Share your questions and ideas

Some of you might find this paper interesting. I wrote it some years ago when I was studying some Christian sermons from the time of the Crusades (you can download the book here https://b-ok.cc/book/608219/050e03). I was trying to understand what went wrong in biblical interpretation that made people think they should kill to protect their faith. I wondered what it was, again in terms of biblical interpretation, that made Francis of Assisi different. Since I am a Protestant, I was also interested in Martin Luther, and what it was that made him on the one hand say that the Crusades were wrong, but on the other hand not seem to be interested in the welfare of Muslims - either temporal or eternal. After so many years, I wouldn't write that same thing again. But the ideas are still interesting, and some of you might like to discuss them. And there is an underlying question: how far is it our interpretation of Scripture that drives our thinking, and how far does our current context and what we want to believe drive our interpretation of Scripture? We may WANT to subject our lives to God, and to what He is saying to us, but how do we discern what He is saying? I think that history can help us to check that out!

This is a discussions starter posted by Justin. No-one responded to it, so here is your chance! It’s pretty common for modern Christians to regret the Crusades, oftentimes seeing it as a stain on Christian history and against the teachings of the faith. I am curious to hear if the Muslim conquests are seen by Muslims today as something likewise regrettable. To my understanding, throughout Islamic history, the conquests were seen as God prospering the religion and as evidence of its truth as the caliphate expanded, as I imagine those in the Christian Roman Empire having similar thoughts about the success of their own kingdom. Concerning Muslim sentiments with regards to the Muslim conquests, I’ve seen basically two responses - (a) celebrating the military victories, and (more often) (b) claiming that all warfare was only defensive in nature. I’m curious to hear if there are other sentiments, and if there is any regret or admission of wrongdoing, even as a minority sentiment, something like “the conquests were contrary to the teachings of the faith,” or something comparable to the Christian admission that the Crusades were contrary to the teachings of the faith / Jesus. Thanks so much.