Europe and Islam record a long and fluctuating coexistence in the History of the Continent and our world. This coexistence is sometimes amicable, as evidenced by the material and spiritual crossroads that can be found from Iberia to the Greek peninsula and the lands of the Bible, and sometimes turbulent, as recorded by History in blood.
In recent decades and in the present historical juncture, Islam re-approaches Europe, causing a new historical cycle which brings closer these two cultural, political and social entities. Faced with the new and emerging realities in the entire range of activities of the European peoples, the existing (fair or unfair) reservations, the reactions but also the ignorance, a permanent, deep, thorough and thorough approach to Islam is deemed necessary. , which will contribute to the knowledge and essential understanding of a network of ideas and culture which is already within the European reality.
Like any other religion, Islam accordingly has passed through various phases. Muslim intellectuals discovered algebra, translated the writings of Plato and Aristotle, and contributed greatly to the development of several sciences, which were in their first steps, at a time when the Christians of Europe lived in almost complete ignorance of them. Typically, through the Arab conquest of Spain by the Muslims, the Greek texts came to be translated into Latin.
About the 8th AD century, when Islam outgrew its original primordial drive and its bulimic pursuit of war booty, a peculiar “Arab Renaissance” took place, centered in Baghdad and Alexandria. During the period of the Abbasid caliphs, the oldest Greek thought was utilized to the maximum, it was a powerful inspiration and an inexhaustible source of this renaissance. In fact, the clear influence of Greek education on Islam accelerated after 749, when the Abbasids moved their capital to the new city of Baghdad. The cultural dynamism of the Caliphate during this period was also expressed through the methodical effort of assimilative study and (to a lesser extent) “appropriation” of the ancient Greek world. The intellectual production of Islam, based on the Greek heritage, fed the yet manifold “backward” Catholic West with occult knowledge. Arabic-speaking Islam and Greek-speaking Byzantine scholars, continuing the polished Greek tradition, were to form the two foundations of the brilliant post-medieval European Renaissance.
One could write thousands of pages enumerating similar cases in relation to every religion, but in this case what purpose would such an action serve? Would this mean that religious belief is a good thing or even benevolent? It is a platitude to say that almost all things of worth in our world have been created by men of faith, for almost all who have toiled with tools or crossed the seas have been devout followers of some religious tradition. It’s just…no one else was there to take those actions. We can also say with certainty that all human achievements before the 20th century were carried out by men and women who had no idea of the molecular basis of life and the generative universal “Big Bang”. So does it follow from this that we should retain a 19th century understanding of Biology and Cosmology? Obviously and certainly not!
We cannot know what our world would be like today, if some great mighty “kingdom of Reason” had appeared in time at the time of the Crusades and had by all means imposed peace on the religious multitudes of Europe and the Middle East. Perhaps an urban democratic regime like the modern one would have been established afterwards or even the Internet would have appeared… as early as 1600. But these are fanciful and fanciful assumptions. The incontrovertible fact is that religious faith has been indelibly imprinted on every aspect of our culture, which is certainly not a significant argument for its blatant support, nor can any particular faith be absolved of its responsibilities because some of its devoted followers have contributed the most to human culture.
As in most other religions, there have been schisms of various kinds in Islam. Since the 7th century the Sunnis (who are the majority) consider the Shiites to be “heterodox”, and the Shiites vice versa. Moreover, within these two groups differences have appeared, even in the ranks of those who are “pure-blooded” Islamists. It is not necessary here to deal in detail with this patchwork of sects, other than to note that these schisms had the rather favorable effect of dividing the “House of Islam” into rival factions. While this mitigates the threat that Islam poses to the West today, Islam and Western liberalism remain irreconcilable movements. Essentially, as a collective, a moderate Islam (truly moderate and not in name, which exercises a real and essential criticism of any Muslim absurdity) does not seem to exist! If it does not exist, then it is masterfully hidden, just as the truly moderate Christians did in the 14th century (largely for the same reasons, protection from extortion and persecution).
Many writers have observed that the reference to Muslim “fundamentalism” is perhaps particularly problematic because it directly implies that there are serious doctrinal differences between fundamentalist Muslims and the main body of believers. But the truth is that most Muslims seem to be “fundamentalists” (in the Western sense of the word), as even based on “moderate” interpretations of Islam, the Koran is considered the inviolable, literal and infallible word of the one and only true God . Therefore, the difference between fundamentalist and moderate Muslims (as is undoubtedly the difference between . the application of their belief in practice.
In any case, those who believe that Islam should determine every dimension and manifestation of human existence, including politics and legislation, are today not generally called “fundamentalists” or “extremists”, but rather “Islamists”.
From the perspective of Islam, the world is divided into the “House of Islam” and the “House of War”, and this latter phrase should be a clear indication of how many Muslims believe their differences will ultimately be resolved, with those who do not share their faith. While there are no doubt some “moderate” Muslims who have decided to overlook the inescapable militancy of their religion, Islam is undeniably a “religion of conquest.” The only future that pious Muslims envision as Muslims is a future in which all infidels have either converted to Islam, been subjugated or exterminated. The doctrines of Islam simply do not accept anything more than a temporary distribution of power with the “enemies of God”.
The feature of Islam which rightly worries most knowledgeable non-Muslims, and which Islam’s apologists try so hard to hide, is the principle of “jihad”. Literally, this term can be translated as “agon” or “struggle” or “endeavour”, but it is usually rendered as “holy war”, and this is no coincidence. Although Muslims are quick to point out that there is an inner (or “greater” jihad), which entails war against individual sins, no elaborate logical edifice can conceal the fact that the outer (or “lesser”) jihad—the war against unbelievers and apostates – it is the central element of faith.
Military combat in “defence of Islam” is a religious obligation for all male Muslims. We are making a grave mistake if we believe that the phrase “in defense of Islam” implies that Muslims should fight only in a state of “self-defense.” Rather, the obligation of jihad is a clear invitation to conquer the world. As Bernard Lewis writes (“Crisis of Islam”): “What is implied is that the obligation to jihad will continue, interrupted only by temporary truces, until the whole world is either the Muslim faith, or submit to Muslim rule.” One cannot deny that Muslims expect victory in this world as well as the next.
Certainly, in the Islamic tradition two “holy wars” are indeed distinguished, the “great” and the “small”. This separation is based on a quote from the Prophet, when returning from a war operation he declared: “From the small one we returned to the great holy war”. Based on this finding, the great holy war belongs to the spiritual order. The small holy war, on the contrary, is the physical war, the material struggle, the one carried out in the external world. The great holy war is man’s struggle against the enemies he carries within him. More precisely, it is the struggle of the divinely inspired and supernatural element of man against any element which is considered instinctive, connected to passions, chaotic and a slave to the forces of nature.
Therefore, in the context of a heroic tradition, the “small holy war” – that is, the war understood as an external struggle – serves only as a road, through which this very “great holy war” is carried out. This is why the terms “holy war” (jihad) and “God’s way” are often found in the texts as synonyms. In the Qur’an we read: “Fighting in the way of God (that is, in the holy war) are those who sacrifice the earthly life for the sake of the future. We will bestow a great reward on him who fights and dies in the way of God or on him who wins.” And further: “He will never bring to ruin the works of those who are slain in the way of God. He will guide them and give their hearts peace. He will lead them to paradise, which he will reveal to them.” Here is implied physical death during the battle, formerly called “triumphal death” (mors triumphalis).
