Were the crusades a legitimate tenet of Christianity?

They must've read my thread a few months ago lol.

Btw basso, Jihad = self defense.

I don't know if crusades is the same thing.

Obviously, many things have been done in the name of Islam and Christianity which are not Islamic or Christian, mainly because there are no controls or committees or anything to seek approval from to call yourself Islamic or Christian.

Anyone can call themselves that. So things being done in the name of religion is normal, there's no endorsement from God lol they just assume there is.

 

Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

 

Oh Basso.

In my basic understand of Islam, jihad is often explained to me as "self-defense" or "struggle." Many Muslims I know say Jihad does not mean what it has been interpreted to mean by the new Islamists and by extension by our media and government.

If that is all correct, why should we let terrorists and Islamists dictate the meaning of words for us?

 

Wrong. Do you know any Muslims?

 

^Addressed to OP, sorry for not being clear.

 

If all it takes is lip service, he should jump more.

 

The Crusades were offensive, imperialistic wars if I am not mistaken. I do not know if crusades are mentioned in Christianity or not, but I know that Jihad in Islam is two parts, and this is very well defined and universally agreed upon: the bigger jihad (the struggle within one's self to better yourself through piety and faith), which is ongoing and never ends. Then, there is the smaller jihad (the struggle against outside oppression in self-defense, and ONLY in self-defense), which is conditional and rarely called for.

The most obvious approved theaters of conflict for smaller jihad today is in Palestine, in Iraq, and in Afghanistan. Those who live in those countries are more or less obliged to resist and eject their occupiers, if they are able to do so.

I think the concept is pretty straight forward. The disagreement between the moderates and the extremists today is not regarding the concept of Jihad, but rather on its applicability and how it should be carried out. Most sane people for example do not see the 9/11 attacks, the Madrid bombings, or the London bombings as legit jihad. Instead, the argument is to limit the armed struggle to freeing Muslim lands from foreign invaders.

The smaller jihad concept, by the way, is literally enshrined in the United Nations' charter, which legitimizes self-defense and the right to self-determination. It is logical and quite universal in theory, which is why its basic principles are universally endorsed by the UN.

 

Here are the definitions of "crusade" according to the free dictionary.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/crusade

[rquoter]cru·sade (kr-sd)
n.
1. often Crusade Any of the military expeditions undertaken by European Christians in the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries to recover the Holy Land from the Muslims.
2. A holy war undertaken with papal sanction.
3. A vigorous concerted movement for a cause or against an abuse. See Synonyms at campaign.
intr.v. cru·sad·ed, cru·sad·ing, cru·sades
To engage in a crusade.
[/rquoter]

Under the second definition it would appear that a crusade is a legitimate act of at least Catholicism and the Crusades were legitimate according to Catholicism as they were sanctioned by the Popes at the time.
Under the third definition it would seem that a crusade would be legitimate in regard to church led effort addressing some sort of abuse. Such as a crusade against hunger.

Anyway this is a just another thread to take pot shots at Obama and Muslims rather than a discussion about what role the Crusades and the concept of crusade plays in Christianity.


Anyway

 

If anybody actually cares about the title of the thread, instead of basso's attempt to editorialize about Islam without having to actually put paper to his offensive opinion, here are the accounts of Pope Urban's speech which started the Crusades:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/urban2-5vers.html

The Byzantine emperor has asked for assistance in defense against the "offensive, imperialistic wars" waged by the Seljuq Turks.

 

And you seem to jump through fairly idiotic semantic hoops to make us hate Obama.

Its not possible to understand another peoples' religion without jumping through semantic hoops. Obviously.

 

In other words, "The Crusades" is different than a crusade, and a "crusade" might very well be a legitimate action, or it might not be. That is similar to how jihad is a legitimate tenet of Islam, but an individual or specific group's actions in the name of jihad might not be.

It's sad when people find fault with increased accuracy and understanding.

 

why is this idiot even on this site? I swear to god I feel dumber everytime I read one of his posts.

Ignore is looking better and better by the day.

 

The only thing this thread demonstrates is Basso's continued xenophobia.

Seriously Basso? Would you stop using the Tea Party's Skewed Version of Reality Book and come back down to earth?

 

^

reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeetaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrdedddddddddddddddddddd

 

This seems like a good policy to me. We don't want people to give into the propaganda that we are at war with Islam. Jihad is mentioned in elQur'an, but not in the matter which these fanatics abuse it.

 

Hey I remember not reading that for class and failing the quiz over that! : /

 

GD, the OP posts stupid threads.