Timing in publishing this follow-on, 700th post is exceptionally fascinating not only for its confirmation in directly related news from Washington but also in other details. I will explain in next post; meanwhile, may you too be blessed with insights as you read:

Continuing from Part 1 let’s consider further the revelatory ‘jigsaw piece’ found whilst musing upon satan’s strategy to avoid the Lake of Fire. It came whilst reading specialist historian Paul Crawford’s  Four Myths About The Crusades.  His solid, illuminating essay on president Bill Clinton’s unsound premise to his remarks on the 9/11 attack also apply to Barack Obama’s recently equating Christianity to Islamist butchery of Christians. Paul’s paper exposes falsehoods behind and adroitly disposes of the following:

• Myth #1: The Crusades represented an unprovoked attack by Western Christians on the Muslim world.
• Myth #2: Western Christians went on crusade because their greed led them to plunder Muslims in order to get rich.
• Myth #3: Crusaders were a cynical lot who did not really believe their own religious propaganda; rather, they had ulterior, materialistic motives.
• Myth #4: The Crusades taught Muslims to hate and attack Christians.

Part 1 of this post briefly summarised Myth #3 and I concluded:

“The period of the Enlightenment with its liberal intellectual and philosophical attitudes nourished a growing rejection of religion, agnosticism and atheism. So a jaundiced view of Christian scripture and history developed. Thus, the Western intelligentsia began to put a twist upon the Crusades.”

His paper deserves to be studied in full and in view of its importance in this part I shall quote more extensively, adding emphases where appropriate:

The Muslim Attitude to the Crusades

Dr Crawford begins answering Myth #4 by stating part of the answer lies in that for Myth #1 – ie. Muslims had attacked Christians for centuries ever since the inception of Islam. His answer to the first myth succinctly summarises what was happening, as itemised on 7 pages by Dr Bill Warner on Political Islam, and which show that ‘jihadic’ attacks and strategic advances occurred on average every 5 years for 460 years!

Paul continues by stating Muslims “needed no further incentive to continue (jihad). But there’s a more complicated answer here…”.

“…until quite recently, Muslims remembered the crusades as an instance in which they had beaten back a puny western Christian attack…(One) of Lawrence of Arabia’s letters (describes) a confrontation during post-World War I negotiations (over) a case for French interest in Syria going back to the crusades, which Faisal (later Faisal I of Iraq). dismissed with a cutting remark: “But, pardon me, which of us won the crusades?”

He goes on to state that before WW1 most Muslims had a similar, if any, attitude to the Crusades,

“…that is, when Muslims bothered to remember them at all, which was not often. Most of the Arabic-language historical writing on the crusades before the mid-19th century was produced by Arab Christians, not Muslims, and most of that was positive…There was no Arabic word for “crusades” until that period, either…It had not seemed important to Muslims to distinguish the crusades from other conflicts between Christianity and Islam…As Carole Hillenbrand has noted, “The Muslim response to the coming of the Crusades was initially one of apathy, compromise and preoccupation with internal problems”.

“The first Muslim crusade history did not appear until 1899. By that time, the Muslim world was rediscovering the crusades — but it was rediscovering them with a twist learned from Westerners.”

At this point our author has introduced a new angle: the influence of modern European schools of thought. This was covered in Part 1 of this post for the purpose of leading into an appreciation of how Muslims’  attitudes towards the Crusades  changed radically in the early decades of the 20th Century. As Crawford explains:

“At the same time, nationalism began to take root in the Muslim world. Arab nationalists borrowed the idea of a long-standing European campaign against them from the former European school of thought – missing the fact this was a serious mischaracterization of the crusades and using this distorted understanding as a way to generate support for their own agendas.

“This remained the case until the mid-20th century, when, in Riley-Smith’s words, “a renewed and militant Pan-Islamism” applied the more narrow goals of the Arab nationalists to a worldwide revival of what was then called Islamic fundamentalism and is now sometimes referred to, a bit clumsily, as jihadism.

“This led rather seamlessly to the rise of Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda, offering a view of the crusades so bizarre as to allow bin Laden to consider all Jews to be crusaders and the crusades to be a permanent and continuous feature of the West’s response to Islam.

“Bin Laden…is no more accurate in his view about the crusades than he is about the supposed perfect Islamic unity which he thinks Islam enjoyed before the baleful influence of Christianity intruded. But the irony is that he, and those millions of Muslims who accept his message, received that message originally from their perceived enemies: the West.

“So it was not the crusades that taught Islam to attack and hate Christians. Far from it. Those activities had preceded the crusades by a very long time, and stretch back to the inception of Islam. Rather, it was the West which taught Islam to hate the crusades. The irony is rich.”

Conclusion

The last leads Paul Crawford ‘back to the present’ in asking how much of president Bill Clinton’s Georgetown speech of 2001 was accurate, especially his emphatic assertion that the story of the Crusades was “still being told today in the Middle East and we are still paying for it!”.

“This is the most serious misstatement of the whole passage. What we are paying for is not the First Crusade, but western distortions of the crusades in the nineteenth century which were taught to, and taken up by, an insufficiently critical Muslim world.

In drawing everything together, this specialist in the history of the Crusades offers his opinion:

“The problems with Mr Clinton’s remarks indicate the pitfalls that await those who would attempt to explicate ancient or medieval texts without adequate historical awareness, and they illustrate very well what happens when one sets out to pick through the historical record for bits—distorted or merely selectively presented—which support one’s current political agenda. This sort of abuse of history has been distressingly familiar where the crusades are concerned.

Thank you Paul Crawford for such an excellent examination and clarification of a crucial current issue. (Paul is an Associate Professor at California University of Pennsylvania –  also see his bio at Queen Mary University of London, and The Intercollegiate Review.)

The Diabolical Spin

Clearly, as shown above, the “Father of Lies” has been spinning his worldwide web of deceit, to which a surprising confirmation has been given this week and will be revealed in the next post.

Out of the post-Reformation intellectual freedom that eventually led to the rejection of most Judeo-Christian values, was born an anti-Christian mind-set that deliberately warps any spiritual understanding. It eventually affected not only traditional Christian beliefs but also associated historical facts.

Into his engineered ungodliness Satan could sow seeds of disbelief to twist and poison intellectual integrity. This serves his strategy to disunite and weaken Christianity further by falsified history harnessed to intellectual dishonesty and arrogance to belittle, blame and persecute the church of Jesus Christ.

“But Jesus…”

UPDATE: current security concerns led to a relevant development upon this thesis, as revealed in Anti-terrorism summit confirms this week’s insight.

MORE: this theme develops further in 1 of 3: the ‘End-game’ gets ramped up a level.

[‘Hand Holding Puzzle Piece’ by Ponsulak, courtesy Freedigitalphotos.net]