Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Havoc
The crusades were held Are you really so ignorant about the Crusades? They, after all, part of a war between Christianity and Islam that lasted from the 630s, when the Muslim Arabs burst into the Byzantine Empire to 1683, when the Turks retreated from Vienna, routed by the forces of the king of Poland. It was a war, by the way, where Protestant Europe as well as Catholic France was an ally of the common foe, and where the full burden of the fight was born by the Catholic Hapsburgs. You, like so many American Protestants are inbued with the Black Legend, which makes Spain the great villian. But except for Spain, the crescent flag of Islam would long ago have been raised over the capitals of Western Europe and we would live under the torpid rule of a religious despotism such as we see in Iran today.

But I am curious. Does the name "Lepanto" mean anything to you? Does the name of Don Juan of Austria have any responance in your soul? You should know them, because at that place, led by that man, the Catholic forces of Europe stopped the advance of Islam and made possible your freedom to practice the Christian faith.

41 posted on 09/28/2001 10:32:12 PM PDT by RobbyS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies ]


To: RobbyS
Are you really so ignorant about the Crusades? They, after all, part of a war between Christianity and Islam that lasted from the 630s, when the Muslim Arabs burst into the Byzantine Empire to 1683, when the Turks retreated from Vienna, routed by the forces of the king of Poland.

No no. War is one thing. War is not what you had going on by the time of the attacks on the Muslims in 1096. There was no war at that point. You wish to put everything in the light of an empire that was All Christian - not so. Nor was it all Catholic - not even close. Rome before the fall was growing in the number of it's subjects that followed the Christian God; but, Rome itself was Pagan still. Constantine was a Pagan that seems to have donned the banner of Jesus in order to salvage some tiny bit of a cruel empire that had abusively expanded and conquered much of the world to that time without mercy and for hundreds of years - unrelenting. Just because a few Christians come in in the latter days of that empire does not change the facts regarding Rome's past.

Those facts in mind, it puts the attacks upon the empire by the muslims in the early years in proper perspective. The empire was nose to nose with the Muslims - And the Muslims weren't stupid enough not to know they were next. They attacked and they stayed on the attack till they had beat back the agressor of hundreds of years. Were Christians killed in the process - yep. If the enemy that threatened them turned out to be made up largely of Christians, I wouldn't doubt that they may have utterly loathed Christians too. Once the threat was subdued and beaten back it all began to die down and settle to skirmishes launched by the 'Roman' side (in muslim minds) to break out again. The muslims put down the Roman aggression and protected their own territories.

Did they take territory from Rome? Yep, but it was never rightly Roman territory to begin with. Rome had forcibly dominated the majority of its empire - taking its vast parcels from others. Rome "Conquered" the holy lands - it didn't just walk up and say 'oh would you please, kind sirs, consider joining our empire?' The muslims may have conquered the holy lands; but, in doing so, they'd done no different than what Rome had done.

After hundreds of years pass. Greedy for expansion and rebuilding of the long defunct Roman Empire. The Romans once again take to the battle field. During the time of Constantine, the throne took on the appearance of Christianity. Constantine was a pagan like those before him. He lived a pagan life through right up till his death and was interred under pagan rites to make him a god. The popular myths were used to paint much of what he did as some sort of Holy movement. The Church, having mixed itself into the affairs of state ended up usurping as much power as it could gather to itself and looking for any way to build itself into the throne. Constantine was a first major step toward Catholic Imperialism. But it seems no one really believed the claims of the Church for 500 years. It had been pushing fraudulent claims and documents that weren't being bought (yes, parts of the decretals were in existance long before they began to be accepted in the mid 9th century). The Donation of Constantine was the first major lie to be bought.

The Groundwork had been laid. by the beginning of the tenth century AD, the lies were built up and Catholic Temporal Power was yet to be thoroughly tested. Catholicism was putting down dissentors before; but, now with empire wide grasp and new temporal powers, it could do what it wished - crush anything that wasn't Catholic. The empire was threatened if the legitimacy of the religion of the ruling class could be threatened. Like the Bolsheviks, the Catholics put down the dissenting beliefs. By the time the inquisitions came in, it was excercising the same totalitarian authoritarianism that would be later shown by the Soviets and the Chinese. If you voice an opinion that differs from that of the state - you must be re-educated or silenced. Thus, American Republican-Democracy was modeled after early Rome - Not 'Holy Rome'.

So the Crusades began in 1096. If you wish to name drop, how about Kilij Arslan, Ibn Al-Qalanisi, Suleyman, Saledin .. How about qadi Abu Sa'ad al-Harawi who is documented in history as one of the only survivors of the First attack on Jerusalem? He tells the story in the muslim histories of the 40 day siege upon Jerusalem that included the anihilation of every living soul from his writings. He tells of the masacre of all muslims in the city, the masacre of jews who retreated to synagogue to pray - bolted into the synagogue, those who weren't cut down trying to escape were burned alive. The summer of 1099.

I've read Maalouf among others. I'm aware of the history of the crusades. What is not told in High School history books is the full truth. Perhaps because that would be viewed as 'Anti-Catholic'? I think perhaps some Highschool history books need to be updated with some reality in them.

At any rate. Your attempt to paint the crusades as part of a millinium long war is refuse. No state of war existed when Catholic troops assualted Jerusalem and wiped out every living thing that remained in the city which might be considered non-catholic. The events portrayed by al-Harawi show the slaughter of Muslims well after the city was sacked .. those not killed in the attacks were responsible to carry the bodies of the dead to be piled and burned. When they were no longer of use in cleaning the city, even the survivors were put to the sword and thrown on a brush pile.

While history has taught me to question old Catholic claims in ten, now eleven years of study of the religion, the Catholic versions have taught me to question everything I read - everything. My interest in truth derives from believing something I would read only to learn it wasn't quite true later. The more time I spend talking to you guys the more hardened I am on the notion of checking everything said. Everything. So I have Catholicism to thank for my study skills - I certainly didn't have anything comparable in my school days. And I could write a pretty devastating paper back then. Perhaps I should write a book LOL.

51 posted on 09/29/2001 8:50:05 AM PDT by Havoc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson