Crusades were not Evil

[IsaacSheen]

On all the “war is evil” and “war is justified” stuff. All war is evil although some war is justified. It isn’t only the just war theory. Remember, we also have to choose the lesser of two evils. What would have been better, Muslims taking everything over? Or us taking it over to the Muslims? The lesser of two evils was to take it to the Muslims. I could be way wrong.

 

[JimG]

Certainly all war is regrettable and all wars lead to excess of one kind or another. But I think that geopolitics does make a difference.

Who has hegemony over the nations at any historical era is important. It makes a difference whether it’s Attila, or Richard II, or Napoleon. It makes a difference whether it is Stalin or Churchill. It makes a difference if Saladin conquers Europe. It makes a difference that the U.S. won the cold war rather than the Soviet Union.
Nations and institutions which have power to affect geopolitical outcomes have a responsibility to exercise that power wisely. They are not free to take an indifferent attitude to geopolitics; if they do so, they risk ceding power to evil.

 

[Vox_Borealis]

IsaacSheen:

On all the “war is evil” and “war is justified” stuff. All war is evil although some war is justified. It isn’t only the just war theory. Remember, we also have to choose the lesser of two evils. What would have been better, Muslims taking everything over? Or us taking it over to the Muslims? The lesser of two evils was to take it to the Muslims. I could be way wrong.

Muslims “taking over everything”–even if they could have in 1100, which is doubtful–is not necessarily a problem or “an evil”. So long as other religions were tolerated, secular rule should not be much of an issue (there is little evidence that, outside of religion, Musilm rule was any different from Christian rule). Are we afraid the Church would have been completely eradicated? Christ promised that would never happen. Would Christians have been challenged in the faith? Certainly. Would some have converted for political or economic reasons? Sure, and that is no different than those today who buy into secularism and relativism, or who hide their “faith” at work or in the public square. Would some Christians have been killed? Yes, and again, Christ told us that would come to pass.

 

[Philip_P]

I question reducing the crusades to an issue of whether Muslims or Christians controlled Europe. Again, just for clarification, I do not include the Spanish reconquista nor the Turkish advances through Asia minor into Europe as “crusades,” I am referring specifically to the European invasions of the Middle East.

What evidence do you have to support that Saladin was poised to conquer Europe?

Also, for Axion, your point about the anti-Catholic bias in much of Crusades history is well-taken. However, glossing over the atrocities committed by Christians does a disservice to everyone. Honestly examing and evaluating history is difficult, as there is often more than enough blame to go around. However, as Catholics we have the advantage of a good model in the sacrament of reconciliation. Just as we as individuals rely on a critical self-evaluation and confession of sins followed by a commitment to cooperate with grace and avoid sin in the future, so can nations and even the Church acknowledge past failures (even, and especially in wars) as a means to grow closer to God. Denying that Christians have committed grave wrongs is not only dishonest, it is dangerous in that it hinders our growth as a community of faith.

 

[Lovez4God]

If history didn’t play out as it did, we wouldn’t have this day to be talking how great the Church has reigned.
Today it seems that the Muslims are the aggressors, will we just sit around and let them have their ‘jihads’ again?
The Church cannot live together will evil doers, evil doers must be expelled from the earth. God help us all.

 

[Axion]

Vox Borealis:

Muslims “taking over everything”–even if they could have in 1100, which is doubtful–is not necessarily a problem or “an evil”. So long as other religions were tolerated, secular rule should not be much of an issue (there is little evidence that, outside of religion, Musilm rule was any different from Christian rule).

I cannot agree with you there. Muslim rule was totally different from Christian rule. Muslim “toleration” of Christians would quickly be termed “oppression” if its terms were applied to Muslims in the west today.

As soon as Muslims took over a Christian land

• Sharia Law was applied.
• The best Christian Churches were converted to Mosques.
• Christians were barred from senior jobs and professions
• No new Christian Churches could be built
• Christian Churches could not be repaired without permission. (They were expected to fall into disuse)
• Christians had to pay a stiff discriminatory tax.
• Christians were subject to Islamic Laws
• Christians could be killed for “defaming” Islam or offending Muslims.
• Christians could convert to Islam, making children Muslim
• Muslims could not convert to Christianity on pain of death.
• Christian Children could be taken for the army and raised as Muslims
• Occasional periods of greater oppression and massacre occurred.

Under this rule, occupied lands quickly became over 50% Muslim. Christianity was wiped out in North Africa in the Middle Ages and reduced to a small minority elsewhere.

Are we afraid the Church would have been completely eradicated? Christ promised that would never happen. Would Christians have been challenged in the faith? Certainly. Would some have converted for political or economic reasons? Sure, and that is no different than those today who buy into secularism and relativism, or who hide their “faith” at work or in the public square. Would some Christians have been killed? Yes, and again, Christ told us that would come to pass.

Zoroastrianism, the religion of Persia was completely eliminated. Christianity was totally eliminated in Turkey and North Africa. Historically, in most lands enduring more than about three hundred years of Muslim Rule, Christianity has been reduced to a small minority faith.

So Muslim rule in Europe from say 1200 or 1300 would have produced a 2005 society where Muslims would be about 90% of the population of Europe and 100% of North and South America. We would also have lost modern culture with such Christian-based mainstays as Democracy, Human Rights, Scientific and Technological progress, Drama, and Western Literature. Women would be herded indoors behind veils. Society would probably very similar to 16th century Turkey, with slaves rowing galleys across the Atlantic.

Of course there might have been some spots where Christianity survived - as in Ethiopia - the Swiss Mountains perhaps. But generally Christianity would be a small doomed faith.

 

[Axion]

Philip P:

What evidence do you have to support that Saladin was poised to conquer Europe?

Not so much Saladin. He was ruler of Egypt, and his ambitions lay in the Middle East. However the Turks, Persians and northern Arabs had their eyes firmly set on the “Infidel” lands of Europe.

The evidence is plentiful. From 600 AD on, Islam has been an expanding religion, which has aimed to conquer the lands of Christianity. This continuous war or “jihad” is mandated in the Koran. A permanent peace is disallowed. Jihad outside Arabia began just three years after Muhammad’s death and continued continuously for the next thousand years. In this time the Muslim overran the Christian Lands of

Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Palestine 630 AD
Egypt 650 AD
North Africa, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco 700 AD
Spain 780 AD
Southern France 790 AD
Sicily 850 AD
Southern Italy 860 AD
Turkish borders 900 AD
Armenia and Georgia 1050 AD
Central Turkey 1070 AD

The Seljuk Turks considered themselves masters of Jihad, taking the title of Ghazi, or war leader against the Infidel. The pressure on Europe was relieved by the Crusades, but from 1350 onward the Turks began to move into Europe, quickly overrunning Greece and the Balkans.

Of all the New Testament Churches, only a single one, Rome, escaped Muslim domination.

Also, for Axion, your point about the anti-Catholic bias in much of Crusades history is well-taken. However, glossing over the atrocities committed by Christians does a disservice to everyone. Honestly examing and evaluating history is difficult, as there is often more than enough blame to go around. However, as Catholics we have the advantage of a good model in the sacrament of reconciliation. Just as we as individuals rely on a critical self-evaluation and confession of sins followed by a commitment to cooperate with grace and avoid sin in the future, so can nations and even the Church acknowledge past failures (even, and especially in wars) as a means to grow closer to God. Denying that Christians have committed grave wrongs is not only dishonest, it is dangerous in that it hinders our growth as a community of faith.

I am not denying that wrongs were committed. What I am saying is that there is a big difference between a basically Just cause like the Crusades being sullied by some unjust actions, and the **cause ** as a whole being one to be apologised for. A key analogy is World War 2 and the Atom Bombing of civilians in Japan. Should America apologise for dropping the bombs? Perhaps. Does that action condemn the whole fight against Japan in World War 2? Should the US apologise for fighting and invading Japan? Should all Japanese atrocities and the reasons for the war be forgotten and never mentioned? Most would say firmly no.

Apologising for the actions of others may make us feel good, but it can do immense harm if it distorts history, and makes aggressors feel that they were actually the victims.

 

[IsaacSheen]

Vox Borealis:

Muslims “taking over everything”–even if they could have in 1100, which is doubtful–is not necessarily a problem or “an evil”. So long as other religions were tolerated, secular rule should not be much of an issue (there is little evidence that, outside of religion, Musilm rule was any different from Christian rule). Are we afraid the Church would have been completely eradicated? Christ promised that would never happen. Would Christians have been challenged in the faith? Certainly. Would some have converted for political or economic reasons? Sure, and that is no different than those today who buy into secularism and relativism, or who hide their “faith” at work or in the public square. Would some Christians have been killed? Yes, and again, Christ told us that would come to pass.

So we don’t have to do anything? Christ doesn’t ask us to defend our faith in any way, shape, or form?

And let me ask you this, you say some Christians would have been killed. Is that ok? Sit back, watch them die? I understand the Lord wouldn’t be violent and would die for ultimate love but not everyone is called to follow this example are they? I honestly don’t know. Someone please inform me.

And what about people who do not want to die but cannot defend themselves. Do we tell them “tough luck, sorry”?

Would you shrug your shoulders at Muslims sacking and destroying the Vatican today? Would you not life a finger if they came in and killed the Pope and every Cardinal and priest that they could find? If Muslims were landing on our shores right now and killing everyone in their paths, would you just let them in?

Please understand, I trust in Christ and everything he said/says. I feel the way you do. If my family, friends and whoever were not threatened and only I would have to die, I would gladly accept it, I’m with you on that one. I just wonder, if a person is going to kill a child and I do nothing but watch when I could have stopped it. Am I in the right?

I hate violence. Trust me, I have the credentials to back it up. At that time in history, the best option was the crusades.

Humbly,
Isaac

 

[Vox_Borealis]

Axion:

I cannot agree with you there. Muslim rule was totally different from Christian rule. Muslim “toleration” of Christians would quickly be termed “oppression” if its terms were applied to Muslims in the west today.

That’s silly–medieval laws in Christian europe would also be considered oppressive today. You can’t compare medieval Muslim law with modern, pluralistic law–you have to compare Muslim law to medieval Christian law. There is little evidence that Muslims were more oppressive in their lands than were Christians in their own.

 

[Philip_P]

I agree with Vox - you have to compare the laws within the same era for it to be a fair comparison. You should probably also refine it further and make allowances for regional differences - French laws were not the same as English laws, the laws in the Italian city states differed, and each state went through phases of greater toleration and oppression. I’m sure the same applies to Arab and Muslim lands. Muslim rule wasn’t monolithic.

I’d also take it a step further and point out that that “what if” history is always highly speculative. We really have no idea what the world would be like if the Turks had conquered Vienna and most of Europe had fallen under Muslim rule. Democracy, for instance, might still occur - remember that the European renaissance, which was a precursor to the Englightenment, drew on Greek and Roman sources, sources which were preserved primarily by Arab scholars.

I also think the issue of evaluating the Crusades speaks to a general problem with balance in history. How do you tell the full story? Take American history, for instance. For a long time the European settlers were the entire story, with the native population reduced to “savages.” Then the pendulum swung the other way and, in some circles, the Europeans became the bad guys and the natives noble victims. Now there’s a growing acknowledgment of the atrocities and ugliness in pre-European civilization, too. Are we getting closer a more complete American history, where the victors and victims, heroes and knaves, on both sides get their just telling?

 

[Axion]

Vox Borealis:

That’s silly–medieval laws in Christian europe would also be considered oppressive today. You can’t compare medieval Muslim law with modern, pluralistic law–you have to compare Muslim law to medieval Christian law. There is little evidence that Muslims were more oppressive in their lands than were Christians in their own.

You’re not comparing like with like.

1. Christian Europe had largely been created by peaceful conversion rather than conquest. Christianity was not conquering and occupying a large non-Christian population. Where it did, as in the Holy Land under the Crusaders, Muslim populations were generally allowed to live and worship in peace.
2. In Muslim conquered lands the Christian population were suddenly converted to 3rd Class citizens. This would have happened if the Muslims had conquered Europe in the Middle Ages. There would be no “modern, pluralistic law”. That is a product of liberal Christianity.
3. Even today we see the same process ocurring in Muslim lands. 50 years ago Algeria had 2 Million Christians. Today there are about 2,000. Turkey had 5 Million Christians a hundred years ago. Now there are only a few thousand. In most of the Middle East, including Palestine, local Christians are being driven out by terrorism and fundamentalism. Even with strong western influence, the laws against Apostasy of Muslims still apply. In Egypt, Christians are still thrown in jail for “insulting Islam” - usually expressing their Christian beliefs in public. A muslim becoming Christian faces at best ostracism, at worst death.

 

[Vox_Borealis]

IsaacSheen:

So we don’t have to do anything? Christ doesn’t ask us to defend our faith in any way, shape, or form?

Find me a quote in the New Testament where Christ asks us to defend the Faith with violence. I do remember something about turn the other cheek, though. Look, the point is that we are called not to limit violence with equal violence (“eye for an eye”), but to limit it with a disproportionate lack of violence (“turn the other cheek”). That is the whole basis for the Church’s just war doctrine–we have to be as sure as possible that the evils produced by aggressor enemies, after ALL avenues have been exhausted, will still be greater than the evils necessarily produced by wars. People on these threads love to cite Canon Law and the Catechism when it comes to ordaining women and the like, but they sure don’t seem to care much for other doctrines such as the just war doctrine.

IsaacSheen:

And let me ask you this, you say some Christians would have been killed. Is that ok? Sit back, watch them die? I understand the Lord wouldn’t be violent and would die for ultimate love but not everyone is called to follow this example are they? I honestly don’t know. Someone please inform me.

No, it’s not “OK”, but neither is it necessarily OK tio commit acts of violence to prevent this from happening. And yes, we ARE called to follow Christ’s example–just look at all the wonderful examples of martyrs in the early church (and the tradition even continues to the moder day). Now, we as humans are weak, and it is understandable that we often fall short of Christ’s example, but you are treading on dangerous ground if you say that the laws of the New Testament (or of the Church, for that matter) don’t really apply to us and that only Jesus could be expected to follow His teachings.

IsaacSheen:

And what about people who do not want to die but cannot defend themselves. Do we tell them “tough luck, sorry”?

Again, see the just war doctrine in the CCC. This is a horrible situation, but we must weigh very carefull commitingt sin in order to avaoid sin. How about this analogy–should we give condoms to African Catholics so that they don’t get AIDS? I mean, come on, only Jesus could really be expected to live without having sex, we can’t be expected to do the same. And isn’t better to give out condoms rather than tell these poor slobs “tough luck”, you just have to get AIDS and die. No–the Church rejects the entire system as disordered and sinful, and argues that you cannot generally fix sin with sin.

IsaacSheen:

Would you shrug your shoulders at Muslims sacking and destroying the Vatican today? Would you not life a finger if they came in and killed the Pope and every Cardinal and priest that they could find? If Muslims were landing on our shores right now and killing everyone in their paths, would you just let them in?

I would not shrug my shoulders, nor would it be OK if the Muslims came here and “killed everyone”–that is an unfair rhetorical ploy you are using. But the question is, what is the proper response to such behavior? The Church does not PRECLUDE war, but it cautions that this should only be the last resort, and only then should it prosecuted within strict parameters.

As for the Vatican being sacked–it’s happened before and may even happen again; and violence against the Pope has happened before. These were acts of great evil, but you know what? The church survived (just as Christ promised), and it would have been wrong to reposnd to such acts of barbarism with equivelant acts of barbarism.

IsaacSheen:

Please understand, I trust in Christ and everything he said/says. I feel the way you do. If my family, friends and whoever were not threatened and only I would have to die, I would gladly accept it, I’m with you on that one. I just wonder, if a person is going to kill a child and I do nothing but watch when I could have stopped it. Am I in the right?

Another rhetorical ploy. Yes, you should stop someone from killing a child–by grabbing his arm and taking his knife, or by stepping in front of the bullet, or by calling the police, or by reasoning with the potential killer, or by bribing him. But I’m not clear it is right to slit his throat to protect the child. At best this is a morally ambiguous circumstance.

Con’t

 

[Vox_Borealis]

Con’t

IsaacSheen:

I hate violence. Trust me, I have the credentials to back it up. At that time in history, the best option was the crusades.

Perhaps, at least for the first one. The later crusades were increasingly futile and wasteful. Unlike others on this thread I am not convinced that 1] Muslims were as brutal as they have been protrayed here (though I admit to their brutality), or 2] that they posed the kid of systemic threat to all of Christendom as some feel they did (Axion and I have disagreed about this in the past, and I assume the disagreement will continue), or 3] that the Crusades were ven all that successful in saving Christendom, especially considering the damage the crusades (namely #4) did to the Byzantine Empire (again, Axion disagrees, and he makes a number of good points). So, I cannot be as sure as you that Crusades were the best way to go at the time.

 

[Axion]

Philip P:

I agree with Vox - you have to compare the laws within the same era for it to be a fair comparison.

Fundamental flaw.

“Era” has far less to do with laws than the culture that creates them. That’s what anti-Christians forget. The idea of individual human rights comes from Christianity. Eliminate the power of Christianity and its culture, and the harsh laws of the koran continue into the present era unchallenged.

You should probably also refine it further and make allowances for regional differences - French laws were not the same as English laws, the laws in the Italian city states differed, and each state went through phases of greater toleration and oppression. I’m sure the same applies to Arab and Muslim lands. Muslim rule wasn’t monolithic.

Islamic Law is fairly monolithic, you will find. sharia Law is the same everywhere. From the Atlantic to Pakistan one culture pervades.

We really have no idea what the world would be like if the Turks had conquered Vienna and most of Europe had fallen under Muslim rule. Democracy, for instance, might still occur -

Unlikely. Even today, with western dominance, Islam and democracy seem incompatible. The “democracy” in Iraq is only held in place by 100,000 US troops.

remember that the European renaissance, which was a precursor to the Englightenment, drew on Greek and Roman sources, sources which were preserved primarily by Arab scholars.

They were preserved primarily by the Byzantines and Christian monks. SOME were preserved by the Arabs as well - but they didn’t produce an enlightenment in Arabia.

I also think the issue of evaluating the Crusades speaks to a general problem with balance in history. How do you tell the full story? Take American history, for instance. For a long time the European settlers were the entire story, with the native population reduced to “savages.” Then the pendulum swung the other way and, in some circles, the Europeans became the bad guys and the natives noble victims. Now there’s a growing acknowledgment of the atrocities and ugliness in pre-European civilization, too. Are we getting closer a more complete American history, where the victors and victims, heroes and knaves, on both sides get their just telling?

Yes. There’s revision and re-revision in history.

But part of that is Christins ensuring that THEIR view of History isn’t lost in the many re-writes.

 

[Philip_P]

A bit tangential, but I wonder if Muslim fundamentalism would have arisen and been as large a force had it not been for the Crusades? My sense is that the right place to look for this answer is not the Crusades, but the period of European colonialism over the Middle East. Still, maybe there’s a connection? I also wonder why Islam has not had its equivalent of the Protestant reformation. We seem to have gotten our politically potent religious fundamentalism out of our system in the 16th and 17th centuries…if Islam had become the hegemonic power instead of Christianity, would they have had a similar experience?

 

[Vox_Borealis]

Upon re-reading my last two posts, I am concerned they come off a little brusk. Isaac, I will be the first to admit that depiste my own rhetoric, I know that I usually do not live up to the Christian ideal. If I winessed the abuses that you describe, I would have a very difficult time “turning the other cheek.”

 

[Philip_P]

Axion - no Englightenment in Arabia? True, much was preserved in Christian monasteries, but places such as Baghdad and Damascus were centers of learning and culture when Europe was mostly a rural backwater. Also, most of our higher mathematics has its roots in medieval Islam, and much of our knowledge of the Greek and Roman writers. No Islamic civilization would have meant no Descartes. Let’s be sure to give credit where credit is due - Islamic civilization has had some not too shabby achievements. The current state of the Islamic world is one of the low points in their history, something many Muslims feel keenly.

 

[IsaacSheen]

Vox Borealis:

Upon re-reading my last two posts, I am concerned they come off a little brusk. Isaac, I will be the first to admit that depiste my own rhetoric, I know that I usually do not live up to the Christian ideal. If I winessed the abuses that you describe, I would have a very difficult time “turning the other cheek.”

We all would. I’m just asking questions. But I am honestly wondering your opinion (and others) on whether or not God calls us all to die in passive defense of Him? If so, what about children who are not able to make that distinction or decision?

Peace and Love.

 

[Vox_Borealis]

Axion:

You’re not comparing like with like.

1. Christian Europe had largely been created by peaceful conversion rather than conquest. Christianity was not conquering and occupying a large non-Christian population. Where it did, as in the Holy Land under the Crusaders, Muslim populations were generally allowed to live and worship in peace.

Not exactly. From the time of Constantine forward (with the exception of Julian) non-Christians were subjected to the same kind of pressures to convert as were Christians under Muslim “toleration”–their worship (sacrifice) was increasingly banned, Christians (especially clergy) were given finacial benefits, pagans were subjected to periodic outbreaks of mob violence to which Christian imperial authorities turned a blind eye, unofficially Christians were favored for lucrative administrative positions, and so forth. Likewise, other coversions–such as the conversion under Clovis of the Franks–while not the product of conquest, were certainly compelled from the top down.

Your latter statement about tolerance in the Crusader states is certainly very true.

How much did Christians tolerate Muslims in Spain, when Christians slowly reconquered the Iberian peninsula?

Axion:

1. In Muslim conquered lands the Christian population were suddenly converted to 3rd Class citizens. This would have happened if the Muslims had conquered Europe in the Middle Ages. There would be no “modern, pluralistic law”. That is a product of liberal Christianity.

Maybe. What status did Iews and the occasional Muslims have in Christian lands (again, see Spain)?

One could argue that modern liberalism grew out of an Enlightenment that was often (though not always) pretty hostile to Christianity (especially Catholicism). Many enlightenment thinkers looked, in fact, to the pagan past (republican Rome and democratic Athens) for thir political models, not to Christian precedents. Moreover, modern pluralistic democracies have really only established themselves in the last century or two in the west. The fact this has occured in the West MAY be because of Christianity, or because the west also experienced other profound changes, such as scientific and industrial revolutions. Maybe pluralistic societies emerged in the west in spite of rather than because of Christianity. I’m not saying that is the case, but I do questions the logic that because pluralism came about in the west, it must be linked specifically to Christianity.

Axion:

1. Even today we see the same process ocurring in Muslim lands. 50 years ago Algeria had 2 Million Christians. Today there are about 2,000. Turkey had 5 Million Christians a hundred years ago. Now there are only a few thousand. In most of the Middle East, including Palestine, local Christians are being driven out by terrorism and fundamentalism. Even with strong western influence, the laws against Apostasy of Muslims still apply. In Egypt, Christians are still thrown in jail for “insulting Islam” - usually expressing their Christian beliefs in public. A muslim becoming Christian faces at best ostracism, at worst death.

Wait a minute–Algeria has been Muslim for 1300 years, how is it that there were 2 million Christians living there only 50 years ago? The numbers may suggest that for a long time Muslims DID in fact tolerate Christians, and that only recently has there emerged a more militant strand of Islam that is driving out Christians en masse. In genral, though, I agree with you on this point.

But the question I posed was if the situation was that different between the medieval Muslim and medieval Christian worlds. Jews and Muslims were often driven from Christian lands both by official policies and unofficial actions; Jews remained second class citizens in many Christian countries; after the Reformation, Catholics were often treated in much the same way in Protestant countries. What I am saying is that I do not believe Islam has a monopoly on this sort of behavior.

I do agree with you that by and large the modern west has emerged from this sort of religious intolerance, while the Muslim world appears not to have.

 

[Axion]

Philip P:

A bit tangential, but I wonder if Muslim fundamentalism would have arisen and been as large a force had it not been for the Crusades? My sense is that the right place to look for this answer is not the Crusades, but the period of European colonialism over the Middle East. Still, maybe there’s a connection? I also wonder why Islam has not had its equivalent of the Protestant reformation. We seem to have gotten our politically potent religious fundamentalism out of our system in the 16th and 17th centuries…if Islam had become the hegemonic power instead of Christianity, would they have had a similar experience?

Well. Christianity didn’t have “hegemonic power” until about 1700, when all the new technology came on line. Until then a strong case could be made that islam was the world hegemonic power.

I think the blaming of Islamic fundamentalism on the crusades is a modern thing. After all, the Crusades ended in Muslim victory. Fundamentalism is much more a reaction to the dominance of Western society since 1700. Islam is a world-system which is threatened by western “materialism” and dominance.

As for a reformation. Islam is already very “protestant” - it is ruled by a divine book, individual pastors run the “churches”, no sacramental worship, no pictures