Perhaps our media-seeking politicians and activists are running out of other things to apologize for, so next on the apology tour may well be the Crusades:

Wherever one looks, the historic crusades against Islam are demonized and distorted in ways designed to exonerate jihadi terror. “Unless we get on our high horse,” Barack Obama once chided Americans who were overly critical of Islamic terror, “and think this [beheadings, sex-slavery, crucifixion, roasting humans] is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ.”

Others, primarily academics and self-professed “experts,” insist that the crusades are one of the main reasons modern day Muslims are still angry. According to Georgetown University’s John Esposito, “[f]ive centuries of peaceful coexistence [between Islam and Christendom] elapsed before political events and an imperial-papal power play led to [a] centuries-long series of so-called holy wars that pitted Christendom against Islam and left an enduring legacy of misunderstanding and distrust.”

Nor is this characterization limited to abstract theorizing; it continues to have a profound impact on the psyche of Westerners everywhere. Thus in 1999 and to mark the 900th anniversary of the crusader conquest of Jerusalem, hundreds of devout Protestants participated in a so-called “reconciliation walk” that began in Germany and ended in the holy city. Along the way, they wore T-shirts bearing the message “I apologize” in Arabic. Their official statement:

Nine hundred years ago, our forefathers carried the name of Jesus Christ in battle across the Middle East. Fueled by fear, greed and hatred … the Crusaders lifted the banner of the Cross above your people … On the anniversary of the first Crusade, we … wish to retrace the footsteps of the Crusaders in apology for their deeds … We deeply regret the atrocities committed in the name of Christ by our predecessors. We renounce greed, hatred and fear, and condemn all violence done in the name of Jesus Christ.

After outlining the Western concept of “Just War” in contrast to the Islamic concept of “Jihad”, Raymond Ibrahim puts the Crusades into historical context:

From the very start, at Clermont in 1095, Pope Urban never offered forgiveness of sins (but rather remission of the penances for sins to which crusaders had already confessed). Those who took the cross were required to be sincerely penitent.

This is a far cry from what Muslims were (and are) taught about fighting and dying in jihad: Every sin they ever committed is instantly forgiven, and the highest level of paradise is theirs. “Lining up for battle in the path of Allah,” Muhammad had decreed in a canonical hadith, “is worthier than 60 years of worship.” Muhammad also said, “I cannot find anything” as meritorious as jihad, which he further likened to “praying ceaselessly and fasting continuously.” As for the “martyr” — the shahid — he “is special to Allah,” announced the prophet. “He is forgiven from the first drop of blood [he sheds]. He sees his throne in paradise. … Fixed atop his head will be a crown of honor, a ruby that is greater than the world and all it contains. And he will copulate with seventy-two Houris.” (The houris are supernatural, celestial women — “wide-eyed” and “big-bosomed,” says the Koran — created by Allah for the express purpose of gratifying his favorites in perpetuity.)

Crusader motives also had to be sincere: “Whoever shall set forth to liberate the church of God at Jerusalem for the sake of devotion alone and not to obtain honor or money will be able to substitute that journey for all penance,” Urban had said. Similarly, Spanish Prince Juan Manuel (d. 1348) explained that “all those who go to war against the Moors in true repentance and with a right intention … and die are without any doubt holy and rightful martyrs, and they have no other punishment than the death they suffer.”

In this, Christian war significantly departed from Islamic jihad. Allah and his prophet never asked for or required sincere hearts from those flocking to the jihad; as long as they proclaimed the shahada — thereby pledging allegiance to Islam — and nominally fought for and obeyed the caliph or sultan, men could invade, plunder, rape and enslave infidels to their hearts’ content.

The cold, businesslike language of the Koran makes this clear. Whoever wages jihad makes a “fine loan to Allah,” which the latter guarantees to pay back “many times over” in booty and bliss either in the here or hereafter (e.g., Koran 2:245, 4:95, 9:111). “I guarantee him [the jihadi] either admission to Paradise,” said Muhammad, “or return to whence he set out with a reward or booty.”

In short, fighting in Islam’s service — with the risk of dying — is all the proof of piety needed. Indeed, sometimes fighting has precedence over piety: Many dispensations, including not upholding prayers and fasting, are granted those who participate in jihad. Ottoman sultans were actually forbidden from going on pilgrimage to Mecca — an otherwise individual obligation for Muslims, especially those who can afford it, such as the sultan — simply because doing so could jeopardize the prosecution of the jihad.

Little wonder that, whereas there was never a shortage of Muslims willing to participate in a jihad, “85-90 percent of the Frankish knights did not respond to the pope’s call to the Crusade,” explains Tony Stark, and “those [10-15 percent] who went were motivated primarily by pious idealism.”

Little wonder that there are still countless jihadis today but no crusaders.