This week, we read
a number of historical accounts of events that occurred during the Crusades,
and how they reflect biases based on the authors’ religions. Most accounts had either
blatant or subtle biases towards Christianity or Islam, while criticizing the
other religions. Depending on
their affiliation, the authors all seemed to have chosen their opinions on
which religion should be dominant, and their writing reflected these
ideas. Yet, one historian seemed
to promote a different objective. I believe that this historian’s view on the
Crusades and the general relationship between Christianity and Islam represented
an idea that the world was not yet ready to embrace. He may have been attempting to introduce his ideas to future
readers.
William
of Tyre was born in the twelfth century in Jerusalem and was a well-known
chronicler and archbishop during roughly the second Crusade. Though he held a position in the
Christian church, his accounts of events are considered to be largely unbiased
by historians today. Unlike other
Christian or Muslim chroniclers, I believe that William of Tyre tried to
promote the idea of a society where Christians and Muslims could coexist.
In his piece
titled, A History of Deeds Done Beyond
the Sea, William of Tyre described an instance when Muslims persecuted
Christians because the Muslims believed that the Christians had disgraced their
temple. Eventually, one brave
Christian man gave up his life to save his people from death. On the surface, this story seems to be
an effort to prove the righteousness of Christians and the potential
destructiveness of Muslims.
However, I find it
interesting that previous to the incident described, Christians and Muslims seemed
to be coexisting in a city without any conflicts. The event the William of Tyre
described disrupted society. It caused a conflict between Christians and
Muslims that could have only been significant enough to record if there had not
been tension between the two religions beforehand.
So what does this mean? I believe that
the author was trying to show that there was potential for Christianity and
Islam to coexist without conflict and tension. The two religions were living together (presumably)
peacefully before the event had occurred. I interpret this as the author’s opinion on the possibility
for Christians and Muslims to live together. Rather than Christianity or Islam vanquishing
each other, the two religions may be able to live in peace.
William
of Tyre probably had many reasons not to promote the possibility of coexistence
between religions during his lifetime. The first reason for hiding this idea was
that during the Crusades, it was probable that not many people would have supported
his ideas. The clash between
Christians and Muslims reflected a belief that Christians should not exist side
by side with Muslims, but rather that Christians should emerge victorious in
battle. A second reason that
William of Tyre may not have wanted to speak openly of this idea was that he
was an Archbishop, a religious figure in the Church. For him to suggest that his religion should try to live in
peace with the Muslims may have jeopardized his position in the hierarchy. The last reason that this might have
been a difficult idea to communicate is that during the time period that this
piece was written, most people were illiterate. It would have been hard for him to spread his ideas in
writing if hardly anyone could read them.
Therefore, I believe
that William of Tyre may have been attempting to promote a society where
Christians and Muslims could live together in the future. By showing the
disruption in society caused by the desecration of the Muslim temple, William
of Tyre subtly pointed to the possibility of coexistence between the two
religions. Because this idea would most likely have not been supported during
his lifetime, he concealed it within his writing. This man’s goal may not have
been influence the individuals during this era, but rather to spread his ideas
to future generations.
No comments:
Post a Comment