No jornal The Catholic Herald, Adam DeVille chamou atenção para descrição feita pelo Estado Islâmico do Papa Francisco, na revista do grupo terrorista chamada Dabiq.
Nela, o Estado Islâmico, mostra respeito por aqueles que têm entendimento do Islâ e do incentivo a violência determinada por Maomé e pelo Alcorão, como o Papa Bento XVI e William Kilpatrick. E mostra desprezo total pelas ações do Papa Francisco que tenta se aproximar dos líderes islâmicos. E ainda detona a aproximação que o Papa Francisco faz para com os gays.
No meu livro sobre Guerra Justa, eu falei bastante sobre como o discurso de Regensburg do Papa Bento XVI de 2006 alimentou o ódio dos muçulmanos e resultou até em um assassinato de um padre. Mas agora o Estado Islâmico mostra até respeito por Bento XVI, diz que ele acertou ao dizer que democracia não tem lugar no Islã e menciona o discurso de Regensburg, dizendo que o Islã continuará a atacar os cristãos (se quiserem comprar meu livro, cliquem aqui).
Ainda sobre o Bento XVI, o Estado Islâmico chama de escandalosa a renúncia dele.
Bom, eu concordo com eles e com o Bento XVI. A democracia não tem relação com o Islã, a jihad é parte central do Islã e realmente a renúncia do Papa Bento XVI foi escandalosa.
E é por isso que não se vê os muçulmanos em praças públicas aos montes criticando o terrorismo. O profeta deles e o livro sagrado deles apoia.
Em relação ao Papa Francisco, o Estado Islâmico mostra desprezo total pelas ações e palavras do Papa Francisco e condena todos os muçulmanos que se juntam ao Papa Francisco. As palavras de apaziguamento do Papa Francisco só servem para incitar mais o terrorismo. E chega até a condenar Francisco pela aproximação que ele faz aos gays.
Se a revista alimenta o ódio ao Papa Francisco, acho que o Papa deveria aumentar a segurança que o cerca.
Interessante como essa revista Dabiq que prega o terrorismo é facilmente encontrada na internet.
Vejam abaixo o trecho que fala sobre Bento XVI e o Papa Francisco. Desprezem quando eles chamam os cristãos de Cruzados ou pagãos, eles não entendem nem de Cruzadas, nem de cristianismo.
DABIQ:
As the war between Islam and the pagan Church raged, and for fear of losing their own followers to Islam, some on the Christian side began speaking more directly about their enemy and the real Islamic goal to destroy their manmade systems and perverted “freedoms.” Benedict XVI – the predecessor of Francis – explained, for example, that democracy “contradicts the essence of Islam, which simply does not have the separation of the political and the religious sphere that Christianity has had from the beginning” (Truth and Tolerance). Despite being a liar, he certainly spoke the truth on this issue – democracy undoubtedly contradicts the essence of Islam – showing thereby that the apostates from Islam, like many of the “imams” in the West and teachers at so-called “Islamic” universities, have less of an understanding of Islam than Benedict the Disbeliever has.
Some time later, Benedict would again attempt to disparage Islam by mocking the Prophet Muhammad g, but for something the Prophet shared with most of the prophets of the Torah, the Psalms, and the Gospel, which was the order to spread the religion by the sword.1 Benedict thus belittled the order found in the Old and New Testaments for war against the pagans upon quoting the Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Palaiologos, who had said, “Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.” The religion of Islam will continue to be spread by the sword, even if Benedict despises such. May Allah expose Benedict’s evil and inhumanity and uncover for the world the true reason behind his scandalous resignation from the pagan Papacy. Despite the clarity of past and perished popes regarding their enmity for Islam and its teachings, the current pope, Francis, has struggled against reality to advertise the apostate’s perversion of Islamic teachings as the actual religion of Muslims. So while Benedict and many before him emphasized the enmity between the pagan Christians and monotheistic Muslims, Francis’ work is notably more subtle, steering clear of confrontational words that would offend those who falsely claim Islam, those apostates whom the Crusaders found played the perfect role for their infiltration into Muslim lands. While Benedict XVI met public disapproval for quoting a centuries-old Byzantine emperor, Francis continues to hide behind a deceptive veil of “good will,” covering his actual intentions of pacifying the Muslim nation. This is exemplified in Francis’ statement that “our respect for true followers of Islam should lead us to avoid hateful generalizations, for authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Quran are opposed to every form of violence” (The Joy of the Gospel).
Part of this approach to subdue Muslims through appeasement involves coordinating with the infamous Ash’ari Sufi institute, al-Azhar University, falsely attributed to being representative of Sunni Muslims worldwide. This method is an attempt to justify deviating claims that the Muslim nation has no central authority – as in a caliphate – but is rather “managed” in some way by scholars at universities. Adnane Mokrani, a Tunisian slave to the Catholic Church, commented on Francis’ embracing of Ahmed el-Tayeb – the leader of Cairo’s al-Azhar University – saying, “Islam is not like the Catholic Church. There is no single, central authority. There are institutions, traditional universities of the Islamic world.” Rather, history and texts refute this foolish and obviously ill-intended statement. After the passing of the Prophet Muhammad g, his companions agreed that the most significant matter facing the Muslim nation was appointing its next leader, its next central authority. They did so in a timely manner, and a successive authority continued unbroken for hundreds of years. This successive authority, called the Caliphate, was reestablished in “2014” through the pledging of allegiance to Shaykh Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi .
While previous popes spoke against Islam due to the actual reality they faced, based on mutual enmity between the pagan Christians and monotheistic Muslims, recent popes – and especially Pope Francis – have attempted to paint a picture of heartwarming friendship, seeking to steer Muslim masses away from the obligation of waging jihad against disbelief. Assisting the Crusaders in their aim at placation, el-Tayeb said of his dear friend Francis, “this man is a man of peace, a man who follows the teaching of Christianity, which is a religion of love and peace … a man who respects other religions and shows consideration for their followers” (Vatican Radio).
In this vein, it is not only the Church’s historical view on Islam that Francis altered and misrepresented. Following the Orlando raid by Omar Mateen , Francis said that sodomites “must not be discriminated against, that they must be respected and accompanied pastorally … The problem is a person that has a condition, that has good will and who seeks God. Who are we to judge?” Completely disregarding his own Church’s doctrine of judging homosexuals as immoral for engaging in the perverted act of sodomy, Francis has again sidestepped religion for the sake of public opinion. But to completely change pace with history and alter biblical teachings, once again, the Pope called for Christians to apologize to sodomites – a people named after Sodom and Gomorrah – for the harm caused to them.
It is very possible that Francis’ care for sodomites reflects their history in the Papacy, including previous popes Benedict IX, Julius II, Leo X, and Julius III, as well as countless Catholic priests – the mention of whom has become synonymous with boy rape. If so, as the Pope represents his faithful followers, one could undoubtedly say that this is what Christianity has come to accept. However, it is more apparent that – given the timing of the Pope’s comments on homosexuality, coming soon after the Orlando attack against Crusader sodomites – this is part of the papal mission to garner any support possible, even from the likes of filthy, effeminate sodomites, in the crusade against the Muslim nation in general and the Islamic State in particular. As such, Francis is taking the route traveled by his counterparts from the apostate “scholars” at al-Azhar and in Medina, namely the path of overlooking the clear call to warring against shirk and its people throughout the Quran and Sunnah – and instead altering the religion to fit some devilish “interfaith” fantasy, far removed from the truth, which one is naturally inclined to seek.
This is all part of a plan to demilitarize Islam or, to put it more correctly, to remove the clearly Quran- and Sunnah-based duty of waging jihad against pagans until all the world is ruled by the Shari’ah. It is just as Lawrence Franklin, an Israeli spy who worked for the United States government, advised the Pope, that he should “challenge Islamic leaders to institute specific reforms which would root out theological justification for violent and intolerant behavior.”
This is echoed by William Kilpatrick, former lecturer at Boston College, a Jesuit institute, who has called for an encyclical letter from the Pope to his global parishioners explaining the danger of Islam itself – and not just a “bad” or “radical” version of it. Kilpatrick recognized Francis’ tactic of accommodation that downplays the actual role of the sword in the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad g, but also realized that the more the disbelievers and apostates attempt to remove aspects of Islam from the religion, the more the newly devout will move away from the so-called “mainstream” and towards the Islamic State, which represents the original global call of Allah’s Messenger g. The reason for being more direct about the threat of Islam as a whole – which he claims is the religion of “1.6 billion people” – is summarized in Kilpatrick’s words, “And the reason that we should criticize this rapidly growing and aggressively proselytizing faith is that, if we don’t, it may soon become the faith of 7.6 billion people – that is to say, the entire population of the planet.”
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário