The Crusades: An Old Wound That Hasn’t Healed?

 

The Crusades: An Old Wound That Hasn’t Healed?

Introduction

Every time I read history books, I always pause at the chapter about the Crusades. For me, the Crusades were not just a conflict between Christian Europe and the Muslim World but also a symbol of how religion can be used as political fuel. I often wonder: has the wound of the Crusades truly healed? Or is it still a collective memory passed down from generation to generation?
(Riley-Smith, The Crusades: A History, 2005)

---

What Really Happened?

Looking at historical records, the Crusades began in the late 11th century when Pope Urban II called on European Christians to seize Jerusalem from Muslim control. What strikes me is how religion was used as a pretext for mobilizing military power across continents. Many historians agree that behind the rhetoric of “liberating the Holy Land” lay the economic and political ambitions of European nobility.
(Asbridge, The Crusades: The Authoritative History, 2010)

The Crusades lasted for centuries, leaving deep scars on Middle Eastern societies. Not only were Muslims victimized, but Jewish communities, Eastern Christians, and unarmed civilians also suffered.

---

Why Is This Wound So Hard to Heal?

As a Muslim, I see this wound lasting so long because the Crusades left marks not just physically but also psychologically. In many Middle Eastern history books, the story of the Crusades is often used as a reminder of how the Islamic World was colonized and humiliated. This shapes the collective memory of generations.
(Hillenbrand, The Crusades: Islamic Perspectives, 2000)

From the Western side, the Crusades are still often used as a symbol of cultural pride. Just look at how many Hollywood films or European novels portray the Templar knights as romantic heroes. Here lies the problem: one old conflict, but two opposing narratives.

---

The Crusades and Modern Islamophobia

In my opinion, one reason why the wound of the Crusades feels relevant today is that the rhetoric of “crusade” is often revived. After 9/11, President George W. Bush once used the term “crusade” (though he later corrected it).
(Aslan, No god but God, 2005)

For many Muslims, the word “crusade” recalls an era of bloody conquest, not merely a holy mission. This fuels anti-Western sentiment among some Muslims and keeps the narrative alive that the West still has the same “colonial mindset.”

---

Can This Wound Be Healed?

I personally don’t want to be trapped in historical resentment. For me, learning from the Crusades should make us more cautious so that religion is never again used as a political weapon. We must separate what is sacred teaching and what is political ambition.
(Armstrong, Holy War, 2001)

Sadly, this wound is hard to erase because there are always parties who benefit from playing the hatred card. Just look at extremist groups in the Middle East who use the slogan “fight the Crusaders” to inflame young Muslims’ anger even though the context has completely changed.

---

Two Different Narratives

Interestingly, I see that the West and the Muslim World read the Crusades through different lenses. In the West, the Crusades are often romanticized. European history books highlight heroic knights — Richard the Lionheart, the Templar Order, and so on.
(Tyerman, God's War: A New History of the Crusades, 2006)

Meanwhile, in the Muslim World, the hero is Salahuddin Al-Ayyubi, the wise Muslim knight who reclaimed Jerusalem. These two narratives run in parallel, rarely meeting at a point of reconciliation. This, I believe, is why the old wound never truly heals.

---

Why Is It Still Used Today?

To me, the rhetoric of the Crusades lives on because it’s effective as a symbol. In the West, the term “crusade” is used to show the spirit of fighting an “outside enemy” whether it was communism in the 20th century or “Islamic radicalism” in the 21st.
(Madden, The Concise History of the Crusades, 2013)

In the Muslim World, the term flips: “Crusaders” is a keyword to unite people against Western dominance. This old narrative is used by politicians, radical groups, and certain media to revive the “us vs them” mentality.

---

Lessons to Learn

Personally, I see the Crusades as a mirror: no matter how fierce religious conflicts were, they were ultimately driven by human hands, not dogma. Religion was used as a flag, but economic and political interests dictated the war.
(Phillips, Holy Warriors, 2009)

That’s why I feel today’s generation must dare to distinguish between religion’s loving teachings and hate ideologies that ride on its name.

---

What Can We Do?

If I may say, young Muslims must read history critically. Don’t just swallow the victim narrative but learn how conflict can be prevented. We need to educate the next generation not to be easily provoked by “holy war” propaganda.

On the other hand, I think the West has homework too to honestly teach that the Crusades were not just about knightly pride but also about oppression, plunder, and the suffering of countless innocent people.

---

Closing

For me, the Crusades are indeed an old wound. But that doesn’t mean they must be an eternal scar. Our generation has a chance to close this dark chapter if we’re willing to learn honestly, reject hateful narratives, and build intercultural dialogue.

If not, this wound will keep being exploited by politicians, replayed by the media, and passed down to our children. And that’s what I fear the most.