M
mek42
Guest
How is judging Islam by the actions of terrorists different from someone judging the Catholic Church by the actions of the Spanish Conquistadors during the conquest of the Americas?
- Status
U
Upgrade25
Guest
Koran 9:29.
I won’t tell you to read the verse alone, take it in context. You’ll be hard-pressed to find that anywhere in the Bible.
The Conquistadors were condemned by the Pope, at least Columbus was. However, up until the rise of the “moderate” Muslim who disregards the rule of the Koran and Hadith, you would be just as hard-pressed to find a condemnation as you would to find a meaningful command from Christ to slaughter the infidels n
J
JimmyDFG
Guest
Spanish Conquistadors still going on? No
O
openmind77
Guest
Koran 9:29 says fight the unbelievers until they submit.
Koran 9:29.
I won’t tell you to read the verse alone, take it in context. You’ll be hard-pressed to find that anywhere in the Bible.
The Conquistadors were condemned by the Pope, at least Columbus was. However, up until the rise of the “moderate” Muslim who disregards the rule of the Koran and Hadith, you would be just as hard-pressed to find a condemnation as you would to find a meaningful command from Christ to slaughter the infidels n
Deuteronomy 17 however says that if you find “who has gone and served other gods and worshiped them” then you “shall stone to death that man or woman with stones”
I think judging Christianity on the basis of the actions of Conquistadors is very similar to judging Islam on the basis of terrorism. The main difference is that it happened a long time ago.
However Islam really does need some reform, but that does not make it fundamentally bad.
D
DaveBj
Guest
I don’t judge Islam by the actions of Muslim terrorists. I judge Muslim terrorists on the basis of their actions. I also judge those who support Islamic terrorism on the basis of what it is they support, and I judge Muslims who don’t condemn terrorism on the basis of what it is that they’re allowing to exist by their refusal to condemn it.
I judge Islam on the basis of what it is – a false religion.
I judge Islam on the basis of what it is – a false religion.
O
otjm
Guest
You obviously know precious little about Islam.
S
Servant19
Guest
W
worldcitizen
Guest
Both the Quran and Muhammad forbade any war but self defense. Sura 2:190’set the parameters for the entire war. Muslims were only allowed to respond to aggression by anyone. So any command to attack anyone was in response to aggression.
2:190 And fight for the religion of GOD against those who fight against you; but transgress not by attacking them first, for GOD loveth not the transgressors.
The history behind this Sura 9:29 is too long to explain here but you can get all the background from this link.
abuaminaelias.com/on-interpretation-of-verse-929-and-the-battle-of-tabuk/
2:190 And fight for the religion of GOD against those who fight against you; but transgress not by attacking them first, for GOD loveth not the transgressors.
The history behind this Sura 9:29 is too long to explain here but you can get all the background from this link.
abuaminaelias.com/on-interpretation-of-verse-929-and-the-battle-of-tabuk/
M
mdgspencer
Guest
I don’t judge Islam, for or against. It isn’t an issue to me. Why, indeed, should I try to decide how good or bad Islam is?
Obviously, Islamic terrorists have been evil. But whether they represent the larger religion isn’t something I bother to consider.
It isn’t a pressing issue to me any more than making a judgement of the baptist church.
Obviously, Islamic terrorists have been evil. But whether they represent the larger religion isn’t something I bother to consider.
It isn’t a pressing issue to me any more than making a judgement of the baptist church.
M
MartinJordan
Guest
J
JimmyDFG
Guest
There were two major Inquisitions, the Medieval Inquisition and Spanish Inquisition. Although there are no exact numbers, scholars believe they have estimated Inquisition deaths reasonably accurately. There were not as many deaths as the popular press claims. Numbers have often been inflated to as high as 9 million by the popular press, with absolutely no scholarly research. This figure is completely erroneous. A broad range of scholars, many of whom were not Catholic, have carefully studied the Inquisitions. They looked at all the existing records and were able to extrapolate. In the Medieval Inquisition, Bernard Gui was one of the most notorious of the medieval inquisitors. (so much so that the sick modern pornography industry has turned him into a hero). He tried 930 people out of which 42 were executed (4.5%). Another famous Inquisitor was Jacques Fournier who tried 114 cases of which 5 were executed (4.3%). Using numbers that are known, scholars have been able to surmise that approximately 2,000 people died in the Medieval Inquisition. (1231-1400 AD)
According to public news reports the book’s editor, Prof. Agostino Borromeo, stated that about 125,000 persons were investigated by the Spanish Inquisition, of which 1.8% were executed (2,250 people). Most of these deaths occurred in the first decade and a half of the Inquisition’s 350 year history. In Portugal of the 13,000 tried in the 16th and early 17th century 5.7% were said to have been condemned to death. News articles did not report if Portugal’s higher percentage included those sentenced to death in effigy (i.e. an image burnt instead of the actual person). For example, historian Gustav Henningsen reported that statistical tabulations of 50,000 recorded cases tried by nineteen Spanish tribunals between 1540-1700 found 775 people (1.7%) were actually executed while another 700 (1.4%) were sentenced to death in effigy (“El ‘banco de datos’ del Santo Oficio: Las relaciones de causas de la Inquisición española, 1550-1700”, BRAH, 174, 1977). Jewish historian Steven Katz remarked on the Medieval Inquisition that “in its entirety, the thirteenth and fourteenth century Inquisition put very few people to death and sent few people to prison; 90 percent of its sentences were canonical penances” (The Holocaust in Historical Context, 1994).
During the high point of the Spanish Inquisition from 1478-1530 AD, scholars found that approximately 1,500-2,000 people were found guilty. From that point forward, there are exact records available of all “guilty” sentences which amounted to 775 executions. In the full 200 years of the Spanish Inquisition, less than 1% of the population had any contact with it, people outside of the major cities didn’t even know about it. The Inquisition was not applied to Jews or Moslems, unless they were baptised as Christians.
If we add the figures, we find that the entire Inquisition of 500 years, caused about 6,000 deaths. These atrocities are completely inexcusable. These numbers are however, a far cry from the those used in the popular press by people who are always looking to destroy the Church. This is about equal to the number of war related deaths that have occurred in Afghanistan and Iraq in the 2 years since the US responded to 9/11.
Another thing to note is that the Spanish Inquisition, in a wrong way, may have saved some lives. In many European countries in the 16th century, religious wars were the cause of tens of thousands of deaths. But in Spain, there was political and religious unity as a result of the Inquisition, and there was no such war.
Nevertheless, the Inquisition tortures and death were inexcusable. I echo the voice of John Paul II “Forgive us Lord, Never Again”
According to public news reports the book’s editor, Prof. Agostino Borromeo, stated that about 125,000 persons were investigated by the Spanish Inquisition, of which 1.8% were executed (2,250 people). Most of these deaths occurred in the first decade and a half of the Inquisition’s 350 year history. In Portugal of the 13,000 tried in the 16th and early 17th century 5.7% were said to have been condemned to death. News articles did not report if Portugal’s higher percentage included those sentenced to death in effigy (i.e. an image burnt instead of the actual person). For example, historian Gustav Henningsen reported that statistical tabulations of 50,000 recorded cases tried by nineteen Spanish tribunals between 1540-1700 found 775 people (1.7%) were actually executed while another 700 (1.4%) were sentenced to death in effigy (“El ‘banco de datos’ del Santo Oficio: Las relaciones de causas de la Inquisición española, 1550-1700”, BRAH, 174, 1977). Jewish historian Steven Katz remarked on the Medieval Inquisition that “in its entirety, the thirteenth and fourteenth century Inquisition put very few people to death and sent few people to prison; 90 percent of its sentences were canonical penances” (The Holocaust in Historical Context, 1994).
During the high point of the Spanish Inquisition from 1478-1530 AD, scholars found that approximately 1,500-2,000 people were found guilty. From that point forward, there are exact records available of all “guilty” sentences which amounted to 775 executions. In the full 200 years of the Spanish Inquisition, less than 1% of the population had any contact with it, people outside of the major cities didn’t even know about it. The Inquisition was not applied to Jews or Moslems, unless they were baptised as Christians.
If we add the figures, we find that the entire Inquisition of 500 years, caused about 6,000 deaths. These atrocities are completely inexcusable. These numbers are however, a far cry from the those used in the popular press by people who are always looking to destroy the Church. This is about equal to the number of war related deaths that have occurred in Afghanistan and Iraq in the 2 years since the US responded to 9/11.
Another thing to note is that the Spanish Inquisition, in a wrong way, may have saved some lives. In many European countries in the 16th century, religious wars were the cause of tens of thousands of deaths. But in Spain, there was political and religious unity as a result of the Inquisition, and there was no such war.
Nevertheless, the Inquisition tortures and death were inexcusable. I echo the voice of John Paul II “Forgive us Lord, Never Again”
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
Excellent post;
The underlined above reveals the difference between the Inquisitions and Islam’s doctrine to conquer the world for their prophet and Allah.
**While the inquisition addressed members of the Catholic faith only. Islam’s doctrine to “kill the infidels” addresses all non-Muslims in the world. Whether Muslims interpret this Islamic doctrine to be executed by physical force, which history proves this case to be the “norm” or by peaceful means which has not been proven to be the norm by Muslims, according to Islamic history. ** it is here were one can judge a tree by its’ fruit.
Many misunderstand the inquisition’s main focus was to clean house of false shepherds (Catholics) teaching heresy, which did not constitute a physical death sentence only excommunication of the Catholic Church. When it was the secular powers who exercised a capital punishment.
Much of the abuse of the inquisition proved political gains were used by it at the influence of secular powers, to remove rivals to their secular thrones and Church teaching positions, held by secular priest or bishops that were placed in power by secular authorities. In short the inquisition did no address non- Christians as many have falsely reported by anti-Catholic’s.
There is a difference between secular priest who did not take vows and religious priest who did take vows during the inquisition periods. Which influenced the inquisition to remove false shepherds from the flock. Yet circumstances such as secular priest and religious priest, get overlooked by non-Catholic historians, who do not understand or refuse to view and comment on the (complicated) historical internal battles, that were taking place between Church authority and secular authorities.
Peace be with you
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
It should be noted here, that during the Inquisitions capital punishments by secular powers were Catholic Kings/Queens. Where non-Catholic historians attribute the confusion of capital punishment solely to the Catholic Church., when She never has the power to exercise a capital punishment.
With that said: In Islam, there exist a mixture of secular powers with religious powers that has the frequent tendency to exercise a capital punishment under it’s religious disciplines. Which is a contradiction in Catholicism.
Here in the Inquisition the Catholic Church was fending off secular powers from infecting the Church, while Islam welcomes and combines it’s religious belief’s and practices along side with it’s secular powers.
The difference which I hope to display here between judging the Inquisition period and terrorist holding to an Islamic faith.
The Inquisition was focused on removing false shepherds within her own flock, while the secular powers took over the excommunicated (Catholic) heretic who was charged with treason to the secular Powers who were Catholic, with the power within their domain to exercise a capital punishment to their own community (leader) members. I believe this is where non-Catholic historians almost always confuse “give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and give to God what belongs to God”.
While in Islam; the Islamic religious authority uses it’s secular powers for the spread of Islam in the name of Islam. The terrorists today are exploiting the Islamic doctrine to produce fear in peaceful countries to convert to Islam or die, and to take possession of peaceful (liberal) societies for secular power and wealth gain all in the name of Islam.
Terrorist are prostituting (Islam) religion for the blood of the Saints, and Secular World Power to be ruled under the disciplines of Islamic (Sharia) law. When non-Muslims are considered infidels.
The Terrorist have a convincing recruit-able tool to their cause. One, if you join them and they take over a country, think of the immense royalties that Terrorist promise to you, with taking over a country in the name of Islam. And to those convinced of Islam’s teaching, when it is a death penalty in Islam to convert from Islam, with good intentions in mind to follow the One True God, are challenged for the promotion of the Islamic faith to the death.
Peace be with you
With that said: In Islam, there exist a mixture of secular powers with religious powers that has the frequent tendency to exercise a capital punishment under it’s religious disciplines. Which is a contradiction in Catholicism.
Here in the Inquisition the Catholic Church was fending off secular powers from infecting the Church, while Islam welcomes and combines it’s religious belief’s and practices along side with it’s secular powers.
The difference which I hope to display here between judging the Inquisition period and terrorist holding to an Islamic faith.
The Inquisition was focused on removing false shepherds within her own flock, while the secular powers took over the excommunicated (Catholic) heretic who was charged with treason to the secular Powers who were Catholic, with the power within their domain to exercise a capital punishment to their own community (leader) members. I believe this is where non-Catholic historians almost always confuse “give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and give to God what belongs to God”.
While in Islam; the Islamic religious authority uses it’s secular powers for the spread of Islam in the name of Islam. The terrorists today are exploiting the Islamic doctrine to produce fear in peaceful countries to convert to Islam or die, and to take possession of peaceful (liberal) societies for secular power and wealth gain all in the name of Islam.
Terrorist are prostituting (Islam) religion for the blood of the Saints, and Secular World Power to be ruled under the disciplines of Islamic (Sharia) law. When non-Muslims are considered infidels.
The Terrorist have a convincing recruit-able tool to their cause. One, if you join them and they take over a country, think of the immense royalties that Terrorist promise to you, with taking over a country in the name of Islam. And to those convinced of Islam’s teaching, when it is a death penalty in Islam to convert from Islam, with good intentions in mind to follow the One True God, are challenged for the promotion of the Islamic faith to the death.
Peace be with you
S
Servant19
Guest
There is no Islamic DOCTRINE to kill the infidels Gabriel, otherwise every mosque on earth would be preaching it…Excellent post;
The underlined above reveals the difference between the Inquisitions and Islam’s doctrine to conquer the world for their prophet and Allah.
**While the inquisition addressed members of the Catholic faith only. Islam’s doctrine to “kill the infidels” addresses all non-Muslims in the world. Whether Muslims interpret this Islamic doctrine to be executed by physical force, which history proves this case to be the “norm” or by peaceful means which has not been proven to be the norm by Muslims, according to Islamic history. ** it is here were one can judge a tree by its’ fruit.
Many misunderstand the inquisition’s main focus was to clean house of false shepherds (Catholics) teaching heresy, which did not constitute a physical death sentence only excommunication of the Catholic Church. When it was the secular powers who exercised a capital punishment.
Much of the abuse of the inquisition proved political gains were used by it at the influence of secular powers, to remove rivals to their secular thrones and Church teaching positions, held by secular priest or bishops that were placed in power by secular authorities. In short the inquisition did no address non- Christians as many have falsely reported by anti-Catholic’s.
There is a difference between secular priest who did not take vows and religious priest who did take vows during the inquisition periods. Which influenced the inquisition to remove false shepherds from the flock. Yet circumstances such as secular priest and religious priest, get overlooked by non-Catholic historians, who do not understand or refuse to view and comment on the (complicated) historical internal battles, that were taking place between Church authority and secular authorities.
Peace be with you
We must strive to be 100% accurate when we are reporting other people’s beliefs as non-loving.
The fingers being pointed at others in this manner only serves to glorify the fingers being pointed at ourselves
.
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
The OP is “Judging Islam by actions of terrorists”. Because you are not a practicing Muslim and I hope you are not a practicing terrorist, we cannot agree to disagree on a subject that does not pertain to your faith doctrines.
But I would be interested in learning your view of the OP.
S
Servant19
Guest
Thank you Gabriel
What I posted has nothing to do with my Faith. It has to do with correcting misunderstandings and aligning people with the Truth about Muhammad.
My view of the OP is that it is easy as a Christian to criticise Islam without correct knowledge of the Mission of Muhammad. It is similarly so as a Muslim to criticise Christianity without correct knowledge of the Mission of Jesus.
This is not about the actions of human beings, for Christians and Muslims have all acted shamefully in the past, but rather about the PURPOSE and INTENTION of Muhammad and Jesus.
I think the only way to know the purpose and intention of Jesus and Muhammad is for God to fully clarify it. I personally believe this has happened, through Baha’u’llah, and it is the reason why I would willingly die for Jesus AND Muhammad
.
M
mek42
Guest
My understanding is that the Catholic Conquistadors from Spain did use force to effect conversion upon pain of death to Catholicism of the natives where they landed in America. And that, subsequent to this forced conversion of a people of different culture and language, the methods of the Inquisition were then applied. Is not this act of conversion by force the very thing we are fearful of from militant Islam? If it is claimed that the actions of the Spanish colonists was not Catholic, not Christian, despite their claims at the time, why then is it so hard to consider that terrorism is not Islam when such statements are made?
It seems like Christians say, “When Christians are bad, it means that individuals have failed, and is not an indightment of Christianity. But the Islamic terrorists, those acts show that Islam itself is bad.”
It seems like Christians say, “When Christians are bad, it means that individuals have failed, and is not an indightment of Christianity. But the Islamic terrorists, those acts show that Islam itself is bad.”
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
Not true. King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella funded Columbus and others who would follow to seek another shipping route to Asia. While they were battling the Muslims.
The Conquistadors introduced black slaves to these lands, and did use force upon the natives for labor not for conversion. Slavery at this time was legal and viewed differently than we view today.
Later the Royals with permission of the Church funded religious priest to preach the gospel message to the natives. If you read your history correctly, you will find many of these priest were martyred in protecting the natives from the mistreatment by the Conquistadors. These same priest would report to the Royals of the mistreatment, that the Royals would replace or call back such Conquistadors found to be mistreating the natives.
In short, we cannot confuse the Catholic Church’s teachings and evangelization of the natives with the actions by the Conquistadors. In fact history shows much conflict transpired between them.
We have to include both the Catholic French as well as Catholic Spain were exploring and settling upon the Americas not to exclude Protestant England who would come later.
I don’t believe you can prove that any natives fell under the category of the Inquisition. For the Inquisition sought out false shepherds teaching heresy. I don’t think any of the natives during this time reached a status of a teaching authority to fall under any Inquisition. The Church acknowledges and records the abuse’s made by the Conquistadors. Plain and simple Conquistadors were not the representatives of Christianity to convert the natives in the Americas. Religious priest were the representatives of Christianity on these voyages.
You would be hard pressed to find a religious priest using physical force upon the natives to convert.
I don’t think any one denies the Conquistadors were not Catholic. These secular Catholic men sought to gain wealth in these new lands. What funded and supported their adventures were Catholic Royals supported by the Church to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Were there abuses in these circumstances, did the Royals and the Church on the other side of the world seek to protect the natives and their human dignity? Yes.
I hope to display a difference here. Whereby Islam does not go out to convert or evangelize, but to conquer. And when Islam cannot conquer by force, Islam conquers’ by deception, which is a virtue practiced by the prophet Muhammad.
Men in all ages have failed God in all creeds of faith. Catholicism has no teaching that subscribes to violence or killing in the name of Christianity. In fact Catholicism teaches to love one’s enemy. Have Christians failed at this teaching, yes. But the fact remains to love your enemy is gospel teaching in Christianity.
Islam subscribes to violence and killing in the name of Islam.
Peace be with you
T
The_Wizard
Guest
I do not judge Islam by the actions of terrorists. I judge Islam by the Quran, Hadith and Sira. According to my understanding of these, Islam wants to 1) convert me or 2) subjugate me (a dhimmi) or 3) kill me. I DO NOT want to convert! I DO NOT want to be a subject! I WILL defend my life!
“When you meet your enemies who are polytheists (which includes Christians), invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them … If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them” (Sahih Muslim 19:4294)
“When you meet your enemies who are polytheists (which includes Christians), invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them … If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them” (Sahih Muslim 19:4294)
- Status