Were the Crusades Justified? W/ Derya Little
Вставка
- Опубліковано 12 січ 2020
- I talk with Derya about growing up with an different narrative of the Crusades, and how differently Christianity is viewed in the Middle-East vs in the modern Western world. As Derya briefly mentions, the Crusades are probably not a great place to start when talking with Muslims. History should not be drawn with broad sweeping conjectures, but it does seem that the popular presented narrative of the Crusades as a brutal unprovoked slaughter is probably a gross misrepresentation.
-Thanks to our sponsors!!!-
💪Exodus 90: exodus90.com/mattfradd/
👁️Covenant Eyes: www.covenanteyes.com/ (use promo code: mattfradd)
🙏Hallow: hallow.app/mattfradd
🎥 Check out the Full Episode: • Derya Little | The Mat...
⭐ Derya's Website: Derya's Website: deryalittle.com/
Derya's Conversion Story: www.amazon.com/Islam-Christ-W...
Derya's New Book: www.amazon.com/gp/product/162...
📌 To support me on Patreon (Thank you! 😭): / mattfradd
📌 To follow me on Twitter: / mattfradd
📌 To follow me on Instagram: / mattfradd
📌 To follow me on Facebook: / mattfradd
*Roses* *are* *red,* *violets* *are* *blue,* *Aisha* *was* *nine,* *Muhammad* *was* *fifty-two.*
Josh Cruise 😆
Trumpy Bear speaks the truth.
@@sageseraph5035 LOL! Your the first person in a year and a half to notice my profile pic.
Actually Mohammed was 57 when he had sex with 9 year old Aisha.. 54 when he married her..
Lols
I once wrote an essay about the crusades. Friends and family who I discussed it with had no idea whatsoever that muslim armies marched at different times into Spain, France, Sicily and even up through Italy. Much of it was before the first crusade.
True but the Abassyd muslim invansions happened 200 years before the crusades, the empire broke into pieces by 740 AD and the first crusade happened in 940AD, so It would be like if the past colonies of the Europe invaded New York for the colonial past of the british empire, because christianity is an evil religion that wants to destroy all native faith trough violence and apply their own cultural traditions trough force.
So in a way the Muslims that took down the world trade center are doing their Jihad for the same reason the Crusaders set out to take Jerusalem, to settle greiviances for the opression of their ancestors and the constant treath of neo-colonialism.
Which is why the narrative shifted to crusades being evil.
yeah before the firs in fact hundreds of years before the first after which the muslim world fractured and was too consirned with fighting amongst themselfs to treaten chrisandom, lets not gloss over the fact the whole thing was Alexios's idea who simply wanted to use the crusaders to get back at the Seljuks
Conversation on the crusades starts at 3:54
Thanks👍
Before that, it is just Muslim-bashing.
thanks
@@butterflybeatles truth telling*
@@gxhcbchchvfhbxsddvp96trg The truth is that Muslims pray a lot more than Catholics. And they dress modestly. They have Christian virtues that Catholics used to have.
Short answer: yes, long answer: also yes
Long answer: Yeeeeeeeeeessssssss
so muslim attrocities at the time were also justified? Since by your logic it was simply in defence againts cristian barbarians from the west who killed every cristian jew or muslim in antioch and jerusalem?
@@tonyjoka2346 “Force is the supreme authority from which all other authorities are derived.” Yes anything anyone does is justified as long as they have the power to back it up. Just as the Turks have the right to Anatolia, so do would the Greeks if they invaded tomorrow and were able to conquer and hold it. If me and a dozen friends of mine were able to topple a third world country, we would be entitled to it if we were able to maintain control of it.
@@ftlfrog8738 so your cool with Russias invasion of Ukraine?
@@tonyjoka2346 yup
It is pretty simple the Holy Crusades were necessarily to defeat the infidels for the glory of Christ and His Church.
Apparently the largest catholic parish is in Dubai, United Arab Emirate. I've read numbers of 80.000 members.
The Crusades were a moral obligation of Christians at that time. Necessary for the defence of the Christian faith and the existence of the kingdom of God here on earth and also, to defend the beautiful European civilization which has shaped the world today. If not, the whole world might be Islam as we speak. Deus Vult. Viva Christo. From an African Christian. Love from Ghana
Correct. Thank you, Brother.
@@timothymcbrayer3069above all else it has to be remembered that they can't really be considered evil for participating in the Crusades themselves because they viewed it as fighting against literal devil worshipers. The Christians saw the Crusades as defending Christian land and people from an invading force who followed the gospel of a guy who advocated for at least cultural annihilation of their opponents. Plus, Mohammed was a nonce. He can rot for eternity.
this is not true by the 1095 the muslims world had stop expanding towards europe the exepection being the seljuks turks but the seljuk empire by 1095 was falling apart ( and one of the main reasons why the crusade was sucessfull)
Is that why they sack the Orthodox church.
Churches ain’t empty here in Milwaukee wi. Hail Christ Hail Mary
Hail Christ only brother. Only He is Lord. Mary is not Lord. She is your sister in the faith. A very holy woman yes, but still not God.
Jonathon doodle not according to my religion. Mary protects us and we are devoted to her. I’m a Catholic brother.
@@Tvyasa in your rosary you pray, "hail mary full of grace". Full of whose grace? Thr grace of our Lord Jesus Christ. Read the scriptures and the church fathers. They do not place mary on the same level as Christ at all.
Jonathon doodle why don’t you find a catholic priest and show him what I’ve said and listen to him. I’ve said nothing wrong. Be quiet. You don’t know what you’re saying
I don’t think she’s above Christ doodle
What do you think, folks? Were the crusades justified? And why?
Only the ones supported by the Vatican. Many were not and went really bad! But the Christian's still lost but they did give Europe enough time to recover and get stronger. Maybe we should have helped the eastern Church more though
Yes! The Crusades were a late (and ineffective) response to Muslim aggression to take back Christian lands and protect the way for pilgrimages. Individual men did bad things but the impetus and idea of the Crusades was correct, also fourth Crusade went off the rails and they attacked Byzantium so that one was nullified by the Pope.
@@joshcruise2657 Yes, 4th one was crazy! Is that the one that started by the youth?
Of course they weren't justified. The Crusaders killed more innocent people than all Islamic terrorists in the last 30 years combined.
@@LB_die_Kaapie The 4th Crusade started about a decade before what is known as the "Children's Crusade." The 4th Crusade was called for by the Pope to retake lost cities but then condemned by the Pope when the nobles who led it sacked Byzantium and famously put a prostitute on the throne of the Emperor to mock it.
That Pope died the same year the Children's crusade was launched. The "youth" is a better English translation than 'children,' but that's how it's been labelled in English history. It wasn't a military endeavor and quickly failed in a couple months.
Matt, what camera do you use??
I think one of the issues of the crusades was how they were carried out, because if you think about the average fighting crusader at the time and think about the reasons they were fighting is because a lot of them were told that all there sins would be forgiven if they go on crusade no matter what they did. So when you get men who have committed terrible sinful acts and are told that they can counting doing those acts and will be forgiven then a lot of innocent blood will be spilled (I’m not saying the Seljuks were saint they defiantly were not). Because them men going on crusade weren’t really made up of Europe’s most noble.
Yeah, another big problem is people imagine the Crusades to have been a lot more uniform and well organised than they really were.
@@kieranadamson3224 I think you explained what I said in such a better way, thank you.
@@Strawberry-12. yeah, I mean there was a literal ORPHAN CRUSADE which promptly got them all sold into slavery. I highly doubt that was some grand attempt at annihilating them Muslims.
A LOT of nobles fought as crusaders. So many, that it shifted scale of power between nobles and kings; classic feudalism has died and gave place to more authoritarian and centralized kingdoms and Empires.
the only thing that was wrong was that they failed
Where
They succeeded in Spain and in Prussia, and held the holy land for two centuries. To say they failed is a bit myopic.
@Daniel Abraham And what would be wrong with that?
@@butterflybeatles🙄 lots would be, but most importantly we would be condemnate for not believing in Jesus as God, that should be enough, but I would add that living without proper logos guiding your society is pretty bad too, though fornication would be encouraged by having 4 wives, which ngl is tempting, but wrong nonetheless
cope
They were justified in that up till the early 7th century, the Levant (Judea, Egypt, Samaria, Syria etc) were all controlled by the Christian Eastern Roman Empire. These lands were the origins of early Christianity. The Arabs came out of the Arabian peninsula and took Jerusalem in 637 AD and conquered other Christian cities like Demascus, Antioch and Alexandria in Egypt. The Arabs under Mohammed and later the Seljuk Turks controlled the Holy land, spreading across north Africa and into Spain. It wasn't until they were stopped by the Frankish army under Charles (the hammer) Martel that Christianity started pushing back against the spread of Islam into Europe.
BS, Mohammed(pbuh) died a few years before us Arab Muslims came out of the peninsuila Also for centuries the territories we conquered were majority christian but in less than a decade century was cleansed of Muslims and Islamic influence in-fact Syria, Egypt and Iraq still have major christian populations while Sicily and Iberia dont like at all also christians forced their religion in Germany, the Baltics and the America's, not to mention the horrible atrocities they commited against each other in 30 years war (1/3rd of Germanys population was wiped off).
Is the title a question or a statement?
The crusades are so justified we need another one
I live within walking distance of 6 different churches - and I live in the “Godless” SF Bay Area! 😋
Do you have a stigmata on your right hand, Matt?? 😉 Just playing..
You guys never even told us. Where did they justify? I want to know where! Also, what did they justify?
Pretty much the same way WW2 was justified.
@@TruePT it’s an outdated joke. They must have edited the title but originally it said “where the crusades justified?”
🙏🙇♂🙏.
So the Priest lied by arriving as a mechanic to deceive his real identity. Isn't lying a sin? Sorry i'm not trying to start something, thats just what i heard of the story
Joan of Arc disguised herself as a male.
@@KrustyKrabbz2 Did she lie by claiming to be Male or was it merely assumed by the disguise?
The point is, it's not a sin to lie if your life is in danger. Unless you're one of the Pharisees I suppose
@@KrustyKrabbz2 It is a sin. The ends don't justify the means, you know this. If someone put a gun to your head to commit a sinful act it would still be sinful even if it meant you not getting shot in the end which is the best outcome. All it would mean is that YOU wouldn't be culpable for that Sin as you were coerced. Culpability varies based on circumstance.
@@Paddy234 sorry, if a gun is held to my head and they demand to know where my children are, it's not a sin to give them a false location.
The crusades were something to be proud of. All of Europe would be Muslim if it weren't for the crusades. Calling the crusaders "evil" for waging war against the Muslims is the same as calling the Allies in WWII evil for fighting against the nazis.
Incorrect. All of Europe would’ve been muslim had it not been for the resilience of The Roman Empire.
Uh the muslims were having a civil war so no. The closest we came to converting Europe was in the 8th and maybe 15th/16th centuries and both of these dates are way after or before the crusades.
nice
i'd like to know what you mean by "justified" (im at least assuming that "morally justified" encompasses a bit more of your view). by this, is it meaning that you can't blame the Christians for what they did due to the circumstances? or that they did what they should have done (what they did was morally correct)? im not really sure to what extent you mean by "justified" with how much you support the crusaders, but i dont want to assume that you condone their actions.
There was a number of Crusades, a couple of them need to be condemned. But for the most part they were justified in that they were a response to Muslim invasions.
I'm more than a year late to answer, but the correct view is that the Crusades, in that they were defensive campaigns against an invading enemy, were justified. That doesn't mean that everything that every single crusader who belonged to the army was justified in all of their actions.
Stating that the Crusades were justified, only speaks about that they were defensive campaigns to repel an invading enemy. It doesn't go into the nuances of what any individual crusader did since that is beyond the point of the matter.
Oh wow, someone in the west knows about the christians birthday tatic to avoid being thrown in jail!
Yes.
Jesus would not have supported the crusades. We not to hate people we are to hate sin. Murder is a sin. Jesus would not have supported Murder.
"Just War Policy"
But self-defence ain’t a sin, as was the justification for the first crusade
@@fredd9340 Self defence isnt cleansing the entirety of Jerusalem from Muslims, Jews and some eastern christians.
I see that Matt removed the mirror.. 😁
Another scholar who would agree that Aisha was not six/nine in the paedophilia debate of the Prophet is Myriam François-Cerrah - remember the 12 yr. old Margaret in the phenomenal movie, Sense and Sensibility? Yup, that's her.
“As I was preaching” man, you can’t preach because you aren’t a member of the clergy.
Yes, laymen can preach too.
And he's not even a scholar or he wouldn't be so insulting about the religion of 2 billion people.
@Trolltician Glad you noticed that. I just think that smart people, in general, do not go around dismissing an entire religious tradition.
I hear a lot of Catholics here say that the crusades (especially the first crusade) was justified because of the Islam aggression towards Christendom. Isn't this exactly opposite of what Jesus said to do? Didn't Jesus say if someone slaps your right cheek to show him the other also? The rationale sounds a lot like revenge (at best) or just bare hatred (at worst). How could anyone say they respect what Jesus says and still think the crusades were justified?
St. Augustine was the originator of Just War theory, which describes the necessary conditions for a Christian ruler to conduct a war with justice. St. Thomas Aquinas reaffirmed the doctrine and it is still taught in the catechism today.
Remember that God not only passively permitted war, but actively commanded it in the old testament. War is a horrible thing that ought to be a last resort, and we should turn the other cheek when it is our cheek that is struck. Let me ask you this though: Should we sit by and do nothing as churches are plundered, the holy sacrament desecrated, and Christian women are raped? As priests are martyred and children sold into slavery? Because that is exactly what was happening in the land of our Lord's birth. When the temple was abused during the life of our Lord, he braided a cord and drove out the evil doers.
@@williamcrawford7621 Well to be honest, I don't think saying that "But I tell you not to resist an evil person. If someone slaps you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also" is terribly wise and I disagree with what Jesus said here. But as someone that think Jesus is God, you are bound to listen and do what he says. So when a Christian woman is raped, Jesus says to not resist that evil. I agree that it sounds horrible to do, but this bad advice is one reason I don't regard Jesus as divine.
So what if God commanded men to wars in the old testament and Jesus drove out evil doers? Jesus' sermon on the mount was a message for what men should do, God doesn't abide by the same rules.
@@tomandrews1429
Remember that Jesus said to cut out an eye if it causes you to sin. Yet, what Christian removes body parts to avoid sin? It turns out that Jesus understood elementary literary devices, like hyperbole, and employed them regularly like an actually competent public speaker should.
Of course, the precise meaning of our Lord's words has been debated for thousands of years. Only a handful of small denominations believe the literalistic interpretation that you believe all Christians should be bound to. If I took the words of our Lord in as plain and legalistically a framework as you do, I would probably deny the divinity of Him as well.
@@williamcrawford7621 Yes, I understand that not everything Jesus said was meant as literal, it was more the substance and meaning behind what Jesus said. The meaning behind the "Love your Enemies" section of Jesus' sermon on the mount is quite clear however even if what Jesus meant it non-literally.
If I am wrong, what is the meaning of Jesus saying "do not resist evil" and to "turn the other cheek" instead of fighting back? Or to give up your cloak as well if someone wants your coat?
@@tomandrews1429
Look to what He said during the sermon on the hill: Blessed are the peacemakers. Peace is always preferable to violence and forgiveness of enemies is a good thing. He demonstrated the most extreme example of His teaching by giving His life on the cross for the forgiveness of sins. That is what it means.