Medieval canon law framed Muslim co-presence as a physical and spiritual pollution threat.

Evidence

One of the major preoccupations seen in these legal restrictions is the protection of the physical and spiritual purity of Christians. The protected but subordinate role attributed to Muslims and Jews in the legal texts of Jaume I and Alfonso el Sabio reflected earlier canon law. The Christian had to be kept free from the polluting contact of the infidel subject: sexual contact was above all to be avoided. This same preoccupation is seen in the crusader kingdom of Jerusalem. The Council of Nablus (1120), for example, proclaimed harsh penalties for sexual relations between Christians and Muslims and forbade Muslims from dressing like “Franks.” The dress restrictions were meant to aid Christians in identifying Muslims and avoiding unnecessary contact with them. In the same spirit, the fourth Lateran council proclaimed: In some provinces a difference of dress distinguishes Jews or Saracens from Christians, but in certain others such confusion has developed that they are indistinguishable. — John V. Tolan, Saracens, 1008

Categorization

• XREF: Nablus dress restrictions against Muslims dressing as Franks are direct ancestors of modern dress codes that police Muslim visible difference — echoes of the ADDENDUM immodesty/moral-panic piece.
• DEFINE: The ‘confidence of identification’ rationale behind dress segregation is the root form of modern visible-Muslim monitoring.
• SEED: The Council of Nablus 1120 dress rules make a sharp mini-essay contrast: medieval sumptuary markers of Muslim alterity versus modern Islamic dress restrictions — inverted targets, same logic of legible religious identity.