St John of Damascus, a Doctor of the Church, spoke very strongly about Islam. I think I’ll take a Doctor of the Church over an Americanized Catholic understanding of “history” that is more shaped by MSNBC than by the Church, the Bible, and the Doctors of the Church.
Clearly I was using Spain and the Iberian Peninsula interchangeably-- as I used both terms. It’s common to refer to vast historical lands using today’s geographical names. For instance, I could refer to France while discussing all the dozens of tribes that existed thousands of years ago, and any historian would know what I’m talking about. Charles Martel was considered a French king, even though “France” wasn’t created until 1792. So your distinction is spurious.
Ah, so that’s why my history books inform me that William the Conqueror invaded the United Kingdom not England, Julius Caeser conquered France not Gaul, and the Jews were taken captive by Iraq not Babylon. Oh wait, my history books don’t inform me of these facts.
As for France, no you couldn’t use the term to describe the numerous tribes that existed in the region now known as France (see what I did there) because the term France is directly related to one particular Germanic tribe- the Franks. Also your 1792 date is for the first constitutional monarchy of France. The term itself, unlike the term “Spain”, predates 1792 as does the terms “Kingdom of the Franks” and “King of the Franks.”
The reality is that the Muslims invaded Spain-- the area known as Spain today-- in 711 AD and killed and destroyed the native people there. They invaded all the way up into France, when they were stopped by Charles Martel. They came there very aggressively. It wasn’t “peaceful immigration,” as you suggested.
I suggested a peaceful immigration to Spain, not Iberia. As I’ve pointed out before the two aren’t the same. As for the military conquest of Iberia by the Muslims, so what? It’s not like their conquest of Iberia was a unique historical event without historical precedents.
So any widespread “Islamic immigration” and “peace and harmony” throughout Spain’s history that you refer to was actually violent, with Christians having to live in Dhimmitude and paying crippling Jizya taxes. Meanwhile you were trying to portray the Muslims and Christians living together peacefully for centuries. It’s completely laughable. It’s like saying African-American’s and their masters lived together peacefully. The Christians had to pay Jizya and accept Dhimmi status, just as the blacks in the South had to accept a lower status.
Well first, you apparently know nothing about slavery in the US if you think it is a good analogy to use. Secondly, and this might shock you, the idea of having a portion of the populace be second class citizens or discriminated against isn’t new or a Muslim created concept. Heck, contemporary Christian states of the time had similar practices, often times with the discriminated portion of the populace receiving even less protection by the crown.
St John of Damascus, a Doctor of the Church, spoke very strongly about Islam. I think I’ll take a Doctor of the Church over an Americanized Catholic understanding of “history” that is more shaped by MSNBC than by the Church, the Bible, and the Doctors of the Church.
Yes, he spoke strongly about Islam, but the Church didn’t make him a Doctor for his writings concerning Islam; and his writings concerning Islam have nothing to do with the Muslim invasion of Iberia (or are you arguing he wrote an authoritative work concerning the Iberian invasion and life under Islamic Iberia?). Second “Americanized Catholic?” Careful, your political bias is showing.
. Britian has already caved in to Jihad. I prefer scholarly sources.
Neither does your argument. 