Islam is a religion of peace. And like Catholicism it allows for self defense. And like Islam Catholicism is a religion of peace.
There are many cases through history of Muslims admiring Christians. This occurred in the middle ages for example
The Muslim scholar Brother Jubayir go so far to say that Muslims in the crusader states found more justice than they did in their own Islamic lands at the time. That is to say that the Muslims were treated fairly by the franks and European Catholics in the crusader states. This is specifically a point to prove that it would be wrong to suggest that the franks or Europeans eliminated non-Christians in the crusader states of the Levant.
The French Historian Rene Grousset in his work "The Epic of the Crusades" uses the proper methods of historical study to showcase that yes some of the crusaders were violent, intolerant and lacked the values of a Knight...but otoh many of the European Christians from France, England, Germany, Italy and more were honorable and had sincere goals such of retaking lands that were once under Christian rule, such as the Levant areas...being able to provide safe passage to Christians seeking a religious trip to the Holy Land.. I will provide the thoughts of Grousett on key figures of the first crusade and of how the Christians themselves viewed their Muslim counterparts, Godfrey of Bouillon hails from Lower Lorraine(also known as Brabant). Godfreys mother was the heiress of the dukes of Brabant, and Godfreys father was the Count of Boulogne-sur-Mer, in the Kingdom of France.
The following is how Grousset describes Godfrey. Phyiscally he was the typical Northern Knight. Very tall, broad chested with strong limbs, but a high narrow waist, and bright gold hair and a beard. Godfrey was a great hunter and was said to have a run in with a bear in Cilicia nearing dying in the encounter. Godfrey was a very strong man, a highly capable Knight. Prior to becoming his own ruler in Jerusalem, Godfrey was under The Emperor of Germany Henry IV whom Grousset said mistreated Godfrey, nonetheless Godfrey remained loyal to Henry IV due to the pious and kind nature of Godfrey. Godrey was a very dedicated Catholic, praying so much that fellow Christians would sometimes complain to Godfrey that he was praying so much that their supper would get cold. But that was the kind of man Godfrey was, putting God first, being humble, dignified and righteous. Godfrey would dress in a simple fashion, Godfrey was not into riches or pursuing wealth. Godfrey was a very wise leader, so much though that after some of those of Peoples Crusade pillaged Hungary, Godfrey was able to convince the Hungarians to allow Godrey and his men safe passage through Hungary and onto eventually Jerusalem. Godfrey was so capable that he was able to reassure the very Hungarians whom were mistreated by some of those of the Peoples Crusade. And Godfrey and his army marched right through Hungary toward the Holy Land with no issue. I will say page 31 of The Epic of the Crusades actually brings up the bloodshed at Jerusalem. We even get to hear the famous William of Tyre providing a bloody description of the Battle of Jerusalem. This was 1,000 years ago warfare of the time involving swords and shields were to be bloody, and Jews and Muslims also took part in violent wars. By July 1099, Jerusalem was in Catholic hands again. Btw Godfrey was a very important military leader. Only three weeks after Taking Jerusalem , a huge Muslim army from Egypt which had entered Palestine led by the Vizier Al Afdal threatened to destroy the Catholic Kingdom of Jerusalem. At the time there were various disagreements between Godfrey and other Catholic leaders that could have brought down the Kingdom amid an invasion. But because of Godfreys honor and pious behavior, Christians that were in argument with Godfrey such as Raymond of Saint Gilles set aside there differences… and united to save Jerusalem. Al Afdal sent in a huge forces which outnumbered the Crusaders greatly, but the Valiant Godfrey and his men surprised Al Afdal at the Battle of Ascalon resulting in a Christian victory and the security of Jerusalem for decades to come. Numerous accounts suggest that Godfrey actually meant with Muslims peacefully during the time of the Kingdom of Jerusalem…that speaks volumes to me. Pages 34-35 of The Epic of the Crusades talks at length about the respect that Muslims had for Godfrey. Godfrey due to his soft spoken and pious and kind nature, reminded the Muslims of none other then Muhammad himself. Arab Muslims and European Catholics in The new Kingdom had conversations with each other, they learned more and more about each other. Arabs and Franks would take up friendships with each other in The Kingdom of Jerusalem.
History shows Muslims during the so called dark ages respected The Crusader states. And btw And we can note from the Muslim side, during WW2 many Albanian heroic Muslims saved Jews from the holocaust perpetrated by German Christians. Point is that Christians and Muslims have a history of tolerance. In the past 100 years some Muslims and Christians have strayed away from true faith and into intolerance but by and large when it comes to history Christians and Muslims are on the right side morally speaking.
Ibn Jubair narrates his observations through his visit to the Levantine cities during the period 578 AH to 581 AH. Ibn Jubair's observations during these few years cannot be generalized to the entire period of existence of the Franks in the Islamic East on one hand, and on the other hand, there must be agreements behind this between the two parties to neutralize trade and the freedom of movement of people, thus achieving the common interests of both parties. So that the trade is safe despite the wars between the two parties. Note that the Franks sometimes attacked commercial convoys. What Ibn Jubair said (And agreement between them and moderation in all cases) is a great exaggeration and contradicts the situation of the Muslims and the Franks during this period.
On the other hands, Franks were known for being blood-thirsty crusaders who murdered 70,000 Muslims in one day.
Ibn Jubair narrates his observations through his visit to the Levantine cities during the period 578 AH to 581 AH. Ibn Jubair's observations during these few years cannot be generalized to the entire period of existence of the Franks in the Islamic East on one hand, and on the other hand, there must be agreements behind this between the two parties to neutralize trade and the freedom of movement of people, thus achieving the common interests of both parties. So that the trade is safe despite the wars between the two parties. Note that the Franks sometimes attacked commercial convoys. What Ibn Jubair said (And agreement between them and moderation in all cases) is a great exaggeration and contradicts the situation of the Muslims and the Franks during this period.
On the other hands, Franks were known for being blood-thirsty crusaders who murdered 70,000 Muslims in one day.
Hello brother. Just as the concept of jihad is misunderstood so is the concept of crusade or a Christian holy war. The first crusade was a war of liberation not a war of extermination.
Brother Jubayir wrote what he saw and he was providing a positive testimony of the crusader states of a certain time.
I don’t believe the last point could be possible.... it could be from some sort of an anti-Christian source that you may have read.
There are historians Muslim and Christian from the modern and past era who would showcase that the Catholics of the crusades were largely tolerant and peaceful.
The following is from information I provided on a history board
The Dutch historian István Bejczy explores how tolerance was a key component in the middle ages. That the ideals of liberty, freedom of religion and diversity were not only pushed by Locke, Jefferson and the so called age of enlightenment...but played prominent roles in European society of the middle ages. Though the middle ages of Europe was not a time of a perfect society we can note that Canon law of the middle ages pushed for tolerance and drew from the writings of early Church fathers. In fact the Roman Empire and Christianity grew immensely due in part to high rates of intermarriage among Pagans and Christians in the Empire. Societies of the European middle ages tolerated Jews, Muslims, prostitutes.
There were numerous attitudes toward tolerance in the middle ages...one being the idea that though non Christians as well as prostitutes practiced immorality...that such so called deviance's should be tolerated in part that the non Christians would want to convert to Christianity. The idea being to win over the hearts and minds of non Christians through non violent measures. The other attitude being one of a humanist..that being ideals preached in Europe's middle ages that it is proper for a Christian to accept a Jew, Pagan and Muslim as they are.
The Priest Thomas Aquinas essentially argued that the real problems were thieves and murderers...not prostitutes or the Jews and Muslims. In this sense tolerance of the middle ages was not meant to tolerate violent criminals including violence against minority religions and prostitutes/drinking..but a proper Christian society should not punish drunkards and prostitutes, and also should allow freedom of religion...in the hopes that more and more folks would flock to Christianity and perhaps try and pursue a morally upright life.
The work “ Parzival” by the 12th century German Knight Wolfram von Eschenbach....explores many topics such as diversity , tolerance, good vs evil. It fits in with how the historian István Bejczy Describes society of the European Middle Ages. The work includes a Christian lord marrying an African Christian lady of nobility......It was a great love at first but that love was to be tainted by a divisive Christian figure who convinces the white Christian Lord to leave his black wife. But there is a bright side one may say to the tale....For the marriage produces a mixed race child who goes on to become a valiant Christian knight respected by his peers throughout Europe. Of course in addition numerous knights of the roundtable traditions were either black or of a mixed race. And Bejczy was not suggesting the catholic influenced Europe produced the greatest and most tolerant societies ever known .... But he shows us that freedom of religion, diversity and tolerance was practiced in medieval Europe and was supported by Canon law. A fair and valid assessment...one that is not polarizing in one direction or another. In part the achievements wrt diversity and tolerance of The so-called West of today hail back to the Roman empire, the early church fathers, and later the societies of the European Middle Ages.
#1 The Dutch historian István Bejczy explores how tolerance was a key component in the middle ages. That the ideals of liberty, freedom of religion and diversity were not only pushed by Locke, Jefferson and the so called age of enlightenment...but played prominent roles in European society of the middle ages. Though the middle ages of Europe was not a time of a perfect society we can note that Canon law of the middle ages pushed for tolerance and drew from the writings of early Church fathers. In fact the Roman Empire and Christianity grew immensely due in part to high rates of intermarriage among Pagans and Christians in the Empire. Societies of the European middle ages tolerated Jews, Muslims, prostitutes. There were numerous attitudes toward tolerance in the middle ages...one being the idea that though non Christians as well as prostitutes practiced immorality...that such so called deviance's should be tolerated in part that the non Christians would want to convert to Christianity. The idea being to win over the hearts and minds of non Christians through non violent measures. The other attitude being one of a humanist..that being ideals preached in Europe's middle ages that it is proper for a Christian to accept a Jew, Pagan and Muslim as they are. The Priest Thomas Aquinas essentially argued that the real problems were thieves and murderers...not prostitutes or the Jews and Muslims. In this sense tolerance of the middle ages was not meant to tolerate violent criminals including violence against minority religions and prostitutes/drinking..but a proper Christian society should not punish drunkards and prostitutes, and also should allow freedom of religion...in the hopes that more and more folks would flock to Christianity and perhaps try and pursue a morally upright life.
Christians in the middle ages were intolerant and violent toward other Christian sects to the point being burnt alive for a slight aqeedah difference was not uncommon.
If Christians treated other Christians badly how do think they treated non Christians
Next time you preach fabled tolerance of Catholics towards Muslims I suggest you research the Spanish Inquisition
The West writes history to twist many facts. One should not be so blind folded to understand why these holy wars were started. Christians travelled thousands of miles to come to the East only to live in peace and harmony with Muslims? Really?
Below is the other side of the picture which some Western historian don’t want to admit.
watch the whole series and educate yourself. Muslims have always been tolerant to other religions and history tells us that Christians were just the opposite. When they conquered Jerusalem in July of 1099, over 100,000 Muslims were killed in just 10 days. Now compare that to what Salahuddin Ayyubi did when he reconquered Jerusalem in 1187. Even the Christian historian admit that he was very just and generous. He allowed crusaders to leave Jerusalem in peace and those who wanted to stay were allowed to live in harmony.
Please watch the whole series ( 4 episodes) to educate yourself: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...cmf3ovsMmIOyMC
@William Wallace
If your goal is to have peace and harmony among Muslims and Christians then trust me you will not find any issue with Muslims. We have a long history to prove that we have lived in peace and harmony with people who have different beliefs than us.
The West writes history to twist many facts. One should not be so blind folded to understand why these holy wars were started. Christians travelled thousands of miles to come to the East only to live in peace and harmony with Muslims? Really?
Below is the other side of the picture which some Western historian don’t want to admit.
watch the whole series and educate yourself. Muslims have always been tolerant to other religions and history tells us that Christians were just the opposite. When they conquered Jerusalem in July of 1099, over 100,000 Muslims were killed in just 10 days. Now compare that to what Salahuddin Ayyubi did when he reconquered Jerusalem in 1187. Even the Christian historian admit that he was very just and generous. He allowed crusaders to leave Jerusalem in peace and those who wanted to stay were allowed to live in harmony.
Please watch the whole series ( 4 episodes) to educate yourself: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...cmf3ovsMmIOyMC
Brother that’s not the case. Those numbers are wrong. I posted a huge plethora of information from Muslim and Christian scholars in history. It seems you just completely ignored all what was said but that’s OK to each their own
@William Wallace
If your goal is to have peace and harmony among Muslims and Christians then trust me you will not find any issue with Muslims. We have a long history to prove that we have lived in peace and harmony with people who have different beliefs than us.
Same with Catholics.
I know the concept of jihad and crusade mean to help the poor, to fight for the oppressed, to stand for a equal society. I have posted countless sources in this thread to prove that. I’m saying brother as we need to respect our ancestors. If I can respect Muslims of the past you also can respect the Catholics of the past.
I am using Muslim and Christian scholars to prove my point what more has to be said here.
Christians in the middle ages were intolerant and violent toward other Christian sects to the point being burnt alive for a slight aqeedah difference was not uncommon.
If Christians treated other Christians badly how do think they treated non Christians
Next time you preach fabled tolerance of Catholics towards Muslims I suggest you research the Spanish Inquisition
I'm sorry but I call b.s on this one
I’m sorry but I have used historians both Muslim and Christian to prove the points back the European societies of the middle ages were honorable intolerant. My historians Muslim and Catholic will easily beat beat the bigots on Wikipedia and YouTube That disrespect the great Catholics of the middle ages.
i’m surprised that you can say what you’re saying above without actually replying to the massive amount of information I have posted using historical sources. It is if you did not either read my post or you read it and simply ignored all of the information from it.
What you talk about above are individual events and they do not relate to what has already been posted in this thread. Sure crime And intolerance occurred in the middle ages but they do not define the time.
Apologies for typos in my last posts, as I posted them from my phone.
And I welcome agreements or disagreements. I will say I put much time into this topic, the study of my Catholic brothers and sisters of the middle ages. To any Muslim who agrees with the modern thought that the crusaders were all violent bigots. Please consider that the same people who suggest that are often anti Muslims as well...they mock Muslim ladies for dressing honorably just as Catholic ladies do today and of the past. I am here to show the good side of Christianity, the chivalry of Catholics knights that is.
Everyone here probably knows about Robin Hood...the valiant knight of the middle ages whom was a Catholic and who stood for the poor and oppressed. So as shown by the french historian Rene Grousset...we can see that Catholic men and women of the first crusade remind us of the brave Robin Hood....these Catholics led humble lives just as Muslims of the same time did. Earlier itt it was shown that Arab Muslim leaders of the first crusade respected the Knight Godfrey of Boullion whom reminded of none other then Muhammad the founder of Islam for the values of humanity, helping the poor, tolerance and justice.
Its also true that in the Catholic Kingdom of Jerusalem that Muslims found justice in the court systems. If a Muslim in the Catholic Kingdom of Jerusalem went to trail against a Catholic, the court would treat the Muslim with equality before the law in a court known as the Cour de Bourgeois..in which a Muslim or Catholic defendant could even ask for counsel.
Apologies for typos in my last posts, as I posted them from my phone.
And I welcome agreements or disagreements. I will say I put much time into this topic, the study of my Catholic brothers and sisters of the middle ages. To any Muslim who agrees with the modern thought that the crusaders were all violent bigots. Please consider that the same people who suggest that are often anti Muslims as well...they mock Muslim ladies for dressing honorably just as Catholic ladies do today and of the past. I am here to show the good side of Christianity, the chivalry of Catholics knights that is.
Everyone here probably knows about Robin Hood...the valiant knight of the middle ages whom was a Catholic and who stood for the poor and oppressed. So as shown by the french historian Rene Grousset...we can see that Catholic men and women of the first crusade remind us of the brave Robin Hood....these Catholics led humble lives just as Muslims of the same time did. Earlier itt it was shown that Arab Muslim leaders of the first crusade respected the Knight Godfrey of Boullion whom reminded of none other then Muhammad the founder of Islam for the values of humanity, helping the poor, tolerance and justice.
Its also true that in the Catholic Kingdom of Jerusalem that Muslims found justice in the court systems. If a Muslim in the Catholic Kingdom of Jerusalem went to trail against a Catholic, the court would treat the Muslim with equality before the law in a court known as the Cour de Bourgeois..in which a Muslim or Catholic defendant could even ask for counsel.
There are many figures to discuss, many time periods not just one.
I respect Muslims, you should respect Catholics. Remember we are discussing the middle ages here not the modern times. The point about Robin Hood is many, one being the men and women of Europe knew of the legends of Robin Hood, such as to help the poor, be a knight, stand for Catholic values like respecting all humanity. This is no fantasy please note post # 4 which discusses European poetry of the middle ages and how it influenced Catholics to create a humble and honorable society.
This is not a contest...We need to respect each others history b/c Muslims and Catholics have shaped the very civilized world we live in today brother.
In fact Rene Grousset discusses how Catholics acted in not only the middle east, but also in Europe in countries such as Hungary. And like a true historian Grousset shows the good and bad...so it is therefore appropriate in the grand layout to say tolerance was a major aspect of the middle ages. Thats not the same as saying that tolerance was the defining value of the middle ages, no one has made that argument. And btw other sources have shown Muslims and Jews were a minority in the levant in the Kingdom of Jerusalem.
Another scholar Johannes Andreae also as brought up earlier argued that Jewish rites should not be harmed and that the Jewish people should be unharmed. So we have this and beyond that earlier itt sources showing friendships and conversations between Catholics and non Christians in the middle ages...so thats more then tolerating a different faith one disagrees with...it shows that European Catholics would take up friendships with non Christians in the middle ages which is a level of tolerance of accepting people of different faiths. Getting back to Grousset, allow me to showcase more from the Epic of the Crusades....information which shows that like in many wars even modern that warcrimes do occur but they did not define the first crusade as a whole. We can see whether traveling through Europe or arriving in the Levant to set up Kingdoms that European Catholics brought with them tolerance, This is based upon information from The Epic of the Crusades by Rene Grousset. Grousset was a renown French Historian writing in the early 20th century about various topics not just the co called Crusades but also for example about the life of Genghis Khan. Grousset discusses many figures of the crusades like Peter the Hermit, whom led the dreaded Peoples Crusade which took off from Europe well ahead of the Barons armies.
Peter the Hermit is btw provided in a good light by Grousset which runs against the unproven allegations agaisnt Peter the Hermit on wikipedia for example. Peter was said to be a pious Christian, perhaps to pious as Peter was willing to take on criminals, criminals that hoped to attain salvation on the road to the Holy Land. Peter may have thought that some of the criminals that joined the peoples Crusade would change for the better, and surely many did but unfortunately not all did. Unfortunately some of Peters followers gave in to there old ways, robbing and looting for example in Hungary and in Byzantine areas. These actions upset The King of Hungary Coloman… and the Emperor of Byzantine Alexius Comnenus and btw some of those followers of Peter the Hermit were punished by the Hungarian King and Byzantine Emperor. That said, when the Peoples Crusade finally reached Byzantine on Aug 1 1096, Emperor Comnenus told the Catholics to wait for the Backup of the professional Christian armies led by the 4 barons such as Godfrey, even Peter the Hermit told his followers to wait to march against the Turks…but zeal and selfishness perhaps took over and without Peter the Hermit about 25,000 men, many non Knights but with a few Knights, set off and crossed the Bosphorus to battle the Turks.
By Oct 21 1096 decided to do something remarkable, without a central leadership but with faith in Christ marched on to Nicaea the Turkish capital. The peoples crusade was crushed, and of the 25,000 men, only 3,000 would return alive in retreat back to the Byzantine Empire. And btw Grousset praised Peter the Hermit, where Peter went wrong was perhaps not having a background check on those that took up the peoples Crusade. Or perhaps Rather Peter should have tried to have tighter control over his followers. After all it was men such as Emich of Leisingen whom was anti Jewish, indeed it was reported that Emich terribly mistreated Jews. Otoh I can also comment on the character and behavior of other Christian leaders of the so called First Crusade. Btw Grousset points out that w of those 25,000 men there were some bad eggs, but not all were bad. There would have been good everyday people in the Peoples Crusade, one can imagine the Good Catholics probably tried to physically prevent the bad Catholics from mistreating others. In every war it seems there are crimes of course.
Anyway Grousset says the following of Godfrey, and this is a total turnaround from how Grousset views Emich, During the Crusades he(Godfrey) was to prove a pious pilgrim, full of good grace, gentleness, charity and Christian humility. Godfrey was so capable that he was able to reassure the very Hungarians whom were mistreated by some of those of the Peoples Crusade. And Godfrey and his army marched right through Hungary toward the Holy Land with no issue. Note the description of Godfrey, note how a 20th century historian describes Godfrey as full of good grace, gentleness, charity and Christian humility. Godfrey learned his pious ways in Europe and was respected by Hungarian Christians as well as Arab Muslims. Grousset points out intolerant Christians like Count Emich but at the same time points out the tolerance of other Christians of the first crusade. Its not that the levant was a special case, we can see that tolerance was a major aspect of European Christians of the middle ages pointed out by Grousset and other sources listed itt both Muslim and Christian. And when the Kingdom of Jerusalem was established with Godfrey as its first leader....we can see that Muslim rebellions were not an issue...this tells that Muslims found justice in the Kingdom.
And just as how Christians lived in and prospered in Muslim majority lands, so did Muslims in Catholic majority lands. Note how I come itt with respect for Muslims....unlike Muslims or Christians whom attempt to claim one is superior to another. I come itt to try and act as a Catholic Knight of the middle ages would, God willing with politeness and respect of non Catholics. The true Catholic faith is shown in the Catholic Kingdom of Jerusalem where Muslims and Christians were equals and made friends with one other.
I’m sorry but I have used historians both Muslim and Christian to prove the points back the European societies of the middle ages were honorable intolerant. My historians Muslim and Catholic will easily beat beat the bigots on Wikipedia and YouTube That disrespect the great Catholics of the middle ages.
i’m surprised that you can say what you’re saying above without actually replying to the massive amount of information I have posted using historical sources. It is if you did not either read my post or you read it and simply ignored all of the information from it.
What you talk about above are individual events and they do not relate to what has already been posted in this thread. Sure crime And intolerance occurred in the middle ages but they do not define the time.
So the Spanish Inquisition never happened and you believe in Robin hood
This is a waste of time
Salam
“Allah gave you a gift of 86,000 seconds today, have you used one to say ‘Alhamdulilah"
So the Spanish Inquisition never happened and you believe in Robin hood
This is a waste of time
Salam
Well I’m sorry you feel that way. But as you can see the original post discusses a different time. Then what you bring up above.
Muslims like Catholics have a history of intolerance and tolerance.
I think Robin Hood did exist and there are numerous sources which suggest he was a supporter of Richard the lion heart.
What about all the other information I posted what do you say to that? I’m not talking about the Spanish Inquisition. The information put forth in this thread talks about the franks and their chivalry that they brought with them to the Middle East during the 1st crusade. This is something to admire and take interest in.... I’m trying to build bridges here did you notice how many times in this thread that I have praised Islam.
For More on medical achievements of the middle ages we can see the following, European Catholic owned hospitals would set fourth medical rules and regulations...ensuring qualified doctors would treat patients....note how cleanliness was a must for Catholic hospitals of the middle ages...as was kindness toward patients Catholic, Jewish and Muslim alike. Such "good deeds" would reward the Knights and hospital workers with rewards in heaven. This is very noteworthy as it shows the middle ages saw acts of tolerance by Catholic Popes, Knights, Kings, and layman alike as a means of being rewarded in heaven. Therefore the sick, mentally ill and disabled were not viewed as evil beings but otoh as shown it was the Christian way to help those in need. This work by Hume and others also dispels the notion that the middle ages was a "dirty time". Hospitals were to be kept clean as to not spread disease.
- - - Updated - - -
One of the stories of the Crusade that stand out is Saladins secret visit to the crusader states @ The Hospital at Acre. The story was told throughout the middle ages in song and verse as reported by Hume. Saladin came disguised as a sick and poor Muslim begger, he was immediately admitted to the Crusader hospital as was custom of that noble land to not deny one based on religion or color. This is yet another characteristic of the middle ages, tolerance, acceptance, noble values of the Knights toward Jews and Muslims not just fellow members of the cross. Saladin would go on to test the morals of the Crusaders, he had asked for something remarkable...Saladin conveyed he would need the heart(other stories suggested the foot) of the horse of very Master of the Knights Hospitaller to heal him.....amazingly the Knights hospitallers agreed as such an action while it would cost the life of the steed Moriel it would save the life of a simple Muslim begger. The Knights tried to offer Saladin a more medically approved treatment but Saladin insisted on the steeds heart. Upon learning of the Knights eventually agreement to give the noble steeds heart Saladin was amazed and revealed the truth to the Master of the Knights, he did not need the heart of a steed and so Moriel was saved. Saladin was also taken back by the organization, tolerance, chivalry and medical achievements of the Crusader hospitals in Palestine.
But this was not all... Saladin had revealed himself to the Grand Master of the Knights Hospitaller...the master could have killed or jailed Saladin. But as a guest Saladin expected humble treatment and that he was given. Saladin left the hospital unharmed and returned to his Muslim forces. Saladin came away from this episode having a profound respect for the Knights Hospitallers. Saladin ordered that a thousand besants of gold be paid to the Hospitaller order in times of peace and war. This goes to show the tolerance of the Crusader states toward non Christians, such tolerance influenced the very ideas of the fair law systems we see today many countries today.
Last edited by William Wallace; 09-09-2020 at 09:43 PM.
Though I am physically disabled I have gone to incredible lengths using historians Muslim and Christian to prove that Catholics of the middle ages were honorable people. Allah Akbar, for I have seen the light and work to pay homage to those of the past Muslim and Christian alike.
Lt Col Edgar Hume of the US medical corps...writing during world war 2 provides his take on medieval Church organizations that contributed to medical science and the poor...he concentrates on the Knights Hospitaller. This is in addition to the two other sources already provided on medical contributions of the Knights Hospitaller in Palestine during the middle ages. Violence, criminal behavior and intolerance was shown by Jews, Pagans, Muslims and Catholics alike during the middle ages....but it was not all darkness. Lt Col Hume puts forth the work to show the powerful ways of the Hospitallers, whose contributions during the middle ages helped to advance medicine and science to where we are today.
As Hume points out in detail....the job of the Knights Hospitaller was to in part provide medical relief to Muslims and Christians alike, it mattered not ones religion or color...the Knights duty was to care for the sick. This humanity has influenced medical organizations such as the Red Cross to this day and others to help those in need regardless of their background. The Knights Hospitaller was a wide ranging organization having medical and military chapters. They were considered a pioneer force in terms of military medical officers...having the ability to both tend to and protect the wounded during battle. The Hospitallers were expected to provide medical relief to even their very opponents in battle...this quite remarkable and clearly goes to show it would be wrong to blanket label the Church or middle ages as a time of backward morals or medical/scientific stagnation. Jews, Muslims, Christians in the crusader states were all tended to medically by the Knights Hospitallers. For the Knights this was the Catholic faith of the middle ages, to be brave in battle but also charitable toward non Christians.
The charitable work of the Blessed Gerard, his orders kindness toward Christian and non Christian alike is noted by Hume. The great Christian Lords Frederick Barbarossa and Richard The Lionheart respected the Knights Hospitaller for their charitable works. In The Kingdom of Jerusalem the Knights is shown by John of Wurzburg as hospital that could hold upwards of two thousand patients(normally geared for 1000 but in emergencies could take more) and spanned 150 meters. Pope Paschal II in 1113 set the precedent, that the Knights were exempt from paying tithes on their possessions in the Holy land as well as Europe.
Conditions in hospitals in the crusader states were far ahead of their time. As late as 18th century many hospitals worldwide would cramp patients into beds and rooms creating unsafe conditions. But in the crusader states as shown by the 12th century Rabbi Benjamin who visited Palestine between 1160 and 1173 , at the Hospital of Soloman the sickly "were provided everything they wanted in both life and death."
In Jerusalem during the 12th century, a traveler by name of Theodorich visited the hospital of St John The Baptist. He remarked " how abundantly it is supplied with rooms and other material for the use of poor and sick people" the beds numbered more then 1000".
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Bookmarks