January 26, 2003
DEUS LO VOLT!:
How the Media Misconstrue Jihad and the Crusades (Timothy Furnish, 1-13-03, History New Network)It's axiomatic among historians that winners write (or sometimes rewrite) history. How strange it is, then, that on thetopic of Jihads and their Western analog, the Crusades, the losers in the post-1492 struggle for world mastery (the Islamic world) and their willing spinmeisters (academics and media pundits) are currently foisting their ahistorical views on the rest of us.That view, a two-sided coin of deceit, consists of the following contentions: 1) that jihad almost always means "moral self-improvement in order to please God" and, on the rare occasion that it does take martial form, it only does so as a desperate defensive measure against the Christian West; and 2) that the history of Christian-Muslim interaction is almost entirely one of invasion and exploitation of the latter by the former, exemplified by the Crusades.
As examples, consider these recent propaganda gems:
1) MSNBC, in a segment discussing the new PBS video "Muhammad: Legacy of a Prophet" (Dec. 18, 2002), runs a graphic explaining that the true definition of jihad is "the struggle to please God."
2) History Channel/A & E's recent (summer 2002) "Inside Islam" special presents the Crusades as the first violent struggle between Christendom and the Islamic world.
3)U.S. News and World Report's cover story "The First Holy War" (April 8, 2002) does likewise, claiming that "during the Crusades, East and West first met--on the battlefield."
4) History Channel/A & E's (otherwise fine) 1995 video series "The Crusades" (hosted by former Monty Python member Terry Jones) has Salah al-Din, the Kurdish Muslim leader who retook Jerusalem from the Crusaders, telling Richard the Lion Heart that "this land has always been ours" and it also avers that jihad only developed as a response to the rapacious Crusades.
5) The PBS video "Islam: Empire of Faith" (2001) presents Islamic military expansion, both pre-modern and Ottoman, as natural and understandable and never calls it by its true name: jihad.
Such examples could be multiplied many fold, if every self-styled expert on Islam who has been interviewed by any American newspaper since 9/11 were adduced. But sticking with the five aforementioned contentions, what is wrong with each of them?
Perhaps it's as easy as this: would the world be a better place today if Christendom or Islam had won the wars of the Crusades decisively? Posted by Orrin Judd at January 26, 2003 3:50 PM
The world would be a better place if the Crusades had never happened to begin with.
Posted by: Ann Northcutt Gray at January 26, 2003 4:31 PMOrrin, You have correctly indicted the abysmal historical ignorance that surrounds this topic, whereupon the first comment appears before the bar to plead guilty.
Posted by: Lou Gots at January 26, 2003 6:59 PMAnn - How would you change history to stop the Crusades from developing - by persuading the Muslims not to invade Europe via Spain and the Balkans, or by persuading the Christians to surrender?
Posted by: pj at January 26, 2003 7:24 PMLou Gots,
I don't see how my comment can be construed as an example of "
abysmal historical ignorance" - only a tendency towards dreamy idealism.
And it certainly doesn't need to be construed as sympathy for Islam - if that's what you're implying. :)
How about we can agree with Ann that it would be better had sectarian violence not come, but once it came we had a clear cut rooting interest, and need not beat ourselves up over having been mean to Islam.
Posted by: oj at January 26, 2003 10:18 PMI'm with you here, Orrin, but cannot understand
how you square these opinions with your
enthusiastic endorsement of Bush, who
is on the other side here.
While I am not too concerned about Bush's
ignorance, which is profound, I am extremely
concerned about his kneejerk reaction to
religion -- that any self-proclaimed religious
person is deserving of respect -- which is, of
course, what he learned growing up in the
Bible Belt.
(I grew up there, too, but I got over being
ignorant eventually.)
I have had to conclude that Bush's sucking
up to the Moslems has this basis, and whether
I am guessing right or not, the fact is, the
enemy is the religion and he has not
recognized that.
If you don't know who your enemy is, you are
unlikely to defeat him
What counts as "decisive victory?" It was pretty unlikely that either side was going to completely subjugate the other. The Crusaders managed to establish a Christian kingdom in the Holy Land, but it seems pretty clear there was no way they could keep it.
Posted by: Noel Erinjeri at January 27, 2003 12:55 AMHarry:
What are you waiting for Bush to do?
Declare war on a billion people?
Trying to answer oj's question isn't really possible since who knows how world history would have been altered if Christianity had win the Crusades.
Harry:
I take it you favor genocide or forcible conversion?
I don't favor genocide, but I can't see how it's going to be avoided.
I favor the Religion of Peace acting that way. But if it won't, I cannot see five-sixths of the world, controlling 99.9% of its military force, 95% of its economic strength and 100% of its political morality allowing
itself to be continuously attacked by a weak minority.
There was a time -- it last until 1707 -- when dar-al-Harb had to sit and take it, because dar-al-Islam had the bigger, badder armies, and it was all the non-Muslim world could to to defend itself. Often it failed, in Europe, in China.
After 1707 (the year the last Muslim potentate who controlled a powerful army died), dar-al-Harb was able easily to curb the taste of Muslims for violence. Outbreaks were only occasional, and the Muslims paid a heavy price for them. One, two, many Omdurmans.
It is the genius of bin Laden to have devised a method of creating large casualties against a greatly superior military force.
Do I imagine that this is a stable situation, that the West is going to sit and take it? Well, I'm not French.
I feel sorry, Ali, though my sorrow is constrained, for the inoffensive Muslims who are going to suffer. But they are going to suffer.
A while back on this thread, I mentioned the Avars.
The West was a punching bag for two millenia. The Avars had the misfortune of punching at a time when Europe was prepared to punch back.
They were exterminated.
Can I conceive of exterminating a billion people? Yes.