Why do liberals and Islamic apologists, always use the Crusades as an example of Christian agression?

Question

At the beginings of Islam, the entire Middle East was Christian. Islam conquered the Middle East, North Africa, Spain and most of the Byzantine Empire through war and subjugation and dhimmitude. It was only after their invasion of the Byzantine Empire that the Byzantine emperor pleaded with Pope Urban II for help. That is how the crusades came about. They were not unprovoked attacks on innocent Muslims, but a defensive reaction to centuries of Islamic aggression. This is real history that you can look up for yourself.

Answer 1

You are 100% CORRECT. Ignoring the reasons why the Crusades began is intellectual dishonesty.

Islam is NOT a religion of peace. It never was.

Answer 2

Thank you for simplifying an issue that has been considered very complex by scholars for centuries. The Christian Church did go on crusades to save their own world from the Muslims. However that is not all there was. The Spanish Inquisition was Christian against Christian. Have you heard of the encomienda system? In the new world it was used by the Spanish to force the natives to become Christians or be tortured or worse. No one doubts the horrors of the advancements of the Ottoman Empire and the resulting crusades but to only consider that when criticizing or praising the Christian religion one is leaving out so much real history.

Answer 3

Actually, a large portion of the Middle East willingly joined the Caliphate because the Byzantine Empire left any Christian sect that didn't conform to the Imperial Doctrine hanging in the wind. Egypt and Syria both fell almost without a fight, and Iran was never under Byzantine control, neither was anything south of Palestine, really. Maby nominally, but barely even that. That is why there are still large christian populations in much of the Middle East. Many of the converted, but many are also still living peacefully beside the Muslims.

I suspect you should probably be the one looking up the "real" history.


Interesting facts:
The christian crusaders killed every man woman and child in Jerusalem when it was captured. None of the bothered to notice that a very large percentage of their victims were christians and jews.

The crusaders also sacked Constantinople in response to the Byzantine emperor's request to come defend it. Kindof screwed up his whole plan, didn't it?

The Latin kingdom of Jerusalem existed peacefully with the Muslims for 100 years untill the christians decided to reignite the war. Fortunantly they chose to fight one of the greatest generals of all time, Saladin. It was a slaughter of the attacking christian army.

Answer 4

When criticizing Christian aggression, I have the impression that people refer to the Crusades in order to make a comparison with current events, namely tension in the Middle East.

The term crusade seems to be more accurate than "The Crusades" when discussing the Iraq War. A crusade, from what I recall, can also refer to a war empowered by an idea, for instance, the crusade against evil. In this fashion, the war in Iraq is a part of the war on terrorism, another abstract concept.

Although more accurate historical allusions exist, the Crusades is used frequently because it evokes images of impassioned zealots running off to battle for their holy cause, which figuratively reflects the opinions critics possess of the Iraq war and war-hungry Christians.

Answer 5

Oh I see. What Islam did to that region of the world is similar to what the Christians did to America a few hundred years later. The only difference is that here never was a crusade to help the indigenous people in this hemisphere get back what had been taken from them. BTW, it was not the liberals and intelligentsia but Bush who used the Crusade metaphor for his unprovoked aggression. Bring it on!

Answer 6

I have read the history of the Crusades and you are right, although I believe Emporer Constantine appealing to the Western world for help was the cause of the commonly named "4th crusade"
You are right that the Christians were reacting to a previous agression and taking back what had been forcefully overtaken.
I dont especially like labels, but I tend to lean a bit farther left than some people, still I dont recall hearing anyone using the Crusades as justification or condemnation for the current situation.

Answer 7

The Christian Crusades are discussed because they're part of history. But it's very slanted and biased to lump political liberals with "Islamic apologists". They are not one and the same.

At "the beginnings of Islam, the entire Middle East" was NOT Christian; there were many pagan tribes. Thus the strict emphasis in Islam on the one God and the proscription against graven images of prophets, saints, and God.

You should consult another history book or two. The ones you're reading are inaccurate.

Answer 8

In 300 years of the Spanish Inquisition 2000 were killed and that ended nearly 200 years ago. Yet this is the defense the Muslim apologists give for everything. Oh yeah and Timothy McVeigh, a crazy person who happened to go to church. Meanwhile 40+ different Muslim Extemist groups have carried out 7000 attacks against western civilization in the last 30 years but we can forgive them from that because some Spaniards killed a bunch of moors 500 years ago. It is the logic of six-year-olds to compare modern events with ancient ones. I am certainly not a Christian or even a supporter, I just don't hate them as much as I hate the guys who want me to convert or die. Can anyone name a Christian terrorist attack against a nation? Ever? Let me help there is The Army of God. They have carried out many attacks on sovereign nations to further their evil Christian agenda. Not exactly, they only attack abortion clinics and providers and the sum total of deaths in the US is 7 people, including 3 doctors, 2 clinic employees, a security guard, and a clinic escort. Only 2 of these is directly attributed to the AOG. How about this organization the National Liberation Front of Tripura. Its an Indian militant group with a membership of about 800, who have verifiably killed a 50yr old Indian Communist leader (tragedy) but mostly have been arrested planning stuff, they seem to be pretty inept. Of course, lets not forget Timothy McVeigh, the single non-muslim terrorist attacker against the US in well EVER. And that guy was about as Christian as Barack Obama. As a matter of fact a bigger badder American terrorist was a professor at Berkley lovingly called the Uni-Bomber. I think leftists are more a terrorist threat than Christians. Now how about the Religion of Peace. There are 48 known Muslim terrorist organizations. These are not militaries representing nations these are soldiers of a religion. They believe they represent god by killing infidels. Their estimated numbers in soldiers only is equal to the US armed forces (thank god they have nowhere near our skill or technology) and they have committed over 7000 coordinated, organized attacks against Western Civilization in the last 30 years resulting in thousands of deaths. You people need to stop defending the Religion of Peace, they don't like you and they won't defend you like you defend them.

Answer 9

It's the most obvious and familiar example of Christian's using force to advance a cause for supposedly religious purposes.

You don't have to go that far back, you could use the pacification of the Philipines by the US in 1903, for instance, which was ostensibly done to 'help' the people there by 'christianizing' them.

You do have to go farther back to find real examples of christian agression than muslim, though, since christianity has gone through a number of periods of examination in which it has become progressively less violent and invasive in it's propegation. Islam, OTOH, has not. In fact, the last real revolution in Islamic thought - the Islamism of the Muslim Brotherhood, was quite the opposite.

In any case, it's not the past that's important. No one alive today participated in the Crusades. Every muslim alive today has the opportunity to denounce Islamist terrorism - few do.

Answer 10

What would the world be like if it was not for religion . Hundreds of small tribes battling among each other with millions killed every year .
Those people with the best resources and military plan would eventually take over the world and install a police state with strict controls .
We are evolving so slowly that I wonder if we will be around in a hundred years or if we will be underground waging war on the surface for global domination .
Its not in mans nature to live and let live . Its mans nature to rule and control others .

Answer 11

And what about the Inquisition or the Witch Hunts? Were those unprovoked? Should we Stone people to death as it says we should in the Bible? Neither religion preaches more or less violence than the other.. and I'm not one of those who sets out to bash religion... but it's just the people and their decision to be very literal or more lax with what their Books have said.. that is the major difference.

I don't apologize for Islam.. there is nothing to apologize for.. it's some of the people in it that are F*ck ups.