Anyone here read this book?
It's pretty useful for shutting Muslim apologists and SJWs the fuck up.
Written by a Spaniard so there's some obvious bias there, but for the most part I found it to be a factual look at the atrocities that the Muslims carried out in Iberia, and helps illustrate why the Christian Reconquest was not only tame in comparison, but was well deserved.
>>874065
So you only use one source to bolster your arguments? Okay kiddo, don't forget to come back and tell us what you thought of Guns, Germs and Steel next
>>874182
>one
Any source has sources of its own.
>>874065
>It's pretty useful for shutting Muslim apologists and SJWs the fuck up.
Which means it's probably filled with gross exaggerations and stating things everybody already knew but had already contextualized far better and you just like it because it spoon feeds you shit you already believed were true before you even read it.
>>874255
You just explained any internet political fandom's preference for media perfectly
>>874065
Name one claim he makes and I'll laugh and tell you how he's wrong and then you respond with buzzwords like SJW and apologist.
Hey, you got half of it down already, good job!
>>874255
Sort of like liberals reading any sort of history book that makes it seem like the Muslims were peaceful, tolerant, benevolent conquerors who freed the Spanish from their oppressive overlords.
>because it spoon feeds you shit you already believed were true before you even read it.
Kind of like liberals regurgitating whatever propaganda their professors and social media pump into them like #NotAllMuslims while ignoring statistics
>the myth of
Discarded right there
Might as well call it "The REAL UNADULTERATED POLITICALLY INCORRECT History of Andalusian Spain"
>>874198
>>874215
>There are tons of citations ergo it must be sound argumentation
Please stop
>>874279
His big claim is simply that the Muslims were intolerant and oppressive as fuck. He backs this up with dozens of instances of executions, torturers, etc. for refusal to convert or pay jizya, things of that nature.
>>874296
How scholarly of you, to completely ignore historical fact because you're afraid it might show you that Muslims have acted like barbarians for the past 1000 years and continue to do so today.
>>874294
>education
>propaganda
brah, just because you dropped out of high school to play video games in your mom's basement, doesn't mean you gotta lash out.
You can still do it, man. I believe in you. You're smart enough to delude yourself this much. That means you're smart enough to be successful!
>>874320
I never said anything about his argumentation. You claimed that I only had "one source." Which is patently false. So now you're moving the goalposts and saying that just because the author has dozens and dozens of sources backing up his point, it doesn't mean his argument is good. Which is correct, having lots of evidence of your point doesn't mean you have a good point. That's why you should read the book and decide for yourself.
All you need to know about Muslim rule in Europe is that many cities willingly opened their gates to the invaders during the early Muslim conquests and when the Franks came to "liberate" them a few decades later they had to siege and burn down those same cities.
>>874294
>Whataboutism
>>874294
>Sort of like liberals reading any sort of history book that makes it seem like the Muslims were peaceful, tolerant, benevolent conquerors who freed the Spanish from their oppressive overlords
Yeah, sure, but listen /pol/, you may have trouble understanding this, but one extremity doesn't automatically justify the opposite extremity.
>>874353
Which is exactly what you started off with.
Don't expect anything other than childish name calling and logical fallacies when that's what you brought to the table in the first place, cuck.
>>874324
If he had a more unbiased title, I might consider trying it out
Titles like that give the vibe that the content will be influenced by the author's political bias
>>874324
>How scholarly of you
The book was not meant to be scholarly, which is why it's published by a conservative group and not for university press or peer review. It's purpose is to attack nonscholarly strawmen to begin with.
>>874324
>His big claim is simply that the Muslims were intolerant and oppressive as fuck.
Yep. They were. They were human beings with a lot of power and wealth.
And yet they conquered the region by winning a few battles, and all the conquered people of Spain preferred the Muslims over the previous rulers.
You need public opinion to gain and maintain sovereignty. The Muslims won Spain, because the Muslims were a better Empire. The Jizya tax was actually cheaper than their previous taxes. And the Muslims defender the land better.
Overtime, the Muslims and the Catholic church became rivals over the region, and the church won, because the Muslims stopped being nice. They became decadent and oppressive.
This is the same cycle of all Empires. Pointing out the shittiness during fall while ignoring the prosperity and calling it a myth is dishonest at best, and more than likely, propaganda.
civilizations, Empires, nations, rise and fall. They become beacons of human rights, and then oppressive dictatorships, in the span of a century. We are currently in no different of a position, and someday, a history book will be written called "the myth of American prosperity" and it'll be written by whatever country is the rival of our descendants.
>>874360
>Which is exactly what you started off with.
That was my first post, and no, that's not what the anon said at all.
>>874324
>His big claim is simply that the Muslims were intolerant and oppressive as fuck. He backs this up with dozens of instances of executions, torturers, etc. for refusal to convert or pay jizya, things of that nature.
So yeah basically >>874255
Honestly, if you're interested in a more unbiased study of Muslim Spain, I'd recommend works like that of Richard Fletcher or somebody who did not set out to "prove" anything but just relay the facts as accurately as our evidence allows.
>>874362
This.
>>874354
And I have an MD and PhD in Quantum Physics and made out with Steven Hawking as he told me all the propaganda about Quantum physics and we talked about how much it was all lies and we laughed especially about electrons how can any libtard believe in electrons lmao!!!
sorry that facts don't fit with your primal, tribal mentality.
The fact that El Cantar de Mio Cid, a seminal epic work of Castillian Spanish dated to Reconquista period, presents both the Moors and Christians in a mixed light tells me that things probably aren't as black and white as 'le moors are eeebil' or 'Moorish Spain was an enlightened paradise!'
>>874384
The Moriscoes of Spain: Their Conversion and Expulsion by Henry Charles Lea is a nice contemporary study of the relations between the Morsicos and the Christians during the Reconquista
>>874379
10/10 post
>>874392
>And I never said it did. Holy hell you guys are fucking faggots, I'm not the one trying to justify anything. I'm just saying that the book is a good read and makes a lot of good points. I don't have to provide any proof to counter your point, because you have no proof in turn.
Your opening post was not "what do you think of the thesis of this book, guys?" Your opening post was basically "Holy shit, Mudslimes and ESJAYDUBBAYOOS BTFO lol" and then ignored criticism of the obvious bias of the work that is evident in the very fucking title and went on about liberals reading biased sources as if it justifies reading a biased unscholarly source of the opposite polarity.
>>874065
I actually have read it, and it's not a book anyone who wants to seriously study Medieval Spain would bother starting with. It's a long Op-Ed attacking some modern myths held by non-historians who everyone including people as old as Bernard Lewis had already pointed out as incorrect or warped.
But since it's aimed at an audience with a particular political ideology opposing the ideologues who believed said myths, it devolves a lot into political opinion and personal biases while making lots of suppositions about historical texts and secondary sources that would never fly in an academic, peer-reviewed publication.
>>874417
So between this and "White Girl Bleed A Lot", which is the more scholarly text?
>>874419
I'm not familiar with that book. I only read this one because I'm heavy into the early Middle Ages and I was mass downloading anything with the right keywords from Library Genesis some months ago.
>>874344
>Surrendering your city out of fear of having all of your heads chopped off is not the same as "welcoming" conquerors.
Nearly the entirety of Southern France (the most romanized and urbanized part back then) chose to side with the Muslims, stayed independent or actively backstabbed Charles Martel during his campaigns, which was the reason he razed every major city in the area.
They were afraid of getting their heads chopped off alright, but it wasn't the Saracens they were worried about.
(Toulouse, which had been under heavy Germanic influence for a while compared to other Gallo-Roman cities, seems to have been the only one to seriously resist.)
>And it was more than a few decades, try a few centuries.
In this case, it was less than few centuries.
>>874439
When the Muslims lost the advancement into Europe during the rise of the Ummayads, they ceased. They also built fort cities near large, native ones, for Muslim soldiers to live in, so that they could rule over them and not have the military become too brutal/powerful.
The Muslim conquered were welcomed initially. Times changed. Why are you ignoring my posts, but spam a meta argument about sources? Scared I just shattered your world view, bro?
>>874065
>It's pretty useful for shutting Muslim apologists and SJWs the fuck up.
Not a Muslim apologist at all but any history book with an agenda based on modern politics is going to be pure shit.
>>874065
I would much rather live in Moorish than any other place on Europe bar the ERE between 700-1100
>>874519
>Not a Muslim apologist at all but any history book with an agenda based on modern politics is going to be pure shit.
So every single history book written after 1960?
>>874494
>When the Muslims lost the advancement into Europe during the rise of the Ummayads...
I'm precisely talking about the Islamic conquests of Visigothic Spain and Southern France and the Frankish campaigns to repel them. You know, the events that directly preceded the period you're talking about. Long story short, the pro-Muslim faction was overwhelmingly popular among the local nobility, and the pro-Frankish faction was like two dudes (one of whom got overthrown by the pro-Muslim faction.)
It seems Gallo-Romans figured Frankish rule was literally worse than Muslim rule, probably because Charles Martel was rampaging through the region and setting every fucking city on fire while the Ummies were mostly content with taxing and plundering like reasonable people. Even after the pope gave his blessings to his successor Pippin (a better diplomat), it took many years, many Frankish victories and many crushed rebellions before the local nobles finally gave up and accepted Frankish rulers. In comparison, Saracens basically came singing "Give Islam a chance!" in front of the city gates and the local nobles surrendered with embarrassing haste.
>Why are you ignoring my posts, but spam a meta argument about sources?
There are 10 posters in this thread, retard.
>>874215
>sources can't be interpreted in different ways by different authors
>>874617
Probably. The best history books are written by guys who are like 95 and dont give a shit about the modern world.
>>874182
What about the Quran as a source?
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/violence.aspx
>>874255
#Wrecked
>>874720
Use Islamwiki and save us all some time.
>>874720
I love the people who just post this kind of stuff.
Literal rule number 1 about Islamic theology: It is forbidden to attempt to interpret a verse at face value. If you do not understand the language, then don't even try. The Quran explicitly calls itself "an arabic qur'an", so any translation just does not cut it. Harsh but true.
If you do not know the historical context: get the fuck out of here.
If you do not know how the sahaba and the scholars interpret it(tafseer), you have some homework to do.
If you don't know what the hadith specifically say about this verse, you can fuck right off.
Basically: Do not take any verse at face value, not even the smallest one. Literal rule number one of Quranic studies.
This is why 99,99% of the 1,6 billion muslims on earth are simple, peaceloving people.
>>874662
hello tigero
>>874336
But you do only have one source. If you wanted to cite anything from the book, you cite it as Fernandez-Morera. You're still using only one academic work to back up your opinion. Regardless of which sources Fernandez gathered, relying on his singular interpretation of x number of sources still constitutes a singular source. If you really wanted to have a sound footing, you'd find multiple sources that corroborate Fernandez-Morera's findings. Otherwise you're no better than any liberal SJW that points to some paper or book by so-so author that is in total opposition to Fernandez-Morera's work but has an equal amount of "research" behind it.
>>874748
That's a bit of an exaggeration don't you think? You're right though.
>>874760
what's an exaggeration?
>>874771
That the 99,99 percent of the muslims are peace loving people.
>>874748
>Point out all the fucked up violent shit in the Quran
>B..but it wasn't translated right
>muh context
>muh scholars
>muh 99.99% peaceful muslims
>>874748
>You got to know the original language to understand it and criticize it
And you would be fully happy with Christians and Jews doing the same thing about their holy books?
>>874772
Just like 99.99% of christians?
>>874065
This guy is a dumbfuck.
>Another instance is the Andalusian poet Ibn Quzman, much praised today for his singing of eroticism and homosexuality: his admirers overlook that he was blond and blue-eyed, and that these facts, together with a name like Ibn Quzman (Guzmán or Guttman), mean that he was of Hispanic (indeed Visigothic, that is, Germanic) origin.
The most charitable interpretation is that he thinks Andalusian liberals/libertines don't count because they were white and thus not really Muslim because only Arabs (free of non-Arab influence) are really Muslim, even if Arabs free of foreign influences represented about 0% of Andalusia's population. He discounts Persia and Turkey in the same vein. "I mean, okay, they were terribly decadent and liberal, but they were PERSIANS, duh!"
>>874772
0,01% of 1.5 billion is about 150000.
That is, if you take the estimate of Isis' forces of 50.000, three times the size of the entire force of Isis.
I guess it comes down to how we define peace-loving, but I don't think I'm exaggerating at all.
>>874748
Show us your Arabic skills, senpai.
>>874811
Wait. Peter gets killed by a mob in Antioch, but it's glossed over.
>>874793
Jews do the same thing about their holy book, so yes. Christians are a different story. Their holy book is "inspired" by God. It's not a direct message from God. If you think you can convey the message of God better than he could, be my guest.
But desu, even when it comes to stuff like the Lords prayer, it's better in the original language.
The wording is just better when you pray using "Abba", which is a very close way of saying "dad", rather than "our father".
But that's a tangent.
>>874811
>comparing religious commands to religious history
Besides, isn't the islamic history separated from the quran?
Think they are called hadiths.
>>874844
Never said that. I actually think the modern way of reading the bible is horrendous. It is a deep and beautiful book which should be studied intently, even if only to understand its contribution to western literature and art.
But I don't see how this has anything to do with our discussion on how the Quran should be studied, since they're two different books.
No holy book can be glossed over. Bible or Gita.
>>874860
The Bible has a New Testament and a baby god that says those are the old ways. He hung out with prostitutes.
>>874828
>Christians are a different story
Not really. The Vatican got their Vulgate and resisted attempts to translate and read the Bible in other languages for centuries, the Orthodox got their Greek canon, and all serious Biblical scholars and apologists know you ain't shit unless you can read Aramaic or whatever.
Even American mouthbreathers often insist on muh King James' Version as the authoritative, divinely inspired English translation: it magically translates the meaning perfectly, even for high school dropouts who can't understand medieval English!
>>874851
See the Quran as a message from God to mankind. This means that every message that was sent down, was sent down in a context that added to its meaning in a fundamental way.
Take, for example, surah 111. It's about a certain "abu lahab", which is commonly translated as "father of fire". This is a correct translation, but it misses both the context of arabic linguistic convention and of historical meaning. In this case, Abu Lahab was a nickname. It's the only time in the Quran a specific person is cursed. This is meaningless, unless you know what he did, which we get from studying the historical context of the surah, which we get in part from the hadith.
(Abu Lahab was the uncle of the prophet, but severely abused his authority and power in Mecca, and even danced and celebrated at the death of Muhammads son. This is why he was cursed.)
>>874811
>It's an mistake that they translated it in the first place.
Sounds like Islam wants to be a cult. If you don't speak the language, you aren't allowed to know how violent the book is.
>>874887
Lel /intpol/ got triggered
>>874887
Thank you for playing, see you next thread.
>>874887
>>874890
Not him but i think that you cant say if it is violent or not if you dont know the language. Thats pretty much the message.
>>874890
>a cult
>of 1.5 billion people
>that actively teaches people the language
Literally go to any mosque and they will hook you up with someone who will teach you the language. To this day, I can't sit calmly in the mosque without an older muslim telling me to practice my recitation of the qur'an to him.
>>874895
>muh conspiracy
Spotted the /pol/tard
>>874915
Lmao you idiot
>>874910
Why would I want to learn the language if I'm not allowed to know what the religious texts say until I do so?
>>874887
Did you have a meltdown?
I recommend sitting down and breathing for couple of minutes.
>>874927
>all in my mind btw
>>874927
>MC
Fuck off, The National Guard was the ones playing GI joe.
>>874929
>not allowed
Nobody stops you to read the translations. Its just not the right way to understand Islam and the quran. And if you are really intend on understanding islam you should read the the quran in arabic.
ITT: Average /pol/ realizes the rest of 4chan doesn't think exactly like he does, breaks down in spectacular fashion.
Just another day on /his/
>>874929
People used to learn languages precisely because they didn't trust others to tell them what some texts they can't read actually say.
>>874927
And these kind of people frequent /his/, this place is total shit now it has basically become /pol/ with dates as many people predicted.
>>874929
It's not a matter of "allowed".
Let me give you a very short example, a very common word: Alhamdulillahi.
Translated as "praise be to God".
But it's not just praise. "hamd" is a word which involves both praise and thanks. There's a vital difference there. The grammatical construction also adds another dimension, namely that it's in the "hamd" is a proper noun, which in this case implies that the praise and thanks are always to God, whether we are actively praising him or not. It's outside of our control. So rather than alhamdulillah being a praise to Allah, it's an acknowledgement that all praise is always to him. Then the word also has a genitive aspect, which reinforces the idea that the praise belongs to him alone. Noone else.
Now that is one word, nigga. One word which is simply lost in translation. Now, the quran has 114 chapters and over 6000 verses. Can you grasp why it's a problem when all those words lose meaning?
lol are we forgetting the little historical fact that the Visigoths basically invited the Umayyad's into Spain to help them in a civil war?
Also OP is you are so kind please point to me when a revolt by the native inhabitants of Al-Andalus happened against their Muslim rulers.
>>874946
I'll take the word of translators that translate for a living over biased Muslims. Especially if they're going to tell me understanding the texts through translation is impossible because Allah put a magic spell on them.
>>874294
hey he wasent saying that liberals arent doing it hes just telling you that you are doing the exact same thing
>>874947
Breaking down when exposed to outside views seems to be a common /pol/ trait, here's a post I saved because it was just precious:
"What initial experiences made you an avowed white supremacist/racist/whatever that would never see non-whites the same again?
For me it was the revelation one day that non-whites are capable of breeding with whites and actually do go and have sex with whites. I think I was around 14 or so at the time and it was 2007.
Somehow I lived most of my life in ignorance of this fact (I was homeschooled and I never knew any non-whites).
I always just assumed everyone sticks to their own race, that black goes with black, white goes with white, asian goes with asian, etc.
It was a complete shock to me one day when I learned about racemixing. It scared me and disgusted me, like a dog trying to fuck a cat.
Prior to that I respected non-whites at a distance and thought we could live together (but naturally segregated of course) and I kind of viewed non-whites like aliens in Star Wars and not like those species mixing aliens in Mass Effect.
The idea that someone might have sex with someone outside of their race never occurred to me. The idea that the desire on the part of non-whites to racemix with whites is so COMMON made me lose all respect for non-whites."
>>874927
Plz blow your head off.
>>874957
And I couldn't read what you just posted in the footnotes of a translation? Fucking hell, anon.
>>874970
Some languages aren't compatible to translations of other languages they might use words which are the closest to a meaning which could alter the total.
>>874976
Go cry at /pol/ faggot you're nothing more than a nuisance here.
>>874970
From a sociological point of view, this is the stupidest thing I've ever read. You want to know what muslims believe, but you don't want the muslim perspective?
Do you know how belief works, son?
>>874970
Or if you are really so interested in muslims and islam you could just learn the language and read the quran in its original language to form your own opinion. You are free to still dislike islam if you can justify it.
>>874990
nigga, do you want every single word in the 614 page book to have a paragraph of footnotes? Aside from the individual words, you cannot convey poetry through footnotes. You cannot convey a feeling or a mood through footnotes.
There's a reason people learn languages other than english, you eternal anglo.
>>874994
I am free to dislike Islam right now from reading translations done by professionals and it is justified.
>>874379
it takes an objevtive mind to see reality
>>875006
>justified
It isnt.No translation is sufficient enough and it was stated several times in this thread why it is so.
>>875019
I have read plenty of footnotes that say you're full of shit.
>>874748
>unless you're already part of the cult your opinions on cult doctrine are invalid by default
Well that's awfully convenient...
Even though I don't like the current form Islam has taken.
Lets give the devil what the devil is due. Al-Andalus was an Oasis in the fetid swamp that was medieval western Europe. Them,Damascus and Baghdad were legitimately the cultural peaks of their times. The Ottoman empire afterwards seems a parody of the splendor of the medieval Arabs and Persians, in learning, architecture, science and philosophy.
And while it's true that Christians were not treated equally, when did Christians treat Muslims fairly in the Crusades. The Crusaders and the savage Mongols destroyed that culture for profit and land.
>>874662
Hello tigero.
>>875019
>no translation is sufficient
Incorrect.
>>875027
More like: Unless you actually studied the cult doctrines, you cannot objectively say to know what the cult doctrines are.
>>874392
>And if you would be so happy as to recommend me one of your Jihad cock-sucking cuck books,
well i dont know why on earth you would want to read that kind of book but im pretty sure no one els on here reads em so you are going to have to find it yourself
you know the part of the brain that makes you feel hate is the same part that makes you feel love so mabey you are confused about your fetishes
>>875019
Using this logic no one can form any critical opinion of anything not written in their own language or a language they understand. I'm sure you see the flaw in this thinking.
>>874953
I just hope my ghost sticks around to watch the all-white world immediately start tearing itself to pieces over not being European enough once you run out of non-cumskins to kill
>>875040
They can, it's just harder to take someone seriously if they don't actually make an effort to properly study the text they're analyzing.
Holy shit who fucking cares?
Literally the only people who give a shit about the crusades or the reconquista are faggots from /pol/ who like to scream about 'MUH HAWLY WOR" because of some imagined liberal agenda to smear crusaders.
No one cares but you.
>>874379
>propaganda
This book really does seem to be thinly disguised pro-Spanish and pro-Catholic propaganda. At the end there's even the old trick I see used by bitter old Tories all the time: "How come [liberals] only criticize OUR empire, never [all the other] empires?"
It's funny to see a spic using it this time.
>>875056
History on a history board, oh my.
>>874065
>Reading politically motivated books to confirm your prejudices
>Being politically motivated in your study of History
>at all
>>875061
The fact that Dario's other works include "The Islamic Warriors' Destruction of a Nascent Civilization" or "American Academia and the Survival of Marxist Ideas" seems to reinforce the idea.
>>875028
Here's something that's important to remember.
I think we get caught up in these golden age fallacies every hundred years or so when people try to redefine history, and then in the "redefinition" the previous "redefinition" gets a huge backlash.
It's important remember that, for God's sake people, this was the 8th century. No place was during particularly well. Most people also didn't particularly care about the nuances of their rights and privileges- you probably would have had more personal freedom in Anglo-Saxon England, but that wouldn't prevent you from dreaming of the great cities of Constantinople and Damascus.
There have been important civilizations, but I don't think trying to define one as "golden" over their neighbors is a good idea. Charlemagne essentially rekindled the ideas of the Western Roman Empire at the same time as Islam's golden age, and Constantinople was always a profound global center. Medieval Europe was not a "fetid swamp", unless you're talking about the Black Death, which hit the cities of the east just as hard, even earlier.
>>875036
and conveniently only people that are part of the cult, have studied the cult's doctrine in the eyes of the cult.
>>875073
You know damn well that that was referring to the agenda /pol/tards are trying to push constantly.
>>875099
>Medieval Europe was not a "fetid swamp"
Maybe not, but quite a few "world system" historians compared the geopolitical place and importance of Christian Europe during the Early Middle Ages to that of East Africa, in all seriousness.
>>875099
No matter how you dress it Byzantium and the Arabs were the only important cultures at the time. Charlemagne was nothing but a warlord, I think western Europe only experienced a revival after the 13th century.
>>875028
>muh Dark Ages
>>875126
Yes, Ravenna was still Roman and prosperous in the 6th century, especially since Byzantine influence in the Peninsula was still strong.
>>875061
> At the end there's even the old trick I see used by bitter old Tories all the time: "How come [liberals] only criticize OUR empire, never [all the other] empires?"
That's a legitimate question though.
Why focus entirely on undermining your own history and culture?
>>874065
the overall Academic consensus is that the Caliphate of Cordoba, while not necessarily always "tolerent" by modern standards was generally more inclusive and accepting than medieval Europe.
These fringe ''''historians''' and reddit 'academics'' seem to be obsessed with re-interpreting history to further some modern political bias are , fortunately, not taken seriously by most scholars worth anything
>>875141
>Medieval Europe was a fetid swamp!
>OK not all of it but it still sucks compared to the Arabs because fuck you!
>>875146
>That's a legitimate question
Maybe in some parallel universe where no one criticizes colonialism and imperialism except for Spain, because that's the ridiculous scenario Dario was talking about. He was complaining that no one was denouncing the other Western colonial powers and only Spain was plagued by white-guilt and self-hate.
It can't be simple ignorance either because he wrote a goddamn book on "Marxism" in American Academia. Well, maybe he spends the entire book complaining about how Marxist Academicians demonized the conquistadors and whitewashed Aztec atrocities.
>>875167
The other poster already mentioned the Byzantines and Arabs as exceptions. San Vitale was a Byzantine church, built at the apex of Byzantine power even.
The 6th century barely qualifies as Medieval anyway.
>>874065
>It's pretty useful for shutting Muslim apologists and SJWs the fuck up.
Thanks, I know not to read it now.
Seriously, if the only value you place in a book is it's utility in your tiresome American culture war, it's probably a shitty book. If you want to shut SJWs up, go trolling on Tumblr and leave us in peace.
>>875168
I was referring to the question itself not the author.
>>874394
>history is a science
sure is 19th century in here
>>875178
Best post on the thread, desu.
>>875176
>i-it barely counts
Does 9th century Aachen barely count too or is that also part of the swamp?
>>875277
For the capital of an empire covering half the continent, that barely qualifies as a monument.
>>875277
Not that impressive desu
>>875038
>well i dont know why on earth you would want to read that kind of book
Because /pol/ are the actual cuckold fetishists.
>>874362
Publishers push for titles like that because they sell more books. It's not reason to disregard a work.
>>875152
>was generally more inclusive and accepting than medieval Europe.
You do realize about the only real contact Europeans had with large populations of muslims was in the Crusades, and they were very fair towards them during their short rule. It's kinda unfair to say that Medieval Europe was less inclusive simply because they didn't have a population already established. The Muslims came into the Iberian Peninsula and allowed the other religions to coexist. Same shit happened in the Crusades.
>>875742
The Byzantine Empire, sometimes referred to as the Eastern Roman Empire, was the continuation of the Roman Empire in the East during Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages, when its capital city was Constantinople.
You know I mean western Europe, don't be silly. And the Byzantine Empire was a dick to just about everyone
Oh, lookee here.
>Games Muslims play.
>The Game: The Quran can only be fully understood in Arabic. One cannot criticize Islam without knowing Arabic.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/games/arabic.aspx
>Obviously, the real reason for this illogical myth is that the information age is now making the full history and texts of the Islamic religion available to a broader audience, and the contents are highly embarrassing to both Muslim scholars and their faithful flock. Pretending that different meanings exist in Arabic is means of self-assurance and saving face with others.
Looks like these guys got everything covered. The anti-translation argument in this thread is utterly decimated in there.
>>876163
Most of those arguments seem pretty convincing - although I doubt it's part of some conspiracy-tier widespread shame and cover-up attempt on behalf of Muslims. I'd guess it's genuinely just moderate Muslims attempting to reconcile their religion with more modern liberal outlooks and beliefs (although it certainly does make it more palatable to a western audience). I've studied Islamic law, and I'm sure an ability to read Arabic would have given me a far more nuanced understanding of the Quran, but the translations I had sufficed to convey the most important parts - especially since those elements of Sharia law which have been codified are often done so in other languages - there's no issue of interpretation here.
I have a hard time understanding why so many people want to try and make these religious texts fit a particular political narrative, whether its casting Islam as a religion of peace or the most evil religion that ever existed. Like almost historical text, they're of a particular time and place, and tend to reflect that. The Bible has a handy escape clause in the form of the new testament, which allows you to overrule the more outdated parts of the old testament as society changes. I've studied Islamic law, and to my mind, the Quran reads a lot more prescriptively than the Bible - it's a more comprehensive attempt to provide a legislative law code for Muslims to follow.
>>876915
>I've studied Islamic law
Sorry for the repeat, copy and paste error - not that keen to get my Islamic scholarly achievements out there.
>>874720
Not even pro Islam or something but citing a website that is obviously put up by stormfags or /pol/lacks doesn't really give you any credibility in a non biased discussion
>>875734
>What is Sicily?
>>878972
>obviously put up by stormfags or /pol/lacks
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/site/about-site.aspx
>TheReligionofPeace.com is a pluralistic, non-partisan site concerned with Islam's true political and religious teachings according to its own texts. We present the threat that Islam poses to human dignity and freedom, and we document the violence and dysfunction that ensues as a direct consequence of this religion's supremacist teachings.
>We are not associated with any organization. We do not promote any religion, but we are not hostile to religion. We generally support the rights of atheists, Christians, Hindus, Jews, homosexuals, women, Muslims and anyone else on the planet to live as they wish without violating the rights of others.
>We strongly condemn any attempt to harm or harass any Muslim anywhere in the world because of their religion. Every human being is entitled to be treated as an individual and judged only by his or her own words and deeds.
Nice try, but no.
>>879019
Yeah, and Stormfront supports true diversity and homelands for all peoples.
>>879038
Sorry. You have no evidence for your claim. I think you're just desperate to make that site seem less credible.
>>879055
Sure, desperate.
>>879149
I think so. You immediately tried to connect it to /pol/ and Stormfront who are very upfront about their white supremacist beliefs. They were the furthest things from my mind as I was looking through this site.
>>874065
>It's pretty useful for shutting Muslim apologists and SJWs the fuck up.
Pretty obvious just from this that you're baiting
>>879198
I'm not the person who said it was /pol/ or stormfaggotry, I was just calling you out on gullibility, pretending anything on that site has an ounce of credibility.
>>879227
Have you got something to say about it? Then say it.
>>875028
>when did Christians treat Muslims fairly in the Crusades.
Warfare in response to years and years of Muslim invasions of Christian lands and the murder of pilgrims to the holy land isn't "fair"?
[fair]
adjective, fairer, fairest.
legitimately sought, pursued, done, given, etc.; proper under the rules:
a fair fight.
>>874065
I'm pretty convinced that this post was bait just meant to trigger all the liberal autism in this board. It's doing a good job so far
>>879268
Your point ? Jews were also treated unfairly under christian rule in Jerusalem, so you can't pull the "le they did it first" card
>>875028
>the fetid swamp that was medieval western Europe.
You know that this is a pretty outdated view of medieval western Europe? You're just showing how a) biased you are, or b) how out of touch you are
>>874344
>many jews willingly opened the city gates to the invaders
fixd
>>874379
>and all the conquered people of Spain preferred the Muslims over the previous rulers
lol no
>>874807
You understand absolutely nothing about logistics.
>the reconquista was an era of religion vs religion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pact_of_Umar
lol to shut up people when they go on with the "muslims were tolerant" meme you just need to show them this
>>879654
There's literally an entire section on the discussion of the authenticity of such a pact occuring
>>876915
>moderate Muslims
are there moderate Christians too?
What about moderate Hindus or Buddhists?
your buzzwords have no power here.
>>879673
no there isn't.
weekly reminder that /pol/ is literally the jews of 4chan.
The level of antisemitism in this thread is frankly disgusting.
>>879686
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pact_of_Umar#Origin_and_Authenticity
>>879697
oh, I thought you meant the talk page.
I always check the talk page, it's good for finding out who's engaging in edit wars.
Besides, it's clearly just damage control via plausible deniability mixed with an accusation of fraud.
>>879718
>Source criticism is damage control
>>874662
hello tigero
>>879673
read the section then, it's mostly seen as true and it's probably not completely canon cuz it's controversial just like Banu Qurayza
>>879726
>"nuh uh it doesn't real because it's clauses weren't universally applied to every and all non-Muslim conquered persons" isn't damage control
>>879741
You're right, it's not.
>>879738
>it's mostly seen as true
You mean apocryphal.
>>879654
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Medina
>>879755
Do you understand how quotes work? Do you know what meme arrows are?
>>879771
>meme arrows
>>879767
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banu_Qurayza
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_the_Muslim_world
>>875734
Tell it to the northern and eastern Europeans
not all Europeans are the same
not all Muslims are the same
not all Christians are the same
Most violence has historically been towards people who are almost the same as you. Such as Catholic/Protestant/Orthodox/Arian violence, Sunni/Shia violence, Euro/Euro, Chinese/Chinese, etc. That's why we can say that Europe was generally far less inclusive and tolerant.
A third of the German population being wiped out is not okay to sweep under the rug because it was Europeans who did it and Europeans who suffered it. It was one distinct group being intolerant to the extreme of another. In this sense medieval Islamic rule was far more tolerant even with it's own share of killing pagans and others.
>>879227
>you're gullible, that site has no credibility
>okay tell me what know about it
>*crickets*
>>874065
Yeah, its interesting to know the truth about Al Andalus, many Andalusian regionalists and Islamists have covered of flowers that time, as it's obviously not like that
Literally no one whose ever read Caliphate primary texts could ever consider putting the word tolerant next to the word muslim.
>oldest racist anti-black texts outside of the ancient jews
>writes stuff about blacks you don't see in writing before modern neo-nazism
>>881089
[Citation needed]
>>880846
nice argument there.
>>874662
hello tigero
>>874979
More proof that /pol/ is tumblr
>>874662
hello tigero
>you need to read the quran in arabic to fully understand it!
the issue I take with this is not necessarily how insular this notion is, it's that Muslims are vain enough to think that everyone reading the Quran who doesn't speak Arabic is doing so explicitly because they are intensely fascinated in Islamic mysticism and have a burning desire to understand God as Muslims understand him. I read it to see firsthand the violent verses and nothing else really. it reads like absolute garbage and the books aren't even ordered chronologically, and I don't think my understanding of Muhammad's instructions to fight against the infidel would be altered hugely by rereading it in Arabic. I don't even necessarily interpret everything literally, but regardless you still have a supremacist religion which sees its adherents as unquestionably worth more than infidels, so much so that the morality is based entirely on being good to other Muslims. the only value the infidel has is in his potential to become a Muslim, period. it doesn't matter how ferociously you cucks will say DEY DINDUNUFFIN DEY WAS GOOD BOYZ because anything good that came to the infidel historically was in spite of Islam and not because of it
>>875028
>Al-Andalus was an Oasis in the fetid swamp that was medieval western Europe.
Oh, hi John Greene!
>>874324
>How scholarly of you, to completely ignore historical fact because you're afraid it might show you that Muslims have acted like barbarians for the past 1000 years and continue to do so today.
Define 'barbarian'.
It was sort of strange to me recently researching French Algeria and seeing that the bullshit the French said about Muslims is almost the exact same bullshit they say today.
>>874065
The whole thing of "this is the REAL history right here bitch - you think you REALLY KNOW about Andalusia? YOU WON'T BELIEVE these 8 reasons why MUSLIMS are actually subhuman" is the scholarly version of clickbait.
>>885845
Just because John Green said doesn't mean it isn't true.
Frankish empire and all of it's offspring's were ligitimately pleb tier compared to 8th century Arabs/Persians/Byzantines.
I mean if you need more proof Western Europe did not even have elementary sanitation until teh early modern period, which the Byzantines and the Middle-eastern Muslims had.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_hygienical_jurisprudence
>>879800
>>884107
You've missed the whole point
You have to understand the Islamic interpretation of God to understand Islamic morality.
The key concept in Islamic Morality is something called Hayya', which really can only be understood properly through a desire for understanding God.
>>885959
>It wasn't a massacre, he *only* ordered the deaths of 25 men
>>875061
>spaniard
>spic
>Published by Intercollegiate Studies Institute
stopped reading right there.
>>881089
How can Muslims be racist when Muhammad had a stereotypical black friend?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilal_Ibn_Rabah
