Islamic Terrorism And The Crusades: Morally Equivalent? Not Hardly

One of the ways people attempt to diminish the evils of modern day islamic terrorism is to bring up the Crusades, as if they're something even close to similar in any way (which they're not), or even as a justification for what the followers of mohammed do (it isn't).

Most people think that the Crusades started because the Church ordered the retaking of the Holy Land from muslims. This belief is both historically and factually inaccurate. The truth, however, is that muslims actually began invading, subjugating, conquering, enslaving people more than four centuries before organized Christianity responded with the “First Crusade.”

The pedophile mohammed launched the Tabuk Crusades in the year 630 AD, just a scant two years before his master called him back to the pits of Hell, when he led 30,000 jihadists against the Byzantine Christians after hearing that a huge Byzantine army was amassing to attack Arabia. Learning it was a false rumor, mohammed marched his army home, but not before extracting “agreements” from many of the northern tribes. If they paid a tax (jizya), the tribes would “enjoy” the “privilege” of islamic “protection” (meaning they wouldn't be attacked). For the next four hundred years, mohammed's successors would follow this example.

Yes, that's right folks – muslims were attacking for 400 years before the involvement of organized Christianity. It makes it a little difficult to blame Christianity for the Crusades, doesn't it?

In 1094, Byzantine Emperor Alexius Comnenus, himself no friend of the Roman Catholic Church, asked western Christendom for help in dealing with Seljuk invasions of his territory. Notice anything about the date? It's 464 years after mohammed and his army first invaded the Byzantine Empire. As a result, in 1095, Pope Urban II preaches the first European Crusade. Four years later, Jerusalem is retaken by Christianity.

The European Crusaders may have been sincere in their efforts initially, until they veered from Jesus' teachings as they slashed and burned and forced conversions. The use of violence was never the way of Jesus, nor did he call his followers to violence. The New Testament would never endorse violence as a means of bringing people to God. The Crusaders, even with the best of intentions, ceased acting in the name of Christianity, and acted as men. The book doesn't match up with the Book.

Conversely, muslims who committed the same type of acts didn't stray from the roots of islam, instead following it very closely. The plain fact is that during the ten years mohammed lived in Medina, from 622 to 632, he either sent, or personally went out on no less than seventy-four raids, expeditions, or full-scale wars, from small assassination squads to the Tabuk Crusade. There wasn't always violence involved, but there was always a muslim army lurking in the background. Horrific vengeance was wrought upon those who double-crossed mohammed. In this case, the book and reality mesh perfectly. And they still do.

Yes, atrocities were committed by both sides (there were also acts of extreme charity, again by both sides), but to make any comparison between the Crusades of centuries ago, and what seems like daily actions of today's muslims just smacks of intellectual dishonesty and willful ignorance. What the people making these comparisons fail to take into account is that Christianity has evolved, has grown past the killing and enslaving others in the name of religion. Islam hasn't. ~ Hunter

***My next post will tackle the Inquisitions (yes, there were more than one).***