Abstract
Just about any anthology will leave something out, though this volume attempts to include documents that reflect on more than merely a history of military, political, economic, social, religious, and philosophical conflict. Yet when considering David Thomas and Barbara Roggema’s eleven volume Christian-Muslim Relations Bibliographical History, the question inevitably arises as to whether any single volume such as this one could possibly do justice to the extensive array of primary sources. Given that this collection is presumably intended for the classroom rather than for reference purposes, Rodriguez may have succeeded in doing just that.
Rodriguez’s introduction gives a solid, albeit brief historical setting and begins its consideration of texts with the Pact of Umar, which purported to govern the Muslim approach to the defeated Christians of Jerusalem in 636 C.E. But what of the letters of Muhammad to the Byzantine Emperor, the ruler of Persia, the Negus of Ethiopia, and others, ostensibly from less than a generation earlier? Some may argue that Muhammad’s letters are later compositions projected back into history for ideological purposes. However, even the Pact of Umar is open to critical investigation, and many historians consider the Pact as we now know it to be, at best, elaborations of some problematic Ur-text which in a manner reminiscent of Gerhard von Rad’s “wandering Aramean” thesis, serves as a literary nucleus to which later accretions are added.
How much of such early documents is authentic in content or even “true” is not always the most important question facing the researcher. Texts edited subsequent to the events they depict often ascribe significance only seen in retrospect. This does not necessarily make them any less “true” even if the manner in which the editing has taken place has made the documents less “real.” There is, indeed, much to be learned on the question of Christian-Muslim relations from the letters of Muhammad to the Emperor of Byzantium as well as from the Pact of Umar.
By contrast, some of the topics included here have become the stuff of legend. Figures such as Saladin and Richard the Lionheart have come to border on the mythic in the popular imagination. From the primary sources presented here, they are barely recognizable. The historical record therefore takes on all the more importance for both students and researchers.
Of course, while chronology has an inevitable impact on the order in which texts are presented, the present collection initially focuses readers on hostilities and power relationships between Muslims, who were by and large in the ascendant, and the declining fortunes of Christians, whether Byzantines of western Asia or Visigoths of Iberia. This focus has a tendency to validate implicitly Samuel P. Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations thesis as proposed in the late twentieth century. Whether applying this thesis in such a manner is anachronistic or actually sound tends to beg the question, of course, as to whether Huntington’s thesis itself holds water; the order of presentation of primary texts in this collection, however, clearly, if unintentionally, reinforces the notion that Huntington is “settled theory.”
To his credit, Rodriguez has chosen diverse materials deliberately to reflect differing points of view, from either side of the religious divide, with each document editorially introduced with accompanying notation of the translator and monograph in which it appeared. While the table of contents lists 89 entries or topics, the actual number of documents reproduced is much higher: for example, four separate records address the First Crusade (topic number fourteen).
Left unspoken are the reasons for variances among these multiple reports. Christian accounts of the first Crusade as reproduced here do not spare the reader’s sensibilities, describing blood flowing so freely in Jerusalem that the ankles of mounted knights were awash in it. By contrast, the relatively terse Muslim description presented does not go into such detail. Is the comparatively restrained Muslim reporting not made by an eyewitness and therefore less descriptive? Does the report somehow wish to minimize the catastrophe by not dwelling on it for fear of demoralizing Muslim populations? Perhaps the report selected for inclusion is uncharacteristic of the broader literature treating this episode. We have no way of knowing, at least from the present volume.
Style, tone, and register plainly changes depending upon the audience for any particular document. “Internal” documents often take a more measured temper, even while preserving beliefs and ideals that relate more to the self-image of one’s society than more objective standards. Thus, when reports on negotiations are forwarded to “headquarters”, most of the polemic found in pieces meant for purposes of propaganda inexorably disappears, even while language slanting in favor of one party or another—or in favor of the document’s author—still has place. Does any of this mean that Muslims and Christians did not believe their own “spin”? Perhaps not, but writers on both sides of an issue clearly understood the nature of the arguments being made in light of their publics. Many of these documents are treasure troves providing insight into the minds, motivations, and ambitions of various players and factions. Indeed, neither the Christian “side” nor the Muslim “side” was monolithic, with occasional cross-religious allegiances shifting to gain temporary advantage.
Many documents are more literary than prosaic accounts chronicling speeches, battles, or negotiations. While Le Chanson de Roland re-cast a rear-guard military action as a Christian-Muslim battle (historically, no Muslims were involved, the two forces being Franks and Basques), El Cid was an epic built upon a relatively early period of the Christian Reconquista. Roland does not figure in this anthology, but the personage of El Cid is presented in two extensive passages from primary documents. The first largely reflects the heroic figure found in epic literature, while the second shows not only a ruthless side of the historical personage, but also serves as a reminder that “war is hell,” no matter how heroic some of the prominent warriors may—or may not—have been in their conduct.
If accounts of the non-military conflicts between the religious communities will not be as familiar to those of us who have concentrated on dates of battles, of calls to Holy War, and epic literature, that does not mean that the histories of friendly contests or even cooperation among members of these competing religions are any less “exciting.” Among some of the more eye-opening pieces include a Jewish observer of both Christians and Muslims in late twelfth-century Spain. Such a piece, to be sure, is not entirely devoid of prejudicial stereotyping found in Muslim observations of newly arrived Franks in the Levant during the crusader period, or in an English historian’s thirteenth-century views on Islam which, the editor notes, does contain some accurate observations.
Even more compelling are some of the social histories compiled concerning religious minorities in both Christendom as well as the Islamic ummah. Indeed, returning to a theme found at the opening of the anthology, the situation of the dhimmi in the Levant is revisited during the crusader period. However, not everything was about power relationships. Rodriguez devotes one of the final chapters to cultural and intellectual contacts and borrowings. Clearly there was admiration, albeit occasionally grudging admiration, for the Other when it came to fields such as medicine, geography, and “Arabic Sciences,” inter alia. And while instruction of Arabic by Christians was basically regarded as yet another tool in the contest for territories and converts, therein lay the seeds by which later generations, pursuing linguistic excellence, would find a gateway into knowing the mind of the “enemy.” Indeed, the Church itself, which was the source of educational pursuits, saw to it that Arabic instruction was funded.
The final topics are grouped together in Chapter 10, “Of Love and Bondage.” The section entitled “Forbidden Love,” needless to say, concerns cross-religious relationships, of which many examples from different social levels are given. But while such pairings would raise few eyebrows among us living in the twenty-first century, readings such as “How to Purchase a Slave” are only a little more intriguing than what might be expected from a somewhat pedestrian section entitled “The Taking and Freeing of Captives in Iberia.” The survival of an insider’s account on the Janissaries, however, while less titillating, is nonetheless quite fascinating to both those interested in military matters as well as those with an interest in social history.
Sadly, the University of Toronto Press made use of publishing software that has difficulties in recognizing certain ligatures: for example, what should appear as “flesh” is reproduced as “Hesh” (5), while the phrase “stones and fire” appears instead as “stones and tire” (62). Occasionally there are inconsistencies in transliteration of Arabic words into Roman script: the name an-Nahhal is spelled differently several times within the same paragraph (71) and the name of the month Sha’ban (68) is not consistently capitalized. While such distractions are minor, they do interrupt the reader’s concentration. Indeed, “Behold!” is reproduced as “Behold I” (56), as if a monarch were being named.
Mechanics aside, this volume is a welcome addition to the literature. Indeed, if this reviewer could do so, he would enroll in one of Professor Rodriguez’s classes that make use of this commendable collection of primary sources.