How a 13th-Century Encounter Refutes the Clash of Civilisations

by Andrew P. Klein and Sera E, Klein

Long‑standing colleagues and co‑authors

“He was a cultured and learned man. Learning and literature flourished under him, and men of distinction resorted to his court.”

— Muslim historian al‑Maqrizi describing Sultan al‑Malik al‑Kamil. 

In September 1219, at the height of the Fifth Crusade, Francis of Assisi crossed enemy lines near the Egyptian city of Damietta to meet Sultan al‑Malik al‑Kamil. The crusader armies had besieged the city for over a year. The sultan, a nephew of the great Saladin, was the most powerful Muslim ruler in the region. Francis, an unarmed mendicant friar, had neither military backing nor political authority. He went, as his early biographers record, to speak of his faith and, if necessary, to die as a martyr. 

What happened next is not well known. Francis and al‑Kamil did not fight. They did not argue. They talked – for as many as twenty days. Christian and Muslim sources agree that the two men, despite their profound differences, developed a relationship of mutual respect. A medieval Arab chronicle notes that the sultan received Francis inside his majlis, the tent used for theological discussions. Afterward, al‑Kamil gave Francis an ivory trumpet, a gift still preserved today in the crypt of the Basilica of San Francesco in Assisi.

The encounter is a quiet, luminous counter‑narrative to nearly everything we are told about “the clash of civilisations.” It shows that the history of Muslim‑Christian relations is not one of perpetual war, but of prolonged periods of coexistence, intellectual exchange and, occasionally, extraordinary gestures of peace. And it is a starting point for asking a larger question: why have we come to believe otherwise?

I. The Myth of the Meeting – and the Reality

The sources for the meeting are sparse and contested. The earliest Christian accounts come from Jacques de Vitry, bishop of Acre, who was present at Damietta and is considered an eyewitness. Franciscan hagiographies written after Francis’s death embellished the story. Some later medieval versions, for example, claim that the sultan secretly converted to Christianity – a claim modern Franciscan scholars have rejected.

Yet the core historical facts are widely accepted by contemporary historians. Francis crossed the battle lines. He was received by al‑Kamil. They discussed matters of faith. And they parted without violence.

What is equally important is what the Arab sources reveal. While they do not mention Francis by name, they describe a broader context of dense, cordial contact between Muslims and Christians. As one scholar of Arab history explains:

“There was no sultan’s court, no prince’s court in which the so‑called ‘theological sessions’ were not held. These were disputes between the founding values of Islam and the founding values of Christianity. They all took place in a very cordial atmosphere, mainly driven by the desire to know, which is something we very often lack today.” 

The meeting, in other words, was not a miracle – it was a product of its time. Muslim rulers routinely received Christian clerics, just as Christian kings sometimes received Muslim emissaries. The “clash” was never the only story.

II. Tolerance and Coexistence: The Dhimmi and Millet Systems

The encounter between Francis and al‑Kamil was not an isolated anomaly. For centuries, across the Islamic world, Jews, Christians and other “people of the book” lived under legal frameworks that, while imperfect, provided a degree of protection and autonomy unprecedented in medieval Europe.

The Pact of ‘Umar and the Dhimma

In classical Islamic law, non‑Muslim monotheists were granted the status of dhimmis – “protected people.” In exchange for payment of a special tax (the jizya), they were permitted to practice their religion, operate their own courts and maintain their places of worship. Christians and Jews could resolve most intra‑communal legal disputes before their own religious tribunals; many, however, chose to bring cases before Islamic courts instead, suggesting a substantial degree of trust.

The Ottoman Millet System

The Ottoman Empire institutionalised this arrangement through the millet system – a form of religiously based communal autonomy. Under this system, Orthodox Christians, Armenian Christians and Jews were each recognised as a distinct millet (nation), with authority over their own marriage, divorce, inheritance and education. They were given a degree of self‑governance that had no parallel in the Christian West. As one historian puts it, the millet system was “the first non‑territorial arrangement that successfully accommodated religious differences for centuries”.

None of this is to romanticise pre‑modern Islamic governance. Dhimmis were not fully equal to Muslims. The jizya was a mark of subordination. And in times of conflict, protections were often eroded. Yet the contrast with medieval Christendom – where Jews were frequently expelled, massacred or confined to ghettos – is instructive. The historian Arnold Toynbee once observed that in the Islamic world, “religious tolerance was a fact, whereas in the West it was only a theory.”

III. The Islamic Golden Age: When Muslims Led the World

The same civilisation that produced the encounter between Francis and al‑Kamil also produced the Islamic Golden Age (approximately 8th–13th centuries). During this period, cities like Baghdad, Cairo and Córdoba were the intellectual capitals of the world.

The Translation Movement

At the House of Wisdom (Bayt al‑Hikma) in Baghdad, scholars of diverse faiths – Muslims, Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians – worked together to gather, translate and build upon the knowledge of ancient Greece, Persia and India . Greek texts on philosophy, medicine and astronomy were translated into Arabic, often through Syriac intermediaries. Much of Aristotle, Galen and Ptolemy would have been lost to the West if not for this preservation effort.

Mathematics and Astronomy

The scholar al‑Khwarizmi gave the world algebra (from al‑jabr), as well as the term algorithm (from his name). Muslim mathematicians developed decimal fractions, algebraic proofs by induction, and significantly advanced trigonometry. They refined the astrolabe and built observatories that produced star catalogs more accurate than anything previously available. Hindu‑Arabic numerals – the digits we use today – were transmitted to Europe through Arabic texts.

Medicine and Philosophy

Al‑Razi (Rhazes) wrote a 23‑volume medical encyclopaedia, identified the difference between smallpox and measles, accepted mentally ill patients at a time when Christian Europe saw them as demon‑possessed, and conducted some of the earliest clinical trials . Ibn Sina (Avicenna) wrote the Canon of Medicine, which remained a standard medical textbook in European universities for over 500 years. Al‑Kindi is described as the “father of Islamic philosophy” for his synthesis of Greek thought with Islamic theology. 

This was not a civilisation in decline or isolation. It was, for centuries, the engine of global science.

IV. Orientalism: The Invention of an “Inferior” Other

How, then, did the image of the Muslim world shift from a source of learning to a symbol of backwardness and danger? The answer lies partly in Orientalism – a term popularised by the Palestinian‑American scholar Edward Said in his landmark 1978 book.

Said’s Thesis

Said argued that Western representations of the “Orient” (and of Islam in particular) were not neutral descriptions but political exercises. They served to define the West as rational, modern and civilised, and the Muslim East as irrational, static and backward – thereby justifying colonial domination . “Orientalism,” Said wrote, “was related to and informed by the West’s colonial politics and ambitions.” Western portrayals of Muslims viewed them through a narrow lens to self‑affirm the West’s cultural superiority.

The Tools of Misrepresentation

Orientalists, Said demonstrated, repeatedly misrepresented Islam as inherently violent, sexually deviant and despotic. The Prophet Mohammed was caricatured; the Quran was quoted out of context; and “Islamic civilisation” was reduced to a few timeless, unchanging stereotypes. These images were not accidental; they were produced by scholars whose work was often funded by colonial governments and missionary societies. 

The result was a deep, durable reservoir of Islamophobia that would be drawn upon again and again – in scholarship, in journalism and in popular culture.

V. The Manufacturing of Anti‑Muslim Hatred (After Reagan)

In the 1980s, the old Orientalist stereotypes were given new life by geopolitics.

The Iranian Revolution and the “Sharia Panic”

The 1979 Iranian Revolution was a political earthquake. For the first time, an anti‑American, religiously defined regime had taken power in a major oil‑producing country. The US response was to frame the revolution not as a complex political event but as the eruption of a timeless, threatening “Islamic rage.” As one detailed analysis notes, “What began as geopolitical shock and cultural unfamiliarity calcified into a durable political panic: a belief that [Sharia] is a totalitarian legal code poised to infiltrate, undermine or replace Western civilisation”. 

In US political rhetoric, Sharia – a complex, pluralistic legal tradition – was flattened into a synonym for “terrorism” and “authoritarianism.” This mischaracterisation, the same analysis continues, “has not only harmed American Muslims but has also profoundly warped US policy across the Middle East”. 

From the Cold War to the War on Terror

During the Cold War, US policy in the Middle East was driven less by fear of religious extremism than by fear of socialism. Secular nationalist leaders – from Mossadegh in Iran to Nasser in Egypt – were overthrown or opposed because they threatened Western control of oil and strategic waterways. Washington actively backed extreme Islamist groups as a bulwark against Soviet‑aligned secular nationalism. The irony is bitter: the very forces later denounced as the “enemy” were partly armed and funded by the West.

The “Clash of Civilisations” as Self‑Fulfilling Prophecy

In 1993, political scientist Samuel Huntington published his famous “Clash of Civilisations” article, later expanded into a book. Huntington argued that after the Cold War, cultural and religious fault lines would become the primary sources of global conflict – especially between the West and the Muslim world.

The thesis was immediately controversial. Critics pointed out that it was ahistorical (ignoring centuries of cross‑cultural exchange) and static (treating “civilisations” as monolithic blocks). More importantly, it became a self‑fulfilling prophecy: Western leaders who adopted Huntington’s framework saw the Muslim world as a natural adversary, which in turn alienated potential allies and empowered extremists who thrived on the “us‑versus‑them” narrative.

The $43 Million Islamophobia Machine

After 9/11, the demonisation of Islam became an organised industry. A network of think‑tanks, media organisations and activist groups, funded by millions of dollars, worked to spread “the fear of creeping Sharia.” Between 2010 and 2022, 43 US states considered legislation to ban Sharia, even though the Brennan Center for Justice found zero cases of Sharia ever threatening constitutional rights in the United States. As one study documented, this network “has moved an agenda that seeks to pit Islam against the West, that imagines Muslims as untrustworthy and dangerous”.

VI. Oil, Israel and Geopolitics: The Real Drivers of Demonisation

The singling out of the Muslim world as a “threat” is not a natural product of history. It is the result of specific material interests.

Oil

The Middle East holds a large proportion of the world’s oil reserves. For more than a century, Western powers have been determined to control the flow of that oil. Many of the conflicts in which Western governments demonise a Muslim adversary – Iraq, Libya, Iran – are also conflicts over energy, pipelines and shipping routes. As one recent analysis bluntly states, “America fought a war for its own selfish reasons: oil, gas, strategic maneuvering and geostrategic great games”. 

The Israeli Lobby

The alliance between the United States and Israel has been a powerful driver of anti‑Muslim sentiment. Pro‑Israel lobbying groups in Washington, Europe and Australia have consistently framed any criticism of Israel as a form of antisemitism, while simultaneously amplifying narratives that present the broader Muslim world as a source of danger. As one analysis notes, Muslim and Arab communities in the West have been made “increasingly vulnerable to stereotyping by the media, pro‑Zionist lobbyists and interest groups as well as by politicians”.

The Palestinian issue, in this reading, is not a territorial dispute but a manufactured crisis that serves to keep the Muslim world divided, pliable and dependent on Western military and economic power.

Political Islam as a Western Creation

Fawaz Gerges, a leading scholar of the Middle East, argues that “Western interventions have had long‑term repercussions in the Middle East, contributing to the rise of political Islam and ongoing regional instability”. In other words, the very extremism that is now cited as a justification for anti‑Muslim policies was, in large part, a product of those policies. The blowback is real. But the initial blow was struck by the West.

VII. Instability as a Response, Not a Cause

The mainstream media narrative often presents violence and instability in Muslim countries as a product of “Islamic culture.” This is inverted. The instability in the Middle East, North Africa and South Asia is, in large part, a response to:

· Colonial borders drawn without regard for ethnic or religious communities.

· Decades of foreign military intervention (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria).

· Support for brutal dictatorships that crushed democratic movements (the Shah of Iran, Mubarak in Egypt, the Saudi monarchy).

· Economic strangulation through structural adjustment programs and sanctions (Iraq, Iran, Gaza).

· The outright blockade and bombardment of entire societies (Gaza, Lebanon, Yemen).

None of these conditions is inherent to Islam. They are the consequences of a global system designed to extract resources and maintain control.

VIII. Humanising the Muslim World: What We Can Do

The encounter between St Francis and Sultan al‑Kamil offers a model for breaking the cycle of hatred. The two men did not agree. They did not convert one another. They listened. They stayed with each other for days, sharing meals and prayer. They departed without rancour. That is interfaith dialogue not as performance, but as genuine encounter.

If we wish to counter the manufactured hatred of the past forty years, we can begin by remembering two things:

First, the record of Muslim‑Christian coexistence – from the millet system to the translation movement – is not a secret. It is well documented. It needs only to be taught.

Second, the demonisation of Islam is not ancient. It is modern, organised and funded. Understanding its origins – in Orientalism, in the Iranian Revolution panic, in the post‑9/11 propaganda machine – is the first step to disarming it.

We are two people who love to write. We are not diplomats, politicians or celebrities. But what we can do is publish. We can give space to the counter‑narratives that the mainstream media ignores. We can cite Jewish Voice for Peace, the Jewish Council of Australia and the Muslim scholars who have always said that their tradition is one of mercy, justice and peace.

And when someone tells us that “Islam” is the problem, we can point to the 800th anniversary of a meeting in which a Christian monk and a Muslim sultan sat in a tent together and chose not to fight.

Final Words

The hatred of the Muslim world is not an accident. It was designed. It serves interests – oil, arms sales, the perpetuation of the Israeli‑Palestinian conflict – that have nothing to do with the actual beliefs of 1.8 billion people.

We have a choice. We can accept the stereotypes, or we can examine the evidence.

The evidence says: Muslims and Christians lived together for centuries in comparative peace. Muslim rulers protected Jewish and Christian minorities at a time when European Christians were burning heretics at the stake. The Islamic Golden Age made possible the European Renaissance. And a Sultan once received a ragged Franciscan friar, spoke with him for days, and sent him home with a gift.

That is the history they do not teach you. It is the history we should teach ourselves.

The Patrician’s Watch – because the truth is never afraid of being seen.

Selected Sources and Further Reading

· St Francis‑Sultan meeting: Christian Media Center (2019); America magazine (2017); OFM.org (2019); Vatican Insider (2017).

· Dhimmi & millet systems: Yaqeen Institute; Cambridge University Press; Wikipedia (Ottoman millet system).

· Islamic Golden Age: Jim Al‑Khalili, Pathfinders; Wikipedia; almosaly.com; Lumen Learning.

· Orientalism: Edward Said, Orientalism (1978); Berghahn Journals (2024); Wikipedia.

· Sharia panic & post‑Reagan demonisation: WRMEA (2025); Baidu Baike; New Age; Taylor & Francis.

· Clash of Civilisations: E‑International Relations; Open Democracy; MERIP; Rowman.

· Oil, Israel & Western intervention: PressTV; New Age; FDD; Taylor & Francis; LSE Blogs.

· Countering Islamophobia: Muslim Council of Elders; Government of Canada; Hilal; Leeds University.

We welcome all readers – of every faith and none. Disagreement is acceptable; ignorance is the enemy.