One issue I wonder about with history like this is the bias that religious historians might have. The Islamic scholar might be inclined to boost the number of muslims, the christian scholar might go the other way. Also documents may be altered for religious-political reasons - liberate oppressed muslims (christian minority in rule) or oppressed christians (muslim minority in rule), when in reality it's only money that matters to these people and religion is merely a tool - Heh, I hope I am being cynical enough there, afterall we have very little dating back before the 1500s that hasn't been rewritten by a religious scholar (for which we should be thankful in most cases), and then they may have been working for someone with an angle in mind, shall we say.
Reminds me of a good joke: What do pigfarmers and historians have in common? - Spending all day up to their knees in .
edit:
On rereading I see some ambiguity in my post. I don't mean to imply there is no value to discussing history, I think it's marvellous stuff. And also I certainly don't mean to imply that religious scholars are certain to work with a political bias in mind. Apologies for any misunderstanding.
Last edited by Taiji; January 20, 2012 at 02:22 PM.
I think Taiji has the right idea here. As a trained historian and a teacher, one of the most important values I instill in my students is to be critical of ALL sources, no matter their authorship or whether they agree with you or not.
Several people have brought up material supporting their claims about the relative numbers of Christians and Muslims on the island of Malta at various times in history. Its good to see such passion in some cases, but a degree of dispassionate removal is also of great use, both in preventing animosities and in reaching a better understanding of historical circumstances.
Personally, I have no stance on what percentage of Malta's population in 1180 CE was Christian, or Muslim, or Arab, or Italian, or Greek. I think these discussions are valuable in helping the modding team representing the area better, but as I stated in the first response to the OP, the specific numbers are mostly for gameplay. If anyone wants to contiue this discussion on a political or even theological basis, there are separate forums and threads within TWC for just that activity.
Otherwise, please keep it civil and have a good time.
Isn't it quite obvious that Praetorian is a nationalistic youngster who tried to prove a point, but it backfired?
Your country's history isn't as you would want it to be, lad. Better deal with it before your brake your teeth on it.
I once had a very similar entertaining discussion with a German boy who refused to believed that English and German were related languages
why isnt so hard to believe there were 15k muslims in malta??? u know, they could have converted to avoid jizya, arab raids on sicily or execution...... hell some might even have pretended to covert just to strike a merchant deal or marry a muslim women etc....
not all who convert truly beliefe in the religion..... its the same as a football club..... in my school.... many like barcelona..... because few football team members forced their opinion and others followed.... or they support it because they win a lot.... many now support real madrid because of the last graceful defeat of Barcelona in the cup and consider them pathetic...
so the convert is politically, socially and economically influenced....
If you ask me this is a rather pointless debate, any source is subjective. Wether the source is valid or not it's going to be painted by the time, culture, person who wrote it and by the background and aims of the person who reads it. (postmodern school).
In this case the modders needed a scource on which to base their game statistics on. I assume this was the only scource available with a census of the period needed. Wether it is biased or not unfortunately can't be proven, since there are no other sources available, and if there are they are of decades later, during which anything could have happened. Fact is that the only available source says 88% muslim, wether they are fake muslims or not is not relevant. The modders have to go on something and quite frankly current sentiment is not really a valid source.
why isnt so hard to believe there were 15k muslims in malta??? u know, they could have converted to avoid jizya, arab raids on sicily or execution...... hell some might even have pretended to covert just to strike a merchant deal or marry a muslim women etc....
not all who convert truly beliefe in the religion..... its the same as a football club..... in my school.... many like barcelona..... because few football team members forced their opinion and others followed.... or they support it because they win a lot.... many now support real madrid because of the last graceful defeat of Barcelona in the cup and consider them pathetic...
so the convert is politically, socially and economically influenced....
the debate has shifted from the percentage of moslems to the number of inhabitants. since jascko stated that there were 15.000 maltese in 991, of which an 80% were moslem, and some others believe there weren't 15.000 inhabitants at that time, they therefore believe that if they prove him wrong about the number of inhabitants, they also prove him wrong about the religious percentage.
Wrong mate, what census of 991? in 1048 there were only 400 muslims for the defence of the island, if there were like 15k muslims i guess the number of defenders would be alot more than just 400, now we'r talking in the late 12th century, how can it be correct if by that time all muslims were expelled? 2nd the arabs upon their arrival threw the Christian bishop in prison & many other greeks & Maltese Christians & enslaved many who didn't want to submit to islam. Muslims imposed jizya to whoever didn't want to submit & many couldn't pay it. Those who could not pay the heavy tax jizya were either enslaved or in prison & only when a byzantine attempt to reclaim the island in 1048 the only 400 arabs, in malta allowed christians freely to worship their religion without taxes only in exchange for service cos the byzantines greatly outnumbered them & still, in 1090 when Roger I invaded the island he freed many Christian Greeks & Maltese. Its true in our Language there is some arabic but also French, Italian, some greek & some latin. The Maltese suffered under the arabs, & when Roger I invaded the island so many Maltese joined him to rid the island of muslims that when he came to leave the island, his boat from the coast to his ship nearly sank according to Geoffrey Malaterra. The Maltese welcomed him with open arms & joined him. Malta was inhabitied much more by Christians than by muslims, since the Christian conversion in 60 AD the muslims ruled for only 220 years. So because they imposed heavy taxes for religion & imprison those who can't pay u call that "FREEDOM OF RELIGION"??? Also its Roger II, son of Roger I who expelled evry last muslim from the island. In the XVI century Muslim Barbary Corsairs & Ottoman Turkish Muslims again attempted to take the island & brought suffering to Malta & when the Maltese & the knights resisted, Lala Kara Mustafa swore to annihilate the whole population.
Your misconception about muslims & Islam are same as of the Christians of medieval Europe who had an image that muslims infidels are devil worshippers of some kind. Jizya tax was applied on only those who could pay it. Women, children, old men, poor etc were exempted from it. Also if muslims were so cruel & they would put christians & other non-muslims to prison & tried to force convert them then I am pretty sure countries such as India & Spain would be muslim majority. Religious tolerance was one attribute of muslims which helped them in ruling non-muslim majority area without exterminating local populations unlike crusaders who loved to spill blood of infidels in the name of God.
Your misconception about muslims & Islam are same as of the Christians of medieval Europe who had an image that muslims infidels are devil worshippers of some kind. Jizya tax was applied on only those who could pay it. Women, children, old men, poor etc were exempted from it. Also if muslims were so cruel & they would put christians & other non-muslims to prison & tried to force convert them then I am pretty sure countries such as India & Spain would be muslim majority. Religious tolerance was one attribute of muslims which helped them in ruling non-muslim majority area without exterminating local populations unlike crusaders who loved to spill blood of infidels in the name of God.
Crusaders who spill blood? as if muslims never invaded European countries & spilled European blood. What are u talking about? Armenian/Greek genocides? half hungary enslaved or killed? quartering & sawing Christians in 2 halvs? I think your 'misconception' is that anyone can say whatever he wants on Europeans & Christians but when something is said on muslims then some idiot always want to yell in their defence to show how innocent & how civilised they were when invading Europe at least 2-3 times. & history is about to repeat itsself but of course u don't see anything wrong about that.
Isn't it quite obvious that Praetorian is a nationalistic youngster who tried to prove a point, but it backfired?
Your country's history isn't as you would want it to be, lad. Better deal with it before your brake your teeth on it.
I once had a very similar entertaining discussion with a German boy who refused to believed that English and German were related languages
& what's your problem? & by meddling in the conversation as if you'r another know-it-all jackoff, you just showed how senseless YOUR POINT is cos like i said very little is certain about the whole freaking period so how can you be so certain & judge? "Your country's history isn't as you would want it to be" i wanted to be? what i may believe is one thing , what i would want it to be is totally different. & what proof do you have to convince me? cos what i said is at least what we know, which afterall is in the same census link.
In this case the modders needed a scource on which to base their game statistics on. I assume this was the only scource available with a census of the period needed. Wether it is biased or not unfortunately can't be proven, since there are no other sources available, and if there are they are of decades later, during which anything could have happened. Fact is that the only available source says 88% muslim, wether they are fake muslims or not is not relevant. The modders have to go on something and quite frankly current sentiment is not really a valid source.
I didn't do the work, it was done before I arrived, but this looks like the most plausible explanation for how the figure was arrived at.
As for the strange Islam fanboyism (they are actually still humans, etc.) and the pretty natural tendency to accept one's own county's version of it's own history. I think it's interesting to examine the biases but please, everyone, try to avoid dragging the discussion down to personal insults.
Clearly, there has been a lot of misunderstanding here. I never said anything referring to 'muslims are not humans' and i'm not offending anyone. I have muslim friends & worked with them, but why if anyone says anything against Christians its ok nothing happens and if vice versa is deffinatly unexceptable? are we all to be treated equal? I was only explaining a part of my country's history. I started this thread to simply ask why is Malta 88% muslim in DLV mod in a time that according to history it wasn't & how can i fix it.. With all respect to modders. I apologise for my broken English
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
^ C. Capelli, N. Redhead, N. Novelletto, L. Terrenato, P. Malaspina, Z. Poulli, G. Lefranc, A. Megarbane, V. Delague, V. Romano, F. Cali, V.F. Pascali, M. Fellous, A.E. Felice, and D.B. Goldstein; "Population Structure in the Mediterranean Basin: A Y Chromosome Perspective," Annals of Human Genetics, 69, 1–20, 2005.
In 1091, count Roger I of Sicily, made an initial attempt to establish Norman rule of Malta and was greeted by the few native Christians. In 1127, his son Roger II of Sicily succeeded. This marked the gradual change from an Arab cultural influence to a European one. In 1191, Tancred of Sicily appointed Margaritus of Brindisi the first Count of Malta. Until the 1224
and from a simple conversation about Malta's population of Christian/Muslim percentage, because maybe we have different opinions some here started sarcasm & even insults. Afterall that in 1048 only 400 muslims were defending the island i was right cos it is also mentioned in the same 991 census link, its obvious that if 15,000 muslims were here the defenders number would be at least 4000 and not only 400. Also that Roger II in 1127 conquered & expelled the muslims from Malta untill the end of Norman rule in malta i was right again, although muslims came after & were expelled again from HRE Frederick II in 1224, and finally its obvious that Malta in the late 12th century wasn't 88% muslim.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
The annalist Alexander of Telese attributed
the conquest of Malta to Roger’s son, Roger II, an episode taking place by 1127.
So did Ibn al-Athir, who credited Roger II with the conquest of Malta, Pantelleria,
Djerba and the Kerkenna islands. Furthermore, the fifteenth century author al-Maqrizi mentions the conquest of ‘the islands lying between al-Mahdiya and
Sicily’ by a Norman fleet commanded by Roger II’s admiral George of Antioch in
543 AH (1148/9) (text in Johns 2002, 80-2).
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
CHARLES DALLI
Satellite, Sentinel, Stepping Stone.
Medieval Malta in Sicily’s Orbit
Prior to the Norman annexation of Malta in 1091, described in detail by
Geoffrey Malaterra, the written records are even sparser. Much of what is known
about Muslim rule in Malta was collected by al-Himyari in his encyclopaedic
dictionary, collating information from al-Bakri, al-Qazwini and others, but oddly
suggesting that Malta lay uninhabited for more than a century following its
conquest by the Arabs in 870 (Brincat 1995).
So as al-Himyari said the island of Malta lay uninhabited for more than a century after the arab conquest of 870 (which is a great lie) yet the 991 census link in Jascko's post, from another muslim says during the same time there were some 15,000 muslims besides the 6,339 Maltese ppl inhabiting Malta . Ok if Geoffrey Malaterra is not to be trusted as some modern historians suggested although we leanred alot about the Norman period from what he wrote & at least 85% of what he wrote did infact happen i don't see why we should simply ignore him and rely on what al-Himyari says especially when one muslim writer contradicts another muslim writer on the same period.
We learned alot (or at least we think so) from both Christian & Muslim writers on that period, both sides like Taiji said before tend to twist a bit to their advantage but still there is much, much more we still don't know about the period in question in Malta.
Last edited by Praetorian1; May 20, 2012 at 10:32 AM.
Re: why is Malta 88% islam???
.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Harith
So as al-Himyari said the island of Malta lay uninhabited for more than a century after the arab conquest of 870 (which is a great lie) yet the 991 census link in Jascko's post, from another muslim says during the same time there were some 15,000 muslims besides the 6,339 Maltese ppl inhabiting Malta 
. Ok if Geoffrey Malaterra is not to be trusted as some modern historians suggested although we leanred alot about the Norman period from what he wrote & at least 85% of what he wrote did infact happen i don't see why we should simply ignore him and rely on what al-Himyari says especially when one muslim writer contradicts another muslim writer on the same period. 
