"How many well-guarded women were profaned, how many queens were ruled, and nubile girls married, and noble women given away, and miserly women forced to yield themselves, and women who had been kept hidden stripped of their modesty... and free women occupied, and precious ones used for hard work, and pretty things put to the test, and virgins dishonoured and proud women deflowered... and happy ones made to weep! How many noblemen took them as concubines,
how many ardent men blazed for one of them, and celibates were satisfied by them, and thirsty men sated by them, and urbulent men able to give vent to their passion. How many lovely women were the exclusive property of one man, how many great ladies were sold at low prices... and lofty ones abased... and those accustomed to thrones dragged down!" al-Isfahani (Gabrielli, p 163)

>>17846959 (OP)
They talking about frankish/crusader women or just the regular inhabitants of Jerusalem ?

>>17846962
Frankish women

this planet is fucking disgusting

the creator should throw himself to hell

>>17846966
Crusaders bragged about never raping women to the pope in contrast, notice the difference in value systems.

>>17846968
I doubt it

Christian Spanish and American colonizers mass raped. the modern American Army raped in Iraq, Afghan and Vietnam.

>>17846972
But it was never officially approved or culturally normative, whereas in Islamic civilization it was due to Quranic prescriptions in favor of sex slavery

>>17846966
>this planet is fucking disgusting
Don't blame the planet, blame the people who made it disgusting.
>the creator should throw himself to hell
We have freewill. God isn't responsible for what you do: you are.

>>17846968
1. "Bragging" about not raping was likely propaganda, not proof

Crusader chroniclers often wrote to justify or glorify the Crusades, especially in reports to the Pope or Christian audiences. For example:

Fulcher of Chartres, a First Crusade chronicler, claims that Muslim women were not raped after the siege of Antioch, and captives were instead "impaled" — a gruesome but “cleaner” form of violence in Christian moral terms.


This isn’t evidence that rape didn’t occur — it’s evidence that rape was seen as shameful and therefore denied in Christian sources intended for ecclesiastical or royal audiences.


---

2. Muslim and Byzantine sources directly contradict this

Non-Christian accounts, which had no incentive to uphold the Crusaders' image, frequently report rape:

Nicetas Choniates, a Byzantine noble, vividly describes Crusaders raping women and nuns in churches during the sack of Constantinople (1204).

Imad ad-Din al-Isfahani, a Muslim chronicler, records Crusaders enslaving and abusing women during and after sieges.


These are eyewitness accounts from the other side, not hearsay.

>>17846984
3. Laws in the Crusader States show rape was common enough to legislate

The Council of Nablus (1120) issued laws condemning Christians who raped Muslim slave women — with punishments including castration and exile.

This shows not only that rape occurred, but that it was prevalent enough to need explicit regulation.
---

4. "Different value systems" is too simplistic

Saying Crusaders had a “better” value system because they claimed not to rape oversimplifies things:

Rape and pillage were standard parts of medieval warfare on all sides.

Crusaders’ religious self-image didn’t stop them from committing atrocities — they just framed them differently.

The Fourth Crusade saw Crusaders raping and looting fellow Christians in Constantinople, showing these values broke down quickly under stress and opportunity.
---

Conclusion:

> Claims that Crusaders “didn’t commit rape” because they told the Pope so are propaganda, not historical truth.
Non-Christian sources, crusader legal records, and multiple sack accounts contradict the denial narrative.
Like all medieval armies, Crusaders committed war crimes, including sexual violence — the only difference is how they wrote about it afterward.

>>17846984
>This isn’t evidence that rape didn’t occur — it’s evidence that rape was seen as shameful and therefore denied in Christian sources intended for ecclesiastical or royal audiences.

That's precisely my argument. The normative value system prevented them from bragging about rape, even if it did occur, unlike the Arabs.

>>17846984
>>17846986
ChatGPT moment

>>17846988
Got it — this claim:

> “The Crusaders had a superior normative value system because they didn’t brag about rape, unlike the Arabs.”
is fundamentally flawed and rooted in cherry-picked evidence and modern projection. Here’s a sharp, clear debunk:


---

1. Not bragging ≠ having better values

Crusaders didn't openly brag about rape in letters to the Pope or in Latin chronicles because they knew it violated Christian ideals — not because it didn't happen.

Hiding, denying, or omitting rape is not moral superiority, it's public relations.

Medieval Christian values didn't prevent rape — they just required it be euphemized, justified, or blamed on others (e.g., blaming it on undisciplined mercenaries or blaming the victims).
---

2. Arab sources describing rape ≠ “bragging”

When Muslim chroniclers like Imad ad-Din mention Crusaders capturing and raping women, they’re condemning the invaders — not celebrating it.

Even when Muslim armies did commit rape (as happened across history, like any medieval army), Islamic legal and moral codes also prohibited it — especially rape of Muslim women.


There is no consistent tradition of Muslim authors bragging about rape. If anything, they often use it as moral indictment of enemies, including the Crusaders.


---

3. Crusaders did sometimes celebrate violence

In Jerusalem (1099), Crusaders boasted about blood flowing knee-deep — not rape, perhaps, but clearly not shy about brutality when they wanted to impress superiors.

The idea that Crusaders were morally restrained just because they didn’t mention rape in victory reports is like claiming Victorian England had no prostitution because nobody talked about it.

>>17847000
4. “Normative value systems” didn’t prevent atrocity

The Council of Nablus (1120) punished rape of Muslim women, but not necessarily for moral reasons — it was about discipline, order, and political pragmatism.

Similarly, Muslim armies at times imposed harsh penalties on sexual misconduct — when it undermined military or political aims.


So-called “normative systems” in both cultures functioned more to control violence internally than to eliminate it.


---

Final response you can post:

> Not bragging about rape doesn't make you more moral — it just means you're more selective about which crimes you advertise. Crusader chroniclers sanitized what they couldn't justify. Arab chroniclers, by contrast, often documented enemy atrocities in painful detail — not as “brags,” but as condemnations. Stop confusing PR with principle. Every army raped. The only difference is who lied about it afterward.

>>17846984
>Christian propaganda
>Our knights conducted themselves honorably, no women were raped, those who surrendered spared and the slaves freed
>Moslem propaganda
>Then our troops entered the city, glory be to God, all the men were slaughtered, all their wives and daughters raped and their children enslaved, inshalla!!!
Do you really not see the difference?

>>17847000
ChatGPT moment

>Crusaders didn't openly brag about rape in letters to the Pope or in Latin chronicles because they knew it violated Christian ideals — not because it didn't happen.

Precisely, whereas it did not violate Islamic ideals (captives of the right hand narrative approved by all schools of Fiqh)

>especially rape of Muslim women.
Only rape of muslim women, not "captives of the right hand"

>Crusaders capturing and raping women, they’re condemning the invaders — not celebrating it.
Because they raped Muslim women, they'd have to be Muslim men capturing infidel women for rape to be justified.

>3. Crusaders did sometimes celebrate violence
But not rape.

>4. “Normative value systems” didn’t prevent atrocity
Not my argument

>>17846986
>The Council of Nablus (1120) issued laws condemning Christians who raped Muslim slave women — with punishments including castration and exile.

Compare to the treatment of the "captives of the right hand"

>>17847010

1. Council of Nablus (1120) – Regulated rape of Muslim slave-women

Canon 13: If a Christian man raped his own Muslim slave, he would lose her to the state and be castrated.

Canon 14: Raping someone else’s Muslim slave also led to castration and exile.
This presumes rape was commonplace enough to regulate, rather than prevent wholly .
---

2. Concubinage & sexual use of enslaved women

In medieval Valencia and across Europe, enslaved women were commonly taken as concubines—their sexual use was tacitly accepted, though church authorities frowned on it .

Concubinage was widespread even among clergy, despite official bans—especially in Catalonia and northern Italy .
---

3. Justifications rooted in scripture and custom

Medieval Christians invoked the Old Testament (e.g. Deuteronomy 21:10–14) to justify taking female captives as wives or concubines.

This mirrors the Islamic practice of taking "those whom your right hand possesses," showing parallel legal-cultural logic, though not identically codified .
---

4. Sexual exploitation & power dynamics

Scholarly sources note that female slaves were vulnerable to sexual exploitation, often priced for such roles. This was not seen as rape under medieval Christian norms, but as an accepted feature of slavery .

>>17847013
This is misleading and historically shallow. Here's a concise debunk:

> Wrong. Islamic law allowed sex with female captives under strict conditions, but rape was still a punishable crime — especially non-consensual sex, sex with Muslim women, or abuse outside rules of war. Just like Christian norms, Islamic norms were often ignored in practice, but both traditions condemned outright rape.
Claiming rape “didn’t violate Islamic ideals” is pure projection — it did, and jurists debated it heavily. You’re confusing legal ownership with moral approval.
Let me know if you want it sharpened into bait or snark for a /his/ thread.

>>17846972
>Christian Spanish [...] mass raped
just another black legend created by rebelling colonial republican government to justify their rebellions as "good". Spanish Viceroyalties gave the native americans ludicrous amount of autonomy and power for "genocidal whities".
English colonists were notoriously atrocious to the natives, tho.

>>17846963
There were no Frankish women, the Franks married local Christians women for hundreds of years

>>17847023
Canon 13: If a Christian man raped his own Muslim slave, he would lose her to the state and be castrated.

Canon 14: Raping someone else’s Muslim slave also led to castration and exile.
This presumes rape was commonplace enough to regulate, rather than prevent wholly .

ChatGPT, this fully affirms my argument centered on value systems

>though church authorities frowned on it .
ChatGPT, you affirm my point

>Medieval Christians invoked the Old Testament (e.g. Deuteronomy 21:10–14) to justify taking female captives as wives or concubines.

Chatgpt, give a reputable source for the latter claim (concubines)

>This was not seen as rape under medieval Christian norms,

But Chatgpt, the council of Nablus explicitly saw it as rape as you yourself quoted.

>>17846959 (OP)
>The Byzantine emperor, Isaac Angelus, sent a message to Saladin congratulating him on taking the city, requesting him to convert all the churches in the city back to the Orthodox church and all Christian ceremonies to be performed according to the Greek Orthodox liturgy

>>17847035
>it isnt rape because they didnt refer to forced sex slavery as rape
I dont really think you belive this

>>17847035
Also, youre saying the proof they passed a law to stop rapes proved that rapes didnt happen?

>>17847039
The crusaders were permitted to have Muslim slave women but not to have sexual relations with them as per the council of Nablus. It happened but it was not licit, which contrasts the Islamic legal framework of captives of the right hand.

>>17847023
>Concubinage was widespread even among clergy, despite official bans—especially in Catalonia and northern Italy .

Consensual concubinage, not concubinage born of sex slavery

>In medieval Valencia and across Europe, enslaved women were commonly taken as concubines—their sexual use was tacitly accepted, though church authorities frowned on it .

The church always condemned this practice, Muslim religious authorities never did (see all schools of fiqh)

>>17847023
>>17847058
Also guess where Valencians learned the practice from

>>17847058
>>17847059

What’s actually true in Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh):

1. Rape (ightiṣāb) is explicitly a punishable crime in all schools of Islamic law.

All four Sunni madhhabs (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i, Hanbali) and major Shi'a traditions classify rape as a form of:

Zinā (unlawful sexual intercourse),

Hirābah (violent crime / banditry), or

A combination of theft of sexual autonomy and assault.

Maliki jurists, for instance, allowed the death penalty for rape.

2. Consent matters — even with slaves.

While sexual access to a concubine (female slave) was legally permitted, non-consensual sex was not.

Hanafi jurists emphasized that causing harm, coercion, or injury to a slave woman was haram (forbidden), and could invalidate ownership or lead to punishment.

Abuse of slaves was generally condemned — especially rape — and women could appeal to qadis (judges) for protection, even manumission.


> Source: Kecia Ali, Sexual Ethics and Islam
Source: Jonathan A.C. Brown, Slavery and Islam

3. Rape victims were entitled to compensation and justice.

Many jurists argued that a raped woman was owed diyya (blood money) and punishment for the rapist — often harsher than consensual zinā cases because of the added elements of force and assault.

>>17847075

Why the claim is wrong:

Equating legal ownership of a concubine with moral approval of rape is false. Islamic law draws a line between permitted sexual access and coercion or violence.

Jurists debated the gray areas — e.g., what constitutes consent for a slave — but none of them endorsed violent rape as religiously acceptable.

Many modern scholars and reformers (e.g. Fatima Mernissi, Kecia Ali) point out how early Islamic legal rulings were sometimes abused or misused, but this is different from saying rape was endorsed.

TL;DR:

> No, it is not true that Muslim religious authorities “never condemned rape.”
All major schools of fiqh defined rape as a crime and prescribed punishments ranging from compensation to execution — even in the context of slavery.
The confusion comes from reading ancient slave-concubinage laws through a modern lens without acknowledging how jurists actually treated consent and violence.

>>17847075
All four Sunni madhhabs (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i, Hanbali) and major Shi'a traditions classify rape as a form of:

Zinā (unlawful sexual intercourse),

Hirābah (violent crime / banditry), or

A combination of theft of sexual autonomy and assault.

They do not classify concubinage born of sex slavery as rape, it's not Zina.

>2. Consent matters — even with slaves.

Only according to Malikis do you need her consent, otherwise her silence is her consent. But even Malikis could use coercive measures to force consent of slave girls (like depriving them of food).

I'm an ex Muslim from Egypt and you're full of shit. I was taught all this in my own family.

"> Source: Kecia Ali, Sexual Ethics and Islam
Source: Jonathan A.C. Brown, Slavery and Islam"

Western retard academics ofc

>>17846959 (OP)
What are frankish women doing in middle east in the first place anyway?

>>17847088
They were colonizing native Muslim lands that had been inhabited peacefully by muslims for over 3.000 years as part of uninvited western aggression summoned by Byzantine aggressors.

>>17847082
Wow, i stand corrected. While both sides raped, the christians said it was bad to do so. I kneel.

>>17847098
This is my argument. Thanks for conceding.

>>17846975
What they did was due to biblical prescriptions in favor of sex slavery and it was normal enough where to this day the perpetrators are not prosecuted

>>17847088
The Kingdom of Jerusalem existed for nearly 2 centuries as a Christian state before the Muslims finally conquered it. Pretty hard to maintain a Christian nation without Christian women.

>>17847101
I do not concede on my original point:

This only refers to sex slaves being property and therefore not able to be raped. This does not refer to the morality of rape during sacking a city ect.. so no moral framework on the muslim side seems to support rape in any other context other than the use of a slave as actual property.

>>17847088
>>17847109
"Frankish" in terms of culture.

>>17847116
Captives of the right hand are taken during sackings

Jerusalem only fell because of how deranged and greedy the nobility of the crusader kingdoms were. We Christian's have no one to blame but ourselves for this one. Like every fall, it was the product of our own sins

>>17847117
I have no doubt the Frankish nobles who went on Crusade sent for their wives and children after establishing their new domains in the Holy Land. And there were a lot of Frankish nobles.

>>17846959 (OP)
Same author on western women in general:

"They glowed with ardour for carnal intercourse. They were all licentious harlots, proud and scornful, who took and gave, foul-fleshed and sinful... making love and selling themselves for gold... with nasal voices and fleshy thighs, blue-eyed and grey-eyed....
They dedicated as a holy offering what they kept between their thighs.... They maintained that they could make themselves acceptable to God by no better sacrifice than this.... They made themselves targets for mens darts." al-Isfahani (Imad al-Din)
Source: Francesco Gabrieli's Arab Historians of the Crusades, pp.204-207

Same arguments as modern rape gangs in Britain

>>17847136
perfectly describes present day white women

>>17847162
No! they are gentle little virginal flowers with no desires whatsoever for darkskins

>>17847176
This, as a Muslim in Germany we all date white sluts in our 20s and they desire us like crazy for our dark features.

But we always settle down for a virgin muslimah in our 30s after we're done having fun, white sluts are just for fucking

>>17847136
>modern rape gangs in Britain
Islamic slavery was systematic. A soldier would receive a part of the war loot after a battle which includes captured men and women, distributed by the Islamic state. It wasn't just viking style rape and pillage.

According to Islamic law, slaves couldn't be hurt by masters unless for rightful punishment for breaking Islamic law. If we were to consider rape to be a form of hurt, non consensual sex with slaves would then be illegal, as some Islamic scholars at the time opined. But obviously consent is very ambiguous in slavery.

But scholars made it clear that past marriages of infidel slaves are considered nulified

>>17847119
So they are considered slaves the moment the city falls? How do you claim property? Just grab someone and rape them?

>>17847224
Essentially yes if you examine historical precedent. If not immediately then very soon after, the same day, and Jihadis capture women at will.

>>17847224
You need the approval of the amir(commander). Sometimes, like in the case of Umar's invasion of Jerusalem or one of the battles of the Prophet, the amir could decide to forbid the taking of slaves.

>>17847033
That was a minority
The majority constantly brought women from europe

>>17847602
There was a lot of Medieval European colonists settling in the Levant including a lot of European women

>>17846981
Who made the people. Who made the planet

Free will is a joke. It's denied in the bible and secondly your Jew God claims to control all the variables

>>17846959 (OP)
And? Why should I feel bad for invading proto colonizers even if this garbage propaganda is true??


I just need to see anedoctal evidence to see who is the true atrocious monster here, whenever Muslims expanded the locals were left alone relatively such as balkans and spain, meanwhile whenever judeochristians expanded they commited mass genocide (see americas, granada, algerian france, palestine, etc)

>>17847088
Establishing proto pissrahell, soon enough its modern variant will face the same fate and the euroaches will crawl back to their peninsula of asia

>>17847092
>native Muslim lands
LOL

>>17847684
>whenever Muslims expanded the locals were left alone

>>17847717
Yes??? When euroid judeochristians conquered places they genocided innocents, when Muslims did the locals were integrated into a tolerant society for its time

Why do judeochristians project their atrocities so much???

>>17847717
Ah yes. The famous english and french indigenous peoples to the southern levant

Muslim Levantines kicked out their oppressors, and soon enough the jewish slavic baby killers squattering there will face the same fate

>soon enough the jewish slavic baby killers squattering there will face the same fate

>>17847745
Is this why your ilk fled like cowards and played victims when our arab ahki in netherlands started to beat the shit out of zionazi hooligans chanting racist and genocidal threats to arabs?

>>17846966
This is very tame by historical standards