Islam The Christian crusades

[mindlight]

Why are the Christian crusades still a source of grievance 800 years later? What was the difference between the Muslim conquest of the Byzantine Christian province of Palestina and the Christian reconquest of Jerusalem. What is so special about Jerusalem to the Muslims?

 

[FireDragon76]

It's my opinion that the Crusades are a symbol in the Muslim world that fundamentalist Islamicist groups use. Also, leftists who are skeptical of the role of the Christian faith in society see it as an easy target, along with the Inquisition and witch burnings, to paint "Christendom" in a uniformly negative light.

 

[buzuxi02]

Eastern Christians dislike the 4th Crusaude which captured Constantinople for 70 years while looting everything in site. This weakened the eastern capital when it was recaptured by the byzantines, this weakening contributed to the Ottomon Turks succeeding in capturing Anatolia.

For the most part though, westerners have no clue of history and do not realize the Islamists stole Roman christian lands. To this very day the overwhelming majority of archaeological sites from Anatolia to Syria and Palestine are all Roman or pre-christian Greek. This includes the modern state of Israel where there are more greek and roman artificacts, and archaeological ruins than hebrew (or arabic or turkish). This is best seen by obtaining a Turkish travel brochure. Turkey is officially 99.2% Muslim yet the overwhelming majority of their tourist sites and museum artifacts are either, Greek, Armenian, or Byzantine in origin. In fact many of their abandoned villages are christian villages who had to flee during the population swaps.

 

[Tolworth John]

Why are the Christian crusades still a source of grievance 800 years later? What was the difference between the Muslim conquest of the Byzantine Christian province of Palestina and the Christian reconquest of Jerusalem. What is so special about Jerusalem to the Muslims?

For most muslims they are not a source of grievance, as they won.
It is only because of the looney liberals who think Christianity is a dirty word to islam and they have gone overboard is saying sorry for the crusades that canny muslims realise that ignorant christians can be got to beat themselves up over a war they lost have jumped on the band wagon.

 

[Limo]

It's not a source of grievance at all.
It's a source of shameful history of Church and Christianity.
It was bloody barbarian campaigns.
I was wandering, you believe that Muslims conquering Roman/Byzantine land?
Did you read your books? Not ours!!!!
Did you read what Romans did for Jews, Christians, and others.
Even when the Byzantine became Christians, did they stop killing other Christian or others.
Muslims were bringing freedom to people.
Compare Jews and non-Roman Catholic live under Byzantine empire to their live after Islamic opening of the area

 

[buzuxi02]

Limo you have no idea. First off its a fact to this day that most of any architectural value and culture is roman or greek. Secondly over the course of a millenial some people will have grievances. The Byzantines as modetn history refers to them persecuted other byzantines if they became troublemakers, many emperors in the 5th century prefered the monophysite party, when the economy went down they found fault with the Latins (what you call roman catholics). The fact is to this day the successors to the byzantines which are the modern nation states of Greece and Cyprus are 10x times more civilized than anything in the Levant. Also before 1950 the crown jewel cities of muslim nations were still the predominant christian cities of Alexandria and Beirut (known back then as the paris of the middle east). The fact is the East Roman Empire was the greatest empire ever and this can easily be proven by being a tourist and visiting those areas. You can go to Turkey and see the most amazing architectural marvels and realize Anatolia did not become truly Turkish until under Mustafa Kemal Ataturk drove out the native peoples between 1914-1924. Muslims stole roman lands and subjugated the indigenous natives to minority status or forced coverted them through taxation and janiseriesm

 

[JackRT]

Although efforts are sometimes made to whitewash the crusades by pointing to its worthy cause, it rapidly devolved into just another barbarian invasion led by European noble families (mostly Franks) seeking wealth and power. It began poorly and ended worse.

 

[mindlight]

Eastern Christians dislike the 4th Crusaude which captured Constantinople for 70 years while looting everything in site. This weakened the eastern capital when it was recaptured by the byzantines, this weakening contributed to the Ottomon Turks succeeding in capturing Anatolia.

For the most part though, westerners have no clue of history and do not realize the Islamists stole Roman christian lands. To this very day the overwhelming majority of archaeological sites from Anatolia to Syria and Palestine are all Roman or pre-christian Greek. This includes the modern state of Israel where there are more greek and roman artificacts, and archaeological ruins than hebrew (or arabic or turkish). This is best seen by obtaining a Turkish travel brochure. Turkey is officially 99.2% Muslim yet the overwhelming majority of their tourist sites and museum artifacts are either, Greek, Armenian, or Byzantine in origin. In fact many of their abandoned villages are christian villages who had to flee during the population swaps.

Well I have to agree that the fourth crusade was a complete disaster. In the long run it opened up the way to Constantinople's fall to Muslim powers and doomed the Christians of the East to poverty and oppression for the next 600 years.

The Ottoman Empires wealth was awesome at its peak and yet you are right its architectural legacy is rather impoverished compared to the Byzantines and Greek civilisation that preceded it.

But the Crusaders also forgot or perhaps more accurately resented the Supremacy of Constantinople and the Greek world in the Christian world preferring to assert Rome and Latin. But I believe the fourth crusaders were nonetheless excommunicated because they failed in their mission which was to the Holy land not Constantinople. It is a shame in this case that Christian disunity was so harmful to the Christian cause. Millions were subjugated under Ottoman rule as a long term result of this crusade.

 

[mindlight]

For most muslims they are not a source of grievance, as they won.
It is only because of the looney liberals who think Christianity is a dirty word to islam and they have gone overboard is saying sorry for the crusades that canny muslims realise that ignorant christians can be got to beat themselves up over a war they lost have jumped on the band wagon.

The crusades were actually a great success in avoiding wars amongst Christian princes within the Catholic world and diverting their military energies into the protection of Christendom. The Crusaders effectively halted the expansion of Islam in its tracks, reconquering Spain and effectively securing access to the new World to Christians only. The solution to the Muslim problem was defined as a military one for the next 800 years eventually resulting in the subjugation of much of the Muslim world under the European military powers.

The failure of the fourth crusade led to the fall of Constantinople and ultimately to the conquest of the Balkans. We have Serbian and Austrian Christians to thank for the victories that halted that advance. But their sacrifices would have been unnecessary had the Christian world continued to coordinate the actions of East and West against the Muslim threat.

It is retreat from empire that has led to a revision in the way we regard the crusades. Because the empire project was a racist and greedy one to some extent people forget the benefits it brought and the process of which it formed the end with the design of bringing Christianity and civilisation to the world. The retreat from empire has also meant the powers that Christian soldiers liberated from Islam are now back under its sway. I do not know how ugly and how strong these powers need to grow before Westerners once again recognise them for what they are. But the difference in Western civilisation now is that we are no longer the hungry, God fearing people that would stake their lives on a grand crusade. We have grown fat and comfortable by contrast.

 

[mindlight]

It's not a source of grievance at all.
It's a source of shameful history of Church and Christianity.
It was bloody barbarian campaigns.
I was wandering, you believe that Muslims conquering Roman/Byzantine land?
Did you read your books? Not ours!!!!
Did you read what Romans did for Jews, Christians, and others.
Even when the Byzantine became Christians, did they stop killing other Christian or others.
Muslims were bringing freedom to people.
Compare Jews and non-Roman Catholic live under Byzantine empire to their live after Islamic opening of the area

After the Muslims conquered the previously mainly Christian city of Jerusalem in 638 AD they proceeded to consolidate their rule. By 937 AD they were able to bar access to the Holy places to Christians and there are various incidents of riots against Christians, burning of churches down (e.g. Church of Holy sepulchre (resurrection) in 937 AD and again in 1009 AD). It was later also pillaged in 1055 AD. An Earthquake in 1015 was arguably a sign from God of impending doom for the Muslim world as it collapsed the Dome of the Rock. Christians were increasingly persecuted in the build up to the first crusade. So the First Crusade which by all accounts was successful was both justified by Muslim persecution and oppression of what was still a mainly Christian city, by sacrilegious violations of churches and by the restriction of access to the Holy places.

Since the Christian population of the whole of Palestine fell to a mere 6k in 1533 it seems the effect of the Muslim victory was the genocide, enslavement, deportation or exile of most of the previous Christian population. The number of Jews was also miniscule by this point. The idea that the Muslims were worthy protectors seems laughable given these statistics.

The Ottomans who later dominated the region would go on to massacre large numbers of Greek and Armenian Christians and contribute to the growing tide of anti-Christianity and anti-Semitism that has characterised the Muslim world to an increasing extent over the last 200 years especially. Quite simply today it is not safe to live in a Muslim dominated country.

The effect of the crusades was not helpful to the church in the Middle east. But arguably this was doomed from the moment they accepted Muslim overlords. The effect of the crusades was to save the rest of us from Muslim domination and to turn the tide against Islam. Islam has never really recovered despite the temporary surge of the Ottomans in the Balkans.

 

[mindlight]

Although efforts are sometimes made to whitewash the crusades by pointing to its worthy cause, it rapidly devolved into just another barbarian invasion led by European noble families (mostly Franks) seeking wealth and power. It began poorly and ended worse.

The First crusade was a complete success. Richard the Lionheart in the Third Crusade was also quite successful. The Fourth crusade was an unmitigated disaster and act of piracy. Later crusades were not that effective. But the crusading spirit in Spain and in the Balkans and its historical momentum in the subsequent rise of the Christian Europes nation states was crucial to halting the spread of Islam and of establishing Christianity as the dominant religion of the new world.

 

[JackRT]

The reconquest of Spain seems to have been largely home grown and had minimal involvement from other Christian states.

 

[dzheremi]

To follow post #6, just to show the depth of Islamic lies and self-deception about how great Muslims brought freedom to people and blahblahblah:

According to the Turkish government itself 12,211 place names were changed from non-Turkish languages (usually Armenian, Greek, or Kurdish) in the Kemalist government's Turkification program (which also extended to other types of renaming, including things like animal names; can't have good Turkish children calling animals by Armenian or Kurdish names, unless it's to insult those people). As per wiki, "etymologist Sevan Nisanyan estimates that, of the geographical location name changes, 4,200 were Greek, 4,000 Kurdish, 3,600 Armenian, 750 Arabic, 400 Assyrian, 300 Georgian, 200 Laz, and 50 others." The following map shows the percentage of place names changed by province since 1916. Note how the largest percentages (75%+) occur in the east of the country, in what used to be Armenian territory (historic Western Armenia).

Look at all that freedom.

 

[mindlight]

The reconquest of Spain seems to have been largely home grown and had minimal involvement from other Christian states.

Well it started earlier and went on till Granada fell in 1492. I understand that the pope exempted Spanish knights from the crusades and knightly orders like the Templars fought as did French troops

Battle of Las Navas de Tolosa - Wikipedia

So it was a mainly Spanish Portugese fight but considered as an important part of the overall defence of Christendom.

 

[JackRT]

Well it started earlier and went on till Granada fell in 1492. I understand that the pope exempted Spanish knights from the crusades and knightly orders like the Templars fought as did French troops

Battle of Las Navas de Tolosa - Wikipedia

So it was a mainly Spanish Portugese fight but considered as an important part of the overall defence of Christendom.

Yes, the Franks were the main contributors to the Crusades. Some of their noble families tried to carve out their own kingdoms there.

PS --- the link does not work

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I've actually heard the argument that the Crusades weren't at all that much of a concern to the Islamic world as some sort of grievance, that this is completely missing from Islamic literature until modern times when it suddenly became popular to criticise Christians for it.

That being said, any Muslim complaining of Christian conquests in the Holy land or Spain should first look at their own history of rapid military conquest and ask if they have any grounds to criticise Christians for wanting to not capture new Lands but recapture old ones and make safe travel for Pilgrims. Their argument is largely hypocritical given how Islam spread throughout the world.

It's not a source of grievance at all.
It's a source of shameful history of Church and Christianity.
It was bloody barbarian campaigns.
I was wandering, you believe that Muslims conquering Roman/Byzantine land?
Did you read your books? Not ours!!!!
Did you read what Romans did for Jews, Christians, and others.
Even when the Byzantine became Christians, did they stop killing other Christian or others.
Muslims were bringing freedom to people.
Compare Jews and non-Roman Catholic live under Byzantine empire to their live after Islamic opening of the area

Is this a serious statement? The use of the word freedom here is misleading because when we compare it to the freedoms allowed in modern western countries no such freedom ever existed in the Islamic world for non Muslims.

Say what you want about the Eastern Romans but they weren't the ones who took young Muslim boys from their families and raised them Christian.

 

[mindlight]

Yes, the Franks were the main contributors to the Crusades. Some of their noble families tried to carve out their own kingdoms there.

PS --- the link does not work

Link should be working now - thanks

 

[MissRowy]

The 2nd Crusade was bad for the Christians in the Holy Land from what I have read. Also after the 2nd Crusade, Europe didn't want to send any more reinforcements after the disaster that was the 2nd Crusade.

 

[Chesterton]

I've actually heard the argument that the Crusades weren't at all that much of a concern to the Islamic world as some sort of grievance, that this is completely missing from Islamic literature until modern times when it suddenly became popular to criticise Christians for it.

Yep. This guy knew his history. Muslims didn't even have a word for "Crusades". Go to about 4:25 in the video:

 

[anatolian]

Yep. This guy knew his history. Muslims didn't even have a word for "Crusades". Go to about 4:25 in the video:

Yes because no word in our languages were capable of defining such attrocities.