Why Does the Legacy of the Crusades Still Live in Modern Politics?

 

Why Does the Legacy of the Crusades Still Live in Modern Politics?

Introduction: A Wound That Never Truly Heals

As a Muslim who tries to stay neutral, I often wonder why we can never seem to escape the shadow of the Crusades. The history ended more than 900 years ago, yet the narrative keeps resurfacing whether in Western media or in political discourse across the Muslim world. It feels as if someone deliberately keeps this wound open. I do not want to take sides. Instead, I want to write down what I observe: why have the Crusades never really died in modern politics? (Tyerman, The Crusades: A Very Short Introduction, 2004).

The Crusades: From Holy War to Political Propaganda

Many people in the West study the Crusades as a holy war, a mission by Christian Europe to retake Jerusalem from “infidel rulers.” Meanwhile, in the Muslim world, the story of the Crusades often lives on as a symbol of invasion and occupation of what was once a flourishing region. These two perspectives coexist yet stand in stark contrast. And here lies the problem both sides continue to use this history as a political weapon, centuries after Saladin liberated Jerusalem (Asbridge, The Crusades: The War for the Holy Land, 2010).

One proof of this, in my view, was when US President George W. Bush accidentally used the word “Crusade” after the September 11 attacks. For Western ears, it might have sounded like just a metaphor. But in the Middle East, that word reopened deep trauma and seemed to resurrect old wounds. (Maalouf, The Crusades Through Arab Eyes, 1984).

A Symbol of Identity Wars: ‘Us’ vs ‘Them’

The modern narrative of the Crusades often fuels the “us versus them” mindset. Whenever conflict erupts in the Middle East, the rhetoric of a “holy war” or “liberation” returns this time through military campaigns, economic embargoes, or justifying intervention. In my view, it’s an easy way to mobilize Western public support for aggressive foreign policy. (Said, Covering Islam, 1981).

On the other hand, Muslims also frequently revive Crusader rhetoric to fire up resistance. For some political groups in the Middle East, the memory of the Crusades is repackaged to reinforce the idea that colonialism is alive and well. Palestine, Iraq, Syria these are wrapped in one frame: the continuation of the Crusades. (Hillenbrand, The Crusades: Islamic Perspectives, 1999).

Why Does This Narrative Survive So Long?

I believe there are strong reasons this wound is kept alive. First, it is politically effective. Second, it nourishes collective identity. Third, it covers up internal weaknesses. When the West uses “Crusade” rhetoric, it reinforces a sense of moral superiority. When parts of the Muslim world echo the same narrative, it masks internal conflicts with a common external enemy. (Armstrong, Holy War: The Crusades and Their Impact on Today’s World, 1988).

Imagine if this rhetoric disappeared. Many political interests would lose their strongest justification. Here lies the irony: the Crusades ended as a physical war but live on as a rhetorical weapon.

The Crusades and Modern Islamophobia

The wound of the Crusades has also transformed into fuel for Islamophobia. Every time there is a terror attack, the perpetrator’s religion is instantly highlighted. Yet terrorism has no religion. Still, in much Western media, “Muslim” is the label that sticks. Consciously or not, this revives the old image of Muslims as Christian Europe’s historical enemy. (Esposito, Islam and the West, 1999).

In my opinion, as long as Islamophobic propaganda keeps spreading, the wound of the Crusades will continue to be used as an excuse. The public fear stoked by the media becomes the most effective weapon.

How Does the Muslim World Interpret This Wound?

In mosques, schools, and study circles, I often find how strongly the memory of the Crusades is implanted. One figure always mentioned is Salahuddin al-Ayyubi. His name is not just a point of pride but also a symbol of how Muslims should unite under strong leadership. (Hillenbrand, The Crusades: Islamic Perspectives, 1999).

However, the question remains: is this hero narrative healthy if constantly revived? I think the answer depends. On one hand, it boosts the pride of Muslims who are often belittled. On the other, if left unexamined, it can trap Muslims in nostalgia without concrete solutions for the present.

Modern Politics: From Palestine to Europe

The conflict in Palestine always has ties to the symbols of the Crusades. Many narratives of resistance directly reference the Crusader occupation of Jerusalem. In Europe, the rhetoric of “Save Europe from Islam” has re-emerged through right-wing populist politics. From bans on new mosques, hijabs, to restrictions on immigration—these are all framed as protecting “Christian Europe’s heritage.” (Armstrong, Fields of Blood, 2014).

In many political campaigns, Islam is painted as a demographic threat. This is strikingly similar to the Crusader mindset: protect the holy land, guard the faith, resist conquest. The reality, however, is that millions of Muslims in Europe live peacefully, work, pay taxes, and contribute to society. But fear narratives sell better than facts.

How Should We Respond to This Wound?

I believe historical wounds will never truly heal if covered only with slogans. It takes real effort to educate young Muslims not just to memorize the story of Saladin, but to understand why the Muslim world once fell. It wasn’t just because of Crusader attacks, but also internal conflicts, corruption, and power struggles. (Lapidus, A History of Islamic Societies, 2002).

In the West, history education should also be more honest. Not every “mission to spread faith” during the Crusades was morally pure. There were massacres, looting, and purely political motives dressed up as religious war. These facts are rarely touched in Western school textbooks.

Social Media Challenge: The Wound Reshared

The digital era has made the Crusades wound more alive than ever. Short videos, quotes, and memes are shared to inflame emotions. Many politicians know this and exploit it. They realize that “holy war” narratives sell far more easily than peaceful diplomacy. (Mamdani, Good Muslim, Bad Muslim, 2005).

I think this is our generation’s biggest task. Young Muslims must be digitally literate and brave enough to challenge twisted narratives. The West must also realize that historical trauma should not be weaponized to justify aggressive policies.

Can This Wound Ever Truly Heal?

I am not naïve. The wound of the Crusades is too deep to simply erase. But I remain optimistic. Cross-cultural education, historical literacy, and interfaith dialogue can be the balm. The new generation has a big role in writing a new chapter: a world where history is a teacher, not a weapon. (Esposito, Islam and the West, 1999).

Closing: History Should Be Managed, Not Exploited

As a closing thought, I remind myself and my readers: history itself is not wrong. What’s often flawed is how we read and use it. The Crusades will never vanish from history books. But how they live on in modern politics that is up to us. Do we want to keep nursing it as a wound, or close it as a valuable lesson so it will not repeat?