When The Moors ruled in Europe

[Karlos]

@SuperTurbo

I think SufiDhikr is trying to point out that you misread the title. It's "When the Moors ruled in Europe", not "When the Moors ruled Europe".

Pity they didn't finish what they started. We could have had your "modern society" half a millenium sooner.

Don't underestimate just how far behind we honestly were.

No thanks to islam, I suppose.

You suppose incorrectly. Still, looking at the muslim world to day, it's hard to blame you.

In todays Iraq/Iran there have been cultures way older and more advanced than in any other places on earth

True, and unlike Christendom at that time, Islam embraced the scientific knowledge of these cultures (and others) with gusto. What people tend to overlook is both how they advanced that knowledge further and how they made it available to the common masses.

[Karlos]

But what happened? Look at these countries today, which once held such great cultures... isn't it often because of that in countries ruled by islamic laws, freedom of speech and criticism is heavily reduced, thus halting development and creativity...

Fundamentalism. Islam's golden age was destroyed by several centuries of conflict that began pretty much with Pope Urban II's decision to wage a pogrom against the heathen muslims that had spread across the holy land, eg: "God Wills It!" (tm)

This move galvanized the various Christian groups northern Spain to begin eradicating those evil moorish beasts that had doubtlessly brutally converted their countrymen by the sword (a much loved fallacy, especially in Spain)

Anyway, to cut a long story short, enlightened scholarly types weren't much cop at fighting and in a demonstration of the "survival of the fittest" rule, the more zealous took their place. They weren't especially interested in the progressive view and once they had power, that was it.

To suggest, as you have, that Islam itself stands in the way of development and creativity is evidentally a fallacy. If it were true, no such culture could ever have arisen in the first place.

Do not judge any culture, society or religion by those that claim to represent it, they invariably don't.

[Karlos]

From what I've read in history books, the crusades has had hardly any effect in the muslem world.

I know history is written by the victors, but I'm surprised by that conclusion. If said historians honestly believe that simultaneously getting their arse kicked by Christendom from the West and the Mongols from the East (many of whom later converted but not before extensive damage to eastern territories) had "little effect" on the rise of fundamentalist views and the subsequent decline of free thinking in the Islamic world, then their reasoning utterly escapes me.

While there were many complex factors that led to the decline of the "golden age", decadence, wars, fundamentalism, internal power struggles etc., as far as Moorish influence in Europe is concerned, look no further than the Crusades and the knock-on events, such as the Reconquista and Inquisition.

Regardless on one's opinion of Islam today, it is undeniable that the destruction of Al-Andalus was a loss for European Civilization. Entire volumes of work were destroyed, centuries of art, culture and learning obliterated. Thankfully some of their legacy remained to kickstart the reanissance.

[Karlos]

Dandy wrote:

Yes.
And today we would live in the mediaeval times then, I guess from looking at the majority of the islamic countries today?

Why? The comparison between the current timeline and an alternate one is totally invalid. You cannot assume any such parallels after such a major divergence.

Instead, I suggest that had the moors have spread their model of civilisation across all of europe, there would be no real threat of conflict with Rome (its far more likely that a treatise would have been set up recognising Rome as the religious centre of catholicism) and therefore it's unlikely there would have been the subsequent 8 centuries of Christian-Islamic conflict over the middle eastern territories. No conflict, no support for fundamentalism.

Pan european Islam in the more tolerant, enlightended moorish mold would not have required military assistance from more fundamentalist groups such as the almoravids in order to try and protect itself from christian armies. Again, a safe, content population is not given to supporting extremist viewpoints.

Far from your assertion, I reckon that had their culture have flourished, we could be several centuries ahead of where we are now.

[Karlos]

But I fail to see that Islam improved development of civilisations in the Islamic world since then - so why do you asssume that it would have been different if Islam had spread across Euorpe back then?

I agree that existing societies don't reflect that view. However, did you not read any of the text of my post or check any of the articles about the peak of Moorish influence in Europe?

I can see no reason to assume that such a culture would not have continued to excel if it had been allowed to do so. It's a perfectly simple extrapolation that had this culture survived to usurp the existing ones within europe and the ensuing conflict with Catholicism not occured (at least not on the scale and duration of the crusades) there would have been no real support for the sorts of extremists that gained the upper hand during that time.

In my opinion, no existing muslim culture in the world today can claim to be remotely like that which existed during the peak of Islam's "golden age" simply because they've lost the inquisitiveness and ambition for intellectual advancement that the earlier civilisation had. That's a direct consequence of a change in motivation brought about by centuries of pointless conflict.

That's not a reflection on Islam, that's just a reflection on people.