Soren wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2013 at 8:03pm:


I say, old chap, that’s a bit rough. Medina produced some marvellous wine if I’m not mistaken - not to mention that wonderful Persian shiraz. Those Muselmen were merely bringing us civilization, what. In vino veritas, eh?

Some wine, a piece of cheese, and thee, eh?

Marvellous stuff.

Not a teetotaler, are you, old boy? I’ve never met a cheese dealer I could trust.

Don’t forget cheese. Your Muselman, see, has strict cheese laws in place. Rennet is strictly verboten.

It does make one question the loyalties of various cheese-fanciers among us, what.

I’ve never met a cheese lobbyist I could trust.

I take it Geerty’s an Edam man. Of the soil, what. Like Adam.

Quantum wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2013 at 11:04pm:

Thats not what I said at all. Both definitely deserve credit.

Quote:

You're merely parotting soren's argument, which I have already addressed. Culture and knowledge didn't merely thrive under islam despite islam - islam was very much an active driver. Especially under the Abbasids, science and art was actively pursued and encouraged under islam. Baghdad was only founded under islam, and quickly became the largest city in the world - and a thriving cultural hub. Says wikipedia:
Quote:


And as mentioned before, Spain was a thriving cosmopolitan cultural hub under islam.

Quote:


not quite. Islam made significant advances of their own - especially in medicine and other sciences, which was of instrumental importance for the later advancement of the west.

But even as "protectors" of ancient knowledge, they deserve credit. Its certainly makes a mockery of your and soren's depiction of islam "crawling out of their caves" and smashing their way through the civilised world like a wrecking ball. (see my previous quote from historian LeBon). A real example of this sort of wrecking ball would be the Mongols crashing through the islamic world in the 13th century - and arguably the biggest single factor leading to the ending of islam's golden age and the start of a long decline.

So when is the next hate prophet doing a speaking tour of the mosques? The same muslims protesting about Geert Wilders will be up the front row.

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 10:30am:


Which all seems to be ignoring my main point;

Quote:


I am certainly not ignoring the contribution Islam has made to our understanding of the world. But you seem to be overstating that benefit by saying;

Quote:


Which to me is ignoring the foundations in which Islam itself built from. "Instrumental importance" would be more along the lines of; if not for Islam we wouldn't have cars, aeroplane, computers, or skyscrapers. If someone hammers a few nails halfway through the construction of a new house they have certainly helped build it, but it a big claim that if not for them the house would never have been built.

Where do you think the west would be today if not for Islam's influences? would we have penicillin and the steam engine, or would the west today look like a scene out of Robin Hood?

I wonder how many Muslims will cry freedom of speech when the next touring hate prophet calls for the destruction of Israel at some Australian mosque. Will you do the same thing Gandalf? Or will you just pass it over like most muslims do.

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 12:22pm:


Actually, closing of the Islamic mind 800 years ago did not lead to its decline. It continued to expand under the Ottomans.
The decline started when the expansion stopped under the walls of Vienna.

For Islam, conquest was its sustenance, not learning, innovation, culture. It has re-ignited its expansionist energies on the back of oil money and the spread of Muslim migrants around the world.

Soren wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 2:29pm:


except when it wasn't 

Firstly, I am not talking about, nor was I ever talking about the Ottoman empire. The golden period I have been talking about lasted for a good 500 years - and most of those years did not involve any conquering (all the conquesting happened very early on). Thus it absolutely *WAS* the case that this great civilization was sustained by learning, innovation and culture.

Secondly, the period of spectacular islamic conquest deserves more analysis than the dismissive "emerged out of their caves like a wrecking ball" footnote we get in western textbooks. Think about it, an ill equipped amateur army of no more than 10 000 at any give time conquered the entire middle east - including Egypt and much of North Africa - in the space of just 30 years - and we're supposed to buy the standard 'barbaric wrecking ball' explanation?? Ridiculous. Islam could only have been that successful if it offered something that the inhabitants of those conquered lands would welcome the islamic armies as liberators.

That they did. Islam's legal code including the dhimmi system was revolutionary in the way it treated their non-muslim subjects. In fact, the dhimmi system, with the revenue it created for the caliphate, gave the muslim conquerers the best incentive not to force convert their subjects, and allowing them to continue worshipping and going about their business. Little wonder that cities all over the Persian and Byzantine empires opened their gates to the muslim liberators

What does this mean for the development of islamic civilization? All the non-muslim subjects - which included scholars, translators etc, were free to go about their business, contributing to the cultural flowering and advancement of islamic civilization. This included a significant jewish population (up to 1/3 of the population of Baghdad was jewish) - who as we all know were ostrasised and suffering periodic pogroms in Europe.

But not only were the existing non-muslim population relatively free under islamic rule, but under the golden age, the caliphs actively encouraged foreigners in to exchange ideas and knowledge - and add to the advancement of their civilization.

Quote:


Well yes, they did swallow other civilizations and build on what was already developed - but understand that you are describing every single other civilization throughout history. Thats how ALL civilizations develop - off the back of what was there previously. It is a fallacy for you to say islam could not have created its own rich civilization - simply because it picked up what was already there and developed it further. No civilization in all of history has been created completely from scratch.

What you are and soren (and the standard western myth about the spread of islam) claim happens is more accurately describing the Mongol conquests of the 13th century. When the Mongols crashed through most of the islamic world - including the capture of Baghdad - what great cultural legacy did they leave? What great cultural and learning hubs did they create at the very crossroads of Greek, Persian, hindu, jewish - not to mention islamic civilizations? They left nothing except permanent cultural decline in those areas. Note that this is the exact opposite of what happened when the "islamic hordes" "crashed" through the middle east in the 8th century.