The Origin of Freemasonry: The Crusaders & Templars

  

By

Harun Yahya

The common perception of the majority of historians of Freemasonry is that the origin of the organization goes back to the Crusades. In fact, though Masonry was only officially established and recognized in England in the early eighteenth century, the roots of the organization do reach back to the Crusades in the twelfth century. At the center of this familiar tale is an order of crusaders called the Knights Templar or the Templars.

No matter how much some may insist that the Crusades were military expeditions carried out in the name of the Christian faith, fundamentally, they were undertaken for material gain. In a period when Europe was experiencing great poverty and misery, the prosperity and wealth of the East, especially of the Muslim in the Middle East, attracted the Europeans. This inclination took on a religious facade, and was ornamented with the symbols of Christianity, though, in actuality, the idea of the Crusades was born out of a desire for worldly gain. This was the reason for the sudden change among Christians of Europe from their former pacifist policies, in earlier periods of their history, towards military aggression.

The founder of the Crusades was Pope Urban II. He summoned the Council of Clermont, in 1095, in which the former pacifist doctrine of the Christians was abandoned. A holy war was called for, with the intent to wrest the holy lands from the hands of the Muslims. Following the council, a huge army of Crusaders was formed, composed both of professional soldiers, and tens of thousands of ordinary people.

Historians believe Urban II’s venture was prompted by his desire to thwart the candidacy of a rival to the papacy. Furthermore, while European kings, princes, aristocrats and others greeted the pope’s call with excitement, their intentions were basically mundane. As Donald Queller of The University of Illinois put it, “the French knights wanted more land. Italian merchants hoped to expand trade in Middle Eastern ports… Large numbers of poor people joined the expeditions simply to escape the hardships of their normal lives.”[1] Along the way, this greedy mass slaughtered many Muslims, and even Jews, in hopes of finding gold and jewels. The crusaders even cut open the stomachs of those they had killed to find gold and precious stones the victims may have swallowed before they died.

After a long and difficult journey, and much plunder and slaughter of Muslims, this motley band called Crusaders reached Jerusalem in 1099. When the city fell after a siege of nearly five weeks, the Crusaders moved in. They carried out a level of savagery the like of which the world has seldom seen. All Muslims and Jews in the city were put to the sword. In the words of one historian, “They killed all the Saracens and the Turks they found… whether male or female.[2]

In two days, the Crusader army killed some 40,000 Muslims in the most barbaric manner.4 The Crusaders then made Jerusalem their capital, and founded a Latin Kingdom stretching from the borders of Palestine to Antioch.

Later, the crusaders initiated a struggle to maintain their position in the Middle East. In order to sustain the state they had founded, it was necessary to organize it. To this end, they established military orders, the alike of which had never existed before. Members of these orders came from Europe to Palestine, and lived in a type of monastery where they received military training to fight against Muslims. One of these orders, in particular, was different from the others. It underwent a transformation that would influence the course of history. This order was the Templars.

The Templars, or, their full name, The Poor Fellow-Soldiers of Jesus Christ and the Temple of Solomon, was formed in 1118, that is, 20 years after the Crusaders took Jerusalem. The founders of the order were two French knights, Hugh de Payens and Godfrey de St. Omer. At first, there were 9 members, but the order steadily grew. The reason they named themselves after the temple of Solomon was because the place they had chosen as a base was the temple mount where this ruined temple had been located. This same location was where the Dome of the Rock (Qubbet as-Sakhrah) stood.

The Templars called themselves “poor soldiers,” but within a short time they became very wealthy. Christian pilgrims, coming from Europe to Palestine, were under the complete control of this order, and by whose money they became very rich.

It was the Templars who were mainly responsible for the Crusaders’ attacks of and murder of Muslims. For this reason, the great Islamic commander Saladin, who defeated the Crusaders’ army in 1187, in the Battle of Hattin, and afterwards rescued Jerusalem, put the Templars to death for the murders they had committed, even though he had otherwise pardoned a large number of Christians. Although they lost Jerusalem, and suffered heavy casualties, the Templars continued to exist. And, despite the continual diminution of the Christian presence in Palestine, they increased their power in Europe and, first in France, and then in other countries, became a state within a state.

Finally, in 1307, the French king Philip le Bel decided to arrest the members of the order. Some of them managed to escape but most of them were caught. Pope Clement V also joined the purge. Following a long period of interrogation and trial, many of the Templars admitted to heretical beliefs, that they had rejected the Christian faith and insulted Jesus in their masses. Finally, the leaders of the Templars, who were called “grandmasters,” beginning with the most important of them, Jacques de Molay, were executed in 1314 by order of the Church and the King. The majority of them were put into prison, and the order dispersed and officially disappeared.

The trial of the Templars ended with the termination of the order. But, although the order “officially” ceased to exist, it did not actually disappear. During the sudden arrest in 1307, some Templars escaped, managing to cover their tracks. According to a thesis based on various historical documents, a significant number of them took refuge in the only kingdom in Europe that did not recognize the authority of the Catholic Church in the fourteenth century, Scotland. There, they reorganized under the protection of the Scottish King, Robert the Bruce. Sometime later, they found a convenient method of disguise by which to continue their clandestine existence: they infiltrated the most important guild in the medieval British Isles-the wall builders’ lodge, and eventually, they fully seized control of these lodges.[3]

The wall-builders’ lodge changed its name, at the beginning of the modern era, calling itself the “Masonic lodge.” The Scottish Rite is the oldest branch of Masonry, and dates back to the beginning of the fourteenth century, to those Templars who took refuge in Scotland. And, the names given to the highest degrees in Scottish Rite are titles attributed centuries earlier to knights in the order of Templars. These are still employed to this day.

In short, the Templars did not disappear, but their philosophy, beliefs and rituals still persist under the guise of Freemasonry. This thesis is supported by much historical evidence, and is accepted today by a large number of Western historians, whether they are Freemasons or not., (For detailed information see Harun Yahya, The New Masonic Order)

The thesis that traces the roots of Masonry to the Templars is often referred to in magazines published by Masons for its own members. Freemasons are very accepting of the idea. One such magazine is called Mimar Sinan (a publication of Turkish Freemasons), which describes the relationship between the Order of the Templars and Freemasonry in these words:

“In 1312, when the French king, under pressure from the Church, closed the Order of Templars and gave their possessions to the Knights of St. John in Jerusalem, the activities of the Templars did not cease. The great majority of the Templars took refuge in Freemasonic lodges that were operating in Europe at that time. The leader of the Templars, Mabeignac, with a few other members, found refuge in Scotland under the guise of a wall builder under the name of Mac Benach. The Scottish King, Robert the Bruce, welcomed them and allowed them to exercise great influence over the Masonic lodges in Scotland. As a result, Scottish lodges gained great importance from the point of view of their craft and their ideas.

Today, Freemasons use the name Mac Benach with respect. Scottish Masons, who inherited the Templars’ heritage, returned it to France many years later and established there the basis of the rite known as the Scottish Rite.” [4]

Finally, we say, it is clear that the roots of Freemasonry stretch back to the Order of Templars, and that the Masons have adopted the philosophy of this order. Masons themselves accept this. (For further reading, see “Global Freemasonry” by Harun Yahya)<

Notes:

[1] World Book Encyclopedia, “Crusades,” Contributor: Donald E. Queller, Ph.D., Prof. of History, Univ. of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, World Book Inc., 1998

[2] Geste Francorum, or the Deeds of the Franks and the Other Pilgrims to Jerusalem, trans. Rosalind Hill, London, 1962, p. 91

[3] For this thesis about Freemasonry, see. John J. Robinson, “Born in Blood: The Lost Secrets of Freemasonry”, New York, M. Evans & Company, 1989

[4] Ender Arkun, “Masonlarin Dusunce Evrimine Katkisina Kisa Bir Bakis” (A Short Look at the Contribution of Freemasonry to the Evolution of Thought), Mimar Sinan, 1990, No. 77, p.68

Harun Yahya is a prominent Turkish intellectual.

The Rahbar’s analysis of the Iraq war: "The emerging Hitlerism of America"

Sayyid Ali Khamenei

Speaking in Mashhad on March 23, the Rahbar of Islamic Iran, IMAM SAYYID ALI KHAMENEI, gave a detailed analysis of the reasons for America’s war on Iraq. Here we reprint an abridged extract from that speech.

In the Name of God, The Merciful, the Compassionate. . .

Our dear people should realize that the dimensions of the American attack on Iraq are greater than Iraq. Under any circumstance, an attack on any country, be it Iraq or another, by a distant and powerful country on the basis of false and fabricated grounds is wrong. World public opinion has condemned this action. You can see it on television. You see their huge anti-war rallies in all corners of the world, even in America itself. But the issue is even more dangerous for the Islamic world. It has even greater implications. You shouldn’t just think that a certain regime with a certain motivation is attacking a certain other country.

The Americans want to portray the situation in a different light. They pretend that their objective is to dispose Saddam because he has weapons of mass-destruction, or because he supports terrorism, or because the Americans want to help the Iraqi people. This is what the Americans are pretending, but this is deceit. Many people around the world know this.

The fact is that a new, shameless and very dangerous Hitlerism has emerged in history. America is now creating a situation like what Hitler created at the start of World War II. Hitler attacked his European neighbours with the justification that Germany needs a vital space, "Lebensraum". He said Germany is too small for the German people; they need greater space to survive. It was a matter of vital national interest. This was the justification to his people and the world public opinion, but it was a false and ridiculous justification.

Today, the American justification for attacking Iraq—and before that for attacking Afghanistan—is that "we want to safeguard our own national interests, we want to remove threats against us". This is their justification today. But how far is Iraq from America? What sort of threat can Iraq pose? What are American interests which require and allow the American regime to use arms against another country?

The American definition of national interests is similar to what the ancient landowners and the old bullies did in the old villages and neighbourhoods. If a village girl weaves a pretty carpet and the landowner likes it, the girl’s father has to take the carpet to him. The justification is that he needs the carpet. If there is a valuable item, they have to give it to him. This was the culture of the landowners, the culture of the bullies. "I like what you have and you should give it me whether you like it or not." This is precisely how Americans are interpreting their national interests now.

First they define something as being in their interests. These things could be in the possession of another nation in a distant part of the world. But because America has power and weapons, it considers itself entitled to achieve those interests in any way necessary. It does not matter how much suffering is caused, it does not matter how much destruction is brought about, or how lives are trampled on. This is how the Americans define their national interests.

Let me briefly define the general objectives of the Americans in this region. The fact of the matter is that this region, i.e. the Arab and then the Muslim world, is rich in terms of oil—a valuable commodity—and America wants this oil. There are also other mineral resources, under the ground and under the sea. There are also geo-strategic considerations—anyone who controls this region has access to other parts of the world. America wants all these things. It is the same story as the pretty carpet that the landowner wanted, and had to secure.

The other thing that the Americans want from the region is the consumer market. They want to sell their own products there. The region is well populated. The population must use American products, so that American and Zionist capitalists can fill their pockets.

If they want to achieve these things and if they want to keep the region for themselves, they need a type of regime which is totally subservient to them, which accepts their policies, which produces oil at a price which it is told, which consumes certain goods, which cuts its ties with American rivals, which establishes ties with the friends of America, and so on. In order to keep their rule in the region they need totally subservient and dependent regimes which don’t resist the pursuit of American interests. Of course, already there are regimes like that in the region. But there is another phenomenon which they have to take into account.

Today reactionary regimes, monarchical regimes or despotic regimes are of little use to America even though they serve American interests. They now need regimes which have a facade of democracy. So the danger of America is not limited to Iraq. Many regimes in the region, which have good ties with America but are not popular or dependent on people’s votes, are going to be challenged by America soon. These types of regimes are of no use for the Americans: they don’t want regimes like the Pahlavi taghut that provoked people into revolution. The Pahlavi regime was a reactionary regime and a stooge of America. The Americans failed to reform it, so the people rebelled and destroyed it in order to establish their desired Islamic system. The Americans are worried that the same thing is going to happen in other Arab and Islamic countries.

They realize this and they have said so. One of their senior politicians, a member of the Senate, said recently in the American Senate that if democracy is created quickly in any of the Arab countries and people are given the vote, Islamic regimes will come to power. They know these things. They want to bring in a type of regime which has a facade of populism and has come to power by popular vote. This is their next requirement.

But in order for people to elect individuals who serve American interests they also need another thing. And what is that? It is a promiscuous culture which is careless of social and moral values. They want people to grow with an American culture, so when they vote, they vote for an individual favored by the American regime.

The sum of all these factors requires an extensive effort in the domains of politics, culture, propaganda and, as a last resort, military action by America. Today you witness the military phase in Iraq. Saddam Hussain cooperated with America. If America and its allies had not supported Saddam Hussain, he would not have survived against our brave and steadfast people. Then they helped Saddam, but now he is no longer required. They realize that Saddam is a dictator and if he remains in power there could be a popular revolt that would leave America totally out of the picture. Then it will be like the system of the Islamic Republic in Iran. It is here that the true nature of war against Iraq becomes clear.

This war, therefore, is a most foul war which is under way in Iraq. It will become more intense. This is only the beginning. The objective is totally devoid of humanity. The Americans say they are fighting for democracy, but they are lying. They are fighting for oil. They are fighting to bring another subservient regime to power. They want to occupy Iraq. They want to control this ancient country and nation, this sensitive region, and its rich resources, completely. They want to loot it without difficulty. This is the reality of the situation in Iraq.

What is more, this plan is not limited to Iraq. All Arab countries, even those who are helping America today and who are allowing America to use their airports, soil, airspace or other resources will be challenged by the Americans soon. We understand this from evidence provided by the Americans themselves. What I am telling you is not what we believe; it is what the Americans have said themselves, which reveals their aims and objectives. This is the reral situation. In the first stage, Arab countries, and in the later stage, Muslim counties are to be challenged.

Is there any obstacle on the path of their plan? Yes. The main obstacle in the way of the Americans is the awakening of the Muslim world. The Muslim world is wakening up. Don’t look at the false propaganda of the radios which are managed by the arrogant powers. The culture of Islamic Revolution has infiltrated the Islamic world. They know that they cannot do anything as long as the Islamic world and Muslim peoples believe in Islam, as long as the Qur’anic culture dominates our minds, and as long as the pure Muhammadi Islam is an ideal for us.

That is why they have tried to degrade Islam in the public mind. They realize that Islam is the main obstacle in their path. Islam and the Qur’an teach us that it is possible to live independently, courageously and powerfully free of the superpowers. This is what we have to learn from Islam.

US imperialism