ISNA Longs to Replace Spain with Islamic 'Andalusia'

The jews will probably rather go to the USA rather than Europe i my guess. The islamists already think that all of earth should rightfully be under muslim rule, directly or otherwise. That some lands were previously muslim doesn't really matter, they do by no means want to keep themselves to that. It's just a reason that appeals to westerners. They already have casi belli on the whole world.

The only reason islam can pose a threat to us is because we let them. If Israel goes it will be because the west let them go, and if the arabs think they can get too aggressive against europe they're wrong. What's happening now is that we still have this picture of them as benign but if they get too uppity that'll change and they'll get stomped. They're better off as doing it sneakily because in terms of power they've got nothing.

 

You are contradicting yourself you admit Muslim conquered it or took it by force from Christians and for that it become Muslim land?? It took several centuries for Christians to retake it because Christians did not have any holy warriors that is equivalent to the jihadist until in 1100 when finally Christians woke up and initiated the Crusade after Muslim show no sign of stopping their conquest.

Yes, Muslim were the ones who introduce the integration of holy war with politics as one. Christian political leaders saw the advantage of such integration to motivate soldiers to fight harder and with zeal.

I don't like Islamist I also know that Muslims do not know how to distinguish that so I have no problem if Muslims will say I hate Muslims because I understand that they do not understand Islam because for them to be a devout Muslim they must hate Christians and none Christians theylike ot generalise.
Yes Muslim empire was ONCE very advance more advance than Christian nations and it was their own Muslim Islamist who brought down their own glory a downfall that I am sure you refuse to recognize instead you prefer to blame it on the Christian. And Arab culture did flourished once they moved out from the Arab peninsula that was under Muslim rule and control thanks to Western or Christian nations Arabs were able to expand and share their knowledge with Christian West not the Muslim nations and that is the factual history that you would prefer to ignore.

 

There is no contradiction. What is that you don't get about muslims taking land from christians and thus ruling over it, and muslims living there, being muslim lands? It's not terribly hard to understand. Wheter they took it by force or not is completely irrelevant to wheter it was ever muslim lands or not. No, christians could reconquer al-andalus because they didn't have any holy warrior but because they were much weaker than the muslims. But then andalucia split up and the spanish got more organised and there we go. Neither were the muslims particularly succesfull at expanding when the crusades got going. They did most of their expansion much earlier than that and when the crusades got along they hadn't made any great advances into europe.

No, it was the christened romans who first thought of the idea of a just religious war, way before the muslims ever came along. And politics and religion were combined in rome just as christianity became the official religion, and they banned paganism and shut down the temples. Christianity was seen by the romans as something which could unify their disintegrating empire.

"once" makes it sound very petty doesn't it? I'd say some 600-700 years before the europeans took the lead. The reason of their stagnation could very well be religious conservatism, but what do i know. What do you mean that western cultures made the arabs flourish? Much of this is just looking up what the old greeks did and continue to build on that. That's what they did, and what europe didn't do to the same extent.

 

i have answered already ,

al-andalus was prosperous and wealthy very short period of time , and it had very limited contacts with Franks

no it was not, only the western part of Roman empire was on decline, the eastern part had its golden age


"lead in certain fields." for example?

 

I don't think you have really. What happened in 400 ad that is the birth of western civilization?

Depends on what you mean by short, but atleast you've accepted that they were wealthy now.

And about the maps.. It's quite unfair to show a map even before the muslims took spain, and better yet even before the arab invasions started. Let me give you maps to show you what I mean by the the romans getting severly pwned. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/East-Hem_700ad.jpg here we are a mere hundred years later. Notice how the romans have lost the lands starting from alexandretta going all the way along the coast to tangier to the muslims, and notice how the slavs and bulgars are winning in the balkans. and now http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Europe_814.svg and now we see them getting pushed out from italy too, and muslims in spain. Bordering the frankish, whom you say they didn't have much contact with?

I would hardly call that a golden age, quite the opposite. The arab invasion was what would make their decline totally irreversible. the later romans' golden age was under justinianus I, look it up.

The time from the 7th century 'til the sacking of baghdad isn't called the islamic golden age for no reason you know. They learned about many things from the chinese, like paper and gunpowder, and continued upon old greek thinking. jaibr "the first chemist", al-haytham "father of optics" are just two of many prominent scientists. and irrigation, they were leading in irrigation techniques.

 

Wrong again! They were freeing the Christian lands from their Islamic occupiers. Problem was, after fighting so hard for it they didn't want to give the lands back to the emperor. As for the Jews, they were no problem in that part of the world, nor were the Muslims until they tried to take it over and make everyone else a 'dhimmi'.

 

No one said you weren't one sided. The Christians and Jews were 'dhimmi', which meant they were inferior people but were allowed to survive with their religion intact providing they paid a high tax. I don't know about the Arabs, but I know in the Ottoman lands, not only were the Christians taxed by giving up one son to be raised a Muslim and Janisary, they were also not allowed to ride horses since they must always be lower than a Muslim. Many times they had to carry a Muslim on their backs.

Also the Muslims had slaves, not only black slaves but white ones as well. At the time of Barbarossa, who was so evil he actually chewed people, and who now has a shrine as a tribute to him near Istanbul, the whole coast of Italy had been evacuated for fear of piracy and slavery. They even sailed as far as Britain and weren't stopped until the U.S. refused to pay them ransom. We decided to go to war instead...typical.

Now are you going to tell me the Arab tribes weren't fighting one another? Didn't Mohamed have armies?

 

and [QUOTE][B][U]Constantinople ...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Empire

 

probably so, but notice that in the text you quote they say that they sought a return to the brilliance before the slavic and arab invasions, id est during justinianus I reign. And capable as the macedonians may be, so was justinian also. I feel that I can safely assume that the empire was much better off during justinian than under the macedonians and even though they probably did the best of the situation, if you've lost all of africa and the levant to the muslims, lost your holdings in spain and italy to germans, slavs pushing into the balkans, and then finally turks come and beat you in anatolia.. It's really not going terribly well for you, I'm sorry to say.

 

wrong, they will move to USA(California) , 500 000 Israelis already live there

 

read the whole text not only part which you want to read. slavic and arab invasions did not kill the ERE, this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Crusade what killed the ERE. call to SU they will conform my words

 

I never claimed they killed of the romans, I said they pwned them, there's a huge difference. By the way, the crusaders didn't kill it either, the turks did. I'm just saying that after losing more than half of it's area, it can't really be said to have a golden age.

 

A half million Israelis live in California?
or a half million Jews?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_American

 

lets blame the Turks for everything , again the ERE has never recovered from Venice mastered terrorist attack

 

Because the turks were the ones who actually captured all roman lands and put an end to them forever. The crusaders didn't do that. Venice and the west obviously did screwed them over pretty hard, but they weren't killed off.

 

There! I never said that. Of course it's justified for christians to try to take it back, and it can be both christian and muslim land at the same time. But then, me personally don't hold a religious casus belli as a legitimate one, I use the nationalist one. eu3 joke hehehe

Yes, the byzantine empire is the eastern roman empire and where scholars draw the distinction between it and the old roman empire is sometime in the 4th century, which is before islam. your point? But anyhow, seeing as constantine ruled a unified empire, and thus the roman one not the byzantine, and was christian, what do you make of that? not a christian roman? what about agustinus?

How odd that the regression started with a golden age then. No, the initial islamic invasions didn't bring about a regression; they had a golden age just like I said. And constantinople, Istanbul, actually became much richer under the padishah. Then came the regression; rather late, not just after the invasions.

 

So, just over a hundred thousand live in the USA, and California has about a ninth of the population of the US, so that half million figure is really somewhere around ten thousand, give or take.

 

deadly logic, California has the biggest Israeli community in USA ,PS " estimated broadly from 200,000 to three times that figure"

 

really?