DudleySmith
Diamond Member
- Dec 21, 2020
- 22,369
- 15,932
- 2,288
Muslim were only 'tolerant' for two reasons: the money to be made off of pilgrims to Jerusalem, and the fact that Christians made up a significant majority in most of the western ME and Egypt, the highly productive part of their conquests they mooched off of for centuries. On the other hand, the Crusader states were a lot nicer to Muslims than the other way around elsewhere, mainly because they kept rapacious racist Jews in line and they couldn't plunder the peasants like they could under Muslim run states.
Even if the Muslim population was a minority — not the overwhelming majority so often assumed in popular literature and film — it was still a sizable minority and would have posed a serious threat to fragile crusader rule if that population had been rebellious. Far from being rebellious, Muslim visitors such as Ibn Jubair, who visited the Kingdom of Jerusalem in 1183 from Grenada, noted that the Muslim serfs he saw in Galilee “seemed more prosperous and content than those living under Islamic rule outside the Kingdom of Jerusalem.” (Jotischky, p. 129)
This was because, as Hamilton puts it, “once their rule had been established the Franks proved remarkably tolerant in their treatment of non-Christian subjects.” Muslims could be both patients and doctors at the establishments of the Hospitallers. Muslims could engage in any profession or trade they wanted. Nor were they required to wear distinctive clothing as Christians and Jews did under Muslim rule. Most important, as Hamilton notes that “the Franks allowed complete religious freedom to all their subjects.” (Hamilton, p. 49.) This included the right of Muslims to practice Islam and worship publicly -- in marked contrast to the laws governing Christians in Islamic countries of the time. As a result, Muslim sources noted with surprise that mosques were allowed to function in the crusader states and Muslim subjects were allowed to participate in the haj. Furthermore, where mosques were converted into churches, special areas remained set aside for Muslim worship.
This was because, as Jotischky notes, “the First Crusade was a war of liberation and conquest; it was not a war for the extermination or conversion of Muslims.” Far from being forced to convert, the Muslim villagers were run by a council of elders who in turn appointed a “rayse” to represent the community to the Christian lord, while all spiritual and social matters were regulated by the imams in the community in accordance with Sharia law. Even more important, in cases of conflict between parties of different faith, a special court, the Cour de la Fonde, had jurisdiction. Again, this is in sharp contrast to the situation of Christians and Jews under Muslim rule, who were always brought before the Qadi, or Islamic judge, in cases involving a Muslim.
From a link already posted. The BS that Evul Xians ran around slaughtering non-beleivers and forcing conversions at swordpoint is made up stupidity from 'Enlightenment' era faggots and atheists and their fad continued through to the present day.
Even if the Muslim population was a minority — not the overwhelming majority so often assumed in popular literature and film — it was still a sizable minority and would have posed a serious threat to fragile crusader rule if that population had been rebellious. Far from being rebellious, Muslim visitors such as Ibn Jubair, who visited the Kingdom of Jerusalem in 1183 from Grenada, noted that the Muslim serfs he saw in Galilee “seemed more prosperous and content than those living under Islamic rule outside the Kingdom of Jerusalem.” (Jotischky, p. 129)
This was because, as Hamilton puts it, “once their rule had been established the Franks proved remarkably tolerant in their treatment of non-Christian subjects.” Muslims could be both patients and doctors at the establishments of the Hospitallers. Muslims could engage in any profession or trade they wanted. Nor were they required to wear distinctive clothing as Christians and Jews did under Muslim rule. Most important, as Hamilton notes that “the Franks allowed complete religious freedom to all their subjects.” (Hamilton, p. 49.) This included the right of Muslims to practice Islam and worship publicly -- in marked contrast to the laws governing Christians in Islamic countries of the time. As a result, Muslim sources noted with surprise that mosques were allowed to function in the crusader states and Muslim subjects were allowed to participate in the haj. Furthermore, where mosques were converted into churches, special areas remained set aside for Muslim worship.
This was because, as Jotischky notes, “the First Crusade was a war of liberation and conquest; it was not a war for the extermination or conversion of Muslims.” Far from being forced to convert, the Muslim villagers were run by a council of elders who in turn appointed a “rayse” to represent the community to the Christian lord, while all spiritual and social matters were regulated by the imams in the community in accordance with Sharia law. Even more important, in cases of conflict between parties of different faith, a special court, the Cour de la Fonde, had jurisdiction. Again, this is in sharp contrast to the situation of Christians and Jews under Muslim rule, who were always brought before the Qadi, or Islamic judge, in cases involving a Muslim.
From a link already posted. The BS that Evul Xians ran around slaughtering non-beleivers and forcing conversions at swordpoint is made up stupidity from 'Enlightenment' era faggots and atheists and their fad continued through to the present day.
