The Crusades: The Muslim Perspective - Essay Example

? The Crusades: The Muslim Perspective. The Crusades: The Muslim Perspective. The historical study of the Crusades, as of any other issue in history, tends to be viewed through a subjective lens. Both autobiographical and first-hand accounts of significant historical events, or their later interpretation by scholars, are prone to distortion by this subjective view. This is particularly true of the Crusades because a considerable proportion of the historical accounts are recounted either as first-hand experiences or as scholarly accounts of the Crusaders and the clerics of the western church. This leads to a very confined, narrow understanding of the subject, with the writer’s bias and motivation undermining the intrinsic value of the work. Therefore, a true understanding of the Crusades mandates the consideration of a multitude of perspectives. The major participants of the Crusades are the crusaders on the western side and the Muslims on the eastern front. In this context, a consideration of Margaret Jubb’s “The Crusaders’ Perceptions of their Opponents,” and Helen Nicholson’s “Muslims’ Reactions to the Crusades,” contribute to a deeper understanding of the issue. When studied in relation to Robert Irwin’s “Usamah ibn Munqidh: An Arab-Syrian Gentleman at the Time of the Crusades Reconsidered,” a balanced perspective is achieved. Jubb’s criticism of the western perception of the Muslims, and Nicholson’s analysis of medieval Muslim views of the Crusades, are both validated by Usamah ibn Munqidh’s personal perspective. Jubb criticizes the conventional depiction of the Muslims in accounts of the Crusades by western Christian writers. The Muslims are largely addressed as ‘barbarians,’ differing markedly from the crusaders in ethnicity and culture, or as ‘Saracens,’ connoting religious differences. In what may be termed “willful and malicious misrepresentations” (Jubb, 229), the Muslims are denoted as ‘pagans’ and idolators who worship a multitude of gods, ranging from Apollo to Muhammad. Western writers persist in this deliberate perversion, in spite of being aware of the truth that Islam was a “monotheistic, aniconic” (Jubb, 229) religion. The medieval portrayal of the Muslims as “libidinous, gluttonous, savage, bloodthirsty, and semi-human,” (Jubb, 229) is seen as an attempt to bolster the self-image of the crusaders, and defend the ideology of the Crusades. Even the comparatively positive later portrayals of the Muslims are more in line with the motivation of enabling the crusaders to define themselves, rather than accurate depictions of the enemy. Another significant point which is evident in medieval accounts of the Crusades is the failure of the writers to differentiate between the Arabs and Turks. Jubb’s criticism of this unrealistic portrayal of the Muslims by western writers is validated when viewed in conjunction with Usamah ibn Munqidh’s balanced narrative. Usamah gives the reader several glimpses of the Franks from the point of view of a Muslim. Usamah ibn Munqidh lived from 1095 – 1188. This makes his first-hand account of life during the time of the Crusades particularly relevant. Firstly, Usamah comes across as an erudite, cultured, scholar and his account is laced with wit and humor. In this context, Usamah’s personality itself bears testimony to the falsity of the conventional image of the barbaric Muslim drawn by medieval western Christians. Usamah’ book, the Kitab al-I’tibar gives the reader an intimate look at life during the Crusades from the Muslim perspective. In marked contrast to the misrepresentation, and overt bias, expressed by medieval Christian writers, which Jubb criticizes, Usamah’s account is characterized by a balanced depiction of the Franks. This balance is evident in Usamah’s use of antitheses in his narrative: he portrays Frankish justice as both “bizarre and awful” and “good;” Frankish medicine is “lethally dreadful” and also “good;” the crusaders include both good and bad Franks (Irwin, 74). Again, in contrast to the western demonization of the Muslims, Usamah’s book narrates many intimate encounters with the Franks, from arranging the ransoming of Muslim captives to flying hawks with King Fulk of Jerusalem. In spite of Usamah’s “perfunctory cursing of the Franks” (Irwin, 78), he does not indulge in the deliberate misrepresentations of western writers, or demonize the crusaders. In fact, Usamah goes so far as to express his admiration for Christian religious practices in his Kitab al-‘Asa, where he is “touched by their piety and envious of it” (Irwin, 86). The only point of concurrence between Usamah and western writers is in William of Tyre’s account of Nur al- Din as “a just, shrewd and provident prince,” (qtd in Jubb, 237). Usamah’s narrative of Muslim life during the period of the Crusades, and his balanced portrayal of the crusaders, justify Jubb’s criticism of the markedly contrasting perspective adopted by the crusaders towards their opponent Muslims. Similarly, Usamah’s account is more in line with Nicholson’s analysis of medieval Muslim perceptions of the Crusades. Nicholson gives an analysis of the medieval Muslim perspective which is supported by Usamah ibn Munqidh’s personal narrative. Nicholson’s emphasis on “the dynastic and theological divisions within the Islamic world, particularly the irreparable rift between the Fatimids and the Seljuks,” (271) is borne out by Usamah’s account. Usamah gives several first-hand accounts of palace intrigues and power struggles which preoccupied the Muslim rulers. Thus, Usamah’s account validates Nicholson’s point that “the Muslim response to the coming of the Crusades was initially one of apathy, compromise, and preoccupation with internal problems” (Hilldebrand, qtd. Nicholson, 272). Usamah details several of the myriad factions which keep the Muslim world from forming a concerted alliance against the Muslims during his lifetime. In 1138, Mu’in al-Din Munur, the Turkish general of Damascus, fraternizes with the crusaders, and “allied Damascus with the kingdom of Jerusalem against Muslim Banyas” (Irwin, 78). In 1144, Fatimid Egypt seeks to forge an alliance with Damascus against Jerusalem. The Templars are then paid by Egyptians to kill the caliph’s assassin. Again, Egypt seeks an alliance with Nur al-Din of Damascus in order to jointly attack the kingdom of Jerusalem. In all these cases, Usamah is an active participant in the political machinations and intrigues that preoccupy the Muslims and prevent them from taking concerted action against the crusaders. Both Usamah and Nicholson agree that “Alliances between Christians and Muslims against a mutual enemy were not uncommon” (Nicholson, 278). Finally, when Nur al-Din spearheads the Muslim counter-crusade, it is under the guise of piety used as a political weapon. Just as western Christian writers quoted by Jubb demonize the Muslims, some Muslim writers depict the crusaders as associated with “pollution, darkness and demons” (Nicholson, 276). However, Usamah stands as testimony of the personal interchanges and friendly relations which exist between the Muslims and the Franks. A combined study of the different perspectives presented by Usamah ibn Munqidh, Margaret Jubb and Helen Nicholson widens understanding of the true nature of the relationships between Muslims and Franks at the time of the Crusades. Usamah is a cultured ‘gentleman,’ As such he gives the lie to the stereotypical image propagated by medieval Christian writers of the Muslim as a barbarian. It becomes obvious that Jubb is correct in her criticism of this conventional portrayal. Usamah’s narratives often depict the camaraderie which characterizes Muslim-Frankish relationships at that time. This proves that an interchange of diplomacy and culture exists between the Muslims, and Franks and the relationship is not always one of rancorous enmity. Usamah’s intimate revelations of political intrigue in the Islamic courts lend credence to Nicholson’s argument that the Muslims are focused on internal power struggles rather than opposition to the Crusades. It is Nur al-Din and Saladdin who forge Muslims into concerted anti-crusaders and bring an end to the earlier age of accommodation. Usamah ibn Munqidh’s book is a truly valuable, balanced Muslim perspective of the Crusades, and corroborates Jubb’s and Nicholson’s treatment of the subject. Bibliography. Irwin, Robert. “Usamah ibn Munqidh: An Arab-Syrian Gentleman at the Time of the Crusades Reconsidered,” in The Crusades and Their Sources, edited by John France and William G. Zajac, 71-87. Ashgate, 1998. Jubb, Margaret. “The Crusaders’ Perceptions of their Opponents,” in The Crusades, edited by Helen J. Nicholson, Chapter 10, 225-241. Palmgrave Advances, Macmillan, 2005. Nicholson, Helen J. “Muslim Reactions to the Crusades,” in The Crusades, edited by Helen J. Nicholson, Chapter 12, 225-241. Palmgrave Advances, Macmillan, 2005. Read More