re: Serbia-Kosovo conflict reigniting

Apologies for taking so long to reply to your whirlwind of posts. I had to read through all of the articles to what BS you were linking me to.

quote:

---

This is a good, short summary, to get you started. Some excerpts:

quote:
One adjustment both communities were spared: changing their religion. Both Christians and Jews could convert, if they wished, but the victorious Muslims did not force either group to do so since according to Islamic law they were dhimmis, i.e. they enjoyed protection because they were Ahl al-Kitab, “Peoples of the Book” whose faith was founded on revelation. (The “Book” was the Bible, a partial and incomplete revelation of God’s word, which was fully disclosed in the Qur’an.)

This protection afforded to Christians and Jews was a religious obligation founded on sharia, or traditional Islamic law, and not subject to the whims of politics, at least in theory.

quote:
By virtue of isolation, rural areas contained a substantial number of Christians, even a majority according to the observation made by the Arab geographer, Ibn Hawqal, on a visit to al-Andalus in 948.

In other words, there was no massive, forced conversion immediately after the Conquest. Conversion of the majority of the populace was a slow process.

---

This link doesn't work for me so I can't say fore sure if what you quoted is properly cited from actual scholars or some sleuth on the internet trying to demean religion.

quote:

---

Here is a more scholarly work, focused upon two issues. First, identifying WHEN conversion peaked. Second, examining WHY Iberians converted.

As to the first question, the author examines a number of theories but reaches no definitive conclusion on a specific date during the first two centuries. As to OUR point (forced military conversion) immediately after the Conquest, the second half of the paper is instructive. It discusses half a dozen reasons for conversion in the first two centuries of Muslim rule. “Compulsion” is not even ONE of them.

---

An argument from silence is not an argument. Just because that reason wasn't included in the paper doesn't mean it didn't happen. Also...these arguments are the author's best guess as to why conversions happened. And if the author of this paper is indeed a Muslim, it's likely they wouldn't publish information that makes the religion look bad. Radical Muslims are okay with lying if it advances their cause.

quote:

---

This should give you more to chew on.. Excerpts:

quote:
Muslim Arabs substituted the Visigoths as rulers over the local Hispano-Roman population, who were (even if only nominally) Christians and whose languages were Latin and Romance. They, together with the Jews, became "protected peoples" (dhimmis ), being allowed to preserve their religion and their community life, although always in a position of subordination to the Muslims.

quote:
Latin culture was still predominant in the ninth century, but in the tenth century the Christians of al-Andalus started to translate their religious literature (the Psalms, the canons of the Visigothic church) into Arabic.

quote:
In the tenth century, Arabic became the predominant written language and in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, the predominant spoken language. Arabic monolingualism (with diglossia between written Arabic and the spoken dialects) became the norm from the thirteenth century onward.

quote:
In opposition to what happened with Latin and Romance language and culture, the Jews of al-Andalus were able to maintain Hebrew as their religious and literary language and it became pivotal in the defence of their cultural identity, while at the same time they carried out a deep absorption of Arabic language and culture.

---

You link a website with no citations in the body? Get out of here.

Nice try though.