Pope Francis welcomes to the Vatican the head of a Muslim group tied to the financing of jihad terror. My latest in FrontPage:
As if he weren’t already committed enough to foolish false charity and willful ignorance regarding the jihad threat, Pope Francis on Wednesday met in the Vatican with Dr. Muhammad bin Abdul Karim Al-Issa, the secretary general of the Muslim World League (MWL), a group that has been linked to the financing of jihad terror.
During the meeting, al-Issa thanked the Pope for his “fair positions” on what he called the “false claims that link extremism and violence to Islam.” In other words, he thanked the Pope for dissembling about the motivating ideology of jihad terror, which his group has been accused of financing, and for defaming other religions in an effort to whitewash Islam.
I don’t object to the Pope’s meeting this man. After all, Jesus was a friend of tax collectors and sinners. But the meeting appears to have been a pointless feelgood session, probably featuring some sly dawah from al-Issa. According to Breitbart News, “the two men reportedly exchanged views on a number of ‘issues of common interest’ including peace and global harmony, and discussed cooperation on issues of peaceful coexistence and the spread of love.”
The spread of love. Yes, that’s what the Muslim World League is all about.
Nor is this the first time a Muslim leader has thanked the Pope for being so very useful. Last July, Ahmed al-Tayeb, the Grand Imam of Cairo’s al-Azhar, thanked him for his “defense of Islam against the accusation of violence and terrorism.”
Has any other Pope of Rome in the history of Christianity ever been heralded as a “defender of Islam”?
Of course not. But the Catholic Church has come a long way since the days of Pope Callixtus III, who vowed in 1455 to “exalt the true Faith, and to extirpate the diabolical sect of the reprobate and faithless Mahomet in the East.”
If time travel could be arranged and Pope Francis could run into Callixtus III, Callixtus could “expect a punch,” for Francis is not just a defender of Islam, but a defender of the Sharia death penalty for blasphemy: after Islamic jihadists murdered the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists who had drawn Muhammad, Francis obliquely justified the murders by saying that “it is true that you must not react violently, but although we are good friends if [an aide] says a curse word against my mother, he can expect a punch, it’s normal. You can’t make a toy out of the religions of others. These people provoke and then (something can happen). In freedom of expression there are limits.”
So for the Pope, murdering people for violating Sharia blasphemy laws is “normal,” and it isn’t terrorism for “Christian terrorism does not exist, Jewish terrorism does not exist, and Muslim terrorism does not exist. They do not exist,” he said in a speech last February. “There are fundamentalist and violent individuals in all peoples and religions—and with intolerant generalizations they become stronger because they feed on hate and xenophobia.”
So there is no Islamic terrorism, but if you engage in “intolerant generalizations,” you can “expect a punch.” The Pope, like the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, apparently thinks that the problem is not jihad terror, but non-Muslims talking about jihad terror; Muslims would be peaceful if non-Muslims would simply censor themselves and self-impose Sharia blasphemy restrictions regarding criticism of Islam.
For Pope Francis has no patience with those who discuss such matters: “I don’t like to talk about Islamic violence, because every day, when I read the newspaper, I see violence.” He said, according to Crux, that “when he reads the newspaper, he reads about an Italian who kills his fiancé or his mother in law.” The pontiff added: “They are baptized Catholics. They are violent Catholics.” He said that if he spoke about “Islamic violence,” then he would have to speak about “Catholic violence” as well.
That comparison made no sense, for Italian Catholics who killed their fiancés or mothers in law were not acting in accord with the teachings of their religion, while the Qur’an and Islamic teaching contain numerous exhortations to violence.
But Pope Francis, defender of Islam, cannot concern himself with such minutiae. Nor does he appear to be particularly concerned about the fact that all his false statements about the motivating ideology behind the massive Muslim persecution of Christians over the last few years only enables and abets that persecution, for if that ideology is not identified and confronted, it will continue to flourish.
The Pope of Rome, whom Catholics consider to be the earthly head of the Church, should be a defender of Christianity, not a defender of Islam, the religion that has been at war with Christianity and Judeo-Christian civilization since its earliest days. That any Christian leader would be called a “defender of Islam” by anyone only casts into vivid relief the absurdity of our age and the weakness of the free world. The creeping idolatry of the papacy that is rampant in today’s Catholic Church, with all too many Catholics treating every word of the Pontiff as if it were a divine oracle, only makes matters worse.
Can you imagine any Muslim leader ever being called a “defender of Christianity”? Of course not: Muslim leaders are more aware than their fond defender in the Vatican that Islam mandates warfare against unbelievers, not defense of their theological views.
Pope Francis is not only disastrously wrongheaded about an obvious fact that is reinforced by every day’s headlines; he is also deceiving and misleading his people about a matter of utmost importance, and keeping them ignorant and complacent about a growing and advancing threat.
“Leave them; they are blind guides. And if a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit.” (Matthew 15:14)
mortimer says
Caliph of All Islam, Abu Bakr al Baghdadi said, “-“Islam was NEVER A RELIGION OF PEACE. Islam is the RELIGION OF FIGHTING.” (Arabic “q-t-l” = fight to the death)
As quoted in “Islamic State releases ‘al-Baghdadi message'”, BBC (14 May 2015)
brenrod says
why does everyone beleve the pope is naive rather than dishonest? He rose to the top of one of the oldest politicial and international commercial enterprises… naive really? Catholic charities made 80 million in 2014 in the USA alone, multiply that by most world naitons to see the multi billion dollar enterprise paid by non catholic taxpayers as fees. Of couse he should kiss the muslim foot for the billioons the vatican earns from their client. Why give him benefit of the doubt…. so many perversions occur in that multination business enterprise based on fleecing the poor.
brenrod says
like soros, the catholic church is monetarily invested in encouraging dangerous migrants to settle in western nations….. hence encouraging the victims to welcome their slaughterers and rapists.
mortimer says
Caliph of All Islam, Abu Bakr al Baghdadi said, “Islam was NEVER A RELIGION OF PEACE. Islam is the RELIGION OF FIGHTING.” (Arabic “q-t-l” = fight to the death)
As quoted in “Islamic State releases ‘al-Baghdadi message'”, BBC (14 May 2015)
mortimer says
-The Fifteenth Century historian and philosopher, Ibn Khaldun, summarised the consensus of five centuries of prior Sunni theology regarding jihad in his book, The Muqudimmah:
“In the Muslim community, the HOLY WAR IS A RELIGIOUS DUTY, because of the… MISSION TO CONVERT EVERYBODY TO ISLAM EITHER BY PERSUASION OR BY FORCE… Islam is under OBLIGATION TO GAIN POWER OVER OTHER NATIONS.” Shiite jurisprudence concurred with this consensus, as seen in al-Amili’s manual of Shia law, Jami-i-Abbasi: “Islamic HOLY WAR against followers of other religions, such as Jews, IS REQUIRED unless they convert to Islam.”
-“There is no use in teaching math to a child who DOES NOT KNOW THE CONCEPT OF JIHAD”
– Ahmet Hamdi CamlıDeputy of the AKP, the ruling party in Turkey
– “MUSLIMS MUST KILL DISBELIEVERS WHEREVER THEY ARE unless they convert to Islam.” – Dr. Ali Gomaa, Grand Mufti of Egypt, Al Ahram, Apr.7, 2008
– “The universalism of Islam, in its all-embracing creed, is IMPOSED ON THE BELIEVERS AS A CONTINUOUS PROCESS OF WARFARE, psychological and political, if not strictly military. . . . The Jihad, accordingly, may be stated as a DOCTRINE OF A PERMANENT STATE OF WAR, not continuous fighting.”
— Majid Khadduri, War and Peace in the Law of Islam (Baltimore, Md.: John Hopkins Press, 1955), p. 64.
pfwag says
While the RCC was once the stalwart defender against Muslim aggression and conquests in earlier days, the RCC has also murdered many hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people for opposition to Catholic doctrine – not that much different than Islam – and in ways that make ISIS look like a bunch of Boy Scouts. All the anethemas (damned and going to hell) prounced by the Council of Trent, circa ~1550, on “Protestants” are still in effect. The Office of Inquisition, now called a more PC “Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith” is still in the curia.
Oddly, the RCC seems to have more in common with Islam and Muslims than with Protestants.
“The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day” (CCC 841).
Wellington says
“Oddly, the RCC seems to have more in common with Islam and Muslims than with Protestants.”
What an absurd statement. Yes, Catholics have done wrong in the past in the name of their faith but so did many Protestants. But when doing wrong in the name of Christianity, such Christians were violating the tenets of their creed as found in the New Testament. By contrast, when Muslims have engaged in violence in the name of Islam they are DIRECTLY fulfilling the tenets of their creed as laid out in the Koran, which has at lest 109 verses calling for war to be made upon non-Muslims as opposed to 0 verses in the New Testament calling upon Christians to wage war and subdue non-Christians by force in the name of Christianity. Moreover, Catholics, as with Protestants, look to Jesus as the founder of their faith, and Jesus owned no slaves, ordered no one killed and did not sanction the rape of women nor have sex with one woman after another. By contrast, Muslims look to Mohammed as their founder, their great inspiration, the Model Man and all that rot, and he was a damn psychopath, a narcissist, sanctioned rape, and one who never had a sexual desire denied him by Allah, even for his own daughter-in-law, Zaynab, and nine-year old Aisha.
Big differences here. Huge differences. To assert, as you did, that Catholicism has more in common with Islam than with Protestantism is ludicrous on its face. Wake up.
gravenimage says
Good post, Wellington.
el Cid 2 says
Wellington – I appreciate your input. As usual, you express yourself very well, and your statements are well backed by a detailed knowledge of Islam.
Wellington says
Thank you el Cid 2.
RICHARD CANARY says
I’m not a Catholic, but I’m not stupid, either. This Pope is out of line and needs the true believers of his Church to rein him in, even if this Pope retaliates against them. Is there not one brave Cardinal left?
Is there no courage left in Catholocism? They have already capitulated to the filthy Muslim so-called faith.
Faith in what? A god who rewards murder with an eternal paradise of lust and perversion.
How does this Pope even sleep at night, with his treason against all Christians so blatantly on display?
I can’t imagine what true Christian Catholics are thinking about this traitorous leader?
katherine says
There WERE some brave Cardinals appointed by Pope Ben but Bergoglio has banished them to Siberia – or maybe Guam or Christmas Island – as far away from the Vatican as he can.
Panda says
As soon as a young boy learned the churches doings to many Christians in a name of holy church, I renounced of all faiths. Burning people on stakes and other inquisitor’s tools was not right just as a Muslim way. I am a proud Atheist not harming and not wishing to harm anybody if I can’t help.
brenrod says
lots of cash paid to vatican to settle dangerous migrants from taxpayer dollars and NOT catholic donations.
John A. Marre says
This pope is a disgrace to the Catholic Church, and should not be seated on the Chair of Peter.
Peter Greco says
As a Catholic, I am thoroughly appalled and disgusted
TL says
It hardly matters whether Bergoglio and his minions are blind or mendacious. Whichever the case, it’s difficult to see how the prophesy of Matthew 16:18 has not been vitiated.
Here is that verse again:
So the ekkelsia of Rome has been thoroughly corrupted and divided, and its leadership is so decadent that the ekklesia practically belongs to Hades already. I’m sure that many Muslim leaders are aware of this situation. Since they, too, have a great commission to convert, they ought to be contemplating tactics for making strategic conversions. I’ve already suggested one possible line of attack. Another is to ask Catholics opposed to Bergoglio how a stable organization could ever have been built upon a kēpā so inclined to be like Satan (16:23).
One type of strategic conversion is persuasion of a cleric or scholar, but such people tend to be stubborn. Another type is the conversion of a wealthy, old follower. There are plenty of these among Catholics, and their limited knowledge of religion exposes then to Muhammadist sophistries. If such Catholics are converted, they would surely make bequests to one or more Islamic organizations. So during the next few decades we could see much wealth flow from the hands of dying Catholics, or recent converts to Islam, into the hands of Muhammad.
eduardo odraude says
This does not show that the prophecy has been vitiated. It shows that Christ’s ekklesia is not equivalent to the Catholic Church. My sense is that the Catholic Church has always been too authoritarian to represent JC adequately. Then again, perhaps no one can represent JC adequately.
TL says
The papacy has a better claim to primacy than Protestants given the secularism and the neglect of works among the latter, and the Eastern ekklesia, which rejects the filioque clause, has little traction in the West. Further, many of the other ekklesias have allowed secular egalitarianism and communism to infest their bodies. Probably this is due to Trinitarianism itself, which is a religion of the heart and noble gutter rabble.
So I think that my point stands: The Muhammadists are well positioned to win converts by persuasion, esp. among pious papists, AND to gather up a large amount of wealth from the remnants of papism. Those of you who believe that Islam is only cut throat toward kuffar are in for a tremendous surprise if you fail to comprehend this.
Now, if you believe that the Trinitarians’ Jesus is not authoritarian, then you need to read him more carefully. He insists in John that he and “the Father” are one. This “Father” is none other than the jealous, illtempered god of Tanakh. This god betrays no awareness that an impersonal law of existence stands over it, limiting its willpower and the very nature of its being. So, if it existed, we could say truthfully that its willful mentality is like that of “Progressives” and other populist collectivists who reject as oppressive any doctrine of limited government.
TL says
One more point: In what way could any Protestant sect claim truthfully to be founded upon Jesus’ Kēpā’?? Which Protestants organize their ekklesia in any way similar to the way that Peter organized his community as descrbed in Acts 4? I would dare say very few. Instead, we find Protestant ministers living very worldly lives, like that of managers in fine suits, not the lives of holy men in modest robes and sandals.
Carolyne says
Did Jesus possess great cathedrals filled with treasures and works of art? I do not consider the Church of Rome to be any kind of rock upon which Christianity is based. I consider it an ongoing commercial enterprise for the benefit of its leaders, i.e. the Pope and his minions, the Cardinals. One of Martin Luther’s grievances was the paying of “Indulgences” to the clergy to forgive their sins. Indulgences being cash on the barrelhead. The Catholic Church today hands out noble titles for cash, i.e. Rose Kennedy having been a Countess, and the Catholic Church grants divorces for cash. Such as Caroline of Monaco and Joseph Kennedy III.
As I recall Jesus was a poor man whose mode of transportation was a donkey. He was never carried in a golden chair by his servants. He actually had no servants. There is no resemblance between the life of Christ and the life of the Catholic hierarchy.
Rock upon which Christianity is based? I think not.
Carolyne says
Modest robes and sandals? Have you never seen the fine dresses worn by the Pope, made by little nuns out of silk and gold thread? Even his silk shoes are stitched by brainwashed women who for some reason have devoted their lives to such nonsense.
The man who was Pope during WW II Pius some number or other preferred to be nude under his dress. When he was visiting the US, his minions insisted he would offend Americans should the wind blow, and so he begrudgingly put on a pair of pants. Interpret this as you will.
gravenimage says
There is no doubt that this clueless dhimmitude is extremely dangerous–but the idea that Catholics are mass converting to Islam is simply not borne out.
TL says
You and your straw man attacks comprise a funny team.
Carolyne says
Kepa? Ekklesia? Funny. I didn’t realize that Jesus spoke Greek. I thought he spoke Aramaic.
Wellington says
Francis I is shaping up as THE worst Pope in papal history. There are some other contenders here, not that many but some, but the present Pope is giving these others very stiff competition for this dubious distinction, especially when considered from the perspective of how extensively influential a bad Pope can be.
Tom says
This is no pope he is nothing more than a phony who is a front for those left wing advocates in the vatican. His grovelling to Islam does nothing but put more christian lives in jeopardy.
He totally ignores the genocide of christians in the middle east and africa in favor of the opportunity to appease murderers, rapists and child abusers.
This guy (I will not use his name out of disgust) will be the end of the vatican and, unless catholics opemly revolt, will be the end of catholicism.
Alen says
Robert, I agree with your interpretation here, but the final quote from the Gospel should not be used, as it seems to be here, to exhort Catholics to leave the Catholic Church, I hope, just not to follow the teaching of this particular misguided leader.
gravenimage says
I means *leave the guides*–i.e., do not accept them as leaders. There is nothing indicating that Catholics should leave the Church. Certainly, Robert Spencer–himself a devout Catholic–is not doing so.
The vilest of creatures says
If anybody destroys the notion of “Papal infalibilty’, its Francis the Fraud.
Carolyne says
The idea of any man being infallible if he is sitting in a certain chair at the time is pretty silly. What would happen if a cleaning woman sat in the chair and made a pronouncement? Would she be infallible? Is it the chair which confers magic?
No man is infallible no matter the circumstances. Humans are human. Putting on a pointy hat and sitting in a certain chair makes no difference. What he says about Islam makes no difference. He has been duped by the Mullahs, or he has become one.
Henry Buxton says
Infallibility is only in relation to faith and morals, nothing more and nothing less.
rich says
Just as Bill Clinton was the “first black President”, Bergoglio is the “first Muslim Pope”.
Pet Charles says
We used to say “more Catholic than the Pope”. But now we have to say “more Islamic than the Pope”.
Andy says
No more room at the Inn, perhaps some room can be made at the Vatican?
The real reason George Clooney is selling his Italian villa and moving to the USA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRdwLPrEhOc
libertyORdeath says
And the stealth invasion through migration goes on and on. What a shame, makes me think about Gibbons’ “Decline and fall of the Roman Empire “. This must be how the Romans felt when Italy was infiltrated and finally destroyed by the barbarian hordes 🙁
Flavius Claudius Iulianus says
“Leave them; they are blind guides. And if a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit.” (Matthew 15:14)
++1
gravenimage says
Robert Spencer on Pope Francis: The Pope of Islam
………………….
Pope Francis–a suicidal fool *at best*–if not something much darker.
tim gallagher says
Everyone may have moved on from this article by now, but I’d like to ask a question which people who contribute comments to Jihad Watch would probably know the answer to. I know some of the calls to violence in the Koran, things like “kill the non-believers wherever you find them” and “made victorious by terror”, etc. I take these sorts of vile calls to murder at face value, and consider that Islam is evil and violent. I think the Pope said a while back that people are misreading these types of comments in the Koran, and that Islam is not violent. I was wondering if there is any tradition in Islam where these types of calls for violence and murder are somehow interpreted (bizarrely) in some non-violent way. I loathe Islam for these calls for violence and for the ludicrous idea that a vile human being like Mohammad, murderer, pedophile, total degenerate, can be considered the “perfect” man. Is there some peaceful way to interpret all those calls for violence in the Koran? It seems impossible, but I thought someone might know. This idea of people not reading the Koran correctly is probably the Pope talking garbage again in relation to Islam I suspect.
Flavius Claudius Iulianus says
In short, there are two Mohammads and two Korans: That of Mecca and that of Medina. The Meccan is peaceful, more or less. The Medinan is very violent and war-like. The Medinan has abrogated (cancelled out) all that is Meccan. However, both stand (because they are still considered the words of god) and can be used in debates and presentations of the ideology.
The important point is that it is against the Mohammadin ideology to present it in a negative light. Mohammadin blasphemy is a capital offense. So Mohammadins are free to use the abrogated Meccan form of the ideology to present it in a positive light to an uninitiated public.
I am not sure if the pope is aware of this dichotomy or if he is playing along. In other words, I don’t know whether he is a dupe or a shill.
However, it is very instructive to compare the Roman church’s response to Mohammadism with the early Christians’ reaction to the Saracens (early name for the Mohammadin Arabs). The early Christians didn’t understand why they were being attacked. Instead of trying to understand the Saracens’ motivation directly from their thinking, they went to their own religious beliefs. At this time it was believed that the end of the world was imminent. So they believed that the Saracen onslaught was the wrath of God upon them and that they should prepare for the end of times. Again, if they had investigated the true motives of the Saracens then they would have undertaken a stronger, and possibly more successful defense of their lands and culture.
Fast forward ahead to Francis: I truly believe that this man is committing the same error. He is going to his own play book (liberation theology and Vatican II) for guidance and subsequently guiding his sheep to the slaughter.
tim gallagher says
Thanks for the explanation, Flavius Claudius Iulianus. I had heard about the earlier, more peaceful Mohammad, when he was weak, and the later murderous calls. So, you think the Pope is being fed the more peaceful, Meccan content of the Koran, and believing it, despite all the obvious violence (terrorist attacks, slaughter of Christians in the Middle East, etc) That’s probably right. This Pope needs to talk to Christians who are experts on Islam, such as Robert Spencer, David Wood, et al. It might wake him up. You are right in what you say above, he is guiding his sheep to the slaughter. He may know about some other things, I’m not sure what they are, but he is hopeless on Islam in my opinion. Like a lot of political leaders, and leaders of Protestant churches, he needs to wake up and face reality. Thanks again for your explanation. I hadn’t heard about the Church reaction to the Saracens.
Lydia says
Ya’ll gettin’ closer… keep digging.
I said it before. One day it will be obvious.
FYI says
If you are Catholic then you should know that this false papacy was predicted to occur.
(Fatima 1917:Rome would abandon the faith under a false papacy with the help of an ecclesiastical freemasonry.This world wide apostasy would come from Rome..and you can see it is..}
If you are Christian …all that all that you need to know is already explained in Scripture
{Matthew 24,2 thess 1,2 thess 2..you really,really should read these…the apparent decline in Christianity was predicted by Jesus Christ as something that would happen..}Matthew 13 v 47-50,the parable of the net is what we can expect at some stage in the future.These things WILL happen whether or not you like to be told it.
red rose says
This is the worst Pope ever to hold the position. He ignores his flock in the Middle East and Nothern Africa while they continue to face slaughter from these so-called “peaceful Muslims.” No Christian is safe in the Middle East, Asia, and Africa because “regular” Muslims hate Christians and want them to convert, pay the jizya, or be killed.
In the last 30 days, the “religion of peace” has conducted 111 Islamic attacks in 25 countries, in which 709 people were killed and 712 injured. Someone needs to send this Pope these statistics.
Del says
NOT MY POPE.