Crusades

[James the Persian]

The Crusades were defensive in that they started because the Byzantine emperor asked for help from the Pope, so he sent a Crusade to help Byzantine. Then they transformed into something completely different...

They may have started out with the idea of helping the Empire but they eventually almost destroyed that very same Empire and, along the way, killed a great many of the Christians that lived in it. I'd say they were wars of conquest that used defense of Christendom as a convenient excuse - much like George Bush's use of Iraq's supposed WMD.

James

 

[Bennettresearch]

Hi all,


The Crusades seem to have been mentioned alot lately so i though id post this part of an article giving some more information about them. Like to know your thoughts.

Hey Steve,

Didn't see the movie but I did record the two part series on the history channel. It is being aired again on Saturday if anyone missed it. I am not as knowlegable as I would like to be about the Crusades but your article does have one point. The Muslims were not innocent victims in this war. They had invaded large amounts of territory and were intent on ruling the world. The history channel showed both sides and the striking part is that the Crusades are almost treated like they happened yesterday by a large amount of Muslims. Just as I would dislike a one sided christian view on the Crusades, I also dislike the way that the Muslims are willing to be one sided about this matter.

 

[Mujahid]

almost everyone is going to say about his religion and its followers : "oh we are the best",i think this what makes conflicts rise,about muslim armies in the first 30 years after Muhammad (p.p.b.u.h) they never started a fight,but were first attacked by: the romans and the persians,what muslim armies wanted to do at that time was inviting people to the conveyed message of Allah wich contains the ultimate in peace,comfort,satisfacton and glory,but as we can understand easily,the romans and the persians were afraid that their monarchy would be lost,so they first attacked muslim armies and muslims always won because their king wasn't hercules or kisra(persian king) or something,but their king was Allah the king of all kings

after the first 30 years,the whole case turned into a state governed by a king called "khalifa",we can understand that easily when we come to know how many lands and harvests came to the hands of muslims at that time so ofcourse many used the authority of islam as a religion to get monarchy like others do with christianity,some of the doings of that state might have been good,but i guess many of its doings were bad,because it was a "State" not the reign of real islam

 

[michel]

It is my understanding that the problem with the Crusades is not over how they were started, but what happened during them... All the raping and conquering cities that were not under the Turk's rule and what not. At least that was always my impression, correct me if I'm wrong...

Firstly, great thead, Steve.

Ryan; wars are usually planned by field marshalls and generals; whilst these people may have impeccable motives, the frontline soldier is a 'different kettle of fish'.

I am most certainly not saying that front line soldiers are barbarians. I am saying that they will, without doubt, have gone through incredible stress; most likely, they will have been subjected to sights the like of which none of us would want to try and conceive...........fellow soldiers being brutally hacked down, wounded soldiers screaming in agony in the middle of the battle field............

It is easy for us to be judgemental of what occurred during these wars, the rape, and pillaging............in no way am I condoning such acts; I am trying to give you possible reasons (as opposed to excuses) as to why soldiers acted as they did. Nowdays, I think their acts would have been put under the umbrella of post traumatic stress syndrome.

I suggest that those soldiers of both the British army, and of the American army, who committed lewd acts in the Iraqi invasion may well have been reacting from the same genre of sickness.......I don't know.

What I am trying to say, is that perhaps you should consider all these factors before being so judgemental. These acts were wrong; don't misunderstand me, but perhaps the cuoircumstances that led the soldiers to commit them did have an element of 'extenuating circumstances'............

 

[James the Persian]

Firstly, great thead, Steve.

Ryan; wars are usually planned by field marshalls and generals; whilst these people may have impeccable motives, the frontline soldier is a 'different kettle of fish'.

I am most certainly not saying that front line soldiers are barbarians. I am saying that they will, without doubt, have gone through incredible stress; most likely, they will have been subjected to sights the like of which none of us would want to try and conceive...........fellow soldiers being brutally hacked down, wounded soldiers screaming in agony in the middle of the battle field............

It is easy for us to be judgemental of what occurred during these wars, the rape, and pillaging............in no way am I condoning such acts; I am trying to give you possible reasons (as opposed to excuses) as to why soldiers acted as they did. Nowdays, I think their acts would have been put under the umbrella of post traumatic stress syndrome.

I suggest that those soldiers of both the British army, and of the American army, who committed lewd acts in the Iraqi invasion may well have been reacting from the same genre of sickness.......I don't know.

What I am trying to say, is that perhaps you should consider all these factors before being so judgemental. These acts were wrong; don't misunderstand me, but perhaps the cuoircumstances that led the soldiers to commit them did have an element of 'extenuating circumstances'............

Michel,

Whilst I can accept that some of the soldiers acted in the ways they did under the effects of trauma and stress, there are aspects of the Crusades, such as attrocities ordered from on high and the decisions to sack Christian cities and desecrate and loot Christian churches that cannot be put down to the individual actions of traumatised soldiers. Many of these attrocious acts were carried out under the orders of Crusade commanders. There is, of course, also the matter of the general barbarism (by modern standards) of warfare at the time. It was normal for soldiers to be paid in loot and, hence, be let free to extract whatever they could from a conquered people. Soldiers who are 'paid' in this manner are bound to behave in ways we moderns find reprehensible, traumatised or not. That is a perfectly reasonable excuse on the part of individual soldiers' behaviour (we shouldn't judge medieval people by modern standards) but can in no wise excuse the choice of targets and tactics of their commanders.

James

 

[dms5aze]

the crusades were absolutely beautiful we muslims conqured lands beautifully and by the way those christian lands were rightly our as our lord Allah had ordained it to be, you christians have no right in owning any land you worship a false god we muslims have been commanded to fight you until you pay the jiziya tax why is this it is because we have been commanded by the god of manking, the king of mankind the lord of All the worlds ALLAH!!

AND I DISAGREE WITH WHAT THE you guys say about oppressive rulers we muslims gave you your rights of free worship and to live peacefully and more than that to be protected by us muslims now look at how beautiful this is!!!!!

but know you christians aint gonna listen

 

[Steve]

the crusades were absolutely beautiful we muslims conqured lands beautifully and by the way those christian lands were rightly our as our lord Allah had ordained it to be, you christians have no right in owning any land you worship a false god we muslims have been commanded to fight you until you pay the jiziya tax why is this it is because we have been commanded by the god of manking, the king of mankind the lord of All the worlds ALLAH!!

AND I DISAGREE WITH WHAT THE you guys say about oppressive rulers we muslims gave you your rights of free worship and to live peacefully and more than that to be protected by us muslims now look at how beautiful this is!!!!!

but know you christians aint gonna listen

Such a peaceful religion..:sarcastic
Oh thats right Islam means peace so it must be peaceful. :banghead3

 

[Quiddity]

the crusades were absolutely beautiful we muslims conqured lands beautifully and by the way those christian lands were rightly our as our lord Allah had ordained it to be, you christians have no right in owning any land you worship a false god we muslims have been commanded to fight you until you pay the jiziya tax why is this it is because we have been commanded by the god of manking, the king of mankind the lord of All the worlds ALLAH!!

AND I DISAGREE WITH WHAT THE you guys say about oppressive rulers we muslims gave you your rights of free worship and to live peacefully and more than that to be protected by us muslims now look at how beautiful this is!!!!!

but know you christians aint gonna listen

:areyoucra :areyoucra

~Victor

 

[Ryan2065]

Such a peaceful religion..:sarcastic
Oh thats right Islam means peace so it must be peaceful.

Cause we all know judging the message of a religion by the actions and words of one person is the right thing to do.... =)

 

[Steve]

Cause we all know judging the message of a religion by the actions and words of one person is the right thing to do.... =)

No i judge it by the book they base their religion on and those who take muhummeds teachings seriously. I also judge it via the character of the prophet they follow and his actions.
I by no means am asserting that all who call themselves muslim are unpeaceful but the religion when followed for what it teaches via the koran and the actions of its "prophet" are.

How bout you read the first post again..
dms5aze opionion is much closer to that of those around at the religions beginnings and what it really is.
Or is this too politically incorect for you?

"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. Many of the towns liberated by the crusaders were still over 90% Christian when the crusaders arrived. The Middle East was the birthplace of the Christian Church. 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.

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. Muslim armies sacked and slaughtered their way across some of the greatest Christian cities in the world, including Alexandria, Carthage, Antioch and Constantinople. These Muslim invaders destroyed over 3,200 Christian churches just in the first 100 years of Islam."

 

[Ryan2065]

So you are saying that there is no way that Islam can be the religion of peace because a certain "sect" of Islam is not peaceful?

Shall we judge all christians based on the actions of one sect as well?

 

[Steve]

So you are saying that there is no way that Islam can be the religion of peace because a certain "sect" of Islam is not peaceful?

Shall we judge all christians based on the actions of one sect as well?

No im not saying that, Im saying that no way can Islam be a religion of peace because of what the koran teaches and the character and views of the prophet they follow and his actions.
The "prophet" was not peaceful, the korans teachings are not peaceful, the beginning of the religion was not peaceful and this was because of the actions of those in the religion.

You could judge all Christians by the actions of some but if those you are judging are not acting in accord with their religion then you are not judging their religion you are judging them.
However if the actions of one are in accord with the teaching of their religion you are judging both them and their religion.

My point in saying read the the first post again was this.
It makes sense that those who understood the teaching of the muhummed and their religion would be closest to the origin of the religion. Especially being the next generation after muhummed etc and look at the result. Combine this with the actions of muhummed himself and it dosnt paint a peaceful picture.

 

[Scott1]

I am not as knowlegable as I would like to be about the Crusades but your article does have one point. The Muslims were not innocent victims in this war. They had invaded large amounts of territory and were intent on ruling the world. The history channel showed both sides and the striking part is that the Crusades are almost treated like they happened yesterday by a large amount of Muslims. Just as I would dislike a one sided christian view on the Crusades, I also dislike the way that the Muslims are willing to be one sided about this matter.

I suggest reading this article: The Crusades

 

[James the Persian]

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. Muslim armies sacked and slaughtered their way across some of the greatest Christian cities in the world, including Alexandria, Carthage, Antioch and Constantinople. These Muslim invaders destroyed over 3,200 Christian churches just in the first 100 years of Islam."

I'm not sure what you were trying to say here, but this paragraph is a little confusing. Just in case you are unaware, Constantinople did not fall to the Muslims until 15th century. Your paragraph reads as though it was in the first centuries after Mohammed's death. The only people to whom Constantinople fell during the era of the Crusades were the Roman Catholic armies of the 4th Crusade. Constantinople was entirely Christian at the time.

James