Talk:Al-Andalus

Title of the Article

To me there seems to be an issue with the title of the the article. "Al-Andalus" refers specifically to the rule of the Caliphate of Damascus over the area, as well to a very specific region in Spain, Andalucia in the far south of the Iberian Peninsula. However, the actual Muslims that invaded and came to inhabit the southern part of the Iberian Peninsula were the Berbers of North Africa, also known as Moors. Therefore I propose that the title of this article be changed to "Moorish Spain" and that a side note be included that this region was also known as Al-Andalus. The term Al-Andalus identifies more with a geographical area rather than a study of the people and culture within this area and really the blending of cultures. Moorish Spain, is also a term that is more familiar to most readers and influential historians on the subject like Richard Fletcher have titled books on this subject as "Moorish Spain" not Al-Andalus. 18:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)Alexion (alexanderion)

I would like to agree with the proposal for changing the title of the article from "Al-Andalus" to "Moorish Spain." I believe that the current title is misleading. While the article is clearly attempting to give a history of the Muslims in Spain as a whole, the title as is does not fit. If left unchanged, the article appears to be about the specific are of Andalucia or the specific rule of the Claiphate of Damascus, rather than the Muslim history. IlliniChica (talk) 20:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I completely disagree! The Moorish occupation was of parts of the Iberia Peninsula, not just Spain. Iberia includes Portugal. The Ogre (talk) 11:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, I understand your point about the Moorish lands also incorporating parts of Portugal, perhaps a more appropriate title would be "Moorish Iberia." Al-Andalus still seems a bit too specific for the type of information(especially cultural) being presented in this article. Alexion (talk) 20:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The term "Moorish" is itself inaccurate; why should it be used as the *title* of this article? Europeans used it frequently in the Middle Ages to refer to any number of groups of people who had darker skin and were Muslims. For the same reason that you wouldn't use the word "Saracen" to refer to an Islamic community, you should not use the word "Moorish."Triplefull368 (talk) 01:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I do not think the term is inaccurate, while it is true that the term refers to several modern ethnic groups, it was these ethnic groups that came to occupy the Iberian Peninsula. I do not think the comparing the terms Moor and Saracen is justified, the term "Saracen" came to encompass all those that practiced the Islamic faith, while the term "Moor" simple refers to the peoples of northern Africa that were predominantly Muslim during this time period. I encourage you to read the Wikipedia article about Moors "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moors." This article has an entire section dedicated to the Moors of Iberia. I think it would make sense to standardize the terminology, referring to the place and people inhabiting the southern Iberian Peninsula, during this time. Alexion (talk) 22:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I must disagree. Al-Andalus was a name of choice, used by Muslims themselves, to refer to the Iberian peninsula, not the particular region that now is called Andalucia. And it was used throughout, not merely in the brief period of Damascus rule. "Moors" was a generic term, bordering on a slur, used only by Christians to refer to any Muslim, wherever their ethnicity or origin (e.g. Portuguese explorers used the term "Moor" to refer to East African and Indian Muslims.) "Moor" is not specific; it is a generic term, the Spanish equivalent of the Italian "Saracen". Moreover, it is very incorrect to imagine that the Berbers were the only Muslims who came to al-Andalus. Indeed, tensions among different Muslim ethnicities was a significant feature of political life and strife. The Ummayad Emirate (750-1009) was Arab-ruled, and the disintegration of the 11th C. saw the establishment of competing Arab, Berber, Saqaliba (Slavic mameluke) states (e.g. Seville, Zaragoza and Murcia were Arab, Badajoz, Albarracin and Granada were Berber, Valencia, Almeria and Denia was Saqaliba, etc.) "Moorish Spain" has decidedly archaic feel. Most serious history books I know, including art history, "al-Andalus" is commonly used. Finally, and more importantly, there needs to be an article title which can be used comfortably in other articles. e.g. I write a lot on Medieval North African history, where there is a lot of interaction and dealings between the governments and peoples of Spain and Africa. "Al-Andalus" and "Andalusians" fits the bill nicely alongside, say, al-Ifriqiya and Ifriqiyans. "Moorish Spain" would be as clumsy and odd as "Moorish Africa" and "Moorish Mauretania". There's more to al-Andalus than just its dealings with Christian kingdoms. Walrasiad (talk) 07:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Architecture

Architecture during the time of Moorish Spain was definitely changing greatly to say the least. Although it mentions in the article how certain aspects of the Muslim architecture were shared with the Christians and the Jews I think that it doesn't go into enough detail about it. The architecture was greatly influenced by the Muslims and this architecture was used even after the Reconquista. However, there were many more aspects of Christian architecture that go unmentioned in the article. The mosque at Cordoba being a prime example. Many Christians sought to eradicate the Muslim's imprint on Iberia and the mosque was converted into a church. This change to the architecture was seen as a blemish on the mosque, but either way it did show that the architecture of the time was not totally influenced by the Muslims and there were many who resisted even this. More should be mentioned in the article on the effects of architecture. Voitik2 (talk) 02:25, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Colours on map

Hi The section on the Caliphate at Cordoba has two maps thth use white as one of the colours. It is a very long established convention that white (or grey) is reserved for neutral areas, not affected by what is being illustrated on the map. It is very confusing to violate this convention and use white as if it were any other colour. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 15:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

It looks to me as though the white area could easily be recolored to something else. Both images, File:Al Andalus.gif and File:Taifas.gif, have liberal copyright permissions which permit this kind of modification, so you or someone else who is proficient with image manipulation could make this change and upload a new file version which would replace it. Elizium23 (talk) 19:31, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Rename This!

I propose that this article be renamed "Islamic Rule of the Iberian Peninsula." This is about more than "Andalus," which seems to refer only to a limited period, not the span of time encompassed by this article. Tapered (talk) 07:29, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Care to elaborate your objections? Islamic rule did not cover all the Iberian peninsula. "Al-Andalus" is a common scholarly term to refer generically to any and all the Muslim-ruled areas of the Iberian peninsula, between the first conquest of 711 and the fall of Granada in 1492 (e.g. Hugh Kennedy (2005) Muslim Spain and Portugal: a political history of al-Andalus.) Walrasiad (talk) 08:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Please, a link to the assertion about 'Al Andalus.' Tapered (talk) 21:26, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I just gave you a reference. You can check it out at the library. Still wondering what youre objections are, though. Can you explain? Walrasiad (talk) 22:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

In Wikipedia a link to a credible source, which I requested, is much better than a library source. As it turns out, I've found several. Further searches revealed that "Al Andalus" is well enough linked so that an intelligent search, using current political and geographic terminology will direct readers to the information they/we need. Don't feel that thanks are in order. Tapered (talk) 18:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

NO NEED TO RENAME.Tapered (talk) 18:16, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Muhammad

Fr/ now on, will eliminate namestyle 'Prophet' Muhammad. Jesus isn't styled 'Savior' Jesus. Abraham isn't 'Patriarch' Abraham. Moses isn't 'Prophet' Moses, etc,etc,etc. Tapered (talk) 02:23, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes he is. He is called "Jesus Christ" (i.e. "Yashua the Anointed"). And OT prophets are frequently referred to with their descriptive (e.g. "the prophet Elijah", etc.). As "Muhammad" is a pretty common name, it is useful to be clear. Walrasiad (talk) 04:06, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Sourced paragraphs deleted

In this edition, a number of sourced paragraphs have been deleted with only this comment: removing non-pertinent content. I think that a thorough explanation is needed. Jotamar (talk) 14:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

With no answer in one week, the editor being active, the next natural move is to revert the deletion, which I proceed to do. Jotamar (talk) 10:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

if you want to restore material then the burden of evidence is on you. however, let us take a look on the material you the re-added.

• the paragraph starting with the sentence "christians, braced by the example of their coreligionists..." is supported by a single source. namely a christian website, hardly a reliable secondary source. the paragraph is also undue.

• the paragraph starting with the sentence "during these successive waves of violence against..." is not sourced at all and totally misplaced under the chapter of "rise and fall of muslim power"....as it has nothing to do with the subject i.e. not pertinent.

• the sentence "periodic raiding expeditions were sent from al-andalus to ravage..." is in the wrong section ("rise and fall of muslim power"). as noted by the text, "medieval spain and portugal was the scene of almost constant warfare"... thousands of such incidents happened between the warring opponents. cherry picked incidents do not merit inclusion as they violate wp:npov. what is really needed, however, is a description of the fall of "muslim power" (the rise has already been described in other sections).

-- mustihussain  20:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)