The Crusades

re: b) "modern fundamentalism" is an oxymoron. The whole point of fundamentalism is to remain true to the original medieval Islam. The Koran very specifically says to "seize and kill" disbelievers (Surah 4:89), it very specifically says not to make friends with Christians and Jews. Fundamental Islam teaches to give people the chance to turn to Allah, and if they don't, kill them. I can cite specific references, if necessary. This was the prevailing mentality among muslims as it spread through the Middle East, North Africa, and Spain, and it's little wonder why other religions had "low tolerance" for them. Same with fundamental Islam today--for some strange reason, something about blowing people up seems to promote religious intolerance of Islam. which leads to...

re: a) The Byzantines sure perceived a threat, and it probably wasn't because they were just delusional. Justified or not, had the Crusades not served as a preemptive strike, muslims no doubt would have invaded from that direction as well. They're not innocent. How often do we keep saying how wrong the Crusades were and completely gloss over the fact that muslims overran North Africa and invaded Spain in their "crusade"?

re: c) The earlier poster said the cathedrals were destroyed in the Fourth Crusade, which was after the cathedrals were converted to mosques.


Were the Crusades justified? That's debatable. But the Islam Crusades most definitely were not. You never hear about that part. They were GOING to be met with force sooner or later, in one form or another. You don't just go attacking everybody and then complain how wrong it is when they actually attack you back. And that's precisely what the Crusades were.

To suggest that the Crusades were purely about religion and protecting the safety and security of Christian pilgrims in the 'Holy Land' is misleading and incomplete. The alleged abuse of pilgrims was used by the crusaders as a justification, but it seems a bit trifling compared to the religous intolerance that was such a common feature of Medieval Europe.

It has been asserted with justification that the reasons for the crusades were threefold: God, Gold and Glory. Many Crusaders were landless knights and others bent on self-enrichment, and bent on good old fashioned bloodlust. They were actively encouraged by the church and state in going on crusade, not only for religious reasons, but to get them away from Europe, which was rife in intrigues and factionalism, a common state of affairs in feudal Europe. Many crusaders were the second and third sons of the gentry, and they went on crusade for the purpose of securing wealth and property. Their fiefdoms in effect became the crusader states.

Bravo Tetley. In some ways that is. I still disagree about your points on the idea of taking Jerusalem was wrong, and that Orthodox churches in Constantinopol were destroyed as mosques. Byzantium fell in 1453, a good 200 years after Dandolo sacked the city.

First post yey.

Yes they were justified. Who exactly were we invading? My country of Spain was ruled by Muslims for hundreds of years by force, I'm not about to apologise for the reconquista of my own lands am I. Muslims occupied 2/3 of Christian lands and we took some back; boo hoo. The worst we did was kill around 30,000 Jews in Jerusalem compared to endless Arab onslaught. Saladin repelled us so we never went for the Arabs heart. I hate how the media always makes Westerners feel apologetic of their past, even thousands of years ago. Tell some Mongolians to feel bad for their actions, see if they care, it was a long long time ago. Only the issue of the crusades is still relevant now since the Muslims still havn't been fully repayed for the favors they did us: Albania is majorly Muslim by the complete brute force to the natives and the Orthodox heartland of Constantinople is Istanbul, and for a long period a Muslim capital.

The first Crusade began in 1095… 460 years after the first Christian city was overrun by Muslim armies, 457 years after Jerusalem was conquered by Muslim armies, 453 years after Egypt was taken by Muslim armies, 443 after Muslims first plundered Italy, 427 years after Muslim armies first laid siege to the Christian capital of Constantinople, 380 years after Spain was conquered by Muslim armies, 363 years after France was first attacked by Muslim armies, 249 years after Rome itself was sacked by a Muslim army, and only after centuries of church burnings, killings, enslavement and forced conversions of Christians.

The crusades were oly 20 years of actual military campaigns. (They were from 1098-1099, 1146-1148, 1188-1192, 1201-1204, 1218-1221, 1228-1229, and 1248-1250).

"Fight those who do not believe in Allah, ... nor follow
the religion of truth... until they pay the tax in acknowledg-ment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection."
Qur'an, Sura 9:29

Don't say that theyre not peaceful, or they'll kill you to prove you wrong. They blow thousands of us up and if you say something you're racist, one Danish guy draws a cartoon and it's acceptable to cheer death to Europe...
okiii

Sorry to go on, I actualy don't have much of a problem with Islam, but it isn't the Muslims that keep making us feel bad about crap we havn't done, this is a race masking behind past sympathy, I won't say which. I'm a creationist BTW so I don't hate any race specificaly, I thought I'd mention that now that I mentioned race.

aryann said:

First post yey.

I'm a creationist BTW so I don't hate any race specificaly, I thought I'd mention that now that I mentioned race.

Click to expand...

Wow, a first post resurrecting a 6 years old thread?

Wellcome, anyway. But ...a spanish creationist?! That blight has crossed the Atlantic already? Damn, it's just one nearly inexistent border away!

The Crusades were indeed justified. The Islamic empires were on the verge of conquering Europe and religion was the only thing that could unify Europe for a counter-attack.

Wow, talk about thread necromancy! I think six years has to be a record.

Brutal attempt at creating a double account "Aryann". You can do better than this...

LightSpectra said:

The Crusades were indeed justified. The Islamic empires were on the verge of conquering Europe and religion was the only thing that could unify Europe for a counter-attack.

Click to expand...

You...are so stupid and naive if you really think that. Basically saying, using YOUR explanation I can say that A Jihad was justified as the Crusades was a threat to Muslim empires and they needed to deal with it quickly but securing bases in Europe to scare them

Haha....go read some history, its like you never even bother to learn about both sides and the true Political meaning of it

aronnax said:

You...are so stupid and naive if you really think that.

Click to expand...

Islam conquers Spain, Greece and parts of Italy, so Europe defending themselves by initiating a counter-attack isn't justified?

Basically saying, using YOUR explanation I can say that A Jihad was justified as the Crusades was a threat to Muslim empires and they needed to deal with it quickly but securing bases in Europe to scare them

Click to expand...

They weren't just a simple threat like Iran to Israel, they were quite dogmatic in controlling Europe. A Jihad would've been completely justified if the circumstances were reversed, if Christians were conquering parts of North Africa and Anatolia.

Let me just clear this up: was the Umayyad Caliphate conquering Spain justified at all?

aryann said:

"Fight those who do not believe in Allah, ... nor follow
the religion of truth... until they pay the tax in acknowledg-ment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection."
Qur'an, Sura 9:29

Click to expand...

You're reading this out of context. Fundamentalists use it to justify all violence towards non-believers but other parts of the Qur'an say that anyone who kills in the name of Islam is not a true Muslim.

The contemporary religious belief was that Islam was destined to rule the world because it was God's empire. Philosophers showed that it was meant to be ruled through intelligence, not brutal conquest.

innonimatu said:

Wow, a first post resurrecting a 6 years old thread?

Wellcome, anyway. But ...a spanish creationist?! That blight has crossed the Atlantic already? Damn, it's just one nearly inexistent border away!

Click to expand...

Actually, I'm withdrawing that "welcome". I believe jonatas is right...

LightSpectra said:

Islam conquers Spain, Greece and parts of Italy, so Europe defending themselves by initiating a counter-attack isn't justified?



They weren't just a simple threat like Iran to Israel, they were quite dogmatic in controlling Europe. A Jihad would've been completely justified if the circumstances were reversed, if Christians were conquering parts of North Africa and Anatolia.

Let me just clear this up: was the Umayyad Caliphate conquering Spain justified at all?

Click to expand...

The Ottomans conquering Greece is the same as England attacking France, its just war for territorial gains. The idea of a Crusade was merely a disguise as a reason to attack nations. They say they were here to free the Holy Land, More like kill the Infedels and dig deep into the rich trade of Palestine.

Its nothing more but a more "merciful" reason to bring war with with the "infedels" to a popular front, win troops and money and look in a holy righteous position when its all just a stupid act.

I wont mind if they attack the Arabs under the idea that they were going to try stop the Expansion or fight for terrioty and resources. It was the Medieval error, it was a normal thing for nations to attack other states for that.

But to disguise under the pretense of the will of God? Thats just sad. Both a Crusade and a Jihad is stupid.

LightSpectra said:

Islam conquers Spain, Greece and parts of Italy, so Europe defending themselves by initiating a counter-attack isn't justified?

They weren't just a simple threat like Iran to Israel, they were quite dogmatic in controlling Europe. A Jihad would've been completely justified if the circumstances were reversed, if Christians were conquering parts of North Africa and Anatolia.

Let me just clear this up: was the Umayyad Caliphate conquering Spain justified at all?

Click to expand...

That's like saying: "that guy killed my friend. It is therefore justified to kill him and his family".

The reasons behind the 7th century Jihads and the 11th century Crusades are complex. It's not just evil Muslims trying to convert all of Europe" or evil Christians coming to slaughter Muslims. In both wars, conquest for land, resources, power, even to preserve the peace within the aggressors' own societies, are all important. Religion is used as an excuse in both cases.

LightSpectra said:

You're reading this out of context. Fundamentalists use it to justify all violence towards non-believers but other parts of the Qur'an say that anyone who kills in the name of Islam is not a true Muslim.

The contemporary religious belief was that Islam was destined to rule the world because it was God's empire. Philosophers showed that it was meant to be ruled through intelligence, not brutal conquest.

Click to expand...

Christians of the 19th century believed it is their divine duty to rule over the backward, uncivilised, wild, dark-skinned, pagan peoples of Asia, Australia and Africa. Philosophers showed that it was meant to be ruled through intelligence, not brutal conquest, yet millions were slain in the colonial wars.

Religion, sadly, have too often been used as an excuse to oppress or slaughter others.

aryann said:

Sorry to go on, I actualy don't have much of a problem with Islam, but it isn't the Muslims that keep making us feel bad about crap we havn't done, this is a race masking behind past sympathy, I won't say which. I'm a creationist BTW so I don't hate any race specificaly, I thought I'd mention that now that I mentioned race.

Click to expand...

Well, I don't think anyone should really feel good about killing, which is what war really is when it comes down to the basics.

Yes, crusades were justified in that historical context.

Pannonius said:

Yes, crusades were justified in that historical context.

Click to expand...

I would say they are not justified but are perfectly within their historical context, and hence should not be considered the epitome of evil as they are by some folks in our times.

aronnax said:

The Ottomans conquering Greece is the same as England attacking France, its just war for territorial gains. The idea of a Crusade was merely a disguise as a reason to attack nations. They say they were here to free the Holy Land, More like kill the Infedels and dig deep into the rich trade of Palestine.

Click to expand...

The Ottomans didn't exist until after the Crusades were over. Regardless: so then they're just as justified as all of the Muslim conquests? It's not "territorial gains" so much as it is "territorial reclaiming."

Its nothing more but a more "merciful" reason to bring war with with the "infedels" to a popular front, win troops and money and look in a holy righteous position when its all just a stupid act.

Click to expand...

So again, equally justified as all of the Muslim conquests.

I wont mind if they attack the Arabs under the idea that they were going to try stop the Expansion or fight for terrioty and resources. It was the Medieval error, it was a normal thing for nations to attack other states for that.

Click to expand...

The only thing that could unify all of Europe was religion. So strategically it was brilliant. Are you really bugged out because it was called a "holy war" even though it was really just a military counter-strike?

taillesskangaru said:

That's like saying: "that guy killed my friend. It is therefore justified to kill him and his family".

Click to expand...

No, that's like saying "that guy killed my friend and is about to kill my family. It is therefore justified to kill him to prevent my family from dying."

The reasons behind the 7th century Jihads and the 11th century Crusades are complex. It's not just evil Muslims trying to convert all of Europe" or evil Christians coming to slaughter Muslims. In both wars, conquest for land, resources, power, even to preserve the peace within the aggressors' own societies, are all important. Religion is used as an excuse in both cases.

Click to expand...

Exactly. Since the First Crusade was fundamentally called to preserve Constantinople from Muslim conquest, it's hardly unjustified.