The Crusades...where were all the christians?

[yellowbo]

I am studying the crusades right now. From what I can see the catholics were the ones doing all the bad stuff, yet in every book I read they say the christians, when in fact it was the catholics.

BUT you can not tell me that there were no non catholic christians in that time. So, where were they and why did they allow all of this happen?

I have to tell you, it drives me batty to hear people say "the christians killed all the jews and muslims in the crusades, blah blah blah. I know that the catholic church was the biggest then, BUT AGAIN, there had to be normal bible beleiving christians.

[Saint Louis]

Kind of speculating here, but I think non-Catholics were a minority with little political power in European monarchies... England was still Catholic (Richard Lionheart was a leader of the third Crusade against Saladin)... Nothing like the modern American evangelical church which wields significant power in our democratic Republic by basically voting as a bloc.

I'm sure there's a lot more to say about it though.

[Galoutofdixie]

I'm not so sure about their being normal bible believing Christians then or not? I don't think very many people could read, nor were there bibles available to the general population. The printed bible was not available until about 1456. Up until then they were written by hand and took a long time to transcribe, so that made them very expensive and really only available to the literate. The first crusades were in 1096, so 400 yrs. before bibles were widely available.

http://www.biblesociety.com.au/BS/Bible/history_printbible.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Crusade

[yellowbo]

Kind of speculating here, but I think non-Catholics were a minority with little political power in European monarchies... England was still Catholic (Richard Lionheart was a leader of the third Crusade against Saladin)... Nothing like the modern American evangelical church which wields significant power in our democratic Republic by basically voting as a bloc.

I'm sure there's a lot more to say about it though.

Yes, you're right.

BUT, I guess where my problem is, is with people lumping all of us Christians together as in "through out the years, Christians have been more guilty of mass murder then any other religion, just look at the crusades" blah blah blah.
When in fact it was the catholics!:mad :doh

I guess I just don't know exactly how to answerer people when the pose that statement.:confused

[JoelH]

I think we may only be getting one side of the story. The Crusades is getting all the bad press, but have we thought that it may all be propaganda and one-sided disinformation? From what I understand the Crusades could well be a Western European nations' self-defence against Islamic onslaughts. But then, I may well be rehashing old Catholic apologetics points :noidea so check the history books and the Bible.

Joel

[yellowbo]

I think we may only be getting one side of the story. The Crusades is getting all the bad press, but have we thought that it may all be propaganda and one-sided disinformation? From what I understand the Crusades could well be a Western European nations' self-defence against Islamic onslaughts. But then, I may well be rehashing old Catholic apologetics points :noidea so check the history books and the Bible.

Joel

There were almost as many Jews killed or sent away. The ones who "converted" were not even trusted as having trully converted and then were killed or tortured.:(:

[JoelH]

There were almost as many Jews killed or sent away. The ones who "converted" were not even trusted as having trully converted and then were killed or tortured.:(:

This is the key. Any verifiable primary sources to back up this claim? Anything (apart from the Bible) could contain errors, and in senior high school or university history courses the first thing the teachers will tell you is "There is no such thing as textbooks at this level. Your job is to double check what the texts record and what I say, and investigate them to see if they are true". I think we need to be careful not to fall into the trap of believing everything "Form 5 History" says just because it is the 5th Form history textbook :): .

[yellowbo]

This is the key. Any verifiable primary sources to back up this claim? Anything (apart from the Bible) could contain errors, and in senior high school or university history courses the first thing the teachers will tell you is "There is no such thing as textbooks at this level. Your job is to double check what the texts record and what I say, and investigate them to see if they are true". I think we need to be careful not to fall into the trap of believing everything "Form 5 History" says just because it is the 5th Form history textbook :): .

Sorry, I guess I should of clarified when I said studying. I am studying on my own, I have been challanged by a muslim friend of mine, which has promted me to study the crusades. So, with that said, the info is not in a text book, I am reading about 7 different books, written by different authors, from different faiths, or no faith for that matter. One author is even an X nun. But non the less, the part about the jews is very verifiable, do your own search with Jews 1492-1700

[mikitta]

The Crusades were started in RESPONSE to muslim agression against Jerusalem and also because of their incursions into mediteranean european nations. It is revisionist history that wants to tell us that the muslims were sitting peacefully in their tents, reading the koran and watering their camels. Europe had two choices - accept dhimitude or fight.

Tell me what your choice would have been?

I say death before dhimmi - no matter what. Bowing to Allah is bowing to a false god and denying Christ. The Chrisitans of Europe understood this very well.

God Bless,
mik

[mikitta]

http://www.conservativetruth.org/article.php?id=2916

an article you might find interresting.

Also - http://www.faith.org.uk/Publications/Magazines/May06/TheCrusadesSeekingTheTruth.html

The facts speak for themselves – the speed of Islamic expansion, which ensured that the new religion stretched from the Atlantic coast to Central Asia within a century of the founder’s death, is one of the wonders of history. As G. K. Chesterton wrote, ‘when people talk as if the Crusades were nothing more than an aggressive raid against Islam, they seem to forget in the strangest way that Islam itself was only an aggressive raid against the old and ordered civilization in these parts. I do not say it in mere hostility to the religion of Mahomet; I am fully conscious of many values and virtues in it; but certainly it was Islam that was the invasion and Christendom that was the thing invaded.’ Muslim jurists formed the concept of jihad, or holy struggle, which included the aim of conquering the rest of the non-Muslim world.

and

The crusades were fought in defence of Christian civilisation. As G. K. Chesterton said, ‘the Crusade was the counter-attack. It was the defensive army taking the offensive in its turn, and driving back the enemy to his base.’ Critics of the crusades, he argued, ‘seem entirely to forget that long before the Crusaders had dreamed of riding to Jerusalem, the Moslems had almost ridden into Paris. They seem to forget that if the Crusaders nearly conquered Palestine, it was but a return upon the Moslems who had nearly conquered Europe.

Therein is the truth. Islamists do not wish for peace with the rest of the world, they wish for domination over the rest of the world. A bloody sword is their favorite instrument.

The Crusades occured as a result of 4 centuries of VIOLENT MUSLIM EXPANSIONISM THAT THREATENED THE EXISTANCE OF EUROPEAN CHRISTIANITY. I don't care what revisionist tripe the muslims or modern day liberals throw out at you. The truth is very easy to discern with a careful study of the historical record of muslim agression in the middle east from the 7th century all the way into the 19th century.

God Bless,
mik

[frisian1970]

Some Jews preferred living under Muslim area rule than Catholic rule. That isn't revisionist history. Rambam, the Jewish doctor from that era, writes about this.

[frisian1970]

In regards to any atrocities, its akin to asking where were "Christians" during the era of slavery in the United States.

[Madigan]

And frankly, I think it was pretty much just Catholic and Orthodox. Crusades, Inquisition, etc. were all well before Luther/Reformation.

[Gods Trombone]

I am studying the crusades right now. From what I can see the catholics were the ones doing all the bad stuff, yet in every book I read they say the christians, when in fact it was the catholics.

BUT you can not tell me that there were no non catholic christians in that time. So, where were they and why did they allow all of this happen?

I have to tell you, it drives me batty to hear people say "the christians killed all the jews and muslims in the crusades, blah blah blah. I know that the catholic church was the biggest then, BUT AGAIN, there had to be normal bible beleiving christians.

Since the Gospel of Grace had been suppressed and rejected starting in Paul's lifetime, there were probably very few believers around during the Crusades.

[CanuckMedic]

The problem was no one but the priests could read the bible. No one really knew what that great book said. So if the Pope said "kill the heretics, march on Jerusalem and be saved" well who could argue with that?

Power corrupts.

[Crusader]

James 2:5 "Listen, my dear brothers: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him?"

God always reserves a remnant for Himself, even in the bleakest of times like the dark ages. But they would not be the people with power, because as we see in James God choses the poor in the eyes of the world. True believers are always in the minority and rarely in a position to stop those in power from doing evil things. And yes, the devil loves to parade his sons as Christians and have them do atrocious things in order to profane the name of Christ.

[Lexie]

Some Jews preferred living under Muslim area rule than Catholic rule. That isn't revisionist history. Rambam, the Jewish doctor from that era, writes about this.



Frisian,

Rambam moved to Morocco, Israel, Egypt, after Spain had been overtaken by Muslims. His family, and the rest of the Jew's, were being threatened, to be forcefully converted to Allah, in Spain by Muslims. He settled in a Jewish community in Egypt.

Many of the Stan nations, used to be called by other names, and use to belong to non Muslims. The history of Islam is bloody, they were compared to swarms of locusts, they would swarm in, kill and overtake. Read what Islam did to the Jew's and Christians in Iraq, Yemen, especially children.

Saladin taxed Jew's and Christians, for the privilege of living in Muslim land, which part of the lands, used to be non Muslim lands..Slavery still goes on in Asia, Africa, and in all Muslim lands, America did not invent Slavery, all people groups, have done horrible things to each other, since the beginning..

Would you want your daughter to marry a Catholic or a Muslim?

[allforHim]

It was all because of replacement theology. The catholic church and Islam both thought they were the new "apple of Gods eye"(and still do). That the Jews were responsible for the death of Christ( so had to be tortured and killed at every chance, not much changed there then) It was barbaric times and evil things were done in the name of Jesus! Both the Christians ( sorry but the catholic church is Christian, just very confused in areas and backslidden) and the muslims fought to be the one true church throughout history, ignoring the fact that the Jews were still the apple of Gods eye. Christianity did a lot of damage! Thats why in many countries missionaries cant say they're Christian as it creates mistrust and fear in the people they're trying to save. They say they're followers of Jesus. We cant put the blame on any one denomination, it doesnt change anything. WE JUST NEED TO GET IT RIGHT NOW. :hail

[watchingthesky]

The Crusades were a terrible chapter in overall Christian history, but they wouldn't have even taken place if the muslims hadn't:

1. Conquered the Holy Land;
2. Started restricting Christian pilgrims from visiting Holy Sites.
3. Started expanding against the Byzantine Empire and in Spain.

Make no mistake, if Christians of that era had not mobilized, there would quite likely be no Christianity today. The muslims would have simply wiped it out. God allowed the Crusades to happen for a reason, and for me that reason was to check islam from its rapid expansion. In my opinion, it is no coincidence that islam arose in the Middle East. Christianity was exploding at that time, and Satan had to do something about it, lest the whole world would be evangelized and converted in short order and his doom would be secured. I believe false religions are simply a tool Satan developed to prolong his own freedom and avoid his punishment, frankly. The more resistance to the Truth, the longer it takes for the Truth to spread.

The initial call for action by the reigning Pope for purely defensive in reasoning. But in reality, the men of that day were little more than savages, and when a bunch of them got together, well, bad things happened. Catholic teaching of that day directly blamed the Jews for "killing Jesus", which is preposterous when you think about it because HE IS NOT DEAD. So these Catholic nobles and men-at-arms, emboldened by their large numbers, devolved into even more vile savages, raping and pillaging wherever they went.

In the end, the Crusades are a regrettable chapter in Christendom, and definitely not a shining example of Christ the Savior. But I think they were necessary to check the spread of the false religion of islam.

All of this in no way excuses any of the multitude of muslim atrocities throughout the ages. They have consistently been as brutal as early Christians, and in most cases, much more aggressive and malicious. In reality, you have to go back several centuries to point to Christian atrocities, while for islam, you only need go back 8 or 12 hours. Bottom line - Europe grew out of the 12th century, islam did not.

God bless.

[Ripped]

This again. The Crusades ended over 500 years ago, it can't be compared to any one jihad.

Where to start here?:

Myth 1: The Crusades were wars of unprovoked aggression against a peaceful Muslim world.

This is as wrong as wrong can be. From the time of Mohammed, Muslims had sought to conquer the Christian world. They did a pretty good job of it, too. After a few centuries of steady conquests, Muslim armies had taken all of North Africa, the Middle East, Asia Minor and most of Spain.

In other words, 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.

And the Muslim empires were not finished yet. They continued to press westward toward Constantinople, ultimately passing it and entering Europe itself. As far as unprovoked aggression goes, it was all on the Muslim side. At some point what was left of the Christian world would have to defend itself or simply succumb to Islamic conquest.

http://www.crusades-encyclopedia.com/crusadesmyths.html

At MOST, over several centuries, the Crusaders were responsible for 150,000 deaths - that's a drop in the bucket compared to Islam's rate. Even the RCC never advocated lying to infidels.

[maryr_32]

Well, considering that when Pope Urban II started the first crusade with his rousing speech at Cleremont there were no Protestants......
Catholics = Christians. OH, btw, if Catholics aren't Christians, then there were no Christians until Martin Luther's movement in the 1500s?????????????

SO, when did Catholics cease to be Christian????

[allforHim]

I agree Maryr_32 catholics are christian. :nod And if it wasnt for the catholic church spreading the good news, no one would know it! A lot of christians are very anti catholic. I'm not catholic but have some very good and Godly friends who are.

[yellowbo]

This thread HAS TOTALY gotten off topic.

I was NOT debating Islam.

All I wanted to know, is if there where other kinds of christians. Meaning other then the Catholics.

thats all.

[yellowbo]

Well, considering that when Pope Urban II started the first crusade with his rousing speech at Cleremont there were no Protestants......
Catholics = Christians. OH, btw, if Catholics aren't Christians, then there were no Christians until Martin Luther's movement in the 1500s?????????????

SO, when did Catholics cease to be Christian????

Geez, Calm down. I don't think I said catholics were not christians.
BUT, since YOU brought it up, I WAS raised Catholic, my mother was a fransican nun before she got married, I went to catholic school, etc. I was raised a good catholic girl, who at one point for many years, wanted to be a nun myself.
BUT, I can say this. NEVER ONCE as a catholic was I told about repenting of my sins, accepting Jesus into my life and following HIM.
I was taught to go to confession with a priest, say my hail mary's take my sacraments, and then I could earn my way to pergatory.
So, I am sure there are many catholics who have accepted Jesus, But the truth be told, the chruch teaches salvation through it, not through Jesus.

[BobTheBuilder]

Frisian,

Rambam moved to Morocco, Israel, Egypt, after Spain had been overtaken by Muslims. His family, and the rest of the Jew's, were being threatened, to be forcefully converted to Allah, in Spain by Muslims. He settled in a Jewish community in Egypt.

Many of the Stan nations, used to be called by other names, and use to belong to non Muslims. The history of Islam is bloody, they were compared to swarms of locusts, they would swarm in, kill and overtake. Read what Islam did to the Jew's and Christians in Iraq, Yemen, especially children.

Saladin taxed Jew's and Christians, for the privilege of living in Muslim land, which part of the lands, used to be non Muslim lands..Slavery still goes on in Asia, Africa, and in all Muslim lands, America did not invent Slavery, all people groups, have done horrible things to each other, since the beginning..

Would you want your daughter to marry a Catholic or a Muslim?

Sorry to perpetuate the highjacking of your thread yellowbro but I figure we've already gone this far.

Muslims may have been taxing non muslims and restricte access to holy sites; however the fact that there were actually Christian and Jewish communities in the Muslim empire says a great deal about the way ancient Islam treated other faiths. If you look at Midieval europe you wouldn't find many (if any) muslim communities. Those who wouldn't convert were simply wiped out. Jews were more persecuted by the Midieval Catholic church than they were by Muslims.

If you look at the history of India, a country which is now currently home to a Billion Hindus, you'll see that they regard the muslim rulers in their history as some of their greatest and most benevolent leaders.

The militance and violance of Modern Extremist Islam doesn't really represent the actions of Islam throughout history. It is true that Islam was spread by the sword. However to Christianity was similarly spread by the roman military, and the subsequent wars, persecutions, and inquisitions of the Catholic Church (which represented most, if not all christians at the time).

This, obviously, isn't to say that Islam is better than Christianity. Its just you are taking (what i would call revisionist) history and using it to villify people, in the same way that some people use the Crusades to villify Christians.

And as to the question you ask at the end:

Would you want your daughter to marry a Catholic or a Muslim?

Are you suggesting that if we take into account all the agression committed by those two peoples over the course of their history that a Catholic would be a better choice as a spouse. This is just ridiculous. People are who they are because of their own actions, not the actions of their ancestors. A Catholic could be a bad person, just a Muslim could, why suggest that one is better than the other. Should someone NOT marry a German because of the holocaust? How about the Japanese they attacked us at Pearl Harbor, should we automatically mistrust them.

Sorry if that come off a bit harsh at the end, but I don't see a justification for judging people based on the actions of a few people who happen to be of the same race/creed/ethnicity.

[Lexie]

Bob,

They might let the Christians and Jew's live among them, but they slowly disappeared..If you look at a map of India, their land has been eaten away by Muslims..India is still fighting Muslims. Russia has been fighting them for along time. Gandhi got in the middle of this situation, sticking up for Muslims, thinking his people, could live with Muslims, in peace. Yugoslavia and surrounding areas have been torn apart. Spain has problems with rebels. Africa is being torn apart by Muslims. Indonesia has almost been completely taken over.

My brothers fiance is Filipino, she is there now, she says the Muslims are eating away her country, there are areas you can't even go in, because you might get raped, she can't carry her cell phone, the Muslim youth take them, she was sitting at a bus stop with an a women, who was on her cell phone, and a group of Muslim youth took a knife, to the ladies throat, she told her give them the phone, they are not playing, they will kill you. But it's a peaceful religion, with a couple militants, who are giving Islam a bad name. They get along with us, as long as we give them what they want, leave them alone, to build bombs, swords, guns, up in the mountains of Afghanistan, Pakistan, build networks.

.
I am not saying the Catholics were not brutal, killing and torturing in the name of God is wrong, forcing people to convert, and forced baptisms is wrong, using the sign of the cross to do this is wrong, I am saying the people who were affected, make them out to be worse then they were, and have written history to favor their position, the Muslims have taken over Catholic lands too..Rulers through out history, usually had a nice history written about themselves.

My question about marrying a Muslim or catholic was mente for now, I would not want my daughter, if I had one, to marry either, if I had to choose, it would be a Catholic, I would not move to a Muslim land, with my chlid

[JesusLover_2002]

Yes, you're right.

BUT, I guess where my problem is, is with people lumping all of us Christians together as in "through out the years, Christians have been more guilty of mass murder then any other religion, just look at the crusades" blah blah blah.
When in fact it was the catholics!:mad :doh

I guess I just don't know exactly how to answerer people when the pose that statement.:confused



Yellowbo, you are not alone on this. People have made that statment to me as well, and I corrected them and it still does not sink in their heads.

[jtcornpone]

BUT, I guess where my problem is, is with people lumping all of us Christians together as in "through out the years, Christians have been more guilty of mass murder then any other religion, just look at the crusades" blah blah blah.
When in fact it was the catholics!:mad :doh
I find that the typical phrasing is "Christianity (or religion) is responsible for more death than any other system in history" or some variant thereof. FTR, It's a patently false claim. I addressed this a few months ago in the following youtube video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAn70_-_QyE

[mikitta]

JTC, you are a cutie :P

/end thread hijack.

God Bless,
mik

[jtcornpone]

JTC, you are a cutie :P
Thanks. Honestly, I don't get that a lot -- certainly not from the single Christian women around here. :):

[mikitta]

ah, well, I'm not single :p But you single ladies ... :D

God Bless,
mik

[Rainbo2]

Near as I can tell from studying religion from back in that time period. Is that most of the population was illiterate and christian, and the 1 major religion was the RCC. From what I can figure out not only was the RCC a religious force but also a political one. From all I have read and the documentaries I've seen, if you opposed the RCC you ended up in jail or dead.

Europe was not a Democracy, there was no vote by the people, no asking your senator or representative to tell the pres. that the people didn't agree with his decision. What the King, Queen, Emperor, ect said was the law. If you didn't agree, it was best to keep quiet, or you could end up dead.

There was no TV news, and how many could read, or even received the written news paper back then. Was one even being written??? I wonder how many of the common people either knew or understood what was going on? If they had heard about it, by word of mouth, I'm willing to bet that it was slanted in favor of the crusaders.

Oh well just my opinion, and if I am wrong....... Please be gentle!!!!

[Elizabeth_S]

Well, considering that when Pope Urban II started the first crusade with his rousing speech at Cleremont there were no Protestants......
Catholics = Christians. OH, btw, if Catholics aren't Christians, then there were no Christians until Martin Luther's movement in the 1500s?????????????

SO, when did Catholics cease to be Christian????

The RCC is a religious organization. There were plenty Christians that were non Catholic. There are people who are Catholic who are Christian, jsut not the organization itself.

The RCC persecuted more Christians than non Christians did during the dark ages and beyond.

The RCC itself is not a Christian organization, just a religious one. The RCC's war on groups it called "heretic" and many lies the RCC made against Christian groups is well documented. the Waldensians being just one of many that the RCC hunted down and slaughtered.

The RCC knew that Jesus never called for the mass slaughter of people who did not believe as the RCC did, yet the RCC called for and slaughter hundreds of thousands Christians.

The RCC offered salvation to many, for money, for those who would go fight in the Crusades, if they happen to die in battle.

The Muslims were expanding and slaughtering people in the name of "allah" while the RCC itself was serving it's own interest (nothing to do with saving the Holy Lands from invasion).

Most of this infromation can be found anywhere.

[Rebecki]

In response to the original question, I think that it has everything to do with the fact that the Roman Catholic church was the only organized "Christian" group at the time. That being said, even today when Chrisitanity is mentioned, Catholicism is the first thing that comes to mind (well, maybe up to 50 years ago). Even in Hollywood when a Christian is portrayed he/she is a Catholic. Even the Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons claim to be Christians. So today, "Christian" is a word that basically lumps all bible believing/using people into one group, whether their theology is accurate or not. Back then, it was only the catholics that were "Christians."

[Serena A]

Muslims may have been taxing non muslims and restricte access to holy sites; however the fact that there were actually Christian and Jewish communities in the Muslim empire says a great deal about the way ancient Islam treated other faiths.

Hardly.Yes,there were other faiths in Muslim countries.But there are also other faiths in Muslim countries nowadays too,but they are treated extremely badly.
Mohammed did not respect other faiths.The Qaynuqa Jews were driven from their homes.For a death threat,he drove the Banu Nadir from their community,
and stole their lands,homes,and belongings.The massacre of the Banu Qurayza is another example.Mohammed ordered the death of all adult and post-pubescent males of the tribe,and the surviving women and children were taken as concubines and slaves.Mohammed built a fire on a Jewish man's chest,for refusing to say where the treasury was in Khaybar.There are countless other examples of Mohammed persecuting other religions,and only putting up with them so his coffers would be filled with money.

The only reason there were other faiths under Islam was because of the jizya.
From the Qu'ran:"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."
That's why there were other faiths under Islam.They had to pary the
From the Hadith:""If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them"
The only reaons why there were other faiths is because of the jizya.If they did not convert,they would either die or have to live under the jizya and in submission to the Muslims.

If you look at Midieval europe you wouldn't find many (if any) muslim communities. Those who wouldn't convert were simply wiped out. Jews were more persecuted by the Midieval Catholic church than they were by Muslims.

Yes,there were Muslim communities in Europe.Take the Al-Andalus,which was governed by Muslims for nearly seven hundred years up until the expulsions of Spain.
I am nost sure about how many Jews were killed under Islam as compared to the RCC.I'd imagine it would be hard to calculate.

If you look at the history of India, a country which is now currently home to a Billion Hindus, you'll see that they regard the muslim rulers in their history as some of their greatest and most benevolent leaders.
So? No one is disputing that there are kind,peaceful,and benevolent Muslims.I know several who are some of the sweetest people you'd ever meet.

The militance and violance of Modern Extremist Islam doesn't really represent the actions of Islam throughout history.
Yes,it does.There is a wealth of information about the history of Muslim violence through the ages,if one cares to read it.It might suprise you.

It is true that Islam was spread by the sword. However to Christianity was similarly spread by the roman military,

Indeed,Christianity was spread by the sword in some cases.But,it was not the biggest way that Christianity was spread.There were three centuries if Roman persecere thrown to the lions,burnt,beheaded,etc.In addition,Jesus did not teach anyone to go out and kill,force people to pay a tax,tell people to rape,pillage and plunder.Christians who did those things were acting contrary to Jesus' teaching,whereas Muslims who did those things were just carrying on Mohammed's legacy.

and the subsequent wars, persecutions, and inquisitions of the Catholic Church (which represented most, if not all christians at the
time).

Not true.The Inquisitions,for example.Guess what? Non-Catholic Christians were a target of the Inquisition,so it was certainly not representing all Christians as you claim it was.

This, obviously, isn't to say that Islam is better than Christianity. Its just you are taking (what i would call revisionist) history and using it to villify people,
So telling the truth about what happened is revisionist?
And telling the truth is villifying people?

in the same way that some people use the Crusades to villify Christians.
The thing is,most people do not know the history of the Crusades.I had one person tell me with a straight face that before the first crusade,Muslims were living peacefully,not hurting anyone,and that they were the epitome of tolerance.I nearly choked.Here's a small section of Islamic history up until the first crusade:
630 Two years before Muhammad's death of a fever, he launches the Tabuk Crusades, in which he led 30,000 jihadists against the Byzantine Christians. He had heard a report that a huge army had amassed to attack Arabia, but the report turned out to be a false rumor. The Byzantine army never materialized. He turned around and went home, but not before extracting 'agreements' from northern tribes. They could enjoy the 'privilege' of living under Islamic 'protection' (read: not be attacked by Islam), if they paid a tax (jizya).

632—634 Under the Caliphate of Abu Bakr the Muslim Crusaders reconquer and sometimes conquer for the first time the polytheists of Arabia. These Arab polytheists had to convert to Islam or die. They did not have the choice of remaining in their faith and paying a tax. Islam does not allow for religious freedom.

633 The Muslim Crusaders, led by Khalid al—Walid, a superior but bloodthirsty military commander, whom Muhammad nicknamed the Sword of Allah for his ferocity in battle (Tabari, 8:158 / 1616—17), conquer the city of Ullays along the Euphrates River (in today's Iraq). Khalid captures and beheads so many that a nearby canal, into which the blood flowed, was called Blood Canal (Tabari 11:24 / 2034—35).

634 At the Battle of Yarmuk in Syria the Muslim Crusaders defeat the Byzantines

634—644 The Caliphate of Umar ibn al—Khattab, who is regarded as particularly brutal.

635 Muslim Crusaders besiege and conquer of Damascus

636 Muslim Crusaders defeat Byzantines decisively at Battle of Yarmuk.

637 Muslim Crusaders conquer Iraq at the Battle of al—Qadisiyyah (some date it in 635 or 636)

638 Muslim Crusaders conquer and annex Jerusalem, taking it from the Byzantines.

638—650 Muslim Crusaders conquer Iran, except along Caspian Sea.

639—642 Muslim Crusaders conquer Egypt.

641 Muslim Crusaders control Syria and Palestine.

643—707 Muslim Crusaders conquer North Africa.

644 Caliph Umar is assassinated by a Persian prisoner of war; Uthman ibn Affan is elected third Caliph, who is regarded by many Muslims as gentler than Umar.

644—650 Muslim Crusaders conquer Cyprus, Tripoli in North Africa, and establish Islamic rule in Iran, Afghanistan, and Sind.

656 Caliph Uthman is assassinated by disgruntled Muslim soldiers; Ali ibn Abi Talib, son—in—law and cousin to Muhammad, who married the prophet's daughter Fatima through his first wife Khadija, is set up as Caliph.

656 Battle of the Camel, in which Aisha, Muhammad's wife, leads a rebellion against Ali for not avenging Uthman's assassination. Ali's partisans win.

657 Battle of Siffin between Ali and Muslim governor of Jerusalem, arbitration goes against Ali

661 Murder of Ali by an extremist; Ali's supporters acclaim his son Hasan as next Caliph, but he comes to an agreement with Muawiyyah I and retires to Medina.

661—680 the Caliphate of Muawiyyah I. He founds Umayyid dynasty and moves capital from Medina to Damascus

673—678 Arabs besiege Constantinople, capital of Byzantine Empire

680 Massacre of Hussein (Muhammad's grandson), his family, and his supporters in Karbala, Iraq.

691 Dome of the Rock is completed in Jerusalem, only six decades after Muhammad's death.

705 Abd al—Malik restores Umayyad rule.

710—713 Muslim Crusaders conquer the lower Indus Valley.

711—713 Muslim Crusaders conquer Spain and impose the kingdom of Andalus.

719 Cordova, Spain, becomes seat of Arab governor

732 The Muslim Crusaders stopped at the Battle of Poitiers; that is, Franks (France) halt Arab advance

749 The Abbasids conquer Kufah and overthrow Umayyids

756 Foundation of Umayyid amirate in Cordova, Spain, setting up an independent kingdom from Abbasids

762 Foundation of Baghdad

785 Foundation of the Great Mosque of Cordova

789 Rise of Idrisid amirs (Muslim Crusaders) in Morocco; foundation of Fez; Christoforos, a Muslim who converted to Christianity, is executed.

800 Autonomous Aghlabid dynasty (Muslim Crusaders) in Tunisia

807 Caliph Harun al—Rashid orders the destruction of non—Muslim prayer houses and of the church of Mary Magdalene in Jerusalem

809 Aghlabids (Muslim Crusaders) conquer Sardinia, Italy

813 Christians in Palestine are attacked; many flee the country

831 Muslim Crusaders capture Palermo, Italy; raids in Southern Italy

850 Caliph al—Matawakkil orders the destruction of non—Muslim houses of prayer

855 Revolt of the Christians of Hims (Syria)

837—901 Aghlabids (Muslim Crusaders) conquer Sicily, raid Corsica, Italy, France

869—883 Revolt of black slaves in Iraq

909 Rise of the Fatimid Caliphate in Tunisia; these Muslim Crusaders occupy Sicily, Sardinia

928—969 Byzantine military revival, they retake old territories, such as Cyprus (964) and Tarsus (969)

937 The Ikhshid, a particularly harsh Muslim ruler, writes to Emperor Romanus, boasting of his control over the holy places

937 The Church of the Resurrection (known as Church of Holy Sepulcher in Latin West) is burned down by Muslims; more churches in Jerusalem are attacked

960 Conversion of Qarakhanid Turks to Islam

966 Anti—Christian riots in Jerusalem

969 Fatimids (Muslim Crusaders) conquer Egypt and found Cairo

c. 970 Seljuks enter conquered Islamic territories from the East

973 Israel and southern Syria are again conquered by the Fatimids

1003 First persecutions by al—Hakim; the Church of St. Mark in Fustat, Egypt, is destroyed

1009 Destruction of the Church of the Resurrection by al—Hakim (see 937)

1012 Beginning of al—Hakim's oppressive decrees against Jews and Christians

1015 Earthquake in Palestine; the dome of the Dome of the Rock collapses

1031 Collapse of Umayyid Caliphate and establishment of 15 minor independent dynasties throughout Muslim Andalus

1048 Reconstruction of the Church of the Resurrection completed

1050 Creation of Almoravid (Muslim Crusaders) movement in Mauretania; Almoravids (aka Murabitun) are coalition of western Saharan Berbers; followers of Islam, focusing on the Quran, the hadith, and Maliki law.

1055 Seljuk Prince Tughrul enters Baghdad, consolidation of the Seljuk Sultanate

1055 Confiscation of property of Church of the Resurrection

1071 Battle of Manzikert, Seljuk Turks (Muslim Crusaders) defeat Byzantines and occupy much of Anatolia

1071 Turks (Muslim Crusaders) invade Palestine

1073 Conquest of Jerusalem by Turks (Muslim Crusaders)

1075 Seljuks (Muslim Crusaders) capture Nicea (Iznik) and make it their capital in Anatolia

1076 Almoravids (Muslim Crusaders) (see 1050) conquer western Ghana

1085 Toledo is taken back by Christian armies

1086 Almoravids (Muslim Crusaders) (see 1050) send help to Andalus, Battle of Zallaca

1090—1091 Almoravids (Muslim Crusaders) occupy all of Andalus except Saragossa and Balearic Islands

Militant Muslims had conquered the Middle East, North Africa, Spain and the Mediterranean Islands.The first Crusade was a defensive measure against Muslim expansion.
Do I agree with it? No.
But I am tired of the general public getting their info about Islamic history and the crusades from 'The Kingdom of Heaven'.
Rainbo2 is also correct.Politics and religion in the middle ages were hopelessly intertwined.
I am also in agreement that no one should be villified,or harassed,because of their religion.

[Literalist-Luke]

Yes, you're right.

BUT, I guess where my problem is, is with people lumping all of us Christians together as in "through out the years, Christians have been more guilty of mass murder then any other religion, just look at the crusades" blah blah blah.
When in fact it was the catholics!:mad :doh

I guess I just don't know exactly how to answerer people when the pose that statement.:confused

Looks to me like you just answered your own question. :): You might also ask them if they support what the 9/11 terrorists did in the name of Islam. Hopefully they'll be among those those who do not, and you can say something like "neither do Bible-believing Christians support what the Vatican did in the name of Christianity during the Crusades."

[Literalist-Luke]

The Crusades were a terrible chapter in overall Christian history, but they wouldn't have even taken place if the muslims hadn't:

1. Conquered the Holy Land;
2. Started restricting Christian pilgrims from visiting Holy Sites.
3. Started expanding against the Byzantine Empire and in Spain.

Make no mistake, if Christians of that era had not mobilized, there would quite likely be no Christianity today. The muslims would have simply wiped it out. God allowed the Crusades to happen for a reason, and for me that reason was to check islam from its rapid expansion. In my opinion, it is no coincidence that islam arose in the Middle East. Christianity was exploding at that time, and Satan had to do something about it, lest the whole world would be evangelized and converted in short order and his doom would be secured. I believe false religions are simply a tool Satan developed to prolong his own freedom and avoid his punishment, frankly. The more resistance to the Truth, the longer it takes for the Truth to spread.

The initial call for action by the reigning Pope for purely defensive in reasoning. But in reality, the men of that day were little more than savages, and when a bunch of them got together, well, bad things happened. Catholic teaching of that day directly blamed the Jews for "killing Jesus", which is preposterous when you think about it because HE IS NOT DEAD. So these Catholic nobles and men-at-arms, emboldened by their large numbers, devolved into even more vile savages, raping and pillaging wherever they went.

In the end, the Crusades are a regrettable chapter in Christendom, and definitely not a shining example of Christ the Savior. But I think they were necessary to check the spread of the false religion of islam.

All of this in no way excuses any of the multitude of muslim atrocities throughout the ages. They have consistently been as brutal as early Christians, and in most cases, much more aggressive and malicious. In reality, you have to go back several centuries to point to Christian atrocities, while for islam, you only need go back 8 or 12 hours. Bottom line - Europe grew out of the 12th century, islam did not.

God bless.

This is the best post I've seen so far in this thread. Good job, watchingthesky! :thumb

[BobTheBuilder]

Serena A,

You cited a Muslim held territory as an example of Muslims in Europe. Those were not muslims living under Christian rule. They were sefl governing until they were expelled from spain. That is no equatable to having colonies of Jews and Christians living under Muslim rulers. The Muslims may have been extorting a tax from them, however they were permitted to live their lives and live by their faiths.

I don't think that the Midieval Catholic Church allowed the Spanish muslims to retain their faith and live under taxation. They were expelled, killed, or converted.

Attempting to portray the Crusades as anything but a power play by Pope Urban II to solidify his power in the face of rebellious kingships and the Schism between the Eastern and Western Church (occuring about 49 years prior to the first crusade) is revisionism. The Crusades had very little to do with true Christianity and were more a political move by Urban to impose his authority over the Pope ruling from Constantinople. The motivation of the Crusaders themsleves may have been to secure the holy land (though its more likely that they sought indulgences from the church and wealth from looting), however the motivation of the Church as a whole was clearly political.

[Serena A]

Perhaps,Bob.
But you seem to think that the Christians and Jews living under the Muslims were just able to pay the tax,and they were fine and dandy with no problems or with no threat,when in reality it was very different.They were living in constant fear of persecution.

[Serena A]

And no,it's not revisionism to state the facts.There were a whole lot of things that contributed to the first crusade,one of which was Muslim conquest and expansion.It was a very complicated issue,and I don't particulary appreciate you telling me that I am trying to revise history,when my points are well documented.
I never said that the crusades had anything to do with 'true Christianity' either.

[Serena A]

Yellowbo,Orthodox Christians as well as thousands of Jews and Muslims were slaughtered in the 1099 Siege of Jerusalem.The RC's also sieged the Orthodox city of Constantinople in the Fourth Crusade.When the crusaders invaded,the Orthodox offered sanctuary to Jews in the churches.

[katylake]

Attempting to portray the Crusades as anything but a power play by Pope Urban II to solidify his power in the face of rebellious kingships and the Schism between the Eastern and Western Church (occuring about 49 years prior to the first crusade) is revisionism. The Crusades had very little to do with true Christianity and were more a political move by Urban to impose his authority over the Pope ruling from Constantinople. The motivation of the Crusaders themsleves may have been to secure the holy land (though its more likely that they sought indulgences from the church and wealth from looting), however the motivation of the Church as a whole was clearly political.

Gee, Bob, you sound disappointed that the Crusaders won in driving Islam out of Europe. (Btw, ignoring THAT is the real definition of revisionism.)

Thank God for Charles Martel for starting the ball rolling!

[BobTheBuilder]

Gee, Bob, you sound disappointed that the Crusaders won in driving Islam out of Europe. (Btw, ignoring THAT is the real definition of revisionism.)

Thank God for Charles Martel for starting the ball rolling!

I personally have very few feelings regarding the crusades which don't really affect me in any way shape of form. However I think its mistaken to portray the Muslims in and around the year 1000 as any more ruthless and blood thirsty than the catholics were. In fact I'd venture to say that of the two, the muslims may have been the more peaceful people.

I've said it before, the muslims allowed peoples of other faiths to exist in their empire. Were they first class citizens...NO. They were taxed and burdened and probably to a certain extent persecuted.

HOWEVER, upon driving the muslims out of spain, the Catholic Church, did not allow muslim settlements to exist. They were either driven out, killed, or forcibly converted (after which many were killed anyway due to the idea of false conversion).

The crusades are upsetting because they are the most widely cited example of "Christian Militancy." Whenever a discussion turns to the inherent violence of certain religions (generally a certain "Relgion of Peace") the counter argument is always, "well its not like the Christians are perfect." However I, for one, do not see the Crusades as having much or anything to do with Christianity. The people were fighting for indulgences offered by the Church. They were misled by false doctrine. The Church itself had no interest in saving the holy land. It was a power play by Urban to exert control over the newly formed Easter Orthodox church based in Constantinople.

To Serena A: I'm sorry I accused you of "revisionism," thats a loaded word and it came out harsher than I intended. I just didn't see the crusades as a war of defense and should have stated and argued that rather than engaging in name calling.

To katylake: I'm dissapointed to see anyone driven out of anywhere. I see no success in simply eliminating a group of peoples from an area. If their political structure was a threat (ie. they were going to expand) defeating them was perfectly justified. However to forcibly expel or kill an entire religious community is deplorable IMO.

[BarbT]

Excellent thread.:thumb

There are some very smart people on this board and I have learned a lot about this topic today. Thanks to all. :):