the origin of al Andalus

they valued and not only saved but translated the treatises of the Greeks and Romans, without which they would have been lost.

Well that's not true. Muslims conquered areas that had collections of Greek and Roman texts. Some of these were translated into Arabic, but translation into Arabic isn't what saved them from being lost. And Muslims were only interested in, or only allowed to be interested in, certain types of Greek and Roman texts.

Most Greek texts that we have today were preserved in the Byzantine Empire, and in other parts of Europe in the Middle Ages. Almost all of the translations we have are direct from the original Greek and Latin (and all of the significant texts are direct from Greek and Latin), not from Arabic. Some Arabic translations from Greek were used in western Europe in the earlier Middle Ages, but these were replaced with translations direct from Greek when they became available.
 
^^Read the freaking article...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_world_contributions_to_Medieval_Europe

There are also entire books on it. For goodness sakes' where do you people get your information?

Yes, the Byzantines had them first, but in case you forgot, the Muslims took over the Byzantine Empire and then custody of those manuscripts.

Stop trying to write them and their accomplishments out of history because you don't like them.

You're going to join Deird if you're not careful. There's no place for Nordicist BS here.
 
Do not approach the issue of Al-Andalus as if it were a problem exclusive to modern Spaniards or modern Andalusians. Remember that Portugal was in the area of ​​influence of the Al-Andalus Culture. On the other hand, Portugal consolidated itself as a national state before Spain. In addition, Berbers and Jews settled in Iberia long before the Visigoths arrived. Seems that the last ones (Visigoths) are the source of your national pride.

We contemplate the whole story, nobody is in Spain thinking exclusively of the Visigoths.


During Francoism it was obligatory to learn the complete list of the Gothic kings, I did not have that time and they did not make me learn any list, I on my own did learn that of the Roman emperors, really the names of the Gothic kings for Our tastes today are appalling.


The victors have never been given the identity of the defeated who were also expelled; Although they currently find one or two snp or haplogroups or whatever they want from that time, because victory over Al Andalus is not a racial issue, nor are the expulsions, the reasons are different.


That is our feeling, now if someone wants to give other interpretations, they are free to do so, but they will be wrong.


Al Andalus we do not feel ours, it was the enemy that is defeated and expelled, that easy.
 
One thing exists and is alive and the other only exists in history books, it is not so difficult to understand.

Yes, it is difficult to understand, because the very term ANCESTRY and HERITAGE (whether genetic, cultural, or both) necessarily implies people that only exist now in history books, they're long dead, but they influence later generations on a more obvious or deeper level. By your token, since Germanic tribes and the medieval Germanic kingdoms only exist in history books, then modern Germans and Scandinavians have absolutely no link at all with those ancient populations. And of course they have no continuity at all with the Germanic peoples before their shift to Christianity, right?


If, according to you Al-Andalus was completely different because it belonged to the "Islamic culture", as if Iberians and their culture had simply disappeared because of the PARTIAL (not even total, have you ever heard about Mozarabs?) Islamicization of the region, then I presume that Scandinavia has no links at all to the Viking Era, and Italians are fundamentally different from those pagan Italians with their strange religion and morals, right? Oh, my, how much people can strive to not accept their roots just because of biases that they probably aren't even able to recognize in themselves now!


Our heritage in agriculture and livestock and gastronomy comes from the people of the Christian kingdoms who were settling in the reconquered territories, what can find three monuments of the time, I do not know how many words and any other little thing ok but are they already ours? there is no feeling of continuity, remember, war, reconquest, expulsions, America, please, what are you talking about.


Oh, of course, you modern Andalusians have nothing to do with those ancient people and culture of Al-Andalus... except, of course, the very name of the region, the very name of a large (perhaps even the majority) of toponyms in the region, the very ancient architecture that drives millions of tourists to visit Andalusia every year, a large part of the PEOPLE's ancestors themselves, who simply switched from Christianity to Islam and again to Christianity between the 8th and the 16th centuries, and so on. Oh, yes, almost nothing in common, modern Andalusia is nothing but a bunch of Asturians, Basques and Castillians living over the totally depopulated and forgotten ruins of Al-Andalus, building a society that had absolutely no link with the previous inhabitants of the land. And, of course, millions of people were expelled from Al-Andalus even if the truth is that that expulsion only happened when when all that remained of Al-Andalus was the tiny emirate of Granada, and most Andalusi people had long been under Christian rule and once again Christianized. Yeah, right. lol

(FWIW, you should by know now that many then novel agricultural techniques that allowed Iberia to flourish in the medieval era were brought by those Arabs and Berbers that you want nothing to do with.)


Why do you think you should deny historic and ancestral ties that are just unquestionably obvious if not due to ethnic and religious prejudice? Please let us understand what drives your aim here.


I am an Andalusian of parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, great-grandparents and trastarabuelos.


Yeah, just like there are millions of Britons "of parentsm grandparents, great-grandparents, great-great-grandparents, and trastaruabuelos". That still won't erase the fact that their ethnicity and their national culture was deeply influenced by Celts that already lived in Britain since Antiquity, Germanic migrants that came from what is now Netherlands, Northern Germany and Denmark, and Norman and French people throughout the Middle Ages (especially on a cultural level).


I find it so funny that you guys really think we can't notice the fact that European influences are easily accepted when discussing cultural and genetic changes, but the very moment a North African or Levantine influence is even suggested there comes the splitting of hairs and the nitpicking to deny or diminish it as much as one can possibly get. But of course that has nothing to do with some xenophobia or racism, oh, no, not at all, it's just a "misrepresentation" and "misinterpretation". Perhaps those who also identify with that kind of attitude can pretend they find that explanation convincing.
 
Last edited:
Well that's not true. Muslims conquered areas that had collections of Greek and Roman texts. Some of these were translated into Arabic, but translation into Arabic isn't what saved them from being lost. And Muslims were only interested in, or only allowed to be interested in, certain types of Greek and Roman texts.

Most Greek texts that we have today were preserved in the Byzantine Empire, and in other parts of Europe in the Middle Ages. Almost all of the translations we have are direct from the original Greek and Latin, not from Arabic. Some Arabic translations from Greek were used in western Europe in the earlier Middle Ages, but these were replaced with translations direct from Greek when they became available.

I am going to have to agree with Philjames here and defend the tradition of Christendom, both West and East. So upfront, I am going to fully disclose I am a orthodox Catholic in Doctrine (Nicene Creed and Apostles Creed) even though I will mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa, say up front have my faults. So my post that follows is through this context and perspective.

I think the Greek texts were all preserved in the Byzantine-Eastern Churches, Modern Eastern Orthodoxy today. Much of the Tradition in the major Eastern Churches in Antioch and Alexandria were part of the Eastern Churches and tradition. The Council of Nicea (Canon 6) gave a primacy to the Churches in Antioch and Alexandria, in their regions, since Rome has always had a primacy. More to the the point, the Church in Alexandria's Liturgy came from Greek Liturgies and has influence of some of the Great Eastern/Greek Doctors (Saint Basil the Great, Saint Gregory of Nazinianus) and also has influence of the Liturgy of Saint Mark the Evangelist. According to Saint Papias, who Saint Irenaeus writing in about 180AD indicates was a pupil and friend of Saint Poycapr, but a hearer of Saint John the Apostle, Saint Mark was in Rome with Saint Peter and his Gospel reflects the preaching of Saint Peter in Rome. The Historian Eusebius notes Mark was the first Bishop of Alexandria. So we have clear Greek texts in Alexandria.

In Antioch, the Greek Liturgy of Saint James is the basis, but there are Syriac (translations) versions of it as well. So much of the Greek texts, both secular and Ecclesial were preserved in Churches under the jurisdiction of Alexandria and Antioch.

When the Muslims conquered former Christian lands in former Eastern Roman empire, they did translate all the Greek texts into Arabic, that is true. As Western Christendom was cut off from the actual Greek texts held in Monastaries, Chruches in the East, Medieval and renaissance Catholics (Western Church) generally only had access to the Arabic translations as they reconquered lands that were invaded by Muslims.

As for the Western Tradition (Latin Text), we have very little extant Ancient Latin writings secular and Catholic that have survived. Rather translations of the extant actual texts. However, I will point out very clearly whether some here like it or not, it was the Church of Rome that preserved all of the Secular and Ecclesial Latin Texts that have come down to us. This occurred partially with the Church of Rome directly but more so with all the Monastic traditions that developed after the Fall of the Western Roman Empire. I will give a shout out to the Benedectines here, even though I am Dominican educated K-8, the Benedictines who were formed in Central Italy about 530 AD, some 50 years after the collapse in Rome, hand copied all the extant Latin Texts that were available to them and passed them down through the centuries.

So I am going to have to respectfully disagree with the narrative that the the Medieval Europeans only rediscovered ancient knowledge because the Arabs preserved it. A few examples we have of preservation of early manuscripts and Christendom to make my point.

The oldest complete Bible we have is the Codex Vaticanus, from mid 4th century and written in Greek. It is at the Vatican. Another ancient Codex, the Codex Alexandrinus, a Greek Bible from 5th century, is the property of the Church of England and British Museum I believe. While there is no original Latin Vulgate of Saint Jerome, the Codex Amiatius has a copy of the Latin Vulgate (oldest we have) that was produced by the Benedictines in England!, how about that, back when you guys were still, oh well, I will be ecumenical here.(y), it sometime later was transferred to a Monastery in Florence and is displayed in a museum there, my guess is when King Henry the VIII broke away, lots of the earlier Latin Text were sent back to Rome and the rest of Italy.

The other ancient Codex, the Codex Sinaiticus, another Greek OT and NT, is not in one place, most of it is also in the British Museum. It was probably written in the Levant.

So even with my disclosure up front of my personal religious beliefs, I think the what I wrote does indicate the fact that it was the the Church in both West and East that preserved much of the Latin and Greek texts. Since Greek was the lingua franca in many parts of the Eastern Roman empire and it was the Liturgical language of the Church there, Arabs would have been conversant in Greek and thus able to translate those ancient Greek texts from the primary Eastern Christian Greek sources and bring them with them as they expanded West. That is true. But some of the Monks in the West still spoke some Greek as well so some might have also been translated in the West, Latin obviously and those works were translated by the Church in the West. The Arabs-Muslims did take advantage of the ancient knowledge from the Greeks and Latin text and use it to their advantage, yes.
 
Yes, it is difficult to understand, because the very term ANCESTRY and HERITAGE (whether genetic, cultural, or both) necessarily implies people that only exist now in history books, they're long dead, but they influence later generations on a more obvious or deeper level. By your token, since Germanic tribes and the medieval Germanic kingdoms only exist in history books, then modern Germans and Scandinavians have absolutely no link at all with those ancient populations. And of course they have no continuity at all with the Germanic peoples before their shift to Christianity, right?


If, according to you Al-Andalus was completely different because it belonged to the "Islamic culture", as if Iberians and their culture had simply disappeared because of the PARTIAL (not even total, have you ever heard about Mozarabs?) Islamicization of the region, then I presume that Scandinavia has no links at all to the Viking Era, and Italians are fundamentally different from those pagan Italians with their strange religion and morals, right? Oh, my, how much people can strive to not accept their roots just because of biases that they probably aren't even able to recognize in themselves now!





Oh, of course, you modern Andalusians have nothing to do with those ancient people and culture of Al-Andalus... except, of course, the very name of the region, the very name of a large (perhaps even the majority) of toponyms in the region, the very ancient architecture that drives millions of tourists to visit Andalusia every year, a large part of the PEOPLE's ancestors themselves, who simply switched from Christianity to Islam and again to Christianity between the 8th and the 16th centuries, and so on. Oh, yes, almost nothing in common, modern Andalusia is nothing but a bunch of Asturians, Basques and Castillians living over the totally depopulated and forgotten ruins of Al-Andalus. Yeah, right. lol

(FWIW, you should by know now that many then novel agricultural techniques that allowed Iberia to flourish in the medieval era were brought by those Arabs and Berbers that you want nothing to do with.)


Why do you think you should deny historic and ancestral ties that are just unquestionably obvious if not due to ethnic and religious prejudice? Please let us understand what drives your aim here.





Yeah, just like there are millions of Britons "of parentsm grandparents, great-grandparents, great-great-grandparents, and trastaruabuelos". That still won't erase the fact that their ethnicity and their national culture was deeply influenced by Celts that already lived in Britain since Antiquity, Germanic migrants that came from what is now Netherlands, Northern Germany and Denmark, and Norman and French people throughout the Middle Ages (especially on a cultural level).


I find it so funny that you guys really think we can't notice the fact that European influences are easily accepted when discussing cultural and genetic changes, but the very moment a North African or Levantine influence is even suggested there comes the splitting of hairs and the nitpicking to deny or diminish it as much as one can possibly get. But of course that has nothing to do with some xenophobia or racism, oh, no, not at all, it's just a "misrepresentation" and "misinterpretation". Perhaps those who also identify with that kind of attitude can pretend they find that explanation convincing.


To begin with, Spain is in Europe, it is not surprising that we feel more empathy with the countries of the continent to which we belong and with which we have always related.

And for everything else I don't have to prove anything to you.


He has had the privilege of knowing first hand as a Spanish citizen how it is, how we see it and how we feel it.


The rest of lucubrations, imaginations or how you would like the thing to be is your problem.

For us, Al Andalus does not have continuity with modern Spain, the Reconquest, expulsions, repopulation does.


Dead and buried

Gap, pit, parenthesis, problem solved, the end.


That's right, accept it, what other interest can you have that is as it is not.

The first time in the history of humanity that it is intended to give the victors the identity of the defeated and expelled.

What should be studied and investigated when or how this confusion is created abroad and what is worse still that lasts to this day.
 
Can I ask what would have caused those texts to be lost in the first place had it not been for Arabs?
 
To begin with, Spain is in Europe, it is not surprising that we feel more empathy with the countries of the continent to which we belong and with which we have always related.

And for everything else I don't have to prove anything to you.


He has had the privilege of knowing first hand as a Spanish citizen how it is, how we see it and how we feel it.


The rest of lucubrations, imaginations or how you would like the thing to be is your problem.

For us, Al Andalus does not have continuity with modern Spain, the Reconquest, expulsions, repopulation does.


Dead and buried

Gap, pit, parenthesis, problem solved, the end.


That's right, accept it, what other interest can you have that is as it is not.

The first time in the history of humanity that it is intended to give the victors the identity of the defeated and expelled.

What should be studied and investigated when or how this confusion is created abroad and what is worse still that lasts to this day.

Carlos: My opinion, very well said. I have my theories on why what is going on as it relates to your last sentence. I will use an example that I think Will make my point. When Notre Dame in Paris burned, there was a segment in France with allies in other lets say very Pro EU sectors that Notre Dame should not be rebuilt as it was because of where it is in Paris it should not reflect the culture and theology and beliefs of the people who built it. It should be built or rebuilt to reflect modern "secular France" monument to the multitude of modern beliefs, or lack thereof, in today's France. Modern Secular France does not want it to be rebuilt to reflect the past of France when it was recognized throughout Europe as the eldest daughter of the Church. They want it to reflect the eldest daughter of the modernist secularist neo-marxist state.

From my perspective, rebuild it to reflect the culture of what inspired it, medieval Catholic Christendom. It would rather see it burn to the ground to cave in to the militant modern European Secularist. In summary, the reason they don't want to rebuild it because it is a visible reminder of a past in France that does not reflect there modern world view. Yes, men and women had flaws then, as now, but the belief system of what inspired it was the Catholic Faith, not Marxist-deconstructionist Bull Sh.....

So that is my opinion on the subject, just that, not a dogmatic statement of fact.
 
As the Umayyad Caliphate expanded further South and started caravans with kingdoms in SSA around 1,000 AD, they acquired more slaves from that part of the world and you see that show up in the data in the period 1000-1600 AD.

The Ummayads fell in 750 A.D., so they couldn't have been the ones expanding towards SSA kingdoms and tribes around 1000 A.D. Who did that were rather the already split successors of the once unified Islamic Empire: the Abbasids, the several dynasties of North Africa, etc.

Not just slaves, though. The Afro-Centrists claims are ridiculously over the top, but I think they have just one rightful demand: that mainstream science really needs to start talking about SSA without the exclusive assumption that all that matters is the slave trade, and rarely if ever do we hear any talk about facts involving the contacts between SSA and other regions except if they revolve around the topic of slave trade. It's like they had no history but the slave trade.

There were certainly many mostly or partly SSA people in the army hosts and political elites of some Arabo-Berber Muslim dynasties, especially the Almoravids, who I think have the best claim as those who brought slightly more SSA influence onto the Northern Maghreb and Iberia, because the origins of the Almoravids are in what is now southern Mauritania. That said, many of those people could've been just Saharawis, who, though of course much darker-skinned than average Iberians, are Berbers with a very different mostly non-SSA origin.

Almoravid_Empire.png
 
When the Muslims conquered former Christian lands in former Eastern Roman empire, they did translate all the Greek texts into Arabic, that is true. As Western Christendom was cut off from the actual Greek texts held in Monastaries, Chruches in the East, Medieval and renaissance Catholics (Western Church) generally only had access to the Arabic translations as they reconquered lands that were invaded by Muslims.

No, entirely false.
Most of the translations into Arabic were made by Christians, usually Greek or Syriac Christians.
Besides, many texts were still existing in monasteries in France for example in Mont-St-Michel.
It's a proven fact that Medieval Western Catholicism never lost knowledge of all these texts and certainly does not "need" Arabic translations. That BS about Arabic transmission amounts to rewriting history.


So I am going to have to respectfully disagree with the narrative that the the Medieval Europeans only rediscovered ancient knowledge because the Arabs preserved it. A few examples we have of preservation of early manuscripts and Christendom to make my point.

yes, fully agreed !

Since Greek was the lingua franca in many parts of the Eastern Roman empire and it was the Liturgical language of the Church there, Arabs would have been conversant in Greek and thus able to translate those ancient Greek texts from the primary Eastern Christian Greek sources and bring them with them as they expanded West. That is true.

No, that was the Greek and Syriac Christians who did most of the translations.
Muslim Arabs did not contribute anything in this process of translation.
 
Yes, of course, that's why they immediately gutted down into ashes Alexandria's library, right upon arriving in Egypt. (y)(y)

Do you still believe that pseudo-scientific myth debunken long ago? There was no glori Alexandria library by the time of Christan Egypt, let alone by the time of the Muslim invasion. The great library everyone talks about was probably destroyed by the time of Julius Caesar, either due to violent conquest or an accidental fire. It survived but in an increasingly decadent form due to pure and simple lack of interest. Culture and intellectual priorities were shifting in Late Antiquity, states were becoming much more pressed by economic and military shortcomings. I know, the truth is so much less dramatic and interesting than the pseudo-historic myths that somehow fit the preconceived agendas of people who wish to believe in them, but it is what it is.

The latter versions of it were much smaller in scale, an imperial repression of Egyptian rebels may have destroyed whatever remained of it, and by the time of Christian Egypt it was basically only the so-called "Serapeum", which collected part of the collection of the earlier library alongside a pagan temple. Christians might have plundered and partly destroyed the temple, but it's not conclusively known if they also targeted the library within it or even if there were still books in it. Maybe it was all taken out before the pagan temple was closed off. By the time of the Muslim invasion nothing that could even be compared to the great library of "popular history" was still on.

What kind of books have you been reading? From this comment of yours I'm sure Angela has been reading better ones. Ironically, if someone was really responsible for the sad end of the library of Alexandria, it seems the blame should be placed on the Romans who ruled Egypt for centuries and apparently didn't care much for it.
 
To begin with, Spain is in Europe, it is not surprising that we feel more empathy with the countries of the continent to which we belong and with which we have always related.

And for everything else I don't have to prove anything to you.


He has had the privilege of knowing first hand as a Spanish citizen how it is, how we see it and how we feel it.


The rest of lucubrations, imaginations or how you would like the thing to be is your problem.

For us, Al Andalus does not have continuity with modern Spain, the Reconquest, expulsions, repopulation does.


Dead and buried

Gap, pit, parenthesis, problem solved, the end.


That's right, accept it, what other interest can you have that is as it is not.

The first time in the history of humanity that it is intended to give the victors the identity of the defeated and expelled.

What should be studied and investigated when or how this confusion is created abroad and what is worse still that lasts to this day.

For me there is a lot that can be said about you and the education you've been given in the fact that it is clear from your writing that you think the "Europeanness" and the "national identity" of Spaniards and Andalusian Spaniards in particular are totally at stake and under risk of being erased if Al-Andalus is accepted as an integral part of their history and as a historic period in which a large part of their ancestors lived (therefore it is part of the nation's history). Is Limpieza de sangre still that popular? I wasn't aware of it, but it seems so when you consider that getting rid of those Muslims (in their majority Muslim Iberians, should I add), and not just of the Muslim-ruled states known as Al-Andalus, was "problem solved" when expulsions and repopulation were enacted. Really nice point of view, but it's particularly interesting coming from someone who the other day was willing to accept some absurd imaginary connection between the Iberian language and Altaic peoples, but is not willing to concede that people who lived in his own country less than 1000 years ago are in any way ancestral to the modern population living in it. Bizarre, but interesting.

No, man, you may rest assured: some drops of blood from people who were once Berbers and Arabs won't make you and your people any less European, and surprisingly people can change to some religion and then change again to some other religion, that won't completely change their genes nor even their culture, and believe it or not the large majority of those Muslims of Al-Andalus that you feel modern Andalusians have nothing to do with were in fact Iberians with a largely Iberian culture and genetic makeup, just like we know now that Levantines didn't suddenly become Arabian because they switched from Eastern Christianity to Islam (and, of course, we also know that in Iberia just like in the Levant a relevant part of the population remained Christian even after centuries of Muslim rule).

This has nothing to do with "identity" or your cherished "European access entry". You're the one mixing modern topics like national identity with long gone historic events. This is actually about history and genetics. Sorry, but one day or another you will simply have to come to grips with the overwhelming evidence that the expulsions and repopulation that you brag so proudly about it to "solve the problem" of Al-Andalus was actually a much more gradual, slow and nuanced affair and involved a lot less expulsion and depopulation than you would like to sever the ties with that dreaded Muslim past once and for good.
 
Do you still believe that pseudo-scientific myth debunken long ago? There was no glori Alexandria library by the time of Christan Egypt, let alone by the time of the Muslim invasion. The great library everyone talks about was probably destroyed by the time of Julius Caesar, either due to violent conquest or an accidental fire. It survived but in an increasingly decadent form due to pure and simple lack of interest.

The latter versions of it were much smaller in scale, an imperial repression of Egyptian rebels may have destroyed whatever remained of it, and by the time of Christian Egypt it was basically only the so-called "Serapeum", which collected part of the collection of the earlier library alongside a pagan temple. Christians might have plundered and partly destroyed the temple, but it's not conclusively known if they also targeted the library within it or even if there were still books in it. Maybe it was all taken out before the pagan temple was closed off. By the time of the Muslim invasion nothing that could even be compared to the great library of "popular history" was still on.

then, why did Muslims brag about having burned this library, which, according to them, contained nothing of any value, as everything is already in the Qur'an?
Your theory is that there was no library to burn and brag about !?
 
For me there is a lot that can be said about you and the education you've been given in the fact that it is clear from your writing that you think the "Europeanness" and the "national identity" of Spaniards and Andalusian Spaniards in particular are totally at stake and under risk of being erased if Al-Andalus is accepted as an integral part of their history and as a historic period in which a large part of their ancestors lived (therefore it is part of the nation's history). Is Limpieza de sangre still that popular? I wasn't aware of it, but it seems so when you consider that getting rid of those Muslims (in their majority Muslim Iberians, should I add), and not just of the Muslim-ruled states known as Al-Andalus, was "problem solved" when expulsions and repopulation were enacted. Really nice point of view, but it's particularly interesting coming from someone who the other day was willing to accept some absurd imaginary connection between the Iberian language and Altaic peoples, but is not willing to concede that people who lived in his own country less than 1000 years ago are in any way ancestral to the modern population living in it. Bizarre, but interesting.

No, man, you may rest assured: some drops of blood from people who were once Berbers and Arabs won't make you and your people any less European, and surprisingly people can change to some religion and then change again to some other religion, that won't completely change their genes nor even their culture, and believe it or not the large majority of those Muslims of Al-Andalus that you feel modern Andalusians have nothing to do with were in fact Iberians with a largely Iberian culture and genetic makeup, just like we know now that Levantines didn't suddenly become Arabian because they switched from Eastern Christianity to Islam (and, of course, we also know that in Iberia just like in the Levant a relevant part of the population remained Christian even after centuries of Muslim rule).

This has nothing to do with "identity" or your cherished "European access entry". You're the one mixing modern topics like national identity with long gone historic events. This is actually about history and genetics. Sorry, but one day or another you will simply have to come to grips with the overwhelming evidence that the expulsions and repopulation that you brag so proudly about it to "solve the problem" of Al-Andalus was actually a much more gradual, slow and nuanced affair and involved a lot less expulsion and depopulation than you would like to sever the ties with that dreaded Muslim past once and for good.

Writing to foreign affairs to see what is failing in relations with Brazil, this cannot be real.


I have been truly surprised that Brazilians know so little about us or draw so many prejudices and misinterpretations about us.


I do not boast of anything, it is the testimony of a native, was he ever that lucky?


The Iberian and Altai thing is not mine, I moved it here to see the opinions.


I did not think that in Brazil they knew us so little or that they saw us with such a biased and strange lens, I do not recognize myself in their words which indicates that they do not know me either.
 
^^Read the freaking article...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_world_contributions_to_Medieval_Europe

There are also entire books on it. For goodness sakes' where do you people get your information?

Yes, the Byzantines had them first, but in case you forgot, the Muslims took over the Byzantine Empire and then custody of those manuscripts.

Stop trying to write them and their accomplishments out of history because you don't like them.

You're going to join Deird if you're not careful. There's no place for Nordicist BS here.



Don't forget Angela, without the Church and the Christian scholars that were often monks, priests the Islamic scholars wouldn't have access to this knowledge of the Classic Greeks and Romans, in the first place. Christian scholars were copying, translating and archiving the ancient knowledge of the Greeks long after the Muslims were ruling and dominating. Keep in mind that anything but Nordicism is being pushed in the academic world that is full of left leaning people who fall over themselves to counter Eurocentrism and white supremacy. Hence, I do think that you heavily overestimate the influence of Nordicism.

It appears to me that you are not aware of the Crusade against European history and heritage that is going on for decades now.
Christianity, the Christian heritage and identity of Europe are under massive attack in the West and not Islam and its achievements which are protected by the PC brigades, diversity- police and the liberal intellectual elite. Again the PC brigades, SJWs, the woke elitists and liberals have declared their HOLY WAR on Christian Europe.


We see in front of our eyes history being erased, cultural vandalism taking place, statues being torn down, Christian sacred art being desecrated and defiled by a ruthless mob, all that in the name of diversity, inclusion, respect for other cultures, tolerance and wokeness. In Western schools, documentaries you hear a lot about the Golden Age of Islam while almost nothing about the Christian Byzantine Empire that paved the way for the Golden Age of Islam and played a major role for the emergence of the Renaissance. Yet modern anti- christian scholars rather give credit exclusively to Muslims for the preservation of the so-called lost knowledge and science of ancient Greek philosophers while ignoring Christian Byzantine refugees who brought their knowledge, manuscripts, the Greek language with them to Venice and Florence and helped to start the Renaissance. In all respect Angela, claiming that not Muslims but Christian scholars preserved the Greco-Roman heritage has nothing to do with Nordicism in any form, shape or fashion, it's just a mere fact. The Muslim invaders didn't destroy the hard work of the Christians of mainting the Greco-Roman legacy for centuries, for that you can be grateful, yes. That being said look at the Muslim Turks and their erasure of the rich heritage of the Byzantine Empire.





 
Let me make one thing clear the Arabs or North African Moors , etc. had their own achievements in culture, architecture, science and cuisine. Furthermore, Muslim Moors had a great impact on Southern Europe but in the rest of Europe not so much. However, the contribution of the Muslim scholars concerning the classical work of Aristotle was their excellent commentaries on the difficult work of Aristotle. They made his philosophy and ideas more understandable. Therefore they helped scholars in exploiting them. Having said that Christian Byzantine refugees and scholars who fled to Venice and Florence after the Turks sacked Constantinople, brought the so-called lost work oft he ancient Greeks to the West, to Venice and Florence. The played a bigger role than the Muslim in introducing this forgotten or missing knowledge to Western scholars.


We should be grateful to the Church and their monks who worked their asses and backs off to copy all these classic literatures and libraries. I have seen documentaries about the Golden Age of Islam where Christian Europe was portrayed as dark, dirty, backwards and inferior. In these documentaries they showed two contrasts on one side there were monks living in somber monasteries in Europe that lacked the shining light of the enlightenment of the wonderful Islamic world. Till today is fashionable to teach the myth about the Church being anti-science and to refer to the Medieval times as the Dark Ages. The contributions of the Catholic Church, the Byzantine people and Protestants in art and science like any Christian contributions that made Europe great are being written off from history. Just saying.
 
The Ummayads fell in 750 A.D., so they couldn't have been the ones expanding towards SSA kingdoms and tribes around 1000 A.D. Who did that were rather the already split successors of the once unified Islamic Empire: the Abbasids, the several dynasties of North Africa, etc.

Not just slaves, though. The Afro-Centrists claims are ridiculously over the top, but I think they have just one rightful demand: that mainstream science really needs to start talking about SSA without the exclusive assumption that all that matters is the slave trade, and rarely if ever do we hear any talk about facts involving the contacts between SSA and other regions except if they revolve around the topic of slave trade. It's like they had no history but the slave trade.

There were certainly many mostly or partly SSA people in the army hosts and political elites of some Arabo-Berber Muslim dynasties, especially the Almoravids, who I think have the best claim as those who brought slightly more SSA influence onto the Northern Maghreb and Iberia, because the origins of the Almoravids are in what is now southern Mauritania. That said, many of those people could've been just Saharawis, who, though of course much darker-skinned than average Iberians, are Berbers with a very different mostly non-SSA origin.

Almoravid_Empire.png

Well then they should focus on their history and stop trying to claim Egyptian and Moorish history. Or stop coming up with over the top claims of connection to Rome or even more funny Vikings. I'm sure SSA has its own history but they don't seem to care because they keep on trying to steal Eurasian history.

SSA people among the Moors would have been a minority. Nobody can argue against that. And even the more exotic elements among them like you said could have been Saharawis or Saharawi like. And there's no evidence that they were the ones contributing to the culture. The cultural influences were Berber and Levantine (if indeed the pointed arch is an influence).
 
The Ummayads fell in North Africa in terms of their capital, but they were the ones ruling in Spain till 1050. The Abbasids never ruled that far, their territory extended as far as Tunisia, they were always based in the Levant, either Demascus or Baghdad, which they built. It was the Ummayads who ruled from Persia, Turkey all the way to the Maghreb and Spain, but only till 750 AD as you noted. It was a Berber revolt that formed the Baghawata Confederation that rained from 750 till 11th century in what used to by Ummayad Caliphate North Africa. Social Structure in both Ummayad and Abbasid Caliphates Social structure always had Arab-Muslims as 1, 2) Non Arab Muslims, 3) Dhimmis and then slaves. The Berbers got tired of being sent to get killed in the front line troops and rebelled against the Arabs. So not directly the Ummayads but they took over and they did have contacts further South or in the case you have above, trade routes from the South linked up with NW Africa.

I agree Southern Mauritania which stretches down into were West African countries like Senegal are, and Mali borders it as well at its furthest point South. Slavery in Africa is hard to pen down but it might have been Arab-Muslims moved further South along the Nile into East Africa much sooner than further West.

The issue of the Arab-Muslim slave trade is one that has only gotten attention really in the last 20 years. Here is an article from an independent Black Newspaper that puts the number of Black Slaves taken at 10 to 20 million

https://atlantablackstar.com/2014/0...vement-of-black-people-not-taught-in-schools/

New York Times book review of the Arab-Muslim slave trade, estimates are in line with what was reported in the article in the paper above, citing the work of Dr John Azumah and 2001 book.

https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/01/03/04/reviews/010304.04hochsct.html

Both works point out the slave ratio was always heavily female, the men were castrated and served as guards of the Muslim elite and their property, concubines, etc and sent off to fight as well.

Off the top of my head, all the of DNA studies on modern North African DNA when analyzing increase in SSA admixture have always, always, documented that it is female mtdna dominated, which is consistent with what we know about the Arab-Muslim slave trade of Black SSA people. On the other hand, I think the evidence of the European Transatlantic slave trade is just the opposite, it was more Male dominated given the terrible conditions of being sent on ship across the ocean, it was more likely Men would survive. I don't have a cite on that but that is from memory based on historian articles on the European Transatlantic slave trade.
 

This thread has been viewed 49305 times.

Back
Top