It was around November 2003 that Vatican publicly admitted to intellectually joining the war on Islam. One year later it has clearly approved the military war which could eliminate the rise of an Islamic State in the Muslim world.

One year later, Julian Coman and Bruce Johnston of British Daily Telegraph report from Rome on October 10, 2004: “Vatican buries the hatchet with Blair and Bush over Iraq.”

Joseph D'Hippolito celebrates it as yet another victory in the war on Islam. Writing in Front Page Magazine (November 09), he exclaims how dramatically Catholic Church has shifted its approach to Islam: “The Telegraph, Britain’s leading conservative newspaper, reported October 10 that Vatican officials now support a multinational military presence led by NATO to restore order and protect Iraq’s nascent democracy.”[1]

It must be dramatic in the sense that Vatican approved military adventures and continued bloodshed against the possibility of Muslims establishing an Islamic government. It was, however, not so dramatic for the matter that it has already joined the ranks of intellectual warriors in 2003.

A Jesuit magazine, La Civilta Cattolica, thought of as the semi-official voice of the Vatican, published an article in 2003, apparently to highlight the “desperate plight” of Christians in Muslim countries, but in reality its objective was to criticize the main concepts of Islam in which Jihad clearly stood out.

The article noted, “for almost a thousand years, Europe was under constant threat from Islam, which twice put its survival in serious danger.” The article reduced the concept of Jihad in Islam to just a “precept of Jihad” as if it entails nothing other than a blind order to fight all non-Muslims and conquer their lands irrespective of any circumstances.

Vatican’s renewed commitment to a war on Islam came to light in an editorial in the newspaper of the Italian bishops’ conference, Avvenire, written by Vittorio Parsi, a professor at the Catholic University of Milan and the newspaper’s foreign policy expert.

According to D’Hippolito, the paper “bluntly outlined Vatican policy: ‘What (the terrorists) want is, in fact, not “Iraq for the Iraqis,” but “Iraq for the assassins.” Thus all of Iraq will become a colossal common area for fundamentalist terrorism, for the brigands of Ba’ath, and for the most extremist Shiite mullahs. The international community and the West, which objectively holds within this community the greatest share of power, culture and responsibility, have the duty of blocking the realization of this plan.”

Earlier on Oct. 2, 2004 Civiita Cattolica linked Islam to “terrorism,” which is the now well-known way of widening the last crusade. It says: "There is a tragic conceptual connection beginning from New York on September 11, 2001, and reaching Beslan, in North Ossetia, on September 1, 2004. It is the connection of terrorism of Islamic origin, which in three years has sown death in many places all over the planet.”

Linking the problem to the roots of Islam, the Vatican magazine continues: "In reality, Islamic terrorism has not changed the goals that it has pursued since its origin until the work of Osama bin Laden.”

Many a Pipeses and Friedmans are busy making such links to demonize the roots of Islam. Sam Haris went to the extent of pursuading others not to call it a war on terrorism, but to openly call it a war on Islam (Washington Times Dec 02, 2004).

However, according to D’Hippolito, the latest attack from Vatican “is significant not only for its intensity but also because of its source. The Vatican’s secretary of state – and by extension, the pope – personally approves all of Civilta Cattolica’s unsigned editorials.”

Political, “intellectual,” and military circles in the West take inspiration from such attacks on the core of Islam from Vatican.

Another magazine of Philadelphia Church of God, Trumpet, apparently denounces Catholics for the earlier crusades, but towards the end of its editorial in December 2004 issues concedes: “This is why the world should be so alarmed when it hears the Vatican today talking about its next great adversary being Islamism. They are right: This Middle Eastern power is rising and becoming a serious threat. But for the Catholic Church to speak out about the problem is to bring the specter of the Crusades to life once again!”[2]

Don’t speak; do the job, seems to be an indirect message which Bush and Blair are carefully following under the cover of fighting “Islamic terrorism,” or the rancid notion of “Islamism.”[3]

In the political circles, Rome can hardly conceal its actions as a result of the inspiration it takes from Vatican. This is how Vatican now takes the lead on political front. Establishing Islamic States in countries under direct and indirect US occupation are out of question any way. However, to address the “green menace” in any other potential land, Cardinal Angelo Sodano, the Vatican secretary of state, suggests a role for the UN in his interview to La Stampa.

He hoped that the United Nations would add a new principle to its charter: "the possibility, even the duty of ‘humanitarian intervention’ in extreme situations in which human rights are trampled upon within a country." Interestingly, the same person and the institute behind him approve the US butchery in Iraq. Where else can be the situation worse than what we witness in Iraq?

Following the lead, Archbishop Silvano Tomasi, the Vatican’s permanent observer to the U.N., reinforced Sodano’s remarks in an address to the UN’s refugee committee in early October. Ignoring the light of Iraqis, Afghans and Palestinians — not to speak of the thousands suffering in Guantanamo kind of US run concentration camps around the world — Tomasi proposes: "International human rights and humanitarian law oblige governments to provide for the security and well-being of all those under their jurisdiction. If, however, a state fails to or cannot take this responsibility … then the international community can and should assert its concern, step in and take on this obligation." Where is this “international community” now to save Iraq, Afghanistan and other occupied lands from the barbarism of occupiers?

To see how the church and military are now on the same wavelength compare General Boykin’s remarks to Monsignor Cesare Mazzolari, the bishop of Rumbek in southern Sudan. The US Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence the war on terrorism, General Boyking believes the US war is a battle between a "Christian army" and Satan and that Muslims worship an "idol' and not a "real God".

Similarly, when asked whether the God of Christians is the same as Allah, Mazzolari replied, "No way! Where would the concept of the Trinity fit in? And Christ is certainly not the greatest of their prophets" (May 2004, the Milan newspaper Il Giornale). Some of the countless promoters of this line of thinking are Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and Franklin Graham.

While some Muslims have yet to come of the denial that this is a war on Islam, Mazzolari adds: "This is just the beginning," of the war on Islam. However, still cautious of facing 1.3 billion united Muslims, like many other Islamophobes, he tries to hide behind Islamism: "The Church has defeated communism, but is just starting to understand its next challenge – Islamism, which is much worse. The Holy Father has not been able to take up this challenge due to his old age. But the next pope will find himself having to face it."

D'Hippolito writes: “Mazzolari is not alone.” I say, these are not statements alone. We come to know about just the faction of all that is being planned and executed on political, media, academic, religious and military fronts against Islam. This is not a sweeping statement when looked at from the perspective of Cardinal Angelo Sodano, the Vatican secretary of state.

This second-most powerful cardinal believes: "The big problem of the future will be our relationship with the Islamic world. It is a challenge that does not only concern the Church" (the Italian daily La Repubblica on Oct. 15. 2004).

The most unfortunate reality is that the more anti-Islam forces are bracing to combat every thing that is or could become Islamic. Whereas Muslims don’t have anything at all that is truly Islamic in nature: collectively neither state, nor law, not even a single system; and individually neither personal lives, nor interpersonal relations. A people lost in rituals at their best are set to face a holocaust before which every other holocaust will pale by comparison.

Muslim liberalism and moderatism are fast becoming a joke in the sense that in the coming dark days, even if Muslims call their renunciation of Islam at the top of their voice, they would be considered opportunists and cowards, trying to avoid something worse than Nazi's gas chambers.

Notes:

[1]. Joseph D'Hippolito, "Vatican slowly awakens to Jihad," Front Page magazine, Nov 09, 2004. See: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15865
Also see: Julian Coman and Bruce Johnston, “Vatican buries the hatchet with Blair and Bush over Iraq,” Daily Telegraph, October 10, 2004. See: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/10/10/wirq10.xml&sSheet=/portal/2004/10/10/ixportal.html

[2]. Gerald Flurry, “From the Editor: The Coming War Between Catholicism and Islam,” Trumpet, December 2004. http://www.thetrumpet.com/geo/na/docs/issues/200412/1.asp

[3]. For details about how “Islamism” is used as a cover to hide the real intentions of a war on Islam see http://usa.mediamonitors.net/headlines/the_mistaken_islamism