Ο Μπαχράμ Γκουρ σκοτώνει τον δράκοντα – ένα επικό-μυθικό
Ο Μπαχράμ Γκουρ σκοτώνει τον δράκοντα – ένα επικό-μυθικό στοιχείο στην Ιστορία της Ισλαμικής Τέχνης της Ασίας
===========
Η Ιστορία του Καυχησιάρη που πνίγηκε στο πηγάδι
Η Ιστορία του ανθρώπου που κρυφάκουγε
More Posts from S-afshar and Others
The Stele of Roma the Doorkeeper, Dedicated of the Goddess Astarte
The Egyptians almost never depicted illness. This instance is one of the exceptions. One of the man’s legs is withered and the foot only supports itself on the toes. It is the opinion of quite a number of doctors that these deformities are due to polio. This may be the world’s oldest representation of that disease.
New Kingdom, 18th Dynasty, ca. 1401-1363 BC. Now in the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek. Copenhagen. ÆIN 134
Cosmas Megalommatis, Shamash: World Mythology-1989
Κοσμάς Μεγαλομμάτης, Σαμάς: Παγκόσμια Μυθολογία, Ελληνική Εκπαιδευτική Εγκυκλοπαίδεια, 1989
Кузьма Мегаломматис, Шамаш: мировая мифология, Греческая педагогическая энциклопедия, 1989
Kosmas Megalommatis, Šamaš (oder Schamasch): Weltmythologie, Griechische Pädagogische Enzyklopädie, 1989
Kosmas Gözübüyükoğlu, Şamaş: Dünya Mitolojisi, Yunan Pedagoji Ansiklopedisi, 1989
قزمان ميغالوماتيس، شمش : اساطیر جهانی، دایره المعارف آموزشی یونانی، 1989
Côme Megalommatis, Shamash: Mythologie mondiale, Encyclopédie pédagogique grecque, 1989
1989 قزمان ميغالوماتيس، شمش : الأساطير العالمية، الموسوعة التربوية اليونانية،
Cosimo Megalommatis, Šamaš: mitologia mondiale, Enciclopedia pedagogica greca, 1989
Cosimo Megalommatis, Shamash: mitología mundial, Enciclopedia pedagógica griega, 1989
===============
Скачать PDF-файл: / PDF-Datei herunterladen: / Télécharger le fichier PDF : / PDF dosyasını indirin: / :PDF قم بتنزيل ملف / Download PDF file: / : یک فایل دانلود کنید / Κατεβάστε το PDF:
Μπαμπούρ (1483-1530): Στρατηλάτης, Φιλόσοφος, Ποιητής, Ιστορικός, Αυτοκράτορας, Απόγονος του Ταμερλάνου, Θεμελιωτής της Δυναστείας των Γκορκανιάν από την Κεντρική Ασία στην Ινδία
Babur (1483-1530): Military Genius, Philosopher, Poet, Historian, Emperor, Descendant of Tamerlane, Founder of the Gorkanian Dynasty from Central Asia to Hindustan, Bengal and the Dekkan
ΑΝΑΔΗΜΟΣΙΕΥΣΗ ΑΠΟ ΤΟ ΣΗΜΕΡΑ ΑΝΕΝΕΡΓΟ ΜΠΛΟΓΚ “ΟΙ ΡΩΜΙΟΙ ΤΗΣ ΑΝΑΤΟΛΗΣ”
Το κείμενο του κ. Νίκου Μπαϋρακτάρη είχε αρχικά δημοσιευθεί την 18η Σεπτεμβρίου 2019.
Ο κ. Μπαϋρακτάρης χρησιμοποιεί τμήμα ομιλίας μου, την οποία έδωσα στο Πεκίνο τον Ιανουάριο του 2019 με θέμα τους παράλληλους βίους μεγάλων στρατηλατών και αυτοκρατόρων των Ακκάδων, των Χιττιτών, των Ασσυρίων, των Ιρανών, των Ρωμαίων, των Τουρανών-Μογγόλων, και των Κινέζων.
-------------------
https://greeksoftheorient.wordpress.com/2019/09/18/μπαμπούρ-1483-1530-στρατηλάτης-φιλόσοφος-πο/ =================
Οι Ρωμιοί της Ανατολής – Greeks of the Orient
Ρωμιοσύνη, Ρωμανία, Ανατολική Ρωμαϊκή Αυτοκρατορία
Αρκετοί φίλοι με ρώτησαν τελευταία για το Τατζ Μαχάλ, για την Ισλαμική Αυτοκρατορία των Μεγάλων Μογγόλων (Γκορκανιάν / Μουγάλ-Mughal) της Ινδίας, και τις σχέσεις των Σουνιτών Γκορκανιάν με τους Σιίτες Σαφεβίδες του Ιράν και τους Σουνίτες Οθωμανούς. Με δεδομένη την ιρανο-οθωμανική αντιπαλότητα (στην οποία αναφέρθηκα στα κείμενά μου σχετικά με την Μάχη του Τσαλντιράν το 1514), ένας φίλος με ρώτησε πως και δεν συμφώνησαν Οθωμανοί και Γκορκανιάν να μοιράσουν το Ιράν ανάμεσα στην Σταμπούλ και την Άγκρα.
Η απάντηση είναι απλή: σε μια εποχή που δεν υπήρχαν εθνικισμοί και που η Πίστη αποτελούσε τον βασικό (αλλά όχι τον μόνο) δείκτη ταυτότητας, οι φυλετικές διαφορές βάραιναν σημαντικά. Αν ανάμεσα σε δυο κλάδους της ίδιας φυλής είχε χυθεί αίμα, αυτό θα ήταν πολύ δύσκολο να ξεχαστεί ακόμη και εκατό χρόνια αργότερα.
Οθωμανοί, Σαφεβίδες του Ιράν, και Γκορκανιάν της Νότιας Ασίας (όχι μόνον ‘Ινδίας’) ήταν όλοι τουρκομογγολικής καταγωγής.
Οθωμανοί και Γκορκανιάν ήταν Σουνίτες, ενώ οι Σαφεβίδες ήταν Σιίτες.
Αλλά ο Ταμερλάνος, πρόγονος των Γκορκανιάν, είχε χύσει οθωμανικό αίμα το 1402 στην Μάχη της Άγκυρας. Αυτό ξεπεράστηκε σε κάποιο βαθμό αλλά δεν ξεχάστηκε ποτέ.
Η Ιστορία της Μογγολικής Αυτοκρατορίας της Νότιας Ασίας είναι γεμάτη από πλούτο, τέχνες, γράμματα, εντυπωσιακά μνημεία και μυστικισμό. Νομίζω ότι ο καλύτερος τρόπος για να την προσεγγίσει κάποιος είναι να μάθει μερικά βασικά στοιχεία για τον εντελώς ξεχωριστό άνθρωπο που ήταν ο ιδρυτής αυτής της δυναστείας. Παρά την μεταγενέστερη επέκταση των Γκορκανιάν, κανένας απόγονος του Μπαμπούρ δεν τον ξεπέρασε στην στρατιωτική τέχνη.
Έφηβος οδηγούσε εμπειροπόλεμα στρατεύματα στις μάχες. Για σχεδόν τρεις δεκαετίες διέσχισε όλα τα κακοτράχαλα βουνά ανάμεσα στο ιρανικό οροπέδιο, τις στέππες της Σιβηρίας, την Τάκλα Μακάν και τις κοιλάδες του Ινδού και του Γάγγη. Πριν κατακτήσει το Χιντουστάν (: σημερινή βόρεια Ινδία), άλλαζε βασίλεια σχεδόν σαν τα πουκάμισα. Παράλληλα, συνέγραφε ιστορικά κείμενα και ποιήματα, έπινε, χαιρόταν την ζωή, και διερχόταν περιόδους ασκητισμού.
Παρά το ότι ο μεγάλος θρίαμβος ήλθε στο τέλος, ο Μπαμπούρ δεν ξέχασε ποτέ την γη που του συμπαραστάθηκε στα χρόνια των δοκιμασιών: την Καμπούλ του σημερινού Αφγανιστάν. Έτσι, αν και πέθανε στην Άγκρα της Ινδίας, θέλησε να ταφεί στην Καμπούλ. Ένας τεράστιος κήπος περιβάλλει το μαυσωλείο του Μπαμπούρ και μπορείτε να το δείτε σε δυο βίντεο, στις εισαγωγές των οποίων δίνω ένα γενικό σχεδιάγραμμα της ζωής και των ενδιαφερόντων, των κατορθωμάτων και των μαχών του Τίγρη (Μπαμπούρ σημαίνει Τίγρης στα τσαγατάι τουρκικά που ήταν η μητρική του γλώσσα κι αυτή των στρατιωτών του).
Κήποι και Μαυσωλείο του Μπαμπούρ στην Καμπούλ του Αφγανιστάν
Στο θέμα θα επανέλθω για να επεκταθώ στο Μπαμπούρ Ναμέ, το ‘Βιβλίο του Μπαμπούρ’ το οποίο συνέγραψε ο ίδιος ο στρατηλάτης και αυτοκράτορας. Το αντίστοιχο θα υπήρχε, αν συγχωνεύονταν σε ένα πρόσωπο ο Μέγας Αλέξανδρος και ο Αρριανός, ή ο Ιουστινιανός και ο Προκόπιος.
Μπορείτε να δείτε και αλλοιώς: το Μπαμπούρ Ναμέ είναι το ανατολικό, ασιατικό De Bello Civili και De Bello Gallico. Ή, πιο απλά, ο Μπαμπούρ είναι ο Μογγόλος Καίσαρ. Αλλά ο Καίσαρ είχε μόνιμο σημείο αναφοράς την Ρώμη. Ο Μπαμπούρ μετεκινείτο ως βασιλιάς από την Φεργάνα στην Σαμαρκάνδη, από κει στην Καμπούλ και τελικά στην Άγκρα. Δεν όριζε το στέμμα του το σπαθί του, αλλά το σπαθί του το στέμμα του.
Νόμισμα που έκοψε ο Μπαμπούρ το 1507-1508
Δείτε το βίντεο:
Кабул: Сады и Мавзолей Бабура, Могольского Императора (Горкани) Индии
https://www.ok.ru/video/1509854481005
Περισσότερα:
Баги Бабур (пушту باغ بابر, перс. باغ بابر; также встречаются названия сад Бабура и сады Бабура) — парковый комплекс в Афганистане, расположен неподалеку от города Кабула. Назван в честь своего владельца Бабура, основателя империи Великих Моголов. Бабур, помимо этого, увлекался разведением садов. Баги Бабур является одной из достопримечательностей страны. Отличается тщательной продуманностью посадок; в прошлом в нём выращивались многие уникальные растения. Среди них были различные сорта фруктов, бахчевых и многое другое, что ранее вовсе не встречалось на данной территории.
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Баги_Бабур
The Garden of Babur (locally called Bagh-e Babur, Persian: باغ بابر/ bāġ-e bābur) is a historic park in Kabul, Afghanistan, and also the last resting-place of the first Mughal emperor Babur. The garden are thought to have been developed around 1528 AD (935 AH) when Babur gave orders for the construction of an “avenue garden” in Kabul, described in some detail in his memoirs, the Baburnama.
The original construction date of the gardens (Persian: باغ – bāġ) is unknown. When Babur captured Kabul in 1504 from the Arguns he re-developed the site and used it as a guest house for special occasions, especially during the summer seasons. Since Babur had such a high rank, he would have been buried in a site that befitted him. The garden where it is believed Babur requested to be buried in is known as Bagh-e Babur. Mughul rulers saw this site as significant and aided in further development of the site and other tombs in Kabul. In an article written by the Aga Khan Historic Cities Programme, describes the marble screen built around tombs by Mughal Emperor Shah Jahan in 1638 with the following inscription:
“only this mosque of beauty, this temple of nobility, constructed for the prayer of saints and the epiphany of cherubs, was fit to stand in so venerable a sanctuary as this highway of archangels, this theatre of heaven, the light garden of the god forgiven angel king whose rest is in the garden of heaven, Zahiruddin Muhammad Babur the Conqueror.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gardens_of_Babur
Ένα από τα πιο ενδιαφέροντα μνημεία της Καμπούλ είναι οι τεράστιοι κήποι και το μαυσωλείο του απογόνου του Ταμερλάνου βασιλιά της Φεργκάνα (σήμερα στο Ουζμπεκιστάν), ο οποίος αφού κατέκτησε την Σαμαρκάνδη, το σημερινό ανατολικό Ιράν και την Καμπούλ, κατέλαβε την Κοιλάδα του Ινδού και όλη την Ινδία (Χιντουστάν: σημερινή βόρεια Ινδία).
Εκεί κατέλυσε το ισλαμικό Σουλτανάτο του Δελχίου, θεμελίωσε την Αυτοκρατορία των Μεγάλων Μογγόλων (Μουγάλ – Mughal, όπως είναι γνωστοί στις δυτικές γλώσσες) την οποία οι ίδιοι αποκαλούσαν Γκορκανιάν.
Η λέξη αυτή (گورکانیان, Gūrkāniyān) είναι περσική και σημαίνει ‘Γαμπροί’. Έτσι ονόμαζαν τους Μεγάλους Μογγόλους της Νότιας Ασίας οι Ιρανοί στα φαρσί (περσικά) επειδή οι Μεγάλοι Μογγόλοι διατήρησαν την μογγολική παράδοση να ανεβαίνει στον θρόνο και γενικώτερα στην ιεραρχία της αυτοκρατορίας ένας ταπεινής καταγωγής αλλά γενναίος στρατιωτικός μετά από τον γάμο του με μια από τις κόρες ενός ευγενή ή ενός αυτοκράτορα.
Ο Μπαμπούρ ήταν μια στρατιωτική μεγαλοφυία, ένας πολυμαθής φιλόσοφος, ένας ποιητής και ιστορικός που άφησε ένα τεράστιο βιογραφικό ιστορικό έργο γραμμένο σε τσαγατάι τουρκικά με αρκετούς περσισμούς που λέγεται Μπαμπούρ Ναμέ (το Βιβλίο του Μπαμπούρ).
Η Ισλαμική (Σουνιτική) Αυτοκρατορία των Μεγάλων Μογγόλων ήταν συχνά ισχυρώτερη και πλουσιώτερη από την Σαφεβιδική (Σιιτική) Αυτοκρατορία του Ιράν και την Οθωμανική Αυτοκρατορία, συνένωσε εκτάσεις από την Κεντρική Ασία μέχρι την Ινδονησία, προξένησε μια μεγάλη μετανάστευση τουρκομογγολικών πληθυσμών στην Ινδία και στο Ντεκάν, κι αποτελεί την περίοδο της μεγαλύτερης ανάπτυξης Γραμμάτων, Τεχνών και Πολιτισμού στην Ινδία, το Ντεκάν, και γενικώτερα στην Νότια Ασία.
Ωστόσο, οι Γκορκανιάν είχαν έντονα επηρεαστεί από τον ιρανικό πολιτισμό.
Στην αυτοκρατορία τους, τα περσικά ήταν η γλώσσα της τέχνης και της λογοτεχνίας, τα αραβικά η γλώσσα των επιστημών, και τα ουρντού η γλώσσα του στρατού.
Τα ουρντού είναι στη βάση τους μια τουρκική γλώσσα (σήμερα στα τουρκικά της Τουρκίας ordu σημαίνει ‘στρατός’) μεικτή με ινδοευρωπαϊκό λεξιλόγιο.
Αν και πέθανε και τάφηκε στην βόρεια Ινδία ο Μπαμπούρ (στα τουρκικά το όνομά του σημαίνει ‘Τίγρης’), ζήτησε να ταφεί σε μια πόλη που του χρησίμευσε ως βάση για την κατάκτηση της βόρειας Ινδίας.
Γενικό σχεδιάγραμμα της πορείας του Μπαμπούρ από την Κεντρική Ασία προς την Ινδία
Δείτε το βίντεο:
Kabul: Gardens and Mausoleum of Babur, Mughal Emperor (Gorkani) of India
https://vk.com/video434648441_456240305
Δείτε το βίντεο:
Καμπούλ: Κήποι και Μαυσωλείο του Μπαμπούρ, Μεγάλου Μογγόλου (Γκορκανιάν) Αυτοκράτορα της Ινδίας
Δείτε το βίντεο:
Бабур (1483-1530): военный гений, поэт, историк и император, основатель Горканской династии (Великих Моголов) Индии
https://www.ok.ru/video/1510072388205
Περισσότερα:
Захир-ад-дин Мухаммад Бабу́р (узб. Zahiriddin Muhammad Bobur; араб. ﻇَﻬﻴﺮْ ﺍَﻟَﺪّﻳﻦ مُحَمَّدْ بَابُرْ, «Бабур» означает «лев, полководец, барс» и происходит от персидского слова ْبَبْر (babr) — «тигр», 14 февраля 1483 — 26 декабря 1530) — среднеазиатский и тимуридский правитель Индии и Афганистана, полководец, основатель династии и империи Бабуридов, в некоторых источниках — как империи Великих Моголов (1526). Известен также как узбекский поэт и писатель.
Полная тронная титулатура: ас-Султан аль-Азам ва-л-Хакан аль-Мукаррам Захир ад-дин Мухаммад Джалал ад-дин Бабур, Падшах-и-Гази.
Бабур — основатель династии, выходец из города Андижан. Родным языком Бабура был турки (староузбекский). Писал в своих мемуарах: “Жители Андижана — все тюрки; в городе и на базаре нет человека, который бы не знал по-тюркски. Говор народа сходен с литературным”. “Мемуары Бабура написаны на той разновидности тюркского языка, которая известна под названием турки, являющегося родным языком Бабура”, — писал английский востоковед Е. Дениссон Росс.
За свою 47-летнюю жизнь Захириддин Мухаммад Бабур оставил богатое литературное и научное наследие. Его перу принадлежит знаменитое «Бабур-наме», снискавшая мировое признание, оригинальные и прекрасные лирические произведения (газели, рубаи), трактаты по мусульманскому законоведению («Мубайин»), поэтике («Аруз рисоласи»), музыке, военному делу, а также специальный алфавит «Хатт-и Бабури».
Бабур переписывался с Алишером Навои. Стихи Бабура, написанные на тюркском, отличаются чеканностью образов и афористичностью. Главный труд Бабура — автобиография «Бабур-наме», первый образец этого жанра в исторической литературе, излагает события с 1493 по 1529 годы, живо воссоздаёт детали быта знати, нравы и обычаи эпохи. Французский востоковед Луи Базан в своём введении к французскому переводу (1980 г.) писал, что «автобиография (Бабура) представляет собой чрезвычайно редкий жанр в исламской литературе».
В последние годы жизни тема потери Родины стала одной из центральных тем лирики Бабура. Заслуга Бабура как историка, географа, этнографа, прозаика и поэта в настоящее время признана мировой востоковедческой наукой. Его наследие изучается почти во всех крупных востоковедческих центрах мира.
Можно сказать, что стихи Бабура — автобиография поэта, в которых поэтическим языком, трогательно излагаются глубокие чувства, мастерски рассказывается о переживаниях, порожденных в результате столкновения с жизненными обстоятельствами, о чём красноречиво говорит сам поэт:
Каких страданий не терпел и тяжких бед, Бабур?
Каких не знал измен, обид, каких клевет, Бабур?
Но кто прочтет «Бабур-наме», увидит, сколько мук
И сколько горя перенес царь и поэт Бабур.
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Бабур
Δείτε το βίντεο:
Babur (1483-1530): Military Genius, Poet, Historian and Emperor, the Founder of the Gorkanian Dynasty (Great Mughal) of India
https://vk.com/video434648441_456240306
Περισσότερα:
Babur (Persian: بابر, romanized: Bābur, lit. ‘tiger’] 14 February 1483 – 26 December 1530), born Zahīr ud-Dīn Muhammad, was the founder and first Emperor of the Mughal dynasty in South Asia. He was a direct descendant of Emperor Timur (Tamerlane) from what is now Uzbekistan.
The difficulty of pronouncing the name for his Central Asian Turco-Mongol army may have been responsible for the greater popularity of his nickname Babur, also variously spelled Baber, Babar, and Bābor The name is generally taken in reference to the Persian babr, meaning “tiger”. The word repeatedly appears in Ferdowsi’s Shahnameh and was borrowed into the Turkic languages of Central Asia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babur#Ruler_of_Central_Asia
Захир-ад-дин Мухаммад Бабу́р (узб. Zahiriddin Muhammad Bobur; араб. ﻇَﻬﻴﺮْ ﺍَﻟَﺪّﻳﻦ مُحَمَّدْ بَابُرْ, «Бабур» означает «лев, полководец, барс» и происходит от персидского слова ْبَبْر (babr) — «тигр», 14 февраля 1483 — 26 декабря 1530) — среднеазиатский и тимуридский правитель Индии и Афганистана, полководец, основатель династии и империи Бабуридов, в некоторых источниках — как империи Великих Моголов (1526). Известен также как узбекский поэт и писатель. Полная тронная титулатура: ас-Султан аль-Азам ва-л-Хакан аль-Мукаррам Захир ад-дин Мухаммад Джалал ад-дин Бабур, Падшах-и-Гази.
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Бабур
Δείτε το βίντεο:
Μπαμπούρ (1483-1530): Στρατηλάτης, Ποιητής, Ιστορικός, Πρώτος Αυτοκράτορας των Γκορκανιάν της Ινδίας
Περισσότερα:
Ένας από τους μεγαλύτερους στρατηλάτες όλων των εποχών, ένας από τους ελάχιστους ηγεμόνες που δεν έχασαν ποτέ μάχη, ένας στρατιωτικός με μεγάλη μάθηση, γνώση και σοφία, συγγραφέας ενός μεγαλειώδους ιστορικού έργου (Μπαμπούρ Ναμέ: ‘το Βιβλίο του Μπαμπούρ’), ποιητής και μυστικιστής, με ενδιαφέρον για την καλοζωΐα σε σύντομα όμως χρονικά διαστήματα αλλά και με ασκητικές τάσεις, ήταν ο θεμελιωτής της μεγάλης μογγολικής δυναστείας της Νότιας Ασίας που οι δυτικοί αποκαλούν Μουγάλ (Μεγάλους Μογγόλους).
Όταν ο Μπαμπούρ γεννήθηκε στο Αντιτζάν της Κοιλάδας Φεργάνα της Κεντρικής Ασίας (σήμερα στο Ουζμπεκιστάν), τίποτα δεν έδειχνε ότι θα γινόταν ό ίδιος ο ιδρυτής μιας τεράστιας αυτοκρατορίας.
Απόγονος του Ταμερλάνου, ήταν γιος του ηγεμόνα ενός μικρού από τα πολλά τιμουριδικά βασίλεια των χρόνων του.
Έμεινε ορφανός και συνεπώς ηγεμόνας ενός μικρού βασιλείου στα 11 του χρόνια. Ακολούθησαν τρεις τρομερές δεκαετίες στην διάρκεια των οποίων ο Μπαμπούρ άλλαξε τον χάρτη της Κεντρικής και της Νότιας Ασίας.
Ήταν μια σειρά πολέμων, κατακτήσεων και διαδοχικών βασιλείων από τα οποία ο ίδιος με τους στρατιώτες του μετεκινούνταν, συχνά εν μέσω φονικών μαχών, τρομερών κακουχιών και φυσικών αντιξοοτήτων.
Μόνον στα 43 του, το 1526, κατάφερε ο Μπαμπούρ επιτέλους να επιβληθεί στην βόρεια Ινδία και να θεμελιώσει την δυναστεία – θρύλο της Νότιας Ασίας.
Έτσι, ο Μπαμπούρ διαδοχικά χρημάτισε:
1494-1497: βασιλιάς της Φεργάνα
1497-1498: βασιλιάς της Σαμαρκάνδης
1498-1500: βασιλιάς της Φεργάνα
1500-1501: βασιλιάς της Σαμαρκάνδης
1504-1530: βασιλιάς της Καμπούλ
1511-1512: βασιλιάς της Σαμαρκάνδης
1526-1530: αυτοκράτορας του Χιντουστάν (πρωτεύουσα: Άγκρα)
Οι μάχες του Πανιπάτ (1526), της Χάνουα (1527), και του Τσαντερί (1528) στερέωσαν την κυριαρχία του στην βόρεια Ινδία (Χιντουστάν).
Μέχρι τότε, αν και σουνίτης μουσουλμάνος, δεν δίστασε να συνεργαστεί με τους Κιζιλμπάσηδες (όταν ο Οθωμανός Σουλτάνος Σελίμ Α’ προτίμησε να συνεργαστεί με τους Ουζμπέκους εχθρούς του), με τον Σάχη Ισμαήλ Α’ (βασ. 1501-1524), και στην συνέχεια (μετά το 1513) με τον Σελίμ Α’ (βασ. 1512-1520), ο οποίος νωρίς κατάλαβε ότι ο Μπαμπούρ θα μπορούσε να στήσει ό,τι χρειαζόταν η Οθωμανική Αυτοκρατορία: μια μεγάλη σουνιτική ισλαμική αυτοκρατορία από την άλλη, ανατολική, πλευρά των συνόρων της σιιτικής ισλαμικής ιρανικής αυτοκρατορίας των Σαφεβιδών.
Αυτό ήταν μεγάλος ρεαλισμός: το 1402 (ένα αιώνα νωρίτερα) ο Βαγιαζίτ Α’, πρόγονος του Σελίμ Α’, είχε συλληφθεί αιχμάλωτος από τον Ταμερλάνο (πρόγονο του Μπαμπούρ), ο οποίος είχε χύσει άφθονο οθωμανικό αίμα στην Μάχη της Άγκυρας.
Ωστόσο, οι Γκορκανιάν (όπως αποκαλούνταν οι Μεγάλοι Μογγόλοι οι ίδιοι στα περσικά) κράτησαν μια ισορροπία στις σχέσεις τους ανάμεσα σε Σαφεβίδες και Οθωμανούς.
Πριν από 500 χρόνια, ο Σουλτάνος Σελίμ Α’ (1470-1520), ο Σάχης Ισμαήλ Α’ (1487-1524), και ο Μπαμπούρ (1483-1530) ήταν οι τρεις ισχυρώτεροι αυτοκράτορες του κόσμου.
Και ήταν, ασχέτως θρησκευτικών διαφορών, και οι τρεις τουρκομογγολικής καταγωγής.
Με περισσότερη κλίση στην θεολογία και στην στρατιωτική πειθαρχία ο πρώτος, με έντονη τάση στην ποίηση και την συγγραφή οι άλλοι δύο που επίσης διέπρεπαν και στον έκλυτο βίο – ο Ισμαήλ Α’ συνεχώς κι ο Μπαμπούρ περιστασιακά.
Ο Μπαμπούρ θυμίζει τον Μεγάλο Αλέξανδρο: αλλού γεννήθηκε (Φεργάνα), αλλού πέθανε (Χιντουστάν), αλλού τάφηκε (Καμπούλ).
-------------------------------
Διαβάστε:
Bābor, Ẓahīr-al-dīn Moḥammad
(6 Moḥarram 886-6 Jomādā I 937/14 February 1483-26 December 1530) Timurid prince, military genius, and literary craftsman who escaped the bloody political arena of his Central Asian birthplace to found the Mughal Empire in India
His origin, milieu, training, and education were steeped in Persian culture and so Bābor was largely responsible for the fostering of this culture by his descendants, the Mughals of India, and for the expansion of Persian cultural influence in the Indian subcontinent, with brilliant literary, artistic, and historiographical results.
Bābor’s father, ʿOmar Šayḵ Mīrzā (d. 899/1494), ruled the kingdom of Farḡāna along the headwaters of the Syr Darya, but as one of four brothers, direct fifth-generation descendants from the great Tīmūr, he entertained larger ambitions. The lack of a succession law and the presence of many Timurid males perpetuated an atmosphere of constant intrigue, often erupting into open warfare, between the descendants who vied for mastery in Khorasan and Central Asia, but they finally lost their patrimony when they proved incapable of cooperating to defend it against a common enemy.
It was against that same enemy, namely, the Uzbeks under the brilliant Šaybānī Khan (d. 916/1510), that Bābor himself learned his trade as a military leader in a long series of losing encounters. Bābor’s mother, Qotlūk Negār Ḵanūm, was the daughter of Yūnos Khan of Tashkent and a direct descendant of Jengiz Khan. She and her mother, Aysān-Dawlat Bēgam, had great influence on Bābor during his early career. It was his grandmother, for instance, who taught Bābor many of his political and diplomatic skills (Bābor-nāma, tr., p. 43), thus initiating the long series of contributions by strong and intelligent women in the history of the Mughal Empire.
Ο Μπαμπούρ (δεξιά) με τον γιο και διάδοχό του Χουμαγιούν
Bābor presumed that his descent from Tīmūr legitimized his claim to rule anywhere that Tīmūr had conquered, but like his father, the first prize he sought was Samarqand. He was plunged into the maelstrom of Timurid politics by his father’s death in Ramażān, 899/June, 1494, when he was only eleven. Somehow he managed to survive the turbulent years that followed. Wars with his kinsmen, with the Mughals under Tanbal who ousted him from Andijan, the capital city of Farḡāna, and especially with Šaybānī Khan Uzbek mostly went against him, but from the beginning he showed an ability to reach decisions quickly, to act firmly and to remain calm and collected in battle. He also tended to take people at their word and to view most situations optimistically rather than critically.
In Moḥarram, 910/June-July, 1504, at the age of twenty-one, Bābor, alone among the Timurids of his generation, opted to leave the Central Asian arena, in which he had lost everything, to seek a power base elsewhere, perhaps with the intention of returning to his homeland at a later date.
Accompanied by his younger brothers, Jahāngīr and Nāṣer, he set out for Khorasan, but changed his plans and seized the kingdom of Kabul instead.
In this campaign he began to think more seriously of his role as ruler of a state, shocking his troops by ordering plunderers beaten to death (Bābor-nāma, tr., p. 197).
The mountain tribesmen in and around Farḡāna with whom Bābor had frequently found shelter had come to accept him as their legitimate king.
He had no such claims upon the loyalty of the Afghan tribes in Kabul, but he had learned much about human nature and the nomad mentality in his three prolonged periods of wandering among the shepherd tribes of Central Asia (during 903/1497-98, 907/1501-02, and 909/1503-04).
He crushed all military opposition, even reviving the old Mongol shock tactic of putting up towers of the heads of slain foes, but he also made strenuous efforts to be fair and just, admitting, for instance, that his early estimates of food production and hence the levy of tributary taxes were excessive (Bābor-nāma, tr., p. 228).
At this point Bābor still saw Kabul as only a temporary base for re-entry to his ancestral domain, and he made several attempts to return in the period 912-18/1506-12. In 911/1505 his uncle Sultan Ḥosayn Mīrzā of Herat, the only remaining Timurid ruler besides Bābor, requested his aid against the Uzbeks—even though he himself had refused to aid Bābor on several previous occasions.
His uncle died before Bābor arrived in Herat, but Bābor remained there till he became convinced that his cousins were incapable of offering effective resistance to Šaybānī Khan’s Uzbeks.
While in Herat he sampled the sophistication of a brilliant court culture, acquiring a taste for wine, and also developing an appreciation for the refinements of urban culture, especially as exemplified in the literary works of Mīr ʿAlī-Šīr Navāʾī.
During his stay in Herat Bābor occupied Navāʾī’s former residence, prayed at Navāʾī’s tomb, and recorded his admiration for the poet’s vast corpus of Torkī verses, though he found most of the Persian verses to be “flat and poor” (Bābor-nāma, tr., p. 272).
Navāʾī’s pioneering literary work in Torkī, much of it based, of course, on Persian models, must have reinforced Bābor’s own efforts to write in that medium.
In Rajab, 912/December, 1506, Bābor returned to Kabul in a terrible trek over snow-choked passes, during which several of his men lost hands or feet through frostbite. The event has been vividly described in his diary (Bābor-nāma, tr., pp. 307-11). As he had foreseen, the Uzbeks easily took Herat in the following summer’s campaign, and Bābor indulged in one of his rare slips from objectivity when he recorded the campaign in his diary with some unfair vilification of Šaybānī Khan, his long-standing nemesis (Bābor-nāma, tr., pp. 328-29).
Bābor next consolidated his base in Kabul, and added to it Qandahār. He dramatically put down a revolt by defeating, one by one in personal combat, five of the ringleaders—an event which his admiring young cousin Mīrzā Moḥammad Ḥaydar Doḡlat believed to be his greatest feat of arms (Tārīḵ-erašīdī, tr., p. 204).
Here again it seems that Bābor acted impetuously, but saved himself by his courage and strength; and such legend-making deeds solidified his charismatic hold on the men whom he had to lead in battle. Uncharacteristically, Bābor withdrew from Qandahār and Kabul at the rumor that Šaybānī Khan was coming.
It was apparently the only time in his life when he lost confidence in himself. In fact, the Uzbek leader was defeated and killed by Shah Esmāʿīl Ṣafawī in 916/1510, and this opened the way for Bābor’s last bid for a throne in Samarqand.
From Rajab, 917 to Ṣafar, 918/October, 1511 to May, 1512, he held the city for the third time, but as a client of Shah Esmāʿīl, a condition that required him to make an outward profession of the Shiʿite faith and to adopt the Turkman costume of the Safavid troops.
Bābor’s kinsmen and erstwhile subjects did not concur with his doctrinal realignment, however much it had been dictated by political circumstances. Moḥammad-Ḥaydar, a young man indebted to Bābor for both refuge and support, exulted at the Uzbek defeat of Bābor, thus demonstrating how unusual in that time and place were Bābor’s breadth of vision and tolerance, qualities that became crucial to his later success in India. Breaking away from his Safavid allies, Bābor dallied in the Qunduz area, but he must have sensed that his chance to regain Samarqand was irretrievably lost.
It was only at this stage that he began to think of India as a serious goal, though after the conquest he wrote that his desire for Hindustan had been constant from 910/1504 (Bābor-nāma, tr., p. 478). With four raids beginning in 926/1519, he probed the Indian scene and discovered that dissension and mismanagement were rife in the Lodi Sultanate. In the winter of 932/1525-26 he brought all his experience to bear on the great enterprise of the conquest of India. With the proverb “Ten friends are better than nine” in mind, he waited for all his allies before pressing his attack on Lahore (Bābor-nāma, tr., p. 433).
His great skills at organization enabled him to move his 12,000 troops from 16 to 22 miles a day once he had crossed the Indus, and with brilliant leadership he defeated three much larger forces in the breathtaking campaigns that made him master of North India. First he maneuvered Sultan Ebrāhīm Lōdī into attacking his prepared position at the village of Panipat north of Delhi on 8 Rajab 932/20 April 1526. Although the Indian forces (he estimated them at 100,000; Bābor-nāma, tr., p. 480) heavily outnumbered Bābor’s small army, they fought as a relatively inflexible and undisciplined mass and quickly disintegrated.
Bābor considered Ebrāhīm to be an incompetent general, unworthy of comparison with the Uzbek khans, and a petty king, driven only by greed to pile up his treasure while leaving his army untrained and his great nobles disaffected (Bābor-nāma, tr., p. 470). Yet Bābor ordered a tomb to be built for him.
He then swiftly occupied Delhi and Agra, first visiting the tombs of famous Sufi saints and previous Turkish kings, and characteristically laying out a garden.
The garden provided him with such satisfaction that he later wrote: “to have grapes and melons grown in this way in Hindustan filled my measure of content” (Bābor-nāma, tr., p. 686).
His new kingdom was a different story. Bābor first had to solve the problem of disaffection among his troops.
Like Alexander’s army, they felt that they were a long way from home in a strange and unpleasant land.
Bābor had planned the conquest intending to make India the base of his empire since Kabul’s resources proved too limited to support his nobles and troops.
He himself never returned to live in Kabul.
But, since he had permitted his troops to think that this was simply another raid for wealth and booty, he had to persuade them otherwise, which was no easy chore (Bābor-nāma, tr., pp. 522-35).
The infant Mughal state also had to fight for its life against a formidable confederation of the Rajput chiefs led by Mahārānā Sangā of Mewar.
After a dramatic episode in which Bābor publicly foreswore alcohol (Bābor-nāma, tr., pp. 551-56), Bābor defeated the Rajputs at Khanwah on 13 Jomādā I 933/17 March 1527 with virtually the same tactics he had used at Panipat, but in this case the battle was far more closely contested.
Bābor next campaigned down the Ganges River to Bengal against the Afghan lords, many of whom had refused to support Ebrāhīm Lōdī but also had no desire to surrender their autonomy to Bābor.
Even while rival powers threatened him on all sides—Rajputs and Afghans in India, Uzbeks at his rear in Kabul—Bābor’s mind was turned to consolidation and government.
He employed hundreds of stone masons to build up his new capital cities, while winning over much of the Indian nobility with his fair and conciliatory policies.
He was anxiously grooming his sons to succeed him, not without some clashes of personality, when his eldest son Homāyūn (b. 913/1506) fell seriously ill in 937/1530.
Another young son had already died in the unaccustomed Indian climate, and at this family crisis his daughter Golbadan wrote that Bābor offered his own life in place of his son’s, walking seven times around the sickbed to confirm the vow (Bābor-nāma, translator’s note, pp. 701-2).
Bābor did not leave Agra again, and died there later that year on 6 Jomādā I 937/26 December 1530.
Bābor’s diary, which has become one of the classic autobiographies of world literature, would be a major literary achievement even if the life it illuminates were not so remarkable. He wrote not only the Bābor-nāma but works on Sufism, law and prosody as well as a fine collection of poems in Čaḡatay Torkī. In all, he produced the most significant body of literature in that language after Navāʾī, and every piece reveals a clear, cultivated intelligence as well as an enormous breadth of interests.
His Dīvān includes a score or more of poems in Persian, and with the long connection between the Mughals and the Safavid court begun by Bābor himself, the Persian language became not only the language of record but also the literary vehicle for his successors. It was his grandson Akbar who had the Bābor-nāma translated into Persian in order that his nobles and officers could have access to this dramatic account of the dynasty’s founder.
Bābor did not introduce artillery into India—the Portuguese had done that—and he himself noted that the Bengal armies had gunners (Bābor-nāma, tr., pp. 667-74). But his use of new technology was characteristic of his enquiring mind and enthusiasm for improvement. His Ottoman experts had only two cannons at Panipat, and Bābor personally witnessed the casting of another, probably the first to be cast in India, by Ostād ʿAlīqolī on 22 October 1526 (Bābor-nāma, tr., pp. 536-37).
The piece did not become ready for test firing till 10 February 1527 when it shot stones about 1,600 yards, and during the subsequent campaigns against the Afghans down the Ganges, Bābor specifically mentions Ostād ʿAlīqolī getting off eight shots on the first day of the battle and sixteen on the next (Bābor-nāma, tr., p. 599). Quite obviously then it was not some technical superiority in weaponry, but Bābor’s genius in using the discipline and mobility which he had created in his troops that won the crucial battles for him in India.
Bābor, however, was generally interested in improving technology, not only for warfare but also for agriculture. He tried to introduce new crops to the Indian terrain and to spread the use of improved water-lifting devices for irrigation (Bābor-nāma, tr., p. 531). His interest in improvement and change was facilitated by his generous nature. Though he had faults, they were outweighed by his attractive personality, cheerful in the direst adversity, and faithful to his friends.
The loyalties he inspired enabled the Mughal Empire in India to survive his own early death and the fifteen-year exile of his son and successor, Homāyūn. The liberal traditions of the Mughal dynasty were Bābor’s enduring legacy to his country by conquest.
Τις βιβλιογαφικές παραπομπές του κειμένου θα βρείτε εδώ:
http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/babor-zahir-al-din
==============================
Επιπλέον:
Μπαμπούρ και Γκορκανιάν (Μεγάλοι Μογγόλοι):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babur
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Бабур
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mughal_Empire
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Империя_Великих_Моголов
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gardens_of_Babur
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Баги_Бабур
Οικογενειακό υπόβαθρο:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umar_Shaikh_Mirza_II
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qutlugh_Nigar_Khanum
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Sa%27id_Mirza
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timurid_Empire
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chagatai_Khanate
Τοπογραφικά για την καταγωγή του Μπαμπούρ:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fergana_Valley
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fergana
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akhsikath
Ιστορικό υπόβαθρο:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kara-Khanid_Khanate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khwarazmian_dynasty
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_conquest_of_Khwarezmia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilkhanate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hulagu_Khan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Ilkhanate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jalairid_Sultanate
-----------------
Κατεβάστε την αναδημοσίευση σε Word doc.:
https://www.slideshare.net/MuhammadShamsaddinMe/14831530
https://issuu.com/megalommatis/docs/babur.docx
https://vk.com/doc429864789_622328060
https://www.docdroid.net/JWgxJAd/mpampour-1483-1530-stratilatis-filosofos-poiitis-istorikos-autokratoras-apoghonos-toy-tamerlanoy-docx
Bukhara
Uzbekistan
photos cjmn
Benedict XVI and today's Muslims opposite Manuel II Palaeologus and his Turkic Interlocutor
Or why I defended Pope Benedict XVI in 2006 against the thoughtlessly irascible Muslims
When a Muslim writes an Obituary for the Catholic Church's sole Pope Emeritus…
Table of Contents
I. From Joseph Ratzinger to Pope Benedict XVI
II. The theoretical concerns of an intellectual Pope
III. Benedict XVI: A Pope against violence and wars
IV. Manuel II Palaeologus and the Eastern Roman Empire between the Muslim Ottoman brethren and the Anti-Christian Roman enemies
V. The unknown (?) Turkic mystic interlocutor and the Islamic centers of science and reason that Benedict XVI ignored
VI. Excerpt from Benedict XVI's lecture given on the 12th September at the University of Regensburg under title 'Faith, Reason and the University–Memories and Reflections'
VII. The problems of the academic-theological background of Benedict XVI's lecture
VIII. Benedict XVI's biased approach, theological mistakes, intellectual oversights and historical misinterpretations
IX. The lecture's most controversial point
X. The educational-academic-intellectual misery and the political ordeal of today's Muslim states
Of all the Roman popes who resigned the only to be called 'Pope Emeritus' was Joseph Ratzinger Pope Benedict XVI (also known in German as Prof. Dr. Papst), who passed away on 31st December 2022, thus sealing the circle of world figures and heads of states whose life ended last year. As a matter of fact, although being a head state, a pope does not abdicate; he renounces to his ministry (renuntiatio).
Due to lack of documentation, conflicting sources or confusing circumstances, we do not have conclusive evidence as regards the purported resignations of the popes St. Pontian (235), Marcellinus (304), Liberius (366), John XVIII (1009) and Sylvester (105). That is why historical certainty exists only with respect to the 'papal renunciation' of six pontiffs; three of them bore the papal name of 'Benedict'. The brief list includes therefore the following bishops of Rome: Benedict V (964), Benedict IX (deposed in 1044, bribed to resign in 1045, and resigned in 1048), Gregory VI (1046), St Celestine (1294), Gregory XII (1415) and Benedict XVI (2013).
I. From Joseph Ratzinger to Pope Benedict XVI
Benedict XVI (18 April 1927 – 31 December 2022) was seven (7) years younger than his predecessor John Paul II (1920-2005), but passed away seventeen (17) years after the Polish pope's death; already on the 4th September 2020, Benedict XVI would have been declared as the oldest pope in history, had he not resigned seven (7) years earlier. Only Leo XIII died 93, back in 1903. As a matter of fact, Benedict XVI outlived all the people who were elected to the Roman See.
Benedict XVI's papacy lasted slightly less than eight (8) years (19 April 2005 – 28 February 2013). Before being elected as pope, Cardinal Ratzinger was for almost a quarter century (1981-2005) the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which was the formal continuation of the Office of the Holy Inquisition, and therefore one of the most important sections ('dicasteries'; from the Ancient Greek term 'dikasterion', i.e. 'court of law') of the Roman administration ('Curia').
A major step toward this position was his appointment as archbishop of Munich for four years (1977-1981); Bavaria has always been a Catholic heavyweight, and in this regard, it is easy to recall the earlier example of Eugenio Pacelli (the later pope Pius XII), who was nuncio to Bavaria (and therefore to the German Empire), in Munich, from 1917 to 1920, and then to Germany, before being elected to the Roman See (in 1939). Before having a meteoric rise in the Catholic hierarchy, Ratzinger made an excellent scholar and a distinct professor of dogmatic theology, while also being a priest. His philosophical dissertation was about St. Augustine and his habilitation concerned Bonaventure, a Franciscan scholastic theologian and cardinal of the 13th c.
II. The theoretical concerns of an intellectual Pope
During his ministry, very early, Benedict XVI stood up and showed his teeth; when I noticed his formidable outburst against the 'dictatorship of relativism', I realized that the German pope would be essentially superior to his Polish predecessor. Only in June 2005, so just two months after his election, he defined relativism as "the main obstacle to the task of education", directing a tremendous attack against the evilness of ego and portraying selfishness as a "self-limitation of reason".
In fact, there cannot be more devastating attack from a supreme religious authority against the evilness of Anglo-Zionism and the rotten, putrefied society that these criminals diffuse worldwide by means of infiltration, corruption, mendacity, and simulation. Soon afterwards, while speaking in Marienfeld (Cologne), Benedict XVI attacked ferociously all the pathetic ideologies which indiscriminately enslave humans from all spiritual and cultural backgrounds. He said: "absolutizing what is not absolute but relative is called totalitarianism". This is a detrimental rejection of Talmudic Judaism, Zohar Kabbalah, and Anglo-Zionism.
It was in the summer 2005 that I first realized that I should study closer the pre-papal past of the Roman Pontiff whom St Malachy's illustrious Prophecy of the Popes (12th c.) described as 'Gloria olivae' (the Glory of the olive). I contacted several friends in Germany, who extensively updated me as regards his academic publications, also dispatching to me some of them. At the time, I noticed that my Christian friends already used to question a certain number of Cardinal Ratzinger's positions.
But, contrarily to them, I personally found his prediction about the eventuality of Buddhism becoming the principal 'enemy' of the Catholic Church as quite plausible. My friends were absolutely astounded, and then I had to narrate and explain to them the deliberately concealed story of the Christian-Islamic-Confucian alliance against the Buddhist terrorism of the Dzungar Khanate (1634-1755); actually, it took many Kazakh-Dzungar wars (1643-1756), successive wars between Qing China and the Dzungar Khanate (1687-1757), and even an alliance with the Russian Empire in order to successfully oppose the ferocious Buddhist extremist threat.
Finally, the extraordinary ordeal of North Asia {a vast area comprising lands of today's Eastern Kazakhstan, Russia (Central Siberia), Northwestern and Western China (Eastern Turkestan/Xinjiang and Tibet) and Western Mongolia} ended up with the systematic genocide of the extremist Buddhist Dzungars (1755-1758) that the Chinese had to undertake because there was no other way to terminate once forever the most fanatic regime that ever existed in Asia.
Disoriented, ignorant, confused and gullible, most of the people today fail to clearly understand how easily Buddhism can turn a peaceful society into a fanatic realm of lunatic extremists. The hypothetically innocent adhesion of several fake Freemasonic lodges of the West to Buddhism and the seemingly harmless acceptance of Buddhist principles and values by these ignorant fools can end up in the formation of vicious and terrorist organizations that will give to their members and initiates the absurd order and task to indiscriminately kill all of their opponents. But Cardinal Ratzinger had prudently discerned the existence of a dangerous source of spiritual narcissism in Buddhism.
III. Benedict XVI: A Pope against violence and wars
To me, this foresight was a convincing proof that Benedict XVI was truly 'Gloria olivae'; but this would be troublesome news! In a period of proxy wars, unrestrained iniquity, and outrageous inhumanity, a perspicacious, cordial, and benevolent pope in Rome would surely be an encumbering person to many villainous rascals, i.e. the likes of Tony Blair, George W. Bush, Nicolas Sarkozy, and many others so-called 'leaders'. The reason for this assessment of the situation is simple: no one wants a powerful pacifier at a time more wars are planned.
At the time, it was ostensible to all that a fake confrontation between the world's Muslims and Christians was underway (notably after the notorious 9/11 events); for this reason, I expected Benedict XVI to make a rather benevolent statement that evil forces would immediately misinterpret, while also falsely accusing the pacifist Pope and absurdly turning the uneducated and ignorant mob of many countries against the Catholic Church.
This is the foolish plan of the Anglo-Zionist lobby, which has long served as puppets of the Jesuits, corrupting the entire Muslim world over the past 250 years by means of intellectual, educational, academic, scientific, cultural, economic, military and political colonialism. These idiotic puppets, which have no idea who their true and real masters are, imagine that, by creating an unprecedented havoc in Europe, they harm the worldwide interests of the Jesuits; but they fail to properly realize that this evil society, which early turned against Benedict XVI, has already shifted its focus onto China. Why the apostate Anglo-Zionist Freemasonic lodge would act in this manner against Benedict XVI is easy to assess; the Roman pontiff whose episcopal motto was 'Cooperatores Veritatis' ('Co-workers of the Truth') would apparently try to prevent the long-prepared fake war between the Muslims and the Christians.
IV. Manuel II Palaeologus and the Eastern Roman Empire between the Muslim Ottoman brethren and the Anti-Christian Roman enemies
And this is what truly happened in the middle of September 2006; on the 12th September, Benedict XVI delivered a lecture at the University of Regensburg in Germany; the title was 'Glaube, Vernunft und Universität – Erinnerungen und Reflexionen' ('Faith, Reason and the University – Memories and Reflections'). In the beginning of the lecture, Prof. Dr. Ratzinger eclipsed Pope Benedict XVI, as the one-time professor persisted on his concept of 'faith', "which theologians seek to correlate with reason as a whole", as he said. In a most rationalistic approach (for which he had been known for several decades as a renowned Catholic theologian), in an argumentation reflecting views certainly typical of Francis of Assisi and of Aristotle but emphatically alien to Jesus, Benedict XVI attempted to portray an ahistorical Christianity and to describe the Catholic faith as the religion of the Reason.
At an early point of the lecture, Benedict XVI referred to a discussion that the Eastern Roman Emperor Manuel II Palaeologus (or Palaiologos; Μανουήλ Παλαιολόγος; 1350-1425; reigned after 1391) had with an erudite Turkic scholar (indiscriminately but mistakenly called by all Eastern Roman authors at the time as 'Persian') most probably around the end of 1390 or the first months of 1391, when he was hostage at the Ottoman court of Bayezid I. In the historical text, it is stated that the location was 'Ancyra of Galatia' (i.e. Ankara).
This Eastern Roman Emperor was indeed a very controversial historical figure; although undeniably an erudite ruler, a bold diplomat, and a reputable soldier, he first made agreements with the Ottomans and delivered to them the last Eastern Roman city in Anatolia (Philadelphia; today's Alaşehir, ca. 140 km east of Izmir / Smyrna) and then, after he took control of his ailing kingdom thanks to the sultan, he escaped the protracted siege of Constantinople (1391-1402) only to travel to various Western European kingdoms and ask the help of those rather reluctant monarchs (1399-1403).
At the time, all the Christian Orthodox populations, either living in the Ottoman sultanate or residing in the declined Eastern Roman Empire, were deeply divided into two groups, namely those who preferred to be ruled by Muslims (because they rejected the pseudo-Christian fallacy, evilness and iniquity of the Roman pope) and the fervent supporters of a Latin (: Western European) control over Constantinople (viewed as the only way for them to prevent the Ottoman rule); the former formed the majority and were called Anthenotikoi, i.e. 'against the union' (: of the Orthodox Church with the Catholics), whereas the latter constituted a minority group and were named 'Enotikoi' ('those in favor of the union of the two churches').
V. The unknown (?) Turkic mystic interlocutor and the Islamic centers of science and reason that Benedict XVI ignored
Manuel II Palaeologus' text has little theological value in itself; however, its historical value is great. It reveals how weak both interlocutors were at the intellectual, cultural and spiritual levels, how little they knew one another, and how poorly informed they were about their own and their interlocutor's past, heritage, religion and spirituality. If we have even a brief look at it, we will immediately realize that the level is far lower than that attested during similar encounters in 8th- 9th c. Baghdad, 10th c. Umayyad Andalusia, Fatimid Cairo, 13th c. Maragheh (where the world's leading observatory was built) or 14th c. Samarqand, the Timurid capital.
It was absolutely clear at the time of Manuel II Palaeologus and Bayezid I that neither Constantinople nor Bursa (Προύσα / Prousa; not anymore the Ottoman capital after 1363, but still the most important city of the sultanate) could compete with the great centers of Islamic science civilization which were located in Iran and Central Asia. That's why Gregory Chioniades, the illustrious Eastern Roman bishop, astronomer, and erudite scholar who was the head of the Orthodox diocese of Tabriz, studied in Maragheh under the guidance of his tutor and mentor, Shamsaddin al Bukhari (one of the most illustrious students of Nasir el-Din al Tusi, who was the founder of the Maragheh Observatory), before building an observatory in Trabzon (Trebizond) and becoming the teacher of Manuel Bryennios, another famous Eastern Roman scholar.
The text of the Dialogues must have been written several years after the conversation took place, most probably when the traveling emperor and diplomat spent four years in Western Europe. For reasons unknown to us, the erudite emperor did not mention the name of his interlocutor, although this was certainly known to him; if we take into consideration that he was traveling to other kingdoms, we can somehow guess a plausible reason. His courtiers and royal scribes may have translated the text partly into Latin and given copies of the 'dialogues' to various kings, marshals, chroniclers, and other dignitaries. If this was the case, the traveling emperor would not probably want to offer insights into the Ottoman court and the influential religious authorities around the sultan.
Alternatively, the 'unknown' interlocutor may well have been Amir Sultan (born as Mohamed bin Ali; also known as Shamsuddin Al-Bukhari; 1368-1429) himself, i.e. none else than an important Turanian mystic from Vobkent (near Bukhara in today's Uzbekistan), who got married with Bayezid I's daughter Hundi Fatema Sultan Hatun. Amir Sultan had advised the sultan not to turn against Timur; had the foolish sultan heeded to his son-in-law's wise advice, he would not have been defeated so shamefully.
Benedict XVI made a very biased use of the historical text; he selected an excerpt of Manuel II Palaeologus' response to his interlocutor in order to differentiate between Christianity as the religion of Reason and Islam as the religion of Violence. Even worse, he referred to a controversial, biased and rancorous historian of Lebanese origin, the notorious Prof. Theodore Khoury (born in 1930), who spent his useless life to write sophisticated diatribes, mildly formulated forgeries, and deliberate distortions of the historical truth in order to satisfy his rancor and depict the historical past according to his absurd political analysis. Almost every sentence written Prof. Khoury about the Eastern Roman Empire and the Islamic Caliphate is maliciously false.
All the same, it was certainly Benedict XVI's absolute right to be academically, intellectually and historically wrong. The main problem was that the paranoid reaction against him was not expressed at the academic and intellectual levels, but at the profane ground of international politics. Even worse, it was not started by Muslims but by the criminal Anglo-Zionist mafia and the disreputable mainstream mass media, the likes of the BBC, Al Jazeera (Qatari is only the façade of it), etc.
I will now republish (in bold and italics) a sizeable (600-word) excerpt of the papal lecture that contains the contentious excerpt, also adding the notes to the text. The link to the Vatican's website page is available below. I will comment first on the lecture and the selected part of Manuel II Palaeologus' text and then on the absurd Muslim reaction.
VI. Excerpt from Benedict XVI's lecture given on the 12th September at the University of Regensburg under title 'Faith, Reason and the University–Memories and Reflections'
I was reminded of all this recently, when I read the edition by Professor Theodore Khoury (Münster) of part of the dialogue carried on - perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara - by the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both.[1] It was presumably the emperor himself who set down this dialogue, during the siege of Constantinople between 1394 and 1402; and this would explain why his arguments are given in greater detail than those of his Persian interlocutor.[2] The dialogue ranges widely over the structures of faith contained in the Bible and in the Qur'an, and deals especially with the image of God and of man, while necessarily returning repeatedly to the relationship between - as they were called - three "Laws" or "rules of life": the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Qur'an. It is not my intention to discuss this question in the present lecture; here I would like to discuss only one point - itself rather marginal to the dialogue as a whole - which, in the context of the issue of "faith and reason", I found interesting and which can serve as the starting-point for my reflections on this issue.
In the seventh conversation (διάλεξις - controversy) edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion". According to some of the experts, this is probably one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur'an, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels", he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness, a brusqueness that we find unacceptable, on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”[3] The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God", he says, "is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably (σὺν λόγω) is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death...".[4]
The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature.[5] The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality.[6] Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazm went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God's will, we would even have to practice idolatry.[7]
Notes 1 to 7 (out of 13)
[1] Of the total number of 26 conversations (διάλεξις – Khoury translates this as “controversy”) in the dialogue (“Entretien”), T. Khoury published the 7th “controversy” with footnotes and an extensive introduction on the origin of the text, on the manuscript tradition and on the structure of the dialogue, together with brief summaries of the “controversies” not included in the edition; the Greek text is accompanied by a French translation: “Manuel II Paléologue, Entretiens avec un Musulman. 7e Controverse”, Sources Chrétiennes n. 115, Paris 1966. In the meantime, Karl Förstel published in Corpus Islamico-Christianum (Series Graeca ed. A. T. Khoury and R. Glei) an edition of the text in Greek and German with commentary: “Manuel II. Palaiologus, Dialoge mit einem Muslim”, 3 vols., Würzburg-Altenberge 1993-1996. As early as 1966, E. Trapp had published the Greek text with an introduction as vol. II of Wiener byzantinische Studien. I shall be quoting from Khoury’s edition.
[2] On the origin and redaction of the dialogue, cf. Khoury, pp. 22-29; extensive comments in this regard can also be found in the editions of Förstel and Trapp.
[3] Controversy VII, 2 c: Khoury, pp. 142-143; Förstel, vol. I, VII. Dialog 1.5, pp. 240-241. In the Muslim world, this quotation has unfortunately been taken as an expression of my personal position, thus arousing understandable indignation. I hope that the reader of my text can see immediately that this sentence does not express my personal view of the Qur’an, for which I have the respect due to the holy book of a great religion. In quoting the text of the Emperor Manuel II, I intended solely to draw out the essential relationship between faith and reason. On this point I am in agreement with Manuel II, but without endorsing his polemic.
[4] Controversy VII, 3 b–c: Khoury, pp. 144-145; Förstel vol. I, VII. Dialog 1.6, pp. 240-243.
[5] It was purely for the sake of this statement that I quoted the dialogue between Manuel and his Persian interlocutor. In this statement the theme of my subsequent reflections emerges.
[6] Cf. Khoury, p. 144, n. 1.
[7] R. Arnaldez, Grammaire et théologie chez Ibn Hazm de Cordoue, Paris 1956, p. 13; cf. Khoury, p. 144. The fact that comparable positions exist in the theology of the late Middle Ages will appear later in my discourse.
VII. The problems of the academic-theological background of Benedict XVI's lecture
It is my conviction that Benedict XVI fell victim to the quite typical theological assumptions that Prof. Dr. Ratzinger had studied and taught for decades. However, the problem is not limited to the circle of the faculties of Theology and to Christian Theology as a modern discipline; it is far wider. The same troublesome situation permeates all the disciplines of Humanities and, even worse, the quasi-totality of the modern sciences as they started in Renaissance. The problem goes well beyond the limits of academic research and intellectual consideration; it has to do with the degenerate, rotten and useless mental abilities and capacities of the Western so-called scholars, researchers and academics. The description of the problem is rather brief, but its nature is truly ominous.
Instead of perceiving, understanding, analyzing and representing the 'Other' in its own terms, conditions and essence and as per its own values, virtues and world conceptualization, the modern Western European scholars, researchers, explorers and specialists view, perceive, attempt to understand, and seek to analyze the 'Other' in their own terms, conditions and essence and as per their own values, virtues and world conceptualization. Due to this sick effort and unprecedented aberration, the Western so-called scholars and researchers view the 'Other' through their eyes, thus projecting onto the 'Other' their view of it. Consequently, they do not and actually they cannot learn it, let alone know, understand and represent it. Their attitude is inane, autistic and degenerate. It is however quite interesting and truly bizarre that the Western European natural scientists do not proceed in this manner, but fully assess the condition of the object of their study in a rather objective manner.
In fact, the Western disciplines of the Humanities, despite the enormous collection and publication of study materials, sources and overall documentation, are a useless distortion. Considered objectively, the Western scientific endeavor in its entirety is a monumental nothingness; it is not only a preconceived conclusion. It is a resolute determination not to 'see' the 'Other' as it truly exists, as its constituent parts obviously encapsulate its contents, and as the available documentation reveals it. In other words, it consists in a premeditated and resolute rejection of the Truth; it is intellectually barren, morally evil, and spiritually nihilist. The topic obviously exceeds by far the limits of the present obituary, but I had to mention it in order to offer the proper context.
It is therefore difficult to identify the real reason for the magnitude of the Western scholarly endeavor, since the conclusions existed in the minds of the explorers and the academics already before the documentation was gathered, analyzed, studied, and represented. How important is it therefore to publish the unpublished material (totaling more than 100000 manuscripts of Islamic times and more than one million of cuneiform tablets from Ancient Mesopotamia, Iran, Canaan and Anatolia – only to give an idea to the non-specialized readers), if the evil Western scholars and the gullible foreign students enrolled in Western institutions (to the detriment of their own countries and nations) are going to repeat and reproduce the same absurd Western mentality of viewing an Ancient Sumerian, an Ancient Assyrian, an Ancient Egyptian or a Muslim author through their own eyes and of projecting onto the ancient author the invalid and useless measures, values, terms and world views of the modern Western world?
As it can be easily understood, the problem is not with Christian Theology, but with all the disciplines of the Humanities. So, the problem is not only that a great Muslim scholar and erudite mystic like Ibn Hazm was viewed by Benedict XVI and Western theologians through the distorting lenses of their 'science', being not evaluated as per the correct measures, values and terms of his own Islamic environment, background and civilization. The same problem appears in an even worse form, when Ancient Egyptian, Sumerian, Assyrian-Babylonian, Hittite, Iranian and other high priests, spiritual masters, transcendental potentates, sacerdotal writers, and unequaled scientists are again evaluated as per the invalid and useless criteria of Benedict XVI, of all the Western theologians, and of all the modern European and American academics.
What post-Renaissance popes, theologians, academics, scholars and intellectuals fail to understand is very simple; their 'world' ( i.e. the world of the Western Intellect and Science, which was first fabricated in the 15th and the 16th c. and later enhanced progressively down to our days) in not Christian, is not human, and is not real. It is their own delusion, their own invalid abstraction, their abject paranoia, and their own sin for which first they will atrociously disappear from the surface of the Earth (like every anomalous entity) and then flagrantly perish in Hell.
Their dangling system does not hold; they produced it in blood and in blood it will end. Modern sciences constitute a counter-productive endeavor and an aberration that will terminally absorb the entire world into the absolute nothingness, because these evil systems were instituted out of arbitrary bogus-interpretations of the past, peremptory self-identification, deliberate and prejudicial ignorance, as well as an unprecedented ulcerous hatred of the 'Other', i.e. of every 'Other'.
The foolish Western European academic-intellectual establishment failed to realize that it is absolutely preposterous to extrapolate later and corrupt standards to earlier and superior civilizations; in fact, it is impossible. By trying to do it, you depart from the real world only to live in your delusion, which sooner or later will inevitably have a tragic end. Consequently, the Western European scholars' 'classics' are not classics; their reason is an obsession; their language and jargon are hallucinatory, whereas their notions are conjectural. Their abstract concepts are the manifestation of Non-Being.
VIII. Benedict XVI's biased approach, theological mistakes, intellectual oversights and historical misinterpretations
Benedict XVI's understanding of the Eastern Roman Empire was fictional. When examining the sources, he retained what he liked, what pleased him, and what was beneficial to his preconceived ideas and thoughts. In fact, Prof. Dr. Papst did not truly understand what Manuel II Palaeologus said to his Turkic interlocutor, and even worse, he failed to assess the enormous distance that separated the early 15th c. Eastern Roman (not 'Byzantine': this is a fake appellation too) Emperor from his illustrious predecessors before 800 or 900 years (the likes of Heraclius and Justinian I) in terms of Christian Roman imperial ideology, theological acumen, jurisprudential perspicacity, intellectual resourcefulness, and spiritual forcefulness. Benedict XVI did not want to accept that with time the Christian doctrine, theology and spirituality had weakened.
What was Ratzinger's mistake? First, he erroneously viewed Manuel II Palaeologus as 'his' (as identical with the papal doctrine), by projecting his modern Catholic mindset and convictions onto the Christian Orthodox Eastern Roman Emperor's mind, mentality and faith. He took the 'Dialogues' at face value whereas the text may have been written not as a declaration of faith but as a diplomatic document in order to convince the rather uneducated Western European monarchs that the traveling 'basileus' (βασιλεύς) visited during the period 1399-1403.
Second, he distorted the 'dialogue', presenting it in a polarized form. Benedict XVI actually depicted a fraternal conversation as a frontal opposition; unfortunately, there is nothing in the historical text to insinuate this possibility. As I already said, it is quite possible that the moderate, wise, but desperate Eastern Roman Emperor may have discussed with someone married to a female descendant of the great mystic Jalal al-Din Rumi (namely Bayezid's son-in-law, adviser and mystic Emir Sultan). Why on Earth did the renowned theologian Ratzinger attempt to stage manage a theological conflict in the place of a most peaceful, friendly and fraternal exchange of ideas?
This is easy to explain; it has to do with the absolutely Manichaean structure of thought that was first diffused among the Western Fathers of the Christian Church by St Augustine (in the early 5th c.). As method of theological argumentation, it was first effectively contained, and it remained rather marginal within the Roman Church as long as the practice introduced by Justinian I (537) lasted (until 752) and all the popes of Rome had to be selected and approved personally by the Eastern Roman Emperor. After this moment and, more particularly, after the two Schisms (867 and 1054), the Manichaean system of thinking prevailed in Rome; finally, it culminated after the Renaissance.
Third, Benedict XVI tried to depict the early 15th c. erudite interlocutor of the then hostage Manuel II Palaeologus as a modern Muslim and a Jihadist. This is the repetition of the same mistakes that he made as regards the intellectual Eastern Roman Emperor. In other words, he projected onto the 'unknown', 15th c. Muslim mystic his own personal view of an Islamist or Islamic fundamentalist. Similarly, by bulldozing time in order to impose his wrong perception of Islam, he fully misled the audience. As a matter of fact, Islam constitutes a vast universe that Prof. Dr. Papst never studied, never understood, and never fathomed in its true dimensions.
In fact, as it happened in the case of the Eastern Roman Emperor, his interlocutor was intellectually weaker and spiritually lower than the great figures of Islamic spirituality, science, wisdom, literature and intuition, the likes of Nasir al-Din al-Tusi, Al Qurtubi, Mohyi el-Din Ibn Arabi, Ahmed Yasawi, Al Biruni, Ferdowsi, Al Farabi, Tabari, etc., who preceded him by 150 to 500 years. But Benedict XVI did not want to accept that with time the Islamic doctrine, theology and spirituality had weakened.
The reason for this distortion is easy to grasp; the Manichaean system of thinking needs terminal, crystallized forms of items that do not change; then, it is convenient for the Western European abusers of the Manichaean spirit to fully implement the deceitful setting of fake contrasts and false dilemmas. But the 15th c. decayed Eastern Roman Orthodoxy and decadent Islam are real historical entities that enable every explorer to encounter the multitude of forms, the ups and downs, the evolution of cults, the transformation of faiths, and the gradual loss of the initially genuine Moral and vibrant Spirituality. This reality is very embarrassing to those who want to teach their unfortunate students on a calamitous black & white background (or floor).
All the books and articles of his friend, Prof. Theodore Khoury, proved to be totally useless and worthless for the Catholic theologian Ratzinger, exactly because the Lebanese specialist never wrote a sentence in order to truly represent the historical truth about Islam, but he always elaborated his texts in a way to justify and confirm his preconceived ideas. Prof. Khoury's Islam is a delusional entity, something like the artificial humans of our times. Unfortunately, not one Western Islamologist realized that Islam, at the antipodes of the Roman Catholic doctrine, has an extremely limited dogmatic part, a minimal cult, and no heresies. Any opposite opinion belongs to liars, forgers and falsifiers. As a matter of fact, today's distorted representation of Islam is simply the result of Western colonialism. All over the world, whatever people hear or believe about the religion preached by Prophet Muhammad is not the true, historical, religion of Islam, but the colonially, academically-intellectually, produced Christianization of Islam.
Fourth, in striking contrast to what the theologian Ratzinger pretended through use of this example or case study (i.e. the 'discussion'), if Benedict XVI shifted his focus to the East, he would find Maragheh in NW Iran (Iranian Azerbaijan) and Samarqand in Central Asia. In those locations (and always for the period concerned), he would certainly find great centers of learning, universities, vast libraries, and enormous observatories, which could make every 15th c. Western European astronomer and mathematician dream. But there he would also find, as I already said, many Muslim, Christian, Buddhist and other scholars working one next to the other without caring about their religious (theological) differences. This situation is very well known to modern Western scholarship, but they viciously and criminally try to permanently conceal it.
This situation was due to the cultural, intellectual, academic, mental and spiritual unity that prevailed among all those erudite scholars. Numerous Western European scholars have published much about Nasir el-Din al Tusi (about whom I already spoke briefly) and also about Ulugh Beg, the world's greatest astronomer of his time (middle of the 15th c.), who was the grandson of Timur (Tamerlane) and, at the same time, the World History's most erudite emperor of the last 2500 years. However, post-Renaissance Catholic sectarianism and Western European/North American racism prevented the German pope from being truthful at least once, and also from choosing the right paradigm.
IX. The lecture's most controversial point
Fifth, if we now go straight to the lecture's most controversial point and to the quotation's most fascinating sentence, we will find the question addressed by Manuel II Palaeologus to his erudite Turkic interlocutor; actually, it is rather an exclamation:
- «Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached»!
This interesting excerpt provides indeed the complete confirmation of my earlier assessments as regards the intellectual decay of both, Christian Orthodoxy and Islam, at the time. Apparently, it was not theological acumen what both interlocutors were lacking at the time; it was historical knowledge. Furthermore, historical continuity, religious consciousness, and moral command were also absent in the discussion.
The first series of points that Manuel II Palaeologus' Muslim interlocutor could have made answering the aforementioned statement would be that Prophet Muhammad, before his death, summoned Ali ibn Abu Taleb and asked him to promise that he would never diffuse the true faith by undertaking wars; furthermore, Islam was diffused peacefully in many lands outside Arabia (Hejaz), notably Yemen, Oman, Somalia, and the Eastern Coast of Africa. In addition, there were many Muslims, who rejected the absurd idea of the Islamic conquests launched by Umar ibn al-Khattab and actually did not participate.
We have also to take into consideration the fact that, in spite of the undeniable reality of the early spread of Islam through invasions, there has always been well-known and sufficient documentation to clearly prove that the Aramaeans of Mesopotamia, Syria and Palestine, the Copts of Egypt, and the Berbers of Africa, although fully preserving their Christian faith, preferred to live under the rule of the Caliphates and overwhelmingly rejected the Eastern Roman imperial administration, because they had been long persecuted by the Constantinopolitan guards due to their Miaphysite (Monophysitic) and/or Nestorian faiths.
On another note, the Eastern Roman Emperor's Muslim interlocutor could have questioned the overall approach of Manuel II Palaeologus to the topic. In other words, he could have expressed the following objection:
- «What is it good for someone to pretend that he is a follower of Jesus and evoke his mildness, while at the same time violently imposing by the sword the faith that Jesus preached? And what is it more evil and more inhuman than the imposition of a faith in Jesus' name within the Roman Empire, after so much bloodshed and persecution took place and so many wars were undertaken»?
Last, one must admit that the sentence «Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new!» would have been easily answered by an earlier Muslim mystic of the Golden Era of Islam. Actually, this statement is islamically correct and pertinent. The apparent absence of a spectacular response from the part of Manuel II Palaeologus' Muslim interlocutor rather generates doubts as regards the true nature of the text. This is so because he could have immediately replied to Bayezid I's hostage that not one prophet or messenger was sent by God with the purpose of 'bringing something new'; in fact, all the prophets from Noah to Jonah, from Abraham to Jonah, from Moses to Muhammad, and from Adam to Jesus were dispatched in order to deliver the same message to the humans, namely to return to the correct path and live according to the Will of God.
Related to this point is the following well-known verse of the Quran (ch. 3 - Al Imran, 67): "Abraham was neither a Jew nor a Christian but he was (an) upright (man), a Muslim, and he was not one of the polytheists". It is therefore odd that a response in this regard is missing at this point.
It is also strange that, at a time of major divisions within Christianity and more particularly among the Christian Orthodox Eastern Romans, the 'unknown' imperial interlocutor did not mention the existing divisions among Christians as already stated very clearly, explicitly and repeatedly in the Quran. Examples:
"You are the best community ever raised for humanity—you encourage good, forbid evil, and believe in Allah. Had the People of the Book believed, it would have been better for them. Some of them are faithful, but most are rebellious". (ch. 3 - Al Imran, 110)
"Yet they are not all alike: there are some among the People of the Book who are upright, who recite Allah’s revelations throughout the night, prostrating in prayer".
(ch. 3 - Al Imran, 113):
To conclude I would add that elementary knowledge of Roman History, Late Antiquity, and Patristic Philology would be enough for Benedict XVI to know that
- in its effort to impose Christianity on the Roman Empire,
- in its determination to fully eradicate earlier religions, opposite religious sects like the Gnostics, and theological 'heresies' like Arianism,
- in its resolve to exterminate other Christian Churches such as the Nestorians and the Miaphysites (Monophysites),
- in its obsession to uproot Christian theological doctrines like Iconoclasm and Paulicianism, and
- in its witch hunt against Manichaeism, …
… the 'official' Roman and Constantinopolitan churches committed innumerable crimes and killed a far greater number of victims than those massacred by Muslim invaders on several occurrences during the early Islamic conquests.
So, when did the Christian Church encounter Reason and when did it cease to be 'unreasonable' according to the theologian Pope Ratzinger?
One must be very sarcastic to duly respond to those questions: most probably, the Roman Church discovered 'Reason' after having killed all of their opponents and the so-called 'heretics' whose sole sin was simply to consider and denounce the Roman Church as heretic!
If Benedict XVI forgot to find in the Quran the reason for the Turkic interlocutor's mild attitude toward the hostage Manuel II Palaeologus, this is a serious oversight for the professor of theology; he should have mentioned the excerpts. In the surah al-Ankabut ('the Spider'; ch. 29, verse 46), it is stated: "And do not argue with the followers of earlier revelation otherwise than in a most kindly manner".
Similarly, the German pope failed to delve in Assyriology and in Egyptology to better understand that the Hebrew Bible (just like the New Testament and the Quran) did not bring anything 'new' either; before Moses in Egypt and before Abraham in Mesopotamia, there were monotheistic and aniconic trends and traits in the respective religions. The concept of the Messiah is attested in Egypt, in Assyria, and among the Hittites many centuries or rather more than a millennium before Isaiah contextualized it within the small Hebrew kingdom. Both Egypt and Babylon were holy lands long before Moses promised South Canaan to the Ancient Hebrew tribes, whereas the Assyrians were the historically first Chosen People of the Only God and the Assyrian imperial ideology reflected this fact in detail. The Akkadian - Assyrian-Babylonian kings were 'emperors of the universe' and their rule reflected the 'kingdom of Heaven'.
If Etana and Ninurta reveal aspects of Assyrian eschatology, Horus was clearly the Egyptian Messiah, who would ultimately vanquish Seth (Satan/Antichrist) at the End of Time in an unprecedented cosmic battle that would usher the mankind into a new era which would be the reconstitution of the originally ideal world and Well-Being (Wser), i.e. Osiris. There is no Cosmogony without Eschatology or Soteriology, and nothing was invented and envisioned by the Hebrews, the Greeks and the Romans that had not previously been better and more solemnly formulated among the Sumerians, the Akkadians - Assyrian-Babylonians, and the Egyptians. There is no such thing as 'Greco-Roman' or 'Greco-Christian' or' Greco-Judaic' civilization. Both, Islam and Christianity are the children of Mesopotamia and Egypt.
And this concludes the case of today's Catholic theologians, i.e. the likes of Pope Benedict XVI or Theodore Khoury; they have to restart from scratch in order to duly assess the origins and the nature of Christianity before the serpent casts "forth out of his mouth water as a river after the woman, that he may cause her to be carried away by the river". All the same, it was certainly Prof. Ratzinger's full right to make as many mistakes as he wanted and to distort any textual reference he happened to mention.
X. The educational-academic-intellectual misery and the political ordeal of today's Muslim states
Quite contrarily, it was not the right of those who accused him of doing so, because they expanded rather at the political and not at the academic level; this was very hypocritical and shameful. If these politicians, statesmen and diplomats dared speak at the academic level, they would reveal their own ignorance, obscurantism, obsolete educational system, miserable universities, nonexistent intellectual life, and last but not least, disreputable scientific institutions.
The reason for this is simple: not one Muslim country has properly organized departments and faculties endowed with experts capable of reading historical sources in the original texts and specializing in the History of the Eastern Roman Empire, Orthodox Christianity, Christological disputes and Patristic Literature. If a Muslim country had an educational, academic and intellectual establishment similar to that of Spain or Poland, there would surely be serious academic-level objection to Benedict XVI's lecture. It would take a series of articles to reveal, refute and utterly denounce (not just the mistakes and the oversights but) the distorted approach which is not proper only to the defunct Pope Emeritus but to the entire Western academic establishment; these people would however be academics and intellectuals of a certain caliber. Unfortunately, such specialists do not exist in any Muslim country.
Then, the unrepresentative criminal crooks and gangsters, who rule all the countries of the Muslim world, reacted against Pope Benedict XVI at a very low, political level about a topic that was not political of nature and about which they knew absolutely nothing. In this manner, they humiliated all the Muslims, defamed Islam, ridiculed their own countries, and revealed that they rule failed states. Even worse, they made it very clear that they are the disreputable puppets of their colonial masters, who have systematically forced all the Muslim countries to exactly accept as theirs the fallacy that the Western Orientalists have produced and projected onto them (and in this case, the entirely fake representation of Islam that theologians like Ratzinger, Khoury and many others have fabricated).
If Ratzinger gave this lecture, this is also due to the fact that he knew that he would not face any academic or intellectual level opposition from the concerned countries. This is so because all the execrable puppets, who govern the Muslim world, were put in place by the representatives of the colonial powers. They do not defend their local interests but execute specific orders in order not to allow
- bold explorers, dynamic professors, and impulsive intellectuals to take the lead,
- proper secular education, unbiased scientific methodology, intellectual self-criticism, free judgment, and thinking out of the box to grow,
- faculties and research centers to be established as per the norms of educationally advanced states, and
- intellectual anti-colonial pioneers and anti-Western scholars to demolish the racist Greco-centric dogma that post-Renaissance European universities have intentionally diffused worldwide.
That is why for a Muslim today in Prof. Ratzinger's lecture the real problem is not his approach or his mistake, but the impermissible bogus academic life and pseudo-educational system of all the Muslim countries. In fact, before fully transforming and duly enhancing their educational and academic systems, Muslim heads of states, prime ministers, ministers and ambassadors have no right to speak. They must first go back to their countries and abolish the darkness of their ridiculous universities; their so-called professors are not professors.
Here you have all the articles that I published at the time in favor of Benedict XVI; the first article was published on the 16th September 2006, only four days after the notorious lecture and only one day after the notorious BBC report, which called the Muslim ambassadors to shout loud:
-----------------------------
Download the obituary in PDF:
Votive tablet depicting Shamash, the sun-god of Sippar, seated in his shrine with the Babylonian king Nebopaliddin being led into the God's presence by two figures. Babylonian art, 9th century BC.
Learn more https://www.archaeologs.com/w/sippar/
More on the remarkable art in the caves of Dunhuang, China:
As a border town, Dunhuang, China was the site of conflict between China and its neighbors, and these events are commemorated in some of the caves. Here, for example, is a depiction of a Chinese army taking Dunhuang back from the Tibetan kingdom in the middle of the 800s CE.
{WHF} {Ko-Fi} {Medium}
King Lear performed in the fire-damaged ruins of Teatro Municipal de Lima (c. 1999), conceived by architect Luis de Longhi
~ Clay bulla with impression of a stamp seal depicting the Persian king spearing a Greek hoplite.
Place of origin: Near Eastern, Iranian
Culture: Persian
Period: Achaemenid
Date: 550–331 B.C.
Medium: Clay
Το Ιράν των Αγιατολάχ: ένα Μασωνικό Παρασκεύασμα - αποκαλύπτει ο Έλληνας Ιρανολόγος καθ. Μουχάμαντ Σαμσαντίν Μεγαλομμάτης
Ayatollahs' Iran: A Freemasonic Fabrication, reveals the Greek Iranologist Prof. Mohammad Samsaddin Megalommatis
ΑΝΑΔΗΜΟΣΙΕΥΣΗ ΑΠΟ ΤΟ ΣΗΜΕΡΑ ΑΝΕΝΕΡΓΟ ΜΠΛΟΓΚ “ΟΙ ΡΩΜΙΟΙ ΤΗΣ ΑΝΑΤΟΛΗΣ”
Το κείμενο του κ. Νίκου Μπαϋρακτάρη είχε αρχικά δημοσιευθεί την 27η Σεπτεμβρίου 2018.
----------------------------
https://greeksoftheorient.wordpress.com/2018/09/27/το-ιράν-των-αγιατολάχ-ένα-μασωνικό-παρ/ =============================
Οι Ρωμιοί της Ανατολής – Greeks of the Orient
Ρωμιοσύνη, Ρωμανία, Ανατολική Ρωμαϊκή Αυτοκρατορία
Αναδημοσιεύω εδώ ένα εντυπωσιακό άρθρο του Έλληνα ανατολιστή ιστορικού και πολιτικού επιστήμονα, καθ. Μουχάμαντ Σαμσαντίν Μεγαλομμάτη, ο οποίος διαλύει πολλούς μύθους που υπάρχουν στην κοινή γνώμη σχετικά με το Ιράν ως τάχα ‘αντίπαλο’ της δυτικής Νέας Τάξης Πραγμάτων.
Αρχικά δημοσιευμένο το 2007, το ανατρεπτικό άρθρο αναδημοσιεύθηκε σε πολλά ιρανικά πόρταλς της Διασποράς επειδή οι Ιρανοί κατάλαβαν εύκολα το τι έλεγε για την χώρα τους ο εξαίρετος Έλληνας ιρανολόγος, ο οποίος έχει μελετήσει την ιστορία του Ιράν και έχει περιπλανηθεί στην χώρα εκείνη όσο ελάχιστοι άλλοι ειδικοί.
Ayatollahs’ Iran: a Nationalistic Theocracy as Freemasonic Machination
By M. Shamsaddin Megalommatis
Saturday 22 December 2007
http://www.fravahr.org/spip.php?article411
and https://www.academia.edu/24267250/Ayatollahs_Iran_a_Nationalistic_Theocracy_as_Freemasonic_Machination
======================
The current theocratic and utterly unrepresentative regime of Iran was not the choice of the peoples and nations of Iran. The events that triggered the fall of Shah and the return of Ayatollah Khomeini were all machinated by an Apostate Freemasonic Lodge that controls part of the French and the English establishments and through them part of the American establishment.
The danger that the late Shah of Iran represented for their eschatological plans was absolutely tremendous. This does not imply that they intended to help establish a pseudo-Shia theocracy in Iran; simply they were not able to completely control the developments. As a matter of fact, the late Shah intended to modernize, industrialize and westernize Iran in the 70s; one could compare his attempt to that of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk in Turkey, 50 years earlier.
A strong Iran next to a strong Turkey is enough to make the Anglo-French colonial establishments spend years without an easy sleep. Although this would look good for Western geo-political and geo-strategic interests, particularly in containing Tsarist Russia / USSR / Putin’s oligarchy, in real terms of Western Freemasonic conspiracy in the Middle East it is abominable because it would hinder all Freemasonic plans and projects for the Middle East, the area of their primary concern par excellence.
Mossadegh received by Truman
Mossadegh was a Freemason Islamist. His supporters became later the supporters of Khomeyni and founders of the Islamic regime.
It sounds awkward but it is absolutely real: the late Shah of Iran tried with a delay of 17 years (as of 1970) to implement the basic concepts of the Iranian nationalistic policies of Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh, a great Iranian statesman whom the Freemasonic mass media of the West did their ingenious best to defame and ridicule, while falsely portraying him as … related to the Iranian Communist party!
[In fact, Mohamad Mossadegh was himself a Freemason and an Islamist. His so-called nationalism was no more than an International-Islamism inspired by Freemasonry — Fravahr]
When Madeleine Albright, decades later, admitted that the Eisenhower administration was involved in the Operation Ajax that ended with the Mossadegh’s removal, she did not state any other reason except geopolitical considerations. In fact, these considerations were Freemasonic eschatological approaches to the Middle East, covered by English economic interests, and involved volumes of falsified information produced in order to mislead the gullible and deeply unaware American establishment — through use of pro-English agents who were active in Washington D.C.
The Shah himself must have felt in the early and mid 70s how right Mohammed Mossadegh was. In his last days in Tehran, the Shah must have also remembered his father’s last days in the throne, when in September 1941 the English had forced him to abdicate in favour of his young son, as they could not accept Iran’s neutrality in WW II.
The Freemasonic anti-Iranian conspiracy played on the Iranian peoples’ feelings against the Shah, and involved the return of Ayatollah Khomeini who had spent some months in France. In fact, the Apostate Freemasonic Lodge pushed to the political forefront Iranians who had already lived and studied in France where they had become Freemasons, like Mehdi Bazargan, Khomeini’s first Prime Minister, and Abolhassan Banisadr, the first Iranian President.
They were joined in their effort to canalize the Iranian Revolution by Sadegh Ghotbzadeh, who had studied in America, and had travelled with Ayatollah Khomeini from Paris to Tehran on February 1st 1979 to become later Foreign Minister (after Banisadr) and then be arrested and executed (September 1982) as betrayed by President George H. W. Bush. After 1983, Freemasonic influence on Iranian policies has been indirect.
Indirect manipulation involves the mental, spiritual, philosophical, ideological, and therefore political engulfment of the targeted establishment into erroneous perception of the present realities and the future targets of the Apostate Freemasonic Lodge within a context that can be rather parallelized with an iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma.
Shia Eschatology in contrast with Freemasonic Messianism
Worship of Isis
Freemasonic ritual as on the walls of the Isiac Freemasonic Lodge (Temple of Isis) at Pompeii
The worship of Isis is depicted in this wall-painting from Herculaneum. The high priest stands at the entrance to the temple and looks down on the ceremony beneath him, which is supervised by priests with shaven heads. In the case of the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the Freemasonic establishment’s arsenal reaches its limits. Drawing from a late Sassanid Zervanism that survived within Shia Islam since the early days of the Islamic conquest of Iran (636: Sassanid defeat at Qadisiyah, 641 Sassanid defeat at Nihavent, 651: arrival of Islamic armies at Merv in Central Asia), Shia Eschatology revolves around the prevalence of Time as determinant element in the Mystic History of the Mankind; this is utterly alien to Western Freemasonic dogmas and doctrines that draw from Late Antiquity’s Gnosticisms, Hermetism, and Messianic Isidism.
With Khomeini’s doctrine based on the termination of the Ghaybah (“Occultation”) of the Shia Islamic Twelfth Imam (the Shia version of the Messiah) by means of the Islamic Republic of Iran, we reach one step closer to what is called in Islam Al Yom al Ahar (“the End of Time”).
Despite the fact that Iran and most of the Islamic World are engulfed in ignorance and confusion due to the academic systems that Freemasonic Europe produced to facilitate the advent of the Freemasonic Messianic, namely the Hellenism, the Orientalism, the Pan-Arabism, and the (Sunni) Islamism, the Shia establishment of Iran, sticking to the completion of the work initiated by Ayatollah Khomeini, have little chance to be misguided and deceived.
Contrarily to the Freemasonic concept of a Horus — Messiah, creation of Isis (as Freemasonry is symbolized within the Freemasonic eschatological doctrine), a Zervan — Twelfth Imam hinges on the absorption of all into a New Aeon with little concern about an Elected People to be saved.
Contrarily to a Horus — Victorious King and Pacifier, the concept of Zervan — Twelfth Imam involves the liberation of every person from the negative energy therein encrusted through various ways; as Zervan Akarana promises a monstrous appearance, yet able to embody the Loftiest of the Divine, the Shia Islamic Twelfth Imam promises no peace and no return for any elected people, but heralds the miraculous transformation of the miserable into luminous sources in the present world (after Al Yom al Ahar) and the Hereafter (Al Yom al Qiyamah).
There is certainly a Manichaean influence on the late Sassanid Zervanism (and through this system on the Shia Islam) but the Western stern rejection of Manichaeism proliferated only confusion and dire practices among the Apostate Freemasons. In fact, the Freemasonic Apostasy is a repetition of an earlier Apostasy that took place in the Late Antiquity, and caused the disastrous descent into the Middle Ages.
Unable to transcend, the Apostate Freemasonic Lodge seems set for disastrous developments that will now cover the entire surface of the Earth. Determined to continue an evil process started by Napoleon and sped up by Edmund Allenby, the Apostate Freemasonic Lodge seems today unable to perceive the impending domino effect that will ensue from an attack on Iran. The Apostate Lodge machinated the Anglo-French colonialism in order to create a false and precarious Israel (for Jews, not Israelites), thus exterminate both Jews and Palestinians (after a supposed final peace), and then set up a true Israel able to accommodate the migrating — because of expected ominous natural phenomena — English, Irish, Scots, French, Belgian, Dutch, and Scandinavians (namely the true descendants of the Ten Tribes of Israel). That final Israel that would span between the rivers Euphrates (Assyria) and Nile (Egypt) may simply never come to existence because of the rise of a New Era for the Middle East triggered by an attack on Iran.
The Advent of the End of Time
If Ahmadinejad referred to Mahdi’s advent (which means automatically the End of Time) already in his first speech at the UN (in September 2005), what happened meanwhile that indicates that by now an apocalyptic scenario would follow an American attack on Iran? Why what could happen in March 2006 should not occur in December 2007?
The answer to such a question is at the same time a full response to a great number of eschatological interpretations. The History of the Mankind can also be viewed as a History of missed opportunities. More recently, after 2001, to give an example, the US could have pacified Iraq, if they had the knowledge and the courage to do what it would take. Simply, they were either unaware or misled. Usually, to know how a solution can be found to a historical — political problem, one has to transcend; this mainly means that one has to see the problem in question as a non-problem, or place it within wider frame, or view it through different standpoints, or apply all these methods. Basically, a historical — political problem’s solution involves the non-consideration of a part’s interests.
An answer to the aforementioned question is at the same time a complete rejection of numerous approaches to historical texts of eschatological contents. As a matter of fact, there has always been a vast interpretational literature of the Prophetic books of the Bible, of the Revelation, of the Apocalyptic Hadith, and of the eschatological traditions of various peoples from India to Mexico. With the inception of the web, and the rise of spiritual interest in a post-Communist world, the interpretational interest only multiplied. Specifications and clarifications about the time of the arrival of Mahdi, the Messiah, Jesus as Islamic Prophet, Jesus as Christ of the Christian religion, etc. can be found in great number.
All these approaches emanate from a world plunged into the swamp of Time, a world whereby all people take for granted that Time exists. Yet, the Mankind existed for several thousands of years without shaping the concept of Time. For many great thinkers and wise elders in Sumer, Akkad, Egypt, Assyria and Babylon, Hittite Anatolia, and Biblical Israel, Time simply did not exist. The interaction of Being and Becoming was perceived completely differently, particularly by peoples who used the same word for “day” and “time” (e.g. umu in Assyrian — Babylonian). In a world viewed, perceived, sensed, and experienced diachronically, there is little place for fanaticism and empathy, as all reflect an eternal recapitulation of everything.
In that world, great diachronic (and therefore apocalyptic and eschatological) Epics were compiled for a first and original occasion, and their elements, data, concepts and details were later diffused among later epics, mythical texts and apocalyptic literature. As a matter of fact, there is nothing original that was not already said before Moses. To give an example, it is sheer ignorance for anyone to believe that the concept of the Antichrist goes as back as the Revelation and Daniel.
More than 1500 years before the Revelation, for the Anatolian Hittites the Antichrist (Ullikummi) would rise from the Sea. The author of the Revelation reassessed the same topic, adding only an effort of identification of the Messiah (Tasmisu for the Ancient Hittites — Jesus as Christ for the Christians). More than 2000 years before Isaiah, the concept of the Messiah existed in the Egyptian Heliopolitan Doctrine.
Viewing the present world through the eyes of an Egyptian, Assyrian or Hittite erudite scholar would offer a completely different perspective, and certainly more authoritative as emanating from a diachronic consideration of the Mankind’s and the World’s existence. In most of the cases, this was avoided because of the salacity of Western Orientalists, who instead of serving truth, did promote preconceived ideas either of Freemasonic or Christian Catholic nature. What would destroy pillars of their false faiths had to be covered by silence; this is the “veracity” of the Western universities’ professors.
2007: A Changed World and Iran
In fact, many things have changed over the past 21 months; they are not easily visible to average people and supposed leaders. Even worse, it seems that they are not ostensible to panicked establishments and elites either.
Losing a unique opportunity to be the sole superpower and thus accomplish the wishes of the Founding Fathers, the US will have to become familiar with the reality of a multi-polar world.
If we exclude the nonsensical nuclear mutual destruction, which will be always a possibility, as long as nuclear weapons exist, America’s interests can be hit at any moment. America lost considerably because America allied itself with the only country they should never work together: England.
Discrediting America, exposing the US, while mobilizing others’ forces to contain America and finally avert a long perspective Pax Americana, England convinced the US leadership to pursue the only way that can truly damage the US interests: action against the Moral Principles that the Founding Fathers stipulated so clearly for the then young and promising, Anti-Colonial, nation that would diffuse Freedom, Justice and Democracy to the rest of the world.
The US leadership failed to assess that it would be detrimental to pursue after 1991 immoral practices employed at the times of the Cold War. The policy of double standards (two measures and two weights) would convince all possible adversaries that the US represents a threat, and would mobilize many against America. The enumeration could be very long.
Vice-president Cheney’s trip to Saudi Arabia in November 2006 was certainly taken very seriously by the Iranians — within eschatological context, I mean. The Islamic Messiah will certainly exterminate a cursed, Satanic regime in charge of Haramayn, the two holy cities of Mekka and Madinah.
One would not ask America to believe the Islamic eschatological literature; but one would anticipate America to take it into account, and shape its policy accordingly. The rest is just inane.
Saudi Arabia cannot exist — if Israel is to survive!
It was a pathetic American effort to continue English Colonial policies of division and strife in the Middle East; these policies targeting the existence of the Ottoman Empire and Imperial Iran, if pursued by America, against Turkey and Iran, can guarantee the total disaster of America.
Yet, Prof. Huntington, in a moment of truth, exposed the truth plainly, when he attributed the Islamic Extremism and Terrorism to the lack of a core State for the Muslim world. This was precisely the work of the Anglo-French Apostate Freemasonic Lodge that we already mentioned. America should not be confused with the Anglo-French secondary conflicts, as highlighted by the San Remo arguments between Clemenceau and Lloyd George.
For America’s interests to prevail, for the present state of Israel to survive, for a solution of the quasi-permanent Palestinian problem to be found, America should avoid any direct interference in the affairs of the Muslim World.
Any US attack against Iran would trigger an unexpected and unsuspected reaction that would certainly have a lot to do with Islamic eschatological expectations.
The explosion would immediately bring in other, sizeable, non-Islamic countries that are ready for a severe collapse of the present global economic structures, as their economies are better suited for barter trade. These countries would not necessarily help Iran militarily; they would simply make impossible for America to sustain the cost of a conflict spanning from Yemen and Israel to Afghanistan and Pakistan, at a moment Saudi and Emirati oilfields would not be anymore functional.
America should keep itself outside the Muslim World, and following the instructions of Prof. Huntington, help (with the cooperation of Israel) the rise of a core Muslim country in the Middle East that would eradicate the nefarious colonial deeds of the Apostate Freemasonic Lodge.
This country should be a secular and humanist, democratic country that would be committed to the elimination of Pan-Arabism and Islamic Extremism. To support the rise of a vast Oriental State, America should fervently oppose France and England.
This would redraw the map of the Middle East, but ultimately save the present state Israel, offer peace to the Palestinians, and grant concord to the other Middle Eastern countries. Only a vast Oriental State would have no problem in containing Iran and outmanoeuvring the Ayatollah regime.
Otherwise the Death will hit America — in an irrevocable and precipitated way.
Europe would be affected too; and that Apostate Freemasonic Lodge would be severely persecuted in a new — unrecognizable — Europe ruled by a new Iron Man of the North.
---------------------------------
Κατεβάστε την αναδημοσίευση σε Word doc.:
https://www.slideshare.net/MuhammadShamsaddinMe/ss-250701066
https://issuu.com/megalommatis/docs/iran_of_the_ayatullahs.docx
https://vk.com/doc429864789_621631094
https://www.docdroid.net/HEpNSXC/to-iran-ton-aghiatolakh-ena-masoniko-paraskeuasma-docx
-
alienswitchsstuff liked this · 3 years ago -
frutify reblogged this · 3 years ago -
frutify liked this · 3 years ago
-
s-afshar reblogged this · 3 years ago
