Love thine enemy??
Andrew J. Waller
calling to love one's enemy. I don't think I can relate fully to these people,
but I think I can begin to understand the point of these fundamentalists. I
believe bin Laden himself has multiple agendas, which I have addressed
elsewhere in other threads, but the issue of Islamic fundamentalism is more
tricky. I don't think their motivation was what G. W. Bush said it was, that
they were jealous of our democracy and our liberty. I think it was about how
we handle our freedom.
We have generally been quick to dismiss these people as purely evil and to
rally around our flag as the good guys. Some others elsewhere see the Moslems
as the good guys and us as evil. Why? The answer lies in what they peceive as
a threat to their values. My core values include--among others such as not
suicidally bombing innocent civilians--a distaste for the more shallow and
commercial aspects of our culture. I rather hate what TV does to our minds,
what lousy movies have done to our standards of taste, and what oversexed pop
stars have done to our childrens' attitudes. I don't abdicate my
responsibility and I raise my family as well as I can. Still, I view these
things from my perspective of being a modern American. What if I were from a
different, more restricted religion, conservative culture and poverty-stricken
economy?
With the world view of the radical Islamic we could be seen to be destroying
the very basis of their society by exporting to the world the very trash of our
culture which I personally detest. In this way I have come to understand the
motivation of these guys. I don't defend with what they did, have done, or
probably will do. But I think it might be appropriate to pause and appreciate
how evil our culture really can be. Perhaps some tiny amount of mutual good
can come of the recent tragedy in our nations time of grief. Perhaps as we hunt
down and kill the bastards who attacked us in such a dastardly way, we could
begin to effect some change in our own society. We need to tone down our own
moral bankruptcy that we as a nation suffer. Maybe if we all in our own ways
return to core values such as decency, integrity, love and justice, we might
demonstrate less of our undesirable attitudes (cynicism, opportunism,
angst-ridden worldliness, the celebration of abuse of sex and drugs, etc, that
abounds in pop culture) in favor of more admirable traits we all believe we
posess in abundance. I think the world is different now. I feel less safe,
vulnerable. I am sad. I do hope we can grow a little from this though, not
that we deserved the attack, but from the inevitible introspection that follows
a bad outcome, such as when a doctor's patient unexpectedly deteriorates, we
could ask, what did we miss? Was there anything we did wrong?
mary_...@cix.compulink.co.uk
dre...@aol.comspamspam (Andrew J. Waller) wrote:
[...]
> Maybe if we all in our own ways
> return to core values such as decency, integrity, love and
>justice, we might demonstrate less of our undesirable
>attitudes (cynicism, opportunism, angst-ridden worldliness,
>the celebration of abuse of sex and drugs, etc, that
> abounds in pop culture) in favor of more admirable traits
>we all believe we posess in abundance.
[...]
Not unless you're prepared to stick half the population in
veils and prevent them from working, driving, or going about
in public unaccompanied by a man. Nothing else is going to
reconcile the Taliban to the West. Ditto a number of other
Islamic countries, to a not-much-lesser degree.
If you disagree on what constitutes 'decency', just to take
your first example, what would be the point of returning to
your version of it, when it doesn't match their version of
it?
Mary
Trevor Herbert
Not that Idon't want justice implemented but I cannot believe in a justice
system that makes the administer of justice guilty of the same crime as he
who is on trial.
Andrew J. Waller <dre...@aol.comspamspam> wrote in message
news:20010928223619...@mb-fj.aol.com...
Alan Crozier
--
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Alan Crozier
Skatteberga 1392
247 92 Södra Sandby
Sweden
TO REPLY BY E-MAIL: change Crazier to Crozier
"Andrew J. Waller" <dre...@aol.comspamspam> wrote in message
news:20010928223619...@mb-fj.aol.com...
<snip>
Earlofw
Has the world changed, or is it just your perception of it?
SJL
John H. Wilson
"Alan Crozier" <alan.c...@telia.com> wrote in message
news:r4Dt7.2478$XO2.3...@newsb.telia.net...
> As Jesus said, "Love your enemies -- nothing makes them more mad."
>
thinks that means you should attack the victim of evil unless he returns
good. The KKK are the most zealous followers of this - they would lynch a
black that wouldn't turn the other cheek.
Cheers
John GW
Mary Fisher
John H. Wilson <j.g...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:9jGt7.266$Dg5.1...@paloalto-snr2.gtei.net...
>
> >
> Yeah, and every Christian (and every atheist who's read the Bible )
> thinks that means you should attack the victim of evil unless he returns
> good.
You're an expert, I take it?
Mary Fisher
William Barwell
Luke 14:26
If any man come to me, and not hate his father, his mother, his wife,
his children, his brethern, his sisters, yea, his own life also,
he cannot be a disciple of mine.
Love your enemies, hate you family.
Something about this Jesus character is whacked out.
Pope Charles
SubGenius Pope of Houston
Slack!
David C. Pugh
William Barwell <wbar...@starbase.neosoft.com> wrote in message
(...)
> Luke 14:26
> If any man come to me, and not hate his father, his mother, his
wife,
> his children, his brethern, his sisters, yea, his own life also,
> he cannot be a disciple of mine.
>
>
> Love your enemies, hate you family.
> Something about this Jesus character is whacked out.
>
>
Well, if you want a religion that just tells you to follow our primate
programming..... Personally, I don't see the point. It's like pushing
water downhill. There's something grand about a religion, whether
radical Christianity or Buddhism, that tells us to do the precise
opposite of our hardwiring -- to eschew the drive that every living
creature has to survive (gather resources, compete, struggle) and
reproduce.
David
Alex
> I have given some thought to the issue of how to approach the terrorists
With AK. Flamethrower is even better...
>in the
> calling to love one's enemy.
Why would somebody want to do such a strange thing?
But, if this is really important for you, a recepie in this particular
case is rather simple: make a circumcission, stop drinking and eating
pork, pray (5?) times a day with your face to Mecca, wear turban, and
kill as many infidels as possible. Mutual love with your present enemy
will be guaranteed.
> I don't think
A good start for the mudjahhed.
>I can relate fully to these people,
Why? Can't give up a big Mac?
> but I think
Ooops! It was such a good start .... Don't think!
>I can begin to understand the point of these fundamentalists.
It's actually very simple. "Every person has a mental horizon. When this
horizon narrowes to the extrem, it's called a point of view". (Stanislav
Ezy Letz)
> I
> believe
You are on a right track again (as long as you are not thinking, you are
OK with Bin Laddin & Co).
>bin Laden himself has multiple agendas,
Out of a pure curiosity,
AFAIK, "agenda" is a list. What sense does it make to say that one has
"multiple agendas"?
Unless, of course, you are talking about his laundry list, shopping list, etc.
>which I have addressed
> elsewhere in other threads,
My luck definitely changed to the better... :-)
>but the issue of Islamic fundamentalism is more
> tricky.
No kidding...
> I don't think their motivation was what G. W. Bush said it was, that
> they were jealous of our democracy and our liberty.
It's not (completely) a matter of jealousy. They simply understand that
the most dangerous treat to their power is a close contact with the more
prosperous and open culture. Already happened to the former Soviet Union.
>I think it was about how
> we handle our freedom.
>
> We have generally been quick to dismiss these people as purely evil and to
> rally around our flag as the good guys. Some others elsewhere see the Moslems
> as the good guys and us as evil. Why?
Because you simply can't kiss enough posteriors to keep everybody happy.
As a result, you have to choose your side during the inevitable fighting.
>The answer lies in what they peceive as
> a threat to their values.
We are. Unfortunately, to accomodate them, we have to give up our values.
Should we?
> My core values include--among others such as not
> suicidally bombing innocent civilians--a distaste for the more shallow and
> commercial aspects of our culture. I rather hate what TV does to our minds,
> what lousy movies have done to our standards of taste, and what oversexed pop
> stars have done to our childrens' attitudes.
Vow! Anything positive? Some small and insignifocant items like democracy,
free society, etc.?
>I don't abdicate my
> responsibility and I raise my family as well as I can.
- Kids and you wife, no TV, no movies, and NO SEX WHATSOEVER!!!!
Sounds like a valid agenda to me. :-)
> Still, I view these
> things from my perspective of being a modern American. What if I were from a
> different, more restricted religion, conservative culture and poverty-stricken
> economy?
As one formerly from these listed above different place/culture/economy, I can
tell you: all of them look just fine (except perhaps show-business, which is
mostly boring). This is why they are so dangerous to the people who want to
stay in power within these regimes.
>
> With the world view of the radical Islamic we could be seen to be destroying
> the very basis of their society by exporting to the world the very trash of our
> culture
As a matter of fact, we also exporting few other things including practically
all machinery and weaponry they are using. In general, you are exporting
things which are in demand. People may want to watch our trash, just as a
change to what they have. If they like it, fine. If they don't, it's even
better. The difference is that in a free society that have choice of their
own, while under the totalitarian/fundamentalist regimes this decision is
made by the rulers. Do you see a major difference.
> which I personally detest.
Fine. Why do you think that your opinion is mandatory for the rest of the
world?
> In this way I have come to understand the
> motivation of these guys.
Ah, you mean that as soon as Madonna and Rossie O'Donnel are publicly
flogged (maybe not a bad idea), we will live in an eternal peace with
the Islamic fundamentalists?
>I don't defend with what they did, have done, or
> probably will do. But I think it might be appropriate to pause and appreciate
> how evil our culture really can be.
Extremely evil. I'd start with abolishing Shakespeare: too many corpses,
and questionable jokes in his plays. Then, we must abolish operas (the
same story with the dead bodies). Then we should proceed with "Illiad",
which glorifies adultery, murder, idolatry and a lot of other evil things.
Going steadily in this direction, in few years we'll reach the modern times
and abolish TV, movies, pop, rock, and science fiction. Did I miss something
in your agenda?
>Perhaps some tiny amount of mutual good
> can come of the recent tragedy in our nations time of grief. Perhaps as we hunt
> down and kill the bastards
No understanding of their point of view whatsoever! :-)
> who attacked us in such a dastardly way, we could
> begin to effect some change in our own society.
... by introducing the chadors and public flogging for immoral conduct...
>We need to tone down our own
> moral bankruptcy that we as a nation suffer.
We do? Thanks for telling.
>Maybe if we all in our own ways
> return to core values such as decency, integrity, love and justice,
So now we all are suffering from their absense? Did you conduct some
survey to make statements like this?
> we might
> demonstrate less of our undesirable attitudes (cynicism, opportunism,
> angst-ridden worldliness, the celebration of abuse of sex and drugs, etc, that
> abounds in pop culture)
Relax. AFAIK, pop culture represents a tiny percentage of a whole
society.
>in favor of more admirable traits we all believe we
> posess in abundance.
It's nice to know that, after all, we do possess these unnamed
qualities. OTOH, this statement contradicts to your earlier lamentations
about a culture-wide absense of them. So what will it be?
> I think the world is different now. I feel less safe,
> vulnerable.
It never was safe. It was just an issue of the ugly things happening on
our own backyard instead of the neighbour's one.
> I am sad.
Really? Had you been sad about huge losses of lives in other parts
of the world?
>I do hope we can grow a little from this though, not
> that we deserved the attack,
We are not unique in this. Most of the terrorists' victims did not
deserve to die. I suspect that most of 500K+ dead in Rwanda did not
deserve it either.
>but from the inevitible introspection that follows
> a bad outcome, such as when a doctor's patient unexpectedly deteriorates, we
> could ask, what did we miss? Was there anything we did wrong?
Yes, we did not fight the world terrorism (and it does not look like we
are planning to). On a smaller scale, we did not have any security on
the internal flights in Logan. Among other elementary security measures.
John H. Wilson
"Mary Fisher" <mary....@zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3bb732d9$0$13...@news.zetnet.co.uk...
murderers?" The answer is, "No!" unless you are a close relative of the
victim, in which case, of course, it is noble. There is nothing noble,
however, about sitting in the stands and forgiving the lion who has just
killed a Jew, or a Christian, or whoever.
Interesting feature about the Mosaic law and the Christian ethic. One
is told to obey the Mosaic law and punish others who fail to do so. The
Christian ethic simply says, "if you love me, you'll keep my commandments."
But you might read also Matthew, V, vs. 17 ff.
But, of course, very few read the Bible to determine what they should
do, but rather to see how it can be twisted to tell others what to do.
Like Jim Bakker. Slime, of course, but he didn't commit adultery with this
bimbo.
Cheers
John GW
Mary Fisher
>
> "Mary Fisher" <mary....@zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:3bb732d9$0$13...@news.zetnet.co.uk...
> >
> > John H. Wilson <j.g...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> > news:9jGt7.266$Dg5.1...@paloalto-snr2.gtei.net...
> > >
> >
> > > >
> > > Yeah, and every Christian (and every atheist who's read the
> Bible )
> > > thinks that means you should attack the victim of evil unless he
returns
> > > good.
> >
> > You're an expert, I take it?
> >
> But, of course, very few read the Bible to determine what they should
> do, but rather to see how it can be twisted to tell others what to do.
You have figures to verify these statements - "every Christian ... " and
"very few ... " ?
John H. Wilson
>
> You have figures to verify these statements - "every Christian ... " and
> "very few ... " ?
>
Christian, but only 97.683 %, but I do think that 6.142 % would be a small
figure.
Let me just say, from what I hear people saying, which is a fairly
large sample, the statements hold generally. But if you don't like
hyperbole, ignore it.
People treat the Bible and the Constitution the same way.
Particularly scholars who are so fussy about citations. Say these
documents say 'so and so', when, for example, the Constitution 'says'
nothing of the kind, but rather a majority of one set of the nine oligarchs
says it.
People have been quoting here about turning the other cheek. Christ
said to follow the Mosaic law, which simply requires one to limit oneself to
an eye for an eye.
Cheers
John GW
Paul J Gans
> Cheers
> John GW
OK! Let's build two giant buildings in Kabul, staff them
with bin Laden operatives, and then, well, you know...
:-)
----- Paul J. Gans
David C. Pugh
Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message news:9pa6e0$aq0
(...)
> > People have been quoting here about turning the other cheek.
Christ
> >said to follow the Mosaic law, which simply requires one to limit
oneself to
> >an eye for an eye.
>
> OK! Let's build two giant buildings in Kabul, staff them
> with bin Laden operatives, and then, well, you know...
>
> :-)
>
Good Keynesian macroeconomics, that -- the work of building the two
giant buildings would restore the Kabuli economy. Then there would be
the trickle-down effect from all the contractors and officials getting
rich by padding the contracts, so the Reaganauts could feel proud too.
Yup, something for everyone in here :-/
David
Mike Dana
>
> OK! Let's build two giant buildings in Kabul, staff them
> with bin Laden operatives, and then, well, you know...
>
> :-)
>
> ----- Paul J. Gans
Umm... You might wanna re-think that idea, Paul. Some nutcase who
thinks he's on "our side" might decide to take *part* of that seriously,
and an obvious target already exists in "the Islamic world"; never mind
that bin Laden probably has no other connection to them.
I *can't* be the only one who immediately thought of the Petronas
Towers...
--
Mike Dana Everett, Washington, U.S.A.
"It's all just bubblegum and baloney!"
--Eliseo Soriano, 18 September, 2001
D. Spencer Hines
Childish Folderol And Farrago.
Characteristic.
Fuzzball Academic Counterproductive Twaddle.
That's My Pet Goose!
How Sweet It Is!
Deus Vult.
"Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout
in the milk." ---- Henry David Thoreau [1817-1862] -- Journal -- 11 Nov
1854 --[1906]
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly. All original
material contained herein is copyright and property of the author. It
may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an attribution
to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly given, in
writing.
------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor.
"Mike Dana" <mike...@NOSPAMboeing.com> wrote in message
news:3BB8B577...@NOSPAMboeing.com...
Gryphon801
humanity, such as Osama bin Laden and Diarrhea Syphilis Hines [oops, sorry,
censored]. All of us on this newsgroup know how hard it is to feel pity, much
less love, for this object which induces projectile vomiting every time it
posts.
Bryn Fraser
<davi...@online.no> carefully and thoughtfully licked their quill and
wrote the following:
Right! Then we knock them down...
>
>
Bryn Fraser
Nothing unreal can exist... Spock
----------------------------------
http://www.finhall.demon.co.uk
fledermaus
For some things you can turn your cheek (any of your four) but not in
the case of rape, murder, arson or other serious crimes.
Bryn Fraser
<gryph...@aol.com> carefully and thoughtfully licked their quill and
wrote the following:
Sounds more like Gollam everyday...
Paul J Gans
>Paul J Gans wrote:
>>
>> OK! Let's build two giant buildings in Kabul, staff them
>> with bin Laden operatives, and then, well, you know...
>>
>> :-)
>>
>> ----- Paul J. Gans
>Umm... You might wanna re-think that idea, Paul. Some nutcase who
>thinks he's on "our side" might decide to take *part* of that seriously,
>and an obvious target already exists in "the Islamic world"; never mind
>that bin Laden probably has no other connection to them.
>I *can't* be the only one who immediately thought of the Petronas
>Towers...
My bad. I didn't think of that. I tend not to think
of suicidal idiots as being active here. I should know
better.
Just in case one of those S.I. is reading this, those
towers have nothing to do with bin Laden or anything
he cares about.
---- Paul J. Gans
nyra
> Fuzzball Academic Counterproductive Twaddle.
So that's what you think of "fact"s?
Andrew J. Waller
>Love your enemy, but kill him/her before it kills you or anyone else.
>
>For some things you can turn your cheek (any of your four) but not in
>the case of rape, murder, arson or other serious crimes.
>
Yes, I agree. I believe the point of the original post is to understand what
motivates these people, and in doing so, examine what about ourselves prompts
such a reaction. I submit that it is not what G. W. Bush stated, that they
hate us for our democracy, but rather they hate us for our shamelessly
superficial/commercial culture. This is aside from our international politics,
which policy is little different from many less offensive (albeit less
intervientionist) nations.
Mary Fisher
Bryn Fraser <br...@finhall.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:CEHXFJAh...@finhall.demon.co.uk...
> In article <bf1u7.5664$tu6.1...@news1.oke.nextra.no>, David C. Pugh
> <davi...@online.no> carefully and thoughtfully licked their quill and
> wrote the following:
> >
> >Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message news:9pa6e0$aq0
> >
> >(...)
> >> > People have been quoting here about turning the other cheek.
> >Christ
> >> >said to follow the Mosaic law, which simply requires one to limit
> >oneself to
> >> >an eye for an eye.
> >
> >>
> >> OK! Let's build two giant buildings in Kabul, staff them
> >> with bin Laden operatives, and then, well, you know...
> >>
> >> :-)
> >>
> >
> >Good Keynesian macroeconomics, that -- the work of building the two
> >giant buildings would restore the Kabuli economy. Then there would be
> >the trickle-down effect from all the contractors and officials getting
> >rich by padding the contracts, so the Reaganauts could feel proud too.
> >Yup, something for everyone in here :-/
> >
> >David
>
> Right! Then we knock them down...
Thanks, chaps. Saved me from holding myself back :-)
M
Andrew J. Waller
turn to fundamentalism to try to forcibly insulate themselves from
what they see as a morally decayed world. Many also have political
motives like Osama bin Laden who wants to effect political change in
Saudi Arabia, already a fundamentalist and repressive regime. Poverty
is also a motivator. I believe that the USA should look into the
mirror a little bit and see if the side of us that is presented to the
external world is representing the best of us or the worst of us.
Lately we have all seen some of the best. What the world sees is
reruns of Dallas and lousy movies showing off disrespectful attitudes
and potty humor. Sometimes our businesses stimulate economies.
Sometimes they exploit. Sometimes we assist other governments to
fight off aggressors (like Afghanistan during the Russian war).
Sometimes we abandon supposed allies to fall apart and degenerate into
regrettably repressive regimes (like Afghanistan immediately after the
Russian war). There are reasons foreigners don't like Americans.
Along with beating our war drums, it may be time to reassess our
impact on the third world and how we can become more of a force for
positive change. This is what I mean by loving our enemy: try to
understand how they became our enemy and see if there is anything we
can do to make it a little better while we go after their terrorists.
If we don't develop any better understanding, we could continue to be
a target forever.
am...@hotmail.com (Alex) wrote in message news:<f8e58188.01093...@posting.google.com>...
> dre...@aol.comspamspam (Andrew J. Waller) wrote in message news:<20010928223619...@mb-fj.aol.com>...
> > I have given some thought to the issue of how to approach the terrorists
>
> With AK. Flamethrower is even better...
>
> >in the
> > calling to love one's enemy.
>
> Why would somebody want to do such a strange thing?
>
> But, if this is really important for you, a recepie in this particular
> case is rather simple: make a circumcission, stop drinking and eating
> pork, pray (5?) times a day with your face to Mecca, wear turban, and
> kill as many infidels as possible. Mutual love with your present enemy
> will be guaranteed.
>
<Extensive snipping of quotes and arguments>
Martin Reboul
"Andrew J. Waller" wrote:
> I have given some thought to the issue of how to approach the terrorists in the
> calling to love one's enemy. I don't think I can relate fully to these people,
> but I think I can begin to understand the point of these fundamentalists. I
> believe bin Laden himself has multiple agendas, which I have addressed
> elsewhere in other threads, but the issue of Islamic fundamentalism is more
> tricky. I don't think their motivation was what G. W. Bush said it was, that
> they were jealous of our democracy and our liberty. I think it was about how
> we handle our freedom.
I'm afraid there is an element of jealousy in it. It is however misdirected - the
elite in most Islamic countries, especially those that have substantial incomes
from oil, control the vast majority of the wealth - little of it filters down to
the population. They are however bombarded with images of the decadent West on TV,
and encouraged to blame us.
> We have generally been quick to dismiss these people as purely evil and to
> rally around our flag as the good guys. Some others elsewhere see the Moslems
> as the good guys and us as evil. Why? The answer lies in what they peceive as
> a threat to their values. My core values include--among others such as not
> suicidally bombing innocent civilians--a distaste for the more shallow and
> commercial aspects of our culture. I rather hate what TV does to our minds,
> what lousy movies have done to our standards of taste, and what oversexed pop
> stars have done to our childrens' attitudes. I don't abdicate my
> responsibility and I raise my family as well as I can. Still, I view these
> things from my perspective of being a modern American. What if I were from a
> different, more restricted religion, conservative culture and poverty-stricken
> economy?
You'd be jealous of the ones having all the fun?
> With the world view of the radical Islamic we could be seen to be destroying the
> very basis of their society by exporting to the world the very trash of our
> culture which I personally detest. In this way I have come to understand the
> motivation of these guys. I don't defend with what they did, have done, or
> probably will do. But I think it might be appropriate to pause and appreciate
> how evil our culture really can be.
I strongly disagree. I believe in freedom, freedom from being told what to do, who
to worship and how to behave - with one important restriction: respect for those
who wish to behave in other ways, and don't want to be offended or see my
(mis)behaviour! Unfortunately, some will abuse the great privilege of freedom, but
that's one of the prices of having it.
> Perhaps some tiny amount of mutual good can come of the recent tragedy in our
> nations time of grief. Perhaps as we hunt down and kill the bastards who attacked
> us in such a dastardly way, we could begin to effect some change in our own
> society. We need to tone down our own moral bankruptcy that we as a nation
> suffer. Maybe if we all in our own ways return to core values such as decency,
> integrity, love and justice, we might demonstrate less of our undesirable
> attitudes (cynicism, opportunism, angst-ridden worldliness, the celebration of
> abuse of sex and drugs, etc, that abounds in pop culture)
.....you forgot 'greed' and 'selfishness'....
> in favor of more admirable traits we all believe we posess in abundance. I think
> the world is different now. I feel less safe, vulnerable. I am sad. I do hope
> we can grow a little from this though, not that we deserved the attack, but from
> the inevitible introspection that follows a bad outcome, such as when a doctor's
> patient unexpectedly deteriorates, we could ask, what did we miss? Was there
> anything we did wrong?
Plenty of things - but nothing to deserve that! Your unwarranted attack on what you
call 'pop-culture' is sadly mis-directed. Understanding, generosity and
unselfishness are what we need more of, not strictly enforced 'moral codes'. I
would suggest that a complete overhaul of the economic structure of the world is
the key to everything....?
Never before in history has there been such a demand for food and goods, and such
capacity to produce them. Yet the world's economy depends on the sacred cow of
'market forces', ruled by recessions, exchange and interest rates and so-on,
controlled by a few (mostly) greedy, self serving organisations and people, who are
quite prepared to bankrupt entire countries and watch people starve to make
undeserved and unearned 'money' - although this 'wealth' is probably only a piece
of paper, or 1's & 0's in a computer in fact.
I'm sure this is the underlying cause of most of the trouble on this planet, though
religion doesn't help. When I've sorted out a way to deal with these problems and
make everyone happy, I'll post a follow up. But don't hold your breath......
Cheers
Martin
PS I'm glad to see you mentioned 'love' in there Andrew - that'd be a start!
Martin Reboul
John H. Wilson wrote:
> "Mary Fisher" <mary....@zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:3bb732d9$0$13...@news.zetnet.co.uk...
> >
> > John H. Wilson <j.g...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> > news:9jGt7.266$Dg5.1...@paloalto-snr2.gtei.net...
> > >
> >
> > > >
> > > Yeah, and every Christian (and every atheist who's read the
> Bible )
> > > thinks that means you should attack the victim of evil unless he returns
> > > good.
> >
> > You're an expert, I take it?
> >
> Sure. Some woman on TV said, "Aren't we Christians, can't we forgive
> murderers?" The answer is, "No!" unless you are a close relative of the
> victim, in which case, of course, it is noble. There is nothing noble,
> however, about sitting in the stands and forgiving the lion who has just
> killed a Jew, or a Christian, or whoever.
Now that's odd! I could easily forgive and understand a starving, cruelly beaten
lion who did such a thing. Not the bloody Roman who starved and beat him though!
> Interesting feature about the Mosaic law and the Christian ethic. One
> is told to obey the Mosaic law and punish others who fail to do so. The
> Christian ethic simply says, "if you love me, you'll keep my commandments."
> But you might read also Matthew, V, vs. 17 ff.
> But, of course, very few read the Bible to determine what they should
> do, but rather to see how it can be twisted to tell others what to do.
> Like Jim Bakker. Slime, of course, but he didn't commit adultery with this
> bimbo.
Just as well! You can excuse virtually any sort of behaviour if you quote the
right verse from the Bible. An eye for an eye and love thine enemy.... phew!
Cheers
Martin
Martin Reboul
Paul J Gans wrote:
Who's going to do the flying though?
Martin Reboul
Mike Dana wrote:
> Paul J Gans wrote:
> >
> > OK! Let's build two giant buildings in Kabul, staff them
> > with bin Laden operatives, and then, well, you know...
> >
> > :-)
> >
> > ----- Paul J. Gans
>
> Umm... You might wanna re-think that idea, Paul. Some nutcase who
> thinks he's on "our side" might decide to take *part* of that seriously,
> and an obvious target already exists in "the Islamic world"; never mind
> that bin Laden probably has no other connection to them.
>
> I *can't* be the only one who immediately thought of the Petronas
> Towers...
I keep thinking of an old record by The Clash.....?
Funny, haven't heard it on the radio recently.
William Barwell
Luke 14:33
So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh
not all he hath, he cannot be my disciple.
How many real disciples does Jesus have?
Here in America especially where we have all
so many who think they are Christians?
How many Christians have ever heard these verese
from the pulpit?
Jesus tells us that he who does not "keep his
sayings" is like the foolish man who built his house
on sand. Only to see it fall in the rain and wind.
Martin Reboul
Bryn Fraser wrote:
> In article <20011001150138...@mb-mg.aol.com>, Gryphon801
> <gryph...@aol.com> carefully and thoughtfully licked their quill and
> wrote the following:
> >The problem with loving our enemies is that we must include enemies of all
> >humanity, such as Osama bin Laden and Diarrhea Syphilis Hines [oops, sorry,
> >censored]. All of us on this newsgroup know how hard it is to feel pity, much
> >less love, for this object which induces projectile vomiting every time it
> >posts.
>
> Sounds more like Gollam everyday...
Shome mishtake shurely? Gollum wasn't it... oh no, he was 'the other one', I
forgot....
William Barwell
D. Spencer Hines <D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu> wrote:
>Stupid Anserine Warbling.
Your field of expertise.
>Childish Folderol And Farrago.
>
You have it down to an art form.
>Characteristic.
You are a character are all right
>Fuzzball Academic Counterproductive Twaddle.
>
You are the past master.
Anchors aweigh!
Martin Reboul
Alex wrote:
Well said Alex! You've made me think though - what would be worse, no booze or circumcision? I realise some things
are well worth fighting for.
William Barwell
Andrew J. Waller <dre...@aol.comspamspam> wrote:
>>
>>Love your enemy, but kill him/her before it kills you or anyone else.
>>
>>For some things you can turn your cheek (any of your four) but not in
>>the case of rape, murder, arson or other serious crimes.
>>
>
>Yes, I agree. I believe the point of the original post is to understand what
>motivates these people, and in doing so, examine what about ourselves prompts
>such a reaction. I submit that it is not what G. W. Bush stated, that they
>hate us for our democracy, but rather they hate us for our shamelessly
>superficial/commercial culture.
They hate us for our support of repressive regimes (the Shah
of Iran) our callous behavior (1 million dead Iraqis)
our support of Israel, and similar things.
Playing off Iraq and Iran (kill each other, fellows)
and other nonsense.
Bush of course dared not tell the truth.
So he made a patriotic sounding lie, red meat to the jingoistic
American public that has a proven habit of gobbling up
shite like this.
Bush is a lying sack of shit who dares not engage the
American public in a serious dialogue about our
past actions, the problems we now have because we
were less than wise in the past, and how we may
avoid such errors in the future.
To be fair, its all probably beyond him and the GOP
morons he has advising him anyway.
John H. Wilson
"Martin Reboul" <martin...@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:3BB914DD...@virgin.net...
>
> John GW wrote
> > Like Jim Bakker. Slime, of course, but he didn't commit adultery with
this
> > bimbo.
>
Unless she was married.
> Just as well! You can excuse virtually any sort of behaviour if you quote
the
> right verse from the Bible. An eye for an eye and love thine enemy....
phew!
v
I don't know - you can construct a fairly consistent philosophy from it.
Just assume that the OT is telling you how to govern a society, and the NT
is telling you how to govern yourself, and don't be too nitpicking about
following every detail, like stoning people. Could say that Christ was
saying, "Demand more of yourself than you demand of others" - not too bad a
philosophy for anyone (you understand, I'm an atheist, and not too sure
Christ existed.)
By this view, one has no right to ask one's society to "turn the other
cheek", because one would be pressuring others to do so.
Regards
John GW
Halstein Sjølie
<martin...@virgin.net> wrote:
>
>
<snip>
>
>Well said Alex! You've made me think though - what would be worse, no booze or circumcision? I realise some things
>are well worth fighting for.
Lets make a declaration stating:
It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are
fighting, but for booze -- for that alone, which no honest man gives
up but with life itself.
(Adapted from "The Declaration of Arbroath)
Halstein.
Halstein Sjølie
Replace XX with no to get correct e-mail adress.
Martin Reboul
Halstein Sjølie wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Oct 2001 02:27:20 +0100, Martin Reboul
> <martin...@virgin.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> <snip>
> >
> >Well said Alex! You've made me think though - what would be worse, no booze or circumcision? I realise some things
> >are well worth fighting for.
>
> Lets make a declaration stating:
>
> It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are
> fighting, but for booze -- for that alone, which no honest man gives
> up but with life itself.
> (Adapted from "The Declaration of Arbroath)
Magnificent! I feel my martial spirit strring already. Why only honest men though?
Paul J Gans
>You know, it's easy to miss the forest for the trees. The muslims
>turn to fundamentalism to try to forcibly insulate themselves from
>what they see as a morally decayed world. Many also have political
>motives like Osama bin Laden who wants to effect political change in
>Saudi Arabia, already a fundamentalist and repressive regime. Poverty
>is also a motivator. I believe that the USA should look into the
>mirror a little bit and see if the side of us that is presented to the
>external world is representing the best of us or the worst of us.
>Lately we have all seen some of the best. What the world sees is
>reruns of Dallas and lousy movies showing off disrespectful attitudes
>and potty humor. Sometimes our businesses stimulate economies.
>Sometimes they exploit. Sometimes we assist other governments to
>fight off aggressors (like Afghanistan during the Russian war).
>Sometimes we abandon supposed allies to fall apart and degenerate into
>regrettably repressive regimes (like Afghanistan immediately after the
>Russian war). There are reasons foreigners don't like Americans.
>Along with beating our war drums, it may be time to reassess our
>impact on the third world and how we can become more of a force for
>positive change. This is what I mean by loving our enemy: try to
>understand how they became our enemy and see if there is anything we
>can do to make it a little better while we go after their terrorists.
>If we don't develop any better understanding, we could continue to be
>a target forever.
I agree with you about being a target.
However, what is it that you propose? That we stop showing
reruns of Dallas on TV or that we force our women to cover
their faces?
You do understand that bin Laden is from a sect that believes
that it is quite proper, indeed required, to convert folks
if possible. I gather that his difference with the Saudi
government is doctrinal--they agree with him on the outside
but permit foreigners to drink whisky, have sex, and wipe
themselves with the wrong hand, just for starters.
Even if we were to disappear, bin Laden would still have it
in for the Saudis.
I think that we have to stop looking for the simplistic
solution to all of this. There isn't one. We are dealing
with a pluralistic, often tribal group of societies in
the Middle East and Central Asia.
That area has been swept by a fundamentalist "awakening".
One aspect of that is that the US (and the west in general)
is seen as thwarting the true role of Islamic society, which
is to integrate religion and government so that a truly
Islamic life can be led by all who know the True Faith.
As you point out, we are seen to be the pit of all moral
decay with our blatant sexuality, our naked women, our
unholy ways, our concentration on money instead of the
true life hearafter, etc. etc.
How would you change this?
----- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
Halstein Sjølie
<martin...@virgin.net> wrote:
Maybe because we don't know what disonhest men migth do. And the
battle cry would "Never forget the booze!"
Michael Kuettner
<snip>
> You do understand that bin Laden is from a sect that believes
> that it is quite proper, indeed required, to convert folks
> if possible.
You've just described Islam.
> I gather that his difference with the Saudi
> government is doctrinal--they agree with him on the outside
> but permit foreigners to drink whisky, have sex, and wipe
> themselves with the wrong hand, just for starters.
>
You shouldn't have written 'foreigners'; the correct term
would be 'themselves'.
Ever been to Saudia - Arabia ?
As an aside : You don't watch if anyone wipes himself
with the wrong hand. You don't *use* the wrong hand
while you're eating.
But that's a minor point (like Merkins writing Hapsburg ;-))
As long as you're a member of the ruling family you
can do anything (as long as you're at least a little bit
discrete about it).
Alcohol in foreigners compounds ?
Allowed as long as no Saudi *except* one from the
ruling house gets drunk.
Importing alcohol ?
Yep; smuggle it in. Who are the smugglers ?
Royal princes; brings a lot of cash.
Sex ?
Weekend flights to the Phillipines (and spending
Ramadan abroad) are usual for the wealthy.
I could go on ...
But to come to the point :
Bin Laden is just one of the Arabs suffering a
"cultural inferiority complex".
They see that their Islamic system hasn't accomplished
anything for a couple of hundred years; *but* in
it's prime-time it was miles ahead of Western
culture.
But they're incapable of analyzing at which point
in history Islam ran astray[1] - so it has to be the fault
of somebody else; see Jerry Falwell and others for
comparison - return to old values without knowing
what they were.
And that's exactly what we're hearing from them :
If it weren't for decadent Western culture, life would be
better. And the main proponent of Western culture -
whatever they think that it is - is the USA.
Hence the term "Big Satan".
Cheers,
Michael Kuettner
[1] Would be a nice thread :
*Why* did Islam cease to be a progressive force and when
did this start
Martin Reboul
Halstein Sjølie wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Oct 2001 16:48:11 +0100, Martin Reboul
> <martin...@virgin.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Halstein Sjølie wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 02 Oct 2001 02:27:20 +0100, Martin Reboul
> >> <martin...@virgin.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> <snip>
> >> >
> >> >Well said Alex! You've made me think though - what would be worse, no booze or circumcision? I realise some things
> >> >are well worth fighting for.
> >>
> >> Lets make a declaration stating:
> >>
> >> It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are
> >> fighting, but for booze -- for that alone, which no honest man gives
> >> up but with life itself.
> >> (Adapted from "The Declaration of Arbroath)
> >
> >Magnificent! I feel my martial spirit strring already. Why only honest men though?
> >
> Maybe because we don't know what disonhest men migth do. And the
> battle cry would "Never forget the booze!"
Hmmmm! Arbroath ye say? Probably "Who's round is it?"
Paul J Gans
>Cheers,
>Michael Kuettner
I agree with you. I even used the Falwell analogy in
several earlier posts.
My short and probably wrong opinion on your point is
that "progress", whatever that means, seems to have
stopped with the rise of fundamentalism. It happened
several times in different areas. It even happened
in Medieval Europe among the Christians. One such
period used to be called "the Dark Ages".
---- Paul J. Gans
Alex
>
> Well said Alex! You've made me think though - what would be worse, no booze or circumcision? I realise some things
> are well worth fighting for.
One of the answers had been alledgedly given by the Russian Prince Vladimir
when he faced the options for the state religion. Islam had been abolished
because "the joy of Russia is drinking".
Nappy discussed the same problem in Egypt. Eventually, the Muslim clergy
made concessions on all issues (pork eating and drinking) except circumcission.
As you know Nappy remained Christian and so did most of his army.
Based on these two cases, my answer to your (very important) question is
"both". Stay as you are. :-)
Alex
> You know, it's easy to miss the forest for the trees. The muslims
> turn to fundamentalism to try to forcibly insulate themselves from
> what they see as a morally decayed world. Many also have political
> motives like Osama bin Laden who wants to effect political change in
> Saudi Arabia, already a fundamentalist and repressive regime. Poverty
> is also a motivator.
Yes, it's all true. The question remains why should we accomodate their
inferiority complexes, etc. After all, they do not accomodate us.
>I believe that the USA should look into the
> mirror a little bit and see if the side of us that is presented to the
> external world is representing the best of us or the worst of us.
IMHO, it's all a reflection of the need to be loved (Dr. Evil: "Give
me a hug!"). Sorry, you can't be loved by everybody in the world and you
can't accomodate everybody in the world. And if and when people claimed
themselves as your enemies, don't try to "love" them until they are
completely defeated. Look at the lessons of WWII and post-WWII.
Frederic Navez
every minute... when he was younger! It's unbelievable when you see what he does at the moment.
Alex a écrit :
Paul J Gans
I don't think so. It is more like the need for some people
in the US to attack homosexuals. They just *can't* help
themselves. There is both hate and fear involved. In
my own orcishly brainless point of view, that's what's involved
here. Hate and fear.
---- Paul J. Gans
Keith Marzullo
Michael Kuettner <mik...@eunet.at> wrote:
>[1] Would be a nice thread :
>*Why* did Islam cease to be a progressive force and when
>did this start
hi michael,
it's a simple question which usually leads to a good thread.
but, like many simple questions, it's worded in a way that leads to
several interpretations. to illustrate, how would you answer your own
question if the word "Islam" were replaced by "Christianity"?
i think that most would agree that the christianization of northern
europe is an example of a progressive force. would you call
the renaissance an example of a progressive christian force?
do the actions of a ruler who claims to be christian serve
as an example of a christian force? was the reformation an
example of a progressive christian force?
cheers,
keith
--
___________________________________________________
Keith Marzullo University of California, San Diego
Department of Computer Science & Engineering
---------------------------------------------------
Alex
> Have you ever heard of Bin Laden's past? I just heard he used to party, drink all night, have a different woman
> every minute... when he was younger! It's unbelievable when you see what he does at the moment.
>
Well, it's easy to make a jump from sin to sanctity. Or from a "good guy" to
a villain. In this sense Bin Laden is nothing unusual and, IMHO, he is
rather a sympthom than a real problem.
Paul J Gans
>In article <YWsu7.72$Fn2....@nreader2.kpnqwest.net>,
>Michael Kuettner <mik...@eunet.at> wrote:
>>[1] Would be a nice thread :
>>*Why* did Islam cease to be a progressive force and when
>>did this start
>hi michael,
>it's a simple question which usually leads to a good thread.
>but, like many simple questions, it's worded in a way that leads to
>several interpretations. to illustrate, how would you answer your own
>question if the word "Islam" were replaced by "Christianity"?
>i think that most would agree that the christianization of northern
>europe is an example of a progressive force. would you call
>the renaissance an example of a progressive christian force?
>do the actions of a ruler who claims to be christian serve
>as an example of a christian force? was the reformation an
>example of a progressive christian force?
>cheers,
>keith
I trust Keith will forgive me for jumping in here.
One of the things that biology teaches us is that
evolution has no direction. It does not "progress".
Human history, I think, is similar. "Progress" is
a value judgement. For most of us on the internet
we like the complexity of modern life, its gadgets,
etc. But there are serious folks who prefer a
simpler way of life.
There is no question that the history of the west
has been toward less religiosity and more technology.
I'm not setting those two up in opposition to each
other, but we today *never* worry if a given technical
development was designed by the devil.
For me the issue of "progress" revolves around the
inability of many countries in the MIddle East and
Central Asia to feed and educate their population
and to provide them with basic medical care. Why
is this? Likely there are a lot of reasons from
lack of birth control (exporting birth control
is officially opposed by the US) to poor choice of
land to live on.
In my opinion, and I stress that, religion does have
something to do with it. If one is taught to accept
one's place in life unquestioningly and taught that
the only changes in life that may be made are those
that are theologically acceptable, then one is, I
think, in some trouble.
I think that is what has currently caught many of
the peoples of the Middle East and Central Asia.
That said, there are clearly other factors as well.
Once those people sat right on the richest trade routes
in the world. As merchants they could make a good
living and generate surpluses that could support
artists, writers, musicians, etc. Today that trade
route is gone and the entire region, except for oil,
has been completely marginalized.
The economic crash was completed with the destruction
of the Ottoman Empire after WW1, but clearly the
region was already in trouble before that.
Since the societies of the region are generally
autocratic and not democratic, even the oil money
has not changed anything. We have the typical image
of a super-rich upper class and a horribly impoverished
lowest class.
And there are other causes as well. But I've rambled
enough for now.
----- Paul J. Gans
Keith Marzullo
>I trust Keith will forgive me for jumping in here.
hi paul,
i think your "rambling" posting makes many good points. i think that
your central point is:
>For me the issue of "progress" revolves around the
>inability of many countries in the MIddle East and
>Central Asia to feed and educate their population
>and to provide them with basic medical care. Why
>is this? Likely there are a lot of reasons from
>lack of birth control (exporting birth control
>is officially opposed by the US) to poor choice of
>land to live on.
>
>In my opinion, and I stress that, religion does have
>something to do with it. If one is taught to accept
>one's place in life unquestioningly and taught that
>the only changes in life that may be made are those
>that are theologically acceptable, then one is, I
>think, in some trouble.
this is an argument about religion in general rather than about just
Islam, since your argument also works with modern countries outside
of the sphere of Islam. religion has always been used by autocratic
regimes to give themselves authority; this is one of the most central
themes in medieval european history, of course. (and, both Christianity
and Islam teach compassion and of taking care of those who need help;
there are charitable organizations under both religions).
i think that michael was thinking of progress in terms of the
advancement of arts, sciences and mathematics. that these flourished
under Islamic regimes at one point in time and under Christan regimes
at other points seems to me to be largely unrelated to religion. certainly
much art was commissioned by popes, and Islam inspires a reverence for
the written word, but the driving forces have been rulers who treasured
knowledge and who were willing to support such creative efforts.
and, usually such rulers have been nowhere near the most fundamental
wing of their religion.
Bill Kent
: [1] Would be a nice thread :
: *Why* did Islam cease to be a progressive force and when
: did this start
Avoiding the issue of defining "progressive" I would say that an
argument could be made as follows:
At a crucial moment in intellectual history (12th C.) Europe
was *relatively* politically stable while the Islamic world
was facing increasing turmoil and outside threats. As territory
was lost fragmented leadership became more conservative. As the
debate between faith and reason became more important Aquinas
was able to develop a compromise. Islamic scholars such as Ibn
Rushd on the other hand advanced the far more radical idea that
two seperate and contradictory truths existed - one of reason
and one of revelation. Thus while the more radical thinkers of
Europe were busy catching up to Arab scholarship rather than
needing to spend all of their energies defending themselves,
the conservative leaders of Islam were disavowing that same
scholarship.
The forces that lead to the increased prominence of reason in
Europe, growing trade that needed to be organized and such, were
not present in the chaotic conditions of the Islamic world
at this time and this began the long period of stagnation
that continues today.
Of course this is pretty much a wild guess on my part and I
invite those with more knoledge of the region and the area
to tear it to shreds as they like.
--
Bill Kent
bill...@mail.com
http://www.cif.rochester.edu/~wildcat
David C. Pugh
Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message news:9pgaaa$2i1
> There is no question that the history of the west
> has been toward less religiosity and more technology.
> I'm not setting those two up in opposition to each
> other, but we today *never* worry if a given technical
> development was designed by the devil.
>
Paul! And after everything you've said about Windows!
David
David C. Pugh
Bill Kent <bill...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:9ph24k$qo...@biko.cc.rochester.edu...
> Michael Kuettner <mik...@eunet.at> wrote:
>
> : [1] Would be a nice thread :
> : *Why* did Islam cease to be a progressive force and when
> : did this start
>
>
> Avoiding the issue of defining "progressive" I would say that an
> argument could be made as follows:
>
> At a crucial moment in intellectual history (12th C.) Europe
> was *relatively* politically stable while the Islamic world
> was facing increasing turmoil and outside threats.
Lots and lots and lots of nasty invaders -- the Seljuk, the Franj, the
Ghuzz, the Mongols, the Khorazmians at a loose end, and then more
Mongols.
As territory
> was lost fragmented leadership became more conservative. As the
> debate between faith and reason became more important Aquinas
> was able to develop a compromise. Islamic scholars such as Ibn
> Rushd on the other hand advanced the far more radical idea that
> two seperate and contradictory truths existed - one of reason
> and one of revelation. Thus while the more radical thinkers of
> Europe were busy catching up to Arab scholarship rather than
> needing to spend all of their energies defending themselves,
> the conservative leaders of Islam were disavowing that same
> scholarship.
Right. Ibn Rushd's Andalucia was intellectually crippled by Almohad
fundamentalism. At the other end of the pond there was also a
crackdown. Although Ibn Rushd is best known to us as a commentator on
Aristotle, in the Muslim world he was best known as a polemicist
against al-Ghazali and his attack on rationalism (Tahafut
al-Falasifah, and Ibn Rushd's counterblast Tahafut al-Tahafut). The
allegedly tolerant Saladin had a theosophist, as-Suhrawardi, crucified
at Aleppo.
In Byzantium the Comneni profiled themselves as the defenders of
Orthodoxy. The perspective launched by, I think, Friedrich Heer (and
enthusiastically adopted by Boswell) of a general "closing of minds"
in the late 12th and 13th centuries seems to apply to all the cultural
worlds and not just the Latin West.
David
Mike Dana
...not to mention the way many people who claim to be quite "rational"
react to the "N" word, in *any* context!
--
Mike Dana Everett, Washington, U.S.A.
"It's all just bubblegum and baloney!"
--Eliseo Soriano, 18 September, 2001
Paul J Gans
>hi paul,
>cheers,
>keith
I agree with you. But I think it is also economic. If
the populace is poor, nobody can afford to be a thinker
or an artist. I think it is only when increased affluence
allows some to be "idle" (in the economic sense) that
the arts can flourish. So one needs that affluence.
On the other hand, if your cultural bias puts a strong
emphasis on tradition, new ideas will not easily find
a home.
Early ascetic Christianity is an example. The entire
focus was on this life as ephemeral and only a preparation
for the eternal life to come. As a result the emphasis
was on doing the right thing religiously and not on
shaking up society by inventing stuff, writing audacious
poems, or painting in revolutionary styles.
I think when you couple this religious point of view
with extreme poverty, you have a culture that "falls
behind" in material wealth. The people in that culture
of course won't see it that way at all. They will see
themselves as rejecting the material in favor of the
enternal.
But there's more. Let's say that you run such a
society. And let's assume that you both envy and
fear the outside world. But you see that outside
world as striving to keep you from living the religious
life, pushing sin on your people, and seducing them
with wealth to allow them to sin on a magnificent scale.
Might you not preach a holy war against the Great Satans?
And would you be wrong, from your point of view?
----- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
No no. That wasn't designed by the devil, it was
designed by the Taliban to make computers vulnerable
to break-ins, attacks, and other evil things.
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
That is true. Maimonides mirrored some of those open
attitudes, stating that the evidence of the senses had
to be taken seriously when it contradicted the Bible.
His son became a famous fundamentalist rabbi.
But that universal "closing of the minds" seems not to
have hit as hard in Europe. There is where the outside
pressure on Islam might have played a major role.
----- Paul J. Gans
Bill Kent
I think that the whole 'closing of the minds' argument is
overstated. What was happening IMHO was the natural reaction to
any new idea that challenges deeply held beliefs - condemnation
and scorn. The reaction across the Islamic and European world
was the same thing, in essence, as what happened with Darwin
and Freud only in a very different intellectual climate. The minds
weren't 'open' to begin with, especially in the Latin West. The
'closing of the minds' is 'those damn flakey leftist academics'
writ large.
The outside pressure would definitely be a key factor in the
intellectual course of the Islamic world - there was no need
for an increased "scientific" understanding of time reckoning,
accounting, and engineering to handle increased trade and
population because the trends were going the other direction.
Combine this with the lack of a Thomas Aquinas to provide a
logical reconcilliation between the opposing camps and you have
the conditions necessary for a complete triumph of the
rectionaries.
David J. Starr
Islam, centered in the middle east, is ahead of (or at least highly
competitive with) Latin Christendom, centered in France. By 1492, I
think we can agree that Latin Christendom has pulled ahead, and expels
the last of the Moors from Spain, while discovering the New World on the
side. Perhaps someone could tighten up that 300 year time span.
Christendom invented and embraced the scientific method (Roger Bacon
12??'s) , which is the basis of technological progress. Did Islam have a
Roger Bacon?
David Starr
D. Spencer Hines
Newton?
"Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout
in the milk." ---- Henry David Thoreau [1817-1862] -- Journal -- 11 Nov
1854 --[1906]
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly. All original
material contained herein is copyright and property of the author. It
may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an attribution
to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly given, in
writing.
------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor.
"David J. Starr" <david...@analog.com> wrote in message
news:3BBCC72A...@analog.com...
David C. Pugh
Bill Kent <bill...@mail.com> wrote in message
(...)
(...)
Well, I think the above is overstated. :-)
If we take the Latin West, we have in one century a ferment of
innovative theology, fizzing off in all directions, with the
occasional heresy trial resulting in (for academics) forced
recantations and the burning of books (e.g. Abelard): a century later
we have an apparatus of inquisition that burns not just the books but
the people, starting with radical Aristotelians in Paris in 1209.
Al-Ghazali (a mystic rather than a rationalist) sounds as if he lived
in an era of experimentation: "Ever since I was under twenty (now I am
over fifty) .... I have not ceased to investigate every dogma or
belief. No Batinite [Isma'ili -- DCP] did I come across without
desiring to investigate his esotericism; no Zahirite, without wishing
to acquire the gist of his literalism; no philosopher, without wanting
to learn the essence of his philosophy; no dialectical theologian,
without striving to ascertain the object of his dialectics and
theology; no Sufi, without coveting to probe the secret of his
Sufism; no ascetic, without trying to delve into the origin of his
asceticism; no atheistic zindiq, without groping for the causes of his
bold atheism and zindiqism. Such was the unquenchable thirst of my
soul for investigation from the early days of my youth, an instinct
and a temperament implanted in me by God through no choice of mine."
I wish I knew more about any changes in intellectual atmosphere in the
Eastern Muslim world. Spain is an open-and-shut case -- Maimonides,
whom Paul wrote about, had to leg it, and if I remember rightly, Ibn
Rushd had to watch his step.
David
Bill Kent
: Bill Kent <bill...@mail.com> wrote in message
[David Pugh]
:> :>In Byzantium the Comneni profiled themselves as the defenders of
:> :>Orthodoxy. The perspective launched by, I think, Friedrich Heer
: (and
:> :>enthusiastically adopted by Boswell) of a general "closing of
: minds"
:> :>in the late 12th and 13th centuries seems to apply to all the
: cultural
:> :>worlds and not just the Latin West.
[Paul Gans]
:> : That is true. Maimonides mirrored some of those open
:> : attitudes, stating that the evidence of the senses had
:> : to be taken seriously when it contradicted the Bible.
:>
:> : His son became a famous fundamentalist rabbi.
:>
:> : But that universal "closing of the minds" seems not to
:> : have hit as hard in Europe. There is where the outside
:> : pressure on Islam might have played a major role.
:>
:> I think that the whole 'closing of the minds' argument is
:> overstated. What was happening IMHO was the natural reaction to
:> any new idea that challenges deeply held beliefs - condemnation
:> and scorn. The reaction across the Islamic and European world
:> was the same thing, in essence, as what happened with Darwin
:> and Freud only in a very different intellectual climate. The minds
:> weren't 'open' to begin with, especially in the Latin West. The
:> 'closing of the minds' is 'those damn flakey leftist academics'
:> writ large.
:>
: (...)
: Well, I think the above is overstated. :-)
Overstatement is the lifeblood of usenet. :-)
: If we take the Latin West, we have in one century a ferment of
: innovative theology, fizzing off in all directions, with the
: occasional heresy trial resulting in (for academics) forced
: recantations and the burning of books (e.g. Abelard): a century later
: we have an apparatus of inquisition that burns not just the books but
: the people, starting with radical Aristotelians in Paris in 1209.
Well part of it was that this innovative theology was a (re)new(ed)
phenomenon in Western Europe. It took time to understand the
importance of these intellectual developments and for them to
develop a critical mass (i.e. Abelard to radical Aristotelians and
other more radical intelectuals). The importance was very little
understood at first. (I agree with the interpretation in R.I. Moore's
_The Origins of European Dissent_) Also we should note the development
of Church organization that coincides with this time period and makes
the apparatus of inquisition possible. Afterall it wasn't enlightenment
that prevented the appearance of totalitarian governments in the
medieval world, but a lack of the tools necessary to build such a
government.
: Al-Ghazali (a mystic rather than a rationalist) sounds as if he lived
: in an era of experimentation: "Ever since I was under twenty (now I am
: over fifty) .... I have not ceased to investigate every dogma or
: belief. No Batinite [Isma'ili -- DCP] did I come across without
: desiring to investigate his esotericism; no Zahirite, without wishing
: to acquire the gist of his literalism; no philosopher, without wanting
: to learn the essence of his philosophy; no dialectical theologian,
: without striving to ascertain the object of his dialectics and
: theology; no Sufi, without coveting to probe the secret of his
: Sufism; no ascetic, without trying to delve into the origin of his
: asceticism; no atheistic zindiq, without groping for the causes of his
: bold atheism and zindiqism. Such was the unquenchable thirst of my
: soul for investigation from the early days of my youth, an instinct
: and a temperament implanted in me by God through no choice of mine."
: I wish I knew more about any changes in intellectual atmosphere in the
: Eastern Muslim world. Spain is an open-and-shut case -- Maimonides,
: whom Paul wrote about, had to leg it, and if I remember rightly, Ibn
: Rushd had to watch his step.
I know much less than you do about the intellectual life of the Muslim
world, so I'll defer to you here with the exception of noting that I
interpret the above as "inquiry" rather than "experimentation", ie
Bede vs. Roger Bacon. From what little I remember the really
harsh consequences came fro Ibn Rushd's followers rather than himself
and may have included the end of Cordoba as an important intellectual
center. Or was that a little later?
William Barwell
and instituted theocracies That did not allow open inquiry
and philosophy to exist uncontrolled.
In Europe things were different. Two popes loudly
excommunicating each other. A corrupt church whose
corruption was well known and despised by many.
The 100 years war and other wars. The Plague.
The Moslems themselves often blame the collapse
of learning in Islamic civilization on the Mongols,
but Europe itself was hit hard by various disasters
also and went the opposite direction.
I think the collapse of prestige of the church
was the main difference. You could get away with
inquiries in an European university setting
that would have gotten you imprisoned and your library
burnt in Islamic countries.
Even in supposedly liberal Islamic Spain philosophy
was banned at times and people executed for secretly studying
philosphy.
In Europe, the church simply did not have the power
to follow the mullahs' example.
By the time they recovered enough to try, it was too late.
Martin Reboul
Alex wrote:
Sage advice! Not that I had any intention whatsoever of doing otherwise....
Cheers
Martin
David C. Pugh
Bill Kent <bill...@mail.com> wrote in message
(...)
> Well part of it was that this innovative theology was a (re)new(ed)
> phenomenon in Western Europe. It took time to understand the
> importance of these intellectual developments and for them to
> develop a critical mass (i.e. Abelard to radical Aristotelians and
> other more radical intelectuals). The importance was very little
> understood at first. (I agree with the interpretation in R.I.
Moore's
> _The Origins of European Dissent_) Also we should note the
development
> of Church organization that coincides with this time period and
makes
> the apparatus of inquisition possible. Afterall it wasn't
enlightenment
> that prevented the appearance of totalitarian governments in the
> medieval world, but a lack of the tools necessary to build such a
> government.
Interesting stuff, Bill. I'm game for more, but I'll be away this
weekend, maybe we can pick it up next week.
Well, of course. I should maybe see what a book on the shelf has to
say about the natural sciences next week.
From what little I remember the really
> harsh consequences came fro Ibn Rushd's followers rather than
himself
> and may have included the end of Cordoba as an important
intellectual
> center. Or was that a little later?
Ibn Rushd died in Marrakech, I've been trying to remember whether this
was exile. I think the last person connected with Cordoba to make a
splash (before Romero de Torres and Manoleto) was Ibn al-'Arabi, and
he, too, left... Don't think there was any life in it at all after say
the 1180s.
David
Paul J Gans
I think these are good points too. Like most interesting
questions, this one has complex answers.
We also have to wonder why China and India "stagnated" too.
Or perhaps that's the natural condition and Europe is the
exception for *not* "stagnating"?
----- Paul J. Gans
Michael Kuettner
Keith Marzullo <marz...@gremlin.ucsd.edu> wrote in message
news:9pfjbl$b...@gremlin.ucsd.edu...
> In article <YWsu7.72$Fn2....@nreader2.kpnqwest.net>,
> Michael Kuettner <mik...@eunet.at> wrote:
> >[1] Would be a nice thread :
> >*Why* did Islam cease to be a progressive force and when
> >did this start
>
> hi michael,
>
> it's a simple question which usually leads to a good thread.
> but, like many simple questions, it's worded in a way that leads to
> several interpretations. to illustrate, how would you answer your own
> question if the word "Islam" were replaced by "Christianity"?
> i think that most would agree that the christianization of northern
> europe is an example of a progressive force. would you call
> the renaissance an example of a progressive christian force?
> do the actions of a ruler who claims to be christian serve
> as an example of a christian force? was the reformation an
> example of a progressive christian force?
>
That would be fodder for another (good) thread.
No - the question is why (and when) did Islam stop to embrace
knowledge ?
They were miles ahead of the Europeans in optics, mathematics,
medicine, physics,etc...
They preserved ancient knowledge and expanded it; many Greek
scriptures weren't sought after (by the Europeans) because of the
Greek original text but because of the Arabic comments and
innovations, e.g.
Why did that all stop ?
Cheers,
Michael Kuettner
Bill Kent
[...]
:>I think the collapse of prestige of the church
:>was the main difference. You could get away with
:>inquiries in an European university setting
:>that would have gotten you imprisoned and your library
:>burnt in Islamic countries.
:>Even in supposedly liberal Islamic Spain philosophy
:>was banned at times and people executed for secretly studying
:>philosphy.
:>In Europe, the church simply did not have the power
:>to follow the mullahs' example.
:>By the time they recovered enough to try, it was too late.
: I think these are good points too. Like most interesting
: questions, this one has complex answers.
: We also have to wonder why China and India "stagnated" too.
: Or perhaps that's the natural condition and Europe is the
: exception for *not* "stagnating"?
I suspect that the precise answers for China and India differ
(perhaps outside pressure played a bigger role in India and
a firm conviction of intelectual superiority in China). Your
supposition of stagnation as the natural process is interesting.
After all Rome was arguably pretty stagnant even before my
ancestors started to take an interest in their real estate. Of
course from an American chauvinistic point of view you could
argue that Europe _has_ stagnated and is now copying America
like everyone else. ;-)
Bill Kent
: Bill Kent <bill...@mail.com> wrote in message
: (...)
:> Well part of it was that this innovative theology was a (re)new(ed)
:> phenomenon in Western Europe. It took time to understand the
:> importance of these intellectual developments and for them to
:> develop a critical mass (i.e. Abelard to radical Aristotelians and
:> other more radical intelectuals). The importance was very little
:> understood at first. (I agree with the interpretation in R.I.
: Moore's
:> _The Origins of European Dissent_) Also we should note the
: development
:> of Church organization that coincides with this time period and
: makes
:> the apparatus of inquisition possible. Afterall it wasn't
: enlightenment
:> that prevented the appearance of totalitarian governments in the
:> medieval world, but a lack of the tools necessary to build such a
:> government.
: Interesting stuff, Bill. I'm game for more, but I'll be away this
: weekend, maybe we can pick it up next week.
We'll have to see. I was hoping that other posters would be
overrunning this thread by now as it's both timely and on-topic,
but that doesn't seem to be the case. Perhaps they're just
intimidated by our awesome intelects. :-)
[...]
: From what little I remember the really
:> harsh consequences came fro Ibn Rushd's followers rather than
: himself
:> and may have included the end of Cordoba as an important
: intellectual
:> center. Or was that a little later?
: Ibn Rushd died in Marrakech, I've been trying to remember whether this
: was exile. I think the last person connected with Cordoba to make a
: splash (before Romero de Torres and Manoleto) was Ibn al-'Arabi, and
: he, too, left... Don't think there was any life in it at all after say
: the 1180s.
I'll try to look it up over the weekend if I get a chance. I wish
H.D. Miller was still posting here.
Paul J Gans
>Cheers,
>Michael Kuettner
Wasn't Islam becoming fragmented? A fundamentalist group
took over in Spain in, IIRC, the early 13th century. And
wasn't the Middle Eastern part overrun by Mongols and
several varieties of Turks?
The arrival of overlords less sophisticated and less
appreciative of the previous culture may well have
contributed to the "malaise" if Islam.
But as I implied in an earlier post, perhaps it is
"progress" that is unusual in human history. If this
is true we should then be looking instead for reasons
for Islamic vitality when it happened and be wondering
why European vitality lasted so long.
-- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
Well, *that* is not true, but hey... The US is at the
height of its "British Empire" mode, even to the point
of not knowing why the natives don't understand English
when it is spoken slowly and loudly.
I think that the world has been changed in the last 500
years by the European development of a previously
unknown idea. That is trade imperialism. Before,
trade was nobody's monopoly and the ones who got rich
from it were primarily the traders. Its volume was
small and there was little "trickle down" effect.
But with the Portuguese rounding of Africa, that all
changed. Soon the amount of trade coming into Europe
became enormous compared to what it was before. This
was accompanied by a corresponding influx of wealth.
That in turn sponsored more innovation. The new God
was profit and its disciples were many.
None of the other great civilizations of the world
(and they were and are great civilizations) were
prepared for this. It changed things permanently.
Call it the triumph of the middle class.
All over the world the old ways are dying and people
are trying to emulate Europe (and America) in this.
Some cultures resent being destroyed--indeed they
are very angry about it. They do not see trade
and profit as the major goal in life.
But now I'm drifting into current events, so I'll
stop.
---- Paul J. Gans
David J. Starr
homeland against would be overlords (Roman Empire) or like the Chinese
and Latin Christendom, converts the invader to it's way of life. Islam
may have had the Mongols, but Christendom had to cope with the Vikings.
They sent missionaries and converted the Norse to Christianity, which
did a good deal to ease the Viking military threat.
David Starr
Paul J Gans wrote:
>
[some snippage]
> The arrival of overlords less sophisticated and less
> appreciative of the previous culture may well have
> contributed to the "malaise" if Islam.
>
> -- Paul J. Gans
Michael Kuettner
Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:9pl4av$liv$6...@news.panix.com...
> Michael Kuettner <mik...@eunet.at> wrote:
>
<snip>
> >No - the question is why (and when) did Islam stop to embrace
> >knowledge ?
> >They were miles ahead of the Europeans in optics, mathematics,
> >medicine, physics,etc...
> >They preserved ancient knowledge and expanded it; many Greek
> >scriptures weren't sought after (by the Europeans) because of the
> >Greek original text but because of the Arabic comments and
> >innovations, e.g.
> >Why did that all stop ?
>
> >Cheers,
>
> >Michael Kuettner
>
>
> Wasn't Islam becoming fragmented? A fundamentalist group
> took over in Spain in, IIRC, the early 13th century. And
> wasn't the Middle Eastern part overrun by Mongols and
> several varieties of Turks?
>
> The arrival of overlords less sophisticated and less
> appreciative of the previous culture may well have
> contributed to the "malaise" if Islam.
>
the Carilingians in Europe.
Less sophisticated overlords - only parts of the
Roman culture survived; but the outcome was different.
So *what* is the difference ?
(Please no McGeifer - replies, anybody).
Why did Europe under *similar* circumstances
take a different way ?
*What* are the details ?
> But as I implied in an earlier post, perhaps it is
> "progress" that is unusual in human history. If this
> is true we should then be looking instead for reasons
> for Islamic vitality when it happened and be wondering
> why European vitality lasted so long.
>
No; I don't think so. Maybe it's the pace of progress
which is different.
And by progress I simply mean doing things better (or
with less effort) and more efficiently.
As an example : Take the 3 field system in agriculture.
It saved the soul^Wsoil. Certainly progress (Europe).
Development of medical arts - certainly progress (Islam).
But then it stopped in the Islamic world; Europe took the
knowledge and continued to build on it.
Islam isn't the only example; China comes to mind, too.
They progressed to a certain point and then stopped
(maybe because of their bureaucracy ?)
Maybe there is a sort of critical mass in knowledge;
after that is reached the process simply continues.
Or maybe W. Barwell (sp?) was right when he suggested
that the church in Europe was too weak to start a
Theocracy ?
And that we thankfully didn't have an overwhelming
bureaucracy at the time ?
I think it's a very interesting point why Islam and China
"imploded" (became unflexible) while Europe prospered.
But maybe the times are too troubled to discuss it
right now without bias.
Cheers,
Michael Kuettner
Bill Kent
: Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
:> Michael Kuettner <mik...@eunet.at> wrote:
:> >No - the question is why (and when) did Islam stop to embrace
:> >knowledge ?
:> >They were miles ahead of the Europeans in optics, mathematics,
:> >medicine, physics,etc...
:> >They preserved ancient knowledge and expanded it; many Greek
:> >scriptures weren't sought after (by the Europeans) because of the
:> >Greek original text but because of the Arabic comments and
:> >innovations, e.g.
:> >Why did that all stop ?
:>
:> Wasn't Islam becoming fragmented? A fundamentalist group
:> took over in Spain in, IIRC, the early 13th century. And
:> wasn't the Middle Eastern part overrun by Mongols and
:> several varieties of Turks?
:>
:> The arrival of overlords less sophisticated and less
:> appreciative of the previous culture may well have
:> contributed to the "malaise" if Islam.
:>
: Yep; but take the rise of the Merovingians and especially
: the Carilingians in Europe.
: Less sophisticated overlords - only parts of the
: Roman culture survived; but the outcome was different.
: So *what* is the difference ?
: (Please no McGeifer - replies, anybody).
: Why did Europe under *similar* circumstances
: take a different way ?
: *What* are the details ?
[...]
Very briefly, as I'm heading off to dinner shprtly. There
_was_ an intelectual malaise throughout Western Europe lasting
at least 500 years. The difference, at this point in history,
is that Latin Europe recovered and revived later on. The reasons
for that recovery are, as you can imagine, complex and debatable
and are being discussed further down the thread, under the
title "Islam as a Progressive Force?"
I'll leave the nature of progress to Paul as we keep him for
just these sorts of "big think" matters. :-)
Alex
> The Moslems themselves often blame the collapse
> of learning in Islamic civilization on the Mongols,
Of course, it's very convenient but, AFAIK, Mongols did not hit
a major part of the Islamic world (from Egypt westward).
William Barwell
Michael Kuettner <mik...@eunet.at> wrote:
>
>Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
>news:9pl4av$liv$6...@news.panix.com...
>> Michael Kuettner <mik...@eunet.at> wrote:
>>
><snip>
>>
>>
>> took over in Spain in, IIRC, the early 13th century. And
>> wasn't the Middle Eastern part overrun by Mongols and
>> several varieties of Turks?
>>
>> The arrival of overlords less sophisticated and less
>> appreciative of the previous culture may well have
>> contributed to the "malaise" if Islam.
>>
>Yep; but take the rise of the Merovingians and especially
>the Carilingians in Europe.
>Less sophisticated overlords - only parts of the
>Roman culture survived; but the outcome was different.
>So *what* is the difference ?
>(Please no McGeifer - replies, anybody).
>Why did Europe under *similar* circumstances
>take a different way ?
>*What* are the details ?
>
and other areas of the Near East, they soon gave way to educated
leaders who appreciated the scholarship and learning of the Greeks,
Byzantnes and others in the urban centers of this new empire.
And this civilization accelerated as paper making made its
way from China and allowed this learning and scholarship to spread
widely.
"Othodox Islam" was still new and creating itself.
It took some time for the new orthodoxy to take on
the nominal Islam that supported philosphers, poets
and other learned men.
It took them sometime to win out over them and destroy
these sort of things as unneeded fripperies that were
corrosive in regards of orthodox Islamic religion.
And to be sure, this sort of learned layer of Islam
was small, and not that important to your average
Moslem citizen of the Middle Ages. The disappearance
of these people and their scholarship didn't do much
and so they weren't missed.
As lessor leaders took the place of early giants like
al-Mamun, they were more easily convinced by the mullahs
who had formed their dogmas and had forged their arguments
against philosphy and scholars that religion came first and
no anti-religous activities could be allowed.
Al-Gahzali pulled together all the dogmatic arguments, enlarged
and added to them and his works set the stage for the final
end of philosphical and critic scholarship in Islamic
civilization.
What really killed philosphy was the end of sponsorship
of such activities. The orthodox had formed their own
universities, institutions and money and support shifted to these
approved religous orientated institutions.
Pope Charles
SubGenius Pope of Houston
Slack!
William Barwell
India stagnated because it had a resurgent Brahamin
Neo-orthodoxy regaining ground lost to Buddhism.
And attacks from Islam on India.
China seemed to found its semi-seclusion acceptable
and this became a sort of goal to maintain that.
The beauracracy became incredibly hidebound and
resistant to change. When you think you are perfect, any change
must be for the worse.
And for some centuries, this worked for China.
One is hesitant to change what seems to work well.
William Barwell
I have pointed that out numerous times to those who so argue
that the Mongol invasions are the cause of of the collapse
of about all learning and progress in Islamic civilization
since it shut down in the 13th century.
The correct answer is that a resurgent othodoxy had
declared war on the zendiks, the sceptics, the unbelievers,
the philosphers and scientists and scholars. Because
they almost always denigrated orthodox Islam.
Bill Kent
: In article <f8e58188.01100...@posting.google.com>,
The "correct" answer? I agree that the Mongols as a monocausal
expanation and scapegoat is wrong, but so is simply saying
that orthodoxy had declared war. Multiple invasions caused
severe political instability throughout the Islamic world and
created fertile soil for resurgent orthodoxy. They also
caused a decline in trade, population growth, etc. all forces
that tend to favor learning and rationalism.
William Barwell
>was exile.
Essentially, yes. He fled to there and died in poverty.
Pope Charles
SubGenius Pope of Houston
Slack!
I think the last person connected with Cordoba to make a
William Barwell
Bill Kent <bill...@mail.com> wrote:
>William Barwell <wbar...@starbase.neosoft.com> wrote:
>: In article <f8e58188.01100...@posting.google.com>,
>: Alex <am...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>:>wbar...@starbase.neosoft.com (William Barwell) wrote in message
>:>
>:>> The Moslems themselves often blame the collapse
>:>> of learning in Islamic civilization on the Mongols,
>:>
>:>Of course, it's very convenient but, AFAIK, Mongols did not hit
>:>a major part of the Islamic world (from Egypt westward).
>
>: I have pointed that out numerous times to those who so argue
>: that the Mongol invasions are the cause of of the collapse
>: of about all learning and progress in Islamic civilization
>: since it shut down in the 13th century.
>
>: The correct answer is that a resurgent othodoxy had
>: declared war on the zendiks, the sceptics, the unbelievers,
>: the philosphers and scientists and scholars. Because
>: they almost always denigrated orthodox Islam.
>
>The "correct" answer? I agree that the Mongols as a monocausal
>expanation and scapegoat is wrong, but so is simply saying
>that orthodoxy had declared war. Multiple invasions caused
>severe political instability throughout the Islamic world and
>created fertile soil for resurgent orthodoxy.
Yes, but without a religous orthodoxy hell bent on stamping
out all rivals to religion, wars and instability cannot
take the blame for their intellectual collapse.
After all, Intellectual gains were made in Europe at the heighth
of the 100 years war, the wars in Spain, Italy and elswhere,
the black death, the collapse of the papacy into two squabbling
popes, and numerous jaqueries and revolts.
The Islamic theologians were organized and had a goal,
but in Europe, the fight was just beginning.
I suspect other thing came into play here. learning vs
technology. Many in teh West were well aware of Europe's
deficiency in medicine and surgery when the first medical
schools in Salerno and Amalfi were founded. Staffed largely by
Moslem and Jewish doctors and teachers.
Islam had had medicine long enough to have forgotten learning
and medicine go together, they saw medicine as a body of knowledge
seperate from all else.
Europe was realizing that medicine was not something that just
happened, it took inquiry and research, and slowly, started
approaching medicine as something that demanded good intellectual skills.
The West ransacked Spain and Byzantine for good medical texts.
And came slowly to the idea that you could not have the
fruits of technology without free inquiry and good schools.
They saw the connect between technologies like medicine,
whereas in Islam, thanks to the prestige of al-Ghazali,
inquiry, though and critical thinking especially was
denigrated and the link between that and progress was
overlooked. They didn't see the forest for the trees.
The Islamic theologians only saw philosophy and physics ect as
a resevoir for atheism and religous doubt, it was a frippery
they saw no need for.
Aquinas and others decided that reason and religion had
to agree, and some way had to be found to do this,
the mullahs declared, with al Ghazali, that reason
was insufficient, revealed religion was its superior.
Its this attitude that made the difference and has to be explained.
Pope Charles
SubGenius Pope of Houston
Slack!
David J. Starr
Roger Bacon is just as important IMHO. The notion that the universe is
predictable rather than run by magic or the capricious will of God. The
modern idea of progress, that there is a better way of doing things, and
all you have to do is find it, comes more directly from Bacon than from
Aquinas.
David Starr
William Barwell wrote:
>
[some snippage]
Paul J Gans
> Of course a strong and vital culture either successfully defends its
>homeland against would be overlords (Roman Empire) or like the Chinese
>and Latin Christendom, converts the invader to it's way of life. Islam
>may have had the Mongols, but Christendom had to cope with the Vikings.
>They sent missionaries and converted the Norse to Christianity, which
>did a good deal to ease the Viking military threat.
>David Starr
We've discussed this before. I don't think that the Vikings
represented that kind of threat to the West. They were able
to raid and even to found settlements in some areas, Dublin
being an example. The settlement in Normandy is more problematic
and possibly the result of an invitation (and possibly not.)
Either way, the "Normans" did not have the resources to conquer
France, what's more the entire west.
And, Chinese-like, they were rapidly assimilated into the
main-stream of French culture.
The Danes did manage to settle the Danelaw, but again, like
the Vikings, that was more of a movement *within* Europe than
a threat from outside.
----- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>[...]
Thank you. I'm honored, I think....
But when was this "malaise"? It wasn't in the period
after 1000, so perhaps you mean the period from 500-1000.
If so, I'm not sure I agree, though it is true that what
we see as "progress" did speed up *after* that period.
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
It is a topic I've brought up from time to time in the
past. I usually phrased it this way: Europe in 1000
was a cultural and economic backwater. The great
civilizations of Eurasia were Islam, China, and India.
Five hundred years later, European ships sailed into
ports in India and soon after into China. An entire
new set of continents was discovered. And, as the
world soon learned, the military and economic power
of this former "backwater" were amazing. Why did
no Indian or Chinese ships sail into Lisbon harbor?
My tentative answer (to which there was some disagreement)
was that the answer was of course complex, but a major
factor was the status of the merchant in the various
civilizations. In the other three, the merchant is
low status. In Europe, he is high-status, right under
the aristocracy itself. In fact, there was considerable
movement between the two classes, including intermarriage.
The result was that commercial expansion, internal and
external, was not only blessed by the nobility, it was
actively financed by the nobility. The major voyages
of exploration were financed by the nobility.
None of this happened in the other great civilizations.
Islam (which we are discussing) had active traders, but
the centrality of the combination religion-government meant
that merchants were not part of the "power structure" in
the Islamic countries.
---- Paul J. Gans
Bill Kent
: Roger Bacon is just as important IMHO. The notion that the universe is
: predictable rather than run by magic or the capricious will of God. The
: modern idea of progress, that there is a better way of doing things, and
: all you have to do is find it, comes more directly from Bacon than from
: Aquinas.
: David Starr
The importance of Aquinas was that he provided a way to reconcile
rational inquiry with traditional theology. It wasn't only Islamic
theologians who saw "philosophy and physics etc. As a resevoir for
atheism and religous doubt". The Islamic intellectuals presented
a much more radical binary choice. Aquinas bought the time
necessary for the modern idea of progress to emerge.
: William Barwell wrote:
:>
: [some snippage]
:> The Islamic theologians only saw philosophy and physics ect as
:> a resevoir for atheism and religous doubt, it was a frippery
:> they saw no need for.
:>
:> Aquinas and others decided that reason and religion had
:> to agree, and some way had to be found to do this,
:> the mullahs declared, with al Ghazali, that reason
:> was insufficient, revealed religion was its superior.
:>
:> Its this attitude that made the difference and has to be explained.
:>
:> Pope Charles
:> SubGenius Pope of Houston
:> Slack!
--
Paul J Gans
Yes. They undoubtedly pointed out that the foreign
invaders, internal troubles, etc., were all the fault
of people falling away from the proper observance of
the true religion.
----- Paul J. Gans
William Barwell
>Michael Kuettner <mik...@eunet.at> wrote:
>
>
>My tentative answer (to which there was some disagreement)
>was that the answer was of course complex, but a major
>factor was the status of the merchant in the various
>civilizations. In the other three, the merchant is
>low status. In Europe, he is high-status, right under
>the aristocracy itself. In fact, there was considerable
>movement between the two classes, including intermarriage.
>
My understanding was that traders were of low status
well into the tenth century in Europe. Only when
spice trade started did huge wealth become possible
with one lucky voyage. But that was a fairly late
event in European history. So trade is part of the puzzle
but not it.
One could look at the phenomenon of free cities
in Europe for clues. Its part of an atittude difference.
The change from mere lowly traders to merchantilism
is something to explain as well.
Perhaps Europe needed to create wealth while Islam was
still content to loot India.
later Islam seemed to have a certain contempt for creativity
that we see with the other greater looter civilization
of the time, Spain.
Well into the 18th century, Spanish intellectuals
were battling Spanish attitudes that saw little
regard for science, engineering, invention or technology.
Why was England so different from Spain in this regard?
William Barwell
>Roger Bacon is just as important IMHO. The notion that the universe is
>predictable rather than run by magic or the capricious will of God. The
>modern idea of progress, that there is a better way of doing things, and
>all you have to do is find it, comes more directly from Bacon than from
>Aquinas.
I think Galileo was probably the turning point as far as science.
This was the man who declared his profession, physics, irredeemably
useless, threw all of physics out as he knew it, and started from scratch.
He laid down science as we know it and he practiced it.
And his students spread the word and his methodology.
Experimentalism was loosed in the world with a bang.
Galileo's last book, on his physics, was 'lent'
and published while he was under house arrest.
When science became to be seen as a useful adjunct to
technology, and therefore wealth, it was no longer
a mere curiosity that could be ignored.
I think the European strain of utilitarianism played
a part in all of this, even in the 1200s, it was
Europe that invented reading glasses though the Moslems
were the better optical theorists.
Paul J Gans
>In article <9pq52l$99f$1...@news.panix.com>, Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com> wrote:
>>Michael Kuettner <mik...@eunet.at> wrote:
>>
>>
>>My tentative answer (to which there was some disagreement)
>>was that the answer was of course complex, but a major
>>factor was the status of the merchant in the various
>>civilizations. In the other three, the merchant is
>>low status. In Europe, he is high-status, right under
>>the aristocracy itself. In fact, there was considerable
>>movement between the two classes, including intermarriage.
>>
>My understanding was that traders were of low status
>well into the tenth century in Europe. Only when
>spice trade started did huge wealth become possible
>with one lucky voyage. But that was a fairly late
>event in European history. So trade is part of the puzzle
>but not it.
Not really so. As early as the 12th century burghers
were recognized as second only to nobility. The romances
make it clear. When they speak of important persons
entering a city (town to us) they speak of the knights
and burghers of the town on hand to greet them.
And at that time too it turns out that the aristocracy
was often a partner in such enterprises as mills. Often
they put up the cash while the miller and his backers
put in the labor. In France, IIRC, there was a legal
five-person "stock" company sort of thing. The local
noble often held one or two shares.
And the participation of the nobility in the Great Fairs
is well-known. They made them possible, policed them,
enforced the rules, and guaranteed the safety of the
merchants who came to them. There are examples of
the Count of Champagne demanding that an Italian city
pay a fine for an infraction by a group of its citizens
at the fair or be banned from the fair. They paid too.
Many many more examples could be produced as well. As
time went on the industrial cities of medieval Europe
exploded in both size and wealth--to the point that
they could "demand" charters--and their supposed
overlords took what he could get.
The merchant towns of Flanders got to be so wealthy
that they could stand off the might of the French
king (as happened at Courtrai in 1302).
>One could look at the phenomenon of free cities
>in Europe for clues. Its part of an atittude difference.
Yes.
>The change from mere lowly traders to merchantilism
>is something to explain as well.
I think it a natural outgrowth. When one deals in wool
and woolen goods covering a region from England to Italy,
further expansion is not a revolutionary idea.
Two areas in medieval Europe demonstrate my thesis. In
the north the areas around Flanders. In Italy there was
mostly no real distiction between the merchants and the
nobility. And the growth of the cities and towns of
northern Italy was *enormous*. And their power became
so great that they could carve out empires for themselves,
i.e. Venice.
>Perhaps Europe needed to create wealth while Islam was
>still content to loot India.
That did not affect most of Islam.
>later Islam seemed to have a certain contempt for creativity
>that we see with the other greater looter civilization
>of the time, Spain.
>Well into the 18th century, Spanish intellectuals
>were battling Spanish attitudes that saw little
>regard for science, engineering, invention or technology.
>
>Why was England so different from Spain in this regard?
It was Spain that was different. England, what are
now the low countries, France, Germany, and above all,
Italy, were tremendous innovators, manufacturers, and
very creative.
And I think that Spain got itself caught up in a kind
of fundamental Catholicism that was its undoing. The
first major anti-Jewish riots came in 1391. Among other
things this strongly disrupted business and manufacturing.
At that time Jews probably made up 20% or so of the
population. And it didn't encourage the Moslems much
either, though they were looked at more kindly.
----- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
See http://scholar.chem.nyu.edu/technology.html
It's all about medieval technology (including reading
glasses).
----- Paul J. Gans
David J. Starr
Paul J Gans wrote:
>
>
> We've discussed this before. I don't think that the Vikings
> represented that kind of threat to the West. They were able
> to raid and even to found settlements in some areas, Dublin
> being an example. The settlement in Normandy is more problematic
> and possibly the result of an invitation (and possibly not.)
> Either way, the "Normans" did not have the resources to conquer
> France, what's more the entire west.
I wonder. This is a culture that stretched from Greenland to Kiev.
Anything that widespread has substantial resources. And, France was
the heart of west, take France and what's left? Far as I can see,
William of Normandy could have done the French monarchy as easily as he
did the Saxon one.
>
> And, Chinese-like, they were rapidly assimilated into the
> main-stream of French culture.
Yes, this is a successful and vital culture (Christendom) converting a
would be overlord to it's way of life.
>
> The Danes did manage to settle the Danelaw, but again, like
> the Vikings, that was more of a movement *within* Europe than
> a threat from outside.
Would the monks at Lindisfarne consider the pagan raiders who burned
them out a movement within Europe? I submit that you have to convert the
Vikings to Christianity before they are movement within Europe. And
that Christendom can convert war like pagans coming from a strong and
successful culture speaks well for the strength of Christendom.
>
> ----- Paul J. Gans
>
> >
David J. Starr
Bill Kent wrote:
>
> David J. Starr <david...@analog.com> wrote:
> : Aquinas is important, but the invention of the scientific method by
> : Roger Bacon is just as important IMHO. The notion that the universe is
> : predictable rather than run by magic or the capricious will of God. The
> : modern idea of progress, that there is a better way of doing things, and
> : all you have to do is find it, comes more directly from Bacon than from
> : Aquinas.
>
> : David Starr
>
> The importance of Aquinas was that he provided a way to reconcile
> rational inquiry with traditional theology. It wasn't only Islamic
> theologians who saw "philosophy and physics etc. As a resevoir for
> atheism and religous doubt". The Islamic intellectuals presented
> a much more radical binary choice. Aquinas bought the time
> necessary for the modern idea of progress to emerge.
I agree with you. Dispite a few well publicized cases like Galileo,
the Church went with Aquinas and accepted notions of scientific inquiry
even when they conflicted strongly with old traditions. My point about
Bacon, is, he was the guy who pushed for experiment as the foundation of
scientific truth. Theory needs experiments or observations to back it
up. Neither the Greeks nor the Romans understood this. Greek thought
was all mathematical, if the idea is internally self consistant it must
be true, Euclid's geometry is built that way. This works for
mathematics, but it isn't science. Bacon made modern science by
emphasising the importance of experiment.
David Starr
Bill Kent
:>: Yep; but take the rise of the Merovingians and especially
:>: the Carilingians in Europe.
:>: Less sophisticated overlords - only parts of the
:>: Roman culture survived; but the outcome was different.
:>: So *what* is the difference ?
:>: (Please no McGeifer - replies, anybody).
:>: Why did Europe under *similar* circumstances
:>: take a different way ?
:>: *What* are the details ?
:>Very briefly, as I'm heading off to dinner shprtly. There
:>_was_ an intelectual malaise throughout Western Europe lasting
:> at least 500 years. The difference, at this point in history,
:>is that Latin Europe recovered and revived later on. The reasons
:>for that recovery are, as you can imagine, complex and debatable
:>and are being discussed further down the thread, under the
:>title "Islam as a Progressive Force?"
: But when was this "malaise"? It wasn't in the period
: after 1000, so perhaps you mean the period from 500-1000.
: If so, I'm not sure I agree, though it is true that what
: we see as "progress" did speed up *after* that period.
The period from ca. 550 until the beginning of the Renaissance
in the 12th C. Very little in the area of significant advances
in theology, philosophy, natural sciences, etc. For instance
taking a look at David Ewing Duncan's _Calendar_, an excellent
little history of one particular area of intellectual
endeavor, and the book that happens to be next to the computer,
the timeline shows Bede and a lot of Indians and Moslems.
There is room for debate on the depth of this intellectual
malaise. It doesn't mean that all progress in all fields came to
a halt as some of our Late Antiquity specialists might argue.
For instance I understand that there was some progress made
with regard to horse ha<choke>...
David Read
<bill...@mail.com> writes
>
>The period from ca. 550 until the beginning of the Renaissance
>in the 12th C. Very little in the area of significant advances
>in theology, philosophy, natural sciences, etc. For instance
>taking a look at David Ewing Duncan's _Calendar_, an excellent
>little history of one particular area of intellectual
>endeavor, and the book that happens to be next to the computer,
>the timeline shows Bede and a lot of Indians and Moslems.
>
>There is room for debate on the depth of this intellectual
>malaise. It doesn't mean that all progress in all fields came to
>a halt as some of our Late Antiquity specialists might argue.
>For instance I understand that there was some progress made
>with regard to horse ha<choke>...
Which Late Antiquity specialists might have argued that "all progress
in all fields came to a halt" ? Indeed, such a straw man would imply
that there was such a thing as "progress" in "Late Antiquity" itself,
which "progress" some Medieval specialists might argue didn't exist. For
instance, I understand that there was some "progress" made with regard
to slavery and "feudal" land tenure etc...
cheers,
--
David Read
Ismael
> >later Islam seemed to have a certain contempt for creativity
> >that we see with the other greater looter civilization
> >of the time, Spain.
>
> >Well into the 18th century, Spanish intellectuals
> >were battling Spanish attitudes that saw little
> >regard for science, engineering, invention or technology.
> >
> >Why was England so different from Spain in this regard?
>
> It was Spain that was different. England, what are
> now the low countries, France, Germany, and above all,
> Italy, were tremendous innovators, manufacturers, and
> very creative.
>
> And I think that Spain got itself caught up in a kind
> of fundamental Catholicism that was its undoing. The
> first major anti-Jewish riots came in 1391. Among other
> things this strongly disrupted business and manufacturing.
> At that time Jews probably made up 20% or so of the
> population. And it didn't encourage the Moslems much
> either, though they were looked at more kindly.
Well, Jews have been expelled from medieval France or England too, so
it shouldn't have mean so many differences, in the long term.
One of the first actions of Phillip II was to ban Spaniards to study,
or have any contact, with foreign universities. This isolated Spain
from the main scientific or cultural currents of Europe during much
time (a couple of centuries, at least). In 18th century, local
intellectuals were trying to recover the lost time.
Ismael
Ismael
news:Hadv7.9651$tu6.2...@news1.oke.nextra.no...
> Ibn Rushd died in Marrakech, I've been trying to remember whether this
> was exile. I think the last person connected with Cordoba to make a
> splash (before Romero de Torres and Manoleto) was Ibn al-'Arabi, and
> he, too, left... Don't think there was any life in it at all after say
> the 1180s.
What about Gongora? :-)
Ismael
Søren Larsen
David J. Starr <david...@analog.com> skrev i en nyhedsmeddelelse:3BBE267F...@analog.com...
> Of course a strong and vital culture either successfully defends its
> homeland against would be overlords (Roman Empire) or like the Chinese
> and Latin Christendom, converts the invader to it's way of life. Islam
> may have had the Mongols, but Christendom had to cope with the Vikings.
> They sent missionaries and converted the Norse to Christianity, which
> did a good deal to ease the Viking military threat.
>
would never had been accepted as English kings if they had been pagan.
So in some ways a Christian Viking was a greater threat than a pagan.
Cheers
Soren Larsen