Posted on 09/27/2016 11:32:19 AM PDT by heterosupremacist
The Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City will open an exhibition this weekend, “Jerusalem: 1000-1400: Every People Under Heaven.” For the most part, it promises to be an excellent presentation featuring 200 pieces from many international collections. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, of course, have historical roots in Jerusalem.
There is one part of the exhibition, “Holy War and the Power of Art,” that appears problematic. Holland Cotter of the New York Times offers a familiar interpretation of the medieval world that touches on this theme: he states that in the 11th century, it was not a good time for Muslims or Jews.
“In Europe in 1095,” he writes, “Pope Urban II put out the call for Christians to liberate Jerusalem from people ‘absolutely alien to God.’ Accordingly, in 1099, Crusader armies showed up at the gates and began an ethnic and religious cleansing. They slaughtered Muslims, burned Jews alive in synagogues and cut down Christians who happened to cross their path.” Cotter’s account cannot go unanswered.
Misinformation—mistake of facts—and Disinformation—deliberate distortion of facts—are commonly employed in discussions about the Crusades, and this exhibit at the Met is bound to whet the appetite of others who have been drinking the moonshine of the Black Legends.
There are two points of contention: Why the Crusades were launched and who mistreated Jews.
Few know this subject better than Princeton scholar Bernard Lewis. “The Crusade was a delayed response to the jihad, the holy war for Islam, and its purpose was to recover by war what had been lost by war—to free the holy places of Christendom and open them once again, without impediment, to Christian pilgrimage.”
(Excerpt) Read more at catholicleague.org ...
•“Christians in the eleventh century were not paranoid fanatics. Muslims really were gunning for them. While Muslims can be peaceful, Islam was born in war and grew the same way. From the time of Muhammad, the means of Muslim expansion was always the sword.” •“Pope Urban II called upon the knights of Christendom to push back the conquests of Islam at the Council of Clermont in 1095.” •“Urban II gave the Crusaders two goals, both of which would remain central to the eastern Crusades for centuries. The first was to rescue the Christians of the East…The second goal was the liberation of Jerusalem and the other places made holy by the life of Christ.”
Jewish author Dennis Prager is exactly right when he says that the Crusades were “wars to retake territories in the Holy Land that Muslims had forcefully taken from Christians.”
What about the way Jews were treated? Prager admits that “the wholesale massacre of Jews in Germany by various Crusaders” took place. “For the record, however, in no instances did the Church order these killings and in almost every case Jews sought and received aid and support from local bishops.”
Sociologist Rodney Stark, who has written extensively on this subject, offers the specifics (see his book, God’s Battalions: The Case for the Crusades, especially pp. 125-127, from which the following is taken):
Yes, that sure sounds like a whole lot of disinformation regarding what the Crusades were all about.
Catholic ping?
Today, they prefer the IED, the AK47, and the rusty machete. Tomorrow, they may well have nuclear weapons. (Thanks, 0bama, ya POS.)
Pope Urban II called upon the knights of Christendom to push back the conquests of Islam at the Council of Clermont in 1095.
We need a modern-day Pope Urban.
I’ve long thought it interesting in Shakespeare’s “Merchant Of Venice”, that a muslim (Moor) could openly court a Christian woman (Portia), but a Jew of Shylock’s “tribe” would likely have been executed had he been as brazen.
Pretty much Europe today....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.