Muslims love talking about the Crusades... and Christians love apologizing for them. To hear both parties tell the story, one would think that Muslims were just peacefully minding their own business in lands that were legitimately Muslim when Christian armies decided to wage holy war and "kill millions."
The Truth:
Every part of this myth is a lie. By the rules that Muslims claim for themselves, the Crusades were justified. The excesses (though well beneath Christian standards) pale in comparison with the historical treatment of conquered populations at the hands of Muslims. Here are some quick facts... 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 the capital of the Christian world, Rome itself, was attacked by a Muslim army, and only after centuries of church burnings, killings, enslavement and forced conversions of Christians. By the time the Crusades finally began, Muslim armies had conqueredtwo-thirds of the Christian world. Europe had been harassed by Muslims since the first few years following Muhammad’s death. As early as 652, Muhammad’s followers launched raids on the island of Sicily, waging a full-scale occupation 200 years later that lasted almost a century and was punctuated by massacres, such as that at the town of Castrogiovanni, in which 8,000 Christians were put to death. In 1084, ten years before the first crusade, Muslims staged another devastating Sicilian raid, burning churches in Reggio, enslaving monks and raping an abbey of nuns before carrying them into captivity. In 1095, Byzantine Emperor, Alexius I Comneus began begging the pope in Rome for help in turning back the Muslim armies which were overrunning what is now Turkey, grabbing property as they went and turning churches into mosques. Several hundred thousand Christians had been killed in Anatolia alone in the decades following 1050 by Seljuk invaders interested in 'converting' the survivors to Islam. Not only were Christians losing their lives in their own lands to the Muslim advance, but pilgrims to the Holy Land from other parts of Europe were being harassed, kidnapped, molested, forcibly converted to Islam and occasionally murdered. (Compare this to the Quran’s justification for slaughter simply on the basis that Muslims were denied access to the Meccan pilgrimage). Renowned scholar Bernard Lewis points out that the Crusades, though "often compared with the Muslim jihad, was a delayed and limited response to the jihad and in part also an imitation.... Forgiveness for sins to those who fought in defense of the holy Church of God and the Christian religion and polity, and eternal life for those fighting the infidel: these ideas... clearly reflect the Muslim notion of jihad." Lewis goes on to state that, "unlike the jihad, it [the Crusade] was concerned primarily with the defense or reconquest of threatened or lost Christian territory... The Muslim jihad, in contrast, was perceived as unlimited, as a religious obligation that would continue until all the world had either adopted the Muslim faith or submitted to Muslim rule... The object of jihad is to bring the whole world under Islamic law." If someone takes your wallet and you take it back, who is the thief? The Crusaders only invaded lands that were Christian. They did not attack Saudi Arabia (other than a half-hearted expedition by a minor figure) or sack Mecca, as the Muslims had done (and continued doing) to Rome and Constantinople. Their primary goal was the recapture of Jerusalem and the security of safe passage for pilgrims. The toppling of the Muslim empire was not on the agenda. The period of Crusader “occupation” (of its own former land) was stretched tenuously over about 170 years, which is less than the Muslim occupation of Sicily and southern Italy alone - to say nothing of Spain, Bulgaria and other lands that had never been Islamic before falling victim to Jihad. In fact, the Arab occupation of North Africa and Middle Eastern lands outside of Arabia is almost 1400 years old. Despite popular depiction, the Crusades were not a titanic battle between Christianity and Islam. Although originally dispatched by papal decree, the "occupiers" quickly became part of the political and economic fabric of the Middle East without much regard for religious differences. Their arrival was largely accepted by the local population as simply another change in authority. Islamic radicals even lamented the fact that many of their co-religionists preferred to live under Frankish (Christian) rule than migrate to Muslim lands. The Muslim world was also split into warring factions, many of which allied themselves with the Frankish princes against each other at one time or another. This even included Saladin, the Kurdish warrior who is credited with eventually ousting the "Crusaders." Contrary to recent propaganda, however, Saladin had little interest in holy war until a rogue Frankish prince began disrupting his trade routes. Both before and after the taking of Jerusalem, his armies spent far more time and resources battling fellow Muslims. For its part, the Byzantine (Eastern Christian) Empire preferred to have little to do with the Crusader kingdoms and went so far as to sign treaties with their Muslim rivals on occasion. Another misconception is that the Crusader era was a time of constant war. In fact, very little of this overall period included significant hostilities. In response to Muslim expansion or aggression, there were only about 20 years of actual military campaigning, much of which was spent on organization and travel. (They were from 1098-1099, 1146-1148, 1188-1192, 1201-1204, 1218-1221, 1228-1229, and 1248-1250). By comparison, the Muslim Jihad against the island of Sicily alone lasted 75 grinding years. Ironically, the Crusades can be justified from the Quran itself, which encourages Holy War in order to "drive them out of the places from whence they drove you out" (2:191). In this case, the objective wasn't to expel Muslims from the Middle East, but to bring an end to the molestation of pilgrims. Holy war is not justified by New Testament teachings, which is why the Crusades are an anomaly, the brief interruption of centuries of relentless Jihad against Christianity that began long before and continued well after that event. The greatest crime of the Crusaders was the sacking of Jerusalem, in which at least 3,000 people were said to have been massacred. This number is dwarfed by the number of Jihad victims, from India to Constantinople, Africa and Narbonne, but Muslims have never apologized for their crimes and never will. What is called 'sin and excess' by other religions, is what Islam refers to as duty willed by Allah.
"For when they shall say, Peace and safety, then sudden destruction cometh upon them." (1 Thessalonians 5:3).
In order to escape the sudden destruction coming upon those that shall spiritually fall away, believers are warned to flee two false doctrines: PEACE and SAFETY. Peace and Safety are the seductive and demonic doctrines of antichrist, and preached by those who have departed from the true faith: "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly that, in the latter times, some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils" (1 Tim. 4:1). Peace and Safety would certainly sound inviting to those in battle, fighting the "good fight of faith." These teachings are not new. They have always been the message of false prophets and deceitful teachers. In the Old Testament, most of God's prophets contended with religious leaders espousing such doctrines designed to seduce Israel away from the Lord.
The prophet Jeremiah declared: "For from the least of them even unto the greatest of them, everyone is given to covetousness; and from the prophet even unto the priest, every one dealeth falsely. They have healed also the hurt of the daughter of my people slightly saying, Peace, peace when there is no peace" (Jer. 6:13-14). Isaiah proclaimed: "There is no peace, saith my God" (Isa. 57:21)..."There is no peace, saith the Lord, unto the wicked" (Isa. 48:22).
Ezekiel pleaded with God's people: "Son of man, prophesy against the prophets of Israel...Then saith the Lord God; Woe unto the foolish prophets, that follow their own spirit and have seen nothing. Oh Israel, thy prophets are like foxes in the deserts...Even because they have seduced my people, saying, Peace, and there was no peace" (Eze.13:2-4,10).
Daniel warned of a coming king of "fierce countenance" espousing peace, but intent on destruction: "And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many" (Dan. 8:25). Yes, dear friend...they shall "say" PEACE and SAFETY. "Say" in the Greek text means to: "lay forth in discourse; to bid, boast or call." This is the message of CHRISTIANITY. Men "boasting" that their disciples have "peace" with God when there really is NONE; and that they are "saved" when they are really NOT! Of these times Jesus rightly forewarned: "Take heed that no man deceive you..." (Matt. 24:4). When the true prophets of Israel stood against these false doctrines, they were persecuted and destroyed. It shall be no different today. Faithful voices will be accused of bringing "division," and will be cast out of the congregation. God's people still resist the TRUTH. True PEACE only comes through being justified by faith in Jesus Christ and the regeneration of the Holy Ghost: "Therefore, being justified by faith, we have peace with God, through our Lord Jesus Christ...because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us" (Rom. 5:1,5).
False prophets are deceiving multitudes into a "false peace" with God by telling them they have been "born again" (i.e. born of the Spirit - John 3:5), when they have NOT. Being "born" of the spirit is receiving the "baptism of the Spirit" (Luke 3:16, Acts 2:14-17, 37-39). After hearing false teaching for so long, this sounds foreign to most ears. Even those who have received the Baptism with the Holy Spirit have been persuaded to believe that their experience of New Birth is simply "something extra" and not the real door into the kingdom of God! The baptism with the Holy Ghost comes from the Father in heaven (Acts 1:4,8). This "one" baptism is that "which can save" (Eph. 4:5, 1Pet.3:21); "which brings one into the body of Christ" (1 Cor. 12:13); and which makes us "children of God" (Rom 8:9,15-16). Any other experience of "new birth," without the SPIRIT which confesses Christ when it comes into flesh (1 John 4:2-3), is false and is only MAN'S testimony. Jesus said the real Spirit of God would TESTIFY (speak!). Tongues are the testimony that the Spirit abides within: "But when the Comforter comes, whom I will send from the Father...he will testify of me" (John 15:26). "No man can say Jesus is Lord but by the Holy Ghost." (1 Cor. 12:3). Common sense and experience tells us that MAN can say "Jesus is Lord," and be none of His. But through tongues, the HOLY GHOST testifies that Jesus Christ is truly the Lord of our lives!
"Ministers" have falsely convinced those who have believed in Jesus Christ, that the conviction and drawing of the spirit in their life IS the new birth. Therefore, the seeker stops short of REAL peace with God and "claims" a salvation that does not exist! The message of the antichrist is that man can worship God acceptably WITHOUT the Spirit of God! The false "safety" doctrine is nothing else but today's "salvation" message. Almost every evangelist will tell you that if you pray a "certain prayer," or do some "thing(s)" (which differs among the various denominations), that you are "saved." This is "safety" when there is no safety, for God demands MUCH (regeneration, holiness, obedience, and faithfulness is a few), to enter His kingdom. Most of us have confused salvation with conversion. Conversion is what happens in one's life NOW. Salvation is a FUTURE event in heaven when Jesus Christ says: "Well done good and faithful servant...enter into the joy of thy Lord" (Matt. 25:21). Paul affirmed salvation to be an event yet to have occurred: "Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended" (Phil. 3:13). Men have always loved to receive a gospel which affords many benefits with few requirements. Especially a gospel that tells them they are "safe" without obedient discipleship. Friend, NOBODY is safe from the wrath of God that is coming upon the disobedient. The reason that false prophets want men to "feel saved," is to make "merchandise" of God's people (2Pet. 2:3). Even though some may deny money as their motive, few would give up their position, security, or salary to preach God's truth. What did Jesus say about the gospel of "peace and safety?" He certainly did not preach it: "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth; I cam not to send peace but a sword" (Matt. 10:34). "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you nay; but rather division" (Luke 12:51).
Jesus is bringing great division. He is dividing those who desire religious error, from those who are hearing the true voice of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is everywhere calling God's people to COME OUT of "lifeless Christianity." We say this not out of any ill-will towards our true brethren which are there, but to purify ourselves from the falsely taught doctrines of PEACE (the New Birth) and SAFETY (Salvation) which are destroying the fellowship of the body. One cannot remain amongst those who abide in these errors without disobeying God: "for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness....wherefore, come out from among them and be separate saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing, and I will receive you" (2Cor. 6:14,17). Religious leaders will accuse the obedient of being "divisive" and "unloving." Why? Because these "ministers" refuse to repent. Therefore, they persecute those who want to move on with God, (as their "fore-fathers" did the prophets of times past). For this reason, Jesus said: "Blessed are they who are persecuted for righteousness' sake; for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are ye when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely for my sake. Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven; for so persecuted they the prophets who were before you" (Matt. 5:10-12). If you courageously obey God, you are not extraordinarily holy....just obedient! So walk humbly with your God! He will direct you to others who hunger to worship in spirit and in truth. God's directive to us is clear: "And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire, hating even the garment spotted by the flesh" (Jude 23). The fires of judgment are coming upon deceptive and carnal religion that holds multitudes of God's precious people captive! Flee every false voice which says: "peace and safety." Those who obey God will be preserved "blameless" until the day of His coming. HALLELUJAH!
Satan’s goal has always been to
cause the inhabitants of the earth to worship him rather than God. As such
Satan has long had a very specific plan to raise up his own worship movement
that will literally cover the face of the earth. Those who believe the Bible,
know this to be true. Through the Antichrist, and his False Prophet, the Bible
says that Satan will come very close to achieving his goal just prior to the
return of Jesus.
The dragon (Satan) gave the beast (The Antichrist) his power and his throne and
great authority… And he was given authority over every tribe, people,
language and nation. All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast--all
whose names have not been written in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that
was slain from the creation of the world. Revelation 13:2,4-8 (emphasis
and parenthesis mine)
The
description of this future worship movement is that it will literally touch
“every tribe, people, language and nation.” The Bible teaches that at
this time, whoever is not a worshipper of the One True God and His Son Jesus
Christ will eventually be deceived into worshiping Satan, the invisible spirit
behind the deceptive last-days worship movement. As we have already seen, the
vehicle that Satan uses to bring about his own worship movement is the
Antichrist and his “beast kingdom”, which will be a powerful empire with an
equally powerful military machine. Daniel the prophet describes this empire and
its military as a force that is “terrifying and frightening and very powerful”
which “will devour the whole earth.”
After that, in my vision at
night I looked, and there before me was a fourth beast-terrifying and
frightening and very powerful. It had large iron teeth; it crushed and
devoured its victims and trampled underfoot whatever was left… The fourth
beast is a fourth kingdom that will appear on earth. It will be different from
all the other kingdoms and will devour the whole earth, trampling it down and
crushing it. Daniel 7:7,23
Thus the Bible gives us a clear
picture of the nature of Satan’s final swan song before Jesus casts him into the
lake of fire for eternity. The Bible has clearly forewarned us of Satan’s
coming empire whose goal will be nothing less than total World domination. The
demands of this empire will be much more than mere allegiance to its
governmental role, but total submission to and worship of its leader, the
Antichrist and ultimately the Devil. Again, whoever does not submit to this
brutal religious system will become its targets.
Islam And The Goal Of World
Domination
In order to understand Islam properly, one must
understand the way that Islam understands itself. Islam views itself as the
only true religion - indeed the only religion worthy to be practiced. As such
Islam has as one of its goals, total world domination. Islam’s driving goal is
to literally eradicate what it sees as the false and misplaced worship of all
other religions. Until the day that everyone says, “none has the right to be
worshipped other than Allah,” Islam will continue its fight against unbelievers
and unbelieving nations. We have already thoroughly examined Islam’s vision of
global domination through its eschatology, but the concept is not just a future
idea that Muslims are waiting idly by for the Mahdi and the Islamic Jesus to
accomplish for them. The texts and scholars of Islam teach that global
domination is to be striven for by all Muslims at all times. The striving for
Islam’s furtherance and its eventual total world domination is called jihad.
Indeed jihad (striving) is a basic requirement of all Muslims everywhere. It is
an absolutely obligatory component of Islam.
Now, Muslim apologists and propagandists will be
quick to argue here, that jihad is not about fighting for world domination.
Some will make such misleading remarks as “jihad is merely about overcoming
adversity.” Or they will point out that the “greater jihad” is a struggle
against one’s self. While this inner struggle is a legitimate aspect of jihad,
do not be deceived: The jihad that is obligatory for all Muslims to fight
against one’s inner weaknesses in no way lessens the centrality of the demand
of Islam upon all Muslims to wage jihad against the unbelieving world until Islam
is supreme. This may include other forms of warfare such as in the intellectual
or the political arenas, but wherever a Muslim engages in this fight, it is
viewed as just that, a fight for the eventual global domination and universal
supremacy of Islam.
Jihad
The word Jihad stems from the Arabic root word
J-H-D, which means "strive." There are five types of jihad:
·Jihad al-nafs (striving against one’s inner self)
·Jihad al-Shaitan (striving against Satan)
·Jihad al-kuffaar (striving against the disbelievers)
·Jihad al-munafiqeen (striving against the hypocrites)
·Jihad al-faasiqeen (striving against corrupt Muslims)
As already stated, all five forms of jihad are obligatory
for all Muslims. If you pay attention to the discussion of jihad in the media,
you will find endless articles and claims by Muslims that misrepresent jihad as
something other than what it really is. But as stated earlier, those who deny
the central aspect of an outward jihad in Islam are either ignorant or
purposefully lying. In fact, lying to hide or misrepresent the true nature of
Islam to the unbelieving world is actually part and parcel of Islam’s method of
carrying out jihad against non-Muslims. We will take a look at Islam’s doctrine of
lying in the next chapter.
Despite what the advertisers of a nicer, more peaceful Islam say, Muhammad
clearly made the claim that his commission was to fight against the unbelievers
until they all submit to Islam and become worshippers of Allah. Since the time
of Muhammad, global domination has been the goal of Islam.
Allah's Apostle (Muhammad) said, “I have been ordered to fight the people till
they say: ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.’” 1
Fight those from among the people of the Book, who believe not in Allah, nor in
the Last Day, nor hold as unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have declared to
be unlawful, nor follow the true religion, until they pay the tax considering it
a favour and acknowledge their subjection. -Surah 9:29 (Sher Ali)
O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let
them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep their
duty (unto Him). -Surah 9:123 (Pickthall)
Unquestionably, we see that
Muhammad encouraged the spread of his religion by force. Now, one might argue
that Christianity also has a goal of spreading its message throughout the earth
as well. While this is true, Christianity does not have a goal of fighting
against those who are not Christians, but rather presenting the gospel message,
or “good news” to everyone in order that they have the option to either freely
accept or likewise reject God’s offer of forgiveness and acceptance. As someone
once said, “evangelism” (preaching the Christian message to non-Christians) is
merely one beggar telling the other beggars where the food is.
While Jesus, in calling new
believers to follow him and serve God makes the beautiful statement:
Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take
my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you
will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.
-Matthew 11:28-30
Muhammad calls his followers to
something admittedly far more burdensome. With a tad of overt cajoling, he
says:
Warfare is ordained for you, though it is hateful unto you; but it may happen
that ye hate a thing which is good for you, and it may happen that ye love a
thing which is bad for you. Allah knoweth, ye know not. -Surah 2:216 (Pickthall)
It
would be quite easy to list several pages of verses from the Quran and Hadith
that reflect this mindset of jihad and fighting against unbelievers for the
express purpose of the furtherance of Islam. It is awfully difficult to take
these verses out of context. Nevertheless, as I have said, many western Muslims
will continue to make the claim that the Quranic verses that speak of jihad are
only referring to overcoming adversity or defensive war, etc. Yet, as one
Muslim commentator has said:
Don't believe those moderate
Muslims in the Western media who tell you that jihad means "overcoming
adversity," 2
Or as the popular Muslim author and teacher Muhammad Saeed al-Qahtani,
states:
Jihad is an act of worship,
it is one of the supreme forms of devotion to Allah… They say that Jihad is only
for defense. This lie must be exposed…3
Rather than getting caught up in an in-house Islamic
argument, we will rather simply examine the opinions of several prominent Muslim
scholars throughout Islam’s history as well as the leaders and representatives
of Islam in western countries today to see what Islam really teaches.
The Scholars on
Jihad
Ibn
Kathir lays out the prominent role of offensive jihad in Islam’s early days as
he comments on Surah 9:123 above:
Allah commands the believers
to fight the disbelievers, the closest in area to the Islamic state, then the
farthest. This is why the Messenger of Allah started fighting the idolaters in
the Arabian Peninsula. When he finished with them… He then started fighting the
People of the Scriptures (Jews and Christians). After Muhammad’s death, his
executor, friend, and Caliph, Abu Bakr, became the leader… On behalf of the
Prophet , Abu Bakr… started preparing the Islamic armies to fight the Roman
cross worshippers, and the Persian fire worshippers. By the blessing of his
mission, Allah opened the lands for him and brought down Caesar and Kisra and
those who obeyed them among the servants. Abu Bakr spent their treasures in the
cause of Allah, just as the Messenger of Allah had foretold would happen. This
mission (of world domination) continued after Abu Bakr at the hands of he whom
Abu Bakr chose to be his successor… Umar bin Al-Khattab. With Umar, Allah
humiliated the disbelievers, suppressed the tyrants and hypocrites, and opened
the eastern and western parts of the world. The treasures of various countries
were brought to Umar from near and far provinces, and he divided them according
to the legitimate and accepted method. Umar then died… Then, the Companions
among the Muslims… agreed to choose after Umar, Uthman bin Affan... During
Uthman's reign, Islam wore its widest garment and Allah's unequivocal proof was
established in various parts of the world over the necks of the servants. Islam
appeared in the eastern and western parts of the world and Allah's Word was
elevated and His religion apparent. The pure religion reached its deepest aims
against Allah's enemies, and whenever Muslims overcame a community, they moved
to the next one, and then the next one, crushing the tyranical evil doers. They
did this in reverence to Allah's statement, O you who believe! Fight those of
the disbelievers who are close to you. 4
It is clear that Muhammad, and then his successors,
Caliph Abu Bakr, Caliph Umar, and Caliph Uthman all attacked the surrounding
nations offensively for the purpose of spreading Islam. These were not as is
claimed by the historical revisionists, defensive wars. They were offensive
wars whose goal was to force the victims to submit to Islam or be “crushed.”
Ibn Khaldun, the famous 14th
century Islamic historian and philosopher in his classic and most notable work,
the Muqaddimah says of jihad:
In the Muslim community, the
holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the (Muslim)
mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by
persuasion or by force. Therefore, the caliphate (spiritual), the royal
(government and military) authority are united in Islam, so that the person in
charge can devote the available strength to both of them at the same time.
5
In his book, “Jurisprudence in
Muhammad’s Biography” the renowned Egyptian scholar from Al-Azhar university,
Dr. Muhammad Sa’id Ramadan al-Buti writes that offensive and not defensive war
is the “noblest Holy War” within Islam:
The Holy War (Islamic Jihad), as it is known in Islamic Jurisprudence, is
basically an offensive war. This is the duty of Muslims in every age when
the needed military power becomes available to them. This is the phase in which
the meaning of Holy war has taken its final form. Thus the apostle of Allah
said: ' I was commanded to fight the people until they believe in Allah and his
messages… The concept of Holy War (Jihad) in Islam does not take into
consideration whether defensive or an offensive war. Its goal is the
exaltation of the Word of Allah and the construction of Islamic society and the
establishment of Allah’s Kingdom on Earth regardless of the means. The
means would be offensive warfare. In this case, it is the apex, the noblest
Holy War. 6
According to the Encyclopedia
of Islam, "the fight is obligatory even when the unbelievers have not started
it.” 7 The concept of jihad in Islam is to literally attack
unbelievers for the purpose of converting them to Islam “by persuasion or by
force,” “even when they have not started it.”
Global Domination
Born
in 1905, Mawlana Sayid Abul Ala Mawdudi was an Islamic scholar from the Indian
subcontinent. His sermons (khutbat) and writings are world-renowned. He
is viewed throughout the Islamic world as one of Islam’s greatest scholars.
Here is what he had to say about Islam and global domination:
Islam is not a normal
religion like the other religions in the world, and Muslim nations are not like
normal nations. Muslim nations are very special because they have a command
from Allah to rule the entire world and to be over every nation in the world.8
Mawdudi explains Islam’s goals
and purpose:
Islam is a revolutionary
faith that comes to destroy any government made by man. Islam doesn’t look for
a nation to be in a better condition than another nation. Islam doesn’t care
about the land or who owns the land. The goal of Islam is to rule the entire
world and submit all of mankind to the faith of Islam. Any nation or power that
gets in the way of that goal, Islam will fight and destroy. In order to fulfill
that goal, Islam can use every power available every way it can be used to bring
worldwide revolution. This is Jihad. 9
We have seen what some of Islam’s most respected scholars have said about jihad
and Islam’s goal of global domination. Their viewpoint is undeniably clear.
But what do the more modern, western Muslim leaders have to say about this
subject?
Modern Western Muslims on
the Islamic Goal of World Domination
Aduallah al-Araby in his book
The Islamization of America cites a very frightening letter from one
Catholic Archbishop to the Pope. In this open letter to the Pope, the
Archbishop of Izmir (Smyrna), Turkey, the Reverend Guiseppe Germano Barnardini,
spoke of a recent gathering of Christians and Muslims for the purpose of
interfaith dialogue. An excerpt from his letter recounts that during the
meeting, an authoritative Muslim stood up and spoke very calmly and assuredly:
Thanks to your democratic laws, we will invade you, Thanks to our religious
laws, we will dominate you. 10
If you go to the web site of
almost any Mosque in the United States, you will invariably see a link to the
Council on American-Islamic Relations. CAIR, as it is called, is a Washington
based Islamic group that likes to present itself as a moderate Islamic civil
rights group. "We are similar to a Muslim NAACP," says spokesman Ibrahim
Hooper. “Since its founding in 1994, CAIR has been garnering sizeable
donations, invitations to the White House, respectful media citations and a
serious hearing by corporations.” 11
Yet, according to Omar Ahmed,
Chairman of the Board of CAIR:
Islam isn't in America to be
equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Quran should be the
highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth.
12
This is the same Omar Ahmed who tore into the
Reverend Franklin Graham for calling Islam “an evil religion.” Mr. Ahmed
addressed Graham in an open statement:
Learn more about Islam and Muslims before you repeat your erroneous and divisive
statements about one of the three great Abrahamic religions, Judaism,
Christianity and Islam. Such statements only sow animosity and mistrust among
Americans. As a religious leader you should instead work to rebuild our
national foundation instead of trying to tear it down. 13
Perhaps Reverend Graham was more in touch with
the true totalitarian doctrines of Islam than Mr. Ahmed realizes. Perhaps Mr.
Graham had read Mr. Ahmed’s statement regarding Islam’s goal of domination in
America and abroad when he made his statement. In any case, through these two
statements, it is easy to see the double-speak that is displayed by Mr. Ahmed
and many like him. When speaking privately to Muslims, Mr. Ahmed speaks of
Islam as the only valid religion, with a goal to take over America, but when
addressing the media, he speaks of “The three great Abrahamic religions,” and
then he accuses Mr. Graham of being “divisive”.
Daniel Pipes, a
scholar of militant Islam and director of the Middle East Forum,
points out the case of one prominent American
Muslim’s open aspirations to take over America. Pipes introduces one Isamil Al-Faruqi:
Ismail Al-Faruqi a Palestinian immigrant who founded
the International Institute of Islamic Thought and taught for many years at
Temple University in Philadelphia. "Nothing could be greater," Al-Faruqi wrote
in the early 1980's, "than this youthful, vigorous, and rich continent [of North
America] turning away from its past evil and marching forward under the banner
of Allahu Akbar. [Allah is Great]" 14
In England, and throughout Europe, Islam has
progressed in strength far beyond that of Islam in America. Therefore, in such
a context, we see aggressive statements being made far more openly. As early as
1989, Europeans were shocked to see thousands of Muslims openly protest in the
streets of Britian, France Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands carrying signs
with the provocative slogan, “Islam - our religion today, your religion
tomorrow.” 15
Dated June 15 1990, The Muslim Manifesto,
published by the late Dr. Kalim Siddiqui, who was then the head of the Muslim
Institute, (now the Muslim Parliament of Great Britain) on page 16 paragraph 7
states:
Jihad is a basic requirement of Islam and living in Britain or having
British nationality by birth or naturalisation does not absolve the Muslim from
his or her duty to participate in Jihad. 16
Dr. Siddiqui does not exclude
Britain from the places where “armed struggle” is necessary. Jihad is
obligatory everywhere. And as time has passed, the call to jihad in Europe has
progressed to the point of being proclaimed openly in the streets by radical
Muslim leaders. From the New York Times, April 26, 2004, we read:
The call to jihad is rising in the streets of Europe... In this former
industrial town north of London, a small group of young Britons… say they would
like to see Prime Minister Tony Blair dead or deposed and an Islamic flag
hanging outside No. 10 Downing Street. They swear allegiance to Osama bin Laden
and his goal of toppling Western democracies to establish an Islamic superstate
under Shariah law, like Afghanistan under the Taliban. They call the Sept. 11
hijackers the "Magnificent 19" and regard the Madrid train bombings as a clever
way to drive a wedge into Europe. Their leader, Sheik Omar Bakri Mohammad,
spoke of his adherence to Osama bin Laden. If Europe fails to heed Mr. bin
Laden's offer of a truce — provided that all foreign troops are withdrawn from
Iraq in three months — Muslims will no longer be restrained from attacking the
Western countries that play host to them, the sheik said. "All Muslims of the
West will be obliged," he said, to "become his sword" in a new battle.
Europeans take heed, he added, saying, "It is foolish to fight people who want
death — that is what they are looking for”… And he warned Western leaders, "You
may kill bin Laden, but the phenomenon, you cannot kill it — you cannot destroy
it. Our Muslim brothers from abroad will come one day and conquer here and then
we will live under Islam in dignity," he said. 17
Dr. Siddiqui and Sheik Omar
Bakri Mohammad are far from alone in
their calls for radical Islamic jihad against their very homes in Europe:
Abu Hamza, the cleric accused of tutoring Richard Reid before he tried to blow
up a Paris-to-Miami jetliner with explosives hidden in his shoe, urged a crowd
of 200 outside his former Finsbury Park mosque to embrace death and the "culture
of martyrdom." 18
Muslims in the West regularly refer to Islam as
the “religion of peace”, yet this religion of peace is responsible for over 90
percent of all fighting presently in the world. Think about that fact. The
vast majority of world terrorism, violence and war is religiously motivated by
Islam.
There are about 400 recognized terrorist groups in the world. Over 90 percent of
these are Islamist groups (radical Islamic terrorist groups). Over 90 percent of
the current world fighting involves Islamist terror movements. 19
The endless goal of moderate Muslim apologists is
to make the claim that the radical terrorist groups are not behaving in an
Islamic way. While I have no doubt that many moderate Muslims have a strong
disdain for the murderous behavior of many of the most violent groups, the
terrorists are actually carrying out a very legitimate aspect of Islam as
defined by Islam’s texts, scholars and representatives. They are indeed
behaving in an Islamic way. They are behaving like Muhammad and his
successors. While it is often said that the terrorists have “high jacked”
Islam, judged by what Islam really teaches, it is in reality the so-called
moderate Muslims who are trying to change the true teachings of Islam.
When we look at the
growth rates of Islam combined with the concept of jihad in Islam, and the
growing popularity of its most radical interpretation, even in the West, the
concept of a future Islamo-fascist world dictator becomes a genuine
possibility. Based on trends and statistics alone, it really doesn’t take a
stretch to see the possibility of this reality within this century. The Bible
teaches that in the future, a man will arise whose sole driving goal will be to
achieve complete world domination through his political-military-religious
empire. Islam has this very same goal inherent in its most core doctrines. And
today, as we watch the call to jihad being trumpeted ever louder by radical
Muslim leaders all over the world, Islam is slowly moving ever so much closer
toward achieving that very goal.
These Bible Study Teachings reveal, beyond any shadow of doubt, the relationship between the Prophesied Rise of the Future Anti-Christ and the intimate connection to the Rise of Global Islam. Don’t forget to pray for those under the deception and delusion of Islam – that God, in Christ, will save some out of that demonic ideology before the days of the Rise of the Anti-Christ (2 Thessalonians 2:1-12; Revelation 11-14) If you wish to study along with the entire series: Jesus Reveals the Future, please go to: https://NLFJI.org/REV/
The crusades are quite possibly the most misunderstood event in European history. Most of what passes for public knowledge about it is either misleading or just plain wrong
By Prof. Thomas F. Madden
Crusaders were sent by the Roman Catholic Church to fight Muslims in a holy war for Jerusalem.
Toward the end of the 11th century, tensions grew between Christians and Muslims, driving the two religious groups into a long and violent holy war, also known as the Crusades. Between 1095 and 1291, the Roman Catholic Church sent Crusaders to the Middle East to wage war against the Muslims in hopes of regaining control of Jerusalem, earning passage back into the Holy Land and hindering the spread of Islam.
Causes
Although Muslims controlled approximately two-thirds of the ancient Christian world in the Middle East by the 11th century, they and the Roman Catholic Church had a mutual understanding that those who wished to make the pilgrimage eastward would be allowed to do so freely and without persecution. For Christians, Jerusalem was particularly significant because the Church of the Holy Sepulchre commemorates the hill of crucifixion and tomb of Christ's burial. However, in 1065 the Seljuk Turks took control of the Holy Land and massacred 3,000 Christian pilgrims, infuriating the Church. In 1095, Pope Urban II pleaded with and persuaded the Council of Clermont in France to approve a holy war against the Muslims in order to avenge the deaths of the pilgrims and halt the Turks' expansion on the world stage.
Misconceptions about the Crusades are all too common. The Crusades are generally portrayed as a series of holy wars against Islam led by power-mad popes and fought by religious fanatics. They are supposed to have been the epitome of self-righteousness and intolerance, a black stain on the history of the Catholic Church in particular and Western civilization in general. A breed of proto-imperialists, the Crusaders introduced Western aggression to the peaceful Middle East and then deformed the enlightened Muslim culture, leaving it in ruins. For variations on this theme, one need not look far. See, for example, Steven Runciman's famous three-volume epic, History of the Crusades, or the BBC/A&E documentary, The Crusades, hosted by Terry Jones. Both are terrible history yet wonderfully entertaining.
So what is the truth about the Crusades? Scholars are still working some of that out. But much can already be said with certainty. For starters, 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.
From the safe distance of many centuries, it is easy enough to scowl in disgust at the Crusades. Religion, after all, is nothing to fight wars over.
Christians in the eleventh century were not paranoid fanatics. Muslims really were gunning for them. While Muslims can be peaceful, Islam was born in war and grew the same way. From the time of Mohammed, the means of Muslim expansion was always the sword. Muslim thought divides the world into two spheres, the Abode of Islam and the Abode of War. Christianity—and for that matter any other non-Muslim religion—has no abode. Christians and Jews can be tolerated within a Muslim state under Muslim rule. But, in traditional Islam, Christian and Jewish states must be destroyed and their lands conquered. When Mohammed was waging war against Mecca in the seventh century, Christianity was the dominant religion of power and wealth. As the faith of the Roman Empire, it spanned the entire Mediterranean, including the Middle East, where it was born. The Christian world, therefore, was a prime target for the earliest caliphs, and it would remain so for Muslim leaders for the next thousand years.With enormous energy, the warriors of Islam struck out against the Christians shortly after Mohammed's death. They were extremely successful. Palestine, Syria, and Egypt—once the most heavily Christian areas in the world—quickly succumbed. By the eighth century, Muslim armies had conquered all of Christian North Africa and Spain. In the eleventh century, the Seljuk Turks conquered Asia Minor (modern Turkey), which had been Christian since the time of St. Paul. The old Roman Empire, known to modern historians as the Byzantine Empire, was reduced to little more than Greece. In desperation, the emperor in Constantinople sent word to the Christians of western Europe asking them to aid their brothers and sisters in the East. That is what gave birth to the Crusades. They were not the brainchild of an ambitious pope or rapacious knights but a response to more than four centuries of conquests in which Muslims had already captured two-thirds of the old Christian world. At some point, Christianity as a faith and a culture had to defend itself or be subsumed by Islam. The Crusades were that defense. Pope Urban II called upon the knights of Christendom to push back the conquests of Islam at the Council of Clermont in 1095. The response was tremendous. Many thousands of warriors took the vow of the cross and prepared for war. Why did they do it? The answer to that question has been badly misunderstood. In the wake of the Enlightenment, it was usually asserted that Crusaders were merely lacklands and ne'er-do-wells who took advantage of an opportunity to rob and pillage in a faraway land. The Crusaders' expressed sentiments of piety, self-sacrifice, and love for God were obviously not to be taken seriously. They were only a front for darker designs.
At some point, Christianity as a faith and a culture had to defend itself or be subsumed by Islam. The Crusades were that defense.
During the past two decades, computer-assisted charter studies have demolished that contrivance. Scholars have discovered that crusading knights were generally wealthy men with plenty of their own land in Europe. Nevertheless, they willingly gave up everything to undertake the holy mission. Crusading was not cheap. Even wealthy lords could easily impoverish themselves and their families by joining a Crusade. They did so not because they expected material wealth (which many of them had already) but because they hoped to store up treasure where rust and moth could not corrupt. They were keenly aware of their sinfulness and eager to undertake the hardships of the Crusade as a penitential act of charity and love. Europe is littered with thousands of medieval charters attesting to these sentiments, charters in which these men still speak to us today if we will listen. Of course, they were not opposed to capturing booty if it could be had. But the truth is that the Crusades were notoriously bad for plunder. A few people got rich, but the vast majority returned with nothing.Urban II gave the Crusaders two goals, both of which would remain central to the eastern Crusades for centuries. The first was to rescue the Christians of the East. As his successor, Pope Innocent III, later wrote:
How
does a man love according to divine precept his neighbor as himself
when, knowing that his Christian brothers in faith and in name are held
by the perfidious Muslims in strict confinement and weighed down by the
yoke of heaviest servitude, he does not devote himself to the task of
freeing them? ...Is it by chance that you do not know that many
thousands of Christians are bound in slavery and imprisoned by the
Muslims, tortured with innumerable torments?
"Crusading," Professor Jonathan Riley-Smith has rightly argued, was understood as an "an act of love"—in this case, the love of one's neighbor. The Crusade was seen as an errand of mercy to right a terrible wrong. As Pope Innocent III wrote to the Knights Templar, "You carry out in deeds the words of the Gospel, 'Greater love than this hath no man, that he lay down his life for his friends.'" The second goal was the liberation of Jerusalem and the other places made holy by the life of Christ. The word crusade is modern. Medieval Crusaders saw themselves as pilgrims, performing acts of righteousness on their way to the Holy Sepulcher. The Crusade indulgence they received was canonically related to the pilgrimage indulgence. This goal was frequently described in feudal terms. When calling the Fifth Crusade in 1215, Innocent III wrote:
Consider most dear sons,
consider carefully that if any temporal king was thrown out of his
domain and perhaps captured, would he not, when he was restored to his
pristine liberty and the time had come for dispensing justice look on
his vassals as unfaithful and traitors...unless they had committed not
only their property but also their persons to the task of freeing him?
...And similarly will not Jesus Christ, the king of kings and lord of
lords, whose servant you cannot deny being, who joined your soul to
your body, who redeemed you with the Precious Blood...condemn you for
the vice of ingratitude and the crime of infidelity if you neglect to
help Him?
The reconquest of Jerusalem, therefore, was not colonialism but an act of restoration and an open declaration of one's love of God. Medieval men knew, of course, that God had the power to restore Jerusalem Himself—indeed, He had the power to restore the whole world to His rule. Yet as St. Bernard of Clairvaux preached, His refusal to do so was a blessing to His people:
Again
I say, consider the Almighty's goodness and pay heed to His plans of
mercy. He puts Himself under obligation to you, or rather feigns to do
so, that He can help you to satisfy your obligations toward Himself....
I call blessed the generation that can seize an opportunity of such
rich indulgence as this.
It is often assumed that the central goal of the Crusades was forced conversion of the Muslim world. Nothing could be further from the truth. From the perspective of medieval Christians, Muslims were the enemies of Christ and His Church. It was the Crusaders' task to defeat and defend against them. That was all. Muslims who lived in Crusader-won territories were generally allowed to retain their property and livelihood, and always their religion. Indeed, throughout the history of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem, Muslim inhabitants far outnumbered the Catholics. It was not until the 13th century that the Franciscans began conversion efforts among Muslims. But these were mostly unsuccessful and finally abandoned. In any case, such efforts were by peaceful persuasion, not the threat of violence.
Like all warfare, the violence was brutal (although not as brutal as modern wars). There were mishaps, blunders, and crimes.
The Crusades were wars, so it would be a mistake to characterize them as nothing but piety and good intentions. Like all warfare, the violence was brutal (although not as brutal as modern wars). There were mishaps, blunders, and crimes. These are usually well-remembered today. During the early days of the First Crusade in 1095, a ragtag band of Crusaders led by Count Emicho of Leiningen made its way down the Rhine, robbing and murdering all the Jews they could find. Without success, the local bishops attempted to stop the carnage. In the eyes of these warriors, the Jews, like the Muslims, were the enemies of Christ. Plundering and killing them, then, was no vice. Indeed, they believed it was a righteous deed, since the Jews' money could be used to fund the Crusade to Jerusalem. But they were wrong, and the Church strongly condemned the anti-Jewish attacks.Fifty years later, when the Second Crusade was gearing up, St. Bernard frequently preached that the Jews were not to be persecuted:
Ask
anyone who knows the Sacred Scriptures what he finds foretold of the
Jews in the Psalm. "Not for their destruction do I pray," it says. The
Jews are for us the living words of Scripture, for they remind us
always of what our Lord suffered.... Under Christian princes they
endure a hard captivity, but "they only wait for the time of their
deliverance."
Nevertheless, a fellow Cistercian monk named Radulf stirred up people against the Rhineland Jews, despite numerous letters from Bernard demanding that he stop. At last Bernard was forced to travel to Germany himself, where he caught up with Radulf, sent him back to his convent, and ended the massacres. It is often said that the roots of the Holocaust can be seen in these medieval pogroms. That may be. But if so, those roots are far deeper and more widespread than the Crusades. Jews perished during the Crusades, but the purpose of the Crusades was not to kill Jews. Quite the contrary: Popes, bishops, and preachers made it clear that the Jews of Europe were to be left unmolested. In a modern war, we call tragic deaths like these "collateral damage." Even with smart technologies, the United States has killed far more innocents in our wars than the Crusaders ever could. But no one would seriously argue that the purpose of American wars is to kill women and children. By any reckoning, the First Crusade was a long shot. There was no leader, no chain of command, no supply lines, no detailed strategy. It was simply thousands of warriors marching deep into enemy territory, committed to a common cause. Many of them died, either in battle or through disease or starvation. It was a rough campaign, one that seemed always on the brink of disaster. Yet it was miraculously successful. By 1098, the Crusaders had restored Nicaea and Antioch to Christian rule. In July 1099, they conquered Jerusalem and began to build a Christian state in Palestine. The joy in Europe was unbridled. It seemed that the tide of history, which had lifted the Muslims to such heights, was now turning. *** But it was not. When we think about the Middle Ages, it is easy to view Europe in light of what it became rather than what it was. The colossus of the medieval world was Islam, not Christendom. The Crusades are interesting largely because they were an attempt to counter that trend. But in five centuries of crusading, it was only the First Crusade that significantly rolled back the military progress of Islam. It was downhill from there. When the Crusader County of Edessa fell to the Turks and Kurds in 1144, there was an enormous groundswell of support for a new Crusade in Europe. It was led by two kings, Louis VII of France and Conrad III of Germany, and preached by St. Bernard himself. It failed miserably. Most of the Crusaders were killed along the way. Those who made it to Jerusalem only made things worse by attacking Muslim Damascus, which formerly had been a strong ally of the Christians. In the wake of such a disaster, Christians across Europe were forced to accept not only the continued growth of Muslim power but the certainty that God was punishing the West for its sins. Lay piety movements sprouted up throughout Europe, all rooted in the desire to purify Christian society so that it might be worthy of victory in the East. Crusading in the late twelfth century, therefore, became a total war effort. Every person, no matter how weak or poor, was called to help. Warriors were asked to sacrifice their wealth and, if need be, their lives for the defense of the Christian East. On the home front, all Christians were called to support the Crusades through prayer, fasting, and alms. Yet still the Muslims grew in strength. Saladin, the great unifier, had forged the Muslim Near East into a single entity, all the while preaching jihad against the Christians. In 1187 at the Battle of Hattin, his forces wiped out the combined armies of the Christian Kingdom of Jerusalem and captured the precious relic of the True Cross. Defenseless, the Christian cities began surrendering one by one, culminating in the surrender of Jerusalem on October 2. Only a tiny handful of ports held out. The response was the Third Crusade. It was led by Emperor Frederick I Barbarossa of the German Empire, King Philip II Augustus of France, and King Richard I Lionheart of England. By any measure it was a grand affair, although not quite as grand as the Christians had hoped. The aged Frederick drowned while crossing a river on horseback, so his army returned home before reaching the Holy Land. Philip and Richard came by boat, but their incessant bickering only added to an already divisive situation on the ground in Palestine. After recapturing Acre, the king of France went home, where he busied himself carving up Richard's French holdings. The Crusade, therefore, fell into Richard's lap. A skilled warrior, gifted leader, and superb tactician, Richard led the Christian forces to victory after victory, eventually reconquering the entire coast. But Jerusalem was not on the coast, and after two abortive attempts to secure supply lines to the Holy City, Richard at last gave up. Promising to return one day, he struck a truce with Saladin that ensured peace in the region and free access to Jerusalem for unarmed pilgrims. But it was a bitter pill to swallow. The desire to restore Jerusalem to Christian rule and regain the True Cross remained intense throughout Europe. The Crusades of the 13th century were larger, better funded, and better organized. But they too failed. The Fourth Crusade (1201-1204) ran aground when it was seduced into a web of Byzantine politics, which the Westerners never fully understood. They had made a detour to Constantinople to support an imperial claimant who promised great rewards and support for the Holy Land. Yet once he was on the throne of the Caesars, their benefactor found that he could not pay what he had promised. Thus betrayed by their Greek friends, in 1204 the Crusaders attacked, captured, and brutally sacked Constantinople, the greatest Christian city in the world. Pope Innocent III, who had previously excommunicated the entire Crusade, strongly denounced the Crusaders. But there was little else he could do. The tragic events of 1204 closed an iron door between Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox, a door that even today Pope John Paul II has been unable to reopen. It is a terrible irony that the Crusades, which were a direct result of the Catholic desire to rescue the Orthodox people, drove the two further—and perhaps irrevocably—apart. The remainder of the 13th century's Crusades did little better. The Fifth Crusade (1217-1221) managed briefly to capture Damietta in Egypt, but the Muslims eventually defeated the army and reoccupied the city. St. Louis IX of France led two Crusades in his life. The first also captured Damietta, but Louis was quickly outwitted by the Egyptians and forced to abandon the city. Although Louis was in the Holy Land for several years, spending freely on defensive works, he never achieved his fondest wish: to free Jerusalem. He was a much older man in 1270 when he led another Crusade to Tunis, where he died of a disease that ravaged the camp. After St. Louis's death, the ruthless Muslim leaders, Baybars andKalavun, waged a brutal jihad against the Christians in Palestine. By 1291, the Muslim forces had succeeded in killing or ejecting the last of the Crusaders, thus erasing the Crusader kingdom from the map. Despite numerous attempts and many more plans, Christian forces were never again able to gain a foothold in the region until the 19th century.
Whether we admire the Crusaders or not, it is a fact that the world we know today would not exist without their efforts.
One might think that three centuries of Christian defeats would have soured Europeans on the idea of Crusade. Not at all. In one sense, they had little alternative. Muslim kingdoms were becoming more, not less, powerful in the 14th, 15th, and 16th centuries. The Ottoman Turks conquered not only their fellow Muslims, thus further unifying Islam, but also continued to press westward, capturing Constantinople and plunging deep into Europe itself. By the 15th century, the Crusades were no longer errands of mercy for a distant people but desperate attempts of one of the last remnants of Christendom to survive. Europeans began to ponder the real possibility that Islam would finally achieve its aim of conquering the entire Christian world. One of the great best-sellers of the time, Sebastian Brant's The Ship of Fools, gave voice to this sentiment in a chapter titled "Of the Decline of the Faith":
Our
faith was strong in th' Orient,
It ruled in all of Asia,
In Moorish lands and Africa.
But now for us these lands are gone
'Twould even grieve the hardest stone....
Four sisters of our Church you find,
They're of the patriarchic kind:
Constantinople, Alexandria,
Jerusalem, Antiochia.
But they've been forfeited and sacked
And soon the head will be attacked.
Of course, that is not what happened. But it very nearly did. In 1480, Sultan Mehmed II captured Otranto as a beachhead for his invasion of Italy. Rome was evacuated. Yet the sultan died shortly thereafter, and his plan died with him. In 1529, Suleiman the Magnificent laid siege to Vienna. If not for a run of freak rainstorms that delayed his progress and forced him to leave behind much of his artillery, it is virtually certain that the Turks would have taken the city. Germany, then, would have been at their mercy. [At that point crusades were no longer waged to rescue Jerusalem, but Europe itself.] Yet, even while these close shaves were taking place, something else was brewing in Europe—something unprecedented in human history. The Renaissance, born from a strange mixture of Roman values, medieval piety, and a unique respect for commerce and entrepreneurialism, had led to other movements like humanism, the Scientific Revolution, and the Age of Exploration. Even while fighting for its life, Europe was preparing to expand on a global scale. The Protestant Reformation, which rejected the papacy and the doctrine of indulgence, made Crusades unthinkable for many Europeans, thus leaving the fighting to the Catholics. In 1571, a Holy League, which was itself a Crusade, defeated the Ottoman fleet at Lepanto. Yet military victories like that remained rare. The Muslim threat was neutralized economically. As Europe grew in wealth and power, the once awesome and sophisticated Turks began to seem backward and pathetic—no longer worth a Crusade. The "Sick Man of Europe" limped along until the 20th century, when he finally expired, leaving behind the present mess of the modern Middle East. From the safe distance of many centuries, it is easy enough to scowl in disgust at the Crusades. Religion, after all, is nothing to fight wars over. But we should be mindful that our medieval ancestors would have been equally disgusted by our infinitely more destructive wars fought in the name of political ideologies. And yet, both the medieval and the modern soldier fight ultimately for their own world and all that makes it up. Both are willing to suffer enormous sacrifice, provided that it is in the service of something they hold dear, something greater than themselves. Whether we admire the Crusaders or not, it is a fact that the world we know today would not exist without their efforts. The ancient faith of Christianity, with its respect for women and antipathy toward slavery, not only survived but flourished. Without the Crusades, it might well have followed Zoroastrianism, another of Islam's rivals, into extinction. Thomas F. Madden is associate professor and chair of the Department of History at Saint Louis University. He is the author of numerous works, including The New Concise History of the Crusades, and co-author, with Donald Queller, of The Fourth Crusade: The Conquest of Constantinople. This special version for the ARMA was reprinted by permission of Crisis Magazine, www.crisismagazine.com.
Misconceptions about the Crusades are all too common. The Crusades are generally portrayed as a series of holy wars against Islam led by power-mad popes and fought by religious fanatics. They are supposed to have been the epitome of self-righteousness and intolerance, a black stain on the history of the Catholic Church in particular and Western civilization in general. A breed of proto-imperialists, the Crusaders introduced Western aggression to the peaceful Middle East and then deformed the enlightened Muslim culture, leaving it in ruins. For variations on this theme, one need not look far. See, for example, Steven Runciman's famous three-volume epic, History of the Crusades, or the BBC/A&E documentary, The Crusades, hosted by Terry Jones. Both are terrible history yet wonderfully entertaining.
Consider most dear sons,
consider carefully that if any temporal king was thrown out of his
domain and perhaps captured, would he not, when he was restored to his
pristine liberty and the time had come for dispensing justice look on
his vassals as unfaithful and traitors...unless they had committed not
only their property but also their persons to the task of freeing him?
...And similarly will not Jesus Christ, the king of kings and lord of
lords, whose servant you cannot deny being, who joined your soul to
your body, who redeemed you with the Precious Blood...condemn you for
the vice of ingratitude and the crime of infidelity if you neglect to
help Him?
But it was not. When we think about the Middle Ages, it is easy to view Europe in light of what it became rather than what it was. The colossus of the medieval world was Islam, not Christendom. The Crusades are interesting largely because they were an attempt to counter that trend. But in five centuries of crusading, it was only the First Crusade that significantly rolled back the military progress of Islam. It was downhill from there.
