kai
ragamuffin
so what oppression were the Muslims preventing in their invasion of Visigothic Hispania? this seems to be a main reason for invasion this Pax Islamica.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
is the religion of peace really the religion of war
- Thread starter kai
- Start date
so what oppression were the Muslims preventing in their invasion of Visigothic Hispania? this seems to be a main reason for invasion this Pax Islamica.
kai
ragamuffin
forgive me , i have been waiting for you to post an Islamic historical source for any peaceful invasion outside Arabia since post 122 page 13.
Last edited:
did the Visigoths in Hispania attack the Muslims then ? and just who was suppressing who? and for what reason were the Muslims in North Africa in order to invade Hispania in the frst place.
and you do realise you sound like George Bush.
Response: I've explained the reasons and how the muslims came to power in Spain in post 145.
kai
ragamuffin
Where did you get this idea? really i am interested in this idea of a unique Empire spread in such a peaceful manner when all i find is armies and battles and invasions. Is there Islamic sources for this or is it oral history.
The story of the appeal for help is not universally accepted outside Islamic circles. There is no doubt that Tariq bin Ziyad invaded Spain at the behest of Musa ibn Nusair , but the reason for it may have more to do with the Muslim drive to enlarge their territory rather than any philanthropic need to help their fellow man.again some historical input would be great, thats why i put this thread in the history section.
Last edited:
kai
ragamuffin
If the empire spread and existed only to put an end to oppressive or corrupt regimes is there any evidence to tell us about these regimes.
i am especially interested in such regimes in Ifrikiya, and Sicily which would eventually lead to the invasion of Hispania and the end of that oppressive regime.
Maybe the key is in this question:
would any regime that wasn't Islamic be considered oppressive or corrupt in say the time of the Caliphs?
i am especially interested in such regimes in Ifrikiya, and Sicily which would eventually lead to the invasion of Hispania and the end of that oppressive regime.
Maybe the key is in this question:
would any regime that wasn't Islamic be considered oppressive or corrupt in say the time of the Caliphs?
[QUOTE:kai]Where did you get this idea? really i am interested in this idea of a unique Empire spread in such a peaceful manner when all i find is armies and battles and invasions. Is there Islamic sources for this or is it oral history.
Response: From my own literature here at home. I don't know of any website.
Quote: Kai
The story of the appeal for help is not universally accepted outside Islamic circles. There is no doubt that Tariq bin Ziyad invaded Spain at the behest of Musa ibn Nusair , but the reason for it may have more to do with the Muslim drive to enlarge their territory rather than any philanthropic need to help their fellow man.again some historical input would be great, thats why i put this thread in the history section.
Response: Naturally, it would not be accepted outside of the islamic circle. Non-muslims do not have a positive view of islam due to the propaganda.
We do have different accounts. So what do we do? How do we know the truth? We analyze all the accounts with logic and an open mind. Wouldn't you agree? We test the logic behind the accounts. Right? When we do so, we'll discover the truth. Coincidently, this logic is the same approach to the hadiths as to how we muslims separate the true ones from those who are false. I encourage you to do the same. In fact, here's an idea. Let's do it together.
Test 1
The question on the table is whether the muslims invaded unjustly or were they peaceful and just in doing so right?
Hmmm? Here's a test.
If the muslims were fixed on imperialism, than once they conquered Spain, they would have went further right? Do you have evidence that the empire of Spain expanded it's territory outside of Spain? If yes, we have more analyzing to do. If no, it would hold as support to the claim that the muslims were just and peaceful and not fixed on imperialism. We must also consider that muslim rule was for 800 years. This would be 800 years of peace. I await your response.
Response: From my own literature here at home. I don't know of any website.
Quote: Kai
The story of the appeal for help is not universally accepted outside Islamic circles. There is no doubt that Tariq bin Ziyad invaded Spain at the behest of Musa ibn Nusair , but the reason for it may have more to do with the Muslim drive to enlarge their territory rather than any philanthropic need to help their fellow man.again some historical input would be great, thats why i put this thread in the history section.
Response: Naturally, it would not be accepted outside of the islamic circle. Non-muslims do not have a positive view of islam due to the propaganda.
We do have different accounts. So what do we do? How do we know the truth? We analyze all the accounts with logic and an open mind. Wouldn't you agree? We test the logic behind the accounts. Right? When we do so, we'll discover the truth. Coincidently, this logic is the same approach to the hadiths as to how we muslims separate the true ones from those who are false. I encourage you to do the same. In fact, here's an idea. Let's do it together.
Test 1
The question on the table is whether the muslims invaded unjustly or were they peaceful and just in doing so right?
Hmmm? Here's a test.
If the muslims were fixed on imperialism, than once they conquered Spain, they would have went further right? Do you have evidence that the empire of Spain expanded it's territory outside of Spain? If yes, we have more analyzing to do. If no, it would hold as support to the claim that the muslims were just and peaceful and not fixed on imperialism. We must also consider that muslim rule was for 800 years. This would be 800 years of peace. I await your response.
kai
ragamuffin
yes i have the battle of tours in France
The Battle of Tours (October 10, 732),[4] also called the Battle of Poitiers and in Arabic: معركة بلاط الشهداء‎ (maarakat Balâṭ ash-Shuhadâ) Battle of Court of The Martyrs[5], was fought in an area between the cities of Poitiers and Tours, near the village of Moussais-la-Bataille about 20 kilometres (12 mi) north of Poitiers.
and i have already shown that it wasnt 800 years of peace as the Reconquista began in the aftermath of the invasion, Toledo fell to the Reconquista in 1082 and some parts of Spain were never under Muslim rule.
Last edited:
Mujahid Mohammed
Well-Known Member
kai
ragamuffin
no worries Mujahid Mohammed its an old thread, it can wait as long as it takes
[QUOTE:kai]yes i have the battle of tours in France
The Battle of Tours (October 10, 732),[4] also called the Battle of Poitiers and in Arabic: E91C) (D'7 'D4G/'! (maarakat Balâm ash-Shuhadâ) Battle of Court of The Martyrs[5], was fought in an area between the cities of Poitiers and Tours, near the village of Moussais-la-Bataille about 20 kilometres (12 mi) north of Poitiers.(End quote)
Response: The question is to whether the spainish empire had vastly expanded their territory and the only evidence you've presented was a fight in an area between two cities. Is this really an example of imperialism? An empire is driven on imperialism and for 800+ years all they captured was an area between two cities? This clearly goes to show that no imperialism is involved. If that was the case, they would not satisfy themselves with just this victory. You also never mention the area and how much land they conquered or who they fought.
Quote: Kai
and i have already shown that it wasnt 800 years of peace as the Reconquista began in the aftermath of the invasion, Toledo fell to the Reconquista in 1082 and some parts of Spain were never under Muslim rule.[/QUOTE]
Response: You're right. I rephrased it wrong. What I meant was that it was 800 years of them wanting peace with their neighbors and not imperialism.
The Battle of Tours (October 10, 732),[4] also called the Battle of Poitiers and in Arabic: E91C) (D'7 'D4G/'! (maarakat Balâm ash-Shuhadâ) Battle of Court of The Martyrs[5], was fought in an area between the cities of Poitiers and Tours, near the village of Moussais-la-Bataille about 20 kilometres (12 mi) north of Poitiers.(End quote)
Response: The question is to whether the spainish empire had vastly expanded their territory and the only evidence you've presented was a fight in an area between two cities. Is this really an example of imperialism? An empire is driven on imperialism and for 800+ years all they captured was an area between two cities? This clearly goes to show that no imperialism is involved. If that was the case, they would not satisfy themselves with just this victory. You also never mention the area and how much land they conquered or who they fought.
Quote: Kai
and i have already shown that it wasnt 800 years of peace as the Reconquista began in the aftermath of the invasion, Toledo fell to the Reconquista in 1082 and some parts of Spain were never under Muslim rule.[/QUOTE]
Response: You're right. I rephrased it wrong. What I meant was that it was 800 years of them wanting peace with their neighbors and not imperialism.
kai
ragamuffin
Response: You're right. I rephrased it wrong. What I meant was that it was 800 years of them wanting peace with their neighbors and not imperialism.[/QUOTE]
you asked for expansion out of Spain i gave you an example of an incursion into France that was repelled.
They were not neighbours, the Muslims were there by right of conquest.They never really consolidated all of Spain /Portugal and there were periods of warfare ,treaties and peace throughout the time Muslims were there.The Expansion came from North Africa into Spain Failed in France , succeeded in sicily.
kai
ragamuffin
Fatihah
check out your 800 years of peace.
Timeline of the Muslim presence in the Iberian peninsula
Timeline of the Muslim presence in the Iberian peninsula - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
check out your 800 years of peace.
Timeline of the Muslim presence in the Iberian peninsula
Timeline of the Muslim presence in the Iberian peninsula - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I disagree brother, history is all about perspectives of its writers, it's true that some events are whether happened or not, but someone can portray that it's a heroic event and another one can portray it the opposite, someone can portray the event as victory, other person can portray it as loss...etc.Mujahid Mohammed said:
kai
ragamuffin
Thats very true, there are always two sides to a story. With Spain you have the Islamic story of Al -Andalus . and the Other side of the coin is The Reconquista. Yes, there is a coin ,thats a fact, but it has two sides.
Now this thread is not and never has been a Bash the Muslims exercise that's why its in the History section.
Its a debate about the Islamic Expansion from Arabia and indeed the very struggle for the birth and rise of Islam and the part Armed struggle played. I was addressing the notion that some Muslims believe that the vast tracts of the earth that were under Muslim rule ,had got there by peaceful means.and wondered where this belief came from. (still do)
Last edited:
[QUOTE:kai]
you asked for expansion out of Spain i gave you an example of an incursion into France that was repelled.
They were not neighbours, the Muslims were there by right of conquest.They never really consolidated all of Spain /Portugal and there were periods of warfare ,treaties and peace throughout the time Muslims were there.The Expansion came from North Africa into Spain Failed in France , succeeded in sicily.(End quote)
Response: Exactly. You are telling me that the muslims are able to conquer and controll Spain for 800 years but can't conquer a small area between two cities. You also say that there were peace treaties. This would be more evidence to show that the muslims were not fixed on imperialism, not the other way around. Then when we consider the muslim rule of North Africa and their rule of India for 1,000 years, which like Spain, only ruled India and no other land, clearly the muslims had the man power to establish imperialism. No one could stop them. There was no force on earth that was stronger. And yet this did not happen. This would show even much more support that the muslims were not fixed on imperialism.
you asked for expansion out of Spain i gave you an example of an incursion into France that was repelled.
They were not neighbours, the Muslims were there by right of conquest.They never really consolidated all of Spain /Portugal and there were periods of warfare ,treaties and peace throughout the time Muslims were there.The Expansion came from North Africa into Spain Failed in France , succeeded in sicily.(End quote)
Response: Exactly. You are telling me that the muslims are able to conquer and controll Spain for 800 years but can't conquer a small area between two cities. You also say that there were peace treaties. This would be more evidence to show that the muslims were not fixed on imperialism, not the other way around. Then when we consider the muslim rule of North Africa and their rule of India for 1,000 years, which like Spain, only ruled India and no other land, clearly the muslims had the man power to establish imperialism. No one could stop them. There was no force on earth that was stronger. And yet this did not happen. This would show even much more support that the muslims were not fixed on imperialism.
Mujahid Mohammed
Well-Known Member
How can you as a muslim say that histoy is about perspectives, when we see how the orientalists and enemies of Islam have lied on the Prophet, His companions and all the righteous people before him. Is their perspective correct?
Is the bible from our perspective an accurate depiction of history in terms of Jesus if it all about perception as you say. their are some scholars who accussed Jesus of being a homo sexual, am i too accept their perspective him...
We are not trying to establish whether they feel this person was right or not, we are trying to establish did the muslim army that was sent out by the righteous companions and caliphs of our ummah, send out the army in an effort to spread imperialism or was it sent out in peace.
Look at the history that is taught in most public schools. when one get to higher levels of education they realize that many of the concepts presented are a complete farse. When Hitler burnt down the Richtstag was he historically accurate in who he said committed it. No. when the colonies where established, did they or did they not commit a huge injustice to the native americans. someone may argue that they were heroes but let history speak for itself.
It is not the job of the historian to establish whether or not a person was right in this or that. No historian will argue whether Gandhi or Jesus, or Muhammed was right in what they did... they only establish what happened and why.
when we look at our history everything is based off an evidence.
when we look at the verse in the Quran in surah Hujirat 49:6
"If a fasiq or stranger comes to you with news verify lest you may go off and harm the people"
this is the science of hadith in terms of verification, The prophet pbuh also said, "May Allah make radiant he who hears what I say understands it and delivered it as he heard it. Abu Dawood - Ibn Majar
so it is incumbent on us to give it as it is. And their is only one history, it either happened this way or it did not. the historian doesn't establish whether he was a hero or not that is for the reader to decide after being given all the details of the history. some people will argue that crazy and evil men in the past were heroes but let us let the history of their actions speak for itself. I mean was Stalin really a hero to his people as some would argue, what about Hitler? Some would argue and feel this way, but is the killing of 60,000,000 a act of heroism. You tell me....
peace
Last edited:
JMorris
Democratic Socialist
Peaceful conquest of Spain?
hmmm, were the Muslims "invited" to invade France? were they "invited" to loot Arles? were they "invited" to enslave the people of Burgundy? imperialism? maybe not. but is raiding, pillaging, and enslaving better? no.
that does not change the fact that Spain, for the most part, were better off with the Muslims as rulers, than the Catholics. certainly the Jews were far better off under the Muslims than anywhere in European Christiandom. and the "heretical" christians.
so was the conquering of Iberia imperialism? certainly. but i think i'd rather of lived under the Muslims than the Catholics.
kai
ragamuffin
No i am not, i am telling you that the Muslims did not conquer and control Spain for 800 years.
They were at war in the Iberian Peninsular for an 800 year period
and there was a force on earth that stopped them, they eventually lost all their gains in Hispania.They reached a peak like all Empires and it finally died with the Ottomans.
Last edited:
kai
ragamuffin
if i may just comment ,i know your response was for not4me.
History is written by men, its written by the conquerors and the conquered. each have a perspective. now events may be facts but History ,that is written history always has a perspective.
Take first hand accounts or eye witness statements of the Battle of Tours, you would have a Frankish chronicler writing how god was on his side that day for victory, and you would have a Islamic chronicler writing of the calamity of the day , each would have a perspective.
You can gleen a hint of perspective by the titles used in the history of that battle, for example Charles Martel is called "the Hammer" by Frankish Historians Islamic sources call the the battle itself "Battle of Court of The Martyrs"
Take Spain! to Muslims it was a golden age of Al -Andalus and they look back on that period with nostalgia,However to the Visigoths etc it was an occupation by foreigners and the Recoquista is celebrated on january 2nd with a holiday. surely two different perspectives of one actual period of history?
Last edited: