 |
 |
| ON THE OTHER HAND |
| The Crusades and Islam, Part 2 By Antonio C. Abaya Written May 25, 2005 For the Philippines Free Press, June 04 issue In the Muslim world, the faithful became even more emboldened in their defiance of the Franks who, to make things worse, incessantly quarreled and fought among themselves. Turkish and Egyptian armies continuously harassed Crusader towns and cities. In an attempt to bring the war to the enemy, a daring Crusader contingent from the fortress of Karak, east of the River Jordan, sallied forth towards Arabia with the specific intent of destroying the tomb of �the accursed camel-driver� at Medina and smashing to pieces the sacred Kaaba stone in Mecca. Instead, they were decimated by the Egyptians and those captured were brought to Mecca where they were slaughtered, in lieu of goats, at the annual hajj pilgrimage sacrifice.. . It was at this point that the great Muslim liberator, Salahuddin or Saladin, a Kurd Sunni born in Tikrit (in present-day Iraq, hometown also of Saddam Hussein), emerged to unite and lead victorious Saracen armies against the Crusaders, eventually to the recapture of Jerusalem in 1187. The Muslims did not lose it again until the British captured it from the Ottoman Turks in 1917 and held it under a League of Nations mandate until 1948. In the 1967 Six Day War, the Israelis captured Jerusalem and have held it since. But compared to the orgiastic genocidal ethnic cleansing that marked the Crusaders� entry into Jerusalem in 1099, Saladin�s recapture of the Holy City was remarkable for his civility, sense of justice, and moderation. Even before he began hostilities for it, he gave the Christian defenders a chance to consider his generous terms for its surrender: freedom to fortify itself and to farm the land up to 15 miles around it, and guaranteed safety for their lives and property. When the Christians turned down these terms, saying that they would never surrender the city where the Savior had died for mankind, Saladin assaulted Jerusalem, which capitulated after only 12 days. Instead of slaughtering everyone, as the Crusaders had done in 1099, Saladin accepted ransom for the 60,000 survivors, the gold coins transported by the Knights Hospitalers from King Henry II of England. Wives and daughters whose menfolk had been captured were reunited with them, and �to the dames and damsels whose lords were dead he distributed from his own treasure so much that they gave praise to God, and published abroad the kindness and honor that Saladin had done them.� Sultan Saladin was a real prince. But Christian Europe kept on trying to recapture Jerusalem. In the Third Crusade (1189 to 1192), Emperor Frederick I (�Barbarosa�) of Germany, King Philip II of France and King Richard I (�The Lion Hearted�) of England led their armies for another go at it. But Frederick drowned while fording a small river in Turkey. Philip fell ill, or pretended to fall ill, and promptly returned to France (there to plot against Richard), leaving the English king (who was actually a Frenchman � Coeur de Lion - who spoke little English) to face the formidable Saladin. Richard and Saladin fought a gentleman�s war with each other that was unique then and since. When Richard fell ill, Saladin sent him fruits, snow and his own physician. When Richard lost his horse in a battle, Saladin sent him a replacement stallion. But though Richard captured the port city of Jaffa (in present-day Israel), Jerusalem, only 60 miles away, eluded his grasp, and he sailed back to Europe only with Saladin�s guarantee that Christian pilgrims would always be allowed to visit the Holy City unharmed. The Fourth Crusade (1201-1204) was the last serious attempt of Christian Europe to recover the Holy Land. Urged on by Pope Innocent III, the French nobility organized yet another army, but when this army prepared to ship off in Venice, the Venetian ship owners deliberately demanded an exorbitant fee that the French could not afford. Instead, the wily Venetians, who had geopolitical and trade ambitions of their own, agreed to ship the Crusaders for a lower fee but on condition that they first help the Venetians grab whatever was left of the Byzantine Empire, which they did. The combined armies captured Constantinople in 1204 and divided the Byzantine land and treasure among themselves. A Latin Kingdom of Constantinople was established, with French as its official language, which the Crusaders ruled until 1261. They never got to or near Jerusalem. Between 1217 and 1270, four more crusades were organized, but none of them met with any success. A curious historical footnote was a Children�s Crusade in 1212. A 12-year old shepherd boy named Stephen was able to convince thousands of French and German youngsters of his age, male and female, that he had heard the voice of God bidding him to lead a crusade to free the Holy Land. Singing religious songs of victory and salvation, they boarded seven ships in Marseille. Off Sardinia, two of the vessels were shipwrecked and all aboard drowned. The rest of the junior crusaders were off-loaded in Tunisia and Egypt where they were sold as slaves and were never heard from again. ***** Reactions to [email protected] or fax 824-7642. Other articles in www.tapatt.org OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Reactions to �The Crusades and Islam, Part 2� The gentlemen warriors, Saladin and Richard III. Saladin, one of the greatest rulers the world has ever known. Is this what Osama bin Laden is trying to strive for? To be another Saladin and to re-institute the Caliphate? But it is too late for Osama bin Laden I think. In the meantime, the suicide bombers continue to immolate themselves in Iraq. And the innocents continue to die. But in the Philippines, there should be a Bangsa Moro. Cesar Torres, [email protected] May 30, 2005 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Mr. Abaya, I waited until Part 2 of your article, "The Crusades and Islam" appeared to point out one of the most interesting discoveries the Crusaders found during the years of fighting trying to "recover" the Holy Land from the Muslims. Had there been no crusades, the contact between "oriental" East and "occidental" West could have deprived the peple of Europe a culinary significance of gastronomical proportions! We noted in history that decades after the Crusaders returned home, there was a clamor for the spicy stuffs the participants have tasted during their sojourn. The demand for exotic oriental food pressured the European rulers specially in Spain and Portugal in the search for "bawang, paminta, luya at sibuyas" and the "Spice Islands"! And because India was the prime suspect where spices must have been grown, it did not take long for Columbus and Magellan to convince Sovereign rulers by presenting their bold plans of discovery routes. This ushered in The Age of Discovery and Navigation which saw England, France, the Netherlands joining Spain and Portugal in the scrambled for commercial ventures and colonial empires and the institution of slavery in the New World. Jose Sison Luzadas, [email protected] Delray Beach, Florida, May 30, 2005 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww You may find this article interesting, too. Raymond Chow May 30, 2005 Respect cannot de demanded; it must be earned Raja Petra Kamarudin Ali Al-Ahmed, the director of the Saudi Institute in Washington,wrote the following in his piece, Hypocrisy Most Holy, which appeared in The Wall Street Journal on 20 May 2005: "With the revelation that a copy of the Quran may have been desecrated by U.S. military personnel at Guantanamo Bay, Muslims and their governments -- including that of Saudi Arabia -- reacted angrily. This anger would have been understandable if the U.S. government's adopted policy was to desecrate our Quran. But evenbefore the Newsweek report was discredited, that was never part ofthe allegations. "As a Muslim, I am able to purchase copies of the Quran in any bookstore in any American city, and study its contents in countlessAmerican universities. American museums spend millions to exhibit andcelebrate Muslim arts and heritage. On the other hand, my Christianand other non-Muslim brothers and sisters in Saudi Arabia -- where Icome from - are not even allowed to own a copy of their holy books. Indeed, the Saudi government desecrates and burns Bibles that its security forces confiscate at immigration points into the kingdom orduring raids on Christian expatriates worshiping privately. "Soon after Newsweek published an account, later retracted, of an American soldier flushing a copy of the Quran down the toilet, the Saudi government voiced its strenuous disapproval. More specifically, the Saudi Embassy in Washington expressed "great concern" and urged the U.S. to "conduct a quick investigation." "Although considered as holy in Islam and mentioned in the Quran dozens of times, the Bible is banned in Saudi Arabia. This would seem curious to most people because of the fact that to most Muslims, the Bible is a holy book. But when it comes to Saudi Arabia we are not talking about most Muslims, but a tiny minority of hard-liners who constitute the Wahhabi Sect. "The Bible in Saudi Arabia may get a person killed, arrested, or deported. In September 1993, Sadeq Mallallah, 23, was beheaded in Qateef on a charge of apostasy for owning a Bible. The State Department's annual human rights reports detail the arrest and deportation of many Christian worshipers every year. Just days before Crown Prince Abdullah met President Bush last month, two Christian gatherings were stormed in Riyadh. Bibles and crosses were confiscated, and will be incinerated. (The Saudi government does not even spare the Quran from desecration. On Oct. 14, 2004, dozens of Saudi men and women carried copies of the Quran as they protested in support of reformers in the capital, Riyadh. Although they carried the Qurans in part to protect themselves from assault by police, they were charged by hundreds of riot police, who stepped on the books with their shoes, according to one of the protesters.) "As Muslims, we have not been as generous as our Christian and Jewish counterparts in respecting others' holy books and religious symbols. Saudi Arabia bans the importation or the display of crosses, Stars of David or any other religious symbols not approved by the Wahhabi establishment. TV programs that show Christian clergymen, crosses or Stars of David are censored. "The desecration of religious texts and symbols and intolerance ofvarying religious viewpoints and beliefs have been issues of somecontroversy inside Saudi Arabia. Ruled by a Wahhabi theocracy, the ruling elite of Saudi Arabia have made it difficult for Christians, Jews, Hindus and others, as well as dissenting sects of Islam, to visibly coexist inside the kingdom. "Another way in which religious and cultural issues are becoming more divisive is the Saudi treatment of Americans who are living in that country: Around 30,000 live and work in various parts of Saudi Arabia. These people are not allowed to celebrate their religious or even secular holidays. These include Christmas and Easter, but also Thanksgiving. All other Gulf states allow non-Islamic holidays to be celebrated. "The Saudi Embassy and other Saudi organizations in Washington have distributed hundreds of thousands of Qurans and many more Muslim books, some that have libeled Christians, Jews and others as pigs and monkeys. In Saudi school curricula, Jews and Christians are considered deviants and eternal enemies. By contrast, Muslim communities in the West are the first to admit that Western countries -- especially the U.S. -- provide Muslims the strongest freedoms and protections that allow Islam to thrive in the West. Meanwhile Christianity and Judaism, both indigenous to the Middle East, are maligned through systematic hostility by Middle Eastern governments and their religious apparatuses. "The lesson here is simple: If Muslims wish other religions to respect their beliefs and their Holy book, they should lead by example." Malaysia, of course, is not as bad as Saudi Arabia, if what Ali Al- Ahmed wrote above is correct and not an exaggeration. However, though nMalaysia is not as drastic as Saudi Arabia, the attitudes here and in Saudi Arabia are similar. For example, we Muslims condemn non-Muslims as 'members of hell' (ahli neraka). We justify this, no doubt, by saying that this is what Islam says, so to dispute this would be unIslamic and tantamount to blasphemy. If I were to say I do not agree to this, I would be condemned by fellow Muslims who would advice me to go find a guru (teacher) so that I can improve my religious knowledge. Some will even say that I am now no longer a Muslim for daring to argueagainst the concept that all non-Muslims are automatically destined for hell. Sure, the Hindus too feel their religion is the correct religion and all other religions are wrong or false. The Christians, Jews, Buddhists and all others too feel the same way. But do you hear Malaysian Christians, Hindus or Buddhists label Muslims as Members of Hell? We allow the Quran to be published in all languages and we encourage those of other religions to read the Quran in the hope they may convert to Islam once they have read it. But the Bible cannot be published in Jawi (Arabic alphabet) and, until quite recently, the Bible was forbidden in Bahasa Malaysia. Today, due to political pressure and to ensure the non-Muslims will not desert the ruling party, the Bible may be published in Bahasa Malaysia but it has to be stamped as 'non-halal' (forbidden for Muslims). We want the non-Muslims to understand Islam. We want the non-Muslims to understand Islam by reading the Quran in the language they understand best; whether it is English, Chinese or any language of the world; but we refuse to allow the Muslims to understand the other religions -- and they would certainly not understand the other religions if they do not read the holy books of that religion. In fact, we do not even regard the holy books of the other religions as holy books. But we want the others to treat and respect the Quran as a holy book. Our excuse for not allowing Muslims to read the Bible is to prevent them from being influenced by Christianity whereby they may leave Islam and become Christians. Are we admitting that Islam is so bad, and Christianity better, that if Muslims were to read the bible they may discover how better Christianity is and leave Islam? Is our confidence level in Islam so low that we are scared of allowing Muslims to understand Christianity because we feel once they understand Christianity they may convert? We demand that non-Muslims respect Islam. But we do not want to show other religions this same respect. Respect cannot be demanded. It has to be earned. And have we earned this respect of those from the other religions? Until Muslims can learn how to respect other religions; never mind if you think those religions are wrong; Islam will never be respected by the non-Muslims. And the more Muslims demand that non-Muslims respect Islam, the more you will gain their disrespect. Copyright � 2004 Malaysia Today | www.malaysia-today.net OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO |