The Myth of Moderate Islam

The following video, produced by Islam Net Video, explodes the myth of "moderate" Islam.

This is not anti-Muslim, Islamophobic propaganda. This is a calm and rational demonstration of a simple fact by Muslims themselves: there is no such thing as "moderate" Islam. 

Kicking out a few "fundamentalist" preachers, as was recently done in Australia to Farrokh Sekaleshfar, the senior Shiite Muslim cleric who preached in Orlando that homosexuals should be murdered, isn't going to accomplish anything. Preachers like Farrokh Sekaleshfar are not the problem. The problem is the people who invited him to speak in Orlando, i.e. observant Muslims.

Islam is at war with western civilisation.

Islam is at war with Christ.

Islam is at war with you.

On Apples and Hand Grenades, or the Virtue of Religious Conquest

Some people - among whom are folks I respect - are getting their panties in a twist over an admittedly tasteless parallel recently drawn by Pope Francis between Mohammed's commandment to wage war on the infidels (Al-Baqarah 191-3) and Christ's commandment to go out and make disciples of all nations (Matthew 28:18-20):

La Croix: The fear of accepting migrants is partly based on a fear of Islam. In your view, is the fear that this religion sparks in Europe justified? 

Pope Francis: Today, I don’t think that there is a fear of Islam as such but of ISIS and its war of conquest, which is partly drawn from Islam. It is true that the idea of conquest is inherent in the soul of Islam. However, it is also possible to interpret the objective in Matthew's Gospel, where Jesus sends his disciples to all nations, in terms of the same idea of conquest.

As far as Modernist 'coexist' agitprop goes, this is pretty standard fare: 'Don't condemn the Koran just because it can be interpreted as enjoining religious conquest. The same thing can be said of the Bible, you know.' At which point, the listener is supposed to say: 'Gee, I guess you're right. How could I have been so hypocritical?' While mind-numbingly facile, this argument actually works more often than not. Go figure.

Much of the outrage has been directed towards the parallel itself, which the editor-in-chief of one respectable Catholic blog rejected as "non-existent." And I get the point: a command issued by a murderous pedophile to enslave, rape and murder non-Muslims can't really be compared to Christ's command to teach and make disciples. A case of apples and hand grenades painted to look like oranges.

While I sympathize, I think this criticism misses the mark. The truly disturbing aspect of the Pope's statement is the unspoken rejection of all forms of religious conquest inherent in it.

As I've said before, the problem with Muslim fundamentalists is not their fundamentalism, but rather their devotion to an evil creed. Similarly, the problem with jihad is not that it is religious conquest, but that it uses deception, violence and terror to spread that evil creed. Religious fundamentalism is a virtue, provided that it is in the service of divine truth. Religious conquest is a noble undertaking, provided that it uses legitimate means for the spreading of God's Kingdom.

If your take away from each news item reporting yet another act of Islamic terrorism is that it was caused by religious fundamentalism, you've bought into the lie of relativism.

Religious fundamentalism is not the problem. The problem is Islam.

Mathias von Gersdorff: 1000 Missionaries to Turkey

Mathias von Gersdorff, director of the German office of the Society for the Protection of Tradition, Family and Property (Germany; America), has penned an appeal to the German Bishops collectively and German Chancellor Angela Merkel specifically to approve the sending of 1000 Catholic Missionaries to Turkey to preach the Gospel with the hope of converting them to Christ and His Church. I provide you with an English translation of the appeal below, without comment:

***

Re: Appeal to the German Bishops Conference and Chancellor Angela Merkel - 1000 Catholic Missionaries to Turkey

Your Eminence Reinhard Cardinal Marx,

Lady Chancellor Merkel,

A cursory glance through the newspapers is sufficient to ascertain that Islam will be one of the dominant themes in global affairs for some time to come.

The Catholic Church is faced with the following question: How can the Gospel of Christ be brought to the Muslim population? How can they be won over to the Christian Faith?

If nothing else, the fact that Christians are being persecuted, murdered and/or driven out of once predominantly Christian areas by Muslims should promt us to action.

Hitherto, exclusively political and military measures have been taken in the attempt to manage the crisis.

In the long term, however, this is not enough.

Missionizing Islamic countries is the only means to a sustainable resolution of the crisis.

Therefore, I appeal to the German Bishops:

Send 1000 missionaries to Turkey and other Islamic countries. Turkey has already sent 1000 Imams to Germany. Our response: We shall send 1000 Catholic missionaries to Turkey and other Islamic countries. Individuals willing to go on mission and bring the message of Christ to the Muslims can be found in a number of countries, such as Poland, Croatia, etc.

I appeal to Chancellor Angela Merkel:

Provide the German Bishops with any necessary diplomatic assistance so that this undertaking does fall victim to political chicaneries. Also, please provide financial assistance: the Federal Government has ample means to ensure the success of this mission.

Sincere reagrds,

Mathias von Gersdorff

(Original [German]: link)

An Interview with Cardinal Sarah

His Eminence Robert Cardinal Sarah
(Photo: M. Migliorato/CPP/CIRIC)

On the Crisis of European Culture

Q. Your Eminence, the book you have published, consisting of interviews with Nicholas Diat, is called God or Nothing [Original: Dieu ou rien]. Seeing as Europe has largely lost the sense of God, would you say that Europe has thus become Nothing?

A. I can only answer in the affirmative. Without God is Nothingness. Without God, there is Nothing. Without God, what am I? What keeps me alive? And after this life, what is there? If God does not exist, there is no eternal life.

Q. Europe, after having experienced the horrible wars of the 20th century, desired to focus on peace, assuming that everything arising from its identity - and therefore, potentially, its Christian heritage - could be deadly. In the book, it seems that you think Europeans should understand that their history and their spiritual and cultural heritage are not necessarily the cause of such troubles, and that we could maintain peace without having to sacrifice them. But how does one convince Europeans of this?

A. The process is not realistic; it is our interests which cause wars, not our religion. What causes war? What manufactures weapons? It is not religion, it is not God. And who sells them? War is a result of our greed and our thirst for gain. However, some fanatics use religion to provoke war. But I do not think you can accuse religion without accusing oneself. 

Observe the current conflicts. Fundamentalism was not born out of nothing. We attacked Iraq, and total chaos between Shiites and Sunnis was the result. We attacked Libya, and it is now a country in a volatile situation.

On Islamic Fundamentalism

Q. Is Islamic fundamentalism, then, a reaction to European actions? Or does it fuel itself?

A. The subject is complex. However, that fundamentalism is a cultural reaction should not be overlooked. Standing opposite of the Islamic religion is a religion of morals, but without God. Indeed, there is the appearance of progress, but this is a façade.

Q. Is this what John Paul II called the "Culture of Death"?

A. Precisely. They mock those who believe; they caricature. It causes a reaction, perhaps excessive, but I think that we cannot deny that this is a reaction to an atheist society, one without God, which does not shrink from ridiculing its own martyrs. They did it with Jesus Christ. There have been abominable films. Such things don't provoke the same reaction as they would among Muslims. But do not believe that all who are civilized accept having things which are essential to them being mocked.

Q. You come from Guinea, a country with a Muslim majority, where we can observe two currents familiar from elsewhere in the world: conventional, local Islam, and the Islam funded by Gulf countries, which poses a problem. In your book, you speak of a European ideological neo-colonialism which tries to impose upon the world its own ideas, in particular its theory of "gender".  However, does not Islam also evidence a desire to advance a policy of expansion?

A. Conventional African Islam, from the South, is very religious and very tolerant. For my part, I've never experienced difficulties between Christians and Muslims. When I celebrated the Feast of the Nativity in the cathedral, there were many Muslims who attended and who came to hear the message. We have always lived in fraternal peace. Indeed, since the 1970's, many Muslims have received scholarships to study in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere and have returned as fanatics. These, then, not only attack Christians, but especially their fellow Muslims.

Q. How do we escape from the notion which has arisen in the European mind that conflict with Islam is inevitable? Where is the way out?

A. What I am saying in this book is that it is necessary to help Europe return to God, to help it find its own identity. It is absurd to deny Europe's Christian roots. It is like closing our eyes and claiming there is no sun! But today's Europe refuses life: it does not bring forth life; it is growing old; it is saying that a man has no sex but can instead choose. This Europe has brought itself into a position of feebleness.

Q. What do you say to those who fear a war of religions? To affirm one faith is to necessarily enter into confrontation with another.

A. We, the Christians, we cannot raise an army on the pretense of defending our faith. Should a Christian army defend the Christians? No, this is against the Gospel. When Jesus was taken and bound, St. Peter drew his sword to defend him. Jesus said to him: "Put up again thy sword into its place: for all that take the sword shall perish with the sword."

Q. How does one for whom life has lost its meaning, as in Europe, rediscover it? We see this with the convert jihadis. Perhaps this is a reaction to the spiritual emptiness of Europe?

A. They leave because they find nothing here. No more values, no more religion, nothing. They seek there something to defend, something which gives them life. Today, I was at Saint-Germain-des-Prés where, I was told, many young people come to learn the Faith. It is a hope. But, personally, I think we should not minimize the growth of the Islamic presence in your country.

On the Great European Apostasy

Q. In the book, you talk about the "genius of Christianity," citing, among other things, La Manif Pour Tous as an expression of this genius. The very notion of a "genius of Christianity" has become almost scandalous today - in Europe and especially in France - where God and faith are often seen as forms of alienation. How are we to take this message of the "genius of Christianity" when it seems so provocative?

A. I want to remind the French that they are Christians, even if they do want want to recognize it. They have their history, their culture, their music, their art.... To call them to prayer, to protest against an unrealistic interpretation of human nature - that is to say, the theory of "gender".... To explain this in a firm but respectful manner, that is charity. If you let your friend destroy himself, you cannot say your love is genuine. Even if they do no want to hear it, they are Christians.

What's worse, even among those that do, they do not dare to declare themselves Christian. I have an adoptive family - I have three adoptive sisters in France - and when I arrived in my priest's habit, I was told, "Remove that." But this is my uniform! When a doctor goes to the hospital, he is not dressed however he likes. But it is true, and it was John Paul II who said it: such Christians are apostates. They do not say it. They claim to be Christian still. But in their manner of living, in their ideas, they act as if they were not Christians.

Q. Is it because we have given up the discipline which must accompany faith?

A. Not just discipline, but also the doctrine. We gave up the teaching which forms a man. This teaching, of course, engenders discipline. But before discipline, it is the teaching which has been discarded. And worst is that even some bishops - though a minority - say abominable things.

Q. To what extent is the Church in France not responsible for this situation? One has the impression that catechism has become a coloring workshop....

A. We gave up teaching catechism. Something was put in its place which is not a catechism, for it fails to incorporate, for example, certain points of doctrine. There was a refusal to teach catechism, and to learn it by heart, so that when children have finished, they know nothing at all, neither their prayers nor the Gospels. I think it is our responsibility because we have not done our job.

This is especially true when bishops interpret the word of God in their own way. I just re-read the statement of the Bishop of Oran on marriage. In the Gospel of St. Mark, chapter 10, Jesus says, "What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder." "Whosoever shall put away his wife and marry another, committeth adultery against her." The woman, too. It is very clear. But some bishops say, "No, one may marry again."

Q. Benedict XVI gave the impression of being very aware of these issues. Is Pope Francis, of whom you are a close associate, also?

A. Benedict was, first and foremost, a European - someone who has studies the profound crisis of the West. That is why his doctrine, the clarity of his teaching, was incontestable. When someone is drowning, you have to draw water. In the dark, you have to turn on the light. And Benedict XVI had the light. For Francis, who comes from elsewhere, measuring the depth of the European crisis is a challenge.

On the Scandal of the 2014 Synod

Q. Do you feel that the debate within the Church, which, in France, is often portrayed as a debate between progressives and conservatives, is organized around that issue, that is, around the crisis of the West and the crisis of faith in the West?

A. I think the debates, as evidenced by the last Synod, led everyone to focus upon the many crises instead of on the beauty of the Church and of marriage. But the Church is not only European; it is also African, Asian, Middle Eastern. The Gospels, and the martyrs, tell us that faith means to give of one's life unto death. The faith is not there to provide easy solutions to those in difficult situations. But the Europeans have closed their eyes; they think that the martyrs only require political or material support. But what the Oriental and Africans need is your faith, to see that they die for the same reason that you live here: faith in Jesus Christ.

Q. Do you think that Europe adds to the misery of persecuted Christians around the world precisely because of having lost its faith?

A. Of course. For to not support someone profoundly, to not share his faith, to not accept to suffer with him, is to affect his faith. This is especially true of African Christians who hear Europeans - Christians before them - say that faith is pointless, while it is a gift, a grace. It is a pity that there is not a more continuity of belief.

On Righting the Course

Q. Faith is a gift, a grace.... How would you explain the faith to Europeans, who have not merely lost their faith, but who have even forgotten the very idea?

A. I believe in someone who made me, who loves me, who is a Father upon whom I depend. If the existence of God is no longer perceptible, faith no longer exists. This is why the Fathers, the Popes have insisted that God can be proven. But for many Europeans, God is dead.

Q. Do you think the Church in France should confront more policy issues such as gender theory, homosexual marriage, euthanasia, abortion? In the book, you explain how all of these are fundamentally carriers of the "Culture of Death," to use the expression of John Paul II. What is the right strategy, apart from prayer?

A. There are certainly more weapons. But the main weapon is personal testimony, of strong marriages, strong families.... We need testimonials.

Q. Can you understand why some European Catholics were shocked by what the Pope recently said regarding Catholic families who reproduce "like rabbits"?

A. Do not get carried away by these little airplane quips. This conversation with the Holy Father was with journalists during a long flight. Suppose I am a priest, and I conduct myself poorly. Should those who see me, in turn, do the same? Moreover, in this case, the Pope subsequently made up for it.

Q. So, even the Pope can err?

A. Not when he makes statements of a dogmatic nature. But on questions of a philosophical  or economical nature, yes.

Q. Let us return to the testimony of exemplary Christians.

A. This is the first thing to be done. "You are my witness." That is to say, you live as a Christian should live. That does not mean that a Christian may not also engage himself politically to defend his values. I think that this is possible, because if Christians are removed from the process of decision-making, it is the enemies of the Church who will decide in favor of what they think is good. We need to encourage young adults to engage themselves politically.

Q. In your book, you talk about the "contagion of holiness." Do you think Christians in Europe have lost that sense, living in a profoundly relativist society? Should Christians in Europe and France regain their pride?

A. We should all be proud to be Christians. We should all be happy to be, because that's life. If I am without God, I die. To be with God is to be holy. Faith in God is not merely to think that He exists; it is to love as He loves, to forgive as He forgives. It is to imitate God. That is why the primacy of God is essential. I fight for a Being who is alive, who made me and who loves me.

Q. How do you respond to those who say that the Church has lost followers because it is not in line with the concerns of modern society, that it needs to adapt itself more to European society on issues such as contraception and divorce?

A. A doctor who has a patient, what does he do? Does he 'adapt' to the patient or does he try to fight the disease? The Church cannot say, "You are sick, and that's fine. I'll accompany you as you are." Instead, she should say, "I give you an ideal, a course of action." The Church does not invent anything; she says that which God told her to say. The Church would harm humanity if she were to abandon the Christian message by 'adapting'. The Church seems severe, but if I need an operation, I need to endure the pain in order to cure the sickness.

Q. In your book, you give an account of prayer - that one must know how to pray in silence. What about European Christians who have lost the sense of prayer?

A. It is through prayer that man is great. For the more he is on his knees, the more he is at the feet of God, the greater he is. I think that prayer is an attitude of both humility and greatness at the same time. If we do not pray, all of the troubles we have spoken about become a weight that we cannot carry. The Commandments are not laws; they are a path to the greater good. I think it is in prayer that we understand that all the circumstances of our lives are for the good.

***

Original: atlantico.fr (French)

The True Face of Progress

A few days ago, President Obama, while delivering his short address at the National Prayer Breakfast, dropped the following bomb:

Lest we get on our high horse and think that this [i.e. the violence committed in the name of religion] is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ.

Ignoring that the phrase "lest we get on our high horse" is invariably used to preface a statement which is itself a sanctimonious moral condemnation, this is an opportune moment to reflect upon the reactions the President's statement have provoked in the media. In particular, I'm interested in the comments made by radio talk-show host Laura Ingraham, a Catholic, during an interview on Fox News' The Real Story with Gretchen Carlson:

Are the Spanish rulers still burning heretics? Are they still executing them? No. Civilization has advanced. The problem is, in the Inquisition, let's not forget, that was a defence against, what, at the time, Christendom and Europe thought was the 'Death Cult of Islam.' That's why the Crusades actually began. It was a defensive move to protect Europe. But, that having been said, we've evolved and, sorry, this Islamic Jihadist movement is regressing.

Let's ignore that Ingraham, while understanding that the Crusades were defensive, and not aggressive, in nature, is essentially agreeing with President Obama in his moral equivalence of the Crusades to Jihad, and wishes only to add the caveat that 'we don't do that anymore.' Ingraham herself seems cognizant of the fact that her overall approach to the issue obviates the need for providing historical or - perish the thought - moral justification for either the Crusades or the Inquisition, which is why, we may assume, she makes her remarks on their justification parenthetical to her main point: we're past that, and Islam needs to join us in the 21st century. It was an unscripted interview, and I'm happy to assume that she would be capable of making a more coherent defense if given the opportunity.

Instead, I would like to focus your attention on the last statement in her comment - the one in which she claims that the Islamic Jihadist movement represents a "regression." This statement is integral to her main point, and it is rather troubling as it is symptomatic of an underlying view of the course of history which is antithetical to the Catholic understanding of time and man's orientation in it. I wouldn't feel compelled to comment were it not for the fact that I've heard so many well-meaning and otherwise well-educated Catholics take precisely this stance in regards not only to Islam and Islamic Jihadism, but also to the Church and Western civilization as whole. This underlying view is shaped by what can be termed the Enlightenment narrative. 

The Enlightenment narrative is a historical framework which pits an irrational, violent and oppressive past against a rational, peaceful and liberal future. In very broad strokes, it paints a picture of man's past which is inferior to his present in every regard and a future which surpasses the latter to an even greater degree. The underlying premise of the Enlightenment narrative, i.e. that the development and application of reason leads a more peaceful and free human society, is harmless enough. After all, which civilized person prefers armed conflict to reasoned discourse? Where the Enlightenment went sour, however, was in its assumption that reason alone was sufficient for bringing about more peaceful and free societies. And it became positively diabolical when it made human reason the foundation of all truth, when its interest in novelty and ingenuity mutated into a distrust and even hatred of everything traditional in favor of all things new. In this regard, the French Revolution and its aptly-named Reign of Terror is perhaps the greatest testimony to the failure of the ideals of the Enlightenment.

At the time of the Enlightenment and the period of revolutions which followed in its wake, the "advances" being made - in science, politics, and religion - were understood and defended as historical necessities, as the natural products of the development of human culture, as unavoidable and as unstoppable as the operation of the law of gravity. Now, having grown somewhat disenchanted with the fruits of the Enlightenment, secular thinkers are beginning to suspect that the narrative itself was perhaps the greatest driving force behind those revolutions.

While the Enlightenment narrative has largely collapsed under its own weight and is no longer seen as a fruitful framework for understanding historical events by professional historians - we are, as they say, in the "Post-Enlightenment" age - it remains very much a key component in the thought of modern man. In fact, given the central role it plays in the scientific, social, and political spheres of Western culture, one could go so far as to say that it has become the fundamental assumption - the "foundational myth" - of all modern societies. It is, more than any other factor - including religion - the common bond which unites all modern societies today: If you believe that the future is bright, or can be made bright by better education, better social conditions, and better technology, then you belong to "the modern world;" if, on the other hand, you believe that human history is to be plotted on a downward curve, that man, left to his own designs, is caught in a flat spin of self-destruction, that better education often only helps to inoculate man against true wisdom, that better social conditions often only serve to diminish his kindness and generosity, that better technology invariably produces the weapon with which he may more efficiently kill his fellow man, then you do not.

For most of her history, the Catholic Church taught the biblical narrative of the history of the world: that man began his existence in a state of physical perfection and supernatural grace, yet fell from this primordial state into one of abject sin and corruption. The march of time saw man get progressively worse, not better. Left to himself, things progressed to the point that God regretted having made man, and decided to wipe all but Noah and his family from the face of the earth, to start again with a covenantal promise of a future redemption, which has been fulfilled in His Son, Jesus Christ, and His Bride, the Catholic Church, the True Ark of Salvation. While she was always very attentive to the physical and mental needs of her children, and is rightly lauded for having constructed so many hospitals, orphanages, schools and universities, for having played such a vital role in the West's intellectual and scientific development, the Catholic Church was nonetheless even more attentive to their spiritual needs, for she understood that this world is ultimately headed for destruction. Yes, the earth will be brought forth anew from the ashes of the conflagration by the hand of Almighty God. However, it will not be of man's doing, but of God's alone.

Obviously, this biblical orientation put the Church at odds with the foundational assumptions of the Enlightenment narrative. This conflict frequently manifested itself in attacks on the Church herself, either in physically taking from her all that generations of piety and devotion had placed under her watchful care, blaming her for every misfortune suffered by the common man, or in excoriating her glorious history, portraying her as the enemy of all human culture. This conflict put tremendous pressure upon several successive generations of Catholics - cleric and layman alike - which came to a historic head at the beginning of the 20th century.

The period of the Second Vatican Council was a decisive time in the life of the Church, not least of all because it represented, by and large, the abandonment of the biblical narrative - that of a world slowly, and sometimes not so slowly, working its way towards ultimate destruction and divine judgment - in favor of the Enlightenment narrative - that of a world ready to launch itself into an ever brighter future, a world of intellectual freedom, of economic equity, of social justice and freedom for all. It is this fundamental shift in orientation which led the likes of Cardinal Seunens - one of the architects of the Council - to remark: "Vatican II is the French Revolution in the Church." If that is the case, it should be of no surprise that we are going through what can only be understood as our very own Reign of Terror.

And this brings us back to our original question: Does modern Islamic Jihadism represent a "regression"? Admittedly, for the Enlightenment narrative, 21st century Islam, with its stonings, beheadings and sex slave-markets, is something of a paradox. When, however, we assume the biblical narrative of history - which, as faithful Catholics, we should - the current rise in Islamic violence can in no way be seen as representing a "regression;" rather, it is a prime - one is tempted to say "perfect" - example of human progress. In the language of internet memes:

This picture, while shocking, is but one face of such unbridled human progress; another would be the horrifyingly obese American wheeling his way down the aisles of Wal-Mart in his Lil' Gopher Mobility Cart, or the European woman with cheek and lip implants which give her face the startling appearance of a bloated, hairless cat, or the South American sodomite couple prancing down the street in glittery pink thongs and thrusting their groins in the face of any child unfortunate enough to be present. These are not "regressions" to earlier, more primitive states. They are the true faces of human progress.

The Religion of Peace: Freemasonry in Action

The Religion of Peace

While the most recent case of Islamic terrorism on European soil has once again provided us with a vivid example of Islam's propensity for bringing out the very worst in man, it simultaneously provides us with an excellent opportunity to reflect upon the concerted effort of global leaders to deflect all trace of culpability from the religion of Islam. Almost on cue, we heard phrases like:

• "Islam is a religion of peace." (U. K. Prime Minister David Cameron)
• "All of us recognize that this great religion, in the hands of a few extremists, has been distorted." (U.S. President Barack Obama)
• "Those who commit such acts have nothing to do with Islam." (French President François Hollande)
• "Authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence." (Pope Francis)

If you agree with this assessment - if you think that Islam really is a religion of peace, if you think that Islam is being distorted by a few extremists, if you think the Koran is actually opposed to violence, if you think there is no concerted effort by western politicians and media outlets to whitewash Islam - then I strongly suggest that you stop reading now, because chances are good that you're really going to dislike what's coming next.

For those of you who remain: Well done.

When a politician stands up and says that "Islam is a religion of peace," we often make the mistake of assuming that he's speaking to us, i.e. to members of the Christian West. He's not. We are not the target of this particular bit of propaganda, and - despite what certain conspiracy theorists might claim - he's not trying to make Islam more appealing to us. He's not even trying to prevent us from acting out in retaliation. While he certainly does not want us to do so, that's not the real reason for his many assurances that "Islam is a religion of peace." He's not talking to us at all. He's talking to them, i.e. to the millions of Muslims who live in our countries who call themselves Muslims and identify as such but know next to nothing about the Koran, who can't read Arabic, who rarely if ever visit a mosque, and who have never visited a Muslim-majority country. These individuals are the true target audience of the media propaganda slogan "Islam is a religion of peace." He's not insulting our intelligence, he's preying upon the ignorance of westernized Muslims in regards to their own religion. He's selling them what is ultimately a counterfeit Islam - a nebulously spiritualized secular humanism clothed in terms familiar to Muslims - and hoping to recruit them as allies in his war against the real Islam - the one that inspires men to murder, torture, rape and mutilate in the name of Allah.

But, you might ask, how could such a blatant deception ever hope to succeed? On its face, it seems almost farcical, not to mention hopelessly doomed to failure, as any of those nominal Muslims could very easily pick up a book - perhaps the Koran, perhaps a book of Hadith containing the words of Mohammed, perhaps the memoirs of any of his numerous companions - and learn what their religion actually teaches. There is 1,400-years-worth of literature written by Muslim scholars on the religion of Islam, much of which is freely available. Why on earth would they choose to believe these politicians - and the Muftis and Mullahs in their employ - over the very works they consider either divinely inspired or of impeccable authority?

That is an excellent question, gentle reader. Before we attempt to answer it, however, it is essential that we acknowledge that this strategy works. We know it works because it's already been done.

To us.

A century and a half ago, the Catholic Church was a virtual monolith of moral, social and economic arch-traditionalism. The Catholic man - and there were many in those days - prayed fervently for the social kingship of Christ to be publicly proclaimed, and worked vigorously to that end, in whatever station God had placed him. He was prepared to suffer greatly in giving witness to his faith in Christ and his loyalty to Christ's Church, and did so often. He prayed publicly for the conversion of all - of sinners, of Jews, of Pagans, of schismatics, heretics and apostates - to the One True Faith. He constructed great cathedrals of unparalleled beauty, gave generously to the poor and downtrodden, built hospitals, orphanages and schools at a rate outstripping that of any earthly government, and was regularly blessed with unparalleled fecundity of offspring. All these things made him dangerous in the eyes of the world - indeed, he was a subversive, a dissident, a troublemaker, for he was the sworn enemy of both the greedy capitalist and the covetous socialist, of both the intolerant fascist and the reckless libertarian, of both the dumb brute and the effeminate highbrow. And when he was refused political office, banned from worshiping in the public square and forced to live in the ghetto, then he strengthened his Catholic brethren from within the community, doubled his efforts in prayer and penance, and transformed the ghetto into an oasis of Catholic life. He bore the scorn, condemnation and persecution of morally corrupt parliaments and partisan presidents to which he was regularly subjected with heroic patience. He was a member of the Church Militant and very much at war with the world which rejected Christ and His Bride, the Catholic Church. He was, in short, radically Catholic.

Some will doubtless accuse me of looking at the past through rose-colored spectacles. Was there no corruption, no vice, no malfeasance in those days? Of course there was. We are sinners, all of us, in the eyes of God, and Catholics of any age are no exception. But I dare anyone to objectively compare the world of 1914 with the world of 2014 and conclude that we have, as a society, increased in moral goodness, in humanity, in beauty, in nobility, in freedom, in peace. On the contrary, everywhere traditional, radical Catholicism has retreated from the social domain, there moral depravity, inhumanity, ugliness, perversion, decadence, enslavement and war have taken root and thrived. When we hear the supposed custodians of culture praising the developments of the last 200 years as monuments to human progress and gushing with panglossianism in regards to the future, we must stop to ask exactly who is wearing the spectacles here.

As for the reasons for that retreat, we needn't look far. Authentic, radical Catholicism has been replaced with a pacified counterfeit Catholicism which differs from the counterfeit Islam being offered to so-called 'moderate' Muslims in nothing but the attenuated cultural packaging. It is, at its root, the very same nebulously spiritualized secular humanism - or, to use a term more familiar to traditional Catholics: it is the religion of the Masonic Lodge. As the infamous French Freemason Yves Marsaudon wrote some 50 years ago:

Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, Israelites, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, free-thinkers, free-believers - to us, these are only first names. Freemasonry is the name of their family.

Some of you might be blissfully ignorant of the Catholic Church's long battle against Freemasonry. It might surprise you to learn that it was understood to pose such a terrible threat to true religion that no less than eight popes condemned it in the harshest of terms. In fact, it is still forbidden - on paper, at least - for a Catholic to be a member of a Masonic organization. Some of you might think that, if it existed at all, the effort by Masons to infiltrate the Catholic Church is a thing of the past. In a sense, you'd be right. Masons don't have to try infiltrate the Church any more, as proponents of this brand of spiritualized secular humanism hold key positions within the Catholic Church, and have done so for the last 50 years. These "agents of reform" have worked tirelessly to emasculate and corrupt the sensus fidei of the last three generations of Catholics so as to pacify them, to mollify them, to remove them as a threat to the World Order they are so feverishly working to bring about. As a result, vast segments of the Catholic population today are Catholic in nothing but name.

But, surely - you might object - surely someone would have noticed this. Surely one of these nominal Catholics would have picked up a book - perhaps the Bible, perhaps a work by one of the great Saints, perhaps a papal encyclical published before 1960 - and learned what the Catholic religion actually teaches. There is, after all, 2,000-years-worth of literature written by staunchly orthodox Catholic Fathers, Saints and Doctors, much of which is freely available. Why on earth would they choose to believe.... Oh, wait.

Which brings us back to our original question: Why would people choose a counterfeit over the real thing? The answer in both cases is the same: because they do not want the original. But - and this is key - the motivation in the two cases is diametrically opposite. Whereas "moderate" Muslims are eager to ignore the truth of Islam because they don't want the killing, the oppression, the barbarity, the cruelty, the misogyny - in short, the true face of radical Islam, "modern" Catholics are eager to ignore the truth of Catholicism because they don't want to be called to repentance, to mortification, to self-denial, to patience, to humility, to chastity, to charity - in short, the true face of radical Catholicism. In the former case, it is the vitality and strength of their humanity which blinds them to the truth; in the latter, it is the depravity and weakness of the same.

As for brushing up on authentic Catholic teaching regarding the nature of Islam or the person of Mohammed, I warmly recommend an article by Andrew Bieszad (MA in Islamic Studies from Hartford Seminary) entitled What Did the Saints Say about Islam? One of my personal favorites, St. Peter Mavimenus, tops the list. When asked to convert to Islam by a group of Muslims, he replied:

Whoever does not embrace the Catholic Christian faith is lost, like your false prophet Muhammad.

Unsurprisingly, that bit of wisdom cost him his head. I guess there were a few extremist Muslims distorting the peaceful message of Islam back in the 8th century, too.

Will the Real Islam Please Stand Up?

In a prime-time speech to the nation aired on the eve of the 13th anniversary of the September 11 terror attacks, U.S. President Barack Hussein Obama took a forceful, almost doctrinal stance on distinguishing the Islamic group ISIL from the religion of Islam in the mind of the American public. "ISIL is not Islamic," he opined. "No religion condones the killing of innocents, and the vast majority of ISIL's victims have been Muslim." The President's comment is merely one in a string to be issued by various Muslim authorities, such as Egypt's Grand Mufti Shawqi Allam, in recent days.

Former Muslims, however, disagree. Recently, a man using the alias "Brother Rachid" - as an apostate from Islam, he has to hide his identity due to the very real threat of being killed - wrote an open letter to President Obama imploring that he stop appeasing Muslims and expose the root of the problem threatening us all: Islam itself. 

A Message to President Obama from a Former Muslim 

by 

'Brother Rachid'

'Brother Rachid'
(Photo: exmuslim.com)  

Dear Mr. President, 

With all due respect, sir, I must tell you that you are wrong about ISIL. You say, "ISIL speaks for no religion." I'm a former Muslim. My dad is an imam. I spent more than 20 years studying Islam. I hold a bachelor's degree in religious studies, and I'm in the middle of my master's degree in terrorism studies. I can tell you with confidence that ISIL speaks for Islam.  

Allow me to correct you, Mr. President. ISIL is a Muslim organization. Its name stands for 'Islamic State'. So, even the name suggests that it is an Islamic movement. Their leader, Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, holds a Ph.D. in Islamic studies. I doubt you know Islam better than he does. He was a preacher and religious leader in one of the local mosques in Baghdad. ISIL's 10,000 members are all Muslims. None of them are from any other religion. They come from different countries, and have one common denominator: Islam. They are following Islam's prophet Muhammad in every detail. They imitate him by growing their beards, shaving their mustaches, and in the way they dress. They follow his command in the Hadith to differentiate themselves from the 'infidels' by wearing their watches on the right instead of the left hand (Sahih Muslim, Book 2, Hadith 69). They implement sharia in every piece of land they conquer. They pray five times a day. They have called for a califate, which is a central doctrine in Sunni Islam, and they are willing to die for their religion. They are following the steps of Islam's prophet Muhammad to the letter. By the way, if you want to understand ISIL, read the oldest biography of Muhammad by Ibn Ishaq. This is their model for action.  

You think that ISIL does not speak for Islam, because they beheaded an American and they killed those they consider infidels. In the same way, Islam's prophet Muhammad beheaded, in one day, between 600 and 900 adult males of a Jewish tribe called Banu Qurayza. In fact, beheading is commanded in the Quran, in Sura 47:4. It says, "When you meet the unbelievers and fight, smite at their necks." Ironically, this Sura is called "The Sura of Muhammad". Killing prisoners is also an order from Allah to Muhammad and to all Muslims. It says, "It is not for a prophet to have captives of war until he inflicts a massacre upon Allah's enemies in the land (Sura 8:67). And, by the way, three of Muhammad's wives were Jewish girls he kidnapped during his raids on religious minorities, just as ISIL is doing today. 

Mr. President, I grew up in Morocco, supposedly a 'moderate' country. Yet, I still learned at a young age to hate the 'enemies of Allah', especially Jews and Christians. These are represented today by Israel and the West, especially the 'Great Satan', America. I prayed five times a day, repeating Al-Fatiha, the first chapter of the Quran, asking Allah to lead me not in the way of those who 'went astray', and those who 'have the wrath of Allah upon them'. We all knew that it meant Jews and Christians. We have been brainwashed to hate all of you in our sacred texts, in our prayers, in our Friday sermons, in our educational systems.  We were ready to join any group that, one day, would fight you and destroy you, and make Islam the religion of the whole world, as the Quran says (Sura 9:39). 

This is what I and millions like me have been taught. Mr. President, this is an irrefutable fact. Fortunately, when I grew up, I chose to leave Islam and become a Christian, because I believe that God is love. Others also left, and still everyday they are leaving Islam and choosing different paths for their lives. All of them are suffering today because, again, Islam's prophet Muhammad says, "Whoever changes his religion, kill him" (Sahih al-Bukhari, Book 88, Hadith 5). I left Morocco under persecution. I was fortunate. Others throughout the Muslim world do not have the same opportunity. They are paying a heavy price, in different ways, in order to get their freedom one day. I ask you, Mr. President, to stop being 'politically correct', to call things by their names. ISIL, al-Qaeda, Boko Haram, al-Shabaab in Somalia, the Taliban, and their sister brand-names are all 'Made in Islam'. Unless the Muslim world deals with Islam, and separates religion from the state, we will never end this cycle. Until you deal with the root of the problem, you will be just dealing with the symptoms. ISIL is just one symptom. If it disappears, others ISIL's will be born under different names. 

You might ask, "Then why does ISIL kill other Muslims?" The answer is that they consider them infidels, not Muslims. Do you know that all four schools in Islam agree that, if a Muslim stops praying, he should be asked to repent, and if he does not, he should be killed? Do you know that Muhammad tried to burn his own companions when they stopped coming to prayers (Sahih Muslim, Book 5, Hadith 321)? So, anything that qualifies a Muslim to be an infidel can be a reason for killing him, even neglecting to pray. If Islam is not the problem, then why is it that there are millions of Christians in the Middle East, and yet none of them has ever blown himself up to become a martyr, even though they live under the same economic and political circumstances, and even worse? Why have many Muslims in the West also joined ISIL if Islam is not the reason? Why have even new converts to Islam become terrorists?  

Mr. President, if you really want to fight terrorism, then fight it at the root. How many Saudi sheikhs are preaching hatred? How many Islamic channels are indoctrinating people and teaching them violence from the Quran and the Hadith? How many Friday sermons are made against the West, freedom and democracy? How many Islamic schools are producing generations of teachers and students who believe in jihad, in martyrdom, in fighting the 'infidels'? And, finally, how many websites are funded by governments - your allies - who have sheikhs who issue fatwas against basic human rights? If you want to fight terrorism, start from there.  

By the way, I do not give my full name because Islam is a "religion of peace". I'm known around the whole world as 'Brother Rachid', and I implore you to take a stand for international human rights and the future of democracy and to speak the truth about the real threat that is facing all of us.  

Best regards, 

'Brother Rachid'