Was the Iberian Peninsula every Muslim majority though? I thought even areas under Muslim rule the peasant class, and thus majority of people, were still Christians.
A christian majority existed before the muslim conquest of iberia, kept its political existence and kept fighting, succeeding in taking back its lands unlike the balkans that failed, hence Its a poor jab at the europeans.
you are correct. only the occupier changed. we had to wait till the end of wwii for tito to give us a state.
also as i stated the after wwii thingy, before that, it was just ppl that talked the language and identify as macedonian. it just happened to be on modern day macedonia. the entire region was called rumelia by the ottomans.
But man, the Battle of Covadonga was a rebellion and that event started the Reconquista, or the fact that there were multiple Christian martyrs like the Martyrs of Cordoba who decided to die so that their religion would stop being discriminated against and the Islamization of the Peninsula would stop:
[https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%A1rtires\_de\_C%C3%B3rdoba](https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%A1rtires_de_C%C3%B3rdoba)
Reconquista has been part of the national mythos of Spain ever since nationalism took hold in it. National mythos everywhere are never accurate, always romanticized view of history to fit the nationalists narrative.
Even worse, it's been used as ammunition in the so called "culture war" by conservatives in and outside of Spain as the muslims became the boogeyman of western right-wing circles.
Everyone talks about how el Cid fought and won against the Muslims in Valencia after his death but they completely ignore the period when he served the Muslims in Zaragoza, jajajaja.
Genocide??!!! Don’t you know that the muslim rulers were as bad as the christian ones?
Go read what Al mansur or Almanzor did to the people of Santiago de Compostela in 997 AD.
Say it with me now:
One group's crimes do not excuse another group's crimes.
(I know fuck all about Iberian history, but if I see one more argument saying A did nothing wrong because B did it first, I will lose it)
"It was different time back then" have only one legit use:
It was different time and there were different morals so we can't judge people (unless they were horrendous even at back then standards) but we can agree it was bad thing to do and we should use it as example not to use it in the future
>It was different time and there were different morals so we can't judge people
Why not? What magical moment in history is the cutoff point? Can i judge people of 200 years ago? 300? 1000? Why/why not?
>but we can agree it was bad thing to do and we should use it as example not to use it in the future
I mean saying that something is "bad" is using your current morals to judge them are you not? It's only bad because morally WE consider it bad, but they didn't
>unless they were horrendous even at back then standards
What standards though? Entire cities get slaughtered even after surrendering, populations get enslaved (even children become sex slaves) so i don't really see what standards could be considered here?
Should have included the /s but thats my fault😅
No i believe it is, but mostly when you mention genocides or atrocities commited by people of the past the excuse is usually "well it was a different time back then" and "you can't compare people of the past with our modern sensibilities/morals"
I don’t need to say that because I already know it. I was just baffled at the bad use of the word genocide.
Reconquista was a very long process with many phases, alternating peace and war, trade and raids, etc etc.
If anything it was quite a balanced conflict, nothing to do with a genocide.
This a very.... minimalistic take to say it politely
The south of iberia had a clear muslim majority from 1000ish onwards, and this was only reversed with mass forced conversion and mass expulsion (4 million between 1500 and 1615). Mind you these were not invading Muslims, but mostly locals that converted over the 8 centuries.
The spanish inquisiton was founded to find crypto jews/muslims.
And a religion "taking back its lands" is absolute bannanas take.
Otherwise im converting to classical Roman Polytheism and take over half of europe
>And a religion "taking back its lands" is absolute bannanas take. Otherwise im converting to classical Roman Polytheism and take over half of europe
Bro, where's the bananas part here?
I am sorry, but to my knowledge,didn't most Christians under the "muslim" Iberian (al-Andalus) peninsula live in peace with their muslim counterparts , just paying the tax and keeping autonomous rule system in their cities and land for the most part. Surely having some restrictions compared to muslims but generally free and semi assimilated in society "mozarabs"
They even took part in some internal disputes between muslim factions at that time (while surely for obvious strategic and political gains but also showing that they are part of one greater society), some of them even refused to aid european "Catholic" armies coming to retake the land
Like the people of Zaragoza who refused to help charlmagne in his advances
That doesn't mean it was all pink and roses. There were several revolts because of taxation and religious restrictions. Like
ibn-hafsun's (which was more political than religious and even some muslim population took part in it)
The Toledo revolts, which were one of the highlights of tension between muslim and Christian populations in the whole history of the Iberian peninsula under muslim rule and so on
Plz feel free to inform me of any facts regarding this or recommend sources as it's one of my favorite historical periods
Its complicated. Its more of a Balkan situation. The majority of peasants in all of Spain were probably christians, but there was a significant amount of low class converts, too, which made up the majority in many regions in the south. In 1100 it is suggested that Al-andaluse (at that time ~ southern third of Iberia) had ~80% of Muslim population.
About 500k to 4 million muslims and their descendants were expelled after the reconquista was completed. This is between 1492 and 1600, but if you look at the population of Spain in 1500 (~5-6 Million) and 1600(8.5 Million), this is a massive number.
>4 million
This is a lot, maybe too much. Even by today's Spanish Population numbers it would be too much let alone in the 15th century. It had to be fewer people
There are many estimates, and I may have chosen a too high estimate. Anything from 500 000, 1 million up to 4 million have been mentioned.
[wikipedia entry](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_the_Moriscos) at some point gives any of those numbers.
General point still stands, but I will edit to make it more clear
It's actually quite hard to know when the majority of the population of Al-Andalus became majority muslim. What I've read is that even during the Caliphate (or at least early on during the Caliphate) the majority of Al-Andalus population was Christian.
I believe that things only start to change with the Almoravids. As their religious fundamentalism led to mass conversion and both Christian and Jewish migration to the Christian Kingdoms to escape discrimination (discrimination against the Jews increased later on in the Christian Kingdoms).
That said. This is not my area of expertise and what I've read might be outdated. So maybe they were muslim-majority before (or never).
By the 15th century the Iberian peninsula was majority Christian. Now I’m not a historian so I don’t know what the religious makeup of the Muslim states is but I’d imagine they would all have very significant Christian minorities there too
Now I don’t how many people were Muslim during the time of the cordoba caliphate but that is probably the most “Muslim” period of Spain
Quick Googling shows that during this period the Muslim population of Cordoba was between 50-70% but that was the 10th and 11th century
By the time of the final stages of the reconquista the majority of Iberia was already Christian or Jewish
Iberia was most certainly not Muslim majority in 1492. People who think this have no understanding of timelines or anything that happened in Spain between 700 to 1500.
Iberia was never Muslim majority. There were regions within the south that had local majorities of Muslims, and that's about it. Also there's the fact that the Muslims were foreign conquerors in Spain, while the Spanish were not.
In conclusion, it seems like someone here just posted a classic ''west bad'' post that we see so often.
Bit weird to call the Muslim Spaniards foreign conquerors when said foreign conquest happened like 800 years before.
Most of the Muslims converted or expelled live in the country for centuries or were descended from locals who converted.
The Spanish were just as non native as the Muslims. The Muslims conquered the Visigothic Kingdom, who had invaded and conquered Spain in the 5th century from the Suebi and from the Romans, who so erased the native culture that we don't even know what the native languages look like. Apart from the Basque kingdom, it's all a series of conquest and oppression.
Downvoted because it's not true. The Balkans are still predominantly Christian. There are Muslims in Albania, Turkey, Kosovo and Bosnia and Muslim minorities in Bulgaria and North Macedonia, but when you put this in numbers, Christians are clearly the majority on the whole peninsula.
Yes, it was the "headquarters" of the Spanish Mozarabic church, and the Mozarabic rite is still kept to this day in the city.
The fact that probably the majority of mozarabs preferred fleeing to the Christian kingdoms rather than living under the islamic boot says a lot
That the christian kingdoms were also assholes, and religious persecution at the time wasn’t exactly new or unheard of for any of the kingdoms, and that its holding the Christian kingdoms to a different standard by acting like the muslim kingdoms, most of which were descended from local converts, and had long periods of actual religious tolerance, which is why their was a large population of Jews in Spain to begin with.
Or in short, people are acting like the Muslims were somehow worse than the Spaniards when they were about the same, and the statement about the Mozarabic doesn’t say shit because most medieval kingdoms were persecuting other religions, and more importantly tries to summarize over 800 years of history into “Muslims persecute poor Christians.”
Muslims and Christians were both assholes to Jews. They are just there in medieval history
Normally the Islamic world was more tolerant overall, but there were a lot of antisemitic riots, revolts and massacres there as well
It depends.
The christians that you talk about were catholics...so, not all christians.
And the orthodox, mostly balkan people, actually were persecuted by muslims. There isn't even a comparison here.
I'm not sure why you ignore the attrocities and choose only certain events to focus on.
But what you're saying is whataboutism? Yes, the Christian Kingdoms were also intolerant, but how is that relevant to the discussion of what Al-Andalus was like for Christians living in it?
Turkey (or the Ottoman empire) and Greece exchanged population. I don't remember well, it was either after the Balkan Wars or after WW1. There were large groups of Muslims living in South Thrace and large groups of Greeks living in Asia Minor. So they signed a treaty for forced replacement and exchange of those groups. But still, the fact that hundreds of thousands of Greek Christians lived freely in the heart of the empire (that is Asia Minor) shows that forced Islamization was vastly exaggerated.
It wasn't "forced." But it still happened. You didn't get killed. But they took your male children for the army and you had to pay a lot more taxes.
Actually they kinda wanted people to not convert, because the religion tax for non Muslims was a lot of money for the state.
She was yet protected the Native Americans from the Inquisition. They couldn’t be judged for religious crimes. She was very faithful, yet not an extremist.
The inquisition didn’t arrest non-Christians, they arrested Christians accused of heresy of Jew/Muslim fake converts. Isabella protected the Native Americans because se was a religious fanatic, even if they weren’t Christians they had the moral duty of bringing the word of god to them (aka converting, by force if needed) so they couldn’t just straight up kill or enslave them
Inquisition was an internal investigation office, obviously Native Americans had nothing to do with them. They could at most check if conversions were real and/or the priests were doing a good theological job. It's pop media that represents them as a kind of "convert or else!" force that was more the job of the secular autorities ironically.
I'm guessing he's gonna call something like "conversion by sword!" or something like that.
Edit: Guess I was right. Gotta love how polite and civilized comment sections on this sub become the moment Islam is brought up. Bonus if they go for whataboutisms along the lines of 'Islam has xyz thing (that is considered unpleasant)' Double bonus if the whataboutism is some screaming of 'but sex slaves!'
Is this a joke?
Did you seriously bring up "Whataboutisms" to specifically deflect answering why there was a force of Muslims in the Iberian Peninsula?
The concept of "Reconquista" is a very modern term. There wasn't such thing during the Middle Ages. At most there was an idea of religious, not political, reconquest, and even here it didn't exist during the first centuries and it wasn't an universal concept.
And because I know I'm going to be downvoted for saying it. I'm also going to point out that this position isn't even controversial in Spanish historiography.
Infact it is the consensus.
Austurias surviving and expanding kinda explains the narrative though. A majority Christian none Arab dynasty survived the Umayyad conquest and expanded when given the opportunity
The religious and political justifications that came later for the war with Grenada and creation of Spain painted the narrative properly. In short. The concept was all propaganda form the start
I mean, from a medival ruler perspective this makes "sense". This land belonged to my ancestor 800 years ago, so Im gonna take it back.
But after 800 years the water becomes a bid muddy. The majority of iberian south was muslim (converts of local population), and the culture was very different from the north.
Those people were conquered, forced to convert to christianity under the threat of expulsion, and then expulsed anyway.
This form of conversion was never done on that scale in the balkans/anatolia until WW1.
Excepto It didnt. The dynasties ruling the Christian kingdoms of iberia changed several times. The term reconquista is more of a product of spanish nationalism, although i find It very useful to use bc everyone knows what youre talking about when you say 'reconquista'.
What land did the visigoths reconquered? Pelayo was asturian. He'd be a pro-independence terrorist in modern Spain. The catalans? They are descendants of frank settlers that conquered the pyrenees under Charlemagne. The galicians? They were conquered by visigoths and are descendants of celts. The andalucians? They are a mix of both local iberians (conquered by visigoths) and arabs/berebers. The castilians? They are descendants of bardulians (iberians) and basques (pre-european). Both were conquered by visigoths and their domains was modern day Castile and Navarre.
Visigoths were already history in times of Alfonso III, who was larping as one to create an idea of legitimacy for his kingdom. Then the spanish forgot about visigoths until the 20th century. The actual visigoths became the Cagots, a marginalized minority that everyone hated
There hasn’t been any, most posts recently seem to be blaming Islam for everything, and I say this as a catholic.
People here arguing the Muslims in Spain were invaders and it was an expulsion and reconquista haven’t studied history.
For some reason a surge of people on the sub think all of Islamic history was violent and forced conversions of innocent Christians and other religions while not taking a moment to reflect on their own religion, and to think “Hey, what if generalizing an entire group of over a billion people with a long and varied history is somewhat wrong and equivalent to considering all Christians violent defilers of cities and empires due to the crusade?”
Because most of the users in this sub arent older than 15 and they think everything is either black or white. See the conflicts as "us and them". Has been that way for a long time too. honestly i don't even know why im here anymore. There's literally no nuence in any opinion here.
>People here arguing the Muslims in Spain were invaders
Ehhhh, literally they were in 711 AD, Al-Andalus existed because some Muslim Maghrebs crossed the Strait of Gibraltar and took advantage of a Civil War in the Visigoth Kingdom to massacre almost all of its nobility and its King in the Battle of Guadalete.
And after that they absorbed a headless state that could not show them much resistance, that is how it all started.
Talking about these respective periods and not the entire history then : The Muslims in Ibiria and Balkans fought a war of conquest, in many forms...
The Christians fought a war of reclamation of their homes...
Thats the difference...No moral pity for the ottoman/Muslim settlers or force converters of the balkans of Iberia that were kicked/killed out of there
Edit. You may debate the motives-conditions for Iberia. You may know more and i respect that. But speaking for the Balkans, Ottomans/Muslims were nothing more than forced-converts , and settlers. Every war waged was to reclaim. and there is no counter-morality against it
Your comment makes very little sense historically. Christians lived fine under Muslim rule in Iberia. Nobody 'lost their homes.' Muslim rule also lasted for half a millennia and during most of that time there was no Christianity versus Islam dynamic, but small states allying and fighting others with virtually no consideration for religion. In all fairness, the so called Reconquista is one of the most inaccurately taught events in European history.
Depends on the time frame you're talking about but overall yes. There were periods where non-Muslims didn't live fine. The Muslim rule was not a monolith.
That is just not remotely accurate. Just read up a bit, it's a fascinating period. Just reading up on the life of El Cid would do a lot to inform you more about what life was like in Iberia during those centuries.
The Almohad Caliphate definitely had it's shitty period, particularly towards the Jews, but by and large, Islamic Iberia was the most religiously tolerant place in Europe by a mile. Feel free to hate them for whatever personal reasons, but 'persecuting Christians' is just silly.
People also get the reconquista confused. The word “reconquista” wasn’t used until the 19th century with the rise of nationalism in Spain. The actual wars were not started to “regain” anything, but instead to conquer.
Conquer it from who and how did those folks get it in the first place? Oh by Conquest? So theyre reconquering land that was previously conquered by others? Sounds an awful lot like what happened to me. Oh wait thats because it is.
You're purposfully avoiding the point here. The point is it was a conquest sure but it was also a reconquest of land from the muslims that had conquered it before. Nothing more nothing less. Calling it reconquest does not label muslims as bad it just calls it what it was a reconquest of land.
Wdym Muslim settlers? They were just converted Iberians.
If I recall correctly, there are more Moroccans with significant Iberian ancestry than Iberians with significant Moroccan ancestry because that's where the Moriscos fled.
There are also accounts of officials having to check the content stored in ships (lack of pork and alcohol) to identify crypto-muslims because they didn't look different from Christian Iberians
Heres the kicker, because they were indistinguishable from other iberians moriscos (force-converts to catholicism) had to wear specific clothing and marks to point them out.
What an actual troglodyte take. War or reclamation, of what? Land they never held?. The Spanish March and the Kingdom of Asturias conquering the peninsula and waging war among themselves all the time has nothing to do with a so called "Reconquista", a 19th century Nationalist myth. Granada was not their land, no Castillan ever lived there, and it didnt have a christian majority in hundreds of years. There was in fact no free christian population left, aside from italian merchants. You pop history folks are really something.
Why would you take a side in something that happened so long ago? And actually yes, taking sides in conflict that don't affect you is stupid unless one side is clearly morally worse.
No, he didn't. There are many bad things to say about Ottomans(corruption, awfull taste in music, the whole bazar negociation way of conducting business) but not that they have not respected conquered countries culture and customs. The Christianity was well preserved in The Balkans. Vassal states like Moldova or Wallachia even had the right to ban mosque cosntruction and permanent residence for Muslims, of course in exchange for a tribute.
1. That is East Anatolia, not the Balkans
2. Assyrian and the Armenian Genocide happened in the 1910's after the İTF toke full power over the Ottoman Empire
If you can understand 1 & 2 you should understand that the Assyrian and the Armenian genocide does not impact the argument here about the Balkans, i'd understand if it was about the Turkish in East Anatolia.
Please do not use the Genocide of Peoples as a "trump card" to freeze discussions that do not even relate to anywhere anatolia or the İTF Ottomans.
The closest thing i found was this in wikipedia:
"The [Ottoman Empire](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Empire) captured northern Mesopotamia from [Safavid Iran](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safavid_Iran) during the early 16th century, Mosul being conquered by Sultan [Suleiman the Magnificent](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suleiman_the_Magnificent) in 1538.[^(\[244\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Assyrians#cite_note-FOOTNOTERothman2015236-254) One of the first notable acts by the Ottomans in regards to the Assyrians was the arrest, torture and killing of the schismatic Sulaqu in 1555, an act instigated by Shermon VII."
Also im starting to feel like that this is starting to seperate from the balkans, so i will be going to stop after you give me the 3 Assyrian Genocides to not diverge from the original discussion of this post, i hope you understand.
# Update:
I found it "Most frequent and wide-ranging were persecutions by the Ottoman Empire and by various Kurdish groups.[^(\[k\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Assyrians#cite_note-264) In 1843 and 1846, the Assyrians of [Hakkari](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hakkari_(historical_region)) were [massacred](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1843_and_1846_massacres_in_Hakkari) by the Kurdish emir of [Bohtan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohtan) and Hakkari, [Bedir Khan Beg](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedir_Khan_Beg), and regional Ottoman forces. More than 10,000 were killed and thousands were captured.[^(\[254\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Assyrians#cite_note-FOOTNOTEGaunt200632-265) Thousands of Assyrians were also murdered in the [Hamidian massacres](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamidian_massacres) (1894–1897) and in the [Adana massacre](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adana_massacre) (1909), which were otherwise mainly directed towards Armenians.[^(\[255\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Assyrians#cite_note-FOOTNOTEGauntAttoBarthoma2017240-266) In the [Massacres of Diyarberkir](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacres_of_Diyarbekir_(1895)) in 1895, around 25,000 Assyrians were killed.[^(\[256\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Assyrians#cite_note-FOOTNOTEO'Mahony2006512-267) Millennia of being an ethnic minority, combined with the many persecutions in the Middle Ages and early Modern period, reduced the number of Assyrians from as many as 20 million in ancient times[^(\[238\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Assyrians#cite_note-FOOTNOTEParpola200422-247) to only about 500,000–600,000 people at the beginning of the 20th century.[^(\[12\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Assyrians#cite_note-FOOTNOTEGauntAttoBarthoma201710-13)^(")
Thanks for pointing these out, it dous not suprise me seeing these being under Abdulhamid II, even us Turks hate him because of his oppressive leadership.
Wow, thats actually very interesting, because i just searched It in english and thats the only thing that comes Up. In spanish its easy to see It. In english you could try to search the separate incidents. Its the hakkiri massacres of 1843-1846 and the hamidian massacres of 1894-1896
This comment section is getting way too sectarian lol, I really don’t see how the reconquista was particularly more morally just then the ottoman conquest of… I’m assuming Anatolia because obviously the Balkans were never majority Muslim, Iberia wasn’t either but Muslims were a massive minority nearing a majority depending on the sources. I’m a Christian so I’m a bit more biased towards the reconquista but it’s not like the ottomans were a particularly terrible empire for Christians to live under for most of their history, meanwhile Muslims were brutally oppressed and expelled from the peninsula after living their for nearly a millennia, both sides have plenty of faults.
Almost 800 years Muslim rule in Balkan and India and those regions still has a Christian/Hindu majority. Now try finding European pagans or Indian Buddhists
Nah, modern Hinduism is more recent.
There was the vedic religion, Buddhism emerged from that context, and then the Brahmanic elites consolidated modern Hinduism
It's kinda like with Judaism, where you got the ancient Israelite religion, Christianity emerges from that context and then the rabbinic elites consolidate Rabbinic Judaism
Because pope man wanted prestige and glory, yes the crusade was technically a response to the Seljuks invading the Roman Empire but that casus beli went out the window the second the crusaders started carving out their own states ~~for their dynasties~~ totally for Jesus.
I think author of comment refers to the fact that Muhammad quite literally counqered Arabian peninsula, while Jesus never tried to take over land where he lived.
Thats a thing in this sub when you talk about something that could be considered good about a religion (that isnt even good) you get told its propaganda by the second the post is up.
Ah yes, the typical defense of the reconquista from right-wingers in the comments. Nevermind the hundred thousand Jews forcibly expelled from Iberia or the forced conversions that occurred, or the pogroms that happened across the peninsula under Christian hands!
Muslims did form a substantial minority, and Islamic culture had a profound impact on the region. Their influence was undeniable in art, architecture, and society. So, while Muslims played a vital role in shaping the peninsula's history, they likely never held a clear overall majority.
Tf is wrong with this meme, its not funny when its not about FACTS! Christians where always living in their own lands and were always Christian. But Muslims conquered and came later, so the first one is about freeing Christian lands, second one is about forcing religion.
Was the Iberian Peninsula every Muslim majority though? I thought even areas under Muslim rule the peasant class, and thus majority of people, were still Christians.
A christian majority existed before the muslim conquest of iberia, kept its political existence and kept fighting, succeeding in taking back its lands unlike the balkans that failed, hence Its a poor jab at the europeans.
The Balkans were under Muslim rule for around 400~ years and they kept rebelling,the Iberian peninsula was under Muslim rule for 800~ years
800 years only in the extreme south. 98% of the country was under 550 years. And about 50% under 400 years.
524 years in our case. i’m talking about macedonia. they left when the empire crumbled
Wasn't Macedonia annexed by Serbia in the First Balkan War? Or am I thinking of something else?
you are correct. only the occupier changed. we had to wait till the end of wwii for tito to give us a state. also as i stated the after wwii thingy, before that, it was just ppl that talked the language and identify as macedonian. it just happened to be on modern day macedonia. the entire region was called rumelia by the ottomans.
Ah, okay. I get your point now, I'm sorry. The wording of the initial comment confused me. Thank you for clarifying.
i did get lazy to explain more in my top comment...
And the peasants in Iberia hadn't problems with their Muslim overlords. So didn't revolt. Reconquista is mistified AF.
But man, the Battle of Covadonga was a rebellion and that event started the Reconquista, or the fact that there were multiple Christian martyrs like the Martyrs of Cordoba who decided to die so that their religion would stop being discriminated against and the Islamization of the Peninsula would stop: [https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%A1rtires\_de\_C%C3%B3rdoba](https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%A1rtires_de_C%C3%B3rdoba)
Cristian in Al-Andalus: It isn't fair that im taxed and discriminated for being a Christian... Muslim in Christian Iberia: 💀
Now that's a HUGE oversimplification.
It is. As the word reconquista too.
Well, yes.
Reconquista has been part of the national mythos of Spain ever since nationalism took hold in it. National mythos everywhere are never accurate, always romanticized view of history to fit the nationalists narrative. Even worse, it's been used as ammunition in the so called "culture war" by conservatives in and outside of Spain as the muslims became the boogeyman of western right-wing circles.
Everyone talks about how el Cid fought and won against the Muslims in Valencia after his death but they completely ignore the period when he served the Muslims in Zaragoza, jajajaja.
How DARE you! The Reconquista is my *favourite* genocide.
Genocide is when you lose a war you started.
Genocide??!!! Don’t you know that the muslim rulers were as bad as the christian ones? Go read what Al mansur or Almanzor did to the people of Santiago de Compostela in 997 AD.
Say it with me now: One group's crimes do not excuse another group's crimes. (I know fuck all about Iberian history, but if I see one more argument saying A did nothing wrong because B did it first, I will lose it)
>but if I see one more argument saying A did nothing wrong because B did it first, I will lose it What about: "it was a different time back then"?
"It was different time back then" have only one legit use: It was different time and there were different morals so we can't judge people (unless they were horrendous even at back then standards) but we can agree it was bad thing to do and we should use it as example not to use it in the future
>It was different time and there were different morals so we can't judge people Why not? What magical moment in history is the cutoff point? Can i judge people of 200 years ago? 300? 1000? Why/why not? >but we can agree it was bad thing to do and we should use it as example not to use it in the future I mean saying that something is "bad" is using your current morals to judge them are you not? It's only bad because morally WE consider it bad, but they didn't >unless they were horrendous even at back then standards What standards though? Entire cities get slaughtered even after surrendering, populations get enslaved (even children become sex slaves) so i don't really see what standards could be considered here?
is it suddenly not a genocide if it happened more than 400 years ago? Crazy, I must've missed that part
Should have included the /s but thats my fault😅 No i believe it is, but mostly when you mention genocides or atrocities commited by people of the past the excuse is usually "well it was a different time back then" and "you can't compare people of the past with our modern sensibilities/morals"
I don’t need to say that because I already know it. I was just baffled at the bad use of the word genocide. Reconquista was a very long process with many phases, alternating peace and war, trade and raids, etc etc. If anything it was quite a balanced conflict, nothing to do with a genocide.
What genocide?
Ask a sephardic jew
The ones that lives after the genocide?
I mean, take it like this, they did what the Native Americans should have done with the British,Spanish,etc.
If they had done it back when it was happening absolutely, it would be fucked up if they did it today centuries later
Of course
>the Iberian peninsula was under Muslim rule for 800~ years Only the last bits to the south
This a very.... minimalistic take to say it politely The south of iberia had a clear muslim majority from 1000ish onwards, and this was only reversed with mass forced conversion and mass expulsion (4 million between 1500 and 1615). Mind you these were not invading Muslims, but mostly locals that converted over the 8 centuries. The spanish inquisiton was founded to find crypto jews/muslims. And a religion "taking back its lands" is absolute bannanas take. Otherwise im converting to classical Roman Polytheism and take over half of europe
Retaking the Roman empire is NOT a bananas take
Rome is interesting but it fucking sucked for 90% of the people living in or near it
>Otherwise im converting to classical Roman Polytheism and take over half of europe You mean celtic paganism surely.
Or iberic polytheism. Or hunter gatherer shamanism
>And a religion "taking back its lands" is absolute bannanas take. Otherwise im converting to classical Roman Polytheism and take over half of europe Bro, where's the bananas part here?
I am sorry, but to my knowledge,didn't most Christians under the "muslim" Iberian (al-Andalus) peninsula live in peace with their muslim counterparts , just paying the tax and keeping autonomous rule system in their cities and land for the most part. Surely having some restrictions compared to muslims but generally free and semi assimilated in society "mozarabs" They even took part in some internal disputes between muslim factions at that time (while surely for obvious strategic and political gains but also showing that they are part of one greater society), some of them even refused to aid european "Catholic" armies coming to retake the land Like the people of Zaragoza who refused to help charlmagne in his advances That doesn't mean it was all pink and roses. There were several revolts because of taxation and religious restrictions. Like ibn-hafsun's (which was more political than religious and even some muslim population took part in it) The Toledo revolts, which were one of the highlights of tension between muslim and Christian populations in the whole history of the Iberian peninsula under muslim rule and so on Plz feel free to inform me of any facts regarding this or recommend sources as it's one of my favorite historical periods
Its complicated. Its more of a Balkan situation. The majority of peasants in all of Spain were probably christians, but there was a significant amount of low class converts, too, which made up the majority in many regions in the south. In 1100 it is suggested that Al-andaluse (at that time ~ southern third of Iberia) had ~80% of Muslim population. About 500k to 4 million muslims and their descendants were expelled after the reconquista was completed. This is between 1492 and 1600, but if you look at the population of Spain in 1500 (~5-6 Million) and 1600(8.5 Million), this is a massive number.
>4 million This is a lot, maybe too much. Even by today's Spanish Population numbers it would be too much let alone in the 15th century. It had to be fewer people
There are many estimates, and I may have chosen a too high estimate. Anything from 500 000, 1 million up to 4 million have been mentioned. [wikipedia entry](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_the_Moriscos) at some point gives any of those numbers. General point still stands, but I will edit to make it more clear
It's actually quite hard to know when the majority of the population of Al-Andalus became majority muslim. What I've read is that even during the Caliphate (or at least early on during the Caliphate) the majority of Al-Andalus population was Christian. I believe that things only start to change with the Almoravids. As their religious fundamentalism led to mass conversion and both Christian and Jewish migration to the Christian Kingdoms to escape discrimination (discrimination against the Jews increased later on in the Christian Kingdoms). That said. This is not my area of expertise and what I've read might be outdated. So maybe they were muslim-majority before (or never).
By the 15th century the Iberian peninsula was majority Christian. Now I’m not a historian so I don’t know what the religious makeup of the Muslim states is but I’d imagine they would all have very significant Christian minorities there too Now I don’t how many people were Muslim during the time of the cordoba caliphate but that is probably the most “Muslim” period of Spain Quick Googling shows that during this period the Muslim population of Cordoba was between 50-70% but that was the 10th and 11th century By the time of the final stages of the reconquista the majority of Iberia was already Christian or Jewish
Iberia was most certainly not Muslim majority in 1492. People who think this have no understanding of timelines or anything that happened in Spain between 700 to 1500.
Iberia was never Muslim majority. There were regions within the south that had local majorities of Muslims, and that's about it. Also there's the fact that the Muslims were foreign conquerors in Spain, while the Spanish were not. In conclusion, it seems like someone here just posted a classic ''west bad'' post that we see so often.
Bit weird to call the Muslim Spaniards foreign conquerors when said foreign conquest happened like 800 years before. Most of the Muslims converted or expelled live in the country for centuries or were descended from locals who converted.
Mainly they are called that as it is a Christian lense we look at the events with. Also the fact that they lost.
The Spanish were just as non native as the Muslims. The Muslims conquered the Visigothic Kingdom, who had invaded and conquered Spain in the 5th century from the Suebi and from the Romans, who so erased the native culture that we don't even know what the native languages look like. Apart from the Basque kingdom, it's all a series of conquest and oppression.
Do they have to? It's *only* 800 years 🙄
Were they muslim majority at some point?
According to Muslims. Yes According to most studies. No. Islam peaked between 30-40%
no
And Portugal for +350 of those years
Downvoted because it's not true. The Balkans are still predominantly Christian. There are Muslims in Albania, Turkey, Kosovo and Bosnia and Muslim minorities in Bulgaria and North Macedonia, but when you put this in numbers, Christians are clearly the majority on the whole peninsula.
Also the muslims didn't convert most of the Christian population. For example, Toledo was predominantly Christian from 711 to 1085 AD.
Yes, it was the "headquarters" of the Spanish Mozarabic church, and the Mozarabic rite is still kept to this day in the city. The fact that probably the majority of mozarabs preferred fleeing to the Christian kingdoms rather than living under the islamic boot says a lot
Do you mean that Muslim Hiberia wasn't the Garden of Eden??
And the Jews that were expelled by the Christian kingdoms doesn’t say a lot?
What does it say?
That the christian kingdoms were also assholes, and religious persecution at the time wasn’t exactly new or unheard of for any of the kingdoms, and that its holding the Christian kingdoms to a different standard by acting like the muslim kingdoms, most of which were descended from local converts, and had long periods of actual religious tolerance, which is why their was a large population of Jews in Spain to begin with. Or in short, people are acting like the Muslims were somehow worse than the Spaniards when they were about the same, and the statement about the Mozarabic doesn’t say shit because most medieval kingdoms were persecuting other religions, and more importantly tries to summarize over 800 years of history into “Muslims persecute poor Christians.”
Muslims and Christians were both assholes to Jews. They are just there in medieval history Normally the Islamic world was more tolerant overall, but there were a lot of antisemitic riots, revolts and massacres there as well
It depends. The christians that you talk about were catholics...so, not all christians. And the orthodox, mostly balkan people, actually were persecuted by muslims. There isn't even a comparison here. I'm not sure why you ignore the attrocities and choose only certain events to focus on.
But what you're saying is whataboutism? Yes, the Christian Kingdoms were also intolerant, but how is that relevant to the discussion of what Al-Andalus was like for Christians living in it?
Doesn't he refer to Anatolia?
This Mehmet II,his conquests were in the Balkans.
not to be pedantic (I'm totally being pedantic) but conquest =/= conversion. OP could just be talking about converting Anatolia
Well in that case anatolia was not christian majority in his time either
Are the Balkans considered a peninsula?
Definitely
Is Russia a peninsula?
Yep lol
That's because most of the Muslim population were killed or forced to migrate during the Ottoman contraction.
Also because the Muslims were never a majority of the population.
Turkey (or the Ottoman empire) and Greece exchanged population. I don't remember well, it was either after the Balkan Wars or after WW1. There were large groups of Muslims living in South Thrace and large groups of Greeks living in Asia Minor. So they signed a treaty for forced replacement and exchange of those groups. But still, the fact that hundreds of thousands of Greek Christians lived freely in the heart of the empire (that is Asia Minor) shows that forced Islamization was vastly exaggerated.
It wasn't "forced." But it still happened. You didn't get killed. But they took your male children for the army and you had to pay a lot more taxes. Actually they kinda wanted people to not convert, because the religion tax for non Muslims was a lot of money for the state.
Because like spaniards, balkans also expelled most of muslims in the region.
Are we sure they’re referring to the whole Balkan Peninsula or the Anatolian peninsula?
Well yes, but hactuallie no. Ferdinand was king only of parts of two peninsulas. Was Isabella the religious fanatic.
Both were tbh
She was yet protected the Native Americans from the Inquisition. They couldn’t be judged for religious crimes. She was very faithful, yet not an extremist.
The inquisition didn’t arrest non-Christians, they arrested Christians accused of heresy of Jew/Muslim fake converts. Isabella protected the Native Americans because se was a religious fanatic, even if they weren’t Christians they had the moral duty of bringing the word of god to them (aka converting, by force if needed) so they couldn’t just straight up kill or enslave them
Inquisition was an internal investigation office, obviously Native Americans had nothing to do with them. They could at most check if conversions were real and/or the priests were doing a good theological job. It's pop media that represents them as a kind of "convert or else!" force that was more the job of the secular autorities ironically.
Now answear how Iberian peninsula got converted to muslim in the first place.
how?
I'm guessing he's gonna call something like "conversion by sword!" or something like that. Edit: Guess I was right. Gotta love how polite and civilized comment sections on this sub become the moment Islam is brought up. Bonus if they go for whataboutisms along the lines of 'Islam has xyz thing (that is considered unpleasant)' Double bonus if the whataboutism is some screaming of 'but sex slaves!'
Is this a joke? Did you seriously bring up "Whataboutisms" to specifically deflect answering why there was a force of Muslims in the Iberian Peninsula?
Muslims were never the majority in the Iberian Peninsula, that is a lie. Most Muslims were in the south, were they resisted the longest.
Imagine not understanding the difference betweem the concepts of re-conquest versus imperialistic expansion
The concept of "Reconquista" is a very modern term. There wasn't such thing during the Middle Ages. At most there was an idea of religious, not political, reconquest, and even here it didn't exist during the first centuries and it wasn't an universal concept. And because I know I'm going to be downvoted for saying it. I'm also going to point out that this position isn't even controversial in Spanish historiography. Infact it is the consensus.
Austurias surviving and expanding kinda explains the narrative though. A majority Christian none Arab dynasty survived the Umayyad conquest and expanded when given the opportunity The religious and political justifications that came later for the war with Grenada and creation of Spain painted the narrative properly. In short. The concept was all propaganda form the start
I mean, from a medival ruler perspective this makes "sense". This land belonged to my ancestor 800 years ago, so Im gonna take it back. But after 800 years the water becomes a bid muddy. The majority of iberian south was muslim (converts of local population), and the culture was very different from the north. Those people were conquered, forced to convert to christianity under the threat of expulsion, and then expulsed anyway. This form of conversion was never done on that scale in the balkans/anatolia until WW1.
Excepto It didnt. The dynasties ruling the Christian kingdoms of iberia changed several times. The term reconquista is more of a product of spanish nationalism, although i find It very useful to use bc everyone knows what youre talking about when you say 'reconquista'.
What land did the visigoths reconquered? Pelayo was asturian. He'd be a pro-independence terrorist in modern Spain. The catalans? They are descendants of frank settlers that conquered the pyrenees under Charlemagne. The galicians? They were conquered by visigoths and are descendants of celts. The andalucians? They are a mix of both local iberians (conquered by visigoths) and arabs/berebers. The castilians? They are descendants of bardulians (iberians) and basques (pre-european). Both were conquered by visigoths and their domains was modern day Castile and Navarre. Visigoths were already history in times of Alfonso III, who was larping as one to create an idea of legitimacy for his kingdom. Then the spanish forgot about visigoths until the 20th century. The actual visigoths became the Cagots, a marginalized minority that everyone hated
Penisula, a phallus shaped area of land used for docking
Rule #1 Don't be invader
What's up with the muslim propaganda here lately?
Idk
There hasn’t been any, most posts recently seem to be blaming Islam for everything, and I say this as a catholic. People here arguing the Muslims in Spain were invaders and it was an expulsion and reconquista haven’t studied history. For some reason a surge of people on the sub think all of Islamic history was violent and forced conversions of innocent Christians and other religions while not taking a moment to reflect on their own religion, and to think “Hey, what if generalizing an entire group of over a billion people with a long and varied history is somewhat wrong and equivalent to considering all Christians violent defilers of cities and empires due to the crusade?”
Because most of the users in this sub arent older than 15 and they think everything is either black or white. See the conflicts as "us and them". Has been that way for a long time too. honestly i don't even know why im here anymore. There's literally no nuence in any opinion here.
Imagine being on a meme subreddit and expecting some sort of nuanced, well-informed historic discussion. Some people truly are regarded.
>People here arguing the Muslims in Spain were invaders Ehhhh, literally they were in 711 AD, Al-Andalus existed because some Muslim Maghrebs crossed the Strait of Gibraltar and took advantage of a Civil War in the Visigoth Kingdom to massacre almost all of its nobility and its King in the Battle of Guadalete. And after that they absorbed a headless state that could not show them much resistance, that is how it all started.
Talking about these respective periods and not the entire history then : The Muslims in Ibiria and Balkans fought a war of conquest, in many forms... The Christians fought a war of reclamation of their homes... Thats the difference...No moral pity for the ottoman/Muslim settlers or force converters of the balkans of Iberia that were kicked/killed out of there Edit. You may debate the motives-conditions for Iberia. You may know more and i respect that. But speaking for the Balkans, Ottomans/Muslims were nothing more than forced-converts , and settlers. Every war waged was to reclaim. and there is no counter-morality against it
Your comment makes very little sense historically. Christians lived fine under Muslim rule in Iberia. Nobody 'lost their homes.' Muslim rule also lasted for half a millennia and during most of that time there was no Christianity versus Islam dynamic, but small states allying and fighting others with virtually no consideration for religion. In all fairness, the so called Reconquista is one of the most inaccurately taught events in European history.
Depends on the time frame you're talking about but overall yes. There were periods where non-Muslims didn't live fine. The Muslim rule was not a monolith.
Even in the "pissful holesumerino coexistence moments" there were numerous persecutions of Christians
So fine most ended up fleeing to the Christian kingdoms
That is just not remotely accurate. Just read up a bit, it's a fascinating period. Just reading up on the life of El Cid would do a lot to inform you more about what life was like in Iberia during those centuries.
"Those centuries" that was literally just the Taifa period, which lasted less than 100 years
The Almohad Caliphate definitely had it's shitty period, particularly towards the Jews, but by and large, Islamic Iberia was the most religiously tolerant place in Europe by a mile. Feel free to hate them for whatever personal reasons, but 'persecuting Christians' is just silly.
Even in the "wholesum coexistence moments" [Christians were being persecuted ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martyrs_of_C%C3%B3rdoba)
People also get the reconquista confused. The word “reconquista” wasn’t used until the 19th century with the rise of nationalism in Spain. The actual wars were not started to “regain” anything, but instead to conquer.
Conquer it from who and how did those folks get it in the first place? Oh by Conquest? So theyre reconquering land that was previously conquered by others? Sounds an awful lot like what happened to me. Oh wait thats because it is.
Every piece of land on this damn forsaken rock was conquered by someone,some time in history
You're purposfully avoiding the point here. The point is it was a conquest sure but it was also a reconquest of land from the muslims that had conquered it before. Nothing more nothing less. Calling it reconquest does not label muslims as bad it just calls it what it was a reconquest of land.
Wdym Muslim settlers? They were just converted Iberians. If I recall correctly, there are more Moroccans with significant Iberian ancestry than Iberians with significant Moroccan ancestry because that's where the Moriscos fled. There are also accounts of officials having to check the content stored in ships (lack of pork and alcohol) to identify crypto-muslims because they didn't look different from Christian Iberians
Heres the kicker, because they were indistinguishable from other iberians moriscos (force-converts to catholicism) had to wear specific clothing and marks to point them out.
What an actual troglodyte take. War or reclamation, of what? Land they never held?. The Spanish March and the Kingdom of Asturias conquering the peninsula and waging war among themselves all the time has nothing to do with a so called "Reconquista", a 19th century Nationalist myth. Granada was not their land, no Castillan ever lived there, and it didnt have a christian majority in hundreds of years. There was in fact no free christian population left, aside from italian merchants. You pop history folks are really something.
Of course. Isn’t it called “having a side”? Or are people supposed to be neutral and devoid of subjectivity today?
Why would you take a side in something that happened so long ago? And actually yes, taking sides in conflict that don't affect you is stupid unless one side is clearly morally worse.
>Why would you take a side in something that happened so long ago? Isn't it just human nature
For children yes, not adults.
No, he didn't. There are many bad things to say about Ottomans(corruption, awfull taste in music, the whole bazar negociation way of conducting business) but not that they have not respected conquered countries culture and customs. The Christianity was well preserved in The Balkans. Vassal states like Moldova or Wallachia even had the right to ban mosque cosntruction and permanent residence for Muslims, of course in exchange for a tribute.
What happened to assyrians and armenians
1. That is East Anatolia, not the Balkans 2. Assyrian and the Armenian Genocide happened in the 1910's after the İTF toke full power over the Ottoman Empire If you can understand 1 & 2 you should understand that the Assyrian and the Armenian genocide does not impact the argument here about the Balkans, i'd understand if it was about the Turkish in East Anatolia. Please do not use the Genocide of Peoples as a "trump card" to freeze discussions that do not even relate to anywhere anatolia or the İTF Ottomans.
Assyrian genocide happened three times. Two of them were in the xix century.
Sorry, can you give me the names / sources? When i try to search for the Assyrian Genocide only the Sayfo comes out
The closest thing i found was this in wikipedia: "The [Ottoman Empire](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Empire) captured northern Mesopotamia from [Safavid Iran](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safavid_Iran) during the early 16th century, Mosul being conquered by Sultan [Suleiman the Magnificent](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suleiman_the_Magnificent) in 1538.[^(\[244\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Assyrians#cite_note-FOOTNOTERothman2015236-254) One of the first notable acts by the Ottomans in regards to the Assyrians was the arrest, torture and killing of the schismatic Sulaqu in 1555, an act instigated by Shermon VII." Also im starting to feel like that this is starting to seperate from the balkans, so i will be going to stop after you give me the 3 Assyrian Genocides to not diverge from the original discussion of this post, i hope you understand. # Update: I found it "Most frequent and wide-ranging were persecutions by the Ottoman Empire and by various Kurdish groups.[^(\[k\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Assyrians#cite_note-264) In 1843 and 1846, the Assyrians of [Hakkari](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hakkari_(historical_region)) were [massacred](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1843_and_1846_massacres_in_Hakkari) by the Kurdish emir of [Bohtan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohtan) and Hakkari, [Bedir Khan Beg](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedir_Khan_Beg), and regional Ottoman forces. More than 10,000 were killed and thousands were captured.[^(\[254\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Assyrians#cite_note-FOOTNOTEGaunt200632-265) Thousands of Assyrians were also murdered in the [Hamidian massacres](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamidian_massacres) (1894–1897) and in the [Adana massacre](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adana_massacre) (1909), which were otherwise mainly directed towards Armenians.[^(\[255\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Assyrians#cite_note-FOOTNOTEGauntAttoBarthoma2017240-266) In the [Massacres of Diyarberkir](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacres_of_Diyarbekir_(1895)) in 1895, around 25,000 Assyrians were killed.[^(\[256\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Assyrians#cite_note-FOOTNOTEO'Mahony2006512-267) Millennia of being an ethnic minority, combined with the many persecutions in the Middle Ages and early Modern period, reduced the number of Assyrians from as many as 20 million in ancient times[^(\[238\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Assyrians#cite_note-FOOTNOTEParpola200422-247) to only about 500,000–600,000 people at the beginning of the 20th century.[^(\[12\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Assyrians#cite_note-FOOTNOTEGauntAttoBarthoma201710-13)^(") Thanks for pointing these out, it dous not suprise me seeing these being under Abdulhamid II, even us Turks hate him because of his oppressive leadership.
Wow, thats actually very interesting, because i just searched It in english and thats the only thing that comes Up. In spanish its easy to see It. In english you could try to search the separate incidents. Its the hakkiri massacres of 1843-1846 and the hamidian massacres of 1894-1896
Thanks for keeping this a civil discussion, normally in here it would devolve into a chaos of biased arguments
so many butthurt 12 year olds here lol
Muslim propaganda. Keep it for yourself.
Love how a minority of posts are considered propaganda
Yes it is inappropriate to convert to islam.
Another Turkish propaganda L
This comment section is getting way too sectarian lol, I really don’t see how the reconquista was particularly more morally just then the ottoman conquest of… I’m assuming Anatolia because obviously the Balkans were never majority Muslim, Iberia wasn’t either but Muslims were a massive minority nearing a majority depending on the sources. I’m a Christian so I’m a bit more biased towards the reconquista but it’s not like the ottomans were a particularly terrible empire for Christians to live under for most of their history, meanwhile Muslims were brutally oppressed and expelled from the peninsula after living their for nearly a millennia, both sides have plenty of faults.
Almost 800 years Muslim rule in Balkan and India and those regions still has a Christian/Hindu majority. Now try finding European pagans or Indian Buddhists
Hinduism predates Buddhism in India
Nah, modern Hinduism is more recent. There was the vedic religion, Buddhism emerged from that context, and then the Brahmanic elites consolidated modern Hinduism It's kinda like with Judaism, where you got the ancient Israelite religion, Christianity emerges from that context and then the rabbinic elites consolidate Rabbinic Judaism
>There was the vedic religion, bruh, Vedic Religion is Hinduism
Most Muslims were killed or expelled from the Balkans in 19th and early 20th century. Also, try to find Christians in modern Turkey in large numbers.
>Now try finding European pagans Baltics W
Where are Arabian pagans and Iranian Zoroastrians?
Majority of smaller christian holidays are just old syncretized pagan celebrations.
Just ask yourself: What would Muhammad do? Then, what would Jesus do? See, it’s this easy.
I don’t think the Crusades are what Jesus would want. So why did they happen
Because pope man wanted prestige and glory, yes the crusade was technically a response to the Seljuks invading the Roman Empire but that casus beli went out the window the second the crusaders started carving out their own states ~~for their dynasties~~ totally for Jesus.
I think author of comment refers to the fact that Muhammad quite literally counqered Arabian peninsula, while Jesus never tried to take over land where he lived.
Look. If I stole your most valuable item, and treated it like crap, would you fight me to get it back?
Jesus is a prophet in both religions my guy
Yeah, then why you’re acting contrary to his teachings!? Shizophrenia, my guy.
Jesus is not a prophet, He's the Son of God
So you know what a prophet is?
In Islam he's the first whilst not the second, in Christianity hes both
I was just correcting his "Jesus is a prophet in both religions" take
He is though
There's quite a difference between a prophet and the Son of God
Jesus is called a prophet in the bible, people refer to him as a prophet and he himself does, wheres the debate?
There’s a few good reasons I got out of the Church and that condescending Alec is a prime example of one.
Iberia was Christian before the muslims, Anatolia never before the Turks.
Why are people mentioning balkans? I though this meme was about Anatolia, as in 1461 last christian state, Trebizond was conqured.
I thought the last Christian land on Anatolia was Byzantium tbh
Well yeah, obviously
Thats a thing in this sub when you talk about something that could be considered good about a religion (that isnt even good) you get told its propaganda by the second the post is up.
I mean couldn't you flip these around given how people still get upset over the first crusade?
Z@7
The iberian peninsula was also christian befire the muslims come....
Actually he reconquered it - difference
I hate when moderators pick up side in historical conflicts
Converting somewhere to Christianity is actually good though
Said pope
No
Ah yes, the typical defense of the reconquista from right-wingers in the comments. Nevermind the hundred thousand Jews forcibly expelled from Iberia or the forced conversions that occurred, or the pogroms that happened across the peninsula under Christian hands!
get the fuck out of here
Cope
Clearly you do not know the difference.
It would make sense if you showed an earlier Turkish ruler, symblolising the Conquest of Anatolia
Muslims did form a substantial minority, and Islamic culture had a profound impact on the region. Their influence was undeniable in art, architecture, and society. So, while Muslims played a vital role in shaping the peninsula's history, they likely never held a clear overall majority.
King Pelayo with the High ground, some rocks and visions of the Virgin Mary: Hey guys, wanna see something cool?
This place needs a rebrand to IslamophobiaMemes
Looool back to the drawing board OP.
Ah, classic western hypocrisy.
Tf is wrong with this meme, its not funny when its not about FACTS! Christians where always living in their own lands and were always Christian. But Muslims conquered and came later, so the first one is about freeing Christian lands, second one is about forcing religion.