Medieval Christian theology could glorify enemy deaths as service to Christ

Evidence

Among arguments rejected by Holcot are that God desires not the death of the sinner but his conversion; that God is as merciful now as in the Passion when He prayed for the Jews and bade Peter put up his sword; that Aristotle warned Alexander to shed no blood because when creature kills creature the heavenly powers are moved to vengeance; again, vengeance is mine, saith the Lord; pagans ignorant of Christian law deserve better than bad Christians; pagans cannot believe till God takes away the veil from their hearts. Against these points he argues that the death that God does not desire is that of the soul, not that of the body; Christ rebuked Peter because he chose the wrong time to draw the sword; what Aristotle reproved was taking pleasure in cruelty, and the Christian must not delight when he sheds blood; the Lord may take His vengeance through His servants; we daily see bad Christians, thieves, traitors, heretics and many others killed by proper authority; God will remove the veil from the heart of whoever desires it. Thus the right to kill remains intact. — Norman Daniel, Islam and the West, 2510 (#expands, via linked claim)

It may be safest to conclude that fighting against the Muslims was regarded as a holy exercise, a good work which would count very strongly on the side of salvation if one were killed in the process; but not, technically, as martyrdom. It did not make absolution superfluous. There was, however, no embarrassment in using the term ‘martyr’ emotionally and evocatively of those who died in battle. Runciman’s main point is that in the West bellicosity was consecrated by Crusading in a way unknown to the Church before, but it may be argued with all respect that he slightly overstated it. We may certainly maintain that we are here concerned much more with a matter of sentiment than with theology proper. — Norman Daniel, Islam and the West, 1784 (#qualifies, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Medieval theologians reframed Scripture to justify killing infidels in war; Crusader battlefield deaths were not technically martyrdom in medieval theology — Norman Daniel, Islam and the West, 1784; Byzantine theology rejected battlefield death as martyrdom — John V. Tolan, Saracens, 1677 (+4 more)

Related

• Medieval theologians reframed Scripture to justify killing infidels in war (similarity 0.88)
• Crusader battlefield deaths were not technically martyrdom in medieval theology (similarity 0.88)
• Medieval theologians used scriptural exegesis to justify killing heretics and sinners (similarity 0.86)
• Early crusading promised salvation, not martyrdom, for battlefield deaths. (similarity 0.81)
• Byzantine theology rejected battlefield death as martyrdom (similarity 0.81)
• Early Crusade preaching treated battlefield death as salvation, not martyrdom (similarity 0.80)
• Crusade apologists justified the war as divinely authorized collective punishment (similarity 0.78)

Broader Connections

• Medieval theologians reframed Scripture to justify killing infidels in war #expands (0.90)
• Crusader battlefield deaths were not technically martyrdom in medieval theology #qualifies (0.85) — Norman Daniel, Islam and the West, 1784
• Medieval theologians used scriptural exegesis to justify killing heretics and sinners #expands (0.85) — Norman Daniel, Islam and the West, 2510
• Early Crusade preaching treated battlefield death as salvation, not martyrdom #qualifies (0.80)
• Byzantine theology rejected battlefield death as martyrdom #contradicts (0.75) — John V. Tolan, Saracens, 1677
• Medieval enemies were institutional constructs tied to Christian power #complicates (0.75) — Sophia Rose Arjana, Muslims in the Western Imagination, 101