#Umayyad Dynasty

[fairuzfan]

you didn't actually answer my question , Temple Mount is the most ancient and holiest site for Jewish people -- the Dome of the Rock & Al-Aqsa Mosque were built hundreds of years later on behalf of the Umayyad dynasty's conquest. you mentioned in your response a massacre that happened centuries later, which does not relate to the fact that Jews cannot pray at this site (their utmost holiest site before even the existence of Christians or Muslims). how is "temple denial" something that I made up when you can research it right now and see what it is and that it exists? I ask because this seems to be actually a blind spot for many non-Jewish people simply because it doesn't affect them. I'm not intending to be argumentative and I am sorry if my English is bad in getting across

I'm sorry for being argumentative but a lot of the time, whenever Palestinians are asked about temple mount, there's an implication that Palestinians are colonizers and don't deserve to be on the land. Israelis, if they could, would completely ban Muslims from AlAqsa despite it being the third holiest site in Islam.

AlAqsa is probably the most important national symbol of Palestinians, often thought to be the last straw for Palestinian heritage. So much of our culture has been robbed from us, and (primarily muslims) believe that the demolition of AlAqsa, which is, as Mohammed ElKurd puts it, is one of the last places in all of Palestine where being Palestinian is not criminalized would be a fundamental loss we would never recover from, equivalent to losing our Balad.

I bring up the Ibrahimi Mosque Massacre because there are no restrictions for extremist settlers legally — they operate as an arm of the state and in some cases are encouraged to committ these acts. The "Apartheid Law" basically enshrined that settlements are a national value for Israel. This means that there is no safe haven for Palestinians legally. They're in constant danger of getting kicked out of their home or getting arrested for existing. I cannot emphasize enough how Palestinian freedom is so restricted with the explicit intent of pushing them out of the land.

Temple denial as a concept (after looking it up) seeks to paint Palestinians in a fundamentally bigoted and violent light. Palestinians are not allowing Jews in AlAqsa not because they hate Jews, but because that opens the way for settlers to become violent around AlAqsa, which a lot of the time is already happening. I suggest reading "Why Do Palestinians Burn Jewish Holy Sites? The Fraught History of Joseph's Tomb" (sorry the link is not linking, but you can look it up on the palestine institute webpage). It discusses the use of history as a colonial tool. Here's an excerpt:

It is one of many shrines across historic Palestine – now split into Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza – that has been re-invented as exclusively Jewish, despite a long history of shared worship among Jews, Christians, Muslims, and Samaritans that goes back centuries. And the reason it has been attacked has almost nothing to do with religion, and much to do with how the Israeli military and settlement movements have used religion as a way to expand their control over Palestinian land and holy places.

And a second excerpt describing the political use of religion:

But the claims of biblical archaeologists had a strong role in how the Zionist movement would come to understand and conceive of the landscape.6 As European Jews migrated to Palestine in the first half of the twentieth century, they drew upon biblical archeology's claims. They adopted archeologists' claims that Palestinian holy sites were directly linked to ancient biblical figures. In many cases, they focused on occupying those sites in order to legitimize the colonial endeavor by giving it a sense of deeper history. In many cases, this would mean evicting the Palestinians who actually frequented these holy sites.

And what Palestinians are afraid of:

In 1975, the Israeli military banned Palestinians – that is, the Samaritans, Muslims, and Christians living around the site – from visiting, a ban that has remained in place until this day. [...] Unsurprisingly, the ban has ignited intense anger over the years. This is true particularly given that frequent visits by Jewish settlers to the shrine are accompanied by hundreds of Israeli soldiers, who enter the area and run atop the rooftops of local Palestinians to “secure” the tomb. As a result, Joseph's Tomb has increasingly become associated with the Israeli military and settlement movement in the eyes of Palestinians. Its presence has become an excuse for frequent military incursions that provoke clashes and lead to arrests and many injuries in the neighborhood. Some fear that Israelis will attempt to take over the shrine to build an Israeli settlement around it. This fear is not unfounded, given the fact that Israeli settlers have done exactly that all across the West Bank in places they believe are connected in some way to Jewish biblical history. The notoriously violent Jewish settlements in Hebron, for example, were built there due to the location of the Tomb of the Patriarchs in that southern West Bank town. Following the initial years of settlement, settlers even managed to convince Israeli authorities to physically divide the shrine – which is holy to local Palestinians – and turn the whole area into a heavily-militarized complex. Other shrines have become excuses for the Israeli military to build army bases inside Palestinian towns, like Rachel's Tomb in Bethlehem – which is surrounded by twenty-foot high concrete walls on three sides to block Palestinian access. The village of Nabi Samwel near Jerusalem, meanwhile, was demolished in its entirety to provide Jewish settlers access to the tomb at its heart.

I'm not denying the temple mount is there. I'm just saying that history has been manipulated to erase centuries worth of cultural heritage through scholarship and Palestinians are protective of their most important symbol of resistance and life. Even you saying "Islam and Christianity came after Judiasm" is a dogwhistle for me, because a lot of the time extremists say that to completely erase AlAqsa as an important site to Muslims and intending to deny the site as a shared worshipping site that is quite important to Muslims. Just because Islam came after Judiasm, does that mean it's not legitimate as a religion itself? Islamically, Islam is a continuation of Judiasm, so we don't deny judiasm is important to AlQuds. We just are so concerned with losing our national symbol that we're so protective over it.

Now I bring up the massacre at ibrahimi mosque because, like mentioned in the excerpt above, Palestinians are afraid something like that will happen again. There's no protections for Palestinians, and most of the time they're denied from praying in AlAqsa themselves by Israeli authorities. Israeli settlers themselves come in and disrespect AlAqsa, and as I mentioned, extremists plan on demolishing AlAqsa to build a Third Temple. The Massacre at the Mosque paved way to the "Jews Only" streets I mentioned, including the militarization and basically a complete upheaval of normal life for Palestinians. I suggest looking into how terrible the situation in AlKhalil is, and that arised directly from the massacre.

You cannot separate this issue from the colonial implications of the last safe haven in all of Palestine being open to Israelis. Now when Palestine is free, I doubt there would be restrictions. But right now, there are and to pretend Israelis don't pose a threat to Palestinians fundamentally, would be erasure of the colonization of Palestine.

I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, but even if AlAqsa was built hundreds of years after, it doesn't change the fact that RIGHT NOW Israelis have privilege that Palestinians do not. As soon as that privilege is no longer there, then we can talk about allowing Jews there. But until then, Palestinians are constantly in danger of settler violence and to take away a space (which, Ibrahimi Mosque was one of those sites before Palestinians were massacred) is frankly, an insult and a denial that Palestinians themselves are colonized.

I suggest looking at the links I provided earlier for more in depth analysis. I'm going to reiterate: the only reason it's illegal is because Palestine is colonized and this is our last safe haven that we even aren't completely allowed from entering ourselves.

Most Palestinians are quite heated about this topic. It genuinely is considered one of our last national symbols (so not just religious but also political and cultural), which means that having that taken away (which extremist settlers plan on demolishing it completely, and if they're allowed in, then there are no restrictions on their behavior) would be tantamount to losing our balad, or nation. I've heard Israelis call AlAqsa terrible names over the years and some fully intend on demolishing the site. Even within Israeli politics, it is a genuine goal for some people, including Ben Gvir, so most believe that opening the door for settlers (who are the ones who want the destruction of AlAqsa) would be equivalent to giving it up. You can't ignore that when talking about AlAqsa and the laws surrounding it. The primary reason for this protectiveness is political and cultural.

[whencyclopedia]

Abd al-Rahman I

Abd al-Rahman was the founder of the Emirate of Cordoba and ruled as Abd al-Rahman I from 756-788 CE. As one of the lone survivors of the Umayyad Dynasty after the Abbasids defeated the Umayyad Caliphate, Abd al-Rahman bridged the Umayyad Caliphate and the Umayyad Emirate of Cordoba in Spain. Although he did not start Muslim rule in Spain, Abd al-Rahman established it as a vibrant, independent, and long-lasting political and cultural power.

The Rise & Fall of the Umayyad Caliphate

The Umayyad Dynasty had established itself as the leader of Islam in 661 CE under Muawiya, the governor of Islamic Syria. Syria and Syrian Arabs became the power base for the Umayyads during their nearly century-long rule of the Islamic world. From their capital at Damascus, the Umayyads expanded their empire to reach the borders of China in the east and into Europe in the west. They launched assaults on the Byzantine capital at Constantinople twice and skirmished with the Tang Empire of China and the Franks.

In short, the Umayyads established the most powerful and wealthy empire of their day. Born into this glittering and powerful Umayyad court was Abd al-Rahman, the grandson of Caliph Hisham (r. 724-743 CE). But the opulent court where Abd al-Rahman was raised, and likely planned to live the rest of his life, was snatched from him in the fires of revolution when he was still a teenager. The Umayyads had focused on Syria and the Arabs almost to the exclusion of other peoples inside the empire, and this now came back to haunt them. In the border province of Khurasan, the local leader Abu Muslim declared a revolt against Umayyad authority in 747 CE. This revolution advanced on the core of the empire and defeated the last Umayyad caliph in the Battle of the Zab in 750 CE. The Abbasid Caliphate was now in control.

Continue reading...

[tamamita]

Would a Shia under taqiyya be allowed to marry or should they 'come out' first so to speak?

In any case where a Shi'a's life might be in danger, they ought not reveal their religion under any circumstance as they must perserve their life, and if they marry a person knowing that revealing their religion would still endanger them, then Taqiyya must be observed.

For example, in the case of the Umayyads, Abassids and various Sunni dynasties, a persecuted Shi'a would observe and practice their religion as a Sunni, while keeping their true faith concealed.

[blueiscoool]

Archaeologists Unearth a Byzantine Mosaic in Turkey

Archaeologists have unearthed a detailed mosaic while excavating a Byzantine monastery church dedicated to Saint Constantine and Saint Helena in Ordu province, Turkey.

The monastery church was first uncovered in 2023 in the Kurtulus district of Ordu, which during antiquity would have served pilgrims and worshipers from the Diocese of Polemonion (present day Fatsa).

The church is dedicated to the Roman Emperor Constantine I (also known as Constantine the Great), and Saint Helena (also known as Helena of Constantinople), an Augusta of the Roman Empire and mother of Emperor Constantine I.

Constantine I was the first Roman Emperor to convert to Christianity and played a crucial role in advancing the religion. He ended the persecution of Christians and decriminalised Christian practice, a significant change in the religious sphere known as the Constantinian shift.

According to a press statement by Mehmet Nuri Ersoy, Minister of Culture and Tourism of the Republic of Turkey, the mosaic was discovered by archaeologists from the Ordu Museum Directorate and is the first in-situ floor mosaic found in Ordu province.

Based on the style and form, the archaeologists suggest that the mosaic dates from between the 5th and 6th centuries AD, a period when the Byzantine Empire underwent a golden age under the Justinian dynasty, and then a series of cataclysmic events under the Heraclian dynasty.

The mosaic has geometric designs and plant motifs showing curly acanthus, in addition to fruit depictions, and what appears to be four large double-headed war axes.

Byzantine mosaics originate from earlier Hellenistic and Roman techniques and styles, but artisans in the Byzantine Empire introduced significant technical innovations.

They transformed mosaic art into a distinctive and influential medium for personal and religious expression, leaving a lasting impact on Islamic art, particularly in the Umayyad and Abbasid Caliphates, as well as the Ottoman Empire.

[hastalavistabyebye]

did i see something about tusken inspo 👀

To be fair, it's like Tatooine inspiration at large. But yes, much many ideas :D

Oh this is going to be long... *crack knuckles*

Okay so Tatooine is inspired by Tunisia which is not a secret (for the folks that don't know, the name comes from the town Tataouine and the scenes in the movies were filmed in three other Tunisian cities). Added to that is the fact that the Tuskens were inspired by the Bedouins, a nomad people of north Africa.

Now, there is an Umayyad (medieval Islamic dynasty, 661-750) farm in Jordan named Qusayr Amra :

Which gives massives Tatooine vibes.

The Umayyads (and the Abbasid dynasty right after) rules over a large territory, which extend as far as the Maghreb. So the comparison of a Jordan farm to the Tunisia cities used for star wars is understandable.

Now those geographical and chronological markers give me a well of material to get inspiration for Tatooine and the Tuskens. (I includ the Abbasids because they're in the lineage of the Umayyads and the aesthetic match what I think would suit nicely for the Tuskens.)

The ceramic cup in the middle is Umayyad. The decor comes from an antic (Roman Empire) aesthetic that is still very present in this dynasty's art. Now you could replace those vigns by something more space looking, like space oasis flora.

The Kufic inscription would be out of place for the Tuskens. Except if we look into a Kufic calligraphy that appears a bit later which is composed with little characters adorning the letters. What I propose is that the Tuskens could have a sort of writing system composed of pictograms representing their signs. They could carve those pictograms on the cliffs as well as their ceramics or weapons...

This cup is not from north Africa I give you that (like the two next objects, it's from Susa in Iran. That site is way too rich and big....), but with it being Umayyad it doesn't betray the original inspiration for Tatooine. Plus it would look really cool and that's the most important.

(The vase on the left could also look really cool in a tusken hut I think)

All of those are Abbasids. I took the left picture for the bol in the centre but that green one looks great too (I think it's jadeite or nephritis but I'm not sure).

I just think they would look super cool as Tuskens ceramics. The jug on the right is a lil favorite of mine. It's a very luxurious object (both are really) because of the glaze. The blue is obtained with cobalt from Afghanistan (if I'm not wrong, I need to check) which was not an easy thing to get (we're at the 9/10th century here). But the technique itself and the forms are still simple enough that I think it'll mix well with a space nomad tribe culture in a desert.

Now we could look into other dynasties productions and I should look back at my notes on Middle and Near East Antiquity, because there most likely has more things to dive into there.

I don't think Tuskens would use much metal or if they do, it'll be forging with scraps bought from the Jawas. To cut and grave little pendants and ornaments, spikes, that kind of things. But I sort of think the only way to forge for them would be by using their ceramic kilns (if they have any and not just tempory holes dig specially for it), that's why I didn't look into Islamic metal production. I just don't think they'll have forges with them being nomad like that. But it's still a possibility of course.

Anyway, that was a little look into the ideas I've been munching on lately.

[ashwantsafreepalestine]

Are you aware that Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock are built upon the Second Temple? That Arab invaders (Umayyad Dynasty) built over the most sacred site of the Jewish people? Do you condemn them for this?

https://www.britannica.com/place/Temple-Mount

Do you believe that it the site belongs to the Jews who had their Temples there? The Romans who destroyed the Second Temple? The Byzantines who vandalized it? The Christian crusaders who held it in the Kingdom of Jerusalem? Or the Arab Muslims who conquered it and built upon it?

You have so many opinions; I'm curious what you think of this.

What kind of dumb ass fucking logic is this?

Speaking as a Hindu, there are many ancient Hindu temples unearthed in countries like Cambodia, Thailand, Myanmar, Malaysia and Indonesia, apart from India. Many other parts of the world too. Now destroyed and built upon, or preserved.

So what? Would that give Hindus the right to invade these countries and fight for the land in which their sacred temples had been built upon thousands of years ago? Get the fuck out of here.

[baebeylik]

1 Dinar, Umayyad Dynasty, 713-714.

The Smithsonian Museum of American History.

[dwellordream]

“Medieval scholars inherited the idea from ancient times that there were seven primary colours: white, yellow, red, green, blue, purple, and black. Green occupied a central position, symbolically balanced between the extremes of white and black. It was also regarded as a soothing colour. Scribes often kept emeralds and other green objects nearby to rest their eyes. The poet Baudri de Bourgueil even suggested writing on green tablets instead of white or black ones for this reason.

Michel Pastoureau writes that “the true medieval opposite for white was not so much black as red.” This can be seen in the way Europeans adapted chess. When the game was adopted in Europe, the pieces and chessboard were painted in white and red, contrasting with the black and red sets common in India and the Middle East.

It was only towards the end of the Middle Ages that the white versus black dichotomy became more favoured. A key factor in this shift was the advent of printing, where black ink was used on white paper, reinforcing the perception of these colours as natural opposites.

Arthurian romances, one of the most popular forms of literature in the High Middle Ages, frequently employed colour symbolism, particularly in the depiction of knights. Pastoureau notes that these narratives used colours to convey deeper meanings and character traits. He writes:

The color code was recurrent and meaningful. A black knight was almost a character of primary importance (Tristan, Lancelot, Gawain) who wanted to hide his identity; he was generally motivated by good intentions and prepared to demonstrate his valor, especially by jousting or tournament. A red knight, on the other hand, was often hostile to the hero; this was a perfidious or evil knight, sometimes the devil’s envoy or a mysterious being from the Other World. Less prominent, a white knight was generally viewed as good; this was an older figure, a friend of protector or the hero, to who he gave wise council. Conversely, a green knight was a young knight, recently dubbed, whose audacious or insolent behavior was going to cause great disorder; he could be good or bad. Finally, yellow or gold knights were rare and blue knights nonexistent.

During the Early Middle Ages, monastic rules stipulated that monks should not concern themselves with the colour of their clothing. However, over the centuries, their attire became increasingly darker. The Cluniacs, one of the most influential monastic communities, believed that black was the appropriate colour for one’s habit. This perspective faced backlash in the twelfth century when the Cistercians adopted a white habit.

The debate over monastic colours was intense among the leaders of these orders. Peter the Venerable, abbot of Cluny, argued that black represented humility and renunciation, while white symbolized pride and was suitable for holidays and resurrection. In contrast, Bernard of Clairvaux, abbot of Clairvaux, claimed that white stood for purity, innocence, and virtue, whereas black symbolized death and sin, even likening it to the devil’s appearance.

Green is widely associated with Islam, but this association only developed in the twelfth century. The Quran mentions green eight times, always positively, as a colour representing vegetation, spring, and paradise. The Prophet Muhammad favoured green garments, including a green turban. While green was linked to Muhammad’s descendants, different colours were associated with the ruling Islamic dynasties: white for the Umayyads, black for the Abbasids, and red for the Almohads.

Pastoureau believes that green became a unifying colour for Muslims in the 1100s. He writes, “Its symbolism is associated with that of paradise, happiness, riches, water, the sky, and hope. Green became the sacred colour.” Consequently, many medieval copies of the Quran had green bindings or covers, a tradition that continues today. Religious dignitaries often wear green, whereas green gradually disappeared from carpets to avoid trampling on such a venerable colour.

Michel Pastoureau’s book on blue begins by highlighting the neglect this colour faced among the ancient Greeks and Romans, who rarely wrote about it or used it. He even explores the intriguing question of whether ancient peoples could perceive blue at all! This neglect persisted through the early Middle Ages until the twelfth century. “Then suddenly,” writes Pastoureau, “in just a few decades, everything changes – blue is ‘discovered’ and attains a prominent place in painting, heraldry, and clothing.”

The first significant shift in the ‘blue revolution’ was the use of blue to represent the clothing of the Virgin Mary. The scene of Mary mourning Jesus’ crucifixion was popular in the Middle Ages, and once artists began depicting her cloak in vibrant blue, it quickly became the standard. Additionally, artists, especially those working in stained glass, overcame technical limitations in creating blues, allowing the colour to be used in various mediums and clothing. Pastoureau notes that by the thirteenth century, monarchs such as France’s Louis IX and England’s Henry III began wearing blue, leading it to become the colour of medieval royalty.

Yellow initially benefited from its resemblance to gold, which bolstered its reputation. Many medieval heraldic symbols incorporated yellow, and possessing blonde hair was considered highly fashionable. However, in the Later Middle Ages, yellow began to acquire negative associations, including envy and heresy. Judas, the apostle who betrayed Jesus, was increasingly depicted wearing yellow clothing. Consequently, it was unsurprising that when the Catholic Church convicted the Czech reformer Jan Hus of heresy in 1415, they dressed him in a yellow robe for his execution.

Yellow also became associated with Jews, and as European Christians enforced clothing regulations on Jewish communities, yellow was often (though not always) included. By the early modern period, yellow fell out of favour, perceived as gaudy and unpopular.”

- Michel Pastoureau, “Colour in the Middle Ages”

[docpiplup]

As I promised, let's start with the bookscans:

Al-ANDALUS. PERSONAJES HISTÓRICOS

(Al Andalus. Historical figures)

Concepción Masiá

Summary

Introduction.................................. 9

The precursors of al-Andalus.....13

Count Don Julián....................13

Tarif ben Malluk. ....................15

Musa ben Nusayr and Tariq ben Ziyad: the conquerors of Spania...........16

Abd al-Aziz: a good governor with an unfortunate fate ..........................25

The Odyssey of Prince Abd al-Rahman the Immigrant......................................29

Abd al-Rahman was only twenty-five years old.........................................36

Sulayman ben Yaqzan ben al-Arabi: Charlemagne's deceived "deceiver" ........................... ...........41

Amrus ben Yusuf: the muladí of Huesca

.............................................................47

The “rabadies”: adventurous spirits.. ..............................................53

Ziryab: the singer of Baghdad........61 Tarub: the favorite of Abd al-Rahman II...............,...........................................67 Abbas ben Firnas: the first aviator............................ ......................73 Yahya ben Hakan al-Bakri: the miserly poet.....................................................77

Abd al Chabbar and Sulayman ben Martin: the rebels of Mérida..........................81 Eulogio and Álvaro de Córdoba: pursuing martyrdom..........................85 The Andalusian Vikings..................... 95 The emir Abd Allah distrust and death...............................….................... 101 Musa ben Musa ben Qasi: the third king of Spain.......................................................107 Ibn Hafsun: the unredeemed rebel.....115 Abu Alí al-Sarrach: the Andalusian missionary. ...........................................125 Ibn Masarra: a freethinker in Spanish Islam.......,...........,...................................131 Abd al-Rahman III: the first independent caliph of al-Andalus. ...........,................................137 Hasday ibn Shaprut: the Jewish doctor of Abd al-Rahman III............ ....... ...................... ................... 145 Andalusians in France: the “Moorish kingdom” of Fraxinetum....................... 151 Rabbi ben Zayd: Bishop Recemundo............................................. 157 Al-Hakam al-Mustansir bi-llah: passion for culture.................................. 161

Ibn Abd Rabbhi, the encyclopedist, and Ibn Futais, the collector.................. 167 Al-Mansur “the Victorious” ...................171 Hisham II and Sanchuelo: misrule. .......191

Abu Muhammad Ali ibn Hazm: The pigeon neackle................................209

Hisham III al-Mu'tadd: the end of the Umayyad caliphate...............................215

Ibn al-Wafid: the gardener doctor.....221

Avempace. The supreme good: wisdom...................................................225

Zaida: the Moorish Queen of Leon and Castile........................................................227

Ibn Tufayl of Guadix: the best disciple of Avempace................. ............................ .231 Averroes: the universal Andalusian....233 Moseh ben Maimon: Maimonides..... ..239 Abu Yusuf Yaqub: the winner of Alarcos......................................................243 Ibn Arabi: the Sufi mystic.....................249 Avenzoar: a long dynasty of doctors. ...................................................253 Al-Ahmar: Abenámar, Moor of the Morería. ...,...............................................255 The Abencerrajes. ..................................261 Boabdil the Younger: the last Moorish king ............................................................267 Aben Humeya: the last Muslim leader of Spain................ ..........................................275 Bibliography .............................................285

Note: The spelling of Muslim names is taken from the works of: Levy Provençal, Muslim Spain, and González Ferrín, General History of al-Andalus.

Introduction

In the long eight hundred years that the Muslims remained in Spain, there were many personalities who, in all the fields of knowledge, sciences, letters and arts, stood out unequivocal, marking a milestone not only in the culture of al-Andalus, but that had a relevant character in universal culture.

On the other hand, the almost constant struggle between Christians and Muslims would also generate a whole series of great warriors who, for example, the infante Don Juan Manuel considered the best gifted for the war of all those who existed in the East and the West of their time.

The date that we all know as the arrival of the Muslims to Gothic Spania dates back to the year 711. Its expansion throughout the territory was so rapid as had been the conquest of the Persian empire and its presencein large areas of Asia or North Africa, but from a cultural point of view, the 8th century was totally sterile. The new conquerors who arrived from beyond the Strait of Gibraltar, were men at arms, mostly illiterate, who could do little contribute to a Christian Spania whose culture continued to develop under the dictates of the wisdom of Saint Isidore of Seville. Still they were left on the Peninsula

many areas where Christianity had not taken root and its importance regarding the assimilation of Islam.

The first governors of al-Andalus, dependent on Caliphate of Damascus, during the first years of occupation had to face many enormous internal problems, originated by the different origins of their own people, Arabs and berebers, mostly, while cultural issues occupied a very secondary level. But, possibly for purely practical reasons, Arabic as a language was introduced into the Christian field. According to Juan Vernet, it is possible to find some codices from times as early as the 9th century, that in its margins appear apostilles or comments in Arabic, and it seems that this language was already rooted among the Mozarabs, that is, the Christians who continued to live and preserve their religion in Muslim-dominated territories, in times before Abd al-Rahman II.

But it will be Abd al-Rahman I the Immigrant, who arrived in al-Andalus from Syria as the only survivor of the exterminated Umayyad dynasty, the one who will be concerned with introducing the principles of oriental culture in Spain, limiting itself to the legal-religious sciences that, in those moments, were the most important for the newly Muslims arrived. It was during the time of Abd al-Rahman II that the first wise men, who can be called that, enrich the cultural landscape of al-Andalus.

Poets, doctors, philosophers, mathematicians, geographers, undefeated generals...All of them will give al-Andalus and Europe a series of works that, by their importance will be translated, searched, accepted and will serve as a basis for the western culture and Renaissance ideas, in such a way that many of the great sages of the Italian Renaissance considered that all knowledge of the time came from Muslim Spain, which all the wise men were of Andalusian origin. And when the political decline and the disintegration of the caliphate, will not stop birth, grow and develop distinguished minds that will continue to maintain,for a long time, the prestige of al-Andalus. Curiously, this situation will be repeated throughout the history of Spain, when the Arab occupation just be a memory. The Spanish Golden Age will coincide with decadence of the Austrias, when the country loses its pre-ponderance in Europe, and with the disaster of '98, with the loss for Spain of its last colonies, will produce a cultural and scientific renaissance that has been called the Silver age.

Through the pages of this book we want to highlight those figures who occupied a predominant place in the history of al-Andalus, although not all of them were necessarily Muslims, since that in that cultured and tolerant al-Andalus, many Jews and some other Christians showed their genius, and of those who, often, we know more about his works than about his biography. But whatever religion they had, they were all, after all, Andalusians, born and raised in the extensive lands of al-Andalus. As a matter of curiosity we will include some groups of characters anonymous people who, due to their surprising

actions, on occasions dictated by necessity, they reveal the ingenuity or character of the Andalusians. Such would be the case of the "rabadíes", of the Moors who, for a time, established a small kingdom in France, or those Normans who ended up becoming Andalusians and Muslims to save their lives.

Perhaps this way we will learn a little more about that crossbred Spain, in which despite so many years of struggle, truces and battles, mutual loves and hates, numerous characters belonging to the three cultures, Moors, Christians and Jews shared knowledge, affinities and forms of life, making al-Andalus the cultural beacon of the West.

The precursors of al-Andalus

Count Don Julián

The conquest of Morocco had been carried out quickly, but shallow. The Berbers were only subdued after a fierce resistance, defeated by an ambitious general who had just been appointed governor of Ifriqiya and Maghrib. His successes in these lands They would prepare the ground for him to be the one to set his eyes and, also his troops, over Gothic Spania. It was Musa ben Nusayr. Musa, with the help of one of his sons, took possession of Tangier, and demanded that the subjugated tribes hostage to educate them in the new faith, which in turn, became propagandists of Islam, leaving in the conquered Morocco Arab lieutenants, including General Tariq ben Ziyad, he turned to Ifriqiya. But it seems that the Ceuta square remained in the hands of a Christian, the so-called Count Don Julián, who would have a determining role in this entire story. We could consider it as a precursor of that al-Andalus that was about to be born.

[medieval-elephants]

Golden oldie A little golden elephant hangs out in the corner of the table of contents for the gospel of St Mark in the Lothair Gospels, made between 849 and 851 for Lothair I, Charlemagne's grandson. This manuscript is extraordinary in many ways-- there's lots of expensive purple and gold, a portrait of Lothair himself, the works-- but one of the most interesting features is this tiny elephant, because it is recognizably an elephant. (It can be contrasted with some other attempts at drawing "elephants" from Northern Europe on this blog.) So why did these artists get it right?

Well, people were still alive in the Frankish realms who had actually seen an elephant! In the early 800s, the Abbaids caliph Harun al-Rashid sent Lothair's grandfather, Charlemagne, an elephant called Abul Abbas. Charlemagne had allied with the Abbasids (based in Baghdad) against the Umayyads (based in the Iberian peninsula), who were the rival power along Charlemagne's southern border and who were the descendants of the dynasty the Abbasids had overthrown in order to claim power. You can read more about this in Sam Ottewill-Soulsby's new book, The Emperor and the Elephant. Side note: these Carolingian illuminators were into pink and blue 1000 years before Taylor Swift entered her Lover era.

Materials: Parchment, pigments, gold, ink Origin: Abbey of St Martin, Tours (overseen by Sigilaus for Lothair I) Date: 849-851 Now Paris, BnF latin 266, f. 74r

[qqueenofhades]

Okay – so! Thank you for all that you do for fandom and The History side of tumblr- it’s a LOT.

 I’m struggling with mapping a historical accuracy/fanon vs. canon concept. I hope you can help me untangle my thoughts on this.  Diverse representation in media is very important to me; and I’m also aware of the damage that the ‘colour-blind’ casting can do.  So! I’m trying to reconcile a common fandom perception that Hob Gadling is of South-East Asian decent.   (I know that Ferdie is!- I also have seen zero evidence that he claims Desi Diaspora as part of his identity. It makes me really uncomfortable that fandom might be projecting their desire for ‘Representation’ onto a man who lives outside his ancestral culture.)

What I do know is that Hob is a medieval freeman (?) from the south of England in the 1300s. I wonder at the possibility of his CHARACTER being of mixed race? I know that Briton and Europe and Africa were in trade. I know that People of colour moved freely around the continents!

  I’ve done some research into London population polls from the time, but I’m not certain of their degree of accuracy/usefulness.  They describe immigrants as ‘aliens’.. and most I’ve seen are European. I haven’t even come across evidence of Muslim or ‘Moorish’ people settling in London???!

The written history I’ve read tells me the Europeans didn’t establish trade with India until the mid 1400s. (How it’s possible they didn’t know about each other is Baffling and seems impossible??) Anyway. The crux of the matter is:  would Hob Gadling possibly been of mixed heritage?

I mean yes, technically, he COULD be. The most logical route for that would be to give him some family heritage from somewhere in Spain, or Iberia, which was a fully mixed-race society until well into the 13th/14th century, and was in regular trade and communication with England. The medieval Iberian Christian kingdoms of Castile-León, Aragon, and Navarre particularly were close trading partners and English/Iberian royalty married each other fairly often. It was somewhat less the case by the time Hob was born in the 1350s, but there is certainly enough previous contact to make it feasible. Muslims, Christians, and Jews all lived in Iberia (how much they all co-existed has long been one of the most debated questions in religious/historical studies), and Muslims had a presence in Spain for over 700 years, since the first arrivals in 711 CE following the collapse of the Umayyad dynasty in Baghdad, until their final expulsion under Ferdinand and Isabella in 1492.

The question, however, is if he SHOULD be headcanoned or identified as mixed-race, and while I am the least fandom-policey person ever and respect people's right to enjoy their own ideas in peace, it personally makes me a little uncomfortable. It feels related to the "fandom activism!" mindset where you should ship a more Morally Pure OTP, or your favorite is "better" if they can be somehow identified with a marginalized group, regardless of whether this fits or makes sense for the character. And in this case, Hob’s background as a good-looking white British bloke with an appropriately English-sounding name, as I describe him in AITWW, is central to both his character arc, his major mistakes, and how he has to learn and grow over time. It was absolutely vital to me that in AITWW, he had to explicitly confront the massive amounts of unearned privilege that he enjoyed over the centuries by being born into that body, and how it would be very different for him if he hadn't been. As his friend Julia puts it in their discussion in chapter 13, he had the luck to be born into a body that society automatically privileges and values and places into positions of power whether or not he deserves it, and as a black woman, she thinks immortality sounds absolutely awful. Why would she want to put up with the absolute shit it would be to live 600 years, at least in the Western world/America/Europe, in that embodiment?

Likewise, Hob agrees and admits that of course it's easy for him to want to live forever and maintain enthusiasm for life, because whatever difficulties he has faced, his race and gender have not contributed to them (which is the essence of white privilege in a nutshell). And of course, the urge to make him mixed-race might reflect some discomfort with his actual canon background and involvement in slavery, no matter if he obviously feels terribly guilty and driven to atone for over 200 years after that (as he SHOULD). In some sense, making him mixed-race might seem to mitigate that or give some reason to make him "sympathetic" while he was doing it, and frankly, I don't think 18th-century Hob deserves to get off the hook for being yet another British white man who might have felt bad about what he was doing at times, but continued to do it anyway. I'm not saying this is anyone's motive or intention, but it does trouble me, especially since Hob’s whiteness, the damage of that whiteness, and the way he has to deliberately and extensively unlearn that urge to just live life on easy mode regardless of the damage it does to others is what I find so interesting about his character. In short, if Hob was part of a racially marginalized group already, he might have made different choices, but he didn't, and now he is forced to literally live with that guilt and shame forever. He doesn't get to exonerate himself, and nor do I do it for him.

Lastly, I think this reflects a very modern and somewhat over-simplified way of thinking; to our modern and institutionally-racist-pickled brains, race is the chief category that can be explicitly constructed as Otherness, and doesn't reflect the very unclear way this was perceived and experienced in the 14th century. I.e., you note that immigrants to England "were mostly European" -- which is true, but does not reflect the dizzying array then as now, in which local, national, ethnic, and religious identities were constructed. One unattractive feature of the English national character over many centuries has been their hostility and distrust of foreigners, and this was especially the case in the 14th and especially late-14th, post-Black Plague society. For example, the Flemish were regarded as "morally inferior" since they ran several well-known brothels and red-light districts in Southwark, across the Thames from London (now part of the city), and that meant they were purveying immorality, rather than being there since the English desired their services. Xenophobia was especially rampant against "strangers" of any type, especially against Jews again post-Black Death for sadly predictable anti-Semitic reasons, and even being from continental Europe would not have made someone "English" in their eyes. Even by the Elizabethan era, it was almost impossible for a foreign-born citizen (or "denizen," meaning something akin to "permanent resident") to get licensed as a guildsman in the city of London, and without that license, you could not run a business, practice a trade, or engage in substantial paid work in any way.

Likewise, medieval notions of race were fluid, uncertain, and often linked to religion more than ethnic origin. There are several Arthurian legendarium reworkings, and epic poems such as The King of Tars, where the "happy" ending is that the mixed-race, Muslim, or black hero is converted to Christianity and abandons whatever untrue pagan religion he has been following before. This is often accompanied with a literal physical transformation turning him from black- or dark-skinned (impure) to white (pure). So yes, racial thinking and categories did exist, but it wasn't seen as fixed or unalterable, and again, wasn't really the first or primary way in which Otherness was constructed (compared to say, "Saracen," which functioned throughout almost the entire medieval era as a marker of difference and had varied racial, religious, sexual, and ethnic connotations, but originally came from the term for Muslims).

So anyway: hopefully that all makes sense and provides some context in both my historical and fandom thinking on the matter. Thanks for the question!

[girlactionfigure]

I wrote this last year in August. I post it again because of the situation in Jerusalem over al-Aqsa. I'll always tell the truth and the truth about Masjid al-Aqsā is what I've written here.

From Mīhrāb Dāwūd to Masjid al-Aqsā: How did an Umayyad myth transform Jerusalem's Temple Mount, a Jewish holy site, into a Muslim holy site.

I. The conquest of Jerusalem

Jerusalem was conquered by Muslim forces in May 638, an accomplishment ascribed by Muslim sources to the Caliph Umar. In return for assistance in the taking of the city, the Jews received the right to reside in Jerusalem and to pray on the Temple Mount without interference. They also received permission to build a synagogue on the Temple Mount.

II. Temple Mount as the Mīhrāb Dāwud

When the Caliph 'Umar visited Jerusalem, the Patriarch of the city Sophronius accompanied him on the Temple Mount, while he searched for the Mīhrāb Dāwud (David's prayer-niche) to perform a prayer. Later Muslim commentators identified this site with the Tower of David.

What is evident here is the Jewish connection found in the early Muslim tradition which considers the Temple Mount as Mihrab Dawud (David's prayer-niche).

An early Islamic apocalyptic text, probably composed in the 8th century but attributed to the converted rabbi Ka'ab al-Ahbar (d.652), reads "Ayrusalaim which means Jerusalem and the Rock which means the Temple. I shall send you my servant Abd al-Malik who will build you and adorn you. I shall surely restore you to Bayt Al Maqdis, its first kingdom and I shall crown it with gold, silver and gems. And I shall surely send you my creatures. And I shall surely invest my throne of glory upon the rock, since I am the sovereign God, and David is the king of the Children of Israel."

The scholars of Islamic studies Crone and Cook believe that originally the Muslims truly intended to rebuild the Jewish Temple. They attempt to prove this thesis by referring to the Jewish apocalypses. For example in The Secrets of Rabbi Simon Ben Yohai, which is also the basis for al-Ahbār's text, we read "The second king [Umar] who restores the breaches of the Temple," it refers to the Muslims conquerors as "the salvation of Israel."

This Jewish link was temporary and short, however, and the separation of the site from Judaism was swift, as the Arabization and political rivalry changed the cultural and religious landscape as well as the demographics of the land of Israel.

III. Hashemite–Umayyad rivalry: the beginning of the Fitna

The Banū Umayya clan, headed by Abū Sufyān, were a largely merchant family of the Quraysh tribe centred at Mecca. They were the traditional enemies of the Banu Hāshem, another clan of Quraysh which Prophet Muhammed (570 - 632 CE) belonged to. Therefore they initially resisted Islam, not converting until 627 when they had no other choice since Muhammed triumphed over all of his enemies in Arabia and founded an Islamic kingdom. Although they subsequently became prominent administrators under Muhammad and his immediate successors, they always looked for an opportunity to retaliate against Banu Hāshem. In the first Muslim civil war known as Fitna (656–661) - the struggle for the caliphate following the murder of ʿUthmān ibn ʿAffān, the third caliph (reigned 644–656) — Abū Sufyān’s son Muʿāwiyah, then governor of Levant, emerged victorious over the newly appointed caliph ʿAlī, a Hāshemite and Muhammad’s son-in-law and the fourth caliph. Muʿāwiyah then established himself as the first Umayyad caliph and made Damascus his capital.

IV. Jerusalem under Umayyads: the new rival city of Mecca, Temple Mount as the Masjid al-Aqsā

In 682 CE, fifty years after Prophet Muhammad’s death, ‘Abd Allah ibn al-Zubayr (a member of the Banu Hāshem clan) rebelled against the Umayyad dynasty and conquered Mecca. Now with a rebel dynasty based in Mecca, both sides (Hashemites and Ummayads) engaged in a struggle for control of the Muslim world. The Umayyads opted to fight the rebels by damaging Mecca's economy, which was based almost entirely on revenues from Muslim pilgrims. Their secret weapon was to create a competing pilgrimage site by building a magnificent edifice, the Dome of the Rock, on the site of the destroyed Jewish temple and hoping that this mosque would turn Jerusalem into a religious and political center which would weaken Mecca's economy by siphoning off pilgrims from Mecca. Thus, a political strategy designed to fight mutineers in far-off Mecca transformed Jerusalem's Temple Mount into a Muslim holy site with far-reaching implications to this day.

Both the Hashemties and Umayyads resorted to fabricating prophetic traditions known as Hadith (sayings attributed to Prophet Muhammed) in their favor in order to give political and religious legitimacy to their claims and their rule.

Abd al-Malik, the Umayyad Caliph, in order to legitimize the construction of the Dome of the Rock on Temple Mount in Jerusalem, connected the city and the site with the the Qur'anic verse 17:1 (below) which describes the night journey of Muhammad's Isra and Miʽraj:

“Glory to Him who caused His servant to travel by night from the Sacred Mosque to the Farthest Mosque, whose precincts We have blessed, in order to show him some of Our Signs, He is indeed the All-Hearing, the All-Seeing.”

The designation of Temple Mount as the "Farthest Mosque" mentioned in that verse was made possible by making up Hadith which links the site with the night journey to heaven (Isra and Miʽraj). The Qur'anic reference to the masjid al-aqsā, however, applies specifically to al-Ji'ranah, near Mekkah (in Saudi Arabia), where there were two sanctuaries, Masjid al-Adnai and Masjid al-Aqsā, and where Muhammad sojourned in dha al-qa'dah of the eighth year after the Hijrah.

Abd al-Malik commissioned the construction of the Dome of the Rock in the late 7th century. Al-Aqsa Mosque, the second mosque on the Temple Mount, was built in 715. The wooden structure that was built over the Foundation Stone was first intended for a synagogue, but before it was completed, the site was expropriated by the city's Arab rulers. The Jews received another site on the mount for a synagogue in compensation for the expropriated building.

In this way, the Umayyads cleverly associated Muhammad's life with Jerusalem even though the prophet died years before the city's capture by the Muslims. This construction further cemented the site's holiness to Islam, as explains the Muslim historian al Ya'qubi (d. 874) who accuses Abd al-Malik of attempting to divert the pilgrimage from Mecca to Jerusalem, thus characterizing the Umayyad Dome of the Rock as a rival to the Kaaba.

There was an active synagogue on the Temple Mount during most of the early Muslim period. Solomon ben Jeroham, a Karaite exegete who lived in Jerusalem between 940 and 960, affirmed that Jews were permitted to pray on the Temple Mount, noting that "the courtyards of the Temple were turned over to them and they prayed there [on the Temple Mount] for many years."

After the conquest of Jerusalem by the army of the Fatimid dynasty (969), a Temple Mount synagogue was rebuilt and used until the Jews were banished by Caliph al-Hakim in 1015. When a subsequent ruler canceled Hakim's eviction order, the Jews again returned to this synagogue on the Temple Mount and worshipped there until the conquest of Jerusalem by the Crusaders. Hebrew writings found on the internal walls of the Golden Gate are believed to have been written by Jewish pilgrims at least one thousand years ago, thus testifying once again to the continued Jewish attachment to and presence on the Temple Mount in this era. An eleventh-century document found in the geniza or storeroom of a Cairo synagogue also describes the circuit followed by the pilgrims and the prayers they recited at each of the gates.

Sources:

Amikam Elad. Medieval Jerusalem and Islamic Worship: Holy Places, Ceremonies, Pilgrimage. Islamic History and Civilization. Studies and Texts 8. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1995.

https://books.google.iq/books?id=CDz_yctbQVgC...

F.M. Loewenberg. Did Jews Abandon the Temple Mount?. Middle East Quarterly Summer 2013, pp. 37-48.

Moshe Gil. A History of Palestine, 634-1099. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.

Nuha N. Khoury, The Dome of the Rock, the Kaʿba, and Ghumdan: Arab Myths and Umayyad Monuments, in Muqarnas, Vol. 10, Essays in Honor of Oleg Grabar, Brill (1993), pp. 57-65, p.58.

Boris Havel. "Jerusalem in Early Islamic Tradition". Miscellanea Hadriatica et Mediterranea, University of Zadar v.5, 2018: 113–179.

Himdad Mustafa

[whencyclopedia]

Justinian II

Justinian II “the Slit-nosed” ruled as emperor of the Byzantine Empire in two spells: from 685 to 695 CE and then again from 705 to 711 CE. It was after his first reign and prior to his exile that his nose was cut off by the usurper Leontios and so Justinian acquired his nickname. Unpopular with his people, whom he incessantly overtaxed, and suffering from a justified reputation for cruelty and disproportionate vengeance on those whom he perceived had wronged him, Justinian also struggled on the battlefield. He might have been one of the very few emperors to regain his throne but the fact that he was kicked off it twice by rebellious usurpers with no imperial connections is significant. Seemingly attacking cities at random, butchering anyone remotely regarded as a threat, and even laughing when he lost his own fleet in a storm, Justinian had descended into madness, and his second reign is now remembered as one of the most brutal and terrifying in Byzantine history.

Succession

Justinian was born in 668 CE, into the Herakleios dynasty, the son of Constantine IV (r. 668-685 CE) and Anastasia. When Constantine died of dysentery in 685 CE, his son and chosen heir, now Justinian II, inherited a troubled empire. The one positive was that Constantine had somehow seen off the siege of Constantinople by the Umayyad Caliphate between 674 and 678 CE. The Arabs, under the leadership of Caliph Muawiya (r. 661-680 CE), had made significant gains in Asia Minor and the Aegean, but when their fleet was torched by Greek Fire in 678 CE, the caliph was forced to sign a 30-year truce with Byzantium. It was the first major defeat the Arabs had suffered since the rise of Islam. In 679 CE Muawiya was obliged to give up the Aegean islands he had conquered and pay a hefty annual tribute.

Elsewhere, though, the Byzantines had been less successful, and the Arabs in North Africa and the Bulgars and Slavs in the Balkans had been making inroads into the empire. Treaties with the Avars and Lombards, as well as some gains in Cilicia, and the establishment of a protectorate over most of Armenia at least meant the Byzantines were shoring up the holes and slowly turning around the steady decline that had beset them for half a century. There was still much work to do, though.

The young emperor seemed determined to live up to his famous namesake Justinian I (r. 527-565 CE), one of Byzantium's greatest rulers, but, as the historian J. J. Norwich here describes, he was not quite of the same calibre:

Intelligent and energetic, he showed all the makings of a capable ruler. Unfortunately, he had inherited that streak of insanity that had clouded the last years of Heraclius and was again apparent in the ageing Constans. Constantine IV had died before it could become manifest; in his son Justinian, however, it rapidly gained hold, transforming him into a monster whose only attributes were a pathological suspicion of all around him and an insatiable lust for blood. (102)

The new emperor was only 16 when he took his place on the Byzantine throne, but, nevertheless, he enjoyed some early military successes in Armenia, Georgia, the Balkans, and Syria. Then, as the Arab armies ignored the agreed truce and pressed further into Byzantine territory in Asia Minor, Justinian was obliged to withdraw his own armies from elsewhere to meet this new threat. Consequently, the gains in the north were gradually lost. Both his spells as emperor would be ones of military weakness, but for the moment, there were more pressing matters to deal with within the empire itself.

Continue reading...

[tamamita]

Related to the Shia-Sunni divide, can you talk about Abdullah ibn Saba and the assassination of Uthman? I’m told that these people matter to the divide but I have no clue who they are or what their significance is.

Abdullah ibn Saba was a fictional character made up by some Sunni demagogue who claimed that the founder of Shi'a Islam was a Jew, who revered Ali (a) to the point of worship. So you know... antisemitic conspiracies, even though Islam had its origin in Judaism. Kinda weird, huh?

The assassination of Uthman was a result of his nepotism. Uthman was an Umayyad and placed his family into a position of power in various realms of the Islamic nation. Because of the misuse of the treasury, the Egyptian Muslims, in particular, complained and wanted to depose Uthman. Ali (a) and his sons did protect him with the cause of preventing an intra-religious conflict despite Ali (a) predicting that his greed would be the end of him. The people ultimately assassinated Uthman. Uthman is controversial for his nepotism and for being the primary reason why the Umayyad dynasty was formed following Ali's (a) martyrdom.

[taggthewanderer]

Przewalski

Przewalski - What’s your favorite historical moment or fact?

Kinda overlaps with science fact but, one's the fact that when there was a Roman Empire, over on the other side of the world there's two islands inhabited by giant flightless birds hunted by a giant eagle.

Another's that the Tang Dynasty had battles with both the Abbasid and Umayyad Caliphates (Which were both allied with the Tibetan Empire) in Central Asia.

Horsie Asks

[artifacts-archive]

Dinar

Egypt, Umayyad Dynasty, 661-750 CE