Catholic Reverend: Not possible to extract violence and terror from Islam

As we sit quietly by, watching this entity called ISIS endeavor to create an Islamic caliphate or recoil at the recent beheading of an American woman, I believe it’s time to conduct a serious analysis of Islam.

I care not for the cultural jihadist apologists and their PC dismissals. The time has come for the sake of Western civilization and our Constitutional Republic to ask the hard questions and make the tough assessments.

What separates Islam from other religions is a single word — reformation. It’s interesting how so many want to play the relativism game when it comes to Christianity and Islam. First, let’s make a clear distinction: Christianity is a faith, not a religion. As a matter of fact, there can be no debate that America – if not most of Western civilization — has a Judeo-Christian faith heritage in the formulation of its foundational principles.

Religion is manmade dogma, not a faith — such as Judaism is a faith but there are many different subsets, in other words, religious practices, such as Orthodox Hasidic, Chabad Lubavitch, Conservative, and Reform. As for the Christian faith, it comes down to Catholicism and Protestantism – but there are countless subsets of religious practices in Protestantism (Calvinists, Methodists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Baptists, etc).

Some say Christianity has fought many wars, but actually it was the clash between the traditions of Catholicism and the newly advocated Protestantism. It was Martin Luther’s 95 Theses of 1517 that was the impetus of what would become the Protestant [root word being protest] Reformation. It was a revolutionary endeavor to promote the right and freedom of the individual to have a relationship with God not requiring an intermediary — such as what the Catholic Church at the time promoted. It was this that led to the Gutenberg printing of the Bible in mass for all to read and understand. It’s critical to understand what Luther actually set in motion.

First of all, it was the beginning of individual sovereignty in challenging the prevalent belief that the collective was preeminent over the individual. It unlocked the beginning of individual enlightenment and the ability to question and reason. And most important, it challenged the ruling monarchial concept of Divine Law theory — rule being granted to Kings and such by God — and laid the seeds for the Natural Law theory, which led to the concept of unalienable individual rights from the Creator — since Luther had established this personal relationship. It was the Protestant Reformation that has led to the elevation of the individual instead of the subjugation of the collective — the seminal fundamental principle of Western civilization.

The problem we are facing today is that Islam has never been reformed and still holds onto 7th century precepts as promoted by an illiterate, violent, war lord and pedophile — who is considered the “perfect man.”

And so I found particularly relevant a recent article entitled “It’s time to take the Islamic State Seriously” posted on by Reverend James V. Schall, S.J. Rev. Schall taught political science at Georgetown University for many years and his latest books include The Mind That Is Catholic, Remembering Belloc, and Reasonable Pleasures.

Rev Schall’s piece was thought-provoking, and theologically and historically spot on. He writes, “What I want to propose here is an opinion. An opinion is a position that sees the plausibility but not certainty of a given proposition. But I think this opinion is well-grounded and makes more sense both of historic and of present Islam than most of the other views that are prevalent. The Islamic State and the broader jihadist movements throughout the world that agree with it are, I think, correct in their basic understanding of Islam. Plenty of evidence is found, both in the long history of early Muslim military expansion and in its theoretical interpretation of the Qur’an itself, to conclude that the Islamic State and its sympathizers have it basically right. The purpose of Islam, with the often violent means it can and does use to accomplish it, is to extend its rule, in the name of Allah, to all the world. The world cannot be at “peace” until it is all Muslim.”

And we must not forget that Islam means “submission” — quite in contrast to what Luther was promoting.

Rev. Schall is saying that it’s not possible to extract violence and terror from Islam itself as that is an integral part of its calling. Islam began in 612AD and its first convert was Mohammed’s first wife Kadeisha. The so-called “peaceful verses” of the Qur’an come in the time period from 612AD-622AD. Around 622AD, Mohammed took his “night ride” to Jerusalem because he was rejected in his home tribal area of Mecca, and he enacted the Hijra to Medina. This began the second phase when Mohammed aligned himself with violent tribes and started his actions with the Nahkla raid and the verses of the Qur’an shifted to violent — but based upon the Arabic term “Nakesh” which means abrogation, the latter more violent verses supersede all those previous, but all verses have validity. This lends to the duplicity of Islam.

“In Muslim doctrine,” Rev. Schall writes, “everyone born into the world is a Muslim. No one has any right or reason not to be. Hence, everyone who is not a Muslim is to be converted or eliminated — [as we saw done to the Christian community and others in Mosul]. This is also true of the literary, monumental, and other signs of civilizations or states that are not Muslim. They are destroyed as not authorized by the Qur’an. It is the religious responsibility of Islam to carry out its assigned mission of subduing the world to Allah. It may be possible for some to read Islam as a religion of “peace.” But its “peace,” in its own terms, means the peace of Allah within its boundaries, Dar-al-Islam. With the rest of the outside world, it is at war — Dar al-Harb — in order to accomplish a religious purpose, namely, to have all submitted to Allah in the passive way that the Qur’an specifies.”

The problem Rev. Schall brings out in his piece is that we here in the West, and certainly this Obama administration, attempt to rationalize and reason the problem away. We fail to just accept what is happening, and has happened historically, before our eyes.

Now, this is not about condemning Muslims. However, it is about indicting a political-theocratic totalitarian imperialistic ideology — it ain’t workplace violence folks. We always hear about “crusades” yet no one wants to talk about how Islam sought to spread — certainly not by peaceful proselytization — as could be seen from North Africa to Spain (Al Andalusia) to France (Battle of Tours) to the Mediterranean (Battle of Lepanto) to Constantinople (Istanbul) to the Balkans to Vienna to Hindu India to China to the Phillipines and today to Ft. Hood, Texas and Moore, Oklahoma. And yet we have individuals such as CIA Director John Brennan giving us some wishy-washy definition of jihad or B. Hussein Obama telling us ISIS isn’t Islamic.

I highly encourage you all to read Rev. Schall’s entire piece. It is highly enlightening and I leave you with his conclusion, “It is easy to write this movement off as fanatical and ruthless, which it is. To the outside world, it sounds horrific, but I suspect not to those who believe its truth and see the current revival of Islam with relief. The second or third class ranking of Islam in the modern world is over. But to the degree that we misjudge what is motivating the renewal of Islam, we will never understand why it exists as it does.”

Luther’s reformation brought about great strides for the civilized world. If Islam does not undergo a reformation, there is no coexistence, only a new Dark Age.


  1. I have read some of the Koran. I intend to read it all. What has jumped off the pages
    that I have read thus far are a lot “Allah be praised” accompanied by quite a bit of hatred, hostility, and paranoia. I think it is a trivial distinction being made between the words religion and faith. The elemental truth about Christianity and Islam is that Christianity is a religion of a sound mind, and Islam is a mass psychopathy. Leftists see the two as coequals, but leftists are not rational people, and they are generally not learned people. Leftists tend to be the laziest minded of people. No one who has read the Koran and Bible can truthfully say the Koran is superior. No one who has read the Koran and Shakespeare can truthfully say the Koran is superior.

    The beheadings will continue until Islam around the world is crushed and Islam will not be crushed until it is seen for what it is. As long as leaders Obama, Bush, Cameron, and their ilk continue to spout the dhimmi lie that Islam is the ‘religion of peace’, and not be called out as ‘dhimmis’ and ‘traitors’, the scourge of Islam will continue. To be fair to Obama, I do believe he is Islamist. Everything he does tells us he’s Islamist, and Jihadist.

  2. Just by the way, Col. West:

    1) The proper title for a Catholic priest is “Father,” abbreviated “Fr.,” not “Reverend.” With all respect to Protestant ministers, even they will say that their office is not sacramental; the office of a priest is.

    2) Many of the 95 Theses are, today, doctrine of the Church. Luther’s biggest valid gripe was the unholy sale of indulgences in which the sellers claimed to use the power given to the Church by Christ to remit the guilt, rather than the temporal punishment, for sin, which Luther notes that the then-current Pope “thunders against.”

    3) Several of those same 95 Theses are rejected by even the Lutherans themselves.

    Had Luther consented to recant (that is, retract as statements of faith) the 41 theses that Leo found objectionable, and gone to Rome to work out the differences, he might very well have been a Doctor of the Church, and St. Martin Luther – but his German stubbornness (which I share 🙂 ) and the political situation of the time would not admit such action.

    Luther’s biggest contribution was the example of publicly challenging something that was wrong. Luther’s biggest mistake was acting as though he was infallible.

    • John 14:5-7 Thomas said to Him, “Lord, we do not know where You are going, how do we know the way?” 6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me. 7 “If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him.”…

      That is to say, that no one’s office is sacramental, even a priest. When you pray, you pray to the Father, in Heaven. No other person, on earth has the authority to approach the Father. No one!!

      John 6:44 Jesus answered, “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day.

      • Yet another Bible-worshipper who thinks that their own interpretation of Scripture is infallible, ignoring 2 Peter 1:20-21. “Bible-believing” Christians tend only to recognize the parts of the Bible that are convenient; witness Luther, who removed whole books from the Bible (and which are probably still missing from yours).

      • I’m sorry you can’t have an intelligent conversation without assaulting someone with a differing opinion. Your catholic religion never wanted any of you to know what the Bible says for fear of losing you to the Truth. It’s sad to know you are not interesting in truly seeking God’s Will.

      • Really? Why did Jesus send the apostles out to baptize and teach the whole world then? Why does Paul tell us that faith comes through hearing and unless someone has heard the Gospel, a person can’t have faith in God? (meaning information about God is given to us by other people who have relationships with God–not that a deaf person can never come to faith).

      • Not sure what part you are not understanding. We are all here for that one reason, to help teach and reach everyone, everywhere, about God’s love, and The fact that He sent His only Son, Chirst, to die on the cross, that we might have life with Him in Heaven, for eternity. Faith does come by hearing, weather with the the ear or reading, studying, being taught, therefore learning to have faith in God. I hope that makes it more clear.

      • Just realized, did you mean my statement about no priest or other person in a denomination or religion, can approach the Father? If so, that was to say that God says, through Christ we are all joint heirs, with Him, and can approach God. We don’t need anyone to speak on our behalf

      • What about the authority that Jesus gave to the apostles to forgive men’s sins when he said “AS THE FATHER HAS SENT ME SO I SEND YOU. Forgive men’s sins and they are forgiven. Retain them and they are held bound.” And he breathed on them (only the second time God breathed on human beings) and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit.” That’s in the Bible, John chapter 20. Isn’t Jesus making them mediators between God and man? Isn’t that sacramental? Also, what about when Jesus changed bread and wine into his own self? (It’s in all the Gospels except John and it’s in First Corinthians) where Jesus too bread, blessed it and said, “This is my body.” Not “This represents my body.” Not “This stands for my body.” Not “This is a symbol of my body.” He said, “This is my body.” And took the cup and said, “This is the cup of my blood.” Not “This represents my blood.” Not “This stands for my blood.” Not “This is a symbol of my blood.” He said, “This is the cup of my blood.” And then he said, “DO THIS IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME.” He gave the apostles the command to also change bread and wine into Jesus Christ. John 6 says unless you EAT THE FLESH of the SON OF MAN and DRINK HIS BLOOD you do not have life within you. When have you eaten the body of Christ or drank his blood? Catholics do so at every Mass. We take the words in the Bible LITERALLY, unlike your so-called “Bible believing church.”

      • Jesus Institutes the Lord’s Supper Matt 26:17-30

        26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed[a] and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.”

        27 Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28 For this is My blood of the new[b] covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. 29 But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom

        Of course Christ did not literally serve his blood and his body, but that’s what we do when we take communion with him. It is fruit of the vine, and unleavened bread.

        I would not be disrepectful to you and make reference to “Your so-called “Bible believing church.” I think I see a pattern of Non-christian behavior on your part and catholicchristian, in the next post. I have been respectfully trying to discuss very seriously, the most precious thing in the world to me, and to you, you say. May God continue to bless us all as we continue to seek Him, and serve Him.

      • Jesus performed the greatest miracle of His life and continues to perform it to this day in every Catholic Church. He took the bread and the wine–there was no grape juice because there was no way to keep the grape juice from fermenting–and he transformed them into himself so that we could do what he tells us to do in John 6. “I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world…Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed…But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God. Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil? He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.”
        At the Last Supper, Jesus took bread and said, “THIS IS MY BODY.” And he took the cup and said, “THIS IS THE CUP OF MY BLOOD.” He told his followers that they had to eat his flesh and drink his blood. The Gospel tells us that many of his followers refused to believe in him or follow him any more at that point. He did not call them back and say he was speaking metaphorically–he let them walk away. Then he asked the Twelve if they were going to leave also. Peter said, “Lord, to whom shall we go? YOU have the words of everlasting life.” We Catholics don’t doubt Jesus’ word or their power. It was through Jesus (the WORD) that all of creation came to be. Why would we doubt that he can transform ordinary bread and wine into himself and give himself to us? The Gospel goes on to say that Jesus knew who didn’t believe and Judas Iscariot was the devil because he was going to betray him. Judas Iscariot didn’t believe that Jesus could feed his followers with his own flesh and blood.

  3. Love you, Col. West, but I have a correction: The Baptists were not born out of the reformation. We have been here since the time of Christ. God bless you, and keep up the fight.

      • If you don’t want to start an argument, then why are you trying to start an argument? What do you have against Baptists?

      • He doesn’t have to have anything against Baptists to point out that your statement has precisely zero historical evidence to back it up. To legitimately claim that that the Baptist denomination has been around since the time of Christ would require you to 1. cite an Early Church Father whose work supports the principles of the Baptist position (which you can’t), and 2. explain why the term Baptist only appears in the historiographical record in the 1600’s.

      • 1. How about the original Baptist – John the Baptist? Have you ever read the Bible? We claim Jesus Christ as out church’s father.
        2. The moniker “Baptist” (aka, Anabaptist, et al.) was used as a disparaging term against those who practiced their faith in those days, and was ultimately adopted as our own because it adequately depicts one of the most important aspects of our following Christ in immersion baptism.

      • I`m sorry, none of this is historical, ALL the early Christians who called themselves such, and shortly thereafter called themselves Catholic (Yes, all of them), believed that they ate Jesus`real body and blood. No protestants believe that today.

      • Where is your evidence that ALL early Christians called themselves Catholic, or that ALL of them believed that the Lord’s Supper consisted of the actual blood and body of Christ?I don’t believe it for a second.

        All of this is fun, John, but will not be resolved here. You’re not going to change my faith, and I’m not going to change yours (if you have any). I’ll close with this: Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and no man comes to the Father but by Him; it doesn’t matter what you call yourself.

      • “Where is your evidence that ALL early Christians called themselves Catholic, or that ALL of them believed that the Lord’s Supper consisted of the actual blood and body of Christ?I don’t believe it for a second.”

        Ah, so without actually offering any evidence you now demand evidence of your own. Unfortunately, your statement is inherently dishonest. It is also entirely irrelevant.

        What we CAN say is that many of the Early Church Fathers used the term “Catholic” in their writings, though not in an official sense at first. The first instance of its usage is in a letter written by St. Ignatius around 110 A.D. This early form of the word was meant to express the universal nature of the Church. That is, the Early Church Fathers were writing to a congregation which they understood shared a set of universal beliefs. The term is used more strongly in the “Matyrdom of Polycarp” written in around 325 A.D., and there are other examples from that period which clearly show that the term had become an official quantifier to distance Christianity from heresy. In 380 Theodosius I officially declared

        The Sacrament of Eucharist likewise has its roots in the earliest days of the Church. In fact, Catholics would say that the Sacrament is as old as the Last Supper, and Church doctrine has been pretty clear on the Real Presence. St. Paul himself writes about it in his Epistles, and St. Ignatius of Antioch writes about it in around 110 A.D.

        It is not important to show that ALL early Christians believed in the Real Presence of Christ. We KNOW that there have always been heresies and false teachers, and there have always been those who refuse to accept the full truth of Christianity. What we can show is that there is a very clear and early structure of belief developed by the Early Fathers, and that this early structure held that there should be one universal Church and that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ.

        Again, there is nothing in the historical record to support the existence of proto-Baptists or whatever you want to call them.

      • “The first instance of its usage is in a letter written by St. Ignatius around 110 A.D.” Correct me if I’m wrong, but 110 A.D. came after 33 A.D., right? So for at least 77 years after Jesus’ death, there was no “Catholic” church.

        I will continue to believe what I believe, and you will do the same. It’s all trivial in comparison to what really matters, and that is my relationship with Jesus Christ. He is my Savior and I will remain a Baptist Christian.

        By the way, I don’t appreciate being called “dishonest,” as you probably don’t appreciate being called a know-it-all.

      • That was the first written record of the use of Catholic, definately not its first use, but it was used interchangeably with “christian“ which was first used after 33.

      • You’re calling me dishonest again. I didn’t make up anything. Where did the practice of praying to the virgin Mary originate? Who made that up?

      • Jesus did.
        Let’s get one thing straight. Catholics do not worship saints or Mary when we “pray” to them. When we pray to saints, we are praying in the sense that we are asking them to help us. You know–the old English way of saying, “Pray tell me, dear sir, where I might find the orphanage?” It’s praying in the sense of asking for help.
        Now, who was the first person to respond when Mary asked for help? It’s in the Bible. Gospel of John. There’s a wedding at Cana. They’re running out of wine. Mary tells Jesus. Jesus says it’s not time for him to work his first miracle yet. But HE DOES IT ANYWAY because HIS MOTHER asked him to. A couple more things… Don’t say Jesus disrespected his mother when he called her “Woman.” That’s impossible. The Bible tells us that Jesus was a human being just like us except he NEVER SINNED. It is a sin to dishonor your mother. It’s against the 10 Commandments, so don’t even go there. Secondly, don’t behave as if Mary is somehow bullying her son into doing what she wants over what he wants and somehow we Catholics think she’s “greater” than Jesus. We don’t think that at all. The Blessed Virgin is ALWAYS pointing us towards JESUS and never towards herself. The evidence for that? John’s Gospel again where she tells the servants “DO WHATEVER *HE* TELLS YOU.” That’s the exact same thing she tells us.

      • I don’t think we should call any names, period. There is no mention of baptist church or catholic church in the Bible. There is also no mention of baptist christian, Lance, with all due respect. If you are a follower of Christ, you are a Christian.

      • Do you have any idea what a jackass you’re making yourself out to be? You don’t know anything about me or my church.

      • Diane, did Christ come to found one Church or thousands? He explicitly says he came to found one Church. One Christian Church is not the same as thousands of other Christian churches. If they were, they’d all be the same Church. So, which is the correct Church?

      • The Bible is our only true guide of going to Heaven. In Matthew 16:18 Jesus says, “I will build My church”. Whose church? Christ’s church — the church of Christ. Jesus does not say “churches”, but “church”. The word “church” is singular, meaning one and only one and the word “My” is possessive, meaning it belongs only to Christ. Christ only built His one true church. Christ began His one true church almost 2000 years ago, Acts chapter two. Christ “loved the church and gave Himself for her” (Ephesians 5:25). Jesus Christ did not die for or establish any of the more than 600 different false denominational churches, which men have begun during the past 500 years. All of these false denominational churches were established by men hundreds of years after Christ established His one true church. All of the many denominations are counterfeit creations and have no Bible authority to exist. None of the hundreds of different denominations belong to Christ.

      • Nowhere does it mention a Universal “Catholic” church.
        All churches are local autonomous, and indigenous churches.

      • Did Jesus pray that all of his followers might be ONE? Yes, he did. In the Last Supper discourse. Are all of his followers ONE? No, they are not. If they were, what an example we would be to the Mohammedans.

      • Acts 11:26 and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. For a whole year they met with the church and taught a great many people. And in Antioch the disciples were first called Christians. Not catholics or baptists. No other church but Christ’s church, therefore Christians.

      • John, the baptist, was simply, “one who baptized.” Not a baptist, like the baptist religion. There is no mention of the baptist church, in the Bible, Lance. Catholics, were also not the original christians. Catholics is also not mentioned in the Bible. I have never heard of infant baptism in the baptist church, either.

      • I agree with your statement about John, but I as a Baptist believe as John the Baptist and the apostles did. Why is it so far-fetched to think that the lineage of my faith goes back to the apostles themselves, no matter what they were called or called themselves at the time? Thank you for not accusing me of making this up as some have, by the way. I don’t have time at work to go into great detail about Baptist history, but the lineage is there if any will look. God bless us all.

      • I respect your time at work. Later, please examine, that baptist history is not necessarily the correct history. I believe you have been mis-taught. Please don’t take offense. If you read, please get the book, “Muscle and a Shovel”, by Michael Shank. Yes, it’s written by a man, but by one who explains it all very well. Let’s talk more, if you choose..Regards.

      • I will read it, Diane, and I would ask that you read “The Trail of Blood” by J.M. Carroll, which I believe to be the “correct history.”

      • It is far-fetched because there is no historical basis for your belief. Read what the early Church fathers wrote. It’s certainly not Baptist.

      • You don’t believe as the apostles did if you are a Baptist, nor do you believe as John the Baptist did. John the Baptist was a Jew. He performed a baptism of repentance but the baptism that Jesus and the apostles brought was a baptism with the holy Spirit that made the person born again.

      • I guess we’ll have to ask God to clarify all things when the day comes. Till then, I’m done talking to you.

      • Trinity is also not mentioned in the Bible. Do you believe in it? If so, you are following the teaching of one of the first Church Councils.

      • Not all Christians called themselves Catholics, if I understand that’s what you are saying johninglis.

      • Read the other comments in the thread. But since I know that you are a certain type of protestant, where does it say you should go to church on Sunday instead of Saturday? Where does it say in the Bible that the Bible is the only thing you need to be a good Christian (it doesn’t!)? And where in the Bible does the term “Holy Trinity” appear? “Therefore brethern hold fast to the traditions we have taught you, whether by word or by our epistle.” (tells you you need more than just the Bible)

      • “And on the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul began talking to them, intending to depart the next day, and he prolonged his message until midnight. And there many lamps in the upper room where we were gathered together.” (Acts 20:7,8).

        All scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work . (2 Timothy 3:16,17)

        The Bible writers were not like news reporters giving their personal interpretation of events they eye-witnessed, but were divinely guided as 2 Peter 1:20-21 says,

        “Above all, you must understand that no prophesy of scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.”
        It doesn’t say you don’t need anything but the Bible, and I certainly do enjoy reading someone’s commentary, or other books. Just a long as you know the Word, and are not drawn off to something unscriptural for your life.

        It doesn’t. God is triune. There are 3 manifestations of one God–not 3 gods

      • I agree with everything you have said. but it does not make the argument you want it to. (for the first point) When the Catholic Church picked which books went into the Canon of Sacred Scripture in 393, it declared which Books were the ones that were inspired, and except for Protestants taking 7 books out 1100 years later everyone agreed with what the Church did. (There was no book called the Bible before that).

      • One thing just occurred to me, is that you should check out the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, the Father who learned from the Apostles themselves.

      • What would you like me to learn there, that is not in the Bible? Early writings or Scrolls, have been found, The Dead Sea Scrolls in 1940, to be exact. Although I love to learn from men who are much more learned than I, my official “go-to” book is the Bible, written by men, who were inspired by God, to write.

      • You just said you liked to read commentaries on the Bible. For one thing you would learn that all early Christians believed that John Chapter 6 does not refer to a symbol. That is a BIG one, only manipulation of the text by people in the last 500 years has changed what people believed about that. Also you should know that the Catholic Church complied the books of the Bible declaring which were inspired and which were not. And no one argued about that until Luther started taking books out and add words to passages.

      • The Fathers rarely say something different from what is in the Bible. What they do is often explain what certain passages meant to the Apostles. John 6 is a good example, because before Luther started taking books out of the Bible and reinterpreting it, everyone understood that the Eucharist was about the real body and blood of Jesus. One other thing you should know is that it was Catholics who discerned which books were inspired. for 1100 years until people started taking books out and reinterpreing them- and ADDing to them.

      • johninglis already effectively answered this, but I will go a step further and also point out that the Early Church practiced infant baptism, a practice which today’s modern Baptists condemn.

      • Exactly what do you call the Early Church? Baptists have never practiced infant baptism, as far as I know.

      • Not true. Paul baptized entire families or households more than once. Are you claiming there were definitely no children in those households? Also, don’t say that you have to accept Jesus as your personal savior before you can be baptized. In some cases, other people have accepted on behalf of another person, which is the case in infant baptism. What am I talking about? It’s in the Bible where Paul tells the jailer that if he believes in Jesus, he and his whole household will be saved. Another instance is when the paralyzed man is brought to Jesus by his friends who open up a hole in the roof and lower him down. Jesus forgives the paralyzed man’s sins because of the actions of his friends.

      • When an earthquake rocked the prison where Paul and Silas were fastened in stocks, the jailer assumed his prisoners had escaped. In view of the fact that Roman law would have required the jailer’s life as the penalty for losing the prisoners who had been placed in his charge (Acts 12:19), he drew his sword and was about to take his own life. But Paul called out loudly, encouraging the jailer to refrain from harming himself, reassuring him that no prisoner had escaped. Calling for a light, he ran into the prison and fell down trembling before Paul and Silas. Then, bringing them out of the prison, the jailer asked Paul and Silas, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” (Acts 16:30).

        What did the jailer mean by this statement? As a heathen Roman, he no doubt had been exposed to Greek/Roman mythology his entire life. Christianity had been introduced into Macedonia only days earlier when Paul arrived in Philippi So it is unlikely that he possessed more than a cursory understanding of the Christian notion of salvation from sin. But events occurred in those days leading up to his conversion that may account for the jailer’s question.

        Now it happened, as we went to prayer, that a certain slave girl possessed with a spirit of divination met us, who brought her masters much profit by fortune-telling. This girl followed Paul and us, and cried out, saying, “These men are the servants of the Most High God, who proclaim to us the way of salvation.” And this she did for many days (Acts 16:16-18).

        Observe that the demon within the girl announced to the citizens of Philippi over a period of “many days” the fact that Paul and Silas were representatives of the one true God, and that they possessed the information that would show people the way to salvation. In all likelihood, the jailer would have heard this declaration either firsthand or through the reports of friends, neighbors, relatives, or other townspeople.

        When Paul finally expelled the demon from the girl, her irate masters assaulted him and Silas, dragged them before the magistrates of the city, and subjected them to the legal proceedings that ultimately landed them in the prison where they encountered the jailer. It is not out of the realm of possibility that the jailer was privy to these proceedings, which surely would have included reference to their alleged identity as “servants of the Most High God” who had information pertaining to “the way of salvation.”

        A third means by which the jailer could have come into possession of sufficient information that would account for the phrasing of his question can be seen in verse 25: “But at midnight Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns to God, and the prisoners were listening to them.” The jailer may well have heard the hymns that Paul and Silas sang—songs that would have included references to God, Christ, and salvation.

        These three circumstances may account for the jailer’s request to be informed about salvation—albeit, even then, his understanding must have been very piecemeal. Paul’s response to the jailer’s question was: “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household” (vs. 31). What did Paul mean by this statement? If he meant what many within Christendom think he meant, that is, if the jailer already knew who Jesus was, and if Paul was urging him simply to believe (i.e., simply to “accept Christ into his heart as his personal savior”), then we should next expect the text to provide the jailer’s response—something to the effect that the jailer accepted Jesus Christ as his savior, or that he believed on Jesus right then and there and was saved.

        However, to the contrary, the text says: “Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him” (vs. 32). Why? Didn’t Paul just do that by telling the jailer to believe? Apparently not! Paul later wrote that “faith comes by hearing…the word of God” (Romans 10:17). So the jailer needed to hear additional information that would enable him to know what it means to believe in Jesus. It follows, then, that the instruction, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ” was simply a broad, sweeping statement intended to redirect the jailer’s then-present religious attachment to the pagan gods of Greek/Roman mythology toward the true object of belief—Christ. It was a way to reorient the jailer’s thinking in the direction of Jesus, as contrasted with his own pagan notions. But simply telling the jailer (or anyone today) to “believe on Jesus” does not provide sufficient information on how to believe. In other words, there is more to “believing on Jesus” than simply affirming in one’s mind that Jesus is Lord and Savior (a fact readily conceded even by Satan and the demons—Genesis 3:15; Matthew 4:3,6; Luke 22:31; Hebrews 2:14; James 2:19; Revelation 12:4ff.).

        It was only in speaking the word of the Lord to the jailer that he could understand who Christ is, what Christianity is about, and the proper response to the preached Word—i.e., what it means to “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.” Since the jailer could not be saved before Paul spoke the Word of the Lord to him, observe the sequence of events that the text reports immediately after the Word was spoken to him.

        (1) The jailer took Paul and Silas “the same hour of the night and washed their stripes” (Acts 16:33). Here is evidence of repentance (e.g., Matthew 3:8). Here is evidence that the jailer was convinced by the information that had been given to him, to the extent that he wanted to make things right. That is repentance—a change of mind resulting in appropriate outward actions (Matthew 21:29; 2 Corinthians 7:10).

        (2) The text then states: “And immediately he and all his family were baptized.” Three aspects of this sentence are noteworthy. First, if baptism is unnecessary to salvation, why even mention it with regard to the conversion of the jailer? Why not simply proceed in the narrative to the outcome of conversion—i.e., some indication that he was now saved? If baptism is nonessential, instead of reading, “And immediately he and all his family were baptized,” one would expect the text to read, “And immediately he and all his family accepted Jesus as their personal Savior.” Second, where did the jailer get the idea that he needed to be baptized? It had to have been included in Paul’s “speaking the word of the Lord” to him. But if the jailer could not be saved until Paul “spoke the word of the Lord” to him, and if Paul included in that “word of the Lord” the doctrine of baptism, then it follows that the jailer’s salvation depended in part on baptism. Third, why “immediately”? Some within Christendom wait a week, a month, or longer before baptizing believers. Why was the jailer baptized immediately in the middle of the night? The implication is that baptism is more crucial and more urgent than many today think.

        (3) At this point in Luke’s narrative, we are informed that the jailer brought Paul and Silas into his home, and then he set food before them. Next, we are informed that the jailer “rejoiced” (vs. 34). When does the text indicate that the jailer manifested signs of joy and happiness (that naturally follow conversion)—before or after baptism? After baptism! In fact, every time rejoicing is explicitly alluded to in the conversion accounts of Acts, it is always after baptism (e.g., 2:46—“gladness”; 8:39—“rejoicing”).

        (4) Everything up to this point leads one to the conclusion that baptism was part and parcel of the jailer’s conversion, and preceded his salvation as the culminating act. But here is the clincher. Look carefully at the phrase in verse 34: “having believed in God.”

      • You are trying to say that the Bible promotes infant baptism? Please show what the scriptures are..

      • First of all, how do we know there were infants in the house? Second, with respect, I believe you missed the point. It was after they were TAUGHT, and Jesus saw their FAITH, they were baptized. There is still no mention of babies being baptized, in the Bible.
        Hear the Word: Romans 10:17. So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
        Believe and Be Baptized: Mark 16:16. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
        Repent and be Baptized: Acts 2:38. Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
        Confess and be Baptized: Romans 10: 9. That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

      • How do we know there weren’t infants in the house? Entire households, especially rich households like Lydia’s were comprised of several families.
        Also, remember when the paralyzed man was brought to Jesus. He never said a word, yet Jesus forgave him his sins based on the actions of his friends.
        I looked around at the site you got your information about baptism from. Interesting. They say they worship New Testament style. They have the Lord’s supper every Sunday. With bread and grape juice. Hear the word: There’s no grape juice in the Bible.

      • Don’t be silly, Fruit of the vine is the wording that’s used. And unleavened bread. The folks you mention were saved by their faith, after being taught. No one else caused him to be forgiven. His faith saved him. I chose not to argue points that are not known. Infant baptism is not in the Bible. Period. I won’t continue to have a conversation with someone who wants to be argumentative, instead of seeking the truth of God’ word.

      • Oh dear, I accidentally deleted my reply. It was long. It’s late and I’m pooped. I will repost tomorrow.

      • We believe that the Baptists are the original Christians. We did not commence our existence at the reformation, we were reformers before Luther and Calvin were born; we never came from the Church of Rome, for we were never in it, but we have an unbroken line up to the apostles themselves. We have always existed from the days of Christ, and our principles, sometimes veiled and forgotten, like a river which may travel under ground for a little season, have always had honest and holy adherents. Persecuted alike by Romanists and Protestants of almost every sect, yet there has never existed a Government holding Baptist principles which persecuted others; nor, I believe, any body of Baptists ever held it to be right to put the consciences of others under the control of man. We have ever been ready to suffer, as our martyrologies will prove, but we are not ready to accept any help from the State, to prostitute the purity of the Bride of Christ to any alliance with Government, and we will never make the Church, although the Queen, the despot over the consciences of men.

        —Charles H. Spurgeon

        Christian history, in the First Century, was strictly and properly Baptist history, although the word “Baptist,” as a distinctive appellation was not then known. How could it be? How was it possible to call any Christians Baptist Christians, when all were Baptists?”

        —William Cathcart, The Baptist Encyclopedia, 1881, p. 286.

      • You can believe anything you want to, but that doesn’t make it a credible belief. What you describe is a situation completely unsupported by anything in the historical narrative. You are welcome to it, but don’t be surprised when people call you out for attempting to “correct” someone based on an entirely fictitious position.

        The rest of your statement waxes poetic, but it still offers no evidence to support your assertion that Baptists existed since the time of Christ. When you say, “sometimes veiled and forgotten,” you must mean something like, “utterly nonexistent in any primary sources until the 1600’s.”

      • The beliefs of the Baptist denomination were and are existent in THE primary source, the Bible. You can believe what you want, as well.

      • Your disparaging remarks will get you nowhere. You know nothing of me or my church, and I don’t want to know anything else about you. I’ve seen enough.

      • When was the last time you ate the flesh of the Son of Man or drank his blood? (John 6: 53) When was the last time you SAW him and believed in him?(John 6:40) As I said, neither you nor the other members of your church are Bible believers.

      • You poor, angry person. Let God judge me. He will judge you, too. You will receive no further remarks from me. It’s a waste of my time.

      • I am not afraid of the judgment of God. My relationship with him is so intimate that he feeds me with his own flesh and blood. Your remarks are a waste of time because you have nothing to say against the Truth. Jesus said, “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life.” He didn’t say he spoke the truth–he said he IS the Truth. If you don’t have the truth, you don’t have Jesus.

      • The name Baptist did not appear until later when we would be called Anabaptist meaning re-baptizers, because we didn’t believe in infant Baptism.
        How old was Jesus?

      • “Sometimes veiled and forgotten” vs. “The gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” The Catholic Church has been visible throughout history since the days of Jesus and the apostles. The Baptist church has been “veiled and forgotten.” Which Church do you think Jesus was talking about when he said “I will be with you ALWAYS until the end of the age.”?

      • You should be able to correct people without them having to defend a position that is not based in history.

      • We were not known as Baptist back then.
        But there are many historical documents to show the Baptist type faith existed from the beginning.
        Just because your teaching is from Catholic biased view does not mean it did not happen.

      • I think you’ll find that’s not the case, even people from the Reformation denied that there was any Church other than the Catholic. There were heretics, but none of them believe what Baptists believe today, in fact Baptists would usually consider these people “New Age”.

      • Our beliefs that the Catholic Church has existed since the time of Jesus are proven historically. Yours is made up by a couple of baptist writers.

  4. Fr. Schall’s piece IS excellent, but Col. West’s utilization of it in his own article is odd at best. Fr. Schall makes absolutely no reference to Luther or the Protestant Reformation in his article, and so Col. West’s decision to cite it extensively (and almost exclusively) in an article with a conclusion like, “Luther’s reformation brought about great strides for the civilized world. If Islam does not undergo a reformation, there is not coexistence, only a new Dark Age,” comes dangerously close to dishonesty. It simply does not follow from anything Fr. Schall wrote. It is fine if Col. West believes this himself, but as the article is written it seems to imply that Fr. Schall’s work supports this conclusion.

    Furthermore, if one wants to find the actual roots of Natural Law theory one needs to go back to St. Thomas Aquinas.

  5. I love Allen West, but some things are not correct in here:
    1) There are three main divides in Christianity: Catholic, about a 1 billion; Orthodox, about 550 million and Protestant about 450 million.
    2) Luther had nothing to to do with Gutenberg`s creation of the printing press, it was created about 70 years before the 95 Theses, and the first printed Gutenberg Bible was a Catholic Bible.
    3) The clashes that occurred between Protestantism and Catholicism were mostly about Dukes and Lords not wanting to give back the land they had seized from the Church when they became Protestant.
    4) to those who wonder, Priests can also be called Reverands in the Church.

    • This is h­ow you can make a decent income every month… Try it for yourself! A­fter been without work for 6 months, i started freelancing over this w­ebsite and now i couldn’t be happier. After 6 months on my new jo­b my monthly in­come is arou­nd 12k a mo­nth…> -> visit HERE for more INFO <-

  6. Lots of errors and misconceptions about Christianity here. The article by the Jesuit priest is superb. Doesn’t need addons or protestant apologetics. The protestant movement was not a “reformation”, was a downright schism. It didn’t bring any good to the Church, but harm.

    • Catholicism is a pagan version of Christianity. Jesus said call no man father and what do you do.
      Pope =papa.
      The priesthood is of the believers, “your body is the temple of God. ”
      I don’t need anyone other than Jesus Christ to confess my sins to. He is my intersessor and advocate!
      Mary is NOT the mother of GOD. Mary is a normal fallible woman that was trusting in God. She is the mother of the human Jesus, only responsible for his flesh and his human blood line.
      All the whimsical things that the Catholics have done to confuse the grace of GOD is an abomination.
      Catholicism has a works salvation, the Bible teaches it is buy grace through faith in Jesus Christ.
      Not by WORKS of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us.
      Jesus paid for salvation with his sinless life. God accepted it as an adequate payment for sin.
      We can never earn salvation.

      • Like I said… lots of errors and misconceptions.

        The Eucharist, the Primacy of The Pope, Mary, mother of God, Confession and Priesthood, all are Biblical, Faith and Works.. all of them were Beliefs of the Early Church and the Church Fathers.

        Luther came along and twisted everything.

        By the way, Jesus died for our sins and to Open the Gates of Heaven, but we have to work to keep our Salvation. Jesus paid for it, but is not for free. We can lose it.

      • 1. What do you call your paternal parent? Dad? Father? Pops? Papa? All the same thing. You might want to look at how Paul refers to himself as Timothy’s father. It’s in the Bible. It’s Philippians 2:22. Why do you have a problem with what the Bible says?
        2. Jesus himself appeared to the apostles on the night he rose from the dead and said “AS THE FATHER HAS SENT ME, SO I SEND YOU. Forgive men’s sins and they are forgiven. Retain them and they are held bound.” Didn’t God the Father send Jesus to earth to forgive our sins? It’s in the Bible, John Chapter 20. The Bible says that Jesus sent the apostles out to do the same thing. Not only did he do that, he BREATHED on them–only the second time God has breathed on human beings. Why do you have a problem with what the Bible says?
        3. Gosh, I guess I”m only the parent to half of my child and if you have any children, you’re just the parent to half of them. Mary is called the Mother of God because her child IS God, not because she predates Jesus, or that she’s greater than Jesus–simply because Jesus is GOD and Mary is his mother.
        4. You’re correct. We cannot earn our own salvation and the Catholic Church doesn’t teach that you can. We are saved by our relationship with Jesus Christ–God. God gives us grace and the way we respond to that grace determines whether we have a relationship with God. You might want to read about it in the Bible. It’s in the book of James which says “Faith without works is dead.” Why do you have a problem with what the Bible says?
        Now try to tell me that you are a member of a “Bible believing church.”

  7. Lt. Col. West, this is a brilliant article. You’ve encapsulated 1500 years of history in a few paragraphs. Although you’ve probably read it, I recommend the book JIHAD by Paul Fregosi which was written before 9/11 and is so prophetic.

  8. Mr. West, the Old Testament is a religion that was not man-made it is the same religion that Jesus Christ followed, it is the same religion that the apostles followed In both testaments the religion was GOD-MADE not man-made as you assert. Jesus Christ founded the one and only true national religion and church of Israel in the OT. Jesus Christ then came as a man to this earth to found the one true national religion and church of spiritual Israel, but man has taken the true religion and perverted it. and it splintered into many fragments that have bits and pieces of the true religion God founded but is not the actual true religion. FAITH has nothing to do with Christianity because you can have faith in many things outside of Christianity (evolution is a faith based system) but according to the Bible FAITH is PROOF that what God says in his word (regarding promises and prophecies) are true.

    • This article was about Islam and ISIS. People like you will be the first to get beheaded when conquered by ISIS. Go ahead with them like you do here you small minded stupid little person. See how well they listen to your astute arguments.. Oh wait, they wont. they will just kill you.

    • El_Regio13:
      The operative principle is to pray for the wisdom to follow the path of Jesus, as closely as it is possible for a human being to do. The Roman (Catholic) Church was a creature of Constantine the Pagan, a political move to help him hold together the disintegrating Roman empire. That creature has been showing us its corruption for a while now – including the current Pope’s apologia for Islam.

  9. ‘Reform Islam?’ Has he read the foundational ‘literature’ – that’s stretching the word a whole lot! – of the beast? There is NO COMPARISON between Faith, Religion, and the coercive, homicidal insult of Islam. The Crusades began as Christians and Jews were being slaughtered in the Holy Land, and the Holy Sites desecrated. The Crusaders gave us hospitals, hostels, etc.; they protected the pilgrims and set up hospitals and safe houses for the pilgrims. Read Fornini’s Life of S. Francis of Assisi if you want a clear picture of the hell that is islam from it’s founding days…
    Somewhat disappointed in this article, but worth reading nonetheless.

  10. Let’s not forget Constantine, the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, the Salem Witch Trials, and claiming the New World in the name of God and King to the detriment of indigenous peoples. The Judeo-Christian history is not without blood of innocents on its hands.

    We have used violence and law to enforce Biblical morality on the masses.

    Oh that we could remember that our battle is not against flesh and blood but principalities and powers of the air. Let us fight for the souls of men…not against the men themselves.

    Let us take the Gospel to the Muslim countries. And when one martyr falls for the sake of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, let us not despair, but let us send three more to take their place.

    Mat 9:38
    38 Pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he will send forth labourers into his harvest.

    • Like you remember the Spanish Inquisition? According to more people are killed each year in the name of Islam than were killed in 350 years of the Spanish Inquisition. And the people who were put to death by the Spanish Inquisition were given a trial, as I do recall. The Crusades were in responses to what? I do believe the were in response to Jihadist slaughter of Christians, was it not? I’ve heard all that brainwash long enough. It is leftist, atheist claptrap. Don’t ape the lies of those morons who taught you, please.

    • Our Judeo Christian history has had blood shed, however our teachings our against it. Where does the church actually teach about the Inquisition or Witch trials? Where. Nowhere.

      Just as today the US as a country has murderers everyday, but our laws are taught against it. Islam is different. It’s history and modern principles proclaim taxing, slavery, conversion and killing of non believers.

      • I was taught about them in Catholic Schools, very little was mentioned about them in state-run colleges.

  11. If you claim to be a so-called Moderate, peaceful follower of Islam, what exactly are the tenets of your faith? I can name mine EXACTLY? What and WHO are you following? 1. I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth:

    2. And in Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord:

    3. Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary:

    4. Suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, dead and buried: He descended into hell:

    5. The third day he rose again from the dead:

    6. He ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty:

    7. From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead:

    8. I believe in the Holy Ghost:

    9. I believe in the holy church of Christ (GOD) the bride of Christ, called out from all nations) the communion of saints: (those who have washed their sins in the blood of Christ and accepted his sacrifice—all of us are saints)

    10. The forgiveness of sins:

    1l. The resurrection of the body:

    12. And the life everlasting. Amen.

    What exactly are the tenets of the Muslim religion or belief? Do you really have any kind of doctrine at all? Probably each Muslim would have a different answer to this question which means there is no doctrine.

    • Just say living and the dead… quick and the dead looks like a b rated movie. People don’t understand the archaic words and what they mean.

    • In the R.C. Apostles’ Creed, states (and I have heard it mentioned in Lutheran Churches) “the holy, catholic church”

      • That is not true! Baptist type believers were around before the reformation,
        We were not called Baptist at that time, but shared the same doctrines.
        We were called Anabaptist, which means re-baptizers because we do not accept infant Baptism as the true ordnance.
        Nor do we believe in the same communion.
        We do not believe in the priesthood that the Catholics believe in.
        We believe in the Priesthood of believers.
        We were around as long as or before Catholicism.
        We were the ones the Catholics used the racks, and thumb screws, and burning stake on!
        Things the Catholic church has never denounced!

      • There is absolutely no historical evidence that the Baptist church existed before the 1600s. What a joke to think the Baptist church has been “around before Catholicism.”

    • they get to have lewd and lascivious sex with 72 virgins, the women just die and go to hell. every time the Quran calls something a sin. they later work it out to have a way to legally sin. Allah is the only one who can give life. Jesus was just a prophet, not the son of God. Yet at age 5 Jesus made clay birds and breathed life into them. Allah allowed him to. He didn’t give him the power to. Sounds like only God can give life. Jesus performed a lot of miracles in the name of God. Mohammed zero. Jesus breathed life. Mohammed did not. Why did Mohammed earn so much more recognition then Jesus, when Jesus did so much more amazing feats in the Name of God.

      • So how is a Muslim “saved” from his sin? How is it they he/she is made pure “enough” to make it to “allah’s” presence? There is no redemption in Islam!!!! If you are “sinful” how can you “work” yourself up to be good? That is where Islam (a cult) and Christianity part the ways. Thank God He has sent His son, pure and sinless to take the sins of the world (and me) upon himself. Therefore, there is no condemnation for those that are IN Christ Jesus!!!! He has opened Paradise and now we are worthy by his blood to enter God’s holy presence. There is nothing that compares to this doctrine in the Koran. There is no atonement for sin. There are no 72 virgins waiting if you believe in this lie. There is redemption only in the name of Jesus. Believe and live.

  12. I always see this canard of the Gutenberg Bible being lumped in with the reformation.
    The Gutenberg Bible was a technological breakthrough which had nothing to do with a particular Christian mindset. OBTW the Gutenberg bible is a printing of a Latin Vulgate way too Catholic for the heretic Martin Luther.
    The reformation did in fact mark the beginning of many bloody and violent wars throughout Europe, so I guess this is what Colonel West is arguing for; many bloody and violent wars.

  13. Sweden to recognise state of Palestine – Stefan Löfven, the leader of the Social Democrats

    This is happening in America!!!


    In Sweden and the West, What Message Are We Muslims Sending?

    by Mudar Zahran
    June 10, 2014 at 5:00 am

    “I just want to make a living but those Islamist crazies won’t leave us alone. They say they support jihad, they deal drugs, they get drunk and harass women. I swear to Allah, sometimes I feel I am not living in Malmö but in Afghanistan.” — Mr. S., Palestinian refugee from Jordan living in Sweden.

    “I am religious, but I cannot accept what the Muslim fundamentalists have been doing to this country. I have had job offers to teach at major Swedish cities, but instead chose to go to a remote town where I would not have to see those fundamentalist immigrants.” — Muslim College Professor, northern Sweden.


    Any Swede who offends or insult “immigrants” (Euro-speak for Muslims) or immigration (hijra) will be subject to prosecution. That is Islamic law.

    Sweden’s immigration model is failing miserably … test scores in Swedish schools are plummeting … [and] crime in some areas has skyrocketed. Immigrants burned the Stockholm suburb of Husby for over a week last year.

    Sweden today house the second largest volume of rape crimes in the world after Nigeria, all due to Muslim immigrants.Muslims rape over 300 Swedish children and 700 women in first 7 months of 2013.

    Many Jews now live in fear of attacks by Muslim immigrants and are leaving.

    Amun Abdullahi, a journalist for Swedish radio, left last year and returned to her native Somalia after she was attacked in the Swedish media over her news report about radical Muslim immigrants in Sweden.

    She told Swedish television that Mogadishu was safer than immigrant areas in Stockholm.

  14. Col. West. Your understanding of the history of the Protestant Reformation and the middle ages is sorely lacking. It’s not as if Catholics were going around killing people and acting like ISIS in medieval times. The notion of the “Dark Ages” is a Protestant and Enlightenment myth used as nothing more than a smear campaign against classical western society in general and Catholicism and Scholasticism in particular. This so called “Dark Age” was a period in which luminaries such as Thomas Aquinas, Duns Scotus, Albert Magnus, Roger Bacon, Dante, Chaucer and many others made significant advancements in philosophy, science, art, literature etc. The difference between Islam and Christianity is not “reformation.” The problem is not that Islam is stuck in the “Dark Ages” mostly because there never was a “Dark Age.” The difference is, Christianity does not condone the killing of others in order to force them to assent to the faith, certainly there have been Christians who have committed crimes in the name of Christianity, but there deeds can easily been see as being out of accord with the teachings of the faith. Islam on the other hand explicitly condones killing and slavery in promotion of itself. Remember as well that Natural Law Theory has it’s seeds in Plato and Aristotle and was developed by medieval thinkers such as Aquinas. Also, the reformation brought anything but peace and order, think of the French Revolution. There are many other corrections that could be made to the historical account you give in this peice. In short, your analysis is much too quick and devoid of crucial distinctions and relevant historical facts which make the nature of the problem and thus it’s solution much clearer.

    • Matthew:
      Thanks for your remarks, although you have missed a point.

      Islam is stuck in, well, Islam. The “faithful”, all except the disabled are commanded to hunt and eliminate all who are not Moslem. To commit murder of innocent civilians, to maim them, steal their property and women. And to cover for the crimes of their brothers, to deceive and mislead. These commands come from their “god”.

      It is not possible to reform this EVIL political death-cult.

    • You know Allen (rob these loons blind) west knows that his followers knows nothing about HISTORY. Well…to be honest…they have barely any knowledge at all! Someone says OBAMA is a SOCIALIST and they repeat it without know exactly what a SOCIALIST is!!! He counts on their IGNORANCE to make him RICH!!

    • “This so called “Dark Age” was a period in which luminaries such as Thomas Aquinas, Duns Scotus, Albert Magnus, Roger Bacon, Dante, Chaucer and many others made significant advancements in philosophy, science, art, literature etc.” Sorry this is incorrect. The Dark Ages were from the 1200s to 1300s. Those people you mention appeared in the 1400s and 1500s during the Renaissance era. The reformation did bring order because during those times the Catholic Church was so corrupt. They would kill you if you were consider a heretic to the Church. What happened in the Dark Age is happening now to the Muslim world, extremist ” Muslims” taking over governments and taking over countries who don’t believe in the true and only god. Sounds familiar? It better because that’s what the Catholic Church did to the Muslim world.

      • Chi You, you are simply mistaken. Open any history book, the only person I mentioned whose life extended into the 1400s was Chaucer. Your claim about the protestant reformation bringing order is also grossly inaccurate. Remember Henry VIII? He ordered the execution of 76,000 people who would not renounce the Pope and embrace Henry as the head of the Church. My point in the last post was merely to say that certainly there were Catholics who did terrible things in the name of the faith. But if you look closely at the teachings of the Church and brush away all the caricature non-sense of the “dark ages” you will see that it was not nearly as widespread as it is purported to be and is actually at odds with the Catholic Faith. That is not the case, however, for Islam.

  15. The only faith that has dealt with Muslims for a millennium and a half is not even mentioned!!! Eastern Orthodoxy!!! The Eastern Orthodox Faith insulated and sheltered western euros for a thousand years by struggling against Muslim imperialism.!!!

  16. Wow… so some reverend says it is impossible to remove violence from Islam.
    I guess the hundreds of millions of peaceful Muslims in the world didn’t get his memo.

    Yes. Violence is a huge problem in Islam and the millions of extremists are a serious and very real threat to civilization.
    But the many millions who have rejected extremism and live in peace are proof that it can be done

    • Sorry. There are not “hundreds of millions of peaceful muslims”. They are a 5th column army waiting to gain sufficient numbers to emerge and conduct “jihad”. it’s already happening in the United States. That’s the reason it’s called Dearbornistan.

      • Yes.
        In fact there are 2 billion Muslims on Earth.
        That in fact is “hundreds of millions” for any grade school math student.
        Ten percent of Muslims subscribe to radical fundamentalist views. That means there’s 200 million who want you and I dead and the other 1.8 billion are no threat to you or I.
        I’m not some Liberal trying to argue with you.
        I’m a Conservative who thinks it would do us all a lot of good to see the problem as it is and should be profiled

      • yes and America has 317 million people for a population. the radical muslims are near our total POP. when moderate muslims are asked if they will rally and speak out against the radicals, the answer given from moderate muslims will always be no. If they know they are being filmed, the answer will be no. WHY? As one Muslim female replied, What ? You expect me to nail myself to a cross ? No I will not speak out against them.

      • Nice try…

        I’m not trying to minimize the threat but your attempt at relativity between the US population and the global population of radicals fails due to the simple fact that that are not one collective answering to one leader but instead acting on interpretation of an ideology. They (so far) are not organized into any one cooperative collective that could pose a threat to our sovereignty.
        By speaking out against those moderates who are afraqid of retaliation you need to be careful not to imply or insinuate that they are to be treated the same as the actual terrorists themselves.
        One of the single largest reasons for Americas birth was mans desire to worship as he pleased without being subjected to religious bigotry by the public and government bias or interference.
        Moderates need to feel safe and not be given a choice of damnation by either side.
        By your logic, you’re putting every Muslim on Earth in a position where they’re screwed no matter what.
        If we act as a nation to abolish any religion because of its potential to be interpreted to violence we are then acting against the platforms of our own Constitution.
        By my logic, an enemy must be identified and described exactly as it is i order for offenses and defenses to be most effective.
        Just like I tell these morons who say Obama is an illegal alien, a Muslim, an illegal president.
        If we are to defeat the powers that are ruining this country we need to focus on showing voters how Liberalism/Progressivism in any major application of governing has been and is a failed ideology.
        All that other crap will get us nowhere in the fight against Muslim radical fundamentalism and Leftist-policies that force countries to cannibalize themselves.
        Remember, the vast majority of Muslims associate their religion with their government.
        We here in the states are very fortunate to not be in such a position where our voices would be subjected not only to the church’s discretion but the general public and government as well..

      • not trying to make your claim trivial, but islam IS the muslim government. The prophet that wrote the koran was radical. cutting off heads is a 1400 year traditon. take the time to look up all the muslim countries. they were all taken by force. or being taken by force. ask those that lived in the middle east and they will tell you, when they flip the switch, you will be caught with your pants down. It happened to them. sharia law calls for them to be radical. Moron? after every thing Obama has said and done concerning Islam and Muslims and you have a hard time believing it. These are not hearsay. They are things he has said out of his own mouth. if you can not connect the dots you have your head somewhere dark. Hey take care and keep living the lie, if bush had said all those things he would be dead now. called a traitor. It never fails to blow me away when someone steps forward and says I am not who I say I am and the people say awe he is tired and misspoke. If you tell me something 20 times in 20 different ways should I believe you or call you a liar.
        you will have 5 days to view on line any law before i pass it. would you buy a house from me without looking at it or signing the papers. if you want to see what is in it you have to pass it. are you that stupid? I’m not. peace out brother

      • “not trying to make your claim trivial, but islam IS the muslim government. The prophet that wrote the koran was radical. cutting off heads is a 1400 year traditon. take the time to look up all the muslim countries. they were all taken by force. or being taken by force. ask those that lived in the middle east and they will tell you, when they flip the switch, you will be caught with your pants down. ”

        No, not really.

        I’m all too aware of how the theological dictatorships in the Middle East have kept its populations in a collective mindset of fear should their faith be viewed by any zealot as lacking.

        This is why I mentioned not to forget that the average Muslim is caught in a paradox of choices.

        If they gather or speak individually against radicals they fear retaliation.

        If they remain passive they risk consequences from people as frustrated as you and I but who can be much less diplomatic or congenial.

        Soon after 911 I had no problem shipping every Muslim in America back to their nearest country of cultural origin. Since then I’ve done an awful lot of study into Islam and religion itself. Along with my own experiences have learned that no one is going to give up their religion by any means of force.

        Christianity offered the same kind of collective mindset for centuries that offered some of the worst examples of what happens to anyone who slightly deviates from the doctrine enforced by any community or government.

        The intention behind Christianity has been allowed to go forward because of its ability to acclimate itself to mans progress thereby learning to function under the promise of contentment to its followers.

        Islam, because of its wide use as the founding rule in many governments keeps being interpreted by those governments as a means to intimidation and force in order to maintain societal control.

        Its not rocket surgery to understand that if Muslim countries adopted the same separation of church and state as we have here they’d be off to much better start and speaking out against the radical groups would not present half the threat.

        “Moron? after every thing Obama has said and done concerning Islam and Muslims and you have a hard time believing it.”

        Well, I had no idea you subscribed to that idiocy or I wouldnt of used the word “moron”

        But…common logic, rationale, and education will show that Obama being the far lefty radical he is holds a past and present of examples that have nothing to do with Islam.
        American Liberal ideology is about as far from Islam as any belief system can get.
        Muslims don’t do abortion, gay rights, feminism. Nor do they drink alcohol, promote sexual promiscuity, drug use or eat pork, keep dogs, let their wives run around speaking to millions at a time.
        Really, when you look at everything Obama has done concerning Muslims he’s pretty much made things a helluva lot worse for them.
        The Middle East is more unstable right now than its been in decades since Carter.
        I fail to see how any Muslim could see him as any kind of friend to them. They’re dying left and right by the thousands because of him.
        How can you not see that?

      • Paranoid beliefs like yours only get in the way of defeating radical Islam.
        As long as you wrongly assume all muslims are evil and the peaceful muslims are actually radicals just biding their time, you are part of the problem.

        You are also ignoring many years of conflict within Islam.
        It may be easier to assume they are all the same because the differences and complexities withing the Muslim world can be confusing.

        But if you want to defeat radical Islam, you should take the time to understand those differences

      • And you need to just read the Koran or Quran carefully. I will grant you that there are probably several million newborns, toddlers who are not yet indoctrinated to kill the filthy kafir (Christians and Jews). The rest….. Jihadis in waiting. YOU had better take off the blinders young man. They are hell bent on total world domination. Period.

      • Wow… so you’ve studied Islam?
        in all that time you spent studying Islam, did you not notice the different sects and that they have been fighting each other for centuries?
        have you not noticed that moderates have also been fighting extremists for years?

        Do you think all those moderates who died fighting extremists all did it as part of an elaborate ruse?

        So did you actually study Islam… or just read websites like this for your information?

      • The link you showed me was the opinion of a catholic priest attacking all of Islam and saying they are all extremists.

        The priest even falsely claimed in his opinion piece that no muslims condemned the attacks on 9/11 and that they all celebrated.

        Yes, radical extremists celebrated, but the majority of the muslim world stood with us.

        This link provides a very long list of multiple examples of leading Muslims and muslim groups condemning the attacks of 9/11 and condemning terrorist extremists in general, including condemnation from muslim religious organizations…

        Here is an interesting article from just three days after 9/11, about moderate Muslims in Syria, Palestine, and even Iran, demonstrating against terrorism and showing support for America.

      • Of course you are.
        to back up your opinion that all muslims are extremists, all you offered was the opinion of someone else who shared your outlook.

        All I did to support my argument that moderate muslims do, in fact, oppose extremists is provide multiple news sources providing specific examples.

        I provide facts… you provide opinion that has been disproven… and I’m wearing blinders?
        of course, you’re done.
        you were done long ago

    • I think actions are speaking louder than words here, and everything that has been touch by these barbaric fanatics grows dark and gloomy

    • What good is a book if it’s only half true? Obviously they claim peace but do everything they can to bring every land they infest to their knees using their own kindness and justice against them. Then claim ownership over everyone they conquer with fear. Nothing about islam is of God.

      • God’s word says you will know true Christians from the fruit they bare. Islam bares rotten fruit= a rotten religion=a rotten god. Point blank!

  17. “What separates Islam from other religions is a single word — reformation”.
    Yes. And you’ve lost Christendom, ye Protestant fools. Rome and Constantinople held Christendom for over 13 centuries before you ascended. Now it’s barely remembered.
    But you did make a lot of money for awhile. Now that’s gone too.

    You’ve lost Christendom, and lost Western Civilization with it. It was gone before this trash began to attack

    And you couldn’t hold onto it for even 300. What’s The First General Order?

    • Thats a lot of wishful thinking,.. bordering on delusion.

      The question you asked “What separates Islam from other religions is a single word- reformation” is hardly relative to the statement you made thereafter which seems to be a mantra you use any excuse to ramble off.
      You say Christianity has been lost because it did not keep some level of conformity.
      The beauty and difference between the two religions is that Christianity holds more potential to be interpreted to the progress of humanity while Islam is more often interpreted to allow for violence and the oppression of basic human progress.
      Of all three religions based on the Abrahamic God, Judaism, Christianity, Islam… Islam holds the most propensity for violence to any contrary belief be it another religion or your wife wanting peas instead of beans for dinner..

      The Reverend is nothing more than another Liberal kiss azz appeasing apologist who probably thinks you cant extract violence from Christianity either

      • The quote was from West not me. My point was countering the idea that the Reformation and Luther saved Christianity from being like Islam. In other words until Luther Catholics and Orthodox were as violent as what we’re seeing now. Which West apparently believes.

        My taunt was that Protestant dominance of Western Civilization has lost Christendom. It’s a term that used to be not only a civilizational but geographic expression. I can understand that you missed the reference for indeed it’s gone.

        And Protestants lost it. The First General Order is to guard your post. They didn’t. It’s gone.

        Truly an Epic indeed Epochal FAIL. As it stands today Western Civilization of 3000 years is ending. This is your Progress of mankind.

        And whatever the Jesuit believes I doubt it can be put under Liberal Kiss Azz. What he’s saying is violence is endemic to Islam.

        PS – Violence didn’t have to be extracted from Christianity, in fact it wasn’t in it until 1095 when sanctioned by Urban II – the Kiss Azz – to bless the first Crusade. Which probably saved Europe and Christianity. Killing in War until that point was the crime of murder.

        Luther didn’t extract violence from Christianity [oh quite the contrary]. He and the other reformers extracted vast amounts of money. The root of reformation being greed. The pluralism that developed in the West developed from exhaustion from the ensuing centuries of religious warfare. That’s our actual peace.

      • “And whatever the Jesuit believes I doubt it can be put under Liberal Kiss Azz. What he’s saying is violence is endemic to Islam.”
        Which is very much what I said.
        I posted an apology for my misunderstanding, read it too fast and responded too fast.
        Maybe it was deleted by staff but more than likely I failed to submit it. Sometimes I’m too busy for my own good.
        These things happen in real life auditory conversations and people simply back up and say “I’m sorry, I heard that wrong”. You’ll rarely find that level of honesty in blog format discussions/debates.
        Sometimes all it takes is to process one word in the wrong order or context and it changes everything dramatically.
        My apologies.
        I hope you realize my agreement is obvious as I did mention Islam having the highest propensity to be interpreted for justifying violence.

      • noted mr micky. no problem, I’m just correcting really Mr. West.

        Notice something? the responses here to “Christendom” are unaware this was once a geographic expression for Western and Eastern Orthodox civilizations. The Christian World when led by Rome and Constantinople.

      • Well, upon a cursory tour it seems Christendom is still very much alive as it is more readily known as the masses accumulated under the belief system of Christianity.
        But I’ll digress, I hate organized religion for the mob mentality it brings instead of the inner self and individuality I believe its designed to better.
        I always believed in God but the whole institution lost me a long time ago when I saw all the different denominations laying claim to an incident in history that could of only happened one way with one message.
        I went to Baptist churches and they scared the crap out of me. I went to Catholic churches and couldn’t stop laughing at the conflict, I went to Evangelist sermons and got suicidal and I went to Lutheran services and got “anxious in my pants/”.
        I took someone to an AA meeting and they seemed to have a better grip on the whole “superior being” concept than anyone.

      • Yes. Now where is Christendom, oh Reformed ones?

        Well. Not government property I suppose. And in any case there was no one at the post, and nothing to defend it seemed. Social Security? Welfare? Or perhaps freedom to porn?

        I was responding to West’s view of the Reformation, my own is until recently I didn’t care. Now that we’re losing what’s left to savages, I understand why my forebears burned Heretics. Very rarely actually in fact as opposed to legend, but it was done. Not enough.

        Protestants abandoned the Walls of Christendom to chase money. Now that’s gone too. Pfffttt. Reformation. In practice it was looting.
        And then you turn it over to the accountants and lawyers [shall we say] and look it’s all gone poof!!

        Well the Muslims are coming to “Reform” you. Along with every other savage on the planet, and their diseases.

      • So you are refuting the Hadith that say Ayesha was 6 when married and 9 when consummated, by the pedophile prophet?

      • And what about the adulterer king who impregnated
        his GF and had her husband killed in battle ?

      • King David is not considered perfect. In fact, Psalm 51 is a poem on repentance from such a gross, evil act. He was forgiven – but his sin was named for what it was – sin.

      • Why looks like you are putting your unemployment time to go use.
        I wish I has the time and interest to research , but not.

      • Muhammad also liked to suck tongues of children- Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu’minin:

        “The Prophet used to KISS her and suck her tongue
        when he was fasting. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 13,
        Number 2380)

      • Those are your Sahih Hadith, not mine…And it’s not Kinky, it’s perverted and proof that Muhammad was not a Prophet of God…Open your eyes..

      • When you don’t have a choice as in Iran and Saudi Arabia, how can you say whether or not People really want to remain as Muslim? Muhammad killed Apostates from Islam..

      • Are you really a Muslim Woman? Did you know that Muhammad equated Women to Dogs and donkey’s and said that the majority in Hell are Women? He also said that Women are DEFICIENT in intelligence..Are you DEFICIENT in intelligence??

      • You can read the Koran on the internet, Thomas Jefferson bought one to study the enemy after the war with them around 1812.

      • I looks the fact up. Found most right wing websites make that claim. But that’s doesn’t mean Jefferson had a problem with he Muslims people. He was an educated man who studied all religions.

      • I see you are holding the Koran with one hand and the other hand is down your pants. Kinky reading huh ?

      • Theres a difference dummy.
        Today there are no denominations of Christianity that condone or promote the sexual abuse of children as some act sanctioned by any church.
        Today, the Middle East and many Muslim states still allow mutilation of womens genitals and all kinds of abuse for sexual gratification under the guise of adherence to scripture.
        Young women are forbidden to go to school and basically slaves and property to be traded or sold.

      • There are poligimist communities in the Us where 13 yr old girls are married off up 65 yr old girls and stop school at 8 grade. GM is a cultural problem, not Muslim. There are Christain countries like Ethopia that practice GM.,

      • Nice try but hardly a comparison worth noting since there are 2 billion Muslims worldwide and only a handful of polygamist who are not acting in concordance with the Mormon church’s renouncing of polygamy.
        I didnt say genital mutilation was exclusive to Muslims only sooo…. your reference to other countries practicing it doesn’t make it any better nor does pointing to others bad behavior justify your bad behavior.
        The very big point in all this that you so ignorantly fail to understand is that in todays advanced countries with large or predominant Christian populations, Australia, Canada and quite few European countries these acts and neanderthal treatment of women and children are against the law and have been for centuries.
        They are most certainly not condoned or ignored by governments captive to Islamic theocratic autocratic dictatorships.
        Theres a reason more than half the countries in the Middle East and Africa are third world hell holes and have been that way for decades.
        Dont make me tell you what that reason is if you want to appear slightly honest.
        Religion works best when its come upon willingly by someone who is searching for that guide to life.
        It hardly works when its forced on millions and is a crime to convert.
        You might want to study up on what some of the main reasons were for Americas settlers to cross the Atlantic

      • Whats wrong with you ?
        Do you always present irrelevant points to an argument ?

        Where did I say anything bout terrorism ?
        We were talking about human rights abuses in Muslim women and children which are much more prevalent in Muslim countries than Christian countries It is illegal in most every advanced nation.
        Also, your Ethiopia reference was disingenuous at best since the practice was outlawed there in 2004.
        That doesn’t mean they don’t do it anymore.
        But that country of mostly Christians outlawed it, that-is-the-point
        Fundamentalism of Islam and Govt. enforcement rule by Islamic fundamentalism has kept a good portion of Middle Eastern and N. African countries in third world pi$$ poor conditions and harbors cultural practices that are the enemy of any economy based on an educated people and capitalism.
        Period, end of story.

      • Your arguments are all over the place- FGM is outlawed. But then you say- that doesn’t mean it’s still not practiced. Pick one
        According to the world health org, FGM has no religious significance .
        Wow, Islamic rule has kept Africa poor? That’s a new one. You sure it isn’t corruption, greedy white people and the environment ???

      • You’re an idiot.
        Genital mutilation is practiced in places where its illegal and that somehow makes my argument all over the place ?
        Guess what moron, drugs are illegal and people still do them, murder is illegal and people still do it, stealing is illegal and people still do it.
        Once again grasshopper, pay attention…

        “THE POINT IS….. These barbaric practices are legal in the Middle East and sanctioned by many of the states.whereas they are not in developed countries with a majority Christian population.
        My argument is all over the place ?
        No its not, its spot on.
        Its you who tried to deflect by asking if 2 billion Muslims were terrorists according to me when for crying out freeking loud….THAT WASN’T EVEN THE TOPIC !!!

        Just because your head comes to a point doesn’t mean you’re sharp.
        I mean really….”philanthropussy” ? ? They’ve got online services for that kind of thing.
        Are you lonely

        Does that mean your queef maker charitable ?

  18. “The world cannot be at “peace” until it is all Muslim.”… that kinda
    says it all. There is no need to put any more deep, deep thoughts into
    an ideology based on the ravings and actions of a blood-thirsty

  19. I think you have it backwards, with all respect, Reverend. It’s not that Islam needs reform, it’s that their “holy book” is interpreted differently from each subset from the sunnis to the wahabes to the shiias…to whoever gets his own copy and interprets according to the way he sees it.
    What Islam needs is a central authority — like a pope — but they will never have it because it’s not of God. Christ prayed that we “all would be one.” But Luther’s actions set forth breaking apart Christ’s prayer.
    Dividing up is not the answer. Catholicism is.

    • Islam having a “central authority” would not help. That way they’d only decide whether to kill infidels by stoning or by beheading. What you fail to realise is that Islam is at war with the West. Full out war. Islam literally means “subjugation”, and their aim is quite simple. To subjugate. Everybody who doesn’t agree with them, and most people who do. Having the enemy fighting within themselves is quite beneficial, and the fact is that ISIS has the Quran on their side. Pure Islam is ISIS. All the rest is either taqiyya, aka Muslims playing “Good cop and bad cop” with the “Good, moderate, modern Muslim” as the good cop, and ISIS as the bad cop. That’s to make the West desensitized to Islam in modern countries, and to start treating it not as the radical, barbaric, expansionist ideology that it is, but as “just another religion, which deserves freedom just like any other faith.”

      Freedom of religion does not apply to religions that actively work to undermine that freedom. ISIS is a good thing for the West, because it shows Islam’s true face, and they luckily have a little clause requiring Islam to be purged of “Unbelievers in their own ranks” before they act against the West. The only unfortunate bit is that there are harmless, peaceful minorities such as the Yazidis that get caught in harms way. And some misguided aid workers who went to help these animals. Apparently they don’t want our help. Muslims killing Muslims=Less for us to have to deal with when they finally make their move for global expansion. So instead of trying to “Reform Islam”, which can’t happen because Islam and reform are intrinsically opposed to one another, stock up on ammo.

  20. I think islam is a backward society that doesn’t fit or belong in a civilized world and it needs to be iradicated until the curan is no longer a book for following. These animals are raised without human compassion and a need for brutality. No respect for life or living it and we should not allow them in our world, push them back to the sand and let them kill each other.

  21. I think islam is a backward society that doesn’t fit or belong in a civilized world and it needs to be iradicated until the curan is no longer a book for following. These animals are raised without human compassion and with a need for brutality. No respect for life or living it and we should not allow them in our world, push them back to the sand and let them kill each other.

  22. A question for Mr. West — how exactly did Martin Luther’s 95 Theses, posted in 1517, inspire Gutenberg to print his Bible in the 1450s?

    Sorry, I’m just a poor, ignorant Catholic, uneducated in the ways of my Protestant masters.

    • The only thing I like about Luther is he took his wife -an Italian Countess -as prize from storming a convent. Now..that’s manly.

      Don’t bother they’ve forgotten their own history, and are convinced we’re sending Albino clubfoot assassins in monks cowls to steal their money. They’re too busy exercising their Sacrament of Denunciation [their Contribution to the Canon] to notice their shall we say accountants and lawyers have robbed them blind. If any of you are missing my point the Reformation was looting in practice, and now you’ve lost the money too.

      Now when I ask them “Where’s Christendom, Protestants?”: notice they’re quite stumped. They have forgotten the word meant something, except as a reference in movies. They can quote scripture though. With spelling errors, but they’ve got it memorized.

      The most efficient Protestant Church would be one Protestant with a mirror.
      But then how to denounce your neighbor as less righteous than you?

      • Isn’t forgiveness more the issue than righteousness? Matt 9:11
        11When the Pharisees saw this, they said to His disciples, “Why is your Teacher eating with the tax collectors and sinners?” 12But when Jesus heard this, He said, “It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick. 13″But go and learn what this means: ‘I DESIRE COMPASSION, AND NOT SACRIFICE,’ for I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”

      • There was more to Christendom than a book. Just as there is more to Islam than the Koran. As even ISIS knows.

        I don’t think I’ll defend forgiveness, and righteousness is long gone from our lands.

        And I think you missed my points. Good Evening.

    • I’m Catholic too, but there are many not so nice skeletons in the Catholic history. The papacy was corrupt in Luther’s day.

      • No doubt about that, Truth. I’m just wondering why/how anyone can take West seriously with his past and his ignorance of history. He’s just making stuff up when he says Gutenberg was inspired to print his Bible by Luther’s actions, 60-some years before Luther posted his Theses.

      • I am a supporter of Allen West as he is right on the mark in most of what he says. Please don’t take him to task on this one misstep (I assume you are correct). We Christians do not need to separate over petty things. Although a Catholic Christian, everyone who believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and died on the cross for our salvation is a brother or sister in Christ to me. Too many denominations pick out small differences in belief and separate from the body of Christ. We all should come together in unity in the main tenant of belief I state above. I do seem to recall that Catholics were not avid Bible readers over concern that one could get a different interpretation than the Church. As we know, there were many heresies in the first 500 years or so after Christ….Arians…Nestorians…etc.

      • It’s not one misstep. It’s typical of his style of propaganda — distort history and facts to fit his narrative (“Impeach Obama!” … “Wait, who said anything about impeachment?”). And given his disgraceful retirement from the military that should have led to prison time for torturing prisoners, I’m not sure what kind of Christian Allen West is.

      • My understanding is that two of his men were taken by the insurgents and he had one of theirs. He supposedly came into the interrogation and stuck his pistol between the guys legs and that made him talk…may have even fired a round. He was able to recover his men with the info. They surely would have been beheaded if he had not rescued them. So you are worried about a little non PC interrogation versus what these animals do to one of ours? If you were one of his men, you would not be casting stones now, I can assure you of that. BTW, Obama needs to be impeached and all his records opened to find out just who he is. Then it should be at a minimum off to prison for defrauding the American people. Obama is not POTUS for me until he opens his records to We The People. BTW, judge not lest ye be judged…re Allen West’s Christianity. What your take on Obama’s claimed Christianity?

  23. Violence and terror was the original M.O. created to consolidate power and control. People who deny God’s invitation fall prey to such philosophy.

  24. Islam is a cult of abuse and savagery. The progressives refuse to recognize this. Is it because they are really THAT ignorant? At any rate, it is good to see a Catholic brother stand up and speak the truth. Notice how the left attacks those once again, who speak the truth when the truth goes against their perverted world view.

    • Actually they are insane and suicidal with no instinct of self preservation, look at the world they are leaving for the coming generations.

  25. Islam has been the same hideous, violent, abomination for fourteen centuries. There is no chance for Islam to “reform” or moderate itself and no reason to believe it ever will. None . Repeat .NONE.
    Expecting or hoping for a spontaneous reform of Islam into a belief system consistent with Western values is wishful thinking at best and an absurd and suicidal delusion at worst.
    So what are we to do?
    The first thing is stop talking about what Islam “really” is and admit that Islam, all of it, every bit of it, every single thing Islamic is the enemy of civilization.
    Once we accept that as fact we need to work on finding means to roll back Islam until it is no more.
    Some things that could be done :
    Require Muslims in our countries to allow “freedom of religion” for their followers, that is allow them to leave Islam without retribution. Close Mosques that refuse to observe this basic human right.
    Remember it is Muslims who suffer the most from Islam because they follow a religion of evil. There are plenty of religions that are not violent and anti civilization.
    Rather than engage in the fools errand of trying to rewrite an entire religion that has no desire to be rewritten to please infidels other religions should reach out to Muslims and try to separate them from Islam.
    Or we could engage in all out war.
    The present course of appeasement will not end well.

    • Sir, Islam is a beautiful religion. Like most religions they have extremist. These extremist forget one thing about Islam, and that is mercy. If you think Catholicism is good then you sir need to educate yourself about the dark ages. What ISIS is doing now is what the Catholic Church did to the Muslim world ages ago. It’s the extremist that are making the religion look bad. You saying that Islam is a religion against civilization? The Abbasid Empire was a powerful country that could had crush Europe during the dark ages, heck they were in their golden age during Europe’s Dark Age. Muslims invented Algebra and they studied the stars to the point where there are more Arabian named stars the Greek ones. Back in the 70s the Middle East was a beautiful place. It would look like another developed country, but when the extremist took over civil wars after another tore countries apart. Think before you overgeneralized entire culture/religion. P.S. I’m not even a muslim.

      • ISIS is Islam…Read your Quran and hadith…Muhammad lived an immoral,violent, murderous life and ISIS are just following his example-
        Narrated Ibn ‘Umar:
        “Allah’s Apostle said: “I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah’s Apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform a that, then they save their lives an property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24)

      • ISIS is not Islam. Their belief is Islam. It’s not like Catholics are better than Muslims. Many people died because they didn’t believe in the one true god in all versions of Catholicism. Conquistador, Inquisitor, Templars, etc. Catholics did this a long time ago, but on a bigger scale. Yet you call Muslims the barbaric ones. Tsk tsk tsk

      • Show me where Jesus Christ told us to kill people? He commanded us to love our enemy and forgive those who persecute us..whereas Muhammad killed many apostates from Islam and commanded Muslims to kill apostates..Big difference..

      • hi You ,
        You wil loose yourbreath over this ignorant bloggers who follo the media without ther own research. Allen West sigh is designed to dicredit Islam wholesale and gan media attention for hmelf . Hav you notces , every few days e ues negatve islamic views to further his agnda , must be loving bloggers coments designd to discredit Islam … he lovesthis . and will make blatant false cocorted views of realincidents to glorify him… is he building up a case to obtain votes for his ext moe .. Presidncy ??? ..I gues … the end result … the loser will be kicked out by the intelligent thinking voting masses .. leaving thse who support im blinly .. gazing inawe with agast muths as to wha happenned ….In ,short Chi Leve thes goons to argue among themselves .. as I sid don’t waste yor beath … let tem do thei own resarch ( if tey do ) teywill see the truth rther than this ill conceived articles .

      • Did I miss something???I did not once hear or see you condemn the recent barbaric beheadings taking place at the hands of your “peaceful” “religion”..or all the homicide bombings they are involved in, or the killing and maiming of their women who do not submit to their barbaric ways!! And also, this is the 21st century, not the 7th or 14th, I do believe that most other “religions” have evolved to the point where even the “radical” factions of said “religions” do not go around bombing innocents, or beheading them because they may believe differently!!

      • Of course I don’t agree with the beheading, but these “extremist” forget the most important thing about Islam. That thing is Mercy.

      • Where is Mercy in Islam? Muhammad couldn’t show mercy to the Banu Qurayza and he beheaded 700-900 of them in ONE DAY..He also burned the eyes out ,cut the limbs off and left 80 tribesman out in the desert to die..Where was the mercy?

      • Merciful beheadings? That’s an oxymoron. Muhammad cut the heads off 600 to 900 Jews in Medina after the Battle of the Trench…and set the example for his Muslim thugs to follow like ISIS…and we (US liberals) think flushing a Quran down the toilet at Guantanamo is cruel punishment…oh, and water boarding. What a joke compared to Islamic “mercy”.

      • Beautiful religion???? 9-5 Slay the pagans…9-29 fight people of the Book until they are subdued…2-193 fight until the religion is supreme…5-51 make not friends of Christians and Jews. Islam is a curse on mankind…a cancer that has contributed almost nothing to mankind’s betterment. Islam is Satan’s religion.

      • During the Europe’s Dark ages Muslims preserved European science and knowledge. If it weren’t for the Muslims most of that knowledge would had been lost.

      • You are either a Muslim or you have swallowed the Muslim BS. Were you around in those days? Why do they produce nothing but hate and killing today?…no innovation? If not for the oil the West discovered and developed for them, they would still be riding camels and living in tents.

      • Muslims did not invent algebra, Indians (Hindues) did thousand years ago. Muslims only plagiarized their knowledge and change the name.

      • Muslims did invent algebra. Algebra in Arabic mean equation. The previous version of algebra did exist, it was the Muslims that master it.

      • How can you invent something that already exists Chi You? By the way, if you aren’t a Muslim, what are you?

  26. Islam is not a religion of peace and anyone who believes it is has not read the Koran. There is a simple solution, read it and decide. You might find it interesting that it mentions it’s ok to lie to unbelievers, which is what I believe has been done for far too long and Western political correctness has allowed it to take place.

  27. All Muslims are required by Mohammed to take active part in Jihad, and the goal of Jihad is to destroy everything non-Muslim.

  28. What no one has mentioned is that Islam follows the god of this world. Satan! Murder, lies, violence, rape, etc comes from Satan. Satan, aka Islam, demands subjugation, = no freedom of choice. Jehovah God, the one true God is completely opposite. He gives us freedom of choice. He stands for love, forgiveness, life and everything the opposite of what Allah does. This is what makes it a religious war. God vs. Satan. But praise to the one almighty true Jehovah God, he will prevail and all who follow him and we will win this war and rule with him on this earth one day. Allah and Islam will be defeated. All who know Jesus know how this story ends. I don’t care who responds in negativity to my post. It doesn’t matter. You will only be deceiving yourselves. Every knee shall bow to him one day. Even you who will disagree. Remember my words on that day! You will know the truth of what I speak of then!

    • I agree with you! Allah is Satan and the Quran teachings are 180 degrees opposite Christ’s teachings in the Gospels. The Word will prevail!

  29. What I see by reading the article and the subsequent article is that the problem is not a particular belief or religion, it is belief in any religion. The bias, and theocratic exceptionalism displayed here by many with regards to your personal beliefs, in my opinion makes you no less ideological than Islamists. Many here are still arguing that ‘their way, is the right way’…albeit just minus the fatwas and beheadings. As an atheist, I don’t need ‘a book’, or ‘a religion’, or ‘a scholar’ to instill in me that forced conversion to a way of thinking through fear, brutality, and murder are against anything human or moral??? I think that if that ‘is’ your belief, then yes there does need to be ‘a Hell’ just for people like you. As an atheist, I don’t care what you choose to belief in for I am not obliged to convert, or worship, or promulgate the concept of godlessness to the masses for a reward in the afterlife. I do however, in my life have to put up with people who’s deluded mission it is, is too force these beliefs and concepts upon me in this world. In my opinion, Islam is not the problem, it is any archaic, Abrahamic based religion, practice, mysticism, or bronze-age ideology that dismisses science and reason in defense of inhumanity, hate, racism, homophobia, infanticide, intolerance, and or blood-shed and murder. I don’t need a book, hadiths, stone tablets, or a promise of an reward in the afterlife to know that this kind of behavior is immoral and inhuman. Humans are so arrogant, narcissistic, and insecure to think that, for the short time we inhabit this planet that there is some “loving”, yet extremely jealous magic sky genie that thinks that the ‘you’ that you think you are is so exceptionally worth his attention and favor?

    • Such a long winded response to something you disbelieve in only to throw in a final insult. You don’t need a “book” (etc) to know this behavior is “inhuman”…we we don’t need an atheist to set there and cast his/her dispersions upon us for disagreeing. Next time, please spare us the diatribe.

      • Sorry Sherry, as long as you have your right to practice your belief and voice your opinion, then I too have the right to share a diatribe of which you may disagree. At least you can be at peace knowing this atheist will only issue a rebuttal, rather than a fatwa calling for your death by beheading because you have a difference in opinion or belief. Have a nice day! 🙂

    • your absolutely right. I am a magic believing sky genie as a creator kind of guy
      . something more intelligent and powerful them me. I know, way out there. You believe your creator was a magic rock more powerful and intelligent than you. pssssh you win. intelligent rock against an intelligent creator. you my friend are as smart as a rock. i’m jealous

      • First Michael, I made no mention of a belief in any ‘magic rock’, not sure from where you derived that from anywhere in my post? Second, I never argued my “superior intellect” as you so sarcastically eluded to as a source for my opinion or lack of belief. Third, please learn to proof read your posts before hand, your spelling and incorrect use of grammar rules is disappointing.

      • It’s beforehand not before hand. “not sure from where you derived that from anywhere in my post” is a sentence fragment. It’s alluded to, not eluded to. It’s proofread, not proof read. You should have used a semi-colon after beforehand.
        If you are going to take someone else to task for their supposedly incorrect spelling and grammar usage, you had best be sure that your post is beyond reproach.

      • 1.What did I misspell? 2. if you do not believe in in a deity ,then you are only left with evolution. you mentioned a magic genie. Therefore if God is a magic genie, than you believe, (earth) is a magic rock. don’t get your mom to proof read my grammar. that is tacky. OK, now reread your post and tell me how superior you are in grammar. The following came from you.(your spelling and incorrect use of grammar rules is disappointing.) notice how the is disappointing, should be, are disappointing. don’t correct people, for something you haven’t mastered.
        Use (is) when you have a singular subject Use (are) when you have a plural subject. spelling is a subject and grammar is a subject. now educate my ignorance.

    • CNN closed the old thread, so I’ll respond to you on this very sad website (I’m not surprised that you read trash in your spare time):

      You say “The LRA is quasi Christian, the leader joseph Kony has multiple wives (80). No mainstream churches share his views.
      Muslim Terrorist groups: al Qaeda 15 000 members
      al shabab 5000-7000 memebers
      al nusra 5000-6000 members
      Taliban 60 000 members
      Boko haram 9000+ members
      Islamic state FBI:30 000 members other sources:100 000 m! embers
      Hamas Thousands of supporters There are many more muslim terrorist groups but that list would be too long.” ——————————————————- First of all the LRA is VERY Christian. Stop the denial. Second of all, your numbers are SO off – al-Qaeda does NOT have 15,000 members. It didn’t even have 15,000 members at it’s peak! At most it has a few thousand members – at the very least it has a few hundred. Boko Haram also does NOT have “9,000 members” – it is estimated that it also numbers in the few hundreds. ISIS has 30,000 members – not the 100,000 you cite. The Taliban’s numbers are harder to pin, but the number you cite is the highest estimate – most others estimates say it is 10-30,000. As for the “other” terrorist groups you say exist but don’t cite – they’re insignificant and would barely add to these numbers. If you add all the above terrorists, you get barely about 60,000 terrorists – out of a population of 1,600,000,000. And most of the terrorists you cite were products of American foreign policy to begin with! There were no Islamist terrorists like ISIS or al-Qaeda before the US started funding the Mujahideen to induce the Soviet invasion.

      You said “Western countries have progressed much more than any communist or former communist country.” ———————- The Soviet Union advanced much more quickly than the Western Capitalists did – it went from a feudal society with 90% of the population illiterate to a society where almost everyone is literate and became one of the most powerful countries in the world in a few decades. Over 50% of Russians (and a majority of those who were adults when the Soviet Union existed) say that they wished they could go back to Communism. A majority say that they had a higher standard of living under Socialism than they do under Capitalism. It was in a Pew Research Poll. Look it up.

  30. Let’s not forget folks, that the caliphate just ended in the beginning of the last century. So since the time of Muhammed, these “peaceful” muslims have either been at war or subjugating someone else. This is why I laugh at people that point at Israel’s behavior and refuse to see the craziness that happens outside of their(Israel’s) borders.

    Honor killings, beheadings, lethal punishments for apostasy, suicide bombings, placing children near weapons cache during times of war, female genital mutilation, banning women from operating a vehicle, hijab, niqab(the ninjas), lashes for adultery, stonings……

    Need I say more?

  31. What astounds me is that critics of Christianity continually
    flog the Bible w/examples from the OLD Testament and completely miss that
    Christianity is based in the NEW Testament! Most of the ideas that change
    “governments” of the world w/o major conflict have been based on the example of
    Christ… Gandhi in India, MLK, Jr. in the US…most recent examples…show us
    what a “peaceful resistance” can gain versus violent assault. Islam has no “New
    Testament”…no “Reformation” to lead it into a New Century and it continues to
    wallow in the Dark ages!

    I will continue to say…America and it’s Constitution is NOT compatible w/Islam and Shariah and Muslims should be expelled from this Country…no Mosques should be built! <—Why Islam Should NOT Be
    Protected Under the US Constitution!

    • Yeah, I understand your anger, but when we start legislating what can be worshiped and by whom we are no better than the theocracy our settlers were so desperate to escape.

      Also, actually, there are no religions in America that I know of in which Constitutional protections ensure their worship. The Constitutions 1st amendment only prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion or impeding the free exercise of religion,

      It does not specify any “one” or specific religion.
      Besides, how would we figure out who is practicing Islam and who is not ?
      There are many cultures incompatible with our Constitution and there are many belief systems and faiths incompatible with our Constitution which I believe was strongly influenced by men of God but had the insight to not allow organized religion to govern in any capacity just as the government would not perform or offer Sunday mass, sermons, whatever.
      Seeing as how Liberalism is very incompatible with Christianity, and Christian/Judea values are reflected strongly in our Constitution I think we’d be at a much better advantage if we shipped off the tree hugging moonbats instead.
      Of the 2 billion Muslims on earth 10% of them subscribe to radical interpretations.
      Dont get me wrong, I think we should drop some very small but precise nukes on a few key cities across the Middle East….

      but there are far more than 200 million Liberals, Progressives, Communists, Marxists and Socialists on this Earth whom I believe should be made illegal because of their failed ideologies which do nothing but cannibalize decent societies and there own philosophies by hypocrisy.
      Also, we will never be able to ban any religion in or out of our borders. Islam will continue to be one of the three largest religions and the 19% that mean us harm can do it from outside our borders as well as inside unless we become N. Korea.
      We need to be the tolerant ones if thats what were asking for out of Muslims.
      We also need to shove daisy cutters up their rumps till they bleed red white and blue if they attack us.
      Right now the global Muslim community is in s “damned if I do and damned if I don’t” predicament.
      Radicals will come after them if they speak out against them and Americans consider these mainstream Muslims as terrorists if they don’t approach them and tell em to knock it off.
      Of the three Abrahamic religions Islam has the most potential to be interpreted or translated to lifestyles that condone violence. Most Muslims are not these radical fundamentalist activists but just want to be left the f alone.
      Most archaic and neanderthal Muslim practices such as be-headings, stonings, amputations, extreme abuse of women and children, denying girls educations, genital mutations… are illegal here and all other advanced nations.

  32. Further: As Trotsky coined the term RACIST to shame the Eastern European Slavs into line with the Communist Revolution, so too have have Islamic Radicals coined the term ISLAMOPHOBIA to flog Christians into silence so that they can “get the nose of the camel under the tent flap”! We see what happened in Rotherham, England in the name of “multiculturalism”…a disgrace that the world should not ignore!

    • The point you wanted to make with that link doesn’t back up your thesis:

      “We see what happened in Rotherham, England in the name of “multiculturalism.”

      ” or, in the words of a former local M.P.,”not wanting to rock the multicultural boat.”

      This, however, is only a partial explanation, and a partisan one. It fails to account for how a community once lionized as “more British than the British” — pious, unassuming and striving — is now condemned for harboring child abusers in its midst.
      What may seem like a story about race and religion, however, is as much one about power, class and gender.

      If you think this is specific to people who practice Islam, then you should look at orthodox jews, the exact same thing is happening in New York. Heres a whole website dedicated to it.

      It doesn’t matter who coined the term “racism” to describe a phenomenon but he sure didn’t create it. These theories and discourses came about from colonialism and slavery, but after Darwin’s theory of evolution was popularized it was the Prussians and Germans who glommed on to it to prove a pseudo scientific racist theories. Likewise, some strains of protestantism glommed on to social darwinism, enabled by the theory of the elect.

    • Thats stupid.
      Pedophiles are not terrorists, they’re monsters, boogeymen with dicks.
      Terrorism is defined as an act meant to scare large communities, countries

  33. Lol, yeah, you should read about Martin Luther and how he felt about the Judeo part of this so-called (for the last 60 years) Judeo-Christian Religion. We could call it Judeo-Islamism too, because it’s closer to Islam that Christianity, and in fact Muslims believe that Jesus was a prophet and will return at the end times to lead a great battle between good and evil.

    Islam itself was a reform movement, and Mohammed said the reason he received the message from God was to correct the monotheistic religion of Abraham and Moses because it was never intended to have a Rabbi or Priest as an intercessor and the leaders were changing or leading the people astray, or twisting the readings for personal power.

    The Enlightenment or the Age of Reason was an intellectual movement, and opposed superstition, and tradition for it’s own sake. This is really incomplete with out mentioning Spinoza, John Locke and Rousseau.

    And tell Imam Schall thank you for expounding on his theories of the correct islam (The Islamic State and the broader jihadist movements throughout the world that agree with it are, I think, correct in their basic understanding of Islam.), even though more than 100 true scholars disagree with their takfirism, and view them as modern day Kharijites.

    I’m sure he’s not being self serving at all.

    If you think that all Muslim caliphates were mean and awful, read about Sin Salidin in Jerusalem, and how he treated the population and the Crusader, Richard the Lion Heart. His example lead many Jews and Christians to convert.

  34. The top exorcist Fr. Amorth in Rome indicated that Islam is satanic. How many believe in the dark one today? Perhaps that is exactly what should b done. Perhaps we all look at it from the wrong standpoint. Perhaps it is more of a spiritual issue rather than any political or some type of worldly issue?


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here