With enormous energy, the warriors of Islam struck out against the Christians shortly after Mohammed's death.
They were extremely successful.
Palestine, Syria, and Egypt--once the most heavily Christian areas in the world--quickly succumbed. By the eighth century, Muslim armies had conquered all of Christian North Africa and Spain.
In the eleventh century, the Seljuk Turks conquered Asia Minor (modern Turkey), which had been Christian since the time of St. Paul. The old Roman Empire, known to modern historians as the Byzantine Empire, was reduced to little more than Greece.
In desperation, the emperor in Constantinople sent word to the Christians of Western Europe asking them to aid their brothers and sisters in the East.

That is what gave birth to the Crusades. They were not the brainchild of an ambitious pope or rapacious knights but a response to more than four centuries of conquests in which Muslims had already captured two-thirds of the old Christian world.
At some point, Christianity as a faith and a culture had to defend itself or be consumed by Islam. The Crusades were that defense.

Pope Urban II called upon the knights of Christendom to push back the conquests of Islam at the Council of Clermont in 1095. The response was tremendous.
Many thousands of warriors took the vow of the cross and prepared for war.
Why did they do it? The answer to that question has been badly misunderstood.
In the wake of the Enlightenment, it was usually asserted that Crusaders were merely lacklands and ne'er-do-wells who took advantage of an opportunity to rob and pillage in a faraway land.
The Crusaders' expressed sentiments of piety, self-sacrifice, and love for God were obviously not to be taken seriously.
They were not just a front for darker designs.

During the past two decades, computer-assisted charter studies have demolished that contrivance.
Scholars have discovered that crusading knights were generally wealthy men with plenty of their own land in Europe.
Nevertheless, they willingly gave up everything to undertake the holy mission. Crusading was not cheap.
Even wealthy lords could easily impoverish themselves and their families by joining a Crusade.
They did so not because they expected material wealth (which many of them had already) but because they hoped to "store up treasure where rust and moth could not corrupt."
They were keenly aware of their sinfulness and eager to undertake the hardships of the Crusade as a penitential act of charity and love.

Europe is littered with thousands of medieval charters attesting to these sentiments, charters in which these men still speak to us today if we will listen.
Of course, they were not opposed to capturing booty if it could be had. But the truth is that the Crusades were notoriously bad for plunder.
A few people got rich, but the vast majority returned with nothing.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is it OK for the Muslims to violently conquer lands, but not OK for the Christians to attempt to restore things when the opportunity and justification arose - namely continued Muslim aggression and continued threat even into Eastern Europe?

That article (The Real History of the Crusades) was written by Thomas F Madden - a historian, a crusades specialist and also a Roman Catholic apologist, a Republican and a neo-con.

(Source: http://insidecatholic.com/Joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3463&Itemid=48)

He also wrote "The Real Inquisition" where he justifies the Inqiusition....

To understand the Inquisition we have to remember that the Middle Ages were, well, medieval. We should not expect people in the past to view the world and their place in it the way we do today. (You try living through the Black Death and see how it changes your attitude.) For people who lived during those times, religion was not something one did just at church. It was science, philosophy, politics, identity, and hope for salvation. It was not a personal preference but an abiding and universal truth. Heresy, then, struck at the heart of that truth. It doomed the heretic, endangered those near him, and tore apart the fabric of community.

The Inquisition was not born out of desire to crush diversity or oppress people; it was rather an attempt to stop unjust executions. Yes, you read that correctly. Heresy was a crime against the state. Roman law in the Code of Justinian made it a capital offense. Rulers, whose authority was believed to come from God, had no patience for heretics. Neither did common people, who saw them as dangerous outsiders who would bring down divine wrath. When someone was accused of heresy in the early Middle Ages, they were brought to the local lord for judgment, just as if they had stolen a pig or damaged shrubbery (really, it was a serious crime in England). Yet in contrast to those crimes, it was not so easy to discern whether the accused was really a heretic. For starters, one needed some basic theological training — something most medieval lords sorely lacked. The result is that uncounted thousands across Europe were executed by secular authorities without fair trials or a competent assessment of the validity of the charge.

The Catholic Church's response to this problem was the Inquisition, first instituted by Pope Lucius III in 1184. It was born out of a need to provide fair trials for accused heretics using laws of evidence and presided over by knowledgeable judges. From the perspective of secular authorities, heretics were traitors to God and the king and therefore deserved death. From the perspective of the Church, however, heretics were lost sheep who had strayed from the flock. As shepherds, the pope and bishops had a duty to bring them back into the fold, just as the Good Shepherd had commanded them. So, while medieval secular leaders were trying to safeguard their kingdoms, the Church was trying to save souls. The Inquisition provided a means for heretics to escape death and return to the community.

(Source: http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/madden200406181026.asp)

I would say (expert or not) his opinions doesn't appear neutral.



"The Inquisition provided a means for heretics to escape death and return to the community."

Well I guess that explains why sprint omitted the link.

Yes, I agree with much of what I posted.
He's a christian, I am a christian. Quite likely we would agree.
I am also a conservative.

tell me, where are the erros in his writings ?
This was during islams "golden years", so they had advanced hugely.

christianity has become easy targets for any lefty for far too long.
Then you all complain when we defend the Bible.



The holocaust ??? I feel that is quite against the NT teachings.
The witch hunts, belong to the dark ages. were a result of one person alleging something agaisnt another.
it spread like a fever, then died out as quickly.




Or do you want this, in an enlightened age ??

A FEMALE suicide bomber blew herself up among policemen outside a restaurant north of Baghdad overnight, killing 15 people and wounding 35.

The attack took place in Baquba, capital of Diyala province, where Sunni Islamist al-Qaeda militants have sought to sow tension despite a succession of military offensives that have put the group on the back foot.

Police said the woman walked over to a group of policemen outside a restaurant then detonated explosives under her clothing.

"When she approached the police patrol, a powerful blast ripped through the area," said Adnan Fayadh, a photocopy shop owner who was nearby.

Police and the US military said 15 people were killed in the attack, which was also near a number of government buildings in Baquba, 65km north of Baghdad. The US military said the dead included seven policemen.

The US military said 21 female suicide bombers had carried out attacks this year."
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23906629-12377,00.html

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2008 at 9:04am:


Well, I'm not sure where the errors are because I am not fully versed on or have studied the subject (beyond a cursory read). You appear to have studied the subject. Why don't you enlighten us on where the errors are?

Is your opinion based on your research or from your emotions? Is your agreement with Thomas F Madden merely because he reflected your views? Is it because he's a Christian, you're a Christian. Quite likely you'll agree? Did you check his sources? Did you check opposing viewpoints to his article? Is his article an op-ed?

As for his Inquisition article where he wrote and I highlighted ""The Inquisition provided a means for heretics to escape death and return to the community." was extremely apologetic with total disregard to reality where innocents were tortured until they "confessed" then burnt at the stake as heretics.

Check out his many articles from his website (www.thomasmadden.org). His articles are all the same theme. Christians misunderstood, Crusades misunderstood, Inquisition misunderstood.

Your brand of "research" is where you already have the "answer" and you trawl for texts to support you. You appear to accept things at face value when they reflect your viewpoint. If they don't you are highly critical often times repeatly asking people to "prove it".

Perhaps Sprint you need to incorporate into your assertions the actions of the Christian armies under the Byzantine Emperor Justinian I (who died just a few years before the birth of Muhammad) threatening to conquer all of the middle east (and Christianising it as a consequence) to understand why Arabs saw the Byzantine Empire as a very real threat. It was not just religious zeal that drove the Muslims into Europe, but a firm belief (proved by the obvious Byzantine aspiration of reconstituting the Roman Empire) that the European Christian Emperors presented a direct threat to their autonomy.

Sprint if you want an accurate account of the crusades, rather than an absurdly biased political blog, you should start with a history textbook. You don't necessarily have to agree with it, but at least you will know what it is you are rejecting. No-one here is going to take that guy seriously enough to bother finding all the mistakes he made.

acid - Al Jazeera news as a source ?
what info do you gleam from there, how to tie bombs on ??

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2008 at 3:48pm:


You're a bit behind the times, Sprint. Even the US media and military are working with AL Jazeera.

The Crusades are as much about religion as the current war in Iraq is about democracy.

Real estate, it is all about real estate.

Bill

Bill and acid - both of your comments are in complete agreeance with my first posting on this thread.

It makes sense, is logical.

Christians were being savagely overrun and pushed back.
Then reclaimed their previously held ground.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 24^th, 2008 at 8:50am:


Never mind enduring centuries of being overrun by murderous Christian hordes. Christian armies have murdered their way through every continent on earth... Killing for Christ.

Malik Shakur wrote on Jun 24^th, 2008 at 9:15am:



Touché!

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 25^th, 2008 at 8:10am:


It never ceases to amaze me just how self-righteous and arrogant Monotheist Abrahamic religions can be. You don't find the same arrogance in the Hindu or Buddhist sacred scripts.

"for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God"

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.      

I came not to send peace, but a sword. ... A man's foes shall be they of his own household."

For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.  "

and the Qur'an:

"And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers."

Helian - so the crusaders were justified then ?

Sorry, I have been much too busy to read martin luthers book.
Christians have far from always done the right thing.
Anyone could use one of "The brothers GrimM" books use use as an excuse to attack something to get the land.
Has little reflection on the brother grimm book.




muso - good quotes.
there is a good jealousy. eg, you may be jealous for your child.

The sword is the bible :
"Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God."Ephesians 6:17

"For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. "
Hebrews 4:12


The other two.
From my experience, when I bacame a christian, my then wife was at variance with me.
Though she said I had became a better man, she still divorced me.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 25^th, 2008 at 8:10am:


And Christian armies obliterated (or attempted to obliterate) competing religions and belief systems on every continent on earth by killing for Christ.

that you or I would give less credence to the sources he chooses does not diminish the fact that he is genuinely looking for answers

It is reasonable to trust a Christian website for information about Christianity, but not about Islam or middle eastern history around the time of Muhammed. It does diminish any claims to be seeking the truth. Rather it points to a search for a validation of prejudgements.

mozzaok wrote on Jun 25^th, 2008 at 11:16am:


I believe he is an Islamiphobe who conveniently ignores issues with his own brand of religious dogma and resists every attempt to help him understand Muslim thought. I would not be surprised if he parrots the same routine in any forum he can find, whether his assertions have been refuted or not. His is the way of mistrust and xenophobia and should be challenged at every opportunity. German anti-semitism grew out of all proportion thanks to the likes of the brilliant minded haters such as Martin Luther whose evil diatribes against Jews culminated in the holocaust (check the date of Martin Luther's birthday and the date of Krystallnacht...). For every atrocity committed by the very few Muslims in the name of Islam, there are examples of Christians doing the same in the name of Jesus. Don't you think the Islamic and Judaic worlds are full of stories of religious atrocities committed against them in the name of Christ? Even the great Pope John Paul II prayed for forgiveness of the Catholic Church for its acts of omission and commission against Jews, Muslims, Gypsies et al... including mass genocide.

Islam is an ancient faith that has existed for nearly a millennium and a half, it's not just going to disintegrate. It will remain an immense cultural force for most likely hundreds of years into the future. I believe the way forward is not to deconstruct its religious texts in aid of denigrating the faith (every religious doctrine can be misused to justify every evil act... and has been), but to look for commonalities and ways in which we can learn to live together. There are shining examples where Christians and Muslims live in harmony both maintaining a deep and abiding respect for each other's faith. Those are the examples we should be discussing. We don't have to agree nor do we have to believe what others believe but we have a responsibility to respect other cultures and belief systems so that we are immune to the Luthers and the Hitlers who would have us commit murder through a misguided and dangerous sense of cultural superiority.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jun 25^th, 2008 at 11:58am:


Well said!

Doesn't the church want to spread the gospel to the entire world?

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 25^th, 2008 at 1:41pm:


In the end, you're finishing off with contempt, self-pity and self-aggrandisement.

As I've said before, read some of Luther's rants to see Christian hatred in full bloom or just listen to some raving televangelist to see the ugly side of Christianity. You see Christianity as only a force for peace because you imagine it to be true all the time. It has also been a force for evil and war when twisted by evil minds. Islam has been so misused as well.

Time for a reality check, Islamism is a problem.
Merely stating that there are bad christians does not diminish that fact.
Subjugating our freedoms and principles, so as to not offend Islamic sensibilities is not something which I am prepared to do.
I would like to be able to deal with people without having to even know their religious beliefs, much less alter my behaviour to accommodate their delusions.

mozzaok wrote on Jun 25^th, 2008 at 4:42pm:


The bad Christians that you've mentioned are not an indication of the moral worth of Christianity; nor are they an indication of Christians as a whole.

Yes, there are bad Christians but there are also good Christians. The problems that need solving are the bad Christians, not Christians as a whole and certainly not Christianity itself.

Christian zealots (and yourself) place blanket blame on Islam and all Muslims on account of some bad Muslims.

You misunderstand our point. No one is placating them. No one is bending over backwards trying not to offend them. It fact, f**k radical Muslims and extremists! They deserve the most severe punishment available for their crimes. However, Muslims are overwhelmingly good, just as Christians are overwhelmingly good. You do the majority an injustice by subjugating them wholesale.

And, why should you change your behaviour? They are normal people. Why assume that they have any delusions? I don't conduct my business by assuming that people is going to bible bash me any more than a Muslim trying to convert me to radical Islam (or kill me with their bomb belt). Why react any differently on account of their fashion, their accent or the colour of their skin? Do you feel that you need to watch what you say when speaking to a Jew for fear of offending them and being labelled anti-Semitic? Do you have an anxiety problem? You're just like the cliche woman walking down the street clutching her bag tightly when she sees a black man walking towards her; only to have him pass by without incident.

Ask yourself this - do you know exactly what our freedoms and principles are? Do they apply for all? Or, just Australians? Or, just Christian Australians? Do you not see that by wontonly defaming innocent moderate Muslims in the effort of preventing the sudjugation of our principles you are in fact the culprit against it?