Friday, November 13, 2015


At 5:15 PM, 60 reported dead, 65 held hostage in concert hall. Coordinated Terror event in Paris. France is the Catholic Church's eldest daughter! American band was playing at concert hall where hostages are being held! Possibly four different events simultaneously in Paris.

Notre-Dame de Paris pray for the people of Paris under terror attack!

Prayer for Victims of Terrorism

Loving God,
Welcome into your arms the victims of violence and terrorism.
Comfort their families and all who grieve for them.
Help us in our fear and uncertainty,
And bless us with the knowledge that we are secure in your love.
Strengthen all those who work for peace,
And may the peace the world cannot give reign in our hearts.


Marc said...

"May St. John Baptist protect Islam...."

- St. John Paul the Great (source)

Anonymous said...

Yes, and the prayer from St John Paul II The Great was:

"On the banks of the River Jordan,
you raised up John the Baptist,
a voice crying in the wilderness,
sent through all the region of the Jordan
to prepare the way of the Lord,
to herald the coming of Jesus.

Glory to you, O Christ, Son of God!
To the waters of the Jordan you came
to be baptized by the hand of John.

Upon you the Spirit descended as a dove.

Above you the heavens opened,
and the voice of the Father was heard:
“This is my Son, the Beloved!”

Nothing like taking something out of context.

This is a terrible attack but in many ways is a result of the complete moral decay of our society. If love begets love then evil begets evil and the good suffer with the guilty ...

Marc said...

Jan, the context doesn't make the quote any better.

Anonymous 2 said...


It seems to me the context is also what is happening nowadays with the spread of radical Islam. Yes, Pope St. John Paul’s invocation seems right on point. Islam does indeed need protecting from the radicals.

Marc said...

Anonymous 2, I understand what you mean and it's an interesting point. On the other hand, your comment assumes that Islam should exist and therefore needs to be protected from radicals in order to continue to exist.

I disagree with your premise that Islam should exist. If it's going to exist, I'd agree that it should be less radical. I think you and I disagree as to whether violence is intrinsic to Islam, which is why we have different views on this subject. Since I think it is true that violence is intrinsic to Islam, I don't think it is possible to divest it of these radical elements (that is, Islam is synonymous with these radicals).

You might be interested in a podcast from an Orthodox priest on this topic, if you're keen to listen to a viewpoint with which you'll disagree. Here's the link. I'd be interested in your thoughts on it (note this might be two parts, please search out both parts).

Anonymous said...

This has all been predicted for years and the LIBERALS i.e. Democrats, gays, feminists, global warming fanatics still don't and will never get it!! ISLAM WILL CONVERT OR KILL YOU PLAIN AND SIMPLE!! I can already see it in tomorrows headlines the Paris attacks have nothing to do with ISLAM! On Fox news, CNN, MSNBC the talking heads are saying "we don't know the MOTIVE or who did this? Shepard Smith on Fox won't even mention the word Islam or Muslims, these newsmen can't be this stupid are they that blinded by their Liberalism that they can't say the words Islam or Muslim fanatics??? Europe will keep bringing them in and in and in until ethnic Europeans are all but a foot note in history, this is more than cultural suicide it is a mental illness to destroy your own country???

Anonymous said...

My friends Islam is NOT a religion but a death cult, it beheads, hangs, murders, rapes, blows up buildings, airliners, mutilates female sexual organs, covers women in hijabs, in Afghanistan it is common to have sex with young boys as the Quran allows this and more. In less than 20 years Germany, Holland, France, Belgium, England, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Austria will be majority MUSLIM countries, the birth rate of ethic Europeans is 1.2 children per couple and for Muslims in Europe it stands at 8.6 children per couple. The mathematics do not lie and the Europeans simply cannot replenish themselves at the rate of Muslims, if Europe does not stop and expel these 9th century butchers well then Europe will cease to exist. These invaders will never drink alcohol eat pork, go to rock concerts, wear bikinis, tattoos, attend gay pride parades, they cannot, the Quran will never allow this and the Europeans still don't see this.

Anonymous 2 said...


Thank you for the link. I have listened to some of it (about 25 minutes) and will listen to the rest of it later. For the moment I do have one question. The speaker wants to emphasize the military expansionism of early Islam and the desire for plunder. Fair enough. But is it fair to suggest that there is something peculiar about Islam (or perhaps more accurately, the Bedouin) in this respect? Thus how did Rome get to be the vast Roman Empire in the first place from its humble beginnings as a small city state founded in 753 BC and with what motivations? How did the British Empire, or the French Empire, or the Spanish Empire, or the Dutch Empire, or the Portuguese Empire, or the Italian Empire, or the German Empire—all Christian Empires by the way—get to be empires from their starting points as small nations and with what motivations? Was it through sweet reason and persuasion with the motive of spreading enlightenment and truth? Doesn’t the question answer itself (the answer, surely, is through military conquest undertaken from a mixture of motives)? Viewed in this way, is there really something distinctively peculiar about Islamic empires? I hope the speaker will address this point.

Anonymous 2 said...

Anonymous (at 8:42 p.m.):

“Islam” does not do those things. Some extreme versions of Islam do those things.

Anonymous said...

Indeed and Obama still wants to bring in 250,000 Syrian Muslims it is incomprehensible, this man is challenged by not one politician why? Because if you do you will be called a racist that's why, for the last seven years Obama has done anything he wants and not a peep from any Republican. Look at Minneapolis over 25,000 Somali Muslims now reside there and it is a hotbed of the Islamic terror group Al-Shabaab, Muslims are pouring into Maine, Tennessee, Georgia, Texas, Virginia and of course Deerborn Michigan which now has a majority Muslim city council. The showdown is coming friends between Islam and the West, Paris is only the spark dark times will be coming our way.

Gene said...

Islam is the enemy and should be declared an enemy of civilization. These people should be hunted down and shot like the mad dogs they are. Those here should be deported and every mosque in the country razed. That is how you deal with this. As far as Paris and the coming violence is the result of the West's own stupidity in believing you can be friends with savages. We have listened to people like Anon 2 and others who defend Muslims and Islam and tell us all about their Muslim friends. It is a shame they are not the ones attacked instead of innocent people.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 2, if you think Islam doesn't do those things then you are putting aside the whole of history. Islam is doing what it has always done. Yes, you can also say that other religions have committed evil acts at times but through out history Islam has under the same primative laws. In Britain a recent report has found:

"Muslim women across Britain are being systematically oppressed, abused and discriminated against by Sharia law courts that treat women as second-class citizens, according to a new report, which warns against the spiraling proliferation of Islamic tribunals in the United Kingdom.

The 40-page report, "A Parallel World: Confronting the Abuse of Many Muslim Women in Britain Today," was authored by Baroness Caroline Cox, a cross-bench member of the British House of Lords and one of the leading defenders of women's rights in the UK.

The report shows how the increasing influence of Sharia law in Britain today is undermining the fundamental principle that there must be equality for all British citizens under a single law of the land."

There is too much evidence to back up the fact that Muslim immigration is not good for any of us with a huge increase of rape in many countries where they have been let into the country in large numbers. Governments need to insist that anyone entering their country obey the laws of the land and if they don't like it then they should go back to their country of origin.

France has a big problem because they have allowed so many into their country. There are many videos on the internet showing the violence occurring there: burning of cars, digging up the streets and using the rocks to throw at police, assaulting citizens who are going about their ordinary business.

In the UK they have marched threatening to rape and pillage and saying that they will impregnate British women.

With the increase of Muslim immigration into Sweden rapes in that country have soared:

"With Muslims represented in as many as 77 percent of the rape cases and a major increase in rape cases paralleling a major increase in Muslim immigration, the wages of Muslim immigration are proving to be a sexual assault epidemic by a misogynistic ideology.

The statistics are skewed by urban centers where the Islamic colonists cluster. In Stockholm this summer there was an average of 5 rapes a day. Stockholm has gone from a Swedish city to a city that is one-third immigrant and is between a fifth and a quarter Muslim.

Sweden, like the rest of the West, will have to come to terms with the fact that it can either have female equality or Muslim immigration. It cannot have both."

Is that what you want for the USA because that is what you will get - the figures 1 in 4 Swedish women will be raped. Coming soon to a town near you and maybe your wife your daughter your grand-daughters ...

Anonymous said...

Despite the fact that some news media refuse to mention it ISIS has claimed responsibility: "In statement, ISIS calls Paris "the capital of abomination and perversion," framing attack as civilizational war"

Anonymous said...

Americans should be aware of a recent poll (June 2015) taken of Muslims in the US:

"The Center for Security Policy released a poll Tuesday that should give all Americans pause. The results show that a startling number of American Muslims, our fellow citizens, agree that violence is a legitimate response to those who insult Islam. A full majority of 51% “agreed that “Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to shariah.”

According to the just-released survey of Muslims, a majority (51%) agreed that “Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to shariah.” When that question was put to the broader U.S. population, the overwhelming majority held that shariah should not displace the U.S. Constitution (86% to 2%). …

Even more troubling, is the fact that nearly a quarter of the Muslims polled believed that, “It is legitimate to use violence to punish those who give offense to Islam by, for example, portraying the prophet Mohammed.”

A full 25% of those polled agreed that “violence against Americans here in the United States can be justified as part of the global jihad.”

Gene said...

It was't the Huns and Vandals that destroyed the Roman Empire, just some extreme versions of them.

It wasn't the Mexicans who killed all the men at the Alamo, just some extreme versions of them.

It wasn't the Confederacy that fired on Ft. Sumter, just some extreme versions of them.

It wasn't the Germans who killed all the Jews, it was just some extreme versions of them.

It was't the Japanese that bombed Pearl harbor, just some extreme versions of them.

It wasn't the Plague that ravaged 13th century Europe, just an extreme version of it.

It isn't coyotes that kill my neighbors goats and calves, just some extreme versions of them.

It isn't Rattlesnakes that bite people, just extreme versions of them.

It isn't ticks that carry Lyme Disease, just extreme versions of them.

It isn't water that drowns people, just extreme versions of it.

It isn't earthquakes that destroy cities, just extreme versions of them.

It isn't stupidity that says "Islam does't do these things," just an extreme version of it.

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

"Do not let this horrific act draw you into the loss of your humanity or tolerance. That is the intended outcome."

If Gene is correct - and he is not - then it was not a few KKK members who lynched blacks, it was all white people.

It was not Timothy McVeigh who bombed the federal building in Oklahoma City, it was all white Christians.

It was not radical Mormons who went to war in Daviess County, Missouri, in 1838, it was all Mormons.

It was not the McNamara brothers who bombed the LA Times Building in October 1910, it was all labor union members.

It wasn't radical supremacists who bombed the Hebrew Temple in Atlanta in 1958, it was all white people.

It wasn't radical white nationalists who killed Jewish Alan Berg in Denver in 1984, it was all white people.

It wasn't Michael Griffin who killed Dr. David Gunn in Pensacola, it was all anti-abortionists.

It wasn't Andrew Stack who flew his plane into the Austin, Texas, IRS building, it was all US taxpayers.

"That is the intended outcome."

Mark Thomas said...

May God grant eternal salvation to the victims in question. May God grant peace and comfort to each victim's family and friends.

Whatever possibility that France has to escape Islamic domination revolves around Catholicism. That pertains also to that which remains of the Christian West.

Specifically, and I don't mean any offense to our holy and beautiful Eastern Catholicism, but only Catholicism via the TLM can save the Christian West from Islamic domination.

Novus Ordoism cannot possibly save that which remains of Western Christendom.

"Novus Ordoism", that is, ugly, wreckovated churches, boring, minimalistic, all-vernacular Novus Ordo Masses, sanctuaries overrun by laymen, EMs, altar girls, ecumenical/"interreligious" surrender, Communion in the hand, ugly vestments, Fridays devoid of any sense of Penance, Sunday's filled with working, shopping and violent sports, support of abortion, artificial birth control and sodomy among the majority of "Catholics"...cannot possibly save the Christian West.

Only the restoration of the Traditional Roman Mass and all that would follow from said restoration — that is, a strong sense of Catholicism — can save what little remains of Western Christendom.

Tomorrow (Sunday), in France, for example, each Catholic who wishes to save himself, family, friends, and nation from eventual Islamic domination, must seek a Traditional Roman Mass parish (center, chapel).

Each Catholic must send an unmistakable signal to Rome and the French bishops (said bishops have run the Church in France into the ground).

That signal is as follows: During the past 45-50 years, you have insisted that the liturgical "reform" and "revised" Mass have "renewed" the Church. Well, sorry...but that does not correspond to reality. Sorry, Popes, Cardinals, bishops, and were/are mistaken.

Each (Latin Church) Catholic in France must signal Rome and the bishops that it's time to restore the TLM to each parish.

In regard to combatting (spiritually and peacefully) it's invasion by Islam, France isn't running out of time...France has run out of time. That applies also to Europe.

Catholics in France must act

Sorry, but the reality is that Novus Ordoism has flopped.

His Holiness Pope Francis, and, of course, our Cardinals, bishops and priests, will refuse to recognize that reality.

But Catholics in France (and throughout the West) had better recognize that reality.

Catholics in France had better wake up now...and when they wake up tomorrow (Sunday), they had better seek TLMs at which to worship.

It is a given that Rome and our bishops will continue to insist that the liturgical "reform" has "renewed" the Church. But beginning in France, Western Catholics had better attach themselves to the TLM and Holy Tradition.

Otherwise, the massacre yesterday in Paris that was the result of the Islamic invasion of France will occur again and again...until the last Christian leaves France.

Only the Traditional Latin Mass, which will result in the restoration of Holy Tradition, a strong sense of Catholicism, and large Catholic families, can save France (and Western Christendom) from Islamic domination.


Mark Thomas

Anonymous said...

You poor people that STILL continue to say ISLAM has nothing to do with anything that has happened i.e. the first world trade center, 911, Mumbai, London, Madrid, the mall in Kenya, Fort Hood, Knoxville, Bangkok, the Russian airliner, Boko Ha-ram, Isis, Al-Queda, Al-Shabaab, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hezbollah, Hamas, these are NOT Baptists, Hindus, Buddhists, Pagans, Yazidis, Methodists, these are ALL MUSLIM!!!!!! Pick up a copy of the Koran and read and learn it tells you precisely what they want to do to you, gays, feminists, Jews, Christians, atheists, Hindus, Buddhists, Bahais, well start reading and if you still don't get well my friends good luck and keep saying to yourselves, "boy I wonder what makes them hate us" we should have a dialogue. Act like REAL MEN already and wake the hell up!!!!!!!

Anonymous 2 said...


I do not trust the poll you cite in your post at 7:14 a.m. It was conducted by the Center for Security Policy headed by Frank Gaffney. You can read about both here:

The Baroness Cox report you cite in your post of 7:00 a.m. is published by the Bow Group, which seems respectable. I have accessed the report and will look forward to reading it.

Can you please cite a source or sources for the statements and quotes in the rest of that post?

Anonymous 2 said...


“Those here should be deported and every mosque in the country razed. That is how you deal with this.”

No, Gene, that is exactly how you do not deal with it.

I do not know any Muslim savages. My Muslim students are not savages. My Muslim colleagues are not savages. The Muslim physicians in town are not savages. The Muslim scholar from the Lebanon whose visit to Mercer for several weeks in 2004 I helped host and whom I and my family got to know very well, was most certainly not a savage. In fact, he was one of the gentlest people I have ever met.

Just how many Muslims do you know, Gene? Go on, tell us.

Anonymous 2 said...


If there is anyone who says that Islam has nothing to do with those things, then they need their head examined. But to recognize that an extreme version of Islam has to do with those things does not justify one in blaming the entire religion or all its adherents.

And your advice to pick up a copy of the Qur’an and just read it is misguided. That is what extremists do and then they misunderstand what they are reading. The Bible is no different. True, Muslims believe the Qur’an is the literal word of God delivered by the Archangel Gabriel but Muslims still need to know what that literal word means and how it should be interpreted. And they disagree about this. Why else do you think there are so many schools and sects within Islam? The same is true for the Sunnah of the Prophet Muhammed.

Anonymous 2 said...

Father Kavanaugh:

Excellent rebuttal!

Gene said...

It actually is not a very good rebuttal. Islam is an ideology that fosters violent acts by its very nature. The Huns, Vandals, Mexican government, Confederacy, Nazi Germany and WW II Japan were, by their very nature, founded to produce violence and war. Just as Kavanaugh and Anon 2, by their very nature, are designed to repeatedly make stupid statements and rationalizations
You may have your Muzzie students and buddies; you are probably so entranced with them that you won't even feel the knife as it slips in. Me, I'd like to wrap them all in bacon and send them back to the desert. Oh, did you know that, when General Pershing had a bunch of Muzzies executed during a Philippine uprising, he had the members of the firing squad dip their bullets in pig's blood? I think that was pretty cool.

Gene said...

You know, they are having that big climate summit in Paris...I think all this terrorism is being cause by global warming. The Muzzies can't possibly be doing this is global warming that has altered their brains and made them mean. Just ask the Pope. He knows that Muzzies are just little lambs at heart.

Anonymous said...

In June 2003 I consulted Dr. Frank E. Vandiver, professor of history at Texas A&M University and author of Black Jack: The Life and Times of John J. Pershing, and asked if there's any truth to the above. He replied via email that in his opinion the story is apocryphal.

"I never found any indication that it was true in extensive research on his Moro experiences," Vandiver wrote. "This kind of thing would have run completely against his character."

Anonymous said...

Read the websites Jihad Watch by Robert Spencer a Melkite Greek Catholic a very brave man indeed, Gateway Pundit blog, Pamela Geller's site Atlas Shrugs,, former PLO member Mr.Walid Shoebat who converted to Christianity website, Once again ISLAM will either try to convert you or KILL you how much more carnage must there be until the West wakes the hell up??? And stop blaming Israel the country did not even exist 1,000 years ago Islam has been trying to take over the world since day one when its evil founder Mohamed swept into the Arabian peninsula and converted the people by the SWORD!!!

Anonymous said...

Father Kavanaugh are you a Dhimmi for Islam? How in Gods name can you compare those things to the current wave of death, destruction, beheadings, killing gays, crucifying Christians, raping Yazidi women and selling them into slavery, people like you Father will never get and you know something if you are a priest shame on you!!!! Thats all you can come with is to blame "white people" there is something wrong with you, you are either blinded or as Michael Savage says have a "mental disorder" as LIBERALS do.

Anonymous said...

Mark Thomas you are spot on about everything, only the return of the TLM can save the West and the entire world!!!! Enough of this immature and and quite simply so called Novus Ordo dinner service, 50 years of RENWEW OR SPRINGTIME whatever you want to call it has to come to an end enough is enough!!!!!

George said...

Anonymous 2

I believe there are Muslims who are like certain of those in our society who attend Church but are Christians in name only. Like these more secular Christians, who are not as they should be in the practice of their faith, but at least do so, there likewise exist Muslims more accomodating to our secular pluralistic culture but who also practice their faith. You would find this type in the more moderate Arab cultures of Turkey, Jordan or Morocco.
As Christians, we are called to imitate Christ as best we can. There is nothing in His life that it would not be good and profitable for us (although some of it would be difficult) to emulate. To a heroic degree, this is what the saints, the exemplars of our Faith have done.
Explain this to your Muslims friends and ask the same of them about the founder of their religion. While I welcome Muslims who want to distance themselves form the extremism of certain elements of Islam and sincerely want to meld into our pluralistic society, one thing I learned from someone who has studied Islam extensively is that these radical elements are in fact, to a large degree, imitating the actions and teachings of the founder of their religion, Mohammed.
As for me, I am thankful that I was baptized into the Catholic faith and not born into Islamic society.

Anonymous said...

Take a look at what St. John Bosco has to say about the "religion of PEACE" at Rorate website!! Once again ISLAM is not a religion, it is a political ideology, Mosque and state go hand and hand. Women have no rights, gays are murdered even though Muslim men have gay sex all the time, yes it is a dirty little secret and the reason is they believe they are NOT committing adultery because it is another man not a woman. Oh yes my friends Islam is full of little facts and secrets that nobody wants to talk about. Either we destroy ISIS and Boko Haram and Al-Queda or if we don't, then its all over and start bowing on your knees toward Mecca!!! Political Correctness will kill us all!!

Gene said...

RE: Gen. Pershing...apocryphal or not, it is a great idea.

Anonymous 2 said...

Anonymous at 5:34 p.m.:

Please stop confusing Gene with facts. He cannot handle them.

Anonymous 2 said...

Gene and Anonymous at 7:32 p.m.:

Here is the “Varieties of Islam for Dummies” piece just published in the Washington Post. I recommend that you read it:

By the way, if you get your views from the likes of Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller, it explains a lot.

Anonymous 2 said...

Anonymous at 7:41 p.m.:

Liberals have no monopoly on mental disorders as many of the posts on right wing blogs demonstrate.

Anonymous 2 said...


I commend the Washington Post article to you too. There are disagreements within Islam about what the “actions and teachings” of Muhammad actually are and how they should be interpreted. In other words there are disagreements about the second main source of Islamic norms, the Sunnah. I too have studied Islam and continue to do so. Indeed I suggest that everyone do so for themselves instead of relying on right wing vitriol or sappy liberal apologetics. That is our responsibility as citizens, especially at this precarious time.

Anonymous 2 said...

Anonymous at 8:03 p.m.:

I have been on the website and read the quote. I have also attempted to verify its genuineness. Rorate Caeli provides no citation. Do you have one? I ask because we know that one of today’s tricks is to make up quotes and attribute them to people using an authentic looking style. They then go viral. I am not necessarily denying he said this, I am just saying that it is prudent to verify.

George said...

" I commend the Washington Post article to you too" -OK

Still, the question I would put to a Moslem is whether or not he or she would emulate the founder of the Islam religion, which as Christians we are called to do when it comes to the founder of our religion. It would be interesting to hear their reply as to whether or not they would do so. The life, philosophy and actions of Mohammed are
not a secret.

Anonymous said...

Oh yes LIBERALS are very sick and disturbed!!!

Anonymous said...

I would rather have Mr. Spencer and Miss Geller with me in foxhole than a frightened liberal who would let their family die than pick up a gun and defend his family!!

Anonymous said...

Father Z. has a video of the late and GREAT Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre who was saying even then that to let Muslims into France and Europe would prove to be an utter disaster for Europe and guess what? Everything His Grace Marcel Lefebvre stated has come true, and yet we still have people in total denial and wanting to bring in more and more and more Muslims into not only Europe but America. Watch the video the Archbishop states that Muslims simply cannot co-exist in a Western society it is impossible and he is completely correct!! Is is as if Liberals want to commit suicide and it is utterly astounding they don't see the knife at their own throats.

Anonymous said...

Well it has already started with the Left-wing media outlets, this was not about "Islam" and we should look at ourselves not blame Muslims. Right now on CBS the Democrat debates have Clinton, O'malley and Sanders saying YES they would bring in thousands of Syrian Muslims into America. So the people that were in Paris stated that the butchers screamed ALLAHU AKBAR meaning God is great in Arabic. But of course this has nothing to do with Muslims or Islam, the MSM are just plain sick and blind! So in 1944 when our boys were storming the beaches of Normandy they should not have said let's go and kill the Nazis so as not to offend them?? AMAZING and this is why we will lose the battle against RADICAL ISLAM!!! When you can't even name your enemy, Obama still will not utter the words Jihad, Muslim or Islam in a sentence to name who we are fighting.

Anonymous said...

Anon 2 and Fr K conveniently overlook the fact that in countries that have taken in large numbers of Muslims that rape figures have risen sharply. It may be okay for Fr K as he has no daughters to worry about but Anon 2 should be concerned and I believe that anyone who respects women would not be support Islam because of what it does to women, even in its less fundamental form but unfortunately it is the fundamental form that is on the rise throughout Britain and France and there are areas that are many no go where Britons and French cannot enter:

"A growing number of women and young girls housed in refugee shelters in Germany are being raped, sexually assaulted and even forced into prostitution by male asylum seekers, according to German social work organizations with first-hand knowledge of the situation.

Many of the rapes are occurring in mixed-gender shelters, where, due to a lack of space, German authorities are forcing thousands of male and female migrants to share the same sleeping areas and restroom facilities.

Conditions for women and girls at some shelters are so perilous that females are being described as "wild game" fighting off Muslim male predators. But many victims, fearing reprisals, are keeping silent, social workers say.

At the same time, growing numbers of German women in towns and cities across the country are being raped by asylum seekers from Africa, Asia and the Middle East. Many of the crimes are being downplayed by German authorities and the national media, apparently to avoid fueling anti-immigration sentiments.

On August 18, a coalition of four social work organizations and women's rights groups sent a two-page letter to the leaders of the political parties in the regional parliament in Hesse, a state in west-central Germany, warning them of the worsening situation for women and children in the refugee shelters."

The first female sharia judge in Britain has said it is impossible to expect Muslim men to have only one wife.

"Muslim men in some communities are having up to 20 children each because of polygomy and the rise of "religiously sanctioned gender discrimination" under Sharia Law, peers have warned."

There are at least 86 Sharia courts in Britain.

10 States in the USA according to this site have Sharia law:

I agree with Gene although I wouldn't upport some of his drastic measures. I think that all immigration from the Middle East should be stopped and those living in Europe and the US made to accept the law of the land. Sharia law to be abolished and those who do not agree and continue to promote Sharia law sent back to their country of origin. I think these are reasonable expections on those who choose to come and live in a country that is a different culture from their own.

What is going on is a case of PC politicians failing to protect their own citizens by allowing mass immigration. I believe Angela Merkel is now quite likely to be deposed as Germany comes to grips with her completely irresponsible action of having an open door policy for migrants from the Middle East. The more moderate Middle Eastern countries won't take these people in and so why should everyone else be saddled with this overwhelmingly violent group of individuals who a little better than savages. Already the Paris attacks are being linked to immigration according to European leaders. I hope this makes Obama and Cameron rethink their policies. Of course Obama has got nothing to lose as he's on the way out anyway.

Anonymous said...

It is interesting that some who look back on Pope Benedict's regensburg address as prophetic. A reminder of what he said:

"Benedict dug up an obscure 14th-century dialogue between a long-forgotten Byzantine Christian emperor, Manuel II Paleologus, and a Persian scholar, about the concept of violence in Islam.

“Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached,” Benedict quoted the emperor as saying to his Islamic interlocutor.

In Islamic teaching, Benedict said, “God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality.”

Gene said...

RE: Pershing Snopes has not been able to disprove the Pershing story, and it certainly has legs in many accounts and reports. Liberals, of course, want it to be false. It doesn't really matter...we should just read it as a good suggestion on how top deal with Muzzies.

Gene said...

At least two of the Islamists who murdered all those people in Paris are believed to have sneaked in posing as Syrian refugees...Gee, who woulda thunk.

Anonymous said...

Winston Churchill warned the West about Islam and nobody heeded his warnings, you see Muslims cannot ever assimilate into Western culture it is impossible, they cannot eat pork, drink alcohol, wear bikinis, attend rock concerts, gay pride parades, have dogs as pets, there is nothing in common with them or us, it is like night and day. On Father Z's blog he has a short video with Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in which the Archbishop states that Muslims cannot live with us it is impossible and this was said over 25 years ago, please take a look over there.

Anonymous said...

For those of you who are still blinded by your liberalism google the city of Malmo Sweden a suburb of Stockholm it is now a majority Muslim city and have driven the Jews out as well as ethnic Swedes. Yes I know this still will not convince you about the Islamic invasion of Europe and now America as the Democrat contenders last night all said they would bring in hundreds of thousands of Syrian Muslims. So we will fight for our lives and Western civilization by ourselves, you can either join us or just bow towards Mecca on your knees with your derriere in the air like a good Muslim does. Even now Geraldo Rivera who is no conservative by any means, whose daughter was in the Stade de France on Friday has agreed with Mr. Trump that we must bomb the S--t out of ISIS, you see my friends when it hits home with Liberals even they wake up and understand what Islam is trying to do the world.

Anonymous said...

As harsh as this may sound and many people are saying it, it will take another 911 or worse to wake up the world and the American people to rise up and say destroy radical Islam once and for all. The main funding for Islamic terrorism whether it be ISIS, Hezbollah, Hamas, Boko Harm, emanates from TWO capitals, Tehran Iran and Riyadh Saudi Arabia. Americans have a short memory and 911 is fading fast, Americans are too worried about football, the Kardashians, the Oscars, getting the next tattoo, while the Islamist's wait and plot. The Islamist's have said they have all the time in the world because they now the West will not fight back. The money flows from those two capitals, in short cut the the life blood from these devils!!!

Anonymous said...

Last night the Socialist Bernie Sanders was asked by the moderator does he still think Climate change poses the greatest "danger" to the world and his answer was YES. Over 130 people were butchered by those filthy ISIS murderers in France and Sanders still cannot and will not say radical Islam is the greatest danger to the world but the "FAKE" Climate change religion is. My friends these are the people who want to lead our country? And by the way Clinton, Sanders and O'Malley would not say the word radical Islam or radical Muslims, Clinton said we should not play with words, UNBELIEVABLE folks.

Gene said...

Muslims have to be deported...that is the only sensible thing to do....all of them, dammit. Don't cry to me about "oh, there are so many good Muslims." They can go be good back in the desert.

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

Jan - Regarding Regensberg, Pope Benedict's quotation of Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Paleologus was misunderstood by the Muslims who rioted and, I suggest, by you.

In a commentary on the lecture published in the NC Register, Fr. Raymond De Souza noted: "Benedict wanted to clarify that the roots of this violence lie in a perversion of Islam, not its authentic theology."

In another commentary, F. B. Henry, the Bishop of Calgary, Canada, has noted: "The position of the Pope concerning Islam is unequivocally that expressed by the Vatican Council document Nostra Aetate: “The Church regards with esteem also the Muslims. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all-powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, Who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God.” The Pope's option in favour of inter-religious and inter-cultural dialogue is equally unequivocal. Dialogue is not an option but a vital necessity."

Anonymous said...

How ironic you mentioned Mr. Trump only hours before the Islamic butchers murdered over 100 innocent human beings, Trump did say just that BOMB THE S--T out of ISIS. Like him or not, he talks like a REAL MAN should, not these scared and pitiful Democrats who would run for their lives instead of stand and fight. Mr. Trump you are our only hope to save this country build the wall, seal the borders do what must be done. The Left has pushed the majority of Americans over the edge and up against the wall and like any man would do, is to finally push back towards these Democrat traitors and restore the America we all once knew and loved!

Anonymous said...

Here we go again with the "PERVERSION" of Islam garbage, yes I can see how inter-religious dialogue has been just peachy. Wake up you fools, they want to kill us, listen to Brigitte Gabriel, Nonie Darwish, Walid Shoebat all of these brave people have lived it, they are trying to tell you what they want to do to us and the West, yet you fools cannot accept the facts!! Yes, there are many Muslims that don't want to kill us but they are afraid themselves to say anything knowing they would have their throats slit!!!!

Anonymous said...

Father Kavanaugh why don't you catch a plane for Syria or Iraq and start a inter-religious dialogue with ISIS, Hezbollah or Hamas and let us know how it goes?? Then ask the Yazidi people, the Kurds, the Christians and the Muslims who don't buy into the Islamic death cult and ask them to join you. I mean you are utterly a fool or something is wrong with you!! The brave Kurds just uncovered a mass grave of over 80 old Yazidi women and another grave with over 200 men, women and children in Syria, let your President the IMPOSTER IN CHIEF OBAMA in on this as well.

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

Regarding Donald Trump: "It is easier to lead men to combat, stirring up their passions, than to restrain them and direct them toward the patient labors of peace." - Andre Gide

Regarding Muslims saying nothing:

Anonymous 2 said...

Anonymous (I assume it is the same Anonymous who has posted the recent string of comments) and Gene and Jan:

I hear your anger and your frustration. For goodness sake, do you think others (including myself and Father Kavanaugh) do not feel these things too? Every decent human being, be they conservative or liberal and everything in between, must feel this. I remember how we felt when the IRA murdered innocent civilians in Britain. So, what should we have done? Deport all the Irish; or perhaps all the Catholics?

The last thing we should do now is to play into the hands of the terrorists by doing what THEY want. And deporting all the Muslims, razing mosques (as Gene suggests), attacking ISIS with massive military force, would be exactly what they want. It would enable them to radicalize even more young people. We already did what they wanted once, when George Bush and his merry (sorry?) men (and woman) invaded Iraq and gave us what we are witnessing now. Let us not do it again. REAL men do NOT act like that. REAL men use their intelligence and they stay calm, cool, and collected and try to keep their heads when all around them are losing theirs (dark pun intended). And they get the relevant FACTS, all of them (for example, that only 4% of Muslim marriages are polygamous; that not all Muslim women are oppressed or wear the burka, as right wing fear mongers like to suggest with their photos—it depends on the school: in Sunni Islam the Hanbali and some Shafi, not other Shafis or Hanafi or Malaki require the burka); and just how many jihadists entered with the refugees, most of whom have been trying to escape the violence, not perpetrate it). Trump is a juvenile, not a man, who is full of what he wants to bomb out of ISIS. Let’s be smart, not dumb. We can start by reading Kipling:

And when we can see and think clearly, then we will know what to do, not before. Knee-jerk reactions, while understandable, are almost always mistaken.

Mark Thomas said...

Anonymous Anonymous said..."Winston Churchill warned the West about Islam and nobody heeded his warnings, you see Muslims cannot ever assimilate into Western culture it is impossible, they cannot eat pork, drink alcohol, wear bikinis, attend rock concerts, gay pride parades, have dogs as pets, there is nothing in common with them or us, it is like night and day."

I don't mind whether Moslems "assimilate" into Western culture. Actually, in what sense should Catholics assimilate into Western Culture?

Should Catholic women (many do) dress in tight, revealing is the norm in Western culture? Should men stroll about in shorts, T-shirts and flip-flops?

Should we sit planked in front of the old orthicon tube to watch garbage TV shows? Should we flock to movie theaters to watch the filth that Hollywood produces? Should we listen to dirty rap music and screeching rock and heavy metal bands?

Should we waste our precious time on meaningless sporting events (I admit that I did so for years)?

Should we guzzle alcohol and consume is popular in Western culture?

Should we "assimilate" into Western culture via our support for abortion, birth control and sodomy...which is the case among the majority of Westerners?

Good for Moslems should they refuse to "assimilate" into such a culture. All that I ask of Moslems is to cease setting off bombs in public...don't shoot people to death...don't tell me that I must convert to your religion or you will shake me down via jizya laws or, even worse, behead me.

Oh...and as long as you're willing to move (flood) to Western countries where you build all the mosques that you please and demand special treatment, then I expect you to permit non-Moslems to flood into your countries, construct churches and demand special treatment.

I don't care whether Moslems "assimilate" into Western culture, which, in many ways, is decadent. I care about Islam's determination to overrun non-Moslems.

That is what will happen should Westerners not turn to God and His Holy Catholic Church.

However, suppose, for example, that Mass attendance will soar in France during the next few weeks. How long would that last?

How long would it be before people who attempted to reconnect to Catholicism would be drive away again by "Novus Ordoism"? How long would it be before the boring, uninspiring Masses, ugly, antiseptic churches, joke-telling, modernistic priests, and watered-down Catholic identity wore down the returnees?

The Western Church must return to the TLM and the strong sense of Catholic identity that the TLM instills in hearts and minds. That is the only way that Westerners will succeed in combatting spiritually and peacefully the Islamic invasion of the West.

The TLM will fill hearts and minds with the powerful determination to convert the world to Jesus Christ. Beginning in Western nations, the West's predominate decadent culture will be challenged by God's holy people.

Millions will convert from the Culture of Death to the Culture of Life. From there, the opportunity will exist to convert many Moslems to the Truth.

That is the way, spiritually and peacefully, that we must contend with the Islamic invasion of the West. The reality is that millions of Moslems have flooded into Western nations from which they will not be expelled.

We must first renew the (Western) Church...renew ourselves. Then we will have the opportunity to renew Western culture and, I hope and pray, convert millions of non-Catholics (including Moslems) to the Faith.


Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

Anonymous Anonymous 2 said..."And deporting all the Muslims, razing mosques (as Gene suggests), attacking ISIS with massive military force, would be exactly what they want."

As of now, millions of Moslems will not be deported from Europe. Mosques in Europe will not be razed. The West must deal spiritually and peacefully with the Islamic invasion of Western nations.

However, that does not mean that the West must continue the insane practice of permitting Moslems to flood into Western nations.

As to your point about employing military force against ISIS...well, Daesh (ISIL) must be halted. Military excursions against Daesh is a viable option for Western nations. France, for example, has every right to respond military to Daesh.

Daesh has driven hundreds of thousands of Christians and additional persons from Iraq and Syria (or forced them to relocate to other parts of Iraq and Syria). The people driven from their and villages have every right to return to their villages.

Other than via military force, how will the hundreds of thousands of people in question return to their villages?

Naturally, any use of military force against Daesh must adhere to Catholic principles.


Mark Thomas

Anonymous said...

My goodness do we have an Islamist apologist here at 3:22 PM just another LIBERAL who cannot or will not face facts, how very sad.

Anonymous said...

You may follow Kipling into your grave, we will follow Mr. Trump!!

Anonymous 2 said...


If you had the slightest comprehension of what I wrote, you would not resort to (I’m sorry) juvenile name calling more appropriate for the playground than for serious discussions. For example, show me where I said appropriate military force should not be used in principle.

You illustrate the problem with our diseased body politic. So many people no longer are willing and/or able to deliberate; all they can do is emote and spew their tripe onto social media sites like this one. People like Trump capitalize on this mindset and think they can get votes by throwing red meat to the masses. They seduce naïve and ignorant voters into a fantasy world in which they imagine a Deportation Force can round up and deport 11 million or so undocumented migrants, when this is legally impossible absent amending or suspending the Constitution or even the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 as amended (both of which guarantee proper hearings and due process for most) or that ISIS and radical Islam can simply be bombed into oblivion.

This round of debates for the Republican presidential nominees is a complete joke. I really had hoped for better but I was prepared for worse. I’m glad I prepared. The one thing The Donald has going for him in his favor is that, like Bernie Sanders on the Democratic side, he is authentic. What you see is what you get. But, of course, he has no chance of winning the Republican nomination, let alone the presidential election, just as I suspect Bernie has no chance of winning the Democratic nomination. The election will likely be between Hillary and Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, or possibly Jeb Bush if he can get it together (I suspect Ben Carson will fade); or if all else fails, they may bring back good ol’ Mitt. At least then, either way, we are less likely to go completely off the rails, or the cliff.

Although I disagree with Mark Thomas in that I do not see the TLM as the panacea he does, he is absolutely on the money to point out the many similarities between Islamic teachings and Catholic teachings. Wise Catholics (and others) would do well to build on this common ground in forging alliances with moderate Muslims against the extremists. Even General Sisi in Egypt may now see the sense in reaching out to the Muslim Brotherhood as a counterweight to ISIS, which is so much worse.

Mark Thomas said...

I wish please to add the following comments:

As of now, I believe that it's a pipe-dream to believe that millions of Moslems will expelled from Western nations. Mosques in Western nations will not be razed.

However, I fear that one extreme may follow another extreme.

For decades, Western elites, have flooded the West with Moslems. The elites desire inexpensive labor. Moslems fill that roll. There are Western elites whose hatred of Christianity is so deep that they hope to eliminate Christians via Islamic integration.

Regardless, Western elites have flooded the West with Moslems. That unbridled immigration policy represents an extreme.

The reaction to that extreme may be that of a 100 percent anti-Islamic mentality among Westerners who fear that their nations will fall to Islam. While they can, millions of non-Moslems throughout the West may look to political leaders who promise to drive Moslems from Western nations.

Beginning in Europe, civil wars may brew as non-Moslems react violently against governments who are consigning Europe to Islam.

There are, I believe, only two ways to avoid a war or wars in Europe.

1. Christianity in Europe must be rekindled on a massive scale. Europe's Culture of Death must be overthrown. Abortion, artificial birth control, the destruction of marriage and family must, at least on a large scale, must disappear from European culture.

There will always be fierce Culture of Death advocates. But the majority of Europeans must reject Europe's dominate Culture of Death to restore the practice of forming large families.

Christians throughout Europe must, by a considerable margin, simply outpopulate Moslems. Christians must dominate Europe.

2. Islam must reform itself. The hatred of "infidels"...the mentality to conquer via the sword must be cleansed from Islam.

Unfortunately, the problem is that Islam is not unified. Islam is broken hopelessly into sects. Therefore, it's impossible to reform Islam as nobody can speak for Islam.

Naturally, should an Islamic sect attempt to reform itself, a certain amount of said sects adherents will resist the reform in question. They will regroup to preserve their "true" teachings.

Unfortunately, the situation in regard to reform within Islam is hopeless. Possibility #2 is a pipe-dream.

Therefore, Europeans must return to Christianity should they wish to avoid falling under Islamic domination.

Well, there is an additional possibility. Perhaps Europe's non-Moslems may not do anything in regard to Islam's pending domination of Europe. Non-Moslem Europeans may simply surrender to the insane immigration policies that their elites have enacted.

Europe's non-Moslems may also continue to reject their Christian past. Europe will continue to plunge deeper and deeper into the Culture of Death.

Europe's non-Moslem population may continue down their current path with leads to their virtual disappearance from Europe. Decades from now, they will become Moslems or face beheadings.

Pray that His Holiness Pope Francis restores the TLM throughout Europe and the all the West.


Mark Thomas

Gene said...

If you kill enough of them, they will stop. Destroy their mosques, declare them undesirables, deport, arrest, and shoot the rest. It can be done, should be done, and may yet be done if the country gets a real leader and wakes up. We can let Anon 2 and Cavy Gnaw run around putting flowers out and crying and tearing their hair. Better yet, declare their ilk undesirable, too, and ship them out with the camel jockeys. I think Mark Thomas has lost his mind.

Gene said...

This is a, after Paris, the Pope is saying to prepare for the end of the world...but, but...what happened to global warming?

Mark Thomas said...

Anonymous Anonymous 2 at 3:22 PM said..."The last thing we should do now is to play into the hands of the terrorists by doing what THEY want."

It is impossible to play into the hands of the terrorists as they will do whatever they please.

They believe that they adhere to "authentic" Islam. Therefore, non-Moslems must be converted to Islam or face the dire consequences associated with "authentic" Islam.

The "terrorists" are simply true believers. From the dawn of Islam, the "true believers" have been at war with non-Moslems.

When the true believers are not murdering non-Moslems, they (true believers) are murdering Moslems who don't conform to the true believer's interpretation of Islam.

Again, there isn't any way to play into the hands of the terrorists as they don't need any excuse to continue their wars against non-Moslems and additional Moslems.


Mark Thomas

Anonymous 2 said...

P.S. I forgot the reference for the point about General Sisi:

Anonymous 2 said...

I disagree, Mark. We play into their hands by doing things that make it easier for them to recruit people to their cause.

Think about it. Specifically, as just one example, think about what we are feeling now and what people are saying on this blog. Many want immediate retaliation. Do you think Muslims feel any different when we kill their innocents and call it “collateral damage”? This isn’t rocket science. Escalating violence by responding with “an eye (or more) for an eye” is as old as humanity.

Thus the real question is how to break the cycle. The answer: Jesus Christ. Because they would not listen to Him (when asked to walk a mile, go two; turn the other cheek; love your enemies etc. – all referring to the Roman occupation), the Jews were driven from the Holy Land after seeking a solution through violence. But: If you live by the sword, you will die by the sword. And so they did.

This wisdom extends beyond Christianity. Thus Ghandi (attributed): “An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.”

Anonymous 2 said...

Yes, Mark, and when their True Believers clash with our True Believers, all hell breaks loose (literally).

Mark Thomas said...

1 of 2

Anonymous 2 said..."I disagree, Mark. We play into their hands by doing things that make it easier for them to recruit people to their cause.

"Think about it. Specifically, as just one example, think about what we are feeling now and what people are saying on this blog. Many want immediate retaliation. Do you think Muslims feel any different when we kill their innocents and call it “collateral damage”? This isn’t rocket science. Escalating violence by responding with “an eye (or more) for an eye” is as old as humanity.

"Thus the real question is how to break the cycle. The answer: Jesus Christ. Because they would not listen to Him (when asked to walk a mile, go two; turn the other cheek; love your enemies etc. – all referring to the Roman occupation), the Jews were driven from the Holy Land after seeking a solution through violence. But: If you live by the sword, you will die by the sword. And so they did.

"This wisdom extends beyond Christianity. Thus Ghandi (attributed): “An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.” "

I agree that Jesus Christ is the answer. That is why I hope and pray that His Holiness Pope Francis and, at least beginning in France (and throughout Europe) that the Latin Church bishops will unleash the Traditional Latin Mass.

The TLM has the tremendous ability to attract people, young persons particularly, to Jesus Christ and His Church. The Traditional Roman Mass imbues worshipers with a powerful sense of Catholic identity.

I appreciate your good heart and desire to serve God as a Peacemaker. I realize that when talk of war and retaliation surface, even when military action is required, that in a certain sense, mankind suffers a defeat.

Every bit of me is aware that you are among the Blessed Peacemakers.

Also among the Peacemakers are people who realize that Jesus Christ's Catholic Church teaches that people and governments (as taught by Vatican II, for example) have the right to self-defense.

From Gaudium et Spes, #79: "Those too who devote themselves to the military service of their country should regard themselves as the agents of security and freedom of peoples. As long as they fulfill this role properly, they are making a genuine contribution to the establishment of peace."


Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

2 of 2

France, for example, has every right to respond (and responded today) to Daesh's act of war against France. But said response must correspond to the Church's principles of self-defense.

Force is necessary to return to their villages the hundreds of thousands of Christians and non-Christians who Daesh has driven from Iraq and Syria. Why should the innocent Christians and non-Christians in question be consigned to another winter huddled in tents and confined to refugee camps?

I disagree that just responses to Daesh play into the hands of the terrorists. Again, the very fact that we are "infidels" is the only reason that terrorists require to continue to wage war against the West.

That said, I believe that the notion that Western nations should raze mosques and driven millions of Moslems from Western nations is a pipe-dream. If anything, should that scenario unfold, Christian minorities in Islamic nations would, in turn, be massacred by Moslems.

Finally, should Western governments continue their insane immigration policies that have flooded the West with Moslems, then the likelihood of civil wars would increase throughout the West.

The same applies should Western governments refuse to respond to Daesh's war against the West.

It may be, at least within Europe, that the ruling elites have so beaten down the non-Moslem population that the "average" European has consigned himself to the notion that Islam will conquer Europe.

However, I imagine that the majority of Europe's non-Moslem population will soon reach the boiling point in regard to Islam's invasion of the West. It would be then that Europe would face a collective civil war.

The West had better respond now to Daesh or the Western elites may face a massive backlash from hundreds of millions of its non-Moslem citizens.


Mark Thomas

Anonymous said...

Fr Kavanaugh, you are joshing, surely? How can you misconstrue a quote that refers to the very founder of Islam and I will repeat the quote again - perhaps you should read it more slowly this time, “Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”

All I can take out of your summation is that you believe that Mohammed himself preached a perversion of Islam. That is really something. Fr de Souza says, "roots of this violence lie in a perversion of Islam, not its authentic theology". Ha, ha, so Mohammed's command to spread by the sword the faith he preached is not authentic Islam. I have heard it all now ... here are the Koran's verses of violence. See what spin you can put on those.

Anonymous said...

Mark Thomas, while I agree with some of what you have said in the posts above, some of what you are saying is rather contrary to the "pax" at the end of it.

I thought at first that Trump was in the Republican race to give everyone a bit of a laugh but now I'm not laughing and I agree he is the only one making much sense. He seems to me to be becoming a serious contender and if selected he may go all the way. Certainly he would make mincemeat out of Hillary ...

Mark Thomas said...

Anonymous said..."Mark Thomas, while I agree with some of what you have said in the posts above, some of what you are saying is rather contrary to the "pax" at the end of it."

Please give me an example(s) of what I have said that is contrary to peace. Thank you.


Mark Thomas

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

Jan - By taking Pope Benedict's words out of context you find in them the meaning you want them to have.

The speech at Regensberg was not about the foundations of Islam. It was not about specific verses from the Qur'an. It was not about violence.

Benedict was engaging in a deeply theological examination of one of the basic concepts of our own faith and asking if this kind of thinking about and understanding of God was reflected in Islam.

More from De Souza's piece: "Benedict then asked if Islam conceives of God in the same way. Does Islam have an equivalent to the divine Logos? Does the Islamic conception of God as utterly transcendent, beyond all human categories, mean that God is beyond reason itself?"

And, "The suggestion is not that Allah is insane or irrational, but, rather, that he is not bound by a reason accessible to human beings.

And, "The fruit of all that was evident this summer, as the highest scholarly authorities in Islam, based in Cairo, have explicitly stated that the “Islamic State” is not justified by Islam and is not an authentic representation of it.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Trump was on MSNBC on Sunday and said he believes Mosques should be under surveillance or closed entirely, like it or not he is going to do what MUST be done close the borders, build the wall, keep Syrian Muslims out of America, all of you anti-American self haters mock him and laugh at him but guess what he stands at 43% now in the polls. This fraud in the White House must be stopped! He is destroying this country day by day, he just let in thousands of Syrian Muslims in New Orleans yesterday without Governor Bobby Jindal's knowledge. Obama is intentionally flooding America with MUSLIMS and nobody is stopping him.

Jusadbellum said...

What amazes me is the double standard.

Random nutcase shoots up a black bible study and suddenly the whole country is in a mass hysteria over confederate battle flags because the lone nut had one. So, obviously, it must be the flag's fault.

Random nutcase shoots up a school so of course it's the fault of guns everywhere not just that particular gun in the hands of that particular mad-man.

But dozens of cases of "sudden Jihadi" syndrome occur and we are IMMEDIATELY told not to jump to the conclusions that we're trained to jump to when the shooter is desperately hoped to be right-wing.

Well, which is it? Political correctness is all about lumping people together in blocs and boxes - all blacks are innocent of racism, all whites are guilty of slavery. All gays are heroes, anyone who opposes gays are haters. All democrats love the poor, all republicans hate immigrants, women, children, the poor, and the government.

Our culture is constantly lumping people - entire classes of people into the "awesomely awesome, pure and angelic" box due to their affiliation with some category while condemning other people as "awfully awful, evil and bad" for other characteristics.

Until we mention abortion, sodomy, or Islam. Then and only then must we suddenly be very, very careful about calling all abortionists "Kermit Gosnells", or all sodomites, well, sodomites... or Islam itself an evil socio-political system with a veneer of religiosity.

Do we take great pains to distinguish between "modern Klansmen"? Or Moderate Nazis?

Most members of the KKK did not actively take part in lynching and cross burning. Most German civilian members of the Nazi party did not join the SS or actually kill any Jew. But the question is: did they approve of those who did? Would they have joined in the action given the chance?

What do we know of human nature? It's the rare bird who will persist in aggressive behavior when outnumbered. Most people are followers not leaders. Most people of any ideological persuasion are members of the suggestible herd. It's what we learn from Palm Sunday and Good Friday is it not?

So to say "Most members of X organization are not violent" is to say NOTHING of usefulness. Of course most members of a particular culture are not violent. How could they be? But that doesn't say anything about the value at the heart of their culture or what they WOULD do more often than not if given the chance based on this belief system.

Islam is an aggressive system in ways the Amish are not. Give the Amish AK47s, RPGs, mortars, machine guns, and 10,000 suicide vests and they won't hurt a soul because their belief system is such that they are not in the least bit ambitious to expand by force of arms. Give them a nuclear device and they'd hand it back. Their core belief system does not paint a picture of Amish warriors conquering the world by force like Islam's book does.

So of course most Muslims are not terrorists. Neither were most Nazis and Klansmen. Of course most Muslims are not threats to us (right now). But to the degree they become true believers they - unlike say the Amish - subscribe to a belief system about what is right or wrong behavior and what ought to be done to non-believers which does very much involve the use of force, violence, and terror to win converts, seize slaves and vassals, or annihilate those who would neither convert or pay the protection tax.

Anonymous said...

This is what happens when you expel Jesus Christ and the Roman Catholic Church as the Europeans did. Europe lost the Holy Faith years ago and let in millions of Islamic invaders and look what has happened. Statistics do not lie, Norway, Sweden, Holland, Belgium, England, France, Germany, Denmark are on track to be MAJORITY MUSLIM nations within the year 2050!! The Muslim birthrate in Europe stands at 8.2 children per couple as opposed to 1.2 children per white ethnic Europeans, at this rate a country CANNOT replenish itself against such numbers. Remember, Muslim women in Europe stay at home have babies and the men work, white European couples both work and hence cannot take care of large families. It makes me sick to see Germans at the railway stations with signs saying WELCOME REFUGEES, the Muslim invaders must be thinking as they get off the trains boy are you Germans so stupid as to not know what we are going to do to you??

Anonymous said...

Remember, when Muslims are at 1% of the host country they live in they pretend to be law abiding citizens, as they climb in percentage in the host country they start asking for Halal meat, no pork in public schools i.e. England is a good example, sharia law in their communities, you see they become emboldened, remember what the Quran says they are allowed to LIE in order to conquer where ever they may live!! This is in the Quran of course the Dhimmis who provide cover for the Muslims i.e. Democrats, liberals, Marxists all say this is a perversion of Islam. I find it ironic that all of the groups that protect Muslims and Islam such as gays, feminists, Democrats, atheists, musicians, Liberal Jews, athletes, and celebrities would all be the first to be butchered under an Islamic Sharia Caliphate, it boggles the mind!!!

Gene said...

Anon @ 11:17...yep, I point out to these liberal morons and the artsy-fartsy, stoop-tag set that they would be the first ones slaughtered by a Muslim government. I guess they'll just have to see it and feel it to believe it. Then they will be begging for those of us with evil military backgrounds and combat experience and nasty old guns to save them. Problem is, we'll do it because we want to remain civilized. Then, they will hate us all over again...

Anonymous said...

Yes Gene, you are correct it just amazes me that after the be-headings on you tube, the burning alive of the poor Jordanian air force pilot in cage by these animals we still have people such as Hillary, Sanders, and O'Malley not even able to utter the words ISLAMIC RADICALISM who are these candidates trying to not offend?? They apparently have not read the blogs such as Gateway Pundit, Jihad Watch, Breibart, and see for themselves what awaits them! But you see when you are worth MILLIONS of dollars you can insulate yourself and have no worries!!!

Anonymous said...

You know Gene, this has got to stop, Obama just said at a news conference in Turkey the 129 murdered by these pigs is just a "SETBACK" as he put it, he must be impeached and put on trial for treason the man is sick in the head I cannot believe in my lifetime that a sitting president would hate his own country as much as Obama does.

Anonymous 2 said...

I hope to expand on this point later but all those who think they can just read some verse in the Qur’an or some hadith of the Prophet Muhammad and understand what it means and simply apply it literally are making a fundamental epistemological mistake. This is true of uneducated extremists and uneducated Westerners, whether critics of or apologists for Islam (including operators of some of the websites cited in this thread). It takes YEARS of education and training to understand the sources of Islamic Law just as it takes years of training to understand American law (that’s why we have law schools and Bar exams). More broadly, that is why we submit to communities of interpretation that carry hermeneutical traditions, whether religious, legal, or literary. It is a modernist error to think otherwise, and this error is very Protestant. In religion it leads to the errors of religious fundamentalism, which is of course a reaction to perceived threats from modernity. In short, perhaps bit of epistemological humility may be in order. I may not know everything there is to know about Islam but I do know this: Beware of those selling snake oil borne of ignorance and hubris. It is a lethal combination of vices.

Marc said...

Anonymous 2, it seems that you are making an epistemological error by assuming that Western philosophical modes of analysis apply to Islamic law and that Western textual hermeneutical methods apply to the Qur'an.

If it takes years of education and training to understand Islam, as you claim, then you have demonstrated your own lack of understanding of the subject since you do not have years of education and training in Islamic studies. Your idea, then, that our philosophical and critical methodologies should be applied to Islam has no foundation since you lack the very education and training that you think others should have.

As an aside, the proposition that law school and bar exams have much to do with actual American law is laughable. If your analogy is applicable, it is very likely that those with the best understanding of Islam are those who are not undertaking the teaching of Islamic studies, just as law professors are the last people anyone with a question about the actual law should consult.

Mark Thomas said...

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said..."And, "The fruit of all that was evident this summer, as the highest scholarly authorities in Islam, based in Cairo, have explicitly stated that the “Islamic State” is not justified by Islam and is not an authentic representation of it."

Who are the "highest scholarly authorities in Islam"? What authority do they possess within Islam? Who appointed them as Islam's highest scholarly authorities?

Islam is broken hopelessly into sects. Nobody can speak on behalf of Islam as Islam lacks unity. Within Islam, what one "high authority" may say is discarded by the next sect's "highest authority".

To reduce the situation to our understanding, within Islam, and for that matter, each non-Catholic religion, everybody is his own Pope. That is, other than the True Religion, each religion is divided hopelessly and lacks unity and true authority.

For example, what one "highest authority" Islamic scholar from Islamic sect "A" may say is rejected by countless Moslems from Islamic sect "B".

From there, Islamic sect "C" rejects the "authorities" from Islamic sects "A" and "B"

From there, Islamic sect "D" rejects "authorities" from Islamic sects A, B, and C.

Disunity. Chaos.

Millions or Moslems claim that Islam does not encourage terror directed against "infidels".

Conversely, millions of Moslems insist that Islam encourages terror against "infidels".

That is the state of Islam. Islam, as is the case with non-Catholic religions, is devoid of true authority.


Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

Anonymous 2 at 2:18 PM said..."It takes YEARS of education and training to understand the sources of Islamic Law..."

What "understanding" results from studying Islamic Law when Islamic Law scholars ...

1. Do not agree upon what sources of Islamic writings should be studied in regard to Islamic Law.

2. Islamic Law scholars offer opinions that differ radically among each other.


Mark Thomas

Anonymous 2 said...

Oh dear, Marc, where do I begin?

First, I never said that Western textual hermeneutical methods apply to Islamic law. I drew an analogy.

Second, I most certainly can know that it takes years of education and training to become a bona fide religious or legal scholar in Islam for two main reasons—Islamic scholars who know say so, and I have been able to verify the truth of this from my own studies as I come to recognize the complexity of the subject.

Third, you make a basic and common mistake in your comments on U.S. legal education. I see this frequently when engaging in discussions on this topic with law students. You confuse the necessary with the sufficient. Law school falls into the former category. No-one claims that law school does everything that needs to be done. As you have doubtless discovered, being a lawyer is a process that involves continuing education, in particular experiential education. But surely you are not seriously maintaining that an untrained lay person can take a statute or a case and know what it means and how it should be applied to a given set of facts?

Thus my basic point remains. Just as you need to learn “how to think like a lawyer” as a necessary precondition for practicing American law, so also you need to learn "how to think like a Shari‘a scholar" as a necessary precondition for reaching authoritative conclusions about the Shari’a. In both cases this means, centrally, learning what the sources of law are and how to work with them. Untrained persons are almost bound to make serious and fundamental errors regarding the meaning and application of the sources in both systems.

It is, I submit, the height of arrogance (combined with ignorance)—a lethal combination, remember—to deny this. Anyone who really wants to know something about the subject should read the following book to get them started. Then we can talk again:

This book, written by a devout Catholic, is the best one volume resource on the market. I use it in my own teaching of the subject. I also know the author and he is aware of its limitations and shortcomings, which he plans to address in the second edition.

Anonymous 2 said...

Mark Thomas:

Just because there is diversity in Islam does not mean that there is just chaos. Most Sunni Muslims, who account for about 85% of Muslims, will adhere to one of the four Sunni schools (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi, and Hanbali), among which there are substantial areas of agreement as well as areas of disagreement, and most of the Shi’a will adhere to one of the three main branches of Shi’ism (Twelver, Sevener, or Fiver), and here again there are areas of agreement, both among themselves as well as with the Sunnis, as well as areas of disagreement. In fact, your analogy with Christianity is well drawn but it works against you when you think not only about the differences among Christians but about how much is actually shared. Moreover, just as in Christianity we can acknowledge some opinions to be more soundly based and more authoritative than others, so too we can say the same in Islam.

This said, at the most fundamental level you are onto something important. Authority and legitimacy are rooted in the community that recognizes and thus confers them. This is why it is so dreadfully important to understand that what is occurring in the Islamic world truly is a “battle for the soul of Islam.” Our task in the West is to learn who the contenders are, to choose allies wisely, and to support those allies in appropriate ways and not to make life even more difficult for them by doing stupid things that inadvertently strengthen the position of their adversaries. This requires knowledge, strategic thinking, and wisdom. And these things, in turn, require humility.

Marc said...

A2, setting aside your obvious obfuscation, let me focus on the point. You claimed that the Quar'an cannot be taken literally because doing so is an epistemological error. You think it is an error because western hermeneutics does not take the book literally.

As it turns out, though, Muslims do take it literally. And they, not you and other western academics, are the book's target audience. The understanding and application of the book by its adherents is vastly more important than the views of academics and so-called experts.

Islam is not an intellectual religion. It is incredibly simplistic -- as I suspect you know through your studies on the subject. The Qur'an is very straightforward and is meant to be taken and applied literally, as the book itself says. The Hadith is also to be applied literally since it tells the life story of the perfect man.

As much as you might want there to be some interesting philosophical-legal discussion to be had about Islam (and of course western-friendly Muslim academics want that too), the reality is that Islam is not analogous to other religions in that way. I suspect that its simplicity is one of the major reasons that Islam is so popular as a curative response to raging secularism, but that is a discussion for a different day.

I don't wish to discuss further law school and it's meaninglessness. Suffice it to say that I disagree with you, and I think that a practicing lawyer worth his salt would never be as dismissive of non-lawyers as your comment shows you to be.

Anonymous said...

Mark Thomas, I have to say that, although I agree with nearly every word of what you say, your whole post at 10:59 PM "Pax" seems somehow incongruous at the end of it because there will be no peace and, as you quite rightly point out, I believe there will be an uprising against the flood of Islamic immigration should western governments continue to open wide the floodgates as they have and I believe as Catholics we have a duty to resist the surge of Islam.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous at 11.17, Jean and Mark, all your comments are bang on but of course do not move the likes of our very own Fr Kavanaugh and Anonymous 2. Both choose to ignore the whole of history that shows the violence of Islam way before Daesh was ever thought of. They choose to ignore the imposition of Sharia law in parts of the UK and now the US which is a savage barbaric law.

It has been suggested to me that many of the leaders are in fact terrified of Daesh and that is why they are throwing out the welcome mat. That could well be but I think it is also a case that they themselves are - as has been mentioned - they are safe. Barak Obama would simply fly off in Air Force 1. Hollande was quickly ushered out from Stade de Paris but the rest of the crowd was left to sweat it out. Angela Merkely is not offering even one of her many residences to "refugees" but is pushing people out of their homes to accommodate them. The following is reported to be happening in Germany:

"A small German town of 4,000 that just found out it would receive 3,000 migrants, with government authorities declaring, “If you don’t like hosting refugees in your town, you can leave the country.”

This is not the exception, but increasingly the rule.

The village of Sumte, population 100, must take 1,000 refugees, and its mayor was perplexed Tuesday as to why his small town of approximately 100 people was livid.

Obama has pledged to do the same thing here.

“German town of 100 must take 1,000 Syrian migrants,”
WND, October 16, 2015
Mayor at townhall: ‘I did not expect so many interested residents’

Gene said...

My daughter is a lawyer and graduated magna cum laude from UGA law school and she assured me that every single one of her law school professors was certifiably crazy. She is a criminal defense attorney and said that a law professor practicing law would be like a mechanical engineer trying to race NASCAR.

Anonymous said...

Marc, you seem to believe that a person with no professional academic training has an equal or superior understanding of some specific matter when compared to the person with years of professional training.

This is balderdash, and you know it. You give evidence of this every time you go to a doctor, who has years of professional academic training, rather than going to the corner store and asking the stock boy how you should treat your ailment.

Marc said...

Anonymous at 7:48:

There is no necessary correlation between academic training and superior knowledge -- a fact that is evident to anyone who deals with people on a regular basis.

I graduated from the law school at which Anonymous 2 is a professor. While I respect his academic field and his expertise in that field (and regret not having taken any courses with him), there is a disconnect between the world of law school and the real world of law practice. For better or worse, law school does not prepare one in a meaningful practical way for the practice of law.

Medical education, as I understand it, is radically different than most law school education since it places an emphasis on practical application through residencies. Where academic education intersects with the real world in such a way, it is most meaningful in its understanding of and interaction with the worldly state of affairs.

With regard to the situation of Islam, I understand that Anonymous 2 is taking an academic view of the subject and treating it as something to study in the abstract -- he speaks of epistemological methodologies and not phenomenological evaluations. If I were an academic in Anonymous 2's position, I would probably approach the subject in the same way.

However, I am arguing with his attempt to apply western philosophical-legal analysis to a concept that does not lend itself to that analysis. I argue that he is using the wrong lens to view the subject. Again, I think it is interesting that he is viewing it that way since I share his intellectual curiosity and appreciate his academic rigour. When searching for practical answers to the current phenomenon, though, it seems to me he is using the wrong framework.

I think that our discussion is interesting in itself, though, because it shows how people with different academic and practical backgrounds can disagree. Since he is an academic, he views things through that lens. Since I am a practitioner, I view things through that lens. Our respective frames of reference lead us to make different observations about the subject. The reality of the matter is probably something of a combination of our viewpoints, since that combination would take into account both the esoteric and the practical prongs of the subject.

Anonymous said...

White European Christians do not reproduce period!! This will cause the complete and total demise of White Christian Europe within 50 years.

Anonymous 2 said...


“You claimed that the Quar'an cannot be taken literally because doing so is an epistemological error. You think it is an error because western hermeneutics does not take the book literally.”

No, Marc, I never claimed such a thing. This is what I actually said:

“[A]ll those who think they can just read some verse in the Qur’an or some hadith of the Prophet Muhammad and understand what it means and simply apply it literally are making a fundamental epistemological mistake. This is true of uneducated extremists and uneducated Westerners, whether critics of or apologists for Islam (including operators of some of the websites cited in this thread).” I then referred to the need to “submit to communities of interpretation that carry hermeneutical traditions, whether religious, legal, or literary.”

So, under the classical Shari‘a if someone wants to understand the Qur‘an or the huge corpus of hadith (some 400,000) properly, one has to submit to the relevant Islamic—not the Western—community or communities of interpretation. Perhaps you are unaware but there are two additional “sources" of Shari‘a—ijmā (consensus of the community) and qiyās (analogy). The following link will give you a sense of the complexity and the need, therefore, for extensive training to be properly versed in the classical Shari‘a (although there is much more to be said):

For various reasons (including Western influence) in more modern times the classical Shari’a became displaced to a greater or lesser extent in Islamic countries and the different schools of Islamic law declined. However, in more recent decades there is a resurgence of Shari‘a among Islamists, some of whom have very harsh and puritanical interpretations that reject the classical jurisprudence of the schools.

Marc, if it is so simple as just reading the Qur’an and the hadith (all 400,000 of them), you must explain, for example, why in some countries women wear only the hijab to cover their head and chest, and otherwise dress modestly, while in other countries they are required to wear the full head to toe burqa. The answer, of course, is that the relevant verses in the Qur‘an (and relevant hadith) are interpreted differently in different schools.

Marc said...

A2, it would appear, as I suggested before, that our frames of reference lead to the divergence in our views on this subject. You are imagining a situation wherein the Islamic law is accepted by Muslims as subjected to schools of interpretation as a clarification of abstract legal principles. There is no accepted community of interpretation in Islam, as you know.

It would appear that there are different schools of interpretation with regard to things such as the hijab. That seems to be in the same category as the subject of our discussion, though. That is, to what extent can one be at variance with the plain text and still be counted as an adherent to the religion and, therefore, be representative of the religion.

Why I contend that you are making a categorical error in your analysis is your continued viewing of the question from a western point of view. In Christianity, for example, there are people professing to belong to the religion who are at various levels of orthodoxy and orthopraxy. It is accepted as a subjective identifier when anyone claims to be a member of the religion even if that person doesn't meet the objective criteria (since the objective criteria, such as the Nicene Creed, appear to be somewhat meaningless in light of historical events).

It is my view that you are incorrect in applying this logic to Islam. There are not unorthodox Muslims -- those people are non-Muslims (or apostates, according to the Muslims). Now, I recognize that I am walking close to an only-true-scotsman fallacy with this argument, but I do not find that to be problematic because I am not actually challenging your conclusion. I am challenging your methodology.

And you continue to demonstrate the shortcomings of your methodology by citing to Wikipedia of all things and arguing for communities of interpretation. You continue to impose on the subject an improper methodological framework, which does a disservice to the subject and does not fully respect it as an independently existing phenomenon. Stated more clearly, you are taking a eurocentric view of Islam, which is a methodological problem that clouds your analysis.

Now, I am particularly interested in this subject because my father lived in Saudi Arabia for some time when I was young, and he worked for a major corporation owned by one of the princes (like everything there). I don't think this gives me any particular insight into the issue, but hearing his experiences gives me enough information to know that the application of western ideas to something that is decidedly non-western (or, perhaps, anti-western) is an error.

To reiterate, I appreciate your evaluation of Islam from an academic point of view. I suppose it is interesting in itself to attempt to understand possible methods of interpreting the Qur'an and the hadith. It is clear that one can apply that methodological viewpoint and come to a reasonable evaluation of Islam that would appear complex, nuanced, and peaceful. It would erroneous to set aside the empirical evidence (both in the present and historically) in favor of the theoretical, academic view that one could imagine. More fundamentally, though, it is erroneous to apply western interpretative methodologies to Islam and expect that those methodologies are going to result in the same interpretation as given by those who are the audience of the teaching. Even if it is subject to interpretation, the manner of the interpretation would need to be selected properly, and it does not appear that the methods that you are suggesting are the accepted methods (with the possible acceptance of them by certain western-leaning Islamic academics). It is certainly the case, as we can seem phenomenologically, that western methods of moderate interpretation have been rejected by the religion's adherents (to the extent that those adherents are identifiable and separable from the subjectively identifying adherents).

Gene said...

Ya' know, Anon2, I don't re-hash the taxonomy of wild dogs before I shoot them. You are sure wasting a lot of breath and ink defending savages that should just be shot. Thankfully, most of us outside academia don't give a flying goose fart about Islam or its various strains.

Anonymous said...

Marc - Well, then, since there is "no necessary correlation between academic training and superior knowledge" you will seek the stock boy's advice regarding your hepatitis, your yard man's advice when filling out your taxes, your banker's advice when dealing with electrical problems in your home, and your baker's advice when you are looking for the best legal defense of a client. Good Luck.

Marc said...

Anonymous, it seems you could use some academic training in reading comprehension since you do not understand what "necessary correlation" means.

Anonymous 2 said...


I agree that we should not impose Western ideas on this subject matter, and I have not. I am not applying Western notions or methodologies. They are Islamic notions and Islamic methodologies. I know this because a renowned and very traditional Hanafi scholar taught me about the sources and methods in 2004. Moreover, my central teaching method is the method of “cultural immersion” in which we try to enter into the viewpoint of the other cultures and see matters through their own eyes, not ours. This is, admittedly, difficult to do and cannot be done perfectly because it is impossible to escape completely from one’s own categories and prisms but the effort must be made to achieve it as much as possible. If my students take anything away from such a comparative course, it is that they should first make the effort to understand before they judge and act. There is nothing “liberal” about this. Indeed, the CIA trains its analysts to do the same.

I never said there was a community (singular) of interpretation. I made it clear that there are diverse communities (plural) of interpretation. Indeed, Islam celebrates this kind of diversity. It seems to me that you accept this when you acknowledge (as you must) that the different schools of jurisprudence have different rules about the hijab/burqa. And the reason for this is precisely because the text is NOT plain.

I cited to Wikipedia because it is perfectly adequate to make the point that needs making. You will recall that I also cited to a leading textbook on Islamic law yesterday. I could give you many additional citations as well if you like.

With all due respect to your father’ experience in Saudi Arabia, if Saudi Arabia is the basis for your understanding of Islam your understanding will be very distorted because a particularly strict school prevails there (the Wahabi inflection of the Hanbali school) as a result of a “deal” between al-Wahhab and the House of Saud in the eighteenth century. Nowadays there are tensions between the Wahhabi ulema and the Saudi rulers (who have tried to introduce various kinds of reforms). Many see important connections between this school and Islamic extremists including the Taliban, al-Qaeda, and Isis. Here is Wikipedia again because it makes the points very well:

See also:

Notice how the Wahhabi school handles the various sources. Thus “the Hanbali school is noted for its literalist interpretation of the Qu'ran and hadith” and it also demotes qiyas and emphasizes ijtihād (independent legal reasoning). The Wahabi school is an outlier and indeed virtually disappeared from the Islamic world for centuries until the puritanical al-Wahab resurrected it.

I will concede that all of the major schools of the classical Shari’a will seem strict and even harsh by comparison with Western law. This said it is important to remember two points. First, they may actually not be as harsh as appears at first sight—for example, the criminal law punishments require several difficult preconditions to be satisfied before harsh punishments are imposed. Second, most Islamic countries have experienced significant reform of the classical Shari‘a and/or its displacement by Western inspired law. What has been happening over more recent decades is a degree of regressive reversal as reactionaries seek to resist Western cultural, political, and even military incursions as well as perceived oppression by authoritarian regimes supported by the West.

Anonymous 2 said...


You have not answered my question at 2:59 p.m. on November 14 in this thread: Just how many Muslims do you know? If the answer is none, you should keep quiet because you are talking through an alternative orifice.

Gene said...

I have known a number of Muslims over the years, and had several Muslim martial arts students years ago. What has that got to do with anything? My Daddy did not know any Nazis and his brothers did not know any Japanese. If your yard is full of rattlesnakes, do you need to be a herpetologist to deal with them?

Anonymous said...

Marc - No, no, no! By your own admission, academic training doesn't help. You can't say it is unhelpful and, then, turn around and say you need the help that comes from academic training.

How's that advice from the grocery store stock boy helping with your hepatitis?

Marc said...

Anonymous, I never said that academic training "doesn't help." I said that there was no necessary correlation between academic training and superior knowledge. In this instance, I am positing that you would benefit from academic training in reading comprehension since you are unable to understand what "necessary correlation" means. And now you are imputing to my statement as to non-correlation something having to do with "helpfulness."

Anonymous said...

Marc - Oh, I agree, incompetent lawyers graduate from law schools all the time. Bad doctors get degrees from medical schools. There is no "necessary" correlation.

But that's not what you've been arguing here and in other threads.

I will argue the opposite - a person with superior knowledge in the treatment of hepatitis is, in 99.99% of cases, the graduate of a medical school and, fairly likely as well, Board Certified in his/her area of practice.

A person who is recognized by his/her peers as a superb trial lawyer is, in 99.99% of cases, the graduate of a law school and, fairly likely as well, someone who has continued his/her law education.

As Anon 2 has observed, you are confusing necessary with sufficient.

Marc said...

Anonymous, it's not that I don't understand A2's point. I just disagree with him. People are allowed to disagree.

I agree with your examples. There is a strong correlation between superior knowledge and academic training. That correlation is not a necessary one, though. Furthermore, your examples fail to take into account experience, which was a major component of the point that I was making in my above posts.

Jusadbellum said...

When the President condemned Christians (get off our high horses) on account of our affiliation to the Crusaders of 700 years ago who may have committed some atrocities, he was connecting living Christians to deceased, bad Christians. He didn't say "insofar as murderous Crusaders committed atrocities in the name of Christ they ceased being Christians..." as he DOES when it comes to Islam.

It's the no true Scotsman fallacy writ large for an entire religion.

Rather than acknowledge that some Muslims are indeed radicals, fundamentalists, or 'bad', the secular Western world insists that they magically cease to be Muslim the moment they commit an act of terror while dead Catholic knights continue to sully all living Christians half a millennia after their deaths.

See, WE must feel not just shame but also guilt for the sins of others who died ages go....but Muslims (and other highly favored minorities) bear no such burden.

Thus...random white nut job goes on a killing spree and it's instantly proof of institutional racism. It's not just his problem, it's " white society's problem". But if the random nut job is black, Hispanic, or Muslim he's transmogrified into "a lone wolf of no certain religion or affiliation".

But we're all human and morality is universal so why the double standard?

I'm perfectly OK with acknowledging 'bad' Catholics do in fact exist and I may be one of them and ought to seek God's pardon along with my fellow why the stress that there can be no such thing as a 'bad' Muslim, gay man, or other minority?

If the sin of a white man says much about how rot gut awful white society is (privileged and institutionally evil...) then why don't the sins of others reflect poorly on THEIR religions, cultures, ethnic tribes?

What are we told to do about white trash? Feel shame, feel guilt, and make all manner of social and personal changes to make amends for the sins of people who merely look like we do.....while insisting (in the name of "diversity") that the same cannot apply to any other tribe?!

It's somehow not OK to expect Muslims to feel bad about bad Muslims? They're not to use the Quran and Hadith to take out their own garbage as we are constantly expected to do?

Precisely because there are a million sects within Islam, we non-Muslims are in no standing to declare someone to "not be Muslim". If they say they are, then they are.

On the other hand, when the lion's share of Muslim schools and sects agree on the major tenants of Islam that declares the world divided between Muslims, slaves to Muslims and those not yet defeated....and calls for the eventual global triumph by the sword of all non-Muslims, the only "moderates" we'll find are those who repudiate this - which is unlikely in the near term as everyone is scared of the hot-heads.

Anonymous 2 said...

Marc and Anonymous:

I am unsure exactly where the phrase “necessary correlation” comes from. I was reacting to Marc’s claim that “the proposition that law school and bar exams have much to do with actual American law is laughable” and maintaining, essentially, that, no, law school and bar exams indeed have much to do with actual American law although they certainly do not have everything to do with it and, to the extent someone claims they don’t have much to do with it, that person is confusing necessary with sufficient. I understood “actual American law” here to mean the law in action.

I was also reacting to the associated claim that “law professors are the last people anyone with a question about the actual law should consult.” This claim is fallacious for several reasons. First, many law professors, including myself, have experience as practitioners and many still practice in fact. Although I never sat for a state bar in the United States, I am qualified an English barrister and, even without a state bar qualification, acted as a “consultant” to a large Atlanta law firm, specifically to its business immigration law team, for some years.

Second, imposing Western ideas on Islamic law is indeed an error, and one of the errors you are committing, Marc—somewhat ironically perhaps—is to project a distinction between “academics” or “scholars,” on the one hand, and “practitioners” on the other. In common with civil law systems, Islamic law places great store on legal scholars--in Islam, the ulema (religious scholars) and the fuqaha (legal scholars). In the classical model, they are, to a large extent, the “practitioners” of the Shari’a. Nowadays, unfortunately, those without adequate training in the sources and methods of the Shari‘a think they are also qualified to issue legal opinions (fatwas). To the extent this is “accepted” by some community that follows them, we might have to say it is a version of Islamic law but the classical Shari‘a it is not. In the same way, we might say that the car mechanic who dispenses medical advice in complex cases (I am not talking about having a cold or a little cut) is practicing medicine (of a sort) but, as Anonymous rightly points out, you would not generally consult a car mechanic for hepatitis. In the law, it is perhaps even stricter because “the unauthorized practice of law” is prohibited. Perhaps there is an anti-competitive element of restrictive practices in all this, but there is also a good dose of protection of the public.

Anonymous 2 said...


What it has to do with is this: Are they rattlesnakes too? Would you now shoot them as savages?

I notice the Japanese are Japanese but the Germans are Nazis (nothing like smuggling in good ol’ Adolph in by the back door to get additional rhetorical heft). My father fought “the Nazis” too; then he married one of them. Ooops!

Marc said...

A2, the phrase "necessary correlation" was mine. I think Anonymous was challenging my usage of that phrase when I suggested that there is no necessary correlation between academic training and superior knowledge. I think we have clarified that point by now. In essence, I was trying to convey that mere academic learning does not suffice when it comes to application. I was also trying to convey my experience with clients who have little to no education but who are able to understand and apply law to facts and facts to law in ways that would make many lawyers envious. It is simply not the case that one must undergo academic training in order to have practical or theoretical knowledge of most fields (in this particular example, I am talking about the field of law).

I have to agree with you that I misspoke earlier. It is demonstrably true that law school has some impact on American law insofar as law school professors and others attached to law schools write articles that impact the way courts view cases. I should have said something more like "law school and the bar exam have little to do with the actual practice of law in America."

I take issue with the way that legal education is carried out in America since it overly focuses on exegesis of common law and the imposition of methodologies instead of focusing on practical aspects of law practice, including interpersonal skills and technical realities of practice. As for my denigration of law professors, I have worked with your colleagues for internship programs, and I respect the work they are trying to accomplish as practitioners. This whole conversation about law school and law professors has been rather tongue-in-cheek on my part, which I suppose was not obvious.

I tend to have a rather negative view of legal education that is colored by the fact that mine cost a lot of money and, in my opinion, negatively impacted my ability to interact with people as a human being (by teaching me to "think like a lawyer").

Anyway, I am interested in the idea of epistemology and methodology, so I have enjoyed our discussion of those topics with regard to the particular study of Islam. I have intentionally made a hard distinction between academics and practitioners because I think that a meaningful distinction exists in the methodologies of these groups. It seems to me that your last paragraph gets at the point I have in mind -- it makes little difference what the academics have to say if the practitioners are carrying out the practice in some different way. It is interesting to theorize about possibilities of interpretation, but it doesn't amount to anything real until the theory is put into practice.

Anonymous 2 said...


I too have enjoyed our discussion and would be delighted to continue it in person. I agree with you that legal education needs to reform itself by ensuring that law students are more practice ready when they graduate (I do think that Mercer compares well with many other law schools in this respect, however). It has always been astounding to me that, unlike other developed nations, no U.S. state requires a mandatory apprenticeship before entering practice. That is one reason I enjoy teaching in our externship program now and would like to see externship (or enrollment in a clinic) become a requirement for all law students.

Anonymous 2 said...


Ragarding the no true Scotsman fallacy, I do agree that in reality Islamic extremists are just that, adherents of an extreme or radical version of Islam. However, let me suggest that moral cowardice or double standards may not be the (only) reason many are reluctant to acknowledge this explicitly. Thus, I can certainly see that refusal to do so may be part of a tactic to de-legitimize extremists/radicals such as ISIS by not gracing them with the appellation “Islamic.” It is not theoretically or practically pure, perhaps, but the tactic and the instinct behind it are not necessarily unworthy surely. Moreover, as explained in the following Atlantic article, there may be additional good reasons for terminological caution:

Anonymous 2 said...


There is an interesting discussion of the division of the world to which you allude in your final paragraph on the Muslim Brotherhood’s official English website: This paints a somewhat different picture from the one you paint.

Here is one passage to give a sense:

Question: Many people do not know much about this categorization of Dar Al-Islam and Dar Al-Harb. Could you enlighten us on what does this classification mean, what is its historical context, and most importantly, what is the Islamic stand on this categorization, I mean is it a genuine inherent in Islam that it is of a permanent nature, and not open to any question, or is it merely an ijtihadi view by some scholars and therefore can be revisited and re-thought by contemporary Muslim scholars.

Answer: First of all, we should know that this categorization is not mentioned in the Qur"an or in the Sunnah. However, it is just an attempt from some Muslim scholars to conceptualize the world they were living it, a world that lacked international law to govern nations and language of force was the norm. Therefore, we are not religiously obliged to accept this categorization as it is part of history and not revelation.

Secondly, even among the early jurists who used this terminology there was a difference in the definition and application. For example, some jurists defined dar al-Islam as a nation with a majority of Muslim population, while others defined it as any place where Muslims are protected and given freedom to practice their faith. According to the Hanafi school of fiqh, security and freedom of worship is what makes one land Islamic or not. Al-Kasani is his book Bada"i` As-sana"i` said: "The view of Abu Haneefa is based on the assumption that the criterion in the land of Islam/land of disbelief division is not belief and disbelief, but rather it is security and insecurity (from oppression)."

The great Shafi`i scholar Al-Mawardi went further and said: "wherever the Muslim can worship Allah openly, the land he is living in is an Islamic land (dar Islam)"

This view of al-Mawardi seems to be applicable to our world today, and based on this we can say that 99% of the countries today are part of the abode of Islam.

Jusadbellum said...

Anonymous 2,

Surely you realize the legal ramifications for Muslims of calling a land (nation-state) "Islamic" for subsequent applications of their law and how its applied to non-believers and apostates?

There's a reason Osama Bin Laden, Madrid bombers and Parish attackers gave warnings to the West before attacking. It was following his religion's legal code. They may be 'bad' Muslims from our perspective but they are definitely Muslims sincerely seeking to follow Islamic code with respect to "jus ad bellum" - their version of just war.

We may grant them equality under our Constitution and they're happy to have it. But once they are free to move about the country without threat, they will call the US "an Islamic country" and while we don't notice anything amiss THEY DO.... suddenly the US shifts from a pagan country to one of THEIR countries. It's only a matter of time before they are compelled by their religion to treat fellow citizens under Islamic code in addition to (and eventually in exclusion to) secular law.

Why our secular elites do this is beyond me but it's possibly the result of two interrelated "pleasant fictions" they have talked themselves into: treating Islam as a racial minority (like all other minorities) and presuming that Muslims' behavior is primarily based on ethnic, cultural traits and not religious ideals - thus forcing them into the tried and true template used successfully with all other ethnic minorities in the US rather than employ the techniques so-far successfully used against the other global religion: Catholicism.

If Islam is an ethnic minority the go-to tactic is to placate them by being "nice to them", honoring their heroes and condemning as racist haters anyone who does anything they find unpleasant. By ignoring their religious motivations for behavior we are forced to look elsewhere for their motives for using terror tactics.

Thus we are to feel sorry for them as put upon minorities unjustly condemned by poverty to "lash out" for lack of social mobility or "education" (seen as western secularity). Thus the winning move would be akin to giving the "Black Lives Matters" [which is a GOTV campaign] support and "stealing their thunder". Co-opt their rage, agree on the justice of their cause, the righteousness of their heroes and saints, and buy them off with extravagant gestures (which only brings them under your payroll).

If instead we acknowledge 1 billion Muslims do sincerely believe Mohammed was the PROPHET, that the Quran is God's literal last message to humanity, and that salvation in this life and the next is objectively dependent on their more or less pure following of these beliefs and codes of conduct, we will be empowered to do something about it. And it will look very similar to how the secular left treats Catholicism....

Jusadbellum said...

And how do the secular materialists of the West treat Catholicism? As an ethnic minority? As merely an economic system? Hell no.

1) The secular left heaps opprobrium and scorn on Catholics "qua" Catholics.
The secular left lampoons, maligns, and otherwise makes 'uncool' any serious Catholics "qua" being serious Catholics while lionizing and heaping praise and honors on any "unserious" or secular Catholic.
2) Jesus Christ is used as an expletive in every Hollywood film and much of sitcoms. Mary is made fun of in art, literature, movies, songs, etc.
4) Catholic institutions are bought off or co-opted by the government via loans and other devices to hamstring Catholic ministries that formerly were major methods of evangelization and recruitment of new members. The government is happy to give a Catholic hospital or university as much money as it takes to eliminate that institution as a source of Catholic faith-promotion.

Why? Because once you de-legitimize a religion - by scorning its bed rock truth claim about God and God's involvement in history, you reduce the human element to purely secular processes and procedures. Thus the on-going freak out when Jesus is prayed to in public while the same people will bow gravely to Mohammed's name and insist that we must never utter anything derogatory to him or his book.

The secular Left (Masons, communists, secular materialists, etc.) don't regard Catholicism as = an ethnicity. They treat Catholicism as a toxic, backward, childish but DANGEROUS fantasy and the institution as at best a useful GOTV mechanism to be co-opted or at worst as a serious ideological threat to their ambitions to be resisted and crushed. But to make sure no 'true believer' rises up, they keep the pressure on both doxis and praxis as well as undermining morals at every turn.

They do this because they do accept that many Catholics are motivated by the religion's truth claims. Destroy the "likelihood' of those truth claims and the whole edifice comes crashing down.

Anonymous said...

Hillare Belloc in his book about Muslims and the crusades predicted the rise that is now taking place.....only holy people will stop this as has been the case in the past

Anonymous 2 said...


You make some important points. They lead me to suggest that we should look on the incorporation of Islamic minorities into our Western societies as an opportunity, rather than as a threat. For example, I do not think we should wantonly insult the Prophet Muhammad and I regard the antics as those such as Pamela Geller or Charlie Hebdo as bordering on the criminal. Although I profess no special expertise in U.S. constitutional law I do wonder whether knowingly and deliberately provoking a fully foreseeable, anticipated, and indeed desired violent Muslim reaction transgresses the limits of First Amendment protection. But, of course, people who do this not only disrespect Islam; they tend to disrespect all religion. Perhaps, then, we are presented with a teaching moment in civility in a pluralistic society. Even if not criminal, it is immoral (at least seen from a certain perspective—our perspective for example) and certainly unwise to mock what others hold sacred. Of course, none of this justifies a violent reaction, even though it might help explain it. Moreover, we should act out of respect, not fear.

Of course, such religious minorities have to observe proper limits on the practice of their religion because certain practices may be incompatible with basic norms that must be accepted as the price of admission to our societies as it were. In the case of Islam, for example, there would have to be appropriate limits on the practice of Shari‘a law in Muslim communities.

In short, why shouldn’t Catholics make common cause with Muslim communities (at least their moderate members) in seeking respect for our respective faiths and teaching our fellow citizens the importance and value of respect for the sacred? This, it seems to me, could be a fruitful avenue for Catholic-Muslim dialogue in the West. As an aside, perhaps France, with its commitment to secular extremism and the hyper-privatization of religion, could learn something from the more moderate United States.