I, for one, am not constantly being bombarded with opinions about the Crusades, either way. I’ve heard more opinions about Crusader Rabbit and the British Crusader tanks than I have about a thousand year old war.
I think in common usage it is even more general - it just means ‘an inherently righteous fight, for a noble cause’.
For example, Eisenhower famously used the phrase “you are about to embark upon the great crusade” in his speech to the Allied soldiers before D-Day in WW2:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dv2Wi-hFlJ8
The speech makes full use of religious imagery (“let us beseech the blessing of Almighty God upon this great and noble undertaking”), but it isn’t a call to specifically religious war.
Ramira correctly notes that for centuries, the Crusades were little more than a footnote for Islamic historians - as it should be after all, since they won. A momentary blip in the historical narrative.
The Crusades therefore became “important” again when the historical narrative was upended in the colonial period, and were fit into the new narrative by Islamic modernists. Today, the Crusades are usually brought up in Islamic discourses either by Salafist extremists, as noted in this thread, or more or less in the way President Obama did it.
The Crusades are very misunderstood today, which I attribute mostly to the hagiographic way they were depicted for a long time in the West and then the backlash by Enlightenment and Protestant historians. Depictions of Islamic history for the West for a long time were either demonizations or glorifications, depending on the political/religious leanings of the author (the same can be said for pre-Enlightenment European history - c.f. “Dark Ages”). Unfortunately, this is the discourse that still dominates the discussion and the same one that was seized upon by the Islamic modernists and onward, since again, they didn’t have nearly as developed a consideration of it because it had not previously been seen as that important.
The Crusades, in my view, should be seen as occurring in the narrative of Western Christianity’s evolution of ideas of Just War, and it’s not extremely relevant to what’s happening today. Pointing out Christian/Buddhist/Jewish/Hindu/Atheist -led atrocities to “counter” Muslim-led atrocities is well-meaning in most cases but it ultimately continues using the flawed discourse of terrorism - that only forms of violence that aren’t normalized or go against the authority are really violence, and that they occur in otherwise peaceful environments.
I raised the issue because a local Islamic Imam, or prayer , leader, or whatever just made a speech-he’s all pissed off about the “prejudice” toward Muslims, discrimination, yaddah yaddah yaddah…beginning with the awful aggression against Islam (those horrible Crusades). Does it ever occur to these people that their bizarre ideas and clothing are off-putting to most people? This talk of “Jihad”-as if Western Christians or Jews care about an imaginary struggle to “submit” to a god (who is apparently OK with beheadings and hand amputations).
Islamic scholarship is in Arabic. However, despite this confusion, even the secular Arab nationalist discourse embraces Salaheddine. The idea you heard has no sense and is confusing much later issues about the Ottomans, the speculation about the Crusades has no foundation.
Oh my the clothing is off-putting… and those dirty immigrants with their strange clothing and strange religion that does not fit the Western society.
The Europeans wrote these same kinds of words about another minority religious group, it is not even a century ago.
The God. There is no doubt to the Jews and the Muslims we have the same God, and there never has been over a thousand years. We have argued about how to worship but both the Jews and the Muslims have the same approach to the Unicity of the One God. The Christians, they have historically liked denying anyone else validity and have had other approaches, and the eradicationist instinct of those who did not fit in. I see the return to type.
So,
actually translates to
“muslim scholars” turns out to be some anonymous local Islamic leader, and “endlessly whine” is in reality “made a single speech”. BTW, I like the way you put “prejudice” in parenthesis as if it doesn’t really exist, then immediately proceed to show your own in all it’s glory.
Based strictly on how it appears to us in the mainstream media, iit’s generally IS leaders that bring up the Crusades; whether it’s accurate to call it “whining” is another question.
You know where most of the IRA’s funding came from, right? Hint: that country where we look down our noses at religious strife.
So a single speech is “incessant”? I’m not even going near the “strange clothes” nonsense, since you cannot possibly be serious.