Your *complete* lack of clue and concomitant bizzaro-world conspiracy logic makes me immediately think that you are an OWS sheep.

Eeeevil Landlords are going to suffer (yay!!!) because rents will plummet, and commercial construction will plummet throwing even more laborers out of work (boo!! or yay if your goal is to foment revolution).

Of course, ATT could just hold on to most of these hard assets, selling them off slowly while boosting their balance sheet in the meantime.

But how much more tolerant were the Muslims of non-Jizya-paying infidels than the Crusaders were of "others"?

A little, a lot, somewhere in between? It really does matter, and just the simple word "more" doesn't come close to indicating which shade of grey.

Then your comment is meaningless, since "more" can be anything from a zepto-zepto- zepto-percent greater to a zetta-zetta-zetta-percent greater.

Eh? You're joking, right?

And if they did not pay the Jizya?

I was thoroughly taught the eevils of the Crusaders, but not a peep of the conquerors the Crusaders were trying to kick out, so I feel a bit of duty to present "the rest of the story".

And the Caliphate armies pushed into central France before being pushed back by Charles Martel.

Anyway, of course it justifies the Crusades. What powerful civilization doesn't try to conquer back what was taken from it?

Just don't think there was anything Christ-like about the Christians.

No excuses from me; just counteracting the mass fallacy that only the Crusaders were Teh Evil and that the Muslims were a bunch of Little Miss Innocents.

As opposed to the Muslims who conquered Palestine, North Africa, Iberia, Persia, Mesopotamia and southeastern Europe?