Crusade Violence Nayak

CRUSADE VIOLENCE:

UNDERSTANDING AND

OVERCOMING THE IMPACT OF

MISSION AMONG MUSLIMS

Abhijit Nayak

Abhijit Nayak ¿» currently engaged in podt-graduate dtudÍ£,)

at Vnœn Biblical Seminary, Pune, India.

AbstractThe events of the Crusades during the 11th, 12th and 15th centuries Jtand as obstacles in themidst of contemporary Christian-Muslim relationships, interaction and dialogue. These histori-cal unfortunate and painful events have resulted in hatred and suspicion between the two religionsand left an indelihle scar in Muslim and Christian minds. The effectó of the Crusades are numer-ous and damaging; the challenges for contemporary mission among Muslims are daunting. Thisarticle concerns itself with Crusade violence in the history of Christianity. After a brief descrip-tion of different examples of violence in the Crusades, this paper discusses how Christians viewedMuslims and vice versa and how they view each other today. It gives particular focus to influen-tial Christum figures, who during the time of the Crusades or afterwards disagreed wàh the mil-itarists approach of the Crusaders and launched peacekeeping and evangelistic missions toMuslims. Then, this essay addresses contemporary mission approaches to Muslims.

The Crusades' have been a topic of intense scholarly investigation for the last couple of

years. The series of unfortunate and painful events have been described as, black pages in

the history of the church and its relations with other peoples ^ The Crusades against

Saracens^ reversed the relationship between Christianity and Islam and created enormous

' The term did not become a description of the Christians who fought a holy war for the Holy Land until later.Crusaders usually called themselves "pilgrims". The Muslims call these wars the "Frankish Wars", whereasWestern historians call them the Crusades. Some of the renowned Crusade scholars are S. Runciman,A Huitory of the Criuades, Benjamin Z. Kedar, Criuade and Million (1984).

2 Herbert Kane. A Global View of ChrUttian Missions, Baker, Michigan 1971, p. 53.' The Christian records of the time all refer to the Muslims as "Saracens", from an Arabic term meaning

"Easterners". The t\vo words, Muslims and Saracens, will be used interchangeably in this essay.

273

INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF MISSION Vol. 97 No. 386/387, July/October 2008

damage. As Livingstone Huff observes, "Behind contemporary Christian-Muslim interac-

tion and dialogue lie centuries of crusade events that have resulted in misconception, mis-

understanding and mistrust.""* Therefore, it is an important task for Christians and Christian

missions to attempt to overcome the impact of the Crusades and to be aware of some of the

events and issues involved in the history of contact between Christianity and Islam.

Though there are various related important aspects of the Crusades, this essay will concern

itself with a series of violent Crusade events from an historical point of view. It will discuss

the perspectives of both Christians and Muslims involved in the Crusades, in terms of how

the two sides have viewed each other throughout history and how Muslims and Christians

view one other today. This essay will highlight the approach to mission of some particular-

ly influential Christian figures, who during the time of the Crusades and afterwards dis-

agreed with the militaristic approach of the Crusaders and launched peacekeeping and evan-

gelistic missions to the Muslims. Then, this essay will address contemporary mission

approaches to Muslims from a missiological viewpoint.

Understanding types of violence in the CrusadesThe word "violence" can be defined to extend far beyond pain and shedding blood. It car-

ries the meaning of physical force, violent language, fury and, more importantly, forcible

interference. The Crusades occurred in medieval Christianity and included all of the com-

ponents just listed.^ The late 1 Ith century marked the "opportunity for an entirely new and

dangerous development: holy war".^ Muslim rule over the Holy Land stood as a challenge

to the Christian faith. The armies of Islam captured the Holy Land "with lightning speed",

writes J. Herbert Kane. "They conquered Damascus (635), Antioch (636), Jerusalem

(638), Caesarea (640) and Alexandria (642)."^ At first, Muslim rule did not cause problems

for the Christians because most Muslim rulers were tolerant of the Christian presence in

their midst. The situation changed in 1009 when the caliph of Egypt, al-Hakim, destroyed

the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and Jews and Christians were forced to wear five-pound

^ Livingstone M. Huff, 'The Crusades and Colonial Imperialism: Some Historical Considerations ConcerningChristian-Muslim Interaction and ïyis\og\i^,*' Mûsiology 32/2, April 2004, p. 141.

^ There are dates for at least eight major crusades against Muslims: i) 1095-1099 (the people's Crusade,Jerusalem retaken from Muslims); ii) 1147-1149 (Jerusalem taken back by the Mushms); iii) 1189-1193(led by Richard the Lionheart); iv) 1202-1204 (led by Innocent III - the retaking of Constantinople notJerusalem); v) 1212-1221 (in which the children died); vi) 1228-1229 (Jerusalem retaken); vii) 1248-1254(Jerusalem taken back by the Muslims); viii) 1270-1272 (led by Edward of England). The Crusades endedwith the fall of Acre in 1291.

^ Benedicta Ward and C.R. Evans, "The Medieval West", Adrian Hastings, ed., A World History of Chriitianity,Eerdmans, Michigan, 2000, p. 137. The word "jihad" appears 44 times in the Qur'an. Nowhere is it usedin the sense of a \var. It is derived from the Arabic word juhd meaning to struggle, to strive. Contem-porary Muslim extremists use the word to refer to "holy war". See, "Unholy War", Tmus of India, (Pune),3 August 2008, p. 6.

'' J . Herbert Kane, A Concite HLitory of the Chr'utuin WorßMiiswn, Baker, Michigan 1980, p. 49.

274

Abhijit Nayak UNDERSTANDING AND OVERCOMING THE IMPACT OF MISSION AMONG MUSLIMS

wooden crosses around their necks. Muslims did not like al-Hakim or the nuisances he

caused; he was murdered in 1021.^ R.E.S. Tanner, a modern secular writer, claims that,

"Within the Islamic empire there was no particular pressure to convert Jews and Christians

who paid a special tax and they were tolerated and accepted as believers of an inferior faith,

which had been superseded by Islam; there were no particular persecutions organized and

supported by the state."' By 1076, Muslims had taken over Jerusalem and most of Palestine.

Christians never forgot the damage and persecution that resulted from the Crusades and

maintained the desire to recapture the sacred shrines of Jerusalem. The motive for the

Crusades was primarily religious.

Utterance of violent vv ords

Violent words delivered by top officials of the Catholic Church ignited fires in the hearts and

minds of Christians,'" who then declared crusades against the Saracens. It is no exaggeration

to state that the church's head. Pope Urban II, and not the Muslims, was probably the first to

sanction a "just war". He did so in 1095 at Clermont, when he stated, "I say it to those who are

present; I command that it be said to those who are absent: Christ commands it. All who go

thither and lose their lives, be it on the road or one the sea or in the fight against the pagans,

will be granted immediate forgiveness for their sins. This, I grant... by virtue of the great gift

which God has given me."" The slogan Deus vult (God wills it) became part and parcel of the

Crusade events. There were other important leaders besides Pope Urban. They included Peter

the Hermit, Bernard of Clairvaux, Pope Innocent III and Richard the Lionheart of England.

Bernard of Clairvaux, organizer of the second Crusade, preached violent words in his sermon.

In Praise of the Crusading Templers: "A new sort of army has appeared. It fights a double war, the

first against flesh and blood enemies; the second, the war of the Spirit against Satan and vice.

The soldiers of Christ kill with safety; he dies with more safely still. He serves Christ when he

kills; he serves himself when he is killed."' In 1140, Clairvaux wrote in a letter, "Oh mighty

soldier, oh men of war, you now have something to fight for. If you win, it will be glorious. If

you die in fighting for Jerusalem, you will win a place in heaven. Do not miss the opportuni-

ty. Take the sign of the cross and at once you will have forgiveness for the sins which you con-

fess."' These violent words were preached to justify the Crusades against Muslims.

8 Robert G. Tuttle. The Story of Emngcliim, Abingdon, Nashville, 2006, p. 183.' R.E.S. Tanner, Violence and Religion: CroM Cultural Opinion.! and ConMtjiunced, Concept, New Delhi, 2007,

p. 89.'" The term "Christians" here, of course, refers specifically to western Christians - Roman Catholics, for the

Eastern Orthodox Christians were themselves assaulted during the fourth Crusade, particularly in 1204." Justo L. Gonzalez, The Story of Chriitianity, Vol.1, Harper San Francisco, New York, 1984, p. 292.'2 A. Vanderpool, "St Bernard, Sermon in Praise of the Templers", Paris, 1919, p. 102, cited by Tanner, Violence

and Religion, op. cit., p. 101.'2 Paula Bartley and Hillary hourrA'iWon, MedievalIjlarn, Hodder & Stoughton, London, 1993, p. 55.

275

INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF MISSION Vol. 97 No. 386/387, July/October 2008

Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) was another important figure ofthe Crusading movement.

Innocent was determined to launch a new Crusade to recapture Jerusalem, which had been

in Muslim hands since 1187. He preached primarily to encourage the soldiers of Christ:

"Therefore, most beloved sons, gird yourselves for the service of the crucified one. Do not

hesitate to risk your possessions and your persons For him who laid down his life and shed

his blood for you. Be certain and secure that if you are truly penitent you will achieve eter-

nal rest as a reward from this temporal labour."''' Sermons on the Crusades were preached

from pulpits to recruit and strengthen the soldiers of Christ against the Saracens.

James of Vitry, the bishop of Acre, engaged in Crusade preaching around 1213. His preach-

ing contains violent words directed towards Saracens: "They will die a miserable death once

the Christian armies arrive in the near future and claim victory."'^ James wrote in a letter,

"Let them [Christians] praise the Lord. He subjected peoples under our dominion and put

the nations under our feet. The Lord has subjected them in these days to the holy church

and to the army ofthe Christians."'^ The message of James of Vitry was directed towards

Muslims so that they would accept Christianity as a result of their fear ofthe Crusaders from

the West. This amounts to conversion by force.

The preachers of the Crusades were powerful in communicating and advocating violence

through their violent words, though certainly some of the Crusade preachers thought of

their preaching as pious and containing noble ideals. Violent words were meant as a call to

re-conquer Jerusalem (religious motive) from the hand of "infidels". G.S. Windas, in his

article "The (Consecration of Violence", says, "Urban II offered to his quarrelsome

Christians the prospect of unlimited conquest in new lands, conquest sanctioned by the

highest moral authority: 'Let them cease to tear each other to pieces, disputing over insuffi-

cient land and march side by side in the name of Christ against the pagans.'"''' Though the

highest moral authorities, such as the pope and various preachers, did not go to the war zone

with sword yet they committed violence by their words, which provoked others to go and

kill Muslims.

Indirect violence in the CrusadesI previously defined violence to include actions that go beyond killing and shedding blood.

The first example of indirect violence in the Crusades is the displacement of the people.

During the Crusades, the displacement of the population created the problem of refugees,

which can be considered as indirect violence. Hadia Shakeel writes about this displacement

' J . Hoeberichts, FrancLi and Islam, Franciscans, Illinois 1997, p. 11.'5 Hoeberichts, op. cit., p. 36.i«Aí3., p. 38.•'' Paul Alphandéry, La Chrétienté et L'idée de Croitade, p. 66, cited by G.S. Windas, "The Consecration of

Violence", Cross Currents 15/1, winter, 1965, p. 10.

276

Abhifit Nayak UNDERSTANDING AND OVERCOMING THE IMPACT OF MISSION AMONG MUSLIMS

by taking into consideration both Jewish and Islamic sources: "Although mass massacres of

the Palestinians were committed by the Franks ... complete annihilation of the population

did not occur and the majority ,.. non-Christian natives of Palestine fled to safety m neigh-

bouring Syria ... [and] Iraq and a few seem to have fled to Khurasan. In some of the

instances, the majority or even the whole civilian population of the cities fled before the

occupation of the Franks."'^ Due to the Crusades, people fled to save their lives and became

refugees in another country or city. The refugees were usually ill treated in the foreign lands

and became victims of social, political and economic violence. Therefore, the Crusaders indi-

rectly caused violence to innocent ones, who were not killed but forced to flee.

The second example of indirect violence in the Crusades is people dying of hunger and

poverty. Tanner observes, "There is also indirect killing, where religious warfare destroys an

environment and many more die from starvation and disease than from the sword and gun,

as in the Christian siege of Damietta in AD 1219, when almost all the Muslim population

died of hunger."'^ Along with the Muslim population, the poor Crusaders (pilgrims) also

suffered. In one case, as the Crusaders victoriously entered a village, "Turks [Muslims]

destroyed the countryside so that the Crusaders could not find food and men and animals

began to die like flies. The poor pilgrims suffered particularly heavy causalities, as always,

and depended totally on the alms of knights and soldiers, who were themselves dramatical-

ly impoverished.''^" We also notice that children died from hunger during the fifth Crusade.

These all are examples of indirect effects of violence.

The legacy of brutalityThe legacy of the Crusades is as horrible as it is tragic. The Crusades caused "unspeakable

damages", writes Ruth A. Tucker; "Tens of thousands of lives were lost."^' These "unspeak-

able damages" are nothing else but killing, shedding blood, destruction and other conse-

crated violent acts. Robert Clouse describes the conquest of Jerusalem through the first

Crusade as a "frightful slaughter of the inhabitants".^^ This involved great numbers of sol-

diers, as Karen Armstrong recalls, "In the spring of 1096, five armies of about 60,000 sol-

diers, accompanied by a horde of non-combatant pilgrims, with their wives and families, set

off to the East. "2 The Crusaders were vigorous and enthusiastic. The killing was not just in

'^ Hadia Dajani-Shakeel, "Displacement of the Palestinians During the Crusades", Miulim World, 68/3, July

1978, p. 158." S. Oliver, Hiitoria Damiatana, Tubingen, 1984, pp. 6, 216, cited in Tanner, Violence and Religion, op, ca,, p. 6.™ Karen Armstrong, Holy War: The Crusades and Their Impact on Today's World, Doubleday, New York, 1992,

p. 159.21 Ruth A. Tucker, From .Jerusalem to Irian ,Iaya, Indian edition, OM Books, Secunderabad, 2005, p. 57.22 Robert G. Clouse, "Crusades", A. Scott Moreau, ed., EmngelicalDictionary of WorldMissbn, Baker, Michigan,

2000, p. 248.23 Karen Armstrong, op, cit,, p. 3.

277

INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF MISSION Vol. 97 No. 386/387, July/October 2008

an ordinary battle of conquest; the Crusaders had fallen upon the Muslims of Jerusalem and

slain them like the "avenging angels of the Apocalypse".24 The killing of people included the

local inhabitants, Jews and Eastern Christians. From Z. Oldenbourg's account of the

Crusades, Christine Mallhoui documented various forms of violence, which occurred in

1099:

The Crusaders rampaged through the alleys breaking down doors of houses andmosques and killing all who fell in their path: soldiers and then men, women, childrenand old people. A wild two-day massacre followed in which the Crusaders, numberingabout 10,000, exterminated most of the population of the city, killing nearly 40,000 peo-ple. The great majority were unarmed civilians. The Jewish community took refuge inthe synagogue but the Crusaders set it on fire and the entire Jewish community per-ished in flames. While the knights felt they had entered into paradise, two hundredyards outside men were still murdering each other blindly and savagely and wading inblood and trampling on corpses of thousands upon thousands belonging to peoplewhose skins were somewhat darker than their own and who did not dress likeChristians. The massacre of the population of Jerusalem filled the Muslim world withhorror. 2

In light of this, we can assert that the Crusades were brutal. Phil Parshall, a former mis-

sionary to Muslims in Bangladesh, writes of the Crusades, "An all-time low was reached in

Muslim-Christian relations when Crusaders ... marched forth into Muslim occupied lands

with terrible, destroying vengeance. The sons of Ishmael cringed before the powerful armies

of the West. Cities were ransacked, homes burned, women were raped and children

enslaved."2^ In addition to this account of violence, Earle C Cairns writes, "The Children's

Crusades of 1212 (the fifth Crusade) consisted of about a hundred thousand teens and

younger children... war and hunger killed many and most of the rest became slaves."^^

These innocent children may not have been aware of the motivations for the Crusades but

they were put on the frontline of the battlefield and the killing of those who died in battle is

evidence of violence against them. Thus, the violence of the Crusades affected both sides of

the conflict: Crusaders and Muslims.

We can compare the violence of the Crusades with the July 2008 bomb blasts in various

parts of India, which killed innocent adults and children. Violence always harms people. In

many cases, terrorist attacks, bomb blasts, and religious and communal violence bring dis-

aster and destruction and take away the lives of many innocent ones.

d., p . 179.25 Z . O l d e n b o u r g . The Crusades, R a n d o m House . N e w York/Toronto , 1966, p p . 112, 122-141, cited b y Chris t ine

Mal lhoui , Waging Peace on I.tlam, IVP, Illinois, 2000, p p . 82-83 .26 Phil ?aTs\ia\\, New Paths in Muslim Evangeliim, Baker , M i c h i g a n , 1980. p . 14.27 Earle E. Cairns, Chriitianity Through the Centuria, Indian edition, SuVartha Bhavan, Tiruvall, 2004, p. 213.

278

Abhijit Nayak UNDERSTANDING AND OVERCOMING THE IMPACT OF MISSION AMONG MUSLIMS

Understanding the Muslim and Christian viewof Crusade violenceThe Crusades have been understood in different ways. Some Christian historians and writ-

ers see the Crusades as "missionary wars" and others as "mission mihtant". By contrast,

Muslim writers view them as the "wars of Infidels" against the Islamic kingdom.^^ Karen

Armstrong asserts that if we look at Crusade events from the viewpoint of the West, they

can seem to be a "positive and glamorous activity". However, from the viewpoint of their

Muslim victims, we see the "shadow side of the confident, thrusting Western spirit'7^

The Muslim and Christian historical views on the CrusadesWe shall begin with Muslim views. Batley and Bourrdillon, historians of medieval Islam,

review various Arabic sources to gain the Muslim views during the time of the Crusades.

Ibn al-Athir, a Muslim eyewitness (1160-1233), said of the Crusade attack on Jerusalem,

"The population of the city was put to the sword and the Franks spent a week massacring

the Muslims. They killed more than seventy thousand people in the al-Aqsa mosque."^" The

historian Ibn al-Qalanisi (1073-1160) records, "Many people were killed. The Jews had

gathered in their synagogue and the Franks burned them alive. They also destroyed the

monuments of saints and the tomb of Abraham, may peace be upon him."^' In 1176, the

great sultan Saladin began to push the Crusaders out of the Holy Land and in 1187 he

recaptured Jerusalem. Kamal Imad ad-Din, who was Saladin's secretary, wrote an account

of Saladin's life in about 1193 and mentioned the Crusades: "Saladin's flag was raised above

the city and the gates were locked to keep the people in until the ransom that had been

agreed was paid. The al-Aqsa mosque and the mihrab was a den of pigs and filth ... occu-

pied by all manner of infidels and criminals."^^

Examples of the views of Christians on the Crusades include the accounts of Anna

Comnena, who was a Byzantine historian critical of the First Crusade, and the Ge^ta

Francorum. Comnena was the daughter of the Byzantine emperor Alexius I (1048-1118) and

she wrote a history of her father's rule in 1130. She said of the Crusaders: "They fell into

2* The terms are used differently in some of the accounts of Christian historians, such as Benjamin Z. Kedar,Crusade and Miisitm: European Approaches Toward the Mu,ilim.i, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1984,p. 67, cited by David Bosch, Transforming Muision, p. 225. Robert H. Glover and Herbert Kane, The Progressof World-Wide M LIS ion. Harper and Brothers, New York, 1960), p. 34. Paula Bartley and Hillary Bourrdillon,op. cit., p. 56.

2' Karen Armstrong, op. cit., p. 71.^^ Bartley and Bourrdillon, op. cit., p. 56.

31 /bid., p. 56.^'^/bi9., p. 56. The descriptive discussion on the Crusades from various Arabic and Eastern sources is also

found in Matti Moosa, "The Crusades: An Eastern Perspective, With Emphasis on Syriac Sources", MuslimWorld, 93/2, April 2003, p. 250.

279

INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF MISSION Vol. 97 No. 386/387, July/October 2008

Turkish ambushes and were miserably wiped out. Some men of the same race as these

Crusaders, later when they were building a large wall used the bones of the dead as pebbles

to fill up the gaps."^^ The Gesta Francorum, written by an unknown member of the first

Crusade, says, "I was at the siege of Jerusalem when it fell on 15 July 1099. Our pilgrims

entered the city and chased the Saracens, killing as they went as far as the Temple of

Solomon. Soon, our army overran the whole city, seizing gold and silver, horses and mules

and houses full of riches of all kinds. "^

By comparison, Christine Mallhoui observes the views of both sides during the Crusades.

The Crusaders viewed themselves as "true believers defending God's truth and the other

faith as the infidels. Christians called for holy wars and Muslims called for Jihad. In both

religions they believed they were obeying God's command and the battle was necessary to a

victorious faith. Both believed it was an honour and sacred privilege to die for the defence

of the faith and that martyrs would be rewarded in heaven."^^ The traditional view of the

Christians can be found in the Syriac source of Michael Rabo, who was a S3TÍan priest born

in 1126, and Bar Hebraeus. The latter held the view that the "primary cause of the Crusades

was the maltreatment of European pilgrims by Muslims in the East but they do not (like

some Western writers) regard the Crusades as a 'holy war.''' ^ The idea of "just war" came

from Augustine of Hippo and Gregory the Great, who "moved Christian doctrine in this

dubious direction where the defence of Christendom and often its extension were held to be

foremost duties of the ruler. " ^ Therefore, the traditional understanding of the Crusades

viewed them as a pilgrimage activity and acts of piety by the knights to save Christendom.

Contemporary MusKm and Christian views of the CrusadesThe Crusades left a legacy of mutual prejudice and misunderstanding. In the Muslim world,

Christianity is always connected with Western colonialism, through which Muslims consid-

er that Christians are still crusading. Bosch quotes Fisher's observation of M.W. Baldwin's

statement, "Although the Crusades' projects failed, the Crusades' mentality persisted."^^

After the Crusades, colonialism was viewed as a new military Crusade in Muslims lands.

Huff considers the words of Braswell to show the views of Muslims in recent times:

The Christian Crusades of the medieval period against Muslims have never been forgot-ten. Muslims are reminded of them in their primary and secondary school curricula. In

'^ Bartley and Bourrdillon, op. cit., p. 56.5^/^Ä, p. 56.'* Christine A. Mallouhi, Waging Peace on IAam, IVP, Illinois, 2000, p. 83.^ Matti Moosa, op. cit., p. 254.''• David Bosch, Tran.ifarmingMiu'ion, Orbis, New York, 1998, p. 224.^ Eugene J . Fisher, "Historical Developments in the Theology of Christian Mission," Martin A. Cohen and

Helga Croner, eds, Chriitian Miuion - Jewiih M'ujwn, Paulist Press, New Jersey, 1982), p. 23, cited by Bosch,ihi3., p. 227.

280

Abhifit Nayak UNDERSTANDING AND OVERCOMING THE IMPACT OF MISSION AMONG MUSLIMS

sermons in the mosque, the Maulana preach about them and against them. Muslims speakof Napoleon's entry into Egypt in 1798 as a crusade bringing the Western intrusion intoIslamic society. Muslims see the establishment of the State of Israel as a furtherance ofthe crusading mentality of the Western Christian nations.'^

In light of this, Muslims still view European Christians as Crusaders. The same is true ofthe

Muslim view of Israel, especially as held by Muslim nations such as Lebanon and Palestine.

In 2006, Antonia Ryan from the U.S. newspaper National Catholic Reporter, interviewed two

well-known scholars of the Crusades to find out the views of Muslims and Christians on

them. One of the interviewees said that the traditional Western Christian view is of the

Crusades, "as noble wars led by larger-than-life men motivated by honour and chivalry. This

perception was particularly popular among colonial powers in the 19th century but it has

waned in the 20th and 21st centuries."'"' The other scholar expressed the Muslim view ofthe

Crusades thus: "Those Muslims who do write about the Crusades nowadays do so with a

modern political agenda. Such Muslims are 'jihadists' and politicians, such as Sayyid Qutb

and Osama bin Laden, who see the Crusades as Christian Europe's first attempts to 'colo-

nize' and 'pollute' the Islamic world."'" Leila Juma made a critique on the above views by

stating that the interviewee herself is a Westerner, who perceives Muslim views though

Western eyes. Juma feels strongly that a Western writer cannot properly understand the

Muslim view.''2 Bernard Lewis, a historian, looks at the Crusades today as "a long series of

attacks and counter-attacks, crusades and jihads, conquests and re-conquests".''^

These are some ofthe modern views of Muslims on the Crusades. Muslims think that the

Crusades' phenomenon is an ongoing war against Muslims, whereas Christians look at

Islam as a religion of the sword. Huff cites a view that represents a Muslim view: "The

crusades... [are] a living factor in the world situation to the present day."'''' A Muslim

writes presented the views of Christians towards Islam and Muslims after 11 September

2001 ("9/11"): "The first is the resurfacing ofthe medieval descriptions of Islam as the

religion ofthe sword, the prophet as a violent person... the second attitude is to identify

Islam as a code of belief... rigid, religious, anti-modern..."''^ Here, the "living factor" to

3' George W. Braswell, Islam: Its Prophet, Peoples, Politics and Power, Broadman and Holman, Nashville, 1996,

p. 299, cited by Livingstone M. Huff, op., cit.. p. 144.'"' Antonia Ryan, "Why the Crusades still matter: Two scholars discuss a historic flashpoint and its relevance

today", http://ncronline.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2006a/022406/022406a.php (22 July 2008).-11 IbiS.^'^ Leila Juma, "Muslim perspectives on the Crusades - through western eyes",

http://vvww.muslimedia.com/archives/book99/crusadbk.htm (22 July 2008).••' Bernard Lewis, "The roots of Muslim rage". The Atlantic Monthly, September, 1990, pp. 47-60, cited by

Ibrahim Kalin, "Roots of Misconception". Joseph E.B. Lumbard, ed., Islam, FundamentalLim, and the BetrayedTradition, World Wisdom, Indiana, 2005, p. 168.

••'' Ovey N. Mohammed, Miuilim-Chriitian Relatixin,i: Past, Present, Future, Orbis Books, Maryknoll, N.Y., 1999,p. 35 cited by Livingstone M. Huff, op. cit., p. 145.

••* Ibrahim Kalin, op. cit., p. 166.

281

INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF MISSION Vol, 97 No, 386/387, ,July/October 2008

which Mohammed refers is made up of Western military action in the Middle East, par-

ticularly in Iraq and the counter reaction to Western military power is the jihad of

Mushms.

Mushms misinterpret the "crusade" terminology. Moreau, professor of missiology at

Wheaton College in the U.S., writes of the impact of the terminology, "Crusading terminol-

ogy has peppered missionary sermons and publications to the present day."'' Examples of

this include Billy Graham s outreach campaigns called "crusades" and President Bush's call

following the 9/11 attacks, when he called the coming U.S.-led war against global terrorism

a "crusade" and promised that terrorists would face the "full wrath" of the U.S.''^ In the same

way, Osama bin Laden called for Muslims around the world to fight a "holy war" (jihad)

and said, "This war is similar to the previous Crusades, led by Richard the Lionheart,

Barbarossa and Louis of France. In the present age, they [the crusaders] rally behind

Bush."'' Many Muslims hate Christians because they strongly feel that even now Christians

are raising Crusades in different forms, such as interfering in the problems of Muslim coun-

tries, e.g. in the Gulf war of 1991.

The impact of the CrusadesThe Crusades had a far-reaching impact on the Muslim world. A. Scott Moreau says,

"Though ultimately unsuccessful, the Crusades succeeded in creating a legacy of suspicion

and bitterness between Muslims and Christians and among Christians themselves that exists

to the present day."'' Some of major impacts included negative aspects, such as hatred and

bitterness between both religions. Herbert Kane perceives the effects of the Crusades from

a missiological dimension as he lists them:

The most calamitous result of the Crusades was the alienation of the entire Muslim world.Such as course of action... Christ and contrary to the practice of the early church.Moreover, the atrocities committed by the Crusaders in the name of Christ left an indeli-ble scar on the Muslim mind. When Jerusalem was liberated in 1099, the Crusaders pro-ceeded to massacre some seventy thousand Muslims. In Christendom, the Crusades havelargely been forgotten but their sordid memory festers to this day in the minds of theMuslims of the Middle East. Christianity's reputation for cruelty and revenge is a mill-stone around the neck of the Christian missionary in the Middle East. "

The above views are from Christian perspectives. Jurji Zaydan, a Muslim historian, gives

this account of the impact of Crusades: "After the Crusades, mutual detestation rose to such

^ Moreau, et al.. Introducing World Missions, Baker Academic, p. 115.•>' Timothy M. Renick, "Holy wars, then and now Crusader zeal", Christian Century 122/2, January 2005, p. 26.•'«Ibid,,p, 17,"" Moreau, et. al. op, cit,, p. 106.™ Herbet Kane, A Global View of Christian MLision, op, cit,, pp. 54-55.

282

Abhijit Nayak UNDERSTANDING AND OVERCOMING THE IMPACT OF MISSION AMONG MUSLIMS

a pitch between the Moslems and the 'People of the Covenant' that each of these parties did

its utmost to annoy the other."^' The Crusades created mistrust and enmity between

Christians and Muslims and the results were at "best ephemeral" and at "worst tragic", states

Justo Gonzalez. 2 The Crusades stood as a hindrance to the advance of Islam and proved

both a help and an obstacle to the spread of Christianity. K.S. Latourette, in his volumes of

A History of Christianity, rightly says: "Moreover, the Crusades probably accentuated the bit-

terness between Moslems and Christians and led the former more than ever to identify

Christianity with military and imperialistic ambitions."^^ The lasting damage of the

Crusades, which today we can see clearer than could others before, is that they remained a

"festering memory" that "poisoned communications" between parts of the Christian church

for many centuries to come, perhaps to this day.^ The impacts of this "festering memory"

are numerous and damaging. Increasingly, Muslims are arising against European nations

and the result is terrorist attacks. In the judgement of Austine Cline, "The Crusades exem-

plify the way in which religious devotion can become a violent act in a grand, cosmic drama

of good versus evil — an attitude which persists through today in the form of religious

extremists and terrorists."^^ So, the lasting legacy of the Crusades was hatred, enmity and

an attitude of suspicion between Christians and Muslims that exists to this day.

Approaches to overcome the impact of Crusade violenceIn light of Crusade violence, it will be appropriate to look at some of the important

approaches that can be applied to overcoming the impact of it. The attempts of missionary

endeavours to Muslims go back to the time of the Crusades. We shall review a few of the

mission models and methods.

Mission to Muslims during Crusading period(mission models)There were a number of prominent spokesmen in the Middle Ages who opposed the mih-

taristic approach of the Crusaders. We shall consider three of them.

Peter the Venerable was a member of a well-known monastery at Cluny in France. He was

the first to translate the Qur'an into Latin, though he did so in order to refute it.

Nevertheless, he argued that the violence against the Saracens should be abandoned. He

5' Jurji Zaydan. Hiitory of tjlamic Civilization, translated by D.S. Margoliouth, K¡tab Bhavan, New Delhi, 1981,p. 171.

2 Justo L. Gonzalez, The Story of Chrutianity, p. 299.^ K.S. Latourette, A Hi^itory of Christianity, vol.1. Harper and Row, New York, 1975, p. 318.5 Mark A. Noll, Turning Points, p. 142.^ Austin Cline, "What Were the Crusades? Overview of Causes, History, and Violence of the Crusades",

http://atheism.about.eom/od/crusades/a/crusades.htm (22 July 2008).

283

INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF MISSION Vol. 97 No. 386/387, July/October 2008

also took a stand openly to criticize the Crusades and strongly considered the "Crusaders'

goal of military and political dominance over the Muslims as being off the track. " ^ Peter's

conviction to reach Muslims is recorded in his writing, as Huff quotes him from the obser-

vation of Braswell, "I attack you not, as some do, by arms but by words, not with force but

with reason, not with hatred but by love... Loving, I write to you; writing, I invite you to

salvation. "57 These words of Peter indicate that he greatly opposed the militaristic nature of

the Crusades and sought to reach Muslims through peaceful witness. He was outspoken

against the Crusading movement.

Francis of Assisi (1182-1226) was a messenger of peace and love. On one side. Crusaders

were preparing for battle with the Saracens and on the other Francis was making efforts

(during the fifth Crusade at Damietta) to preach. He not only persuaded the Muslims but

also the Crusader troops with a strong claim that if the Crusaders continued to pursue the

battle they would fail, "Francis insisted on an end to the fighting. But Cardinal Pelagius did

not listen," records Johnson Galen.*^ Francis of Assisi made an attempt to witness to Sultan

Malik al-Kamil at his camp during the fifth Crusade.

Though there is a confusion regarding the Sultan's conversion, Scott Robinson, a

Franciscan, is positive of Francis' failure to help bring it about: "Though he had not achieved

his goal of converting the Sultan, he did bring back from the House of Islam ideas which

were to deepen and enrich his Christian faith. " ^ Francis worked as a preacher of peace,

when the Crusades were directed towards creating violence. Bengt Ingvarsson, a mission

worker of the Sweden Mission, reviewed the work of Francis: "Goals that the crusaders

wanted to reach through acts of violence and atrocities, Francis reached with dialogue."^"

Francis applied a method of persuasion to present the gospel rather than one of enforcing

power to convert Muslims. St. Francis's gospel message of God's love through Christ stood

as a contrast to the actions of the Crusaders, who courageously committed violence in the

name of Cross. The loving way of Francis has opened a way to the possibility of evangelism

to Muslims, their conversion to Christ and dialogue with them.

Raymond Lull (1235-1315) is regarded as "the first great European missionary to Muslims"

and he had a passion to covert Muslims.^' Brasswell's quotation of Lull's words are in the

* Livingstone M. Huff, op. ca., p. 143.5 George W. Braswell Jr, Islam: tts Prophet, Peoples, Politics and Power, p. 259, cited by Livingstone M. Huff, ihiB.,

p. 143.

58 Galen . Johnson, "St Francis and the Sultan: An Historical and Critical Reassessment", Miision Studies18/2, 2001, p. 151.

S' Scott Robinson, "To Go Among The Saracens: A Franciscan Composer's Journey into the House of Islam",Cross Currents, 56/3, autumn 2006, p. 413.

™ Beng t Ingvarsson, "Saint Francis and the Sultan", SwedishMiisiobgical Themes, 92/3, 2004, p. 3 n .' William A. MA\er, A Chriitian's Response to tstam, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, Phillipsburg, 1976,p. 72, cited by Livingstone M. Huff, op. cit., p. \AA.

284

Abhifit Nayak UNDERSTANDING AND OVERCOMING THE IMPAGT OF MISSION AMONG MUSLIMS

writings of Huff: "I see many knights going to the Holy Land beyond the seas and thinking

that they can acquire it by force of arms but in the end all are destroyed before they attain

that which they think to have. Whence it seems to me that the conquest of the Holy Land

ought... to be attempted... by love and prayers and the pouring out of tears."^^ Lull's mission

approach was apologetic and somewhat confrontational. He is known as one of the promi-

nent spokespersons against the military expedition against Muslims and is worthy to be

called a peace messenger to the Muslims.

These three individuals help us to know that there were a number of voices against the cru-

sading movement. The missionary outreach to Muslims during the Middle Ages by Peter the

Venerable, Francis of Assisi and Raymond Lull is a treasure in contrast to the legacy of bru-

tality that occurred in the history of medieval Christianity.

Mission to Muslims after the Crusades (mission methods)From the 13th to the 19th century, Christian missions neglected Muslims. Ruth Tucker men-

tions a comment by Stephen Neil to show this was the case compared to more spiritually

productive fields.^^ It is a fact that Christians always kept their distance in relating to

Muslims after the Crusades because they had created a gap between the two religious com-

munities. From the late 19th century, Christian efforts to witness to Muslims in various parts

of the world progressed with speed. Some of the prominent missionary characters involved

in evangelizing Muslims were Henry Martyn, Samuel M. Zwemer and William Henry

Temple Gairdner, the most noted British missionary to the Mushm world in the late 20th

century. The following paragraphs will be selective and confined to two models of methods

adopted and applied to reach Muslims.

Henry Martyn (1781-1812) is known as the "pioneer Protestant missionary" to Muslims but

originally he was a chaplain with the East India Company. Clinton Bennett raises objection

to the title given to Martyn: "Samuel Zwemer, Temple Gairdner and numerous other writ-

ers also refer to Martyn as a 'missionary'. Frequently, he is called ... 'the first modern mis-

sionary' to Islam. Technically ... Martyn was not a missionary; he was neither sent to India

by a missionary society nor commissioned by his church for missionary work."^ In view of

Martyn's life and work, the present writer strongly feels that it is correct to consider him as

a missionary in terms of his work and contribution in the field of missions, especially to

Muslims. He did not consider Muslims as infidels or enemies of the Christian faith. Rather,

he reached them with the gospel and believed that Muslims were to be won for Christ. He

«¡2 George W. Braswell, op. cit., p. 260, cited by Livingstone M. Huff, ihid., p. 144.63 Ruth A. Tucker, op. cit., p. 233.«Clinton Bennett, "The Legncy o( Henry Martyn", International Bulletin of Afi.)diûnary Research, 16/1, January

1992, p. 10.

285

INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF MISSION Vol. 97 No. 386/387, July/October 2008

certainly made an impression on them: "The Mohammedans now come in such a numbers

to visit me that I am obliged, for the sake of my translation work, to decline seeing them."^^

Kenneth Scott Latourette's judgement of Samule M. Zwemer (1867-1937) was that, "No

one through all the centuries of Christian missions to the Muslims has deserved better than

Dr Zwemer the designation of Apostle to Islam.'' « Zwemer was aware ofthe Crusades' vio-

lence, as well as the competition between the Christian cross and the Islamic crescent, and

he addressed the true meaning ofthe cross. The carrying ofthe cross by the Crusaders com-

municated a false interpretation of the image of the cross. Zwemer realized and rightly

pointed out that, "Historically and doctrinally, the cross and crescent are not symbols of

mutual unity but of contrast and conflict."^^ ^hus, Zwemer is considered as "an apt advo-

cate for the renewal of concern for the Christian obligation to our Muslim neighbours''.^^

His method was apologetic and dialogical, as John Hubers observes: "He was more of a lis-

tener now, anticipating the dialogic approach of those who would pick up where he left

off. " 5 xhe legacy of Zwemer influenced others to engage in mission among Muslims.

Both Zwemer and Henry Martyn paved the way for reaching our neighbours. The methods

they adopted and applied are relevant even today in reaching Muslims. A comparison

between the approaches of Francis of Assisi, Raymond Lull, Henry Martyn and Samule

Zwemer to Muslim evangelism and the ideas that are now alive at the centre ofthe church

and m the local Asian churches regarding interreligious dialogue, witnessing to peace and

reconciliation, shows many points of contact. These approaches constitute effective contem-

porary evangelism to reach Muslims.

Contemporary mission approaches in the lightof Crusade violenceTraditional mission approaches to Muslims include evangelism, apologetics and literature

development. In the past, these models were successful to some extent. Apart from these

approaches; what other approaches can we adopt and apply to overcome Crusades' vio-

lence? Crusades have certainly brought damage in terms of relationships and under-

standing between Muslims and Christians. There have been attempts to restore

Christian-Muslim relationships by various circles, such as Catholic, ecumenical and

«5 Henry Martyn, "Utter to Lydia, 2 July 1811", John Sargent, The Life and Utters of Henry Martyn, Banner ofTruth, Carlisle, 1985, p. 453.

«6 Kenneth Scott Utourette, in the introduction to, J . Christy Wilson ST, Apo.<tU to Islam, Baker, Michigan,1953.•» Samuel M. Zwemer, The Cross above the Crescent, Zondervan, Michigan, 1915, p. 19.<» Lyle Vander Werff, "Our Muslim Neighbours: The Contribution of Samuel M. Zwemer to Christian

NWsúon", MLisivlogy, 10/2, April 1982, p. 197.•î' John Hubers, "Samuel Zwemer and the Challenge of Islam: From Polemic to a Hint of Dialogue",

International Bulletin of Miisionary Re.iearch, 28/3, July 2004, p. 121.

286

Abhifit Nayak UNDERSTANDING AND OVERCOMING THE IMPACT OF MISSION AMONG MUSLIMS

evangelical ones. Contemporary approaches to restoring relationships include social aid,

contextualization without compromising the Biblical basis of the gospel (Phil Parshall)

and dialogue.

The healing of the broken relationship between the two religions demands dialogue and

mutual understanding. Here, dialogue means face-to-face conversation with Muslims, both

intellectuals and ordinary people. One of the major shifts in relation to healing the bitter

relationship between Muslims and Christians that has occurred in the history of the Roman

Catholic Church was the promulgation of the AocümtntNodraAetate on 28 October 1965. "

Some of the paragraphs of Noötra Adate on Islam, particularly on Crusades' violence,

describe a completely new Roman Catholic approach compared to Urban s and Innocent

Ill's calls for Crusades. One excerpt supports an "invitation to Muslims and Christians to

forget their many quarrels and hostilities of the past (crusades) and to strive sincerely for

mutual understanding."''' In light of this, we must point out that the Catholic Church does

not want to repeat the violence caused by its previous officials. Pope John Paul II is an

important figure in Roman Catholic Church history with regard to this. This pope, "... in the

course of the church's history, gave the greatest attention to relations with Islam."'' On 19

August 1985, John Paul met 80,000 young Moroccan Muslims from all parts of the coun-

try and told them, "We Christians and Muslims have many things in common, as believers

and human beings. "'' It is not only this pope who has attempted to reach Muslims; there has

been a general Catholic thrust to establish peace with Islam. Dialogue should not only take

place at the higher levels but should also touch the grassroots.

The ecumenical effort to establish dialogue with various religions has also been a milestone

in the approach to mission. One ecumenical affirmation said, "In a world where Christians

and Muslims live as neighbours and co-citizens, dialogue is not only an activity of meetings

and conferences. It is also a way of living out our faith commitment in relation to each other,

sharing as partners common concerns and aspirations and striving together in response to

the problems and challenges of our time."'"' The WCC's ninth assembly at Porto Alegre,

Brazil, in February 2006 discussed the pubhcation of cartoons of the prophet Mohammed

of Islam. A magazine in Denmark first pubhshed the controversial cartoons in September

2005. The assembly said, "We recognize it is crucial to strengthen dialogue and cooperation

between Christians and Muslims. The publications have caused worldwide controversies.

™ The Second Vatican Council lasted from 1962 to 1965. It expressed Catholic missiological thinking, promul-gated documents such as a decree on missionary activity {Ad Gentes), and the declarations on the relation ofthe church to non-Christian religions (NostraAetate), and the church in the modern world (Gaudium et spes),

" "NostraAetate" in Hoeberichts, op, ca,, p, 144.

72/^(3., p. 143."Ibid,, p. 153.'•'< "Striving Together in Dialogue: A Muslim-Christian Call to Reflection and Action",

http://www.wcc-coe.org/wcc/what/interreligious/striving-e.html.

287

INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF MISSION Vol. 97 No. 386/387, July/October 2008

Further publication and the violent reactions to them increase the tension. We deplore the

publication ... We also join with the voices of many Muslim leaders in deploring the violent

reactions to the publications. " 5 In all these attempts, the mission approach is not to repeat

Crusade violence but to promote peace between the two religions, and heal the wounds thatexist.

Crusades' violence can be overcome through peaceable witness and not by a forceful

approach. Peaceable witness is an attempt to reach Muslims in the light of Crusade violence

of the past. In other words, messengers of peaceable witness are to be as sheep in the midst

of wolves. Warren Larson, a former missionary among Muslims in Punjab, India, was asked

in an exclusive interview with Christianity Today, "Do you see any model for future interac-

tions with Muslims?" He answered, "I think it's very much waging peace on Islam rather

than taking a militant stance as Christians. It's a kind of spirit. It's doing mission in the light

of the cross. It's a spirit of reconciliation and it certainly does help."^^ "Waging peace" on

Islam means continuing to engage in peace witness. Consider the words of Jesus, "Blessed

are the peacemakers" (Matt. 5:3-12). Nickel suggests, "The dishonouring of the gospel

among Muslims in the past should propel us to strive to present the gospel of peace. " ^ Due

to Crusades' violence, mission work regressed among Muslims. Now, peaceable witness

must include friendship evangelism and ministry to neighbours (Muslims). Certainly, peace

witnessing is the alternative to the violent events of the past, if healing the relationships

between Christians and Muslims is to take place. Peace witnessing will help to present the

gospel to Muslims and bring them into the fold. Peaceable witness is indeed an evangelistic

instrument for today.

The third approach is one of active reconciliation and it will include an act of apology to

Muslims for the painful events of the Crusades. On 15 July 1999, the nine-hundredth

anniversary of the fall of Jerusalem to the Crusaders, a party of European and American

Christians trekked a former Crusader route to Jerusalem. As they "walked round the city

walls to publicize a personal apology on behalf of their religion to Muslims; they made a con-

ciliatory gesture, on the one hand, and, on the other, handed out leaflets of apology to

express contrition for wars," says Riley-Smith, a Christian historian.^« Riley-Smith said of

this act of apology, "To accept blame humbly when one is at fault is always good, of course,

but in this case the apologizers were only showing that they did not comprehend the Muslim

view of the Crusades and did not understand history (which made their act of contrition

™ "WCC 9th Assembly, Porto Alegre, Brazil, 14-23 February, 2006, •'httpy/www.oikoumene.org/en/resources/documents/wcc-commissions/international-affairs/human-rlghts-and-impunily/minute-on-mutual-respect-responsibility-and-dialogue-with-people-of.html.

6 Stan Guthrie, "Waging Peace", Christianity Today, 49/6, June 2005, p. 47.' 'Gordon Nickel, Peaceable Witness Among Muslim), Herald Press Inc., Ontario, 1999, p. 100."* Jonathan Riley-Smith, "Rethinking the Crusades", Fir.it Things, No. 101, March 2000, p. 20.

288

Abhifit Nayak UNDERSTANDING AND OVERCOMING THE IMPACT OF MISSION AMONG MUSLIMS

pointless),"''^ This view expresses the concern that the Christian should know the views of

Muslims on the Crusades. Along with this, we too may want to repent on behalf of the

Crusaders and in this way we honour God today among Muslims.

An act of apology works as a witness to Muslims in the light of Crusade violence. William

R. Durland, a Catholic lawyer, suggests that we need to ask "forgiveness of the Muslim for

having killed their people during Crusades.''^" The question would be, "How do Muslims

consider the apology of Christians?" Warren Larson answers, "I think an apology is in order.

But having said that, I think we have to hold Muslims accountable too. They might forget

or not be aware that, starting in 1915, Turks killed more than a million and a half Armenian

Christians. Muslims have also done wrong."«' The act of apology should be from both ways

and then only will the relationship between Christian and Muslims be strengthened.

The 2007 historic letter A Common Word Between Ud and You, signed by 138 Muslim scholars

and "addressed to the leaders of all the world's churches and indeed to all Christians every-

where/'^^ was an attempt to discourage the repetition of Crusade violence in this age. This

open letter was an expansion of a message sent to Pope Benedict XVI after what many

Muslims and others saw as his inflammatory remarks in a speech at Regensburg, Germany,

in which he spoke of the essentially violent nature of Islam in the capture of lands by

Muslims. According to the letter, common words between Christianity and Islam are love of

God and love of neighbour. A Common Word says, "Thus, in obedience to the Holy Quran,

we as Muslims invite Christians to come together with us on the basis of what is common to

us, which is also what is most essential to our faith and practice: the Two Commandmentd of

love". ^ Bishop Kenneth Cragg, an Anglican, who has a long track record of buildmg good

relations between Muslims and Christians, advises in an interview about peace processes,

"There is an understanding, both Muslim and Christian, that we should keep in mind. How

you treat another party is likely to contribute to the response that party makes to you ... The

way we judge a person has a way of judging us. Our judgements must be based on percep-

tive honesty and wide compassion."^^ A judgemental spirit and criticism will increase vio-

lence. We need to consider Muslims not as enemies but as neighbours. This will help us to

respond to and find common ground for communication with Muslims.

/¿a, p. 20.80 Wi l l i am R. D u r l a n d , No King But Caesar: A Catholic Lauyer Looks at Chrittian Violence, H e r a l d P r e s s Inc . ,

Ontario, 1975, p. 163.81 G u t h r i e , op. cit., p . A7.82 See, www.acommonword.com.83 A Common Word: An Open Letter, w w w . a c o i n m o n w o r d . c o m . T h e d o c u m e n t has been pub l i shed in var ious

Christian periodicals, e.g., "A Common Word between Us and You: An Open Letter Signed by 138 MuslimReligious Authorities, Scholars, Intellectuals, Media Experts and Professionals", International Journal ofFrontier MUsions. 24/A, winter 2007, pp. 203-2 H.

8 Kenneth Cragg, "Cross meets crescent: An interview", Chrúitian Century, 116/5, fall 1999, p. 183.

289

INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF MISSION Vol. 97 No. 386/387, July/October 2008

A broad range of people and groups, from the Vatican to evangelicals, responded to A

Common Word. Nearly 300 Christian theologians, ministry leaders and prominent pastors

signed a response letter in November 2007 issued by the Yale Centre for Faith and Culture.

Several of these Christian leaders felt that A Common Word compromised the Christian

faith.85 The letter from Yale mentioned in its concluding sentences that, "Given the deep fis-

sures in the relations between Christians and Muslims today, the task before us is daunting.

And the stakes are great."86 The Anglican archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams

responded io A Common Word by saying the "eternal God cannot need 'protection' by the tac-

tics of human violence." He also emphasized that there can be no justification for "violent

contest" based on the "need to protect God's interests. " ^ In finding common ground, we

should not compromise on the basics but we should be open to interacting with Muslims in

the peace process.

Conclusion

We began our observations of the Crusade events by looking at different forms of violence

in the Crusade events. Ways of violence can be direct and include violent words and actions;

they can also be indirect. We noticed how both sides, Christians and Muslims, view each

other and particularly the Crusade events. It has often been the case that Christians were

"enemies" from the point of view of Muslims and Muslims were "infidels" to Christians. The

damaging results of Crusade violence were and are misconception, suspicion, hatred and

broken relationships between the two religions. It would be wrong to say that all European

Christians engaged in the Crusades. There were some individuals who did not agree with

the militaristic approach and attempted to reach Muslims by persuasion, love and by becom-

ing messengers of peace. These individuals, such as Francis of Assisi and Raymond Lull,

launched peace processes. There have been attempts to heal and restore the broken rela-

tionships by engaging in peace talks, reconciliation work and the discovering of things com-

mon to both religions in the present time. Along with these approaches, the evangelization

of Muslims has been the ethos of Christian missions.

The present world context is one of terrorism and war between Muslims and Christians.

Some Islamic fundamentalist groups are waging war against European nations and

European nations have responded by declaring war on terrorism. The Crusades directly and

indirectly have been taking place. The result is mass destruction, loss and the suffering of

innocent ones. Indian cities have experienced attacks, terrorism and bomb blasts. A number

^^ Ethan Qjle, "Anglican Head: God Doesn't Need Violent Protection",http://www.christianpost.com/article/20080719/anglican-head-god-doesn-t-need-violent-protection.htm.

86 Harold W. Attridge, et al., "Loving God and Neighbour Together: A Christian Response to A Common

Word Between Us and You". Internationaljournal of Frontier MiiMjlogy, 24M, winter 2007, p. 217.8' Ethan Cole, op. cit.

290

Abhifit Nayak UNDERSTANDING AND OVERCOMING THE IMPACT OF MISSION AMONG MUSLIMS

of bomb blasts in different places have killed innocent ones. In India, there has been a num-

ber of instances of communal violence between Hindus and Muslims. Islam, as the second

largest religion in the world, presents a challenge to others. Muslims are our neighbours and

they cannot be left behind. In light of this, what should be the role of Christian missions?

Witnessing to peace, dialogue and common ground will indeed help to restore Christian-

Muslim relationships. Evangelization is a task that we need to carry on. Our approaches

should be relevant and our attitudes need to broaden when doing mission work among

Muslims.

291