So, the first crusaders practiced the "cheek-turning philiosphy" as much as possible, did they?
Clearly not. Had they done so they would never have taken part in the Crusades! Like I said, when Christians indulged in "holy war" they were acting contrary to the teachings and example of the founder of their religion Jesus of the four gospels. When Muslims do so they are acting IN ACCORD with the commands and example of "Allah and his messenger". You seem unable or unwilling to appreciate the ramifications of this basic difference between the two creeds.
The Byzantine Emperor Alexis asked for Western armies from the Pope for defending against the Turks,
Indeed he did. That was because the Turks had been doing jihad (holy war) all over Anatolia in the prior decades - sacking cities, massacring, raping, pillaging in accordance with the fundamental tenets of their religion which happened to gel nicely with their rapacious mounted-nomad proclivities.
which the Pope used as an excuse for recapturing Christian holy lands, and protecting their Christian brothers, and lauching the first crusade.
The crusaders fought with great zeal only for the holy cause, that they were blind at who they were killing, women and children, and even Christians who they were supposed to 'protect'.
They even attacked Arab cities who were prepared to ally with them against the Turks.
Some cities they attacked. Some they allowed to surrender on terms. Some they bypassed.
By the time they reached Jerusalem, Turks had already lost it to the Egyptians who happened to be allied with the Christians, yet they pillaged and slaughtered Jerusalem instead of making a truce.
Finally, the fourth Crusaders pillaged the city of Constantinople, and weakened it for easy capture by the Turks later on.
So the Crusaders apart from not loving their enemies, fought their friends too.
From all of which we should deduce?
I am not sure whether the zeal of the Crusaders could be matched even by the Islamic fanatics of today.
I think someone who blows himself and large numbers of innocent bystanders to pieces and would certainly use a nuclear bomb if they obtained one takes some beating in the zealousness stakes!
Once you are intoxicated by apocalyptic delusions you wouldn't bother with any pacifist principles that your religion has got to offer.
Maybe, but the four Christian gospels nevertheless espouse "pacifist principles" which led the Pope to retrospectively apologize for the crusades. When has a major Islamic religious ruler ever apologized for centuries of Koran-inspired campaigns of violence launched against "the enemies of Allah" (Koran 8:60)
Christianity of today is meek only because its members are mostly in countries largely influenced by Western civilization, that it can survive only with the pacifist principles.
So why do decades-old Muslim "communities" in western countries - who surely ought by now to be "largely influenced by western civilization" - throw up increasing numbers of people who see it as their religious duty to engage in violence in the name of their god and even more who tacitly support them and their agenda of imposing sharia on the entire world? Why is such a disproportionate amount of religious violence and fanaticism in the west emanating from this quarter? Why are so many Muslims opting to use sharia courts rather than be satisfied with their adopted countries' own legal systems?
Witch burnings still take place in African countries, btw.
Which proves that people can be inspired by the bible to commit horrendous acts. What it does NOT prove is that Muslims can ON PRINCIPLE reject sharia and jihad (holy war) and seriously claim they are being true to the Koran. All such people do (where they are not deliberately deceitful wolves in sheeps' clothing) is muddy the waters regarding the nature of Islam and facilitate its spread behind a specious mask of "moderation".
It should also be noted that any pacifist principles only apply to human beings. All you need to kill somebody is dehumanise them as something like witches or infidels.
You make my point for me, since the Qur'an does little more than "dehumanize" those of us it classes as "Kafirs" whose only "crime" is to refuse to accept Muhammad as prophet. A small sample:
"
We have prepared chains, collars, and a blazing fire for the kafirs"(Koran 76:5)
Most Muslims are potential killers then? Even you cannot claim that many disagree with such "divine" Koranic sentiments incessantly reiterated page after page along with such other appeals to reason as:
"
the kafirs, among the People of the Scripture and the idolaters, will abide in fire of hell. They are the WORST of created beings. lo! those who believe and do good works are the BEST of created beings" (98:6-7)
On the same line, there are already democratic and secular Muslim movements in Western countries.
Do they agree with the French headscarf ban in schools?
Topic: Clarifying the Council's position: Against Political Islam not Muslims