format_quote Originally Posted by
HeiGou
I disagree. They are the ones that invaded Rome and Persia and eventually brought an end to their traditions of learning. Moreover Muslims were not that interested in Classical learning in their original languages - I am told there is not one single Muslim who translated anything into Arabic - which shows that the work that survived survived because Christians and Jews became Arabic-speaking, not because Arabs became interested.
You claim that the Arabs weren't interested in learning things in their original languages and that "the work that survived survived because Christians and Jews became Arabic-speaking" which doesn't sound right. Firstly, how do you know that the Muslims did not study things in their original languages, when they welcomed contributions from other civilisations? Secondly, the fact that non-Muslims translated their works does not mean that the work would otherwise have never survived. There could be many Muslim translators too that you don't know of. Perhaps you should bring some evidence for these claims, and not jump to poor conclusions.
There are few articles on this site about why the Golden Age declined (
http://muslimheritage.com) - I think you will find it is more to do with corruption and attack from others than it is with "becoming more religious", if I understand that argument correctly! And the reason why it flourished was because of the faith, attitude and morals prevalent among the Muslims. Check this list:
http://muslimheritage.com/topics/def...onomyTypeID=25
Do you? And yet. It is noticeable that some of the later Umayyads were more religious than the earlier ones - Umar II for instance - and that the Abbasids were clearly far more religious than the Umayyads. I am surprised that you dispute that but I don't see any need to argue over it. Deny it if you like.
I made it clear that there where other great Khalifs which could be used as examples, but what i found surprising was your claim that the general trend had a positive religious gradient all along which was inversely proportional to it's technological development! If you checkout this article it makes things alot clearer,
http://muslimheritage.com/topics/def...&ArticleID=419 , you've got very little evidence ot peg religion as teh cause of the fall of Grenada on the hands of Abu Abdullah "Boadbil" amongst most if not all other cases of the empire's collapse.
Again I do not see how that relates to what I said.
It's very relevent, you made the accusation that: "Virtually everywhere the Europeans went, and especially in the Muslim world, they left the Muslims under Islamic courts." And i asked you to prove that was teh case with Umar for example, who we all agree was a genuine just Khalif.
Well that is mostly true, but why does that matter?
Erm Muslim's believe that the Islam is a way of life, to be applied in all aspects, not in bits and pieces, so we don't pick and chose.. whether we like it or not. So having semi Islamic courts isn't a solution... otherwsie why would we sit here arguing that the Khalifs towards the end where mostly corrupt? i mean they still kept the family laws and other fragments intact, as long as it didn't interfere too much with their personal affairs...
And there wasn't for the Arabs in Spain?
Whether that was the primary aim is a different story, it might be hard for you to comprehend, but Muslim's have the duty to give everyone access to Islamic knowledge all over the world, so that everyone has the same opportunity to learn abotu Allah, at the same time, to uphold the laws that Allah has sent for humanity to apply on themselves.
So the primary aim is to spread Islam everywhere, whether the people choose to become Muslim or not is purely upto them, whether certain Khalifs broke that law is irrelevent because they are not our source of guidance. Following from that, Muslims are commanded to take care of the land and keep it in order, prior to Muslim's invasion of spain, the spanyards where lurking in dirty streets, majority bathing once in every god knows how long... by the time Muslims had establisehd themselves, things that where previously unkown to the rest of europe where common in the Islamic empire (street lighting, paved roads etc.)
With the french, it was obvious that their prime aim for colonising Algeria wasn't for any religious or moral reason... Pleven, the French Commissioner for the Colonies, stated:
"In [Algeria] there are no peoples to liberate, no racial discrimination to abolish...
The overseas populations do not want any kind of independence other than the independence of [rather than from] France."
Whereas in the case of the Spanish, when they where strict in their religion, even non-Muslim commentators agree that everyone was happy under them, (e.g. take a look at the documentary "Planet-Islam").
Anatole France was once that the Law prevented the Rich man as well as the Poor sleeping under bridges. Of course he could have said that Bridges allow both the Rich man and the Poor man to walk over them.
What's that got to do with anything?
By that time France had left Algeria and all they did was support the government in power. I don't see the relevance.
Which was a just and un-corrupt regime :?
I replace the word "French" with "Muslim" and I don't see how that does not apply to Spain.
From what i explained above, i think the difference is very obvious, the french came in primarily for their own benefit, the Muslims came in with a religious motive which was to spread Islam further, the economic prosperity came as a bypass product, not as a primary aim... afterall, there wasn't much that was exciting about spain before the Muslims entered it, compared to Algeria's strategic position and natural endowments as far as teh french where concerned.
France does not rule Algeria anymore. It is not responsible for what goes on there, it just has to deal with whoever is in power.
Why wouldn't it support a regime in power? French foreign policy is about French interests, not those of the Algerians. Name me a country that behaves any other way.
I guess that explains half the stuff i mentioned above..
It's simple, every political entity acts in its own interests, the difference is, the Islamic legal system is designed to act in the interests of those who live within it from a
hereafter point of view, all other entities act for personal gains.
I am doing no such thing, or at least no more than you. You concentrate on Spain and on Umar - two very interesting and widely separated periods. What else is that but picking and choosing segements of history to suit your purpose, instead of critically analysing the laws and actual legal systems?
Actually, what you're doing is, picking and choosing segments where the legal system was applied partially or in a corrupt manner, and relying on the fact that the rulers had under dogs who legitimised thier rule... to support your claim that the Islamic legal system is cactus.
It's like telling me that cars are pointless and can never function properly because of so and so incidents and drivers, as if the driver is related to the performance of the car.
You will notice I am not using dark periods of history - and you are wrong about no Muslim approving of them - I am using your chosen period - Muslim Spain - and comparing it with a European equivalent - French Algeria. Why should you be the only one to pick and choose?
The topic of the thread is about the world accepting Islam, so essentially the history of Muslims is being used to highlight their successes as an outcome of their faith. If the French invaded Algeria and were kind and helped its civilisation (which wasnt quite the case), that's all good and well , but what does it have to do with the topic - we should ask what were their beliefs and underlying goals and would such a belief system be a global success today?
So little is known about Umar and I know so little of what is known that there is no point for me to debate it. But as the old Jew issue shows I am also prepared to deal with that period too. Any second now I am going to ask how Umar died. Don't you think it odd that so many of the Rashudun died by violence?
I heard that Anwar awlaki has a very detailed series on him, listen to it and it'll be obvious that there isn't as little as you think there is about him... his primary referencse where at-Tabari's "history" as well as Ibn Kathir's "Beginning and End" (i think he used that im not sure) and a couple others...
His last days are also covered in that story (including his assasination). What cheese said about Khalif's dying is true, i think what's pivotal to this topic is a difference that exists between us...
You measure costs and benefits with a narrow scope, so if a Khalif is killed, you see that as a cost (a negative one) and a loss, whereas, with Muslims, they look at it relative to the hereafter, which means we see it as an honour and great rewards in the hereafter.
You're going to probably give me the response "you can believe that, but you'll have a hard time convincing non-Muslims of that", and that's exactly why Muslims would love their doctrine to be in control, because talk is cheap, it's only when you guys will see it in action that people will take things a little more seriously.
To sum this up, you're argument is that faith (for Muslims) is the cause of scientific decline, the question is, do you have any evidence from the Quran or hadith from that? Infact, from what i read in the quran, there's the opposite. It comes as no surprise that people like Khawarizmi made it clear that their inventions where for the sake of serving Allah and his religion, for example in the preface of his algebra book, he mentions that his discovery is to serve "The practical needs of people concerning matters of inheritance, legacies partition, law suits and commerce."
The challenge is for you to bring even the slightest evidence that Islam discourages scientific development which is of benefit to mankind, especially in the fields of physics, biology, chemistry and mathematics. Some people today may even claim that Islam is against that, just because they say so, is that representative of Islam's outlook on such matters?
Do you want the whole world to be Muslim? Yes, for the reasons mentioned a page or two ago.