- This topic has 4 voices and 56 replies.
-
Posts
-
Howard R. Turner writes: “Muslim artists and scientists, princes and laborers together made a unique culture that has directly and indirectly influenced societies on every continent.”Howard R. Turner (1997), Science in Medieval Islam, University of Texas Press, ISBN 0-292-78149-0According to an interesting forum about the Renaissance and the Chinese, I noticed that the importance of the Islamic civilisation in Western History was not always obvious.Islamic civilisation contributed much in different fields: sciences, economy, arts and philosophy.Do you think we can just ignore or obliterate, like Gavin Menzies in his 2 books 1421 and 1434, the significant role of the Islamic Age?
No. I think Menzies had other points to try to prove and, as many writers do, included that which he thought would promote his effort rather than trying to include everything in the world. We can, if we choose, assume a bias but more likely (IMHO) he was just focused on his point of view.Every time we read a source we are likely to get something similar; I always told my students even the best historians will pick what they include and what they leave out... fact of life... no matter if we agree or not.
They obliterated and replaced an ancient society in the Iberian Peninsula as well as throughout North Africa. there is little trace of the societies in north Africa that existed before the Muslim Conquest.They also introduced suicide attackers to the Western world. The original Assassins were radical Muslims who accepted and promoted suicide attacks for political purposes. Don't forget that the original Old Man of the Mountain was the leader of the Assassins.
Here is a nice link: The Religion of Peace That speaks to the peaceful nature of Islam
I guess I have changed my thinking a little bit. I will go with my above, facts are objective but interpretation is subjective to a point. I still think we should strive to eliminate personal bias from historical judgment. That is my real sticking point. Subjective is not the same a biased.
I checked your link about thereligionofpeace.com :-[Who was talking about bias or eliminating it from historical judgment ?? When you look at that website, there is no author, no name, no reference nor objectivity .... but propaganda !If you are a real historian , don't you have to take your distance, avoid bias and eliminating it from historical judgment and seek objectivity...Did you ever wonder what is the difference between Islamism and Islamic ? 😉
They contributed to the slave trade.
What about the Greeks, Egyptians, Romans and most of Ancient Civilisations ? What about the triangular trade ?
If you haven't gotten to it yet try this post… hope it will help clear up the slavery issue.Not meant to sould preachy but I did use it in my classes. 🙂
Notice I am not making an historical judgment, I am commenting about contemporary events. But if I were, many of my opinions would stand. Islam and Muslims may have achieved some good things (I could not name them off the top of my head though other than generalities), but they are also responsible for many things inimical to Western culture. They believe and think completely differently than do Westerners. They dislike many things Western and many in the West dislike many things Muslim. I do not fall into the avoid offense at any cost camp. I try to call it like I see it, especially when commenting on contemporary issues. My objective assessment as far as Islam goes is that it has historically been a method of oppression since its founding in the 7th century. Its adherents violently expanded their sphere of influence through conquest and they seek to deny people from leaving their faith once admitted. They oppress women and those not of Muslim faith and have done so for over 1000 years. What in the history of Islam would make me believe that it is a religion of peace?The difference between Islamism and Islamic is sophistry and an invention among western scholars. The Muslims themselves dont recognize a difference.. I personally have never met a Muslim that did not celebrate Islamic attacks against western targets. That includes Iraqis that were supposedly working with us. But by all means, please feel free to enlighten me on the differences.
My objective assessment as far as Islam goes is that it has historically been a method of oppression since its founding in the 7th century. Its adherents violently expanded their sphere of influence through conquest and they seek to deny people from leaving their faith once admitted. They oppress women and those not of Muslim faith and have done so for over 1000 years.
My only "compliant" to you would be this. You always criticise me when I bring up past Christian wrongdoings, yet you're doing the same with Islam. The only difference is Christianity has changed over the years, while much of Islam has not. This is the only thing where I agree with you. But as far as violent conquest, denial, and oppression, the church did exactly the same things throughout her history. I am tending to agree with Aetheling here. You are clearly biased against Islam, that's not a fact you hide, and I think some, not all, of your assessment is based on your own personal bias and experience. What is it about Christianity that can be called a religion of peace? What about all the religious wars? What about religious persecution of women, Jews, and native Americans? What about intolerance to other religions or even intolerance when it comes to disagreements within the church? (which isn't much different than the Sunni/Shia split) One doesn't have to look too far in the past. Think Northern Ireland. This is just my opinion, but I think you are being unfair to Islam because you don't apply the same methods to other religions or your own. What you have said about Islam can also be said about others....and that's today and in the past.We, the West, have invaded their countries and dictated their borders, which still stand today. Do you expect them to just forget about this, take it, and not fight back? Never mind like us. Would you not fight if they invaded your country and changed your borders? I was and still am all for invading Iraq and Aghanistan, but I'm not so naive to think they are going to like us and greet us as liberators. They cheer attacks on Americans and American interests not because they have a different religion, but because of what I mentioned above. It's not about religious differences to them, it's about revenge. It's about getting back what we, the West, have imposed upon them.I'm not defending or justifying terrorism or hatred of teh West. I'm just stating what, IMO, are the reasons for it. And Islam is not the reason.
I agree with most of your assessment about Christianity. To me the big, even critical difference between Christianity and Islam is there are not a lot of Christians attacking people of other religions on religious grounds today. That cannot be said about Muslims. Christians have generally moved beyond religious violence, Muslims have not. Muslims justify terrorism on religious grounds while Christians generally abhor religious based violence.You are correct that the West has dictated political order and borders throughout the world, there is not a single "natural" border in South America for instance, however South Americans are generally not engaged in a low-intensity conflict with the nations of Western Europe either, why is that? As to Mid-East peoples attacking America, how ironic is that? By and large it was France and England that colonized and dominated the Middle East and North Africa, not America. It was England that played a significant role in the establishment of Israel (remember the Balfour Agreement). America has mainly bought their Oil except for Iran where we propped up the Shah's corrupt regime. Why then do they hate America so much? I have always been puzzled as to why America is demonized to the extent that it is by Muslims. I am led to the inevitable conclusion that Islam is constitutionally incapable of accepting equality with another religion or moral system. They do not attack the Pest because of politics; it is religion or our lack of it that they refuse to accept. Everything else is just excuses.You are probably right that I viscerally dislike Islam for personal reasons, but that does not mean that I do not have logical (to me at least) reasons as well.In the end the conflict between Islamic people and the west is about power and who has it. I was talking about this with my wife this morning. Throughout history relations between people and nations are always about power. Right and wrong have very little to do with it. The leaders and much of the people in the West are fooling themselves if they think they can reason with Islamists or even third world countries over a variety of issues. The problem is power and their lack of it. The West will lose because our leaders and people are afraid or unwilling to use the power we have. We will give it up out of some misguided moral sense that says we are bad/evil/unworthy of possessing the strength we have. Therein lays the logic behind appeasement. It is the guilt complex that says the West does not deserve the prosperity we have because it was unfairly earned. (By the way, my dad told me life was unfair when I was 3). Politics and international relations are not about fairness, it is about success (yes that is a little Social Darwinism). I want the West to succeed.I do not necessarily think any means is justifiable, but at the same time it may come down to which side is willing to do what they have to do to win. Currently, it seems that the Islamists are willing to commit any atrocity to achieve their aims. We can win without compromising our own values but we also must be realistic about the threat. Currently our leadership is not realistic and until they are we are doomed to fail. It is only a matter of time.
Scout,Everybody is free to have its own opinion or belief, however it doesn't mean everybody must follow you.If you don't like Islam that's your problem and I respect it but save us from your sermon here. Thx
I have stated manifold reasons why Islam is the problem but have yet to hear any why it is not. Complaining about sermonizing is not an argument it is conceding the debate to me because there is n logical counter argument. I realize that France has its own problems with the Muslim minority related to former french Imperialism in Algeria. They have dealt with it in some pretty strange ways. I will probably never get completely off my high-horse when it comes to the threat from Islam, but I don't expect the average European or American, for that matter to understand it. The power of the elite and media's narrative is too strong for that.Here is a question, what exactly are the zones urbaines sensibles? Is it really an area where the police don't go?'Sensitive urban areas', or are we just not getting the "real" story in America?
The topic is about Islamic contributions to Western Civilisation, not about Islam itself.You brought the discussion about Islam today. Average student confusion ?
The topic is about Islamic contributions to Western Civilisation, not about Islam itself.
OK, then name same. Math? That came from the Greeks.Science? GreeksNavigation? GreeksThe western alphabet and writing? Phoenicians, Greeks, then Romans.Anything that Islam did was a continuation and/or copy of Graeco-Roman contributions.I'll give them this (and this was before Islam), the Arabs preserved a lot of ancient text (but so did the Irish and Benedictine monks)So here's a better question. What ORIGINAL contribution did Islam make to western civilization?
