Crusade and jihad converged on tolerating alien religions only as subjects.

Evidence

The doctrines of Crusade and jihad here approximate, first, in the willingness to tolerate people of an alien religion only as subjects (though their status within Christendom in theory and practice was less safe than in Islam); in the direction of holy war against all kinds of rebels and dissenters; and in the insistence on duly constituted authority for waging war. — Norman Daniel, Islam and the West, 1823 (#expands, via linked claim)

This freedom of religion was not granted toward pagan idolaters. Apart from the brief episode of the satanic verses, Muslim doctrine on idolatry is clear: it is evil. Idols must be eliminated, and Muslim troops often destroyed them and their temples. — John V. Tolan, Saracens, 244 (#qualifies, via linked claim)

It may simplistically be argued that the law of jihad is legal knowledge used by political and military power, but this argument encounters significant problems. First, understood properly, this law was in effect mostly defensive rather than offensive. Jihad is mandatory only when the lands of Islam are attacked by the enemy, and only those in relative proximity to the territory attacked are obligated to partake in the defense, not all Muslims within the kingdom or principality. — Wael Hallaq, Restating Orientalism, 682 (#qualifies, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Crusade and jihad shared core doctrinal assumptions about religious tolerance and authority — Norman Daniel, Islam and the West, 1823; Islamic conquests paired religious tolerance for monotheists with idol destruction. — John V. Tolan, Saracens, 244; Jihad doctrine functioned mostly defensively, obligating only nearby Muslims to fight — Wael Hallaq, Restating Orientalism: A Critique of…, 682 (+2 more)

Related

• Crusade and jihad shared core doctrinal assumptions about religious tolerance and authority (similarity 0.89)
• Islamic conquests paired religious tolerance for monotheists with idol destruction. (similarity 0.86)
• Jihad doctrine functioned mostly defensively, obligating only nearby Muslims to fight (similarity 0.83)
• Jihad and crusade differed fundamentally in religious warrant and scope. (similarity 0.83)
• The Crusades were less coherent religious triumph than convenient enemy-making (similarity 0.79)
• Crusaders justified conquest by recasting Muslims as pagan Roman idolaters (similarity 0.79)
• Islam alone tolerated other religions while Christendom expelled or converted its Muslim enclaves (similarity 0.79)
• The holy war tradition is Western, not originally Islamic. (similarity 0.79)
• Crusading ideology cast Islam as aggressor that robbed Christendom of its provinces (similarity 0.78)

Broader Connections

• Crusade and jihad shared core doctrinal assumptions about religious tolerance and authority #expands (0.85) — Norman Daniel, Islam and the West, 1823
• Islamic conquests paired religious tolerance for monotheists with idol destruction. #qualifies (0.72) — John V. Tolan, Saracens, 244
• Jihad doctrine functioned mostly defensively, obligating only nearby Muslims to fight #qualifies (0.72) — Wael Hallaq, Restating Orientalism, 682
• Christians treated Jews, Muslims, and heretics as a single enemy category #expands (0.72)
• Tolerance was granted to some sects while Muslims were expelled simultaneously #expands (0.70)