Ancient Protestants Fought Against Ancient Muslims — A Call For Unity

By Theodore Shoebat 

While the Christians of antiquity called themselves Catholic, there was a sect who rejected the legitimacy of the Papacy, on account that it reaccepted lapsed Christians who, out of fear, gave sacrifices to pagan gods during the early persecutions. These were called Novatians.

One could argue that these were the ancient equivalent to the Protestants, since they did not hold anti-Christian doctrines, as the Arians (who denied Christ’s divinity) or the Macedonians (who rejected the Holy Spirit as God), but subscribed to orthodox beliefs such as the Trinity and the Incarnation.

Regardless of this, there was enmity between the Catholics and the Novatians, and there seemed to be no prospect of them ever having concord with another, until a persecution came, and it was from an enemy who held indignation for both of them more than they had hatred for each other. These were the Arians.

The Arians, who were really the precursors to Muslims, were founded by one Arius, a fourth century presbyter in Egypt who denied the divinity of Christ, and who would later become one of the major influencers for the false prophet Muhammad, though the Arabian heretic and founder of Islam lived centuries after the death of Arius.

After Arius perished, Arianism had already infiltrated the Roman government, and over half of the empire was Arian, including the emperor, Constantius. A fervent follower of Arianism, Macedonius, was given license by the Roman king to exile and punish the bishops who did not accept Arianism; the mindset of these were no different than the Muslims today who conduct reminiscent persecutions against Christians .

The Arians began to inflict Catholics with numerous calamities, but their tyranny was not confined to only them, but also to the Novatians, regardless of the fact that they, like the Protestants, were not members of the Church, because they still, also like the Protestants, believed in the Holy Trinity.

The Arians were savage in their bloodlust; they took Novatian women and sawed off their breasts, and burnt the flesh of those resistant to their impiety.

In Constantinople, the Arians demolished many churches, both Catholic and Novatian, for their upholding of the Holy Trinity. The Novatian church in Cyzicus was as well destroyed, and after this the Arians headed toward a Novatian area in Paphlagonia. Now, it must be remembered that these Arians were not just wild zealots thirsty for blood, but trained warriors in the Roman army who converted to Arianism, and who were now being used by the heretics to extinguish the Christians.

When the Novatians heard of their coming, they armed themselves with hooks, hatchets, and whatever weapons they could possess. The army of heretical soldiers arrived and a battle ensued; the Novatians fought with great valiancy and zeal, and slew the great majority of the Arians.

It came to a point, within this great persecution, that Catholics and Novatians united, and even attended the same churches together in unison and concord one with another against the conspired violence of the Arian heretics.

The power of the Arian heresy was most effectively crushed by the Christian Roman Empire in a great war against the Vandals, who were slaughtering Christians for their belief in the Trinity, thanks to the formidable general, Belisarius. Eventually the same heretics were vanquished in Italy, Spain, and France, and orthodoxy was again reestablished.

But then in Arabia,  a land not under the influence or jurisdiction of Christendom, an Arian monk met with an  Arabian pagan, taught him his unitarian interpretations of the Scriptures, and the man would then adopt Arianism and build on it the heresy of all heresies. This Arabian was Muhammad, and his sect was Islam.

The Muslim attack upon Christendom is no different today. Muhammad was the most infamous student of Arianism, and today Christians are still being killed, and their churches destroyed, by these Arians who call themselves Muslims.

The haters of the Trinity will always seek the destruction of those who still believe that Christ is God in the flesh, regardless if you are Catholic or Protestant.

This struggle between Christian and Muslim is an eternal war, between the Unitarian and the Trinitarian, which has been lasting for innumerable centuries, and our only resolve will be to unite in the name of that most sacred Trinity, which will forever more be the vanquisher of the followers of the crescent.

Follow me on Facebook

Twitter

(1) This entire account of the Arian persecution was procured from Socrates, Ecclesiastical History, 2.38

The Dangers of Secular Conservatism

By Theodore Shoebat 

There is a schism within the Conservative movement, between those who are for God and His laws, and those who are for secularism. Those who uphold the Divine Law, will have a foundation upon which their views will stand sturdy and indefatigable, like the wise man who built his house on the rock.

Those who are for a secular perspective, will not see the diabolical when it is standing right in front of them. If the devil ever appeared to them, they would be less likely to resist him and compel him to flee, and more inclined to bow down to receive the kingdoms of the earth.

There is one man in particular who is a product of conservative secularism, his name is Victor Davis Hanson. In one article he suggested that the The Cordoba Initiative–an Islamic organization which desires to infiltrate the Western world with a facade of multiculturalism–should change its name into the “Constantinople Initiative.”

Constantinople was savagely ransacked and taken by the Muslims in 1453, and Hanson believes that the now conquered city can be used as an example for peace between Islam  and the rest of the world. He writes:

If a Muslim city inside Europe is what the Initiative needs for symbolic purposes, why not the “Constantinople Initiative”? Perhaps the proponents of the new Islamic center could make the argument that 1453, with its symbolic minarets on Hagia Sophia, marks the sort of religious ecumenism that we should again strive for.

Let me remind Mr. Hanson of a history which he already knows but does not care about, of how much of the blood of the saints was spilt in the Hagia Sophia, one of the oldest and most glorious churches in Christendom’s history. When the Turks overran Constantinople in 1453 (a time which Hanson extols), innumerable Christians fled into the church and  locked the gates.

The Muslims broke inside, with swords unsheathed, beholding the defenseless people whom they saw as nothing more than open game. They were but sheep being taken to the slaughter. No man could describe the wailings and the cries of the babes, no chronicler the tearful screams of the mothers, no historian the lamentations of the fathers.

The loveliest maiden was sought out by the most degenerate Turk, and not even the nuns were spared by the rapacious Muslims who indulged themselves in the most wickedest act of rape and kidnapping. The braids of women were tugged and pulled by Turks who competed for them; they ripped through their garments and exposed their breasts and bosoms.

People were driven out of the church and flogged, and within one hour all of the men where bounded together by a cord like the Hebrew slaves in ancient Egypt. They were chained together and were treated as though they were not human, but a herd of beasts. Over sixty thousand people were transported to the Muslim camps and ships, exchanged and sold, and dispersed throughout the provinces of the Ottoman empire. (1)

The Janissaries tore down the crucifix in the Hagia Sofia, placed a Turkish turban on the thorn-pierced head and mockingly paraded through the streets as they scoffingly said, “Behold the God of the Christians.” Ever since then the Hagia Sofia has never been touched by Christian hands; it still remains in Turkey as a great bare slab. (2)

The crosses were ordered to be thrown down, and the beautiful statues and mosaics were all gotten rid of, leaving the place from being a magnificent church to a white washed tomb. (3)  He summoned a vile sheikh to ascend the church’s pulpit, and when he did, he cried the Call to Prayer declaring that Allah is greater and thus expressing the superiority of Islam over Christianity. He then went on top of the great altar and preformed an Islamic prayer.

It is this very place, violently stripped of all its sacredness by the Muslims, which Mr. Hanson describes as a symbol of ecumenism. Hanson also subscribes to the commonly held assertion that the jihadists and Islamic terrorists are “anti-gay.” He writes:

…what we saw on September 11, Madrid, London, Washington, Kabul, and Baghdad is a horrific fascism-anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-modern-that is at war with all the Enlightenment had achieved.

No, Mr. Hanson, the Muslims are anti-Christian; Christianity is their main target. The conquerer of Constantinople, the Sultan Mehmet II, was an inveterate homosexual who had the most sinister liking to young men.

The historian Phranza was amongst the Christians of Constantinople who were sold into slavery, and after four months of being yoked he escaped and ransomed his wife. His daughter was murdered, and his two sons were forced to become the victims of Mehmet’s lusts. One of them, aged fifteen, refused to be raped and so was stabbed to death by the possessed Sultan. (4) Also, it must be stated that many Muslims, specifically the jihadists, are homosexuals, and even in the Koran, heaven is described as being filled with male youths.

Hanson never mentions that Islam is a Christian heresy, descending from Arianism (the denial of Christ’s divinity) and a myriad of other blasphemous doctrines. Its priority is not to destroy the Enlightenment and the gay agenda, but to utterly uproot the Church and orthodoxy from existence.

There are three cities which the Muslims seek to destroy: Jerusalem, because that is the Holy City of God; Rome, because it was, in the time of Muhammad, the center for Christian primacy and influence; and Constantinople, the metropolis built by Constantine with the intention to erect a pure city free from all ideology.

It is no wonder, then, as to why the followers of Lucifer would strive to vanquish these three areas, it was because they desired (and still desire) to establish an empire in which unitarianism is enforced and exalted. The Muslims have already taken Constantinople, and they still plan on taking the other two cities. It is apparent that the Muslims will one day invade Jerusalem, and also predict that they will, in the future, attempt to take Rome. Yusuf al-Qaradawi made this aspiration quite clear when he said:

What remains, then, is to conquer Rome.

All of the destruction that Islam brings, all of its violence and bloodshed, all of its cruelty and oppression, is done for the sake of a heresy. But the secularists refuse to admit this, because to them every discussion must have no talk of God and His laws, and the enemies of God. Yet, while the secularists acknowledge an Islamic problem, they will never speak of this problem’s root, and that is heresy.

Moreover, at the beginning of the Islamic revolutions in Egypt, Syria, Libya, and Tunisia, Hanson made it clear that he was on the side of the revolutionaries, and was hoping that Obama would be on their sides and opposed to the Arabist dictators.

Here is a video I made showing Hanson’s statements on this subject in an interview he did for the Hoover Institute:

As long we keep trumping secularism, and not Christian supremacy, the conservative will continue to have these types of thinkers who, while being filled with knowledge, are absent of foresight and thus unable to see the devil in front of them.

Get the latest book, For God or For Tyranny

Follow me on Facebook

Twitter

(1) *Gibbon, Decline and Fall, vol. v, ch. liviii*

(2) *Carroll, A History of Christendom, vol. iii, ch. xiii, p. 568*

(3) *See Gibbon, Decline and Fall, vol. v, ch. lxviii, p. 1216*

(4) *Gibbon, Decline and Fall, vol. v, ch. lxviii, p. 1213*