Islamic Jihad (holy war) and the Christian Crusades
It is a historical fact that in the ten years that Muhammad lived in Medina (622-632), he either sent out or went out on seventy-four raids, expeditions, or full-scale wars.
In October to December 630, after the conquest of Mecca in January 630, Muhammad launched a Jihad or holy war to Tabuk, a city in the north of Saudi Arabia today. Early Muslim sources say Muhammad gathered an army of 30,000 men and 10,000 horsemen under the banner of Islam. On his way north, Muhammad extracts (or extorts) "agreements"—without provocation—from smaller Christian Arab tribes to pay the jizyah tax to avoid being attacked and killed.
In the first few centuries after Muhammad’s death, his disciples countinued the Muslim Jihad by swinging a sword or by forcing a city’s surrender with a large army backing up the peace treaty and the jizya tax. When the Muslims fought over Jerusalem and conquered other cities, they were following the example of their prophet Muhammad.
Those Muslims who slashed and burned and forced conversions did not wander off from Muhammad or the origins of Islam, but followed it closely, as do the ISIS Jihadists of today, for Muhammad’s Quran is filled with references to jihad and qital, the latter word meaning only fighting, killing, warring, and slaughtering.
After Jesus’ death and Resurrection, his disciples in the first three centuries did not swing a sword to conquer or convert but simply preached the love of God. Jesus never used violence; neither did he call his disciples to use it. Jesus taught His disciples to turn the other cheek and that His kingdom was not of this earth. It is not until the fourth century that Constantine hijacked Christianity to conquer and to force conversions to Christianity.
But it was not until 1095 that the the Roman Catholic Pope Urban II in Italy decided that the "turn the other cheek" policy was not working after he received a plea for military help from the ambassador of the Byzantine Emperor Alexios I, in Constantinople, due to the Islamic threat against the Christians in Constantinople, Turkey. This resulted in the Roman Catholic Pope Urban II in Italy calling for the first crusade. The immediate goal was to guarantee pilgrims access to the holy sites in the Holy Land under Muslim control. His long-range goal was to reunite the Eastern and Western branches of Christendom after their split with the pope as head of the united Church.
Hundreds of thousands of Roman Catholics from many different classes and nations of Western Europe became crusaders by taking a public vow and receiving plenary indulgences from the church. Pope Urban II claimed that anyone who participated was forgiven of their sins. In addition to demonstrating devotion to God, as stated by the Catholic Church, participation satisfied feudal obligations and provided opportunities for economic and political gain.
When the Medieval Christians fought over earthly ground, they abandoned the example of Jesus Christ. Though European Crusaders may have been sincere, they wandered off from the origins of Christianity when they slashed and burned and forced conversions.
Aganist an evil adversary like Satan and ISIS of today, the do nothing policy does not seem at all practical, if we wish to live under Christianity. Did Jesus really mean for "turn the other cheek" to mean a do nothing policy and not to defend ourselves? I don't think so, for why would He tell His disciples to by a sword if he did not ever want them to use it?
😏
Originally posted by RJHindsFirst, jihad does not mean “holy war”. It means “struggle” of any kind—including the struggle within oneself to be a good person, or the struggle against temptation.
[b]Islamic Jihad (holy war) and the Christian Crusades
It is a historical fact that in the ten years that Muhammad lived in Medina (622-632), he either sent out or went out on seventy-four raids, expeditions, or full-scale wars.
In October to December 630, after the conquest of Mecca in January 630, Muhammad launched a Jihad or holy war to Tabuk, a ...[text shortened]... o, for why would He tell His disciples to by a sword if he did not ever want them to use it?
😏[/b]
Second, I am not aware of any forced conversions under early Islam. Could you provide an example (no YOUtubes!)?
Originally posted by FMFI have no doubt that there are people who interpret it that way. All I can say is that, among the various Muslim scholars that I have read, that is not what the word means in Arabic. When I get time, I'll look at some translations I have of the Qur'an to see how it is used generally.
This is what jihad means to the people I live among.
Originally posted by vistesdIt was just like with ISIS today. You either surrender and convert to their understanding of Islam or you pay the jizyah tax to avoid being attacked and killed. So strictly speaking no one can be forced to do anything. You always have some choice. But what if you refuse to pay the jtxyah tax?
First, jihad does not mean “holy war”. It means “struggle” of any kind—including the struggle within oneself to be a good person, or the struggle against temptation.
Second, I am not aware of any forced conversions under early Islam. Could you provide an example (no YOUtubes!)?
Originally posted by vistesdWhat ever it means to Muslims, in the long run it seems to result in violence in some way. It may be just a terrorist attack or a full out holy war. I believe when it consists of an army of 30,000 Muslim men that are attacking and killing with the sword, then one can safely call it a holy war. 😏
I have no doubt that there are people who interpret it that way. All I can say is that, among the various Muslim scholars that I have read, that is not what the word means in Arabic. When I get time, I'll look at some translations I have of the Qur'an to see how it is used generally.
Originally posted by RJHindsThat's the way that I recollect it. When the Christian conquistadores did their thing, was there an option to pay a tax? (By the way, the non-Muslims were not expected to pay the zakat and, if I recall rightly, could avoid at least part of the tax if they agreed to serve in the military, like the Muslims.) Did the Crusaders give anyone the option to pay a tax? Jew or Muslim?
It was just like with ISIS today. You either surrender and convert to Islam or you pay the jizyah tax to avoid being attacked and killed. So strictly speaking no one can be forced to do anything. You always have some choice. But what if you refuse to pay the jtxyah tax?
Who were the more bloodthirsty takers of Jerusalem--the Christian crusaders or the Muslims under Umar, or later under Salahuddin?
Originally posted by vistesdWhile I am sure the various Muslim scholars you happen to have read deserve respect, virtually every single Muslim I have met and got to know over the last 25 years interprets jihad to mean “struggle within oneself to be a good person, or the struggle against temptation".
I have no doubt that there are people who interpret it that way. All I can say is that, among the various Muslim scholars that I have read, that is not what the word means in Arabic. When I get time, I'll look at some translations I have of the Qur'an to see how it is used generally.
Originally posted by RJHindsI confess that I could only fit in with the (or at least some) Sufis. Nevertheless, I think it is pretty clear that ISIS represents a perversion of Islam, just as I think that the Christian Identity movement is a perversion of Christianity.
It was just like with ISIS today. You either surrender and convert to Islam or you pay the jizyah tax to avoid being attacked and killed. So strictly speaking no one can be forced to do anything. You always have some choice. But what if you refuse to pay the jtxyah tax?
Originally posted by FMFOh. I think I misread you. That is what I take it to mean.
While I am sure the various Muslim scholars you happen to have read deserve respect, virtually every single Muslim I have met and got to know over the last 25 years interprets jihad to mean “struggle within oneself to be a good person, or the struggle against temptation".
EDIT: It seems you were agreeing with my response to RJ, and I misread you. 🙁 Apologies (I should have known better).
Originally posted by vistesdNeither of us lived back in those days so we can only know by what we read from historians. However, we do live in todays world and you can ignore what you see and hear in the news today and believe Obama if you choose. But I believe he is a pathological liar. 😏
That's the way that I recollect it. When the Christian conquistadores did their thing, was there an option to pay a tax? (By the way, the non-Muslims were not expected to pay the zakat and, if I recall rightly, could avoid at least part of the tax if they agreed to serve in the military, like the Muslims.) Did the Crusaders give anyone the option t ...[text shortened]... kers of Jerusalem--the Christian crusaders or the Muslims under Umar, or later under Salahuddin?
Originally posted by vistesdThere was some opacity caused by the question of exactly which words of yours I was responding to and therefore what I meant by the word "this". 😉
Oh. I think I misread you. That is what I take it to mean.
EDIT: It seems you were agreeing with my response to RJ, and I misread you. 🙁 Apologies (I should have known better).
Originally posted by vistesdIt is not clear to me that ISIS and a caliphate represent a perversion of the goals of Islam.
I confess that I could only fit in with the (or at least some) Sufis. Nevertheless, I think it is pretty clear that ISIS represents a perversion of Islam, just as I think that the Christian Identity movement is a perversion of Christianity.
Islamic State Says ‘Soldiers of Caliphate’ Attacked in San Bernardino
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/06/world/middleeast/islamic-state-san-bernardino-massacre.html?_r=0
Originally posted by RJHindsIf you and I are wrong, and their interpretation of God's will is correct and based on a true revelation of God, then it's bad news for the human race ~ even if the actions of ISIS pale into insignificance if we are to believe what many Christians think is the fate awaiting those who do not believe in their 'torturer God' figure.
It is not clear to me that ISIS and a caliphate represent a perversion of the goals of Islam.
Originally posted by FMFExcellent point. What most of the Christians here believe their version of God will do to unbelievers in and for eternity, is infinitely worse that what terrorist Islamics could do here on earth in a thousand lifetimes. It's astonishing that posters like RHhinds cannot receive this.
If you and I are wrong, and their interpretation of God's will is correct and based on a true revelation of God, then it's bad news for the human race ~ even if the actions of ISIS pale into insignificance if we are to believe what many Christians think is the fate awaiting those who do not believe in their 'torturer God' figure.