reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker claims the Catholic Church's relationship with Muslims is part of their plan of salvation, as stated in the Catholic Catechism 841. They profess Muslims hold the faith of Abraham and together adore one merciful God. According to the speaker, very few people realize that Catholics started Islam to try to get the holy land back. They funded and trained Mohammed and sent a Catholic nun to marry a promising Muslim and train him to raise an army to take back the holy land for the Catholic Church. The speaker says the plan failed when Islam became too powerful and independent. The speaker believes most Muslims are unaware that their religion started as a front for the Catholic Church.

There is a misconception that the entire nation is responsible for the actions of a few. This rhetoric denies the fact that civilians may not be aware or involved. It is puzzling to see the world's concern for the Palestinian people, while neglecting the atrocities committed by these individuals.

The speaker references the Catholic Catechism as found in the library, noting that it states, "the church's relationship with the Muslims is the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the creator. The first place among whom are the Muslims. These profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us, they adore the one merciful God." They mention an “excellent little bitty comic book” called The Prophet by Jack Chick, available for about $2, which "goes through the history of the Muslim church and how they started." The speaker asserts that "Very few people realize it was the Catholics that started Islam." They claim Catholics "started the whole religion purposely to try to get the holy land back for the Catholics," "built up the Islam," "funded Mohammed," and "trained him." They say a Catholic nun was sent "out of the monastery" to "find a young promising Muslim, marry him, and train him to raise up an army of Arabs to go take back the holy land for the mother church." The speaker acknowledges this is "Quite an interesting story if you wanna read about that." They assert that it "started to work, but then it failed because Islam got so big," and conclude, "they said, well, forget you, Catholics. We're doing what we want." Finally, they state a statistic about Muslims, noting there are "now, what, 10%, 20% of the world population," and claim that "Islam" is not known by most Muslims to have "started off as a front for the Catholic church."

There is a growing antisemitism in France and Europe, but it is not accurate to say that the French people are antisemitic. The antisemitism comes from the Islamized suburbs, influenced by Arab and Islamic culture, which expresses hostility towards Jews and Christians. This hostility is rooted in texts like the Quran and hadiths, which refer to Jews and Christians as pigs and dogs. The rise in antisemitism is not due to the French population, but rather the importation of a population that has been anti-Jewish for centuries. Some individuals exploit this situation for political reasons, using the anti-Jewish sentiment along with anti-police and anti-French sentiments prevalent in these Islamized suburbs.

This is a waste of time. Christians have recognized the nature of Islam for 1,400 years since its inception. It is fundamentally a satanic religion. The Catholic Church has repeatedly had to defend itself against Muslim influences. There is a clear, organized invasion happening, and it's important to acknowledge who is behind it.

The discussion centers on what defines the far right. Speaker 1 identifies two key features that far-right groups share. First, they reject or undermine what representative liberal democracy is all about, a system that accepts that a plurality of views is legitimate and should be supported and allowed. Speaker 1 suggests that many viewers would feel that the organization’s campaign methods automatically discount the views of Muslims and the rights of Muslims to hold those views. Second, beyond variations in different groups, there is a shared ultimate rejection of human equality. Speaker 1 notes that while the organization may deny being the same as groups like the American Nazis, there is a recognition of considerable variation within those parties; nevertheless, the core characteristic they share is this rejection of equality. Speaker 0 pushes back by saying that the discussion has moved from militant Islam to a broader focus on Muslims, implying that the conversation has shifted from a discussion about extremism within Islam to Muslims in general. This leads to a clarification of the perceived issue: the organization’s approach is viewed as not merely critiquing militant Islam but targeting Muslims as a group. The exchange highlights a tension between describing far-right groups as advocating for a democracy that excludes or diminishes minority rights and acknowledging the internal diversity of far-right movements. It also raises a concern about how such groups are perceived by the public in terms of whether their campaigns are seen as denying Muslims the right to hold views or participate in the political process. The dialogue emphasizes two main points about far-right ideology: a fundamental challenge to liberal, pluralistic democracy and a fundamental rejection of human equality, with an added discussion about whether the scope of critique should be directed at militant expressions of Islam or Muslims as a whole.

There is a misconception that the entire nation is responsible for the actions of a few. This rhetoric denies the involvement and awareness of civilians. It is puzzling to see the world's concern for the Palestinian people, while neglecting the atrocities committed by these individuals, who are seen as the worst of this century.

Speaker 0 centers the discussion on “why is Israel killing Christians,” arguing that Americans and Christians fund Israel and the IDF, and that Christians’ sites are blocked or attacked. He notes Hamas may have Christian members and points out a paradox about secular groups like Fatah having Christian support, asking for a coherent explanation for why Christians are being killed in a conflict not clearly about Christianity. He claims “Hamas was funded by Israel to some extent” and distinguishes religious versus political motivations, suggesting a purely religious motive would foreclose Christian accomplices. He defines terrorism as “the act of murdering the innocent” and says “If you murder the innocent, you are engaged in terrorism.” He argues Israel is not the litmus test; the focus should be on one’s own country, and that “the worst thing you can do is punish the innocent.”

There is a misconception that the entire nation is responsible for the actions of a few. This rhetoric denies the involvement and awareness of civilians. It is puzzling to see the world's concern for the Palestinian people, while neglecting the atrocities committed by these individuals, who are seen as the worst of this century.

The speaker claims the Catholic Church's relationship with Muslims is part of their plan of salvation, as stated in the Catholic Catechism. They profess Muslims hold the faith of Abraham and adore the one merciful God. According to the speaker, the Catholic Church started Islam to regain the holy land. They allege the Church funded and trained Mohammed and sent a nun to marry a Muslim and raise an army to reclaim the land. The speaker says the plan backfired when Islam became independent. They believe most Muslims are unaware that their religion originated as a front for the Catholic Church.

Speaker 0 asks how to weed out Muslims in a country that despises you and means you harm without vilifying or persecuting those who are fine and part of the social fabric. Speaker 1 responds by highlighting that Arab states have taken a strong stance against the Muslim Brotherhood and asks why the West hasn’t. The Muslim Brotherhood has been banned in Egypt and in many Gulf states (not Qatar), and there is a reason: they know how dangerous this organization is, that it doesn’t represent peace-loving Muslims who simply want to practice their religion and not impose a perverted version of jihad. Speaker 1 asserts that the Muslim Brotherhood is not pro-Muslim; it is an organization providing cover for terrorism that disproportionately impacts Muslims, especially in the Arab world. He emphasizes that the biggest victims of terrorism are the people of the Middle East, the majority of whom are Muslims, and urges people to educate themselves about what’s really happening on this front before it’s too late. Speaker 0 then asks why Europe is failing and has massively open borders, taking people from regimes where terrorism is life-threatening. Speaker 1 answers with a single word: subversion. He claims this is most evident in the Israel-Palestinian conflict, stating that the way the war and the conflict are presented in international media is not an accurate reflection of what’s happening on the ground. He believes many Palestinians would share that sentiment. He contends that what’s happening in Gaza is not how it’s reported, because narratives are shaped to present a certain story, a process he attributes to Al Jazeera. He questions who runs Al Jazeera and asserts it is state-run by Qatar, and says they have been a chief sponsor of a “laundered ideology” presenting Palestinian victimhood even if some stories are fabricated. He claims Al Jazeera has falsified stories during the Gaza war. Speaker 1 concludes that when people push back against Islamism, they’re accused of conspiracy or exaggeration, but the speaker argues that there is a conspiracy to undermine the West. He acknowledges that it may seem crazy to say so, but asserts that such a conspiracy is exactly what is happening. He identifies this as the fundamental ideology of Qatar, the Muslim Brotherhood, and the Islamic Republic of Iran on the Shia side, and says this is something that must be spoken out against to educate the general public.

The speakers discuss what they describe as a global rise in Islamist-linked threats and the impact of migration on security in Western countries. They begin by asserting that France’s government can no longer keep its own people safe from “potential radical Islamic terrorists that they have welcomed into their country,” and claim that France has allowed so many Middle East and North African migrants that crowds can no longer be assembled. They extend the concern to other Western nations, stating that the threat is now widespread, including in Germany, where they say many people are afraid to attend famous Christmas markets because they have become highly dangerous targets for radical Islamists. Speaker 1 provides details: since 2014, seven European Christmas markets have been attacked—three in France and four in Germany. Authorities arrested five men suspected of planning attack number eight in Germany last week; among them is described as a Muslim cleric from a German mosque who allegedly urged his followers to kill as many people as possible. The report notes that an attack in Poland on a Christmas market was foiled as well. The German case is characterized as a migrant who came from Egypt, moved to Germany, and, according to the speakers, worked at a mosque in a country they describe as tolerantly allowing him to operate there. They claim this individual began indoctrinating other Muslims to murder Christians. They describe attending a German Christmas market at this point as akin to playing Russian roulette, expressing fear that an asylum seeker living on tax dollars could drive a car into a market and kill many people. The speakers reference Australia, stating that 16 people were murdered on a beach “this past Sunday,” and claim that there is a heightened threat as their government imported tens of thousands of migrants from Muslim-majority countries, with the Muslim population purportedly doubling in a decade. They criticize Australia’s Labour Party as “left-wing,” asserting it has “the strictest gun laws in the world” yet intends to add more, while instructing viewers to light a candle as a symbolic response. They describe the current government as being led by people who are detached from reality and who prioritize political orthodoxies over people’s lives, claiming that the media feeds the same narratives and spin. Speaker 2 endorses a symbolic action: “Light a candle. Put it in their front window tonight at 06:47PM to show that light will indeed defeat darkness.” They state that a national cabinet meeting will consider a proposal to empower agencies to examine what can be done in this area. Overall, the dialogue emphasizes a narrative of increasing Islamist terrorism linked to migrant populations in Europe and Australia, argues for stronger security measures and altered political responses, and frames mainstream reporting as insufficient.

The speaker claims the Catholic Church's relationship with Muslims is part of their plan of salvation, as stated in the Catholic Catechism. They profess Muslims hold the faith of Abraham and together adore one merciful God. According to the speaker, the Catholic Church started Islam to regain the Holy Land. They funded and trained Mohammed and sent a Catholic nun to marry a Muslim and raise an army to take back the Holy Land for the Catholic Church. The plan initially worked, but Islam became too powerful and independent. The speaker believes most Muslims are unaware that their religion originated as a front for the Catholic Church.

Speaker 0: Get up to a certain level in the Masons that you're qualified to go into the Shriners, which I guess is really the height of the whole thing. And then you talked about the distinctive headgear that they wear, the fez, and which we've seen all these circuses, at parades, they come down the street on their motorcycles wearing their fez. Tell us first of all, is the Shriners and what is the significance of that fez? Speaker 1: Well you'll see the men in the shrine parades, the shrine circus wearing their red fez. In order to be a shriner, have to reach the highest degrees of Freemasonry, either the thirty second degree of the Scottish Rite or thirteenth degree of the York Rite, and then you're allowed to go into the shrine. Sadly, many Christians have gone into this, which is hard to understand because in order to be a shriner, in the initiation, every shriner takes a blood oath of allegiance to Allah as his God and Mohammed as his prophet. Speaker 0: Are you kidding me? Speaker 1: No. In light of nineeleven, you have to wonder how can any Christian take a blood oath of allegiance when God absolutely forbids that in the 10 commandments. Speaker 0: Yet they're not even allowed to pray in the name of Jesus at the lodge, are they? Speaker 1: No. But you swear allegiance that Allah is your God, Muhammad is your prophet. You are then given this red fez with the Islamic sword encrusted in jewels on the front of it. You will see men wearing this and people say, Why do they wear the red fez? It is because if you study history, during the seventh and eighth century as the Muslims swept across North Africa, they came to Fez, Morocco. Speaker 1: And in Fez, Morocco, there was a large community of Christians and Mohammed had ordered the slaughter of all the infidels, meaning Christians who would not bow down to Allah and Mohammed as the prophet. The Muslims went in with the Islamic sword and therein Fez slaughtered thousands of Christians. Then they took their Fez hats and they dipped it in the blood of Christians, glorying in the defeat of Christianity. That's why the Fez's are red, representing the blood of Christians defeated by the Islamic sword which they have encrusted in jewels on the front. There are Christians who walk around wearing this hat and Dave, to be honest, it's an abomination in the eyes of God. Speaker 2: Your political leaders are not only Masons, but some of them are secretly Muslim. They've taken a blood oath to Allah as their one and only God and Mohammed as his messenger, So they don't mind using their power and their influence to advance Islam's agenda. Speaker 3: Islam has contributed a lot to America. In the middle of the supreme court is in the rotunda is a statue or bust of the prophet Mohammed showing the respect that American law and jurisprudence has for the revealer of the Koran. Many of American presidents are masons and shriners who got to the thirty third degree and study the Koran in secret and have the star and crescent on their face. Malik. So Islam is at the basis of Western and American civilization.

The speaker discusses a theory that a horrible event was falsely attributed to Muslims, when in fact it was carried out by a cunning and ruthless Israeli individual. They claim that this theory is not their own, but rather based on a US army report published the day before 9/11. The report allegedly warned about Israel's capabilities. The speaker invites criticism but emphasizes that this information comes from an official source.

Speaker 0: The speaker discusses content from the Catholic Catechism and a separate critical perspective on Islam. They cite that the Catholic Catechism states the church's relationship with Muslims is part of the plan of salvation, and that Muslims acknowledge the creator, with the first place among whom they are included being the Muslims. They quote: “They profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us, they adore the one merciful God.” They then promote a small comic book called The Prophet by Jack Chick, noting it is available from their ministry for about $2. The speaker uses The Prophet to claim that Catholics started Islam. According to this view, Catholics “started the whole religion,” purposely to recover the holy land for the Catholics. The narrative claims Catholics built up Islam, funded Mohammed, trained him, and even sent a Catholic nun out of a monastery to find a young promising Muslim, marry him, and train him to raise an army of Arabs to take back the holy land for the mother church. The speaker acknowledges this as an interesting story to read if someone wants to explore it further. They assert that it began to work, but eventually Islam grew so large that the Catholics were abandoned by Muslims. The speaker concludes with a generalization, stating that the current global Muslim population—now estimated by the speaker as “10%, 20% of the world population”—is largely unaware that “they really started off as a front for the Catholic church.”

The speaker claims the Catholic Church's relationship with Muslims is part of their plan of salvation, as stated in the Catholic catechism 841. According to the speaker, the Catholic Church started Islam to regain the Holy Land. They allege the Church funded and trained Mohammed and sent a Catholic nun to marry a Muslim and raise an army to take back the Holy Land. The speaker says this plan initially worked, but Islam grew too large and became independent. The speaker believes most Muslims are unaware that their religion originated as a front for the Catholic Church.

There is a misconception that the entire nation is responsible for the actions of a few. This belief that civilians are unaware or uninvolved is false. It is puzzling to see the world's concern for the Palestinian people, while neglecting the atrocities committed by these individuals who can be described as the worst human animals of this century.

In a field report from the Holy Land, Tucker Carlson and his team explore the lived experience of Christians in a region where religion, politics, and funding intertwine. The segment frames Christendom’s presence as both historical and fragile, shaped by borders, custodianship, and shifting demographics. - The setting and question: Carlson pulses between Nazareth and Jerusalem-adjacent areas, noting that the Holy Land lies within Jordan—a predominantly Muslim monarchy that funds much of the region’s religious and cultural life. The central question is how Christians are faring: thriving or suffering? The host asserts that in Israel, Christians are not thriving; their numbers are shrinking in absolute terms and as a share of the population, especially since the Gaza War and the rise of extremism. Clips circulating online purportedly show Christian clergy in Jerusalem spat upon by Jewish extremists, raising concerns about anti-Christian hostility that US funding seems to overlook or deny. - The Archbishop of Jerusalem (born in Nazareth) speaks frankly about decline and exposure to oppression: he says Christians in the Holy Land have been here for two thousand years, but today they are in a period of decline. Since 1948, many Christians fled or were expelled; the Christian population halved, with subsequent declines after 1967. He emphasizes Jerusalem as the spiritual capital of the Christian faith, but notes the thinning presence and the difficulties of sustaining communities, particularly in Nazareth and the Galilee, where emigration has increased in two recent decades. - Refugees and the Christian presence: The Archbishop notes that many Palestinian refugees from the 1948 creation of Israel were Christians, contradicting the stereotype that Palestinian refugees are predominantly Muslim. He gives an example of Beirut’s All Saints Anglican community, which is 90% Palestinian Christians from Galilee, illustrating long-standing Christian diaspora within the region. Bethlehem is highlighted as a site of economic and religious pressure due to the separation wall and movement restrictions; the Christian population in Bethlehem has fallen from about 100,000 to under 30,000. He attributes some of these declines to limited aid, both domestically and from Western churches, and to concerns that donations can end up in the wrong hands. - Aid and funding dynamics: The Archbishop argues that while Western churches provide some support through bodies like the American Friends of the Diocese of Jerusalem, a disproportionately large share of Western Christian aid flows to Jewish settlements rather than to Nazareth or Bethlehem. He contends that money from the West can be linked to settlement expansion and land confiscation in Christian areas, creating moral tension for Western Christians who fund the region. He cites Jordan’s King Abdullah as a donor who has funded repairs to sacred sites such as the Nativity and the Holy Sepulchre, illustrating a different model of custodianship and interfaith stewardship. - Custodianship and Jerusalem’s status quo: The Jordanian king is described as the custodian of holy sites in Jerusalem, including Al Aqsa and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, a framework the Archbishop says maintains a shared space for Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. He argues that handing custodianship entirely to the Israeli government would produce exclusivity and degrade the three-faith balance that has historically preserved access to sacred sites. - Practical realities for worship and safety: The Archbishop details routine security constraints around the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, especially on Holy Saturday during Holy Fire, where Israeli police restrict attendance and limit pilgrims, sometimes to a fraction of typical numbers for “safety reasons.” He notes that similar restrictions affect other holy sites and events across Israel and neighboring areas, including Orthodox and Jewish observances. He references efforts to engage U.S. diplomats, like Ambassador Mike Huckabee, to address these access limits, though without consistent success. - Everyday threats and incidents: The Archbishop describes spitting at clergy as a recurring, if not constant, problem in Jerusalem, tied to fringe groups and to a broader climate of secular or religious animus. There is talk of vandalism and intimidation directed at Christian sites, with limited legal recourse because spitting and harassment are not consistently criminalized in the way the clergy and authorities would hope. - The West Bank and Jordan as a model: The Jordanian Christian interlocutor (Speaker 3) frames Jordan as a regional model for coexistence, arguing that Christians in Jordan feel integrated with Muslims and receive constitutional protection and equal rights. He highlights three pillars of Jordan’s Christian flourishing: constitutional equality, political and social stability, and Hashemite leadership that prioritizes interfaith dialogue, meritocracy, and mercy. He notes Christian representation across government and business, suggesting that, despite being a minority (roughly 3%), Christians are disproportionately represented in leadership roles, which he sees as evidence of a functioning model for minority resilience. - Refugees as a regional test: The Jordanian interlocutor emphasizes Jordan’s long history of hosting refugees from Jerusalem, Gaza, Syria, and Iraq, framing Jordan as a nation built on refugee experience and humanitarian responsibility. He stresses that stability in Jordan—economic, political, and social—depends on leadership, constitutional rights, and the willingness of the international community to sustain support, particularly given donor fatigue and shifting attention from the US and other partners. - A plea to Western Christians: The interview closes with a call for American Christians to engage directly with ancient Christian communities in the Holy Land, to listen to their experiences, and to support stability and coexistence without reducing faith to political slogans or demonizing one group. The Archbishop concludes with a hopeful vision: Jerusalem should belong to all people, a sacred center for Christians, Jews, and Muslims alike. In sum, the conversation juxtaposes narratives of Christian decline and resilience, heavily weighted by political context, funding flows, and interfaith custodianship. It presents Jordan as a contrasting, stabilizing model for minority Christian life in the Middle East while insisting that Western Christian communities rethink their engagement and support for Christian communities in the Holy Land.

Speaker 0: The Christians today are open idolaters. They insult Allah, saying that he has a son. Very first problem I see in America, Christianity. Do not take the Jews and Christians as your close friends. This is a command from Allah. Let us take these lessons and teach it to our children. Teach them to hate everything about kufr. Drawing the boundaries when dealing with the enemy, when dealing with the disbeliever. They overtake the disbelievers. They fight in the path of Allah, and they do not fear the headlines. Speaker 1: Question they raise is, why do Muslims hate us? Why are Muslims full of hate against the West or Christianity or Judaism or anything. The Quran tells us the truth. In Islam, we do not resemble the non Muslims, Jews, Christians, or anybody else. But you know what's the worst thing? It's to resemble someone who's your enemy. The crusaders. Speaker 0: The worst. They fail.

Speaker 0 summarizes controversial religious claims surrounding the Pope kissing the Koran and the Catholic Church’s relationship with Islam. He notes the Catholic Catechism, specifically eight forty one, which states “the church's relationship with the Muslims is the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the creator,” and adds that “The first place among whom are the Muslims.” He emphasizes that “These profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us, they adore the one merciful God.” He references an inexpensive comic book called The Prophet by Jack Chick, which he says is “an excellent little bitty comic book” available from his ministry. He describes Chick’s presentation of the history of Islam, claiming that “Very few people realize it was the Catholics that started Islam.” According to the account, Catholics “started the whole religion purposely to try to get the holy land back for the Catholics,” and they “built up the Islam. They funded Mohammed. They trained him. They sent a Catholic nun out of the monastery.” He recounts the alleged directive: “we want you to come out of your convent. Go find a young promising Muslim, marry him, and train him to raise up an army of Arabs to go take back the holy land for the mother church.” The speaker concedes the story is “Quite an interesting story if you wanna read about that.” He states that “it started to work, but then it failed because Islam got so big, they said, well, forget you, Catholics. We're doing what we want.” He concludes with a provocative assertion about contemporary Muslims, estimating Islam to comprise “now, what, 10%, 20% of the world population,” and adds that “I don't think most of them know that they really started off as a front for the Catholic church.”

Speaker 0: Get up to a certain level in the Masons that you're qualified to go into the Shriners, which I guess is really the height of the whole thing. And then you talked about the distinctive headgear that they wear, the fez, and which we've seen all these circuses, at parades, they come down the street on their motorcycles wearing their fez. Tell us first of all, is the Shriners and what is the significance of that fez? Speaker 1: Well you'll see the men in the shrine parades, the shrine circus wearing their red fez. In order to be a shriner, have to reach the highest degrees of Freemasonry, either the thirty second degree of the Scottish Rite or thirteenth degree of the York Rite, and then you're allowed to go into the shrine. Sadly, many Christians have gone into this, which is hard to understand because in order to be a shriner, in the initiation, every shriner takes a blood oath of allegiance to Allah as his God and Mohammed as his prophet. Speaker 0: Are you kidding me? Speaker 1: No. In light of nineeleven, you have to wonder how can any Christian take a blood oath of allegiance when God absolutely forbids that in the 10 commandments. Speaker 0: Yet they're not even allowed to pray in the name of Jesus at the lodge, are they? Speaker 1: No. But you swear allegiance that Allah is your God, Muhammad is your prophet. You are then given this red fez with the Islamic sword encrusted in jewels on the front of it. You will see men wearing this and people say, Why do they wear the red fez? It is because if you study history, during the seventh and eighth century as the Muslims swept across North Africa, they came to Fez, Morocco. Speaker 1: And in Fez, Morocco, there was a large community of Christians and Mohammed had ordered the slaughter of all the infidels, meaning Christians who would not bow down to Allah and Mohammed as the prophet. The Muslims went in with the Islamic sword and therein Fez slaughtered thousands of Christians. Then they took their Fez hats and they dipped it in the blood of Christians, glorying in the defeat of Christianity. That's why the Fez's are red, representing the blood of Christians defeated by the Islamic sword which they have encrusted in jewels on the front. There are Christians who walk around wearing this hat and Dave, to be honest, it's an abomination in the eyes of God. Speaker 2: Your political leaders are not only Masons, but some of them are secretly Muslim. They've taken a blood oath to Allah as their one and only God and Mohammed as his messenger, So they don't mind using their power and their influence to advance Islam's agenda. Speaker 3: Islam has contributed a lot to America. In the middle of the supreme court is in the rotunda is a statue or bust of the prophet Mohammed showing the respect that American law and jurisprudence has for the revealer of the Koran. Many of American presidents are masons and shriners who got to the thirty third degree and study the Koran in secret and have the star and crescent on their face. Malik. So Islam is at the basis of Western and American civilization.

There is a misconception that the entire Palestinian nation is responsible for the atrocities committed. This is not true. It is puzzling to see the world's concern for the Palestinian people, when it should be directed towards those who have committed terrible acts.

The speaker references the Pope kissing the Koran and cites the Catholic Catechism, specifically 841, stating that the church’s relationship with Muslims is part of the plan of salvation and that those who acknowledge the creator, with Muslims in first place, "profess to hold the faith of Abraham" and "adore the one merciful God." The speaker promotes a comic book called The Prophet by Jack Chick, described as an inexpensive read from their ministry. The book is said to go through the history of the Muslim church and claims very few people realize it was the Catholics who started Islam. The claim is that Catholics started Islam intentionally to regain the holy land for the Catholics, funding Mohammed, training him, and sending a Catholic nun from a monastery to find a young promising Muslim, marry him, and raise up an army of Arabs to take back the holy land for the mother church. The speaker asserts that this story began to work, but later failed because Islam grew too large, and Muslims rejected the Catholics’ plan. It is claimed that Muslims “start off as a front for the Catholic church.” The speaker notes that Islam now comprises roughly 10% to 20% of the world population and asserts that most Muslims probably do not know that they “really started off as a front for the Catholic church.”

The speaker cites the Catholic Catechism, specifically section 841, to claim that the church’s relationship with Muslims is part of the plan of salvation, and that those who acknowledge the creator—first among whom are the Muslims—profess to hold the faith of Abraham and together with Catholics adore the one merciful God. The speaker mentions a comic booklet titled The Prophet by Jack Chick, described as a small, inexpensive publication that outlines what he presents as the history of the Muslim church and how it started. He asserts that Catholics started Islam, stating that Catholics funded Mohammed, trained him, and even dispatched a Catholic nun from a monastery to find a young promising Muslim, marry him, and train him to raise an army of Arabs to reclaim the holy land for the Catholic church (the mother church). According to the speaker, this effort began to succeed, but ultimately Islam grew too large and Muslims rejected the Catholics’ plan, deciding to do what they wanted instead. The speaker then asserts that most Muslims, currently estimated at around 10% to 20% of the world population, do not know that they originally started as a front for the Catholic church.