Replies

First of all, a 'crusade' is not a required act of Christian orthodoxy. Viewed over the 2000 years of Christianity, it is an aberration, not a constant.

I dont really find much fault in Christians wanting to rid the holy land of Muslim control, in that Muslims were forbidding Christians access to Jerusalem. That is what initiated the crusades.

As a Protestant, I really dont have ANY religious attachment to ANY shrine or piece of geography. I do have an emotional attachment to Israel, as that is where Jesus walked, but if I never go there, I wont be any the worse for it.

As I understand it, Jihad (personal or militant) IS a requirement of a devout Muslim. So comparing a Christian definition of crusade and a Muslim definition of Jihad, is not legitimate.

NO Christian feels the need to go on a crusade, period.

As a matter of fact, the founding doctrine of Protestantism, is that salvation comes not by ANY works that we do, but thru faith alone.

I think that every point that you made in your reply was a legitimate one. However, I think there was a slight communication breakdown, on my part. You wrote that, "comparing a Christian definition of crusade and a Muslim definition of Jihad, is not legitimate." You supported this well. My aim, however, was not to compare the two, but rather to compare the similarities in which the two terms are exploited, if any, and explore the implications of any such exploitation.

Jihad is fundamental to the practice of true Islam. According to Mohammed, by their very existence all other religions blaspheme Allah. Islam states that men cannot know the essence of Allah and any attempt to do so is blasphemy, punishable by death. In Islam the dynamic between man and Allah is essentially one of slave to master. Therefore, Islam is in fact in a constant state of "jihad" with all non-Muslims. The Christian concept of Trinity is particularly at odds with the Muslim view of Divinity since Christianity portrays the Divinity as a loving, caring entity and Man as being made in its likeness. It's blasphemy for a true Muslim to even attempt to discern the nature of the Divinity as Christianity has attempted to do.
In the New Testament there is no mention of Crusade being required in the practice of true Christianity. Nor is there mention of anything even analagous to the concept of jihad. While it is true that Christianity has been perverted to justify despicable acts, acts as these were not sanctioned nor approved by Jesus Christ and are not required of those who practice the religion. However, based on the teachings of Mohammed it is a Muslims duty to convert, or if he refuses conversion to Islam, to murder the non-believer. The Koran explicitly states that it is the right of all Muslims to the non-believers property and in addition urges the enslavement and ownership of the infidels women and children. Let's face it (liberal apologist academics listen up please!) 1400 years has been enough time to show what a destructive debilitating ideology Islam truly is. Far from a "religion of peace" it sanctions the enslavement of peoples, the denigration and abuse of women and unlike Christianity, encourages and justifies looting, rape and murder.Wherever it has "mainstreamed", people have been rounded up and murdered en masse, cultures and economies touched by Islam have been almost without exception destroyed by it. This is also true in the present. Can anyone out there name a single country in which Islam is the dominant ideology that has a diverse, viable economy, where individual rights are respected, where religious, economic and cultural freedoms flourish? There are NONE. Islam, invented by Mohammed to justify his abhorrent (even by the standards of his contemporaries)personal behavior and his thirst for blood, booty and power has shown itself to be greatly to mankind's detriment. When will George Bush and company "get it"?