European Christians (the Franks) in the Exegesis of the Quran and Hadiths (14th-18th centuries)

INTRODUCTION

The study of the image of Europeans (the Franks, ar. ifranj) in the Islamic world before the 19th century focuses almost exclusively on the views of Muslim historians, travelers, and geographers. In this regard, it is relevant to examine the image of the Franks in tafsirs (commentaries on the Quran) and collections of hadiths (precedents from the life of the Prophet Muhammad), as well as to consider examples from the genre of biographies of the Prophet Muhammad (sīrat rasūl Allāh), a significant part of which is de facto a consideration of narratives from hadiths. The time frame of the study will cover the 14th to 18th centuries. The lower limit is the fall of the last Crusader fortresses in the Levant, as the image of the Franks during the Crusades has been extensively studied by Carole Hillenbrand [Hillenbrand, 1999] and other researchers. The upper limit is the landing of Napoleon I (1769–1821) in Egypt in 1798, which marked a new stage in the interactions between Europeans and the Arab world. The study will focus on the works of Arabic-speaking theologians who resided in the Middle East and North Africa during this period.

Until now, only sparse mentions of the Franks in the works of influential Muslim religious figures of the 14th–18th centuries have been examined, mostly from the treatises of Ibn Taymiyya (1263–1328). Toby Matthiesen notes that this religious thinker wrote about the enemies of the Sunnis as accomplices of the Franks and Mongols [Matthiesen, 2023, p. 80]. Suleiman Murad and James Lindsay point out that Ibn Taymiyya also criticized the Shiites, primarily the Ismailis [Mourad, Lindsay, 2013, p. 108–109], for peacefully coexisting with the Franks and aiding them. Daniel Koenig also examines Ibn Taymiyya's criticism of the Pope [Konig, 2015, p. 266]. However, in such cases, researchers cite this theologian's works on fiqh and collections of fatwas, rather than commentaries on the Quran and hadith. The views of another influential religious figure, Ibn Kathīr (1301–1373), on the Franks are examined primarily through his work on jihad [Frenkel, 2016, p. 109–110].

If we turn to studies of the image of Christians in the Quran and hadith, it appears that they mostly focus on how the sacred texts and commentaries depict Christians as a religious community in general. For example, the seminal work of Jane McAuliffe on the image of Christians in the Quran does not pay much attention to attitudes toward various ethnic groups professing Christianity [McAuliffe, 1991]. Other works examine the image of Christians in tafsirs and hadith commentaries from the 9th–11th or 19th–20th centuries [Ridgeon, 2011]. Works devoted specifically to Muslim-Christian interactions in the Muslim world focus on Muslim perceptions of local Christians, leaving the Franks aside [Griffith, 2008]. Some studies even point out that Muslim theologians rarely addressed the key episode of Muslim-Frankish interaction i.e. the Crusades [Lazarus-Yafeh, 1996, p. 70].

Therefore, it seems relevant to study how the Franks are represented in tafsirs and hadith commentaries in the post-Crusade period. This approach is based on the assumption that religious figures in medieval traditional societies were opinion leaders, and thus they both set the direction of perception of various aspects of life and sought to provide answers to the concerns of their contemporaries [Rozov, 2026, p. 46]. Hence, I will analyze the patterns of depiction of the Franks categorizing the contexts in which Muslim theologians mention them.

BACKDATING THE CONFRONTATION WITH THE FRANKS

One of the most wide spread types of references to the Franks in works on hadith is the antiquation of the confrontation with this ethnic group, placing wars and battles with them into pre-Islamic and early Islamic times. An illuminative example of this pattern is found in the 14th century commentary on the authoritative Sunni hadith collection Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī made by the Egyptian theologian ‘Umar ibn al-Mulaqqin (1323–1401). This author mentions the Franks in the context of the Second siege of Constantinople by the Arabs in 717–718:

Maslama ibn ‘Abd al-Malik ibn Marwān, son of the Commander of the Faithful al-Walīd, and his other brother, conquered the lands of the Romans/Byzantines (rūm), leading troops from the Levant into battle until they reached Constantinople. Maslama built a mosque there where Allah was worshipped, and the hearts of the Franks were filled with fear of them [Ibn al-Mulaqqin, 1990, vol. 7, ṣ. 3347].

In this case, it's important to note that, although the author discusses the Byzantine-Arab wars, he asserts that Maslama ibn ‘Abd al-Malik's expedition frightened precisely the Franks, then he goes on to mention the continuation of wars with them in the Iberian Peninsula [Ibn al-Mulaqqin, 1990, vol. 7, ṣ. 3348].

Another example of this pattern can be found in the work of the influential, Shams al-Dīn al-Kirmānī (1317–1384), who spent most of his life in Baghdad. He cites the opinion of Ibn Mas‘ūd al-Thaqafī, who said that “the enemies of Muslims are like a bird with a head, two wings, and two legs”. Al-Kirmānī then specifies:

And if you ask what these two legs are, I will answer, for example, the Emperor of the Franks and, for example, Khosrow of India [al-Kirmānī, 1981, vol. 13, ṣ. 127]. This context is illuminative because, although Ibn Mas‘ūd al-Thaqafī's use of the term “emperor” (qayṣar) likely referred to the Byzantine emperor, as this opinion dates back to the late 7th century, al-Kirmānī interprets this title specifically as the emperor of the Franks, deriving his view from the realities of the 14th century. Later Shams al-Dīn al-Birmāwī (d. 1428) and Aḥmad al-Qasṭalānī (1448–1517) also translated this opinion.

Numerous examples of the archaizing of the confrontation with the Franks are found in tafsirs and hadith commentaries of the 15th century, in which battles against the Franks are placed during the reigns of the third Righteous Caliph ‘Uthmān (574/575–656), the founder of the Umayyad dynasty Mu‘āwiya ibn Abī Sufyān (603/605–680), and the 8th Umayyad Caliph ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-‘Azīz (682–720).

A telling illustration of this pattern is evidenced in the hadith commentary of Badr al-Dīn al-‘Aynī (1360–1451). The Franks appear in his commentary to hadith collection Sunan Abī Dāwud:

Muslims conquered the island of Rhodes under the command of Junāda ibn Abī Umayya in 53 AH. A Muslim detachment established itself there and fought fiercely against the infidels, intercepting them at sea and blocking their passage. Mu‘āwiya generously provided them with provisions and supplies. They were extremely wary of the Franks, spending their nights in a large fortress [al-‘Aynī, 1999, vol. 6, ṣ. 176].

It is important to note that although this passage covers the capture of Rhodes during the reign of Mu‘āwiya (654 CE), the Muslim garrison was on guard, specifically expecting a Frankish attack.

Another striking example of the antiquated confrontation with the Franks we see in the work of the Egyptian theologian Ḥasan ibn ‘Alī al-Fayyūmī (1402–1466), who mentions the death of Abū Ayyūb al-Anṣarī near the walls of Constantinople during its first siege by the Arabs in 674–678:

His tomb, located near the city walls, is famous and venerated to this day. People pray for rain at it, and it pours. A large dome rises over his tomb, and it is visited and provides blessing to this day. This is one of the most miraculous and extraordinary events: a Muslim fought the Franks, killing as many of their leaders as Allah willed, and then, after he was killed and buried at their [land], they were doing with his tomb what we have mentioned. This is one of the miracles of the Companions of the Messenger of Allah [al-Fayyūmī, 2018, vol. 1, ṣ. 491].

It is crucial that in this case al-Fayyūmī specifically names the Franks as the Muslims' adversaries.

Another authoritative Egyptian hadith scholar of the 15th century Ibn Ḥajar al-‘Asqalānī (1372–1449) also mentions the Franks in the context of the second siege of Constantinople (717–718) following ‘Umar ibn al-Mulaqqin and further describes the continuation of the war with them in the Maghreb [al-‘Asqalānī, 1998–2000, vol. 18, ṣ. 262–263].

The association of rūm with ifranj/faranj also recurs in the work of Aḥmad ibn Raslān (1371–1440), a theologian from Ramla who spent most of his life in Jerusalem. Of particular interest is his commentary on the hadith about a companion of whose horse was captured by al-rūm whom as he says are al-faranj, also called banū aṣfar. Later Khālid ibn al-Walīd returned his horse to him [Ibn Raslān, 2016, vol. 11, ṣ. 557].

Summarizing the analysis of all the above-mentioned examples, it is important to note that in all the contexts examined concerning the reigns of the Righteous Caliphs and the Umayyad dynasty, ifranj occupy the place of rūm in the interpretations of the corresponding hadiths, which marks the universalization of their image as Christian enemies in the Arab-Muslim intellectual space of the 15th century.

As for the works of the 16th century it is essential to highlight the reproduction the same pattern in the tafsir of the prominent theologian and Hanbali qadi of Jerusalem, Mujīr al-Dīn al-‘Ulaymī (d. 1522). In his commentary of surah al-Isrā’ (17:7) this author tells how the future Roman emperor Titus Flavius Vespasianus (39–81) destroyed the Second temple in Jerusalem, presenting him as “the ruler of a city in the Frankish lands”, not of the Roman state [al-‘Ulaymī, 2011, vol. 4, ṣ. 82].

A striking example of archaizing of the confrontation with the Franks is adduced in the 18th century tafsir of the Ottoman theologian Isma‘īl al-Bursawī (1653–1725), who wrote a significant portion of his works while living in Damascus. He introduces the Franks in his commentary on surah Ṣād (38:39) in the context of the deeds of the Prophet Sulaymān (i.e. King Solomon):

He also conquered the lands of the Maghreb, including Andalusia, Tangier, the lands of the Franks, and the surrounding territories [al-Bursawī, [s.d.], vol. 8, ṣ. 38].

It is important to note that in this case, by indicating that Sulaymān conquered lands of the Franks, al-Bursawī marks their historical possession of these territories, thus backdating their history.

THE RECENT, ONGOING AND ESCATALOGHICAL WARS WITH THE FRANKS

The examples of actual military confrontation with Western Europeans in the 12th–15th centuries also find their way into hadith commentaries. Aḥmad ibn Raslān mentions that, due to the strife of the “rulers of the Maghreb”, the Franks took control of all of Andalusia and the surrounding islands and “are eager to seize the lands of Islam” [Ibn Raslān, 2016, vol. 16, ṣ. 672]. In his commentary on another hadith, when mentioning that its transmitter came from Tyre, the same theologian alludes to the era of the Crusades, noting that the Franks had previously captured the city [Ibn Raslān, 2016, vol. 16, ṣ. 491].

The capture of Jerusalem by the Franks during the First Crusade (1096–1099) is mentioned by Mujīr al-Dīn al-‘Ulaymī in his tafsir of surah al-Rūm (30:2–4). He notes that the Muslims held Jerusalem for 477 years, after which it was seized by the Franks, and then the city was liberated by Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn al-Ayyūbī (1137–1193) [al-‘Ulaymī, 2011, vol. 5, ṣ. 269]. Al-‘Ulaymī also cites the Andalusian Sufi Ibn Barrajān (d. 1141), who predicted in his tafsir the recapture of Jerusalem from the Franks by Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn almost half a century before it occurred [al-‘Ulaymī, 2011, vol. 5, ṣ. 270]. Among the works of theologians of the 17th century, a telling example of the re-enactment of the memory of the Crusades can be found in the work of the Egyptian theologian Muḥammad al-Munāwī (1545–1621), who mentiones the transfer of the head of Imam Ḥusayn to Cairo by the Fatimids after the capture of Ascalon by the Franks [al-Munāwī, 2001, vol. 1, ṣ. 265].

Among references to the Franks in the 18th century there are also many contexts that deal with military confrontation with Western Europeans, particularly examples of the perpetuation of the memory of the Crusades. Numerous illustrative examples of this appear in the works of the Egyptian hadith scholar Muḥammad ibn ‘Abd al-Bāqī al-Zurqānī (1645–1710). For instance, he praises the Zangid/Ayyubid commander Muẓaffar al-Din Kūkbūrī (1154–1232/1233), who established the celebration of the prophet Muhammad's birthday. It is noteworthy, however, that al-Zurqānī notes that Muẓaffar al-Din Kūkbūrī died besieging Frankish-held Acre in 630 AH (i.e., 1232/1233):

His reign was long until he died besieging the Franks in the city of Acre in 630 AH [al-Zurqānī, 1996, vol. 1, ṣ. 262].

In this case, it is important that, although the date of death is given correctly, Arab chroniclers agree that Muẓaffar al-Din Kūkbūrī died in the city of Balad in Iraq, not in the Levant; neither they provide any information about the siege of Acre by the Ayyubids in 1232/1233. It can be assumed that al-Zurqānī's error is connected to the fact that Muẓaffar al-Din Kūkbūrī was famous for his battles with the Franks and the ransoming of captives from them, thus his death became associated with the struggle against the Crusaders. Following 17th century authors, al-Zurqānī also refers to the memory of the Crusades in the context of the transfer of Ḥusayn's head to Cairo after the capture of Ascalon by the Franks [al-Zurqānī, 1996, vol. 10, ṣ. 151]. His contemporary, Isma‘īl al-Bursawī, in turn, mentions the Frankish capture of Jerusalem in his commentary on surah al-Baqara (2:114). After listing all the conquerors of the city, including Titus Flavius Vespasian, he finally indicates the capture of the city by the participants of the First Crusade:

It then remained in the hands of the Christian Franks for over a hundred years, until it was conquered and liberated by the Ayyubid ruler al-Nāṣir Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn in 585 AH [al-Bursawī, [s.d.], vol. 1, ṣ. 208].

It is noteworthy that al-Bursawī, following some authors of previous centuries, erroneously states that the Franks held Jerusalem for “more than a hundred years” (akthar min mi’at sana) before Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn's recapture of the city. Furthermore, in his tafsir of surah al-Rūm (30:5–10), al-Bursawī, following his predecessors, cites the story of how Ibn Barrajān predicted in his tafsir that Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn would recapture Jerusalem from the Franks [al-Bursawī, [s.d.], vol. 7, ṣ. 6].

The theme of the Franks as military adversaries, but in an eschatological vein, was also raised by many theologians.

A vivid example of introducing the Franks into the contexts about the coming of Dajjāl (i.e. Antichrist) is found in the work of Ibn Raslān, who reports the following commenting on a hadith mentioning Constantinople:

Constantinople the great city, is now in the hands of the Franks from the Romans/Byzantines, and in the epics it will be mentioned that its conquest is a sign of the appearance of Dajjāl and the coming of the hour [of God's judgment] [Ibn Raslān, 2016, vol. 11, ṣ. 104].

Another illustrative eschatological context is provided by the famous theologian Nūr al-Dīn ‘Alī al-Qārī (d. 1606), who spent most of his life in Mecca. This passage appears in his work on the biography of Muḥammad, which is mostly represented in a form of commentaries on the Quran and hadith. The author mentions the Franks in his exegesis of surah al-Rūm, examining its interpretation by Abū al-Qāsim al-Suhaylī (1114–1185), who noted that the Romans/Byzantines would not seize the lands of the Levant until the Day of God's Judgment (yawm al-qiyāma):

From this, al-Suhaylī concluded that the Romans/Byzantines would not have power over Shām until the Day of Judgment, and by Romans he meant infidels from the Franks and Christians [al-Qārī, 2001[2], vol. 1, ṣ. 682].

Thus, rūm are perceived here as a historical designation for Christian enemies, and al-Qārī interprets this word based on the realities of the turn of the 16th and 17th centuries, when the main adversaries of Muslims in the Mediterranean and Indian Ocean were the European Franks. On the other hand, it is affecting that Franks (al-ifranj) and Christians (al-naṣārā) are here considered to be units of the same level (wa-arāda bi-l-rūm kuffārahum min al-ifranj wa-l-naṣārā), i.e., the Franks are excluded from the followers of Christianity, although, most likely, the intended contrast is between European and Middle Eastern Christians.

Even more compelling are the examples from the tafsir of Isma‘īl l-Bursawī who predicted battles with the Franks on the Day of Judgment. For instance, in his tafsir of surah al-A‘rāf (7:156–160), this author asserts that the Ottoman Empire will exist until the end of time, and further insists that Dajjāl's armies will consist of Franks and Hungarians:

After this, there will be no other state for anyone until the coming of the Mahdi and Jesus, and they will fight those whom the Dajjāl spoiled, from among the lawless infidels of the Franks, the Hungarians, and others, and there are a great many of them [al-Bursawī, [s.d.], vol. 3, ṣ. 253].

This author also places the Franks in another eschatological context, explaining the meaning of surah al-Naml (27:82):

And people will remain there for one hundred and twenty years after the rising of the sun from the West. From this it follows that Banū Aṣfar, that is, the Franks, according to hadith scholars, will emerge and remain in the depths for six years. The Mahdi will appear in the seventh year, then the Dajjāl will appear, then Jesus will descend, then the Beast will appear, and then the sun will rise from the West [al-Bursawī, [s.d.], vol. 6, ṣ. 372].

Thus, in al-Bursawī's work, the Franks are represented as enemies in all eras: the Prophet Sulaymān attacked them in the distant past, then Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn were struggling with them in the recent times, and finally, in the future, on the Day of God's judgment, the Prophet ‘Īsā will also fight them*.*

RECOGNITION OF THE TRUTH OF ISLAM BY THE FRANKS

Another key pattern is the Franks' recognition of the greatness and superiority of Islam. An illustrative example of this is found in the tafsir of Aḥmad al-Samīn al-Ḥalabī (d. 1355), a theologian from Aleppo who spent much of his life in Egypt. Referring to ayah (41:30) of surah Fuṣṣilat, he tells the story of how the son of a Frankish king named Shaṭā converted to Islam during the battle against the Muslims:

A righteous sheikh from Damietta told me during my journey there, when I visited the graves of the fallen in a place called Shaṭā, he showed me a fine grave with a magnificent structure and said, “This is the grave of Shaṭā”. I asked, “And what is Shaṭā?” He replied, “The son of one of the Frankish kings, he came with his father and an army to seize our land. When the battle ensued, Muslims were killed, and Shaṭā entered the fray and saw a Muslim man lying in his blood. He stepped on him, and by God's will, miracle appeared to him. And he saw a heavenly houri approaching him with a jug of water” [al-Samīn al-Ḥalabī, 1996, vol. 2, ṣ. 299–300].

Shaṭā then converted to Islam, went over to the Muslims, and died in battle against the Franks, while his grave became a place of pilgrimage. Given that the site mentioned is located near Damietta, the most likely inspiration for this story could have been the defection to the Muslim side of one of the participants of the Fifth (1217–1221) or Seventh (1248–1254) Crusades. Moreover, the name Shaṭā refers to a medieval city, located near Damietta and famous for its textile production. It is important to note that, although the city has been known by this name since at least the 7th century in the 14th century, popular etymology traced its name back to a Frankish prince.

Sources of the 15th century also provide a striking example of the recognition of the truth of Islam by the Franks. Ibn Ḥajar al-‘Asqalānī and Badr al-Dīn al-‘Aynī in their commentaries on Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī introduce a narrative about how the Byzantine Emperor Heraclius I (575–641) received a copy of the Quran from Muḥammad, and then the Frankish kings secretly kept it from their subjects and considered it a source of their own power:

Al-Suhaylī mentioned hearing that Heraclius placed the book in a golden case as a sign of respect, and that it was passed down from generation to generation until it came into the possession of the Frankish king who conquered Toledo, and then passed to his grandson [al-‘Asqalānī, 1970, vol. 1, ṣ. 44].

Then comes the passage about how the ruler of the Maghreb sent an envoy to the Frankish king*:*

The ruler of the West sent me to the King of the Franks with a request for intercession, which he accepted. He offered me a place to stay with him, but I refused. He said to me, “I will show you a great rarity”. He took out a gold-covered box, from which he extracted a golden case and then a book, most of the letters of which had faded and which was covered with a piece of silk. He said, “This is the book of your Prophet, passed down to my grandfather the Emperor. We passed it down from generation to generation, and he bequeathed it to us. Our ancestors said that as long as this book is with us, we will rule. Therefore, we carefully preserve it, revere it, and hide it from Christians so that power remains ours” [al-‘Asqalānī, 1970, vol. 1, ṣ. 44].

The main message of this fragment is the recognition by the Frankish elite of the sacredness of the Quran, and, accordingly, the truth of Islam. It is also important that al-‘Asqalānī borrowed this plot from the Andalusian theologian Abū al-Qāsim al-Suhaylī (1114–1185), whose work did not mention the Franks, i.e. they were added by the 15th century religious scholars. The version of this story in the treatise of Badr al-Dīn al-‘Aynī [al-‘Aynī, [s.d.], vol. 1, ṣ. 99] in most details coincides with the one provided by Ibn Ḥajar al-‘Asqalānī.

Theologians of the 16-17th century, such as Aḥmad al-Qasṭalānī (1448–1517), Shams al-Dīn al-Sufayrī (1472–1549), ‘Alī ibn Burhān al-Dīn al-Ḥalabī (1567–1635) also retell this story while Nūr al-Dīn ‘Alī al-Qārī cites it even twice, mentioning it in commentaries on two different hadiths [al-Qārī, 2001[1], vol. 7, ṣ. 434; vol. 10, ṣ. 547].

As for the treatises of the 18th century, this narrative is reproduced by Muḥammad ibn ‘Abd al-Bāqī al-Zurqānī [al-Zurqānī, 1996, vol. 5, ṣ. 18–19]. This theologian also cites an example of Frankish admiration for Muslims in the story of the Andalusian poet al-Ghazal (790–864), who was sent on a diplomatic mission to the Franks and greatly impressed their queen by his humor and young look [al-Zurqānī, 1996, vol. 6, ṣ. 443–444].

The conversion of the Franks to Islam also found its way into tafsirs. ‘Alī ibn Burhān al-Dīn al-Ḥalabī gives an illustrative example of this kind of narratives in his commentary on surah al-Ṣaff (61:6):

I say: I was asked about what al-Suyūṭī reported, that a Christian from the Franks arrived in Egypt and said: “I have a doubt; if you dispel it, I will convert to Islam”. Then a council was convened for him in Madrasa al-Kāmiliyya, and the head of the scholars at that time was Sheikh ‘Izz al-Dīn ibn ‘Abd al-Salām. The Christian asked him in the presence of the people: “Which, in your opinion, is better: that which is generally accepted or that which is disputed?” Sheikh ‘Izz al-Dīn replied: “That which is generally accepted.” The Christian said to him: “You and we agree on the prophethood of Jesus, but we differ regarding the prophethood of Muḥammad, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him. Therefore, it follows from this that Jesus is superior to Muḥammad” [al-Ḥalabī, [s.d.], vol. 1, ṣ. 373].

The sheikh then explained to the Frank that Jesus warned of Muhammad's arrival, and the Frank converted to Islam. In this context, however, it is significant that, to present anti-Christian arguments, the author chose the Franks as opponents among all the ethnic groups professing Christianity.

FRANKS AND EVERYDAY MATTERS

The religious thinkers of 15th century also addressed the Franks in relation to everyday topics. For example, the Egyptian theologian Badr al-Dīn al-Damāmīnī (1362–1424) in his commentary on Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī states that it is forbidden to accommodate Franks in inns that have built-in mosques:

Beneficiaries of inns are wary of building mosques containing mihrabs into them, fearing that [the rooms] will be rented out to Franks or similar people. This does not prevent inns from being sold. However, they cannot be rented out to Franks due to the inviolability of the mosque's space, even if it is privately owned [al-Damāmīnī, 2009, vol. 2, ṣ. 130].

Another illustrative example of a reference to the Franks in connection with everyday matters is found in the tafsir compiled by the Damascus theologian ‘Umar ibn ‘Ādil al-Ḥanbalī (1374–1475) in his commentary on surah al-Mā’ida (5:3):

Allah forbade people from eating pork so that they would not become accustomed to such behavior; this was because the Franks' constant consumption of pork instilled in them great greed and a strong desire for pleasure, and also led to a lack of jealousy [Ibn ‘Ādil al-Ḥanbalī, 1998, vol. 7, ṣ. 188].

It is important in this case that the theologian cites the Franks, not all Christians, as pork eaters. The same opinions was later recurred by Jalāl al-Dīn al-Suyūṭī (1445–1505) and Shams al-Dīn al-Shirbīnī (d. 1571).

Mujīr al-‘Ulaymī in his commentary on surah al-Tawba (9:29), explaining who “the People of the Book” are in the section on jizya, almost excludes the Franks from the Christian community, as they are described as being merely “in agreement” with Christians (al-naṣārā wa-man yuwāfiquhum fī al-tadayyun bi-l-tawrāt wa-l-injīl ka-l-sāmira wa-l-faranj) [al-‘Ulaymī, 2011, vol. 3, ṣ. 175]. Thus, the Christians (al-naṣārā) in this context apparently refer only to local Middle Eastern Christian communities.

As for everyday contexts, among 17th century treatises, it is worth noting Nūr al-Dīn ‘Alī al-Qārī's mention of the Franks in his commentary on the hadith about the beard:

Beard trimming is a custom of non-Arabs, and today it is a symbol of many polytheists, such as the Franks and Indians [al-Qārī, 2001[1], vol. 2, ṣ. 84].

It is significant that in this context, the Franks are also disparagingly excluded from Christians and classified among the pagans.

References to the Franks regarding material matters are also present in the treatises of the 18th century. For example, al-Bursawī in his commentary on surah al-Tawba (9:111–116), while criticizing wearing of certain types of clothing and jewelry, also condemns shaving the beard, accusing the Franks who shave of effeminacy:

They shave their beards, and both actions are reprehensible. The first is because it is ostentatious clothing, which is forbidden. The second is because it is the work of the Franks, and it is a change from the divine plan and assimilation to women [al-Bursawī, [s.d.], vol. 3, ṣ. 512].

CONCLUSIONS

The conducted analysis of the portrayal of the Franks in the tafsirs and hadith commentaries of Muslim theologians of the Mamluk and Ottoman periods revealed the four following patterns.

First is the pattern of archaizing of the confrontation with the Franks. Aside from isolated instances of placing the confrontation with them in ancient times, such as the epoch of the Prophet Suleiman and the capture of Jerusalem by Titus, military actions against them are inclined to take place during the reign of the Righteous Caliphs and the early Umayyads. In such contexts, the Franks replace the Romans/Byzantines (rūm) during the Arab capture of Rhodes in 653, the sieges of Constantinople in 674–678 and 717–718, and so on. This pattern became widespread in the 15th century (with the first examples occurring as early as the 14th century) following the Ottoman conquest of the last territories of the Byzantine Empire. Ifranj thus took the place of rūm in the discourse of Christian-Muslim conflict, becoming the archetypal Christian enemies in history.

The second pattern embraces the references to actual wars with the Franks in the recent past and present, with most contexts reenacting the memory of the Crusades, primarily the Frankish capture of Jerusalem in 1099 and its subsequent reconquest by Saladin in 1187, as well as the capture of cities on the Levantine coast, such as Tyre and Ascalon. The events of the Reconquista in Andalusia are also regularly addressed. It should be emphasized that theologians from the Holy Land and, more broadly, the Levant, frequently addressed the topic of the Crusades, and this theme remained important until the end of the period considered in this article. The Franks appear in eschatological narratives as the armies of Dajjāl, the Antichrist. Thus, they are depicted as an omnipresent in the chronotope of Islamic history.

The third pattern represents Franks' recognition of the truth of Islam and its superiority over Christianity. Frankish kings secretly kept the Quran, given to their ancestor-emperor by the Prophet Muḥammad, from their lieges, and considered this copy of the holy book a source of their own authority. Franks also converted to Islam on the battlefield after witnessing miracles, as well as during polemics with Muslim theologians.

Finally, the fourth pattern involves commenting on interactions with the Franks on everyday matters. Islamic scholars warned people against shaving beards in the Frankish manner, forbade from hosting the Franks in inns that house mosques, and cited this ethnic group as an example of why pork is prohibited, as its consumption led the Franks to promiscuity and lack of jealousy.

Regarding the ratio of mentions of the Franks in the tafsirs and hadith commentaries examined, these two types of treatises generally demonstrate a unified system of patterns. It is important to note, however, that they are significantly less practice-oriented than works on fiqh and fatwa collections of the same period, which focused primarily on actual interactions with the Franks, i.e. topics of war, captivity, and trade, which is a topic for further research.