Customer Reviews

Christian Jihad: Two Former Muslims Look at the Crusades and Killing in the Name of Christ

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(10)

 

 

Yes, people who don't want to hear the other side of the coin, from radical Islamicists to people pretending they know so much about the Crusades, but really don't, will not like this book. But I found it an intelligently written book that covers how the Crusades are looked at by former Muslims. If you want a fair & good treatment of the subject, this is the book for you. If you want to hear how all Christians are guilty for the Crusades and should grovel in shame, skip it. It truly is an interesting book, thus the reviews that hate it so much. Sometimes, the truth hurts. Caner does a very good job. Well written, factual & a good read.

I really enjoyed the work although I did disagree with some of the propositions. I thought the authors did a very good job of making their point that Christianity has much forgiveness to seek. I think as far as that goes, tis true.

But, I think many of the assertions are a bit of a stretch, for example the assertion that Pope Urban's call was a call for unprovoked aggression. Even the quotes the authors' use indicates that the Pope was trying to take the Holy Land BACK. Also, while I think the argument can be made that there were definite political advantages in Europe that The Crusades provided. However, I think it is a far harder argument to make that The Crusades were launched solely or even primarily for domestic political reasons. I think the authors fall a little short in both cases.

Also, I think the author's condemnation of Richard the Lion hearted is weak. While there is reason for modern Christiandom to not be proud of his treatment of the conquered, it must also be dealt within the time and the culture. According to the authors'; own account RTLH accepted the surrender of the city based upon conditions that the inhabitants knew they could not fulfill. RTLH by the standards of the day, merely lived up to his promise. From his point of view it may very well be that even though the locals dealt with him dishonestly and still kept the true Cross of Christ hidden he, in his generosity did not harm the women and children. In our time by our standards that would be absurd but in the day killing the men of a town or village that did not meet your demands is not all that uncommon.

Even with the faults that this work has it is an excellent read. I think for the most part the authors' try and succeed in showing the warts of Chistiandom in a respectful manner. The work has the feel of being an internal and kind criticism. Which comes as no surprise since that was the expressed intent of the authors.

In the introduction the authors state, "In fact, this book is a call for authenticity. True authenticity demands that we denounce acts in history in which innocent nonbelievers were slaughtered for the sole crime of being a nonbeliever. True authenticity demands that we confront and learn from dark chapters in the past."

I, for one, am not buying it. The Crusades were not a "Jihad". They were an attempt to restore Christian control of the Holy Land in order to stop the murder of Christians and the destruction of Christian churches there. Jihad is the Islamic fight to subjugate the entire world under the rule of Islam.

There is no such thing as a Christian "Jihad"

Around the time of the crusades, the spread of Islam by violent conquest stretched from Spain, across Africa, through the Middle East to Asia and India. Southern Italy, Greece, and parts of Eastern Europe had fallen and large parts of Europe were being threatened, especially Rome. Any fair assessment of the Crusades would allow that it was a plain and simple act of self defense. And an effective one at that.

The authors contend that, in order to be 'authentic', today's Christians must acknowledge the actions of a Pope nearly a thousand years ago which led to war and death in the Holy Land. This is absurd.

A similar error was made in comparing the Spanish Inquisition to a Jihad. The authors quickly connected this event to Pope Gregory IX who had been dead for a couple hundred years by this point in time. The fact is that the Spanish Inquisition was begun by King Ferdinand and Queen Isabel of Spain against the Pope's wishes. But for these authors the simple employment of a Dominican friar implies Church and Papal complicity.

This idea of a Christian 'Jihad' is badly conceived and poorly supported. Their previous book, "Unveiling Islam" was much better.

Well, historical truth would be nice for a change.

I am sick and tired of hearing anti-christian bigots site the crusades as the moral equivalent of a Muslim Jihad.

The truth is that the crusdaes were a "reaction" to militant Islam and not wars of conquest. Their stated goal was to recapture the holy lands for Christendom. Lands that were Christian for hundreds of years until they were taken by force by Islamic armies.

Did bad things happen? Duh - its a war...

But lets not say these were wars of conquest - they were actually wars of liberation that unfortunately (as we all can see in today's headlines) were unsuccessful. We are all paying the price...

On balance is a good book.

What a rich, intelligent, and inspiring book this is! Only a former Muslim converted to Christ could teach with such wisdom and compassion. The author is a sensitive soul who writes with conviction and strength.

The first title of the book is about the Crusades or 'Christian Jihad' and one would therefore expect to find a long condemnation of how CHristian holy war is the same as Muslim Jihad and thus Christianity is not 'innocent' and 'just as bad' as Jihadism. But then the second part of the title, 'former Muslims' distracts the reader and makes one wonder what exactly is being said here.

It seems the logic here is that Christianity is the religion of choice and has the potential to be better than Islam so long as Christians appologize for the Crusades and ask for forgiveness. But this presents an interesting question. If Muslims who left Islam want Christians to appologize so that the Christian faith can be cleansed of the 'sin' of the 'Christian Jihad' where is the acknowledgement of the Muslim Jihad and the Muslim need to ask for forgiveness, for instance for colonizing Eastern Europe and Spain and for the destruction of Christian communities in places such as Iraq, Anatolia, North Africa and the Holy Land.

In the end this book is interesting and poses interesting questions and makes an interesting comparison but the allegation that Christians need to repent for the Crusades is absurd. The modern Christian, especially Protestants have no connection to the Crusades and their theology is not connected to it.

Seth J. Frantzman

Another unveiling of the brutal savagery called Islam. Since its inception Islam has used the most vicious and insideous tactics in its goal of subjecting the non-muslim world to its yoke. The word Islam means submission , but that is another way of saying slavery. Mohamed considered himself the slave of Allah and he himself owned and traded slaves and he wanted the whole world to be enslaved to his ideology. This well written book is highly recommended for any one who wants to debunk the historical myths propagated by Islamic apologists.

I am nearly finished with this book and have found it very enlightening and thought provoking. In other reviews here I have read that there is no such thing as a Christian Jihad. Although that may be technically true with regards to semantics- I would challenge the idea that there is no such thing as a Christain Jihad in spiritual or ideological terms, as an American Indian and Christian who is well versed in history, politics and foreign policy. Christianity itself may not be completely responsible for the acts of Western Statist powers, but often we Christians have both enabled and condoned atrocities and war crimes in the name of patriotism. The dropping of atomic bombs on civilian populations in Japan and the holocaust of the First Nations of the Americas are two quick examples. With regards to the Mid-East we have signed off on policies that have both created and enabled the growth of terrorism for the last several decades. These would include the arming and enabling of Saddam, the brutal reign of the Shah in Iran and the eventual reaction to it, the arming and training of the Mujahideen which became al Quaeda, the enabling of the Taliban, the Iran-Contra scheme and so-on. The West has actively sought for the last 40 years to squelch secular nationalist governments throughout the Mid-East and thus allowed a space for radical Islam to grow in. Again, these things may not be the responsibilities of Christaianity per se...but inasmuch as the U.S. and many of her allies are considered "Christian Nations" with high concentrations of "Christians" in the populace as well as the leadership- the message of the Caner brothers is right on point and very important- if we wish to see a more peaceful and Christ-like world.

As Christians, we are supposed to be outside of and above the worldly mechanisms that help perpetuate the self sustaining cycle of violence, death and revenge. That is what is supposed to be different about us. Our signature message is supposed to be about universal salvation- not about empire building and ridding the world of evil-doers. The Caner brothers offer a fresh and poignant perspective on this.

Cont. I am finished with the book now.

I have noted that the jacket of this book has an endorsement from none other than Ann Coulter. This is actually based upon her endorsement of the other book the Caner brother's wrote entitled "Unveiling Islam: an Insider's Look At Muslim Life and Belief."

I find this to be very interesting and ironic. It seems Ann coulter, and I suspect many other "Christian" political types, jumped on the bandwagon because the book verifies many of the current fears concerning Islam. It talks about how the radicals belief in Jihad, violence and so forth has produced such horrific results. What strikes me as funny is that in this second book the Caner brothers reveal themselves as pacifists which would put them squarely at odds with the ideology of Ms. Coulter- some of whose quotes below will explain my vexation:

* Ann Coulter stated in her December 21 column that "I think the government
should be spying on all Arabs, engaging in torture as a televised spectator sport, dropping daisy cutters wantonly throughout the Middle East and sending liberals to Guantanamo." (this is about as un-Christian as it gets- but wait there's more)

* Commenting on radio host Melanie Morgan's assertion that if New York Times executive editor Bill Keller were convicted of treason she "would have no problem with him being sent to the gas chamber," Coulter said, "I prefer a firing squad, but I'm open to a debate on the method of execution." She later suggested that Times staff members should be "executed."

(Suspicion must always fall on those who attempt to silence their opponents.
~Ian Buckley)

* Coulter said of the media: "Would that it were so! ... That the American military were targeting journalists."

* Coulter suggested that Rep. John P. Murtha (D-PA) is "the reason soldiers invented fragging," -- military slang meaning the intentional killing of a member of one's own unit.

* Coulter argued that the national debate during the Monica Lewinsky controversy should not have focused on whether former President Bill Clinton "did it," but rather "whether to impeach or assassinate" him.

* Coulter said of Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens: "We need somebody to put rat poison in Justice Stevens's créme brulée.''

* Fox News host Sean Hannity* asked right-wing pundit Ann Coulter how she would propose to end Iran's nuclear activities if she "were president." Coulter replied: "How about we just ... carpet-bomb them so they can't build a transistor radio?" As Media Matters for America recently noted, Fox News host Neil Cavuto similarly wondered how a "President Ann Coulter" would view certain diplomatic overtures toward Israel from Hezbollah's leadership. Coulter noted that her "first act in office ... would be to deport all liberals" and then "deal with Israel."

* Hannity's response to this was jocular.

Chapter 1 of Christian Jihad contrasts Ms. Coulter's approach sharply. The 1st chapter is entitled "We Shed No Blood But Our Own". In it the Caners quote many of the early church fathers and theologians and assert that the only legitimate weapon a Christian disciple may wield is prayer.
They back this up not only with Biblical text- but also the sound reasoning of many early church fathers.
The Caner brothers explain in the book how it was that the pacifistic nature of Christianity is what attracted them and brought about their conversion. This story calls into serious question the attitude among MANY Christian Americans that there is simply no negotiation, no way of reaching Muslims. This contradicts the belief that Muslims are beyond reason, that they are irredeemable and the only thing that they respect and respond to is force and strength and dominance. This story calls into serious question the West's entire approach to the problem of radical Islamic fundamentalism and terror tactics. This story likewise calls into serious question the foreign policy approach that our government stands by even as we speak.

I recommend this book highly.

I must mention that someone with whom I have regular debates about Christianity and violence and warfare was recently promoting this book to me because they had seen a show about the Caner brothers and had latched on to the negative things the Caners had to say about Islam. He was apparently quite unaware that In Christian Jihad- the Caner brothers next take on Christian fundamentalism and its ties to violent expression. When I told him about the concept they had offered that stated the only legitimate weapon for a Christian was prayer his eyeballs nearly did a 360 in their sockets. Forgive me for finding this somewhat amusing.

At any rate this is an excellent read.
p.s.

Also, it is worth noting that by the end of the book the Caner brothers express support for both the war in Afghanistan and in Iraq. I wonder if they feel the same way about it a few years and a river of blood later.

As one who has read Dr Caners other book Unveiling Islam; I would suggest serious consideration be given this book. I speak with many who are uninformed of the history of Islam let alone todays current situation as to why Muslims feel the way they do to the west and Christians. I would futher suggest "From Babel to Dragomans" by Bernard Lewis to expand upon your understanding of Islam and the rest of the Middle East.

Christian Jihad : unfinished tasks.

"Do not predict the ending from the beginning." It was true for this book I read. Yet found not only true for this book but for everything in nature we never know how God is going to use what and how the means for His purpose.

I started off thinking, `Isn't Crusade a history? Does it really have a valid story to tell more about it in retrospect for our age?' I was totally wrong it is not only containing the valid story but also the very task, which was misunderstood and thus miscarried in Jesus' own name, is still carried by so-called, we-Christians. And the retaliation from the opposite is definitely acting and reacting on behalf.

"Hoc est corpus meum." Today is the Good Friday. Remembering His sufficient blood shed and crucified body for the salvation of all. Although standing over the shoulders looking out is clear it must have been confusing to them even to the very early Church Fathers; while Tertullian said Christians to participate in the military is to have a dual citizenship, serving Ceasar with Christ. However Origen thought it can be a lawful thing, argued isn't the spiritual battle more brutal?

Some acts of your forefathers you hated often you realize that you eventually doing the same. Chapters two and onwards show that how Christians has been persecuted by different means, especially governments. And soon when the Constantine empire embraced Christianity; church-state oneness, no Christian found necessity of dying for their faith. Easy-believism came along.

"Deus Volt Deus Volt" This is one very thing really triggers my mind to look up the bible even in my day of my very life. So many times this has been used to justify their act and even more often used out of context. Unban II's fascinating preaching gathered all the troops to go for the Holy Land. How plausible it is. Yes, that's true I despise the liberal theology, not the men. Some little flaw or one little tiny chasm and even jot of tittle of compromise for God's truth and His true meaning background in professing the ultimate authority of the Scripture can really be spread into something you never intended. The brutality of the crusade made millennial impression about Christianity and even Bin Laden's speech makes so much sense and justice to the fanatics.

Yet it was interesting how the authors used Anabaptists as one of the attempt to recover form the wrong impression about easy believism and state-church brutality in sixteenth century. It just came short handed that time. (However we have many trained in that fashion in SWBTS so we still can have optimism in Him) The story goes on for the 150, 2,500 people who went on to the regions of those brutality of Crusades one millennium ago.

As finishing the book, I questioned what really Salvation is. How could all those brutality carried on in Jesus name and eventually one generation has to apologize for the act. Not saying they were all bad and we are all good. I am saying how can we please pursue the truth knowledge of the Gospel and bear the faith and keep the faith Jesus intended.

I want to conclude this review with one question. Tolerance and persecution are both two edged swords in my perspective. Authors seem to profess that the liberty of any religious acts should be tolerated and never be persecuted unless they broke the law or peace; of course this is very hard to define as well like the "hate-speech" vs. "freedom of speech". But in this fashion, I believe, we all came up with all kinds of ecumenical and perverted "love and embrace all" kind of Christianity. In some church, you witnessed, invite imams and monks to listen. We should definitely be either cold or hot, hot if possible, but not into to extremes please.


JC (Mt6;33)