Curious. Muslims shut down movie about Mohamed's daughter Fatima.

[Justin Martyr]

I hope somebody who has full knowledge of St. Thomas Aquinas objection against Islam shall discuss that here.

Gladly; Islam is a wicked, false sect that dares to raise itself against Christ the King:

On the other hand those who introduced the errors of the sects proceeded in contrary fashion, as instanced by Mohammed, who enticed peoples with the promise of carnal pleasures, to the desire of which the concupiscence of the flesh instigates. He also delivered commandments in keeping with his promises, by giving the reins to carnal pleasure, wherein it is easy for carnal men to obey: and the lessons of truth which he inculcated were only such as can be easily known to any man of average wisdom by his natural powers: yea rather the truths which he taught were mingled by him with many fables and most false doctrines. Nor did he add any signs of supernatural agency, which alone are a fitting witness to divine inspiration, since a visible work that can be from God alone, proves the teacher of truth to be invisibly inspired: but he asserted that he was sent in the power of arms, a sign that is not lacking even to robbers and tyrants. Again, those who believed in him from the outset were not wise men practised in things divine and human, but beastlike men who dwelt in the wilds, utterly ignorant of all divine teaching; and it was by a multitude of such men and the force of arms that he compelled others to submit to his law.

To Catholic book that is an evil worship. Many Catholic leaders however should call that pronouncement "hate speech" like they'd been ambassadors of the godless.

They can call it what they like at this point. No amount of shadow cast by cancel culture, new speak, or "accompaniment" can diminish the brilliance and sanctity of St. Thomas; a brilliance and sanctity so great in life, and ever more perfect now in the abode of the Blessed.

I've only ever encountered one compelling criticism of the work of St. Thomas, from the mouth of the saint himself: “I can do no more. Such secrets have been revealed to me that all I have written now appears to be of little value.”

[Xavier]

Just passing through for now. I agree St. Thomas' critique of the heresy of Islam is sublime. Closer in time to the False Prophet Mahomet, who also wrote a brilliant refutation of it, was Eastern Doctor of the Church, Icon-Venerator Saint John of Damascus.

Source taken from: http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/stjohn_islam.aspx

There is also the superstition of the Ishmaelites which to this day prevails and keeps people in error, being a forerunner of the Antichrist. They are descended from Ishmael, [who] was born to Abraham of Agar, and for this reason they are called both Agarenes and Ishmaelites. They are also called Saracens, which is derived from Sarras kenoi, or destitute of Sara, because of what Agar said to the angel: ‘Sara hath sent me away destitute.’ [99] These used to be idolaters and worshiped the morning star and Aphrodite, whom in their own language they called Khabár, which means great. [100] And so down to the time of Heraclius they were very great idolaters. From that time to the present a false prophet named Mohammed has appeared in their midst. This man, after having chanced upon the Old and New Testaments and likewise, it seems, having conversed with an Arian monk, [101] devised his own heresy. Then, having insinuated himself into the good graces of the people by a show of seeming piety, he gave out that a certain book had been sent down to him from heaven. He had set down some ridiculous compositions in this book of his and he gave it to them as an object of veneration.

He says that there is one God, creator of all things, who has neither been begotten nor has begotten. [102] He says that the Christ is the Word of God and His Spirit, but a creature and a servant, and that He was begotten, without seed, of Mary the sister of Moses and Aaron. [103] For, he says, the Word and God and the Spirit entered into Mary and she brought forth Jesus, who was a prophet and servant of God. And he says that the Jews wanted to crucify Him in violation of the law, and that they seized His shadow and crucified this. But the Christ Himself was not crucified, he says, nor did He die, for God out of His love for Him took Him to Himself into heaven. [104] And he says this, that when the Christ had ascended into heaven God asked Him: ‘O Jesus, didst thou say: “I am the Son of God and God”?’ And Jesus, he says, answered: ‘Be merciful to me, Lord. Thou knowest that I did not say this and that I did not scorn to be thy servant. But sinful men have written that I made this statement, and they have lied about me and have fallen into error.’ And God answered and said to Him: ‘I know that thou didst not say this word.” [105] There are many other extraordinary and quite ridiculous things in this book which he boasts was sent down to him from God. But when we ask: ‘And who is there to testify that God gave him the book? And which of the prophets foretold that such a prophet would rise up?’—they are at a loss. And we remark that Moses received the Law on Mount Sinai, with God appearing in the sight of all the people in cloud, and fire, and darkness, and storm. And we say that all the Prophets from Moses on down foretold the coming of Christ and how Christ God (and incarnate Son of God) was to come and to be crucified and die and rise again, and how He was to be the judge of the living and dead. Then, when we say: ‘How is it that this prophet of yours did not come in the same way, with others bearing witness to him? And how is it that God did not in your presence present this man with the book to which you refer, even as He gave the Law to Moses, with the people looking on and the mountain smoking, so that you, too, might have certainty?’—they answer that God does as He pleases. ‘This,’ we say, ‘We know, but we are asking how the book came down to your prophet.’ Then they reply that the book came down to him while he was asleep. Then we jokingly say to them that, as long as he received the book in his sleep and did not actually sense the operation, then the popular adage applies to him (which runs: You’re spinning me dreams.) [106]

When we ask again: ‘How is it that when he enjoined us in this book of yours not to do anything or receive anything without witnesses, you did not ask him: “First do you show us by witnesses that you are a prophet and that you have come from God, and show us just what Scriptures there are that testify about you”’—they are ashamed and remain silent. [Then we continue:] ‘Although you may not marry a wife without witnesses, or buy, or acquire property; although you neither receive an ass nor possess a beast of burden unwitnessed; and although you do possess both wives and property and asses and so on through witnesses, yet it is only your faith and your scriptures that you hold unsubstantiated by witnesses. For he who handed this down to you has no warranty from any source, nor is there anyone known who testified about him before he came. On the contrary, he received it while he was asleep.’

Moreover, they call us Hetaeriasts, or Associators, because, they say, we introduce an associate with God by declaring Christ to the Son of God and God. We say to them in rejoinder: ‘The Prophets and the Scriptures have delivered this to us, and you, as you persistently maintain, accept the Prophets. So, if we wrongly declare Christ to be the Son of God, it is they who taught this and handed it on to us.’ But some of them say that it is by misinterpretation that we have represented the Prophets as saying such things, while others say that the Hebrews hated us and deceived us by writing in the name of the Prophets so that we might be lost. And again we say to them: ‘As long as you say that Christ is the Word of God and Spirit, why do you accuse us of being Hetaeriasts? For the word, and the spirit, is inseparable from that in which it naturally has existence. Therefore, if the Word of God is in God, then it is obvious that He is God. If, however, He is outside of God, then, according to you, God is without word and without spirit. Consequently, by avoiding the introduction of an associate with God you have mutilated Him. It would be far better for you to say that He has an associate than to mutilate Him, as if you were dealing with a stone or a piece of wood or some other inanimate object. Thus, you speak untruly when you call us Hetaeriasts; we retort by calling you Mutilators of God.’

They furthermore accuse us of being idolaters, because we venerate the cross, which they abominate. And we answer them: ‘How is it, then, that you rub yourselves against a stone in your Ka’ba [107] and kiss and embrace it?’ Then some of them say that Abraham had relations with Agar upon it, but others say that he tied the camel to it, when he was going to sacrifice Isaac. And we answer them: ‘Since Scripture says that the mountain was wooded and had trees from which Abraham cut wood for the holocaust and laid it upon Isaac, [108] and then he left the asses behind with the two young men, why talk nonsense? For in that place neither is it thick with trees nor is there passage for asses.’ And they are embarrassed, but they still assert that the stone is Abraham’s. Then we say: ‘Let it be Abraham’s, as you so foolishly say. Then, just because Abraham had relations with a woman on it or tied a camel to it, you are not ashamed to kiss it, yet you blame us for venerating the cross of Christ by which the power of the demons and the deceit of the Devil was destroyed.’ This stone that they talk about is a head of that Aphrodite whom they used to worship and whom they called Khabár. Even to the present day, traces of the carving are visible on it to careful observers.

As has been related, this Mohammed wrote many ridiculous books, to each one of which he set a title. For example, there is the book On Woman, [109] in which he plainly makes legal provision for taking four wives and, if it be possible, a thousand concubines—as many as one can maintain, besides the four wives. He also made it legal to put away whichever wife one might wish, and, should one so wish, to take to oneself another in the same way. Mohammed had a friend named Zeid. This man had a beautiful wife with whom Mohammed fell in love. Once, when they were sitting together, Mohammed said: ‘Oh, by the way, God has commanded me to take your wife.’ The other answered: ‘You are an apostle. Do as God has told you and take my wife.’ Rather—to tell the story over from the beginning—he said to him: ‘God has given me the command that you put away your wife.’ And he put her away. Then several days later: ‘Now,’ he said, ‘God has commanded me to take her.’ Then, after he had taken her and committed adultery with her, he made this law: ‘Let him who will put away his wife. And if, after having put her away, he should return to her, let another marry her. For it is not lawful to take her unless she have been married by another. Furthermore, if a brother puts away his wife, let his brother marry her, should he so wish.’ [110] In the same book he gives such precepts as this: ‘Work the land which God hath given thee and beautify it. And do this, and do it in such a manner” [111]—not to repeat all the obscene things that he did.

Then there is the book of The Camel of God. [112] About this camel he says that there was a camel from God and that she drank the whole river and could not pass through two mountains, because there was not room enough. There were people in that place, he says, and they used to drink the water on one day, while the camel would drink it on the next. Moreover, by drinking the water she furnished them with nourishment, because she supplied them with milk instead of water. Then, because these men were evil, they rose up, he says, and killed the camel. However, she had an offspring, a little camel, which, he says, when the mother had been done away with, called upon God and God took it to Himself. Then we say to them: ‘Where did that camel come from?’ And they say that it was from God. Then we say: ‘Was there another camel coupled with this one?’ And they say: ‘No.’ ‘Then how,’ we say, ‘was it begotten? For we see that your camel is without father and without mother and without genealogy, and that the one that begot it suffered evil. Neither is it evident who bred her. And also, this little camel was taken up. So why did not your prophet, with whom, according to what you say, God spoke, find out about the camel—where it grazed, and who got milk by milking it? Or did she possibly, like her mother, meet with evil people and get destroyed? Or did she enter into paradise before you, so that you might have the river of milk that you so foolishly talk about? For you say that you have three rivers flowing in paradise—one of water, one of wine, and one of milk. If your forerunner the camel is outside of paradise, it is obvious that she has dried up from hunger and thirst, or that others have the benefit of her milk—and so your prophet is boasting idly of having conversed with God, because God did not reveal to him the mystery of the camel. But if she is in paradise, she is drinking water still, and you for lack of water will dry up in the midst of the paradise of delight. And if, there being no water, because the camel will have drunk it all up, you thirst for wine from the river of wine that is flowing by, you will become intoxicated from drinking pure wine and collapse under the influence of the strong drink and fall asleep. Then, suffering from a heavy head after sleeping and being sick from the wine, you will miss the pleasures of paradise. How, then, did it not enter into the mind of your prophet that this might happen to you in the paradise of delight? He never had any idea of what the camel is leading to now, yet you did not even ask him, when he held forth to you with his dreams on the subject of the three rivers. We plainly assure you that this wonderful camel of yours has preceded you into the souls of asses, where you, too, like beasts are destined to go. And there is the exterior darkness and everlasting punishment, roaring fire, sleepless worms, and hellish demons.’

Again, in the book of The Table, Mohammed says that the Christ asked God for a table and that it was given Him. For God, he says, said to Him: ‘I have given to thee and thine an incorruptible table.’ [113]

And again, in the book of The Heifer, [114] he says some other stupid and ridiculous things, which, because of their great number, I think must be passed over. He made it a law that they be circumcised and the women, too, and he ordered them not to keep the Sabbath and not to be baptized.

And, while he ordered them to eat some of the things forbidden by the Law, he ordered them to abstain from others. He furthermore absolutely forbade the drinking of wine.

...

From Writings, by St John of Damascus, The Fathers of the Church, vol. 37 (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1958), pp. 153-160. Posted 26 March, 2006.

[Maximilian]

Thanks for posting this very interesting excerpt from St. John Damascene. I thought this was striking:

This stone that they talk about is a head of that Aphrodite whom they used to worship and whom they called Khabár. Even to the present day, traces of the carving are visible on it to careful observers.

Recently I was reading the Greek historian Herodotus, and it does seem that Aphrodite was the god most worshiped in the Middle East. It makes sense to see Islam as a continuation of this tradition.

[Justin Martyr]

Thanks for posting this very interesting excerpt from St. John Damascene. I thought this was striking:

This stone that they talk about is a head of that Aphrodite whom they used to worship and whom they called Khabár. Even to the present day, traces of the carving are visible on it to careful observers.

Recently I was reading the Greek historian Herodotus, and it does seem that Aphrodite was the god most worshiped in the Middle East. It makes sense to see Islam as a continuation of this tradition.

There is also some evidence that the black stone and the ritual of circumambulation associated with it originated from Hindu traders. V-VII century arabia was quite the melting pot.

[Elizabeth]

I thought Aphrodite was a goddess.  But no matter.  Super ancient Indian bas-reliefs are very lascivious.

[Julio]

The way other faith presents themselves are anchored on worldly pleasures by which that can be shown that it is from the devil who offered the world to Jesus. Judaism on the other hand is rejection of the truth of God and the schismatic ones are the reinvention of Catholicism which are manmade that have no authority given to the Apostolic Fathers by Jesus. All of them other than the One True Catholic and Apostolic Church are not true because they're objections to the truth of the Holy Trinity and Jesus, who is the truth and the light. It is not at all surprising that they are not within the context of the proper adoration to God.

I believe that we have to go back to the Augustinian and Thomasian Catholic values and perspective. Catholicism is so inconsistent with political correctness because this modern concept contravenes the expression of truth and clarity. Vagueness is ipso facto evil.

[Justin Martyr]

I believe that we have to go back to the Augustinian and Thomasian Catholic values and perspective.

Completely and utterly correct. I staunchly maintain that the crisis in the Church goes back to a subtle (sometimes not-so-subtle) abandonment of St. Augustine In the renaissance era Church in favor of humanism, along with latent issues after the murder of Boniface VIII (conciliarism, gallicanism, etc) that were resolved too late. Trent and Vatican I corrected alot, but what it overlooked festered over the centuries into the current maelstrom.

[Prayerful]

Moslems following the main Sunni schools or tendencies like Deobandism or Salafyism are deathly hostile to this Shia product.

It isn't even wholly clear that Mohammed existed, Mohammed as a visionary and military leader unifying Arabs. The early evidence is fact shadowy, perhaps indicative that Mohammed, was a useful invention for Arab rulers who needed a creed more distinctive than some Christian heresy that might have unified some Arab tribes that were able to make striking gains against the exhausted Romans and Persians.

[Julio]

Truly, Justin, this humanism leads toward making the human life the most important in this world and abandon that God is the only and exclusive priority of every person. The same concept likewise created the wrong interpretation of love that is now reduced towards some kind of emotion. According to St. Thomas Aquinas, "to love is to will the good of the other." Nothing is will that good with the acceptance and tolerance of all the transgression against the will of God. No one tolerates the way of a heathen and incorrect adoration of God if the priority is Him.

[Julio]

Moslems following the main Sunni schools or tendencies like Deobandism or Salafyism are deathly hostile to this Shia product.

It isn't even wholly clear that Mohammed existed, Mohammed as a visionary and military leader unifying Arabs. The early evidence is fact shadowy, perhaps indicative that Mohammed, was a useful invention for Arab rulers who needed a creed more distinctive than some Christian heresy that might have unified some Arab tribes that were able to make striking gains against the exhausted Romans and Persians.

Islam is the largest organization of institutionalized anti-Christ.

[mikemac]

Just so you know, Muslims are not the only ones that are shutting down movies that are against their faith.  America Needs Fatima and TFP are continually running petitions to either shut down blasphemous movies, or blasphemous products that are being sold, or to prevent speakers like Jimmie the queer Martin from speaking at a Catholic university or the like.  And they get so many people signing their petitions that they actually work in closing them down.  More often than not.  I could probably post a petition in here once a week or so; sometimes two or three times a week.  But nobody around here seems to want to sign the petitions.  Just saying that they work more times than they don't. 

[Julio]

Catholics can talk about blasphemy because there is truth in it.