It means that the plot is similar to one for organizing the 20th century’s World War II, with only difference:
That time Nazism in Germany had been grown up artificially, and later it let equate any liberation movement based on national consciousness to the Nazism;
And now the extremism under slogans of Islam is also being grown up artificially, to defile and discredit Koran as an alternative to the establishment of global tyranny based on Bible.
And one of means to prevent the “world backstage” from implementing their plots – is to find out what is wrong or wittingly false in every religion in good conscience and extremely kindly, thus releasing mind and will of people from yoke of historically formed churches. God – Alive – will help men in that, if they are sincere in their wish to come to the Rightness-Truth and establish the Kingdom of God at the Earth.
Of course, the Dictatorship of conscience is the future of the mankind. But we should reach it leaving aside a new world war attempting to establish a tyranny of bosses of the Bible. And everyone makes his or hers contribution on creating this or that variant of the future.
Inner Predictor of the USSR
September 20 – 26, 2006
[1] It took place on the September 12, 2006.
[2] “Izvestia” perverted Pope’s words by removing some text. That’s how it should be: “A reason which is deaf to the divine and which relegates religion into the realm of subcultures is incapable of entering into the dialogue of cultures”. ()
[3] Besides this: «The officials of the State Turkish Directory on religion affairs filed an official claim against Benedict XVI, the Pope of Rome. They want the Turkish law enforcement agencies detain the head of the Catholic Church during his forthcoming visit to Turkey in November. The document is intended for the Minister of Justice and contains the proposition to proclaim the Pope officially wanted because of his last speech concerning Islam.
The plaintiffs believe that Benedict XVI has violated the Turkish law regarding the freedom of conscience, offending the Prophet Mohammed. What is more, they want the Pope apologize before coming to Turkey.
This law document can become a real obstacle for the Pope’s visit, taking in consideration the fact, that if an appeal is not called away, the Turkish authorities will have to act against an accused.
The politicians of Turkey are at a loss: they have already stated that “unacceptable words of the Pope” won’t affect the visit, expecting, presumably, that it will somehow help Turkey to join the EU» (http://www.newsru.com/religy/21sep2006/turkey_print.html).
[4] The phrase of Benedict XVI reveals that backstage wheeler-dealers, out of all relation to Catholicism and Islam, have used the Pope as well as the leaders of Muslim countries and organizations in order to incite inter-religious hatred. But this object will never be implemented without journalism mediation – false and ignorant, “working” to create and sell sensations.
The Pope of Rome has definitely become a “victim” of political manipulation. It becomes clear looking at the text of his lecture at the University of Regensburg, especially at the passage where Benedict XVI gives the quotation of Manuel II Palaiologos :
“Recently I have read the edition by Professor Theodore Khoury (Muenster) of part of the dialogue carried on – perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara – by the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Palaiologos and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both. 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. The dialogue ranges widely over the structures of faith contained in the Bible and in the Koran, 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 Koran. 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 edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that Sura 2, 256 reads: “There is no compulsion in religion”. According to some of experts, this is probably 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 Koran, 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”. 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 oа soul. “God”, he says, “is not pleased by blood – and not acting reasonably (“syn logo”) 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…”
The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is notary to God’s nature. 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. Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that 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”. (taken from the official text of “lecture of the Holy Father”, Aula Magna of the University of Regensburg, Tuesday, 12 September 2006 – “Faith, Reason and the University Memories and reflections”).
It’s a great riddle for us how Ibn Hazm manages to go so far as to say, “that God is not bound even by his own word”. It’s more than once said in Koran that: “There is no changing the words of God” (Sura 10:64); “And you shall not find any change in the course of God.” (Sura 33:62) (and 48:23 tell the same). And there are many other riddles, if only Ibn Hazm was translated and understood right…
In the whole text we take Koranic cites from here: . We use mainly Shakir’s text, and/or sometimes two other translations.