Thank you for you kind words…thank you again to those who have visited my blog with kind words…i put the picture of myself only today, a bit hazy but at least you know i do exist!

Ultimately you are right; it has been an overall effort from the human race to arrive at where we have.

However I don’t believe the debate necessary has to be sterile.

It is a bit like a football match…overall it’s a team performance that counts and wins you the match…your star players get most of the plaudits, they hog the limelight…however there were those quiet individuals in defence who went unnoticed…but there role was vital also in different ways.

My point being everyone needs a special mention for their unique contribution, not to brag, but to feel appreciated, and importantly to be encouraged to continually improve and strive in pursuit of excellence.

Also, it helps us to understand what methods, ideas and concepts enabled us to reach these heights, and how we can continue to be inspired in new ways by them.

A lot of the debate on this thread has been about how Europe got back its Greek heritage. That’s interesting, because it shows how Europe actually went BACK to go FORWARD…meaning it had to rediscover some key ROOT concepts and ideas, and then work out how to reinvent or apply them to new circumstances. This point about Europe and the Greeks is interesting however; as many of the Philosophes drew inspiration not through embracing the Greeks initial ideas, but in juxtaposition to their own critical views…it was a dialectical relationship.

It’s almost like when; I think it was John Major who said ‘back to basics’ – we need to go back to original premises – roots – to derive new inspiration.

Another interesting example is the Australian Cricket coach, or former coach, John Buchanan…He had a phenomenally successful career…he actually planned some of his strategies around the Chinese warlord Sun Tzu…he had the foresight to apply old knowledge in new contexts. This is what gives as human inspiration, often through reinvention and adaptation.

So I would say there is great benefit to be derived…as long as there is teleology, and not just for…well…intellectual masturbation!

Take care my friend

Interesting posts you drop in here, thanks.

I think it is worth pointing out that this whole ‘debate’ about scientific advance can be a bit sterile. Wasn’t it Newton that said he had ‘stood on the shoulders of giants’ in order to come up with what he had understood about light?

When the USA landed a man on the moon, the reason much of the human race was excited about it was because it was a culmination of events that had started in ancient china, rockets, developed in the Byzantine and Caliphate eras, mathematics, gone through massive development in Europe, rockets again, and been delivered because of cold war rivalry. (And that is the stripped down, simple version) It was, in effect, an achievement the human race could be proud of.

Sorry, i nearly missed your earlier post. Thanks for that…i believe that the asharis developed within the mutazalites, or something like that. You make a very interesting point on scientic development.

‘Hitler hated Christianity and National Socialism, with its emphasis on a superior race, is the very antithesis of Christian sentiment.’

Guess what the Nazi party stood for ‘National Socialist German Workers Party’

I think you meant Communism…who were meant to be the agents of the untermenchen (sub-human) Russians!

I was made aware of a couple of events in the UK which are relevant to the discussion we have had on this thread. You may like to check it out: http://muslimheritage.com/topics/default.cfm?ArticleID=693

‘I’m bored of this subject. I think the book says it all, in any case.’

That’s what usually happens Soso if you keep going round and round in circles…after a while your head starts spinning.

You still haven’t proven anything to counter my earlier posts…namely the transmission of Greek, and specifically Aristotelian knowledge to Catholic Europe.

Simply by stating something, or posting a web link does not win an argument. It seems that although mainland Europe had benefited from the Greek method of debate and reason, it clearly hasn’t extended to all of us! (I did make one error, ibn Sina is known as Avicenna, nor Averroes, that’s ibn Rushd.)

It is no wonder you are continually trying to take the debate down different paths, it a good way of digressing from the main argument, which obviously it seems you cannot counter.

You do, and I give you credit, pinpoint the greatness of the Byzantine empire of the East…and yes they also played an important part in transmitting knowledge (something which I never denied!). Let me state again, it does not disprove my earlier position.

On your last point:

‘Imagine for a moment if, unprovoked, I invaded and took over your home and then charged you a tax to sleep in your own bed.’

That’s not strictly true is it now soso?

The vandals meted out harsher treatment to even their fellow Christian brethren. The level of taxation in Muslim Spain was generally lower – oh, and it didn’t relate to peoples beds either.

Again, you fail to contextualise these things and use every opportunity to show Islamic history in a negative light. Soso just by admitting that there were some, at least some, not many, but some, good things in Islamic history will not, I am sure defile your staunchly anti-Islamist position! – Chill out mate…don’t be so insecure.

I think the points made in earlier posts stand. Yes, the minorities were generally better of, yes there were arbitrary outbreaks of intolerance (which affected all people including the Muslims) and yes a large part of this would not qualify as tolerance in the modern sense.

The issue of tolerance in and of itself is a very big topic, and one which really fascinates me. We probably need another forum for this however.

John Locke, the great English philosopher articulated the embryonic concepts of tolerance in a liberal society based on the social contract. Ironically even he was against extending this tolerance to Catholics… he viewed them as being subversive, as they had loyalties outside of state…this has interesting parallels for Muslims today.

And this brings me to an interesting debate…what are the reasons behind extending tolerance? Are they born out of a genuine commitment to some universal principles, be they secular of religious, are they born out of negotiated settlements, or political expediency? Now once we begin to evaluate societies, both past and present through these conceptual frameworks we can enhance our ability to understand the ‘quality’ of these tolerances.’

For example, if there was more tolerance in Muslim societies vis-à-vis Christendom then why? And if there is more tolerance in contemporary Western Secular societies than contemporary Muslim societies, then why? If Muslim societies of the past generally were tolerant, why did at times this not occur, i.e. the time of Caliph Hakim and his Church demolishing antics? Similarly what of the general tolerance in the Secular West, ostensibly not extended during the premiership of Chirac in relation to religious attire?

This type of questioning will help us to truly appreciate and understand debates in both history and in contemporary times.

Anyway, enough of my own ramblings…gotta get back to study. I’m reading the works of John Rawls…fantastic guy!

That’s not entirely accurate, Raz.

Hitler hated Christianity and National Socialism, with its emphasis on a superior race, is the very antithesis of Christian sentiment.

That said, there have been many, many incidents in Christian countries over the centuries of virulent, murderous anti-semitism.

And yes, that anti-semitism was, at least in part, inspired by certain Christian doctrines. Blaming the Jews for the “murder” of Christ, and such, is a good example.

It varied- like all political systems- from time to time and place to place, Soso. The injunctions to give limited toleration to “people of the book” in the quran probably meant that on average mediaeval muslim states probably weren’t quite as murderously intolerant of people with some of the wrong beliefs as christian states Roger.

I’ve no probleme with you statement Roger, but you should remember that the “people of the book” to whom you refer were the indigenous inhabitants of this region.

Imagine for a moment if, unprovoked, I invaded and took over your home and then charged you a tax to sleep in your own bed.

Would you call me tolerant?

Were the Spanish Conquistadors tolerant?

Simply saying that Islamist oppression varied from place to place and from time to time doesn’t present the true picture.

I’m bored of this subject. I think the book says it all, in any case.

I would hope that people would be more free in the 21st century than they were a thousand years ago! Nevertheless, we shouldn’t forget that as recently as 1945, 6 million Jews were getting exterminated right in the heart of the so-called christian europe.

the caliphate was no bed of roses, but then neither was anywhere, with the possible exception of places like india and china where they had other fish to fry.

b’shalom

bananabrain

“No, my point was this; non-muslims in sharia-ruled muslim-majority states suffered horribly. They were exploited, harassed, enslaved, taxed and even murdered, and all this justified and even encouraged by Islam’s core texts”

If one takes the example of the Jews in the medieval period (c.800-c.1450), they were better treated under the Caliphate than in Christendom. Byzantium introduced anit-Jewish laws, some of which stipulated the punishment of a fine of 30 pieces of silver, thereby perpetuating the Blood Libel, while the authorities also organized pogroms to distract attentions from their own failings. Western Europe was in some ways even worse, with the mobilisation of the first Crusaders causing mass Jewish slaughter on the Continent, as those knights going off to fight were worried that the Jews would try and take over while they were gone.

Life under the Caliphs at the time was not a bad of roses by any strech of the imagination. The jizya was too much for some families, yet there was still a thriving Jewish community and comparatively little pesecution, apart from a short spell under Caliph Hakim, affectionately known as ‘the mad’ to contemporary Islamic chroniclers.

Rumbold, it was the Greeks of Byzantium who transmitted the works of Aristotle to Catholic Europe.

Both Arsitotle AND the Greeks can get by quite well without Islam.

Is your point Soso, that Christian and Jewish armies of the past were the tolerant kind?

No, my point was this; non-muslims in sharia-ruled muslim-majority states suffered horribly. They were exploited, harassed, enslaved, taxed and even murdered, and all this justified and even encouraged by Islam’s core texts.

It continues to this day.

http://www.judeoscope.ca/breve.php3?id_breve=3608

Saqib’s rose-tinted portrait of a tolerant Caliphate is an complete fabrication

why do you feel the need to include “earlier jewish armies” in your comments? surely it doesn’t make sense to take the descriptions of the biblical israelites at face value if you don’t accept other parts of the Tanakh as being valid historical documents? is this just for balance? it seems an extreme attempt at it, unless you are referring to a *historical* example of these “ancient jewish armies” that i am not aware of – and i don’t mean the book of joshua. even josephus is not regarded as terribly reliable when it comes to accounts of martial conduct.

b’shalom

bananabrain

no suprises really. i found the 90s stuff quite intriguing because i missed it! the closer he came to our present time the more it became clear that he has a few fashionable axes to grind.

I only heard some of the 90s legends, some of his accounts are factually quite wrong through, by all accounts. The islamist is a bit like zia sardars ‘autobiography’, that vibe of ‘they are all terrible, i am the hero’. The difference being that zias had quite an interesting cosmopolital life story to tell and thinks wildly about things.

Ed seems an extreme character, at least in the way he describes himself, both as an islamist (whatever that means) and as an anti-islamist. The kind of person i’d like to avoid. Can i allocate myself a different geographic identity to you please!!!

People have changed since the 90s, thats not how he wrote it, only he and shayk hamza are allowed to change. everyone else can be thrown away because Ed came back from Damascus with the truth.

Anyhow, as well as serving the Gove/Phillips agenda i reckon theres some good advice in the early and mid sections of the book to Muslim organisations if only they can endure his daft telegraph friendly style. Its like holding a dirty mirror to your face.

“Does anyone here ever wonder why the Crusaders in 1204 eschewed the WHOLE Middle East and Jerusalem in favour of Constantinople?”

One of the main reasons was the worsening relations between Eastern and Western Christendom in the 12th century, which contributed to massacres of Western Europeans in Constantinople in the latter part of the century, as well as all the problems over the route of the 3rd Crusade.

“I’ve a question for you Saqib; in 1453 the Muslim Turks slaughtered the Greek inhabitants of Constantinople, so how can Islam be said to have “saved” the Greeks?”

It was not the Ottomans/Turks that transmitted Aristotle to Catholic Europe, it was the Arabs/Iranians. Therefore the point stands. I think it was more to do with saving Greek culture then Greek lives anyway.

Saqib:

Arrogant was perhaps too strong a term. I simply meant that if you disagree with someone you do not need to say that they got their information from the internet/Wikepedia. As you know, historical evidence is such that multiple conclusions can be drawn from the same evidence (I am not advocating post-modernist rubbish- just that things are not always clear cut).

well since our exchange started with your claim that a secular society and an “Islamic Republic” are the same thing, and then going on to elaborate how the withering of non-Islamic ideas will help develop secularism, what did you expect?

(post 68) ‘But it is not the case that Pakistan has become more secular since Jinnah, has it? The only time Pakistan lurches towards cod-secualarism is when a military dictator like Zia or Musharraf take over and then proceed to kick the Ulama into submission.’

You then said, in response to me.

(Post 76)’I didn’t say Zia was secular, but I did say he managed to keep the Ulama take full control over Pakistani legislature and kept them in line.

Oh, and where in the post did you say the latter point. You didn’t so i had to infer you were implying that Zia was pro-secular, for as you said, let me repeat.

‘…Pakistan lurches towards cod-secualarism is when a military dictator like Zia or Musharraf take over and then proceed to kick the Ulama into submission.’

I don’t think i need to comment more on this point, as it’s really getting quite ridiculous.

If i confused you with the other guy, then you have my apologies. As for the other point i will get back to you on that, as i need to be far more considered.

Soso, you rehearse some incidents, which i don’t have complete knowledge over, however if these are the only examples you can bring then they don’t disprove what i am saying as i am talking about the dominant theme and characteristics of the Islamic Civilization. If the hands of the architect were chopped of then this is not from the shariah…as that only happens to thieves. To be fair, some of the Sultans had corrupt practices…i believe the same fate occurred to Muslim architects in the Ottoman Empire…or was it India. Perhaps someone may want to find out.

You make a lot of points in the middle of your post…most of which seem to endlessly ramble on incoherently…i wonder if you pinched some of this from the internet.

If you want to debate me then address me point by point, and not get onto a soapbox with your liturgy. You clearly have not done this, what the hell has Marco Polo got to do with my points about Greek ideas and Aristotle? You haven’t made any substantive points to disprove what i have said in this regard. I will have to deconstruct your post, and then at a later time give you a point by point analysis and breakdown. If this thread closes before then, then please email me on my blog…we can then resume this later with more depth and clarity.

Until then take care mate.