IP: Jihad vs. Crusade

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

> From: "John Fulton" <jfulton () westcapital com>
> To: <farber () cis upenn edu>
>
> Bernard Lewis, professor emeritus of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton
> University, clears things up in an excellent article in the Wall Street
> Journal.
> http://interactive.wsj.com/articles/SB1001547201928681240.htm
>
> President Bush's use of the term "crusade" in calling for a powerful joint
> effort against terrorism was unfortunate, but excusable. In Western usage,
> this word has long since lost its original meaning of "a war for the cross,"
> and many are probably unaware that this is the derivation of the name. At
> present, "crusade" almost always means simply a vigorous campaign for a good
> cause. This cause may be political or military, though this is rare; more
> commonly, it is social, moral or environmental. In modern Western usage it
> is rarely if ever religious.
>
> Yet "crusade" still touches a raw nerve in the Middle East, where the
> Crusades are seen and presented as early medieval precursors of European
> imperialism -- aggressive, expansionist and predatory. I have no wish to
> defend or excuse the often atrocious behavior of the crusaders, both in
> their countries of origin and in the countries they invaded, but the
> imperialist parallel is highly misleading. The Crusades could more
> accurately be described as a limited, belated and, in the last analysis,
> ineffectual response to the jihad -- a failed attempt to recover by a
> Christian holy war what had been lost to a Muslim holy war.
>
> snip



For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/