Crusades - History Channel


#1

It appears that the “History” Channel has presented a travesty of the Crusades in their new special “The Crescent and the Cross”.

Once again, in a distorted revisionist history, the Christians and the Church are presented as greedy, ruthless oppressors of peaceful cultured Muslims! Christian wrongdoings are described in lurid detail. Muslim ones glossed over or suppressed. We need to protest these sort of falsehoods as strongly as other religions would do.

Why do the Liberal establishment do this? All such distorted programming will do is back up the Bin Laden view of history and inflame Muslims with a false sense of grievance. Then the hotheads go off and look to kill a few christians.

This sort of distorted “history” doesn’t make Muslims face up to their own ill deeds. It just falsely paints the Christians as evil aggressors. In fact between 650 and 1700 AD Muslims invaded Syria, Palestine, Anatolia, Armenia, Byzantium, Greece, Hungary, Turkey, Lebanon, Tunisia, Serbia, Croatia, Egypt, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Morocco, France and Spain.

I really think the Church needs a department that will make formal objections to such distortions of history!


#2

Those pesky liberals! I suppose the native Hawaiians, the Maori, the Cherokees and the Nez Pierce must also have a false sense of grievance with the Christian Europeans took their land away from them. Thank goodness that the righteous conservatives are around to that tell these people that they are a bunch of whiners with no real reason to be upset.

Actually, I agree with the point that you are making, but I don’t accept the implication that “conservatives” are any more truthful in presenting the facts. The Iraq war is proof of that.“The victors write the history.”


#3

I stomached 15 minutes of it and then shut it off. It took almost no time at all to present the Catholic Church as inneffective, insignificant, political, deceitful and cunning.

…what’s new? The producers seem to feel the best ratings come from bashing the Catholics, or Christians in general.


#4

[quote=Matt16_18] Actually, I agree with the point that you are making, but I don’t accept the implication that “conservatives” are any more truthful in presenting the facts.
[/quote]

Maybe your exerience is different, but in mine, I see Christianity of all kinds presented frequently in a “documentary” or “historical” format that seem to have the intent to distort the truth.

Are you saying liberals and/or their beliefs are just as frequently portrayed in TV documentaries or on the History Channel or Dicovery Channel in an unfair and distorted way? If they are, I haven’t seen it. I don’t see that many liberal ideas are critiqued or examined on TV. Maybe they are…Perhaps you could provide a couple examples?

I do recall one documentary on John Kerry I think, and the media frenzied, reporting the obvious Bush tactic.


#5

I was angered by the portion about cannibalism. Some Crusaders did engage in cannibalism in one city they captured, and in the show they read the Crusader’s personal accounts of eating the Muslim dead. What they left out, however, is that it was only done after weeks of starvation, and the accounts point to this and the disgust the Crusaders felt at having to resort to such an action.

The show made it out that they just ate the Muslims because they were angry, which couldn’t be further from the truth. Not a single mention of the starvation during that segment, but instead there were apparently Muslim historians discussing how “if they ate the dead one day, maybe they would eat the living the next”. :banghead:

Worthless show, IMO.


#6

Grrrr…

On tonights episode it talked about the “Christianizing” of the Al-Aqsa Mosque, as if it was some kind of abuse of Islam. As if the Al-Aqsa Mosque was not built over the original Church of the Blessed Virgin. Again, no mention of the Islamic destruction and domination of Christian holy sites, only the Western “abuse” of Muslim holy places. Let’s just forget the fact that they were OUR Holy Places since the times before the Apostles. :banghead:


#7

YOUR holy places, THEIR holy places, the JEWS holy places. The three are inseperable. All three religions have ancient claims to that land and those sites.


#8

It kinda annoys me if any history of Catholicism is distorted. Just found a link about the real history of the crusades:
http://www.crisismagazine.com/april2002/cover.htm
and this one:crisismagazine.com/eletters/april12.htm


#9

YOUR holy places, THEIR holy places, the JEWS holy places. The three are inseperable. All three religions have ancient claims to that land and those sites.

Not familiar with Catholic doctrine or history? The Catholic Church never rejected the Jewish holy places; in fact the early Catholics worshipped in the Temple before it was destroyed by the pagan Romans. The Catholic Church has always considered itself a continuation of the People of Israel, and was originally a movement of Jews. Judaism and Catholicism are indeed inseperable, but Islam holds no traditional ties to either, except those espoused by Mohammed completely out of nowhere. All contemporary Jewish accounts hold that the Apostalic Christians were Jews, even in the writings of the Talmud and Flavius Josephus indicate this.

So yes, they were our holy places since before the birth of Jesus; the Jews before Christ, and the Apostalic Christians afterwards, form a single historical line. This is why, unlike the Muslims, we hold the Tanakh in the highest esteem, as well as honor our Patriarchs such as Moses and Abraham. You’d be hard pressed to find any of the pagan Arab tribes, whom Mohammed hailed from, regarding our places as the holiest of holy sites before he came along.


#10

I’ve just started to read The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades.
Should be interesting.


#11

[quote=Ghosty]Not familiar with Catholic doctrine or history? The Catholic Church never rejected the Jewish holy places; in fact the early Catholics worshipped in the Temple before it was destroyed by the pagan Romans. The Catholic Church has always considered itself a continuation of the People of Israel, and was originally a movement of Jews. Judaism and Catholicism are indeed inseperable, but Islam holds no traditional ties to either, except those espoused by Mohammed completely out of nowhere. All contemporary Jewish accounts hold that the Apostalic Christians were Jews, even in the writings of the Talmud and Flavius Josephus indicate this.

So yes, they were our holy places since before the birth of Jesus; the Jews before Christ, and the Apostalic Christians afterwards, form a single historical line. This is why, unlike the Muslims, we hold the Tanakh in the highest esteem, as well as honor our Patriarchs such as Moses and Abraham. You’d be hard pressed to find any of the pagan Arab tribes, whom Mohammed hailed from, regarding our places as the holiest of holy sites before he came along.
[/quote]

Well, since all three religions have the same God as the object of their devotion, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, I could see that based on all being derived from the line of Abraham that all three have a claim to the site. It is really remarkable to me that the three monotheistic religions of the world who honor and esteem the same God are involved in putting each other to the sword. Muslims dislike Jews and Christians. Israel has little use for Muslims aka Palistinians and so forth. Would seem more natural if it was the three of us against the rest of the world. I guess there is nothing stronger than hate between relatives in the same family.


#12

The interjection that really made me mad was…

‘and today there are many Catholics who still believe in the power of holy relics.’ :mad:


#13

The difference between Islam and Judeo-Christianity is that while Islam honors the God of Abraham, it has no direct connection to his faith or the Jewish people. Christianity, on the other hand, is best understood as a “sect” of Ancient Judaism that has survived alongside the Pharisiacal, or Rabbinical, sect.

The Apostalic Churches were undoubtedly founded by Jews, based on the Jewish teachings about the Messiah, and it was viewed not as a new teaching, but a fulfilment of the Messianic Prophecies. Islam, on the other hand, has absolutely no ties to traditional Jewish teaching or thought; it is a later development that claimed connection based on a new kind of reverence for the Jewish Patriarchs and Jesus. It was not based on a development within either Christianity or Rabbinical Judaism, but rather a revelation to an Arab pagan.

Peace and God bless!


#14

[quote=Ghosty]Grrrr…

On tonights episode it talked about the “Christianizing” of the Al-Aqsa Mosque, as if it was some kind of abuse of Islam. As if the Al-Aqsa Mosque was not built over the original Church of the Blessed Virgin. Again, no mention of the Islamic destruction and domination of Christian holy sites, only the Western “abuse” of Muslim holy places. Let’s just forget the fact that they were OUR Holy Places since the times before the Apostles. :banghead:
[/quote]

One of the first acts of “the Conqueror” in 1453 was to take over Santa Sophia and make it a mosque. By and large, the Arab commanders had refused to let Christians build churches.


#15

[quote=JimG]I’ve just started to read The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades.
Should be interesting.
[/quote]

The book arrived from Amazon on Saturday. Very interesting so far. It is a no holds barred expose on Islam. I especially like the “Books You’re not Suppose to Read” and the Muhammad vs. Jesus snippets in each chapter.

PF


#16

[quote=patrick456]It kinda annoys me if any history of Catholicism is distorted. Just found a link about the real history of the crusades:
http://www.crisismagazine.com/april2002/cover.htm
and this one:crisismagazine.com/eletters/april12.htm
[/quote]

Here are even more:
catholiceducation.org/links/search.cgi?query=crusades&submit.x=27&submit.y=17


#17

[quote=rwoehmke]Well, since all three religions have the same God as the object of their devotion, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, I could see that based on all being derived from the line of Abraham that all three have a claim to the site.
[/quote]

How do you see that. Jews and Christians were given that site by God. Moslems were given that site by the blood of the sword. Isn’t there a difference?

[quote=rwoehmke] I guess there is nothing stronger than hate between relatives in the same family.
[/quote]

Sad, but true. This is a lesson we learn time and time again. What are the bloodiest wars? Civil Wars, an oxymoron if I ever heard of one.

Notworthy


#18

[quote=JimG]I’ve just started to read The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades.
Should be interesting.
[/quote]

I just finished the book and it was very informative. It gave me a general understanding of Islam, the Crusades, and how they relate to todays jihad. The examples given and the “Books You’re not Suppose to Read” (of which I may buy a couple of them) are especially eye opening. The author held nothing back.

PF


#19

[quote=Ghosty]Grrrr…

On tonights episode it talked about the “Christianizing” of the Al-Aqsa Mosque, as if it was some kind of abuse of Islam. As if the Al-Aqsa Mosque was not built over the original Church of the Blessed Virgin. Again, no mention of the Islamic destruction and domination of Christian holy sites, only the Western “abuse” of Muslim holy places. Let’s just forget the fact that they were OUR Holy Places since the times before the Apostles. :banghead:
[/quote]

Peace be with you!

I’m taking a class this term in school entitled “Holy War in the Middle Ages: Christian and Muslim Perspectives” and it’s been great (I’m taking a break from reading “The Invention of the Crusades” by Christopher Tyerman, which I will be writing a critical book review of for my final paper). Fortunately I have a great teacher who is not biased against the Church.

I didn’t watch the show because I don’t have cable, but we talked about it in class briefly before it aired because someone brought in an advertisement for it. The class, by and large, was quite skeptical of the accuracy of the program based on its description. Anyway, on to your statement, Ghosty. I can’t believe they talked about “Christianizing” the Al-Aqsa Mosque. I have a document from an ARAB MUSLIM HISTORIAN who personally witnessed some Templars forceably remove a French Christian man from a mosque in Jerusalem (I believe it was the Al-Aqsa mosque) because he came in yelling obsenities at the Muslims and disrupting their prayer. This historian described the Templars being at the mosque all the time to make sure the Muslims were allowed to worship in peace.When Saladin took over Jerusalem he tore down every Christian symbol in the city.

Books I would recommend for study of the crusades:
The Crusades: A Reader edited by S.J. Allen and Emilie Amt. This book is a collection of primary sources from the crusades. No modern, revisionist history to be found in here!
Arab Historians of the Crusades trans. by Francesco Gabrieli
The Origin and the Idea of Crusade by Carl Erdmann. Not everyone agrees with his thesis, but every modern crusade historian addresses it.
I wouldn’t necessarily recommend The Invention of the Crusades by Christopher Tyermann unless you’re already familiar with the crusades. I’m only 50 pages into it (it’s 126 pages) and I’ve already got it all marked up and highlighted for things I’m going to pick apart in my review of it.
Combined with these sources, you can find many letters from Pope Gregory VII and I would recommend reading The Register of Gregory VII trans. by H.E.J. Cowdrey.


#20

No hands are clean-both sides were at war so people cannot blame the christians only or the muslims only.

It’s saddening that it was christians were being made the bad guys here. :frowning:


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.