September 30, 2006

About those crusades..

This is from Al-Zawahri's latest rant:

....Al-Zawahri also called a U.N. resolution to send peacekeepers into Sudan's war-torn Darfur region a "Crusader plan" and implored the Muslims of Darfur to defend themselves.

"There is a Crusader plan to send Crusaders forces to Darfur that is about to become a new field of the Crusades war. Oh, nation of Islam, rise up to defend your land from the Crusaders aggression who are coming wearing United Nations masks," he said. "No one will defend you (Darfur) but a popular holy war."...

Now I don't know the history of the use of the word "Crusade" in the Islamic world, but I'll put my money on it's not being a big deal before the 20th Century. That is, before self-hating Western intellectuals started dwelling obsessively on our supposed sins. I think the Jihadis learned to denounce "Crusaders" from us.

Of course the basic idea is silly. The implication is that the Crusades were a version of modern European Imperialism, which is nonsense. And that they were a case of the strong attacking the peaceful weak—the opposite is true. (The Christians were only successful, temporarily, because of Muslim disunity.)

We are also expected to believe that the Crusades were somehow especially evil and murderous. But all the wars back then were barbaric by our standards. (The Normans were only a few generations removed from being actual barbarian tribesmen, of a group we call the Vikings.) The Crusaders were just treating other people the same way they treated each other.

And it's implied that the Crusades were unprovoked, but actually they would never have happened if the Muslims had just allowed pilgrims peaceful access to the Holy Land. And, most important of all, the Muslim Conquests were themselves "crusades." (And what does Al-Zawahri call for in the quote above? "...A popular holy war!" ) What should happen is that if any Muslim complains about the Crusades, Westerners should just laugh! We have nothing to be ashamed of, and, for pity's sake, the thing was 900 years ago!

My question is, as always, what is wrong with the soul of the West? What's wrong in the souls of all our limp-wristed professors and journalists and fake-pacifists, who were, you will recall, all so unified in denouncing Islamic homophobia and sexism, unified in denouncing the statue-destroying Taliban. Until the instant the West started to actually do something about these problems, when they all flipped into "anti-Crusader" mode. What IS this sickness?

Posted by John Weidner at September 30, 2006 8:00 AM
Weblog by John Weidner