In this day and age, the crusades have been used as baton to beat the Christian over the head and shame them in their faith. This is true for both liberals and Muslims. We could draw up a list of pros and cons about the crusades and come up with many under each column. I should just point out that Thomas Madden, Jonathan Riley Smith, and Edward Peters are the ones to read on the crusades.
Probably the biggest tragedy of the crusades was that it caused the splitting of the Greek and Latin Churches. It’s a myth that the feud between Patriarch Michael Cerularius and Cardinal Humber of Silva Candida in 1054 AD caused the Greek-Latin schism. Those were tragic events but they didn’t affect communion. By the time the last crusader kingdom fell in the late 13th century, parallel bishoprics had been established in the major eastern cities, making the schism we know to this day.
However, the context for the crusades is never given. When a liberal or Muslim throws the crusades at us to shame us, it’s just those big bad Western Christians going to beat up those poor Muslims living in the Middle East. There is no mention of the 450 years of unchecked and unprovoked invasion and conquering of two thirds of the Christian world. No mention that three of the five cities that held Patriarchal Sees were captured. No mention that all of North Africa and Spain were conquered, and if Charles Martel had not stopped the Muslims at Tours, France and who knows how much other territory would have fallen as well. Constantinople had been sieged several times, Rome had been sacked and looted, the Mediterranean had been plundered, causing the dark ages in Europe and countless Europeans had been kidnapped and enslaved. Many other details could be given. Also, when these invasions started in 634 AD, they were completely unprovoked. No Byzantine military leader or statesman threatened to attack Mecca, Medina, or any other Muslim city. This context is never given when brought up by a liberal or a Muslim.
The Muslim and the liberal have to be treated differently in this regard. For the liberal who brings up the crusades, I would go with a full on assault of explaining the context. They’ve most likely never studied the history. Modern Western liberalism is essentially based on ignorance of history. That’s the only way to explain some of the stupidity that they promote.
For the Muslim, things are different. They must be confronted differently than the Western liberal. I say this because I have far more hope for the Muslim than I do for the average Western secular liberal. They’re far closer to the truth than those who have capitulated to the so called enlightenment and the sexual revolution.
When we engage the Muslim, we don’t need to go on the offensive. We just need to say something along these lines: “Look, we can look to both of our pasts and find ugly episodes in history. However, none of these have anything to do with theological truth. Let’s discuss the important topics like theological truth, because at the end of the day, the past is the past.”
This is how to take the approach. As someone who promotes the idea that the Islamic faith is an ahistorical religion, we must encourage the Muslim to study the history of the Church and the Prophets so that they can realize that their faith has no grounding in history. Once they get red pilled in this area, they’ll look at later parts of history and see both sides of the crusading issue. It’s a lot easier than most of us think. We just need to take the right approach to help our Muslim brothers in humanity.
It’s very difficult to argue with (or even explain things to) the ignorant. And many people or ignorant of historical facts. I wish more people would challenge the modern take on the Crusades and realise that they were akin to an early version of NATO or say, a US-led coalition against rampaging regimes in the Middle East. As you pointed out, they were a late, much-delayed response to help the peoples of the East (i.e. Christians) against the aggression of the Mohammedans. Grievous errors were made in the execution of the campaigns, and discipline occasionally broke down (it was the Middle Ages) but the Crusades were not based on theology and as far as I know there were no churchmen pointing to the Gospel to justify going to war against the infidel.
You are correct to point out that the Muslim ought to be less of a problem with regard to the “problem” of the Crusades. I hadn’t thought of it that way until I read what you had put. You have made a very good point, and a useful one too.
Thanks Christopher,
Good hearing your views on this one.
I have found the Youtube Channel ‘Real Crusades History’ to be informative on the overall subject.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCpiumHmUE5EZeLTftxv9qGw
Some of the episodes explain that there was quite some theological justification used for the Crusades – for example, that European believers were to help their brothers in the Holy Land just as Christ commanded to aid those in need; to open the way safely for pilgrims to Jerusalem; and of course Deus Vult.
The Northern Crusades (which aren’t important in the context of the blog post) didn’t even aim for the Middle East, but rather to convert the pagans in Europe.
I find the notion of Islam being an “ahistorical” religion to be unacceptable. The concept of jahiliyah (ignorance in the pre-Islamic civilization) is important to Muslims, since it was the Sharia that brought people to the noor (light).
Even though I am a fairly liberal Muslim, this should be unacceptable to most Muslims. Historical Islam is necessary for Muslims to have a sense of pride in their religious culture (and in some notion of “Sharia”) and to resist the depredations of secular liberalism. History is necessary for our deen!
I used to be a fan of Peter Singer, and I thought infanticide was defensible, at least in theory. Now look at Surah 81 ayat 8. Allah (SWT) has forbidden it. No, as a philosopher, I do not accept “natural law” as a reason to prohibit it.
I find the notion that the Prophet (swas) led and united a fairly tribalistic and uncouth people and brought the world a new civilization based on justice, tolerance, and piety to be quite captivating. Islam did not spread by violence, but due to the political influence of the Muslims in conquered lands such as Persia, and trade with different cultures leading to many converts.
https://bloggingtheology.net/2017/11/05/the-qurans-impact-on-the-world/
—
I think the historical analysis in A World Without Islam to be objective, as the author is not a Muslim. Most Muslims were not aggrieved at the Crusades before the Twentieth Century, perhaps because they won. A Catholic Reddit celebrated the Fall of Anadulus. I find that to be a source of more palpable grievance, since the Muslims were not able to practice their religion and were eventually expelled.
I don’t like Western defenses of the Crusades as being against imminent “Muslim aggression”.
http://jameshannam.proboards.com/thread/892
Hi Latias,
Keep in mind, I’m not doing this as a full blown defence of the crusades. I know some Catholics who would but I don’t. I just want the full context to be given. How often in literature, film, media, popular culture and elsewhere are Western Christians shamed for the crusades? Quite a bit. How often are Muslims shamed for the 450 years of unprovoked imperialist expansion at the expense of Christian civilization? Almost never. The conquests from 632 AD to 732 AD make George Bush and his Iraq and Afghanistan wars look like extreme pacifism.
In terms of Islam being ahistorical, I say this because it rewrites the whole history of the Abrahamic tradition. It says that the Torah and the Gospel are not what Christians and Jews had always thought they were but something that neither of them had never even heard of. It puts words into the mouth of Jesus that no one knew for six centuries such as an explicit prophecy of Muhammad by name. It denies the one event of Jesus that all Christians, Jews, pagans, and atheists agree on which is his death on a cross. It’s simply a polemic against firmly established history. That’s all that I’m trying to say with that.
In regards to the crusades, much of what you say is true. The church should have had different priorities in taking back Christian land. I guess hindsight is always 20/20.
I want to put a positive spin on those conquests. Let’s call compare it to Operation Bagration instead. The Muslims were not facing a Hitler though, but the scope of their conquest was impressive, albeit at a much longer time than Operation Bagration.
I don’t recall much collateral damage and deaths due to the Muslim conquests when compared to the wars of the Bush Administration.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6UkVl3ZFuI (29:20)
I also feel sorry for the Donatists who did not survive the Muslim conquests. At least the Monophysites welcomed it.
Hi Latias,
Have you ever read the primary accounts of the invasions such as Thomas the Presbyter, the Doctrina Jacobi, and Sophronius of Jerusalem? The invasions were not peaceful in the slightest. There is accounts of them massacring thousands of Jewish and Samaritan villagers. There are even accounts of them killing monks. We have a pretty good non-Islamic narrative of the invasion of Palestine since lots of documents exist. We don’t have that for Latin North Africa.
“I also feel sorry for the Donatists who did not survive the Muslim conquests. At least the Monophysites welcomed it.”
Well, all the Christians in Latin north Africa didn’t survive. One of my goals is to study their church and find out how it faded over time. It wasn’t immediate, but it did happen. I think the last blow was the Almohad caliphate which was the same group that expelled the Jewish scholar Moses Maimonides from Spain. It’s true that the monophysites initially welcomed the Muslims since the Byzantines were persecuting them.
God Bless Latias!
I do not find the claims that Jewish or Samaritan villagers were massacred to be in any way credible. I would consider that to be the propaganda of those wedded to the Pre-Islamic system. There are non-Muslim sources that show Jews celebrated the arrival of Muslims (Doctrina Jacobi and the Jewish apocalypse Nistarot Simon b Yuhayy).
On another note- I agree that I would focus on theology whilst speaking to Catholics and not waste time on historical issues like the Crusades.
Nonetheless, since this post is about the crusades I think I would give my two cents on the subject. I believe that the Crusaders unwittingly saved the Islamicate civilization.
Hi Fawaz,
The account massacres of Jews and Samaritans comes from Thomas the Presbyter is a very early document. It could be wrong, it can’t be denied that it’s early.
Perhaps some Jews did support the arrival of the Muslims, however we must conclude that not every Jew is always on the same page. Many Arabs were opposed to early Islam, in fact the Roman army that fought the Muslims at Yarmouk was a majority Arab army. Perhaps Jews were divided as well on the issue of these invasions.
“Nonetheless, since this post is about the crusades I think I would give my two cents on the subject. I believe that the Crusaders unwittingly saved the Islamicate civilization.”
Interesting, care to share your theory? I actually have a view that’s not too far off from this.
Hi Allan,
I would be very interested in what your theory is.My theory is simply that the Crusades prepared the Muslims of Egypt and Levant to face the single greatest external threat the Muslim world has ever faced (so far) : the Mongols.
My idea is basically that when the crusaders arrived the Levant was comprised of principalities engaged in petty politics. The Crusaders made quick work of them and took over a portion of the Muslim lands with relative ease. These events forced the Muslims to wake up from their complacency and rulers like Nuruddin Zengi rose to the occasion. Egypt and the Levant came under a single leadership before Jerusalem was liberated under Salahuddin Ayyubi (you might say occupied if that’s your perspective).
Nowadays we tend to focus on the Crusades but in the Middle Ages the biggest external threat to Islam were the Mongols. The scale of the devastation of the Mongol invasions makes the Crusaders seem insignificant. They conquered China and destroyed the great kingdoms of Central Asia, Persia and Iraq. If the Muslims of Egypt and the Levant had been as complacent as they had been before the Crusades they would probably have been easy pickings for the seemingly invincible Mongols. The Mongols received their first significant defeat at the hands of those Muslims whose previous generation had been toughened by the Crusades after the Mongols overran the more powerful kingdoms and struck down their populations. The Mongols were poised to take over Mecca and Madina. They could have taken over North Africa.
The warriors, scholars and general public that confronted the Mongols were the political/intellectual heirs of those who fought the Crusaders. They were working on the previous legacy.
Basically, the Crusades were training for the main event.
This is just my own analysis that I came up with when I put on my amateur historian hat. I know from your posts that you are interested in history. Have you looked at the Mongols? You may find it an interesting period of world history.
Anyway, I would love to hear what your idea is.
And God knows best.
Hi Fawaz,
Thank you for your interesting theory. It’s not one that I’ve heard before but it’s interesting. One of my best friends is actually from Mongolia and he’s gotten me really interested in their history. Regarding the first crusade, it wasn’t as much against the Arabs as it was against the Seljuk Turks. As you know, the Seljuks were the pre-Ottoman Turkish Empire who were the main enemy in the first crusade. The Turks converted to Islam in the late 900’s. At about the year 1000 the Byzantine Empire had recovered from the Arab wars. It was again powerful and prepared to take back the land that it has lost in the 7th Century. Unfortunately for them, the Turks started pounding them in the East and in 1071 won their first big victory at the Battle of Manzikert. With the top fortress in the Eastern part of the Byzantine Empire in Turkish hands, the Turks had a clear highway to Constantinople and got very close within years. At this point the Greeks requested aid from the Western Christians which is known as the first crusade.
My theory is that if the Turks hadn’t converted to Islam, Islam wouldn’t have survived. Anatolia had always been the key point in the Islamic Empire. Without the powerful Seljuks they would not have controlled that area. Anatolia was the bridge that connected the Muslims of the Levant, North Africa, Arabia, and Asia. If this had stayed in Byzantine hands, there is a chance that Damascus and the holy land would have fallen to the Byzantines and maybe even Arabia as well. Seeing this weakness the Spaniards would have finished the reconquista earlier and gone back into Africa since the indigenous Latin Christian population would have still been in existence around that time. The reason that the Spanish didn’t continue the reconquista into Africa in the 15th century was that they had just discovered the Americas which was a goldmine for them and didn’t want to waste the opportunity. It took priority over Africa.
Without mass communication, the various Islamic regions being cut off from each other, would have probably evolved into little regional sects and slowly dwindled away.
So my theory is essentially that the Turks saved Islam. This is true for the Seljuks. The Ottomans greatly expanded Muslim lands to which they still hold today. The Turks were the best thing to ever happen to Islam.
Of course my theory and yours are 100% speculation. We can’t go and rerun the clock of time.
Thanks for sharing your theory.
God Bless,
Allan
>Historical Islam is necessary for Muslims to have a sense of pride in their religious culture
Would it be pertinent to note that names such as Tom Holland, Dan Gibson, Jay Smith, Robert Spencer have been mentioned on this blog many times?
In Eastern Orthodox Christianity the Crusades are viewed mostly in a bad light. It’s true that the First Crusade was initiated by the Pope partially as a contrivance to heal the “Great” Schism between Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy of 1054, and it was the Byzantine emperor Alexios I Komnenos who sent envoys to ask Pope Urban II for aid against the Muslim Turks. But the subsequent campaigns, specifically the Fourth Crusade, pretty much backfired and ruined the idea, with crusaders capturing Constantinople- the center of Eastern Christianity, a blow from which the Byzantine empire never really recovered and which contributed to its fall to the Ottomans in 1453.
BTW, the map of the crusade battles is incomplete- the 8th Crusade against Tunisia isn’t noted.
Hi Orangehunter,
What you say is true. There is a debate on what the instructions were for the fourth crusade from the Pope and how much he knew. Unfortunately there was a lot of tension at the time. According to the book Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy by Fr. Stephen Dammick, the last latin Christians received communion from a Greek Church in 1190 and I believe this was in Antioch – I lent the book out now so I’m going on memory. By the time of the sack in 1204 AD, the churches would have been separated.
It’s certainly an ugly history. The first crusade was to save the Greeks who the Turks were assaulting. It did turn into a quest for Jerusalem pretty quickly, though they freed Nicea and Antioch before then.
Regarding the map, I didn’t make the map. It’s from Dr. Bill Warner. As you pointed out, it’s not 100% accurate but I think it hi lights double standards for those who never point this out in terms of the Crusades.
God bless,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wgmCW1za2Q
(I am jealous of the woman in 5:30; 5:30-6:10 is very heartwarming)
(Go APCs, 6:10, I never thought I would be cheering for the APC. 6:20 shows an APC breaking the wall of a military base in Crimea)
The Christians were cruel to the Muslims during the Crusades.
The link above demonstrates how one should conduct an “invasion”. In the “occupation” of Crimea, the Russian soldiers were welcomed by the native population and no one was killed. Alhamdulillah!
Western Christians who criticize Russia for its “annexation” of Crimea are hypocrites.
Hi Latias,
Have you seen the quote from the Muslim chronicler Ibn Jubayr where he talks about going through the Crusader States and the nearby Muslim states. He mentions that Muslims lived better lives in the Crusader states than they did in the Muslim areas. In 1184 he said:
“The Muslims here own their own houses and rule themselves in their own way. This is the way the farms and big villages are organised in Frankish territory. Many Muslims are sorely tempted to settle here when they see the far from comfortable conditions in which their brethren live in the districts under Muslim rule.
Unfortunately for the Muslims, they have always reason for complaint about the injustices of their chiefs in the lands governed by their co-religionists, whereas they can have nothing but praise for the conduct of the Franks, whose justice they can always rely on.”
Now, you mentioned that there was cruelty and that is true. Just because it was better than Muslim rule, doesn’t mean it didn’t have problems. I just wish people would take the full picture into account since the crusades were a sliver of what was done to Christian lands in centuries prior.
Latias, I assume that you condemn the 100 years of Muslim expansion into Christian lands and everything else that I listed in the post.
God Bless,
Allan