What is wrong with Crusaders?

Submitted by Matt Jose (India), Aug 30, 2007 at 04:58

I have often heard all Muslims are blaming everything on Crusaders. I have never understood what could be wrong with the Crusades.
Don't ...Muslims know that Muhammad was an Arab? And that he founded Islam in Arabia?

So, what right did Muslim armies have to attack Palestine and occupy the holy places of Christians and Jews?
If Christians had occupied the Mecca and Madina, would Muslims not defend the cities?

Remember that Crusades happened after 400 years of relentless attacks on Europe and the Holy Land by Muslims. The Christians were patient and forgiving for 400 years. It is after they realised that Muslim armies which came from thousands of kilometres away would carry away their women and children and behead the men that they decided to fight.
Why then blame Crusaders? Were they the attackers or defenders?
How could they be attackers in their own countries?
How could be attackers in their own Holy Land?
Would anyone consider Muslims as attackers in Mecca and Madina if Christians came and occupied them?

Such arguments are the cause of Muslims losing support from people like me who are pained at the occupation of land of Jesus
Christ, the Patriarchs and Prophets by Muslims. Christians, Jews, Zoarashtrians, Hindus and Buddists must form a large army to liberate their holy places occupied by Muslims.

Can anyone, including Muslims explain why they blame Crusaders?
I cannot find any logic in it.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".