Define conservatism

[Friendindeed]

Those who do not adhere to the fanaticism of radical islam are looked upon as infidels friend and those who don't adhere to the fanaticism know it and very rarely speak out against the true muslims lest they become targets themselves.

Well then you have just admitted that not all Islam is radical Islam.

 

[Friendindeed]

palerider, with all due respect, it is scarcely MY credibility which stands to be lost here ...
given that you have consistently refused to cite your source so that any check can be done of your alleged facts.

Surely you can see the questions that is raising for me.

Why in the world is it such a problem for you to tell me where you are getting this stuff - particularly if it is all "historical fact" as you claim. In such a case, it should be accessible from any one of a dozen places.

Second, you have conspicuously ignored the first example I gave you to the contrary, of the "Golden Age of Spain".
If Muslims had this steady 1400 year history of rapacious aggression against all non-Muslims, then please explain to me why they are notable to historians for their generous and respectful treatment of the Spanish Jews - for those several centuries somewhere between 1000 and 1492 when they ruled the entire Iberian Peninsula.

According to the model you have, they would only have exhibited that kind of tolerance in a season of retreat, regression, stagnation, and weakness. But that period on the contrary was a time of glorious strength and bourgeoning prosperity for them.

Owned. She's right. You can't just say "These are the facts because I say so", in a debate you have to back it up.

 

[palerider]

palerider, with all due respect, it is scarcely MY credibility which stands to be lost here ...
given that you have consistently refused to cite your source so that any check can be done of your alleged facts.

My source is history Lilly. It is either accurate or it is not. If you can cite any information that I have given you that is not historically accurate, feel free. Otherwise....

Why in the world is it such a problem for you to tell me where you are getting this stuff - particularly if it is all "historical fact" as you claim. In such a case, it should be accessible from any one of a dozen places.

Dozens upon dozens. Visit your local library.

Second, you have conspicuously ignored the first example I gave you to the contrary, of the "Golden Age of Spain".
If Muslims had this steady 1400 year history of rapacious aggression against all non-Muslims, then please explain to me why they are notable to historians for their generous and respectful treatment of the Spanish Jews - for those several centuries somewhere between 1000 and 1492 when they ruled the entire Iberian Peninsula.

1011 CE: In Spain, Muhammad I is overthrown by Sulaiman. The following year, Spain was claimed by Bani Hamud through force of arms.

1018 CE: In Spain another military coup transfers power to Abdul Rahman IV.

1024 CE: In Islamic Spain Abdul Rahman IV was assassinated, leading to the dominion of Mustafi.

1031 CE: In Spain, with the deposition of Hisharn III, the Umayyad regime came to an end. And with the collapse of Umayyid Caliphate

1031 CE: In Spain, with the deposition of Hisharn III, the Umayyad regime came to an end. And with the collapse of Umayyid Caliphate

1212 CE: The Battle of Al Uqab was waged in Spain marking the end of the Al Mohad. The Al Mohads were defeated by the Christians in Spain at the Al-Uqba. The Al Mohad Sultan An Nasir escaped to Morocco.

1223 CE: In Spain, a brother of Yusuf declared his independence and assumed the title of Al Adil. Abu Muhammad overthrew Al Adil who escaped to Morocco and overthrew Abdul Wahid.

Muslim control of Spain was reduced to the Kingdom of Granada which would survive to two centuries. (finally some good news for the spanish)

1492 CE: Ferdinand of Aragon and Isabella of Castile end Muslim rule in Spain.

Now begins the golden age. The only thing golden about the previous 4 centuries was the spoils that islam relieved spain of.

According to the model you have, they would only have exhibited that kind of tolerance in a season of retreat, regression, stagnation, and weakness. But that period on the contrary was a time of glorious strength and bourgeoning prosperity for them.

With regard to the "golden age" you keep mentioning. Check your history. This was the first thing I found when I began to search the "golden age of spain":

The Spanish Golden Age (in Spanish, Siglo de Oro) was a period of flourishing in arts and letters in Spain, coinciding with the political decline and fall of the Habsburgs (Philip III, Philip IV and Charles II). This term does not generally imply any great precision about dates, but it begins no earlier than 1492, with the completion of the reconquista and the voyages of Christopher Columbus to the New World, and ends no later than the independence of the Netherlands from the Habsburg Spain, recognized by Spain in 1648. The last great writer of the age, Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz, died in New Spain in 1695.

Note that in 1492, Ferdinand of Aragon and Isabella of Castile end Muslim rule in Spain. That marked the beginning of spain's golden age.

 

[palerider]

Owned. She's right. You can't just say "These are the facts because I say so", in a debate you have to back it up.

History backs me up. If I have misstated anything, by all means point out my error. If you can't point out any historical inaccuracy that I might have posted, then you have no case.

 

[Friendindeed]

History backs me up. If I have misstated anything, by all means point out my error. If you can't point out any historical inaccuracy that I might have posted, then you have no case.

It is a logical fallacy on your part to ask anyone to disprove that these things happened. The burden of proof is on you to prove that they all did happen because you are the one who is saying they did.

 

[palerider]

Lilly, The myths revolving around islamic spain are collectively known as the myth of Andalusia. They have their origins not in any historical fact, but in the writings of romantic 19th century authors. The entire mytical peaceful islamic spain springs from two very imaginative works by convincing writers. "Tales of the Alhambra" by Washington Irving and "Le Dernier des Abencerages" by Chateaubriand. Chateaubriand thought nothing of making things up even about his own life -- some of his entirely fictional trips are set down as fact in "Memoires d'Outre-Tombe."

One of the more well known works of this genra was by Maria Rosa Menocal, entitled "Ornament of the World". It is supposedly all about Cordoba, where "three faiths" worked harmoniously together providing a lesson and hope for our. The first thing you should know about this impressionistic fantasy is that it completely ignores, and does not even mention in its bibliography, any of the major scholarly works on Muslim Spain Primarily those of Evariste Levi-Provencal, of Dufourcq, of Bousquet, but many others are ignored also. It casts a blind eye on a good deal else also including Maimonides (one of the major jewish theologians) own words: "the Arabs have persecuted us severely, and passed baneful and discriminatory legislation against us...Never did a nation molest, degrade, debase, and hate us as much as they."

 

[Friendindeed]

The two of you seem somewhat tied.

Lily wins the point about documenting claims.

palerider wins the point about the Golden Age of Spain, what you probably meant Lily was the Golden Age of Jewish Culture in the Iberian Peninsula, look in Wiki.

 

[palerider]

It is a logical fallacy on your part to ask anyone to disprove that these things happened. The burden of proof is on you to prove that they all did happen because you are the one who is saying they did.

Open a history book. Hell, open 2. It would be a logical fallacy if I asked her, or anyone else to prove a negative. Since all I have given you is historical fact, all one need do is verify it. I have not just said this happened and that happened, I have given names, dates, and locations. Armed with such, verifying the accuracy should be a snap.

I understand it is much easier to not do the research and never learn the truty if that is the way you lean, but that is not my problem.

 

[palerider]

The two of you seem somewhat tied.

Lily wins the point about documenting claims.

palerider wins the point about the Golden Age of Spain, what you probably meant Lily was the Golden Age of Jewish Culture in the Iberian Peninsula, look in Wiki.

Yeah, but she lost that one also since the golden age of jewish culture in spain is no more than the fantasy of some romantic 19th century authors who had a history of disregarding fact in favor of their "artistic lisense".

 

[Friendindeed]

Open a history book. Hell, open 2. It would be a logical fallacy if I asked her, or anyone else to prove a negative. Since all I have given you is historical fact, all one need do is verify it. I have not just said this happened and that happened, I have given names, dates, and locations. Armed with such, verifying the accuracy should be a snap.

I understand it is much easier to not do the research and never learn the truty if that is the way you lean, but that is not my problem.

Just found one of your sources, Jihad Watch. No agenda there or anything.

 

[Friendindeed]

Yeah, but she lost that one also since the golden age of jewish culture in spain is no more than the fantasy of some romantic 19th century authors who had a history of disregarding fact in favor of their "artistic lisense".

According to Jihad Watch, and the license they take.

Here is your problem as I see it. You blow off an account as being biased, but the ones you use are totally biased.
It's reasonable for people to expect citations from unbiased sources.
You have none.

So my point stands.

She got the second part of the name wrong but during the time period she said, those things did happen.

And your dates and facts might be true, but if they are then they should be confirmable from a neutral source.

 

[palerider]

Just found one of your sources, Jihad Watch. No agenda there or anything.

Ad homenim attacks? After you mistakenly chided me for using what you thought was a logical fallacy?

Either you can dispute the information or you can't. The facts of history don't support any golden age of islam in spain.

 

[palerider]

According to Jihad Watch, and the license they take.

Here is your problem as I see it. You blow off an account as being biased, but the ones you use are totally biased.
It's reasonable for people to expect citations from unbiased sources.
You have none.

So my point stands.

At this point, the only point you have made is based on an ad homenim attack. Not much of a point if we were in a referreed debate. The nature of sources is completely irrelavent if they are true. If you can demonstrate that any source I have used is lying about historical fact, then by all means do so right away. If you can't, just suck it up and accept the historical record I have presented as true and try to make a golden age of islam jibe with it.

She got the second part of the name wrong but during the time period she said, those things did happen.

The myth of a golden islamic age in spain (or anywhere else for that matter) originated in the 19th century. Almost a milliniuim after the age was supposed to have happened. Do you not find it suspicious that the historians of the time have an entirely different story? The jewish historians speak of a time of terrible persecution and islamic historians speak of a time of conquest and victory?

And your dates and facts might be true, but if they are then they should be confirmable from a neutral source.

You can either dispute them or you can't. If you , in any discussion, ever post information of a historical nature that I dissagree with, you will find that I will either accept it as true, or provide a credible source or sources that disputes what you have said. You will never see me attack a source as a basis for a rebuttal as that is a genuine logical fallacy. If you ever do see me do such a thing, I would appreciate it if you would point it out to me. If you would like, I can put together a bibliiography to take to your local library or university to do some reading. I have done plenty. I rarely post anything that I haven't spent time verifying for accuracy.

 

[Lilly Marlene]

Open a history book. Hell, open 2. It would be a logical fallacy if I asked her, or anyone else to prove a negative...

Unreal.
palerider, what else do you think you're asking me to do - when you ask me to prove that certain events DID NOT HAPPEN ?
That is a near perfect illustration of asking someone to "prove a negative" !

I could sit here and compose a few centuries' worth of horrific deeds by French people - without giving any source for them the same way you don't - and then challenge you to "prove" they didn't happen.

And btw, it is not an ad hominem for someone to point out that your source is biased (not that it wasn't obvious anyway from the deprecating language in which most of the deeds were recounted).

An ad hom would be if he attacking YOU PERSONALLY, very much like you've done to me three times in this thread.

 

[Lilly Marlene]

The two of you seem somewhat tied.

Lily wins the point about documenting claims.

palerider wins the point about the Golden Age of Spain, what you probably meant Lily was the Golden Age of Jewish Culture in the Iberian Peninsula, look in Wiki.

Thank you, I went and saw it.

It reminds me of what I've often suspected: the only time we really learn anything in these discussions is when we make a mistake.

Now I know to say the correct name whereas otherwise I would have just gone on saying "The Golden Age of Spain" probably for the rest of my life, which refers to the time IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING what I was discussing.

And to give credit where it's due, I thank palerider for pointing out the mistake, even though he didn't tell me what the correct name was.

You know, some people cannot be told anything because they believe they are always right. Such people are not here to have a conversation; they are only here to "win".

Have a nice afternoon, Friendindeed.

[I will not throw away any more pleasantries on Mr. Rider, since it is clear that he can never be bothered to return any, as I just noticed while I was rifling through this thread].