ISNA Longs to Replace Spain with Islamic 'Andalusia'

I'm not sure whether it is your math, or your quotes that are off:

You quoted:

so, from 2 to 6 hundred thousand have moved abroad, i.e., to foreign countries (not Israel). Of those, a little over a hundred thousand are living in the USA.

This according to your figures.

Now, suppose that all that is way off, and there actually are a half million Israelis living among the 35 million or so who call California home.

So what?

 

*sigh*, yes really. Notice the red territories? Despotate of epirus, empire of nicaea, and trebizond? Do you know what they are? Thats right; the byzantine successorstates of whom one, nicea, would reconquer constantinoåle, and trebizond, which would be the last bastion of imperial power. So when treizond fell, the romans wefe comåletely wiped out for good.

 

you have no idea what you are talking about , control over a capital is the main indicator of an occupation /liberation ."July 3 Independence Day, Adopted in 1996, in commemoration of the Red Army's 1944 liberation of Minsk during the Minsk Offensive" ,

 

The article is an obvious fake. As noted by the one commentator who replied to that article, al-Andaluç (which literally means Land of the Vandals) was deemed too liberal and heretical by Orthodox Muslims. It was the center of European scholarship with great advancements in all branches of science, medicine, architecture, engineering, literacy, culinary science, and the only part of Europe which largely escaped the ravishes of the Great Plague. al-Andaluç (as compared with other parts of Spain and Europe) also featured an open mindedness which not only tolerated but encouraged women in the pulpit and in scholarly pursuits both among Muslims and Jews.

 

Islam does not claim Andalusia (known previously as al-Andaluç). That is only a fake premise made by haters who are looking to foment trouble. Please do not succumb to their lies.

 

Muslim conquered land is equally muslim land as originally muslim land. Wouldn't you call gallia roman lands? How can this be so hard to understand? the moment the muslims took over spain it became muslim lands, but that doesn't mean anything else than land ruled by or inhabited by muslims. You're denying reality here, or going against the common sense definition of the word.

If only arabia is muslim lands (much of arabia was conquered also iirc), to whom should the rest of the muslim world be returned to? besides, it was 1400 years ago; the people who were conquered no longer exists in many cases. it's just absurdity to talk about "returning" anything.

And for the record, I'm not in favour of giving spain to the muslims.

 

That the byzantines is really just medieval romans? Indeed, it's wierd that people don't know that the roman empire fell some thousand years after the western roan empire fell. it should be common knowledge in my view. But so strong has the pope's propaganda to delegitimise the eastern empire as just greeks and not romans (whilst claiming germans were romans!), been i suppose.

 

you are wrong, my guess you are older then 30, i know 100% that current generation Swedish upper secondary school students know the right answer(1453).
what i want to see that one day Sweden´ll do more studies/work on this subject since you had special relations with the ERE and the eastern e. in general

 

What was it that the turks took over then, if not the roman empire? Id est, the roman empire was only briefly stunned and broken up in a civil war. But later it reformed. Thus, the crusaders didn't bring about the final conquest of the roman empire. That is attributed to the turks.

 

I'm 17, and going to the gymnasium myself I can say that with the exception of me and my fellow fan of history, probably no one in my class knows when the western roman empire fell even. And the ones who've heard anything would guess att 476. And my father didn't even know the romans survived into the middle ages. I doubt the truthfulness of that statement.

Indeed. I think the ERE could be given more time to show how it protected a weak europe against islam. And of course, to make it very clear that they were the medieval roman empire.

 

Bravo... absurdity meet absurdity!

 

You know, if I'm faced with a conflict like this, id est when what I believe is threatened by reality, I see it as a good idea to re-evaluate my position. Would you care to give a rebuttal or just go into defensive mode so you don't have to deal with that you are wrong?

 

its very strange ...you and your father´d sue your school . you know SU has "open lectures" , including different aspects of the ERE. Rome in 476 was a village, nor an imperial city

ps

 

turks took over ( impoverished by frankish bandits) roman empire...

 

yes, but it was the roman empire nontheless. agreed then.

 

Yes as an educator I was wrong many times before but I was reprimanded by professionals.

 

of cos it was a roman empire. it was my main point. even more i never use the ERE´s Frankish (German) nickname - Byzantium

 

I tend to avoid it and use ERE or just roman empire after the west's fall, so that people will wonder, and look it up, and learn. But alas, sometimes it's just more convinient to use byzantines to avoid confusion.

 

the eastern and western Roman empires existed side by side many years, then western part collapsed, the eastern one.....has become longest lived empire in the history . its nothing to wonder about

 

ps