Skylar
Diamond Member
- Jul 5, 2014
- 51,124
- 14,807
- 2,180
A guy who knows what he's talking about. If you want to make sense of what's going on, watch this video.
Does Islam promote violence? No, Islam is a religion, it's the people who promote violence. Some parts of Islam are violent, he explains that Buddhists in Nepal are going around slaughtering people, does Buddhism promote violence then?
I'd add that there are more Muslims now who are committing acts of violence in response to what the US has been doing, especially over the last 12 years.
The terrorist have twisted the Koran and their religion to say whatever they want it to say and be whatever they want it to be.
Religion per se don't promote violence but if you have ever read the bible its full of violence as is the Koran.
I agree its a matter of interpertation. If you want to hurt people, you'll find justification for it in your religion. Mother Teresa and Tomas de Torquemada used the same Bible. So we might be looking in the wrong place. Is this a product of Islam? Or a product of Arab culture. Or a product of what's happening n the regions that generate such extremists?
Or a none of the above.
Learn some history------Torquemada was a product of the HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE-------Mother Teresa was a product of a very reformed version of the catholic church.
The Holy Roman Empire was largely a German and Austrian creature. By the age of Torquemada's inquisition, it was often called the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation. The Holy Roman Empire had actually lost many of its Italian holdings in this same era with the Vatican fighting and largely winning practical autonomy from the Empire before the inquisition.
While Spain would eventually come into the orbit of the Holy Roman Empire, it wasn't until Torquemada was long dead (Isabella's grandson was actually Holy Roman Emperor). And Spain never became territorial part of the Empire.
The inquisition was the product of the Spanish response to reconquest of the Iberian Peninsula from the Moors. It was used to purge the Moorish influence, shore up the authority of the 'Catholic Monarchs' of Isabella and Ferdinand, and to ensure orthodoxy among converted Jews and Muslims. It has next to nothing to do with the 'Holy Roman Empire'.
Not only are you wrong, your entire point is moot. As the same Bible was used to justify both the Spanish Inquisition and the soup kitchens of Mother Terasa. The difference.....was the interpretation and motive. With the religion interpreted to match the agendas and beliefs of the individuals interpreting it.
Which is my entire point.
Islamic violence is-----in accordance with Islamic ideology----no doubt a
kind of syncresis of theological thought BROUGHT to arabia by persons interested in the SILK ROAD and the indigenous population and culture of arabia. That syncretic ideology follows wherever islam "went" Throat slitting of "non-believers" was introduced to south east asia thru Islamic ideology
The natives of Peru, the Caribbean, Mexico and central America weren't met with snuggles and unicorn kisses from Christianity either. With Christian doctrine adapted to justify the actions taken there.
Which again, demonstrates my point.
You are very confused-------you seem to be focusing on the fact that what had been
the HOLY ROMAN empire including the Iberian Penninsula------eventually became
focused MORE on the AUSTRIAN HUNGARIAN EMPIRE-----but actually STILL included---not only the Iberian Peninsula but even the British Isles and France.
No, it didn't. This was the Holy Roman Empire:
It was also called the 'Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation' for a reason. As it was overwhelmingly Germanic and Czech. It didn't include Spain. And I defy you to show us a single credible source that indicates as much.
Worse, you're wrong twice. Those closest that Spain ever came to being part of the Holy Roman empire was under Emperor Charles V.....the grandson of Isabella and Ferdinand. He was king of Spain AND the Holy Roman Emperor. But Spain still wasn't part of the HRE. They simply had the same sovereign during his reign. And Charles V wasn't even born until years after Torquemada was already dead.
Meaning that your time line doesn't work, even by the most wildly accommodating interpretations of the HRE . And your history is off.
Torquemada's actions had virtually nothing to do with the "Holy Roman Empire'. And everything to do with enforcing orthodox Catholicism in the recently reconquered Iberian peninsula.
And again, its moot. As even your inaccurate scenario proves my point: Religion being interpreted to commit violence by those who want to commit violence.
SPAIN did not invent the INQUISITION. It was a machination of rome----and
the POPE. Isabella was simply a big ENTHUSIAST, Pious lady that she was
she facilitated its increasingly barbaric manifestations -----that's all--------sorta like
in manner of an HYSTERICALLY RELIGIOUS slut.
A devoutly religious woman who interpreted her religion to justify violence.
Again, proving my point perfectly.
You have demonstrated the fact that you are slightly befuddled--South America
was HARD HIT by the SPANISH interpretation of the beauty of the INQUISITION-
but the inquisition itself was OF ROME although ROME itself never did it so GOOD as did Spain
The Spanish Catholic interpretation of the Catholic Inquisition, authorized by the Catholic Church?
You do realize you just proved my point a third time, right?