The Truth: The Orlando Massacre Was Just Another Act of Muslim Orthodoxy

todayJune 16, 2016

share close

Andrew Bieszad Talks Truth About The Orlando Attack

Lions_of_Faith_andrew_bieszadMandeville, LA – Exclusive TranscriptAndrew Bieszad is author of Lions of the Faith.  It’s a book about the Roman Catholic saints that actually stood up to and fought Islam, and that’s what many of them, that’s how they became saints.  Let’s talk turkey about this Islamic, what you and I call Islamic orthodoxy.”  Check out today’s transcript for the rest….

Begin Mike Church Show Transcript

Mike:  Let’s go to our Skype Hotline.  I see that Andrew Bieszad is standing by and ready to roll.  Mr. Bieszad, how are you?

Andrew Bieszad:  I’m doing good this morning.  How you doing?

Mike:  I am well.  We have yet another act of Muslim orthodoxy.  Wait a minute, I’m just being a racist, aren’t I?

Bieszad:  No, radical right-wing Christian white male terrorism.

Mike:  I was catching the remaining audience up on the actual history of the people of Europe, and the actual history of how Christians from the 7th century all the way to the 19th century dealt with the Mohammedans, which is not how we are being told to deal with them today, is it?

Bieszad:  No.  Today we’re told – I’m sure people remember from last year, we bring them teddy bears and give them unlimited free welfare that we don’t even give to our own citizens of our own nation.  Whereas, in the past it was you will embrace the faith or you may leave, or if you don’t leave, we will help you to leave.

Mike:  What is the – when you say embrace the faith, the reason that I played that sermon, or part of that homily from the FSSP priest, because he has his history correct.  When he was covering the history of what the Mohammedans did, as he called it the Islamic horror, that was visited upon all the people of Europe, he didn’t even get into all the details because time was limited.  He only scratched the surface when he talked about the piracy and the first attack upon the island of Malta, which was a success, the second attack on the island of Malta, which was not a success.  He didn’t even get a chance to talk about the Siege of Vienna.  He didn’t get a chance to talk about any of the other wars and battles that were actually fought against the Mohammedan.  Why don’t you give the listener who does not know just a brief overview of what it is that Mohammed and his descendants did for 1100 years across Europe?

Bieszad:  It’s pretty simple with Islam.  Islamic history can more or less – I should say the history of the Muslim world with Europe more or less can be spelled out in one word: War.  Most of that time it’s the Muslim world trying to take over the European world.  I should say at the time European and Christian world.

[private FP-Monthly|FP-Yearly|FP-Yearly-WLK|FP-Yearly-So76]

Remember that in Islam the goal is conquest and conversion.  Muhammad himself even said [speaking Arabic]: I’ve been commanded to fight against mankind until they profess there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his slave and messenger.  The purpose of Islam is to conquer and convert, convert either by people genuinely converting or convert at the point of death or enslavement.  Both cases have been used, the latter much more than the former.

When you look at the relationship between Europe and the Muslim world, most of it is the Muslim world trying to take over the European world through aggressive war, and the European world trying to keep these Muslims out from taking them over.  That only really changed around the year 1699 with the signing of the Treaty of Karlowitz.  That came about as the result of the Battle of Vienna in 1683, which put the Muslim world up into a perpetual decline until today.  Now you see a resurgence of Islamic revivalism.  Really this is nothing new.  This has been going on for centuries.  It’s new to us because we haven’t experienced it, we haven’t seen this for at least 100 years, in total about 300 to 400.  Remember, we are living through a minority period in history.  The majority of history has been war with them.

Islamic_flag_white_houseMike:  Andrew Bieszad is author of Lions of the Faith.  It’s a book about the Roman Catholic saints that actually stood up to and fought Islam, and that’s what many of them, that’s how they became saints.  Let’s talk turkey about this Islamic, what you and I call Islamic orthodoxy.  Rod Dreher, the columnist for the American Conservative Magazine was one of the first people out in the press on Sunday morning with this, throwing up the hand of caution: Now, now, we can’t be saying that these people – this is just one radicalized segment of Islam.  It’s obvious that this guy was radicalized.  What that says is that there is a perverted form of Islam and there is a non-perverted form of Islam that is inert and peaceful and loving and charitable and all these other sorts of things.  When you and I talk about this, we actually tell people what is really going on here, and that is that you have the difference between Muslims, who are orthodox, meaning they’re practicing what they’re supposed to be doing, and Muslims who are not orthodox.  Why don’t you explain that to the folks?

Bieszad:  My pleasure.  You said it.  It’s very simple.  People complain we have an issue with Islamic radicalism and Islamic extremism.  I agree.  We don’t have enough Islamic extremists and we need those.  Those are the people who are going to publicly and truly denounce terrorism.  Those are the Muslims who aren’t going to care about the violence.  Those are the ones who are more inclined to heresy, if they actually even practice Islam, and not only are more likely to leave Islam, but they’re also more likely to embrace the faith.  Those are the ones you want.  You want the radicals.  You want the extremists.  The orthodox are the problem.  The orthodox are the ones who believe, as orthodoxy, they very word suggests, means they have right belief.  What is the right belief of Islam?  Like I said, that all men should convert to Islam whether by choice or by force.  It is to follow in the example of Muhammad, who Muslims call an [Arabic], the perfect man.  What did Muhammad do?  He was a murderer, a highway robber, a pedophile, a necrophile.  He claimed he was demon possessed on more than a few occasions.  He placed divine beatitude in the earthly acquisition of power, money, and sex, PMS, as a reflection of what would come in the afterlife.

We talk about in the Catholic faith the beatific vision, that one will see God and know him and love him and serve him for all eternity.  That idea is not found anywhere in Islam.  The Islamic idea of heaven is one big sex party.  You have lots of food and lots of virgins that never end.  You just continue to party on forever.  It’s a bestial vision of heaven.  As St. Alphonus Liguori points out, the Mohammedan vision is a paradise but only for beasts because one will only find filthy, sensual pleasure there.  That is what you’re looking at in the Mohammedan world.  Yeah, we need more radicals.  We need more extremists because the extremists ones are the ones who are not going to do that stuff.

As far as Rod Dreher’s comment, I just saw it this morning because I usually stay off the internet during the weekend.  When I saw that you put that up, I just shake my head.  How many times are they going to say this?  It’s like trying to deny the sun in the sky.  The fact is that these Muslims, they’re not doing anything special.  They’re just following the example of Muhammad.  Just read Muhammad’s life.  If you don’t believe me, or if people don’t want to believe you, go get a copy of The Life of Muhammad by Ibn Ishaq.  It’s the first biography of Muhammad.  You can get it for about $35 on Amazon.  That book, just read it.  That is the earliest biography, the earliest known source about Islam that we have except for the book about [unintelligible 08:47].  That book will tell you exactly what I said.  Muhammad was a murderer, a pedophile, a necrophile, and this is the example that Muslims are asked to follow.  We say WWJD?  Muslims say WWMD?  If your example is a guy that makes Charles Manson look like someone you want to live next door to, what do you expect?  It’s like putting a dog near a fire hydrant and asking him why he’s doing his business on it.

Mike:  It makes Charles Manson look like a guy you want to live next door to.  Folks, you are listening to the Crusade Channel, part of the Veritas Radio Network.  We apologize for the technical difficulties today.  I knew when I saw the numbers declining earlier today that the SHOUTcast server had, for the first time since November of 2015, anticipation was so high of Bieszad’s appearance that he crashed the SHOUTcast server.

Bieszad:  I’m glad to hear that.  That’s a good thing.  Thanks, everybody, for listening.  I appreciate it.

Andrew_BieszadMike:  Unfortunately right now the live part of our broadcast – we’re recording this.  They’ll get the SHOUTcast server restarted in just a moment here.  If you’re listening to this in tape delay, I’m just making the announcement so that when you’re listening to it, you know why somebody may have said earlier today that the service was down.  Let’s go back to the finer points of Islam when it comes to dealing with homosexuals.  That is, part of the orthodoxy of Muhammad was that you can only be perverted in the form that Muhammad was perverted.  You could have sex with dead people.  He enslaved and had sex with a seven-year-old girl.  You can do pederasty, necrophilia.  That’s all permitted.  Bigamy or polygamy, that’s all permitted.  When it came to homosexuality, that was and remains Islamic or Muslim taboo, or that is an Islamic or Muslim sin.  Why?

Bieszad:  It depends on the situation.  Remember, the same reason – homosexuality is forbidden in Islam with an asterisk.  Just like with bestiality – Islam permits bestiality, too.  I will explain why it permits that, necrophilia, pedophilia, and so forth.  Remember that in the case of Islam, these acts are forbidden between Muslims.  A Muslim can’t do this to another Muslim because a Muslim is a human being.  It goes back to the Islamic theology of the person.  Muhammad said [Arabic]: Every child is born a Muslim.  His parents make him a Jew, a Christian, or a Pagan.  Some sources even add – have you ever seen that a child that is born, that a baby animal is born perfect and is not mutilated?  I emphasize this because the assumption is that one’s human dignity comes from his belief and practice in Islam.

This is critical to understand.  In the Catholic faith, or I should say the Christian world, too, we understand human dignity as intrinsic.  God made man in his image, in his image he created the male and female, who created [unintelligible].  Your humanity is intrinsic to you.  It is not separable from your person.  In Islam that is.  Again, the reason why homosexuality is permitted between a Muslim man and a non-Muslim man is because the non-Muslim man is not looked at as human.  It’s the same reason why bestiality is permitted, because the non-Muslim is not considered a human.  He’s considered an animal or something else.  It’s no different than just self-pleasure.  That’s all that it is.  The interesting part, if you look at the Islamic legal cases, the scholars don’t fuss over as to whether or not these acts are permitted.  They fuss over how one goes about performing these acts and what acts are accepted or forbidden.

Mike:  Andrew Bieszad, author of Lions of the Faith, which is a great book you can get on Amazon for your Kindle today – it’s not back in the print edition is it?

Bieszad:  Not yet.  I’ll let you know first as soon as it’s back.

Mike:  What about the – let’s talk about Orlando.  What did Omar Mateen, what did he do?  According to Islamic law, did he commit a crime?


Bieszad:  No.

Mike:  I want to repeat that question here so that everyone is clear on this.  According to Islamic law, did Omar Mateen commit a crime?

Bieszad:  No.  Not only did he not commit a crime according to Islamic law, but he also did something praiseworthy.  He would actually be rewarded for this in the afterlife.

Mike:  What would he – what did he commit then?  This was an act of Islamic charity?

Bieszad:  An act of piety.

Mike:  An act of piety.  When you say act of piety, you mean an act of strict adherence and observance of the faith?

Veritas_earbuds_listenHave you tried the all new Veritas Radio Network yet?  You can listen to the Mike Church Show LIVE weekdays 8-11 CST.   The show is easier to access than ever before.  But Veritas Radio isn’t JUST Mike Church, try the exclusive shows by Brother Andre: ReConquest, David Simpson’s True Money, The Mark Kreslins Show, My Story of America with Michael T George, Reverse Deception with Gregory Carpenter and The Constitution Hour with Kevin Gutzman.  Help us continue our search for TRUTH by signing up for a Founders Pass Membership today!

Bieszad:  Yes.  Remember, fighting the infidel is holy.  Jihad is described as holy war.  Murdering non-Muslims, essentially permitting ritual murder of non-Muslims is considered a holy thing.  Remember, they’re not human.  They have, by their own choice, chosen to renounce their human nature.  They are becoming non-Muslim.  As such, they no longer deserve to live.  The same pertains, I should add, to bad Muslims, Muslims who claim to be Muslim but do not follow, are not “orthodox” enough.  That’s the reason why you always see Muslims fighting with each other.  One group will say: You’re not following Islam properly.  The other one says: Eat my hat, I am.  The other one says: I’ll make you.  The other one says: Come over here and try.  The next thing you know, they’re fighting with each other.  They both pronounce declarations of infidelity on each other.  Neither one can say the other one is really wrong.  Now you have a fight going.  Both of them believe they are morally justified in murdering the other one because they both say the other one is an infidel.  This is why the Muslim world fights with itself, more with each other than non-Muslims.

As far as the situation in Orlando is concerned, yes, these people are infidels.  They’ve chosen to debase themselves.  The Muslim, he did not have to do what he did.  It was not considered required.  He could have chosen not to do it and he’d be fine.  Again, this is a point that I need to make very clear to people.  It’s not so much that he had to do what he did.  It was the fact that he was permitted to do what he did and he simply chose to elect that option.

Mike:  That is a key point.

End Mike Church Show Transcript

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
author avatar

Written by: AbbyMcGinnis

Rate it

Post comments (0)

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x