West Owes Much To Muslims: Experts
Mujahid
SHARJAH, January 19 (IslamOnline.net) - A number of intellectuals
across the world underlined that the west owes a lot to Muslims and
Arabs, in the wake of the anti-Arab and anti-Muslim comments of
British talk show host Robert Kilroy-Silk.
Headlined 'We owe Arabs Nothing', Kilroy-Silk questioned in his
syndicated Sunday Express column Arabs' contributions to the world,
other than oil.
He further lambasted Arabs as "suicide bombers, limb amputators,
women repressors".
"You find irrationality and prejudice everywhere, but this case is
outrageous. The comments show this man has no culture and serves some
racist ideology," professor William Shea, Galileo Professor of History
of Science at the University of Padua in Italy, told Gulf News paper
Monday, January 19.
Attending a conference on "Cultural Contacts in Building a Universal
Civilization" in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) city of Sharjah, Shea
said Islam's contribution to international culture is obvious.
"Anyone who says 'We owe Arabs nothing' has probably not considered
the importance of Islamic art, which you can see just by opening your
eyes when you travel. The Holy Qur'an itself is a literary masterpiece
apart from being a very sacred document," he said.
On the issue of repression of women, Shea said the idea was extremely
unfair.
"I have traveled in Islamic countries and do not think that women are
oppressed. Generally speaking, Muslims treat women much better than
those in other parts of the world".
On branding Arabs as "suicide bombers", the Italian intellectual said
terrorists are everywhere in the world and they are not just Muslims.
He testified that in the U.S., school killings are common but we don't
say all Americans are terrorists.
"There's no way that Islam has more terrorists than others".
"I think, we have to reinforce the influence of Islam in our
institutions in Europe, the U.K. and the U.S.," he added.
The conference has been organized by the American University of
Sharjah in collaboration with Research Center for Islamic History,
Art, and Culture of Istanbul.
Professor Ziauddin Sardar, writer, broadcaster and cultural critic
from the UK, said that Kilroy-Silk was rather "airing views of some
racist elements in British society".
Sardar, however, admitted that there are some Muslims who are
terrorists or extremists.
"But the presenter's remarks were racist because based on a few
individuals, he branded an entire society," he told Gulf News.
"You can criticize an individual, but you can't label a whole society.
By saying 'We (west) owe Arabs nothing', he is airing ignorance," he
continued.
The author of several books, Sardar said there would have been no West
without Islam. The West as it exists today is the product of Islamic
science, civilization, culture and learning, he added.
"The West owes its origin and development to Islam. We cannot imagine
a West without history and western history is related to the history
of Islam," he said.
Kilroy-Silk was forced to resign in the wake of the outrage created
by his inflammatory remarks among Muslims and MPs in Britain.
Sardar said that these views exist not just in Britain but also in the
West.
Kilroy-Silk's statements came a few days after the American famous
syndicated radio commentator Paul Harvey backtracked on earlier
defamatory comments saying that "Islam encourages killing".
In October, Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence William Boykin
went back on his earlier claims that Muslims worship an "idol", saying
the remarks had been "taken out of context".
'Sort Of Agenda'
David Lea, associate professor of philosophy at the American
University of Sharjah, said the TV presenter's views misrepresent
facts.
He called the comments as dangerous and inflammatory because it is all
right to have a personal opinion but to print or broadcast that to
influence thousands of people shows that "he may be having some sort
of agenda".
"I think the best way to counter such racist comments is to bring
people from the West and the Arab region together through frequent
cultural links. There should be a frequent exchange of groups to
educate each other and remove misconceptions".
'Ignorant Of History'
Professor R. Rashed from the National Center for Scientific Research
University of Paris agreed, saying that Kilroy-Silk's views show that
people in the West are not well informed about history.
"A man who passes such racist remarks shows that he is ignorant of the
history of Europe and not just the history of the Islamic
civilization," Rashed told the paper.
The Paris-based scholar called on Arabs "to take measures to remove
such misconceptions by educating people and 'rediscovering' their
contribution to the West".
Kilroy-Silk's comments also had drawn flack from British lawmakers.
"The BBC needs to consider very carefully whether it's appropriate to
have Mr. Kilroy-Silk presenting a program which is supposed to be
objective and impartial in looking at topical issues," Labor MP Lynne
Jones has told BBC Radio 4's Today program.
The Independent reported Wednesday, January 14, that the BBC's
suspension move had boosted the network's viewing figures.
Audience figures released Sunday, January 13, reveal 150,000 more
people were watching BBC1 Monday morning - when Kilroy first came off
the air - than tuned into the network at the same time a week earlier,
the British daily said.
AnonMoos
> West Owes Much To Muslims: Experts SHARJAH, January 19
> (IslamOnline.net) - A number of intellectuals across the world
> underlined that the west owes a lot to Muslims and Arabs,
There's no doubt about that -- but the question naturally arises,
"What have you done for civilization lately?" I'd like to see anyone
try to name substantial Arab contributions to world civilization in
the last 750 years, since about 1258 A.D. -- it would be a pretty
short list. The writings of Ibn Khaldun spring to mind, but Ibn
Khaldun died a long time ago. You can only coast for so long on the
strength of your accomplishments in past millennia.
> On branding Arabs as "suicide bombers", the Italian intellectual
> William Shea said terrorists are everywhere in the world and they
> are not just Muslims.
Yes, but few others than Muslims are known to frankly embrace and
wallow in blatant open immoralism -- suicide terrorism attacks against
civilians, as a regular frequently-used tactic, are basically confined
to Muslims and Sri Lankan Tamils, among all the peoples and cultures
of the world.
--
المتبرجة خير
من إرهابي منتحر
Murderers are not martyrs! http://symbolictruth.fateback.com/
Bill Levinson
> Yes, but few others than Muslims are known to frankly embrace and
> wallow in blatant open immoralism -- suicide terrorism attacks against
> civilians, as a regular frequently-used tactic, are basically confined
> to Muslims and Sri Lankan Tamils, among all the peoples and cultures
> of the world.
Why did you not say hindus for Sri Lankan Tamils ?
This shows clear Zionist hypocricy ,by this way you are portraying 1.4
billion muslim population of the world suicide bombers.
AnonMoos
>>> On branding Arabs as "suicide bombers", the Italian intellectual
>>> William Shea said terrorists are everywhere in the world and they
>>> are not just Muslims.
>> Yes, but few others than Muslims are known to frankly embrace and
>> wallow in blatant open immoralism -- suicide terrorism attacks
>> against civilians, as a regular frequently-used tactic, are
>> basically confined to Muslims and Sri Lankan Tamils, among all the
>> peoples and cultures of the world.
> Why did you not say hindus for Sri Lankan Tamils ?
Because Muslims of several different nationalities (Hezbollah, Hamas,
al-Qaeda etc.) embrace immoral suicide-terrorism crimes; and Muslim
suicide terrorist attacks have taken place over a wide area --
Morocco, Kenya, Beirut, the United States, Israel etc. By contrast,
Sri Lankan Tamils are only one small geographically restricted subset
of Hindus, and they confine their suicide-terrorism activities to
Ceylon and southern India.
> This shows clear Zionist hypocricy ,by this way you are portraying
> 1.4 billion muslim population of the world suicide bombers.
Whatever -- only a very small proportion of the world's population of
Muslims are directly involved in ordering, facilitating, or
participating in suicide terrorism attacks, of course. But a number
of different Muslim groupings in different parts of the world practice
suicide terrorism -- and nowadays, only a few Muslims (such as
Mahathir of Malaysia, the only one among the national leaders of OIC
countries) seem to be willing to say that suicide terrorism attacks
against civilians are inherently and intrinsically morally wrong.
It seems that Islam has actually changed for the worse in recent
years: In past centuries, the consensus of traditional mainstream
Islamic legal interpretation had strict rules of war, which forbade
almost all forms of terrorism (such as intentionally seeking to harm
non-combatants). At that time, the word shahid ("martyr") meant
someone dying in a battle for Islam -- including someone who engaged
in a bold military charge or last stand, in which coming through alive
might seem almost hopeless, but not including anyone committing any
direct and immediate act of suicide, and most definitely NOT including
anyone who targeted civilians as part of his death-struggle! However,
nowadays numerous fanatical hate-mullahs and self-appointed Islamic
legal "authorities" of modern Jihadi ideology (such as Qaradawi) seem
to be eager to discard these prohibitions of traditional Islamic legal
doctrine, in their unseemly rush to try to justify and legitimize
suicide terrorism attacks. Since they have thus jettisoned what
little universalism or religion-neutral "natural law" there ever was
in Islam, in pursuit of their transient and ephemeral political
passions, it seems that Islam has changed for the worse. So if
Islamists perversely glory in and enthusiastically celebrate the
blatant raw naked immorality of the suicide terrorism attacks against
civilians which their own side commits in violation of all norms of
international law and human-rights protection, then they're flagrant
and transparent hypocrites when they noisily demand that their enemies
obey the highest and strictest of ethical standards. If the only
standard of right and wrong in modern Islam is that whatever is
claimed to be done in the service of Islam or Muslims is necessarily
and inherently "right" (regardless of the means used or the harm
caused), then Islam is becoming a mere supremacist immoralist
death-worshiping cult, and not a religion which is truly worthy of
anyone's respect (like any ideology which flaunts its blatant
violations of basic universal morality).
Bill Levinson
> intifa...@yahoo.com (phoney pseudo-"Bill Levinson") wrote:
>
> >>> On branding Arabs as "suicide bombers", the Italian intellectual
> >>> William Shea said terrorists are everywhere in the world and they
> >>> are not just Muslims.
>
> >> Yes, but few others than Muslims are known to frankly embrace and
> >> wallow in blatant open immoralism -- suicide terrorism attacks
> >> against civilians, as a regular frequently-used tactic, are
> >> basically confined to Muslims and Sri Lankan Tamils, among all the
> >> peoples and cultures of the world.
>
> > Why did you not say hindus for Sri Lankan Tamils ?
>
> Because Muslims of several different nationalities (Hezbollah, Hamas,
> al-Qaeda etc.) embrace immoral suicide-terrorism crimes; and Muslim
> suicide terrorist attacks have taken place over a wide area --
> Morocco, Kenya, Beirut, the United States, Israel etc. By contrast,
> Sri Lankan Tamils are only one small geographically restricted subset
> of Hindus,
Still you are saying SRILANKAN TAMILS , what about considering
PALESTINIAN MUSLIMS ?
There was no terrorism during 1960-68 if muslims or Islam was the
problem why did they not happen during that time ?
first terrorist attack happened against US interests in 1983 after
massacres in Sabra and Shatalie ( Sep 17 1982 ).
1983
April 18, Beirut, Lebanon: U.S. embassy destroyed in suicide car-bomb
attack; 63 dead.
Oct. 23, Beirut, Lebanon: Shi'ite suicide bombers exploded truck near
U.S. military barracks at Beirut airport, killing 241 Marines. Minutes
later a second bomb killed 58 French paratroopers in their barracks in
West Beirut.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001454.html
http://www.counterpunch.org/thomson0918.html
why cant you figure out connection between 9/11 and 9/17 ?
and what were Hiroshima and Nagasaki attack ?
were they not the attack on civilian population ?
jackkincaid
> West Owes Much To Muslims: Experts
>
> SHARJAH, January 19 (IslamOnline.net) - A number of intellectuals
> across the world underlined that the west owes a lot to Muslims and
Which 'experts' and what excactly is 'owed'?
>
[snip]
>
> Attending a conference on "Cultural Contacts in Building a Universal
> Civilization"
Sounds ominous...
> in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) city of Sharjah, Shea
> said Islam's contribution to international culture is obvious.
>
> "Anyone who says 'We owe Arabs nothing' has probably not considered
> the importance of Islamic art, which you can see just by opening your
> eyes when you travel.
Why does the 'west' owe Muslims anything for Islamic art? However
beautiful it is, or you think it is, how has Islamic art affected
'western' society?
> The Holy Qur'an itself is a literary masterpiece
> apart from being a very sacred document," he said.
The Quran is not a literary masterpiece in any 'western' language. It
only 'works' when read in Arabic.
Islamic art has occasionally been in fashion in the 'west'. But the
Quran is of almost no interest to anyone but Muslims. What else is
there?
And remember: it is a commandment according to Islam that you cannot
bear false witness.
>
> On the issue of repression of women, Shea said the idea was extremely
> unfair.
If women are required to cover their faces, they are treated unfairly.
If men can marry four women but women cannot marry four men, women are
being treated unequally. Unless the laws of the land pertain to men
and women equally, and unless men and women are equally free to
express themselves, then one of them - inevitably women - are being
treated unfairly.
There have been several stories in the UK press recently about a
Sudanese Muslim woman who was kept as a slave for seven years by a
wealthy (Muslim) family. She only escaped because she was lucky enough
to be transported to London (ie the 'west'). With stories like this in
the news, and of honour killings, forced marriages, hijabs, veils and
burkhas, and genital mutilation, in various societies where Islam
predominates, it is fruitless to claim that women in those countries
are generally better off than women elsewhere.
>
>
> On branding Arabs as "suicide bombers", the Italian intellectual said
> terrorists are everywhere in the world and they are not just Muslims.
True. But so far all suicide bombers have been Muslims (and Arabs, as
it happens), most terrorists are Muslism too, and I know of no other
terrorist campaign waged in the name of a religion.
>
> He testified that in the U.S., school killings are common but we don't
> say all Americans are terrorists.
It is false to compare a religion (Islam) with a nation (America).
Islam is not a nation.
Neither is it correct to compare American school killers with Islamic
terrorists. The latter are not killing because they are spoiled and
bored teenagers, they are killing because they cleave to an extremist
political ideology which derives from Islam. Thus we say that Islam
has a problem with terrorism.
And nobody has accused *all* Muslims of being terrorists. Only that
most terrorists in the world today are Islamic.
>
> "There's no way that Islam has more terrorists than others".
Islam has far more terrorists than any other religious grouping. This
is indisputable.
>
> "I think, we have to reinforce the influence of Islam in our
> institutions in Europe, the U.K. and the U.S.," he added.
Why on earth would anyone want to do that?
The 'west' - and the 'middle east' - should be *decreasing* the
influence of Islam, not increasing it. And of all religions, but at
this time, especially Islam.
>
> The conference has been organized by the American University of
> Sharjah in collaboration with Research Center for Islamic History,
> Art, and Culture of Istanbul.
Not in the least bit biased then...
>
> Professor Ziauddin Sardar, writer, broadcaster and cultural critic
> from the UK, said that Kilroy-Silk was rather "airing views of some
> racist elements in British society".
No he wasn't, he was airing his own views. This is a typically bogus
trick of the Islamist extremists, to blame all of society over a
single person's free choice to do or say something stupid. Instead of
attacking *him* they attack all of his society, because they want to
*dominate* that society and think that by pointing out alleged moral
weaknesses they will win support.
Kilroy said what he said because he is an individual with those
opinions, and had the right to free speech to do so. I disagree with
him, in the most part, because as an individual I have different
opinions. Society has nothing to do with it, except that it guarantees
my right to free speech.
>
> Sardar, however, admitted that there are some Muslims who are
> terrorists or extremists.
Mighty big of him. Yet I see a 'but' coming on...
>
> "But
I knew it.
> the presenter's remarks were racist because based on a few
> individuals, he branded an entire society," he told Gulf News.
Yes, they were racist. He accused *Arabs* - not *Muslims*, but Arabs -
of certain things. Muslims have no business commenting on his remarks
at all - unless they wish to say that the condition of being a MUlsim
and the condition of being an Arab are identical. In which case, Islam
is an Arab religion and Muslims have no particular business commenting
on the 'western' way of life at all.
If Isdlam is *not* an Arab religion, then why should Muslims get so
upset over remarks made about Arabs (there are Arab Christians, after
all). And for that matter, why should British Muslims be so bothered
about what's happening to Muslims in France - or Israel? Either they
are British, or French or Palestinian.
Your choice, son.
>
> "You can criticize an individual, but you can't label a whole society.
> By saying 'We (west) owe Arabs nothing', he is airing ignorance," he
> continued.
Who's counted how many times he has criticised, not just an entire
country, but two entire continents? How many times do spokesmen for
Islam verbally attack the entire non-Islamic WORLD? Breathtaking
hypocrisy.
>
> The author of several books,
Hold me back from buying them all...
> Sardar said there would have been no West
> without Islam.
Right. Only troible with that is, the 'west'existed long before Islam,
and *included* all the Arab lands. The truth is, there would be no
'Islam' without the 'west'.
> The West as it exists today is the product of Islamic
> science, civilization, culture and learning, he added.
Rubbish.
>
> "The West owes its origin and development to Islam. We cannot imagine
> a West without history and western history is related to the history
> of Islam," he said.
He can't imagine anything without Islam, obviously..
I'd like to see one example - one invention, one idea, one concept -
that the 'west' owes to Islam - not the fact that the Arabs preserved
Greek knowledge, or that a couple of Arab mathematicians invented
logarithms and algebra, but from Islam itself.
There is none. The incredible truth is that, uniquely, Islam has had
no affect on the development of *any* civilisation other than those in
which it predominates today, and certainly not the 'west'. Judaism,
Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism - all these, one way or another, have
affected the course of 'western' civilisation, but apart from
buildings and art and such that were imported from Islamic
civilisation, Islam did not.
The reverse, of course, is very different, and in this respect Kilroy
is correct: the 'Islamic world' is entirely dependent on technology
and ideas from elsewhere in the world. Even the nations themselves are
in large part 'western' inventions.
I can understand why this may be humiliating, but to invert the truth
is surely a sign of madness.
>
> Kilroy-Silk was forced to resign in the wake of the outrage created
> by his inflammatory remarks among Muslims and MPs in Britain.
Wrong again. Kilroy has not been an MP for many years, and his remarks
were not mentioned in parliament, even if the odd leftwing MP from an
inner city constituency felt compelled to mention them in the media.
He was forced to step down from presenting his show on the BBC, on the
grounds that he cannot be impartial (rightly IMO), but his production
company continues to work for them and he is about to start a new show
on another TV channel - which, following the fuss about his remarks
made by the Muslim Association of Britain, is expected to gain new
veiwers (his show has gained new viewers already, even though he has
gone). Since he was never particularly popular anyway, that won't be
difficult. His right of free speech has been defended by most UK
newspapers, and he is still publishing a regular column in the Daily
Express. The BBC has wanted to get rid of him anyway, for years.
Most British people couldn't care less about any of this. Inasmuch as
his remarks were made about Arab states they were obviously true -
those countries *do* produce most of the world's terrorists, *are*
anti-democratic and oppressive to women, and some of them *do*
amputate limbs. It's pointless denying any of it. But he broke his
contract with the BBC, he's pretty unpleasant, so ... who cares.
>
> Sardar said that these views exist not just in Britain but also in the
> West.
Obviously. But since the 'west' is a far more pleasant place to live
than the middle east - as 'Sardar' proves by living there himself, the
hypocrite - it hardly matters if its people sometimes have unfair
views. There is nothing on earth more unfair, and absurd, than the
religious ideology of one community of people coming to dominate all
the rest - especially given what a terrible mess it has made of its
own corner of the globe.
>
> Kilroy-Silk's statements came a few days after the American famous
> syndicated radio commentator Paul Harvey backtracked on earlier
> defamatory comments saying that "Islam encourages killing".
In some cases, Islam most certainly does encourage killing. Two days
ago a gang of Muslims murdered an orphaned teenager in London, for no
other eason than he was white. Immediately before they committed this
disgusting act, they had been praying at their local mosque. There are
couintless other examples from around the world.
>
> In October, Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence William Boykin
> went back on his earlier claims that Muslims worship an "idol", saying
> the remarks had been "taken out of context".
Since mankind's concept of 'god' are inventions - because even if
'god' exists, it is beyond the wit of man to imagine - then all the
versions of 'god' worshipped by different religious communities are,
literally, different. To all intents and purposes, therefore, they are
different deities. So Jews worship something called Jweh, Christians
worship something similar called Jehova, Muslims worship something,
also similar, called Allah ... and so on. The perceived relationships
between worshipper and deity are different too.
Even different people belonging ostensibly to the same faith worship
different deities. If American evangelists can worship a 'god' that
allows them to kill people in their custody, while European Catholics
worship a 'god' with the same name that tells them that to do so is
the deepest sin, how can there possibly be a correlation between a
'god' that appears to command a Palestinian mother of two to blow
herself up, killing two, at an Israeli checkpoint, and her Jewish
victims? The differences within religions, let alone between
religions, are so gtreat that to say everyone worships the same deity
(in light of the fact, remember, that nobody can prove this deity
actually exists) makes nos ense at all.
It is much easier to think that everyone who worships worships
something different. That way there's a good chance the killing will
stop.
I'm assuming here we all want the killing to stop.
>
> David Lea, associate professor of philosophy at the American
> University of Sharjah, said the TV presenter's views misrepresent
> facts.
>
> He called the comments as dangerous and inflammatory because it is all
> right to have a personal opinion but to print or broadcast that to
> influence thousands of people shows that "he may be having some sort
> of agenda".
No kidding. And what would Mr Lea's agenda be, I wonder?
>
> "I think the best way to counter such racist comments is to bring
> people from the West and the Arab region together through frequent
> cultural links. There should be a frequent exchange of groups to
> educate each other and remove misconceptions".
There are approximately 10 million Muslims living in western Europe
(total pop. c450 million), and approx. 5 million in north America
(total pop. c300 million). A similar proportion of all western
societies are nominally Muslim, if not actually, and at least half are
of Arab descent.
The number of 'western' non-Muslims living in the 'Arab world', or the
wider 'Muslim world', is pretty negligible - not because the land
isn't beautiful (it is), or the people are unfriendly (they aren't, in
the most part), but because the religious and political systems in
those places make non-Muslims distinctly unwelcome.
It follows that the 'west' is at the forefront of striking up a
dialogue with Muslims. The 'west' has been incredibly welcoming to
Muslims. It does no credit to anyone, therefore, to claim that it is
the 'west' which must try harder to form friendships with the middle
east; rather, it is the other way around.
One place to start would be for Saudi Arabia to stop funding madrassas
around the world, for petrodollars to stop being pumped into Islamist
terrorism,a nd for Pakistan to do something about the al-Qaida
militias on its own soil.
Oh, and Islamic discussion groups in the UAE might try discussing
sometjhing worthwhile - like why there is so much terrorism inspired
by Islam - instead of compalining about some irrelevent, pissant
presenter on a morning TV show nobody watches.
>
> Professor R. Rashed from the National Center for Scientific Research
> University of Paris agreed, saying that Kilroy-Silk's views show that
> people in the West are not well informed about history.
Christ, is this ALL they had to talk about?
>
> "A man who passes such racist remarks shows that he is ignorant of the
> history of Europe and not just the history of the Islamic
> civilization," Rashed told the paper.
Something tells me even an ignoramus like Kilroy has a better grasp of
European history than Mr Rashed.
>
> The Paris-based scholar called on Arabs "to take measures to remove
> such misconceptions by educating people and 'rediscovering' their
> contribution to the West".
What 'contribution'? Why doesn't someone say what it is before
commanding others to 'rediscover' it?
>
> Kilroy-Silk's comments also had drawn flack from British lawmakers.
You mean a couple of backbench MPs? Big deal.
>
> "The BBC needs to consider very carefully whether it's appropriate to
> have Mr. Kilroy-Silk presenting a program which is supposed to be
> objective and impartial in looking at topical issues," Labor MP Lynne
> Jones has told BBC Radio 4's Today program.
Hmm-hmm.
>
> The Independent reported Wednesday, January 14, that the BBC's
> suspension move had boosted the network's viewing figures.
That would be because of the fuss kicked up by Muslim pressure groups.
>
> Audience figures released Sunday, January 13, reveal 150,000 more
> people were watching BBC1 Monday morning - when Kilroy first came off
> the air - than tuned into the network at the same time a week earlier,
> the British daily said.
Who cares.
We live in a world where Islam is in crisis. As traditional Islamic
society clashes with secular democracy and modernity, stories of
genital mutilation, terrorism, slavery, drug dealing, prostitution,
honour killings, gang war, extremism, racism, and just about every
modern evil you can think of are being associated increasingly with
Islam everywhere, all the time. Any child growing up in the 'west' -
and 'east', 'south' or 'north' - will take it for granted that Islam
has these associations, and they'll see these boasts about how Islam
'created' the 'west' - a so called creation it sometimes appears to
detest, sometimes to revere - and think: 'Are they crazy?'
Given all that, if this 'debate' of 'experts' nobody has ever heard of
can't find anything more productive to talk about than some crappy TV
presenter - what is the point of continuing with it?
Twenty thousand dead in the name of Islam i less than three years, and
they want to talk about Kilroy? Those kids would be right to ask...