Holy War

If war is in the main a violent means to gain wealth, then we should examine the causes of our desire for wealth, and why it causes us to fight. Simply to in most situations say, 'oh its wealth again' seems to be ridiculously limited.

I agree that we should investigate the reasons why people are covetous and egotistical. But this conversation was about the cause of war, not the cause of egoism.

That is not at all what I meant. People may desire power for evil self-satisfying reasons, or be trying to get the power to do good. Usually it is more ambivelant I will freely admit, but it would be foolish to automatically assume that all wars are selfish.

To "automatically assume", yes, that would be foolish. However, we are blessed with things like history books and from reading them it's pretty easy to see that very few, if any, wars are selfless endeavors.

On what level selfish? Wars are often neccersary, even if we regret the circumstances under which they became so.

It's hard for to think of any particular act of military aggression that can be seen as "necessary" - I'll concede that reactions to military aggression are somewhat more sympathetic than the actions of the agressors - on the whole - but it's hard for me to think of any military act that precipitated a war that could be called necessary.

I agree that war's are brought about because of the evil actions of some party, but this does not always mean the person who started the war. Sometimes evil is done and has to be stopped.

Can you suggest an example?

I can think of certain wars that I think were relatively justly and cleanly fought by one or more of the participants - but I still don't see how they were necessary. The initial aggression always looks somewhat wasteful in retrospect.

I am unaware of any war that was started in order to stop an 'evil' - though I agree that it is a happy side effect of certain wars that certain projects were stopped.

No man wishes to be evil. He does what thinks best for himself and for those which he cares. Evil action does not start war. Being trapped within boundries that one does not agree with starts war. Religion is one of these boundries.

There are circumstances, regrettable circumstances, which compel military action. These circumstances which compel military aggression are, by and large, the result of someone's egotism.

For example, the Second World War. The involvement of the US and Britain and other nations was rather necessary, but this necessity arose because of Japanese, German and Italian ambitions for empire; the egotism of the leaders of those nations.

lets get back to holy war. You said the crusades were wealth driven, and I will let the point pass, as we do not seem to be getting anywhere. However what do you imagine the reasons for wanting this wealth were?

Presumably so the recipients of such wealth could indulge themselves and their followers.

Everything from new crown jewels and chapel ceilings to tax cuts and lottery prizes.

Surely the point of the Crusades was to protect christians in Islamic territory, and to put Islam on the defensive after centuries of unhindered expansion

I don't doubt security was a primary issue - I would probably disagree with Didymos that wealth is such a primary factor in the waging of war - I think security is at least as important a concern. I doubt the crusades were inherently motivated by the fact that the enemies of the Byzantines were Islamic - any more than it was by the fact they were Sassanian Persian Zoroastrians a few centuries earlier. They were a resourceful and successful opponent who required a great deal of military effort to contest with.

However, you did ask what people wanted the wealth from war for - which was the question I was responding to above.

I very much doubt, by the way, that any single conflict was fought for a single reason, as I outlined in an earlier post - but I do think wealth and security are the two most common, and most decisive, reasons.

I would say power more than wealth, but that isn't hugely important.
Given that the crusades were motivated by security(at least in part), were they justified? Or more specifically which if any crusades were justified?

Justified according to whose moral precepts?

By the values attributed to the alleged founder of Christianity? Then no. He told people to turn the other cheek, forgive and forget, carry an occupying troop's pack for twice as far as required, remain meek, and so on...

By the values of the Koran? Yes. Islam states that to defend yourself is sometimes necessary, that the word of Allah should be spread and that infidels should be opposed militarily.

What value system would suggest judging an ancient war by?

Dave, have you actually read the Koran? Fundamentalist Islamic scholars would agree with your interpretation, but many other Islamic scholars would disagree with what you say, especially the part about militarily opposing non-Muslims. If you look back at the history of Islam, especially the Middle Ages, you will find that "infidels", Christian and Jewish, were not only well treated by Islam, but that these infidels also held important government jobs.

I was referring to a rather strict reading of the Koran - early Suras in particular.

I think it gets muddled in places - but my general understanding was that Jews and Christians were "People of the Book", alongside Zoroastrians (for reasons of having to govern loads of them in Persia rather than any religious solidarity it would seem), and therefore only "infidels" if they resisted Islam. The Byzantines opposing the expansion of Islam would be "infidels" - but People of the Book living within the Islamic World would be "zinni", and treated more or less fairly (I believe they had to pay extra taxes, mind you). "Infidels" certainly come in for a hammering in the early suras like the Cow - and the killing of infidels is prescribed in the Koran (having said that I'm currently hunting for an example quote and having trouble - bear with me).

To be honest - in context of most of the action of the crusades - I admire the saracens to a greater degree than the crusaders. My former post was more a blunt way of pointing out that the Muslim holy book does not censure the actions of the saracens, whilst the words of Christ do strike me as being rather clearly at odds with the rapacious actions of the typical european knight.

So I'm actually trying to highlight a lack of hypocrisy in Islam - on this particular matter - but I accept that my former post was overly brief and hope this makes up for it.

In actual fact I suppose a further point I'd like to raise is that, despite the bellicose words in the Koran - the saracens threw up the most obvious example of chivalry and magnanimous behaviour of the crusades in the shape of Saladin, whilst despite extolling a book which extolls non-violence, the crusaders were no strangers to carrying out atrocities.

I know of vast numbers of Muslims who live peacefully alongside atheists in the UK, or Hindus in India, so I'm in no way suggesting that Muslims are violent or actually carry out the killing of infidels as a tendancy - I'm just pointing out that if they did do so, a strict reading of the Koran would seem to support such an act.

Here's a list of things in the Koran that point in varying degrees to the killing and loathing of infidels.

Untitled Document

I would of course note that it is possible to translate and contextualise the Koran in various ways - and that there are a lot of people out there who seek to demonise Islam - I'm sure that at least some of these quotes come from verses that place them into a more sympathetic context - but this sort of language does tie in with what I recall from my reading of the Koran - I was rather taken aback by it's vehemence in places.

Though it's nowhere near as rebarbative as Deuteronomy, as I judge these things.

And just one more time to make it absolutely clear - I don't see muslims as more sinning than sinned against, historically speaking.

Even the Christians revered Saladin for his chivalry. Considering that the Saracens were defending their homes against a foreign, barbarian invader (comparing the two civilizations, the Christians were certainly the barbarians) I also admire their efforts.

I think you are right to say that a strict reading of the Koran is necessary for the reader to find scriptural support of killing infidels (and thanks for the clarification on usage). Islam is a religion of peace, according to most Islamic thinkers, anyway. Many of the excerpts you give do not seem to point to the killing or even the dislike of infidels. Only a particularly callous reading of some of the excerpts would lead someone to draw such a conclusion, especially as these lines are found along side calls for peace, love and charity. I think social context is vitally important; Muhammad, as you know, was providing a new mythos for a brutal society. The language, in order to capture the attention of hearers, must reflect this brutality. It seems to me that much of the violent language is a way to convert tribal struggles into struggles on behalf of God, which for Islam certainly includes proselytism.