Islamic Myths: the Golden Age of Multiculturalism in Spain
Robert Houghton
Bernard Lewis has several times committed himself to the view that the
idyllic Golden Age of multiculturalism in Moorish Spain is a myth. He
asserts that this myth was created in the nineteenth century by European
Jews as a reproach to Christians. Here is confirmation of his view by
the great Jewish sage, theologian, and philosopher, Moses Maimonides,
who lived and worked under the Moors in Spain. This excerpt is taken
from his famous Yemen Epistle, written to the Jews of Yemen who were
experiencing severe persecution at the hands of their Muslim rulers. In
it Maimonides describes the treatment he endured at the hands of the
Muslims in Spain:
".on account of our sins God has cast us into the midst of this people,
the nation of Ishmael [that is, Muslims], who persecute us severely, and
who devise ways to harm us and to debase us.. No nation has ever done
more harm to Israel. None has matched it in debasing and humiliating us.
None has been able to reduce us as they have.. We have borne their
imposed degradation, their lies, their absurdities, which are beyond
human power to bear.. We have done as our sages of blessed memory have
instructed us, bearing the lies and absurdities of Ishmael.. In spite of
all this, we are not spared from the ferocity of their wickedness and
their outbursts at any time. On the contrary, the more we suffer and
choose to conciliate them, the more they choose to act belligerently
toward us. "
.
Zuiko Azumazi
news:000901c6a2a8$990d02d0$4101a8c0@rhdt...
>
<snip> ...
> Bernard Lewis has several times committed himself to the view that the
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Well at least Bernard Lewis (if you have quoted him correctly - which I
doubt) got it half-right when he said that "multiculturalism" in mediaeval
Arab-Muslim Spain was a "myth" on pure etymological grounds. See this link:-
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=multiculturalism&searchmode=none
"Multicultral:- 1941, from multi- + cultural. Often originally in a Canadian
context. First record of multiculturalism is from 1965. "
Although, if I recall correctly, Mamonides never lived, worked or even
visited Arab-Muslim - Spain.
But haven't the "neocon" Islamophobes over at Jihad Watch make jokes about
Bernard Lewis's, to quote them: "based on Lewis' strange wobbliness on key
issues in recent years. I think the wobbliness is well attested".
Does my recent contradictory citation from Bernard Lewis in "The Arabs in
History", given to you on several previous occasions, not confirm this
apparent "wobbliness":-
"In culture, too, the Arab (Muslim) heritage must be regarded as of great
importance to Spain, and indeed to all of western Europe. Christians from
many countries came to Spain to study together with native Spaniards under
Arabic speaking Muslim and Jewish teachers, and translated many books from
Arabic into Latin. ... The first great centre for transmission from Islam to
Christianity in the west was the city of Toledo ... During the twelfth and
thirteenth centuries, ... the Toledo schools of translators produced a great
corpus of works including the 'Organon' of Aristotle and many of the
writings of Euclid, Ptolemy, Galen,, and Hippocrates; enriched by their Arab
(Muslim) commentators and successors. The translators usually worked with
bilingual natives, many of them Jewish, and included both Spanish and
foreign scholars. Amongst them Domingo Gundisalvi, ... John of Seville and
Petrus Alphonsi, and from other countries, Gerard of Cremona from Italy,
Herman the Dalmatian from Germany, Adelhard of Bath, Daniel of Morlay and
Michael Scot from Britain. ..." [ Bernard Lewis "The Arabs in History" pp
129-30]"
--
Peace
--
Add a few drops of malice to a half truth and you have an absolute truth.
[Eric Hoffer]
Zuiko Azumazi
azu...@hotmail.com
asimm...@yahoo.com
> from his famous Yemen Epistle, written to the Jews of Yemen who were
> experiencing severe persecution at the hands of their Muslim rulers. In
> it Maimonides describes the treatment he endured at the hands of the
> Muslims in Spain:
But this period was after the recognized GOLDEN AGE of Spain. And you
consider this proof? How do you use a period that is not considered
the Golden Age of Spain to prove that the Golden Age of Spain was
intolerable?
One more time for you:
Scholars recognize the Golden Age of Spain originated either
immediately when the Muslims ruled Spain, or around 912 AD, when the
Jews really began to prosper, under the reign of Abdur Rehman III. It
was in 976, when Hakam died, and the Caliphate began to dissolve that
certain Jews were in a precarious situation. This was more because of
the differing loyalties that resulting in a lack of central leadership.
It was with the conquest of the Al-Moravides that the tolerance
decreased. But this does not mean that anti-Jewish policy was enforced
by the state, because many Jews prospered and held high posts within
government. It was in 1148, that the alMohades came into power, WELL
AFTER THE GOLDEN RULE OF SPAIN, that the Jews were persecuted as a
state policy. Even Muslims scholars were not spared, and they fleed to
Toledo, which by than had come under Christian rule in 1085.
Now if you want to argue that Toledo was the product of Christians, it
would be inaccurate, because 1085 was well after the Golden Ae as well,
and Toledo was a product of Muslim Spain, which the Christians just
inherited. Further, we know what happened to the Jews under Christian
rule.
Another point to note that the alMohades came into power for a
relatively short period of time, and were the result of the political
disintegration that had already begun.
Zuiko Azumazi
news:44b0643e$0$22361$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
<snip> ...
>Although, if I recall correctly, Maimonides never lived, worked or even
> visited Arab-Muslim - Spain. ...
<snip> ...
Comment:-
I stand corrected, in fact, Moses Maimonides did live and work in Moorish
(Berber - Caucasian Muslim people of northern Africa) not "The Golden Age
of Arab-Muslim Spain". Oops, my semantic mistake <G>.
But since Moses Maimonides subject has been raised in an Islamic context, I
thought this link might help subscribers grasp the influence of Islam on
Maimonides works:-
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/maimonides-islamic/
Extract:-
A visionary thinker and prolific author, Moses Maimonides (1135-1204) writes
on topics ranging from physics to Jewish Law, theology to politics,
psychology to Biblical exegesis, and from philosophy to medicine. Rich and
complex in their own right, Maimonides' writings must, however, be
understood within their 12th-13th century Spanish Islamicate context,
revealing, as they do, the imprint of earlier Greek and Islamic
philosophical traditions. In this entry, we will uncover some of the
philosophical underpinnings of Maimonides' work in an effort to best
understand his ideas.
This essay sets out to understand Maimonides in the context of his Islamic
philosophical milieu, and in particular, in the context of the works of
three of the most well-known Islamic thinkers, al-Farabi (ca. 870-950),
Avicenna (Ibn Sina) (980-1037) and Averroes (Ibn Rushd) (1126-1198). A few
points about this selection. We will here focus on al-Farabi, Avicenna and
Averroes since their works are arguably best known among general readers,
and are, as such, the best context in which to put Maimonides into dialogue
with a number of well-known Islamic philosophical ideas. This said, it
should be noted that (a) while we know that Maimonides held a great respect
for the writings of Averroes, these works were most likely unknown to
Maimonides until after the completion of his Guide, and so cannot be thought
of as having exerted influence on that work, (b) while Avicennian notions
can certainly be found in Maimonides, we know too (from a letter to Ibn
Tibbon) that Maimonides views Avicenna's philosophy as of lesser value than
al-Farabi's, and (c) there are, of course, other Islamic writers whose works
are known to have influenced Maimonides (notably al-Ghazali (d. 1111) and
Ibn Bajja (d. 1138)). Given Maimonides' own self-avowed interest in
al-Farabi and the influence of the latter on his thought, we will focus more
on al-Farabi than on Avicenna and Averroes (keeping in mind too, of course,
that al-Farabi, as the earliest of these thinkers, exerted influence on many
of the ideas in Avicenna, Averroes, and other Islamic philosophers as well).
End extract.
--
Peace
--
We should not be ashamed to acknowledge truth from whatever source
it comes to us, even if it is brought to us by former generations and
foreign peoples. For him who seeks the truth there is nothing of higher
value than truth itself [al-Kindi 801-66]
Zuiko Azumazi
azu...@hotmail.com
Robert
What you show in your historical detail is that the "Golden Age" is an
incoherent notion, which confirms Bernard Lewis's claim that it was a
myth. I don't attempt to show that the Golden Age was intolerable, I
attempt to show that it didn't exist - which is what you show.
As regards Toledo, I have it from Lewis that the corpus of Greek
science and philosophy was translated from the Arabic, in Christian
Toledo, by bi-lingual Spaniards and Jews. Naturally I do not relate
this activity to the Golden Age (which didn't exist) of Moorish rule. I
have no doubt that the Christians didn't just "inherit" Toledo - apart
from the fabric - from the Muslims; at any rate they didn't inherit the
translations from them - the Muslims didn't know Latin.
Robert
The 'Golden Age' that Bernard Lewis was referring to has no precise
dates associated with it since it was the mythical invention of 19th
century European Jews. Consequently it is no refutation of my citing
Maimonides to say that his dates don't coincide with those posited by
modern historians for what is claimed to be a Golden Age.
asimm...@yahoo.com
> I reply to asimmehm July 12
>
> What you show in your historical detail is that the "Golden Age" is an
> incoherent notion, which confirms Bernard Lewis's claim that it was a
> myth. I don't attempt to show that the Golden Age was intolerable, I
> attempt to show that it didn't exist - which is what you show.
>
No Robert... It does not affirm what you say it affirms, nor does it
affirm your claim that Bernard Lewis rejected this Golden Age... As
with all history, one cannot find an exact date of teh growth and decay
of particular period, because the phenomenon of rise and fall of a
civilization is an organic phenomenon, caused by a multiple of factors.
The same thing holds for the Reniassance, Dark Ages, Ice Ages, and
every other period of history.
One more time for you, because there are variations in the date, this
does not mean the period is a myth, and that it never existed as your
baseless opinions, which lie purely in the realm of your imagination
suggest. This is why a basic search of Wikipedia will tell you that
the dates of the Golden Age of Spain are disputed, NOT THE AGE ITSELF.
Saqib Virk
"Robert" <robe...@f2s.com> wrote in message
news:1152733338.9...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>
> What you show in your historical detail is that the "Golden Age" is an
> incoherent notion, which confirms Bernard Lewis's claim that it was a
> myth. I don't attempt to show that the Golden Age was intolerable, I
> attempt to show that it didn't exist - which is what you show.
SV
Can someone tell me what Robert is going on about now? Spain doesn't exist?
And what's this about a golden egg... I want a golden egg too.
For his next trick perhaps Robert will "prove" the Quran was originally
written in Aramaic... or has that already been done?
--
Peace,
Saqib Virk
Zuiko Azumazi
news:44b0643e$0$22361$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
<snip> ...
>Although, if I recall correctly, Maimonides never lived, worked or even
> visited Arab-Muslim - Spain. ...
<snip> ...
Comment:-
asimm...@yahoo.com
> have no doubt that the Christians didn't just "inherit" Toledo - apart
> from the fabric - from the Muslims; at any rate they didn't inherit the
> translations from them - the Muslims didn't know Latin.
And we have no doubt that the Muslims did not just 'inherit' Greek
thought.
But than again, your logic is quite lacking. You seem to think a human
being and a culture are just static phenomenons in the case of Muslims,
with the Muslims providing ONLY the land where the Jewish and
Christians translated the works, as well as continued to make the only
contributions to knowledge which gave birth to the Renaissance. The
Muslims obviously did not internalize, correct, manipulate, and
formulate their own ideas from the works and the ideas encountered from
the various civilizations, and that if they happened to originate any
new ideas BY CHANCE, these ideas did not impact European civilization
in any way.
And we are suppose to believe this lack of engagement with the Greek
sources, despite the fact that there is a HUGE range of Muslim
philosophical literature which challenges Greek philosophy, including
works of the Mutazliah and Ashaaris, Ghazali and others as well as even
Hanbalis, among them ibn Taymiyya, who laid a devastating blow to the
Greek philosophers and their 'idealistic' conceptions of reality.
Ironically, these very same blows which led to a very
empirically-oriented world view, which coincided with a scientific
revolution. But I am sure the Muslim religion had no impact on this
mind-set despite the fact that Islam formed the centralizing factor
among these people.
And we are suppose to believe that when the Muslims served their
purpose of just transmitting this knowledge, the white race of Europe,
all of the sudden began to internalize, correct, manipulate, and
formulate their own ideas from what they encountered. The Muslims just
sat by, fascinated only by the pretty pictures and letters that lies on
paper.
And we are suppose to believe this, despite the fact that these same
Europeans who were living in the Dark Ages, since the fall of the Roman
Empire, were right in the midsts of where the Greek and Roman Empires
were. And that the new world-view of Europe just happened to
coincidentally occur with the Crusades, as well as European advances
into al-Andalus. But yeah... Europe only owes Greece and Rome.
Robert... Do you expect to be taken seriously?
Robert
You must know that I have referred to Averroes' Commentaries on
Aristotle as having been appreciated in Europe up until the sixteenth
century; but it has to be said that, whereas his work was recognized in
the West, because of its Aristotelian commitment to Reason it remained
unknown under Islam for a thousand years. Other Islamic philosophers
are recognized, but although they have been important in Islamic
culture their work has not been found useful in the Western tradition.
The work of Muslim philosophers in connection with the Greeks was of
limited usefulness because of their habit of working from commentaries
and summaries.
It is absurd (and false) to refer to the "Greek philosophers" (all of
them) as having an "idealistic" conception of reality. Aristotle was
thoroughly 'scientific' in his approach; indeed he was a noted
biologist, and thus thoroughly committted to observation.
In your parody of a sketch of intellectual history you do not set out a
case with facts and arguments, you merely put absurd words into my
mouth.
asimm...@yahoo.com
> I reply to asimmehm July 12
>
> The 'Golden Age' that Bernard Lewis was referring to has no precise
> dates associated with it since it was the mythical invention of 19th
> century European Jews.
And what was their alleged motivation for this myhtical invention
Robert? What would make the 19th century Jews one day in the 19th
century decide that they should formulate a fictitious period call the
"Golden Age" in Spain, when the Muslims ruled? Especially considering
that according to the quote YOU GAVE of Maimonedes, the Jew, and a
famous one whose influence on Jewish thought is extensive, was
complaining about the Muslim treatment he was allegedly facing after
the "Golden Age" HAD PASSED? Why would these Jews that were persecuted
in the Inquisition seek shelter in Muslim rules lands such as Palestine
and Turkey, and form well-known Jewish communities if the "Golden Age"
was a myth?
And where did you get this number 19th century from? The real work
that began to recognize and finally appreciate Muslim contributiosn to
world knowledge started in the late 19th century, early 20th century in
England, with such intellectual giants as Massignon and RA Nicholson,
as well as well-respected Englishmen. Should we even start to talk
about the poet Hafiz's influence on Goethe, as well as Goethe's
appreciation of Islam?
And you expect us to take you seriously?
Robert
You imply or give two dates for the beginning of the alleged Golden Age
of multi-culturalism and tolerance in Moorish Spain: the beginning of
Moorish rule in 711or 912. This discrepancy of 200 years is not due to
the difficulty of asssigning a date to the beginning of a process but
to complete disagreement.
The existence of the Golden Age of tolerance and multi-culturalism IS
disputed, and by the leading historian of Islam of our age: Bernard
Lewis.
Robert
Zuiko Azumazi
<snip> ...
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Have you considered that this might be a 21st century mythical invention of
European Jews living in America <G>? But what does the consensus of the
western historian community say about the purported "Golden Age of Islam"
myth? Do all of them concur with the "myth" canard that you say Bernard
Lewis wrote in context? See this impartial link:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Age_of_Islam
But didn't Bernard Lewis also write in "The Arabs in History", given to you
on several previous occasions, not confirm this apparent "wobbliness":-
"In culture, too, the Arab (Muslim) heritage must be regarded as of great
importance to Spain, and indeed to all of western Europe. Christians from
many countries came to Spain to study together with native Spaniards under
Arabic speaking Muslim and Jewish teachers, and translated many books from
Arabic into Latin. ... The first great centre for transmission from Islam to
Christianity in the west was the city of Toledo ... During the twelfth and
thirteenth centuries, ... the Toledo schools of translators produced a great
corpus of works including the 'Organon' of Aristotle and many of the
writings of Euclid, Ptolemy, Galen,, and Hippocrates; enriched by their Arab
(Muslim) commentators and successors. The translators usually worked with
bilingual natives, many of them Jewish, and included both Spanish and
foreign scholars. Amongst them Domingo Gundisalvi, ... John of Seville and
Petrus Alphonsi, and from other countries, Gerard of Cremona from Italy,
Herman the Dalmatian from Germany, Adelhard of Bath, Daniel of Morlay and
Michael Scot from Britain. ..." [ Bernard Lewis "The Arabs in History" pp
129-30]"
Are you still in denial about this obvious "myth" contradiction?
asimm...@yahoo.com
> I reply to asimmehm July 14
>
> You must know that I have referred to Averroes' Commentaries on
> Aristotle as having been appreciated in Europe up until the sixteenth
> century; but it has to be said that, whereas his work was recognized in
> the West, because of its Aristotelian commitment to Reason it remained
> unknown under Islam for a thousand years.
1.
The Muslims were committed to reason from the very beginning,
considering the constant exhortations of the Quran to reflect on the
world around man.
2.
The only thing that can be blamed is your ignorance of the history of
Muslim philosophy. How many times do I have to repeat for you Robert
the fact that the Muslim philosophers were criticizing Greek philosophy
well before the 16th century? Imam Ghazali, Fakhirudeen Razi, and
Jurjani were already establishing the proof of reason with respect to
revelation well before the Europeans, who by the time of these man had
sunk back into the Dark Ages. There were countless criticisms of the
"first intellect" of Aristotle, which is not a very REASONABLE concept.
3.
Your whole premise is based upon the fact that the European Renaissance
was initiated by the exposure of Europe to Greek thought. And at the
same time, your claiming that the Europeans were infatuated with
Aristotle upto the 16th century. Unless of course your claiming that
once the Europeans left their infatuation with Aristotle, they started
to progress. Which would than mean that Greek and Roman influence is
not all that it is cracked upto be.
You want the whole cake, even if that means accepting logical
contradictions.
4.
Greek philosophy is not just Aristotle, but included Neo-platonism,
which is in reality the defining feature of their religion as well as
what influenced Christian thought. These are highly-idealized
concepts, without any grounding in reality. They are
highly-speculative, divorced from an empirical world-view. If the
"Logos" is an example of reason to you, than my definition of reason is
way different than yours.
Other Islamic philosophers
> are recognized, but although they have been important in Islamic
> culture their work has not been found useful in the Western tradition.
>
Actually, much of the MODERN ideas of Western ideas are simply
reformulations of what Muslim philosophers WHO OPPOSED Greek philosophy
from the very beginning were saying.
>
> In your parody of a sketch of intellectual history you do not set out a
> case with facts and arguments, you merely put absurd words into my
> mouth.
WHo is the one not bringing about facts? Robert, your not taken
seriously. You may continue to propound what you believe is true, but
the truth is that your claims are the product of your imagination.
The old European propaganda about the influence of Greek and Roman
civilization on the Renaissance is purely a reaction to the undeniable
influence of the "Saracen" civilization on Europe, which some Muslims
have bought. "Saracen" civilization was ORIGINAL, irrespective of
whether some may have become overawed with Aristotle. The truth of the
reality is that the culture that was generated by Islam, not by Greek
and Roman influence on the Muslim world is what led to the Renaissance.
The timing of the Renaissance is not coincidental Robert.
Robert
Reporting Bernard Lewis's judgment I was quite explicit about the
motivation of the 19th century European Jews who invented the myth of
the Golden Age of multi-culturalism and tolerance in Moorish Spain: it
was as a reproach to Christians for the discrimination and peresecution
they suffered in Europe. The facts that Maimonides reports in his
letter to the Jews of Yemen show that the myth WAS a myth.
The Jewish emigration to Turkey and other Islamic countries took place
centuries later, and was undertaken because they had no choice: the
Spanish monarchs gave them the options of conversion or emigration - at
least as dhimmis they would be able to practise Judaism.
It's clear that there was no Golden Age of multi-culturalism and
tolerance in Moorish Spain because Christians and Jews were there
dhimmis, living under the disabilities that Islam imposes on dhimmis.
Robert
As usual, you proceed by means of rhetorical questions in order to
avoid making definite assertions while implying such. Thus you imply
that Bernard Lewis's repeated statement that the Golden Age of
multi-culturalism and tolerance in Moorish Spain is a myth is a myth
invented by him. Your adroit rhetorical question relieves YOU of the
need of producing evidence for this preposterous implication. A
baseless accusation.
Next your link to the Wikipedia, as usual, is not what you imply: it is
not the consensus of Western historians. Worse, you completely
misdirect yourself. Lewis's myth is a myth of a Golden Age in Spain:
the Wikipedia Golden Age is one in Islam as a whole and the article
hardly refers to this.
Your quotation from Lewis's "The Arabs in History" does not confirm an
age of multiculturalism and tolerance under the Moors. The translations
that Lewis refers to which took place at Toledo took place in CHRISTIAN
Toledo, as he states in his later work, and during the 12th and 13th
centuries, not during the alleged Golden Age.
Robert
You provide no opportunities for discussion: you merely assert your
Islamic supremacist position and do not engage in argument. There is so
little overlap between your Islamic ideology and the viewpoint of an
educated Westerner that discussion is fruitless.
You might reflect when making your historical judgments on the West
that the West has a much more fruitful intellectual and academic
tradition to underpin its sense of Western history than has Islam,
which has enjoyed neither a Renaissance, Reformation, nor
Enlightenment. Research in Muslim countries is crippled by the
stranglehold of Islam.
Muslim philosophers have - with the minor exception of Averroes, who
remained unknown for 1000 years under Islam after Ghazali's onslaught
on Reason - contributed nothing to the tradition of philosophical
thought, and Averroes contributed nothing lasting. Modern Western
philosophy, which has enjoyed a Renaissance, owes nothing to Islam, but
everything to the development of mathematical logic in the 19th century.
Robert
There is so little overlap between your Islamic ideology expressed in
such generalities and the views of a person educated in the Western
humanist tradition that discussion is not fruitful.
Of course, all that I know about Islamic philosophy is second hand; but
what I read is this: that Ghazali stopped Muslim philosophy (that is
Greek) short as incompatible with Islamic Faith and it has never
recovered.
Even in the Dark Ages in Western Europe philosophy was still alive:
Boethius set out to translate Aristotle, and the monks kept alive the
intellectual and theological tradition. The plight of Western Europe at
this time, as compared with the prosperity of Islam is neither here nor
there: Islam hijacked the ancient civilizations of the Eastern
Mediterranean and Persia; the culture and prosperity which you claim
for Islam was THEIRS, but the Muslims almost destroyed it, living like
brigands and pillaging the land. Western Europe was a civilization in
collapse because of barbarian invasions, invasions in which the Muslims
took part, raiding and slaving as they went. It is just Muslim
arrogance to talk about the backwardness of the West.
Regarding European history you put absurd words into my mouth. When it
comes to historical judgments you should reflect that in the West we
have a mature intellectual and academic culture that Islam lacks:
intellectual study under Islam suffers under the stranglehold of
fanatical religion. Our sense in the West of what we owe, culturally,
to the Classical world is more likely to be just than the sense you
have of what Islam owes to Hellenism.
Let me tell you that modern Western philosophy owes NOTHING to Islam;
the suggestion is utterly preposterous and shows the ignorance of those
Muslims who are peddling these ideas. Modern Anglophone philosophy,
which has been wonderfully productive, derives from the development of
mathematical logic and the philosophy of logic in the late nineteenth
century and early twentieth century, and the application of its
techmiques to classic Western philosophical problems.
asimm...@yahoo.com
Robert wrote:
> I reply to asimmehm July 18
>
> Reporting Bernard Lewis's judgment I was quite explicit about the
> motivation of the 19th century European Jews who invented the myth of
> the Golden Age of multi-culturalism and tolerance in Moorish Spain: it
> was as a reproach to Christians for the discrimination and peresecution
> they suffered in Europe.
Interesting this proof Robert, considering the Christians themselves
were quite aware of their own history. So now we are suppose to assume
that the Christians were ignorant of what was going on in Spain,
despite the fact that Christians were visiting Spain as well. Your
logic just astounds me Robert...
If we were to accept your logic, the only definite conclusion would be
that the Christians were a woefully ignorant and dumb people, who had
no idea what was going on...
Zuiko Azumazi
<snip> ...
> The existence of the Golden Age of tolerance and multi-culturalism IS
> disputed, and by the leading historian of Islam of our age: Bernard
> Lewis. ...
<snip> ...
Comment:-
If you believe this to be true, why don't you take Bernard Lewis's view in
which he denied the "Armenian Genocide" and disputed it as a "myth"? Can you
argue your way out of this one, without being duplicitous? See this search
link for the detail:-
But didn't Bernard Lewis also write:-
"In culture, too, the Arab (Muslim) heritage must be regarded as of great
importance to Spain, and indeed to all of western Europe. Christians from
many countries came to Spain to study together with native Spaniards under
Arabic speaking Muslim and Jewish teachers, and translated many books from
Arabic into Latin. ... The first great centre for transmission from Islam to
Christianity in the west was the city of Toledo ... During the twelfth and
thirteenth centuries, ... the Toledo schools of translators produced a great
corpus of works including the 'Organon' of Aristotle and many of the
writings of Euclid, Ptolemy, Galen,, and Hippocrates; enriched by their Arab
(Muslim) commentators and successors. The translators usually worked with
bilingual natives, many of them Jewish, and included both Spanish and
foreign scholars. Amongst them Domingo Gundisalvi, ... John of Seville and
Petrus Alphonsi, and from other countries, Gerard of Cremona from Italy,
Herman the Dalmatian from Germany, Adelhard of Bath, Daniel of Morlay and
Michael Scot from Britain. ..." [ Bernard Lewis - "The Arabs in History" pp
129-30]"
Why don't you believe him in this instance?
--
Peace
--
Propaganda does not deceive people; it merely helps them to deceive
themselves. [Eric Hoffer]
Zuiko Azumazi
azu...@hotmail.com
asimm...@yahoo.com
> philosophy, which has enjoyed a Renaissance, owes nothing to Islam, but
> everything to the development of mathematical logic in the 19th century.
But I thought Europe owes evereything to the Greeks and Romans? Now
it's all about the 19th century of Europe?
ANd if Europe does not owe anything to the Greeks and Romans, than why
are you so keen on proving that it was the Christians and Jews that
translated all the Greek works for Europe to benefit from, and the
Muslims did nothing of the sort?
SO now it is an issue of mathematical logic of the 19th century... So
are we to assume that the contributions in mathematics suddenly froze
between 700Ad - 19th century, and that all the talk about the Arab
contributiosn to mathematics is just a tale?
Keep coming with them Robert... you can continue to dress up your posts
on big words, but even big words cannot make an argument not be
foolish..
asimm...@yahoo.com
> I reply to Azumazi July 18
>
> that Lewis refers to which took place at Toledo took place in CHRISTIAN
> Toledo, as he states in his later work, and during the 12th and 13th
> centuries, not during the alleged Golden Age.
In Christian Toledo? You mean when the Christians just recently
conquered Toledo, i.e. the 12th century, that city just happened to
give birth to a city of knowledge miraculously, i.e. Toledo was created
out of vacuum? Robert, you do realize you are fooling nobody... The
12th century is when the Christians invaded and conqeuered Toledo..
THEY DID NOT FOUND THE CITY OF TOLEDO.
The Christians conquered a Toledo that was a fully functioning
scholastic hot-spot, even prior to the Christian invasion... And that
fully functioning hot-spot was the result of a Muslim Spain, whihc just
happened to be over run by fanatical Muslims right before the
Chroistian invasion...
These fanatical Muslims did not even spare Muslim scholars, forcing the
Muslims and Jews to migrate, some even to Toledo, where the Christians
happened to conquer that city by the name of what is it called... oh
yeah, Toledo...
But then, even the Christinas couldn't maintain this level of
tolerance, because obviously that tolerant view of other faiths what
not inherent in their mindset which was a product of the general
Europeans conditions of stifling of thought and creativity. The
Inquisition than happened, not sparing the Muslims and Jews, even those
that sought refuge in Toldeo...
asimm...@yahoo.com
>
> "In culture, too, the Arab (Muslim) heritage must be regarded as of great
> importance to Spain, and indeed to all of western Europe. Christians from
> many countries came to Spain to study together with native Spaniards under
> Arabic speaking Muslim and Jewish teachers, and translated many books from
> Arabic into Latin. ... The first great centre for transmission from Islam to
> Christianity in the west was the city of Toledo ... During the twelfth and
> thirteenth centuries, ... the Toledo schools of translators produced a great
> corpus of works including the 'Organon' of Aristotle and many of the
> writings of Euclid, Ptolemy, Galen,, and Hippocrates; enriched by their Arab
> (Muslim) commentators and successors.
>
But Robert is going to claim that this all happened in Toledo, when the
Christians were ruling. So this technically makes the scholasticism
purely Christian, despite the fact that the Christians conquered a
fully functioning scholastic hot-spot, i.e. they inherited Toledo. And
even than, Robert will conveniently ignroe the explidit words of
Bernard Lewis which state:
"Christians from many countries came to Spain to study together with
native Spaniards under Arabic SPEAKING MUSLIM AND JEWISH TEACHERS, and
translated many books from Arabic into Latin. ... The first great
centre for transmission FROM ISLAM TO CHRISTIANITY in the west was the
city of Toledo ..."
1.
Let's not forget that these same Muslim and Jewish teachers mnigrated
to Toledo, after the bigotted Muwahhid's happened to conquer Spain. It
was a reaction to an unusual situation. So the transmission is still
purely the result of Muslim Spain.
2.
Bernard Lewis explicitly states that this great centre of transmission
FROM ISLAM to Christianity... What does this mean? It was an Islamic
contribution according to Bernard Lewis...
3.
This tolerance in Toledo did not last very long, and the Christina
inquisition began. This clearly revealed the European psychology at
that stage, where even after a few years of conquering a scholastic
hot-spot, i.e. a bed of toleration, the Christian world began a forced
conversion period. The lack fo toelrance continued, wher ethe
Christian world denied every contribution to the Arab world,
attributing only their legacy to Greece and Roman. The sad thing is
most Muslims buy the whole Greek and Roman legacy 100 percent, giving
such undue importance to it all... In fact, The Muslim world was full
of great thinkiers who attacked severely Greek and Roman thought for
its idealism, and purely specualtive approach to reality. Many of the
modern ideas in Western philosophy. are re-statements of criticisms by
Muslim philosophers hundreds of years prior, just on a more
sophisticated level due to the advances in science and human knowledge
overt time. For example, Iraqi formulated a concept of relative time
and space way before it was heard of in Europe. The Greeks viewed
space and time as absolutes., especially Aristotlean philosophy.
Let us watch and see as Robert tries to spin this...
asimm...@yahoo.com
> Boethius set out to translate Aristotle, and the monks kept alive the
> intellectual and theological tradition.
Notice how your response in no way deals with the fact that Muslim
philosophical traditoin was heavily criticizing Greek philosphical
tradition. What does that mean for your whole theory that Greek and
Roman philosophy is what gave birth to the Renaiussance? Now you have
tried to shift the argument to developments of mathematics allegedly
made in Europe in the 18th and 19th century. So now when you have
somebody purely destroying your claim that the Muslim world was all
about Greek philosophy, you've moved onto European philsophy as
dveeloped int he late 19th and early 20th century. How much more are
you going to try and deny the contributions of the Saracen civilization
Robert?
And contrary to your claims that Ghazai stifled reason, the fact that
he refuted the philosophers from the use of reason makes anybody with
common sense realize that it is a purely baseless assertion. How
coul;d a man dismiss reason, when his monumental work the Incoherence
of Philosophers is a clear and shining demonstration of reason and
rational ability? In fact, there is nothing surprising about this,
considering Kant did the very thing in the latter hald of this
millenium, well after Ghazali. You do know that Kant's monumental work
entitled the Criticism of Pure Reason is a standard textbook in
philosophy courses throughout the world. And nobody claims he stifled
reason.
YUet, when it comes to Ghazali, ah yes... He dismissed reason...
Despite the fact that I clearly stated that Imam Ghazalia holds the
standard Ashaarite position regarding the use of reason in
interpretation of the ayahs of the Quran that are 'allegorical'. But
yes, we will continue to hear from you Robert, that you have heard
Ghazali did this or that...
Zuiko Azumazi
news:1153972972.0...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
> ANd if Europe does not owe anything to the Greeks and Romans, than why
> are you so keen on proving that it was the Christians and Jews that
> translated all the Greek works for Europe to benefit from, and the
> Muslims did nothing of the sort?
<snip> ...
Comment:-
What is curious about this whole anti-Islamic debacle is that these
so-called "Islamic critics", apologists for the west, deny their own history
written by their own eminent historians. They even have the gall to deny the
historical consensus, about the unequivocal contribution that Islam and
Muslim science made to the west, made by the academic historian community?
Why is that? Can it be pure prejudice? To illustrate my point, here is an
extended bibliography by one eminent western historian, Professor Charles
Burnett, an expert in this specialist area of "Islamic Influences in
Europe", at this link:-
http://warburg.sas.ac.uk/institute/cburnett.htm
Now how many of these erudite books and articles, all peer reviewed by the
historian community, refute Robert's ignorant thesis based on negationism
developed by amateur historians? Subscribers should just take a quick look
at the list and make up their own mind.
In case you don't know, Charles Burnett is currently Professor of the
History of Islamic Influences in Europe at the Warburg Institute, University
of London. He is also a Fellow of the British Academy and Fellow of the
International Society for the History of Science.
Honestly, who should subscribers. Muslim and non-Muslim, believe? Who is the
most credible authority? Let discerning subscribers be the judge.
But I expect we will still continue to get barrage of huff, puff, bluff and
bluster, even though the "Islamic critics" house has been demolished and
blown away by the historical truth, the consensus, agreed upon by the
authoritative western historian community.
--
Peace
--
Truth gains more . . . by the errors of one who,with due study and
preparation, thinks for himself
than by the true opinions of those who only hold them because
they do not suffer themselves to think." [John Stuart Mill]
Zuiko Azumazi
azu...@hotmail.com
Robert
The point at issue was that modern Anglophone philosophy owes nothing
to Islam. You merely distract from my simple demonstration of the truth
of this by producing absurdities and attributing them to me.