It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What if Columbus was a Muslim?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 09:53 PM
link   
I've read much Christian propaganda on Islam and other orientalism, and how the native people should be glad that they were generally colonized by Christians. I've recently stumbled on websites about the "melungeons" and how there were possible descendants of refugees from Spain's forced exodus of Muslims and Sephardic Jews who came to North America.
Well, we know both groups (Christian and Muslim) had horrible wars and slavery. The general thinking is that Muslims were slightly more enlightened by 1492. Without hatred or bias, what do others think?




posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by halfoldman
 





he general thinking is that Muslims were slightly more enlightened by 1492. Without hatred or bias, what do others think?


1492? Perhaps all Muslims back then were well behaved and enlightened. Today they aren't. Not just a few. The estimate for Muslim killiing Muslims is 10,000,000. I've heard various figures but these are in the ballpark.

Staggering Statistics on Muslims Killing Muslims




ACT has posted a set of statistics that demonstrates the real violence against Muslims, it is not Jews, Christians or even America that is leading the pack in Muslim Genocide, but rather other Muslims. These numbers (almost 10 million killed by other Muslims) defy rationality and surely anyone with half a brain can see where the real problem lies. Islam may or may not be a peaceful religion, but the people who dominate the religion and are the face that the world sees as representation of the religion, surely are far from peaceful.





“some 11,000,000 Muslims have been violently killed since 1948, of which 35,000, or 0.3 percent, died during the sixty years of fighting Israel, or just 1 out of every 315 Muslim fatalities. In contrast, over 90 percent of the 11 million who perished were killed by fellow Muslims.” By Gunnar Heinsohn and Daniel Pipes, FrontPageMagazine, October 8, 2007


That is since 1948! Sort of gets your attention doesn't it!

I keep reading that is forbidden in the Koran to kill other Muslims so what gives?

Religion of peace? Show me!

Obviously you will bring up stats since the Spanish Inquisition about Christians?



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 10:20 PM
link   
I've studied much about Columbus. I don't think he was a Christian. He was an evil, evil, evil man, just like Cortes, and others who probably didn't care much about religion, and just wanted gold & spices. None of them cared about religion anyway, even if they were Muslim, but i doubt they were anyway. It was all about fortune & fame.

But Columbus was Italian, not Spanish, by the way. The Queen of Spain supported him, but he himself was Italian.



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 10:34 PM
link   
reply to post by bettermakings
 


True, but within the confines of the two systems, what would have been allowable? I read the Catholic queen had to proclaim the Caribbean natives "human". I think this clash of civilizations in Europe had a profound impact on how the natives were treated.



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 11:50 PM
link   
reply to post by halfoldman
 

This thread is not about Columbus because the OP stated:


What if Columbus was a Muslim?

And then stated:



I've read much Christian propaganda on Islam and other orientalism, and how the native people should be glad that they were generally colonized by Christians. I've recently stumbled on websites about the "melungeons"

And:


how there were possible descendants of refugees from Spain's forced exodus of Muslims and Sephardic Jews who came to North America.

A Brief Overview of the Melungeons







For more than a century, the Melungeons have been the focus of anthropologists, social scientists, and (especially) feature writers for newspapers and magazines. The most common adjective used to describe the Melungeons is “mysterious;” no one seems to know where the Melungeons originated.


So no one knows where they originated? Let's look further:Melungeon From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


DNA testing of Melungeon descendants has been limited, but the Melungeon DNA Project, which has more public results, so far shows overwhelming European and sub-Saharan African heritage of males in several families traditionally identified as Melungeon. This finding is consistent with the documented work by Paul Heinegg and Dr. Virginia DeMarce, who used a variety of historical records to show the formation of colonial families who were ancestors to free people of color in the 19th century Upper South.

Sub-Saharan African heritage means africans from south of the Sahara desert which at that time were not Muslim! The Muslim conversion is a relatively recent phenomenon.

So: Columbus wasn't Muslim, maybe he wasn't Christian (who cares?). The Melungeon probably weren't Muslim.

And your point apparently is:


The general thinking is that Muslims were slightly more enlightened by 1492. Without hatred or bias, what do others think?

I wonder about that too!






[edit on 28/10/09 by plumranch]



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by halfoldman
The general thinking is that Muslims were slightly more enlightened by 1492. Without hatred or bias, what do others think?


There is always hatred and bias in religions. If religion was to behave like it is suppose to then why would we have holy wars, religious divisions, and religious preferences.

Instead of religions dividing people they should bring people together no matter their beliefs or by what name they call God. Life is never this easy, so this will continue, probably forever.

The Muslim world was probably very enlightened during those days, but still today they have stuck to their old ways of thinking so people look at them as backward people. I don't think they are backward, it is their choice if they want to live like they lived in the olden days. Who are we to judge their way of life?

I just think people jump the gun and have a tremendous amount of hate towards the Muslim world in general. Remember even their enemies aren't perfect all the time. So maybe we can do more to try to empathize with them and their way of living, and if we do some research on them during those times maybe we can gain that insight.

Just a thought.

Peace.



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 06:58 PM
link   
Wouldn't have made much difference, since they are both the same religion, with pretty much the same intolerant attitudes and grasping ways.

Probably the only major difference would have been the justification provided for the Conquest and slaughter, and which day would be considered "holy".

The real difference is between them and the Protestants (still the same religion, btw). Both the Catholics and the Muslims were more interested in slaves, while the Protestants were more into ethnic cleansing and genocide. But I'll freely admit that might not be attributable to differences in faith as much as differences in national cultures.



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 08:21 PM
link   
reply to post by plumranch
 

There are a lot of sites on the Melungeons with conflicting results on their ancestry. I think it also depends on what the study is trying to prove, and what qualifies the subject as a descendent of the Melungeons. Many sites do conclude that they had middle-eastern ancestry. One should also bear in mind that Portugal and Spain had a large middle-eastern segment of the population at the time of Columbus. So "European" could mean a lot of things.
www.mediamonitors.net... comes to the conclusion that the DNA does point to middle-eastern sources. Furthermore, a disease common in Arab, North African and Berber populations called sarcoidosis is common amongst Americans of Melungeon descent. I heard of someone surnamed "Moor" who only became aware of her Melungeon descent when a family member got this disease.
I don't think people have to stick to my general introduction to the letter, and the ancestry of Columbus is relevant. It appears that before the spread of Islam amongst African Americans, the earlier history is a fascinating and obscure topic.
I was reading a biased Christian book by Peter Hammond: "Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The historical roots and contemporary threat" (2005, Christian Liberty Books, see www.frontline.org.za). The information in it is not so much wrong or inaccurate, as selective (it focuses on Islamic crimes while ignoring those of Christians). Nevertheless, it does challenge the notion that historical Islam was tolerant and advanced in its treatment of other faiths and races. Hammond claims that: "Much has been made by Muslim apologists of the 'freedom of religion' and the toleration of Christians as 'protected persons'. In fact freedom of religion in Muslim areas only meant the freedom of Jews and Christians to convert to Islam, never the other way round. Christians and Jews were encouraged to convert to Islam, but Muslims were forbidden - on pain of death - to change their Islamic religion" (Hammond p.70). Christians were further oppressed by the Pact of Umar, which imposed crippling poll and land taxes, forbade Christians to carry weapons or display and build Christian symbols and places of worship, to ride with saddles and countless other humiliating restrictions. The enslavement of Africans is well-known, but what is less spoken about is the Barbery Slavery between the 16-19th centuries, which enslaved over 1 million Europeans, including Britains and Americans in North Africa. So I probably agree with the posters who argue that the conquest of America would have been much the same under Islam. The question is: why wasn't it? It appears that Islam was a bit under siege at the time of Columbus - it is said that Spain expelled its entire Jewish and Muslim poulation the day after he landed in the Bahamas.
Of course many would argue that there would have been significant differences. Perhaps both Christians and Muslims had been dehumaized and brutalized by their long conflict with each other by 1492.
It is for example asserted that a certain interpretation of Islam allowed treachery for the sake of Jihadic conquest. Cortez and Pizarro certainly employed treachery, especially in their use of native enemies of the autocratic Incan and Aztec states. Post-conquest the Indian allies were treated as badly as the conquered states.



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by halfoldman
I've read much Christian propaganda on Islam and other orientalism, and how the native people should be glad that they were generally colonized by Christians. I've recently stumbled on websites about the "melungeons" and how there were possible descendants of refugees from Spain's forced exodus of Muslims and Sephardic Jews who came to North America.
Well, we know both groups (Christian and Muslim) had horrible wars and slavery. The general thinking is that Muslims were slightly more enlightened by 1492. Without hatred or bias, what do others think?


I absolutely reject the very premise of your post.
"I've read...I've stumbled upon...we know..." is simply a poor attempt to position bias and bigotry as fact.

Also what do thers think about what? That Muslims were more advanced then Westerners, then Christians, were more enlightened to actually oppress?

Try again.



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 09:02 PM
link   
The real difference is between them and the Protestants (still the same religion, btw). Both the Catholics and the Muslims were more interested in slaves, while the Protestants were more into ethnic cleansing and genocide. But I'll freely admit that might not be attributable to differences in faith as much as differences in national cultures.

Mmm, the plot thickens. The Protestants come into the picture with the start of the Reformation, I think it was around 1517. The Spaniards certainly did venture into what is now the US, but the native settlements there were very diffent from the recognizable peasant society they found in Peru or Central America. Both Christian groups attempted to enslave the Natives, but the Indians died from their lack of immunity to European diseases. (Assuming that Muslims were present from the earliest settlements, one would more accurately say "Old World diseases"). It remains interesting however that "Catholic" Latin American genes are essentially still largely native genes, while in the US and Canada the majority is "white". It appears that the Spanish simply replaced the religion and political power of an already settled peasant population. There is little doubt to my mind however that the missionizing of the natives became a competition and rationale for conquest between the Protestant and Catholics. So yes, it was a holy war, often plunder on the pretext of saving souls. Still today the "black legend" of Spanish conquest is used in Protestant countries, and possibly vice-versa. Apparently, in the frontiers of Amazonia, disease, slavery and competing denominations of missionaries are still forced on native peoples (see for example the film: "At play in the Fields of the Lord"). Strangely, the rapid growth of Islam is viewed more as the result of exploding populations in Islamic countries, and only in certain regions is it due to conversion.
Here, in Cape Town, South Africa, the Muslims were themselves brought as slaves - political prisoners from Dutch Indonesia. Many other slaves and natives also converted, because at first Christianizing a slave meant he had to be released. So in the Western-controlled dominions, Islam was a "slave religion". Similarly, the Christian slaves in North Africa had to be better treated if they converted to Islam - and Christian captives who gave in to such conversion (often by torture) were regarded as traitors and unlikely to be ransomed back by churches and their own communities. Eventually the Anglicans devised lengthy rituals (that lasted months) to allow ransomed slaves to convert back to Christianity. One unpopular, painful Islamic condition for conversion was adult circumcision, often performed in a public place. Well, at least that much was spared the American Indians.



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 09:10 PM
link   
I absolutely reject the very premise of your post.
"I've read...I've stumbled upon...we know..." is simply a poor attempt to position bias and bigotry as fact.

Also what do thers think about what? That Muslims were more advanced then Westerners, then Christians, were more enlightened to actually oppress?

Try again.

Fair enough, although also a bit vague. Well, if you think it is biased, then in what way? There is a general trend in academia to currently describe Islam as more advanced during Europe's Dark Ages. My historical interest just wants to highlight a debate that is often overlooked. Perhaps my other posts will extrapolate this a bit more. You seem to feel strongly, so pity I cannot really have your perspective.



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 12:37 AM
link   
reply to post by halfoldman
 

I've re-read my original "introductory" post again. I find its conclusion an even-handed entry into the debate. I took a gentle approach that would be acceptable to our multi-cultured academia here in South Africa at present. It has a strong PC bias, and a focus on the "evils" of Western "oppression". The very topics I raise on Islam (although I'd like to think I'm fair without really making anyone happy) would be bordering on the taboo in my milieu. So please don't misunderstand my approach as bias.
I also re-read the ATS rules and don't think it would be acceptable to post something that would be "anti-Isamic" and get people to call it demoniac, blah, blah, blah. I'm sure that would have been popular, but that's not debate.
I think I expanded quite a bit in the 2 lengthy posts before the critique, and introducing threads is never easy.
I'm happy to be criticised, just please give an indication of your position and in what way I'm biased. It's never good to be guided by assumptions alone. I'm more concerned with my history than current bias, although history does give us a space to do a bit of both: bias and the fairness of reflection.



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 02:59 AM
link   
reply to post by halfoldman
 


Well, you could start with better proving that the Melungeons were actually Muslim. As I stated here, the DNA evidence doesn't agree..


So no one knows where they originated? Let's look further:Melungeon From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia DNA testing of Melungeon descendants has been limited, but the Melungeon DNA Project, which has more public results, so far shows overwhelming European and sub-Saharan African heritage of males in several families traditionally identified as Melungeon. This finding is consistent with the documented work by Paul Heinegg and Dr. Virginia DeMarce, who used a variety of historical records to show the formation of colonial families who were ancestors to free people of color in the 19th century Upper South. Sub-Saharan African heritage means africans from south of the Sahara desert which at that time were not Muslim! The Muslim conversion is a relatively recent phenomenon. So: Columbus wasn't Muslim, maybe he wasn't Christian (who cares?). The Melungeon probably weren't Muslim.


I suppose the question is by 1492 was Sub-Saharan Africa Muslim as that is where the Melungeons originated?



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 04:53 AM
link   
reply to post by plumranch
 

I don't think that I have to prove this, they just led me to fascinating pointers to the Iberian diaspora of Sephardic Jews and Muslims in the Americas. Nowhere do I state that this is any more than a "possibility" that anyone who goes through a variety of "Melungeon" material on the web will find. Western Africa was almost certainly Muslim, and this sub-saharan split is also problematic. the Melungeon origins can only be described as mysterious, and the Wikipedia piece repeats that "European" could mean a lot of things.
I did not title my thread: "Melungeons-proof of origins". There really is a lot of conflicting material out there. I think that people who are already mixed tend to become a default class, so Melungeons nowadays and those around 1900 were possibly different concepts. For a long time they were not discussed at all in American society, so it's all somewhat dubious. The facial features from old photos certainly seem East-Indian or middle-eastern to me. But as a default class, I guess anything that didn't fit was dismissed as Melungeon. I'm not going to repeat all the different sites and their arguments here. The fact is that the Spanish did take slaves from the Islamic regions to the Americas, and one can google on this to find supposed rock engravings and other proof of survival. However, the point is, they did not come as conquerors. And how could they? It was the distant beginning of the conquest of the entire Islamic world by the West.
We should also not confuse race and religion - people in Spain probably converted as it benefitted them, although a degree of racism must have been tangible. I think this is the point that makes everything somewhat wishy-washy. It doesn't really effect my main question though. Strange that nobody has asked: "What kind of Muslim?", because like Christianity, Islam is not monolithic or unified.



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 05:03 AM
link   
reply to post by plumranch
 

On Islam in West Africa, Ghana, Mali, Sudan, since the 8th century CE, see
www.worldupdates.tripod.com...



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 05:08 AM
link   
reply to post by halfoldman
 

Apologies, just saw it on web, but doesn't work, one more try worldupdates.tripod.com...
Well documented in any case, as well as Islam and early US slavery.



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 05:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by halfoldman
What if Columbus was a Muslim?

He would have needed another boat for his harem?
He would have landed in Texas where the Oil is?
The American west would be full of wild camels instead of horses?
We’d have the “Dome of the Pilgrim Rock Mosque”?
Thanksgiving would include Humus and Deer Kabobs?
Israel would still be Palestine?
Instead of one Civil War we would have had about 1000?
We would all have to make a pilgrimage to Ohio once in our lives?
There would still be a pissing contest going on over some mountain that the American Indians considered sacred?



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 05:53 AM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


Brilliant thinking, thanks for that. It should be made available more widely for humorous people!




posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 05:56 AM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


Of course all new male immigrants to the US would have to get the snip - that would be a bit of a deterrent for chancers.



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by bettermakings
I've studied much about Columbus. I don't think he was a Christian. He was an evil, evil, evil man, just like Cortes, and others who probably didn't care much about religion, and just wanted gold & spices. None of them cared about religion anyway, even if they were Muslim, but i doubt they were anyway. It was all about fortune & fame.

But Columbus was Italian, not Spanish, by the way. The Queen of Spain supported him, but he himself was Italian.


I agree. I think he may have been a Jew, but I believe his real funding, and ships, came from the Templars, and that he had a map, and knew where to go. His ship's sails all had Templar crosses prominently displayed.


I also do not think Columbus was the first European to set foot on what is now America either.
Who really discovered America?

The Hidden History of the Promised Land

Before Columbus: Vikings & Templar Knights in The Northeast

European colonization of the Americas

Interesting link:

The First Voyage Log

Columbus Coat of Arms


Columbus Taking Possession



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join