Crusades versus Jihad

I was doing some reading at the online Catholic Encyclopedia. It is an extremely well written, and user-friendly source of information. I found an interesting account of the Crusades and was struck by how similar the Catholic Encyclopedia’s interpretation of the Crusades is to the Islamic interpretation of Jihad.

The Catholic Encyclopedia describes the Crusades as, “… expeditions undertaken, in fulfilment of a solemn vow, to deliver the Holy Places from Mohammedan tyranny.”

Compare this with the definition of jihad given by Imam Tammam Adi Ph.D of the Islamic Cultural Center:
“Jihad is the struggle to control one's lower instincts. Jihad also means to use a fair war to give a nation freedom of religion if all other means fail. Islam's main proclamation is "No compulsion in religion" Koran 2:255. The Afghani Mujahideen (those who do jihad) fought against the atheist Russians to keep their freedom of religion. Unfortunately, chaos ensued.” - quoted from here

In common, modern language, the words “Crusade” and jihad, according to their respective proponents, have been misused.

The Catholic Encyclopedia writes:
"Since the Middle Ages the meaning of the word crusade has been extended to include all wars undertaken in pursuance of a vow, and directed against infidels, i.e. against Mohammedans, pagans, heretics, or those under the ban of excommunication… But modern literature has abused the word by applying it to all wars of a religious character, as, for instance, the expedition of Heraclius against the Persians in the seventh century and the conquest of Saxony by Charlemagne.”

Imam Tammam Adi writes of jihad that it is “[o]ften mistranslated ‘holy war,’ especially against the West, the more accurate Arabic meaning is 'struggle'."

As I continued to read through the Catholic Encyclopedia’s article, I also could not help but notice a familiar pattern emerging, regarding the evolution of the religion and its culture. This was alluded to, in one of the opening paragraphs of the Catholic encyclopedia article, which wrote that, “[t]he idea of the crusade corresponds to a political conception which was realized in Christendom only from the eleventh to the fifteenth century; this supposes a union of all peoples and sovereigns under the direction of the popes. All crusades were announced by preaching. After pronouncing a solemn vow, each warrior received a cross from the hands of the pope or his legates, and was thenceforth considered a soldier of the Church. Crusaders were also granted indulgences and temporal privileges, such as exemption from civil jurisdiction, inviolability of persons or lands, etc.”

Much like the Arab cultures of today are often ruled by tyrannies that claim the divine right of Islam for justification of their powers – their powers being derived from the enforcement of “Islamic law” – the Christian cultures of the 11th through 16th centuries, when the crusades occurred, were “peoples and sovereigns under the direction of the popes.” Much like a Crusader was “considered a soldier of the Church,” the modern mujahideen and terrorists consider themselves to be waging a jihad. Depending upon who you listen to, one will receive a different opinion of which, if any, are legitimate. However, the Crusades and jihads seem to have one very important thing in common. The Crusades took place when the church had a large and somewhat authoritative role in the culture. That authoritative role is also present in the Arab world today - perhaps even more so. Arab nations tend to be ruled by "Islamic law." Like the perversion of government and religion that occured in England, due to their intermixing (rules of divorce, Anglican church, etc.) the Arab nations of today declare stoning and rape to be legitimate punishments for certain crimes and they justify this by declaring it to be "Islamic law."

As I read the articles mentioned above and as I wrote this, I began to ponder a few questions:

1. Were there self-proclaimed Christians, during the Crusades, who killed in a manner that the church did not approve of, but declared their actions to be part of a legitimate Crusade?

2. Were there religious leaders who used their positions of authority to encourage violence against those whom they arbitrarily viewed as “infidels”?

3. With questions 1 and 2 in mind, is history repeating itself? Is jihad, as Palestinians and Al-Qaeda wage it, a modern day perversion of the Islamic equivalent of a “Crusade”? Is the term jihad being exploited by an ignorant Arab culture and successfully being preached thanks to the democratization of communication?

4. People such as Imam Tammam Adi will assert that Islam is not a religion of violence. Many will explain that there is no such Islamic Law that advocates women to be covered head-to-toe, to be stoned or raped, or for various body parts to be cut off. That these are arbitrary interpretations of Islamic Law seems to be evident if one compares and contrasts different Arab countries. In some, women are covered head-to-toe, in others they are not. The same variation is present in punishments. Could it be that simple illiteracy and lack of education is the root of hatred in the Middle East and the source from which the literate spiritual leaders are able to exert their influence over the people?

Jihad is not about fighting infidels. It is about fighting infidels who are attacking either ISlam, or Islamic countries.

"O Prophet! Make war against the unbelievers [all non-Muslims] and the hypocrites and be merciless against them. Their home is hell, an evil refuge indeed." (Koran, 9:73)

"When we decide to destroy a population, we send a definite order to them who have the good things in life and yet sin. So that Allah's word is proven true against them, then we destroy them utterly." (Koran, 17:16-17)

"In order that Allah may separate the pure from the impure, put all the impure ones [all non-Muslims] one on top of another in a heap and cast them into hell. They will have been the ones to have lost." (Koran, 8:37)

"How many were the populations we utterly destroyed because of their sins, setting up in their place other peoples." (Koran, 21:11)

"Remember Allah inspired the angels: I am with you. Give firmness to the believers. I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers: you smite them above their necks and smite all their fingertips off of them." (Koran, 8:12)

Koran-(5:51): O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.

Koran-(9:5): “But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, And seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war) ; but if they repent (accept Islam) and establish regular prayers and practices regular charity then open the way for them; for God is oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.”

Koran-(8:65): “ O Apostle ! Rouse the believers to the fight, if there are twenty amongst you, patient and persevering , they will vanquish two hundred; if a hundred, they will vanquish a thousand of the unbelievers; for these are a people without understanding.”

Koran-2:216: Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you

Koran-(9:29): “Fight those who believe not the Allah nor the last day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and his apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of truth even if they are the people of the book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” Koran-8:12: I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them

Koran-8: 15,16: O ye who believe! when ye meet the Unbelievers in hostile array, never turn your backs to them. If any do turn his back to them on such a day - unless it be in a stratagem of war, or to retreat to a troop (of his own)- he draws on himself the wrath of Allah, and his abode is Hell,- an evil refuge (indeed)!

Koran-9:111: Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Qur’an

Koran-9:123: O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty (unto Him).

Koran-4:95: O ye who believe! Shall I show you a commerce that will save you from a painful doom? You should believe in Allah and His messenger, and should strive for the cause of Allah with your wealth and your lives. That is better for you, if ye did but know. ... Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than those who sit (at home).

[9.14] Fight them, Allah will punish them by your hands and bring them to disgrace, and assist you against them and heal the hearts of a believing people.

The problem with islam is that the west can read. I am sick of the lies of islam, jihad is more than fighting those who are fighting against you and you know it. No this religion is easily proven as evil. Muslims are killing non-muslims all around the world and using islam as the reason because they are commanded to the fight.

Islam and Christianity have alot more similarities than differences. You will find the story of the Virgin Mary and Jesus in the Quran as well.

From the "holy" Qur'an:
"[4.157] And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah, Isa son of Marium, the apostle of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so (like Isa) and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for sure.
[4.158] Nay! Allah took him up to Himself; and Allah is Mighty, Wise.
[4.159] And there is not one of the followers of the Book but most certainly believes in this before his death, and on the day of resurrection he (Isa) shall be a witness against them."

- I don't know. That's not exactly how it went down in "The Passion". And the part about Jesus (Isa) condemning those that believe in the crucifixion and resurrection doesn't seem to be how my Bible reads. -

From the "holy" Qur'an:
"[5.116] And when Allah will say: O Isa son of Marium! did you say to men, Take me and my mother for two gods besides Allah he will say: Glory be to Thee, it did not befit me that I should say what I had no right to (say); if I had said it, Thou wouldst indeed have known it; Thou knowest what is in my mind, and I do not know what is in Thy mind, surely Thou art the great Knower of the unseen things.
[5.117] 1 did not say to them aught save what Thou didst enjoin me with: That serve Allah, my Lord and your Lord, and I was a witness of them so long as I was among them, but when Thou didst cause me to die, Thou wert the watcher over them, and Thou art witness of all things."

Actually, this is rather sly because Jesus never said anything about Mary. But the point is to deny divinity.

One of the biggest problems encountered by non-Arabic speakers, when trying to read the Koran is the confusion that results in translation. The Arabic language is characterized by rhetoric, exaggeration and repetition. Then, on top of that, there are so many variations of words that, if not carefully chosen, meaning is easily changed or distorted. For example, I own a Koran that has a totally different translation of each of the passages that you posted. Here is an example:

What my copy of the Koran says:
(9:29) “Fight against such of those, to whom the Scriptures were given, as believe in neither God nor the Last Day, who do not forbid what God and His apostle have forbidden, and do not embrace the true Faith, until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued.”

Notice how your translation of the passage totally skips over “… to whom the Scriptures were given…” and the other large differences throughout the passage.

The difference in translation is likely the result of different interpretations that result from choosing different words that translate similarly into English. This difference is due to one accounting, or not accounting, for the rhetoric, exaggeration, and repetition that is characteristic of Arabic language and culture. I have been reading “The Arab Mind” which is required reading for all students of Middle Eastern Studies at the JFK Special Warfare School. It is required reading, because it helps special operations soldiers to prepare for dealing with Arab culture. There is an entire chapter on rhetoric, exaggeration, overassertion, and repetition in Arab culture and this is a common theme throughout the book, because of its impact on culture in causing miscommunication between Arabs and, more often, between Arabs and non-Arabs.

Ad naseum posting of Koranic passages that one interprets as hateful or evil or vicious and so on, does nothing more than highlight the shortcomings of our understanding of the religion and the ability of people to interpret the Koran to fit their agenda, because there are other common translations that are totally different.

What you posted:
“[9.29] Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.”
What my copy of the Koran says: (9:29) “Fight against such of those, to whom the Scriptures were given, as believe in neither God nor the Last Day, who do not forbid what God and His apostle have forbidden, and do not embrace the true Faith, until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued.”

Notice how your translation of the passage totally skips over “… to whom the Scriptures were given…” and the other large differences throughout the passage.

In spite of wording differences, the intent and result of both translations is identical. Unbelievers are to be fought against until they pay a special tax. The result of both translations is oppression.

I was using the M.H.Shakir translation.
You are using the Marmaduke Mohammad Pickthall translation.
Another important translation is by Yusuf Ali.

You can see all three in parallel text at
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/

They also have a searchable Hadith database at
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/reference/searchhadith.html

But I typically use the searchable Shakir Qur'an at
http://www.hti.umich.edu/k/koran/

Beats copying it by hand.

The important thing is not the words but the meaning of the words and the universal concepts being conveyed. The Arabic words translate into mental abstractions in an Arab mind just as much as someone reading it in any other language. If the meaning of the original Arabic is ambiguous, then the Arabic is as useless as any translation whether it retains that ambiguity or settles "improperly" on only one interpretation. What is important is not what it may mean to you, me or some 12th Century Islamic "scholar" but what it could mean to anyone prepared to act on it. And what an Arabs tells you does not matter. What matters is what they tell each other. The outsider is entitled to draw whatever interpretation is possible, to find the loopholes that Muslims are famous for (ex. Hudaybiyyah) and anticipate them. Ambiguity leads to duplicity and only a fool does not consider the worst possible case. The very claim that it cannot be translated therefore condemns it as worthless babble.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.