Why Muslims See the Crusades So Differently from Christians

[Disir]

It’s often said that winners dictate history. Not so for the medieval holy wars called the Crusades.

Muslim forces ultimately expelled the European Christians who invaded the eastern Mediterranean repeatedly in the 12th and 13th centuries—and thwarted their effort to regain control of sacred Holy Land sites such as Jerusalem. Still, most histories of the Crusades offer a largely one-sided view, drawn originally from European medieval chronicles, then filtered through 18th and 19th-century Western scholars.

But how did Muslims at the time view the invasions? (Not always so contentiously, it turns out.) And what did they think of the European interlopers? (One common cliché: “unwashed barbarians.”) For a nuanced view of the medieval Muslim world, HISTORY talked with two prominent scholars: Paul M. Cobb, professor of Islamic History at the University of Pennsylvania, author of Race for Paradise: An Islamic History of the Crusades, and Suleiman A. Mourad, a professor of religion at Smith College and author of The Mosaic of Islam.

HISTORY: Broadly speaking, how do Islamic perspectives on the Crusades differ from those of the Christian sources from Western Europe?
Suleiman Mourad: If we wrote the history of the Crusades based on Islamic narratives, it would be a completely different story altogether. There were no doubt wars and bloodshed, but that wasn’t the only or dominant story. There was also coexistence, political compromise, trade, scientific exchange, love. We have poetry and chronicles with evidence of mixed marriages.

Why Muslims See the Crusades So Differently from Christians

This is an interesting read--as long as you can deal with short paragraph answers and keep your yabuts at bay.

 

[kjw47]

It’s often said that winners dictate history. Not so for the medieval holy wars called the Crusades.

Muslim forces ultimately expelled the European Christians who invaded the eastern Mediterranean repeatedly in the 12th and 13th centuries—and thwarted their effort to regain control of sacred Holy Land sites such as Jerusalem. Still, most histories of the Crusades offer a largely one-sided view, drawn originally from European medieval chronicles, then filtered through 18th and 19th-century Western scholars.

But how did Muslims at the time view the invasions? (Not always so contentiously, it turns out.) And what did they think of the European interlopers? (One common cliché: “unwashed barbarians.”) For a nuanced view of the medieval Muslim world, HISTORY talked with two prominent scholars: Paul M. Cobb, professor of Islamic History at the University of Pennsylvania, author of Race for Paradise: An Islamic History of the Crusades, and Suleiman A. Mourad, a professor of religion at Smith College and author of The Mosaic of Islam.

HISTORY: Broadly speaking, how do Islamic perspectives on the Crusades differ from those of the Christian sources from Western Europe?
Suleiman Mourad: If we wrote the history of the Crusades based on Islamic narratives, it would be a completely different story altogether. There were no doubt wars and bloodshed, but that wasn’t the only or dominant story. There was also coexistence, political compromise, trade, scientific exchange, love. We have poetry and chronicles with evidence of mixed marriages.

Why Muslims See the Crusades So Differently from Christians

This is an interesting read--as long as you can deal with short paragraph answers and keep your yabuts at bay.

Ones saying they serve Jesus does not make it truth. The crusades were the opposite of Jesus. Jesus taught--Love, Peace, Unity of thought( 1Cor 10:21). All are brothers and sisters under the true living God. Unfortunately few know that. The bible teaches---If one doesn't love his brother, whom he can see, then its impossible for him to love God whom they cannot see. What don't they get about --Love your neighbor. The world is divided because most of the world do not know God. Just like in Noahs day.

 

[RWNJ]

It’s often said that winners dictate history. Not so for the medieval holy wars called the Crusades.

Muslim forces ultimately expelled the European Christians who invaded the eastern Mediterranean repeatedly in the 12th and 13th centuries—and thwarted their effort to regain control of sacred Holy Land sites such as Jerusalem. Still, most histories of the Crusades offer a largely one-sided view, drawn originally from European medieval chronicles, then filtered through 18th and 19th-century Western scholars.

But how did Muslims at the time view the invasions? (Not always so contentiously, it turns out.) And what did they think of the European interlopers? (One common cliché: “unwashed barbarians.”) For a nuanced view of the medieval Muslim world, HISTORY talked with two prominent scholars: Paul M. Cobb, professor of Islamic History at the University of Pennsylvania, author of Race for Paradise: An Islamic History of the Crusades, and Suleiman A. Mourad, a professor of religion at Smith College and author of The Mosaic of Islam.

HISTORY: Broadly speaking, how do Islamic perspectives on the Crusades differ from those of the Christian sources from Western Europe?
Suleiman Mourad: If we wrote the history of the Crusades based on Islamic narratives, it would be a completely different story altogether. There were no doubt wars and bloodshed, but that wasn’t the only or dominant story. There was also coexistence, political compromise, trade, scientific exchange, love. We have poetry and chronicles with evidence of mixed marriages.

Why Muslims See the Crusades So Differently from Christians

This is an interesting read--as long as you can deal with short paragraph answers and keep your yabuts at bay.

I really don't give a rats ass how Muslims view history. They are encouraged to lie, cheat, steal, and murder...as long as doing so promotes Islam. Everywhere Islam holds sway, there is suffering and death. Nothing good has ever come from Islam. Not one damned thing.

 

[Disir]

It’s often said that winners dictate history. Not so for the medieval holy wars called the Crusades.

Muslim forces ultimately expelled the European Christians who invaded the eastern Mediterranean repeatedly in the 12th and 13th centuries—and thwarted their effort to regain control of sacred Holy Land sites such as Jerusalem. Still, most histories of the Crusades offer a largely one-sided view, drawn originally from European medieval chronicles, then filtered through 18th and 19th-century Western scholars.

But how did Muslims at the time view the invasions? (Not always so contentiously, it turns out.) And what did they think of the European interlopers? (One common cliché: “unwashed barbarians.”) For a nuanced view of the medieval Muslim world, HISTORY talked with two prominent scholars: Paul M. Cobb, professor of Islamic History at the University of Pennsylvania, author of Race for Paradise: An Islamic History of the Crusades, and Suleiman A. Mourad, a professor of religion at Smith College and author of The Mosaic of Islam.

HISTORY: Broadly speaking, how do Islamic perspectives on the Crusades differ from those of the Christian sources from Western Europe?
Suleiman Mourad: If we wrote the history of the Crusades based on Islamic narratives, it would be a completely different story altogether. There were no doubt wars and bloodshed, but that wasn’t the only or dominant story. There was also coexistence, political compromise, trade, scientific exchange, love. We have poetry and chronicles with evidence of mixed marriages.

Why Muslims See the Crusades So Differently from Christians

This is an interesting read--as long as you can deal with short paragraph answers and keep your yabuts at bay.

I really don't give a rats ass how Muslims view history. They are encouraged to lie, cheat, steal, and murder...as long as doing so promotes Islam. Everywhere Islam holds sway, there is suffering and death. Nothing good has ever come from Islam. Not one damned thing.

I care less how it is viewed now but I do find it interesting in how it was viewed at the time.

 

[RWNJ]

It’s often said that winners dictate history. Not so for the medieval holy wars called the Crusades.

Muslim forces ultimately expelled the European Christians who invaded the eastern Mediterranean repeatedly in the 12th and 13th centuries—and thwarted their effort to regain control of sacred Holy Land sites such as Jerusalem. Still, most histories of the Crusades offer a largely one-sided view, drawn originally from European medieval chronicles, then filtered through 18th and 19th-century Western scholars.

But how did Muslims at the time view the invasions? (Not always so contentiously, it turns out.) And what did they think of the European interlopers? (One common cliché: “unwashed barbarians.”) For a nuanced view of the medieval Muslim world, HISTORY talked with two prominent scholars: Paul M. Cobb, professor of Islamic History at the University of Pennsylvania, author of Race for Paradise: An Islamic History of the Crusades, and Suleiman A. Mourad, a professor of religion at Smith College and author of The Mosaic of Islam.

HISTORY: Broadly speaking, how do Islamic perspectives on the Crusades differ from those of the Christian sources from Western Europe?
Suleiman Mourad: If we wrote the history of the Crusades based on Islamic narratives, it would be a completely different story altogether. There were no doubt wars and bloodshed, but that wasn’t the only or dominant story. There was also coexistence, political compromise, trade, scientific exchange, love. We have poetry and chronicles with evidence of mixed marriages.

Why Muslims See the Crusades So Differently from Christians

This is an interesting read--as long as you can deal with short paragraph answers and keep your yabuts at bay.

I really don't give a rats ass how Muslims view history. They are encouraged to lie, cheat, steal, and murder...as long as doing so promotes Islam. Everywhere Islam holds sway, there is suffering and death. Nothing good has ever come from Islam. Not one damned thing.

I care less how it is viewed now but I do find it interesting in how it was viewed at the time.

You seem to imply that Muslims would actually tell the truth about this. Such an attitude is extremely dangerous.

 

[Sunni Man]

The urban muslims viewed the unwashed hoards of Crusaders in much the same way as the people of western europe viewed the Viking raiders.

Basically, as murdering barbarians who had come to rape and pillage the land, and the average muslim citizen was terrified of them. ....

 

[Disir]

It’s often said that winners dictate history. Not so for the medieval holy wars called the Crusades.

Muslim forces ultimately expelled the European Christians who invaded the eastern Mediterranean repeatedly in the 12th and 13th centuries—and thwarted their effort to regain control of sacred Holy Land sites such as Jerusalem. Still, most histories of the Crusades offer a largely one-sided view, drawn originally from European medieval chronicles, then filtered through 18th and 19th-century Western scholars.

But how did Muslims at the time view the invasions? (Not always so contentiously, it turns out.) And what did they think of the European interlopers? (One common cliché: “unwashed barbarians.”) For a nuanced view of the medieval Muslim world, HISTORY talked with two prominent scholars: Paul M. Cobb, professor of Islamic History at the University of Pennsylvania, author of Race for Paradise: An Islamic History of the Crusades, and Suleiman A. Mourad, a professor of religion at Smith College and author of The Mosaic of Islam.

HISTORY: Broadly speaking, how do Islamic perspectives on the Crusades differ from those of the Christian sources from Western Europe?
Suleiman Mourad: If we wrote the history of the Crusades based on Islamic narratives, it would be a completely different story altogether. There were no doubt wars and bloodshed, but that wasn’t the only or dominant story. There was also coexistence, political compromise, trade, scientific exchange, love. We have poetry and chronicles with evidence of mixed marriages.

Why Muslims See the Crusades So Differently from Christians

This is an interesting read--as long as you can deal with short paragraph answers and keep your yabuts at bay.

I really don't give a rats ass how Muslims view history. They are encouraged to lie, cheat, steal, and murder...as long as doing so promotes Islam. Everywhere Islam holds sway, there is suffering and death. Nothing good has ever come from Islam. Not one damned thing.

I care less how it is viewed now but I do find it interesting in how it was viewed at the time.

You seem to imply that Muslims would actually tell the truth about this. Such an attitude is extremely dangerous.

Which part is suspect?

 

[Disir]

The urban muslims viewed the unwashed hoards of Crusaders in much the same way as the people of western europe viewed the Viking raiders.

Basically, as murdering barbarians who had come to rape and pillage the land, and the average muslim citizen was terrified of them. ....

Or how anyone viewed the Mongols.

There are always barbarians at the door.

 

[alang1216]

I really don't give a rats ass how Muslims view history. They are encouraged to lie, cheat, steal, and murder...as long as doing so promotes Islam. Everywhere Islam holds sway, there is suffering and death. Nothing good has ever come from Islam. Not one damned thing.

You may not be aware that when the Crusaders took Jerusalem they killed the Muslims that lived there. When the Muslims retook the city they spared the Christians. Which is the religion of peace?

 

[RWNJ]

I really don't give a rats ass how Muslims view history. They are encouraged to lie, cheat, steal, and murder...as long as doing so promotes Islam. Everywhere Islam holds sway, there is suffering and death. Nothing good has ever come from Islam. Not one damned thing.

You may not be aware that when the Crusaders took Jerusalem they killed the Muslims that lived there. When the Muslims retook the city they spared the Christians. Which is the religion of peace?

Yeah. They spared them because they wanted slaves. Also, I've never heard of Muslims surrendering. So yeah. Need to kill them all. BTW. The only way to defeat Islam is to kill them. However many it takes. They're like cockroaches. You can reduce the infestation, but it is difficult to eradicate.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

It’s often said that winners dictate history. Not so for the medieval holy wars called the Crusades.

Muslim forces ultimately expelled the European Christians who invaded the eastern Mediterranean repeatedly in the 12th and 13th centuries—and thwarted their effort to regain control of sacred Holy Land sites such as Jerusalem. Still, most histories of the Crusades offer a largely one-sided view, drawn originally from European medieval chronicles, then filtered through 18th and 19th-century Western scholars.

But how did Muslims at the time view the invasions? (Not always so contentiously, it turns out.) And what did they think of the European interlopers? (One common cliché: “unwashed barbarians.”) For a nuanced view of the medieval Muslim world, HISTORY talked with two prominent scholars: Paul M. Cobb, professor of Islamic History at the University of Pennsylvania, author of Race for Paradise: An Islamic History of the Crusades, and Suleiman A. Mourad, a professor of religion at Smith College and author of The Mosaic of Islam.

HISTORY: Broadly speaking, how do Islamic perspectives on the Crusades differ from those of the Christian sources from Western Europe?
Suleiman Mourad: If we wrote the history of the Crusades based on Islamic narratives, it would be a completely different story altogether. There were no doubt wars and bloodshed, but that wasn’t the only or dominant story. There was also coexistence, political compromise, trade, scientific exchange, love. We have poetry and chronicles with evidence of mixed marriages.

Why Muslims See the Crusades So Differently from Christians

This is an interesting read--as long as you can deal with short paragraph answers and keep your yabuts at bay.

The Koran is full of oppression, hate and violence towards non-muslims.
Why do the Left Wingers defend it?

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

It’s often said that winners dictate history. Not so for the medieval holy wars called the Crusades.

Muslim forces ultimately expelled the European Christians who invaded the eastern Mediterranean repeatedly in the 12th and 13th centuries—and thwarted their effort to regain control of sacred Holy Land sites such as Jerusalem. Still, most histories of the Crusades offer a largely one-sided view, drawn originally from European medieval chronicles, then filtered through 18th and 19th-century Western scholars.

But how did Muslims at the time view the invasions? (Not always so contentiously, it turns out.) And what did they think of the European interlopers? (One common cliché: “unwashed barbarians.”) For a nuanced view of the medieval Muslim world, HISTORY talked with two prominent scholars: Paul M. Cobb, professor of Islamic History at the University of Pennsylvania, author of Race for Paradise: An Islamic History of the Crusades, and Suleiman A. Mourad, a professor of religion at Smith College and author of The Mosaic of Islam.

HISTORY: Broadly speaking, how do Islamic perspectives on the Crusades differ from those of the Christian sources from Western Europe?
Suleiman Mourad: If we wrote the history of the Crusades based on Islamic narratives, it would be a completely different story altogether. There were no doubt wars and bloodshed, but that wasn’t the only or dominant story. There was also coexistence, political compromise, trade, scientific exchange, love. We have poetry and chronicles with evidence of mixed marriages.

Why Muslims See the Crusades So Differently from Christians

This is an interesting read--as long as you can deal with short paragraph answers and keep your yabuts at bay.

BTW, the Muslims have brought back slave markets in Libya.

 

[alang1216]

I really don't give a rats ass how Muslims view history. They are encouraged to lie, cheat, steal, and murder...as long as doing so promotes Islam. Everywhere Islam holds sway, there is suffering and death. Nothing good has ever come from Islam. Not one damned thing.

You may not be aware that when the Crusaders took Jerusalem they killed the Muslims that lived there. When the Muslims retook the city they spared the Christians. Which is the religion of peace?

Yeah. They spared them because they wanted slaves. Also, I've never heard of Muslims surrendering. So yeah. Need to kill them all. BTW. The only way to defeat Islam is to kill them. However many it takes. They're like cockroaches. You can reduce the infestation, but it is difficult to eradicate.

Actually they ransomed the wealthier, a standard practice of the day, but let the poorer one go free. Amazing how your hate blinds you and makes you sound like a murdering barbarian. I wonder what your fellow Christians think of your example?

 

[alang1216]

The Koran is full of oppression, hate and violence towards non-muslims.
Why do the Left Wingers defend it?

Because it is also filled with tolerance and humanity. Not unlike the Bible.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

The Koran is full of oppression, hate and violence towards non-muslims.
Why do the Left Wingers defend it?

Because it is also filled with tolerance and humanity. Not unlike the Bible.

What is it about these recurring mass murders of innocent Human Beings buy blood thirsty Islamist that you don’t get?
This is not fake, they are real people who are being slaughtered.

 

[alang1216]

The Koran is full of oppression, hate and violence towards non-muslims.
Why do the Left Wingers defend it?

Because it is also filled with tolerance and humanity. Not unlike the Bible.

What is it about these recurring mass murders of innocent Human Beings buy blood thirsty Islamist that you don’t get?
This is not fake, they are real people who are being slaughtered.

The Koran is 1400 years old. If it was the source of the mass murders wouldn't all of Islamic history been filled with such events? Why has it only recently been such an issue? If it is not the source, attacking it will be counterproductive in the extreme.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

The Koran is full of oppression, hate and violence towards non-muslims.
Why do the Left Wingers defend it?

Because it is also filled with tolerance and humanity. Not unlike the Bible.

What is it about these recurring mass murders of innocent Human Beings buy blood thirsty Islamist that you don’t get?
This is not fake, they are real people who are being slaughtered.

The Koran is 1400 years old. If it was the source of the mass murders wouldn't all of Islamic history been filled with such events? Why has it only recently been such an issue? If it is not the source, attacking it will be counterproductive in the extreme.

OK, you are going to defend terrorism. congratulations

 

[Disir]

It’s often said that winners dictate history. Not so for the medieval holy wars called the Crusades.

Muslim forces ultimately expelled the European Christians who invaded the eastern Mediterranean repeatedly in the 12th and 13th centuries—and thwarted their effort to regain control of sacred Holy Land sites such as Jerusalem. Still, most histories of the Crusades offer a largely one-sided view, drawn originally from European medieval chronicles, then filtered through 18th and 19th-century Western scholars.

But how did Muslims at the time view the invasions? (Not always so contentiously, it turns out.) And what did they think of the European interlopers? (One common cliché: “unwashed barbarians.”) For a nuanced view of the medieval Muslim world, HISTORY talked with two prominent scholars: Paul M. Cobb, professor of Islamic History at the University of Pennsylvania, author of Race for Paradise: An Islamic History of the Crusades, and Suleiman A. Mourad, a professor of religion at Smith College and author of The Mosaic of Islam.

HISTORY: Broadly speaking, how do Islamic perspectives on the Crusades differ from those of the Christian sources from Western Europe?
Suleiman Mourad: If we wrote the history of the Crusades based on Islamic narratives, it would be a completely different story altogether. There were no doubt wars and bloodshed, but that wasn’t the only or dominant story. There was also coexistence, political compromise, trade, scientific exchange, love. We have poetry and chronicles with evidence of mixed marriages.

Why Muslims See the Crusades So Differently from Christians

This is an interesting read--as long as you can deal with short paragraph answers and keep your yabuts at bay.

BTW, the Muslims have brought back slave markets in Libya.

Ya, I posted a thread on it.

 

[Disir]

It’s often said that winners dictate history. Not so for the medieval holy wars called the Crusades.

Muslim forces ultimately expelled the European Christians who invaded the eastern Mediterranean repeatedly in the 12th and 13th centuries—and thwarted their effort to regain control of sacred Holy Land sites such as Jerusalem. Still, most histories of the Crusades offer a largely one-sided view, drawn originally from European medieval chronicles, then filtered through 18th and 19th-century Western scholars.

But how did Muslims at the time view the invasions? (Not always so contentiously, it turns out.) And what did they think of the European interlopers? (One common cliché: “unwashed barbarians.”) For a nuanced view of the medieval Muslim world, HISTORY talked with two prominent scholars: Paul M. Cobb, professor of Islamic History at the University of Pennsylvania, author of Race for Paradise: An Islamic History of the Crusades, and Suleiman A. Mourad, a professor of religion at Smith College and author of The Mosaic of Islam.

HISTORY: Broadly speaking, how do Islamic perspectives on the Crusades differ from those of the Christian sources from Western Europe?
Suleiman Mourad: If we wrote the history of the Crusades based on Islamic narratives, it would be a completely different story altogether. There were no doubt wars and bloodshed, but that wasn’t the only or dominant story. There was also coexistence, political compromise, trade, scientific exchange, love. We have poetry and chronicles with evidence of mixed marriages.

Why Muslims See the Crusades So Differently from Christians

This is an interesting read--as long as you can deal with short paragraph answers and keep your yabuts at bay.

The Koran is full of oppression, hate and violence towards non-muslims.
Why do the Left Wingers defend it?

I am not defending the Koran. Are you looking for a fight? Are you always this emotional?

 

[Disir]

I really don't give a rats ass how Muslims view history. They are encouraged to lie, cheat, steal, and murder...as long as doing so promotes Islam. Everywhere Islam holds sway, there is suffering and death. Nothing good has ever come from Islam. Not one damned thing.

You may not be aware that when the Crusaders took Jerusalem they killed the Muslims that lived there. When the Muslims retook the city they spared the Christians. Which is the religion of peace?

Yeah. They spared them because they wanted slaves. Also, I've never heard of Muslims surrendering. So yeah. Need to kill them all. BTW. The only way to defeat Islam is to kill them. However many it takes. They're like cockroaches. You can reduce the infestation, but it is difficult to eradicate.

Well, they treated them like second class citizens and charged them a tax.