Introduction
At the Council of Clermont in 1095 Pope Urban II called upon
Christians in Europe to respond to an urgent plea for help from
Byzantine Christians in the East. Muslims were threatening to
conquer this remnant of the Roman Empire for Allah. The threat was
real; most of the Middle East, including the Holy Land where Christ
had walked, had already been vanquished. Thus began the era of the
Crusades, taken from the Latin word crux or cross. Committed
to saving Christianity, the Crusaders left family and jobs to take
up the cause. Depending on how one counts (either by the number of
actual crusading armies or by the duration of the conflict), there
were six Crusades between 1095 and 1270. But the crusading spirit
would continue on for centuries, until Islam was no longer a menace
to Europe.
There is a genuine difficulty for us to view the Crusades through
anything but the eyes of a 21st century American. The notion of
defending Christianity or the birthplace of Christ via military
action is difficult to imagine or to support from Scripture, but
perhaps a bit easier since the events of September 11th.
So when Christians today think about the Crusades, it may be with
remorse or embarrassment. Church leaders, including the Pope, have
recently made the news by apologizing to Muslims, and everyone
else, for the events surrounding the Crusades. In the minds of
many, the Crusades were an ill-advised fiasco that didn't
accomplish the goals of permanently reclaiming Jerusalem and the
Holy Lands.
Are history books correct when they portray the Crusades as an
invasion of Muslim territories by marauding Europeans whose primary
motive was to plunder new lands? What is often left out of the text
is that most of the Islamic Empire had been Christian and had been
militarily conquered by the followers of the Prophet Muhammad in
the 7th and 8th centuries.
Islam had suddenly risen out of nowhere to become a threat to all
of Christian Europe, and although it had shown some restraint in
its treatment of conquered Christians, it had exhibited remarkable
cruelty as well. At minimum, Islam enforced economic and religious
discrimination against those it controlled, making Jews and
Christians second-class citizens. In some cases, Muslim leaders
went further. An event that may have sparked the initial Crusade in
1095 was the destruction of the Holy Sepulchre by the Fatimid
caliph al-Hakim.{1} In fact, many Christians at the time considered
al-Hakim to be the Antichrist.
We want black and white answers to troubling questions, but the
Crusades present us with a complex collection of events,
motivations, and results that make simple answers difficult to
find. In this article we'll consider the origins and impact of this
centuries-long struggle between the followers of Muhammad and the
followers of Christ.
The Causes
Historian Paul Johnson writes that the terrorist attacks of
September 11th can be seen as an extension of the centuries-long
struggle between the Islamic East and the Christian West. Johnson
writes,
The Crusades, far from being an outrageous prototype of Western
imperialism, as is taught in most of our schools, were a mere
episode in a struggle that has lasted 1,400 years, and were one of
the few occasions when Christians took the offensive to regain the
"occupied territories" of the Holy Land.{2}
Islam had exploded on the map by conquering territories that had
been primarily Christian. The cities of Antioch, Alexandria, and
Carthage had been the centers of Christian thought and theological
inquiry for centuries before being taken by Muslim armies in their
jihad to spread Islam worldwide. Starting in 1095 and continuing
for over four hundred years, the crusading spirit that pervaded
much of Europe can be seen as an act of cultural self-preservation,
much as Americans now see the war against the Taliban in
Afghanistan.
One motivation for the Crusade in 1095 was the request for help
made by the Byzantine Emperor Alexius I. Much of the Byzantine
Empire had been conquered by the Seljuk Turks and Constantinople,
the greatest Christian city in the world, was also being
threatened. Pope Urban knew that the sacrifices involved with the
call to fight the Turks needed more than just coming to the rescue
of Eastern Christendom. To motivate his followers he added a new
goal to free Jerusalem and the birthplace of Christ.
At the personal level, the Pope added the possibility of remission
of sins. Since the idea of a pilgrim's vow was widespread in
medieval Europe, crusaders, noblemen and peasant alike, vowed to
reach the Holy Sepulcher in return for the church's pardon for sins
they had committed. The church also promised to protect properties
left behind by noblemen during travels east.
The Pope might launch a Crusade, but he had little control over it
once it began. The Crusaders promised God, not the Pope to complete
the task. Once on its way, the Crusading army was held together by
"feudal obligations, family ties, friendship, or fear."{3}
Unlike Islam, Christianity had not yet developed the notion of a
holy war. In the fifth century Augustine described what constituted
a just war but excluded the practice of battle for the
purpose of religious conversion or to destroy heretical religious
ideas. Leaders of nations might decide to go to war for just
reasons, but war was not to be a tool of the church.{4}
Unfortunately, using Augustine's just war language, Popes
and Crusaders saw themselves as warriors for Christ rather than as
a people seeking justice in the face of an encroaching enemy
threat.
The Events
The history books our children read typically emphasize the
atrocities committed by Crusaders and the tolerance of the Muslims.
It is true that the Crusaders slaughtered Jews and Muslims in the
sacking of Jerusalem and later laid siege to the Christian city of
Constantinople. Records indicate that Crusaders were even fighting
among themselves as they fought Muslims. But a closer examination
of the Crusades shows the real story is more complex than the
public's perception or what is found in history books. The fact is
that both Muslims and Christians committed considerable carnage and
internal warfare and political struggles often divided both
sides.
Muslims could be, and frequently were, barbaric in their treatment
of Christians and Jews. One example is how the Turks dealt with
German and French prisoners captured early in the First Crusade
prior to the sacking of Jerusalem. Those who renounced Christ and
converted to Islam were sent to the East; the rest were
slaughtered. Even Saladin, the re-conqueror of Jerusalem was not
always merciful. After defeating a large Latin army on July 3,
1187, he ordered the mass execution of all Hospitallers and
Templars left alive, and he personally beheaded the nobleman
Reynald of Chatillon. Saladin's secretary noted
that:
He ordered that they should be beheaded, choosing to have them dead
rather than in prison. With him was a whole band of scholars and
Sufis . . . [and] each begged to be allowed to kill one of them,
and drew his sword and rolled back his sleeve. Saladin, his face
joyful, was sitting on his dais; the unbelievers showed black
despair.{5}
In fact, Saladin had planned to massacre all of the Christians in
Jerusalem after taking it back from the Crusaders, but when the
commander of the Jerusalem garrison threatened to destroy the city
and kill all of the Muslims inside the walls, Saladin allowed them
to buy their freedom or be sold into slavery instead.{6}
The treachery shown by the Crusaders against other Christians is a
reflection of the times. At the height of the crusading spirit in
Europe, Frederick Barbarossa assembled a large force of Germans for
what is now known as the third Crusade. To ease his way, he
negotiated treaties for safe passage through Europe and Anatolia,
even getting permission from Muslim Turks to pass unhampered. On
the other hand, the Christian Emperor of Byzantium, Isaac II,
secretly agreed with Saladin to harass Frederick's crusaders
through his territory. When it was deemed helpful, both Muslim and
Christian made pacts with anyone who might further their own cause.
At one point the sultan of Egypt offered to help the Crusaders in
their struggle with the Muslim Turks, and the Turks failed to come
to the rescue of the Shi'ite Fatimid Muslims who controlled
Palestine.
Human treachery and sinfulness was evident on both sides of the
conflict.
The Results
On May 29, 1453 the city of Constantinople fell to the Ottoman
sultan Mehmed II. With it the 2,206-year-old Roman Empire came to
an end and the greatest Christian church in the world, the Hagia
Sophia, was turned into a mosque. Some argue that this disaster was
a direct result of the Crusaders' misguided efforts, and that
anything positive they might have accomplished was fleeting.
Looking back at the Crusades, we are inclined to think of them as
a burst of short-lived, failed efforts by misguided Europeans.
Actually, the crusading spirit lasted for hundreds of years and the
Latin kingdom that was established in 1098, during the first
Crusade, endured for almost 200 years. Jerusalem remained in
European hands for eighty-eight years, a period greater than the
survival of many modern nations.
Given the fact that the Latin kingdom and Jerusalem eventually fell
back into Muslim hands, did the Crusaders accomplish anything
significant? It can be argued that the movement of large European
armies into Muslim held territories slowed down the advance of
Islam westward. The presence of a Latin kingdom in Palestine acted
as a buffer zone between the Byzantine Empire and Muslim powers and
also motivated Muslim leaders to focus their attention on defense
rather than offense at least for a period of time.
Psychologically, the Crusades resulted in a culture of chivalry
based on both legendary and factual exploits of European rulers.
The crusading kings Richard the Lionheart and Louis IX were admired
even by their enemies as men of integrity and valor. Both saw
themselves as acting on God's behalf in their quest to free
Jerusalem from Muslim oppression. For centuries, European rulers
looked to the Crusader kings as models of how to integrate
Christianity and the obligations of knighthood.
Unfortunately, valor and the ability to conduct warfare took
precedent over all other qualities, perhaps because it was a
holdover from Frankish pagan roots and the worship of Odin the
warrior god. These Germanic people may have converted to
Christianity, but they still had a place in their hearts for the
gallant warrior's paradise, Valhalla.{7} As one scholar
writes:
But the descendants of those worshippers of Odin still had the love
of a warrior god in their blood, a god of warriors whose ultimate
symbol was war.{8}
The Crusades temporarily protected some Christians from having to
live under Muslim rule as second-class citizens. Called the
dhimmi, this legal code enforced the superiority of Muslims
and humiliated all who refused to give up other religious
beliefs.
It is also argued that the crusading spirit is what eventually sent
the Europeans off to the New World. The voyage of Columbus just
happens to coincide with the removal of Muslim rule from Spain. The
exploration of the New World eventually encouraged an economic
explosion that the Muslim world could not match.
Summary
Muslims still point to the Crusades as an example of injustice
perpetrated by the West on Islam. An interesting question might be,
"Had the situation been reversed, would Muslims have felt justified
in going to war against Christians?" In other words, would the
rules in the Qur'an and the Hadith (the holy books of Islam)
warrant a conflict similar to what the Crusaders conducted?
You have probably heard the term jihad, or struggle,
discussed in the news. The word denotes different kinds of striving
within the Muslim faith. At one level, it speaks of personal
striving for righteousness. However, there are numerous uses of the
term within Islam where it explicitly refers to warfare.
First, the Qur'an permits fighting to defend individual Muslims and
the religion of Islam from attack.{9} In fact, all able bodied
Muslims are commanded to assist in defending the community of
believers. Muslims are also given permission to remove treacherous
people from power, even if they have previously agreed to a treaty
with them.{10}
Muslims are encouraged to use armed struggle for the general
purpose of spreading the message of Islam.{11} The Qur'an
specifically says, "Fighting is a grave offense, but graver is it
in the sight of Allah to prevent access to the path of Allah, to
deny Him, to prevent access to the Sacred Mosque. . . ."{12}
Warfare is also justified for the purpose of purging a people from
the bondage of idolatry or the association of anything with God.
This gives the Muslim a theological reason to go to war against
Christians, since the Qur'an teaches that the doctrine of the
Trinity is a form of idolatry. Had the situation been reversed, the
religion of Islam provides multiple rationalizations for the
actions of the Crusaders.
But is there a Christian justification for the Crusades? The only
example of a Christian fighting in the New Testament is the apostle
Peter when he drew his sword to protect Jesus from the Roman
soldiers. Jesus told him to put the sword away. Then He said, "Do
you think I cannot call on my Father, and He will at once put at my
disposal more than twelve legions of angels?" The kingdom that
Jesus had established would not be built on the blood of the
unbeliever, but on the shed blood of the Lamb of God.
The Crusader's actions should be defended using Augustine's "just
war" language rather than a holy war vocabulary. Although they did
not always live up to the dictates of "just war" ideals, such as
the immunity of noncombatants, the Crusades were a last resort
defensive war that sought peace for its people who had been under
constant assault for many years.
If one of the functions of a God-ordained government is to restrain
evil and promote justice, then it follows that rulers of nations
where Christians dwell may need to conduct a just war in
order to protect their people from invasion.
Notes
- John Esposito, ed. The Oxford History of Islam, (Oxford University Press, 1999), 335.
- Paul Johnson, National Review,
http://www.nationalreview.com/15oct01/johnson101501.shtml.
- Thomas F. Madden, A Concise History of the Crusades, (Rowman &
Littlefield Publishers, Inc, 1999), 10.
- Ibid., 2.
- Ibid., 78.
- Ibid., 80.
- Zoe Oldenbourg, The Crusades, (New York: Pantheon Books, 1966), 33.
- Ibid, 32.
- Qur'an 2:190, 193.
- Ibid, 8:58.
- Ibid, 2:217 (also see www.irshad.org/islam/iiie/iiie_18.htm published by The
Institute of Islamic Information & Education, P.O. Box 41129, Chicago, IL 60641-0129).
- Qur'an 2:217.
Copyright © 2003 Probe Ministries