In case you're wondering, I'm anti-reconquista. Not only did it lead to a lessening of civilization in the region, but it also led to the expulsion of both Muslims and Jews. Of the three Abrahamic faiths, I identify most closely with Jews since I grew up in a Jewish neighborhood and had relatively few Gentile friends until college. So when Christians kick out Jews and Muslims, I identify with those being expelled.

Ennis, you might be interested in reading The Lions of Al-Rassan, by Guy Gavriel Kay. He specializes in taking broad historical periods and events (mostly European, as far as I know), and reimagining them in a fantastical but easily identifiable other world, with the theologies and such switched around but the general cultural roles kept in place. I feel his most elegant work is the one furthest removed from any historical reality, Tigana, and the most sharply plotted is inspired by Constantinople--the two part Sarantine Mosaic.. The Lions of Al-Rassan is inspired by the Reconquista, and while I found it, finally, overly emotional and melodramatically plotted, it's deeply evocative.

Comercialism knows no religious or cultural boundaries. When there was religious tolerance it was often for the sake of economic stability. Also I was under the impession that in Spain and other spanish speaking countries they also celebrated El Dia de Los Reyes on January 6th, so perhaps that's why you are still seeing the commercialism of Christmas in January.

I think the store cares less about what religious faith you are and more about whether you carry cash or a valid Visa or MasterCard.

Still a very humourous juxtaposition of religion and comercialism.

when i read this, i immediately thought of this post on Overheard in New York:

Old lady #1: Hmmm, it's sort of weird you don't see a lot of Muslims decorating for Christmas, right? Old lady #2: Yeah, I think it's because a lot of them don't live in the country.

--6 train

Do they know it's Christmas Resistance after all?

Didn't you find quite a bit of random orientalism/exotica in Granada? We were there in late December and a number of our pictures are of "exotic" store-fronts, posters, billboards etc.

I don't know if you guys can see in the low res version of the photo I uploaded, but there's even a Sanskrit OM on the bag with the Sadhu on it. They're even using Hindu religious symbols to sell Christmas!

The Sadhu's a laugh, perhaps, but the Moorish thing--as an important element of Christianity--been around for a long time, particularly in Southern Europe where there was much contact with foreign peoples. It has to do with the Epiphany, the visit of the Three Kings to the baby in the manger.

The legend was that the kings represented three ages of man (youth, middle-age, oldness) and at the same time the three "races" of humanity that were under subjection to the authority of the New King (i.e. Jesus): the African, the Oriental and the European.

The subject of the three kings was popular with medieval, renaissance and baroque painters--it was an opportunity to depict oriental luxury, camels, robes, gold, etc, within the context of a Christian religious picture. This Mantegna is typical, as is this Blomaert. There are literally dozens of other examples. Interestingly, nowhere in the Bible does it indicate that there were three magi. It just says "wise men from the east." The rest is pure tradition.

Christmas is about "peace on earth," but it's also about dominion or, if you prefer, religious imperialism.

In case you're wondering, I'm anti-reconquista. Not only did it lead to a lessening of civilization in the region, but it also led to the expulsion of both Muslims and Jews. Of the three Abrahamic faiths, I identify most closely with Jews since I grew up in a Jewish neighborhood and had relatively few Gentile friends until college. So when Christians kick out Jews and Muslims, I identify with those being expelled.

Muslims never formed the majority in Spain even during Arab rule. The reconquista was a popular movement and overthrew a culture that would have eventually forcibly converted Spain to an Islamic land . It would have been a modern day Bosnia, Turkey or Pakistan. So yeah, I think things worked out for the best for Christendom and the world as a whole. In fact, I'll bet a whole lot of other people whose culture has been destroyed by Arabization/ Islamization would have wished for similar reconquistas e,g.the Copts of Egypt, Assyrians of Iraq or Hindus of Sind.

Maybe the best for Christiandom, but it's unclear whether it worked out best for the world.

Why do you say that they eventually would have forcibly converted Christians to Islam in Spain? The Jews lived in peace there, and afterwards in Morocco, for hundreds of years. Why would Christians have been treated any different?

In general, I guess I prefer the more scientifically advanced and pluralistic society over the other.

"The reconquista was a popular movement and overthrew a culture that would have eventually forcibly converted Spain to an Islamic land . It would have been a modern day Bosnia, Turkey or Pakistan. So yeah, I think things worked out for the best for Christendom and the world as a whole. In fact, I'll bet a whole lot of other people whose culture has been destroyed by Arabization/ Islamization would have wished for similar reconquistas e,g.the Copts of Egypt, Assyrians of Iraq or Hindus of Sind."

couldn't the same be said of christendom's forcible conversion/wholesale destruction of other lands/cultures (especially by the spanish/portuguese)? i'm assuming you would support reconquistas of those lands/cultures too:)

To quote Edward G. Robinson "Where's your god now, Moses!?"

This is like the Christmas before last when ABC Carpet and Home in NYC had desi gods in the windows as Christmas decorations. I think Manish blogged about it then. The ridiculous Christmasization of everything is irritating even if it's the favorite time of the year for me.

Why do you say that they eventually would have forcibly converted Christians to Islam in Spain?

Egypt: was majority Coptic Chistian -> now Sunni Muslim

Iran: Zoarastrian -> now Muslim

Do I even need to bring up West Punjab? Sind?

Being Sikh, I think you would appreciate that a culturally advanced civilization (the Moghuls) could at the same time be fanatically Islamist. A strict civilizational preference like yours should also favor the glory of the Moghuls over a ethno-religious state like that of the Sikhs. But hey, I think milllions of Punjabi Sikhs and Hindus probably owe the survival of their culture to the 'reconquista' of the Punjab.

The Moors/ berbers of north Africa are not really paragons of tolerance. Please see present day ethnic cleansing, and reported slavery of Africans by the Moroccan backed Arabs in Mauritania and Western Sahara.

But back then, theirs was more pluralistic than the alternative. You recognize that Christian society is different now from what it was - no more slavery, fewer Crusades. So why do you think of Islam as monolithic?

Wow -- an Islamic Spain would have been pretty amazing. I wonder if it would have meant a Muslim New World.

But back then, theirs was more pluralistic than the alternative.

This is debatable. At best it was dhimmitude. Yes at that time, dhimmitude for the Jews was better than their status in Christian lands, but for a Christian in Spain, I think there is litlle doubt that the reconquista was a positive event.

Again for every Akbar there was an Auragzeb. Who knows which ruler down the line would have decided to convert Spain to Dar Al Islam?I don't think the Spanish wanted to take that chance. They threw them out when they could.

And ended up with the Inquisition instead.

RE: The Magi -- nowhere in the bible does it say they were kings. Apparently they were just some curious astrologers, who had a cold coming of it, tired of the dirty villages charging high prices, missing the silken girls bringing sherbet, all just to find some illegal aliens clutching their god.

Apparently they were just some curious astrologers, who had a cold coming of it, tired of the dirty villages charging high prices, missing the silken girls bringing sherbet, all just to find some illegal aliens clutching their god.

True, true.

Remember when they came upon that one tavern, with vine-leaves over the lintel? There was no information. But I believe there were six hands at the door dicing for pieces of silver, and (where's the party yaar) feet kicking the empty wineskins.

Clearly a bad neighborhood. No wonder the blokes couldn't figure out if someone had just died or been born!

You'd be confused too, if your camel-men kept running away, whining about their liquor and women.

I guess the guidebooks were out of date, since they had been published under the old dispensation. That, and you just can't get good help these days.

Why is the 'R' in Christmas, backwards on the bags?

The Magi were Persian Zorastrians, and they have desi connections.

There must have been an argument in the group, too. I mean what's with calling the elderly one "an old white horse"? Needless cruelty.

Parsis, you say?? No wonder Preston knows so much about them!

Why is the 'R' in Christmas, backwards on the bags?

Because elsewhere in the world, people are dyslexic, of course.

I'm just wondering how they got from Tehran to Bethlehem so fast, before Mary and Joe had packed off to Egypt. Bethlehem is SW of Tehran, so what was the star doing in the east?

The R is backwards because it's the We Three Kings of Orient R.

It assumes that a Sadhu and a Muslim Tuareg celebrate Christmas just because people in the west do.

(but also how people in the west do...)

It always amused me that in Kenya, storefronts would paint their windows with snowy landscapes, white Father Christmas' (a.k.a. Santa), christmas trees, raindeer and chariots to help promote sales in December...

Muslims never formed the majority in Spain even during Arab rule. The reconquista was a popular movement and overthrew a culture that would have eventually forcibly converted Spain to an Islamic land...

If Muslims never formed the majority (which is certainly not agreed upon by scholars; cf. Bulliet, Glick) and they didn't "forcibly convert" Spain to a majority Islamic land in the 500 years they ruled most of the peninsula from roughly 720-1236, what makes you hypothesize that they would have "eventually" done so...?

Also, just point of information, it seems most of the reconquista was accomplished by the mid-13th C., with only Granada left (still under rule of Castile) until 1492. That was merely the year the cleansing by the Católicos was complete.

Oh, and I also like the concept of "Three Kings 'R' Us"

what makes you hypothesize that they would have "eventually" done so...?

Read up the entire history of Islamic conquests. Almost universally the conquered cultures were forced to submit to Islam, starting with Christians in the middle east, Copts in Egypt, Zoarastrians in Iran, buddhists in Afghanistan/ Central Asia, Hindus in present day Pakistan. Islam has always been a polito-religious movement, there is no distinction betwen the mosque and state. The Caliph is the temporal and spiritual ruler. Spain would look somewhat like Bosnia/ Turkey if not for the reconquista. Please refer to my Akbar/Aurangzeb analogy above too. Negating the nationality and culture of a country (Spain ) in this case out of a misplaced sense of wistfulness for a 'supposedly' tolerant empire is pretty preposterous.

It always amused me that in Kenya, storefronts would paint their windows with snowy landscapes, white Father Christmas' (a.k.a. Santa), christmas trees, raindeer and chariots to help promote sales in December...

It's even odder that Christmas trees and (a very pink) Santa Claus show up in Kerala: the heart of Indian christianity. It only perpetuates the christianity-is-a-european religion idea, if you ask me. But the people (in Kerala) seem pretty comfortable with it. Maybe it's because they have fewer identity issues than I do.

Don't make assumptions about my "wistfulness for a 'supposedly' tolerant empire." I was just trying to understand your logic in extrapolating the history of Persia/Iran and Egypt onto the Iberian peninsula.

Actually, if anything, I'm just trying to figure out what your point was in trolling this thread, other than your assertion that "I think things worked out for the best for Christendom [well that's obvious!] and the world as a whole."

So basically, you're just providing a "pro-reconquista" viewpoint, even though it wasn't merely a transfer of power, but a total "ethnic cleansing" (best for the world as a whole?) if you will, of both Muslims and Jews from Spain by Los Reyes Católicos. Which I think was a main part of Ennis's original point about being anti-reconquista.

Ethnic cleansing and forced conversion by Christians is good because it saves people from ... ethnic cleansing and forced conversion by Muslims. It's quite simple, really.

There is no comparison between pre-Enlightenment christianity and Islam. Islam was far more tolerant. Christendom only allowed judaism to survive, and even there you had the Inquisition and the ghettos that jews were locked in at night. Muslim rulers tolerated jews, christians and hindus, albeit as dhimmis. It was the arab pagans, persian zoroastrians and central/south asian buddhists who were wiped out by Islam.

Dont know who said it, but here goes "Islam is like a witch disgussed as a beautiful lady". In about 1000 years of muslim rule in India about 100 million were killed.

India had its own reconquista in terms of Maharaja Ranjit Singh in Punjab and the Maratha Empire by Shivaji and Peshwas.

IC,

I think you need to do some heavy reading on the Islamic conquests. The reason Islam was able to conquer all of North Africa and much of Spain in so short of a time, was precisely because the Muslim conquerors did NOT forcibly convert the population. As a result, the population of those places saw the conquests as nothing more than a change in whom the paid their taxes to, because they were encouraged to keep their local cultures and beliefs. And so there was no widespread rebellion. In time, over centuries, people converted.

Similarly, no Muslim army ever set foot in Indonesia - the world's largest Muslim country. The myth that Islam was spread by the sword, is probably due to the fact that in South Asia, and Persia, it was indeed a brutal conquest and forcible conversions did occur. But for much of the rest of the Muslim world, that is simply not true.

Muslim Spain was indeed a great pluralistic civilization. And it is today credited with being the catalyst for the European renaissance, that eventually led to Western civilization as we know it.

To answer the question as to whether the New World would have been Muslim - I don't think so, because the reason the Spanish were interested in sailing West was because the spice route to the East was cut off by the Muslim lands. Also, another interesting tidbit is that some historians of Columbus have suggested that as a boy he sailed with Moorish sailors on the West African coast - as a result, it is no wonder he was convinced that the world was round, because the Moors had this knowledge for centuries before (due to their study of the ancient Greek and Indian astronomy).

Not only did it lead to a lessening of civilization in the region, but it also led to the expulsion of both Muslims and Jews.

two words: the almohads and almoravids. thought it is simplistic to depict these dynasties as if they were salafists, they certainly wiped out the glory that was al-andalus. as for its fabled tolerance, it is just that, fabled. yes, it was more tolerant than christian european states, but that is a low bar to set indeed. even during the time of abd-ar-rahman iii there were pogroms and persecutions of jews and christians, and there was never any idyllic equality before the law, the muslims, and in particular arabs (remember that large numbers of berbers settled in spain), were the ruling caste and they made sure other groups knew it. from the american & enlightenment perspective the catholic monarchy of castile & aragon is distasteful in its character, so there has been an emphasis on the more edifying aspects of muslim spain, but the reality on the ground was more complex and far less heart-warming.

Similarly, no Muslim army ever set foot in Indonesia - the world's largest Muslim country.

true, but please note that coastal sultantes waged jihad against the hindu-buddhist polities such as majapahit.

it is no wonder he was convinced that the world was round

i don't think any educated european believed that the world was flat. the ptolemaic model after all posited a spherical earth.

as for its fabled tolerance, it is just that, fabled. yes, it was more tolerant than christian european states, but that is a low bar to set indeed.

It may be a low bar, but these were the choices: Castillian Christians or Moorish Muslims. Given that set of options, I pick the Moors.

Something interesting that I noted when I visited Granada was the influence the religious persuasion of the time (Moore, Christian, Jewish) had on the architecture. Literally, blocks built upon blocks - and such strong diversions from the stones/motifs assembled before it.

Along the book lines, has anyone read "Tales of the Alhambra?" It, along with English, August were two books I picked up abroad that I didn't read. Although, I am quite proud to say I read/finished English, August on the way from Taipei to Los Angeles.

It may be a low bar, but these were the choices: Castillian Christians or Moorish Muslims. Given that set of options, I pick the Moors.

well, not really though. it wasn't a dichotomy. different regions of christian iberia had different dispensations toward muslims. in the early 16th century for example 25% of the population of valencia was muslim. their position was roughly equivalent to that of christians in muslim taifa states.

Well, if you're opposed to the Reconquista, I'm opposed to the Peloponnesian War.

Noel

It may be a low bar, but these were the choices: Castillian Christians or Moorish Muslims. Given that set of options, I pick the Moors.

well, not really though. it wasn't a dichotomy.

I meant because I showed up in Granada, where they were celebrating the reconquista and I had to decide how I felt about it.

I'm anti-reconquista as well. The Moors were in Spain for about 700 years, the Jews longer, regardless of how they all got there, who conquered who, etc. It reminds me of Idi Amin's 'Africa for Africans' or countless other episodes in history where people have put down roots going back generations and felt tied to a place only to be conquered themselves or expelled. My history is really not the greatest on this period though and I might see things differently if all the indigineous, native americans got together and expelled everyone who came her after 1492.

The irony, of course is my Spanish heritage. My grandfathers first name has been passed from father to son for a couple hundred years.

the sadhu is the little known "fourth wiseman" spoken of in the "Book of Mohan", which was voted out of the New Testament at the Council of Nicea. The Zoroastrian magi brought gold, frankincense & myrhh. The sadhu, having been delayed by bad traffic due to the Kumbh Mela, showed up to the manger with the standard Milk Bikis

Razib,

Muslim Spain was probably one of the most tolerant pluralistic civilizations of its time - so to use the term "fabled tolerance" is disingenous. You simply cannot judge a civilization by comparing it to one from another millenium (as in comparing Muslim Spain to America today) - because society evolves and moral norms also evolve.

So for example the dhimmi in Muslim Spain, were in essence protected peoples, because the moral norm at the time was to slaughter, convert, or enslave, after a conquest, anyone who was not of your religion or your tribe. The dhimmi, on the other hand, were entitled to their own religious laws and allowed to practice their own religious faith in Muslim Spain. To argue that they were forced to pay a tax is also disingenuous, because Muslims in these empire paid the zakat tax, a tax usually equal to the tax the dhimmi paid. Muslims and non-Muslims were all residents of the empire, so they were all required to pay taxes.

However, in that age, your religion was your citizenship. So a Muslim in a Muslim empire enjoyed more rights and more privileges, because he was a citizen. A non-Muslim, enjoyed less rights, but nevertheless enjoyed basic freedoms as compared to the other great empires of the time.

Perhaps in a thousand years, someone will accuse the American civilization of being intolerant and discriminatory because it differentiated between citizens and non-citizens. Such a criticism would be just as disingenuous as accusing Muslim Spain of intolerance.

So, how does this logic about reconquest always being positive apply to, say, the current situation in the Middle East? Or, to believe the right-wing, the American Southwest?

Preston (#29), actually they didn't show up in the manger, they showed up in his house, possibly 2 years later.

I meant because I showed up in Granada, where they were celebrating the reconquista and I had to decide how I felt about it.

the key is felt. i will end it with you in this way: the attitudes that enlightened westerners began to exhibit toward muslim spain starting the 18th century and continuing into our own time says more about the nature of european civilization before the modern era, than it does about muslim spain! the only reason that i protest is that muslims themselves have taken up the banner and an ahistorical narrative promoted by european secularists to attack christendom is now taken as historical fact.

Muslim Spain was probably one of the most tolerant pluralistic civilizations of its time - so to use the term "fabled tolerance" is disingenous.

no. it wasn't. only if you exclude the whole eastern half of eurasia, where religious disagreement did not make you a non-citizen. something to keep in mind when reading a blog where many individuals are of non-abrahamic provenance is that there is civilization outside of western eurasia :)

So for example the dhimmi in Muslim Spain, were in essence protected peoples, because the moral norm at the time was to slaughter, convert, or enslave, after a conquest, anyone who was not of your religion or your tribe.

this was the norm only among extremely civilized peoples. i am skeptical than even the pagan arabs engaged in this, since many were town dwellers and what not. the muslim conceptions of the jahilya are i suspect in large part propoganda to justify their dispensation (the arabs had civilized polities long before islam). conquered peoples were normally taxable base. it is true they could be slaughtered or enslaved, but on the scale of empires genocide was normally costly and so not engaged in (rather, local elites were co-opted, and this did happen in what was visigothic spain). the christians did not "slaughter, convert, or enslave, after a conquest" after all, at the time of the reconquista an enormous population of muslims lived under christian monarchs. after 1492 these became the moriscos. they were not expelled until 1600, and this in large part motivated by moriscos who converted to christianity and wished to sever all associations with crypto-muslims who cast their own citizenship under a pall.

p.s. if you want a state which exhibited exemplary toleration of religion during the period of the reconquista, i suggest you look to the duchy of lithuania between 1200-1400, where eastern orthodox and catholic christians were ruled by a pagan ruling caste, and muslim and jewish bureaucrats worked in the capital.

this was the norm only among extremely civilized peoples

remove "only." sloppy re-edit.

Great photo, Ennis. Translated, Kapurthala-stylee:

Sadhu: My wish: good karma for the whole world
Bedouin: My wish: that beliefs don't become a reason for war

More Moorish Spain on SM: one, two, three