Here are the answers to the questions about Islamic Spain.
The question about Al Andalus and Raymond Ibrahim is based on my mistake. I meant to refer to a chapter in his book, Sword and Scimitar. I posted part of the chapter under Readings, top right of the blog, "Slavery in Islamic Spain". Please read it--only 4 pages and read "Why the Crusades were called" just above it.
In what year did the Muslims attack Spain?
in 711, my favorite store
For how long did they dominate Spain?
A bit tricky: the absolutely dominated from 711 til 1031 when Muslim rulers abolished the title of Caliph and divided up into about 30 small kingdoms, called Taifa. They still controlled most of Spain for another few centuries.
What is the reconquista? When did it begin and end?
The reconquista means the 're-conquest' of Spain by the Christians. From the early 700's, Christians who fled from the Muslims survived in the mountainous north and raided Muslim areas. But the re-conquest got rolling during the splintered kingdoms of the 11th century. You can't say it ended until the same year Columbus sailed the ocean blue, 1492, sent by King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella, who the same year drove the last Muslims out of Grenada.
How many times does Prof Daileader mention "muslim", "sharia" "jihad" and "Islam"?
The question about Al Andalus and Raymond Ibrahim is based on my mistake. I meant to refer to a chapter in his book, Sword and Scimitar. I posted part of the chapter under Readings, top right of the blog, "Slavery in Islamic Spain". Please read it--only 4 pages and read "Why the Crusades were called" just above it.
In what year did the Muslims attack Spain?
in 711, my favorite store
For how long did they dominate Spain?
A bit tricky: the absolutely dominated from 711 til 1031 when Muslim rulers abolished the title of Caliph and divided up into about 30 small kingdoms, called Taifa. They still controlled most of Spain for another few centuries.
What is the reconquista? When did it begin and end?
The reconquista means the 're-conquest' of Spain by the Christians. From the early 700's, Christians who fled from the Muslims survived in the mountainous north and raided Muslim areas. But the re-conquest got rolling during the splintered kingdoms of the 11th century. You can't say it ended until the same year Columbus sailed the ocean blue, 1492, sent by King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella, who the same year drove the last Muslims out of Grenada.
How many times does Prof Daileader mention "muslim", "sharia" "jihad" and "Islam"?
- Islamic as an adjective --- more than 30 times, usually neutral or positive
- Islam--the religion, only 3 times
- Muslims--11 times
- Arabs--27 times
- Jihad--0 times
- Sharia--0 times
The point of this? To show how this respected historian treats the religion very gently. You know that jihad and sharia have always been driving forces in Islam. If this is how the majority of historians present the topic, what is your opinion?
10 comments:
After going through the lecture and counting the number of times that Jihad and Sharia were mentioned (zero times for both), I was very surprised and disappointed that such an excellent Historian would look over such a large detail. I am very frustrated by how many people are either ignorant of these blatant Muslims sins or simply do not care enough to mention them. However, even though so many historians claim that the Muslims brought peace and prosperity, that does not change my opinion on how they acted, and still act today. While I cannot speak for all Muslims, it is crystal clear to me that many of them are murders, terrorists, and atrocious sinners, and they deserve to be justly punished. I believe that the Muslims did little to benefit Spain, rather they corrupted it. I hope that someday more people will be aware of how the Muslims really acted all those years ago.
I think that it is crazy that they would leave out such crucial parts of Islam that drove those men to act the way they did. The professors need to make sure that their students know about the driving force for the Muslim's actions. Professor Daileader does tread lightly when dealing with anything related to Muslims that may put them in a bad light, while this has its advantages, a major disadvantage is if the Professor does not tread in the same fashion with all other groups. The Professor may be leaving it up to his students to formulate their own opinions, a tactic I admire, instead of outright saying they were good or bad. Yes, he leaned more on the side that Muslims are good and they did nothing wrong in this time period, but I still admire his attempt to show both sides instead of straight out bashing the muslims.
I don't think it's right for historians to leave out such important parts about Islam just because there's a possibility that Muslims will take offense to their words. Jihad and sharia are a part of history and historians cannot chose to ignore the facts because Muslims won't approve of the way their actions are portrayed. Professor Daileader is an excellent historian and I am surprised that he wouldn't mention jihad and sharia. Historians should have the right to teach history without fear of what the Muslims will say or do to them.
I think that it is very surprising that historians who know the facts and the reasons behind Muslim attacks would not mention sharia and jihad. I understand that the historians do not want to offend Muslims, but they still should tell people the facts about history. Information about the true nature of Islam is not going out to the public, and this is exactly what the Muslim Brotherhood want. They do not want the public to be aware of the true nature of Islam, sharia, and jihad, and this is a stealth jihad technique. By not telling history the way it is, people are staying ignorant about Islam, their history, and their motives. I think that the major historians should tell the facts as they are and let the students decide what to think for themselves. They should not try to push opinions on the students, but they at least need to tell them the truth about Islam in history and the motives for all of their actions.
My opinion is that historians are basically lying to us. Being politically correct, the negative side of Islam is only as bad as getting slapped by a napkin at a child's birthday party. In reality, the threat of Islam is like The Rock Johnson hitting you with an uppercut with brass knuckles. You cannot truly tell the history of Islam without talking about sharia and jihad. Islam was founded on violence. The only peaceful Muslims are the fake ones. Any true Muslim follows sharia and jihad. They may not be willing to lay their life down, but they still believe in Islamic Supremacy.
I think it is dangerous if this is how historians are facing the facts of Islam. If we cannot trust the media, as we have been learning in MMJ, to give us truthful news, now we cannot even trust historians, whose job is to inform us of the past and how it connects to the present. It is dangerous if they do not show the real threat of Islam today because the whole world will be dumb to the facts and will not have true comprehension of the threat and danger Islam is to society. These historians, even if they do not give their perspective, should give them the straight facts, so that the students themselves can interpret their views from the data.
it is shameful to call historians who do this professional, because as we know professionals do their jobs thoroughly and honestly. the fact the the historians do this because of pressure just goes to show how powerful the Muslim community really is. this is kind of scary as this is exactly what the Muslim brother hood needs, a way to make sure nobody knows the true dangers of this issue. the fact that a highly renounced professor like Daileader can try to avoid mentioning the issue and even put it in good light. if historians are afraid to teach us about this then who will?
In my opinion, I think that many historians are actually just uneducated on the subject which is a real shame. If the professionals are not going to give the truth, who will? And those who do proclaim the truth will be shunned for being politically correct, plus, no one will listen to them. A side message for those historians who know about Sharia and Jihad and don't talk about it, should lose their jobs. Everyone is afraid of being Islamophobic. Yeah, well I would be more afraid of Millions of people who want to destroy our country and kill us. Instead, political leaders and historians alike continue to play dumb about this until attacks start becoming more and more frequent. Professor Daileader is great for the facts and other topics not regarding Islam, but when it comes to giving it like it is, he just comes up short.
mine should say not politically correct on the third line.
It's kind of upsetting that respected historians blatantly disregard truths about the Islamic faith. No matter how hard they may try to side-step talking about it, Jihad and Sharia are heavily connected to the Muslim faith. If they are not telling people the whole truth, they are deceiving them. They don’t hesitate to talk about the Crusades and how bad they were, but they don’t even mention Jihad and Sharia while talking about Islam and Al-Andalus, as if it was never a thing taught and practiced by Muslims. In order for me to trust these historians, I must believe that they are telling me the whole truth. If they cut out some parts about one faith, but always make other faiths (I.e. Christianity) seem like the “bad guy,” then they have lost my trust completely.
Post a Comment