> There is no such thing as "the" muslims. That's a collectivist fallacy like speaking of -the- Negroes
> If anyone said "the" Objectivists, you'd know exactly what they were talking about.
Context, Teresa. there's no such thing as the muslims in the collectivist sense I was refuting. E.g., "the muslims" are our enemies. "the muslims" are supporters of terrorism. Just like saying "The Negroes" are poorly educated.
In other words you can't identify any kind of common religious beliefs among Muslims. Islam is therefore unidentifiable. Referring to "the Muslims" must presuppose there is some kind of shared identifiable ideology.
You may stomp your feet all you want Phil and claim that you're not trying to argue that Islam is hard to pin down. But you are, you're simply trying to have it both ways. You want to claim there is some common identification to Islam but then you refuse to want to actually identify common characteristics by obscuring it through identifying non-essentials, such as different customs, different histories, different experiences, etc. And despicably, you insinuate it is some kind of form of racism to even refer to Muslims as sharing some kind of common identity. Throw your temper tantrum all you want Phil, if you want to start throwing around the need for decorum, then you can drop the bullshit racist accusation.
> Islamic armies swept through Anatolia [John]
Did I say they -started- as a great civilization? That was centuries before I am talking about.
> The Italian renaissance can partially be credited to these Byzantines.
Did I say the Islamic civilization was the only civilization to take credit?
> This is a ridiculous narrative. Where did you even get this historical view?
John, I'd prefer not to get into discussion over basic facts of history. The points I made about the -late- Middle Ages and the comparison between the highly advanced civilization of Islam compared to the backward civilization of Christianity are well known. I've read probably a dozen world history books and it was *in every single one of them*.
I'm trying to understand Phil at what point in time then could one describe the Christian world as being barbaric while the Islamic world during this time was civilized? According to your criteria, it's who actually bothered to study Aristotle (among other things like law and order). Ok, well I've pointed out to you that the Byzantine Empire, which was a Christian Empire, lasted for a millennium and were the world's sole custodians of the ancient philosophical, historical and artistic texts which included those of Aristotle. When the Byzantine Empire completely fell in the 15th century the Italian renaissance had already begin. While the Islamic Turks were sweeping through Anatolia and then eventually sacking Constantinople and taking the Greek mainland subsequently, Greek scholars, artisans, philosophers, historians, et al fled to Italy with those ancient texts to take part in the Italian Renaissance, i.e. those Italian Christians. The Medici family among others took these people and texts in. The only reason the Islamic world even bothered to look at these texts was because they wondered what these people they conquered were reading.
And no point in time can we singly identify the entire Christian world then as being "the world of barbarism and force and an intellectual, moral, economic, epistemological dark ages." and then oppose this with the Islamic world of "order, rule of law, trade, science, reason" Well WHICH Christian world are we talking about? WHICH Islamic world are we contrasting this with? I thought you shouldn't talk about these things in any kind of "collectivist" sense?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to apologize for Christian wrongs. I'm only pointing out your narrative is false. Most of the time both Christian and Islamic scholars reading Aristotle were just too busy trying to twist Aristotle into something compatible with their own religious beliefs. It wasn't anything remotely comparable to the scholarly pursuits of pre-Christian Europe. Both of those religions were busy infighting and squabbling over who had the correct interpretation of their holy text.
If your narrative is found in every historical textbook, then apparently everyone you read was written by an ignoramus.
(Edited by John Armaos on 7/26, 10:07am)