bishops and monks assembled before the king of England’s sister and
expressed their disapproval, so she refused to comply. Some other
obstacle was spoken of, but God knows best.25
Here, we are not concerned with the historical validity of this account.26 For our purposes, it is sufficient to point out that contemporary Muslim authors were not troubled by what their readers might have considered to be a dual attitude toward the abhorrent enemy. The popularity of this episode in later Muslim chronicles of the crusades attests to the fact that the Muslim reading public was even willing to accept the option of inter-communal marriage as a valid strategy to end hostilities.
In a later chapter, Ibn Shaddad recounted the negotiations and the arrangements that were agreed (587/1191). In this context, he cited the text of a letter attributed to King Richard, who was said to argue that Jerusalem was the centre of Christianity and claimed the return of the Holy Cross. A positive reply by Saladin, he suggested, would make peace possible. The Sultan replied as follows: ‘Jerusalem is ours just as much as it is yours. Indeed, for us it is greater than it is for you, for it is where our Prophet came on his Night Journey and the gathering place of the angels. Let the king imagine that we shall give it up.’27 Ibn Shaddad continued his account of the event by reporting that, following the conclusion of peace, The two armies fraternised and a good many Muslims went to [Frankish]
Jaffa in search of trade. A large host of the enemy came to Jerusalem to 31
Y E H O S H U A F R E N K E L
perform their pilgrimage ( hajj). The sultan gave them every assistance and sent escorts with them to protect them until they were taken back to Jaffa.
Many Franks did this. The sultan’s aim in this was that they should fulfil their pilgrim ( ziyara) duty and return to their own lands, leaving the Muslims safe from their wickedness . . . Every day large numbers of them were arriving, officers, men of middling sort and princes concealing their rank. The sultan set about receiving honourably those who came. He
offered food, met them with an easy manner and conversed with them
. . . [and] allowed them to perform their pilgrimage ( hajj).28
Although some of these accounts may very well have been created for propaganda purposes, they also appear to convey the realities of the twelfth century effectively.
Even though they depict the Frank as the ultimate other and the personification of evil, they do not deny his religious faith and practice.
The Frankish conquest of the Syrian coastal plain, Jerusalem and the Galilee resulted in armed clashes and chronicles offer frequent reports of the fighting between the invaders and the ‘Turk’ rulers of Damascus, which provides the best case study for the fact that the reaction by Muslim rulers to the new developments precipitated by the arrival of the crusaders was not labelled ‘Holy War’ for several generations. Moreover, the rulers of Damascus did not go to great lengths to mobilize men, animals and material goods for the sake of the struggle. Pressing demands, the burden of fighting, and tension on other fronts drove both parties to seek temporary ceasefire arrangements, including muwada‘a (reconciliation), muhadana (armistice) and munasafa (equal division).29
In his chronicle, the Damascene historian Ibn al-Qalanisi (470–555/
1077–1160) conveyed the terms of such armistice accords.30 The first pact ( shart) reached by Baldwin and Zahir al-Din Tughtekin (Toghtekin, 1104–28) divided control over the Golan Heights (al-Sawad) and the mountains of Ajlun (Jabal al-‘Awf) between the parties. In addition, one-third of the harvest was to be given to the Latin King of Jerusalem, one-third was to be given to the Turk (al-atrak) rulers of Damascus and the remaining third was to be left in the hands of the cultivators (502/1109).31
One year later, Tughtekin and Tripoli concluded a second ‘amicable settlement
. . . regarding their respective territories and to establish peaceful relations ( musalama)’. According to this agreement, the Franks were to receive one-third of the agricultural produce of the Lebanese Plain ( al-Biqa‘) . They were also to be ceded two castles in northern Lebanon, the inhabitants of which would pay them an agreed annual sum.32 This truce broke down after a short period but was subsequently renewed (in Safar 504/September 1110), this time by the ruler of Damascus and King Baldwin, Lord of Jerusalem. The terms of this truce greatly resembled the earlier agreement between the parties regarding the Golan Heights: one-third of the agricultural produce went to the Franks, while the remaining two-thirds were to be divided equally between the Muslims (i.e., the ruler of Damascus) and the cultivators.
32
M U S L I M R E S P O N S E S T O F R A N K I S H D O M I N I O N
A few months later (Jumada the latter 504/December 1110–January 1111), this truce was followed by an agreement between Tancred, the regent of Antioch, and Ridwan, King of Aleppo, by which the latter consented to pay an annual tribute.33 In the summer, the truce collapsed and a crusader column advanced into the Hauran. The raid, however, stopped at Sanamiain and the parties negotiated a peace agreement and amicable relations (504/1111). Tughtekin agreed that Baldwin would collect half of the annual agricultural yield of al-Sawad, the Jabal al-‘Awf mountains and al-Jabaniya, and take control of meadows which were in the hands of the Banu al-Jarrah Bedouin. This, it should be emphasized, was in addition to the share of the harvest he was already slated to collect.34
The limited success of Mawdud of Mosul (murdered in Damascus, 1113) in northern and southern Syria (1110–13)35 and the considerable damages to the rural districts drove Tughtekin of Damascus and Baldwin, King of the Franks, to conclude a new armistice (507/1114). Both parties aimed to restore agricultural cultivation and secure the roads, and they swore to uphold the terms of the pact faithfully and to maintain a sincere friendship. As a result, people travelled with increased safety on the roads and the crops were harvested more efficiently.36
The following summer witnessed yet another rapprochement between the Franks and a number of Syrian warlords. Alarmed by the advance of an expedi-tionary force dispatched by the Saljuq Sultan, the Muslim rulers of Damascus, Aleppo and Diyarbakir allied themselves with King Baldwin of Jerusalem, Prince Roger of Antioch and other Frankish ‘devils’.37 The military operation organized by the Sultan (509/1115) came to an end with the defeat of the army of Bursuqi of Hamadhan.38
Amicable relations between Damascus and the Latin King continued until the death of Baldwin, who was succeeded in Jerusalem by Baldwin of Bourcq. The new ruler sent representatives to Damascus to negotiate the extension of the temporary truce accord (512/1118). Although Tughtekin was ready to sign a new ceasefire, he first demanded the annulment of the crop-sharing agreement ( munasafa) with the Latins.39 Shams al-Muluk Isma’il’s (r. 1132–5) account of the attack against Banyas (527/December 1132)40 teaches us that the tradition of mutually agreed reconciliation treaties ( muwada‘a) between the Franks and the rulers of Damascus continued, despite recurring violations of the terms of the armistice ( hudna) and friendly relations.41 The restoration of past treaties between the old enemies stopped raids and reprisal raids.42
The close cooperation between the Latin Kingdom and the ruler of Damascus resumed as ‘Imad al-Din Zangi advanced on the city. Facing this challenge, Mu‘in al-Din Unur (who ruled Damascus between 1140 and 1149) agreed to take joint action with the Franks against the intruders, and a formal treaty ( ittifaq; mu‘ahada) including solemn oaths ( ayman) and mutual guarantees was signed in 534/1139.43 Although the Second Crusade (1148) and subsequent Frankish raids were regarded in Damascus as a reflection of ill faith and disregard for the hudna, Unur nonetheless endorsed a second truce agreement ( muhadana).
Muslim historians have depicted this as a positive step taken by the Damascene 33
Y E H O S H U A F R E N K E L
ruler in response to a Frankish request to resume amicable relations ( musamaha).
It was agreed that the truce would last for two years and the parties took oaths to observe t
he treaty faithfully (544/1149). As a result, ‘the strife ceased and the population on both sides of the border was eased in mind, satisfied with this solution and rejoiced at its provisions’.44
The emergence of the Latin Kingdom did not precipitate a large-scale migration of Muslims from the territory conquered by the Franks,45 though it was accompanied by the mass murder of Muslims and a large wave of refugees.46
Muslims remained in their villages, although they abandoned cities during the period of conquest.47 Most Muslim peasants and Frankish seigneurs established a modus vivendi, and we have reports of only a handful of cases of immigrants from the Frankish Kingdom. The best-known case of emigration ( hijra) is that of a Hanbalite community that deserted its villages in the mountain of Nablus (Palestine) and resettled in the Salahiyya quarter (Damascus).48 These refugees stand out for their active participation in the jihad propaganda of the time. At the same time, as noted above, there is sufficient evidence to establish that most of the Muslim villagers did not migrate.49
The Reaction of the ‘Ulama
The limited truces discussed above were not the only Muslim response to the establishment of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem. A military response followed the early defeats, and Muslim rulers’ willingness to use force can be detected in a variety of contemporary sources.50 That is not to say that inscription of military titles on stone and other materials began with the Latin conquest of the Holy land; indeed, two years prior to the conquest, the Fatimid commander al-Afdal designated himself ‘the edged sword of the Leader of the Faithful ( sayf al-imam)’.51
Yet with the stirring up of the fighting between Muslims and Franks it became increasingly evident that Muslim officers were keen to demonstrate their commitment to jihad. To this end, they used various titles, such as ‘the illustrious lord, the commander of the armies, and the sword of Islam’.52 These titles were inscribed on walls, sewed into fabric, and engraved in wood.53 In al-Aqmar’s (the Moonlight) mosque, no visitor could fail to notice the lines beginning with the supplication: ‘Oh Allah, give victory to the armies of the Commander of the Believers over the Polytheists . . . The illustrious lord, the commander of the armies, the sword of Islam [ordered the construction of this building].’54
The practice of including military titles in inscriptions was not limited to the Fatimids of Egypt.55 Another example of this self-adornment is an inscription discovered in the mosque of Busra (Syria), which reads as follows: ‘The repair of this mosque was ordered by the commandant, marshal ( isfah-salar), the great illustrious lord, the chosen commander . . . during the days of our master the sovereign Zahir al-Din Tughtekin, the atabek, the sword of the Commander of the Faithful.’56
34
M U S L I M R E S P O N S E S T O F R A N K I S H D O M I N I O N
We can also trace a belligerent reaction to the Frankish challenge among Muslim scholars as early as the first quarter of the twelfth century. Indeed, ‘Ali ibn Tahir al-Sulami (1039–1106) wrote a tractate in support of religious war against the Latins as early as the turn of the century (in Damascus 498/1105).57
Al-Sulami was a Sunni Muslim scholar from Damascus,58 and his kitab al-jihad was the first treatise on the Holy War written after the arrival of the Franks in Syria.59 Recognizing that the Franks were fighting a jihad against the Muslims of Syria, he understood their movement within the broader context of the struggle between Islam and Christianity and presented their triumph as a symptom of the moral and political decay of Islam.60
Al-Sulami also offered his audience the certainty of Islam’s future victory and called on his fellow believers to unite and rise up against the Franks: I say: ‘What I have mentioned illustrates that if there is a need to carry out a collective action, it is the duty of all the community ( fardan wajiban)61 to partake in the fighting. That is the situation in which we now find ourselves with the group that is currently attacking the Abode of Islam . . . If the enemy surrounds a town, the obligation of jihad is incumbent on all who are there, on whoever resides in the location.
None are exempted from these obligations except those with reasonable excuses and impeding physical disabilities.’62
The Conquest of Syria, a pseudo-Waqidi historical text and popular tale that circulated among Arab readers after the emergence of the jihad movement in twelfth-century Syria, presented an approach opposing friendly relations with the Franks. One chapter of this fictional work recounts the tale of the wife of Aban ibn Sa‘id, who was killed by a poison arrow during the siege of Damascus (in 634).63 The widow, Umm Aban bint ‘Utba b. Rabi‘a, participated in the conquest of Syria with her brother, joining the fighting after her husband was killed immediately following their wedding (‘her hand was still painted with the nuptial’s colour’). Armed with her late husband’s weapon, Umm Aban fought, ‘hoping to join him, and praying that it will soon be’.64
Early manifestations of jihad
As we have seen, Islamic reactions to the Frankish conquests varied and at times were contradictory, and there is no evidence to indicate that the concept of an
‘Islamic Holy War’ to repel the enemy enjoyed popular support in the years before Nur al-Din.65 Moreover, contemporary Muslim sources do not suggest that the local Muslim population viewed the conflict with the Franks as a total jihad obligating the mandatory participation of all members of society. Gradually, however, a different approach gained currency, reflected in early manifestations of public protest that corresponded to the negotiations and truce agreements concluded by the Syrian rulers and the Franks.
35
Y E H O S H U A F R E N K E L
A decade after the Franks’ arrival in northern Syria, a delegation consisting of a sharif (a descendant of the clan of the Prophet Muhammad) and a group of Sufis, merchants and jurists made its way to Baghdad to call on the Muslim leadership to respond (504/Febuary 1111). Appealing for assistance, they demonstrated loudly and disrupted the Friday prayer service at the Sultan’s mosque. The following Friday, they went to the Caliph’s mosque and repeated their performance, this time destroying the furniture in order to ensure that their message was conveyed. This prompted the action of the Saljuq Sultan, who ordered preparation for jihad against the infidels, the enemies of Allah.66 This public outcry, and particularly the Muslim governors’ use of jihad slogans, reflects the redeployment of traditional Islamic terminology in the political discourse of the early twelfth century.67
Although, as we have noted, Zahir al-Din Tughtekin signed amicable treaties with the Franks, he never renounced the option of military action against them.
Indeed, he was engaged in military manoeuvres simultaneous to his diplomatic and political activities (which included military cooperation with the Latins). It appears that he was interested in portraying himself as the successor of Mawdud of Mosul, who achieved limited success in northern and southern Syria.68 In line with this policy, Tughtekin dispatched letters to Muslim commanders, governors, officials and chieftains, urging their cooperation in repelling the ‘malice of the accursed ones’. Similarly, Najm al-Din Il-Ghazi of Mardin and Aleppo69 sent envoys to the Turkmen tribes, calling on them to fulfil the obligatory duty ( faridat) of jihad. Both commanders undertook (in 512/December 1118) to devote all their resources to fight ‘the infidel enemy’ ( mujahadat al-kafara), and to unite for the succour of faith and for the rooting out of the ‘rebellious heretics’.
During the same period, Abu al-Fadl Ibn al-Khashshab (‘the wood merchant’, d. 1125), the Shi’ite judge ( qadi) of Aleppo, became active in anti-crusade propaganda. He joined the voices calling for the unity of Islam and for jihad against the
‘misbelievers’.
It is difficult to assess the popular influence of these slogans, but the Muslim urban public appears to have reacted constructively. Furthermore, Muslim rulers were unable to turn a deaf ear to these voices. This conclusion is supported by the biography of Ibn al-Khashshab, who became a major political actor in Aleppo following the death of the Saljuq Prince Ridwan (
507/1113). Facing the pressure of the Franks of Antioch, who had inflicted heavy losses on neighbouring Muslim forces,70 Ibn al-Khashshab moved from words to political and military activity: he turned out in the battlefield in the Battle of Ager Sanguinis (the Battle of Balat, 513/June 1119).71 Although his contribution to the victory that halted the Frankish advance was meagre,72 later Muslim accounts depicted him as a leader who played a significant role in this encounter. He gained fame and was portrayed as the ideal Muslim cleric, serving as a model for his coreligionists to emulate.73
The renewal of Frankish attacks drove Ibn al-Khashshab to put pressure on Aleppo’s Christian population.74 His conceptualization of the struggle against the Franks as a religious war between Islam (the Unitrans) and Christianity (the 36
M U S L I M R E S P O N S E S T O F R A N K I S H D O M I N I O N
Trinities or Polytheists) was adopted over the following years by a growing number of Muslim leaders. In this context, measures such as the seizure of churches became a common practice.75
A few years later, a new round of fighting engulfed northern Syria. In one of the battles, the Amir Balak, who emerged as a leading military commander in the anti-Frankish war, was killed (Manbij 518/May 1124). The lapidary on his tomb in Aleppo illuminates the ideological developments among Muslims in this realm.76 The inscription opens with a Qur’anic verse:77 ‘Their Lord gives them good tidings of mercy from Him and good pleasure; for them gardens wherein is lasting bliss.’78 The second line begins with another Qur’anic verse: ‘Count not those who were slain in Allah’s way as dead, but rather living with their Lord, by Him provided,’79 and continues with: ‘the martyr,80 the commandant, the deprived who needs his Lord’s mercy Nur al-Dawla (the Light of the Caliphate), Balak the son of Bahram b. Artuq has been taken by Allah unto Him.’ In the lines that follow, Balak is referred to as ‘the pride of the religion (i.e. Islam), the brilliant sun of the army commanders, the sword of the warriors mujahidun, the marshal of the Muslim armies, the defender of the Leader of the Faithful, the arrow of the kings, the tamer of the infidels and polytheists’.
The Crusades and the Near East Page 7
