K
KathleenGee
Guest
Great response, Gabriel!
VATICAN - Pope: "Never before" has dialogue with Islam been so necessary, for mutual knowledge and acceptance of differences, to counter violence [AN]
- Status
O
oldcatholicguy
Guest
If you are going to stress content placed in proper context, you first need to make sure you do that yourself. The fiefdom building and constant infighting (which includes alliances/agreements with Muslim states against other Crusader states) between various Crusader states over political power invalidates your claim that the Christian secular powers involved in the various Crusades (odd that you seem to just focus on the initial cause of the first one) were doing it to protect their subjects and keep Jerusalem free.
Perhaps instead of basing your argument on what various leaders or states of each faith did and your assumptions of why they did them in regards to warfare you should base your argument on what each faith teaches about the usage of force. Given the differences between Catholic and Islamic theology concerning the usage of force it shouldn’t be too hard to prove your above point about one being just and the other not (in truth it would actually be easier to prove your point).
S
SteveVH
Guest
You mean they worship a false god whose name happens to be God? And as for the Muslim God being in the same camp as the Mormons, you are either ignorant of the faith of Islam or the Mormon faith, or both. Their theologies are not similar in any way, shape or form other than being non-Trinitarian.
J
Jerurussia
Guest
Whassa point in “dialogue” with Islam that commends lying to non-Muslims? Whassa point in “dialogue” with Islam that commends hiding one’s intentions RE: war?
And Islam and Mormonism are both gnostic special revelations from an angel to a man that commends child brides. Zat angel Satan?!? a la church lady? heheh Yeah, that’s the “Father of Lies & Murder.” BUT when Our Lady converts Russia that’s 10 million Muslims who will see the light and get realigion.
This Pope is not prepared for Islam that dynamites giant Buddhas in Afghanistan and would like to sanitize all the realistic art in the Vatican and banish their idea of polytheist Trinitarians, Catholics. And that’s putting it nicely.
And Islam and Mormonism are both gnostic special revelations from an angel to a man that commends child brides. Zat angel Satan?!? a la church lady? heheh Yeah, that’s the “Father of Lies & Murder.” BUT when Our Lady converts Russia that’s 10 million Muslims who will see the light and get realigion.
This Pope is not prepared for Islam that dynamites giant Buddhas in Afghanistan and would like to sanitize all the realistic art in the Vatican and banish their idea of polytheist Trinitarians, Catholics. And that’s putting it nicely.
S
SteveVH
Guest
I think our Pope “gets it”. He has been one of the strongest voices in public condemnation of Muslim terrorist atrocities and is privy to one of the best intelligence networks in the world. For what do you suggest he prepare?
E
Eric_Hyom
Guest
God is greater than the sum of all the religions of the world put together, the same God hears all our prayers. We have a duty to care for all of God’s creation, that has to mean caring for each other despite all our differences.
We pray the Lord’s prayer in fear, we remind our Lord to forgive us, in the same way that we forgive others
A
agnes_therese
Guest
Please don’t insult the intelligence of the Holy Father.
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
I placed no argument. I gave a response so as to clarify the differences of the call to war which transpired between Christian (Catholic) Kings protecting pilgrims on the roads to and from Jerusalem and Muslims call to war in the name of Allah.
Pope Urban called on the faithful Catholic Kings to protect the pilgrims on the roads to and from Jerusalem , under the banner “It is God’s Will”. What transpires from the Crusaders protecting the pilgrims path’s to and from Jerusalem leads to an awful war between Muslims and the Crusaders.
Why could not the Muslims “dialogued” and joined the Crusaders in protecting the innocent pilgrims and the free roads to and from Jerusalem? Instead a policed protection led to an outright war.
Does this history repeat itself and sound the same in today’s times of governments policing, protecting borders and victims from terrorist who are kidnapping for ransoms as they did back in the crusades, while killing, chopping heads off of innocent victims in the name of Allah?
Are the Muslims going to repeat it’s history as in the beginning of the crusades? or are the Muslims going to dialogue and prevent another war, when Islam’s whole premise of it’s gospel is to conquer.
Islam would have to change it’s Quran’s ultimate goal from conquering and killing the infidels, for a dialogue to really pursue a true peace. Currently secular politics is what is holding and preventing Islam from breaking out into an all out war. Mainly because they have no nuclear weapon yet? to place fear on those in order to submit or obey Islam’s rulers.
Thus we need secular political powers to keep the political aspirations of Islam at bay and from conquering the weaker. And religious dialogue with Muslims to teach and instruct them in the way’s of true Christian Catholicism that predates Islam’s Quran false teaching of Christianity.
Are Muslims willing to listen and dialogue with the True Christianity of Catholicism with the Pope? When the Pope offers an olive branch to Muslims…
S
SteveVH
Guest
Amen. Thanks for this, Gabriel.
U
unstoppable_II
Guest
You don’t know the half of it.
There were 463 years between Mohammed’s death in 632 AD and the calling of a Crusade to free lands that had been Christian before the Muslim invaders arrived; but to hear what passes for common “knowledge” [from self-hating Christians at that!], the whole affair was solely the fault of power-hungry popes, greedy soldiers of fortune, and Christians who were persecuting harmless, pious Muslims minding their own business. Muslims are only too happy to help Christians perpetuate this mea maxima culpa attitude.
Stenhouse[1] lists only some of the events that took place in those 463 years, among them,
633 – Mesopotamia falls to Muslim invasion, followed by the entire Persian Empire
635 – Damascus falls
638 – Jerusalem capitulates
643 – Alexandria falls, ending 1,000 years of Hellenic civilization
648-49 – Cyprus falls
653 – Rhodes falls
673 – Constantinople attacked
698 – All of North Africa lost
711 – Spain invaded
717 – Muslims attack Constantinople again; repelled by Emperor Leo the Isaurian
721 – Saragossa falls, Muslims sights on southern France
720 – Narbonne falls.
732 – Bordeaux was stormed and its churches burnt down
732 – Charles Martel and his Frankish army defeat Muslims, turning back the Muslim tide
732 – Attacks on France continued
734 – Avignon captured by an Muslim force
743 – Lyons sacked
759 – Arabs driven out of Narbonne.
800 – Muslims incursions into Italy begin, Islands of Ponza and Ischia plundered
813 – Civitavecchia, the port of Rome sacked
826 – Crete falls to Muslim forces
827 – Muslim forces begin to attack Sicily.
837 – Naples repels a Muslim attack
838 – Marseilles taken
840 – Bari falls
842 – Messina captured and Strait of Messina controlled
846 – Muslims squadrons arrived at Ostia, at the Tiber’s mouth, sack Rome and St. Peter’s Basilica
846 – Taranto in Apulia conquered by Muslim forces
849 – Papal forces repel Muslim fleet at the mouth of the Tiber
853 – 871 – Italian coast from Bari down to Reggio Calabria controlled, Muslims terrorize Southern Italy.
859 – Muslims take control of all Messina
870 – Malta captured by the Muslims.
870 – Bari recaptured from the Muslims by Emperor Louis II
872 – Emperor Louis II defeats a Saracen fleet off Capua
872 – Muslim forces devastate Calabria
878 – Syracuse falls after a nine-month siege
879 – Pope John VIII forced to pay tribute of 25,000 mancuses (AUD$625,000) annually to the Muslims
880 – Byzantine Commanders gain victory over Saracen forces at Naples
881 – Muslims capture fortress near Anzio, plunder surrounding countryside with impunity for forty years.
887 – Muslim armies take Hysela and Amasia, in Asia Minor.
889 – Toulon captured
902 – Muslim fleets sacked and destroyed Demetrias in Thessaly, Central Greece,
904 – Thessalonica falls to Muslim forces
915 – After three months of blockade, Christian forces victorious against Saracens holed up in their fortresses north of Naples
921 – English pilgrims to Rome crushed to death under rocks rolled down on them by Saracens in the passes of the Alps
934 – Genoa attacked by Muslim forces
935 – Genoa taken
972 – Saracens finally driven from Faxineto
976 – Caliphs of Egypt send fresh Muslim expeditions into southern Italy. Initially the German Emperor Otho II , who had set up his headquarters in Rome, successfully defeated these Saracen forces
977 – Sergius, Archbishop of Damascus, expelled from his See by Muslims
982 – Emperor Otho’s forces ambushed and his army defeated
1003 – Muslims from Spain sack Antibes
1003-09 – Marauding bands of Saracens plunder Italian coast from Pisa to Rome from bases on Sardinia
1005 – Muslims from Spain sack Pisa
1009 – Caliph of Egypt orders destruction of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, the Tomb of Jesus
1010 – Saracens seize Cosenza in southern Italy.
1015 – All Sardinia falls
1016 – Muslims from Spain again sack Pisa
1017 – Fleets of Pisa and Genoa sail for Sardinia, find Saracens crucifying Christians, drive Saracen leader out. Saracens try to re-take Sardinia until 1050
1020 – Muslims from Spain sack Narbonne
1095 – The First Crusade.
While the president [Clinton] apologized even to the South Pole, for imaginary
grievances, Muslims have never so much as acknowledged any responsibility for anything.
For additional reading, see “The Real History of the Crusades” by Medieval historian
Thomas F. Madden
catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0055.html
Notes:
[1] “The Crusades In Context” by Dr Paul Stenhouse answering-islam.org.uk/Green/crusades-stenhouse.htm
[2] “JIHAD BEGOT THE CRUSADES”
Andrew Bostom americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4467
[Two parts]
[3] “The Legacy of Jihad in Historical Palestine”
Andrew Bostom
americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4999 [Two parts]
[4] “Sorry, So Sorry”
by George Will, Washington Post, Sunday, March 29, 1998[/INDENT]
S
SteveVH
Guest
Wow.
S
steido01
Guest
This very, very short list is even more horrific when one considers what each “sacked,” “captured,” and “falls” entails: the forced conversion and/or murder of those who refused, the rape of women and girls, the murder and/or enslavement of children, the burning of crops, the seizure and destruction of property, etc. I shudder just imagining the destruction.
Yet the Church and the Western World endure. How? The former by the Grace of God, the latter by the blade of the Crusader.
A few things have changed since then, but one side is still at war with the other. To paraphrase an unretired world leader, the truth is that if the West were to put down its arms there would be no more civilization. If Islamists were to put down their arms there would be no more war.
So how does the Western World reach peace with Islam today?
U
unstoppable_II
Guest
And you never hear about any of that. I wonder why.
S
SteveVH
Guest
It is an arrow seemingly easy to fling at the Catholic Church and therefore one not easily dropped to the ground. History is on the side of the Church if anyone would care to really investigate.
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
Is Pope Francis call on all nations to use any and all means to protect and prevent the innocent from being killed and massacred by Terrorist groups, a repeat of the beginning of the crusades when Pope Urban’s call on all Catholic Kings and Catholics to go and protect the pilgrims from being massacred to and from Jerusalem?
“Never before” has a dialogue with Islam been so necessary! For mutual knowledge and acceptance of differences to counter violence.
If? Pope Urban was given the opportunity to dialogue with Islam for mutual knowledge and acceptance of differences to counter violence, would it prevented a war of the crusades?
With Pope Francis today, we repeat history, Although, with a new opportunity to dialogue "for mutual knowledge and acceptance of differences to counter violence "is unchartered waters which remains to be seen, so that history can begin to record a new history and not a repeat of history which was a full war.
“Never before” has a dialogue with Islam been so necessary! For mutual knowledge and acceptance of differences to counter violence.
If? Pope Urban was given the opportunity to dialogue with Islam for mutual knowledge and acceptance of differences to counter violence, would it prevented a war of the crusades?
With Pope Francis today, we repeat history, Although, with a new opportunity to dialogue "for mutual knowledge and acceptance of differences to counter violence "is unchartered waters which remains to be seen, so that history can begin to record a new history and not a repeat of history which was a full war.
U
unstoppable_II
Guest
He had better have a good Islam-to-English / English-to-Islam dictionary.
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
oh, oh the Pope is from Argentina and speaks Spanish and Latin.
I am not sure the languages would be a great barrier to cross.
The first and foremost is to get both religious sides (not political sides) to communicate under a banner of mutual understanding of each other’s knowledge of faith and acceptance of each other’s differences.
The political side of Islam which has more political content and emphasis for Muslims to follow from the Quran than the religious side of the Quran. Should be addressed to the heads of the political powers ruled under Shia/Sunni Muslims and non-Muslims under the same banner of political understandings of one another’s practiced laws and knowledge with the goal to accept each other’s differences (without either side placing conditions). It should be noted that the Shia Muslims political influences differ from Sunni political influences.
The barrier in a dialogue for the acceptance of one another’s political differences and goals has a much greater divide between Islamic politics and secular politics, than the religious barrier of dialogue of Islam with the Pope.
The Pope and Islamic dialogue should not have political contents of differences and goals. If the dialogue remains to the religious content only? Then I see a light in the tunnel. If? the dialogue moves to political aspirations and goals of Islam, the dialogue is placed out of place and has the tendency to fail.
O
oldcatholicguy
Guest
I placed no argument. I gave a response so as to clarify the differences of the call to war which transpired between Christian (Catholic) Kings protecting pilgrims on the roads to and from Jerusalem and Muslims call to war in the name of Allah.
Pope Urban called on the faithful Catholic Kings to protect the pilgrims on the roads to and from Jerusalem , under the banner “It is God’s Will”. What transpires from the Crusaders protecting the pilgrims path’s to and from Jerusalem leads to an awful war between Muslims and the Crusaders.
The Crusade was actually in response to a request from the ERE for against the Turks (the ones who didn’t control the Holy Land). It morphed from this into a “protecting the pilgrims” and then a “retake the Holy Land” after the Turks started causing problems with the Muslim state that held the Holy Land. This “it was all about protecting the pilgrims” argument is also challenged for validity given that after the Holy Land was retaken it was divided up into several Crusading states ruled by western nobles and not actually handed back to the ERE.
Why could not the Muslims “dialogued” and joined the Crusaders in protecting the innocent pilgrims and the free roads to and from Jerusalem? Instead a policed protection led to an outright war.
One because they were dealing with the Turks trying to expand their territory into the Holy Land; and two maybe because prior to calling forth a massive military campaign to conquer (in the eyes of the Muslim state that controlled it, I personally think retaking or reconquering) the Holy Land the Church didn’t actually bother to make any real attempt at dialogue for this protection of pilgrims to take place?
Does this history repeat itself and sound the same in today’s times of governments policing, protecting borders and victims from terrorist who are kidnapping for ransoms as they did back in the crusades, while killing, chopping heads off of innocent victims in the name of Allah?
Are the Muslims going to repeat it’s history as in the beginning of the crusades? or are the Muslims going to dialogue and prevent another war, when Islam’s whole premise of it’s gospel is to conquer.
Are you claiming that a) Islamic extremists are the true face of Islam and/or that all Muslims are responsible for/engage in these acts, b) that these extremists organizations are somehow the legitimate government of the Muslim societies that they are in, c) that the “it’s all about protecting pilgrims” Crusaders didn’t also engage in similar or worse activity?
Islam would have to change it’s Quran’s ultimate goal from conquering and killing the infidels, for a dialogue to really pursue a true peace. Currently secular politics is what is holding and preventing Islam from breaking out into an all out war. Mainly because they have no nuclear weapon yet? to place fear on those in order to submit or obey Islam’s rulers.
So for clarification are you actually claiming that a) Muslims would use force to conquer to world, b) that Islam calls for the usage of force to conquer the world, and c) the only reason Muslims aren’t using force to conquer to world is due to the threat of a military response by the now apparently good secular governments in the West (which frankly is odd in itself given the popular narrative on this site of secular governments ignoring the threat of Islam and your previous statements to this effect)?
Thus we need secular political powers to keep the political aspirations of Islam at bay and from conquering the weaker. And religious dialogue with Muslims to teach and instruct them in the way’s of true Christian Catholicism that predates Islam’s Quran false teaching of Christianity.
Are Muslims willing to listen and dialogue with the True Christianity of Catholicism with the Pope? When the Pope offers an olive branch to Muslims…
Pope Urban called on the faithful Catholic Kings to protect the pilgrims on the roads to and from Jerusalem , under the banner “It is God’s Will”. What transpires from the Crusaders protecting the pilgrims path’s to and from Jerusalem leads to an awful war between Muslims and the Crusaders.
The Crusade was actually in response to a request from the ERE for against the Turks (the ones who didn’t control the Holy Land). It morphed from this into a “protecting the pilgrims” and then a “retake the Holy Land” after the Turks started causing problems with the Muslim state that held the Holy Land. This “it was all about protecting the pilgrims” argument is also challenged for validity given that after the Holy Land was retaken it was divided up into several Crusading states ruled by western nobles and not actually handed back to the ERE.
Why could not the Muslims “dialogued” and joined the Crusaders in protecting the innocent pilgrims and the free roads to and from Jerusalem? Instead a policed protection led to an outright war.
One because they were dealing with the Turks trying to expand their territory into the Holy Land; and two maybe because prior to calling forth a massive military campaign to conquer (in the eyes of the Muslim state that controlled it, I personally think retaking or reconquering) the Holy Land the Church didn’t actually bother to make any real attempt at dialogue for this protection of pilgrims to take place?
Does this history repeat itself and sound the same in today’s times of governments policing, protecting borders and victims from terrorist who are kidnapping for ransoms as they did back in the crusades, while killing, chopping heads off of innocent victims in the name of Allah?
Are the Muslims going to repeat it’s history as in the beginning of the crusades? or are the Muslims going to dialogue and prevent another war, when Islam’s whole premise of it’s gospel is to conquer.
Are you claiming that a) Islamic extremists are the true face of Islam and/or that all Muslims are responsible for/engage in these acts, b) that these extremists organizations are somehow the legitimate government of the Muslim societies that they are in, c) that the “it’s all about protecting pilgrims” Crusaders didn’t also engage in similar or worse activity?
Islam would have to change it’s Quran’s ultimate goal from conquering and killing the infidels, for a dialogue to really pursue a true peace. Currently secular politics is what is holding and preventing Islam from breaking out into an all out war. Mainly because they have no nuclear weapon yet? to place fear on those in order to submit or obey Islam’s rulers.
So for clarification are you actually claiming that a) Muslims would use force to conquer to world, b) that Islam calls for the usage of force to conquer the world, and c) the only reason Muslims aren’t using force to conquer to world is due to the threat of a military response by the now apparently good secular governments in the West (which frankly is odd in itself given the popular narrative on this site of secular governments ignoring the threat of Islam and your previous statements to this effect)?
Thus we need secular political powers to keep the political aspirations of Islam at bay and from conquering the weaker. And religious dialogue with Muslims to teach and instruct them in the way’s of true Christian Catholicism that predates Islam’s Quran false teaching of Christianity.
Are Muslims willing to listen and dialogue with the True Christianity of Catholicism with the Pope? When the Pope offers an olive branch to Muslims…
O
oldcatholicguy
Guest
You do understand that the practice of Taqiyya isn’t actually embraced by most of the Muslim community since Sunni Islam on a whole either completely rejects or mostly rejects it right? Taqiyya is a practice within Shia Islam and it isn’t actually “one is commanded to lie to non-Muslims about Islam all the time and/or in order to convert them.”
O
oldcatholicguy
Guest
Yes, and what passes for common “knowledge” on the other side of the coin would be that the Christians were the stereotypical “heroes in white hats” straight out of a 1930s-40s era Western movie who did no wrong and were only motivated by pious and pure thoughts.
- Status