• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Islam is unable to relate to the diverse contemporary cultures

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Sunnis, Wahhabis/Salafis, Twelvers, Ismailis, Zaidis and Ahmadis are all completely different world's away. The grounds that they all share are purely historical splinters but out of these develop very separate theological, doctrinal, spiritual, metaphysical, legal and ideological grounds (which often oppose each other) which have almost completely stayed separate from each other (with respective acknowledgement given to some areas were basic aspects of religious law display parallels)

Of course, Sunni mystics after some time come to intuitively discover Twelver doctrines through their own explorations (of the Qur'an specifically) and Ismailis developed their own unique mystical theology and Catholic-esque structure out of their own establishment growing out of their split with Twelvers, which does naturally bare mystical correlation through it's prior association with Twelver Islam (which originates directly with the Qur'an and Ma'sūmūn)

Any non-Muslim will say "oh, but they have the same holy book and prophet" but external ideological interpretation and historical implications of how these culturally formed will show this to be a factually incorrect assertion - as your own religion religion evolved out of our own esoteric eschatology and mystical thought (you'll deny the extent though, naturally).

To break my point down further, "Islam" is not frozen to time, no religion is. There is no single religion or culture in the known history of earth who has stayed exactly the same for thousands of years. The "Islam" of 2019 is very different from the Islam of 1200.
I carry on my back the intellectual thought of the great thinkers of "golden age" Islam, as I do the great thinkers of the 20th century and ancient Greece.
In the relative space of time within current history (being past 300 years), this abstract idea of "Islam" has had it's own cultural stagnation relative to different countries that hold so-called "Islam" as their national religion. Many things go on behind the scenes and as I said earlier, politics is falsely treated as the exemplary faction of so-called "Islamic society" but again, conflating religion/spirituality with political landscapes and the issues that surround it, while they do suit your own agenda, fall flat of giving any genuine representation of what "Islam" is, and not to forget to mention, that it reflects poorly on the image of the Baha'i faith, as many others who speak in such an ideologically bent "My dad is better than your dad" way. You're not hard to see through.

Much of what you say is true, and I acknowledge that Islam is diverse, and is not necessarily' frozen in time, but none the less Islam exists in history and is united in the Quran and their pilgrimage. You cannot legitimately use this smoke screen to gloze over the very fundamental problems of how Islam interacts with the contemporary world and make the foolish statement 'Islam does not exist.
 

Faithofchristian

Well-Known Member
You have expressed this naive fantasia view of Christianity by only selectively choosing what you see today, and it does not work.You are grossly neglected the history of Christianity, and actually the rise of fundamentalism today that hardens the view against atheists and homosexuality to the point of increased violence against homosexuals including the killing of homosexuals. In general most churches opposed giving equal rights in society to homosexuals.

You ignore the rise of the separation of church and state, and the rise of secular social views in throttling the dominance of Christianity as in the past.

I will respond more on this in another post.

The pass is pass, what does matter is to day.
I know and see what your trying to do but will not work.
Christianity of what people did in the pass, has no bearing on Christianity of today.

Let's reflect on Christianity of today and not in the pass, unto which you or anyone else can do anything about the pass.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Let me guess, you follow a religion that matters.

Odd response,and does not reflect my view of religion. My 'personal' preference would be agnosticism and something like Unitarian Universalism. What matters?!?!!?. Yes and no. I have a strong orientation of the moment moving in how we perceive time. and the relevance of a changing evolving world, and only view the past as how things were.

I do believe the ancient religions are paradigms out of place and time in the contemporary world. The religions of the past reflect the context,culture, and the human view of God and Revelation as well as the spiritual principles of Revelation for humans of the time.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
The pass is pass, what does matter is to day.
I know and see what your trying to do but will not work.
Christianity of what people did in the pass, has no bearing on Christianity of today.

Let's reflect on Christianity of today and not in the pass, unto which you or anyone else can do anything about the pass.

You can do that and you have to where blinders as to the problems of Christianity today, which remains a naive fantasia view of an imaginary world how you want it to be. Nonetheless you cannot ignore history, because it comes back to bite you in the butt.

For example of one of the problems that remains today is the selective rejection of science to justify an ancient paradigm, and the attitude toward homosexuals, which you conveniently understate..
 

Faithofchristian

Well-Known Member
You can do that and you have to where blinders as to the problems of Christianity today, which remains a naive fantasia view of an imaginary world how you want it to be. Nonetheless you cannot ignore history, because it comes back to bite you in the butt.

For example of one of the problems that remains today is the selective rejection of science to justify an ancient paradigm, and the attitude toward homosexuals, which you conveniently understate..


Christians may not accept homosexuality, but Christians are Not permitted to kill homosexuals or Atheists. That's the big difference between Christianity and Islam.

And again I can not be held accountable for what people did in the pass and neither can you.
So stop with the pass and go by today.
 

Samantha Rinne

Resident Genderfluid Writer/Artist
Yes,Islam in the golden age made contributions to civilization, including the origination of the scientific method.

This is a lie. I'm not calling you a liar though, but misinformed.

Islam's "golden age" had nothing to do with advances to civilization, and everything to do with Islamic geopolitical expansion. Muslims stole writings from others, and claimed credit for it. But they didn't invent this stuff. Islam's "golden age" was our Dark Ages. It was that way for a reason.

Also, the Christians and not the Muslims were responsible for the scientific method. I'll explain why.
1. Christianity believes in God, who created the heavens (a), and who gives us trials to test and correct us (b). It believes that actions can be wrong or sinful (c), and that there is a means to confess one's sins and be forgiven (d). Atheism also claims credit for the scientific method, but I will not dispute this now, only show how Christianity helped shape this theory.
2. The scientific method has actions having specific origin (a). It believes in repeated tests to confirm the theory is not a fluke and correct wrong assertions (b). It believes in cause and effect, and it believes it is possible for an experiment to fail (c). A failed experiment is retested to see why it failed and to adjust the results in order to have a successful experiment (d). Do you see why I say that Christians are responsible for the scientific method? Scientific method is Christian thought rewritten in order to study the Earth! It has the same four parts: (a) origin, (b) trials, (c) sin as wrongdoing, (d) confession and redemption.
3. Muslims do not believe in any of this. They believe whatever happens is the will of Allah (no cause and effect), they believe as noted in Quran 2:126 that something good for you can be something you hate (in other words, humans cannot be expected to correctly judge when they have done something wrong), and lastly, the Muslims do not believe it is possible for one person to carry the burdens of others (so it is not possible for sins to be forgiven by another). Add all of this up, and we have a science that doesn't really believe in cause and effect, and doesn't see it as possible to do wrong by conventional standards, and doesn't have a clear means to correct actions.
 
More foolishness.of generalizations.

o_O

"That's a bit like saying the Reign of Terror was a product of the Enlightenment therefore nothing good could have come from it" = Here is something that you will agree is obviously fallacious, yet you are using the same logic to criticise something you dislike.

Actually Enlightenment contributed to the rebellion against the royal houses in Europe and the colonies, and of course, the rise of Democracy, and the separation of church and state. To realize this distinct influence one need only read the writings of the Founding Fathers of the USA.

Even though the Enlightenment contributed to the Rebellion in France the cause is more specific. There was a series of years of the little ice age where crops failed, and the government responded by hoarding food for the royalty and the elite. The historical abuse and corruption of Royal houses of Europe greatly contributed to the Rebellion and the Enlightenment gave grounds for the cause

The 'little ice age' didn't necessitate specific political policies to eradicate tens of thousands of those deemed to be a threat to the revolution though.

Many Enlightenment philosophies were far from liberal, yet that obviously doesn't preclude others from contributing to liberalism.

The problem with the terms 'Enlightenment'/'Age of Reason' is that it makes people think there was a clean break from the past rather than simply being the continuing development of what had been evolving from the late Middle Ages onwards.

No magic here, and yes ideas evolve,and you failed to acknowledge the true roots of the riseof democracy.

Christianity WAS, past tense, the most important influence in Christian Europe, and that was the problem resisting change, and not the primary source nor the origin in history for the rise of Democracy

Again liberal democracy is not simply democracy and, as I've repeatedly said, is what I am discussing. The key term relates to political liberalism which was not founded in ancient Greece. It is liberalism that emerged from the Christian tradition not simply democracy. I am discussing liberalism, clear enough?

Enlightenment philosophers, as with all other philosophers, built on concepts that existed in the societies they lived in. 'New' ideas are usually adaptation and combinations of existing ideas rather than something truly original, that is how they are able to spread. They don't emerge out of a vacuum.

For example:

"Such impressive studies as Gerhard B. Ladner, The Idea of Reform: Its Impact on Christian Thought and Action in the Age of the Fathers; Charles N. Cochrane, Christianity and Classical Culture; Karl Löwith, Meaning in History; and Marjorie Reeves, The Influence of Prophecy in the Later Middle Ages make it certain beyond question that a very real philosophy of human progress appears almost from the very beginning in Christian theology, a philosophy stretching from St. Augustine (indeed his predecessors, Eusebius and Tertullian) down through the seventeenth century...

Probably the first full and complete statement of progress is that of Turgot, expressed in his celebrated discourse before an admiring audience at the Sorbonne in December 1750, one entitled "A Philosophical Review of the Successive Advances of the Human Mind." In this discourse progress is made to cover not simply the arts and sciences but, on their base, the whole of culture—manner, mores, institutions, legal codes, economy, etc. Even more comprehensive is Turgot's "Plan for Two Discourses on Universal History" ... In Turgot's "Universal History" we are given an account of the progress of mankind which, in comprehensiveness and ordering of materials, would not be equalled until Turgot's ardent admirer, Condorcet wrote his Outline of an Historical Picture of the Progress of the Human Mind during the French Revolution. Condorcet wrote it in a period of but a few weeks all the while hiding from the Jacobin police in an attic (a staunch supporter of the Revolution, Condorcet had managed to incur Robespierre's hostility).

Before leaving Turgot, it is important to stress once again the historical importance of Christianity in the formation of the secular modern conception of progress in Western Europe. In the first place, Turgot began his career as a reasonably devout student of theology at the Sorbonne, his aspiration then linked to a future in the Church. Second, just six months before the discourse on "The Successive Advances of the Human Mind" was given in 1750, he had presented another public discourse, this one on the crucial importance of Christianity to the progress of mankind. And third, it was Bossuet's Universal History, which I have already referred to, that Turgot acknowledged to be his inspiration for the writing, or the preparation of a plan of his own "Universal History." Bossuet, proud and convinced Christian that he was, constructed his history in terms of a succession of epochs, all designed and given effect by God. Turgot allowed God to disappear (he had lost his faith by 1751 when he wrote his "Universal History") and replaced Bossuet's "epochs" by "stages": stages of social and cultural progress, each emerging from its predecessor through human rather than divine causes. But Turgot's alterations notwithstanding, it is unlikely that his own secular work on progress would have been written apart from the inspiration derived from Bishop Bossuet and other Christian philosophers of history. He is an epitome, in this respect, of the whole history of the modern idea of progress."

R Nisbet - The idea of progress



Rise of Humanism, and the intellectual movements in Europe and the colonies as reflected in the writings of the Founding Fathers of the USA.

And where did humanism come from? [hint: Christianity and Greek philosophy]

It was outrageous nonsense to propose that the power dispute between Henry IV and the Pope had anything to do with the rise of the separation of church and state.

Always great when people lionise 'The Age of Reason', then dismiss academic scholarship out of hand because it doesn't align with their ideological preferences..

I mean how could a significant dispute that formalised jurisdictions of power between the church and state and led to the development of independent power structures have had any possible impact on the evolution of European secularism. Sounds awfully far fetched to consider a dispute that led to a difference in thinking from the King/Emperor ruling from inside the church, to ruling beside the church whereby the 'Vicar of Christ' turned from a regal title, to a Papal title. Imagine thinking that an event that led to an acceptance that the Church held dominion over the spiritual aspects of life, and the king responsibility for the temporal aspects of life could have even the slightest connection to the long term development of secularism. Outrageous nonsense I say!

From St. Gregory VII to Innocent III more than a hundred years later the Popes came to consider kings and Emperors less and less as functionaries of the Church; instead of encouraging rulers of the priest-kingly type they themselves would at least from Innocent III onward claim the title Vicar of Christ. They made it increasingly clear that for them rulers were simply the leaders of peoples and holders of territories.

These Popes tried to tie to themselves in addition to the membership of all Christians in the universal Church by
connecting them with the Roman Church through a special bond which might assume various forms, but most effectively the feudal relation of vassal to lord. In the case of the Holy Roman Empire, they tried to make the Emperor's protection of the Roman Church exclusively a matter of duty gradually eliminating all imperial claims over the Papacy.

Medieval thoughts on church and state - GB Lander

Have you got any actual reasons for dismissing the scholarly material I quoted as 'outrageous nonsense'? Perhaps you could make some rational arguments against the points raised?
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
o_O

"That's a bit like saying the Reign of Terror was a product of the Enlightenment therefore nothing good could have come from it" = Here is something that you will agree is obviously fallacious, yet you are using the same logic to criticise something you dislike.

Assumptions on your part only.


The 'little ice age' didn't necessitate specific political policies to eradicate tens of thousands of those deemed to be a threat to the revolution though.

True,but the response of the royalty to the famines, and the plots to over turn the first Revolution that lead to the Constitutional Monarchy did.

Many Enlightenment philosophies were far from liberal, yet that obviously doesn't preclude others from contributing to liberalism.

I never proposed this.

The problem with the terms 'Enlightenment'/'Age of Reason' is that it makes people think there was a clean break from the past rather than simply being the continuing development of what had been evolving from the late Middle Ages onwards.

I never proposed it was a clean break, and yes they evolved more through evolving intellectual movements that influenced Christianity than through Christianity.

Again liberal democracy is not simply democracy and, as I've repeatedly said, is what I am discussing. The key term relates to political liberalism which was not founded in ancient Greece. It is liberalism that emerged from the Christian tradition not simply democracy. I am discussing liberalism, clear enough?

In ever have used the term liberal

Enlightenment philosophers, as with all other philosophers, built on concepts that existed in the societies they lived in. 'New' ideas are usually adaptation and combinations of existing ideas rather than something truly original, that is how they are able to spread. They don't emerge out of a vacuum.

True they evolved from intellectual movements within Christianity and Greek thought.

And where did humanism come from? [hint: Christianity and Greek philosophy]

Greek influence yes, not Christianity.


Always great when people lionise 'The Age of Reason', then dismiss academic scholarship out of hand because it doesn't align with their ideological preferences..

I here more from you and your sources an attempt to minimalize the 'Age of Reason' and other European and America intellectual movements an because of an ideological agenda.

Have you got any actual reasons for dismissing the scholarly material I quoted as 'outrageous nonsense'? Perhaps you could make some rational arguments against the points raised?

I was specific, it is outrageous nonsense that the disagreement between Henry IV and the Pope had any relevance to the movement of the separation of church and state regardless of your source, or your active imagination. Yes I disagree with your sources as to their impact on the separation of church and state.
 
Last edited:

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
This is a lie. I'm not calling you a liar though, but misinformed.

Islam's "golden age" had nothing to do with advances to civilization, and everything to do with Islamic geopolitical expansion. Muslims stole writings from others, and claimed credit for it. But they didn't invent this stuff. Islam's "golden age" was our Dark Ages. It was that way for a reason.

Also, the Christians and not the Muslims were responsible for the scientific method. I'll explain why.
1. Christianity believes in God, who created the heavens (a), and who gives us trials to test and correct us (b). It believes that actions can be wrong or sinful (c), and that there is a means to confess one's sins and be forgiven (d). Atheism also claims credit for the scientific method, but I will not dispute this now, only show how Christianity helped shape this theory.
2. The scientific method has actions having specific origin (a). It believes in repeated tests to confirm the theory is not a fluke and correct wrong assertions (b). It believes in cause and effect, and it believes it is possible for an experiment to fail (c). A failed experiment is retested to see why it failed and to adjust the results in order to have a successful experiment (d). Do you see why I say that Christians are responsible for the scientific method? Scientific method is Christian thought rewritten in order to study the Earth! It has the same four parts: (a) origin, (b) trials, (c) sin as wrongdoing, (d) confession and redemption.
3. Muslims do not believe in any of this. They believe whatever happens is the will of Allah (no cause and effect), they believe as noted in Quran 2:126 that something good for you can be something you hate (in other words, humans cannot be expected to correctly judge when they have done something wrong), and lastly, the Muslims do not believe it is possible for one person to carry the burdens of others (so it is not possible for sins to be forgiven by another). Add all of this up, and we have a science that doesn't really believe in cause and effect, and doesn't see it as possible to do wrong by conventional standards, and doesn't have a clear means to correct actions.

Not misinformed nor lying at all. You are highly over simplifying and generalizing on the philosophies of Islam based on your agenda.

Ibn al-Haytham: The Muslim Scientist Who Birthed the Scientific Method | RealClearScience

Little is known about Ibn al-Haytham's life, but historians believe he was born around the year 965, during a period marked as the Golden Age of Arabic science. His father was a civil servant, so the young Ibn al-Haytham received a strong education, which assuredly seeded his passion for science. He was also a devout Muslim, believing that an endless quest for truth about the natural world brought him closer to God. Sometime around the dawn of the 11th Century, he moved to Cairo in Egypt. It was here that he would complete his most influential work.

The prevailing wisdom at the time was that we saw what our eyes, themselves, illuminated. Supported by revered thinkers like Euclid and Ptolemy, emission theory stated that sight worked because our eyes emitted rays of light -- like flashlights. But this didn't make sense to Ibn al-Haytham. If light comes from our eyes, why, he wondered, is it painful to look at the sun? This simple realization catapulted him into researching the behavior and properties of light: optics.

In 1011, Ibn al-Haytham was placed under house arrest by a powerful caliph in Cairo. Though unwelcome, the seclusion was just what he needed to explore the nature of light. Over the next decade, Ibn al-Haytham proved that light only travels in straight lines, explained how mirrors work, and argued that light rays can bend when moving through different mediums, like water, for example.

But Ibn al-Haytham wasn't satisfied with elucidating these theories only to himself, he wanted others to see what he had done. The years of solitary work culminated in his Book of Optics, which expounded just as much upon his methods as it did his actual ideas. Anyone who read the book would have instructions on how to repeat every single one of Ibn al-Haytham's experiments.

"His message is, 'Don’t take my word for it. See for yourself,'" Jim Al-Khalili, a professor of theoretical physics at the University of Surrey noted in a BBC4 Special.

"This, for me, is the moment that Science, itself is summoned into existence and becomes a discipline in its own right," he added.

Apart from being one of the first to operate on the scientific method, Ibn al-Haytham was also a progenitor of critical thinking and skepticism.

"The duty of the man who investigates the writings of scientists, if learning the truth is his goal, is to make himself an enemy of all that he reads, and... attack it from every side," he wrote. "He should also suspect himself as he performs his critical examination of it, so that he may avoid falling into either prejudice or leniency."

It is the nature of the scientific enterprise to creep ahead, slowly but surely. In the same way, the scientific method that guides it was not birthed in a grand eureka moment, but slowly tinkered with and notched together over generations, until it resembled the machine of discovery that we use today. Ibn al-Haytham may very well have been the first to lay out the cogs and gears. Hundreds of years later, other great thinkers would assemble them into a finished product.
 
Last edited:
True,but the response of the royalty to the famines, and the plots to over turn the first Revolution that lead to the Constitutional Monarchy did.

Most victims of the reign of terror were average citizens, not royals and aristocrats.

I never proposed it was a clean break, and yes they evolved more through evolving intellectual movements that influenced Christianity than through Christianity.

Strange that many of the same idea developed within Christianity (progressive history, natural rights, primacy of the individual, etc) prior to these 'intellectual movements' influencing Christianity to adopt the very same ideas.

Greek influence yes, not Christianity.

So when Enlightenment philosophers (as I quoted) specifically acknowledge they are developing ideas presented in Christian scholarship they are in fact wrong and don't mean this at all?

Despite never having read any of their works and living over 2 centuries later than them, do you believe it is rational to assume you have a better understanding of the thoughts and influences of these philosophers than they had themselves?

I was specific, it is outrageous nonsense that the disagreement between Henry IV and the Pope had any relevance to the movement of the separation of church and state regardless of your source, or your active imagination. Yes I disagree with your sources as to their impact on the separation of church and state.

So you have no actual arguments about anything? Just an anti-intellectual dismissal of peer-reviewed scholarship based purely on your ideological leanings?

On what grounds do you consider your level of expertise sufficient to disregard something that is accepted by numerous actual experts on the era as being 'outrageous nonsense'?

On the internet, it's usually fair to assume that people who claim knowledge of a subject, yet can't offer even the tiniest bit of evidence of this knowledge probably don't actually have a great deal of knowledge on that subject.

Feel free to prove me wrong ;)
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Most victims of the reign of terror were average citizens, not royals and aristocrats.

As with any Revolution the victims cannot be equated to the reasons.

Strange that many of the same idea developed within Christianity (progressive history, natural rights, primacy of the individual, etc) prior to these 'intellectual movements' influencing Christianity to adopt the very same ideas.

They developed as intellectual movements within Christianity based on Greek philosophy

So when Enlightenment philosophers (as I quoted) specifically acknowledge they are developing ideas presented in Christian scholarship they are in fact wrong and don't mean this at all?

Again intellectual movements within Christianity.

Kind of off topic here and not worth the time.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Christians may not accept homosexuality, but Christians are Not permitted to kill homosexuals or Atheists. That's the big difference between Christianity and Islam.

Not based on history and traditions of Christianity

And again I can not be held accountable for what people did in the pass and neither can you.
So stop with the pass and go by today.

Of course not, and never said you were, but you are responsible for your selective naive fantasia view of Christianity in history and today, and choose to selectively attack Islam and neglect the problems of Christianity.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Of course you can comment to anyone's post, but the way you worded it made it appear that you thought I was maybe differing with "you", but my reply was to "Augustus" who seemed to be defending Christianity as blameless.

My reply was not an attack,but an acknowledgement of the shared problems with Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
 
They developed as intellectual movements within Christianity based on Greek philosophy

Quite strange that these ideas didn't really exist in Greek society then, don't you think?

Also, wouldn't such an intellectual movement combining Greek philosophy with Christianity be a combination of Greek philosophy and Christianity?

Kind of off topic here and not worth the time.

Was there anything more predictable than pretending that, instead of dismissing peer reviewed scholarship out of hand for ideological reasons, you could have in fact made a highly cogent, rational argument but you just didn't feel like it. Textbook interneting :D

"Honestly, I really, really could demonstrate my great expertise on this topic if I wanted to. I just don't want to. But I could. Definitely. Trust me."

Also, it's not off topic if you are wondering why certain ideas developed in the West but not in the Islamic world.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Quite strange that these ideas didn't really exist in Greek society then, don't you think?

Yes they did.

Also, wouldn't such an intellectual movement combining Greek philosophy with Christianity be a combination of Greek philosophy and Christianity?

No, Christianity existed based on the Bible,and the Bible does not propose any of this. Christianity after about 150-250 AD is basically under Roman and Greek influence.

Also, it's not off topic if you are wondering why certain ideas developed in the West but not in the Islamic world.

Ideas and philosophies developed both in the Christian and Islamic world. Islam was responsible for the preservation of Greek texts and the influence of Greek philosophy. It was Greek philosophical influence in both worlds that inspired intellectual movements.

From: Transmission of the Greek Classics - Wikipedia
The ideas of Aristotle and Plato, shown in Raphael's The School of Athens, were partly lost to Western Europeans for centuries.
The transmission of the Greek Classics to Latin Western Europe during the Middle Ages was a key factor in the development of intellectual life in Western Europe.[1] Interest in Greek texts and their availability was scarce in the Latin West during the earlier Middle Ages, but as traffic to the East increased so did Western scholarship.

Classical Greek philosophy consisted of various original works ranging from those from Ancient Greece (e.g. Aristotle) to those Greco-Roman scholars in the classical Roman Empire (e.g. Ptolemy). Though these works were originally written in Greek, for centuries the language of scholarship in the Mediterranean region, many were translated into Syriac, Arabic, and Persian during the Middle Ages and the original Greek versions were often lost. As the Arab caliphates absorbed Greek/Roman knowledge, the medieval Islamic world gradually became the dominant intellectual center in the Mediterranean region. Subsequent efforts at Latin translations of Arab scholarship, including the Greek classics, began what would later be known as the Renaissance in the West. With increasing Western presence in the East due to the Crusades, and the gradual collapse of the Byzantine Empire during the later Middle Ages, many Byzantine Greek scholars fled to Western Europe bringing with them many original Greek manuscripts, and providing impetus for Greek-language education in the Westand further translation efforts of Greek scholarship into Latin.[2]

The line between Greek scholarship and Arab scholarship in Western Europe was very blurred during the Middle Ages and the early Modern Period. Westerners were often biased toward giving credit for knowledge they received to the Greeks, who were perceived as Christians, rather than the Arab Muslims.[citation needed] Thus, depending of context, the concept of the transmission of Greek Classics is often used to refer to the collective knowledge that was obtained from the Arab and Byzantine Empires, regardless of where the knowledge actually originated.
 
Yes they did.

A society based on fundamental, natural inequality was in fact one a form of liberalism. Of course!

No, Christianity existed based on the Bible,and the Bible does not propose any of this. Christianity after about 150-250 AD is basically under Roman and Greek influence.

Christianity is hardly limited to rank scriptural literalism, it is a philosophical tradition with myriad influences that developed over millennia.

Christian theology did develop certain concepts that were very important, for example that all are equal before God (unlike the Greek view of natural inequality) which formed the basis for individualism. Christian eschatology also contributed significantly to the progressive historical teleology which is a hallmark of liberalism. Secularism, which required a concept of Church and state, etc. etc.


Ideas and philosophies developed both in the Christian and Islamic world. Islam was responsible for the preservation of Greek texts and the influence of Greek philosophy. It was Greek philosophical influence in both worlds that inspired intellectual movements.

Well much of it was also preserved by the Byzantine Empire as it was their heritage, but philosophers in the Islamic Empire certainly made significant contributions and additions. I'm not the one denying multiple influences here.

Greek philosophy was certainly a major influence, standing on the shoulders of giants and all that as knowledge develops as part of a chain. Christianity was influenced by Greek philosophy pretty much from day 1, yet also added its own contributions, for example to focus on the individual as the basis for rights and responsibilities.

As you note, both societies were influenced by the same philosophy, but liberalism emerged in Europe but not in Arabia. If everything was due to Greek philosophy, and little to Christianity, why do you think this is?
 

Ellen Brown

Well-Known Member
Ellen, have you read the discussion of the expectation for the Battle of the Camel in "After the Prophet"?

I did. It is somewhat stylized, as one would expect, but it does point out that there was (predictably) a lot of angst between the people present.

So much angst, in fact, that some decided that it would be a mistake to be a part of it, and left. To the best of my understanding, those people were the first significant apostasy from Islaam.

I can't help but think that those are also the true precursors of the current efforts at encouraging moderate Islaam.


I have seen what many tribal Muslims do. Perhaps I am only Muslim in that I like the modesty, and the adoration of Allah SWT. The rest might be bosh.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
A society based on fundamental, natural inequality was in fact one a form of liberalism. Of course!



Christianity is hardly limited to rank scriptural literalism, it is a philosophical tradition with myriad influences that developed over millennia.

Christian theology did develop certain concepts that were very important, for example that all are equal before God (unlike the Greek view of natural inequality) which formed the basis for individualism. Christian eschatology also contributed significantly to the progressive historical teleology, which is a hallmark of liberalism. Secularism, which required a concept of Church and state, etc. etc.




Well much of it was also preserved by the Byzantine Empire as it was their heritage, but philosophers in the Islamic Empire certainly made significant contributions and additions. I'm not the one denying multiple influences here.

Greek philosophy was certainly a major influence, standing on the shoulders of giants and all that as knowledge develops as part of a chain. Christianity was influenced by Greek philosophy pretty much from day 1, yet also added its own contributions, for example to focus on the individual as the basis for rights and responsibilities.

As you note, both societies were influenced by the same philosophy, but liberalism emerged in Europe but not in Arabia. If everything was due to Greek philosophy, and little to Christianity, why do you think this is?

Just a note here;for now I do not believe the concept of liberalism applies here. The influence of the Greeks, not on day one, was Greek theology and Roman Theology beginning with Paul, and Christianity adopted Roman hierarchy. No there is no evidence that the Byzantine Empire had any or significant Greek philosophy texts before they received them through Islam in the Middle Ages as cited, which is when the intellectual philosophy movements had their beginning. Yes democracy had some beginnings cloistered communes,but this had their roots much earlier in Judaism and the Orient.

I believe it is a matter of fact that the presence, study and influence of the Greek philosophy texts began in the Middle Ages.

I believe Greek influence in Islam is in part responsible for the beginning of the scientific method in Islam

I will respond in more detail.
 
Last edited:
No there is no evidence that the Byzantine Empire had any or significant philosophy texts before they received them through Islam in the Middle Ages as cited.

There is no evidence that the Greek speaking (Eastern) Roman [Byzantine] Empire that had ruled over Greece for c1000 years had access to Greek philosophical texts until they got them from the Arabs who got them from the Greeks after they conquered parts of the Roman Empire?

An interesting opinion...
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
There is no evidence that the Greek speaking (Eastern) Roman [Byzantine] Empire that had ruled over Greece for c1000 years had access to Greek philosophical texts until they got them from the Arabs who got them from the Greeks after they conquered parts of the Roman Empire?

An interesting opinion...

There is no evidence that the Christians had any more than very limited access until the Islamic influence. Again . . .

From: Transmission of the Greek Classics - Wikipedia

The transmission of the Greek Classics to Latin Western Europe during the Middle Ages was a key factor in the development of intellectual life in Western Europe.[1] Interest in Greek texts and their availability was scarce in the Latin West during the earlier Middle Ages, but as traffic to the East increased so did Western scholarship.
 
Top