The Conquest of Rome
Some very highly-place Islamists in Europe and the Arab World believe that there will be an Islamic conquest of Rome. From Front Page Magazine:
Following Pope John Paul II's visit to the Middle East in 2000 and 2001, some prominent Muslim leaders openly discussed the future dominance of Islam in Europe, including conquesting the Vatican.
While the identity of the next pope is decided, one of the pressing issues he will have to deal with is the growing Muslim community in Europe, part of which have Islamist inclinations. As the New York Times reported this week, the next pope will be facing "increasing secularism in Europe, contrasting with the religious revival in the Islamic world… and the rising number of Muslim immigrants in Europe."
Saudi Sheikh Muhammad bin Abd Al-Rahman Al-'Arifi, Imam of the mosque of King Fahd Defense Academy, discussed the coming Muslim conquest of the Vatican. Citing a Hadith in an article posted on the Kalemat website in 2002, he stated: "… We will control the land of the Vatican; we will control Rome and introduce Islam in it. Yes, the Christians, who carve crosses on the breasts of the Muslims … will yet pay us the Jiziya [poll tax paid by non-Muslims under Muslim rule], in humiliation, or they will convert to Islam…"
Sheikh Yousef Al-Qaradhawi, spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood and head of The European Council for Fatwa and Research and the founder of European based International Council of Muslim Scholars (Imams) posted a fatwa on the website www.islamonline.net, in 2002 about the "signs of the victory of Islam" in Europe.
Also citing a well-known Hadith, Al-Qaradhawi wrote: "… The Prophet Muhammad was asked: 'What city will be conquered first, Constantinople or Romiyya?' He answered: 'The city of Hirqil [i.e. the Byzantine emperor Heraclius] will be conquered first' - that is, Constantinople… Romiyya is the city called today 'Rome,' the capital of Italy … and we hope and believe [that it too will be conquered]."
Al-Qaradhawi elaborated on what this Islamic ruling means in the current period of history, "This means that Islam will return to Europe as a conqueror and victor, after being expelled from it twice … I maintain that the conquest this time will not be by the sword but by preaching and ideology…"
On his weekly Al-Jazeera religious program in 1999, Al-Qaradhawi made similar statements: "All right, Constantinople was conquered, and the second part of the prophecy remains, that is, the conquest of Rome. This means that Islam will return to Europe. Islam entered Europe twice and left it… Perhaps the next conquest … will be by means of preaching and ideology. The conquest need not necessarily be by the sword… Perhaps we will conquer these lands without armies. We want an army of preachers and teachers who will present Islam in all languages …"
Other Muslim religious figures to discuss the coming Islamic conquest of the Vatican include: the Palestinian Authority's Deputy Minister of Awqaf, Sheikh Yousef Juma'a Salameh; Saudi Sheikh Naser Muhammad Al-Naser; and Sudanese Sheikh Muhammad Abd Al-Karim.
It's good to get this all out of the table. They want Europe. Meanwhile, Europe believes that they can have massive immigration, and gradually assimilate tens of millions of Muslims into their population.
How's that working out, Europe? Understand that the leaders of the Muslim community do not intend to have it work out the way you would like.
Men like Qaradawi have friends in high places in Europe. For instance, Ken Livingstones (Mayor of London) is a supporter of Qaradawi. As Melanie Phillips notes:
Last summer, Livingstone hosted in London Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi, the Muslim Brotherhood-influenced Islamic jurist who has supported homicide terrorism by the Palestinians and expressed poisonous and even murderous prejudice against Jews, gays, and women (a set of attitudes more befitting the 1930s).
Qaradawi was in London to preside over the annual meeting of the European Council for Fatwa and Research and a conference on the hijab, both at Livingstone’s invitation.
Livingstone’s warm public endorsement of Qaradawi managed to unite against himself an extraordinary coalition of protest by those who felt directly threatened by the Islamist’s views. This coalition remarkably included Jews, gays, Hindus, bi-and-transsexuals, Sikhs, women’s rights organisations, progressive-minded Muslims, and students, who produced a thick dossier charting Qaradawi’s terrifying attitudes.
Livingstone hit the roof at this, and no wonder. For among those now ranged against him – and accusing him, no less, of condoning the most violent and virulent prejudice, the crime of crimes – were the very constituencies of the victim-culture on which he had constructed his entire political platform. The rainbow coalition of minorities had now turned against their erstwhile patron.
Without these minorities, Livingstone has no power base. That is surely why he threw the otherwise baffling extravaganza for Chris Smith, to mend his fences with the all-important gay rights lobby.
But the Qaradawi affair had thrown up another very disturbing feature. For Livingstone produced his own utterly bizarre counter-dossier defending his right to host Qaradawi, whom he described admiringly as “one of the most authoritative Muslim scholars in the world.”
In this, he carefully distanced himself from Qaradawi’s views – while managing, offensively, to equate them with those held by Catholics and Jews — while claiming that Qaradawi was neither a supporter of terrorism nor a social reactionary, but instead “one of the Muslim scholars who has done most to combat socially regressive interpretations of Islam on issues like women’s rights and relations with other religions.”
Qaradawi was in London to preside over the annual meeting of the European Council for Fatwa and Research and a conference on the hijab, both at Livingstone’s invitation.
Livingstone’s warm public endorsement of Qaradawi managed to unite against himself an extraordinary coalition of protest by those who felt directly threatened by the Islamist’s views. This coalition remarkably included Jews, gays, Hindus, bi-and-transsexuals, Sikhs, women’s rights organisations, progressive-minded Muslims, and students, who produced a thick dossier charting Qaradawi’s terrifying attitudes.
Livingstone hit the roof at this, and no wonder. For among those now ranged against him – and accusing him, no less, of condoning the most violent and virulent prejudice, the crime of crimes – were the very constituencies of the victim-culture on which he had constructed his entire political platform. The rainbow coalition of minorities had now turned against their erstwhile patron.
Without these minorities, Livingstone has no power base. That is surely why he threw the otherwise baffling extravaganza for Chris Smith, to mend his fences with the all-important gay rights lobby.
But the Qaradawi affair had thrown up another very disturbing feature. For Livingstone produced his own utterly bizarre counter-dossier defending his right to host Qaradawi, whom he described admiringly as “one of the most authoritative Muslim scholars in the world.”
In this, he carefully distanced himself from Qaradawi’s views – while managing, offensively, to equate them with those held by Catholics and Jews — while claiming that Qaradawi was neither a supporter of terrorism nor a social reactionary, but instead “one of the Muslim scholars who has done most to combat socially regressive interpretations of Islam on issues like women’s rights and relations with other religions.”
Oh really? What does Qaradawi believe on these issues:
He supports democracy, provided it is driven by the laws of Sharia.
He approves of female circumcision. He supports the “light” beating of wives by their husbands.
He has lent his name to discussions about the most appropriate method for executing homosexuals.
He sits on the Shariah [Islamic Law] Board of al-Taqwa Bank which was designated a Specially Designated Global Terrorist, and its assets frozen, by the U.S. government.
He is rabidly Judeophobic. His sermons regularly call for Jews to be killed, along with “crusaders” and “infidels.”
Like I said, we just need to get this all out on the table. Now Europe, does that sound like the kind of society you would like? Where would the Louvre fit in such a society? What about the French Riviera? Florence, Italy? The Tate Museum? The Vatican?
What will happen to the traditions of the Enlightenment?
What will your history be worth, if your land is ruled by people who believe in killing homosexuals, beating wives, killing infidels? I won't even make the obvious crack about killing Jews. Oops, I guess I did it anyway.
I love much of what Europe has brought to the world. I would hate to see it disappear.
posted by Pastorius @ 4:41 AM
Comments: 0
