Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Iraq Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Americans must respect Islam
salaam al-aqaaid    5/13/2004 10:18:35 AM
The outrageous atrocities commited by Americans at the Abu al-Grayyib prison complex speaks to a need for the United States Americans to give sensetivity training to its entire military so that they will no longer offind Muslims with the contemptious use of women as prison guards and unsavery adiction to homosexual pornographies. These things are offinsive to the Muslims community. Have you no shame? You must remove all women and homosexuals from contact with Muslim prisoners. This is offinsive.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
chemist    RE:Caught You, Uiichita!   12/1/2004 11:18:43 AM
Argh!!!!!! Why do people always do this? So, all of the ancient lit of Europe that directly quotes back to Hellenic culture a) doesn't exist and b) is totally ignorant of whom they are referencing? Baloney. THe advances in metallurgy in the Carolingian Empire? Never happened huh? No, they didn't protect their arms and the methods of manufacture from everyone(Medieval Warfare: A History ed. Maurice Keen. OXford Press)? Nope, never happened. No philosophy was done in Europe sans the Islamic translations of the Greeks? None? ANd none of it done off of Irish translations of the same texts? None? So Aquinas who writes his treatise on law and metaphysics in 1277, before the recapture of land from the Moors didn't frickin' happen. Quit the bull. Yes, Moslems are people. They don't deserve to hated or belittled for existing. But don't sing hossanas and lionize them for that which they didn't do. Not every civilization actually produces something great. That doesn't make them lesser civs. Quit the bogusness..
 
Quote    Reply

timon_phocas    RE: Greeks refugees and the Renaissance    12/1/2004 11:34:56 AM
Greek scholars from the Eastern Empire started emmigrating to Italy in the years before the fall of Constantinople. This accelerated after the Turkish conquest. The Greek refugees brought works of classical learning with them. This reinvigorated Greek studies in the Latin West and was the source of the Classical aspirations of the Renaissance. There were points of contact where classical knowledge was transmitted from the Islamic kingdoms to the West (Spain comes to mind), but they pale beside that which was brought by the Greek refugees. SGTOvious made an important point. Both the Islamic and Western worlds had access to this classical knowledge. Which culture used it to advance civilization?
 
Quote    Reply

Tercio    RE:Caught You, Uiichita!-chemist   12/1/2004 11:55:44 AM
"So Aquinas who writes his treatise on law and metaphysics in 1277, before the recapture of land from the Moors didn't frickin' happen.". chemist, just a couple of comments: - Aquinas' work can't be understood without Averroes&Avicenna (Muslims) nor Maimonides (Jew). http://www.connect.net/ron/aquinas.html - Otherwise, the influence of Greek thinkers via Muslims in the Christedom came mainly not by the "recapture of land from the Moors", but by the settling of institutions as "the Translation School of Toledo" (founded in the 1100's). "Were the Ptolemeic Greeks calculating the circumfrence of the Earth using algebra before Islam came to be in the 7th century?". - The Greeks didn't use algebra for calculating the size of the Earth, they used arithmetics (Pitagoras, Thales and so on...). http://www.disc-conference.org/disc2000/mirror/khorezmi/ - In fact, the Medieval Muslims did an excellent work in Mathematics, but their work means nothing without the influences they took from Indian&Caldean mathematicians. An aknowledgement of that fact from the supporters of the Medieval Muslims mathematician would be nice. Tercio
 
Quote    Reply

sorkoi2003    RE: Chemist: Busted paradigms, fairness and accuracy   12/1/2004 11:57:19 AM
If you recall this strand started by my reference to Monty Python. In response the idea that Platypus made that Islamic countries and communist countries did not create anyhting- Only pointed that it was not the case that Muslims did not contribute. The scale and weight of what they contribute is matter of debate - which easier to have among people who know some of the basics rather simply knee-jerk reactions and bigotary. In refernce to book How the Irish saved civilization claims in the book are more circumspect than title would suggest. Also the main impact of Irish monastaries was not in Mediterrean- where most accounts of the Renaissance place its begingings. Unfortunately, the paradigm that is bust is the one associated with 19th century philosphers like Weber, Marx, Mill etc who did not have historical information and their narrative of Western civilization which is fully self contained become the dominant paradigm. It this paradigm which is busted. Historians of late antiquity, historians of world history and others are having deal with new information which proving difficult to accomodate within the Plato-to-NATO sequence. Landes can be seen one of last attempts of serious sort to re-state the old nineteenth century view- but look at the work by people like J.A Hobson, William McNeil, Jack Goldstone, Judith Herrin, Avril Cameroon... (no doubt these people can dismissed as academics- but as we are talking about events of half millenia - there are much experience can tell- unless one thinks which a documenatry on History Channel counts as experience). Most people have rough idea of what Greek and Roman contribution to civilization was. And they may even know that chinese invented gunpowder and paper - but there is less knowlegdge contributions from other sources. Alas, some people take their lack of knowledge as evidence that these sources did not contribute anything... There are people here who have a bigoted antipathy to Muslims (one would have more respect for their views- if they would hold them openly rather trying to foster the histography of stupidity as fig-leaf for their bigotory- but that another matter). The point about entymology of scientic terms was simply to state that unless there was connection (e.g most books on chemsitry/alchemey were written in Arabic at one time) you would have an entymology with Islamicate traces. That does not mean that geometery was not being done by Ancient Greeks (often living on the coast of what is now Turkey)nor does mean that Ancient Egyptians were unaware of mathemtical principles since you don't build pyrmids without some understanding of maths and geometery. Mathematical skill were advanced in India, China as well Aegean and Near East.(There is interesting book on history of maths called "Crest of a Pea") The Islamicate state was acted as geopolitical bridge connecting all the main centere of population and settlement (China, India, Mediterrean and Nile-to-Oxus region) - in fact until the apporation of the Americas- there argument to be made that cenrality of Islamic order was one main sources of its geopolitical power- this allowed to be clearing house for production of knowledge (an illustrative example would be how the US in 20th century become the home for emigre scholars from intially europe and then rest of the world and as consequnce become major centre of the production of knowledge). From late 7th century until at least 13th century- the Islamicate was Afroeurasia's hyperpower- therefore it had the prestige the wealth and possiblities of cultivating knowledge and the quality of life -hence coffee house take-off in Muslim Cario)- there is nothing especial in this. Prior to Islamicate empire - the largest sustainable political entity had been the Persian empire (5 million km2)- at its height the Islamicate empire was about 12 milion km2)-the Roman empire at is height was about 4.5 km2) - this was only surparsed by Mongols prior to early modern period. The problem with Lyceaum and Accademy as models of Univerisites is that were extict. The arguement for suggesting that Al-Azhar in 10th century is oldest university is that its more likely that Univeristy of Paris etc were influnce by Muslim univiersities in 'Spain', 'Sicily' and rest of the Islamicate world. Since, the knowledge of the Academy etc were not widely deseminated in Latin Europe at the time. Also if you look the various practices of modern universites gowns, seminars etc they have direct correspondence to Muslim Universites - it very unlikely that people in 10th or 11th century knew what Plato's students were up to etc. In fact, we probably better informed about ancient history even though we further away in time. I am not and I do think Uchita is suggesting that everything under sun was a Muslim invention- but I think the idea that Muslims made no contributions to development civilization or were simply parastic is not just unfair- its ac
 
Quote    Reply

sorkoi2003    RE:Terico acknowldeged   12/1/2004 12:02:26 PM
" In fact, the Medieval Muslims did an excellent work in Mathematics, but their work means nothing without the influences they took from Indian&Caldean mathematicians. An aknowledgement of that fact from the supporters of the Medieval Muslims mathematician would be nice. Tercio" I have no problems acknowldignig - its intersting what are refered to Arabic numeral in English are in most Islamicate languages refere to as Indian numerals. My position is not that Muslims contributed everything but simply that it is absurd to suggest that they contributed nothing.
 
Quote    Reply

timon_phocas    RE:How the Irish Saved Civilization   12/1/2004 12:04:02 PM
Chemist - thanks for the post 1) how the Irish saved civilization: uh, they invented whiskey? 2) on a more serious note... I thought that the classical literature that the Irish saved tended to be mostly Latin, and that Greek classical literature mostly came to the West through Greek immigration (and then also from various Arabic sources). What have you read about it?
 
Quote    Reply

Tercio    RE:How the Irish Saved Civilization-timon_phocas   12/1/2004 12:18:24 PM
"I thought that the classical literature that the Irish saved tended to be mostly Latin, and that Greek classical literature mostly came to the West through Greek immigration (and then also from various Arabic sources)." I'm not an expert in that subject, but everything I have read states that a good deal of the Greeks books known by the Europeans at the Early Renaissance (first stages of the XVth century) came from monk's libaries all over Europe or arrived to Europe via contacts with Muslims (in Spain, the Crusades, trade). I agree with you that the fall of Constatinople and the arrival of Greek's refugees of to Italy boosted the process, but it looks like it was like to switch on the afterburner of an already fast fighter... Tercio
 
Quote    Reply

sorkoi2003    RE:How the Irish Saved Civilization-timon_phocas   12/1/2004 2:14:17 PM
Also, its not just material transport of stuff from point A to B. Philophical schools were transformed by different people from different traditions working with them. The renaissance scholar did not just recieve prstine Greek texts and start work on them. Greek texts had in period of late antiquity already transformed by Hellensitic scholars, Jewish Scholars and Muslim Scholars all these scholors were working within an Islamicate context by 8th century- e.g Hebrew was written in Arabic script... Byzantine scholarship was not at the cutting age of what happening prior to fall of Constantinople- one of the effects of the Christianization of (East) Roman Empire was gradual erosion of classical learning- one has to remember philosophy was an purely an academic discipline it was a way of life tied into views about nature of Divine/Cosmos etc hence there was considerible tension between Chrisitans and those who cultivated a Philosophical way of life (I am talking about period which sees the shift in East Roman Empire from Latin elite culture to Greek Elite culture. Also, one has to remember that numbers of books in circulation in 'Europe' inc. monstaries were miniscule in comparison to what we know about Islamdom and China... Most 'European' kings and Nobles could not read or write in constrast most Muslim elite including many women were literate.
 
Quote    Reply

chemist    RE: Chemist: Busted paradigms, fairness and accuracy   12/1/2004 2:38:34 PM
"I am not and I do think Uchita is suggesting that everything under sun was a Muslim invention- but I think the idea that Muslims made no contributions to development civilization or were simply parastic is not just unfair- its actually dishonest- it remains to be seen whether that dishonesty is due to ignorance or plain prejudice. "--I thought that I stated that I understood that this was the root of your argument, but that you and Uch(nice to see that the kids over there have finally given you a minute to think Uch, teaching is exhausting work) were going to far(especially in the Islam Saves the West paradigm, which has been beaten to death and shown to be untrue.). Yes, some folk around here are being rude(bad Cocoon, bad, bad, bad, no desert for you, cousin.). "In refernce to book How the Irish saved civilization claims in the book are more circumspect than title would suggest. Also the main impact of Irish monastaries was not in Mediterrean- where most accounts of the Renaissance place its begingings."--Ugh. Is the Renessaince(I can't spell so shoot me) only occured in the MEd and was a monolithic event? I don't think so. Even if you restrict it to the subject of Art there were multiple places and times where the Enlightenment took root and took off. Again, you're being rigidly selective in your choices to show Islam in an excellent light. Dirty pool old bean! Are the claims in HISC that 'controversial'? No, not really. There's other stuff that suggests that the Dark Ages weren't all that dark. There's Carnage and Culture by Hanson(even if you call it polemics the factual components, like which side had what technology and science when, is fairly well accepted as fact--particularly since I've seen similar in books like Uncle TUngsten, A short History of Chemistry, and the afore mentioned book on Medieval Warfare). Tercio may no more about it than I, and he probably does, but the fact that Aquinas and the other humanists of Europe(a part of the Enlightenment) occured without the return Hellenic texts from Islamic lands suggests a) the texts weren't that important in launching the Enlightenment or b) that the texts were being used without Islamic sphere contribution(which Tercio hits on with the Greek scholars moving west and is the central component of HISC) or c) the Hellenic texts only sped up the Enlightenment as opposed to causing it. "Unfortunately, the paradigm that is bust is the one associated with 19th century philosphers like Weber, Marx, Mill etc who did not have historical information and their narrative of Western civilization which is fully self contained become the dominant paradigm. It this paradigm which is busted. " Not entirely sure where you're going with saying that JS Mill et al are wrong. I'm not that familiar with their positions-care to clarify? "Historians of late antiquity, historians of world history and others are having deal with new information which proving difficult to accomodate within the Plato-to-NATO sequence. " Ah, this one becomes hard. THis is the same thing as HISC, is it not? It starts delving into who can prove that society x influenced and predated society y(while no consensus has yet arisen in academe about it or about the methods to show it). This is hard. This brings up an old argument that I got lambasted for elsewhere on SP: why do societies that achieved a certain techonological advance stagnate or go no further? But this avoids a major point I raised: need a culture be known for some great achievement to be equal or an acknowledged great culture? I say no. Ex: the Spartans. Name an advance that they brought into the world. THere is little to suggest that the Spartans were a great culture(beyond Leonidas and the 300), but they were a great and powerful culture. That's my argument. Rather than politicize or ethnicize science and achievements(which adds a wholely un-neccessary element of subjectivity to the study) why not accept that they are? Islam existed, in counter point to a much smaller and weaker Christendom, as a great empire. They are, they were, they will be. Why the need to 'be Great?' staving off bigotry is one thing, but methinks that there's an element of something else, not a green monster, but of pride or some such. "Most people have rough idea of what Greek and Roman contribution to civilization was. And they may even know that chinese invented gunpowder and paper - but there is less knowlegdge contributions from other sources. Alas, some people take their lack of knowledge as evidence that these sources did not contribute anything... There are people here who have a bigoted antipathy to Muslims (one would have more respect for their views- if they would hold them openly rather trying to foster the histography of stupidity as fig-leaf for their bigotory- but that another matter). "--Not sure if I've been insulted here. Do you bite your thumb at me sir? No, I'm well aware that other cultures
 
Quote    Reply

displacedjim    RE:What have the Muslims done for us?   12/1/2004 3:22:47 PM
"RE:What have the Muslims done for us? 11/30/2004 7:54:00 PM "When you look at Islamic and Communist countries, they don't produce any useful output, other than weapons. It's ample proof of their skewed and distorted nature" So how do you explain the entomology of the following words are from Islamicate languages: algebra, chemistry, algorithms... how circumnavigation of Africa in 1450s, or maping of human circulatory system in 11th century or coffee houses... I could go on but it would turn into a paradoy of the Monty Python sketch in the Life of Brian... -- Sorkoi2003 ----- About the last 30 or so posts have all run off of this post from Sorkoi2003, who seems to be quoting someone. I can't find the original post that he quotes. Can someone help me? I'm starting to wonder whether Sorkoi threw in this strawman about what some people did 700 years ago... as if that makes any significant difference when talking about how the cultures in the Middle East have been acting for the last several centuries. When all someone can do to point to the contributions of a culture is say, "Look at what some of them did 700 years ago," that's nothing more than an indictment of the last several (many) generations of that culture. Even if no one else would have developed algebra, whatever chemistry advances some people made, and the mapping of the human circulatory system, which group of people alive today do you propose should be the inheritors of the credit for those developments, and why? Was it a good thing in general for all of us today that some people did those things many hundreds of years ago? Of course. What does that possibly have to do with "respecting Islam" today--especially in the way the original Troll post meant (as pointed out recently by JMAC and by myself early in this long thread), which was not to respect Islam per se, but to demand we treat captured Islamist terrorists in accordance with their cultural standards instead of ours. Displacedjim
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics