What do muslims think of the crusades?

What do muslims think of the crusades?

What were the immediate reactions to losing Jerusalem back then? Did they consider it some sort of divine punishment or bad omen? How did it affect the politics of the Muslim world?

Other urls found in this thread:

amazon.com/Crusades-Through-Arab-Eyes-Essentials/dp/0805208984
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

They think it's the worst crime in the history of the human race, despite it being Christian Jihad.
Muslims have a bad habit of hiding their shady past and feeding off Eurocentrist history to hide their bad deeds, leading to the modern rosy picture of Medieval Islam.

I am aware that modern Islam extremist have used the Crusades as fuel for their cause, but I didn't knew they had always held this view. Figured in the past things were different.

>Bunch of infidels taking your shit, which you took from them in the first place, wasn't frowned on
They weren't really keen about it.

Actually, literally until the 20th century, they didn't care.

They didn't really care at the time, as the crusaders were just another flavor of asshole warband in a region of asshole war bands. The Muslims had no problems forming alliances with the crusaders against other Muslims. In fact this is pretty much the only reason that the Crusader States lasted as long as they did.

But then the 20th century came, and the Crusades were seen as a prefigurement of Western Imperialism, and western educated Arabs also tuned into how the Crusades played in the western world.

What tone do muslim records of the events have? I was wondering, since in the Christian world as of late there seems to be a lot of finger pointing at how East/West divide is what gave the muslims the chance to take over as much as they did in the first place.

They didn't really care that much. It was just one more war in a time of wars.

Muslim historians and the like tended to focus on the bigger issues of the time; the collapse of the Abbasid Caliphate, the mongol conquests and the rise of the Turkic dynasties.

That's not to say they didn't care at all. Saladin, for example, used the recapture of Jerusalem as a rallying call to his armies. Of course he then spent most of his time using said armies to conquer everywhere but Jerusalem.

this isn't even remotely close to answering the question you ideology monkey weeb talking about shit you clearly dont understand, picked up from image board infographics and delusional narratives

During the actual crusades, Muslims showed a remarkable willingness to backstab each other for short-term gain. In some cases, certain Muslims even allied with the Crusaders temporarily for the sole purpose of screwing over other Muslim groups that they disliked. The was also a lot of in-fighting among the Crusaders themselves, although usually not actual fighting but more along the lines of "get stuck in a town for like a month after taking it over because everybody wants to claim the city for themselves and nobody is willing to move on until the issue is settled."

Well, probably not the muslim records you were thinking of, but a Shia scholar (born in Iran, now professor of Islamic theology in university of Uppsala, Sweden) has a pretty fucked up view of it. He believes that there are two axioms on which culture and faith and geopolitics and pretty much everything worldly is built on. Western civillization, and Muslim civillization. The Crusades and the Jihads and all that has only been extensions of this contest. It's a bad theory, kind of what you would expect from a kc tier professor of theology, but it's his hot take at least.

t. Swede who read his progressivist "islam is what you make it" style book

you want an interesting look into Muslim views of the Crusades look at ibn jubayr or Usama ibn munqidh. They both have run in and negotiations with crusaders and normal folk in the crusader states. Interesting articles to look into would be asbridges look into the principality of Antioch and it's dealing with other communities, in including thr Muslim lords of sahziar and allepo( which he turned into tributaries). There is a surprising amount of information from Muslim sources which if you get past the religious aspect are a good read.

Pretty much.

> What tone do muslim records of the events have

Depends on where they come from. People from Antioch were womewhat negatively biased compared to people from Cairo, as you can imagine.

if you know of the mentality of arabs and middle easterners its something like this "fuck, we lost, those fuckers". Its not "boo hoo we lost poor us"

What are the books I should look up from them or about them?

amazon.com/Crusades-Through-Arab-Eyes-Essentials/dp/0805208984

They're still butthurt about it

>They think it's the worst crime in the history of the human race, despite it being Christian Jihad.
The muslims literally had bigger shit to fry than the Crusades during the time.

>Decline of the Abbasid Caliphate.
>Upheaval in Egypt from first Shiite Fatimids, and then Mamluk rulers.
>Turkic invaders running around setting up states within states within states.
>Weirdo assassin NEETS living in mountaintop fortresses.
>Turkics setting up Persianate States and splitting iran off from the Caliphate.

The Crusades were as said. "Oh look, yet another warband. Great."

I don't know what they teach in their schools, but every one of them seems to think of Saladin as this brilliant general who never lost a battle despite losing to Baldwin IV and Richard the Lionheart on several occasions. I've come across a few who thought Saladin defeated Richard the Lionheart.

Crusades weren't that important to them, since bigger shit was going down. In terms of foreign, infidel invaders, Muslims remember the Mongols far more because they basically fucked every Muslim polity in Arabia but the Mamluks.
Basically don't listen to retards like this

As a Muslim, basically we see it as our own failure and the result of our internal strife and infighting. When the Crusaders captured Jerusalem, it wasn't even controlled by real Muslims, it was controlled by Fatimids, who were heretics. I'm sure there are some modern people who want to use it to portray Europeans as extra violent or something, but that's not the view of the majority.

>it wasn't even controlled by real Muslims, it was controlled by Fatimids, who were heretics

Basically this

lol, im sure some people will disagree, but from my perspective they were

Usama ibn munqidh " book of contemplations" and ibn jabayrs "travels'. Also Fulcher of Chatted "chronicles" is decent

...

thanks for proving my point faggot

I may be mistaken on this, but around that time I believe there was just a ton of Islamic infighting in the area, and they really only ever aligned under a strong military leader, such as Saladin who was able to take control of Fatimid power.

I think they certainly thought of it in a religious sense to some extent, but not in the same lenses or level of import as the Crusaders, or Jews for that matter. There was never quite the same
scale of religion drawing together princes, or other sorts of rulers under one banner, as the Popes were capable of.

>the Muslims were literally frying shit
lmao what?

You know, I always knew about all the shit going on in the mid-East at this time, but it never had occurred to me just how inconsequential the Crusades were in the grand scheme of things for them. It's kind of fascinating to contemplate.

>was an early teen
>fuck yeah, Kingsom of Heaven soumds like an awesome movie

WHITE PEOPLE BAD! MUSLIMS GOOD AND HONORABLE! WITH ICE IN THE DESERT OMFG!

This was my awakening to (((them)))

Like OMG as a liberal that's currently taking gender studies and is transgender the Crusades were like the worst thing ever. The evil bigoted Christians murdered the peaceful Muslims when they were just trying to make people see a different perspective in the world and these bigoted Christians just had to murder these innocent brown people. I mean these people were such big islamophobic bigots of the time.

I imagine some of them had a hearty chuckle about every crusade after the first one.

Is that bird ok?

Well the old gods have blessed him with mutations, so i assume so

>the Muslims literally had bigger shit to fry
>literally

literally frying shit to whip up a stank and demoralize defenders during a siege is a sound strategy

Bait?

...