11-02-2004, 08:50 PM
Both Constantine and Mohammad had distastrous consequences for Assyrians and all Aramaic-speaking Christianity.
Now now, my friend. We mustn't blame Muhammad because of the horrendous acts of some.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.themodernreligion.com/comparative/christ/christianity_charter.htm">http://www.themodernreligion.com/compar ... harter.htm</a><!-- m -->
There were times where Aramaic Christianity was allowed to flourish because of the tolerance of a Caliph. Under the Patriarchate of Timothy, for instance, the Aramaic Church reached its greatest extent - thanks to the Caliph who allowed them total freedom of worship and missionary activity.
Other Muslim rulers who were less tolerant, on the other hand, decimated the Church. I can name Tamerlane as the prime example. Wouldn't you agree Akhi bar-Khela?
The bastard.
The quote you gave from the SOC is only partly true. Yes, the Byzantines (Constantine) were brutal to us "heretics" and we sure were glad to be rid of them and the Zoroastrian pagans of Persia.
But at times the Muslim conquerers were no better, and sometime far worse (Tamerlane who wiped out 99.9% of the CoE in the 14th century, Ottoman Turkish Genocide which wiped out 2/3 of the remaining souls during 1915-1918, Simele in Iraq in 1933, today.....etc.)
Ironically, Hulegu Khan destroyed Baghdad under the influence of his wife, who and whose mother were adherents of the Church of the East.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hulagu_Khan">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hulagu_Khan</a><!-- m -->
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.bookrags.com/biography/hulagu-khan/">http://www.bookrags.com/biography/hulagu-khan/</a><!-- m -->
You already know what they call pay-back <!-- s
--><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/wink1.gif" alt="" title="Wink" /><!-- s -->
Now now, my friend. We mustn't blame Muhammad because of the horrendous acts of some.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.themodernreligion.com/comparative/christ/christianity_charter.htm">http://www.themodernreligion.com/compar ... harter.htm</a><!-- m -->
There were times where Aramaic Christianity was allowed to flourish because of the tolerance of a Caliph. Under the Patriarchate of Timothy, for instance, the Aramaic Church reached its greatest extent - thanks to the Caliph who allowed them total freedom of worship and missionary activity.
Other Muslim rulers who were less tolerant, on the other hand, decimated the Church. I can name Tamerlane as the prime example. Wouldn't you agree Akhi bar-Khela?
The bastard.
The quote you gave from the SOC is only partly true. Yes, the Byzantines (Constantine) were brutal to us "heretics" and we sure were glad to be rid of them and the Zoroastrian pagans of Persia.
But at times the Muslim conquerers were no better, and sometime far worse (Tamerlane who wiped out 99.9% of the CoE in the 14th century, Ottoman Turkish Genocide which wiped out 2/3 of the remaining souls during 1915-1918, Simele in Iraq in 1933, today.....etc.)
Ironically, Hulegu Khan destroyed Baghdad under the influence of his wife, who and whose mother were adherents of the Church of the East.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hulagu_Khan">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hulagu_Khan</a><!-- m -->
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.bookrags.com/biography/hulagu-khan/">http://www.bookrags.com/biography/hulagu-khan/</a><!-- m -->
You already know what they call pay-back <!-- s
--><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/wink1.gif" alt="" title="Wink" /><!-- s -->
???Do not give up, for that is ignorance and not according to the rules of this art... Like the lover, you cannot hope to achieve success without infinite perseverance.???