The Crusades took place in a completely different era under completely different circumstances, and a presentist interpretation does that particular era no justice. In 1095, when Pope Urban II preached the first Crusade, Europe was finally emerging from the so-called Dark Ages and entering the Middle Ages. At that time, Islam was in fact a most tolerant and enlightened religion, and Muslim civilization, which was far advanced over that of western Europe, stretched from Moorish Spain to India, whereas Christian Europe was bogged down in internecine war, strife, and ignorance. In fact, the Muslims at that time had saved much of the science and mathematics of ancient Greece which had heretofore been lost to Europe. While the Islamic world of that time did have its share of fanatics, the religion itself was hardly the death cult that it has become today. Saladin was in fact a great leader who, during the 3rd Crusade, fought King Richard Couer de Lion to a standstill. And his actions were generally much more honorable than Richard throughout their battles, especially at Acre, when Richard had 3,000 prisoners beheaded in a single day. In short, the European Crusaders were nasty and brutish, as demonstrated by their massacre of both Christian and Jewish civilians at Jerusalem in 1099 and their sack of Christian Constantinople in 1214. I'm no apologist for the Muslim world, but folks just need to keep this stuff in its proper perspective and remember that classical Islam was far different than the Islam of today.
Now that,ladies and gentlemen, is revisionist history.
You would have been a dhimmi Christian in that era. An overtaxed, brutalized peon under the thumb of Muhammadanism.
Caliph al-Hakim... He put together quite a collection. Too bad the Berbers didn't appreciate all that he had collected. He was the same guy that the ordered destruction of synagogues and churches in Jerusalem in 1010. He didn't much like astrology either & astrologers had to promise to stop gazing at the stars.
In short, the European Crusaders were nasty and brutish,
I need no kind of demonstration of that, because in the context or our society I would have to see them that way. One of the reasons many "took the cross" was to atone for nasty things that they had done in their lives against "Christian brothers". Dying while trying to recapture the Holy Sepulchre for Christianity was going to buy them some kind of pass, which they felt they needed.
as demonstrated by their massacre of both Christian and Jewish civilians at Jerusalem in 1099
They massacred the Jews & Muslims there. The Christians had been expelled before the siege. Sacking Jerusalem after it fell was no kind of exception during those times.
and their sack of Christian Constantinople in 1214.
The schism between East & West was like an ugly divorce. Both sides think that they should own the house & want the other party out. You have any kind of problem with anything the Turks did to Constantinople after they got their hands on it?
The whole Crusades idea started with the Eastern Church asking the Western Church for help. "Christians are being oppressed and attacked; churches and holy places are being defiled. Jerusalem is groaning under the Saracen yoke. The Holy Sepulchre is in Moslem hands and has been turned into a mosque. Pilgrims are harassed and even prevented from access to the Holy Land."
the religion itself was hardly the death cult that it has become today
When do you think the "death cult that it has become today" began?
At that time, Islam was in fact a most tolerant and enlightened religion, and Muslim civilization, which was far advanced over that of western Europe, stretched from Moorish Spain to India
I'm sure they gained that much territory without ever once forcing any of the people to convert to their religion. The religion was advanced to that wide range, just on the beauty & wonder of it's wonderful principles & teachings. /sarcasm