just finished the director's cut of Kingdom of Heaven
what are some of the best books on the Crusades?
>>7335369
Fuck you.
>>7335369
>>7335371
What a meme to be alive, truly.
>>7335400
Why wouldn't you?
>>7335400
For the same reason, one could say, I'd watch Triumph of the Will after having seen Saving Private Ryan or whatever you want, I don't really go for war movies.
i hate how all of the characters are completely rational humanists or crazy people using religion as an excuse to satisfy their bloodlust
watching this film you get the impression that religion had literally nothing to with the crusades
>>7335426
>watching this film you get the impression that religion had literally nothing to with the crusades
Well, yeah. It's was no the single nor main reason for many of their idealizers.
>>7335435
It wasn't the single reason, but it most certainly was the main reason. The Crusades were fought to bring the Kingdom of Heaven upon the earth first and foremost
boy this sure is going a lot better than a thread just like this on /his/. talk about e/lit/e.
>>7335413
Why would I want to watch a movie about spiritual warfare made by a non spiritual person who has so much western first world white guilt that he portrays Saladin as a great hero?
>>7335444
Yeah, right. And the WWI was to avenge Franz Ferdinand.
>>7335444
The crusades were fought because the Byzantines asked for help and the pope wanted to give all these knights something to do.
And later on to protect the kingdoms of Outremer. You also had people wanting to get rich/save their own souls and the desire to protect pilgrims.
Whereas these days people get the bizarre idea it was just a war of conquest because lol infidels.
>>7335466
What's so unbelievable about people fighting a war to establish the Kingdom they believe is fated to them
>>7335463
Because the Crusades run deeper than "Kingdom of Heaven on Earth" and the Muslins of then were actually worth some thing and had a interesting culture and the whole political background had influences for centuries later.
>>7335474
The crusaders didn't fight merely because they were bored and trying to occupy themselves. They were trying to reclaim Jerusalem and reestablish the Kingdom of Israel
>>7335479
Every culture is worth something. That doesn't make then virtuous
>>7335487
The peasants, maybe. The true masterminds had better things in their minds, especially the Popes.
OP.
This is the best book you can buy on the crusades.
Additionally, Runciman's 3 volume study of the crusades offers perhaps the best overall general perspective one could gain from reading a text on the history of the crusades.
in don't give a flying fuck about historical accuracy, it was entertaining and loved to get drunk while watching it
no gimme some damn book suggestions you butt hurt fucks
>>7335492
What better things did they have in mind besides claiming Jerusalem as their seat to establish their new world order?
>>7335400
Why was it pro Islam? If anything, it was pro religious tolerance and peace.
>>7335474
Crusades were a reaction to the threat of Islam. I can imagine it seems a far-fetch to see the people of Europe as religious zealots. Nonetheless, many people fought for the faith and thought that fighting in the promised land would give them penance and a place in Heaven. We too were ISIS like once.
>>7335530
Because the Templars were crazy religious fanatics, the wise Christians suds-atheistic humanists and the Muslims as being above it all.
>>7335548
*sudo
>>7335530
>>7335548
Wouldn't necesarrily say it was pro-islam. It was more anti fanaticism which for some reason did not apply to the Muslims in this movie (quite peculiar). In that sense one might call it pro-islam but imo that's too much of a stretch of the imagination. It was once again one of those 'WE CAN ALL BE FRIENDS IF WE TRY' movies that are totally devoid of actual reality and human nature.
But hey, if it sounds good it must be good right? Would be so much more interesting to just have a movie that doesn't try to shoehorn postmodern ideologies into its narrative.
>>7335530
Pro-Islam means depicting Muslims or Islam in any light other than as terrorists and primitive people.
>>7335369
>>7335400
You only think this because you're ill informed on the crusades.
>>7335444
top fucking kek, mate. Read a book.
![WP_20151108_018[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/sKMajIR.jpg "WP_20151108_018[1].jpg")
>>7335547
>yfw you realize Christians hated other Christians more than they did Muslims, and actually traded with Muslims and lived in a tense tolerance
(C. MacEvitt, The Crusades and the Christian World of the East)
>>7335530
The leader of the Christian nation was a decrepit weakling stricken with leprosy who hid his decaying face behind a fake mask, while the leader of the Islamic nation was a shining golden hero, strong and wise, who's come to supplant the rotting Christian Kingdom.
It's only tolerant of Islam and Saladin
>>7335574
What is it that you think I'm failing to understand about the Crusades?
>>7335561
The leader of Islam was literally portrayed as a radiant golden hero anon
>>7335369
>anti-Christian
if something is secular in presentation, that doesn't make it anti-Christian
>>7335590
Depicting Saladin as based is pretty standard (even Dante puts Saladin in Limbo with the virtuous infidels) and Baldwin really did have leprosy.
I don't like KoH (or any of Ridley Scott's movies, for that matter) but you're butthurt over nothing.
>>7335585
Spent a good thirty seconds trying to decipher the letters marked.
>>7335585
Yes.
Many are forgetful of just how deep the hate between those of different christian denominations truly go. For example, the East-West Schism of 1054 caused intense hatred between followers of Eastern Orthodox church & the Roman Catholic church. If anything, this would have only helped to trigger an historical event such as the crusades, as the various churches were eager to do anything, even participate in mass scale war, to solidify their denomination as being viewed as the One True Church of Our Savior Christ.
>>7335547
An order of knights and warrior priests is a little bit different than Isis anon
>>7335610
Kingdom of Heaven is literally about a weak, decaying Christian nation being supplanted by a strong and vigorous Islamic one
>>7335625
Neither the Crusaders nor the medieval Islamic Mujahideen were similar to ISIS. ISIS is a very distinct phenomenon of our time.
>>7335633
Which is what happened in real life. Governments grow weak and feeble and are then supplanted by stronger ones. This was especially true in the Middle Ages. It seems as though you aren't offended over any particular stylistic weakness or factual inaccuracy, but over historical facts.
>>7335649
I'm just pointing out that this is a movie about the crusades made by a liberal atheist with white guilt who purposely made his story anti Christian and pro Islam.
He could have made the story about any number of events from the Crusades, but chose to make it about the failing Catholic order and the greatness of Saladin's Islamic order
>>7335551
I refuse to take someone seriously who thinks pseudo is spelled "sudo."
>>7335613
The marked in black was done by my professor before the article was copied, the colored is mine, and I feel speaks for itself.
>>7335463
Muslim culture in the 1000's shat all over Christian culture. Vastly superior in pretty much every aspect.
>>7335678
Yes, but in 1100 AC it all went to shit
>>7335678
Yes, because the caliphates built a massive system of slavery that served as a foundation for their advancements, just like every other great empire.
Tell me though, what do you love so much about the classical Islamic world? What are the artistic expressions and philosophies of the era that spoke to you?
>>7335678
love this meme
>>7335669
The campaigns of Richard Coeur de Lion and Saladin are the most culturally significant events of the Crusades. You might as well accuse Sir Walter Scott of anti-Christian and pro-Muslim bias for writing about it, or Dante for placing Saladin alongside Caesar and Socrates.
>>7335707
Have you ever read Ibn Arabi?
>>7335725
Which particular advancements in medical and mathematical knowledge captured your attention?
>>7335669
>he took a political stance On Purpose
my fragile heart
>>7335750
I guess you like white guilt and the self hatred that drives our compatriots to desire seeing the destruction of Western civilization
>>7335594
There's no point in trying.
>>7335757
Let's do some thinking.
We live in a tumultuous time where there are conflicts in the ME and Western governments have occupied nations, established governments and extremist groups, and fought extremists and civilians alike in the ME.
Here's the director's mindset--use the current zeitgeist of fear and the focus on the ME in the media to sell a movie about a historical event. Use the piece to have a feel-good moment about religious tolerance and establishing peace so that people will like it coming out of the theaters and tell other people to watch it to make more money.
It was just exploiting people's concerns about current events then to sell a product. It's not some conspiracy to destroy Western civilization.
>>7335757
This guy is fighting his intense urge to go full /pol/.
>>7335746
Algebra and decimal notation are pretty rad.
As for medical science, their use of actually useful medicinal plants (opium and weed, lmao) as well as early surgery.
>>7335778
Barely.
>>7335369
Well contrary to popular belief, the crusades can't really be called definitively "Christian" once you get into the nitty gritty details of the whole thing, and how the catholic church felt about it.
>>7335774
It was a movie in support of the Chrislam, one world, one religion, one government, one culture kind of leftist ideology that calls for the dissolution of national sovereignty and the state in favor of a new world government.
>>7335168
>Kingdom of Heaven
Anachronism: The movie
Seriously, how can you not cringe at crusaders being presented as having a 20th century liberal's views on religious tolerance? Just to give the faggot audience a hero they can relate to.
>>7335794
Though known primarily as a mystic, his notions about physics were similar in many ways to quantum mechanics.
>>7335809
Alex Jones pls go.
>>7335585
I don't blame them.
Have you seen these protestants lately?
>>7335369
Well the Crusaders were by every definition invaders of a foreign land. Besides the request for help against the Turks by the King of Byzantium, Pope Urban II pretty much lied his ass off about how Christians were being mistreated in the middle east.
>>7335554
>It was more anti fanaticism which for some reason did not apply to the Muslims in this movie
Because muslims throughout history in all ages have always been dominated by fanaticsm right?
>“Moslems seem to have been better gentlemen than their Christian peers; they kept their word more frequently, showed more mercy to the defeated, and were seldom guilty of the brutality as marked the Christian capture of Jerusalem in 1099.” (The Age of Faith (1950), Will Durant, p. 341)
>>7335814
This is what I disliked the most about the movie. I don't want to see Orlando Bloom as a liberal atheist crusader who loves Muslims
It would be like making a movie about the French Revolution and making the main protagonist a staunch right wing authoritarian who loves the aristocracy
>>7335814
Ultra-right wing Christianity is the biggest false doctrine, serious Christians (Catholics) have always appeared to lean left, despite what "Christian" politicians put forward on the matter.
>>7335463
>that he portrays Saladin as a great hero?
Which he was and even his dear old adversary Richard the Lionheart noted it.
>>7335832
>Pope Urban II pretty much lied his ass off about how Christians were being mistreated in the middle east.
Damn, I guess being a Dhimmi was not considered mistreatment. Yeah, not paying extra taxes for being a Christian or a Jew would have resulted in being sold into slavery, but they weren't being mistreated at all.
>>7335847
>more often
>didn't happen
pick one.
Just because Muslims behaved better overall, allegedly, doesn't mean they were void of any fanaticism or barbarous behaviour whatsoever. Nonetheless, it did kind of bother me that the Templars were shown as the archetype of evil. Even the antagonist Guy de Lasignon was portrayed as a karikature of evil despite him being nothing of the like in History
>>7335847
It's sad that you can only resort to childish memes due to your cognitive deficiencies and obstinacy.
>>7335841
>which he was
Well he did do some bad things under Nur al-Din's Fatimid Egypt, such as book burning and his shady dealings to subvert that government, although it did lead to tax, legal, and military reform as the Fatimids were relatively weakened at this point in all manners save economic.
>>7335840
Catholicism is the vehicle through which the Imperium of Rome survived
>>7335847
Comparatively speaking, yeah, they didn't.
>>7335864
It's no doubt that Islam held the favoritism in the Middle East. But that's not the same as saying the Christians in particular were being abused. How well would expect a Moor to be treated in 12th century France?
Either way, what little legitimate grievances there were to be had, Urban II exaggerated all of it shamelessly.
>>7335864
Taxation upon all groups, including Muslims, in several periods of various dynasties have been corrupt and against Islamic jurisprudence. The concept behind jizya is to serve as an allegiance to a caliph or imam who has only political authority but not spiritual authority over a group and so the jizya serves as a means of bayyat and a specific portion of it is used to provide support to military to protect those groups and their institutions.
Of course, like I said, it didn't always turn out that way for obvious reasons.
>>7335585
A very brief interest in History shows this plenty of times. Bartholomew is what comes to mind most prominently, not to mention the Malleus Maleficarum or other happy and tolerant episodes in Christian history.
>>7335623
Interesting theory, but I don't really seem how this would gain favor with the masses if executed merely by the sword.
How divided was the Christian world actually pre 1517? More specifically: how much was it divided in the days of the Crusades other than the commonly known schism between East and West?
>>7335902
Islam is entirely based upon preaching against particular sins while they actively commit them themselves, but claim they have no responsibility over those particular groups and doing nothing about it
>OP asking for book recommendations
>~80 posts
>only one of those posts actually answers OP
>>7335596
Not really though, at the end when the protagonist asks Saladin what Jerusalem is worth Saladin first tells him that it is worth nothing. Later on he tells him that it is worth everything however. What he precisely means by this can be debated but it seems that Saladin, in Kingdom of Heaven, cares for earthly rewards such as gold, prestige, and conquest. This portrays the man as a megalomanic man void of virtue
>>7335876
>karikature
First "sudo-atheists" now this.
>>7335678
Hello John Green. I see you are enjoying posting on 4chans. Good.
>>7335904
This anon is saying there was nothing the Muslims were doing around Jerusalem which justified the whole of Western Europe to send armies towards it. Mind you, when Urban II ignited this nonsense, Christians in Europe that were unable to travel to the middle east began massacring local Jews. Meanwhile, it wasn't until after the second Crusade when Islam began fighting with a unified goal under Jihad.
>>7335910
Thanks for that information. I really appreciate it when people who have studied Islamic theology as rigorously as you have can reduce it to such an unbiased and pure way so that laymen like myself can understand.
Also, I would ask you to please submit your analysis to some institutions like al-Azhar or the various hawzas of Iraq and Iran so they can realize what their religion is established upon.
So like are there any good fiction set in crusader times or fantasy with a similar theme and plot idea? I got 50 posts in and only saw one boon rec and it looks boring.
>>7335625
The point I was trying to make was that Europe has had its fair share of overzealous fanatics who believed every world of the Bible and were willing to fight in the Holy Land to secure their place in Heaven.
I have a tendency for romantics and loosely based patterns which never seem to do my argumentation any good...
>>7335678
Probably also responsible for the tenets and institutions that would enable Muslim civilizations to become shit for centuries to come
>inb4 Ottomans
>>7335809
>>7335774
I really don't see how these two arguments counteract one another. If anything, they support it.
>>7335877
>A generally renowned figure who happens to be a Muslim, a religion I am not particularily fond of, happens to have done a few bad things thus disregarding him completely
No one is flawless
>>7335944
Leonardo Da Vinci was pretty flawless.
>>7335814
Mutual respect and even admiration between medieval Christians and Muslims was rare but hardly nonexistent. And religious tolerance isn't an exclusively modern thing. It was the norm in the Roman Empire until the rulers adopted Christianity and started persecuting other faiths.
A crusader who lacks strong Christian convictions and who sympathizes with Muslims would've been something rare, but it's not at all inconceivable that such crusaders existed.
>>7335864
>Yeah, not paying extra taxes for being a Christian or a Jew would have resulted in being sold into slavery, but they weren't being mistreated at all.
Compared to the persecution Jews faced in Christian Europe (not to mention the persecution that Muslim citizens in European countries would've faced, had they existed), that's nothing. Forcing people to pay extra taxes because of their religion is hardly tolerant by today's standards, but there's a reason why even serious historians emphasize the tolerance practiced by medieval Muslims towards conquered non-Muslims.
>>7335949
>"The fact that there is no evidence for my claim is just proof of how deceptive Muslims are!"
>>7335950he was a fagget
>>7335949
>Why would the very people who actively use such methods admit to it? Islam has always used deceptive friendship to get close enough to their enemies to strike at their heart.
Oh yeah I forgot about taqiyya and kitman! You can never trust those evil desert people!
>>7335944
>No one is flawless
I was just making the point. This doesn't disregard him completely and he did several good things in Egypt and the Levant.
>>7335949
It had fuck all to do with whatever the French were doing in 1050. Islam didn't have this plan of Christians=;_;
It was a chaotic map of rival Muslim factions who were already fighting against each other when the first Crusaders arrived. Which is almost the sole reason why they had so much military success initially.
>>7335954
>they enslaved entire cultures of people, but they did it with a friendly face, so it's okay. In fact, they are examples of progressive tolerance and should be respected!
>>7335955
You kniw, besides the entire history of the Hashashins
>>7335969
>entire cultures of people
Are you talking about the mawala? Because several Islamic scholars and political opponents lambasted the Umayyads for this practice. This is also a different time period
>>7335964
Them poor Muslims. They dindu nuffin
>>7335980
No, I'm talking about literally every culture of the Middle East that was enslaved under Islam
>>7335960
I like how people turned "Shi'a Muslims can dissimulate their beliefs if the Shi'a are being persecuted" (as happened many times in history, especially the Umayyad period) and "Muslims in general believe that if someone threatens a Muslim with death unless they leave Islam, they can feign apostasy" (as happened in the days of early Islam) into "Muslims can lie about anything to anyone for any purpose."
>>7335979
>Hashashins
An extremist group of Ismaili Shia, a minority within a minority within a minority, with little theological relevance is the prime example of Islam during the Medieval age. Ok.
>>7335983
So presenting historical fact is Muslim Apologism. Urban was a lying cunt II who managed to rally a league of already greedy cunts.
>>7335969
>"look mom, I created my first strawman!"
>>7336000
>By "people" do you mean Muslims?
Muslims don't interpret either of those concepts in that way. The majority of Sunni fiqh books don't even mention kitman (largely because becoming a ruling majority early on rendered it irrelevant). The only extensive references to dissimulation concerning Sunnis that I have found are related to the situation of the Spanish Morsicos during the time of the inquisition.
As for taqiyya, it exists as an institution specifically because there were many times in Islamic history where being Shi'a in a Sunni majority country was considered politically subversive.
>Just how like the Islamic State in the Middle East right now has nothing to do with Islam, right?
You know literally nothing about the Nizaris aside from the etymology of the word "assassin," don't you?
>>7336033
To support this guy's point look at Shia jurisprudential works on taqiyya during the Buyid era compared to before or afterwards.
>>7336033
You mean besides all the Muslims that do interpret them that way and use this methodology against the enemies of Islam right? It's nobody except those guys, who actively fight for Islamic domination but don't have anything to do with Islam, but aren't stopped by Islamic leaders.
What is it that you think I don't know about the Hashashins anon?
>>7335369
I don't think it was anti christian. They painted both the muslims and the christians as believing it was Gods will for them to claim the holy land.
>>7336019
Well, I'm sorry we haven't be able to see eye to eye thus far. But if you're going to seriously proclaim that Urban II was justified in calling for a crusade, we have nothing else to talk about.
>>7336049
Those works didn't prevent Muslim vanguards from using this subversive methodology in the conquests of Islam
>>7335168
Crusades are layered with revisionism upon revisionism, much more than most historical topics.
Just read the sources (You should get perspectives from everywhere, but Fulcher is a good starting point).
>>7336072
Do you honestly think humanity wages war because of justice anon? Justification doesn't factor into what I'm talking about. I'm simply saying that your hatred of France shouldn't make you spit shine Islam's boots, with your assertion that the proud, strong Muslim Caliphs only lost ground because the evil white devils from Europe caught them off guard
>>7336056
Muslims who want to bring down the west are pretty open about it bro. The idea that all the Muslims who live peacefully are just practicing taqiyya or whatever is paranoia from shitheads.
>It's nobody except those guys, who actively fight for Islamic domination but don't have anything to do with Islam, but aren't stopped by Islamic leaders.
I'm not even sure what you're asking now.
>What is it that you think I don't know about the Hashashins anon?
Anything. You're using a medieval esoteric neo-Platonic group that lived in a tiny commune on a mountain as evidence for the beliefs of the majority of Muslims today.
>>7336097
The caliphs were white, jackass.
Your /pol/ is showing.
>>7336076
You don't even know what those works are about and I doubt you know Arabic well enough to read them so why are you discussing them.
I doubt you even know why the Buyid era would change legal attitudes on the definition of taqiyya or the najasat of non-self sects.
>>7336113
I doubt he knows who the Buyids were.
>>7336097
No, I've only expressed hatred of Urban II. But you've already fabricated most of my statements thus far, so we're done here.
>>7336102
The majority of Muslims do not make the decisions on the direction of the future of Islam. Islam is directed by its religious hegemony, who inform what the rest of the population believe in and do. The people that actively fight the enemies of Islam are also not a part of the majority of the population.
What I'm telling you is that the smiling faces of the general masses of Muslims don't reflect the actual people who fight against the enemies of Islam. I know you want to reduce it to the most innocent Muslim child that you can, but that is not who we're talking about.
You probably actually don't think the Islamic State has anything to do with Islam, do you?
>>7336130
Islam has no "religious hegemony."
Your post implies that you think ISIS is actually what it imagines itself to be (the rightful leaders of all Muslims worldwide), rather than a bunch of ex-soldiers and disaffected youth.
The major, recognized scholars of Sunni and Shi'a Islam don't espouse this idea you have about dissimulation. Even ISIS (who you keep referring to as though they are relevant to the interpretation of Islamic jurisprudence) don't believe the things you're saying (they are very, very open about hating the west and wanting to destroy it).
It also seems lost on you that ISIS's attacks are almost solely directed toward other Muslims (they even fight other jihadists, for God's sake!).
Also: "sudo-atheists" and "karikature."
>>7336157
Then why was it constantly used for reasons that defied everything they said it was for? Do you think maybe they are dishonest about what they're doctrine of dishonesty is used for?
>>7336159
I'm actually implying that a group like the Islamic State is used by Islamic leaders as a scapegoat to allow the consolidation of the nation's of the Middle East into a united Caliphate that they envision becoming a global superpower
>>7336180
>Then why was it constantly used for reasons that defied everything they said it was for? Do you think maybe they are dishonest about what they're doctrine of dishonesty is used for?
Gives actual examples for this.
>I'm actually implying that a group like the Islamic State is used by Islamic leaders as a scapegoat to allow the consolidation of the nation's of the Middle East into a united Caliphate that they envision becoming a global superpower
"A terrorist group hellbent on fighting every single government, ethnic group, and even other terrorist groups is actually a conspiracy to turn the Middle East into a united superpower!"
>>7336204
Yes, just like the American Revolution was with Europeans who wanted to create their own super power. It's not that far fetched. You know what a scapegoat is right?
>>7336180
>>7336208
This is so radically crazy that I can't tell if you're actually being serious or this has just been a master ruse all along.
Remember that people across the world are, in the end, human beings. They feel and think just as you do. They worry about the same things and struggle for the same things.
That's all I have to say I guess.
>>7336208
You seem to have a nonexistent understanding of Middle Eastern political, religious, and ethnic divisions.
Also, who are the "Islamic leaders" you spoke of in an earlier post?
>>7336219
You struggle to institute Sharia law across the entire world too anon?
>>7336219
I agree that that anon is crazy... however
this
|
v
>Remember that people across the world are, in the end, human beings. They feel and think just as you do. They worry about the same things and struggle for the same things.
Is fucking stupid. You could have said the same thing about germany right before world war 2 or about the empire of japan.
>>7336249
Sure but the civilians who lived in Nazi Germany or Hirohito's Japan worried about putting bread on the table, whether they can still afford grandpa's medical care, and how their son was doing in school.
>>7336227
What is it specifically that you believe I'm failing to understand here anon?
>>7336264
They aren't the ones who lead their nation and fight it's enemies though
>>7336264
No shit... that still didn't change the reality of the whole situation you obtuse turd burglar.
>>7336269
Everything.
I'm not being glib by saying that.
I keep asking you questions to get a better understanding of what you mean, but instead of answering those questions, you keep piling on insane conspiracy shit without explaining your basis for believing it.
1. Who are the Islamic leaders you keep speaking of? The ones you say are using ISIS to conquer the world.
2. Who are the deceptive subversives you keep speaking of? For the most part, terrorism supporters in the west are vocal to the point of idiocy (pic related). Even Ali Mohamed (a CIA agent who was a Jihadist mole) was open about his extremist beliefs to his colleagues and was caught telling extremist groups that he was an agent and that they were being investigated. Jihadis tend to be loudmouth dipshits, not subversive. smooth operators.
>They aren't the ones who lead their nation and fight it's enemies though
ISIS isn't leading a nation either, and its enemies include essentially all Muslims outside of its membership (including other Salafi Jihadist groups).
Before you accuse of saying this, I am not saying "ISIS has nothing to do with Islam." ISIS is an Islamic extremist group that is devoted to a certain interpretation of Islam. However, that interpretation is so marginal that even Al-Qaeda regards ISIS as too extreme.
the first crusade was 100% justified
>>7336362
hillaire belloc pls go
>>7336275
But they are the ones that paid the price.
Hourly reminder to /lit/izens that /pol/posting is against the rules and they can be reported. Mod may be dead but janitors still exist at least.
>>7336385
The leadership and the soldiers didn't pay any price?
Jerusalem should be christian clay
we need to get the Jews and Moslems out
>>7335585
It goes the other way too. Sunni's for instance hate Shias and supplied the crusaders who wen't through their towns on the way to the holy land.
People tend to hate those most who are closest to them ideologically yet differ in a key aspect.
>>7335168
Here's the best, in artistically and entertaining ways, book on the Crusades.
Jerusalem Delivered by Torquato Tasso
Funny how islamics didnt care about saladin until europeans started digging his shit.
Europeans are basically the reason why the jihad exists.
>>7337923
holy war existed since the birth of islam
