As the history demonstrates, Cordoba was very peaceful, so long as you played by the Muslim rules.
Otherwise, you were killed.
Patrick Henry, in a different context, had it right:
I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House.
...Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot?
...Gentlemen may cry, "Peace! Peace!" -- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun!
Certainly there are Muslims who are "reasonable" and "peaceful."
But the track record......ahhhh.........it's a problem, no?
Your "history lesson" lacks the proper context and perspective, per usual.
ReplyDeleteThere was blood on many hands, and enough blood to soak those hands thoroughly...Christian, Jew, and Muslim. Consequently, Cordoba means different things to different people.
True, historians have their own biases, but they have just a wee bit more credibility and validity in their assertions than the political and religious hacks which you tend to cite when enlightening your diligent followers with "actual" history. Please, a Kentucky Catholic mother of four???
But, it's just more sexy to tout "Islam is violent" and "Muslim rulers built a Mosque at Cordoba to symbolize their victory over Christians" than looking at things from a more critical, even handed perspective.
From HISTORIAN viewpoints...
gotmedieval.blogspot.com/2010/08/professor-newts-distorted-history.html#ft2
www.tabletmag.com/news-and-politics/42700/why-cordoba/
Umnnnhhh....
ReplyDeleteI'll take sources which were present at the time (those are called "contemporaneous" and are usually far more reliable than post-facto blather.)
But hey! If the Muslims showed up here with the idea of invading and taking over the USA, there would be a LOT of blood.
And bozos like you would be blaming the Christians for shedding it.
"I'll take sources which were present at the time (those are called "contemporaneous" and are usually far more reliable than post-facto blather.)"
ReplyDeleteAh, you refer to primary sources. Material written "in the moment". While they do provide a "window" into the past, they are also subject to bias and prejudice, similar to accounts or interpretations afterward. One must carefully scrutinize ALL materials to derive their meaning. You do know your source also provided "post-facto blather" to support her position? Silly me, she used "reputable" sources which are beyond reproach.
"But hey! If the Muslims showed up here with the idea of invading and taking over the USA, there would be a LOT of blood.
And bozos like you would be blaming the Christians for shedding it."
I blame ANY group who takes liberty to distort matters in the name of "true" religion and uses their holy book as a call to arms. That means ALL extremists and radicals within a particular religion--Jews, Muslims, Christians. I do not discriminate against zealotry.
Modern Catholics share many characteristics with Mooslims of yesteryear.
ReplyDeleteThen there are those pesky facts. Such as no where does Jesus call for spreading the Word by force, nor does he call for anyone to be killed for not following him. Anyone who claims he does is proven a liar simply by reading His words.
ReplyDeleteThe same cannot be said for Islam. Islam calls for enslaving or killing the un-believer. It calls for destorying Christians and Jews. It sanctions lying to spread Dar al-Islam, to further Allah's dominion. It is brutal and sick and completely intolerant of the things so many lefties in the west champion. For instance, I may believe that homosexuality is a sin, as is adultry. Christ, however, didn't call for them to be killed for that. Islam, on the other hand..
This is also manifest, should you choose to open your eyes. It's the easy path to condemn all, rather than look at the source writings. It's also lazy and dangerous.
Then there are those pesky facts. Such as no where does Jesus call for spreading the Word by force...
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely...but those who favored "removing the stink in God's nostrils" (that means converting heathens) were popes and Christian monarchs, who supported such violent measures.
Pesky fact, indeed.
And you have a cite?
ReplyDeleteb/c Google doesn't.