As a follow-up to his earlier translations about last Sunday’s Islamic prayer in the Vatican, Rembrandt Clancy has translated the full interview with a Jesuit priest, Fr. Felix Körner, from whose words we had previously only been able to post excerpts.
In his email accompanying the text of his translation, Rembrandt Clancy included the following cogent analysis of the Church of Rome’s implied abandonment of two millennia of Christian theology. In essence, traditional Christianity is now being replaced with a secular, worldly religion commonly known as Multiculturalism:
That this prayer event took place on Pentecost is of the utmost significance for the new religion, hence it may be no accident that Fr. Körner defines prayer as “inspiration”.
There is another angle to this incident which is important for Western culture, insofar as Christianity is its centre.
Upon reading this interview, it becomes apparent that we are not dealing here with the venerable Catholicism of the West at all, but with an entirely new religion, which, while it persists in calling itself Catholic, has one God (Deism) which can be shared with other religions. What makes the new orientation deceptive, is that it does not explicitly renounce the Catholic deposit of faith, or change it totally; rather it is a question of emphasis and of a new contextualisation of doctrines. The emphasis in Fr. Körner’s remarks is one of a post Vatican II man-centredness, the striving for a “horizontal” earthly utopia, “creating a new world”.
The key to understanding the ideology is ecumenism, which is not a method, but a collectivism, easily recognisable as Multiculturalism in religious garb, for by default it emphasises the commonalities among religions and minimises the differences, which are only “accentuations”. Like multiculturalism it dispenses with its own heritage, its “signs of faith”. Its method is dialogue, rather than “Going therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost” (Matt 28:19). The emphasis on the Trinity would have made this prayer meeting impossible, and un-Islamic; and also the quotation is the mandate of the once visible Catholic Church. The secular character of this neo-Catholicism is recognisable in the emphasis on the horizontal: “prayer is in general … inspiration first of all, on a horizontal, worldly plane.” That this “inspiration” took place on Pentecost may be no accident. But herein lies the French Revolutionary influence, and the royal road to earthly utopia.
Introduction
by Rembrandt Clancy
A recent post on Gates of Vienna featured a translation from the German Catholic Internet portal, kath.net. It contains a few excerpts from an interview of a Jesuit priest, Fr. Felix Körner, who defends an imam’s unauthorised recitation of certain lines from the Koran during the “Prayer for Peace” meeting in the Vatican gardens on Pentecost Sunday (8 June 2014).
Below is the English translation of what appears to be the full German text of that interview, posted by Radio Vatikan on 11 June 2014. The posting clearly acknowledges, in its introduction, that the imam who chanted from the Koran broke diplomatic protocol by introducing text into the ceremony without the delegations having agreed to it in advance. The article also reverses a previous denial by the Vatican that the imam did not recite anything that was not previously agreed, and therefore nothing controversial; in particular, the last line of Sura 2 of the Koran which translated from the German reads “Help us against the tribe (Volk) of unbelievers”.
Islam Specialist: Koran Recitation at the Prayer for Peace is Legitimate
Source: Radio Vatikan
Translation: Rembrandt Clancy
11 June 2014
During the Prayer for Peace which took place in the Vatican gardens with the presidents of Israel and Palestine, a marginal incident occurred which in retrospect is causing disquiet. On Pentecost Sunday the two senior politicians of the two neighbouring states [Nachbarstaaten] which are in a hostile relationship to each other, had accepted the invitation of Pope Francis. Prayer intercessions followed one another; first the Jewish, then the Christian and finally the Muslim intercession. An imam from the Islamic delegation then recited, in Arabic — over and beyond the scope of the programme — the three final verses of the second Sura of the Koran. Here is the last sentence translated into German:
“Verzeih uns (Allah), vergib uns und erbarm dich unser! Du bist unser Schutzherr. Hilf uns gegen das Volk der Ungläubigen!”
[Translation directly from the German: “Pardon us (Allah), forgive us and have mercy on us! You are our protector. Help us against the tribe [Volk] of unbelievers.]
Now a few observers have viewed this last verse as an attack on the two other religions, an “effrontery on Christian soil”. How is this issue to be understood? Gudrun Sailer asks this question of Islam scholar Fr. Felix Körner, a Jesuit who teaches at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome.
“A Muslim always understands the Koran as its original hearers understood it. And that means: we must place ourselves in Islam’s early period; in this case, we are perhaps still in Mecca or in the first years in Medina when Islam is a small group which still correctly sees itself as persecuted by polytheists, pagan groups from whom Mohammed and his supporters wish to get away. “Unbeliever” means, in this case, men who do not recognise the one God. When therefore this Koran passage makes reference to unbelievers against whom we beg God’s help, then it is completely clear that what is meant here is not the Jews and also not the Christians, both of whom naturally recognise the oneness of God!”
“Help us against the people who are unbelievers!” When we hear this Koran passage from our contemporary perspective as Christians — or Jews — within the framework of a meeting which is concerned with peace, then it lies within our cultural sphere to understand this as a call to proselytise or even to conquer. Is that a misunderstanding on our part?
“This verse, perhaps spontaneously selected by someone who then also recited the Koran from memory, actually fitted very well into the overall context of the Prayer for Peace! There are always three steps in the three religions: We recognise the Creator and praise Him, we recognise our guilt and confess it and we plead for the gift of peace. And all that comes out very beautifully in these three verses of the Koran. To You, God, belongs everything. We repent our guilt and ask forgiveness. And we need Your help so that peace and justice can arise. That is the content of these three verses, and for that reason the choice was quite understandable — perhaps spontaneously hit upon, but at any event, well chosen.”
Now all elements of the Prayer for Peace and the speeches were agreed in advance among the three parties. This one passage of the imam, on the other hand, was not. That was spontaneous. Do you think his recitation would have been approved by the Jewish and Christian parties had they arranged it in advance?
“At the Gregorian University I once experienced what was for me an illuminating scenario. I had asked a Koran exegete, a very reasonable, circumspect, moderate person, to give a lecture on the Koran; and he asked me whether he might also recite the Koran verses on which he was about to speak; that is, to recite them melodically, to chant them. I agreed, and then I noticed that a certain disquiet arose in the audience. When the Koran is recited in its aesthetic beauty in Arabic, before it is translated, it can arouse in Christians, but equally in Muslims too, a certain emotion to the point of causing unease. It may well be that the problem that one can bring to preliminary talks is precisely this; that the Koran is chanted, it is melodically recited. The chanting has a singular charm, but it can also lead to a particular religious intensity which perhaps some people consider unjustified or out of place in such a prayer meeting.
We have to make ourselves clear: In the Vatican gardens the religions did not come together in order to pray together, but each recited their prayer texts in their own way. The others remained meditatively quiet, listening and attentive at the same time, but they did not say the prayers, which others were supposed to enjoin. In this respect, a Koran recitation at such a meeting is also completely legitimate, understandable and reasonable, and it is to be acknowledged.”
“A Koran verse which is meant to express the highest esteem”.
What differentiates us Christians from Muslims and Jews when at prayer? What are the various conceptions of prayer which we have?
“When Muslims pray, they trust in God, because he is almighty. When Jews pray — one can summarise it this way — they trust in God, because they are His chosen people. When we Christians pray, then we trust in the Father, because he bestowed Christ on us. Now that is a difference in accentuation [unterschiedliche Akzentuierung]. But we could understand each in a different way and also appraise them contrastingly.”
There is something in connection with the prayers for peace in the Vatican garden, now being debated, which is remarkably reminiscent of the results attendant on the so called Regensburg Address of Pope Benedict XVI in September of 2006. We recall: The Pope conveyed an Islam-critical quotation, the content of which he did not adopt as his own and he expressly identified it as a quotation. However, it filled Muslims with consternation and made them angry. Do you also see a parallel?
“There is a certain parallel insofar as a quotation torn out of context is particularly easily misunderstood. And if one removes from the text only the reference to unbelievers, one can easily use it as a peg upon which to hang something and then say that an infringement has taken place here. On the other hand we have in this case a Koran recitation which pertains to someone who not only quotes, but recites, and who also says: what I am reciting here is also what I believe. And in the same breath he is also saying: We Muslims, as the Koran precisely tells us, recognise the other religions with their prophets. Therefore from the Muslim side, there was by no means any deprecation or exclusion intended or expressed. Rather it was said: We are bringing here a religious idea, one which welcomes and accepts you all, and naturally in certain Koranic way, tries to set things right again. But there was nothing here which was meant to exclude or rebuff; rather a Koran verse was recited, which is meant to express the highest respect and therefore can also be received as such.”
Conversely, was there anything in the prayers to occasion the Jews and Christian parties to hear elements which could eventually lead to misunderstanding for both?
Inspiration for new thinking
“One can always hear with a biased ear — which is an expression from Goethe by the way — therefore, who hears with a biased ear, can understand everything in a biased way. For example, we Christians always pray in the name of Jesus; we pray through Christ our Lord, and also in the garden against the backdrop of St. Peter’s Basilica we of course prayed through Christ our Lord. Now a Jew can do so, and so can a Muslim — but it was not for this criticism to say: how could all of you say something here which is so specifically Christian, that we cannot even understand it when it comes from our Theologians? No: we pray such that in a prayer for peace one respects the other person; one also highly values his otherness, his way of believing and praying, and his bearing before God and in God.”
“We have also heard Psalm 25 from the mouth of a Rabbi. Therein one finds what many Christians know by heart: Let not my enemies triumph over me. This verse is very similar to the Koran verse which is now being so severely incriminated. We Christians pray the Psalms as the prayers of Jesus and therefore from the outset we give them the correct ranking. We know, that we require protection from God and that thinking in terms of friend versus foe does not help us get very far, but we may express even such feelings in prayer itself so that God changes us. And for that reason there is no misunderstanding here; but if one hears something in a skewed manner, one is going to have a mistaken understanding of it.”
Pope Francis had originally invited both presidents and the Patriarch “into his house” for this prayer meeting — but then it took place in the Vatican gardens. Why?
“That was a very nice decision. For one thing it was such a beautiful early summer evening, when the birds were still just twittering their last songs. It had something of God’s creation which was inspiring and was also of course praised in the prayers. It was meaningful and beautiful also because it means this: All of you should be allowed to gather together with me here without assembling now under our signs of faith, under the cross, or — this would have been even more unsuitable — we then take the crucifix down from the wall so that no vexation arises. St. Peter’s Basilica was very beautiful to behold in the background, but they were not gathered in a room but under the open sky. And this gathering out in the open had yet another beautiful dimension which Pope Francis pointed out at the end. He said that we can break though the spiral of hate and violence only with one word, and this word is called brother. But I can recognise you as brother only when I look to heaven and recognise our common father.”
This meeting to pray for peace in this form took on an unprecedented newness. To what extent can it really achieve something? What was really good and new in it?
“One could bring to mind very beautifully what prayer is in general. I would like to call it inspiration; inspiration first of all, on a horizontal, worldly plane. Someone goes there in silence, with a readiness to listen; he allows himself to accept, as a gift, the texts of the other, and he is also receptive to their tones and in this way he receives inspiration for new thought. But inspiration is of course also understood in a more literal and spiritual sense: I confess, and I have noticed in the last few years, that without You, without Your Spirit, God, I can not achieve peace. I can only become a peacemaker to any extent at all with Your power, in Your Spirit; and for that reason, inspiration is prayer when in that place I open myself for Your Spirit, with whose power I can recognise You, God, as Father — and have the courage to no longer recognise you who are my fellow man, as enemy, but as a brother, together with whom I am creating a new world.”
Previous posts about Imamgate — The Arabic prayer at the Vatican, June 8 2014:
| 2014 | Jun | 11 | The Vatican and Islamic Prayer | |||
| 12 | Taqiyya, Vatican-Style | |||||
| 12 | What Did the Imam Really Say at the Vatican? | |||||
| 13 | Who Edited the Tape? |
This would explain why the Pope put the broom through the Vatican and swept out the ‘old guard’ and why he seems to be so socialistic in his actions.
A very worrying trend!
As a Catholic you must be for Christ and reject the false religion of the Arabian Moon God, Allah.
Is the Pope a Catholic?
The other part of that rhetorical question, Nemesis, is an enquiry about the behaviors of bears in the woods. I now know what bears have sometimes done on my front porch…thus, I must answer to both questions a resounding “NO”.
Even former Catholics are filled with foreboding. They may not want to go back to Rome, but on the other hand, it was nice to know that the way back was existentially possible. Now it’s not. In other words, it’s not that one can’t go home again, it’s that there’s no home to which we can return.
I completely agree with you, Dymphna. As a child and teen I had nine years of Catholic school. I continued my Catholic religion into my adulthood – until I divorced. Upon doing so I realized, according to the CC, I could commit a Mortal Sin, go to Confession and receive absolution, and then be allowed to receive Holy Communion. As a divorced person, I could do so only if I sought a costly and time consuming marriage annulment. The Church and I parted ways – but – I did think should the “divorce” policies change – I might return. I no longer feel that way. I had high hopes for this Pope – no more.
Having lived through the initial part of an annulment process, I can tell you that a healthy Catholic Church would NEVER revise its “divorce” and annulment policies because the Catholic Church believes that marriage is a sacrament where GOD joins one man and one woman for the purpose of rearing a GOD-fearing family.
It is my understanding that the Catholic Church in the USA has been thought to hand out ‘easy’ annulments for many years which was a topic of concern for the rest of the church.
It is my experience that the annulment process is an exceptionally brilliant and effective way to protect an ‘innocent’ person from marrying a divorced person who too casually married and/or divorced the first spouse OR who is STILL spiritually attached to the first spouse.
The annulment process FORCES people to know each other before a second marriage for one or both partners. The paperwork is thorough. The cost is negligible – especially considering the amount of time the church devotes to the process (and far less than hiring a divorce lawyer or therapist).
https://www.archbalt.org/about-us/marriage-tribunal/upload/Doc_12_myths_about_marriage_annulments_in_the_Catholic_Church.pdf
+1
What a load of [codswallop]! I have some land on the moon for sale if the Vatican wants to buy it.
They shooting Christians in the head, and threatening to whip and hang this Christian woman, this pope is an [person of dubious character].
Father Felix Koerner makes this assertion about the imam:
“And in the same breath he is also saying: We Muslims, as the Koran precisely tells us, recognise the other religions with their prophets.”
What is it “the Koran precisely tells us”?
3:85 “If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah), never will it be accepted of him” (Yousuf Ali translation).
Here is the Manual of Islamic Law, w4.1(2):
“It is unbelief (kufr) to hold that the remnant cults now bearing the names of formerly valid religions, such as ‘Christianity’ or ‘Judaism’, are acceptable…”
The Manual is a free download at http://www.shafiifiqh.com/maktabah/relianceoftraveller.pdf
Michael, I have done a lot of study on the Qurana and over thirty books read since 9/11. I came in as a blank page on Islam before that event. I have excerpted at least 100 verses that call for violence against the unbeliever and also the two Quran verses that Jesus said He never said He is the Son of God and that He did not die on the cross. As a Catholic Christian, these are lies against the Gospels written at least 600 years earlier than the Quran. Also, per Robert Spencer in “The Truth About Muhammad”, Muhammad thought at first that he was possessed by a demon but his wife convinced him otherwise. Then there are the satanic verses where Muhammad admitted Satan fooled him on agreeing to two other gods besides the allah of the Quran. Finally, Jesus in the Gospel of John tells the Jewish leadership who are plotting against Him, that Satan is the father of all lies….and I forget taqiyya, lying to futher Islam. All these facts add up to the conclusion that allah is Satan. Also, Muhammad could not follow the Son of God and claim to be the final prophet, could he? Who is the most likely entity to push the idea that Jesus was only a prophet other than Satan, AKA allah? One more point, compare the Gospels of Jesus Christ and His teachings of love and forgiveness versus the 180 degrees opposite teachings of hate and violence in the Quran…the Father of Jesus and the allah of the Quran cannot be the same God. Since Jesus says in the Gospels that He is the Only way to the Father and One with the father, Pope Francis should be telling Muslims who are good people to leave their hate filled cult religion and come to the Light of Jesus Christ, the Way, the Truth, and the Light….to follow Christ’s command to preach the Gospel to all nations so that they may escape eternal damnation…now that’s loving your enemy as Christ taught. And yes, death for apostates is the glue that holds muslims who are good people in the cult.
This post-vatican II church is so absolutely worthless… The amount of heresy and straying away from dogma is astounding, these people are not even christians, let alone catholics…
“When the Koran is recited … it can arouse in Christians, but equally in Muslims too, a certain emotion to the point of causing unease. … The chanting has a singular charm, but it can also lead to a particular religious intensity…”
Oh yes. Take note of the particular feel of this unease: the prickly cold of it. It is the acute sense of the devil’s presence.
C. S. Lewis would have instantly recognized it: “They have summoned Tash… and Tash has come.”
Bishop Fulton Sheen spoke of a counter church: “[Satan] will set up a counterchurch which will be the ape of the [Catholic] Church. . . . It will have all the notes and characteristics of the Church, but in reverse and emptied of its divine content.”
To be “biased” is to have a stand, to apply one’s own perspective.
To do so consciously is admirable.
To do so unconsciously is bigotry.
I apply my personal perspective, I do not take words as they come, and I do not appreciate another person providing the contextual thinking I should be able to provide on my own.
Yes, I am “biased.”
But I am also cognizant of the difference between orthodox, Athanasian Christianity and what passes for it (multiculturalism).
Do not worship diversity.
It is not heaven-sent, it is reality on the ground.
We must deal with diversity, not thank God for it.
A certain Pope passed away, and came to the Pearly Gates, which, to his surprise, were opened by Old Nick. “Ahem, excuse me, I seem to have come to the wrong door”, the Pope said. “Not at all, your Holiness”, said Old Nick, “You see, we’ve gone Multicultural”.
The Jesuit is correct, we must place ourselves within the origins and give ear to how the “first believers” heard the Muhammad’s. And so on. By all means.
But, really folks, were the sands of Arabia truly crawling with polytheists? Was Arabia more Christian and Jewish than the received wisdom allows us to accept? Answering that question will retell the narrative.
Islam was not spreading the gospel of the One God. Islam set about converting the converted to a Totalitarian Oneness that “transcended” all categories, all reason, all BEING. A Oneness whose Totality warred against all that was not *itself*.
They called it Allah.
The only forbearance this Allah has – in its long war against all that is not Allah – is its demand that any trace of Mankind that is permitted to exist must reflect, in its politics and culture (however incompletely), the Totalitarian Oneness that is Allah. All else is “not permitted”: by its very presence Islamic original sin.
Islam was first of all about forcing people to revere and obey a psychopathic megalomaniac as a “prophet.” Second, it was about building an ideological justification (and inspiration) for wanton plunder and conquest. (Or perhaps this was first, and it led to the invention of the megalomaniac “prophet” ex post facto.) These original motives gave rise to a brutal totalitarian creed under the guise of divine revelation.
If today’s Catholic theologians do not understand that basic history, they should ask for a refund of their divinity-school tuition.
Thank you for this post. I am becoming increasingly disturbed about what is happening in the church because of Islamic indoctrination disguised as interfaith dialogue. It seems that he has thus far been unable to make a definite statement on the current, what I call, Christian Holocaust. Is he enabling it? It sickens me to think it. In one article when he was asked about the present Christian persecution he acknowledged its existence but said in a La Vanguardia interview, ” I don’t think it would be prudent to talk about it here so I don’t offend anyone.” I love my Catholic faith and church but it appears the a lot of the hierarchy all the way up to the pope have fallen for Islam’s trap. There are some Catholics who see it but nowhere near enough. If we can put a crack in this interfaith fraud maybe there’s hope. Please keep writing about this subject. Thank you again!
Chrislam is the completion of the Protestant Reformation.
The Reformation was necessitated by the corruption and venality of the Church, Egghead.
The Church was in the process of reforming itself – just NOT fast enough for protestants who wanted to change Catholic doctrine (with doctrine having little to do with corruption and venality that exist in EVERY organized religion and government).
However, protestantism was NOT much of a ‘reformation’ of corruption and venality IF protestant ‘Christianity’ led directly to Chrislam in a VERY short period of time compared to the long lives of Judaism, Catholicism, and Islam….
To wit, what is Islam giving up under Chrislam versus what protestant ‘Christianity’ is giving up?
Ironically, the corruption and venality of protestant ‘Christianity’ as has entered Western culture is now negatively affecting the ability of Catholicism to face the threat of Islam.
What comes around goes around….
Blimey Egghead, you still here? Not that I can speak…
I hardly believe one can blame Hus, Luther, Calvin etc- all of whom would surely have regarded Islam with deep suspicion- for the present dhimmitude of many Catholic and Protestant clergy; they may have been devout, but I doubt they had second sight!
Too many factions have misled Christians to believe that ‘anything goes’ and Christianity has been distilled into a weak mushy slush of ‘all you need is love’ which is demonstrably false. Love as many Muslims as you want – and you and yours will be raped, tortured, and murdered before Islam is changed in the slightest….
I feel sorry for this naive priest who doesn’t really know what the heck he is talking about while he tries to maintain an aura of intellectuality and depth in the midst of his utter ignorance.
Sura 2 or Surat Al Bagharah (The Cow) is a Madani Sura. It means it was revealed in the period after the establishment of the Islamic mini-state in Medina, where there was no persecution of Muslims anymore and the only real context was hot war and/or caravan raid!
Besides this whole business of Meccan unbelievers “persecuting” muslims is HIGHLY and I mean HIGHLY exaggerated by muslim apologists and pseudo-historians. Muhammed lived and preached for 13 years or so in the heart of Mecca and he didn’t have any popular movement, any big number of followers, any big army to protect him. Besides he was not precisely politically correct or even plain respectful towards the Meccan pagans and their religion and their Gods and ancestors and so on. During all this time the Meccan pagans had him in their power and could have easily attacked Muhammed and killed him. The mob could have just picked up stones and stoned him to death. But the worse they ever did to him was curse him, maybe push him around or punch him mildly or throw garbage at him. And even that after enduring mush disruption to their religious rites and bad mouthing and insults from him and his followers.
They never really harmed him seriously or did anything half as bad to him as what Muhammed himself inflicted on those who challenged his religion once he got the power. So the myth of the severe Meccan pagan persecution is really a bunch of baloney!
Some slaves got it a bit tough from their masters, but in that day and age slaves had it tough anyway!! But his other followers were all fine! Meccans never really killed them or maim them or did anything sever to them considering the brutality of the time and place! They pitied them and had mercy on them because after all, all Meccans were of one tribe and each other’s kins folk and didn’t want to shed the blood of their kinsmen no matter how rude and irreverent they were. It is actually quite shocking and a severe blot on the muslims’ record that once they got the power they started to rob and kill their own kinsmen from Mecca without any regards to Arab custom and tradition! This behaviour was shocking and scandalous and offensive even to the Arab society of 1400 years ago!
Meccans were really tolerant! If Muhammed would stop insulting and bad mouthing their religion day in and day out in the middle of their temple (Masjid Ul-Haram where Kaaba is) they would have had no problem with him and his followers devoting themselves to the exclusive worship of Allah which after all was one of the gods in their own pantheon anyway. But Muhammed and his followers from the beginning were unruly and thuggish and didn’t try to persuade with reason and were not satisfied with following the path of their own conscience while leaving others free to choose theirs.
Read the Meccan chapters of Quran too. Some wishy-washy people even from the counter-jihad side call those “peaceful chapters”. This is a myth too! There are no peaceful chapters in Quran! It wasn’t like when Muhammed was weak he was just trying to peacefully and with reason persuade people. He was just threatening people with unbelievably disgusting images of hell fire and last judgement and scary end of the world scenarios. So he was doing violence to unbelievers even then but in the realm of imagination and postponing it to the hereafter.
Of course when he got the chance and an army he did the violence in this world too. Read Suras like 111. The whole chapter was “revealed” against Muhammed’s uncle Abu Lahab and his wife and it just curses them with the pettiest and ugliest language possible. This is a Meccan Sura in the period that Muhammed had no political power. Did he expect to persuade people to freely accept his new religion with that kind of language and those methods of persuasion??!!
But anyway the verse 286 of Sura 2 doesn’t say “help us” but it says “make us victorious” as we have already established and since it is a Medinan Sura it was “revealed” in the context of hot war and not plain peaceful evangelism and so on. And Muslims never were really persecuted any more than their rude and disruptive behaviour in Mecca asked for it! To be honest with you I would kick their butts too if they would come and try to disrupt a worship service that I am attending just because they don’t like my God or gods! Wouldn’t you?
Yes rita, it seems Mohammed (and then later his little Ikhwan) were pestering and goading the surrounding Meccans by condemning and offending their ways and religion. Just as a fire has to start somewhere with an initial spark, the long pattern of Islamic behavior — causing trouble (fomenting fitna & fasad) in order to force others to react then using that reaction as a justification for violent conquest — began with Mohammed alone (and then later his little Ikhwan) without a fire to begin with, generating the heat of offense in order to run with it into the conflagration of all-out war.
Jesus in a sense did the same thing — he and his small band of apostles effectively goaded the local rulers (Pharisees & Sadducees) and the larger rulers (Romans) by causing so much unrest in the populace they had to react. But his response to that reaction was radically different from Mohammed’s: not war against his fellow man, but peaceful sacrifice.
Jesuits are not the best representatives of Christianity. If anything, I consider them as Satan in disguise.
I had a conversation with one last year who was hosting an Islamic discussion… what he told me was so far off the radar, it scared me. Worse, they think they know everything, thus always right. Very closed mind.
P.S.: I have a very good knowledge of Islamic doctrine.