Our attitude concerning mockery of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon

[S.A.M.]

Its the Jews who called it the golden age, so you'll have to ask them. Also look at the exciting times they lived in after the Moors were driven out, its called the Spanish Inquisition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_age_of_Jewish_culture_in_the_Iberian_Peninsula

Under the Moors, the people of Spain became rich. Under the British, as under the present day Americans, only the British became rich, everyone else became dirt poor.

 

[CptBork]

And I guess while we're at it, we can blame anything evil the Russians do on the muslim Turks who violently conquered the Byzantine empire, which is Russia's spiritual heartland.

 

[John99]

Please read some Berber history. A majority of Berbers [and hardly any Arabs] ruled Spain for 700 years. Those who did not run away were tortured and forcibly converted to Christianity during the Inquisition, ending 700 years of a multicultural society, sometimes called the Golden Age for Jews.

What are even talking about? The Berber's invaded Spain.

Read up on it or provide links.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berber_people

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spain

"Nonetheless, the Islamization and Arabization of the region were complicated and lengthy processes. Whereas nomadic Berbers were quick to convert and assist the Arab conquerors, not until the twelfth century, under the Almohad Dynasty, did the Christian and Jewish communities become totally marginalized."

 

[S.A.M.]

Yeah, the Berbers invaded Spain, thats what I said. They were called the Moors by them.

 

[CptBork]

Under the Moors, the people of Spain became rich. Under the British, as under the present day Americans, only the British became rich, everyone else became dirt poor.

If you want to make relative comparisons, the aboriginals today with the wealth they have accumulated in modern USA could have bought out all of Europe as it was in Moorish times, and they'd be much healthier too. Are they supposed to say "gee, thanks for elevating our way of life, at least for those few of us still left on the planet"? That's what you seem to think the dhimmi slaves should be saying to their muslim overlords.

 

[John99]

Yeah, the Berbers invaded Spain, thats what I said. They were called the Moors by them.

wow...:bugeye:

 

[S.A.M.]

If you want to make relative comparisons, the aboriginals today with the wealth they have accumulated in modern USA could have bought out all of Europe as it was in Moorish times, and they'd be much healthier too. Are they supposed to say "gee, thanks for elevating our way of life, at least for those few of us still left on the planet"? That's what you seem to think the dhimmi slaves should be saying to their muslim overlords.

Ask them if they consider it their golden age.

 

[CptBork]

Ask them if they consider it their golden age.

I looked it up on Wikipedia, here.

Mark Cohen, Professor of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University, in his landmark 1995 book on the subject, Under Crescent and Cross, argues that the "myth of an interfaith utopia" was first promulgated by Jewish historians such as Heinrich Graetz in the 19th century as a rebuke to Christian countries (particularly in Eastern Europe) for their treatment of Jews. This view went unchallenged until it was adopted by Arabs as a "propaganda weapon against Zionism",[3] who wanted to show that the establishment of the modern State of Israel shattered an alleged previously existing harmony between Jews and Arabs in Palestine under the Ottoman Empire; they pointed to the supposed utopia of the so-called "golden age" as an example of previous harmonious relationships. This "Arab polemical exploitation" was met with the "counter-myth" of the "neo-lachrymose conception of Jewish-Arab history" by historians such as Bat Yeor,[4] which also "cannot be maintained in the light of historical reality".[5]

 

[Sock puppet path]

Hmm lets see, after 800 plus years of "Arab rule" we have Syrians in Syria, Lebanese in Lebanon, Persians in Iran and Indians in India.

Is that likely to be replicated in European colonies?

All except North america and austrailia where they are a minority but you are not interested in anything other than what you have already decided upon.

 

[CptBork]

I don't see great numbers of jews harkening back to glory years under muslim rule. I will credit the muslims with better treatment of the jews than the christians gave them at the time though, but it's not the enlightened behaviour one would expect from a supposedly divinely-inspired people (the muslims).

 

[S.A.M.]

Hmm you're right, they must been really oppressed at paying one gold dinar for tax, how relieved they must be when the Moors were driven out and the Inquisition came in.

I looked it up on Wikipedia, here.

Heh, did he find a comparable period of Jewish golden age elsewhere at the time?

All except North america and austrailia where they are a minority but you are not interested in anything other than what you have already decided upon.

So the Ottomans and Mongols and Arabs were driven out? They "went back" where they came from?

 

[Sock puppet path]

Its the Jews who called it the golden age, so you'll have to ask them. Also look at the exciting times they lived in after the Moors were driven out, its called the Spanish Inquisition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_age_of_Jewish_culture_in_the_Iberian_Peninsula

Under the Moors, the people of Spain became rich. Under the British, as under the present day Americans, only the British became rich, everyone else became dirt poor.

Mostly the conquering muslims became rich, The supposed Jewish golden age lasted a few hundred years and ended with thier being massacred in Granada. also from your link about the good times.

The Almohades from Africa conquered Córdoba in 1148, and threatened the Jewish community with the choice of conversion to Islam, death, or exile.[7

Sound familiar?

 

[Michael]

The Berbers are the current Morroccans. They were the Moorish invaders of Spain.

IS this code for cotton candy and lollies

 

[S.A.M.]

Mostly the conquering muslims became rich, The supposed Jewish golden age lasted a few hundred years and ended with thier being massacred in Granada. also from your link about the good times.

Yeah, by kingdoms who were also massacring each other.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almohad_dynasty

Sound familiar?

Sounds like what Timur did in Baghdad or Ashoka in Kalinga.

 

[Sock puppet path]

What are even talking about? The Berber's invaded Spain.

Read up on it or provide links.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berber_people

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spain

"Nonetheless, the Islamization and Arabization of the region were complicated and lengthy processes. Whereas nomadic Berbers were quick to convert and assist the Arab conquerors, not until the twelfth century, under the Almohad Dynasty, did the Christian and Jewish communities become totally marginalized."

The berbers were not especially quick to convert, the muslim army met such resistance that they had to return to egypt for more troops and had to fight 20 years before they finally defeated berber resistance.

 

[S.A.M.]

Yup and after the Arabs were no longer in power, the Berbers continued to fight each other, as they had before the Arabs came. The Almohad guy was kicked out of Mecca because of his unitarian views.

 

[Kadark]

And I guess while we're at it, we can blame anything evil the Russians do on the muslim Turks who violently conquered the Byzantine empire, which is Russia's spiritual heartland.

The Turks didn't violently conquer the Byzantine Empire. Their biggest capture was Constantinople, but the violence in the region predated the Turks by centuries. The Byzantine Empire was on a continuous downfall, and eventually it was completely devastated by civil war before the Turks set foot into what is now called Istanbul. The conquer of Constantinople wasn't as violent as you make it seem: the Turks outnumbered the Christians by overwhelming numbers. It didn't take long for the defenders to simply give up, given the underpopulated state of the city. If I recall correctly, only a few thousand people died, which is incredibly low given the nature of such a war. Oh, and what does Russia have to do with this?

Kadark the Wild

 

[Sock puppet path]

The Turks didn't violently conquer the Byzantine Empire. Their biggest capture was Constantinople, but the violence in the region predated the Turks by centuries. The Byzantine Empire was on a continuous downfall, and eventually it was completely devastated by civil war before the Turks set foot into what is now called Istanbul. The conquer of Constantinople wasn't as violent as you make it seem: the Turks outnumbered the Christians by overwhelming numbers. It didn't take long for the defenders to simply give up, given the underpopulated state of the city. If I recall correctly, only a few thousand people died, which is incredibly low given the nature of such a war. Oh, and what does Russia have to do with this?

Kadark the Wild

No it wasn't in a state of constant civil war before the turks took constantinople. Byzantium had been in a war with persia before the turks struck their final blow. Their first major blow being Manzikurt, which produced Alexeis plea for aid to Rome which led to the crusades.

Constantinople was not depopulated when it was taken by the turks, in fact it had just had one of the best emperors it had seen, who defeated the persians and tried wholeheartedly to reconcile the church with the monophysists. treachery allowed constantinople to be taken and there was plenty of bloodshed as a result, not to mention eastern christendoms greatest city was lost to the turk (something similar would have to be a conquest of Mecca by christians)

It is interesting to see the alternate history that muslims are taught.

Sock puppet path, the socky

 

[Kadark]

No it wasn't in a state of constant civil war before the turks took constantinople. Byzantium had been in a war with persia before the turks struck their final blow. Their first major blow being Manzikurt, which produced Alexeis plea for aid to Rome which led to the crusades.

Constantinople was not depopulated when it was taken by the turks treachery allowed constantinople to be taken and there was plenty of bloodshed as a result, not to mention eastern christendoms greatest city was lost to the turk (something similar would have to be a conquest of Mecca by christians)

It is interesting to see the alternate history that muslims are taught.

Sock puppet path, the socky

I stopped reading after "Constantinople was not depopulated". Are you on crack?

Constantinople by this stage was underpopulated and dilapidated. The population of the city had collapsed so severely that it was now little more than a cluster of villages separated by fields. On April 2, 1453, the Sultan's army of some 80,000 men and his hordes of irregulars laid siege to the city.[125] Despite a desperate last-ditch defense of the city by the massively outnumbered Christian forces (c. 7,000 men, 2,000 of whom were foreign mercenaries[124]), Constantinople finally fell to the Ottomans after a two-month siege on May 29, 1453. The last Byzantine emperor, Constantine XI Palaiologos, was last seen casting off his imperial regalia and throwing himself into hand-to-hand combat after the walls of the city were taken.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Empire#Reconquest_of_Constantinople

As we were,

Kadark the Visionary

 

[CptBork]

Hmm you're right, they must been really oppressed at paying one gold dinar for tax, how relieved they must be when the Moors were driven out and the Inquisition came in.

Again, in every historical account I've read, non-muslims paid higher taxes than muslims. It's an apartheid tax no matter how you look upon it. Like I said, the jews had it better under muslim rule than they ever did under the Inquisition, but that's like comparing American segregationists to the Ku Klux Klan.

The Turks didn't violently conquer the Byzantine Empire. Their biggest capture was Constantinople, but the violence in the region predated the Turks by centuries. The Byzantine Empire was on a continuous downfall, and eventually it was completely devastated by civil war before the Turks set foot into what is now called Istanbul. The conquer of Constantinople wasn't as violent as you make it seem: the Turks outnumbered the Christians by overwhelming numbers. It didn't take long for the defenders to simply give up, given the underpopulated state of the city. If I recall correctly, only a few thousand people died, which is incredibly low given the nature of such a war. Oh, and what does Russia have to do with this?

Kadark the Wild

The Turks built the largest cannon in history at the time to smash down the defenses of Constantinople, because their other tactics weren't working. Doesn't seem very peaceful at all to me- would the Turks have starved to death if they didn't conquer and plunder Constantinople and subjugate its people? I don't think so. They pounded and plucked away at the Byzantine empire over the years for the sake of jihad, and they did the same in Italy, Austria and many other parts of Europe. How many examples do we need of Turkish islamic violence throughout history? Are you forgetting the Armenians and their million man march? Yeah, the Turks were really there to spread peace and prosperity to the region, just like what America's doing in Iraq.

So if in S.A.M.'s logic, Britain's colonial past excuses the millions slaughtered in southeast Asia's civil wars, then the Turks' past excuses Russian attrocities, since they learned from specific examples. Constantinople is a slavic city, and Russia is now the centre of the slavic world. Also the Turks could be used to excuse Serbia's war crimes too, since there's an obvious historical connection in that region.

All I'm pointing out is that the islamic world was never the bastion of liberty S.A.M. tries to portray it as.