A Vatican Apology for the Crusades? Give me a break! The Crusades have an Islamic counterpart for which no one is apologizing and of which few are even aware.
Whatever undeniable sins Christians committed during their course, the Crusades were essentially a defensive action: a belated and insufficient attempt by Western Christians to turn back the tide of Islam that had engulfed the Eastern Church. “When accusing the West of imperialism,” says the historian of jihad Paul Fregosi, “Muslims are obsessed with the Christian Crusades but have forgotten their own, much grander Jihad.” The lands in dispute during each Crusade were the ancient lands of Christendom, where Christians had flourished for centuries before Muhammad’s armies called them idolaters and enslaved and killed them. If Westerners had no right to invade these putative Muslim lands, then Muslims had no right to take them in the first place.
Thus if Al-Azhar wants to demand an apology for the Crusades, it should be ready to apologize for the conquest of the Middle East and North Africa. But the most disturbing element of this sorry exercise of historical revision is that their “request” may well be granted by the Vatican. And if it is, it would be just one more link on a long chain of double standards by which Western authorities seem ready to bend over backwards to grant concessions to the Islamic world, while asking for and receiving nothing in return. For example, Al-Azhar itself has praised suicide bombers as martyrs and declared that Islamic states have a religious obligation to acquire nuclear weapons. Yet no one in the West is demanding an apology from them for these approvals of very contemporary menaces. It figures.
So don’t give me that Clintonista bologna about how the Christians waged war against the muslims. Muslims, for centuries, have been waging war against the infidel. We Christians have always stood to protect ourselves, rather than submit ourselves to their sick and pitiful sharia law.
It’s amazing how people will believe the absurd before the truth…Check out my blog and read how America will cease to exist in 2007…at least that’s one Muslims take on what he reads in the Koran..Many will jump right on his sheer nonsense too..
Good post, keep up the good work
I agree, like the Clintonistas who loved Arafat, lol…or John Kerry’s fans. Thanks for stopping by and I’ll reciprocate.
Centurion of Calculators
Today’s dose of NIF – News, Interesting & Funny
Lisa, you really are a gem. Has anyone suggested to you that you should be blogging? It’s really easy to start one. Just go to blogger.com
Cao thanks for the compliment I love your blog.I’m a little slow but I’m learning from you all constantly.But I need to find more information on haow to start a blog, I’m not a pro like you all are yet ,but I’m pressing on.I hope to do in the near future I just want to get more information on how the process works.:smile:
Lisa,
I get some trolls here, and moonbats a plenty, but you a refreshing breath of fresh air. I’d like to see you set one up at some point…it’s not that complicated, and it’s a lot of fun. You are a voice of reason and you have a lot of good things to say! There’s always room for another voice like that, IMO.
Just read your article.
I have an opposing view for you.
Think of this, Pope Urban II called the First Crusade as a result of many reasons, one could have been purely to help the Byzantine Emperor Alexius, or to try and repair the split (great Schism) between the Latin and Greek Churches. But I think the prominant reason for the call of the Crusade was much to do with the feudal wars taking place in Christendom.
But what do I know, I only study it….
I can see where you are coming from with your article, the Muslim leaders should apologise for the terrorist attacks, but the Crusades are more complex than a simple yes and no.
That’s not an “opposing view”, that’s a “partial view”…In the year 1095, people were shocked in Western Europe by the words of Pope Urban II, “The Muslims have conquered Jerusalem”. The Muslims forbade Christians and pilgrims to come to Jerusalem to pray. Pope Urban wanted the Christians to retake Jerusalem from the Muslims. People shouted “God wills it”. All over France these were the words of the Christians. But Pope Urban’s urging was in response to centuries of muslim conquest. So that just punctuates my point; the crusades were a defensive action, not an offensive one.
Read more. There is much more history to this than your simple “yes or no” equation. I suggest you read up on it.
The First Crusade was launched in 1096, but Muslims conquered Christian Syria & Palestine in the 7th Century, invaded Spain in 712, & would have put the sword to Europe had they not been defeated at Tours (732). And you say you study it? I guess you have a limit as to how far back you go in history, which is skewing your recollection of the events. How can you draw a reasonable conclusion if your “study” is comprised of selective events?
The Crusades to the East were in every way defensive wars. They were a direct response to Muslim aggression—an attempt to turn back or defend against Muslim conquests of Christian lands.
Christians in the eleventh century were not paranoid fanatics. Muslims really were gunning for them (how is that any different than now?). While Muslims can be peaceful, Islam was born in war and grew the same way. From the time of Mohammed, the means of Muslim expansion was always the sword. Muslim thought divides the world into two spheres, the House of Islam and the House of War. Christianity—and for that matter any other non-Muslim religion—has no abode (they fall into the House of War). Christians and Jews can be tolerated within a Muslim state under Muslim rule. But, in traditional Islam, Christian and Jewish states must be destroyed and their lands conquered. When Mohammed was waging war against Mecca in the seventh century, Christianity was the dominant religion of power and wealth. As the faith of the Roman Empire, it spanned the entire Mediterranean, including the Middle East, where it was born. The Christian world, therefore, was a prime target for the earliest caliphs, and it would remain so for Muslim leaders for the next thousand years.
With enormous energy, the warriors of Islam struck out against the Christians shortly after Mohammed’s death. They were extremely successful. Palestine, Syria, and Egypt—once the most heavily Christian areas in the world—quickly succumbed. By the eighth century, Muslim armies had conquered all of Christian North Africa and Spain. In the eleventh century, the Seljuk Turks conquered Asia Minor (modern Turkey), which had been Christian since the time of St. Paul. The old Roman Empire, known to modern historians as the Byzantine Empire, was reduced to little more than Greece. In desperation, the emperor in Constantinople sent word to the Christians of western Europe asking them to aid their brothers and sisters in the East.
That is what gave birth to the Crusades. They were not the brainchild of an ambitious pope or rapacious knights but a response to more than four centuries of conquests in which Muslims had already captured two-thirds of the old Christian world. At some point, Christianity as a faith and a culture had to defend itself or be subsumed by Islam. The Crusades were that defense.
I see your point but still beg to differ
Was washing captured cities in the east in Muslim blood justified? Saladin washed his captured cities in rose water, that is the difference between the Muslims then and the Christians.
Its also shows how times have changed..
I do study it and like I said, IT IS NOT A SIMPLE YES OR NO ANSWER!
Beg to differ about what? About Christians defending themselves before they were completely wiped out after 4 centuries of Muslim conquest, rape, pillage, torture, murder? I think it’s a very simple answer; the Crusades were the response to centuries of muslim conquests.
No, that is not a yes or no answer, it’s a little more than that, but I’ve laid it out for you in detail why. And you agreed with me.
The difference is–christians don’t do stuff like this or this. There are so many examples of what Islamists do and what kinds of torture are sanctioned by the Koran like the raping and sodomy of women captives…
I’m sorry but I don’t understand what you’re disagreeing with. When someone is coming after you with a sword to cut your head off, diplomacy doesn’t work. Their Koran tells them to “kill the unbelievers wherever you find them”. The Bible teaches us to defend oureselves when someone is coming to kill us or steal something from us. That is all that Christians did…
And today, we’re responding to the same thing. They attacked us on our soil, and had been attacking us since 1968. If we sit stilll because they want to institute sharia law in our land and reconstitute the caliphite, we’ll all be dead!
And I don’t know what you’re talking about “washing” someplace with the “blood of muslims”. How about their washing the holy lands with the blood of Christians for 400 years? We should have just let them continue to do it? Ridiculous.
Marie is correct: history is often much too complex for a simple yes or no answer, and that explains why people spend years and years to obtain advanced degrees. I also think that historical interpretation depends not only on who is doing the analysis, but also the era from which the analysis is done. Today, I think we are looking at historical events much more critically than ever before.
Should “Catholicism” apologise? No. We should not allow ourselves to become apologetic for events so long ago. I wish there had never been a slave trade, but I don’t feel guilty for it, or responsible.
On the other hand, I don’t expect any Muslim to apologise for what happened on 9-11-01 if they had nothing to do with it. Who should apologise? Those who encouraged it, funded it, applauded it, and aggitate for more of it: The Saudis. They alone bear responsibility because they alone created Wahhabism, and they continue to encourage it. This radical theology, by the way, can be traced from Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, and Indonesia directly back to the Saudis. Even if only recent history, we need to stop BS’ing ourselves about how this all came about.
Recent events will have to wait for an “historical” perspective. Right now what we as Americans need to do is reach out and touch those who would destroy us, our way of life, with extreme violence. It will make an interesting story in 2 or 3 hundred years.
We need to answer them in their own language; within reason, of course. Marie, if you study it, then why don’t you know the difference between the ideologies? I simply don’t understand what you’re driving at. On the one hand, you agree with me and see my point, but at the same time, you “beg to differ”. Differ on WHAT, exactly? What is the question that you keep referring to that doesn’t have a yes or no answer?
It is assumed now and then–that the central goal of the Crusades was forced conversion of the Muslim world. Nothing could be further from the truth. From the perspective of medieval Christians, Muslims were the enemies of Christ and His Church. It was the Crusaders’ task to defeat and defend against them. That was all. Muslims who lived in Crusader-won territories were generally allowed to retain their property and livelihood, and always their religion. Indeed, throughout the history of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem, Muslim inhabitants far outnumbered the Catholics.
But when Christians live in Islamic lands, there is persecution of Christians and forced conversions to Islam. There is a vast difference between the two ideologies. And that’s because the Koran says “kill the unbelievers wherever you find them”. The Bible has no such text. In fact, it says “thou shalt not murder”. But killing in self defense is justified. Recently Zarqawi announced that the killing of women and children is acceptable if in the cause of jihad. Doesn’t that seem a little peculiar to you? A little maybe…unbalanced? When the people of the west protect the innocent, -women and children-Islamists target them if killing advances islam.
Islamists in Indonesia hope to create a completely Islamist state by 2003. This process includes the systematic murder, torture, and persecution of Christians, Hindus, and other religious minorities. In Muslim-Christian clashes since 1999, more than 19,000 have died and 600,000 have lost their homes.
Extremist Muslims have used rocket launchers, bulldozers, forced circumcisions and other methods to persecute Christians in Indonesia.
In Bangladesh, Islamists have blinded Christians, cut off their fingers, amputated hands, gang raped women, and tortured Christians with hot iron rods.
For more on this systematic persecution of Christians, go here.
As for Hindus, the human rights organization Freedom House reports they have been subject to “rape, torture and killing and the destruction of their cultural and religious identity at the hands of Muslims.” In one indicative step, Islamists sometimes force Hindu women to dress in the Islamist fashion.
In Nigeria, they’ve disregarded both the Nigerian constitution (which stipulates a separation of church and state) and demographic realities (only 50 percent of the population is Muslim), Islamists of this West African country have adopted or announced plans to adopt some version of Islamic law in 12 of its 36 states since 1999.
Implementing Islamic law means forbidding such practices as the construction of churches, music performances, the wearing of pants, drinking alcohol and riding in mixed-gender taxis. Forced conversions to Islam are reported, as well as coerced divorces of Muslim women from Christian men.
Vigilantes enforce Islamic law via punishments that include stoning, flogging and the chopping off of hands. Solidarity visits from Sudanese, Pakistani, Saudi, Palestinian and Syrian Islamists tie Nigeria to the wider forces of militant Islam. Freedom House concludes that Nigeria is undergoing a process of “Talibanization.”
That militant Islam and its companion violence have spread from the Middle Eastern core to the periphery of the Muslim world is of great concern. It means that the enemies of the United States, moderate Islam, and of civilization itself are far more numerous and entrenched than previously thought. This implies that the current war will likely be longer, bloodier and more demanding than most people imagine.
I don’t understand what they are disagreeing with either.
Cao, this is an awesome post. I never understood the whole Crusades thing…but I always hear how BAD the Christians were…I am bookmarking this post for future reference. Good post!
I don’t understand why she’s bringing up Saladin and King Richard…that was in 1187. Those two respected each other and behaved in a civilized manner, very unlike the terrorists of today who are throwing their feces at their captors, or Bin Ladin who makes fun of Bush reading to children while his minions were attacking the towers. Even Zarqawi recently said the killing of women and children is justified. hehehe. Whatever. Dig back in history and find a respectable muslim leader and then point to him while all this other stuff has happened for centuries before and after. Sure makes sense to me.
The fact of the matter is that Islam did not even surface until over 600 years after the Son of God was crucified. Mohammed was a coward who deserted Mecca due to an iminent attack from Ethiopia. He was never liked and by all accounts (even his father) was thought of as nearly retarded. He couldn’t read or write but he told BIBLE stories (as incorrectly as anyone), his exile from Mecca, mental problems, and inferiorty complex made him an angry man. Somehow he got a few hundred people to follow him and because human beings value their lives his number of followers soon became thousands. You see where this is going?
Not long after “the people of the book” told Mohammed that they would not reconize him as a prophet he then turned against the same people that he had earlier warned his followers to respect. When all was said and done Islam attacked and conquered 2/3 of the Christian world at that time and they had their sights set on Europe. This was a snowball effect that lasted between the 620’s and 1095. 1000 years after Christ. So should the King have let the murderous muslims have free reign over the world? The only apologies that I have for the crusades is for the innocent ones that were loss to the hands of the of the few bad apples and I apologize that the job of eliminating Islam was not fullfilled.
Yes I have studied this too.
Quite a thread Cao. very interesting.
Apologizing for long-distant events of the past is useless and, in today’s pc-crazed environment, serves only to foster guilt feelings in those who had nothing to do with whatever wrongs were committed. Apologizing to Muslims for the Crusades is particularly futile–and dangerous, as well. Arabic doesn’t even have a past tense! As a result, Muslims are the most grudge-holding individuals on the planet because language shapes thinking. Any such apology would serve only to fuel their anger and to make us seem weak in their screwed-up world view. An apology would be an act of dhimmitude, and groveling to Muslims produces no good result.
So, are the muslim’s resposible for the Crusades?
I never knew that.
Interesting.
That’s correct; they view us as dhimmis; people who should submit to Islam. In Saudi Arabia and elsewhere they make non-muslims pay a tax called a jizah tax–to show you’re in submission to Islam. You’re not allowed to wear a christian cross in public, and in an Islamic society you’re expected to follow all of their customs (women should go outside covered, young girls escorted by family members, etc.). Also, Christian women have been raped and tortured by muslims to force them to convert or die. Sometimes, they die, anyway…these people are brutal and sick. Many horrible bloody terrible things we wouldn’t imagine in our wildest dreams are what they do to unbelievers–Christians, Jews, Hindus.
And where do they get this stuff? From the Koran. If the Qu’ran does in fact say what the likes of Bin Laden, Zawahiri, and Zarqawi say it does, then it is not worthy of our respect. And if you go back through history, you know damned well it does.
For example, one of my favorite examples of this barbarity was the Qurayza massacre and was performed by Mohammed himself when he killed an entire tribe of Jews. See the story here (you can click on the link and read more about the Prophet of Terror and the Religion of Peace):
Date: April-May 627 A.D.
Place: Medinah
Victims: The Last Jewish Tribe left in Medinah The Banu-Qurayza.
By this time, Mohammed had murdered or driven out all of the Jewish Tribes of Medinah, except the Banu Qurayza. It was time to eliminate this last thorn in his flesh. The Banu Qurayza had been reluctant in helping Mohammed against the Quraysh. Conveniently once again, Mohammed claimed that he had divine knowledge about a conspiracy by the Banu-Qurayza to kill him. He beseiged their fortress for Twenty-Five days. When the starving Tribe surrendered, Mohammed forced an old man from their own Tribe to pronounce Mohammed’s sentence. The sentence was death to every male member of the Tribe, Slavery for every woman and child and Plunder of all their property.
The Prophet had an immense trench dug around the main market of Medinah. The men of the Banu Qurayza were rounded up & their hands twisted tightly behind them. Then one by one, they were shoved to the edge of the trench and forced to kneel. They were offered a last chance to convert to “The True Faith” and if they refused, had their heads chopped off. As soon as one head would roll off, the corpse would be kicked into the ditch, and so it went. By the time Dawn had colored the sky red in Medinah, hundreds of corpses piled up in a heap in a tangled cesspool of blood, hair and shreds of flesh. Despite the horrific end in front of their eyes, none of the Jews chose to convert to Islam and faced death valiantly. The blood of 900 innocent Jews stained Mohammed’s hands on that black day.
Their only crime was that they chose to retain their fundamental human right, of choosing their own God and the religion of their ancestors. Hysterical women & children screamed as they watched their fathers, husbands & sons die. The majority of them were raped savagely and then bundled off to be sold as “used goods”. The Prophet had the husband of the Jewess Raihana Bint Amr hacked to pieces before her very eyes, hours after he had murdered her father. No doubt this was the Prophet’s perverted version of a wedding present, because after these atrocities he raped the mortified girl and tried to force her to convert to Islam.
Muslim historians still describe the savage rape of Raihana Bint Amr as her “willing submission to Islam and wifehood to the Prophet”
Apparently according to them it is very natural to imagine that a woman who has just seen her husband, father, brothers and Tribe slaughtered violently before her very eyes, would CHOOSE to convert to the religion of the murderer and marry him! In actual fact Raihana REFUSED to convert to Islam and also refused to marry Mohammed the murderer of her family. He kept her as a lowly concubine all his life. So much for the “Apostle of Peace” and his unbounded RESPECT for women. Mohammed was nothing but a serial rapist, who acquired his victims by killing their families first.
Allah as usual has provided yet another timeless Divine revelation which gives his Prophet the Right to rape and torture women of other religions.
A little personal insight here…
About a year ago, a Muslim coworker of my husband’s stopped by our house and saw a copy of “The Sword of the Prophet” lying in my living room. He made an ugly face and said to me,” Are you reading that book? Is that the book which talks about Mohammed being a pedophile and killing a bunch of Jews?”
I replied in the affirmative and said, “Are those true? I’m searching for the truth. If they are not true, speak up.”
He remained silent.
A few weeks after that little exchange, and despite not having any qualifications, he became my husband’s supersivor. The only word to describe his treatment of my husband is “persecution”, and he extended that treatment to any employee who was not a Muslim (Fellow Muslims were allowed to do as they pleased and still received pay). My husband documented all the occurrences and took his case to the president of the company, and the supervisor was fired.
One good outcome, however. My husband had thought that I was obsessed with slamming Muslims. Once a Muslim “friend” showed his true colors, my husgand caught on and has since been supportive of my research and my outspokenness.
Muslims will not turn ME into a dhimmi! I challenge pc wherever I find it.
Thanks Cao, you’ve opened my eyes with your response. Wow, I cant believe I was oblivious to this.
Thank you all for your comments. I’m just hoping that with all the research that I do on the subject, I don’t lose people in the conversations in these threads. Laura, don’t take my word for it, do some reading on it. Get out there and pick up some reading material like the Sword of the Prophet, Islam Unveiled, or any of the other books there are available that talk about Mohammed and what he did–and how the whole thing got started. It’s important, IMO, that we understand this. Because what we’ve got ourselves into isn’t going to end tomorrow. It’s going to be a long, bloody campaign. I just hope the western world has the patience for it.
More good reading on the subject can be had at faithfreedom.org
Wow, Always on Watch, I always like to hear of present day examples of how this ideology hasn’t changed in the last 1300 years or so…it’s a strong testament to what our nation desperately needs to wake up to if we’re going to resist their goals of destroying us and our culture, and the bigger goal of world domination.
Happy Weekend to Ya’
Limited Blogation Weekend in effect …