Monday, May 19, 2014

... against Alberto Rivera's Hogwash on Origins of Islam

I am not defending Islam as divine.

I think Islam and Mormonism may both have the same origin as "Greek Mythology" - i e the "Theological" part explaining origin of the gods and earth herself being a goddess and origin of all other gods and all that, the work called Theogony - namely a fallen angel parading as an angel of light before a non-Hebrew (as to Hesiod and similarily Numa Pompilius who got so much from the "nymph Egeria") and under the New Law before a non-Catholic, like Mohammed and Joseph Smith.

But some explanations of its non-divinity are bosh, and this is true about Alberto Rivera's version.

As I think Cardinal Bea was not a good Catholic, I am dubious as to who is guilty of inventing some of the following lies about the origins of Islam. But Bea or Rivera being guilty, Bea fooling Rivera or Rivera lying about Bea, lies the statements very often are.

Why did the Vatican train Muhammad and created Islam??? #1
Meat in due season
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QGySwYYjb0


[Countering general attacks on Catholicism]

Vaticanus was NOT one of the Seven Hills. It was outside the ancient city walls.

"From Jesuit Cardinal Bea, Rivera learned in secret briefings in the Vatican when he was a Jesuit priest, under oath and induction."


What is "under ... induction"?

WHY should we trust secret briefings given by Cardinal Bea about sth that happened or not some thousand five hundred years earlier?

How would Bea have known? Why would he be honest in a secret briefing like that?

Among Trad Catholics, Bea is infamous for ecumenism. We consider him a likely Freemason infiltrator into the Church and if Rivera was honest about the briefings, I consider him to have been gullible while hearing Bea.

If the Early Church Fathers were giving Babylonian religion a pseudo-Christian facelift [like the video claims], how would that not make Jesus a liar about Matthew 28:18-20?

I am not disputing Satan wanted a counterfeit Christian religion but you are making him far too succesful in getting it!

Satan got diverse sects that disappeared and new ones popped up to replace them. Ebionites, Gnostics, Manichaeans, Montanists, Novatians, Donatists, Circumcelliones, Priscillianists ...

About Vatican Hill:

Topography of ancient Rome

Vaticanus Mons (or Vaticanus Collis[6]) was most often a name in Classical Latin for the Janiculum.[7] Cicero uses the plural form Vaticani Montes in a context that seems to include the modern Vatican Hill as well as the Monte Mario and the Janiculan hill.[8]

The Vaticanum or Campus Vaticanus was originally a level area between the Vaticanus Mons and the Tiber. During the Republican era, it was an unwholesome site frequented by the destitute.[9] Caligula and Nero used the area for chariot exercises, as at the Gaianum, and renewal was encouraged by the building of the Circus of Nero, also known as the Circus Vaticanus or simply the Vaticanum. The location of tombs near the Circus Vaticanus is mentioned in a few late sources.[10]

Vaticanus Mons came to refer to the modern Vatican Hill as a result of calling the whole area the "Vatican" (Vaticanum) through its identification with the circus. Christian usage of the name was spurred by the martyrdom of St. Peter there.


Wikipedia : Vatican Hill
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatican_Hill


And Mystery Babylon is probably Judaism by its rejection of Christ.

[Specific claims on "general geopolitic" background of Islam countered]

How could:

  • a) St Augustine of Hippo have converted any Arabs to anything, when Arabs were not even around in the Maghreb before Mohammed's armies were led by his successor Omar?

  • b) Arabs who were Roman Catholics - some of mainly Jewish, Samarian, Edomite, Moabite and Ammonite origin in Holy Land and East of Jordan were such - have come to hope for an Arabic prophet?


The story is, sorry to use the word, ridiculous.

"His [St Augustine's] monasteries served as bases to seek out and destroy Bible manuscripts owned by the true Christians."


If you can believe that rot, you can believe anything.

Monasteries were used to make Bible manuscripts, not to seek out rival ones.

And Inquisitors destroying faked Bible translations (which these sham historians would call Bibles) was a MUCH later issue.

Approximately 800 years after St Augustine. It did go hand in hand with making real translations, like the one by Cardinal and Inquisitor Jiménez in Spain.

The Vatican wanted Jerusalem but was blocked by the Jews?

Preposterous.

As for persecution of Jews at Muslim hands:

  • Muhammed might have become a Christian if he had not had Jewish friends to ridicule the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation,
  • Jews had persecuted Christians in Yemenite Kingdom,
  • the first Jewish tribe to be massacred by Muhammed was descended from grandfathers who had massacred a Christian tribe 100 years earlier.


If Muhammed had been a Christian, he might still have sympathised with those Christians, but in a less bloodthirsty way. And no, Donatists were not the true Christians in North Africa.

"Some Arabs had become Roman Catholics"


Rather Jews and Samarians had become Christians (a later k a RC), and had become Arabs through Beduin lifestyle. In Palestine.

[Excepting those that were outside the Church.]

"And could be used to report to the Vatican"


That very much overdoes the kind of centralism that RC only gets later in full effect. It makes it sound like RC in XXth C with telephones and fax and internet.

"Others were used in an underground spy network"


Is that still from Cardinal Bea's briefing of Rivera? It is ridiculous. And I mean pretty completely.

"Looking to North Africa, they saw the multitudes of Arabs as a source of manpower to do their dirty work"


Multitudes of Arabs in North Africa, again?

They came AFTER Mohammed, with Kaleef Omar, as already said!

Why did the Vatican train Muhammad and created Islam??? #2
Meat in due season
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuqXWh5iNwQ


"In the Vatican briefing Cardinal Bea told this story ..."


If Alberto Rivera was not a liar, he was a useful idiot for an anticatholic liar called Augustin Bea.

"... 'A wealthy Arabian lady who was a faithful follower of the pope played a tremendous part in this drama. She was a widow named Khadijah. She gave her wealth to the church and retired to a concent, but was given an assignment. ..."


Ladies giving their wealth to the Church and retiring to convents were usually not trained for assignments involving carnal intercourse, but more usually to abstain from even carnal memories of their former married life.

The relevant parts of Arabia do not seem to have been rich in convents. And I have heard elsewhere that Khadijah was the daughter of a rabbi. MOST probably she was what would now be called non-denominational or spiritual but not religious. She had no confessional qualms about accepting her husband's revelation.

" ... Khadijah had a cousin named Waraquah.. who was also a very faithful Roman Catholic."


Look a bit closer on "Waraquah" (in Arabic "q" is not how you spell "k" in the connexion "qu"="kw", but a variant of the k sound, further back in the mouth). Here is wiki:

"Waraka ibn Nawfal

Waraka (or Waraqah) ibn Nawfal ibn Asad ibn Abd-al-Uzza ibn Qusayy Al-Qurashi (Arabic ورقه بن نوفل بن أسد بن عبد العزّى بن قصي القرشي) was the paternal first cousin of Khadija, the first wife of the Islamic prophet Muhammad.

Waraka and Khadija were also the first cousins twice removed of Muhammad: their paternal grandfather Asad ibn Abd-al-Uzza was Muhammad’s matrilineal great-great-grandfather.[1] By another reckoning, Waraka was Muhammad's third cousin once removed: Asad ibn Abd-al-Uzza was a grandson of Muhammad's patrilineal great-great-great-grandfather Qusai ibn Kilab.

Waraka was an Ebionite priest[dubious – discuss] and is revered in Islamic tradition for being one of the first monotheists to believe in the prophecy of Muhammad."


Whereas the French wiki states:

"Waraqa ibn Nawfal est le cousin de Khadija, première épouse de Mahomet. Waraqa était selon certaines sources (Histoire d'Aïcha, rapportée par Mouhammad al-Bukhârî) un prêtre converti au christianisme nestorien, le prêtre ou prêcheur de la Mecque, et mourut en chrétien nestorien. Cependant, des recherches récentes tendent à faire penser qu'il était Nazaréen (ébionite) ou judéo-nazaréen. Il présida au mariage de Mahomet en tant que "prêtre nasraniy" (nazaréen)"


Wikipedia : Waraka ibn Nawfal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waraka_ibn_Nawfal


Wikipedia française: Waraqa ibn Nawfal
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waraqa_ibn_Nawfal


Well, that is in such a case the latest Ebionite I knew of. Nestorian seems much more likely.

The thesis is from 2004: "thèse d'Édouard-Marie Gallez, le Messie et son prophète, soutenue en 2004 à l'Université Marc Bloch de Strasbourg" - he is an ecclesiastic as involved as Bea in ecumenism. He would have an agenda for such statements, an agenda of rapprochement.

Either way, Ebionite (world record latest such) or Nestorian, Waraqa was not a Roman Catholic. Whatever Bea may have told Rivera.

"...'Teachers were sent to young Muhammad and he had intensive training. He studied the works of St Augustine which prepared him for his great calling. ..."


How could he study works of St Augustine written in Latin and not translated to Arabic? It is pretty preposterous. It is also hardly in character with the rather self willed and vain Muhammad to submit himself to intensive training of any sort.

Muhammed during his training was "taught" Catholics were the only true Christians? He was "taught" Jews were his enemies?

He met Nestorians and maybe Monophysites, but hardly Catholics. A Jewish tribe had eradicated a Christian Monophysite one (same Jewish tribe Muhammed killed off). A Jewish friend of Muhammed tried to poison him - but was forgiven.

And Muslims, just like Jews, know very well Protestants come from Catholics and Pentecostals from Protestants.

Has nothing to do with any "training".

Later St Francis of Assisi also made a good impression on a Sultan he tried - in vain - to convert.

And the Negus of Abyssinia was not Roman Catholic, but Monophysite.

[Back a bit in « the tape »]

"The Vatican had Catholic Arabs across North Africa spread the story of a great one ...."


The population of North Africa whether in St Augustine's or later in Muhammed's day was not Arabic. The frontier between Asia and Africa was - centuries earlier than that - considered the Nile. Around it and West of it you had Copts. East of arable land attached to its East bank and also on the other shore of Red Sea, you had Arabs of mixed Ishmaelite and Madianite origin (Ishmaelites had subsumed remaining Madianites), in S. Arabia you had Joctanites, in Arabia Petraea a k a Jordan you had Edom, Moab and Ammon forming an Arabic population. And though Christians in the Holy Land were Roman Citizens and of Jewish, Samarian and Galilean origin, they often had an Arabic lifestyle and spoke Arabic or Aramaic. BUT in North Africa, West of the Copts you had Mauretanians and other non-Arabic peoples.

They were later conquered by Arabs. Partly Arabised.

To the Negus again.

If Muhammed's views of the Holy and Blessed Virgin Mary were more like the Christian than the traditionally prevalent Jewish one, it is because his views of Jesus were more like the Christian than the traditionally prevalent Jewish one.

More like, not identic.

"These Muslims received protection from Catholic Kings because of Mohammed's revelations"


Now, exactly how many Catholic Kings were there back then in that particular area?

The Monophysite Negus of Ethiopia of Abessinia, ok. I have never heard he received and protected Muslims around the Hegira timespan, but that may pass. But he was hardly kingS in the plural.

There may have been tribal Sheikhs in Arabia who were Catholic or more probably Nestorian or Monophysite. They were hardly under the Vatican's control. And in supporting - if that part is true - "these Muslims", they were acting in a kind of self defense against idolaters and the then and there often very agressive Jews.

"Some of Muhammed's writings were placed in the Quran, others were never published, they are now in the hands of High Ranking Ayatollahs"


! ...

  • Muhammed certainly did claim his vision of angel Jibreel came from Allah, just as Joseph Smith claimed so (ok, not "Allah" in that case) for his conversations with the angel Moroni.

  • Muhammed did not write, as far as Muslim tradition goes. I have heard one say that each Soorate was built up by separate revelations called each one an Ayah. Which Muhammed on every occasion declared part of such and such a Soorate. Each Ayah was memorised along with other previous parts of the Soorate. Later all the Soorates were written down.

  • What is also available to Ayatollahs are the Hadiths. Those are things he said while NOT claiming divine inspiration for them.

    Some of them show a partly decent man, like the Hadith about giving to a beggar even if he goes off on horseback. One can not accuse him of having been a stingy miser like Uncle Scrooge.

  • Ayatollahs and Imams and so on are not ranked as Catholic clergy are. They are "graded" by reputation, such and such having a better one than most others (like Chomsky and Labov are not a higher grade of linguists than other ones, but better famed, and earlier on so was Meillet*, Roman Jacobson, and a few more).

    But as for clergywise "rank" it is about as even among Muslims as among Congregationalists or possibly Presbyterians.

    That aspect is one of the Islamic inspirations for the Reformation (via less devoutly Catholic Crusaders).


"When Cardinal Bea shared with Rivera in the Vatican, he said these writings are guarded because they contain information that links the Vatican to the creation of Islam."


Was Cardinal Bea or was Alberto Rivera the original Dan Brown?

OBVIOUSLY this is doing exactly what Dan Brown did in The da Vinci Code.

And some guys really believe this stuff, because they believe a former Catholic priest (as Alberto Rivera claimed to be) who converted to Biblical Christianity (as if Catholicism was not a thousand times better supported by the Bible than Protestantism) and who claimed to have had access to confidential information in a secret briefing (as if that was the kind of information God wanted us to decide any religious truth claims by) ... ok, anyone falling for this stuff, hand on heart, are you Christians?

"Both sides have so much information on each other, that if exposed it could create such a scandal that it would be a disaster for both religions."


First, this is Dan Brownish bosh.

Second, if such a plot existed in the Vatican back then - in fact it did not - it would not disprove Catholicism any more than the plots of Bea and Bergoglio to adapt Catholicism to Liberal Protestantism disprove it now.

We have been warned about wolves in sheep clothing.

____________________

* And Zsemerenyi and I keep forgetting the name of the Swiss one ... Saussure. Ferdinand Saussure was a Swiss linguist, very antiphilological, and a structuralist, actually inventor of the concept. And in case you wonder, I have not read all of these, and those I have read I have only read in extracts, usually.

No comments: