Crusades vs Jihad

[Trey of Diamonds]

When it comes to religious wars, how do you think the two compare? Are they the same? Is one more or less justified than the other? Can they be compared at all?

Crusades, from the wiki

The Crusades were a series of religious expeditionary wars blessed by Pope Urban II and the Catholic Church, with the stated goal of restoring Christian access to the holy places in and near Jerusalem. Jerusalem was and is a sacred city and symbol of all three major Abrahamic faiths (Judaism, Christianity and Islam). The background to the Crusades was set when the Seljuk Turks decisively defeated the Byzantine army in 1071 and cut off Christian access to Jerusalem. The Byzantine emperor, Alexis I feared that all Asia Minor would be overrun. He called on western Christian leaders and the papacy to come to the aid of Constantinople by undertaking a pilgrimage or a crusade that would free Jerusalem from Muslim rule. Another cause was the destruction of many Christian sacred sites and the persecution of Christians under the Fatimid caliph Al-Hakim.

Jihad, from the wiki

Jihad, an Islamic term, is a religious duty of Muslims. In Arabic, the word jihād translates as a noun meaning "struggle". Jihad appears 41 times in the Quran and frequently in the idiomatic expression "striving in the way of God (al-jihad fi sabil Allah)". A person engaged in jihad is called a mujahid; the plural is mujahideen. Jihad is an important religious duty for Muslims. A minority among the Sunni scholars sometimes refer to this duty as the sixth pillar of Islam, though it occupies no such official status. In Twelver Shi'a Islam, however, Jihad is one of the 10 Practices of the Religion.

 

[F0uad]

Well holy-war is never mentioned in the Quran and the description you quoted from Wiki explains the meaning well it means: to struggle.
Struggle against your desires or oppressors.

Just to add to your ''Crusade quote" there have been over 9 or 11 Crusades in the past against the Islamic caliphate and most of them weren't even aimed in Jerusalem.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

So how do you think the way Christianity considers holy war compares to how Islam considers holy war? On the surface they appear the same, violence in name of religion. But the the two religions view them differently and have very different processes for declaring holy war.

Also, at the end of the day, many of the reasons for holy war are more human than divine. The first Crusade was just a way for the Pope to distract the attention of the French secular rulers who were beginning to acquire power above and beyond the church. Sending them off to be slaughters in the name of God ensured the spiritual leaders of Christendom remained the true rulers of Europe.

I don't know much about the Jihad's of the past but I can only assume that there are examples of it being misused as well.

 

[F0uad]

So how do you think the way Christianity considers holy war compares to how Islam considers holy war? On the surface they appear the same, violence in name of religion. But the the two religions view them differently and have very different processes for declaring holy war.

Also, at the end of the day, many of the reasons for holy war are more human than divine. The first Crusade was just a way for the Pope to distract the attention of the French secular rulers who were beginning to acquire power above and beyond the church. Sending them off to be slaughters in the name of God ensured the spiritual leaders of Christendom remained the true rulers of Europe.

I don't know much about the Jihad's of the past but I can only assume that there are examples of it being misused as well.

Well as i have said before ''Jihad'' doesn't mean a offensive war you can translate ''Jihad'' to this:

• A believer's internal struggle to live out the Muslim faith as well as possible
• The struggle to build a good Muslim society
• Holy war: the struggle to defend Islam, with force if necessary

Its the western society and crusaders in the past who used the term ''Jihad'' as a offensive war it was later adopted by extremist in the east however any Islamic scholar will say the same thing that it means to struggle. The terminology is also applied to the fight for women's liberation.

The term 'jihad' has accrued both violent and non-violent meanings. It can simply mean striving to live a moral and virtuous life, spreading and defending Islam as well as fighting injustice and oppression, among other things.

So lets jump to the next subject a real Islamic holy war has actually never taken place except in the time of the prophet(saws).

 

[Sir Doom]

Taken literally or figuratively I believe they are pretty much identical.

Religion has often been used in the past as an excuse to conquer. The reality is that war is always about power regardless of the reasons we sell ourselves on. I believe that crusades and jihad in the literal sense were used as vehicles to convince the masses that it was a good idea to kill and pillage your neighbors. Its interesting that we didn't always need these sorts of excuses, and that nowadays they are generally unacceptable but have been replaced with geo-political excuses. The reality is that power is the goal no matter what story we paint it with.

In the figurative sense (as F0uad mentions) jihad can be compared to the figurative 'soldier of Christ' idea that I've heard many times. I believe this metaphoric sort of war is a call back to age-old notion that soldiers and warriors are to be revered for the role in society that they play. Adopting this role in the figurative sense instills a sense of purpose and worth (regardless of how illusory it is).

Just my take on it, naturally.

 

[F0uad]

Well i am a little confused here Sir doom, have you actually read or study the live time of the prophet(saws)? Or are you referring to a different ''War''?

 

[Sir Doom]

Well i am a little confused here Sir doom, have you actually read or study the live time of the prophet(saws)? Or are you referring to a different ''War''?

I was thinking of Saladin mostly.

 

[F0uad]

I was thinking of Saladin mostly.

Ah you meant freeing Jerusalem from the Crusaders who were burning mosques, synagogues, killing muslims and jews?

 

[Sir Doom]

Ah you meant freeing Jerusalem from the Crusaders who were burning mosques, synagogues, killing muslims and jews?

There was a bit more to his life than just that, if I remember correctly.

 

[F0uad]

There was a bit more to his life than just that, if I remember correctly.

Well Salahedin wasn't a companion of the prophet(saws) or the prophet(saws) himself.
He lived around 1100 if i am correct at the end of the Islamic caliphate ''empire'' and was a ''war-hero'' not a religious figure such as a pope nor did all Muslims fight under his banner or under 1banner at that time. You can compare him with a general of a militia group.

Wiki:

Under his personal leadership, his forces defeated the Crusaders at the Battle of Hattin, leading the way to his re-capture of Palestine, which had been seized from the Fatimid Egyptians by the Crusaders 88 years earlier. Though the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem would continue to exist for a period, its defeat at Hattin marked a turning point in its conflict with the Muslims and Arabs. As such, Saladin is a prominent figure in Kurdish, Arab, and Muslim culture. Saladin was a strict adherent of Sunni Islam.[5] His noble and chivalrous behavior was noted by Christian chroniclers, especially in the accounts of the Siege of Kerak, and despite being the nemesis of the Crusaders, he won the respect of many of them, including Richard the Lionheart; rather than becoming a hated figure in Europe, he became a celebrated example of the principles of chivalry

 

[Sir Doom]

Well Salahedin wasn't a companion of the prophet(saws) or the prophet(saws) himself.
He lived around 1100 if i am correct at the end of the Islamic caliphate ''empire'' and was a ''war-hero'' not a religious figure such as a pope nor did all Muslims fight under his banner or under 1banner at that time. You can compare him with a general of a militia group.

Wiki:

Under his personal leadership, his forces defeated the Crusaders at the Battle of Hattin, leading the way to his re-capture of Palestine, which had been seized from the Fatimid Egyptians by the Crusaders 88 years earlier. Though the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem would continue to exist for a period, its defeat at Hattin marked a turning point in its conflict with the Muslims and Arabs. As such, Saladin is a prominent figure in Kurdish, Arab, and Muslim culture. Saladin was a strict adherent of Sunni Islam.[5] His noble and chivalrous behavior was noted by Christian chroniclers, especially in the accounts of the Siege of Kerak, and despite being the nemesis of the Crusaders, he won the respect of many of them, including Richard the Lionheart; rather than becoming a hated figure in Europe, he became a celebrated example of the principles of chivalry

So are you saying that Saladin's conquest was not a jihad? Because he actually declared it as such.

 

[rusra02]

I think the violent acts of professed Christians and Muslims reveals their true nature. "The children of God and the children of the Devil are evident by this fact: Everyone who does not carry on righteousness does not originate with God, neither does he who does not love his brother...we should have love for one another; not like Cain, who originated with the wicked one and slaughtered his brother." (1 John 3:10-12) Those who murder innocents in God's name are, as the Bible states, children of the Devil, despite any claims to the contrary.

​

​

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Salah ad Din was a great general and Sultan as well as a devout Sunni Muslim. He carved out a dynasty for himself but I'm not sure it could be called Jihad since the lands he was conquering were Islamic to begin with. Now his participation in the third Crusade could be considered Jihad because he was taking the Holy Land back from the infidels who had taken it from the Egyptians 80 some odd years before. That could be considered Jihad in my opinion but I don't know for sure. Any Islamic scholars out there want to chime in?

 

[kjw47]

I think the violent acts of professed Christians and Muslims reveals their true nature. "The children of God and the children of the Devil are evident by this fact: Everyone who does not carry on righteousness does not originate with God, neither does he who does not love his brother...we should have love for one another; not like Cain, who originated with the wicked one and slaughtered his brother." (1 John 3:10-12) Those who murder innocents in God's name are, as the Bible states, children of the Devil, despite any claims to the contrary.

I believe you are absolutely right on the money. Jesus said--satan is the ruler of this world--He does it by transforming into an angel of light, by posing as all the different false gods there are, even using love and the name of Jesus to mislead. We know we are in the last days and at Micah 4:1-6 it states that true worshippers would learn war no more and beat their swords into plowshares.

 

[F0uad]

Well you won't be finding Islamic scholars on this forum Trey of diamonds nor is Salah-edin a part of Islamic-history.

Salah-edin like i said was not a religious leader so therefore he had no ''power'' to declare a holy-war nor did he command all Islamic land nor all forces unlike the Pope. The taking over of Jerusalem can been seen as freeing the jews and muslims from the hostile crusaders that were burning there mosque's, synagogues and mascaraing them inside the city there are enough historical records out there.

So are you saying that Saladin's conquest was not a jihad? Because he actually declared it as such.

Uh so do terrorist from the middle-east and all other groups. Like i said for 5times already Jihad is not a offensive holy-war please try to remember it the next time also can you give me the source where he ''declared'' a holy-war against ''Christians''

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Well you won't be finding Islamic scholars on this forum Trey of diamonds nor is Salah-edin a part of Islamic-history.

Respectfully disagree, there are many scholars here, from all religions and beliefs.

Salah-edin like i said was not a religious leader so therefore he had no ''power'' to declare a holy-war nor did he command all Islamic land nor all forces unlike the Pope. The taking over of Jerusalem can been seen as freeing the jews and muslims from the hostile crusaders that were burning there mosque's, synagogues and mascaraing them inside the city there are enough historical records out there.

I don't know my history of the time well enough to know the answer to this but couldn't the Imams of the time blessed his Jihad? Why does a religious leader have to be the military leader for it to be a Jihad? I agree that the retaking of Jerusalem can be seen as defensive rather than offensive but I would think that was even more acceptable as a Jihad?

 

[F0uad]

Respectfully disagree, there are many scholars here, from all religions and beliefs.

Well i have been couple of months here and i have not seen a Islamic scholar on Islamic-history, anyway salah-edin is not part of Islamic-history but rather middle-eastern history.

I don't know my history of the time well enough to know the answer to this but couldn't the Imams of the time blessed his Jihad? Why does a religious leader have to be the military leader for it to be a Jihad? I agree that the retaking of Jerusalem can be seen as defensive rather than offensive but I would think that was even more acceptable as a Jihad?

Well i can agree to call it a jihad if its defensive. As you have mentioned the imams were in favour but not call the jihad.

A real Islamic war would need 1religious leader such a prophet to take a offensive or it would need to be attacked first and all muslims have to unite in my understanding like for example the pope and the crusades.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Well i have been couple of months here and i have not seen a Islamic scholar on Islamic-history, anyway salah-edin is not part of Islamic-history but rather middle-eastern history.

I have a much looser definition for the word scholar I think. And I don't understand how a Sultan of Egypt and Syria who liberated the Holy Land from the infidels could not be considered a part of Islamic history. That one you will have to explain further.

Well i can agree to call it a jihad if its defensive. As you have mentioned the imams were in favour but not call the jihad.

Ok.

A real Islamic war would need 1religious leader such a prophet to take a offensive or it would need to be attacked first and all muslims have to unite in my understanding like for example the pope and the crusades.

The Pope may have been in charge of all of Christendom but it was still fractured. You have the Byzantine empire which did not fully support the Pope and the secular leaders of Europe were becoming more powerful and restless about being under control of the Church. That was why Pope Urban sent them off to war after he let the Seljuks all but take the Byzantine empire from the Greeks. He didn't care as much about taking Jerusalem as he did getting the Frankish kings to focus on war in a far away land.

Anyway, it sounds like you are saying that the only true Jihad will be led by a Mahdi. Is that what you are saying?

 

[F0uad]

I have a much looser definition for the word scholar I think. And I don't understand how a Sultan of Egypt and Syria who liberated the Holy Land from the infidels could not be considered a part of Islamic history. That one you will have to explain further.

I agree that you have a much looser definition for that word. Well what is really considered ''Islamic history'' by muslims is the live-time of the prophet until the 8th century. Salah-edin is not related to the companions(peace be upon them) nor family members of Mohammed(saws). What i mean by Islamic history is actually the religion's history. I think we can better call it the Caliphate History or the Islamic empire history when we are talking about Salah-edin.

The Pope may have been in charge of all of Christendom but it was still fractured. You have the Byzantine empire which did not fully support the Pope and the secular leaders of Europe were becoming more powerful and restless about being under control of the Church. That was why Pope Urban sent them off to war after he let the Seljuks all but take the Byzantine empire from the Greeks. He didn't care as much about taking Jerusalem as he did getting the Frankish kings to focus on war in a far away land.

Well he was more stressed with Muslims and losing territory since he had created over more then 9 crusades from Spain to Palestine. However i highlighted the most important thing in your quote.

Anyway, it sounds like you are saying that the only true Jihad will be led by a Mahdi. Is that what you are saying?

Well i would say that Mohammed(saws) ''The prophet'' did Jihad ''War'' and yes the Mahdi or Jesus(p) if i am correct will have one.

 

[TashaN]

I'll have to disagree with F0uad here because Saladin is indeed an undeniable outstanding mark in Islamic history.