The Crusades are Nothing Like Jihad – IOTW Report

The Crusades are Nothing Like Jihad

Understanding The Threat: One of the most frequent comments members of the Understanding the Threat team hear when presenting information about sharia (Islamic law) and the life of Islam’s prophet Mohammed is:

“What about the Crusades?”

UTT responds with:  “What about the Crusades?  What do you know about them?  When was the first Crusade?  Who ordered it?  Why was the Crusade ordered?”

Generally, the response is a blank look.

Islam’s prophet Mohammad died in 632 AD after waging many battles against non-muslims in the Arabian peninsula.

The armies of Mohammed conquered Jerusalem in 638 AD without any provocation from the pilgrims there.

By 732 AD, the armies of Mohammed were in Gaul (France).  The European armies led by Charles “The Hammer” Martel defeated the Mohammedans, saving the West from yet another unprovoked attacked.

During this time, the Mohammedans conquered Spain which remained under Islamic rule until the Reconquista in 1492.

And so it continued…


11 Comments on The Crusades are Nothing Like Jihad

  1. Highly recommended:

    Books by historian Thomas F. Madden, who writes:

    Misconceptions about the Crusades are all too common.

    The Crusades are generally portrayed as a series of holy wars against Islam led by power-mad popes and fought by religious fanatics. They are supposed to have been the epitome of self-righteousness and intolerance, a black stain on the history of the Catholic Church in particular and Western civilization in general. A breed of proto-imperialists, the Crusaders introduced Western aggression to the peaceful Middle East and then deformed the enlightened Muslim culture, leaving it in ruins.

    For variation on this theme, one need not look far. See, for example, Steven Runciman’s famous three-volume epic, History of the Crusades, or the BBC/A&E documentary, The Crusades, hosted by Terry Jones. Both are terrible history yet wonderfully entertaining.

    So what is the truth about the Crusades?…

    For starters, 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… 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.

    …a response to more than four centuries of conquests in which Muslims had already captured two-thirds of the old Christian world.

  2. Another point Madden makes is the crusades, as such, were basically a non-event in the muslim world. Their vast empire was under attack from many powers on many fronts. The crusades as an event are hardly noted in muslim authored accounts of the time.

    So what happened?

    When the west colonized Africa the notion of the crusades were introduced back into their history and the anti catholic colonizers painted the crusaders as ruthless conquerors.

  3. Yeah, as soon as some jackass states “but the crusades….” I shake my head and take my leave.
    “Speaking the truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act.” Geo. Orwell

  4. As we all know history repeats itself. We can see what instigated things 1400 years ago by watching events today. The Middle East have been in turmoil for my entire life and regardless of how many “peace accords” are established the Arabs always find a way to fuc it up and blame it on the Jews. If that’s not enough to convince people, 3,045 deadly iSlamic terror attacks since 9/11 (and a whole lot more dead bodies) should! These Cave Men have been cruisin for a brusin since day 1 and the for the go-around in this century they’ve been using Political Correctness to take advantage of the West’s desire for peace and prosperity while they build up their numbers for the inevitable beat-down.

  5. My reply is yes, let’s bring up something that happened like 700 – 1000 years ago and apply it to today.

  6. Eleventh century crusades is the 21st century islamaphobia, or so CAIR would have you believe.

  7. There were a lot of reasons for the First Crusade, including Byzantium’s request for assistance against invading Muslims, Urban II’s desire to unite the Roman and Eastern Orthodox churches, a desire by European nobles for additional lands, and as a devise to get brigands out of Europe. Religion and retaking Jerusalem was a causus belli, but not the only reason. Urban II seems to have been somewhat surprised at the popularity of his call for Crusade.

    The Franks stayed in the area for 200 years – mostly because the Muslims were busy fighting each other. Virtually all historians agree that but for Muslim infighting, the Crusades would have had no lasting effect. As it was, most Crusades after the First Crusade were generated by calls for help from the Franks who stayed and established principalities. The beginning of the end was when Saladin managed to unite the Muslims – largely by force.

    Not all Crusades were designed to capture/protect/recapture Jerusalem or the Holy Land. Crusaders went on crusade to Egypt (largely for wealth), Constantinople (for wealth – you can see some of the booty today in Venice) and France (against the Cathars). Even in the First Crusade, the first major city captured was Antioch (arguably more important to the Crusaders than Jerusalem), and Baldwin left the main army to seek fortune in Edessa.

    The Crusades are a fascinating era of history, but not necessarily the Christian versus Muslim religious war most people believe them to be. The Templars were well versed in Muslim religion and used this knowledge to their advantage, Christians frequently fought Christians, Muslims fought Muslims, and both Muslim and Christian leaders fought hard to hold on to their kingdoms.


Comments are closed.