Replies

The Jews allied themselves with Muslims for the very logical reason that Muslims of the time treated them much better than Christians did.
__________________________________________________________
In what time and place? The muslim / christian conflict started in 600 ad and lasted well into 1600 ad. A very amorphous statement -- basically meaningless. Are you saying the Jews in that 1,000 years were always noble and rational and right?!
____________________________________________________
Crusaders slaughtered Jews in Europe and the Middle East for equally logical reasons. While the Pope and kings may have had the geopolitical motives discussed by the author, most of the Crusaders intended to just kill the enemies of God. Why travel all the way to Palestine to kill Muslims when Jews, equally the enemies of God, are right here in Germany?
________________________________________________________
One time and place, one event, which within the article is said to have been condemned by two Popes of the time. Do you really know the motivations of the people involved? My point is that this was a 1,000 year long conflict and people take one day, one moment and extrapolate some theory or viewpoint based on that, and without much knowledge even about the event or the time -- which is nonsense. I'm not very knowledgeable about the that millenium of conflict -- but at least I know that I don't know! The article points out that the history of the Crusades was sort of twisted or corrupted by the British to support their imperial worldview in the 1800's. The crusades are an intersection of politics and religion . . . so the reality of the times are going to get twisted by propagandists even more than usual.

Are you saying the Jews in that 1,000 years were always noble and rational and right?!

Nope. And I'm not sure how you can get that from my post.

I was referring mainly to the primary episodes of Muslim conquest of Christian territories prior to 1000.

These were the conquest of Syria, Egypt, North Africa and Spain. In all these areas the Jews had been undergoing intensifying persecution for decades or centuries. When the Muslims showed up, the enemy of my enemy meme kicked in. It was very logical.

BTW, the conquest of these regions was probably facilitated to an even greater extent by Catholic persecution of other Christians: Arians, Donatists, Monophysites, among others.

What goes around comes around and all that. The Muslims were initially greatly outnumbered by their opponents and very poorly equipped for combat against them. These conquests were probably about as much revolts of the oppressed as they wer conquests by foreign armies. At the very least it is obvious the natives had little interest in resisting conquest, leaving defense up to the imperial armies only.

Which brings up the question of why there was so little loyalty to the Empire.

It is also a fact that when Spain, Portugal, England and other "Christian" countries were expelling Jews, Muslim countries were happy to take them in and give them a place in society where they could prosper. It was admittedly a subservient place, but there was no place for Jews at all in these "Christian" countries.

The article points out that the history of the Crusades was sort of twisted or corrupted by the British to support their imperial worldview in the 1800's.

I'm not sure this is accurate. The only Arab country the British (sort of) controlled during part of the 1800s was Egypt, with occasional trading posts and forts elswhere.

The heartland of the Arab world didn't come under European rule till after WWI, and ended shortly after WWII.

There is this idea out there that centuries of foreign domination warped Arab society, when in fact European control didn't last much over 25 years.

I also fail to see how dragging in the history of the Crusades would be helpful to British rule. I'm curious if anybody has a reference for the Brits using it in this way.