Talk:Al-Andalus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Map

Image:Age of Caliphs.gif is good, but we ought to have a map of just al-Andalus. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 14:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Linked

The BBC has linked to this page! See here! Legend! --195.7.55.146 09:18, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No consensus for deletion for the page Al-Andalus, etymology(ies). Archived deletion debate below. -- Cecropia | Talk 16:18, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Nonsense, unencyclopedic. User:Casta attacked my personal page in response to an attempted speedy delete, so what do you folks think? Dunc_Harris|☺ 12:30, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. I haven't studied the problem in depth, but the etymologies proposed there seemed about as plausible as any; sources are given for each. Some or all of them may be nonsense, but they're hardly patent nonsense. Smerdis of Tlön 14:47, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Don't bother, Wikipedia admins., I've removed it myself. I teach Spanish history and I added my piece in order to expand on an point that, as presented here, simply repeats a popular notion that is not supported by serious historical scholarship. I realize now that Wikipedia is not for me.
It would be perhaps more polite and less startling if you asked contributors to submit pieces for publishing consideration beforehand, perhaps - and that you organize some sort of peer review for these. That a young, lying, and unqualified punk such as Harris here is allowed to instantly "adjudge" a piece of writing on a subject he knows nothing about as "nonsense" does not do your site much credit.
Your loss.
  • Pre-publishing peer review was tried on Nupedia. It didn't work. That's why Wikipedia doesn't operate that way. Secondly, your personal attacks on a (possibly) mistaken user cast far greater doubt on your qualifications than anything Dunc_Harris has said. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:02, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Cyrius, I'm afraid you're preaching to the choir -- User:Casta is well out the door. He shouldn't have gotten so pissed off, true enough, and easy for me to say. However the larger context is that a person whose competence we have no reason to doubt has been driven off. Dare I say it, we must be able to keep people who know what they're doing. As always my opinion is worth what you paid for it. Wile E. Heresiarch 00:17, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately, a person, no matter how intelligent and eloquent, isn't going to last long on this site if they cannot accept having their work questioned. MK 04:39, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • "Questioned" is not an accurate description of what happened. The article was immediately labeled patent nonsense [1]. Nobody raised questions of any kind. Wile E. Heresiarch 08:16, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment Article deletion is not really that different from any other edit. Deleted articles can be restored, as this one has. We do warn everyone that they shouldn't submit anything unless they are willing to have it be mercilessly edited. Deletion is just a particularly merciless form of editing. Inappropriate deletes can be restored, just as in appropriate edits can be reverted. No, we don't have pre-publishing peer review. What we do have is post-anything everyone-review. LIke a good GUI, we encourage people to be bold and make mistakes, and provide an undo function to be used afterwards. I don't say it works. I do say we have it. Watch it in action right here, right now. Dpbsmith 20:43, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)


  • Note - article restored by Cyrius with VfD tag. - Tεxτurε 18:18, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Force of habit on blanked articles. -- Cyrius|✎ 18:55, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Unless it's a copyvio, keep. RickK 18:23, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Well, this is sad. I think what we have here is a classic case of a bitten newbie. We really could use another editor who knows something about history. It's too late for User:Casta but let's try to avoid reruns of this. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:39, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, seems like a good topic, can't imagine why anyone would think it a candidate for speedy deletion. Bad title, though, should be moved. Everyking 19:00, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: There's simply no way this is a speedy deletion candidate. When in doubt, use VfD. Meelar 21:25, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm new here, but in response to copyvio, at least on the Web, there are several similar pages in Spanish, but they do not have identical content (from my little knowledge of Spanish): a search for Al-Andalus Landahlauts Dozy shows them. --Jkeiser 05:27, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I think this is as good a place as any to point out that it's probably not such a great idea for any of us to label something "patent nonsense" just because we've never heard of it or we don't understand it. Marking this for speedy delete was definitely jumping the gun, and it appears to have alienated a knowledgeable, articulate individual who contributed in good faith. Keep, of course. Possibly rename to Etymologies of Al-Andalus. — Wikisux 06:59, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • What happened to this person also reminds me of my experiences starting White cliffs of Dover. I started the article three times as a stub, but someone speedy deleted it each time. I chalked it up to database problems, which was aggravating enough—imagine how pissed I was when I learned someone was deliberately deleting my article, without even notifying me! So I think we should try, in general, to avoid such rude introductions as the ones Casta and I suffered. — Wikisux 06:59, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • 2 remarks here: (1) The original had clear citations. How could anyone propose it for speedy delete without any effort to verify the citations? (2) Conversely, the original was written very unencyclopedically: "I think this is an intriguing question, and not so easily answered! For starters - although the idea of it having something to do with those punk Vandals who supposedly trashed southern Spain so badly..." When you encounter this sort of thing, certainly edit out this kind of self-indulgent writing, but (especially when it comes from a newbie), don't presume it invalidates the substance of the article. -- Jmabel 07:21, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • This article about the etymology of Al-Andalus was actually longer than the article on Al-Andalus itself. I have therefore merged the former into the latter, and tidied it up a little. Casta's article was not fabulous, but it was a useful contribution that has now greatly improved the article on Al-Andalus, which is a key element of Spanish history (which I am interested in, since I live here). I vote that this badly-named article now be deleted as unnecessary, but not as nonsense. — Chameleon 23:04, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
By 'delete', I mean 'redirect to Al-Andalus'. — Chameleon 23:12, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep it. I really amazed on it's vfd. That is completly encycplodaedic and really credible, even the Atlantis thing. Should be move to Al-Andaluz etymologies.-Pedro 19:36, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Rename. It makes me think of the Pixies and my recent trip to Spain. Acegikmo1 19:51, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Move to Al-Andalus and delete. I'm a bit sad to think I could have solved this, as when this article was VFDed, I was online and voted, trying to explain that the article was valid. Unfortunately I got an edit conflict and decided not to retype my vote, which probably had a hand in leading to this mess. Johnleemk | Talk 09:33, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Hey, this needed to be deleted, not moved to Etymology of Al-Andalus. Yes, there was initially consensus to move the page, but when my incorporating the content into Al-Andalus changed everything. I have listed this page on VfD again. — Chameleon 11:49, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

End of archived deletion debate

[edit] Debunking the Al-Andalus myth

A claim has often been made that the period of Al-Andalus there was great tolerance etc.... What often ommitted from the picture is the preceeding brutal slaughter and ethnic cleansing of native spaniards by the invading Muslim armies and the reduction of surviving Christians and Jews to a sub-class in society called Dhimmis during the same period. Those are facts that put this article into perspective instead of propagating the wishful bed time story told to Muslim children called Al-Andalus. . --Mrabir 12:08, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Er.. source this "Slaughter and ethnic cleansing of native spaniards", and add it. Thats what this Wikipedia thing is all about. --Irishpunktom\talk
  • The claim is mostly for the lower class. While there were certainly atrocities committed during this time period, its important to note that relative to the Visigoth period beforehand and the post-Reconqusita period (especially after the introduction of the Spanish Inquistion which even targeted their own) for a majority of the population, including Christian population, it was better overall. Again that doesn't mean under Islamic rule they were treated good, but compared to what was before and what came after, for the peasants and other lower class atleast that is what is being claimed.
    • Ummm, yes. This is the myth. Christians=Bad/Muslims=Good. You retell the myth so enjoyably, and without citing a single fact or statistic. Bravo. Zuzim 19:39, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Here's a fact: The Spanish Inquisition J. M. 07:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
        • How is that even remotely relevant to the discussion? NOBODY EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION!! Complete Non Sequitur. Come back with something 1. Factual 2. Relevant.
          • Actually, it is relevent because it explains the perception. The fact is, the Christians expelled Jews in 1492 and expelled Muslims later. But both were expelled, while there were undeniably Jews and Christians, albiet in Dhimitude, in Islamic Spain. So if you're going to say Christians = Bad, Muslims = Good as a myth, no, you're not going to get very far, the best you'd get is Christians = Bad, Muslims = Bad. Yet this is irrelevent and opinion anyway. Still, the "reality" of al Andalus is more respectable than the offshoot of the Austrian Empire to most, 1500s. As that's all Spain was at that point, literally.J. M. 14:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Much more respectable? According to who? You!? And what are your credentials, sir? Like you said, it's just opinions and they don't matter, so take your own advice. Anyway, it wasn't an offshoot of the Austrian Empire. It was the center of the Hapsburg Empire until they lost it to the Bourbons.KingOfAfrica 00:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

  • "Throughout the period of Islamic rule al-Andalus was a remarkable example and outstanding model of tolerance. It emerged at the time of the conquest, when the Muslim conquerors undertook to preserve the freedoms of their subjects, protect their fortunes and their property, respect their churches and ensure their defence.

The agreement concluded between 'Abdul'azîz ibn Mûsà ibn Nusair and Theodomir is a case in point. Similarly, the story told by historians of Ardabat and Maimûn al-'Âbid is about the practical application of written agreements. It demonstrates in the clearest possible way of the generosity of the conquerors' conduct and policy towards the vanquished in the age of the Governors (the wulâh), which resulted in a perfectly harmonious cohabitation and a model of peaceful coexistence between the different races and religions.

One of the consequences was that the Arabic language and literature became widespread among Christians and Jews, starting at the time of the Umayyad emirate and intensifying under the Caliphate. This rapid process of arabization, which took place a century or a little more after the arrival of the Muslims in the Iberian peninsula, provoked lamentations from some churchmen, the most famous of whom was Alvaro, a priest at Cordoba.

This situation probably arose not only as a result of the climate of tolerance, referred to above, but out of the ambitions of Christians and Jews at that time to occupy state positions and accede to posts in government service. In this connection, it is known that the Umayyads of al-Andalus, following the example of their predecessors from the East, employed many Christians in their various offices, some of which achieved the highest rank under the princes and caliphs. Examples of this are Gomes Rabî', who was close to al-Hakam ar-Rabdî, and Gomes ibn Antûn, first secretary to Abd-al-Rahman an-Nâsir al-Ausat, whose writing style, quality of correspondence, savoir-faire, and accurate accounting were praised by the great historian Ibn Hayyân. One further example is Bishop Rabî' ibn Zaid (Recesmundus), who worked with 'Abd-al-Rahman an-Nâsir and was entrusted with various missions and several embassies during his reign." - http://www.unesco.org/culture/al-andalus/html_eng/benchrifa.shtml

In my opinion it is not correct to talk of "tolerance" in the type of society that we meet in al-Andalus. "Tolerance" was more or less invented during the Enlightenment, i.e. from the 17th century onwards. al-Andalus, like other Medieval societies, was a corporative society organised upon a religious basis where the individual got his/her rights and duties depending on his/her religion. Nevertheless al-Andalus could be compared to the Roman society of Antiquity where everyone was free to worship any gods, provided that sacrifices were offered to the Emperor (during the emperors) - but the Jews were extempted from the duty of offering sacrifices to Emperor, instead sacrifices were offered to their god in the Temple of Jerusalem for the benefit of the Emperor. And after the destruction of the Temple the Jews were obliged to pray to their god for the benefit of the Emperor. And in the Persian Empire of Cyrus and Dareios as well as in the Hellenistic empires everyone was free to worship their own god. Only those who aspired to a public career in these empires were obliged to worship the god of the Emperor (King etc).(Karin Almbladh, Sweden), July 17, 2007.


The Status of Christians and Jews in Muslim Spain By itself, the quote from Bernard Lewis' Book Jews in Islam seems to be a personal statement by the author and could violate Wikipaedia's Neutral Point of View stance. It could be that Mr. Lewis furnishes evidence that suggests his assertion but unless a synopsis of that evidence is included in the article, then the particularly bald quote from Mr. Lewis' book should be removed. Mohammed Azeem, London

[edit] Factual accuracy? Opinion?

Could this section not be condensed a bit?

"It has been pointed out by historians that although Muslims typically view the period of the Emirate and the Caliphate as tolerant towards the Christian and Jewish populations living on the conquered land, that those same populations were reduced to a sub-class status called dhimmis and were only 'tolerated' as long as they obeyed the stringent dhimmi rules imposed by the Muslims. Dhimmis ie non-Muslims could not build new churches or synagogues nor repair old ones; they had to observe their faiths indoors, never in public, they could not do anything that could be interpreted as a challenge the superiority of Islam; they could not take Arabic names; they were required to wear a dhimmi belt called the zunnar; they could not employ Muslims ; they had to show loyalty to Muslims; they could not sell goods not approved by Muslims. They had to pay an poll tax (jizya). Dhimmis were also forbidden from holding public office.(This next sentence is in remark to the previous sentence, which I will leave in tact) To say that the Dhimmis were barred from political office is a rather incorrect statement, there are many examples of dhimmi holding office especially during the time of the Abbasid empire, and their control over Baghdad. However in reference to political power than Dhimmi could attain within andalusia, please look at Hasdai ibn Shaprut a prominent Jew who controlled the customs, among other duties, in Cordoba."

It would be simpler just to link to the article Dhimmi or at the very least remove the 7 wiki links to the same article in one paragraph. This reads more like a rant than an academic discussion of the social status of non-Muslim "Peoples of the Book" in Islamic Spain. There's nothing particularly unique about this status in relation to this article and a sentence or two explaining that there were class differences due to religion as a result of Islamic law being enacted should suffice -- if it's even necessary. I'm not an expert on Islamic Spain but I do know something about the history of Islam in Europe in general and the truth is certainly not as clear cut as the author wants to make it seem. Certainly by our modern secular standards this sort of behavior is regressive and opressive, but do we really need to compare this with the treatment on non-Catholics in post-Reconquista Spain?! (As but one example.) The truth is that the middle ages right up until the Reformation and even on into the the Enlightenment were not exactly shining examples of religious tolerance and sanity. I think one could easily make the case that regardless of the unequal treatment that the dhimmi recieved it was no worse than the treatment of Jews (or so-called "heretical" Christians) anywhere else. Hell, England disbarred Catholics from public office into the modern era -- as the second author notes, there was no such rule in Islam in general or in Al-Andalus in particular. Indeed many of the most prominent members of the intellectual and cultural elite in both Islamic Spain and the Ottoman Empire were Jews and Christians. I've read quite a bit on the topic and at the very least Bernard Lewis seems to think that the Islamic dominance of Spain was the catalyst for one of the great periods in Jewish culture, philosophy and art. At any rate I digress.

I guess I'm just a bit surprised at the controversy in this article. It seems like an interesting topic and one that would be relatively easy to research given that both sides were literate and the vanguard of their respective cultures. I'm disappointed that people can't do better than this, but hey... that's life for you sometimes. (Hehe... I seem to have run across a lot of disputed pages lately, I guess this one just hit a nerve finally!) Let's make Wikipedia better! Gabe 03:30, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

What shortened version would you suggest? Jayjg (talk) 17:57, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

If the claim of ethnic clensing cannot be supported, the Disputed Neutrality warning should be removed.--Dr.Worm 20:30, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Myth? Factual accuracy? Opinion? Some remarks

  • "... given that both sides were literate and the vanguard of their respective cultures". Gabe, take your time to explore the scarce and fragmentary written sources from the two sides (Muslims and Christians) and you will see that they seem to describe rather opposite worlds. Would this be because their worlds were in fact rather different or because those sources where written several centuries after the facts had taken place? On top of this, today, we rely on non independent researchers and translators, and most of the times our original sources came from clerics or poets not interested in reflecting pure facts.
  • “Tolerance” denotes a fairly relative concept, so that even Taliban would be considered as tolerant for certain standards; mainly if their history were to be written two centuries later for Muslim clerics and from scratch, from oral tradition rather than from written sources. As per the tolerance of Muslim in Al-Andalus, the question is: what did Muslims tolerate the former inhabitants (either Jews or Christians)? Some remarks above are clear enough: “they tolerate them to stay in Al-Andalus as dhimmis”, because they needed them to stay for economical reasons; nothing more and perhaps nothing less. Let us keep in mind that in 711, barely some 20.000 troops crossed the Gibraltar strait, and in the following two centuries only a few thousands of the so called Syrians and Berebers joined the invaders. Hence, the demography worked against the new rulers, who did not overtake the original inhabitants, in terms of religion predominance, until well into the 11th century. Therefore, here, the word “tolerance” denotes something that needs further clarification. I would prefer to say: “in Al-Andalus, Muslims were as tolerant as Islam allowed and the context forced them to be”.
  • On the other side, ("I guess I'm just a bit surprised at the controversy in this article"), I am not surprised at all at the controversy in this article. The underlying (though to some extent unconcious) reason of the controversy should not be overlooked, and “Golden Ages” could be here the key expression, with rather different meaning for different people. There is a strong movement underway towards a new Al-Andalus, which needs ideological and psychological support, (for a clue, see the article by Lawrence Wright -The New Yorker, Aug. 2, 2004)

(Threshold 09:58, 21 August 2005 (UTC))

[edit] NPOV dispute

I have just done a major edit to the History section of the article and added references, in the process replacing the paragraphs that I believe gave rise to the NPOV dispute (and which I found decidedly POV myself). I believe that the POV tag can now safely be removed, but as that would be judging my own work I'd prefer to let others decide.

It's obviously open to others to revise what I have written - but seeing some of the reactions to recent changes to this article, I'll remark that I'd regard any wholesale reversion of my changes as a distinctly unfriendly act. PWilkinson 21:36, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions however why are you trying to whitewash the condition of the Dhimmi , are you are trying to market it as an acceptable status?. Those people who were Dhimmis were the original occupants of the land and the remaining survivors of vicious campaigns of extermination carried out by the invading moorish armies. The history of Al-Andalus is not the wonderful bed time story of a "Muslim Golden Age"?--Aesed 00:33, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
The Condition of the Dhimmi, mainly ahl al Kitâb you will agree, varies from place to place, and from time to time. Comparitively Al-Andalus treated it's "protected people" (The Dhimmi) better than most any other European Country treated the varying religious communities in the Midle Ages. Britain, the land of the Magna Carta, produced the Penal laws against their fellow Christian Nations, and later on tried to force Christianity on Africa. Why is Latin America so predominantly Catholic?
The idea that there was "campaigns of extermination carried out by the invading moorish armies" is ridiculous. There was not. There was a large amount of Bloodshed and slaughter during the various wars that scarred [[Granada], but that was inflicted on all sides by all sides. Cordoba was as cosmopolitan and tolerant a Society as Spain had seen at that time, and indeed more tolerant than most cities under Francisco Franco.--Irishpunktom\talk 15:26, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
While I largely agree with you about "campaigns of extermination", there were undoubtedly large numbers of Christian deaths, both in cities that resisted the initial invasion and during the repeated raids into the remaining or reconquered Christian areas through to the end of the Umayyad period. But it's equally clear that Iberian communities who chose to accept Islamic rule and dhimmi status were allowed not only to keep their religion but most or all of their property. It looks as if it might be worth adding something on this to the article - but I'm away from my sources at the moment. PWilkinson 18:57, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
  • The Alhambra decree is surely a vivid example of contemperary differences. --Irishpunktom\talk 16:14, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
The status of dhimmis under the Caliphate of Cordoba was undoubtedly distinctly worse than that of Muslims in contemporary Europe or America. And it was equally undoubtedly distinctly better than that of religious minorities in almost any Christian European state before about 1650 (the Spanish Christian states up to about 1350 being the major exception - and whose method of handling religious minorities do you think they were copying?). PWilkinson 18:57, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
I am sure that the section on dhimmi could be edited rather than suppressed entirely. I am reinstating it, not because I think it is correct as it stands, but because suppressing it is just not Wikipedian. --Wetman 15:01, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
  • In which case, why do a straight revert - thus removing another and longer section on dhimmi later in the article which constituted part of my edit of 22 May and which Aesed has chosen to delete in favour of his preferred version every time he has edited the article? I'm certainly not in full agreement with Irishpunktom's views or in agreement at all with some of his actions at other times - but so far as I can tell, his last two edits have been to revert the article to my version, with no further editing.
  • If, however, the text that Aesid has been deleting is not felt to be appropriate to Wikipedia, it would be better to revert to the version just prior to my edit of 22 May - which at least put the text that Aesid prefers in a more logical place in the article. PWilkinson 19:12, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I do not wish to insert further editing, and I would agree with Wetman, suppression is just not Wikipedian, and that is why I have reverted back the Aesed edits. Suppressing your edits, and blankly iignoring this discussion page is "just not Wikipedian". I don't think that this article is the place to discuss the global status of all Dhimmi everywhere, I think dhimmi is, but thats me, and i stand to be outvoted. --Irishpunktom\talk 19:27, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Right Tom. "Suppression is just not Wikipedian", and "blankly iignoring this discussion page" is "just not Wikipedian" So stop doing it on Suicide bombing. Jayjg (talk) 19:50, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Err.. Jay, i've been involved in a series of discussions on that page, perhaps you should bother to check the Discussion page prior to making such allegations?. Also, could you please stop stalking me, and refrain from bringing up irrelevent conversations, this can be dealt with on my own talk page. Do you have the slightest thing to say on this Subject? --Irishpunktom\talk 18:38, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
Naturally I did not intend to delete anything myself. The legal status of dhimmi in Andalusia, with a glance at contemporary societies both Islamic and in Christendom and avoiding comparisons with modern life (which is not part of good history) should not be utterly above everyone's reach, I am sure. Why not cut and paste all the sections of deleted text and work them up at Al-Andalus/dhimmi for the time being and bring an authentically historical edited version, with some cited quotes from historians perhaps, back to this article? --Wetman 20:23, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
The deleted Text was not specific to Al Andalus in anyway. Yhere was no referenences to any leader of any era in any city. It was a broad POV swipe against the concept of Dhimmi, which if it has any place should be on the Dhimmi article. --Irishpunktom\talk 18:38, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Where is this going?

Folks, What else do you want to see on this, aside from whatever way the discussions on the role of the Dhimmi in Society. Personally, I want to see more about the Development of Islamic philosophy, and the role this had in Europes renaissance. For example, I'd like a paragraph on Ibn Bajjah, Ibn Tufayl, Ibn Rushd, Abu Hakam al-Kirmani, the studies of Michael Scot and maybe maimonides considering he was born in Cordoba. (Altough I doubt Jayjg would allow us!) Anyway, your thoughts? Is it relevent to discuss individuals in this piece, and their role in shaping society as we know it, or is this Al Andalus article just to be about what Al Andalus was, where it was, when it was, etc ? --Irishpunktom\talk 18:58, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

I see you've made a start on a philosophy section - might I ask you to cite your sources? There are one or two points (particularly your last sentence, about Andalusi philosophy not reviving after al-Mansur until the twelfth century) which go against my understanding of Andalusi intellectual history, and I'd like to check on them when I get an opportunity. Thanks.PWilkinson 22:52, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
If it's wrong, go ahead and correct it, I don't mind. The Sources I'm Using are "A Short Introduction to Islamic Philosphy, Theology and Mysticism" by Majid Fakhry (ISBN 1-85168-134-5) (Oxford Oneworld), "Islamic Mysticism: A Short History" by Alexander Knysh (ISBN 9-00410-717-7) (Brill Academic) and I also have "Averroes: His Life, Works and Influence", again by Majid Fakhry, but thats not relevent yet. As I've said, feel free to correct it; If it's wrong it's wrong.--Irishpunktom\talk 09:03, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
Post Script - There might, in fact there probably is, a Bias toward the Sufi interpretations and indeed degree of importance of certain events might be more or less noted within Sufi circles than society in general, as such I might, when I follow this up, give too much iportance to certain philosophers and theologians than Credit warrants, and less to others than deserved. Feel free to correct me. --Irishpunktom\talk 14:26, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks - that probably explains the differences between your understanding and mine. It's a while since I read up on Andalusi thought, but I am fairly certain that my sources (when I can track them down again) concentrated on science and metaphysics and in particular the scholars whose work fed into Christian scholastic philosophy. PWilkinson 17:40, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, considering this is an English Language 'Wikipedia' it probably makes more sense to focus on them! I'll see if I can look around more and incorporate more. Cheers! --Irishpunktom\talk 08:04, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting to earlier stable version

Recent edits by Irishphunk and Pwilkinson etc.. made a mess of this page. --Aesed 11:58, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Care to explain how? --Irishpunktom\talk 13:25, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
It appears that you are determined to propagating the myth of the wonderful condition of being a dhimmi in Al-Andalus. The article as it was before your edits was much more honest, although incomplete. --Aesed 04:35, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Do you have anything specific to Al Andalus to add? The version you are trying to force upon us was never stable. --Irishpunktom\talk 07:59, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Correct nationality term

Were the inhabitants of al-Andalus "Andalusians"? "Al-Andalusians"? "Andalusis"? GCarty 08:41, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I always thought it was "Andalusian", but I'm not 100%!--Irishpunktom\talk June 30, 2005 23:20 (UTC)
The correct terms are "Andalusí" (singular) and "Andalusíes" (plural). Note the stress on "í"  !--Threshold July 13, 2005

[edit] Undiscussed edits made by Jayjg, etc

The reason I reverted these Edits is as follows:

  • Al Andalus is not the same as Andalucia, and the rest of the revised Opening paragraph is unsourced and clearly loaded with the editors POV.
  • Hasdai ibn Shaprut deserves his mention as an example.
  • "making declarations of Christian religious beliefs" is not what got them killed, rather it was how and where they did it, and their other actions, whats most strange is indeed "the circumstances under which the executions took place and that it is known that the majority of the victims deliberately courted martyrdom."--Irishpunktom\talk July 5, 2005 11:58 (UTC)
I made very few of the edits in question, but I did take more relevant information from the article in question. I note as well, that the edits you made in the first place were "undiscussed". I'll restore it now. Jayjg (talk) 5 July 2005 16:18 (UTC)
Jayjg, I expanded, slightly, on an edit made by another user. You are butchering someone elses work without discussion. I have restored it back. --Irishpunktom\talk July 6, 2005 10:46 (UTC)
Actually, you added, without discussion, a section from the "Martyrs" article that was repetitive without being informative,[2], while cutting out the very information that explained what they actually did. I then substituted a sentence from the "Martyrs" article in question which explained what they actually did.[3] Then, after I edited the paragraph, you complained that others were making edits without discussion and reverted me on those grounds; most people would view that as inconsistent at best. If you want to explain why your proposed version is superior, please do so here. Or, as you seem to be advocating, we can remove all edits that were not pre-approved here; your choice. Jayjg (talk) 6 July 2005 14:51 (UTC)
The original edit said it was unuusal. I added why it was unusual. If you want to know all about the Martyrs of Cordoba, I suggest going to the Martyrs of Cordoba. What I did was expand, what you did was butcher. Surely even you can see a difference ? --Irishpunktom\talk July 6, 2005 15:06 (UTC)
Sorry, I won't respond to insults. If you have specific issues please raise them. Jayjg (talk) 6 July 2005 16:08 (UTC)
Insults? --Irishpunktom\talk July 8, 2005 13:49 (UTC)
"What you did was butcher", "surely even you". Jayjg (talk) 8 July 2005 15:11 (UTC)
Butcher is what you did, it's an accurate word, cutting out the pieces you don't like and keeping the ones you do. Surely even you is a direct reference to your previous acts.--Irishpunktom\talk 13:14, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] question

Jayjg, I read the exchange above and the various versions, and I'm still not sure why you object to the material in question, so I reverted. What's under dispute? BrandonYusufToropov 20:10, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

To begin with, Tom included information that was entirely unsourced (e.g. "outside Mosques, insulting Muhammad"), that is not found in the actual article on the topic. Second, his description is over-lenghty, as it is now just about as long as the description in the main article on the topic (Martyrs of Córdoba) itself; in fact, the single sentence that used to be here before Tom started inserting stuff[4], which he marked as a minor edit with no comment, was probably fine. Next, I found Tom's version repetitive ("an unusual drama", "what made it so unusual"). Finally, Tom presented no rationale for this inclusion; rather, he simply insulted me. I'm not particularly well-disposed to unsupported, over-lengthy, repetitive edits from editors who insult, and then justify their insults, rather than using the Talk: pages for their proper purpose. Jayjg (talk) 20:28, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
User:Irishpunktom, I can speak from experience that exchanges on WP rarely yield anything constructive when one starts throwing around words like "butcher." Let me see what I can do with "an unusual drama" etc. BrandonYusufToropov 20:34, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
Ideally you can deal with the entirely unsourced claims as well. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 20:36, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Irishpunktom, have you got a source on the business about their insulting Muhammad in front of the masjids? I have read this, too, just can't remember where. BrandonYusufToropov 20:41, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Irishpunktom has left the building for 24 hours. Here is sourcing on one of these incidents, which apparently took place inside the mosque. Must have been quite a scene.

http://www.orthodoxengland.btinternet.co.uk/oecordob.htm

Sts Rogelius and Servus Dei 16 September 852
As if to add insult to injury, a monk Fr Rogelius, from a village near Granada, together with a Syrian pilgrim, whose name in Latin is Servus Dei, entered the mosque in Cordoba. To the horror of the Muslim worshippers present, they preached the truth of the Gospel and the falsehood of Islam. Saved by the authorities from death at the hands of the irate crowd, the two were sentenced to a grisly punishment: their hands and feet were cut off before they were beheaded and their bodies were then cremated.
One of the first official actions of the new emir, Abderrahman’s son, Muhammad I, was to purge the Cordoban bureaucracy of Christians. He must have been pleased with the apparent effect of this change in policy: the next nine months passed without incident. But again, as the following summer approached, a new parade of martyrs stepped forth. BrandonYusufToropov 21:07, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
The paragraph is still needlessly wordy, and I can't imagine why an apologist for Islamist positions like IPT would insist on keeping the nearly inflamatory language he's inserted: to the casual reader, it sounds like "what was unusual about these Christian martyrs is that they actually did something offensive to the sensitivites of muslims other than merely existing. Most Christian martyrs were killed simply for being Christians. These guys had the chutzpa (;-p) to stand *side mosques insulting Mohammad." That's my 2¢. I'm the last person you'll find apologizing for Islam, but IPT's insertion, as usual, is just plain bad. Tomer TALK 22:55, July 10, 2005 (UTC)


I could be wrong, but it seems to me this was the pivotal incident in the region's (and perhaps the continent's) relations between Christians and Muslims. I don't know what it does for anyone's apologetics, or whose chutzpah we're discussing, but as a reader I would want to know about this event. I'd also want to understand the degree to which these Christians went out of their way to undertake acts they knew carried the death penalty. (As opposed to, you know, their being hunted down, yanked from their homes, and executed for being Christians, which seems to be a scenario that haunts the popular imagination these days.) BrandonYusufToropov 00:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I see "publicly blaspheming Islam outside Mosques" has already been sourced. You probably read about them "insulting Muhammad" right in Martyrs of Córdoba. See the bullet point "Peter, Wallabonsus, Sabinian, Wistremundus, Habentius and Jeremiah": "For publicly denouncing Mohammed they were martyred under Abderrahman in Cordoba." Or maybe under Isaac: "During a public debate in Cordoba he denounced Mohammed and was martyred." Geez, doesn't anybody check before accusing someone else of an unsourced edit? Or has that article just changed very recently? - Mustafaa 11:20, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

There certainly were unsourced elements to the edit, along with all of its other issues, and the edit made it seem like that's what they all did, as opposed to 3 or 4 of them. BTW, it still does that. Now we have a situation where the summary here is almost as long as the summary there, and has diverged from it. Shouldn't this article simply contain a brief description and a link? Why must we replicate forks of articles in various other articles? Jayjg (talk) 16:29, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


One man's view: Because a) a brief summary might make it look like the Christians played no role in seeking out martyrdom, when in fact they sought it out quite purposefully, and b) a discussion of an event of this importance in Christian/Islamic relations in the region is just as important here as it is there. BrandonYusufToropov 16:59, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
You could certainly show they courted martydom in a much briefer summary. What makes it particularly important in Christian/Islamic relations in the region? Jayjg (talk) 17:41, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
This amazing, continuous display of suicidal civil disobedience happens over a period of years in the 850s. Game is over in 1031. Seems like the beginning of the end to me. You remember that scene in Godfather II when Al Pacino watches a Cuban kill himself as part of a pro-Castro guerilla attack? You remember his instant conclusion? "We can't win." From that moment on, he knows his job is to get the hell out of Havana. Similar dynamic at work here (if that's s not too far a stretch, to cite a gangster movie in support of a historical theory). BrandonYusufToropov 18:02, 11 July 2005
So far as I can judge (and I'm going on impressions rather than anything I've currently got fully sourced), the whole episode had no visible significance on the subsequent history of al-Andalus. There were some effects on the Christian kingdoms to the north: both the Franks and the Asturians seem a few years later to have successfully sent agents to Cordoba to get relics of some of the Martyrs: in particular, the Asturians eventually reburied Eligius (in Oviedo?). But the Martyrs were then almost forgotten until the 16th century when someone looking for examples of Christian witness in the Moorish centuries came across and publicised Eligius's writings. The importance of the Martyrs since has been as a Catholic and Orthodox saintly cult and because the works of Eligius are some of the fullest sources for ninth-century al-Andalus that were both written there and contemporary with the events that they describe: the earliest Arabic Andalusi historical works we have are a century later and not really interested in Muslim-dhimmi relations.
However, the 850s did mark the beginning of a sharp decline in the Emirate of Cordoba that lasted about 60 years. But the evidence from later historians is that this was a matter of local Muslim elites (some descended from the Arab and Berber 8th century invaders but some, certainly, descendants of Spanish converts from Christianity) through much of al-Andalus declaring effective independence from Cordoba. As a result, when the Emirate (and then Caliphate) revived under Abd-ar-Rahman III, he and his successors generally preferred using slave soldiers and mercenaries to Muslim Andalusi troops. Most of the mercenaries were Berbers but some were unconverted Christians from the northern kingdoms - and they didn't convert. The unwisdom of this course of action would become clear as the Caliphate collapsed between 1008 and 1013... PWilkinson 18:12, 13 July 2005 (UTC)


Jayjg, was that a rhetorical or Genuine question? Do you seriously want this paragraph extended to further detail it's importance ? --Irishpunktom\talk 21:28, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] recommendation re:question

Let's try to hash out a text we can all be happy with here instead of revert warring and needlessly inflating the text just to make a point. Tomer TALK 22:57, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Revert war

Why are you people making the changes that you are? it makes no sense, why are you doing it? --Irishpunktom\talk 23:28, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Why are you using section titles that violate Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy (i.e. "Jayjgs Revert war")? And considering that I made a unique change to stop a revert war, which you then immediately reverted several times (including other editors), why didn't you title this section "User:Irishpuktom's Revert war" instead? I made one edit, and one revert; you, on the other hand, appear to have made four reverts, nothing else. And finally, what made you think unsourced hyperbole and/or weasel words were ever appropriate for a Wikipedia article? Jayjg (talk) 16:04, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
There are hundreds of sources out there that describe Al Andalus as very tolerant and use weasel words. I have added what I consider to be the most NPOV one.Heraclius 17:19, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Firstly, the word Haven is perfectly apt, because al Andalus was a Haven, lieterally, bcause of it's tolerance. Secondly, why did you choose to make this edit without coming here first? --Irishpunktom\talk 17:24, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
So, I've re-added Haven, explained why, and kept the quote.--Irishpunktom\talk 17:36, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

"Haven" is a POV word; I'd be interested to see if you can find some encyclopedic source using it. Also, why did you make that latest insertion without getting approval here first? Jayjg (talk) 18:00, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Why did you remove it without getting approval? Haven is not a POV word, thats a stupid assertion. According to Dictionary.com it is "A place of refuge or rest; a sanctuary." - Which is exactly the point being made with it's inclusion. --Irishpunktom\talk
Did you find an encyclopedic source describing Al-Andalus as a "haven" yet? Jayjg (talk) 16:54, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
No, I'm not quoting, I'm stating that it was. A haven is a "A place of refuge", the source says "refugees fleeing persecution in Christian Europe flocked to Spain". --Irishpunktom\talk
Find a source using "haven". Jayjg (talk) 18:15, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
"Haven" is a word which means "A place of refuge", you can see this at sources such as a Dictionary. Source provided states "refugees fleeing persecution in Christian Europe flocked to Spain" - So what the hell is your problem? --Irishpunktom\talk
My problem is that you keep adding to what your sources say. They say that Jews fleeing persecution flocked there; they don't describe it as a "Haven". Jayjg (talk) 19:20, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I note, as well, that the claim you inserted did not match the source provided. Jayjg (talk) 18:06, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes it does, read it again. --Irishpunktom\talk 12:03, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
Quote it. Jayjg (talk) 16:54, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
"refugees fleeing persecution in Christian Europe flocked to Spain"--Irishpunktom\talk 17:28, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
You seem to have left off the first word. "Jewish refugees". Nothing about Sufis I could see. Jayjg (talk) 18:15, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Right, so you agree then that it was a Haven for jews then, yeah? --Irishpunktom\talk 18:26, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
Haven just means a "place of safety". I don't see what's so POV about it.Heraclius 18:37, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Whatever its dictionary definition, "Haven" seems POV. To state factually that persecuted people went to al-Andalus because there was less persecution there is one thing, but to call it a haven implies a level of security that al-Andalus simply did not afford Jews (or other non-Muslims, for that matter.) --Briangotts (talk) 19:12, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Exactly; it's not up to us to devise exciting new adjectives or nouns to describe Al-Andalus. It was better than some parts of Christian Europe; that's what we know. Jayjg (talk) 19:20, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
"Some"? Can you give an example of a part of Christian Europe that was more tolerant?Heraclius 19:23, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Depends when you're talking about. Poland in the 1300s and 1400s was quite tolerant. Jews did very well in pagan Lithuania (I know, not "Christian Europe"). At times various Hungary and various Italian states (particularly Genoa) were remarkably progressive (again, speaking of the standards of the time). I would say that, while by no means idyllic, the Sicily of Emperor Frederick II was a comparable refuge to Jews. To assert that al-Andalus was some kind of unique paradise where Jews lived hunky dory lives all the time is simply historically untrue. --Briangotts (talk) 20:17, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Given that we are referring to "the standards of its time", can you tell me where the Jewish people, and other religious Minorities, were safer than in Al Andalus.--Irishpunktom\talk 19:16, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
How about Khazaria? --Briangotts (talk) 20:17, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
If you feel that the word "refuge" is better than "haven" then I guess that's a good compromise.Heraclius 19:23, 15 August 2005 (UTC)Heraclius 19:23, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


One word: safe haven. Err.. that was two words, but whadever... --Striver 19:58, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

This might be a silly question, and this might not be the place to ask it either, but the current revision seems to indicate that Sufi muslims were accorded status as Dhimmis, i.e. non-muslims. But the Sufis are muslims, aren't they? Or were they just too weird for the Andalusians to dig?

It's not a silly question; someone has inserted Sufi for no apparent reason, and with no apparent source. Jayjg (talk) 20:04, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Sufis were a persecuted religious minority. In his book on Louis farrakhan, Mattias Gardell tells of how several hundred fled from present day Mali to present day Spain.--Irishpunktom\talk 22:37, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
Striver has just put the "safe haven" descriptor back in. The wiki about safe haven has nothing to do with this article and is in fact about a stock market crash or something.
Here's my attempted compromise:

The Caliphate was a refuge of tolerance for the religious minorities persecuted in other lands, such as Jews and Sufis who immigrated to it.[1]Heraclius 20:10, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Aye, there's the rub, Heraclius. What is the [1]? Settle that and the whole discussion will be resolved. Tomer TALK 20:26, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps "... a relative safe haven..." would be a good compromise. Thoughts? HKT talk 22:11, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Arent all safe havens relative (to the opposite)? --Striver 22:23, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
True, but "relative" indicates that, while not everyone was treated equally, the "relative haven/refuge" was better than other places. In other words, the "haven" yet fell appreciably short of an ideal haven from government/social persecution. HKT talk 22:32, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm happy with either "Refuge" or "safe haven" --Irishpunktom\talk 22:22, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • Would you accept the qualifier "relative"? HKT talk 22:32, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Of course, it is relative. --Irishpunktom\talk 22:37, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

I've edited the sentence to actually match the source. Jayjg (talk) 22:35, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


"The Caliphate was a refuge of tolerance for the religious minorities persecuted in other lands, such as Jews and Sufis who immigrated to it".

I would say that was fairly accurate. Islamic regions were extremely tolerant, certainly far more than Christian ones which were chasing people and forcing them to eat pork to prove they weren't Jews or Muslims, before burning them at the stake. The christians destroyed Mosques and Synagogues (although they did convert Mithraeum, and temples of Artemis, but that was only in the beginning), but the Muslims just converted them - Hagia Sophia being a prime example. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 22:48, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Sigh. I see you've reverted my edit. The link says nothing about Sufis; can you explain why you have re-inserted them? Also, the grammar and spelling in the version you reverted to were non-encyclopedic at best; you didn't even revert to the version you quoted. Jayjg (talk) 22:56, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
True. If you want to add more info, you have to cite sources. Otherwise, it will be treated as original research. HKT talk 23:05, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Err, as stated above, Sufis were a persecuted religious minority. In his book on Louis farrakhan, Mattias Gardell tells of how several hundred fled from present day Mali to present day Spain -- Irishpunktom\talk 23:14, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
You've read this in that book? Jayjg (talk) 23:17, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
yes, the first three or so chapters deal with pre-American Black Muslims.--Irishpunktom\talk 23:38, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
Could you please quote the section in question Jayjg (talk) 20:55, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Tom, could you quote the section regarding Sufis please? Jayjg (talk) 17:47, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Tom, I'll give it one more day for that quote, then I'll have to remove the uncited material. Please respond ASAP. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 04:45, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Over here Tom. Please quote the material. It has been a week now. Also, please don't introduce unsourced material into Wikipdia, nor remove requests for sources. Jayjg (talk) 19:47, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
I don't recall removing requests for souces, sorry if I Did. I did not add any unsourced material to Wikipedia. --Irishpunktom\talk 22:18, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Until you quote it, it is unsourced. Please do so. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 22:31, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Curious about language

I know nothing about Arabic, so here's a random curious question. What do they call Spain in modern Arabic? Is it a cognate of a familiar European name (like "Spain", "Castile", "Iberia") or do they still use a name like Al-Andalus? 66.44.2.68, 16 Aug 2005 10:33 GMT.

I think's it transliterates as "Isbanya" GCarty 11:40, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Ah, so a cognate of "Hispania". All right, thanks.
"Al Andalus" was only used to talk about the portion of the Iberian Peninsula ruled by Muslims, the parts controlled by Christians were still named Hispania/Isbanya. When the last Muslim kingdom in the Iberian Peninsula dissappeared in 1492, the word Al-Andalus was reduced to Historical context.--Menah the Great 00:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aeseds Edits

Neither Abd-ar-rahman II nor Muhammad I of Umayyad were Caliphs. --Irishpunktom\talk 10:22, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Map

is there a Public domain map of Al Andalus in its various stages anywhere? i found This one at some site, but I'd like to have one on the page rather than to link to it. --Irishpunktom\talk 14:12, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

  • Irishpunktom: The caption on that one should read "the Iberian peninsula and Al-Andalus by 1031" (or so). I would take the job of gathering a meaninful set of maps for the Iberian peninsula (including Al-Andalus), for the period 711-1478. (Threshold 09:07, 21 August 2005 (UTC))
    • Cool, thanks! --Irishpunktom\talk 22:19, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
      • Here is a link to some maps that might be good additions to this page:

http://www.sabuco.com/historia/atlas%20hespa%F1a.htm Dawn22 02:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

      • Here is another map from the Spanish Wikipedia page. It looks like a pretty good map.

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imagen%3ATaifas.gif

      • Here is another map from the Portuguese Wikipedia page. It looks like a pretty good map.

http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imagem%3AEspanyamusulmana1.png

Dawn22 20:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

      • Here is another map

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:MuslimOccupation.jpg

I've made one map ex-professo with the situation around 1000 (before the death of Al-Mansur). Not sure if that's enough but anyhow there's no much room for any more images. What this article needs is expansion of the text part mainly.
If you feel satisfied with that, you may want to remove the tag. --Sugaar 03:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Caliphate tolerance vs. "Muslim" tolerance

I have reservations about Irishpunktom's latest revision. Replacing "Caliphate" with "Muslim rule" elides significant differences in the treatment of dhimmis under the Umayyad Emirate and Caliphate versus the later Almoravids and Almohads, and implies that it was pretty much sunshine and happy days for Christians and Jews throughout the entire period of Muslim rule, which I find misleading. I'd like to get some feedback before I change it, in the hopes of avoiding another revert conflict. --Skoosh 18:15, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Changed it. --Irishpunktom\talk 18:23, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Wow, that was fast. Thanks. It seems a little redundant now, though - I mean, the Caliphate is by definition Muslim rule, right? --Skoosh 18:34, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Indeed it is. Jayjg (talk) 21:28, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Wouldn't rule by any muslim qualify as "Muslim Rule?" In order to be a Caliphate the ruler must also be considered a Caliph.--Dr.Worm 22:52, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Latest sources

Tom, which sources that you have provided do you consider encyclopedic? The commercial website, for example? Jayjg (talk) 21:28, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

The only phrase that seems to be disputed is the one that unqualifiedly calls the Calphate's rule "tolerant." None of the sources cited for this appear encyclopedic. However, it is widely accepted that the Caliphate's rule was tolerant in comparison to Christian rule. There were periods of persecution under the Caliphate, but such persecution was generally less systematic and much more sporadic than persecution under Christian rule. The article should be edited to reflect that. HKT talk 23:03, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I certainly accept that it was tolerant comparted to Christian Europe. Perhaps you could edit the section into something reasonable, my edits just get reverted. Jayjg (talk) 18:00, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] OK, I rewrote the dhimmi section

Rather than come up with a consensus version of the section, which seems impossible, I reduced it to a back-and-forth between proponents and critics of the "tolerant El-Andalus" theory. I hope that this is at least a step towards a resolution of conflict. Zora 02:00, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Sure t'is grand. Keep it. You cut out my wee piece on folks like Michael Scot spreacding Al-Andalusian studies eastward to Italy and that.. I thought that seperate from the Tolerant/Non-Tolerant arguments? --Irishpunktom\talk 10:49, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
No, I just moved that bit -- but actually, it belongs in another section. It interrupts the flow of the dhimmi argument. Could you move it again? Zora 10:57, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
yeah, i see that you've moved it. I thought it should be part of the culture rather than History section... But it's fine where it is. --Irishpunktom\talk 13:50, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

I did another rewrite, for flow, and also where I tried to clarify the history of the scholarly debate, and the way it has been used to apply to contemporary political situations. I also included historical information, because the period of tolerance was bounded, and assertions that Jews did not leave Al-Andalus were not correct by 1050 or so, when people began to flee to Toledo. And now I note that Irishpunktom deleted the whole thing without comment. Why? What is controversal? Literally everthing I inserted is mainstreamed sourced, so please show some evidence of error or provide sources here. --Goodoldpolonius2 19:16, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

ok, So the problems I had with that are:
  1. Who is Mark Cohen
    • Mark Cohen is a Professor of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University, he is a well-regarded scholar whose interest is Jews in Muslim lands in the Middle Ages
  1. Why is his book "Under Cross and Crescent" landmark?
    • Feel free to edit it, I actually just pulled in from the reviews in a couple of scholarly journals (see the Journal of Religion review), which called it the landmark study on the subject, since Cohen compares and contrasts Northern Europe and Muslim Spain.
  1. How could Heinrich Graetz be bolstering a story in the 20th Century when he died in 1891?
    • Huh? The "Golden Age" story started in the 19th century, not the 20th, the point was to show that the debate has lasted a long time, and that it was partially political in origin.
  1. Why are you quotng a load of scholars but neither Modern Muslim Scholars, or Muslim Historians from the era (Said Al Andalusi for example)
    • I wasn't trying to exclude anyone. I left all of the existing references, I simply added Cohen's discussion of the nature of the debate, which is well supported. Its not like I am quoting some right-wing scholar. Please feel free to add in additional references, as you would like.

Grrr, have to go, I'll add more later. I would also advise against making such sweeping changes to an article which has taken so much to get to where it is now. --Irishpunktom\talk 19:28, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

See my answers above. I didn't realize that I would be adding to the controversy here, and I am still not sure what the concern is. I am not trying to represent the "Jews were persecuted" POV nor the "Golden Age" POV, but the section before I came was a random list of arguments that included a massive list of internal links to book reviews for María Rosa Menocal, which was baffling. Explaining why this is controversal is important, and, even more important, is the actual history of the nature of tolerance in the Caliphate, which you also deleted, are you disputing any of the points in the historical section I added?
I have to say that your blanket reverts are pretty upsetting, since they are not (I think) changing NPOV, and you have given no objection other than wondering who Mark Cohen is and why I didn't add in additional scholars. You did not challenge the history section, but deleted it. You did not point out factual errors in any area. Plus, the current section is unreadable, and the random list of links is only marginally connected. The closest to relevant are two reviews of books (one of which dismisses the argument of the book), but there is also a Jewish travel itinerary, an article on Moorish music, and my favorite, an article on the use of basil by the "Bulchand Charitable Trust Clinic," really, click on the link labelled 9.
I think I have a good history on Wikipedia of making solid edits with considerable sourced backing, and your slash-and-burn approach really is counterproductive.
--Goodoldpolonius2 19:40, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Don't worry, I read through your additions, and they're quite good. There's no rule that Tom has to approve of them before they go in. Jayjg (talk) 21:34, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
GOP, I'm confused about the Maimonides addition; did he actually write any works of philosophy while in Al-Andalus? Jayjg (talk) 02:34, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
No, he was 13 when he left, I'll clarify. --Goodoldpolonius2 02:52, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
"fled in the face of"? Didn't they live there for several years disguised as Muslims, before finally being forced to flee? Jayjg (talk) 05:03, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
You may be right, Jewish figures of the Middle Ages has not been a real specialty of mine (as IrishPunkTom knows, since I included a Muslim philosopher as Jewish). I give up - Maimonides is in your hands, do with him what you will. --Goodoldpolonius2 05:11, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I like the rewrite. It is pretty clear. However, I would like to suggest two possible changes that you can consider.

"The Jewish dhimmis living under the Caliphate, while allowed fewer rights than Muslims, were still better off than in other parts of Christian Europe...." I think that this paragraph seems to fit better in the "Rise and Fall of Tollerence" section. Also, if you know of any quotes from more mainstream authors, I think they should be included.--24.15.4.5 20:26, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding NPOV, and the Almohades

I think this article delves far too much into Dhimmi discussion, and is the main reason the article has an NPOV tag. A brief outline of views and then a link to the expanded article should suffice, no? Also, regarding Jayjg's Maimonides edit from:

"his family fled when he was 13 in the face of conquering Almohades" to
"when he was 13, his family fled persecution by the Almohades."

Is there more information on this? Sometimes people do just flee in fear of persecution without actually having been persecuted. The thing is, the meaning was changed entirely. "In the face of the conquering Almohades " implies they fled the actual conquest as it was happening, while "fled persecution by the Almohades" implies actual post-conquest persecution. Did he or someone else write about the persecution? What kind of persecution? Are there any sources? In previous versions, the article stated that even Muslim philosophers were persecuted (Averroes). Is this true? In the Maimonides article, the biography makes no mention of persecution, and just says: "the family fled to Morocco after the fall of Córdoba to the Almohads." --AladdinSE 07:53, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Aladdin, I would agree that a brief mention would suffice - except that the treatment of non-Muslims ends up being one of the most continually discussed aspects of Al-Andalus, and it turns out not to be a simple matter that can be addressed with a single NPOV paragraph. Thus, I am not sure why the article has an NPOV tag, but it shouldn't be because a particular section is long! My suggestion is to increase the length of other sections, not cut down the section on non-Muslims. When the article gets to be too long, we can always spin it off, as you suggest.
As for the Almohads, plenty of Jews wrote about the persecution (it should be noted that they started as a very fundamentalist sect, persecution was common in the first years of their rule, but they liberalized later). Maimon, Maimonodes's father, was a dayan who wrote a letter about being pressured or forced to accept Islam after the Almohad invasion (which is why they fled). Joseph ben Judah Ibn ‘Aknin (who fled to Christian Spain) wrote a still existant manuscript in which he says that the Jews of several towns of North Africa were depopulated of Jews by the Almohads, and Abraham ibn Ezra wrote a long eulogy to communities destroyed by the Almohads. The Averroes issue was my mistake - he was briefly declared to be too liberal, his books were burned, and he was exiled - but then he was re-accepted, and was generally supported by the Almohades throughout their liberalizing period.
Goodoldpolonius2 12:48, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I am not advocating spinning it off, I am saying there is an existing Dhimmi article, and all the controversy associated with it. A brief outline of treatment of non-Muslims in Al-Andalus from opposing views and then a a link to the Dhimmi article should allow us, I would think, to get past the Neutrality tug of war in the Al Andalus article. Thank you for the clarification about the Almohades. Perhaps the Maimonodes biography should contain a brief mention about being pressured to convert etc before going into exile. --AladdinSE 11:07, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

I have tried to avoid the Dhimmi article because it is so polarized. In fact, I avoided use of the term in the content I added (using "non-Muslim") for exactly that reason. I hope people find the current language balanced, and, in fact, I am going to try to remove the NPOV tag (since both Jayjg and IrishPunkTom seem satisfied). If you want to make changes, I am happy to help, but I was hoping that we could make the article a bit more NPOV and self-contained rather than referring to a lightning rod article for context. --Goodoldpolonius2 13:15, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Oops, guess I was wrong about IrishPunkTom being happy. I'll wait for comments. --Goodoldpolonius2 16:07, 2 September 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Why the NPOV tag?

It was restored without comment by IrishPunkTom, is there a reason why it is being maintained? Goodoldpolonius2 21:28, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I think it should be removed. If he wants to add it, because the article doesn't agree with his idea of reality, then he should have to discuss it first.

[edit] Word Choice

The word "enclave" is incorrect. In order to be an enclave, a region must be surrounded on all sides by another nation. If a region is bordered by 2 nations, it is not an enclave.

"confiscated their property and took their wives and children, many of whom were sold as slaves" If men were sole into slavery too, this phrase is incorrect.

[edit] On the picture of the Great Mosque in Córdoba

The picture of the Great Mosque in Córdoba in the article belongs to the Al-Mansur section (the last built and "poorest" part of that magnificent building). I think we should try a picture from either the Ab-ar-Rahman I or Al-Hakam II parts. The first one (from Abd-ar-Rahman I) is the most beautiful and the second one (from Al-Hakam II ) is the most spectacular. The one from Al-Mansur (Hixam II) does not really compare to the others. It is just a thought!

[edit] In Portugal?

I've heard a lot about the Muslims in Granada, Córdoba, and other parts of Spain. But what about the history of Muslims in what is now Portugal? After all, the Moors conquered both countries. I always receive detailed info in Spain articles, but whenever I try to find information about the Moors in Portugal, even on Wikipedia, it isn't sufficient enough. I've put up a request for an article called "Moorish Portugal" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Other_categorization_schemes#Portugal), and I want someone to start it. Can anyone help? Thanks!

-Stallions2010 P.S. If anyone can help, I have starting information on the article.

Hi Stallions2010. Good idea. An article about Arab/Muslim presence in Portugal would be of great interest. You are right in that there's a total lack of documentation about the subject in both European and Arab/Muslim history works. I'd suggest that we'd start the article from scratch and go slowly. Cheers -- Svest 22:21, 21 October 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up™

I don't know if this answers your question, but you can see in the history of portugal article that, before the Christian "Reconquista", you cannot speak of Portugal as an independent country (or even a political entity). Hence the non-differentiation.

--129.104.247.2 23:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

but you cant call it "spain" either. spain is not hispania and this "mistake" is rampant everywhere including many articles in wikipedia. if we use the correct names reflecting the times then there would be no one asking, "what about portugal?"

Lusitano Transmontano 17:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, There's an article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silves Hope that helps. Marina (from Olhao, Algarve, Portugal), 11 February 2006

[edit] Neutrality of Statement?

Someone should really examine this statement and modify it to confirm to the NPOV: "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."

What do you think is not NPOV about it? It seems like neutral language on first read. And I apologize for removing the tag, I didn't see your talk comment until afterwards. --Goodoldpolonius2 23:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
How about citing some sources? Nikola 08:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
I know the story of Cordoba martyrs. They were christians that adopted Islam and (some days or few weeks before) returned to Christianism in public. Due to this action, they became apostate, and they were executed like all muslims apostated in Middle Ages. If they had been christians all time, they never had been killed.
...well, now we have a source! (Wetman 07:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC))
See Histoire de l'Espagne (1997) by Joseph Pérez. If I remember correctly this author says more or less the same that the anonymous inervention of above.--Menah the Great 00:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Several Things that Caught My Attention

The entire "martyrs of Córdoba" should also be examined in the light that Eulogius, Alverus et. al.,actively sought and campagined for their martyerdom. If all one reads are the commentaries and saints lives' written by those who venerated them, then yes, the image that immerges is one of outright repression. One may find such an account in Medieval Iberia: Readings from Christain, Muslim and Jewish Sources, ed. Olivia Remie Constable (Philadelphia, 1997), ISBN 0-8122-1569-9. Conversely, Saracens by John V. Tolan examines the martyrs from the other side, namely he discusses the great lenghts that these people went to in order to achieve their status as martyrs, such as seeking multiple audiences with imans and members of the court to publically blaspheme against the Prophet Mohammed. Also, it is interesting to note that during this time, there are indications that Hispano-Romans are adapting rather well to Muslim-styled life by their willing adoptation of dress, language and manners but still maintaining their religion (Spanish: mozárabes). It is therefore unlikely that willing assimilation would occur and even more so, be permitted in a society that is actively persecuting members of a different religion.

In regards to the status of Jews and Christians under Muslim rule during the Middle Ages on the Iberian Peninsula, the relationship between them and the various rulers fluxuated. One must keep in mind the the Umayyads fell from power in 1031 and the power vaccum created the first Ta'ifa period where multiple Muslim kingdoms existed in Al-Andalus. The next ruler of a unified al-Andalus was from the Almohavid dynasty of North Africa that held to strict and literal interpretations of the Qur'an. Such a belief affected not only how Jews and Christians were treated, but also religious scholars, philosophers, and other members of the intelligensia. If one was not of the same mindset as the ruling dynasty, then daily life could have been more difficult than it had been previously. A similar situation arose when the Almoravids--again, another dynasty that held a literal interpretation to the Qur'an-- took control in the late 12th century, but ceased to be a major issue during the Nasri kingdom of Granada. Lastly, it is important to remember that Jews and Muslims living under Christian rule in the north had to pay extra taxes to their rulers, could not employ Christians nor purchase Christian slaves, and faced trade restrictions yet all this was seen as normal and generally did not hamper daily life to the extent that alternatives were divised. For further reading on the treatment of Muslims under Christian rule, see Islamic Spain:1250-1500 by L.P. Harvey, (Chicago, 1990), and A Forgotten Community: The Mudéjar Aljama of Xàtiva, 1240-1327 by Isabel O'Connor (Leiden, 2003).

Overall, I agree that there should be a sizable section of the article reserved for a discussion of literature produced within al-Andalus and how it relates to the emergence of Aristotle as the poster child for the intelligensia of Latin Europe, as well as the relationship between Arabic, Hebrew and Latin speaking scholars and how they jointly translated Muslim and Greek works. If there is a seperate article on the Toledo Translation School, a link should be made. Also, the article needs to be more current in regards to the scholarly literature available on al-Andalus and read less like Menendez Pelayo or E. Lévi-Provençal's histories. Much has been written concerning aristocratic, middle and lower class women, the connections between Andalusian Jewish communities and others along the Mediterranean, political and cultural relationships between Cairo, Baghdad, Aachen, and Constantinople and the constantly changing relationships with Christian kingdoms in the northern part of the peninsula and I feel that it is time to include it within the article.

--Andi, 6 February 2006

[edit] Religion and Demographic Trends in Al-Andalus

I'm interested in how many arab-berbers actually emigrated to Spain over the 800 years of Islamic rule. Also, a timeline depicting the percentage of the population that was muslim, christian, jewish etc. and how this changed throughout the 800 year rule would be very helpful as well. Could someone see if they can get information on these?

Apparently the Berbers who inmigrated to the Iberian Peninsula during the 800 years that existed Al-Andalus never surpassed a few thousands; they were slighly more numerous than other foreign groups like Yemenis and Syrians but certainly very less than the Andalusis that took the other way, inmigrating into Africa (Tangiers, Tetouan, Oran, Tunis and even Timbuktu received Andalusi inmigration waves in different times). As for population percentages, it is a bit difficult to know exact numbers, but according to some historians like Joseph Pérez the process of islamization was very slow at the start and almost 3/4 parts of the population of Al-Andalus up to the year 900 was still Christian. Then, the process accelerated and become the inverse due to several factors: increasing intolerance (specially during the Almohad rule), Christian advance in the north -and consequently reduction of the land ruled by the Muslims-, conversion or migration to the north in order to avoid increasing religious taxes, et cetera. Jews are a bigger problem. The scholars don't agree even today about how many Jews lived in Spain in 1491, so you can imagine what we knew about Jewish numbers before the first clear persecutions in the Christian kingdoms (14th century) or during the "Golden Age of Judaism in Spain", just before the arrive of the Almohads. From what I'd read their number wasn't never great, no more than a few hundred thousands.--Menah the Great 00:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Fundamentalist" Almoravids

Can we get a more historical and nuanced adjective to describe the fanatical and intolerant Almoravids? --Wetman 08:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My opinion on this article

Hello. In my opinion, this article has several problems. Let´s start by talkig about the images used. Now, if you´re going to talk about Al-Andalus you should use images from the high point of this society, which is the period of the Caliphate of Córdoba, not an image from the Alhambra palace, which really is the decadent period of Al-Andalus. That image of the Jewish cantor also doesn´t make much sense here because its from the 14th century - not the time of the "Jewish Golden Age" in Al-Andalus.

It seems to me people started to politicize this article talking about "tolerance" or lack of it. Let´s have in mind that people in the Middle Ages did not think like us, nor did they share our modern political concepts. I´ve tried to write a bit about society in Al-Andalus, maybe somebody could check my writing since I´m not a native English speaker. I´ll try to write more soon. --JLCA 14:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lots of quotes and POV

To all those ISLAMOPHOBES who want to deprive Islam and muslims of all the glorious achievements in Al/andalus, I need to remind them of the following !

QUOTE

1. As was so often the case in the medieval arab world, the conquest of sevile was brought about NOT by force of arms but through pacts and this made it possible for an immediate close relationship to be formed between the conquering arab minority and the visigothic hipanics

RAFAEL VALENCIA, ISLAMIC SEVILE The Legacy of Muslim Spain, P 136

2. According to Mikel De Epalza, christian priests helped and reported christians to the muslim authorities in al andalus to pay taxes, a process to keep them christians.

The legacy of muslim Spain, P 156

3. The christians killed thousands of muslims in ANDARAX in 1501 after their surrender

L.P HARVEY, P 208

4. From 1525 nobody could openly live a muslim in any part of spain !

5. THE CHIEF AMBASSADOR to the umayyad caliph in Cordoba, Abdel Rahman III was CHRISTIAN named Rabih ben Ziyad, he also wrote the calender of crodoba. # SO MUCH SO FOR THE INTOLERANCE OF THE MUSLIMS!#

6. REVERTER, 1090/1142, was a catalan noble taken captive by the murabits, he later served as the COMMANDER of all christian mercenaries in the murabit armies and eventually became a GENERAL in the army of the sultan ali ibn yusef !! AMAZING !! SHOW ME WHICH MUSLIM CAPTIVE BECAME A GENERAL IN ANY CHRISTIAN SPANISH ARMY !!!


QUOTES REGARDING MUSLIMS IN SPAIN:

Stanley Lane-Poole, The Moors in Spain: Introduction. "For nearly eight centuries, under the Mohamedan rule, Spain set all Europe a shining example of a civilized and enlightened state. Her fertile provinces rendered doubly prolific, by the industrious engineering skill of the conquerors bore fruit a hundredfold, cities innumerable sprang up in the rich valleys in the Guadalquivir and the Guadiana whose names, and names only commemorate the vanished glories of their past.

"...To Cordoba belong all the beauty and ornaments that delight the eye or dazzle the sight. Her long line of Sultans form her crown of glory; her necklace is strung with the pearls which her poets have gathered from the ocean of language; her dress is of the banners of learning, well-knit together by her men of science; and the masters of every art and industry are the hem of her garments.

"Art, literature and science prospered as they then prospered nowhere else in Europe...

"Mathematics, astronomy, botany, history, philosophy and jurisprudence were to be mastered in Spain, and Spain alone. Whatever makes a kingdom great and prosperous, whatever tends to refinement and civilization, was found in Muslim Spain...

"With Granada fell all Spain's greatness. For a brief while, indeed, the reflection of the Moorish splendour cast a borrowed light upon the history of the land which it had once warmed with its sunny radiance. The great epoch of Isabella, Charles V and Philip II, of Columbus, Cortes and Pizarro, shed a last halo about the dying monuments of a mighty state. When followed the abomination of dissolution, the rule of inquisition and the blackness of darkness in which Spain has been plunged ever since. "In the land where science was once supreme, the Spanish doctors became noted for nothing but their ignorance and incapacity. The arts of Toledo and Almeria faded into insignificance.

"The land deprived of skillful irrigation of the Moors, grew impoverished and neglected, the richest and most fertile valleys languished and were deserted, and most of the populous cities which had filled every district in Andalusia, fell into ruinous decay; and beggars, friars, and bandits took the place of scholars, merchants and knights. So low fell Spain when she had driven away the Moors. Such is the melancholy contrast offered by her history."

Conde as quoted in Prescott, Philip II of Spain, Vol. III.

"And so vanquished for ever from the Spanish territory this brave, intelligent and enlightened people, who with their resolution and labour inspired life into the land, which the vain pride of the Goths condemned to sterility, and endowed it with prosperity and abundance and with innumerable canals, this people whose admirable courage was likewise, in happiness and adversity, a strong rampart to the throne of the Caliphs, whose genius, progress and study raised in its cities an internal edifice of light which sent its rays into Europe and inspired it with the passion of study, and whose magnanimous spirit tinted all its acts with an unrivalled colour of grandeur and nobility, and endowed it in the eyes of posterity with a sort of extraordinary greatness and charming colour of heroism which invokes the magical ages of Homer and which presents them to us in the garb of Greek half-gods.

"The Arabs suddenly appeared in Spain like a star which crosses through the air with its light, spreads its flames on the Horizon and then vanishes rapidly into naught. They appeared in Spain to fill her suddenly with their activity and the fruit of their genius, and endowed her with a glorious glamour which enveloped her from the Pyrenees to Gibraltar and from the oceans to the Barcelona. But a burning love for liberty and independance, a fickle character disposed to frivolty and merriness, neglect of old virtues, an unfortunate disposition of revolution, provoked always by an inflamed imagination, violent passions and ambitions, a spirit to dominate, and other factors of decay, worked in the course of time, to demolish this grand edifice raised by men like Tariq, 'Abdul Rahman al-Nasir, Muhammad ibn al-Ahmer, and led the Arabs to internal dissention, which sapped their power and pushed them to the abyss of naught.

"Millions of Moors quitted Spain carrying their property and arts - the patrimony of a state. What have the Spaniards created in their place? We could say nothing, but an eternal sorrow fills this land in which the gayest natures breathed before. Indeed there are some ruined monuments which still look upon these gloomy districts, but a real cry resounds from the depths of these monuments and ruins: honour and glory to the conquered Moor and decay and misery to the victorious Spaniard!"

Gustav Lebon

"For five to six hundred years general books in Arabic language and particularly on various disciplines have been almost the only source of learning and teaching in the European universities. And we can safely assert that in certain disciplines like medicine the impressions of the Arabs are still at work in Europe. The medical writings of Ibn Sina (Avicenna) have been explained about the close of the last century in Monabiliah."

"Roger Bacon, Leonard, Erno Al Felquni, Raymond Lot, San Thoma, and Azfonish X Qashqani have solely depended on Arabic Books."

Renan

"Albert, the Great, is indebted to Ibn Sina and San Thoma owes it all to Ibn Rushd (Averroes)."

Homeld on Science

"It was the Arabs who for the first time invented the method of chemical preparation of medicines, and it was from this source that sound advice and the procedure of experiments came to us, which were taken up by the School of Saliram and from there after a long time spread to southern Europe. The medicine and the natural elements on which medication entirely depends became the cause of study of plants' Chemistry. In this way both these studies went on simultaneously in two different ways and thus the door on a new era of the study of this science was opened by the Arabs. Suffice it for the proof of the vast Arab knowledge of the plant kingdom that they made addition of two thousand herbs to those of Zulefuredas. There were many herbs in their pharmacy that the Greeks had not even dreamt of."

Sideo

"During the middle ages, the Arabs alone were the standard-bearers of a civilisation."

"When the Arabs gained expertise in Astronomy, they paid special attention to Mathematical sciences and gained a high degree of excellence and they were really our teachers in this field....When we take stock of all that got transferred from Arabic to Latin, we find that a great doorway was made in the name of Gerbert Sylvester II, through which during the period between 970-980 AD, all those sciences he had acquired in Andalusia had entered Europe."

..."Our searching gaze rests on the Malikite Law, since we have had contacts with Africa, and France had ordered its competent learned men to translate into French the short compendium on Fiqh (jurisprudence) compiled by Ishaq bin Yaqub (d. 1242 AD, his book titled "Kitab-e-Khalil")

..."For full six hundred years his (Ibn Sina, Avicenna) works held sway over the educational institutions of Europe. His book Al-Qanun (Canon) was translated in five volumes and had repeated reprints, since the instruction in the universities of France and Italy totally depended on it."

Martin Hume in 'Spanish People'

"The Sultan Abd-er-Rahman was one of the Heaven-sent rulers of men. Prompt yet cautious in council and in war, unscrupulous, overbearing and proud, he was as ready to wreak terrible vengeance, as he was politic to forgive when it suited him. Berber and Yamanite alike acknowledged that at last they had found their master....He ruled until his death, in 788, with the tempered severity, wisdom, and justice which made his domain the best organized in Europe, and his capital the most splendid in the world."

S.P. Scott in 'The History of the Moorish Empire in Europe.'

"Yet there were knowledge and learning everywhere except in Catholic Europe. At a time when even kings could not read or write, a Moorish king had a private library of six hundred thousand books. At a time when ninety-nine percent of the Christian people were wholly illiterate, the Moorish city of Cordova had eight hundred public schools, and there was not a village within the limits of the empire where the blessings of education could not be enjoyed by the children of the most indigent peasant, ...and it was difficult to encounter even a Moorish peasant who could not read and write."

Thomson in 'The Muslims in Andalusia.'

Europe was darkened at sunset, Cordova shone with public lamps; Europe was dirty, Cordova built a thousand baths; ..., Cordova changed its undergarments daily; Europe lay in mud, Cordovas streets were paved; Europes palaces had smoke-holes in the ceiling, Cordovas arabesques were exquisite; Europes nobility could not sign its name, Cordovas children went to school; Europes monks could not read the baptismal service, Cordovas teachers created a library of Alexandrian dimensions. (800-1000 C.E.)

Dozy in 'The Moslems in Spain.'

Cruel and fanatical, the Leonese rarely gave quarter; when they captured a town they usually put all the inhabitants to the sword. Tolerance such as that accorded by the Muslims to the Christians could not be expected of them.

H. Kamen, 'The Spanish Inquisition.'

"As a result of his (Cardinal Ximenes' coercive) endeavours, it is reported that on l8th December 1499 about three thousand Moors were baptized by him and a leading mosque in Granada was converted into a church. 'Converts' were encouraged to surrender their Islamic books, several thousands of which were destroyed by Ximenes in a public bonfire. A few rare books on medicine were kept aside for the University of Alcala...(Ximenes) claimed...the Moors had forfeited all their rights under the terms of capitulation (of Granada). They should therefore be given the choice between baptism and expulsion...At Andarax the principal mosque, in which the women and children had taken refuge, was blown up with gun-powder...all books in Arabic, especially the Qur'an, were collected to be burnt...Cardinal Ximenes:...was reported during his conversion campaign among the Granada Moors in 1500 to have burnt in the public square of Vivarrambla over 1,005,000 volumes including unique works of Moorish culture."

H.C. Lea, 'The Moriscos of Spain.'

"...that cemeteries could be established near the churches changed from mosques, but old Christians were not to be debarred from burial there if they wished....it continued until 1591 when it was ordered that they should be buried inside of the churches, which was so abhorrent to them that they vainly offered more than thirty thousand ducats if king or pope would allow them to be interred elsewhere, even though in dunghills.

"... tailors were not to make garments nor silver-smiths jewels after their (Moorish) fashion; their baths were prohibited; all births were to be watched by Christian midwives to see that no Moorish rites were performed; disarmament was to be enforced by a rigid inspection of licences; their doors were to be kept open on feast-days, Fridays, Saturdays, and during weddings, to see that Moorish rites were abandoned and Christian ones observed...no Moorish names were to be used and they were not to keep 'gacis' or unbaptised Moors either free or as slaves."

Ahmad Umayyad Andalusian Syrian

I took the liberty to pu this in a separate section and fix format. It seems you have a lot to say on the subject. Why not properly cite the relevant and reputable quotes in corresponding articles in neutral manner? ←Humus sapiens ну? 07:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] From Al-Andalus to Granada

I am trying to use this page and others to help with some historical research. I appreciate that this is not what wikipedia is for ;-) but feel I should point out that amid all the arguments about tolerance or lack of it, there is still quite a lot of historical information missing. Right at the start there is a jump from talking about Al-Andalus to talking about Granada. This won't help newcomers to the subject at all. Then there is the question of whether Granada became a client state - of Castile? Aragon? Portugal? - from 1236. This isn't at all the impression that you get from looking at the pages relating to those Christian kingdoms and their various rulers. There seems to have been a great deal of conflict across the peninsula in the following decades. It isn't clear either from the article who the Marinids were and what their significance was. Sorry to be negative, but it's a question of getting the article back on track. Itsmejudith 22:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I had added some more information about the Reconquista from 1212 to 1350.--Menah the Great 13:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Good edits. -- Szvest 14:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC) User:FayssalF/Sign

[edit] Modern claims by fundamentalists

As you are probably aware mentions to an Al Andalus "re-reconquista" by muslims are not uncommon in fundamentalists´ agenda (in particular in Al Quaeda´s tapes). I would like to know more about how seriously we should take this, it gives me the creeps. I am not sure but i think either the Coran or some scholars argue that a land once muslim must always be muslim. Anyway, I think perhaps a mention in the article wouldn´t be out of the question.--217.130.121.152 12:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure this is not in the Qur'an, although people can take texts out of context and distort them to imply what they want. It may be that some scholar has argued it, but perhaps it is just Al Qaida. Can you find a mention of this view in a reputable newspaper, which would constitute an encyclopedic source? Itsmejudith 19:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, the tapes are public knowledge, googling al qaeda+al andalus returns a lot of related results. About the doctrine behind that idea I cannot find something specific but I haven´t tried seriously. I looked in some sites but they looked either islamophobic or pro-islamic divulgation sites so I gave up. Besides I find it difficult to follow the arguments with constant references to the Quran and use of arabic terms. Someone here should be more comfortable with them. Anyway, provisionally I am gonna classify the whole matter as a "crazy-terrorist-delusional-fantasy" in my mind.

[edit] Al-andalus

Al-Āndalus (Arabic الأندلس) was the Arabic name given to those parts of the Iberian Peninsula governed by Muslims from 711 to 1492.[1]

This statement should be better expressed, because the name is- as far as i'm aware- originally a latin word "Vandalus" that refers to the Vandals. Read3r 20:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC) [Forget this contribution, i had not read all the article ;)]

That's totally correct. But Al-Andalus is the Arabic name of Andalusia (which came from Vandal). So nothing is wrong there. -- Szvest 22:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge Islam in Spain into this article

Really, I don't know if there's anything in Islam in Spain that's not already here but my impresion is that both articles deal about exactly the same thing and this one is much better. --Sugaar 18:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Yes, MERGE. Johnbod 00:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • MERGE - I agree with Sugaar that this article is much more comprehensive and that any additionl info in the Islam in Spain article could be merged into this one.KarlXII 13:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • MERGE - The article Islam in Spain suffers from nationalistc POV. Islam was a global fenomenon in almost all of the Iberian Peninsula, should we have different aricles for Islam in Spain and in Portugal? I think not. Furthermore, Spain is a modern country that only emerges with the union of Castille and Aragon in 1492 (and this is disputed since Navarre was only incoporated in 1512) - the word Spain should not be used, therefore, to denote all of Iberia. The Ogre 16:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
That's good point I didn't even consider. Yes: Portugal also exists. --Sugaar 22:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • MERGE I agree as well. While I don't think the nationalistic bent is a major issue the other article is certainly more balanced 206.136.32.239 19:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)Bradley
  • KEEP I don't think the two should be completely merged. Al-Andalus only refers to a historical presence of Islam on the Iberian Peninsula. Islam in Spain should be reworked to focus on the current status of Islam in Spain, a topic that is not covered in the Al-Andalus article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bkwillwm (talk • contribs).
That's a good idea but it requires at least one compromised editor. Personally rather than "Islam in Spain", I'd work in "Muslim community in Spain", what should adress mostly the issue of immigrants of North African and other Muslim origins in Spain, their social and legal situation, demographics, and, of course, the aspect of religion, which is virtually exclusive of this community of mostly recent immigration. It would surely give a better (more complete and coherent) article. The historical reference should be very brief and directing to Al-Andalus.
Still it needs of one or more editors interested in working in it. --Sugaar 12:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
An article about the current status of Islam in Spain should be called Muslim community in Spain. I agree with the suggestion made above. The Ogre 14:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Islam in Spain → history of Islam in medieval Spain (Al Andalus). Al-Andalus → Politics, society, culture and science in Al Andalus. Muslim community in Spain → Muslims in Spain. -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 15:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
My friend... Medieval Spain is not the Al-Andalus! The Al-Andalus coresponds to the whole of the Iberian Peninsula or Hispania. The Iberian peninsula, covers not only the modern country of Spain, but Portugal also (and Andorra; and Gibraltar!). The word "Spain" in modern English (and its counterparts in other languages) means the country of Spain, not all of the Iberian peninsula (as the respective articles show). The fact is that Castillian expansionism over the centuries (ask not only the Portuguese, but also the Galicians, the Basques or the Catalans...) tried to monopolize the definition of Iberia in a way that satisfied its imperial interests. In fact, even if Spain was used in ancient times to refer to the whole of Iberia, today it is not. In this sense, given that the Kingdom of Spain only emerges with the union of Castille and Aragon in 1492 (and this is disputed since Navarre was only incoporated in 1512), one can almost say that there was never a Spain before that! It was Iberia that was conquered by the Romans, who called it Hispania. The country of Spain didn't exist then. It was Hispania that was conquered by Suevi, Vandals, Alans and Visigoths. The country of Spain didn't exist then. It was Visigothic Hispania that was conquered by the Moors, who called it Al-Andalus. The country of Spain didn't exist then. The Moorish conquest was of Iberia or Hispania (that should not be confused with Spain, even if the term Hispanic is used to denote Spanish speaking peoples). This conquest and subsequent occupation led to a Christian reaction know as the Reconquista from which several Christian kingdoms emerged (such as Asturias, León, Castille, Portugal, Navarre, etc.). Over time Castille came to dominate most of Iberia (but not Portugal, except for a small period between 1580 and 1640) and the use of the castillian word "España" (which is the castillian version of latin Hispania) started as a political strategy to curb autonomy or independence from centralist Madrid (for the same reason Castillian language started to be known as Spanish, implying the irrelevance of other Iberian languages - this was still a problem in the Spain of the 20th century, with the active repression of languages other than Castillian). Furthermore, if you call Spain to the Iberian peninsula, this not only is simply not true, but is felt as profoundly offensive at least by the Portuguese. For all these reasons and more, any article should not emply that Spain is Iberia! The Ogre 15:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
My dear friend...Nobody said that Medieval Spain is the Al-Andalus! Read my vote carefully and w/ more concentration! You had to explain what you've just explained to people who voted "merge" instead. -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 15:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be a small communication problem between us... What I'm saying is that we can not have an article called Islam in Spain when it is about the "history of Islam in medieval Spain (Al Andalus)", as you've said. because you can not call Medieval Spain to the historical reality of the Iberian Peninsula in the Middle Ages! What about Portugal in the Middle Ages? The Ogre 16:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
What i meant by that is that in order to have both Islam in Spain (rename it Islam in Al-Andalus) and Muslim community in Spain (Islam in nowadays Spain) we need to focus on politics, society, culture and science in Al-Andalus article. -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 16:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay! Now I get it! That seems acceptable to me. But... does it not split in two an article that should be integrated? The Ogre 17:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Great. Well, IMO, as there's much to relate it is preferable to have 2 or 3 articles as per above. I believe this article needs more expansion re political conflicts, cultural and scientific developements, etc... I therefore think a separate article on religion would be a good idea. -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 17:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Please Merge. --Arabist 10:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] rate of conversion in al-Andalus cited in article WRONG

Regarding the following: "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." All the books I have read on the subject show this assertion - that Andalusia became mostly Muslim within two decades, and that there was homogeneity within a few generations - to be false. To quote but one scholar, "By about 800 only some 8% of the indigenous population of al-Andalus had become Muslims. This had rised to about 12.5% by the middle of the ninth century. Thereafter the figure increased by leaps and bounds.... By about the year 1000 the proportion stood at something like 75%, after which the [conversion] curve flattened out." - Richard Fletcher, "Moorish Spain," p37-38. Similarly, Bernard Reilly writes that "...a very sizeable Christian majority remained within the area of Spanish Islam until well into the 10th Century." ("The Contest of Christian and Muslim Spain", p19). These assertions are based on the work of Richard Bulliet in "Conversion to Islam in the Medieval Period" (1979), which is seen as the authority on the subject by scholars in the field (Thomas Glick and Bernard Reilly to name two others). So the picture of a majority of Andalusian Christians converting to Islam within TWO DECADES is patently absurd. Twenty years is not a very long time for something so major to take effect, and the gradual conversion, as posited by Bulliet and others, is much more realistic. Kalukembe 09:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

You can be right but do you have any references? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 12:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, the references are right there! The Ogre 14:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks The Ogre. I've read the message quickly. Be bold Kalukembe and fix the innaccurate edits. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 16:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Etymology

It is reasonable to suppose then that the corresponding Gothic designation "Landahlauts" (allotted, inherited, drawn land), in its phonetic form — "landalos" — became easily and spontaneously, to Arabic ears, "Al-Andalus". Maybe. But it's not totaly true : landahlauts was pronounced landaχlɔts. I don't think arabic would have missed the χ. -- Sajasaze 19:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

You mean [landaxlauts], with velar instead of uvular fricative. Anyway, this objection is not necessarily correct, because languages lose and gain sounds over time. Latin at the time of the Visigoth conquest (and Latin was the living language of Hispania then) didn't have [x], and in Spanish, [ʃ] as in Portuguese 'x' or English 'sh' did not become [x] until after the time of Columbus. So Halm's idea is quite plausible phonetically.
But more importantly, Halm's proposal, although ingenious, is totally unsubstantiated by direct evidence. The person who wrote this Etymology section wrote carelessly, confusing fact with conjecture, messing up citation formats. I have just rewritten the entire section. We have no proof that the Visigoths ever used the word 'landahlauts'. Hurmata 03:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Visigothic Hispania"

Within just the last week, I have wanted to link this article to a concise description of Visigothic Spain. My internal link has twice been undone by "The Ogre", who raises false justifications, some of them baseless obsessions. It is a weak argument to say that the History of Spain has too broad a scope to be a good choice. There are many subdivisions in the History of Spain article. In particular, for now (i.e., until somebody were to edit it) there is a section entitled "Visigothic Hispania". "The Ogre's" approach of linking *separately* to "Visigoths" and "Hispania" is obviously a bad idea for the user becaues either you have to synthesize separate articles or you have to duplicate information between two articles. Even "The Ogre's" second argument, that you *have* to always choose to link to the article of narrower scope, is a weak argument. The Ogre has a disturbing insistence on the false idea that the political entities in Iberia before 1000 A.D. were not Spain. Despite "The Ogre", Spanish history starts at least with the Roman occupation. "The Ogre" inadvertently revealed himself to be a Spanish speaker (by using a Spanish verb in place of an English one), so it is especially annoying for this reasoning to be coming out of him. One last point, a practical point. The article on the Visigoths happens to be very badly written. It is clumsy, inaccurate, overlong. Also, even if it were well writen, it gives too much detail for what I'm after in the Al-Andalus article. Hurmata 00:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Postscript: "The Ogre's" point about "History of Spain" being very broad in scope does have some merit to it. But, in that article, at just the third screenload down, one can see the Table of Contents, with "Visigothic Hispania" being item 3. I think that's sufficient orientation. If somebody cleans up the Visigoths article and provides a concise first or second paragraph to summarize their place in *Spanish* history, then I might be glad to link to that instead. In editing Al-Andalus, I *was* going to write, "Visigothic Spain" until I saw it was being call "V. Hispania" in History of Spain. Strange: the History of Spain says "Roman Spain". Anyway: hey Ogre! When somebody says, "Roman Spain", don't worry, there's no confusion of modern Spain with ancient Iberia! LOL. Hurmata 06:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Hurmata, but there is confusion! An encyclopedia should correct long standing errors, such as calling Spain to Iberia or Hispania. The word "Spain" in modern English (and its counterparts in other languages) means the country of Spain (and it links there!), not all of the Iberian peninsula or Hispania (as the respective articles show). The fact is that Castilian expansionism over the centuries (ask not only the Portuguese, but also the Galicians, the Basques or the Catalans...) tried to monopolize the definition of Iberia in a way that satisfied its imperial interests. In fact, even if Spain was used in ancient times to refer to the whole of Iberia, today it is not. In this sense, given that the Kingdom of Spain only emerges with the union of Castile and Aragon in 1492 (and this is disputed since Navarre was only incoporated in 1512; for a presentation of this issue, see Kings and Queens of Spain), one can almost say that there was never a Spain, in the modern sense, before that! It was Iberia that began being conquered by the Roman Republic, a conquest finalized by the Roman Empire, who called it Hispania. The country of Spain didn't exist then. It was Hispania that was conquered by Suevi, Buri, Vandals, Alans and Visigoths. The country of Spain didn't exist then. It was Visigothic Hispania that was conquered by the Moors. The country of Spain didn't exist then. The Moorish conquest was of Iberia or Hispania (that should not be confused with Spain, even if the modern usage of the term Hispanic is used to denote Spanish speaking peoples). This conquest and subsequent occupation led to a Christian reaction know as the Reconquista from which several Christian kingdoms emerged (such as Asturias, León, Castile, Portugal, Navarre, etc.). Over time Castile came to dominate most of Iberia (but not Portugal, except for a small period between 1580 and 1640) and the use of the castilian word "España" (which is the castilian derivative of the latin Hispania) started as a political strategy to curb autonomy or independence from centralist Madrid (for the same reason Castilian language started to be known as Spanish, implying the irrelevance of other Iberian languages - this was still a problem in the Spain of the 20th century, with the active repression of languages and identities other than Castilian, see Languages of Spain and Nationalities in Spain). Furthermore, if you call Spain to the Iberian peninsula or Hispania, this not only is simply not true, but is felt as profoundly offensive at least by the Portuguese. For all these reasons and more, this article should not emply that Spain is Iberia or Hispania, and that there is an exclusive direct descent from ancient Hispania to modern Spain. Please my friend, acknowledge my good faith and desire for exactness! I have nothing against Spain! quite the opposite. And you should notice that I am a member both of WikiProject Portugal and WikiProject Spain! For all these reasons I believe the link Visigothic Hispania (how about creating a new article just dealing with that?) should not direct to History of Spain, not only this is too broad a scope, but it is wrong, since it implies Spain is Hispania, excluding Portugal. Furthermore, why should there be a link when there is already a box of the "History of Spain"? And even more when in that box the link regarding the period of "Visigothic Hispania" is directly to the article Visigoths (as a sub-entry to the Spanish history stub Medieval Spain)? Hope you do understand my reasonings. I'm not going to change the link just now. I believe we should reach some sort of agreement. Thank you. The Ogre 14:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Mind you, Hurmata, that in most Iberian languages, namely Portuguese and Spanish, "Spain", when refering to the whole of the Iberian Peninsula, was frequently worded in the plural - they spoke of the "Spains" (As Espanhas or Las Españas) - which has quite different connotations... The Ogre 14:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
In my view a link back to the history of Spain toward the beginning of this article is entirely appropriate and useful for the reader. So that the reference isn't too restricted, the opening paragraph could refer to "Visigothic Spain and Portugal" with links to the history articles of each of these nations so that the reader can follow up with one (or both) if further information on the Visigoths in Spain or Portugal is desired. I think that's the simple and best solution, at least until there is an article devoted to the Visigoths in Iberia generally.Corlyon 19:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)Corlyon
I insist: Ogre, in his/her zeal to correct the world's misunderstandings of Spanish and Iberian history, just mucks up the historical facts. Hispania and Iberia essentially mean the same thing strictly *historically*, because "Iberia" is from Ancient Greek and "Hispania" is from Latin. (*Geographically*, they are not equally acceptable because "Iberia" is accepted as having a contemporary reference, while "Hispania" is not.) Furthermore, Portugal the *political* entity *did not yet exist* during the Visigothic period (and did not *come* into existence for another 250 years or so)! PLUS, the Visigoth kingdom included modern Portugal! Corlyon's well meaning suggestion of "Visigothic Spain and Portugal" is therefore historically unjustified *in the present context* (it would only be justified in a discussion limited to *Portuguese* history). Indeed, Ogre's concerns seem to be perfectly addressed by saying "Visigothic Hispania" in preference to "Visigothic Spain": what the Visigoths invaded and governed starting in the 420s WAS Hispania, and with the exception of Galicia (which has never been Portuguese culturally or politically!), the Visigoths soon conquered all of Hispania. (They got Galicia too after another century or so.) So perhaps the rest of you can understand my impatience with Ogre's attempts to "set us straight".
Seems like Ogre is obsessed with the repercussions of Castilian imperialism and chauvinism, to the extent of overstating his/her (let's say "their") case. I find Ogre to be a prisoner of their biases. I would like to interpose some personal history. I visited Spain for a month -- the whole of the visit was in Barcelona. I practiced reading newspapers in the Catalan language and my stay happened to coincide with the Catalan National Day. I have also dabbled in the Basque language and I'm a student of the dialectology of the Spanish language. During the 1994 World Cup, I read Brazilian newspapers. So I am sophisticated as to all the cultural and historical differences Ogre is concerned about. Ogre reasons falsely that if you refer readers to an article about "Spain" for a discussion of Visigothic Hispania, then you are equating modern Spain with Iberia.
I concede to Ogre that ideally, the information I wish to direct readers to should be located in an article on Visigoths or Hispania, or both. But the brief and well written writeup I wanted, I found it in "History of Spain" under the already existing heading of "Visigothic Hispania". If someone perversely had placed this paragraph in the article on Led Zeppelin, I might well have linked to Led Zeppelin! In that event, I would also have placed comments in the respective Discussion pages imploring that somebody move "Visigothic Hispania" from Led Zeppelin to Visigoths and Hispania. Lastly, I still feel that Ogre screwed up by making the phrase "Visigothic Hispania" link to TWO articles (each word linked to an article). I think THAT is "confusing". If you insist on keeping the readers away from History_of_Spain, then pick *one* alternative. Hurmata 06:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello Hurmata. I do not see how do I muck up the historical facts - people that confuse Spain and Hispania (or Iberia - yes! Historically the same thing, but not in the modern geographical sense, I agree) are the one who are mucking up historical facts! And I agree with your reasoning that "Visigothic Spain and Portugal" is historically unjustified in the present context, not only because Portugal did not yet exist during the Visigothic period as a political entity, but also because Spain did not yet exist during the Visigothic period as a political entity! What existed was Hispania - Visigothic Hispania. Let us remeber that this is just a discussion about a link. I disagree with your choice to redirect it to the History of Spain article, though I do give some credit to your idea of not having it linked to two different articles. The best choice would be indeed to have an article called Visighotic Hispania. Why don't we work on it? Meanwhile I'm redirecting the link not just to History of Spain but more specifically to History of Spain#Visigothic Hispania. The Ogre 13:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

A small correction: It was not Galicia that was conquered by the Visigoths, but the Suevi kingdom of Gallaecia, a teritory that always included not only modern Galicia, but also Northern Portugal. And the Suevi kingdom did control for some decades part of the former Roman province of Lusitania. The Ogre 13:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Let me interpose some personal history. I am Portuguese (and male, by the way) and have been in Spain more times then I care to remember (and in all the provinces and autonomous regions). I speak, besides Portuguese (and Galician...), Spanish/Castilian fluently ,and am able to read and maintain a conversation in Catalan (not to mention other languages or dialects of Iberian Romance). I am a sociologist and I like Spain! "So I am sophisticated as to all the cultural and historical differences Ogre is concerned about". You see, the concerns are not just mine... I am just trying to correct some long standing errors! Just the other day a colleague of mine was watching the opening session of a scientific meeting, in Lausanne, done by an American. When she said she was from Lisbon, our American colleague replied "Ah! Lisbon, in Spain!", she then said "No, Lisbon, in Portugal!", to what he replied "Yes, Portugal, in Spain!" - do you see the type of misunderstandings and ignorance many of us (I hope all of us!) are trying to shed some light on? I hope you do. Thank you. The Ogre 13:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

"Meanwhile I'm redirecting the link [. . .] more specifically to [[History of Spain#Visigothic Hispania." Oh, Wikipedia provides the functionality of linking to a section of an article. I am glad to learn of this.

We need for "somebodies" with existing expertise to clean up several articles in this field. I found an account of the Muslim invasion of Iberia which confused the invaders Tarif and Tariq (I thought I saw that in "Visigoths"). The article History_of_Portugal is awful because it is crudely reverential as opposed to encylopedic, and because it is thin as to factual depth.

Ogre, I agree with you, from time to time the good editing of one Wikipedia article requires the editing of articles being linked to. In past moments, it was not feasible for me to take on that much extra work.

I am familiar with the great ignorance of world geography to be found among even Americans with college degrees. Some of them suppose Brazil to be a Spanish speaking country. During the Cold War, a German computer programmer working in the US met coworkers who didn't realize there were two Germanies. Hurmata 16:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

A followup to my preceding comment, off topic and strictly for the amusement of the readers. One of the fifty American states is New Mexico. Many educated Americans think that New Mexico is either part of Mexico or a sovereign nation. An entire book has been written about this phenomenon (by Richard Sandoval in 1986). Hurmata 16:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The proposal to keep the reference to Visigothic Hispania and link back that part of the article on Spain that contains the information on the Visigoths is reasonable. However, I don't really agree that it is actually improper to refer to "Visigothic Spain" just because technically speaking the nation state of Spain did not exist at that time. English-speaking people refer to "bronze age Ireland" or "Renaissance Italy" even though Ireland or Italy didn't exist as nations in the bronze age or the Renaissance. I have on my shelf a book titled "Roman England". The English words "Ireland", "Italy", "England" or "Spain" have long been used in a geographical, not a geopolitical sense, and it's perfectly valid for users of a language to develop their own customs for the use of their own words in their own languages. It's not a question about being careless or mistaken or ignorant, but about communicating ideas and concepts which are readily understandable not only to the well-educated, well-travelled or pedantic, but to the average 14 year old from Wisconsin or Wolverhampton who is interested in learning something about her world. "Visigothic Spain" is not an uncommonly used term in English (when one is dealing with that era). I get 26,600 hits on Google with "Visigothic Spain", versus just under 2000 for "Visigothic Hispania". I believe that it is a goal of Wikipedia to remain accessible to its readers, and sometimes that may mean using terms that are more commonly understood by the speakers of that language.
Finally, the comments about Americans are really patronizing and unnecessary in this forum.Corlyon 01:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)Corlyon
I tend to disagree. Ogre represents himself as being motivated in part by the fact that outside of Iberia there is widespread ignorance of the ethnic and political diversity of Iberia. He supported this motivation with an anecdote in which an American intellectual, a professional academic, showed a dramatic ignorance in this regard. Ogre feels this is not an isolated case. ;) Now, I do agree with you (with the first part of your remarks) that, let me put it this way, Ogre's cure is almost as bad as the disease. But I can't see ;) why it's "unnecessary" to pile on about the reckless ignorance of the best educated Americans. Reminds me of another case. Early in 2004 (a presidential election year) on C-SPAN (for non-Americans, that's a public service cable channel dedicated to interviews and lectures on the arts and current events), a political scientist teaching at one of the world's leading universities, MIT, was giving a public lecture. He related that his 20 something son, employed as an engineer at Microsoft, had just decided to vote in an election for the first time in his life out of indignation at government actions against Microsoft. He asked his father -- the MIT political scientist -- "Dad, when's the election?" The answer: "Uhhh, they're usually held the first week of November." Yes, all you non-Americans: these "slackers" are the people running your world (indirectly, by electing the U.S. presidents and by working for the U.S. corporations that dominate the world's economy). How about the Americans who are unaware that Australia's an English speaking country? This is not a rumor -- an Australian visitor to this country (my native land) described his discovery of this ignorance to a radio reporter. Hurmata 07:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello Hurmata and Corlyon! I really do not have time, just right now, to elaborate on a reply. I'll do latter on. Let me just remark two things, Corlyon:

  1. I did not intend to make a general comment on Americans being ignorant, I merely described something that happened with a colleague of mine quite recently - and I agree that patronizing comments about anyone are unnecessary in this forum.
  2. When you say Italy, you are refering to a present state that occupies the whole of the Italic Peninsula; when you say Ireland you are refering to an island called such and to two states that are both called Ireland; when you say Roman England you are refering to the Roman presence in the territory of modern England (not Wales or Scotland); when you use Spain to denote the whole of the Iberian Peninsula you are doing something very different - you are using the name of a modern country that occupies parte of Iberia to refer to the whole of it, it is as if I said Roman England (and not Roman Britain) and then went on about the Roman presence in Scotland (suppose it had existed perenially).

Do you see my point? Cheers! I'll be back in a while. The Ogre 13:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bernard Lewis

The quote by Bernard Lewis is taken out of context. There is important information before it and after it. Jews of Islam can be accessed from books.google.com (limited access). Also, I believe that Bernard Lewis was talking about Jews of Islam in general and in this case this quote MUST be moved to Dhimmis may be or Minorities in Islam or whatever. --152.14.80.167 14:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History of Portugal & Spain series templates

These templates seem really intrusive & irrelivant, is there any way to modify them so they are hidden, etc. They don't seem to be that well designed either. Fennessy 18:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I have nothing to do with them but I would not say they are irrelevant: Muslim Iberia is a very important part of the history of Spain and Portugal, the same that the Hittites or the Byzantine Empire are an important part of the history of Turkey. Seems failry obvious, isn't it?
Now could they be placed in a less intrusive manner, reformatted in a smaller size or something? Surely. I'd suggest you go to the corresponding Wikiprojects and discuss it there. --Sugaar (talk) 11:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
How about the solution that was found for the article Hispania, that is, to place them in the see also section, paralel to each other? I'll do it, let me know what you think. The Ogre (talk) 14:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV in the Culture section and elsewhere

I agree that Muslim Andalus achieved great things, and I myself added a sentence to summarize that to the introduction. My sentence alludes to sourced statements made later in the article. Nevertheless, this article has over time attracted many sentences of a fawning nature that exceed the historical facts or that seem to paint Islamic civilization in too rosy a tint. There was a fair amount of material which seems like pro-Islamic POV. Perhaps the most prominent example of this was a comparison that seems intended to obscure a finding in a recent report by Arab academics commissioned by the United Nations to evaluate the state of the Arab World. This report was released some time after 2000. One of its findings that was widely publicized in the West was that very little translation into Arabic is done, so little that -- as the report itself noted -- the publishing industry in Spain today does more translation into Spanish in one year than the entire Arabic world has done into Arabic in all history. One contributor to this article made a different contention about publishing in Muslim Spain: that Muslim Spain in the time of the Caliphate of Cordoba produced more publications annually than Spain does today. Maybe it's true. And it's also true that the above mentioned comparison of translation volume has nothing to do with an article on Al-Andalus. Nevertheless, the mention seems POV to me. If we can confirm the reliability of the source given, then it would be OK to restore that sentence to the article. Hurmata (talk) 22:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Here are further examples of previous bad faith edits. Consider the following single passage: "In France, the Muslims were defeated at the Battle of Tours by Charles Martel in 732. This place is known as 'The Pavement of the Martyrs' and in Muslim chronicles as 'Balaat ash-Shuhada'. Muslim control of Toulouse, Narbonne, Lyon and nearby territories varied from time to time. This went on until 975." This is full of historical inaccuracies which consistently serve to overstate Muslim influence and therefore overglorify it. Obviously, only Muslims call the site of the Moors' decisive defeat in France "Pavement of the Martyrs", and that phrase is just the translation of "Balaat ash-Shuhada". Muslims never controlled Lyon -- although they did sack nearby Grenoble and they occupied large parts of Provence 889-955. Muslim control of Toulouse and Narbonne did not "vary from time to time". Toulouse is well inland, near. Moors may have raided the Mediterranean port of Narbonne, but they never ruled it after the defeat of 732. Hurmata (talk) 03:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)