Infidels_ A History of the Conflict Between Christendom and Islam - Andrew Wheatcroft [227]
14. Runciman, History, vol. 2, p. 234.
15. 2 Thessalonians 2:4.
16. For the heroic self-image, see Renard, Islam, and Bridget Connelly, Arab Folk Tale and Identity, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1986, pp. 4–6. The Sirat al-Zahir Baybars chronicles the wars of the Mamluk Sultan Baybars against the Mongols, Persians, and Christian Crusaders. The Dhat al-Himma recounts deeds of the Arabs against the Byzantines and the Franks. “However, while the fourteenth-century polemicist Philippe de Mézières praised the chivalry of the Turks it was a means only to condemn the ‘Saracens’ who occupied Jerusalem and to chastise the failures of Christians who behaved worse than the Turks.” See Petkov, “Rotten Apple.”
17. Malcolm C. Lyons, The Arabian Epic, 3 vols., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995, vol. 3, p. 112.
18. Cited in J. A. C. Brown, Techniques of Persuasion: From Propaganda to Brainwashing, Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1963, p. 19.
19. Pavlov’s experiments 1901–1903 demonstrated that specific behavior could be “conditioned.” His research investigated how dogs digested their food and he wanted to see if external stimuli could make them salivate. At the same time as he fed them he rang a bell. After a while, the dogs—which had previously responded only when they saw and ate their food—would begin to salivate when the bell rang, even if no food were present. When he published his results he called this response a “conditioned reflex.” This kind of behavior had to be learned, and Pavlov described this learning process (where the dog’s nervous system linked the sound of the bell with food) as conditioning. But, just as significantly, he also discovered that this conditioned reflex weakened if the bell rang repeatedly and there was no food. If that happened, the dog eventually stopped salivating at the sound of the bell. If the stimulus was not effectively “reinforced,” the conditioned reflex decayed and failed. See Ivan Petrovich Pavlov, Essential Works of Pavlov, ed. Michael Kaplan, New York: Bantam Books, 1966.
20. Dupront, Mythe, vol. 1, p. 19.
21. Emmanuel Sivan demonstrates convincingly that in the Muslim world malediction based on “Crusade” vocabulary was a product of secular modernism. The words “Crusade/Crusaders” then mobilized and revived the earlier antagonism to the image of the cross. See Emanuel [sic] Sivan, “Modern Arab Historiography of the Crusades,” Asian and African Studies: Journal of the Israel Oriental Society 8 (1972), pp. 109–49. Similarly, jehad or jihad was first recorded as being used in English in 1869, although knowledge of the Muslim Holy War had existed since the later Middle Ages. Thus the concept was used avant la lettre.
22. See Sivan, Islam, p. 7.
23. For the crusading period, see Michael A. Köhler, Allianzen und Verträge zwischen fränkischen und islamischen Herrschen in Vorderen Orient: Eine Studie über das zwischenstaatliche Zusammenleben vom 12. bis 13. Jahrhundert, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1991.
24. See Smail, Crusading Warfare, p. 215: “Every strong place had, however, the same fundamental importance. Wherever it stood, it was the embodiment of force, and therefore the ultimate sanction of the Latin settlement.” Saladin acquired a curious position as the “noble Arab” in Western eyes. Gladstone in his attacks on the Turks in 1876 talked of the “noble Saladins,” meaning the Arabs. But Sultan Baybars did not attract anything of the same favorable Western response as Saladin.
25. See Adrian J. Boas, Crusader Archaeology: The Material Culture of the Latin East, London: Routledge, 1999, pp. 91–120.
26. Cited by Colin Imber, “The Ottoman Dynastic Myth,” Turcica 19 (1987), pp. 7–27.
27. See Godfrey Goodwin, A History of Ottoman Architecture, London: Thames and Hudson, 1971, p. 35.
28. Cited by Lord Kinross, The Ottoman Centuries: The Rise and Fall of the Ottoman Empire, New York: Morrow,