Brave Iranian protestors

[aneeshm]

I'm willing to accept that the Muslim world's evolutionary contributions have been vast and varied, but where are the revolutionary contributions and changes in the fields requiring pure thought?

[Barnabas]

What the arabs did which favored science, was not so much, discovering something, but expadsing all the way thru eurasia, the first civilization from the atlantic to the pacific, so technologies from india, or china could spread much faster thru all eurasia among that muslim belt

[Imran Siddiqui]

Now it is bigotedness to say that I think that no revolutionary change came out of the Muslim world in its time of glory?

Yes. The bigots can't come out and call Muslims "ragheads" or "towelheads", so they have to come up with other modes of putting Islam down. What a lot of them have come up with is completely devaluing their contributions to the sciences, math, and preservation of Greek and Roman learning (the most egregious of the later being some who insist that the Irish preserved all that stuff and they would have made sure it continued on if the Muslims didn't). The arguments have turned on the Muslims didn't really come up with anything new. They just used old learning, etc.

It is akin to those who are bigoted against black culture in the US (and Africa) devaluing African American culture and music (not simply saying they don't like rap, but more pervasive than that), by saying they didn't come up with anything. By putting down African advances and claiming the empires of sub-Saharan Africa (Songhai, Mali, etc) did not have any substantial contributions to history.

It's a part of erasing the value of a civilization's contributions in order to devalue them in other ways (next claiming the entire culture is useless because they never produced anything).

I wanted an example of something in the realm of purely ideas (philosophy or mathematics, or other similar fields), which did NOT build on anything in the past,but broke with it, something which was a total paradigm shift.

Name a single European idea which did not build on anything in the past (Hell, there is a popular saying in the philosophy world that says something like "All philosophy is a footnote to Plato", insinutating that it has built upon that foundation). Does that mean there is no European scholarship?

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by aneeshm
To take an example of what I'm talking about - something as radical as Buddhist or Jaina or Advaita philosophy, or the concept of the zero and a number system, was to India.

Are you talking of Arabic numerals, y'know: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 & 0, those guys?

Then there's al Jibra's invention of algebra.

Or the guitar...or yoghurt.

The Library of Toledo in Islamic Spain held more books than all of Christendom put together.

Some scholars trace the beginning of the renaissance back to the House of Wisdom in Bagdad, where the works of the ancient Greeks and Romans were kept alive during Europe's Dark Ages, and where anyone -- Muslim, Christian, Jew or Hindu -- was allowed to come and study.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Now it is bigotedness to say that I think that no revolutionary change came out of the Muslim world in its time of glory?

Yes. The bigots can't come out and call Muslims "ragheads" or "towelheads", so they have to come up with other modes of putting Islam down. What a lot of them have come up with is completely devaluing their contributions to the sciences, math, and preservation of Greek and Roman learning (the most egregious of the later being some who insist that the Irish preserved all that stuff and they would have made sure it continued on if the Muslims didn't). The arguments have turned on the Muslims didn't really come up with anything new. They just used old learning, etc.

It is akin to those who are bigoted against black culture in the US (and Africa) devaluing African American culture and music (not simply saying they don't like rap, but more pervasive than that), by saying they didn't come up with anything. By putting down African advances and claiming the empires of sub-Saharan Africa (Songhai, Mali, etc) did not have any substantial contributions to history.

It's a part of erasing the value of a civilization's contributions in order to devalue them in other ways (next claiming the entire culture is useless because they never produced anything).

The preservative efforts of Muslim scholars are well known. They did a thorough job of preserving the knowledge of the Greek and Roman classical civilisations. But they've balanced that out neatly by burning every library and university in India. Nice job of "preservation" there .

I remember one story of how, when he conquered Nalanda, the conqueror is said to have asked, "Is there a copy of the Quran in this library?", and getting a negative answer, told his people to burn it down. The fire raged for seven days.

As I said, Muslim contributions in many fields are well known, and that is not what I am disputing. Again, I talk of REVOLUTIONARY change - something as radical as the Buddhist or Jaina break with the past, or with the radical new way of looking at old things the Advaita brought about, or with the complete revolution in mathematics the invention of the zero made possible, or something which DID NOT build on the past, but was totally new.

And are you calling Thomas Sowell (a prominent black economist) a racist against him own race? Because he does precisely what you have accused the bigots of doing, but he draws completely different conclusions from it.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

I wanted an example of something in the realm of purely ideas (philosophy or mathematics, or other similar fields), which did NOT build on anything in the past,but broke with it, something which was a total paradigm shift.

Name a single European idea which did not build on anything in the past (Hell, there is a popular saying in the philosophy world that says something like "All philosophy is a footnote to Plato", insinutating that it has built upon that foundation). Does that mean there is no European scholarship?

Buddhism and Jaina thought DID NOT build on past philosophy, they created their own systems. The Advaita was a completely new way of thinking, totally contrary to almost everything that had gone before, and that is why it is so completely alien to someone who has studied the other systems. If you study these systems, this will become clear to you.

The concept of the zero DID NOT build on anything in the past. This I think you can agree with without any further study into the issue.







My question remains - what things of this nature have come out of the Muslim world?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
[Yes. The bigots can't come out and call Muslims "ragheads" or "towelheads", so they have to come up with other modes of putting Islam down. What a lot of them have come up with is completely devaluing their contributions to the sciences, math, and preservation of Greek and Roman learning (the most egregious of the later being some who insist that the Irish preserved all that stuff and they would have made sure it continued on if the Muslims didn't). The arguments have turned on the Muslims didn't really come up with anything new. They just used old learning, etc.

Im certainly cool with Arab contributions in optics, chemistry, astronomy, math, and linguistics, but I dont know its bigoted to point out the diversity of paths of preservation of classical texts. For ex, you say Greek and Roman learning - IIUC most Latin texts WERE preserved in the West - it was the Greek texts that were lost. IIUC some were preserved in Islam, some in Byzantium.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


Are you talking of Arabic numerals, y'know: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 & 0, those guys?

That's another thing I'm pissed about - taking false credit for knowledge you have taken from others. It was the Hindus who developed the number system, the Arabs simply took it to the West and passed it off as their own.

Read the Wiki link.

Originally posted by Zkribbler

Then there's al Jibra's invention of algebra.

Or the guitar...or yoghurt.

The Library of Toledo in Islamic Spain held more books than all of Christendom put together.

Some scholars trace the beginning of the renaissance back to the House of Wisdom in Bagdad, where the works of the ancient Greeks and Romans were kept alive during Europe's Dark Ages, and where anyone -- Muslim, Christian, Jew or Hindu -- was allowed to come and study.

The question is unanswered - REVOLUTIONARY being the key word here.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Im certainly cool with Arab contributions in optics, chemistry, astronomy, math, and linguistics, but I dont know its bigoted to point out the diversity of paths of preservation of classical texts. For ex, you say Greek and Roman learning - IIUC most Latin texts WERE preserved in the West - it was the Greek texts that were lost. IIUC some were preserved in Islam, some in Byzantium.

LOTM, as with most things it depends on how you say it . If you point out diversity of paths of preservation to devalue Muslim efforts (as some have argued that because of such Muslim perservation wasn't important), then it does evoke some bigotry.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by aneeshm

As I said, Muslim contributions in many fields are well known, and that is not what I am disputing. Again, I talk of REVOLUTIONARY change - something as radical as the Buddhist or Jaina break with the past,

In fairness, didnt the invention of buddism take place like a thousand years before Islam was born? Islams monotheist essence was derivative of a monotheist heritage that had its roots in the Jewish world of the 6th c BCE - just about the time of the Gautama Buddha, no? The equivalent to Islam would be the works of Buddist and Hindu schools in the 7th c CE - are they not just as derivative as Islam (arguably) is?

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


In fairness, didnt the invention of buddism take place like a thousand years before Islam was born? Islams monotheist essence was derivative of a monotheist heritage that had its roots in the Jewish world of the 6th c BCE - just about the time of the Gautama Buddha, no? The equivalent to Islam would be the works of Buddist and Hindu schools in the 7th c CE - are they not just as derivative as Islam (arguably) is?

It is for precisely this reason that I also provided the Advaita example. Adi Shankara was a contemporary of Mohammed's. And his way of looking at old things was so new that he ended up completely transforming the old things themselves. He broke with the past. This becomes evident once you study his philosophy. The first time you do it, it's difficult, because it's so completely different from everything that went before.

Wiki Link

[Imran Siddiqui]

And are you calling Thomas Sowell (a prominent black economist) a racist against him own race? Because he does precisely what you have accused the bigots of doing, but he draws completely different conclusions from it.

Are you sure you are correctly displaying Sowell's argument here? Sowell does NOT devalue black culture in the US. He engages in criticism of what he calls "cracker culture" and says the culture of poor white rednecks (he actually does use the term rednecks) is what racists ascribe as 'authentic black culture'.

Sowell disagrees and considers black culture to be different than solely that. As opposed to those who ignore black contributions in Jazz, Rock and Roll, etc, and merely focus on 'gangsta rap' as symbolic of black culture.

Buddhism and Jaina thought DID NOT build on past philosophy, they created their own systems. The Advaita was a completely new way of thinking, totally contrary to almost everything that had gone before, and that is why it is so completely alien to someone who has studied the other systems. If you study these systems, this will become clear to you.

The concept of the zero DID NOT build on anything in the past. This I think you can agree with without any further study into the issue.

These are European ideas? Nice way to totally avoid the question.

[Barnabas]

I never understood that preserving greek knowledge thing

So, people should thank arabs for conquering egypt, north africa, syria, (which had many greek speakers and great centers of greek learning like Alexandria) and not destroying all their books...?...

Dont you think even more greek knowledge would have been preserved without the arab conquest, and that the reintroduction of it into a barbarian devastated europe would have been faster?

If the muslims did something good for europe, it was not the greek knowledge thing, but putting westerners in contact with previously unknown persian, indian and chinese knowlegde.

By 1300 europe was much more advanced than during roman times, and to an important degree due to that.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

And are you calling Thomas Sowell (a prominent black economist) a racist against him own race? Because he does precisely what you have accused the bigots of doing, but he draws completely different conclusions from it.

Are you sure you are correctly displaying Sowell's argument here? Sowell does NOT devalue black culture in the US. He engages in criticism of what he calls "cracker culture" and says the culture of poor white rednecks (he actually does use the term rednecks) is what racists ascribe as 'authentic black culture'.

Sowell disagrees and considers black culture to be different than solely that. As opposed to those who ignore black contributions in Jazz, Rock and Roll, etc, and merely focus on 'gangsta rap' as symbolic of black culture.

That is correct, AFAIK. He thinks that what is currently glorified is the "cracker culture". He also does not like to emphasise the separateness of black culture from American culture.

But if we start discussing Sowell, we'll go way off topic.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Buddhism and Jaina thought DID NOT build on past philosophy, they created their own systems. The Advaita was a completely new way of thinking, totally contrary to almost everything that had gone before, and that is why it is so completely alien to someone who has studied the other systems. If you study these systems, this will become clear to you.

The concept of the zero DID NOT build on anything in the past. This I think you can agree with without any further study into the issue.

These are European ideas? Nice way to totally avoid the question.

I'm trying to give an example about which I know. I am not intimately conversant with western philosophy, so I won't comment on it.

The culture of India before the Muslim invasion allowed these radical ideas to emerge and flourish, proving that there can exist a culture which can do that.

I'm asking you what the Muslim record is on this matter, and you do not answer. I am perfectly willing to agree with you about the great evolution of thought that happened with the coming of Islam, but it was only evolution, not revolution. Where's the scope for revolution in Muslim society?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by aneeshm
It is for precisely this reason that I also provided the Advaita example. Adi Shankara was a contemporary of Mohammed's. And his way of looking at old things was so new that he ended up completely transforming the old things themselves. He broke with the past. This becomes evident once you study his philosophy. The first time you do it, it's difficult, because it's so completely different from everything that went before.

Wiki Link

Err... that philosophy sounds like a jumping off from Buddhism. To say it is a completely new way of looking at things seems to ring hollow.

I'm asking you what the Muslim record is on this matter, and you do not answer. I am perfectly willing to agree with you about the great evolution of thought that happened with the coming of Islam, but it was only evolution, not revolution. Where's the scope for revolution in Muslim society?

I asked you and I'll ask again, where was the revolution in Europe? Where was something that was not based on past knowledge? But I don't see you try to devalue European learning and scholarship. Just Islamic scholarship. I wonder why....

[q=Brachy-Pride]Dont you think even more greek knowledge would have been preserved without the arab conquest, and that the reintroduction of it into a barbarian devastated europe would have been faster?[/q]

Did you see what happened to Greek knowledge in Western Europe after the fall of Rome?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

[q=Brachy-Pride]Dont you think even more greek knowledge would have been preserved without the arab conquest, and that the reintroduction of it into a barbarian devastated europe would have been faster?[/q]

Did you see what happened to Greek knowledge in Western Europe after the fall of Rome?

Didnt see it, I was busy at the time

Seriously, per Pirenne, much of the decline of urban life (and culture) in western europe happened not after the fall of Rome, but after the Arab expansion, which broke key trade routes. Now Pirenne has been subject to revision and counter revision, but I think theres some truth to it.

And of course we're not talking about western europe, but about the Rome that survived - Byz. Who preserved some texts, and would have held on to others if no Arabs. OTOH my sense is that Byz was rather LESS innovative than the Arabs were.