Turek on Islam

[Wertbag]

I've never really dove deeply into Islam, from my western view it always felt like an even more ridiculous religion than the more common Christianity.  While browsing videos today I came across this short one (5 min cut from a Frank Turek Q&A)

Is Islam false? Watch this! - YouTube

I don't think I've agreed with anything Frank has said ever, so finding a subject that is common ground (disbelief in Islam) was interesting.  His response is done in very brief form, so there's probably a lot left out, but generally he says: Islam is newer (Mohammed 570AD to 640AD) but the stories of miracles were only added around 150 years later.  So it didn't seem like such things were claimed about Mo until generations later when people grew those stories to make him supernatural.  Including the bizarre story of splitting the moon.

The Muslims posting in the comments do themselves no favours by saying everyone will burn in hell and failing to rebut any points raised against their religion.

 

Has anyone done a deep dive on Islam?  Is it just as ridiculous as it appears at a surface level?

 

[LogicalFallacy]

I respond with: Hitchens on Islam

 

Christopher Hitchens - Don't waste my time with Islam [2010] - YouTube 

 

[◊ DestinyTurtle ◊]

12 hours ago, Wertbag said:

Islam is newer (Mohammed 570AD to 640AD) but the stories of miracles were only added around 150 years later. 

That's really interesting. I guess because Islam is newer we can see the evolution of the mythology more clearly. 

 

My memory about it is fuzzy at this point but I remember early in my deconversion I read a lot of apocryphal gnostic texts in an attempt to understand some different or possibly truer interpretation of the bible. I eventually found out that some of the gnostic stories were actually reproduced in the Koran (like the more detailed description of Satan's motivations in The Fall, for example). I realized that at one point in time there was just a smorgasbord of mythologies and scriptures and some of the ones rejected/forgotten must have been taken up by the newer Islamic religion. Anyways at the time I found stories from the Koran, as well as gnostic texts, provided more context to the bible. 

 

I guess I'm prone to thinking major religions (Christianity, Islam, etc.) are 'ridiculous' in the sense that I don't believe in them, and I find they too often condone violence and oppression (probably because the mythologies have evolved to justify the empires the proliferated them). For history and cultural context, though, understanding all of these religions can be important.

[disillusioned]

21 hours ago, Wertbag said:

Has anyone done a deep dive on Islam?  Is it just as ridiculous as it appears at a surface level?

 

 

A deep dive? Not exactly. I have spent several years working directly with Syrian and Somali refugees. I've seen how their faith works, and how it affects their lives. I've also read a few books by Muslims who've converted to Christianity (most recently, "No God But One", by Nabeel Qureshi). Everything I've seen indicates that Islam is absolutely ridiculous, abhorrent, and generally patently silly. Just what one would expect from a poorly plagiarized version of Christianity/Judaism.

[Myrkhoos]

No, nothing deep. I tried reading the Koran in Romanian and English. It sounds worse than the Bible and gave a bad feeling. But there is no history of Islam in English or Romanian so maybe the translations are off. The Christian Calvinist apologist James White has debates with Muslims. On the Muslim side there are some videos from Hasan al Maliki, Saudi scholar of Islam that presents a more open view of Islam. Also Adnan Ibrahim. The first one is imprisoned and faces death from blasphemy charges, the last lives in Europe. Most cases of blasphemy are Muslims with sligtky different views anyway.

         The modern Islamic states however,,regardless of their relation with actual Islam, seem like a clusterfuck of terror. Interestly enough, they were way more tolerant of other religions than Christians in their day.

        From afar it just seems like simplified Judaism and Christianity plus some sprinkled with pre islamic ideas like jinn and Roman imperial ideology - khalifate administration. One prophet, one book, one God. Through the ages though, it also became overly complicated with sects, law schools, civil wars, many languages etc. 

     At some point, given how big it is, I will want to study it more closely.

[Joshpantera]

On 3/3/2021 at 9:04 PM, Wertbag said:

The Muslims posting in the comments do themselves no favours by saying everyone will burn in hell and failing to rebut any points raised against their religion.

 

Has anyone done a deep dive on Islam?  Is it just as ridiculous as it appears at a surface level?

 

Probably the more ridiculous the deeper you dive. A mythical Abraham gives rise to the Arab race through his mythical son Ishmael??? This is like speaking as though Greeks are literally descended from Zeus and the gods. Pure mythology, of course. Beyond ridiculous claims to make. 

 

Beyond the basic foundation of it's ridiculous mythological claims, I'm not sure what else is even relevant or matters about islam. 

 

Muslims in my experience, for the most part, seem to have a higher concentration of narcissists than even christianity. Kings of idle threats. If you look at the bandwagon, copy cat religion factor, it would appear that as judaism was fashioned into christianity, and later the two were fashioned into islam, the narcissism associated with belief in each religion seems to have increased. The threats for not believing follow the same trajectory. The Muslims seem to have delicate egos for the most part. Constantly threatening people all the time. 

 

Why is that? 

 

Maybe it's because as you go through time the religions became more, and more, and even more ridiculous and make believe.

 

To where as you get to the farthest removed from the source, the loudest saber rattling and idle threats are found. The more unbelievable the myth, the more adherents seem to take offense to unbelievers. There may be something to that speculation....

 

 

[◊ Weezer ◊]

The thing that is scary about them to me, if it is true, is that most of them want to combine their religion with government.  I have heard that from several sources, and that would be something to fear!!  OBEDIENCE is drilled into them from birth.

 

I tried reading the Koran a few years ago and it was so ridiculous I gave up. 

[alreadyGone]

On 3/10/2021 at 8:46 PM, Joshpantera said:

 

...Maybe it's because as you go through time the religions became more, and more, and even more ridiculous and make believe.

 

To where as you get to the farthest removed from the source, the loudest saber rattling and idle threats are found. The more unbelievable the myth, the more adherents seem to take offense to unbelievers. There may be something to that speculation....

 

 

 

And the greater the factionalism, breaking into more and more sects and subsects over time.

This seems true in Islam, Christianity, and Judaism.

 

[disillusioned]

On 3/11/2021 at 12:50 AM, Weezer said:

The thing that is scary about them to me, if it is true, is that most of them want to combine their religion with government.  I have heard that from several sources, and that would be something to fear!!  OBEDIENCE is drilled into them from birth.

 

In my experience this is true, and it isn't really that surprising. 

 

One thing that Muslims tend to do better than Christians is take their faith seriously. Not, necessarily, in the sense of thinking it all the way through, but rather in the sense of truly committing to it. If it is really true that there is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is his prophet, then nothing else really matters. If it is the one true religion, then it deserves a place in government. It requires one.

 

There are some Christians who take this line of reasoning, but not nearly as many.

[pantheory]

On 3/3/2021 at 6:04 PM, Wertbag said:

...........So it didn't seem like such things were claimed about Mo until generations later when people grew those stories to make him supernatural.  Including the bizarre story of splitting the moon.

The Muslims posting in the comments do themselves no favours by saying everyone will burn in hell and failing to rebut any points raised against their religion.

 

Has anyone done a deep dive on Islam?  Is it just as ridiculous as it appears at a surface level? (embolden added)

 

Yes, religion-wise their religion is just a ridiculous as Christianity, but the practicing morals of the majority are far better than Christians IMO. Morals such as the golden rule, praising humanity, empathy etc.

 

Examples of Morality and generosity: As was said above, most Moslems take their religion very seriously, unlike most Christians. For this reason morality is more important to the majority. I was in Turkey about 10 years ago when they had tea centers all over Istanbul. In these tea centers, some inside and some outside, there were no full time attendants. You just pour your own tea, using their beautiful ornamental cups,  ad cream, sugar or lemon, and put your money in a jar, lets say .50 cents US. I few hours later someone would come along and pick up the money, add more tea, sugar, cream, and lemon. Obviously it was rare for anyone to steal, otherwise they wouldn't have such places, which they probably still have today (honesty prevailed).

 

When my friend and I were coming through the airport there, he lost his expensive camera. We traced our movements backward and couldn't find his camera. He asked about it, and a porter told him in English to check with the lost and found. We went to the lost-and-found and his camera was there (honesty prevailed). On another occasion at the airport my friend had large, heavy suitcases  The distance to the elevators was not close so my friend asked a porter if he would take these heavy suitcases up several flights of stairs. The porter said he would, so after taking up the suitcases, my friend gave the porter a tip. The poster said he could not accept the tip because that was part of his job. In English he said that you don't tip people in Moslem countries for doing things that are part of their job, only when a person does something out of the ordinary for you, can you offer a tip, and even then many will not accept it since hospitality and helping others is part of their religion and culture, he said (helping others and hospitality prevailed). We found similar hospitality from Moslems in Egypt, but not so uniformly practiced. We saw no women's hijabs (facial coverings) in Istanbul but some in Egypt, and even more in other parts of the Moslem world at that time.

 

As many know, Moslems are not allowed to drink alcohol, so there are few bars in Moslem countries. When there is a bar, drink prices are similar to Western prices.  There was a small bar in the hotel where we were staying in Egypt. At night I ordered maybe 4 or 5 drinks over several hours. My friend, of Hindu ancestry, had one drink over the same period. In the morning upon passing the bar, the bar tender manager, gave me what was left of a good bottle of whiskey, maybe $20.00 worth at bar prices, that I was drinking the night before, as a friendship gesture (hospitality, gifting and friendship offered). We had other similar experiences of smaller gifting in Moslem countries.

 

Here is one Christian's opinion concerning the positives of Moslems.

 

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2008/05/03/seven-admirable-things-about-islam

 

As far as Moslem ideals being involved with Government, it's a positive in their religion. Mohamed himself asserted that this was the proper behavior since governments can pass laws against polytheism, and so-called immoral behaviors. Like Christianity, Moslems praise modesty, cordiality, charity, and self sacrifice for the benefit of those less fortunate. 

 

So-called Moslem-fundamentalists who are aggressive and militaristic, assert that their behavior is necessary as it was for Mohammad in his time. But Mohammad said that such decisions concerning aggression could only be considered if both the Moslem government, with the sanction of the clergy were obtained. Our dark ages were the Moslem years of enlightenment. Great Moslem libraries were being built and the knowledge of the ages were being preserved in Islam, translated into many different languages, and distributed all over the Moslem world. At the same time Christianity was burning books that contradicted the faith, as well as burning witches via trials of ordeal. Because of the Crusades Moslems considered Christians to be dirty, uneducated barbarians, in that their smell was very bad (non-bathing armies) and they killed all those defeated (generally no prisoners). On the other hand the Moslems took prisoners as slaves (since is was their home territory). Rebellish prisoners and slaves were executed, but after a year of so of faithful servitude, some were sent back on a voyage across the Mediterranean, back to Europe, especially those more agreeable who studied Arabic and were willing to study the Moslem faith (but many or most released were not required to convert).

 

For the US in our early history, we honored the separation of church and State, but the separation is not clear in our constitution. In the 1950's when in our pledge of allegiance, we added the words "one nation under god," to the pledge of allegiance, and in the coinage we added the words "In God we Trust." There were some, at the time, who said that these actions violated the separation of church and state (which they did).

 

Legal Separation between religion and state in Turkey: Following the first world war one of the Moslem generals of the Ottomans became famous after the war because of his history of being a winning General. even though the Ottomans lost the war. He was a Turk named Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. He became the popular favorite and became president of Turkey after the first world war and the fall of the Ottomans and the Caliphate. Ataturk saw the conflict in his own country between Moslems and Christians following the war, so he negotiated with Greece. Both countries agreed that Moslems in Greece could go to Turkey, and that Christians in Turkey could go to Greece, and both could easily become citizens of the other country if they wished. Because of the war, hardships and strife of the times, 1.6 million people changed citizenship between these countries at that time.

 

Attaturk was blond (sandy) haired and blue eyed and his picture in on Turkish money today. He is considered the father of modern day Turkey. He made laws against religious decimation. In their constitution he implemented a strong and unambiguous statements concerning the separation of church and state. There are laws in the county today that you can't show any overt display of religion which includes both citizens and non-citizens. No one can preach religion in public or wear a visible religious symbol on their person, such as the crescent moon of the Moslems, the Christian cross, the star of David etc.  For those who do they are told to put it where it cannot be seen, and they are given a written warning. If they are caught again in public, their related jewelry can be confiscated and a fine (ticket) given. Prayer rugs cannot be used in public places either, only in acceptable indoor privacy, and in places less public. They still have a call-to-payer by microphones and tower announcements in Istanbul about every four hours. The humorous aspect of it is that these callings are in Arabic which most Turks do not understand. It was like the Latin prayers of Christianity when the populous spoke a different language. But most impressive IMO is their clear constitutional separation between church and state, which is far better than ours in the US  IMO. Unfortunately most other Moslem countries do not have explicit laws separating religion from state, like the US.

 

"Though not explicitly stated in the First Amendment, the clause is often interpreted to mean that the Constitution requires the separation of church and state."

 

[TABA]

19 minutes ago, pantheory said:

Attaturk was blond (sandy) haired and blue eyed and his picture in on Turkish money today. He is considered the father of modern day Turkey. He made laws against religious decimation. In their constitution he implemented a strong and unambiguous statements concerning the separation of church and state. There are laws in the county today that you can't show any overt display of religion which includes both citizens and non-citizens. No one can preach religion in public or wear a visible religious symbol on their person

It’s important to mention that the separation between mosque and state described here has been rolled back significantly in the past decade by current President and quasi-dictator Recip Tayip Erdogan and his policy of Islamization:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism_in_Turkey
 

 

[pantheory]

40 minutes ago, TABA said:

It’s important to mention that the separation between mosque and state described here has been rolled back significantly in the past decade by current President and quasi-dictator Recip Tayip Erdogan and his policy of Islamization:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism_in_Turkey
 

 

Yes, it's true that there is a popular regressive movement to keep up with the conservative Moslem revival movement in most of Islam, but the laws and constitution of Turkey have not changed, as far as I know, so that such present behavior involving the non-separation of religion and state could legally be challenged, if so desired.

 

The separation between religion and state could be more difficult in  US since such separation is not clearly defined by our constitution.

[TABA]

34 minutes ago, pantheory said:

Yes, it's true that there is a popular regressive movement to keep up with the conservative Moslem revival movement in most of Islam, but the laws and constitution of Turkey have not changed, as far as I know, so that such present behavior involving the non-separation of religion and state could legally be challenged, if so desired.

 

Unfortunately in 2017 Erdogan pushed through changes to the constitution that greatly expand his powers.  Also unfortunately, changes to the Turkish Constitution only required a majority vote in Parliament followed by a popular referendum.  Rights are best protected when a constitution is not too easy to change, lest a populist movement lead to changes that are regretted later.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Turkish_constitutional_referendum

 

In further bad news for freedom and secularism in Turkey, Erdogan also got the parliament to restructure the judiciary:

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-turkey-judiciary-idUSKCN0ZH4IZ

 

Erdogan observed how Putin eviscerated the flawed democracy he inherited from Yeltsin, and has been busy turning himself into a modern-day Sultan.  

 

 

 

 

[pantheory]

2 hours ago, TABA said:

 

Unfortunately in 2017 Erdogan pushed through changes to the constitution that greatly expand his powers.  Also unfortunately, changes to the Turkish Constitution only required a majority vote in Parliament followed by a popular referendum.  Rights are best protected when a constitution is not too easy to change, lest a populist movement lead to changes that are regretted later.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Turkish_constitutional_referendum

 

In further bad news for freedom and secularism in Turkey, Erdogan also got the parliament to restructure the judiciary:

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-turkey-judiciary-idUSKCN0ZH4IZ

 

Erdogan observed how Putin eviscerated the flawed democracy he inherited from Yeltsin, and has been busy turning himself into a modern-day Sultan. 

 

 

 

Yes, this is also true. But I find no adverse constitutional changes, in my search, relating to the separation between religion and state.

 

(2019) "The current Constitution of 1982 neither recognizes an official religion nor promotes any. ... Turkey's "laïcité" calls for the separation of religion and the state, but also describes the state's stance as one of "active neutrality", which involves state control and legal regulation of religion."

 

"Secularism in Turkey defines the relationship between religion and state in the country of Turkey. Secularism (or laïcité) was first introduced with the 1928 amendment of the Constitution of 1924, which removed the provision declaring that the "Religion of the State is Islam", and with the later reforms of Turkey's first president Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, which set the administrative and political requirements to create a modern, democratic, secular state, aligned with Kemalism. " Kemalism is the founding ideology of the Republic of Turkey as defined by Ataturk in his six arrows (principles). Although recent constitutional changes have made the country less democratic, it apparently did not alter the founding principle of secularism.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism_in_Turkey

 

The hijabe (women covered body and face), or the Niqab (face covering only), is still outlawed in western Turkey, but scarf head coverings are now permitted since it is considered part of the women's-rights movement. Hats have always been permitted for both sexes.  For central and eastern Turkey in rural and suburban areas, government laws forbidding religious dress in public may not be enforced in locations where considered a women's-rights issue.

[◊ Krowb ◊]

Laws are just words on paper.

[pantheory]

1 hour ago, Krowb said:

Laws are just words on paper.

 

Yeah,  laws not enforced are not worth much. Stupid laws that are enforced are less than worthless; they detract from life.

[◊ Weezer ◊]

I get on my soap box with the church/state topic.  The combination of any authoritarian religion that thinks it is the only way, with the power of the state, is a terrible mistake.  Power corrupts, and absolute power absolutely corrupts.  And the combination of those two powers makes it "absolute".  Even beginning to overlap the two is beginning a slippery slope.

[pantheory]

17 hours ago, Weezer said:

I get on my soap box with the church/state topic.  The combination of any authoritarian religion that thinks it is the only way, with the power of the state, is a terrible mistake.  Power corrupts, and absolute power absolutely corrupts.  And the combination of those two powers makes it "absolute".  Even beginning to overlap the two is beginning a slippery slope.

 

For Moslems and Christians, the government was entangled with religion for many centuries which we now call the dark ages   Once the kings started breaking away from the Pope, this religious control of the state began to slow down. For the Moslems such control continues to some extent to the present day in many Moslem countries. Some consider the shift in power between the Ottomans and the Christians began about the mid 1400's when the printing press was invented and the renascence in Europe had begun. Before then the Moslems generally controlled the worlds knowledge, while many Christians were still burning books.  In the 1500's Christians still continued the burning of witches and performing trials by ordeal, but in contrast the beginnings of public funded educated in Europe for tax payers had begun. In some Moslem countries public funded education had begun centuries before, but this education was for business families and property owners. For all Moslems and most Christians in the 1500's education also required religious training. For religious states, public funded education required religious education for both sexes, vocational training for boys, and to some extent domestic training for girls -- both faiths.

 

Except for businesses where women could be partners with men, few women could make a living based solely on their education, excepting for teachers of art and music, nannies and nursemaids as teachers for young children. Of course wealthier families for both faiths were always allowed to pay for their own tutors and the education of their children regardless of their sex. 

[Myrkhoos]

FYI with the whole islamic knowledge, eastern Christians preserved that knowledge and translated it into Arabic. Idk why Many ppl forget the existence of the whole eastern chrustianity and byzantine empire . Arabs were mainly warrior nomads  before the assimilation of byzantine and persian civilizations. 

      They never has the opinion that Eastern Christians were barbarians. That îs what the eastern Christians thought of Thorn actually at first.

      There was never a dark age in the eastern roman empire by the way.

     

[TheRedneckProfessor]

2 hours ago, Myrkhoos said:

FYI with the whole islamic knowledge, eastern Christians preserved that knowledge and translated it into Arabic. Idk why Many ppl forget the existence of the whole eastern chrustianity and byzantine empire . Arabs were mainly warrior nomads  before the assimilation of byzantine and persian civilizations. 

      They never has the opinion that Eastern Christians were barbarians. That îs what the eastern Christians thought of Thorn actually at first.

      There was never a dark age in the eastern roman empire by the way.

     

That's what I had understood from history.  While the West was plunged into the Dark Ages, the East was still thriving, with religious and political leaders alike encouraging the study and growth of sciences and such.

[pantheory]

Who did more to preserve the knowledge of antiquity, the Muslims or the Byzantines?

The Abbasid Caliphate (Muslems) did more to preserve the knowledge of antiquity than did the Byzantines. Indeed, many Byzantines made it their job to destroy pre-Christian and non-Christian material and divergent Christian writings as much as possible. Of course the Byzantines were not nearly as fanatic as was much of Western Europe at that time in the destruction of non-Christian books, both public and private.

The Abbasids, on the other hand were obsessive about collecting, copying and translating written materials, as Moslems had done for many past centuries. However huge amounts of the writings of antiquity were lost when the Caliphate finally fell to the Mongols in 1258, but fortunately much of this material had, by that time, been translated, transferred and copied to other Muslim Caliphates, as well as Andalucia in southern Spain and, from there, much of this knowledge flowed into Western Europe upon the graces of the Andalucían Moslems. The last Muslim rule in Spain, after years of waring, peacefully surrendered  to the Christians in 1492. The Moslems where allowed to withdraw to Morocco, bringing their great libraries with them. Following that the iron hand of Spanish Catholicism and the inquisition removed other divergent peoples from the country and again started the destruction of unsanctioned knowledge, as well as the prior knowledge and books of antiquity. But fortunately from about 1350, the Andalucían Moslems had been distributing old-world knowledge throughout the Eurasian world including Europe, upon request, and for a price no greater than the cost of translation and distribution.  

Because the Byzantines conquered Greek territories to create Constantinople, they preserved much of Plato’s work and  that of Greek antiquity that had been preserved by the Greeks, as well as the knowledge of Roman antiquity, since many or most of Constantinople’s citizens spoke Greek rather than Latin. This knowledge, in turn, also came to Western Europe after the fall of Constantinople to the Turkish Muslims, Mehmed the Conqueror, in 1453. Mahmed later, through his libraries,  ordered the translation and distribution of this knowledge throughout the Moslem world, into books of other languages, distributed to countries and other religions upon request and payment believed to be no more than costs.

https://www.quora.com/Which-did-more-to-preserve-the-knowledge-of-antiquity-the-Muslims-or-the-Byzantine

[Myrkhoos]

       Where do you think the Muslims got their materials? Former byzantine colonies or the persians. Or, maybe, Ethiopians.

        Most of the greek philosophy that enetered Islam entered it thriugh syriac authors.

7 hours ago, pantheory said:

Who did more to preserve the knowledge of antiquity, the Muslims or the Byzantines?

The Abbasid Caliphate (Muslems) did more to preserve the knowledge of antiquity than did the Byzantines. Indeed, many Byzantines made it their job to destroy pre-Christian and non-Christian material and divergent Christian writings as much as possible. Of course the Byzantines were not nearly as fanatic as was much of Western Europe at that time in the destruction of non-Christian books, both public and private.

The Abbasids, on the other hand were obsessive about collecting, copying and translating written materials, as Moslems had done for many past centuries. However huge amounts of the writings of antiquity were lost when the Caliphate finally fell to the Mongols in 1258, but fortunately much of this material had, by that time, been translated, transferred and copied to other Muslim Caliphates, as well as Andalucia in southern Spain and, from there, much of this knowledge flowed into Western Europe upon the graces of the Andalucían Moslems. The last Muslim rule in Spain peacefully surrendered  in 1492. The Moslems where allowed to withdraw to Morocco, bringing their great libraries with them. Following that the iron hand of Spanish Catholicism and the inquisition removed other divergent peoples from the country and again started the destruction of unsanctioned knowledge, as well as the prior knowledge and books of antiquity. But fortunately from about 1350, the Andalucían Moslems had been distributing old-world knowledge throughout the Eurasian world including Europe, upon request, and for a price no greater than the cost of translation and distribution.  

Because the Byzantines conquered Greek territories to create Constantinople, they preserved much of Plato’s work and of those of Greek antiquity preserved by the Greeks, as well as Roman antiquity, since many or most of Constantinople’s citizens spoke Greek rather than Latin. This knowledge, in turn, also came to Western Europe after the fall of Constantinople to the Turkish Muslims, Mehmed the Conqueror, in 1453. Mahmed later, through his libraries,  ordered the translation and distribution of this knowledge throughout the Moslem world, into books of other languages, distributed to countries and other religions upon request and payment believed to be no more than costs.

https://www.quora.com/Which-did-more-to-preserve-the-knowledge-of-antiquity-the-Muslims-or-the-Byzantine

        Man is this historically biased and wrong in many counts. First, WHERE did the Muslim arabs get their materials? Where did they copy them from? Pre Islamic arabs were mostly an oral culture with little interest in writing or high culture. They got their materials from the persians and former byzantine colonies. This is just one the most widely accepted historical realities. Some caliphs wanted to outcompete the christians and zoroastrians so they supported some of the translation movement. Because culturally these conquered areas were their clear superior. Some even say that classical arabic was based on classical syriac and their tradition of grammarians. 

       Muslims did not surrender Spain peacefully or were let to retreat peacefully for that matter. There was the period of military reconquista and the later expulsion of the Moriscoes.

       There was communication about works from antiquity long before the andalusian arabs. What they got from it were well appreciated commentaries like Avicenna.

      The arabs took on an already pre existing philosophical and scientific culture, from Christians Zoroastrians and hindus ( so called arab numerals)  Good for them, but the Islamic Golden age was kind built with looted gold so to speak. Very nice of them to have worked with and on top of it. So islamic knowlege is typified by the Hagia Sophia. Take an already monumental piece and slightly modify  to suit your needs. That is actually wise. They could have just burned all down. They didn t.

     Islam also had periods of heavy persecution of religious rivals and refutation antuquity and such. Their own inquisitions. And they also had blasphemy courts. The Spanish inquisition did not have as mandate burning books its primary mandate was veryfing if the converted Jews and Moslems were actually converted or only pretending- which was a real phenomena. Crypto Jews and crypto muslims. Documented by jewish and muslim sources as I remember.

[pantheory]

12 hours ago, Myrkhoos said:

       Where do you think the Muslims got their materials? Former byzantine colonies or the persians. Or, maybe, Ethiopians.

        Most of the greek philosophy that enetered Islam entered it thriugh syriac authors.

        Man is this historically biased and wrong in many counts. First, WHERE did the Muslim arabs get their materials? Where did they copy them from? Pre Islamic arabs were mostly an oral culture with little interest in writing or high culture. They got their materials from the persians and former byzantine colonies. This is just one the most widely accepted historical realities. Some caliphs wanted to outcompete the christians and zoroastrians so they supported some of the translation movement. Because culturally these conquered areas were their clear superior. Some even say that classical arabic was based on classical syriac and their tradition of grammarians. 

       Muslims did not surrender Spain peacefully or were let to retreat peacefully for that matter. There was the period of military reconquista and the later expulsion of the Moriscoes.

       There was communication about works from antiquity long before the andalusian arabs. What they got from it were well appreciated commentaries like Avicenna.

      The arabs took on an already pre existing philosophical and scientific culture, from Christians Zoroastrians and hindus ( so called arab numerals)  Good for them, but the Islamic Golden age was kind built with looted gold so to speak. Very nice of them to have worked with and on top of it. So islamic knowlege is typified by the Hagia Sophia. Take an already monumental piece and slightly modify  to suit your needs. That is actually wise. They could have just burned all down. They didn t.

     Islam also had periods of heavy persecution of religious rivals and refutation antuquity and such. Their own inquisitions. And they also had blasphemy courts. The Spanish inquisition did not have as mandate burning books its primary mandate was veryfing if the converted Jews and Moslems were actually converted or only pretending- which was a real phenomena. Crypto Jews and crypto muslims. Documented by jewish and muslim sources as I remember.

 

My point  was that many Moslem rulers of the past valued science, math, and history, far more than many Christian rulers of the dark ages. Yes the Byzantines came first who prized Greek and Roman history, but had to secretly protect ancient philosophy, and knew little of math and science beyond that of Roman times.  The Moslems learned from many other cultures whose knowledge they had preserved  The western dark ages was part of the Moslem period of enlightenment concerning writings, book and knowledge preservation, and their own new developments in math and science.

 

The renaissance of the west coincided with the invention and development of the printing press in  the mid 1400's. The Moslems instead prized hand written books and copies which of course could not keep up with the printing press and  related distribution of knowledge which was taking root and growing fast  in the west due to the renaissance.  From that time forward the Moslems could no longer keep up with the west concerning the development and distribution of knowledge and education. Unfortunately today's Moslem states value knowledge and education far lees than prior Moslem and Ottoman rulers of centuries past.