Translating Words, Interpreting Events

Muslim Cleric Smashes Virgin Mary Statue

Print Friendly

Once again, U.S.-supported “freedom fighters” in Syria show their true face. In the following video, a Muslim cleric, after declaring the supremacy of Islam — “nothing but Allah shall be worshipped in the land of Syria, and nothing but the rule of Allah [Sharia law] shall govern, and no idol shall be worshipped in the land of Syria after these days” — proceeds to smash a statue of the Virgin Mary, to perfunctory yells of “Allahu Akbar,” or, “My god is better than your god.” [Click on CC if English subtitles don't appear]

, , , ,

  • Chaz_Martel

    The next time a Muslim immigrant tries to convince you that Islam is a religion of peace and that Muslims only intend to integrate into your multicultural society and get along, remember the Virgin Mary and the ultimate fate of any non-Muslim faith which exists in any society dominated by Muslim throwbacks.

    • Larry

      YO CHAZ,

      NO! NO! NO!



      The Byzantine Iconoclasm (Greek: Εἰκονομαχία, Eikonomachía) refers to two periods in the history of the Byzantine Empire when the use of religious images or icons was opposed by religious and imperial authorities within the Eastern Church and the temporal imperial hierarchy. The “First Iconoclasm”, as it is sometimes called, lasted between about 726 and 787. The “Second
      Iconoclasm” was between 814 and 842. According to the traditional view,
      Byzantine Iconoclasm constituted a ban on religious images by Emperor Leo III and continued under his successors. It was accompanied by widespread
      destruction of images and persecution of supporters of the veneration of
      images. The Western church remained firmly in support of the use of images throughout the period, and the whole episode widened the growing divergence between the East and Western traditions in what was still a unified church, as well as facilitating the reduction or removal of Byzantine political control over parts of Italy.

      Iconoclasm, Greek for “image-breaking”, is the deliberate destruction within a culture of the culture’s own religious icons and other symbols or monuments, usually for religious or political motives. People who engage in or support iconoclasm are called iconoclasts, a term that has come to be applied figuratively to any person who breaks or disdains established dogmata or conventions. Conversely, people who revere or venerate religious images are derisively called “iconolaters” (εἰκονολάτραι). They are normally known as “iconodules” (εἰκονόδουλοι), or “iconophiles” (εἰκονόφιλοι).
      These terms were, however, not a part of the Byzantine debate over images. They have been brought into common usage by modern historians (from the seventeenth century) and their application to Byzantium increased considerably in the late twentieth century. The Byzantine term for the debate over religious imagery, “iconomachy” means “struggle over images” or “image struggle”.



      • Chaz_Martel

        Despite your long-winded reply which you clearly copied and pasted from an on-line encyclopedia or some other source, you have missed the point and shown off your profound ignorance of Islam in the process.

        Muslims, like this, ignorant, brutal,throwback, cleric who destroyed a Christian religious symbol did so out of his Islamic supremacism and the Muslim hatred (and deep visceral fear) of Jesus Christ and anyone associated with Christ, such as the virgin Mary, mother of the one true God, Jesus Christ.

        It was hardly done because this brutal, bone-headed cleric was concerned about religious symbols being used in the Christian church. Don’t be ridiculous.

        • Larry

          YO CHAZ,

          You are like the Mohammedans I deal with, every day!

          “Despite your long-winded reply which you clearly copied and pasted from an on-line encyclopedia or some other source….”

          If you had the brains to Google ICONCLASM you would have found such articles as:

          by Rev. Fr. Gabriel Barrow

          According to the Oxford Greek-English Lexicon, icon means a figure, image, or likeness. It was icons (of Christ, the Theotokos, and the Saints), the most outstanding characteristic of the Eastern Orthodox temple of worship, that caused one of the major controversies of the Eastern Church: THE ICONOCLASTIC CRISIS.

          During this crisis, the Church was divided into two groups: the Iconoclasts and the Orthodox. The Iconoclasts were against the use of icons and the Orthodox favored their use. Icons are basically a cultural type of phenomenon that were natural to the Greeks, who always had their idols, and alien to the Syrians, who were not used to idols. As the Church was most influenced by the Emperors, the IconoclastEmperors Leo III, the Isaurian (717-741); Constantine V, Copronymos (741-775) ; and their successors dealt misery to the Orthodox. It was in the year 730 that Leo III issued his doctrine against the use of icons.
          We can see the controversy take the form of a Christological debate as a result of the 82nd Canon of the Quinisext Council, held in 692. The Canon stated:

          “… henceforth Christ our God must be represented in his human form instead of the ancient lamb.”

          Thus the negative attitude of the Quinisext Council
          toward symbolism, and its emphasis on the concrete and historical reality of the Incarnation as the authentic foundation of the art of images, made it inevitable that the debate started by the iconoclastic decree of the Emperor Leo III should immediately become a Christological debate for the problem was already posed within the framework of a theology of the Incarnation.

          We can owe the victory of the icons to the theology of three men, St. John of Damascus, St. Theodore the Studite, and Patriarch Nicephorus of Constantinople. St. John of Damascus writes:

          “I represent God, the Invisible One, not as invisible, but insofar as he has become visible for us by participation in flesh and blood. If we made an image of the invisible God, we would certainly be in error, but we do nothing of the sort; for we are not in error if we make the image of the incarnate God, who appeared on earth in the flesh, and who, in His ineffable goodness, lived with human beings and assumed the nature, the thickness, the shape and the color of the flesh.” Thus icons of Christ, the Theotokos, and the Saints are permitted by the Church, while icons of God the Father are condemned, since He never took on a
          visible characteristic or shape. The Iconoclasts reverted to the severe condemnations of idolatry in the Old Testament as the basis for their argument. St. John of Damascus, who was followed by all later Orthodox Fathers, opposes to it the totally new situation of the relationship between Creator and creatures, God and men, Spirit and matter, which follows the reality of the Incarnation. Thus Christ could be represented in a material image because he had become real man. Then the Iconoclasts replied with the following:

          “… if the image represents the humanity of Christ to the exclusion of His divinity, it implies a Nestorian Christology
          and separates in Christ, God from man; if on the contrary, the iconographer pretends to represent Christ in the individual fullness of his divinity and his humanity, he assumes that the divinity itself can be circumscribed, which is absurd, or else that it lives in a state of confusion with the humanity; in the latter case he falls into the heresy
          of Dioscorus, Eutyches, and Severus.” The Iconoclast Christology rests on Chalcedonian Apophaticism but seems to ignore completely the main assertion that Chalcedon had borrowed from the Tome of Leo: “each nature preserves its own manner of being” and “meets the other (nature) in the single hypostasis.”
          Their Christology seems to indicate that the deification of the humanity of Christ suppresses the reality of the properly human natural character.

          After the Iconoclast Council of 754 the debate centers on two problems: that of the image and that of the prototype The Iconoclasts in the argument about the image stated that every image must necessarily be identical with the divine Model: an “image of God,” fabricated or painted, is therefore essentially an idol, since it pretends to “be God.”
          On this point the Orthodox called on tradition to show that the concept of image could in no way be reduced to an identification with the Model. Only the Son and the Spirit are natural images,” consubstantial to the Father, their Model, although different through their hypostasis. For a precise Orthodox definition of the cult of images we turn to the writings of St. John of Damascus and, especially,
          those writings of St. Theodore the Studite. The image, essentially distinct from the original, is an object of relative veneration or honor, while worship is reserved for God alone and can in no way be addressed to images. The
          religious action is addressed to the prototype, and then becomes adoration. Thus the same action is veneration insofar as it concerns the image of Christ, the Theotokos, and the Saints, and adoration or worship insofar as it is addressed to God. Orthodoxy made accusations of
          idolatry against the Latin Church when Thomas Aquinas himself admitted a “relative adoration” of the images. Thus we should not make images of God. “If someone dares make an image of the immaterial and in corporal divinity, we repudiate him,” writes St. John of Damascus. The Logos Himself, before the Incarnation, could not be represented: He is the image of the Father, but that image cannot be materially reproduced. It is not only vain, but it is stupid,
          to limit spatially the unincarnate Word … “it is idolatry,” writes St. Theodore.

          The Orthodox polemic against iconoclasm insisted
          first on the fullness of the human nature in Christ, thus largely recovering the Christological tradition of Antioch. Theodore the Studite’s conception is “Christ was certainly not a mere man, neither is it Orthodox to say that he assumed an individual among men, but the whole, the totality of the nature. It must be said, however, that this total nature was contemplated in an individual manner-for
          otherwise how could it have been seen-in a way that made it visible and describable …, which allowed it to eat and drink …?”

          St. Nicephorus also stressed the human reality of
          Jesus, his experience of tiredness, of hunger, of thirst, and of human ignorance.

          The main argument of the Orthodox polemicists against iconoclasm was the position of the Tome of Leo and of the Council of Chalcedon on the permanence of the characteristics proper to each of the two natures in Christ: ‘The Inconceivable is conceived in the womb of a Virgin, the Unmeasurable becomes three cubits high; the Unqualifiable acquires a quality; the Undefinable stands up, sits down and lies down: He who is everywhere is
          put into a crib; He who is above time gradually reaches the age of twelve; He who is formless appears with the shape of a man and the Incorporeal enters into a body …, therefore the same is describable and indescribable.

          It is the Iconoclasts’ implicit Monophysitism that gives the Orthodox the opportunity to prove that their tradition remains based on Chalcedon, and faithful to what was fundamentally true in Antiochian Christology: the human reality of the historical Jesus. St. Theodore the Studite, in particular, bases the whole of his theology of icons on the doctrine of the hypostatic union. For Theodore, the very
          hypostasis of Christ is describable, and it is represented on the image.
          The Byzantine tradition, representing Christ with the letters o wn — “He who is,” the translation of the tetragrammaton YHWH-inscribed in the cross-shaped halo around the face of Jesus, well indicates the intention to see in the image the very hypostasis of the Son of God, no doubt invisible in its divinity, but having become visible in the human nature
          it had assumed. To Theodore “all portrait is, in any case, the portrait of a hypostasis, and not of a nature, … the image and the similitude with the prototype can only refer to one hypostasis and not to two.”

          Thus it is only the personalism of patristic theology
          that makes it possible to overcome the essential dilemma of the iconclastic controversy and provides a solid basis for the veneration of images in the Orthodox Church.

          The image of Christ, venerated by the Christians, bears witness to the reality of the Eucharist. The image of Christ is the visible and necessary witness to the reality and humanity of Christ. In this sense the Christian artist can be compared to God. “The fact that God made man in His image and resemblance shows that iconography is a divine action.” The artist, like God in the beginning, in representing Christ makes an “image of God” by painting the deified humanity of Jesus, hypostatized in the Word Himself. “From the moment the divinity united itself to our nature, our nature was glorified like some life-giving and wholesome medicine, and received access to incorruptibility: this is why the death of the saints is
          celebrated, temples are built in their honor, and their images are painted and venerated. The essence of the image is not venerated, but the form of the prototype represented by the image, … for it is not matter which is the object of veneration.”

          No better conclusion could be drawn than that of the
          Kontakion for the First Sunday of Great Lent, known as Orthodoxy Sunday, which commemorates the victory of Orthodoxy over the Iconoclasts. The Kontakion reads:

          “No one could describe the Word of the Father; but when He took flesh from you, O Theotokos, He accepted to be
          described, and restored the fallen image to its former state by uniting it to divine beauty. We confess and proclaim our salvation in word and images.”

          From Word Magazine

          Publication of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America

          February 1975

          pp. 11-12

  • N. Wasse

    It seems that this terrorist and jihadist is not aware that he also worships idols! Example? The black stone in Mecca!
    So should we kuffar also invade Mecca and destroy the black stone and declare that there will be no more idols in Wahhabi land?

    • Larry


      Revised Edition

      The Classic
      Manual of Islamic Sacred Law ‘Umdat al-Salik

      by Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri (d. 769/1368) in Arabic
      with Facing English Text, Commentary, and Appendices

      Edited and Translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller

      amana publications

      Beltsville, Maryland U.S.A


      w4.1 (n:) This section has been translated to clarify some possible confusions among Muslims as to Islam’s place among world religions. The discussion centers on three points:

      (1) Muhammad (Allah bless him and give him peace) is the last prophet and messenger. Anyone claiming to be a prophet or messenger of Allah after him or to found a new religion is a fraud, misled and misleading.

      (2) Previously revealed religions were valid in their own eras, as is attested to by many verses of the Holy Koran, but were abrogated by the universal message of Islam, as is equally attested to by many verses of the Koran. Both points are worthy of attention from English-speaking Muslims, who are occasionally exposed to erroneous theories advanced by some teachers and Koran translators affirming these religions’ validity but denying or not mentioning their abrogation, or that it is unbelief (kufr) to hold that the remnant cults now bearing the names of formerly valid religions, such as “Christianity” or “Judaism,” are acceptable to Allah Most High after He has sent the final Messenger (Allah bless him give him peace) to the entire world (dis: 08.7(20»: This is a matter over which there is no disagreement among Islamic scholars, and if English-speaking Muslims at times discuss it as if there were some question about it, the only reason can be that no one has yet offered them a translation of a scholarly Koranic exegesis (tafsir) to explain the accord between the various Koranic verses, and their agreement with the sunna. The few passages translated below will hopefully be of use until this has been done.

      (3) Islam is the final religion that Allah Most High will never lessen or abrogate until the Last Day. A hadith that seems to imply that “a tenth of Islam” will be enough for Muslims in the latter days is discussed at the end of the section.

      w4.2 (Ibn.Kathir:) Allah’ Most High says:

      “Muhammad is not the father of any man among you, but the Messenger of Allah and the Last of the Prophets. And Allah has knowledge of everything” (Koran 33:40).

      This Koranic verse is an unequivocally decisive primary text establishing that there will be no prophet after him. And since’ there will be no prophet (nabi), it follows a fortiori that there will be no prophetic messenger (rasul).
      The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said:

      (1) “Messengerhood and prophethood have ceased. There will be no messenger or prophet after me.”

      (2) “My likeness among the prophets is as a man who, having built a house and put the finishing touches on it and made it seemly, yet left one place without a prick. When anyone entered it and saw this, he would exclaim, ‘How excellent it is, but for the place of this prick.’ Now, I am the place of that prick: through me the line of the prophets (Allah bless them and give them peace) has been brought to completion.”


      (Muhammad said, he is allowed to MURDER, RAPE, CHILD MOLEST,

      (3) “I have been favored above the prophets in six things: I have been endowed with consummate succinctness of speech, made triumphant through dread, war booty has been made lawful for me, the whole earth has been made a purified place of worship for me, I have been sent to all created beings, and the succession of prophets has been completed in me.”

      Allah Most Blessed and Exalted has stated in His Book, as has His messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace) in hadiths of numerous channels of transmission (mutawatir, def: o22.1(d(II))) that there will be no prophet after him, so that everyone may know that whoever claims this rank thereafter is a lying pretender, misled and misleading, even if he should stage miracles and exhibit all kinds of magic, talismans, and spells (Tafsir al-Qur’an al-’Azim (y60), 3.493-94),

      w4.3 (Imam Baghawi:) The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said:

      “By Him in whose hand is the soul of Muhammad, any person of this Community, any Jew, or any Christian who hears without believing in what I have been sent with will be an inhabitant of hell.”

      This is a rigorously authenticated (sahih) hadith that was recorded by Muslim (Sharh alsunna (y22), 1.104-5).

      w4.4 (Ibn Kathir:) Allah Most High says:

      “Surely those who believe, those of Jewry, the Christians, and the Sabaeans–whoever has faith in Allah and the Last Day, and works righteousness, their wage awaits them with their Lord, and no fear shall be upon them, and neither shall they sorrow” (Koran 2:62).

      Suddi states that the verse “Surely those who believe, etc. “was revealed
      about the former companions of Salman the Persian when he mentioned them to the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), relating how they had been, saying, “They used to pray, fast, and believe in you, and testify that you would be sent as a prophet.” When he had finished praising them, the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) replied, “Salman, they are
      the denizens of hell,.” which came to discomfit Salman greatly, and so
      Allah revealed this verse.

      The faith of the Jews was that of whoever adhered to the Torah and the sunna of Moses (upon whom be peace) until the coming of Jesus.

      When Jesus came, whoever held fast to the Torah and the sunna of Moses without giving them up and following Jesus was lost.

      The faith of the Christians was that whoever adhered to the Evangel and precepts of Jesus, their faith was valid and acceptable until the coming of Muhammad (Allah bless him and give him peace). Those of them who did not then follow Muhammad (Allah bless him and give him peace) and give up the sunna of Jesus and the Evangel were lost.

      The foregoing is not contradicted by the hadith relating that the verse,

      “Surely those who believe, those of Jewry, the Christians, and the Sabaeans-whoever has faith in Allah and the Last Day … ” was followed by Allah revealing, “Whoever seeks a religion other than Islam will never have it accepted of him, and he will be of those who have truly failed in the hereafter” (Koran 3:85), for the hadith merely confirms that no one’s way or spiritual works are acceptable unless they conform to the Sacred Law of Muhammad (Allah bless him and give him peace) now that he has been sent with it. As for people prior to this, anyone who followed the messenger of his own time was guided, on the right path; and was saved (Tafsir al-Qur’an al-’Azim (y60), 1.103).


      w4.5 (Ibn Kathir:) Allah Most High says,

      “Today I have perfected your religion for you and completed My favor upon you, and I please that your religion be Islam” (Koran 5:3), meaning, “So accept it for yourselves, for it is the religion Allah loves and accepts, with which He has sent the best of noble messengers and has revealed in the most sublime of His Books.” ‘Ali ibn Abi Talha relates from Ibn’ Abbas that “Today I have perfected your religion for you … means Islam, Allah thereby informing His prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) and the believers that He has perfected their faith for them, so they will never require anything more. He has completed it and will never diminish it, is pleased with it and will never detest it (ibid., 2.12).

      w4.6 (Qurtubi:) It is likely that by ” … I please that your religion be Islam” (Koran 5:3), Allah means, “I am pleased with your Islam that you follow today as a religion that will endure in its perfection until the end of time, and I will cause nothing of it to be abrogated” (al-Jami’ Ii ahkam al-Qur’an (y117) , 6.63).

      w4.7 (n: The following hadith has been represented by some contemporary Muslims as meaning that a tenth of Islam will be enough for Muslims in the latter days, a misunderstanding felt to merit the explanation provided by the commentary below.)

      The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said: “Verily you are in a
      time when whoever of you abandons a tenth of what he has been commanded shall be lost. Thcre will come a time when whoever practices a tenth of what he has been commanded will find salvation.”

      Verily you (‘Abd al-Ra’uf Munawi:) 0 Companions of the Prophet are in a
      time characterized by safety, and the glory of Islam when whoever
      of you abandons a tenth of what he has been commanded meaning of the
      obligation to command. The right and forbid the wrong (def: ql), for it
      is not permissible to interpret this utterance as applicable to
      all that has been commanded, it being understood that a Muslim has no
      excuse for neglecting things which are personally obligatory will be
      lost to destruction, since the religion of Islam is now strong and there
      are many who aid it, so that your abandoning it is a shortcoming for which no one is excused under such circumstances.

      There will come a time in which Islam will weaken, tyrants multiply, corruption
      spread, lying pretenders grow numerous , and those helping the religion grow few, so that Muslims will be excused for leaving some things out of sheer incapacity, without being guilty of remissness when whoever of the people of that time which contains trials and afflictions practices a tenth of what he has been commanded will find salvation because he is under duress, and Allah charges no soul with more than it is capable of, as He says, “Fear Allah as much as you are able to” (Koran 64:16).

      Tirmidhi recorded this hadith, which he termed singular (gharib), while Ibn J
      awzi listed it in his work on hadith forgeries, mentioning that Nasa’j said it
      was unacknowledgeable, having been conveyed through Nu’aym ibn Hammad, an unreliable transmitter (Fayd at-Qadir sharh alJami’ aZ-saghir (y91), 2.556).

  • GFRF

    The hypocrisy of these lunatics is almost comical.

    • Larry


      Muhammad & his “Band of Merry Men”, murdered, raped & robbed all over Mecca & Medina!



      015.1 The caliph is obliged to summon whoever uses a weapon (0: though force suffices to be considered a weapon, or taking money by dint of one’s fists) and makes people afraid to use the road (0: no matter whether in the wilderness, a village, or in the country; meaning he frightens those who pass along the way by means of his strength or weapons). If the highwayman responds to the summons before he has injured anyone, then he is
      only disciplined (def: 017).

      If he steals the equivalent of 1.058 grams of gold under the previously mentioned conditions (014.1), both his right hand and left foot are amputated.

      (A: The difference between a highwayman and someone who takes by forcible seizure (dis: 014.6) is that the latter does so within earshot of help, while the offense of the highwayman is far greater because he menaces the lifeline of the community, its trade routes.)

      015.2 If a highwayman kills someone, he must be executed, even when the person entitled to retaliation (def: 03) agrees to forgo it. If the highwayman robs and kills, he is killed and then left crucified for three days. If he wounds or maims someone, retaliation is taken against him, though it may be waived by those entitled to take it.

      O15.3 (N: The penalty for highway robbery, such as mandatory execution, crucifixion, and amputating the hand and foot, is cancelled if the highwayman repents (A: desists, and gives himself up) before he has been apprehended, though he is still liable to retaliation (def: 03) by parties entitled to it (A: for
      injuries or deaths he caused to victims) and is financially responsible for
      restoring the money he has taken.)


      014.1 A person’s right hand is amputated whether he is a Muslim, non-Muslim subject of the Islamic state, or someone who has left Islam, when he:

      (a) has reached puberty;

      (b) is sane;

      (c) is acting voluntarily;

      (d) and steals at least a quarter of a dinar (n: 1.058 grams of gold) or goods worth that much (A: at the market prices current) at the time of the theft;

      (e) from a place meeting the security requirements normal (A: in that locality and time) for safeguarding similar articles (def: 014.3);

      (f) provided there is no possible confusion (dis: 014.2(3» as to whether he took it by way of theft or for some other reason.

      If a person steals a second time, his left foot is amputated; if a third time, then his left hand; and if he steals again, then his right foot. If he steals
      a fifth time, he is disciplined (def: 017). If he does not have a right hand (N: at the first offense), then his left foot is amputated. If he has a right hand but loses it after the theft (0: by an act of God) but before he has been punished for it, then nothing is amputated. After amputation, the limb is cauterized with hot oil (A: which in previous times was the means to stop the bleeding and save the criminal’s life).

      014.2 A person’s hand is not amputated when:

      (1) (non-(d) above) he steals less than the equivalent of] .058 grams of gold;

      (2) (non-(e» he steals the article from a place the does not meet normal
      requirements for safeguarding similar articles (dis: below);

      (3) or (non-(f» when there is a possible confusion as to why he took it, as when it was taken from the Muslim common fund (bayt ai-mal) (0: provided the person is Muslim, since he might have intended to use it to build mosques, bridges, or hospices), or when it belongs to his son or father.

      014.3 A place that meets normal security requirements for safeguarding similar articles means a place appropriate for keeping the thing, this
      varying with the type of article, the different countries, and with the justness of the ruler or lack of it, as well as the ruler’s relative strength or weakness. A suitable place for safeguarding fine clothes, money, jewels, and jewelry, for example, is a locked box; the place for trade goods, a locked warehouse
      with guards; the place for livestock, a stable; the place for pallets and
      bedding, a shelf in the house; and the place for a shroud, the grave.

      014.4 If two persons jointly steal the equivalent of 1.058 grams of gold, then neither hand is amputated.

      014.5 A freeman’s hand may not be amputated by anyone besides the caliph or his representative (def: 025).

      014.6 There is no amputation for forcible seizure (0: meaning someone relying on force (N: to take people’s money, who has a gang nearby to abet him in this», snatching (0: meaning someone who depends on running away and is unarmed), or betraying a trust (0: of something entrusted to him, such as a deposit for safekeeping), or appropriating something by disavowal (A: i.e. denying that the victim loaned or entrusted him with such and such a thing), (0: because of the Prophet’s (Allah bless him and give him peace) saying, “There is no amputation for someone who seizes by force, snatches and runs, or betrays a trust,” a hadith Tirmidhi classified as rigorously authenticated (sahih». (A: But if one of the abovementioned persons is a repeated offender whom it is in the interests of society to kill, the caliph may kill him.)