Deus Vult: In Defence of the

Crusades
The Crusades have, for many years, been a contentious issue among
Christian and non-Christian alike. For many years, the Crusades have been marked
as unjustifiably violent, and a misinterpretation of Gods will and of his word. I
disagree with this belief. The Crusades (at least the first one) were justified, and
were necessary for the survival of both Europe and Christianity, as God willed. The
Crusades were a defence against Islamic degeneracy and a fulfillment of Gods call
for faith, rather than an epitome of intolerance and power-madness as they are
portrayed today, even among Christians.
To understand the Crusades, we must view the background to these titanic
struggles. During the centuries before the Crusades, the Mohammedan threat had
become increasingly prevalent. First, the Moslems seized the Holy Land from the
Eastern Roman Empire, a Christian nation. Fundamentally, Islam is a civilization
born in violence and spread through violence. Islam left its initial borders by the
sword and in the power of the sword. Islam is a religion of the sword, and Jihad is
the sanctified method of spreading Islam. Islam is a religion of global conquest, and
always fundamentally has been. While Christians and Jews may exist under Islamic
rule, Islams goal is fundamentally the destruction of all non-Islamic nations in
favour of a united, global, Islamic empire. Islam is thus the globalist religion of the
anti-Christ, and is nothing short of Satanic. This was the situation that Europe found
itself in. First, the Muslims attacked Byzantium, sweeping through the Holy Land and
North Africa. Then, they conquered Spain, a Christian kingdom, levied intolerable
taxes upon the Christians there that left them in a position of constant fear and
submission, and then attempted to invade France. It was Charlemagnes father,
Clovis, who stopped the Islamic horde and its goal of totally crushing Christianity
underfoot.
The early Islamic Empires operated under Sharia law, the body of Islamic law
that regulates and controls every single aspect of life for every individual in Islamic
lands. These laws forbid the proclamation of the gospel, demands the execution of
those who convert from Islam (to Christianity, for example), beheading for criticizing
Muhammad (which essentially means preaching against Islam in any capacity), and
the conversion by force of the infidels. This is seen clearly throughout Islamic
conduct both in the past and today. The Muslims levied steep taxes against
Christians, called the Jizya, making it difficult for them to survive, or to do anything
save toil until they converted or died. The Mohammedan under the Turkish Ottoman
Empire kidnapped Christian children and forced them through violence to convert to
Islam, and thus unleashed them against Europe in bloodthirsty Jihad. The Moslem
made policy from profiteering off of Christian pilgrims and believers, and it is for this

singular purpose that Christians were not totally exterminated in Christian lands. In
light of Islamic persecution of Christians, it would simply be unrighteous to feel no
anger over the persecution of our brothers in Christ. Fundamentally, it was and is a
Christian duty to defend the Church and the gospel when it is threatened with the
sword, as it continues to be to this day, by Moslems, no less. The Crusades were a
direct response to the violence and murderousness of the Muslim. The yoke of
Islamic law even lay heavily upon the Moslem, as it managed every aspect of his
life, and threatened him with death at every point. It was for this reason that the
Crusaders were dislodged not from discontented Muslims inside the Holy Land, but
jihading Muslims from without.
No where is this perspective more apparent than in Pope Urbans sermon to
the Crusaders in which he declares: From the confines of Jerusalem and the city of
Constantinople a horrible tale has gone forth and very frequently has been brought
to our ears, namely, that a race from the kingdom of the Persians, an accursed race,
a race utterly alienated from God, a generation forsooth which has not directed its
heart and has not entrusted its spirit to God, has invaded the lands of those
Christians and has depopulated them by the sword, pillage and fire; it has led away
a part of the captives into its own country, and a part it has destroyed by cruel
tortures; it has either entirely destroyed the churches of God or appropriated them
for the rites of its own religion. They destroy the altars, after having defiled them
with their uncleanness.
The First Crusade was above all an act of love. Unlike the common portrayal,
the First Crusade was not for wealth, power or anything of the sort. The truth of the
matter is simply that called together in the name of Christ and his Church, his
people to deliver the groaning and tormented Christian peoples of the Holy Land,
the Crusaders gave up both wealth and their very lives for the purpose of fulfilling
Christs command to love ones neighbour. This is not unprecedented in scripture,
and the removal of infidels and their abominations is common in the Old Testament,
which points forward to Christ and forms a foundational point of our moral law.
Josiah, King of Israel, without the command of God outside of his law, went and
burned down the temples of the Baalite infidels, kicked in the doors of the
sodomites, and evicted wholesale from Israel the unclean idols of the false religions
(2 Kings 23). God blessed him for this, and in no uncertain words called him a
righteous king. This is the same God who died for his own upon the cross.
Crusading by its nature, if done correctly, is an act of self sacrifice. It is a
commitment to protect the Holy Church of our almighty Lord and Saviour God, Jesus
Christ (regenerated believers). Crusading is giving up home, comfort and
possessions to defend the Church against the violence and persecution of the
enemy. The Bible does not condemn self defence, and in fact, Christ specifically
commands his disciples to buy swords for themselves for the sake of self defence:
But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let
the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one. (Luke 22:36) Additionally, the

Lord God specifically called David, a man of blood, a warrior-king, one who brought
kingdoms to the ground and slaughtered armies, a man after his own heart (Acts
13:22). David did what was necessary and expected to further the doctrine and
word of God against the degeneracy and tyranny of the outsiders, and himself
declares, Blessed be the Lord, my rock, who trains my hands for war, and my
fingers for battle; (Psalm 144:1). Christians are called to resist evil, as Like a
muddied spring or a polluted fountain is a righteous man who gives way before the
wicked. (Proverbs 25:26). Thus, Crusading in defence of Gods own Christendom,
and for the sake of the safety and security of others is not something that God
seems to condemn in any capacity.
Many criticize the conduct of the Crusaders, especially at the Siege of
Jerusalem, but the truth is that the Crusaders acted in accordance with the customs
and laws of the time. Traditionally, if a city did not surrender, its inhabitants were
punished as enemies, and the responsibility for the carnage fell on the heads of
those who refused to surrender. This was exactly what happened in Jerusalem, in
which the Crusaders drove the garrison before them, as the Moslems had not asked
for terms of surrender beforehand, and were thus considered hostile. This was also
true of the populace of the city, which had not pressed for surrender, and whose
allegiance was shadowy, and were thus also punished as enemies. In fact, when the
Crusaders drove the Muslim defenders into one of their many temples, these
Muslims and the fief lord of Jerusalem asked for terms of surrender, graciously
given, and ransomed their lives. The Crusaders allowed them leave unmolested by
the main gate, as even Muslim historian Ibn Al-Athir admits to through his fantastic
bias: A band of Muslims barricaded themselves into the Oratory of David and
fought on for several days. They were granted their lives in return for surrendering.
The Franks honored their word, and the group left by night for Ascalon. Today, the
casualty figure of 70,000 is found to be wildly exaggerated, and in fact, most of the
people in the city were not slaughtered, but were instead conscripted to bury or
burn the bodies of Crusader and Muslim alike. In all regards, conduct in Jerusalem
was typical, and was in no way unprecedented in its scale or brutality. It was merely
a reality of war, despite fantastic tales of butchery and infant massacre. It was
certainly more merciful than Islamic conduct during the sieges of Jerusalem and
Antioch, in which Christians were forced out of these cities to force the starving
Crusaders to share their meagre supplies. Many of these civilians starved alongside
the Crusaders, but remain overlooked to this day by foul and hypocritical Liberals
who continue to trump up and exaggerate the supposed savagery of Crusader
conduct while ignoring the worse atrocities committed by the infidel Moslem.
The Crusades were an act of faith, undertaken in the fundamental belief that
God desired the defence of his people. The Crusades were conducted in the typical
manner of all wars of the time, and were a direct and wholly just response to the
persecution of Christians by the Muslims and Islamic aggression against Christian
lands. To this very day, Crusades remain desirable. Today, the old scourge of Islam

continues to plague the Christian Church in the form of the Islamic State, which
operates in the tradition of the old Caliphates, levying tremendous taxes against
Christian brothers, and murdering en masse those who resist. It is our duty as
Christians to defend these brethren from the benighted and profane talons of the
infidels as both an act of love and justice. Today, just as in 1099, the necessity for a
Crusade shines forth, and today, as in the past, God wills it.

Bibliography
"The Crusades From Christian, Jewish and Muslim Perspectives." (n.d.): n. pag. Philosophy Project.
Web. 23 Nov. 2016. <http://philosophyproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/The-Crusades%E2%80%93-From-Five-Perspectives-Christian-Jewish-and-Muslim.pdf>.
Ibrahim, Raymond. "Islamic Hate for the Christian Cross - Raymond Ibrahim." Raymond Ibrahim.
N.p., 06 Nov. 2016. Web. 23 Nov. 2016.
Madden, Thomas F. "The Real History of the Crusades." ChristianityToday.com. Christianity Today, 6
May 2005. Web. 23 Nov. 2016.
Proach, Deanna. "Siege of Jerusalem in 1099: Savage Massacre or Typical Post-Siege
Violence?" Crusades and Crusaders. N.p., 14 Dec. 2014. Web. 23 Nov. 2016.
"Should Christians Be Concerned about the Idea of Sharia Law?" GotQuestions.org. Got Questions,
18 Mar. 2016. Web. 23 Nov. 2016.