How Did Muslims Of The Middle East Respond To The Coming Of The Crusades?

Wordcount: 2454 How did Muslims of the Middle East respond to the coming of the Crusades? The Muslim response to the arrival of Crusaders at the end of the 11th century was conditioned by the disunity and fragmentation of the Muslim world at the time. This essay looks firstly at the concept of jihad against the Crusaders. Secondly the military and diplomatic responses of the Muslim states to the Franks will be evaluated; thirdly the religious response discussed in relation to the adapting concept of a Jihad against the Franks; fourthly a comparison will be made between the Muslim response to the Mongols and Muslim (Mameluk) reactions to the Franks. Finally the economic implications of Frankish-Muslim interaction on the will be considered, particularly in relation to the account of Ibn Jubayr's journey through Syria. The word 'Muslims' in the question implies a hegemony in action and thought no way present during in the First and Second Crusades, with Fatimid Shi'a Egypt in conflict with the western periphery of the Seljuk Sultanate. Nonetheless general salient features of the Muslim response to the Franks still can be identified, the most important of which was pragmatism. The concept of jihad is perhaps the most profound example of this fusion of the synthesis of the religious belief and political action in Islam, mirroring as it did the Crusading motivation of Holy War. Jihad means Holy War and originates in Quranic exhortations to defend the early community of Muslims from threat, later evolving with the rapid expansion of the Caliphate into a way of encouraging Muslims to fight the wars of growing empire . But while the concept of Jihad influenced Muslim responses to the Crusaders, it did not determine them to the same extent as did the realities of regional realpolitik. Hillenbrand makes clear that when the Franks took Jerusalem in 1099, "the disunited and strife-ridden Muslim world had, it seems, buried the idea of jihad deep into the recesses of its mind" . The views of certain Uluma like Al-Sulami (d1106) who promoted jihad were not heeded by the Muslim military leaders of Syria during the early 12th century. In Islamic theology and jurisprudence jihad was never a static concept, but an idea that shifted because of political circumstances and the influence the 'uluma had over policy. Between 1099 and 1291 there was a parallel relationship between the extent that jihad was preached and the military response to the Crusades.

The initial Muslim response to the Crusaders was characterised, in the view of Lapidus, by "indifference". The lack of a concerted military response by the Muslims to the invasions can be explained by the historical milieu into which the Crusaders came. As Carol Hillenbrand states, the Crusaders could not have arrived at a better time . The region was in turmoil due to the death in 1092 of the Seljuk sultan Malikshah and the succession was being fought over between his two sons Barkyaruq and Muhammad in a protracted civil war fought mainly in Persia. This instability was seen by the chronicler Abu Shama as the primary reason for the success of the First Crusade . However Nur al-Din's reign saw a renaissance of what Lapidus calls "a new Muslim communal and religious spirit, frankly anti-Christian and opposed to the Crusader presence" . The implications of this was that jihad went from being a theological footnote to an ideal that Muslim rulers could use to strengthen their own popularity; it reflected a closer association between the 'ulama and the government. It was in this context that Saladin's responses to the Crusaders should be evaluated. In his monograph Forgetting Osama bin Munqidh Remembering Osama bin Laden, Umej Bhatia illustrates that of all the individuals in the history of the Crusades, Saladin's legacy is now the most revered among Muslims. The reason for this legacy is because of great success Saladin had as both a great propagandist and a great implementer of jihad. Once Saladin had achieved Muslim unity and his power base in Egypt was secure, Jerusalem was finally retaken for Islam. The significance with which Muslims at the time viewed the conquest of Jerusalem is typified by the panegyric of Ibn al-Zaki "You have renewed for Islam the glorious days of al-Qadisiyya, the battle of al-Yarmuk, the siege of Khaybar, and the impetuous attacks of Khalid ibn al-Walid" . Saladin's successes were being directly linked to the most esteemed and venerated period of Islamic history, to the heroics of the warrior who was present at the first Muslim capture of Jerusalem from Christian rule, Khalid ibn Walid. If we take the evidence of Muslim scholars and propagandists to be reflective of the umma as a whole, the Muslim response to the coming of the Crusades can be seen as reawakening the memory of the great Arab conquests for Muslims. But as Hillenbrand rightly demonstrates, it was the Makeluks who even more successful than Saladin in their prosecution of jihad during the 13th century, with Baybars explicitly comparing himself to Khalid ibn Walid with an inscri ption eulogising him being carved on the Companion of the Prophets tomb . The Mameluk sultans achieved the ultimate victories against both the Crusaders and the far more dangerous Mongols. The concept of jihad was again invoked to strengthen the umma against the unprecedented threat of the Mongol horde, in comparison to the more conciliatory attitude of the Ayyubid's, epitomised by their handing back of Jerusalem to the Franks in 1229. The wars against the Mongols hardened the Mamaluks against any such concessions to the Franks, who had allied with both the Mongols and the Assassins against Cairo. Hillenbrand sees the Mongol invasions of the Middle East as vital in promoting "xenophobia", acting as a motivation needed for the twenty-two arduous campaigns and Frankish castles and fortified cities fought by Baybars to expel the Franks completely from Syria. It was because of the need to defend against the Mongols that jihad against the Franks became definitively successful. For the survival of the Islamic world, the Mamaluks waged Jihad, winning 'Ain Jalut in 1260. From this point onwards the response of the Makeluks to the Christians was far more successfully bellicose than Zengi, Nur al-Din or Saladin had ever been. Therefore, it was the Mamaluks who most ardently fused the rhetoric of jihad with its implementation, further etching onto the European consciousness the inherent violence of the Saracens. The responses of the Muslim inhabitants of the Crusader states to their new rulers were rarely confrontational or violent. As Lapidus notes, northern Syria had recently ruled by the Byzantines and since Abbasid times rule by foreigners, be they Maghribis, Turks, Persians and later famously, Kurds, was the norm for the people of the region. Furthermore, it is unclear if the majority of the population of the Outremer was Muslim at the time. Original sources enable us to see beyond an inaccurate proto-nationalist or imperialist view of Muslim responses to the invaders. Ibn Jubayr mentions an anecdote demonstrating the lack of exploitation of Muslims by Christians: "The Muslim community bewails the injustice of a landlord of its own faith, and applauds the conduct of its opponent and enemy, the Frankish landlord, and is accustomed to justice from him" . A particularly fascinating insight of Jubayr's is that the local Muslims and Christians to the west of Damascus were not mutually antagonistic: "The soldiers engage themselves in their war, while the people are at peace and the world goes on" . More surprising still about these frontier lands is that "Security never leaves them in any circumstance, neither in peace nor in war. The state of these countries is truly more astonishing than our story can convey" . Ibn Jubayr was faithful hajji Muslim, committed to the reconquest of the Frankish territories and his book lavishes praise on Saladin. The emphasis on the tranquillity of these bellicose lands provides evidence for a convivencia of sorts between religious groups this particular area of Syria. Further evidence for this can be shown by the fact that a corner of the Cathedral in Acre was set aside for Muslim worship . The passage shows that what defined Muslims responses to the Crusades were the realities of financial interest and the desire for peaceful community relations; this was not detrimentally affected by the prosecution of jihad against the infidels. Thus Ibn Jubayr's account shows us some Muslims of the Middle East in the 1180s did not take jihad too literally; furthermore it wards us away from the assumption based on the modern situation on that same border that conflict in the Middle East necessitate religious animosity. Nevertheless, Ibn Jubayr's surprise at the situation shows us that these villages near Damascus were may have been exceptional case. It is difficult to draw definitive conclusions from the accounts of Ibn Jubayr and Usamah ibn Minqidh because we are unaware of how typical their experiences were. Nonetheless, the fact Usamah ibn Munqidh could fight against Frankish knights one year and befriend them the next demonstrates the complexity and pragmatism of Muslim responses to the Crusades .

The changing importance of Jerusalem to the Muslims shows how the responses to the Crusades adapted during the period. Hillenbrand argues that from 1099 to Zengi's capture of Edessa in 1144, Jerusalem was not the target for significant Muslim military expeditions or propaganda . During the time of Nur al-Din, the idea of Jerusalem as a Holy City being defiled by the Franks gained currency. For example, Ibn al-Qaysarani urges the retaking of the city: "May it, the city of Jerusalem, be purified by the shedding of blood/ The decision of Nur al-Din is as strong as ever and the iron of his lance is directed at the Aqsa" . The notion of purification emphasised here shows how Muslims were starting to perceive the Crusader presence in Jerusalem as an affront to Islam. In his terrifically detailed descri ption of the capture of the city, Saladin's katib Imad al-Din writes of the religious fervour following its fall ".sweet it was [for Saladin] to be victorious; his throne seemed as if surrounded by a lunar halo. Qur'anic reciters sat there reciting.Poets stood up to declaim and to demand.eyes wept with great joy.tongues humbled themselves in invocations to God" . Saladin's capture of Jerusalem, Imad al-Din implies with references to Persia and Transnoxia, was a victory for the whole Islamic world, rather than just the armies of Egypt and Syria. In an eyewitness account ("I was on duty at his side" ). Baha al-Din writes of the chivalry of Saladin towards Frankish prisoners taken near Beirut, showing that hospitality and respect were important aspects of the Muslim response to the Crusaders. Saladin gives gifts of "robes of honour" to the distinguished prisoners. Even at the height of jihad, Baha al-Din notes the kindness of Saladin towards individual captured Franks. By freeing a prisoner of war- a "very old man, without a tooth in his head"204 who had come to the East on a pilgrimage to the Holy Sepulchre, we can see that Saladin empathised with the significance of Jerusalem to Christians. Therefore the Muslims responses to individual Franks were influenced by the long History of Muslim-Christian interaction The Muslims responses to the Crusades were also conditioned by the economic benefits that came with the existence of the Frankish kingdoms. A striking feature of Ibn Jubayr's account of his time in the Crusader states is the normality and ease with which a Muslim trade caravan progressed through the region. He describes Acre as "the focus of ships and caravans and the meeting place of Muslims and Christian merchants from all regions" . Thus the response of the Muslim traders to the Crusaders was to establish business connections and to spread wealth. Runciman notes that this was made far easier by the reunification of Egypt with Syria under Nur al-Din and Saladin, meaning "goods from Iraq and Persia could safely travel across to Aleppo or Homs or Damascus and hence to the sea" . It seems from Ibn Jubayr that the Christians encouraged Muslim merchants by treating them with "civility and respect, and without harshness and unfairness", reciprocating the honourable way Saladin treated his Frankish prisoners. Therefore, many Muslims responded to the crusades with tolerance and understanding, although this must not be overstated from the limited range of evidence available. The great financial winners of the crusades were the Italian seafaring cities of Venice, Genoa and Pisa. The Muslim response was not to challenge the their naval power, Egypt never had the resources or expertise to do so, but expand trade links with Europe. Thus connections were forged that would see Alexandrian glass and Persian carpets in the castles of Europe. But it is debatable whether the Italian naval states can be counted as crusaders because their interactions with Muslims pre-date the arrival of the Franks. The affect of the memory of Crusades on modern Muslim memory is an important indicator of how Muslims today perceive there reaction to the Crusades. As Umej Bhatia argues, the existence of the state of Israel covering similar borders to the Outremer means it is vital for future peace in the region that the complexity of medieval responses to the Crusades are known in the Arab world . For example, the extent of trade between Muslims and Christians during the Crusades and the details of Ibn Jubayr's journal (specifically page 301) is currently little known about, but if it were popularly recognised, it could provide evidence against the assumptions of Huntingdon's thesis The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, that the "relations between groups from different civilizations.will be almost never close, usually cool and often hostile" . The friendships Usama Ibn Munqidh was able to strike with Franks demonstrates that the responses of Muslims to the Crusades were more sympathetic and less simplistic than might be expected. Nonetheless the violence and horror that the Crusades brought to the Holy Land did bring a reaction in kind from the Muslim powers. But this was by no means the full story. In conclusion, the Muslim responses to the crusades are characterised by the contradictions of war and peace, respect and animosity, religious ideology and political pragmatism. Nonetheless the Muslim response to the Crusades from the time of Nur al-Din to the era of the Mameluks was increasingly that of jihad. But this jihad was not necessarily an unending war, a clash of civilisations. As many Hanafi scholars argued, periods of truce could be observed if the interests of the umma demanded. The accounts of Usama Ibn Munqidh and Ibn Jubayr show that the responses of Muslims to the Crusades were complex and heterogeneous. This subtly has now been lost in the current perception of the Crusades in the Islamic world, not helped by the Crusading imagery espoused in President George Bush's war on terror. The reality of the epoch was that the Muslims responded to the Crusaders in multifaceted ways, depending on the specific diplomatic, military, religious and economic circumstances of the day.

Bibliography Runciman, Steven A History of the Crusades I,II,III (London 1951) The Travels of Ibn Jubayr, translated by R.J.C. Broadhurst (London 1952) Hillenbrand, Carol The Crusades, Islamic Perspectives Lapidus, Ira A History of Islamic Societies Riley Smith, Jonathan A History of the Crusades Bhatia Umej Forgetting Osama bin Munqidh Remembering Osama bin Laden Gabrieli, Francesco Arab Historians of the Crusades Copyright, Bernard Goyder.