If Al-Andalus was so enlightened then how come iberians achieved far more in less time starting in a much more...

If Al-Andalus was so enlightened then how come iberians achieved far more in less time starting in a much more precarious position?

Arabs of Al-Andalus fucked blonde Gothic women in the ass.

goths were in north italy
Hispania was visigoths and suebs

You said it, visiGOTHS.

Al-Andalus was overrated.

>arabs take spain
>let them practice their religion (for most of it), don't overflow natives with immigration and barely racemix

>iberians take americas
>convert natives by sword, try to genocide them, overflow them with massive immigration and racemix with their women into extincting them

Arabs were too pure to be an effective colonial power tbqh famalam

>>arabs take spain
>>let them practice their religion (for most of it),

where are the proofs?

>arabs
After a few generations they were basically J1 haplogroup Iberians

Not him but the Al Andalus was pretty tolerant if you look at the rest of the world at that time

Yeah that's bullshit, they destroyed or re-estructured as mosques nearly all the churchs from andalucia to Catalonia, at best looted them, melting crosses and all valuable sacred objects and incontable precious historical stuff, they killed christians or jews in mass, specially the barbarians of the almhoads or Almuravits. At best Christians or Jews were tolerated because they were useful or too numerous, but as second class citizen, with the odd influential courtier (like in the Christian kingdoms btw). At first Muslims were very outnumbered (and very top heavy, lots of Visigoths or Ibero-Romans switched religion to maintain power), only when the masses started to convert the worse massacres started, that's why so many christians or jews hicked up to the north.
And that's only talking about what they did to they citizens, the slaver, punishing or looting warbands/armies were terrible and in a yearly base in the estival season, with lots of minor ones. The Christians at first were often in the losing end but with times the tables turned, hard.

They used the famous tax for infidels. You had to pay to remain in the land and even then they tried to kill you whenever they wanted. So good luck!

it sure stinks of reddit here
Al-Andalus was the ISIS of the midle ages
a border state in perpetual warfare which main pillar was the pillagin of christians slaves to entice men from the arab world to come and fight for them and main revenue stream
al andalus was a blight upon the wirld and the Reconquista was just and heroic

>""""The Arab World"""

>mfw Al-Andalus were considered heretical nutjobs by Abbasid and Fatimid Caliphates.

>Moors take over Spain in 14 years.
>Spics take it after 700.

I never said otherwise. My point was that most of the 'Moors' who ruled Spain were ethnically Iberian.
That cultures persist long after the phenotypes of the people who introduced them have disappeared is something I try to emphasise to reddit-types.
It's why I'm bemused by people who think Europeans oppose 'refugees' because they're a slightly browner shade of themselves, rather than their Mohammedan ideologies.

Because it's easy to beat stick-wielding people with the level of technology available in the Old World.

Meanwhile Spain needs to buddy up with other Euroniggers to fight the Roaches effectively for much of the 1500s. Hell even the early 1600s.

Jizya was pretty low, lower than what the roman empire taxed before they got btfo.


>muh looting and occasional persecutions
Like every nation ever, they still were tolerants most of their existence.

Don't you EVER again call me a redd*tor you fucking faggot.

>if you cuck a people for enough generation you become one of them
Pottery

Papism is a hell of a drug.

They weren't, until the X century christians outnumbered them be a long margin so lots of Christian militias or administratives were needed at first, because the few muslims weren't enough. With time and the increase of Muslims they were treated worse and worse, like the Martyrs of Córdoba or whole deportations of city dwelling Christians to North Africa, without counting incontable riots etc where the native christians or the jews where targeted. And as said, they were at best second class citizens without rights to build or repair the churchs, exploited with high taxes and a draining of rights as times did go and were less numerous and thus powerful.

>anecdots
In what part of the world were christians better treated by non-christians rulers?
Ine what part of the world muslim were better treated by christians rulers?

Also i always read that the taxes were pretty low, what are your numhers? How do they compare to what muslims payed a d to what christians payed in christians countries?

Sauce?

China, to both. And Lots of Steppe empires didn't care while you paid your taxes whatever your religion was.
They weren't only low if you compare them to the ERE empire, than was choking everything with taxes, the Jyza, also know as pay or we will kill and ensalve your people while forfeiting all you goods, wasn't set on stones and different Qadis advocated for more or less payment, normally tough it was harsh enough than lots of peasants barely eked an existent when you also had to pay the Kharaj, that's why the promise of military service instead of Jyza was so sweet for Mozarabs or Christians living under the Muslim rule.

*They were, *Eastern Roman Empire.

How much taxes did andalusians christians paid you said?

Depends of the period and there aren't hard numbers about that in the internet, if you can find Norman Stillman The Jews of Arab Lands: A History and Source Book you will find more about that, the amount wasn't set in stone as I said, the earlier times were more bearable because they could bepass the Jyza serving as militias, but that was barred after the X century for most because Muslims started being a majority, and the Jyza was increased be some qadis, specially in late caliphate and earlier taifas rule. This started the migrations from Jews and Christians to the north (repopulating the Duero for example).

your post is shit because the idea of regular armies is a napoleon invention
rulers relied heavily on mercenaries, the idea of christians serving the muslims in relevant numbers because of tax is ridiculous

>Get rid of your Jews user

The muslim world only had to lose two cities to become intellectually backwards and stagnant for centuries.

How many cities and which cities would the west have to lose to attain that level of intellectual irrelevancy?

It's deliberately overrated.
>le Muslims caused the enlightenment meme
>then those evil white male CHRISTIANS ruined it

The major part of muslims of Al Andalus were iberians too, just so you know.

Nnnnnope. Go back to pol subhuman.

wrong
mass native convert is a myth
muslims were never a majority outside the South, were they migrated
native converts were seen as 2nd class muslims by the arabs and as traitors by the other natives

nice reddit spacing you fucking illiterate

i guess different mentality and the influence of Italian humanists that led to discoveries

He never said Muslims were the majority of the Iberians, he said Iberians were a majority of the Muslims (which is true)
Natives have always been seen as second-class in nations conquered by Muslim entities, because conversions perceived to be done under duress are understood to be either a) an attempt at protecting oneself from physical harm/death, or b) avaricious obsequiousness towards the new rulers

>it's a 'people talk about Al-Andalus as if it's one entity' thread
Muslim Spain switched dynasties a lot throughout history. Umayyads were pretty based, Almohad's were shit. It varies.
Anyway Spain managed to achieve so much because they managed colonisation, which could only happen with a stable Iberia (which it wasn't under the Muslims due to constant fighting with the Christians). Anyone would manage to make a massive empire with the wealth from the colonies Spain had.

.

t. moor

>How many cities and which cities would the west have to lose to attain that level of intellectual irrelevancy?
Impossible. Europeans are simply superior to Arabs and Negroes.

But...thats what that king did.

He expelled all the jews who didnt convert.

Its not /pol/ its history

Al Andalus was enlightened during The caliphate. almoravids were awful

,

Iberians made Europe the richest continent in a few decades.
Nords are dumb and autistic.

The Martyrs of Cordoba are a shitty example because they many of them literally started shouting obscenities against Mohammed. They aren't like the martyrs of Roman times; they asked for it. I also call bullshit on the jizya claim. We have records of Christians working as shop-owners in Al-Andalus. While some governments were undoubtedly brutal, it's ridiculous to say that this was the norm. Until the invasions from Morocco there would have been a wide range of policies across different taifas.

Not him, but his claim isn't too extreme. The Umayyad rulers of Al-Andalus had their relatives murdered by the Abbasids, who also claimed themselves as Caliphs. The Fatimids were Shi'a, and though I think they gave shelter to Abd ar--Rahman when he was fleeing from the Abbasids, I think they were generally opposed to both of the Sunni dynasties. The taifas obviously wouldn't be considered legit, nor would the Moroccan dynasties.

I would argue Spain also had much of the infrastructure left over from the Arabs and that the conquest of the New World was largely seen as a continuation of the Reconquista.

hes probably falseflagging

>many of them literally started shouting obscenities against Mohammed
True heroes.

>hurr le liberal conspiracy

>be imam
>normal day in Al-Andalus
>Muslims and Christians tolerating each other, concealing resentment
>whatever, as long as everyone pays jizya or zakat
>some Christians run into the street shouting curses against Mohammed
>penalty is death
>nobody even vouches for them at their trial
>centuries later they're considered heroes
>I'm considered as evil as Nero

>killing someone because they insulted your favorite historical figure, who by the way, is an scamming pedophile warmongerer
The fact that you believe this is rightful just reveals how barbaric your culture is.

I'm sure christians did nothing to people who insulted Jesus back then. You fucking retard.
Also Aisha was pubescent when her mariage was consumated, but you wouldn't know.
Come back when you've open a book brainlet.

While muslims were more advanced in some areas, Iberians were in others (navigation was one of these areas)

You're literally just using whataboutism and insults in lieu of an actual argument.

If it helps you sleep at night, I also make fun of Christians who believe that random humans are larger than life figures because they say so, you fucking retard. The only difference here being that they do not have large swathes of their population performing such barbaric acts at this very moment. I can go to any city in the US and badmouth Jesus all I want, and the worst I'm going to get is a punch from an butthurt snowflake. If I try that anywhere in the middle east with your pedo- ah, sorry, "ephebophile" prophet/scam arist, I'll get killed and everyone will agree that that's normal. That's what a barbaric culture looks like.

And I guess that it doesn't matter in your book the fact that she was married before she could use reason and that she was raped when she was anywhere from 9 to (being generous) 12 years old, huh? I guess that's morally right for you because you and your whole culture were scammed into thinking so by someone that lived 1300 years ago. Yeah, that makes complete sense to you, doesn't it.

They had to pay that but by paying that they were also exempted from military service, and the tax was pretty low.

Christians under muslim rule fared better than christians under christian rule.

Prove me wrong.

There is no point in comparing an ancient state with a modern one. You have to compare it with the other states in its own era. So compare the life of a normal christian peasant in christian feudalism and then compare it with the life of a christian in Al-Andalus. Christians were better off under muslims, that's a fact.

Fuck you and your taxes marrano pig, get a job instead of munching on others

>being forced to pay taxes and obey a foreign invader's religion is fine as long as everyone just takes it up the ass and obey

reddit logic

You like the taste of cock

Prove me wrong.

>damn... so #brave of them
>We will #resist the #DrUmmayapfs
>Muhammad is #notmyprophet
>THE IMAMS GET TWO SCOOPS TWO SCOOOOPS OF POTTAGE INSTEAD OF ONE AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

I don't know how much of a fact that is, but that's not really the problem. It's certainly possible that it is true.

I was taking issue with the guy defending the actions of religious killers after some slight provocation.

Are you having a seizure?

Post Al-Andalus state, the Kingdom of Aragon. Other half of Iberia can be the Crown of Castille and Leon.


Oh what could have been, it will only live on in my fantasies.


What do you think?

>When libs start repeating retarded slogans against Trump and vandalizing property in vain they're cucks and retarded
>When Christians repeat similarly futile phrases against the muslim authorities they're based

absolutly disgusting
remove mohammed

>that false equivalence
You're a real athlete

I agree that analogies are a brainlet tactic but it was ultimately the organized effort of the reconquista that restored Christianity to Iberia, not public dissension, even if that may have been of some collateral assistance.

I don't see heroism in just blaspheming somebody's faith when the Calips would have remained in Spain the day after the incident just as they were the one before.

>blaspheming
>implying mohammed wasn't a pedophile caravan raider

The Spanish population literally declined under Muslim "rule" by which I mean the near permanent state of ethno-religous war where Christians suffered all manner of injustice.
Christians literally fled Muslim rule.
Why would you expect to fare better under a lower IQ population who preach a more violent gospel?

This
>Urr dur they only kill you if you dont pay your taxes so arabs can fight your fellow christians
>Urr dur discrimination isnt discrimination if it's against white christians

So you are having a seizure.

Take care, user.

PS. I don't give a damn if you insult Trump, he is actually an idiot and a con artist with an entourage of fanatic followers (not so dissimilar to Mohammed, actually) after all. Vandalizing property is a crime, though.

>I don't see heroism in just blaspheming somebody's faith
In case it didn't show, I was being sarcastic with that remark. I was trying to provoke the idiot that was downplaying the act as if the martyrs somehow deserved it for badmouthing a horrible person. I know their deaths were pointless, and rather than heroic they're tragic because they got killed for stuff that shouldn't have gotten them killed.

I apologize user, with the influx or normie retards on /pol/ and the subsequent seeping into the rest of the website it's impossible to discern sarcasm in a comment like "true heroes"

But I actually do, so it's your turn now.

Veeky Forums is not your safe space lefty pol

I used to be fond of /pol/ but after HWNDU season 3 it crashed

You should agree if you're not a newfag or baiting

Not everybody frequents /pol/. m8, form some decent arguments.

I was baiting, but i started lurking around Donald Trump being elected and saw the downgrade from then to now, so i can only imagine how it was before

>>Muslims and Christians tolerating each other, concealing resentment
They didn't.Stop being a dumbass.

They don't kill you for not paying taxes they kill you for blasphemy, which at the time would have been a crime at least as bad as treason. As for taxes, in Al-Andalus Christians could either pay an extra tax or convert. If you converted, you still had to pay a portion of your income to charity (called zakat). Either way, you didn't get to keep the money. If you were a medieval peasant anywhere in Europe you could expect to lose about a third of your income. If anything, Al-Andalus was better because you paid either the mosque or the government, as opposed to the Catholic world where you paid both.

The average Christian and Muslim did tolerate each other, in Al-Andalus and mostly in Christian Spain during the majority of the Reconquista. The reason nobody talks about Spain is they controlled a much smaller area which had far fewer Muslims than Al-Andalus had Christians. Granted, leaders on both sides would sometimes start religious prosecutions, and that was bad, but most citizens just had a general distrust of other religions that never expanded into open conflict. Otherwise, you would literally have neighbors killing neighbors in the streets. Instead, we see that it was not uncommon for Christians and Muslims to even own businesses together so that they could be open 7 days a week.

That's fine, I know subtlety on this site is dead and buried already.

>it stinks of Reddit
Sounds like someone from r/the_Donald being reminded of his origins.

Go back to the /pol/-play pen boy.

That's pretty good for medieval standards, user. I would live as a different/alien person under Muslims at the time than say, medieval Europe. And being lynched for a random reason within my lifetime like a flu epidemic amongst locals.

As opposed to being automatically dead under Christains?
Why don't you open a book?

This is a false equivalence.

The actions that European Christians took with the pagans during their expansions, both within Europe and unto the new discovered lands, wasn't genociding the locals due to not being Christians.

Christian powers did kill infidels within their integral territories at some points in time, but these were migrants or remnants of previous conquerors that had been driven out, not conquered peoples.

Who exactly claims Al-Andalus had the technological capability of discovering the Americas?

Sailing west had not so much to do with technological capability. Nobody really did it because there was no incentive to do so. Nobody knew there are huge lands to be conquered. Everyone thought you will just end up in China/India at some point, with whom trade routes were already established.

Also, it was quite well known how large the earth was approximately. So everybody assumed you will starve to death before you reach China. That's why nobody ever tried it.

Sailing west had everything to do with technological capability. Roman galleys would never have made the journey. Dark-age sailing tech wouldn't cut it, pre-1300 I simply think it couldn't be done. The first explorations of the Spanish/Portuguese were done using a level of sailing technology built off generations of Mediterranean and Baltic commerce and warfare that was barely adequate for the job. Just silly to compare their empire to some dark-age Muslim Caliphate lacking all the essential tools to do it.

>what is basic logic
If you can pack on ship an amount of food good for X days, and the ship can traverse the world ocean (i.e. get to the indies) in ~Y days, the decision whether you take the maritime route rests solely on the relationship between X and Y. The better the ship, the higher the probability that X>Y.

Yes, and Colombus only set sail because he assumed the world is much smaller than it actually is. If the Americas didnt exist, Colombus and his crew would have starved to death long before they would have reached China.

You do realize Vikings went there like around the year 900?

it would have to be all the capitals and largest cities of the major european states in the high middle-ages. i don't much about the Islamic middle-ages or why their intellectual development was halted by losing corduba and baghdad. im very curious.

Launching from Iceland -> Greenland -> Newfoundland, not quite comparable to Columbus straight voyage across the atlantic

Indeed, taking the Passatwinds is actually way easier than the difficult route through the north.

>Yes, and Colombus only set sail because he assumed the world is much smaller than it actually is.

Not entirely correct, he assumed the landmass is much larger than it actually is. He thought China is around 4.500km to the West, when in reality it is more than 20.000km. Before asking the spanish crown he asked the portugese crown for financing of the trip, who declined, because they knew how far away China actually is. The spanish crown only financed the trip because they really, really hated the Muslims and wanted to have an alternative trade route no matter what, so they basically deluded themselves that Kolombus can make it.

>Yes, and Colombus only set sail because he assumed the world is much smaller than it actually is.
No, he thought Asia was larger than it actually is.

Nobody really knew at the time how long it would take to take all the way to Asia (i.e. Y was unknown) so it was very much a wager. One that he indeed would have lost if the America's were there, but that's hardly important to the topic of discussion. The point is, advances in navigation techniques and technology (plus increased demand for alternative routes) managed to convince enough people that risking three ships with their crews was worth it given the gains and the odds of success.

Not if what you're doing is exploring the ocean for the first time. If that's the case, land being close enough for you to find it before you decide it's a better idea to turn back is the only way you can move forward unless you're willing to risk the lives of your whole crew.

The main reason was Spain being at odds with the Muslims, who controlled all trade routes to East Asia. Spain didn't want to give money to the muslims, who took high tariffs for all goods passing their lands. You don't need a very sophisticated boat to take the trade winds. If Europeans knew that there are huge continents "just" 4.000km away they would have sailed there much, much earlier. Probably in roman times already, since Galleys can theoretically do the trip.

hot

Intellectual and cultural output in the Middle Ages was closely tied to urbanization, which was tied to a combination of city-state competition and large capitals that drew capable individuals to find aristocratic patrons and employers.

For the Islamic World this was the Guadalquivir valley taifas and the rich centers of Cordoba and Seville, the lowlands of the Rif mountains and the capitals of Marrakesh and Fez, Tunisia and Tunis/Kairaoun, the Nile delta and Cairo, Syria and Damascus, Mesopotamia and Baghdad, and Khorasan and the Ferghana and the silk road cities.

For Europe you had Thrace/Western Anatolia and Constantinople, the city-states of Italy, northern France and Paris, the Low Countries and Antwerp/Amsterdam, Southern England and London, and the free-cities of Germany and Frankfurt/Austria.

These regions had enough people and trade flowing through them to have long traditions of education in order to train merchant and aristocrat sons, and competition with rival towns near by allowed them to develop a knowledge economy supporting themselves by their academic ability, and the most accomplished could be drawn to the political capitals where some rich noble would pay them to create some of the greatest works of man.

What happened to the Islamic world is that all their major centers save the Nile, Tunisia, and Morocco were devastated and overrun by invasions, and of those remaining three all of them were constantly invaded or fell to political chaos as nomadic tribes from the desert moved in and disrupted urbanization. And traditions that might normally be able to transfer along with capital to a nearby center of wealth and political power were unable to because of the vast distances between these nodes and the rapid collapse of all of them in a short period of time.

Are you just choosing to completely disregard everything I'm writing?

I did mention that the demand for alternative trade routes played a role, and it's stupidly obvious that they would have sailed ages ago had they known the parts of the map that they didn't know about.

I don't even know what your point is supposed to be.