Moors In Europe

did anyone see this programme it was fascinating the Spanish are going to have to rewrite their history.Islam comes across as it used to be a tolerant learning religion and thousands of christians voluntarily converted to it so many interesting points anyone up for a discussion friendly i hope?

reminds me of this

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

And now for the serious stuff, last nights repeted documentary is very one sided and didn't quite represent the accepted history for instance,

Strangely Moorish Spain wasn't really ruled by Arabs. It is true that many high positions were taken by Arabs but most of the Moors were Berbers. Later Muwallads (converted Christians) together with the offspring of the first invaders became dominant in Moorish Spain. The invaders brought no women so the second generation of Moors were already half Hispanic! and thus Christian.

So the idea that Islam shaped the Iberian peninsula isn't entirely true !!

driver - Islam certainly was a very tolerant religion, placing great value on scholarship. Muslims were highly civilized and erudite when Christians were still uncouth butchers and barbarians. When the Crusaders took Jerusalem, the inhabitants were described as "wading through blood", and Muslim prisoners were treated brutally and cruelly. Saladin (the infidel leader), on the other hand, treated his [christian] prisoners honourably and decently.

The following quotation, praising the Knights Templar, was the "mission statement" of the Crusaders (I know I've previously posted this on the Forum - sorry to be repetitive):-

"Death that is given or received for the love of Jesus Christ is very far from being a crime: it deserves great glory. Giving death makes a profit for Jesus Christ; in receiving death one acquires Jesus Himself. For Christ receives with pleasure the death of a non-believer: as making amends for His own death, and with greater pleasure He gives Himself to His faithful soldier for his comfort. Thus the soldier of Jesus Christ is quite safe in killing his enemy, and if he is killed it is with even greater safety.
If he dies, he does himself a good turn, if he kills, he does a good turn to Jesus.
His sword he carries sheathed at his side, for he is God’s minister, to wreak vengeance on the evil, and to defend the virtue of the good."

From De Laude Novae Militiae (1129) by St Bernard of Clairvaux (1090-1153) (My emphasis)

Quite as bloodthirsty and savage as any Islam edicts, I think you'll agree.

Thats the beauty of this its challenging accepted history .Remember history is written by winners its only since the 2nd World War that history is be recorded dispasionately.As Spanish professors said in the programme they are going to have to rewrite the books.
Also it did not show the Christians in a very good light. The Christian countries were kept in ignorance by the Church because only the priesthood were allowed to read and only what rome sanctioned so Joe Peasantwas kept in the dark ,cant have anyone questioning the Word can we.Whereas the Moors encouraged learning and under their influence the Christian king of Toledo began the Renascance 100 years before the Italians caught on to it .If the Catholic Church was so keen on learning why did they burn the library of Alexandria and leave it to the Arabs to discover 400 years later ,and then denounce everything they discovered as heresey.The only chance of discovering the true Bible lies with the Ethopian Coptic Church as they were excluded from the Council of Nicae.It was also a sad comment on what Islam has become now in those days it was a vibrant progressive belief system which among other things recognised women as people in their own right.What has it come to now? repressive ,trying to go back to the 7th century,this is a personal opinion "i think what made Islam sucessful in Spain was the fact that Mohammed was a real person not a mythical being and you could either believe in a mythical being or use his teachings as a set of ehtics for real life".It seems in the moorish Spain there was religious tolerence between moors christians and jews which contributed to the progress of civilisiation but as the religions got closer together the factions got further apart.Witness history between Catholic and Protestant the difference is so small to an outsider but look at the suffering that it has and still is causing.Mohammed said in the Koran that a Muslim should respect Chriatians And Jews because they were "All Children of the Book" ie they all worshipped the one God

Well, it wouldn't show Christians in a very good light simply because they didn't behave very well! I don't think it's a challenge to accepted history - the facts have always been known. Islam is still the same progressive faith nowadays. It's the (male) proponents who are to blame for the distortion and misogyny, same as in the Christian (and particularly Catholic) church. In all fairness, I think Islam is as bad as Christianity in terms of keeping the great unwashed in ignorance. Remember the fatwah against Salman Rushdie because of The Satanic Verses? I've studied it, written about it and read it several times and there's nothing in it that contravenes Islamic law. Most of the Muslims protesting against it wouldn't have read it - they were being told how to react.

Mohammed was a real person not a mythical being and you could either believe in a mythical being or use his teachings as a set of ehtics for real life

Exactly the same could be said of Jesus Christ and Christianity. I'm an atheist, but can't fault Christianity as a code for living. And the persecution of the Jews in Spain came after the reconquest - i.e. it was done by Christians, not Muslims.

Oh - and history is not only written by the winners, but also by men.

Good points .Question why did the reconquest take place 100 years after the fall of Granada?
Were you aware that Ferdinand and Isabella are buried in the Alhambra
Also interesting that the Duke of Medina-Sidonia was of muslim extraction.

Could we have a discussion group Re: Moors in Europe at the new British shop in Baza I find it a very interesting subject? As many of you know I am dyslexic so find it too much to read about and take in. We could come to an agreement with them about a price and a time.

Ferdinand and Isabella are buried in the Capilla Real, behind the Cathedral, not in the Alhambra.

Boothjendar - yes, most Moors were Berbers, but while they weren't ethnic Arabs they were Muslims. Some member states of today's Arab League aren't ethnic Arabs, who originate from Saudi Arabia and the Yemen. Some of the Moors did bring women over to the Iberian peninsula, and the offspring of Moorish invaders and Christian women were reared in Islam, not Christianity. The Caliphate (based in Cordoba) was Arabic and, of course, Muslim.

The economy and population of Andalucia grew enormously after the Moorish conquest because of superior agricultural practices and effective irrigation. The science and scholarship originally came from the Middle East to the Moors in Spain, who subsequently developed it.

(See, e.g., Moorish Spain by Richard Fletcher; Spain - A History, by Raymond Carr; The Medieval Spains by Berbard F. Reilly; Early Medieval Spain by Roger Collins.)

driver - Granada was founded to shelter the Moors as they were hounded out of the rest of Spain by the Catholics. It was the last city to fall to the Catholics in their reconquest of the peninsula.

Yes and the city that fell before Granada was Baza

At the beginning of the 8th century it was the Umayyads tribe from Damascus who took Gibraltar and later settled in Córdoba where they established their capital. As this tribe came from Damascus originally they had little knowledge of Islam their religion was a semi Christian, Islam mix, they believed that people of the book such as Jews and other Christians should be treated as equals. It was only towards the end of the 11th century the Almoravids tribe followed. they where more versed with a new releigous book called the Quran which was reviled to Mohamed over a 23 yr period from 610 till 633 and this tribe where indeed nasty, they where joined by the Almohads who came from northern Africa and at the beginning of the 13th century the Nasrids. During the reconquest of Spain the descendants of the original Umayyad tribe joined with the Christians to route out the Almoravids, Almohads and the Nasrids.

My argument is thus.

The original Moors who came to Spain came to enhance their's and the Spanish lives, they where tolerant and one could say not true followers of Islam.

It is only once we get to the new invaders from the 11th Century who follow the new Islamic book, the Quran, that things took a turn for the worse,

After all the Spanish where more than happy to coexist right up until the 12th Century its only because the new occupiers follow that book that the Christians rise up,

And wasn't Spain ruled at this time by the Visigoths who where only Converted to Arian Christianity in the late 6th Century so to that end Spain was never really Christian anyway.

One interesting point in the 4th century the vandals sacked rome and were the scourge of the empire ,3 centuries later a ragtag bunch of moors land at almunjecar from 4 ships which was all the caliph would allow and take over the vandals home land ,what happened to the vandals in those 3 centuries?

In reply to jennys thread the siege of Baza was the death knell for the moors due to Isabellas tactic of building a camp and provisioning it for the winter instead of going into winter quarters as was usual.When Ferdinand and Isabella started the construction of Santa-Fe as the first true Catholic town in Spain Boabdil knew the writing was on the wall.
Taken from Decisive Battles of the Western World by JFC Fuller

The Umayyads weren't half Christian: they were fully Muslim. Mu'awiya, the first of the Umayyads and the Fifth Caliph, was the fifth successor to Muhammed and the Muslim equivalent of the Pope. From the first, Muhammed divided non-Muslims into "the peoples of the book" and pagans, and "peoples of the book" were allowed to practise their religion but had to pay a particular tax and couldn't hold political office.

The Qu'ran was shown to the Prophet in the 7th Century, so would have been hundreds of years old by the time the Almoravids arrived - hardly a "new religious book". The Almoravids were a Berber fundamentalist sect who were called in by the separate Moorish kingdoms in Spain to fight against the Reconquista.

The original Moorish invaders were true and orthodox followers of Islam. Some of the Berbers hadn't been converted at the time of the invasion, but converted soon afterwards. Islam was a tolerant faith but, as you say, became less so at the time of the Almoravids and Almohads. This had nothing to do with the Qu'ran. You seem to suggest that there are two Islams - pre Qu'ran and post-Qu'ran. This isn't so. Islam is founded on the Qu'ran, which is a written record of the teachings of Muhammed - it wasn't suddenly introduced several hundred years later.

The whole of the Roman Empire (including Spain) was Christian before the time of Constantine (4th Century). This was not interrupted by the rule of the Visigoths, who were Arian Christians until 589 and had a not-very-strong hold on the Iberian peninsula, partly because their subjects were Orthodox, not Arian, Christians. The weakness of Visigoth rule is demonstrated by the ease with which one invading Moorish army took control.

I find your argument interesting but puzzling, and I'm not quite sure what you're trying to prove!

Where are all the Mosques ?

Cordoba Mezquita

Almohad Mosque, Seville

Perhaps becase

The Jewish people began to flock to Spain from Europe, Morocco and as far away as Babylon. The traditions of the Sephardic Jews came into a religious renaissance with the blending of diverse Jewish cultures with Moorish.

And it was rumoured

Out of the horrors of oppression, is it any wonder that there were rumors during the reign of King Ergica (687-701 CE) that Jewish people were possibly appealing to the Moors to come to their aid because In 694, Ergica enacted the most severe anti-Jewish law by a Visigothic king yet. In response, so he claimed to the Seventeenth Council of Toledo, to the connivance of Jews at home with Jews abroad who were fomenting rebellions to overthrow Christian leaders, Ergica declared all Jewish-held land forfeit, all Jews to be enslaved to Christians, and all Jewish children over the age of seven to be taken from their homes and raised as Christians. Jewish-owned Christian slaves were to be invested with the Jews' property and to be responsible for paying the taxes on the Jews. In towns where Jews were deemed indispensable to the economy, however, this law wasn't applied. Indeed, as a result of the disintegrating Visigothic power, it was hardly enforced beyond the capital city itself.

YES Jenny I do pre Qur'an


Muslims used to believe that God is one and incomparable. Muslims also once believed that Islam is the complete and universal version of a primordial faith that was revealed at many times and places before, including through the prophets Abraham, Moses and Jesus.

This version of Islam was what the early Moors in Spain would have believed and is almost identical to Christian thinking.

Then this post Qur'an

The Qur'an describes many prophets and messengers as well as their respective followers as Muslim: Adam, Noah, Abraham, Jacob, Moses and Jesus and his apostles are all confirmed as being Muslim by the Qur'an. The Qur'an states that these men were Muslims because they submitted to God, preached His message and upheld His values, which included praying, charity, fasting and pilgrimage. Thus, in Surah 3:52 of the Qur'an, Jesus’ disciples tell Jesus, "We believe in God; and you be our witness that we are Muslims (wa-shahad be anna muslimūn)." In Muslim belief, before the Qur'an, God had given the Torah to Moses, the Psalms to David and the Gospel to Jesus, who are all considered important Muslim prophets

Early Islam

Inhabiting the Arabian Peninsula in Muhammad's time were Christians, Jews, and Hanifs, believers in an indigenous form of monotheism who are mentioned in the Quran. Medina had a substantial Jewish population, and villages of Jews dotted the Medina oases. Clusters of Christian monasteries were located in the northern Hijaz, and Christians were known to have visited seventh-century Mecca. Some Arabic-speaking tribal people were Christian, including some from the Najdi interior and the well-known Ghassanids and Lakhmids on the Arabian borderlands with Constantinople. Najran, a city in the southwest of present-day Saudi Arabia, had a mixed population of Jews, Christians, and pagans, and had been ruled by a Jewish king only fifty years before Muhammad's birth. In sixth-century Najran, Christianity was well established and had a clerical hierarchy of nuns, priests, bishops, and lay clergy. Furthermore, there were Christian communities along the gulf, especially in Bahrain, Oman, and in present-day Yemen.

The point I was trying to make in relation to the Moors in Spain was simple that the original invaders where not that religious and what religion they had was a mix of Islam and Christianity because in the early years of the 7th Century the Qur'an wasn't widely known or practised.

It was only in the 9th to 12th Century's that everything went wrong because the new influx of Muslims to Spain where following the teaching of the Qur'an and getting a bit radicalised !!! Sound Familiar ??

There are loads of mosques in Granada, but they're now mostly Christian churches. There's one just round the corner from the place where I usually stay, in the Albaycin.

You've made several references to things "going wrong" from 9-12 Centuries. What, exactly, went "wrong"?

I'm saddened that a thread which was started in the spirit of genuine enquiry seems to be descending into the usual boring anti-Muslim rant, as evidenced by your final statement:-

the new influx of Muslims to Spain w[h]ere following the teaching of the Qur'an and getting a bit radicalised !!! Sound Familiar ??

Yes, that reaction does sound depressingly familiar.

I'll answer your other points tomorrow/later today. Time for bed.

"Throughout the early period of Islamic rule, Al-Andalus was a remarkable example and outstanding model of tolerance." I acknowledge the tolerance of the early Muslims, I'm aware that in accordance to their early faith, they displayed great empathy towards the Jews and Christians enabling them all to live together in relative peace and harmony, an indication of the Greatness of emerging Islam, without question. !!!!

No where else has there been so long and so close of a relationship between the 3 Great faiths. All Jews and Christians were allowed to maintain their beliefs and live their lives as they desired but only as long as they respected their Muslim rulers.

What happened next was that some Moors took issue with this tolerance and started to subugate the Spanish. And it is at this point the Spanish people start to rebel.

1031 Umayyad dynasty collapses, start of the problems
1031- 1086 Anarchy
1085 King Alfonso V1 captures Toledo, early indication things where going wrong
1118 Christians capture Zaragossa, more evidence that things were worsening
1145 Almohad Dynasty come to power, things settle a little.

Which is why I said from the 9th to the 12th Century things deteriote


As for this ''the new influx of Muslims to Spain were following the teaching of the Qur'an and getting a bit radicalised !!! Sound Familiar ??''[/b

Of course, we all owe a debt to Arabic learning and their intellectual achievements of the past. they kept the flame of knowledge alive (and expanded upon it) when, in Northern Europe, we were in the appropriately named Dark Ages. [b]I suppose the shock (or shame) is that the evident tolerance of the Arabs has been lost now in a self-destructive dogma…and because Mohamed was illiterate he only recounted his visions verbally and it was only after is death that anything was written down, which over the early years got bastardised from copy to copy.The Quran assumes familiarity with major narratives recounted in Jewish and Christian scriptures, summarizing some, dwelling at length on others and in some cases presenting alternative accounts and interpretations of events. The Quran describes itself as a book of guidance, sometimes offering detailed accounts of specific historical events, and often emphasizing the moral significance of an event over its narrative sequence. And therein lays the problem the Modern Quran although accepted as being close to Mohamed's words represents different things to different Muslims some of which twist its words to incite, non tolerance. Just like what happened in Spain and what is happening all over the world to day. Is this not FACT ?? Or am I imagining world wide Muslim radicalisation ?

And off course ''Yes. that reaction does sound depressingly familiar.''


according to the largest survey of Muslims ever to be conducted.

Seven per cent believe that the events of 9/11 were “completely justified”. In Saudi Arabia, 79 per cent had an “unfavourable view” of the US.

Gallup’s Centre for Muslim Studies in New York carried out surveys of 10,000 Muslims in ten predominantly Muslim countries. One finding was that the wealthier and better-educated the Muslim was, the more likely he was to be radicalised.

Genieve Abdo, a senior Gallup analyst and author of Mecca and Main Street: Muslim Life in America After 9/11, said that the findings of a high level of religious belief among both moderate and radical Muslims had “huge implications” for Western governments.

She said: “We have to assume that these Islamic parties and movements that are coming to power are popular and have a large constituency. People are not just voting for a party, they are voting for a religion, a way of life.” and voting for the extreme religious position

''I'm saddened that a thread which was started in the spirit of genuine enquiry seems to be descending into the usual boring anti-Muslim rant, as evidenced by your final statement:-''

I haven't engaged in an anti Muslim rant I've only been drawing on the parallels between what happen with the Moors and what is happening now, and as I said in my first post response the TV program gave a biased view that's all.

Jenny Said

''The original Moorish invaders were true and orthodox followers of Islam. Some of the Berbers hadn't been converted at the time of the invasion, but converted soon afterwards. Islam was a tolerant faith but, as you say, became less so at the time of the Almoravids and Almohads. This had nothing to do with the Qu'ran. You seem to suggest that there are two Islams - pre Qu'ran and post-Qu'ran. This isn't so. Islam is founded on the Qu'ran, which is a written record of the teachings of Muhammed - it wasn't suddenly introduced several hundred years later.''

Yes it is, but we've all been conned to think that Islam began with Mohamed in 610 AD

The Origin of Islam: The "Previous Scriptures"

The origin of Islam is controversial. The "previous scriptures" mentioned in the Qur'an are the Hebrew Torah, the Psalms of David, and the Gospels of Jesus Christ (Sura 4:163; 5:44-48). The Qur'an accepts these books as divinely inspired and even encourages people to read them.

It says "previous scriptures." "If you have any doubt regarding what is revealed to you from your Lord, then ask those who read the previous scripture" (Sura 10:94).

But this is where we run into a problem. The problem is that the Qur'an thoroughly contradicts the Torah, the Psalms, and the Gospels. For example, the Qur'an explicitly denies Jesus Christ's crucifixion (Sura 4:157-158) while all four Gospel accounts clearly portray Jesus Christ as crucified and resurrected.

So I agree the first Moors to Spain practised orthodox Islam those that followed believed not in the previous scriptures but the Qur'an !!

You're quite right Boothjendar - I'll withdraw that. You didn't engage in an anti-Muslim rant - but it showed distinct signs of heading that way! This thread started by examining the impact of Islam on the Iberian peninsula. If you want to use it to draw parallels between Muslim activities then and now, go ahead. The radicalisation of Islam and the reasons for it is an area of debate with which I wouldn't dream of engaging on this forum.

the Modern Quran . . . represents different things to different Muslims some of which twist its words to incite, non tolerance.

I acknowledged this in my post upthread, with my reference to the fatwah on Salman Rushdie. The same is true of the Bible and its exponents, of course.

I'm familiar with the similarities between the Bible and the Qu'ran. I personally don't see any problem with differing accounts in the Qu'ran, the Gospels, the Torah or a TV programme. Any historical account is biased, depending on who wrote it. As for when Islam did or didn't start, we'll have to agree to differ.