Happy Easter, Now Apologize for the Crusades?

[deep]

Al-Azhar – The Vatican

Official apologies demanded

Morocco TIMES 3/17/2005 | 10:36 am

Egyptian highest religious authority Al-Azhar has requested the Vatican to present official apologies on Christian crusades carried out against Muslims seven centuries ago.



Sheikh Fawzi Zafzaf, President of the Interfaith Dialogue Committee of Al-Azhar, said during a press conference that his committee has sent a request to the Pope last February, demanding an official apology on Christian crusades against the Muslim world, following the example of the Jews.

The principle of demanding apology from the Vatican germinated following Pope Jean Paul II's visit to Syria and Egypt a few years ago, and the apologies the Catholic Church presented to the Jewish and some other Christian doctrines, explained Sheikh Zafzaf. “Al-Azhar is only asking for a similar treatment,” he added.

The Vatican's ambassador to Egypt has abstained from commenting, saying that Al-Azhar's request is now being considered by the Holy See.

 

[drhark]

Only if the Muslim world apologizes for conquering the Middle East, Asia Minor, Persia, North Africa and Spain and killing or subjugating the infidels. And 9/11.

Or was Islam spread peacefully, through missionary work?

 

[verte76]

The Catholics have actually apologized to the Greeks for the 1204 Frankish sacking of Constantinople, which was really what facilitated the Crusades, and all of the other things that made the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches split in 1054. Although Catholics generally agree that the Crusades were a disgrace, and political and materialistic campaigns dressed up as religion, a "formal" apology is unlikely because of the continued tensions beween the Islamic and the Christian worlds. These tensions didn't start on 9/11, they just got a heck of alot worse.

 

[verte76]

I know a little bit about the spread of Islam, not as much as I'd like to. In some cases it wasn't as bad as we think because the conquerers, in many cases, did not force the native population to change their religion. When they conquered Damascus, they promised not to harm the churches. They did offer incentives to convert, such as tax breaks, but so did the Christians when they were converting Europe. In many cases the churches in the towns were converted into mosques; the Ayasofia Museum in Istanbul was originally a church, (Hagia Sofia is Greek for "holy wisdom"), and the Turks turned it into a mosque. Hagia Sofia was the most prestigious church in the Greek Orthodox world, and I'm not sure, but this may have made the Turks turn it into a mosque, since they left other churches alone and let the Jews build more synagogues than the Greeks had. Generally, though, the Turks practiced more toleration than Christians did in Europe. When Ferdinand and Isabella kicked the Jews out of Spain, they were welcomed in the Ottoman lands. It's a long story but this is impacting Jewish life big time to this day. The original concept of "jihad" is a personal struggle against sin. It was the Wahhabis of Saudi Arabia who started to emphasize this as "holy war" against the "infidel". This sect was started in the eighteenth century for a tribal Arab aristocracy, and now it's influencing the whole world big time.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Only if the Muslim world apologizes for conquering the Middle East, Asia Minor, Persia, North Africa and Spain and killing or subjugating the infidels. And 9/11.

Bingo. This is not a one-way street.

 

[verte76]

Only if the Muslim world apologizes for conquering the Middle East, Asia Minor, Persia, North Africa and Spain and killing or subjugating the infidels. And 9/11.

Or was Islam spread peacefully, through missionary work?

Good grief, going into the conquest of all of these countries is a library full of history books! I've been studying Asia Minor alone, Turkey, for two years. It's a ton of material. The French, or Franks, as they were still often called, were in the Byzantine Empire when it was in the latter centuries of its existence in the Balkans and Asia Minor. Some of the last Byzantine Emperors were horrific. Some mainly knew how to spend money, not rule. The French and the Byzantines had very different ideas about how to do things. This included important things like how to handle prisoners of war. The French wanted to kill them or sell them into slavery; the Greeks sent them home. In general, the French were a pain in the ass to the Byzantine rulers. The Byzantines were letting the Turks convert the Greek-speaking people as Asia Minor into Turkish speakers. The Turks were originally tribes from Central Asia who poured into Asia Minor looking for land. The Greeks were having so much trouble with the French that they didn't fight the Turks as hard as they should have. By 1350 Asia Minor was culturally Turkish. There were many Christians there, still. in the sixteenth century Suleiman's brilliant architech, Sinan, was born in Asia Minor of Christian parents. I've probably made at least one mistake and all_i_want will correct me.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

I don't care what religion is being asked to apologize for grievances from centuries ago, I personally don't agree with that method of dealing with the problems of the past, as not all of the people living today agree with what the people from the religion they follow, whatever one it may be, did centuries ago to others. And besides that, what good will apologizing now for what happened thousands of years ago do? It won't change the past-the problems that occurred will still be in the history books.

IMHO, the best way to apologize, so to speak, would be for today's followers from every religion to learn from any mistakes that the people of their respective religions may have made towards others in the past, and to do everything in their power to avoid having those same mistakes happen again.

Angela

 

[BVS]

Only if the Muslim world apologizes for conquering the Middle East, Asia Minor, Persia, North Africa and Spain and killing or subjugating the infidels. And 9/11.

Or was Islam spread peacefully, through missionary work?

First of all apologizing for something centuries ago will solve nothing. I think it's pointless.

But if there were to be an apology it shouldn't come with a disclaimer like this. That's ridiculous. For true apologies need no disclaimers.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

I don't care what religion is being asked to apologize for grievances from centuries ago, I personally don't agree with that method of dealing with the problems of the past, as not all of the people living today agree with what the people from the religion they follow, whatever one it may be, did centuries ago to others. And besides that, what good will apologizing now for what happened thousands of years ago do? It won't change the past-the problems that occurred will still be in the history books.

Yes. It's history. That's what they are now, that's what they'll always be. If we can never accept that the conflicts are all in the past, when are we going to move on?

IMHO, the best way to apologize, so to speak, would be for today's followers from every religion to learn from any mistakes that the people of their respective religions may have made towards others in the past, and to do everything in their power to avoid having those same mistakes happen again.

True. Perhaps a serious amount of respect between faiths must be established. Everyone is entitled to whatever beliefs they want, but differences in beliefs need a deeper respect. You have your freedom to believe in whatever gets you through the day, and I have mine. When beliefs are forced upon people through violence, it benefits nobody.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Good point, BVS.

Yes. It's history. That's what they are now, that's what they'll always be. If we can never accept that the conflicts are all in the past, when are we going to move on?

True. Perhaps a serious amount of respect between faiths must be established. Everyone is entitled to whatever beliefs they want, but differences in beliefs need a deeper respect. You have your freedom to believe in whatever gets you through the day, and I have mine. When beliefs are forced upon people through violence, it benefits nobody.

. Exactly right.

Angela

 

[drhark]

First of all apologizing for something centuries ago will solve nothing. I think it's pointless.

But if there were to be an apology it shouldn't come with a disclaimer like this. That's ridiculous. For true apologies need no disclaimers.

I agree. One group's ancestors or religious progeny apologizing to another's is ridiculous.

Being of Celtic, Anglo-Saxon and Germanic descent, I demand apologies from the descendants of Vikings, the Anglo-Saxons, the Huns, the visigoths, the Galls, the Romans, the Greeks, the Huns, Mongols, the Babylonians, and possibly the Chaldeans. (and don't hold me to my history, I just threw all those out there at random)

I added the disclaimer as sarcasm and Crusades myth busting.

 

[nbcrusader]

First of all apologizing for something centuries ago will solve nothing. I think it's pointless.

But if there were to be an apology it shouldn't come with a disclaimer like this. That's ridiculous. For true apologies need no disclaimers.

I agree. The request contained in the article posted by deep is pointless.

 

[verte76]

Oh, I agree with you guys, an apology is absolutely pointless. Now, the Second Vatican Council did come to grips with the anti-Semitism in the Church's history, because it was there, we can't sweep it under the rug and the Holocaust happened. But I wouldn't really call it an apology, it was more like the Church was honest about some things that can be proved historically that it had been silent about beforehand, that anti-Semitic atrocities happened throughout the Middle Ages and on through the twentieth century in Catholic populations and countries.

 

[DaveC]

Would all people still alive from the time of the Crusades please raise your hand?

*crickets*

Would all people personally affected in a negative way by the Crusades please raise your hand?

*crickets*

 

[A_Wanderer]

No.

 

[bcrt2000]

I'm a moderate Muslim in North America (moderate in terms of being open to other peoples thoughts/ideas, tolerance of other religions, but not straying from rituals, beliefs etc)

Sheikh Fawzi Zafzaf is a moron. I don't need to say more about him.

drhark: "killing or subjugating the infidels. And 9/11"

i don't understand what you mean by that. who in the muslim world (who is actually considered to be a proper muslim state) killed any "infidels" (whatever your definition of infidel is supposed to mean)

and 9/11? gimmie a fucking break, everyone from the spanish islamic council to cat stevens to the islamic society of north america to general musharaff of pakistan to Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia to the muslim majority around the world have denounced the acts of 9/11.

1 in 5 people in the world are muslims. we're going to have some fucked up people too. christians had their dirty laundry too. and they also have their gems as well.

 

[bcrt2000]

I know a little bit about the spread of Islam, not as much as I'd like to. In some cases it wasn't as bad as we think because the conquerers, in many cases, did not force the native population to change their religion. When they conquered Damascus, they promised not to harm the churches. They did offer incentives to convert, such as tax breaks, but so did the Christians when they were converting Europe. In many cases the churches in the towns were converted into mosques; the Ayasofia Museum in Istanbul was originally a church, (Hagia Sofia is Greek for "holy wisdom"), and the Turks turned it into a mosque. Hagia Sofia was the most prestigious church in the Greek Orthodox world, and I'm not sure, but this may have made the Turks turn it into a mosque, since they left other churches alone and let the Jews build more synagogues than the Greeks had. Generally, though, the Turks practiced more toleration than Christians did in Europe. When Ferdinand and Isabella kicked the Jews out of Spain, they were welcomed in the Ottoman lands. It's a long story but this is impacting Jewish life big time to this day. The original concept of "jihad" is a personal struggle against sin. It was the Wahhabis of Saudi Arabia who started to emphasize this as "holy war" against the "infidel". This sect was started in the eighteenth century for a tribal Arab aristocracy, and now it's influencing the whole world big time.

you are totally right about jihad. only the true students of knowledge in islam know what this means, not the fakers who think killing yourself will give you heaven...

jihad can be many things... to me its MLK speaking out his dream, its about keeping yourself together, its about Bono going to Bush asking for relief for the third world, etc

 

[modsavage]

Throw a rock in the air you are bound to hit someone guilty......

 

[misiek]

Al-Azhar – The Vatican

Official apologies demanded

Morocco TIMES 3/17/2005 | 10:36 am

Egyptian highest religious authority Al-Azhar has requested the Vatican to present official apologies on Christian crusades carried out against Muslims seven centuries ago.



Sheikh Fawzi Zafzaf, President of the Interfaith Dialogue Committee of Al-Azhar, said during a press conference that his committee has sent a request to the Pope last February, demanding an official apology on Christian crusades against the Muslim world, following the example of the Jews.

The principle of demanding apology from the Vatican germinated following Pope Jean Paul II's visit to Syria and Egypt a few years ago, and the apologies the Catholic Church presented to the Jewish and some other Christian doctrines, explained Sheikh Zafzaf. “Al-Azhar is only asking for a similar treatment,” he added.

The Vatican's ambassador to Egypt has abstained from commenting, saying that Al-Azhar's request is now being considered by the Holy See.

I hereby apologize for the Vatican. I'm sorry we didn't finish the job.

 

[BVS]

Re: Re: Happy Easter, Now Apologize for the Crusades?

I hereby apologize for the Vatican. I'm sorry we didn't finish the job.

 

[all_i_want]

Re: Re: Happy Easter, Now Apologize for the Crusades?

I hereby apologize for the Vatican. I'm sorry we didn't finish the job.

i am glad you couldnt finish the job

and im quite happy with the role of my ancestors in your failure, as well.

one interesting addition to verte's post earlier, most of the time turks were in asia minor, we didnt alwats fight the byzantines to get their lands. occasionally, we made deals with them against their other christian enemies, protected their kings from betrayals etc. thats how turks spread all over asia minor that quickly.

and then of course, we were kind of on the road to jerusalem from europe, so we basicly got to fight with every single crusader first hand. and so did the byzantines, especially after their capital was sacked by the franks.

quite messy business, these crusades.

 

[bcrt2000]

Throw a rock in the air you are bound to hit someone guilty......

Those days, days, days run away like horses over the hill...

 

[verte76]

Yes, if I'm not mistaken the literal meaning of the word "jihad" is "struggle", and it's generally used to describe the individual Muslim's struggle against their personal sin. It has nothing to do with politics or war. The only Muslims who use "jihad" as a "holy war" concept are the Wahhabis, and the overwhelming majority of Muslims outside of Saudi Arabia are not Wahhabis.

*edited due to stupid typing mistakes*

 

[cardosino]

Al-Azhar – The Vatican

Official apologies demanded

Morocco TIMES 3/17/2005 | 10:36 am

Egyptian highest religious authority Al-Azhar has requested the Vatican to present official apologies on Christian crusades carried out against Muslims seven centuries ago.



Sheikh Fawzi Zafzaf, President of the Interfaith Dialogue Committee of Al-Azhar, said during a press conference that his committee has sent a request to the Pope last February, demanding an official apology on Christian crusades against the Muslim world, following the example of the Jews.

The principle of demanding apology from the Vatican germinated following Pope Jean Paul II's visit to Syria and Egypt a few years ago, and the apologies the Catholic Church presented to the Jewish and some other Christian doctrines, explained Sheikh Zafzaf. “Al-Azhar is only asking for a similar treatment,” he added.

The Vatican's ambassador to Egypt has abstained from commenting, saying that Al-Azhar's request is now being considered by the Holy See.

Where's the apology for the spreading conquering Ottoman empire which spawned the crusades ?

 

[cardosino]

Re: Re: Happy Easter, Now Apologize for the Crusades?

Where's the apology for the spreading conquering Ottoman empire which spawned the crusades ?

Wrong war dumbass.....moer espresso......

 

[all_i_want]

Re: Re: Re: Happy Easter, Now Apologize for the Crusades?

Wrong war dumbass.....moer espresso......

yeah.. the ottomans kinda appeared long after the hard core crusaders were gone

 

[verte76]

That's right, the Turks who were conquering Asia Minor during the Crusades were the Seljuk Turks, not the Ottoman Turks. Whole different people.

 

[drhark]

I'm a moderate Muslim in North America (moderate in terms of being open to other peoples thoughts/ideas, tolerance of other religions, but not straying from rituals, beliefs etc)

Sheikh Fawzi Zafzaf is a moron. I don't need to say more about him.

drhark: "killing or subjugating the infidels. And 9/11"

i don't understand what you mean by that. who in the muslim world (who is actually considered to be a proper muslim state) killed any "infidels" (whatever your definition of infidel is supposed to mean)

and 9/11? gimmie a fucking break, everyone from the spanish islamic council to cat stevens to the islamic society of north america to general musharaff of pakistan to Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia to the muslim majority around the world have denounced the acts of 9/11.

1 in 5 people in the world are muslims. we're going to have some fucked up people too. christians had their dirty laundry too. and they also have their gems as well.

I threw 9/11 in there to be sarcastic because the idea of an apology is insane. EVERYBODY who had any power was brutal back then. That's how the world worked. I do know, however, that in the early days of Christianity it was spread very effectively throughout the Roman Empire by word of mouth, not by war, violence or conquering. IN fact, I'm pretty sure the founder of Christianity never killed anyone.

 

[verte76]

I threw 9/11 in there to be sarcastic because the idea of an apology is insane. EVERYBODY who had any power was brutal back then. That's how the world worked. I do know, however, that in the early days of Christianity it was spread very effectively throughout the Roman Empire by word of mouth, not by war, violence or conquering. IN fact, I'm pretty sure the founder of Christianity never killed anyone.

Later Christians did use force to convert heathen populations. When Charlemagne conquered the Saxons in the late eighth century, he gave them a choice between baptism and death. He wasn't the only Christian ruler to do this, just the most famous.

 

[bcrt2000]

I threw 9/11 in there to be sarcastic because the idea of an apology is insane. EVERYBODY who had any power was brutal back then. That's how the world worked. I do know, however, that in the early days of Christianity it was spread very effectively throughout the Roman Empire by word of mouth, not by war, violence or conquering. IN fact, I'm pretty sure the founder of Christianity never killed anyone.

First of all everyone who had power was not brutal, only the ones we read of in the history books because the worst rulers are always the ones that people remember.

And I know that its a fact Jesus never killed anyone, and I also believe in Jesus, but as a prophet. Jesus was a man of incredible intellect and he used that to the best of his ability to spark a cultural/spiritual uprising. But there are many prophets who came before Jesus who were not like Jesus, so you cannot look down upon Muslims because of that fact.

Secondly you have a misconception about the spread of Islam. Islam was not spread by people forcing their ways over others and killing people if they did not obey. The Muslim empire grew and grew but the Muslim leaders left the governments and institutions that already existed in the places the conquered mainly intact for the reason that the empire was too big to micromanage, and that it would be very hard to enforce your rule on others without social unrest. Islam spread very slowly through people converting over generations, it didn't happen over night as some might lead you to believe. That being said there have been Muslims rulers here and there who were unjust, but that is true about every era and every religion.