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?

I realize that this is a touchy subject to some. Many posts mentioning Islam result in the expressions of desire for less than tasteful fates to befall certain Muslims, pseudo-Muslims, or even Muslims in general. Those desires may be well-founded, but I am hoping to receive legitimate input on this, such as responses containing fact and reason. If something is evil or wrong, it should be easy to argue against.

Disclaimer: I used "mujahideen" and "terrorists" in the same sentence, though I realize that this may sound redundant to some. But, to be objective, according to “moderate” Muslims, there are legitimate mujahideen. These include those who fought the Soviets/Russians in Afghanistan and Chechnya, and the Serbs in Bosnia. Terrorists, such as those who murdered Americans on 9/11/01, those who continue to murder Israelis, those who murder American servicemen in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Qatar, and those who murder our diplomats throughout the Middle East and Africa do not fit the definition of jihad, given by Imam Tammam Adi, above.

First of all, a 'crusade' is not a required act of Christian orthodoxy. Viewed over the 2000 years of Christianity, it is an aberration, not a constant.

I dont really find much fault in Christians wanting to rid the holy land of Muslim control, in that Muslims were forbidding Christians access to Jerusalem. That is what initiated the crusades.

As a Protestant, I really dont have ANY religious attachment to ANY shrine or piece of geography. I do have an emotional attachment to Israel, as that is where Jesus walked, but if I never go there, I wont be any the worse for it.

As I understand it, Jihad (personal or militant) IS a requirement of a devout Muslim. So comparing a Christian definition of crusade and a Muslim definition of Jihad, is not legitimate.

NO Christian feels the need to go on a crusade, period.

As a matter of fact, the founding doctrine of Protestantism, is that salvation comes not by ANY works that we do, but thru faith alone.

1. Because the wars the Crusaders were fighting in were, at least initially, just wars. Additionally, the Crusades initial and well-defined goal and guidelines to it, that being the liberation of Jerusalem and freedom of the rather large Christian minorities in the Middle East. But in its current Wahhabi/Khomeinist incarnation, military jihad has no end, with no possibility of reconciliation between Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb. This cannot be said for the Crusades.

2. Almost certainly. However, all religions have had militant strains to them at some point or another. That is simply the way things go because, according to my own Catholic beliefs, humans are sinner. But no Catholic leader today is calling upon his followers to go out and slaughter infidels. The same cannot be said of contemporary Wahhabi clerics in Saudi Arabia, hence the current conflict.

3. No, because Crusade at least had a clearly defined goal. Al-Qaeda's jihad is not truly bent on removing US troops from Saudi Arabia but rather upon exporting Wahhabism onto the world stage as the premier ideology of Islam in order to launch a general uprising throughout the Muslim world in order to provoke a clash of civilizations. They believe that they can win such a confrontation, but I am somewhat skeptical in this regard.

4. No. While Islam, like any other faith, has its nasty and nice streaks, but the current sect in ascendance today throughout the Muslim world, Wahhabism, is uncompromisingly militant. I recommend "The Kingdom: Arabia and the House of Saud" by Robert Lacey for a good (abeit uncompromisingly pro-Saudi) look at how the sect was founded. Everywhere it goes it has left violence, bloodshed, and oppression. Every Sunni terrorist group on the planet is Wahhabi, simply speaking. The War on Terror will end when sect either adapts its teachings to become less militant or suffers the fate of the Cathari.

”Because the wars the Crusaders were fighting in were, at least initially, just wars.”

Couldn’t the same be said of the jihad against the Soviets in Afghanistan and the mujahideen who flocked to Bosnia, to fight alongside the Bosnian-Muslims?

”Additionally, the Crusades initial and well-defined goal and guidelines to it, that being the liberation of Jerusalem and freedom of the rather large Christian minorities in the Middle East.

Again, what about Afghanistan and Bosnia? In Afghanistan, the Muslims sought to oust the religious oppression that they feared from the Soviets. In Bosnia, mujahideen flocked to Bosnia because they believed that there was genocide being committed against the Muslims.

”But no Catholic leader today is calling upon his followers to go out and slaughter infidels. The same cannot be said of contemporary Wahhabi clerics in Saudi Arabia, hence the current conflict.”

I believe that this is largely the result of the principle that power corrupts. The Muslim clerics of the Arab nations have power, in that their words carry the weight of authority with them. The most devout Christian, in my opinion, is not going to go forth and kill, if his priest were to tell him to do so. The Christian is open to the idea that his priest is wise, but that all people are capable of sin.

”No, because Crusade at least had a clearly defined goal. Al-Qaeda's jihad is not truly bent on removing US troops from Saudi Arabia but rather upon exporting Wahhabism onto the world stage as the premier ideology of Islam…”

My question was not clear. In question 3, I wrote, “[w]ith questions 1 and 2 in mind, is history repeating itself?”. In referring to questions 1 and 2, I meant to say that if one accepts affirmative answers to those questions. If people falsely declared their actions to be part of a legitimate Crusade or if religious leaders misused their positions of authority during the Crusades, as mentioned in questions 1 and 2, then would that not be an indication that history is repeating itself? I believe that you are comparing the real Crusades with ”Al-Qaeda’s jihad” rather than with real jihad. I am trying to ask if the term “Crusade” was perverted in the same manner as the term jihad - asking if history is repeating itself, as it appears to me that it is.

”… the current sect in ascendance today throughout the Muslim world, Wahhabism, is uncompromisingly militant…Every Sunni terrorist group on the planet is Wahhabi, simply speaking.”

Is Wahhabi the root of the perversion of the term jihad and the indoctrination of that perversion amongst Arab Muslims? Or is my question based on a false assumption? Or neither?

I could not agree more. I have long believed that Arab culture is the real enemy, not Islam. I think that the effectiveness with which a government claiming to have divine right can control an uneducated, conformist population is dangerous to itself and its neighbors. Because the social sciences are so difficult to analyze, due to so many uncertain variables (people), it is difficult to cite a clear piece of evidence, one way or the other. However, I would compare and contrast Kuwait and Bosnia as an illustration of the danger posed by culture, rather than religion.

In 1991, we liberated Kuwait. In 1996, we stuck our noses into the Balkan conflict. In each case, we helped Muslims. In Kuwait, the government needs us, so they are fairly cooperative, but the people tend to dislike us. In Bosnia, the Muslims love us. The difference? In my opinion, it is due to the positions of authority that religious leaders have in each culture. Bosnia does not have a whole lot of devout Muslims, because the government does not mandate Islam as a religion, nor is the government run by clerics. In Kuwait, "The religion of the State is Islam, and the Islamic Sharia is the main source of legislation." - quoted source

"Couldn’t the same be said of the jihad against the Soviets in Afghanistan and the mujahideen who flocked to Bosnia, to fight alongside the Bosnian-Muslims?"

In Afghanistan, yes. In Bosnia, almost certainly not. While I do not dispute the just nature of their cause there, al-Qaeda, which was already in existence at that point, fought with a kind of brutality that scared the hell out of even their fellow Muslims. More to the point, as soon as the jihad in Bosnia was over, they invaded Kosovo. Once Kosovo was pacified, they invaded Macedonia. So whatever al-Qaeda's motivations for sending its foot soldiers to Bosnia, a point should be stressed that the acts were not done for altruistic principles any more than the terrorist group's current support to oppressed Muslims in China is.

"I believe that this is largely the result of the principle that power corrupts. The Muslim clerics of the Arab nations have power, in that their words carry the weight of authority with them. The most devout Christian, in my opinion, is not going to go forth and kill, if his priest were to tell him to do so. The Christian is open to the idea that his priest is wise, but that all people are capable of sin."

I agree with this to a certain extent, but I think that the lack a non-Wahhabi clerical authority in Sunni Islam (gone since the caliphate collapsed) is part of the problem. Because there is no legitimate counter-authority in the absence of the caliph, Wahhabi organizations can issue proclamations and fatwas and there is no mechanism within Sunni Islam for saying that they are wrong. Under that type of system, militants can basically "shop around" until they find clerics they like and then hold them up as arbiters of divine authority.

"I believe that you are comparing the real Crusades with ”Al-Qaeda’s jihad” rather than with real jihad. I am trying to ask if the term “Crusade” was perverted in the same manner as the term jihad - asking if history is repeating itself, as it appears to me that it is."

To a certain extent yes, but the situation within Islam is drastically worse because Christianity at least had a mechanism to shut down the Crusades: the European monarchs and the pope. Within Islam and in particular Wahhabism, jihad is now a non-state enterprise and since there is a noticeable absence of authority there is no real way to shut it down.

"Is Wahhabi the root of the perversion of the term jihad and the indoctrination of that perversion amongst Arab Muslims? Or is my question based on a false assumption? Or neither?"

Wahhabism is almost certainly the root of the concept of jihad as a non-state enterprise and therefore of modern Islamic terrorism. The al-Saud clan in Riyadh were basically bandits on the fringes of the Ottoman Empire until Ibn Abd al-Wahhab agreed to give them his spiritual authority. Wahhab wanted to scrap all of Islamic tradition and jurisprudence to start things over with just the Qur'an (as he interpreted it, of course). The result is spiritual chaos, which can easily be exploited by opportunistic individuals like bin Laden.

Nor is it simply an Arab problem. Wahhabi mi$$ionary activities are a global venture, courtesy of Saudi oil money. Wherever you see violence, intolerance, and terrorism in the Islamic world, Wahhabism is right behind it. This is something the US is going to have to recognize sooner or later, IMO.

Jihad is fundamental to the practice of true Islam. According to Mohammed, by their very existence all other religions blaspheme Allah. Islam states that men cannot know the essence of Allah and any attempt to do so is blasphemy, punishable by death. In Islam the dynamic between man and Allah is essentially one of slave to master. Therefore, Islam is in fact in a constant state of "jihad" with all non-Muslims. The Christian concept of Trinity is particularly at odds with the Muslim view of Divinity since Christianity portrays the Divinity as a loving, caring entity and Man as being made in its likeness. It's blasphemy for a true Muslim to even attempt to discern the nature of the Divinity as Christianity has attempted to do.
In the New Testament there is no mention of Crusade being required in the practice of true Christianity. Nor is there mention of anything even analagous to the concept of jihad. While it is true that Christianity has been perverted to justify despicable acts, acts as these were not sanctioned nor approved by Jesus Christ and are not required of those who practice the religion. However, based on the teachings of Mohammed it is a Muslims duty to convert, or if he refuses conversion to Islam, to murder the non-believer. The Koran explicitly states that it is the right of all Muslims to the non-believers property and in addition urges the enslavement and ownership of the infidels women and children. Let's face it (liberal apologist academics listen up please!) 1400 years has been enough time to show what a destructive debilitating ideology Islam truly is. Far from a "religion of peace" it sanctions the enslavement of peoples, the denigration and abuse of women and unlike Christianity, encourages and justifies looting, rape and murder.Wherever it has "mainstreamed", people have been rounded up and murdered en masse, cultures and economies touched by Islam have been almost without exception destroyed by it. This is also true in the present. Can anyone out there name a single country in which Islam is the dominant ideology that has a diverse, viable economy, where individual rights are respected, where religious, economic and cultural freedoms flourish? There are NONE. Islam, invented by Mohammed to justify his abhorrent (even by the standards of his contemporaries)personal behavior and his thirst for blood, booty and power has shown itself to be greatly to mankind's detriment. When will George Bush and company "get it"?

"In the New Testament there is no mention of Crusade being required in the practice of true Christianity. Nor is there mention of anything even analagous to the concept of jihad. While it is true that Christianity has been perverted to justify despicable acts, acts as these were not sanctioned nor approved by Jesus Christ and are not required of those who practice the religion."

Is the same true of Islam, as well? Jihad has a definition. That definition has been perverted. Therefore, would it be reasonable to surmise that the prophet of Islam does not approve, just as the Christian prophet may not have approved of "Crusades"?

"Can anyone out there name a single country in which Islam is the dominant ideology that has a diverse, viable economy, where individual rights are respected, where religious, economic and cultural freedoms flourish?"

Kazakhstan, Turkey, and Uzbekistan

Could you please document any or all of the following?
"Islam states that men cannot know the essence of Allah and any attempt to do so is blasphemy, punishable by death."
"In Islam the dynamic between man and Allah is essentially one of slave to master."
"... based on the teachings of Mohammed it is a Muslims duty to convert, or if he refuses conversion to Islam, to murder the non-believer."
"The Koran explicitly states that it is the right of all Muslims to the non-believers property..."
"... and in addition urges the enslavement and ownership of the infidels women and children."
"[Islam] sanctions the enslavement of peoples, the denigration and abuse of women and unlike Christianity, encourages and justifies looting, rape and murder."

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?

The liberals like this explanation, but it's not quite reality. In Spencer's book, ISLAM UNVEILED, he lays out how Islam rejected intellectualism, philosophy and science about a thousand years ago. For instance, scientific laws are rejected as blasphemy, since it would box in Allah. Islam is the source of the corruption, not illiteracy.

Most of your questions are fully answered in ISLAM UNVEILED. He lays out why Islam can't support democracy, freedom, etc. The foundational books of Islam (Koran, Sharia, etc) mitigate against moderation.

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.