In Islam, a country that once was Muslim must always be Muslim. Spain used to be part of the Muslim empire, back in the dark ages. Not until 1492, that significant date, were the Moors finally expelled, as Christians took the province of Andalusia (what Muslims call Al-Andalus). According to this article, this still sticks in the craw of Muslims and getting Al-Andalus back features prominently in jihadist rhetoric. A former German foreign minister commented that if the jihadists fulfill their dream of eliminating Israel and taking over its once-Muslim territory, the next target would be Spain.
After Israel, Spain
June 11th, 2008 | International, Islam
8 comments ↓
I always wonder why it is that Christians are supposed to apologize for the crusades. We don’t expect muslims to apologize for laying siege to Vienna, or taking Constantinople, or Belgrade. The list could go on. Sometimes I get it in my head that the only bad thing about the crusades (aside from bad theology used to endorse them, and a few distractions leading to the persecution of other Christians) was that they failed. But 1492 was really the stopper on Muslim aggression in the west. They lost ground in 1492, and have not been able to expand much westward since. They did try for a while but even the little successes they have had lacked any of the grandeur that proceeded it. Of course I don’t think the west would have been able to fend them off near as well without the great infusion of wealth that came with Christopher Columbus’s discovery.
Bror, I think the reasons we Christians might be held to a higher standard here is that we should have known better. Christianity isn’t about conquering lands or people — we wrestle not against flesh and blood. Christianity isn’t concerned with money or power or geographic identity. It’s about preaching the gospel of Christ.
You make it seem like the “bad theology used to endorse” the Crusades is only a minor tick in the negative column, but to me, that is the sole reason the Crusades were — and remain — so harmful: they had nothing to do with Christianity, yet they have convinced millions of people otherwise.
True, tODD.
Now: If only Muslims would join us in such an understanding of the effects of the Crusades: that they did more harm to Christianity than to Islam.
I don’t see that happening.
If the world holds us to much greater account, Bror, it’s only because of its hatred of the Christian religion. Likewise, its indifference (or deference) to Islam is not from because of what Islam is, but from ignorance, and from that hatred of Christianity.
Maybe we Christians could construe see that as a sign of ‘respect;’ the kind of respect the Godfather enjoys.
(kidding…)
“back in the dark ages”: Is that not whevever Islam has the dominant rule?! And did not Paul comment on such in 2 Cor. 6:14?!
tODD,
The fact is that thr crusades were not so much a move to conquer peoples and nations, as they were a defensive measure. Aside from that the Holy Land would not have needed to be invaded by Christians if it had not been for the centuries of Islamic aggression that preceeded the Crusades, where in people were forced at the point of a sword to renounce Christ, and swear to Allah.
You can talk about a higher standard if you want. However, love does not let one’s neighbor be raped and pillaged either. In fact, even if the reasons given were very shoddy, the crusaders had every right to do what they did for other very solid reasons. The bad theology undergirding the Crusades was probably the most horrible part of the Crusades, that had to be remedied later by Luther. But Even Luther saw the need to fight the Turk, and defend Christian peoples.
Susan,
I realize it is the worlds hatred of Christianity, and its ignorance concerning Islam. I just like to expose the hypocrisy of it all. Something, I have been thinking a lot about lately as I translate Bo Giertz’s Crusader novel “The Knights of Rhodes.” Which also exposes the theology of glory on both sides of the fight, while preaching a theology of the cross.
But there is a serious ignorance concerning world history, and the theology of Islam, and for that matter concerning Christian theology, that sees the Crusaders as the aggressors, who should have to apologize.
“defensive measure”??? There’s a new definition of the concept.
Muslims had been in control of Jerusalem for over 450 years. It had been over 200 years since Muslims had fought in Italy in a serious way. Muslims had conquered Spain 370 years earlier. There was no need to “defend” Jerusalem or the Holy Land against Muslims. The Christian vs. Muslim battles there had ended almost half a MILLENIUM earlier.
The various Muslim and Christian kingdoms had been at war between and amongst themselves for 500 years by the time the Crusades started. The Crusades were merely outbreaks in the ongoing fighting. When you’ve had a long-standing war going on for 500 years between groups of kingdoms, any particular escalation has long since lost it’s distinction as “defensive” or “offensive” except in the battle sense.
What were the high-level political reasons for the first Crusade? Turkish Muslims who had recently taken Jerusalem away from Arab Muslims had cut off pilgrimages. At the same time, the Byzantine Empire asked for help against the Turkish Muslims, but instead of directly helping the Byzantine Empire (who was both ally and enemy), Urban II and the Clermonts decided to “rescue” the Holy Land.
There weren’t atrocities happening in the Holy Land that needed a defense. If Urban II hadn’t have gotten involved, the war would have still broken out again, but more likely as yet another general war. A Crusade was a great way to whip up support. The Crusade happened the way it did because of the Pope’s influence, but the wars still would have happened regardless.
The Crusades weren’t “defensive”; they were an ongoing series of wars, many of which were not even against Muslims. (heck, “Christian” empires allied with “Muslim” empires against Christian heretics for some of the Crusades)
Very false “Christian” reasons were used to whip up support for the Crusades, and there is shame that Christianity was twisted in such a way. However, the wars had been happening and would continue to happen regardless of Christianity being used as an excuse, so blaming Christianity for causing the Crusades is nonsense.
Sorry, I wandered from my first point. Anyway, the Crusades weren’t defensive in any coherent sense of the term. Most of them were power plays that used “Christian” rhetoric to whip up support. By the last several Crusades, the rulers didn’t even bother making up a “Christian” reason, the just declared a Crusade against _____. (fill in the blank)
Webmonk,
The fact is Byzantium felt threatened once again and invited the western mercenaries to fight with them and for them even in the first crusade. Had the Turks not come through first unifying the Muslim states under them, before they put their designs on the remainder of Byzantium the first and subsequent crusades would not have happened.
Some times defensive measures are not a clean cut and dry as the attacked us first. The concept of a preemptive strike predates Bush.
Darn those Turkish Muslims. How dare they take over other Muslim nations to form an empire to rival Byzantium. Look at what they did - they forced Byzantium into a preemptive strike that both sides knew was happening in advance. Nasty people those Turkish Muslims. Everyone knows that only Christian nations are allowed to build empires.
Come to think of it, darn those Romans too. And those Carthaginians. And those Greeks. And those Persians. How dare they build empires.
Leave a Comment