Muslims Enter Catholic Church, See A Statue Of The Virgin Mary, Call It An Idol And Destroy It

By Theodore Shoebat

Muslims in Iraq entered a Catholic church in Iraq, and when they saw a statue of the Virgin Mary they destroyed it because they deemed it an idol. As we read from one report:

The militants also removed the cross from St. Ephrem’s Cathedral, the seat of the Syriac Orthodox archdiocese in Mosul, and put up the black ISIS flag in its place. They also destroyed a statue of the Virgin Mary, according to Ghazwan Ilyas, the head of the Chaldean Culture Society in Mosul, who spoke by telephone on Thursday from Mosul but seemed to have left on Friday.

The Muslims also tore out the crosses and replaced them with the antichrist black flags of Islam. Muslims are iconoclasts, that is, they hate any sort of Christian images, or any image pertaining to Christianity. They see any cross or statue as an idol. This story refutes the idea that Islam came from Catholicism, since it hates everything about the Catholic Church.


I wrote an article completely refuting this idea that the Catholic Church invented Islam and I will repost it here…

The Catholic Church did not invent Islam. I have heard this countless times, and have received innumerable messages from people, that Islam was founded by the Catholic Church. I don’t have the time to respond to every individual who tells me this assertion, so I have decided to write this essay to deal with it.

The idea that Islam was conceived by the Catholic Church is traced back to a conspiracy theorist named Alberto Rivera, a con-artist who claimed to be a Jesuit (I know how many messages I will receive about how I slandered “brother Alberto”).

Alberto Rivera

Alberto Rivera

Alberto said that the “the Pope” commissioned Muhammad to do three missions:

1. Eliminate the Jews and Christians (true believers, which they called infidels).

2. Protect the Augustinian Monks and Roman Catholics.

3. Conquer Jerusalem for “His Holiness” in the Vatican.

These commands, for one thing, cannot be found in any primary account whatsoever. What is a primary account? We need to know this if we are going to understand the nature of our inquiry. When trying to reach an historical conclusion, or make historical observations, one must focus first on one type of evidence: first hand accounts, or primary sources.

An old letter,  an example of primary source

An old letter, an example of primary source

A primary source is a document written in, or around the time, of the particular historical event in question, being based on eye-witness accounts and first hand materials. To use an example that we are all familiar with, I will ask a simple question: The Exodus of the Hebrew slaves from Egypt, how do we know that it happened? Because Moses, who was the leader of Israel’s liberation, wrote about it. We would never know about the Exodus, if Moses never wrote a book about it. Exodus, then, is a primary source account. Would you, then, rather read the Book of Exodus, or a modern book on the Exodus? The only way to fully comprehend the Exodus, is to read Exodus.


So then, how would we learn about the invention of Islam? We would need to read ancient documents, both Islamic and non-Islamic. We would have to read the primary source accounts. And when reading on the origins of Islam, based on the primary source accounts, we have absolutely zero substantiation for any of Rivera’s claims.

Now, Rivera says that he learned of Islam’s Catholic inventors from one Cardinal Bea. But when we research the statement that Rivera attributes to Bea, all we find are books and articles, written by anti-Catholic polemics, and not one statement from anything ever written by Bea. Therefore, to simply conclude Rivera’s quoting of Bea as factual, is both empty of scholarship and absent of any cognitive reasoning expected of the historian.

When my father exposes Obama’s family, or reveals an unknown plan of the jihadists, he does not simply claim that it is true, nor does he say that he met so and so, and so and so said such and such, and thats it. He goes to the primary sources, searching and finding documents in Arab, Israeli, American, and other records. He spends countless hours sifting through innumerable sources, trying to find reliable information on the particular subject he is writing on.

Truth is found through both will and reasoning, not sensation or exciting novelties. That the Catholic Church invented Islam, is just that, a sensational novelty. And in regards to the rest of the rubbish Alberto said in regards to Islam’s creation, there is not one piece of primary evidence (I dare anyone to show me just one).

If we are going to analyze the origins of Islam, what must be first comprehended is the innate focal point of Islamic theology: Islam is a religion of a book; it is primarily revolved around the Koran, and secondarily fixated on what interpretation Muslim authorities deduce on the Koran.


Without the Koran, there is no Islam. Therefore, in order to understand the origins of Islamic theology, one must read the Koran. And when we do, what we find is not evidence of a Catholic creation, but actually statements that are openly anti-Catholic.

One of the most quoted Koranic verses by exposers of Islam, is Surah 9:29, which states:

Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture and believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the religion of truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.

But when one reads the verse in conjunction with the subsequent verses, one finds that the Christians it is commanding to war with, are in fact Catholics. Here is the full verse:

Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture and believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the religion of truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low. And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah. That is their saying with their mouths. They imitate the saying of those who disbelieved of old. Allah (himself) fighteth against them. How perverse are they! They have taken as lords beside Allah their rabbis and their monks and the Messiah son of Mary, when they were bidden to worship only One God. There is no god save Him. Be He glorified from all that they ascribe as partner (unto Him)! (Surah 9:29-31)

The existence of the word monks, in the verse, signifies that it is referring to Catholics, both Eastern and Western. How do we know this? Let us look to the interpretation of this verse by Abu Bakr, the successor to Muhammad, and one who was amongst the most elite of Muhammad’s companions. Before invading Syria, he declared:

You will meet people who have set themselves apart in hermitages; leave them to accomplish the purpose for which they have done this. …You will meet people who have shaved the crowns of their heads, leaving a band of hair around it. Strike them with the sword.

Those who have their hair shaven to the shape of a crown, can only be referring to Catholic monks; for the tradition behind this hairstyle, symbolizing the crown of glory given to the martyrs, and the crown of thorns placed on Christ’s head, is purely one of Catholic origin.

The first people that Abu Bakr mentions, the ones who “set themselves apart in hermitages”, were the heretical Christians, or the Arians, Nestorians, and other subscribers to false doctrines.

So, when Rivera claims that “the Pope” commissioned Muhammad to kill the Jews and the “true Christians,” the only Christians that the Koran initially commanded to kill are the Catholics. Why would the Catholics create a system that is innately adverse toward the Catholic Church? It makes no sense, and anyone who upholds such an ahistorical statement, is not committed to historical truth and reasoning, but a mere opinion that is both groundless and ignominious.

Those who believe this slanderous lie will argue that the Muslims broke off from Rome and began to fight Catholics; and to those who say this, I will ask you to bring me one primary source account that proves this claim.

Furthermore, the idea that Islam was invented by the Catholic Church is void of any evidence in the writings of the Church Fathers. In order to understand Islam’s history, we read the Koran and the Hadith; in order to understand Catholic history, we read the Church Fathers. We find absolutely nothing close to what Rivera claims in any book written by any of the Church Fathers or ancient Catholic theologians who lived closest to the early days of Islam.

In fact, in looking to the earliest Christian opinion on Islam, what we find are Catholics writing against Muhammad as a damnable heretic and enemy to Rome. One of the best examples of this are the writings of Theodore Abu Qurrah, the bishop of Harran who lived in the 9th century, when Islam was still quite a young cult.

Theodore affirmed the primacy of the Roman Church, and viewed Islam as an enemy toward the Church. On the primacy of the Church of Rome, Theodore writes:

Do you not see that St. Peter is the foundation of the church, selected to shepherd it, that those who believe in his faith will never lose their faith, and that he was ordered to have compassion on his brethren and to strengthen them? As for Christ’s words, “I prayed for you, that you not lose your faith; but you, have compassion on your brethren, at that time, and strengthen them,” [Luke 22:32-33] we do not think that he meant St. Peter himself [and the apostles themselves]. Rather, he meant nothing other than the holders of the seat of St. Peter, that is, Rome, [and the holders of the seats of the apostles]. (1)

Theodore goes on to write how when the heresy of Arianism (the denial of Christ’s divinity) arose, the Church commenced the Council of Nicaea to combat it; when Nestorianism (the denial that God became flesh in Mary’s womb) arose, the Church of Rome commanded the Council of Ephesus. (2) Islam intrinsically coincides with both of these heresies, in that it rejects Christ’s divinity, and the Incarnation of God in Mary’s womb.

Since the Church of Rome was the one that first commenced the two councils that went against these two false doctrines and their followers, it is therefore impossible that the Catholic Church would then turn around and create a heresy that upholds them and desires to kill the very people (Catholics) who were adverse to these heresies.

Council of Ephesus

Council of Ephesus

John the Deacon, an ancient Catholic theologian who had direct access to the material of Theodore Abu Qurrah, declares the primacy of St. Peter’s See, deems Muslims as enemies to the Church, and then describes how the bishop Theodore wrote against the heresies of Islam:

And because the Lord had promised Peter, the chief of the apostolic choir, that he would lay the church’s foundation on the unshaken rock of his confession, and because he had assured the church that she would overcome the gates of hell, so the opponents of God, up to the present, struggles against the church. …I am speaking of the most blessed and most philosophical bishop of Haran in Coele Syria, Theodore. In his writings, which were truly inspired by God, he worthily held up to public scorn the impious religion of the Agarenes [Muslims] and showed to all that it was worthy of complete derision. (3)

The Catholic Church preserved and protected the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, and in so doing it condemned and fought against Islam more than any other institution in history (if you don’t believe me, read any detailed history book on the Crusades). The first Church leader to lead and organize a crusade against Islam was St. Pope Leo IV who, in the year 849, led a battle against Muslims who were trying to sack the Vatican.

Muslims and Catholics fighting

Muslims and Catholics fighting

As soon as Arianism came about, the Church combated it; and when Islam arose, with its very Arian doctrine, the Church combated it. Catholicism’s war against Islam is a continuation of its war against Arianism. There is therefore no evidence or documentation to prove that the Catholic Church suddenly decided to invent an extension of the very doctrine it was bent on crushing and suppressing.

Council of Nicaea

Council of Nicaea

Islam has its roots in Arian doctrines, not Catholicism; and yet many today wish to turn it round, and reverse this very historical fact. Constantine Porphyrogentinitus, the fourth emperor of the Byzantine Empire, wrote in the 10th century, in his Administrando Imperio, that

he [Muhammad] was believed because a certain Arain, who pretended to be a monk, testified falsely in his support for love of gain. (4)

John the Deacon also recounts an Arian origin to Islam:

The Saracens [Muslims] are intent and zealous to deny the divinity of the Word of God. On all sides, they array themselves against him, eager to show that he is neither God nor the Son of God. Indeed, it was only because their false prophet [Muhammad] was the disciple of an Arian that he gave them this godless and impious teaching. (5)

For the Catholic Church inventing Islam, we have no evidence. What we do have, however, are an abundance of ancient records of Catholics fighting Muslims, and Muslims striving to destroy Christendom and the Catholic Church, a goal which, to this day, they have not given up.

They contine to slaughter Christians every day, which is why you should donate to our rescue team to save Christian lives.

To learn more about the great war between Christians and Muslims, get my new DVD series on Christian militancy.


(1) Theodore Abu Qurrah, Discerning the True Church, B164, trans. John C. Lamoreaux*

(2) *Ibid, B165-B166*

(3) *Refutations of the Saracens by Theodore Abu Qurrah, the Bishop of Haran, as Reported by John the Deacon, GK86-88, trans. John C. Lamoreaux*

(4) *Constantine Porphyrogentinitus, De Administrando Imperio, 14, trans. R.J.H. Jenkins, brackets mine*

(5) *Refutations of the Saracens by Theodore Abu Qurrah, the Bishop of Haran, as Reported by John the Deacon, GKh118, trans. John C. Lamoreaux*


, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

  • richinnameonly

    Rivera and his cronies have very shady backgrounds and dealings. Satan started Islam through direct inspiration.

  • shoebat

    No. How we named Theodore his name is a long story I never told.

    • Proudvet56

      Walid. Saw you on youtube speaking to a man I think his name was David Ott. I think you mentioned a Rabbi Jonathan Cahn. So I checked him out. What do you think of all those sevens lining up between 9/11, and Sept 2008? Do you think the Rabbi is shoveling s^*t at us, or is what he says true? I value your opinion. I got a lot of ground to make up, and I am seeing a lot of different views on these times in history. One thing he said made me think. America as a whole is becoming very sinful. Gay marriage crap for one thing,and from what I’m reading in both old,and new bible books it is a wicked sin,and also what Ted has been writing about. Who is to say God isn’t gonna give us a good hard crack upside the head just to set us back on the right path. If you got the time let me know what you think.Thanks. P.S. Fudge packers! LOLOLOL!!! We call em P-town joy boys in my neck of the woods.

      • shoebat

        When one examines carefully the Harbinger by Jonathan Cahn, his claims fit in the same category as Alexander Hislop since “citing a similarity does not provide proof. There must be a legitimate connection”.

        One needs to pay attention to this method: sighting similarities is the oldest method tricksters use, find a Sycamore tree in 9/11, a Sycamore tree in Israel and bingo.

        What is essential is to look at the differences; Israel is not America. Period. Neither was American the first Christian nation, Armenia was. Cahn built his book on the bases of false historic assumptions.

        Cahn claims that he has discovered an ancient mystery in Isaiah 9:10-11 that explains everything from 9/11 to the collapse of the global economy.

        So when 9/11 happened according to Cahn, it was a wow moment, here we have a parallel to God’s “removal of His hedge of protection” as it was in the prophecy of Isaiah regarding Israel.

        Why wasn’t the attack on Pearl Harbor be also considered a removal of “hedge of protection,” yet it wasn’t, America was
        awakened and came back and defeated the man who claimed to be god; the emperor of Japan, and the U.S. slammed nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and ended the war.

        The Bible says nothing about 9/11 or Pearl Harbor. If Cahn was this brilliant prophecy expert, why didn’t he predict 9/11?

        When Isaiah proclaimed “The bricks have fallen down, But we will rebuild with hewn stones; The sycamores have been
        cut down” it is regarding the destruction of the entire
        northern kingdom of Israel including all buildings, cities and agriculture; not a couple of buildings in Manhattan and one sycamore tree.

        Finding the word “sycamore” in the Bible and applying it to one sycamore in Manhattan is exactly the type of nonsense Alexander Hislop did. Hislop even had tons more parallels than Cahn’s “cedar” and “sycamore” trees, yet he was simply
        playing the typical trick on unaware followers.

        To escape scrutiny, Cahn uses a fictional narrative as a framework attributing it to biblical text to the history of the 8th century B.C. Israel using a mystical view of the prophetic Scriptures.
        While Cahn stated that he does not believe that America is the “New Israel,” his book contradicts this in his fictional line: “Those who laid America’s foundations saw it as the new Israel, an Israel of the New World” (P. 18-19).

        To view America, as an extension of Israel has zero support from the biblical narrative no matter how many times prophecy
        buffs try to gymnastically fit verses from Scripture. The only possible way to allude to anything regarding America in the Bible is a couple of verses in Ezekiel 28 and Daniel 11 regarding the most powerful nations fighting against Antichrist and even defeating him (Ezekiel 28:7-8).

        Likewise, history will prove Cahn’s simplistic and infinitesimal
        arguments false.

        So where are the Harbingers that God set up for France, Belgium, Armenia, Sweden and Switzerland? Why is only America that has Harbingers and all the others don’t? The way out for Harbinger fanatics is to say: America is an extension of Israel.

        But what about England, America after all, historically was an extension of England, not Israel?

        The only answer left is; there are no Harbingers and people like to believe hype. The reason some authors focus on making ‘Harbingers’ and predictions of gloom and doom on
        America alone is because: 1-fear sells, 2-the American market is the best market for selling these types of books since the Evangelical market in America is rife with Prophecy Mania.

        People can write tons of Harbingers with fanciful claims, which mounts to nothing but such unsubstantiated similarities typically found in half-baked books.

        I entered the prophecy arena years ago in order to deal with a massive clinic filled with victims of Prophecy buffs peddling all sorts of schemes. It is why I wrote my detailed work God’s War on Terror. It is why I dedicate so much time on the subject knowing that many will have a binge and that the screaming by many who are going through withdrawls will cause me some
        headaches, but such is doing the will of God.

        I still had to endure the self-ordained prophets who proclaimed judgments on the U.S.

        So many of these plague the evangelical circles.

        We have John Hagee’s “Will America Survive” and Jonathan
        Cahn’s “The Harbinger” to Mark Hitchcock’s book “The Late Great United States”.

        I will tell you a true story, I prayed to meet Mark Hitchcock once and there he was sitting next to me on one of my flights. We had a two hour discussion which I wish I recorded which his theories were blasted out of the sky.

        In fact, my book God’s War on Terror was never intended
        to be a book on Americanized style Bible Prophecy per se, but to expose such prophecy mania that focuses on God heaping judgments on the west while they forget God’s judgments on the Muslim east. Enough said.

        • Proudvet56

          Thanks Walid. In my own defense,I am still a babe in the woods with this bible,Jesus,God journey. You grew up seeking God, I grew up laughing at him, and his followers. We were both violent people, but you did it to serve who you thought was God. I did it for money,drugs,women,kicks, and just because I was a first class A-hole.But you got my ear buddy. Your perspective from where the scriptures took place is very unique. That’s what America doesn’t see.But I believe that God made sure scholars, and the common man could understand his word. It’s tough for me to understand it, but I was never a good student anyway. Yet when I see your videos I do understand,and that is amazing. You are right, these American pastors love the fire,and brimstone crap, and it does sell books. Worst of all if you listen to some of them, it’s not adopt God’s view,and personality, it’s adopt my personality,and likes,and dislikes. So that was my hatred of Christianity. Phony money grabbers,or wimpy cry babies. But the lack of understanding of the mindset or the culture of the world of the prophets by American preachers is very apparent since coming across you. Here’s the funny thing though. The guy who told me about you I didn’t even know, now we are great friends. The judgement thing is a great hook. Well I had to get your view on that after checking him out. I gotta tell you though, it’s nice to know I’m gonna fight an enemy I can see, and hit. Ha ha. God bless bro, you,and yours,and thanks for get right back to me.

  • Fr Christopher P. Kelley, DD

    Excellent expose’ of A. Rivera & his delusions and deceptions. A pathological problem in his sick mind. All he would need to do is read ONE real biography of Muh’d (POX be upon him!), and Alberto could have gotten his story straight — if he had wanted to be truthful for but a moment. Sadly, that was not his aim.

    • Proudvet56

      Maybe Barry should read same, if he has the guts to admit when he is in error. I doubt it though.

  • Fr Christopher P. Kelley, DD

    Do you love your mother? Do you have a photo of her? Do you ever kiss her? If she is absent, would you condemn yourself for kissing her photo as an expression of love for her?
    Christians do not give divine reverence to a statue. But they honor the one who is represented. This is not the same thing. You need some clarity of perception.
    A statue of The Blessed Virgin is NOT an idol. (Catholic & Orthodox Christians are forbidden by the 7th Ecumenical Council (787) to give divine worship to any image. But to respect the ikons is not the same thing. The Orthodox keep the ikons flat, to prevent confusion with a carved surface. But the principle is the same, East or West.)

  • Fr Christopher P. Kelley, DD

    You mistakenly apply this verse. Under the Old Covenant, God was not seen; so God protected Israel from making a false representation. The Old Covenant prepared the way for the New. In the New Covenant, “We have seen His Glory” in the Face of JESUS CHRIST, Who is the True Ikon of the Invisible Trinity (God).
    The Old Covenant cleared the way for the revelation of the True Image.
    Now we have it. Don’t deny it. Some things DID change when the New Covenant came.
    Since JESUS had only one human Parent, His Mother, she, above all others, gives a glimpse of His Own Face.
    Christians from antiquity believed that St Luke himself painted the Virgin’s portrait.
    Mohammedans are iconoclasts. Christians have no reason to join in that error.

    • Proudvet56

      Truthful,and correct response as always Padre. But talking to Barry,and others like him is a waste of time I fear. My dad used to say don’t bother to try to shovel s*^t against the tide. Did not the bible phrase the same a little differently? Do not cast your pearls before swine. God bless Padre.

  • Fr Christopher P. Kelley, DD

    Mohammedans believe so many lies! But even Muh’d himself, on entering the Ka’aba in Mecca, in 630, sheltered with his own hands an ikon of the Virgin Mother and Child, while a mural of Abraham was destroyed from the walls. Even Muh’d knew better — and HIS acts are supposed to establish Hadith (custom) for mohammedans to this day.
    Why not here??? Arab historians say the ikon was still in the Ka’aba 50 years later.

  • Pingback: WALID SHOEBAT: Muslims Enter Catholic Church, See A Statue Of The Virgin Mary, Call It An Idol And Destroy It | Information 360()

  • Proudvet56

    Great post Ted. My first thought also was, well then why the Crusades?

  • Proudvet56

    Have any trophies Barry? Have any pictures Barry? Have any awards of any kind Barry? According to your thinking anything not of flesh is an idol. Who are you to say that someone else is an idol worshiper! Can you read minds,and souls Barry? I think not. Try another blog Barry.

  • shoebat

    Really? The problem with anti-Catholics who always say “Bible” is that they do not comprehend the Bible and in fact have ignored much of what it says apting for a simplistic faith which is hardly faith at all. How dare you say that “hail Mary is not in the Bible” than claim to be a Bible believer?

    In Luke 1:28, it is as clear as the sun: “And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.”

    The problem is that you pay lip service to the Bible while you follow manmade traditions that replace the Bible. Wake up to your errors lest the Lord judge you.

  • shoebat

    Barry, you too are a graven 3-d image, made in the image of God. Chill out and try to focus on the persecution of these brethren. If you care not about them, than what difference are you from the Muslim? I am giving you this advise for your own good.