Turns out Ground Zero Mosque protesters are racists too!

[Smoke]

The other side of the coin, Bill, is what prompted the Reconquista? It is sort of an odd way to treat people that were so kind and tolerant. I could understand if the Reconquista had gone on for a couple of years... but almost 800 years? By any measure that is a long time to hold a grudge. Obviously some folks weren't too happy with their Muslim overlords.

You might have a point if the intolerance of the Most Catholic Kings had been directed solely at the Muslims.

 

[Father Heathen]

People need to get over 9/11. Build a Starbucks at the epicenter and move on.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

There is of course a second tale, that the Cordoba Caliphate was unique in the ancient Muslim world for its tolerance of Christians and Jews. Regardless of whether or not it's true, this is the tale that's believed in the Muslim community, and its where Cordoba House got its name.

It is true. Any Jew will verify it. The Islamic rule of Spain was much better for Jews then Christian rule. The first thing Christians did when they got Spain back was starting treating Jews like dogs again.

 

[YmirGF]

You might have a point if the intolerance of the Most Catholic Kings had been directed solely at the Muslims.

And you, my dear friend, might have a point if this had not gone on generation after generation after generation... until the Muslims were largely eradicated.

 

[Smoke]

And you, my dear friend, might have a point if this had not gone on generation after generation after generation... until the Muslims were largely eradicated.

The heretics and Jews must have had some pretty fierce caliphates in Spain, too.

 

[YmirGF]

The heretics and Jews must have had some pretty fierce caliphates in Spain, too.

Well, once one is on a killing spree... things tend to go to hell in a hand-basket rather fast.

 

[Alceste]

Well, once one is on a killing spree... things tend to go to hell in a hand-basket rather fast.

So when the Muslims are treating non Muslims as second class citizens, it's the Muslims' fault. When the Christians are slaughtering non-Christains, it's the Muslims' fault. Got it.

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

very good point. I agree completely. Why not move it to a differant location? and that video made me very sad for that poor man.

Mosque proposal draws protest in Tenn. - USATODAY.com

Turns out they are protesting mosques in a wildly different location too. All the way out in Tennessee.

 

[LittlePinky82]

Mosque proposal draws protest in Tenn. - USATODAY.com

Turns out they are protesting mosques in a wildly different location too. All the way out in Tennessee.

The mosque in Murfessboro got torched. And there were protests out there and shots were fired. I don't think anyone got hurt.

 

[Sunstone]

So when the Muslims are treating non Muslims as second class citizens, it's the Muslims' fault. When the Christians are slaughtering non-Christains, it's the Muslims' fault. Got it.

Spot on! It's the American Way.

 

[Alceste]

Spot on! It's the American Way.

Sounds likethe kids I look after. When Rose (almost 2) hits Autumn (almost 4), it's Rose's fault. When Autumn hits Rose, it's Rose's fault. I would expect people to grow out of that kind of mentality by about age 6, but I guess it's too much to hope for.

 

[kiwimac]

It doesnt matter what races died that day. Are you suggesting that we should divide up the races/nationality/religion, and decide who had the most deaths? People were killed by radical muslims, so you shouldnt put up a mosque there.

So a group of mystics (Sufis) should not be allowed to build a mosque because some Wahabbis flew planes into the WTC buildings? You do know that Sufis are also on the Wahabbi kill list don't you?

 

[kiwimac]

I note Kathryn did not post this portion of the article quoted:

Life for non-Muslims in Islamic Spain

Jews and Christians did retain some freedom under Muslim rule, providing they obeyed certain rules. Although these rules would now be considered completely unacceptable, they were not much of a burden by the standards of the time, and in many ways the non-Muslims of Islamic Spain (at least before 1050) were treated better than conquered peoples might have expected during that period of history.

they were not forced to live in ghettoes or other special locations
they were not slaves
they were not prevented from following their faith
they were not forced to convert or die under Muslim rule
they were not banned from any particular ways of earning a living; they often took on jobs shunned by Muslims;
these included unpleasant work such as tanning and butchery
but also pleasant jobs such as banking and dealing in gold and silver
they could work in the civil service of the Islamic rulers
Jews and Christians were able to contribute to society and culture

Source

Nor this:

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

Nor this:

Many Christians in Spain assimilated parts of the Muslim culture. Some learned Arabic, some adopted the same clothes as their rulers (some Christian women even started wearing the veil); some took Arabic names. Christians who did this were known as Mozarabs.

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

Fact of the matter is that real life is more complicated than some would have you believe. Yes, some Muslims were intolerant, some were not, however and NOTHING can remove the greatness of Islamic Spain, where people walked the streets safely at night, there were public libraries, plumbed toilets, which contrasted well with the darkness and filth of Christian Europe

 

[kai]

I note Kathryn did not post this portion of the article quoted:



Source

Nor this:



Nor this:



Fact of the matter is that real life is more complicated than some would have you believe. Yes, some Muslims were intolerant, some were not, however and

NOTHING can remove the greatness of Islamic Spain

, where people walked the streets safely at night, there were public libraries, plumbed toilets, which contrasted well with the darkness and filth of Christian Europe

you could say the same for Imperial Rome. Empires always wax and wane, the Islamic empires are no different.

 

[Bismillah]

I don't think Imperial Rome was ever tolerant under the Pagans, nor the Christians.

 

[kai]

I don't think Imperial Rome was ever tolerant under the Pagans, nor the Christians.

like any Empire their tolerance was relevant to the time. The Islamic empires were empires in every sense of the word. no different. Rulers can pick and choose what they tolerate and Islamic rulers were no different.

The Muslims conquered Spain and subjugated it until they were driven out there was hardly ever a time that the Christians were not fighting to expel them, there were hundreds of years of struggle and in fact there were parts of the Iberian peninsular that was never conquered by the Muslims.

yes we can look back to the golden ages of our particular pasts if we wish but sometimes you have to remove the rose tinted glasses.

 

[Bismillah]

Regardless of the time, I don't think Imperial Rome could ever be called tolerant in any sense of the word. Could you please provide some examples because I was under the impression that the Pagans persecuted the Christians, slaves of their colonies etc. etc. and the roles were reversed when Constantine came to power.

In comparison, you'll find that Non-Muslims in all areas from Arabia to Spain were treated much better than contemporary minorities at the hands of Christian kingdoms. It was only when the Mongols sacked Baghdad and Muslims began to become progressively backwards was a hatred of all outside cultures established.

The fact that the Christians were fighting the Muslims isn't because they were treating the Non-Muslims "badly". It's because the Church saw a powerful adversary in Islam that had managed to attract so many converts and was already at its own borders.

 

[kai]

Regardless of the time, I don't think Imperial Rome could ever be called tolerant in any sense of the word. Could you please provide some examples because I was under the impression that the Pagans persecuted the Christians, slaves of their colonies etc. etc. and the roles were reversed when Constantine came to power.

Roman authorities were generally tolerant of other religions provided they were not a threat to public order. And a number of (at least nominally) foreign (often eastern) cults outside the Roman state religion achieved considerable popularity throughout the empire.

BBC - History - Ancient History in depth: Roman Religion Gallery


In comparison, you'll find that Non-Muslims in all areas from Arabia to Spain were treated much better than contemporary minorities at the hands of Christian kingdoms. It was only when the Mongols sacked Baghdad and Muslims began to become progressively backwards was a hatred of all outside cultures established. well there you go then

The fact that the Christians were fighting the Muslims isn't because they were treating the Non-Muslims "badly". It's because the Church saw a powerful adversary in Islam that had managed to attract so many converts and was already at its own borders.

no its because Arabs and Berbers etc invaded the area , you do know that dont you?. it was part of Umayyad expansionism, in other words Islamic imperialism.

 

[Requia]

Regardless of the time, I don't think Imperial Rome could ever be called tolerant in any sense of the word. Could you please provide some examples because I was under the impression that the Pagans persecuted the Christians, slaves of their colonies etc. etc. and the roles were reversed when Constantine came to power.

It was far more than just the pagans persecuting the Christians, religious persecution was widespread in ancient Rome.

To give a concrete example of how the Romans were worse than other empires of the time, Egypt allowed women to own property until it fell under Roman law, which forbade it.

 

[Bismillah]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aside from benignly treating the cults of Rome the Romans didn't seem like a very civilized bunch. I mean if the Gladiator games and crucifixions conclude anything it's that they seemed to hate anything that didn't fit their own polytheistic views?

What I was trying to say was that during the Ummayad Dynasty Islamic education and theology reached its peak and after the decline so too did the progressive Islamic thinking. As in, when Islam reached its height the Ummah also treated all inhabitants most humanely as opposed to later rulers who reverted to tyrannical rule.

Yeah, the Berbers did invade Spain, but do you know that some Christian kingdoms helped the Muslims fight the Goths? It's not as if the Muslims subjugated the Christian residents to executions and the like that was so common when these roles were reversed.