by Tabitha Korol
Can two men who meet in the name of peace be truly capable of declaring what is right and just for the entire world?
Early February 2019 ushered in a momentous event, the joint signing of a covenant, “The Document on Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together,“ by the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar Ahmed el-Tayeb, the head of Sunni Islam, and the Roman Pope Francis for a One World Religion. The historic ceremony was held in front of religious leaders of other faiths as a call for peace between nations, religions and races, although historically, Islamic peace is never achieved and it is they who continue to wage war. The declaration of peace, freedom, and women’s rights is indeed a beautiful document as described by Vatican News. Yet the imam is one man and the Islamic blood lust has maintained its presence in our world for 1400 years as a tribute to its founder, affecting even its own with intimidation and rules of torture, murder and suicide. Islam is the one religion that has been incompatible with the others and the Pope would do well to question whether Catholicism and the others would be willing to relinquish their own laws to accommodate the one that demands their elimination, in the quest for peace and a one-world religion.
Indonesian Muslim scholars also agreed to boost harmony and spirituality over the violence of the past by encouraging a school curriculum for “teaching Islamic history that contains the compassionate character of the prophet.” The suggestion is hardly comforting if it is the same prophet who beheaded the 600 to 800 Jewish men of Medina and enslaved the women and children, and whose descendants continue to engage in the same art of decapitation by the sword and bondage into the perpetual future.
Islam is a complete 100% system of life with religion being the camouflage for the legal, political, economic, social and military components. The Koran is designed to emotionally and physically control every aspect of human life for the devotee and the kafir (non-Muslim) through mind control via five-times-daily prayers and speech control, as well as through threats and wanton violence. Worldwide, Muslims exercise a disproportionate influence on others and work to get the ruling government of the nation they invade to permit them self-rule, sharia, first within the confines of their limited living quarters but eventually with the immutable goal of establishing Islamic law throughout the land. They are commanded never to assimilate in their host culture, and to destroy crosses and overtake churches. Thus are the indigenous people victimized and engulfed. It is safe to say that Muslims, through hijrah, are making headway in virtually all the countries of the world, although recognizably not at the same pace or using the same technique. Muslims are a factor in 95% of the world’s wars and gaining ground, so that a totalitarian regime’s signature to such a virtually submissive pact is suspect.
Islam sees itself as superior to all other peoples and takes offense at signs of progress accomplished by cultures that preceded it. To that end, its goals are to destroy those cultures’ histories and replace them with their own – to present themselves as the original and best of humanity when all others are gone. Allah’s Messenger said: “By Him (Allah) in Whose Hand my soul is, surely the son of Mary [Isa (Jesus)] will shortly descend amongst you people (Muslims), and will judge mankind justly by the Law of the Quran (as a just ruler) and will break the Cross and kill pigs and abolish the Jizyah [a tax] ….” (Bukhari 3:2222)
Christians who do not accept Muhammad and the Qur’an are considered the most vile of created beings: “Nor did those who were given the Scripture become divided until after there had come to them clear evidence. And they were not commanded except to worship Allah, sincere to Him in religion, inclining to truth, and to establish prayer and to give zakah (alms). And that is the correct religion. Indeed, they who disbelieved among the People of the Book and the polytheists will be in the fire of Hell, abiding eternally therein. Those are the most vile of created beings.” — Qur’an 98:6 It is prudent to note that while most religions give alms (tzedakah, in Hebrew), and Israel is invariably the first responder to any nations in need of help during natural disasters, Islam specifies that alms and aid not be given to those who do not honor Islam.
Just as Mohammed captured and has since had full control over Mecca and Medina, Islam established a mythic link to overtake Jerusalem, and Rome is in its sights once again as its fourth holiest city. Vatican City is 100% surrounded by massive, 39-foot-high walls built in the 9th century for protection against the Saracen pirates who pillaged St. Peter’s in 846. From that first jihad attack into Rome in 846, Islam declared Rome would follow the fate of Constantinople 500 years before, and the Christian basilica would become a mosque. This, then, is tyrannical globalism and its underlying raison d’etre, with which the Pontiff has signed a peace pact. Although his is a noble mission, without written rules of agreement and, indeed, trustworthy mutual compromises, it may still be too soon to prepare for celebration.
There is no doubt that there were some globalist spectators to the historic event, who, if included in the event, would tirelessly campaign for eliminating nationalism and border sovereignty. To facilitate the control of the world population, they prefer overarching establishments, such as the EU (European Union) and WTO (World Trade Organization) to have control and make decisions for all others. Can we – and should we – trust someone at the top to decide our fuel needs? food and quantity requirements? How about medicines and treatment accessibility? our education, entertainment, and available technology? Can the administrator be capable of making impartial, unemotional judgments, and what if he/she allows personal biases to direct the making of decisions that affect the rest of us? We must be guided by our own local supply and demand issues, the obtainability of goods and services or be overtaken by a socialist economy that always results in scarcity, poverty, hunger, and death.
if one or some of the attendees hold communist leanings, with the belief that man is incapable of self-governing, the stronger master will be put in charge. Such an ideology controls the information circulated, the art produced, the leaders to follow and the thoughts to ponder, and leads to arrests without due cause, punishment without trial, forced labor by humans owned by the state. Contrary to the Commandment, Thou shalt not steal, private property will be eliminated, goods commonly owned, production controlled and distributed to others, and the freedom to earn and benefit in accordance with the individual’s productions seized.
Judaism has been a persistent annoyance to Islam for 1400 years. Would the Roman Catholic Church now consider joining Islamic forces or would Islam agree to lay down its billion swords? Is the Holy Father aware that Islam’s open warfare has already declared, “First comes Saturday, then comes Sunday,” meaning, once Judaism is obliterated, Christianity will follow. Yet, how can there be an agreement when even word definitions differ so drastically? To the Pontiff, peace is the absence of war and the hope of amity throughout the lands. To the imam, peace is Allah’s blessing to make war against the infidel and bring all to submission, and it is the submission of all that is seen as peace.
Although I have no personal investment in anyone’s belief choice, I am fully attentive regarding their future deeds. I favor the continuation of the Church’s position of “subsidiarity,” which is to support, but to not interfere with, a community’s internal life, whereas Islam has its finger firmly positioned on every aspect of human and communal life. Would Islam agree to altering the Koranic dictates and eliminate corporal punishment in its rule or would the pope acquiesce to meting out severe pain for select insubordination? How would their view change the people’s autonomy over their own culture, health and safety and over individual national sovereignty? Would any group that’s given complete dominion over how we live, how we conduct our personal lives or our business affairs, and how our wealth is spent, truly rule with our best interests in mind? Globalists seek a dictatorial society.
History has provided us with many leaders. Would the ruler of the new globalist world be a Pericles? a Moses? a Charlemagne? Or a Mugabe? a Pol Pot, or a Hitler?
Does the Pope understand that his new friend may represent his steadfast adversary? Putting our future in the hands of a few is a decided threat to the United States Constitution. We have had enough history to learn what should be obvious, that the more power is removed from the people, the more power would be consolidated to those in control. This is a menace not to be ignored, no matter who sits at the summit.