Introduction
For many, many centuries, the “Christian Crusades” have been the source of much controversy both within the Christian Church and among the outside world. The Crusades have been used by many atheists as an example which proves the violence evoked by Christianity and “religion” in general. They claim that the Crusades show the violent nature of the Christian faith, and that it proves that Christianity is nothing more than another religion trying to force itself on unbelievers. Within religious circles, the Muslims argue that all of the Jihad (holy war) which occurs today and has since the Crusades occurred is as a response to the Crusades. They claim that Christians attempted to take over their rightful land by violent force, and the Muslims are under obligation to re-attain those lands. Even within “Christian” circles, the Crusades are topics which bring with them a sour taste. Christians across the world feel the need to apologize for the “extreme violent force” used to dominate Muslim citizens. But is this what happened in actuality? Did the Crusaders use violent, bloody force against unsuspecting Muslim citizens? Were the Muslims simply victims of tyrannical Christian forces set on dominating the world’s “unbelievers”? Or was there a more justifiable reason behind the Crusades for the Christians? Did the Christians have a righteous reason for what they did during the Crusades? The purpose of this paper will be to explain the reasoning behind the Crusades from the Christian point of view.
The Crusades According to the Outside World
As noted above, the world views the Crusades in a very negative light. Peter Hammond notes, “The popular misconceptions about the crusades are that these were aggressive wars of expansion fought by religious fanatics in order to evict Muslims from their homeland, and force conversions to Christianity.”[1] This view, however, receives the following response from Dr. Hammond: “Those who really believe any of that betray their ignorance of history.”[2] The reason Dr. Hammond says this is because the history of the Crusades has been re-written over the past few centuries by Post-Enlightenment thinkers. Monica Miller describes the thoughts of author Thomas Cahill on the Crusades, “Expecting his readers to assume he was talking about Muslims, he said, ‘Once upon a time there was a religion whose adherents thought it to be the only true one. Because their God wished everyone (or so they thought) to believe as they did, they felt justified in imposing their religion on others.’ But the reader soon learns that Cahill is describing Christians.” Miller continues, “He refers to the Crusades (and the Inquisition) as part of Christianity's ‘dark history.’ Cahill's point is that, thanks to the 18th-century Enlightenment and America's ‘agnostic’ view of religion, Christianity learned tolerance. After all, except for some unenlightened Muslims, who goes to war anymore for religious convictions? Eventually the Muslims will be sufficiently secularized so that they too will learn about tolerance.”[3] Terry Scambray further echoes these Post-Enlightenment characterizations made by the outside world when he states the following: “President Barack Obama, speaking in Egypt last June, apologized for an imagined American imperialism on territory that itself was gained by Islamic conquest The New York Times in 1999 compared the crusades to Hitler's atrocities. Even Pope John Paul ? joined in by apologizing for the sacking of Constantinople by crusaders in 1204.”[4] This method of thought is what has led to many false characterizations of the Crusaders and their wars against the Muslims. The attacks against Christians for the Crusades, however, are based on somewhat faulty evidence.
The Rise of Islam
The Crusades were eight separate periods of war fought between Christians and the Muslims from the year 1096 A.D. until the year 1270 A.D.[5] As noted earlier, the general consensus on the motivation behind the Crusades coming from Post-Enlightenment historians is that the Crusades were fought for the capturing and conquering of the Muslim world. These men were purportedly only seeking the domination of the land which rightfully belonged to the Muslims. However, Peter Hammond notes that the Muslims were not victims in these Crusades: “Over 3200 churches were destroyed or converted into mosques during the first century of Islamic Jihad alone. During the Muslim invasion of Syria in AD 634 thousands of Christians were massacred. As Mesopotamia was conquered between AD 635 and 643 many churches and monasteries were ransacked, and ministers and Christians slain.”[6] With regard to the city of Jerusalem, Hammond notes the following: “In AD 1009, Kalif Hakem of Egypt ordered the destruction of the Holy Sepulchre and all Christian places of worship in Jerusalem. Christians were persecuted cruelly and pilgrims were attacked.”[7] These Muslim troops were not claiming their rightful land; they were attacking and taking over land that had previously been controlled by Christians in the Byzantine Empire. The city of Jerusalem was known by Christians as a part of the “Holy Land.” The Holy Land was the collective region where Christianity had been founded. Chris Trueman, speaking of the city of Jerusalem, says, “In 1076, the Muslims had captured Jerusalem - the most holy of holy places for Christians. Jesus had been born in nearby Bethlehem and Jesus had spent most of his life in Jerusalem. He was crucified on Calvary Hill, also in Jerusalem. There was no more important place on Earth than Jerusalem for a true Christian which is why Christians called Jerusalem the ‘City of God’.”[8] Thomas Madden, professor of History at St. Louis University, notes, “by the end of the 11th century the forces of Islam had captured two-thirds of the Christian world. Palestine, the home of Jesus Christ; Egypt, the birthplace of Christian monasticism; Asia Minor, where St. Paul planted the seeds of the first Christian communities — these were not the periphery of Christianity but its very core.”[9] With cities and nations surrounding the Christian center of life being captured more and more frequently as time rolled on, the Christians needed to defend the land that they had once possessed.
A Defensive Position
Thus, it is clear that these wars fought by the Christians were not battles to take over or conquer Muslim lands; they were quite simply attempting to defend themselves against the Muslim affront. Muslims had been conquering and destroying the religious heritage of the Christians—along with the Christians within the lands. The Christians took a stand against this imposing threat by sending armies to attack the Muslim forces. Peter Hammond notes the following, “The crusaders were reacting to over four centuries of relentless Islamic Jihad, which had wiped out over 50% of all the Christians in the world and conquered over 60% of all the Christian lands on earth – before the crusades even began. … It was the Christians who had been conquered and oppressed by the Seljuk Turks. So many of the towns in the Middle East welcomed the crusaders as liberators.”[10] Hammond further notes, “Far from the crusaders being the aggressors, it was the Muslim armies which had spread Islam from Saudi Arabia across the whole of Christian North Africa into Spain and even France within the first century after the death of Muhammad.”[11] Thomas Madden echoes this sentiment: “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 11 th Century were not paranoid fanatics. Muslims really were gunning for them…Islam was born in war and grew the same way.”[12] He further adds, “The crusades…were but a response to more than four centuries of conquests in which Muslim had already captured over two thirds of the Christian world.”[13] The Crusaders were not campaigning to conquer more land out of greed, they were fighting to restore what had once been the center of their faith. Hammond again notes, “The Medieval crusaders saw themselves as pilgrims, restoring to the Lord Jesus Christ His property.”[14] Jonathan Riley-Smith, in his book The Crusades, Christianity, and Islam; notes the following regarding the justification of the Crusaders for fighting in these wars: “It was the belief that crusades were collective acts of penance, repayments through self-punishment of the debts owed to God for sin, which distinguished them from other holy wars. Whereas most Christian holy war demanded the service of God in arms by a devout soldier responding passively to divine command, the crusader was invited to cooperate actively, because everything depended on his decision to undertake the penance of fighting in a campaign in which his obligations, at any rate if completed, would constitute for him an act of condign self-punishment.”[15]
Conclusion
No one can deny the fact that many horrific atrocities occurred during the times of the Crusaders. Many lives were lost over the fights for the Holy Land. Many women and children lost their lives during these wars at all. The tragedy revolving around this horrific war must not be overlooked. However, upon reviewing the facts of the details of the Crusades, one must not leave the blame for the Crusades and their bloody trail squarely at the feet of the Christians involved. One must look upon the historical context surrounding the events before making any judgment upon those involved in the events. Upon looking at the historical context, it is fairly easy to see that the Crusades were not simply a European Christian rampage against the peoples of the Middle East. They were a response to centuries of destruction and carnage in the Middle East in the wake of the rise of Islam. Islamic forces had desecrated the Christian founding cities—the “heart of Christianity” so to speak. The Crusades were a response to these massive shifts in ownership and control. Upon reviewing the details of the Crusades, we must allow history to speak for itself; and when it does, it speaks loudly in favor of the Christians involved.
Bibliography
Hammond, Peter. "The End of Islam." Frontline Fellowship. http://www.frontline.org.za/news/end_of_islam.htm (accessed August 16, 2010).
—. "What were the Crusades all about." Frontline Fellowship. http://www.frontline.org.za/articles/crusades_all_about.htm (accessed August 16, 2010).
Miller, Monica Migliorino. "A Concise History of the Crusades." New Oxford Review, 2003: 44-45.
Sanders, Glenn. "The Crusades, Christianity, and Islam." Fides et Historia, 2010: 69-70.
Scambray, Terry. "God's Battalions: The Case for the Crusades." New Oxford Review, 2010: 47-48.
Trueman, Chris. "The Crusades." History Learning Site. http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/cru1.htm (accessed August 15, 2010).
ZENIT Daily Dispatch. "What the Crusades Were Really Like." EWTN. October 10, 2004. http://www.ewtn.com/library/CHISTORY/ZCRSADES.HTM (accessed August 15, 2010).
[1]Hammond, Peter. "What were the Crusades all about." Frontline Fellowship. http://www.frontline.org.za/articles/crusades_all_about.htm (accessed August 16, 2010).
[2] Ibid
[3] Miller, Monica Migliorino. "A Concise History of the Crusades." New Oxford Review, 2003:44-45
[4] Scambray, Terry. "God's Battalions: The Case for the Crusades." New Oxford Review, 2010: 47-48.
[5] Trueman, Chris. "The Crusades." History Learning Site. http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/cru1.htm (accessed August 15, 2010).
[6] Hammond, Peter. "The End of Islam." Frontline Fellowship. http://www.frontline.org.za/news/end_of_islam.htm (accessed August 16, 2010).
[7] Ibid
[8]
[9] ZENIT Daily Dispatch. "What the Crusades Were Really Like." EWTN. October 10, 2004. http://www.ewtn.com/library/CHISTORY/ZCRSADES.HTM (accessed August 15, 2010).
[10]
[11] ibid
[12] ibid
[13] ibid
[14] ibid
No comments:
Post a Comment