The Crusades: Just and Reasonable

[Montalban]

Hatred is ingrained in Islam. Islam’s such a bigoted religion, you’re not even supposed to take non-Moslems as close friends…

Koran
5:51

O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians as Auliya’ (friends, protectors, helpers, etc.), they are but Auliya’ to one another. And if any amongst you takes them as Auliya’, then surely he is one of them. Verily, Allah guides not those people who are the Zalimun (polytheists and wrongdoers and unjust).

Here’s what one Islamic site says
It is not permissible for a Muslim man or woman to take a male or female friend who is not a Muslim, because Allaah has forbidden us to love the kuffaar or take them as close friends and companions
islamqa.com/index.php?ref=69876&ln=eng

Allaah has forbidden the believers to take the kaafireen (disbelievers) as friends, and He has issued a stern warning against doing that.
islamqa.com/index.php?ref=59879&ln=eng

Hatred comes straight out of the Koran

Koran 9: 29

Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyahwith willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Once you de-humanise people, it’s easier to kill them.

In short…
The Koran says that the Jews like like donkeys!

62: 5 The likeness of those who were entrusted with the Taurat (Torah), but who subsequently failed in those (obligations), is as the likeness of a donkey who carries huge burdens of books (but understands nothing from them). How bad is the example (or the likeness) of people who deny the Ayat (proofs, evidences, verses, signs, revelations, etc.) of Allah. And Allah guides not the people who are Zalimun (polytheists, wrong-doers, disbelievers, etc.).

2:96 says that they are the greediest people…
And verily, you will find them (the Jews) the greediest of mankind for life and (even greedier) than those who - ascribe partners to Allah (and do not believe in Resurrection - Magians, pagans, and idolaters, etc.). Everyone of them wishes that he could be given a life of a thousand years. But the grant of such life will not save him even a little from (due) punishment. And Allah is All-Seer of what they do.

2:61 says that al-lah stamped wrtechedness upon them.
4:61 Says that they (and Christians) believe in idols
5:52 they are cursed.
5:93 the Jews are cursed
5:51 don’t take a Jew as a friend
5:53 Jews (and Christians) are losers
5:57 Don’t choose Jews, (or Christians, or disbelievers) as guardians
5:59 Jews (and Christians) are evil-doers
5:63 Rabbis do evil

 

[Montalban]

You’re not even considered a ‘brother’ of a Muslim

"Question: Does not brotherhood extend to all of mankind because it is established that Aadam was the forefather of everyone?

Response: This is not so. There is no doubt that everyone is from the offspring of Aadam but we do not say, “This is my brother,” when referring to a disbeliever meaning by that within the brotherhood of man. We can only refer to him as brother when there is a relationship by descent or lineage.
fatwa-online.com/fataawa/muslimminorities/0000920_5.htm

And as I noted earlier that a Dhimmi is not able to convict a Moslem…
“…the testimony of a non-Muslim was not allowed in a Muslim shari’ah court, so if a Jew or Christian had a case against a Muslim, he would have to get Muslim witnesses…”
secularislam.net/archives/000017.html

Against this you provide no evidence.

 

[pro_universal]

Why did Muhammed attack the Roman Empire in the first place?

This ‘man of peace’ attacked a people that had never attacked him.

So much for Islam being a religion that is only defence-orientated.

Questions we can do.

1. Muhammad didn’t attack the Roman empire. Umar did, and that’s because it was a threat to all of its neighbors. It was an imperial state; it gained power through beating its neighbors.
2. The “man of peace” wasn’t alive at that time.
3. So much for all that historical education

 

[pro_universal]

Your attempts to parody Islamic law into something you can create with a few quotes from online anti-Islamic websites is ridiculous.

It isn’t even apologism, it’s just absurd.

Trying to connect friendship, laws of marriage, and whatever else to a discussion on the Crusades and warfare is definitely thread spamming, while we’re tossing the label around.

 

[NotWorthy]

OK, anyone wants to take a bet on which guy is the first to say, “So’s your mother”?

 

[pro_universal]

OK, anyone wants to take a bet on which guy is the first to say, “So’s your mother”?

Want to take my bet?

Seriously…let’s get it back on track.

What’s the argument that the crusades were just and reasonable?

I just don’t see it. Seems to me everyone’s admitting they were bad, but then trying to prove that Muslims were worse.

That’s akin to saying that Saddam Hussein was good because Pol Pot killed more people. Just doesn’t hold up to reason.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Montalban:

I see that you have met the Jihadi who sometimes claims, falsely, to have converted from Catholicism to Islam. (Sometimes he says otherwise) I knew he would eventually invade this thread, swinging the sword of the prophet, as he does every one in which anything touching on Islam comes up. If you go through Pro_Universal’s innumerable posts, you will find that he approves of not a single thing in Christianity and disapproves of nothing ever done by Islamists. I blocked him (or more likely, “them”) long ago, because he evades and ignores any point he loses, and will not accept anything as true except negative things about Christianity. His purpose is to destroy the faith of those who are in these threads; not to engage in honest debate. But what really caused me to block him was when he actually tried to justify the murder of Isareli women and children by Islamic terrorists by claiming it was pursuant to “an understanding” between Israel and Hezbollah… It suddenly occurred to me that Islamic apologists like him stand for a thought process that would gladly behead every single person on these threads who stands up for Christianity, and find a reason to blame the victims for it. After that, debating with him was like debating with NAMBLA. There is a point at which disgust simply overwhelms one’s desire to remain engaged.

You and I have our differences, Montalban. But as near as I can tell from reading your own posts, you are doing a fine job, both in debating Pro_Jihad and in seeing through him/them. But I think, in the end, you will tire of simply batting down Islamic talking points, and may wish to use the block as well.

Let’s see, was I not right in saying that Latin and Orthodox Christianity face two threats, neither of which is one another? The last thing in the world these Islamists want to see is unity among Christians.

 

[Al_Masetti]

The Crusades (in particular the Nobles Crusade) were just and reasonable wars and I’m fed up with people acting as though the crusades were the result of a power-hungry and bloodthirsty Church.

There were three noble reasons the crusades were declared: Defend Europe, help our Byzantine ally, and protect Christians in the Middle East.

First off, the crusades were strictly defensive in a sense. Islamic armies had been menacing Europe for hundreds of years and many Europeans had been butchered by Mohammedan swords. Catholic Spain was actually under Moslem control at this point. Syria, Iran, and North Africa had all been heavily Christian areas until Mohammed’s generals brought the sword with them and converted the populace by intimidation, deception, and force. Europe was next on the Moslem hit list. Spain had already been captured and the Moslems had already tried to attack the rest of Europe through France (though they were stopped at Tours). Something had to be done, and fast! The crusades were the answer that could halt this pending Moslem invasion. Had the crusades not been launched the Moslem militaries would have kept building up and they would likely have overwhelmed Europe. Millions of innocent Europeans would have died and the Catholic Church would have been savagely abused.

Secondly our separated Byzantine Christian brothers were being harassed by Moslems and they begged us for help. As fellow Christians, it was the Catholic duty of Europe to aid these separated Christian brothers in the East. Had the crusades not been launched the Greek population would have suffered a horrible fate at the hands of Moslem pillagers.

Finally, the Seljuk Muslims were commiting unspeakable atrocities against Christians in the Middle East. Christian women were being raped ontop of altars, pilgrims robbed and beheaded, Churches burnt to the ground (including the Holy Sepulchure), ect. The final blow came when the Seljuks banned Christians from entering Jerusalem under pain of death in 1095. Jerusalem was a sacred city where Our Lord had walked and to allow the savage Seljuk Moslems to defile it and persecute Gods people was unthinkable.

I’m sick of revisionist secular historians claiming the Moslems were the “good guys” during the crusades and the crusaders the “bad guys”. Films like “Kingdom of Heaven” promote this perverted viewpoint. Everyone convieniently forgets the Moslems butchered 100,000 civilians in Antioch. Everyone forgets how Saladin ordered the beheading of all captured Knights at Hattin. Everyone forgets how Saladin butchered Europeans constructing a settlement. Everyone forgets how Saladin enslaved those in Jerusalem who couldn’t buy their way out of the city. Everyone forgets how Saladin stole a priceless relic: a possible piece of the True Cross.

Certain crusaders themselves certainly did some evil things: the massacre of Jerusalem, sack of Constantinople, ect. These vile actions were not ordered by high crusader leadership however. However those actions still cannot be excused nonetheless. Certain rotten actions doesn’t change the fact that the crusades themselves were a reasonable war against a savage enemy though.

Our brave crusader ancestors fought the same enemy we fight today: RADICAL ISLAM! We should start to honor our heroic crusader ancesotrs instead of scorning them.

This discussion has really gotten off-point, in my opinion.

Post #1 should be re-read.

Excellent and well done summary of the events leading up to the two sets of Crusades, one set to the Holy Land and one set to Spain.

Readers and posters should also refresh themselves on the relevant dates.

Islam founded around AD 635.

Spain invaded in AD 711.

Battle of Tours in AD 732…Charles Martel, etc.

Very fast moving Muslim campaign into North Africa and Western Europe.

When I was young, I was bored by names, dates and places … but the dates turn out to be very important.

 

[Al_Masetti]

I am going to suggest that readers buy a copy of “The Harper Encyclopedia of Military History” by R. Ernest Dupuy and Trevor N. Dupuy.

It’s normally expensive, but by checking places like ABEBooks you can get a new copy for cheap.

On page 222 and 223, there is a good description of “Campaign and Battle of Tours, 732”.

Next to the last paragraph, “The Battle of Tours is considered one of the decisive battles of history, complementing the even more decisive victory won by Leo III of Byzantium fourteen years earlier at Constantinople (see p. 242). Together these two victories stemmed the hitherto irrestible tide of Moslem expansion and assured Christian Europe of several centuries of growth and development before being faced with comparable pagan threats in the 13th and 15th centuries.”

Basically, the military and political situation was in a continuous state of flux, albeit “slow-moving”. It seems that about every 500 years events speeded up and there were horrific wars and battles between Muslim expansion and Christian defenders.

It may be that NOW we are entering another of those horrific periods.

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

Pax tecum!

Because it was not just an attack by individuals, but a concerted attempt to wipe-out Orthodoxy.

No, the people involved in the sack of Constantinople had already done, as I said in my last post (and you didn’t quote this part so I’m assuming you either didn’t read that far or left it out because it disproves what you are saying), THE SAME THING TO A CATHOLIC CITY. They didn’t go over to Constantinople with the thought of “Let’s wipe out the Orthodox” (If you read the accounts of Urban II’s speech in 1095 you will see that one of the main reasons for going on crusade was to help “our Eastern brethren”). They wanted to get some loot and that’s exactly what they did in both places.

There was established a Latin seat in Constantinople, and Latins then went out and forced conversions upon Orthodox. Perhaps you wish this instead to be an example of the powerlessness of the Pope?

Prove that they forced conversions or stop saying it. Source please.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[Vigis]

Post-Universal how dare you say that the Catholic Church did not do its best to stop the murders of Jews during the Crusades! How DARE YOU!!! YOU ARE WRONG. What you are saying is that the death of priest defending the Jews from an angry mob of soldiers or people was little? That is nonsense. It cost their lives and that is not little. During the Black Death a movement in Germany began when people started to wip themselves. It later started to murder Jews. Pope Leo III (I think he was the Pope then) excommunicated them, had them charged with heresy, and ALL of them were put to DEATH. And you think that is little? I mean not to throw around false accusations, but if I do please correct me on my misinterpretations of what you are saying. You make it seem abundantly apparent that you have many things against the Catholic Church. If you do not then do not make it seem that way. God speed.

 

[SPH1]

You already tried that one once in 1204. Orthodox aren’t going to be to happy to see you back after last time - when you forced conversions upon us and martyred many.

But otherwise go on with a crusade, just be sure to target Islam.

I meant Islam.

Seeing that you’re EO, it doesn’t surprise me that you bring this up. IMO, the outlook of EO is very much like that of Islam.

 

[SPH1]

Pax vobiscum!

Why do the Orthodox keep bringing up the Fourth Crusade as an attempt to show wrongdoing of the Catholic Church against them rather than individuals who took part in the sack of Constantinople?

Because the EO are much like Muslims in some things. Both EO and Muslims remember the Crusades like they happened yesterday…forgetting, of course, their own faults.

 

[pro_universal]

Post-Universal how dare you say that the Catholic Church did not do its best to stop the murders of Jews during the Crusades! How DARE YOU!!! YOU ARE WRONG. What you are saying is that the death of priest defending the Jews from an angry mob of soldiers or people was little? That is nonsense. It cost their lives and that is not little. During the Black Death a movement in Germany began when people started to wip themselves. It later started to murder Jews. Pope Leo III (I think he was the Pope then) excommunicated them, had them charged with heresy, and ALL of them were put to DEATH. And you think that is little? I mean not to throw around false accusations, but if I do please correct me on my misinterpretations of what you are saying. You make it seem abundantly apparent that you have many things against the Catholic Church. If you do not then do not make it seem that way. God speed.

Before the Crusades even finished, the Council of Trent declared that all Jews should be humiliated and blamed them for all sorts of ills.

I’m sorry, but the position that the Church has always defended Jews is ludicrous. It’s true to say that it hasn’t always supported killing Jews, but certainly, it has always been an eager supplier of anti-Jewish sentiments.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

1. So much for all that historical education

Nice red herring there, buddy. That’s in violation of the forum’s rules and your post has been reported to the moderators. I pray for the salvation of your soul and that you will come to the Truth of Christianity and the Catholic Church.

 

[Michael_Francis]

Having deteriorarted in charity and relevence this thread is now closed.