Were the Muslims and Jews allies during the Crusades?
2.7182818284590...
terrorist tactics
on the Holy Lands and that the Crusaders were killing both the Jews
and Muslims.
Moreover, the Jews and Muslims acted as brothers fighting against the
common enemy. Is this true or has history been sanitized?.
Yusuf B Gursey
wrote:
the jews were not viable military or politicalforce on their own, but
by all accounts,even giving allowence for some exaggeration, it seems
certainthat the Crusades proved disastorous for the Jews in both
Europe and teh Holy Land.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_and_the_Crusades
Paul J Gans
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_and_the_Crusades
Sure. However, where they were allowed to own land and take higher
office (the south of France and Muslim Spain come to mind) they did
in fact fight in the armies.
Beyond that, they acted as any peasantry would when the fighting
rolls over them.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
Yusuf B Gursey
> In soc.history.medieval Yusuf B Gursey <y...@theworld.com> wrote:
>
> >On Nov 20, 2:18 am, "2.7182818284590..." <tangent1...@gmail.com>
> >wrote:
> >> I have always read that in those days, the Christians were doing
> >> terrorist tactics
> >> on the Holy Lands and that the Crusaders were killing both the Jews
> >> and Muslims.
>
> >> Moreover, the Jews and Muslims acted as brothers fighting against the
> >> common enemy. Is this true or has history been sanitized?.
> >the jews were not viable military or politicalforce on their own, but
> >by all accounts,even giving allowence for some exaggeration, it seems
> >certainthat the Crusades proved disastorous for the Jews in both
> >Europe and teh Holy Land.
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_and_the_Crusades
>
> Sure. However, where they were allowed to own land and take higher
> office (the south of France and Muslim Spain come to mind) they did
> in fact fight in the armies.
but they weren't an independent force on their own.
Yusuf B Gursey
acc. to Enc. Judaica II, "Crusades", the main pogroms were in Europe,
while those in the Holy Land were relatively unscathed.
Paul J Gans
>On Nov 20, 10:57 pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>> In soc.history.medieval Yusuf B Gursey <y...@theworld.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Nov 20, 2:18 am, "2.7182818284590..." <tangent1...@gmail.com>
>> >wrote:
>> >> I have always read that in those days, the Christians were doing
>> >> terrorist tactics
>> >> on the Holy Lands and that the Crusaders were killing both the Jews
>> >> and Muslims.
>>
>> >> Moreover, the Jews and Muslims acted as brothers fighting against the
>> >> common enemy. Is this true or has history been sanitized?.
>> >the jews were not viable military or politicalforce on their own, but
>> >by all accounts,even giving allowence for some exaggeration, it seems
>> >certainthat the Crusades proved disastorous for the Jews in both
>> >Europe and teh Holy Land.
>> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_and_the_Crusades
>>
>> Sure. However, where they were allowed to own land and take higher
>> office (the south of France and Muslim Spain come to mind) they did
>> in fact fight in the armies.
>but they weren't an independent force on their own.
That is certainly true. But then, without a nation of their
own, they could hardly be that.
Yusuf B Gursey
> In soc.history.medieval Yusuf B Gursey <y...@theworld.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Nov 20, 10:57 pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> >> In soc.history.medieval Yusuf B Gursey <y...@theworld.com> wrote:
>
> >> >On Nov 20, 2:18 am, "2.7182818284590..." <tangent1...@gmail.com>
> >> >wrote:
> >> >> I have always read that in those days, the Christians were doing
> >> >> terrorist tactics
> >> >> on the Holy Lands and that the Crusaders were killing both the Jews
> >> >> and Muslims.
>
> >> >> Moreover, the Jews and Muslims acted as brothers fighting against the
> >> >> common enemy. Is this true or has history been sanitized?.
> >> >the jews were not viable military or politicalforce on their own, but
> >> >by all accounts,even giving allowence for some exaggeration, it seems
> >> >certainthat the Crusades proved disastorous for the Jews in both
> >> >Europe and teh Holy Land.
> >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_and_the_Crusades
>
> >> Sure. However, where they were allowed to own land and take higher
> >> office (the south of France and Muslim Spain come to mind) they did
> >> in fact fight in the armies.
> >but they weren't an independent force on their own.
>
> That is certainly true. But then, without a nation of their
> own, they could hardly be that.
just what I meant.
2.7182818284590...
So it sounds as if the Muslims and the Jews of Western Europe (in
Spain/Portugal/S. France) both allied and fought *AGAINST* the
Christian Crusdaders. Is this correct, or am I santizing history too
much?
2.7182818284590...
>
> - Show quoted text -
Very interesting, Yusuf. However, during the Crusade's 200 year
history, even Acre, in modern day Palestine/Israel, had a lot of
horrors perpetrated there at the hands of the Crusaders agains Jews/
Muslims. The tactics that the Christians did would constitute
terrorism today.
Do you think that the Jews and Muslims allied together at this time?
William Black
You're thinking about 'national armies' at a time where there weren't any.
Any force was the 'property' of a single individual.
'The Jews' were not a collective entity at that time.
Any Jew who did fight was doing so as an individual in an army that
certainly wasn't Jewish or controlled by Jews.
--
William Black
"Any number under six"
The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
single handed with a quarterstaff.
Yusuf B Gursey
wrote:
they definitely had a common interest and Enc. Judaica II does mention
at least one case of an "alliance" with Muslims (still, the main
horrors of the Crusaders against Jews at the time were committed in
Europe):
<<
THE CRUSADERS IN EREẓ ISRAEL. Meanwhile, the crusaders
had reached *Jerusalem (June 7, 1099), and the siege had
begun. The city was captured on July 15, with Godfrey entering
it through the Jewish quarter, where inhabitants defended
themselves alongside their Muslim neighbors, finally seeking
refuge in the synagogues, which were set on fire by the attackers.
A terrible massacre ensued; the survivors were sold as
slaves, some being later redeemed by Jewish communities in
Italy. The Jewish community of Jerusalem came to an end and
was not reconstituted for many years, but the Jewish centers
in Galilee went unscathed. However, the great community of
*Ramleh dispersed, as did that of *Jaffa, so that overall the Jewish
community in the Holy Land was greatly diminished.
>>
Yusuf B Gursey
on a related note there is evidence from a dated text that the Jews
welcomed the initial conquest of the Holy Land by the early Muslim
Arabs. after a short while of the islamic conquest, the Roman /
Byzantine ban on Jews entering Jerusalem was lifted by the Muslims. P.
Crone and M. Cook use this dosument both for the historicity of
Muhammad and for their unorthodox views on Islam, though M. Cook has
since inched towards the generally accepted accounts.
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Inscriptions/earlysaw.html
<<
Dated Texts Mentioning Prophet Muḥammad From 1-100 AH / 622-719 CE
M S M Saifullah & ‘Abdullah David
© Islamic Awareness, All Rights Reserved.
First Composed: 26th January 2008
Last Modified: 21st March 2008
3. Prophet Muhammad In The Dated Muslim And Non-Muslim Sources From
The First Century AH: An Appraisal
From the listings of the dated texts, it is clear that the name of
Prophet Muhammad appears very early in the non-Muslim texts. The time
period between the death of Muhammad (June, 632 CE) and the earliest
mention of him (4th February, 634 CE) in the writings of Thomas the
Presbyter (writing c. 640 CE / 19 AH), is slightly over a year and
half! Interestingly enough, one of the earliest indications of
stirrings in Arabia comes from the Doctrina Jacobi ("Teachings of
Jacob"), a Greek anti-Jewish apologetic work which was presumably
composed in Africa in July 634 during the Heraclean persecution.
Although Muhammad is not mentioned by name in this tract, he is called
a (false) Prophet, who has appeared among the Saracens [i.e., the
Arabs] and has the keys of Paradise.[47]
[47] The translation of the text is taken from R. G. Hoyland, Seeing
Islam As Others Saw It: A Survey And
Evaluation Of Christian, Jewish And Zoroastrian Writings On Early
Islam, 1997, op. cit., p. 57.
When the candidatus [member of the Byzantine imperial guard] was
killed by the Saracens, I was at Caesarea and I set off by boat to
Sykamina. People were saying "the candidatus has been killed," and we
Jews were overjoyed. And they were saying that the prophet had
appeared, coming with the Saracens, and that he was proclaiming the
advent of the anointed one, the Christ who was to come. I, having
arrived at Sykamina, stopped by a certain old man well-versed in the
scriptures, and I said to him: "What can you tell me about the prophet
who has appeared with the Saracens?" He replied, groaning deeply: "He
is false, for the prophets do not come armed with a sword. Truly they
are the works of anarchy being committed today and I fear that the
first Christ to come, whom the Christians worship, was the one sent by
God and we instead are preparing to receive the Antichrist. Indeed,
Isaiah said that the Jews would retain a perverted and hardened heart
until all the earth should be devastated. But you go, master
Abraham, and find out about the prophet who has appeared." So I,
Abraham, inquired and heard from those who had met him that there was
no truth to be found in the so-called prophet, only shedding of men's
blood. He says also that he has the keys of paradise, which is
incredible.
For a similar translation also see P. Crone & M. Cook, Hagarism: The
Making Of The Islamic World, 1977, op. cit.,
pp. 3-4.
>>