Showing posts with label muslim conquest. Show all posts
Showing posts with label muslim conquest. Show all posts

Saturday, 26 September 2015

'The Cross is ISIS' main enemy; today no trace of a Cross can be seen in Mosul'

0 Comments
This story provides further proof � if any is still needed � of the Islamic religious roots and motivations of the Islamic State. 

The Cross is symbolic of Islam's main enemy: Christianity. Under the terms of the dhimma contract and the Pact of Omar, Christians may not display the Cross openly, either on their buildings or on their person. 

The breaking of crosses is a potent symbol of Islam's global supremacy in the end times. Muhammad prophesied that when Isa (the Muslim Jesus) returns, he will  "fight the people for the cause of Islam. He will break the cross, kill the swine and abolish jizya� and establish the rule of Allah throughout the world (Hadith from Sunan Abu Dawud, Book of Battles, 37:4310).

Demolition of churches and crosses, or converting churches into mosques, is a classic trait of Islam's treatment of Christians wherever it has conquered for fourteen centuries now. In our days, Muslims are even taking to breaking crosses in cemeteries, as seen in the infamous YouTube videos of 2012.

In Syracuse NY we recently saw the "breaking of the crosses" on a huge scale; a venerable Roman Catholic church was converted into a mosque, the crosses removed the spires, and 10,000 crosses in the interior covered over in a hugely symbolic victory for Islam.


"The Cross is ISIS' main enemy; today no trace of a Cross can be seen in Mosul"
Pravoslavie, September 26, 2015:

(Mosul, September 23, 2015) A war is currently being waged against Christianity on the territory of the Biblical city of Nineveh, which is currently under control of the �Islamic State� militants: according to eyewitnesses� evidence, the fanatics are trying their best to eliminate the very memory of the Christian presence in Mosul, reports Ankawa news agency.

In his report, sent to the Ankawa agency�s staff writer Yunus Zanoun, the journalist A.S. from Mosul gave information about ISIS�s intention to wipe out all the Christian symbols from Nineveh, and that they are working hard in order to achieve this ambition. �The cross is ISIS�s main enemy; that is why today no traces of crosses can be seen in Mosul,� A.S. noted.


According to the journalist, the terrorists threw down all the crosses from domes of Mosul churches within two weeks after seizing city; they organized raids on houses of Christian residents of Mosul to destroy all the crosses and icons in the city.

�The dwellings were ravaged with great fury � and the vestiges of this hatred for Christianity can be seen here to this day� As for churches and monasteries, whole teams are involved in the job of dynamiting or partially demolishing their buildings. For example, large-scale work at the St. George�s Monastery in the al-Arabi neighborhood of Mosul was carried out to dismantle the iron crosses from the fencing, while the St. Ephraim�s Monastery in the ash-Shurta neighborhood was deliberately �enlarged��this was done to conceal a huge cross carved on the front of the monastery�s main church,� A.S. related.


At the same time, the Alsumaria.tv portal reported that �Islamic State� militants exploded a number of Christian homes in the Karakush district. There is still no information on the number of victims or the extent of damage to the residents� property.


Sunday, 20 September 2015

Muslim cleric on refugee influx: 'We shall conquer their countries'

0 Comments
"No force is more powerful than the human force of us Muslims... We shall conquer their countries � whether you like it or not, oh Germans, oh Americans, oh French, oh Italians, and all those like you. Take the refugees! We shall soon collect them in the name of the coming Caliphate."

Al-Aqsa Mosque Address: Europe Wants the Muslim Refugees as Labor; We Shall Conquer Their Countries
MEMRI, via Jihad Watch � September 11, 2015:

In an address delivered at the Al-Aqsa Mosque, Sheikh Muhammad Ayed said that the European countries are not motivated by compassion toward the refugees, but by their need for labor. �We shall conquer their countries,� he declared in the address, which was posted on the internet on September 11, 2015.


Sheikh Muhammad Ayed: 

�(The infidels) want us to be tormented. They want us to be humiliated. (The Quran) says: Tthe [sic] Jews and the Christians will never be pleased with you,� but we will never follow their religion. This dark night will be over, and soon, we will trample them underfoot, Allah willing.  
Germany is not a compassionate country that wishes to absorb refugees from Syria and Iraq, and Palestinian refugees in the Levant and elsewhere. Europe has become old and decrepit, and needs human reinforcement. 
No force is more powerful than the human force of us Muslims. Oh Muslims, the Germans say, in their economic reports, that they need 50,000 young workers. Now, they have got 20,000, and they want another 30,000 and more, to work in their factories. They are not motivated by compassion for the Levant, its people, and its refugees. Throughout Europe, all the hearts are infused with hatred toward Muslims. They wish that we were dead. 
But they have lost their fertility, so they look for fertility in their midst. We will give them fertility! We will breed children with them, because we shall conquer their countries � whether you like it or not, oh Germans, oh Americans, oh French, oh Italians, and all those like you. 
Take the refugees! We shall soon collect them in the name of the coming Caliphate. We will say to you: These are our sons. Send them, or we will send our armies to you.�

Saturday, 19 September 2015

The Migrant Crisis: Compassion and Common Sense

0 Comments
"The big picture is that we may be witnessing the beginning of the end of Europe. Historians and journalists have been writing about the coming Islamization of Europe for some time now, but as years pass, the timeline keeps moving up... Now, with the new flood of migrants, another revision may be in order."

by William Kilpatrick, Crisis Magazine � September 17, 2015

(Photo credit: REUTERS/Yannis Behrakis)

Other than the large numbers involved, one of the most striking features of Europe�s migrant crisis is the level of discourse surrounding it. There is an emotionalism about the subject which doesn�t seem quite appropriate to the gravity of the situation. Momentous issues are being decided on the basis of what Peter Hitchens calls �an emotional spasm.�

That�s not to say the plight of refugees shouldn�t call up emotions. The problem comes when news analysts, government officials, and church representatives present the situation as a Dickensian dilemma which leaves one with no choice other than to side with Scrooge or with Tiny Tim.

The clinching argument for many was the image of a drowned Syrian child that went viral. There should, of course, be no doubt about what to do if you spot a drowning boy in the water, or if a hungry person shows up at the door. But the photo tells us absolutely nothing about what sort of immigration policies governments should adopt. It could be argued that if European immigration policy were less liberal, and its welfare allowances less generous, fewer people would risk their lives to get there.

And what about the images we don�t see�images of the European victims of ill-considered immigration programs? Right now I�m looking at a photo of an 87-year-old Dutch man lying in a hospital bed, his face beaten black and blue. He and his 86-year-old wife, both of them Holocaust survivors, were attacked in their apartment by two men of Moroccan descent who threw them on the floor, kicked them repeatedly, and shouted: �Dirty Jews! From now on, your property is ours.� The husband and wife, who had been living independently, are now confined to wheelchairs at a rehabilitation center.

Such photos aren�t featured on the evening news. Nor are the photos of bruised and bloodied rape victims in Sweden�which, thanks to Muslim immigration, is now the rape capital of the Northern Hemisphere. In Rotherham, England, Pakistani gangs raped 1,400 teenaged girls over a fifteen-year period�but you would have to do some searching before you�d find any stories about the plight of the victims. That�s because the story doesn�t fit the standard narrative about peaceful Muslims seeking a better life and good schools for their children.

There are many such people, of course. But, as is now clear, the great majority within the current wave of migrant-refugees are young, single men. The media still favors close-ups of Madonna-like women with children, but the wide-angle lens presents quite a different view.


The big picture is that we may be witnessing the beginning of the end of Europe. Historians and journalists have been writing about the coming Islamization of Europe for some time now, but as years pass, the timeline keeps moving up. The original forecasts predicted the Muslim takeover of the continent would happen sometime within this century; next, the day of reckoning was moved up to the mid-century mark; and then, as the picture became clearer, to circa 2030. Now, with the new flood of migrants, another revision may be in order. Michel Houellenbecq�s new novel, Submission, forecasts the election of a Muslim president in France in 2022.

Though the media tends to treat the immigration crisis as something from out of the blue, it has been building for years. When combined with high birth rates for Muslims and collapsing birth rates for native Europeans, it spells a massive transformation of European culture. Some would say that the transformation is intentional. In their 2009 book, Modern Day Trojan Horse: The Islamic Doctrine of Immigration, Sam Solomon and Elias Al Maqdisi point out that, historically, Muslims have used migration as a tool of conquest. In a 1974 speech at the United Nations, former Algerian president Houari Boumedienne predicted:

One day, millions of men will leave the Southern Hemisphere to go to the Northern Hemisphere.� And they will not go there as friends. Because they will go there to conquer it.

In light of the threat to European civilization, it is strange that so many commentators see the crisis mainly as an opportunity for welcoming the Other, overcoming irrational fears, and proving one�s compassion. Unfortunately, Catholic leaders seem to have joined this one-sided chorus of voices. Take, for example, comments by Fr. Matthew Gardzinski, who is in charge of the migrants� section for the Pontifical Council for the Pastoral Care of Migrants and Itinerant Peoples. In an interview with Catholic News Agency, Fr. Gardzinski expresses a rather rosy view of migrants. �While one country loses the persons who migrate,� he notes, �the receiving country gains their ideas and creativity.� He seems, however, to have a less sanguine view of Europeans. According to the article, he is concerned about �xenophobic, restrictive, or fearful attitudes.� What stands behind the fear? �Is it really something objective,� he asks, �or is it something more subjective, because I feel threatened, or challenged?�

�Is it really something objective?� Fr. Gardzinski might try asking the rape victims in Rotherham or Sweden. His concern, however, is not with existential realities, but with psychological states. He sees Europe�s migration crisis as being more in the nature of an identity crisis��the challenge to build your own identity� along multicultural lines. Presumably, that�s to be done by overcoming one�s irrational fears (�Islamophobia� in the lingo of psychology). The point he misses is, that this is not a crisis of identity for Europe, it�s a crisis of survival�a crisis that could very well result in the end of Christianity on the continent.

Many Catholic leaders have cast the refugee situation as a case of compassion versus intolerance. It�s much more complicated than that. But just as it�s difficult to ignore the image of the drowned boy, it�s difficult to argue with reminders that the Holy Family were refugees in Egypt, that the Jews were admonished to love the foreigner �because you were foreigners in the land of Egypt,� and that Christ told his disciples that in welcoming a stranger they were welcoming him.

But what if there are 44 million strangers in the land? That�s the estimated number of Muslims living in Europe (including Russia) as of 2010. Some of them are well-integrated into European society, but many others are not. They live in �no-go� zones; their women wear burqas; they speak Arabic, or Farsi, or Turkish; and their first allegiance is not to Germany or France, but to the ummah (the global Muslim community). Though they may have lived in Europe for years, they are still, in effect, strangers. Many seem unacquainted with Western standards of right and wrong�like the Muslim man in the UK who, after raping a thirteen-year-old girl, was spared a prison sentence when he explained to the judge that he didn�t know it was illegal.

Peter Hitchens recently observed that many of Europe�s �most influential people are set on committing a sentimental national suicide.� European and American elites seem to think that the only question at issue in the current crisis is �Will Europeans be compassionate?� But other crucial questions need to be asked, such as �Will Europe survive as Europe?�

Another question to ask is this: �Will Christianity in Europe survive the combination of Muslim immigration and European na�vet�?� It�s true that the Church has a duty to remind Christians of their obligation to help the needy, but is there a Christian duty to collaborate in the destruction of Christianity? To ask whether European Christianity can survive might seem to be an overly alarmist question. Yet it was a question that was ever present to Europeans in past centuries�particularly those who lived on the southern and eastern borders.

It�s no coincidence that Eastern Europeans are more resistant to Islamic immigration than those living in the West. Poles, Slovaks, and Hungarians have a long history of struggle with Muslim invaders. It�s estimated, for example, that Muslims enslaved a million persons from the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth between the fifteenth and eighteenth centuries.

If that seems like ancient history, consider that it was only twenty-five years ago that the East Europeans broke free of Communist rule. Having recently been enslaved by one totalitarian ideology, they are not anxious to repeat the experience with another oppressive system. As the Poles and Hungarians understand, caliphs and commissars can be equally unpleasant. Their recent subjugation by Communist overlords has no doubt refreshed their memories of earlier invaders.

One wonders what it will take to remind the Catholic Church of its own centuries-long struggle with Islam. The modern Church was quick to understand the totalitarian nature of communism. Catholic clergy, academics, and journalists were, on the whole, much more astute about the Communist menace than their secular counterparts. Yet they have been painfully slow in awakening to the dangers inherent in Islam. Let�s hope that will soon change.
_______

William Kilpatrick taught for many years at Boston College. He is the author of several books about cultural and religious issues, including Psychological Seduction; Why Johnny Can�t Tell Right From Wrong; and Christianity, Islam and Atheism: The Struggle for the Soul of the West. His articles have appeared in numerous publications, including Catholic World Report, National Catholic Register, Aleteia, Saint Austin Review, Investor�s Business Daily, and First Things. His work is supported in part by the Shillman Foundation. For more on his work and writings, visit his website, turningpointproject.com






Friday, 18 September 2015

Western European vs. Eastern European Responses to Mass, Unvetted, Muslim Immigration

0 Comments
"Eastern Europeans are responding very differently to the mass migration of Muslims into Europe than are Western Europeans... Poles are understanding their stance against mass, unvetted immigration as comparable to their stand against the Nazis and past totalitarian and genocidal invaders..."

Here is a very thoughtful article, with a long view of history, which considers the Eastern European Christian response to the Migrant Crisis and Islam.


Western European vs. Eastern European Responses to Mass, Unvetted, Muslim Immigration
By Danusha V. Goska
Frontpage Magazine via AINA � September 15, 2015

The sign reads "Kosciol Walczacy, Nie Kapitulujacy."
That means: "The Fighting Church, not the Surrendering Church."

Eastern Europeans are responding very differently to the mass migration of Muslims into Europe than are Western Europeans. Westerners who encourage mass, unvetted Muslim immigration insist that they are compassionate, tolerant, and ethical. They insist that Eastern Europeans and anyone else who resists immigration are bigots, xenophobes, without compassion and unethical, if not outright Neo-Nazis. Westerners are stereotyping Eastern Europeans as bigoted thugs whose opinions must be demonized, whose choices must be overruled, whose borders must be penetrated and whose demographics must be altered through coercion.

In this article I focus on three signs at the Warsaw anti-immigration rally of Saturday, September 12, 2015. Full understanding of these protest signs illuminates how many Poles and other Eastern Europeans view the current immigration. These protest signs will help to illuminate why many people, not just Eastern Europeans, oppose this immigration for and against mass Muslim immigration. The press estimates several thousand people took part in an anti-immigration demonstration in Warsaw. An estimated one thousand people marched in favor of immigration.

In August, 2015, Slovakia announced that it would accept only Christian, not Muslim, migrants. Hungary's prime minister, Viktor Orban, has been outspoken in his resistance to mass Muslim immigration. "Those arriving have been raised in another religion, and represent a radically different culture. Most of them are not Christians, but Muslims ... This is an important question, because Europe and European identity is rooted in Christianity," Orban wrote in a commentary for Allgemeine Zeitung.


Western elites have an easy explanation for Eastern European resistance to mass Muslim immigration. Eastern Europeans have long been depicted as primitive, thuggish Neanderthals. Think of Stanley Kowalski in A Streetcar Named Desire or the butt of any given Polak joke.

On September 12, 2015, The New York Times published an article by Rick Lyman entitled, "Eastern Bloc's Resistance to Refugees Highlights Europe's Cultural and Political Divisions."

Lyman's use of the anachronistic term "Eastern Bloc" consigns Eastern Europeans to membership in the long dead Warsaw Pact. The article raised the alarm against allegedly racist and intransigent Eastern Europeans, ghosts of the bad old days of the Cold War, who threaten the bright, new European order with their atavistic bigotry.

The Times acknowledged that mass Muslim immigration to Europe is a problem. The problem is not, however, that a staggering number of defiant illegal migrants committed to a very different culture, acknowledged by security experts to include an unknown number of potential terrorists, had overwhelmed Europe's ability to respond. No. the problem was Eastern European backwardness.

"The main impediment" to a successful response to mass Muslim migration is Eastern European's "rising xenophobia." "Powerful far right movements, nationalism, and racial and religious prejudice" are proof of "stubborn cultural and political divides that persist between East and West." "Sluggish," "corrupt" Eastern Europe betrays its "pledge of support" to "European values" like "cultural diversity, protection of minorities, and a rejection of xenophobia," according to The New York Times. Eastern Europeans are "wary of accepting racial and religious diversity." In contrast to tolerant and diverse Western Europeans, Eastern Europeans' "tradition of accepting culturally different refugees is very weak." Also, Eastern Europeans are whiners who see themselves as victims. They resent others who may have "suffered more than" they have.

Lyman's very brief, 1,500 word article struck a nerve. By Sunday evening it inspired 1,164 reader comments.

Comments that The New York Times selected as worthy of attention tended to agree with the Times' assessment: backward, bigoted, bad, old Eastern European Neanderthals were the problem. One of The New York Times highlighted reader comments condemned Poland as a land of "endemic bigotry and intolerance."

A very different story was to be found among the comments that readers themselves had voted for. In that section, one found voices contesting the Times' entire narrative.

One reader, Alexandra Ares, wrote,

"Former CIA Joshua Katz said today that the US should not agree to a quota for security reasons; that there must be a very thorough process of vetting; this takes time since many have burned their documents and bought fake passports; that we shouldn't bump up quotas because of political pressure. Even so Katz said we should expect that some of the Syrians we admit into the US might become terrorists in the long run. If our own CIA experts oppose quotas, why pressure less prepared Eastern Europe to take risks and act against their national interests and capacity of absorption? ... Unlike Western Europe, the Eastern bloc suffered hundreds of years of Muslim occupation and persecution of Christians and Jews. In Romania our Independence Day is when we kicked out the Ottoman Empire."

While writing the book, Bieganski, the Brute Polak Stereotype, I walked a tightrope. My thesis was that the West tends to stereotype Poles and other Eastern Europeans as racist thugs. I had to make this point while acknowledging that there are indeed some real racist thugs in Eastern Europe, as there are anywhere else.

The group hosting the several-thousand-strong, anti-immigration demonstration in Warsaw was the Oboz Narodowo Radykalny or National Radical Camp. The ONR is indeed a far-right organization. The contemporary ONR claims its descent from the pre-war ONR, founded in 1934 and banned by the Polish government. The original ONR supported anti-Jewish boycotts. One of the ONR's founders, Jan Mosdorf, was imprisoned by Nazis in Auschwitz and was murdered for helping Jews. That the leader of an overtly anti-Semitic group would be murdered by Nazis for helping Jews indicates how difficult it can be for outsiders fully to understand Polish history and politics.

I am not a supporter of the ONR. I am a supporter of the expansive Poland that embraces and celebrates Jews and other minorities. I live in the US and I cannot assess to what extent the participants in recent demonstrations were ONR supporters or merely opponents of mass immigration who had no other outlet for their concerns. I have watched raw footage of the demonstrations on YouTube posted by the ONR, who, one would expect, would want to boost their own presence. The vast majority of protestors who carry any sign are carrying Polish flags, not racist signs or the distinctive green flag of the ONR that features an upraised arm wielding a sword. I can report that the content on three of the signs tells me much about the hearts and minds of the Poles who oppose immigration. These signs are not racist. They must be understood.

First, it must be pointed out that those Westerners who support mass, unvetted Muslim immigration to Europe are not models of compassion, ethics, or tolerance. They have utterly cynical and selfish reasons for their support of this immigration.

One reason nations want desperate immigrants: workers to support extensive government welfare programs. On September 8, 2015, the Washington Post's Rick Noack attempted to explain why some European countries accepted, and others rejected, mass Muslim migration. In an article entitled "This map helps explain why some European countries reject refugees, and others love them," Noack employed a demographic map depicting birth rates. Some European nations are aging and losing population; some nations are young and their populations are increasing. The European nations whose populations are aging and shrinking tend to offer generous cradle-to-grave welfare benefits. Someone needs to work and pay into this system for the governments to continue to provide benefits. These European nations want desperate immigrants. Some European nations have steady birthrates, and, by comparison, don't provide such generous state-mandated welfare. These European nations don't want unvetted immigration.

Another reason some nations want immigrants: to improve their reputations. Those who embrace the current immigration believe that doing so broadcasts and certifies their status as secular saints. In the Guardian, Jonathan Freedland writes, "Mama Merkel has consigned the ugly German to history ... If history can offer a more dramatic turnaround in the perception, and perhaps reality, of a nation, then it's hard to think of it. Seventy years ago Germany was a byword for tyranny and murderous violence: the land of racial supremacism and unending cruelty ... Hitler, the Nazis and the apparatus of the Holocaust remain lodged in the global folk memory ... But now it will be remembered too as the place where in 2015 uniformed police greeted a trainload of exhausted Syrian children with soft toys."

There is a third reason that many Europeans interpret a Muslim immigration as to their benefit. Europe had been a predominantly Christian continent. Unvetted Muslim immigration will inevitably vitiate Europe's Christian character. Many ideological opponents of Christianity, from New Atheists to Marxist, see that as a good thing. See David Horowitz's 2006 book, Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left.

Just as it is not true that Western Europeans who embrace unvetted immigration are saints, it is also not true that Eastern Europeans are primitive racist thugs and traitors to "European" ideals. A few signs at Saturday's rallies speak volumes.

One sign reads "Kosciol Walczacy, Nie Kapitulujacy." That means: "The Fighting Church, not the Surrendering Church." This sign is deeply resonant to me as a Catholic and as a Polish-American. My deep understanding of this sign, and my awareness that no Americans or Western Europeans I know would understand this sign without my explaining it to them, reveals a great gulf between how many in the West understand Christianity, and how many Eastern Europeans do.

People in the West have adopted secular, Christophobic interpretations of Christianity. Christians in the West hang their heads in shame and say, "Oh, I am so ashamed to be Christian. The Crusades ... the Inquisition ... so bad."

Western Europeans may look at Muslim immigrants and say, "These are the poor, sad victims we colonized. Let's prove how multicultural and compassionate we are by letting them in."

None of these approaches to Christian faith resonate for me as an American of Polish and Slovak descent.

The Inquisition? Poland's significant role during the Inquisition was as a tolerant "state without stakes" who invited in Jews, heretics, and indeed Muslims who had been exiled from other lands.

The Crusades? We were not major players in the Crusades. In fact, there was a Crusade against us, the Wendish or Slavic Crusade. I recently mentioned to a Catholic Facebook friend that images of crusading knights swinging their swords above their heads did not really excite or inspire me. I associate such images with the Teutonic Knights, whom the Poles had to fight for their own survival. I am mindful that Sergei Eisenstein exploited long Slavic memories of being attacked by the Teutonic Knights in his anti-Nazi propaganda film, Alexander Nevsky. Germans have long memories, too, and when they invaded Poland, they dismantled Krakow's Grunwald memorial to our defeat of the Teutonic Knights.

Colonization? We Eastern Europeans were significantly the colonized, not the colonizers.

A shamefaced, apologetic, hesitant Christianity? This has not been my experience of Christianity during my many visits to Eastern Europe from the 1970s to the 2000s. Rather, I have experienced something deeply beautiful and unforgettably inspirational to me: the fighting church, a church that stands shoulder to shoulder with people defending their home.

On my first visit to my mother's natal village in Czechoslovakia in the 1970s, I met a Catholic priest who had been tortured by the Communists. In Poland, priests were tortured and murdered by the Nazis. Twenty percent of Polish priests were killed. Polish convents played a key role in saving Jewish children. Polish priests risked and often lost their lives to save Jews. Poles remember Stefan Wyszynski, a cardinal, who had been imprisoned by Communists. Solidarity priest Jerzy Popieluszko was tortured and murdered by the Communists in 1984. I lived in Poland 1988-89 and participated in anti-Communist protests. I witnessed unarmed Catholic priests, with nothing but their courageous presence, protect demonstrators from aggressive riot police.

Poles and other Eastern Europeans have needed a "fighting church" because they have been embattled for so very long. Poles have long seen themselves as the Christ of Nations. We suffer and others benefit. Not so long ago, others acknowledged Eastern Europe's role in bearing the brunt of unending invasions from the east.

The fourteenth edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica reads: "It is to the Slav colonization of the Russian plains and to the long Slav struggle with nomadic invasions from Asia that Western Europe owes her comparative freedom to develop a certain cultural unity. The role of buffer state was not voluntary, but the debt is nonetheless great, and the heroic struggle of the Slav races against repeated invasions, in hard climactic conditions, should command the respect and admiration of the world."
Eastern European nations, by necessity, had to take on invaders from the East. While we were fighting, dying, and facing enslavement, Western Europe benefitted from the bulwark we provided.

Poland was repeatedly attacked from the east, often by Muslims, including Turks and Tatars. Poles fought significantly in historic battles against Muslims, including the Battle of Varna, the Battle of Khotyn and the Battle of Vienna. These battles took place in Bulgaria, Ukraine, and Austria. Poles did not travel to Muslim lands to attack Muslims. Muslims traveled into Eastern European for their jihad. Malcolm X famously said of the African American experience, "We didn't land on Plymouth Rock. The rock landed on us." Eastern Europeans might say, "We didn't land on the Ummah -- the worldwide Muslim population. The Ummah landed on us."

Poles were among many Slavic people enslaved by Muslims. Between the fifteenth and eighteenth centuries, Muslims from the Crimea enslaved perhaps one million persons from the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth -- as many as 20,000 human beings per year. The last major Muslim slave raid on these Slavic people occurred in 1769. Poles enslaved by Muslims did hard labor, or served as sex slaves.

1769 is a long time ago, you say. Poles should get over it. My friend John Guzlowski is the son of two slaves. His parents were enslaved by Nazis, not Muslims, but iconography on protest signs makes clear that Poles see resistance to one totalitarian invader as analogous to resistance to another. ISIS brags of taking Christians as slaves, while the world waits in vain for significant Muslim protest of ISIS atrocities.

Poles are not the only Eastern Europeans whose cultures enshrine unpleasant encounters with Muslims. Serbs once had to give their seven-year-old sons to Muslims for forced conversion -- the practice of devsirme. The Slovak poem Turcin Ponican by Samo Chalupka records Turks invading Slovakia. Perhaps my favorite cultural legacy of the constant wars between jihadis and Slavs is the 1880 Ilya Repin painting, "Reply of the Zaporozhian Cossacks to Sultan Mehmed IV of the Ottoman Empire." More famous, of course, is Vlad the Impaler, a Romanian leader dedicated to protecting Christians against Muslims, who gave his name to Bram Stoker's Dracula.

There is more to the sign reading "Fighting Church." During the Nazi occupation, the Polish Resistance called themselves "Polska Walczaca" or "Fighting Poland." Please note the similarity of vocabulary and construction between the anti-Nazi resistance "Polska Walczaca" and the anti-immigration sign "Kosciol walczaca." Poles are understanding their stance against mass, unvetted immigration as comparable to their stand against the Nazis and past totalitarian and genocidal invaders.

That understanding is echoed in the visual imagery of the flags many protestors carried: flags with an anchor formed by the letters P and W. This anchor was a symbol of the World War Two resistance.

These Poles, agree or disagree, see their church as a church that resists Western orders to capitulate -- to surrender -- to Islam. And they are placing their church in the tradition of those who fought the Nazis.

Another image draws in Poland's long history of resistance: the image of Jan Sobieski and the words "Przyszlismy, ujrzelismy, a bog zwyciezyl." This quote is attributed to Jan Sobieski. It is his Christian rewrite of Julius Cesar's famous quote, "Vini, vidi, vici." Cesar said, "I came; I saw; I conquered." Sobieski, a true Pole, was mindful of classical history. He was also a devout Christian. He said, "We came; we saw; God conquered," of his victory against jihadis at Vienna in 1683.

Poles have lived through much more history than many luckier peoples. As such, they are often difficult. They are not, though, especially intolerant, unethical, or lacking in compassion. They merely see the obvious problems with the current mass, unvetted migration. Few realize that Poland has hosted its own Muslim population for hundreds of years without major incident. The mainstream media outlets that are depicting Poles and other Eastern Europeans as intolerant Neanderthals are doing a grave disservice. The readers' favorite comments at the New York Times site suggests that they are fooling fewer and fewer people.


Monday, 14 September 2015

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

0 Comments
"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...

Tuesday, 8 September 2015

Former Archbishop of Canterbury warns against 'Muslim mass immigration to Europe'

0 Comments
"The frustration for those of us who have been calling for compassion for Syrian victims for many months is that the Christian community is yet again left at the bottom of the heap... Britain should make Syrian Christians a priority... We are a Christian nation with an established Church so Syrian Christians will find no challenge to integration...

"There has been too much Muslim mass immigration to Europe. Isn't it high-time instead for the oil-rich Gulf States to open their doors to the many Muslims who are fleeing conflict? Surely if they are concerned for fellow Muslims who prefer to live in Muslim-majority countries, then they have a moral responsibility to intervene...

"It is, of course, quite right that Europe has woken to the sheer scale of human suffering in Syria. It is equally right that our compassionate instincts will drive us to fund-raise and campaign for the innocent victims of the conflict. But that compassion must be realistic and clear-headed." 

� Lord George Carey, Former Archbishop of Canterbury


It is reassuring to hear a Christian leader speak so forthrightly abut the dangers of Muslim Mass Immigration, and the need for the Christian West to care for the Christian victims.


Britain Has a Duty to Rescue Syria's Christians 
by George Carey, the Telegraph via AINA, September 6, 2015:

The dramatic and disturbing developments of the past few days have introduced a new, heart-rending dimension to this refugee crisis. Undoubtedly, the most disturbing aspect is just how impotent Europe is proving itself to be. If the EU is not resilient in the face of this disaster, it could be torn apart.

I can't help thinking of Corporal Jones's catchphrase -- "Don't panic!" But even the Germans are panicking as Angela Merkel, in a desperate attempt to cajole her fellow European leaders into accepting binding quotas, has declared open season for up to 800,000 Syrians to come to Germany.

Isn't it a bit rich for the Germans to criticise other nations, including Britain, for failing to accept refugees? For years, our warm-hearted land has consistently accepted more asylum-seekers than Germany.

Besides, it would be a mistake to give way to bullying calls to immediately open our doors to tens of thousands of refugees. We are a small island and recent immigration figures are highly disturbing. Last year, a net figure of 330,000 people settled among us -- more than the population of Sunderland. Imagine this continuing, year after year.

Alas, the signal that Germany is opening its doors to this influx will make Europe into an even more attractive magnet for those who are genuine refugees -- but also to floods of economic migrants, most of whom are young men travelling alone. We don't even know how many of these have been combatants in the civil war.

If some of what I say sounds harsh or, heaven forbid, a touch unchristian, let me make it clear that I welcome David Cameron's announcement to allow thousands more to enter Britain through refugee camps in Syria's neighbouring countries. In the long term, this strategy will cut out the traffickers and reduce the risk of the sea and land journeys.

But the frustration for those of us who have been calling for compassion for Syrian victims for many months is that the Christian community is yet again left at the bottom of the heap.


According to the Barnabas Fund, a charity which recently resettled some 50 Syrian Christian families in Poland, Mr Cameron's policy inadvertently discriminates against the very Christian communities most victimised by the inhuman butchers of the so-called Islamic State. Christians are not to be found in the UN camps, because they have been attacked and targeted by Islamists and driven from them. They are seeking refuge in private homes, church buildings and with neighbours and family.

They are the most vulnerable and repeatedly targeted victims of this conflict. Indeed, a hundred years after the Armenian and Assyrian genocide, in which over a million Christians are estimated to have been killed by Ottoman Muslims, the same is happening today in the form of an ethnic cleansing of Christians in the region. Christians have been crucified, beheaded, raped, and subjected to forced conversion. The so-called Islamic State and other radical groups are openly glorifying the slaughter of Christians.

Britain should make Syrian Christians a priority because they are a particularly vulnerable group. Furthermore, we are a Christian nation with an established Church so Syrian Christians will find no challenge to integration. The churches are already well-prepared and eager to offer support and accommodation to those escaping the conflict.

Some will not like me saying this, but in recent years, there has been too much Muslim mass immigration to Europe. This has resulted in ghettos of Muslim communities living parallel lives to mainstream society, following their own customs and even their own laws. Isn't it high-time instead for the oil-rich Gulf States to open their doors to the many Muslims who are fleeing conflict? Surely if they are concerned for fellow Muslims who prefer to live in Muslim-majority countries, then they have a moral responsibility to intervene.

It is, of course, quite right that Europe has woken to the sheer scale of human suffering in Syria. It is equally right that our compassionate instincts will drive us to fund-raise and campaign for the innocent victims of the conflict. But that compassion must be realistic and clear-headed.

As a European Union, we should be prepared to close the doors to large numbers of economic migrants and return them to their countries. A proper process of registration must be conducted, ideally in refugee camps on the borders of Europe. And if the numbers get too large, we should be prepared to admit refugees on a provisional and temporary basis, reviewing their status periodically until they can return home.

It's not enough to send aid to refugee camps in the Middle East. There must be renewed military and diplomatic efforts to crush the twin menaces of Islamic State and al-Qaeda once and for all. Make no mistake: this may mean air strikes and other British military assistance to create secure and safe enclaves in Syria.


Lord Carey is a former archbishop of Canterbury.


Sunday, 6 September 2015

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

0 Comments
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:

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:

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:

_______


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.


 
back to top