Re: Father Henri Boulad: The limits of the duty of hospitality and islam

FATHER BOULAD: MY POSITION IS TO ENCOURAGE ALL THOSE WHO HAVE THE COURAGE TO RESIST THE ISLAMIZATION OF EUROPE



Is not the treatment of the migration crisis in Hungary contradicting the gospel that says you have to welcome the foreigner?
We have the duty to welcome the foreigner and to give him the maximum of possibilities to integrate, so that he builds the country at the same time as himself. But I think there is a threshold of tolerance to the reception.
We can not welcome everyone, all the misery of the world, when this threatens your inner balance, that of your homeland, your family, your environment, your culture, your heritage, and your values.
My point of view is that there are limits to the duty of hospitality. For example, if a boat that can take twenty people takes two hundred, every two hundred will sink. So I have the duty to limit. I can maybe take ten or fifteen, but from a moment, I have to say stop. It's not inhumanity, it's just common sense .
Especially if they do not want to integrate in Europe. I think Victor Orban is very courageous in his strong position to save the legacy of his country and Europe in the face of this crazy immigration to Europe, a position he holds despite all the criticism and the media campaign against him. I salute his courage and sincerity.
Is true Islam not moderate?
Islam is by definition political and radical, it has defined itself like that for 14 centuries . All those who wanted to modernize and reform Islam faced a wall, a refusal, and persecution. As Mahmoud Mohammed Taha, a large Sudanese leader who wanted to reform Islam rightly highlighting the Meccan verses, which are tolerant and open, unlike the Medina verses that have been favored by the thinkers of Islam in the X th century under the principle of "repeal". This Muslim leader was hanged on the main square of Khartoum in July 1985 for wanting to reform Islam. So for me Islamism, which we call extremist, radical, or political Islam , is Islam in its purity , Islam to discover . J I have written on this subject two very clear pages, available in several languages . Islamism is Islam.
So, let me not be told about a moderate Islam that exists only in the minds of Western intellectuals, in the "wishful thinking" of moderate Muslims who are not at all in the line of Islam advocated by al-Azhar University in Cairo, which until today trains tens of thousands of preachers around the world in the strictest, most rigorous, most radical, and most intolerant line of the Islam, despite repeated calls from Egyptian President Sissi to ask them to change their speech.
In other words, to imagine that moderate Islam will prevail is an illusion. The problem is not in the interpretations of Islam - moderate Islam, Sufi Islam - but the problem is in Islam itself, that is to say in the founding texts themselves. Any interpretation, especially from Westerners, is "wishful thinking": we want something, but the reality is different. Moreover, there is in Islam a principle called "taqiya" under which deception is justified in order to advance Islam: when one can not be right of the adversary because one is in a position of inferiority, one must enter into lies and duplicity. This is what is happening now: we believe their speeches are in French, but they say exactly the opposite in Arabic an hour later at the mosque. There are recordings that prove that. Europe must cling to its identity, that the Church also clings to its identity. No compromise, no lie, no hypocrisy .
The West and the Church are therefore in the illusion of their vision of Islam capable of reform.
What do you think of the dialogue with Islam? Let's be what we are. I ask for a frank, open dialogue, confronted with the story and the reality of the facts. We can not escape the truth. When I give you arguments and your only answer is to slaughter me, it is because we are no longer on the same ground. Currently, it is the answer of Islam . The Church currently refuses confrontation on the pretext of peace, but it is a false peace! Psalm 85 says " love and truth


Last week, in Alexandria, a Muslim convert to Christianity came to me saying: I converted 15 years ago, I recently married a Muslim, his father wants to kill me or report me to the police. The police will put me in jail, torture me until I say that I became Muslim again. So if the only answer is threat and violence, put things on the table, do not continue this dialogue in the lie!

e meet, justice and peace embrace each other ". Love without the truth? No. The truth without love? No. Justice without peace, or peace without justice? No. It takes a dialogue in the truth, not just by tapping one's shoulder, thinking that we are friends, drinking a good coffee together, it does not come to anything! Promoters of dialogue do not want to listen to those who have fourteen centuries of experience with Islam. My family emigrated from Damascus in 1860 following the massacre of 20,000 Christians. This, Europe does not want to understand, although they have also known this in their history, but they do not want to read their story. Except the Hungarians who are the only ones to have understood a little, because they knew 150 years of Ottoman oppression relatively recently. For the others, it is more distant,

research this:p.henri boulad very,very the best for islam

WOW:
i found
check=BOOM,yes go ...*******************************************
Father Henri Boulad: "I'm accusing! "



In this "I accuse", he accuses the barbarity of Islam, neither more nor less. He does not only accuse Islamism, but Islam.
"I accuse of deliberate lies those who claim that acts committed by Muslims have nothing to do with Islam. But it is in the name of Islam and its clear injunctions that these crimes are perpetrated ... "

He then accuses the el Azhar University of perpetuating an obscurantist, violent, intolerant teaching.

Then Western governments to be complicit with a fundamentalist Islam, for financial reasons. And to have invented the concept of Islamophobia to silence any criticism of Islam.

He accuses some European leaders of laxity towards Islam and betrayal of their people, by banning their civilization, their historical legacy.

He accuses the liberal left of capitulation and selling out of electoral interest to explosive suburbs.

He accuses the Catholic Church of engaging in a pseudo-dialogue with Islam based on "complacency, compromise and duplicity" and stalled for fifty years.

He accuses the media of lies, trickery, manipulations and systematic misinformation.

He states that Western states have "the legal and moral obligation to preserve their territorial integrity, their way of life, their culture and their values in the face of a conquering Islam that is fundamentally hostile to Western civilization. And finally, that Islam must reform itself.

This "J'accuse" is completed by a video of TV liberties of July 20, 2017:

[link to www.youtube.com (secure)]

In this video we can not agree with everything, especially when it clears the "moderate Muslims" of any responsibility. But he declares himself openly islamophobic (but not mushophobic) which can only be rejoicing. It feels less lonely. Will the CCIF prosecute Father Henri Boulad? ...

He lists all the reformers of Islam who have failed. He tells how a Dominican Islamologist after having for two hours exposed his arguments to the leader of el Azhar who listened to him with a smile, was answered a definitive and without arguments "but anyway you the disbelievers you will all in hell ".

He also says that he wrote twice to Pope Francis, his leader and his Jesuit colleague, to tell him his disagreement about Islam and his position on immigration. Everyone has in mind the astonishing words (to say the least) of the Pope. Father Boulad never received an answer. This is a very bad point for this Pope, who should always answer his priests, as a good shepherd looks after his sheep ...

Oh, if only priests who speak like Father Boulad in France were not reduced to a handful. Yet certainly many think like him but dare not say it. Yet to defend ourselves we would need so much that they also denounce the Islamization of France.

To those who lack courage it will surely be required to account in paradise ... they should now ask the question evangelical (and also, republican): "what did you do your brother? ..."

[link to www.christianophobie.fr (secure)]

That Muslims who do not recognize themselves in this unleashing of hatred and violence are confronted without denial or self-defiance with themselves, their founding texts and their history as well as their tragic situation today in the world . Rather than seeking to promote a dialogue between Islam and Christianity, or between Islam and the West, it is urgent to promote intra-Islamic dialogue and reforms. That the Muslims finally recognize that their problem is endogenous, and that they have the courage to approach it in all lucidity and humility by stopping to hide the face.

It is high time to go beyond left and right, progressive and conservative, socialist and democratic, republican and liberal, Judeo-Christian and Muslim, to find a common basis for all human beings. values and principles. But I do not know any more than the Universal Charter of Human Rights proclaimed by the UN in 1948, which all Arab and Muslim countries refused to sign in its entirety.

It is high time to put Man at the heart of the debate in a common search for truth. For "if truth and friendship are dear to us, it is a sacred duty to give preference to the truth" (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics , I, 4, 1096-13).

Only a real confrontation with reality would allow "love and truth to meet ... that justice and peace embrace each other" (Psalm 85, 11). "

Source: © Henri Boulad, SJ, Alexandria, Easter Sunday, April 16, 2017. (Text reviewed and edited by François Sweydan for Dreuz.info ).

it.s fench..
research trancript english

[link to www.youtube.com (secure)]

trancript see ...

YOU A STAR, JUST TO TELL YOU:
you don't strike my day of compassion
nor d.love, then take the time to learn and do research before spitting, not on me, BUT ON P.HENRI so......

HAVE YOU READ, ARE YOU LOOKING FOR A TRANSCRIPT, IF SO?!?!?!YOUR COMMENTS WOULD NOT BE ABOUT THE MUSLIM WHO LOVES CHRIST AND THEIR

MAMA MARIAM, HOW THEY LOVE AND WERE WELCOMED, KNOW YOU THAT MARY APPEARED IN A CATHOLIC CHURCH AND THAT ALL THE MUSULMANS OF THE REGION HAVE BEEN HOMMAGED. . . . AND WHO WAS THE FIRST HEALER, yes, an ADO MUSULMAN, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, CHRISTIAN. . .

then read approved yes apparitions (he had no choice, so valid for what we call prophecies) YOU UNDERSTAND THIS.

funny how can the vocabulary be perfected
Muslim-Radicalist
and Christianity=shismatic
and n. b. l. Islam IS NOT A RELIGION=


SHUT........................

and you say interdit speak....YES THIS! BANG!

NOW YOU SAY!

maybe my night friends will be freer to get involved in this controversial subject and at 50%.
forbidden and some already know the p,henri + known in Europe,
your comments will certainly be relevant, thank you.

if you know the difference between radicalism and their malpractices, manipulations then. . . WELCOME,
we Catholics are mistreated, we Catholics and this will make a mess in all Christians and + that's what Francois is opening right now, not pretty to see. . .

Those people are vagrants and vagabonds, they have no resources, no means to support themselves nor do they want to, they live by begging, borrowing and stealing.

Put out the trash.

TRUE,DEAR P.BOULAD (researdh this)

PÈRE BOULAD: MY POSITION IS TO ENCOURAGE ALL THOSE WHO HAVE THE COURAGE TO RESIST THE ISLAMISATION OF EUROPE

Is not the treatment of the migration crisis in Hungary contradicting the gospel that says you have to welcome the foreigner?
We have the duty to welcome the foreigner and to give him the maximum of possibilities to integrate, so that he builds the country at the same time as himself. But I think there is a threshold of tolerance to the reception. . I can maybe take ten or fifteen, but from a moment, I have to say stop. It's not inhumanity, it's just common sense Especially if they do not want to integrate into Europe.
We can not welcome everyone, all the misery of the world, when this threatens your inner equilibrium, that of your homeland, your family, your environment, your culture, your heritage, and your values.
My point of view is that there are limits to the duty of hospitality. For example, if a boat that can take twenty people takes two hundred, every two hundred will sink. So I have the duty to limit . Islam is by definition political and radical, it has defined itself like that for 14 centuries .
I think Victor Orban is very courageous in his strong position to save the legacy of his country and Europe in the face of this crazy immigration to Europe, a position he holds despite all the criticism and the media campaign against him. I salute his courage and sincerity.
Is true Islam not moderate? who wanted precisely to reform Islam by putting forward Meccan verses, which are tolerant and open, contrary to the verses Medinois which were privileged by the thinkers of Islam in the X


TRUE,DEAR P.BOULAD (researdh this)

interdit ..french ..translate for

[link to www.christianophobie.fr (secure)]

this vocabulary interdit ,dont pass ...read very imp. and interesting
GO,read and COMMENTAIRE ***********
GO!

o.k. banned here very hot I give you the French link, take out your translator and save because many have links ,,out,
however your comments will be very hot

[link to www.christianophobie.fr (secure)]

GO!GO!GO!
to your translators, it's EXCELLENT AND SO FORBIDDEN...GO!

I accuse Muslim scholars of the tenth century of promulgating decrees - which have become irreversible - leading Islam to the dead end of today.

The first of these decrees - that of the repeal and the abrogated - consisted in giving primacy to the verses of Medina, carriers of violence and intolerance, to the detriment of the Meccan verses inviting peace and concord.

To make this verdict irreversible, two other decrees were promulgated: that of declaring the Koran "uncreated word of Allah", therefore immutable; and that of prohibiting any further effort of interpretation by declaring "the door of the ijtihad [effort of reflection] finally closed". The sanctification of these decisions has fossilized Muslim thought and helped keep Islamic countries in a state of backwardness and chronic stagnation.

?!?!pass????(TEST)

WOW NEXT FOR THIS TEXTE
To make this verdict irreversible, two other decrees were promulgated: that of declaring the Koran "uncreated word of Allah", therefore immutable; and that of prohibiting any further effort of interpretation by declaring "the door of the ijtihad [effort of reflection] finally closed". The sanctification of these decisions has fossilized Muslim thought and helped keep Islamic countries in a state of backwardness and chronic stagnation.

I accuse Islam of being locked in a dogmatism that he can not get out of. Taken to his own trap of resentment, he makes all mankind responsible for his own failures in a business of victimization, and self-justification.

I accuse the Azhar, supposed to embody moderate Islam, to feed a spirit of fanaticism, intolerance and hatred among millions of students and imams from all over the world to learn from its institutions. It thus becomes one of the main sources of terrorism in the world.

I accuse Azhar of its systematic refusal to reform its curricula and textbooks. Despite the repeated demands of Egyptian President al-Sisi to remove all hate speech, violence and discrimination, nothing has yet been done.

I accuse the Azhar for its refusal to condemn the Islamic State / Daesh and Salafist / Wahhabi Islamism, proof of a real proximity to terrorism.

I accuse the great imam of el-Azhar, Sheikh Ahmed el-Tayeb, despite several years of study in Paris and a doctoral thesis defended at the Sorbonne, to persist in sticking to obscurantist and mediaeval current. While it was expected that he would promote innovative thinking in this venerable institution, he instead reinstated the texts that incite violence and intolerance in the textbooks and scholars of the el-Azhar institutions. yet rejected by his predecessor Sheikh Mohammed Tantaoui.

I accuse Azhar of not appealing to the "new Muslim thinkers" of East and West to initiate with them an in-depth reform of Islam.

I accuse large Western nations that while claiming to defend the values of freedom, democracy and human rights are actively working with fundamentalist Islam for narrow economic and financial interests.

I accuse the West of having invented with the Islamists the false notion of Islamophobia to silence any criticism of Islam.

I accuse certain European leaders of yielding to the liberticidal demands of an increasingly demanding and aggressive Islam, whose clearly proclaimed goal is the pure and simple conquest of the West. These leaders betray their peoples and sell their historical legacy. In the name of a multicultural ideology, a wild globalism and an all-out openness, they contribute to the collapse of a prestigious past of culture and civilization.

I accuse the laxity of a certain liberal left incapable in France of imposing the laws of the Republic on a minority refusing any integration. The leaders, sold by electoral interest to explosive suburbs, participated in the social degradation of the "lost districts of the Republic" in the name of a "civil peace" which is only capitulation of the State.

I accuse the Catholic Church of pursuing with Islam a "dialogue" based on complacency, compromise and duplicity. After more than fifty years of one-way initiatives, such a monologue is now at a standstill. By yielding to "politically correct" and under the pretext of not offending the Muslim interlocutor in the name of "living together", one avoids the thorny and vital questions. All true dialogue begins with the truth.

I accuse the mainstream media of manipulation and deception by making a biased reading of realities, advancing biased figures, distorted statistics and rigged "polls". This systematic disinformation undermines the most basic ethics and ethics for the benefit of the big financial groups that subsidize them and dictate their editorial lines.

Rather than being indignant at more and more frequent terrorist acts, it is high time to face real reality and dare to speak the true word.

It is high time to reconsider the problem of Islam without detours, without fear and without complacency. The language of wood and relativism only lead to the worst. Western states have a legal and moral obligation to preserve their territorial integrity, way of life, culture and values in the face of a conquering Islam that is fundamentally hostile to Western civilization.

That Muslims who do not recognize themselves in this unleashing of hatred and violence are confronted without denial or self-defiance with themselves, their founding texts and their history as well as their tragic situation today in the world . Rather than seeking to promote a dialogue between Islam and Christianity, or between Islam and the West, it is urgent to promote intra-Islamic dialogue and reforms. That the Muslims finally recognize that their problem is endogenous, and that they have the courage to approach it in all lucidity and humility by stopping to hide the face.

It is high time to go beyond left and right, progressive and conservative, socialist and democratic, republican and liberal, Judeo-Christian and Muslim, to find a common basis for all human beings. values and principles. However, I do not know any more than the Universal Charter of Human Rights proclaimed by the UN in 1948, that all Arab and Muslim countries refused to sign in its entirety.

It is high time to put Man at the heart of the debate in a common search for truth. For "if truth and friendship are dear to us, it is a sacred duty to give preference to the truth" (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics , I, 4, 1096-13).

Only a real confrontation with reality would allow "love and truth to meet ... that justice and peace embrace each other" (Psalm 85, 11). "

Source: © Henri Boulad, SJ, Alexandria, Easter Sunday, April 16, 2017. (Text reviewed and edited by François Sweydan for Dreuz.info ).

now let's see if the beginning passes
I'm sorry to have tried to go through the center but the beginning didn't pass in any way so try and if it doesn't pass you have the link, my apologies but it's so much better if you don't see ,o.k.g
I accuse Islam of being the cause of this barbarism and all acts of violence committed in the name of the Muslim faith.

I do not just blame terrorists, nor terrorism. I do not just blame the Muslim Brotherhood or the nebula of small groups that revolve around this jihadist, violent and totalitarian brotherhood. I do not exclusively accuse Islamism, or political and radical Islam.

I simply accuse Islam, which by nature is both political and radical.

As I had already written more than twenty-five years ago, Islamism is Islam à découvert, in all its logic and rigor. He is present in Islam as the chick in the egg, as the fruit in the flower, as the tree in the seed. He is the bearer of a social project to establish a world caliphate based on sharia, the only legitimate law, because divine. This is a global and globalizing project, total, totalizing, totalitarian.

I accuse Muslim scholars of the tenth century of promulgating decrees - which have become irreversible - leading Islam to the dead end of today.

The first of these decrees - that of the repeal and the abrogated - consisted in giving primacy to the verses of Medina, carriers of violence and intolerance, to the detriment of the Meccan verses inviting peace and concord.

To make this verdict irreversible, two other decrees were promulgated: that of declaring the Koran "uncreated word of Allah", therefore immutable; and that of prohibiting any further effort of interpretation by declaring "the door of the ijtihad [effort of reflection] finally closed". The sanctification of these decisions has fossilized Muslim thought and helped keep Islamic countries in a state of backwardness and chronic stagnation.

I accuse Islam of being locked in a dogmatism that he can not get out of. Taken to his own trap of resentment, he makes all mankind responsible for his own failures in a business of victimization, and self-justification.

I accuse the Azhar, supposed to embody moderate Islam, to feed a spirit of fanaticism, intolerance and hatred among millions of students and imams from all over the world to learn from its institutions. It thus becomes one of the main sources of terrorism in the world.

I accuse Azhar of its systematic refusal to reform its curricula and textbooks. Despite the repeated demands of Egyptian President al-Sisi to remove all hate speech, violence and discrimination, nothing has yet been done.

I accuse the Azhar for its refusal to condemn the Islamic State / Daesh and Salafist / Wahhabi Islamism, proof of a real proximity to terrorism.

I accuse the great imam of el-Azhar, Sheikh Ahmed el-Tayeb, despite several years of study in Paris and a doctoral thesis defended at the Sorbonne, to persist in sticking to obscurantist and mediaeval current. While it was expected that he would promote innovative thinking in this venerable institution, he instead reinstated the texts that incite violence and intolerance in the textbooks and scholars of the el-Azhar institutions. yet rejected by his predecessor Sheikh Mohammed Tantaoui.

I accuse Azhar of not appealing to the "new Muslim thinkers" of East and West to initiate with them an in-depth reform of Islam.

I accuse large Western nations that while claiming to defend the values of freedom, democracy and human rights are actively working with fundamentalist Islam for narrow economic and financial interests.

I accuse the West of having invented with the Islamists the false notion of Islamophobia to silence any criticism of Islam.

I accuse certain European leaders of yielding to the liberticidal demands of an increasingly demanding and aggressive Islam, whose clearly proclaimed goal is the pure and simple conquest of the West. These leaders betray their peoples and sell their historical legacy. In the name of a multicultural ideology, a wild globalism and an all-out openness, they contribute to the collapse of a prestigious past of culture and civilization.

I accuse the laxity of a certain liberal left incapable in France of imposing the laws of the Republic on a minority refusing any integration. The leaders, sold by electoral interest to explosive suburbs, participated in the social degradation of the "lost districts of the Republic" in the name of a "civil peace" which is only capitulation of the State.

[link to www.christianophobie.fr (secure)]