While discussing the history of the Koran in Europe during a televised interview on the Arabic-language program, “Allah Knows,” Dr. Ali Gom‘a, one of Egypt’s foremost clerics, said that early European translations of the Koran were rooted in Christian desires to learn more about Islam and its language, Arabic. But then he made the following assertion:
The [European/Catholic] Church at that time was preoccupied with trying to distort the Noble Koran, for instance when Pope Urban II ordered a warped translation of the Noble Koran [to be made] into Latin so that Islam would not spread to Europe; and many knights of the crusades were returning to Europe as Muslims. All these matters frightened and caused the papacy to try to suppress the spread of Islam on the [European] continent since the sixteenth century.
Such claims must surely raise eyebrows, at least among those knowledgeable of true history. There is no evidence of “many knights” —one cannot even think of a single one—returning to Europe as Muslim converts.
As for the claim that Medieval Christians intentionally tried to disseminate distorted translations of the Koran in order to dissuade their coreligionists from converting to Islam, the only truth here is that Christians were indeed antagonistic to Islam—reciprocally so. However, and quite to the contrary, their way of opposing Muhammad’s creed was to translate the Koran with great and meticulous care—for they were convinced that nothing quite so discredited Islam as the Koran itself, which, as theologians like Thomas Aquinas argued, so obviously did not reflect the will of God.
Thus like his well-credentialed colleague, Dr. Ahmed al-Tayeb—who claims that until Israel came along in 1948 and manipulated them into killing each other, Muslims had lived in harmony for centuries—Dr. Ali Gom‘a is more proof that it is not merely “crazy” or “fringe” clerics who have an utterly paranoid and ahistorical sense of reality, but rather the most decorated and mainstream ones.
Medieval Christians knew very well what Muhammad said and did:
What Saint Thomas Aquinas Says About Mohammed and Islam
“Mohammed seduced the people by promises of carnal pleasure to which the concupiscence of the flesh urges us. His teaching also contained precepts that were in conformity with his promises, and he gave free rein to carnal pleasure. In all this, as is not unexpected; he was obeyed by carnal men. As for proofs of the truth of his doctrine, he brought forward only such as could be grasped by the natural ability of anyone with a very modest wisdom. Indeed, the truths that he taught he mingled with many fables and with doctrines of the greatest falsity.
“He did not bring forth any signs produced in a supernatural way, which alone fittingly gives witness to divine inspiration; for a visible action that can be only divine reveals an invisibly inspired teacher of truth. On the contrary, Mohammed said that he was sent in the power of his arms – which are signs not lacking even to robbers and tyrants. What is more, no wise men, men trained in things divine and human, believed in him from the beginning. Those who believed in him were brutal men and desert wanderers, utterly ignorant of all divine teaching, through whose numbers Mohammed forced others to become his followers by the violence of his arms. Nor do divine pronouncements on the part of preceding prophets offer him any witness. On the contrary, he perverts almost all the testimony of the Old and the New Testaments by making them into a fabrication of his own, as can be seen by anyone who examines his law. It was, therefore, a shrewd decision on his part to forbid his followers to read the Old and New Testaments, lest these books convict him of falsity. It is thus clear that those who place faith in his words believe foolishly.”
https://www.tfpstudentaction.org/resources/forgotten-truths/what-saint-thomas-aquinas-says-about-mohammed-and-islam
Summa Contra Gentiles, Book 1, Chapter 16, Art. 4, Footnote 1
only the totally ignorant about anything can accept such crap as authoritative commentary.
Didn’t quite see it thataway, but am afraid you are right.
You can never trust anything a Moslem says,they lie all the time,the only time a Moslem is not lying is when his moth is shut.
For a valid translation of the Qur’an, I recommend one of the first translations by a highly respected Muslim, Muhammad Zafrulla Khan . Translated in 1893, his book, titled The Qur’an was published by Olive Branch Press (An imprint of Interlink Publishing Party), located at
99 Seventh Avenue
Brooklyn New York 11215
ISBN 1-56656-255-4
A truly honorable Muslim, Mr. Khan offers a deep understanding of Arabic scholarship and Islamic learning, and he had a capable command of the English language.
I have read his translation line-by-line and for those of you who desire an objective overview of the Qur’an and to learn of the many abominable verses it contains, I welcome you to a FREE READ of “Allah, We, Our and Us”. It resides on:
http://iranpoliticsclub.net/library/english-library/allah-we/index.htm
Thanx Nicholas, however in 1,386 years Islam has had an opportunity to prove its loyalty to humanity ………………………………… and failed.
You are correct and that is why I recommend the FREE READ of Allah, We, Our and US. This book reveals the despicable history of Islam and the many abominable verses in the Qur’an. People have got to learn that the Qur’an is the source of discontent and terrorism in many countries. An article that reveals WHY and HOW to EXPOSE the Qur’an is provided via the link: http://iranpoliticsclub.net/islam/expose-quran/index.htm
Who is interested in a scholarly research on medieval translations of the Koran may be referred to Ulisse Cecini “Alcoranus latinus : eine sprachliche und kulturwissenschaftliche Analyse der Koranübersetzungen von Robert von Ketton und Marcus von Toledo”, Berlin, Münster 2012. See:
https://www.deutsche-digitale-bibliothek.de/item/RANUY7NFCOLPCQE5QG2ETS275XUFJKA6?firstHit=RQC7KUCLWAOHNOV3BYFO5VIJIPFI6XJG&sort=random_3291550928183515996&viewType=list&lastHit=lasthit&hitNumber=610479&offset=610400&query=*&rows=100&lang=en
How was the discredited view of the Crusades become the established narrative? Today, Muslims point out the Crusades as an event that describes what Christians are capable of. And from the vatican down we have had the church apologising for that. But were the Crusades a Christian uprising against a competing religion or was it just geography? You did have a rapidly expanding movement which spread its creed and hold by the sword. And they established themselves as rulers of the domains they took over. What were the locals supposed to do? The fact that the Crusades targeted the take over of Jerusalem as their end game only meant that that was the common goal of the disparate membership of the Crusades of all Europeans. The Muslims would have you think that in the second World War Britain should have confined its defence to its own territory and had no business bombing what the Gerrmans had taken over or Germany itself. Or that the US should not have nuked Japan as they should have confined their defense to their own territories. If the Muslims thought what the Crusaders did in terms of violence which appears to be the bane of the entire Crusades enterprise as henious and thus a yoke for all of Christianity inot eternity, then why don’t they apply the same discontent to the victory of the Allied forces in the Second World War?
The present disinformation by Muslim thinkers today is no different from who ever established the henious narrative of the Crusades. Unfortunately the left leaning libersal West listens to them more than they do the counter argument.
Fuck you and your whole religion sandy ass.
Another cousin married another cousin.
Why would Francis also stress,“that there is no link between Islam and terrorism”? The answer is a fairly simple one, Francis serves the machinations of the rabbis — therefore Islam is acceptable since it’s the fulfillment of the Noahide Laws — Christianity is considered Avodah Zarah (idol worship) and worthy of death. Hence, Moslems are given a free pass and Catholics who profess the Faith are condemned. Francis’ rabbinical buddies do not want non-Jews to covert to Talmudic Judaism instead the Talmudists want the non-Jews to convert to one of the acceptable forms of servile Noahidism. So now you know why Franis insists that Islam is peaceful.
http://callmejorgebergoglio.blogspot.com.es/2018/03/why-does-francis-insists-so-strongly.html
If Allah is omniscient, didn’t he know medieval Christians were going to do that? If he is omnipotent, either he didn’t want to stop them, which makes him nefarious or he couldn’t stop them, which makes him weak. So which is it Mohammedans?