Tag Archives: Manichaeism

Sassanid Iran – Turan, Kartir, Roman Empire, Christianity, Mani and Manichaeism

Iran–Turan, Manichaeism & Islam during the Migration Period and the Early Caliphates

By Prof. Muhammet Şemsettin Gözübüyükoğlu (Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis)

Pre-publication of chapter XVI of my forthcoming book “Turkey is Iran and Iran is Turkey – 2500 Years of indivisible Turanian – Iranian Civilization distorted and estranged by Anglo-French Orientalists”; chapters XIV, XV and XVI belong to Part Five (Fallacies about Sassanid History, History of Religions, and the History of Migrations). The book is made of 12 parts and 33 chapters.

—————————————————

Hsiung-nu soldier from Saksanokhur, Tajikistan

However, soon afterwards, Europe faced two major threats that lasted many centuries: the Islamic armies and the Manichaean subversion. Despite their ferocity and their conquests, at a certain point the Islamic armies were stopped either in Western or in Eastern Europe. But the Manichaean tidal wave that hit Europe back was disproportional and beyond any expectation. Starting from the Eastern Roman Empire and the entire Caucasus region and as early as the 7th c. CE, the Paulicians triggered an enormous religious, social and imperial destabilization across vast lands. The famous Eastern Roman Akritai, i.e. the imperial Eastern Roman guards and frontal forces against the Islamic Caliphate, were – all – Paulicians, having rejected the Christian Orthodox Constantinopolitan theology. Digenes Akritas, the Eastern Roman Empire’s greatest hero and Modern Greeks’ most revered and foremost legendary figure was a Paulician, not an Orthodox.

Constantinopolitan patriarchs, emperors and theologians persistently described the Paulicians as Manichaeans; they used the same term also for the Iconoclasts. This does not mean that these religious, spiritual and esoteric systems of faith were ‘Manichaean’ stricto sensu, but they were definitely formed under determinant Manichaean impact. The same concerns the Bogomiles across the Balkans, Central and Western Europe, starting in the 10th c., the Cathars across Western Europe from the 12th c. onwards, and also many other religious, spiritual and esoteric systems that derived from the aforementioned.

The Muslim friends, partners and associates of the Paulicians were also groups formed under strong Manichaean impact and historically viewed as such; known as Babakiyah or Khurramites or Khorram-dinan, the 8th c. religious group setup by Sunpadh and led in the 9th c. by Babak Khurramdin made an alliance with the Eastern Roman Emperor Theophilos (829-842), an outstanding Iconoclast, and not only repeatedly revolted against the Abbasid Caliphate but also fought along with the Eastern Roman army in 837 in the Anti-Taurus Mountains to recapture Melitene (Malatya), and on many other occasions. The Khurramite commander Nasir and 14000 Iranian Khurramite rebels had no problem in being baptized Iconoclast Christians and taking Greek names (Nasir became then known as Theophobos), which shows the Manichaean origins and affinities of the Iconoclasts and the Khurramites.

The state of the Paulicians

The massacre of the Paulicians

Kale-ye Babak, the impregnable castle of the Babakiyah (or Khurramites) near Kaleybar – East Azerbaijan, Iran

Afshin brings Babak as captive in Samarra. from a manuscript miniature of the Safavid times

Babak Khorramdin statue from Babek city in Nakhchivan province of Azerbaijan

Within the context of early Islamic caliphates, the Manicheans prospered, definitely marked by their superiority in terms of spirituality, letters, sciences, philosophy and cosmology. It was relatively easy for them to reinterpret the Quran as a Manichaean scripture; it was totally impossible for the uneducated and naïve early Muslims to oppose Manicheans in open debate or to outfox Manichaean interpretative schemes. Among the leading Muslim erudite polymaths, mystics, poets and translators of the early period of Islamic Civilization (7th – 8th c.), many defended all major pillars of the Manichaean doctrine and even the dualist dogma; Ibn al Muqaffa is an example. The illustrious translator of the Middle Persian literary masterpiece Kalila wa Dimna into Arabic was a crypto-Manichaean Muslim, and surely he was not the only. Ibn al Muqaffa was executed as per the order of Caliph al-Mansur (754-775), but the first persecution of the Manicheans started only under the Caliph al-Mahdi (775-785); however, this was the time many groups and movements or Manichean origin started openly challenging Islam and the Caliphate in every sense. However, it is noteworthy that the greatest Caliph of all times, Harun al Rashid (786-809), had a very tolerant and friendly stance toward Manicheans of all types.

Abu’l Abbas al-Saffah proclaimed as the first Abbasid Caliph: the Abbasid dynasty opened the door for a cataclysmic Iranian cultural, intellectual, academic, scientific and spiritual impact on the Muslim world.

However, it is only as late as the time of Caliph al-Muqtadir (908-932) that the Manicheans, persecuted in the Caliphate, left Mesopotamia in big numbers, making of Afrasiab (Samarqand) and Central Asia the center of their faith, life and activities. This was not a coincidence; many Turanians had already been long date enthusiastic Manichean converts and adepts, whereas several Manichaean monuments unearthed in Central Asia date back to the 4th c. At the time of al-Mansur, the Uyghur Khaqan (: Emperor) Boku Tekin accepted Manichaeism as official state religion in 763; the Uyghur Khaqanate stretched from the Tian Shan mountains and the Lake Balkhash (today’s Kazakhstan) to the Pacific. For more than one century, Manichaeism was the state religion across the entire Northeastern Asia.

During the same time, Manichaeism was diffused in Tibet and China. Similarly with what occurred in the Islamic Caliphate, Manicheans in Tibet and China had it easy to reinterpret Buddhism in Manichaean terms. As a matter of fact, Chinese Buddhism is full of Manichaean impregnations. For this reason, several anti-Buddhist Chinese emperors (like Wuzong of Tang in the period 843-845) confused the Manicheans with the Buddhists and persecuted them too. However, Manichaeism was for many centuries a fundamental component and a critical parameter of all social, spiritual, intellectual and religious developments in China. And this was due to the incessant interaction of Turanians and Iranians across Asia. About:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paulicianism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Iconoclasm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akritai

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digenes_Akritas

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khurramites

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunpadh

https://iranicaonline.org/articles/korramis

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babak_Khorramdin

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theophilos_(emperor)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theophobos

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogomilism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catharism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_al-Muqaffa%27

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_Khaganate

During the Sassanid and early Islamic periods, the central provinces of Iran had to embrace many Turanian newcomers. This was one of the numerous Turanian waves that the Iranian plateau and its periphery had to welcome across the millennia. A vast and critical topic of the World History that was excessively distorted and systematically misrepresented across various disciplines of the Humanities is the chapter of the major Eurasiatic Migrations. Various distorting lenses have been used in this regard. It is surely beyond the scope of the present chapter to outline this subject, but I must at least mention it with respect to the persistent Orientalist efforts to divide and dissociate Iranian from Turanian nations across several millennia.

If one accepts naively the ‘official’ dogma of Western colonial historiography, one imagines that all the world’s major civilizations (Sumerians, Elamites, Akkadians-Assyrians/Babylonians, Egyptians, Cushites-Sudanese, Hittites, Hurrians, Urartu, Phoenicians, Iranians, Greeks, Romans, Dravidians, Chinese, etc.) were automatically popped up and instantly formed by settled populations. Modern historians, who compose this sort of nonsensical narratives, are monstrous gangsters intending to desecrate human civilization and to extinguish human spirituality. All civilizations were started by nomads, and there was always a time when all indigenous nations (each of them in its own turn) were migrants.

But modern Western historians intentionally and criminally misrepresent the major Eurasiatic Migrations in a most systematic and most sophisticated manner, by only introducing – partly and partially – aspects of this overwhelming and continual phenomenon, like spices on gourmet dishes. I do not imply that the Eurasiatic Migrations were the only to have happened or to have mattered; there were also important migrations in Africa, the Pacific, and the continent of the Aztecs, the Mayas and the Incas. However, I limit the topic to the migrations that are relevant to the History of Iran and Turan. So, those who study Ancient Roman History are customarily told that, ‘although everything was fine and civilized Romans prospered in peace’, suddenly some iniquitous barbarians arrived to invade Roman lands and to embarrass the civilized settled populations altogether; this type of bogus-historical presentations is a Crime against the Mankind, because it distorts the foremost reality of human history, namely that we have all been migrants.

There is no worst bigotry worldwide than that of settled populations.

Yet, every manual of history would be easily rectified, if few extra chapters were added, at the beginning and during the course of the narration, to offer an outline of parallel developments occurred in the wider and irrevocbly indivisible Eurasia.

The discriminatory, truly racist, manner by which the civilized migrants are presented in various manuals of (Mesopotamian, Egyptian, Cushitic, Anatolian, Roman, Greek, European, Russian, Iranian, Dravidian, and Chinese) History helps only reinstate the vicious and immoral axiom that ‘History is written by the victors’. Every historian, who does not consciously write in an objective manner to reveal the truth and to reject the paranoia of the aforementioned adage, is an enemy of the Mankind.

Beyond the aforementioned points, many historians today will try to find an excuse, saying that, by writing about let’s say the so-called ‘barbarian invasions of the Roman Empire’, they intentionally reflect the Roman viewpoint, because they rely on Roman historical sources. This could eventually be accepted, if stated in 1820, when the modern science of history had not advanced much, and only few archaeological excavations had taken place. But if this is seriously expressed as an apology today, it constitutes an outrage. The least one can say to these forgers is that they must first obtain an interdisciplinary degree, before publishing their nonsensical manual, or – alternatively – study several paperbacks on the History of the Migrant Nations (in this case: Huns, Vandals, Goths, etc.).

An even greater mistake that modern historians make is that they present the continual phenomenon of Eurasiatic migrations in a most fragmentary manner; this creates, by means of Nazi propaganda, the wrong idea and the distorted impression that all of a sudden, every now and then, new migrants appear in the horizon, coming out of the vast Asiatic ‘nowhere’. This is an aberration and a fallacy. The absurd factoid, which is deceitfully called “Invasions of the Roman Empire” and is peremptorily dated between 100 CE and 500 CE, is merely an academic fabrication. Why?

First, there were incessant migrations before and after the said period.

Second, the aforementioned factoid is a fallacy due to the fact that, during the same period, other migrations took also place, but the specialists in Roman History do not mention (or even do not know) them; however, these migrations (that they fail to even name) constitute intertwined phenomena with those that they present in their manuals, and consequently their presentation is a conscious and plain distortion.

Third, the events are always portrayed as a menace of barbarism, as breach of Roman legitimacy, and as violation of a hypothetical right of the Roman Empire to exist. This is an outrage; the Roman Empire was not a sacrosanct institution. In many aspects, its lawless formation, barbaric expansion, and bloody wars constitute some of the World History’s bleakest pages. But criminal colonial historians never discussed ‘unpleasant’ topics with the correct terminology; they did not write for instance about the barbarian Roman demolition of Carthage, the monstrous Roman sack of Corinth, the savage Roman invasion of Seleucid Syria or the lawless Roman annexation of Egypt.

This is the disgusting bias of the Western colonial historiographers: when a negative development takes place against Rome, it is ‘bad’; and quite contrarily, when an undesirable occurrence happens to others, it is ‘good’. And in order to represent this vicious bias as ‘historical truth’, they mobilize a great intellectual effort, involving many methods. In this regard, the Eurasiatic migrations are absurdly fractured into many parts, and many of these parts are deliberately concealed, when focus is made on only one of them. The pseudo-academic methods involved to disguise and conceal the topic are numerous.

First, some migrations are not presented as such, but named after the migrant nations; examples: Scythians, Sarmatians, Celts. And yet, these nations are basically known due to their migrations across vast lands.

Second, other migrations are not mentioned as such, but called after the name of the location where excavations brought to light the material remains of a migrant nation’s civilization; example: Andronovo culture, Afanasievo culture, etc.

Third, several migrant nations of different origin are regrouped after the geography where they spread; this is totally paranoid, because no one can possibly ‘regroup’ the Vandals, who crossed Central and Western Europe, reached North Africa, settled in Hippo Regius and Carthage, and then attacked Greece, Sicily, Rome, Sardinia, Corsica and the Iberian coastlands, with the Huns, who crossed Siberia, Russia, and Ukraine, settled in Eastern Europe and attacked the Balkans, Italy and Gaul.

Fourth, several migrant nations are dissociated from one another migrant nation of the same ethnic origin (example: Huns and Turkic nations), whereas in cases of severe distortion, different names of the same nation, attested in diverse historical sources, are tentatively presented as names of two different nations (example: Huns and Hsiung nu whose name is erroneously spelled Xiongnu).

Fifth, several parts of migrant nations are arbitrarily dissociated from their ethnic counterparts and presented separately as settled nations (example: White Huns or Hephthalites).

Sixth, the ethnic origin of several migrant nations is confusingly presented (example: the Bulgars, who were a Turkic nation, are often included in Europe’s ‘Migration Period’ and categorized along with Slavs, whereas they should have been mentioned in the ‘Turkic migrations’!).

To the aforementioned inaccuracies, distortions and prejudices, a plethora of false maps is added to comfortably reduce the size of kingdoms, empires and nations whose existence did not happen to please the discriminatory minds of the perverse Anglo-French and American colonial historians. About:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andronovo_culture

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afanasievo_culture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarmatians

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scythians

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celts

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migration_Period

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkic_migration

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgars

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hephthalites

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6kt%C3%BCrks

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Turkic_Khaganate

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumania

The end result of this systematization of Western colonial falsehood is that great and highly civilized conquerors and emperors like Attila, Genghis Khan, Hulagu Khan, Kublai Khan, Timur Lenk and others appear as mysterious meteorites, who came from “nowhere”, as barbarian invaders, and a “scourges of God”, whereas in reality they all (and many others) were far more educated, more cultured, more competent and more heroic than any Greek, Macedonian, Roman or European king or general. To the aforementioned historical reality additional, deceitful tactics and insidious procedures have been added by the criminal, racist, Western European and North American ‘historians’: they definitely proved to be able to write 100000 words to deplore the destructions supposedly caused to the Human Civilization by Attila, Genghis Khan, Hulagu Khan, and others, but when they happen to write about the fact that Alexander the Great burned Persepolis, they remain malignantly and partially silent, abstaining from any due criticism.

King Attila with the Turul bird in his shield (Chronicon Pictum, 1358)

It would be far easier for all to tell the truth: ‘Asia is Turan’ for most of its territory. And the moral lesson must be drawn: the existence of a ‘state’ is not a reason for anyone not to invade its lands. States are not sacrosanct; and in any case, the territory occupied by the nation that setup the local state, in all cases of historical states, was also invaded by the ancestors of that nation in the first place.

The biased Western colonial historians carry out all these distortions as tasks in order to promote the lawless interests of their own disreputable states; for this reason they always concealed the following unwavering reality: throughout World History, various fundamental concepts like ‘land’, ‘state’, ‘nation’, ‘sacred place’, etc. have had different connotations among nations of nomadic migrants and nations of settled populations.

Furthermore, several fundamental concepts, which are valid among settled nations, have no validity at all among nomads and migrant nations, and vice versa. In addition, some basic concepts that exist among nomads and migrant nations start being altered and becoming different if and when these nations happen to settle somewhere ‘permanently’. The concept of ‘universe’ and the deriving imperative of ‘universalism’ are fundamental notions of nomads and migrant nations; notably, the Akkadians (early Assyrians – Babylonians), who first produced significant literary narratives to detail the concept, were also a migrant nation that had settled only few centuries before writing down in cuneiform texts their world views.

The History of Eurasiatic Migrations, in and by itself, highlights the extensive presence of Turanians in Iran since times immemorial. Thanks to the Turanians of the Achaemenid Empire, the Turkic nations of Central Asia, China and Siberia came to get detailed descriptions of faraway regions and lands, such as Mesopotamia, Syria-Palestine, the Caucasus Mountains, the Anatolian plateau, the plains of Ukraine and Central Europe, the Balkan Peninsula, and Egypt. Consequently, further the interaction between Iran and Rome progressed, more details about the western confines of Europe reached the Turanian nomads who were moving around Lake Balkhash (Kazakhstan), Yenisey River and Baikal Lake (Siberia), Orkhon River (Mongolia), the Tarim Basin (China), the Oymyakon River (Yakutia, Eastern Siberia) and other circumferences. The incessant waves of migrations to the West and to the South were not blind and desperate movements of uninformed barbarians, who ran like crazy on their horses; only the distorted publications of Western colonial historians contain similar, nonsensical conclusions.

The pattern of the Turanian military horsemen and skillful soldiers is absolutely prominent and protruding in the History of the Early Caliphates; but it is merely the continuation of a millennia long tradition. This consists in a very embarrassing fact for all the Western Orientalists specializing in Early Islamic History, and more particularly with focus on the 8th c. CE, the collapse of the Umayyad Caliphate, and the rise of Abbasid Baghdad. They therefore constantly come up with incredible assumptions, farfetched arguments, nonsensical explanations, and sly innuendos to explain how and why so many Turanian soldiers and military heads appear in the Islamic Caliphate. In fact, without Turanian military skills, the Umayyad dynasty of Damascus may have not been overthrown.

It is well known that the early Islamic armies advanced up to Merv in today’s Turkmenistan (651) and they stopped there. For the next hundred years, the only Islamic advance in Asia was effectuated only in today’s Baluchistan province of Pakistan; only at the end of the 7th c. and the beginning of the 8th c., the Islamic armies reached the Indus Delta and Gujarat. But how the Islamic Caliphate started being flooded with Turanian soldiers as early as the last decades of the Umayyad rule, if there had not already been massive Turanian populations in the Sassanid Empire of Iran? If the Turanian nations were confined ‘somewhere in Eastern Siberia and Mongolia’ (as per the distortions of colonial Orientalists), why did they appear to be so deeply involved in battles and developments that took place in Mesopotamia and Syria during the first half of the 8th c.? The answer to this question is very simple: there were always massive Turanian populations in the Pre-Islamic Iranian empires.

———————————————————

Download the chapter in PDF:

iran-turan-manichaeism-islam Download

Benedict XVI and today’s Muslims opposite Manuel II Palaeologus and his Turkic Interlocutor

Leave a reply

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:

https://www.academia.edu/24775355/Benedictus_XVI_may_not_be_right_but_todays_Muslims_are_islamically_wrong_By_Prof_Muhammad_Shamsaddin_Megalommatis

https://www.academia.edu/24779064/What_Benedict_XVI_should_say_admonishing_Muslim_Ambassadors_by_Prof_Dr_Muhammad_Shamsaddin_Megalommatis

https://www.academia.edu/24779960/Can_Benedict_XVI_bring_Peace_and_Concord_-_by_Muhammad_Shamsaddin_Megalommatis

https://www.academia.edu/24778178/Lord_Carey_Benedictus_XVI_and_todays_decayed_Islam_Prof_Dr_Muhammad_Shamsaddin_Megalommatis

https://www.academia.edu/25317295/Benedict_XVI_between_Constantinople_and_Istanbul_by_Prof_Muhammad_Shamsaddin_Megalommatis

https://www.academia.edu/25317609/Benedictus_XVI_between_Istanbul_and_Nova_Roma_-_by_Prof._Muhammad_Shamsaddin_Megalommatis

Related articles published in 2005 and 2013:

https://www.academia.edu/43053199/Muslims_welcoming_Third_Jewish_Temple_on_the_Temple_Mount_Israel_2005

Muslims welcome the election of Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio as Pope Francis I

About Benedict XVI:

https://www.focus.de/politik/ausland/papst/benedikt-xvi-prof-dr-papst_id_1505077.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_renunciation

https://gloria.tv/share/1txNGosD4V3UCWBEP9N3umNbu

https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/la/speeches/2013/february/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20130211_declaratio.html

The Oldest Popes in History

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dicastery_for_the_Doctrine_of_the_Faith

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dicastery

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Archdiocese_of_Munich_and_Freising

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bishops_of_Freising_and_archbishops_of_Munich_and_Freising

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Pius_XII#Archbishop_and_papal_nuncio

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_Nunciature_to_Germany

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nunciature_of_Eugenio_Pacelli

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theology_of_Pope_Benedict_XVI

https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2005/august/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20050820_vigil-wyd.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecy_of_the_Popes

https://www.osservatoreromano.va/en/news/2021-11/ing-047/to-be-cooperatores-veritatis.html

http://www.fondazioneratzinger.va/content/fondazioneratzinger/en/news/notizie/_cooperatores-veritatis–lomaggio-della-fondazione-ratzinger-per.html

A-Dio Benedetto XVI (1927-2022)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XVI#Islam

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XVI_and_Islam#Concerning_the_Islam_controversy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regensburg_lecture

(audio recording) https://www.horeb.org/xyz/podcast/papstbesuch/2006-09-12_Vortrag_Uni_Regensburg.mp3

(in German) https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/de/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg.html

(in English) https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg.html

15 September 2006: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5348456.stm

17 September 2006: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5353208.stm

About Manuel II Palaeologus:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuel_II_Palaiologos

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Philadelphia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ala%C5%9Fehir

https://www.tertullian.org/fathers/manuel_paleologus_dialogue7_trans.htm

Seventh Dialogue: chapters 1–18 only (of 26 ‘Dialogues’)

https://books.google.ru/books?id=Ax8RAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=ru#v=onepage&q&f=false  (starting page 125)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amir_Sultan

https://islamsci.mcgill.ca/RASI/BEA/Shams_al-Din_al-Bukhari_BEA.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maragheh_observatory#Nasir_al-Din_al-Tusi

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasir_al-Din_al-Tusi

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_Chioniades

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuel_Bryennios

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basileus

About the Dzungar Buddhist extremists:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dzungaria

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dzungar_Khanate

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dzungar_conquest_of_Altishahr

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kazakh%E2%80%93Dzungar_Wars

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dzungar%E2%80%93Qing_Wars

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dzungar_genocide

————————————

Download the obituary in PDF:

benedict-xvi-and-todays-muslims-opposite-manuel-ii-palaeologus-and-his-turkic-interlocutor Download

The Spiritual Potency of Simple People: from J. B. Duroselle to today’s Manichaean Rulers of Europe to a Crushed Greek Antichrist

Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Turkey and Greece: False History, Fake Religion and Worthless Education lead to Disastrous Wars to fit an Evil Eschatological Agenda

3 Replies

Few days ago, I sent to a friend in Turkey a link to the Times of Israel; the feature presents new archaeological discoveries dating back to the time of Ramses II (who reigned from 1304 to 1235/or as per the lower chronological system, which is less probable, from 1279 to 1213). The article can be found here:

Frozen in time: 3,300-year-old burial cave from Ramses II era found at popular beach

https://www.timesofisrael.com/frozen-in-time-3300-year-old-burial-cave-accidentally-discovered-at-popular-beach/

I- The Calamitous Structure of Cultural Colonialism

My friend replied asking me to what extent we can trust Israeli scholars. His few words revealed an enormous ignorance, which -quite unfortunately- was personal and particular to him but prevails worldwide. This ignorance has to do with a very crucial issue, namely the fact that between the layer of Western (Israeli included) scholars and that of the average public, there are -across the Earth- several other layers through which the discoveries, data, explorations, info, investigations and conclusions of the various scholars are being distorted, altered and totally disfigured in order to keep the general readership in confusion, wrong conceptualization of the facts, and mistaken contextualization of the data. Of course, many scholars are known for carrying out biased research and for deliberately distorting the historical truth in order to promote preconceived schemes, fake ideologies, and personal misperceptions, but this layer is not always the main part of the problem.

Due to the aforementioned layers, the same original piece of info ends up multiply transfigured and ultimately misunderstood among various readers all over the world. These layers of catastrophic disinformation and premeditated misinformation have to do with the educational system of each and every country, the contents of the historical manuals, the publishing houses, the books published or not published, the effectuation or omission of translations (of books written in other languages), the press and the mass media in general, the different topics featured or avoided, the various issues discussed or not discussed, the frequency with which themes are presented, the circle of the Art and notably Cinematography, the movies and the documentaries released or not released, the local academic establishment in general, the religious establishment and the extent to which it influences (or it is allowed to influence) the entire nation, and -last but not the least- the political-governmental-administrative establishment.

At this point, it is essential to clarify that the political-governmental-administrative establishment in most of the countries of the world is not at all as powerful and as omnipotent as people erroneously think it is. This is so because of the fact that in most of the countries the ruling class is merely the product of the local ‘system’ (all the previous layers that I mentioned and viewed in historical perspective) and they therefore have tragically failed to even imagine that, in order to be real rulers, they have to first reject everything that they know, then examine, crosscheck, criticize and re-evaluate everything they had been taught, every single point that they had learned as hypothetically correct, and every single issue in life that they accepted thoughtlessly. Without an overwhelming, ongoing self-criticism, everyone can be mistaken at any possible moment. Permanent reassessment of everything is the clear condition that distinguishes the living from the dead.

Now, the above statement takes an even more nefarious turn if we take into consideration that in most of the cases a colonial interference took place locally involving extensive practices of educational, academic, intellectual, cultural, spiritual, ideological, political, economic and military intrusion, guidance and dictatorial decision-making in total opposition with the indigenous nation’s spiritual integrity, moral decency, cultural integrity, and national coherence.

Quite unfortunately, the very maleficent reality is that at the origin of every political-governmental-administrative establishment that is virtually unable to ceaselessly perform austere self-criticism and reassessment are hidden the immutable successors of a colonially imposed administration, which had caused terrible bloodshed because it was (at least initially) rejected. These colonial pawns that were dictatorially placed atop of the local government implemented colonial choices against local traditions, options and concepts at all levels: governmental, political, military, intellectual, academic, religious, spiritual, educational, artistic, cultural, behavioral and economic.

The colonial powers of England, France and America did not implement the same policies and did not seek to get the same results everywhere; from place to place, they tried to produce a fake, colonial, reality that suits the eschatological agendas of the different parts (Jesuit, Freemasonic, Zionist) of their establishment and backstage.

Here, they gathered 4-5 different nations and they tried to build a new state (this is called ‘Afghanistan’); there, they tried to divide a united nation (which has merely linguistic particularities from place to place, as it happens everywhere) and they created a fake nation out of thin air (this is named ‘Ukraine’). Every single detail of the colonial policies and practices hinges on eschatological details of the different agendas of the-powers-that-be.

What follows is my response to my friend’s question about the veracity of Israeli scholars’ findings and conclusions.

—————————————–

Dear Hakan,

Hope you are fine!

When it comes to the modern state of Fake Israel, I can tell you very easily that, in reality, today’s fake Muslims, due to their ignorance and stupidity, created that state. They contributed to its success only due to their darkness. I will only give you few examples of what these Muslims did not know.

II- Southern Canaan: an Egyptian Territory

The entire southern Canaan was part of Egypt for many centuries. Few people (even in Syria, Turkey, Egypt, Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon and Jordan) know that most of today’s Lebanon, the southern confines of Syria, the western part of Jordan, and all the land of Palestine belonged to Egypt for several hundreds of years in the second half of the 2nd millennium BCE.

Of course, these lands were not inhabited by Egyptians but Canaanites, i.e. Semitic populations who were the ancestors of the Phoenicians. However, they were heavily Egyptianized culturally and in every major city there was a good scribe specialized in Egyptian hieroglyphics. The Egyptians allowed local chieftains and small kings to stay in and rule place, and they collected annual tribute. But Egyptian army was patrolling there, pretty much like throughout North Sudan (i.e. Ancient Cush) for more than 1000 km south of Wadi Halfa alongside the Nile (up to Abu Hamed).

Asiatic and Cushitic territories were in reality colonial provinces. That is why it is correct to divide Ancient Egyptian History into Ancient Kingdom, Middle Kingdom and New Empire (1580-1080 BCE), because the 18th-20th dynasties constituted an imperial force.

In the northern confines of their Asiatic territories, the Egyptians were constantly clashing with the North Mesopotamian Mitanni kingdom of the Hurrians and with the Anatolian Hittites in order to maintain their presence in Southern Canaan.

The most famous of those battles was at Kadesh (Ancient Canaanite term from which originates the Arabic word Quds), which was located 25 km SW of Homs (Emessa). The battle of Kadesh (nearby the Orontes River-Asi Nehri; the same river that crosses Antioch/Antakya) is the earliest war to be documented from two different historical sources (Cuneiform Hittite and Egyptian hieroglyphics) and, although Ramses II (fighting at very old age) risked being encircled, the battle ended with no real outcome. The two emperors realized that they were in a status of military parity and expressed a certain degree of reciprocal respect; they then concluded the World History’s earliest saved treaty: the Treaty of Kadesh (between Hattushili III and Ramses II) — of which a copy is present in the premises of UN in New York.

Ramses II at the Battle of Kadesh, as depicted on the walls of his temple at Abu Simbel

Ramses II at the Battle of Kadesh; Ramesseum

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kadesh_(Syria)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kadesh

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orontes_River

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kadesh_inscriptions

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian%E2%80%93Hittite_peace_treaty

Cuneiform version of the Treaty of Kadesh; Archaeological Museum of Istanbul

Another cuneiform version of the Treaty of Kadesh, Neues Museum Berlin

Egyptian hieroglyphic version of the Treaty of Kadesh on the western outer wall of the Cachette farm at the Amun temple of Karnak

III. Wrong Education & Ignorance of Historical Identity can destroy entire countries

All this and much more should be on all historical manuals of the schoolchildren of Egypt, Palestine, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Turkey. Publishing houses should translate to Turkish, Arabic, Syriac, Coptic, Kurmanji, Zazaki, and Sorani books written by foreign scholars about these topics.

These topics should also be extensively and repeatedly discussed in the press and the TV, while great historical films and many documentaries should have been shot on similar historical events too. For a Turk today, Hattushili III and the Battle of Kadesh are more important than Mehmet II’s conquest of the tiny city-state of Constantinople in 1453. Any stupid guy, who disagrees with my statement, will lose his stupid country that he -provenly- does not deserve.

Unfortunately, the local, ignorant and uneducated masses of these countries destroy themselves and compromise (or even endanger) their future with their false religion (on which they so excessively but so erratically, so purposelessly and so mistakenly focus). This is so, because their so-called religion has nothing to do with the historical faith preached by prophet Muhammad, but consists in an evil and execrable political ideology that keeps all the masses idiotic enough for England, France, America, Canada, Australia, Israel, Belgium, New Zealand and Holland to use them as they want. Why is this so? Because their fake religion prevents a proper nation building!

All the ignorant and idiotic sheikhs of today’s fake Islam are the best tools of Israel, UK, US, France and the Western World in general. You will see that Israel will sooner or later will expand its borders — not for any other reason but because all these idiots, the Palestinians, the Egyptians, the Jordanians, the Lebanese, the Iraqis and others never became real nations able to duly evaluate their own History and extract the correct conclusions as regards their political decision-making. For the time being, only Russia prevents Israel from occupying all lands between Euphrates and Nile.

People, who do not know their History, will therefore be erased by the criminal Zionists, Jesuits and Freemasons. These evil gangsters, who controlled the real power of the Western countries, imposed on the colonized populations of the detached provinces of the Ottoman Empire the existing, fake religious and political leaderships in order to deliberately make these populations permanently unable to become proper nations and fight for their lands.

IV. National History, not Religion, makes today’s Nations Strong

The only, who understood the reality and imposed the correct measures and the suitable educational programs, was Kemal Ataturk; for today’s Turks, the History of the Hittites, the Assyrians, the Urartu, the Phrygians, the Ionians, the Romans, the Eastern Romans, the Aramaeans. the Iranians, the Turkmen and the Mongols is more important than the life of prophet Muhammad, the early Caliphates, and the failed Ottoman family rulers.

Ataturk visiting findings at the Archaeological Museum of Istanbul

1930: Ataturk visiting Aspendos to inspect the excavations of the local theater of the Roman period

Kemal Ataturk examining Hittite findings from Alaca Höyük

https://en.iae.org.tr/Event-Detail/Ataturk-and-Turkish-Archaeology-Prof-Mehmet-Ozdogan/136

https://isteataturk.com/g/icerik/Muzeler-ve-Ataturk/1548

https://isteataturk.com/g/icerik/Ataturk-ve-Muze/1547

https://www.tarihlisanat.com/mustafa-kemal-ataturk-ve-arkeoloji-html/

http://www.arkeolojidunyasi.com/ataturk_arkeoloji.html

National History, National Education, National Identity and National Integrity have nothing to do with religion, but have much to do with culture. That is why at the level of the correct educational curriculum, there must not be a course of Religion, but a course of History of Religion. Consequently, for the National History of the Turks today, the Hittite religion, the Attalid religion (as documented on so many monuments of Pergamum/Bergama), Iranian Mithraism (as revealed in Nemrut Dagh, the illustrious peak sanctuary and tumulus of Commagene, and elsewhere), Manichaeism and Nestorian / Monophysitic Christianity are more important than the early History of Islam, which did not occur on Anatolian soil.

Either you like it or not, it is like this or ….. you then have

– Greeks asking Smyrna, Ikonion, Constantinople and Trabzon,

– Armenians demanding NE Anatolia (by using the Armenian names of the different locations),

– Syrians saying that Hatay province belongs to Damascus, and

– Kurmanji aspiring to their own «state»!

The only possible response to the racism, the irredentism and the revisionism that are promoted by the so-called ‘Megali Idea’ of the fake Greek state is the full public demonstration of the fact that today’s Turks reflect the historical continuity of all nations and civilizations that existed in Anatolia. But this must be shown. The historical documentation must be evident in various festivals, special feasts, public spectacles, historical manuals, documentaries, movies, books, the press, the TV channels and the political discourses of the politicians and the statesmen. In other words, Turks must appear as representing the full historical continuity of Anatolia, Istanbul and Thrace. The only possible opposition to the racist version of History, which is supported by fake states fabricated by the West, is History of Cultural and National Continuity.

In a society of nations, there cannot be religious education or religion in Education; there has to be History of Religions. Not a fake version of History of Religions as it happens in the corrupt states of European Union, UK, US, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand where the manuals include chapters about Hinduism, Buddhism and other religions that are totally unrelated to those lands! On the contrary, a true and pertinent manual of History of Religions for Turkey’s secondary education will have to include chapters for

a) Manichaeism, which -preached from Mesopotamia- became the first religion in the World History to have adepts from the Atlantic to the Pacific,

Manichaeism – part of Turkey’s national heritage

Manichaeism as integral part of the Iranian-Turanian world

b) Nestorian Christianity, which -preached by Patriarch Nestorius of Constantinople- was diffused by the Aramaean merchants of Northern Mesopotamia as far as India, Central Asia, China and Siberia, becoming an important religion among Mongols as well, and making cities like Nusaybin, Urhoy (Urfa), and Mardin known to the easternmost confines of Asia,

c) Tengrism, which was the traditional monotheistic religion of all Turanian nations in Eastern Siberia, and

d) all the religions of nations that developed civilizations on Anatolian soil.

If you don’t develop your National History in a way that reconfirms the continuity that you represent, you simply don’t stand on your territory. Others will demand it. And this is the scope of the foreign involvement (I mean that of the colonial powers); they attempt to revive ancient conditions, situations and kingdoms.

V. What means National History for today’s Turks?

Today’s Turks are an amalgamation of several Anatolian nations from the Hittites down to the Eastern Romans, with a minor component of various Turkmen tribes (Seljuk, Dânişmendliler, Akkoyunlu, Karakoyunlu, Ottomans, etc.), who arrived and settled in Anatolia over the past 1000 years. At the times of Kemal Ataturk, true and correct National History was developed and imposed; then the Greeks did not have to demand anything anymore.

The ominous «Megali Idea» was abolished because of the rise of Kemal Ataturk.

Why?

Because it had a certain value only when opposite the stupid Ottomans!

Why were the Ottomans stupid?

Because they wanted to live in an era of modern nations without developing their National History (if they ever could)!

The idiots thought that their fake religion was enough!

That’s why they became a most ridiculed and ultimately windswept kiosk!!

When stupid politicians started coloring Turkey’s cultural heritage as markedly Turkic / Turanian, the Greeks (guided by the French and other Westerners) started saying: «let’s go back to Central Asia» or «prophecies announced our return to ‘our’ Constantinople»! They are technically right, although they were saying evident lies, because the stupid Pan-Turanians of Alparslan Türkeş are the mere fabrication of the English secret services.

Who is Alparslan Türkeş?

A Cypriot!

This means automatically «an agent of the English, who was sent to Turkey in order to destroy the state of Kemal Ataturk».

Türkeş’ stupid face is that of a Mediterranean; same for Bahçeli; if he walks in the streets of Ashgabat, Almaty or Bishkek they will take him for a European, a Pole or a Czech!!

And as you know, Pan-Turkism and Pan-Turanianism were strictly prohibited in Turkey at the time of Kemal Ataturk.

Why?

Because they are a form of Trotskyism and false internationalism!

Why do I say that the Greeks, willing to return to Constantinople, are technically right, although they were saying evident lies?

This is so for the following reasons; a monument is a dead item. It becomes alive in the hearts and the minds of people, who are conscious of their association with this monument, feel what it represents to them as cultural heritage, and have a proper perception of the monument’s value.

If for Turks Ayasofya (Hagia Sophia) Museum is more related to Mehmet II (1432-1481; reigned from 1444 to 1446 and from 1451 to 1481) than to Justinian I (482-565; reigned after 527), this means that they do not want to represent the Eastern Roman element or component of their identity. So, the Greeks are technically right, when saying that they feel attached to the value of the monument as a church. This situation generates apparently a clash (with one country reflecting one cultural-historical component of the monument, and the other expressing another component) that the Western powers will do their ingenious best to exploit.

900 years after Justinian, Mehmet II was declared Roman Emperor (Qaysar-i Rum) in 1453, but ……

The statu quo ante (when Ayasofya was exclusively a Museum) was a well-thought and balanced situation; it explicitly represented Modern Turkish equidistant stance towards the Eastern Roman and the Ottoman past (and cultural components of the monument); the only possible correct step beyond Kemal Ataturk’s wise decision would be to open the monument to both cults of parity basis; 60 days (1/6 of the year) for each cult would be a realistic and well-considered approach. It would also reflect the historical reality as per which the ancestors of many of today’s Turks were Eastern Roman Orthodox at the time of the conquest of Constantinople (1453).

What are the evident lies that the Greeks say?

This is simple to answer. In reality, they are very hypocritical about their claims on Hagia Sophia and Constantinople; this is so because of the lawless laws that they passed in order to be in harmony with those of the evil European Parliament and the biased pro-homosexual, pro-fornication and pro-Sodomy policies that the corrupt Western countries pursue.

You cannot evoke the last Eastern Roman king when you disreputably, criminally and inhumanly accept homosexual marriages; homosexuals and lesbians have no right to speak about Christian churches because by so doing, they desecrate them.

VI. Between Turkey and Greece, there can only be a Clash between Two Opposite Historical Models.

There cannot be opposition of the type «Islam vs. Christianity» or «Islam vs. West» in the clash between Turkey and Greece. This is what the Western colonial countries attempt to achieve via their local stooges; but it will be mutually calamitous. The only possible clash has to be that between two opposite historical models. This demands from the Turks a high level of national historical consciousness in order to demolish the bogus-historical dogma of the modern fake Greek state.

The only chance for any modern state to constitute a real modern nation is to consolidate its National History, National Education, National Identity and National Integrity; Turks do not need stupid and fake movies about the Ottoman family. They need movies about the Hittites, their enemy Troy, and their allies, i.e. the Achaeans of Mycenae. They need movies about the Attalids; they need movies about the Ionians of Smyrna who were very different from the Dorians of Sparta. They need movies about the kings of Pontus who were entirely Iranian Mithraic of culture. They need movies about the wars between the Eastern Romans and the Sassanid Iranians. They need movies about the Eastern Roman religious movements of Iconoclasm and Paulicianism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Iconoclasm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paulicianism

iconoclastic art Hagia Irene Church (Aya İrini)

The two sides of the religious dispute (Icon-fighters and iconolaters) present their arguments to the Emperor.

The most important point in all the above is this: in these proposed movies that have to be released by Turkish Cinematography, the various Greek positions about these topics must be opposed and rejected. In all these proposed projects, the truth must be emphatically supported and propagated, and the lies of the Greek education, books, press, mass media, and documentary movies rejected.

In other words, the true opposition between today’s Turkey and today’s Greece cannot be a silly polarization of the type «Ottoman Empire» vs. «Eastern Roman Empire». It has to take another form; when releasing a documentary, writing a book, including a chapter in the manuals or arranging a seminar and an open lecture about the «Eastern Roman Empire» (for which today’s Greeks blindly support Iconolatry and Iconodulism), the Turkish authors, speakers, intellectuals or film directors must defend (in the manuals of National History, in the press and the mass media, in the publishing houses, and in the documentary movies) Iconoclasm and Iconomachy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iconolatry

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iconodulism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iconoclasm

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/iconomachy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Iconoclasm

In Greece where there is no freedom to establish private universities, the various pseudo-professors of the state universities, the racist bogus-journalists, and the clownish diplomats, who are indoctrinated with the state’s fake historical dogma, say thousands of lies about Ancient Ionians, Aeolians, Asia Minor, Troy, Pontus, Cappadocia, and the Eastern Roman Empire.

Either Turkey will oppose all this filthy material point by point or Ankara will play stupidly the game of the French and the English with Erdogan’s silly Political Islam and then the country will be destroyed, because this is the existing English-French-American plan. Turkey will then look like another Palestine or Afghanistan.

This is the supreme reality in today’s world:

– if you don’t fully and comprehensively express the historical past and the cultural heritage of your land in the National History manuals of your high schools, others do not accept that your lands belong to you. This is common for all: Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Palestine, Sudan, Yemen, etc.

VII. Muslim Countries without National History will disappear in the Forthcoming Reconquista

Instead of learning Arabic and religion in the high schools, in Egypt the school children should study Egyptian Hieroglyphics and Coptic.

Instead of learning Arabic and religion in the high schools, in Syria, Lebanon, Palestine and Jordan the school children should study Phoenician, Assyrian-Babylonian, Hurrian, Aramaic and Syriac (Suryani).

Instead of learning Arabic and religion in the high schools, in Iraq the school children should study Assyrian-Babylonian and Sumerian.

Instead of learning Arabic and religion in the high schools, in Turkey the school children should study Hittite, Assyrian-Babylonian, Ancient Greek and Latin.

Instead of learning Arabic and religion in the high schools, in Iran the school children should study Old Achaemenid Cuneiform and Middle Persian (of the Sassanid times).

What you fail to understand that what is being undertaken by the Western colonial countries and the forces behind them (in addition to several other projects) consists in reality in another Reconquista.

What happened in 15th c. Spain (when the Catholic forces eradicated the local Muslim states), what took place in 16th c. Russia and Siberia (when the Orthodox forces gradually eliminated the local Muslim states), and what occurred in 19th c. Balkans (when the colonially fabricated fake states of Greece, Montenegro, Serbia and Romania terminated the Ottoman presence there) is now being attempted in several fronts from Morocco to Indonesia.

VIII. Religion does not liberate Nations! National History and Identity do!

In fact, all the fake professors of universities, fake sheikhs, fake politicians, fake journalists and even fake film directors in all the aforementioned countries worked in order to generate the Greater Israel, and when it will become a reality, all the people will stupidly ask «oh! How did it happen?»

I am not a fake historian, who got a position by saying «yes» to silly politicians, to trashy sheikhs and to fake (: crypto-homosexual) priests, who have been put in place by the English, the French and the Americans in order to destroy their own country.

I am a historian who learned and said always the truth.

You will soon see the terrible disaster that these ignorant, idiotic and cursed sheikhs of Hamas and Hezbollah, of Al Azhar and Medina proved to be able to bring on their peoples!

When did I come to know about it? In 2004! At the time, I was working in Cairo, but wanted to find a position in a university in another country. So, I checked online, found Birzeit University in Ramallah (later I understood that it was a CIA nest), noticed that they did not have a proper National History of the Palestinian Nation (from the Peleset of Crete and the Aegean to the Philistines to the Aramaization of the Roman times), and I wrote to them an email, attaching a long proposal and my curriculum.

After all, what is a nation without National History? A non-entity gone with the wind!

Result? No response! It was a very useful and rewarding experience for me! I then realized that all these fake professors of Palestinian (and other) universities are in fact on the payroll of the English and the American secret services (or merely depend on those who are), and they will consequently die like dogs before finally going to the bottom of the Hell where a position has been reserved for them.

This is the only truth: Israel was in reality created by all the stupid, uneducated and ignorant leaders of surrounding nations and by equally ignorant tribal chieftains of the Palestinians who did not know how to properly act and pertinently react.

All these stupid people did not have National History (: did not know their own National History) in order to effectively oppose and reject the lies of the Khazarians who were never Jewish but played a theater that not one Muslim mufti, qadi or sheikh was able to ever detect — let alone denounce and decry, proving the Khazarians’ claims on Palestine as entirely and definitely false.

Now, all the wars, which will soon explode, will be useful only to the various plans and agendas of the Zionist Khazarians, the Fake Freemasons of England, the other Fake Freemasons of France and America, and the Jesuits of Vatican.

Real faith has nothing to do with prayer or fasting; these are optional tools to consolidate the faith. Faith means -above all- pertinent use of every person’s intellect. This is God’s greatest present to Man.

Men have to use their intellect or they will face the consequences!

Best regards,

Shamsaddin

————————————————————-

Download the text in Word doc.:

egypt-palestine-syria-iraq-iran-turkey-and-greece Download

megalommatiscomments

Prof. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis comments on current World Affairs

Tag Archives: Manichaeism

Sassanid Iran – Turan, Kartir, Roman Empire, Christianity, Mani and Manichaeism

Iran–Turan, Manichaeism & Islam during the Migration Period and the Early Caliphates

Benedict XVI and today’s Muslims opposite Manuel II Palaeologus and his Turkic Interlocutor

The Spiritual Potency of Simple People: from J. B. Duroselle to today’s Manichaean Rulers of Europe to a Crushed Greek Antichrist

Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Turkey and Greece: False History, Fake Religion and Worthless Education lead to Disastrous Wars to fit an Evil Eschatological Agenda