[Angelus Errare]

1. Because the wars the Crusaders were fighting in were, at least initially, just wars. Additionally, the Crusades initial and well-defined goal and guidelines to it, that being the liberation of Jerusalem and freedom of the rather large Christian minorities in the Middle East. But in its current Wahhabi/Khomeinist incarnation, military jihad has no end, with no possibility of reconciliation between Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb. This cannot be said for the Crusades.

2. Almost certainly. However, all religions have had militant strains to them at some point or another. That is simply the way things go because, according to my own Catholic beliefs, humans are sinner. But no Catholic leader today is calling upon his followers to go out and slaughter infidels. The same cannot be said of contemporary Wahhabi clerics in Saudi Arabia, hence the current conflict.

3. No, because Crusade at least had a clearly defined goal. Al-Qaeda's jihad is not truly bent on removing US troops from Saudi Arabia but rather upon exporting Wahhabism onto the world stage as the premier ideology of Islam in order to launch a general uprising throughout the Muslim world in order to provoke a clash of civilizations. They believe that they can win such a confrontation, but I am somewhat skeptical in this regard.

4. No. While Islam, like any other faith, has its nasty and nice streaks, but the current sect in ascendance today throughout the Muslim world, Wahhabism, is uncompromisingly militant. I recommend "The Kingdom: Arabia and the House of Saud" by Robert Lacey for a good (abeit uncompromisingly pro-Saudi) look at how the sect was founded. Everywhere it goes it has left violence, bloodshed, and oppression. Every Sunni terrorist group on the planet is Wahhabi, simply speaking. The War on Terror will end when sect either adapts its teachings to become less militant or suffers the fate of the Cathari.

[Voice in your head]

”Because the wars the Crusaders were fighting in were, at least initially, just wars.”

Couldn’t the same be said of the jihad against the Soviets in Afghanistan and the mujahideen who flocked to Bosnia, to fight alongside the Bosnian-Muslims?

”Additionally, the Crusades initial and well-defined goal and guidelines to it, that being the liberation of Jerusalem and freedom of the rather large Christian minorities in the Middle East.

Again, what about Afghanistan and Bosnia? In Afghanistan, the Muslims sought to oust the religious oppression that they feared from the Soviets. In Bosnia, mujahideen flocked to Bosnia because they believed that there was genocide being committed against the Muslims.

”But no Catholic leader today is calling upon his followers to go out and slaughter infidels. The same cannot be said of contemporary Wahhabi clerics in Saudi Arabia, hence the current conflict.”

I believe that this is largely the result of the principle that power corrupts. The Muslim clerics of the Arab nations have power, in that their words carry the weight of authority with them. The most devout Christian, in my opinion, is not going to go forth and kill, if his priest were to tell him to do so. The Christian is open to the idea that his priest is wise, but that all people are capable of sin.

”No, because Crusade at least had a clearly defined goal. Al-Qaeda's jihad is not truly bent on removing US troops from Saudi Arabia but rather upon exporting Wahhabism onto the world stage as the premier ideology of Islam…”

My question was not clear. In question 3, I wrote, “[w]ith questions 1 and 2 in mind, is history repeating itself?”. In referring to questions 1 and 2, I meant to say that if one accepts affirmative answers to those questions. If people falsely declared their actions to be part of a legitimate Crusade or if religious leaders misused their positions of authority during the Crusades, as mentioned in questions 1 and 2, then would that not be an indication that history is repeating itself? I believe that you are comparing the real Crusades with ”Al-Qaeda’s jihad” rather than with real jihad. I am trying to ask if the term “Crusade” was perverted in the same manner as the term jihad - asking if history is repeating itself, as it appears to me that it is.

”… the current sect in ascendance today throughout the Muslim world, Wahhabism, is uncompromisingly militant…Every Sunni terrorist group on the planet is Wahhabi, simply speaking.”

Is Wahhabi the root of the perversion of the term jihad and the indoctrination of that perversion amongst Arab Muslims? Or is my question based on a false assumption? Or neither?