Crusade manipulation

[Simplelogic]

I am tired of people trying to make a moral comparison between Islamic Jihad and the Crusades. Let me be the first to say that I don't deny that there were crusaders who crossed the line and persecuted innocent people, especially Jews. But considering the fact that the crusades are used throughout the Islamic world to justify modern Muslim aggression is just plain wrong. Here is a short video on the topic that I hope will stir some debate on the subject.

SCHOOLING OBAMA: Jihad vs Crusades...Facts Are A ***** | Doug Giles | #ClashDaily

 

[Poeticus]

I am tired of people trying to make a moral comparison between Islamic Jihad and the Crusades. Let me be the first to say that I don't deny that there were crusaders who crossed the line and persecuted innocent people, especially Jews. But considering the fact that the crusades are used throughout the Islamic world to justify modern Muslim aggression is just plain wrong. Here is a short video on the topic that I hope will stir some debate on the subject.

SCHOOLING OBAMA: Jihad vs Crusades...Facts Are A ***** | Doug Giles | #ClashDaily

As I've said it before, it's false equivalency ...and by default, a non-sequitur. But it's worthless to point this out to those that are blinded by non-retractable convictions they deem as infallible or "progressive".

 

[LuisDantas]

Come to think of it, why do we hear more about the Crusades than about the current airstrike bombings? One would expect the later to be a more relevant subject. I wonder how Muslims feel about them, and how united or divided they might be on their opinions on the matter.

Keeping the Crusades as a reference has at least two grave disadvantages. It brings the focus to events that are out of our reach and will always be suspect of partisan reporting from everyone. And it does not really say much about what to think about current events and decisions.

 

[Poeticus]

Keeping the Crusades as a reference has at least two grave disadvantages. It brings the focus to events that are out of our reach and will always be suspect of partisan reporting from everyone. And it does not really say much about what to think about current events and decisions.

Furthermore:

Apologetically strawmanning by bringing up the Crusades kind of helps keep the [White-]Christian-[non-White-]Muslim religious narrative relevant ... political drone strikes and bombings, however, don't provide such a beneficial opportunity. You keep the religious narrative alive, religious extremism is made sense of, or at least its understanding is attempted. You monopolize the discussion with the political narratives, then it won't garner as much sympathy as the former religious narrative does.

Addendum: Either way, I'm a polytheist. And I despise both Crusaders and Jihadis---both of whom easily proved, and the latter of which still proves today, their ineptitude for plurality of thought and their tendency to readily persecute "the Other". ​

 

[Nietzsche]

I am tired of people trying to make a moral comparison between Islamic Jihad and the Crusades. Let me be the first to say that I don't deny that there were crusaders who crossed the line and persecuted innocent people, especially Jews. But considering the fact that the crusades are used throughout the Islamic world to justify modern Muslim aggression is just plain wrong. Here is a short video on the topic that I hope will stir some debate on the subject.

SCHOOLING OBAMA: Jihad vs Crusades...Facts Are A ***** | Doug Giles | #ClashDaily

sigh

They are comparable. But not for reasons most people assume. I don't have the energy to write something new, so I'm going to copy-paste a reply I made in an earlier thread.

I yearn for a day when people realize that the vast majority of "Islamic" terrorism has about as much to do with Islam as Christianity did with the Crusades, or for a more modern topic, as pedophilia does with Catholicism. Religion provides either a fig-leaf to couch your motivations in(Islamic terrorism, the Crusades), or a position of authority by which one can exploit to do what you please(the pedophilia, Islamic terrorism and Crusades). In matters such as this religion is a tool. It's a means.

 

[metis]

sigh

They are comparable. But not for reasons most people assume. I don't have the energy to write something new, so I'm going to copy-paste a reply I made in an earlier thread.

I yearn for a day when people realize that the vast majority of "Islamic" terrorism has about as much to do with Islam as Christianity did with the Crusades, or for a more modern topic, as pedophilia does with Catholicism. Religion provides either a fig-leaf to couch your motivations in(Islamic terrorism, the Crusades), or a position of authority by which one can exploit to do what you please(the pedophilia, Islamic terrorism and Crusades). In matters such as this religion is a tool. It's a means.

I tend to take a different tact, though not to say you're wrong-- just a different perspective.

If a radical Jew kills people in a mosque, such as what happened about 15 years ago, I as a Jew have to own that, imo. IOW, I feel the obligation to try and correct the wrong as best as possible, and this indeed did happen with mass demonstrations in both Jerusalem and Tel Aviv.

To me, one cannot divorce the Crusades from Christianity, nor ISIS from Islam. However, in each case, we're talking about a radical element, although even these radical elements can be popular at times (remember the bin-Laden was actually more popular in the Middle East than was "W" Bush).

So, I have to "own" Jews who screw up, because we Jews are in a better position to try and put on pressure to stop bad actions, plus it's important that we make it clear to others that we do not condone such actions, plus we may be able to compensate one way or another for the damages created by one or more of us.

Just a different take, not a disagreement.

 

[JRMcC]

I am tired of people trying to make a moral comparison between Islamic Jihad and the Crusades. Let me be the first to say that I don't deny that there were crusaders who crossed the line and persecuted innocent people, especially Jews. But considering the fact that the crusades are used throughout the Islamic world to justify modern Muslim aggression is just plain wrong. Here is a short video on the topic that I hope will stir some debate on the subject.

SCHOOLING OBAMA: Jihad vs Crusades...Facts Are A ***** | Doug Giles | #ClashDaily

Yeah nobody really knows their 7th-9th century history. And because of that it's assumed that Christians went and killed Muslims in the middle east for no reason. I don't understand the connection to today though. I haven''t heard people bring up the crusades in discussions about terrorism.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

Palestine was invaded by Muslims without any provocation in the 7th century. The Crusades started over four centuries later! The problem started when the Arabs were conquered by the Seljuk Turks, who started oppressing Christian pilgrims.

At the time, several theologians emphasised that it would be wrong to attack Muslims for being Muslims; war was only justified in self defence. It's also worth noting that the Crusaders were able to find Arab allies and to recruit Muslim soldiers to their armies.

 

[Simplelogic]

Yeah nobody really knows their 7th-9th century history. And because of that it's assumed that Christians went and killed Muslims in the middle east for no reason. I don't understand the connection to today though. I haven''t heard people bring up the crusades in discussions about terrorism.

The President of the US recently did. I have heard many others do the same.

 

[Simplelogic]

I tend to take a different tact, though not to say you're wrong-- just a different perspective.

If a radical Jew kills people in a mosque, such as what happened about 15 years ago, I as a Jew have to own that, imo. IOW, I feel the obligation to try and correct the wrong as best as possible, and this indeed did happen with mass demonstrations in both Jerusalem and Tel Aviv.

To me, one cannot divorce the Crusades from Christianity, nor ISIS from Islam. However, in each case, we're talking about a radical element, although even these radical elements can be popular at times (remember the bin-Laden was actually more popular in the Middle East than was "W" Bush).

So, I have to "own" Jews who screw up, because we Jews are in a better position to try and put on pressure to stop bad actions, plus it's important that we make it clear to others that we do not condone such actions, plus we may be able to compensate one way or another for the damages created by one or more of us.

Just a different take, not a disagreement.

I agree with much of this but I wouldn't suggest that the Crusades were on the same moral footing as the Jihad's. Not sure if you were equating the two but there is a clear difference. The first Jihad was unprovoked by western Christianity. The first Crusade was largely a response to the first Jihad which had already attacked, tortured and killed numerous people. Not to mention the amount of battles fought by the Crusaders was a mere fraction of the battles fought during the first Jihad. Yet there is always a moral equivalency between these two factions when discussed.

 

[Simplelogic]

sigh

They are comparable. But not for reasons most people assume. I don't have the energy to write something new, so I'm going to copy-paste a reply I made in an earlier thread.

I yearn for a day when people realize that the vast majority of "Islamic" terrorism has about as much to do with Islam as Christianity did with the Crusades, or for a more modern topic, as pedophilia does with Catholicism. Religion provides either a fig-leaf to couch your motivations in(Islamic terrorism, the Crusades), or a position of authority by which one can exploit to do what you please(the pedophilia, Islamic terrorism and Crusades). In matters such as this religion is a tool. It's a means.

Well, I would love to here some proof for your moral equivalency of the two.

The Koran and the Hadith teaches Muslims to expand the religion and conquer other nations. The first Jihad was completely unprovoked by western Christians.

The Bible gives no mandate to expand the religion geographically through violence, except for the early conquest of the land of Canaan. The first Crusade was a response to the first unprovoked Jihad. Yet you still pretend they were both morally equal?

BTW….I am not a Christian and I have no reason to defend Christianity.

 

[JRMcC]

The President of the US recently did. I have heard many others do the same.

Oh. I don't care what that guy says so I don't listen .

 

[Nietzsche]

Well, I would love to here some proof for your moral equivalency of the two.

The Koran and the Hadith teaches Muslims to expand the religion and conquer other nations. The first Jihad was completely unprovoked by western Christians.

The Bible gives no mandate to expand the religion geographically through violence, except for the early conquest of the land of Canaan. The first Crusade was a response to the first unprovoked Jihad. Yet you still pretend they were both morally equal?

BTW….I am not a Christian and I have no reason to defend Christianity.

Indeed I do. The 'First Jihad' was named such after it occurred unless I am thinking of something else, a religious justification given to a war that was already going on.

Middle-Age 'diplomacy' is not remotely clear-cut enough to claim a single justification for anything, especially not when one factors in the migrations of peoples going on and the constant warfare at the peripheries of the Byzantine Empire, of which was occurring because of their utter misrule of the lands, and the constant warfare going on at the peripheries of various Viking fiefdoms & European Christendom.

It was an era of conflict, and while not constant fighting was occurring on the ground(wasn't really feasible) "diplomacy" was almost useless. It was a system of power-playing, purely & simply. It wore the fig-leaf of religion, and undoubtedly the lesser amongst all sides believed it. But it was in the end a matter of land & gold.

 

[Simplelogic]

Indeed I do. The 'First Jihad' was named such after it occurred unless I am thinking of something else, a religious justification given to a war that was already going on.

Middle-Age 'diplomacy' is not remotely clear-cut enough to claim a single justification for anything, especially not when one factors in the migrations of peoples going on and the constant warfare at the peripheries of the Byzantine Empire, of which was occurring because of their utter misrule of the lands, and the constant warfare going on at the peripheries of various Viking fiefdoms & European Christendom.

It was an era of conflict, and while not constant fighting was occurring on the ground(wasn't really feasible) "diplomacy" was almost useless. It was a system of power-playing, purely & simply. It wore the fig-leaf of religion, and undoubtedly the lesser amongst all sides believed it. But it was in the end a matter of land & gold.

This is not accurate. The first Jihad was ideological in nature and rooted in many Koranic passages which mandate military expansion. It was not tagged a Jihad after the fact.

 

[JRMcC]

The Koran and the Hadith teaches Muslims to expand the religion and conquer other nations.

I can't speak for all Muslims, and I've read the first half of the koran and that's it. But I had Saudi Arabian neighbors for about 6 months and I hung out with them a lot. We talked about a lot of interesting stuff, usually religion. The way one of them put it is that Allah said that the whole world is not Muslim and that he made it that way on purpose. Further, Allah is challenging Muslims to learn to live with these other societies. Of course there are conflicting statements in the scripture; there are in most if not all religious scriptures.

Edit: They actually both hold that view, and Saudi Arabia is the most fundamentalist country in the world.

 

[Simplelogic]

I can't speak for all Muslims, and I've read the first half of the koran and that's it. But I had Saudi Arabian neighbors for about 6 months and I hung out with them a lot. We talked about a lot of interesting stuff, usually religion. The way one of them put it is that Allah said that the whole world is not Muslim and that he made it that way on purpose. Further, Allah is challenging Muslims to learn to live with these other societies. Of course there are conflicting statements in the scripture; there are in most if not all religious scriptures.

Thankfully there are many good Muslims who cling to the good verses in the Koran. Unfortunately there is many other verses which literally teach to expand Islam through violence. These are the verses that most of the idiot Jihadists cling to.

My point was that there is a clear difference ideologically between the Biblical text and the Koranic Text when it comes to violent expansion.

 

[JRMcC]

My point was that there is a clear difference ideologically between the Biblical text and the Koranic Text when it comes to violent expansion.

I agree. The Koran is easier to use for violence than any other sacred text I know of is.

 

[metis]

I agree with much of this but I wouldn't suggest that the Crusades were on the same moral footing as the Jihad's. Not sure if you were equating the two but there is a clear difference. The first Jihad was unprovoked by western Christianity. The first Crusade was largely a response to the first Jihad which had already attacked, tortured and killed numerous people. Not to mention the amount of battles fought by the Crusaders was a mere fraction of the battles fought during the first Jihad. Yet there is always a moral equivalency between these two factions when discussed.

The Crusades were more than just a response, as part of it also was due to a desire to "liberate" the Holy Land. Either way, massacres have been committed by both groups, and it's those actions that I focused more on.

 

[BSM1]

Oh. I don't care what that guy says so I don't listen .

Unfortunately it doesn't make him less vocal....

 

[Simplelogic]

The Crusades were more than just a response, as part of it also was due to a desire to "liberate" the Holy Land. Either way, massacres have been committed by both groups, and it's those actions that I focused more on.

Like I said. The motivation for the Crusades were "largely" due to previous Muslim aggression. This can't be avoided. I agree that money power and control were also factors. I also believe that Crusaders did horrible things to Jews at times and I have never tried to back away from these events.

The larger point here is that Islamic Jihad was rooted in both the Quran and the Hadith as religious duty. Not so for the Crusaders.