To many the word Crusade conjures up images of bygone days of knights v saracens and east v west.
But in reality nothing was ever that chrystal clear… and today the same murky depths of the political quagmire are possibly hiding things which hark back to the dark ages.
The question i have to often ask myself is how much… or rather how little people really know about them…
And is this mass of or lack of knowledge one of the reasons why today many and myself included actually after looking at things seem to see that in fact the crusades never really ended.
Whilst formally the west has documented the case and now refuses that any of it’s actions of the war on terror can be realted to a crusade…
The islamic world had a very different almost lacadiascall view on the matter and until very recently the Arab historians had no word for the “crusades”.
So is it ignorance? or is it a cover up?
And what do we know of the Crusades?
I ask this historicall question becuase for many today it’s most relevant and there are many arguments to be considered…
Historically there were between 7 and 9 Crusades depending on which you deem was an actuall crusade… and of them we even had a Peasants Crusade (better known as childrens crusade) The Childrens Curdsade and the little known Livonian Crusade.
As for Islamic views on the topic for many muslims its a sensitive one and evokes images of western savagery which can be seen in contrast to todays rampant imperialism.
All are free to contribute and i want to know what you know and share my own views as well…
Hopefully we can have a serious discussion on a topic which is often brushed aside.
There is an immense wealth of material from both sides on the Crusades. It's not that sensitive for either one - on the Muslim side, we won in the end, and on the Christian world's side, there's a general sense of embarassment given the Christian world's renunciation of religiously guided politics. (the recent US right wing revival being the exception).
The images of western savagery you refer to are generally correlated by most western sources.
You refer to how the western world refutes that its war on terror actions could be referred to as a crusade; however, the Protestant theology of the countries leading the war on terror (USA, UK) explicitly refutes crusades.
The very core nature of Crusades involves the Church forgiving a man's sins in exchange for fighting for Christendom. Protestantism rejects the authority of the Church itself to forgive sins and instead leaves that to God.
[QUOTE]
The very core nature of Crusades involves the Church forgiving a man's sins in exchange for fighting for Christendom. Protestantism rejects the authority of the Church itself to forgive sins and instead leaves that to God.
[/QUOTE]
Agreed but dont you think the likes of politicians like Bush and Tony Blair who accepted Catholocism is not a hint.... towards those old days.
[QUOTE]
There is an immense wealth of material from both sides on the Crusades. It's not that sensitive for either one - on the Muslim side, we won in the end, and on the Christian world's side, there's a general sense of embarassment given the Christian world's renunciation of religiously guided politics. (the recent US right wing revival being the exception).
[/QUOTE]
Whats suprising here is that wheras in the west theres a lot of information on it... the Arabs until recently did not even have a name for those wars.
The crusades were not all Muslim truimphs either in fact it was a whole 190 years after the first crusade when the Muslims had thier first real truimph.
Besides politics was a big thing... in the background of the Crusades my ancestors were the targets of both Christian and Muslim saints for he who could covert us tipped the balance of power in his favour.
Agreed but dont you think the likes of politicians like Bush and Tony Blair who accepted Catholocism is not a hint.... towards those old days.
Whats suprising here is that wheras in the west theres a lot of information on it... the Arabs until recently did not even have a name for those wars.
The crusades were not all Muslim truimphs either in fact it was a whole 190 years after the first crusade when the Muslims had thier first real truimph.
Bush is a dedicated Protestant, not Catholic.
And was Blair was a secret Catholic at the time of supporting the invasions, even the Catholic Church spoke out against these wars, particularly the Iraq invasion.
The arabs did not need a name for the Crusades, because they were just a small part of the overall jihads waged by generations of Muslims against the West.
Earlier Jihads were to expand the lands under Islam. During the Crusades, the purpose of the jihads changed to defending the lands of Islam.
Yeah agreed… Bush probably gives any faith a bad name… but you dont think blair secretly hiding his feelings was fishy?.. mind you the Pope had to apologise for his anti- muslim remarks on more than one occasion so it makes you wonder doesn’t it… Maybe the church has something to hide too… afterall catholics gave us the spanish inquisition.
Mind you Arabs proved feeble during the crusades for most of the fighting was actually done by turks… again these days Arabs are proving very feeble comparred to other nations of Muslims who are putting up much more staunch defences against modern crusaders.
Blair had to hide his faith, to avoid the Protestant militants in Northern Irelands from rejecting the peace process. They would not have trusted an openly Catholic Prime Minister in London.
The arabs played a critical role in fighting in the Crusades. The Turks fought initially but were defeated as the Crusaders passed through their lands.
One the Crusader state was established, the fighting was shared amongst all the Muslim groups in the region. The Kurd Salahuddin’s army consisted mainly of Kurds from his homelands as well as arabs and Egyptians, as well as even many Muslims from further afield.
^ Yeah but he only admitted that stuff after at the time he played it all so cool did you not hear the suprise when he went official… the public round here wanted to hang him by the highest tree… shame he didn’t come by this way.
Maybe the church has something to hide too… afterall catholics gave us the spanish inquisition.
