What do you think?
Rate this book
Christian Jihad: Two Former Muslims Look at the Crusades and Killing in the Name of Christ
"Christian Jihad" is the story of a horrific journey of slaughter and conversion by the sword. It paints the picture of warriors, fighting in the name of religion. It is a journey into the darkest hour of Christianity--the Crusades.
To most in the west, the Crusades are only a faded memory of events long past. But to the Islamic world, the "Crusaders" have never ended their attempt to take over the world. The authors, intent on providing more than a mere history lesson, examine the impact of the Crusades on today, question ideas like "just war," and urge Christians to learn from the past. Best-selling & Gold Medallion award-winning co-authors of "Unveiling Islam" A balanced history of the Crusades that also answers contemporary questions regarding war and the interaction between Christianity and IslamWritten by strong evangelical scholars with solid ties to the Muslim world
To most in the west, the Crusades are only a faded memory of events long past. But to the Islamic world, the "Crusaders" have never ended their attempt to take over the world. The authors, intent on providing more than a mere history lesson, examine the impact of the Crusades on today, question ideas like "just war," and urge Christians to learn from the past. Best-selling & Gold Medallion award-winning co-authors of "Unveiling Islam" A balanced history of the Crusades that also answers contemporary questions regarding war and the interaction between Christianity and IslamWritten by strong evangelical scholars with solid ties to the Muslim world
240 pages, Paperback
First published September 25, 2004
3 people are currently reading
53 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
December 29, 2024
Very interesting look at the history of violence organized by a Christian state. I went in expecting to learn about the Crusades, but there was also interesting points about the inquisitions and the persecution and killing of Jews in Jerusalem and Europe. Very much worth reading.
You can tell the book was made by two authors. Certain events are repeated as if they hadn’t been previously explained, but more information is given. I wish that information could have been consolidated.
There’s also a few moments where the message gets muddled with conservative talking points. We love the Iraq war. We love the war in Afghanistan. We love religious liberty but God forbid we tolerate each other. And don’t even get me started on those liberal theologians
You can tell the book was made by two authors. Certain events are repeated as if they hadn’t been previously explained, but more information is given. I wish that information could have been consolidated.
There’s also a few moments where the message gets muddled with conservative talking points. We love the Iraq war. We love the war in Afghanistan. We love religious liberty but God forbid we tolerate each other. And don’t even get me started on those liberal theologians
November 24, 2012
First of all, the research that went into this book is top notch. It deals with "Christian" warfare in what I thought was a balanced enough way. However, the two problems I have with it are what the authors do at the beginning and the end. At the beginning they seem to preach that early Christians thought serving in the military was "un-Christian" and they seem to want to paint that as the "right" way from the beginning. However, in their prologue they seem to say they are suggesting that and there is a test to see if fighting can be judged based on "just war". First of all, this would only apply to people who are able to serve in a military type capacity and know beforehand whether the war is "just" or not. There is no suggestion on behavior that could lead to sin during battles rather than a whole war. Second, the authors tend to sight Christian philosophers rather than The Bible. The Bible is suppose to be where we get our moral standard from. Plus, they seem to want to cherry pick exactly which philosophers they want to sight, even some non-Christian ones. There is also no talk on warfare conducted during the Old Testament and applying principles of A.D. to B.C. times. God is never changing in His moral ways, so they seem to remain silent on the OT, in order to try and defend their NT philosophy. Again, this book does a good job of painting "Christianity" being used as a basis for war. They don't really go into, whether or not religion is used by the state as a means of trying to control a populace, esp. one where the Scriptures are forbidden to them. It really, REALLY makes you appreciate the Reformation and the heroes who were burned by agents of the state to get The Good News into the hands of the masses! Final Grade - D+
May 9, 2024
TWO CONVERTS FROM ISLAM LOOK FRANKLY AT THE CRUSADES, THE INQUISITION, ETC.
Ergun Michael [‘Mehmet’] Caner is currently Dean of the Graduate School of Theology at the Arlington Baptist University; he was formerly President of Brewton-Parker College [2013-2015], and the former dean of the Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary [2005-2011], but was removed from this position after a controversy over some of his background statements, etc. Emir Fethi Caner is President of Truett McConnell University, and formerly taught at Baptist Theological Seminary.
They wrote in the Introduction to this 2004 book, “As abhorrent as the evangelical community finds abortion, can we ever justify killing someone in the name of Christ? If we can, are such acts somehow ordained and approved by God as righteous acts of indignation? And if such acts are acceptable to God, can such an indulgence be extended to other venues or other perpetrators of the veils that s beset our sin-saturated world? If God DOES ordain such acts, one can come to only one conclusion: Jesus Christ commands his followers to jihad. But it that the case? That is the express question of this book. This book is designed to be conspicuously controversial… we intend to turn the spotlight of criticism of jihad onto Christian history.
“Why? Because as uncomfortable as this may make the reader, it must be said: Christianity has been guilty of its own form of jihad as well… we have killed in the name of our God, drawn blood from those we have considered infidels, and even promised salvation for those who fought under the banner of the cross… Before we jump too quickly to criticize Islam, we must first face our own history. We too have killed in the name of our God. The Crusades, The Inquisitions… 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 the dark chapters in the past.” (Pg. 18-19)
They explain, “Though a complete consensus of the opinion of the leadership of the early church cannot be stated emphatically, the common desire to avoid any participation in armed conflict is evident. Virtually every bishop who wrote treatises and addressed the subject spoke passionately against any Christian partaking in the shedding of blood, innocent or otherwise… the Christian’s chief weapon was considered to be that of active prayer and labor for peace.” (Pg. 38)
Of the First Crusade, they observe, “Quite simply, before Pope Urban II could have the ability and capacity to unite a Christian army under his leadership, the Church had to enter into an unequally yoked marriage with the state. This frightening union saw the development of a central premise that guides the study of Church history: Whenever the church and the state enter into a relationship, inevitably the church ends up becoming the state’s wh-re. She is used for the political expedience of the states, and then when she is no longer useful, she is tossed aside as an unwanted mistress. It is an unholy relationship, and the state if inevitably an abusive spouse.” (Pg. 66)
They lament, “Sadly, the Church had become addicted to its power, politics, and intrigue. Militarily, the Church had approved of every conflict, given its blessing to every soldier, and cheered every victory. Following the coronation of Charlemagne, the line between Christians in the army and a Christian army had been blurred. It was the king, representing the state, who would lead the troops into battle and demand obedience of his men.” (Pg. 79)
They summarize, “Though the First Crusade ended in victory, it represented a quantum shift in the theology, thought, and ethics of the Christian community. For the first time in history, an army was gathered under and aegis of the cross of Jesus Christ, sanctified by the pope to kill in the name of the Lord. Indeed, the pontiff himself was the titular commander of the forces, as well as the financier of the expeditions. Our thousand years of history---complete with persecution, pacifism, reluctant participation, and Just War parameters---weas swept aside, and the ‘Army of God’ conquered the Muslim forces…” (Pg. 104)
They acknowledge, “What made the Inquisition such a horrific spectacle was not merely the numbers of those executed or brutalized, but the sheer and savage process that accompanied the examinations. Such popular punishments as burning at the stake or the torture rack are more notorious, so that few know the precise details of arrest, trial, torture, and sentencing. The procedures of an inquisition, usually carried out in Dominican monasteries, large churches, or bishops’ palaces, were methodically governed to gain optimum results.” (Pg. 145)
They admit, “Calvin was largely liable for the death of Servetus. He was not merely a bystander without any authority; he was the religious leader of the town who wholeheartedly accepted the merger of state and church… Servetus posed no immediate threat to the city of Geneva… Simply put, Servetus was sent to his grave as a spiritual murderer and as a religious harlot… Calvin… demanded the rationalist’s execution, thus expanding the principle of Christian jihad to anyone within the grasp of a Christian city-state.” (Pg. 168)
They propose, “Today, freedom of religion is granted to each person within the United States. However, religious liberty must always be heralded against creeping and incremental political incursions which are attempting to destroy the foundation of liberty and replace it with tolerance. Any law that relegates government as the enforcer of accepted doctrine is unacceptable. To move back now toward toleration and away from liberty is to cross that bridge back to the past and move again toward the religious wars and inquisitions of history. It is unconscionable for a nation which has been given such immense freedom to chain itself in religious slavery owned by the politically correct dogma of the age.” (Pg. 180-181)
They also acknowledge, “the Roman Catholic Church alone cannot take the blame for this harsh treatment [of Jews]. Protestants are guilty as well of heinous acts committed against the Jews. Martin Luther, whose frustration that Jews remained resistant to evangelism developed into a hatred, admonished the German princes to take … steps against the Jews…” (Pg. 187) Later, they add, “The savagery with which the Christians treated the Jewish population forever scarred Judeo-Christian relations. Crusaders called the Jews ‘Christ killers,’ and sentenced them to death for the crime of … murdering God.” (Pg. 199)
This book will be of great interest to Christians seeking frank and honest interpretations of such controversial issues.
Ergun Michael [‘Mehmet’] Caner is currently Dean of the Graduate School of Theology at the Arlington Baptist University; he was formerly President of Brewton-Parker College [2013-2015], and the former dean of the Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary [2005-2011], but was removed from this position after a controversy over some of his background statements, etc. Emir Fethi Caner is President of Truett McConnell University, and formerly taught at Baptist Theological Seminary.
They wrote in the Introduction to this 2004 book, “As abhorrent as the evangelical community finds abortion, can we ever justify killing someone in the name of Christ? If we can, are such acts somehow ordained and approved by God as righteous acts of indignation? And if such acts are acceptable to God, can such an indulgence be extended to other venues or other perpetrators of the veils that s beset our sin-saturated world? If God DOES ordain such acts, one can come to only one conclusion: Jesus Christ commands his followers to jihad. But it that the case? That is the express question of this book. This book is designed to be conspicuously controversial… we intend to turn the spotlight of criticism of jihad onto Christian history.
“Why? Because as uncomfortable as this may make the reader, it must be said: Christianity has been guilty of its own form of jihad as well… we have killed in the name of our God, drawn blood from those we have considered infidels, and even promised salvation for those who fought under the banner of the cross… Before we jump too quickly to criticize Islam, we must first face our own history. We too have killed in the name of our God. The Crusades, The Inquisitions… 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 the dark chapters in the past.” (Pg. 18-19)
They explain, “Though a complete consensus of the opinion of the leadership of the early church cannot be stated emphatically, the common desire to avoid any participation in armed conflict is evident. Virtually every bishop who wrote treatises and addressed the subject spoke passionately against any Christian partaking in the shedding of blood, innocent or otherwise… the Christian’s chief weapon was considered to be that of active prayer and labor for peace.” (Pg. 38)
Of the First Crusade, they observe, “Quite simply, before Pope Urban II could have the ability and capacity to unite a Christian army under his leadership, the Church had to enter into an unequally yoked marriage with the state. This frightening union saw the development of a central premise that guides the study of Church history: Whenever the church and the state enter into a relationship, inevitably the church ends up becoming the state’s wh-re. She is used for the political expedience of the states, and then when she is no longer useful, she is tossed aside as an unwanted mistress. It is an unholy relationship, and the state if inevitably an abusive spouse.” (Pg. 66)
They lament, “Sadly, the Church had become addicted to its power, politics, and intrigue. Militarily, the Church had approved of every conflict, given its blessing to every soldier, and cheered every victory. Following the coronation of Charlemagne, the line between Christians in the army and a Christian army had been blurred. It was the king, representing the state, who would lead the troops into battle and demand obedience of his men.” (Pg. 79)
They summarize, “Though the First Crusade ended in victory, it represented a quantum shift in the theology, thought, and ethics of the Christian community. For the first time in history, an army was gathered under and aegis of the cross of Jesus Christ, sanctified by the pope to kill in the name of the Lord. Indeed, the pontiff himself was the titular commander of the forces, as well as the financier of the expeditions. Our thousand years of history---complete with persecution, pacifism, reluctant participation, and Just War parameters---weas swept aside, and the ‘Army of God’ conquered the Muslim forces…” (Pg. 104)
They acknowledge, “What made the Inquisition such a horrific spectacle was not merely the numbers of those executed or brutalized, but the sheer and savage process that accompanied the examinations. Such popular punishments as burning at the stake or the torture rack are more notorious, so that few know the precise details of arrest, trial, torture, and sentencing. The procedures of an inquisition, usually carried out in Dominican monasteries, large churches, or bishops’ palaces, were methodically governed to gain optimum results.” (Pg. 145)
They admit, “Calvin was largely liable for the death of Servetus. He was not merely a bystander without any authority; he was the religious leader of the town who wholeheartedly accepted the merger of state and church… Servetus posed no immediate threat to the city of Geneva… Simply put, Servetus was sent to his grave as a spiritual murderer and as a religious harlot… Calvin… demanded the rationalist’s execution, thus expanding the principle of Christian jihad to anyone within the grasp of a Christian city-state.” (Pg. 168)
They propose, “Today, freedom of religion is granted to each person within the United States. However, religious liberty must always be heralded against creeping and incremental political incursions which are attempting to destroy the foundation of liberty and replace it with tolerance. Any law that relegates government as the enforcer of accepted doctrine is unacceptable. To move back now toward toleration and away from liberty is to cross that bridge back to the past and move again toward the religious wars and inquisitions of history. It is unconscionable for a nation which has been given such immense freedom to chain itself in religious slavery owned by the politically correct dogma of the age.” (Pg. 180-181)
They also acknowledge, “the Roman Catholic Church alone cannot take the blame for this harsh treatment [of Jews]. Protestants are guilty as well of heinous acts committed against the Jews. Martin Luther, whose frustration that Jews remained resistant to evangelism developed into a hatred, admonished the German princes to take … steps against the Jews…” (Pg. 187) Later, they add, “The savagery with which the Christians treated the Jewish population forever scarred Judeo-Christian relations. Crusaders called the Jews ‘Christ killers,’ and sentenced them to death for the crime of … murdering God.” (Pg. 199)
This book will be of great interest to Christians seeking frank and honest interpretations of such controversial issues.
July 25, 2018
Christian Jihad is both a book that is interesting and frustrating. It is interesting with its candid look at the history of Christianity and shining light on some of the darker parts of that history. However, it is frustrating because their use of history is too often a bit fuzzy and used for their narrative rather than to give a complete picture. So given this tension there are a number of things that I like and dislike about this book.
I'll start with what I didn't like. The first of these is the title. While catchy and attention grabbing, doesn't really describe the contents the best in my opinion. The main argument that the Caners pose here is that whenever the church ends up linking itself to the state, the state uses the church and the churches reputation is tarnished. The Crusades are one example of this behavior, but they go beyond that into the inquisition, the reformation, and even a bit into more modern times. I honestly agree with their main argument, but the title indicates a smaller focus than what they're really about.
Another negative is that their use of history wasn't the best. At best it felt that a lot of the history was rushed. Which with a book of about two hundred and fifty pages trying to tackle around two thousand years of history, what can you expect? So I don't fault them for this entirely. It's more aspects that they get a little fuzzy around. I noticed a couple areas where this was the case.
The first was with the First Crusade. The first fuzzy point on this was that they say how the Byzantine emperor Alexios I had sent troops to help the Turks, but really the Byzantines secretly negotiated for the Turks to surrender, which isn't really the same thing. These both would have resulted in a loss of trust between the crusaders and the Byzantine empire, but are quite different. The Caners also say that after this betrayal the crusaders took Antioch quickly, which wasn't really the case because it took them eight months to take Antioch.
The other place was their description of Donatists. The Caners make it out to seem that the Donatists were primarily a group opposed to a close church and state relationship. This may have been part of their views, but they glossed over the idea that the Donatists arose not from political motivations, but because they believed that if a Christian had handed over the Scriptures during persecution that they could not administer the sacraments. Theirs was a focus on the morality of a priest and how deserving they were to be administering the sacraments, not on separation of church and state. These two are just examples I noticed. I can only imagine there are others I didn't realize.
My other issue is not so much with what they had, but what they didn't have. They really present no Scriptural argument for their position. They just kind of jump into the book with their position in hand and don't really do much work developing it. For someone like me who largely agrees with their take on things, this isn't too big of a deal, but for one who doesn't, some interaction would have been helpful to their case. I'm not normally one to dock a book for not quoting Scripture enough, but I think it would have been helpful in this case to build their view and then use that view to engage with the history that they look at.
Now for what I did like, I liked that the way they structured their book. I liked the idea of walking through the history of the church. While I do feel that the Caners didn't really the best at presenting historical events the best, which I'll get to shortly, I do appreciate the way they tried to approach this issue. They showed how the early church viewed war and how that view changed over time. I also like that they focused on more than just the crusades. That they showed how this poor way of viewing the relationship of church and state has been perpetuated by Catholics and Protestants by large empires and smaller nations. I also appreciate that they include how the victims of this joining of power were from many different groups: Muslims, Jews, non-believers, and even other Christians.
I also liked that they were willing to face such a difficult issue head on. These are not actions that I like to think about with the history of the church. Even so, I do think that these things have had a great impact on the witness of the church and displays the danger of any group getting too much power. Christians need to be wrestling with these events and understand that our relationship with power has not been a very good one. This is the danger of too much power no matter the religion or ideology you follow.
So overall, it's a book I'm kind of conflicted about. It's not bad, but it's not good. It's a sobering look at some of the terrible things that have been done in the name of Christ and this is something that Christians need to wrestle with. However, the execution of the book wasn't the best and while I may keep this book for now, I'm sure that at some point I will read a book that will replace this one.
I'll start with what I didn't like. The first of these is the title. While catchy and attention grabbing, doesn't really describe the contents the best in my opinion. The main argument that the Caners pose here is that whenever the church ends up linking itself to the state, the state uses the church and the churches reputation is tarnished. The Crusades are one example of this behavior, but they go beyond that into the inquisition, the reformation, and even a bit into more modern times. I honestly agree with their main argument, but the title indicates a smaller focus than what they're really about.
Another negative is that their use of history wasn't the best. At best it felt that a lot of the history was rushed. Which with a book of about two hundred and fifty pages trying to tackle around two thousand years of history, what can you expect? So I don't fault them for this entirely. It's more aspects that they get a little fuzzy around. I noticed a couple areas where this was the case.
The first was with the First Crusade. The first fuzzy point on this was that they say how the Byzantine emperor Alexios I had sent troops to help the Turks, but really the Byzantines secretly negotiated for the Turks to surrender, which isn't really the same thing. These both would have resulted in a loss of trust between the crusaders and the Byzantine empire, but are quite different. The Caners also say that after this betrayal the crusaders took Antioch quickly, which wasn't really the case because it took them eight months to take Antioch.
The other place was their description of Donatists. The Caners make it out to seem that the Donatists were primarily a group opposed to a close church and state relationship. This may have been part of their views, but they glossed over the idea that the Donatists arose not from political motivations, but because they believed that if a Christian had handed over the Scriptures during persecution that they could not administer the sacraments. Theirs was a focus on the morality of a priest and how deserving they were to be administering the sacraments, not on separation of church and state. These two are just examples I noticed. I can only imagine there are others I didn't realize.
My other issue is not so much with what they had, but what they didn't have. They really present no Scriptural argument for their position. They just kind of jump into the book with their position in hand and don't really do much work developing it. For someone like me who largely agrees with their take on things, this isn't too big of a deal, but for one who doesn't, some interaction would have been helpful to their case. I'm not normally one to dock a book for not quoting Scripture enough, but I think it would have been helpful in this case to build their view and then use that view to engage with the history that they look at.
Now for what I did like, I liked that the way they structured their book. I liked the idea of walking through the history of the church. While I do feel that the Caners didn't really the best at presenting historical events the best, which I'll get to shortly, I do appreciate the way they tried to approach this issue. They showed how the early church viewed war and how that view changed over time. I also like that they focused on more than just the crusades. That they showed how this poor way of viewing the relationship of church and state has been perpetuated by Catholics and Protestants by large empires and smaller nations. I also appreciate that they include how the victims of this joining of power were from many different groups: Muslims, Jews, non-believers, and even other Christians.
I also liked that they were willing to face such a difficult issue head on. These are not actions that I like to think about with the history of the church. Even so, I do think that these things have had a great impact on the witness of the church and displays the danger of any group getting too much power. Christians need to be wrestling with these events and understand that our relationship with power has not been a very good one. This is the danger of too much power no matter the religion or ideology you follow.
So overall, it's a book I'm kind of conflicted about. It's not bad, but it's not good. It's a sobering look at some of the terrible things that have been done in the name of Christ and this is something that Christians need to wrestle with. However, the execution of the book wasn't the best and while I may keep this book for now, I'm sure that at some point I will read a book that will replace this one.
November 15, 2018
Unique look at the crusades and the history of the church and how they interact in unique ways.
April 25, 2024
For an assignment but also interesting seeing the Muslim perspective
March 22, 2013
Here is the thing. I have read many reviews on this book that are angry ramblings accusing the authors of being both Christ-haters and Right-Wing nut jobs. However, no review that I have read actually discusses the quality of the historical content. The attention to historical detail in this book is abysmal.
This book was assigned to me in a History of the Crusades class as an example of an awful book on the Crusades. We read primary sources and compared many different accounts from Latin, Byzantine, and Muslim sources. Then we read this book. There are details in this book that are flat out wrong. For instance, the authors make the passing assertion that the Latin Crusaders took the city of Antioch in the First Crusade quickly and easily. However, every primary source shows that the siege on Antioch took 8 months and was long and grueling. In fact, the Latin Crusaders were almost defeated on several different occasions.
There are several other instances where the authors skim over characters and events in a way that does them absolutely no justice. One in particular: there are 5 accounts of Pope Urban II's speech at Clermont (some written over 100 years after the fact) that called for the First Crusade. The Caners seem to jump freely between the 5 accounts and quote them at random whenever it it convenient to make their point without clarifying whose account they are drawing from.
If you are looking for a better (though not perfect), readable overview of the Crusades, Jonathan Phillips' Holy Warriors is much more carefully researched.
This book isn't clearly biased or politically motivated. It is just bad history.
This book was assigned to me in a History of the Crusades class as an example of an awful book on the Crusades. We read primary sources and compared many different accounts from Latin, Byzantine, and Muslim sources. Then we read this book. There are details in this book that are flat out wrong. For instance, the authors make the passing assertion that the Latin Crusaders took the city of Antioch in the First Crusade quickly and easily. However, every primary source shows that the siege on Antioch took 8 months and was long and grueling. In fact, the Latin Crusaders were almost defeated on several different occasions.
There are several other instances where the authors skim over characters and events in a way that does them absolutely no justice. One in particular: there are 5 accounts of Pope Urban II's speech at Clermont (some written over 100 years after the fact) that called for the First Crusade. The Caners seem to jump freely between the 5 accounts and quote them at random whenever it it convenient to make their point without clarifying whose account they are drawing from.
If you are looking for a better (though not perfect), readable overview of the Crusades, Jonathan Phillips' Holy Warriors is much more carefully researched.
This book isn't clearly biased or politically motivated. It is just bad history.
April 13, 2008
This is an interesting book that points out the evil heart of man - to kill in the name of God is a sin no matter who does it. The authors put a lot of thought and research into this book and I appreciated everything I learned - even though it is heartbreaking. It's still history and it's still the truth. That's what makes it heartbreaking.
September 14, 2008
This is a must read for Christians. It gives a comprehensive history of the attitudes of Christians toward violence and war through the Crusades and to the present age. It is very instructive and very helpful to understand Middle Eastern attitudes toward the US and war.
December 12, 2007
This book gives a very sober review of the negative parts of Christian history, mainly the Crusades and the Inquisition and how they are still effecting the Christian witness today.
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews