Talk:Muslim Sicily

{{WikiProject Islam|class=B|Muslim-history=yes|Muslim-history-importance=}}

The successor state here should be the County of Sicily. We have articles on all three Counts:

• 1071–1101 Roger I Bosso
• 1101–1105 Simon
• 1105–1130 Roger II

Unfortunately we have no article on the County yet. We move straight to the Kingdom of Sicily established in 1130. Anyone interested in feeling the gap? User:Dimadick

Excellent point - I have the necessary references at home to be able to do it, so I might have a go in the next few days. --πιππίνυ δ - (dica) 00:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Merger

I'm starting a discussion here in response to User:Animagentile merging History of Islam in southern Italy into Emirate of Sicily. I think this merger is pointless simply because the Emirate of Sicily article is far too narrow in scope: it only covers the history of Islam in Sicily during the years 965-1072. The Muslims first attacked Sicily in 652, long before the Emirate was established in 965, and they also attacked other parts of southern Italy as well besides Sicily. The History of Islam in southern Italy covers the entire history of Islam in southern Italy from the 7th century up until the 13th century, from the very first Muslim invasions through to the Norman invasion and Holy Roman Empire. If you merge the article into Emirate of Sicily, then a whole lot of information will be lost, and there is no way I can accept such a merger. Jagged 85 (talk) 16:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

This article covers also the first attacks a sentence even starts with "In 535", which were ulitimetly a failure. Only the smallest tips of Southern Italy were ever Islamic, and that was taken from the Byzantines and included within part of the Emirate of Sicily, under the control of the emir. Both articles clearly cover the same thing and there doesn't need to be two... as this was an actual country, or emirate, then this is the article that should remain. Feel free to put your efforts into bettering this article with any information you have. - Animagentile (talk) 21:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The article is far broader in scope than "Emirate of Sicily", so the merger is not a service. Srnec (talk) 22:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

As explained above, it covers the exact same scope on the exact same topic. Care to actually put fourth how it doesn't cover everything, rather than just leaving a message with absolutely no real information or explination? - Animagentile (talk) 05:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

How does it cover exactly the same thing? Is Sicily all of southern Italy? Was the emirate the only Islamic "event"? Your claim is just ludicrous. Islam has a history in southern Italy in the 8th and 9th centuries. What about the emirate of Bari? If you want to merge them in a sensible way, do it. Don't just redirect an article with lots of content to a smaller one. But the emirate of Sicily is a state and there is no point talking about Islamic raids of the 800s or Islamic military bases on the mainland in such an article. Srnec (talk) 19:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The emirate is clearly the only "successful" event from the eyes of muslims, so the information on it belongs here. Emirate of Bari already redirects to this article. The extreme tips of southern Italy (ie- small parts of Calabria and Puglia) that islam was able to touch, was during the exact same time period, ruled by the same powers and lines as thus belongs in the article as this. There is a point in talking about the raids in the 800s because it led up to the eventual creation of the brief state in Sicily, that is the only notable thing about the raids period.

What are these imginary events that you seem unable to speak of on here that supposedly couldn't be covered by this article?? - Gennarous (talk) 10:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't merge the pages again, since you are opposed by three other editors and have no support. Emirate of Bari only redirects here b/c you redirected the other article and another editor fixed the double redirect!

Why downplay the history of Islam in southern Italy, which includes places other than Sicily (or Apulia or Calabria) and covers a time period that begins 200 years earlier than the emirate? Articles are not limited to "successful events", so that argument is a non-starter. Why should an article about a Sicilian phase of history cover the story of the Saracen base on the Garigliano? Or the emirate established briefly at Bari? Or the raids into Lazio and the Duchy of Rome? Or many naval raids that struck the mainland? Or the cultural impact of Islam throughout southern Italy? Srnec (talk) 06:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Cultural impact?? hahaha You have to be joking, incase you haven't noticed there is a grand total of 0.0000000000001% people who follow the Muslim religion in southern Italy today. A couple of days of Islam in Sicily hundreds of years ago has not left cultural effect (which anyway can be discussed in this article). You don't seem to be able to get it through to you, this isn't a blog... all of the possible things that article covers, can be covered by this article on the actual historical state/"emirate".

You have been unable to provide evidence of such as "impact" in other places outside of the Emirate of Sicily or the mere tips of Apulia and Calabria (also taking into consideration the latter two was even more brief than Sicily) which would warrant two articles on the same thing.

Incase you haven't noticed only me and you are still discussing this Jagged 85 (an Islamocentric) isn't even discussing anymore. Saracen raids in the Papal States (which, by the way isn't in Southern Italy) has nothing to do with Islam, it has to do with the history of piracy. Garigliano was in the Papal States, which is not southern Italy or Sicily. Its central/north. - Gennarous (talk) 18:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Jagged 85's opinions still count, whether he is "still" discussing or not. So do Pippu d'Angelo's (below) and Ian Spackman's (see his edit summaries). And mine. That's 4 to 1.

"0.0000000000001%" "A couple of days..." Hyperbole does not boost your argument. Rather, it shows that you are not serious.

Garigliano, though part of the Papal States, is regularly covered in the history of southern Italy (since all the powers of southern Italy united against the Muslims there). The Emirate of Bari cannot be seriously covered in any way at this article. The continuous raiding, by land and sea, in Apulia and Calabria for centuries (9th–11th) deserves full coverage and is only tangentially related to the emirate(s) of Sicily. The history of Saracen mercenaries in southern Italy, be they in the employ of the Greeks or Lombards in the 9th century or the Normans in the 11th/12th, is worthy of treatment and is not part of the "Emirate of Sicily". The "cultural effect" of which I spoke is most evident and could be covered here. The architectural heritage of Islam (on the Normans and subsequent) is a "cultural effect" and this effect is even found, to a much lesser degree, in the mainland. The cultural impact need not persevere down to the present day, rather it outlasted the Muslims by centuries and that is important, even if it is hard to see it today.

Finally, please discontinue any allegations of "Islamophilia" and "blogging". I don't blog and this has nothing to do with blogging. In fact, I am a very small content contributor to History of Islam in southern Italy. And I am not Muslim, I am Protestant. I don't "love" Islam at all. Srnec (talk) 20:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

History of Islam in southern Italy is clearly much broader than Emirate of Sicily, the latter representing a short but important period that sits quite comfortably as a separate article. --πιππίνυ δ - (dica) 00:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Also worth noting that we have both Norman conquest of southern Italy and Kingdom of Sicily - an almost equivalent comparison. πιππίνυ δ - (dica) 00:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Dispute Tag

A POV dispute tag was added in December 2008. What is the dispute so we can work it out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommylotto (talk • contribs) 19:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Not having received a response, I will remove the dispute tags... Tommylotto (talk) 19:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Aftermath

I added some new material to this section, but left the original material even though it has some internal inconsistencies and needs additional editing. I personally think we should try to steer clear of the myth of religious harmony and coexistence. It is true that the Muslims were not immediately extirpated, and they sometimes worked together, but we still had a master race and a subservient race.Tommylotto (talk) 23:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Another Dispute Tag

Yet another POV tag was placed on the Conquered Population section. What is the problem here? The section is sited to Michele Amari's preeminent treatise on the history of Islam in Sicily.Tommylotto (talk) 23:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Conquered population

The section conquerer population is POV because it does only mention a large list of restrictions put on christians. To mention only this over emphatizes the discrimination and gives for sure a flawed view of the sitiation there.Dentren | ^Talk 23:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you cite to another reliable verifiable authority that suggests the view of this section is flawed? Or are you just speculating by how it feels? Are you objecting to POV or undue weight? What exactly is your objection? What is your suggestion for improvement? I do not think it is undue weight. The whole article is about the Islamic conquest of Sicily. A single section about the treatment of the conquered population during this century of domination is in order. Not covering it would rather be a sugar coating of the fact that the indigenous population was, in fact, conquered and placed in a subservient position. (You will note that the article also covers the discrimination against the Muslims after the island was conquered by the Normans in the Aftermath section.) Also, the section does not only list restriction on the conquered population, it notes that they were allowed freedom of religion subject to the restrictions listed. The material cites to verifiable reliable sources, does not push a point of view, and is proper.Tommylotto (talk) 00:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)