Conference: Jihad: Between Theory and Practice

Universiteit Leiden, Conference, Jihad: Between Theory and Practice, 11 Mar 2016 "This workshop brings together international scholarly expertise on both modern and classical Islam and studies the diversity of ideas and practices behind jihad. With a diachronic and interdisciplinary approach, it will address the interpretations of jihad, its organization, and ways to spread jihad-related

Time to tell the Truth about Islam

"Islamic radicals have a very good case that their version of Islam is truer to the original than the moderate version. The proper way to undermine their ideology/theology is not to cast doubts on their interpretation of Islam, but to cast doubts about the truth of Islam itself."

by William Kilpatrick, The Turning Point Project � August 30, 2015

The important thing about a religion, said C.S. Lewis, is not whether it makes one feel good, but whether it is true. This observation came to mind while reading a recent piece by Rev. James Schall, S.J., titled �Speaking Honestly about Islam.�

Schall suggests that we haven�t been telling the truth about Islam because to do so violates the feel-good principle that currently rules Western societies. According to the feel-good principle, self-esteem is the highest value. And therefore every person, culture, and religion has an inalienable right to feel good about oneself/itself.

People hew to the Islam-is-peace line because they don�t want to give offense and also because they don�t want to be accused of a hate crime. It�s a well-founded fear. In many Western societies, numerous individuals�and some of them very prominent individuals�have been put on trial for the crime of criticizing Islam: Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant in Canada, Geert Wilders in the Netherlands, Lars Hedegaard in Denmark, and Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff in Austria, to name a few. In several cases, the defendants were informed that truth was no defense. The accuracy of their criticism, they were told, was beside the point (the point being that they had said hurtful things).

Honesty is the best policy, according to the old maxim, but many Western governments have adopted a deliberate policy of prevarication in regard to Islam. Hardly a day goes by when some Western leader or other isn�t explaining away the latest jihad attack as having nothing to do with Islam.



It�s not that leaders are doing nothing about the problem of jihad. A number of European countries have belatedly launched deradicalization programs aimed at countering jihadist ideology. For example, UK Prime Minister David Cameron recently announced a five-year plan to defeat Islamic extremism.

The trouble with these programs is that they can�t let go of the lie. The central feature of most of these initiatives is the enlistment of moderate Muslims in a campaign to convince potential jihadists that Islam has nothing to do with jihad (or else to convince them that jihad, correctly understood, is nothing more than an interior spiritual struggle).

This puts the Muslim leaders who are willing to sign up for such campaigns in a difficult spot. They are in essence trying to defend a largely indefensible position. While it�s true that Islam can be practiced peacefully (and, thank God, that�s the way most Muslims practice it), that can only be done by ignoring some of Islam�s fundamental teachings. As Fr. Schall observes, �it is senseless to pretend that a jihadist vision is not found in the Qur�an.�

He continues:

What has to be faced by everyone is not the �violence� of Islam, but its truth. We may not �like� a jihadist view of the Qur�an. But we denigrate the dignity of ISIS and other violent strains in both Sunni and Shiite branches of Islam that clearly see that their interpretation of Islam has legitimate roots in the Qur�an, in Islamic history, and in the judgment of many authoritative commentators.

To some extent, Schall is playing the devil�s advocate. He does not really believe in the dignity of ISIS, but he does suggest that their beliefs are honest. What is the basic attraction that draws young men and women to Islamic movements? Schall replies that the main motivation is the perception that the Qur�an is true. Most jihadists wage jihad because they believe that is what Allah wants them to do.

Moderate Muslims and Cafeteria Catholics

A campaign based on the dubious notion that Allah does not command jihad is a hard sell. Both sides�the moderates and the radicals�can quote scripture to defend their positions, but the jihadists seem to be able to quote it much more extensively and convincingly. Many of the moderates are akin to cafeteria Catholics. They have a family or cultural attachment to Islam, but they don�t have a thorough knowledge of their faith, or any great desire to follow all its commands. They have a more Westernized and subjective understanding of Islam than their fundamentalist brethren, and are inclined to say things like �That�s not my Islam� when condemning jihadist violence.

In other words, for some moderate Muslims, Islam is more of a personalized construct�a religion made in the image of their own subjective inclinations. The comparison to cafeteria Catholics is useful because it helps us to better understand the relation of the moderate Muslim to his religion. The liberal Catholic is accepting of abortion and same-sex marriage and so he is convinced that the Church will eventually come around to the same position. The truly moderate Muslim would never resort to violence and so he convinces himself that his religion must therefore be a religion of peace. In short, the moderate Muslim adheres to what author Stephen Kirby calls �fantasy Islam.�

Because it�s based in fantasy, the whole effort to convince jihadists and would-be jihadists that Islam is a religion of peace seems doomed to failure. Granted, many Western leaders don�t really believe what they�re saying and look upon their anti-radicalization projects merely from a pragmatic point of view. But even looked at from a purely practical standpoint, it�s doubtful that a strategy based on such a massive lie can succeed.

Muslim leaders, of course, are caught in a bind on this issue. On the one hand, they need to please their Western hosts; on the other hand, they can�t afford to repudiate large parts of Islamic scripture and tradition. But Western leaders and opinion-makers have fewer constraints. They might consider telling the truth for a change. It might prove in the long run to be a much better strategy than the current self-defeating one. Islamic radicals have a very good case that their version of Islam is truer to the original than the moderate version. The proper way to undermine their ideology/theology is not to cast doubts on their interpretation of Islam, but to cast doubts about the truth of Islam itself.

That may seem like an impossible undertaking, but one thing that works in favor of the truth-telling strategy is that, despite their violence, many jihadists do seem to be truth-seekers. There is abundant evidence from their letters, diaries, blogs, Facebook pages, and last testament videos that they believe they have discovered what God truly wants them to do. For this reason, they may be more likely candidates for conversion to a higher truth than many a lukewarm Muslim.

The Turning Point Project is dedicated to educating Catholics and other Americans about the threat from Islam by arming them with the information and analysis necessary to meet the challenge.  Learn more here...

This article originally appeared in the August 30, 2015 edition of National Catholic Register.

How the Islamic World was Forged: An Exercise in Common Sense

"That there are still millions of Christians in Egypt (approximately 10% of the population)�is not proof of Islam�s tolerance but rather its intolerance." 

by Raymond Ibrahim, FrontPage Magazine � August 31, 2015

What made non-Muslims convert to Islam, leading to the creation of the Islamic world?

Early historical sources�both Muslim and non-Muslim�make clear that the Islamic empire was forged by the sword; that people embraced Islam, not so much out of sincere faith, but for a myriad of reasons�from converting in order to enjoy the boons of being on the �winning team� to converting in order to evade the dooms of being on the �losing team.�

Modern day Muslims and other apologists�primarily in academia, government, and mainstream media�reject this idea.  They argue that the non-Muslims who embraced Islam did so from sheer conviction; that the ancestors of today�s 1.5 billion Muslims all converted to Islam due to its intrinsic appeal; that the modern day coercion and persecution committed by the Islamic State and other organizations is an aberration.

Of course, as mentioned, the primary texts of history are full of anecdotes demonstrating the opposite.  However, because ours is an increasingly ahistorical society, in this essay I endeavor to show that sheer common sense alone validates what history records, namely, that the Islamic world and its populace was forged through violent coercion.

To do so, I will use Egypt�one of the most important Muslim majority nations and my ancestral homeland�as a paradigm.  I will show how a historic fact that Islam�s apologists habitually boast of�that there are still millions of Christians in Egypt (approximately 10% of the population)�is not proof of Islam�s tolerance but rather its intolerance.

��

In the 7th century, when Islam was being formulated, Egypt had been Christian for centuries,[1] before most of Europe had converted.  Alexandria was one of the most important ecclesiastical centers of ancient Christian learning and, along with Rome and Antioch, one of the original three sees.[2]  Much literary and ongoing archaeological evidence attest to the fact that Christianity permeated the whole of Egypt.

Writing around the year 400�roughly two-and-a-half centuries before the Arab invasion�John Cassian, a Christian monk from the region of modern day Romania, observed that

the traveler from Alexandria in the north to Luxor in the south would have in his ears along the whole journey, the sounds of prayers and hymns of the monks, scattered in the desert, from the monasteries and from the caves, from monks, hermits, and anchorites.[3]

And in recent times, both the oldest parchment to contain words from the Gospel (dating to the 1st century) and the oldest image of Christ were discovered in separate regions of Egypt.

Possibly oldest known image of Christ, found in Egypt and dating to the 1st century

The question now becomes: what made such an ancient and heavily Christian nation become Islamic?  More specifically, what made the ancestors of today�s Egyptian Muslims�most of who were Coptic Christians�convert to Islam?

For an objective answer to this question, a completely overlooked factor must be considered.

��

In the 7th century, when Muslim Arabs overran Egypt, and on into the medieval era, religion was not something to be casually adhered to or changed as it is today in the West.  People of that era were true believers; there was no alternative narrative�no so-called �science vs God� claims.

Whatever religion a person was born into was accepted with absolute conviction�despite the many movies that project modernity onto Medieval Christians. (Thus the focal character of Kingdom of Heaven, Balian, and all other Christian protagonists reject the �fanatical Christians� and exhibit a more open, tolerant, and �nuanced� view on religion, including Islam.  Such depictions are anachronisms with little grounding in history.)

In Medieval Europe, the truths of Christianity were etched into the minds of all, from youth on up.  There was no doubt�because there was no alternative.  As historian of Medieval Europe and the Crusades Thomas Madden puts it:

[T]he medieval world was not the modern world. For medieval people, religion was not something one just did at church. It was their science, their philosophy, their politics, their identity, and their hope for salvation. It was not a personal preference but an abiding and universal truth.

In this context, to apostatize, to leave the Christian faith, especially for another creed, was the most unthinkable of all transgressions against one�s own soul�a sin that would lead to eternal damnation.

�God wills it!� Typical depictions of �hypocritical�

crusaders in Kingdom of Heaven

It was of course the same with Muslims.  The point here is that pre-modern man took the religion of his people, his tribe, his world, very seriously�especially when such religions taught that failure to do so, or worse, to willingly apostatize, would lead to eternal hell.

Put differently, even if Islam offered intrinsic appeal, the idea that pre-modern Christians were �free� to choose to convert�free of guilt, free of fear, free of existential trauma�is anachronistic and thus implausible.

Again, Western man, who lives in an era when people change religions as often as they change shoes, may have great difficulty in fully appreciating this idea.   But it is true nonetheless.

After writing that �Christians saw crusades to the east as acts of love and charity, waged against Muslim conquerors in defense of Christian people and their lands,� Madden correctly observes:

It is easy enough for modern people to dismiss the crusades as morally repugnant or cynically evil.  Such judgements, however, tell us more about the observer than the observed.  They are based on uniquely modern (and, therefore, Western) values.  If, from the safety of our modern world, we are quick to condemn the medieval crusader, we should be mindful that he would be just as quick to condemn us [regarding our values and priorities]�.  In both societies, the medieval and the modern, people fight for what is most dear to them.[4]

��

If Europeans were this dedicated to Christianity in the medieval era, what of the Copts of Egypt who were Christian many centuries earlier?  Indeed, according to some historical sources, Egypt�s ancient Christians may have been especially tenacious in their zeal.

What, then, made them convert to Islam in mass is the question before us?

Is it plausible to believe that the primitive Muslim conquerors of Egypt did not discriminate against its indigenous Christians or pressure them to convert to Islam (even as Muslims do so now in the �enlightened� modern era)?

Is it true, to quote Georgetown University professor John Esposito, that Christians �were free to practice their faith to worship and be governed by their religious leaders and laws in such areas as marriage, divorce, and inheritance. In exchange, they were required to pay tribute, a poll tax (jizya) that entitled them to Muslim protection from outside aggression and exempted them from military service.� (Rebuttal to this assertion here.)

A "subdued and humiliated" dhimmi pays the jizya. Note all the Muslims are armed,
with an axe right in front of the pasha. The threat is clear.

And yet, though left in peace and unpressured, Egypt�s original Christians found the new creed of sword-swinging, camel-riding  Arabs so intrinsically appealing that they willingly apostatized in mass from the religion of their forefathers�a religion that was so fundamental to their being, albeit in a way modern man cannot comprehend?

In fact, common sense suggests that nothing less than extremely severe circumstances and hardships�persecution�prompted the Copts to convert to Islam.

��

Of course, for the historian who reads the primary sources�as opposed to the mainstream works of fiction being peddled as �history� by the likes of Karen Armstrong and others�the above exercise in common sense is superfluous.

For the primary sources make clear that, while Egypt�s Copts acquiesced to dhimmi status�constantly paying large sums of extortion money and accepting life as third class subjects with few rights simply to remain Christian�bouts of extreme persecution regularly flared up.  And with each one, more and more Christians converted to Islam in order to find relief.[5]

One telling example: in Muslim historian Taqi al-Din al-Maqrizi�s (d. 1442) authoritative history of Egypt, anecdote after anecdote is recorded of Muslims burning churches, slaughtering Christians, and enslaving their women and children.  The only escape then�as it is increasingly today�was for Christians to convert to Islam.

After recording one particularly egregious bout of persecution, where countless Christians were slaughtered, enslaved, and raped, and where reportedly some 30,000 churches in Egypt and Syria were destroyed�a staggering number that further indicates how Christian the Near East was before Islam�the pious Muslim historian makes clear why Christians converted: �Under these circumstances a great many Christians became Muslims� (emphasis added).[6]

Alongside these times of extreme persecution, the entrenched dhimmi system saw the increasingly impoverished Egyptian people slowly convert to Islam over the centuries, so that today only 10% remain Christian.

Consider the words of Alfred Butler, a 19th century historian writing before political correctness came to dominate academia.  In The Arab Conquest of Egypt, he highlights the �vicious system of bribing the Christians into conversion�:

[A]lthough religious freedom was in theory secured for the Copts under the capitulation, it soon proved in fact to be shadowy and illusory. For a religious freedom which became identified with social bondage and with financial bondage could have neither substance nor vitality.  As Islam spread, the social pressure upon the Copts became enormous, while the financial pressure at least seemed harder to resist, as the number of Christians or Jews who were liable for the poll-tax [jizya] diminished year by year, and their isolation became more conspicuous. . . . [T]he burdens of the Christians grew heavier in proportion as their numbers lessened [that is, the more Christians converted to Islam, the more the burdens on the remaining few grew]. The wonder, therefore, is not that so many Copts yielded to the current which bore them with sweeping force over to Islam, but that so great a multitude of Christians stood firmly against the stream, nor have all the storms of thirteen centuries moved their faith from the rock of its foundation.[7]

��

The reader will bear in mind that although the above exposition concerns Egypt, the same paradigm applies to the rest of conquered Christian lands.  Today the whole of North Africa is reportedly 99% Muslim�yet few are aware that it was Christian majority in the 7th century when Islam invaded.  St. Augustine�arguably the father of Western Christian theology�hailed from modern day Algeria.

Thus it is not an exaggeration to say that �the Islamic world� would be a fraction of its size, or might not exist at all, were it not for the fact that non-Muslims converted to Islam simply to evade oppression and persecution.  Once all these Christians converted to Islam, all their progeny became Muslim in perpetuity, thanks to Islam�s apostasy law, which bans Muslims from leaving Islam on pain of death.  Indeed, according to Dr. Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a leading cleric in the Muslim world, �If the [death] penalty for apostasy was ignored, there would not be an Islam today; Islam would have ended on the death of the prophet.�

Bloodied gate of Coptic Christian church in Egypt,

one of many dozens to be attacked in recent years.

Which leads to one of Islam�s most bitterest of ironies: a great many of today�s Christians, especially those in the Arab world, are being persecuted by Muslims whose own ancestors were persecuted Christians who converted to Islam to end their own suffering. In other words, Muslim descendants of persecuted Christians are today persecuting their Christian cousins�and thus perpetuating the cycle that made them Muslim in the first the place.

The long and short of all this is simple: Past and present, Islam has been a religion of coercion.[8]   More than half of the territory that once made up Christendom�including Egypt, Syria, Turkey, North Africa�converted to Islam due to bouts of extreme violence and ongoing financial bleeding.  The Islamic State and like organizations and Muslims around the world are not aberrations but continuations.  The violence, intolerance and coercion they exhibit�pressuring Christians to convert to Islam, compelling Muslims to remain in Islam�created and sustains what is today called the Islamic world.

Not only do we have a plethora of original source material proving these conclusions, but sheer common sense demonstrates as much.

��

NOTES:

[1] St. Mark began evangelizing Egypt in the middle of the 1st century.

[2] That two of the three original sees of Christianity originated in what are now two Muslim nations�Egypt and Turkey�further speaks to the Christian nature of the Middle East before the Islamic invasions.

[3] Abba Anthony, Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate, Saint Anthony Monastery, March 2014, issue #3, p.6).

[4] Thomas Madden, The New Concise History of the Crusades (NY: Barnes and Noble, 2007), 223.

[5] As Muslims grew in numbers over the centuries in Egypt, so did persecution (according to Islam�s Rule of Numbers), culminating in the immensely oppressive Mameluke era (1250-1517), when Coptic conversion to Islam grew exponentially.

[6] Taqi Ed-Din El-Maqrizi, A Short History of the Copts and Their Church, trans. S. C. Malan (London: D. Nutt, 1873), 88-91.

[7] Alfred Butler, The Arab Invasion of Egypt and the Last 30 Years of Roman Dominion (Brooklyn: A & B Publishers, 1992), 464. One of the major themes throughout Butler�s book�which, first published in 1902, is heavily based on primary sources, Arabic and Coptic, unlike more modern secondary works that promote the Islamic �liberator� thesis�is that �there is not a word to show that any section of the Egyptian nation viewed the advent of the Muslims with any other feeling than terror� (p. 236):

Even in the most recent historians it will be found that the outline of the story [of the 7th century conquest of Egypt] is something as follows: �. that the Copts generally hailed them [Muslims] as deliverers and rendered them every assistance; and that Alexandria after a long siege, full of romantic episodes, was captured by storm.  Such is the received account.  It may seem presumptuous to say that it is untrue from beginning to end, but to me no other conclusion is possible. [pgs. iv-v]

Butler and other politically incorrect historians were and are aware of the savage and atrocity-laden nature of the Islamic conquests.  The Coptic chronicler, John of Nikiu, a contemporary of the Arab conquest of Egypt and possibly an eyewitness, wrote:

Then the Muslims arrived in Nikiu [along the Nile]� seized the town and slaughtered everyone they met in the street and in the churches�men, women, and children, sparing nobody.  Then they went to other places, pillaged and killed all the inhabitants they found�.  But let us say no more, for it is impossible to describe the horrors the Muslims committed�

Not, of course, that the average Muslim is aware of this fact. Indeed, in 2011 the Egyptian Muslim scholar Fadel Soliman published a book that was well received and widely promoted in the Islamic world, including by Al Jazeera, entitled Copts: Muslims Before Muhammad.  The book makes the ahistorical and anachronistic�in a word, the absurd�argument that Egypt�s 7th century Christians were really prototypical Muslims and that that is why Arabia�s Muslims came to �liberate� them from �oppressive� Christian rule.

[8] If not in theory, certainly in practice.   See �Islamic Jihad and the Doctrine of Abrogation.�

��

RAYMOND IBRAHIM is a widely published author, public speaker, and Middle East and Islam specialist.  His books include Crucified Again: Exposing Islam�s New War on Christians (2013) and The Al Qaeda Reader (2007). His writings, translations, and observations have appeared in a variety of publications, including the New York Times, CNN, LA Times, Fox News, Financial Times, Jerusalem Post, New York Times Syndicate, United Press International, USA Today, Washington Post, Washington Times, and Weekly Standard; scholarly journals, including the Almanac of Islamism, Chronicle of Higher Education, Jane�s Islamic Affairs Analyst, Middle East Quarterly, and Middle East Review of International Affairs; and popular websites... continue reading...

5 Middle East Churches That Could Cease to Exist If Islamic State Influence Continues to Spread

A high-level overview of five of the local Christian Church communions most severely threatened by the 21st-century resurgence of pure Islam. 

Coptic Icon of Jesus Christ, Pantocrator

The below article is a welcome contribution to the education of American Protestants and Evangelicals, some of whom do not consider Eastern Christians of any kind to be true Christians. This is also a great help for us in our daily prayers for those being persecuted for their faith in Jesus Christ. 

At the same time, it must be noted that the thumbnail sketches in the Christian Post article below concerning non-Chalcedonian Christology do not do justice to the theology of these "Oriental" churches. Further reading for an expanded understanding of this issue is highly recommended.

Therefore, immediately below are links to related articles which explore in far greater depth the question over the "non-Chalcedonian" Christian Churches.

_______

THE NON-CHALCEDONIAN CHURCHES:

Regarding the division which occurred after the Ecumenical Council at Chalcedon in 451, and recent efforts to examine anew the faith of the non-Chalcedonian churches, see the following:

• RECENT EFFORTS FOR UNITY BETWEEN THE TWO FAMILIES OF THE ORTHODOX CHURCH - Coptic.net
• VARIOUS DOCUMENTS CONCERNING EASTERN ORTHODOX AND ORIENTAL ORTHODOX JOINT COMMISSION AND UNITY - Orthodox Joint Commission
• Beyond Dialogue: The Quest for Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Unity Today - Rev. John Erickson, Dean, St Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary

The report at Coptic.net linked above begins with this statement:

Since 451, at the Council of Chalcedon,  there has been a division within the Orthopdox [sic] Church due to different Christological terminology. In recent times, members  of the Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian Orthodox Churches  have met together coming to a clear understanding that both  families have always loyally maintained the same authentic Orthodox Christological faith, and the unbroken  continuity of  the apostolic tradition, though they may have used Christological terms in different ways. It is this common faith and continuous loyality [sic] to the apostolic tradition  that has been the basis of the conversations held over the last two decades towards unity and communion.

For a traditionalist Orthodox response to recent dialogues between Orthodox and non-Chalcedonian churches, see:

• Eastern Orthodoxy and "Oriental Orthodoxy" - Orthodox Christian Information Center

As for my own view of the non-Chalcedonian question, I give thanks to God for all things, even for our sufferings and for this new age of global Christian persecution, for it enables each one of us to confess Jesus Christ, and to prove our love for Him and our faith in Him. Regardless of semantic differences in the theological expression of our faith in Jesus Christ, we are united at the very least by a communion of blood, a communion of the Cross, a communion of martyrdom.

See also:

• What is an Assyrian Christian?
• What is an Armenian Christian?

_______

5 Middle East Churches That Could Cease to Exist If Islamic State Influence Continues to Spread
Christian Post via Pravmir � August 24, 2015

There are Christian churches throughout the Middle East that trace their roots back to the time of the apostles that could cease to exist if Islamic State and other radical Muslim groups continue to gain control of more territory in the region.

The Islamic State Caliphate: Darkness falls across the Middle
East, North Africa, Central Asia, and on into Europe.

Author George J. Marlin, who is also chairman of the Board of Aid to the Church in Need USA, recently released a book titled Christian Persecutions in the Middle East, which not only discusses the growing threat to believers in the region, but also provides the history of many of the churches that have existed in the Middle East since the time of the apostles that could now be facing extinction at the hands of Muslim extremists.

Listed below are five of those churches.

1. The Syrian Orthodox Church

The Syrian Orthodox Church came into its modern formation when Syrian Christians rejected decrees made by the Eastern Orthodox, Catholic, and Western Christian Churches at the Council of Chalcedon in A.D. 451. The Council acknowledged that Christ has two natures, divine and human, which come together in one person.

(PHOTO: REUTERS/MAJED JABER. Jordanian Christian clerics hold a mass at the Syriac Orthodox Church in Amman, May 21, 2013.

In an attempt to hold onto their beliefs about Christ, which state that He is one nature of full humanity and full divinity, Syrian Christians regrouped under their own bishops and broke away from the established church.

The Syrian Orthodox Church traces its origins back to the church of Antioch found in the New Testament and considers St. Paul its first Bishop. The head of the Syrian Orthodox Church today is known as the �Patriarch of the God-protected City of Antioch and of all the Domain of the Apostolic Throne.� He is elected by fellow bishops and must be celibate. The patriarch resides in Damascus and the church has archdioceses in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Turkey, Jordan, Israel, the United Arab Emirates and Palestine.

Today, the Syrian Orthodox Church has 5 million members worldwide.

2. The Coptic Orthodox Church

The Coptic Orthodox Church � Coptic meaning Egyptian � traces its roots back to A.D. 42 when St. Mark the Apostle first brought Christianity to Egypt. Monophysitism, the belief that Christ has a single divine nature, first took root in Egypt and was embraced by the head of the church and patriarch of Alexandria, Dioscorus.

Coptic bishop surveys church in Minya, destroyed by Muslims.

His teachings were condemned by the Council of Chalcedon, leaving many Egyptian believers separated from Catholic and other Orthodox churches.

The Coptic Orthodox church continues to be operated today under the leadership of its patriarch, formally known as �The Most Holy Father and Patriarch of the great city of Alexandria and of all Egypt, of Nubia, Ethiopia and the Pentapolis, and of all places where St. Mark preached.� He is elected by the church�s bishops and must be celibate, abstain from meat and fish for life, and be over 50 years old.

The church�s membership has eroded significantly since the conquest of Egypt by Muslim Arabs in A.D. 640 and Coptic Orthodox Christians are now a persecuted minority in the region.

3. The Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem

Church fathers at the Council of Chalcedon decided that Jerusalem should be elevated from being a diocesan see to patriarchate because of its significance to the birth of the Christian faith. The decision led to the reorganization of 60 diocese in the region that now come under the jurisdiction of a Jerusalem patriarch.

PHOTO: REUTERS/AMMAR AWAD. Members of the Greek Orthodox clergy await the arrival of the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem Metropolitan Theophilos before the washing of the feet ceremony outside the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem�s Old City, April 9, 2015, ahead of Orthodox Easter.

The city flourished as a Christian hub until Arabs conquered the city in A.D. 637. During this period, Christian monasteries and churches were destroyed while much of the population converted to Islam.

European Crusaders took back the land in 1099 and appointed a Latin patriarch. But when Saladin, the Sultan of Egypt and Syria reconquered Jerusalem in 1187, the Latin patriarch serving at that time fled.

The Ottoman Turks took control of the city in 1516 and Constantinople, the former capital of the Byzantine Empire, re-established itself in Jerusalem, which led to the selection of Greek patriarchs in the region.

Today, the Orthodox Church controls many of the holy sites in Jerusalem. Patriarch His Beatitude Theosophilos III has headed the church since 2005 and he resides in Jerusalem where he oversees the affairs of the church�s 130,000 members.

4. Melkites (Melkite Greek Catholic Church)

The Melkite Greek Catholic Church was originally comprised of Christians from Alexandria, Antioch and Syria that complied with the decrees of the Council of Chalcedon in A.D. 451. The Church also traces its origins back to the New Testament Antioch church.

PHOTO: REUTERS/MUHAMMAD HAMED. Christians take part in a candlelight march and prayed for peace in Gaza, Jordan, and in the Arab region, at the Greek Orthodox Church, in Al-Fuheis near Amman August 11, 2014.

Melkite, a term which derives from the Syriac word for king, was originally used to describe Christians in the Middle East who embraced the Christology of the Council of Chalcedon.

After the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox schism of 1054, many Orthodox believers in Antioch looked to re-establish communion with Rome and in 1729, the churches were reunited under the Councils of Reunion.

The Melkite title was then reserved for members of the Antioch Orthodox who were reunited with Rome. The Melkite Church is headed by a patriarch who is elected by its bishops. His election must be confirmed by the Vatican and the leader currently resides in Damascus. There are around 1.2 million Melkite Catholics worldwide and most of them reside in Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Israel.

5. The Chaldean Catholic Church

The Chaldean Catholic Church descended from the remnant of Nestorian Christians or believers who followed the teachings of former Constantinople Patriarch Nestorius that were contested by the Council of Chalcedon who resided in what is now modern-day Iraq.

PHOTO: REUTERS/AHMED SAAD. Iraqi Christians attend mass at Mar George Chaldean Church in Baghdad, March 1, 2015. Iraqi Christians say they have no intention of leaving the country despite the recent abduction of over 100 Assyrian Christians by the Islamic State.

After the mass slaughter of Christians in the region at the hands of the Mongols, a family of believers who passed down the office of patriarch for generations governed those who had survived.

John Sulaka, an abbot at a Nestorian monastery opposed the established patriarch and sought to have communion with Rome by traveling there in 1551. He was ordained as a bishop by the Catholic Church and upon his return, he set up a new patriarch affirmed by the pope.

Sulaka, who had taken on the new name Simon VIII, was captured and killed in 1555 by the Pasha of Amadya, and for the next few centuries the Chaldeans fell into chaos.

In 1830 under Pope Pius VIII, however, they were brought into full communion with Rome and a new patriarch was established who resided in modern day Mosul, Iraq. Today, there are 18 Chaldean dioceses in the Middle East with 10 of them being located in Iraq. The patriarch was moved to Baghdad after World War II and its 500,000 members are mostly comprised of Assyrians.

For more information on churches that have roots in the Middle East that are now facing the threat of radical Islam read George J. Marlin�s book Christian Persecutions in the Middle East.

Speaking Honestly About Islam

"What has to be faced by everyone is not the 'violence' of Islam, but its truth... It is senseless to pretend that a jihadist vision is not found in the Qur�an."


by Rev. James V. Schall, S.J., Crisis Magazine, July 22, 2015

Islamic State member with two severed heads, after obediently following
the Koran's command to "Strike their necks" (Sura 8:12).

The laws of several western countries, besides the Islamic ones themselves, do not permit anything critical to be said of Islam. Such laws forbid what is called �hate speech.� They often include other sub-groups like homosexuals, women, or race. Such laws and customs have practically reduced responsible freedom of speech to a dead letter. Fines and jail sentences are meted out if such laws are violated.

Such laws are generally based on a civil peace idea rooted in Thomas Hobbes. That is, violence is caused by religious and philosophical controversy. The only way to prevent it is by a civil law forbidding any expression of �hatred.� This approach explains why civil authority is hostile to honest analysis of what religion or philosophy actually holds. Such a law becomes particularly dangerous when we are not permitted to speak objectively about Islam. Criticism, satire, or disagreement with its tenets will often be answered by Islamic violence. Rather than inquire whether this critical analysis is valid, it is simply forbidden. The accuracy of the criticism is irrelevant.

Here, I am interested in talking about Islam�s truth. Almost every public, academic, or media talk of Islam goes something like this: �Most Muslims are peaceful. The violence comes from terrorists.� This approach is premised on two positions: 1) The original Muslim conquests of Africa, Spain, the Near-East, the Balkans, and all the way to India were �peaceful,� like they were the results of free elections and not, as was in fact the case, success in battle. 2) Those whom we identify as �terrorists� are not �true� Muslims. �Terrorism� becomes a kind of free-floating cult with no relation to anything but itself. Thus, terrorism is best explained in economic, cultural, psychological, or ideological terms that have little to do with �religion.� This view allows us to state the politically correct view that Islam is a religion of �peace� with no connection to �violence.�

Here I propose a counter-cultural position. I want to defend the integrity of the �terrorists,� as we insist on calling them. I want to grant them the �dignity� that they deserve. That is, they are not mindless products of poverty, ideology, ignorance, psychological mania, or any other excuse to avoid calling them what they claim to be, namely, loyal and devoted believers in the Qur�an, the real followers of Mohammed. It is senseless to pretend that a jihadist vision is not found in the Qur�an.

"The British Prime Minister and others try to explain the attraction that draws many young men and women to Islamic movements... They come up with every reason but the right one, that [jihadis believe] the Qur�an is true."

What has to be faced by everyone is not the �violence� of Islam, but its truth. We may not �like� a jihadist view of the Qur�an. But we denigrate the dignity of ISIS and other violent strains in both Sunni and Shiite branches of Islam that clearly see that their interpretation of Islam has legitimate roots in the Qur�an, in Islamic history, and in the judgment of many authoritative commentators. The modern Islamic �states� set up by the West in the previous two centuries often have had to face this same issue. Usually, they set up a military dictatorship to deal with violence within its own borders.

I have listened to the British Prime Minister and others try to explain the attraction that draws many young men and women to Islamic movements. Usually, they come up with every reason but the right one, namely that the attraction is that the Qur�an is true. The ISIS type movements are but carrying out a delayed world mission to conquer the world for Allah according to Qur�anic norms. While cynics and exploiters are found in such movements, its core is a religious mission to all men. When conquered each person will be offered the usual choices that they have been offered since the seventh century�to convert, to die, or to pay a fine for tolerance.

What do we conclude from this approach? 

First, we do need superior military force to meet it. Secondly, and more basically, we must address the truth of Islam. 

To this latter, two approaches are possible. First is that of the scholarly critical edition of the Qur�an that is being prepared in Berlin. We all, including Muslims themselves, need to know what kind of a book the Qur�an is, how it was constructed. 

Secondly, we need the approach of Father Zacharia Botros, the Coptic TV priest. He spends his time just reading in Arabic the Qur�an itself to show its many internal contradictions and incoherencies. The Qur�anic text is Islam�s weakest link.

Both of these approaches respect the text for what it is, not just what it claims to be, the last word of God to mankind. We sometimes need force just to be able to talk, as Benedict XVI implied in the Regensburg Lecture. In the end, though what we do not need is a �tolerance� or civil law that prevents us from stating the truth of what Muslim movements claim they stand for. They are not free-floating �terrorists.� They are pursuing the vision that they see in the Qur�an.

_______

Rev. James V. Schall, S.J., taught political science at Georgetown University for many years. His latest books include The Mind That Is Catholic from Catholic University of America Press; Remembering Belloc from St. Augustine Press; and Reasonable Pleasures from Ignatius Press.

Exploding the Myth that 'Jihad�is a perversion of Islam'

Excellent refutation of the false narrative so prevalent in the media, and among government and Christian leaders, that "Jihad�is a perversion of Islam." 

The Face of Jihad: �When you meet the unbelievers, smite their necks..." - Koran 47:4

This impressive article by Robert Spencer uses actual Islamic texts and authorities to prove the continuity linking the original doctrine of offensive jihad as found in the Koran and life & example of Muhammad, through the centuries of classical Islamic writings, advocated to the present by all four schools of Sunni jurisprudence, on down to the Muslim clerics and jihadis of our own day.

Spencer proves that offensive jihad, just as in the 7th century, continues to be recognized as a mandatory obligation upon all Muslims, and that modern Muslims themselves seem to be warming to the jihadist call, as evidenced by the tens of thousands flocking to join the Islamic State Caliphate.

"Bill O�Reilly: 'Jihad�is a perversion of Islam, we all know that',"

by Robert Spencer, Jihad Watch, August 28, 2015

�The spiritualism falls apart in the face of the jihad, okay, which is a perversion of Islam, we all know that.�

Do we, now?

Leave aside the fact that jihad is a central tenet of Islam for all Muslims, although all don�t endorse the terrorist form of it. Obviously O�Reilly is referring to jihad terrorism, which we are constantly told that the overwhelming majority of Muslims reject.

So is jihad terrorism a perversion of Islam? Most politicians and pundits in the West take for granted that it is. But there is, unfortunately, evidence to the contrary. Certainly Islamic terrorists believe that what they are doing is jihad, and that it is justified by the Qur�an and Sunnah:

�Jihad was a way of life for the Pious Predecessors (Salaf-us-Salih), and the Prophet (SAWS) was a master of the Mujahideen and a model for fortunate inexperienced people. The total number of military excursions which he (SAWS) accompanied was 27. He himself fought in nine of these; namely Badr; Uhud, Al-Muraysi, The Trench, Qurayzah, Khaybar, The Conquest of Makkah, Hunayn and Taif . . . This means that the Messenger of Allah (SAWS) used to go out on military expeditions or send out an army at least every two months.� � Abdullah Azzam, co-founder of al-Qaeda, Join the Caravan, p. 30

�If we follow the rules of interpretation developed from the classical science of Koranic interpretation, it is not possible to condemn terrorism in religious terms. It remains completely true to the classical rules in its evolution of sanctity for its own justification. This is where the secret of its theological strength lies.� � Egyptian scholar Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd

�Many thanks to God, for his kind gesture, and choosing us to perform the act of Jihad for his cause and to defend Islam and Muslims. Therefore, killing you and fighting you, destroying you and terrorizing you, responding back to your attacks, are all considered to be great legitimate duty in our religion.� � Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his fellow 9/11 defendants

�Allah on 480 occasions in the Holy Koran extols Muslims to wage jihad. We only fulfil God�s orders. Only jihad can bring peace to the world.� � Taliban terrorist Baitullah Mehsud

�Jihad, holy fighting in Allah�s course, with full force of numbers and weaponry, is given the utmost importance in Islam�.By jihad, Islam is established�.By abandoning jihad, may Allah protect us from that, Islam is destroyed, and Muslims go into inferior position, their honor is lost, their lands are stolen, their rule and authority vanish. Jihad is an obligation and duty in Islam on every Muslim.� � Times Square car bomb terrorist Faisal Shahzad

�So step by step I became a religiously devout Muslim, Mujahid � meaning one who participates in jihad.� � Little Rock, Arkansas terrorist murderer Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad

�And now, after mastering the English language, learning how to build explosives, and continuous planning to target the infidel Americans, it is time for Jihad.� � Texas terrorist bomber Khalid Aldawsari

All of these, of course, may be dismissed as �extremists,� although they were also all devout Muslims who were determined to follow their religion properly. One finds the same thing, however, when one turns to the authoritative sources in Sunni Islam, the schools of Sunni jurisprudence (madhahib). Compare the �extremist� statements with these:

Shafi�i school: A Shafi�i manual of Islamic law that was certified in 1991 by the clerics at Al-Azhar University, one of the leading authorities in the Islamic world, as a reliable guide to Sunni orthodoxy, stipulates about jihad that �the caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians�until they become Muslim or pay the non-Muslim poll tax.� It adds a comment by Sheikh Nuh Ali Salman, a Jordanian expert on Islamic jurisprudence: the caliph wages this war only �provided that he has first invited [Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians] to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya)�while remaining in their ancestral religions.� (�Umdat al-Salik, o9.8).

Hanafi school: A Hanafi manual of Islamic law repeats the same injunctions. It insists that people must be called to embrace Islam before being fought, �because the Prophet so instructed his commanders, directing them to call the infidels to the faith.� It emphasizes that jihad must not be waged for economic gain, but solely for religious reasons: from the call to Islam �the people will hence perceive that they are attacked for the sake of religion, and not for the sake of taking their property, or making slaves of their children, and on this consideration it is possible that they may be induced to agree to the call, in order to save themselves from the troubles of war.�

However, �if the infidels, upon receiving the call, neither consent to it nor agree to pay capitation tax [jizya], it is then incumbent on the Muslims to call upon God for assistance, and to make war upon them, because God is the assistant of those who serve Him, and the destroyer of His enemies, the infidels, and it is necessary to implore His aid upon every occasion; the Prophet, moreover, commands us so to do.� (Al-Hidayah, II.140)

Maliki school: Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406), a pioneering historian and philosopher, was also a Maliki legal theorist. In his renowned Muqaddimah, the first work of historical theory, he notes that �in the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force.� In Islam, the person in charge of religious affairs is concerned with �power politics,� because Islam is �under obligation to gain power over other nations.�

Hanbali school: The great medieval theorist of what is commonly known today as radical or fundamentalist Islam, Ibn Taymiyya (Taqi al-Din Ahmad Ibn Taymiyya, 1263-1328), was a Hanbali jurist. He directed that �since lawful warfare is essentially jihad and since its aim is that the religion is God�s entirely and God�s word is uppermost, therefore according to all Muslims, those who stand in the way of this aim must be fought.�

This is also taught by modern-day scholars of Islam. Majid Khadduri was an Iraqi scholar of Islamic law of international renown. In his book War and Peace in the Law of Islam, which was published in 1955 and remains one of the most lucid and illuminating works on the subject, Khadduri says this about jihad:

The state which is regarded as the instrument for universalizing a certain religion must perforce be an ever expanding state. The Islamic state, whose principal function was to put God�s law into practice, sought to establish Islam as the dominant reigning ideology over the entire world�.The jihad was therefore employed as an instrument for both the universalization of religion and the establishment of an imperial world state. (P. 51)

Imran Ahsan Khan Nyazee, Assistant Professor on the Faculty of Shari�ah and Law of the International Islamic University in Islamabad. In his 1994 book The Methodology of Ijtihad, he quotes the twelfth century Maliki jurist Ibn Rushd: �Muslim jurists agreed that the purpose of fighting with the People of the Book�is one of two things: it is either their conversion to Islam or the payment of jizyah.� Nyazee concludes: �This leaves no doubt that the primary goal of the Muslim community, in the eyes of its jurists, is to spread the word of Allah through jihad, and the option of poll-tax [jizya] is to be exercised only after subjugation� of non-Muslims.

Could all these jurists, who were instrumental in the codification of Sharia, be getting jihad wrong? Well, let�s see if the Qur�an has any passages justifying violence against unbelievers:

2:191-193:  �And slay them wherever you come upon them, and expel them from where they expelled you; persecution is more grievous than slaying. But fight them not by the Holy Mosque until they should fight you there; then, if they fight you, slay them � such is the recompense of unbelievers, but if they give over, surely Allah is All-forgiving, All-compassionate. Fight them, till there is no persecution and the religion is Allah�s; then if they give over, there shall be no enmity save for evildoers.�

4:89: �They wish that you should disbelieve as they disbelieve, and then you would be equal; therefore take not to yourselves friends of them, until they emigrate in the way of Allah; then, if they turn their backs, take them, and slay them wherever you find them; take not to yourselves any one of them as friend or helper.�

8:12: �When thy Lord was revealing to the angels, �I am with you; so confirm the believers. I shall cast into the unbelievers� hearts terror; so smite above the necks, and smite every finger of them!�

8:39: �Fight them, till there is no persecution and the religion is Allah�s entirely; then if they give over, surely Allah sees the things they do.�

8:60: �Make ready for them whatever force and strings of horses you can, to terrify thereby the enemy of Allah and your enemy, and others besides them that you know not; Allah knows them. And whatsoever you expend in the way of Allah shall be repaid you in full; you will not be wronged.�

9:5: �Then, when the sacred months are drawn away, slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them, and confine them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they repent, and perform the prayer, and pay the alms, then let them go their way; Allah is All-forgiving, All-compassionate.�

9:29: �Fight those who believe not in Allah and the Last Day and do not forbid what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden � such men as practise not the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book � until they pay the tribute out of hand and have been humbled.�

9:111: �Allah has bought from the believers their selves and their possessions against the gift of Paradise; they fight in the way of Allah; they kill, and are killed; that is a promise binding upon Allah in the Torah, and the Gospel, and the Koran; and who fulfils his covenant truer than Allah? So rejoice in the bargain you have made with Him; that is the mighty triumph.�

9:123: �O believers, fight the unbelievers who are near to you; and let them find in you a harshness; and know that Allah is with the godfearing.�

47:4: �When you meet the unbelievers, smite their necks, then, when you have made wide slaughter among them, tie fast the bonds; then set them free, either by grace or ransom, till the war lays down its loads. So it shall be; and if Allah had willed, He would have avenged Himself upon them; but that He may try some of you by means of others. And those who are slain in the way of Allah, He will not send their works astray.�

To be sure, there are some tolerant verses in the Qur�an as well � see, for example, sura 109. But then in Islamic tradition there are authorities who say that violent passages take precedence over these verses. Muhammad�s earliest biographer, an eighth-century Muslim named Ibn Ishaq, explains the progression of Qur�anic revelation about warfare. First, he explains, Allah allowed Muslims to wage defensive warfare. But that was not Allah�s last word on the circumstances in which Muslims should fight. Ibn Ishaq explains offensive jihad by invoking a Qur�anic verse: �Then God sent down to him: �Fight them so that there be no more seduction,� i.e. until no believer is seduced from his religion. �And the religion is God�s�, i.e. Until God alone is worshipped.�

The Qur�an verse Ibn Ishaq quotes here (2:193) commands much more than defensive warfare: Muslims must fight until �the religion is God�s� � that is, until Allah alone is worshipped. Ibn Ishaq gives no hint that that command died with the seventh century.

The great medieval scholar Ibn Qayyim (1292-1350) also outlines the stages of the Muhammad�s prophetic career: 

�For thirteen years after the beginning of his Messengership, he called people to God through preaching, without fighting or Jizyah, and was commanded to restrain himself and to practice patience and forbearance. Then he was commanded to migrate, and later permission was given to fight. Then he was commanded to fight those who fought him, and to restrain himself from those who did not make war with him. Later he was commanded to fight the polytheists until God�s religion was fully established.�

In other words, he initially could fight only defensively � only �those who fought him� � but later he could fight the polytheists until Islam was �fully established.� He could fight them even if they didn�t fight him first, and solely because they were not Muslim.

Nor do all contemporary Islamic thinkers believe that that command is a relic of history. According to a 20th century Chief Justice of Saudi Arabia, Sheikh �Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Humaid, �at first �the fighting� was forbidden, then it was permitted and after that it was made obligatory.� He also distinguishes two groups Muslims must fight: �(1) against them who start �the fighting� against you (Muslims) . . . (2) and against all those who worship others along with Allah . . . as mentioned in Surat Al-Baqarah (II), Al-Imran (III) and At-Taubah (IX) . . . and other Surahs (Chapters of the Qur�an).� (The Roman numerals after the names of the chapters of the Qur�an are the numbers of the suras: Sheikh �Abdullah is referring to Qur�anic verses such as 2:216, 3:157-158, 9:5, and 9:29.)

All these Muslim authorities didn�t get the memo that jihad was a perversion of Islam. They have plenty of followers in the modern world, too. Imam Bill O�Reilly has a lot of work to do.

�O�Reilly Connects WDBJ Shooting to U.S. �Turning Away from Spiritualism� and Religion,� by Josh Feldman, Mediaite, August 27, 2015:

��The spiritualism falls apart in the face of the jihad, okay, which is a perversion of Islam, we all know that. But over the years and centuries, religion has been used to justify murder, even in the Christian precincts. That has happened. But individuals in this country now, I believe, are tending away from spirituality and into the secular-progressive �it�s all about me.� And when you combine that with a mental illness, you have what you had in Virginia yesterday.�

Must Read Book: HOUSE OF WAR: ISLAM�S JIHAD AGAINST THE WORLD, by Gregory Davis

This is a timely publication which provides a penetrating examination of Islam, its religious and political dimensions, and the "clear and present danger" to Christians and Western Civilization which arises from its ideology. It is a relatively slim volume (208 pages), yet is densely packed and rock-ribbed, and makes for a great introduction or handy reference on the threat of Islam.

What is perhaps most amazing is that, although this work was first published several years ago in hardcover, and therefore lacks any specific reference to ISIS (the Islamic State Caliphate) or certain other jihad terrorist groups which formed more recently, it is shockingly contemporary, as jihad ideology itself is essentially unchanged from the days of its founder, Muhammad. As one reads 'House of War', one experiences a steady flash of light bulbs turning on, of "Aha! moments", as the true goals and motivations of Muslim extremists are detailed from the supremacist sacred texts of Islam.

The author, Gregory Davis, is an Orthodox Christian, and a dear friend and encourager to me. The original edition of this book, and his documentary film, Islam: What the West Needs to Know, were two of my early sources which spurred me on to write Facing Islam and launch this blog. I cannot commend Greg's work highly enough.

Order two copies and share one with that interested soul looking to understand Islam. Publisher's description and link to order below.



HOUSE OF WAR: ISLAM�S JIHAD AGAINST THE WORLD
by G.M. Davis, PhD
Paperback, 208 pages; also available in autographed edition.
WND Books, July 2015

Over the past several decades, countless wars and terrorist attacks have been perpetrated by various groups and individuals claiming to act in the name of Islam. Yet Western leaders of virtually every stripe and party have consistently affirmed their belief that, despite the violence done in its name, Islam is a "religion of peace." 

The critical question is, who is right? Do Muslims who wage violent jihad against unbelievers fundamentally misunderstand their own religion? Or are Western leaders taking refuge in a comfortable fiction while shielding themselves from an exceedingly difficult truth? 

With the West engaged in military operations in multiple Islamic countries and with growing Muslim minorities at home, the answer is of critical importance to the future of Western Civilization.

Relying primarily on Islam's own sources, "House of War: Islam's Jihad Against the World," formerly "Religion of Peace? Islam's War Against the World" and now available in paperback, cogently demonstrates that Islam is a violent, expansionary ideology that seeks the subjugation and destruction of other faiths, cultures and systems of government. 

Islam is as much a system of government as it is a religion, and it seeks to extend its own peculiar legal code, Sharia law, over the entire world. Islamic doctrine divides the world into two conflicting realms: the House of Islam, where Islamic law holds sway, and the House of War, the rest of the world on which war must be waged until Islam is triumphant. The "peace" that Islam seeks is a world united by the Islamic faith and Sharia law in which all other faiths and political regimes have been suppressed or eliminated. "Jihad" is the violent struggle against the House of War world to bring it into "submission" (the Arabic meaning of the word "Islam") to Islamic rule.

Westerners have been indoctrinated to believe that the jihadists they see on television are extremists who have twisted their religion to serve a violent purpose. In fact, their actions are right out of orthodox Islam and are grounded in the Koran and the life of Muhammad. 

By delving into the Islamic writings, Davis reveals the fastest-growing religion in the world for what it is: a violent, expansionary ideology that poses an existential threat to Western Civilization � a fact to which Western leaders remain determinedly blind.

Order now from WND Superstore...

Editorial Reviews

�A very important work at a very important time. Anyone interested in understanding the growing violence on the world scene today must read this book. Its message for America and the West is, �Wake up before it's too late.�" � Gary Bauer, president, American Values

�A valuable, well-argued contribution to the public understanding of Islam . . . [House of War] conveys in a short space what the West needs to know about Islam: that its violent aspects are not the result of deviance but of orthodoxy.� � Robert Spencer, director, www.JihadWatch.com

�This book provides a timely reality check. . . . The refusal of the elite class to open its eyes to reality and protect Western nations from the threat is the biggest betrayal in history.� � Serge Trifkovic, author of "The Sword of the Prophet" and "Defeating Jihad"

About the Author

G.M. Davis is an author and filmmaker. He graduated from the University of Rochester in 1997 with a B.A. in political science, and from Stanford in 2003 with a Ph.D. in the same area of study. In 2005, he produced and directed the feature documentary "Islam: What the West Needs to Know."

WND Exclusive Autographed Edition

Also available in a special "Autographed Edition." Signed books are precious treasures. An autographed book from your favorite author can turn an item of personal value into a cherished keepsake and a wonderful addition to any book collection.

Order now from WND Superstore...

Iraqi priest: �There�s no such thing as moderate Islam�ISIS represents Islam one hundred percent�

�Wake up! The cancer is at your door. They will destroy you. We, the Christians of the Middle East are the only group that has seen the face of evil: Islam... 

�Please, if there�s anyone who still thinks ISIS doesn�t represent Islam, know that they are wrong. ISIS represents Islam one hundred percent.�

� Fr. Douglas al-Bazi, Iraqi Catholic Priest and Confessor for Christ,

captured and tortured by Muslim jihadists in 2006.

Let us all try to do something � whatever we can � in the face of the tsunami of evil wiping away our Christian brothers and sisters in the Middle East, Egypt and North Africa, Pakistan, Indonesia, throughout the entire Islamic world. Let us pray for them, even as we start to heed the warnings and cries of the new confessors and martyrs like Fr Douglas al-Bazi, who daily follow Christ to their Golgotha, bearing their unimaginable cross!

Speaking in 1980, Blessed Hieromonk Seraphim (Rose) of Platina had this to say about Golgotha:

It is a law of the spiritual life that where there is Golgotha�if it is genuine suffering for Christ�there will be resurrection. This resurrection first of all occurs in human hearts, and we do not need to be too concerned what outward form it might take by God�s will... 

Our inward, spiritual resurrection is what we should be striving for, and the events in Russia give us hope that there will yet be a resurrection of true, suffering Christianity, not only in Russia, but wherever hearts have not become entirely frozen. But we must be ready for the suffering that must precede this...

Are we in the West ready for this? Golgotha does not mean the incidental sufferings we all go through in this life. It is something immense and deep, which cannot be relieved by taking an aspirin or going to a movie. It is what Russia has gone through and is now trying to communicate to us. Let us not be deaf to this message. By the prayers of all the New Martyrs, may God give us the strength to endure the trials coming upon us and to find in them the resurrection of our souls.

� Fr. Seraphim Rose, The Orthodox Revival in Russia as an Inspiration for American Orthodoxy, The Orthodox Word #138, 1988, p. 51. (From a talk given in 1980.)

  

Obviously, what Fr Seraphim was speaking of regarding the New Martyrs of Russia in the 20th century under Communism is equally true about the New Martyrs of the 21st century under Islam. Let us heed his prophetic voice and rouse ourselves to zeal and perseverance in following our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ!

��There�s No Such Thing as Moderate Islam�: An Iraqi Priest Describes the Christian Genocide,� by Matteo Matzuzzi, Il Foglio, August 26, 2015 (translated by Francesca Romana, Rorate Caeli), courtesy of Jihad Watch:

Rome. �Please, if there�s anyone who still thinks ISIS doesn�t represent Islam, know that they are wrong. ISIS represents Islam one hundred percent.� Father Douglas al Bazi, an Iraqi Catholic parish priest in Erbil, raised his voice during an intervention at the Meeting in Rimini, with a choice of words � in a provocative way and in hard tones � that few had ventured use so far.

He carries on his own body the scars of the torture he underwent nine years ago, when a band of Jihadists kidnapped him for nine days, keeping him in chains and blindfolds along with a broken nose from being kneed: �For the first four days they didn�t even give me anything to drink. They would walk past me saying �Father, do you want some water?� All day long they would listen to the reading of the Koran to let the neighbours hear what good believers they were.��

Father Douglas Al Bazi is in charge of two refugee shelters for Christians who survived the advance of the black horde � not far from Ankawa. After the marking of houses with the �n� of the Nazarene plus the Christians displaced on the Nineveh plain, a year ago, �from morning to night we receive thousands of refugees� and the exodus continues. �I�m proud to be an Iraqi, I love my country. But my country is not proud that I�m part of it. What is happening to my people is nothing other than genocide. I beg you: do not call it a conflict. It�s genocide�, said the priest, who doesn�t want to hear anything about �moderate Islam�: 

�When Islam lives amidst you, the situation might appear acceptable. But when one lives amidst Muslims, everything becomes impossible. I�m not here to instigate you to hate Islam. I was born amid Muslims and I have more friends among them than I have with Christians. But people change and if we go to my country, no-one will be able to distinguish the light from the darkness. There are those who say: 'but I have lots of Muslim friends who are very nice'. Yes, certainly! They are nice over here! Over there the situation is very different!�

A situation in which regard the vice-President of the French Conference for Imams also had some tough words to say. Hocine Drouiche, also the Imam of Nimes, intervened last July at the European Parliament: �In the world, Christians are being persecuted, hunted down, deprived of work, imprisoned, tortured and murdered. All means are being used to force them to deny their faith, including the ritual of collective rape, considered in some states a form of penal sanction. Owning a Bible has become a crime, religious worship is prohibited and there has been a return to the times of Masses in the caves and the first martyrs�. And the fault, Drouiche had added in a discourse which had not been highlighted very much by the European media�, is contemporary Islam�, which is much closer �to sectarianism rather than a universal, open religion�.

�I believe in the end they will destroy us�

Father al Bazi�s account is of one who runs the risk of being murdered on the street every day: We never know if coming out of the church we�ll be able to go into it again alive. In Baghdad they had the church explode right in front of me. They shot me on the legs with a AK-47, a type of Kalashnikov, and probably sooner or later they�ll kill me�. Yet his faith is solid: �When they put me in chains, during my kidnapping, they tightened a big padlock on my wrists. On the chain there were ten extra rings, which I used to recite the Rosary. I have never prayed it so earnestly as I did in that situation�. �I � added Father Douglas � don�t implore your help. I�m not frightened just as my people aren�t frightened either. I believe they�ll destroy us in the end. But I also believe that we will have the last word. Jesus told us that we need to carry our own crosses, and that is what we in the Middle East are doing. Yet the most important thing is not the carrying of the cross, but following it. And following it means accepting, challenging and committing oneself right to the very end�.

�We need to have patience and carry the cross each day, but we also must react�, said Father Ibrahim Alsabagh, parish priest in Aleppo, echoing him, and reported how the city is now �divided in tens of parts, each one of them in the hands of a different group of Jihadists. Our Church of St. Francis is sixty metres from the firing line. They have already hit many churches, we don�t know when it will be our turn�. Here is why Father Douglas, at the end of his intervention, launched a warning to the feeble West:

�Wake up! The cancer is at your door. They will destroy you. We, the Christians of the Middle East are the only group that has seen the face of evil: Islam��.