Je n’imaginais pas que la question soulevée par le pape du Vatican, Benoît XVI, et ses retombées allaient perdurer jusqu’à maintenant ou que j’allais en parler de nouveau. Mais j’ai retrouvé récemment un important article signé par un écrivain israélien qui m’a été envoyé par un ami égyptien par courrier électronique.
Cet article comporte, à mon avis, la meilleure réponse à propos de ce sujet. J’ai estimé nécessaire de mettre le lecteur au courant de son contenu à cause de l’argument qu’il avance et de la discussion objective des faits historiques qui réfutent les conclusions du pape en faisant de l’islam une religion violente propagée par la force de l’épée.
L’écrivain de l’article n’est autre que Uri Avneri, ex-député de la Knesset et l’un des membres importants du mouvement de paix israélien Gush Shalom. Le titre de l’article est L’Epée de Mohamed. Avneri démontre que la relation entre les « Empereurs » et les chefs de l’Eglise depuis l’époque de l’Empire romain a évolué à plusieurs étapes, qui se caractérisaient parfois par des relations d’animosité. Les « Empereurs » démettaient les chefs d’Eglises ou le contraire se passait.
Mais ceci n’empêchait pas qu’il existait des moments de relations amicales et pleines de cordialité. Avneri dit que nous vivons actuellement l’une de ces étapes entre l’actuel pape et le président américain George Bush, ce qui nous rappelle la relation entre l’Eglise et les rois et reines de l’Europe du Moyen-Age. L’Eglise avait jadis incité les rois à déclencher des guerres contre les Arabes au nom de la croix. Les remarques faites par le pape dans sa conférence sont en accord avec les guerres menées par Bush pour l’heure contre ce qu’il appelle « le fascisme islamique » ou la « guerre contre le terrorisme ».
Avneri affirme qu’il est un juif athée et par conséquent, il ne peut pas comprendre les dires du pape selon lesquels Dieu, dans le christianisme, se caractérise par la rationalité, à l’inverse de l’islam. Il a ajouté qu’il n’avait pas l’intention de défendre un avis contre l’autre, mais de défendre plutôt la vérité.
Au début, Avneri démontre que le pape a fait une erreur en ce qui concerne le numéro du verset coranique, selon lequel il n’y a pas de contrainte en matière de religion, que c’est le verset 256 alors qu’il s’agit du verset 257 de la deuxième sourate. Le pape avance que lorsque la position de Mohamad s’est raffermie, il a donné l’ordre à ses adeptes d’utiliser l’épée au nom de la religion. Mais le Coran, déclare Avneri, ne comporte pas ce qui incite les musulmans à diffuser l’islam par l’épée et Mohamad, lorsqu’il a mené sa guerre, l’avait fait pour des raisons politiques et non pas religieuses.
Mohamad était sur le point, selon les dires d’Avneri, de fonder un grand Etat qui a perduré plus de mille ans. Et la question est de savoir ce qu’ont fait ces gouvernants musulmans avec la force de l’épée ? Avneri répond à cette question en niant le fait qu’ils aient utilisé la force à cette fin. Les musulmans ont gouverné la Grèce, par exemple, pendant des siècles, les Grecs se sont-ils convertis à l’islam et les musulmans ont-ils tenté de les y faire adhérer par la force ? Les Grecs de confession chrétienne ont occupé les plus hauts grades au sein de l’Empire ottoman, et les Bulgares, les Serbes et les Hongrois ainsi que d’autres peuples européens ont été soumis au pouvoir islamique sans être contraints à se convertir à l’islam.
Uri Avneri mentionne que la population albanaise et celle de Bosnie se sont converties à l’islam sans en être contraintes. Alors qu’en 1099, les croisades ont utilisé leurs épées pour massacrer les musulmans et les juifs sans distinction aucune et ceci au nom du christianisme rationnel dont parle le pape. L’écrivain israélien affirme que Jérusalem, à cette époque, était sous le pouvoir islamique depuis environ 400 ans, et en dépit de cela, la majorité était chrétienne.
Et Avneri de poursuivre : il n’existe aucune preuve dans l’Histoire que les musulmans ont essayé d’imposer l’islam par la force aux juifs. Ainsi, les juifs d’Espagne ont connu sous le pouvoir de l’islam une prospérité qu’ils ne connaissent pas de nos jours. Les juifs étaient des ministres et des savants et également des poètes. Les chercheurs musulmans, juifs et chrétiens ont travaillé ensemble à Tolède dans la traduction des œuvres des philosophes grecs. Cette époque était non seulement l’âge d’or des sciences et des arts, mais également celle de la coexistence entre les religions. Comment ceci aurait-il pu se faire si le prophète avait donné l’ordre aux musulmans de diffuser l’islam par l’épée ?
A travers les faits de l’Histoire, Avneri affirme que les événements ultérieurs sont encore plus significatifs. Lorsque les catholiques ont envahi l’Espagne et l’ont prise aux musulmans, ils ont établi un pouvoir religieux reposant sur le terrorisme. Les musulmans et les juifs étaient obligés de se convertir au christianisme, sinon ils auraient été massacrés ou expulsés. Avneri se demande où sont allés les milliers de juifs qui n’ont pas voulu renoncer à leur religion ? Et de répondre qu’ils ont été accueillis à bras ouverts dans les pays islamiques du Maroc jusqu’en Iraq, à l’est, et en Bulgarie dans le nord, qui faisait partie à l’époque de l’Empire ottoman jusqu’au sud. Les pays musulmans n’ont pas connu les massacres de l’inquisition catholique dans tous les pays chrétiens. L’islam n’a pas demandé à ses adeptes d’utiliser l’épée, mais de bien traiter les adeptes des religions monothéistes.
Ensuite, il aborde la question de la guézia ou tribut que payaient les non-musulmans dans les pays musulmans. Cet argument est avancé par certains pour prouver que les adeptes des autres religions n’étaient pas traités sur un pied d’égalité avec les musulmans. En effet, ils payaient le tribut mais ils n’étaient pas appelés à effectuer le service militaire dans leurs armées. C’était une équation qui plaisait bien aux juifs et aux chrétiens, surtout en sachant que le tribut qu’ils payaient équivalait à 2 % de leurs revenus annuels, alors que les musulmans, eux, devaient payer 2,5 % de leurs revenus annuels sous forme de zakat (ou aumône légale) et ils effectuaient également le service militaire.
Uri Avneri parvient à dire en conclusion, et je cite là littéralement ses propos dans l’article : « Chaque juif sincère connaisseur de l’histoire de son peuple doit ressentir une gratitude profonde envers l’islam qui a protégé les juifs tout au long de 50 générations. Alors que le monde chrétien les a persécutés par l’épée pour les obliger à se convertir au christianisme ».
Il ajoute que l’histoire de la diffusion de l’islam par l’épée est une mystification pure et simple dont les origines remontent à l’Europe au moment des grandes guerres contre les musulmans depuis la guerre des catholiques contre les musulmans en Espagne jusqu’aux croisades pour en arriver à la guerre contre les Turcs ottomans, qui étaient sur le point d’envahir Vienne. Le pape allemand croit en ces fausses idées. Ce qui signifie que le leader catholique du monde, qui est un grand théologien et chercheur en matière de religion, n’a pas déployé le maximum d’efforts pour étudier l’histoire des autres religions.
Si telles sont les croyances du pape, la question est de savoir la raison d’en parler actuellement ? Pour répondre à cette question, Avneri affirme que nous ne pouvons guère dissocier les dires du pape de la guerre actuelle menée par Bush au nom des croisades et qui a pour ultime objectif de contrôler les puits de pétrole de par le monde. Ce n’est pas la première fois que cet appel revêt un habit religieux pour voiler les intérêts économiques existants.
Pour terminer, tout ce que je peux dire, c’est que nous les musulmans aurions été embarrassés d’apporter une réponse pareille comme nos citoyens chrétiens ont été embarrassés par les paroles du pape. La réponse est arrivée de Uri Avneri, le juif athée, raison pour laquelle j’ai choisi de lui consacrer mon article cette semaine.
Un Israélien athée défend l’islam !!
-
bennani
- Mort virtuellement
- Messages : 249
- Inscription : dim. 15 févr. 2009 14:14
- Status : Hors-ligne
-
bennani
- Mort virtuellement
- Messages : 249
- Inscription : dim. 15 févr. 2009 14:14
- Status : Hors-ligne
Re: Un Israélien athée défend l’islam !!
le texte en agnlais
Uri Avnery
Peace activist and ex member of the Israeli parliament.
by courtesy & © 2006 Uri Avnery
Since the days when Roman Emperors threw Christians to the lions, the relations between the emperors and the heads of the church have undergone many changes.
Constantine the Great, who became Emperor in the year 306 - exactly 1700 years ago - encouraged the practice of Christianity in the empire, which included Palestine. Centuries later, the church split into an Eastern (Orthodox) and a Western (Catholic) part. In the West, the Bishop of Rome, who acquired the title of Pope, demanded that the Emperor accept his superiority.
The struggle between the Emperors and the Popes played a central role in European history and divided the peoples. It knew ups and downs. Some Emperors dismissed or expelled a Pope, some Popes dismissed or excommunicated an Emperor. One of the Emperors, Henry IV, "walked to Canossa", standing for three days barefoot in the snow in front of the Pope's castle, until the Pope deigned to annul his excommunication.
But there were times when Emperors and Popes lived in peace with each other. We are witnessing such a period today. Between the present Pope, Benedict XVI, and the present Emperor, George Bush II, there exists a wonderful harmony. Last week's speech by the Pope, which aroused a world-wide storm, went well with Bush's crusade against "Islamofascism", in the context of the "Clash of Civilizations".
IN HIS lecture at a German university, the 265th Pope described what he sees as a huge difference between Christianity and Islam: while Christianity is based on reason, Islam denies it. While Christians see the logic of God's actions, Muslims deny that there is any such logic in the actions of Allah.
As a Jewish atheist, I do not intend to enter the fray of this debate. It is much beyond my humble abilities to understand the logic of the Pope. But I cannot overlook one passage, which concerns me too, as an Israeli living near the fault-line of this "war of civilizations".
In order to prove the lack of reason in Islam, the Pope asserts that the prophet Muhammad ordered his followers to spread their religion by the sword. According to the Pope, that is unreasonable, because faith is born of the soul, not of the body. How can the sword influence the soul?
To support his case, the Pope quoted - of all people - a Byzantine Emperor, who belonged, of course, to the competing Eastern Church. At the end of the 14th century, the Emperor Manuel II Palaeologus told of a debate he had - or so he said (its occurrence is in doubt) - with an unnamed Persian Muslim scholar. In the heat of the argument, the Emperor (according to himself) flung the following words at his adversary:
"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".
These words give rise to three questions: (a) Why did the Emperor say them? (b) Are they true? (c) Why did the present Pope quote them?
WHEN MANUEL II wrote his treatise, he was the head of a dying empire. He assumed power in 1391, when only a few provinces of the once illustrious empire remained. These, too, were already under Turkish threat.
At that point in time, the Ottoman Turks had reached the banks of the Danube. They had conquered Bulgaria and the north of Greece, and had twice defeated relieving armies sent by Europe to save the Eastern Empire. On May 29, 1453, only a few years after Manuel's death, his capital, Constantinople (the present Istanbul) fell to the Turks, putting an end to the Empire that had lasted for more than a thousand years.
During his reign, Manuel made the rounds of the capitals of Europe in an attempt to drum up support. He promised to reunite the church. There is no doubt that he wrote his religious treatise in order to incite the Christian countries against the Turks and convince them to start a new crusade. The aim was practical, theology was serving politics.
In this sense, the quote serves exactly the requirements of the present Emperor, George Bush II. He, too, wants to unite the Christian world against the mainly Muslim "Axis of Evil". Moreover, the Turks are again knocking on the doors of Europe, this time peacefully. It is well known that the Pope supports the forces that object to the entry of Turkey into the European Union.
IS THERE any truth in Manuel's argument?
The pope himself threw in a word of caution. As a serious and renowned theologian, he could not afford to falsify written texts. Therefore, he admitted that the Qur'an specifically forbade the spreading of the faith by force. He quoted the second Sura, verse 256 (strangely fallible, for a pope, he meant verse 257) which says: "There must be no coercion in matters of faith".
How can one ignore such an unequivocal statement? The Pope simply argues that this commandment was laid down by the prophet when he was at the beginning of his career, still weak and powerless, but that later on he ordered the use of the sword in the service of the faith. Such an order does not exist in the Qur'an. True, Muhammad called for the use of the sword in his war against opposing tribes - Christian, Jewish and others - in Arabia, when he was building his state. But that was a political act, not a religious one; basically a fight for territory, not for the spreading of the faith.
Jesus said: "You will recognize them by their fruits." The treatment of other religions by Islam must be judged by a simple test: How did the Muslim rulers behave for more than a thousand years, when they had the power to "spread the faith by the sword"?
Well, they just did not.
For many centuries, the Muslims ruled Greece. Did the Greeks become Muslims? Did anyone even try to Islamize them? On the contrary, Christian Greeks held the highest positions in the Ottoman administration. The Bulgarians, Serbs, Romanians, Hungarians and other European nations lived at one time or another under Ottoman rule and clung to their Christian faith. Nobody compelled them to become Muslims and all of them remained devoutly Christian.
True, the Albanians did convert to Islam, and so did the Bosniaks. But nobody argues that they did this under duress. They adopted Islam in order to become favorites of the government and enjoy the fruits.
In 1099, the Crusaders conquered Jerusalem and massacred its Muslim and Jewish inhabitants indiscriminately, in the name of the gentle Jesus. At that time, 400 years into the occupation of Palestine by the Muslims, Christians were still the majority in the country. Throughout this long period, no effort was made to impose Islam on them. Only after the expulsion of the Crusaders from the country, did the majority of the inhabitants start to adopt the Arabic language and the Muslim faith - and they were the forefathers of most of today's Palestinians.
THERE IS no evidence whatsoever of any attempt to impose Islam on the Jews. As is well known, under Muslim rule the Jews of Spain enjoyed a bloom the like of which the Jews did not enjoy anywhere else until almost our time. Poets like Yehuda Halevy wrote in Arabic, as did the great Maimonides. In Muslim Spain, Jews were ministers, poets, scientists. In Muslim Toledo, Christian, Jewish and Muslim scholars worked together and translated the ancient Greek philosophical and scientific texts. That was, indeed, the Golden Age. How would this have been possible, had the Prophet decreed the "spreading of the faith by the sword"?
What happened afterwards is even more telling. When the Catholics re-conquered Spain from the Muslims, they instituted a reign of religious terror. The Jews and the Muslims were presented with a cruel choice: to become Christians, to be massacred or to leave. And where did the hundreds of thousand of Jews, who refused to abandon their faith, escape? Almost all of them were received with open arms in the Muslim countries. The Sephardi ("Spanish") Jews settled all over the Muslim world, from Morocco in the west to Iraq in the east, from Bulgaria (then part of the Ottoman Empire) in the north to Sudan in the south. Nowhere were they persecuted. They knew nothing like the tortures of the Inquisition, the flames of the auto-da-fe, the pogroms, the terrible mass-expulsions that took place in almost all Christian countries, up to the Holocaust.
WHY? Because Islam expressly prohibited any persecution of the "peoples of the book". In Islamic society, a special place was reserved for Jews and Christians. They did not enjoy completely equal rights, but almost. They had to pay a special poll-tax, but were exempted from military service - a trade-off that was quite welcome to many Jews. It has been said that Muslim rulers frowned upon any attempt to convert Jews to Islam even by gentle persuasion - because it entailed the loss of taxes.
Every honest Jew who knows the history of his people cannot but feel a deep sense of gratitude to Islam, which has protected the Jews for fifty generations, while the Christian world persecuted the Jews and tried many times "by the sword" to get them to abandon their faith.
THE STORY about "spreading the faith by the sword" is an evil legend, one of the myths that grew up in Europe during the great wars against the Muslims - the reconquista of Spain by the Christians, the Crusades and the repulsion of the Turks, who almost conquered Vienna. I suspect that the German Pope, too, honestly believes in these fables. That means that the leader of the Catholic world, who is a Christian theologian in his own right, did not make the effort to study the history of other religions.
Why did he utter these words in public? And why now?
There is no escape from viewing them against the background of the new Crusade of Bush and his evangelist supporters, with his slogans of "Islamofascism" and the "Global War on Terrorism" - when "terrorism" has become a synonym for Muslims. For Bush's handlers, this is a cynical attempt to justify the domination of the world's oil resources. Not for the first time in history, a religious robe is spread to cover the nakedness of economic interests; not for the first time, a robbers' expedition becomes a Crusade.
The speech of the Pope blends into this effort. Who can foretell the dire consequences?
Uri Avnery
Peace activist and ex member of the Israeli parliament.
by courtesy & © 2006 Uri Avnery
Since the days when Roman Emperors threw Christians to the lions, the relations between the emperors and the heads of the church have undergone many changes.
Constantine the Great, who became Emperor in the year 306 - exactly 1700 years ago - encouraged the practice of Christianity in the empire, which included Palestine. Centuries later, the church split into an Eastern (Orthodox) and a Western (Catholic) part. In the West, the Bishop of Rome, who acquired the title of Pope, demanded that the Emperor accept his superiority.
The struggle between the Emperors and the Popes played a central role in European history and divided the peoples. It knew ups and downs. Some Emperors dismissed or expelled a Pope, some Popes dismissed or excommunicated an Emperor. One of the Emperors, Henry IV, "walked to Canossa", standing for three days barefoot in the snow in front of the Pope's castle, until the Pope deigned to annul his excommunication.
But there were times when Emperors and Popes lived in peace with each other. We are witnessing such a period today. Between the present Pope, Benedict XVI, and the present Emperor, George Bush II, there exists a wonderful harmony. Last week's speech by the Pope, which aroused a world-wide storm, went well with Bush's crusade against "Islamofascism", in the context of the "Clash of Civilizations".
IN HIS lecture at a German university, the 265th Pope described what he sees as a huge difference between Christianity and Islam: while Christianity is based on reason, Islam denies it. While Christians see the logic of God's actions, Muslims deny that there is any such logic in the actions of Allah.
As a Jewish atheist, I do not intend to enter the fray of this debate. It is much beyond my humble abilities to understand the logic of the Pope. But I cannot overlook one passage, which concerns me too, as an Israeli living near the fault-line of this "war of civilizations".
In order to prove the lack of reason in Islam, the Pope asserts that the prophet Muhammad ordered his followers to spread their religion by the sword. According to the Pope, that is unreasonable, because faith is born of the soul, not of the body. How can the sword influence the soul?
To support his case, the Pope quoted - of all people - a Byzantine Emperor, who belonged, of course, to the competing Eastern Church. At the end of the 14th century, the Emperor Manuel II Palaeologus told of a debate he had - or so he said (its occurrence is in doubt) - with an unnamed Persian Muslim scholar. In the heat of the argument, the Emperor (according to himself) flung the following words at his adversary:
"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".
These words give rise to three questions: (a) Why did the Emperor say them? (b) Are they true? (c) Why did the present Pope quote them?
WHEN MANUEL II wrote his treatise, he was the head of a dying empire. He assumed power in 1391, when only a few provinces of the once illustrious empire remained. These, too, were already under Turkish threat.
At that point in time, the Ottoman Turks had reached the banks of the Danube. They had conquered Bulgaria and the north of Greece, and had twice defeated relieving armies sent by Europe to save the Eastern Empire. On May 29, 1453, only a few years after Manuel's death, his capital, Constantinople (the present Istanbul) fell to the Turks, putting an end to the Empire that had lasted for more than a thousand years.
During his reign, Manuel made the rounds of the capitals of Europe in an attempt to drum up support. He promised to reunite the church. There is no doubt that he wrote his religious treatise in order to incite the Christian countries against the Turks and convince them to start a new crusade. The aim was practical, theology was serving politics.
In this sense, the quote serves exactly the requirements of the present Emperor, George Bush II. He, too, wants to unite the Christian world against the mainly Muslim "Axis of Evil". Moreover, the Turks are again knocking on the doors of Europe, this time peacefully. It is well known that the Pope supports the forces that object to the entry of Turkey into the European Union.
IS THERE any truth in Manuel's argument?
The pope himself threw in a word of caution. As a serious and renowned theologian, he could not afford to falsify written texts. Therefore, he admitted that the Qur'an specifically forbade the spreading of the faith by force. He quoted the second Sura, verse 256 (strangely fallible, for a pope, he meant verse 257) which says: "There must be no coercion in matters of faith".
How can one ignore such an unequivocal statement? The Pope simply argues that this commandment was laid down by the prophet when he was at the beginning of his career, still weak and powerless, but that later on he ordered the use of the sword in the service of the faith. Such an order does not exist in the Qur'an. True, Muhammad called for the use of the sword in his war against opposing tribes - Christian, Jewish and others - in Arabia, when he was building his state. But that was a political act, not a religious one; basically a fight for territory, not for the spreading of the faith.
Jesus said: "You will recognize them by their fruits." The treatment of other religions by Islam must be judged by a simple test: How did the Muslim rulers behave for more than a thousand years, when they had the power to "spread the faith by the sword"?
Well, they just did not.
For many centuries, the Muslims ruled Greece. Did the Greeks become Muslims? Did anyone even try to Islamize them? On the contrary, Christian Greeks held the highest positions in the Ottoman administration. The Bulgarians, Serbs, Romanians, Hungarians and other European nations lived at one time or another under Ottoman rule and clung to their Christian faith. Nobody compelled them to become Muslims and all of them remained devoutly Christian.
True, the Albanians did convert to Islam, and so did the Bosniaks. But nobody argues that they did this under duress. They adopted Islam in order to become favorites of the government and enjoy the fruits.
In 1099, the Crusaders conquered Jerusalem and massacred its Muslim and Jewish inhabitants indiscriminately, in the name of the gentle Jesus. At that time, 400 years into the occupation of Palestine by the Muslims, Christians were still the majority in the country. Throughout this long period, no effort was made to impose Islam on them. Only after the expulsion of the Crusaders from the country, did the majority of the inhabitants start to adopt the Arabic language and the Muslim faith - and they were the forefathers of most of today's Palestinians.
THERE IS no evidence whatsoever of any attempt to impose Islam on the Jews. As is well known, under Muslim rule the Jews of Spain enjoyed a bloom the like of which the Jews did not enjoy anywhere else until almost our time. Poets like Yehuda Halevy wrote in Arabic, as did the great Maimonides. In Muslim Spain, Jews were ministers, poets, scientists. In Muslim Toledo, Christian, Jewish and Muslim scholars worked together and translated the ancient Greek philosophical and scientific texts. That was, indeed, the Golden Age. How would this have been possible, had the Prophet decreed the "spreading of the faith by the sword"?
What happened afterwards is even more telling. When the Catholics re-conquered Spain from the Muslims, they instituted a reign of religious terror. The Jews and the Muslims were presented with a cruel choice: to become Christians, to be massacred or to leave. And where did the hundreds of thousand of Jews, who refused to abandon their faith, escape? Almost all of them were received with open arms in the Muslim countries. The Sephardi ("Spanish") Jews settled all over the Muslim world, from Morocco in the west to Iraq in the east, from Bulgaria (then part of the Ottoman Empire) in the north to Sudan in the south. Nowhere were they persecuted. They knew nothing like the tortures of the Inquisition, the flames of the auto-da-fe, the pogroms, the terrible mass-expulsions that took place in almost all Christian countries, up to the Holocaust.
WHY? Because Islam expressly prohibited any persecution of the "peoples of the book". In Islamic society, a special place was reserved for Jews and Christians. They did not enjoy completely equal rights, but almost. They had to pay a special poll-tax, but were exempted from military service - a trade-off that was quite welcome to many Jews. It has been said that Muslim rulers frowned upon any attempt to convert Jews to Islam even by gentle persuasion - because it entailed the loss of taxes.
Every honest Jew who knows the history of his people cannot but feel a deep sense of gratitude to Islam, which has protected the Jews for fifty generations, while the Christian world persecuted the Jews and tried many times "by the sword" to get them to abandon their faith.
THE STORY about "spreading the faith by the sword" is an evil legend, one of the myths that grew up in Europe during the great wars against the Muslims - the reconquista of Spain by the Christians, the Crusades and the repulsion of the Turks, who almost conquered Vienna. I suspect that the German Pope, too, honestly believes in these fables. That means that the leader of the Catholic world, who is a Christian theologian in his own right, did not make the effort to study the history of other religions.
Why did he utter these words in public? And why now?
There is no escape from viewing them against the background of the new Crusade of Bush and his evangelist supporters, with his slogans of "Islamofascism" and the "Global War on Terrorism" - when "terrorism" has become a synonym for Muslims. For Bush's handlers, this is a cynical attempt to justify the domination of the world's oil resources. Not for the first time in history, a religious robe is spread to cover the nakedness of economic interests; not for the first time, a robbers' expedition becomes a Crusade.
The speech of the Pope blends into this effort. Who can foretell the dire consequences?
-
bennani
- Mort virtuellement
- Messages : 249
- Inscription : dim. 15 févr. 2009 14:14
- Status : Hors-ligne