That Islamic takeover

Some Europeans seem rather more keen on it than others.

As all will know, all around here being edumacated, the Algarve was part of the Muslim world once (Al Garve meaning “The West”). And the next town over, Silves, seems happy enough for it to be so again. Or at least that’s the message I get.

All the towns around here have little signs as you enter: you are now entering Messines, have a nice day sorta stuff. And as you leave, thank you for your visit and come again soon.

OK, and these are normally in a few different languages, Portuguese, Spanish, English, maybe German and or French. Except for Silves which also has that “come again soon!” message in Arabic.

The Arabs left here in 1251 or so……

27 comments on “That Islamic takeover

  1. They likely have plans to return Tim–if we are stupid and cowardly enough to let them.

    And, generally, it seems that we are.

  2. Are we allowed to bear a permanent grudge against Muslims on account of their invasion of the Iberian peninsula (and France) in the same way as they keep wittering on about the Crusades?

  3. “Are we allowed to bear a permanent grudge against Muslims on account of their invasion of the Iberian peninsula (and France) in the same way as they keep wittering on about the Crusades?”

    No, but they’re allowed a permanent grudge for being kicked out a couple of hundred years later.

  4. Now now, that was some Muslims who weren’t real Muslims, because real Muslims know it is a religion of peace.

    That might be pease. I’ll have to check with George Monbiot.

  5. Will they give back Constantinople to the Greeks, also Trebizond, Thrace and Anatolia? Antioch, Damascus for the Syrian Christians? And no more nonsense about the Crusades as they were the original invaders.

  6. “in the same way as they keep wittering on about the Crusades”: apparently they didn’t, for hundreds of years: they looked upon it as small beer in the great scheme of things. Then Europeans told them they ought to have been appalled, so, sensing advantage in it, they took up the song. Said Europeans, as I read about it, were above all French, starting at the time of Napoleon’s invasion of Egypt. A rich irony or two there, eh?

  7. As Karen Armstrong will tell you, a few thousand Moors took an extended holiday (seven and a half centuries) in the Iberian Peninsula. They were peaceful as they did not drink copious quantities of Watney’s Red Barrel. The holidaymakers, just like the current crop of sojourners, didn’t bring women with them so they made merry with the local women.

    In 732, a large number of the holidaymakers decided to go for a picnic over the Pyrenees between Tours and Poitiers. Just as they were starting on the falafels, they were set upon by a notorious Islamaphobe called Charles Martel. After reporting this as a hate crime with the local gendarmerie, they returned to Spain vowing never again to set foot in such a rude country (their descendants broke this vow).

    Over the next few centuries, the peaceful holidaymakers were subjected to various micro and macro aggressions, culminating in their permanent deportation in 1492 at the hands of two more notorious Islamaphobes, Ferdinand and Isabella.

    There is no evidence the Moors committed any crimes during the entire period, not so much as a parking ticket.

  8. Karen Armstrong seems like a lovely person until you realise that she is utterly naive. The arabs even have a word for what she is. Dhimmi.

  9. I love Silves. We go there pretty much every year. For those of you out in Rio Linda, it’s pronounced “Sil’sh”.

  10. @DocBud

    I am transgressed, I tell you, transgressed!

    Who is this Martel bloke and where does he live? I must whip up a mob to throw rocks through his window while I hide somewhere writing an article for the Guardian. It’s the only thing that will make me feel better.

  11. @The Hickory Wind

    Why not form a movement #Martelmustfall and remove any statues to this evil man who denied us the pleasure of living under the compassionate yoke of Islam.

  12. As a service to the community, I am proud to announce the Safe University Mark, which can be acquired by any higher education establishment on the payment of a modest fee (cheques and postal orders only please) to Ian B, Quaker Cottage, Much Wittering, Berks and will thus ensure the student community that the establishment contains no offensive statuary or other graven images.

    I fully expect that the government and European Union will courageously adopt the Safe University Mark as a statutory requirement, so I urge you all to apply as a matter of much haste.

    Please note that the SUM can only be awarded to those establishments which do not tolerate neoliberal sophistry.

  13. @ IanB

    “Now now, that was some Muslims who weren’t real Muslims, because real Muslims know it is a religion of peace.”

    By all historical evidence, the Moors actually were the most relaxed type of muslim, who did practice the “Children of the Book” thing in many ways, and had a generally extremely pragmatic view of the place of Religion in society.
    Quite different from the hardliners back east, who, not unlike today, did not consider the Moors “true Muslims” .

    Of course, most of the history you get taught in school is skewed by the worldview of the Carolingians, and later the very much Cristian clerical chroniclers, who used “Christianity” as an excuse to try and realise their attempt at recreating the western Roman empire.

    Funny how propaganda works.. There’s a sword stuck in a cliff face that’s supposed to mark the spot of one of the occasions where the Carolingians got their asses handed to them by the Moors in attempting to invade Iberia..
    Yet the saga about it passes it off as a hard-fought victory with a tragic casualty.. And is considered one of the prime sagas of the Caronlingian age..

  14. “By all historical evidence”: except for the pogroms and slaughters of course.

    The notion that “the Moors” would be sweetness and light for 700 years is naive in the extreme. Some were; some weren’t.

  15. Grikath – “By all historical evidence, the Moors actually were the most relaxed type of muslim, who did practice the “Children of the Book” thing in many ways, and had a generally extremely pragmatic view of the place of Religion in society. Quite different from the hardliners back east, who, not unlike today, did not consider the Moors “true Muslims” .”

    According to the Big Guardian Colouring Book of Islamic History. This historical record does not exactly support that view:

    Ibn Yasin certainly had the ardor of a puritan zealot; his creed was mainly characterized by a rigid formalism and a strict adherence to the dictates of the Qur’an, and the Orthodox tradition.[15] …. As he had more ardor than depth, Ibn Yasin’s arguments were disputed by his audience. He responded to questioning with charges of apostasy and handed out harsh punishments for the slightest deviations. …. Invoking stories of the early life of Muhammad, Ibn Yasin preached that conquest was a necessary addendum to Islamicization, that it was not enough to merely adhere to God’s law, but necessary to also destroy opposition to it. In Ibn Yasin’s ideology, anything and everything outside of Islamic law could be characterized as “opposition”. He identified tribalism, in particular, as an obstacle. He believed it was not enough to urge his audiences to put aside their blood loyalties and ethnic differences, and embrace the equality of all Muslims under the Sacred Law, it was necessary to make them do so.

    Maybe not that Berber dynasty then. How about the next one? Maybe not.

  16. Grikath

    By the standards of their time — 756-1031 AD –the Ummayads in Spain were civilised and relatively tolerant. The succeeding Almoravids and particularly the Almohads were barbaric.

  17. Theophrastus – “Yes, SMFS. And Ibn Yasin was the founder of the Almoravid dynasty.”

    So you are saying that the dynasty from the East was more relaxed and civilised while the two Berber dynasties were Islamic fundamentalists of the first order?

    I am not sure I would agree with you about the first but the second, sure. It is nice but rare to be in agreement.

  18. IanB

    Very good. With DocBud’s amendment, post it on TRUK. Murphy will delete it, but it’ll send his blood pressure up.

  19. SMFS

    “So you are saying that the dynasty from the East was more relaxed and civilised while the two Berber dynasties were Islamic fundamentalists of the first order?”

    Yes, that’s it, basically. The Ummayads were not warm and cuddly: they oppressed the jews and christians, and they forced them to pay a dhimmi tax. The two succeeding dynasties forced non-muslims to convert by threat of decapitation.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.