The Crusades: Why are we still fighting them?

[Foxfyre]

Well okay, if you MUST have a life independent of USMB.

Oh, I forgot to answer your question.

What I meant by 'aggressor' is the intention to use whatever means are necessary to establish Islamic law and authority where it does not now exist.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Thank you. You're probably right that Islam is not peaceful in the way that Buddhism is peaceful.

I appreciate talking to you. I'm starting to think that Islam may not be as peaceful as I once thought from knowing Sufis.

I think that many of those who call themselves Sufis make the mistake of focusing purely on the personal, mystical aspects of Islam. On the other hand, there are too many "pharisee Muslims" that concern themselves with doctrinal minutiae and lose sight of the true meaning of Islam, which can only be found by understanding the complementary relationship between Islamic jurisprudence and the kind of introspection, love of Allah, and brotherhood championed by Sufis. What point is there to possessing knowledge of Islam if you don't act on it, like these Sufis? What point is there to fighting for the establishment of an Islamic society if you don't understand the reasons behind God's law, like most of the rest of us?

Both Islam and Buddhism are devoted to establishing peace. The way I see things, Islam is so devoted to attaining true peace that its followers are willing to lay down their lives in its pursuit, not to mention the lives of those who try to hinder its realization.

Even politically engaged Buddhism is non-violent. That is a clear difference. Theocracy has been tried in Tibet and Bhutan. It has it's shortcomings.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Nor should anyone expect you to. Islam's detractors don't understand it either; the difference is that they pretend to while you recognize it as alien and somewhat esoteric.

I don't think that Islam is peaceful in the way that Buddhism is peaceful. For Muslims, as long as injustice and aggression exist, the struggle against those antagonistic forces will involve using whatever means necessary to destroy them. To be honest, I doubt that you'll be interested by scripture and edicts and whatnot unless you're extremely devoted to studying Islam.

This website is a popular online religious resource in the Muslim world, so it may offer some insight into Islam as most people practice it (the English version is a bit buggy): IslamOnline.net- Islamic News, Shari'ah, Society, Family, Culture, Science, Youth, and Health

I appreciate the website Kalam. Interesting, informative, a lot of stuff there.

But on the website I found this:

1. In his Sahih, Imam Muslim recorded that Thawban quoted the Prophet (peace and blessings upon him) as saying: “Almighty Allah has gathered the earth for me so that I could see all its corners. My nation will rule over all that which Almighty Allah has gathered for me.”

2. Ibn Hibban quoted the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) as saying: “This matter (i.e. Islam) will spread to cover all areas where there is night and day. Allah will never leave a house in a rural area or in urban community without its people being Muslims. Honor is for those who embrace it (i.e. Islam) while disbelievers are doomed to disgrace and humiliation.”

Read more: For Muslims to Regain Lost Glory - IslamonLine.net - Ask The Scholar

When you add these opinions to the text of the Qu'ran, would you say that Islam intends to be an aggressor to spread Islam throughout the world?

That depends. What do you mean by "aggressor"?

Duck dodge and weave. You want us to believe you just want peace when the two passages clearly state that by any means possible Islam is to conquer the world.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Thank you. You're probably right that Islam is not peaceful in the way that Buddhism is peaceful.

I appreciate talking to you. I'm starting to think that Islam may not be as peaceful as I once thought from knowing Sufis.

I think that many of those who call themselves Sufis make the mistake of focusing purely on the personal, mystical aspects of Islam. On the other hand, there are too many "pharisee Muslims" that concern themselves with doctrinal minutiae and lose sight of the true meaning of Islam, which can only be found by understanding the complementary relationship between Islamic jurisprudence and the kind of introspection, love of Allah, and brotherhood championed by Sufis. What point is there to possessing knowledge of Islam if you don't act on it, like these Sufis? What point is there to fighting for the establishment of an Islamic society if you don't understand the reasons behind God's law, like most of the rest of us?

Both Islam and Buddhism are devoted to establishing peace. The way I see things, Islam is so devoted to attaining true peace that its followers are willing to lay down their lives in its pursuit, not to mention the lives of those who try to hinder its realization.

In other words you can murder anyone that gets in your way. Anyone that opposes Islam. Thanks for being honest. One must convert or die.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Thank you. You're probably right that Islam is not peaceful in the way that Buddhism is peaceful.

I appreciate talking to you. I'm starting to think that Islam may not be as peaceful as I once thought from knowing Sufis.

I think that many of those who call themselves Sufis make the mistake of focusing purely on the personal, mystical aspects of Islam. On the other hand, there are too many "pharisee Muslims" that concern themselves with doctrinal minutiae and lose sight of the true meaning of Islam, which can only be found by understanding the complementary relationship between Islamic jurisprudence and the kind of introspection, love of Allah, and brotherhood championed by Sufis. What point is there to possessing knowledge of Islam if you don't act on it, like these Sufis? What point is there to fighting for the establishment of an Islamic society if you don't understand the reasons behind God's law, like most of the rest of us?

Both Islam and Buddhism are devoted to establishing peace. The way I see things, Islam is so devoted to attaining true peace that its followers are willing to lay down their lives in its pursuit, not to mention the lives of those who try to hinder its realization.

In other words you can murder anyone that gets in your way. Anyone that opposes Islam. Thanks for being honest. One must convert or die.

One could make that leap from Kalam's post.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I think that many of those who call themselves Sufis make the mistake of focusing purely on the personal, mystical aspects of Islam. On the other hand, there are too many "pharisee Muslims" that concern themselves with doctrinal minutiae and lose sight of the true meaning of Islam, which can only be found by understanding the complementary relationship between Islamic jurisprudence and the kind of introspection, love of Allah, and brotherhood championed by Sufis. What point is there to possessing knowledge of Islam if you don't act on it, like these Sufis? What point is there to fighting for the establishment of an Islamic society if you don't understand the reasons behind God's law, like most of the rest of us?

Both Islam and Buddhism are devoted to establishing peace. The way I see things, Islam is so devoted to attaining true peace that its followers are willing to lay down their lives in its pursuit, not to mention the lives of those who try to hinder its realization.

In other words you can murder anyone that gets in your way. Anyone that opposes Islam. Thanks for being honest. One must convert or die.

One could make that leap from Kalam's post.

Only sane intelligent people. How exactly do you think Kalam and Islam are going to obtain true Islamic peace if they do not subjugate, convert and control all? And if he does not mean that then what exactly is meant by his saying Islam will kill those trying to hinder Islams attempt to establish Peace?

 

[Bezukhov]

Everybody needs some sort of hobby...

 

[daveman]

both islam and buddhism are devoted to establishing peace. The way i see things, islam is so devoted to attaining true peace that its followers are willing to lay down their lives in its pursuit, not to mention the lives of those who try to hinder its realization.

r.o.p.m.a.

 

[editec]

A very wise Rabbi once said something to me that I thought sage.

Never trust religious people.

They have GOD on their side which means they can do anything however horrible, and justify it in their minds.

People on missions from GOD?

They need to find honest work, folks.

 

[ekrem]

1095-1291
(...)

Crusades did not stop in 1291. After 1291 there were serveral other campaigns by European Kingdoms sponsored, backed and in some cases initiated by Pope. All eastwards.

 

[editec]

1095-1291
(...)

Crusades did not stop in 1291. After 1291 there were serveral other campaigns by European Kingdoms sponsored, backed and in some cases initiated by Pope. All eastwards.

MOSTLY fought on European soil, I note.

Which begs the question was that REALLY a religious crusade, or was that just Kings fighting over who is going to get to exploit the peasants?

 

[ekrem]

Which begs the question was that REALLY a religious crusade, or was that just Kings fighting over who is going to get to exploit the peasants?

Both of your points are and were always inter-connected. Pope was integral part of these activities to mobilize multi-national Christian forces of different Kingdoms. As was stated we are still talking of the period after 1291.

 

[Foxfyre]

Which begs the question was that REALLY a religious crusade, or was that just Kings fighting over who is going to get to exploit the peasants?

Both of your points are and were always inter-connected. Pope was integral part of these activities to mobilize multi-national Christian forces of different Kingdoms. As was stated we are still talking of the period after 1291.

That is correct.

During the period of the Crusades, the Pope and Monarchy were like co-leaders. The Monarch needed the Church to keep the peasants loyal and in line; the Church needed the Monarchy for its enforcement powers. And often whenever a Pope or a Monarch found himself in political hot water, a crusade was launched to take the focus off the head of state or Church and return with riches and plunder to bolster the image of one or both, or they could claim to have beaten back the enemies of Cristendom or reclaimed land taken by the enemy, etc.

 

[Sky Dancer]

In other words you can murder anyone that gets in your way. Anyone that opposes Islam. Thanks for being honest. One must convert or die.

One could make that leap from Kalam's post.

Only sane intelligent people. How exactly do you think Kalam and Islam are going to obtain true Islamic peace if they do not subjugate, convert and control all? And if he does not mean that then what exactly is meant by his saying Islam will kill those trying to hinder Islams attempt to establish Peace?

I understand how you could make that leap based on Kalam's post. It appears warlike. There is no other way to interpret Kalam's post. Please noteKalam'ss criticism of the Sufi's. Sufi Muslims are peaceful. According to Kalam, 'real' Muslims are not. My claim stands. Not all Muslims are warlike or terrorists.

I'm starting to understand how small a minority the Sufi's are.

 

[Foxfyre]

One could make that leap from Kalam's post.

Only sane intelligent people. How exactly do you think Kalam and Islam are going to obtain true Islamic peace if they do not subjugate, convert and control all? And if he does not mean that then what exactly is meant by his saying Islam will kill those trying to hinder Islams attempt to establish Peace?

I understand how you could make that leap based on Kalam's post. It appears warlike. There is no other way to interpret Kalam's post. Please noteKalam'ss criticism of the Sufi's. Sufi Muslims are peaceful. According to Kalam, 'real' Muslims are not. My claim stands. Not all Muslims are warlike or terrorists.

I'm starting to understand how small a minority the Sufi's are.

My Muslim neighbors are not Sufi even and are not at all warlike. I would trust them with my kids, my dog, my plants. I think most Muslim peoples of the world would very much prefer that their leaders just live and let live and would prefer to be at peace. But the religion itself doesn't seem to lend itself to a live and let live society.

So again, in small numbers or as a small minority, Muslim people are generally pretty wonderful. But as they gain in numbers, the militancy of the religion begins to manifest itself until it permeates everyting.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Only sane intelligent people. How exactly do you think Kalam and Islam are going to obtain true Islamic peace if they do not subjugate, convert and control all? And if he does not mean that then what exactly is meant by his saying Islam will kill those trying to hinder Islams attempt to establish Peace?

I understand how you could make that leap based on Kalam's post. It appears warlike. There is no other way to interpret Kalam's post. Please noteKalam'ss criticism of the Sufi's. Sufi Muslims are peaceful. According to Kalam, 'real' Muslims are not. My claim stands. Not all Muslims are warlike or terrorists.

I'm starting to understand how small a minority the Sufi's are.

My Muslim neighbors are not Sufi even and are not at all warlike. I would trust them with my kids, my dog, my plants. I think most Muslim peoples of the world would very much prefer that their leaders just live and let live and would prefer to be at peace. But the religion itself doesn't seem to lend itself to a live and let live society.

So again, in small numbers or as a small minority, Muslim people are generally pretty wonderful. But as they gain in numbers, the militancy of the religion begins to manifest itself until it permeates everyting.

I do know there is more than one meaning of jihad. For some Muslims, it means an inner battle with the forces of darkness within ones own mind and heart.

Contrary to the common belief that is embodied in the misinterpretation of "jihad" as "holy war," Islamic jihad does not refer solely to fighting in the way of Allah. This, in fact, is a special case of jihad. The Qur'anic concept of jihad refers to exerting efforts, in the form of struggle against or resistance to something, for the sake of Allah. This effort can be fighting back armed aggression, but can also be resisting evil drives and desires in one's self. Even donating money to the needy is a form of jihad, as it involves struggling against one's selfishness and inner desire to keep one's money for one's own pleasures. Jihad can, therefore, be subdivided into armed jihad and peaceful jihad. Armed jihad, which is the subject of Chapter 4, is only temporary and is a response to armed aggression. Once the aggression has ceased, armed jihad comes to an end. Armed jihad, thus, can take place only when there is an aggressive, external enemy.
http://www.quranicstudies.com/louay-fatoohi/jihad/the-meaning-of-jihad.html

 

[Intense]

1095-1291
(...)

Crusades did not stop in 1291. After 1291 there were serveral other campaigns by European Kingdoms sponsored, backed and in some cases initiated by Pope. All eastwards.

MOSTLY fought on European soil, I note.

Which begs the question was that REALLY a religious crusade, or was that just Kings fighting over who is going to get to exploit the peasants?

Or was it more about keeping the hordes at bay. Islamic world peace translated to islamic world control every time.

 

[hipeter924]

Crusades did not stop in 1291. After 1291 there were serveral other campaigns by European Kingdoms sponsored, backed and in some cases initiated by Pope. All eastwards.

MOSTLY fought on European soil, I note.

Which begs the question was that REALLY a religious crusade, or was that just Kings fighting over who is going to get to exploit the peasants?

Or was it more about keeping the hordes at bay. Islamic world peace translated to islamic world control every time.

I am with General Patton, on this. Meaning that Islam is a religion still stuck in the middle ages.

 

[Sky Dancer]

The arabic world is about tribalism. The African world is about tribalism. The Muslim religion isn't the only factor contributing to violent conflict in the Middle East and Africa. Even Sri Lanka is tribal warfare. Relgion plays a role but isn't the only cause of conflict.

Extremist Islam is merely an overlay (and a recent one at that) atop the primal, unchanging mind-set of the East, which is tribalism, and its constituent individual, the tribesman.

Tribalism and the tribal mind-set are what the West is up against in Hezbollah, Al Qaeda , the Iraqi insurgency, the Sunni and Shiite militias, and the Taliban.

What exactly is the tribal mind-set? It derives from that most ancient of social organizations, whose virtues are obedience, fidelity, warrior pride, respect for ancestors, hostility to outsiders and willingness to lay down one's life for the cause/faith/group. The tribe's ideal leader is closer to Tony Soprano than to FDR and its social mores are more like those of Geronimo's Apaches than the city council of Scarsdale or Shepherd's Bush.

Can the tribal mind embrace democracy? Consider the contrast between the tribesman and the citizen:

A citizen is an autonomous individual. A citizen is free. A citizen possesses the capacity to evaluate the facts and prospects of his world and to make decisions guided by his own conscience, uncoerced by authority. A congress of citizens acting in free elections determines the political course of a democratic community.

A citizen prizes his freedom; therefore he grants it to others. He is willing to respect the rights of minorities within the community, so that his own rights will be shielded when he finds himself in the minority.

The tribesman doesn't see it that way. Within the fixed hierarchy of the tribe, disagreement is not dissent (and thus to be tolerated) but treachery, even heresy, which must be ruthlessly expunged. The tribe exists for itself alone. It is perpetually at war with all other tribes, even of its own race and religion.

The tribesman deals in absolutes. One is either "of blood" or not. The enemy spy can infiltrate the tribal network no more than a prison guard can worm his way into the Aryan Brotherhood. The tribe recognizes its own. It expels (or beheads) the alien. The tribe cannot be negotiated with. "Good faith" applies only within the pale, never beyond.

The tribesman does not operate by a body of civil law but by a code of honor. If he receives a wrong, he does not seek redress. He wants revenge. The taking of revenge is a virtue in tribal eyes, called badal in the Pathan code of nangwali. A man who does not take revenge is not a man. Al Qaeda , Hezbollah, and the sectarian militias of Iraq are not in the war business, they are in the revenge business. The revenge-seeker cannot be negotiated with because his intent is bound up with honor. It is an absolute.

Perhaps the most telling difference between the citizen and the tribesman lies in their views of the Other. The citizen embraces multiplicity; to him, the melting pot produces richness and cultural diversity. To the tribesman, the alien is not even given the dignity of being a human being; he is a gentile, an infidel, a demon.
http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=2384603&page=1

 

[Intense]

The arabic world is about tribalism. The African world is about tribalism. The Muslim religion isn't the only factor contributing to violent conflict in the Middle East and Africa. Even Sri Lanka is tribal warfare. Relgion plays a role but isn't the only cause of conflict.

When Sharia Law is the end game it sure is. True other Religions were on the same in old times, that is not true for us today. Honor Life. Not just that which dances to the same beat as you and I.