Posted on 09/11/2015 6:05:21 PM PDT by markomalley
On this anniversary of 9/11 I call to mind a post about the “Islamic Cultural Center” to be build near the site of the World Trade Center, but which was really a rabat,
The first rabat appeared at the time of the Prophet.
The Prophet imposed his rule on parts of Arabia through a series of ghazvas, or razzias (the origin of the English word “raid”). The ghazva was designed to terrorize the infidels, convince them that their civilization was doomed and force them to submit to Islamic rule. Those who participated in the ghazva were known as the ghazis, or raiders.
After each ghazva, the Prophet ordered the creation of a rabat — or a point of contact at the heart of the infidel territory raided. The rabat consisted of an area for prayer, a section for the raiders to eat and rest and facilities to train and prepare for future razzias. Later Muslim rulers used the tactic of ghazva to conquer territory in the Persian and Byzantine empires. After each raid, they built a rabat to prepare for the next razzia.
[NB:] It is no coincidence that Islamists routinely use the term ghazva to describe the 9/11 attacks against New York and Washington. The terrorists who carried out the attack are referred to as ghazis or shahids (martyrs).
I don’t think that we are really taking stock of what is going on in the West.
“Immigrants” are pouring into Europe across the Mediterranean via Lampedusa. “Immigrants” are pouring into Europe through Turkey toward Germany.
There is an outstanding piece at 1 Peter 5 by Andrew Biezad
Samples:
The Final Hijra: A Warning on the Refugee Crisis
[…]The world is reaping what has been sown. [That is, what the West has wrought in the Middle East.] Hundreds of thousands of people have been displaced and are on the move, a massive sea of humanity flowing into Western Europe. They are also threatening to overrun the borders into Eastern European nations. The American and Western European governments are saying this is a “refugee crisis,” and the news media, like good propagandists, run images of a few poor women and children, while neglecting to show us the rest of the situation. Not displayed is the mass of overwhelmingly young, healthy, well-dressed males, carrying the latest smart phones. Far from the starving widows and orphans one might imagine upon hearing the word, “refugee,” these men have come to riot, rampage, and destroy.
[NB] Lest anyone allow themselves to be deceived, this is not a normal migration – it is a hijra.
“Hijra” does mean “migration “ in Arabic. But it carries a deeper connotation. In Islamic history, the hijra was the event in 622 AD, when Muhammad and his small cult fled the city of Mecca to Yathrib, both of which are in what is today Saudi Arabia, and the latter which Muhammad renamed “Medina,” which means “the city.” This act marks three of the major events in Islam, which are:
- The beginning of the Islamic calendar
- The creation of the first Islamic government
- The prolific use of violence and torture to propagate Islam
At the time when Muhammad made the hijra with his followers, Medina was a city with a Jewish majority, which had peaceable relations with the other pagan Arabs. By the time Muhammad launched his band of raiders from that same city eight years later to conquer Mecca in 630, most of the pagan and Jewish populations were either converted to Islam, had fled, or were dead. The few survivors were forced to pay an extortion tax — called a jizya — to Muhammad and his followers. This was the only way they would be granted permission for their continued existence under Muhammad’s new Caliphate.
In Islamic law and applied theology, the idea of the hijra pertains to the movement of a group of Muslims from a predominately Muslim area to a predominately non-Muslim area, with the goal of establishing Islam’s dominance in it. After Muhammad’s death, Muslims have counted two great hijras in the West. The first was the great Islamic expansion from 632 to 750, when Islamic armies conquered all of the territory from what is today central France to Uzbekistan. The second hijra included the Turkish migrations that resulted in the fall of Constantinople, and reached its zenith with Islamic armies besieging the gates of Vienna in 1683. It was during this last encounter that the horde was driven back by Polish Catholic forces into the Balkan Peninsula, breaking the strength of the Ottoman Empire.
The battle began on September 11th, 1683. [No, it is not a coincidence.]
After the Battle of Vienna, European regimes began to rapidly colonize the Middle East, and the remains of the Ottoman Empire diminished, eventually being formally abolished by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk in 1923 – but not before purging over a million Armenian, Assyrian, Pontic Greek, and Turkish Christians from its lands between 1915 and 1917. Muslim “revivalists” beginning as early as the 18th century reminisced about a return to the practice of “orthodox” Islam, and posited that in so doing, they could bring about a revival of the same bestial force which conquered so much of the world and subjected so many countless peoples under Islam’s burdensome yoke. The first hijra conquered Jerusalem in 638. The second hijra conquered Constantinople in 1453. Two of the three oldest and holiest cities for Christians were conquered by Muslims.
Except for Rome.
This, now, is the third hijra. According to certain voices in the Islamic world, it will be the final hijra, the one that will conquer Rome.
In Islamic circles, there has been a long-held belief that Christianity — and specifically, the Catholic Church — is the main obstacle impeding Islam’s domination of all humanity under one religious and political system. Therefore, in order to realize this vision, the Christian faithful must not only be converted to Islam, but their sacred spaces must be taken from them and given to the dar Al-Islam – “the house of Islam.” If the Islamic conquest of Jerusalem led to the end of Christianity as the dominant religion in the Holy Land, and the same was true in the Byzantine Empire with the fall of Constantinople, the conquest of Rome and the Islamization of St. Peter’s Basilica would mean the effective destruction of the Church worldwide, and its replacement with Islam. [I call the mind the “peace tree” planted in the Vatican Gardens and the prayer of the Imam. HERE Be sure to follow the links and read about what that may have symbolized.]
[…]
We are witnessing the beginning of the next great Islamic invasion. It may well represent an existential crisis for the West.
When the time comes, will we be ready to fight them? Everything we know and love is at stake.
Sts. Nunilo and Alodia, pray for us.
St. Francis of Assisi, pray for us.
St. Lawrence of Brindisi, pray for us.
St. Pius V, pray for us.
bttt
Did Ven. Bartholomew Holzhauser Predict ISIS and the Synod?
http://www.onepeterfive.com/category/1p5-blog/
You may also be interested in this piece.
http://www.onepeterfive.com/category/1p5-blog/
Islam already made inroads when Vatican II taught that they worship the same God as we do.
Vatican II?
The following is not from Vatican II:
“3. In the West, there is the letter of Pope Gregory VII (1020-1085), written in 1076 to al-Nasir, Prince of Bougie (in Algeria), who had sent the priest Servandus to him to be ordained bishop. Over and above of the political context, the letter remains relevant: ‘You and I owe this charity to one another even more than we owe it to other people, as we recognise and profess - in different ways, it is true - the One God, whom we praise and venerate each day as the creator of all and master of the world, according to the words of the Apostle: For he is our peace,; in his flesh he has made both groups into one’ (Eph 2,14). http://www.cec-kek.org/pdf/MeetingMuslims.pdf
The quote from Gregory VII is undoubtedly genuine even if that link is not dead because it is cited in Vatican II documents as coming from PL. You can always look that up online if you so choose: St. Gregory VII, Letter III, 21 to Anazir [Al-Nasir], King of Mauretania PL, 148.451A. Also, there is an updated url: http://cid.ceceurope.org/fileadmin/filer/cid/Doc_Interreligious_Dialogue/MeetingMuslims.pdf
Another version of the quote floating around online is:
“For there is nothing which Almighty God, who wishes that all men should be saved and that no man should perish, more approves in our conduct than that a man should first love God and then his fellow men … Most certainly you and we ought to love each other in this way more than other races of men, because we believe and confess one God, albeit in different ways, whom each day we praise and reverence as the creator of all ages and the governor of this world.”
So you think Vatican II took place in the 11th century, huh?
By the way, Pope Gregory VII considered a crusade - it would have been the first - but was unable to pull everything together because he was so occupied with difficulties in Church reform and problem with the HRE.
This needs to be shared with Jeff Sessions to peruse for the use of Donald Trump in their private discussions on immigration and the refugees flowing in to the USA.
It is interesting that the only support for Vatican II is an obscure political letter. On the contrary, there are many papal and saintly quotes throughout Church history that are very clear that Islam is a diabolical sect (ie. worship Satan), that the Muslims are faithless, and that Islam displeases the divine majesty, etc., etc., etc.
What’s disturbing, is that those who quote Pope St. Gregory VII deliberately ignore the fact that at the time he wrote this letter, he was under duress; he was seeking the release of Catholic hostages held by the muslim savages.
I remember you posting something about that in the past.
“On the contrary, there are many papal and saintly quotes throughout Church history that are very clear that Islam is a diabolical sect (ie. worship Satan)...”
Actually, I don’t think any of the quotes you linked to say Muslims worship the Devil - although I freely admit I read only the comments in bold. A “diabolical sect” is one started by the Devil or oriented to serving his purposes. It’s purpose is not necessarily to directly worship the Devil, however, but to subtract from the Body of Christ and oppose it as a counterfeit. The very use of the word “sect” helps make that clear. That’s why Islam is so successful as an opponent of Christianity. It kept many of the words and ideas of Judaism and Christianity but it denies the very essence of Christian theology - the existence of the Trinity .
So, a diabolical sect, started by the Devil can still bring about worship of the true God? Why would the Devil wish to start a sect that would result in the worship of the true God rather than himself?
I think it is important to take all of those quotes together. Together, they certainly do not support the error that Muslims worship the same God as we do.
I think that certain Muslims think they worship the one True God, but they do not. The devil started their religion and it is he who gets the glory in that religion.
“Why would the Devil wish to start a sect that would result in the worship of the true God rather than himself?”
Because that is often how the Devil works. Protestants, for instance, don’t worship the Devil. They most certainly worship the Trinity. Yet are they harming the Body of Christ? Yes. It’s undeniable. The Devil knows he can’t destroy the Church. What he does is chip away at the Church by fostering the creation of sects and enemies. Individual Protestants are likely not really culpable as the Devil is because they do not fully understand what they do is wrong. Ironically, even Muslims claim their own sects are created by Satan: http://www.amazon.com/Devils-Deception-Modern-Salafi-Sect-ebook/dp/B00BH52MO4 And in that regard, Christians are no different:
“Satan has invented heresies and schisms, whereby he might subvert the faith, might corrupt the truth, might divide the unity.” (Cyprian, On the Unity of the Church; excerpted in The Heart of Catholicism: Essential Writings of the Church from St. Paul to John Paul II, Edited by Theodore E. James, Albert J. Nevins, page 142).
Every real traditionalist knows this. How do you not?
Meanwhile, real traditionalists can not (and will not) deny that Vatican II speaks very differently of Muslims and their diabolical religion than pre-Vatican II popes and saints (with the one exception being one obscure letter written by a pope seeking the release of Catholic hostages from Muslims...phew ...good thing the Vatican II drafters found that! Without that, they’d have nothing!).
Does anyone have the text of this article on holzhauser? It seems to have been wiped from the internet.
Do you have the text of the article on holzhauser? It seems to have been wiped from the Internet.
Sorry, oremus, I can’t seem to help you on that one.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.