video about the Moorish 'contribution' to Iberia...

[Hellqvist]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4948121296578586703

i was told to watch this video - i dont know much about iberian history so i dont know how accurate it is. its pretty long, but i'd like to hear your thoughts.

[Waarnemer]

i only watched the beginning out of a lack of time, i already want contribute that the assumption of an arabic empire, what wasn't an empire to start with, wasn't the biggest the world ever has seen like he wrongly states, the largest was that of the mongol empire

[Menydh]

Hellqvist, do you want the short or the long version?

[Carnyx]

The Dark Ages contributed nothing to civilization? That's a complete myth.

[Hellqvist]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Hellqvist, do you want the short or the long version?

the long version would be nice if you have the time, Mynydd. i'm eager to learn as much as possible about Iberia and the Moors and i definitely don't want to get the wrong idea from some pro-Muslim pile of trash, which is what I think will happen to a lot of people who watch this video.

thanks.

[Freebooter]

You have to love how they make the Reconquista out to be a massive act of barbarism.

"Then, the Christians thought the unthinkable: they attacked al-Andaluz."

Why is that unthinkable? Are we not entitled to our own lands? I suppose we Iberian savages, people who worship water and sun, are better off in Moorish hands... what a pile of filth this video is. No doubt funded by some Jew or a Muslim.

They even have the audacity to credit the victory of Hispania to the intra-Moorish complications - fighting within the various dynasties.

This video is an insult to Iberians everywhere.

[Marcus Marulus]

Originally Posted by Carnyx

The Dark Ages contributed nothing to civilization? That's a complete myth.

The very term "dark ages" is misleading.

Infact we are presently living in the (really) dark ages.

[Hellqvist]

Originally Posted by prometheus

The very term "dark ages" is misleading.

Infact we are presently living in the (really) dark ages.

thats a good point. i think most people view the dark ages as a time when people reverted back to the stone age. the dark ages were actually a really important and defining period especially in european history.

[Errigal]

There is no question Europe went through a difficult period after the Roman Empire’s collapse in the west, but it is wrong to call it the Dark Ages. The Middle Ages were in fact a vibrant and healthy period. Not counting the Back Plague, of course!

As for our current era, when I see a great old building with a crappy new addition being put on it I am reminded of the tours of historic sites I had when I was in school. The guide would show us how the quality of brickwork or stone-carving dropped after the retreat of the Roman Empire. The cheap glass and steel junk added to beautiful old buildings nowadays give the same impression of lost skills and a decline in culture.

[Erasmus]

Excelente comentario a este video posteado por Castizo en Red Liberal:

España y el Islam: video tendencioso:

Ese documental de la BBC es parcial, distorsiona ciertas realidades históricas, y es más que evidente que ha sido escrito y realizado con una mentalidad pro-islámica. En cada palabra, en cada frase, en cada explicación que hace el presentador se denota algo más que una fascinación con el islám, casi una reverencia total.

El tono y el punto de vista utilizado en este programa parecen querer indicarnos que el mundo del islam es superior al occidental, y trajo la mayoría de los avances de los que disfrutamos hoy. El realizador se nutre de todo tipo de distorsiones históricas de índole "multiculti" para justificar sus comentarios. En ningún momento se ofrecen perspectivas contrarias, ni se invita a ningún historiador con un punto de vista diferente. Más que un documental de la BBC, parece que haya sido producido por el servicio de propaganda de Arabia Saudita. El presentador, un tal Rageh Omaar, más que un historiador, parece un agente de relaciones públicas del califato.

Entre las muchas distorsiones históricas de las que hace gala este supuesto "documental", se incluyen las siguientes:

• "El islám constituyó imperio más grande conocido." Esto no sólo es una exageración chauvinista; es falso. En los siglos VII y VIII el Islám se expande a gran velocidad pro un gran terreno mediante la guerra santa. Lo que el documental no dice es que casi la mitad de ese territorio era desierto deshabitado. Menos lobos...
• "El islám entró en España sin oposición y fue bien recibido por los habitantes de la península." Esta es una de esas mentiras que más les gusta a los distorsionadores multicultis. El islám entró en España gracias a las guerras civiles visigodas, y su entrada comenzó una guerra de resistencia al islám que duró casi 800 años.
  
  Gracias al valor de nuestros ancestros, que de forma tan valiente se resistieron a las hordas mahometanas, se pudo detener la expansión del islám por Europa. Recuerden esto, y recuérdenlo siempre: GRACIAS A LA RESISTENCIA ESPAÑOLA Y A LA RECONQUISTA, EUROPA PERMANECIÓ CRISTIANA. EUROPA TIENE UNA DEUDA HISTÓRICA CON ESPAÑA, GRACIAS A LA CUAL NO MIRAMOS A LA MECA (bueno, eso por ahora, porque como sigan las cosas así, Eurabia será una realidad imparable).
• "La catedral de Córdoba tiene un problema de identidad". No señor Omaar, no. Eso es lo que usted quisiera. Eso es propaganda de la que le gusta a grupos radicales como el del señor Escudero, pero que en realidad no son más que acciones de "agitprop" para crear conflicto donde no lo hay. La catedral de Córdoba fue una mezquita antes que catedral, pero lo que este señor decide no mencionar en su mezquino documental es que los invasores árabes construyeron su mezquita sobre las ruinas de una iglesia cristiana visigótica. Iglesia que, válgame recalcar, la morisma arrasó hasta sus cimientos por su paso por Córdoba. Ese es otro de los enriquecimientos culturales del islam por España.
  
  La catedral de Córdoba es cristiana y lo será, por mucho que le pese al señor Omaar.

Este documental de la BBC, distorsionador, falso y comprometido con una idea de un islám superior a occidente, contiene muchísimas más falsedades. Se podría escribir un libro con la retahíla de mentiras que contiene.

La BBC sigue cayendo muy bajo.

España y el Islam: video tendencioso - Page 2 - Red Liberal - Foros

[Errigal]

Here is an interesting article about this Rageh Omaar. England gave him everything they could: private schooling, Oxford University, it took in "20-30 relatives", gave him the daughter of a baronet for a wife and still he leaves the BBC to work for Al Jazeera. Somalia's pride!

Independent Online Edition > Media

[Ederico]

This video is so blatantly biased that I stopped watching it altogether. You would think that the Spaniards were freaking insane to kick out the Moors. This is just another typical politically correct, I add British, way to portray Muslims invaders (they invaded peacefully as well I presume, right Mynydd? ) as great and the Spaniards/Europeans who fought them back to where they belonged as bigotted, intolerant and backward.

Getting a negro, a Somali Islamic immigrant perhaps with a discernible Arabic sounding name, to do this programme is also a clear indication of a bias. Knowing that he moved from the BBC to Al-Jazeera is an indication as well.

[Marcus Marulus]

Originally Posted by A Fist Full of Snow

he leaves the BBC to work for Al Jazeera. Somalia's pride!

Al Jazeera is the Anglo-American tool for disiniformation anyway.

[Gladstone]

I always get a bit of a kick out of the claim made that Islam preserved European science and culture, ie Greek writings etc. It was the Islamic world itself of course which from its beginnings out of Arabia made unprovoked wars of aggression on Europe, particularly on Byzantine, and which finally resulted in the destruction of Constantinople in 1453. Byzantium, being the Hellenic oriented continuation of the Eastern Roman Empire, had been doing a fine job of preserving its own history till then.

It would be about the same difference if an arsonist burned down a citys' fine arts museum, rescued a few of the pieces from the flames they themselves set, and then forever after boasted they were a benefactor and preserver of the arts.

[Marcus Marulus]

Originally Posted by Gladstone

I always get a bit of a kick out of the claim made that Islam preserved European science and culture, ie Greek writings etc. It was the Islamic world itself of course which from its beginnings out of Arabia made unprovoked wars of aggression on Europe, particularly on Byzantine, and which finally resulted in the destruction of Constantinople in 1453. Byzantium, being the Hellenic oriented continuation of the Eastern Roman Empire, had been doing a fine job of preserving its own history till then.

It would be about the same difference if an arsonist burned down a citys' fine arts museum, rescued a few of the pieces from the flames they themselves set, and then forever after boasted they were a benefactor and preserver of the arts.

Yes, they preserved something, I say something, not much. But that was the merit of Nestorian Christians in the first place. Greek writings were first translated into Aramaic, then Nestorian translators from Baghdad (in 9th century) translated it into Arabic. So the Arab world got to know them. Then there was the School of Toledo which translated these writings from Arabic into Latin. So Aristoteles came to Europe in a distorted form, through the cribble of three translations! This Arabicized Arsitoteles had a certain influence on the European medieval culture, along with Arab philosophers and Aristoteles' commentators like Averroes, Avicenna and Avempace.

It wasn't until the humanism and renaissance that Europe came in touch with the Greek originals of Aristoteles and other Greek authors. It was mainly due to the influx of Greek intellectuals who fled Byzantium, which was conquered by Turks.

It is a very odd thing to me. Why did medieval Europeans translate Aristoteles and other Greeks from Arabic? Why didn't they just learn Greek and translate it from the original? The Greek-speaking world was not geographically much more distant from the medieval Catholic Europe than the Muslim-occupied southern Spain. In spite of that, Greek was largely unknown in Europe at that time. There was even a proverb: Graecum est, non legitur. (It is in Greek, so no-one reads it.)

[Gladstone]

Originally Posted by prometheus

Yes, they preserved something, I say something, not much. But that was the merit of Nestorian Christians in the first place. Greek writings were first translated into Aramaic, then Nestorian translators from Baghdad (in 9th century) translated it into Arabic. So the Arab world got to know them. Then there was the School of Toledo which translated these writings from Arabic into Latin. So Aristoteles came to Europe in a distorted form, through the cribble of three translations! This Arabicized Arsitoteles had a certain influence on the European medieval culture, along with Arab philosophers and Aristoteles' commentators like Averroes, Avicenna and Avempace.

It wasn't until the humanism and renaissance that Europe came in touch with the Greek originals of Aristoteles and other Greek authors. It was mainly due to the influx of Greek intellectuals who fled Byzantium, which was conquered by Turks.

It is a very odd thing to me. Why did medieval Europeans translate Aristoteles and other Greeks from Arabic? Why didn't they just learn Greek and translate it from the original? The Greek-speaking world was not geographically much more distant from the medieval Catholic Europe than the Muslim-occupied southern Spain. In spite of that, Greek was largely unknown in Europe at that time. There was even a proverb: Graecum est, non legitur. (It is in Greek, so no-one reads it.)

Hmmmm...interesting. So you are saying that while Byzantium did retain this knowledge of Greek science, it had become largely lost to the West (for whatever reason), and that what information the West did receive regarding this was from the Islamic contact in Spain....and ultimately transmitted to the Arabs themselves by the Nestorian Christians. Could the schism between the Eastern Orthodox and Catholic have something to do with the West not receiving this information directly from Byzantium? Or perhaps the language barrier between the Greeks and the West was even greater than the barriers which existed between Islamics in Spain and the West?

I suppose I just question a bit the amount of hype the multi-culturalists' claim has been given, they lie on so much else about Europe.

Let's not forget the Irish who were said to have the retained the ancient Greek knowledge as well and preserved it for Europeans.