REGENT UNIVERSITY

THE CRUSADES: NO INNOCENT PARTIES

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT FOR THE REQUIREMENTS

OF TCDH 540 (02)

CHURCH HISTORY AND RENEWAL I

REGENT SCHOOL OF DIVINITY

BY

RICH MILLER

2

VIRGINIA BEACH, VA

INTRODUCTION

The Crusades are considered an enigmatic time in history for

Christians and Muslims alike. While there has been much fighting

between the two over the ages, no other period records such

passion and military endeavors between the religions. Thankfully,

the eleventh through fourteen centuries alone record Christians

bearing arms and behaving so inhumanely on such a large scale.

Church history reluctantly points to the Crusades as an era of

heartlessness that must never be repeated.

However, it can’t go unnoticed that Islamic militants were

just as vengeful in their actions, all in the name of faith. Yet

their religion appears to give more leniencies to physical

warfare than Christian theology. In this paper I will attempt to

prove sociologically that neither group can claim they “won” the

“Crusades,” as well as verify neither side was guiltless in their

religious behavior. Both sides came to the same conclusion when

3

embarking upon these wars--that it was God’s will for them to

win. Both sides also violated their own beliefs and principles,

thus disproving their initial motivation, and bringing reproach

to the faith of the banner each raised.

BACKGROUND

Christians had faithfully voyaged on pilgrimages to the Holy

Land since the fourth century. Such an endeavor was viewed as the

upper echelon of Christian purity. Even though the Mohammedan

Arabs took possession of the Holy Land in the 600’s, they

historically treated Christian sojourners with respect.

Understandably, the year 1,000 AD and the start of the new

millennium ushered in an increased focus on this divine

undertaking. Believers worldwide were convinced that a new

spiritual age had descended. Christians in Europe were sure the

Second Coming of the Lord was close at hand, preceded and

confirmed by several years of miserable famine.

Due to this increased awareness, they longed to see

Jerusalem and any changes the millennial arrival had created.

“For ages the land route to Jerusalem had been practically

4

barred….but about the year 1,000 the old route was opened up once

more.”1 This stirring resurfaced thirty years later at the

millennial anniversary of the crucifixion. During the first 3/4

of the eleventh century, Jerusalem had been ruled by the El-

Hakim, the Fatimite (Shiite) Caliph of Cairo. His father had

treated the Jews and Christian pilgrims kindly. But things began

to change as the Seljukian Turks came into power.

These Turks hailed from Samarcand, led by their famous chief

Seljuk. In 1038 chief Tughrul Bey established his rule in

Khurasan. He led an attack on Armenia in 1050 because the

Byzantines had left the entire country unprotected. “The

Byzantines' annexation of Armenia was the beginning of their

downfall in Asia Minor; Armenia was too weak to fight the Seljuk

Turks who threatened their eastern border.”2 The Seljuks met no

resistance until they reached Melitene, where they murdered so

many civilians that some escaped death by hiding among the

corpses.3 1 Thomas Andrew Archer and Charles Lethbridge Kingsford, The Crusades: The Story of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem (London: T.F. Unwin, 1919), 15.2 Matti Moosa, “The Crusades: an Eastern Perspective, with Emphasis on Syriac Sources.” Muslim World 93, no 2 (Ap 2003), p 252. Online: [17 April 2010].3 Ibid., 252.

5

The Byzantine Empire decided to avenge their losses through

military action. Yet, they continued to lose ground due to the

feistiness of these desert warriors. The final loss came when the

Seljuk Alp Arslan defeated and captured the Emperor Romanus

Diogenes at Manzikert in 1071. The Armenians had resisted Muslim

attacks and been a buffer defending Byzantium for years. However,

Byzantium had previously destroyed the strong partition wall

built by Armenian warriors, ironically leading to their defeat.4

The Seljuk Turks continued their advancement, capturing the

Holy Land in 1073. They immediately began to persecute Christian

travelers; Gregory VII responded by planning a war that would

drive the Turks out and reunite the East and West. Yet the

Investiture Controversy prevented him from ever carrying out his

plan. The real catalyst was the Byzantine emperor, Alexius

Comnenus I, who made an urgent appeal to western Christians for

help against the Turks. Muslim mistreatment of pilgrims in

Jerusalem had reached an all-time high. The emperor also wanted

to gather support against Turkish attacks on the eastern

Byzantine Empire.

4 Ibid., 254.

6

Comnenus’s original plea was written to the count of

Flanders, not realizing it would be relayed to the pope. Pope

Urban II was immediately rallied to the cause. He gave his famous

address on November 27th, 1095 at the Council of Clermont in

central France. Stark records, “Standing on a podium in the

middle of a field, and surrounded by an immense crowd that

included poor peasants as well as nobility and clergy, the pope

gave one of the most effective speeches of all time. Blessed with

an expressive and unusually powerful voice, he could be heard and

understood at a great distance.”5

Urban made a strong appeal to the lords, knights, and foot

soldiers of western Europe to stop their private wars and join

the ranks of conquering the Turks and regaining the Holy Land.

The pope offered many benefits to those who ‘took the cross,’

including counting the crusade as penance for sin.

“Strong in our trust in the divine mercy, and by virtue of the authority of Sts. Peter and Paul, of whose fullness we are the depository, we hereby grant full remission of any canonical penalties whatever to all the faithful of Christ who from motives of devotion alone andnot for the procurement of honor or gain shall have gone forth to the aid of God’s church at Jerusalem. But whosoever shall have died there in true repentance shall

5 Rodney Stark, Exploring the Religious Life (Baltimore: JHU Press, 2004), 26.

7

undoubtedly have the remission (indulgentiam) of sins and the fruit of eternal reward.”6

The Pope, in referring to the cross the Crusaders stitched on the

outside of their clothing, claimed it was to be a memorial that

“will increasingly remind you that Christ died for you, and that

it is your duty to die for Him.”7

Twentieth century Church History expert Jonathan Riley-Smith

confers, “While holy war had had a long history, the idea of

penitential war was unprecedented in Christian thought. It meant

that a crusade was for the crusader only secondarily about

service in arms to God or benefiting the Church or Christianity;

it was primarily about benefiting himself.”8 Deus lo vult, or ‘God

wills it,’ was the audiences’ enthusiastic response. The frantic

crowd interpreted joining the crusade as the surest way to atone

for the most grievous of sins.

6 Lars P. Qualben, A History of the Christian Church (New York: Thomas Nelson andSons, 1955), 171 quoting Pope Urban II’s famous speech.7 Rodney Stark , One True God: Historical Consequences of Monotheism (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2003), 139.8 Johnathan Riley-Smith, “Rethinking the Crusades” First Things no 101 (Mr 2000), 20. Online: [17 April 2010]. He goes on to say, “A distinguishing feature of crusading was that the cross was enjoined on men and women not as aservice, but as a penance, the association of which with war had been made about a decade before the First Crusade.”

8

The enthusiasm quickly spread through France and England.

“Christendom became a great international community with a common

ideal and a common fight against the infidel Turks.”9A similar

resolve on a smaller scale had taken place five years earlier

when many knights in Norman had rescued Sicily, Sardinia, and

Corsica from followers of Mohammed. European nobles saw the

crusade as adventurous and a chance for glory. Those born into

lower classes who dealt with the hopelessness of never seeing

their lives improve now had a reason for living. Alexius was

hoping for an army of well-trained soldiers, but was instead

rewarded with many normal citizens.

The Crusaders set out with the goal of rescuing Jerusalem

and largely ignored the Byzantine emperor’s call for help. Those

in debt who left for the crusade were forgiven of outstanding

accounts. Prisoners who wished to join were set free. Many came

from homes of moral depravity, excited by the idea of adventure.

Count Raymond of Toulouse, the most powerful prince of southern

France, and Adhemar, the bishop of Puy, signed up and were

subsequently labeled the Crusaders’ Moses and Aaron.10

9 Qualben, 172.10 Archer, 32.

9

Bishops and priests advertised the crusades as equal to

monastic sacrifice and took it upon themselves to recruit on

behalf of the pope. “Campaigning for the crusades stimulated a

spirit of devotion and a fervent, imaginative popular preaching

which later found expression in the mendicant monks.”11 Many

preparations had to be made and it was eight months before any of

the armies were able to start out. During these long winter

months “the voice of one preacher was heard in northeastern

France urging men to fulfill the commands of God. This preacher

was Peter the Hermit.”12 He gained tremendous influence but

disastrously set out ahead of time and led many of the Crusaders

to a senseless grave.

Pope Urban also saw the crusade as a much-needed opportunity

to root out corruption in the church, employing Robert of

Arbissel, Vitalis of Mortain, and Bernard of Tiron to inspire

reform in tandem with their call for taking the cross.13 Yet, the

Church of Rome began to undermine feudalism by offering to

protect the land of the knights while they were away on crusade,

11 Qualben, 172.12 Archer, 35.13 Rodney Stark, For the Glory of God: how Monotheism led to Reformations, Science, Witch-hunts, and the end of Slavery (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2003), 50.

10

claiming ownership if the nobility failed to return. Because

German nights and nobles refused to participate in the Crusades,

they were one of the few areas who continued their feudal

practices unmolested.14

THE FIRST THREE CRUSADES

From August through December the main crusader armies set

out on what would end up a three year journey to reclaim

Jerusalem for Christianity. From Nov. 1096 through May 1097,

their crusader armies arrived at Constantinople. There they were

forced to swear loyalty to the Byzantine emperor. Being from the

Latin west, this was not an easy oath to yield for any of armies’

main generals: Bohemond of Taranto, Godfrey of Boullion, and his

brother Baldwin. Yet this allegiance was required before Alexius

was willing to supply the Crusaders with their much needed food

and transportation.

The army continued on to Nicaea where they began a six week

siege. “The main hosts of the Crusaders accordingly set out in

five distinct bodies under different leaders and by different

routes. The first started in August 1096; the last did not join 14 Qualben, 172.

11

its fellows till they were camped round Nicaea in the following

summer.”15 After taking Nicaea, the Crusaders continued to

Antioch, considered the gateway to the Holy Land. There they

began a difficult siege that lasted nearly a year.

In June 1999 the crusader armies of around 13,000 finally

arrived at Jerusalem, taking the city a month later. Godfrey was

crowned the “Advocate of the Holy Sepulcher,” refusing to be

named king of the city he felt had only one true King. Yet,

Jerusalem was incorporated into the Latin west rather than being

handed over to the Byzantines. Jerusalem would remain under the

Christian banner until the rule of Saladin in 1187. Even still,

Muslim domination in the surrounding region stayed intact.

Hillenbrand comments, “It is noticeable, however, that even in

the first flush of success the Crusaders were unable to capture

either of the two major cities in the region, namely Aleppo or

Damascus.”16

The Second Crusade was fueled by the actions of three

important Muslim leaders: Imad al-Din Zengi, his son Nur al-Din

15 Archer, 42.16 Carole Hillenbrand, The Crusades: Islamic Perspectives (Edinburgh, Chicago: Routledge Publishers, 1999), 20.

12

(Zengi), and Ṣalāḥ ad-Dīn Yūsuf ibn Ayyūb (Saladin). In 1128,

the Turkish ruler Imad al-Din Zengi began to develop an empire

from the fragmented Muslim city-states of northern Syria. “Syria,

indeed, is marked out by nature as a meeting-place of the

nations. Westward it looks towards Europe….to the east, across

the desert, lies the great river on whose banks grew up that

ancient Akkadian culture….in the south its inhabitants were

brought into contact with the immemorial civilization of the

Nile; in the north with still more mysterious races.”17

In July of 1144 Zengi succeeded in uniting Muslims in

northern Syria and capturing the Crusader-held city of Edessa.

This Muslim advancement and the resulting concern for the Holy

Land instigated the Second Crusade in 1147. The armies led by

Louis VII of France set out in 1148, racing to preempt Nur al-

Din’s arrival to Damascus. Nur al-Din had taken over after the

death of his father Imad al-Din Zengi, continuing the desire for

Muslim dominance. The Second Crusade quickly ended in humiliation

for the Christians with very little accomplished. Nur al-Din

continued a successful reign from Syria while Saladin rose to

17 Archer, 1-2.

13

power twenty years later in Egypt. After the death of Nur-al Din,

Saladin began to further unite the Muslim factions. In 1181 he

entered Aleppo and his call for a jihad (holy war) to drive out

the Christians gathered momentum.

The Third Crusade was instigated in July 1187 when Saladin

invaded Christian territory and defeated their armies at the

Battle of Hattin. The Crusader kingdom was beginning to

disintegrate. In October 1189 Saladin’s army reached Jerusalem

and soon recaptured the holy city for Islam, sparking the Third

Crusade. Richard the Lionheart of England headed up the new

Crusader army. In August of 1191 Richard ordered the infamous

massacre of 2,600 Muslim prisoners in front of Saladin’s army in

the town of Acre. In October 1191 Richard’s armies began a four

month march to Jerusalem.

Upon arriving, however, Richard was convinced by local

knights that even if the Crusaders ended up taking Jerusalem,

they did not have the manpower to keep it. After wavering nearby

for the next eight months, Richard and his armies returned home

in September 1192, ending the Third Crusade. However, the

Christians were able to keep control of the coast from Jaffa to

14

Tyre. Saladin passed away in 1193, considered one of the greatest

Muslim leaders of all time. Six more unsuccessful crusades were

to follow, including a Children’s Crusade in 1212. In 1291, Acre,

the last of the Christian outposts, fell to the Muslims.

Christian occupation of the Holy Land had ended after almost 200

years.

PERSPECTIVE OF THE CRUSADERS

Study of the Crusaders and their motivations in fighting

what they felt were ‘just wars’ unearths as many hidden purposes

as it does holy ones. Yet, there were some legitimate godly

leaders, such as Bernard of Clairvaux, Thomas Aquinas, Bridget of

Sweden, Catherine of Siena, and John of Capistrano, who whole-

heartedly believed in the cause. History testifies of both

amazing Christian servitude and barbaric human depravity. The

Seljuk Turks were only one of several enemies targeted during

this period; Jews, Syrian Christians and religious ‘heretics’

became victims of widespread persecution.

15

Christianity in Europe, Africa and Asia had long experienced

conflict since the decision of the Council of Chalcedon to split

the universal church into two camps in 451 AD. The Latin West in

Rome and the Byzantine Greek Empire in Constantinople became the

subsequent ruling centers. Theologians spent most of their time

in refutation of scholars from the opposing empire. However, with

the rise of Islam in the seventh century, Christianity

experienced a new, dangerous enemy.

Christian sociologist Rodney Stark proclaims:

“The crusades were precipitated by Islamic provocations and were sustained by western piety. They were provoked by centuries of attempts by Muslims to colonize the West and by attacks on Christian pilgrims and holy places….Muslims began invading and colonizing Christian areas in the lifetime of Mohammed. Then, duringthe next four centuries prior to the Crusades, they overwhelmed Roman North Africa and colonized Spain, Sicily, and portions of southern Italy. Early in the eighth century major thrusts were made into France….Muslim forces had turned the Mediterranean into avirtual Islamic lake”18

Yet, Stark is a western writer detailing events of a differing

religious group. While history backs the Muslim’s widespread

enlargement, his description seems one-sided. I can’t help but

wonder how he would record the achievements of a less

18 Stark, Exploring the Religious Life, 24-25.

16

controversial contemporary religious group? At any rate, the

Muslims were viewed as committed, yet poisonous heretics by the

Christians.

Stark describes the Seljuks as “semi nomadic tribesmen

untainted by city-dwelling ….unflinching particularists (in

reference to their intolerance of religious pluralism)….They made

it clear that Christians were fair game.”19 Therefore all of the

Anatolian villages on the route to Jerusalem began to demand

tolls from the Christian pilgrims. Many travelers were seized and

tortured or sold into slavery. Thus, the Christians felt

extremely justified in carrying out what they believed to be

God’s will.

A few centuries of hospitality toward Christian pilgrims had

been erased by the recent actions of the Seljuk Turks. It was

becoming socially acceptable for Christians and even monks to

take up arms in defense of their faith. Whereas before,

separation from the world had been the prescribed ascetic

environment, now traveling throughout the world to conquer in the

name of Christ appeared to be holy living. The Crusaders not only

19 Stark, One True God, 136.

17

planned to put a stop to mistreatment of Christians by the infidels

(ironically a term used by both sides when referring to the

opposition), but to regain God’s holy city.

It was only right, then, that spiritual benefits be rewarded

to those who participated. Thus, the crusades influenced the

system of absolution. Immunity from the penalty of sin was

originally awarded only to those participating in the crusades.

Avengers of the cross were granted full innocence for any

iniquity they might commit during their service. However,

Celestine III (1191-1198) granted at least partial absolution to

those who contributed money to the Third Crusade. Innocent III

(1198-1216) followed by granting complete forgiveness to those

who sent a representative in their place to the Third Crusade.20

The crusades also stimulated interest in relics and sacred

places. One could argue that the Christians felt pressure by the

Muslim practice of attribution to holy places and needed to

identify reverent sites of their own. The Iron Lance, the Black

Rood (supposedly wood from the cross of Christ) and other revered

objects were credited with bringing about certain victories. The

20 Qualben, 172.

18

Knights Templar, one such organization notorious for holding

relics sacred, developed during this era. The use of the Rosary

became more popular toward the end of the crusades, possibly

influenced by the Islamic worship known as tasbih.21

One hurdle both the East and the West had to overcome when

approaching the lands of the eastern Mediterranean was the wounds

they had historically inflicted upon the Syrian and Armenian

churches. The decision of the Council of Chalcedon that split the

universal church into two sections, Roman Catholic and Greek

churches (along with part of the Syrian Church of Antioch)

adopted the outcome of the council; the Coptic, Ethiopian, and

Armenian churches and another part of the Syrian church rejected

their decision. The Syrian church was affected so greatly at

Chalcedon that by the sixth century, only two bishops were left

to serve its people.22

Some have wondered, could the results of the crusades have

been God using the Muslims to atone for the church’s treatment of

their Syrian brothers? Moosa proclaims, “Sadly, the Byzantine

21 Ibid., 172.22 Moosa, 253, referring to the writing of Michael Rabo, the Patriarch of Antioch from 1166-1199, and his description of the Byzantines' ill treatment of his church and community.

19

emperors treated the Syrians as heretics from the fifth century

onward. Some emperors….tried but failed to win the Syrians to the

Chalcedonian faith, but such efforts only created more

dissension, finally leading to….the rise of the Maronite church

and community.”23

The Armenians were the majority in important cities like Edessa

and the province of Cilicia.

The crusades also promoted a spirit of religious

intolerance, paving the way for the Inquisition. Before the

Crusaders even reached Syrian topography, they had already

started on the war path against the Jews. “To the early,

Christians Jerusalem may well have seemed the city of the wrath

rather than the love of God.”24 Anti-Semitism was still common

during their period. Peter the Hermit’s preaching, for example,

was misinterpreted and used to justify pillaging of the Jews.

In Lorraine Crusaders felt the need ‘to wipe out the race

that had crucified the Lord.’ In Cologne the synagogues were

destroyed and Jews were murdered. At Mayence the Jews paid the

archbishop to hide in his house and were slaughtered anyway. Town

23 Ibid., 254.24 Archer, 2.

20

after town the Crusaders attacked the Semites along the Rhine

River: Spire, Worms, Mainz, and Cologne. “In all, perhaps five

thousand Jews were murdered in several months by men who were

preparing to march to the Holy Land.”25

The French abbot Abbe Pierre of Cluny stated, when promoting

the Second Crusade, “What is the good of going to the end of the

world at great loss of men and money, to fight Saracens, when we

permit among us other infidels who are a thousand times more

guilty toward Christ than are Mohammedans?”26 The Crusaders of

Rouen proclaimed, “We desire to go and fight God’s enemies in the

East; but we have before our eyes certain Jews, a race more

inimical to God than any other.”27 Yet, the Crusaders were not

alone in their persecutions of God’s chosen people. The Muslim

edict of 1148 expelled all Jews who refused to convert to Islam

from Spain, with the penalty of death upon refusal.

Obviously, not all Christians carried these ideologies.

Francis of Assisi traveled to Damietta, Egypt in 1219 hoping to

convert Sultan Malik al-Kamel and prevent the Fifth Crusade.

25 Stark, For the Glory of God, 48.26 Ibid., 48-49.27 Dennis Prager and Joseph Telushkin, Why the Jews?: the Reason for Anti-Semitism (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2003), 80.

21

After a week with the sultan, he returned with a proposed peace

treaty. Sadly, the Crusaders wanted nothing to do with this type

of appeasement. Francis later returned and spent much time in

Egypt ministering to the poor before serving Muslims in the Holy

Land.28

St. Francis was so impressed by his time among the Muslims

that he inserted a special rule for his order encouraging them to

minister to the ‘infidels.’ His Regula non bullata (“Rule not

ratified by papal bull”) directed them to submit themselves to

the Saracens for Christ’s sake (1 Pet. 2:13), and to be wise as

serpents but innocent as doves (Mt. 10:16). These instructions,

covered in Chapter 16: For Brothers who wish to go among the Saracens, employ

the servants “not to cause arguments or strife, but….when they

have seen that it pleases God, they announce the word of God.”29

Robinson infers the Franciscans took the outlook that it was more

honorable to be subjected to the Saracens in humility than to

depend on the use of arms.30

28 Scott Robinson, “To go among the Saracens: A Franciscan Composer’s Journey into the House of Islam.” In Crosscurrents 56 no 3, (Aut 2006), 413. Online: [18 April 2010].29 St. Francis of Assisi, Regula non bullata. Online: http://www.francescanitor.org/letters/non_bullata.pdf, pg. 7 [17 April 2010].30 Robinson, 415.

22

For all of the justification the Crusaders employed, their

slaughter of women and children in incomprehensible fashion

disproved any honorable intentions. The Seljuks and Saracens,

while enemies politically and even threatening religiously, were

still people. Love never appeared to be the aim in the Crusades.

Spreading the gospel was not proclaimed as the driving force;

rather wrath was displayed in widespread fashion. Jews, fellow

Christians, and those viewed as heretics were butchered without

mercy.

THE ISLAMIC MINDSETS

Christianity had their split between the east and the west,

Latin and Greek; Islam had its split between Shicism and Sunnis.’

Two of their greatest leaders mentioned above, Nur al-Din and

Saladin, embodied this clash. Nur al-Din was a leading Sunni

while Saladin arose as a respected Shiite. The Muslim attitudes

of the time were torn between hatred of the infidels and seeing

each battle as a chance to advance their respective Sunni or

Shiite agendas. For example, the news of the first Crusader

23

victory in Anatolia over the Seljuk Sunnis in 1097 was celebrated

by the ruling Shiites in Cairo. They sent an envoy to meet the

Crusaders in Antioch and persuade them to abort any advances upon

Cairo.

The collective view concerning the Christians was that they

were polytheistic intruders bent on senseless destruction. The

Muslims referred to the Crusaders as the al-Ifranj or al-Infaranj

meaning ‘Franks,’ or kuffar meaning ‘infidels.’ Moosa, referring

to Muslim writers during the crusades, states, “These historians,

aware of Islamic codes for warfare and laws of diplomacy

developed over centuries of confrontation with the Byzantines and

saddened by the unnecessary suffering of the non-combatants,

portray the Crusaders as barbarians since they evidence no

restraint or allegiance to a war ethic that would spare the

civilian population from annihilation.”31

31 Wadi Z. Haddad, “The Crusaders through Muslim Eyes” Muslim World 73, no 3-4 (Jl-O 1983), p 237. Online: [17 April 2010]. He continues, “In fact, the Muslims were surprised that the Crusaders did not treat Jerusalem with more sanctity when they entered it…. The reconquest of Jerusalem in 1187 by Salàh al-Dïn and the sparing of the Crusader population from massacre by Muslims is cast (by the Muslim historians) ‘in conscious contrast to the Crusaders' behavior.’”

24

Memoirs, recorded by the Muslim diplomat Usämä b. Munqidh

(1095-1188), reveal the inmost thoughts of his personal

experiences with the ‘infidels.’ Haddad states, “Usämä was a

warrior with long experience who had been raised on the concepts

of Arab chivalry, gallantry, and proper aristocratic behavior.

He had been appointed by different rulers to serve on various

diplomatic missions to Crusader colonies as well as to other

Muslim states.”32

Usämä notes:

“Mysterious are the works of the Creator, the author of all things! When one comes to recount cases regarding theFranks, he cannot but glorify Allah (Exalted is He) and sanctify him, for he sees them [the Franks] as animals possessing the virtues of courage and fighting but nothing else; just as animals have only the virtues of strength and carrying loads.”33

Usämä represents the perspective of the Muslims against the

Crusaders' moral system, believed to be unfit for civilized

behavior. Riley-Smith declares, “The disdain of the conqueror's

mores endowed the Muslims with a feeling of innate superiority

32 Haddad, 238.33 Ibid., 239.

25

and a passionate adherence to their own moral system based on the

assurance of the possession of truth.”34

I can’t help but wondering, however, how Muslims of the day

would react to the written description of ‘the Anonymous Edessan

(a monk in 1234),’ “a trustworthy eyewitness to the events in

Jerusalem when Saladin entered the city.”35 The Edessan gives a

contrasting description of Shiite morality:

I, the wretched and unfortunate, was then in Jerusalem. I saw with my own eyes the havoc, abominations, and ignominious acts of the Muslims which my tongue cannot describe or express. The Muslims sold the church vessels in the city's markets. They converted the churches and temples to stables, theaters of entertainment and brothels. They savagely perpetrated reprehensible actions against the monks and chaste nuns and other women. They took young men and women as captives and sold them in far-off countries. They denudedthe churches not only of their ornaments, but also of wood and iron objects, and ripped off the doors and marble tiles that covered the walls and floors. They removed all these to faraway countries. However, they mercifully spared the Church of the Resurrection. They set up guards in it, not out of respect for its sanctity,but because of their greedy desire to lay hands on the gifts the people brought upon visiting it. The Muslims imposed a ten-dinar entrance fee on every Christian who entered or worshipped at the Sepulcher of the Savior.”36

34 Riley-Smith, 5.35 Matta, 279.36 Ibid., 279 quoting ‘The anonymous Edessan.’

26

It is clear the writer was shocked rather than impressed with

Islamic morality.

Yet, in Usämä’s writings one can later catch a subtle

softening, not quite as severe as Saint Francis. “Usämä

distinguished between the knights whom he held in high esteem and

the later Crusaders recruited from among the common people of

Europe.”37 The Muslims became impressed with the original

Crusaders who remained for the long-term. Because they saw the

foreigners as inferior, they appreciated the way the Franks

adopted some of their customs, especially their Arab dress and

dietary habits. The Muslims also respected the Crusaders

allegiance to their faith and commitment to travel all the way to

Jerusalem on pilgrimage. However, they were amazed at how little

the Christians knew about what they believed. They noted the

difference in their disrespectful treatment of the elderly, their

system of justice using peers, their lack of morality and public

decency, and their viewing of Jesus as divine.38

Mâlikï judicial consultant and Ashcarite theologian al-

Qaräfi (1227-1285) thought the Christians to be worse than the 37 Haddad, 239.38 Ibid., 240-243.

27

Jews because of their practice of communion and partaking of the

blood and body of Christ. To him, the Jews only crucified Jesus

once while the Christians continued to glory in his torture. He

vigorously studied Christianity and then argued against the

incarnation, original sin, and the Christian belief in the

Trinity, which he labeled a paradox. Seeing the Christians’

foundation as faulty, he accused their priests throughout history

of conjuring up stories of miracles to strengthen their faith.39

I have to admit, I was impressed by how well al-Qaräfi

understood and explained the faith of the Christians, even in his

opposition. It was clear that this Muslim writer had spent

countless hours attempting to comprehend the faith of his enemies

in order to develop a proper refutation. Continuing his defense,

al-Qaräfi observed, “The Crusaders show great love for fighting-

proving themselves to be cruel and ferocious-whereas they were

commanded by Christ to ‘turn the other cheek.’ As for Muslims,

they have been commanded to fight and thus abide by their

revelation.”40

39 Ibid., 248-250.40 Ibid., 251.

28

Accounts from the Islamic writers paint the Muslims as

victims of barbaric and undeserved attacks. They also credit the

limited success of the Crusaders to fighting within their own

ranks, keeping the Muslim leaders distracted. Their total

annihilation of cities on one hand, while at other moments

showing tolerance to those of different backgrounds, appears to

contradict their command of jihad. Yet the reader cannot ignore

the fact that accounts of the Crusaders record more widespread

devastation and immorality than their Muslim opponents.

Considering the centuries of slaughter before the crusades, the

Sunnis and Shiites lose their supposed advantage. The fact that

Muslims could not wholly unite, while applauding the invasions as

a chance to further their own agenda, refutes their conclusion of

moral superiority.

CONCLUSION

The Crusades are a well-documented era of history depicting

wonderful and horrible acts in the name of religion. Christians

and Muslims of that day both were convinced they were doing the

will of their respective deity. Each side invested enormous

29

amounts of support and manpower in backing these claims. Both

were so confident of God being on their side that at times they

were willing to ignore their individual consciences in support of

the greater good. After all, with the support of so many

religious leaders, the ends had to justify the means!

When it was all said and done, neither side could proclaim

permanent victory. Each had committed tremendous violations of

their faith. The Muslims claimed the advantage of having more

permission according to their theological beliefs. The Crusaders

felt they were justified in the pursuit of cleansing God’s holy

city. In the end, nothing beneficial was universally established.

Scars remain to this day on both sides. Yet both camps can also

be extremely edified when studying the feats of the pure-hearted

of those days. Stories abound from both religions of admirable

feats we can still learn from!

30

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Haddad, Wadi Z. “The Crusaders through Muslim Eyes,” Muslim World 73, no. 3-4 (Jl-O 1983), p 234-252. Online: http://0-firstsearch.oclc.org.library.regent.edu/WebZ/FTFETCH?

sessionid=fsapp5-47548-g85h2oe2z45lwn:entitypagenum=6:0:rule=100:fetchtype=

31

fulltext:dbname=ATLA_FT:recno=27:resultset=1:ftformat=PDF:format=BI:isbillable=T

RUE:numrecs=1:isdirectarticle=FALSE:entityemailfullrecno=27:entityemailfullresultset =1:entityemailftfrom=ATLA_FT: [17 April 2010].

Hillenbrand, Carole. The Crusades: Islamic Perspectives. Edinburgh, Chicago: Routledge Publishers, 1999.

Moosa, Matti. “The Crusades: an Eastern Perspective, with Emphasis on Syriac Sources,” Muslim World 93, no 2 (Ap 2003), p 249-290. Online:http://0firstsearch.oclc.org.library.

regent.edu/WebZ/FTFETCH?sessionid=fsapp1-36445-g83wp0rf-l05w7v:entitypage

num=4:0:rule=100:fetchtype=fulltext:dbname=ATLA_FT:recno=1:resultset=1:ftformat

=PDF:format=BI:isbillable=TRUE:numrecs=1:isdirectarticle=FALSE:entityemailfullrecn

o=1:entityemailfullresultset=1:entityemailftfrom=ATLA_FT: [17 April 2010].

Prager, Dennis and Joseph Telushkin. Why the Jews?: the Reason for Anti-Semitism. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2003.

Riley-Smith, Johnathan. “Rethinking the Crusades,” First Things no. 101 (Mr 2000), 20-23. Online: http://0firstsearch.oclc.org.library.regent.edu/WebZ/FTFETCH?sessionid=

fsapp8-49281-g86p455o-hw6kiy:entitypagenum=4:0:rule=100:fetchtype=fulltext:

dbname=ATLA_FT:recno=20:resultset=1:ftformat=PDF:format=BI:isbillable=TRUE:

numrecs=1:isdirectarticle=FALSE:entityemailfullrecno=20:entityemailfullresultset=1:

32

entityemailftfrom=ATLA_FT: [17 April 2010].

Robinson, Scott. “To go among the Saracens: A Franciscan Composer’s Journey into the House of Islam,” Crosscurrents 56 no 3(Aut 2006), 413-423.Online:http://0firstsearch.oclc.org.

library.regent.edu/WebZ/FTFETCH?sessionid=fsapp5-47368-g85b1stu-gh6cmw:entity

pagenum=9:0:rule=100:fetchtype=fulltext:dbname=ATLA_FT:recno=6:resultset=2:ftfor

mat=PDF:format=BI:isbillable=TRUE:numrecs=1:isdirectarticle=FALSE:entityemailfull

recno=6:entityemailfullresultset=2:entityemailftfrom=ATLA_FT: [18April 2010].

Qualben, Lars P. A History of the Christian Church. New York: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1955.

Saint Francis of Assisi. “The Regula non-Bullata.” Online:http://www.francescanitor.org/letters/

non_bullata.pdf, pg. 7 [17 April 2010].

Stark, Rodney. Exploring the Religious Life. Baltimore: JHU Press, 2004.

Stark, Rodney. For the Glory of God: how Monotheism led to Reformations, Science, Witch- hunts, and the end of Slavery. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2003.

Stark, Rodney. One True God: Historical Consequences of Monotheism. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2003.