The Presentation of the Franks

in Selected Muslim Sources from the

Crusades of the 12th Century

by

Niall G. F. Christie

Submitted for the Degree of M.Litt.

in the University of St. Andrews

September, 1996
“Mysterious are the works of the Creator, the author of all things! When one comes to
recount cases regarding the Franks, he cannot but glorify Allah (exalted is he!) and
sanctify him, for he sees them as animals possessing the virtues of courage and
fighting, but nothing else; just as animals have only the virtues of strength and
carrying loads. I shall now give some instances of their doings and their curious
mentality.”

Usama ibn Munqidh

Author’s Note

What follows is my M. Litt. dissertation, which was submitted in the University of St.
Andrews in 1996. As such it represents an early stage in my career as a researcher. As
a result of this, it displays a number of flaws, and cannot be said completely to reflect
my current views. In particular, some of the opinions expressed now seem somewhat
naïve to my more-experienced eyes. However, I think the dissertation still provides
useful information, and draws attention to a number of interesting issues with regard
to the topic.

In the process of conversion to Internet format, a number of minor changes have been
made to the original version of the dissertation, so that it differs somewhat from the
text that may be found in the library at the University of St Andrews. Most of these
are minor changes of layout and grammar, but I have also taken the opportunity to
translate the original Arabic quotations into English, in order to make the dissertation
of use to a wider range of scholars. I should emphasize, however, that these are quick
translations, which may contain some errors.
 Contents

Acknowledgements

I Introduction

II Ibn al-Qalanisi

Dhayl Ta’rikh Dimashq

III Usama ibn Munqidh

Kitab al-I‘tibar

IV Baha’ al-Din Ibn Shaddad

Al-Nawadir al-Sultaniyya w’al-Mahasin -Yusufiyya

V ‘Imad al-Din al-Isfahani

Al-Barq al-Shami, Al-Fath al-Qudsi and Other Works

VI Ibn al-Athir

Al-Kamil fi’l-Ta’rikh

VII Conclusion

Bibliography
 Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the following for their contributions towards this dissertation;

Hugh Kennedy, for his invaluable support and advice, and for always making time for
me, despite his busy schedule.

Professor Wilkinson and the School of History and International Relations, without
whose moral and financial support I would not have been able to undertake this
course.

Richard Kimber, for his help and advice, and above all for teaching me how to use the
Nisus Writer.

Elizabeth Kerr, Catherine Cobham and Ihab El-Sakkout, for making the Arabic
department a pleasant place to work.

Alison Aiton, for holding the key in Elizabeth’s absence.

The writers, for making their Arabic as clear as possible, and the translators and
editors, for making my job much easier!

All at the Burn on the 8th to 10th March, for their thoughts on Usama, and especially
John Mattock, for drawing my attention to the joke.

And last, but by no means least, Steph, to whom this work is dedicated. Your constant
love, support and encouragement have been beyond measure and price. For you this
humble knight rides to the Crusade...
 I

Introduction

During the period of the Crusades a large number of Muslim writers wrote accounts
of the events that took place at the time, and also kept records of their experiences. As
a result of this, a large body of literature concerning the period was created, a
reasonable proportion of which has survived up until the present day, in one form or
another. The modern reader is able to examine these works in order to determine what
the Muslim view was of the Crusades and those who fought in them, and so to
understand the motives behind the Muslims’ initial reactions to the Crusaders and
their subsequent interaction with the Franks who settled in the Holy Land.

As one examines the sources for the period, it becomes apparent from the way that the
Franks are presented that there were certain initial characteristic attitudes that
prevailed among the Muslims, which remained throughout the period, although they
changed significantly as time progressed, as a consequence of increased contact with
the Franks who now settled in the area. In addition, other attitudes developed later on,
also as a result of this increase in contact. One can therefore examine the development
of Muslim attitudes to the Franks, and see how this affected their interaction with
them.

In this dissertation an attempt has been made to determine the development of the
attitudes of Muslims towards the Franks during the period covering the Crusades of
the 12th Century, by examining five major sources from the period, and seeing how
the Franks are presented in each. As will be shown in following chapters, there are
certain attitudes that remain throughout all five texts, whilst others develop as the
texts progress chronologically.

The texts that have been chosen for this dissertation are from among the more well-
known sources for the period, consisting of the following:

Dhayl Ta’rikh Dimashq by Ibn al-Qalanisi,

Kitab al-I‘tibar by Usama ibn Munqidh,

Al-Nawadir al-Sultaniyya w’al-Mahasin al-Yusufiyya by Baha’ al-Din Ibn Shaddad,

Various works of ‘Imad al-Din al-Isfahani quoted by Abu Shama in Kitab al-
Rawdatayn fi Akhbar al-Dawlatayn,

Al-Kamil fi’l-Ta’rikh by Ibn al-Athir.

The use of well-known works has enabled the author to gain access to a large amount
of secondary source material, and this has resulted in a more thorough study. It is the
intention of this author to carry out a more wide-ranging study in future research.
 II

Ibn al-Qalanisi

Dhayl Ta’rikh Dimashq

Unfortunately for modern scholarship, very little is known of Abu Ya‘la Hamza ibn
Asad al-Tamimi, who was also known to his contemporaries as Ibn al-Qalanisi. It is
known that he came from an important family in Damascus, and that he occupied the
position of ra’is of the town for a time. He was a historian for the 5th-6th/11th-12th
Centuries, right up until his deathi[i] on the 7th Rabi‘ I 555/18th March 1160.ii[ii]

Apart from a number of poems, it seems that the only literary work of Ibn al-Qalanisi
was a two-part continuation of a chronicle by the historian Hilal ibn al-Muhassin al-
Sabi‘, taking up from the point at which he died in 448/1056, which Ibn al-Qalanisi
called Dhayl Ta’rikh Dimashq.iii[iii] However, unlike the work of al-Sabi‘, which
was universal in its subject, Ibn al-Qalanisi’s work, which includes relevant extracts
from that of al-Sabi‘ as a preface, concentrates firmly on the city of Damascus, and
deals with events in other regions only in an incidental fashion.iv[iv] Ibn al-Qalanisi
also makes use of other Syro-Egyptian archives and chronicles in his work, and, in
addition, includes accounts of events witnessed by himself and his contemporaries.
The Ta’rikh was a major source for other chroniclers, including Ibn al-Athir, Sibt ibn
al-Jawzi and Abu Shama.v[v]

Ibn al-Qalanisi’s work is an essentially straightforward chronicle of the history of

Damascus, but unfortunately it lacks detail and, because it concentrates almost
exclusively on the city, is of little value as a source for events that did not have a
direct effect upon it. Ibn al-Qalanisi rarely cites the exact sources of his information,
which makes it difficult to assess its reliability, particularly in the case of the oral
reports he uses. His work also shows a certain amount of bias towards the city and its
rulers, resulting in him occasionally altering details of the narrative in order to present
his side in the best light possible. One example of this occurs in his description of
Zahir al-Din’s raid on Rafaniya in 1115, in which he emphasises the glorious victory
of the Muslims and minimises their losses:

They took possession of it, and all who were in it passed into the grip
of captivity, and the noose of disgrace and subjugation. Those who
were killed were killed, and those who were taken prisoner were taken
prisoner. The Muslims took as booty from their land and herds and
goods enough to fill their hands, and their (the Muslims’) souls were
gladdened by that, and likewise their hearts were strengthened…and
the Muslims withdrew to Damascus, victorious, glad and successful,
not having lost any person, nor was anyone missing.vi[vi]

It seems hardly credible that the Muslims would have sustained no losses at all in an
action that was as significant as Ibn al-Qalanisi claims this one to be. Unfortunately, it
has not been possible to examine other sources from the period, in order to confirm or
disprove his claims. Besides, the effect of Ibn al-Qalanisi’s alteration of detail seems
to be fairly minimal, and the accuracy of the narrative does not seem to have been
seriously compromised.

Despite these limitations, Ibn al-Qalanisi’s work does contain valuable information
concerning Frankish interaction with the Muslims during the period, and it is
therefore important to consider how he presents the Franks. However, before
considering the presentation of the Franks in the text, it is necessary to consider how
much Ibn al-Qalanisi knew about them. As has been stated above, his chronicle
concentrates firmly on the city of Damascus and events that affected it directly. This
and the fact that it is known that Ibn al-Qalanisi was resident in Damascus, suggest
that he had a fairly restricted view of what events were taking place outside of the
city, and therefore would not have had a very great knowledge of the Franks and their
behaviour. There is no account in the text of Ibn al-Qalanisi ever having any personal
contact with the Franks, and he refers to them as if they are one mass of humanity,
and shows little awareness of the variety of countries that they come from. He does
seem to be aware that they come from different countries, but this is not something
that he seems to regard as important, and he does not seem to know anything of these
countries. One particular indication of this occurs when he refers to the arrival in 1147
of Conrad of Germany and Bertram, the son of Alphonso Jourdain, to the Levant:

In that year news came from the region of Constantinople, and the
countries of the Franks and the Byzantines and others near them, of
the appearance of kings of the Franks from their countries, including
Alman and Alfunsh.vii[vii]

The fact that Ibn al-Qalanisi refers to Conrad as “Alman”, evidently thinking that this
is his name, and not his nationality, shows that he did not have a very good
knowledge of the countries and origins of the Franks.

Another comment made by Ibn al-Qalanisi also leads the reader to doubt either his
knowledge of the Franks, or the attention he is paying to what he is writing. Several
times in his text, he makes reference to quarrels and disputes that took place among
the Franks. Having done this, in his chronicle for 527 A.H. (November 1132 to
October 1133) he makes the comment:

In Muharram of it (the year), news came from the region of the

Franks of the occurrence of a dispute between them, contrary to the
custom current among them concerning that.viii[viii]

This apparent contradiction in the text suggests that either Ibn al-Qalanisi is paying
little attention to what he is writing or that he has little knowledge of the Franks. It
seems that he may be taking his information from another source who told him that
disputes were not usual among the Franks and, despite his own experience and the
disputes he has heard about himself, he is assuming that the source is reliable, and that
what he has been told is true, as he does not know enough about the Franks to suggest
confidently that the case may be different. In this way, what he writes serves to
undermine any confidence the modern reader may have in Ibn al-Qalanisi’s own
knowledge of the Franks.
As it seems that Ibn al-Qalanisi knows little in the way of hard facts about the Franks,
it must therefore be expected that little of how he presents the Franks will be based on
solid knowledge, but rather on personal viewpoint and attitude. This does not detract
from his work’s value, however, as Ibn al-Qalanisi’s presentation of the Franks is still
relevant as an indication of attitudes that were prevalent in Damascus at the time.

The most apparent feature of Ibn al-Qalanisi’s presentation of the Franks is his
hostility towards them. He expresses this hostility in various ways, the most
discernible being the language he uses when he refers to them and their exploits. For
example, he regularly refers to them as “polytheists” or “accursed ones”. In this way,
he expresses his hostility towards them.

It is interesting to note, however, that in his writing, Ibn al-Qalanisi does not make use
of suffixed formulae, such as “may God forsake them”, until the end of his chronicle,
the first instance of this being in his record of the year 553 A.H. (February 1158 to
January 1159).ix[ix] Before this point, Ibn al-Qalanisi expresses his hostility in other
ways, such as those described above, but it is only at this point that this particular
mode of expression appears. He then goes on to use the same expression, “may God
forsake them”, several times throughout the rest of his chronicle. This suggests that
this particular mode of expression, which is used by many later chroniclers, only
came into use at the time in which Ibn al-Qalanisi begins using it. It is the hope of this
author that, in further research, it may be possible to trace the development of the use
of suffixed formulae such as these in Muslim writing during the period. This,
however, will require considerable research into a large number of sources, and is
therefore beyond the limits of this dissertation.

However, if the suffixed formulae used by Ibn al-Qalanisi are to be accepted as a

mode of expression that came into common usage at the time of his writing, this does
suggest that he is, in some ways, following a fashion, rather than expressing genuine
hostility towards the Franks. This suggests that, although he is undoubtedly hostile
towards the Franks, Ibn al-Qalanisi’s hostility is not very vehement. Given that the
Franks had relatively little impact on Damascus, and therefore Ibn al-Qalanisi is, in
some ways, slightly removed from the conflicts that took place between the Franks
and the Muslims, this is to be expected, and should not be regarded as surprising.
Indeed, a further indication of the impact that the Franks made is shown by the fact
that, in many ways, Ibn al-Qalanisi is as hostile towards other Muslims who move
against Damascus and its territories as he is to the Franks. For example, he describes
‘Imad al-Din Zangi I and his actions after his taking of Ba‘albek in 1139 in these
terms:

They surrendered it to ‘Imad al-Din, the atabeg, after taking his

assurance of protection, and comfirming it with him. When it
(Ba‘albek) passed into his possession, he broke his promise, and
violated his assurance of protection from angry imprisonment, and
became angry to those who were in it, and ordered their crucifixion.
The only ones to escape were those whose delay protected them, and
the people found that deed of his repugnant, and considered his
violation (of his promise) unprecedented.x[x]
For Ibn al-Qalanisi, other Muslims are as much of a threat as the Franks, and so he is
equally hostile to either, if they show any aggression towards Damascus or its
territories.

One view of the Franks that Ibn al-Qalanisi holds is the view that they are inherently
untrustworthy. He shares this view with a number of other Muslim writers, as will be
shown in following chapters, and it seems likely that this was a view commonly held
among the Muslims. Indeed, Muslim writers repeatedly describe how the Franks
broke truces and treaties. Ibn al-Qalanisi gives several accounts of the Franks
breaking truces that they had made with the Muslims. One example of this occurs in
his account of the aftermath of the taking of Ma‘rrat al-Nu‘man by the Franks in
December 1098:

The people ran away to the houses of Ma‘arra to seek protection in

them, and the Franks gave them their assurance of protection. They
acted treacherously towards them, and raised crosses over the city,
and took away the lands of the people of the city. They did not keep
any of their promises, and they plundered whatever they found, and
they demanded things of the people that they were not able to
provide.xi[xi]

This characteristic of the Franks is one that further increases Ibn al-Qalanisi’s hostility
towards them, and seems to be a characteristic that aroused resentment in several
Muslim writers.

Although Ibn al-Qalanisi is hostile to the Franks, he, like other writers, does find
himself being impressed by some of their more positive characteristics, and is unable
to prevent himself from showing respect for these characteristics, when he comes
across them. One example of this occurs in his chronicle for 501 A.H. (August 1107
to August 1108), in his description of Gervase of Tiberias:

He was one of the leaders of the Franks who was famous for
chivalry, courage, bravery and intense strength, who followed King
Baldwin in precedence over the Franks.xii[xii]

In this way, Ibn al-Qalanisi shows a grudging respect for the Franks, and an ability to
appreciate their good qualities, which belies his apparent hostility towards them, and
suggests that it may not be as fervent as it seems to be on first reading.

Whatever Ibn al-Qalanisi’s personal view of the Franks may be, it is apparent from
his writing that they are, for him, infidels, and the enemies of God and the Muslims.
As a result of this, he regards them as being forsaken by God, despite any good
qualities they might have. This view is apparent in the language Ibn al-Qalanisi uses
to refer to the Franks. As has been stated above, he describes them as “polytheists”
and “accursed ones”. He also describes them more explicitly as “enemies of
God”,xiii[xiii] and describes how God aids the Muslims against them. For example,
he describes how God aided the Muslims in June 1113, in the battle at Al-Uqhuwana:
 The two armies came into conflict, and Noble God (praise be to
Him), granted the Muslims victory over the polytheists after three
charges.xiv[xiv]

Thus it is apparent that for Ibn al-Qalanisi, the Franks are clearly defined as infidels,
and the enemies of God, against whom God aids His chosen people, the Muslims.

Ibn al-Qalanisi’s chronicle is one of the earliest Muslim accounts of the Christian
Crusades which, combined with the fact that its author was resident in Damascus,
which was relatively unaffected by the early Crusades, results in it being one of the
period’s least well informed chronicles. The result of this is that Ibn al-Qalanisi shows
relatively little knowledge of the Franks, when compared with later historians, and his
chronicle is vague and lacking in detail. It is, however, a useful work, in as far as it
gives the reader an insight into the development of Muslim reactions to the arrival of
the Crusaders. It suggests that the initial Muslim reaction was one of understandable
hostility towards the invader, which soon developed into a call to the jihad against the
infidel, particularly after the taking of Jerusalem. The text also shows the beginnings
of an appreciation of the Franks’ good qualities, which, as will be shown in following
chapters, was to become more evident in later chronicles, particularly in the works of
Usama ibn Munqidh, Ibn Shaddad and Ibn al-Athir. Ibn al-Qalanisi’s work shows
none of the curiosity or awareness of the strangeness of the Franks that is apparent in
later works, suggesting that this curiosity came about with closer knowledge of the
Franks and their customs. Nevertheless, it is invaluable as an indication of the initial
reactions of the Muslims to the Franks.
 III

Usama ibn Munqidh

Kitab al-I‘tibar

Usama ibn Murshid ibn ‘Ali, who was known to most of his contemporaries as Usama
ibn Munqidh, was originally of Bedouin origin, of the clan of Munqidh. He was born
at their stronghold of Shayzar on the 27th Jumada II 488/4th July 1095,xv[xv] and
lived there until about 526/1131, when he joined the entourage of ‘Imad al-Din Zangi
I. He later returned to the fortress, but was banished along with his brothers in
532/1138 by his uncle Sultan, who feared they might attempt to reclaim the
succession to leadership of the clan, which they had renounced their claims to upon
the death of their father. Usama went to the Burid court at Damascus, where he
became an associate of Mu‘in al-Din Unur, and from whence he took the opportunity
to journey extensively. However, by 593/1144 he had become embroiled in the
factionalism of the Damascene court, and was soon ordered to leave by Mu‘in al-Din.
He travelled to Egypt and the Fatimid court, becoming an associate of the vizier Al-
‘Adil ibn al-Sallar, and remained in the country for 10 years. After the victory at
Harim in 559/1164, he joined the court of the Artuqid Qara-Arslan of Hisn Kayfa, in
what was essentially retirement, collected a diwan and composed a number of works
on poetry, rhetoric, adab history and religion, most of which have since been lost. In
the autumn of 570/1174 he allowed his son, Murhaf, to persuade him to join the court
of Saladin. Murhaf had been an associate of the sultan since 565/1170, and when
Usama joined the court, he was enthusiastically welcomed. However, after two years
relations between Usama and Saladin had deteriorated, and so he lived out his last
years in honourable, but bitterly resented, retirement. Towards the end of his life he
composed or dictated his memoirs, the Kitab al-I‘tibar. He died on the 23rd Ramadan
584/16th November 1188, having had a great impact on both his contemporaries, and
on later writers. His poetry was quoted in his own lifetime and the century following,
although it became neglected later. Usama’s works were among the major sources
used by several later writers, in particular Ibn al-Athir, Abu Shama and Ibn
Khallikan.xvi[xvi]

The Kitab al-I‘tibar is one of the most important Muslim sources for the early period
of the Crusades preceding the career of Saladin. Through it the reader gains an insight
into the impact made by the Crusaders on the Muslim Levant, and the interaction that
took place between the two sides. However, it is important, when examining the
work, to bear in mind that it was not written as a chronicle of the early Crusades, but
rather as the author’s memoirs, intended to entertain and instruct later generations,
and also to ensure that the author was remembered after his death. This purpose
produces a number of consequences, the first being that the work is extremely
disorganised and vague, lacking important details, in particular the dates of events. In
addition, the work contains a large amount of seemingly unnecessary details, which,
although they give the reader an insight into conditions at the time, are of little use
when attempting to construct a chronology of the period. It is also apparent that
certain details and anecdotes are untrue, the result either of an old man’s failing
memory, or of his desire to present himself in as good a light as possible, one
particular example of this being Usama’s neglecting to mention his involvement in the
plot to kill al-Zafir in 1154.xvii[xvii] Despite these seeming failings, the text is,
nevertheless, valuable as a source for conditions and attitudes that were prevalent
among Muslims, and in particular as a description of their interaction with the Franks
at that time.

Before analysing Usama’s presentation of the Franks, however, it is necessary to

consider how much he knew about them. As a member of the courts of several
significant Muslim political figures, it can be expected that he would have had a
certain amount of contact with the Franks on a diplomatic and military level. In
addition, Usama’s adventurous lifestyle seems to have resulted in even greater contact
with the Franks and, if his own claims are to be believed, the forging of close
relationships with many of them. He refers, for example, to the Templars in Jerusalem
“who were my friends”.xviii[xviii] Likewise, he describes another Frankish knight
from the army of King Fulk:

He was of my intimate fellowship and kept such constant company

with me that he began to call me “my brother.” Between us were
mutual bonds of amity and friendship.xix[xix]

Although it must be borne in mind that Usama may be altering some of the details of
his text, the knowledge that he displays in it, particularly in the section entitled “An
Appreciation of the Frankish Character”,xx[xx] suggests that he has had a significant
amount of contact with the Franks, and has a fairly good knowledge of their
characteristics and behaviour. He shows the ability to distinguish between the various
nationalities of which the Franks are composed, and also notes that “everyone who is
a fresh emigrant from the Frankish lands is ruder in character than those who have
become acclimatized and have held long association with the Moslems.”xxi[xxi] In
addition, his accounts of their actions, most of which are first hand, are extremely
detailed. These factors suggest that his knowledge of the Franks on a closer level is
also fairly good.

The most significant feature that strikes the reader about Usama’s presentation of the
Franks is his ambiguity of attitude towards them. It seems initially that he is hostile
towards them. He describes them as “the enemy”xxii[xxii] and also states, when
describing the death of an unidentified Frankish knight whom he calls Badrhawa,
“may Allah’s mercy not rest upon his soul!”xxiii[xxiii] He also makes regular use of a
suffixed hostile formula, such as “May Allah render them helpless!” or “May Allah’s
curse be upon them!”, the first time he refers to the Franks in any given story. Thus it
seems that Usama is extremely hostile towards them.

However, this hostility belies the claims to friendship with the Franks that Usama
makes, such as those that have been mentioned above, and this suggests that Usama’s
hostility is not entirely genuine. In addition, he shows an ability to appreciate the
Franks’ better characteristics, in a way that is similar to that of Ibn al-Qalanisi, only in
Usama’s case his appreciation is much less grudging. He describes Badrhawa, for
example, as being “one of the most valiant Frankish knights.”xxiv[xxiv] He also
inadvertently describes one of them as being honourable, when he gives an account of
the departure of the knight who used to call him his “brother”:

When he resolved to return by sea to his homeland, he said to me:

 My brother, I am leaving for my country and I want thee to send
with me thy son (my son, who was then fourteen years old, was at
that time in my company) to our country, where he can see the
knights and learn wisdom and chivalry. When he returns, he will be
like a wise man.

Thus there fell upon my ears words which would never come out of
the head of a sensible man; for even if my son were to be taken
captive, his captivity could not bring him a worse misfortune than
carrying him into the lands of the Franks. However, I said to the
man:

By my life, this has exactly been my idea. But the only thing that
prevented me from carrying it out was the fact that his grandmother,
my mother, is so fond of him and did not this time let him come out
with me until she exacted an oath from me to the effect that I would
return him to her.

Thereupon he asked, “Is thy mother still alive?” “Yes.” I replied.

“Well,” said he, “disobey her not.”xxv[xxv]

In this story Usama attempts to present the knight, and by extension, all the Franks, as
lacking common sense. However, the knight’s final words mark him as a man of
honour, and so Usama inadvertently presents him as such. This suggests that Usama’s
hostility to the Franks is not entirely genuine, as had he been hostile, he would have
been unlikely to have included the knight’s exact response to his excuse. In this way,
his attitude towards the Franks becomes ambiguous.

Whether Usama is hostile to the Franks or not, it is apparent from his writing that he,
like Ibn al-Qalanisi, regards them as being the enemies of God, despite their good
qualities. As has been stated above, he often says of them “May Allah render them
helpless!” or “May Allah’s curse be upon them!” He also describes incidents where,
he believes, God has aided His chosen people, the Muslims, against the Franks. For
example, he describes one incident in which the Franks had crossed the bridge into
Shayzar and taken the city. His father and uncle rode to the rescue:

When my father and my uncle (may Allah’s mercy rest upon their
souls!) were within sight of the castle [Shayzar], its inhabitants
shouted, “Allah is great!” and howled lustily. Thereby Allah (worthy
of admiration is he!) struck terror and helplessness to the hearts of
the Franks, and they failed to find the spot at which they crossed.
Covered with their coats of mail, they forced their horses, on which
they were mounted, into a place in the river where there was no ford.
A large number of them were thus drowned. The rider would plunge
into the water, fall from his saddle and sink to the bottom, while the
horse would get over. Those of them who survived left in disorderly
flight with no one of them minding the other. They were a great
army, while my father and my uncle had only ten young mamelukes
in their company!xxvi[xxvi]
Thus it may be seen that Usama regards the Franks as being the enemies of God, who
aids the Muslims against them.

It seems that for Usama, the Franks are, in many ways, more a source of
inconvenience and irritation than of hostility. He states, when describing hunting trips
he took part in around Shayzar, that “we never felt secure on account of the Franks,
whose territory was adjacent to ours.”xxvii[xxvii] However, it is apparent from a later
account that they were more a source of irritation than fear:

The lord of Antioch camped against us and, after a combat, departed

without concluding peace. Before the rear guard of the Franks had
gone any distance from the upper town [Shayzar], my father (may
Allah’s mercy rest upon his soul!) was already on horseback going
out for a hunt. Our horsemen pursued the enemy, who now turned
against them. As for my father he was by that time at quite a distance
from the town. The Franks went back until they got to the town. In
the meantime, my father had climbed Tell-Sikkin in order to watch
them as they stood between him and the town. He remained standing
on that Tell [hill] until they departed from the town. He then
resumed his route for the chase.xxviii[xxviii]

In this way Usama attempts to present the Franks as having been a source of irritation
and unwelcome interruptions, rather than a serious threat. In a similar way, he uses
the Franks as a device to present himself as a skilled warrior. He describes an
encounter with the Franks in which his advice was ignored:

As the Franks were at some distance from the town, they were
pursued by a number of unworthy meddlers incapable of resistance
and devoid of capacity. The Franks turned once more against them,
attacked them and slew a few of their number. So the foot soldiers,
whom I had asked to keep back but who refused to do so, were
routed and threw down their shields. We then made another
encounter with the Franks, repulsed them and made them return to
their own territory which was close to ‘Asqalan. Those of the foot
soldiers who were put to rout came back blaming each other and
saying, “Ibn-Munqidh certainly knew more than we did. He advised
us to return, but we refused, which resulted in our rout and
disgrace.xxix[xxix]

Thus Usama uses the Franks as a device in his story to present himself as a wise and
skilled warrior. As with the entire text, the actual truthfulness of the story is uncertain.

Another way in which Usama uses the Franks for his own devices is in his attempts to
entertain his readers. There are some stories about the Franks in his account that seem
to be almost entirely made up, purely in order to entertain. In his most unlikely
account Usama states:

One day this Frank went home and found a man with his wife in the
same bed. He asked him, “What could have made thee enter into my
wife’s room?” The man replied, “I was tired, so I went in to rest.”
 “But how,” asked he, “didst thou get into my bed?” The other
replied, “I found a bed that was spread, so I slept in it.” “But,” said
he, “my wife was sleeping together with thee!” The other replied,
“Well, the bed is hers. How could I therefore have prevented her
from using her own bed?” “By the truth of my religion,” said the
husband, “if thou shouldst do it again, thou and I would have a
quarrel.” Such was for the Frank the entire expression of his
disapproval and the limit of his jealousy.xxx[xxx]

In this story Usama is, essentially, using the Franks to tell a joke. He claims that he
merely wishes to point out that Franks lack jealousy in sex affairs, but the pattern of
the dialogue, with its gradual buildup to the fact that the Frank’s wife was in the bed
with the other man, has the characteristics of a joke, and so it seems that Usama is
making one at the Franks’ expense. In this way he uses the Franks as convenient
victims for his humour, in order to entertain his readers, and so to ensure he is
remembered for his wit, among his other qualities, after his death.

There are two characteristics of the Franks upon which Usama agrees with several
other writers from the period of the Crusades. The first of these is upon their
untrustworthiness. As has been stated above, Ibn al-Qalanisi describes the way that
the Franks broke truces and treaties they made with the Muslims. Likewise, Usama
describes how the Frankish king broke a safe-conduct that had been given to Usama’s
family:

From Dimyat they sailed in a Frankish vessel. As they approached

‘Akka [Acre] where the king (may Allah’s mercy not rest upon his
soul!) was, he sent, in a small boat, a few men who broke the vessel
with their axes under the very eyes of my people. The king mounted
his horse, stood by the coast and pillaged everything that was there.

One of my retainers came swimming to the king, taking the safe-

conduct with him, and said, “O my lord the king, is this not thy safe-
conduct?” “Sure enough,” replied the king. “But this is the usage for
the Moslems. Whenever one of their vessels is wrecked near a town,
the people of that town pillage it.” “Art thou going, then, to take us
captive?” inquired my retainer. “No,” replied the king. The king
(may Allah’s curse be upon him!) then put them in a house, had the
women searched and took everything they all possessed. In the
vessel were jewelry, which had been intrusted to the women, clothes,
gems, swords, weapons and gold and silver amounting to about
thirty thousand dinars. The king took it all. He then sent my people
five hundred dinars and said, “This will see you home,” though they
were no less than fifty persons, men and women.xxxi[xxxi]

In this way Usama shows how the Franks broke a truce with his family, and so agrees
with the other writers who accuse the Franks of being oath-breakers.

The other characteristic upon which Usama and other writers agree is on the
strangeness of the Franks. Although this is a feature that is not remarked upon by Ibn
al-Qalanisi, Usama draws attention to it, as do Ibn Shaddad, ‘Imad al-Din al-Isfahani
and Ibn al-Athir, as will become apparent in following chapters. Usama spends much
of the section on “An Appreciation of the Frankish Character” commenting on the
strange customs and behaviour of the Franks. As has been described above, he
comments upon their lack of jealousy in sex affairs, although it is difficult to be sure
how genuine his evidence is. However, he also supplies more believable evidence to
support his point. For example, he states:

The Franks are void of all zeal and jealousy. One of them may be
walking along with his wife. He meets another man who takes his
wife by the hand and steps aside to converse with her while the
husband is standing on one side waiting for his wife to conclude the
conversation. If she lingers too long for him, he leaves her alone
with the conversant and goes away.xxxii[xxxii]

Usama also comments on a number of other curious customs and practices of the
Franks. He shows a particular interest in their strange medical practices, recounting a
number of different stories concerning them. One particular example of this concerns
the account of a Syrian Christian physician named Thabit:

They brought before me a knight in whose led an abscess had grown;

and a woman afflicted with imbecility. To the knight I applied a
small poultice until the abscess opened and became well; and the
woman I put on diet and made her humor wet. Then a Frankish
physician came to them and said, “This man knows nothing about
treating them.” He then said to the knight, “Which wouldst thou
prefer, living with one leg or dying with two?” The latter replied,
“Living with one leg.” The physician said, “Bring me a strong knight
and a sharp axe.” A knight came with the axe. And I was standing
by. Then the physician laid the leg of the patient on a block of wood
and bade the knight strike his leg with the axe and chop it off at one
blow. Accordingly he struck it - while I was looking on - one blow,
but the leg was not severed. He dealt another blow, upon which the
marrow of the leg flowed out and the patient died on the spot. He
then examined the woman and said, “This is a woman in whose head
there is a devil which has possessed her. Shave off her hair.”
Accordingly they shaved it off and the woman began once more to
eat their ordinary diet - garlic and mustard. Her imbecility took a
turn for the worse. The physician then said, “The devil has
penetrated through her head.” He therefore took a razor, made a deep
cruciform incision on it, peeled off the skin at the middle of the
incision until the bone of the skull was exposed and rubbed it with
salt. The woman also expired instantly. Thereupon I asked them
whether my services were needed any longer, and when they replied
in the negative I returned home, having learned of their medicine
what I knew not before.xxxiii[xxxiii]

Usama then goes on to remark about a number of other Frankish remedies for
illnesses, some of which are less extreme and do actually work, but which he still
regards as curious.
It is interesting to note that unlike later writers such as Ibn Shaddad or Ibn al-Athir,
Usama fails to give any accounts of Frankish women being found in battle, indicating
that either he did not find any, or if he did, he did not find it strange. The latter seems
more likely, as he does give accounts of his close female relatives preparing to fight in
battles if necessary.xxxiv[xxxiv] Indeed, he seems to regard their taking part in battles
not as something strange, but rather as “an illustration of women’s love of
adventure.”xxxv[xxxv] In this way, his perception of what is strange is at variance
with that of later writers.

In many ways, the work of Usama is a transitional one, lying somewhere between the
work of Ibn al-Qalanisi and those of later writers, such as Ibn Shaddad and ‘Imad al-
Din al-Isfahani. In his attitudes towards the Franks, Usama seems to show much of
the early characteristics of Ibn al-Qalanisi, showing a similar, not entirely heartfelt
hostility towards them, and the same religious attitude and scepticism about their
trustworthiness. However, he also shows attitudes displayed by later writers,
including a further ambiguity of attitude which, as will be shown in following
chapters, is also possessed by Ibn Shaddad and Ibn al-Athir, and also an opinion that
the Franks are rather strange. In this way Usama’s work contains the first indications
of the prevailing attitudes that were to remain from earlier texts from the period, and
how those attitudes were to develop, and also indications of newer attitudes that arose
as a result of further contact with the Franks. Thus, despite the numerous flaws
inherent in the text, Usama’s work is an important description of the development of
Muslim attitudes towards the Franks during the early period of the Crusades, as well
as being a valuable account of the conditions that were prevalent in the area at the
time.
 IV

Baha’ al-Din Ibn Shaddad

Al-Nawadir al-Sultaniyya w’al-Mahasin al-Yusufiyya

Baha’ al-Din Abu’l-Mahasin Yusuf ibn Rafi‘ ibn Tamim, who was also known as Ibn
Shaddad, was born in Mosul on the 10th Ramadan 539/5th March 1145. After
completing his education in Mosul, he spent four years as an assistant teacher (mu‘id)
at a nizamiyya in Baghdad, before returning to teach at the madrasa of Kamal al-Din
al-Shahrazuri in Mosul. During his time there, he was sent on various embassies by
the atabegs of Mosul, including missions to the Caliph, Saladin and to governors of
various towns of the region. In 583/1188 he performed the hajj, and while he was
staying at Damascus on his way home, he was sent for by Saladin at Belvoir
(Kaukab), who listened to a work of his on the hadith. Ibn Shaddad then visited
Jerusalem, before seeking the sultan’s permission to return to Mosul. Saladin,
impressed by a work on jihad that Ibn Shaddad had dedicated to him, retained him in
his service from Jumada I 584/July 1188 as qadi of the army and of Jerusalem. Ibn
Shaddad remained in constant attendance on the sultan until his death in 589/1193,
then went to Aleppo as an advisor to Saladin’s sons. In 591/1195 he was appointed
qadi of Aleppo by Al-Malik al-Zahir, and founded a Shafi‘ite madrasa and dar al-
hadith in the city,xxxvi[xxxvi] between which he erected his tomb. He also made
several missions to Cairo in an attempt to patch up Ayyubid family disputes. In the
last years of his life, his house was frequented by such scholars as Ibn Khallikan, Abu
Shama and Ibn Wasil. He died in Aleppo on the 14th Safar 632/8th November
1234.xxxvii[xxxvii]

Ibn Shaddad wrote a number of works, the most famous of which was Al-Nawadir al-
Sultaniyya w’al-Mahasin al-Yusufiyya,xxxviii[xxxviii] which, along with the Kamil
fi’l Ta’rikh of Ibn al-Athir and the various works of ‘Imad al-Din al-Isfahani, is one of
the major sources for the life of Saladin. The Nawadir takes the form of a biography
of Saladin, written from Ibn Shaddad’s personal point of view as his close friend and
advisor. It is divided into two parts, the first being an account of Saladin’s early life,
and a list of his good qualities, and the second being an account of his career.
Saladin’s career up until July 1188 receives fairly brief treatment, as Ibn Shaddad was
not an eyewitness to it, and had to rely on the accounts of “trustworthy
persons”xxxix[xxxix] as his sources. This also results in him making mistakes,
omissions and errors of detail in his account of this period. After he joined Saladin’s
service, however, the account becomes much more detailed, as it is now being written
by an eyewitness, although he still makes occasional minor mistakes of detail.
Although the Nawadir was written primarily as a biography of Saladin, it does contain
a large amount of information regarding the Franks and their interaction with the
Muslims. In a source that is so vital for the modern historian’s understanding of the
period, it is important to consider how Ibn Shaddad presents them.

Before beginning to analyse Ibn Shaddad’s presentation of the Franks, however, it is

necessary to consider the position from which he was writing, and consequently how
much he actually knew about them. Ibn Shaddad was a high-ranking member of
Saladin’s entourage, and, as a result, had more contact with the Franks than most
members of the army, as he was witness to many of the negotiations that took place
between the Muslim and Christian sides, particularly during the Third Crusade.
However, his viewpoint is was still very restricted, as he had little contact with the
Franks, other than in a diplomatic capacity. In addition, it is apparent from the
Nawadir that his sources of information regarding the Franks were not entirely
accurate. He refers to the King of the Latin Kingdom, for example, but mistakenly
calls him Geoffrey instead of Guy.xl[xl] He also mistakenly refers to news that
reached him in October 1191 of the death of the King of France, without realising
that it was wrong.xli[xli] Nevertheless, despite these problems with his information,
Ibn Shaddad still shows a great deal of intelligent awareness of the Christian side. He
differentiates between different nationalities within the Christian side, rather than
viewing them as one large force of the same nationality, and although he does not
show a deep understanding of Frankish politics, he does show an awareness of their
motives and intentions. One example of this is apparent in his description of the
purpose of the Frankish embassies that came to consult with the Muslim leaders at
Acre in June 1191:

Their objective in repeatedly (sending) letters was to find out the

strength of (our) spirits and their weakness, and our objective in
receiving the messages was also to find out what there was regarding
that (their spiritual strength and weakness).xlii[xlii]

In this way, Ibn Shaddad shows an awareness of Frankish motives and diplomatic
strategy, as well as an ability to differentiate between their different origins.

Now that the extent of Ibn Shaddad’s knowledge of the Franks has been established,
an analysis of his presentation of them may be made.

Initially, it seems that Ibn Shaddad is hostile to the Franks. Their position in his mind
seems to be very clearly defined, as he often refers to them as “the enemy”.
Sometimes he becomes even more hostile towards them, and refers to them as “the
forsaken enemy”,xliii[xliii] or adds a hostile formula, such as “may God forsake
them”,xliv[xliv] after referring to them. He also seems to single out particular figures
from the Christian side, usually the more able leaders, for particular criticism. For
example, he describes Conrad de Montferrat as a “wicked and cursed”,xlv[xlv] and
describes how, upon his death in April 1191, his soul was sent into Hell’s
flames.xlvi[xlvi]

Another, less obvious way in which Ibn Shaddad seems to be hostile towards the
Franks is in his philosophical attitude towards them. When referring to Muslim
defeats, he sometimes points out that these defeats had been ordained by God, and He
compensated the Muslims for them at a later date. An example of this is in his attitude
towards the defeat at Ramla in October 1177, when he says:

The Franks routed them, and God ordained their defeat in a defeat of
great proportions…and it was a great weakness that God
counterbalanced with the famous event at Hattin.xlvii[xlvii]

For Ibn Shaddad, these reverses are God’s will, and the Muslims receive
compensation for them. The Christians, on the other hand, never receive
compensation for their defeats, as there are infidels. In this way, they are very clearly
marked as being the enemies of both God and the Muslims. Another example of this
marking of the Christians is in Ibn Shaddad’s account of an event that took place at
Acre in July 1191, which he recounts on the authority of a swimmer who came from
the town:

A Frankish person came and stood under the wall and called to one
of the people upon it. He said to him, “By the truth of your religion, I
bid you tell me the numbers of the army that came to you yesterday
(that it, Saturday night).” In the night there had been a sound by
which both sides had been alarmed, and there was no reason (given)
for it. He (the man on the wall) said to him, “A thousand knights.”
He (the Frank) said “No, you have it wrong, for I saw them. They
wore green clothes.”xlviii[xlviii]

The implications of the anecdote seem to be that the army in Acre had been joined by
a party of angels, as green is the colour worn by the inhabitants of Paradise,xlix[xlix]
and that this is further proof of God supporting the Muslims and setting Himself
against the Franks. Although it is not clear where this anecdote comes from, and
indeed it seems likely that it was fabricated by either the swimmer, or by Ibn Shaddad
himself, it is an expression of Ibn Shaddad’s hostility to the Franks, and a further
marking of them as being the enemies of God.

However, in some ways Ibn Shaddad’s hostility seems to be rather half-hearted.

Rather than suffixing every reference to the Franks with a curse and levelling
invective at them, he adds the appropriate formulae only occasionally, as an
afterthought, and keeps his hostility to a minimum. This does not seem to be from a
desire to maintain an objective viewpoint, as he shows evidence of emotional
responses throughout the text, one example of this being in his account of Richard’s
massacre of the prisoners at Acre in August 1191:

He was treacherous with the Muslim prisoners…and he showed what

he had concealed, and he did what he had wanted to do after taking
the goods and prisoners…and they attacked them in a single mass
and killed them in captivity with blows and stabs.l[l]

Indeed, it is true that as it was for preceding writers, untrustworthiness is, for Ibn
Shaddad, one of the Franks’ greatest flaws. Despite this, he also seems to show an
appreciation of their good qualities. For example, despite his apparent dislike for
Conrad de Montferrat, he does say of him.

He was the most intrepid of them, the greatest of them in strength for
war, and the most firm in arranging a firm basis (for action).li[li]

Sometimes this grudging respect turns to open admiration of the Franks. Ibn Shaddad
refers to the iron discipline of the Christian forces in their withstanding the
harassment they received from the Muslim forces during the march up the coast in
1191, describing how they maintained their line, despite the best efforts of the
Muslims to draw them out:

They kept themselves (in place) with great discipline.lii[lii]

In this way, Ibn Shaddad shows a respect for the Christians that would not be
expected from a text that was hostile to them.

Indeed, it seems likely that Ibn Shaddad expresses hostility towards the Franks and, as
has been mentioned above, presents them as the enemies of God, not because he is
genuinely hostile towards them, but rather because he wishes to present Saladin in a
good light, and one way in which he can do this is by presenting the Franks in a bad
light, as a contrast to Saladin. Another way in which he does this by using both
dramatisation and exaggeration in his work, such as his frequent minimisation of
Muslim losses in battles with the Franks. This occurs, for example, in his account of a
skirmish that took place during the march up the coast of 1191, in which the Muslims
lost only two men, compared to the “group” lost by the enemy.liii[liii] Although Ibn
Shaddad does not specify the exact number of enemy losses, it seems that he is
attempting to imply that they were much greater than the losses suffered by the
Muslims. In this way he attempts to present the Muslims and Saladin in a good light,
by contrasting them with the enemy, but does not seem to bear any real dislike for the
Franks.

As a result of this duality of attitudes towards the Franks, Ibn Shaddad’s own opinion
of them is ambiguous, much like that of Usama ibn Munqidh. It seems that whilst he
is attempting to maintain an officially hostile position towards them, as would be
expected of a man of his rank and influence, he also harbours a certain amount of
respect for them. It may be that his religious awareness and personal loyalties
encourage him to take a hostile view, but, being a man who allows his emotions to
pervade his writing, he finds himself unable to completely ignore their good qualities.
Although the Franks occasionally carry out actions, such as the Acre massacre, which
do arouse hostility in him, they also show certain qualities that he finds praiseworthy.
This dilemma may account for the seeming contradiction of attitudes that is present in
the text.

Even if it is uncertain whether or not Ibn Shaddad is hostile towards the Franks, it is
nevertheless apparent that he, like Usama, does regard them is being rather strange,
and this is evidence of the conflict of cultures that occurred as a result of the
Crusades. He refers to an incident during the siege of Acre in July 1191, when a
woman who had been fighting among the Christian forces was killed and brought
before the sultan:

He was greatly amazed at that.liv[liv]

Although it may appear here that it was the sultan, and not Ibn Shaddad, who found
the incident strange, the fact that Ibn Shaddad mentions it at all is testimony to his
own thinking that it was unusual, and therefore worthy of mention.

Another strange event that Ibn Shaddad comments upon occurs earlier in the text.
During the early stages of the siege of Acre, it seems that the garrison of Acre and the
besieging Franks became so used to one another that they used to halt hostilities
periodically to socialise with one another, something that seems strange to Ibn
Shaddad in the first place. However, one thing he finds stranger still is that on one
occasion, towards the end of September 1189, during an organised mock battle
between young boys from each side, one of the Muslim boys captured one of the
Christian ones:

Some of the Franks bought him for two dinars, and said, “He is truly
your prisoner.” (The captor) took the two dinars and let him go. This
is an unusual and strange thing.lv[lv]

Although it is not clear whether it was just this incident, or the whole idea of each side
socialising with each other that Ibn Shaddad finds strange, he certainly seems to find
it odd that the Franks should take a mock battle such as this so seriously, especially
considering that the battle would have taken place during a time of a temporary truce,
and therefore, the Christian boy could not legitimately be called a prisoner of war.

As far as his position and loyalties will allow him to, Ibn Shaddad presents the Franks
much as he sees them. In the main, this means that he expresses little like or dislike
for them, and gives clear, balanced, accurate accounts of their actions as far as his
sources enable him to. However, he does show emotional responses to their actions,
and an ability to perceive both their good and bad qualities. He also gives accounts of
what seem to him to be their more unfathomable qualities, and attempts to understand
them, but he is not always able to understand the motivation behind some of their
stranger actions. In this way, he shows a similar reaction to them as that of Usama ibn
Munqidh. Thus his work is both an indication of the development of Muslim attitudes
towards the Franks, and also an account of the continuing cultural clash that took
place between the two sides during the period.
 V

‘Imad al-Din al-Isfahani

Al-Barq al-Shami, Al-Fath al-Qudsi and Other Works

Born at Isfahan in 519/1125, ‘Imad al-Din Muhammad ibn Muhammad al-Katib al-
Isfahani was a member of a distinguished family that had also produced another
famous katib, his uncle Al-‘Aziz. ‘Imad al-Din spent his youth in his native town and
at Kashan, and then studied fiqh in Baghdad. He also journeyed to a variety of places,
including Mosul. When the Seljuq sultan Muhammad II unsuccessfully besieged
Baghdad in 551/1156, ‘Imad al-Din wrote a sarcastic qasida to congratulate him, and
so earned the favour of the vizier Ibn Hubayra, who appointed him as his na’ib in
Wasit. However, when the vizier died in 559/1164, ‘Imad al-Din lost his position and
spent the next two years in poverty. Thanks to the patronage of the vizier Al-
Shahrazuri, he turned to the Zangids of Syria, whom his uncle had served, and was
appointed katib to Nur al-Din, and later mudarris of a madrasa built in his honour. He
was sent on a diplomatic mission to the caliph, and became mushrif of the diwan.
After Nur al-Din’s death in 569/1174, ‘Imad al-Din was supplanted by his enemies,
and travelled to Mosul, where he fell ill. He recovered and returned to Syria, where he
heard that Saladin was about to invade. After Saladin took Homs in 1175, ‘Imad al-
Din sent him his greetings in the form of a poem, and soon gained influence with the
sultan, accompanying him on his expeditions. When Saladin died in 589/1193, ‘Imad
al-Din returned to a private life and literary work until his death in 597/1201.

‘Imad al-Din wrote a number of literary works, including an anthology of 12th

Century Arab poets, as well his own poetry. He is perhaps better known, however, for
his historical works, which include Al-Fath al-Qussi fi’l-Fath al-Qudsi,lvi[lvi] Al-
Barq al-Shamilvii[lvii] and Nusrat al-Fatra, as well as a number of continuations of
his historical chronicles after the death of Saladin, cited by Abu Shama as Al-‘Utba
wa’l-Uqba, Nihlat al-Rihla and Khatfat al-Barih wa ‘Atfat al-Sharih.lviii[lviii] Sadly,
little remains of the Barq, which, along with the Fath, was ‘Imad al-Din’s main
record of his time with Saladin and his experience of the Franks, the first being an
autobiographical account of this time, and the second being more specifically an
account of the re-conquest of Jerusalem. However, there are numerous citations of his
works in the Kitab al-Rawdatayn fi Akhbar al-Dawlataynlix[lix] of Abu Shama, and it
is this work that has been used in the writing of this chapter. As a result of this, it is
important to bear in mind, when discussing ‘Imad al-Din’s presentation of the Franks,
that the works that are being examined have been edited. Abu Shama states in his
work that the original versions of ‘Imad al-Din’s works are in such an elaborate style
of rhymed prose and literary devices that they make the reader forget what he has just
read, and so he has edited them.lx[lx] In addition, Abu Shama also uses only extracts
from the works of ‘Imad al-Din, and does not present his reader with entire texts.
Furthermore, in his citations, Abu Shama rarely specifies which text of ‘Imad al-Din’s
he is quoting from, introducing his quotations with a simple “‘Imad says”.
Occasionally he specifies the text he is quoting from, and it seems that he quotes from
the Barq, the Fath, Al-‘Utba wa’l-Uqba, Nihlat al-Rihla and Khatfat al-Barih wa
‘Atfat al-Sharih,lxi[lxi] as well as quoting occasional pieces of ‘Imad al-Din’s poetry.
However, usually he is not specific about which work he is citing. Therefore, the
reader must be aware that the works are being examined, as it were, through the veil
of Abu Shama’s editing, and it is suggested that they be treated much as one work, as
it is unlikely that ‘Imad al-Din’s attitudes or style will vary greatly between each text,
although he does display inconsistencies of detail, which will be discussed below. In
addition, the reader should bear in mind that ‘Imad al-Din’s works are incomplete,
although it is reasonable to assume that Abu Shama’s selection captures the essential
flavour and nature of them.

Before proceeding with an analysis of ‘Imad al-Din’s presentation of the Franks, it is

also necessary to consider the point of view he was writing from, and how much he
knew about them. As Saladin’s katib, ‘Imad al-Din was involved, in particular, in
writing letters from Saladin to the caliph, and to other amirs. As a result, he was in
constant attendance upon the sultan, and received a great deal of information from the
letters that were dictated to him. However, despite this, he seems to have had a
relatively restricted view of the Franks, and he does not show the same understanding
of them as that shown by Usama ibn Munqidh or Ibn Shaddad. He shows an
awareness of the names of various Franks, and seems to distinguish between them.
For example, he describes the high-ranking prisoners taken at Hattin in 1187:

The capture of the king and the Prince of Kerak and Humphrey, the
brother of the king and Auk, the ruler of Jubayl and Humphrey, the
son of Humphrey, and the ruler of Alexandretta and the ruler of
Maraclea was accomplished.lxii[lxii]

In this way, ‘Imad al-Din seems to show a great awareness of who all the Franks
were. However, this is information he could easily have gained from letters that were
dictated to him, and it is evident, from the lack of further factual details regarding the
Franks, that he does not have as deep an understanding of them as that possessed by
the other writers.

As has been mentioned above, the work of ‘Imad al-Din also displays inconsistencies
in the details that it does relate, which further undermines the reader’s confidence in
the knowledge ‘Imad al-Din seems to show of the Franks. Occasionally Abu Shama
points out these inconsistencies, but refrains from commenting upon them. One
example of this is in ‘Imad al-Din’s description of the Christian army at the battle at
Tell al-‘Ayadiyya in October 1189, when he describes the size of the enemy army:

(Citing ‘Imad al-Din’s Barq) When we asked him, he said that there
were 120,000 of them, then we struck his head off, and he (‘Imad al-
Din) says in the Fath that there were twenty thousand.lxiii[lxiii]

This inconsistency of detail seems to further indicate that ‘Imad al-Din does not
actually know very much about the Franks, and therefore makes the reader doubt how
far his knowledge does extend.

The first impression that the reader gets, upon examining the works of ‘Imad al-Din,
is that the katib is extremely hostile to the Franks. Although he does not make use of
suffixed formulae when referring to them, such as Ibn al-Qalanisi’s “may God forsake
them”,lxiv[lxiv] his hostility to them is, in many ways, much more vehement. ‘Imad
al-Din usually refers to the Franks as “the infidels” or “the enemy”, and often levels
other criticisms or insults at them. For example, in his description of the Christian
muster in June 1187, ‘Imad al-Din describes how they raised the cross and gathered
around it:

They raised the cross of the crucifixion, and the worshippers of the
idol gathered around it, mistaken in their humanity and
theology.lxv[lxv]

To ‘Imad al-Din, the Christians are infidels, idolaters and the lovers of Satan, and
therefore damned to descend into Hell when they die, as opposed to the Muslims, who
are the servants of God, and therefore bound to rise into the glories of the Hereafter. It
is for this reason that he writes, when describing the death of an amir and a Christian
officer at Acre in 1191:

They fell in the sea and drowned, and they went together to their fate
and acted in concert, and on the roads to the garden and the fire they
separated.lxvi[lxvi]

At other points in the text, ‘Imad al-Din is much more explicit about this. He
describes the death of Frederick Barbarossa in 1190, after his bathe in the River
Saleph

An illness came upon him that took him to hell.lxvii[lxvii]

In this way, ‘Imad al-Din makes it clear that he believes that the Christians are
damned for opposing the Muslims. He also makes it clear that the Muslims are the
true servants of God, and He supports their cause. He describes how God aided the
Muslims at the battle at Sepphoris in May 1187:

They set out and travelled by night, and in the morning they came to
Sepphoris. It was an evil morning for the ones who had been warned
(the Franks). The Franks went to meet them in a troop, and God gave
them a felicitous victory and a splendid triumph.lxviii[lxviii]

‘Imad al-Din also shows the same religiously fatalistic attitude as Ibn Shaddad, in that
all events, including both successes and failures, are due to God’s will. One point at
which he states this explicitly is in his description of Raymond III of Tripoli’s co-
operation with Saladin after the crowning of King Guy in 1186, when he says that it
was an event “of those decreed by God (who is exalted) as causes to aid
Islam.”lxix[lxix] Admittedly, this tends to apply more often to successes, but this is
due more to the fact that ‘Imad al-Din tends to gloss over failures, to the point where
his work seems to simply omit the fact that they took place. One example of this is in
his description of the defeat at Arsuf in September 1191, when he states of the Franks:

They took refuge in the walls of Arsuf, and were it not for (their
doing) that, death would have taken them.lxx[lxx]

In this way, ‘Imad al-Din makes Muslim defeats appear to be victories. The precise
reasons for his doing this are not entirely clear. It may be that he does not wish to
present an account of his time with Saladin that may cast a bad light upon the sultan,
or it may be that, considering the confused nature of the battle at Arsuf, and the fact
that ‘Imad al-Din was not from a military background, and could not, therefore, be
expected to have any military training, he did not realise that the Muslim forces had
been defeated. It seems likely that it was a combination of these two factors that led
him to his point of view.

‘Imad al-Din is not able to completely ignore defeats, however, and so he rationalises
them as having been allowed by God in order to spur them to greater efforts. He
describes the massacre of the volunteers at Le Toron (Tibnin) in July 1189 in these
terms:

The infidels did not (ever) strike the Muslims (again) the way they
were struck this time. After the unveiling to us of victories, we have
tasted a passing of this bitterness. God woke us up from the sleep of
heedlessness, and the people became wary.lxxi[lxxi]

In this way, the Franks become the pawns of God, only allowed to defeat the Muslims
if He specifically decrees it. Thus ‘Imad al-Din presents events as being ordained by
God, and the Franks as being weak and incapable before His will.

Although ‘Imad al-Din’s work lacks a great deal of factual detail regarding the
Franks, he does, nevertheless, give dramatic, detailed accounts of encounters with
them that give further evidence of his hostile attitude towards them. His account of
the Battle of Hattin, for example, contains a large amount of detail regarding the
glorious efforts of the Muslims and the uselessness of the Christians’ attempts to
defeat them. He describes, for example, the effect of the heat upon the Christian
soldiers:

Those dogs, panting with their tongues, and suffering from a disaster
they had brought upon themselves, their thoughts went back to
water, hell met them with its evils, and noon conquered them with its
fire.lxxii[lxxii]

In this way he dramatises his account, and presents the Christians in a bad light.
Occasionally, however, ‘Imad al-Din dramatises his account to such a degree that it
seems to exceed the bounds of plausibility. One example of this occurs in an account
he gives of the battle at Tell al-‘Ayadiyya in October 1189, when he states:

The amazing thing is that those who stood firm, strong against them,
numbered no more than a thousand, and they turned back a hundred
thousand…and the sultan was one of those standing firm in that
expedition, and (one of) the crushers of the people attacking. He had
remained alone when the Muslims turned away. There is no doubt
that God sent down his angels with their power.lxxiii[lxxiii]

It seems likely that in this case, ‘Imad al-Din is attempting to rationalise the fact that
the Muslims were able to defeat such a vastly greater force, and to snatch victory from
the jaws of defeat. His chosen rationalisation, however, is evidence both of his belief
that God was on the Muslim side, and also of his desire to present the Franks in as bad
a light as possible.
Another way in which the work of ‘Imad al-Din differs from that of other writers is in
another aspect of the author’s attitude towards the Franks. As has been mentioned
previously, despite their hostility, the writers mentioned in preceding chapters seem
also to have a grudging respect for the Franks, and this is evident in occasional
compliments that they give to them, and other signs of respect that they display. ‘Imad
al-Din, by contrast, shows no respect at all for the Franks, and there is a noticeable
lack of any details that could be regarded as compliments of them in the text. Even
Raymond III of Tripoli, whom other Arab writers regarded with a certain measure of
respect, is related as having fled the battlefield of Hattin in discouragement upon
having seen the imminent Christian defeat,lxxiv[lxxiv] rather than having attempted a
tactical break-out, as other writers have suggested. ‘Imad al-Din is determined not to
accord any of the Franks a compliment, or signs of any good qualities, and this is
further evidence of his hostility to them.

It is interesting to note that there are two points on which the other writers and ‘Imad
al-Din agree. The first of these is their agreement that Franks are inherently
untrustworthy. In ‘Imad al-Din’s case, this is evident in his relating of the Franks’
breaking of a truce in May 1182:

In that year the Franks behaved treacherously and violated their

treaty.lxxv[lxxv]

In this way, he describes the perfidiousness of the Franks by his choice of language to
describe their breaking of the truce.

The other point on which all the writers agree is on their view of the Franks as being
rather strange.lxxvi[lxxvi] Like Ibn Shaddad, ‘Imad al-Din describes incidents of
women being found fighting among the Frankish forces.lxxvii[lxxvii] His view of the
strangeness of this is confirmed by his comment of “Observe the agreement in
wrongdoing between men and women”.lxxviii[lxxviii] ‘Imad al-Din also expresses
his disapproval of Frankish marriage customs when he relates the marriage of Henry
of Champagne to Isabella de Courtenay, despite her pregnancy, after the murder of
Conrad de Montferrat:

Count Henry married the queen, the wife of the Marquis, on that
night, and slept with her while she was pregnant. Pregnancy is not an
impediment to marriage, according to the Frankish religious creed,
and the child belongs to the queen. This is a rule of this polytheistic
group.lxxix[lxxix]

Thus ‘Imad al-Din shows his disapproval of what seem to him to be strange customs
of the Franks, which he finds offend his moral and cultural sensibilities.

‘Imad al-Din’s work seems, on the whole, to be a much more hostile presentation of
the Franks than that of the other writers. He expresses great hostility towards the
Franks, and avoids writing anything that might cast a good light upon them. He also
shows his disapproval of their practices, and in particular of their attitudes towards
women. He views them as treacherous infidels, cursed by God and ultimately destined
for the fires of Hell. It is interesting to note that ‘Imad al-Din is more vehement
towards the Franks than most of the other writers, and yet in most cases he knows less
about them. The ignorance of ‘Imad al-Din may be the cause of his increased
hostility, as the other writers’ increased understanding of the Franks and their good
qualities is the cause of their grudging respect for them. In this way ‘Imad al-Din’s
account gives the reader a less-educated man’s view of the Franks, which could well
have been the view held by the lower ranks among the Muslim forces. In some ways,
‘Imad al-Din’s account is more indicative of the development of attitudes and clash of
cultures that took place during the period than the accounts of the other chroniclers.
 VI

Ibn al-Athir

Al-Kamil fi’l-Ta’rikh

Ibn al-Athir was a family name given fame by three sons of a high-ranking officer of
the Zangids of Mosul, Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Karim, who was stationed at Cizre
(Jazirat Ibn ‘Umar) when his sons were born. The three sons were Majd al-Din, ‘Izz
al-Din and Diya’ al-Din, and of the three it was the middle son, ‘Izz al-Din, who was
to make the name most famous, and who is the historian known to modern students of
the period as Ibn al-Athir. ‘Izz al-Din Abu’l-Hasan ‘Ali was born on the 4th Jumada I
555/13th May 1160. After completing his education, he went on to spend most of his
adult life in Mosul under a private scholar. He repeatedly visited Baghdad as a pilgrim
or an envoy of the ruler of Mosul, and took the opportunities provided by these
journeys to attempt to study under Baghdadi scholars. He is also recorded at the age
of 28 as having fought in the armies of Saladin against the Crusaders, probably with
his brother Diya’ al-Din. Towards the end of his life, in 626-8/1228-31, Ibn al-Athir
spent time as a guest of the atabeg of Aleppo, interrupting this stay at one point in
order to spend a year in Damascus. During his stay at Aleppo, he was asked by the
dying Yaqut to handle the transfer of his books and papers to a Baghdadi foundation
after his death, something that he is reported to have done ineptly. Ibn al-Athir died in
Sha‘ban or Ramadan 630/May-June 1233.

Ibn al-Athir wrote a variety of works, including improved compendia of Sam‘ani’s

Ansab and earlier collections of biographies of contemporaries of the Prophet, entitled
Al-Lubab and Usd al-Ghaba. He also wrote a short work on the Zangid dynasty of
Mosul, Al-Bahir, which he based on the knowledge of both himself and his father.
However, by far his most famous work is Al-Kamil fi’l-Ta’rikh,lxxx[lxxx] a history of
the world beginning at its creation and going up to the year 628.lxxxi[lxxxi] The
Kamil is a detailed, mostly unbiased chronicle of this period, and is particularly useful
as a chronicle of the Crusades. It is considered to be the third major source for the life
of Saladin and is also useful, due to its attention to detail, as a source for the Franks
and their interaction with the Muslims, despite its having been written from a Muslim
perspective, and therefore having a slightly restricted point of view. The only major
flaw of the Kamil is that, for most of the work, Ibn al-Athir neglects to report where
his information comes from. It is known that he made use of other writers, including
Ibn al-Qalanisilxxxii[lxxxii] and Usama ibn Munqidh,lxxxiii[lxxxiii] and he does
occasionally make reference to either information his father has given
him,lxxxiv[lxxxiv] or to his own experience,lxxxv[lxxxv] but in general he makes
few references to his sources of information. The exception to this general rule is
when he quotes poetry, in which case he usually gives the name of the author. For
example, in his description of the aftermath of the destruction of Banyas in 1179, Ibn
al-Athir states:

The poets said much on this, and among those (comments) are the
words of our friend al-Nashw ibn Naffadha, may God have mercy on
him:
 The destruction of the Franks came soon, and the breaking of their
crosses had come,

If their deaths had not drawn near, the house of their grief would not
have been built.lxxxvi[lxxxvi]

Despite this general lack of information regarding Ibn al-Athir’s sources, it is

apparent from the large amount of detail contained in the text that Ibn al-Athir had
access to a lot of information concerning the Franks and their interaction with the
Muslims. This view is further supported by the fact that Ibn al-Athir’s father was a
high-ranking officer, and therefore was likely to have had a great deal of experience
of both negotiations and conflicts with the Franks, and likewise, Ibn al-Athir himself,
as an envoy of the rulers of Mosul and a member of the Mosuli forces, also had
experience in these areas.

Ibn al-Athir also shows his knowledge of the Franks through the fact that he
differentiates between them. Like Usama ibn Munqidh and Ibn Shaddad, Ibn al-Athir
treats the Franks as a variety of peoples from a variety of nations, rather than simply
one mass known as “al-Faranj”. He also shows a knowledge of Frankish politics,
which he displays when he discusses the effect of the coronation of Guy de Lusignan
on Raymond III of Tripoli’s relations with Saladin.lxxxvii[lxxxvii] This knowledge of
the Franks is probably a result of the important position Ibn al-Athir held in Muslim
society, and the access to information he gained as a result.

Given these factors, it is reasonable to assume that Ibn al-Athir had an extremely good
knowledge of the Franks and their behaviour. In addition, Ibn al-Athir’s account may
be seen as even more reliable because of its impartiality. Unlike the other writers, Ibn
al-Athir shows little bias towards either side, and neither does he shirk away from
admitting Muslim defeats and mistakes of strategy that may have led to Christian
victories, such as their refraining from attacking Guy de Lusignan’s forces before they
reached Acre in August 1189, which he explicitly describes as a mistake:

Were it not for the fact that the army followed the opinion of Salah
al-Din in their manner of arrangement and fighting before they
reached Acre, they would have achieved their aim and blocked (the
Franks) from it.lxxxviii[lxxxviii]

In this way, it is apparent that Ibn al-Athir is writing an unbiased account, showing
little or no partiality to either side.

Due to the objective, unbiased nature of Ibn al-Athir’s account, it is difficult to assess
his own particular view of the Franks, and his attitude towards them. In many ways,
he shows an ambiguous attitude, similar to that of Usama or Ibn Shaddad, only due to
the objectivity that he maintains, the attitude is even more ambiguous. Ibn al-Athir
shows very few emotional responses to the Franks in the text, but from those that
there are, one may draw a certain amount of information, leading to the conclusion
that he, much like the other two mentioned above, is unsure of his attitude towards the
Franks.
In many ways, the Franks are much less clearly defined as an enemy for Ibn al-Athir,
and this is reflected in the fact that he usually refers to them simply as “al-Faranj”,
rather than the “enemy” of Ibn Shaddad. However, Ibn al-Athir does occasionally
make use of hostile suffixes, such as “may God forsake them”,lxxxix[lxxxix] when
referring to the Franks, and even goes so far as to call them “the devils of the
Franks”xc[xc] at one point in his work. He also occasionally singles out particular
Frankish leaders for criticism and hostility. For example, at one point he refers to
Conrad de Montferrat as “the greatest of the devils of the Franks”.xci[xci] However,
much like in the work of Ibn Shaddad, these suffixes are usually only added as
afterthoughts, or at points where the Franks have committed particularly heinous acts,
and so it is difficult to judge how sincere Ibn al-Athir’s hostility is.

Indeed, despite his apparent hostility, Ibn al-Athir is unable to refrain from showing
the same grudging respect for the Franks as is shown by most of the other writers. For
example, when referring to Raymond III of Tripoli, he states:

At that time the Franks had no-one who was of more importance,
braver or wiser.xcii[xcii]

In this way, he shows a similar admiration for the Franks as that shown by Ibn
Shaddad, which makes his account seem ambiguous. The account is made even more
ambiguous by occasional instances when Ibn al-Athir seems to curse and praise the
Franks in the same breath, as it were. One example of this occurs in an earlier
reference to Conrad de Montferrat, in which he states:

He was a devil of a man, good at arranging and defending things. He

had great bravery.xciii[xciii]

This simultaneous praising and cursing of the Franks serves only to increase even
further the ambiguities of attitude present in the text.

Whatever Ibn al-Athir’s personal feelings about the Franks, it is nonetheless clearly
defined for him that the Franks are the enemies of God, and that the Muslims are His
chosen people. Although he does not seem to have the same theories on God
compensating the Muslims for their defeats as those held by Ibn Shaddad, he does
refer repeatedly to God protecting the Muslims, and opposing the Christians. One
example of this is apparent in Ibn al-Athir’s account of the burning of the Frankish
siege towers at Acre in May 1190, which he ascribes to the aid of God:

God brought them (the Muslims) victory from his side, and allowed
the towers to be burned…God hastened for them (the Franks) the fire
in this world, before the Hereafter.xciv[xciv]

Thus Ibn al-Athir makes it clear that, in his opinion, God is opposed to the Franks and
aids the Muslims.

There are two characteristics of the Franks upon which all three of the sources for the
life of Saladin agree. The first of these is upon their untrustworthiness, a characteristic
that, as has been mentioned above, is also commented on by Usama ibn Munqidh and
Ibn al-Qalanisi. Like the other writers, Ibn al-Athir also refers to the dishonest
treachery of the Franks in breaking treaties. One example he cites of this is in their
breaking of their truce with Nur al-Din in 1172:

Two ships went out from Egypt to Syria and anchored at the city of
Latakia, and the Franks took them over…There was a truce between
them and Nur al-Din, and they violated it and behaved treacherously.
Nur al-Din sent to them for an explanation and the return of the
goods and merchants they had taken. They deceived him and argued
with him over the matter, (saying) that the ships had been wrecked
and water had entered them, and the regulation was that they could
take every ship that was wrecked and that water had entered. He did
not believe their deception, and gathered the armies and deployed
raiding parties in their country.xcv[xcv]

Later in the text, Ibn al-Athir shows that it is not only him that regards the Franks as
being untrustworthy, when he refers to Richard’s requests for a truce in 1192:

Salah al-Din did not assent to what he had requested, thinking that he
only did that as a deception and trick.xcvi[xcvi]

In this way, Ibn al-Athir shows that Saladin also thought that the Franks were
untrustworthy, a point of view which is understandable, given the experience he had
of their repeated breaking of truces.

The other characteristic upon which Ibn al-Athir agrees with the other two sources for
the life of Saladin, as well as the work of Usama, is on the Franks’ strangeness. He
agrees in particular with the sources for Saladin when he refers to the Franks’
attitudes towards women. He remarks on an incident during the siege of Burzey in
August 1188:

I saw…a women shooting from the castle with a mangonel, and it

was she who was thwarting the Muslim mangonels.xcvii[xcvii]

The fact that Ibn al-Athir remarks on this, and in particular, emphasises the fact that
he saw it (in the Arabic, he uses the personal pronoun “ana” after the verb), indicates
that he considered it strange, and therefore worthy of mention. Thus he has the same
perception of the strangeness of the Franks as that held by Ibn Shaddad and ‘Imad al-
Din.

Ibn al-Athir’s work is, in its very nature, ironic. Of the three main sources popularly
cited for the life of Saladin, it is the most detailed, and so, in many ways, it is the best
source for the Franks and their interaction with the Muslims of the period. However,
despite its attention to detail, the text is, in some ways, the least useful source of
information on the Franks, as its objectivity means that, although it is useful as a
record of events involving the Franks, it reveals little of the attitudes prevalent at the
time. Fortunately, Ibn al-Athir is unable to maintain this objectivity throughout the
text, and the few instances where he allows it to slip allow the modern reader to gain a
better impression of his attitudes.
It seems that Ibn al-Athir’s view of the Franks is, in many ways, similar to that of
Usama ibn Munqidh or Ibn Shaddad, in that he is aware that they are the enemy of
both the Muslims and God, and so he feels that he ought to be hostile towards them.
Yet despite this he, like the others, finds himself able to appreciate their good
qualities, and is unable to prevent himself from feeling a certain amount of respect for
them. This leads to the ambiguity of view that is apparent in the text.

The strangeness of the Franks, which Ibn al-Athir touches on, albeit to a lesser degree
than Ibn Shaddad or ‘Imad al-Din, is once again an indication of the development of
attitudes and cultural conflict which took place during the period. The fact that he
does not devote as large an amount of his text to it as do the other two writers is a
result of his desire to maintain an objective view, and does not detract from its
significance. He is as much a witness to the conflict as they are, and is no less affected
by it.
 VII

Conclusion

It is apparent, from the sources examined in this dissertation, that a number of

characteristics developed in Muslim attitudes towards and writings about the Franks,
as a result of their arrival and subsequent settlement in the Levant, which affected the
way they were presented. Some of these characteristics remained throughout the
period examined, whereas others either developed later or changed significantly from
their original nature. These changes were the result of the increased contact with the
Franks, itself a result of their settlement in the area, which led to increased
understanding of their attitudes and motivations. This increased understanding is most
apparent in the writings of Ibn Shaddad, Usama ibn Munqidh and Ibn al-Athir, whose
high-ranking positions enabled them to have a large amount of contact with the
Franks on a diplomatic level. As a result, they show a much deeper understanding of
the Franks, their motivations, and the different groups that exist within their ranks.
Nevertheless, it is apparent that even the less high-ranking Muslims had increased
contact with the Franks as time progressed, even if it did not lead to the same depth of
understanding.

The most apparent characteristic in Muslim presentation of the Franks that remains
largely unchanged throughout the period is the Muslim view of the Franks as being
infidels and the enemies of God. Throughout all five of the works examined, the
Franks are presented in this way. Even in works that do not seem to be genuinely
hostile towards the Franks, there is still a pervading view of the Franks in these terms.

The view of the Franks as being particularly untrustworthy is another that remains
throughout all the texts examined. This suggests that the Christians were, indeed,
treacherous in their conduct towards the Muslims, the reason for this possibly being
the fact that they were not required, by Christian standards, to keep oaths made to
infidels. One example of this is the case of Guy de Lusignan, who was absolved from
his oath not to fight Saladin in the summer of 1188 by Christian priests, who claimed
that the oath could not be kept because his religion was in danger. When this is
considered, and also the conduct of oath-breakers such as Reynald de Châtillon, then
it becomes apparent that the Muslim view was founded on a certain degree of fact.
The fact that every writer mentions it suggests that the practice must have been fairly
widespread.

The other main view which remains unchanged throughout Muslim writings is the
ability of the Muslims to appreciate the good characteristics of their enemies, the only
exception being in the writings of ‘Imad al-Din al-Isfahani. All the other writers show
an appreciation of their enemies’ good qualities, although to Muslim writers, these are
of secondary importance, as the Christians are still the enemies of God.

Of the features that develop in the texts as time progresses, the most apparent is the
development of the use of hostile suffixes, such as “may God forsake them,” in
Muslim writings. The fact that this feature is introduced very suddenly towards the
end of the Ta’rikh, then is used regularly in the Kitab al-I‘tibar, then less frequently
in the Nawadir and the Kamil, suggests that the use of hostile suffixes developed
almost as a fashion, becoming common usage for a while, then faded gradually. It is
the hope of this author, as mentioned above, that further research will reveal more
about this topic.xcviii[xcviii]

The other characteristic that develops through the texts as time progresses is the view
of the Franks as being rather strange. It is understandable that this characteristic
should develop as a result of increased contact with the Franks, but it is interesting to
note how it changes through the period of its development. The most apparent change
seems to be in the Muslim attitude towards the Franks’ treatment of women. Usama
ibn Munqidh, the first writer to comment on the Franks’ strangeness, does not
mention any incident where he was surprised to find women in the Frankish forces,
and it is apparent from his writing that he does not find it surprising when Muslim
women gird themselves for war. This is a contrast to Ibn Shaddad, ‘Imad al-Din and
Ibn al-Athir, all of whom remark on incidents they witnessed of women fighting in
the Christian forces. However, it is not clear if this disparity between texts is a result
of a change in Muslim perspective, or of the different backgrounds of the writers. Of
all the writers, Usama was the only one who was of Bedouin origin, a society in
which women were required to be more independent, whereas the others were all of
urban stock, and it is possible that this is the reason for their varying attitudes, rather
than a genuine change in more universal Muslim attitudes.

There is one feature of Muslim presentation of the Franks which is apparent in all the
texts, but which changes its nature as the texts progress chronologically. All the works
show a certain amount of hostility towards the Franks, but only in the works of Ibn al-
Qalanisi and ‘Imad al-Din does this seem to be very genuine. The works of Usama,
Ibn Shaddad and Ibn al-Athir all show a certain ambiguity of attitude towards the
Franks, rather than outright hostility. In this way, it seems that increased Muslim
contact with the Franks led to a lessening in hostility towards them, as a result of a
greater awareness of their motivations and good qualities.

In many ways, all five of the works examined in this dissertation are testimonies to
the cultural clash that took place between the Muslims and the Franks during the early
period of the Crusades. They give accounts of the hostility and misunderstandings
between the two sides, as well as the religious conflicts of which, very often, they
were the consequences. The presentation of the Franks in these texts is most
important, however, as an indication of how increased contact between the two sides
resulted in the development of Muslim attitudes towards the Franks, and led to
increased understanding.
 Bibliography

Primary Sources:

Abu Shama, Extract from Kitab al-Rawdatayn fi Akhbar al-Dawlatayn in Recueil des
Historiens des Croisades: Historiens Orientaux. Vols. IV-V, Farnborough: Gregg
Press Limited, 1967.

Baha’ al-Din Ibn Shaddad, Al-Nawadir al-Sultaniyya w'al-Mahasin al-Yusufiyya in

Recueil des Historiens des Croisades: Historiens Orientaux. Vol. III, Farnborough:
Gregg Press Limited, 1967.

Ibn al-Athir, ed. Tornberg, C. J., Al-Kamil fi’l-Ta’rikh. 13 vols., Leiden: E. J. Brill,
1986.

Ibn al-Athir, Extract from Al-Kamil fi’l-Ta’rikh in Recueil des Historiens des
Croisades: Historiens Orientaux. Vols. I-II, Farnborough, Gregg Press Limited, 1967.

Ibn al-Qalanisi, ed. Zakar, S., Ta’rikh Dimashq. Damascus: Dar Hassan li’l-Tiba‘a
w’al-Nashr, 1983.

Ibn al-Qalanisi, trans. & ed. Gibb, H. A. R., The Damascus Chronicle of the
Crusades. London: Luzac & Co., 1932.

Usama ibn Munqidh, trans. Hitti, P. K., Memoirs of an Arab-Syrian Gentleman.

Beirut: Khayats, 1964.

Secondary Sources:

Cahen, Cl., Entry on IBN AL-KALANISI in The Encyclopaedia of Islam. (New

Edition), Vol. III, Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1979.

Gamal El-Din El-Shayyal, Entry on IBN SHADDAD in The Encyclopaedia of Islam.

(New Edition), Vol. III, Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1971.

Humphreys, R. S., Entry on MUNKIDH in The Encyclopaedia of Islam. (New

Edition), Vol. VII, Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1993.

Lyons, M. C. and Jackson, D. E. P., Saladin: The Politics of Holy War. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1984.

Massé, H., Entry on ‘IMAD AL-DIN in The Encyclopaedia of Islam. (New Edition),
Vol. III, Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1971.

Mayer, H. E., trans. Gillingham, J., The Crusades. London, Oxford University Press,
1972.
Rosenthal, F., Entry on IBN AL-ATHIR in The Encyclopaedia of Islam. (New
Edition), Vol. III, Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1971.

Other Useful Works:

Dozy, R., Supplement aux Dictionnaires Arabes. (2nd Edition), 2 vols., Beirut:
Librairie de Liban, 1981.

Gaube, H. and Wirth, E., Aleppo: Historische und Geographische Beiträge zur
Baulichen Gestaltung, zur Sozialen Organisation und zur Wirtschaftlichen Dynamik
einer Vorderasiatischen Fernhandelsmetropole. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert
Verlag, 1984.

Holt, P. M., The Age of the Crusades. New York, Longman, 1986.

Sauvaget, J., Entry on HALAB in The Encyclopaedia of Islam. (New Edition), Vol.
III, Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1971.

Wehr, H., ed. Cowan, J. M., A Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic. (3rd Edition),
New York: Spoken Language Services Inc., 1976.

© Niall Christie 2002 .

References

i[i] Cl. Cahen, Entry on IBN AL-KALANISI in The Encyclopaedia of Islam, Vol.
III, p. 815.

ii[ii] H. A. R. Gibb, The Damascus Chronicle of the Crusades, p. 357.

iii[iii] Henceforth Ta’rikh.

iv[iv] Gibb, p. 9.

v[v] Cahen, p. 815.

vi[vi] Ibn al-Qalanisi, the Ta’rikh, Ed. S. Zakar, p. 306. Zakar has given his edition of
the text the title Ta’rikh Dimashq, rather than its full title of Dhayl Ta’rikh Dimashq.

vii[vii] Ibn al-Qalanisi, p. 461.

viii[viii] Ibn al-Qalanisi, p. 374.

ix[ix] Ibn al-Qalanisi, p. 536.

x[x] Ibn al-Qalanisi, p. 423.

xi[xi] Ibn al-Qalanisi, p. 222.

xii[xii] Ibn al-Qalanisi, p. 258.

xiii[xiii] Ibn al-Qalanisi, p. 277.

xiv[xiv] Ibn al-Qalanisi, p. 295.

xv[xv] P. K. Hitti, Memoirs of an Arab-Syrian Gentleman, p. 3.

xvi[xvi] R. S. Humphreys, Entry on MUNKIDH in The Encyclopaedia of Islam, Vol.

VII, pp. 557-80.

xvii[xvii] Hitti, p. 46. Having been unable to gain access to an original Arabic copy of
the text, the author has chosen to use this translation, assuming it to be reasonably
accurate.

xviii[xviii] Hitti, pp. 163-4.

xix[xix] Hitti, p. 161.

xx[xx] Hitti, pp. 161-70. The chapter title has been added by Hitti.

xxi[xxi] Hitti, p. 163.

xxii[xxii] Hitti, p. 27.

xxiii[xxiii] Hitti, p. 97.

xxiv[xxiv] Hitti, p. 96.

xxv[xxv] Hitti, p. 161.

xxvi[xxvi] Hitti, p. 178.

xxvii[xxvii] Hitti, p. 230.

xxviii[xxviii] Hitti, p. 243.

xxix[xxix] Hitti, p. 41.

xxx[xxx] Hitti, p. 165.

xxxi[xxxi] Hitti, p. 61.

xxxii[xxxii] Hitti, p. 164.

xxxiii[xxxiii] Hitti, p. 162.

xxxiv[xxxiv] Hitti, pp. 153-4 and 158-9.

xxxv[xxxv] Hitti, p. 158.

xxxvi[xxxvi] It has not been possible to discover any further details concerning these
institutions, despite consultation of both J. Sauvaget’s entry on HALAB in The
Encyclopaedia of islam, Vol. III, pp. 85-90, and H. Gaube and E. Wirth, Aleppo:
Historische und Geographische Beiträge zur Baulichen Gestaltung, zzur Sozialen
Organisation und zur Wirtschaftlichen Dynamik einer Vorderasiatischen
Fernhandelsmetropole.

xxxvii[xxxvii] Gamal El-Din El-Shayyal, Entry on IBN SHADDAD in The

Encyclopaedia of Islam, Vol. III, pp. 933-4.

xxxviii[xxxviii] Henceforth Nawadir.

xxxix[xxxix] Ibn Shaddad, the Nawadir, in Recueil des Historiens des Croisades:
Historiens Orientaux, Vol. III, p. 5.

xl[xl] Ibn Shaddad, p. 186. He repeats this mistake on p. 283.

xli[xli] Ibn Shaddad, p. 271.

xlii[xlii] Ibn Shaddad, p. 228.

xliii[xliii] Ibn Shaddad, p. 138.

xliv[xliv] Ibn Shaddad, p. 45.

xlv[xlv] Ibn Shaddad, p. 270.

xlvi[xlvi] Ibn Shaddad, p. 297.

xlvii[xlvii] Ibn Shaddad, p. 64.

xlviii[xlviii] Ibn Shaddad, pp. 235-6.

xlix[xlix] As noted by the (unnamed) editor of this part of the Recueil on p. 236.

l[l] Ibn Shaddad, pp. 242-3.

li[li] Ibn Shaddad, p. 284.

lii[lii] Ibn Shaddad, p. 252.

liii[liii] Ibn Shaddad, p. 254.

liv[liv] Ibn Shaddad, p. 232.

lv[lv] Ibn Shaddad, p. 139.

lvi[lvi] Henceforth Fath.

lvii[lvii] Henceforth Barq.

lviii[lviii] H. Massé, Entry on IMAD AL-DIN in The Encyclopaedia of Islam, Vol.

III, pp. 1157-8.

lix[lix] Henceforth Rawdatayn. The version used for this chapter is that in the Recueil
des Historiens des Croisades: Historiens Orientaux, Vol. IV-V.

lx[lx] Abu Shama, Rawdatayn, Vol. IV, p. 14.

lxi[lxi] Abu Shama, Rawdatayn, Vol. V, p. 148.

lxii[lxii] Abu Shama, Vol. IV, p. 270.

lxiii[lxiii] Abu Shama, Vol. IV, p. 425.

lxiv[lxiv] Ibn al-Qalanisi, p. 536.

lxv[lxv] Abu Shama, Vol. IV, p. 264.

lxvi[lxvi] Abu Shama, Vol. IV, p. 522.

lxvii[lxvii] Abu Shama, Vol. IV, p. 458.

lxviii[lxviii] Abu Shama, Vol. IV, p. 262.

lxix[lxix] Abu Shama, Vol. IV, p. 257.

lxx[lxx] Abu Shama, Vol. V, p. 38.

lxxi[lxxi] Abu Shama, Vol. IV, p. 405.

lxxii[lxxii] Abu Shama, Vol. IV, p. 267.

lxxiii[lxxiii] Abu Shama, Vol. IV, p. 425.

lxxiv[lxxiv] Abu Shama, Vol. IV, p. 269.

lxxv[lxxv] Abu Shama, Vol. IV, p. 216.

lxxvi[lxxvi] Ibn al-Qalanisi is the sole exception to this.

lxxvii[lxxvii] Abu Shama, Vol. IV, pp. 434 and 468.

lxxviii[lxxviii] Abu Shama, Vol. IV, p. 434.

lxxix[lxxix] Abu Shama, Vol. V, pp. 52-3.

lxxx[lxxx] Henceforth Kamil.

lxxxi[lxxxi] F. Rosenthal, Entry on IBN AL-ATHIR in The Encyclopaedia of Islam,

Vol. III, pp. 723-5.

lxxxii[lxxxii] Cahen, p. 815.

lxxxiii[lxxxiii] Humphreys, pp. 577-80.

lxxxiv[lxxxiv] Ibn al-Athir, extract from the Kamil in Recueil des Historiens des
Croisades: Historiens Orientaux, Vol. I, p. 454. The extract which has been used for
quotations and references in this chapter is contained in Vols. I and II of the Recueil.

lxxxv[lxxxv] Ibn al-Athir, Vol. I, pp. 579, 688 and 726.

lxxxvi[lxxxvi] Ibn al-Athir, Vol. I, p. 639.

lxxxvii[lxxxvii] Ibn al-Athir, Vol. I, pp. 674-5.

lxxxviii[lxxxviii] Ibn al-Athir, Vol. II, pp. 6-7.

lxxxix[lxxxix] Ibn al-Athir, Vol. I, p. 205.

xc[xc] Ibn al-Athir, Vol. I, p. 296.

xci[xci] Ibn al-Athir, Vol. II, p. 58.

xcii[xcii] Ibn al-Athir, Vol. I, p. 674.

xciii[xciii] Ibn al-Athir, Vol. I, p. 695.

xciv[xciv] Ibn al-Athir, Vol. II, p. 19-20.

xcv[xcv] Ibn al-Athir, Vol. I, p. 584.

xcvi[xcvi] Ibn al-Athir, Vol. II, p. 65.

xcvii[xcvii] Ibn al-Athir, Vol. I, p. 726.

xcviii[xcviii] A full discussion of this topic may be found in Niall Christie, “The
Origins of Suffixed Invocations of God's Curse on the Franks in Muslim Sources for
the Crusades,” Arabica, Vol. 48 (2001), pp. 254-66.