The Crusades
Objection: “The Crusades together amount to the most scandalous
episode in the Catholic Church’s history. The Crusaders were for the
most part vicious, bloodthirsty and rapacious. They were responsible
for countless deaths and atrocities and deserve to be roundly
condemned.”
A myriad of critics are ready to condemn the Crusades and the Catholic
Church for promoting them. According to these critics, the Crusaders were
obviously ruthless and greedy adventurers used by Popes and Kings to
realize their worldly economic and territorial interests, under the pious
motive of “recapturing the Holy Sepulcher.” No justification can be had for
a movement that so obviously illustrated how far the Catholic Church had
strayed from Christ’s Gospel of love, peace and forgiveness.
To respond to such charges it is necessary to examine the Crusades in the
context of the ongoing struggle between Christianity and Islam. This
struggle began immediately after the death of Mohammad in 632 AD. After
conquering western Arabia, the successors to Mohammad rapidly expanded
the Moslem realm throughout the Middle East, North Africa, southwest
Asia and Western Europe. The various Caliphs and their respective
conquests were as follows:
Abu Bakr (632-634 AD): conquered the remainder of the Arabian
Peninsula and entered Palestine.
Omar (634-644 AD): fought and won the following battles––
Ajnadain (634); Damascus (635); Yarmuk (636); Qadisiya (636);
Ramla, Fihl and Jerusalem (638); Heliopolis (640); Mosul (641);
Alexandria (642) and Nehavend (642). By the time of his death,
Omar had spread Islam into the Tigris––Euphrates region, overrun
Persia, conquered Syria, Lebanon and Palestine, entered Asia
Minor, devoured Egypt, and advanced into Libya.
 |
 |
 |