Muslims discover America, split the atom, land on the moon (don't be silly, Safu)
jackkincaid
> > >And if you do a little more digging Count you'll discover that much of the
> > >Renaissance *resulted* from contact with Islam...
>
> >What I will discover is that some historians put far too much importance on
> >Isamic influences. I'm actually doing some reading on this exact topic and
> >will post some thoughts on this later.
>
> Your thoughts should include some of the following and look forward to
> seeing you refute the fact that " some historians put far too much
> importance":
[snip quotes]
It has been fashionable for some historians to overemphasise the
contribution to the Renaissance of Islamic thought.
It's true that Greek philosophy had been preserved by Islamic society
during Europe's dark ages; and under the caliphates new ideas formed
about astronomy and architecture. But Islamic society itself
benefitted from the presence within it of Christian and Jewish
intellectual life, and to imagine that Islam is somehow the cause of
the Renaissance is ludicrous.
The Renaissance is principally a movement in art and architecture.
Figurative art - the art of the Renaissance - does not exist in Islam.
The original Renaissance artists - Bellini, Donatello, then Raphael,
Michelangelo and Leonardo - were referring back to a Roman tradition
(in painting, sculpture and architecture) which predates Islam by
centuries. Some of the techniques used in mosque building were
borrowed - and many medieval cathedrals in France and Britain were
built by Muslim stonemasons - but the art itself, and the science
behind it, was Roman in origin. The subject matter was based in Greek
myth and the Gospels.
Renaissance literature has even less connection with Islam. The only
possible connection could be with the early post-Renaissance novel Don
Quixote, by Cervantes, although quite how a link between it and the
Quran may be established I have no idea.
Which leaves science and philosophy. As I said, astronomy (and
astrology) were sciences first developed (in the west) by the ancient
Greeks, who predate Islam even further than do the Romans. It was
developed further under the caliphates, and Renaissance era astronomy
does indeed owe a debt to scientific discoveries preserved and made
during that period (though not necessarily by Muslims). It's worth
remembering, however, that Muhammed himself believed in Ptolemaic
astronomy (in which the earth is the centre of the universe), even
though the orbit of the earth around the sun had been discovered long
before his birth. Thus, Astronomy in pre-Renaissance middle east and
post-Renaissance Europe alike owed nothing to the Quran itself, but to
the establishment of universities of learning (an invention of
Muslim-ruled Spain) in which people of expertise and knowledge, of all
religions, could confer. And the discoveries of Newton and the
Enlightenment onwards were entirely new.
The main contribution made by Muslims to the development of thought in
the western world is in philosophy, and in this field alone, I think,
can the claim be honestly made that the caliphates altered the course
of western society. I've no particular knowledge of that so I'm
willing to simply accept it. Nobody would in fairness claim that
Islamic and Christian societies need have any natural advantage over
each other, as long as religious dogma does not stifle individual
freedom and political development. Both socities experienced this in
the years following the Crusades, and their consequent split from one
another. Christian society recovered, in its Enlightenment; Islamic
society did not. I think it's fair to say that during Islamic
society's long sleep since the 16th century, the 'west' has 'repaid'
its past involvement several times over. By ridding the middle east of
petty tyrants like Saddam, and mass killers like Osama bin Laden, it
is aiding Muslim society further, whether or not a majority of Muslims
realise or believe it.
I can begin to understand why Muslims would wish to believe that their
religion is somehow responsible for the technology and democratic
freedoms around us - after all, there has been a record of such claims
ever since Napoleon first arrived in Egypt. I can begin to understand
it, and then the logic of it breaks down.
If you claim a Muslim identity, instead of a national identity (as
democrats do), you presumably do not respect democracy as it is
practiced in the post-Christian west (or far east or India). I
perceive no desire for the development of figurative art in Islamic
society; nor for irreligious literary movements. In fact, I don't
perceive much respect for western society at all. Why, therefore,
should those who claim a Muslim identity above all others want also to
claim any role for their religion in the development of that society?
Surely, if you perceive the west to be Godless and corrupt, the last
thing you want is for Islam to be somehow responsible?
Which points to an ambivalence: Islam should be regarded as
responsible for the 'good' things in democratic society, Christianity
(or Judaism, Buddhism, secularism, paganism or whatever) responsible
for the 'bad' things. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. Human
beings are responsible for all of it, good and bad, Muslim, Christian,
Jewish, Buddhist, atheist, pagan, or whatever else. Islam, as a
religion, is responsible for the development of a society in which
people become receptive to Islam. Anything else achieved in that
society is by way of an accident.
And re. Muslims arriving in America: the first people to arrive in
America were Siberians, who populated both continents (we call their
descendents Indians, or native Americans). The second people were
vikings, who populated only part of the north. The third to arrive in
America left from western Europe but included seafaring people from
all over the western world, quite possibly including Muslims. Most of
the sailors we associate with the Atlantic voyage, including Amerigo
and Columbus, were members of travellers societies which are believed
to have included Arab sailors (who had already established trade
routes as far as Indonesia and Mozambique).
There is every reason to think that Arabs were skilled sailors at the
same time as Europeans - after all, at that time (pre-crusades) the
distinction between 'west' and 'east' did not exist as it does today
(in fact, Arabs were taking to the sea long before they became
Muslims). But there is little or no reason to think that any native
American tribe originated in the middle east; none whatsoever to
believe in a connection between them and Islam. Genetically, native
Americans are basically Mongols (Siberians) and their arrival in
America predates Christianity, let alone Islam.
The need to claim a greater historic significance for Islam (or any
religion) than it could possibly warrant is silly, and sometimes
offensive.
G. Waleed Kavalec
> But there is little or no reason to think that any native
> American tribe originated in the middle east; none whatsoever to
> believe in a connection between them and Islam.
Actually Jack there is an American connection. Not only were Muslims
in America and trading peacefully with the native Americans years
before Columbus and his successors, it is likely that Muslim
navigational records are what got Columbus financed.
Look up the Equinox Project, and the numerous Islamic inscriptions
that have finally been recognized and interpreted among Native
American sites.
Sadly it the Dawson Library no longer has the actual images on line,
but you would be well rewarded to obtain a copy of "The Islamic
Inscriptions of America" by Dr. Barry Fell.
Coincidentally, it was 9 months after Ferdinand and Isabella's
combined armies drove the Moors from Spain (and gained access to the
Islamic libraries and other records) that they decided to finance
Columbus' voyage to "China".
Columbus admitted in his papers that on Monday, October 21,1492 CE
while his ship was sailing near Gibara on the north-east coast of
Cuba, he saw a mosque on top of a beautiful mountain.
The ruins of mosques and minarets with inscriptions of Qur'anic verses
have been discovered in Cuba, Mexico, Texas and Nevada. (DAVIES, NIGEL
- Voyagers to the New World, New York 1979)
Of course the subsequent near genocide by "Christian" Europeans has
erased most of the cultural impact of that earlier contact.
G.
asimm...@yahoo.com
> > Your thoughts should include some of the following and look forward to
> > seeing you refute the fact that " some historians put far too much
> > importance":
>
> [snip quotes]
>
> It has been fashionable for some historians to overemphasise the
> contribution to the Renaissance of Islamic thought.
>
1. What is fashionale is to open up any history text book and see a
few pages devoted to the 'Arab conquests' in between how great Greece
and Europe were.
The contributions of the Muslims to the rebirth of Europe is an
indisputable fact, and if it weren't for the Renaissance, European
life would have remained a superstitious culture and the role of
reason would have not reasserted itself. The denial of it is nothing
short of racism and imperialism and is meant to suppress what we have
every right to be proud of.
2. The evolution of society HAPPENS OVER TIME. Its birth happens
over a few hundred years, and the Renaissance was part of a series of
stages that led to the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution.
Thus, because the naturalistic impulse took awhile to permeate through
European society does not in any mean it was not the result of the
Muslim push.
> But Islamic society itself
> benefitted from the presence within it of Christian and Jewish
> intellectual life, and to imagine that Islam is somehow the cause of
> the Renaissance is ludicrous.
>
The Jews and Christians benefitted from a consciousness that was
present in the Muslim society at the time. It was a specific impulse
generated by the Muslim world that led to a reawakening in Europe, and
caused many Jews and Christians to flourish according to their
potential. If there was no collective conscious, what was great
minds, would have been untapped potential.
> The Renaissance is principally a movement in art and architecture.
> Figurative art - the art of the Renaissance - does not exist in Islam.
Change in society happens over a gradual period of time. The
Renaissance was the rebirth of man. The Islamic push into Europe led
to the reaffirmation of reason and scientific inquiry, and humanism
that ultimately led to the Enlightenment and the Industrial
Revolution. Even though the role of reason overasserted itself and
the modern world is now facing the consequences of its pride in its
'know all', the point is still made.
The Greeks, followed by the Romans, undoubtedly focused on the role of
reason "Oh man, know thyself", but Europe could not attain to
practical greatness because of their focus on theory. What often
happens with theory devoid of practicality is a pathetic and lazy
culture that is a mark of decadence of any society. Historians often
say that the such only the rich discuss philosophy. Thus, the rest of
Europe inherited this culture which led to the Dark Ages, which was a
natural result to the existing conditions of the times of the end of
the Roman Empire. That is why, whenever one remembers Greece, they
often recount to names of Aristotle and Socrates. Whenever one
remmebers the Muslim world, they think scientific inquiry and
empiricism.
This was the primary difference between the Aryan culture, and Semitic
culture. The latter more concerned with practical life, thus the huge
contributions to science in the EARLY Muslim world. It also is to be
pointed out that the phenomenon of the brith of knowledge in the
Muslim world happened incredibly rapidly, and to liken this to simple
borrowing and not originating out of a BIRTH OF VALUES is absurd.
Europe took some time to reassimilate the role of reason.
Further, the role of empiricism is what gave birth to the modern
world. Your claims to contributions of only philsophy and astronomy
belittle the vast array of learning of that part of the world. Roger
Bacon, the founder of modern science, himself asserted that the only
true way to knowledge was through Arabic. Mathematics, including
algebar, and geomoetry, and even basic 'calculus', optics, geology,
biology, astronomy, physics, even the concept of evolution was touched
upon almost 900 hundred years before Darwin propounded his theories.
Surgery, and separate wards to treat specific illnesses in hospitals
was inherited from the Muslim world.
The contributions of the Muslims to the rebirth of Europe is
indisputable and an established fact.
Count 1
> in America and trading peacefully with the native Americans years
> before Columbus
There is no historical evidence which passes basic scrutiny to back up this
ascertion.
> Look up the Equinox Project, and the numerous Islamic inscriptions
> that have finally been recognized and interpreted among Native
> American sites.
All of which have been debunked by a multitude of scholars. The inscriptions
you speak of are inconclusive at best, outright lies at worst.
> Sadly it the Dawson Library no longer has the actual images on line,
> but you would be well rewarded to obtain a copy of "The Islamic
> Inscriptions of America" by Dr. Barry Fell.
I've presented information to you before on Dr. Fell. (a doctor of micro
biology if I recall, and not archeology) Here is an interesting essay on
psuedo sciences.
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/9507/c-wh1-ane-cultarch.htm
Highlight
****
But if cult archaeology is so deficient, why is it so popular? Many accept
it because to the layman the claims of Immanuel Velikovsky, Erich von
Daniken, Barry Fell, and others appear to be accurate and well documented.
Those who know little about archaeology, linguistics, and other scholarly
disciplines have difficulty recognizing the erroneous nature of supposedly
"factual" claims of pseudoscience and pseudoarchacology. When told that
pyramids appeared simultaneously in many areas of the world, that some
American Indian tribes speak a Semitic language, or that the Easter Island
statues could not have been carved with stone tools, the average person does
not recognize immediately that these assertions are false. But such
individuals can be educated by reasoned debunking and a nontechnical
presentation of the evidence.
On the other hand, the strong emotional attachment some people have for
various pseudoscientific theories must have a different explanation. For
these individuals it would seem that the unscientific, quasi-religious,
anti-Establishment nature of the theories is what is important. Western
civilization has a built-in tension between the demands of human reason
(derived from our classical Greek heritage) and those of revealed Truth
(derived from our Judeo-Christian roots)
****
There is no evidence to suggest Islamic people came to the continent of
North America which does not have a much more reasonable and plausible
explanation.
Here are some more interesting links on this topic
http://www.cafes.net/ditch/F79.htm
> Columbus admitted in his papers that on Monday, October 21,1492 CE
> while his ship was sailing near Gibara on the north-east coast of
> Cuba, he saw a mosque on top of a beautiful mountain.
This is an example of an 'internet rumour'. Columbus's journal on that day
does not speak of a mosque, but eight days later in his journal he speaks of
"and one of them has another little hill on its summit, like a graceful
mosque. " He is discussing a small island off Cuba.
http://classweb.uchicago.edu/Civilization/American/Supp135/Columbus.html
Quite clearly the entry for Oct 21 says nothing about seeing a Mosque on a
hill.
> Of course the subsequent near genocide by "Christian" Europeans has
> erased most of the cultural impact of that earlier contact.
That earlier contact is not a given, and the people you rely on to support
this ascertion have all been roundly debunked by actual scholars in the
field of Archeology. Fells is a well known crackpot known to have suggested
much of early writing is actually from North Africa, including the tablets
found at Oak Island in Nova Scotia.
Islamic history has enough in it to be proud of. It doesn't require
embellishments from pseudoscientists. When these unproven arguments are
then presented as fact and used to bolster the already proven case of
Christian atrocities in the new world the agenda of the presenter becomes
clear. Unfortunately that agenda has little to do with science and
discovery of the truth.
G. Waleed Kavalec
> All of which have been debunked by a multitude of scholars. The inscriptions
> you speak of are inconclusive at best, outright lies at worst.
> I've presented information to you before on Dr. Fell. (a doctor of micro
> biology if I recall, and not archeology) Here is an interesting essay on
> psuedo sciences.
> http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/9507/c-wh1-ane-cultarch.htm
Count
Your "multitude" appears to consist of William H. Stiebing, Jr. It is
sad that he wants to lump Dr. Fell in with Van Daniken and flying
saucers, but you would do well to follow up a bit more on the work of
my "microbiologist".
Dr. Fell was not a Muslim, and his work was far from limited to
"proving" something for us. He made some major inroads in his
specialty, which was LANGUAGE and the inscriptions thereof. His
accomplishments, and RECOGNITION, far outpace his detractors.
See, for example, http://www.equinox-project.com/DRFEL.HTM
An alternate Highlight:
-------------------
ROCK CUT INSCRIPTIONS are studied by academics under the category of
"Rock Art." The early European colonists noticed them, but being a
poorly educated lot, they had no idea as to their meanings and could
not relate to the answers given by the Native Americans to whom they
made inquiry. For several hundred years, this lack of insight was the
standard for study. Then came Dr. H. B. "Barry" Fell, a Harvard
scholar with an avocation for ancient writings. To his credit he
solved the riddle of the Phaistos disk, determined that the Etruscan
language was related to and decipherable by using Hittite and found
the secrets in the Rongo-rongo tablets of Rapa Nui (Easter Island). He
was this century's greatest linguist.
Far from being a newcomer to the field of linguistics and rock art,
Dr. Fell published his first paper on petroglyphs in 1940. His
linguistic research began with a search for the roots of the
Polynesian language and dialects. As an oceanographer, this was a
logical curiosity. Who could have predicted that this would eventually
result in the resolution of the mystery of the Rongo rongo texts of
Rapa Nui?
-------------------
Professor Norman Totten, Professor of History, now Emeritus, at
Bentley College, who has conducted a number of expeditions in the Near
East and North Africa, and who teaches a course on the origins of
writing, here gives some reasoned consideration to the claims of those
archaeologists who deny the reality of New World epigraphy. He begins
with recognition, not ridicule, of Dr. Fell...
http://www.equinox-project.com/esop81.htm
He points out that
"Most negative statements about Fell's work, on the other hand, have
come from archaeologists. Many of them find anathema the very idea of
Old World populations and cultures being transplanted to America in
precolumbian times. Generally they avoid linguistic analysis for which
they are not prepared, but challenge the authenticity or existence of
the texts themselves. Each portion of my reply is made to a specific
charge, so as to avoid unsubstantiated generalities and the mere
exchanging of prejudices."
NOW FOR A TREAT...
Arabic readers, especially those familiar with Qur'anic Arabic, take
note.
Fortunately, through Google's wonderful caching mechanism, I was able
to locate one of the inscriptions
Coutesy of tinyURL... http://tinyurl.com/bpk4
And the long version (watch for wrap):
For future readers, in case the link doesn't work, you'll have to dig
up a copy of "Prehistoric Rock Art of Nevada and Eastern California"
1962, University of California Press, Berkeley. Heizer, Robert F., and
Martin A. Baumhoff.
See figure 78 e. in which the "Indian" inscription reads "Shaitan
speaks in lies".
In very readable Arabic.
As far as Columbus' alleged diary entry, you are correct, I got got.
As many times as I have referred others to www.snopes.com I can still
fall for urban legend myself. Thanks for keeping me on my toes.
Peace
G.
EAC
> theov...@another.com (jackkincaid) wrote in message news:<eb35fbed.03051...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> > religion) than it could possibly warrant is silly, and sometimes
> > offensive.
>
> Mars!
>
> This obviously is a complex issue and much of what one "believes" is
> based on one's interpretation of history.
>
> However, it is also based on how one defines "Islam" and "Muslim".
This is correct.
For example, a "Muslim" can also encompass an atheist, IF he was a
peaceful person.
Remember, the Qur'an mentioned a LOT of group of people. A Muslim
doesn't necessary have to be a Mu'min.
As for the 1000 years kingdom of God (the Islamic kingdom). Well... We
know that the start is around in the 600's, and it ended around in the
1600's. Of course after it ended, we know on what the Bible said about
what is being let loose.
Anyway. I already mentioned a reply of this sort in
alt.religion.islam.arabic .
Count 1
> As far as Columbus' alleged diary entry, you are correct, I got got.
>
> As many times as I have referred others to www.snopes.com I can still
> fall for urban legend myself. Thanks for keeping me on my toes.
No problem. I just wish you'd be a little more on your toes regarding this
Dr. Fell character.
Lets assume for a minute that muslim traders from North Africa made it to
the American continent and were trading with the inhabitants here before
Columbus sailed.
Is there any evidence of this in North Africa? Do any texts or documents
discuss trade with these people? What was traded? What did the Natives of
America get and what did the Muslims get? Why is there no evidence of
muslim presence found in Coastal areas? It would make sense that after a
voyage of months across one of the most violent oceans the muslim traders
would trade with the first people they found, and probably would not bother
hiking to Nevada.
Why did the muslims not try to convert the natives? There is no evidence of
conversions and AFAICT no writings on this subject in Islamic history
either.
In short, all we have are some inscriptions found on rocks which bear a
resemblance to kufic script. These scripts are 'deciphered' by a scientist
uninterested in presenting his research for peer review, probably because he
was not conducting the science for which he had a Phd in. Am I too assume
that because cave paintings showing animals being hunted in North Africa are
similar to the same cave paintings in China that these people must have had
contact, or that these cave paintings are made by the same people?
You made these statements
***
Not only were Muslims in America and trading peacefully with the native
Americans years before Columbus and his successors
Look up the Equinox Project, and the numerous Islamic inscriptions
that have finally been recognized and interpreted among Native
American sites.
***
The first statement is unsupportable based on the information presented and
the second is unaccepted by most serious archeologists familiar with this
topic.
As I said - there is no reason to embellish Islamic history with achievments
it does not possess. I don't doubt that the odd Muslim sailor might have
washed up on this continent after getting lost. Maybe this intrepid soul
also found himself in Nevada, where he left some inscriptions on some rocks.
(why he didn't write "Help! No one here speaks Kufic!" is beyond me) But
*nothing* suggests the muslims were regularly trading with Natives of this
continent.
Count 1
> It is a good idea to know that we disagree even on the definition of
> "Islamic history".
The difference being my definition is a little more specific. Most people
would disagree you on the time of the creation of Islam. So by suggesting
it begins with 'Adam' you are attempting to endow Islam with a quality it
does not possess.
Its a religion, Anjum. All religions are made by men. Some are just made
later.
Count 1
> sad that he wants to lump Dr. Fell in with Van Daniken and flying
> saucers, but you would do well to follow up a bit more on the work of
> my "microbiologist".
There is no shortage of people willing to debunk Dr. Barry Fell's work.
Los Lunas inscription
http://www.kmatthews.org.uk/cult_archaeology/assorted_oddities_5a.html
Fascinating email archived here.
http://nativenet.uthscsa.edu/archive/ng/95/0295.html
> See, for example, http://www.equinox-project.com/DRFEL.HTM
Unfortunately I can't find one organization which corroborates the high
opinion his own project has of him. Referencing The Equinox Project to
support your claims of the importance of Fell's work is called 'circular
reasoning'.
> Coutesy of tinyURL... http://tinyurl.com/bpk4
So - based on this you conclude that Muslims had been trading for years with
the natives of this continent?
Please read this discussion
http://www.flavinscorner.com/6-29-01.htm
for an interesting look at the difficulties incumbent in epigraphy.
And then this
http://www.technopagans.co.uk/ARTICLE2.HTM
for an excellent read into Fell and the cult of personality.
As stated - there is no evidence for the arguement that Muslims were in
Pre-Columbus America which does not have a much more plausible explanation.
Islam's history should not be distorted to include things which it does not
possess.
be...@muslimamerica.net
> Most people would disagree you on the time of the creation of Islam.
Where I live, "most people" appear to support a delusional "war on
terror." "Majority rule" is an arbitrarily contrived determinant of
correctness.
It ain't axiomatic truth.
> So by suggesting
> it begins with 'Adam' you are attempting to endow Islam with a quality it
> does not possess.
No.
He's not suggesting it. He's telling you like it is. Islam 101.
It is *you* who attempt to impose a restrictive denotation upon the term
"Islamic history." Your lack of education in this regard is glaringly
apparent.
> Its a religion, Anjum. All religions are made by men. Some are just made
> later.
Strike three. You're out.
was-salaam,
bedr
John Berg
freedom, benefits, high technology, dedication to education, security for
families, etc.
God Bless American.
John Berg
"G. Waleed Kavalec" <G.Wa...@Kavalec.com> wrote in message
Count 1
> terror."
Good?
"Majority rule" is an arbitrarily contrived determinant of
> correctness.
What do you suggest as a replacement? A council of 'religious scholars'
giving us their recommendation based on their interpretation of the Quran
and Hadith? Would that not be just another arbitrarily contrived
determinant of correctness in the sense majority rule is?
Please explain how you see the difference. I suppose a muslim could argue
that the world 'arbitrary' would not apply as there is guidance on many
topics. However consensus will always be a difficult thing to achieve. I
think Churchill said the problem with majority rule is sometimes the
majority is wrong.
> > So by suggesting
> > it begins with 'Adam' you are attempting to endow Islam with a quality
it
> > does not possess.
> No.
> He's not suggesting it. He's telling you like it is. Islam 101.
Oh, well then I disagree. Islam is a religion, some call it a 'deen', but
to the western mind it is nothing more than another stumbling, bumbling
attempt to discover the unknown. It speaks to you and that's wonderful. As
a spirituality I'm glad it works for you.
However as a political force and source of knowledge for those who seek
political power it is distinctively different than other systems. As such
is has its own, unique, history and for the course of clear of
communications it makes sense to use the term 'islamic history'.
Islamic history started with Muhammad. Not Adam. By suggesting it does
only serves to confuse the discussion with irrelevancies.
> It is *you* who attempt to impose a restrictive denotation upon the term
> "Islamic history." Your lack of education in this regard is glaringly
> apparent.
I see.
> > Its a religion, Anjum. All religions are made by men. Some are just
made
> > later.
> Strike three. You're out.
I want a new ump.
be...@muslimamerica.net
>I think Churchill said the problem with majority rule is sometimes the majority is wrong.<
It doesn't take Churchill to realize this.
The alternative is not to abrogate the "just consent of the governed,"
but to educate the governed to realize the fallacy inherent to "might
equals right." By shari'ah, a majority of muslims, for example, is not
permitted to coerce a minority of non-muslims into abstaining from the
production and consumption of alcoholic beverages.
Disorderly conduct that arises from the consumption of alcoholic
beverages is an entirely different matter.
> Islam is a religion, some call it a 'deen', but
> to the western mind it is nothing more than another stumbling, bumbling
> attempt to discover the unknown.
That is beause the "western mind" to which you refer -- one that is
hardly representative of all Americans (I'm one, by the way) -- is quite
prone to projection.
Divorced of what it calls "religion," this particular "western mind" to
which you refer is ever stumbling and bumbling with hypotheses about
posited "unknowns." The seemingly never ending ebb and flow of trends
in pop psychology, bringing with it the flotsam and jetsam of
theoretical speculation, is a good example of this.
> However as a political force and source of knowledge for those who seek
> political power it is distinctively different than other systems. As such
> is has its own, unique, history and for the course of clear of
> communications it makes sense to use the term 'islamic history'.
> Islamic history started with Muhammad. Not Adam. By suggesting it does
> only serves to confuse the discussion with irrelevancies.
I'm already familiar with your perspective, thank you.
It would behoove the westerner, who is generally far more ignorant of
Islam than a millenial world muslim is of western perspectives, to
understand the term "Islam" as The Qur'an Itself defines it:
"But when Jesus became conscious of their denial, he cried: 'Who will
be my helpers in the cause of Allah?' The disciples said: 'We will be
Allah's helpers. We keep faith in Allah, and bear thou witness that we
are muslims." (3 : 52)
"And (remember) when Moses said unto his people: 'O my people! Why
persecute ye me, when ye well know that I am Allah's messenger unto
you?' So when they went astray, Allah sent their hearts astray. And
Allah guideth not the evil-living folk.
And when Jesus son of Mary said: 'O Children of Israel! Lo! I am the
messenger of Allah unto you, confirming that which was (revealed) before
me in the Torah, and bringing good tidings of a messenger who cometh
after me, whose name is the Praised One. Yet when he hath come unto
them with clear proofs, they say: 'This is mere magic.'
And who doth greater wrong than he who inventeth a lie against Allah
when he is summoned into Al-Islam? And Allah guideth not wrongdoing
folk." (62 : 5-7)
Yes, your "western mind" probably imagines that "it doesn't matter what
The Qur'an says or implies," because "The Qur'an isn't an 'objective
means' " by which to define the term "Islam." But, of course, your
"western mind" probably sees nothing "objectionable" about a non-Islamic
criterion -- such as "the western mind" -- being used to define the term
"Islam."
And why? Because, of course, the "western mind" is an innately,
axiomatically superior means of determining precisely what "Islam"
means!
Following his exile from the Garden, did Adam keep faith in one God,
submitting himself to none but Him?
Did Abraham keep faith in one God, submitting himself to none but Him?
Did Moses keep faith in one God, submitting himself to none but Him?
Did Jesus keep faith in one God, submitting himself to none but Him?
And the other prophets and messengers of The Book? How about them?
What your denial of these truths would prove to us is your denial,
nothing more. Your denial is not an accurate means by which to
determine the definition of Islam.
> I see.
You haven't provided convincing evidence of that.
was-salaam,
bedr
Saqib Virk
"jackkincaid" <theov...@another.com> wrote in message
news:eb35fbed.03051...@posting.google.com...
>
> It has been fashionable for some historians to overemphasise the
> contribution to the Renaissance of Islamic thought.
SV
But it has been far more fashionable and for a far greater period of time to
underemphasize or ignore altogether the contribution of Islam to the
awakening of Europe; to pretend civilization went from the Romans to the
West with nothing in between.
> It's worth
> remembering, however, that Muhammed himself believed in Ptolemaic
> astronomy (in which the earth is the centre of the universe), even
> though the orbit of the earth around the sun had been discovered long
> before his birth.
SV
Why do you imagine Muhammad believed the earth is the center of the
universe? You have no proof and only your own suspicions.
> Thus, Astronomy in pre-Renaissance middle east and
> post-Renaissance Europe alike owed nothing to the Quran itself, but to
> the establishment of universities of learning (an invention of
> Muslim-ruled Spain) in which people of expertise and knowledge, of all
> religions, could confer.
SV
The Quran exhorts Muslims to seek after and increase in knowledge. The
Muslims used to follow this advice much more so than they do today.
> The main contribution made by Muslims to the development of thought in
> the western world is in philosophy, and in this field alone, I think,
> can the claim be honestly made that the caliphates altered the course
> of western society.
SV
It was Muslims who introduced the scientific method to the Europeans.
Philosophy and the scientific method. What more do you want?
> Christian society recovered, in its Enlightenment; Islamic
> society did not. I think it's fair to say that during Islamic
> society's long sleep since the 16th century, the 'west' has 'repaid'
> its past involvement several times over. By ridding the middle east of
> petty tyrants like Saddam, and mass killers like Osama bin Laden, it
> is aiding Muslim society further, whether or not a majority of Muslims
> realise or believe it.
SV
That is believed only by those living in complete fantasy worlds. The West
created and supported both Saddam and Osama and others like them. The West
seeks to dominate and subjugate the Muslim world and is in the process of
doing so. The end of Saddam will see the American grip tighten in the Middle
East to great benefit of America and Israel.
> I can begin to understand why Muslims would wish to believe that their
> religion is somehow responsible for the technology and democratic
> freedoms around us
SV
Muslims don't believe that. You wish to imagine that is what Muslims
believe. It seems to me that Muslims are only stating that "civilization"
did not go from the Greeks to the Westerners centuries later with nothing in
between.
> If you claim a Muslim identity, instead of a national identity (as
> democrats do), you presumably do not respect democracy as it is
> practiced in the post-Christian west (or far east or India).
SV
All Christians and Muslims, presumably, believe in God before their own
country. Country comes second. By your claim most people seem to not respect
democracy.
> Surely, if you perceive the west to be Godless and corrupt, the last
> thing you want is for Islam to be somehow responsible?
SV
Only you seem to imagine Muslims are claiming responsibility for the West.
> Which points to an ambivalence: Islam should be regarded as
> responsible for the 'good' things in democratic society, Christianity
> (or Judaism, Buddhism, secularism, paganism or whatever) responsible
> for the 'bad' things. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way.
SV
First you tell us Muslims believe something they don't and then you go on
lecturing about it.
--
Peace,
Saqib Virk
Ahmet-Ekrem SABAN
slave of God. Where is freedom except in not being a slave of some human? I
do not understand what you mean with freedom. Have you ever read what your
philosophers wrote about it? Do you know what "to be an idea" means in
philosophy? You "fight for freedom" if you like it in this way. It is just
fighting for some other unreal thing. Freedom is an illusion. Everybody
lives under the physical, psychological, social laws. Freedom can only exist
in the law by abolishing slavery but in no other means! But I do not know
whether you understand what I am writing...
--
Kind regards/Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
D.I. Ekrem SABAN
Altway
"Ahmet-Ekrem SABAN" <Ekrem...@utanet.at> wrote in message
news:bcf6u5$q5m$1...@newsreader1.netway.at...
> For the democratic freedoms??? In Islam, one considers him/herself as the
> slave of God. Where is freedom except in not being a slave of some human?
I
do not understand what you mean with freedom. Have you ever read what your
philosophers wrote about it? Do you know what "to be an idea" means in
philosophy? You "fight for freedom" if you like it in this way. It is just
fighting for some other unreal thing. Freedom is an illusion. Everybody
lives under the physical, psychological, social laws. Freedom can only
exist
in the law by abolishing slavery but in no other means!
Comment:-
You are right in questioning the notion of "freedom".
Most people do not know what it means,
but have emotional reactions to the word as a slogan.
Freedom generally means the ability to do as one wishes and this
requires that there should be no inner mental, social or physical
restrictions.
One desire may conflict with another so that fulfilling one means
frustrating another.
We have various amounts of knowledge and abilities and disabilities that
allow fulfilment of desires or not. We live in societies and our actions
affect each other. The action of one might restrict
or flout the freedom of another. So we have organiztions and laws that
restrict us. The power to compell can be placed to variour degrees in the
hands of administrators, managers, politicians, employers, police, the
military and all kinds of authorities, individuals and groups. The
environment has certain resources that enable fulfilment of desires or
restrict the fulfilment. The amount of money we can earn through organiztion
and talents or cunning provides fulfilment of desires.
There is, therefore, a balance between (a) desires (b) abilities (c)
obstructions.
If you have no desires then you are free. But desires can be increased by
propoganda, mental conditioning, temptations and by the formation of
obsessions and greed. This restricts freedom. We can enhance our talents,
knowledge and self-control, thereby gaining freedom, or we can diminish
these. If we suffer from physical, moral or mental diseases caused either by
the environment or our own errors of action, attitudes and life style then
we are unfulfilled and enslaved. If we dislike our environment and what it
provides or forces us to do as a profession then we are not free, but
miserable. But if we like where we are and what we do then we are free and
happy. There are people with a great deal of outer wealth and even talents
and knowledge that are unhappy. And there are people who have little that
are quite happy.
However, as we are human and depend for our life on some nutrition and
shelter and also have some social and psychological needs, we also need a
minimum of psychological, social and environmental freedom to fulfil these
needs. Apart from this human beings have desires that are not needs and this
indicates that they have a greater positive cosmic function. But it also
produces a negative result when it forms greed, This is an obssesive desire
for things beyond needs such that it produces harm rather than benefits.
Eating more than necessary for health, wasting time, energy and talents in
the pursit of wealth, power or prestige that produces no overall benefits
are examples.
So freedom is always a question of degrees and types. There is economic,
political, social, cultural, mental, and spiritual freedom and slavery.
To be a Muslim , one who surrenders to God, is to be a "Slave of God". But
this means that we free ourselves from all other kinds of slavery. To be a
slave of God is to accept objective principles of truth and virtue and
behave according to the nature made by God. It is this that make one free.
---
Hamid S. Aziz
www.altway.freeuk.com
.