288
pages, HarperOne, ISBN-13: 978-0061582615
Very
few people have much good to say about the Crusades nowadays. Most think it was
a terrible blight on Christian history, and cannot be condoned or justified in
any way. Certainly during the past few centuries, Christianity has been
attacked, and people have sought to discredit the faith, partly on the basis of
the Crusades. In such an atmosphere, this book by Rodney Stark is as about as
revolutionary as they come. He takes head on myth after myth surrounding the
Crusades, and makes the case that the Crusades not only had a place, but were in
fact in many ways justifiable. He clearly demonstrates that modern histories
about the Crusades are among the great hatchet jobs of recent times.
Dispelling
the many myths about the Crusades takes guts, and someone with the right
intellectual and academic qualifications. Stark is certainly the man for the
job: he has become one of our finest writers on the sociology and history of
religion, and is unafraid to go against the tide. In this important volume he
debunks the historical revisionism (which is often coupled with anti-Christian
bigotry) about the Crusades to offer us a more sober and clear picture of what
in fact took place. He notes that it was especially during the time of the
Enlightenment and onwards that critics claimed that the Crusaders were mainly
Western imperialists, those who set out after land and loot. Moreover, the
contrast is often made between the bloodthirsty barbaric Christians, and the
peace-loving Muslims. But as Stark persuasively documents, none of this is
close to the truth. The real story is this: the Crusades were certainly
provoked, and the Crusaders were mainly concerned to free the Holy Lands from
Muslim oppression and to protect religious pilgrims who travelled there.
Indeed,
to properly understand the Crusades, a lot of background information needs to
be considered. That is why Stark spends the first hundred pages of his book
looking at the 600-year period of Muslim conquests and dhimmitude. The story of
course begins in the seventh century when Muslim armies swept over the Middle
East, North Africa, and southern Europe. One Christian land after another was
attacked and conquered by advancing Muslim armies. Stark reminds us that
Muhammad told his followers, “I was ordered to fight all men until they say ‘There
is no god but Allah.’” Therefore a century after his death vast swathes of
territory hung under the bloody sword of Islam.
And
what of the conquered Christians living under Islamic rule? They, along with
Jews, were known as dhimmis. While
revisionist historians and Muslim apologists speak of Muslim tolerance here,
the “truth about life under Muslim rule is quite different.” Indeed, the
subject peoples had few options: death, enslavement or conversion was the only
avenues open to them. Dhimmitude was no picnic. Death was the fate of anyone
who dared to convert out of Islam. No churches or synagogues could be built.
There was to be no public praying or reading of Scripture. They were at best
treated as second-class citizens, and at worst, punished and killed. And
massacres of Jews and Christians were quite common in the centuries leading up
to the Crusades. In 1032-1033 in Morocco alone, there were over six thousand
Jews murdered. Jerusalem fell to the Muslims in 638. The Dome of the Rock was
built from 685 to 691, and churches and synagogues were leveled in the ensuing
centuries. The condition of Christians in Jerusalem was pretty appalling during
this period, as was the plight of penitent pilgrims seeking to enter Jerusalem.
They suffered much persecution, and risked their lives simply to travel to the
holy city. The destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher – along with
thousands of other Christian churches – under the bloody reign of Tariq
al-Hakim at the end of the first millennia simply served as the climax to all
this misery and outrage.
It
is in this light of six centuries of Islamic conquest, bloodshed and tyranny
that the Crusades must be viewed. They were not always pretty, but life in
general back then was not pretty. If Crusader excesses took place, this was
just par for the course, as excesses by Muslims and others were more than
commonplace. As Stark reminds us, “Granted, it was a cruel and bloody age, but
nothing is to be gained either in terms of moral insights or historical
comprehension by anachronistically imposing the Geneva Convention on these
times.”
He
looks at the various Crusades, dealing with the host of mythologies that have
grown up around them. One is the fanciful depiction of Saladin as some gallant,
humane Muslim resisting those bloodthirsty Christians. For example, when he
re-conquered Jerusalem in 1187, the city was spared a massacre. But the rules
of warfare back then stipulated that cities would be spared if they were not
forced to be taken by storm. So while bloodshed was limited, “half the city's
Latin Christian residents were marched away to the slave markets”. And Jerusalem
was the exception to Saladin's normal style. Savage butchery of his enemies was
his usual habit. Indeed, he had been looking forward to massacring the
inhabitant of Jerusalem, but a compromise was struck which prevented this. But
he had plenty of other opportunities to let the blood flow freely, often at his
own hand.
Then
there is the myth that the Crusades have been a longstanding grievance amongst
Muslims. Not so argues Stark: “Muslim antagonism about the Crusades did not
appear until about 1900, in reaction against the decline of the Ottoman Empire”.
Christians
today can well argue whether the Crusades were in fact warranted. But any such
discussion about the pros and cons of the matter must be made under a clear
understanding of what exactly transpired and why. This book admirably serves
that purpose, and must be the starting point for any future debates over the
topic.
No comments:
Post a Comment