Crusade theoreticians argued Muslims’ alleged heresy licensed their annihilation

Evidence

In the Crusade, he maintained, it was not the innocent who were attacked, as happened in the West, when poor farmers and hospitals and leper-colonies suffered; on the contrary, the Muslim nation was summa culpabilis. Also, there was sufficient cause, no mere injured pride, avarice or vainglory; the army of God fought for more even than material right: for the cause of faith. Finally, a war that was fought on inadequate authority was not just, but the Crusade was fought on divine authority. Thus it was the just war par excellence, bellum justissimum. The Church bore two swords, against heretics and against rebels; Muslims had the qualities of both of these, since they destroyed the body like the latter, and the soul like the former. — Norman Daniel, Islam and the West, 644

Categorization

• DEFINE: Explains the ‘two swords’ justification structure that paired heresy (against the soul) with rebellion (against the body) to license attack on Muslims.
• SHARE: For someone writing on just-war theory — the two-swords schema dividing heresy from rebellion is a compact articulation worth quoting.