Why Muslims just don't get it.
Eric Gene Price
>from radical Islamic fundamentalists in their defense of the terrorists.
But the Middle Eastern mainstream--diplomats, intellectuals and
journalists--has also bombarded the American public with an array of
unflattering images and texts, suggesting that the extremists'
anti-Americanism may not be an eccentricity of the ignorant but rather a
representative slice of the views of millions.
Egyptian Nobel Prize-winning novelist Naguib Mahfouz reportedly
announced from his Cairo home that America's bombing of the Taliban was
"just as despicable a crime" as the September 11 attacks--as if the
terrorists' unprovoked mass murder of civilians were the moral
equivalent of selected air strikes against enemy soldiers in wartime.
Americans, reluctant to answer back their Middle Eastern critics for
fear of charges of "Islamophobia" or "Arab smearing," have let such
accusations go largely unchecked.
Two striking themes--one overt, one implied--characterize most Arab
invective: first, that there is some sort of equivalence--political,
cultural and military--between the West and the Muslim world; and
second, that America has been exceptionally unkind toward the Middle
East. Both premises are false and reveal that the temple of
anti-Americanism is supported by pillars of utter ignorance.
Few in the Middle East have a clue about the nature, origins or history
of democracy, a word that, along with its family (constitution, freedom
and citizen ), has no history in the Arab vocabulary, or indeed any
philological pedigree in any language other than Greek and Latin and
their modern European offspring. Consensual government is not the norm
of human politics but a rare and precious idea, not imposed or
bequeathed but usually purchased with the blood of heroes and patriots,
whether in classical Athens, revolutionary America or more recently
Eastern Europe. Democracy's lifeblood is secularism and religious
tolerance, coupled with free speech and economic liberty.
Afghan tribal councils, without written constitutions, are better than
tyranny, surely; but they do not make consensual government. Nor do the
Palestinian parliament and advisory bodies in Kuwait. None of these faux
assemblies are elected by an unbound citizenry, free to criticize (much
less recall, impeach or depose) their heads of state by legal means, or
even to speak openly to journalists about the failings of their own
government. Plato remarked of such superficial
government-by-deliberation that even thieves divvy up the loot by
give-and-take, suggesting that the human tendency to parley is natural
but is not the same as the formal machinery of democratic government.
Our own cultural elites, either out of timidity or sometimes ignorance
of the uniqueness of our own political institutions, seldom make such
distinctions. But the differences are critical, because they lie
unnoticed at the heart of the crisis in the Muslim world, and they
explain our own tenuous relations with the regimes in the Gulf and the
Middle East. Israel does not really know to what degree the Palestinian
authorities have a real constituency, because the people of the West
Bank themselves do not know either--inasmuch as they cannot debate one
another on domestic television or campaign on the streets for alternate
policies. Yasser Arafat assumed power by Western fiat; when he finally
was allowed to hold real and periodic elections in his homeland, he
simply perpetuated autocracy--as corrupt as it is brutal.
By the same token, we are surprised at the duplicity of the Gulf States
in defusing internal dissent by redirecting it against Americans,
forgetting that such is the way of all dictators, who, should they lose
office, do not face the golden years of Jimmy Carter's busy
house-building or Bill Clinton's self-absorbed angst. Either they dodge
the mob's bullets or scurry to a fortified compound on the French coast
a day ahead of the posse. The royal family of Saudi Arabia cannot act
out of principle, because no principle other than force put and keeps
them in power. All the official jets, snazzy embassies and expensive
press agents cannot hide that these illegitimate rulers are not in the
political sense Western at all.
How sad that intellectuals of the Arab world--themselves given freedom
only when they emigrate to the United States or Europe--profess support
for democratic reform from Berkeley or Cambridge but secretly fear that,
back home, truly free elections would usher in folk like the Iranian
imams, who, in the manner of the Nazis in 1933, would thereupon destroy
the very machinery that elected them. The fact is that democracy does
not spring fully formed from the head of Zeus but rather is an
epiphenomenon--the formal icing on a pre-existing cake of
egalitarianism, economic opportunity, religious tolerance and constant
self-criticism. The former cannot appear in the Muslim world until
gallant men and women insist upon the latter--and therein demolish the
antidemocratic and medieval forces of tribalism, authoritarian
traditionalism and Islamic fundamentalism.
How much easier for nonvoters of the Arab world to vent frustration at
the West, as if, in some Machiavellian plot, a democratic America,
Israel and Europe have conspired to prevent Muslims from adopting the
Western invention of democracy! Democracy is hardly a Western secret to
be closely guarded and kept from the mujahideen. Islam is welcome to it,
with the blessing and subsidy of the West. Yes, we must promote
democracy abroad in the Muslim world; but only they, not we, can ensure
its success.
The catastrophe of the Muslim world is also explicable in its failure to
grasp the nature of Western success, which springs neither from luck nor
resources, genes nor geography. Like Third World Marxists of the 1960s,
who put blame for their own self-inflicted misery upon corporations,
colonialism and racism--anything other than the absence of real markets
and a free society--the Islamic intelligentsia recognizes the Muslim
world's inferiority vis-à-vis the West, but it then seeks to fault
others for its own self-created fiasco. Government spokesmen in the
Middle East should ignore the nonsense of the cultural relativists and
discredited Marxists and have the courage to say that they are poor
because their populations are nearly half illiterate, that their
governments are not free, that their economies are not open, and that
their fundamentalists impede scientific inquiry, unpopular expression
and cultural exchange.
Tragically, the immediate prospects for improvement are dismal, inasmuch
as the war against terrorism has further isolated the Middle East.
Travel, foreign education and academic exchanges--the only sources of
future hope for the Arab world--have screeched to a halt. All the
conferences in Cairo about Western bias and media distortion cannot hide
this self-inflicted catastrophe--and the growing ostracism and suspicion
of Middle Easterners in the West.
But blaming the West, and Israel, for the unendurable reality is easier
for millions of Muslims than admitting the truth. Billions of barrels of
oil, large populations, the Suez Canal, the fertility of the Nile,
Tigris and Euphrates valleys, invaluable geopolitical locations and a
host of other natural advantages that helped create wealthy
civilizations in the past now yield an excess of misery, rather than the
riches of resource-poor Hong Kong or Switzerland. How could it be
otherwise, when it takes bribes and decades to obtain a building permit
in Cairo, when habeas corpus is a cruel joke in Baghdad, and when Saudi
Arabia turns out more graduates in Islamic studies than in medicine or
engineering?
To tackle illiteracy, gratuitous state-sanctioned killing, and the
economic sclerosis that comes from corruption and state control would
require the courage and self-examination of Eastern Europe, Russia,
South America, even of China. Instead, wedded to the old bromides that
the West causes their misery, that fundamentalist Islam and crackpot
mullahs have had no role in their disasters, that the subjugation of
women is a "different" rather than a foul (and economically foolish)
custom, Muslim intellectuals have railed these past few months about the
creation of Israel half a century ago, and they have sat either silent
or amused while the mob in their streets chants in praise of a mass
murderer. Meanwhile millions of Muslims tragically stay sick and hungry
in silence.
Has the Muslim world gone mad in its threats and ultimatums? Throughout
this war, Muslims have saturated us with overt and with insidious
warnings. If America retaliated to the mass murder of its citizens, the
Arab world would turn on us; if we bombed during Ramadan, we would incur
lasting hatred; if we continued in our mission to avenge our dead, not
an American would be safe in the Middle East.
More disturbing even than the screaming street demonstrations have been
the polite admonitions of corrupt grandees like Crown Prince Abdullah of
Saudi Arabia or editor Abdul Rahman al Rashed of Saudi Arabia's
state-owned Al Sharq al Awsat. Don't they see the impotence and
absurdity of their veiled threats, backed neither by military force nor
cultural dynamism? Don't they realize that nothing is more fatal to the
security of a state than the divide between what it threatens and what
it can deliver?
There is an abyss between such rhetoric and the world we actually live
in, an abyss called power. Out of politeness, we needn't crow over the
relative military capability of one billion Muslims and 300 million
Americans; but we should remember that the lethal, 2,500-year Western
way of war is the reflection of very different ideas about personal
freedom, civic militarism, individuality on the battlefield, military
technology, logistics, decisive battle, group discipline, civilian audit
and the dissemination and proliferation of knowledge.
Values and traditions--not guns, germs and steel--explain why a tiny
Greece of 50,000 square miles crushed a Persia 20 times larger; why
Rome, not Carthage, created world government; why Cortés was in
Tenochtitlàn, and Montezuma not in Barcelona; why gunpowder in its home
in China was a pastime for the elite while, when stolen and brought to
Europe, it became a deadly and ever evolving weapon of the masses. Even
at the nadir of Western power in the medieval ages, a Europe divided by
religion and fragmented into feudal states could still send thousands of
thugs into the Holy Land, while a supposedly ascendant Islam had neither
the ships nor the skill nor the logistics to wage jihad in Scotland or
Brittany.
Much is made of 500 years of Ottoman dominance over a feuding Orthodox,
Christian and Protestant West; but the sultans were powerful largely to
the degree that they crafted alliances with a distrustful France and the
warring Italian city-states, copied the Arsenal at Venice, turned out
replicas of Italian and German canon, and moved their capital to
European Constantinople. Moreover, their "dominance" amounted only to a
rough naval parity with the West on the old Roman Mediterranean; they
never came close to the conquest of the heart of Western Europe.
Europeans, not Ottomans, colonized central and southern Africa, Asia and
the Pacific and the Americas--and not merely because of their Atlantic
ports or ocean ships but rather because of their longstanding attitudes
and traditions about scientific inquiry, secular thought, free markets
and individual ingenuity and spontaneity. To be sure, military power is
not a referendum on morality--Pizarro's record in Peru makes as grim
reading as the Germans' in central Africa; it is, rather, a reflection
of the amoral dynamism that fuels ships and soldiers.
We are militarily strong, and the Arab world abjectly weak, not because
of greater courage, superior numbers, higher IQs, more ores or better
weather, but because of our culture. When it comes to war, one billion
people and the world's oil are not nearly as valuable military assets as
MIT, West Point, the House of Representatives, C-Span, Bill O'Rilley and
the G.I. Bill. Between Xerxes on his peacock throne overlooking Salamis
and Saddam on his balcony reviewing his troops, between the Greeks
arguing and debating before they rowed out with Themistocles and the
Americans haranguing one another on the eve of the Gulf War, lies a
2,500-year cultural tradition that explains why the rest of the world
copies its weapons, uniforms and military organization from us, not vice
versa.
Many Middle Easterners have performed a great media charade throughout
this war. They publish newspapers and televise the news, and thereby
give the appearance of being modern and Western. But their reporters and
anchormen are by no means journalists by Western standards of free and
truthful inquiry. Whereas CNN makes a point of talking to the victims of
collateral damage in Kabul, al-Jazeera would never interview the mothers
of Israeli teenagers blown apart by Palestinian bombs. Nor does any
Egyptian or Syrian television station welcome freewheeling debates or
"Meet the Press"-style talk shows permitting criticism of the government
or the national religion. Instead, they quibble over their own degrees
of anti-Americanism and obfuscate the internal contradictions of Islam.
The chief dailies in Algiers, Tehran and Kuwait City look like Pravda of
old. The entire Islamic media is a simulacrum of the West, lacking the
life-giving spirit of debate and self-criticism.
As a result, when Americans see a cavalcade of talking Middle Eastern
heads nod and blurt out the party line--that Israel is evil, that the
United States is naive and misled, that Muslims are victims, that the
West may soon have to reckon with Islamic anger--they assume the talk is
orchestrated and therefore worth listening to only for what it teaches
about how authoritarian governments can coerce and corrupt journalists
and intellectuals.
A novelist who writes whatever he pleases anywhere in the Muslim world
is more likely to receive a fatwa and a mob at his courtyard than a
prize for literary courage, as Naguib Mahfouz and Salman Rushdie have
learned. No wonder a code of silence pervades the Islamic world. No
wonder, too, that Islam is far more ignorant of us than we of it. And no
wonder that the Muslims haven't a clue that, while their current furor
is scripted, whipped up and mercurial, ours is far deeper and more lasting.
Every Western intellectual knows Edward Said's much-hyped theory of
"Orientalism," a purely mythical construct of how Western bias has
misunderstood and distorted the Eastern "Other." In truth, the real
problem is "Westernism"--the fatally erroneous idea in the Middle East
that its propaganda-spewing Potemkin television stations give it a
genuine understanding of the nature of America, an understanding Middle
Easterners believe is deepened by the presence in their midst of a few
McDonald's franchises and hired U.S. public-relations firms.
That error--which mistakes ignorance for insight--helps explain why
Osama bin Laden so grossly miscalculated the devastating magnitude of
our response to September 11. In reality, the most parochial American
knows more about the repressive nature of the Gulf States than the most
sophisticated and well-traveled sheikh understands about the cultural
underpinnings of this country, including the freedom of speech and
inquiry that is missing in the Islamic press.
Millions in the Middle East are obsessed with Israel, whether they live
in sight of Tel Aviv or thousands of miles away. Their fury doesn't
spring solely from genuine dismay over the hundreds of Muslims Israel
has killed on the West Bank; after all, Saddam Hussein butchered
hundreds of thousands of Shiites, Kurds and Iranians, while few in Cairo
or Damascus said a word. Syria's Hafez Assad liquidated perhaps 20,000
in sight of Israel, without a single demonstration in any Arab capital.
The murder of some 100,000 Muslims in Algeria and 40,000 in Chechnya in
the last decade provoked few intellectuals in the Middle East to call
for a pan-Islamic protest. Clearly, the anger derives not from the
tragic tally of the fallen but from Islamic rage that Israelis have
defeated Muslims on the battlefield repeatedly, decisively, at will and
without modesty.
If Israel were not so successful, free and haughty--if it were
beleaguered and tottering on the verge of ruin--perhaps it would be
tolerated. But in a sea of totalitarianism and government-induced
poverty, a relatively successful economy and a stable culture arising
out of scrub and desert clearly irks its less successful neighbors.
Envy, as the historian Thucydides reminds us, is a powerful emotion and
has caused not a few wars.
If Israel did not exist, the Arab world, in its current fit of denial,
would have to invent something like it to vent its frustrations. That is
not to say there may not be legitimate concerns in the struggle over
Palestine, but merely that for millions of Muslims the fight over such
small real estate stems from a deep psychological wound. It isn't about
lebensraum or some actual physical threat. Israel is a constant reminder
that it is a nation's culture--not its geography or size or magnitude of
its oil reserves--that determines its wealth or freedom. For the Middle
East to make peace with Israel would be to declare war on itself, to
admit that that its own fundamental way of doing business--not the
Jews--makes it poor, sick and weak.
Throughout the Muslim world, myth and ignorance surround U.S. foreign
policy toward the Middle East. Yes, we give Israel aid, but less than
the combined billions that go to the Palestinians and to Egypt, Jordan
and other Muslim countries. And it is one thing to subsidize a
democratic and constitutional (if cantankerous) ally but quite another
to pay for slander from theocratic or autocratic enemies. Though Israel
has its fair share of fundamentalists and fanatics, the country is not
the creation of clerics or strongmen but of European émigrés, who
committed Israel from the start to democracy, free speech and abundant
self-critique.
Far from egging on Israel, the United States actually restrains the
Israeli military, whose organization and discipline, along with the
sophisticated Israeli arms industry, make it quite capable of
annihilating nearly all its bellicose neighbors without American aid.
Should the United States withdraw from active participation in the
Middle East and let the contestants settle their differences on the
battlefield, Israel, not the Arab world, would win. The military record
of four previous conflicts does not lie. Arafat should remember who
saved him in Lebanon; it was no power in the Middle East that brokered
his exodus and parted the waves of Israeli planes and tanks for his safe
passage to the desert.
The Muslim world suffers from political amnesia, we now have learned,
and so has forgotten not only Arafat's resurrection but also American
help to beleaguered Afghans, terrified Kuwaitis, helpless Kurds and
Shiites, starving Somalis and defenseless Bosnians--direct intervention
that has cost the United States much more treasure and lives than mere
economic aid for Israel ever did. They forget; but we remember the
Palestinians cheering in Nablus hours after thousands of our innocents
were incinerated in New York, the hagiographic posters of a mass
murderer in the streets of Muslim capitals, and the smug remonstrations
of Saudi prince Alwaleed to Mayor Rudy Giuliani at Ground Zero.
Saudi and Kuwaiti Westernized elites find psychological comfort in their
people's anti-American rhetoric, not out of real grievance but perhaps
as reassurance that their own appetite for all things Western doesn't
constitute rejection of their medieval religion or their 13th-century
caliphate. Their apologists in the United States dissemble when they
argue that these Gulf sheikhs are forced to master a doublespeak for
foreign consumption, or that they are better than the frightening
alternative, or that they are victims of unfair American anger that is
ignorant of Wahhabi custom.
In their present relationship with the terrorists, these old-fashioned
autocrats are neutrals only in the sense that they now play the cagier
role of Franco's Spain to Hitler's Germany. They aid and abet our
enemies, but never overtly. If the United States prevails, the Saudis
can proclaim that they were always with us; should we lose a shooting
war with the terrorists, the princes can swear that their prior
neutrality really constituted allegiance to radical Islam all along.
In matters of East-West relations, immigration has always been a one-way
phenomenon. Thousands flocked to Athens and Rome; few left for Parthia
or Numidia unless to colonize or exploit. People sneak into South, not
North, Korea--in the same manner that few from Hong Kong once braved
gunfire to reach Beijing (unless to invest and profit). Few Israeli
laborers are going to the West Bank to seek construction jobs. In this
vein is the Muslim world's longing for the very soil of America. Even in
the crucible of war, we have discovered that our worst critics love us
in the concrete as much as they hate us in the abstract.
For all the frothing, it seems that millions of our purported enemies
wish to visit, study or (better yet) live in the United States--and this
is true not just of Westernized professors or globetrotting tycoons but
of hijackers, terrorists, the children of the Taliban, the offspring of
Iranian mullahs and the spoiled teenage brats of our Gulf critics. The
terrorists visited lap dancers, took out frequent-flier miles, spent
hours on the Internet, had cell phones strapped to their hips and
hobnobbed in Las Vegas--parasitic on a culture not their own, fascinated
with toys they could not make, and always ashamed that their lusts grew
more than they could be satisfied. Until September 11, their ilk had
been like fleas on a lazy, plump dog, gnashing their tiny proboscises to
gain bloody nourishment or inflict small welts on a distracted host who
found them not worth the scratch.
This dual loathing and attraction for things Western is characteristic
of the highest echelon of the terrorists themselves, often
Western-educated, English-speaking and hardly poor. Emblematic is the
evil genius of al Qaeda, the sinister Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri. He grew up
in Cairo affluence, his family enmeshed in all the Westernized
institutions of Egypt.
Americans find this Middle Eastern cultural schizophrenia maddening,
especially in its inability to fathom that all the things that Muslim
visitors profess to hate--equality of the sexes, cultural freedom,
religious tolerance, egalitarianism, free speech and secular
rationalism--are precisely what give us the material things that they
want in the first place. CDs and sexy bare midriffs are the fruits of a
society that values freedom, unchecked inquiry and individual expression
more than the dictates of state or church; wild freedom and wild
materialism are part of the American character. So bewildered Americans
now ask themselves: Why do so many of these anti-Americans, who profess
hatred of the West and reverence for the purity of an energized Islam or
a fiery Palestine, enroll in Chico State or UCLA instead of madrassas in
Pakistan or military academies in Iraq?
The embarrassing answer would explain nearly everything, from bin Laden
to the intifada . Dads and moms who watch al-Jazeera and scream in the
street at the Great Satan really would prefer that their children have
dollars, an annual CAT scan, a good lawyer, air conditioning and Levis
in American hell than be without toilet paper, suffer from intestinal
parasites, deal with the secret police, and squint with uncorrected
vision in the Islamic paradise of Cairo, Tehran and Gaza. Such a
fundamental and intolerable paradox in the very core of a man's
heart--multiplied millions of times over--is not a healthy thing either
for them or for us, as we have learned since September 11.
Most Americans recognize and honor the past achievements of Islamic
civilization and the contribution of Middle Eastern immigrants to the
United States and Europe, as well as the traditional hospitality shown
visitors to the Muslim world. And so we have long shown patience with
those who hate us, and more curiosity than real anger.
But that was then, and this is now. A two-kiloton explosion that
incinerated thousands of our citizens--planned by Middle Easterners with
the indirect financial support of purportedly allied governments, the
applause of millions, and the snickering and smiles of millions
more--has had an effect that grows not wanes.
So a neighborly bit of advice for our Islamic friends and their
spokesmen abroad: topple your pillars of ignorance and the edifice of
your anti-Americanism. Try to seek difficult answers from within to even
more difficult questions without. Do not blame others for problems that
are largely self-created or seek solutions over here when your answers
are mostly at home. Please, think hard about what you are saying and
writing about the deaths of thousands of Americans and your relationship
with the United States.
America has been a friend more often than not to you. But now you are on
the verge of turning its people--who create, not follow,
government--into an enemy: a very angry and powerful enemy that may be
yours for a long, long time to come.
Imran Razi
> America has been a friend more often than not to you.
No, it hasn't. You are shockingly ignorant of America-Muslim world
relations and the deceit and havoc America has caused.
But now you are on
> the verge of turning its people--who create, not follow,
> government--into an enemy: a very angry and powerful enemy that may be
> yours for a long, long time to come.
This is it? Your big conclusion? Spoken like a true dying empire;
reminds me of the threats the old Soviet Union? (Where are they now,
by the way?). Muslims will continue to fight for justice against those
that oppress them; we don't really fear you, only Allah. Muslims have
had enemies - powerful ones just like you - for a long time. We
suffered terribly during those times - what America is doing to Iraq is
nothing compared to what the Mongols did. So I have no doubt that
America will make good on its threats to destroy millions upon millions
of innocent lives just like you did at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But
that's not going to change anything, it will only increase the
antagonism.
Your last sentence is the most telling. You assume America will be
both angry and powerful for a long time. Just like every Pharoah and
tyrant has always done. But you will learn that power is a gift from
Allah, and you may not have it as long as you think. Particularly if
Muslim oil stops flowing to America and starts flowing, say, to China
instead. Do you really think an empire lasts forever?
Your anger too may not last long, if you repent and ask for forgiveness
to Allah for your many crimes against nonAmericans and minorities in
this country as well. Perhaps it is Allah's plan that America become
more Islamic in character, more just and fair, and rise about its
current level of moral barbarism. Remember that the Mongols soon
became Muslim after ransacking Baghdad.
Every empire thinks it is so unique, so powerful, so transforming of
history, and that it's day will never end. But it always does, sooner
or later. We Muslims have seen many empires come and go, including our
own.
We all would be better off if everyone, particularly America, sought to
be just in its dealing with others. But sadly, it looks like America
is going to try to go the imperial route and increase its oppression of
others in the name of "necessity." Must destroy the village to save
it.
Too bad for all of us.
Imran Razi
xmas
Salam
Eric Gene Price appears to be a typical white-washed Westerner majority who
thinks every thing is fine if it goes his way. However the Good news is that,
many Westerners are thinking and acting boldly, out of the box in which their
system has imprisoned them.
It is not the Muslims, but it is these system-imprisoned Westerners who "just do
not get it".
Muslims have suffered and are suffering. They indeed have a most realistic
world-view based on ideas and principles; not based on the use of tyranny of
armed forces (that is Hitlerian).
September 11 is just a date. There is nothing special about that in the context
of Muslim Suffering. Muslims have born the tyranny in Iraq, Afghanistan,
Palestine and indeed many other contexts. What I would like my Westerner
brothers and sisters to appreciate is this. The Military weakness of the Muslims
is not the weakness of their ideology and a superior World-View. Despite this
weakness, the Muslim world view will flourish and be accepted as truthfull by
the people of the World. The cowboys like Bush will not be respected despite the
dangerously overwhelming military superiority that they command.
Vorna
to China
>instead.
Oil, Muslim or otherwise, is a fungible commodity and will flow, re-flow, and
re-flow again wherever the market takes it.
The really interesting historical development will be in a few decades when
technology makes all that "Muslim oil" as obsolete and irrelevant as whale oil
is now. What effect will that have on the Muslim world?
Vorna
David Ehrens
news:a5nfas$j48$1...@samba.rahul.net:
> Since September 11, we have heard mostly slander and lies
> about the West
Wow. So much BS and so little time to answer it all. The core
of this essay is the presupposed superiority of the West. As
an example given, why didn't the Muslim world colonize Mexico
instead of the Christian world? The fact of Spanish conquest
is somehow transformed into proof of western superiority.
Johnny
> In the name of God
> Salam
>
> Eric Gene Price appears to be a typical white-washed Westerner majority who
> thinks every thing is fine if it goes his way.
Assalam Alaikum.
He is simply cut n pasting an article written by a certain "Victor
Hanson" which is to be found here:
http://www.city-journal.org/html/12_1_why_the_muslims.html
To know what a "good" friend America has been to the Muslims, read
these articles:
http://www.zmag.org/terrorframe.htm
United State's love afair with terror:
http://www.zmag.org/millerterror.htm
kkabir
re-validate the well seasoned saying that "Absolute Power corrupts
absolutely". This pre-supposed, holier-than-thou superiority is based on one
and only one precept, flawed incontrovertibly over human history...and that
it, what I say and do goes, and if you do not accept it, I got the might to
set you 'right'. Isn't that what was the philosophy of the Pharaohs, the
Romans, British, the Nazi Germans, Imperial Japan, Soviet Union and even the
Muslim empire. Did they last forever, or long enough to prove or maintain
their insolent assertion?
It wasn't too long back, for example, Churchill spoke "....the British
empire will last a 1000 years" during WWII. And it did not even last a 100
years!!
Muslims only fear Allah, the true and ONLY super power. He has and will
cause nations and peoples to Live or Perish according to His Will.
Might lulls one into haughty confidence that nothing or no one can destroy
them, but time( and history does) will tell, when Allah does what He Wills.
Absolutely Nothing will last or persist except what He Wills. And what He
Wills is totally His Decision( if you will)--we have and can never be
guaranteed of anything, except leaving this life, to meet and face Him; when
all that purported mighty might on earth in this live will do diddly
nothing.
Suffice is to say, that many do not know and even discount His Power for
their worldly power: Be, and it is.
Ohmyrus
>of democracy, a word that, along with its family (constitution, freedom
>and citizen ), has no history in the Arab vocabulary, or indeed any
>philological pedigree in any language other than Greek and Latin and
>their modern European offspring.
>From this sentence, I can understand why Americans like Eric just do not get
it. I am not a westerner nor am I a Muslim. However, I have come into contact
with both civilisations. The truth is that both sides just do not get it.
For Americans, there is a deep respect and love for democracy. This is their
starting point and they assume that people all over the world share this view.
It is a naive assumption.
For many Muslims, their starting point is their faith in Allah. God's message
is coveyed by his last Prophet Mohammed and is written down in the Koran and
Hadiths.
Imbedded in the Koran is the shariah law. A good Muslim is therefore expected
to follow all of God's laws and desire to establish an Islamic state. To a
devout Muslim, God's law is of course superior to man made laws.
Democracy is man made and is therefore inferior to an Islamic state where
shariah law is practiced in accordance to God's will. They are not impressed
with democracy. In fact, many are comtemptous of democracy and regard Muslims
(and there are many) who advocate democracy as putting man on top of Allah.
Anybody who puts anything ahead of Allah is practicising idolatry.
Now it gets interesting. Osama bin Laden's Al-Qaeda is dedicated to bringing
about Islamic states all over the world and to expand the boundaries of Islam.
He helped to establish one in Afghanistan (ie the Taliban) and his organisation
is attempting to establish one in SE Asia comprising of Malaysia, Indonesa and
Southern Philippines.
To a big chunk of Muslims (I don't know how many), he is a good Muslim doing
God's work. But what about the bombs and killing of innocents? Since he is
fighting for a just cause (ie the Islamic state), they reason, a jihad is
justified and the innocents are regrettable "collateral damage" to use American
jargon. After all, didn't the Prophet Mohammed also fight a Holy War?
The Koran is peppered with many chilling surahs of violence against
non-Muslims. Fortunately, not all Muslims follow this line of thinking. But
there are a lot who do. Therefore to them, Osama bin Laden is simply a good
Muslim who is fighting for God.
Also therefore, you Americans who stand against them, are the evil ones who is
waging war against Islam. It is America who smashed the Taliban regime -
regarded by some Muslims as the most true Islamic state. It is America who
supports Israel. It is America who stationed troops in Saudi Arabia (Osama's
pet beef ) which is the Holy Land.
There are some surahs which can be interpreted to mean that all non-Muslims
must be driven from the Holy Land of Arabia. That is why Saudi Arabia does not
allow the building of churches or temples. So why are dirty American boots on
Holy Land?
The gulf between the two idealogies are as wide as during the Cold War. One the
one side, we have the victors of that war, the idealogy of democracy/free
markets arrayed against the idealogy of militant Islam.
The idealogy that will win is the one that can give mankind a better life. It
is a fight for the hearts and minds of people in Muslim lands.
I am placing my bet on democracy/capitalism.
Imran Razi
> is a fight for the hearts and minds of people in Muslim lands.
>
> I am placing my bet on democracy/capitalism.
As both a Muslim and a Westerner, I can tell you that you are
completely wrong. Please understand this: there is no conflict
between Islam and democracy. The vast majority of Muslims want a
democratic form of government, where they are free to choose their own
leaders and laws. Note that democracy does NOT necessarily mean an
areligious, secular democracy. That's just the Western interpretation
of democracy. How many Muslims in Indonesia, the most populous Muslim
state, are clamoring for a return to dictators and strong men? In
Pakistan, one of the next largest Muslim states, everyone including the
military itself REGRET the current military regime, and talk of when
the country will be democratic again. Nigeria, another one of the most
populous Muslim states, recently held elections. The people of Iran
overwhelmingly support that country's form of Islamic republicanism,
though there is disagreement about exactly how much power the clerics
should have.
The problems many in the Muslim world have with the West is that the
West is ANTI-democracy and ANTI-freedom when in comes to the Muslim
world. They support oppressive tyrants who violate the human rights of
their citizens on a massive scale, until one of their puppets turns on
them a la Saddam Hussein, and then the West decides to decimate the
innocent civilian population.
Now do you see why Muslims have a problem with the West? Again, let me
say it again in no uncertain terms: Muslims WANT democracy and
freedom, and the West is KEEPING THEM from their God-given rights.
In this state of oppression, some among the ONE BILLION Muslims will
use unIslamic means to pursue their just and Islamic cause - freedom
from Western domination and oppression.
Regards,
Imran Razi
Saqib Virk
"Eric Gene Price" <egp...@texas.net> wrote in message
news:a5nfas$j48$1...@samba.rahul.net...
This article, posted by Eric, is the exact sort of propaganda many Americans
are led to believe. His blind acceptance of Western lies and his full
support of Israel are typical of those who are kept disconnected from
reality and real facts. The opening words of his diatribe are in fact proof
of that.
> Since September 11, we have heard mostly slander and lies about
> the West from radical Islamic fundamentalists in their defense of the
> terrorists.
SV
I suggest you have rarely heard from any "radical Islamic fundamentalists"
but have heard most Muslims condemning terrorists while condemning the West
as well. You are the sort who equates condemnation of America as support of
terrorism.
> But the Middle Eastern mainstream--diplomats, intellectuals and
> journalists--has also bombarded the American public with an array of
> unflattering images and texts, suggesting that the extremists'
> anti-Americanism may not be an eccentricity of the ignorant but
> rather a representative slice of the views of millions.
SV
Anti-Americanism is a world wide phenomenon. American policies are
responsible for much suffering in many countries; not just some Muslim
countries.
> Egyptian Nobel Prize-winning novelist Naguib Mahfouz reportedly
> announced from his Cairo home that America's bombing of the
> Taliban was "just as despicable a crime" as the September 11
> attacks--
SV
Perhaps it was. Imagine if you will a man goes into a bank and shoots
indiscriminately while robbing the bank. A policeman sees someone running
out of the bank into the busy street and he begins to shoot at the man he
assumes is the robber. The policeman manages to kill several bystanders
while the man he assumes is the robber gets away. Is the policeman a hero or
a villain?
> America has been a friend more often than not to you. But now you
> are on the verge of turning its people--who create, not follow,
> government--into an enemy: a very angry and powerful enemy that
> may be yours for a long, long time to come.
SV
The American leaders are the enemies of justice and peace in the world.
Their arrogance will bring about their downfall sooner rather than later.
--
Wasalaam,
Saqib Virk
Ohmyrus
>democratic form of government, where they are free to choose their own
>leaders and laws. Note that democracy does NOT necessarily mean an
>areligious, secular democracy. That's just the Western interpretation
>of democracy.
Then what is your idea of democracy?
I have met a wide range of Muslims and would like to know where you stand in
the spectrum. Some Muslims I know are deeply religious and would like to live
in an Islamic state where the shariar law prevails and not man made laws.
Others ignore the teachings on shariar law and prefer to live in a secular
democratic state.
I shall call these "Group A'. Group B are those who feel that a largely Muslim
polity should adopt shariar law. Among those in Group B, there is a small
number (thank God) who condones the use of violence to achieve their aim of an
Islamic state. I shall call these people, Group C.
I don't know how many Muslims, world-wide belong to Groups A, B or C. But I
think the presence of people in Groups B and C (especially C) impedes the
development of democracy (as defined in the conventional way).
So what would a religious, non-secular Muslim democracy be like according to
you? Do you adopt shariar law? Can a Muslim rennounce his religion and convert
to another be left alone in peace? Can people in such a Islamic democracy vote
out the sharia laws and replace them with secular man-made laws?
If your idea of an Islamic democracy means that apostates must be punished (as
required by sharia law) then it is not a true democracy where people are free
to choose their own religion.
Is religion a matter of private practice or a matter of the state? If it
becomes a matter of the state, then what you have is a theocracy and not
democracy. The more you adopt sharia law, the more you go down that slippery
road towards the 7th century.
So far, all the attempts to achieve Islamic states, such as Pakistan under Zia
Ul Haq, Afghanistan under the governent, Iran and S Arabia were ruinous to
their economies and produced repressive governments. Iran's and Arabia's oil
wealth masked their problems.
Contrary to what you say, I don't think the people of Iran are happy with their
government and want change.
>The problems many in the Muslim world have with the West is that the
>West is ANTI-democracy and ANTI-freedom when in comes to the Muslim
>world. They support oppressive tyrants who violate the human rights of
>their citizens on a massive scale, until one of their puppets turns on
>them a la Saddam Hussein, and then the West decides to decimate the
>innocent civilian population.
>
Don't blame the west for the tyrants in the Middle East. The west has to deal
with whoever is in charge. In the past, the west had to deal with Chiang Kai
Shek (Taiwan), Park Chung Hee (S Korea) and Pinochet (Chile). All of these were
dictators. But today Taiwan, S Korea and Chile are prosperous democracies.
Countries start with untrammeled capitalism which brings greater prosperity.
This in turns means they have more money to spend on education which in turn
promotes greater prosperity. Higher educational levels make democratic
government viable.
This virtuous cycle contines till one day, they graduated and became prosperous
democracies. The west was there to cheer them on and not hinder them. If the
west did not hinder the devepment of democracies in East Asia, why should the
west want repressive governments in the Middle East? It does not make sense.
If the Arabs and other Muslims failed, it is their own fault.
jackkincaid
> "Eric Gene Price" <egp...@texas.net> wrote in message
> news:a5nfas$j48$1...@samba.rahul.net...
>
> This article, posted by Eric, is the exact sort of propaganda many Americans
> are led to believe. His blind acceptance of Western lies and his full
> support of Israel are typical of those who are kept disconnected from
> reality and real facts. The opening words of his diatribe are in fact proof
> of that.
I;m wstern. Let's see if you are fair.
>
> > Since September 11, we have heard mostly slander and lies about
> > the West from radical Islamic fundamentalists in their defense of the
> > terrorists.
>
> SV
> I suggest you have rarely heard from any "radical Islamic fundamentalists"
In our terms, we have. A radical Islamic fundamnetalist (or Islamist
for short) is someone who insists on the politicisation of Islam.
Islam is a religion. It is not a political party. It is a matter of
free choice of the individual to be come a Muslim (or Christian or
whatever) and no Muslim has a right to insist that the governamce of a
country should be altered to suit their faith alone. Sharia law - as
the official law of the land rather than a personal creed - is part of
the paraphanalia of radical Islamism and absolutely has to be resisted
wherever possible. The notion that Muslims have a greater loyalty to
other Muslims than to theor country is also incompatible with
democracy and the nation state and is part of Islamism. If you are
saying that these things are believed in by all Muslims I think you're
wrong - and I certainly hop you're wrong because that would mean all
Muslims are fundamentalists and potentially at war with he rest of
then world.
> but have heard most Muslims condemning terrorists
Yes. So have I. Most Muslims - but by no means all - the world over
condemned the attack on the WTC. However far too many refused to admit
that other Muslims were responsible for it and couldn't find it within
themselves to support the west when it tried to stop that terrororism
from happening again. Luckily for the west, and the world, plenty of
Muslims in north Afghanistan and Turkey (and elsewhere) realised what
had to be done, although precisely what their motives were is another
matter.
> while condemning the West
> as well.
...which makes it look as if Muslims think the west and terrorists
like bin Laden are somehow morally equivalent, which is grotesque.
There's nothing wrong with criticising the west but it has to be
within reason.
> You are the sort who equates condemnation of America as support of
> terrorism.
He may be but I'm not. I think the west was grateful that so many
Muslims condemned the attack on the WTC but were perplexed that so
many Muslims didn't seem to want to do anything about it.
>
> > But the Middle Eastern mainstream--diplomats, intellectuals and
> > journalists--has also bombarded the American public with an array of
> > unflattering images and texts, suggesting that the extremists'
> > anti-Americanism may not be an eccentricity of the ignorant but
> > rather a representative slice of the views of millions.
>
> SV
> Anti-Americanism is a world wide phenomenon. American policies are
> responsible for much suffering in many countries; not just some Muslim
> countries.
That may be true but American policies are also responsible for much
good in the world, and in that it is a democracy America is a
worthwhile, maybe partial, model for many Muslim countries. The lack
of democracy and freedom in Muslim countries - which is what causes
the suffering - is due above all to the activities of Islamic
extremists who are threatening the governments of those countries by
their presence. They can't democratise because the fundamentalists
will use the process to come to power, abolish democracy and institute
Sharia law (which threatens the world), so they have to become
dictatos. the west is forced to support them - including disgusting
regimes like that of Saudi Arabia - because the alternative is even
worse. Yes, that is a kind of self interest but it is also in the
interests of the Muslims themselves. The very worst dictators in
Muslim countries - Assad, Saddam, Gadaffi - are opposed by the west,
which protects the minorities within their countries where possible
(the Muslik Kurds in Iraq are under western protection, as are the
Muslim Kosovars. How soon this is forgotten).
>
> > Egyptian Nobel Prize-winning novelist Naguib Mahfouz reportedly
> > announced from his Cairo home that America's bombing of the
> > Taliban was "just as despicable a crime" as the September 11
> > attacks--
>
> SV
> Perhaps it was.
Of coures it wasn't. The Taliban were one of the worst dictatorships
the modern world has seen, causing untold suffering to Muslim people.
The west *saved* the Muslims of Afghanistan - the only criticism you
can make of them is that in doing so they were forced to cause the
loss of innocent life, which is always a terrible thing and about
which the west will feel indebted to afghanistan for years to come
(that's why the west is pumping so much money into the country, and is
protecting the ordinary people with its own soldiers). The Taliban
were partly responsible for the terrorism in the first place. they
*had* to be stopped. The fact that they were Muslims is irrelevent.
> Imagine if you will a man goes into a bank and shoots
> indiscriminately while robbing the bank. A policeman sees someone running
> out of the bank into the busy street and he begins to shoot at the man he
> assumes is the robber. The policeman manages to kill several bystanders
> while the man he assumes is the robber gets away. Is the policeman a hero or
> a villain?
He's incomptent. The west wasn't incomptetent. There was no other way
to bring down the Taliban than by bombing them. Had Pakistan, say, or
Egypt, or some other Muslim country, offered to send in 100,000 of
their troops to occupy Afghanistan, arrest the Taliban and bin laden,
and bring the country back from the brink, then the west wouldn't have
bombed it at all. The west is dying for Muslims around the world to
take their responsibilities seriously in this way. Instead, a minority
of Pakistan's ISI has been illegaly funding the Taliban and helping
al-Qaeda escape. It's impossible to deal with these problems while
some Muslims identify with the terrorists for religious reasons (and
the same goes for other religions - it goes for Israel too).
The west has no choice but to sort these things out, and since these
days 'the west' essentially means the USA, Muslims have no choice but
to accept an American solution to their problems. I admit it isn't
ideal - especially in Palestine - but who else will do it? My country
(Britain) would do it, but doesn't have the power. The Muslim
countries themselves won't do it. The UN can't do it. Even Europe
can't do it because it's too divided. Would you have preferred Russia
removed the Taliban? They would have been a lot more careless than
the Americans.
>
> > America has been a friend more often than not to you. But now you
> > are on the verge of turning its people--who create, not follow,
> > government--into an enemy: a very angry and powerful enemy that
> > may be yours for a long, long time to come.
>
> SV
> The American leaders are the enemies of justice and peace in the world.
Oh rubbish.
> Their arrogance will bring about their downfall sooner rather than later.
That may be true but in the meantime who else will keep the world
relatively free of fear? Afghanistan now stands a reasonable chance of
becoming a successful, even relatively welathy nation. It can sell oil
to build an infrastructure. We are already seeing a mini-renaissance
of Afghan film and literature, now the Taliban are gone. Kabul
university used to be well respected in the world; perhaps it will be
again. The Afghan people themselves are clever and resourceful. As
long as they can throw off the influence of the warlords and the
Islamists, they should do just fine. That should make you happy, not
angry.
thebit
> Then what is your idea of democracy?
"Their affairs are decided by mutual consultation..." Qur'an 42: 38.
> I shall call these "Group A'. Group B are those who feel that a largely Muslim
> polity should adopt shariar law. Among those in Group B, there is a small
> number (thank God) who condones the use of violence to achieve their aim of an
> Islamic state. I shall call these people, Group C.
Then group C cease to follow the very law they wish to see running their society.
> I don't know how many Muslims, world-wide belong to Groups A, B or C. But I
> think the presence of people in Groups B and C (especially C) impedes the
> development of democracy (as defined in the conventional way).
Democracy in the "conventional" way is defined by Western standards. I think there
is a lot wrong with this idea of a demoractic society, but I don't think it is
completely wrong. Would I, for example, be allowed to make this post in a so-called
"Islamic" state like Saudi Arabia? No. But then in the UK, I am left only with a
choice between politicians, all immersed in corporate muck. I am never truely
"consulted". My local community is not affected by my vote in the local council
elections, thats for sure.
Group B should not impede a "democratic" society. Group A, however, have ceased to
be Muslims in the real sense, so what is the point of calling them "Muslims"?
> So what would a religious, non-secular Muslim democracy be like according to
> you? Do you adopt shariar law?
Yes. I think so. Perhaps it ought to have a consultative body of Religious
scholars, of all schools and persuasions, who are elected by the people. The rulers
of the land also should be elected by the people. With a proper consulatative
method of choosing the leaders, then I don't we would have the problems we see in
Muslim countries.
> Can a Muslim rennounce his religion and convert
> to another be left alone in peace?
Yes. Why not?
> Can people in such a Islamic democracy vote
> out the sharia laws and replace them with secular man-made laws?
They could do. But if the people are realy Muslim, that wouldn't happen. That is
why I think, before any "Islamic" state can be formed, we need to reform ourselves.
We need to be Muslims in the real sense: people who truely "Surrender" to God.
> If your idea of an Islamic democracy means that apostates must be punished (as
> required by sharia law) then it is not a true democracy where people are free
> to choose their own religion.
You are jsut forcing a streotype down the throat of the brother. Why do such a
thing? I have not seen him support this.
> Is religion a matter of private practice or a matter of the state?
I do not think the state can interfere in the way a person practices his/her
religion. However, for a person to be *legally* considered a Muslim, the State can
make him pray his Five times daily prayer, and pay the "obligatory tax". These are
the only two things a Muslim state can force upon it's Muslim citizens. Other than
that, nothing ought to be legislated that impedes the basic rights of an
individual.
> If it
> becomes a matter of the state, then what you have is a theocracy and not
> democracy.
Thats your definition. A theorcracy is defined as a country run by a priest class.
Islam doesn't have a church, nor does it have a priestly class.
> The more you adopt sharia law, the more you go down that slippery
> road towards the 7th century.
An unfair accusation.
> So far, all the attempts to achieve Islamic states, such as Pakistan under Zia
> Ul Haq, Afghanistan under the governent, Iran and S Arabia were ruinous to
> their economies and produced repressive governments. Iran's and Arabia's oil
> wealth masked their problems.
I do not think that any Muslim regards these as "Islamic" states. They simply use
Religion to keep a hold on their power. Mugabe uses demoracy to surpress his
population. Are you wanting to rid the world of "democracy"?
> Contrary to what you say, I don't think the people of Iran are happy with their
> government and want change.
Thats just your opinion. How many Iranians have you met? Have you been to Iran?
> Don't blame the west for the tyrants in the Middle East.
Sorry, but I couldn't help but laugh at this statement. Who exactly supports Egypt,
Saudi, etc.? Not the ordinary Muslim on the street.
> The west has to deal
> with whoever is in charge.
The West places people it likes in power. It discards and demonises them when it
suits them. Saddam is a perfect example.
> In the past, the west had to deal with Chiang Kai
> Shek (Taiwan), Park Chung Hee (S Korea) and Pinochet (Chile).
Pinochet? Well Thatcher sure was an admirer of him. The UK also, rather
disgustingly, and against every single thing "democracy" claims to stand for,
refused to let Pinochet be tried for war crimes. Says much for the UK and
"democracy".
> Countries start with untrammeled capitalism which brings greater prosperity.
And it brings other social and environmental problems. Islam is not, and never have
been, against capital. Indeed, some of the most well known traders of the past were
Muslims. Muslims implemented the first truely global banking system. It is,
however, against greed, especially at any cost. The latter is a hallmark of
Capitalism, defined in the Western sense.
> This in turns means they have more money to spend on education which in turn
> promotes greater prosperity. Higher educational levels make democratic
> government viable.
I thing you have made a valuable point. Muslims to need to do more to alleviate
poverty, illiteracy in their communities. I find it sad that Muslims had a high
civilisation, where learning and charity were cherished values. Now we are more
interested in declaring each other "heretics".
> This virtuous cycle contines till one day, they graduated and became prosperous
> democracies. The west was there to cheer them on and not hinder them.
The West has its own interests. Notice how it kept quiet when the democractic right
of Alergians and Turks was violated.
> If the
> west did not hinder the devepment of democracies in East Asia, why should the
> west want repressive governments in the Middle East? It does not make sense.
Let me see... that black thick vicous fluid... "black gold"... (I've dropped enough
hints).
> If the Arabs and other Muslims failed, it is their own fault.
Yes I agree. We have to take responsibility for our actions. This is one of the
concepts of being a "Muslim". But to deny the fact that people are working against
the interests of Muslims, and others in the world, and that these people are the
very ones who hypocritically show the world "democracy" and "free-trade", is just
as wrong.
Ohmyrus
>from you.
>> Then what is your idea of democracy?
>
>"Their affairs are decided by mutual consultation..." Qur'an 42: 38.
Hmm. You have to be more specific. After all, the Saudis allow extensive
consultations. A Saudi citizen, I am told, has access to the royal family. Will
you allow voting for instance? Will there be a free press so that differences
of opinions will be trashed out? Can somebody publish an article critical of
the Prophet?
>> Can a Muslim rennounce his religion and convert
>> to another be left alone in peace?
>
>Yes. Why not?
You are the type of progressive Muslim that I respect. But I thought there is a
Hadith that says, "Kill those who change their religion."
Does that mean you are prepared to ignore some portions of your Holy
Scriptures? If so, it would appear that some secular ideas have taken root in
you that over-rides your Holy Scriptures. After all, the ideas of religious
tolerance in the western world came from philosophers of the European
Enlightenment. Hinduism and Buddhisms, the other great religions, have always
been tolerant.
Or do you have a different interpretation of that Hadith?
>> Don't blame the west for the tyrants in the Middle East.
>
>Sorry, but I couldn't help but laugh at this statement. Who exactly supports
>Egypt,
>Saudi, etc.? Not the ordinary Muslim on the street.
I will continue this tomorrow.
Ohmyrus
>
>Sorry, but I couldn't help but laugh at this statement. Who exactly supports
>Egypt,
>Saudi, etc.? Not the ordinary Muslim on the street.
>
>The West places people it likes in power. It discards and demonises them when
>it
>suits them. Saddam is a perfect example.
>> If the
>> west did not hinder the devepment of democracies in East Asia, why should
>the
>> west want repressive governments in the Middle East? It does not make
>sense.
>
>Let me see... that black thick vicous fluid... "black gold"... (I've dropped
>enough
>hints).
Egypt, Jordan and Syria do not have oil. So how come they have dictators? Also
Libya has oil but Qaddafi hates the west. If what you say is true, how come
Qaddafi is in power? The house of Saud gained power before oil was discovered
under its desert sands. The west has to deal with whoever is in charge. It is
up to the Arabs to get rid of their dictators like the East ASians did.
If the East Asians can develop into prosperous democracies, how come the Arabs
could not?
Your assertion that the west puts in whoever it likes into power rasies an
interesting question. Do you want to see the west wage war against repressive
Arab regimes to topple them and then hold elections? If you do, then you must
surely support George Bush's war in Afghanistan and his intention to attack
Iraq.
Next, I want to ask you a question about oil. Do you think that it is neccesary
for the west to put in dictators in order to get oil? After all, Libya and Iran
are hostile to the west but they are still selling oil because they want money.
Even Saddam Hussein wants to sell more oil if it could. Don't forget the oil is
fungible. Even if say a hostile post Saudi regime refuses to sell oil directly
to the USA it does not matter as long as it sells oil to the world market. It
is the total world oil production that counts.
Therefore oil is not a logical reason why the west wants to foist dictatorships
on Arab or Muslim populations.
>Islam doesn't have a church, nor does it have a priestly class.
I don't understand. What about the mullahs?
>> Contrary to what you say, I don't think the people of Iran are happy with
>their
>> government and want change.
>
>Thats just your opinion. How many Iranians have you met? Have you been to
>Iran?
By challenging me, you imply that the Iranians are happy and do not want
change. But this statement contradicts with your statement below about Iran.
>> So far, all the attempts to achieve Islamic states, such as Pakistan under
>Zia
>> Ul Haq, Afghanistan under the governent, Iran and S Arabia were ruinous to
>> their economies and produced repressive governments. Iran's and Arabia's
>oil
>> wealth masked their problems.
>I do not think that any Muslim regards these as "Islamic" states. They simply
>use
>Religion to keep a hold on their power. Mugabe uses demoracy to surpress his
>population. Are you wanting to rid the world of "democracy"?
If Iran is not a true Islamic state and its leaders use religion to hold on to
power, won't the Iranians be unhappy and want change? But your earlier
statement implies that you think Iranians are happy. I think it is more in your
character (from the opinions you expressed) to hold the opinion that Muslims
would be happy in a true Islamic state. I could be wrong of course. Maybe you
think that the Iranians are happy because they don't live in a true Islamic
state - a state where the leaders use religion to maintain their power.
Ohmyrus
>
>Sorry, but I couldn't help but laugh at this statement. Who exactly supports
>Egypt,
>Saudi, etc.? Not the ordinary Muslim on the street
>The West places people it likes in power. It discards and demonises them when
>it
>suits them. Saddam is a perfect example.
>
>
>> If the
>> west did not hinder the devepment of democracies in East Asia, why should
>the
>> west want repressive governments in the Middle East? It does not make
>sense.
>
>Let me see... that black thick vicous fluid... "black gold"... (I've dropped
>enough
>hints).
>
Egypt, Jordan, Syria do not have oil. How come they still have dictators?
On the other hand, Libya has oil and it is hostile to the west. Did the west
set up Qadaffi? The Sauds have been ruling Arabia before the discovery of oil.
Did the west set them up because of oil? Sure Arabia is a western ally, but the
west has to deal with whoever is in charge.
My next question concerns oil. Does the west need to set up and support
dictators in oil rich states in order to get oil? Libya and Iran hates the west
especially the USA but they are selling oil to get money.
Even if Saudia Arabia and Kuwait is hostile to the west it does not matter so
long as they continue to sell oil. Oil is fungible. Even if these countries
refuses to sell oil directly to the USA, it does not matter so long as they
sell to the world market. There won't be a disruption so long as the total oil
production remains the same as before.
Since the west did not prevent the emergence of properous democracies in the
East Asia, the is no reason why it would want to prevent democracies in the Mid
east. Why is it that the Mid East countries cannot seem to develop into
prosperous democracies?
>Islam doesn't have a church, nor does it have a priestly class.
I don't understand. What about the Mullahs?
>> Then what is your idea of democracy?
>
>"Their affairs are decided by mutual consultation..." Qur'an 42: 38.
Hmm. This needs more elaboration. Does that mean you will hold elections? A
free press? After all, the Saudis allow any citizen to consult with the royal
family. They call that democracy.
>> Can a Muslim rennounce his religion and convert
>> to another be left alone in peace?
>
>Yes. Why not?
You are a progressive Muslim - the kind I respect. But what about the Hadith
that says those who change their religion should be killed. Are you prepared to
ignore this part of your Holy scriptures? In the west, relgious tolerance
started during the Age of Enlightenment. The East, with their polytheistic
religions have been tolerant for a longer time. Maybe there is some secular
ideas inside you. Or have you a different interpretation of the Hadith I
mentioned?
>> Contrary to what you say, I don't think the people of Iran are happy with
>their
>> government and want change.
>
>Thats just your opinion. How many Iranians have you met? Have you been to
>Iran?
Your challenge to what I said about the Iranians imply that you think they are
happy. This contradicts your statement which I will quote below.
>> So far, all the attempts to achieve Islamic states, such as Pakistan under
>Zia
>> Ul Haq, Afghanistan under the governent, Iran and S Arabia were ruinous to
>> their economies and produced repressive governments. Iran's and Arabia's
>oil
>> wealth masked their problems.
>
>I do not think that any Muslim regards these as "Islamic" states. They simply
>use
>Religion to keep a hold on their power. Mugabe uses demoracy to surpress his
>population. Are you wanting to rid the world of "democracy"?
If Iran is not a true Islamic state and their leaders are simply using religion
to maintain power, won't that make the Iranians unhappy? Or are you saying that
the people are happy because Iran is not a true Islamic state? That would not
be in keeping to your other views. Please explain.
thebit
> Egypt, Jordan and Syria do not have oil.
True. I should correct my post. But I was referring to the Arabian peninsula.
> So how come they have dictators?
Jordan and Egypt have close affiliations with whom? Have you tried to voice your
concerns in Egypt? Do you know what happens when you do? Do you know that the
annual report on human rights from the US omits the closed-door military tribunals
which Egypt carries out, because the US needs to curry-favour the Egyptians for its
new "war on terror" in Iraq? And because the US plans to use the same method to
bring to "justice" (I use that very loosely) the captives in Cuba?
> Also
> Libya has oil but Qaddafi hates the west. If what you say is true, how come
> Qaddafi is in power?
Another fair point. I cannot quibble with that. Though there is, as always much
more than meets the eye with Qaddafi. That is, however, not for SRI, I feel.
> The house of Saud gained power before oil was discovered
> under its desert sands.
Yes. But do you think that the ordinary Saudi wants them? Not from my experience.
If the Saudis revolted tommorrow, do you think the US would stand idle? Highly
unlikely...
> The west has to deal with whoever is in charge. It is
> up to the Arabs to get rid of their dictators like the East ASians did.
I am not sure who you mean by "the East Asians", but I assume it is the
Indonesians, Malaysians etc. Again, I think you ought to look at who was
bank-rolling despots like Suhatro. Only Malaysia stands out as a relatively
successful Muslim country, because by-and-large it did not let in foreign
influence. The rest did. Look how badly the Phillipines is doing.
> If the East Asians can develop into prosperous democracies, how come the Arabs
> could not?
I am not apologist for Arabs. I am not even an Arab. But one does have to say that
the constant meddling by the US in Middle Eastern affairs is detrimental to the
people of the Region.
> Your assertion that the west puts in whoever it likes into power rasies an
> interesting question.
I should correct that. It doesnt "put people in power". It influences the outcome
in favour of those who are willing to work with them.
> Do you want to see the west wage war against repressive
> Arab regimes to topple them and then hold elections?
I want to see the removal of despotic regimes, Arab or otherwise. This should
happen through fair and legal means.This has to happen via education. However, it
is not likely in the near future. The only alternative is a revolution. But this
will only put in place a regime as bad, if not worse, than the current lot. It will
take time. A long time.
> If you do, then you must
> surely support George Bush's war in Afghanistan and his intention to attack
> Iraq.
No. Bush has no intention of heling the Iraqis. If he did, he would have ended the
sanctions (which have not seemed to affect Saddam at all). By bombing the civillian
population of Iraq, it will only increase and incense the Arabs and Muslims in
general. Bush is only interested in settling old scores; showing the world he is
number one. It is the height of arrogance.
> Next, I want to ask you a question about oil. Do you think that it is neccesary
> for the west to put in dictators in order to get oil?
It helps. I have corrected myself above.
> After all, Libya and Iran
> are hostile to the west but they are still selling oil because they want money.
One can make all the noises they want. Libya and Iran always make noises. I rarely
see any action. "Sponsoring" Hizbollah does not count as action.
> Even Saddam Hussein wants to sell more oil if it could. Don't forget the oil is
> fungible. Even if say a hostile post Saudi regime refuses to sell oil directly
> to the USA it does not matter as long as it sells oil to the world market. It
> is the total world oil production that counts.
Yes. Agreed. But oil is an important factor. Where do you think most of the Saudi
oil goes? The US and Saudi are "bosom buddies" not over political/idelogical
points. Far from it. It is the Dollar sign which brings these two togther. American
politics is immersed in the coporate world (like most politics). It is corporate
interests which influence who America warms to and who it doesn't. Why, the
Americans were prepared to pipe gas through Afghanistan, before Mullah Umar went
cold over accusations against the Taliban.
I think the Boston Herald did a piece on this, somtime last year. Check it up.
> Therefore oil is not a logical reason why the west wants to foist dictatorships
> on Arab or Muslim populations.
It is one reason. It is a factor. Though, I agree, not the sole criteria.
> >Islam doesn't have a church, nor does it have a priestly class.
>
> I don't understand. What about the mullahs?
Islam doesn't have a Church. We have no priestly class! As simple as that! The
"Mullahs" might have taken over, but it doesn't change the fact. My Religion is
between myself and God. I can use the understanding of a learned man to increase my
knowledge and understanding. But ultimately, no Mullah is going to save me from
Hell.
> If Iran is not a true Islamic state and its leaders use religion to hold on to
> power, won't the Iranians be unhappy and want change?
Being unhappy doesn't mean they want to go on a killing spree in the name of
"democracy". This is what is often implied by those who shout about the
"unhappiness" of Iranians. I know a few Iranians. Some are practising Muslims
(Sunni and Shia), some have left Islam, and some are Baha'is. The opinion I get
>from them is varying. The more "religious" types are happy with Iran.
Iran is not "true" Islamic State in MY opinion, and the view, dare I say, of most
Muslims. But whether or not Iranians themselves are happy is for Iranians to say.
> But your earlier
> statement implies that you think Iranians are happy.
Does it? I asked a question of you regarding Iranians. I questioned your blanket
assertion that Iranians want to remove all the Religion from their State. I don't
think they do. Though they would, probably, like to make some changes. My question
is still valid and still holds.
> I think it is more in your
> character (from the opinions you expressed) to hold the opinion that Muslims
> would be happy in a true Islamic state.
Yes. A "true" Islamic State would hold priciples such as truth, goodness, mercy and
justice. Not greed, vanity, lust, laziness and arrogance.
Regards
Saqib Virk
news:a6hfc1$3e8$1...@samba.rahul.net...
> In our terms, we have. A radical Islamic fundamnetalist (or Islamist
> for short) is someone who insists on the politicisation of Islam.
> Islam is a religion. It is not a political party.
SV
Religion, as Muslims practice it, is a complete way of life. It is not
possible to disengage ones core beliefs while engaged in any facet of life,
let alone something as important as governance.
> It is a matter of
> free choice of the individual to be come a Muslim (or Christian or
> whatever) and no Muslim has a right to insist that the governamce
> of a country should be altered to suit their faith alone.
SV
No more than anyone has the right to insist their beliefs be made law. If
there are enough Muslims in a democratic country their beliefs will likely
become law. Correct?
> Sharia law - as
> the official law of the land rather than a personal creed - is part of
> the paraphanalia of radical Islamism and absolutely has to be
> resisted wherever possible.
SV
Such comments only betray you as a fanatic who would unthinkingly resist
something he doesn't understand.
> The notion that Muslims have a greater loyalty to
> other Muslims than to theor country is also incompatible with
> democracy and the nation state and is part of Islamism.
SV
Muslims ought to have a greater loyalty to God than to anything else.
> ...which makes it look as if Muslims think the west and terrorists
> like bin Laden are somehow morally equivalent, which is grotesque.
SV
The American leaders are morally equivalent to bin Ladin and yes, that is
grotesque. They are equally as willing to kill innocents to farther their
own causes.
> There's nothing wrong with criticising the west but it has to
> be within reason.
SV
You questioned the motives of Muslims who supported America in its stated
quest to end terrorism. What you mean by the above statement is that we have
to accept American propaganda while questioning the motives of others.
--
Peace,
Saqib Virk
thebit
Ohmyrus wrote:
> Hmm. You have to be more specific.
The Qur'an has said the affairs of the Muslim Community must be decided via mutual
consultation. In the modern context this is akin to voting. Any state wishing to
truely represent an "Islamic" state, I feel, should allow greater autonomy at a
local level. The local communities can, via "mutual consultation", elect a council
to represent them or an elected member. He can be sent upwards to a higher,
national, authority. We see these ideas in operation today; but I feel they are not
"consultative" enough. Backing up these local bodies has to be the strong family
units.
> After all, the Saudis allow extensive
> consultations.
I know of the Saudi consultative body. But I do not know of any "consultations" it
has done.
> A Saudi citizen, I am told, has access to the royal family.
Well, in this instance a Saudi has more access to his royals then I do to mine!
> Will
> you allow voting for instance?
How else will affairs be decided by "mutual consultation"? Within moral limits,
everyone ought to be allowed to voice their concern, opinion etc. But it also
requires an education system which respects authority. Islam is a whole system, and
all aspects must work in tandem.
> Will there be a free press so that differences
> of opinions will be trashed out?
Again, why not? I think the free press is vital. But the "free press" of the West
(with the odd exception) is not very "free". They are owned by large corporations
who use these to voice their own political agendas. The likes of Murdoch should not
be allowed near a newspaper. I think they ought to be owned by the Journalists
themselves.
> Can somebody publish an article critical of
> the Prophet?
I see no reason why they cannot. But criticism is one thing; insults are another.
Walking up to my house and throwing vulgarities, insults and obscenities at me is
not allowed, even in our "free" West. You can criticise my work, ideas, etc.,
strongly, in a paper, journal etc. If you publish an article in the press,
insulting and defaming me, that is not criticism. That is liable.
Blasphemy laws are not found in the Qur'an. But if a Muslim country wishes to have
them, they ought to be based on liable laws. Insulting the reverred personality of
ANY religion is not intelligent. At the same time, anyone zealot who wishes to take
the law into his own hand, and kill someone for what he perceives as blasphemy, he
ought to be punished in the strictest manner. Nothing less than death, I think.
> You are the type of progressive Muslim that I respect. But I thought there is a
> Hadith that says, "Kill those who change their religion."
Hadeeth is not "Scripture". The hadeeth above is quoted out of context. The
following link may be of use.
http://www.understanding-islam.com/related/questions.jsp?point=3&id=286
The Qur'an mentions apostasy in several places, yet never mentions a punishment for
it (in this world). Qur'an 2.256 is a principle any "Islamic" country must adhere
to.
> Does that mean you are prepared to ignore some portions of your Holy
> Scriptures?
No. No parts of "my" Scripture tell me to kill one who leaves Islam.
> If so, it would appear that some secular ideas have taken root in
> you that over-rides your Holy Scriptures.
Islam is a whole; there are no seperate compartments. The principles of the Qur'an
should be applied in our daily lives.
> After all, the ideas of religious
> tolerance in the western world came from philosophers of the European
> Enlightenment. Hinduism and Buddhisms, the other great religions, have always
> been tolerant.
If you are implying that Islam is not tolerant, then I think you are being unfair.
Tolerance was a mark of the high civilisation Muslims did create. Under (earlier)
Ottoman rule, and in Muslim Spain, different Religions, cultures, etc. lived
side-by-side. Pickthall gave lecture on this:
http://users.erols.com/gmqm/toleran1.html
Progression in Science, Philosophy etc. came to Europe via Muslim Spain and to a
leser extent Asia Minor. As for Hinduism and Buddhism, the Religions themselves do
preach tolerance. I wish their followers would to.
> Or do you have a different interpretation of that Hadith?
Yes. See the above link.
Regards
The Dude
> "jackkincaid" <theov...@another.com> wrote in message
> news:a6hfc1$3e8$1...@samba.rahul.net...
>
>
> > In our terms, we have. A radical Islamic fundamnetalist (or Islamist
> > for short) is someone who insists on the politicisation of Islam.
> > Islam is a religion. It is not a political party.
>
> SV
> Religion, as Muslims practice it, is a complete way of life. It is not
> possible to disengage ones core beliefs while engaged in any facet of
life,
> let alone something as important as governance.
Then why are there MILLIONS of practicing Muslims in the US, Canada, Great
Britain, and the European Continent? Governments tied to Islam are corrupt,
oppressive, and utter failure. The only scintilla of success is found in
countries who have become more progressive and begun to move the
fundaterrorist BS out of the government (Turkey, Pakistan, Jordan).
> > It is a matter of
> > free choice of the individual to be come a Muslim (or Christian or
> > whatever) and no Muslim has a right to insist that the governamce
> > of a country should be altered to suit their faith alone.
>
> SV
> No more than anyone has the right to insist their beliefs be made law. If
> there are enough Muslims in a democratic country their beliefs will likely
> become law. Correct?
Concensus is good. Do you think that the Taliban represented its people?
Where is this Islamic democracy?
> > Sharia law - as
> > the official law of the land rather than a personal creed - is part of
> > the paraphanalia of radical Islamism and absolutely has to be
> > resisted wherever possible.
>
> SV
> Such comments only betray you as a fanatic who would unthinkingly resist
> something he doesn't understand.
He's correct. The proof is in the pudding, I'm afraid.
> > The notion that Muslims have a greater loyalty to
> > other Muslims than to theor country is also incompatible with
> > democracy and the nation state and is part of Islamism.
>
> SV
> Muslims ought to have a greater loyalty to God than to anything else.
The problem is that religious dogma is presented as reason. Government must
strive to act with reason -- not according to some outdated, fictional,
bigoted book for the uneducated.
> > ...which makes it look as if Muslims think the west and terrorists
> > like bin Laden are somehow morally equivalent, which is grotesque.
>
> SV
> The American leaders are morally equivalent to bin Ladin and yes, that is
> grotesque. They are equally as willing to kill innocents to farther their
> own causes.
This always cracks me up! You fail to recognize that by murdering thousands
of people from all over the world who were working in the WTC, Usama grunted
a military response on the land he uses as his base
of operations. Such a response, while as surgical as the world has ever
seen, is not without its civilian tragedies. It is horrible that we can
miss, and we are doing our best to spare the innocents while we decimate
those who would destroy us. But that is very far removed from UBL's (and
the PLO's) tactic of monstrously targeting the innocent. It is the
fundaterrorists who kill indiscriminately. If the America and the western
world subscribed to your tactics, every major city in the Muslim world would
by vapor, now. We value life. You value death.
> > There's nothing wrong with criticising the west but it has to
> > be within reason.
>
> SV
> You questioned the motives of Muslims who supported America in its stated
> quest to end terrorism. What you mean by the above statement is that we
have
> to accept American propaganda while questioning the motives of others.
I agree with him. Your accusations are far from reasonable -- as is a
government rigidly based on religion.
tkdowning
> > It is a matter of
> > free choice of the individual to be come a Muslim (or Christian or
> > whatever) and no Muslim has a right to insist that the governamce
> > of a country should be altered to suit their faith alone.
>
> SV
> No more than anyone has the right to insist their beliefs be made law. If
> there are enough Muslims in a democratic country their beliefs will likely
> become law. Correct?
>
Yes, and this is projected to happen in England and Europe by 2050. By
being unable (or unwilling?) to reproduce, Europe has brought this
"problem" upon itself. The inescapable forces of Darwanism are
unfortunately about to fall hard upon these over-civilized,
weak-kneed, appeasing, multicultural cheese eaters.
> > Sharia law - as
> > the official law of the land rather than a personal creed - is part of
> > the paraphanalia of radical Islamism and absolutely has to be
> > resisted wherever possible.
>
> SV
> Such comments only betray you as a fanatic who would unthinkingly resist
> something he doesn't understand.
>
Agreed. I think that Jack needs to experience Sharia law firsthand for
himself before he makes such rash judgements.
> > The notion that Muslims have a greater loyalty to
> > other Muslims than to theor country is also incompatible with
> > democracy and the nation state and is part of Islamism.
>
> SV
> Muslims ought to have a greater loyalty to God than to anything else.
>
Well, you're not much different from Jack and other Euro-socialists in
this respect. By choosing socialism, the Euros gave up concepts of
freedom and individualism long ago. Their God is the state. Their
messiah, the "working man", their creed (and downfall):
multiculturalism.
{snip anti-American bs}
The Sanity Inspector
> > Since September 11, we have heard mostly slander and lies about
> > the West from radical Islamic fundamentalists in their defense of the
> > terrorists.
>
> SV
> I suggest you have rarely heard from any "radical Islamic fundamentalists"
> but have heard most Muslims condemning terrorists while condemning the West
> as well. You are the sort who equates condemnation of America as support of
> terrorism.
Anyone can go here:
www.memri.org
and read rantings from Islamicists taken straight from the Arab
newspapers. In #354, an official government newspaper of our
'moderate' 'friends' the Saudis, there is even a reiteration of that
medieval slander, the Blood Libel. And #272 records a university
lecturer in sophisticated, Christian Lebanon saying that the U. S.
brought the attacks on itself, and the arabs masses were justified in
celebrating in the streets. So there is no need to search for rabid
screeds from shadowy radicals--the same evil stuff is right out in the
open in the mainstream Arab media.
--
bruce
The dignified don't even enter in the game.
-- The Jam
The Sanity Inspector
> "jackkincaid" <theov...@another.com> wrote in message
> news:a6hfc1$3e8$1...@samba.rahul.net...
> > It is a matter of
> > free choice of the individual to be come a Muslim (or Christian or
> > whatever) and no Muslim has a right to insist that the governamce
> > of a country should be altered to suit their faith alone.
> SV
> No more than anyone has the right to insist their beliefs be made law. If
> there are enough Muslims in a democratic country their beliefs will likely
> become law. Correct?
Then what do you make of Algeria? A group whose avowed goal was to
impose an Islamic dictatorship was seemingly on the way to winning the
national elections. But the military dictatorship quashed the
results, and it's been the familiar round of insurgency and repression
ever since. IMO, this falls under the category of being one's own
worst enemy.
Ohmyrus
>
>Yes. See the above link.
>
You are a progressive Muslim and I wish all Muslims are like you. But as my old
professor used to say, "The proof of the pudding is in the eating."
The Hadith above relates to the killing of apostates. The link leads to an
article by an author who disagress that apostates should be killed. You agree
with him. But as the author admitted, his views are in the minority. The
majority of Islamic clerics are of the opinion, therefore, that apostates
should be killed.
We can discuss till the cows come home on what is the true Islam. Your view of
an Islamic state is that of a tolerant society complete with elections and a
free press. I don't know what true Islam is. All I know is what I actually see
in the Islamic world.
Like my professor used to say, "The proof of the pudding is in the eating."
There have been 4 attempts to create an Islamic state:
1)Saudi Arabia - the oldest surviving Islamic state. Monarchy version.
2)Iran - Republican version.
3)Pakistan under Zia Ul Haq. defunct.
4)Afghanistan under the Taliban. defunct and embarrassing to Muslims.
Does any appeal to you? It does not to me. I don't think it appeals to you
either because I recall you having some harsh words about them in an earlier
post.
In practice, you may say that an Islamic state can also have a free press and
elections and the freedom to choose one's religions. But so far, all attempts
have not achieve this.
Ohmyrus
>
>Yes. See the above link.
I have read the link. Thanx. But the author admitted that his is a minority
view.
thebit
> > SV
> > Muslims ought to have a greater loyalty to God than to anything else.
>
> The problem is that religious dogma is presented as reason. Government must
> strive to act with reason -- not according to some outdated, fictional,
> bigoted book for the uneducated.
Please read those words again: "outdated, fictional,
bigoted book for the uneducated." Now tell us who is acting like the bigot? Are
you telling us that all Muslims are uneducated? And Governments NEVER act with
reason: they act with self-interest in mind. Self-interest has little to do with
objectivity.
> > The American leaders are morally equivalent to bin Ladin and yes, that is
> > grotesque. They are equally as willing to kill innocents to farther their
> > own causes.
>
> Such a response, while as surgical as the world has ever
> seen, is not without its civilian tragedies.
Oh so it is only a "tragedy"! It is murder, plain and simple. One can turn this
sick rationalisation around: "Bin Laden (or whoever did it) was only after the
Financial power of the US. So he went after the WTC. It is a "tragedy" that
civilians died."
> It is horrible that we can
> miss, and we are doing our best to spare the innocents while we decimate
> those who would destroy us.
"The proof is in the pudding". The murder of 3000 Afghans is not "justice". It
is cold-blooded murder.
> I agree with him. Your accusations are far from reasonable -- as is a
> government rigidly based on religion.
"Reasonable" is a government based on the Objective source of everything.
Reasonable is not a government which bombs and kills people to satisfy its own
ego.
Maria Hansmann
>
> The Hadith above relates to the killing of apostates. The link leads to an
> article by an author who disagress that apostates should be killed. You
agree
> with him. But as the author admitted, his views are in the minority.
And? Just because it's the minority view, it doesn't make it wrong. These
things change, you know. In 100 years maybe it's the majority view. (I
hope.)
>Your view of
> an Islamic state is that of a tolerant society complete with elections and
a
> free press.
As is it the view of most muslims who are able to read and write and are
capable to see that the West isn't just barebreasted female tourists getting
drunk and sleeping around with locals.
>I don't know what true Islam is.
We muslims don't know either. That's why we fight so violently over this
issue. <tongue in cheek>
>All I know is what I actually see
> in the Islamic world.
Which, as you might know or not, houses only 10-30% of the muslim population
if the world. (Numbers depend upon different estimations and how you define
"Islamic world".)
> There have been 4 attempts to create an Islamic state:
*rolling eyes* Define "Islamic state". From your examples, I get your idea
about "Islamic state", but I, as a muslim, could argue with you until the
grass turns blue about the "Islamic" qualities of these states.
Possible definitions of "Islamic State" for me are:
1) idealistic dreamland where all people live in happines and bliss through
the application of the qur'an "by the word". Can realistically only come
true through the Mahdi.
2)The situation in Medina before the death of the prophet (saw). The most
uncontested version of an "islamic state" - and the most real one.
(Un)fortunately it is history.
3) State where a majority of people are followers of Islam - in whatever
form.
4) State where the legislation is (strongly) influenced by muslim ideals and
rules laid out in the qur'an.
Number 4 is the most difficult definition. It would first have to be agreed
upon what is "islamic" and what not. What are the ideals and how are they
applied? In 7th century CE it was clear - it was what Muhammad (saw)
decreed. Since then times have changed. We are no longer camel nomads.
Although some people like to believe it, we cannot live by the same rules
any longer. I mean, Muhammad changed a lot of things to the better. It would
seem to be logical to continue his legacy - to improve the legal system for
the happiness of all people.
> In practice, you may say that an Islamic state can also have a free press
and
> elections and the freedom to choose one's religions. But so far, all
attempts
> have not achieve this.
Trust me - we are working on it. And with the help of human rights groups,
the UN, and certain NGO's, we are getting closer. The muslim world helped
Europe to overcome its Dark Age. (It got repaid by colonialism.) Now it is
time for Europe to return some favours - without biased criticism. JMHO.
m.h.
thebit
Yes. It probably is a minority view. But numbers are not my sole criteria. The
explanation is more consistent with the Qur'an.
Regards
thebit
> >> Or do you have a different interpretation of that Hadith?
> >
> >Yes. See the above link.
> >
>
> You are a progressive Muslim and I wish all Muslims are like you. But as my old
> professor used to say, "The proof of the pudding is in the eating."
>
> The Hadith above relates to the killing of apostates. The link leads to an
> article by an author who disagress that apostates should be killed. You agree
> with him. But as the author admitted, his views are in the minority. The
> majority of Islamic clerics are of the opinion, therefore, that apostates
> should be killed.
But even "classical" sources state that an apostate who engages the Muslim in war
is the one who is put to death.
> We can discuss till the cows come home on what is the true Islam.
Thats why we are here.
> Your view of
> an Islamic state is that of a tolerant society complete with elections and a
> free press. I don't know what true Islam is. All I know is what I actually see
> in the Islamic world.
True. But I have never seen anyone deny that Muslims as a Worlwide Community are
backward. We do not see advances in Science, Arts, Technology coming from the
Muslim world (in general). "True" Islam ought to be defined by the Qur'an.
> There have been 4 attempts to create an Islamic state:
> 1)Saudi Arabia - the oldest surviving Islamic state. Monarchy version.
If people wish to be governed by a monarchy, and this is come via mutual
consultation, then its fine by me. But I am not sure the Saudi monarchy has come
this way.
> 2)Iran - Republican version.
Iran is a slightly different case. The official position of Iran is that Shi'ia
Islam is the State Religion. Within Shi'ia Islam, only a descendant of the Prophet
is allowed to be the political and spiritual leader of the Community.
> 3)Pakistan under Zia Ul Haq. defunct.
An attempt, but not a very good one, I agree.
> 4)Afghanistan under the Taliban. defunct and embarrassing to Muslims.
Again. Did the Taliban come via mutual consultation. If they did, I nor anyone else
can argue. We can voice our concerns, but that is all they ought to be. However, I
do not think they did come via a mutual acceptance.
> Does any appeal to you?
No. They don't. Because they seem to use Religion to maintain power.
> In practice, you may say that an Islamic state can also have a free press and
> elections and the freedom to choose one's religions. But so far, all attempts
> have not achieve this.
I agree. All attempts in recent history seem to have failed. That, I feel, is
because no Muslim Community attempts to address key issue. We let them pass us by,
and hand them over to a preist-class who have imposed themselves on the Muslims.
The first issue is teaching Islamic values to Muslims.
Regards
asimm...@yahoo.com
> 1)Saudi Arabia - the oldest surviving Islamic state. Monarchy version.
> 2)Iran - Republican version.
> 3)Pakistan under Zia Ul Haq. defunct.
> 4)Afghanistan under the Taliban. defunct and embarrassing to Muslims.
>
This is actually untrue. Saudi Arabia was the result of nationalistic
tendencies. Th Arabs revolted against the Turks. King Abdul Aziz
found a rallying point around religious revivalism in the Wahhabi
movement. Iran originated also out of anti-Shah sentiments and this
sentiment was channelized through Islam. Pakistan was not an Islamic
state under Zia, but a military dictatorship. Afganistan under the
Taliban were thrust into the power leadership due to the momentum
gained through their revolt. They did not originate with any thoughts
towards revivalism but protection of people from vagabonds.
Ohmyrus
>upon what is "islamic" and what not. What are the ideals and how are they
>applied? In 7th century CE it was clear - it was what Muhammad (saw)
>decreed. Since then times have changed. We are no longer camel nomads.
>Although some people like to believe it, we cannot live by the same rules
>any longer. I mean, Muhammad changed a lot of things to the better. It would
>seem to be logical to continue his legacy - to improve the legal system for
>the happiness of all people.
I agree with you on this. You cannot be living by the same rules any longer.
But the essence of Muhammad's teachings can still be applied. For example, his
love for peace, his compassion for the poor and his egalitarianism will do the
world a lot of good. However, these ideas must be re-interpreted and adapted
for the 21st century.
Some Muslims like the Taliban want to apply the old rules rigidly and the
result is the re-creation of a medieval society. Some of these old rules in
fact, has hindered the progress of the Muslim world.
Prior to 1700, the Islamic world, led by the Ottoman Turks, were richer and
more powerful and more advanced in the arts and sciences than the Christian
west. But the west overtook the Muslim world after 1700. One reason was that
the west could develop the banking industry.
Besides enabling businessmen the borrow money, banks also encouraged savings
and investments. Savings from thousands of individuals can be pooled together
to invest in joint stock companies which would be beyond the capability of the
single individual. These means that companies could enjoy economies of scale.
As any economist will tell you, savings and investments promote economic
growth. But the Turks and the Muslim world was at that time hampered by
prohibitions against usury. That is why Istanbul did not develop into a
financial centre at that time.
Cheers and regards. Got to go back to my studies. Bye for now.
Beowulf
"Ohmyrus" <ohm...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:a7kddi$6vu$1...@samba.rahul.net...
Dear Ohmyrus,
The western banking system has existed since the time of the greeks and
was well established long before Islam existed. The reason that the "west"
whatever that expression means, expanded was because of developments in
industry and agriculture, I believe they can be traced back to the
introduction of the Turnip as a winter feed for cattle, which meant that
cattle no longer needed to be slaughtered in October, but could be kept
alive ,somehow I dont think that this yearly event in Britain and northern
europe has a like within the Islamic (Arab) world, from there the
development of things such as the spinning Jenny, and the atmospheric engine
lead to an Industrial revolution.
The reason that the Islamic world has not developed banking was/is (I am
told) because various hadith interpret the Qur'an as prohibiting the lending
of money and rent (interest) on that lent money, this is usually described
as usuary,irrespective as to whether it is usury or not (similar arguments
existed in europe).
It should also be remembered that before the forced annexation of Egypt
and Syria, Europe (Roman Empire) was a very prosperous place indeed, the
resultant chaos caused by the various Islamic invasions propelled europe
into a dark age that took eight hundred years to climb out of, the
reintroduction of european ideas caused a renaissance which together with
the proto-industrial revolution which destined europe to regain its
technological advantages.
The Islamic world had access to these ideas, Plato etc, and others
yet for reasons which I dont understand did not use them in any real
practical way, which would have advanced its own civilisation ahead of any
of the other then existing civilisations.
Perhaps a debate on what these hindrances were and are, would be a good
thing , so that Islam could avoid similar problems in the fututre?
Beowulf
Saqib Virk
news:a7meqi$ilk$1...@samba.rahul.net...
>
> It should also be remembered that before the forced annexation
> of Egypt and Syria, Europe (Roman Empire) was a very
> prosperous place indeed, the resultant chaos caused by the various
> Islamic invasions propelled europe into a dark age that took eight
> hundred years to climb out of,
SV
Most earth dwelling historians will state the sack of Rome by Alaric
the Visigoth in AD 410 was the beginning of the dark ages. Europe was
heading into the dark ages long before the advent of Islam. The
advances and accomplishments of the the Muslims allowed the Christians
to step out of the dark ages. Let me repeat; Europe was well into it's
decline before the advent of Islam. The dark ages began in the 5th
century AD while Islam was founded in the early part of the 7th
century AD. How is it that you are unaware of this? No historian worth
a dime would claim Islam caused the dark ages and the collapse of
European society. Some so-called European historians have a bone to
pick with Islam and will overlook or outright bend facts to suit their
propaganda. However some facts cannot be escaped. It is quite easy for
you to discover the starting point of the dark ages and the starting
point of Islam. You will, no doubt, be able to discover Islam came
after the decline of Europe and so Islam could not have been the cause
of that decline. Quite simple really.
> the reintroduction of european ideas
> caused a renaissance which together with the proto-industrial
> revolution which destined europe to regain its technological
> advantages.
SV
"Because Europe was reacting against Islam it belittled the influence
of Saracens [Muslims] and exaggerated its dependence on its Greek and
Roman heritage. So today an important task for us is to correct this
false emphasis and to acknowledge fully our debt to the Arab and
Islamic world" (W. Montgomery Watt, Islamic Surveys: The Influence of
Islam on Medieval Europe; Edinburgh,
England; 1972; p.84).
"When one becomes aware of the full extent of Arab experimenting, Arab
thinking and Arab writing, one sees that without the Arabs, European
science and philosophy would not have developed when they did...and
the Europeans had to learn all they could from the Arabs before they
themselves could make farther advances." (Influences of Islam on
Medieval Europe, M.Watt)
The next generation works on what the previous generations built. The
Muslims did indeed learn from Greek, Persian and Hindu works. However,
many Westerners seems to imagine civilization went from the Greeks to
the Reniassance with nothing in between. While Europe was trapped in
the dark ages, the Muslims preserved and built on the knowledge of the
Romans, Persians and Indians.
For example. up to about 300 AD the Greeks were making scientific
advancements in the field of medicine. The Greeks were using herbs and
homeopathic medicine and experimenting with new cures. That soon
changed and I will quote from "A History of Herbal Plants", by
Richard, Le Strange:
"After the fall of the Roman Empire, the progress of medicine in the
West was seriously affected and before long the use of these herbal
preparations and remedies became obscured in myth and superstition,
while very little appears to have been added by means of original
research. Indeed the early Christians certainly retarded any progress
that could have been made - medicinal cures had to take second place
to the holy power of the Church. Not only that, since the majority of
diseases were thought of as heaven-sent punishment for sins committed
it was believed that only prayer and repentance would alleviate them.
Christian hospitals certainly existed. One of the earliest was founded
by St.Basil of Caesarea in A.AD. 372, but even he is recorded as
denying that illness and disease were of natural origin. His most
frequent prescription was prayer and repentance. It was left to the
Arabian physicians to continue the research into medicine. They began
by translating the original works of the Greeks into Arabic, adding
their own observations and bringing into general use new drugs and
plants..."
--
Peace,
Saqib Virk
Beowulf
Dear Saqib,
I have only just noticed your post , so please forgive me my tardiness
in replying to you.
"Saqib Virk" <sv...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a8tmkh$r2e$1...@samba.rahul.net...
> "Beowulf" <peter....@swipnet.se> wrote in message
> news:a7meqi$ilk$1...@samba.rahul.net...
> >
> > It should also be remembered that before the forced annexation
> > of Egypt and Syria, Europe (Roman Empire) was a very
> > prosperous place indeed, the resultant chaos caused by the various
> > Islamic invasions propelled europe into a dark age that took eight
> > hundred years to climb out of,
>
> SV
> Most earth dwelling historians will state the sack of Rome by Alaric
> the Visigoth in AD 410 was the beginning of the dark ages. Europe was
> heading into the dark ages long before the advent of Islam. The
> advances and accomplishments of the the Muslims allowed the Christians
> to step out of the dark ages. Let me repeat; Europe was well into it's
> decline before the advent of Islam. The dark ages began in the 5th
> century AD while Islam was founded in the early part of the 7th
> century AD. How is it that you are unaware of this? No historian worth
> a dime would claim Islam caused the dark ages and the collapse of
> European society.
The Historian (amongst others) that I rely on ( partially ) for this
statement is Hugh Trevor-Roper, one of the twentieth centuries foremost
historians (and definately worth more than a dime!) , and I am well aware of
the dating you mention :) However the Barbarian conquest oif the WESTERN
Roman Empire did not in fact change the beaurocracy of the empire leaving
the infrastructure intact, which is why they were able to take over the
western empire intact without it splitting into numerous fiefdoms. It was
the military invasions of Egypt and Syria, that caused the collapse of
western europe into the Dark Ages,
Some so-called European historians have a bone to
> pick with Islam and will overlook or outright bend facts to suit their
> propaganda. However some facts cannot be escaped. It is quite easy for
> you to discover the starting point of the dark ages and the starting
> point of Islam. You will, no doubt, be able to discover Islam came
> after the decline of Europe and so Islam could not have been the cause
> of that decline. Quite simple really.
Hugh Trevor-Roper as far as I can see has no bone to pick with Islam and has
attempted along with his french counterparts ( who originated the theories)
to convey historical facts , not myths, Egypts importance along with that of
Syria was vital to the well being of europe, Egypt was europes bread basket
and fed the masses as any decent historian will relate.
The fact is that europe did not fall into chaos until the emergence of
Islam on the international scene, this is incontrovertible fact.
> > the reintroduction of european ideas
> > caused a renaissance which together with the proto-industrial
> > revolution which destined europe to regain its technological
> > advantages.
>
> SV
>
> "Because Europe was reacting against Islam it belittled the influence
> of Saracens [Muslims] and exaggerated its dependence on its Greek and
> Roman heritage. So today an important task for us is to correct this
> false emphasis and to acknowledge fully our debt to the Arab and
> Islamic world" (W. Montgomery Watt, Islamic Surveys: The Influence of
> Islam on Medieval Europe; Edinburgh,
> England; 1972; p.84).
>
> "When one becomes aware of the full extent of Arab experimenting, Arab
> thinking and Arab writing, one sees that without the Arabs, European
> science and philosophy would not have developed when they did...and
> the Europeans had to learn all they could from the Arabs before they
> themselves could make farther advances." (Influences of Islam on
> Medieval Europe, M.Watt)
The basis for the science that reemerged was european, I do not deny that
Indian and Arab science added to it, but by the time that european science
had re-emerged from the religious stranglehold that The RC church had laid
upon it Islamic science had already begun to stagnate.
> The next generation works on what the previous generations built. The
> Muslims did indeed learn from Greek, Persian and Hindu works. However,
> many Westerners seems to imagine civilization went from the Greeks to
> the Reniassance with nothing in between. While Europe was trapped in
> the dark ages, the Muslims preserved and built on the knowledge of the
> Romans, Persians and Indians.
>
> For example. up to about 300 AD the Greeks were making scientific
> advancements in the field of medicine. The Greeks were using herbs and
> homeopathic medicine and experimenting with new cures. That soon
> changed and I will quote from "A History of Herbal Plants", by
> Richard, Le Strange:
>
> "After the fall of the Roman Empire,
Firstly you should have written, "after the fall of the WESTERN empire" not
roman empire, the eastern roman empire continued until the fall of
Constantinople, indeed their official documents always made mention ot the
fact that they were the Roman empire. The Greeks (in the eastern empire)
continued to expand their knowledge of medicine and other sciences up to the
fall of Constantinople. (c1400)
<the progress of medicine in the
> West was seriously affected
Again only in the west...... in the east the scene was rather different.
and before long the use of these herbal
> preparations and remedies became obscured in myth and superstition,
> while very little appears to have been added by means of original
> research. Indeed the early Christians certainly retarded any progress
> that could have been made - medicinal cures had to take second place
> to the holy power of the Church. Not only that, since the majority of
> diseases were thought of as heaven-sent punishment for sins committed
> it was believed that only prayer and repentance would alleviate them.
> Christian hospitals certainly existed. One of the earliest was founded
> by St.Basil of Caesarea in A.AD. 372, but even he is recorded as
> denying that illness and disease were of natural origin.
Which statement is perfectly consonant with the understanding of his day.
Disease was thought to be of supernatural origin by everyone let alone
christians. I have met muslims who believe some diseases are supernatural in
origin, so this is a universal misunderstanding not a merely christian one.
His most
> frequent prescription was prayer and repentance. It was left to the
> Arabian physicians to continue the research into medicine. They began
> by translating the original works of the Greeks into Arabic, adding
> their own observations and bringing into general use new drugs and
> plants..."
>
The arab researchers based their work and research on works they received in
the main from Christian sources (Syria, Greece, Rome etc) or from India
Korea and China, and no one should deny them their place in the limelight,
however you would deny the source work, which is plainly wrong, I dont
remember now what this original post was about, but the development of ideas
that already existed is not as brilliant as the development of a totally new
idea and science, which is what the Greeks, Egyptians and others did, that
Islam benefitted from it, fine, but to deny those unknown scientists of
yesteryear their due rights is wrong, irrespective as to their religious
beliefs.
As to the modern revisionist history which you seem to believe in, what
is so wrong with knowing that the islamic invasions of the countries
mentioned changed the world? Any reasonable perusal of the historical events
will shew that the Roman (western) empire was still structurally functioning
until the islamic events in Egypt cut of the Wheat supply and sent europe
into a chaos of starvation and war helped in no small way by the similar
conquest of Syria which cut off the supply of Gold to western europe and the
closing of the routes to the east ( furthering the confusion already
reigning). Why you refuse to accept this is beyond me, the fact is that ALL
western antagonism towards Islam is based on these events and the islamic
invasions of western europe, and an understanding of this would certainly
help in reducing tension between the "west" and the Islamic world and vice
versa, the idiot idea that suddenly one day the west discovered islam and
decided to invade the ME( some 3/400 years after the event!) is one idea
that would go the way of the Dodo, and about time too.......
> --
> Peace,
> Saqib Virk
In Gods Peace
Beowulf
asimm...@yahoo.com
>
> The Historian (amongst others) that I rely on ( partially ) for this
> statement is Hugh Trevor-Roper, one of the twentieth centuries foremost
> historians (and definately worth more than a dime!) , and I am well aware of
> the dating you mention :) However the Barbarian conquest oif the WESTERN
> Roman Empire did not in fact change the beaurocracy of the empire leaving
> the infrastructure intact, which is why they were able to take over the
> western empire intact without it splitting into numerous fiefdoms. It was
> the military invasions of Egypt and Syria, that caused the collapse of
> western europe into the Dark Ages,
>
>
Beowul wants to pass off a historical opinion through the word
'modern'. The truth of the matter is that the fall of the empire is
attributed by MOST scholars through multiple factors. Diocletian
(284-305) faced an empire that was preceded by a century of
mismanagement, internal dissent, foreign invasions, and economic
collapse. It was he who shifted the throne to the East, and
hereditary rule was restored through him. The barbarian defeat was
merely one of the symptoms of an already decaying civilization. Other
problems were the Christian 'heresies' that further divided the
empire. The division between the Eastern and Western Roman Empire
contributed to the fall, along with other factors including continual
assault from outside forces. Even Gibbon, whose opinion is not
rejected, but scholars hold it as modified, says:
"But the decline of Rome was the natural and inevitable effect of
immoderate greatness. Prosperity ripened the principle of decay; the
causes of destruction multiplied with the extent of conquest; and, as
soon as time or accident had removed the artificial supports, the
stupendous fabric yielded to the pressure of its own weight.... The
victorious legions, who, in distant wars, acquired the vices of
strangers and mercenaries, first oppressed the freedom of the
republic, and afterwards violated the majesty of the purple. The
emperors, anxious for their personal safety and the public peace, were
reduced to the base expedient of corrupting the discipline which
rendered them alike formidable to their sovereign and to the enemy;
the vigour of the military government was relaxed, and finally
dissolved, by the partial institutions of Constantine; and the Roman
world was overwhelmed by a deluge of Barbarians."
Notice that Gibbon attributes the fall of the Empire to a series of
factors, including the enormous breadth of the empire. The foreign
invasion led to the official division of the Romand Empire into the
Eastern half and the Western half. Egypt and Syria were part of the
EASTERN Roman Empire, i.e. the Byzantine Empire, and their state
before the conquest of Islam was of total exploitation. The Byzantine
Empire exploited the vast resources of corn and shippling, along with
crushing any heresies, including the Jacobite heresy. Syria was no
different, such that the taxes levied were so overbearing that
citizens had to sell their children for clearing government dues. How
does one blame the fall of the Western Roman Empire on the Arabs
invasion of Syria and Egypt, when the Byzantines were in charge of
those regions?
It was the Eastern half which carried on the traditions of the Roman
Empire, mopre so than the Greeks. Thus, the explanation that the
Western Empire went into decline when the Muslims invaded and took
over Syria and Egypt is utterly baseless.
>
> Hugh Trevor-Roper as far as I can see has no bone to pick with Islam and has
> attempted along with his french counterparts ( who originated the theories)
> to convey historical facts , not myths, Egypts importance along with that of
> Syria was vital to the well being of europe, Egypt was europes bread basket
> and fed the masses as any decent historian will relate.
> The fact is that europe did not fall into chaos until the emergence of
> Islam on the international scene, this is incontrovertible fact.
>
It is not an incontrovertible fact. There are a wide number of
sources, whose authors have no bones to pick with Islam, that
originated from the nineteenth century onwards attributing the fall of
the Roman Empire to lead poisoning. Please stop trying to grab at
straws, because to claim that the Muslims led to the downfall of
Europe is baseless.
Islam led to the renaissance, and it is no coincidence that the
enlightenment resulted from European exposure to Muslim Spain,
al-Andalus. It was the empirical thought, the precision of the Arab
science and methodology, that led to the scientific method, giving
birth to the modern world. The Arab legacy is unmatched in this area.
Greeks were mainly theoreticians, thus there interest in philosophy,
and dualism.
>
> The basis for the science that reemerged was european, I do not deny that
> Indian and Arab science added to it, but by the time that european science
> had re-emerged from the religious stranglehold that The RC church had laid
> upon it Islamic science had already begun to stagnate.
>
First of all, there is NO SUCH THING as ISLAMIC science. Islam
provided the impulse for its practicioners to understand the world
around them. Science is empirical and is based upon stringent
observation. The Muslim world revolutionized this, and one finds
unprecedented breadth of knowledge that allowed the West to free
itself from the stagnation of the West, especially Europe. Roger
Bacon, the founder of the empirical method, said that the only way to
sure knowledge was through the Arab works. It is true the Muslims
began to stagnate, but the metaphysical aspect of history tells us
that when a civilization declines, its values are transmitted to
another civilization. This is the history of the human race.
>
> Firstly you should have written, "after the fall of the WESTERN empire" not
> roman empire, the eastern roman empire continued until the fall of
> Constantinople, indeed their official documents always made mention ot the
> fact that they were the Roman empire. The Greeks (in the eastern empire)
> continued to expand their knowledge of medicine and other sciences up to the
> fall of Constantinople. (c1400)
>
So what. They both had different rulers and most importantly,
different churches who were often at odds with each other.
>
> Which statement is perfectly consonant with the understanding of his day.
> Disease was thought to be of supernatural origin by everyone let alone
> christians. I have met muslims who believe some diseases are supernatural in
> origin, so this is a universal misunderstanding not a merely christian one.
>
So what? We are not talking about present day Muslims, who are
actually the Muslims of our own Dark Ages, we are talking about a
general attitude that was prevalent in the Muslim world at a
particular time. The fact is that this belief of supernaturalism was
authorized by the CHURCH ITSELF whose claim to authority was alleged
to come from heaven itself. This is by far different than saying some
Muslims are superstitious.
> >
> The arab researchers based their work and research on works they received in
> the main from Christian sources (Syria, Greece, Rome etc) or from India
> Korea and China, and no one should deny them their place in the limelight,
> however you would deny the source work, which is plainly wrong, I dont
> remember now what this original post was about, but the development of ideas
> that already existed is not as brilliant as the development of a totally new
> idea and science, which is what the Greeks, Egyptians and others did, that
> Islam benefitted from it, fine, but to deny those unknown scientists of
> yesteryear their due rights is wrong, irrespective as to their religious
> beliefs.
Please tell me the CHRISTIANS sources they based their works on? You
don't have a single idea. The influences of medicine come from people
like Galen, and influences of philosophy come from people like
Aristotle. Name these alleged Christian sources. The fact of the
matter is that Muslim civilization was UNPRECEDENTED in the practicing
of the empirical method, and it is this feature that gave birth to the
modern civilization. When Europe opened up its doors to al-Andalus,
the revolution began. The Crusaders took from the Muslims and added
to it. They became exposed to things like soap.
Your argument that the fall of teh West happened because of Islam is
absurd.
Beowulf
Dear Asimmehmood,
<asimm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:aa3072$sik$1...@samba.rahul.net...
> "B
> >
> > The Historian (amongst others) that I rely on ( partially ) for this
> > statement is Hugh Trevor-Roper, one of the twentieth centuries foremost
> > historians (and definately worth more than a dime!) , and I am well
aware of
> > the dating you mention :) However the Barbarian conquest oif the WESTERN
> > Roman Empire did not in fact change the beaurocracy of the empire
leaving
> > the infrastructure intact, which is why they were able to take over the
> > western empire intact without it splitting into numerous fiefdoms. It
was
> > the military invasions of Egypt and Syria, that caused the collapse of
> > western europe into the Dark Ages,
> >
> >
>
>
> Beowul wants to pass off a historical opinion through the word
> 'modern'.
There is a problem with the word modern now?
The truth of the matter is that the fall of the empire is
> attributed by MOST scholars through multiple factors.
I did not say that there were not multiple factors, what I am stating is
that the straw that broke the camels back was the islamic invasions of Egypt
and Syria, the resultant economic chaos and the chaos caused by starvation
and privation were caused by those conquests.
> It was the Eastern half which carried on the traditions of the Roman
> Empire, more so than the Greeks. Thus, the explanation that the
> Western Empire went into decline when the Muslims invaded and took
> over Syria and Egypt is utterly baseless.
That you quote from Gibbons is amusing, but not very useful.
> > Hugh Trevor-Roper as far as I can see has no bone to pick with Islam and
has
> > attempted along with his french counterparts ( who originated the
theories)
> > to convey historical facts , not myths, Egypts importance along with
that of
> > Syria was vital to the well being of europe, Egypt was europes bread
basket
> > and fed the masses as any decent historian will relate.
> > The fact is that europe did not fall into chaos until the emergence
of
> > Islam on the international scene, this is incontrovertible fact.
> >
>
> It is not an incontrovertible fact. There are a wide number of
> sources, whose authors have no bones to pick with Islam, that
> originated from the nineteenth century onwards attributing the fall of
> the Roman Empire to lead poisoning. Please stop trying to grab at
> straws, because to claim that the Muslims led to the downfall of
> Europe is baseless.
I do not say that it was the only cause but that it was the final cause :)
And it is far from baseless.
> Islam led to the renaissance, and it is no coincidence that the
> enlightenment resulted from European exposure to Muslim Spain,
> al-Andalus. It was the empirical thought, the precision of the Arab
> science and methodology, that led to the scientific method, giving
> birth to the modern world. The Arab legacy is unmatched in this area.
> Greeks were mainly theoreticians, thus there interest in philosophy,
> and dualism.
These theoreticians invented the steam turbine amongst other things, self
cleaning hydraulic systems, hypocausts medicines and many other things, I am
suprised that you call them merely theoreticians, their mathematics was not
theoretical either, an odd statement to make.
> > The basis for the science that reemerged was european, I do not deny
that
> > Indian and Arab science added to it, but by the time that european
science
> > had re-emerged from the religious stranglehold that The RC church had
laid
> > upon it Islamic science had already begun to stagnate.
> >
>
> First of all, there is NO SUCH THING as ISLAMIC science.
fair enough, how about science within the islamic sphere of influence? which
is what I meant, after all many of the ideas arabs used were not only from
Europe, but from India and China.
Islam
> provided the impulse for its practicioners to understand the world
> around them. Science is empirical and is based upon stringent
> observation. The Muslim world revolutionized this, and one finds
> unprecedented breadth of knowledge that allowed the West to free
> itself from the stagnation of the West, especially Europe.
That last sentence has no meaning...... the west freed the west and europe?
Roger
> Bacon, the founder of the empirical method,
errr sorry to inform you but he was an Englishman and not even a tiny bit
arab...... :)
said that the only way to
> sure knowledge was through the Arab works. It is true the Muslims
> began to stagnate, but the metaphysical aspect of history tells us
> that when a civilization declines, its values are transmitted to
> another civilization. This is the history of the human race.
Glad you pointed out that last bit because that is part of what I wrote :)
> > Firstly you should have written, "after the fall of the WESTERN empire"
not
> > roman empire, the eastern roman empire continued until the fall of
> > Constantinople, indeed their official documents always made mention ot
the
> > fact that they were the Roman empire. The Greeks (in the eastern empire)
> > continued to expand their knowledge of medicine and other sciences up to
the
> > fall of Constantinople. (c1400)
> >
>
> So what. They both had different rulers and most importantly,
> different churches who were often at odds with each other.
What have the churches to do with the empires here?
> >
> > Which statement is perfectly consonant with the understanding of his
day.
> > Disease was thought to be of supernatural origin by everyone let alone
> > christians. I have met muslims who believe some diseases are
supernatural in
> > origin, so this is a universal misunderstanding not a merely christian
one.
> >
>
> So what? We are not talking about present day Muslims, who are
> actually the Muslims of our own Dark Ages, we are talking about a
> general attitude that was prevalent in the Muslim world at a
> particular time. The fact is that this belief of supernaturalism was
> authorized by the CHURCH ITSELF whose claim to authority was alleged
> to come from heaven itself. This is by far different than saying some
> Muslims are superstitious.
>from what I understand Muslims are in exactly the same position and were in
that period also in the same position, the fact that a few enlightened and
learned individuals knew differently does not detract from the fact that
masses on both "sides" were basically ignorant.
> > The arab researchers based their work and research on works they
received in
> > the main from Christian sources (Syria, Greece, Rome etc) or from India
> > Korea and China, and no one should deny them their place in the
limelight,
> > however you would deny the source work, which is plainly wrong, I dont
> > remember now what this original post was about, but the development of
ideas
> > that already existed is not as brilliant as the development of a totally
new
> > idea and science, which is what the Greeks, Egyptians and others did,
that
> > Islam benefitted from it, fine, but to deny those unknown scientists of
> > yesteryear their due rights is wrong, irrespective as to their religious
> > beliefs.
>
>
> Please tell me the CHRISTIANS sources they based their works on?
They gained their documentaion from the places they were stored, ie the
great monastic libraries. Please read what I wrote properly .
You
> don't have a single idea. The influences of medicine come from people
> like Galen, and influences of philosophy come from people like
> Aristotle.
I do not and never have claimed that Aristotle was a christian...what a
ludicrous thing to say,
Name these alleged Christian sources. The fact of the
> matter is that Muslim civilization was UNPRECEDENTED in the practicing
> of the empirical method,
For your information the Romans, the Greeks, the Indians, the Chinese have
all used and were practioners of empirical sciences, not to mention the
Egyptians, and Babylonians before them, science is science! it is ALWAYS
based on empiricism, if it isnt then it is not science. The arab
civilisation was for a time a wonder to behold and did in fact lead the
world, and came up with a few unique ideas of its own to add to the wealth
of humanities knowledge, but its science was not unique, it was merely
science.
and it is this feature that gave birth to the
> modern civilization.
Actually I think the birth of modern civilisation happened because an
english farmer found how to keep his cattle alive in winter.....this lead
directly to the Industrial Revolution, a mangold wurzel a sort of turnipis
the modern civilastions fahther :) bizare really .....
When Europe opened up its doors to al-Andalus,
> the revolution began. The Crusaders took from the Muslims and added
> to it. They became exposed to things like soap.
I do believe soap was well known before muslims turned up on the scene :)
> Your argument that the fall of teh West happened because of Islam is
> absurd.
Its not my argument or my theory but i do believe it :)
beowulf
asimm...@yahoo.com
> Salvé
>
> Dear Asimmehmood,
> <asimm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:aa3072$sik$1...@samba.rahul.net...
> > "B
> > >
> > > The Historian (amongst others) that I rely on ( partially ) for this
> > > statement is Hugh Trevor-Roper, one of the twentieth centuries foremost
> > > historians (and definately worth more than a dime!) , and I am well
> aware of
> > > the dating you mention :) However the Barbarian conquest oif the WESTERN
> > > Roman Empire did not in fact change the beaurocracy of the empire
> leaving
> > > the infrastructure intact, which is why they were able to take over the
> > > western empire intact without it splitting into numerous fiefdoms. It
> was
> > > the military invasions of Egypt and Syria, that caused the collapse of
> > > western europe into the Dark Ages,
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > Beowul wants to pass off a historical opinion through the word
> > 'modern'.
>
> There is a problem with the word modern now?
>
No, the problem is you attempting to pull off historical opinion as
fact, and seem to be innocent when all you are trying to do is
attribute the Dark Ages to the Muslim expanse into Syria and Egypt.
"The fact is that europe did not fall into chaos until the emergence
of Islam on the international scene, this is incontrovertible fact."
You then seem to prove this because the 'beaurocracy' was still
intact.
>
> I did not say that there were not multiple factors, what I am stating is
> that the straw that broke the camels back was the islamic invasions of Egypt
> and Syria, the resultant economic chaos and the chaos caused by starvation
> and privation were caused by those conquests.
>
This was not even the STRAW that broke the camels back. Syria and
Egypt were under the rule of the Eastern Roman Empire, and by then the
enmity between the two was already well-known, and when the Muslims
conquered those regions it was the Christians of the Eastern Roman
empires that helped spy FOR the Muslims, on their Western counterparts
because of the age-old hatred. Starvation and privation WITHIN EGYPT
AND SYRIA themselves was the result of European Roman rule, let alone
Muslim rule. The argument in toto is absurd.
The Roman Empire was already on its last leg, and the straw broke a
long time before Islam.
>
> > It was the Eastern half which carried on the traditions of the Roman
> > Empire, more so than the Greeks. Thus, the explanation that the
> > Western Empire went into decline when the Muslims invaded and took
> > over Syria and Egypt is utterly baseless.
>
> That you quote from Gibbons is amusing, but not very useful.
>
You are attempting to make it seem that Gibbon's opinion is rejected,
which it is not. I quoted Gibbon to illustrate the point that the
Roman Empire was ALREADY in decline, and it was the result of a NUMBER
of factors. Please don't try and pass of some historical superiority
with such words as amusing, because what was quoted from Gibbon are
HISTORICAL facts that address the state of the Empire well before
Islam burst on the scene.
> > > The fact is that europe did not fall into chaos until the emergence
> of
> > > Islam on the international scene, this is incontrovertible fact.
> > >
> >
> > It is not an incontrovertible fact. There are a wide number of
> > sources, whose authors have no bones to pick with Islam, that
> > originated from the nineteenth century onwards attributing the fall of
> > the Roman Empire to lead poisoning. Please stop trying to grab at
> > straws, because to claim that the Muslims led to the downfall of
> > Europe is baseless.
>
> I do not say that it was the only cause but that it was the final cause :)
> And it is far from baseless.
>
>
Notice the above words "The fact is that europe did not fall into
chaos until the emergence of Islam on the international scene, this is
incontrovertible fact." I know very well what you intended to imply,
and there is not even ONE SINGLE SHRED of proof which says that islam
caused the downfall of an empire that was already on its downfall.
Does one think an empire that was almost indestructible in terms of
military might could become so weak that it could be conquered by
invading TRIBES, who were never close to the art of warfare with the
Romans, if it was not ALREAD WELL ON ITS WAY into the Dark Ages.
Sorry, but the Dark Ages was the product of a decayed civilization and
the conclusion of a decayed civilization results in total stagnation.
> These theoreticians invented the steam turbine amongst other things, self
> cleaning hydraulic systems, hypocausts medicines and many other things, I am
> suprised that you call them merely theoreticians, their mathematics was not
> theoretical either, an odd statement to make.
>
They were mainly theoreticians. If one asks a scholar the
personalities by which Greeks are known, they will recount names such
as Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, and other philosophers. If one asks a
scholar about famous Arabs, he will list names such as Jabr,
Miskhawaih, and other well known SCIENTISTS. I never denied that
Greeks contributed to human advancement, but they were nowhere near
the Muslims in terms of science.
>
> fair enough, how about science within the islamic sphere of influence? which
> is what I meant, after all many of the ideas arabs used were not only from
> Europe, but from India and China.
>
No, what you meant is to deny the Muslim world its rightful place in
civilization, and you attempt to downplay it. Science, like I said
before, is based upon empiricism. The influence of islam can only be
attributed to the notion that there was NEVER a rejection of the
material world in Islam, and the Qurans constant appeal to man to
reflect on Creation and study its wonderful coherency gave men the
urge to discover their surroundings. There is absolutely NO
HISTORICAL precedent for the scientific explosion that happened in the
Muslim world. Theories of evolution, attraction, algebra, the
revolution in optics, geometry, architechure, all came into being.
All the sciences that led to revolutions in astronomy, physics,
matehmatics, and the like are a direct result of Muslim scientists.
Even architecture penetrated the European world, thus Gothic
cathedrals pattern their arches after Muslim masjids. Is it mere
coincidence that the brith of the renaissance coincided with European
exposure to al-Andalus and the Crusaders expanses into the Muslim
world?
By the way, tell me these ideas that Arabs stole for India and China.
Nobody in their right mind would deny the contributions of past
civilizations for the progress of humanity, and this is the nature of
civilization. Humanity's technological progression is a global
phenomenon and EVERYBODY is a participator.
>
> That last sentence has no meaning...... the west freed the west and europe?
>
what i meant to say, and it is obvious the meaning, the Muslim world
allowed the West to free itself from the stagnation that had infected
it.
>
> Roger
> > Bacon, the founder of the empirical method,
>
> errr sorry to inform you but he was an Englishman and not even a tiny bit
> arab...... :)
>
So what? He learned from ARAB works, and europe was becoming exposed
to the scientific precision of the Arabs. He attributed that the only
way to sure knowledge is through Arab works. All this happened at a
time when Europe was opening its expansion and realizing, wow, what a
civilization. but today, the racism is still prevalent in the west,
when all one hears is the name Greece and Roman in history class, and
a couple of pages attributed to the Arab 'conquests'.
Is it not strange that Europe had to be reintroduced to Greek and
Roman works through Arabic translations. How clear does this
demonstrate the fact that Europe was so dumb-headed that they did not
even know the treasures they possessed in their own backyards, and
they had to find out about it through a totally different
civilization.
> > >
> >
> > So what. They both had different rulers and most importantly,
> > different churches who were often at odds with each other.
>
> What have the churches to do with the empires here?
>
Because, the church INFLUENCED leadership, and government policy was
many times influenced by religous beliefs. Are you denying the role
the church played in leadership in Europe. By then, they basically
were TWO separate empires.
>
> >from what I understand Muslims are in exactly the same position and were in
> that period also in the same position, the fact that a few enlightened and
> learned individuals knew differently does not detract from the fact that
> masses on both "sides" were basically ignorant.
>
No they weren't. Muslims were attending hospitals, not being told to
go to th church and prayed for. I said specifically that the belief
in superstitions was directly AUTHORIZED BY THE CHURCH. It had a
religious basis. there was and is none for Islam. It is a totally
different matter.
> >
> > Please tell me the CHRISTIANS sources they based their works on?
>
> They gained their documentaion from the places they were stored, ie the
> great monastic libraries. Please read what I wrote properly .
>
I said name me a single work they recieved thes works from and which
ideas they stole it from. demonstrate to me that algebra was
soemthing that was known previously in India, China, or Greece. You
said that the West fell into the Dark Ages because of Islam, but what
is clear is that there was NOTHING but decay for the Empire hundreds
of years before the birth of the Islamic civilization.
>
> For your information the Romans, the Greeks, the Indians, the Chinese have
> all used and were practioners of empirical sciences, not to mention the
> Egyptians, and Babylonians before them, science is science! it is ALWAYS
> based on empiricism, if it isnt then it is not science. The arab
> civilisation was for a time a wonder to behold and did in fact lead the
> world, and came up with a few unique ideas of its own to add to the wealth
> of humanities knowledge, but its science was not unique, it was merely
> science.
>
Who denied this? It was never the argument. I said the Muslims
practice of science was UNPRECEDENTED in history and it gave birth to
the modern civilization. Alexander the Great had spread his empire
thousands of miles into Asia. Rome already had contact with India and
China before the Muslims even were born. Why was Europe not taking
advantage of these things for hundreds of years before islam's birth.
Europe was quiet well on its way to the Dark Ages.
>
> Its not my argument or my theory but i do believe it :)
>
So you use words such as incontrovertible facts?
Beowulf
Beouwlf wrote:-
> > For your information the Romans, the Greeks, the Indians, the Chinese
have
> > all used and were practioners of empirical sciences, not to mention the
> > Egyptians, and Babylonians before them, science is science! it is ALWAYS
> > based on empiricism, if it isnt then it is not science. The arab
> > civilisation was for a time a wonder to behold and did in fact lead the
> > world, and came up with a few unique ideas of its own to add to the
wealth
> > of humanities knowledge, but its science was not unique, it was merely
> > science.
> >
Assimmemood wrote :-
> Who denied this? It was never the argument. I said the Muslims
> practice of science was UNPRECEDENTED in history and it gave birth to
> the modern civilization. Alexander the Great had spread his empire
> thousands of miles into Asia. Rome already had contact with India and
> China before the Muslims even were born. Why was Europe not taking
> advantage of these things for hundreds of years before islam's birth.
> Europe was quiet well on its way to the Dark Ages.
>
>
> >
> > Its not my argument or my theory but i do believe it :)
> >
>
> So you use words such as incontrovertible facts?
>
You quote from a historian dead from 300 years and ignore later historians
who disagree with him, their findings are based upon recent discoveries, and
the modern science of archeology which did not exist in his day, you try to
make the Arab people into a sort of "Ubermensch" which they are not, when I
say that they based most of their ideas and discoveries on earlier ideas you
deny it then later in an about face, write that I deny this and that that is
what you mean....Muslim science which in a previous post you deny exists was
not unprecedented, your revisionist ideas completely deny the existence of
China and its millenia of scientific achievment before the birth of
Muhammed, you want ideas that the arabs got from them? ok, Paper, gunpowder
and a series of weapons including crossbows, rockets and the amasing
catapult that was later developed further in europe, from India the
circulation of the blood and the so called "arabic numerals" just to mention
two ideas which were in existence 300 years before Muhammed.
I frankly do not know why you want to raise the arab civilisation above
all others, at its peak it possibly equivalent in places to that of the
Roman or Greek empires, never reached the hights that the Chinese empire
reached ( europe eventually passed it, but it took a long time!) it is
debateable if it can be said that they reached the standard in certain areas
of the ancient egyptians, ofcourse you will deny this, it seems that you
want to wipe out their contributions to world civilisation, and then make
the totally absurd claim that muslim science (but not Islamic
apparently.......) laid the foundations of modern civilisation, it may have
done in arabia, but certainly not in europe, the fact that algebra is arabic
does not mean that arabs did any more than influence mathematically the
development of an ongoing process which takes little notice of race or
racial aspirations.
as a matter of interest arab music and dance has influenced English folk
music and dance (Morris dancing) but what philospohical ideas are universal
that come from muslim science?
The fact is that "muslim" science benefitted from that which went
before, from Greece, Rome, Egypt, Babylon, Persia, India and China, only two
of these are from europe unless there has been a continental drift I am
unaware of..... why you would deny these peoples their contributions is
beyond me, elitism perhaps?
Your denying that anyone other than arabs knew about empirical methods
is so ludicrous as to be almost not worth noting.......ancient science just
as it is today was empirical, they learnt often by trial and error and that
is the basis for empiric methods, ie it means provable.
Your denying that the final straw that broke the camels back re the
collapse of europe into the dark ages was the Islamic invasions is also
ludicrous, a final straw means that there are other reasons that contribute
but that this was the FINAL reason.......You strive in the face of many
modern historians and archeologists ( not to mention architects.....) if you
will deny people their right to their ideas it is no wonder that today there
is so much suspicion between the west and the middle east, you put forward
so many ideas that are basically wrong that I havent a clue where to start!
The crusaders expansion into the muslim world? ofcourse europeans had never
been to the middle east before? no greeks or romans ever trode the streets
of Jerusalem....ofcourse the muslim expansion into europe never brought any
of these ideas to european eyes? ie France and Spain and later Greece etc,
try reading some less partisan histories and you might get a suprise, you
will find that Arabs are merely one people in a succesion of peoples
stretching back to those ancient people who 12000 BC because of an
ecological disaster started to farm and grounded the first villages, they
are our forefathers, along with every neolithic hunter all the way back to
the unsung and unknown genious who trapped fire for the first time and the
other who learnt how to create it. I doubt very much they were from
europe.....or Arabia....or China and it wont matter a bit because they are
each and every one of us our ancestor in blood and genious. they were
neither Christian nor Muslim ...just people.
Beowulf
Fariduddien Rice
On 26 Apr 2002 asimm...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > Roger Bacon, the founder of the empirical method,
> >
> > errr sorry to inform you but he was an Englishman and not even a tiny bit
> > arab...... :)
>
> So what? He learned from ARAB works, and europe was becoming exposed
> to the scientific precision of the Arabs.
I would personally say that Ibn al-Haitham (Alhazen) (c. 965-1039) was the
founder of the experimental method. He uses it in his book, "Optics."
Roger Bacon, in turn, got it from him, since we know that he studied Ibn
al-Haitham's book.
Here's some background....
In Ibn al-Haitham's time, there were two major theories of how the eye
worked.
One theory was the emission theory, which was supported by Euclid and
Ptolemy. This theory said that the way the light worked was to *emit*
light, and that enabled the eye to see. (Some proponents of this theory
even said that the eye was fire.)
The other theory was the intromission theory, which was supported by
Aristotle. This theory says that the eye can see because of light
*entering* the eye.
Ibn al-Haitham used an experimental method to distinguish between the two
theories, in order to determine that it was the intromission theory which
was the correct one. His use of an experimental method to *distinguish*
between two competing physical theories was a new innovation in science,
and the first modern use of the experimental method.
The ancient Greeks did do experiments, but rather they were to
*demonstrate* that their theory was right, not to *distinguish* between
two competing theories. That's not a "modern" use of experiment in
science. Because of this difference, Ptolemy (who did do some
experiments) supported the wrong theory of the eye.
(Note that while Aristotle luckily got it right in this case, he also did
not use the modern experimental method. This is why he made the wrong
claim that heavier objects fall faster than light objects, which was
finally corrected by Galileo.)
It was Ibn al-Haitham who initiated the modern use of the experimental
method. His experimental methodology - first proposing a hypothesis, then
testing it through experiment - is the way science is still done today.
Roger Bacon and others who had studied his "Optics" then followed him in
his methodology.
The most comprehensive book I've seen on this topic is "Ibn al-Haytham's
Optics: A Study of the Origins of Experimental Science," by Saleh Beshara
Omar (Bibliotheca Islamica, 1977). This is based on the author's Ph.D.
thesis. It's very comprehensive discussion of the whole issue....
Unfortunately, it is also very tough to get! I only have a photocopy of
it.
John Gribbin mentions this in passing in his popular book, "Schrodinger's
Kittens," where near the beginning of his book, he calls Ibn al-Haitham
"the first modern scientist."
Why is it that the modern scientific method originated in the Islamic
world? I believe it is because of the Qur'an's emphasis on observation of
the world as a guide to truth. It is only a small step to go from
observing the world as a guide to truth, to using experimental observation
to distinguish between competing theories in science.
I personally believe that the sciences are our Islamic heritage, which the
Muslim Ummah must regain.
Wassalam,
Fariduddien Rice
(Ph.D., physics)
Email: farid @ stormcity.com (remove the spaces)
asimm...@yahoo.com
>
> You quote from a historian dead from 300 years and ignore later historians
> who disagree with him, their findings are based upon recent discoveries, and
> the modern science of archeology which did not exist in his day, you try to
> make the Arab people into a sort of "Ubermensch" which they are not, when I
> say that they based most of their ideas and discoveries on earlier ideas you
> deny it then later in an about face, write that I deny this and that that is
> what you mean....
Do you even know that what you are passing off as new discoveries is
just variation in opinion, and there is nothing challenging in these
opinions. Like I said before, you are attempting to pass off
historical OPINION under the notion of modern. You have no idea of
these recent discoveries and as I said in a last post, their are many
modern scholars from the nineteenth century onwards to now, that claim
the fall of the Roman Empire was because of lead poisoning. They are
considered recent also.
I gave you specific reason why they are absurd, and you are stuck on
the word 'recent discoveries'. There are none. The fact of the
matter is that Syria and Egypt was controlled by the Eastern European
Empire, and both those societies were being abused and tomented before
Islam came. The Eastern and Western Europena Empires were already at
odds with each other, before Islam even came. Your whole premise is
based upon this fact, that the Dark Ages began because of this. It
did not, and it has very little reverence for your contention. The
Dark Ages began well before Islam marched on the scene.
Muslim science which in a previous post you deny exists was
> not unprecedented, your revisionist ideas completely deny the existence of
> China and its millenia of scientific achievment before the birth of
> Muhammed, you want ideas that the arabs got from them? ok, Paper, gunpowder
> and a series of weapons including crossbows, rockets and the amasing
> catapult that was later developed further in europe, from India the
> circulation of the blood and the so called "arabic numerals" just to mention
> two ideas which were in existence 300 years before Muhammed.
So what? I neevr denied the creation of crossbows, firepowder, and
the catapult and the contributions that the past civilizations made
with reference to human advancement.
"The Chinese developed saltpeter for use in fireworks and knew of no
tactical military use for gunpowder, nor did they invent its formula.
Research by Reinuad and Fave have clearly shown that gunpowder was
formulated initially by Muslim chemists. Further, these historians
claim that the Muslims developed the first fire-arms. Notably, Muslim
armies used grenades and other weapons in their defence of Algericus
against the Franks during the 14th century. Jean Mathes indicates that
the Muslim rulers had stock-piles of grenades, rifles, crude cannons,
incendiary devices, sulfur bombs and pistols decades before such
devices were used in Europe. The first mention of a cannon was in an
Arabic text around 1300 A.D. Roger Bacon learned of the formula for
gunpowder from Latin translations of Arabic books. He brought forth
nothing original in this regard."
"Trigonometry remained largely a theoretical science among the Greeks.
It was developed to a level of modern perfection by Muslim scholars,
although the weight of the credit must be given to al-Battani. The
words describing the basic functions of this science, sine, cosine and
tangent, are all derived from Arabic terms. Thus, original
contributions by the Greeks in trigonometry were minimal."
"Muslim mathematicians were the first to utilize decimals instead of
fractions on a large scale. Al-Kashi's book, Key to Arithmetic, was
written at the beginning of the 15th century and was the stimulus for
the systematic application of decimals to whole numbers and fractions
thereof. It is highly probably that Stevin imported the idea to Europe
>from al-Kashi's work."
"Muslim mathematicians, the inventors of algebra, introduced the
concept of using letters for unknown variables in equations as early
as the 9th century A.D. Through this system, they solved a variety of
complex equations, including quadratic and cubic equations. They used
symbols to develop and perfect the binomial theorem."
"Muslim mathematicians introduced negative numbers for use in a
variety of arithmetic functions at least 400 years prior to Cardano."
"During the 17th century Rene Descartes made the discovery that
algebra could be used to solve geometrical problems. By this, he
greatly advanced the science of geometry. Mathematicians of the
Islamic Empire accomplished precisely this as early as the 9th century
A.D. Thabit bin Qurrah was the first to do so, and he was followed by
Abu'l Wafa, whose 10th century book utilized algebra to advance
geometry into an exact and simplified science."
"Isaac Newton, during the 17th century, developed the binomial
theorem, which is a crucial component for the study of algebra.
Hundreds of Muslim mathematicians utilized and perfected the binomial
theorem. They initiated its use for the systematic solution of
algebraic problems during the 10th century (or prior)."
"Al-Biruni (d. 1050) was the world's first great experimenter. He
wrote over 200 books, many of which discuss his precise experiments.
His literary output in the sciences amounts to some 13,000 pages, far
exceeding that written by Galileo or, for that matter, Galileo and
Newton combined."
You need to bring examples, and what is clear is the fact that the
West cannot deal with the fact that the Muslim world did not bring
just 'Arab conquests', as taught from grade school and beyond, but
resurrected Europe from the Dark Ages.
It is YOU that is lowering the position of Arab civilization. You
claimed that the Muslims got all this stuff from Christian
civilization and libraries, and I asked you which Christina thinkers,
and you run around in circles and still ave not answered the
questions.
You still don;t get it. Greece and Rome were part of the Western
European civilzation, and the Dark Ages occurred in a continent which
had such a glorious past. The fact of the matter is Europe, though
knowledge was thriving in their own backyards, went into a total state
of decay. They contributed absolutely nothing, until they became
exposed to the Muslim world and that is what initiated the
renaissance.