Historien

Saladin og de kristne i Jerusalem

Saladin og de kristne i Jerusalem


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.


Jerusalem taget fra de kristne af Saladin

Jerusalem blev taget fra byens kristne herskere af Ayyubid -sultanen Saladin i 1187 ifølge Bibelens tidslinjediagram med verdenshistorie. De kristne herskers nederlag i slaget ved Hattin fremskyndede kun Jerusalems fald. Nyheder om Jerusalems tab fik senere Europas herskere til at starte det tredje korstog.

Disse artikler er skrevet af forlagene af Den fantastiske bibelske tidslinje
Se hurtigt 6000 års bibel- og verdenshistorie sammen

Unikt cirkulært format - se mere på mindre plads.
Lær fakta at du ikke kan lære bare af at læse Bibelen
Attraktivt design ideel til dit hjem, kontor, kirke og#8230

Stigningen af ​​Saladin

Den store muslimske hersker Saladin blev født Yusuf ibn Najm al-Din Ayyub Salah al-Din. Han var en af ​​de mest usædvanlige muslimske herskere, da han ikke var araber, tyrker eller perser. Hans kurdiske familie migrerede fra Dvin i Armenien og ind i Tikrit (nutidens Irak), før han blev født. Hans far, Najm al-Din Ayyub, var vagtchef i Tikrit, der reddede Zengi, den tyrkiske hersker over Mosul, da han flygtede fra byen. Hans familie blev senere tvunget til at forlade Tikrit, da hans onkel, Shirkuh, dræbte en mand.

Saladin blev født i løbet af natten, da de forlod Tikrit i 1139. De rejste til Mosul, hvor Zengi (nu tilbage som byens hersker) tog imod dem som betaling for sin gæld. Nur ad-Din, Zengis søn, efterfulgte sin far flere år senere. Saladin voksede op i en tid, hvor europæiske korsfarere flød ind i Det Hellige Land og erobrede nogle territorier. Han tjente sammen med sin onkel Nur ad-Din, efter at han stod op som hersker over Mosul.

I Jerusalem døde kong Baldwin III og blev efterfulgt af sin yngre bror Amalric I i 1163. Amalric ivrig efter at udvide sit område angreb Fatimid Egypten, som på det tidspunkt var svækket. Den mere magtfulde vizier Shawar bad om Nur ad-Dins hjælp til at forsvare Egypten fra Amalric. Nur ad-Din sendte tyrkiske tropper, han havde brug for, og de blev ledet af Shirkuh og hans unge nevø, Saladin. Sammen med Fatimid -tropperne besejrede de Amalrics soldater og kørte dem tilbage til Jerusalem.

Saladin i Egypten og sammenbruddet af Fatimid -dynastiet

Men Shirkuh var en ambitiøs mand, og han ville have Egypten for sig selv. Shawar indså hurtigt, at alliancen var en fejl, så han tilbød en alliance til Amalric. Sammen angreb de og drev Shirkuh, Saladin og de tyrkiske tropper ud af Egypten. Shirkuh glemte dog aldrig Egypten og hans drømme om at erobre det. Han vendte tilbage til Egypten med Saladin og de tyrkiske tropper for at besejre deres fjender i 1167. Shawar vidste i mellemtiden, at han ikke ville vare i sin stilling, så han tog til Shirkuh for at forhandle med ham i 1169. Saladin og hans mænd stoppede ham, da han var nær lejren, tog ham et andet sted og dræbte ham.

Shirkuh regerede Egypten og kontrollerede den Fatimidiske kalif al-Adid fra da af. Han nåede ikke at nyde sin nye status længe, ​​da han døde to måneder senere. Ægyptens styre overgik til Saladin efter hans død. Syv måneder efter, at han rejste sig som hersker over Egypten, stod Saladin over for truslen om en kombineret korsfarer og byzantinsk styrke. Han væltede let denne alliance, da korsfarerne og byzantinerne var dårligt udstyrede og ofte kæmpede mod hinanden. Han drev deres hær tilbage til Det Hellige Land og vendte tilbage til Egypten for at regere på Nur ad-Dins vegne.

I 1171 beordrede Nur ad-Din Saladin til at fjerne den unge Fatimid-hersker al-Adid, så Egypten ville være i tyrkiske hænder. Saladin mente, at dette ikke var en god idé på det tidspunkt, men ændrede senere mening. Han fulgte endelig Nur ad-Din's instruktion, ligesom da kalifen blev så syg. Kalif al-Adid døde uden at vide, at han blev fjernet fra sin stilling, og at han var den sidste af Fatimiderne, der regerede Egypten.

Saladin styrede Egypten fra da af. Han blev gradvist så magtfuld, at han begyndte at styre det uden at tage hensyn til Nur ad-Din's ordrer. For eksempel angreb han korsfarerslottet i Montreal fra Egypten, mens Nur ad-Din lukkede ind på det samme slot fra nord. Han bøjede sig ud af dette slag og vendte tilbage til Egypten. Han mistede Nur ad-Din tillid på grund af dette, og hans tidligere mester startede sine planer om at fjerne Saladin fra Egypten. Men den tyrkiske hersker døde af halsinfektion, før han kunne gennemføre sine planer i 1174. Hans unge søn, Al-Salih Ismail, blev overladt til at styre sit rige.

Saladin vidste, at dette var hans chance for at ødelægge Det Hellige Land og Syrien for sig selv, så han tog til Damaskus og præsenterede sig selv som drengens værge. Han blev også gift med Nur ad-Din enke, og den unge Al-Salih døde bekvemt i 1181. Med de tyrkiske herskere ude af vejen var Saladin nu fri til at styre Syrien og Egypten.

Opdeling i Det Hellige Land

I mellemtiden efterfulgte Baldwin IV den spedalske i Jerusalem sin far Amalric II som konge af Jerusalem. Da Baldwin bare var et barn, da hans far døde, trådte Miles of Plancy op for at blive hans regent. Raymond III fra Tripoli og andre adelsmænd udfordrede hans påstand som regent. Da Miles blev dræbt, giftede hans enke sig med Lord of Oultrejourdain kaldet Reynald af Chatillon. Reynald havde en historie om at være en allround-ballademager. Hans krumspring ville hjælpe med at bringe Jerusalems fald til Saladin.

Da Miles of Plancy var død, var Raymond III fra Tripoli fri til at arrangere ægteskab med Baldwin IVs søster Sybilla med en anden adelsmand. Parret havde en søn, som de kaldte Baldwin V, men Sybilla ’s nye mand døde også. Deres søn blev senere navngivet som hans onkel Baldwin IVs medhersker, mens hans mor giftede sig med en anden adelsmand ved navn Guy of Lusignan.

Mellem 1177 og 1178 nedslidte Saladin Baldwin IV's forsøg på at styrke sit rige. I 1182 ledede Reynald fra Chatillon et razzia på en campingvogn på vej mod Syrien. Det gjorde Saladin vrede, da campingvognen var under hans beskyttelse. Han besluttede at angribe korsfarerstaterne samme år. Reynald provokerede igen Saladin, da han annoncerede sine planer om at invadere Mekka via Det Røde Hav. Saladin angreb dem for anden gang i 1183 på grund af dette.

Kong Baldwin IV vidste, at han var nødt til at møde Saladin i kamp. Problemet var, at han havde spedalskhed. Så han lod sin nye svoger, Guy fra Lusignan, føre sin hær i kamp. Guy erstattede Raymond III fra Tripoli som regent, men han og hans hær konfronterede ikke Saladin i kamp - et træk, der gjorde ham upopulær i Jerusalem. Baldwin IV fjernede sin svoger som regent og bragte Raymond III fra Tripoli tilbage. Han meddelte også, at hans nevø, Baldwin V, ville efterfølge ham som konge. Men den unge dreng døde i 1185, efterfulgt af kongen et år senere.

Tronen i Jerusalem var ledig, og både Raymond og Guy kæmpede for at besætte den. Guy, Sybilla og den altid tilstedeværende Reynald fra Chatillon gennemførte senere et kup for at fjerne Raymond III som hersker over Jerusalem. Raymond blev tvunget til at søge en alliance med Saladin i håb om, at han ville få Jerusalem tilbage. Mens han forhandlede med Saladin, ransagede Reynald fra Chatillon imidlertid en anden Syrien-bundet campingvogn. Saladin krævede betaling for skaden. Reynald nægtede og trodsede endda Guy, der bad ham betale op.

Slaget ved Hattin og Jerusalems fald

Guy vidste, at dette var det sidste halm for Saladin, så han sendte sine riddere for at slutte fred med Raymond. Hans strategi mislykkedes, da Saladins mænd, der lurede på Raymonds område, dræbte de riddere, han sendte. I juli samme år bragte Saladin hele 30.000 soldater med sig og belejrede Raymonds højborg i Tiberias. Guy og hans tropper forsøgte at angribe Saladin i slaget ved Hattin, men slagsmål, mangel på vand og den uudholdelige varme i dalen gjorde det svært for dem at vinde.

De kristne styrker oplevede et knusende nederlag i Hattin, og alle adelsmændene blev taget til fange. Saladin behandlede de kristne adelsmænd med høflighed, og de blev til sidst sat fri. Men han udpegede Reynald fra Chatillon, som han halshugger med sit eget sværd. Han beordrede også sine mænd til at henrette alle tempelridderne og Hospitallere, der sluttede sig til slaget.

En efter en overgav byerne i Det Hellige Land sig til Saladins hær, og flygtningene blev tvunget til at flygte til Jerusalem. Den hellige bys indbyggere gik i panik, da de hørte, at Saladins tropper var på vej mod dem, men Balian fra Ibelin ankom og ledede forsvaret af byen. Den 20. september 1187 ankom Saladin og hans krigere uden for Jerusalems mure. Selvom de var villige til at kæmpe, vidste beboerne, at de ikke matchede de muslimske styrker på den anden side af murene.

Balian blev tvunget til at forhandle med Saladin for at redde byens indbyggere. På grund af Balians indsats gik Saladin med til at lade Jerusalems kristne indbyggere gå uskadt fra byen. Han accepterede Jerusalems overgivelse og indtog den i sejr samme år. Muslimerne fjernede derefter korset fra Klippekuplen. Endnu en gang var Jerusalem i muslimske hænder.


Området lige syd for Den Hellige Gravs Kirke har en lang tradition, der stammer fra Judas Maccabeus 'dage (2. århundrede f.Kr.) baseret på hændelser, der er nedskrevet i Anden Makkabæerbog. [1] Ifølge legenden gik kong Antiochus V videre til Jerusalem for at straffe ypperstepræsten for at have plyndret Davids grav. Mens han var på Golgotha, blev kongen instrueret i en guddommelig vision om at benåde ypperstepræsten og at bygge et hospital til pleje af syge og fattige på det sted. I 1496 skrev William Caoursin, vicekansler for Hospitallerne, at Judas Maccabaeus og John Hyrcanus grundlagde hospitalet på dette sted. [2]

Romersk periode Rediger

I 130 besøgte Hadrian ruinerne af Jerusalem, i Judæa, efterladt efter den første romersk-jødiske krig 66-73. Han genopbyggede byen og omdøbte den til Aelia Capitolina efter ham selv og Jupiter Capitolinus, den største romerske guddom. Hadrian placerede byens hovedforum i krydset mellem Cardo og Decumanus Maximus, nu stedet for (mindre) Muristan. Hadrian byggede et stort tempel til gudinden Venus, som senere blev Den Hellige Gravs Kirke. [3] Den tidligste historiske omtale af stedet Muristan er i 600 e.Kr., da en bestemt abbed Probus blev bestilt af pave Gregor den Store til at bygge et hospital i Jerusalem til behandling og pleje af kristne pilgrimme til Det Hellige Land. Dette hospice blev sandsynligvis ødelagt omkring fjorten år senere, da Jerusalem faldt til den persiske hær, og de kristne indbyggere blev slagtet, og deres kirker og klostre blev ødelagt (se oprør mod Heraclius). Bygningen blev sandsynligvis restaureret, efter at Jerusalem igen faldt under romersk herredømme i 629.

Tidlig muslimsk periode Rediger

Arabisk styre efter 637 tillod tilbedelsesfrihed, og det restaurerede hospice fik sandsynligvis lov til at fortsætte med at tjene sit oprindelige formål. I 800 udvidede Karl den Store, kejser af Det Hellige Romerske Rige, vandrerhjemmet og tilføjede et bibliotek til det. Bernard munken, der skrev en beretning om sit besøg i Jerusalem i 870, nævner et benediktinsk hospital tæt på Den Hellige Gravs Kirke. I 993 gav Hugh Marquis fra Toscana og hans kone hospitalet en betydelig ejendom i Italien.

I 1009 ødelagde Fatimid -kalifen Al Hakim vandrerhjemmet og et stort antal andre bygninger i Jerusalem. [4] I 1023 fik købmænd fra Amalfi og Salerno i Italien tilladelse af kalifen Ali az-Zahir til at genopbygge hospice, kloster og kapel i Jerusalem. Blandt disse købmænd fra Amalfi og Salerno var også Mauros, købmand fra Amalfi, af en familie fra Konstantinopel, Milet og Amalfi, der sammen med sin mor Anna og hendes bror Constantine gav en gave til klostret Saint Lawrence i Amalfi, [5] som sandsynligvis havde en forbindelse til velsignede Gerard, grundlæggeren af ​​Ridderordenen i St. John of Jerusalem the Knights Hospitaller.

I Palæstina og Syrien var der oprør blandt beduinerne (1024–1029). I en aftale i 1027 mellem Ali az-Zahir og Konstantin VIII tillod Konstantin VIII kalifens navn at blive anerkendt i moskeerne i kejserens domæne og moskeen i Konstantinopel for at blive restaureret. [6] Hospiceet, der blev bygget på stedet for klostret Sankt Johannes Døber, tog kristne pilgrimme ind for at besøge de hellige steder. Øst for dette hospital, adskilt fra det med en vognbane, blev der bygget et nyt hospital for pilgrimme i 1080. Begge hospitaler forblev under kontrol af den benediktinske abbed. [7] I 1078 blev Jerusalem taget til fange af seljuk -tyrkerne, der misbrugte den kristne befolkning, tvang pilgrimme til at betale en stor skat for at besøge de hellige steder og endda kidnappede patriarken i Jerusalem. På trods af forfølgelsen fortsatte benediktinerhospitalet sin tjeneste. Ærkebiskop John af Amalfi optegner, at han under sin pilgrimsrejse til Jerusalem i 1082 besøgte hospitalet. I august 1098 blev tyrkerne fordrevet af den egyptiske vizier, Al Afdal. [8] Mod slutningen af ​​den egyptiske besættelse (juli 1099) blev Hospital for Women administreret af en ædel romersk dame ved navn Agnes, mens Hospital for Men var under ledelse af en munk kendt som broder Gerard. [9]

Korsfarer periode Rediger

I det første korstog, under belejringen af ​​Jerusalem (1099), fængslede den egyptiske guvernør, Iftikhar ad Dawla, bror Gerard. Da Jerusalem faldt til Godfrey af Bouillon, frigjorde han bror Gerard, lod ham genoptage sin ledelse af Hospital for Men og bidrog med ressourcer til hans arbejde. Gerard vedtog politikken om at modtage alle trængende patienter, uanset religion. Mens Hospitalet for Kvinder forblev under benediktinernes kontrol, brød bror Gerard fra denne bekendtgørelse, vedtog den augustinske regel og organiserede Fratres Hospitalarii ind i en regelmæssigt konstitueret religiøs orden under beskyttelse af den hellige Johannes Døberen. Medlemmerne af ordenen blev således kendt som Knights of St. John eller Hospitallers.

Den formelle oprettelse af Knights Hospitaller under bror Gerard blev bekræftet af en pavelig tyr af pave Paschal II i 1113. Gerard erhvervede territorium og indtægter for sin orden i hele kongeriget Jerusalem og videre. Hans efterfølger, Raymond du Puy de Provence, forstørrede sygehuset betydeligt. Den tidligste beskrivelse af det første hospital i den suveræne militære St. John -orden i Jerusalem blev skrevet af en tysk pilgrim John af Würzburg, der besøgte Jerusalem omkring år 1160:

Over mod Den Hellige Gravs Kirke, på den modsatte side af vejen mod syd, er en smuk kirke bygget til ære for Johannes Døberen, som er knyttet som et hospital, hvor der i forskellige rum er samlet en enorm mængde af syge mennesker. Både mænd og kvinder. Som plejes og genoprettes dagligt for meget store omkostninger. Da jeg var der, lærte jeg, at hele antallet af disse syge mennesker udgjorde to tusinde, hvoraf nogle gange i løbet af en dag og nat mere end halvtreds bliver udført døde, mens mange andre friske bliver ved med at ankomme. Hvad mere kan jeg sige? Det samme hus forsyner lige så mange mennesker uden for det med madvarer, som det gør dem indeni, ud over den grænseløse velgørenhed, som det dagligt skænkede fattige mennesker, der tigger deres brød fra dør til dør og ikke loger i huset, så hele summen af ​​dens udgifter kan bestemt aldrig beregnes selv af ledere og forvaltere deraf. Ud over alle disse penge, der bruges på syge og andre fattige mennesker, opretholder det samme hus også i sine forskellige slotte mange personer, der er uddannet til alle slags militære øvelser til forsvar for de kristnes land mod invasionen af ​​saracener. [10]

Ayyubid periode og senere henfald Rediger

Efter belejringen af ​​Jerusalem i oktober 1187 blev alle kristne drevet ud af Jerusalem af sultanen Saladin. Hospitallerne fik lov til at forlade ti af deres antal i byen for at passe de sårede, indtil de kunne rejse. Saladin overgav Hospitallers bygninger til moskeen i Omar. Hans nevø i 1216 indstiftede et vanvittigt asyl i det, der havde været den kongelige kirke, og det var på dette tidspunkt, at området kom til at blive omtalt som Muristan. [11] Hospitalets faciliteter blev fortsat brugt til pleje af syge og sårede. Stedet var øde i det 16. århundrede, og de storslåede strukturer faldt til sidst i ruin.

1800 -tallet Rediger

I 1868 præsenterede sultanen Mehmed VI den østlige del af dette område for kronprins Frederik Vilhelm af Preussen under sit besøg i Jerusalem. Prinsen var på det tidspunkt Master of the Johanniterorden, den protestantiske efterfølger til en tidligere afdeling af Knights Hospitaller. De tyske riddere byggede en vej gennem Muristan fra nord til syd og kaldte den Prince Frederick William Street, og ejendommen blev centrum for den tyske koloni i Jerusalem. Fra 1841 kom tyske protestantiske kristne til Palæstina for at støtte det kristne mindretal i området gennem diakonalt og missionært arbejde. Den tyske regering bidrog til processen med at fjerne murbrokker i området og genopbygge. I slutningen af ​​1800 -tallet genopbyggede de korsfarerkirken St.Mary Latina som den lutherske forløserkirke (Erlöserkirche). De gamle klostre, refektoriet og den originale plan for middelalderkirken blev bevaret i den nuværende nyromanske bygning. Kaiser Wilhelm II deltog personligt i indvielsen af ​​kirken den 31. oktober 1898 (reformationsdagen), da han og hans kone, Augusta Victoria, blev de første vestlige herskere, der besøgte Jerusalem. Forløserkirken, under kontrol af den evangeliske kirke i Tyskland (EKD) gennem Evangelical Jerusalem Foundation (Evangelische Jerusalemstiftung, EJSt) huser i øjeblikket den ELCA-sponsorerede engelsktalende menighed, en tysktalende menighed og en indfødt arabisk- talende menighed. Kirken er også hovedkvarter for den tyske Propst og biskoppen for den evangelisk -lutherske kirke i Jordan (ELCJ).

For at sikre lige repræsentation tildelte sultanen i 1868 den vestlige del af Muristan til det græsk -ortodokse patriarkat. Det er nu besat af den græske basar, der har specialiseret sig i lædervarer. En ceremoniel gateway ud for Muristan Street fører til dette Muristan -område, kaldet Suq Aftimos, og derfra til et sæt korte krydsende gader med butikker og et par caféer. Gadearrangementerne blev bygget i 1903 af den græsk -ortodokse myndighed. I midten af ​​basarområdet er et prydfontæne (1800 -tallet) i nordenden en moske i Omar, bygget i 1216 af Saladins søn til minde om kalif Omars besøg i Jerusalem i 638, da han bad på kirkens trin af Den Hellige Grav i stedet for indeni, så den kunne forblive et kristent helligt sted.

Udgravninger af Muristan blev udført omkring begyndelsen af ​​det 20. århundrede og viste, at Hospitaller-komplekset besatte et cirka kvadratisk område på 160 yards (øst-vest) og 143 yards (nord-syd). I de tidlige årtier af det tyvende århundrede var der lidt tilbage af de oprindelige bygninger. Resterne omfattede Mar Hanna Kirke, en række buer på David Street og resterne af den nordlige dør af Hospitallers kirke St. Mary Latina, som blev inkorporeret i den moderne Forløserkirke. Det, der er tilbage af hospitalet i dag, er et moderne mindesmærke beliggende i en lille fordybning spærret fra gaden med en jernport og en lukket gård.

Den arkæologiske park åbnede i november 2012 "Durch die Zeiten", der ligger under kirkeskibet for Forløserens Kirke, og giver mulighed for at begå mere end 2000 års historie i byen Jerusalem ved at gå gennem den. [12]


Saladins arv: Nogle tanker

Over billedet: Forsidebillede af Yaacov Lev ’s fremragende bog Saladin i Egypten (Leiden: Brill, 1999).

Den egyptiske sultan Saladin (r. 1171-1193), en sunnimuslimsk kurder, hyldes ofte for sine ridderlige dyder og gerninger i korstogstiden. I populær moderne film og litteratur, både i øst og vest, skildres Saladin som en mand af ære og fornuft, ikke fejet op i hans religiøse lidenskaber og dermed en slags moderne rollemodel for oplyst adfærd i tider af konflikt. Alligevel er sådanne heroiske populære fortællinger om middelalderlige militære ledere sjældent, om nogensinde, fuldstændig præcise, og i Saladins tilfælde er der betydelige beviser for, at han var meget mere en mand i sin tid end antydet af ellers romantiserede syn på hans karriere.

For at give et af de mere kendte eksempler på Saladins adfærd, der ville understøtte den populære fortælling med vægt på Saladins generøsitet og rimelighed, kunne man overveje Beha ed-Dins beretning om en kvinde i korsfarernes lejr under det tredje korstog, hvis tre måneder gamle baby blev kidnappet en nat af muslimske tyve og kidnappere, hvis opgave det var regelmæssigt at chikanere kristne i korsfarerlejrene på denne måde. Det var sædvanligt, at tyvene derefter bragte alt, hvad de havde taget, til sultanens telt for at præsentere ham, hvorefter Saladin normalt ville returnere det til tyvene, så de kunne tjene på deres handlinger. I dette tilfælde solgte tyvene efter sigende barnet derefter på et slavemarked. Da den kristne mor fik at vide, hvad der skete, var hun chokeret og græd, indtil "frankernes fyrster" angiveligt fortalte hende, at Saladin var en medfølende mand, og at de ville tillade hende at gå til ham og bede om sit barn tilbage. Hun gjorde, som de foreslog, og Saladin beordrede, at barnet blev fundet og returneret til ham. Derefter gav han barnet tilbage til den grædende mor, og derefter fik Saladin mor og barn sikkert tilbage til korsfarernes lejr.

Mere markant er Saladins handlinger i behandlingen af ​​den besejrede befolkning i byen Jerusalem i 1187 meget bedre kendt end hans behandling af den kristne kvinde beskrevet ovenfor. Faktisk er hans handlinger på det tidspunkt eller i det mindste den populære fortælling om dem sandsynligvis det vigtigste element i etableringen af ​​hans populære arv. Saladins erobring af byen blev muliggjort af hans sejr over kristne styrker tre måneder tidligere i slaget ved Hattin, hvor han næsten udslettede hæren i Jerusalem. Derefter erobrede Saladin mange af de omkringliggende områder, hvilket resulterede i en flygtningekrise for byen Jerusalem, da tusinder af kristne flygtede dertil og søgte ly. Saladin begyndte sin belejring af byen i september, da det ikke tog lang tid, før hans hær brød over byens mure, hvilket fik lederen af ​​byens forsvar, Balian af Ibelin, til at forhandle en overgivelse, hvor indbyggerne i byen ville kunne forlade, så længe de betalte en løsesum. Saladin respekterede aftalen, og de fleste af byens indbyggere ville blive skånet for deres liv eller slaveri. Dette resultat under Saladin er ofte blevet kontrasteret med den rapporterede slagtning, der fandt sted i Jerusalem i 1099, da deltagerne i det første korstog erobrede byen og per kroniker skrev i blod op til deres hestes tøjler på Tempelbjerget.

Saladins erobring af Jerusalem førte til stor bekymring i Europa og resulterede i kaldet til det tredje korstog. Selvom korsfarerne ville have succes med at genoprette nogle vigtige områder til kristen kontrol, ville Jerusalem, det kronede juvel i Det Hellige Land, forblive under Saladins kontrol. Da Saladin døde i 1193, havde han konsolideret sit styre og etableret Ayyubid -dynastiet. Da disse præstationer blev kombineret med hans sejre over kristne styrker i regionen, for at omfatte erobringen af ​​Jerusalem, var Saladin fremstået som en muslimsk helt. Faktisk blev der skrevet to biografier om ham, en sjældenhed for muslimske herskere på det tidspunkt, og mange andre nutidige eller nær samtidige muslimske forfattere nævnte hans bedrifter i deres historier, hvilket gjorde Saladin måske til den mest kendte muslimske leder af korstogstiden.

Selvom Saladin blev fejret for sin rolle i korstogene i det tolvte og tredivende århundrede, ville hans berømmelse i den arabiske verden snart falde samtidig med, at interessen for det emne, muslimske forfattere viste fra senmiddelalderen til moderne tidsperioder, faldt. Denne proces begyndte med den trussel, som mongolerne repræsenterede for den muslimske verden i det trettende århundrede, som var langt mere ødelæggende end korsfarerne. Da mongolerne blev overvundet, fokuserede tyrkerne derefter på en ny æra med vellykket ekspansion til kristne lande i Østeuropa og Middelhavet, opnåede mange sejre og udvidede deres imperium. På grund af disse begivenheder blev de midlertidige og geografisk begrænsede latinsk kristne bosættelser i korstogstiden og de konflikter, de fremkaldte, mindre vigtige i muslimske historiske fortællinger. Som historikere Edward Peters og Mona Hammad (Syv korstogers myter) har noteret:

”I det fjortende århundrede blev den islamiske verden placeret på rette vej for de påfølgende senere triumfer fra mamlukkerne og derefter safaviderne i Persien og det osmanniske imperium fra det fjortende århundrede til slutningen af ​​det syttende. Korsfarerne trak sig tilbage til en enorm og nu stort set osmannisk domineret og defineret fortid. ” (Peters og Hammad, Syv korstogers myter)

Med den formindskede rolle som korstogstiden i islamisk historie kom Saladins formindskede rolle som muslimsk helt og militær leder. Korstogernes historiske betydning blev minimeret, da de lå mellem to perioder med ekstraordinær muslimsk ekspansion, for at omfatte den arabiske erobring i det syvende og ottende århundrede og fortsættelsen af ​​en stabil muslimsk ekspansion i løbet af det niende til ellevte århundrede og fremkomsten af Tyrkerne og deres ekspansion vest i Europa i senmiddelalderen og de tidlige moderne perioder.

Det var moderne vesterlændinge i løbet af det nittende og tyvende århundrede, der ville være de første til at rehabilitere Saladins ry som måske den mest oplyste skikkelse i korstogsbevægelsen. Romantiserede historier om korstogene, der blev skrevet under og påvirket af den nye imperialismes æra, førte til skildringer af de tidlige korsfarere som tidlige imperialister og forløbere for den moderne sort. Nogle af disse historier, senere oversat til arabisk, persisk og tyrkisk, indrammede også Saladin som en ridderlig form for leder af modstanden mod korsfarernes imperialister, hvilket gjorde ham til noget af et forbillede for senere nittende og tyvende århundrede arabiske og tyrkiske ledere modstod Europæisk imperialisme i deres tidsalder. Vestlige historikere, der skrev i begyndelsen/midten af ​​det tyvende århundrede, fortsatte fortællingen. Harold Lamb beskrev for eksempel Saladin som strålende og en æres mand, mens Rene Grousset roste Saladin for at modstå fanatisme fra nogle af hans tropper, der ønskede at ødelægge Den Hellige Gravs Kirke, som han forbød. Populær litteratur, såsom de meget indflydelsesrige romaner af Sir Walter Scott, bar effektivt sådanne synspunkter til offentligheden i det nittende århundrede, hvor de forbliver, og fortsætter ind i nutiden som set i moderne tv og film (f.eks. BBC Terry Jones -serien Korstog, 2005 -filmen Himmeriget, etc…).

Mens det moderne vestlige stipendium på korstogene har bevæget sig forbi generelt romantiserede skildringer af korstog og stort set afvist den formodede forbindelse mellem korstog og moderne imperialisme, fortsætter sådanne synspunkter i populære vestlige fortællinger og i hele den muslimske verden. Moderne muslimer har stort set omfavnet dette europæisk inspirerede syn på korstog fra 1800-tallet og i forlængelse heraf et heroiseret syn på Saladin. Som nævnt ovenfor bragte europæernes ankomst som imperialister til forskellige dele af den muslimske verden i det nittende og tyvende århundrede også deres historie og fortolkninger af korstogene, som blev oversat til arabisk og andre lokale sprog og har påvirket populær forståelse af korstogene og Saladin indtil nutiden. Saladin bliver ofte hædret for sine bidrag til muslimske bestræbelser på at udvise korsfarerne. Det Hamas -chartret udstedt i 1988, for eksempel i artiklerne 34 og 35, hædrer Saladin for hans præstationer. Inden Den Persiske Golfkrig i 1991 søgte den irakiske leder Saddam Hussein at fremstille sig selv som en ny Saladin, der igen ville lede den muslimske modstand mod de nye vestlige korsfarere. I 1993 blev en overdimensioneret rytterstatue af bronze af Saladin rejst i Damaskus, Syrien, som blev afsløret af dengang syriske præsident Hafez Assad på 800 -året for Saladins død. Der er mange andre eksempler på den dybe respekt for Saladin i den moderne muslimske verden.

Over billedet: Damaskus -statuen af ​​Saladin, nævnt ovenfor. (Kilde: Wiki commons)

Som enhver korstogshistoriker har jeg længe været bekendt med omridset af Saladins betydning i korstogstiden. Selvom mit videnskabelige fokus er epoken med det første korstog, næsten et århundrede fjernet fra den tid, hvor Saladin gjorde sit navn for begivenheder relateret til det tredje korstog, har jeg ikke desto mindre været ganske fortrolig med Saladins rolle i korstogene og hans arv. Mens Saladins militære rolle under korstogene er uden tvivl stor betydning, så jeg aldrig hans forskellige gerninger som for stærkt kvalificerede ham som særlig oplyst af moderne standarder. Ofte kunne Saladin være lige så brutal som de mindre ædle sindede militære herskere i hans æra, men disse handlinger fremhæves typisk ikke i moderne beretninger. Han var bestemt ikke værre end mange middelalderlige militære ledere, kristne eller muslimer, og har utvivlsomt sine øjeblikke af medfølelse, men hvis vi skal dømme ham efter moderne standarder, som så mange ser ud til at gøre, når han fejrer sin arv efter medfølelse, så er det er vigtigt at bemærke, at der også fandt sted hændelser med frygtelig grusomhed under hans kommando.

I kølvandet på Saladins sejr på Hattin skrev Imad ad-Din, Saladins ledsager og sekretær, om hvordan Saladin opsøgte alle tiltagne templarer og hospitaler. Han ville være sikker på, at de blev henrettet i stedet for løskøbte af solide militære årsager, da de senere kunne udgøre en betydelig trussel, hvis de skulle gå fri. Som medlemmer af de militære ordrer var templerne og Hospitallerne de bedst uddannede og motiverede af de kristne styrker. Så Saladins beslutning var en rimelig beslutning, som mange middelalderlige militære herskere ville tage. Problemet er i den måde, han valgte at få dem dræbt, som kilderne tyder på, at Saladin svælger i deres ydmygelse. Saladin tilbød først de 200 fangede riddere muligheden for at konvertere til islam. De nægtede alle. Så han fortsatte med henrettelserne, som Imad-ad-Din beskriver som følger:

“Han [Saladin] beordrede, at de skulle halshugges, idet han valgte at have dem døde frem for i fængsel. Med ham var en hel gruppe lærde og sufier og et vist antal fromme mænd og asketer, der hver bad om at få lov til at dræbe en af ​​dem, og trak sit sværd og rullede ærmet tilbage. Saladin, his face joyful, was sitting on his dais the unbelievers [Christian knights] showed black despair, the troops were drawn up in their ranks, the amirs stood in double file. There were some who slashed and cut cleanly, and were thanked for it some who refused and failed to act, and were excused some who made fools of themselves, and others took their places. I saw there the man who laughed scornfully and slaughtered, who spoke and acted how many promises he fulfilled, how much praise he won…” (Gabrieli, 138)

Saladin also receives considerable credit for allowing the inhabitants of Jerusalem to leave the city during his conquest in 1187, rather than be slaughtered as had supposedly been the case in 1099 when the crusaders took Jerusalem. But the tough negotiations of Balian of Ibelin, leader of the Christian forces during Saladin’s siege of Jerusalem, have more to do with this outcome than any magnanimity on Saladin’s part. When Saladin’s forces breached one of Jerusalem’s walls, Balian went to Saladin’s camp to negotiate the next day. He told Saladin, in what some have framed as a last desperate gamble, that if the Christian inhabitants were not allowed to leave with their lives, then they would wage total war to the death, starting by killing their own families so that they would not become slaves, slaughtering all their animals so that the Muslims would not have access to them, and slaughtering 5,000 Muslim prisoners under their control. They would also destroy all Muslim holy places in the city to include the Dome of the Rock and Aqsa Mosque before marching out in the thousands to die gloriously on the battlefield. If Balian was bluffing, it worked, as Saladin agreed to allow Christians to leave the city if they could pay a ransom for each person. This way he could protect Islamic holy sites, Muslim lives, and heavily profit from the venture, versus the dreadful alternative Balian proposed to him.

But controversy immediately emerged even because of this agreement. While the vast majority of the Christian population of Jerusalem were able to pay the ransom and leave, not all could, and thousands of Christians were left behind to be claimed as slaves by the Muslim conquerors. The Christian women and girls were then, according to Imad ad-Din, subjected to mass rape by Saladin’s soldiers.

“Women and children together came to 8,000 and were quickly divided up among us, bringing a smile to Muslim faces at their lamentations. How many well-guarded women were profaned, how many queens were ruled, and nubile girls married and noble women given away, and miserly women forced to yield themselves, and women who had been kept hidden stripped of their modesty and serious women made ridiculous, and women kept in private now set in public, and free women occupied, and precious ones used for hard work, and pretty things put to the test, and virgins dishonoured and proud women deflowered, and lovely women’s red lips kissed, and dark women prostrated, and untamed ones tamed and happy ones made to weep. How many noblemen took them as concubines, how many ardent men blazed for one of them, and celibates were satisfied by them, and thirsty men sated by them and turbulent men able to give vent to their passion….”

While there is undoubtedly some poetic license being employed by Imad ad-Din here, there is nothing to suggest it is entirely so, as historically this would not have been out of keeping with the treatment of captured enemy women. Indeed, in reading about recent treatment of Yazidi women by the soldiers of the so-called Islamic State, I was reminded of Imad ad-Din’s words here. Since the time of the Prophet Muhammad, who himself owned slaves including at least one that bore his child, the rape of slaves taken as war booty has been considered acceptable for Muslim men. Saladin would not have been acting out of turn in allowing his troops to behave this way as this sort of behavior was relatively normal for medieval combatants on all sides- Christian or Muslim (although not necessarily in the case- specifically- of the crusaders, who were vowed to chastity). But while such behavior was considered acceptable in warfare at the time, it is not today, making the modern effort to frame Saladin as exceptionally compassionate or enlightened a bit more problematic.

I might also note that the supposed slaughter of the inhabitants of Jerusalem by the crusaders in 1099, which is often contrasted with Saladin’s actions in 1187, where he allowed for ransoms, is contested by modern historians. Modern crusade historians have, mostly, rejected the scale of the claims of the massacre, arguing the claims of the sources are not physically possible. Moreover, a more recent source by al-Arabi puts the number of those slain at Jerusalem in 1099 at only 3,000 (See Benjamin Kedar’s essay in Korstog Vol. 3), which would represent only a small percentage of such a large city’s total inhabitants, and would not, in terms of brutality, be out of line with the realities of siege warfare as conducted by both Christian and Muslim forces at the time.

All of these things, the good and the bad, happened under Saladin’s watch. But only recently had I begun to consider Saladin’s career and rise to power prior to the era of the Third Crusade and in doing so became aware of his controversial involvement in the so-called “Battle of the Blacks.” During a conversation about Saladin with a friend and fellow historian, John D. Hosler, he mentioned the Battle of the Blacks as a potential stain on Saladin’s otherwise popular legacy, so I hit the books on the topic.

Scholar Yaacov Lev has referred to the Battle of the Blacks as the “single most important event in Saladin’s rise to power in Egypt.” The battle took place in 1167, shortly after Saladin had come to power as vizier. Fearing betrayal by an influential black eunuch that was a leader of black forces in Egypt, Saladin had the man executed and replaced him in his position with a white eunuch. An estimated 50,000 black Egyptian troops rose in rebellion, and according to one Arab chronicler they were motivated by “racial solidarity.” Indeed, historian Bernard Lewis has noted that racial elements were emphasized in Arab sources that later celebrated Saladin’s brutal victory over the black forces. One reason given for Saladin’s victory was due to a tactical move in which he sent a detachment to attack the homes and families of the black soldiers, with orders to burn down their homes, with their possessions and children in them. When black forces heard of this they attempted to return to their homes to protect their families, but they were cut off by Saladin’s troops who killed many of them. After the battle, white Fatamid soldiers were incorporated into Saladin’s army, but black units were disbanded, and would not appear as soldiers in Egyptian armies for centuries to follow (although they would be employed in menial non-combatant positions). This victory allowed Saladin to establish himself in Egypt, which would serve as a base for the eventual extension of his power into Syria and the broader Levant.

The enlightened or chivalrous image of Saladin was an appealing one in the medieval west and has grown to even greater heights in both the modern west and the modern Islamic world. Yet as historian Anne-Marie Eddé has noted, the term “myth” would be a better way to frame such modern understandings of Saladin’s legacy. The notion that Saladin was exceptionally honorable, merciful, and generous as he carved out his impressive reign in military conflict after military conflict is an invention of the medieval chanson de geste, which seeks to frame Saladin as a worthy opponent of the crusader king Richard the Lionheart. This romanticized western version of Saladin then begins to emerge in the Muslim world in the late 19 th century and has a variety of political uses in an age of western imperialism in the east. Yet the reality is that Saladin was very much a man of his time, a medieval military ruler that could be quite brutal to his enemies, even if he did have, like many other medieval rulers, moments of grace.


Muslim family holds the key to Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem

GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip — Following Muslim leader Saladin’s conquest of the city of Jerusalem in A.D. 1187, a dispute broke out between the different Christian denominations about the rightful owner of the key to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. This prompted Saladin to order the key to the church to be retained by the Ghodayya Hashemite family, which hails from the city of Jerusalem in Palestine.

According to historical accounts, the Muslim family was entrusted with the key upon the agreement of all Christian denominations at the time. Ever since, a member of the Ghodayya family opens and closes the gate and guards the church every day.

Adib Joudeh al-Husseini al-Ghodayya, the current custodian of the church key and holder of the Holy Sepulchre Seal, told Al-Monitor that Saladin entrusted Christians with safeguarding Jerusalem, following the example of Caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab, as a way to preserve the Christian religious monuments.

Ibn al-Khattab had written a letter to the people of Jerusalem during the Muslims’ conquest of the city, entrusting them with the protection of the churches and their properties, demanding that no Jew dwell in the city. The Pact of Umar is considered to be one of the most important documents in the history of Jerusalem and Palestine.

Ghodayya said that his ancestors were a noble family in Jerusalem and that Saladin entrusted them with the key to the church and with the protection of its properties. He said this was an honor to his family and a “bold and blessed” step.

He added that he has more than 165 fermans (a royal mandate or decree) issued by the sultans of the successive Islamic caliphates, providing for the appointment of his family members in positions of honor, including the custodianship of the church key.

Ghodayya opens the church gate every day at 4 a.m. and closes it at 8:30 p.m., receiving important visitors and clergymen.

In addition, he holds another position, which is the holder of the Holy Sepulchre Seal as per a decree by Ottoman Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent. Christian clerics would enter the holy sepulchre chamber in the church to inspect it and make sure that no flammable materials were found inside. The door to the tomb would be then closed with holy beeswax sealant. Ghodayya would then fix his personal seal on it on Easter Saturday every year.

When asked how he feels holding the key to this important church, Ghodayya said, “The church is my second home. When I look at its gate, I can see my grandparents and my great-grandparents. I can see Saladin standing in front of it.”

He added, “I am proud of my family who holds the key to the holiest and oldest church. This should not be a pride only to my family but to every Muslim in the world."

Ghodayya noted that his position is honorary and he does not receive any payment for his services. It is an honorary position that is passed on from one generation to another in the family since the days of Saladin, without any interference from the church, as per Saladin’s will.

For his part, Father Manuel Musallam, the head of the PLO Department of the Christian World, said that the protection of Palestine’s Christians figures in the Pact of Umar and the Holy Quran.

Musallam told Al-Monitor, “The Pact of Umar is the true key to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. Omar ibn al-Khattab handed the pact along with the key to Muslims before Christians, which is a message that he entrusted Muslims with the [protection of Christians and the church].”

Musallam said that the pact had laid strong foundations for the relations between Christians and Muslims. He considered that the goal behind having a Muslim family entrusted with the key to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre is for protection and to prevent any disagreement between the Christian denominations.

“The noble Muslim family [of Ghodayya] has been present in the church, providing it with protection and power. We do not coexist with Muslims, but we share living with them. We live together, we are not strangers,” Musallam added.

The Church of the Holy Sepulchre is seen as the most important Christian religious monument in Jerusalem and is located in the heart of the Old City. Queen Helena is considered to be the first to have ordered the construction of the church in A.D. 335.

The church is believed to house the tomb of Jesus, who according to Christian belief was resurrected three days after his crucifixion and death.

The church is also believed to include the Calvary, where Christians believe Jesus was crucified.


4. Unification of Islamic states

Saladin is credited with various religious accomplishments in the name of Islam. He is known to have fought countless battles against the crusaders. His conquests show his successful attempts at expanding Muslim sovereignty over various regions that had been ruled by the crusaders and a few non-crusaders too. Under his reign, he spread Islamic rule to places such as Yemen, Jerusalem, Syria, and Mosul among others, showing the extent of his military achievements. He is still deeply respected among Muslims, Turks, Arabs, and Kurds for his indisputable contributions to the unification of various Islamic states.


Onward, Lukewarm Christian Soldiers

In the Ridley Scott movie "Kingdom of Heaven," a French blacksmith-Balian of Ibelin-goes on crusade to Jerusalem, where he battles the Muslim leader Saladin. Thomas F. Madden, professor and chair of the department of history at Saint Louis University and editor of Crusades: The Illustrated History, spoke to Beliefnet about how the film handled religion.

What did you think of the movie?

Well, I don't think its purpose is to be a documentary. They paid a lot of attention to getting arms and armor correct, but they weren't much interested in portraying the way people in the Middle Ages viewed their religion, the Crusades, or the Holy Land.

The thing that struck me most was how little religion had to do with the Crusades in this movie. The only religious people in this movie are fanatics. All of the good guys either have no religion, or are openly hostile to religion.

Yes, they're sort of benignly agnostic, but certainly not very devout.

Those are concepts just foreign to the Middle Ages, either on the Christian or Muslim side.

How plausible is it that there would have been such tolerance between Muslims and Christians at that time and in that region?

That's plausible. In the kingdom of Jerusalem at that time, Muslims were allowed to practice their religion-not in the city, but everywhere else in the crusader kingdom. When the crusaders held Jerusalem from 1099-1187, they adopted the Muslim practice [whereby] Christians and Jews were allowed to keep their religion, but had to pay a special tax for not converting. The Christians reversed that-they charged the Muslims. The tax was seen as a bit of a humiliation.

There was no attempt to convert the Muslims.

The groups tended to keep to themselves-Christians, Muslims, Jews.

The movie portrays good Christians and bad Christians the bad ones say things like, "to kill an infidel is not murder." Wouldn't the Christians coming from predominantly Christian lands want to convert or kill Muslims, and not be interested in living peacefully?

A crusader is someone who was planning to go there and come back. There were also other people who came there to settle. They were perfectly tolerant of individual Muslims, but about a Muslim state that they saw as a threat to the Holy Land-all of the Crusades were called in reaction to the Muslims having conquered something.

The crusaders who came from Europe came to undo whatever that thing was. When they arrived, they were frequently surprised that the local Christians who had lived there for generations, including the military orders-the Templars and Hospitallers-were used to living as neighbors to Muslim states. They had deals and understandings with them.

The people who came from the west found it difficult to understand how you could make these deals with people they had come to push out of those regions.
The purpose of the kingdom was to safeguard the holy sites.

Which sites were most revered?

The most important was the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, that covered Golgotha, where the crucifixion occurred, and the tomb of Christ. I thought it was odd in the movie that [Balian] has to ask some holy man where the hill is, and it's just sort of a barren hill. Everyone would know that place was within the church of the Holy Sepulchre, an incredibly ornate and beautiful church.

The religion in this movie is extremely sterilized. You would have expected in this period to see lots of religious symbolism. There are no churches in the movie. Even the crosses in the movie are all very bland--none are crucifixes, which is what crosses would have been in the Middle Ages.

You mean on the crusaders' clothes?

Not on the crusaders' clothes, but a gold cross, a processional cross or a cross on an altar would have been a crucifix. The only time you see something remotely religious is during the knighting ceremony where Balian's father gives him his oath. Behind him there's an altar with a chalice on it. It's a post-Vatican II altar-one designed for the priest to face the congregation, as near as I could tell. There's no religious artwork on it-there should be a diptych-there's just a lot of candles. Looks like a Catholic chapel you'd see today.

If you strip religion out--which he does--it's impossible to understand why they're fighting over Jerusalem.

You didn't get a feel for what Jerusalem meant to them, except maybe towards the end-and even then it was just Balian saying "it's the people of Jerusalem"-not what it represented.

Which is the opposite of the medieval view. The Christian medieval view was that Jerusalem was a precious relic, sanctified by the life of Christ, the site of his death and resurrection. Therefore it var the city that mattered--the people were there to defend the city.

It's true that Balian of Ibelin negotiated the surrender of Jerusalem (everything else in the movie is made up), and he seemed to have a good relationship with Saladin. But the reason he did was that it was a hopeless fight. Jerusalem had virtually no garrison left. Everyone had died or been captured at the Battle of Hattin.

Saladin was unwilling to make terms. That's when Balian said he would destroy the Muslim holy sites, including the Dome of the Rock. That would have undercut Saladin's whole program of jihad, his rationale that he had to unify Muslims under his rule so they could wage war against the Christians. The way he justified fighting fellow Muslims was that this was necessary to wage the great jihad against Christians to restore Jerusalem. So Saladin agreed to allow people to ransom themselves. In the movie, he just let them go.

In the movie, the bad guys are-to use modern parlance--Christian fundamentalists. The more sympathetic characters are agnostic or more tolerant. In reality, were most of the heroes on both sides devout men?

They were very devout men that's why they were there. It doesn't make sense for someone with no religion to go to the enormous expense and danger of the Crusades for the fun of it. Nothing explains it except their enormous devotion to their religion and what they thought was right, on both the Christian and Muslim side.

These are not people who have a jaded view of religion. You read [Saladin's] biographers--men who knew him and spent their lives with him--it's clear he's an extremely devout man. He prayed, he got rid of taxes that were illegal by Islamic law, and so he ended up losing a lot of money by getting rid of them. He believed strongly, the way Christians believed, that if he was a good and pious ruler, God would reward him with these victories.

He attacked because he wanted to. It's true that Reynald de Chatillon was a complete jerk, a very cruel man. He provided the excuse for Saladin to break the truce, but Saladin was going to anyway. It was just a matter of time. According to Islamic law, an Islamic leader is not allowed to make peace with an infidel state. They can make truce-which is temporary.

[Retaking Jerusalem] was going to be the crowning triumph of his reign.

What is known about Balian's religiosity?

He was very religious man. There are several occasions in the Chronicles that refer to him. In one, he goes to a town on the feast of Peter and Paul and wakes up the bishop so they can talk about these great saints.

That's another thing missing in the movie-there are no crucifixes, there's no discussion of the saints, which were incredibly important for medieval Christianity, or the Virgin Mary--

These would have motivated crusaders?

Oh, very much. There's no prayer, Christians never pray in this movie.

In one scene, Saladin picks up a cross that has fallen. What is the likelihood a Muslim leader would have shown such respect to a cross?

It didn't happen. Actually, Saladin ordered all crosses on buildings to be taken down when he took the city. Saladin allowed the church of the Holy Sepulchre to continue, he didn't take that. Crosses on the outside all had to come down-you couldn't have anything public. He made almost all the priests leave-he reduced the staff of the church to a very small number.

All of this was normal practice. In some ways, he was kinder to the Christians than he might have been. The usual Muslim practice was to select the best church and convert it into a mosque, and then allow the other churches to be held by the Christians. And the best church in town was the church of the Holy Sepulchre.

Any other thoughts about how religion is portrayed in the movie?

It's a very modern perspective on religion, a modern morality play set in the Middle Ages. The upshot is that everyone should be tolerant, and that religion, if taken too seriously, ultimately leads to everyone killing each other. The message that we shouldn't wage wars for religious reasons is a point well taken.

Yet there are people who take religion very seriously, but aren't intolerant or warmongers.

No. It's clear that Ridley Scott doesn't think much of religion, but the men and women who lived in the Middle Ages and went on Crusade did. That's why the movie, at least from an historical perspective, doesn't make much sense.


September 20, 1187: Saladin Lays Siege to Jerusalem, Ends Christian Domination of the Holy Land

On September 20, 1187, the Islamic forces of the famous Kurdish Muslim leader Saladin laid siege to the capital of the Christian Kingdom of Jerusalem, the holiest city in the Christian world and likewise in the Jewish world, and the third holiest city in Islam. By October 2, 1187, the siege came to an unusually quick conclusion when the Christians surrendered the city, never to regain the main object of the Crusades again. Saladin, an historical character praised for his humanity during a time of terrible excesses allowed generous terms for the Christians, including continued access to their holy places.

Graver dybere

At the urging of Pope Urban II European Christians mounted a Crusade (First Crusade 1095-1099) to conquer the Holy Land (mainly Jerusalem and the surrounding area including Nazareth and Bethlehem) from the Islamic worshippers that had arisen in Northeast Africa and in Southwest Asia (the Middle East) since the life and death (632 AD) of Muhammad. The holiest of the Holy Places were centered in Jerusalem, where the Holy Sepulchre (tomb of Jesus Christ), Golgotha (site of the Crucifixion of Christ), and the Via Dolorosa (path of Christ carrying the Cross). (Jewish religious tradition places Jerusalem at the holiest place on Earth, including Temple Mount and the remainder of the West Wall, while Muslims rank Jerusalem as the third most sacred city with the location of the Dome of the Rock and the Al Aqsa Mosque on Temple Mount.)

When the Christians of the First Crusade took the City of Jerusalem in 1099, the wild excesses of the Crusaders became a legendary bloodbath of murder, rape, and looting. Even in an age of cruelty, the sack of Jerusalem was somewhat shocking. When Saladin took Jerusalem back for the Muslims, he was far more generous in his treatment of the defeated Christians, allowing thousands to ransom themselves to be allowed to leave and those unfortunates without such means to become slaves instead of being slaughtered. The treasury of the Kingdom of Jerusalem was used to pay ransoms for those Christians that could not afford the ransom, and the Grand Masters of the Knights Templar and the Hospitallers were beseeched to also buy the freedom of Christians, but the leaders of those orders originally refused. A ruinous riot nearly broke out due to the stinginess of those monastic fighting orders and the Grand Masters reluctantly relented and paid for some ransoms. Saladin also allowed Christians to have continued access to their holy places, and pilgrimages by Christians were allowed to continue unabated. Just as Muslims had converted churches to mosques in areas they had originally conquered from Christians, the Christians had converted many mosques into churches, including the Dome of the Rock. Saladin’s Muslim forces quickly took down the golden cross that Christians had erected above the Dome of the Rock. (Bemærk: This author has visited Jerusalem and the surrounding area, including the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and the Dome of the Rock.)

When the Christian Crusaders first conquered Jerusalem, they established The Kingdom of Jerusalem to include Jerusalem and also the other cities in the Middle East conquered during the Crusades. When Saladin successfully reconquered Jerusalem for the Muslims, the Kingdom of Jerusalem officials retired to Tyre where they kept up the supposed administration of the Kingdom until later being forced to move their operation (capital of the Kingdom) to Acre. Catholic Christian control of the Kingdom of Jerusalem had lasted only about a century and was never a firm and convincing rule over the land. Continued squabbling and mutual distrust with Byzantine Christians headquartered in Constantinople (modern day Istanbul, Turkey) prevented a united Christian front, although admittedly the fractious Muslim states also suffered from a lack of unity. Even with a lack of Muslim unity, the Islamists always greatly outnumbered the Christians. Even the great Saladin did not establish a firmly united Muslim front, though he did manage to invoke his own brand of “Holy War” as an Islamic Crusade to push the Christians from Jerusalem.

A possible portrait of Saladin, found in a work by Ismail al-Jazari, circa 1185

Jerusalem and the surrounding area (Palestine, Israel, the Levant) has remained a fought over and contentious area over the ensuing centuries, with the establishment of Israel in 1948 starting a new era in serious conflict on the world stage over the so called Holy Land. In 1967 the Israelis took over East Jerusalem from Jordan and has held both sides of the city ever since. In December 2017, the United States agreed to move its embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, formally recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel (declared the Israeli capital by Israeli law in 1980) and in turn generating severe backlash from Islamic majority countries.

Spørgsmål til studerende (og abonnenter): Have you or anyone in your family visited Jerusalem or other places in the Holy Land? Do you think Jerusalem should be the Israeli capital or a United Nations controlled city? Do any Arab countries have a legitimate claim on Jerusalem? Do you think the Christians were right to mount the Crusades to capture the Holy Land? Lad os vide det i kommentarfeltet under denne artikel.

A battle of the Second Crusade (illustration of William of Tyre’s Histoire d’Outremer, 1337)

Hvis du kunne lide denne artikel og gerne vil modtage besked om nye artikler, er du velkommen til at abonnere på Historie og overskrifter ved at kunne lide os Facebook og blive en af ​​vores lånere!

Din læserskare er meget værdsat!

Historisk bevis

For mere information, se venligst …

The featured image in this article, which shows Balian of Ibelin surrendering the city of Jerusalem to Saladin, from Les Passages faits Outremer par les Français contre les Turcs et autres Sarrasins et Maures outremarins, c. 1490 as scanned from Terry Jones and Alan Ereira, Korstog (New York: Facts on File, 1995), 161, is in the offentligt domæne i sit oprindelsesland og andre lande og områder, hvor ophavsretsbetegnelsen er forfatterens#8217s life plus 100 years or less.

Om forfatteren

Major Dan is a retired veteran of the United States Marine Corps. He served during the Cold War and has traveled to many countries around the world. Prior to his military service, he graduated from Cleveland State University, having majored in sociology. Following his military service, he worked as a police officer eventually earning the rank of captain prior to his retirement.


History of Jerusalem: Richard the Lionheart Makes Peace with Saladin

[Adapted from Brundage] Two days later the Crusading army left Acre and marched south along the coast, trailed by Saladin's forces. An unsuccessful attempt at negotiation between Saladin and Richard broke down early in September and on September 7 battle was joined near Arsuf. The Crusading army, though hard-pressed, held its ground and at the end of the fray Richard's men retained control of the battlefield.

The army proceeded from Arsuf to Jaffa, which the Crusaders took and fortified strongly. Jaffa, they hoped, would be the base of operations in a drive to reconquer Jerusalem itself. As the winter of 1191­1192 approached, active campaigning was abandoned and further sporadic negotiations between Richard and Saladin were taken up, though without any immediate result. During the winter months Richard's men occupied and refortified Ascalon, whose fortifications had earlier been razed by Saladin.

The spring of 1192 saw continued negotiations and further skirmishing between the opposing forces. During this period Richard began to receive disturbing news of the activities of his brother John and of Philip Augustus, and as the spring gave way to summer it became evident that Richard must soon return to Europe to safeguard his own interests there. Saladin several times attacked Jaffa and once was on the point of taking the city during Richard's absence the plan, however, was foiled by Richard's unexpected return.

During the summer Richard fell ill and this, added to the news of the rapidly deteriorating situation in Europe, brought him finally to accept Saladin's peace terms . The departure of Richard the Lion­Hearted from the Holy Land in October 1192 ended the third major Western invasion of the East. On this expedition three great armies had toiled to conquer Jerusalem and the whole of Palestine for the West. But, in 1192, Jerusalem was still in Saladin's hands and the deliverance of the East from the Moslems was still a pious hope. The positive achievement of this Crusade was modest: it had re­established a tiny Latin Kingdom on the Palestinian coast. The major task of the Crusade, however, was left undone.

As his illness became very grave, the King despaired of recovering his health. Because of this he was much afraid, both for the others as well as for himself. Among the many things which did not pass unnoted by his wise attention, he chose, as the least inconvenient course, to seek to make a truce rather than to desert the depopulated land altogether and to leave the business unfinished as all the others bad done who left the groups in the ships.

The King was puzzled and unaware of anything better that he could do. He demanded of Saif ad­Din, Saladin's brother, that he act as go­between and seek the best conditions be could get for a truce between them. Saif ad­Din was an uncommonly liberal man who bad been brought, in the course of many disputes, to revere the King for his singular probity. Saif ad­Din carefully secured peace terms on these conditions: that Ascalon, which was an object of fear for Saladin's empire so long as it was standing, be destroyed and that it be rebuilt by no one during three years beginning at the following Easter.[March 28, 1193] After three years, however, whoever had the greater, more flourishing power, might have Ascalon by occupying it. Saladin allowed Joppa to be restored to the Christians. They were to occupy the city and its vicinity, including the seacoast and the mountains, freely and quietly. Saladin agreed to confirm an inviolate peace between Christians and Saracens, guaranteeing for both free passage and access to the Holy Sepulcher of the Lord without the exaction of any tribute and with the freedom of bringing objects for sale through any land whatever and of exercising a free commerce.

When these conditions of peace had been reduced to writing and read to him, King Richard agreed to observe them, for he could not hope for anything much better, especially since he was sick, relying upon scanty support, and was not more than two miles from the enemy's station. Whoever contends that Richard should have felt otherwise about this peace agreement should know that he thereby marks himself as a perverse liar.

Things were thus arranged in a moment of necessity. The King, whose goodness always imitated higher things and who, as the difficulties were greater, now emulated God himself, sent legates to Saladin. The legates informed Saladin in the hearing of many of his satraps, that Richard had in fact sought this truce for a three year period so that he could go back to visit his country and so that, when he had augmented his money and his men, he could return and wrest the whole territory of Jerusalem from Saladin's grasp if, indeed, Saladin were even to consider putting up resistance. To this Saladin replied through the appointed messengers that, with his holy law and God almighty as his witnesses, he thought King Richard so pleasant, upright, magnanimous, and excellent that, if the land were to be lost in his time, he would rather have it taken into Richard's mighty power than to have it go into the hands of any other prince whom be had ever seen.

Sources: Itinerarium Peregrinorum et Gesta Regis Ricardi, red. William Stubbs, Rolls Series, (London: Longmans, 1864) VI, 27-28 (pp. 427-30), translated by James Brundage, The Crusades: A Documentary History, (Milwaukee, WI: Marquette University Press, 1962), 185-86 on Internet Medieval Source Book

Download vores mobilapp for adgang til farten til det jødiske virtuelle bibliotek


Decisions: Lionheart’s Crossroads

On July 4, 1187, disaster struck the Christian world. That day Muslim and Christian armies battled on a plateau by an extinct volcano called the Horns of Hattin, near the Sea of Galilee. The Christian crusaders fought desperately but eventually surrendered. The relic of the True Cross, which they had carried into battle, fell into Muslim hands. A few months later the Muslims captured Jerusalem.

Jerusalem’s fall sparked a showdown between two charismatic leaders: Saladin, unifier of the Muslim world and conqueror of Jerusalem, and King Richard I, the Lionheart, of England. It seemed inevitable their duel would climax with a titanic battle. But it was one man’s decision to undgå battle that would decide the fate of the Holy Land.

Richard was bold—and cruel. Before becoming king in 1189 he had fought in numerous battles, sometimes against his own family. Ruthlessness had helped him to survive. He was not the type of man to compromise or back down from a fight.

When Pope Gregory VIII called for a Third Crusade to recapture the Holy Land, Richard assembled an army in France. He set out on July 4, 1190, the third anniversary of the Battle of Hattin, stopping first in Sicily and Cyprus. Would-be prophets told him he was destined to slay Saladin, free the Holy Land and perhaps even battle the Antichrist.

For Saladin, meanwhile, the triumph at Jerusalem faded. The strategically important Christian-held town of Tyre had repelled his forces, and resurgent Christians had laid siege to Muslim-held Acre. Crusaders were rumored to be on their way to recapture Jerusalem.

But Saladin didn’t lack for confidence. Now in his early 50s, he had risen from obscurity to unite the Muslim Middle East under his banner. He had won at Hattin and captured Jerusalem through bravery, skill and determination. The king of England did not worry him. Richard arrived at Tyre in June 1191 and proceeded to Acre, where his forces joined in besieging the city, which ultimately fell. Richard then marched south along the Mediterranean coast, looking for a fight with Saladin, who decided to give battle on a plain north of the village of Arsuf, about 40 miles northwest of Jerusalem.

The battle began early on September 7 with a charge of the Turkish cavalry followed by a hail of Muslim arrows. The Christians suffered grievously, but Richard held them back until a tremendous charge by his Frankish cavalry put Saladin’s men to flight. The crusader victory was complete.

Richard felt certain he could capture Jerusalem by Christmas. But infighting among the crusader leaders, bad weather and supply shortages prevented him from marching quickly on the city, and as the months passed, his army weakened. Unlike Saladin, Richard could not hope for reinforcements. Saladin’s strongest ally was time.

Sensing he might not be able to win victory by force alone, Richard opened negotiations with Saladin. He demanded Jerusalem and the True Cross in exchange for peace, but Saladin would concede neither. Meanwhile, both armies suffered through weeks of heavy rain and hail. Saladin dispersed his troops, knowing he could recall them in the spring. But Richard had no such option.

By Christmas the crusader army stood only a few days’ march from the undefended Jerusalem. But exhaustion, hunger and thirst had brought Richard’s troops to the end of their tether most hoped simply to enter Jerusalem so they could consider their vows completed and go home. Their departure would leave Richard holding an empty city with a skeleton army and with the Muslims sure to return in force.

Richard could take Jerusalem and face almost certain catastrophe or turn back and live to fight another day. With a heavy heart he chose to march for the coast. Internal factions sundered the Christian armies in the months that followed, and Richard ultimately signed a truce with Saladin and sailed for home, ending the Third Crusade.

Richard’s surprisingly pragmatic decision to turn back from Jerusalem stood in stark contrast to the Third Crusade’s ideological fervor. To abandon Jerusalem when other men might have pushed forward set Richard apart as a military commander and marked a symbolic turning point in the seesaw struggle for Palestine.


Saladin and the Christians of Jerusalem - History

The Latin dominion over Jerusalem came to an end on 2 October, 1187, when the city opened its gates to Saladin (Yusuf ibn Ayyub, Salah-ed-din, Emir of Egypt, 1169-93).

The Siege of Jerusalem was a siege on the city of Jerusalem that lasted from September 20 to October 2, 1187, when Balian of Ibelin surrendered the city toSaladin. Citizens wishing to leave paid a ransom. The defeat of Jerusalem signaled the end of the first Kingdom of Jerusalem. Europe responded in 1189 by launching the Third Crusade.

The Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem was a crusader state established in the Southern Levant in 1099 after the First Crusade. The kingdom lasted nearly two hundred years, from 1099 until 1291 when the last remaining possession, Acre, was destroyed by the Mamluks, but its history is divided into two distinct periods. The sometimes so-called First Kingdom of Jerusalem lasted from 1099 to 1187, when it was almost entirely overrun by Saladin. After the subsequent Third Crusade, the kingdom was re-established in Acre in 1192, and lasted until that city’s destruction in 1291. This second kingdom is sometimes called the Second Kingdom of Jerusalem or the Kingdom of Acre, after its new capital.

Balian of Ibelin surrendering the city of Jerusalem to Saladin, from Les Passages faits Outremer par les Français contre les Turcs et autres Sarrasins et Maures outremarins, c. 1490.

The fall of Jerusalem essentially ended the first Kingdom of Jerusalem. Much of the population, swollen with refugees fleeing Saladin’s conquest of the surrounding territory, was allowed to flee to Tyre, Tripoli, or Egypt (whence they were sent back to Europe), but those who could not pay for their freedom were sold into slavery, and those who could were often robbed by Christians and Muslims alike on their way into exile. The capture of the city led to the Third Crusade, launched in 1189 and led by Richard the Lionheart, Philip Augustus and Frederick Barbarossa, though the last drowned en route

Prayer: Throughout the centuries Jerusalem has been a focus of conflict, and continues to be so today. Whilst crusading armies and invaders from other countries are no longer the immediate threat, the instability of the region, the international interests at stake, and the inimical relationships between those who inhabit the land, all prevent genuine negotiations for a lasting peace. Lord, have mercy on your people and your land, and may all nations know your saving justice and mercy. In the name of Yeshua, the Prince of Peace, we pray. Amen.

According to Gilbert, from 1099 to 1291 the Christian Crusaders “mercilessly persecuted and slaughtered the Jews of Palestine.”[91]

In 1099, the Jews were among the rest of the population who tried in vain to defend Jerusalem against the Crusaders. When the city fell, a massacre of 6,000 Jews occurred when the synagogue they were seeking refuge in was set alight. Almost all perished.[92] In Haifa, the Jews and Muslims held out for a whole month, (June–July 1099).[93]

Under Crusader rule, Jews were not allowed to hold land and involved themselves in commerce in the coastal towns during times of quiescence. Most of them were artisans: glassblowers in Sidon, furriers and dyers in Jerusalem.[citation needed] At this time there were Jewish communities scattered all over the country, including Jerusalem, Tiberias, Ramleh, Ashkelon, Caesarea, and Gaza. In line with trail of bloodshed the Crusaders left in Europe on their way to liberate the Holyland, in Palestine, both Muslims and Jews were indiscriminately massacred or sold into slavery.[94]

A large volume of piyutim and midrashim originated in Palestine at this time.[citation needed] In 1165 Maimonides visited Jerusalem and prayed on the Temple Mount, in the “great, holy house”.[95] In 1141 Spanish poet, Yehuda Halevi, issued a call to the Jews to emigrate to the Land of Israel, a journey he undertook himself.

In the crusading era, there were significant Jewish communities in several cities and Jews are known to have fought alongside Arabs against the Christian invaders.[96]



Kommentarer:

  1. Khachig

    Hej! Jeg foreslår at udveksle indlæg med din blog.

  2. Gael

    Ja, jeg forstår dig. Der er noget i dette og en fremragende idé, jeg er enig med dig.

  3. Shaktilabar

    Du har fuldstændig ret. I dette er noget og er en fremragende idé. Det er klar til at støtte dig.



Skriv en besked