46 Comments on “Causes of the Crusades”
-
Julita says:
M. Khafi :I have never said that Julita, you can quote from whatever sources you wish, the quote from Merit Students Encyclopedia was in fact true, it was just somewhat limited as it did not tell the full story.
Oh, my, looks like you change your mind, no problem.
____________
M. Khafi: I have been troubled by some issues in our discussion of the last few day and have had nagging doubts about some things which have been presented here especially the contradictory nature of Professor Maddens account of the history of the Crusades:For my side, I quoted one paragraph from Merit Students Encyclopedia and one paragraph from Thomas Madden. Compared to your numerous quotation/posting, and yet, peaceful you were troubled for days. Are the following which you used, not good enough anymore? Both are in no way in favor of the Catholic church, in fact they are against the Catholic church, so be at peace.
Islamic Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization – ISESCO . Rev. James Wood he was a son of a slane who became a Methodist Minister: I became a member of the African Methodist Episcopal Society in 1823, when the church was on Ely street.,,,,,,,, I was ordained as a minister in May, 1833, by Bishop Rush. I had been called Tom as a slave and they called me Jim at the warehouse. I put both together when I reached manhood and was ordained as Rev. Thomas James.
_________________
All along you have been posting the positives, tolerance, kindness about your side, I did not contradict, did not even look where they come from, because it is understandable that you would look for, as much as possible, positive things (even when it was not the issue what we were talking about ) on your side and putting all the negatives on my side. The Crusade was in the 11th century, you intentionally start around 600 to get the positives??? On your side then try har to smear my side dragging it up to the 19th century, Europe, America, Latin America, Asia no matter who did it, no differentiation whether it was the people, government, Christians or Catholic Christians. Cunning M. Khafi. No, I did not contradict you at all, because I don’t need to. I have confident, at my side people know, there is an excellent Leader who is in control, there is unity, stability, guidance, principal, and commandments to obey. Peaceful, happy people in a country of freedom of speech, freedom of religious believe, and prosperity etc. etc. Buddhists, Moslems, Hindus etc. etc. from all over the world are flocking to this place, live and enjoy their life. They are welcomed, live in harmony.No, no need for me to say anything about your side either. I don’t have to, the result is for all to see. Like you , I would like to give you an advice. People as intelligent and educated as you are M. Khafi, I like your tolerance, should use your/their energy and talents to improve your side who is very much in need in every aspects, instead of focusing on and criticizing others. Once again, I came to discuss the origin of the Crusade because it is the favorite topic used by those who want to point their fingers just because of their ignorant, jealousy or just simply for joy. So hopefully they will know better now. I wish, I had time to debate about celibacy, abortion which some ignorant people post. Well, it will come in time.
_________________
M. Khafi: I personally have tried to use both quotes from Islamic and Christian sources for my views so far, perhaps I need to use history as written by strident Islamists to counter Julitas use of Professor Madden?M. Khafi: Then it suddenly struck me when viewing a page on the internet, Professor Thomas F. Madden of St Louis University, and then in small print, The Jesuit University of St Louis.
This is very interesting, what difference does it make with your Islamic Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization – ISESCO . which does not bother me at all.
_________________M. Khafi: The Jesuits have frequently been described by their enemies (both Catholic and Protestant) as engaged in various conspiracies. They have also been accused of using casuistry* to obtain justifications for the unjustifiable
M.Khafi: Jesuits AKA “The Society of Jesus, (Latin: Societas Iesu, abbreviated either (S.J.) or (S.I.)) is a Christian religious order of the Catholic Church in direct service to the Pope.
Sorry to say, your two postings above are contradicting each other. First the Catholic as the enemy of the Jesuit and then Jesuit as religious order under the Catholic church. How is that possible?
Again, in fact, M. Khafi, you don’t need anybody’s help, you are very good in what you are doing yourself, I say, even better. You posted your own negative opinion and not only about the Crusade but dragging it all over Europe, Asia. Latin America and the world, nothing to do with what we are discussing anymore.
Colonization, Catholic Church in the search for gold and wealth, destruction of many different cultures, attempt to wipe out the Jews and etc. That was just a few of what M. Khafi posted. My, the main thing the Catholic Church wanted to do was rescuing people’s soul, doing their mission wherever she goes. People should be very happy about this.I remember one of the participants in this blog talk about the Catholic Church building a church on a temple. He should read more, did not know, that Mexicans at that time were offering /killing their children on the temple for their god, the sun, so what happened when the sun was not shining, can you imagine? Some more children would be offered, right? Until, look up yourself and read in the web: “The Lady of Guadalupe”. I don’t ask anybody to believe, but it is in their history and there is a proof. What a blessing!
At this moment the world is talking about a French nun who is cured from Parkinsons, she prayed to the Holy Father Pope John Paul II for his intercession. How beautiful, so everybody, come back to the source, don’t stay at the branches.
_______________M. Khafi: And again not forgetting that Jerusalem historically belongs to the Jews and not the Christians.
In the Holy Land, Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Nazareth etc: Jesus was born, buried, risen from the dead, His family, ancestors lived there. Remember Jesus and His Mother Maria were Jewish, He is Lord to the Christians. So they have the right to live there and go there for pilgrimage. Please tell me (honestly I still have to study this), why are your side there, you have you own Holy City, no? Thanks before hand for your reply.
_______________
M. Khafi: As a contrast to the peaceful takeover of power by the Muslims:Do you mean from the Middle East to Spain all those places/cities gave them a red carpet? No fights, nobody got killed, where did they get all their provision at the supermarket? Oh, but then, of course, you have no records.
______________
In my last posting, I talked (spontaneously, without realizing) about our peaceful world under one banner, and then I wonder what banner? Suddenly, it clicked into my mind the banner is LOVE, His banner is Love’.We have a God of good will, of friendliness who desires everyone’s happiness, peace, salvation and who waits for the moment when His message of love may favorably be welcomed.
People of the entire world must be “Charitized” for the cleansing of their animality (sorry if this does not sound pleasant to the ears) which is often aggressive, even selfish. They must freely choose love in preference to hate, to violence, to the will to power, to the instinct for domination. With persistence and determination, this growth of love will develop, step by step. Amen.Friends, that was quoted from “When the Lord speaks to the Heart” beautiful and this is for all, East and West, North and South alike.
-
Mohammed Khafi says:
Julita said:
M. Khafi :I have never said that Julita, you can quote from whatever sources you wish, the quote from Merit Students Encyclopedia was in fact true, it was just somewhat limited as it did not tell the full story.
Oh, my, looks like you change your mind, no problem.
Changed my mind about what exactly?
M. Khafi: I have been troubled by some issues in our discussion of the last few day and have had nagging doubts about some things which have been presented here especially the contradictory nature of Professor Maddens account of the history of the Crusades:
For my side, I quoted one paragraph from Merit Students Encyclopedia and one paragraph from Thomas Madden. Compared to your numerous quotation/posting, and yet, peaceful you were troubled for days. Are the following which you used, not good enough anymore? Both are in no way in favor of the Catholic church, in fact they are against the Catholic church, so be at peace.
Islamic Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization – ISESCO . Rev. James Wood he was a son of a slane who became a Methodist Minister: I became a member of the African Methodist Episcopal Society in 1823, when the church was on Ely street.,,,,,,,, I was ordained as a minister in May, 1833, by Bishop Rush. I had been called Tom as a slave and they called me Jim at the warehouse. I put both together when I reached manhood and was ordained as Rev. Thomas James.
I was troubled by the fact that Professor Maddens accounts, seem contradictory to the majority of information which I have been able to find on the internet and from other historical resources, now that I know that he is a teacher in a Jesuit University it explains why his theories are at odds to the majority of other information available.
All along you have been posting the positives, tolerance, kindness about your side, I did not contradict, did not even look where they come from, because it is understandable that you would look for, as much as possible, positive things (even when it was not the issue what we were talking about ) on your side and putting all the negatives on my side. The Crusade was in the 11th century, you intentionally start around 600 to get the positives??? On your side then try har to smear my side dragging it up to the 19th century, Europe, America, Latin America, Asia no matter who did it, no differentiation whether it was the people, government, Christians or Catholic Christians. Cunning M. Khafi. No, I did not contradict you at all, because I don’t need to.
I post the positives because I want to show Islam in a good light, and to show that Islam is not just about violence, terrorism and subjugation of women, there is a tolerant, caring and understanding side to my faith that I wish to promote within my own community, and with people of other faiths, what is wrong with that? I went back in time to show that leading up to the crusades there was a long period of peacefull coexistence, between faiths during the period of Islamic rule of the city of Jerusalem. I was also quite open with the negatives clearly stating that Al Hakim the Egyptian Caliph, was not only treating the Pilgrims badly but also his own subjects, and admitted that his behaviour was a catalyst leading up to the 1st Crusade. However I still cannot see the justification, after 400 years of peaceful coexistence, for this short troubled period to be used as an excuse for the Western Church to invade Jerusalem and take over the city, there were many other reasons as even a cursory examination of the period will show you.
The reason that I came forward in time is to illustrate that it is not only Islam which has had a checkered past, the church has also seen its share of violence, bloodshed and turning a blind eye to the suffering of others.I think the reason that you didn’t contradict me was becasue I was just quoting historical facts, facts that the Church would prefer remain hidden, but facts nonetheless.
I have confident, at my side people know, there is an excellent Leader who is in control, there is unity, stability, guidance, principal, and commandments to obey. Peaceful, happy people in a country of freedom of speech, freedom of religious believe, and prosperity etc. etc. Buddhists, Moslems, Hindus etc. etc. from all over the world are flocking to this place, live and enjoy their life. They are welcomed, live in harmony.
I envy you living in such a perfect place, where is it Utopia or Dreamland, I cannot think of one country that has such idyllic conditions.
No, no need for me to say anything about your side either. I don’t have to, the result is for all to see. Like you , I would like to give you an advice. People as intelligent and educated as you are M. Khafi, I like your tolerance, should use your/their energy and talents to improve your side who is very much in need in every aspects, instead of focusing on and criticizing others. Once again, I came to discuss the origin of the Crusade because it is the favorite topic used by those who want to point their fingers just because of their ignorant, jealousy or just simply for joy. So hopefully they will know better now. I wish, I had time to debate about celibacy, abortion which some ignorant people post. Well, it will come in time.
You are quite correct, the result is there for all to see. I thank you for your advice, but it is a little late, I do work withing my own community trying to spread the true teachings of Islam, and if you read other comment on this website you will see that I do not focus my energies and criticism on any one particular group. I will struggle for the clear and simple worship of one God, which most religious orthodoxies have conveniently forgotten.
You said and I quote: “I came to discuss the origin of the Crusade because it is the favorite topic used by those who want to point their fingers just because of their ignorant, jealousy or just simply for joy. So hopefully they will know better now. ”
This is not strictly true is it? It was you who first brought up the subject of the Crusades on a completely different and unrelated topic on this website:
Author: Julita
Comment:
Czeslaw: Crusaders wanted to take back what Islam took from Jews, which is the link to “Christ”. So, Christ was the “link” to the cause to the crusaeds. There would be no crsades, if the Islam would not “conquer” Israel. I mean “to conquer”, is other word for war crimes and mass murders. My compliments Czeslaw in regard to Crusades, Christians were being attacked:I believe that I have countered all the arguments put forward in this first comment of yours on the Crusades. Islam did not take Jerusalem as you have called ‘the link to Christ’ from the Jews, they took it from the Byzantine Christians, who had earlier taken it from the Jews. Islam did not commit war crimes or mass murders for Jerusalem, Jerusalem was handed over to the Muslims without any blood being shed, possibly for the first time in its very violent history.
M. Khafi: I personally have tried to use both quotes from Islamic and Christian sources for my views so far, perhaps I need to use history as written by strident Islamists to counter Julitas use of Professor Madden?
M. Khafi: Then it suddenly struck me when viewing a page on the internet, Professor Thomas F. Madden of St Louis University, and then in small print, The Jesuit University of St Louis.
This is very interesting, what difference does it make with your Islamic Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization – ISESCO . which does not bother me at all.
ISESCO is an Islamic Organisation, which is promoting education, science, culture and communication, a part of their charter reads: “promote dialogue among civilizations, cultures and religions, and work towards spreading the values of justice and peace along with the principles of freedom and human rights”
The Jesuits however were formed and I quote from New Advent Catholic Encyclopeadia: “The Society was not founded with the avowed intention of opposing Protestantism. Neither the papal letters of approbation nor the Constitutions of the order mention this as the object of the new foundation. When Ignatius began to devote himself to the service of the Church, he had probably not even heard of the names of the Protestant Reformers. His early plan was rather the conversion of Mohammedans, an idea which, a few decades after the final triumph of the Christians over the Moors in Spain, must have strongly appealed to the chivalrous Spaniards.”
It is just a matter of the difference in the ideals of both organisations, one founded with the ideal of promoting tolerance, the other with promoting intolerance.
M. Khafi: The Jesuits have frequently been described by their enemies (both Catholic and Protestant) as engaged in various conspiracies. They have also been accused of using casuistry* to obtain justifications for the unjustifiable
M.Khafi: Jesuits AKA “The Society of Jesus, (Latin: Societas Iesu, abbreviated either (S.J.) or (S.I.)) is a Christian religious order of the Catholic Church in direct service to the Pope.
Sorry to say, your two postings above are contradicting each other. First the Catholic as the enemy of the Jesuit and then Jesuit as religious order under the Catholic church. How is that possible?
There is no contradiction at all, the Jesuits as I explained above were not averse to lieing to promote their cause, this breaks one of the ‘Ten Commandments’ “Thou Shalt not Lie” does it not? I can quite understand why the Cathloic Orthodoxy would be upset with this and consider the Jesuits enemies, you must also not forget that the Jesuits are under the direct control of the Pope, I am sure that some of the Cardinals would consider them a rogue element as they are not within the direct heirachy of the Church.
Again, in fact, M. Khafi, you don’t need anybody’s help, you are very good in what you are doing yourself, I say, even better. You posted your own negative opinion and not only about the Crusade but dragging it all over Europe, Asia. Latin America and the world, nothing to do with what we are discussing anymore.
Colonization, Catholic Church in the search for gold and wealth, destruction of many different cultures, attempt to wipe out the Jews and etc. That was just a few of what M. Khafi posted. My, the main thing the Catholic Church wanted to do was rescuing people’s soul, doing their mission wherever she goes. People should be very happy about this.I think all of those negative opinions about Islam and about the church were warranted in this discussion, we have to be able to use history to learn from it do we not? I am quite well aware that my own religion is far from perfect in its present manifestation, but you cannnot lay the blame the crusades on the wrong doings during one shortlived period under a leader who was desribed as ‘Hakim the Mad’. Unlike you I am willing to admit that my religion as it is practiced by the majority is mislead, you however seem to wear blinkers when it comes time to lay blame for your religion, you want only to lay the blame at the feet of the Muslims.
As to the Catholic Church mainly wanted to save souls, well they haven’t made too bad a job of saving gold, money and property either have they?
I remember one of the participants in this blog talk about the Catholic Church building a church on a temple. He should read more, did not know, that Mexicans at that time were offering /killing their children on the temple for their god, the sun, so what happened when the sun was not shining, can you imagine? Some more children would be offered, right?
Obviously human sacrifice is wrong from any angle, but maybe the practitioners of those religions were just mislead by their Priest and Holy Men as so many are now? Perhaps human sacrifice was never a part of the religion which they were originally inspired with? Perhaps their original religion was one of peace and understanding but became corrupted over time. It is one thing to correct peoples bad behaviour and ignorance but it is another thing to replace their religion with your own or to slaughter them wholesale if they will not convert. How do you know that their original religion was not given by God Himself?
Until, look up yourself and read in the web: “The Lady of Guadalupe”. I don’t ask anybody to believe, but it is in their history and there is a proof. What a blessing!
At this moment the world is talking about a French nun who is cured from Parkinsons, she prayed to the Holy Father Pope John Paul II for his intercession. How beautiful, so everybody, come back to the source, don’t stay at the branches.For me Iconisation is no different from Idolisation, I feel sorry for people who need to glorify humans or human creations in order to practice their religion.
God is One, and he is the only thing worthy of our love, admiration and praise. This is no different from the Mainstream Muslim practice of Idolising The Prophet or creating Islamic Saints who are prayed to for protection as happens in some regions.M. Khafi: And again not forgetting that Jerusalem historically belongs to the Jews and not the Christians.
In the Holy Land, Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Nazareth etc: Jesus was born, buried, risen from the dead, His family, ancestors lived there. Remember Jesus and His Mother Maria were Jewish, He is Lord to the Christians. So they have the right to live there and go there for pilgrimage. Please tell me (honestly I still have to study this), why are your side there, you have you own Holy City, no? Thanks before hand for your reply.
Yes I agree with you that all who feel it necessary should be free to go there for Pilgrimage, that is why I said earlier that I think it should be a free state governed by a grouping of all interested parties.
As to why Islam claims a right to Jerusalem, it all hinges around the ‘Night Journey’ of Prophet Mohammed, Some have viewed this as an actual event, with The Prophet being taken from his home by Burak, a flying horse, to Masjid-ul-Aqsa in Jerusalem, and from there he ascended through the Seven Heavens, greeting all the Prophets and meeting with God himself, However the Verse in Al Quran does not actually say that it was a physical journey, nor does it say the name of the destination or the details of the journey, it says:
Glory be to Him Who made His servant to go on a night from the Sacred Mosque to the remote mosque of which We have blessed the precincts, so that We may show to him some of Our signs; surely He is the Hearing, the Seeing. 17:01
As you can see no mention of Masjid-ul-Aqsa, in fact the Masjid-ul-Aqsa was not built during The Prophets Lifetime, but sometime after.
So from my viewpoint the Muslim claim to Jerusalem as a Holy place is surrounded by mystery and can only be supported by Hadith which I reject as fabrications.
M. Khafi: As a contrast to the peaceful takeover of power by the Muslims:
Do you mean from the Middle East to Spain all those places/cities gave them a red carpet? No fights, nobody got killed, where did they get all their provision at the supermarket? Oh, but then, of course, you have no records.
You know as well as I do that I was talking about Jerusalem, just go back and read the comment again. The middle ages were a time of great violence, but there is no escaping that fact that Islamic rule prior to the implementation of Hadith based Sharia Law was a time of great tolerance of all religions, with science, and education being brought to the Western Europeans, by Islam. All the sciences flourished and so did society in general. Who said there are no records? There are many records from Jewish, Christian and Muslim sources of this peacefull coexistence.
In my last posting, I talked (spontaneously, without realizing) about our peaceful world under one banner, and then I wonder what banner? Suddenly, it clicked into my mind the banner is LOVE, His banner is Love’.
We have a God of good will, of friendliness who desires everyone’s happiness, peace, salvation and who waits for the moment when His message of love may favorably be welcomed.
People of the entire world must be “Charitized” for the cleansing of their animality (sorry if this does not sound pleasant to the ears) which is often aggressive, even selfish. They must freely choose love in preference to hate, to violence, to the will to power, to the instinct for domination. With persistence and determination, this growth of love will develop, step by step. Amen.Friends, that was quoted from “When the Lord speaks to the Heart” beautiful and this is for all, East and West, North and South alike.
I agree with these comments entirely as long as you are talking about God, The love of God is what will ultimately bring us all together, but there has to be some giving on all sides to acheive this, all of our religions have become overly egocentric, in their belief that they have the only way to God, when what is important is only God Himself!
Peace
-
Enough is enough Khafi, I need references, before answering some of your posting. We are celebrating the death and the risen Christ. Very big event. Till then.
M. Khafi, to make things easier (because there are so many) for you, just those you posts which you said the Catholic church is doing it, Rome, Vatican. Please, their quotations and reference.
-
I will be back discussing the important issue about iconisation? Is Our Lord against it, hard to answer, no? Looking forward to it. Waiting also for Kahfi’s (to me) false accusation which he has to show their quotation and sources.
-
Odinius says:
People! Members of any religious faith have the ability to use (or abuse) that faith to justify mass violence and conquest. This is not a Christian or Muslim or whatever issue. It’s a human issue.
The crusades came about, initially, not because the pope wanted western Christians wanted to CONQUER their “holy lands” for themselves, but because the pope wanted them to STOP the conquering of eastern Christian lands by Muslims, and to help the byzantine emperor TAKE BACK lands he’d lost. The crusaders then took it upon themselves to create their own kingdoms instead. Medieval Christians thus used Christianity as a justification for conquering lands that belonged to others, not just to Muslims, but Jews and eastern Christians as well (look up the Fourth Crusade); early Muslims ALSO used islam as a justification for conquering lands that belonged to others. Sure contemporary Muslims weren’t as cruel or rapacious as the crusaders, and certainly treated members of other faiths living in their midst better, but this was SITUATIONAL. The islamic world was advanced and civilized; europe was backwards and poor. Later this switched and europeans developed the enlightenment and humanism. Again, SITUATIONAL.
-
Andrew says:
In my opinion, you should just knock it off, or discuss it with Khafi via email.
I doubt people follow the lengthy discussion anymore. -
Julita: you might want to look up the rapes of antioch and jerusalem. Crusaders report with glee that blood was up to the knees and far, far more Jews perished from crusader swords, both in europe and the middle east, than from Muslim ones (Jews did quite well under seljuk and ottoman rule, as opposed to their sad state in almost all of europe).
Khafi is right, the medieval Muslims were not as brutal as the crusaders. As I say above, this is situational, and has to do with their relative wealth and civilizational advancements at the time, not anything particular to islam or Christianity.
“In 1099, when the Christian crusaders took Jerusalem, they slaughtered every Muslim and Jew – men, women and children – beginning in the afternoon and carrying on through the night. One of the crusaders wrote about walking knee-high through corpses in the city’s narrow streets.
When Saladin took Jerusalem in 1187 he spared everyone and the next day allowed followers of each religion to worship at their holy places within the city.”
from
http://commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=/views01/1001-02.htm
-
Aluang anak Bayang says:
khafi is right”¦the medieval Muslims were not as brutal as the crusaders. as i say above, this is situational, and has to do with their relative wealth and civilizational advancements at the time, not anything particular to islam or Christianity.
Yes, nothing to do with Islam or Christianity.
When Saladin took Jerusalem in 1187 he spared everyone and the next day allowed followers of each religion to worship at their holy places within the city.”
If you only look at one crusade history, you may think Saladin’s deed is most honourable, but try check out warfare histories of Mongolian and the Chinese dynastic periods. Even the bloodthirsty Ghenghis Khan spared most his enemies. Chinese dynastic warfares are full of heroic and honourable deeds. In those time, it is norm of a Chinese army to lay down their weapons and help the opposing army cross a river or barrier. Only until they have fully regrouped on the other side, then they will appoint a place e.g an open field where both opposing armies will then clash. If only you guys care to delve more into medieval Asian warfare, especially Japanese and Korean, there are plenty of examples.
-
Well apparently contrary to what Andrew beleives it would appear that many people are still interested in following these comments, never expected a burst of activity like this!
Julita, if you can be specific about what you have called a ‘false accusation’ I will quite happily give you my sources.
Peace
-
hehe .. I loved reading asian medieval warfares. The Chinese, Korean, Japanese and Mongolian were especially courteous and honourable with their enemies. Only difference with Saladin was that they did not carry any religious banner. Up north in Borneo, a rajah of Brunei forgive and spared a general after he repent for his misdeed. Certainly not in the name of any God, but plain honourable Asian values.
It has been a long time since I last read history books but if anyone wanted any source, give me some times, I will try to give it too. 🙂
-
Oh, how could I ever forget our fellow Indonesian. In Borneo, the Kayan were considered the most honourable of all Dayak warriors. They don’t do surprise attack, in fact they will sent out messengers telling their enemies when they are going to attack.
-
Aluang: warfare in general is fascinating. Distriburbing but fascinating. In a past life I studied medieval history and in particular vikings. Their military might was primarily based upon having the only boats that could go on sea and up rivers, so they could reach more territory in a day, giving the illusion of larger numbers.
About ghengis khan, well, he also killed off the populations of several cities. Don’t know if saladin ever did that. 🙂
On to Indonesia, I found a journal a year or two ago full of scholarly articles on warfare in pre and early dutch period Indonesia. Amazing. One article was about how the balinese defeated the makassarese for lombok, primarily by constructing fake forts, luring the makassarese there, then surrounding them and killing them off with blowgun darts.
-
M. Khafi: I post the positives because I want to show Islam in a good light.
I honestly have no problem at all with what you are trying to do, but don’t throw the unrelated accusations, garbage to my side without sources. Also only when it says that the Roman Catholic Church, Rome, the Vatican did it. otherwise, I definitely will overlook all of them, for me not worth it to discuss.
M. Khafi: I envy you living in such a perfect place, where is it Utopia or Dreamland, I cannot think of one country that has such idyllic conditions.
Yes, it exists, especially in countries where Christianity is the main religion.
M. Khafi: It was you who first brought up the subject of the Crusades on a completely different and unrelated topic on this website:
Author: Julita
Comment:
Czeslaw: Crusaders wanted to take back what Islam took from Jews, which is the link to “Christ”. So, Christ was the “link” to the cause to the crusaeds. There would be no crsades, if the Islam would not “conquer” Israel. I mean “to conquer”, is other word for war crimes and mass murders.The following words were my first posting and it was agreed upon..
My compliments Czeslaw in regard to Crusades, Christians were being attacked:M. Khafi: For me Iconisation is no different from Idolisation, I feel sorry for people who need to glorify humans or human creations in order to practice their religion.
I am glad you say “for me” because this is a free world, everybody choose what they like, for those who would like to know:
1. Sometimes we would see some dignitaries placing a wreath in front of a monument of fallen soldiers, and they bowed their heads in silence. Were they honoring the cold, carved stone or were their hearts and mind going further than that, which is the fallen soldiers.
2. Another example, while studying abroad I miss my parents. While holding their photos, as I often told them personally, I contemplate how grateful I am for their care and financing my study. The photos help my feeling more focused, then staring to a blank wall.
Quoted from Catechism of the Catholic church:
Previously God, who has neither a body nor a face, absolutely could not be represented by an image. But now that He has made Himself visible in the flesh and has lived with men, I can make an image of what I have seen of God
St. John Damascene, De imag. 1,16: PG 96:1245-1248Already in the Old Testament, God ordained or permitted the making of image that pointed symbolically toward salvation by the incarnate Word: so it was with the bronze serpent, the ark of covenant, and the cherubim.
Numbers 21:4-9; Wisdom 16:5-14; Jn. 3:14-15; 1 Kings 6:23-28; 7:23-28The Christian veneration of images is not contrary to the first commandment which proscribes idols. Indeed, ‘the honor rendered to an image passed to its prototype,’ and ‘whoever venerates an image venerates the person portrayed in it. The honor paid to sacred images is a ‘respectful veneration,’ not adoration which is due to God alone.
_________________
Let us be fair, in discussion we have to be open minded. We were not even born when it happened and there are many sources, which one make sense, here is one:Myth 3: When the Crusaders captured Jerusalem in 1099 they massacred every man, woman and child in the city until the streets ran ankle deep with the blood.
It is certainly true that many people in Jerusalem were killed after the Crusaders captured the city. But this must be understood in historical context.
The accepted moral standard in all pre-modern European and Asian civilizations was that a city that resisted capture and was taken by force belonged to the victorious forces. That included not just the buildings and goods, but the people as well. That is why every city or fortress had to weigh carefully whether it could hold out against besiegers. If not, it was wise to negotiate terms of surrender.
In the case of Jerusalem, the defenders had resisted right up to the end. They calculated that the formidable walls of the city would keep the Crusaders at bay until a relief force from Egypt could arrive. They were wrong. When the city fell, therefore, it was put to the sack. Many were killed, yet many others were ransomed or allowed to go free.
As for those streets of blood, no historian accepts them as anything other than a literary convention. Jerusalem is a big town. The amount of blood necessary to fill the streets to a continuous and running three-inch depth would require many more people than those lived in the region, let alone the city.
Thomas Madden, chair of St. Louis University’s history department and author of “A Concise History of the Crusades. M. Khafi: I post the positives because I want to show Islam in a good light.
I honestly have no problem at all with what you are trying to do, but don’t throw the unrelated accusations, garbage to my side without sources. Also only when it says that the Roman Catholic Church, Rome, the Vatican did it. otherwise, I definitely will overlook all of them, for me not worth it to discuss.
M. Khafi: I envy you living in such a perfect place, where is it Utopia or Dreamland, I cannot think of one country that has such idyllic conditions.
Yes, it exists, especially in countries where Christianity is the main religion.
M. Khafi: It was you who first brought up the subject of the Crusades on a completely different and unrelated topic on this website:
Author: Julita
Comment:
Czeslaw: Crusaders wanted to take back what Islam took from Jews, which is the link to “Christ”. So, Christ was the “link” to the cause to the crusaeds. There would be no crsades, if the Islam would not “conquer” Israel. I mean “to conquer”, is other word for war crimes and mass murders.
My compliments Czeslaw in regard to Crusades, Christians were being attacked:
Think, and re-read again was I the first one coming into this discussion? The following words were my first posting and it was agreed upon..
My compliments Czeslaw in regard to Crusades, Christians were being attacked:
M. Khafi: For me Iconisation is no different from Idolisation, I feel sorry for people who need to glorify humans or human creations in order to practice their religion.
I am glad you say “for me” because this is a free world, everybody choose what they like, for those who would like to know:
1. Sometimes we would see some dignitaries placing a wreath in front of a monument of fallen soldiers, and they bowed their heads in silence. Were they honoring the cold, carved stone or were their hearts and mind going further than that, which is the fallen soldiers.
2. Another example, while studying abroad I miss my parents. While holding their photos, as I often told them personally, I contemplate how grateful I am for their care and financing my study. The photos help my feeling more focused, then staring to a blank wall.
Quoted from Catechism of the Catholic church:
Previously God, who has neither a body nor a face, absolutely could not be represented by an image. But now that He has made Himself visible in the flesh and has lived with men, I can make an image of what I have seen of God
St. John Damascene, De imag. 1,16: PG 96:1245-1248
Already in the Old Testament, God ordained or permitted the making of image that pointed symbolically toward salvation by the incarnate Word: so it was with the bronze serpent, the ark of covenant, and the cherubim.
Numbers 21:4-9; Wisdom 16:5-14; Jn. 3:14-15; 1 Kings 6:23-28; 7:23-28The Christian veneration of images is not contrary to the first commandment which proscribes idols. Indeed, ‘the honor rendered to an image passed to its prototype,’ and ‘whoever venerates an image venerates the person portrayed in it. The honor paid to sacred images is a ‘respectful veneration,’ not adoration which is due to God alone.
Let us be fair, in discussion we have to be open minded. We were not even born when it happened, and there are many sources, which one make sense, here is one:Myth 3: When the Crusaders captured Jerusalem in 1099 they massacred every man, woman and child in the city until the streets ran ankle deep with the blood.
It is certainly true that many people in Jerusalem were killed after the Crusaders captured the city. But this must be understood in historical context.
The accepted moral standard in all pre-modern European and Asian civilizations was that a city that resisted capture and was taken by force belonged to the victorious forces. That included not just the buildings and goods, but the people as well. That is why every city or fortress had to weigh carefully whether it could hold out against besiegers. If not, it was wise to negotiate terms of surrender.
In the case of Jerusalem, the defenders had resisted right up to the end. They calculated that the formidable walls of the city would keep the Crusaders at bay until a relief force from Egypt could arrive. They were wrong. When the city fell, therefore, it was put to the sack. Many were killed, yet many others were ransomed or allowed to go free.
As for those streets of blood, no historian accepts them as anything other than a literary convention. Jerusalem is a big town. The amount of blood necessary to fill the streets to a continuous and running three-inch depth would require many more people than those lived in the region, let alone the city.
Thomas Madden, chair of St. Louis University’s history department and author of “A Concise History of the Crusades.
-
Interesting piece on the “causes” of the Crusades at:
http://www.rogersandall.com/Spiked_Religion-and-Violence.php -
amanda smith says:
Great Khafi, let the Lord’s will be done and let people of His Faith one day be united, not only in the Holy land but honestly all over the world, under His banner.
Comment on “Causes of the Crusades”.
Copyright Indonesia Matters 2006-2025
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact
Julita,
I have been troubled by some issues in our discussion of the last few day and have had nagging doubts about some things which have been presented here especially the contradictory nature of Professor Maddens account of the history of the Crusades and that of previous historians. In a effort to clear my mind I have been trying, in vain I must add, to find a detailed biography on Professor Madden and his work.
Then it suddenly struck me when viewing a page on the internet, Professor Thomas F. Madden of St Louis University, and then in small print, The Jesuit University of St Louis.
For those who have been following this discussion, Jesuits AKA “The Society of Jesus, (Latin: Societas Iesu, abbreviated either (S.J.) or (S.I.)) is a Christian religious order of the Catholic Church in direct service to the Pope. Its members, known as Jesuits since the Protestant Reformation, have been called “Soldiers of Christ”, first, and “Foot soldiers of the Pope”,”
Hardly an unbiased witness to history I would think!
I personally have tried to use both quotes from Islamic and Christian sources for my views so far, perhaps I need to use history as written by strident Islamists to counter Julitas use of Professor Madden?
Quote from Wikipedia:
The Jesuits have frequently been described by their enemies (both Catholic and Protestant) as engaged in various conspiracies. They have also been accused of using casuistry* to obtain justifications for the unjustifiable.
*Casuistry:
Casuistry is a broad term that refers to a variety of forms of case-based reasoning. Used in discussions of law and ethics, casuistry is often understood as a critique of a strict principle-based approach to reasoning. For example, while a principle-based approach may conclude that lying is always morally wrong, the casuist would argue that lying may or may not be wrong, depending on the details surrounding the case.
Peace