The Pope & Islam

  • Thread starter Thread starter FightingFat
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

FightingFat

Guest
Another thread about this!

If we could leave the emotion out of the issue for a second, I thought the brain boxes amoung us might enjoy this challenge! I have been talking to a Musilm friend about this (who has been rather magnanimous about the whole affair- which is pretty out of keeping with the reaction from the rest of the Muslim world I’ll admit!) he has been a good sport and read the lecture in full and he has offered the following refutation of the Pope’s assertions in his lecture; what do we make of his points?

I have read through the Pope’s Lecture. See:

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict…ensburg_en.html

I have numbered some of the issues raised, and my current response is given below. I may develop the themes further, or raise further issues, in future posts, Insha’allah [God willing]:

[1] "2:256 revealed in Mecca when he was powerless and under threat

In actual fact, the truth is that Sura [2] Baqarah began to be revealed soon after the Hijrah or Migration from Mecca to Medina. As proof for this, it is well known that whilst in Medina, the Holy Prophet s.a.w. changed his Qiblah or prayer direction from Jerusalem to Mecca. He faced Jerusalem whilst in Mecca, and he faced Mecca whilst in Medina. It posed a severe trial for the Arabs who had been greatly attached to the Kaaba for centuries to have to face towards Jerusalem which was the Qiblah of the People of the Book.

It also became a severe trial for the Jews of Medina when he changed the Qiblah to the Kaaba soon after his arrival there. In any case, the relevant verses are [2:143-146] using the Ahmadiyya numbering system, in which the verse declaring that there is no compulsion in religion is [2:257], and all these verses were revealed in Madinah, hence refuting the allegation made in the lecture. Besides, there is no abrogation of the Holy Qur’an, so verse [2:257] remains applicable in conjunction with verses allowing the defence of life and Houses of God on the part of those who have been wronged [22:39-41].

[2] the instructions about ‘holy war’ were developed later.

Firstly, the term ‘holy war’ is not an Islamic one; it is a Christian term. Jihad is a struggle to protect and promote spiritual and physical life, and the Houses of God. The Holy Qur’an declares:

*[22:39] Surely, Allah defends those who believe. Surely, Allah loves not anyone who is perfidious, ungrateful. *
*[22:40] Permission to take up arms is given to those against whom war is made, because they have been wronged and Allah, indeed, has power to help them. - *
*[22:41] Those who have been driven out from their homes unjustly, only because they said, ‘Our Lord is Allah.’ And if Allah had not repelled some people by means of others, cloisters and churches and synagogues and mosques, wherein the name of Allah is oft remembered, would surely have been destroyed. And Allah will, surely, help him who helps Him. Allah is, indeed, Powerful, Mighty - *
*[22:42] Those who, if We establish them in the earth, will observe Prayer and pay the Zakat and enjoin good and forbid evil. And with Allah rests the final issue of all affairs. *

Muslim-Christian conflict began when a Muslim envoy carrying a letter from Prophet Muhammad s.a.w. was violently beheaded by an angry deputy of the Christian Emperor Heraclius, who later sent an army of 40,000 to invade Medina. Thus, the Christian world is charged guilty of unsuccessful attempts to destroy Islam by violent force throughout history, the modern day being no exception to this. Has the Pope condemned the war waged by Crusader Bush against Muslims in this day and age?

Continued next post…
 
As I said before, the objection against Jihad would arise if Islam said: Do not value or try to save human life. Instead the Holy Qur’an declares, in the context of the murder of one son of Adam by the other, that is is an act of great virtue to save a human life, viz:

*On account of this, We prescribed for the Children of Israel that whosoever killed a person - unless it be for killing a person or for creating disorder in the land - it shall be as if he killed all mankind; and whoso saved a life, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind. And our Messengers came to them with clear Signs, Yet even after that, many of them commit excesses in the land. [5:33] *

Thus the purpose of Jihad is ‘TO SAVE THE LIFE OF ALL MANKIND’.

So, is Jihad, i.e. the struggle to save people, objectionable to you? If one struggles to save human life, and thereby preventing death of all mankind, how can Jihad be objectionable? Too many lies have been heaped against Islam by Europeans over the past ages, and it is indeed interesting that I posted these quotes from modern Orientalists (along with some others) the day before the Pope delivered his lecture.

*“The lies (Western slander) which well-meaning zeal has heaped round this man (Muhammad) are disgraceful to ourselves only.” “A silent great soul, one of that who cannot but be earnest. He was to kindle the world, the world’s Maker had ordered so.” [Thomas Carlyle in ‘Heroes and Hero Worship and the Heroic in History,’ 1840] *

*The picture of the Muslim soldier advancing with a sword in one hand and the Qur’an in the other is quite false. [A. S. Tritton in ‘Islam,’ 1951] *

*History makes it clear, however, that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of sword upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myths that historians have ever repeated. [De Lacy O’Leary in ‘Islam at the Crossroads,’ London, 1923.] *

*“The greatest success of Mohammad’s life was effected by sheer moral force.” … The intellectual image of the Deity has never been degraded by any visible idol; the honors of the prophet have never transgressed the measure of human virtue, and his living precepts have restrained the gratitude of his disciples within the bounds of reason and religion.” [Edward Gibbon and Simon Oakley in ‘History of the Saracen Empire,’ London, 1870] *

*It is impossible for anyone who studies the life and character of the great Prophet of Arabia, who knew how he taught and how he lived, to feel anything but reverence for that mighty Prophet, one of the great messengers of the Supreme. And although in what I put to you I shall say many things which may be familiar to many, yet I myself feel, whenever I reread them, a new way of admiration, a new sense of reverence for that mighty Arabian teacher. [Annie Besant in ‘The Life and Teachings of Mohammad,’ Madras, 1932.] *

*So great was his liberality to the poor that he often left his household unprovided, nor did he content himself with relieving their wants, he entered into conversation with them, and expressed a warm sympathy for their sufferings. He was a firm friend and a faithful ally. [W.C. Taylor in ‘The History of Muhammadanism and its Sects’] *

*“Head of the State as well as the Church, he was Caesar and Pope in one; but he was Pope without the Pope’s pretensions, and Caesar without the legions of Caesar, without a standing army, without a bodyguard, without a police force, without a fixed revenue. If ever a man ruled by a right divine, it was Muhammad, for he had all the powers without their supports. He cared not for the dressings of power. The simplicity of his private life was in keeping with his public life.” “In Mohammadanism every thing is different here. Instead of the shadowy and the mysterious, we have history…We know of the external history of Muhammad…while for his internal history after his mission had been proclaimed, we have a book absolutely unique in its origin, in its preservation…on the Substantial authority of which no one has ever been able to cast a serious doubt.” [Reverend Bosworth Smith in ‘Muhammad and Muhammadanism,’ London, 1874.] *
 
**“Islam is a religion that is essentially rationalistic in the widest sense of this term considered etymologically and historically…the teachings of the Prophet, the Qur’an has invariably kept its place as the fundamental starting point, and the dogma of unity of God has always been proclaimed therein with a grandeur a majesty, an invariable purity and with a note of sure conviction, which it is hard to find surpassed outside the pale of Islam…A creed so precise, so stripped of all theological complexities and consequently so accessible to the ordinary understanding might be expected to possess and does indeed possess a marvelous power of winning its way into the consciences of men.” [Edward Montet, ‘La Propagande Chretienne et ses Adversaries Musulmans,’ Paris 1890. (Also in T.W. Arnold in ‘The Preaching of Islam,’ London 1913.)] *

*“Philosopher, Orator, Apostle, Legislator, Conqueror of Ideas, Restorer of Rational beliefs… The founder of twenty terrestrial empires and of one spiritual empire that is Muhammad. As regards all standards by which human greatness may be measured, we may well ask, is there any man greater than he?” [Alphonse de LaMartaine in ‘Historie de la Turquie,’ Paris, 1854.] *

*I wanted to know the best of the life of one who holds today an undisputed sway over the hearts of millions of mankind… I became more than ever convinced that it was not the sword that won a place for Islam in those days in the scheme of life. It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the Prophet the scrupulous regard for pledges, his intense devotion to his friends and followers, his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and in his own mission. These and not the sword carried everything before them and surmounted every obstacle. When I closed the second volume (of the Prophet’s biography), I was sorry there was not more for me to read of that great life. [Mahatma Gandhi, statement published in 'Young India,'1924.] *

*“No other religion in history spread so rapidly as Islam. The West has widely believed that this surge of religion was made possible by the sword. But no modern scholar accepts this idea, and the Qur’an is explicit in the support of the freedom of conscience.” [James Michener in ‘Islam: The Misunderstood Religion,’ Reader’s Digest, May 1955, pp. 68-70.] *

*Incidentally these well-established facts dispose of the idea so widely fostered in Christian writings that the Muslims, wherever they went, forced people to accept Islam at the point of the sword. [Lawrence E. Browne in ‘The Prospects of Islam,’ 1944] *

*My problem to write this monograph is easier, because we are not generally fed now on that (distorted) kind of history and much time need not be spent on pointing out our misrepresentations of Islam. The theory of Islam and sword, for instance, is not heard now in any quarter worth the name. The principle of Islam that “there is no compulsion in religion” is well known. [K. S. Ramakrishna Rao in ‘Mohammed: The Prophet of Islam,’ 1989] *

**[3] Difference in treatment between people of the book and infidels. **

Is there to be no difference in dealings between those who believe in God and those who do not? Is it not perfectly logical that an applicant who has primary schooling, and one who has a PhD, should be considered differently, and given work appropriate and suited to their qualifications. The Holy Qur’an only allows a Muslim to marry a chaste person. The Torah also did not permit Israelites to marry non-Israelites for this reason, because the tribes around them were idolators.

**[4] Emperor: “Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached”… **

Is it evil to shun alcohol, cease killing infant girls, free the slaves, discard interest, wear righteous garments, worship the One God times a day, etc? These are all moral teachings of the highest order, not abiding with which has led to the plague of AIDS for example, the only deterrent against which is for the society to adopt Islamic values and laws. There is no *
 
command in Islam to spread faith by the sword. This is an absurd allegation which modern Orientalists have admitted to be false, as already quoted above.

[5] The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "

It is well of him to say so. However, this is a lecture best delivered to the Crusaders and Spanish Inquisitionists and Modern Day ‘Democratic’ Crusaders who are hell-bent on mass murder. What has the Pope done to prevent their aggression? Let them all know that we believers much prefer the humane and moral and wise and moderate Islamic Law to Biblical Law and their hollow calls for an Immoral Democracy.

**[6] speak well and reason properly, without violence and threats. **

The Emperor seems to have already read these verses of the Holy Qur’an:

“Call unto the way of thy Lord with wisdom and goodly exhortation and debate with them in a way that is best. Surely, thy Lord knows best who has strayed from His way; and He also knows those who are rightly guided.” [16:126]

*"And who is better in speech than he who invites men to Allah and does righteous deeds and says, ‘I am, surely, of those who submit (to God)?’ And good and evil are not alike. Repel evil with that which is best. And lo, he, between whom and thyself was enmity, will become as though he were a warm friend. But none is granted it save those who are steadfast; and none is granted it save those who possess a large share of good. [41:34-36] *

Islam means peace, and this is indeed what the Holy Qur’an teaches and the Holy Prophet Muhammad s.a.w. practiced, as I have shown in my numerous posts. However, there are times when warnings are given to the deliberate evil-doers such as the people of Noah and Lot and Moses [pbuh].

**[7] ‘not to act with reason is contrary to God’s nature.’ **

Agreed, but with the proviso that the heart is the King in the matter of faith, with the mind as it’s Vizier. And a multitude of Christian doctrines and actions are in direct conflict with common sense, reason and logic.

**[8] God’s will not bound by rationality. Ibn Hazn stated that God is not even bound by His own word, or truth and goodness, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal truth to us. Were it God’s will we would even have to practice idolatry. **

There is nothing in God’s Will or Word which is in conflict with reason and logic. The Promised Messiah a.s. wrote that God can do everything which is not in conflict with His Word or Dignity or Nature or Promise, IIRC. I do not have to refute the word of Ibn Hazn, but if there is an objection that can be made from God’s Word, I would be prepared to refute it.

[10]Logos (word and reason) is God. Greek ideology consistent with Bible. Christian worship in harmony with eternal Word and Reason; enlightenment.

Greek ideology teaches an idolatrous pantheism which is in clear and direct conflict with the common and never changing strict monotheistic teachings of all the Biblical Prophets, that there is only One God who has no equal or partner. Greek pantheism is inconsistent with the Law and the teachings of the Prophets, and one of the reasons why Christianity became corrupted.

The pantheistic concept of trinity, doctrine of vicarious atonement, belief in a literal sonship, worship of Jesus [pbuh] and Mary [pbuh] all defy logic and are in direct conflict with common sense and the enlightenment of the human mind, which hastens to reject them. In contrast, everything that Islam teaches is in perfect accord with reason.

There is no conflict between the Word and Work of God in Islam, whereas several Christian doctrines are in direct conflict with much of nature and science. The Holy Qur’an teaches us to use our reasoning and reflect over the world around us. Islam is in accord with most of the findings of (modern) science, whereas Christianity has always been in conflict with most of them.
 
The AP reported today:

“Palestinian Muslims hurled firebombs and opened fire at five churches in the West Bank and Gaza Strip Saturday to protest the Pope’s comments, sparking concerns of a rift between Palestinian Muslims and Christians.”

The pope has relayed the truth.
 
The Koran teaches that those who resisted the teachings of Muhammed were changed by Allah into apes and swine. (i.e.Jews and Christians.)

The leading shaman of Islam in Jerusalem recently preached that when Jesus returns to the earth He will “…cut the throats of the Jews and Christians.”

In Islam, there are two kinds of people on the earth… Those who submit to Islam, and those who are enemies of Islam. There is no middle ground; you either submit to it, or you are at war with it and are therefore an enemy of the muslim people. The purpose of Islam is not peace, but to convert the world into an Islamic state.

Terrorism is promoted from the pulpits. Therefore terrorism is a part of the Islamic faith. Suicidal mass-murderers are blessed with martyrdom.

Consider the recent events of the pope’s remarks and the “offensive” cartoons of a few months ago. Anytime anything is presented that is not complimentary to Islam it results in angry moslems in the streets screaming, shouting, cursing, burning effigies, and declaring death to the enemies of Islam.

You can defend Islam all you want, but put it to the test. Offer a mere pin-prick of offense to that “religion” and its “peace-loving” adherents degrade into an angry and violent mob.

Their actions speak much louder than the words you have posted.

Thal59
 
Have you guys seen any peace loving moslems demonstrate in peace rejecting the actions of the moslem terrorists. I mean to say march and show the world that they are for peace and reject their muslim terrorists brothers who they say are hijacking the name of islam? Maybe peacefull moslems are afraid that the terrorist brothers will put their anger at them.

You see here in the U.S. when ignorant americans start persecuting moslems, the government steps up and protect its moslem nationals and christians quickly rise in support of the innocent moslems using both the media, and the pulpits.
 
Is it not true that Moslems kill other Moslems over differences of opinons and doctrines?

If Jihad is to protect all of mankind is it ok then for these “peace-loving Moslems” to kill thousands upon thousands?
 
From what I have seen, the demonstrations have been by Muslims in the Middle East and surrounding areas. There are Muslim leaders in Europe who have supported the pope.

It might be that the media prefers to report on the exciting scenes of yelling and screaming and isn’t looking for the calm and rational statements of support. It might be that the rational folks in the Middle East are afraid to speak up - it’s probably not fair to compare the actions of people in a free country with those in a restricted one. It might be that the Muslims in the Middle East are not like the Muslims elsewhere - they don’t seem to have a central authority to keep everyone together.
 
OK so no one is interested in apologetic debate; we’re just gonna use this opportunity as another chance to slag of Islam eh?
 
#7 on your list for starters is a ridiculous point and not a good defense by any stretch of the imagination.
 
quote=proudnifi;1500126]From what I have seen, the demonstrations have been by Muslims in the Middle East and surrounding areas. There are Muslim leaders in Europe who have supported the pope.

It might be that the media prefers to report on the exciting scenes of yelling and screaming and isn’t looking for the calm and rational statements of support. It might be that the rational folks in the Middle East are afraid to speak up - it’s probably not fair to compare the actions of people in a free country with those in a restricted one. It might be that the Muslims in the Middle East are not like the Muslims elsewhere - they don’t seem to have a central authority to keep everyone together.
Click to expand...
Maybe you are right, but what about the millions of muslims here in the U.S.? They are free, and even though they don’t have a central authority, they can still get the numbers of all their Imams and start calling each other and plan things. With this age of technology and quick communication, they can certainly act right away and condemn the acts of vilolence perpetrated by their muslim brothers. And also, as muslims in a muslim country, they enjoy freedom like what they are doing now. Those who don’t have freedom are the religious minority.
 
#5 -

Crusades - Apologies have been made for the unChristian/ungodly actions of some Christians. I also note that the 1st Crusade was in defense against the Turks; the 2nd after Edessa was taken by the Turks; 3rd after Jerusalem was taken by the sultan of Egypt; 4th was an attempt to get Jerusalem back and the pope lost some control over the actual crusade - pope’s not all-powerful, just a man; the 6th and later crusades weren’t being started by the popes.

Inquisition - Technically only applied to Catholics, but obviously some of the methods were wrong.

The Crusaders and Inquisitionists are historical figures so the pope can’t possibly lecture to them or change their minds. I don’t know who the “Modern Day ‘Democratic’ Crusaders who are hell-bent on mass murder” are and can’t make any comments.

The pope was saying that attempting to spread the Truth by violent means is wrong. This is something he intends for everyone to know - Catholics most certainly included.

I am not an expert on Islamic law, but does Sharia fall into that category? If so, humane/moral/wise/moderate isn’t something that comes to my mind. I also remember that US soldiers weren’t allowed personal Christian-related items while in Saudi Arabia. I also hear that Christian worship is forcibly restricted there. I hear this is in keeping with Islamic law, too.

Not that I think all Islamic Law is bad - everything it has in common with Christianity is good.
 
QUOTE - Maybe you are right, but what about the millions of muslims here in the U.S.? They are free, and even though they don’t have a central authority, they can still get the numbers of all their Imams and start calling each other and plan things. With this age of technology and quick communication, they can certainly act right away and condemn the acts of vilolence perpetrated by their muslim brothers. And also, as muslims in a muslim country, they enjoy freedom like what they are doing now. Those who don’t have freedom are the religious minority.

Yes, I agree. I, too, wish I heard more from Muslims in the US. I am trying to give people the benefit of the doubt.

Sadly, although I liked this morning’s homily, the priest didn’t say anything about the pope’s speech either.
 
Yes, I agree. I, too, wish I heard more from Muslims in the US. I am trying to give people the benefit of the doubt.

Sadly, although I liked this morning’s homily, the priest didn’t say anything about the pope’s speech either.
Click to expand...
Our parrish didn’t mention anything about it, but in the prayer petition, we mention a lot about world peace and responsibilities of the leaders of the world.

Muslims here in the U.S. have been given a lot of benefit of the doubt. It is time for action and show the terrorist muslim that they can’t hijack the name of Islam anymore. Muslims here have nothing to fear, they are** equally protected by our civil law. **If the muslims here in the U. S. will show the world that they can be faithful Muslims and at the same time faithful american citizens then, maybe, seeds will be planted in other muslims in the other part of the world not to be afraid of reprisal from their muslim brothers.
 
FightingFat,
To get back to the point of your message, I confess I am a bit ignorant as to how Islam actually spread. The standard story is that Muslim armies spread from Arabia and conquered the Middle East, North Africa, the Byzantine Empire, and on into Asia. Muslims seem to take exception to this, saying it is quite false. Do you know the Muslim explanation for why these lands are now Muslim? Perhaps Muslims are saying the conquests did indeed take place, but conversion by the conquered peoples was entirely voluntary?

As this chap said:
History makes it clear, however, that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of sword upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myths that historians have ever repeated. [De Lacy O’Leary in ‘Islam at the Crossroads,’ London, 1923.]
Click to expand...
I think we would all benefit from finding out what actually happened. I’ll have to do some investigating…

God bless!
 
Here’s what my Encyclopedia Britannica says about the early days of Islam:
From the very beginning of Islām, Muḥammad had inculcated a sense of brotherhood and a bond of faith among his followers, both of which helped to develop among them a feeling of close relationship that was accentuated by their experiences of persecution as a nascent community in Mecca. The strong attachment to the tenets of the Qurʾānic revelation and the conspicuous socioeconomic content of Islāmic religious practices cemented this bond of faith. In AD 622, when the Prophet migrated to Medina, his preaching was soon accepted, and the community-state of Islām emerged. During this early period, Islām acquired its characteristic ethos as a religion uniting in itself both the spiritual and temporal aspects of life and seeking to regulate not only the individual’s relationship to God (through his conscience) but human relationships in a social setting as well. Thus, there is not only an Islāmic religious institution but also an Islāmic law, state, and other institutions governing society. Not until the 20th century were the religious (private) and the secular (public) distinguished by some Muslim thinkers and separated formally in certain places such as Turkey.
Click to expand...
This dual religious and social character of Islām, expressing itself in one way as a religious community commissioned by God to bring its own value system to the world through the jihād (“exertion,” commonly translated as “holy war” or “holy struggle”), explains the astonishing success of the early generations of Muslims. Within a century after the Prophet’s death in AD 632, they had brought a large part of the globe—from Spain across Central Asia to India—under a new Arab Muslim empire.
Click to expand...
The period of Islāmic conquests and empire building marks the first phase of the expansion of Islām as a religion. Islām’s essential egalitarianism within the community of the faithful and its official discrimination against the followers of other religions won rapid converts. Jews and Christians were assigned a special status as communities possessing scriptures and were called the “people of the Book” (ahl al-kitāb) and, therefore, were allowed religious autonomy. They were, however, required to pay a per capita tax called jizyah, as opposed to pagans, who were required to either accept Islām or die. The same status of the “people of the Book” was later extended to Zoroastrians and Hindus, but many “people of the Book” joined Islām in order to escape the disability of the jizyah. A much more massive expansion of Islām after the 12th century was inaugurated by the Ṣūfīs (Muslim mystics), who were mainly responsible for the spread of Islām in India, Central Asia, Turkey, and sub-Saharan Africa (see below).
Click to expand...
Besides the jihād and Ṣūfī missionary activity, another factor in the spread of Islām was the far-ranging influence of Muslim traders, who not only introduced Islām quite early to the Indian east coast and South India but also proved to be the main catalytic agents (besides the Ṣūfīs) in converting people to Islām in Indonesia, Malaya, and China. Islām was introduced to Indonesia in the 14th century, hardly having time to consolidate itself there politically before coming under Dutch colonial domination.
Click to expand...
The vast variety of races and cultures embraced by Islām (estimated total 1.1 to 1.2 billion persons worldwide) has produced important internal differences. All segments of Muslim society, however, are bound by a common faith and a sense of belonging to a single community. With the loss of political power during the period of Western colonialism in the 19th and 20th centuries, the concept of the Islāmic community (ummah), instead of weakening, became stronger. The faith of Islām helped various Muslim peoples in their struggle to gain political freedom in the mid-20th century, and the unity of Islām contributed to later political solidarity.
Click to expand...
 
🙂 Yo, Good People!

Unpappily, over the past 48 hours or so, two(2) West bank churches have been fire bombed by a group claiming this was done for revenge for the Pope’s views, and today we hear from NPR that an Italian Catholic nun has been shot and killed in Somalia, and that 2 suspects have been arrested.

Leaving emotion aside, National Public Radio www.npr.org has been really covering this story over the past 72 hours.

In their 9am to 11 am Sunday news broadcast (Mountain Standard Time) out here in El Paso, they quoted some so-called “Vatican Analysts” (sp?) to the effect that – in so many words – the Holy Father said exactly what he intended to say, and that the supposed papal motive is to lessen this recent tendency to place “Catholicism and Islam on the same footing.”

This in turn is said to be because the Pope considers that too many people are coming to believe that all religions are basically one and the same, especially in Europe.

Too, last Thursday, the Anglican Archbishop of York created a terrific row, while gaining favorable email responses, when his views were expressed by these headlines:

MUSLIMS MUST DO MORE TO INTEGRATE , SAYS ARCHBISHOP

The easiest way I can find to access this article is through National Ctaholic Register online, click on it and scroll over to “Opinion” link.

www.ncregister.com

Keep the Faith!

Aurelio:)
 
:confused: Oops!

Sorry! But for Archbishop of York’s opinions on Islam and Christianity, just click on the headlines under MEDIA WATCH on front page on line National Catholic Register.

Thanks!

Aurelio:rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top