The Crusades were wars that met the Just Cause doctrine of the Church, and were primarily about land-grabs done by Muslims. Moreover, the difference between Islam and Christianity is plain to see: One advocates killing in its Scripture, and the other is Christianity.

I’m gonna try really hard to unpack your confused and convoluted point, here, Anon, without ridiculing you with stuff like a Let Me Google That For You link to “Places Where The Christian Bible Advocates Killing” or just line after line of direct quotes from scripture. It’ll be difficult, but I want you to know that I’m Going To Try.

First, casting the Crusades as meeting a “Just Cause Doctrine” question-beggingly assumes the legitimacy of The Church to say which campaigns of violence are “worthy” and which are not. From where does the Church garner this authority? From where does the state? When we dig down into either of these questions, we come to see that structures of authority maintain themselves by casting any and all actors outside of their rules and interests as “illegitimate.” This has been the case for thousands of years, and, with this understanding, we can chart the history of Nations’ relationships with “Freedom Fighters,” “Privateers,” and other forms of mercenary actors.

SECOND: Let’s talk about the conflation of Christian Doctrine and Christian Scripture, wherein Christianity—the followings of the teaching of Ieshua Ben Dauid, of Nazareth, The Christ—is primarily held up as a religion of love and peace, PRECISELY in those instances wherein people attack the doing of violent atrocities by those calling themselves “Christian.” Fundamentalists who point to Deuteronomy and Leviticus when they bomb abortion clinics or kill LGTBQIA people, and say they’re “Christian” all the while; church leaders who use the Old Testament to endorse the disregard of human rights for groups they don’t like—from slavery until today; these are the acts of people who say they’re following the teachings of the Christ.

Who said (and I quote The Guy Himself, from their scripture, here): “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another;” “This I command you, that you love one another;” “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood…;” and then ABOUT THAT COVENANT:

“Who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.” And:

7 For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. 8 But God found fault with the people and said:
“The days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and with the people of Judah.

9 It will not be like the covenant I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they did not remain faithful to my covenant, and I turned away from them, declares the Lord.

10 This is the covenant I will establish with the people of Israel after that time, declares the Lord. I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people.

11 No longer will they teach their neighbor, or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’ because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest.

12 For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.”

13 By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.

So we have this history of SO MANY Christians CONVENIENTLY IGNORING that Old Covenant/New Covenant thing, ascribing weight to ALL of the rules written under the auspices of the Old Covenants, rather than the ONE RULE of the New Covenant: LOVE EACH OTHER. Which, incidentally, is actually the only rule that was ever intended. At least according the Nazarene, it is. They ignore that split that is, RIGHT up until the point where they need to denounce someone else’s religion.

And speaking of Doctrine Vs Scripture, the reverse can be seen in a lot of the Quranic exegeses. That is, where the original TEXT of the Quran may seem to call for the deaths and dismemberments of nonbelievers (several times, in fact), the commentary and doctrinal interpretations have focused on the understanding of those scriptures called “The Sword Verses” as being ABOUT SELF DEFENSE in the face of broken treaties and NONVIOLENT STRUGGLE. For an example, turn your face to Brother Malcolm who said, “I have no mercy or compassion in me for a society that will crush people, and then penalize them for not being able to stand under the weight,” and

Usually the black racist has been produced by the white racist. In most cases where you see it, it is the reaction to white racism, and if you analyze it closely, it’s not really black racism… If we react to white racism with a violent reaction, to me that’s not black racism. If you come to put a rope around my neck and I hang you for it, to me that’s not racism. Yours is racism, but my reaction has nothing to do with racism…

So that is the commandment to give no quarter to those whom you once welcomed with open arms and formed an alliance, but who then turned on you and broke their peace. See also Qur’an, Surah 9: AL-TAWBA (REPENTANCE, DISPENSATION). Anyone who honours their agreements and treaties is a friend and is to be granted Every Courtesy.

Now. Taking all of that into account, we can see that those who interpret the Quranic passages about violence as being about offensive rather than defensive or “corrective” violence, and then use that to justify things like terrorist attacks are a) the VAST minority of Islam, and b) cherry-picking.

Which seems to be a habit among people who like to talk a lot about religion, in public, without ever actually, y’know, STUDYING it.

Oops. I see that I kind of failed in not laying out line after line of both scripture and exegesis for the sake of clarity, but I DO SO HOPE YOU’LL FORGIVE ME.

This has gone on way too damn long, but let me just end on this thought: From the framing of your statements I’m pretty safe in assuming that you’re some species of Christian or someone who calls themselves “secular-but-spiritual” while being steeped in a tradition of uninvestigated Western pseudo-Christianity, so how about when you come at me, don’t do it with your half-comprehended texts and your pastor/deacon/priest/minister’s words, but with the doctrine you LIVE.

Where’s that Love?

Advertisement