Via Rorate Caeli, an excellent sermon about Mohammed and Islam.
Let us spread these words of reason.
It is not often that you hear words of truth about Islam from a priest.
It is not known to me that Hindus go around massacring their own, besides the others, in huge numbers. Never have I seen Buddhists instaurate a terror regime among their own correligionists. Sikh do not decapitate people on the public square for the “edification” of children and women.
No other religion I know has hundreds of idiots, of both sexes, leaving Europe and choosing to be willing accomplices of such unspeakable cruelty. Nor do they video poor people (of their own religion) as they burn them alive, once they have noticed beheadings do not cause massive shock anymore.
Sure, other religions have violent elements. When the mob explodes, no minority is safe. But the ISIS is on a different scale altogether. The ISIS is a true statual organisation, built on one thing and one thing only: Islam. Both the scope and ferociousness of their action is fueled by, and could never endure unless fueled by, their own religion. The violence and cruelty that is inherent in Islam finds in the ISIS not its aberration, but its completion. They practice what Mohammed preached, and there is no way to just wish away this brutal fact.
The fight against ISIS is a fight against Islam. They are more dangerous because they are more Muslim. The inherent evil of Islam finds in them an expression unhindered by the common sense of humanity.
Islam is inherently evil and violent. In the ISIS, Islam finds its most complete realisation seen in recent centuries.
So yes: the ISIS is a Muslim problem.
I read somewhere that when in Canada the percentage of children born out-of-wedlock reached 40%, a magazine gave the news a cover with the rather politically incorrect title of “A Nation Of Bastards”, or the like. Of course, the fact is true, but it is very insensitive to say the truth, and therefore such inconvenient truths should be rather ignored in favour of inclusiveness and sensitivity.
Some days ago the same percentage for the UK was announced, and it was (by memory) north of 47%, certainly abundantly in the Forties.
Inconvenient truths come to mind as to what a nation this here is, but in the case of England at least another phenomenon certainly plays a role: Islam.
The Mohammedans are of the opinion that a husband must be able to ditch his wife rather easily if he thinks it fit. I suspect it even applies to the wife, though in this case the temptation must be somewhat less frequent and far less strong. Still, the Mohammedan idea of the sacredness of marriage clashes a lot with the very feminist praxis of the tribunals of these isles, which actually share the conviction that not even pre-nuptial agreements must be allowed to come between a woman and the half of the assets of her husband once the marriage has proven itself for a while. Therefore, the number is probably so high also because a substantial number of Muslim children are officially
bastards born out-of-wedlock, whilst unofficially they are the product of a stable marriage of the heathen kind; heathen, yes, but far more stable than many marriages of their once Christian counterparts.
Another evidence of this is in the frequency of the name Mohammed, now the most frequent child’s name in Britain.
Contrarily to what the article states this fact has been known for years now, but the fact still remains: no boy’s name is as popular as Mohammed, or one of its many variations.
Therefore, this is a Country of and more… children born out-of-wedlock, who are in non irrelevant part belonging to a religion that will make them carry rather thick beard, and of whom some are destined to become, at least in their aspirations – may their wish not come true – specialists in brutal killings.
A country of bastards, many of them with future beards, some of them aspiring to beheadings.
This is Britain in 2014.
Children, we are informed today, as young as nine.
The country is, understandably, shocked.
Now let me think…
Wasn't there another famous chap who also screwed a little girl of nine?
How was his name?
Ah, now I remember!
Interesting, if tragic, developments in Bangladesh, where four bloggers have been arrested for having written comments “insulting to Islam” (possibly something like “fake religion soaked in violence and blood, created by a bloodthirsty pedophile”; but I have no exact news). Muslim hardliners want the death penalty for blasphemers of Islam (see above for a possible definition), the others want to tell them where to stuck their ideas.
The four now risk up to ten years in jail, and the matter caused the blood pressure to rise all over the country. Apparently 90% of the Country is Muslim, and again 97% of those Sunnis.
Being Bangladesh a very poor Third-World country I do not doubt they are recipient of more than generous transfer from a number of UNO organisations, which means they get an awful lot of money from Western countries.
One is curious to see how the West, always oh so attentive to the instances of even perverts by us, will react to this rather, ahem, unedifying “human rights situation” in a Muslim country.
The BBC coverage will also be interesting to follow. Remember, these are the people who gave order to call the terrorists “fighters” after the 7 July 2005 bombs who killed 52 innocent people going about their business.
I truly do not know why, with all the names at their disposal, they had to pick “religion of peace”.
I have not seen (and will, I think, not see) this trailer, or the movie.
I do not care two straws whether the movie is funny or stupid, truthful or slanderous. I do not need the film to know Mohammed was a child rapist, a very cruel man, and generally speaking an outright bastard.
As happened for the Mohammed cartoons and the Koran burning videos, I will post here every video (short of pornographic or Neonazi material) which those sh*t heads do not want to see on the Internet.
Hope others will follow my example.
To please all of you Italophiles, today a bit of healthy Italian literature that is also a useful plunge into the Christian view of the world when the world was able to think – and act – Christian.
In Dante’s Inferno, Canto XXVIII deals with fraudulent people of various kind, like thieves, fraud specialists, people who used rhetorical ability to deceive others and people who spread discord and divisions. They are all placed in the eight Circle – further divided according to their particular sin – and are all punished (according to the contrappasso or contrapasso dear to medieval times) in a manner which has either a strong analogy to their sin or is, as it were, the contrary of it.
Now let us please remember that Dante didn’t know anything of “political correctness”. He would have probably been very amused at knowing what it is and would have considered the entire exercise in political correctness not only uncharitable, but outright unchristian in so far as it helps the spreading of error and heresy. In addition, please consider that “hate crime” as it is seen today did not have any big relevance in the Italian society of the beginning of the XIV century (nor of the XXI’s, Deo Gratias) and that the culture of self-victimhood, semi-permanent complaint and professional claim of being “discriminated against” wouldn’t have made any impression other than of amusement.
Basically, Dante lived in a Christian society and was, like many others, sincerely interested in its preservation and in the defence of its values.
This is why our probably most beloved poet of all times did something which, if made today, would make every politician’s, diplomatician’s, writer’s or poet’s hair stand on end. Which is the more remarkable because he was all four of these at one time or another and never was his work seen as being detrimental to, say, his diplomatic activity. Still, what he did would, today, attract accusations of hate crime, calls for boycott of his poetry, (obviously) calls for his execution and most certainly no invitation to afternoon tea from “call me Dave” Cameron. What did he do, then? He did something that should be a rather easy call (without falling into the sin of presumption of course; but an easy call nevertheless) in a Christian society.
He put Mohammed in Hell.
Mohammed is seen as a divisive figure, sowing strife and discord among the people (among his own, I infer, as well as among Christians and Infidels). Accordingly, he is condemned to being constantly torn open, “divided” in his own limbs. Dante and Virgilio behold his open chest, in Dante’s typical process of eternal repetition of the same punishment. The same destiny is reserved to his relative Ali whose punishment consists, perhaps even more impressively, in having his face completely open from end to end. All considered, rather strong stuff.
It is amusing to think, today, the astonishment of the Divino Poeta (as he is affectionately called in Italy) at being told that he is “uncharitable”, “judgmental”, or “divisive” himself. In Dante’s society and personal Weltanschauung – both solidly rooted in Christianity – charity could never have been confused with convenient lies, silence in front of scandal would have been considered being accessory to another’s sin and defence of Truth would never have been considered divisive, or spreading “hate”.
The simple fact is that he would have been right on all accounts then; and that – as the Truth doesn’t change – he would be right on all accounts now.
Therefore, we must seriously ask ourselves what is wrong with us, and when are we going to wake up.
After reading this CNS story titled “interfaith leaders denounce anti-islamic actions, call for cooperation” (with the explicit reference to the questionable, but absolutely non-violent Koran-burning exercise planned by a small ecclesial community in Florida) I can’t avoid noticing the double standard.
When Muslim violence (I mean here people being killed, not American flags burned) simultaneously erupts in several parts of the (Muslim) world, the accent of the Western press is generally on the offence created to Muslims, but I can’t recall any massive call to Muslim countries to stop becoming violent every time there’s something they don’t like. They basically say “this cartoon creates violence” or “burning Korans create violence”.
Wrong. Violent people create violence. Cartoons may be in bad taste, but they are not violent. The pathetic attempt to construe cartoon-publishing and koran-burning as “violence” (pathetically espoused by a Muslim chap yesterday evening on the Muslim Self Victimhood Support Club, aka BBC World Service) is utterly devoid of any reality in fact. By depriving the words of their own meaning, leftists and Muslim fanatics open the door to the usual doublespeak so beloved by both leftists and Muslim fanatics the world over. If Koran burning is violence, then everything the Muslim perceive as offensive is violence, and then killing foreigners is just self-defence. Which is exactly the thinking of the Muslim fanatic.
“Oh, but this is our religion”, Muslim whiners always say. “Oh, but this is exactly our point“, we should answer.
Every appeal to not do what might upset Muslims actually encourages them to be upset, because 1) they see how well it works and 2) it encourages them into thinking that they are actually right. This is the same as not doing everything which might upset a spoiled child. Correct the child instead, it works much better and is a long-term solution.
In the end, I have the strong feeling that the ecclesial community in Florida will announce that it renounces to perform the burning exercise. Still, I think that their initiative – apart from questions of taste – has already achieved its aim: to show the potential for senseless violence inherent in Islam. This should lead everyone to some serious reflections about what you invite in your country – irrespective of your religious convictions or opinion about the opportunity of the ceremony – by doing everything (yes, I am thinking of that Mosque) which encourages its spreading in the West.
Switzerland, a country blessedly deprived of political correctness and immune from the EU-disease, is clearly showing the way.