I am curious about how the Muslims viewed the Crusaders. Are there any books on the subject from the Muslim viewpoint?
>>848022
>Are there any books on the subject from the Muslim viewpoint?
Hopefully not. Theologically driven history went out with Ranke. But there should be books ABOUT the Muslim viewpoint.
>>848022
The crusades hardly had any lasting impact on the muslim world. Muslims did not even have a distinct word for crusades, as they saw it as the continuation of the standard war between them and european powers.
>>848022
There wasn't any unified opinion in Syria during the First Crusade (as there was none for actual military action).
Beyond obvious war atrocities, actual Lordship over Muslims in Latin colonies was pleasant, and thus a local surge in Jihadic sentiment was very slow to crystallize.
>>848029
Sorry, that's what I fucking meant. Books about the Muslim viewpoint.
>>848022
Gabrieli, Francesco, ed. Arab Historians of the Crusades. Translated by E. J. Costello. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1969.
>This work represents the best collection of Arab sources on the Crusades in English translation. Its dozens of selections, with brief introductory commentary, illuminate the Arab perspective on key events during the crusading era, including the crusaders’ capture of Jerusalem in 1099 and Frederick II’s unusual negotiations for the kingdom of Jerusalem in 1228. Gabrieli also provides selections from Arab writers on the cultural interaction of Christians and Muslims in the crusader states, including, for example, Arab views of Frankish women and medicine.
http://bookzz.org/book/659469/0a4a97
Holt, Andrew, and James Muldoon, eds. Competing Voices from the Crusades. Oxford: Greenwood, 2008.
>This book juxtaposes contemporary Latin, Arabic, Hebrew, and Greek accounts of controversial events during the Crusades, such as the conquest of Jerusalem in 1099 and the Battle of Hattin in 1187, thus highlighting and providing the sometimes strikingly different perspectives on the same events. This work also includes chapters with selections from primary sources with details, including “Life on a Crusade,” “Life in the Crusader States,” and an especially useful chapter on the development of canon law as it related to crusading.
>>848060
Thank a bunch anon.
>>848022
>invade European lands and enslave their people for centuries
>they retaliate slightly and fail miserably
OH THE HUMANITY, THE OPPRESSION, U R ALL FOREVER RESPONSIBLE FOR EVERY ILL THAT HAPPENS HERE FOR THE REST OF TIME, GIBS REPARASHUNS
>>848060
here are secondary sources:
Hillenbrand, Carole. The Crusades: Islamic Perspectives. New York: Routledge, 2000.
>This remains the best scholarly work in English for those seeking to understand the Crusades from the Islamic point of view. Through a careful examination of Islamic sources, some previously unavailable to non-Arabists, Hillenbrand considers the evolving Muslim understanding of the crusaders and the thinking that underpinned the Islamic response.
Laiou, Angeliki E., and Roy Parviz Mottahedeh, eds. The Crusades from the Perspective of Byzantium and the Muslim World. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library, 2001.
>This collection of essays, available online, considers non-Western contemporary perspectives of the Crusades. While not comprehensive, this volume provides essays covering the entire period of the crusaders’ presence in the Holy Land. It includes essays on jihad before the Crusades, views of Europe in the Arab hero cycles, the development of Islamic art during the Crusades, and Muslim views of Byzantium and the crusaders.
http://bookzz.org/book/1063807/948063
Elisséeff, Nikita. “The Reaction of the Syrian Muslims after the Foundation of the First Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem.” In Crusaders and Muslims in Twelfth Century Syria. Edited by Maya Shatzmiller, 162–172. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 1993.
>Elisséeff argues that the Muslims of Syria initially viewed the First Crusade as an extension of the Byzantine effort to recover lost territories rather than as a Christian holy war directed against them. Elisséeff attributes this to a prior decline in enthusiasm for jihad in the Islamic world, which explains why the Islamic preacher al-Sulami’s call for jihad against the crusaders initially went unheeded, only to be pursued by later Muslim leaders, such as Nur ed-Din and Saladin.
>>848067
But anon, Arabs didnt even care about the crusades until white guilt apologists told them they should.
>>848067
>beggin' for the (You)
>>848022
Does someone have that story about a Muslim shaving a Christian's privates and his wife's?
Great source on this subject in my opinion.
>>848104
This sounds positively Hasek/Hassel
>>848022
A small horde of savage, famished and miserable barbarians plundering and slaughtering anything that they encountered ahead.
To be fair, the first Crusade that entered into the Islamic world was captained by a beggar.
Still, the universal aversion to bathing and their primitive, heavy and inefficient weapons, did not help to improve the reputation of the invaders in the following expeditions.
In general, it consists of a historical footnote.
Worthy of mention, but not more than that.
>>848071
Yes, Muslims are more butthurt about the Mongol invasions.
Muslims basically won the crusades through the Turkish way, so they consider the Frankish invaders as little more than inbred upstarts, the way Murricans might consider Mexicans.
>>848067
I worry for your sanity.
>>848060
Ooh baby, nicely formatted citations and shizz. Good post anon.
>>848113
Really good introduction to the subject, and should have been the first response really.
>>848123
>so they consider the Frankish invaders as little more than inbred upstarts
Don't get too uppity there Mohammed. I doubt losing Jerusalem for a hundred years was insignificant.
What I meant was that for the arab there was no distinction between the crusades and the wars that were pretty much uninterrupted for a near millenia between catholics and muslims.
>>848147
Jerusalem is no Mecca or Medina.
Yes the muslims wanted it back but they were more interested in killing each other than the Crusader states for the most part.
>>848029
*ahem*
>>848040
don't they view it as the beginning of their cycle of victimhood at the hands of the west: Crusades>colonialism>cia-oil
>>848156
Not really. It's not like they didn't fight back against the west, and neither did conquer the other.
If anything, arabs themselves had a worst impact on the middle-east than western people.
>>848113
This. Excellent book and the author is a quality one, he's part of the Académie Française.
>>848156
>*ahem*
If they reject Ranke we describe their work as "diatribe" not history.
>>848123
>Yes, Muslims are more butthurt about the Mongol invasions.
I mean taht seems reasonable
Until the modern era, nobody in islamic societies even remembered the Crusades save for a handful of historians.
>>848067
Holy shit nobody even cares about the Crusades except retards on /pol/ who like to whine about how people don't like the crusades.
I've never heard anyone in real life complain about Crusaders. No one cares. No one thinks about it.
You are complaining about something that doesn't exist.
>>848022
largely as a war against France..."the Franks".
>>848176
fifel, what do you think of the history of the Islamic world?
We didn't care
A bunch of tribal christcucks attacking an irrelevant tourist trap was nothing new
>>851887
Probably shouldn't put christ and cuck in the same word, brother.
They were viewed as pretty much an irrelevance until they started being used as a political tool for rhetorical fightback against west in modern times.
>>851896
christ isn't the same as jesus or isa (a.s.), chill out
salaam btw
For the muslims the Crusaders were c.ucks and practiced backwards science. As written by a muslim noble/scholar himself who lived amongst them;
http://legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/source/Usamah2.asp
>>851944
I mean he is the Messiah, and that's what Christ means. But if that's not your intention when you say christ, then I guess it's different.
Wa alaykum assalaam
>>848022
Kind of like how the Modern World views the Middle Ages in general: barbaric, uneducated, illiterate, violet, fanatical, and intolerant. No wonder the Plague got to those Europeans. They deserved it. Pic related.
>>851961
Since christ derives from Greek 'khriein' (one blessed with oil), which was a title originally applied to pagan gods from around that area.
Masiah, and Masih, are more halal Semetic terms, hence why I do not mind the other brother applying it a term belying misled followers of Jesus.
>>851968
Silly infograph,
>>852015
>Silly infograph,
...Rome was collapsing from petty emperors wasting Rome's budget on pointless wars and stupid civil feuds, which just invites barbarians to sack the city. Europe has more to blame from greed than to scapegoat a religion of lambs.
>>852015
>Masiah, and Masih, are more halal Semetic terms, hence why I do not mind the other brother applying it a term belying misled followers of Jesus.
Fair enough. That makes sense. This might interest you, btw: https://tulayhah.wordpress.com/2015/12/21/the-meaning-of-the-title-al-maseeh/
>Silly infograph,
I agree. He's probably baiting.
>>852037
Oh yeah. I read something like that before, creepy.
>>852028
Even trying to explain away the graph is pointless, the thing is an arbitrary, made-up meme graph
>>852069
Lol what's creepy?
>>852083
That a title referring to a messiah is identical to that of the antichrist, and both mean different things and derive from different etymologies.
It's like when black people thought Nation of Islam was there to raise them up, but then crack happened mysteriously.
>>852108
Oh yeah. True.
>>848113
Awsome book
>>848040
>he crusades hardly had any lasting impact on the muslim world.
Wrong
>Muslims did not even have a distinct word for crusades
They do, al-hurub al-salibiya(the wars of the cross)
>they saw it as the continuation of the standard war between them and european powers
The fatimid caliphate was at peace with the christians.
>>848119
>Still their primitive, heavy and inefficient weapons, did not help to improve the reputation of the invaders in the following expeditions.
Why must you post when you have no idea what you're talking about?
Why can't you jst lurk?
Why can't you just go google the subject?
Why can't you go buy a book?
Why not do any of those things instead?
Why do you feel compelled to shitpost, anon? Why?
>>848022
>find a good meme on interweb
>ask question just because you want to use me
well meme'd my friend
>>851887
Then why do you go on about losing it to the jews?
Genuinely curious.
>>848022
>what the fuck?
>why are these guys doing this?
>why is my house on fire?
>>848067
The crusades weren't about slavery at all, they were about getting the holy lands and feudal lords with little land would of course want a larger kingdom.
>>848176
Tangentially, why is Ranke part of a "series on Conservatism" on Wikipedia?
>>848022
Yes, there's a french book called 'Les croisades vu par les arabes' and written by Amin Maalouf, look for a translation, that book is great
The memoirs of one Usama ibn Munqidh,a Muslim (some claim Shi'ite) nobleman, are some of the best reports of Muslims interactions with the Crusaders after the First Crusade. According to Usama, the Franks have a lot of a courage and military prowess, "but not much else". He also criticized the Franks' lack of jealousy with their women. He mentions that many new Franks recently arrived from Europe are wont to be disrespectful and brutish with others not their own, telling a story of how he was constantly harassed during his prayers in al-Aqsa because he was praying in "the wrong direction" which necessitated the other Franks (whom he identifies as Templars) having to apologize for the fellow's rude behavior. He also accuses the King of Acre of cruel piracy. Another story Usamah relates is one he claims to have heard from a Christian physician. The physician claims a physician from the Franks treated a knight with a wounded leg, asking the knight if he preferred to "live with one leg or die with two", the knight said he'd rather live with one, so they hacked away at his leg with an axe and he died of blood loss. The Frank is also said to have carved a crucifix on the shaved head of an insane woman, exposed her skull and poured salt on it to purge the "devil" from her head; she died. Usamah does however, contrast this with his own experience, where some of the Franks seemed to have been fairly good at medicine.
Usamah claims that among the more established Franks in Antioch, some have taken to imitating the Muslims around them in their customs, which earns Usamah's respect. And although Usamah curses the Franks and wishes for God to punish them, he refers to several Franks as his "friends" (one of which wanted to take his son to Europe, which Usamah says would be a most worst fate) and commends the piety of the monks of St. John, which in fact upset him until he encountered a group of Sufi dervishes as he had never until that point "seen such piety among the Muslims"
>>848040
In turkish its called haçlı seferleri which translates to pilgrim's campaigns or something.
>>851869
Under worked outside Marxist historiography (Banaji)
>>853226
>>853081
>old
>white
>man
>>848113
THIS THIS THIS THIS
Europeans were seen as extremists savages by both byzantines and muslims
>>853345
This. ibn Munqidh rewrote his shit near the end of his life with anti-Frankish tropes written into it because people wouldn't understand that they lived relatively integrated with one another
Woah, I heard this board was cancer and it is... amazing containment job
>>851822
I live in Europe and have had the Crusades used as a weapon against me in discussions countless times. It's literally the first thing people mention if you dare suggest Muslims are invading Europe.
