Muslim conquests and demise of the Islamic empire
In Part I the origins and explosive growth of the Islamic empire in the seventh and eighth centuries were described. Muslim domination of its distant empires waxed and waned over the course of its twelve centuries of war on the world. In 1672, the forces of the Muslim caliph Mu-Awiyah (previously mentioned in Part II) ruling from his capital in Damascus decided to attack Constantinople, the capital of the Byzantine Empire (today known as Istanbul). Sailing from the Syrian coast, Muslim ships entered the Dardanelles and moved north through the narrow strait that connects the Mediterranean with the Marmara Sea. At the north end of the Dardanelles lay Constantinople, gateway to the Balkans from which a Muslim victory would have allowed the invaders to attack all of Europe. The defenders of Constantinople easily defeated the Muslims who were forced to cede recently conquered islands in the Aegean and pay tribute. In one of the world’s most consequential battles, all of Europe was saved from Muslim domination. This was the first major defeat of Muslim forces. Soon the Muslim hold on Spain began to ebb, and they were driven from Sicily and Southern Italy.[1] True to their mission of world domination, Muslim conquerors driven out in one area would regroup, conquer, and subjugate other lands and occasionally reconquer lands once held but lost.
For a thousand years Muslims had conquered and subjugated non-Muslims on much of three continents stretching from Spain to portions of India. Their military victories and success in eventual subjugation and establishment of Muslim cultures reinforced their unwavering belief in and allegiance to Islam. The Muslim world’s arrogant confidence rested on the power of the sword, but the sword was also expertly wielded by a short-in-stature infidel from the heart of Europe. In 1798, Napoleon Bonaparte struck a blow at the center of the Muslim world that eventually led to its historic collapse. The little French dictator easily conquered Egypt which quickly led to the defeat and colonization of much of the remainder of the Muslim empire by a number of European powers.[2]
Over the centuries, it was Muslim power that dictated what was to be considered right. But when Muslim power failed in the early nineteenth century, they began to imitate many Western ideas including politics, government, customs, outward appearance, and dress. Reeling from the catastrophic collapse of its empire, Muslims began to question their fidelity to the Qur’an and Sharia law. All things Muslim began to appear outdated relics of another age, and many countries such as Turkey began distancing themselves from their Muslim past. According to noted author and journalist Raymond Ibrahim, the Westernization of many countries in the former Muslim empire introduced what he called the “Christian Golden Age” during the colonial and post-colonial years of 1850-1950. Greater freedoms and reduced oppression by the Muslim majority resulted from the direct liberation and protection of Christians by the now dominate European overlords. More importantly, Ibrahim attributes the diminished subjugation and oppression of Christians to a growing Muslim rejection of their former Islamic identities, mentality, and ways of life.[3]
The Crusades
Provoked by four centuries of Muslim wars to conquer and colonize the West, the Crusades were Christian Europe’s response to Muslim plunder, rape, murder, and brutalization from one end of the known world to the other to accomplish their stated goal of world domination under an Islamic caliphate. The Crusades were a series of campaigns that occurred between 1095 and 1291 and intended to end Islam’s brutal control of the Holy Land. At the time of the first campaign, much of what once were Christian territories had been under Muslim domination for four hundred years: the Middle East, Egypt, all of North Africa, Spain, southern Italy, and the major islands of the Mediterranean.[4]
The first Crusade was prompted by a plea for help from Byzantium emperor Alexius Comnenus to Pope Urban II. The letter requested that Europe’s Roman Christians send troops to aid their Eastern Orthodox brethren in repelling the Seljak Turks (recent converts to Islam) that threatened Constantinople. The letter also described the ghastly tortures, rapes, and murders of Christians on pilgrimage to the Holy Land and desecration and destruction of Christian churches and Holy sites. Although there were many disagreements on lifestyle and cultural heritage that separated the two branches of Christianity, they stood on common ground in their opposition to the marauding Muslim aggressors.[5]
On a day in late November of 1095, Pope Urban mounted a platform in a meadow outside the city of Clermont, France, to present the Byzantium emperor’s request for assistance. The Pope gazed across the immense crowd that spread in all directions. With a powerful and expressive voice he began describing the conditions being experienced by their fellow believers at Constantinople and the persecutions of Christians on pilgrimage to the Holy Land. The crowd was stirred by the Pope’s passionate words, and plans were made to set out the following year to avenge Muslim wrongs and reclaim the Holy Land.[6]
In the exuberance and excitement of the moment, many in the crowd may not have understood the difficulties and hardships that lay ahead. But many of the nobles and knights present that day were not foolish or naïve for a number had made pilgrimages to the Holy Land or had close relatives or associates that had made the journey. They knew of the difficulties, cost, perils, hardships, and bloody battles that such a venture would entail in defeating the ferocious and determined Muslim foe.[7]
The Crusades were led by heads of families at immense personal cost with little hope or expectation of material reward. For the most part, the kingdoms established and maintained by the Crusaders for two hundred years did not produce material gain. This is confirmed by the fact that the colonies required large subsidies from the Crusaders’ homelands in Europe.[8]
How can one find moral equivalency between twelve centuries of Muslim conquest and domination with the five campaigns of the Crusaders? One cannot. It is more correct to say the heinousness of twelve centuries of consistent and concerted Muslim aggression over three continents far outweighs the sporadic Crusades over two centuries and which were confined to a relatively small area. This comparison is accurate and very illuminating but still seems unsatisfactory because it fails to speak to morality.
We must first clarify that good motives do not in themselves excuse immoral actions, but an examination of motives (good and bad) can determine if moral equivalency exists. Put another way, those with bad behavior that seek moral objectives are not morally equivalent to those with bad behavior that seek self-serving objectives. Therefore, to determine moral equivalency, we must look to the motives of the Muslims and Crusaders. What were their central motives? What drove their aggression?
As with all military conflicts between peoples, the motivations for war are not all the same. Many wars are fought to gain lands, booty, power, and forced conversions. This was the undeniable motive of Muslims which rested on a militant theocracy bent on world domination. At the other end of the spectrum, motives for war may include fighting to defend one’s homeland, to attain freedom, to advance a righteous cause (e.g., end slavery and suffering), or to achieve a host of other noble objectives that may still contain a degree of selflessness. It is only in examining motives for going to war that we can comparatively judge the morality of the combatants. The execution and events of war itself must be judged separately from the motives for going to war. Even when the motives for going to war are known, the acts of war itself may often cloud those motives in retrospect. Over the centuries the true motives of the Crusaders appear to have often become clouded in in the minds of modern historians.
It is in the failures of the Crusaders’ actions, often unfairly judged by modern standards, as opposed to a right understanding the principle motives driving the Crusades that has caused widespread denigration of Christianity and Western civilization over the last three hundred years. The Crusades began as a noble and holy mission, and many of the knights leading the expeditions viewed their endeavor as such. Their goal was to liberate the Holy Land and end the suffering and death being inflicted upon their fellow Christians. The Crusaders’ actions frequently fell short of their higher purposes for going to war. In spite of these shortcomings and failures, the details of history present a compelling confirmation of the worthy motivations of most Crusaders.[9]
In Part IV, the efforts of those that use the Crusades to make Christianity the moral equivalent to Islam will be exposed as falsehoods aimed at denigrating Christianity and Western civilization. More importantly, we shall present the moral superiority of Christianity over Islam through a comparison of the contributions of each for the betterment of the world.
Larry G. Johnson
Sources:
[1] Rodney Stark, God’s Battalions-The Case for the Crusades, (New York: Harper One, 2009), p. 36-37.
[2] Raymond Ibrahim, Crucified Again-Exposing Islam’s New War on Christians, (Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2013), p. 10.
[3] Ibid., p. 10-13.
[4] Stark, p. 9.
[5] Ibid., pp. 2-4.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid., p. 8.
[8] Ibid., p. 8.
[9] Ibid., pp. 117-118.
