An Islamic History of Europe
jackkincaid
An Islamic History of Europe is a BBC4 TV series, one and a half hours
long, AFAIK one day a week, presented by doe-eyed hearthrob BBC
reporter Rageh Omar, whose exaggerated sorrow at the fate of Muslims in
Iraq during the recent 'war' there did so much to earn the BBC a
reputation for political bias.
It tells a history of Europe from an Islamic perspective; which is to
say, it tells a history of Europe in which every major event, and every
cultural change, is caused either by the presence or influence of Islam
(if it is a 'good' change), or by a reaction against the presence of
Islam (if 'bad'). This 'history' is not new; it is more or less the
history of Europe all Muslim schoolchildren are taught in 'Islamic'
schools all over Europe and the middle east.
It has two main components, which are stereotypically described by
Omar: that the most 'advanced' (the term 'advanced' being undefined)
parts of medieval Europe were those 'ruled' by Islam, namely
'al-Andalusia' (Spain), Sicily and Malta, and the eastern Mediterranean
lands including the formerly Christian lands of Palestine, Lebanon,
west Syria and Turkey; and that the 'knowledge' (again, undefined) on
which the Renaissance is somehow founded was introduced by Muslim
scholars, chief among them the Muslim 'philosopher' Avorroes.
Omat follows the script in his series by refraining to describe
precisely how it was these Mediterranean lands came to be under Islamic
'rule', which, given that Christianity predates Islam by 600 years, and
had long since spread throughout the mediterranean world before
Muhammed was born, ought to be of central concern; the nature of the
expelling of the Muslims, on the other hand, is dwelt on at length.
This matters because, without exception, southern and eastern Europe
came under Muslim domination, without exception, by force. There is no
evidence that, excepting the eastern Med coast, that rule was ever
accepted by the majority of the Christian population, and much evidence
that from the moment of invasion onwards, a civil war raged throughout
these lands until the Muslim rulers were forced back out. Omar
describes the taxation of Muslims in Sicily and Spain once the
Christians had regained some power; he fails to mention that throughout
the Caliphates (Muslim empires), non-Muslims alone were obliged to pay
taxes (Muslims were exempt), and were often treated with great cruelty.
Omar also fails to mention the widespread criminality that
characterises many of the formerly Muslim dominated, now Christian,
lands of the Med; nor does he mention the African slave trade, which,
though not introduced by Islam, was certainly intensified and spread
throughout the African continent by Muslims - a strange oversight given
that Omar himself is quite possibly the descendent of African slaves.
By the same token, the Crusades are presented by Omar as an example of
unprovoked aggression of Christians against Muslims, as if Palestinehad
not been a predominantly Christian region before Islam even existed.
The second part of his thesis, that some kind of 'knowledge' was
introduced into Europe thanks to Islam involves a degree of subterfuge
on Omar's part:: the 'knowledge' he refers to are specifically those
ancient Greek philosophical tracts that were either unknown in Europe,
or suppressed by the papacy. For saving this knowledge for the world,
we should all be grateful to the Caliphates.However it should be
remembered that they were not saved because the Caliphs believed in
free speech; rather it was because they were not deemed to be a threat
to Islam, based as it is on a single book of assumed revelation, th
Koran, in comparison with which, should they appear contradictory, all
other written words can be dismissed. Omar is referring to Greek
philosophy, but he makes it appear he is referring to the Koran.
Averroes was a great man in Islamic history because he had, unnusually,
sufficient curiosity to study Greek philosophy. He tried to 'prove'
that Islam was 'true' by applying proofs he found in the writings of
the ancient Greeks, wrote several volumes in the process - and failed
in the attempt. According to Omar, Averroes, and the lesser Muslim
writers who followed him are directly responsible for the Renaissance
and therefore, Omar says, the course of western history, is the result
of Islam.
Ancient Greek philosophy predates Christianity of course, and so
predates Islam. It was the knowledge base of the Roman Empire and so
would have been understood by any educated Roman subject or citizen
during Christ's lifetime, presumably including Christ himself
(Aristotle's division of human affairs into ethics and politics -
church and state - is at the heart of Christianity, but was ignored by
Muhammed). While it may be true that much Greek philosophy would have
been lost to the world if not for the Caliphs, the use it was put to by
Averroes was irrelevent. The Renaissance, which began in Florence in
the 14th century (not Paris in the 13th century, as Omar must allege to
suit his thesis; the notion that Paris was the 'intellectual centre of
medieval Europe', as he claims, is laughable) was primarily a movement
in art, sculpture and architecture, which referred back to the art of
ancient Rome, deliberately bypassing Christianity and with no
connection with Islam whatsoever. It also describes a movement in
secular literature, of which Shakespeare was part, where we perceive a
movement away from religious faith altogether as inspiration for
artistic creation. Averroes was trying to 'prove' something that any
pious Christian would have regarded as heresy at best, a form of
satanism at worse; and which the non-pious Christian would have
regarded as irrelevent. Islam, therefore, had no direct influence on
the Renaissance (it may have had an influence later, on the
Reformation, but that doesn't 'fit' Omar's thesis).
The point about all this is not that Islam is uniquely 'bad' or
'wrong', and Christianity 'good' and 'right' - any more than the
opposite is true, however much Rageh Omar may wish it. The point is
that the contribution made by Islam to the artistic and political
development of Europe is negligible, and to its cultural development
Islam mostly takes the form of an alien 'other', to be resisted at all
costs. To re-write history in terms of those who 'lost', whose way of
life was rejected, has some value, but only if the reasons for that
rejection are explored (which should be the BBC's remit in this case;
obviously someone other than Rageh Omar, a born prosyletiser, should
have been given the job). But to turn history on its head; to pretend
that everything we know, which is demonstrably the case, is false; that
there is some secret explanation for why things are the way they are,
is dangerous.
At the heart of Omar's thesis is this question: Why did the world
system promised to Muslims by their god fail to transpire? (Or, as a
non-Muslim would put it: Why did Europe suddenly make political and
cultural progress once it recalled its past - and, in the south, after
Muslim dominance had ended - and why did Europe, and the west, so
quickly overtake the 'Muslim world' in material, tecnological and
political terms?) This question answers itself of course, but such an
answer (Islam failed because it was mistaken) is impossible; therefore
he has to invent an ellaborate conspiracy to explain it all: Europe and
the west succeeded because, despite all appearances, it is actually
Islamic, not unIslamic (the 'Islamic world' meanwhile - the middle east
- has failed, despite its incredible natural wealth, because, despite
all appearances, it is actually unIslamic, not Islamic). But of course
Europe's benefactors, its former Muslim overlords, are also Europe's
victims.
Thus Islam is the source of all the manifest success of those parts of
the world where Islam has had little or no influence (in his next
series, Omar will presumably tell us that Japan's relative wealth is
due to its secret Islamic past), but is not the reason for the manifest
failures of all those parts of the world where Islam has had a great
deal of influence...
AND...
Muslims are always the victims of non-Muslims: wherever Muslim armies
have invaded non-Muslims' land, the will of God is being enacted and we
should all be happy; wherever non-Muslims seek to retake their land,
Muslims are being victimised by heathens.
This is Rageh Omar's thesis; this is 'Islamic history'. And it is being
taught to Muslim schoolchildren the world over. Its a pack of lies, and
its dangerous.
And it's on the BBC.
Which we pay for
abelard
typed:
>Ancient Greek philosophy predates Christianity of course, and so
>predates Islam. It was the knowledge base of the Roman Empire and so
>would have been understood by any educated Roman subject or citizen
>during Christ's lifetime, presumably including Christ himself
>(Aristotle's division of human affairs into ethics and politics -
>church and state - is at the heart of Christianity, but was ignored by
>Muhammed). While it may be true that much Greek philosophy would have
>been lost to the world if not for the Caliphs, the use it was put to by
>Averroes was irrelevent. The Renaissance, which began in Florence in
>the 14th century (not Paris in the 13th century, as Omar must allege to
>suit his thesis; the notion that Paris was the 'intellectual centre of
>medieval Europe', as he claims, is laughable) was primarily a movement
>in art, sculpture and architecture, which referred back to the art of
>ancient Rome, deliberately bypassing Christianity and with no
>connection with Islam whatsoever. It also describes a movement in
>secular literature, of which Shakespeare was part, where we perceive a
>movement away from religious faith altogether as inspiration for
>artistic creation. Averroes was trying to 'prove' something that any
>pious Christian would have regarded as heresy at best, a form of
>satanism at worse; and which the non-pious Christian would have
>regarded as irrelevent. Islam, therefore, had no direct influence on
>the Renaissance (it may have had an influence later, on the
>Reformation, but that doesn't 'fit' Omar's thesis).
i think you are not accurate in your rejection of the renaissance starting
in northern europe in the 12 century....
try this an see what you reckon...
Medieval Technology and Social Change by L. White Jr.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0195002660/qid=1113442054/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-4475155-4675901?v=glance&s=books
(there's some look inside at amazon)
and even some of my stuff on abelard
http://www.abelard.org/abelard/abel-hi.htm
imv he went well beyond aristotle....air he had access to a limited
amount of aristotle and more came available later in his life
as the translations filtered through...
the moslem civilisation did make some progress eg in optics beyond
greece.....
much of the translation of greek works was done by jews and i
think the eastern caliphate was much more tolerant for a while
...even multi-cultural :-) but history is not my prime interest
outside logic/psychology so i haven't bothered to memorise much
of that stuff....
regards...
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news and comment service, logic,
energy, education, politics, etc 1,290,611 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Energumen
news:fahr51tjlm5gcs4sn...@4ax.com...
In order for a small number to subjugate a much larger number they *have to
be* in some sense tolerant of the minority. The whole Islam model is to
subjugate and then gradually produce conversions with discriminatory
taxation etc. If Islam had been totally genocidal it simply wouldn't have
got very far, for similar reasons to those for which influenza is a much
more effective virus at spreading across the planet than is ebola. Of course
by our modern standards these societies would be hardly more
"multi-cultural" than the US south in the 1950s or apartheid South Africa.
It is all relative. Christians, Jews certainly were not equal even if they
were tolerated.
That Christians in reclaiming these lands generally expelled the smaller
number of Muslims is not necessarily a demonstration of a "natural"
intolerance in Christianity compared to Islam since the situation is
entirely different.
Farouq
pays a licence fee and besides your not forced to watch every
programme. Just try changing channels instead of ranting and raving.
FairPlay
"Farouq" <farou...@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:1113477441....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> I take it you don't like the programme then? your not the only one that
> pays a licence fee and besides your not forced to watch every
> programme. Just try changing channels instead of ranting and raving.
Good point Farouq. Thats what I did :)
Jay
He said it is full of LIES.
His point is that lies are being substituted for truth when it comes to
the virtues of Islam. It is happening a lot lately.
See dhimmiwatch.com.
And that we are paying for it.
Farouq
perspective. I welcome this as it adds an interesting dimension to our
current knowledge of history.
The truth as always probably sits somewhere in between.
Yes we are beginning to see alternative views from the Muslim world and
this is upsetting to some people as it challenges their deeply rooted
prejudices. I think we need more programmes that not only challenge
existing views but provide act as an alternative source of information.
I can't wait for Al-Jazeerah to start broadcasting in English.
Jay
Farouq wrote:
> The programme covered an interpretation of history from an Islamic
> perspective. I welcome this as it adds an interesting dimension to
our
> current knowledge of history.
So you mean the truth is twisted.
>
> The truth as always probably sits somewhere in between.
The truth is the truth and when it is not it is lies.
>
> Yes we are beginning to see alternative views from the Muslim world
and
> this is upsetting to some people as it challenges their deeply rooted
> prejudices. I think we need more programmes that not only challenge
> existing views but provide act as an alternative source of
information.
I agree, but the indigenous British are refused a platform.
FairPlay
> The programme covered an interpretation of history from an Islamic
> perspective. I welcome this as it adds an interesting dimension to our
> current knowledge of history.
>
> The truth as always probably sits somewhere in between.
>
> Yes we are beginning to see alternative views from the Muslim world and
> this is upsetting to some people as it challenges their deeply rooted
> prejudices.
It depends what that alternative view is.
I've always had the belief that the Islamic religion was open and
accessible - now with the advent of "fundamentalism" it has opened my eyes
to how it *can* be interpreted.
IIRC Allah let his wife do what she wanted and had a position of power. Now
the "human rights" of a girl have been violated because she couldn't wear a
Bhurka to school.
The real issue which needs addressing is whether the muslims in the UK will
allow their religion to be hijacked by extremeists for political ends.
Farouq
take any issue such as voting there is controversy amongst Muslims
themselves. There are those that consider participation in voting
forbidden whilst others encourage active participation. There is no
consistent view on many issues.
Islamic theology has great difficulty in coming to terms with the
contemporary world and Muslims are going through a painful process of
reconciling their faith with the modern world. Yes there are extremists
that preach hatred, they're akin to the extremists that lived in the
dark ages in Europe burning people at the stake. We need to remember
that Islam is a relatively young faith. Christianity has had over
2000years of social evolution whilst Islam has just over 1400yrs.
Energumen
news:425e4c24$0$547$ed2e...@ptn-nntp-reader04.plus.net...
As an analogy how far would the British have got in controlling India if
they had instituted a programme of genocide and population replacement
against the natives or if they had tried to convert them all to Christianity
against their will at gunpoint? Where the Indians more intolerant than the
colonial British because they expelled the British whereas the British never
expelled the Indians? OK it's not an exact analogy by it captures the gist
of what I'm saying. You have to look at these things in context.
Salahuddin
beginning of time and will be applied to the end of time. All of you who
dont like Islam, why not try and put an end to it? I challenge you.
Salahuddin
Palestine will be liberated insha'allah
FairPlay
"Salahuddin" <a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:mLv7e.1483$DU6....@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...
> Islam does not need to 'evolve' it is a system that was applied from the
> beginning of time and will be applied to the end of time. All of you who
> dont like Islam, why not try and put an end to it? I challenge you.
"From the beginning of time"? How does that work when Allah was born after
the beginning of time? Or is it a year zero type of thing?
Energumen
news:425e4c24$0$547$ed2e...@ptn-nntp-reader04.plus.net...
As an aside, contrary to what many have said at various times the genetic
impact of the Muslim invasions on Spain, Portugal, Sicily and Malta was very
small. This may be due to Islam's strong endogamy rules.
http://www.angeltowns.com/members/racialreal/spaniards.html
http://www.angeltowns.com/members/racialreal/italians.html
The Maltese ARE related to Middle Easterners, but this link is to Levantines
*not* North African Arabs / Berbers and relates to the Phoenicians, long
predating the existence of Islam.
http://www.maltamedia.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=1&num=3447
http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0410/feature2/online_extra.html
Geneticist Spencer Wells talking about this to National Geographic after the
initial results,
http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0410/feature2/multimedia/ft2_mm_03.ram
He doesn't really take into account that Carthage was subject to genocide
and destroyed. The physical anthropology evidence of skulls from the time of
Carthage actually indicates the existence of distinct, separate Levantine
and indigenous people living there at the time rather than an admixture. The
20% in modern Tunisians is probably just the impact of remnants, refugees
etc. rather than a good indication of what the make-up of the actual city of
Carthage was when it existed IMO.
Energumen
Somebody ought to tell this guy,
http://www.nationalvanguard.org/bsearch.php?author=Norman%20Lowell
http://www.imperium-europa.org/
Energumen
This Punic strain is also present in Sicily. Sicilians have a mixture of
Phoenician ancestry concentrated in the west and south (and on Pantelleria
island) and Greek (not Italian!) ancestry in the east. Picture of some
Sicilians,
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y98/malakia/b2c5a1cb.jpg
There is also a significant minority of Punic ancestry on Sardinia and
Corsica.
There is scarcely any such ancestry in Italy proper.
It is hard to discern how much such ancestry there is in the Balearics and
Spain. This same team of geneticists are testing Spain but have not yet
published their findings.
Harry The Horse
>
> He said it is full of LIES.
>
didn't tell lies about weapons of mass destruction.
John J. Smith
> Islam does not need to 'evolve' it is a system that was applied from the
> beginning of time and will be applied to the end of time. All of you who
> dont like Islam, why not try and put an end to it? I challenge you.
No. It has evolved over the years already...
Smid
jackkincaid
> I take it you don't like the programme then? your not the only one that
> pays a licence fee and besides your not forced to watch every
> programme. Just try changing channels instead of ranting and raving.
Imagine that the BBC broadcast a programme made by Americans, which
stated that American soldiers not only won both world wars (single
handed) but defeated the French at Waterloo and Agincourt, and the
English at Hastings; that Archimedes, Democritus, Siddhartha,
Confucius, Jesus Christ and Mohammed, not to mention Shakespeare,
Michelangelo, Goethe, Tolstoy and Leonardo da Vinci, were all
Americans; that Americans invented everything from the longbow to the
steam engine to email; and that American slavery had never happened,
no native American was ever disposessed of land, no atomic bombs were
dropped on Japan, and no battles lost in Vietnam and Somalia - AND
taht all of this was being taught to American schoolchildren
routinely.
You might think it already is (you'd be mostly wrong); you might think
it's none of your business. But I think you would resent all this
being presented on UK TV as if it were factual, without any kind of
conflicting argument presented alongside it or after it.
And I think you would expect to be able to *say* you resent this kind
of distortion without being accused of anti-Americanism.