RoR: Forum

Islam's vanished golden era cannot be treated in an academic vacuum. In a patent symptom of dismissive generalization, noted clerics make sweeping statements like "Muslims could regain their lost place with the promotion of book reading culture, as distance from knowledge caused downfall of the Muslims in the world." Everyone seems to mourn the lost glory; however the real excruciating causes of decline are rarely argued. Rationalism was an essential inclination amid the Muslim thinkers during the Golden Age of Islam; it was toleration of ideas in which the so-called golden age of Islam flourished. Thinkers then were more led by their own conscience than any provincial dogma, a belief system they might have inherited from their ancestors. Decreed by the Koran to seek knowledge and enthused by the riches of ancient Greek knowledge, Muslims created a civilization that in the Middle Ages was the scientific centre of the world. Jews, Christians and Muslims all contributed in this flowering of knowledge and thinking, which lasted for at least 500 years and covered the region from Spain to Persia.

One needs to look at the reasons why the entrenched clergy from the very beginning of Islam to present day has always frowned at any attempt of "enlightened moderation." Those who meditated science and logic came up with a lot of questions and those questions are more often than not nipped in the bud. Decline of the Islamic golden age was due to supremacy and ascendancy of dogma over rationalism – for example, the lack of separation between faith and reason – that is why the Muslim Arab world fell into scientific slumber just as the Christian world woke up. Internecine wars, infighting and murder of rationalism were the main causes for the decline of Islam. It is often disputed why Muslims being 19.6% of the world's population, i.e. 2 billion, only have three Nobel laureates in Science and literature, whereas Jews being only 0.2% of the world's population, i.e. 14.1 million, have received 122 Nobel prizes in science, economics, medicine and literature.

"The saga of 'missing' Nobel prizes within nations of Islam"-- Iqbal Latif, Paris
The Persian Journal
http://www.iranian.ws/cgi-bin/iran_news/exec/view.cgi/12/6893
Persian Journal is the news division of the more comprehensive Iranian.ws sites, a progressive Iranian online community and resource. Persian Journal is an online magazine of Iran's current events and Iranian culture featuring news, in-depth analysis and investigative reporting as well as opinions and commentary from a network of exclusive Iranian columnists and bloggers.

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 4/21, 5:53am)

Post 1

Saturday, April 21, 2007 - 5:51am

Speaking of Nobel Prizes, in particular...

Nobel laureates by country
Pos	Country	Total
1	United States	160
2	United Kingdom	110
3	Germany	94
4	France	54
5	Sweden	27
6	Switzerland	25
=7	USSR and Russia	21
=7	Austria	21
9	Italy	19
=10	Canada	18
=10	Netherlands	18
12	Hungary	16
=13	Denmark	14
=13	Poland	14
15	Japan	12
=16	Belgium	10
=16	Ireland	10

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_laureates_by_country

It is important to break that down a bit. "Differences of opinion" in science is one thing; literature usually has other consequences. Furthermore, different "nations" (so-called) have different cultures and therefore different reasons for their relative rankings. Germany was not even a "nation" until 1870 and truly only under the brief nazi era was it a single state. On the other hand, France is one of the oldest of the modern nation-states (along with Spain and "England"), if not the oldest. So, France's conformist culture seems to have had some consequences. On the other hand the UK, although nominally an "old" nation, has a strong tradition of limiting the state. Even the religious wars of the from Henry VIII through Charles II, were not as horrible as the Thirty Years War because of an undercurrent within the warring factions to find some sort of settlement as opposed to just killing everyone not on our side.

On the other hand, Austria has always had a curiously medieval literalism about the law. It was always a very conservative place and remains so today. However, the traditional view what that "outsiders" were not subject to the law in the same way. In other words, everyone is under civil law, of course, but the state did not care if you were Jewish or whatever, because, mostly, no one voted on anything anyway. In the post WWII era, the Austrian right has strong support when it comes to keeping foreigners out, but that has not translated into keeping them physically out, so much as keeping them legally barred from political participation, which may be inconsequential, really. The same might be suggested for Switzerland.

Post 2

Saturday, April 21, 2007 - 4:38pm

The supposed golden age of isl*m is in itself a myth. It is true that due to the conquests of the monolingual Arabs, the culture of Mesopotamia and the Levant - a Hellenistic, Roman, and then Byzantine Christian culture, and the innovations of the East such as the so-called "Arabic" numerals, which come from India, could spread into the West so far as Spain. But the philosophers and physicians of the Arabic courts were largely Jews and dhimmis or freethinkers. Neither Averroes nor Avicenna were true innovators, Maimonides was a Jew, and they all owed their education to the remnants of the Hellenistic culture which simply hadn't yet been totally suppressed.

Al Ghazali is considered the true dean of Arabic philosophy, and his achievement was to silence and discredit the Aristotelians using skeptical sophistry, to have them silenced as heretics, to advocate revelation as the only source of truth, and to ultimately destroy philosophy in the name of Religion. Other m*slim innovations were such institutions as jihad and the hijab. Remember, it was only when the Turks put an end to the Arab custom of accepting bribes from Christian pilgrims that the West began its crusades.

There are no truly m*slim or Arabic innovations of that so called golden age of which I am aware, only a frenzied and cospicuos consumption of the pre-existing capital of the Orient, and begrudging transmissions from the east or from a past which they would soon efface, like the Buddhas of Bamiyan and the Twin Towers.

While there may be m*slims of good will, as a faith and as a criminal political conspiracy, isl*m is pure impotent evil.

Ted Keer

(Edited by Ted Keer
on 4/21, 4:38pm)

Post 3

Sunday, April 22, 2007 - 2:15am

The supposed golden age of isl*m is in itself a myth

This is true, and bears repeating. There was no "Golden Age" of Islam.

Any "Golden Age" happened in spite of Islam, not because of it. Islam, like all religions, first attempts to crush all nonconformist, objective thought that produces real advancements, And then, once the advancements produce real and positive results, religions (in this case, Islam) rush in to lay claim to the advancements as "products" of the supposedly "enlightened" religion.

Religion is always a mobster... a hulking, looming brute. It lies, it breaks kneecaps, it rules by manipulation, stealth, and sheer horror. There are no "golden ages" in religion... unless you count sadomasochism as "golden".

Post 4

Sunday, April 22, 2007 - 7:25am

The 'golden age' of Christianity was that era known as "the Dark Ages"....

Post 5

Sunday, April 22, 2007 - 6:56pm

If you go out to Wikipedia and look up dark ages you will see people trying to revise history to make it appear like the dark ages were actually idealic.

Post 6

Sunday, April 22, 2007 - 8:51pm

Why is there a need to deny the historic facts that during the Western Dark Ages, the Muslim/Arabic/Islamic societies flourished? We don't need to pick on the wording "Islam", as we should know that none of the progresses in human history is due to religion and superstition. It is really petty to say that "oh, this and that innovation is made by a Jew and not Muslims". Why weren't they made by Jews living in other countries? Why inventions or ideas from India or "remnants of the Hellenistic culture" could not flourish in their own original place but was kept alive in the Islamic societies?

Here is an analogy that makes the same point. Mike listed the break downs of Nobel Prize winners by country. Among the 160 US Nobel Laureates, there are several Chinese Americans. But no one from Mainland China or Taiwan has yet to won any Nobel Prizes in sciences. (There is a Mainland Chinese Nobel Literature Laureate though). I think the answer is clear.

> isl*m is pure impotent evil.

From what I learn in history, I could say the same for Christianity.

Post 7

Sunday, April 22, 2007 - 10:09pm

My full quote was: "While there may be m*slims of good will, as a faith and as a criminal political conspiracy, isl*m is pure impotent evil." That's hardly fair, Hong. You significantly change the import of my statement by omitting the first two thirds of what I said. You "can say" what you like about Christianity, I wasn't defending it. (And I wonder why you, Robert and Steve seem so obsessed with an issue that I did not bring up, except to differentiate Christian Byzantium from Pagan Rome.) But you are simply wrong to say that isl*m flourished. It did not. It lived off the remnants of the capital left over from Hellenism. Sure, the West had its dark ages. Hence the dim light of the Levant looked brighter in comparison. But isl*m was decadent from its beginnings, M*hammed was a brigand who lived as a caravan robber who made caravan robbing into a religion. And, as for your: It is really petty to say that "oh, this and that innovation is made by a Jew and not Muslims," where did I argue on behalf of the Jews? I said that of the three great philosophers of isl*m, one was a Jew (Maimonides) and the other two Aristotelians, Averroes & Avicenna, were made into heretics by Al Ghazali, the neoplatonic "Augustine of isl*m."

Tell me, which of you has actually read Maimonides, Al Ghazali, or the Scholastics? Do you think I am making a mere partisan "my ancestors were less vicious than their ancestors" brag? I have studied these subjects in quite a bit of depth, even down to the nasty chore of having read the entire k*ran. If you sincerely want to know anything about this era other than "religion bad" I recommend Will Durant's Life of Greece, Caesar and Christ & his Age of Faith as a great introduction to the subjects discussed here.

In your apparent obsession with Christianity, are you, Steve or Robert arguing for moral equivalency? Or that isl*m isn't all that bad? I expect not. I made no argument in favor of Judaism or Christianity, no matter how hard you seem to want to see such an argument in my words. I invite anyone who wants to disprove my actual arguments, in their full context, to attempt it. My sole claim is that like communism, isl*m never had a golden age, it only devoured the corpses of its victims.

Otherwise, I welcome you joining me in condemning isl*m as a murderous political program clothed in nihilsitic religious garb.

Ted Keer

(Edited by Ted Keer
on 4/22, 10:14pm)

Post 8

Sunday, April 22, 2007 - 11:22pm

Ted, all I said is that there are Christians who are trying to rewrite history to make it seem the dark ages were good times.

Post 9

Monday, April 23, 2007 - 8:05am

OK, Ted, let me make it clear so that there won't be any ambiguity:

From what I learn in history, while there may be Christians of good will, as a faith and as a criminal political conspiracy, Christianity is pure impotent evil.

Fair?

And you seem still unwilling to give Muslims credit for allowing Jews or other ideas and philosophies to flourish over a period of several hundreds years in history when all that was lost in the Christiandom west.

PS. It's better not to post when your head is a muddle. ;-)

(Edited by Hong Zhang on 4/23, 10:28am)

Post 10

Monday, April 23, 2007 - 2:11pm

My full quote was: "While there may be m*slims of good will, as a faith and as a criminal political conspiracy, isl*m is pure impotent evil." That's hardly fair, Hong. You significantly change the import of my statement by omitting the first two thirds of what I said. You "can say" what you like about Christianity, I wasn't defending it. (And I wonder why you, Robert and Steve seem so obsessed with an issue that I did not bring up, except to differentiate Christian Byzantium from Pagan Rome.) But you are simply wrong to say that isl*m flourished. It did not. It lived off the remnants of the capital left over from Hellenism. Sure, the West had its dark ages. Hence the dim light of the Levant looked brighter in comparison. But isl*m was decadent from its beginnings, M*hammed was a brigand who lived as a caravan robber who made caravan robbing into a religion. And, as for your: It is really petty to say that "oh, this and that innovation is made by a Jew and not Muslims," where did I argue on behalf of the Jews? I said that of the three great philosophers of isl*m, one was a Jew (Maimonides) and the other two Aristotelians, Averroes & Avicenna, were made into heretics by Al Ghazali, the neoplatonic "Augustine of isl*m."

Tell me, which of you has actually read Maimonides, Al Ghazali, or the Scholastics? Do you think I am making a mere partisan "my ancestors were less vicious than their ancestors" brag? I have studied these subjects in quite a bit of depth, even down to the nasty chore of having read the entire k*ran. If you sincerely want to know anything about this era other than "religion bad" I recommend Will Durant's Life of Greece, Caesar and Christ & his Age of Faith as a great introduction to the subjects discussed here.

In your apparent obsession with Christianity, are you, Steve or Robert arguing for moral equivalency? Or that isl*m isn't all that bad? I expect not. I made no argument in favor of Judaism or Christianity, no matter how hard you seem to want to see such an argument in my words. I invite anyone who wants to disprove my actual arguments, in their full context, to attempt it. My sole claim is that like communism, isl*m never had a golden age, it only devoured the corpses of its victims.

Otherwise, I welcome you joining me in condemning isl*m as a murderous political program clothed in nihilsitic religious garb.

Great little treatise here. I sanctioned it.

Part of the problem here, I think, is that too many people are too used to arguments such as yours as preambles to sucking the flag of some other religion, and so they're defensive and dismissive from the start. Many people have come to expect attack -- particularly racial- and ethno-centric -- to come from the most insidious of directions. They're always waiting for the "other shoe to fall" and cannot fathom that a person could have a want to be purely fair and objective in their analysis of all cultures, with no sacred cows.

I encountered their full capacity for attack before, merely for my own rails, like yours, against Arabism and Islam. Apparently they were expecting and interpreting it as some kind of preamble to a crypto-anglo-centric agenda of "genocide". In retrospect, I'm not entirely unsympathetic to their apprehensions, as there are a number of truly maniacal and egomaniacal racists in the world. And, try as we might, if some people are inclined to believe or, perhaps, simply milk an agenda against you no matter how much you try to prove otherwise, you will just have to wash your hands of any sense of responsibility for their characterological and/or neurological deficits.

Post 11

Monday, April 23, 2007 - 2:38pm

And you seem still unwilling to give Muslims credit for allowing Jews or other ideas and philosophies to flourish over a period of several hundreds years in history when all that was lost in the Christiandom west.

I remain convinced that this long-cherished sentiment of yours is still rubbish, Hong.

What's more, I'm also convinced that you can continue to repeat it until you're blue in the face, but that the sheer repetition of this statement by you or any number of others will never magically make it true.

It continues to perplex and somewhat annoy me why you frequent an objectivist forum, and still wave high the banner of traditional eastern mysticisms and barbarities such as Islam over those of the west. Granted, I'm no iron-clad loyalist of western culture, but at least I try to have no unconditional ethno-cultural loyalties whatsoever.

All my loyalties are earned through what I consider to be an objective analysis of present conditions, and the fact of the matter is that the sort of "history" (if it was ever indeed true) that you recite about Islam is not observable today. Why, then, invoke some totally and utterly unverifiable "record" of the past in support of it, and against what is obviously the much more humane present condition of western culture?

"Head in a muddle", indeed.

Post 12

Monday, April 23, 2007 - 3:28pm

Mr. LeRay,
Past is not present. Human history is not static. It is constantly evolving. Instead of learning from the history, why are you so afraid of what happened hundreds of years ago?

And Ted can not even spell out the mere phrases "Islam" and "Muslim". Geez. Are you that scared?

(Edited by Hong Zhang on 4/23, 4:12pm)

Post 13

Monday, April 23, 2007 - 4:36pm

why are you so afraid of what happened hundreds of years ago?

I'm not. That's the whole point.

What I am afraid of is being deceived and manipulated by what is very likely false propaganda recorded as "history", especially in light of what is so obviously not the case in the present... namely, the ability of Islam to ever cause "flourish" in any realm of real advancement or intellectualism, when it is so obvious that it so actively despises and works to squelch all possibility of all divergent thought and, thus, innovation. That's what I'm afraid of... being suckered in by false propaganda, such as you are still continuing to disseminate here.

And, what's more, I'm afraid of those people who disseminate such propaganda... namely, you and others like you. But, rest assured, I am not so afraid that I am afraid to say it out loud in an open forum such as this.

Post 14

Monday, April 23, 2007 - 6:19pm

Have you read the k*ran, Hong? Al Ghazali? Averroes, Avicenna or Maimonides? Jesus' saying gospels? Have you studied the Arabic language? Do you know the music of Umm Kulthum? Have you traveled alone into m*slim neighborhoods and made friends with Arabs? I have not asked what you are scared of. I have not called you muddle-headed. You are better than this. You will not find any more "multicultural" person on this list than myself. Just think of my comments in regard to Phil Osborn's statements on the Chinese. Am I an average ignorant American idiot?

Whatever problem you have with Christianity, please separate it from my person in your mind. I am neither a Christian, a fool, nor your enemy.

Jeremy said "Part of the problem here, I think, is that too many people are too used to arguments such as yours as preambles to sucking the flag of some other religion, and so they're defensive and dismissive from the start. Many people have come to expect attack -- particularly racial- and ethno-centric -- to come from the most insidious of directions. They're always waiting for the "other shoe to fall" and cannot fathom that a person could have a want to be purely fair and objective in their analysis of all cultures, with no sacred cows." Exactly!

As for Christianity, I won't speak for other sects, but Catholicism holds the union of Church and state to be a heresy: Erastianism. When some zealous Jews wished to crown Jesus, he refused the title, and said "The kingdom of the lord is within you" - a state of internal personal existence - not a military dictatorship to be established by force. Jesus rejected the initiation of force in all its forms. Judas Iscariot was a Jewish terrorist zealot, the Sicarii being a sect of dagger-wielding assassins. When Jesus refused to become the military messiah that Judas sought, Judas betrayed him to the Romans.

Do you see no difference between Jesus' call to love one's enemies, and the Butcher's call to take no Christian or Jew as your friend? Do you see no difference between, "turn the other cheek" and "lie in wait for them, and slay them where you find them"?

In what Western, "Christian" nation would you fear for your life as an atheist and a Han Chinese? Which m*slim country would you prefer to inhabit?

To which religion did the African traders who introduced the slave trade to Europe belong? To which religion did the 19th century activists who ended the slave trade belong?

Please match the following references to God with their religion:

Abdullah "Slave of God"
Melech Ha'Olam "King of the universe"
Abwûn d'bwaschmâja "Our Father in heaven"

Do you see no difference between slaves (force), subjects (law), and children (love)?

What is the only major religion on Earth that currently calls on its followers to murder non-believers in the name of its god? Which one calls on its followers to spread what it calls the "good news"?

Name any Western nation which has cast off its evil Christian roots and become a free secular society by adopting m*slim originated ideals. Name one m*slim nation or culture which has had its own internally generated Renaissance, Reformation or Counter-Reformation without being defeated by external foreign non-m*slim forces.

The Turks and the Mongols were pagans until they encountered the monotheisms to their West. Which religion did they adopt due to its compatibility with their militarism?

Which number is greater? The number of books translated into Spanish yearly, or the number of books ever translated into Arabic?

See the trend here? I don't need to defend Christianity and the innumerable evils done by its followers and under its name. What non-rabid Christian does? If anything, Christians apologize for too much. (And I am an atheist, lest you forget.) Was it the Ayatollah who apologized to the Pope for the Crusades? The followers of which religion simultaneously claim that 9/11 was a Jewish plot, executed by the Mossad, and simultaneously a great victory for u.b.l. and isl*m? When the m*slims of Bosnia and Kosovo were being slain, how many Christians, (other than the Serbs!) danced in the streets? When the Twin Towers fell, who danced and ululated in the streets? Hint, see the image above.)

This is tedious, and I don't like fighting with you. I apologize for using you as a foil in order to make these points. Neither you nor I am a fool, Hong. Again, reread my posts here and respond not to what you are afraid I might secretly be thinking, but to what I have actually said. Then let me know if you agree that isl*m is evil. Not the Arabic language, not the Turks or the Mongols or the Farsis or the Semites, and not every naive m*slim born into that tradition by default, but isl*m.

And finally, do you truly think that I, who have beaten up and chased down muggers and thieves as a suburb-raised blue-eyed white man in NYC am actually afraid of anything? I do have a fear of heights, I'll admit that. Note that I have no problem naming specific Arabs, and the like. The only reason I make the effort not to fully spell out words referring to isl*m itself is that I find it distasteful to fill my posts with obscenities.

Ted Keer

(Edited by Ted Keer
on 4/23, 9:17pm)

Post 15

Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - 8:03am

Ted,

You really do not need to get so emotional. It makes one incoherent. So I will not argue with you because it’s simply no fun if one get emotional. The bottom line is that we all agree that many evils have been committed under the names of both Christianity and Islam. And today it is particular so with Islam. OK?

No, I never read Koran, and have no idea who Al Ghazali, Averroes, Avicenna or Maimonides is. I do and have known many different people very well as classmates, roommates, co-workers, teachers, students, colleagues, friends, and beyond. When I first came to US, my very first friend was a Lebanese girl. I became a friend with an Iranian girl from a chemistry class and she used me to cheat in the exam. I used to have two Turkish students who are the most delightful young people that I’ve ever known. I’ve been close to numerous Indian friends and also people from Bangladesh, Pakistan, Ethiopia and Kenya. My cousin used to have a Iraqi boyfriend and they lived together in England… On the other hand, I had a supervisor who is German, another supervisor who is a Israelis of Polish descent and who married a Englishman. I have colleagues from Austria, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Slovenia, Slovakia, Poland, Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Georgia. I married a secular Russian Jew and have since known quite a few immigrants from former Soviet Unions. There is also a large Muslim community in China; many of them have been assimilated into Han culture. But I do remember how those kids were bullied by others for being different.

Of course you have read Koran and all the others while I’ve only read the “Arabian Nights” and have only the most rudimental knowledge of the Bible. But the literary wordings of Koran is not all there is to the people and the culture. What I want to say is that the people, the culture, and the society is much more than just religion. Western culture is so much more than just Christianity even though the majority of the Western populations are Christians. The Muslim societies, the Arabs, Persians, Turks etc. are also much more than Islam. The phrase “Islamic Golden Age” or “Islamic Civilization” is an unfortunate misuse of words. Of course we do not ascribe the Golden Age to Islam, but there was a Golden Age nonetheless..

(Edited by Hong Zhang on 4/24, 8:58am)

Post 16

Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - 9:14am

What I am afraid of is being deceived and manipulated by what is very likely false propaganda recorded as "history", especially in light of what is so obviously not the case in the present...

This is the most idiotic thing, ok, one of the most idiotic things that I read. Oh, sure, "in light of what is so obviously not the case in the present", the Holocaust must be 'false propaganda recorded as "history"' too!

Post 17

Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - 9:42am

Anyone: How long did the alleged Golden Age of Islam last? Does anyone have a site linking to this information?

Post 18

Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - 10:21am

Audrey,
I think for starters, this Wikipedia entry is quite good: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age.

If you want another perspective, check out info on the "Golden Age of Spanish Jewry" which pretty much overlaps with the "Golden Age of Islam" in Spain.

Of course things are very different today. I found it interesting that Jews were able to prosper for about 300-400 years during middle ages under Muslim rules. While they have not been able to do so in Europe. From when Napoleon granted Jews equal rights as other citizens in Western Europe until Hitler's "final solution", it was only about 150 years.

Post 19

Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - 11:27am