Inquisition vs. Jihad

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_dartagnan
_Emeritus
Posts: 2750
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 4:27 pm

Inquisition vs. Jihad

Post by _dartagnan »

I thought this was an interesting discussion started you know where, and I’d thought I’d comment:

Pantsman: I don't have any real issues with the inquisition, or the Papal Bull [order for inquisitors to use torture] you refer to, the middle ages were dangerous times, a tough hand was necessary. As the head of the Church the Pope was obliged to protect it, God has used war on unbelievers before, I wish we had another inquisition for those trying to subvert the Church from the inside today, which is what the inquisition was for.

PacMan: How does this differ at all from the modern Jihadist view? What's the difference between the Catholic "God" wageing war [torture] on heretics and "Allah" doing the same to infidels? Is this not ultimately a blatant support of terrorism?


First and foremost is the fact that Islamic jihad against infidels is against the entire non-Muslim world. All non-Muslims are infidels and it is legal to wage war on them if they are not living under Islamic rule. The inquisition was a short-lived legal system – considered the most enlightened and humane in its day – designed to question suspected heretics and root out heresy. Heretics were people professing Christianity, but teaching a heretical form of it. A professing Muslim, for example, could not be tried.

So if you’re reading this Pantsman, you might want to clue him in on this crucial difference.
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein
Post Reply