Crusades vs Jihad

[Sir Doom]

Lots of hair splitting going on here. If a Muslim man says he is on a jihad and unites and conquers the entire Muslim world and then uses the armies of the entire Muslim world to kick the Christians out, he is not on jihad because F0uad says Jihad is only for defense.

If you want a source for Saladin declaring Jihad you can read any history book about him. He most assuredly declared jihad on the Christians. You can deny it if you like. I really don't care that much. It doesn't change the facts. I can assure you the people that were following him felt he had every right to declare jihad whether you think so or not.

I have no intention of getting into a debate with you about who belongs in power in any given region of this planet. But I must say a kingdom that had been established 80+ years before Saladin came to power is hardly an invading army any longer. You can call it 'defensive' to conquer Jerusalem if you like. I really don't see it that way. Further, the burning of mosques and synagogues you describe was something the invading Christian armies did prior to Saladin's birth, let alone his rise to power. You can pretend that bearing an 80 year grudge from before your birth is natural and just, but again I don't see it this way.

 

[Pegg]

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



Jihad, from the wiki

interesting.

The christian scriptures do not require christians to participate in any sort of religious warfare against anyone. Rather it requires christians to 'love their enemies' and 'pray for those persecuting you'.... so the crusades were politically motivated by politically minded people who used ignorant christians as their tool for taking over land. (ha, nothing new there)

If the Quran makes it a requirement of muslims to participate in such warfare...it gives them a religious reason to do so and they can justify their actions.

 

[apophenia]

interesting.

The christian scriptures do not require christians to participate in any sort of religious warfare against anyone. Rather it requires christians to 'love their enemies' and 'pray for those persecuting you'.... so the crusades were politically motivated by politically minded people who used ignorant christians as their tool for taking over land. (ha, nothing new there)

If the Quran makes it a requirement of muslims to participate in such warfare...it gives them a religious reason to do so and they can justify their actions.

What the texts say is one thing, how those texts are used and understood by the community is another.

What you say about the christian scriptures is true, and yet we have the Crusades, the Inquisition and the KKK.

What FOuad says about the meaning of jihad is true, and yet you have muslim clerics and teachers in madrassas inciting violence and using that word, with undeniable and horrific results.

The nitpicking over the scriptures is a red herring.

 

[Pegg]

What the texts say is one thing, how those texts are used and understood by the community is another.

What you say about the christian scriptures is true, and yet we have the Crusades, the Inquisition and the KKK.

What FOuad says about the meaning of jihad is true, and yet you have muslim clerics and teachers in madrassas inciting violence and using that word, with undeniable and horrific results.

The nitpicking over the scriptures is a red herring.

the fact is that christians cannot use their scriptures to justify religious wars. So if they are resorting to war, its not because the scriptures told them that they must do it.

but Muslims can use their scriptures to justify a war because their scriptures apparently obligate them to do so according to that link above

 

[crossfire]

the fact is that christians cannot use their scriptures to justify religious wars. So if they are resorting to war, its not because the scriptures told them that they must do it.

but Muslims can use their scriptures to justify a war because their scriptures apparently obligate them to do so according to that link above

Hi Pegg. I'm not a Muslim, but what I get from the Koran is that it acts to show where your spiritual guidance comes from. Check out these two passages:

016.098-016.102
So when you recite the Quran, seek refuge with Allah from the accursed Shaitan,
Surely he has no authority over those who believe and rely on their Lord.
His authority is only over those who befriend him and those who associate others with Him.
And when We change (one) communication for (another) communication, and Allah knows best what He reveals, they say: You are only a forger. Nay, most of them do not know.
Say: The Holy spirit has revealed it from your Lord with the truth, that it may establish those who believe and as a guidance and good news for those who submit.

and

006.080-006.082
And his people disputed with him. He said: Do you dispute with me respecting Allah? And He has guided me indeed; and I do not fear in any way those that you set up with Him, unless my Lord pleases; my Lord comprehends all things in His knowledge; will you not then mind?
And how should I fear what you have set up (with Him), while you do not fear that you have set up with Allah that for which He has not sent down to you any authority; which then of the two parties is surer of security, if you know?
Those who believe and do not mix up their faith with iniquity, those are they who shall have the security and they are those who go aright.
​

 

[Pegg]

Hi Pegg. I'm not a Muslim, but what I get from the Koran is that it acts to show where your spiritual guidance comes from. Check out these two passages:

016.098-016.102
So when you recite the Quran, seek refuge with Allah from the accursed Shaitan,
Surely he has no authority over those who believe and rely on their Lord.
His authority is only over those who befriend him and those who associate others with Him.
And when We change (one) communication for (another) communication, and Allah knows best what He reveals, they say: You are only a forger. Nay, most of them do not know.
Say: The Holy spirit has revealed it from your Lord with the truth, that it may establish those who believe and as a guidance and good news for those who submit.

and

006.080-006.082
And his people disputed with him. He said: Do you dispute with me respecting Allah? And He has guided me indeed; and I do not fear in any way those that you set up with Him, unless my Lord pleases; my Lord comprehends all things in His knowledge; will you not then mind?
And how should I fear what you have set up (with Him), while you do not fear that you have set up with Allah that for which He has not sent down to you any authority; which then of the two parties is surer of security, if you know?
Those who believe and do not mix up their faith with iniquity, those are they who shall have the security and they are those who go aright.
​

sorry, but im not sure what these verses have to do with the discussion

 

[crossfire]

sorry, but im not sure what these verses have to do with the discussion

The spiritul warfare is supposed to be within--The first verse says you must pray for right guidance, otherwise you might use scriptures to justify iniquity. The second verse shows how to tell those who are rightly guided--they don't mix iniquity with their faith. This directly relates to your statement about those using the Koran to justify external "holy warfare."

Albeit, please remember that I am not Muslim, and these are only my observations.

 

[Nooj]

Is one more or less justified than the other?

what does this mean?

 

[Spark]

In 1004 the Fatimid Calipha Abu Ali al–Mansur al–Hakim unleashed a violent wave of church burning and destruction, confiscation of Christian property, and ferocious slaughter of both Christians and Jews. Over the next ten years, thirty thousand churches were destroyed and vast numbers of Believers were forcibly converted or killed.

In 789, Muslims beheaded a monk in Bethlehem, plundering the monastery and slaughtering many more Christians. In 923, a new wave of destruction of churches was launched by the Muslim rulers. In 937, Muslims went on a rampage in Jerusalem on Palm Sunday plundering and destroying the Church of Calvary and the Church of the Resurrection.

In 1009, Al-Hakim ordered that the most holy churches in Christendom – the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and the Church of the Resurrection in Jerusalem - be destroyed. He heaped humiliating and burdensome decrees upon Christians and Jews forcing Christians to wear heavy crosses around their necks, and Jews to have blocks of wood in the shape of a calf around their necks. Ultimately, he ordered Christians and Jews to either accept Islam or flee his areas of control.

Christians remained in a precarious position and under threat throughout the Middle East. When the Seljuk Turks swept into Jerusalem in 1077 they murdered over three thousand people, including many Christians. It was at this point that the Christian Emperor of Byzantium, Alexius I, appealed for help to the Western churches.

 

[no-body]

Say what you will about Jihads but as far as I know Muslims didn't shove anal pears into people. At least as far as I know. I'm sure they've done some scuzzy stuff in the name of religious war tough but the inquisitions and crusades took pain in the name of God to whole new levels.

the fact is that christians cannot use their scriptures to justify religious wars. So if they are resorting to war, its not because the scriptures told them that they must do it.

but Muslims can use their scriptures to justify a war because their scriptures apparently obligate them to do so according to that link above

Maybe not outright but you could twist Jesus saying he came to bring a sword in the same way as well as other verses. People justify these beliefs with less.

 

[Pegg]

Maybe not outright but you could twist Jesus saying he came to bring a sword in the same way as well as other verses. People justify these beliefs with less.

thats obviously what religious leaders did in the case of the crusades...besides the fact that most christians didnt have access to the scriptures and could not read latin...i guess the church made the bible say whatever they wanted it to say and no one could question them.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

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.

Wow, that's an odd way of looking at history and I think it may be unique to you. The Muslims I know and grew up with always considered Islamic history to include all things Islamic, not just the period during which the prophet was alive. An interesting way of looking at things, though I don't think I can adopt such a definition myself.

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.

Not true. Pope Urban started the first crusade and it had little to do with Muslims or territory east of Asia Minor. While he was indeed the leader of all Christendom he saw the potential for losing that power to secular leadership and looked to forestall that event.

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.

Interesting. I disagree, but its still an interesting idea.