Maybe Richard Lionheart was either a jew or a muslim after all and it never happened anyway? Maybe Hugh - in his wisdom - could shed some light on that... :-)

Posted by: disillusionised_german at April 3, 2005 9:32 AM

When the Pope visited Israel, he apologised to the Jewish for the Inquisition, for the atrocities committed against Jews during the crusades and for the 14 centuries of antisemitism that led to the Holocaust.

As far as I know, he never presented any apologies of a similar nature to the Muslim world. All he did was to speak to a Muslim audience in a Moroccan stadium, he praid inside a mosque and he kissed the Koran.

Posted by: alex221166 at April 3, 2005 9:53 AM

He did not apologize for the Crusades. Why should he? For centuries the Muslims had been seizing Christian lands, and subjugating Christian peoples. In 1009 Caliph Hakim ordered the destructrion of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. Throughout the 1lth century there were attacks on Christian pilgrims and sites in the Holy Land. The Crusades were a response to the ferocity of Muslim aggression in the Holy Land, nothing more. Unlike the Jihad, the Crusades were limited in scope, not aimed at conquering the world, or whatever vast territories might be conquered, not aimed even at re-conquering the lands that still had large numbers of Christians in them (and who knows the demographics of, for example, Syria in that period? Or of Egypt?), but only in opposing murderous acts by Muslims in the Holy Land itself, and by opposing, end them.

And the Crusades were also limited in time, not recurring events to be continued whenever and wherever possible (which is the Jihad): roughly, from the end of the 11th to the end of the 13th century.

See Jonathan Riley-Smith. See the Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th edition.

Posted by: Hugh at April 3, 2005 10:22 AM

There is a sermon given in the Church of St Francis Of Assisi on March 12,2000 (before 9/11) where there is some apology given for the time period, but the crusades are not specifically mentioned by the pope. It appears that the apology is given more for going against the teachings of the church but he does not reconcile the need that was present for the Christian leaders at the time to beat back the Islamic Invaders. Pope John 11 has like other Christian leaders chose to forgive his enemies as he did with the person who shot him. This is in keeping with Christian teaching (forgive them father,for they know not what they do). However forgiving does not exonerate the wrong doers.

Posted by: Mackie at April 3, 2005 10:44 AM

Does anybody the new Pope (whoever it might be) will see Islam as the danger it is and will name these dangers accordingly? Let's hope we don't get a dhimmi Pope. I'm not Catholic but the Pope is definetely the strongest leader of Christianity. We need a strong one, that's for sure (not someone like the Archbishop of Canterbury, please!)

Posted by: disillusionised_german at April 3, 2005 10:50 AM

That should have read: "Does anybody have hope that ..."

Posted by: disillusionised_german at April 3, 2005 10:51 AM

BIG ALLAH: Hmmm...Officialy according to me the Pope didn't apologize. I didn't tell my slaves/scribes to declare the new reality/truth (that the Pope did apologize) until next week. Must be a smart ass in the Department of Truth (propaganda). Will have to get my extra large cattle prod out again.

Posted by: obl r us at April 3, 2005 11:03 AM

Hi disillusionised_german
Yes, I have just been reading up on Cardinal Francis Arinze of Nigeria. Even 2 years ago, The Guardian, a paper with a pro Islam bias could say
"If "handling" communism was the Vatican's 20th-century challenge, Islam is widely thought to be this century's, and one which Cardinal Arinze is equipped to face."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/pope/story/0,12272,1055080,00.html
and a talk at Georgetown University in 1997 http://www.sedos.org/english/arinze.htm

Which accords with my conviction of the respect that Black African Christians command. What do others who have had more to do with him think?

BTW we both won yesterday.

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at April 3, 2005 11:05 AM

Of course he didn't. But like other lies and distortions, this will attain a life of its own as it will be published, repeated and discussed until it becomes the stuff of an evil myth.

Posted by: epg at April 3, 2005 11:24 AM

Is it funny or sad that the Catholic Church is now getting around to apologizing for its atrocities over the past few thousand years?

In what sense is a man who struggles with these questions a great philosopher of religion?

For that matter, in what sense is a man a moral leader when he turns his back on thousands of ongoing child rapes by his followers? (How big do you suppose this problem is in the third world where there is not the same type of educated, well-to-do, empowered populace to speak up?)

He may have done some good things (e.g., standing up for Poland), but let's face it: He was a 15th century man at the head of a 9th century institution, not unlike the mullahs that Americans so dread (BTW, if you boil it down, the current jihad is an attempt by people in the "holy lands" (gag) to get westerners out, and the crusades were an attempt by westerners to get in).

Finally, the only reason that the Catholic Church is not as oppressive in western society as Islam is in the Middle East, is because secular powers spent centuries fighting against the church's worldly power. The Catholic Church was for a long time every bit as oppressive and megalomaniacal as the mullahs, until that power was taken from them by force.

Posted by: disinherited at April 3, 2005 12:52 PM

Even if the Pope did apologize, wouldn’t it be kind of hollow apology?
I think it would be akin to me apologizing for slavery, even though I never owned a slave, or me apologizing for the holocaust, even though I am was never a member of the Nazi party.
How about if I or someone better qualified was to apologize to the World for Mohammad and his religion of Jihad. In my feeble mind, the apology only has substance when the culprit is the one to present the apology.

Posted by: Bar at April 3, 2005 1:07 PM

Granny,

The Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding is the worst dhimmi academic organization in the US. It was founded by uber-apologist John Esposito, who has lucrative "consulting contracts" setting up Western countries doing business in the Middle East with some of his many "contacts" as a side-line to writing books that completely obscure the true nature of Islam.

If you look at their cirriculum you will soon note that the overwhelming focus is "explaining" Islam to Christians, but there is no emphasis on explaining Christianity to Muslims. Their website contains links to numerous Islamic dawa (missionary) websites, but zero links to any Christian websites. Hence, the title for this academic organization is a cruel joke. The real title of this organization should be, "The Center for Explaining (Justifying) Islam to Christians."

It was John Esposito's minions who shouted down and harassed Madame Bat Ye'or when she tried to lecture about dhimmitude at Georgetown University in October, 2002.

If Arinze was invited to lecture at this organization, that would not be a point in his favor, IMHO.

Posted by: Suzan at April 3, 2005 1:27 PM

The Catholic Church was for a long time every bit as oppressive and megalomaniacal as the mullahs, until that power was taken from them by force. Posted by: disinherited

I don’t believe the Catholic Church has perpetrated the same measure of barbarity as Islam has.

The Catholic Church or any Christian Church for that matter consist of nothing more than a group of fallible men. To expect these men to preform perfectly, is ludicrous. These men have a sinful nature that is no different then other men, except the fact that they attempt to follow Christ. I am not trying to suggest that their actions where ok, they should hold themselves to a higher standard, yet they will always be fallible men. This is why God had to send his Son, so we will be perceived as blameless in his sight, not because we are, but because we accept that Christ took our place on that cross. He took the beating that I deserve, not from a worldly point of view, but from a Godly point of view.

Posted by: Bar at April 3, 2005 1:33 PM

Here's the text of the only "Pope's Apology" I could find-

from about 5 years ago exactly:

http://biblia.com/islam/pope.htm

Posted by: BigSleep at April 3, 2005 1:44 PM

You can check here for other "apologies" and see if any relate to the Crusades-

http://vatican.va/phome_en.htm

(Let's hope the next Pope stops kissing Korans...)

Posted by: BigSleep at April 3, 2005 1:50 PM

once again-

http://www.vatican.va/phome_en.htm

Posted by: BigSleep at April 3, 2005 1:57 PM

Granny,
The Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding is the worst dhimmi academic organization in the US.

Oh Dear!

I saw Georgetown, have friends who have studied there and so knew it had some claim to academic excellence, then took the Cardinal's statements at face value. Bearing in mind that this lecture (1997)predated 9/11 by some years, his statements such as
" In the sacrament of Penance the Christian who has sinned accepts responsibility, confesses and receives forgiveness. I would like to ask my Muslim friends whether in Islam there is a similar practice."
and "Christians see human beings as having been created in God's image and likeness. They are brothers and sisters of Christ, the Son of God made man. The Incarnation has ennobled the whole of humanity. This is the real foundation of human dignity. Moreover, Christ died on the cross to redeem all humanity. So we can say that love of God passes through love of neighbour. The Muslim vision is different. The human person is the servant of God..." suggested an awareness of the limitations of Islam.
I suppose much depends on whether they ever invited him back ....

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at April 3, 2005 2:02 PM

If the pope did really excuse for the crusades (who were defensive against the offensive jihad), I agree for one time with Islaam.com in damning the pope to hell. Let's hope the next pope isn't a dhimmi who throws away our western civilization.

Posted by: Nordthiad at April 3, 2005 2:08 PM

Hope it's also clear I'm speaking with an "if"...

Posted by: Nordthiad at April 3, 2005 2:09 PM

Hugh-

Exactly the points I have been making to friends and acquintances. Without actual knowledge of the period they simply take the anti-Western, anti-Christian politically correct zeitgeist they picked up in school and anachronistically apply it to any instance where "the West" is not a passive victim. As Bernard Lewis points out, the only differences between the Crusades and the Spanish Reconquista is that the latter succeeded. But don't worry, our dhimmi historians are working diligently to undermine its legitamcy as well, and soon the Spanish government will be resettling North African Arabs in the homes they were "ethinically cleansed" from 100's of years before. Apparently (no joke, either) many North Africans hang keys on their walls to remind themselves of the homes they lost then.

(and who knows the demographics of, for example, Syria in that period? Or of Egypt?), but only in opposing murderous acts by Muslims in the Holy Land itself, and by opposing, end them.

Egypt, according to recent scholarship, was not majority Muslim until the 14th Century.

Posted by: emperor_diocletian at April 3, 2005 2:59 PM

Bar,

You said: "I don’t believe the Catholic Church has perpetrated the same measure of barbarity as Islam has."

Although I believe such an assertion is disproven by even a casual reading of western history, if your claim is that the Catholic Church is better because it is "less barbaric" than Islam, I think you have some soul searching to do regarding the church.

Also, although I do not believe in god, my reading of the bible suggests to me that if Christ were to appear on earth tomorrow to look at his church, he would feel righteous anger that in a vast sea of human suffering and hunger, the leader of his flock is sitting on the world's most valuable art collection. I doubt that is what Christ believed he was dying for. You can chalk up that kind of sustained, rapacious acquisitiveness to the "fallibility" of man, but I rather think Christ would start smashing Michelangelos the same way he upset the moneychangers' tables.

Posted by: disinherited at April 3, 2005 3:08 PM

Maybe he did?:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22127-2005Apr2.html

During his long reign, Pope John Paul II apologized to Muslims for the Crusades, to Jews for anti-Semitism, to Orthodox Christians for the sacking of Constantinople, to Italians for the Vatican's associations with the Mafia and to scientists for the persecution of Galileo.

Posted by: emperor_diocletian at April 3, 2005 3:13 PM

"Egypt, according to recent scholarship, was not majority Muslim until the 14th Century..."
--from a posting above.

Any further information about demographic studies of populations in lands conquered by Islam would be welcome, here or emailed to the website.

Posted by: Hugh at April 3, 2005 4:04 PM

There is nothing to apologize for, and an apologize was a sell out and betrayal.

Read Paul Fregosi's Jihad (in the west) to get the real picture behind the Crusades. A defensive reaction against expanding, warlike and militant Islam.

But it is also true that Christianity has it's own dark side, and dark history and in it's excesses provided a role model for Islam.

For instance Pope Leo "The Great" fed Manicheans to the lions glee, and the event more than likely motivated Augustine to convert to the new emerging religion, which he subsequently set out to Manicheanisze (Mani was a Syrian Disciple of Zoroasrianism, whose influence was felt throughout the Greco Roman World).

And Pope Innocent III, had Count Montefiore ethnically cleanse the Langue d'oc region of France of Cathars and Albigensians, an event memoralized when a Lieutenant said to the Count, but sire there are good Christians there, his response "Kill them all, god will recognize his own", this event followed by a few centuries the whole sale slaughter of the Marcionites of Spain and Italy. And of course the 100 years war, the slaughter of the Huegenots by Cardinal Richelieu.

But Christianity did humanize, but not until the inquistion claimed it's last victim in 1821.

Islam on the other hand cannot humanize, if it did it would stop being Islam

Posted by: Giaour at April 3, 2005 4:10 PM

"Islam on the other hand cannot humanize, if it did it would stop being Islam"

Giaour,

Part of the difficulty in the Middle East today is that there are extremists there who do not believe the Crusades are over, and consequently they interpret a friendly wave hello from the west as a trick to lay the groundwork for another siege of Acre (so to speak). In their extremism, they call us irredeemable, satanic, infidels whose very creed speaks death to other religions.

Kind of like what you said about them.

Where does that leave us? Tallying which side has the more atrocities?

Islam will mellow when democratic institutions are established and the standard of living increases. We should focus on that. Well fed people who can vote, read what they want, and buy Sony products don't go in very often for Jihad.

Posted by: disinherited at April 3, 2005 6:08 PM

disinherited

I haven’t research it, but I would find it hard to believe the Catholic Church has murdered anywhere near the numbers that Mohammadanism has. But I am open to evidence that proves to the contrary. Every land subdued by Mohammadanism for the past 1400 years has only come with the genocide of the indigenous peoples.

The atrocities committed by men in the Church have been done in spite of what scripture teaches and Jesus practiced. The Church has also admitted to and repented from some of their perceived atrocities and will continue to do so in the future.

The atrocities committed by men in Mohammadanism have been done in light of what the Qur’an teaches and Mohammad practiced. Egocentric Mohammadanism would never even consider looking at itself with such criticism and will continue to do so in the future.

So yes, the Church is better because barbaric practices are not inherent to Judeo-Christian theology, but they are inherent to Mohammedan theology.

the leader of his flock is sitting on the world's most valuable art collection. I doubt that is what Christ believed he was dying for

I concur that Christ would be unhappy with parts of his body (the Church), in the book of Revelation starting in chapter 2 verse 1, Christ starts his seven letters to the seven Churches where He admonishes them. I believe that every Church in existence today fits one or more of these letters in whole or in part. Christ died for our sins, so yes he died and covered the sins of the leader of the flock sitting upon the art collection.
Christ doesn’t condone the sin, but he did pay the price for it. That is just part and parcel of Gods amazing grace. The Church is far from perfect, American homosexuals believe the Church hates them. I don’t recall Jesus teaching “love your neighbor as yourself, unless they are homosexual”. Of the thousands of sins mentioned in the Bible how did that one take center stage? In this and other things the Church has failed miserably. Anytime sinful man thinks he finds a motive for his hate, barbaric acts are soon follow.

Posted by: Bar at April 3, 2005 6:53 PM

Disinherited, you might want to read this:

THE typical recruit to Al-Qaeda, the terrorist organisation, is upper middle class, has been educated in the West and is from a professional background, according to a new study. An analysis of 500 members of Osama Bin Laden’s organisation has revealed that the majority had been in further education and were from relatively affluent families. The recruits also tended to come from the wealthier Arab countries. Dr Marc Sageman, a forensic psychiatrist who conducted the study, said he assumed it would find that most Al-Qaeda recruits were poor and ill-educated. “The common stereotype is that terrorism is a product of poor, desperate, naive, single young men from Third World countries, vulnerable to brainwashing and recruitment into terror,” he said.
However, his study showed that three-quarters of the Al-Qaeda members were from upper middle-class homes and many were married with children; 60% were college educated, often in Europe or the United States.
Sageman said most of the terrorists come from a small number of wealthy Arab countries, from immigrant communities in the West or from southeast Asia. Few are from poor Islamic countries such as Afghanistan.

Treehugger

Posted by: treehugger at April 3, 2005 6:53 PM

Disinherited,

More than anything material as a motivator, ultimately, human nature rejects tyranny and oppression.

We've recently read on this site and on faithfreedom.org of young Iranians who have seen via the Internet, TV and sattelite how the other 60% or so of the world live -- in relatively free and open societies -- and have begun risking their lives to rebel against the despotism that afflicts their countries.

Likewise, in Lebanon, although Nasrallah & Co can bring a lot of people out in force to support the Syrian Baathists, they are heavily outnumbered by Lebanese of varying religious and ethnic origins who have had enough of the Mukbarat, etc.

Change is not going to happen over night, and there will be many lives lost in the cause but ultimately, the despots will be deposed.

Posted by: waterdragon52 at April 3, 2005 6:56 PM

Bar,
To me, your second point -- that Christians can twist their scripture to fit the prevailing prejudices -- constitutes a perfect disproof of your first point, namely, that Christian scripture is somehow inherently less violent than Islamic scripture. I believe all religions "twist" the scriptures, for the simple reason that they don't say much in a very clear and direct way. I'll spot you the 10 commandments, but what about the other 1000 pages?

Treehugger,
That Al Queda has educated members does not surprise me, particularly at the leadership level. I did not say that educated people can't be maniacs. I do not believe, however, that the average person in the Middle East is a maniac. I do believe, as I said, that "Well fed people who can vote, read what they want, and buy Sony products don't go in very often for Jihad." I do not believe that statement characterizes many people in the Middle East.

Waterdragon,
Amen.

Posted by: disinherited at April 3, 2005 7:34 PM

disinherited

On some scriptures it maybe true that mildly different views can arise, but not on the essential ones, this is what has lead to the different denominations within Christianity that we see today.

If you are referring to the old testament law in the books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy, they maybe perceived as bloody by today’s standards, but they only applied to Jews and there is no law that requires death for one leaving Judaism. Unlike Mohammadanism, which requires death for one leaving the religion.

The old testament laws are harsh, so thick headed man would not take his sin so lightly.
I have found a lot of people who attribute violence, slavery, Hitler and such as being ok within Christian theology, this comes from a complete lack of understanding the scriptures and probably more from the indoctrination of our anti-Christian school system. I think you make the mistake of picking on some select Christian wrong doings and attempting to revert it back as their theology.

I made that same mistake with Mohammadanism, until I read the Qur’an, now I use their own scripture to show how it cannot possibly be divine, unless you are willing to believe a divinity cannot do simple arithmetic and gives the power to determine what resides in another mans heart, to fallible men.

Nowhere in this collection of 66 books written by 40 different authors are Christians or Jews commanded to murder any person they perceive as being a non believer.

The same statement cannot be made about Mohammadanism.

Posted by: Bar at April 3, 2005 8:53 PM

Bar,

Touche (insert accent).

Although I have read the bible and the koran, I do not know the scriptures chapter and verse so as to be able to hold my own in a scriptural debate. I will therefore concede the point: The koran contains a tenet of violence directed at other religions that the bible does not.

To me, it just so much accounting. I do not believe in god and so, to me, all scriptures are just stories made up by man. The collected thoughts of 2,000 years ago (as it were). Some useful lessons. Some oddities. Some obscure stuff. Some love. Some vengeance. And, like Thomas Aquinas and Thomas Jefferson, some profound misunderstandings of nature and causality.

They all have enough inherent ambiguity to protect them against factual attack and to allow them to claim a monopoly on truth. In the hands of humanity (as you rightly point out), these devices are abused.

Somehow, though, I cannot, on the strength of a sentence, really discriminate between these two entities that have each wrought a lot of hell on earth and which each have stood opposed to many of the most important advances of civilization in science, government, human rights, civil rights, and other cornerstones of the society I believe is best. It is not to say they are never on the right side, but they have so often been squarely on the wrong side, smiling at their victims, tapping the good book, that I find it difficult to believe anyone ever buys the notion of scriptures as holy books.

Finally, let me acknowledge that I know I stand in a small (perhaps vanishingly small) minority in my views of religion.

To me, none are good, and I dream of the day that humanity moves on from religion altogether.

Posted by: disinherited at April 3, 2005 9:42 PM

Giaour:

Re: "And of course the 100 years war, the slaughter of the Huegenots by Cardinal Richelieu"

Nice post but a minor correction - I believe it was the 30 Years War you are referring to. This was a turning point in European history (Treaty of Westphalia) given the tremendous destruction caused and religious strife.

I enjoy reading your comments.

John

Posted by: johnb at April 3, 2005 11:05 PM

The papacy was really appeasing the Muslims before 9/11, the John Paul II even kissed a Koran! There are pictures all over the web. Anyway, he probably would have issued an official apology by now if it weren't for 9/11. So, bin Ladin saved us from that embarrassing fate. I was thinking that perhaps Muslims confuse apologies they have received from some liberal Protestant groups with an apology from the papacy. The Protestant groups are now thinking, "What were we thinking! We were duped idiots to apologize over the Crusades."

Posted by: markjames at April 3, 2005 11:38 PM

The crusades were indeed defensive wars, no need to apologise. The next time someone is asked to apologise for it, it would be good to demand loud and clear apologies for the ungoing wars from Islam against Europe (and the US). Come to think of it: never heard any apologies made for 9/11 or Madrid or Theo van Gogh or whatever, excuses we heard the more ("This is not Islam", read: "Do not blame us").

Concerning the Bible: Although the Old Testament is rather harsh on some points, one should consider the time and tribal society it was written for, in that perspective it was an advancement. For instance, an eye for an eye is nowadays seen as a harsh rule, but in the days the testament was written, it was quite the opposite. It controlled the fueds and aimed at stopping them from going on for ages. P.e. if your brother got killed by John, you were only allowed to kill one brother of John in retaliation, not two (which would have led to retalitation on Johns part etc.etc.). The Old Testament does not claim that the God mentioned there is a worldwide God for everybody, He choose His people, and they were the only ones that needed to follow him and stay away from other Gods, other tribes had their own Gods and God left them in peace. That might explain why the Jewish believe is not into converting others.

Even in the Old Testament there are moral lessons, take p.e. David who was rebuked for taking to his bed the wife of one of his soldiers, who he conviently send on a mission he could not survive. Compare this with the acts of Mohammed as recorded in Koran and Hadits and the reactions to them from his followers.

With the New Testament the scoop of God became wider and Christianity open to everybody, not just to the tribes of Israel. Luckely, it became a bit "softer" to. Further, Jezus made no claims to wordly power (Give Ceasar what is due to Ceasar; My kingdom is not of this world). And yes, there was violence and witchburning and lots of other unpleasantness, but luckily, Christianity humanised and this is all in the (far) past.

The Koran in my opinion, does not give moral rules, but just a justification of the acts of Mohammed. The moral of the story is that, as long as something has been done or allowed by M. it is okay, even things like murdering husbands and raping their widows all in the same day.

The Koran summons its followers to the Jihad, by fire and sword the believe has to be spread. The power it aims for is worldy power, therefor it is not a religion but a political movement with its führer not here but in heaven. The agressive nature of the Islam is in the Koran itself, and helas, no humanisation took place and the texts are still taken and applied literally. The combination of 7th century ideas and 21 century technology with claims to world-domination makes the explosive cocktail we are nowadays only to aware of.

Posted by: Ernst at April 4, 2005 8:16 AM

Bar,

as far as I know 50.000.000 Hindu Indians were killed on regilious grounds by the Islam. I do not know if the genocide of the Kurds and the Armenians took place on religious grounds. Even now there is in the name of Islam a genocide going on in Darfur. I do not think Christianity comes even close to the numbers realised in the name of Jihad, but I might be mistaken.

Posted by: Ernst at April 4, 2005 8:33 AM

Robert,

The Pope apologized for the Fourth Crusade which culminated in the famous 1204 sacking of Constantinople, and never quite made it to the Latin Kingdom. They did do one heck of a job for the Venetians, economically speaking.

May, 2001 I thought there was another, similar apology last year for the 800th anniversary. But I can't find it.

Posted by: Beagle at April 4, 2005 8:46 AM

Ernst
I agree.
50 million Hindus, damn... That makes what Hitler did look like child’s play.
I don’t excuse the atrocities committed by the Church in the name of God, but it always
goes back to, Christians committed these barbaric acts in spite of their scripture, Moslems commit their barbaric acts in light of their scripture.

disinherited
I am not really that good with chapter and verse myself.
I use this free Bible software.
http://www.e-sword.net/

Here is a place where you can search the Qur’an.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/

Its funny, I was thinking that your opinion was more in the majority and my opinion was in the minority.

Posted by: Bar at April 4, 2005 10:53 AM

Ernst - interesting point. The Quran as apologetic for the actions of Mohammed? That's interesting.

Geoff

Posted by: Geoff at April 4, 2005 1:18 PM

Geoff,

Interesting, do you mean that? I thought it was a wellspread idea. It is an idea I got after reading the Quran (inspiration?) and some of its explications. It seems allways the same to me: If M. wants something (p.e. a girl of 6 years old, treason, was, rape) and it is denied to him, he gets inspirated and goes in some sort of tantrum or trance, and Allah allows him by returning post to do as he already planned to.
The Quran gives thus no objective moral rules but but a mere codification of M.'s acts.

Posted by: Ernst at April 4, 2005 4:52 PM

I just looked over the website that provides details on the numbers of dead from Biblical times to now.
He estimated some 1.2 million (I think the number was) killed in the ancient Biblical times between the Israelites themselves Judeans - Israeli Kingdoms and others.
Pretty gruesome stuff.

Posted by: Mike_Nargizian at April 4, 2005 5:17 PM

I see no apology for the Crusades on the Vatican archives. The Washington Post, BBC, CBS, NY TIMES have too many credibility issues to be believed.

Posted by: jawa at April 4, 2005 11:19 PM