On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 12:24 PM, "DP" wrote:
Re: Was violence in medieval Christian Europe inspired by interference
with Muslim world?

Dear Yada:



Thank you for making your book available for public on your web site.
It is great educational material for everyone. I have a
comment/question for you in regard to violence in medieval Christian
Europe as an excuse for Islamic violence.

Currently whenever you see a person in a media (including TV,
newspapers,
etc.) commenting on violence of Muslims, the argument used is as following:
Islam is a young religion and violence was very common for Christianity as
well when Christianity was as yang as Islam. The common examples of this are
practices of inquisition and conquistadors. But as I see, there is a big
problem with such explanation.

First, there is no evidence that the oldest variation of Christian
church, Coptic church, ever showed any violence for 2000 years of its
history. The acts of violence were attributed to the Catholic church,
which was founded on joint basis of Coptic and Roman traditions. Even
so, the Catholic church was very peaceful until 10-11 century. What
happened? Why peaceful Catholic church suddenly become associated with
killing and burning alive hundreds of thousands of people all over the
Europe, South America and other continents?

When people hear the word "Inquisition", they usually recall
schoolbooks pictures of Hispanic inquisition burning alive heretics.
Although inquisition did operate all over the Europe, the most
horrible crimes of it were committed not in Germany, not in England of
France, but in Spain. Spain, incidentally, as many know, was under
Islamic law for a quite a long time around 9-10 century before it was
liberated and become Christian again. Surprisingly (or not) the
inquisition as an institution of torture was founded shortly after
that liberation. I guess that the Islamic occupation left a big damage
in the spirit of people. Since all parts of Europe had a close
connections with each other through Catholic church, these practices
of torture that were foreign for Christianity and were originally
introduced into Spain by Islam, were quickly spread through Europe.

The other example of violence of Catholic church discussed is a
violence of conquistadors. Wait! Conquistadors and their brutal
practices originated also in the same Spain which was under Islamic
law for decades! By the way, the practices of conquistadors looks very
like those that were described in Islamic scriptures.

So, we see that Christianity before it was corrupted by interference
with Islam, was not violent at all. Therefore, the claim that it is a
necessary feature for a "young" religion to be a violent one, is not
substantiated.

Yada, I wander if you are aware of any studies that may support of
disprove these hypotheses? Do you think that this issue should be
investigated closely?

Thank you in advance.


"D"

"D,"

Thank you for your letter and kind words. You are a very well read and rational person. I'm impressed with your hypothesis.

As you know, Islam is violent because Muhammad was a warmonger and a terrorist. The Qur'an tells Muslims to follow his example. The only guarantee of making the Islamic paradise is being killed as a jihadist.

Those who promote the notion that all young religions are violent, excusing Islam this way, are ignorant and irrational. There is no evidence of early Christians going out and conquering anyone. The religion was a thousand years old at the time of the crusades, and even then, they were a defensive response to consistent Islamic aggression.

The inquisition was limited to a small part of Christendom as you have correctly stated, and the religion was 1600 years old by the time of the conquistadors. Further, there is no support Scripturally for the Crusades, the Inquisition, or the Conquestadors.

Islam is a different story. In its first 100 years Muslims were the most aggressive barbarians the world had ever known, plundering and raping their way across Arabia, into Persia, India, Syria, today's Israel, Egypt, across Northern Africa, into Spain, and Turkey. Muhammad's religion made them that way. Today, now that the religion is 1400 years old, Islamic terrorism has been reborn after the fall of the Ottoman Turks in the first world war. It's now being fueled by OPEC rather than conquest.

You are correct regarding the Coptic Church and with regard to Catholicism. That religion, as you have stated, is based mostly on the Babylonian sungod religion by way of Roman Mithraism. As a result, the Catholic Church has always been about control, about oppression, and about conquest. The more people they deceive, control and fleece, the better from their perspective. In my opinion the RCC would have remained the most negative force on earth had it not been for the Reformation.

Your connections between the Islamic influence on Spain and the Inquisition and Conquistadors the nation sponsored is intriguing. These things could well be the legacy of Islamic occupation. Since both are sponsored in the Koran and since both are opposed in the Bible, your conclusion is both informed and rational.

I would strongly encourage you to peruse this hypothesis. It is important and it makes sense.

Yada