A Muslim's perspective on the crusades

[Yorick]

From this site: http://www.islamfortoday.com/turabi02.htm

By Dr Hassan al-Turabi The Muslims never fought against Christians. You know, the first Islamic state, organised by the Prophet himself, was not a state of Muslims. It was a state of Muslims and Jews, established on a written constitution and the Jews were constituent members of those that wrote the constitution. Christians have always lived in the midst of Muslims. In Egypt, in Syria, in Yemen, all over, and the Muslims never fought against the Christians. They fought against the Roman Empire, as an imperialist power, and against the Persian Empire. Later on all the Persians became Muslim and so that power was overcome. That is all there is to it. We never waged an Islamic war as such. Actually, the Crusades against us, we don't call it the Crusades, we don't think it was a war in favour of the Cross. It was just an imperial war but they wanted to mobilise the masses to fight for those imperial objectives, and the masses were very religious in those days, so they exploited the word Crusade to mobilise armies in Europe against the Middle East. Later on, when the masses in Europe became less religious, you don't have to use the word Crusade. Just go to Africa, or India, or the Middle East as an open imperialist that wants to exploit that wealth for his own country or nation.

[johnny]

He may have a point there, most nobles took part in the crusades only for the wealth they could gain. But these are different times, and muslims today ARE fighting other religeons, one way or another.

The Crusades were unjust anyway you look at it. They didn't follow any true christian principle. Just as the Slavery of Africans in the 14th thru the 19th centuries was stupidly unjust and ignorant.

The ancestors of western europeans (and americans once there were any) were not really very nice a lot of the time, they were also quite ignorant and rude...but hey, we grow as a species, and the eastern cultures had their own petty foibles and nastinesses as well.

[Timber Loftis]

Your historical statement may be correct, Yorick, but as MagiK indicated there is really only one thing relevant to extract from it in this day and age:

One should not confuse Muslims worldwide with fundamentalist extremist terrorists worldwide.

Duh.

[khazadman]

What a crock! Does this mean that the muslems didn't invade Spain and south-west France?How about south-east Europe. I guess it was just a folk tale that Vlad Tepisch fought against the muslims in Transylvania. I bet the Greeks would have a few choice words on the subject.

And Magic, don't go blaming the western Europeans for imperialism. Everybody did it. It's just the Europeans were the first to have the ability to create world wide empires. Nor did the Europeans invent slavery. It's always been here. Still is in some places.

[Timber Loftis]

Khazadman, my knowledge of the Crusades is very limited, but I would say there may be a distinction between the four specific Crusades targeted at the holy land and the expansion of the Ottoman Empire (which is what I believe you are referencing and which ended with the breakup of the Ottoman Empire after WWI).

As for slavery happening elsewhere, it's true:
Serfs were slaves for all intents and purposes.
African tribes traditionally enslaved the surviving members of defeated tribes (though some people are touchy on this and say that they instead "absorbed" surviving members into their tribe - which is bulls**t).
The Old Testament is full of slavery examples - I'll use Moses and Pharoh to make the point.
I'm not real clear on my Japanese history, but weren't there serf/slave equivalents under the Samuri nobles?
I'm sure we can cite others.

But, and let me be clear on this, no matter how many such instances of wrongdoings by others exist it in NO WAY justifies the wrongs you undertake, I undertake, or anyone else undertakes.

[ 01-03-2003, 11:30 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Thoran]

The idea that the Crusades were a simple war of Imperialism doesn't hold water for me either. I think he's got a political agenda of making all attacks against Islam "Imperialist". I've noticed that they use that word a lot regarding what's going on THESE DAYS too.

The target of the supposedly non-religous Crusades I believe was to occupy the "Holy Land" including the "Holy City Jerusalem", the "Holy Town of Bethlehem", and lots of other "Holy" places. Add to this the fact that the area is not particularly resource rich and... "Holy Crap!"... the answer becomes obvious. The only possible reason for Christian European countries to attack that particular area of the middle east (travelling around other potential targets to get there) was religous. DUH!

[antryg]

Thoran, at the time of the Crusades, the "Holy Land" was the intersection of most of the major trade routes connecting the East and the West. The land was also mineral and agriculturally rich. Don't confuse the last 500 years of land mismanagment for what we see today. Propaganda then is the same as today. Define the objective and the enemy. The objective: control world trade and find a use for 2nd and 3rd sons. The enemy: those who were living together peacefully in the reason. ie Infidels control the Holy Land. Our religion demands that we free the "holy" places.

Yes there were people who became involved for religious reasons. Yes, many people entered into it with no desire for personal gain or glory. But we cannot blind ourselves to the fact that for many leaders, then and now, the easiest way to stop discontent is to manufacture an external enemy. The various Pope's and heads of state in Europe entered into these crusades based on very pragmatic control and monetary reasons.

Islamic caliphs were guilty of imperialism as well as European monarchs. It is unfair to both Islam and Christianity that religion is the mask that greedy rulers used.

[Attalus]

Timber, I have nothing to add to your post about slavery except that the Graeco-Roman culture was based on slavery as much as the Old South's was, and for the same reasons: cheap agricultural labor. The house and pleasure slaves that we read of were a fortunate (maybe!) minority to the vast mass of slaves who labored in the fields. Significantly, most of the slave rebellions started in the provinces, not Rome. Spartacus's started in Capua. One of the main reasons for the decadence of the Roman Empire, IMHO. To use your word: wrong.

[Mirac Honorguard]

Everybody that wages war is wrong. Im missing the point of this post.