Plotinus said:
I wouldn't claim superior knowledge about this period of history. But there are a number of flaws in the argument presented.
For one thing, you just can't talk about "Muslim theology" as if it's monolithic. Obviously it's not. It's certainly true that the notion of conquest is much more inherent in Islam than in, say, Christianity or Buddhism, but it doesn't follow from that that it's central to all "Muslim theology". Similarly, you say that al-Rashid "was considered an exemplary Muslim" without further qualification. This may be true as far as it goes, but considered by whom? Did all Muslims really think that? It's like saying that George W. Bush is considered an exemplary Christian. Yes, by some Christians, but not most.
Another problem is that you don't seem to be drawing any distinctions between expressed motivation, actual motivation, and the judgement of history. It's not enough to say that the Crusades were simply a reaction to Muslim expansionism, because even if that's true, on which level is it true? For example, while this may have been the rhetoric, it could still be jonatas is right to see the actual reason for the wars to have been more mercenary. And again, even if the rhetoric was about retaliation, and the motive was too, it doesn't follow from that that we, centuries later, must agree with the Crusaders that their actions were justified. To describe an action simply as "justified", "defensive", or whatever is to leave open the question - justified by whom? By them? By us? You say that you're only interested in the causes of the Crusades, not their aims - but of course their aims are part of those causes, and you're using evaluative language to describe them. For example, you say they weren't "Christian imperialism", which sounds like a way of excusing them; yet even if that's true, on what level was it true? Maybe the participants didn't think of themselves as imperialists, but it's surely obvious that from our point of view they were, since they set out to conquer and hold, for as long as possible, territory that wasn't theirs.
It also seems to me that you've not really addressed the basic problem with defending the Crusaders, which is that - even if they were justified (in whatever sense) in taking action in the face of Islamic aggression - their goal was to conquer a territory that had been quite happily ruled Muslims for four and a half centuries. I don't see how that can easily be justified, and no way can it be called "defensive". Remember, the people of the Levant - Muslim, Christian, and Jewish - were mostly perfectly happy with the status quo; in particular, the Christians living there were far happier under Muslim rule than they had been under Byzantine rule, and they had been ever since the days of John of Damascus. From their point of view, the Crusaders - even where they shared the same religion - were a bunch of violent foreign heretics with whom they had less in common than their Muslim overlords. And this is quite apart from the minor detail of the appalling massacre of civilians carried out by the Crusaders when they got there. If that's a "defensive" action, then so was September 11th! At best you can call it a counter-attack. But a "defence" is when you try to stop someone taking over your land, not when you go off and try to take theirs in revenge. I think shortguy's quite right on that score.
You need to distinguish between the different Crusades, too. For example, the Third Crusade, launched to recapture Jerusalem after Saladin conquered it (which he managed without slaughtering everyone), could be far more justifiable: Jerusalem had at that point been a Latin kingdom for nearly a century and Saladin's conquest was a recent event. The First Crusade, though, which had captured Jerusalem in the first place, lacked these mitigating factors - Jerusalem had never been a Latin kingdom, and it had been conquered by the Muslims centuries earlier.
Finally, it would be well to consider the other Crusades as well, launched against people other than the Muslims - for example, the actions against the Cathars and the Hussites, as well as the religious wars in northern Europe, around the Baltic. If the Crusades in the Middle East were purely "defensive", and the Catholics weren't interested in offensive warfare, then how do you explain these other, decidedly aggressive actions on their part?
You make a few valid points which you maintain are flaws in my argument. I will list them below and address them individually. You state:
1)The agrument of presenting a theological basis to demonstrate the aggression of Islam in a monolithic context is erronous.
2)The argument must draw expressed motivation, actual motivation, and the the judgement of history. The absence of these distinctions renders the argument inconclusive and erronous.
The final point you make correlates and expands upon the second point.
3)The argument must distinguish between the different crusades because they each had their individual actual motive.
To address your first point. Its true, Islamic theology in practice is not monolithic, but I'm sure we can agree that the Islamic doctrine from its conception was designed to be absolute. This holds true for many other theological doctrines. However regardless of the diversity in which theological doctrines are precieved, there exists fundamental elements that are universally accepted and adhered to.
Keeping that in mind, we must examine how the Islamic doctrine was precieved by Muslims from the beginning of the Islamic conquests up to the period of the crusades. We must examine the fundamental elements in the Islamic doctrine that were commonly accepted and how they applied to the rapid expanision of Islam.
The outline I have provided in my previous post shows that Islamic expansion began with the prophet Muhammad, the founder of Islam.
From a historical stand point we know that Muhammad gathered a band of tribal warriors in Medina, attacked Meccan caravans, raided outlining settlements, accumilated wealth to support a larger army and ultimately conquered Mecca.
From a theological stand point we know that Muhammad claimed to be a prophet of God, His followers believed him to be a Phrophet of God, the Islamic doctrine was divinely given to him by God, Muhammads actions were a result of and in accordance to the mandates of God.
Now lets fast foward a bit to the time of the Muslim conquests(Futuhat).
Within two years of Muhammad's death, Abu Bakr (the first Righteously Guided Caliph), launched the Great Jihad. The ensuing three decades witnessed Islams most spectacular expansion, as Muslim armies subdued the entire Arabian peninsula, and also conquered Byzantine territories.
The essential pattern of the jihad war is found in the classical Muslim historian al-Tabari's recording of the recommendation given by Umar al-Khattab (the second Rightly Guided Caliph) to the commander of the troops he sent to al-Basrah (636), during the conquest of Iraq. Umar said:
Summon the people to God; those who respond to your call, accept it from them, (This is to say, accept their conversion as genuine and refrain from fighting them) but those who refuse must pay the poll tax out of humiliation and lowliness. (Qur'an 9:29) If they refuse this, it is the sword without leniency. Fear God with regard to what you have been entrusted.
Uthman ibn Affan (the third Righteously Guided Caliph), was known as "he of two lights" because of his benevolence. His benevolence truly shined when he picked up the Jihad where Umar left off.
During his reign he conquered all of Persia, most of North Africa, the Caucusses and Cyprus.
Uthman during his reign attempted to develope a definitive text of the Quran at the expense of all others. His aim was simply to establish one true text of the revelation, in order for all Muslims to know what the Quran consisted of, and how it should be written. In it he established the meaning of jihad and formation of the Umma (the brotherhood of Islam).
Thus far, we see here a universal and definitive understanding of the Islamic doctrine and the meaning of jihad among the leaders and the adherents of Islam.
These leaders after all were the original followers Mohammad. They were true believers and only did as Muhammad reapedly emphasized which was that
there is nothing better his followers could do than engage in jihad.
Ali's (the fourth Righteuosly Guided Caliph) reign was marked with rebellion and disunity. This schism was not about the Islamic doctrine but rather Ali's claim to succession.
Now lets jump 300 hundred years later to 11th century Islam. There are now two Islamic sects(Shi'a and Sunni), surely Islam is now percieved differenty by these two sects and cannot be monolithic. However there are fundamental elements that these two sects universally adhere to. Al-Sulami was a reknowned Muslim scholar of the great mosque of Damascus. In 1105 he wrote the Kitab al-jihadi, a treatise on Holy War. His treatise is very lenghty but by exhibiting a few of his narratives we can clearly see that his understanding of jihad reflects that of the original Caliphs.
"The call to Islam (concerns) the Abyssinians, and after that the hijra and jihad concern the Muslims." In his saying that after that the jihad concerns the Muslims is a visible proof it concerns all Muslims. If it concerns all Muslims, it remains their concern until the Day of Resurrection.
We have heard in what we have heard of a sufficiently documented hadith, mentioning in it that the Rum (Byzantines) will conquer Jerusalem for a set period of time, and the Muslims will gather against them, drive them out of it, kill them all except for a few of them, (and) then pursue their scattered remnants to Constantinople, descend on it and conquer it. This is certain...
Abu Hamid Muhammad al-Ghazali said: "Whenever a year passed without an expedition every Muslim (who was) free, responsible and capable of taking part in an expedition went out on one, seeking by it to exalt the word of God (who is praised), to demonstrate his religion, to suppress by it his enemies the polytheists, to achieve the reward which God (who is praised) and His Prophet promised him from (fighting) the jihad in His cause, and to gain their (the enemies') wealth, women and lands, until there were, of those who came to face them (the enemy), enough to fight them in it (the expedition). That is to say that the jihad, however, is an obligation of sufficiency.
Was this just the radical view of a Muslim cleric at the time of the 11th century? This dosn't seem to be the case. His views are popular among the Muslim leaders and inspire many Muslims to fight the crusaders.
The Bahr al-Fava'id is another jihad treatise written in 1160s by anonymous Muslim scholar from Nur al-Din's Aleppo. This treatise reflects that of al-sulami but further insists on the obligation of all Muslims to take up jihad.
A prominent 14th-century Muslim treatise on jihad written by Ibn Hudayl revealed the violent methods employed during the conquest of the Iberian peninsula:
It is permissible to set fire to the lands of the enemy, his stores of grain, his beasts of burden if it is not possible for the Muslims to take possession of them as well as to cut down his trees, to raze his cities, in a word to do everything that might ruin and discourage him.
The Muslim historian al-Maqqari, commenting in the 17th century on the brutal tactics of Muslim raiders, wrote,
Allah thus instilled such fear among the infidels that they did not dare to go and fight the conquerors; they only approached them as suppliants, to beg for peace.
Later centuries saw Muslim fortunes decline. Many conquered lands liberated themselves from Muslim rule. But the ideology of jihad was handed down unchanged to all future Muslim generations.
I will continue with the other points in my next post.
