Discussion:
The Pope joins the bandwagon of Crusades
(too old to reply)
jane abraham
2006-10-10 00:10:15 UTC
Permalink
The Pope joins the bandwagon of Crusades
By Mahmood Y Abdullah

Pope Benedict XVI, on his six-day visit to Germany, criticised the
concept of Jihad in Islam, claiming that Islam was spread by force. He
cited a 14th century Christian emperor who said that the Prophet
Muhammad had brought the world "evil and inhuman" things.


Ali Bardakoglu, head of the state-run religious affairs directorate in
Turkey, said that the Pope was "full of enmity and grudge" against
Islam. He told the NTV news channel today (14 September 2006) that the
Pope carried the same mindset as that "of the Crusades", reports
al-Jazeera.net.


Quite understandably, there must be a cause of worry for the Catholic
Church that day by day it is losing customers. But still, it does not
justify an outright squabble. Who is to be blamed for the Catholic
Church's complicity in covering up the scandals of the paedophile
celibate priests, who abused boys and girls? Ever since the scandal
first rocked the Catholic Church about 25 years ago, the ordinary
members of the Church were bound to ask themselves: For how many
centuries has this abuse of trust been going on? It was as if the
Church had stabbed them in the back. His Holiness should have known
more than anybody else that if Islam had spread by force, then who is
forcing scores of new converts in America and Europe today into Islam?
There must be something that the advisors of His Holiness have sadly
missed.


In the mediaeval times, Crusades were the wars fought to conquer the
Holy Land, following the plea of Pope Urban II at Council of Clermont
in the year 1095. The Pope appealed for the eviction of, what he
called, the "wicked race of Muslims" from Jerusalem. The principal
objective was to gain booty, power and territorial expansion. This was
done in the name of atonement from sins and spreading Christianity.


Ancient history of the Crusades records that the Christians captured
the holy city of Bait al-Maqdis (Jerusalem) in 1099 and the Muslims
recaptured it in 1187. From 1229 to 1244 it was again restored to the
Crusaders. During the fourth Crusade in 1204, Constantinople, the
capital of the Christian Byzantine empire (the present day Istanbul),
whose protection was one of the declared aims, was sacked by the
Christians themselves. Occidental Christians did not trust the Oriental

Christians and wanted the treasures of the city all for themselves.


Crusades were essentially European wars against non-Christians, whom
they considered heretics. They were directed initially by the Pope
against Muslims. They lasted until 1291. The objective was to capture
Palestine from the Muslim control. Motivated by religious zeal, greed
for land, and trading ambitions, the crusades did not hesitate to
exploit children to achieve their aims. In 1212, what is called
Children's Crusade took place, where thousands of children, ill-fed
and ill-equipped, tried to cross Europe for the holy land, but many
were captured and sold into slavery in Marseille, or died of disease
and starvation. Before marching for the holy land, children were told
that the sea would open up for them.


The Crusaders massacred and stockpiled hundreds of thousands of heads
of Muslims in mosques. In contrast, Islam guaranteed the Jews and the
Christians complete freedom to worship in accordance to their own
religious creed. Islam had granted full protection to the places of
worship of other religions. The magnanimous precedent set in the
lifetime of the Prophet Muhammad was honoured by succeeding
generations.


The tolerance of the Prophet Muhammad's Islam is manifested in the
fact that after the Muslim forces took over Jerusalem in 638 CE, the
Muslims, Jews and Christians lived in perfect harmony for five
centuries. This harmonious living was sabotaged when, in the words of
Professor John Esposito in his excellent book Islam the Straight Path:
"imperial papal power play led to century-long series of so-called
holy wars that pitted Christendom against Islam and left an enduring
legacy of misunderstanding and distrust."


Being the birth place of Jesus, Jerusalem was the centre of the
Christian pilgrimage. Under the Muslim rule, Churches were protected
under the surveillance of the State. Jews, who were persecuted and
deprived from entering Jerusalem by Christian rulers, were permitted to

worship and live in Jerusalem in peace.


The Crusaders were told by the supreme religious authorities in Italy
that Muslims worship Satan and not God. Therefore, they marched into
Jerusalem under the impression that they were fighting the infidels -
the Satan worshippers. After causing carnage on the Muslim land, the
European Crusaders left with rich booty that they had looted.


Many among the Europeans settled down in the holy land and adopted the
dressing habits, customs and traditions of the people whom they had
fought and sought to destroy. They witnessed with their own eyes the
devotion to Almighty God in the Muslim mode of worship. All the false
preaching and propaganda they had heard from their priests started
backfiring. They searched for truth and the truth enlightened their
soul.


The pilgrims, who came from Europe, later on, were shocked to see the
European settlers speaking Arabic, reading the Qur'an, praying in the
Islamic way, and wearing turbans and cloaks and bearing Muslim names.
Islam's Jerusalem welcomed them with open heart, without any
discrimination of colour or race or apartheid walls. On the alien land,

they found home. In the hearts of strangers, they found love. They
recognised and accepted the Islamic roots of Jerusalem and fought for
its preservation. Only the Islamic Jerusalem was capable of doing
justice to Jews, Christians and Muslims.


They had crossed thousands of miles of barren land, mountains, seas and

deserts to conquer, and instead, were conquered with their minds and
hearts. And this is the stark reality of Islam which is overlooked by
those who are born Muslims and tend to take their religion for granted.

But according to the experience of the converts in the West - now and
in the Middle Ages - Islam conquers hearts after the soul-searching.


When the Crusaders invaded Jerusalem in 1099, no Muslim man, woman or
child escaped mass massacre. All this was done in the name of Christ.
Esposito observes: "The Noble Sanctuary, the Haram al-Sharif, was
desecrated as the Dome of the Rock was converted into a Church and
al-Aqsa mosque, renamed the Temple of Solomon, became a residence for
the king."


Bait al-Maqdis or The Holy House was the first Qibla (the direction to
which Muslims all around the globe, turn for prayers). It is the House
from where one of the most important events in the world history of
religions took place - the Me'raj - the Messenger of God,
Muhammad's ascension to Heavens. The Aqsa Mosque (Masjid al-Aqsa) was
built by the Prophet of Islam, Suleiman (Solomon), the son of the
Prophet of Islam, Dawood (David). The foundation of the Holy Ka'aba
in Makkah was laid by the Prophet of Islam, Adam. The building of the
Ka'aba was built on the original foundation by the Prophet of Islam,
Ibrahim (Abraham). The patriarch was the ancestor of the great Prophets

of Islam, Moosa (Moses) and Isa, Jesus, through his noble blessed
mother, Maryam (Mary). May the peace and blessings be upon them all and

on the Prophet Muhammad.


Europe's ambition for territorial expansion, economic and political
manipulation, evolved from Crusades to colonisation of the eastern
world. The revival of Crusades took several forms and shapes. At times,

they used religious slogans to rally support of the people for their
drive towards the East. At times, they promised lucrative return on the

investments for raising capital for expeditions. At times, they
enslaved people and used repressive measures to navigate their ships
through the rough seas. But as John Esposito rightly remarks,
"Christian fears were full realized as Islam became a world power and
civilization while Christianity staggered and stagnated in its Dark
Ages."


In the modern times, the status of Jerusalem has been defaced. It has
witnessed betrayals and brutalities, void of human compassion and
mercy. It has seen its sanctity torn into pieces. It has passed through

violation in its revered position as the holy city for Abrahamic
faiths.


The evangelist Franklin Graham claimed that Islam is a "very evil and
wicked religion". His father Billy Graham had prayed at the
Washington's National Cathedral at President Bush's swearing in
ceremony. When Muslim leaders challenged Franklin Graham over his
fanatical outburst, he reiterated: "The God of Islam is not the same
God. He's not the Son of God of the Christian or Judeo-Christian faith.

It's a different God, and I believe it is a very evil and wicked
religion." (http://www.msnbc.com/news/659057.asp?cp1=1). This
explains volumes about the usage of the expressions - Crusade and
Islamofascists. This also explains that the Pope seems to have joined
the political hegemony over the Muslims.


(The writer of this article is the author of several books, the latest
is Tampering with the text and meaning of the Qur'an).
Matthew Johnson
2006-10-11 05:22:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by jane abraham
The Pope joins the bandwagon of Crusades
By Mahmood Y Abdullah
Pope Benedict XVI, on his six-day visit to Germany, criticised the
concept of Jihad in Islam, claiming that Islam was spread by
force.
He was right.
Post by jane abraham
He cited a 14th century Christian emperor who said that the Prophet
Muhammad had brought the world "evil and inhuman" things.
Ah, yes. I have a renewed respect for that Emperor after hearing the
Pope quote him. He was right on the money! Any of the other educated
Christians who had to suffer under Moslem rule will agree with
him. And there are MANY of these.
Post by jane abraham
Ali Bardakoglu, head of the state-run religious affairs directorate in
Turkey, said that the Pope was "full of enmity and grudge" against
Islam. He told the NTV news channel today (14 September 2006) that the
Pope carried the same mindset as that "of the Crusades", reports
al-Jazeera.net.
Predictably, Bardakoglu does not know what he is talking about. For a
truer version of the history of the Crusades, see:
http://www.crisismagazine.com/april2002/cover.htm
Post by jane abraham
Quite understandably, there must be a cause of worry for the Catholic
Church that day by day it is losing customers.
Already, Mahmood has shown, with this one mis-statement, that he
cannot understand the Church. "Customers" indeed!
Post by jane abraham
But still, it does not justify an outright squabble. Who is to be
blamed for the Catholic Church's complicity in covering up the
scandals of the paedophile celibate priests, who abused boys and
girls?
Thus putting themselves in the same company as Mohammed, who 'married'
a 9-year old girl?
Post by jane abraham
Ever since the scandal first rocked the Catholic Church about
25 years ago, the ordinary members of the Church were bound to ask
themselves: For how many centuries has this abuse of trust been going
on? It was as if the Church had stabbed them in the back. His
Holiness should have known more than anybody else that if Islam had
spread by force, then who is forcing scores of new converts in
America and Europe today into Islam? There must be something that
the advisors of His Holiness have sadly missed.
In the mediaeval times, Crusades were the wars fought to conquer the
Holy Land, following the plea of Pope Urban II at Council of Clermont
in the year 1095. The Pope appealed for the eviction of, what he
called, the "wicked race of Muslims" from Jerusalem. The principal
objective was to gain booty, power and territorial expansion.
This is another example of how unhistorical Mahmood is. No, the
_principal_ objective was to restore freedom of Christian Pilgimage,
which was interrupted by Hakim the 'Mad', who even dared to order the
destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher.

So as a _real_ historian of the Crusades says:

begin quote-------------------
For starters, the Crusades to the East were IN EVERY WAY DEFENSIVE
WARS. They were a direct response to Muslim aggression, an attempt to
turn back or defend against Muslim conquests of Christian lands.
end quote (op.cit.)-------------------
Post by jane abraham
This was done in the name of atonement from sins and spreading
Christianity.
Wrong again. See above.
Post by jane abraham
Ancient history of the Crusades records that the Christians captured
the holy city of Bait al-Maqdis (Jerusalem)
How audacious to _rename_ the holy city! If you really believe it is
holy, why can't you keep its real name?
Post by jane abraham
in 1099 and the Muslims recaptured it in 1187. From 1229 to 1244 it
was again restored to the Crusaders. During the fourth Crusade in
1204, Constantinople, the capital of the Christian Byzantine empire
(the present day Istanbul), whose protection was one of the declared
aims, was sacked by the Christians themselves. Occidental Christians
did not trust the Oriental Christians and wanted the treasures of the
city all for themselves.
This is a classic example of false generalization. It is true that the
Crusades were corrupted by a few who were destructively greedy. But
the _whole_ truth, which your author cannot understand or accept is:

begin quote-------------------
Scholars have discovered that crusading knights were generally wealthy
men with plenty of their own land in Europe. Nevertheless, they
willingly gave up everything to undertake the holy mission. Crusading
was not cheap. Even wealthy lords could easily impoverish themselves
and their families by joining a Crusade. They did so not because they
expected material wealth (which many of them had already) but because
they hoped to store up treasure where rust and moth could not
corrupt. They were keenly aware of their sinfulness and eager to
undertake the hardships of the Crusade as a penitential act of charity
and love. Europe is littered with thousands of medieval charters
attesting to these sentiments, charters in which these men still speak
to us today if we will listen. Of course, they were not opposed to
capturing booty if it could be had. But the truth is that the Crusades
were notoriously bad for plunder. A few people got rich, but the vast
majority returned with nothing.
end quote (op. cit)-------------------
Post by jane abraham
Crusades were essentially European wars against non-Christians, whom
they considered heretics.
Again, your author shows his basic confusion. There is a WORLD of a
difference between 'non-christian' and 'heretic', even in the Medieval
mindset.
Post by jane abraham
They were directed initially by the Pope against Muslims. They lasted
until 1291. The objective was to capture Palestine from the Muslim
control.
Again: as a _real_ historian describes, this was only a secondary
goal. The _primary_ goal was to liberate Christians from Moslem
oppression. Pope Innocent III was only slightly overstating the case
when he said:

begin quote-------------------
How does a man love according to divine precept his neighbor as
himself when, knowing that his Christian brothers in faith and in name
are held by the perfidious Muslims in strict confinement and weighed
down by the yoke of heaviest servitude, he does not devote himself to
the task of freeing them? ...Is it by chance that you do not know that
many thousands of Christians are bound in slavery and imprisoned by
the Muslims, tortured with innumerable torments?
end quote (op. cit)-------------------
Post by jane abraham
Motivated by religious zeal, greed for land, and trading ambitions,
the crusades did not hesitate to exploit children to achieve their
aims.
Another rash, and wickedly false generalization!
Post by jane abraham
In 1212, what is called Children's Crusade took place, where
thousands of children, ill-fed and ill-equipped, tried to cross
Europe for the holy land, but many were captured and sold into
slavery in Marseille, or died of disease and starvation. Before
marching for the holy land, children were told that the sea would
open up for them.
This 'Crusade' was never sanctioned by the Church. It was an
illiterate deceiver who lead it -- if it even existed at all.

And I have to express my doubts that it -did- exist at all. After all,
Wikipedia certainly gives enough reason to doubt it
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children's_Crusade). How typical of the
shameless propagandist that Mahmood relies on an 'event' that never
took place to cast aspersions on Christendom!
Post by jane abraham
The Crusaders massacred and stockpiled hundreds of thousands of heads
of Muslims in mosques.
That sounds more like inflammatory Moslem propaganda than
history. After all, we all know how it was the Moslem Tamerlane who
was famous for stacking up piles of heads of his defeated enemies. But
this was later.
Post by jane abraham
In contrast, Islam guaranteed the Jews and the Christians complete
freedom to worship in accordance to their own religious creed.
Not true. One of the first things the Moslem conquerers did when
taking Jerusalem was forbid the public display of the Cross and the
ringing of Church bells. They also took away many of the church
buildings and turned them into Mosques. Look at the treaty they were
forced to sign in the surrender.
Post by jane abraham
Islam had granted full protection to the places of worship of other
religions.
This was not true. It was a Moslem leader of Jerusalem (Hakim the Mad)
who ordered the destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. It
was not rebuilt until the Crusaders took Jerusalem.
Post by jane abraham
The magnanimous precedent set in the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammad
was honoured by succeeding generations.
No, it was not. See above. This is just Moslem propaganda, every bit
as low as the old-fashioned Soviet propaganda.
Post by jane abraham
The tolerance of the Prophet Muhammad's Islam is manifested in the
fact that after the Muslim forces took over Jerusalem in 638 CE, the
Muslims, Jews and Christians lived in perfect harmony for five
centuries.
This is blatantly false. It is an example of the _deep_ dishonesty of
Islamic apologists that they keep repeating this claim. How can you
call it "perfect harmony", when the Christians had to pay by far the
heavier tax-burden? How can you call it 'harmony', when a Christian's
testimony agaisnt at Moslem in court was not accepted? How can you
call it 'harmony' when so many murders of Christians went unpunished?

And most immediately relevant of all, how can you keep a straight face
while making this claim, when surely you must know the _Seljuk_ Turks
_took away_ that "freedom of worship"?

But finally, if it was such 'harmony', then why do ALL the Christian
nations that had to suffer Moslem rule have such _bitter_ memories of
it? Ask any Serb, Greek, Georgian or Russian what they think of Moslem
rule!
Post by jane abraham
This harmonious living was sabotaged when, in the words of Professor
Don't expect us to consider his book 'excellent': not based on your
sampling here!
Post by jane abraham
"imperial papal power play led to century-long series of so-called
holy wars that pitted Christendom against Islam and left an enduring
legacy of misunderstanding and distrust."
This is an unhistorical point of view, displaying a serious failure to
understand basic cause and effect in history. No, it was not the
"imperial papal power play" that led to the "enduring legacy of
misunderstanding and distrust". It was the unholy war of conquest that
_Islam_ inflicted on the Middle East that gave birth to all this.

I find it amusing that Moslems and their sympathizers among Western
pseudo-liberals are so quick to finger the Crusades and blame them for
the conflict, yet fail to realize that the Crusades themselves were
part of a conflict that the Moslems themselves started just a few more
centuries earlier.
Post by jane abraham
Being the birth place of Jesus, Jerusalem was the centre of the
Christian pilgrimage.
This is the first thing your author got half right so far. But it was
only half-right! He was NOT born in Jerusalem. According to Tradition,
He was born in Bethlehem. But since He was raised in Nazareth, those
who reject Tradition usually believe He was born in Nazareth, NOT
Jerusalem
Post by jane abraham
Under the Muslim rule, Churches were protected under the surveillance
of the State.
Unfortunately, no. This is not true. Under a _few_ Moslem rulers, it
was protected in this way. And as long as they kept that up, a call
for a Crusade was politically impossible. But they did not keep it
up. Remember Hakim the Mad.
Post by jane abraham
Jews, who were persecuted and deprived from entering Jerusalem by
Christian rulers, were permitted to
This too, is a misrepresentation. They were merely enforcing an
earlier law passed by the Roman Empire while it was still pagan,
banning Jews from "Aeolia Capitolina" as punishment for their
rebellion in the Jewish Wars (as described by Josephus).

So this was _political_ rather than religious.
Post by jane abraham
worship and live in Jerusalem in peace.
You forgot to mention that the Moslems often used the Jews as tax
collectors, guaranteeing that they would be hated for that reason.
Post by jane abraham
The Crusaders were told by the supreme religious authorities in Italy
that Muslims worship Satan and not God. Therefore, they marched into
Jerusalem under the impression that they were fighting the infidels -
the Satan worshippers. After causing carnage on the Muslim land, the
European Crusaders left with rich booty that they had looted.
Again, a _real_ historian like Madden tells a very different
story. See above.
Post by jane abraham
Many among the Europeans settled down in the holy land and adopted the
dressing habits, customs and traditions of the people whom they had
fought and sought to destroy. They witnessed with their own eyes the
devotion to Almighty God in the Muslim mode of worship. All the false
preaching and propaganda they had heard from their priests started
backfiring. They searched for truth and the truth enlightened their
soul.
This is quite mistaken. Sure, they adopted some of the "dressing
habits" etc. But very few fell into Moslem delusion.
Post by jane abraham
The pilgrims, who came from Europe, later on, were shocked to see the
European settlers speaking Arabic, reading the Qur'an, praying in the
Islamic way, and wearing turbans and cloaks and bearing Muslim names.
In your dreams.
Post by jane abraham
Islam's Jerusalem welcomed them with open heart, without any
discrimination of colour or race or apartheid walls. On the alien
land, they found home.
More Moslem propaganda.

[snip]
Post by jane abraham
on the Prophet Muhammad.
Europe's ambition for territorial expansion, economic and political
manipulation, evolved from Crusades to colonisation of the eastern
world.
This is so ridiculous I am surprised Jane even bothered to post
it. The movement of Colonialism did NOT evolve from the Crusades. They
are as different as apples and oranges.
Post by jane abraham
The revival of Crusades took several forms and shapes. At times, they
used religious slogans to rally support of the people for their drive
towards the East. At times, they promised lucrative return on the
investments for raising capital for expeditions. At times, they
enslaved people and used repressive measures to navigate their ships
through the rough seas. But as John Esposito rightly remarks,
"Christian fears were full realized as Islam became a world power and
civilization while Christianity staggered and stagnated in its Dark
Ages."
No, Esposito was not right. More responsible historians now recognize
that even the very name 'Dark Ages' is based on a serious
misunderstanding of history.
Post by jane abraham
In the modern times, the status of Jerusalem has been defaced. It has
witnessed betrayals and brutalities, void of human compassion and
mercy. It has seen its sanctity torn into pieces. It has passed through
violation in its revered position as the holy city for Abrahamic
faiths.
This too, is an ahistorical misnomer:there is no such thing as
"Abrahamic faiths". There is only one faith that can truly be claimed
to derive from Abraham's.
Post by jane abraham
The evangelist Franklin Graham claimed that Islam is a "very evil and
wicked religion".
And he was right.
Post by jane abraham
His father Billy Graham had prayed at the
Washington's National Cathedral at President Bush's swearing in
ceremony. When Muslim leaders challenged Franklin Graham over his
fanatical outburst,
What "fanatical outburst"? All he did was call a spade a spade.
Post by jane abraham
he reiterated: "The God of Islam is not the same
God. He's not the Son of God of the Christian or Judeo-Christian faith.
It's a different God, and I believe it is a very evil and wicked
religion." (http://www.msnbc.com/news/659057.asp?cp1=1).
And just like the wise, educated Emperor, he was right. All the
misinformation and disinformation you have published in this post only
confirms how wicked it is.
--
-------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
gilgames
2006-10-11 05:22:04 UTC
Permalink
<<
Who is to be blamed for the Catholic
Church's complicity in covering up the scandals of the paedophile
celibate priests, who abused boys and girls
Did you ever thought it over that

- if we compare the number of the priest and their victims, and the
number of the total male population and their victim, the fist number if
one third of the later

- consequently anyone who talks only about the victims of the priest w/o
analyzing the full problem is accomplice in the victimization of
millions of children.
gilgames
2006-10-12 00:49:35 UTC
Permalink
<<
Post by jane abraham
He cited a 14th century Christian emperor who said that the Prophet
Post by jane abraham
Muhammad had brought the world "evil and inhuman" things.
Ah, yes. I have a renewed respect for that Emperor after hearing the
Pope quote him. He was right on the money! Any of the other educated
Christians who had to suffer under Moslem rule will agree with
him. And there are MANY of these.
The emperor was not right, and the Pope is quoted out of context.

Every religion belives in its own superiority, otherwise it is fake, not
religion.

Historically the Arabs destroyed North Africa, but the Muslim religion
is only secondarily behind that, it united the Arabas. They slowed down
in about 200 so years. The other Muslim Empire the Ottoman Turs, were
very far away from the Islam.

laszlo
Matthew Johnson
2006-10-16 02:14:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by jane abraham
He cited a 14th century Christian emperor who said that the
Prophet Muhammad had brought the world "evil and inhuman" things.
Ah, yes. I have a renewed respect for that Emperor after hearing the
Pope quote him. He was right on the money! Any of the other educated
Christians who had to suffer under Moslem rule will agree with
him. And there are MANY of these.
The emperor was not right, and the Pope is quoted out of context.
Of course you are wrong here, Laszlo. The Emperor was right on the
money. But you are right about one thing: the Pope was quoted out of
context.
Post by Matthew Johnson
Every religion belives in its own superiority, otherwise it is fake, not
religion.
This is quite irrelevant to the issue. The wise Emperor did NOT raise
the issue of which religion is true, he raised the issue of the
_differences_ between Islam and Christianity: he pointed out that the
differences were ALL EVIL. He never denied that Islam stole good
things from Judaism and Christianity.
Post by Matthew Johnson
Historically the Arabs destroyed North Africa, but the Muslim
religion is only secondarily behind that,
No, your position is not plausible. The proximal cause of Arab unity
and expansionism cannot be only 'secondarily behind' it.
Post by Matthew Johnson
it united the Arabs.
And what a bad idea that was!
Post by Matthew Johnson
They slowed down in about 200 so years.
But this too, is quite irrelevant. So _what_ if they "slowed down"?
They had still done very great evil, and continued to do it. They
_still_ continue to do it, held back only by their own
disorganization, and backwardness both technological and social.
Post by Matthew Johnson
The other Muslim Empire the Ottoman Turks, were very far away from
the Islam.
I have no idea why you are so sure of this. An awful lot of Moselems
disagree with you on this -- or they admit it it true ONLY of _Modern_
Turkey, which turned it back on the Umma with Attaturk's secularism.
--
-------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
gilgames
2006-10-17 02:54:31 UTC
Permalink
<<
Of course you are wrong here, Laszlo. The Emperor was right on the
money. But you are right about one thing: the Pope was quoted out of
context.
Everyone commits sins, and thus brings evil things into the word, and no
one has rights to single out one men or a group out of this.

<<
Post by Matthew Johnson
it united the Arabs.
And what a bad idea that was!
I do not belive that this is a Christian statement. The Christians
belive that all men are equal with the same rights.
Matthew Johnson
2006-10-18 01:16:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Johnson
<<
Of course you are wrong here, Laszlo. The Emperor was right on the
money. But you are right about one thing: the Pope was quoted out of
context.
Everyone commits sins, and thus brings evil things into the word, and no
one has rights to single out one men or a group out of this.
<<
Post by Matthew Johnson
it united the Arabs.
And what a bad idea that was!
I do not belive that this is a Christian statement.
Well, so what if you do not believe it? I do not believe you know what you are
talking about.
Post by Matthew Johnson
The Christians
belive that all men are equal with the same rights.
What are you talking about? No, we do not. Look at Rom 13:1-7. Do you _really_
see equality there? I don't. Neither did most other Christians for many
centuries.

What Christians DO believe is that despite the inequalities of the world,
despite the difference between prince and pauper, and between Jew and Greek, God
draws all men together in the Church. But this drawing together has NOTHING to
do with a merely _politial_ unity, such as what Mohammed gave to the Arabs.
--
-------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
Loading...