It was the start of one of the earliest and most brutal episodes of ethnic cleansing in Europe, so Spain is, understandably perhaps, a little reluctant to mark the occasion.
Four hundred years ago today King Philip III signed an order to expel 300,000 Moriscos - or part-Muslims - who had converted from Islam to Christianity.
Over the next five years hundreds of the exiles died as they were forced from their homes in Spain to North Africa at the height of the Spanish Inquisition.
There are no plans to mark the date officially, although the occasion is being remembered in a series of exhibitions, conferences and public debates.
The anniversary comes days after José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, the Spanish Prime Minister, met Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the Turkish Prime Minister, in Istanbul to celebrate the United Nations Alliance of Civilisations, which is intended to foster friendship between the West and the Islamic world.
Some Muslim writers and Spanish and Moroccan campaigners believe that Madrid should apologise for the wrongs committed during the 17th century. Juan Goytisolo, a Spanish novelist, said:
Official and academic Spain retires into the fortress of cautious silence, which reveals obvious discomfort. The expulsion was the first European precedent ... of the European ethnic cleansings of the last century.
The anniversary highlights once again the uneasy relationship which exists between modern-day Spain and its Moorish, or Muslim, past. Muslims conquered much of the Iberian Peninsula in the 8th century after arriving from North Africa but, centuries later, their armies were finally expelled in 1492 after the victory of the Catholic monarchs King Ferdinand of Castile and Queen Isabella of Aragon.
Hundreds of thousands of Muslims who remained in Spain were forced to convert to Christianity, but many continued with their Muslim names and ways of life, defying all attempts to create a Catholic state.
After military losses to the Protestant Dutch, King Philip signed a decree on April 9, 1609, to expel these reluctant converts, in a move he hoped would strengthen his kingdom.
Historians record the brutal conditions in which many hundreds were killed during the forced resettlement in North Africa over the next five years and Spanish society was, in fact, weakened economically and politically as a result - particularly in areas such as Valencia and Aragon, where the majority of the Muslim converts had lived.
Historians and writers have urged the Government to use the anniversary of the event to make overtures to the Islamic world. José Manuel Fajardo, a Spanish writer, said: Mr Zapatero has an opportunity to transform one of the most tragic episodes in the history of Spain into an opportunity for a re-encounter between the West and Islam.
However, a spokesman for the Government said: There are no plans to mark the anniversary.
The defeat of the Moors in 1492 and the expulsion of the Moriscos from 17th-century Spain has become a politically sensitive subject, with Osama bin Laden referring to it in repeated calls for the restoration of al-Andalus, the former Muslim kingdom in the Iberian Peninsula.
Before you start accusing people of being hypocrites, read the article. It mentioned two spanish writers, and I don't think it even specifically said anything about apologies.
I just find it funny how self hating the West has gotten and how much it allows itself to be shamed of its past (when there is nothing shameful about it).
Siege of Tobruk - One German POW said: "I cannot understand you Australians. In Poland, France, and Belgium, once the tanks got through the soldiers took it for granted that they were beaten. But you are like demons. The tanks break through and your infantry still keep fighting." Rommel wrote of seeing "a batch of some fifty or sixty Australian prisoners ... marched off close behind usimmensely big and powerful men, who without question represented an elite formation of the British Empire, a fact that was also evident in battle."
"As a Internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
Don't mind 7keys, he's some whiney leftist who just started his first year of university. He is going through his socialist phase where he screams self hatred. He will growup by the time he's a junior.
britain and france should also apologise for starting ww2
Napoleon auf St. Helena: "Hätte der Himmel gewollt, dass ich als deutscher Fürst geboren wäre und hätten Sie mich einmal zu Ihrem Kaiser gewählt und ausgerufen so scheint mir noch Heute, dass Sie nie von mir abgefallen wären und ich Heute nicht hier sitzen müsste."
loool we need no apologies, a thank u would suffice, seeing as we braught dark europe in to the light of the reniessance.... moorish Granada was about 400 years ahead of all other european cities, having street lighting, police enforcement, welfaree system, running water, central heating etc... etc...
however apologies r required from france to algeria and tunisia.... seeing as they massacred both nations ppls in cold blood...
italy apologised to libya nearly 3 times now, and is paying libya $5 billion dollars worth in compensation... yet france which maintains the same form of govt as it did during the massacres still is yet to pay compensation and apologise...
''How about the Moors apologize for occupying Spain? What hypocrites.''
argueably the north africans had more right to spain through ancestry than the visgoths... u see visgoths came from central europe, but before they came to spain, north africans already had established themselves their, via the conquests of Hannibal Barca, who founded the city of Barcalona...
~Thus the north african Legacy in spain was before that of the visigoth rulers at the time...
and those to conquer spain from the moors were not Visigoths, nor were they related to them or Spain as a country...
what u ppl r getting confused about is christian rule and islamic rule...
this is how it stated for spain
baron land, no real governance, just city states
Roman Rule
Carthaginian Rule (Hannibal Barca)
Back To Roman Rule
Roman To Roman Catholcism
Moorish Rule
Then Christian rule
so u see, Spain was neither belonging to roman catholicism or islam... it was always a colony, for either the european empires or north african empires, i original ppl of spain, as it is, never existed... thus spain belongs niether to the european nor north african, it was simply a colony...which was at the borders of europe and africa, and thus subsiquently gone through many transformations of leadership, culture, religion etc...
spain today, spainish culture, food, language even fvckin blood, wouldnt be, if without moorish influence... it would be another bland european state...
I love WAFF, not a single person was bothered to read the article.
------------------------
Quote:
Four hundred years ago today King Philip III signed an order to expel 300,000 Moriscos - or part-Muslims - who had converted from Islam to Christianity.
...
Some Muslim writers and Spanish and Moroccan campaigners believe that Madrid should apologise for the wrongs committed during the 17th century.
------------------------
They want an apology for the Spanish Muslims that were expelled from their homelands. Which is a just wish IMO.
No its not. That is stupid. Like asking any people forced from their homelands to receive an apology 600 years after the event.
Only the Europeans are 'Enlightened' enough to even conjure up such a ridiculous idea, and all others outside the West to think up such ideas as well.
When the rest of the world catches up, maybe I would be willing to hear the historical sob stories.
Siege of Tobruk - One German POW said: "I cannot understand you Australians. In Poland, France, and Belgium, once the tanks got through the soldiers took it for granted that they were beaten. But you are like demons. The tanks break through and your infantry still keep fighting." Rommel wrote of seeing "a batch of some fifty or sixty Australian prisoners ... marched off close behind usimmensely big and powerful men, who without question represented an elite formation of the British Empire, a fact that was also evident in battle."
"As a Internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
It belongs to those that own the land. Like any other place in this world. No land is someone's except through might of force.
Siege of Tobruk - One German POW said: "I cannot understand you Australians. In Poland, France, and Belgium, once the tanks got through the soldiers took it for granted that they were beaten. But you are like demons. The tanks break through and your infantry still keep fighting." Rommel wrote of seeing "a batch of some fifty or sixty Australian prisoners ... marched off close behind usimmensely big and powerful men, who without question represented an elite formation of the British Empire, a fact that was also evident in battle."
"As a Internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
Most of you mean "Iberian Peninsula" when you say "Spain". As the only person in this thread that was born, raised and lived there 95% of my life, permit me to say a few things:
- The main gene of the iberians and particularly of the portuguese, is the celtic one. So, we are much more related to Irish, Scottish and brittons (brittany) than any other human wave that passed through Iberian Peninsula. And that gene prevailed over all periods of foreign dominance. In the end, romans, muslims, northern europeans, all were kind of assimilated by the people they needed to populate the land.
- Invaders started with Phoenician and Greek Colonies, one of which, 8km from my house, still has their influence. Then the Romans, who were severely defeated by lusitanians and finally used bribery to murder lusitanian leaders. In the wave of barbarian invasions, the iberian Peninsula was invaded by 4 tribes - The Suevii (South Danmark/North Germany), which occupied the northwestern part of the Peninsula, the Visigoths (Eastern Central Europe) which occupied the rest of the Peninsula, the Vandals and Alans, which only passed through in route to North Africa.
In 711 a small group of muslims conquered the Peninsula easily, because the small numbers of suevii and visigoths meant that Society was basicaly a little germanized roman one.
But like Astérix village, there was a tiny part of the Peninsula where muslims never reached and that's from where the "reconquest" started.
We like very much the legacy of the muslims, which brought the arts, new agriculture techniques and specially for me ...the lute. But people need to understand that that's it. The rest doesn't exist. Portugal was totally reconquered in 1248, almost 250 years before Granada. And until the XVI century, all traces of muslim culture were erased, totally by the Inquisition.
Shouldn't muslims apologize to Celtiberians aswell (meaning...apologize to us?) Perhaps then we could apologize to the mammoths who lived in the Peninsula.
''It belongs to those that own the land. Like any other place in this world. No land is someone's except through might of force.''
true but humanity has an instilled code of conduct, massacring the defencless is an unwritten crime... in the deserts of arabia forexample pre-islam, a place of anarchy and no rule of law, there were still things that were out of bounds... e.g. Oasis r havens of peace, oasis cannot be attacked nor can be used as a means in any military strategy...and wells cannot be closed up for any stratigic purpose etc...
also if a delgation comes to propse a treaty or declare war, the members of that delgation cannot be held captive or killed (dnt shoot the messenger)
but europe had no such code of conduct, the moors wrongly overestimated the chilvry of the europeans...who were still living in a state of barbarism...
when christians took jersualam they massacred it inhabitants, man woman and child, when muslims RETOOK it, an amnesty was given, and christian jews were protected... this is why u still find christians in Egypt but no muslims in spain, why u still find christians in syria but no muslims in sicily, why u still find christians in jordan but know muslims in malta, gibraltar, parma etc...
the christian europeans lacked chivlry and were barbarians, moors and sarcans taught honor to europe amongst many other things.
but europe had no such code of conduct, the moors wrongly overestimated the chilvry of the europeans...who were still living in a state of barbarism...
You need to learn history. When things turned bad, the Moors called for help from the Berbers, who were vicious, savage animals in war and society. They were well known for the rape of Valencia... It might also be of interest that by the time the 'barbaric' Spaniards conducted their assaults, the Muslims were just as readily killing each other... The whole story of Iberia (particularly of the Reconqista) is of Christians and Muslims fighting with and against one another. More men fought as mercenaries then under a banner of Christian or Muslim.
when christians took jersualam they massacred it inhabitants
As did Muslims in Constantinople, as they did in North Africa, as they did in Central Asia. What exactly is your point. Other then comparing peasants from Europe who travelled through hostile land, from barbaric Turkic raiders who slaughtered them mercilessly, Muslims who refused them any hospitality (understandably) as well as fellow Christians. The whole ordeal was not heavenly, which made them more bloody. When Saladin took it, he possessed under his command a army of veteran soldiers tired of war as much as the Christians.
the christian europeans lacked chivlry and were barbarians, moors and sarcans taught honor to europe amongst many other things.
So what happened between now and then? Muslims are still Muslim practising the same religion. You can blame it on not practising it properly, which amongst other things Muslims always do, but the fact of the matter is it is practised exactly the same as it has always been.
Muslims didn't teach Europeans anything about chivalry, the idea stemmed from Ancient Rome and Greece with a mix of Christian values, like all things Muslim. The whole reason for the Crusades was a reaction to the massive expansion of the Muslim dominions... go figure, by the Sword. Pushing at 'barbaric people' then asking why they turned around and massacre you is like asking why did a wolf bite you when you slapped it like a 'gentleman'.
As for the whole concept of Europeans being barbarians. That is the most true statement. Then again so were Muslims, Chinese and all people of the world. The Europeans were just better at it.
In the end it is upto the Spanish. If they are ok with so many of their people living in North Africa thinking they are Arabs, no problem then.
That is the same for the Turks, no? Might be high time the Turks feel some guilt for stealing Christian children, raising them as something they are not, no?
But unlike the 'civilised' West, the idea is totally preposterous to a Turk... As it well should be...
Siege of Tobruk - One German POW said: "I cannot understand you Australians. In Poland, France, and Belgium, once the tanks got through the soldiers took it for granted that they were beaten. But you are like demons. The tanks break through and your infantry still keep fighting." Rommel wrote of seeing "a batch of some fifty or sixty Australian prisoners ... marched off close behind usimmensely big and powerful men, who without question represented an elite formation of the British Empire, a fact that was also evident in battle."
"As a Internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
That is the same for the Turks, no? Might be high time the Turks feel some guilt for stealing Christian children, raising them as something they are not, no?
But unlike the 'civilised' West, the idea is totally preposterous to a Turk... As it well should be...
---------------------
As much as Turks wish, they weren't the ones calling the shots within the empire. 3 sultans were killed by Janissaries. What I'm saying is, it wasn't Turkic nomads stealing Christian babies but other Christian origined Ottomans stealing Christian babies.
I see, so basically palming off the blame. I suppose the Spaniards were just exercising democracy, the majority (Christian Spaniards) didn't want the Muslim Spaniards (the minority) to be part of the new Kingdom. After all, why would you want some people who gave up their Christian roots for some foreigner's who set up camp?
Turks are the inheritors of the legacy of the Ottoman Empire and today millions of Turks are merely Slavs who were stolen and called Turks, both as Janissaries or as slaves.
So basically, the absurdity of this idea of shaming and then apologising for events such as these is ridiculous. Except in the 'civilised' West.
Siege of Tobruk - One German POW said: "I cannot understand you Australians. In Poland, France, and Belgium, once the tanks got through the soldiers took it for granted that they were beaten. But you are like demons. The tanks break through and your infantry still keep fighting." Rommel wrote of seeing "a batch of some fifty or sixty Australian prisoners ... marched off close behind usimmensely big and powerful men, who without question represented an elite formation of the British Empire, a fact that was also evident in battle."
"As a Internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
I see, so basically palming off the blame. I suppose the Spaniards were just exercising democracy, the majority (Christian Spaniards) didn't want the Muslim Spaniards (the minority) to be part of the new Kingdom. After all, why would you want some people who gave up their Christian roots for some foreigner's who set up camp?
-------------------
I'm not blaming the Christian Spaniards here.
Turks are the inheritors of the legacy of the Ottoman Empire and today millions of Turks are merely Slavs who were stolen and called Turks, both as Janissaries or as slaves.
-------------------
Many countries paid the financial debts of the Ottoman Empire, so we're not actually the sole inheritors.
So basically, the absurdity of this idea of shaming and then apologising for events such as these is ridiculous. Except in the 'civilised' West.
But you are. There is only two sides in this idea put forth, those to blame and those that are victims.
Many countries paid the financial debts of the Ottoman Empire, so we're not actually the sole inheritors.
Like the Soviet Union, Russia was the Soviet Union as much as Turkey was the Ottoman Empire. Doubt Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Libya have gone on to claim as inheritors of their proud Ottoman heritage, similar to those Kazak's and Ukrainians.
You set the rules, not us.
Indeed. But no need to exploit it, it only creates problems later.
Siege of Tobruk - One German POW said: "I cannot understand you Australians. In Poland, France, and Belgium, once the tanks got through the soldiers took it for granted that they were beaten. But you are like demons. The tanks break through and your infantry still keep fighting." Rommel wrote of seeing "a batch of some fifty or sixty Australian prisoners ... marched off close behind usimmensely big and powerful men, who without question represented an elite formation of the British Empire, a fact that was also evident in battle."
"As a Internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
But you are. There is only two sides in this idea put forth, those to blame and those that are victims.
---------------------
I see it like this. Christian Spaniards are victims for being subjected to Arab invasion. However, are at fault for kicking the Spanish Muslims out.
Like the Soviet Union, Russia was the Soviet Union as much as Turkey was the Ottoman Empire. Doubt Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Libya have gone on to claim as inheritors of their proud Ottoman heritage, similar to those Kazak's and Ukrainians.
---------------------
Similar situation. The Soviet Union was not fully Russian or even close to it but it is percieved as a Russian state. Bias historiography IMO.
I see it like this. Christian Spaniards are victims for being subjected to Arab invasion. However, are at fault for kicking the Spanish Muslims out.
Indeed. But what would be the point of everyone apologising to everyone else? Won't achieve anything but will open up a can of worms everywhere.
Similar situation. The Soviet Union was not fully Russian or even close to it but it is percieved as a Russian state. Bias historiography IMO.
It was almost entirely Russian centric, like the Ottoman Empire was entirely Turkic centric. Though 'minorities' dominated the top job many times, they were effectively of Russian and Turkish culture respectively, taught in the ways of those cultures better then in their real identity. If anything, they represented the extreme views of those said cultures like any convert to a religion.
The difference is the Soviet military was dominated by Russians (and Slavs in general) while the Ottoman Empire loved to levy from its vassal states and from its many provinces, not having a entirely Turkish dominated army. However, my point stands, the inheritors of the Soviet Union is as much Russia as Turkey is for the Ottomans.
Siege of Tobruk - One German POW said: "I cannot understand you Australians. In Poland, France, and Belgium, once the tanks got through the soldiers took it for granted that they were beaten. But you are like demons. The tanks break through and your infantry still keep fighting." Rommel wrote of seeing "a batch of some fifty or sixty Australian prisoners ... marched off close behind usimmensely big and powerful men, who without question represented an elite formation of the British Empire, a fact that was also evident in battle."
"As a Internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
the article talked about sanctioned ethnic cleansing during reign of power. did the Muslim governments drove the local populace out during their reign?
It doesn't matter. we have a situation here where people are judging past events with the morals of the present time. It's totally unreasonable and setting a bad precedent for the future.
Where does it stop? How far back do we go? When one grievance is settled another one will just pop up. And this will go on and on and on and on.... with no end in sight because future generations will think its alright to "correct" the very things we think we are "correcting" now.
A precedent will have been set and nothing will ever be truly settled. And it's impossible anyway for any individual people or society to demand an apology for past wrongs because no society in the history of mankind has clean hands. You dig deep enough and you'll find dirt on the purest of saints.
The truth is most apologies and compensations are demanded for the sole reason of stroking the ego of the losers and allowing them to believe that they had no hand in the situation that befell them. And in doing so it stops them from learning from the past and preventing similar situations from occurring in the future.
The funniest thing is that it seems like the "proudest" and "toughest" people are the ones who scream the loudest and the longest for an apology. Ridiculous! A proud person who feels he's been wrong only asks once. If he's not satisfied then he shuts up and takes steps to get satisfaction or accepts the wrong for what it was, a result of the many different events that occurred at the time. He doesn't keep on groveling like a beggar.
This message has been edited by exovedate on Apr 13, 2009 10:32 AM
did the Muslim governments drove the local populace out during their reign?
They did in Central Asia, North Africa and Sub-continent... I suppose we'll see a unified Ummah apology for it's invasions as well.
Siege of Tobruk - One German POW said: "I cannot understand you Australians. In Poland, France, and Belgium, once the tanks got through the soldiers took it for granted that they were beaten. But you are like demons. The tanks break through and your infantry still keep fighting." Rommel wrote of seeing "a batch of some fifty or sixty Australian prisoners ... marched off close behind usimmensely big and powerful men, who without question represented an elite formation of the British Empire, a fact that was also evident in battle."
"As a Internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
This message has been edited by Magnus4 on Apr 14, 2009 12:33 AM This message has been edited by Magnus4 on Apr 14, 2009 12:33 AM This message has been edited by Magnus4 on Apr 14, 2009 12:32 AM
Try Almohads for North Africa and the conversions of the Turkic peoples for central Asia. Then look up Akbar the Great then Aurangzeb for the Mughal Empire.
This is governance, not merely invasion. Even though Muslims only ever gained governance via invasion, save Indonesian Archipelago.
Siege of Tobruk - One German POW said: "I cannot understand you Australians. In Poland, France, and Belgium, once the tanks got through the soldiers took it for granted that they were beaten. But you are like demons. The tanks break through and your infantry still keep fighting." Rommel wrote of seeing "a batch of some fifty or sixty Australian prisoners ... marched off close behind usimmensely big and powerful men, who without question represented an elite formation of the British Empire, a fact that was also evident in battle."
"As a Internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
"did the Muslim governments drove the local populace out during their reign?"
in Spain it was common practice under the northern african berber empires after year 1000 - who were nasty fanaticals also with their spanish correligionists too
in general it was very unusual under the previous Ommayyads, specially towards jews less towrds the christians
Al-Andalus: A terrestrial paradise; irrefutable proof that Islamic imperialism is a blessing for all, and that everyone adores it. Never mention pogroms committed by the Almohads and others against Jews and Christians, or the constitutive inferiority in which they were plunged.
The society of Al-Andalus was made up of three main groups: Muslims, Christians and Jews. The Muslims, though united on the religious level, had several ethnic divisions, the main being the distinction between the Arabs and the Berbers. Mozarabs were Christians that had long lived under Muslim domination and so had come to adopt many Arabic customs, art and words, while holding onto old Christian rituals and their own Latin-derived languages. Each of these communities inhabited a separate part of the cities.
The Arabs settled in the south and in the Ebro Valley in the north-east, while the Berbers, who made up the bulk of the invaders, lived in the mountainous regions of what is now the north of Portugal and in the Meseta Central. The Jews worked mainly as tax collectors, in trade or as doctors or ambassadors. At the end of the fifteenth century there were about 50,000 Jews in Granada and roughly 100,000 in the whole of Islamic Iberia.[4]
Non-Muslims (Dhimmi) under the Caliphate
See also: Golden age of Jewish culture in the Iberian Peninsula
[edit] Historians' debate: Tolerance or repression of non-Muslims?
The treatment of non-Muslims in the Caliphate has been a subject of considerable interest from scholars and commentators, especially those interested in drawing parallels to the coexistence of Muslims and non-Muslims in the modern world. Some argue that for at least part of the history of al-Andalus Jews were treated significantly better in Muslim-controlled Iberia than in Christian northern Europe. However, the exact extent and nature of this period of tolerance (sometimes called a "Golden Age") has become a subject of debate and is often used to back personal or political agendas.
Bernard Lewis states:
The claim to tolerance, now much heard from Muslim apologists and more especially from apologists for Islam, is also new and of alien origin. It is only very recently that some defenders of Islam have begun to assert that their society in the past accorded equal status to non-Muslims. No such claim is made by spokesmen for resurgent Islam, and historically there is no doubt that they are right. Traditional Islamic societies neither accorded such equality nor pretended that they were so doing. Indeed, in the old order, this would have been regarded not as a merit but as a dereliction of duty. How could one accord the same treatment to those who follow the true faith and those who willfully reject it? This would be a theological as well as a logical absurdity.[5]
Princeton University Professor Mark Cohen, in his 1995 book on the subject,[6] discusses how the belief of a so-called "Golden Age" of peaceful co-existence in al-Andalus (between Muslims and dhimmis, especially Jewish ones) was bolstered in the nineteenth and twentieth century by two sources. On one side, Jewish scholars like Heinrich Graetz used the story of tolerant Al-Andalus to draw contrasts to the increasing oppression of Jews in mainly Christian Eastern Europe. On the other side, Arab scholars who wanted to show that modern State of Israel shattered a previously existing harmony between Jews and Arabs in Palestine under the Ottoman rule (see History of the Jews in Turkey) pointed to the supposed utopia of the Golden Age as an example of previous relationships. Cohen argues that the image is overstated, but that the "countermyth" of persecution is also an oversimplification.
------------------------------------
NOTE: Professor Lewis forgets also romantic authors as Walter Scott, Benjamin d'Israeli and Sir Winston Churchill which also idealized the Arab Kingdoms of Spain in their romances and influenced by this way their young readers who became later influent scholars, opinion makers and politicians. France too had some authors of that kind
---------------------------------------
The debate about the conditions of non-Muslims continues however. For example, María Rosa Menocal, a specialist in Iberian literature at Yale University, has argued that "Tolerance was an inherent aspect of Andalusian society".[7] Menocal's 2003 book, The Ornament of the World, argues that the Jewish dhimmis living under the Caliphate, while allowed fewer rights than Muslims, were still better off than in other parts of Christian Europe. Jews from other parts of Europe made their way to al-Andalus, where they were tolerated - as were Christians of sects regarded as heretical by various European Christian states.
-------------------------------------
NOTE: Ms Menocal as other authors of the same period is a far left marxist leninist whose agenda is also strictly political opposing to the traditional values of the western civilization (who, as the "glories" of ancient Rome and the RC Church doctrines, were strictly enforced by the francoist regime of Spain in her young days) and supporting thirdworldist positions and values (as the islamic civilization)
her "Convivencia" is largely a political fantasy of her own
The work of Menocal and other such scholars has been the subject of criticism from commentators such as Robert Spencer and Andrew Bostom, who regard Menocal's description of al-Andalus as a myth that ignores the realities of dhimmi life. These critics cite Muslim restrictions on dhimmis: they could not build new churches or synagogues or repair old ones, they had to practice their faiths quietly and privately, and they were not to proselytize. Dhimmis were required to wear an identifying belt called the zunnar, which was easily recognized because of its color - blue for Christians and yellow for Jews. Dhimmis were also prohibited from employing Muslims and had to pay a poll tax (jizya). They were also forbidden from holding public office. According to David Wasserstein of Tel Aviv University, however,
In economic life there were scarcely any real restrictions on Jews qua Jews or dhimmis. In religious life real constraints on Jewish practice were minimal and relatively unimportant... In literary activity, there was scarcely any discrimination against Jews, and indeed it may be argued, with great force, that, at least in literary terms, the Jewish encounter with Arab Islam was highly productive, and especially so in al-Andalus.[8]
Others point out that there were many examples of dhimmis holding state offices, despite the technical prohibition. One notable Andalusian example among these is that of Hasdai ibn Shaprut (915-990), a prominent Jew who controlled the customs (among other duties) in Córdoba, but other Jews served as Viziers (e.g. Samuel Hanagid) or court physicians. Proponents argue that dhimmis enjoyed considerable autonomy within the Islamic state; in matters of family law and religious practice, they were governed by their own authorities. These authorities collected the poll tax and mediated between the state and the dhimmi community. Within their allotted bounds, the dhimmis had a certain freedom, yet were always second-class citizens when compared to Muslims.
However, it must be noted that non-Muslims were treated with much more tolerance in Islamic Iberia than non-Christians or even non-Catholics (Arians) were in the rest of Europe at the time, as well as for many more centuries to come.
[edit] Rise and fall of tolerance
The Caliphate treated non-Muslims differently at different times. The longest period of tolerance began after 912, with the reign of Abd-ar-Rahman III and his son, Al-Hakam II where the Jews of Al-Andalus prospered, devoting themselves to the service of the Caliphate of Cordoba, to the study of the sciences, and to commerce and industry, especially to trading in silk and slaves, in this way promoting the prosperity of the country. Southern Iberia became an asylum for the oppressed Jews of other countries.
Christians, braced by the example of their co-religionists across the borders of al-Andalus, sometimes asserted the claims of Christianity and knowingly courted martyrdom, even during these tolerant periods. For example, forty-eight Christians of Córdoba were decapitated for religious offences against Islam. They became known as the Martyrs of Córdoba. Many of the Christians executed deliberately courted martyrdom by publicly declaiming against Islam inside mosques, insulting Muhammad and making declarations of Christian religious beliefs considered blasphemous in Islam. These deaths played out, not in a single spasm of religious unrest, but over an extended period of time; dissenters who were fully aware of the fates of their predecessors chose what amounted to suicide as a form of protest against the Islamic state.[9]
------------------------------------
NOTE: that happened in a period when the Ommayyads were restricting the limits of their "tolerance", the victims were essentially from mixed families and their relatives, kinship and strict friends.
The "suicides" were a form of protest against the new unused oppression they faced.
With the death of al-Hakam III in 976, however, the situation worsened for non-Muslims in general. The first major persecution occurred on December 30, 1066 when the Jews were expelled from Granada and fifteen hundred families were killed when they did not leave. Starting in 1090 with the invasion of the Almoravids, the situation worsened further. Even under the Almoravids, however most Jews prospered. With the defeat of the Almoravids in 1148 by the Almohads, however, many Jews were forced to accept the Islamic faith; the conquerors confiscated the property of many and sold them into slavery. Some Jewish educational institutions were closed, and synagogues destroyed.
During these successive waves of violence against non-Muslims, many Jewish and even Muslim scholars left the Muslim-controlled portion of Iberia for the then-still relatively tolerant city of Toledo, which had been reconquered in 1085 by Christian forces. Some Jews joined the armies of the Christians (about 40,000), while others joined the Almoravids in the fight against Alfonso VI of Castile.
Córdoba, la civilización que se suicida
Antonio Muñoz Molina recupera su libro de 1991 sobre la época de los Omeya, que se lee de distinta manera en el nuevo mundo nacido tras el 11-S
JOSÉ ANDRÉS ROJO - Córdoba - 12/09/2007
El libro que Antonio Muñoz Molina (Úbeda, Jaén, 1956) publicó a principios de 1991 sobre la Córdoba de los Omeyas no tiene nada que ver con el que acaba de aparecer en una colección sobre ciudades andaluzas que edita la Fundación José Manuel Lara. Cada palabra, cada línea y cada párrafo se corresponden entre el libro de entonces y el libro de ahora (las correcciones de la nueva edición son mínimas; lo único distinto es la nota inicial), pero mientras tanto todo ha cambiado, y ahora se lee de otra manera y se trata, por tanto, de una obra diferente. Es curioso que fuera justo ayer, en el aniversario del atentado a las Torres Gemelas, cuando Muñoz Molina presentara esta nueva edición. Y es que es justamente eso, la irrupción del terrorismo islamista, lo que hace que uno se acerque al libro, y lo lea y lo entienda con otra perspectiva y muy distintas preocupaciones.
"Allí convivieron tres religiones diferentes bajo una cultura dominante"
La escritura de este libro le permitió cambiar y escribir 'El jinete polaco'
"Cuando escribí sobre la Córdoba de los Omeya", cuenta Muñoz Molina, "la materia que trataba era casi secreta, se conocía muy poco sobre al-Andalus, sobre esa larga época de la historia de España. Era un tema lejano, y como mucho existía un punto de narcisismo andaluz: querían demostrar que eran también diferentes y que, un buen día, habían llegado los castellanos a destruirles una sociedad tolerante, libre, donde convivían culturas diferentes. Abusaban de ese viejo truco que ha funcionado tan bien, el de presentarse como víctimas cuando en realidad se consideran superiores. Pero ése era un asunto de escala doméstica, pequeño. No había entonces la presencia real que el mundo del islam tiene ahora en nuestras vidas: ni estaban los inmigrantes que hoy llenan nuestras ciudades, ni existía Al Qaeda. Era, además, una época de fascinación por lo oriental. Si llegas a decir que querías tratar de la época romana de Córdoba, hubieras pasado por ser de derechas. El mundo oriental, los porritos y todo aquello, entonces estaba de moda".
Ahora en Córdoba hay palmeras y granados, y sigue oliendo al azahar de los naranjos que trajeron los musulmanes. Fue en el otoño del 711 cuando jinetes bereberes y árabes conquistaron la ciudad. "Me irrita la demagogia de los que predican que en al-Andalus convivieron tres cultura diferentes", explica el novelista que con su libro sobre los Omeyas se convirtió en una suerte de raro historiador (ésa fue su formación inicial, aunque luego lo reclamara y sedujera la literatura). "Allí convivieron tres religiones diferentes bajo una cultura dominante. Se hablaba y escribía en árabe, y dentro de esas coordenadas destacaron algunos judíos y algunos cristianos. Lo mejor de la poesía judía de aquella época está escrita en árabe".
Fueron tres siglos los que estuvieron los Omeya en Córdoba y convirtieron la ciudad en el puente más rico entre Oriente y Occidente. Temidos y respetados por sus enemigos, despertaron la fascinación de los viajeros y allí, dentro de sus lujosas moradas, cultivaron una sofisticadísima forma de vivir. Trajeron árboles, flores, frutos, el papel y los libros, trasladaron la sabiduría que germinaba en Bagdad o Damasco a este lado del mundo, construyeron edificios que aún hoy sorprenden por su belleza. "Lo que resulta incomprensible", dice Muñoz Molina, "es que esa sociedad, que se construyó con tanta dedicación y que costó tanto sufrimiento, fueran capaces los que la crearon de destruirla con idéntica entrega, con furia y obstinación". Y luego se refiere a uno de sus mayores tesoros, la impresionante biblioteca de al-Hakan II. "Se cuenta con mucha ignorancia que fueron los reinos cristianos los que la destruyeron. No es cierto. Todo empezó a precipitarse tras la muerte de al-Mansur (Almanzor), que ya había cedido a algunas reclamaciones fanáticas y quemado algunos libros. Fue, sin embargo, con las guerras civiles donde unos y otros se destruyeron y acabaron con todo". De Madinat al-Zahra quedaron algunas ruinas, pero Madinat al-Zahira fue arrasada. Como arrasada fue aquella imponente biblioteca.
Muñoz Molina habla de "porosidad" para entender aquel tiempo. "No se puede hablar de tolerancia, porque era un concepto que les resultaba ajeno", dice. E insiste en que no eran fronteras tan drásticas las que existían entre unos y otros. "Abd al-Rahman I era alto y rubio", cuenta. No respondía al prototipo de árabe. Venían de un lado y otro, se mezclaban. Pero había un grupo dominante, que era cruel con sus enemigos, y que se había levantado sobre la sangre de los derrotados.
Cuando empezó con el libro sobre Córdoba en 1989, un encargo del editor Rafael Borrás ("no sé si ahora tendría la audacia de aceptar el desafío", dice), Muñoz Molina llevaba tres novelas publicadas. La escritura de este libro le permitió cambiar un tanto de tuerca y escribir El jinete polaco. ¿Qué cambió? "Empecé a vigilar con más atención los excesos de mi estilo. Tener un estilo reconocible es muy peligroso. Termina por convertirse en rutina y amaneramiento. Desde entonces soy partidario de una prosa más seca".
"Even though Muslims only ever gained governance via invasion, save Indonesian Archipelago"
the commercial penetration as a way towards conversion worked also partially for Eastern Africa (despite it was also largely based on slave trade and so on enslavement raids) and at a minor extent for China too
If by West you mean Central Asia, North Africa, the Middle East, the Sub-Continent... sure the West.
Siege of Tobruk - One German POW said: "I cannot understand you Australians. In Poland, France, and Belgium, once the tanks got through the soldiers took it for granted that they were beaten. But you are like demons. The tanks break through and your infantry still keep fighting." Rommel wrote of seeing "a batch of some fifty or sixty Australian prisoners ... marched off close behind usimmensely big and powerful men, who without question represented an elite formation of the British Empire, a fact that was also evident in battle."
"As a Internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
Iraqis want Americans to apologize for the Iraqi usa war harshness.they were anally rape.USA amerikkans should have use a lubricating oil..
the time for social justice, the time for restoring human rights, the time for liberty and egalitarianism is ALWAYS in ALL WAYS the present time.
unarmed Muhammad al-Durrah assasinated with his father from israeli soldiers along with 2500 unarmed cevilians, since 2001.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Try Almohads for North Africa and the conversions of the Turkic peoples for central Asia. Then look up Akbar the Great then Aurangzeb for the Mughal Empire.
This is governance, not merely invasion. Even though Muslims only ever gained governance via invasion, save Indonesian Archipelago."
thank you. i've read some affairs of the al mohads. if they forced people to convert into Islam, then they have done a grave injustice.
if i want to nit pick, the al mohads did not shoo away the forced converts. the moriscos on the other hand were shooed away. not only they were forced to convert to christianity but they got forced out of their homeland for their trouble. remember, these are local populace. not berbers out of africa.
They were seen as traitors who gave up their religion freely to invaders. It is not hard to expect people in that era to respond in the way they did.
Siege of Tobruk - One German POW said: "I cannot understand you Australians. In Poland, France, and Belgium, once the tanks got through the soldiers took it for granted that they were beaten. But you are like demons. The tanks break through and your infantry still keep fighting." Rommel wrote of seeing "a batch of some fifty or sixty Australian prisoners ... marched off close behind usimmensely big and powerful men, who without question represented an elite formation of the British Empire, a fact that was also evident in battle."
"As a Internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
"They were seen as traitors who gave up their religion freely to invaders. It is not hard to expect people in that era to respond in the way they did."
i don't really get it. first, they were christians (?), forced into Islam and then re-convert back to christians. and then got thrown out of al andalus allegedly for being unsure of what religion they wish to be in. i'm sure many of them were just materialist at heart, going with whatever the rulers wished them to be as long as they got whatever they want. and some of them really got the short end of the stick even though their faith was unquestionable. no doubt, some didn't really convert at all, as faith has three elements; whats in the heart, whats being said and whats being done. if the latter two were evident but not in the heart, then its not really on. this is why in Islam teachings, there is no compulsion in religion. one simply cannot force people's heart.
now, coming back to the article on hand, the descendants of these displaced people some of whom even remain stout christians to this day felt that their homeland is what is now known as spain. even if the current spain government do not trace their lineage to the one which forced the moriscos out, i think its fair to acknowledge that the bulk of spain's original inhabitants were kicked out and replaced by immigrants from europe.
I would argue to that that The Muslims never belonged there, like almost 90% of the places they are today. They were never invited to these areas, never attacked by the majority of these people, nor did they ask to be 'enlightened' by Islam.
Either way, people are using today's morals to judge the actions of a completely different era. The Spanish Crown saw a need to centralise and rid itself of the Muslim past, in order to ensure no one can claim a Muslim connection and destroy the Catholic Spain. Realpolitik mixed with religious fervour.
Siege of Tobruk - One German POW said: "I cannot understand you Australians. In Poland, France, and Belgium, once the tanks got through the soldiers took it for granted that they were beaten. But you are like demons. The tanks break through and your infantry still keep fighting." Rommel wrote of seeing "a batch of some fifty or sixty Australian prisoners ... marched off close behind usimmensely big and powerful men, who without question represented an elite formation of the British Empire, a fact that was also evident in battle."
"As a Internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
"I would argue to that that The Muslims never belonged there, like almost 90% of the places they are today. They were never invited to these areas, never attacked by the majority of these people, nor did they ask to be 'enlightened' by Islam.
Either way, people are using today's morals to judge the actions of a completely different era. The Spanish Crown saw a need to centralise and rid itself of the Muslim past, in order to ensure no one can claim a Muslim connection and destroy the Catholic Spain. Realpolitik mixed with religious fervour."
someone thought they were "invited":
After a small exploratory raid, the Muslim commander of Tangier, Tariq, led a force of perhaps no more than 12,000 men, mostly Berbers from northern Morocco, across the straits in 711. Their goals were apparently ambiguous at first. The intervention was organized at the behest of the Witizan clan.
One clan doesn't speak about the whole of Iberia. It was opportunism, if you read on, the Muslims wished only to raid and gain booty, but soon realised they could conquer this area.
This doesn't impress me into thinking Muslims are righteous.
and i think you are muddling between embraced faith and inhabitancy. muslims can be anybody. iberians can only be iberians.
No no. Spain was a unified Catholic nation and could choose who it saw as a threat or a traitor. Whether we judge this with today's morals or in the context of the day is the prevailing issue.
I don't judge Muslims for conquering and dismantling Empires and cultures as I don't judge the European colonialism. Different era's with different philosophies.
Siege of Tobruk - One German POW said: "I cannot understand you Australians. In Poland, France, and Belgium, once the tanks got through the soldiers took it for granted that they were beaten. But you are like demons. The tanks break through and your infantry still keep fighting." Rommel wrote of seeing "a batch of some fifty or sixty Australian prisoners ... marched off close behind usimmensely big and powerful men, who without question represented an elite formation of the British Empire, a fact that was also evident in battle."
"As a Internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
"One clan doesn't speak about the whole of Iberia. It was opportunism, if you read on, the Muslims wished only to raid and gain booty, but soon realised they could conquer this area.
This doesn't impress me into thinking Muslims are righteous."
LOL. why do you think i wrote "invited" in quoted text. seriously, do you think the english spanish portuguese german were invited in the word true sense? do you think the abo in australia invited the english to enlighten them?
the "invitation" from that one clan in iberia was the spark. here's more of the story:
Sara, the granddaughter of Witiza, penultimate king of the Visigoths, chartered a ship in Seville (Andalusia, Spain) to travel to Damascus with the intention of pleading her case to Umayyad Caliph Hisham. It was 739 or 740 CE when she left Seville, sailed down the river and upon entering the Mediterranean sailed east to the port of Ascalon. She then continued on to Damascus by land.
The purpose of her visit was to demand restitution of more than one thousand estates in Seville that had been confiscated by her uncle Ardabasto. Her right to inherit the estates were confirmed according to the Islamic law by the governor of North Africa (whose authority included Al-Andalus at the time) and the previous Caliph in Damascus. Caliph Hisham welcomed her warmly, upheld her claim and instructed his governor to enforce it immediately. Sara then married 'Isa ibn Muzahim, one of the Muslims at caliph's court and returned to Seville with her husband. The couple had two sons, Ibrahim and Ishaq.
When Muslims first arrived in Spain in 711 C.E., they constituted mainly Arabs and Berbers of North Africa. Within two decades a majority of the inhabitants of Andalus, especially most of the Unitarian Christians and the oppressed class, accepted Islam freely in recognition of the peace, security and the freedom of religion and expression under the Muslim rule. (Gothic Princess Sara). By 770 C.E. people of all races from North Africa and Arabia migrated to Andalusia (Spain and Portugal). They intermarried with various nationalities including the native Spanish-Muslim population, with the result that Spain became a fairly homogeneous country within a few generations.
you see, there was an injustice being committed in iberia and the complainant came to north africa to seek help. so they helped. and in those times, war booty was the mode of payment to soldiers. nothing wrong with that. politically wrong now.
in so doing, of course these muslim army need to emplace garrisons on captured territories for some time. they cannot just leave. otherwise, the vanquished will exact revenge on the local populace.
one thing lead to another, and europe find itself with a growing major influence right next to their door step.
seriously, do you think the english spanish portuguese german were invited in the word true sense?
Of course not, but then again I don't complain about them moving in or getting expulsed along with many other Muslim 'Iberians'. Remember, those Iberians were also former Germanic and Celtic peoples as well being kicked out, as well as the truly native peoples.
the "invitation" from that one clan in iberia was the spark. here's more of the story:
It was an 'invitation' by one clan (who didn't control the entire peninsula, and if we get really technical, they themselves were invaders), but the Muslims eventually took nearly the entire peninsula. I don't know about you, but I'd expect only that clan would be absorbed if anything, anything else is just, well, conquering.
Siege of Tobruk - One German POW said: "I cannot understand you Australians. In Poland, France, and Belgium, once the tanks got through the soldiers took it for granted that they were beaten. But you are like demons. The tanks break through and your infantry still keep fighting." Rommel wrote of seeing "a batch of some fifty or sixty Australian prisoners ... marched off close behind usimmensely big and powerful men, who without question represented an elite formation of the British Empire, a fact that was also evident in battle."
"As a Internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
IMO Italy should apologize to France, Germany, GB, Spain, Greece, Marroco, ...., for having invaded & occupied there territories 2000 years ago.
Greece should do the same in the name of Alexander the Great.
Turks for the Ottoman Empire, France for Napoleon, Iran for the Persians, Iraqu for the Babylons, Mongolia for Kahn.
Sweden, France, Spain, ... to spain for the 30 year war in Germany.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Oh & of course the Homo Sapiens Sapiens to the Neanderthal for occupieing Europe till today & having extingt him
"I'd expect only that clan would be absorbed if anything, anything else is just, well, conquering."
you've asked me about jihad before. and i've explained that jihad in the name of imperialism, colonialism, transgression etc etc, even in the pre-text of islam, is not jihad. remember?
to put it in perspective, the "conquering" muslim leaders MUST justify their actions to their soldiers and populations. read up my selected cut and paste above on the oppressed. it was a hint and you did not picked that one up.
now, not that i wish to defend the moors or anything but if you dismiss the expansion of the muslim empire into iberia as plain conquering, i can also claim the expansion of the muslims as "helping the oppressed". "invitation". see the light? and you can say that the muslims were waiting for an opportune moment to seize whereas i can also say the moors were simply being good neighbor. helping those in need. don't blame them if the locals found them palatable. LOL.
seriously, the moriscos asking spain to apologise is somewhat similar to asking the japanese to apologise for the korean comfort women and other atrocities committed during WWII. one one hand, the vanquished wanted apologies whereas the other the victor wanted apologies.
i think its safe to say the victor has all the rights accorded to the victorious.
lol I love the history lessons recorded here, one Celt in Latin meant anyone in europe.
two the basque were the first people of the iberian peninsula, the basque,celti-iberians share a common origin to the Berbers as do the people of malta and the canary islands.
three The jews of spain aided us in our re-conquista over the visgoths who only a few centuries before over ran spain and north africa.
however apologies r required from france to algeria and tunisia.... seeing as they massacred both nations ppls in cold blood...
italy apologised to libya nearly 3 times now, and is paying libya $5 billion dollars worth in compensation... yet france which maintains the same form of govt as it did during the massacres still is yet to pay compensation and apologise...
Apologize to a barbaric people for bringing civilization to them? They should be grateful we didn't flatten everything we built before we left...Grateful that they were touched by the light of La Marianne.
---------------------------
De Gaulle to the General Koenig, Norman hero of Bir Hakeim: "Hear and tell your troops: the whole of France is watching you, you are our pride."[
This message has been edited by Eric_De_La_Legion on Apr 22, 2009 10:55 AM
"I would argue to that that The Muslims never belonged there"
I guess that was the point of view of the most catholic sovereings and of their catholic subjects whe nthey expelled both jews and moors
@ferryman
following on that line one could claim USA were invited in Iraq and ME by their friends in Saudi Arabia and by the Iraqi exilied (shias and kurds)
@adverse
"one Celt in Latin meant anyone in europe"
genetically more or less correct
but in latin that would have meant western europe, easterners were "shytians" in latin, "celts" the western europeans
a lot of slavs as poles and russians and croats have claimed for long their shytian/sarmatian/alan roots
about "italians", during the classical age they didn't exist yet, there were italics but they were only a part of the inhabitants of the italian peninsula
the founders and masters of the Romans Empire were the "romans"
Melissa Satta
This message has been edited by diquinonsipassa on Apr 22, 2009 11:23 AM
QUOTE:
two the basque were the first people of the iberian peninsula, the basque,celti-iberians share a common origin to the Berbers as do the people of malta and the canary islands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That was such a surreal affirmation, and cocky aswell like an history teacher. However, your affirmation more than wrong, its hilarious!... I have a feeling that nobody reads my posts...please read again my earlier post in this thread.
By the way...Celtiberians mean "Celts from Iberia", belonging from the Halstatt branch of celts that migrated from central Europe to Iberia. The original celts of western Iberia (Portugal) occupied today's Ireland, sailing from modern Galiza/Galicia.
The Celtiberians were a Celtic-speaking people of the Iberian Peninsula in the final centuries BCE. The group originated when Celts migrated from Gaul and integrated with the local pre-Indo-European populations, in particular the Iberians.
Archaeologically, the Celtiberians participated in the Hallstatt culture in what is now north-central Spain
The "Vascones" were the anchestors of modern Basques
The Iberians were not a clearly defined culture, ethnic group or political entity. The name is instead a blanket term for a number of peoples belonging to a pre-Roman, Iron Age culture inhabiting the Iberian peninsula who have been historically identified as "Iberian". Although these peoples shared certain common features, they were by no means homogeneous and they diverged widely in other respects.
two the basque were the first people of the iberian peninsula, the basque,celti-iberians share a common origin to the Berbers as do the people of malta and the canary islands.
Nice links there, though genetics says otherwise and so does linguistics.
three The jews of spain aided us in our re-conquista over the visgoths who only a few centuries before over ran spain and north africa.
Yes and the Iberians took it back by force, now it's theirs. Possibly the only place in the world where the Muslim conolinisation was reversed so dramatically and so completely. Possibly the only case of colonisation reversed.
to put it in perspective, the "conquering" muslim leaders MUST justify their actions to their soldiers and populations. read up my selected cut and paste above on the oppressed. it was a hint and you did not picked that one up.
Historically you are incorrect. Jihad historically and in almost 99% of hadiths refers to warfare.
The secondary meaning is only a recent perspective.
Middle East historian Bernard Lewis argues that "the overwhelming majority of classical theologians, jurists, and traditionalists [i.e., specialists in the hadith] ... understood the obligation of jihad in a military sense."
Scholar David Cook writes:
In reading Muslim literature -- both contemporary and classical -- one can see that the evidence for the primacy of spiritual jihad is negligible. Today it is certain that no Muslim, writing in a non-Western language (such as Arabic, Persian, Urdu), would ever make claims that jihad is primarily nonviolent or has been superseded by the spiritual jihad. Such claims are made solely by Western scholars, primarily those who study Sufism and/or work in interfaith dialogue, and by Muslim apologists who are trying to present Islam in the most innocuous manner possible.
And according to Douglas Streusand, "in hadith collections, jihad means armed action; for example, the 199 references to jihad in the most standard collection of hadith, Sahih al-Bukhari, all assume that jihad means warfare."
These are respected historians.
to put it in perspective, the "conquering" muslim leaders MUST justify their actions to their soldiers and populations. read up my selected cut and paste above on the oppressed. it was a hint and you did not picked that one up.
I see, so they use a loophole to justify invasion and colonisation. I guess Europeans are not so different from Muslims after all
now, not that i wish to defend the moors or anything but if you dismiss the expansion of the muslim empire into iberia as plain conquering, i can also claim the expansion of the muslims as "helping the oppressed". "invitation". see the light? and you can say that the muslims were waiting for an opportune moment to seize whereas i can also say the moors were simply being good neighbor. helping those in need. don't blame them if the locals found them palatable.
I see so because most natives welcomed European colonials before rejecting them, Europeans can claim to be helping the dull, ignorant masses?
Siege of Tobruk - One German POW said: "I cannot understand you Australians. In Poland, France, and Belgium, once the tanks got through the soldiers took it for granted that they were beaten. But you are like demons. The tanks break through and your infantry still keep fighting." Rommel wrote of seeing "a batch of some fifty or sixty Australian prisoners ... marched off close behind usimmensely big and powerful men, who without question represented an elite formation of the British Empire, a fact that was also evident in battle."
"As a Internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
"Historically you are incorrect. Jihad historically and in almost 99% of hadiths refers to warfare.
The secondary meaning is only a recent perspective."
and i tell you again jihad is far greater than warfare alone. 99%? care to share with us where you got that?
"I see, so they use a loophole to justify invasion and colonisation. I guess Europeans are not so different from Muslims after all "
bingo. you're getting smarter. and if you're really smart, these have nothing to do with religions (of whatever faith). its all human materialist urges. LOL.
"following on that line one could claim USA were invited in Iraq and ME by their friends in Saudi Arabia and by the Iraqi exilied (shias and kurds)"
i thought they claimed that already.
Wire Queen Helen Thomas today ripped into White House spokesman Scott McClellan over his claims the United States is in Afghanistan and Iraq -- by invitation. Joined in progess...
Q The other day -- in fact, this week, you said that we, the United States, is in Afghanistan and Iraq by invitation. Would you like to correct that incredible distortion of American history -- MR. McCLELLAN: No, we are -- that's where we currently --
Q -- in view of your credibility is already mired? How can you say that?
MR. McCLELLAN: Helen, I think everyone in this room knows that you're taking that comment out of context. There are two democratically-elected governments in Iraq and --
Q Were we invited into Iraq?
MR. McCLELLAN: There are two democratically-elected governments now in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we are there at their invitation. They are sovereign governments, and we are there today --
Q You mean if they had asked us out, that we would have left?
MR. McCLELLAN: No, Helen, I'm talking about today. We are there at their invitation. They are sovereign governments --
Q I'm talking about today, too.
MR. McCLELLAN: -- and we are doing all we can to train and equip their security forces so that they can provide for their own security as they move forward on a free and democratic future.
Q Did we invade those countries?
MR. McCLELLAN: Go ahead, Steve.
Helen Thomas Rides White House Press Sec May 25, 2005
"I see so because most natives welcomed European colonials before rejecting them, Europeans can claim to be helping the dull, ignorant masses?"
you're missing the irony of your earlier remark where you said "everything else is just, conquering". instead of admitting the bullness of that remark, you choose to jump on my counter fallacy of how silly that remark was.
and i tell you again jihad is far greater than warfare alone. 99%? care to share with us where you got that?
I just did, you chose to ignore it.
Middle East historian Bernard Lewis argues that "the overwhelming majority of classical theologians, jurists, and traditionalists [i.e., specialists in the hadith] ... understood the obligation of jihad in a military sense."
Scholar David Cook writes:
In reading Muslim literature -- both contemporary and classical -- one can see that the evidence for the primacy of spiritual jihad is negligible. Today it is certain that no Muslim, writing in a non-Western language (such as Arabic, Persian, Urdu), would ever make claims that jihad is primarily nonviolent or has been superseded by the spiritual jihad. Such claims are made solely by Western scholars, primarily those who study Sufism and/or work in interfaith dialogue, and by Muslim apologists who are trying to present Islam in the most innocuous manner possible.
And according to Douglas Streusand, "in hadith collections, jihad means armed action; for example, the 199 references to jihad in the most standard collection of hadith, Sahih al-Bukhari, all assume that jihad means warfare."
So all the 199 mentioning of the word Jihad in the collection of the Hadiths of Sahih al-Bukhari are in the context of warfare, none exist in the context of the later revisionism. Interesting what historians and linguistics will find out (such as the Koran not being written in pure Arabic and having multiple authors).
bingo. you're getting smarter. and if you're really smart, these have nothing to do with religions (of whatever faith). its all human materialist urges. LOL.
Ah but here we go, you opened up a can of worms for yourself.
As a Muslim, the only good and just, that is Hallal government to have existed was the first Caliphate. It was pure and just and guided by Allah, hence its expansion so on so forth as Muslims love to harp on about.
If you just admitted these were all material urges, then what the Caliphate was wrong. This means, what the Muslims did was not sanctioned by God, meaning the entire Caliphate was a fallacy to begin with.
But of course, Mohammed and the first Caliphate can't be wrong. But you just hear claimed it was a materialistic urge... Therefore, Jihad is materialistic in nature.
you're missing the irony of your earlier remark where you said "everything else is just, conquering". instead of admitting the bullness of that remark, you choose to jump on my counter fallacy of how silly that remark was.
but what else is new, eh? LOL.
Your point was all Muslims must do to justify conquering lands that are not theirs is justify it with the Koran. That is, they must follow what is written in the Koran.
The very ironic thing is, like in other threads that I have participated in and mentioned, there is no, ONE set interpretation. And these interpretation, like the word Jihad which had no link to spirituality, can be manipulated, like it is today, to make the most positive and modern twist to Islamic teachings. How can you suddenly reinterpret the Koran to mean vastly different things?
The other irony is, whatever was preached before is basically seen as wrong meaning those people must go to hell for their actions. OR the ones preaching the new haram interpretations will.
Sucks really, to have a dogmatic religion.
Siege of Tobruk - One German POW said: "I cannot understand you Australians. In Poland, France, and Belgium, once the tanks got through the soldiers took it for granted that they were beaten. But you are like demons. The tanks break through and your infantry still keep fighting." Rommel wrote of seeing "a batch of some fifty or sixty Australian prisoners ... marched off close behind usimmensely big and powerful men, who without question represented an elite formation of the British Empire, a fact that was also evident in battle."
"As a Internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
i've completely forgotten about this thread. LOL. not much going on in here but once in a while i suppose something grab my attention. this particular one was about forced eviction of local populace.
"So all the 199 mentioning of the word Jihad in the collection of the Hadiths of Sahih al-Bukhari are in the context of warfare, none exist in the context of the later revisionism. Interesting what historians and linguistics will find out (such as the Koran not being written in pure Arabic and having multiple authors). "
if you could list all 199 here, we'll discuss each one of them here. in other words, don't take the words of a non Muslim when it comes to Islam. and don't bother to say they're from a natural and unbiased perspective from men of learned knowledge.
"Ah but here we go, you opened up a can of worms for yourself.
As a Muslim, the only good and just, that is Hallal government to have existed was the first Caliphate. It was pure and just and guided by Allah, hence its expansion so on so forth as Muslims love to harp on about.
If you just admitted these were all material urges, then what the Caliphate was wrong. This means, what the Muslims did was not sanctioned by God, meaning the entire Caliphate was a fallacy to begin with.
But of course, Mohammed and the first Caliphate can't be wrong. But you just hear claimed it was a materialistic urge... Therefore, Jihad is materialistic in nature."
LOL. trust the dog to bite the hand that feeds him.
i am a Muslim. and i question the motives of fellow Muslim brothers if they're against my understanding of Islam no doubt about it.
jihad is not materialistic in nature. but it can be abused by those with ulterior motives. what was said and what was done can be recorded in mankind history. but what was in the heart is recorded by Allah SWT.
do you not think a Muslim know about this?
"Your point was all Muslims must do to justify conquering lands that are not theirs is justify it with the Koran. That is, they must follow what is written in the Koran.
The very ironic thing is, like in other threads that I have participated in and mentioned, there is no, ONE set interpretation. And these interpretation, like the word Jihad which had no link to spirituality, can be manipulated, like it is today, to make the most positive and modern twist to Islamic teachings. How can you suddenly reinterpret the Koran to mean vastly different things?
The other irony is, whatever was preached before is basically seen as wrong meaning those people must go to hell for their actions. OR the ones preaching the new haram interpretations will.
Sucks really, to have a dogmatic religion."
there is no justification for conquering others in Islam. there is a justification for calling to the true path of Allah SAW.
to us Muslims, Al Quran is the guide for mankind until Judgment day. its valid then. and its valid now. and it will be valid when both you and i are gone from this mortal world. we Muslims understood that Al Quran is a guide.
you yourself once stated that "people are using today's morals to judge the actions of a completely different era". i do not judge history, rather i tried to learn from the past and hopefully acted upon it. i accepted that what was considered the norm is today's society could be considered vile in future society. even among Muslims.
as such, varying interpretations of the Al Quran throughout the ages by Muslim scholars of learned knowledge do not detract from the principle of what Al Quran is.
in other words, don't take the words of a non Muslim when it comes to Islam. and don't bother to say they're from a natural and unbiased perspective from men of learned knowledge.
So basically I can't argue my point. Because a non-Muslim can't criticise Islam or cannot be right about Islam. Even if these men know fluent Arabic and have studied the Koran and the Hadiths in length, beyond those of most Muslims.
I have proven my point.
Siege of Tobruk - One German POW said: "I cannot understand you Australians. In Poland, France, and Belgium, once the tanks got through the soldiers took it for granted that they were beaten. But you are like demons. The tanks break through and your infantry still keep fighting." Rommel wrote of seeing "a batch of some fifty or sixty Australian prisoners ... marched off close behind usimmensely big and powerful men, who without question represented an elite formation of the British Empire, a fact that was also evident in battle."
"As a Internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
"So basically I can't argue my point. Because a non-Muslim can't criticise Islam or cannot be right about Islam. Even if these men know fluent Arabic and have studied the Koran and the Hadiths in length, beyond those of most Muslims.
Just list the 199 from the Hadith? How do you suppose I do that? You can do it with the Koran easily, but Hadiths aren't so easy to find on the internet.
I managed to find this website, everyone of those speaks of Jihad in context of warfare. Everyone of those points about Jihad speak about in terms of warfare. I didn't manipulate the search either, I simply asked to find the word Jihad.
Siege of Tobruk - One German POW said: "I cannot understand you Australians. In Poland, France, and Belgium, once the tanks got through the soldiers took it for granted that they were beaten. But you are like demons. The tanks break through and your infantry still keep fighting." Rommel wrote of seeing "a batch of some fifty or sixty Australian prisoners ... marched off close behind usimmensely big and powerful men, who without question represented an elite formation of the British Empire, a fact that was also evident in battle."
"As a Internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
i've given you the opportunity to list down the 199 hadiths. you choose to give me a link. i tell you why you couldn't list it down. its because you're repeating all the dubious blogs about it and instead of looking up the facts, you thought it handy to swallow it line hook and sinker and promote it as the complete and absolute truth. respected historian my foot.
the moral of this story is that please don't believe everything thats written, narrated or told to you. check out the facts afterwards and ask searching questions to the correct person.
the best person to ask prodding questions about Islam is a Muslim. and the best amongst them is the scholars of Islam. if one explained you things that you find hard to palate, ask another Muslim for his views. and another. and another.
Because they are written in the link and all you have to do is click it, press ctrl+f type in jihad and find the passages yourself?
Fine here, since you are too incompetent to use a link and ctrl+f.
Narrated Abdullah bin Masud:
I asked Allah's Apostle, "O Allah's Apostle! What is the best deed?" He replied, "To offer the prayers at their early stated fixed times." I asked, "What is next in goodness?" He replied, "To be good and dutiful to your parents." I further asked, what is next in goodness?" He replied, "To participate in Jihad in Allah's Cause." I did not ask Allah's Apostle anymore and if I had asked him more, he would have told me more.
Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:
Allah's Apostle said, "There is no Hijra (i.e. migration) (from Mecca to Medina) after the Conquest (of Mecca), but Jihad and good intention remain; and if you are called (by the Muslim ruler) for fighting, go forth immediately.
Narrated 'Aisha:
(That she said), "O Allah's Apostle! We consider Jihad as the best deed. Should we not fight in Allah's Cause?" He said, "The best Jihad (for women) is Hajj-Mabrur (i.e. Hajj which is done according to the Prophet's tradition and is accepted by Allah)."
Narrated Abu Huraira:
A man came to Allah's Apostle and said, "Instruct me as to such a deed as equals Jihad (in reward)." He replied, "I do not find such a deed." Then he added, "Can you, while the Muslim fighter is in the battle-field, enter your mosque to perform prayers without cease and fast and never break your fast?" The man said, "But who can do that?" Abu- Huraira added, "The Mujahid (i.e. Muslim fighter) is rewarded even for the footsteps of his horse while it wanders bout (for grazing) tied in a long rope."
Narrated Anas bin Malik:
Um Haram said, "Once the Prophet slept in my house near to me and got up smiling. I said, 'What makes you smile?' He replied, 'Some of my followers who (i.e. in a dream) were presented to me sailing on this green sea like kings on thrones.' I said, 'O Allah's Apostle! Invoke Allah to make me one of them." So the Prophet invoked Allah for her and went to sleep again. He did the same (i.e. got up and told his dream) and Um Haran repeated her question and he gave the same reply. She said, "Invoke Allah to make me one of them." He said, "You are among the first batch." Later on it happened that she went out in the company of her husband 'Ubada bin As-Samit who went for Jihad and it was the first time the Muslims undertook a naval expedition led by Mu awiya. When the expedition came to an end and they were returning to Sham, a riding animal was presented to her to ride, but the animal let her fall and thus she died.
Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:
On the day of the Conquest (of Mecca) the Prophet said, "There is no emigration after the Conquest but Jihad and intentions. When you are called (by the Muslim ruler) for fighting, go forth immediately." (See Hadith No. 42)
Narrated Anas bin Malik
In the life-time of the Prophet, Abu Talha did not fast because of the Jihad, but after the Prophet died I never saw him without fasting except on 'Id-ul-Fitr and 'Id-ul-Aclha.
Narrated Sahl bin Sad As-Sa'idi:
I saw Marwan bin Al-Hakam sitting in the Mosque. So I came forward and sat by his side. He told us that Zaid bin Thabit had told him that Allah's Apostle had dictated to him the Divine Verse:
"Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and those who strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allah with their wealth and lives.' (4.95)
Zaid said, "Ibn-Maktum came to the Prophet while he was dictating to me that very Verse. On that Ibn Um Maktum said, "O Allah's Apostle! If I had power, I would surely take part in Jihad." He was a blind man. So Allah sent down revelation to His Apostle while his thigh was on mine and it became so heavy for me that I feared that my thigh would be broken. Then that state of the Prophet was over after Allah revealed "...except those who are disabled (by injury or are blind or lame etc.) (4.95)
Narrated Anas:
Allah's Apostle went towards the Khandaq (i.e. Trench) and saw the Emigrants and the Ansar digging in a very cold morning as they did not have slaves to do that for them. When he noticed their fatigue and hunger he said, "O Allah! The real life is that of the Here-after, (so please) forgive the Ansar and the Emigrants." In its reply the Emigrants and the Ansar said, "We are those who have given a pledge of allegiance to Muhammad that we will carry on Jihad as long as we live."
Narrated Anas:
The Emigrants and the Ansar started digging the trench around Medina carrying the earth on their backs and saying, "We are those who have given a pledge of allegiance to Muhammad that we will I carry on Jihad as long as we live." The Prophet kept on replying, "O Allah, there is no good except the good of the Hereafter; so confer Your Blessings on the Ansar and the Emigrants."
Narrated 'Urwa Al-Bariqi:
The Prophet said, "Good will remain (as a permanent quality) in the foreheads of horses (for Jihad) till the Day of Resurrection, for they bring about either a reward (in the Hereafter) or booty (in this world."
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah's Apostle said, " Horses are kept for one of three purposes; for some people they are a source of reward, for some others they are a means of shelter and for some others they are a source of sins. The one for whom they are a source of reward, is he who keeps a horse for Allah's Cause (i.e. Jihad) tying it with a long tether on a meadow or in a garden with the result that whatever it eats from the area of the meadow or the garden where it is tied will be counted as good deeds for his benefit, and if it should break its rope and jump over one or two hillocks then all its dung and its foot marks will be written as good deeds for him; and if it passes by a river and drinks water from it even though he had no intention of watering it, even then he will get the reward for its drinking. As for the man for whom horses are a source of sins, he is the one who keeps a horse for the sake of pride and pretense and showing enmity for Muslims: such a horse will be a source of sins for him. When Allah's Apostle was asked about donkeys, he replied, "Nothing has been revealed to me about them except this unique, comprehensive Verse: "Then anyone who does an atom's (or a small ant's) weight of good shall see it; And anyone who does an atom's (or a small ant's) weight of evil, shall see it.' (101.7-8)
Narrated Muslim from Abu Aqil from Abu Al-Mutawakkil An-Naji:
I called on Jabir bin 'Abdullah Al-Ansari and said to him, "Relate to me what you have heard from Allah's Apostle ." He said, "I accompanied him on one of the journeys." (Abu Aqil said, "I do not know whether that journey was for the purpose of Jihad or 'Umra.") "When we were returning," Jabir continued, "the Prophet said, 'Whoever wants to return earlier to his family, should hurry up.' We set off and I was on a black red tainted camel having no defect, and the people were behind me. While I was in that state the camel stopped suddenly (because of exhaustion). On that the Prophet said to me, 'O Jabir, wait!' Then he hit it once with his lash and it started moving on a fast pace. He then said, 'Will you sell the camel?' I replied in the affirmative when we reached Medina, and the Prophet went to the Mosque along with his companions. I, too, went to him after tying the camel on the pavement at the Mosque gate. Then I said to him, 'This is your camel.' He came out and started examining the camel and saying, 'The camel is ours.' Then the Prophet sent some Awaq (i.e. an amount) of gold saying, 'Give it to Jabir.' Then he asked, 'Have you taken the full price (of the camel)?' I replied in the affirmative. He said, 'Both the price and the camel are for you.' ''
Narrated 'Aisha:
the mother of the faithful believers, I requested the Prophet permit me to participate in Jihad, but he said, "Your Jihad is the performance of Hajj."
Narrated Anas:
Allah's Apostle went to the daughter of Milhan and reclined there (and slept) and then (woke up) smiling. She asked, "O Allah's Apostle! What makes you smile?" He replied, (I dreamt that) some people amongst my followers were sailing on the green sea in Allah's Cause, resembling kings on thrones." She said, "O Allah's Apostle! Invoke Allah to make me one of them." He said, "O Allah! Let her be one of them." Then he (slept again and woke up and) smiled. She asked him the same question and he gave the same reply. She said, "Invoke Allah to make me one of them." He replied, ''You will be amongst the first group of them; you will not be amongst the last." Later on she married 'Ubada bin As-Samit and then she sailed on the sea with bint Qaraza, Mu'awiya's wife (for Jihad). On her return, she mounted her riding animal, which threw her down breaking her neck, and she died on falling down.
Narrated 'Aisha:
Whenever the Prophet intended to proceed on a journey, he used to draw lots amongst his wives and would take the one upon whom the lot fell. Once, before setting out for Jihad, he drew lots amongst us and the lot came to me; so I went with the Prophet; and that happened after the revelation of the Verse Hijab (i.e. veiling).
Narrated Anas bin Malik:
Um Haram told me that the Prophet one day took a midday nap in her house. Then he woke up smiling. Um Haram asked, "O Allah's Apostle! What makes you smile?" He replied "I was astonished to see (in my dream) some people amongst my followers on a sea-voyage looking like kings on the thrones." She said, "O Allah's Apostle! Invoke Allah to make me one of them." He replied, "You are amongst them." He slept again and then woke up smiling and said the same as before twice or thrice. And she said, "O Allah's Apostle! Invoke Allah to make me one of them." And he said, "You are amongst the first batch." 'Ubada bin As-Samit married her (i.e. Um Haram) and then he took her for Jihad. When she returned, an animal was presented to her to ride, but she fell down and her neck was broken.
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri
The Prophet said, "A time will come when groups of people will go for Jihad and it will be asked, 'Is there anyone amongst you who has enjoyed the company of the Prophet?' The answer will be, 'Yes.' Then they will be given victory (by Allah) (because of him). Then a time will come when it will be asked. 'Is there anyone amongst you who has enjoyed the company of the companions of the Prophet?' It will be said, 'Yes,' and they will be given victory (by Allah). Then a time will come when it will be said. 'Is there anyone amongst you who has enjoyed the company of the companions of the companions of the Prophet?' It will be said, 'Yes,' and they will be given victory (by Allah)."
Narrated Anas:
On the day (of the battle) of the Trench, the Ansar were saying, "We are those who have sworn allegiance to Muhammad for Jihaid (for ever) as long as we live." The Prophet replied to them, "O Allah! There is no life except the life of the Hereafter. So honor the Ansar and emigrants with Your Generosity."
And Narrated Mujashi: My brother and I came to the Prophet and I requested him to take the pledge of allegiance from us for migration. He said, "Migration has passed away with its people." I asked, "For what will you take the pledge of allegiance from us then?" He said, "I will take (the pledge) for Islam and Jihad."
Narrated Anas:
On the day (of the battle) of the Trench, the Ansar were saying, "We are those who have sworn allegiance to Muhammad for Jihaid (for ever) as long as we live." The Prophet replied to them, "O Allah! There is no life except the life of the Hereafter. So honor the Ansar and emigrants with Your Generosity."
And Narrated Mujashi: My brother and I came to the Prophet and I requested him to take the pledge of allegiance from us for migration. He said, "Migration has passed away with its people." I asked, "For what will you take the pledge of allegiance from us then?" He said, "I will take (the pledge) for Islam and Jihad."
Narrated Yali:
I participated in the Ghazwa of Tabuk along with Allah's Apostle and I gave a young camel to be ridden in Jihad and that was, to me, one of my best deeds. Then I employed a laborer who quarrelled with another person. One of them bit the hand of the other and the latter drew his hand from the mouth of the former pulling out his front tooth. Then the former instituted a suit against the latter before the Prophet who rejected that suit saying, "Do you expect him to put out his hand for you to snap as a male camel snaps (vegetation)?"
Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Amr:
A man came to the Prophet asking his permission to take part in Jihad. The Prophet asked him, "Are your parents alive?" He replied in the affirmative. The Prophet said to him, "Then exert yourself in their service."
Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:
The Prophet said, on the day of the Conquest of Mecca, "There is no migration (after the Conquest), but Jihad and good intentions, and when you are called for Jihad, you should immediately respond to the call."
Narrated Abdullah:
When the Prophet returned (from Jihad), he would say Takbir thrice and add, "We are returning, if Allah wishes, with repentance and worshipping and praising (our Lord) and prostrating ourselves before our Lord. Allah fulfilled His Promise and helped His Slave, and He Alone defeated the (infidel) clans."
That's on the first page and I'm NOT copy pasting from the other pages, you can simply visit the pages on the link, pres ctrl+F and type in jihad and find the passages yourself. PS that is from the first page only
The ball is in your court.
Siege of Tobruk - One German POW said: "I cannot understand you Australians. In Poland, France, and Belgium, once the tanks got through the soldiers took it for granted that they were beaten. But you are like demons. The tanks break through and your infantry still keep fighting." Rommel wrote of seeing "a batch of some fifty or sixty Australian prisoners ... marched off close behind usimmensely big and powerful men, who without question represented an elite formation of the British Empire, a fact that was also evident in battle."
"As a Internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
there are two hadiths out of 24 that you list that clearly refers to jihad existing in both warfare and Hajj.
Narrated 'Aisha:
(That she said), "O Allah's Apostle! We consider Jihad as the best deed. Should we not fight in Allah's Cause?" He said, "The best Jihad (for women) is Hajj-Mabrur (i.e. Hajj which is done according to the Prophet's tradition and is accepted by Allah)."
Narrated 'Aisha:
the mother of the faithful believers, I requested the Prophet permit me to participate in Jihad, but he said, "Your Jihad is the performance of Hajj."
so, jihad is not about warfare alone. thus its far greater than warfare.
there are others which are far more substantial. i can list them but i won't. i want you to look first.
there are two hadiths out of 24 that you list that clearly refers to jihad existing in both warfare and Hajj.
No they don't, they are both in the context of warfare. It states, your war is not that of Jihad but your war is that of the pilgrimage to Mecca. The context is exactly the same, they are about war not spirituality.
This saying is exactly like a woman saying 'Could I not join the war with you?... No you cannot, your war is a pilgrimage to the Vatican'.
That is the context, there is nothing spiritual about it. It is simply stating the woman should not perform in warfare, not that Jihad is spiritual.
All the ones I have read are in the context that Jihad is strictly about warfare, basically telling me what those learned historians said is in fact true.
Even IF I was to allow this to be about spirituality, which I don't, any one with a simple linguistical understanding can see this has no link to spirituality, then that is 2 of 24 just hear, of the other 199 I'd assume the vast majority strictly speak of warfare. Then Jihad's main context is not spirituality but warfare.
Like I said, the link has all the hadiths for jihad in the collection, you can read them yourself. Link back any you think are spiritually based and I will reply.
Siege of Tobruk - One German POW said: "I cannot understand you Australians. In Poland, France, and Belgium, once the tanks got through the soldiers took it for granted that they were beaten. But you are like demons. The tanks break through and your infantry still keep fighting." Rommel wrote of seeing "a batch of some fifty or sixty Australian prisoners ... marched off close behind usimmensely big and powerful men, who without question represented an elite formation of the British Empire, a fact that was also evident in battle."
"As a Internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
Current Topic - Moors want Spain to apologise after 400 years
![[linked image]](http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j198/rcelej/RedList20Fist_1.png)
![[linked image]](http://galeri.milliyet.com.tr/2008/7/4Siyasetin_soguk_yuzunu_isitan_kadinlar/21.jpg)
![[linked image]](http://i35.tinypic.com/i5dqtv.jpg)
![[linked image]](http://i38.tinypic.com/2cpvnmq.jpg)
![[linked image]](http://i39.tinypic.com/ekqb92.png)
![[linked image]](http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o71/swed680/omar.jpg)
![[linked image]](http://i38.tinypic.com/zuhy50.jpg)
![[linked image]](http://i38.tinypic.com/kcf62t.jpg)
![[linked image]](http://i44.tinypic.com/auwobp.jpg)
![[linked image]](http://www.carpediem-records.de/images/banner_kuenstler2.jpg)
![[linked image]](http://www.corriere.it/gallery/Spettacoli/2006/06_Giugno/melissa/1/foto4.jpg)
![[linked image]](http://www.corriere.it/vivimilano/Corriere%20della%20Sera/Fotogallery/Tagliate/2008/02_Febbraio/15/VASCA/2.JPG)
![[linked image]](http://i39.tinypic.com/10eljdf.jpg)
![[linked image]](http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j17/ferryman2393/math5.gif)
![[linked image]](http://www.jewishjournal.com/images/photos/AlDurrah1.jpg)
![[linked image]](http://www.document.no/weblogg/archives/bilder/mohammad-al-durra-thumb.jpg)
![[linked image]](http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1105/528291479_598acf24e0_m.jpg)
![[linked image]](http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r279/sampaix/beatthis1ak.gif)
![[linked image]](http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r279/sampaix/Rafale_logo.png){kind=logo}
![[linked image]](http://www.quitsmokingonline.com/quitsmokingnatural/images/sunrise.jpg)
![[linked image]](http://www.posterclassics.com/Images-WW1/bigScottMarianne.jpg)
![[linked image]](http://vieuxtroyes.free.fr/t/histo/guilconq.JPG)
![[linked image]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/79/Mapa_celtiberos.jpg)
![[linked image]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c8/Ethnographic_Iberia_200_BCE.PNG)
![[linked image]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/32/Mapa_escriptures_paleohisp%C3%A0niques-ang.jpg)
