https://issuesetc.org/2022/07/29/2101-christian-crusaders-raymond-ibrahim-7-29-22/
This was but another ridiculous interview I found on Issues
Etc., yet another case at the attempted rehabilitation of The Crusades. Ibrahim
inadvertently all but confesses that his work is not just revisionism but
hagiography focusing on the 'heroes' of The Crusades.
He engages in the same kind of anachronism that he accuses
his political opponents of. It must be granted that the modern secular academy
engages in such anachronism – judging historical epochs and events through the
lens of today's understanding and as such presents a rather skewed
interpretation of said events. The thoughts and commentary of the lost don't
concern me in this case, as it does Ibrahim because he has an obvious agenda he
wishes to push, and one that appeals to the Christian Church and tickles its sacralized
ears.
Unlike Ibrahim I wish to evaluate such questions not in terms
of the lens of Western so-called Christendom but through the New Testament.
From that perspective The Crusades can and ought to be rightly condemned as
thievery, deceit, and murder.
But Ibrahim's Church History narrative must also be
challenged as he (like most sacrally-minded historians) has chosen to ignore
the First Reformation and the underground which had (by all accounts) emerged
during the Crusading period. Groups such as the Waldenses condemned the
Crusades in premise and in fact. So there was a Christian witness against these
campaigns, (and the theology which undergirded them), even if it was but a minority
position. But that's always the case even today.
They were a murderous enterprise rooted in the false theology
of Roman Catholicism with its many errors and heresies. From pilgrimages and
indulgences to the notion of sacred places, relics, and even 'Christendom'
itself, the entire enterprise was misguided to say the very least. Ibrahim
chooses to ignore this testimony just as he chooses to ignore the wanton slaughter
that took place with the fall of Jerusalem in the First Crusade. I noticed his
omission in referencing that event and I don't believe it to be accidental.
He's interested in hagiography and as such the work is evidently of little or
no historical value.
Wilken as always is somewhat dull and has little to offer.
Historians rightly criticize the romanticised Roman Catholic narrative because
it cannot be argued that Norman, French, English, and German knights had some
right to 'reconquer' these lands – lands the Muslims had held at that point for
centuries. And the fact that when these lands were taken, these crusading lords
did not relinquish them to the Byzantine emperor but instead carved out
kingdoms in accordance with their own interests. These actions reveal their
true motives. Did some knights and pilgrims pursue crusade in sincerity?
Undoubtedly this is the case and yet this misguided zeal is nothing to
celebrate or justify. But it's also clear that many of the crusade leaders were
motivated by avarice. There's no doubt the epoch is filled with captivating
stories and a rich catalog of battlefield accomplishments and exciting events
but this doesn't make any of it Christian.
The most glaring problem to me is the way the term
'Christian' is thrown around. It's never defined and yet it's clear enough that
Ibrahim is not using the term in any way compatible with how it is defined in
the New Testament. His usage is cultural – a point that he as a Copt, might
even be willing to concede. From the standpoint of the New Testament and the
First Reformation, the system that produced The Crusades was evil and
anti-biblical and as such these events are rightly condemned.
And they certainly were a few decades ago. Both my wife and I
can testify to the fact that having grown up in Fundamentalist-Evangelical
circles, we can certainly remember when these events were not celebrated but
condemned as part of the dark catalogue of Roman Catholicism's evil deeds.
But all of this changed when Dominionism became dominant in
the 1990's and from that time forward the Middle Ages (or Dark Ages, depending
on how one reckons the period) was re-cast and with it The Crusades.
The knights from Western Europe had no more claim to those
lands than America would to conquer Greece in today's context – because it's
the 'birthplace of democracy'. Likewise would anyone accept Britain's claim to
reconquer the United States? That claim has more plausibility than the
Byzantine reconquest of the Levant, let alone the claims made by Norman and
English knights.
The entire episode was a farce. I refer to the Crusades, but
the statement could also refer to the Issues Etc. interview.
When it comes to Hunyadi, Vlad Tsepeș, Skanderbeg, and the others in Eastern Europe, their
resistance to Ottoman expansion has played into the Orthodox-Latin or East-West
divide. There's a great deal of bitterness and a sense of betrayal as the East
blocked Ottoman advancement but then slipped into centuries of subjugation even
while the West flourished in the flowering of the Renaissance. Ibrahim has also
(it would seem) chosen to ignore the great deal of scheming and backbiting that
took place in these circles. These were hardly pure warriors and in some cases
(such as Tsepeș/Dracula) they were sadistic mass
murderers. Certainly the Transylvania Saxons had no affection for Tsepeș. But Ibrahim clearly loves such 'holy' violence.
But again, there is a completely different perspective we can
take as Christians. For the both the Christians of the First Reformation and
the Magisterial Reformation it was preferable to live under the Turk as opposed
to the Habsburg. The whole idea of Christian 'domains' or the Church gaining or
losing 'territory' is rooted in erroneous thinking coloured by sacralism. Once
this heresy is dispensed with (and all the violence and mammon-ethics it rests
upon and produces) then at that point it matters little to Christians (in the
grand scheme of things) what sort of regime they live under. In the end it was
better to live under Muslim rule which required paying extra taxes versus
Catholic rule (or even later some Magisterial Protestant rule) wherein tax was
not enough. You were forced to conform and at the point of sword many were
compelled to worship against conscience and their children were put in danger.
In appealing to Hunyadi, Ibrahim ranges beyond the Crusades
in the Middle East and appeals to the Crusades in Europe, called to stop the
Ottoman advance. But the Crusades in Europe must also address the Baltic
conquests which were given a 'crusade' cover and then of course there are the
crusades waged against groups like the Cathars – which were campaigns of mass
murder. This is not to side with the Cathars but no Christian rooted in the New
Testament can celebrate the events in thirteenth century Southern France.
And the Crusade theology lived on as the campaigns against
the Hussites in the fifteenth century were also reckoned Crusades and still
retained the theology of battlefield killing for the sake of indulgence. Kill
the enemies of the Church and have your sins forgiven. Such a theology is straight
from the pit of hell and if Ibrahim and Wilken cannot see that – I just don't
know what to say.
Ibrahim (and Wilken) are to be pitied. He has served the
monied Right-wing political interests that back him but his thinking is not shaped
by Scripture and his reading of history is skewed to say the least – producing
a false reading, false conclusions, and certainly a deeply flawed application.
Medieval Catholicism continues to be rehabilitated but even this is backfiring to some extent as I believe this has played a role in Protestants converting to Rome and I contend it's only a matter of time before the Inquisition is rehabilitated by such hack historians – I've even heard hints of this from time to time. Secular and especially Catholic revisionist historians have already attempted to do this and as the American Right actually favours the premise of Inquisition (as seen in their apologias for McCarthyism), the notion of defending the institution and downplaying its violence isn't that much of a leap. And we can be sure that LPR and Wilken will be quick and eager to promote such filth. The real religion of both Ibrahim and Wilken is that of 'The West' – a false construct, a Christian heresy that is in reality a syncretism of Christianity, paganism, and Enlightenment thought packaged into a grand (but ultimately false) romantic narrative. It's a religion of power, mammon, and violence, a baptised version of the world dressed up in Christian costume. Woe to them and their disgusting defence of The Crusades.