# Shouldn't Muslims be a little more understanding about the Crusades? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 24, 2017, 10:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shouldnt-muslims-be-a-little-more-understanding-about-the-crusades/782898 "2017-03-24T10:06:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![aldiboronti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@aldiboronti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aldiboronti)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2017, 10:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shouldnt-muslims-be-a-little-more-understanding-about-the-crusades/782898/1 "2017-03-24T10:06:12Z")
I just watched a documentary on the Crusades seen from the Arabs’ point of view. In it several Muslim historians, and even a couple of Western ones, were excoriating the Crusades as ruthless adventurism by men in search merely of wealth and kingdoms. There was little understanding on display. Now I don’t doubt that many in the crusading armies had rapine, pillage and slaughter mainly on their minds but it’s also true that huge numbers of them were passionate and indignant about Muslim occupation of the Christian Holy Land and the subjugation by infidels of their brethren in the faith. None of these Muslim historians seemed to take into account just how their forebears would have reacted if the shoe were on the other foot. Imagine if the whole of Arabia including the cities of Mecca and Medina had been under Christian dominion and all its inhabitants under the sway of the Christians. Do they honestly believe that other Muslims would not have gathered all their forces and marched to the relief of their most sacred places? Many in that army too would have been motivated mainly by gain and the thirst for slaughter but most, as with the Christians, would have been animated by their zeal for their religion and their desire to liberate their fellow-Muslims. I’m equally sure that the reports of Christian maltreatment of Muslims would have been magnified out of all proportion, just as the Muslim behavior to Christians was in Europe. I don’t expect Muslims to speak kindly of the Crusades but I would hope that they might show a little more understanding about them. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2017, 10:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shouldnt-muslims-be-a-little-more-understanding-about-the-crusades/782898/2 "2017-03-24T10:40:45Z")
If you are calling for more understanding and tolerance from both sides, you may have a point. There are still people that are claiming that the conquest of North Africa and Iberia were efforts to spread Islam by the sword. Charles Martel is still being hailed as the savior of Christianity for defeating a routine military campaign by the Umayyad Caliphate intended for conquest, not proselytization. There is plenty of misunderstanding on both sides and pointing fingers at the other guy are not particularly helpful in establishing that understanding. ---
**Author:** ![igor\_frankensteen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/839c29/32.png) [@igor\_frankensteen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/igor_frankensteen)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2017, 11:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shouldnt-muslims-be-a-little-more-understanding-about-the-crusades/782898/3 "2017-03-24T11:59:12Z")
I’m not sure how much “understanding” will help, when it comes to people attacking and killing each other en masse, regardless of the “cause” each is pursuing. Something to consider about this in a larger sense, as well, is that the particular behavior you are seeing (i.e. a “new” side/version of history being presented to counter an existing/prevailing one) OFTEN consists of the presentation of a complete reversal, including what might be called “self-righteous points,” in an attempt to sot of “balance the force” of the previous/prevailing view. History is never static. Not even a single person’s history of themselves. We are always coming to new understandings of the world and of ourselves, and then because we remember our past (or think we do), we go back over it and redo our reactions to it all. There are often fads in the telling of history, and the fads are only rarely triggered by the actual discovery of new FACTS, more often they are triggered by new social movements. On top of that, current day people and groups who are eager to push an agenda only tangentially involved with the “new” history, will often jump on the bandwagon effect of the history FAD, and pretend to support it vehemently, because they hope they’l get whatever it is THEY want, because the new view throws support of their opposition into doubt. In short, there are almost always reasons unrelated to the facts at hand, for why the people arguing will refuse to “appreciate” other viewpoints. ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2017, 1:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shouldnt-muslims-be-a-little-more-understanding-about-the-crusades/782898/4 "2017-03-24T13:24:07Z")
> [@aldiboronti](#): > > Imagine if the whole of Arabia including the cities of Mecca and Medina had been under Christian dominion and all its inhabitants under the sway of the Christians. Do they honestly believe that other Muslims would not have gathered all their forces and marched to the relief of their most sacred places? Many in that army too would have been motivated mainly by gain and the thirst for slaughter but most, as with the Christians, would have been animated by their zeal for their religion and their desire to liberate their fellow-Muslims. . It’s not entirely clear that the people in the Holy Land wanted to be liberated. There is debate about whether Palestine was majority Christian or muslim at the time of the crusades, but the most recent citation I could find suggests that while cities were mostly Christian the population as a whole was majorty Muslim. In any case, the chrisians in Palestine were Greek Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox and thus would have been viewed as schismatics at best and heretics at worst by the Crusaders. ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2017, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shouldnt-muslims-be-a-little-more-understanding-about-the-crusades/782898/5 "2017-03-24T14:07:34Z")
You may as well ask if Americans should be a little more understanding about 9/11. ---
**Author:** ![Yllaria](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yllaria/32/3452_2.png) [@Yllaria](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yllaria)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2017, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shouldnt-muslims-be-a-little-more-understanding-about-the-crusades/782898/6 "2017-03-24T14:31:38Z")
I prefer the Terry Jones series on the Crusades. It’s not pro-Muslim, particularly, but it’s definitely not pro-crusader. And it’s Terry Jones, so it’s easy to watch and funny in places. I recommend it to anyone who feels that they should know more about the crusades but don’t want to do a history slog. I’ve never been able to get the bit about the washerwomen out of my head. ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2017, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shouldnt-muslims-be-a-little-more-understanding-about-the-crusades/782898/7 "2017-03-24T14:34:59Z")
> [@marshmallow](#): > > You may as well ask if Americans should be a little more understanding about 9/11. Let’s revisit that in 800 years or so. ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2017, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shouldnt-muslims-be-a-little-more-understanding-about-the-crusades/782898/8 "2017-03-24T15:16:24Z")
> [@running\_coach](#): > > Let’s revisit that in 800 years or so. I suspect violence in the past will remain easier to justify not only because of temporal distance, but because the written word is less salient than photographs or video recording. It would be more difficult to defend crusaders, Mongols, Romans, or what have you if there were video of them massacring civilians and raping women. And 9/11 won’t be as salient as holographic brain interface recording, or whatever they have in the future. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2017, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shouldnt-muslims-be-a-little-more-understanding-about-the-crusades/782898/9 "2017-03-24T15:30:30Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > It’s not entirely clear that the people in the Holy Land wanted to be liberated. There is debate about whether Palestine was majority Christian or muslim at the time of the crusades, but the most recent citation I could find suggests that while cities were mostly Christian the population as a whole was majorty Muslim. In any case, the chrisians in Palestine were Greek Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox and thus would have been viewed as schismatics at best and heretics at worst by the Crusaders. Which is why the crusaders notoriously slaughtered most everyone in Jerusalem when they took it. ---
**Author:** ![GreenWyvern](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/greenwyvern/32/2834_2.png) [@GreenWyvern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GreenWyvern)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2017, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shouldnt-muslims-be-a-little-more-understanding-about-the-crusades/782898/10 "2017-03-24T17:02:32Z")
I wonder why nobody ever seems to mention the many Muslim invasions of Europe, especially by the Ottoman Turks? Or the million+ white Europeans sold into slavery in North Africa from the early 17th to 19th centuries? Look up the facts for yourselves. I suppose these things don’t suit the standard Western historical narrative, so they tend to be ignored. ---
**Author:** ![Yodalicious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yodalicious/32/8195_2.png) [@Yodalicious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yodalicious)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2017, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shouldnt-muslims-be-a-little-more-understanding-about-the-crusades/782898/11 "2017-03-24T17:12:27Z")
> [@marshmallow](#): > > You may as well ask if Americans should be a little more understanding about 9/11. Or if African Americans should be a little more understanding of slavery. ---
**Author:** ![Beren\_Erchamion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/90ced4/32.png) [@Beren\_Erchamion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beren_Erchamion)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2017, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shouldnt-muslims-be-a-little-more-understanding-about-the-crusades/782898/12 "2017-03-24T17:17:17Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > It’s not entirely clear that the people in the Holy Land wanted to be liberated. There is debate about whether Palestine was majority Christian or muslim at the time of the crusades, but the most recent citation I could find suggests that while cities were mostly Christian the population as a whole was majorty Muslim. In any case, the chrisians in Palestine were Greek Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox and thus would have been viewed as schismatics at best and heretics at worst by the Crusaders. There’s considerable evidence that the Ottoman conquest in 1453 was viewed with less concern in Constantinople than the Fourth Crusade was. Both invaders ransacked and pillaged the city, of course–that’s just what invading armies _did_–but the Ottomans stuck around to rebuild it, and unlike the Crusaders weren’t interested in forced conversions. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2017, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shouldnt-muslims-be-a-little-more-understanding-about-the-crusades/782898/13 "2017-03-24T17:18:18Z")
> [@marshmallow](#): > > You may as well ask if Americans should be a little more understanding about 9/11. [“All buildings matter.”](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2016/11/25/michael-che-has-a-creative-comeback-to-the-phrase-all-lives-matter-in-his-netflix-special/?utm_term=.269ab4d4dc5a) ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2017, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shouldnt-muslims-be-a-little-more-understanding-about-the-crusades/782898/14 "2017-03-24T17:24:43Z")
> [@GreenWyvern](#): > > I wonder why nobody ever seems to mention the many Muslim invasions of Europe, especially by the Ottoman Turks? > Or the million+ white Europeans sold into slavery in North Africa from the early 17th to 19th centuries? > Look up the facts for yourselves. > > I suppose these things don’t suit the standard Western historical narrative, so they tend to be ignored. Because those weren’t “Muslim invasions” so much as they were wars engaged in by Muslims. The Grand Turk didn’t siege Vienna because he saw it as his divine duty or what have you. He did it because that’s the geopolitical dynamic of the Balkans and has been since before Xerxes. As for slavery, it seems like bad form to point out that the Barbary Corsairs raided European ships for slaves & goods (again, not out of any religious imperative - it was just business at the time, and Euros did it too) when at the same time Europeans were busy exporting Negros on an industrial scale - and capturing their own slaves out in the Caucasus as well. There’s also the fact that slavery under Islam and chattel slavery as practiced in European colonies (and as ubiquitously understood by moderns under the word “slavery”) were two \*\*wildly \*\*different beasts. Muslims mostly kept to the antiquity system, where yes there was a subset of slaves tasked with harsh physical labour with rapid turnover, but most slaves led regular lives, sometimes even comfortable or better depending on their master’s status and their occupation or trade. Bear in mind for example that the Janissaries & Mamluks were, technically, slaves of the Sultan. In practice, they came to run their respective kingdoms and accumulated wealth, power & military might. ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2017, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shouldnt-muslims-be-a-little-more-understanding-about-the-crusades/782898/15 "2017-03-24T17:41:34Z")
> [@GreenWyvern](#): > > I wonder why nobody ever seems to mention the many Muslim invasions of Europe, especially by the Ottoman Turks? > Or the million+ white Europeans sold into slavery in North Africa from the early 17th to 19th centuries? > Look up the facts for yourselves. > > I suppose these things don’t suit the standard Western historical narrative, so they tend to be ignored. Depends on who you talk to. Cultural conservatives, and people who are concerned about ethnic and demographic change in Europe, talk about Poitiers, Vienna, etc., _all the time_. ---
**Author:** ![GreenWyvern](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/greenwyvern/32/2834_2.png) [@GreenWyvern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GreenWyvern)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2017, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shouldnt-muslims-be-a-little-more-understanding-about-the-crusades/782898/16 "2017-03-24T17:44:08Z")
See [List of Ottoman sieges and landings from the 14th century to World War I](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ottoman_conquests,_sieges_and_landings) ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2017, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shouldnt-muslims-be-a-little-more-understanding-about-the-crusades/782898/17 "2017-03-24T17:44:17Z")
> [@GreenWyvern](#): > > I wonder why nobody ever seems to mention the many Muslim invasions of Europe, especially by the Ottoman Turks? > Or the million+ white Europeans sold into slavery in North Africa from the early 17th to 19th centuries? > Look up the facts for yourselves. > > I suppose these things don’t suit the standard Western historical narrative, so they tend to be ignored. Seriously, the two things you mention are mentioned much much more often than the historical muslim point of view about the crusades (which is prety interesting. Obviously, many Muslims wrote about the crusades back then, and those testimonies are hardly ever part of the history we hear about). Regarding the OP : I read/watched stuff about the crusades as perceived by Muslims contemporaries. And even though non surprisingly they have a tendancy to report bad things done by the crusaders, it doesn’t seem to me that they were blind to the religious motives, from what I’ve heard/read. Maybe it was an artifact of the particular documentary you saw? I would add two things : those Arab chroniclers seemed (against not surprisingly) pretty ignorant of the European world, so their understanding was based on what happened in the Holy Land and not much more. Secondly, even if you rely solely on Western accounts, it’s difficult not to have a rather negative view of the crusades. Massacres of Jews, massacre in the Balkans, sack of Constantinople, massacre of Jerusalem…You don’t need an Arab point of view to perceive the ruthless adventurism you mentioned, either, with all these noblemen carving out fiefs in the Holy Land and fighting each other. In fact, something cross my mind : are there many people who have a _positive_ perception of the crusades in the western world? I had this negative perception of the crusades for most of (if not all) my life, and it never really occured to me that people could perceive them positively. But maybe I’m assuming and projecting, and many (in particular Christians) view them on the overall as a rather good thing? Could someone shed a light on this? ---
**Author:** ![GreenWyvern](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/greenwyvern/32/2834_2.png) [@GreenWyvern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GreenWyvern)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2017, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shouldnt-muslims-be-a-little-more-understanding-about-the-crusades/782898/18 "2017-03-24T17:48:59Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > As for slavery, it seems like bad form to point out that the Barbary Corsairs raided European ships for slaves & goods (again, not out of any religious imperative - it was just business at the time, and Euros did it too) when at the same time Europeans were busy exporting Negros on an industrial scale - and capturing their own slaves out in the Caucasus as well. > There’s also the fact that slavery under Islam and chattel slavery as practiced in European colonies (and as ubiquitously understood by moderns under the word “slavery”) were two \*\*wildly \*\*different beasts. Muslims mostly kept to the antiquity system, where yes there was a subset of slaves tasked with harsh physical labour with rapid turnover, but most slaves led regular lives, sometimes even comfortable or better depending on their master’s status and their occupation or trade. Bear in mind for example that the Janissaries & Mamluks were, technically, slaves of the Sultan. In practice, they came to run their respective kingdoms and accumulated wealth, power & military might. That’s a fairly rosy view of Islamic slavery. A more balanced view, from BBC History: > [@](#): > > Slaves in Barbary fell into two broad categories. The ‘public slaves’ belonged to the ruling pasha, who by right of rulership could claim an eighth of all Christians captured by the corsairs, and buy all the others he wanted at reduced prices. These slaves were housed in large prisons known as baños (baths), often in wretchedly overcrowded conditions. They were mostly used to row the corsair galleys in the pursuit of loot (and more slaves) - work so strenuous that thousands died or went mad while chained to the oar. > > During the winter these galeotti worked on state projects - quarrying stone, building walls or harbour facilities, felling timber and constructing new galleys. Each day they would be given perhaps two or three loaves of black bread - ‘that the dogs themselves wouldn’t eat’ - and limited water; they received one change of clothing every year. Those who collapsed on the job from exhaustion or malnutrition were typically beaten until they got up and went back to work. The pasha also bought most female captives, some of whom were taken into his harem, where they lived out their days in captivity. The majority, however, were purchased for their ransom value; while awaiting their release, they worked in the palace as harem attendants. > > Many other slaves belonged to ‘private parties.’ Their treatment and work varied as much as their masters did. Some were well cared for, becoming virtual companions of their owners. Others were worked as hard as any ‘public’ slave, in agricultural labour, or construction work, or selling water or other goods around town on his (or her) owner’s behalf. They were expected to pay a proportion of their earnings to their owner - those who failed to raise the required amount typically being beaten to encourage them to work harder. > > As they aged or their owner’s fortunes changed, slaves were resold, often repeatedly. The most unlucky ended up stuck and forgotten out in the desert, in some sleepy town such as Suez, or in the Turkish sultan’s galleys, where some slaves rowed for decades without ever setting foot on shore. > > [BBC - History - British History in depth: British Slaves on the Barbary Coast](http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/empire_seapower/white_slaves_01.shtml) ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2017, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shouldnt-muslims-be-a-little-more-understanding-about-the-crusades/782898/19 "2017-03-24T17:57:07Z")
For the record, a classical read about this topic :[The crusades through Arab eyes by Amin Maalouf](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Crusades_Through_Arab_Eyes) (otherwise an excellent author of historical fiction that I recommend in general). And the book isn’t as badly biased as the Wikipedia article let it appears. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2017, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shouldnt-muslims-be-a-little-more-understanding-about-the-crusades/782898/20 "2017-03-24T18:10:11Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Charles Martel is still being hailed as the savior of Christianity for defeating a routine military campaign by the Umayyad Caliphate intended for conquest, not proselytization. It’s not contradictory. Conquest would have eventually resulted in the Muslim faith spreading and dominating, as it did in Spain. And the Franks pushing the Arabs back, from Charles Martel to Charlemagne, certainly played a significant part in putting an end to the Muslim advance in Europe. So, I’m not sure that this “savior of Christianity” narrative is completely wrong. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shouldnt-muslims-be-a-little-more-understanding-about-the-crusades/782898.md?page=2)