| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
For a variety of reasons I had not planned to publish any response to Stephen Schwartz's Weekly Standard article touting Sufism as peaceful and tolerant. However, many people have emailed it to me, and I am seeing it pop up here and there as a sign of hope. I am all for hope, but I am not for false hope. Andrew G. Bostom has put together this piece, which will give you a clearer view of the Sufis and what non-Muslims can expect from them:
Stephen Schwartz, a convert to Sufi Islam who has also published under the name Suleyman Ahmad Al-Kosovi, has written in The Weekly Standard a new panegyric to Sufism as a paradigm of pluralism within Islam. It was reprinted at FrontPage magazine with the subheading: “There is a tolerant, pluralist tradition in Islam. We can’t afford to ignore it.” Yet in this piece he does not consider evidence I presented over two years ago in National Review Online demonstrating that Sufi Islam historically has been just as intolerant as other Islamic traditions.Sufism as practiced in the Indian subcontinent was quite intolerant of Hinduism, as documented by the Indian scholar K. S. Lal:
The Muslim Mushaikh [Sufi spiritual leaders] were as keen on conversions as the Ulama, and contrary to general belief, in place of being kind to the Hindus as saints would, they too wished the Hindus to be accorded a second class citizenship if they were not converted. Only one instance, that of Shaikh Abdul Quddus Gangoh, need be cited because he belonged to the Chishtia Silsila considered to be the most tolerant of all Sufi groups. He wrote letters to the Sultan Sikandar Lodi, Babur, and Humayun to re-invigorate the Shariat [Sharia] and reduce the Hindus to payers of land tax and jizya. To Babur he wrote, "Extend utmost patronage and protection to theologians and mystics... that they should be maintained and subsidized by the state... No non-Muslim should be given any office or employment in the Diwan of Islam... Furthermore, in conformity with the principles of the Shariat they should be subjected to all types of indignities and humiliations. They should be made to pay the jizya...They should be disallowed from donning the dress of the Muslims and should be forced to keep their Kufr [infidelity] concealed and not to perform the ceremonies of their Kufr openly and freely… They should not be allowed to consider themselves the equal to the Muslims. (The Legacy of Muslim Rule in India [1992], p. 237)Since that time, while researching my forthcoming book, The Legacy of Jihad, I have discovered that there are many other influential Sufis who shared, and who share today, these bigoted views. Sufi intolerance is clear from, most importantly, never-before-published translations of the great Sufi Al-Ghazali himself (which I've presented at FrontPage), as well as from statements by an important contemporary Shi’ite Sufi ideologue, Sultanhussein Tabandeh (also published at FrontPage).
I. Al-Ghazali
The eminent Islamic scholar W.M. Watt stresses Al-Ghazali’s Muslim orthodoxy. He says that Al-Ghazali was “acclaimed in both the East and West as the greatest Muslim after Muhammad, and he is by no means unworthy of that dignity…He brought orthodoxy and mysticism into closer contact…the theologians became more ready to accept the mystics as respectable, while the mystics were more careful to remain within the bounds of orthodoxy.”[1]
Here is Al-Ghazali, evidently with no intention of departing either from Sufism or Muslim orthodoxy, writing about jihad war and the treatment of the vanquished non-Muslim dhimmi peoples:
[O]ne must go on jihad (i.e., warlike razzias or raids) at least once a year...one may use a catapult against them [non-Muslims] when they are in a fortress, even if among them are women and children. One may set fire to them and/or drown them...If a person of the Ahl al-Kitab [People of The Book – primarily Jews and Christians] is enslaved, his marriage is [automatically] revoked…One may cut down their trees...One must destroy their useless books. Jihadists may take as booty whatever they decide...they may steal as much food as they need...[T]he dhimmi is obliged not to mention Allah or His Apostle…Jews, Christians, and Majians must pay the jizya [poll tax on non-Muslims]…on offering up the jizya, the dhimmi must hang his head while the official takes hold of his beard and hits [the dhimmi] on the protruberant bone beneath his ear [i.e., the mandible]… They are not permitted to ostentatiously display their wine or church bells…their houses may not be higher than the Muslim’s, no matter how low that is. The dhimmi may not ride an elegant horse or mule; he may ride a donkey only if the saddle[-work] is of wood. He may not walk on the good part of the road. They [the dhimmis] have to wear [an identifying] patch [on their clothing], even women, and even in the [public] baths…[dhimmis] must hold their tongue…. [2] (From the Wagjiz, written in 1101 A.D. Emphasis added.)
II. Tabandeh
This modern Sufi leader wrote a whole treatise against various elements of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that are at variance with Islamic law: an “Islamic perspective” on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [3]. According to Professor Eliz Sanasarian of the University of Southern California, who has analyzed the plight of religious minorities in the Islamic Republic, Tabandeh’s tract became “the core ideological work upon which the Iranian government…based its non-Muslim policy.” [4] His views on non-Muslims, says Sanasarian, were implemented “almost verbatim in the Islamic Republic of Iran.” [5]
Tabandeh begins his discussion by lauding Shah Ismail I (1502-1524), the repressive and bigoted [6] founder of the Safavid dynasty, as a champion “of the oppressed.” [7] He reaffirms the traditional inferiority of non-Muslims to Muslims as sacralized by the Shari’a:
Thus if [a] Muslim commits adultery his punishment is 100 lashes, the shaving of his head, and one year of banishment. But if the man is not a Muslim and commits adultery with a Muslim woman his penalty is execution…Similarly if a Muslim deliberately murders another Muslim he falls under the law of retaliation and must by law be put to death by the next of kin. But if a non-Muslim who dies at the hand of a Muslim has by lifelong habit been a non-Muslim, the penalty of death is not valid. Instead the Muslim murderer must pay a fine and be punished with the lash. [8]Since Islam regards non-Muslims as on a lower level of belief and conviction, if a Muslim kills a non-Muslim…then his punishment must not be the retaliatory death, since the faith and conviction he possesses is loftier than that of the man slain…Again, the penalties of a non-Muslim guilty of fornication with a Muslim woman are augmented because, in addition to the crime against morality, social duty and religion, he has committed sacrilege, in that he has disgraced a Muslim and thereby cast scorn upon the Muslims in general, and so must be executed. [9]
Islam and its peoples must be above the infidels, and never permit non-Muslims to acquire lordship over them. Since the marriage of a Muslim woman to an infidel husband (in accordance with the verse quoted: ‘Men are guardians of women’) means her subordination to an infidel, that fact makes the marriage void, because it does not obey the conditions laid down to make a contract valid. As the Sura (‘The Woman to be Examined’, LX v. 10) says: ‘Turn them not back to infidels: for they are not lawful unto infidels nor are infidels lawful unto them (i.e., in wedlock). [10]
Tabandeh is not an aberration among Sufis. He follows in the tradition of Turkish Sufi dervishes whose violent fanaticism contributed to the forced Islamization of the indigenous Christians in Asia Minor (see the copious documentation of this phenomenon from Turkish, Greek, Near Eastern and other sources in Professor Speros Vryonis’ monumental The Decline of Medieval Hellenism in Asia Minor and the Process of Islamization from the Eleventh Through the Fifteenth Century, Berkeley, 1971, pp. 340-43, and especially chapter 5, pp. 351-402).Tabandeh would also no doubt have looked with approval upon tracts against non-Muslims produced by prominent Indian Sufi theologians in the 17th and 18th centuries, including lionized Sufi teachers such as Sirhindi and Shah Walli Allah. Some of their statements:
III. Sirhindi (d. 1624)Shariat can be fostered through the sword.Kufr and Islam are opposed to each other. The progress of one is possible only at the expense of the other and co-existence between these two contradictory faiths is unthinkable.
The honor of Islam lies in insulting kufr and kafirs. One who respects kafirs, dishonors the Muslims. To respect them does not merely mean honoring them and assigning them a seat of honor in any assembly, but it also implies keeping company with them or showing considerations to them. They should be kept at an arm’s length like dogs….If some worldly business cannot be performed without them, in that case only a minimum of contact should be established with them but without taking them into confidence. The highest Islamic sentiment asserts that it is better to forego that worldly business and that no relationship should be established with the kafirs.
The real purpose in levying jizya on them (the non-Muslims) is to humiliate them to such an extent that, on account of fear of jizya , they may not be able to dress well and to live in grandeur. They should constantly remain terrified and trembling. It in intended to hold them under contempt and to uphold the honor and might of Islam.
Cow-sacrifice in India is the noblest of Islamic practices. The kafirs may probably agree to pay jizya but they shall never concede to cow-sacrifice.
The execution of the accursed kafir of Gobindwal [a Sikh who lead an uprising against the oppressive Muslim rule of his community] is an important achievement and is the cause of great defeat of the accursed Hindus…Whatever might have been the motive behind the execution, the dishonor of the kafirs is an act of highest grace for the Muslims. Before the execution of the kafirs I had seen in a vision that the Emperor had destroyed the crown of the head of Shirk. Verily he was the chief of the Mushriks and the leader of the kafirs.
Whenever a Jew is killed, it is for the benefit of Islam. [11]
IV. Shah Wali-Allah (d. 1762)
It has become clear to my mind that the kingdom of heaven has predestined that kafirs should be reduced to a state of humiliation and treated with utter contempt. Should that repository of majesty and dauntless courage (Nizam al-Maluk) gird his loins and direct his attention to such a task he can conquer the world. Thus the faith will become more popular and his own power strengthened; a little effort would be profoundly rewarded. Should he make no effort, they (the Marathas) would inevitably be weakened and annihilated through celestial calamities and in such an event he would gain no credit…As I have learnt this unequivocally (from the divine) I spontaneously write to draw your attention to the great opportunity laid before you. You should therefore not be negligent in fighting jihad.Oh Kings! Mala a’la urges you to draw your swords and not put them back in their sheaths again until Allah has separated the Muslims from the polytheists and the rebellious kafirs and the sinners are made absolutely feeble and helpless.”
In his testament to ‘Umar, Abu Bakr had informed him that if he feared God, the entire world would be frightened of him (‘Umar). Sages and declared that the world resembled a shadow. If a man ran after his shadow it would pursue him, and if he took flight from the shadow it would still pursue him. God has chosen you as the protector of the Sunnis as there is no-one else to perform this duty, and it is crucial that at all times you consider your role as obligatory. By taking up the sword to make Islam supreme and by subordinating your own persona needs to this cause, you will reap vast benefits.
We beseech you (Durrani, a Muslim ruler) in the name of the Prophet to fight a jihad against the infidels of this region. This would entitle you to great rewards before God the Most High and your name would be included in the list of those who fought jihad for His sake. As far as worldly gains are concerned, incalculable booty would fall into the hands of the Islamic ghazis and the Muslims would be liberated from their bonds. The invasion of Nadir Shah who destroyed the Muslims left the Marathas and Jats secure and prosperous. This resulted in the infidels regaining their strength and in the reduction of the Muslim leaders of Delhi to mere puppets.
When the conquering army arrives in an area with a mixed Muslim-Hindu population, the imperial guards should transfer the Muslims from their villages to the towns and at the same time care for their property. Financial assistance should be given by governments to the deprived and the poor as well as to Sayyids and the ‘ulama. Their generosity would then become famous with prompt prayers for their victories. Each town would eagerly await the arrival of the Islamic army (‘that paragon of bounty’). Moreover, wherever there was even the slightest fear of a Muslim defeat, the Islamic army should be there to disperse infidels to all corners of the earth. Jihad should be their first priority, thereby ensuring the security of every Muslim. [12]
Conclusion
In painting his picture of “the enlightened traditions of Sufism,” Stephen Schwartz has not mentioned any of these data. It would be one thing if he had written simply of certain individual Sufi teachers with enlightened views; but when he asserts that the traditions of Sufism themselves “stress … respect for all believers, whether Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, or other,” as well as a “commitment to mutual civility, interaction, and cooperation among believers, regardless of sect,” he raises questions that must be asked in light of his recommendation that Western countries cultivate good relations with Sufis as a matter of policy. Surely Schwartz cannot maintain that the teachings of the prominent Sufis quoted above in any way resemble respect for non-Muslims, or mutual civility. Is he unaware of these teachings, or simply indifferent to them?And most importantly, what may be the consequences of ignoring or glossing over these elements of Sufism in an ever more desperate pursuit of the elusive moderate Muslim? For the embattled non-Muslim minorities in Muslim countries who will likely suffer the most direct effects of any large-scale Western engagement with Sufism, these are questions to which a wrong answer will be costly in the extreme.
(The title of this piece was inspired by that of a 1919 essay, “Mohammed Without Camouflage- Ecce Homo Arabicus”, by the great scholar of Sufi Islam, W.H.T. Gairdner)
NOTES
1. Watt, W.M. [Translator]. The Faith and Practice of Al-Ghazali, Oxford, England, 1953, p. 13.
2. Al-Ghazali (d. 1111). Kitab al-Wagiz fi fiqh madhab al-imam al-Safi’i, Beirut, 1979, pp. 186, 190-91; 199-200; 202-203. [English translation by Dr. Michael Schub.]
3. Tabandeh, Sultanhussein. A Muslim Commentary on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, English translation by F. J. Goulding, London, 1970.
4. Sanasarian, Eliz. Religious Minorities in Iran, Cambridge University Press, 2000, p. 173, footnote 92.
5. Sanasarian, p. 25.
6. See earlier notes 10-12, and Seddon, C.N. (translator), A Chronicle of the Early Safawis [Being the Ahsanu’t-Tawarikh of Hasan-i-Rumlu], 1934, Vol. II, p. xiv.
7. Tabandeh, p. 4.
8. Tabandeh, p. 17.
9. Tabandeh, pp. 18-19.
10. Tabandeh, p. 37.
11. Saiyid Athar Abbas Rizvi, Muslim revivalist movements in northern India in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Agra, Lucknow: Agra University, Balkrishna Book Co, 1965, pp. 247-50; Yohanan Friedmann, Shaykh Ahmad Sirhindi: an outline of his thought and a study of his image in the eyes of posterity. Montreal, McGill University, Institute of Islamic Studies, 1971, p.74.
12. Saiyid Athar Abbas Rizvi. Shah Wali-Allah and his times. Canberra, Australia, Ma’rifat Publishing House, 1980, pp. 294-296, 299, 301, 305.
Posted by Robert at February 6, 2005 8:42 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
We should not be having these issues in 21st century, dihmitude is slavery at its nastiest,how could a human treat another that way is beyond me.
Pluralism my arse, the more the west finds out about islam the more we despise it and the more we want to do, and the more we will do.
We can not leave these places until ANARCHY is squashed.
Let me make one thing plain here:
"If there must be trouble let it be in my day, that my child may have peace".
Thomas Paine
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at February 6, 2005 9:25 AM
I would like to add the fact that sufism was the spiritual source for the elite troops and storm troops of the Ottoman Empire, the Yeni Tscheri, or "New troops" in English.
The Naqshbandi Brotherhood, heavily influenced by several Sufi schools is also the basis for the Chechen figth against Russian Orthodoxy in the Caucasus these days.
In Germany, many nice young ladies who study Islam and/or languages of the ME often roll their eyes in delight of Sufism. They are typical victims of the propaganda that Sufism is equal to other forms of divine love.
If one likes to compare Sufism with Jihadism he or she should consider the relationship between SA and SS during the first years of the Third Reich.
Sufism is likely more the brassy and common form of Jhadism. Whereas schools of Jihadism are based on a clear canon of scriptures, the essence of Sufism is the eternal love of Allah which is also granted in delirium tremens of a hot fight.
at February 6, 2005 9:32 AM
The problem with Sufism is that it still reads the Qur'an the Sunni way and follows the Hadith.
Unless when the Qur'an is interpreted according to the literal meaning of the Arabic and the Sunnah is discarded fully and completely, there is no hope voor substantial reform of Islam.
http://www.free-minds.org gives you an idea of Islam based on Qur'an alone. This group is loathed by the jihadis, and with reason. They embody the main hope for a peaceful coexistence and co-evolution of the Western and Islamic civilizations.
at February 6, 2005 10:36 AM
Point, set, match.
But consider the position of those who, in their Spiritual Search, settled on Islam prior to 9/11/2001. They had tried this, they had tried that. They settled on Islam. As converts, or reverts, some were made much of in various Muslim places -- you know, Uzbekistan, places like that. They could identify with those who appeared to be among the oppressed -- the Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo. No attention need to be paid, and none was, to the sinister Izetbegovic, and the historical memories which explained, if they did in every case justify, the actions of Serbs.
And now those people are left high and dry. They dimly sense that they made the wrong choice. They cannot bear the fact that they are stuck with Islam, with the likes of such misfits as John Walker Lindh and Richard Reid, and Jose Padilla. But stuck with those misfits they are, while out of Islam are converting the morally and intellectually aware. Islam is now like a baseball team that loses all of its most intelligent and gifted players, trading them for the worst on the non-Islamic team.
Understandably, clinging to the wreckage, hoping that now the Shi'a, or now the Sufis, will lend a life-saving hand, and allow that revert to float safely on the belief that it was not all an intellectual error, that Islam really is, if rightly understood in its "best" -- now it is the "Sufi" versions, practically like the best of Buddhism.
Well, why not jettison Islam, and take up Buddhism, for god's sake? Why keep contorting history in order to make of Islam what, except at the tiniest of edges, it simply isn't?
As for the premature crowing by some who have insisted that that Al-Sistani supports t "democracy" (sure he does: his side has by far the most votes), and that therefore, quite illogically, "freedom" (which "isn't free" except to the Iraqis, because the Americans have kindly agreed to pay all the bills) is on the march in Iraq -- what is on the march in Iraq is Shi'a Islam. If it leads to a general weakening of Islam, by causing a permanent fissure at the Sunni-Shi'a fault line, which would be only an unintended consequence of the American effort (the American policymakers are still too uncomprehending to understand that this is not an outcome to be deplored, but welcomed), fine.
If one understood Islam, and the history of Muslim peoples, it should always have been clear that the "Light-Unto-the-Muslim-Nations Project" was an absurdity. How much longer the Americans will stay, for they will certainly be welcome to take more casualties and to plow in more tens of billions of dollars in infratstructure, building a new and better Islamic Iraq (when will reality break in, so that we leave, not because the invasion was a mistake and we know must do what the Arab League and the brent scowcrofts wanted all along, but because the entire effort must be bent to make the Muslims aware of their own failures, failures directly related to Islam itself -- this is something only a very few advanced souls in the Muslim world understand, and still do not know what to do, or how to act, on that knowledge).
Posted by: Hugh
at February 6, 2005 11:13 AM
I am nonplussed. Why in the world would the Weekly Standard and Front Page of all publications, give voice to Schwartz or any Muslim dissimulation.?
The Soros, , leftists aren't the problem, they have no power, just noise.Those who do have power and the ear of the administration are on the wrong side, in fact the administration itself is in bed with the Saudis, the financiers of Islamism.
Am I the only one who feels that we are being used, abused and hoodwinked, some grander game afoot, which we can't see because of ideological blinders?
Do you realize that the administration is still supporting the Muslims in Kosovo and Bosnia, doing business with the Muslim Tyrants around the Caspian Sea,all the way to Tajikistan
The largest and most expensive US Base in the world,built and maintained by Haliburton is Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo, and there is Camp Montieth in Kosovo and Camp Eagel in Bosnia.
That Bush has chastised Putin for his handling of the Chechnyan's, that Yuschenko of the Ukraine was backed by the administration, and yet he is willing to accomodate the 10 million muslims in that country, while Yanukovych wasn't.
Jay Gardner (and the Administration) approved Consitutions for Afghanistan and Iraq that make them Islamic Nations and Shari'a the basis of constitution and law, and Iraq, especially under the Shi'a,has become an adjunct and look alike of Iran.
So tell me what is going on in reality.
Posted by: Giaour at February 6, 2005 11:33 AM
Don't foget to mention, giaour, that those three camps were built by Haliburton under the Clinton Administration, not Bush. Clinton made Cheney very rich by his continued use of Haliburton.
Posted by: Gary at February 6, 2005 12:00 PM
'Do you realize that the administration is still supporting the Muslims in Kosovo and Bosnia, doing business with the Muslim Tyrants around the Caspian Sea,all the way to Tajikistan' ` giaour
After further reflection, I see why you didn't mention Clinton. If it is wrong (and I agree it is wrong) that Bush is still 'supporting' (by funding bases? How does that mean supporting?) muslims in those regions, then it was Clearly wrong for Clinton to have supported them in the first place. Yes or No?
And may I see links to articles about the 'business with muslim tyrants around the Caspian Sea,' please?
Posted by: Gary at February 6, 2005 1:15 PM
I've seen this chilling film online about militant Islam in Europe. Have a look it's really good:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/front/view/
Posted by: gloria at February 6, 2005 1:24 PM
How can any intellectual or spiritual 'movement', no matter how well intentioned, no matter how well educated, sustain the notion that nonbelievers are deserving of equal moral status, respect, dignity, in Islamic traditions? Schwartz would surely consider me an 'ignorant hate-monger', but allow me this one simple question: how can passage, after passage, in the Qur'an and Hadiths that dehumanize nonbelievers, characterizing them as objects of brutality, ever be interpreted or explained away so that a living tradition of tolerance and respect toward those who reject Islam can be born and sustained? Please explain how.
Just crack the Qur'an and read the second Sura. My God. One half to three quarters of the text builds and nourishes the idea that nonbelievers are evil, deserving of punishment, damnation, brutality: and this goes on, and on, and on, and finds articulation in rather specific rules and strategies for subjugation: and the language, of course, through the Qur'an is bursting with violence and vivid bloodletting, especially in Suras 8 and 9.
How can this 'immutable revelation' ever bear tolerant traditions that can sustain themselves?
Posted by: JTF at February 6, 2005 1:47 PM
would this fit as a cover??
You must be a raist??
If you don't want open borders and how can you be so mean to Mexicans??
I think Mexicans Live In Mexico??
An Americains Live in America Do we have people who org, came from Mexico who are now Americans YEA YOU BET!!
do we now have mexicans who will not support America in America again YEA YOU BET??
http://www.latinodawah.org/
Latino American Dawah Organization
Latino American Dawah Organization(LADO) is a nonprofit organization that was founded in 1997 by a handful of converts to Islam. Our mission is to promote Islam among the Latino community within the United States.
now what do you think about the mexican gangs like ms13 and others then think about what is going on in London and how they are making people CONVERT OR DIE??
Now how many will pick Die??
Not many I'd Bet?
Part of the American Tribe
Squirrel Hunter
Spider Killer
God Bless the USA and Her Fighting Forces and ALL who Fight with her give them Strength, Wisdom, Sight, and Courage to stay the course to Destroy ALL islamic Terrorist and ALL who Support them Amen
PS
JUST A REDNECK THINKING??
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4240107.stm
Sunday, 6 February, 2005
Guantanamo man 'suing government'
A British terror suspect held in Guantanamo Bay for 33 months plans to sue the government, it is reported
Mr Mubanga said he had been in Afghanistan and Pakistan to study Islam
YEA RIGHT??
Mr Mubanga said the "MI6 agent" told him the passport had been found in a cave in Afghanistan along with documents listing Jewish groups in New York and suggested he had been on an al-Qaeda reconnaissance mission
ONE THING HE LEFT OUT THAT THE USA DID NOT CUT OF HIS HEAD IN THE WAY MULSUMS DO??
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3072529.stm
Thursday, 17 July, 2003,
Letters home from Guantanamo Bay
By Megan Lane
BBC News Online
Every couple of months, a letter arrives at the Birmingham home of Azmat and Gull Begg from their son, Moazzam, a British detainee in Camp Delta who is to be among the first to face trial before a secret US military tribunal
one to step up."
January 03. The camel spider is the only 10-legged spider in the world and, I believe, it's not an arachnid (technically not a spider). But it grows bigger than human hand-sized, moves like a race-car and has a bite that causes flesh to decay - if left untreated. In the summer there were plenty here, running into the cells and clambering over people; one person was bitten and had to be treated. Thank God it's winter!
HMMM ???
THIS STORY OS JULY AND WHEN WERE THE IRAQIS SO AFRAID OF SPIDERS??
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/003003.php
August 31, 2004
Sheik: Allah sent giant spiders to combat U.S.
HMMM??
I SEE A LINK TO IRAQ DOSE ANYONE ELSE??
FUNNY HUH??
Abbasi, a former computer studies student from Croydon in south London who was arrested in Afghanistan as an "unlawful combatant", and Begg, a father-of-four from Sparkhill in Birmingham, arrested by the CIA in the Pakistani capital Islamabad in February 2002
HMMM???
Richard Belmar, 25, from London
"They have said he was in Afghanistan in 1998 studying chemicals at the terrorists' base but I know he was in London," Mr Belmar told the paper
HMMM??
WOULD A FATHER LIE FOR HIS SON??
I MEAN BOOTH HIS SON’S RAN FROM HIS FAITH TO ANOTHER? WHAT KIND OF MAN IS THIS?
Moazzam Begg was a law student and ran an Islamic book and video store in Birmingham
AND HE WANTED TO BUILD A SCHOOL AND CLEAN WATER?? HMMM??? I THINK ABOUT THE UBL HAND BOOK AND HOW IT TALKED ABOUT HOW TO USE THE WESTS LAWS AGAINST US SO OF COURSE YOU WOULD NEED SOME ONE TO UNDERSTAND THOSE LAWS TO WRITE THE HAND BOOKS OH I MEAN SCHOOL BOOKS??
REMEMBER AMERICA HAS WARNED YOU ENGLAND THESE PEOPLE [MONSTERS] ARE STIL SEEN TO BE A DANGER!!
at February 6, 2005 2:42 PM
Stephen Schwartz, a convert to Sufi Islam who has also published under the name Suleyman Ahmad Al-Kosovi
Now if he would have said to share places with Jews then we might believe he in not Just lieing??
Because his qu-ran tells him that the Christians are to stupid to figure it out??
Now I know why I don't Get the Weekly Starndard any more!!
Part of the American Tribe
Squirrel Hunter
Spider Killer
God Bless the USA and her Fighting Forces and ALL who Fight with her give them Strength, Wisdom, Sight, and Courage to stay the course to Destroy ALL Islamic Terrorist and ALL who Support them Amen
at February 6, 2005 3:17 PM
There's a lot of New Age Sufis in the US. I went to a few of their meeting years back. They're a very nice bunch and give Sufism a good image here. Some of the Hindu websites are very hard on Sufism. Thanks to Andrew Bostum and Robert Spencer I have a better idea of what Sufism is and has been, A bit similar to the Kurds who everyone loves these days but who have a bloody history of mass killing Armenians and Greeks with the Ottoman Turks proding them along
Posted by: dennisw at February 6, 2005 3:39 PM
Mexican Illegals in L.A with car signs reading
"Fuck You, this is still Mexico"
http://www.halturnershow.com/mexico.htm
Bush needs to wise up and get that southern border shored up.
Also, look at that damn Chavez asshol* down in Venezuela. Looks like he's really a super dumbas* didn't he see what happened to Saddam Hussein? He's even closer to the US so regime change will be even easier, what a greedy fool.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,146472,00.html
Posted by: cross at February 6, 2005 3:41 PM
Cross
Was out playing with my sim T and I say buy American It is better to not have a Knock OFF!!
Lots of new people playing with their new toys too!!
Just wish they were morre instreaded in hitting something instead of just making noise??
Guess they will come in time?
Posted by: gloria at February 6, 2005 01:24 PM
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/front/view/
YES
LIKE TOMMY FRANKS SAID WE ARE IN THIS FIGHT WE CAN FIGHT IT OVER HERE OR OVER THERE I PICK OVER THERE!!
GLAD TO SEE THAT PBS DID THIS I GOT FROM THE GUY IN GERMANY “ I DON’T UNDERSTAND WHY THEY[THE WEST] DOSEN’T ACCEPT OUR WAY”
AND HE SAID NO In FACT IT IS IN THE quran to do the killing and bring back damnation of mulsums??
NO NOW YOU SEE WHAT WE ARE UP AGAINST!!
DOES NOT MATTER HOW MUCH THEY HAVE LIVED IN THE WEST?? BECAUSE THEY ARE TEACHING THIS IN THE WESTERN MOSQUES??
FUNNY HOW THEY FORGET TO TELL THEY STOPPED GROWING WHEN THE SLAVES CONVERTED SO THE MIND WAS LOST??
LOOK AT THE MULSUM COUNTRY’S AND IF THERE IS GROWTH LOOK AND YOU WILL SEE OTHERS WHO ARE NOT MULSUM STILL THERE YES SLAVES??
BECAUSE??
Ishaq:364 “Muslims, take not Jews and Christians as friends. Whoever protects them becomes one of them, they become diseased, and will earn a similar fate.”
Ishaq:232 “The Jews shall contribute to the cost of war so long as they are fighting alongside the believers. The Jews have their religion, the Muslims have theirs. None of them shall go out to war unless they have Muhammad’s permission. The Jews must pay, however, for as long as the war lasts. If any dispute or controversy should arise it must be referred to Allah and Muhammad, His Apostle. If the Jews are called to make peace they must, except in the case of Holy War. Allah approves of this document.”
Ishaq:363 “The Prophet turned away from him so Abd Allah put his hand on the collar of the Messenger’s robe. Muhammad said, ‘Let go of me!’ He was so angry his face turned black. Then he said, ‘Damn you, let me go!’ Abd Allah replied, ‘No, by God, I will not let you go until you treat my ally humanely. There are seven hundred men among them who defended me from my foes when I needed their help. And now, you would mow them down in a single morning? By God I do not feel safe around here any more. I am afraid of what the future may have in store.’ So the Messenger said, ‘You can have them.’”
Qur’an 17:7 “We shall rouse Our (Muslim) slaves to shame and ravage you (Jews), disfiguring your faces. They will enter the Temple as before and destroy, laying to waste all that they conquer.”
SO THEY ADMIT THEY USE ANY TO FIGHT TO GET WHAT THEY WANT THEN TURN LIKE A MAD DOG
ALSO ADMIT THEY USE SLAVES TO FIGHT??
Bukhari:V4B53N380 “Umar expelled all the Jews and Christians from Arabia. Allah’s Apostle after conquering Khaybar thought of expelling the Jews from the land which, after he conquered it, belonged to Allah, Allah’s Apostle and the Muslims. But the Jews requested Allah’s Apostle to leave them there on the condition that they would do the labor and get half of the fruits (the land would yield). Allah’s Apostle said, ‘We shall keep you on these terms as long as we wish.’ Thus they stayed till the time of Umar’s Caliphate when he expelled them.”
So when these who believe in this say what they do do you believe your own eyes or what the monsters tell you to believe??
LOOKS LIKE IT WAS NOT THE MULSUMS WHO BUILT IT BUT THOSE WHO WERE LEFT BEHIND AS SLAVES TO MULSUMS NOW THE BIG Q? IS DO YOU WANT TO BE A SLAVE TO MULSUMS ??
NOW THEY MOVE THEIR ARMYS INTO OUR LANDS AND WILL WANT TO EXPEL US? BUT THERE IS NO WHERE ELSE TO RUN SO GOT TO FIGHT!!
Part of the American Tribe
Squirrel Hunter
Spider Killer
God Bless the USA and her Fighting Forces and ALL who Fight with her give them Strength, Wisdom, Sight, and Courage to Destroy ALL islamic Terrorist and ALL who Support them Amen
at February 6, 2005 5:13 PM
Agree with Hugh and Giaour about Balkans.Nazi Pope Pious X11 made a huge fortune for the Catholic Church by treaties with Hitler & Mussolini. Billions in Gold are stashed in the Vatican Bank [also Swiss Accounts] through most horrendous murder of over 700, 000 Serbs,Jews and
Gysies who died in Croatia through 'Ethnic Cleansing.' These murders were so bad that even hardened Nazis protested and said the 'Ustase had gone raving mad.' For example thousands of Serbian children were rounded up and put into Concentration Camps : they were thrown alive into
crematoriums, caustic soda put in their food or simply starved to death. The terrible photos, their' Catholic' Executioners took grinning before
taking to their victims with saws,hammers, axes and knives included Catholic priests also some nuns aiding these atrocities...In particular Serbian Orthodox priests were most horribly tortured to death. One was forced to recite prayers For The Dying while his son was dismembered in front of him .The poor man had his beard and hair torn from his body, eyes gouged out and was skinned alive before merciful death came - these horrors are all recorded by proud perpetrators. Before this holocaust, Serbs were in the majority, also in Bosnia and Kosovo. The infamous Ante Pavelic boasted that that 'one third of Serbs were to be exterminated, another third driven out and the remaining forcibly converted to Fascist Catholicism. At the end of the War most of Perpetrators escaped justice through being protected by Vatican also U.S who did not want to upset Catholics in America.
To rub salt into wounds of the Serbs, present Pope
went to Croatia to Beatify remains of murderous Croatian Archbishop who had ordered these massacres!! The Ustase still have their own flag, and are operating in Croatia so one can understand
some of the Serb paranoia.
at February 6, 2005 10:03 PM
"Nazi Pope Pious XII"?? And a bunch of other ridiculous allegations...
Morgane, you have a gullibility and hysterics issue.
If you want to hate Catholics ,fine, but how bout basing it on reality?
The book "Hitler's Pope" is a fraud. And there is no shortage of anti-Christian and anti-Catholic propaganda running rampant on the web.
And no, I'm not a Catholic, or even a Christian.
at February 6, 2005 10:46 PM
KENTIM
I don't hate Catholics and I am an Agnostic with no religious 'axe' to grind. You may not like it but one cannot evade Truth and rewrite history to suit a particular country or religion. Everything that happened during the Second World War in Croatia is the truth - well documented by Nazis and Ustase butchers themselves.Invite you to Google 'Jasenovac' - it is all there documented by independent sources, one of them U.S.A.
I have spelt 'Pius' wrong, my apologies for this...
at February 7, 2005 4:02 AM
Morgane~ I looked at a site that claims to be 'christian,' about that camp- and now I am going to run spyware and virus killers on my comp. Something is Very wrong with that site and the people who created it. If anyone is rewriting history it is Them, not the Catholic Church. Kentim, I am with you.
Posted by: Gary at February 7, 2005 5:21 AM
Morgane isn't exaggerating what happened and either is the website she suggested. What makes you think Christians weren't capable of commiting such atrocities? The Crusades weren't a walk in the park and either was the Inquisition... or the pogroms and blood libels to follow..
And yes there is lots "booty" in Vatican vaults. A lot of it's Jewish from the Second Temple era. The Temple menorah is reported to be there. The Vatican has ancient manuscripts written by Maimonides -- why don't they give them back? Why do they refuse to allow representatives from the Jewish communities to ask about these items? They have stated that there will be no meeting with the Pope if these questions are asked.
Pius XII: Collaborator and Kidnapper
http://www.shmuley.com/index.php?section=article&id=134
If the Roman Catholic Church pursues its plans to canonize Pope Pius XII, it will be more damaging to its reputation than another huge explosion of pedophile priest scandals. For even child molestation, evil and sinister as it is, remains a step below complicity in the extermination of millions of people and ordering mass kidnapping, two great sins among many by which Pius XII disgraced himself.
The new revelation, in the form of a typewritten directive discovered in a French Church archive and dated Oct. 23, 1946, that Pius had given instructions to Church authorities not to return to their relatives Jewish children who were placed in the care of the Catholic Church during the holocaust in order to save them from extermination, is perfectly in keeping with the rancid and hateful morals that defined this profound religious hypocrite. How sad that so august an institution as the Catholic Church, that could produce in modern times moral colossi like Pope John XXIII and John Paul II, would wish to defile itself by beatifying so sinister a character as Pius XII.
To be sure, even before this new revelation the moral cowardice of Pope Pius XII in the Second World War – having never once summoned the courage to condemn the Nazi holocaust – was well established. Indeed, the inability for Pius XII to speak out against the destruction of European Jewry constitutes, arguably, the greatest moral omission of all time. Important books like Hitler’s Pope by John Cornwell and The Battle for Rome by Robert Katz convincingly demonstrate that Pius’s failure, far from being merely a product of a personal prejudice against the Jews, was indicative of a far wider and more serious flaw: an almost callous indifference to the value of human life in favor of papal authority and the preservation of Church property. An autocrat who told the Roman curia repeatedly that their job was not to give him advice but to follow his orders, there is ample evidence for Pius as a collaborator with the Nazi government in their occupation of Rome. When the Nazis committed the heinous war crime of executing 335 Roman citizens, many of them Jews but most of them Catholic, in reprisal for a partisan attack against Nazi troops, Pius was implored to publicly protest and protect his personal flock. As usual, he refused to say anything that might upset the Nazis. It seems that neither the love of G-d nor the love of his fellow man could ever move Pius to publicly condemn Hitler, with whom he had famously negotiated, as papal nuncio, a 1933 treaty which the Fuhrer praised to his cabinet on July 14th of that year as being "especially significant in the urgent struggle against international Jewry.”
Pius even granted a secret audience to Supreme SS Polizeifuhrer Wolff, who had served Himmler as Chief of Staff and was in 1943 serving as the chief of German persecution apparatus in occupied Italy. That Pius realized he was doing something that others would regard as scandalous and immoral is attested to the fact that the meeting took place in great confidence, and Wolff came dressed in disguise. Years later, Wolff had this to say about the meeting: “From the Pope’s own words I could sense the sincerity of his sympathy and how much he loved the German people.”
The coup de grace, of course, was how Pius XII watched quite literally as the Germans, on 16 October 1943, rounded up more than one thousand Jews of Rome, nearly all of whom would perish by gas a few days later at Auschwitz. A special SS contingent had been brought in for the roundup, and since many of them had never seen the great city, used the roundup of the Jews as a partial tourist excursion. This brought them to St. Peter’s Square, where many of the trucks actually parked, not more than 300 feet from Pius’s window. Even as the Jews were herded aboard cattle trains and taken to their death, Pius dared not upset the Germans by offering any kind of protest. His strict policy of neutrality was upheld as the Jews of his diocese were literally turned into ash.
But while he did not prize the lives of Jews, there was one thing that Pius did esteem, and that was the bricks and mortar of his Churches. As the British and American armies geared up for a massive offensive in the Spring of 1944 to capture Rome, Pius suddenly found his voice. He condemned the allies for bombing the eternal city and ordered his American bishops to launch public relations offensives in the United States to pressure the Roosevelt government not to cause destruction to the sacred monuments of the city. This while the Nazis were gassing more than ten thousand people per day.
Now comes the revelation that Pius ordered the mass kidnapping of hundreds of thousands of Jewish children by refusing to hand them back to their rightful Jewish guardians after the war, if they had been baptized into the Church. "Children who have been baptized must not be entrusted to institutions that would not be in a position to guarantee their Christian upbringing,” the newly revealed document declares. It also makes it clear that Pius himself had approved this criminal policy: “It should be noted that this decision taken by the Holy Congregation of the Holy Office has been approved by the Holy Father."
All of which makes it abundantly clear that for all his white robes Pius was a dark soul whose beatification would be a sin against G-d, a stain against the Church, and an affront to holiness and decency.
AND....
Jan. 13, 2005 22:23
Jewish delegation to visit Vatican
By URIEL HEILMAN
NEW YORK
A delegation of some 160 Jewish religious figures are going to Rome next week to meet with Pope John Paul II at the Vatican at a time of potential strains in the Vatican-Jewish relationship.
The trip was scheduled before the recent discovery of a Vatican memo from 1946 indicating that Pope Pius XII instructed Catholic Church officials not to return some Jewish children to their families after the Holocaust. The meeting, slated for Tuesday, was planned as an occasion for the Jews to thank the current pope for his actions toward the Jewish people.
"We're coming strictly to say 'thank you' for everything he's done during his pontificate for the Jewish people," said Garry Krupp, a Jewish member of the Papal Household who organized the trip under the auspices of his Pave the Way Foundation, a group focused on inter-religious cooperation.
But the recent discovery about Pius XII could rekindle the longstanding conflict between Jewish officials and the Vatican over the beatification of the pope whose wartime behavior has been decried by many Jews as anti-Semitic and deadly for the Jewish people — and make Tuesday's scheduled meeting with the pope potentially awkward.
Rabbi Benjamin Blech, a rabbi from New York going on the trip, said the trip likely would come to an abrupt end if the Jews were to bring up sensitive topics.
When he visited the Vatican two years ago, Blech said he got a glimpse of some of the rare Hebrew manuscripts in the Vatican archive, including some of Maimonides' writings. After two years of lobbying, he said, the Vatican agreed to loan some of the rare manuscripts to the Jews, including parts of Maimonides' Mishnah Torah. They will be given to the rabbis on this trip, and then will go on exhibition at the Israel Museum this spring, he said.
"This process has taken about two years," Blech said. "Now, 160 rabbis and cantors will be at Vatican, meeting with the pope and expressing our thanks to him. We hopefully will be addressing certain other issues as well."
Asked if the religious leaders would discuss with Vatican officials other rare Jewish artifacts rumored to be in the Vatican's possession, including some dating back to the Second Temple period, Blech said, "We were not permitted to bring up that issue. We were cautioned that if we were to do so our entire mission would be at an end."
The trip will include visits to the Vatican museum, Rome's Jewish community, a meeting with the Israeli ambassador to the Holy See and the meeting with the pope.
"This pope has not only reached out to the Jewish people," Krupp said, "he's made major changes" to improve Jewish-Catholic ties.
Trip participants cited the Vatican's diplomatic recognition of Israel, the pope's pronouncement that anti-Semitism is a sin, the pope's request to the Jews for forgiveness for Catholic actions against the Jews and the pontiff's visit to Israel in 2000 as some of John Paul II's positive accomplishments vis- -vis the Jews.
"This is long overdue," Krupp said of the thank-you mission.
at February 7, 2005 11:48 AM
Why didn’t Pope Pius XII join in Allied statements condemning the Axis nations?
In September 1942, Pius XII was approached by the Allies to join in a statement condemning the Nazi atrocities. This was to be an official statement of the Allied governments and, as such, it was impossible for Pius XII to join the effort. However, in his annual Christmas message of 1942, Pius XII would speak out once again forcefully. Pius condemned totalitarian regimes and mourned the victims of the war: “the hundreds of thousands who, through no fault of their own, and solely because of their nation or race, have been condemned to death or progressive extinction.” He called on Catholics to shelter any and all refugees. The statement was loudly praised in the Allied world. In Germany, it was seen as the final repudiation by Pius XII of the “new order” imposed by the Nazis. The Gestapo reported that Pope Pius XII “is virtually accusing the German people of injustice toward the Jews, and makes himself the mouthpiece of the Jewish war criminal.”
Pope Pius XII did not join in with official Allied government statements attacking the Axis nations for obvious reasons. To maintain Vatican neutrality – an absolute necessity if the Holy See was to have any capability to save lives and protest Nazi action – it could not be viewed as a signature to Allied propaganda statements. As Pulitzer-prize winning historian John Toland, no friend of Pius or the Church, noted: “The Church, under the Pope’s guidance…saved the lives of more Jews than all other churches, religious institutions and rescue organizations combined…the British and Americans, despite lofty pronouncements, had not only avoided taking any meaningful action but gave sanctuary to few persecuted Jews.”
If Jews could be disguised as Catholics, they were more capable of escaping Nazi persecution. Did the Church do enough in this regard? Could the Church have distributed more widely false baptismal certificates and thus save more Jews?
The Holy See never attempted to limit in any way Jewish baptisms or to forbid supplying false papers of Christian identity to Jews wherever possible. Untold numbers of lives were saved in this fashion. In Italy there were Religious orders that worked around the clock providing false documents. Numerous clergy gave brief catechism lessons so that Jews could pass as Catholics. Some were even taught the rudiments of Gregorian Chant. However, it must be remembered that often this simply did not work. In case after case, Nazi authorities – and the Gestapo in occupied countries – paid no attention to such paperwork or any such claims as their antipathy to Jews was racial and their religious “conversion” deemed unimportant.
In addition, Nazi-allied governments were wary of such conversions and, at times, the Church had to be careful in these matters. This became a serious issue, for example, in Romania. Romania was an Axis ally that had introduced anti-Semitic legislation prior to the war. Though Romania was primarily Orthodox in faith, the Vatican had a concordat with the government which allowed the Holy See a formal avenue of protest over treatment of Jews in general, as well as Jewish converts. In March 1941, the Romanian government was planning to forbid Jews to change their religion. Following instructions from Cardinal Maglione, Secretary of State under Pius XII, Archbishop Cassulo, papal nuncio in Romania, told the government’s foreign ministry that the Vatican would protest any attempt to tie the Church’s hand in this regard. In a May 12 follow-up to the telegram, Archbishop Cassulo told Cardinal Maglione that he had written assurances from the government that freedom of worship would be guaranteed. On May 16, the secretary of the Holy Office sketched out for the nuncio norms to be followed in this regard to avoid a government crack down. He advised that no one sincerely seeking baptism be refused because of Romanian racial laws. Under the circumstances, however, precautions were necessary since there could be those who would be baptized, then simply withdraw from any practice of the faith. This would provide further ammunition to the government. Where reasonable doubt existed, baptism should be delayed.
This was certainly not an effort to limit Jewish baptisms, or a statement of general Church policy in occupied or Axis-allied Europe, or even in Romania itself. Specific to Romania and as noted in Father Pierre Blet’s documentation from the Vatican archives in the book “Pius XII and the Second World War” (Paulist Press): “(B)aptizing Jews caused problems. The number of Jews requesting baptism had increased considerably, and it was rumored that the Holy See, ‘confronted with the danger in which the Jews were placed, ordered that they were to be baptized en masse after receiving a short preparation, with further instruction being delayed until a later time.’ On 18 April 1942 the Romanian minister to the Holy See told Cardinal Maglione that the number of conversions was high, too high and thus was suspect. Consequently the government was suggesting that the pope suspend admission into the Catholic Church for the duration of the war, a proposal that was, of course, rejected.”
Didn’t Pope Pius XII, shortly after his election, refuse to release an encyclical drafted under Pius XI that would have forthrightly condemned anti-Semitism? What is the story behind this “hidden encyclical”?
An encyclical was drafted toward the end of the reign of Pope Pius XI that was to have condemned anti-Semitism in general. It is argued that Pope Pius XII killed the encyclical because of that condemnation. However, it is clear that Pius killed the encyclical because it was a weak effort with a variety of bad sections that could only have encouraged, rather than discouraged anti-Semitism. It was this weakness of the encyclical draft that was the real reason it was never published not some lurking anti-Semitism. Pius XII, an outspoken critic of anti-Semitism along with his predecessor Pius IX, would never have allowed such a poorly drafted encyclical to be released. If Pius XI had been healthy, he would never have allowed the draft of such a weak encyclical to be issued as well.
To argue that the Holy See was unwilling to condemn anti-Semitism is to fly in the face of an encyclical that already condemned Nazis and their treatment of the Jews (Mit Brennender Sorge, 1937). There are also all the additional written and public statements that would be issued by Pius XII and the Vatican throughout the war years, including his very first encyclical in 1939, Summi Pontificatus, on the unity of human society. That encyclical can rightly be seen as the papal “testament” against anti-Semitism, rather than the flawed “hidden encyclical.”
Do Catholics go too far in the defense of a beloved spiritual leader in Pius XII? Isn’t further research necessary in this area, particularly in secret Vatican archives?
The assumption is that Catholics defend Pope Pius XII because he was a “beloved spiritual leader.” Catholics defend Pope Pius XII because he is unjustly attacked as a “silent collaborator” in the Holocaust. This charge is false and flies in the face of the clear historical record. That said, no one would oppose honest research and investigation of the papacy of Pope Pius XII. Such is now necessary in light of the campaign of vilification aimed at him. In reporting and editorials on the Holocaust, it is routinely presented as historical fact that Pius XII and the Church were, at best, stonily silent, or, at worst, aided and abetted the Nazi killing machine. Many simply accept these false charges without any real knowledge of the past. The historical reality of the pontificate of Pius XII has nearly been lost in the face of the strident campaign against him. Contemporary Catholics are witnessing the creation of a myth in regard to Pius XII. This campaign, triggered by Rolf Hochhuth’s libelous 1963 play The Deputy, thrives on false history. Competent, objective historical scholarship will do nothing but lead to a renewed appreciation of his pontificate and what he accomplished in saving lives during the Holocaust.
The question is raised concerning “secret documents” in the Vatican. Under the direction of Pope Paul VI after the controversy caused by Rolf Hochhuth’s play, 11 volumes of the documents were sorted and released from the Vatican archives. There is no foundation to any charge that there are “secret” documents that the Vatican is hiding in regard to the Holocaust and the Church’s relations with Nazi Germany.
Anti Catholics...you might want to read these and actually educate yourselves regarding actual documentation and recorded history...
The Assault on Christianity: Daniel Goldhagen's A Moral Reckoning
By Ronald Rychlak, Ph.D.
The Pope Pius XII Controversy
A Review-Article
By Kenneth D. Whitehead
A Righteous Gentile: Pope Pius XII and the Jews
By Rabbi David Dalin
Pius XII and the Jews: The War Years
As Reported by the New York Times
By Msgr. Stephen DiGiovanni, H.E.D.
A Response to: The Vatican and the Holocaust, A Preliminary Report by the International Catholic-Jewish Commission
By Ronald Rychlak, Ph.D.
Pope Pius XII and the Holocaust
By Robert P. Lockwood
The Real Story of Pius XII and the Jews
By James Bogle
The New York Times editorials praising Pope Pius XII, Christmas 1941 and 1942
at February 7, 2005 12:16 PM
Well, Morgane, you are free to believe what you like. I am aware of the barbarity of the Ustach,and the collaboration with Nazis.
I am being specific about the Pope. There has been a rewritting of history, but not how you think. Actually it is the opposite.
Have you actually investigated your sources? And their sources? That means going to the original/primary source and seeing it in it's entirety.It also means spending alot of time reading boring uninteresting documents and objectively looking at angles that do not support your initial suspicions. Do you not know how easy it is to present actual facts in a manner that is purposely designed to lead the target audience to an erroneous conclusion?
Sensationalism sells books, and the hatred and hostility of certain political groups against religion in general and Catholicism in particular is no secret. What may not be known is the effort and scope or the methods of the campaign to destroy "the Church"(and other enemies) by both Nazis and Marxists.
I'm not going to go into it here now because it is too complex, but I will say that what people see the islamists doing in terms of psychological warfare and subversion is merely a crude copy of what the Marxists have been doing(successfully) for over a hundred years.
---
The author of "Hitler's Pope" himself has recanted his main thesis.
Why? Because it could not stand scrutiny.
------------------
Other perspectives-
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/081321081X/102-9539433-4408931?v=glance
http://www.townhall.com/bookclub/persecution.html
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0101fea1.asp
http://www.ethical-perspectives.be/page.php?LAN=E&FILE=ep_book&SID=233&ID=0
http://cent.lukasz.h4c.pl/k2542
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/479436.stm http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=13688
Posted by: kentim at February 7, 2005 12:23 PM
You pathetic dumbasses-- you don't know how you are being played.
Posted by: kentim at February 7, 2005 12:47 PM
trolls, trolls, and more trolls
Posted by: Chuck at February 7, 2005 6:52 PM
Chuck:
If you're referring to the last several posts, these are all regulars; none are trolls.
Posted by: CGW at February 8, 2005 11:38 AM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)