Crusade manipulation

[metis]

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.

More the Hadith. But let me add that the Crusades were sold mainly as a religious duty and not a secular one.

 

[Simplelogic]

More the Hadith. But let me add that the Crusades were sold mainly as a religious duty and not a secular one.

Agreed. I am not denying that religious leaders didn't use religion to motivate participation. The same as the Muslims did. I'm mere pointing out that the Biblical text wasn't the basis like the Quran/Hadith was for Islamic motivation.

Not trying to split hairs here, but I do see this difference as a significant one.

 

[metis]

Agreed. I am not denying that religious leaders didn't use religion to motivate participation. The same as the Muslims did. I'm mere pointing out that the Biblical text wasn't the basis like the Quran/Hadith was for Islamic motivation.

Not trying to split hairs here, but I do see this difference as a significant one.

One can use either the Bible, the Qur'an, and/or the Hadith to support pretty much whatever they choose to cherry pick out of them, including starting offensive wars. The Crusades were "legitimized" on certain religious verses, and so have the various radical Islamists used the Qur'an and Hadith in the same manner.

 

[Simplelogic]

One can use either the Bible, the Qur'an, and/or the Hadith to support pretty much whatever they choose to cherry pick out of them, including starting offensive wars. The Crusades were "legitimized" on certain religious verses, and so have the various radical Islamists used the Qur'an and Hadith in the same manner.

I disagree. You are equating apples with oranges imho. I would challenge you to provide some verses from the Bible which teach that killing Muslims is a service to YHVH. I would also challenge you to find verses that suggest that Christians or Jews should expand religion militarily to other nations (outside of Israel). These verses just don't exist in the Biblical text yet there are many verses in the Quran and Hadith which literally teach Muslims to do this.

The Quran and the Hadith were not used in the "same manner" at all. They are not verses "cherry picked" and distorted out of context. There is a very obvious mandate throughout the Quran/Hadith to literally expand the religion through warfare. Also, the premise of Jihad is openly praised and encouraged as one of the highest forms of Islamic duty. Many modern Muslims suggest that Jihad really means "inner struggle" and try to distance these verses away from literal violence. I am very happy that people are willing to look at these verses this way but that doesn't mean that something is actually true. The more contextual approach to both Islamic texts is that the literal expression of Jihad is what the author traditionally meant to convey.

This is part of the reason for why Christendom has been able to reform over these years as opposed to much of the Islamic world. The Bible simply lacks the literal verses which suggest this type of religious expression where the Muslim world, especially the moderates, have to deal with these very violent verses. This is the root problem. Islam is difficult to reform because of these challenging verses which can't be avoided.

Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."

 

[metis]

I disagree. You are equating apples with oranges imho. I would challenge you to provide some verses from the Bible which teach that killing Muslims is a service to YHVH. I would also challenge you to find verses that suggest that Christians or Jews should expand religion militarily to other nations (outside of Israel). These verses just don't exist in the Biblical text yet there are many verses in the Quran and Hadith which literally teach Muslims to do this.

The Quran and the Hadith were not used in the "same manner" at all. They are not verses "cherry picked" and distorted out of context. There is a very obvious mandate throughout the Quran/Hadith to literally expand the religion through warfare. Also, the premise of Jihad is openly praised and encouraged as one of the highest forms of Islamic duty. Many modern Muslims suggest that Jihad really means "inner struggle" and try to distance these verses away from literal violence. I am very happy that people are willing to look at these verses this way but that doesn't mean that something is actually true. The more contextual approach to both Islamic texts is that the literal expression of Jihad is what the author traditionally meant to convey.

This is part of the reason for why Christendom has been able to reform over these years as opposed to much of the Islamic world. The Bible simply lacks the literal verses which suggest this type of religious expression where the Muslim world, especially the moderates, have to deal with these very violent verses. This is the root problem. Islam is difficult to reform because of these challenging verses which can't be avoided.

Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."

If one quotes certain verses as are found in Torah, particularly several out of both Ex. and Dt., then one can justify a war of offense.

However, what negates that over the last many centuries is the Talmudic qualification that only a prophet can call for an offensive war, and since the prophetic age ended roughly 2300 years ago, at least us Jews cannot do that.

 

[Simplelogic]

If one quotes certain verses as are found in Torah, particularly several out of both Ex. and Dt., then one can justify a war of offense.

However, what negates that over the last many centuries is the Talmudic qualification that only a prophet can call for an offensive war, and since the prophetic age ended roughly 2300 years ago, at least us Jews cannot do that.

Nope. There is no verse in the Torah which promotes the idea of expanding Judaism through violence to other nations. Also, prophetic "age" is a made up term.