ONE AWAITS MUSLIM CONTRITION FOR THE CONQUEST OF THE NEAR EAST, PERSIA, NORTH AFRICA, SINDH, SPAIN, SICILY, ASIA MINOR (ANATOLIA), NORTHERN INDIA AND THE BALKANS

Meanwhile the Archbishop of Canterbury thinks the Crusades were a Bad Thing.

The Crusades were a serious betrayal of Christian beliefs, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, said yesterday.

His comments, made in Pakistan, appeared to be an attempt to reassure Muslims that the Churches are anxious to avert confrontation between the West and Islamic states.

In the past he has warned western leaders, particularly President Bush, against using sensitive religious language such as the term "crusade" to justify the war against Iraq.

But his comments may anger traditionalists who will see them as another apology by a Christian leader for the past...

"Any modern attempt to revive a crusading ideal is not likely to be supported by most Christian believers."

The crusades began in 1095 when Pope Urban II called on western Christendom to take up the sword to "liberate the holy land" after Muslims effectively cut off Jerusalem from Christian pilgrims.

As an atheist traditionalist (this is Mark, not Damian) I am indeed angered.

I would just remind readers that the great spread of Islam by the sword started with the Arab Muslims' conquest of Jerusalem (then part of the Christian Eastern Roman Empire) in 636 and did not end until the defeat of the Muslim Ottoman Turks at the seige of Vienna in 1683.

Lest we forget.

Crusader states in the Levant from 1099-1291 are small beer by comparison and scarcely deserve the Archbishop's contrition.

By the way, one supposes the estate of Dwight D. Eisenhower should act to change the title of his book describing the liberation of western Europe, by allied forces under his command, from the Nazis. General Eisenhower called his book "Crusade in Europe".

Posted by markc at November 24, 2005 01:52 PM | TrackBack