Spain -Al Andalus

[TashaN]

Hi Stephen ,that may be true, but so was Rome before it, and even the Dark ages is debatable but was it an occupation?

Yes, they were welcomed in, just like how the English were welcomed to rule Ireland "peacefully" and with "justice" for 700 years.

They were welcomed in, just like the colonists were in the New World.

They were welcomed in, just like the United States has been "welcomed" in to "liberate" Iraq.

If they ruled with such peace and justice, why would the native Spaniards resist them with such zeal for hundreds of years, before they were able to drive them out with the Reconquista? You can argue that, while occupied, Spain was a paragon of innovation and tolerance in the world, and that Spain was better off occupied, just like I could argue that the enslavement of Africans led to their eventual betterment in the United States. Black people in America are doing infinitely better than their brethren in Africa, though the point could be made that if European colonialists did not take over Africa in the first place, it would be much better there than it is now, but that is for another debate.

The conquest

The traditional story is that in the year 711, an oppressed Christian chief, Julian, went to Musa ibn Nusair, the governor of North Africa, with a plea for help against the tyrannical Visigoth ruler of Spain, Roderick.

Musa responded by sending the young general Tariq bin Ziyad with an army of 7000 troops. The name Gibraltar is derived from Jabal At-Tariq which is Arabic for 'Rock of Tariq' named after the place where the Muslim army landed.

The story of the appeal for help is not universally accepted. There is no doubt that Tariq invaded Spain, but the reason for it may have more to do with the Muslim drive to enlarge their territory.

The Muslim army defeated the Visigoth army easily, and Roderick was killed in battle.
After the first victory, the Muslims conquered most of Spain and Portugal with little difficulty, and in fact with little opposition. By 720 Spain was largely under Muslim (or Moorish, as it was called) control.

Reasons

One reason for the rapid Muslim success was the generous surrender terms that they offered the people, which contrasted with the harsh conditions imposed by the previous Visigoth rulers.

The ruling Islamic forces were made up of different nationalities, and many of the forces were converts with uncertain motivation, so the establishment of a coherent Muslim state was not easy.

BBC - Religion & Ethics - Muslim Spain (711-1492): Conquest

The point is, it's base historical revisionism to say that the people welcomed a conquest of their land; why would they fight so zealously, for so long, if they were doing so well under Islamic rule?

Religion. They first welcomed them because the Muslims taking over was their best choice at that time, but later on, the more Christians were gathering and getting stronger, the more they wanted Spain to be a Christian country again, not that they hated the Muslims or anything.


A solid proof for what i'm saying is the massive cooperation between Jews, Christians, and Muslims in all branches of knowledge, and how, most of them flee together, side by side, from Spain, because they knew that Spain will no longer be as peaceful as it was under Muslims rule. Don't forget that the Muslim ruling there was almost for 800 years.

 

[TashaN]

I think that all denominations have been chucked off of the walls/bridge at Rhonda at one time or another.

The architecture,art & gardens are exquisite,all Moorish/Islamic.

Maybe even the nicest place in the Western World?Teba is more Celtic.I love driving down to Gibraltar too,or inland is beautiful the,plains.

I have always wanted to drive around to the west coast,to visit the place made famous by Charlton Heston in El Cid?this is the way I imagine it?

Spain is in the top of my list, for the places i would love to visit. It's just so beautiful.

 

[kai]

The Muslim rulers didn't give their non-Muslim subjects equal status; as Bat Ye'or has stated, the non-Muslims came definitely at the bottom of society.

Society was sharply divided along ethnic and religious lines, with the Arab tribes at the top of the hierarchy, followed by the Berbers who were never recognized as equals, despite their Islamization; lower in the scale came the mullawadun converts and, at the very bottom, the dhimmi Christians and Jews.Bat Ye'or, Islam and Dhimmitude, 2002
​

The Muslims did not explicitly hate or persecute the non-Muslims. As Bernard Lewis puts it:

in contrast to Christian anti-Semitism, the Muslim attitude toward non-Muslims is one not of hate or fear or envy but simply of contemptBernard Lewis, The Jews of Islam, 1984
​

An example of this contempt is found in this 12th century ruling:

A Muslim must not massage a Jew or a Christian nor throw away his refuse nor clean his latrines. The Jew and the Christian are better fitted for such trades, since they are the trades of those who are vile.



Not all the Muslim rulers of Spain were tolerant. Almanzor looted churches and imposed strict restrictions.
The position of non-Muslims in Spain deteriorated substantially from the middle of the 11th century as the rulers became more strict and Islam came under greater pressure from outside.
Christians were not allowed taller houses than Muslims, could not employ Muslim servants, and had to give way to Muslims on the street.
Christians could not display any sign of their faith outside, not even carrying a Bible. There were persecutions and executions.
One notorious event was a pogrom in Granada in 1066, and this was followed by further violence and discrimination as the Islamic empire itself came under pressure.
As the Islamic empire declined, and more territory was taken back by Christian rulers, Muslims in Christian areas found themselves facing similar restrictions to those they had formerly imposed on others.
But, on the whole, the lot of minority faith groups was to become worse after Islam was replaced in Spain by Christianity.



intersting points but the lifestyle in Iberia is not really in question , my question is was it an occupation, remember the romans were in Britain 400 years that doesnt make any less an occupation.


BBC - Religion & Ethics - Muslim Spain (711-1492): A Golden Age


The collapse of Islamic rule in Spain was due not only to increasing aggression on the part of Christian states, but to divisions among the Muslim rulers. The rot came from both the centre and the extremities.
Early in the eleventh century, the single Islamic Caliphate had shattered into a score of small kingdoms, ripe for picking-off. The first big Islamic centre to fall to Christianity was Toledo in 1085.
The Muslims replied with forces from Africa which under the general Yusuf bin Tashfin defeated the Christians resoundingly in 1086, and by 1102 had recaptured most of Andalusia. The general was able to reunite much of Muslim Spain.
Revival

It didn't last. Yusuf died in 1106, and, as one historian puts it, the "rulers of Muslim states began cutting each other's throats again".
Internal rebellions in 1144 and 1145 further shattered Islamic unity, and despite intermittent military successes, Islam's domination of Spain was ended for good.
The Muslims finally lost all power in Spain in 1492. By 1502 the Christian rulers issued an order requiring all Muslims to convert to Christianity, and when this didn't work, they imposed brutal restrictions on the remaining Spanish Muslims.



oh those Christians what a bunch
​

 

[TashaN]

This will lead to the other points i wanted to raise.

As a matter of fact, at that time, the political climate was totally different as you know. Almost ALL countries were controlled by super power countries either directly, through conquest, or indirectly through offering certain small countries a deal to cooperate with them and be politically part of that Empire.

Please read: Right of conquest - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

or the book: The Right of Conquest: The Acquisition of Territory by Force in International Law and Practice

Parts taken from the book:

"The proposition that a state that emerges victorious in war is
entitled to claim ownership or jurisdiction of territory of which
it has taken possession during a war was a recognized principle
of international law until the early years of this century."

What do you think?

 

[kai]

I think its great stuff i will read it and get back to you. rights of conquest is a double edged sword to wield given world history.

i shall return

also of interest

Revanchism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[kai]

"The proposition that a state that emerges victorious in war is
entitled to claim ownership or jurisdiction of territory of which
it has taken possession during a war was a recognized principle
of international law until the early years of this century."

if you use that to justify one action it justifies them all

 

[Makaveli]

The conquest

The traditional story is that in the year 711, an oppressed Christian chief, Julian, went to Musa ibn Nusair, the governor of North Africa, with a plea for help against the tyrannical Visigoth ruler of Spain, Roderick.

Musa responded by sending the young general Tariq bin Ziyad with an army of 7000 troops. The name Gibraltar is derived from Jabal At-Tariq which is Arabic for 'Rock of Tariq' named after the place where the Muslim army landed.

The story of the appeal for help is not universally accepted. There is no doubt that Tariq invaded Spain, but the reason for it may have more to do with the Muslim drive to enlarge their territory.

The Muslim army defeated the Visigoth army easily, and Roderick was killed in battle.
After the first victory, the Muslims conquered most of Spain and Portugal with little difficulty, and in fact with little opposition. By 720 Spain was largely under Muslim (or Moorish, as it was called) control.

Interesting. That parallels the story of Dermot MacMurrough and Henry the II; Dermot was the King of Leinster, in Ireland, and was having trouble with some of his enemies so he invited the King of England, Henry the II, into his country. Henry, after helping MacMurrough, decided he liked the country enough to stay there (there were some intervening years with a Norman named Strongbow ruling parts of it, but I don't want to elaborate all that much), and the English ruled it completely until 1922 when the Catholic parts of it gained independence. The occupation was roughly 700 years long.

In both cases, the King or ruler invited the foreign force in for help, but then these people were left at the whims of the foreigners. As Kai has said, the native people were not treated equally under the law, and were at the bottom of the social hierarchy

Religion. They first welcomed them because the Muslims taking over was their best choice at that time, but later on, the more Christians were gathering and getting stronger, the more they wanted Spain to be a Christian country again, not that they hated the Muslims or anything.

A solid proof for what i'm saying is the massive cooperation between Jews, Christians, and Muslims in all branches of knowledge, and how, most of them flee together, side by side, from Spain, because they knew that Spain will no longer be as peaceful as it was under Muslims rule. Don't forget that the Muslim ruling there was almost for 800 years.

I don't dispute that non-Muslims did not have it better under the Muslims, but better is relative. I don't believe Dhimmi status and various other injustices imposed on the natives is good; being at the bottom of the social ladder has never been a positive in any society, even if you're not persecuted as much as you were under your previous rulers. Jews, Christians, they both had a relatively better existence, for a time, under Islamic rule but many of them fled in the 1100s because of increased persecution by their Moorish rulers.

It was an occupation, and starting in the 1100s a very unjust one, and it was a good thing that the native people regained their country (even if they did, in the case of the Inquisition, prosecute their people and religious minorities just as much).

 

[TashaN]

"The proposition that a state that emerges victorious in war is
entitled to claim ownership or jurisdiction of territory of which
it has taken possession during a war was a recognized principle
of international law until the early years of this century."

if you use that to justify one action it justifies them all

True, but only if they have observed the principles of this law. Remember that my approach will be just historical here so don't assume i'll defend what Muslims did blindly.

I will just look at it objectively from a historical point of view.

 

[TashaN]

Although the non-muslims weren't treated equally with muslims, but that was only in rare cases only and during certain period of muslim history where the people of that land weren't cooperative so the muslims were dealing with them as strangers. Nevertheless, I have read so many books which proves that those who accepted muslim rule and engaged in the army, and different activities in the society, were granted equal rights and you can check that in the thread i have made in the Abrahamic Forum which both of you, Makaveli and Kai know about it.

 

[kai]

Although the non-muslims weren't treated equally with muslims, but that was only in rare cases only and during certain period of muslim history where the people of that land weren't cooperative so the muslims were dealing with them as strangers. Nevertheless, I have read so many books which proves that those who accepted muslim rule and engaged in the army, and different activities in the society, were granted equal rights and you can check that in the thread i have made in the Abrahamic Forum which both of you, Makaveli and Kai know about it.

i have read many books that extole the advantages of accepting Roman rule and indeed becoming a roman citizen.

 

[kai]

Its also similar to the story of King Vortigern and his asking aid of Hengist and Horsa as saxon mercenaries in Britain

 

[darkendless]

My view of this is that it was an invasion/occupation. My reason for saying so is that to me it makes sense that during the wars with Christianity, Islam needed bastions for its war.

Also if you read wikipedia, it speaks of "treatment of non-muslims" which is a dead give away that from 791 - 1492 it was an occupation. Why on earth would the occupants before the Muslims have welcomed the muslims unless they knew how they'd be treated. You certainly wouldn't welcome them if you knew you'd be treated like an inferior.
It states they were treated with dignity, but certainly not as equals.

 

[kai]

True, but only if they have observed the principles of this law. Remember that my approach will be just historical here so don't assume i'll defend what Muslims did blindly.

I will just look at it objectively from a historical point of view.

i am looking for another source as yours is asking me for money, do you subscribe? it does look a very interesting source of reference material

 

[Makaveli]

Its also similar to the story of King Vortigern and his asking aid of Hengist and Horsa as saxon mercenaries in Britain

Yes, that is an interesting story and very similar.

 

[TashaN]

i am looking for another source as yours is asking me for money, do you subscribe? it does look a very interesting source of reference material

No, i just found it while i was searching. I'm still looking for more sources on the subject.

 

[TashaN]

I found a good source.

The Right of Conquest: The ... - Google Book Search

EDIT: This one is really cool.

 

[kai]

I found a good source.

The Right of Conquest: The ... - Google Book Search

EDIT: This one is really cool.

you are right, i will take some time to read it!

 

[kai]

Ok Tashan is it your stance that "muslim" are justified in being in the Iberian peninsular for 700 years by "right of Conquest", if it is theni would totally agree with that view.

 

[TashaN]

Ok Tashan is it your stance that "muslim" are justified in being in the Iberian peninsular for 700 years by "right of Conquest", if it is theni would totally agree with that view.

Honestly, i just found out about the right of conquest thing while i was participating in this thread, and i thought to bring it up as an issue which might give us an understanding of the political climate at that time. Now, i don't assert that the Muslims entered and lived in Spain for that reason, but i just thought that might be one of the reasons, because at that time, you had to get more lands, or other empires would have to get yours.

Nevertheless, for Muslims, i believe that their first reason was to liberate people and spread the word "Islam" and leave it for people to either embrace Islam or just to live under its rule. It's a mixture between religion and politics. I'm still reading about the political environment at that time, and still learning, and i still don't have all the answers yet.

 

[Darkwater]

The old Persian Empire was one of the largest in the world,spreading from Turkey on the Med & presumably Africa.

They ruled over the Greeks too at some time,as well as Celtiberia(Spain)......

Of all the *empires* that *ruled* over the Greeks,the worst were the British Empire...(ahem)

I have some nice stuff on it Tashan,the *alternative* history thread is just about to hit the period.