Hey, candide, your new here, welcome. Anyway, as for small armies crossing all of Spain, we have the examples of the normans in england conquering the country whilst outnumbered 100's to one, and Hannibal in Italy for someone who ran around for years without much trouble. See, according to what youve posted, people didnt accept islam into Spain because it was clearly the one true way to peace happiness and enlightenment, they did it because they wanted to use the Moslems for their own aims, ie victory of their religiouos way and freedom from oppression. So, what did happen to all these christians?
If that is the case what's Islam got to do with it? Did the advances you are claiming have more to do with existing Spanish pracitices and how they mixed with imported Islam, or how receptive the people were to Islam? If the latter, explain the massacre of the Jews in 1066? Why were non-muslims not equal to Muslims under sharia law? If we're talking about an advanced society we're not talking about an advanced liberal one. The Islamic "invaders" (as they were then to the pre-existing communities) could give promises to the native communities that they would not be physically harmed. For a lot of the time they were'nt. Sometimes they were. But even in peacetime weren't non-muslims still obliged to pay jiyza (poll-tax) and be subjected to other restrictions according to Sharia law? If this is a Magnificent Age, it is not particularly magnificent for non-muslims, and those who don't believe blind faith in religious edicts is a safe, just, moral and decent way to run the world. You quote: ''It is a common misapprehension that the holy war meant that the Muslims gave their opponents a choice "between Islam and the sword". This was sometimes the case, but only when the opponents were polytheist and idol-worshippers. For Jews, Christians and other "People of the Book", that is, monotheists with written scriptures - a phrase that was very liberally interpreted - there was a third possibility, they might become a "protected group", paying a tax or tribute to the Muslims but enjoying internal autonomy'" [W. Montgomery Watt] That's a good euphemism for second class citizen. Should not all religious groups have the same rights to their humanity and spiritual needs? This Islamic line of thought - Jews and Christians as a "protected group" - suggests that Jew and Christians will "see the light" eventually, so let's keep them alive. This hasn't happened yet - why do some Mulisms still stick with the idea of a two tier state and think that Muslim Spain which was two-tiered was a Magnificent place? Also, atheists are not given a mention in this quote. Did they have the rights Muslism did in Muslim Spain? Is it my understanding they had none and were officially banned from Islamic lands on pain of cold steel. The Muslims were not more peaceful than average. They were human. In order to conquer more of the Spanish peninsular the Muslims had to fight. In 717 they had a set-back against the Visigoths and lost a part of north Spain in the battle of Covadonga. In time Muslims raided into France, lost a battle at Poitiers to Charles Martel's Franks. Spanish Saracens even mauraded as far as modern-day Switzerland (but could not establish significant presence outside Spain). Almoravid Conquests in Southern Spain 1086 shows further Islamic warfare. This Muslim Spanish civilization was as violent to outsiders as most others are. It was also often violent to those within who were not Muslim. In 711 it may well have been better overall for the Spanish population to have big well organised Islamic rule for a few hundred years and a large area of order than the alternative - more constant anarchy between lots of small warrior families interested in their own glory, power and wealth, or that of their religious affliations. The Muslims built institutions (educational, trade, amenities, public order) for their communities and urbanized, creating larger cities. But this progress does not mean the advantage Islam had in the years after 711 - in terms of quality of life for most Spanish people - would last for ever; or that this system would be immune to greed, corruption and abuse from within. After 1000 I understand the Muslim government collapsed and the Islamic peninsular split into separate Muslim units and independent cities; a mosaic of competing interests as it had been before. That's not to wash over the bad points of Muslim Spain in the earlier years. For nearly 300 years unification may have been better than the more anarchical alternative but that does not mean that Islamic Spain gave equal opportunity to men and women, muslims and non-muslims. Just that the alternatives in the world at the time were more backward in comparison. Perhaps that explains the lack of initial revolt - people were glad of order and peace and willing to give something else a shot. That and the fact they'd be killed or hand parts of their bodies chopped off if they stepped out of line. (Punishment occurs in all societies). I agree it was a chapter in the civilization of at least one part of the world. But it's not the whole book. The influences of this period remain in the subsequent chapters of history but they have been built on with other ideas to make life today a different story for people in Spain. A more freerer one, even if this stage in their history is not the final chapter either, and that Islamic commentary could not be an influence in its future evolution. It is going to the other extreme to call it a liberation, but it is too simplistic to say that the Muslims met united resistence. From the beginning with the alliance with "infidel" Andalusia and the Christian Archbishop of Serville the Islamic rulers clearly knew how to play of competing interests against each other to their own advantage. This is true of successful leaders generally. I was thinking of "turning points". By saying they "lost Spain" to French was sloppy, ignorant language. In can be said that when the Muslims failed to further conquest into France they lost their chance to conquer and rule other parts of Europe. The Battle of Poitiers, 732, was a massive assymetrical defeat. Arab army, which had razed churches and pillaged towns on route to the fight, commanded by kind Abderrahman, reportedly lost 300'000 men to Charles Martel's Franks who lost 1'500. Henceforth the Muslims were relegated to nothing more than a tenuous foothold on a mediterranean peninsular. That eventually did succumb to forces from the north. In all, I believe you are probably right that the Muslim conquest of Spain was quite productive. But to say it is a time to repeat in today's world would be to throw away the gains we have made on the civilization of that era, in terms of equal rights for men, women, and people of religion. In addition to a society in which science is allowed to flourish and people can think independently of political and religious authorities without getting stoned or burnt at the stake.
You are very confused, the Islamic FATH ( as we call it in Arabic ) of Spain took place in 711-714 AD, what that has to do with what happened to the jews in 1066 ????????? Beside, the Spanish accepted Islam because it liberated them from the slavery of the church and the morach. as to the Jews, there was NO jews in Spain when Muslims entered it, it is the Muslims who allowed the jews to come and live under their rule in Spain in complete safety after Europe started persecuting them, the muslims offered them shelter and safe living. As to the so called Masscare of the jews in 1066, there was a civil war and the jews were flaming this war....Who better to talk about this ''massacre'' and WHY it happened but the JEWS themselves ?? ''Unfortunately, upon Samuel's death (1055), the Jewish community of Granada began a steep decline which reached a horrible climax in 1066. Leading the community was Samuel's son, Joseph, who lacked his father's humility. Though well educated and groomed, he was ostentatious and arrogant. He soon alienated the ruling Berbers as well as the Arab masses. On a Shabbat in 1066, Joseph's palace was stormed and he was murdered, crucified on a cross. The entire Jewish community came under the riotous siege (December 30th) resulting in 4,000 deaths and the destruction of most property. Incredibly, the community quickly recovered, only to fall again, this time at the hands of the Almoravids in 1090. Later, under the rule of the Almohads regime (1148-1212), only Jews who had converted to Christianity were allowed to live in the city. Jews returned to the city when Granada was ruled by the Naserite dynasty (1232-1492). On March 31, 1492, the saga of the Jews of Granada came to a crushing conclusion, when Ferdinand and Isabelle signed the edict of expulsion in the "City of the Jews." http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/vjw/Granada.html Enjoy !! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Sharia laws apply ONLY on Muslims, non muslims can have their own laws. Non Muslims pay Jizya because under sharia law they are NOT required to go to the army and fight and die...it is US the Muslims who have to do while non muslims can stay SAFE at home and pay for us to fight and protect them. Beside, the jizya is very small amount ( 0.5 % ) to what Muslims have to pay, the ZAKAT ( 2.5 % ) so basiclly, the non muslims are having better deal than muslims because they pay less and stay home, we pay more and we go to the army to get killed !!! It was magnificent after all, otherwise how come so many jews found refugee in MUSLIM SPAIN ?? How come so many christians converted to Islam without force or any trouble ?? how come history books ( even the biased orientalist ones ) dont tell us about major revoults by non muslims against Muslims ?????? Yes, But this is NOW, and NOT 1300 years ago...get real, you cant apply the logic of the 21th century on the logic of the 7th century....it is asburd. This is utter nonesense, how about others who are not jews and christians, will they not might see the light as well ???? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Where is your proof ?????? I dont accept general statements and hearsay without any FAIR UNBIASED evidence....orientalist nonesense has only one place, the pin. By the standards of THAT ERA, Muslims in Spain were the Most tolerant in the world, why we dont compare them with what the barbaric christian cursaders did when they invaded the Islamic orient ????? Islam laid down the foundations of your own renaissance, it gave you the numbers you are using now, it gave you the concept ZERO which without it, you wont be able to use your PC..etc....these are FACTS you can never ever deny to rubbish no matter how much copy and paste you do. BULLSHIT, the arab armies did not razed churches and pillaged towns, where is your proof ???? again, orientalist BULL has only one place, the PIN. You are so funny, so ABSURD.... 300,000 men !!! LOOOOOOOOOL the whole Muslim army did not excede 100,000 fighters !!! Here is Muslim source in Arabic ( and here is a link for Arabic-English translation : http://arabicdictionaries.com/ ) http://www.islamonline.net/Arabic/history/1422/11/article17.shtml You are so funny with this 300,000 Muslims killed for 1500 French !! I did not say to repeat this FATH, it is your guys the new crusaders who are repeating history, otherwise what the hell you are doing in Afghanistan and Iraq ????????????????
Yes, but Muslim civilization did not start its decline then. I would put the date somewhere in the fifteenth or sixteenth century. You make a good point. Islam did survive, but for the latter half of its history that's really all it did do. It left civilization's limelight. Civilization's centers were no longer Baghdad or Cordova, but London and Paris. I guess I'm saying that the "Islamic Empire" wasn't living up to its past, and it still isn't. The Middle East is a world liability instead of a world center. I know, at least, that it has great potential to regain its throne, what better example than its history to prove my hypothesis, but for now it is a backward region controlled by Texan oil tycoons. And, look: while I am part of the country that is using the Middle East's blood to manufacture weapons for their consumption, I am not actually manufacturing these weapons, nor am I consciously supporting their manufacturers. If I saw a realistic way to act against their activities, I would openly participate in it. I'd just like to make that clear. Also, if I were religious, and had the choice of which religion to be a part of, I'd be a Muslim.
Any civilization has a circule, in fact, the Muslim founder of Sociology, IBN KHALDON wrote that every civilization has 3 stages: birth, youth and power and then it dies down. Since the 16th century, the Ottoman Empire took the duty of defending the muslims from the growing danger coming from the Spanish, the English, the French, the portugese and the dutch...there was no time for scientific developments, this has militarized the entire muslim world. indeed, everyone come here to sort out their interests, the soviets before and now the Americans, god know who is next. You know I wish we had no oil at all, I am sure we would have been better off without it. I agree, in fact, the oil has brought us nothing but misery. Thank you, very encouraging to hear that...Allah bless you.
I would think that militiarization would spur on scientific developments. Look at what World War 1 did to warfare. The Chinese... Oil's burden won't be on the Middle East's shoulders for much longer. Give it a few decades. And I agree with you--even if the Middle East were still stricken with poverty, even if it were still held by tyrants, at least it would be in its own hands, which is the most minimum request a people can make, that their [real] ruler, in whatever form, be a native of the region he or she controls. For the moment his attention, however infinite, could be better spent elsewhere.
So why didn't muslims use ISLAM to build the same magnificent civilizations in the MIDDLE EAST????? If Islam is your motivation and engine for development and progress - why hasn't anything ISLAMIC developed or progressed?
They did, for centuries DAMASCUS AND BAGHDAD were the centers of the world. Islam indeed activate and developed many muslim states, look at Malaysia for example, it is one of the most advanced 15 countires in the world and it is MUSLIM. Look at Pakistan, they produce their own fighter jets and nuclear submarine there...and many more examples.
re Irish and muslim links. Many Irish were transported as slaves to various islamic countries. I find it very difficult to believe there were any trading links.
Doesn't slave transport imply trade? Or was there a third party involved? Your post is confusing me or its sense having not as for me stupid be really.
the art and architecture in spain are so arab influenced, you'd never know it was so catholic just by looking at it. even the churches and synoguoges look like mosques with all their intricate islamic ornamentation. i remember spending the afternoon in a jewish temple disguised to look like a mosque because you weren't allowed to be a jew at the time it was built. anyway, i think the islamic inspiration is beautiful.
reportedly lost 300'000 men to Charles Martel's Franks who lost 1'500 A myth based on a single "eye-witness" account-- St. Denis or something like that. It is not historically accurate, and the numbers are preposterous. In any case, you people need to distinguish between Islam, muslims, arabs, moors, etc.
What years are we talking about? I thought the Vikings were raiding Ireland pretty heavy till they converted to Christianity. Got any sources? On a side note, Barbary Pirates! The same (location? culture?) that extorted the United States when it was in its infantcy?
did not want to reply to Joe's first post, but since you bring up Vikings RonVolk i reply now. here is a link to some of the Viking trade and raiding routes http://hjem.get2net.dk/fyrkat/english/index.htm
Andalusian Reflections In the 10th century C.E, Hroswitha—Saxon princess and earliest known German poetess—wrote of Cordoba, the caliphal capital of al-Andalus, that it was: “the ornament of the world.” In the Age of Hroswitha, Islam and civilization were synonymous. The Abode of Islam had a brilliant beacon in the east: Sunni Persia, and another, more spectacular, in the west: al-Andalus. http://www.webislam.com/numeros/2000/00_5/Articulos 00_5/Andalusian_Reflections.htm
hey, P_M, could you enligthen us on the origins of that mosque? It used to be a Visagothic cathreral, but the muslim rulers first made it into two worship centers, then took it all a civ founded on stealing, war, looting & yes, after the conquest, art & beauty, o to have such mericiful conquerors as these, they were so well loved that the Spainish spent 781 years kicking them out of Spain, what love shown to those wonderful rulers, why? Read about the Almoravides & Almohades in Spanish http://www.ahl-ul-bait.org/Espanol/maqalat/history/es_h_de_al-andalus/es_h_de_al-andalus(6).htm
