Actually there are dhimmis who argue it both ways. Islamophile Karen Armstrong, for instance, tries to make the case in her writings that the Crusades were a feeble and ineffectual failure on the one hand, but on the other hand were somehow so horrifically devastating and traumatic to Islamic society that Muslims to this day just CAN'T GET OVER IT (and shouldn't be expected to).
Posted at 2008-04-07 09:14:21 [PermaLink]"Muslims to this day just CAN'T GET OVER IT "
Not just the Muslims.
Rabbi Ken Spiro:
"The Crusaders came to liberate the Holy Land from the "infidels" and woe to any Jews who stood in their way."
Volvi Goldberger 10/17/2007 12:53:00 AM
Crusades
"So much was the devastation brought upon the Jews and their communities by the Crusaders marching across Europe towards the Holy Land that a special prayer was formed in theyre memory which we still say today not realising the events surrounding this prayer.
The prayer is "Av Harachamim Shoichen Mroimim". First few lines translated: Father of Mercy who dwells in the firmament, In his great mercy he takes to himself with mercy The Pious, The Upright, and The Innocent The Holy Communities that rendered their lives on Sanctification of the Name, etc.
We Jews have long memories. So false is the religion of Cristianity that one can only imagine just how many Jews, men woman and children were murdered all in the name of Jesus over the centuries. [How many Christians did Stalin's Jews murder?] Over a million at the very least. Now imagine this said Jewish Jesus looking down on all this slaughter saying "But why, why is it that they kill and slaughter MY people, and all in MY name"? That alone is enough to make Christianity a false religion."
The Crusaders were definitely preo-Nazis. How else do you explain the animosity?
Oh right, I forgot.
"Jews fought side-by-side with Muslim soldiers to defend Jerusalem against the Crusaders."
Like so many episodes in history it is hard to absolutely categorize an event or incident.
All that I know, the Crusades were folly on the part of some Christians (Children's Crusade, its use by Venetians to eliminate their competition) and could be a disaster for Jew and Muslim alike.
But at the same time it was not always clear cut, sometimes Christians and Muslims allied against other Christians and Muslims. And, I suppose, that Jerusalem held significantly less importance to the Muslim caliphates than Mecca and Medina, which the Crusades couldn't have come close to touching. Not to mention that the Crusades did not impact a great proportion of the Islamic world, which extended from North Africa to, eventually, Indonesia.
Much of the modern middle eastern angst comes from the fall of the Ottoman empire and the experiences of the first part of 20th century. The Crusades are often interpreted through and used in the context of that history.
In fact, the most devastating blow to the Islamic Empire was the assault of the Mongol hordes. Ironically, the Mongols later converted to Islam -- but only after they had inflicted irreparable damage to the empire, which never recovered.
Don't hear much weeping and wailing about that, do you?