and believed in co-existence without violence. Many very small Muslim minorities do live in such conditions and the troubles don't seem to be evident until they become local majorities as in Sweden or on the outskirts of Paris.
But the reality is, the theology and socio-political praxis of modern Islam does have a place for Holy War that has no parallel among Christians so we make glib claims of worshipping the same God at our peril. The god they describe in the Koran does not at all sound like the God of Abraham.
Geez, this is like discussing the nuances of Nazi philosophy before WW II.
These are extremists. They are too extreme even for Al-Qaeda, it seems. Terrorists want to terrorize. But why do we so willingly play along and cooperate? I know it was a different era, and I am not suggesting complacency, but my goodness, the chatter never stops. At least as I recall (John Nolan, are you there?), in Britain we did not hear about the IRA incessantly day in day out, but mainly just at the times of their cowardly attacks or during their trials. Just how much rewiring has been done in our brains since 9/11?
I know it is a truism but I fear we risk losing sight of the truth within it – the current situation is the result of sin, and there is plenty of sin to go around on all sides, including on the side of Western, so called Christian powers. And I am not talking about the Crusades but about those sins committed since the early twentieth century. You sow the seeds; you reap the harvest --The sins of the fathers and all that.
What does this mean now, practically? I am no sure but whatever it means perhaps it has to begin with confession and penance. Maybe then the plank in our own eye will not distort our sight so much. Of course, hell will probably freeze over before that happens at any meaningful collective level. That said, our recent popes have provided a much needed lead.
And another thought: What if Archduke Ferdinand had not been assassinated one hundred years and four days ago?
Anon 2, So you are with the looney fringe that says we deserved 9/11? Nice.
"So Marc, what are your thoughts on the pan Islamic question about their God and our God?"
At the outset, I don't think it is within the province of the Church to proclaim that Muslims worship the same God as Catholics. Since Muslims deny the Trinity and the Divinity of Christ, it seems plain to me that they do not worship the same God--they manifestly do not worship Christ, who is God.
In my copy of the Koran, provided to me free of charge from the Saudi Arabian embassy many years ago, they had an entire section at the end devoted to anti-Christ apologetics (arguments against the Divinity of Christ and His Resurrection). The shahada is anti-Christ and anti-Trinity.
Because of all of this, it is not offensive to say we do not worship the same God. It is simply a statement of fact. I would bet many Muslims would be offended by the claim that we worship the same God. That is why I raised the question.
I am not an anti-Islamist. I have a lot of respect for the religion. I just don't think it does much good to insist on synthesizing everything. Sometimes differences are meaningful. This is one of those times.
Father, I rather the Baptist. They may yell and slap a King James Bible but they will not cut off your head. Oh and many protestant churches have crosses. They just doe not like the body of Christ on it, for his is risen and not on a cross or in a grave...yadda yadday yadda tripe.
Marc, please read up on your history. The majority of the lands now controlled by the muslims use to be Christian. The crusades were in response of muslim aggression, murder and theft. Ask the Spanish about the reconquest. Took 700 years and ended just before Columbus sailed to "find" the New World. My wife's ancestors were elevated to minor nobility in Spain for defeating the muslims at the towm of Martorell outside Madrid.
Mark
The Anglican Priest
Mark, I am familiar with the history. I wasn't attempting to provide an historical dissertation on Muslim-Christian relations. And I'm pretty sure you knew that from my post...
Gene:
Please stop being silly. I did not say that and you know it. But sin has consequences and you know that too.
Marc, If you read a bit about how Mohammed made Islam up, you wouldn't respect it so much. Think Mormonism.
Gene P.S.
Just so you get the point and also understand that I am being consistent, the British committed plenty of sins with respect to Ireland too. But that did not justify the terrorist attacks by the IRA or mean the British people "deserved" them.
Father Mark:
And the Crusaders didn’t commit “aggression, murder, and theft”?
I know it is made up, Gene. That's one reason I respect it. I'm amazed people believe it. I'm similarly amazed by Mormonism.
But I also respect the Muslim prayer rule and fasting rules.
Regarding the IRA:
When I heard the news of the Boston bombings last year, I couldn't help reflecting that those Irish-Americans who gave so generously to Noraid so that PIRA could set off bombs in other people's cities might have had some twinge of conscience when their own city was on the receiving end. But then, probably not.
As for Islamist fanatics, mad mullahs and the like, they can't get away from the fact that Islam is a third-world phenomenon. Its glory days ended centuries ago and its once much-vaunted scholarship (considerably exaggerated by western sympathizers) soon degenerated into obscurantism.
Of course they're mad and bad, but their primary target is not Rome but Tel Aviv. We might be squeamish about using force, but the Israelis aren't, and one well-targeted nuke will create a large number of martyrs. Perhaps this is what they want?
John Nolan, Well, tell Israel to get on with it, then. This ridiculous tribe, this wretched humanity which resembles more a giant hill of crazed colony ants than a nation, needs to be a glaze in the sand.
Anon 2
of course it did. Was Richard Lion Heart committing sin by slaughtering Jews and Muslim civilans. Yes. War at that time was brutal and repulsive. As it is today. Did Richard treat the Muslim any different from Europeans he fought. No. Did he start a war of conguest? No. He and the other Kings such as Louis of France and other European leaders answered a call from Rome to march in defence of the Orthodox Church. Rome's mistake was sending such men who were mainly after plunder, and fame.
The wars were started by the muslims. Both sides did horrible, evil things. But if the religion of peace had left well alone....well we would not be having this discussion now would we.
Blessings
Mark
The Anglican Priest ( who does not think he is a robot, yet)
Mark,
The problem with the internet is 90% of communication is lost between people. So no I did not think you were anything but sincere and ignorant of history.
And no Muslims do not believe we worship the same God. Just ask them. I did at a joint Christian, Muslim and Jewish panel hosted by the local Roman Catholic College. I thought I was watching Gregory Hines tapping dance watch the responses. The muslim clerics response was no, once you pinned him down.
Mark
The Anglican Priest
It is within the province of the Church to conclude that we, the Jews, and the Muslims worship the same God. God gave that right to the Church when God established the Teaching Office.
I can know a person - say, my physician - one way, as my primary health care provider. Her husband and children can know here as wife and mother. Yet, she is the same person.
No, Marc, this is not Modalism. Modalism denies the Triune nature of God, suggesting that God is, by nature, unitary, not triune.
Knowing the same person as 1) physician or 2) wife and mother has nothing to do with the nature of the person being known, but rather with different ways of knowing the same person.
Whether or not Muslims agree that we and they worship the same God is meaningless. What they think doesn't determine what we believe, nor should it.
Ignotus, your very example of the female doctor is modalist...
Anon2:
"I know it is a truism but I fear we risk losing sight of the truth within it – the current situation is the result of sin, and there is plenty of sin to go around on all sides..."
It is the result of sin. Modern man has offended God in so many ways and to such an extent that it is a wonder that things are not worse. Praying, fasting and observing God laws are the easy ways and the best ways to defeat sin and evil. If we neglect these and go against what God desires of us then we end up having to deal with problems in the world the hard way (military conflict etc.) Indeed, these problems arise and become worse because man is not doing what God desires of him.
I apologize for rudeness in my last post directed at you, Mark.
Aside from my bad manners, we are in agreement on this point about Muslims.
Father Mark:
Thank you for your response. I would make two points:
(1) I am very cautious about claims of “they started it” variety. It requires a degree of omniscience regarding causation I do not claim to possess.
(2) Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that “they” started it, and the Crusaders did in fact satisfy the requirement of ius ad bellum, there is still the issue of ius in bello. And here, I am not convinced that the Crusaders come off so well when compared with the Muslim armies.
But on both these points I will defer to those who are expert, and the least biased, historians of the period.
Regarding worship of the same God:
Teacher: What are you drawing, Sally?
Sally: I am drawing a picture of God.
Teacher: But, Sally, no-one knows what God looks like.
Sally: They will soon.
Anon 2, That reminded me of the story of the grammar school class in which the teacher asked the kids to draw a Christmas picture. One little boy handed her a drawing of a nicely decorated tree with gifts, etc. Off to the side was a circle with eyes, nose and mouth. When the teacher asked him what that was, he replied, "That's Round John Virgin."
Anon 2, As in any war, both sides were pretty poorly behaved...
From Mark She in the NCRegister:
"One pernicious lie embraced by many Catholics since 9/11 is to imagine that Muslims "worship another god" despite the obvious teaching of the Church..."
More at http://www.ncregister.com/blog/mark-shea/when-better-than-the-4th-of-july-to-talk-about-religious-liberty
There is a pretty good book called, "Warriors of God," which is a history of the conflict and mutually respectful relationship between Richard and Saladin. I forget the author, but great insights into both men. Richard was a real cowboy...and there is much about the love/hate relationship between Richard and Henry. (French)Pretty humorous at times, like when Richard rode up and down alone before the French lines inviting any French knight to come forward and do single combat with him...no takers. Would you have? LOL! Oh, and the time Henry invited him to a huge court banquet and Richard stopped and picked up a tavern wench and took her to the banquet and sat at the head table groping her the whole time to Henry's outrage...LOL!
PS In my previous post about King Richard, I should have said "Phillip of France, not Henry. Sorry.
Pater Ignotus:
We know that there is only one God. We must acknowledge however that the Moslems themselves do not believe that we and they worship the same God. It is a two-way street. Having the Fullness of the Truth,however, we have a greater knowledge and understanding of who God is.
Post a Comment