There's a whole lot MORE of the article that I didn't post - the article was very long. That's why I posted the source - so people could go there and read the rest of the article.
But I'll play your game. From the sections that you seem to think I had some sinister reason to leave out:
they were not forced to live in ghettoes or other special locations
they were not slaves
Wow - impressive. That's about like saying "Well, under Saddam, the Kurds were not forced to live in ghettos and they weren't slaves - what were they complaining about?
they were not prevented from following their faith
they were not forced to convert or die under Muslim rule
Well, this isn't even true - and is contradicted later in the very same article. At first they were not - but as the hundreds of years of Arab occupation continued, the treatment of dhimmis became harsher and harsher.
they were not banned from any particular ways of earning a living; they often took on jobs shunned by Muslims;
Wow - GREAT! Why, those ungrateful...
they could work in the civil service of the Islamic rulers
This was only because Arabs were the minority in the countries they overran, and they used local people to help maintain order - sort of like Nazis used Jewish people as "mayors" of the ghettos or concentration camp guards. This was also explained later in the same article.
Jews and Christians were able to contribute to society and culture
Yes - in spite of their treatment and classification of dhimmis.
Islamic Spain is sometimes described as a 'golden age' of religious and ethnic tolerance and interfaith harmony between Muslims, Christians and Jews.
Some historians believe this idea of a golden age is false and might lead modern readers to believe, wrongly, that Muslim Spain was tolerant by the standards of 21st century Britain.
The true position is more complicated. The distinguished historian Bernard Lewis wrote that the status of non-Muslims in Islamic Spain was a sort of second-class citizenship but he went on to say:
Second-class citizenship, though second class, is a kind of citizenship. It involves some rights, though not all, and is surely better than no rights at all...
...A recognized status, albeit one of inferiority to the dominant group, which is established by law, recognized by tradition, and confirmed by popular assent, is not to be despised. Bernard Lewis, The Jews of Islam, 1984
Yes, and then this section was followed by a rebuttal and descriptions of mistreatment and oppression of Christians and Jews by their conquerors.
Jews and Christians were considered vile - barely above human (especially the Jews). No amount of whitewashing will change this facet of history.
I'm not saying that other societies haven't done the same to other groups - this has been the unfortunate modus operandum of most of humanity when it comes to conquered peoples.
My point is that Muslim rule was no different - there was nothing noble and self sacrificial, or even fair and decent, about their conquest and rule over their conquered territories.
And by the way, a bit more history - out of their 800 years of rule in Europe, only about 200-300 of those years was actually progressive or "golden." There were hundreds of years of decline before their eventual ousting. Sounds about like every other empire in history - Some good things, some impressive years and rulers, but overall - cruel and oppressive treatment of those who were conquered, decline, and eventual loss of power - at the hands of those who they conquered.
