Orthodox patriarch opposes plan to make Hagia Sophia a mosque

This is another bold statement by Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I. May the Lord protect and strengthen him.

CWN - Feb. 20, 2013 - Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople has staked out his opposition to convert the Hagia Sophia into a mosque.

Once the patriarchal basilica of Constantinople, the Hagia Sophia was converted into a mosque when Muslims conquered the city [in 1453; Constantinople had been Christian for over a thousand years prior]. In 1935, Turkey’s government made the building a museum, as part of the secularizing campaign under the leadership of Kemal Ataturk. But today Turkey’s government, while professing the same secular principles, has supported a campaign to build new mosques and convert some historic buildings into mosques. A proposal to make the Hagia Sophia a mosque is now under consideration in the Turkish parliament. ''We want Santa Sofia to remain a museum,” said Patriarch Bartholomew. The Orthodox prelate said that if the museum is converted to any religious use, it should become a Christian church, since it was built for that purpose.

Related Story: Turkey reopening converted churches as mosques

Could Islam be 'Reformed'?

This is a very significant article (originally published in 2010) by one of the most insightful writers on Islam today, Dr. Mark Durie of Australia, author of Revelation: Do We Worship the Same God?, and The Third Choice: Islam, Dhimmitude, and Freedom. As with most things related to Islam, when discussing the idea of 'reforming' it, we must be very clear about our terms and what precisely we mean. This Dr. Durie does, with a patient pedagogy that permeates all his writings.

"They ARE the Reformation"

By Mark Durie

On December 1, 2009, Wafa Sultan and Daniel Pipes debated whether and to what extent a 'moderate' Islam is possible.  Although both are opponents of Islamic radicalism, on this question they did not agree.

Wafa Sultan argued that Islam is Islam, pure and simple, and there can never be such a thing as 'moderate Islam'. On the other hand, Daniel Pipes argued that the answer to radical Islam must be moderate Islam: Islam can be moderated, and the effort to support Muslim moderates is both necessary and worthwhile.

The two participants in the debate are as contrasting a pair as one could imagine.  The ex-Muslim Wafa Sultan is undoubtedly a powerful voice in her native Arabic, and even in English she is impassioned and speaks with a memorable turn of phrase.  In contrast, Daniel Pipes is measured and softly spoken, carefully and persistently making his case.  He challenged her to explain what practical solutions she could offer to the challenge of radical Islam.  She challenged him to show the results produced by his promotion of moderate Islam.

I commend the debate to readers, not because one party won the day, but because the speakers were addressing important questions, which will exercise many minds for years - perhaps generations - to come.

My concern here however is to focus on an important comparison between medieval Christianity and present-day Islam, which was raised by someone in the audience, who asked:

"I will suggest that this [radical Islam] is not that different from Christianity at the time of the crusades, which was a very belligerent religion compared to what it is today.  So look at that in terms of the evolution of a religious doctrine, and how long does that take?"

The questioner went on to speculate whether the acceleration of change, which we see in the world around us, could allow a reformation of Islam to happen more rapidly than happened with Christianity.

On countless occasions over the years I have heard this comparison: Christianity has undergone its reformation, so why not Islam? The European reformation took centuries: why wouldn't an Islamic reformation also take time?  Isn't it all a matter of time.

This line of thinking arises from a world view which looks at ideologies through the lens of 'progress' or 'evolution', shaped by a kind of Darwinism.  The underlying presupposition is that human societies evolve as time passes, progressing and becoming more humane and more advanced.  

Clearly not everyone in the West works from this assumption, but many do.  As recently as the 1960's, it was even fashionable among Western secularists to believe that religion had had its day altogether. Many announced that God was, at last, 'dead'.  The death of God was widely  regarded as one of the positive benefits of progress.

The idea of progress is not simply a concept - it has become part of the warp and woof of our everyday language.  We speak of ideas, policies and practices as 'backward' or 'regressive', 'progressive' or 'advanced'.  Time has become a yardstick to measure the ever-improving character of human social order.  It is the embedding of the idea of progress into our everyday language which gives credibility to the question "Can Islam not undergo its own reformation too?"

But do societies really tend to evolve, becoming more and more advanced?  Do social institutions inevitably improve with time?  Is progress more than just an idea - is it a law which governs the history of religions?

I find it very difficult, looking back over the ethical wreckage of the 20th century, to subscribe to the presupposition of progress. The worst atrocities of the past 100 years were perpetrated by regimes which held up an ideal of social evolution, and which were motivated by a vision of human progress.  One recalls, for example of the careers of Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zedong and Pol Pot.  Such shameful monuments to 'progress' as National Socialism and Communism do not inspire confidence that human societies and ideologies can and must improve with time.

There is another problem with comparing today's Islam with pre-Reformation Christianity, and this has to do with the meaning of 'reformation' itself.  It has become accepted by many thinking people today that 'reformation' means some kind of softening, a 'moderating' process.  Indeed a manifestation of 'progress'.  This is far from the truth.

Throughout the whole medieval period the idea of reformation (reformatio) was prestigious, and many reform movements chased after this ideal.   Reformation meant going back to one's roots, and just about everyone agreed that this was a Good Thing.  For medieval Christians, a reformed Christianity meant being more Christ-like, more apostolic, and more Pauline.  Wealthy St Francis read Jesus' words about giving away one's possessions to feed the poor, so he followed this teaching, and many flocked to join him.  Thus the Franciscans were founded as a reform movement.  

St Francis was a radical reformer. He was not inspired by a vision of making Christianity more moderate and progressive.  What moved him was a desire to follow the Jesus of Gospels.  

Likewise Luther recalled the words of St Paul about freedom in the letter to the Galatians - 'for freedom Christ has set us free' - to exort the German Nobles to claim their own freedom from ecclesiastical authority.

The European Reformation - so often invoked in comparisons with Islam today - was driven by a desire to re-form Christianity a second time,  taking it back to its roots.  It sought to move ahead by going backwards.  Its inner logic had nothing to do with the modern idea of progress or the Darwinian concept of 'evolution'.  The Reformation was not a 'progressive' movement in the modern sense, but one which sought to 'regress', renewing the example of Christ and his apostles.  

This is why Luther and other reformers encouraged believers to read their Bibles for themselves, in their own native tongue.  Luther regarded it as the duty of every Christian to be constantly renewing their own faith from the original sources.  LIke St Francis, Luther was a Christian radical.

It is true that some changes brought in by the European Reformation had a moderating effect on Western intellectual life. There developed a greater emphasis on freedom and individual responsibility, for example. The Protestant work ethic was one bi-product of this emphasis. Yet these developments did not take place out of a desire to develop a more moderate form of Christianity, but because they they were regarded as conforming more to the  Bible.

Therefore, according to the core meaning of 'reformation' - a return to one's roots - reforming Islam  would mean making it more Muhammadan.  An Islamic reformation would produce a religion which is closer to the Koran, and above all, closer to the example and teaching of its founder.  

The hankering of some Westerners after an Islamic reformation begs the question of what would it mean to be follow Muhammad's example more closely?

As it happens, such a movement has been underway for more than 100 years, and is in full swing today.  It is what we know today as Islamic radicalism. The ideal of an Islamic reformation has produced, among many other results, the global jihad movement, the push for sharia revival and reimplementation of the Caliphate. This is what a desire to revive the example and teaching of Muhammad has led to.

There are two two main reasons why renewing the example of Muhammad leads to Islamic radicalism. 

One is that Muhammad combined within himself the offices of king, judge, general and religious leader, thus unifying politics, law, the military and religion.  To follow his example means creating a theocratic political order, where the laws of the land are controlled by Islamic theology.  In contrast Christian tradition has always distinguished the secular from the ecclesiastical, based on the older Hebrew religious distinction between priests and kings.  This feature of medieval Christianity - the distinction between religion and politics - was severely criticised by famous Muslim scholar Ibn Khaldun.  Muslim thinkers had always regarded it as one of the key weaknesses of Christianity.

The second reason why renewing Islam leads to radicalism is that many of the harsher elements of Islamic law - such death for apostates, stoning adulterers, cutting off the hands of thieves, enslaving one's enemies, and killing non-believers - are firmly grounded in Muhammad's example.

Australian Muslim Waleed Aly was entirely correct when he said Islam has already had its Reformation, and the outcome has been Islamic radicalism:  

"Still, Western calls for an Islamic Reformation grow predictably and irrepressibly stronger, while those familiar with the Islamic tradition easily observe that radical and terrorist groups such as al-Qa'ida and the Taliban, cannot be cured by Reformation for the very simple fact that they are the Reformation." [People like us: how arrogance is dividing Islam and the West, p.xv].

For those today whose world view is shaped by the ideal of progress, and look out upon Islam peering through the frame of Western assumptions about 'backwardness', 'progress' and 'evolution', Waleed Aly's insight can be difficult to grasp.  Yet it is essential that it be understood and appreciated.  

In today's world, if what is needed is more moderate manifestation of Islam, then the very last thing that could ever accomplish this would be an Islamic Reformation.

Source.

Muslim leads Arizona State Senate in Anti-Christian prayer

One of the least understood aspects of Islamic theology and practice concerns Islam's opening prayer, the 'al-Fatiha', which is also the first sura of the Qur'an. Functionally similar to the Trisagion Prayers in Orthodox Christian worship, the al-Fatiha is repeated by devout Muslims seventeen times a day, and concludes with these verses:

...Guide us in the straight path, the path of those whom Thou hast blessed, not of those against whom Thou art wrathful nor of those who are astray.

Offered as a prayer to “the Master of the Day of Doom,” ‘The Opening’ refers specifically in these its final two verses to the Christians and the Jews. In traditional Islamic teaching, Islam alone is 'the straight path'. In his classic commentary on the Qur'an, Ibn Kathir discusses the wrong paths:

“The two paths He described here are both misguided,” and that those “two paths are the paths of the Christians and Jews, a fact that the believer should beware of so that he avoids them. The path of the believers is knowledge of the truth and abiding by it. In comparison, the Jews abandoned practicing the religion, while the Christians lost the true knowledge. This is why ‘anger’ descended upon the Jews, while being described as ‘led astray’ is more appropriate of the Christians.” (Ibn Kathir, Commentary on Koran 1:7, Vol 1, p 87.)

This is the mainstream Islamic view, held to by most Muslim jurists, though not all Muslims realize whom they are condemning when they pray ‘The Opening’. Regardless, it is clear that in the Islamic view, Jews and Christians alike are under Allah’s judgment and wrath, and this view is reinforced for the faithful Muslim seventeen times a day, thousands of times a year.

The travesty described below is precisely the result of ignorance concerning Islamic theology and practices.

"CAIR-AZ Chairman Leads Prayer on Arizona Senate Floor," from CAIR Arizona, February 7:

On Thursday, February 7th, 2013 - the Arizona State Senate's prayer invocation was led by Anas Hlayhel - the Chairman of the Arizona Chapter of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR-AZ.)

Hlayhel, who also serves as the part time imam of the Islamic Center of the Northeast Valley led the lawmakers and all those in attendance through the reading of al-Fatiha (the opening chapter of the Holy Quran) in addition to an additional prayer thereafter...

h/t Jihad Watch

By the way, no American local, state or federal governing body, nor any organization of any kind (especially not any Christian church or group), should have any contact whatsoever with the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) or any of its representatives, as CAIR is an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas terror funding case -- so named by the Justice Department. Furthermore, CAIR operatives have repeatedly refused to denounce Hamas and Hizballah as terrorist groups. Several former CAIR officials have been convicted of various crimes related to jihad terror.  CAIR's cofounder and longtime Board chairman (Omar Ahmad), as well as its chief spokesman (Ibrahim Hooper), have made Islamic supremacist statements. 

The Suffering Serbs

Recent reports from the Balkans indicate heightened Muslim activity against Orthodox Christian Serbs. Here are a few key stories highlighting the events:


ATTEMPT TO ERASE EVIDENCE OF EXISTENCE OF SERBS - Belgrade, Feb. 11, 2013

Aleksandar Vulin says threats and protests in front of the Serb medieval monastery Visoki Dečani were an attempt to complete the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. According to the director of the Government’s Office for Kosovo and Metohija, they also aimed to remove any evidence of the existence of Serbs there.  Continue reading...

RADICAL ISLAM SURGING IN BALKANS - Washington, Feb. 10, 2013

Just as al-Qaida is extending its reach through franchises from the Arabian Peninsula and across North Africa, it could soon be linked up with the growth of radical Islamists in the Balkan countries that once made up Yugoslavia...

With its breakup in the 1990s, Sunni Muslims began to spread into Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo, which once was the heart of Christian Serbia. This spread is offset by Christian majorities in Bulgaria, Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Slovenia.

The Balkans, however, have a history of Islamist concentration since the end of the Cold War. Osama bin Laden, for example, began setting up charities there as a way of funneling money to help with the spread of Islamist militancy against the Christians in the 1990s.

Indeed, the Balkans were where Muslims retreated following the unsuccessful siege of Vienna on September 11, 1683. It was a battle of the Holy Roman Empire along with other military forces of Christian countries to counter the spread of the Ottoman Empire into Europe.

The region is facing “a growing challenge from imams trained in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Turkey who are promoting a more fundamentalist and radical form of Islam,” according to a report in the open intelligence group Langley Intelligence Group Network, or Lignet.

Even the Vatican recently noted that “enormous funds (are) pouring in from Saudi Arabia and Turkey” to radicalize Muslims in the region.

A Macedonian security official said that radical Islamists “exist in larger numbers than what the public knows.”  Continue reading...

KOSOVO ALBANIAN EXTREMISTS CONTINUE TO MAKE THREATS AGAINST DECANI MONASTERY - Belgrade, Feb.10, 2013

Head of the Serb Orthodox monastery Visoki Dečani Sava Janjić has said that Kosovo Albanian extremists continue to make threats against the monastery.

He noted that he was concerned about their announcement that they would usurp the monastery’s land despite the decision of the Supreme Court of Kosovo. The court determined that 23 hectares belonged to the monastery and ruled against two companies who claimed that the land belonged to them. “This would be very dangerous because Visoki Dečani is not just a church and it owns a land that is important for the survival of monks,” Janjić stressed. He told B92 that he had discussed the issue with KFOR Commander Volker Halbauer on Saturday. “He assured us that our safety was not threatened and that KFOR would protect the monastery from attacks of local extremists,” Janjić said. He warned that the Albanian extremists continued to make threats and that they had announced that they would “radicalize” the protest and take away the monastery land.  Read the full article... SERBIAN ORTHODOX MONASTERY OF THE ASSUMPTION DESTROYED - OCP News, Belgrade, Jan.4, 2013 Albanians last night completely destroyed the monastery “Assumption of the Virgin” in southern Serbia. Monastery of the Assumption of Virgin” which is located in the vicinity of Vladicin Han was vandalized last night. The door was smashed, and the entire interior were broken. The money from the candle sales and other item inside the monastery is stolen, and all the icons were smashed. Mother Paraskeva (62 years old) confirmed this information. She was very upset fear for her safety. “I’m afraid they will come back, but I’m not going anywhere. I’m here alone and old, but let them come, someone has to defend, “said Paraskeva. “There’s nothing left, this is terrible! The whole world stood up on his feet because of a cartoon of Muhammad, but when all monasteries and churches destroyed, no one responds,” she added.Asked whether he knows who could have done this, Paraskeva replied that everything is known, but that no one will be interested in this case. “Albanians from Kosovo were organized with the intention of coming to destroy the Serbian monasteries in this area! This is not the first time something like this happens. Last year on Good Friday they attacked me, I did not have a stick, who knows if I managed to defend myself, “said the visibly shaken Paraskeva. “Albanians from Kosovo are organized and planned to come and destroy Serbian monasteries in this area. This is not the 1st time something like this happens. Last year on Good Friday they attacked me. If I didn-t have my stick, I would hardly protect myself.  Read the full story...

Robert Spencer: The Pitfalls of 'Dialogue'

One of the chief reasons I wrote my book, Facing Islam, was to warn against Orthodox Christians carelessly and naively engaging in inter-faith dialogue with Muslims.  Robert Spencer has a new book coming on the subject, and in this post highlights some of the serious problems with the idea, concentrating on the pernicious 'A Common Word' initiative. (For further analysis of 'A Common Word', see Dr. Mark Durie's excellent resource site.)

The Pitfalls of “Dialogue”

By Robert Spencer

Robert McManus, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Worcester, Massachusetts, recently dropped me from a scheduled appearance at a Catholic conference in Worcester on the grounds that “Mr. Spencer’s talk would impact negatively on the Church’s increasingly constructive dialogue with Muslims.”

In the name of interreligious dialogue, it’s not uncommon for Muslim spokesmen to visit churches with the stated goal of clearing up “misconceptions” about Islam. Such sessions often include the Muslim speaker’s downplaying the reality of jihad activity and Muslim persecution of Christians, and offering his Christian audience bland assurances that such things have nothing to do with authentic Islam.

On a larger scale, Muslims have engaged in several high-profile attempts at dialogue with Catholics in recent years, to which Catholics have generally responded with enthusiasm. Yet, there is less to these attempts at outreach than meets the eye. The two most visible and well-publicized attempts by Muslims to reach out to Catholics turn out, on close examination, to be thinly veiled exercises in proselytizing. All of these attempts at “dialogue” share several common characteristics, including most notably a downplaying and glossing-over of the differences between Christianity and Islam, an over-emphasis on the similarities between the two religions, and a call to Christians to abandon or modify certain of their core beliefs, while never budging an inch on Islamic doctrines.

One notorious example of this came a few years ago, when 138 Muslim leaders and scholars from all over the globe issued a more extensive appeal to Christians for mutual understanding, entitled A Common Word Between Us and You. The “Common Word” initiative is quite extensive, with ongoing conferences and other mutual endeavors between Muslims and Catholics, as well as between Muslims and other Christian groups. The Common Word website describes the project in enthusiastic terms: “Never before have Muslims delivered this kind of definitive consensus statement on Christianity. Rather than engage in polemic, the signatories have adopted the traditional and mainstream Islamic position of respecting the Christian scripture and calling Christians to be more, not less, faithful to it.”

Following a pattern that’s common in documents like these, data contradicting the assertions in A Common Word Between Us and You are not addressed and refuted but simply ignored. Nothing is said, for example, about the Islamic claim that the Christian Scripture has been corrupted. While claiming they want to respect Christian Scripture and build on common ground, the Muslim scholars (despite copious Qur’an quotes) never mention Qur’an 5:17, which says that those who believe in the divinity of Christ are unbelievers; or 4:171, which says that Jesus was not crucified; or 9:30, which says that those who believe that Jesus is the Son of God are accursed; or 9:29, which mandates warfare against and the subjugation of Jews and Christians. Why should they mention these unpleasant passages in the midst of trying to build bridges? Because they are precisely the obstacles to such bridges. For there to be any true and honest dialogue, verses like these must be addressed in some way, even if only to give them a benign interpretation.

When Pope John Paul II died, the Washington Post reminded its readers how “during his long reign, Pope John Paul II apologized to Muslims for the Crusades, to Jews for anti-Semitism, to Orthodox Christians for the sacking of Constantinople, to Italians for the Vatican’s associations with the Mafia and to scientists for the persecution of Galileo.” In reality, he never apologized for the Crusades; the closest he came was on March 12, 2000, the “Day of Pardon,” when he said, “[W]e cannot fail to recognize the infidelities to the Gospel committed by some of our brethren, especially during the second millennium. Let us ask pardon for the divisions which have occurred among Christians, for the violence some have used in the service of the truth and for the distrustful and hostile attitudes sometimes taken towards the followers of other religions.”

Though it’s hardly an “apology for the Crusades,” nonetheless one would be hard pressed to find a similar statement from any Muslim leader, still less one of the pope’s stature, acknowledging any wrongdoing on the part of Muslims individually or of any Islamic state. The idea of a Muslim asking pardon and forgiveness from a non-Muslim is anathema to Islamic theology. But some kind of reciprocity of this kind would seem necessary for genuine dialogue.

Reading the entire Qur’anic verse from which the phrase “a common word between us and you” was taken makes clear the Common Word initiative’s agenda: “Say: ‘People of the Book! Come now to a word common between us and you, that we serve none but God, and that we associate not aught with Him, and do not some of us take others as Lords, apart from God.’ And if they turn their backs, say: ‘Bear witness that we are Muslims’” (3:64). Since Muslims consider the Christian confession of the divinity of Christ to be an unacceptable association of a partner with God, this verse is saying that the “common word” that Muslims and the People of the Book should agree on is that Christians should discard one of the central tenets of their faith and essentially become Muslims.

Not a promising basis for an honest and mutually respectful dialogue of equals. The Common Word document’s explanation for this was disingenuous, not mentioning that according to the mainstream Islamic understanding of what it means to “ascribe a partner to God,” the Christians were guilty of this sin:

The words: we shall ascribe no partner unto Him relate to the Unity of God, and the words: worship none but God, relate to being totally devoted to God. Hence they all relate to the First and Greatest Commandment. According to one of the oldest and most authoritative commentaries on the Holy Qur’an the words: that none of us shall take others for lords beside God, mean “that none of us should obey the other in disobedience to what God has commanded.” This relates to the Second Commandment because justice and freedom of religion are a crucial part of love of the neighbour.

The Common Word document suggests its true intentions in its Qur’anic epigraph: “Call unto the way of thy Lord with wisdom and fair exhortation, and contend with them in the fairest way. Lo! thy Lord is Best Aware of him who strayeth from His way, and He is Best Aware of those who go aright.” This verse (16:125) is a curious choice to head up a document that is ostensibly devoted to finding common ground for dialogue and mutual cooperation—unless the intention is actually only to proselytize.

The use of this epigraph recalls the words of the Egyptian Islamic supremacist writer Sayyid Qutb (1906-1966), the great theorist of the Muslim Brotherhood: “The chasm between Islam and Jahiliyyah [the society of unbelievers] is great, and a bridge is not to be built across it so that the people on the two sides may mix with each other, but only so that the people of Jahiliyyah may come over to Islam.”

Muslims in the U.S. and Europe often term their outreach to non-Muslims “bridge-building,” but to Muslims this expression has a very different meaning. Bishop McManus, and those like him, should take careful note.

Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and author of the New York Times bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad. His upcoming book, Not Peace But A Sword: The Great Chasm Between Christianity and Islam, will be available March 25.

Source.

Beyond the Issues

Below is a nice visual, a valid checklist graphic I adapted from CatholicVote.org, which sums up the issues which should concern us as Orthodox Christians.

The only thing I really wish to add is an observation about President Obama. I think it is fair and accurate to characterize him as an 'antichrist' figure. But this day and age, there are lots of those. Of perhaps greater concern is what I suggested to someone several weeks ago: Barack Obama is not merely an 'antichrist', he is an 'anti-Constantine'. 

By this I mean that Obama, in everything he has done and said, shows himself to be inclined in his heart towards Islam, desiring at the same time to advance the agenda of the secularists, atheists and neo-pagans, and in direct opposition to Christian orthodoxy. Obama is quite literally the spearpoint, the figurehead of the contemporary anti-Christian coalition, whose very purpose is not merely to defeat Christianity in the public arena, but to force, tempt, and coerce Christians to deny the Lord Jesus Christ and two-thousand years of Orthodox Faith.

This is why the HHS mandate exists, to try to break the will and 'spine' of Christian opposition, and force under threat of law Christian organizations and Christian men and women, businesses and families, to value this world, material well-being and universal health care over the Gospel and the Kingdom of Heaven. If re-elected, Obama's presidency could be looked back upon as the moment when the leader of a Western Christian nation, the global hyper power, the 'Rome' of its day, turned away from Christianity, much as Constantine turned away from paganism. Who knows what 'edicts' might issue forth from a second Obama term. I hope we don't find out.

Constantine saw the sign of the Cross with the words, "In this sign conquer." Obama looks at the Cross and hears a small voice whispering, "Conquer this sign." 

A Mitt Romney presidency would buy us some time to get our own house in order, and to launch out into the highways and byways of the Americas with the Orthodox Gospel of Jesus Christ. There will likely be persecutions coming soon, but under Romney, we may hope to gain a little time to gird ourselves for the long haul.

Chesterton on Islam

I ran across this helpful analysis by G.K. Chesterton on a forum thread on Monachos.net, posted by Fr Aidan Kimmel. 

I argue very forcefully against the 'Same God' position in my book, Facing Islam, in large part because of the radical differences between the True Triune Godhead and the dark and sadistic Allah. Because of these extreme, polar differences, and the aggressive, supremacist, murderous commands issued by Allah in order to subjugate the whole world under Islam, we cannot merely say (as do some Orthodox) that Muslims have the wrong conception of the True God. We must not allow such wishy-washy softheadedness to dilute our dogmatic stance.  Rather, there is a stark ontological difference between such a blatantly evil monad as Allah, and the Triune God Who is Three Persons Sharing One and the Same Essence and United in Love. There is also clearly a satanic influence at work which globally compels and enables Muslims to stifle, shut down and kill their God-given conscience in order to follow the grossly evil commands of their 'god' and 'prophet'.

Chesterton expresses some of the more subtle theological considerations at play in comparing Christianity and Islam:

Unitarians (a sect never to be mentioned without a special respect for their distinguished intellectual dignity and high intellectual honour) are often reformers by the accident that throws so many small sects into such an attitude. But there is nothing in the least liberal or akin to reform in the substitution of pure monotheism for the Trinity. The complex God of the Athanasian Creed may be an enigma for the intellect; but He is far less likely to gather the mystery and cruelty of a Sultan than the lonely god of Omar or Mahomet. The god who is a mere awful unity is not only a king but an Eastern king. The heart of humanity, especially of European humanity, is certainly much more satisfied by the strange hints and symbols that gather round the Trinitarian idea, the image of a council at which mercy pleads as well as justice, the conception of a sort of liberty and variety existing even in the inmost chamber of the world. For Western religion has always felt keenly the idea "it is not well for man to be alone." The social instinct asserted itself everywhere as when the Eastern idea of hermits was practically expelled by the Western idea of monks. So even asceticism became brotherly; and the Trappists were sociable even when they were silent. If this love of a living complexity be our test, it is certainly healthier to have the Trinitarian religion than the Unitarian. For to us Trinitarians (if I may say it with reverence) -- to us God Himself is a society. It is indeed a fathomless mystery of theology, and even if I were theologian enough to deal with it directly, it would not be relevant to do so here. Suffice it to say here that this triple enigma is as comforting as wine and open as an English fireside; that this thing that bewilders the intellect utterly quiets the heart: but out of the desert, from the dry places and, the dreadful suns, come the cruel children of the lonely God; the real Unitarians who with scimitar in hand have laid waste the world. For it is not well for God to be alone.

Don't look now, but Islam is becoming the MSM's official religion of America.

Ben Stein's sense of the darkness of the times is chilling:


Something Is Wrong
By BEN STEIN

originally published at American Spectator

Don't look now, but Islam is becoming the MSM's official religion of America.

Now, it's not just that no one bats an eye at the amazing truth that the United States is beaming TV ads all over Pakistan apologizing for a derogatory Internet trailer for a nonexistent movie demeaning the being that Muslims call "The Prophet Mohammed." No one in the MSM even slightly hints that doing the kowtow in the same country that sheltered Osama bin Laden to a group that reveled in, delighted in the terrorism against American civilians and still provides the framework for the terrorist Haqqani network, might be humiliating and an insult to the memory of the great Americans who were murdered just last week in Libya.

No, we just take it in stride that our President and our Secretary of State will apologize to the people who hate us and want us dead. That's not what I am referring to.

I am referring to something worse: Have you noticed that in the past few years, and especially in the past few weeks since the murder of the Ambassador and his guards and colleague in Benghazi (a city that Erwin Rommel loved and whose inhabitants he praised), whenever the New York Times refers to Mohammed, they always call him, without quotation marks, The Prophet Mohammed, as if everyone with any sense understands that OF COURSE Mohammed is The One True Prophet and that it's just understood that Mohammed is The Prophet.

I see this in other news outlets and on TV, too. Sober-looking newsmen and newswomen mention Mohammed as The Prophet Mohammed. No ifs, ands or buts. I hear it on the BBC World Service, too.

Now, if Muslims want to believe that Mohammed is The Prophet, God bless them. Fine and dandy. If anyone wants to believe that, good luck to him or her. But why does our mainstream media here in the USA, an overwhelmingly Christian country, refer to Islam's prophet as "The Prophet"?

Have you ever seen any major newspaper here in the USA refer to Jesus Christ as "The Son of God, God Incarnate, The Lord Jesus Christ"? Can you imagine the New York Times running a story about a crucifix resting in urine at an "art gallery" as an offense against "The Lord Jesus, Son of God"? Can you imagine any large newspaper in this country running a story about the Pope and referring to him as "The Holy Father, The Bridge Between Heaven and Earth"? Or about Mary, as "Holy Mary, Mother of God"? It would never happen.

But somehow, probably because the people writing the articles and editing them or the producers on TV news shows fear being beheaded -- and who doesn't? -- we have adopted in our media the Muslim assertion that Mohammed is The Prophet while giving other religious figures the back of our media hand.

This is frightening. We are not supposed to be doing obeisance to a religious group that has many adherents who want us dead. We are not, as journalists, supposed to be labeling anyone as "The" Prophet. But somehow, it's happening. The MSM has become a voice for Islam.

Hitler saw it long ago. Terror and fear of violence can bring about amazing changes in people's behavior. So can a misguided political correctness and self-loathing for the greatest nation on earth.

I overheard a conversation between two women at a dining table just yesterday. One said, "I don't care what anyone says, Obama is a Muslim" (she has said it before) and the other said, "He's not a Muslim. He's just stupid."

I didn't say anything to them. I am just telling you, these do not feel like normal days. They feel like latter days.

There is just a feeling in the air, a look in the sky at dusk, a look on people's faces. Fear is everywhere. Mr. Obama cannot lose this election unless enough people believe it's within their power to stop the ticking of the clock, and I do not feel that groundswell. Not at all. When the American media turns its back on our own religions of tolerance and adores a religion of intolerance, times are upside down. The MSM says it's all fine, trust The Prince of Grant Park, Chicago. But I have always preferred the admonition, "Put not your trust in princes." Something is wrong.

Source.

Solid reasoning from Raymond Ibrahim...

How 'Religious Defamation' Laws Would Ban Islam

by Raymond Ibrahim

September 26, 2012

Source: raymondibrahim.com

As the Islamic world, in the guise of the 57-member state Organization of Islamic Cooperation, continues to push for the enforcement of "religious defamation" laws in the international arena—theoretically developed to protect all religions from insult, but in reality made for Islam—one great irony is lost, especially on Muslims: if such laws would ban movies and cartoons that defame Islam, they would also, by logical extension, have to ban the religion of Islam itself—the only religion whose core texts actively defame other religions.

The Quran itself defames other religions.

To understand this, consider what "defamation" means. Typical dictionary-definitions include "to blacken another's reputation" and "false or unjustified injury of the good reputation of another, as by slander or libel." In Muslim usage, defamation simply means anything that insults or offends Islamic sensibilities.

However, to gain traction among the international community, the OIC maintains that such laws should protect all religions from defamation, not just Islam. Accordingly, the OIC is agreeing that any expression that "slanders" the religious sentiments of others should be banned.

What, then, do we do with Islam's core religious texts—beginning with the Quran itself, which slanders, denigrates and blackens the reputation of other religions? Consider Christianity alone: Quran 5:73 declares that "Infidels are they who say Allah is one of three," a reference to the Christian Trinity; Quran 5:73 says "Infidels are they who say Allah is the Christ, [Jesus] son of Mary"; and Quran 9:30 complains that "the Christians say the Christ is the son of Allah … may Allah's curse be upon them!"

Considering that the word "infidel" (or kafir) is one of Islam's most derogatory terms, what if a Christian book or Western movie appeared declaring that "Infidels are they who say Muhammad is the prophet of God—may God's curse be upon them"? If Muslims would consider that a great defamation against Islam—and they would, with the attendant rioting, murders, etc.—then by the same standard it must be admitted that the Quran defames Christians and Christianity.

Similarly, consider how the Christian Cross, venerated among millions, is depicted—is defamed—in Islam: according to canonical hadiths, when he returns, Jesus supposedly will destroy all crosses; and Muhammad, who never allowed the cross in his presence, ordered someone wearing a cross to "take off that piece of idolatry."

What if Christian books or Western movies declared that the sacred things of Islam—say the Black Stone in the Ka'ba of Mecca—are "idolatry" and that Muhammad himself will return and destroy them? If Muslims would consider that defamation against Islam—and they would, with all the attendant rioting, murders, etc.—then by the same standard it must be admitted that the hadith defames the Christian Cross.

Here is a particularly odious form of defamation against Christian sentiment, especially to the millions of Catholic and Orthodox Christians. According to Islam's most authoritative Quranic exegetes, including the revered Ibn Kathir, Muhammad is in paradise married to and having sex with the Virgin Mary. 

[This vile and sickening notion is based on a hadith in al-Siyuti, 6:395, in which Muhammad is reported as saying, "In heaven, Mary, mother of Jesus, will be one of my wives." This is what all Muslims subscribe to if they claim to be true to Islam. In Orthodoxy, we of course hold that the Virgin Mary is 'Ever Virgin' — Greek: Aieparthenos — that she was virgin before childbearing, during childbearing, and after childbearing. Christ our True God himself teaches that, "In the resurrection, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage, but will be like the angels in heaven" (MT 22:30). - Zosimas]

What if a Christian book or Western movie portrayed, say, Muhammad's wife, Aisha the "Mother of Believers," as being married to and having sex with a false prophet in heaven? If Muslims would consider that a great defamation against Islam—and they would, with all the attendant rioting, murders, etc.—then by the same standard it must be admitted that Islam's most authoritative Quranic exegetes defame the Virgin Mary.

Nor does such defamation of Christianity occur in Islam's ancient texts only; modern day Muslim scholars and sheikhs agree that it is permissible to defame Christianity. Qatar-based "Islam Web" even issued a fatwa that legitimizes insulting Christianity.

Now consider the wording used by Muslim leaders calling on the U.N. to enforce religious defamation laws in response to the Muhammad film on YouTube, and how these expressions can easily be used against Islam:

The OIC "deplored… an offensive and derogatory film on the life of Prophet Muhammad" and "called on the producers to show respect to the religious sentiments held sacred by Muslims and those of other faiths."

But what about the "offensive and derogatory" depictions of Christianity in Islam's core texts? Are Muslims willing to expunge these from the Quran and hadith, "to show respect to the religious sentiments held sacred … by those of other faiths," in this case, Christians?

Turkish Prime Minister Erodgan said the film "insults religions" (note the inclusive plural) and called for "international legal regulations against attacks on what people [not just Muslims] deem sacred."

Well, what about the fact that Islam "insults religions"—including Judaism and all polytheistic faiths? Should the West call for "international legal regulations against attacks on what people deem sacred," in the case of Christianity, regulations against Islam's teachings which attack the sanctity of Christ's divinity, the Cross, and Virgin Mary?

Even Saudi Arabia's Grand Mufti—who a few months ago called for the destruction of all Christian churches in the Arabian Peninsula (first reported here)—is calling for a "global ban on insults targeting all" religious figures, while the Grand Imam of Egypt's Al Azhar is calling for "a U.N. resolution outlawing 'insulting symbols and sanctities of Islam' and other religions." Again, they, too, claim to be interested in banning insults to all religions, while ignoring the fact that their own religion is built atop insulting all other religions.

And surely this is the grandest irony of all: the "defamation" that Muslims complain about—and that prompts great violence and bloodshed around the world—revolves around things like movies and cartoons, which are made by individuals who represent only themselves; on the other hand, Islam itself, through its holiest and most authoritative texts, denigrates and condemns—in a word, defames—all other religions, not to mention calls for violence against them (e.g., Quran 9:29).

It is this issue, Islam's perceived "divine" right to defame and destroy, that the international community should be addressing—not silly cartoons and films.

Islam in SciFi 2: The Walking Dead

As far as I can tell from the stats on this blog, by far the most popular post I have done (so far) has been, Islam in SciFi: The Borg.  Based on such popularity, it looks like this approach deserves to be an ongoing series, which really makes sense. Christ used parables to talk about the Kingdom of Heaven. Similarly, we can draw out aspects of Islam and jihad by employing examples we all can relate to, straight from our haram pop-culture. Don't you just love the irony of it?

For this entry in my fledgling series on Islam in SciFi, I have chosen the hit AMC series, The Walking Dead, which starts its third season in mid-October, just a couple of weeks from now.   The Walking Dead is, of course, the most popular manifestation of the bizarre modern phenomenon of the 'Zombie Apocalypse' doomsday narrative. The theme dates at least as far back as Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956), but it was really George A. Romero and Night of the Living Dead in 1968 which brought the zombie mythos to life, so to speak.

Whereas the parallels between Islam and the Borg were many (leading me to issue a warning to Rick Berman and the Star Trek team to beware, lest they find themselves under a death fatwa for patterning the Borg cube after the Kaaba in Mecca), the Zombie Apocalypse, whether described by George A. Romero or Robert Kirkman (creator of The Walking Dead graphic novels), offers a completely different terrain for us to consider, with many of the lessons and parallels pertaining to the remnant of humanity who struggle to survive.

Devout Adherents of 'The Religion of Peace'

But first of all, we have to confront the zombies, or as they're called in the AMC series, the 'Walkers'. Am I saying that Muslims are like zombies? No. At least most of them aren't. But I do think we can make the case that, just as I discussed in my post on the Borg, when humanity is confronted with an implacable foe, a nemesis which cannot be negotiated with, then battle is the only option, and victory the only desirable outcome. In the case of the Walkers, their motivations are brutally simple: if they smell, see or hear you, they're going to try to catch and eat you. That is the extent of their existence. For the survivors in The Walking Dead, their battle is initially just for survival. 

At the end of the first season of The Walking Dead we were treated to a little zombie science. Rick and Laurie and the rest of the survivors made it to the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta, where the last surviving scientist showed them a real time brain scan of someone who was bitten by a Walker, died and then was reanimated as a zombie. (The victim was the scientist's wife. This is a deeply dramatic show.) The brain scan showed the victim's normal synaptic activity. Then, as she weakened and neared death, the brain showed less and less activity. At death it went completely dark. Then, upon reanimation due to the zombie plague, only a deep red minimal activity was seen at the base of the brain, the most primitive, primal nerve center.

A Zombie Herd in The Walking Dead

The point was made. Walkers are no longer fully human. They no longer possess a conscious mind as we know it. They are reanimated corpses which are driven by an animal-like hunger which they cannot control. They have no memory of their former life (though we have seen glimpses of the briefest recognition in one victim right at the beginning of being reanimated), and they have no trace of a human conscience. They are being propelled by dark, blood-red impulses at the base of the brain. 

This is similar to the condition of a Borg drone. When a person is assimilated into the Borg collective, the individual ceases to exist and is controlled by the collective mind. In the case of zombies, there is barely any mind there, but because all the zombies have the same instinctual drive to feed on flesh, they act somewhat like a collective. They even travel in herds. We were treated to the spectacle of a huge, shuffling herd of Walkers limping down the highway at the start of Season 2. The onslaught of a much larger — and more highly motivated — herd during the Season 2 finale was the stuff of nightmares.

For a different, and in many ways much more frightening, take on the zombie apocalypse, consider the movies 28 Days Later, and its sequel, 28 Weeks Later. In these films, the "rage virus" is unleashed, transforming the infected into manic, jacked-up predators, who are swift, vicious and just as merciless as the shuffling Walkers. This scenario is similar to the plague in I Am Legend, Will Smith's contribution to the zombie mythos. It is also similar to Muslim riots occurring all over the globe now.

Obviously, for the zombie apocalypse survivors to, well, survive, they have to kill zombies. The horror of the zombie genre, and its disturbing popularity in our post-modern, post-Christian world, is largely the perversion of seeing how humans become themselves less and less human, as they are forced to kill an endless mass of infected fellow humans. There is barely even a glimpse of an authentic Christian voice in any of these zombie tales. There is at least the struggling human conscience, but Christ is largely absent from the zombie genre. The zombie apocalypse is a post-Christian phenomenon, and we are seeing a real-world depiction of it now on the nightly news.

A Herd of Muslim Protestors last week

Amazing how the images out of the Islamic world mirror these nightmarish zombie fictions. But the comparisons go far beyond the obvious visuals.

The point in considering all this is to draw the comparison with the Islamic worldview, the worldview of Jihad, where Muhammad is the al insan al kamil, the perfect man and most beautiful pattern of conduct. From this primary principle are traced all the horrendous excesses of the shari'ah, which derive straight from the Qur'an and the Sunnah of Muhammad: Infidels (kuffir) are the most vile of created beings, Jews are equated with pigs and monkeys, non-Muslims must convert to Islam, submit to Islam's authority, or be killed, amputations for thieves, stoning for adulterers, and more and more blood and carnage.

What happens when a Muslim buys into the Islamic worldview and accepts Muhammad as his example, submitting himself to the shari'ah, is that the Muslim submits his (or her) conscience to the uber-conscience of the Ummah. Such a Muslim ultimately commits moral suicide, deadening his conscience to the point that murder is justifiable; condemning non-Muslims, deceiving them, and if possible waging war against them is not only permissible but obligatory. Because Muslims who have submitted to the Jihadi worldview believe that Allah has ordained everything and Islam is superior, they have lost virtually every last trace of a normal human conscience. They are instead propelled by dark red impulses at the base of the brain. The Jihadi is like a slightly more intelligent, more functional zombie.

We might dare to specify it a bit more clearly: the Jihadi is a moral zombie.

For many infernal reasons, the fourteen-century-old Islamic zombie plague is once again spreading. We have seen an explosion of jihad plots in the last few years. As recently documented on JihadWatch, a partial list includes:

A devout follower of Muhammad

. . . the activities of Muslims such as Naser Abdo, the would-be second Fort Hood jihad mass murderer; and Khalid Aldawsari, the would-be jihad mass murderer in Lubbock, Texas; and Muhammad Hussain, the would-be jihad bomber in Baltimore; and Mohamed Mohamud, the would-be jihad bomber in Portland; and Faisal Shahzad, the would-be Times Square jihad mass-murderer; and Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, the Arkansas military recruiting station jihad murderer; and Naveed Haq, the jihad mass murderer at the Jewish Community Center in Seattle; and Mohammed Reza Taheri-Azar, the would-be jihad mass murderer in Chapel Hill, North Carolina; Ahmed Ferhani and Mohamed Mamdouh, who hatched a jihad plot to blow up a Manhattan synagogue; and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the would-be Christmas airplane jihad bomber; and many others like them who have plotted and/or committed mass murder in the name of Islam and motivated by its texts and teachings -- all in the U.S. in the last couple of years.

Whether jihad plots, or zombie plotlines, the challenge is the same: how does one survive a brewing apocalypse?

For an Orthodox Christian, we strive to forgive and even to love our enemies. And in doing so, we may see some of them come to the truth of the Gospel. The teaching of St Seraphim of Sarov comes to mind: "Acquire the Spirit of Peace, and a thousand will be saved around you." Some may have the calling to be a true missionary: The New Martyr Fr. Daniel Sysoev (†2009) converted over eighty Muslims to Orthodoxy, including some hard-core Wahabbis. St Kosmas of Aitolia (called "Equal to the Apostles") in the 18th century went about Greece and Albania, teaching, establishing schools, and preaching in the center of towns until he was martyred by the Turkish Muslims, who could not stand that he was strengthening the faith of the oppressed Orthodox Christians. It is these luminous examples who show us the better way of dealing with the Walking Dead. For regardless of how far gone a jihadi may seem, he or she is still a human person created in the image of God. Unlike the Walking Dead, a Muslim can repent, renounce their false religion and satanic prophet, and embrace Jesus Christ, and be raised to newness of life. This hope of the awakening and conversion of every soul is at the core of our faith.

At the same time, we note those Christians who defended themselves, their lands, their families and peoples against invading Muslim forces. We are reminded of the holy and righteous example of Tsar Martyr Lazar of Serbia, whose heroic stand against the Ottomans at the Battle of Kosovo weakened the Muslims enough so that they could not penetrate into Europe, and had to pull back and regroup, before trying again at the Gates of Vienna three centuries later. Tsar Lazar and his army attended the Divine Liturgy the morning of battle, receiving Holy Communion, and before heading out to meet the enemy, proclaimed their faith and loyalty, "For the Holy Cross, and Glorious Freedom!"  If you have no choice but to fight the zombies, this is the Christian way to prepare.

The most confounding (to the modern mind) Christian witness is that of a whole Christian population which refuses to submit to Islam, refuses to deny Christ, but lays its life down en masse. The other-worldly faith of the 100,000 Holy Martyrs of Tbilisi, Georgia (†1227) is such a witness and example.

[After the bloody and terrifying invasion,] the sultan ordered that the icons of the Theotokos and our Savior be carried out of Sioni Cathedral and placed at the center of the bridge across the Mtkvari River. The invaders goaded the people to the bridge, ordering them to cross it and spit on the holy icons. Those who betrayed the Christian Faith and mocked the icons were spared their lives, while the Orthodox confessors were beheaded. 

One hundred thousand Georgians sacrificed their lives to venerate the holy icons. One hundred thousand severed heads and headless bodies were carried by the bloody current down the Mtkvari River. (The Lives of the Georgian Saints, Archpriest Zakaria Machidatze, St Herman of Alaska Press, Platina CA, pp 403, 404.)

  

All these saints, peaceful or warriors, were slain by the walking dead. The Warrior Saint Tsar Lazar, the Missionary Martyr Fr Daniel Sysoev of Moscow, the Peaceful Preacher St Kosmas of Aitolia, and the hundred-thousand ordinary men, women and children of Tbilisi; they were all martyred by their Muslim oppressors. In each case, they sought the Lord, grew in the Lord, acquired the Holy Spirit, and ascended their cross, attaining a glorious resurrection. The walking dead could not touch their souls, and these saints of God reveal to us how to walk in light. This is eternal life. May we be found worthy to follow in their footsteps, and conquer not only the walking dead, but the devil himself!