© Copyright 2007-2008 The Straight Path
JDHarr2: It is not well appreciated in the West that when the Crusaders left, the Eastern Christians of the area still had to live in the neighborhood.

While it is true that one of the contributory causes of the Crusades was the destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in 1009 on orders of
the slightly deranged Fatimid ruler al-Hakim, this is an example of an account taking on a life of its own after reality outstripped the stories.
Relations between the Fatimids and the Byzantine actually improved under al-Hakim's successors during the remainder of the eleventh century,
and the Byzantines were allowed to rebuild the church. By the middle of that same century, the Fatimids had their hands full with the Sunni Seljuq
Turks. It is not clear whether and to what extent the Crusaders understand the difference between Shi'ite Fatimids and Sunni Seljuqs (they were all
covered by the term "Saracens," just as the Crusaders were called "Franks" by the Muslims, "Crusader" being a much later coinage for them).
Jerusalem itself changed hands a few times, and by the time the Crusaders arrived in 1099, it was again garrisoned by the Fatimids (about a
thousand, all of whom were released under the surrender terms, which, however, did not cover the local population) (Hitti, "History of the
Arabs," [St.Martins, 9th ed., 1967], pp. 620-21 and 638-39)

While The Holy Lands were purportedly being defended and "recaptured" for "Christianity," there does not seem to have been much of an attempt
by the Western "Christians" to return those lands to the local Christians, who were descendents of the local inhabitants. When the Crusaders
finally left, moreover, relations between the Muslims and the local Eastern Christians were forever poisoned. Subsequent events between Muslims
and Christians in that area, and also in North Africa at the time of the Reconquista, should be interpreted in light of this.

Regards,

JDH