Well, that's hardly a surprise. Mohammedans, after all, worship satan, the father of lies, and their faith, such as it is, is driven in everything by the demons from the pit of hell -- and that, despite what some new age, knit your own muesli, touchy-feely pastor might tell you, has been the standard Christian teaching about Mohammedanism since it was spewed from the devil's mouth onto this world. I'll explore that later in this post, but for now I want to draw your attention to a specific instance of the usual Mohammedan ignorance and lies.
That example of the customary Mohammedan lack of knowledge and its concomitant construction of a falsehood can be found here at MEMRI's site. If you watch the television clip that is behind that link you will notice that from about fifty-six seconds in to about one minute and four seconds in, you can plainly see that Ja'far Abd Al-Salam, the Secretary General of the Islamic Universities Association, either reveals his ignorance of western culture or lies through his teeth -- or both.
What he says, with my bold emphasis, is this:
Ja’far Abd Al-Salam: "The great pain of martyrdom leads to the great reward of Paradise. Brother, this culture does not exist in the West, because Westerners value human life very much."
Interviewer: "They focus on the material at the expense of the spiritual."
Ja’far Abd Al-Salam: "Maybe you have noticed that the thing that frightens the Jews, or Zionists, most of all is being killed. We do not have this kind of fear."
Now, that is nonsense and falsehood for two reasons. The first, obviously, is that our brave military and emergency services men and women do not fear dying in protection of our western civilisation, as is daily evidenced wherever they have contact with the repellent Mohammedan cowardly terrorist murderers. Israeli soldiers most certainly don't fear dying. That has driven Mohammedans, and specifically in this instance, Ja’far Abd Al-Salam to say such stupid things -- probably out of frustration and denial, or out of a simple wish that if it is said often enough then it might become true. No matter, the very saying of such stupidities indicates quite clearly the extreme mental breakdown that Mohammedans suffer from because of their beliefs.
The second is that there has always been a culture of self-sacrifice in the west -- our civilisation is founded on that culture and today, and throughout the ages, western, civilised people will willingly, and have willingly, put themselves in jeopardy in order to help others. In my articles since the beginning of the year that I have called 'Dies Gloriae' ('The Days of Glory')1 I have detailed, and will continue to detail, example after example, glorious instance after glorious instance, of people who have sacrificed themselves for others. Many, many of those people have sacrificed themselves in order to prevent the vile demons of the Mohammedan recidivist horde from advancing and that alone gives the lie to Ja’far Abd Al-Salam's vapid vapourisings.
So, Ja’far Abd Al-Salam's statement "...this culture does not exist in the West..." is patently and absurdly wrong. It is a lie. It is propaganda designed only to encourage the Mohammedan young to commit great evil, and for the great sin of tempting others into sin we Christians know that Ja’far Abd Al-Salam will probably join his master in the bottomless pit of hell (which means, blast it, that we have another Mohammedan soul whose salvation we must pray for).
In the west the culture of self-sacrifice exists alright, but it exists in our societies as a far greater, as a far grander and deeply loving, expression of humanity than Ja’far Abd Al-Salam, or indeed any Mohammedan, can ever hope to get his, or their, devil-warped minds around. Those of our people in the past who have been martyred, and those who will be martyred in the future, have voluntarily accepted their deaths not, as Mohammedans do, in order to kill other people or destroy some randomly selected object that has attracted their hatred, but in order to save others, in order to make the lives of others better, in order to ensure the continuing existence of what they believed in, and not, as I've already said, in order to destroy something, or someone, they hated.
That is the crucial and singular difference between the martyrs of the west and the murderers who follow the profane, debauched and corrupt tenets of Mohammedanism2. When Mohammedans use the word 'martyr' in connection with their devil-inspired murderers we must object, we must, quite deliberately, not accept that translation, that usage, and we must always substitute other words such as 'murderer', 'killer', or 'slayer', for a martyr is someone who sacrificed himself, herself, so that others could live; a martyr is not someone who committed suicide in order to kill, wound or maim other people -- that person is, plainly and simply, a murderer and must never be dignified with the title of 'martyr'.
'What's in word?' you may ask.
'Everything!' I would reply. Why else are you reading these words?
*** *** ***
I mentioned, at the beginning of this post, the standard Christian teaching about Mohammedanism. The Church has always taught that Mohammedanism is evil and satanic. From Christianity's first encounter with that demonic creed that came out of Araby many have written about it and its damnable and rancid teachings.
In AD746 Saint John of Damascus wrote 'The Fount of Knowledge' the second part of which is called 'Heresies in Epitome: How They Began and Whence They Drew Their Origin'. You can find Saint John's damning critique of Mohammedanism translated into English behind this link. In this book St. John refers often to the koran and, in St. John's opinion, its failure to stand up to even the most basic of scrutiny. 'The Fount of Knowledge' makes reference to many verses of the koran often with absolute disbelief that anyone could believe such crapulent outpourings.
Further, George Syncellus (we only know that he died sometime after AD810), who was a Byzantine chronicler and ecclesiastic and who retired to a monastery to write a chronicle of world history called Ekloge chronographias, or 'Extract of Chronography', was also of the opinion that Mohammedanism was perniciously evil. After Georges death his work was continued by his great friend Theophanes the Confessor (so successfully that the work is often referred to as 'Theophanes' Chronicle'). Theophanes the Confessor, who died somewhen around 822, writes about Mohammed thusly:
"At the beginning of his advent some misguided Jews thought he was the Messiah. ... But when they saw him eating camel meat, they realised that he was not the one they thought him to be, ... those wretched men taught him illicit things directed against us, Christians, and remained with him.
Whenever he came to Palestine he consorted with Jews and Christians and sought from them certain scriptural matters. He was also afflicted with epilepsy. When his wife became aware of this, she was greatly distressed, inasmuch as she, a noblewoman, had married a man such as he, who was not only poor, but also an epileptic. He tried deceitfully to placate her by saying, ‘I keep seeing a vision of a certain angel called Gabriel, and being unable to bear his sight, I faint and fall down.’"
Cyril Mango's translation of the part of 'The Chronicle' that deals with Mohammedanism can be found behind this link -- scroll down a little way when you get there.
Most damningly of all, however, Professor Hugh Goddard in his book 'A History of Christian-Muslim Relations' mentions both John of Damascus and Theophanes the Confessor and goes on to examine Nicetas of Byzantium who drafted replies to letters on behalf of Emperor Michael III (842-867). Goddard sums up Nicetas' opinions like this:
"In short, Muhammad was an ignorant charlatan who succeeded by imposture in seducing the ignorant barbarian Arabs into accepting a gross, blaspheming, idolatrous, demoniac religion, which is full of futile errors, intellectual enormities, doctrinal errors and moral aberrations."
Goddard points out that we can see in Nicetas' writings a knowledge of the whole of the koran, including an extensive knowledge of suras two to eighteen. Nicetas' writings expressed the standard Christian viewpoint about Mohammedanism that was endorsed by all the Patriarchs -- that it was a demonic belief system [the bold emphasis is mine]. That standard Christian teaching lasted in the West right up to the infamous Second Vatican Council.
(Incidentally, Professor Goddard is that reprehensible kind of academic who has sold out to the idea that Mohammedanism is just a religion like any other, or he has followed the money, for he is Director of the Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Centre for the Study of Islam in the Contemporary World and I find it somewhat strangely apposite that his writings actually record and bolster the standard Christian beliefs about the filthy Mohammedan notions.)
Much that is highly suspect was promulgated at that strange Vatican Council. The problem with that Council was that in the period between the first and second sessions there was a change of pontiff from Pope John XXIII (doctrinally sound and spiritually impeccable) to Pope Paul VI (wooly and heavily influenced by the weird and completely false idea that in not a few cases socialism was merely secularised Christianity) who had been a member of the circle (the 'Badaliya' as it is strangely called) of the kindly and well-meaning but misguided and incompetent scholar of Mohammedanism, Louis Massignon, who, frankly, was more than tinged with oikophobia and was probably a little crazy (strangely, in quite a lovable way) as well.
Massignon was basically the sort of intellectual who when confronted by any belief really couldn't help himself but try to justify it or find something, anything, good about it. He, himself, was of such a good disposition that he was constitutionally incapable of seeing evil and his influence over the spiritually inclined, and in many ways innocent, Pope Paul VI in the matter of Mohammedanism and how it was addressed at the Second Vatican Council was nothing short of disastrous. In fact, that Pope's well meant meddling with Church teaching on this and other subjects, and the silly pronouncements of the intellectually challenged Bishops at the Council who agreed with him, have made Vatican Two a byword amongst all Christians for untrustworthy rulings and very strange, to say the least, decisions.
The weirdest of those decisions, as far as we are concerned here, must be the promulgation of two documents -- 'Nostra Aetate'3, specifically paragraph three, and 'Lumen Gentium'4, specifically paragraph sixteen. Together, they effectively undid the Western Church's fifteen hundred year old teachings about the hellish, evil nature of Mohammedanism without even examining the evidence (the Orthodox Churches have not, so far, followed that course). Of course, those self-same documents, and others, also introduced other basic errors into Christian teaching -- some of them even more serious than the roll-back on Mohammedanism -- that we have had to fight against for almost the last fifty years.
Basically, what Vatican Two actually did was it let the twin, and related, evils of socialism and relativism into the Church, and every branch and every denomination of the Church has had to fight ever since to put those crazed genies back in their bottles. Regrettably, the Melchite Catholic Patriarch at the time, Maximos IV, was pressing Pope Paul very hard to come to some accomodation that Mohammedans could feel good about so that Christians in the Arab and Mohammedan occupied lands could feel a little safer -- once again throw food to the crocodile in the vain hope that it will eat you last.
1) For the posts in the 'Dies Gloriae'* series click on the following links: (i) 'Dies Gloriae'*: From The Feast Of The Circumcision To The Epiphany (Dies Gloriae* I), (ii) 'Dies Gloriae'* II: From Saint Raymond To Saint Benedict Biscop, (iii) 'Dies Gloriae'* III: From Saint Gumesindus To Saint Macarius The Great, (iv) 'Dies Gloriae'* IV: From Saint Euthymius The Great To The Blessed Michaël Kozal, (v) 'Dies Gloriae'*, V: From Saint Angela Merici To Saint Jeanne de Lestonnac -- And Candlemas, (vi) 'Dies Gloriae'*, VI: From The Blessed Odoric Of Pordenone To The Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerick, (vii) 'Dies Gloriae'*, VII: From The Blessed Alojzije Stepinac To Saint Pamphilus, (viii) 'Dies Gloriae', VIII: From To Saint Faustinus and Companions To Saint Florentius,
* The Latin words, Dies Gloriae, in the titles mean 'Days of Glory' and come from Saint Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologiae: Volume 30, The Gospel of Grace: q. 114 a. 8 co. 109-114: "[...] Prov. IV[:VIII], ["]iustorum semita quasi lux splendens procedit, et crescit usque ad perfectum diem["], [St. Jerome's Vulgate Latin Bible] qui est dies gloriae." ("...Proverbs 4:18: "But the path of the just, as a shining light, goeth forwards, and increaseth even to perfect day.," [Douay-Rheims Bible] which is the days of glory.")
2) See http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/.
3) 'Nostra Aetate' ('In our Age') is the 'Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions' It was promulgated on October 28, 1965, by Pope Paul VI, following approval by the assembled bishops. English translation here.
4) 'Lumen Gentium' ('Light of the Nations'), is the 'Dogmatic Constitution on the Church' and is one of the principal documents of the Second Vatican Council. It was promulgated by Pope Paul VI on November 21, 1964, following approval by the assembled bishops. English translation here.
Posted on 02/18/2013 4:16 PM by John M. Joyce