Triumphalism displayed with the bones of Muslims

This comes from an e-mail a friend sent.

This is how the Christians made a Church in the city (Sedlek) of Czek Republic out of Muslims’ bones.

 For this, in 1218, one of the Christians Ruler ‘HENERY’ on his pilgrim tour to ‘BAIT AL-MUQADDAS’ brought the bones of Muslims who were slaughtered after the Christians recaptured ‘BAIT AL-MUQADDAS’ from Muslims, in order to decorate the church in Sedlek.

In 1318 and 1511 and again in 1870, they continuously brought the bones to reinforce the beautification of the church.

 Now this is the famous most church in the world just because it is made up of Muslim bones.



 Needless to say if they are real bones, not just that of Muslims, it is absolutely disgusting that are used/displayed in such fashion, in fact that they are used at all, by an organisation – the Christian Church nonetheless, who should know better.

Wonder if Tony prayed there?



29 Responses to “Triumphalism displayed with the bones of Muslims”

  1. 1 Alex Fear April 10, 2008 at 10:30 am

    Whilst I don’t doubt the sincerity of your friend. I do doubt those are Muslim bones. In fact the clergy who would have created those bone sculptures would have balked at the thought of adding bones from Muslims to these.

    The fact will be that these are the bones of Christians, who under the impression they were preparing for the resurrection. They had misinterpreted or perhaps ignored the words of Jesus and Paul about the Saints being given new bodies when they are risen.

    It was common belief at the time that since our bones are the only things to remain and survive the ages intact, that our skeletons were eternal, and would play a part in our resurrection bodies.

    The practice was to bury the person, wait a year then dig their bones up. They would then clean them and store them.

    The belief was that when the Saints were resurrected they would return to the church to collect their bones!

    This was quite a prevalent theory throughout Europe and not just in the Czech. I myself have seen one such display in Rome.

    Doubtless at some point through history they abandoned this theory, perhaps when they saw the bones did indeed lose their sturdiness, or perhaps they dropped one to many skulls and thought ‘f— it’!

    What your friend probably didn’t see was the skulls, ribs, leg and arm bones that would have been kept in the church basement neatly and carefully stacked on shelves as to preserve their integrity.

    This was not a display of some barbaric victory! The trouble with our present-day mindset is that images of bones in history conjure up thoughts of Vlad the Impaler or some canibal tribe, rather than medical or ritualistic ideals.

  2. 2 lwtc247 April 11, 2008 at 1:45 am

    Hi Alex.

    My friend was passing on a mass e-mail. Which in its own way, lends a little bit of caution (mass e-mails appeal to peoples mass ignorance inculcated by mass media and for the interests of the elite, possibly for the purpose of mass control/manipulation).
    Not only that caution is present, but in the post, I also provided cautionary words saying “if they are real bones…”
    and unlike the title (possibly in need of a caveat) I also raise the possibility that they may not be the bones of Muslims.

    “clergy who would have created those bone sculptures would have balked at the thought of adding bones from Muslims to these.” – that’s sort of what I thought about all this, but we know those who say they are acting in the name of religion sometimes act directly the oppositie to religious fundamentals, and the time period mentioned, does overlap with a particularly nasty time between Muslim and Christian relations.

    It goes in Islamic tradition (if I understand it correctly) that the body is still capable of physical feeling, hence the care with which dead bodies are treated and so on. Hence the anger of people when they see bodies treated this way.

    “fact will be that these are the bones of Christians” – I can’t say either way, becasue I’m unfamiliar with the story behind this church. My posting was to encourage people to chip in their opinion about it too so the picture could become clearer. If your are correct then I’m grateful for you pointing it out.

    But the Christian church as long the belief that bodies should rest in peace and so forth. It seems strange that a number of bodies, whatever their source, weren’t afforded this privilage are still denied it to this day.

    It would make interesting further research. If the bones arn’t of Muslims, then it’s in everyones interests to bring expose the lie.

  3. 3 shirhashirim April 11, 2008 at 11:50 am

    “But the Christian church as long the belief that bodies should rest in peace and so forth. It seems strange that a number of bodies, whatever their source, weren’t afforded this privilage are still denied it to this day.”

    There’s a difference here. “Rest in peace” in the christian tradition refers to the soul, not to the body.
    Contrary to the other Abrahamic religions, graves in christianity are not sacred. They’re preserved for a while for reasons of piety and taste, but otherwise corpses are considered nothing more than ‘mortal remains’ (in my own language they’re even called ‘physical remains’): dust to dust, ashes to ashes. A corpse is NOT the person it used to be. Once dead, that person is considered to be somewhere else and not in any way connected to it’s mortal remains.
    Because of this christians have always had less problems with clearing graveyards, which happened regularly in Europe (and happens increasingly). Cleared-out graveyards yield a lot of bones, that are usually stored in mass-graves or special mass-storage places for bones. Sometimes these bones were used for other purposes, like decorating churches or crypts of churches.
    With such a plentyful supply of bones at hand, I really can’t think why somewone would invest a lot of money to haul loads of bones from Palestine to Czechia, especially given the rather long route that needs to be taken for transport over land, which in those days was quite expensive.
    Second: the christians never ‘retook’ Jerusalem from the muslims. They took it in 1099, lost it in 1187 to Saladin and when they ‘retook’ it, it was through peaceful negotiations between the emperor Frederick and the Egyptian ruler al-Kamal.

  4. 4 lwtc247 April 14, 2008 at 2:18 am

    Hi thanks for contributing on the bones/body issue.

    I still feel there is more to the Christian viewpoint of the dead body than what you describe. If there is a difference in Christian perspective then it seems to me that this is because there has been a post-Jesus alteration of his teachings. Jesus would have reconfirmed the authentic teachings to the Bani Israel (tribe of Israel – what we call Jews) as God (it seems) had always sought to make them extemporary to mankind of the wonderment, worship and consciousness of God, influencing almost every second of their lives. Jesus’s teaching would have been a reaffirmation of the true Torah, and the commandments/covenant.

    I am sure the respect for the dead is much more than just taste, but you also said piety at that point, which leads me to believe good treatment of the body surely due to scripture?

    It does seem like a long way to bring back bones. But Triumphalism (if, which seems unlikely) is often displayed by some difficult to achieve trophy. However I am leaning more towards dismissing the claim these are Muslim bones as opposed to Christian bones.

    As for the Christian capture of Jerusalem, my reading of history was that the Christians takeover was characterised by brutality and mass slaughter, but the memory is hazy and I will have to look it up. It is interesting that events of the past can still enflame passion today.

  5. 5 shirhashirim April 14, 2008 at 12:21 pm

    Actually, I hesitated whether I would use the word ‘piety’ or ‘taste’ as neither exactly says what I meant. But yes: some form of piety does play a role.
    As to the teachings of Jesus being a reconfirmation of ‘authentic’ Jewish teachings: there’s a whole new world out there!
    First I wouldn’t know if the ban on clearing Jewish graves is a mitzwa explicitly described in the thora or a rabbinical ruling. If it is the latter, you shouldn’t confuse rabbinical Judaism with second temple-period judaism. In Jesus’ time Jews did clear their graves (and stored the bones in ossuaries).
    Second: there’s an abundance of religous reformers who claimed to do nothing more than reaffirm old teachings and ended up reinterpreting them in a way that led to perfectly new developments. The two don’t necessarily bite each other.
    Third: a post-Jesus (nice word!) alteration of teachings sounds like something that should not have happened, but in christianity this view is not necessarily held, nor is it in some other religions.
    And yes: the capture of Jerusalem left no-one but the invading crusaders alive. Bacisally the entire population of Jerusalem perished. Only Tancred (who spoke Arabic) gave his banner to a few muslims who had taken refuge in (or on top of) the al-Aqsa mosque as a token for the other crusaders that they were his captives (and should therefore be spared), but unfortunately the other commanders did not honor this and slaughtered them anyway.

  6. 6 lwtc247 April 15, 2008 at 9:50 am

    “If it is the latter, you shouldn’t confuse rabbinical Judaism with second temple-period Judaism.” – Well, that’s a hard call for me to make as I don’t see those two aspects as being in isolation from one another.

    I dont’t know either if there is mitzvah pertaining to ‘messing’ about with graves, but I strongly suspect so. As for Rabbinical ruling, I cant see how such a ruling would be done in abstract of oral or written tradition. Having said that the Kosherized usury to Goym rather dismisses that assumption.

    It seems like established Jewry also performed riba in the temple, which got Jesus’ ire, so that them clearing graves isn’t so suggestive as an actual divine dogma.

    As for abundance of ‘reformers’ well, none of them seem to me to be endowed with prophet hood, so their likely fallibility as regards to theology is not to go unnoticed.

    “alteration of teachings sounds like something that should not have happened” but I think it’s clear it did happen. I think many self claimed Christians eat pork, don’t go to church to worship God and don’t fast for Lent. The so called Christians of the ruling class also defy the commandments as if it’s a game of ‘chicken’.

    I’ve asked my friend who sent me the original e-mail to help me trace it’s origins so that I may ask the original sender the source of his/her claim.

  7. 7 shirhashirim April 16, 2008 at 10:37 am

    Yes indeed that’s what I ment: teachings did change, but the point was that the changing of teachings in the christian and jewish tradition is not something to be shunned. The idea that teachings should remain unchanged is more a philosopher’s and/or muslim idea.

    The example of eating pork is a good one: christians do not feel bound to that law -which is perceived as exclusively jewish- since Jesus’ immediate followers reasoned that the law against eating pork was not about not eating pork but about far more important things. The fact that Jesus probably never ate pork is not considered relevant and christians believe this is exactly what Jesus intended us to discover (even if he never explicitely taught about it).

    The same applies to fasting during Lent. If you read what the gospels have Jesus say about fasting, you’ll understand why lots of christians don’t fast, and why those that do can often not be seen doing it.

    This was roughly what I ment by ‘rabbinical judaism’. In modern day rabbinical judaism ‘messing’ with graves is forbidden, so we assume this would be what Jesus believed too. But rabbinical judaism is a post-Jesus development. Given the first century jewish practice, this ruling wasn’t there in Jesus’ time. And this is not a matter of ‘honoring in the breach’. The ossuary of the high priest who according to the gospels wanted Jesus dead has been found. That does not just reflect ‘loose from the rules’-practice: it indicates even the religious elite adhered to it. So it’s more likely that Jesus did not believe graves should not be messed with.

    (After all, according to christian tradition, Jesus messed about his own grave pretty much ;-)

  8. 8 lwtc247 April 18, 2008 at 10:29 am

    Sorry shirhashirim, I’ve only now just noticed your comment, but I have to go. I will try and give a response on Monday.

    Thanks for your comment. Cheers

  9. 9 lwtc247 April 21, 2008 at 9:19 am

    As a non-secularist, I think change of teachings should be shunned if it means direct commandments from God are done away with. There cannot be anything better or more truthful than guidance and pronouncements from God. I think its daft to junk absolute purity.

    There was a reason why Jesus didn’t eat pork, because God had prohibited it. For more sinful men to think they have some knowledge that Jesus and the WHOLE line of prophets before him is absurd. I am pretty sure Jesus’ disciples didn’t eat Pork. To this day we have the same money changers doing the same things that Jesus despised. Jesus’ teachings have been cast aside when inconvenient to come and that’s a great shame.

    I’d say the majority of Christians don’t fast because the are actually very weak in Faith, lazy and occasionally just insincere. One of my Nigerian Christian friends DOES fast, doesn’t sleep around and generally sticks to the message Jesus preached. It can be done, but most I’d imagine would feel they’d be ridiculed if their social circle say them practice their faith.

    For lack of research or better information, I feel hesitant to accept what you say about “rabbinical judaism is a post-Jesus development” because the Jews were already committing sin in the time of Jesus {Money changers again}. They even denied their own scripture that Jesus would appear before them and made false accusations against Mary’s chasteness.

    “(After all, according to christian tradition, Jesus messed about his own grave pretty much ;-) ” – LOL.

  10. 10 shirhashirim April 22, 2008 at 12:59 pm

    As a non-secularist, I’d disagree. You’re operating on a few premisses, namely: 1. Revelation means direct communication from God, 2. revelation entails ‘commandments’, 3. Commandments are formulated on a practical level (e.g. ‘thou shalt not cook the lamb in the milk of its mother’), 4. the practical level is meant literally (e.g: That’s a commandment about cooking, not about kindness to animals) and 5. Revelation is unrelated to cultural background or language.

    None of these premisses are undebated in the Abrahamic religions, in fact, your angle seems to be decidedly modern in the sense that it takes the words and deeds of prophets as meaningful in and of themselves, regardless of (e.g.) language or cultural context.

    There’s a totally different approach which assigns meaning to revelation not by looking at what it apparently means to the reader/listener, but by looking at what the revelation intended to change.
    Example: Jesus forbade his followers to divorce their wives. Until today that’s reason for the Catholic church to not have a possibility for divorce. However, in a time where wives were totally dependent on their husbands, the rule against divorce seems to be a rule against reckless abandonment, not against divorce per se.
    Same with eating pork: sure Jesus probably never ate pork, we assume that, even though it is recorded nowhere. Question number two is the relevant one: did this mean anything? Was this rule never changed because it was intended to be unchanged, or wasn’t it because Jesus was about something totally different?

    So it’s not about ‘more sinful people’ thinking they have more knowlegde than prophets, it’s about by what method they should come to an understanding of those prophets.

  11. 11 lwtc247 April 23, 2008 at 9:52 am

    Hello shirhashirim.

    Thanks for the interesting follow-ons. :)

    Although I don’t think your handle on me isn’t that firm yet, what you summize is ‘workable’ for now.

    It’s refreshing to meet another non-secularist. How do you do :) But I hope you’ll forgive me for not understanding how you can be a non-secularist yet embrace deviation from Godly decree. Anyway…

    Actually I make effort to solely look at the revelation part of prophetic teachings for guidelines as all other acts/sayings are subject to the erronious nature of mankind. That isn’t to say I totally reject such information, only that I treat it with caution and always bear in mind it may actually be wrong.

    I wouldn’t say such a stance is modern or even particularly unique, as it will certainly have comprised theological discource over the millenia.

    I believe Divine Revelation does first and foremost have a literal meaning. Surely it has to, or interpretations by error prone men post-prophet become institutionalised errors/falsehoods and subject to manipulation. It seems likely to me that there is evidence of this in todays world.

    Every capable human, who on hearing the word of God, can get meaning from it. However, it is also my belief that religious scholars can see multiple levels of meaning and deep knowledge within Divine revelation, yet deeper analysis is wrong if its conclusions transgresses the literal. That is the position I have come to on this journey of life. So in a way, aspects of culture and context do become irrelevant.

    To use your example of Jesus forbidding his followers to divorce their wives (something I confess I have little knowledge of but will roll with it) The literal obviously applies soley to them. No instruction was given that “divorce is forbidden” neither was it said “one cannot be divorced should your wife be dependent on you”
    BUT, if what has become doctrine is wrong, then one appears to be changing that institutionalised aspect, you are NOT actually defying Godly commandments, merely reverting back to it. The thing is, one mans reversion is anothers innovation.

    If Jesus didn’t eat pork there would be a reason for it. Jesus wasn’t afraid to upset the applecart, so I’d say his abstenance to means that it was the correct thing to do. If you believe the prophets were supposed to be exemplorary, then to be the best you can, thereby getting closer to the path of God as it’s possible to get, then one would emulate that behavior. I can’t see any justification in saying “Jesus didn’t eat pork becasue it was simply a personal decision on his behalf not to eat it.” Especially in the light of previous doctrine forbidding it.

    Perhaps you find my views too simplistic and I’ve not go down paths of “IF” to the nth degree, but as I eluded to before. The faith was for the common man, I think it’s teachings and meanings should be apparent to all.

  12. 12 shirhashirim April 24, 2008 at 11:18 am

    Actually, most non-secularists I know don’t see revelation as a set of decrees, but rather as literature with a message (or morals), so for those it’s not a matter of ‘deviation from a godly decree’ as they don’t see a decree to begin with.

    Some revelation is obviously meant literally, but not that there’s a distinction between ‘literal meaning’ on the one hand and ‘interpratation’ or ‘deeper levels of meaning’ on the other. They are all on the same side: taking a text literally is just as much interpretation as reading it as an allegory.

    The secularists of course have no difficulty to take sacred scripture literally, but believers have a problem if they do: by somehow giving the literal meaning of a text predominance over other interpretations, they deprive God -so to say- of the use of stylistic tools, and force Him to ‘be literal’.

    Sure Jesus -if He did not eat pork- did not eat pork for a reason, no argument there. The really important thing is: does it matter at all? Should it be taken as an example? Should it be regarded as carrying ‘meaning’? Would not eating pork be just as important as the way he picked His nose for example? And why (not)?

  13. 13 Riaz Said October 1, 2008 at 5:25 pm

    I think, this is just to offend the muslims and to creat vacume between the muslims and other religions followers, ofcourse this is the mainefisto of the rulers of USA which is prctically on ground useing the idea of terrirism and not required this baseless stories in age of modren global village as the name of the church is not mentioned.All the humans are trying to study the thoughts of each other positively, critisise each other in positive manner, inspite to create hate between the humans, the scholars are required to play positive role, to decrease the distance of humans belong to different beliefs/thoughts

  14. 14 lwtc247 October 1, 2008 at 7:12 pm

    Hi Riaz.
    Although the US does use “terror” for justification of its bruital policies, the religious aspect of it is referenced. Bush said God told him to invade Afghanistan. The Republican party get large amounts of funding from the Jewish Zionist organisation and the Evangelical Zionist section (40 million USan Zionist Evangelicals apparently

    Bush and the murderous neocon brigade only call ‘God’ when it suits their agenda.

    The scholars (well, the ones found in academia) are being purged, especially in the US, perhaps less so in the UK. The religious leaders find it difficulty to get publicity to alert the people they can give lecturers on contemporary issues within their faith. Thanksfully though, the internet allows tech enabled Muslims to access this info.

  15. 15 Anonymous March 29, 2010 at 5:18 pm

    we can never be sure, who’s bone are displayed here, either Christian, Muslim or else,
    Personally, it horrified me, and sure it would have for so many others.

    What we need to learn here, no religion, teaches terrorism, hate or unjustice.

    But what we witness here in this modren world, all the fighting and all the injustice and genocide in the name of religion,.

    We all say God is loving , God is caring and and God is just.

    but all the moral and decency and message of God ingored.

  16. 16 lwtc247 April 6, 2010 at 2:01 pm

    “we can never be sure, who’s bone are displayed here” – True, but IF they are Muslim bones, then…
    1) I wouldn’t be surprized
    2) The bones should be buried.
    3) The church heads should apologise for the indecency.

    “and all the injustice and genocide in the name of religion” – I strongly disagree with that. In my opinion, all the bad physical mojo is due to hate, greed, intolerance, selfishness, supremacist global Zionist hegemony – all of which stem from listening to the whispers of the one made from fire. Whether some people falsely say much fighting is in the name of religion, is irreleant.

    “but all the moral and decency and message of God ingored.” – Now that I agree with.

  17. 17 Nabeel Ahmed July 12, 2010 at 7:48 am

    I don’t think that they show there talent or fashion that how they made whole church with Muslim bones

    But they are show that they are biggest evil in the whole world and no one win them form evildoing

  18. 18 lwtc247 July 15, 2010 at 3:11 pm

    Even if the bones are not from Muslims, it’s still dreadful to do such a thing. How religious of them huh?

  19. 19 janak July 19, 2010 at 8:16 pm

    what idiot wrote that article? really?
    the church was not build untill around 1400
    before that it was just a cemetery which had some soil from holly land sprinkled over it thus it in the ayes of catholic of those times becomed a piece of holy land in europe.
    thus those who got burried in it had a shortcut to heaven.
    because of that belief people from as far as france got burried in it since the founding of the cemetery(not the church)in 1278
    when the church was build the unherted a lot of bones which were placed in a church crypt
    then part of the cemetery was sold off and more bones were put in to the crypt
    in 19th century these bones vere then aranged in to the decorative artwork
    so you can be SURE that no muslims bones have been used because those bones belonged to devoted catholics
    what you see today is the crypt which is the church basement and technically these people are thus burried
    the idea that czechs would transport bones of 40000 to 70000 muslims just to make church decoration is madness
    i would like to also point out that bohemia did not take part in the crusades beyhond individual participation not to mention the fact that soon after the building of the church czechs started to turn to protestanism
    finallu we never had a king named henry
    i would really apreciate if those who write idiotic articles like this would at least checked their history
    even today there is not enugh muslims in czech rep to make this
    keep my country out of your politics please i bet half of you would not be even able to find my country on the map

  20. 20 lwtc247 September 4, 2010 at 2:06 pm

    You are asking me to believe there was no church constructed on this special ‘holy land shortcut’ cemetery? That seems quite remarkable as apart from private moseleums and battle(field) victims, weren’t all people buried in the grounds of a church?

    Even if the church wasn’t built until around 1400, that doesn’t mean the preparations to build it weren’t undertaken suite some time before.

    Digging up the bones of people kind of goes against the tenants of Christian ‘rest in peace’ burial doesn’t it? Surely Christians should be angry about this perversion too.

    You gave the number of “the idea that Czechs would transport bones of 40000 to 70000 Muslims just to make church decoration is madness” First of all who said the Czechs did it??? Secondly who said “it was just for decoration???” Thirdly, where did these numbers come from? I never mentioned that number. Where did you get that number from? Are you asking me/us to believe that this number came from the people buried in your churchless cemetery instead? Wow! And who said the Czechs had a king called Henry?? You call for people to check their history, but it seems to me, it would be a more wise move to check your sense of comprehension first!

    And you also give off the aroma that you are glossing over the horrors the “Christian” Crusading hordes did upon the residents of the Holy land at the time and in fact to other Christians like the I believe they did to the Byzantines. I’d rather not say Christian Crusaders as what they did certainly wasn’t anything Jesus preached, in fact it was the complete opposite.

    I wonder what DNA analysis of the bones would reveal of their ethnicity?

    “i bet half of you would not be even able to find my country on the map” Luckily for you, I’m not a betting man!

    • 21 bohemian September 6, 2010 at 6:46 pm

      no there was no church before 1400ts…it was a monastery land and the monastery had its own church etc it was strictly a cemetery.
      actually only rich and important people got buried inside churches if for no other reason europe would soon be covered in churches especially as medievil churches are usuallu small unless we are talking a cathedrals. and there are not that many of them in czech.
      diging up bones and storing them in a crypt is was not agaist christian values there are many ossusaries in europe and even in latin america the one in kutna hora is merely the most famous one
      as to the number of bones that is the number of bones stored in the crypt had you wisited the place like i did you would be able to read it of the information panels or you can google it
      so absically you are trying to tell me that some forgein king moust likely english or french for some strange reason decides to build a monument to a victory by crusaders (in a country which never took part in crusades and which will have crusaders sent agaist it in about 50 years after the church is finished)
      and to top it off he builds this monument in a middle of nowhere rather than in the THATS SOUNDS LOGICAL not to mention the distances
      as to the number of bones these things do add up over the centuries.
      as for anything christ might have said about it i honestly do not give rats ass iam a atheist i managed to rise above primitive supestitions.
      finaly i gloss over the things crusaders did in holy land about as much muslim gloss over the things they did in spain and easter europe and rest of the world
      i honestly do not understand why you muslims are trying to pick up yet another fight one would say that there is already enugh people hating you guts

  21. 22 lwtc247 September 6, 2010 at 7:38 pm

    “it was a monastery land and the monastery had its own church” – Aaaah hah! So there was a church on there!

    “only rich and important people got buried inside churches” – Who’s talking about being buried in churches? I thought the discussion was about being buried in a cemetery or ‘technically in a crypt’ and then the grounds of a church.

    What (used to be) my local churches around Manchester and North East England had quite a few common folk buried in their grounds.

    I’m aware there are quite a few bone repositories around Europe.

    Here is two other sites with comments that claim they are not Muslim bones. The commentators there sound very much like the commentator(s) here.

    by the way one of those comments does mention an abbot called Henry.

    I’m all for a bit of forensic analysis of these bones. How about you?

    “i honestly do not understand why you muslims are trying to pick up yet another fight one would say that there is already enugh people hating you guts”. Nice. Let me recommend you attending one of Prof Samuel O. Imbo’s talks on Perceptions of Islam and Muslims, or Prof Tariq Ramadan. You may find it errrrm.. ‘enlightening’.

    Am I included in the “you muslims” category despite the fact I remained open to the fact the bones may not be that of Muslims? Well yeah, ‘cos were all alike right, just itching to pick a fight out of the vacuum.

    • 24 bohemian September 7, 2010 at 6:34 pm

      again you are mistaken
      the cathedral of st barbora is about 30 min walk from the sedlec chapell
      sedlec itself is actually raher small church in fact it is a chapell rather than proper church
      mabye if you wisit the site you will see yourself
      finally iam sure that if you write to the islamic asosation in czech rep iam sure they will be happy to confirm that there are no muslim bones there.
      as to the burials of people in churches no ordinary people vere bburied in churches they always represented the elite .

      • 25 lwtc247 September 7, 2010 at 6:52 pm

        Well that info (September 6, 2010 at 7:40 pm) which says “church of Sedlec is one of the largest cathedral-type building in Bohemia, is eloquent enough. It was built between 1282/3 and 1320.” came from what seems like the official website

        Well, your claim that the elite were buried in church (I presume you mean in the grounds) seems to go against my experience.

        Writing to the Islamic organisations (probably compromised) wouldn’t be as good as a forensic sample for DNA analysis.

        But maybe you are right. Maybe they aren’t Muslims bones, but it leaves a horrible feeling to see peoples bones used for art. Reminds me of this horrible thing:,8542,669680,00.html

    • 26 bohemian September 8, 2010 at 8:24 pm

      that is not the church
      the church in the picture is the monastery church…the bones are in a diferent church
      this is the church the bones are in
      as you can see it is not very big
      and as to the islamic soc being somhow compromised comon…
      by whom? and why? you are forgeting that the number of muslims in my country is so small that nobody gives dam
      islam does not even figure on oficial forms it goes in to the “other” category
      there is like 400 converts and few thousand temporary residents and student. trying to infitrate them would be a waste of time and efort

  22. 27 lwtc247 September 8, 2010 at 8:34 pm

    Not so sure why Muslims in the Czech Republic is such an issue with you. It’s something you seem happy to keep referring to.

    But God Willing, in the near future there will be hundreds of thousands, nay, millions of Muslims in the Czech republic and you will be one of them. InsyaAllah.

    God Bless.

    • 28 bohemian September 9, 2010 at 8:01 pm

      i do not have isues with the muslims in my country
      and that is the point
      there is no reason to have the isues
      which is one of the reasons while this whole idea of bones is such a stupid one
      religion is no longer issue in my country
      we are atheist nation we had moved on rather than play idiotic games about which non existent deity has a bigger penis
      have nice day

  23. 29 lwtc247 September 10, 2010 at 4:26 am

    InsyaAllah one day your perspectives will change and you will believe in God, and hopefully become a Muslim. Eid Mubarak and thanks for writing in.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Viva Palestina – break the siege:

Viva Palestina - break the siege

This blog supports victims of western aggression

This blog supports victims of western aggression

BooK: The Hand of Iblis. Dr Omar Zaid M.D.

Book: The Hand of Iblis
An Anatomy of Evil
The Hidden Hand of the New World Order
Summary Observations and History

Data on Fukushima Plant – (NHK news)

Fukushima Radiation Data

J7 truth campaign:

July 7th Truth Campaign - RELEASE THE EVIDENCE!

Recommended book: 3rd edition of Terror on the Tube – Behind the Veil of 7-7, An Investigation by Nick Kollerstrom:

J7 (truth) Inquest blog

July 7th Truth Campaign - INQUEST BLOG
Top rate analysis of the Inquest/Hoax

Arrest Blair (the filthy killer)

This human filth needs to be put on trial and hung!


JUST - International Movement for a Just World


Information Clearing House - Actual News and global analysis

John Pilger:

John Pilger, Journalist and author

Media Lens

My perception of Media Lens: Watching the corrupt corporate media, documenting and analysing how it bends our minds. Their book, 'Newspeak' is a gem.

Abandon the paper $cam:

Honest and inflation proof currency @ The Gold Dinar
April 2008
« Mar   May »

%d bloggers like this: