Talk:Religious war

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.

Surely the term "religious war" did not originate from the hacker subculture?!? --romanm (talk) 19:02, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No, you're right. "Religious war" is a much broader concept, including but certainly not limited to the crusades—and it's quite often used in contemporary settings.
Hackers typically call these things Holy Wars (complete with (admittedly optional) capitals), not religious wars. Holy war is a popular term for religious war in general, but the hacker phrase has a specific meaning, hence the capitals.
This is an exponent of Wikipedia:Bias. I'll see if I can get people to care—I suck at history. JRM 14:16, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)

I would redirect the hacker section to flame war, then expand the stub.Pookleblinky 09:52, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC) I will the former, and hope I don't get pinned as a vandal.

Contents

[edit] Inauthentic saying?

My Iraqi-American friend says that this is incorrect:

however, this report has received much criticism as being an inauthentic saying, i.e. it is a saying of someone after the death of Muhammad and was not the words of Muhammad himself.

Only enemies of Islam or militants within the Islamic sphere cast doubt upon the Muhammedan saying quoted in the article about lesser and greater jihad. Uncle Ed 13:22, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

I recently completed a level 3 (Grade 12) World Religions class, and we were told that a Jihad is only an inner struggle, using it to describe a war, as it is often done, is incorrect. --DotDarkCloud 13:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

sir T.YASSEH SAYS:

last year acheaved a level diaper in world religion studies, we learnt that religious wars can start as just a small dissagreament and then local goverments get involved with the dissagreament , which causes it escalate and thats when it may cause wars to break out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.199.59 (talk) 18:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Religous War

i really think that it is rather plain that a religious war is a war over and or caused by a religion. why this is being debated baffles me. This artical needs to be relaid out with perhaps independent sections on Northeren Ireland, Jihad, crusades and the like

Problem is that just about every war has religius justifications "God is with us", or priests blessing battleships, stuff like that. And just about any war have other interests than the purely religios, making it difficult to extract religious war as a subcategory of war.
The French article seem to attempt to solve this by discussion the term religious war instead of the wars themself. Who have used the term, and why?--Per Abrahamsen 13:14, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Others?

Are there other religious wars that you can point us to besides the crusades, inquisition?~~NRICH~~

just wondering, in the eyes of the insurgents and such in Afghan,Iraq etc, are they just trying to boot the invaders out, or wage absolute war on Christianity, Judaism, themselves ect. Just wondering in non trolling flambait way... seriously, forgive the dumb question D: ~~n00ber~~

I think that everyone fights for their own reasons, some because of religion, but I doubt all --T-rex 20:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] shouldnt there be a section for the term crusade?

just saying there should be a section more on the term crusade like there is for jihad, thats not specificly about the historical crusades

agreed, I'm going to copy/paste the intro to the crusades article in for now, if the Sabres win tonight I should have some time to fix it up a little more later--T-rex

[edit] what vs. what

"Is it Muslims vs. Christianity? Or is it the Middle East vs. The West? Many people have different views, definitions and opinions upon this subject." It's an inapropriate sentence, even saying that opinions may differ (kinda trying to wash its hands) still shouldn't be there. the muslims mostly fight the jews, and those who they dislike in the west don't practice christianism, are the liberals ateist bi/homosexuals drug addicteds "jew driven" parents-haters people (soon the vast majority of west's population). besides, these people are considered sinners in every religion. the 'muslim vs. christianity' basically means 'arabs vs euro/whites' you know.

-I agree. That paragraph looks pretty rough and is pretty bias. Someone should really clean it up or delete it all together. It sounds very informal too.--Zombiema7 08:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)I like pussy. My dick big.

[edit] List of doomsday scenarios

Could use votes to save this article, thanks MapleTree 22:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me it has already been deleted... --PaxEquilibrium 14:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hmm...

The Bosnian War was pretty much a religious war. --PaxEquilibrium 14:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC) I heared that the majority of religios wars have lots of raping, am i correct?

There are a lot of grey areas-IE, the conquest of Latin America, the Turkish siege of Constantinople, and some of the more materially-driven crusades. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.68.217 (talk) 09:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I believe the Bosnian War is more an ethnic war than a religious war, and the majority of ethnic wars have lots of raping (which is a bit silly, since they're basically creating half-breeds, and most of the times they didnt treat mixed breeds any better than those of the opposite ethnicity). Religious wars don't necessary have a lot of raping - after all, they're fighting in the name of God, even though they forget that a lot of the times. Aran|heru|nar 10:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] There's more that can be added in, right?

Like combine all of Europe's 16th century conflict under a title of the Reformation. The conflicts might be blamed for starting on more political than religious reasons, but blood was spilled in the name of God.

"Wars of the Three Kingdoms" started when the Irish resisted against England's enforcement of Protestantism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wars_of_the_Three_Kingdoms

"Wars of Kappel" -- Zwingli, the Protestant leader, died in battle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wars_of_Kappel

"Peasants' War" was religiously motivated to an extent -- "Without Luther's backing for the uprising, many rebels laid down their weapons; others felt betrayed". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peasants%27_War

---

If those suggestions were to be rejected, then earlier forms of Catholic dissent surely can be seen as some type of religious conflict, though, not necessary a "war".

Hussite Wars http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hussite_Wars

Persecution of the Lollards or even "Oldcastle's revolt" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lollard#History

---

How about incorporating "religious terrorism", since that can be seen as a type of warfare. The guerilla forces declare war at least. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_terrorism

Losershoes 00:47, 21 October 2007


I'm for including all wars that are fought in the name of God, whatever their motives are. There're simply too much gray areas. Aran|heru|nar 11:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Any war where the casus belli was religion should be considered a religious war. I think that would include the Hussite wars. Just a blessing by a religious authority, does not make it a religious one. Perhaps there are several types. Wars fought over a religious issue, wars between two religious groups, and wars where warfare is an act of devotion or worship. Rds865 (talk) 20:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)