ok
I completely agree with Professor Lieb. I couldn't have said it better myself. We need to look for similarities and learn from each other, to build bridges for mutual understanding and stop stressing differences.
At the peak of Islamic civilization, Muslims were engaged in a process of learning, where they readily borrowed concepts from the west. Now we feel our culture and identity is threatened, we are not as confident and don't feel in control - we reject what is foreign.
God willing, people like Professor Lieb will take us into the new millenium with a new vision of peace and understanding. Where we can regain that mutual respect for one another and learn from one another's triumphs and mistakes.
Achtung ;)
The mutual respect was shattered the day the Crusades began. Extremism was not a Middle Eastern tradition. It was fostered by the barbaric "crusaders" from the west.
The crusaders from the west may not even be considered Christain as they harboured no respect for Things Sacred.
Their violence created the reaction the Mamluks And The Saljuks employed.
Its amusing that after the west has raped the world they want us to apear on the horizon of peace and greet them without prejudice.
Stud
Stud:
Yes, the Crusades were a definite turning point for Muslims and Christians alike. Here is some information I pieced together:
Non-Muslims living under Muslim rule were treated fairly, free to practice their religions with protection from the Caliph. After conquering land, Muslim rulers left existing government institutions and bureaucracy intact, religious communities were free to practice their faith and be governed in their internal affairs by their religious laws and leaders. Some Christian and Jewish armies even aided Muslim armies invading their land, hoping to come under Muslim rule. According to Francis Peters (The Early Muslim Empires), "the [Muslim] conquests destroyed little: what they did suppress were imperial rivalries and sectarian bloodletting among the newly subjected populations [both Christian and Jewish]...The reduction in Christian status was merely judicial; it was unaccompanied by either systematic persecution or blood lust, and generally, though not everywhere and at all times, unmarred by vexatious behavior."
John Esposito, goes further to say that "for many non-Muslim populations...already subjugated to foreign rulers, Islamic rule meant an exchange of rulers, the new ones often more flexible and tolerant, rather than a loss of independence. Many of these populations now enjoyed greater local autonomy and often paid lower taxes...Under Muslim rule, Christian churches and populations were left unmolested. Christian shrines and relics had become popular pilgrimage sites for Christendom. Jews, long banned from living [in Jerusalem] by Christian rulers, were permitted to return, live and worship in the city of Solomon and David... ** Five centuries ** of peaceful coexistence were now shattered by a series of holy wars which pitted Christianity against Islam and left an enduring legacy of distrust and misunderstanding."
The Crusades take their name from the "cross" and were a series of 8 military expeditions, from the 11th century to the 13th. The Christian armies of the Franks fought the Muslim armies of Saracens. The West just emerged from the dark ages and was bent on ridding Europe, specifically Spain, Italy, Sicily, the Mediterranean and Jerusalem of Muslims. Byzantine Emperor Alexius I asked the Pope to help him in his quest to turn back the Islamic tide. The Church had already demonized Islam. According to Albert Hourani (Europe and the Middle East) "a combination of fear and ignorance produced a body of legends, some absurd and all unfair. Muslims were idolaters worshipping a false trinity, Muhammad was a magician, he was even a Cardinal of the Roman Church who, thwarted in his ambition to become Pope, revolted, fled to Arabia and there founded a church of his own."
It was thus easy for Pope Urban II, to be convinced to wage a "holy war" against the "infidel". Moved by both religious zeal and desire to plunder the Christian armies moved ahead to rid the world of the "anti-Christ". Many enlisted in the army were thugs and criminals, more interested in a selfish desire for riches and fortune. The Pope's battle cry was "God wills it!" Francis Peters writes, "God may indeed have wished it, but there is certainly no evidence that the Christians of Jerusalem did, or that anything extraordinary was occurring to pilgrims there to prompt such a response at that moment in history." Muslim armies were effective in their response, under the leadership of Salah-al-Din, Jerusalem was recaptured in 1187. By the 13th century the Crusades had degenerated into intra-Christian wars, wars against Christian enemies who the papacy considered heretics and schismatics. In 1453 Constantinople fell to the Muslims. Christendom's worst fear was realized.
If the Muslims one the war of the Crusades, they would lose the next - in the form of colonialism. The relationship between Muslims and Christians would never be the same - an atmosphere of distrust and hate was solidified in the Crusades and exacerbated during the Colonial rule.
Nevertheless, it is important to state that we should try to look past differences and attempt to look deeper into the past, into the time period where Christians and Jews lived happily alongside Muslims and were proud to live under Muslim rulers and build bridges for mutual understanding. There must be an effort on both sides to regain that era of tolerance and love. To dispel the myths. The work of professors like Lieb is aiding in this effort and she should be commended for her efforts.
Achtung ;)
Extremism was not a Middle Eastern tradition. It was fostered by the barbaric "crusaders" from the west. <
Stud,
While this paints a picture with which we can be very comfortable, I have to say, the story isn't so one-sided. Even before the Crusades, there were few Muslim rulers who waged all sorts of war and for flimsiest of excuses. Keep in mind, that Islam only allows you to fight in self-defense or when the Muslims under another government are being persecuted and harmed for their religion.
There's a hadith I recently read. It's from Sahih Bukhari.
Narrated Sa'id bin Jubair:
" Abdullah bin 'Umar came to us and we hoped that he would narrate to us a good Hadith. But before we asked him, a man got up and said to him, "O Abu 'Abdur-Rahman! Narrate to us about the battles during the time of the afflictions, as Allah says:--
'And fight them until there is no more afflictions (i.e. no more worshipping of others besides Allah).'" (2.193)
Ibn 'Umar said (to the man), "Do you know what is meant by afflictions? Let your mother bereave you! Muhammad used to fight against the pagans, for a Muslim was put to trial in his religion (The pagans will either kill him or chain him as a captive). His fighting was not like your fighting which is carried on for the sake of ruling."
He was one of the four Abullahs who together account for majority of the hadiths (Abduallah bin Zubair, Abdullah bin Abbas, and Abdullah bin Massod RAA, being the other three). This, eldest son of Hazrat Umar bin Khattab (RAA), having an immense knowledge of Islam, was eventually martyred on the orders of Hajjaj Bin Yousuf.
We should not forget some of the excesses done under the name of Islam even in those early years.
Having said that, I do agree with Achtung's comments.
Regards.