Modern Aftermath of the Crusades

EWTN/Zenit ^ | March 11, 2006 | Robert Spencer

[khnyny]

Robert Spencer on the Battles Still Being Waged

WASHINGTON, D.C., 11 MARCH 2006 (ZENIT) The Crusades may be causing more devastation today than they ever did in the three centuries when most of them were fought, according to one expert.

Robert Spencer, author of "Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)" (Regnery), claims that the damage is not in terms of lives lost and property destroyed but is a more subtle destruction.

Spencer shared with ZENIT how false ideas about the Crusades are being used by extremists to foment hostility to the West today.

Q: The Crusades are often portrayed as a militarily offensive venture. Were they?

Spencer: No. Pope Urban II, who called for the First Crusade at the Council of Clermont in 1095, was calling for a defensive action — one that was long overdue.

As he explained, he was calling the Crusade because without any defensive action, "the faithful of God will be much more widely attacked" by the Turks and other Muslim forces.

"For, as most of you have heard, the Turks and Arabs have attacked them and have conquered the territory of Romania [the Greek empire] as far west as the shore of the Mediterranean and the Hellespont, which is called the Arm of St. George," Pope Urban II said in his address. "They have occupied more and more of the lands of those Christians, and have overcome them in seven battles. They have killed and captured many, and have destroyed the churches and devastated the empire.

"If you permit them to continue thus for a while with impunity, the faithful of God will be much more widely attacked by them."

[khnyny]

From the article:

"He was right. Jihad warfare had from the seventh century to the time of Pope Urban conquered and Islamized what had been over half of Christendom. There had been no response from the Christian world until the Crusades."

[EagleUSA]

And the way things are going around the world, relative to pandering to radical Islam, the Crusades will be fought again. Britain just surrenedered by putting a limp-wristed liberal in charge of the issue...what country is next??? Maybe the Crusade II have already begun.

[Brilliant]

Maybe, but the Islamicists invaded Europe before the Europeans invaded Islam. So you could say that it was the Islamic invasion of Europe that is having that effect.

[OK]

In the year 732, for a little perspective:

The Battle of Tours, also called Battle of Poitiers (October 732), victory won by Charles Martel, the de facto ruler of the Frankish kingdoms, over Muslim invaders from Spain. The battlefield cannot be exactly located, but it was fought somewhere between Tours and Poitiers, in what is now west-central France.

‘Abd-ar-Rahman, the Muslim governor of Córdoba, had invaded Aquitaine (present southwestern France) and defeated its duke, Eudes. Eudes appealed for help to Charles, who stationed his forces to defend the city of Tours from the northward progress of the Muslims. According to tradition, the Muslim cavalry attacks broke upon Charles’s massed infantry, and after ‘Abd-ar-Rahman was killed in the fighting, the Arabs retired southward. There were no further Muslim invasions of Frankish territory, and Charles’s victory has often been regarded as decisive for world history, since it preserved western Europe from Muslim conquest and Islamization. The victory also served to consolidate Charles’s leadership of the Franks, and he was able to assert his authority in Aquitaine, where Eudes swore allegiance to him.

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9060566/Battle-of-Tours

As a point of additional interest, Ar Rahman was what Muhammad called God in his early Quran verses quoted in Mecca. Most English translations substitute Allah in those verses. Ar Rahman was the name for God used by a pagan tribe in Yemen. When He moved to Medina he started using the name Allah, which was the name of a black rock idol in Mecca.

[hardback]

[353FMG]

“..more devastation today than they ever did in the three centuries when most of them were fought, according to one expert.”

The answer to that statement is very simple and basic. During the Crusades we fought them on their turf, we are now in a battle with them in our homeland because we were foolish enough to let them reside with us.

Send ALL of them back to Muslim countries and start all over again. Slap them a couple of times over their heads and they’ll be eating out of our hands. Who else could feed them?

All the problems with Muslim terrorism that we experience today is of our own doing. We allowed cancer cells to enter our body and we are now paying the price for our generosity of spirit.

[EverOnward]

Crusader bump

Reading the book LONDON. I didn't realize that when an English knight did not return from the Crusades, his wife could be sold with the profit going to the king. Great way to honor a Crusader's sacrifice...

[eleni121]

Ping for later

[Gondring]

...a black rock idol...

[Gondring]

Why only excerpted? I don’t see this source on the excerpt-only list, and the full article is good.

[khnyny]

I only do excerpts because I thought full articles were frowned upon.

[khnyny]

Cool. Thanks for the link.

[khnyny]

Thanks for the book recommendation.

Interesting bit of trivia, never heard that one.

[khnyny]

At this point, I fear for Britain’s future.

[Gondring]

I only do excerpts because I thought full articles were frowned upon.

Okay... to clarify, IIRC...

Full articles are frowned upon when the source is included here:
Excerpt-Only or Link-Only Posting List

Excerpting is frowned upon if the source isn't listed there. :-)

Good article you posted. I'm including the full text for discussion...

---

A ZENIT DAILY DISPATCH

Modern Aftermath of the Crusades

Robert Spencer on the Battles Still Being Waged

WASHINGTON, D.C., 11 MARCH 2006 (ZENIT)

The Crusades may be causing more devastation today than they ever did in the three centuries when most of them were fought, according to one expert.

Robert Spencer, author of "Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)" (Regnery), claims that the damage is not in terms of lives lost and property destroyed but is a more subtle destruction.

Spencer shared with ZENIT how false ideas about the Crusades are being used by extremists to foment hostility to the West today.

Q: The Crusades are often portrayed as a militarily offensive venture. Were they?

Spencer: No. Pope Urban II, who called for the First Crusade at the Council of Clermont in 1095, was calling for a defensive action — one that was long overdue.

As he explained, he was calling the Crusade because without any defensive action, "the faithful of God will be much more widely attacked" by the Turks and other Muslim forces.

"For, as most of you have heard, the Turks and Arabs have attacked them and have conquered the territory of Romania [the Greek empire] as far west as the shore of the Mediterranean and the Hellespont, which is called the Arm of St. George," Pope Urban II said in his address. "They have occupied more and more of the lands of those Christians, and have overcome them in seven battles. They have killed and captured many, and have destroyed the churches and devastated the empire.

"If you permit them to continue thus for a while with impunity, the faithful of God will be much more widely attacked by them."

He was right. Jihad warfare had from the seventh century to the time of Pope Urban conquered and Islamized what had been over half of Christendom. There had been no response from the Christian world until the Crusades.

Q: What are some popular misconceptions about the Crusades?

Spencer: One of the most common is the idea that the Crusades were an unprovoked attack by Europe against the Islamic world.

In fact, the conquest of Jerusalem in 638 stood at the beginning of centuries of Muslim aggression, and Christians in the Holy Land faced an escalating spiral of persecution.

Early in the eighth century 60 Christian pilgrims from Amorium were crucified; around the same time the Muslim governor of Caesarea seized a group of pilgrims from Iconium and had them all executed as spies — except for a small number who converted to Islam.

Muslims also demanded money from pilgrims, threatening to ransack the Church of the Resurrection if they didn't pay.

Later in the eighth century, a Muslim ruler banned displays of the cross in Jerusalem. He also increased the tax on non-Muslims — jizya — that Christians had to pay and forbade Christians to engage in religious instruction of their own children and fellow believers.

Early in the ninth century the persecutions grew so severe that large numbers of Christians fled for Constantinople and other Christian cities. In 937, Muslims went on a rampage in Jerusalem on Palm Sunday, plundering and destroying the Church of Calvary and the Church of the Resurrection.

In 1004, the Fatimid Caliph, Abu 'Ali al-Mansur al-Hakim, ordered the destruction of churches, the burning of crosses, and the seizure of church property. Over the next 10 years 30,000 churches were destroyed, and untold numbers of Christians converted to Islam simply to save their lives.

In 1009, al-Hakim commanded that the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem be destroyed, along with several other churches, including the Church of the Resurrection. In 1056, the Muslims expelled 300 Christians from Jerusalem and forbade European Christians from entering the rebuilt Church of the Holy Sepulcher.

When the Seljuk Turks took Jerusalem in 1077, the Seljuk Emir Atsiz bin Uwaq promised not to harm the inhabitants, but once his men had entered the city, they murdered 3,000 people.

Another common misconception is that the Crusades were fought to convert Muslims to Christianity by force. Glaringly absent from every report about Pope Urban's address at the Council of Claremont is any command to the Crusaders to convert Muslims.

It was not until over 100 years after the First Crusade, in the 13th century, that European Christians made any organized attempt to convert Muslims to Christianity, when the Franciscans began missionary work among Muslims in lands held by the Crusaders. This effort was largely unsuccessful.

Yet another misconception revolves around the Crusaders' bloody sack of Jerusalem in 1099.

The capture of Jerusalem is often portrayed as unique in medieval history, and as the cause of Muslim mistrust of the West. It might be more accurate to say that it was the start of a millennium of anti-Western grievance mongering and propaganda.

The Crusaders' sack of Jerusalem was a heinous crime — particularly in light of the religious and moral principles they professed to uphold. However, by the military standards of the day, it was not actually anything out of the ordinary.

In those days, it was a generally accepted principle of warfare that if a city under siege resisted capture, it could be sacked, and while if it did not resist, mercy would be shown. It is a matter of record that Muslim armies frequently behaved in exactly the same way when entering a conquered city.

This is not to excuse the Crusaders' conduct by pointing to similar actions. One atrocity does not excuse another. But it does illustrate that the Crusaders' behavior in Jerusalem was consistent with that of other armies of the period — since all states subscribed to the same notions of siege and resistance.

In 1148, Muslim commander Nur ed-Din did not hesitate to order the killing of every Christian in Aleppo. In 1268, when the jihad forces of the Mamluk Sultan Baybars took Antioch from the Crusaders, Baybars was annoyed to find that the Crusader ruler had already left the city — so he wrote to him bragging of his massacres of Christians.

Most notorious of all may be the jihadists' entry into Constantinople on May 29, 1453, when they, according to historian Steven Runciman, "slew everyone that they met in the streets, men, women and children without discrimination."

Finally, it is a misconception that Pope John Paul II apologized for the Crusades. He did not.

There is no doubt that the belief that Pope John Paul II apologized for the Crusades is widespread. When he died, the Washington Post reminded its readers "during his long reign, Pope John Paul II apologized to Muslims for the Crusades, to Jews for anti-Semitism, to Orthodox Christians for the sacking of Constantinople, to Italians for the Vatican's associations with the Mafia and to scientists for the persecution of Galileo."

However, John Paul II never actually apologized for the Crusades. The closest he came was on March 12, 2000, the "Day of Pardon."

During his homily he said: "We cannot fail to recognize the infidelities to the Gospel committed by some of our brethren, especially during the second millennium. Let us ask pardon for the divisions which have occurred among Christians, for the violence some have used in the service of the truth and for the distrustful and hostile attitudes sometimes taken toward the followers of other religions."

This is hardly a clear apology for the Crusades.

Q: How have Muslims perceived the Crusades then and now?

Spencer: For centuries, when the Ottoman Empire was thriving, the Crusades were not a preoccupation of the Islamic world. They were, after all, failures from a Western standpoint.

However, with the decline of the military power and unity of the Islamic world, and the concomitant rise of the West, they have become a focal point of Muslim resentment of perceived Western encroachment and exploitation.

Q: To what extent are false ideas about the Crusades being used by extremists to foment hostility to the West today?

Spencer: The Crusades may be causing more devastation today than they ever did in the three centuries when most of them were fought — but not in terms of lives lost and property destroyed. Today's is a more subtle destruction.

The Crusades have become a cardinal sin not only of the Catholic Church but also of the Western world in general.

They are Exhibit A for the case that the current strife between the Muslim world and Western, post-Christian civilization is ultimately the responsibility of the West, which has provoked, exploited, and brutalized Muslims ever since the first Frankish warriors entered Jerusalem.

Osama bin Laden has spoken of his organization not as al-Qaida but of a "World Islamic Front for Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders," and called in a fatwa for "jihad against Jews and Crusaders."

Such usage is widespread. On November 8, 2002 — shortly before the beginning of the Iraqi war that toppled Saddam Hussein — Sheikh Bakr Abed Al-Razzaq Al-Samaraai preached in Baghdad's Mother of All Battles mosque about "this difficult hour in which the Islamic nation [is] experiencing, an hour in which it faces the challenge of [forces] of disbelief of infidels, Jews, crusaders, Americans and Britons."

Similarly, when Islamic jihadists bombed the U.S. Consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, in December 2004, they explained that the attack was part of larger plan to strike back at "Crusaders": "This operation comes as part of several operations that are organized and planned by al-Qaida as part of the battle against the crusaders and the Jews, as well as part of the plan to force the unbelievers to leave the Arabian Peninsula," the jihadists said in a statement.

They also said that jihad warriors "managed to enter one of the crusaders' big castles in the Arabian Peninsula and managed to enter the American consulate in Jeddah, in which they control and run the country."

In the face of this, Westerners should not be embarrassed by the Crusades. It's time to say, "enough," and teach our children to take pride in their own heritage.

They should know that they have a culture and a history of which they can and should be grateful; that they are not the children and grandchildren of oppressors and villains; and that their homes and families are worth defending against those who want to take them away, and are willing to kill to do so. ZE06031103
 

This article has been selected from the ZENIT Daily Dispatch
© Innovative Media, Inc.

ZENIT International News Agency
Via della Stazione di Ottavia, 95
00165 Rome, Italy
www.zenit.org

To subscribe http://www.zenit.org/english/subscribe.html
or email: english-request@zenit.org with SUBSCRIBE in the "subject" field

---

Provided Courtesy of:
Eternal Word Television Network
5817 Old Leeds Road
Irondale, AL 35210
www.ewtn.com

 

[sheik yerbouty]

“Deus le veult!”

[muawiyah]

"Allah" was also the name Arabic and Aramaic Christians used for "God".

They still do.

Remember, history didn't begin in Mecca ~ not for Christians anyway, so don't let Mo steal our language from you.

[EagleUSA]

At this point, I fear for Britain’s future.
::::::
So should Britain’s new PM, et al, but his politics of appeasement is going to kill more Brits and God only knows how many others in other countries. Britain will become an even bigger breeding ground of these brainwashed, kill-crazy lunatics. A total tragedy in the making...

[OK]

Actually Illah is the word for God that you mean. Thus the phrase “there is no Illah but Allah”.

[muawiyah]

Since none of these languages have letters to represent all the vowels, you have only the oral tradition to lean on ~ now, which oral tradition do you want?

Even non-Arabic speakers can tell the difference between what is spoken in Jerusalem and the Mecca tradition.

Makes it darned hard to learn Arabic. You'd think that by now they'd have some common standard (beyond so-called "Classical Arabic") but noooooo, they've gotta' be different ~ EVERYWHERE!

[upcountryhorseman]

What we need is a new order of Knights Templar.

[Professional Engineer]

ping

[guinnessman]

Thank you for posting this.

Most crusaders left their families and took this perilous journey for the noblest of intentions.

When after the capture of Jerusalem in 1099, Raymond of Toulouse was offered to be crowned the King of Jerusalem, he declined, saying, “I refused to accept a crown of gold in the place where my Savior wore a crown of thorns.”

It’s sad to see how much political correctness and multiculturalism has distorted our understanding of history.

[OK]

God is love. That is all we need to know anyway.

[muawiyah]

On the other hand Antinominalism/Antinomianism is an heresy of the worst sort.

[GiovannaNicoletta]

bookmark

[OK]

If we always act with love and compassion then we have little need for forgiveness anyway since we are in accord with God’s will.

I agree that those who think they can get free of their karma simply by believing in something or other are in for a surprise, whether it is one who chooses a deathbed conversion to Christ or one who chooses the path of the Shaheed. Both will discover that God is Love and since we are his progeny and heirs, we have to face up to our mistakes before taking up our place at His side. When we cause harm or are unkind to others we are actually harming and being unkind to God and ourselves, since we are the same thing. I am you, you are me, we are one with God.

[khnyny]

Thanks.

[khnyny]

I agree with you. Unfortunately, the British are trying to play the game by “gentlemen’s rules” or some would say “pc rules” of engagement, but in this situation, that will not work.

[khnyny]

Very interesting stuff. Yes, a lot of people don’t know that Charles Martel saved Europe. The Moors were eventually driven out of Spain too, but that’s another story.:)

[khnyny]

I find that much of “Christian history” ends up getting a rather bad rap in our public school system and in popular culture. I once heard a lecture regarding the Spanish Inquisition which was almost the exact opposite of what is presently being taught.

Thanks for the story on Raymond of Toulouse, what a beautiful sentiment.

[RobbyS]

The “Crusades” that really matter to modern Muslims were those since the French Revolution, since Napoleon landed in Egypt in an attempt to establish French control in the region. By 1930, the Christian Powers were in the ascendent everywhere in the Middle East and in the Med. Only Turkey and Iran maintained their independence, and this by modernizing their society.
All of this has been rolled back as a result of World War II and the collapse of the European Empires. Ironically, American anti-colonialism contributed to this and our attempt to fill the void, especially after the Suez debacle, was been imperfect. The Europeans socialists accuse us of imperialism, not recongizing that it is precisely our dislike of imperialism that has weakened us. We blame ourselves for the inability of the Muslim nations to develop a growing economy or a rational poltical order, despite the huge returns the Middle has received from its near monopoly of the oil supply.

[RobbyS]

Yes, it seems to be Spain all over again.

[khnyny]

Very interesting points.

IMHO, the invention of the combustible engine and the almost simultaneous discovery of oil in the Middle East and N. Africa changed the geopolitical landscape. Both World War I and World War II devastated and weakened Europe and in effect, destabilized the Western world.

Some argue that the Allies access to oil in WWI was the decisive factor for Allied victory.:

http://www.saudiaramcoworld.com/issue/199901/prelude.to.discovery.htm

“The decisive difference between the allied forces of England, France and the United States and those of Germany, Austria-Hungary and Ottoman Turkey was thus not so much tactics or even leadership but oil supply. In addition to Anglo-Persian—which by 1916 was supplying one-fifth of the British Navy’s needs—the Allies had at their disposal the giant networks of Royal Dutch/Shell and Standard Oil of New Jersey. The Germans were less fortunate. When the Allies destroyed the oil facilities in Romania in November 1916, and then prevented Russia’s Baku fields from falling into German hands in August 1918, the war was unsustainable.”

Changing demographics such as population and the declining birth rate in Western nations has played a role too in the decline of Western influence in certain parts of the world.

[RobbyS]

Agreed. I would add that socialist anti-colonialism is now the prevalent belief among European elites and has been since about 1960. A few days ago I rented “The Battle of Algiers,” a 1965 film that won all kinds of awards and what we would call a docudrama about the French effort to suppress the FLN revolt in Algeria. Afterwards, I read an historical account of the War of Independence in Algeria (1954-1962). The film was mainly confined to the years 1956-57, but they got even this wrong historically. I think it gives a good insight into present European thinking about the Muslim world. The Algerian struggle was characterized by as much by religious fanaticism as nationalism, but nowhere does the film make show anything except religious piety. The idea that French government might be superior to that of the revolutionaries, was totally excluded.

[Publius6961]

From the following web site:

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2005/10/remember-lepanto.html

KiloEcho4 reminds us that today, October 7th [2005] is the 434th anniversary of the Battle of Lepanto. In the fall of 1571 an alliance of Christian nations assembled off the coast of Greece [Gulf of Patras/Corinth] and defeated the Turks [the last muslim empire].

One thing historically provable: the clash between Islam and the West (Christianity and Judaism) is the LONGEST STANDING CONFLICT IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD!

What we are seeing today is only the advancing wave from a ripple that began over 1400 years ago. The Middle East is surely at the heart of the struggle, and Jerusalem and the Temple Mount are without doubt the biggest symbols and prize for each side. Capture Jerusalem and possession of the Temple Mount is like capturing the battle flag or standard on the battlefield. It symbolizes the tide of the battle and the eventual promise of victory.

And I believe that we must also see things in this larger historical context because the enemy certainly does, and to ignore history is only to deceive ourselves. Remember Lepanto!
The Great Islamic Jihad had been going on for centuries as of 1571 and 1683.
In 1967 and 1979 and 1982 and 2001 it had been going on for more than a millenium. And so it continues to this day.

Remember Lepanto!

Two comments from me.
An "alliance" of Christian nations is no longer possible. There aren't any.
The alliance of the umma never disappeared. If anything, it has grown.

We can consider this a secular war, the enemy does not.
We have rules of war. The enemy does not.

What is the likely conclusion?

"We don't want to be like them" is the eternal mindless reply to proposed overwhelming violent response.
When the choices are "become like them" (in war), or fade into history through "death by a thousand cuts", metaphorically speaking, the question becomes beyond silly.

[Publius6961]

Some argue that the Allies access to oil in WWI was the decisive factor for Allied victory.:

Those pesky unintended consequences, again.
The importance of oil at the turn of the century, and its subsequent importance was also the poison that created almost all of the imponderable problems today, including the Middle East "crises", and the impossible position that Israel finds herself in.

Let's look at Israel for starters. The following site is the clearest and most concise example as I've ever seen, for a summary of how Israel's indefensible borders came to be:

History of Jewish-muslim Palestine

The US, attempting to fill the geopolitical vacuum after WW1 botched things royally. We alienated Europe, simply by being superior. We did not physically create an empire, but the popularity of our culture pissed everybody off. As did our success technologically and financially.

We pressured Great Britain into giving up the Suez Canal, we gave away the Panama Canal, and we have been pressuring Israel, since 1947 to play nice with the most inept, destructive and primitive culture on earth.
In the long term, islam has been more destructive to culture and history than all previous barbarian empires, as well as Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. And they have been allowed to do their thing many many times longer, repeatedly.

What is the fundamental cause of all this irrationality? Oil.

In retrospect, the sandmaggots were given a gift by the West which has enriched a few corrupt families beyond the dreams of avarice, and accomplished little else; either to benefit their own people or for humanity.

In a "perfect world" The West should have simply said, "we made a mistake", take back the oil fields and send them off to their traditional wanderings.
Why didn't we? Peer pressure.
The desire to be seen as "good and noble", by other countries who would stab their own mothers in the back to get the cultural upper hand.

Did I mention I do not fear islam, but hold it in as low a regard as is possible?

[RobbyS]

Just to remember that Lepanto was an improbable Christian victory. Not only was Christianity divided by the Reformation, but —as Chesterton’s poem so beautifully tells us— England and France were hostile to Phillip II, Christianity’s chief leader. Furthermre, Phillip II was ambivalent about his degree of commitment to our cause. Venice was in decline, having been greatly reduced by the Turkish advance. The pope was a political innocent , with no sense of “realpolitik.” Yet, despite all this, we won. The king came through in the pinch, and so did the Venetians. The pope was a saint who stormed heaven on the days leading to the battle, and the Christian fleet was led by a great captain, the ablest commander ever produced by the House of Hapsburg, So, in the end, we won, and not only won but decisively. God rules in the affairs of men.