In another topic, we digressed into the question of whether Islam had made any contributions to human knowledge. One correspondent has argued that Islam has made no contributions to knowledge, but instead merely stole all its results from other cultures. That correspondent posted his most recent claims in Post #58 here. Inasmuch as I do not wish to contribute to the continuing topic drift, I shall present my response here. But, in the interests of clarity and procedural correctness, I present in this introductory message only the debate question that controls this topic:

Did Islam make significant contributions to human knowledge during the period 700 - 1100 AD?

In the cited posting, KivrotHaTaavah attempts to dismiss Islamic contributions to knowledge with a flood of irrelevant information. For example, he presents at great length quotations to demonstrate the moral superiority of Christendom: the (false) claim that Christendom had no slavery when Islam did, and the observation that the Benedictines held that there is dignity in labor. Whether true or false, these observations are simply irrelevant to the question of whether Islamic civilization made any contribution to human knowledge, because knowledge and morality are two distinct spheres of human achievement.

He next proceeds to present a cavalcade of quotations from Islamic scholars demonstrating their incorrect notions of scientific truth -- as if the existence of ignorance negates scientific achievement. If we are to use quotations from ignorant folk to deny scientific achievement, than it would be no great effort to prove that Western civilization has yet to discover the theory of evolution. Indeed, a quick search of the web would produce plenty of quotes to show that Western civilization has not yet determined that the earth is round. I daresay I could use KivrotHaTaavah's logic to demonstrate that Western civilization has learned absolutely nothing about science and remains shrouded in the ignorance of pre-Greek times.

KivrotHaTaavah next proceeds to present Byzantine culture as an example of scientific acheivement. The logical flaw here is that I do not deny scientific achievement in other cultures; my statement was the Islamic civilization put Christendom to shame. My statement does not deny such achievement on the part of Christendom; it instead compares the two and pronounces Islamic results much superior to the results of Christendom. For example KivrotHaTaavah offers the Hagia Sophia as an example of Christian superiority. The Hagia Sophia is indeed one of the great works of architecture in human history. However, KivrotHaTaavah fails to mention that the Hagia Sophia was completed nearly 100 years before the birth of Islam, so it is not contemporaneous with Islam. If he wishes to throw the doors open to all of architectural history, the picture becomes much more complicated, and the comparisons much trickier. Why not bring the Parthenon, St. Peter's, the Alhambra, the Taj Mahal, and Notre Dame into the discussion?

Next KivrotHaTaavah presents a list of scholars who were Christian and Jewish. Good for them! But he inadvertently makes my point for me. The handful of Christian and Jewish scholars he names can easily be overwhelmed by the long list of Islamic scholars of equal achievement from that period. He seems to think that the existence of a few Christian and Jewish scholars denies the existence of hundreds of Islamic scholars. Instead, the logic works the other way: the existence of hundreds of Islamic scholars, compared to the handful of Christian and Jewish scholars, demonstrates the intellectual superiority of Islamic civilization at that time. Moreover, he overlooks the fact that every one of the Christian and Jewish scholars he cites lived and worked inside Islamic civilization. That's because no scholar of any merit would waste his time living in Christendom. Islamic civilization was where the intellectual atmosphere was, not Christendom.

Next, KivrotHaTaavah makes two mistakes in a single sentence: "And, finally, if you were not so hostile towards me personally, then you would also know that Ahmad al-Nahawandi made astronomical observations at Gundishapu..." The first mistake is the failure to recognize a careful distinction I made when I declared "your claims in this matter amount to bigotry, pure and simple." Notice that I attacked his claims, not his person. This is a vital moral distinction; hate the sin, not the sinner, and do not allow your goodwill towards another person blind you to the hatefulness of his actions. The second mistake in this sentence is that there is no logical connection between my purported hostility and my knowledge of astronomical observations.

Next comes a good example of the bigotry to which I object: "He saw how backwards Arabs were in relation to the Persians and the Syrians." He then contradicts himself with the immediately following statement: "So if you want me to credit Arabs, Persians, etc., I have no problem in doing so." No matter how you interpret these statements, they add up to a logical mess.

His next sentence raises an interesting point: "But I am not going to credit a faith, be it Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, etc." I agree that the intellectual achievements of Islamic civilization cannot be directly and solely attributed to the religious beliefs of that civilization. But I also argue that it is illogical to deny the role of religion in establishing that civilization. That is why we frequently use the single term "Islam" to refer to the entire Islamic civilization. That is why we refer to Christendom as the civilization that embraced the Christian religion. I do not claim that Christianity produced Newton's laws. I acknowledge that these were the product of Western civilization, which was decidedly Christian at that time. In the same fashion, the achievements of Islamic civilization cannot be directly attributed solely to the Islamic religion, but neither can the role of Islam be denied.

Did Islam make significant contributions to human knowledge during the period 700 - 1100 AD?

Given the preponderance of Arabic words in the English language, especially for concepts devoted to medicine, math and science, then I'd have to say yes it did, though where the division between Arabic learning and Islamic learning lies, I can't really say.

I also recognize however that much of the learning the Arabs had in that period they themselves inherited from the Greeks, Chinese, Persians and Indians... so if the question revolves around who gave what to whom, then its impossible to say and be accurate.

I think its pretty churlish though to deny that the Islamic people's had this knowledge and never expanded upon it. Especially given the way they named everything in Arabic.

Surely we cannot deny that all civilizations have made great contributions to the arts and sciences. That's what "civilization" means. The fact that many contributions have been made to humanity by Islamic civilizations doesn't mean that we have to accept Islam as factual, anymore than the many contributions to humanity of Christian or Pagan civilizations means we have to accept those faiths as factual. (Nor, of course, does it mean that we have to reject them as false. The crimes of those civilizations does not mean that we have to reject their faiths as false, either.)

I, for one, will be the last to deny that there is a serious problem within Islam as it exists in 2005. Many faithful Muslims agree with me.

Free Muslims Coalition



The fact that this problem exists, and must be dealt with within Islam itself, is no reason not to celebrate the many ways in which Islamic civilizations have contributed to the modern world.

Does anyone have the Time Life Timeframe books? I have some, but not the ones covering the time period in question.
A few of the educational shows I have watched give a lot of credit to Islam, and the same kind of shows throw a lot of blame at Catholic Popes, when it comes to progress in science.

I would say yes, Islam has conributed greatly to knowledge, and civilization.
But that was Islam then. If Islam now is adding anything of value to either, it is being overshadowed by the fundamentalist/terrorists.

This is from the Random House Timetables of History, a cool little pocket reference:

715 - The Umayyad Arabs took Spain
- Leo III defeated the second Arab seige of Constantinople

732 - Muslim invasion of Europe stopped
- Umayadds defeated in N. Africa and Near East
- Arabs bring the lute and bowed instruments to Spain
- Jabir left evidence of the Arabic systematic approach to chemistry

762 - Baghdad becomes the Abbasid capital
- Umayadd dynesty in Spain tolerates Jews and Christians
- Great Mosque in Cordoba, Spain built

764 - Arabic music golden age until 809

793 - Arabic paper from captured Chinese

800 - Baghdad Academy of Science becomes center of scientific learning

820 - Arabic literature reaches height

850 - Arabic algebra from Greek and Indian mathematics

860 - Arabic science attacks alchemy dogma

930 - Cordoba, Spain becomes center of Islamic science

970 - Revival of Persian poetry using the Arabic alphabet

1000 - Arabic science reaches zenith (this century)
- Crusades begin



Take the book to cocktail parties and have fun being the history nerd.

I think therein lies the crux of the argument. I don't believe that Christianity had anything to do with Newton's discoveries whatsoever. Those discoveries took place during the age of Reason. That's the problem I am having answering your initial quesiton to be debated. For example, it is undeniable that some great works of art came out of funding from the Catholic church when it was at the apex of its power. Did Catholicism make significant contributions to human artistic expression? Well...they were the only art funders in town, and I think it was illegal to paint anything else. During the Roman empire there were great works of nonreligious art so it's arguable that the Catholic church stunted creative development rather than promoted it. So, whereas I think it is undeniable that civilization was more advanced during the aforementioned time period in Islamic countries, I'm not sure Islam itself is due the credit. Intellectual acheivement is not usually the purview of religion. Religion performs a social function as an efficient means of dealing with incentive traps (especially in absence of a strong centralized government).

I'm not dead set on this answer, I don't know enough about the Islamic faith to come to much of a conclusion one-way or the other. I'm basing my answer on what I know of religions in general. In absence of evidence to the contrary, I'm inclined to believe that these achievements happened in spite of Islam rather than because of it. I think perhaps Judaism is the only religion I can think of which might be directly credited as a religion which fosters human knowledge...simply by necessity. The Jews lived for centuries under foreign rule, so they maintained their traditions via a written cultural heritage they took with them, which required them to be highly educated when only the clergy and/or elite could read throughout Christiandom. Otherwise, as far as I know other monotheistic faiths don't hold intellectual development as standard or important to the practice.

Yes, I agree that we cannot trace a direct line of causality from the religion to the scholarship. I see the connection as diffuse rather than direct. The religion can establish a cultural milieu that is favorable to scholarship, opposed to scholarship, or neutral to it. Moreover, this cultural milieu is not a constant. For example, Christianity was very favorable to intellectual pursuits in the period from Aquinas to Ignatius -- then the Catholic Church became hostile to intellectualism, but Protestantism retained its goodwill towards intellectual exploration. In like fashion, Islam was favorable towards intellectual exploration up until about Averroes, but then turned inward.

The role of a religion in this process is to provide a unified civilization at a reasonable level of peace and stability in which intellectual and artistic achievement can be pursued, and then to smile upon such efforts. There's no question that Islamic potentates during the period in question held the arts and sciences in high esteem, and competed to adorn their courts with the brightest minds of their times. It was a cultural process, not primarily a religious process -- but the religion underlay the culture. So we can credit Islam for a diffuse role in these achievements, not a direct role.

Eras:

May I first ask that you not falsely restate my position. You wrote here of the matter of "whether Islamic civilization made any contribution to human knowledge." However, on the other thread, you spoke in terms of "intellectual superiority." The word "intellectual" includes as part of its definition, that one is "Given to abstract or philosophical thought." So if I were to assume that you were using words according to their dictionary definition, then the philosophical matters of, what does it mean to be human, is it moral/okay to have a human as a slave, and is there dignity in labor, all fall within an appropriate discussion of what it means to be "intellectually superior." And the point I was trying to make in that regard was that while it's nice to be able to enrich uranium, it is our morality/philosophy that determines whether we use that ability/knowledge to create power and/or to develop a fission bomb. Maybe Jeff Goldblum's character said it best in Jurassic Park, and I'm paraphrasing here, but they were so busy asking themselves whether they could that they never bothered to ask themselves whether they should. Assuming that you have seen the movie, I trust that you understand that Mr. Goldblum's character was asserting that given the circumstance, that the "should" question was "superior" to the "could" question. And, frankly, I would rather live, as I have, in a nipa hut with no electricty and no running water, but with all of us free, than live in a world of moon shots, dvd players, and slaves. And, yes, I understand the value judgment that need be made to reach that judgment.

Re your claim re Islamic scholars demonstrating their incorrect notions of scientific truth, two points. First, Mohammed was and is not an "Islamic scholar," he is instead, Islam. Just as Christianity is Jesus Christ. And the second point I was trying to make is that if Mohammed reported that we have hot and cold weather because of a, b, c, and d, then for Muslims who regard the Hadith as authoritative, there is no reason to conduct scientific inquiry since the Hadith already provides the answer. And so, if someone decided to engage in an inquiry as to why we have hot and cold weather, then such effort was conducted in spite of, and not because of, Islam. And that was the precise and only purpose for which I used the quotations from the Qur'an and the Hadith.

Re what you call Islamic scholars. Is your claim that if Persia had not been conquered by the Arabs that the Academy would not have produced any scientific knowledge? And what evidence do you otherwise have to demonstrate that the scientists in question were not encouraged in such endeavor by their parents, who may well have taught them of their long history of scientific inquiry. To take just one example, as I posted, our algebra man [as it were], had a Persian mother. So how do you know that he did not become a mathematician because his mother told him of the long history/tradition of Persian mathematics and mathematicians [which predates Mohammed and Islam]? Frankly, neither you nor I know what motivated any of those people. And since you are the one claiming that Islam gets the credit, then the burden of proof is on you and not me.

Re the Byzantium and the Hagia Sophia, you were comparing the Islamic middle east [and environs] to Christian Europe. So why would you be suggesting that we include the Parthenon, the Alhambra, the Taj Mahal, and Notre Dame?

And once again we are back to intellectual superiority. What is knowledge? Can I have knowlege without understanding it? Let me the matter this way, you speak of algebra, astronomy, etc., but what about agriculture? And one figures out how to produce a more fruitful species of vegetable without understanding the specifics, are you claiming that such does not constitute advancement? I ask these questions because during the Dark Ages, there was in fact advancement in terms of things like agriculture, animal husbandry, architecture, and metalurgy. And that is why I made the point on the other thread about abstract versus practical science. Does your astronomy feed hungry people? But a new and improved cow might be better able to provide more meat and more milk, yes? And how about an idea that does not seem so startingly inventive today, but how about crop rotation?

So let me ask you this, to what use for humanity did Kharazmi put algebra? None?
Please consider [http://www.mwillett.org/atheism/islamicgoldenage.htm]:

"Allow me to present a few true examples to illustrate my point regarding how Muslims of that era did so little to improve human life, even though, they controlled a large portion of the global power and wealth for almost a millennium.

As you may know, the earliest known treatise on Algebra is credited to Diophantus of Alexandria in 3rd century A.D. However, it was a Muslim named Kharazmi from Persia, who for the first time used the Arabic language (the official language of the time) to write a book called Algebra. What did Muslims do with Algebra, anyway? The answer is that they just introduced the writing down of calculations in place of using the abacus. Surprised perhaps? Despite having the knowledge of Algebra for centuries and they did not achieve any significant accomplishments towards improving quality of life."

So going back to value judgments, when you say that astronomy and algebra are superior to breeding a better breed of cow, you have indeed made a value judgment, and you have not even bothered to consider to what human use the knowledge was put.

Let me end with this [from that same site provided above, but by a different author]:

"Islam contributed nothing directly to the advancement of humanity. Some people who coincidentally were Muslims contributed some art, science and literature. Islam helped the advance of culture in general because of its teaching of Arabic reading and writing. Arabic became a medium for the spreading of ideas, just as Latin was in European Chistendom and English is today. All the positive effects of Islam in its golden age were side-effects, not the planned outcome of a positively Islamic strategy. Much of what the Islamic world contributed was done by the rediscovery, translation and circulation of documents and ideas which originated in Pagan societies, work done or collected by Greek and Roman scholars.

It was not Islam as such that was the engine for progress, it was literacy, international communication, trade and an interest in collecting and preserving the knowledge and wisdom of other times and other cultures. The Islamic golden age was a golden age of human culture. It was driven by a unity of language and literary culture in a pluralistic and open international framework. Today we have a much better engine: free global trade; international global capitalism and the English language. This is a secular global culture, it grew from Christian societies that were themselves changing into secular societies. The future belongs to global culture, secular culture, to the Cosmopolitans: the citizens of the world."

Sorry, one more for now. You posted:

"Next comes a good example of the bigotry to which I object: "He saw how backwards Arabs were in relation to the Persians and the Syrians."

Excuse me, Eras, but weren't you the one speaking of Islamic "intellectual superiority" vis-a-vis Christian Europe? So just who is the bigot? So you have condemned yourself, whether you appreciate the reality or not.

Oh, and there was otherwise no contradiction. Since the Arabs, Persians, etc., I am willing to credit lived AFTER the caliph saw how materially backward the Arabs were in relation to Persia and Syria, and so the caliph sent his boys to Byzantine to learn, study, and bring back knowledge.

It makes just as much sense to say that these societies just happened to be Christian or Islam, and that the form of current popular faith has nothing to do with human advancements. Whatever advancements come out of the current popular faith are simply accidents, as dogma in any form, whether it be alchemy or metaphysics, denies any other way of interpreting existence.

So the Earth remains the center of the Universe, God made only this one living planet, and the Universe is only 6,000 years old. Okay, make that the age of the Earth -- even dogma has to change somewhat.

It seems to me that the arguments being made are going around in circles when the current popular faith of any period in history is given credit or discredit for human advancement. However, if one simply throws faith out, and gives credit or discredit to human beings for human advancements, then things start to make sense.

I'm also amazed at the intellectual exercise of trying to figure out what advancements were superior to others. It really depends on where your premises come from. For example, bringing the lute to Spain is a big deal to me because I play guitar. Others might not care. They might like milk, and so milkier cows become the next big thing, whereas I don't give a damn. I'd rather have beer.



*and* guitar

KivrotHaTaavah, had you presented us with a coherent argument, there would be something for me to respond to, but your rambling collection of distant claims is so lacking in clear thrust that there is little for me to answer. You seem more interested in finding something to argue about than making a clear case.

My basic point is that Islamic civilization during its golden age was intellectually superior to Christian civilization during that period. In just about every area of scholarly and artistic endeavor (except, obviously, portraiture and statuary), developments in Islamic areas were ahead of like developments in Christendom. You attempt to demean these developments by arguing that Islamic achievements had no practical value -- a patently absurd claim given the economic superiority of Islamic civilization. You also attempt to devalue these achievements by claiming some sort of moral inferiority on the part of Islamic civilization, a claim so lacking in historical substance that I will not bother to respond to it until you present some kind of reasoned justification for it.


You fail to appreciate the distinction between a civilization and a people. Calling sub-Saharan civilization intellectually inferior to European civilization is not bigotry. Calling blacks intellectually inferior to whites is bigotry.

You seek to separate Islam from the achievements of Islamic civilization. I have already stated in detail that the causal relationship between Islam and the achievements of Islamic civilization is indirect and diffuse, but you argue only that the relationship is not direct and immediate. I suppose, then, that you are conceding the indirect and diffuse causal relationship.

I conclude with some quotations from Will Durant's "The Age of Faith", surely a classic work on this subject. His summary of Islamic civilization, on pages 341-344, is nuanced; I urge you to read the entire piece.

"For five centuries, from 700 to 1200, Islam led the world in power, order, and extent of government, in refinement of manners, in standards of living, in humane legislation and religious toleration, in literature, scholarship, science, medicine, and philosophy."

"The Moslems seem to have been better gentlemen than their Christian peers; they kept their word more frequently, showed more mercy to the defeated, and were seldom guilty of such brutality as marked by the Christian capture of Jerusalem in 1099. Christian law continued to use ordeal by battle, water, or fire while Moslem law was developing an advanced jurisprudence and an enlightened judiciary."

"Only at the peaks of history has a society produced, in an equal period, so many illustrious men -- in government, education, literature, philology, geography, history, mathematics, astronomy, chemistry, philosophy, and medicine -- as Islam in the four centuries between Harun al-Rashid and Averroes. Part of this brilliant activity fed on Greek leavings; but much of it, above all in statesmanship, poetry, and art, was original and invaluable."

"Civilization is polygenetic -- it is the cooperative product of many peoples, ranks, and faiths; and no one who studies its history can be a bigot of race or creed. Therefore the scholar, though he belongs to his country through affectionate kinship, feels himself also a citizen of the Country of the Mind, which knows no hatreds and no frontiers; he hardly deserves his name if he carries into his study political prejudices, or racial discriminations, or religious animosities."

Allow me to suggest a counterpoint. Yes, there is unquestionably a tremendous relative growth in knowledge of sciences and scholarship in the Islamic world compared to Christian Europe in the time in question. Even, despite what our friend with the complicated would have you believe, in practical disciplines such as agriculture, animal husbandry, breeding, metallurgy and so on.

But the key word there is 'relative' growth. Yes, Islam progressed far beyond Christian Europe, but is that because of some special interest Islam had in sciences or promoting the advancement of knowledge? No, not at all, in fact I would posit that the Islamic world probably advanced about as quickly as would be expected in a society where curiosity was encouraged.

The reason for the spectacular relative growth has nothing to do with special advancement of Islam, but rather the crippling retardation caused by the Christians in Europe, in particular during the latter portion of the time in question.

Europe was a culture where teaching non-clergy to read latin could get you excommunicated and killed. name the most famous European scientists of the era. Now ask yourself how many of them were persecuted or excommunicated by the church. Yes, most of them. The Christian church became such a powerful force of anti-learning and intellectual repression that progress in most fields (with a few notable exceptions) all but stagnated. Art, architecture and warfare are three of the most important exceptions of course...

So if you are looking at the relative[growth between Europe and Islamic world at that time, perhaps it is a misnomer to claim abd real special superiority of Islam, rather they were probably the average, while Christian Europe was critically inferior.


Next, comparing the developed civilisations of Christian Europe and Islam to the fractal, agrarian and tribal communities of Sub-saharan africa is unreasonable. They should not be included in such comparative studies as they are not a civilisation at all, but rather a series of tribal kingdoms.




Maybe, maybe not. Frankly I am a professor of Modern History, and Medieval islam is nowhere near my speciality. However It is pretty easy to draw a causal link between science, persecution and Christianity at the time.



Lastly, I wanted to comment on something KivrotHaTaavah mentioned, it is slightly off topic but still in need of correction.

Radicalised Opponents of Islam often label Mohommed a 'pedophile' due to his marriage to and consommation of such, a 9 year old girl. Two comments:

Firstly the comment is obviously and blatantly inflamatory; imagine how a Christian would react if somebody called Christ a pedophile. Such comments are unhelpful and contrary to the purpose of intelligent debate.

Secondly, it is essentially untrue. While it is stated that Mohommed apparently slept with a 9-year old, please keep in mind the era we are talking about. Marriage to and sexual relations with barely post-pubescant girls was not at all uncommon, in Islam as well in Europe. It was only in 1861 in the UK that the age of consent was raised from 10 years old. The age of consent was also 10 years old in Many US states, including New York, Missouri and Maryland until the 1890s. That is, please keep in mind, a thousand years after the time of Mohammed.

As for Christian Europe, what did they think the age of consent was in the time of Mohammed? The Church believed that girls could not be legally married and have intimate relations before the age of 7., meaning Mohommed actually waited several years longer then would have been necessary had he been a Christian...

Agreed. I don't think that Islam provided any special inducements to intellectual achievement, any more than Christianity did. It was part of the foundation of an efflorescent civilization. My purpose here is not to assign any special intellectual attributes to Islam itself, but to refute the bigotry that denies Islamic civilization its achievements. Myriad factors contributed to this golden age: the explosion of trade arising from a far-flung polity; the wealth consequent to this trade; the maintenance of peace over large areas; the convergence of many cultural influences, and so on. The most appurtenant attribute of Islam to this efflorescence was its encouragement of universal literacy, a factor that also contributed to the golden age of Greece (although for entirely different reasons).

The analysis of the causes of this Islamic golden age is a fascinating exercise. Establishing that it was genuine is little more than an assertion of truth against bigotry: necessary but tedious.

KivrotHaTaavah I have to regret to say that your view of Arab culture during the European Middle Ages is ambigious and in fact incorrect.

It is without a doubt that Arab culture flourished during a time when Europe was in heavy decline (the Dark Ages). Ascending suddenly in the seventh century AD as a superpower, it was the Arabian culture that profited most from the fall of the Roman Empires. When Europe fell into pieces, involved in a mighty struggle for survival, it were the Arabs who developed a highly civilized and stable culture in that same period.

It is during this period that Arabic thinkers influenced the world with their theories. Unquestionably Islamic culture and wisdom influenced and reached a lot of people and contributed lots to the world of thought and inovation of that time.
(http://www.mrc.org.uk/contribution.htm)
(http://www.muslimheritage.com)

In one of your posts I read:



You are correct that the Arab world is not same as the Islamic religion. Religions tend to be very conservative and hostile towards scientific development. Religion itself hardly has contributed to science at all. BUT one must also acknowledge that religion itself always has been able to penetrate into world of thought, thereby influencing scientific development.

I'm not sure what you mean by this, Renger. I don't necessarily disagree, I'm just unsure how religion enters the world of thought.

For example, when physicists explore the origins of the Universe, do they look for supernatural phenomena? Or maybe some inherent goodness/evilness to the Universe? I just don't see religion entering into it.

Maybe what you mean is that back then religion was a bigger deal than today. I can see that, where early scientists had notions about the nature of the world packed into their heads apriori to investigations. But then the irrefutable evidence came up that relgious notions were all wet.

So, is there something in Islam that encourages scientific investigation? It has been hinted that this something might be a lack of punishments for going against religious doctrine. That makes sense, and maybe that's what you mean?

Erasmussimo, thanks for the book reference. I'll try to find it and give it a read. My understanding of ancient history is spotty, and it is of interest to have a broader understanding.

Enough to fill many a volume (in fact, in my private collection it does ).

Some of my favorites:


1.) In the twelfth century my favorite civilization developed the Jalai calendar. To this day Umar Khayyam's (for lack of a better term) invention remains the most accurate solar calendar- it is still used in Afghanistan!

2.) Al-Khwarazmi wrote the world's first book of Algebra.

3.) Trigonometry was given to us by the Muslims as well.

4.) The theory of numbers was born in Islamic culture, Al-Khujandi discovered one case of Fermat's theorem that "the sum of two cubes cannot be another cube"

5.) al Karaji analyzed arithmetic and geometric progressions such as:

1**3+2**3+3**3+...+n**3=(1+2+3+...+n)** 2

6.) Ibn al-Sina diagnosed and treated meningitis.

7.) Ibn al-Haytham discovered the camera obscura.


Other achievements not within time limit:

1.) The building of the first observatory as a strictly scientific studying area (thirteenth century).

2.) Muslim scientists explained the cause of the rainbow in the thirteenth century.

3.) First successful description of the minor circulation of blood (fourteenth century).

4.) A computer-like machine was invented by Al-Kashani in the late fifteenth century.


In summary: I think that, regardless of a time period, Islamic culture helped shape the very fabric of Western, or any other preceding, civilization.

Vermillion:

To address what you called the slighly off-topic, you can call Christ a pedophile if you like, and it won't bother me, because there is zero evidence known to us to support the claim. If there was, I would not be a Christian. And it's that simple. And please spare me the "era we are talking about" nonsense. This man claimed to be the prophet of Allah, and if you would otherwise take the occasion to go visit the WhyIslam forums and the Islamonline forums, then you would learn rather shortly that the Muslim position is that Mohammed lived the life that we should all imitate. So that takes us well out of the era he was living in, i.e., Mohammed is the man [as it were] for all times and all places. Or as the Qur'an itself puts the matter:

Ye have indeed in the Apostle of Allah a beautiful pattern (of conduct) for any one whose hope is in Allah and the Final Day, and who engages much in the Praise of Allah. (33:21, Y. Ali)

Certainly you have in the Messenger of Allah an excellent exemplar for him who hopes in Allah and the latter day and remembers Allah much. (al-Ahzab 33:21)

And that is the point that those of your opinion always conveniently neglect to mention and which otherwise changes everything. And not intending any personal insult, but if you insist on leaving out that rather crucial matter, then please never speak to me about proper intellectual debate.

And please note that since this man claimed to be getting direct revelation from Allah, if a 50 year old man was having sexual relations with a child, then maybe Allah could have said or revealed something to him. Ironically enough, if you would read the Hadith, you would find that Mohammed claims Allah is the one who "told" him to pursue Aisha [as it were]. So, to restate the matter, a 50-some year old man claimed that he had divine direction/permission to marry a 6 year old. And, again, this 50-some year old man is not simply a man of his time, he's claimed to be the man for all time [and place].

And for logical fallacy, as I said, Mohammed is Islam as Yeshua is Christianity. So you pointing out any perceived error or sin on the part of some middle age Christians and some early Americans misses the point, since I don't hold any of those people up as God's prophet and the purveyor of God's direct revelation to humanity [and they do not otherwise define the faith]

And as concerns misstating history, re your claimed ages of consent [from the Encyclopedia Britannica]:

"Marriages of young children, negotiated by their parents, are prohibited in modern societies. Historically, the attitude of the English common law was that a person under seven years lacked the mental ability to consent to marriage, and that between seven years and puberty there could be consent but not a consummated marriage. At common law, therefore, the marriage of a person between the ages of seven and 12 or 14 was "inchoate" and would become "choate" on reaching puberty, if no objection was raised."

Do you otherwise have any citations to some authority for the other ages of consent you mentioned?

And note:

Narrated 'Aisha: I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet, and my girl friends also used to play with me. When Allah's Apostle used to enter (my dwelling place) they used to hide themselves, but the Prophet would call them to join and play with me. (The playing with the dolls and similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for 'Aisha at that time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty.) (Fateh-al-Bari page 143, Vol.13)

You don't get to play with dolls in Islam unless you are a PREPUBESCENT girl:

"Al-Khattaabee said: … it is understood that playing with dolls (al-banaat) is not like the amusement from other images (suwar) concerning which the threat (wa'eed) of punishment is mentioned. The only reason why permission in this was given to Aisha (RA) is because she had not, at that time, reached the age of puberty."

And there's:

Tabari IX:131 “My mother came to me while I was being swung on a swing between two branches and got me down. My nurse took over and wiped my face with some water and started leading me. When I was at the door she stopped so I could catch my breath. I was brought in while Muhammad was sitting on a bed in our house. My mother made me sit on his lap. The other men and women got up and left. The Prophet consummated his marriage with me in my house when I was nine years old. Neither a camel nor a sheep was slaughtered on behalf of me.”

So, she was prepubescent. And if the sat on his lap part doesn't make you want to hurl [or toss your cookies, as it were], then there is simply no point in my addressing myself to your remarks on a moral basis. And if you have a problem with the claim of pedophilia, please see the DSM-IV:

"Diagnostic criteria for 302.2 Pedophilia
1.Over a period of at least six months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger).

2.The person has acted on these sexual urges, or the sexual urges or fantasies caused marked distress or interpersonal difficulty.

3.The person is at least age 16 years and at least 5 years older than the child or children in Criterion A.

Note: Do not include an individual in late adolescence involved in an ongoing sexual relationship with a 12- or 13-year-old."

Lastly, to round out the matter:

"Sahih Muslim Book 8, Number 3311
'A'isha reported that Allah's Apostle married her when she was seven years old, and (s)he was taken to his house as a bride when she was nine, and her dolls were with her; and when he died she was eighteen years old."

So as I said, the prepubescent girl took her dolls with her.

And to end with the Hadith re the prior dream[s]:

Narrated 'Aisha:
Allah's Apostle said to me, "You were shown to me twice (in my dream) before I married you. I saw an angel carrying you in a silken piece of cloth, and I said to him, 'Uncover (her),' and behold, it was you. I said (to myself), 'If this is from Allah, then it must happen.' Then you were shown to me, the angel carrying you in a silken piece of cloth, and I said (to him), 'Uncover (her), and behold, it was you. I said (to myself), 'If this is from Allah, then it must happen.' " (Sahih Bukhari 9.140)

Sorry, one more, I am not the one trying to justify [or otherwise make morally relative] a man of 50 having sex with a prepubescent child who plays with dolls and swings on the swing. So please have the rather doubtful grace to spare me the gratuitous and wholly pathetic insult about my being "radicalised." Thanks.

I would otherwise and lastly suggest that you google yourself silly ascertaining just how widespread in the Islamic world is Mohammed's practice of defiling a prepubescent girl. And after having done so, you aren't pained to the very core of your being, then, as I said, there is simply no point in my addressing myself to your remarks on a moral basis.

KivrotHaTaavah, your extensive response to a single digressive point, coupled with your complete lack of response to the main point of this topic, suggests that you concede the main point of the topic. Is this correct?

Renger:

Byzantium was the Roman Empire, the inhabitants called themselves Romans, and Constantinople was the largest Christian city in the world:

http://historymedren.about.com/cs/byzantin...a/forgotten.htm

"The Empire of Byzantium was the eastern portion of the Roman Empire, which was divided in 395 A.D. Its capital of Constantinople, located on a peninsula, was naturally secure from invasion on three sides, and its fourth side was fortified with a network of three walls that withstood direct attack for over a thousand years. Its stable economy provided a strong military and, together with an abundant food supply and advanced civil engineering, a high standard of living. Christianity was firmly entrenched in Byzantium, and literacy was more widespread there than in any other nation in the middle ages. Although the predominant language was Greek, Latin was also fairly common, and at one point all seventy-two of the world's known languages were represented in Constantinople. Intellectual and artistic endeavors thrived.
***
The exploration of Byzantine civilization is undeniably significant in the study of medieval world history. To ignore it would be akin to studying the classical era without considering the cultural phenomenon of ancient Greece. Unfortunately, much (but thankfully not all) historical investigation into the middle ages has done just that. Historians and students often focused on the fall of the Western Roman Empire and the numerous changes in Europe without ever once glancing at Byzantium. It was often mistakenly believed that the Byzantine Empire was a static state that had little impact on the rest of the medieval world."

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

"The name Byzantine Empire is a modern term and would have been alien to its contemporaries. Byzantium was the ancient Greek name for the Eastern Roman capital of Constantinople. The Empire's native Greek name was Ῥωμανία Romanía or Βασιλεία Ῥωμαίων Basileía Romaíon, a direct translation of the Latin name of the Roman Empire, Imperium Romanorum. The term Byzantine Empire was invented in 1557, about a century after the fall of Constantinople by German historian Hieronymus Wolf....
***
Byzantines identified themselves as Ρωμαίοι (Rhomaioi - Romans) which had already become a synonym for a Έλλην (Hellenes - Greeks), and more than ever before were developing a national consciousness, as residents of Ρωμανία (Romania, as the Byzantine state and its world were called). This nationalist awareness is reflected in literature, particularly in the acritic songs, where frontiersmen (ακρίτες) are praised for defending their country against invaders, of which most famous is the heroic or epic poem Digenis Acritas.
***
Constans II (reigned 641 - 668) divided the empire into a system of military provinces called thémata (themes) to face permanent assault, with urban life declining outside the capital while Constantinople grew to become the largest city in the Christian world. Attempts by the Arabs to conquer Constantinople failed in the face of the Byzantines' superior navy, their monopoly of the still mysterious incendiary weapon Greek fire, the city's strong walls, and the skill of warrior emperors such as Leo III the Isaurian (reign 717 - 741). After repelling the Arab assaults, the empire began to recover.
***
After the siege of 717 in which the Arabs suffered horrific casualties, the Caliphate was never a serious threat to the Byzantine heartland. It would take a different civilization, that of the Seljuk Turks, to finally drive the imperial forces out of eastern and central Anatolia."

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

"Ultimately, Byzantine architecture in the West gave way to Romanesque and Gothic architecture. In the East it exerted a profound influence on early Islamic architecture, with notable examples including the Ummayad Great Mosque of Damascus and the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem."



Eras:

Your claim re Aldebaran. Are you sure? [http://www.souledout.org/cosmology/highlights/fomalhaut/fomalhaut.html]:

"During the Persian empire of 3000 B.C., Fomalhaut (along with Regulus, Aldebaran, and Antares) came to be known as one of the four royal stars of the heavens, considered the sentinels watching over other stars. These four stars have been used as navigation points thoughout the centuries. As the Watcher of the South, Fomalhaut then marked the winter solstice, whereas now it culminates at midnight at the end of August."

Aldebaran's Persian name is Tascheter. And the fact that we call it Aldebran is because some made it so that some others could not discourse in their own language.

And re Will Durrant, well, let me just say that consistency was never his strong suit:

"The Mohammadan conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precarious thing, whose delicate complex of order and liberty, culture and peace may at any time be overthrown by barbarians invading from without or multiplying within.
****
There is no official estimate of the total death toll of Hindus at the hands of Islam. At first glance at important testimonies by Muslim chroniclers suggest that, over 13 centuries and a territory as vast as the Subcontinent, Muslim Holy Warriors easily killed more Hindus than the 6 million of the Holocaust.”

And maybe we shouldn't leave Hindu India out of our discussion. From Konraad Elst:

"It is clear that India at the time when Muslim invaders turned towards it (8 to 11th century) was the earth's richest region for its wealth in precious and semi-precious stones, gold and silver, religion and culture, and its fine arts and letters. Tenth century Hindustan was also too far advanced than its contemporaries in the East and the West for its achievements in the realms of speculative philosophy and scientific theorizing, mathematics and knowledge of nature's workings. Hindus of the early medieval period were unquestionably superior in more things than the Chinese, the Persians (including the Sassanians), the Romans and the Byzantines of the immediate proceeding centuries. The followers of Siva and Vishnu on this subcontinent had created for themselves a society more mentally evolved-joyous and prosperous too-than had been realized by the Jews, Christians, and Muslim monotheists of the time. Medieval India, until the Islamic invaders destroyed it, was history's most richly imaginative culture and one of the five most advanced civilizations of all times.”

Oh, sorry, but let me interject. Psyclist, you here? That part of the Qur'an about killing the infidel whenever and wherever found? You tried to allay any fear I might have in that regard by pointing out that as a Christian, I am a person of the book. Fine. The pagan Hindus were and are not. And there are still millions upon millions of Hindus. As Francois Gautier so aptly put the matter:

"Thirdly, the West has not yet realised that for the Muslims of South Asia, Hindus are kafirs by excellence: the Buddhists adore only Buddha, the Christians only Jesus, but Hindus worship a million gods and goddesses; and that makes them -- even today -- the number one enemy of Islam. This is why Kashmir is so important: it is not about territory, it is about a holy war against Hindu India that has been going on for 15 centuries and it is only the first step of the encirclement of India by hostile Muslim neighbours: Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, with soft nations, like Nepal, often lending them a helping hand."

Oh, one more, or more correctly, two more: Hindu Kush. The "kush" comes from the Persian "kushtan," meaning to "kill, slaughter" [http://web.pdx.edu/~tehrank/part5b.html].

And, Psyclist, one more [http://newyork.craigslist.org/mnh/pol/89843575.html]:

"MYTH

“As 'People of the Book,' Jews and Christians are protected under Islamic law.”

FACT

This argument is rooted in the traditional concept of the "dhimma" ("writ of protection"), which was extended by Muslim conquerors to Christians and Jews in exchange for their subordination to the Muslims. Yet, as French authority Jacques Ellul has observed: "One must ask: 'protected against whom?' When this 'stranger' lives in Islamic countries, the answer can only be: against the Muslims themselves."


Now back to Eras. Incoherent? Better that than dishonest. And to borrow from Forrest Gump, that's all I'm going to say about that.

Now as I said, who are you to state as the infallible truth that "scholarly and artistic endeavor" define "intellectual superiority?" The Nazis were big on scholarly and artistic endeavor, but I would hardly call them intellectually superior. And to borrow from Turnea's signature line, it is true that more than 20,000 of us are going to die today from thoroughly preventable disease and/or chronic malnutrition/starvation. So could you please tell both me and Turnea just why your scholarly and artistic endeavors ought to be considered intellectually superior to a philosophy that sees each of those 20,000 humans as infinitely precious and also understands that in light of their suffering, the intellectual endeavor to send a man to Mars constitutes a sin of the highest order? Maybe if you understood what that other Paul meant when he wrote those words...falsely called knowledge...then you'd get the point. He wasn't saying that it knowledge was not important, it is, but only insofar as it works to better the human condition. So that other Paul and this Paul reject the idea that knowledge has value for its own sake. And so, observe the stars all you like, but, again, please tell me what use have I and the 20,000 dying today for the same?

And re bigotry. I wrote that at the time, the Arabs were backwards in relation to the Persians and Syrians. You call that bigotry. But backwards says nothing about their worth as humans. And I otherwise did not say that any intellectual inferiority was owing to immutable characteristic, such as their being Arab. My dictionary otherwise defines "backwards" as....4. Behind in progress or development. Isn't that the very same thing that you are saying when you claim that what you call Islamic civilization was intellectually superior to Europe/Christendom at the time? So in calling me a bigot, you did indeed condemn yourself, and as I said, whether you appreciate that reality or not.

And for a rather cruel irony, all of this started on the Can Muslims Integrate thread. Do you really think that it will be any love of astronomy and math that makes the difference in that regard? Sorry, but I don't hear Osama and friends quoting from any Islamic astronomy or math text when he and they issue a fatwa calling for my death whenever and wherever I am found. Instead, he quotes the Qur'an. And that is the only and exact reason why I attacked Islam [I am attacking an ideology and not their humanity]. And if I am wrong in that regard, then please, rather than saying the utterly worthless, Osama has hijacked Islam, please, quote me the Qur'an, the Hadith, and the biography/ies of the Prophet and show me that Osama and friends have hijacked Islam [since Islam is, by definition, the Qur'an, and depending on who you believe, the Hadith and/or the biography/ies of the Prophet as well].

And whether you understand the import of the matter or not, I am a Christian. So I am not allowed to hate anyone, I understand that my Lord died for all, including Osama, including Saddam, including Hitler, including Pol Pot aka Saloth Sar aka Brother Number One, including Ieng Sary, including Khieu Samphan, etc., and I otherwise understand that it is my Father's will that none should perish. So I can't and don't think that any human, no matter the race, gender, age, faith/religion, etc., is somehow less than me or otherwise not infinitely precise in the eyes of my God. So please save the bigotry remarks for someone else. Thanks.

Lastly, Will Durrant is otherwise, well, as I said, not consistent. And he has apparently never read the Qur'an and the Hadith. Pagans are given the chance to accept Islam, and if they don't, then they die. That simple. And that explains the Hindu Holocaust. As for person of the book, Christian me, I either accept glorious and noble Islam, or I pay the submission tax, which tax, for anyone with a thinking brain, is designed to coerce me into converting to Islam. So there is no tolerance in Islam, at least if one includes in their definition of tolerance the idea of equality.

Oh, and seldom guilty of brutality? What do we call it when we murder every male with pubic hair, sell the surviving children in the market as slaves, and use the surviving women as our sex slaves?

And here is where Will perverts logic and the English language beyond the point of maximum elasticity:

"The Moslems seem to have been better gentlemen than their Christian peers; they kept their word more frequently [how he determined that God only knows], showed more mercy to the defeated [apparently, he thinks selling children as slaves and keeping the now widows as your sex slaves is merciful], and were SELDOM [not often, rarely] guilty of such brutality as marked by the Christian capture of Jerusalem in 1099 [one instance, so not often, rarely].

So, the man wrote something that this lawyer for 15 years considers a pile of, well, I had better not say. And never mind for now what he said about the Muslim slaughter of Hindus.

Lastly, I will be the first to admit that humans calling themselves Christian have committed any number of unspeakable horrors. But as I said, they don't define Christianity, Yeshua of Nazareth does. And, ironically enough, I can go back and use my New Testament to condemn everything those people did. Can Islam and Muslims say the same? What did Mohammed do? Killed the males with pubic hair, sold the kids into slavery, and used the widows as sex slaves. And speaking of what truly matters, please find me one Muslim voice from the same time period, give or take a century or two or three, who said something like this in an effort to stop a holocaust [http://oregonstate.edu/dept/philosophy/ideas/papers/keen.html]:

"By reason of Aristotle's immense prestige, Spanish apologists for Indian wars and conquests made special use of his doctrine of natural slavery. As early as 1519, Juan de Quevedo, Bishop of Tierra Firme, cited it in an attack on Indian capacity and morality at a meeting of the Council of the Indies presided over by Charles V. In his Historia de las Indias, Las Casas, who was present, recalled his reply to Quevedo:

'The difference between what Aristotle meant and what the reverend Bishop affirmed is the distance between earth and sky; and even if the meaning were what the Reverend Bishop says it is, Aristotle was a pagan, and consequently we should use only that part of his doctrine that conforms to our holy Faith and the tenets of the Christian religion. Our Christian religion adapts equally to all the nations of the world and receives all nations, and strips none of its liberty or dominion, nor does it reduce any people to servitude on the pretext that they are slaves 'by nature.''

And recall that I said that starting with that other Paul, that the followers of Yeshua of Nazareth have long espoused the view that we are all humans, we all have souls, we all can reason, and thus, slavery is immoral and an offense against God and humanity. To continue with the words of the Dominican Father Bartolome de Las Casas:

"For all the peoples of the world are men, and the definition of all men, collectively and severally, is one: that they are rational beings. All possess understanding and volition, being formed in the image and likeness of God; all have the five exterior senses and the four interior senses, and are moved by the objects of these; all have natural capacity or faculties to understand and master the knowledge that they do not have; and this is true not only of those that are inclined toward good but those that by reason of their depraved customs are bad; all take pleasure in goodness and in happy and pleasant things and all abhor evil and reject what offends or grieves them....
Thus all mankind is one, and all men are alike in what concerns their creation and all natural things, and no one is born enlightened. From this it follows that all of us must be guided and aided at first by those who were born before us. And the savage peoples of the earth may be compared to uncultivated soil that readily brings forth weeds and useless thorns, but has within itself such natural virtue that by labor and cultivation it may be made to yield sound and healthful fruits."

Labor and cultivation? Ora et labora, and the dignity of labor. And note now, if you did not note then, the crossover, to wit, if there is dignity in labor, then what do we make of that slave out there in the cotton field?

And then there's Saint Bathilde:

"(630-680) Queen, born England; died Chelles, France. A slave in the household of Erchinoald, mayor of the palace of Neustria, Clovis II, attracted by her beauty and prudence, married her in 649. As regent for her son, Clothaire III, she abolished trade in Christian slaves [recall now that the church considered everyone in Europe to be nominally Christian], suppressed simony, and established hospitals and numerous monasteries. Her last 15 years were spent in the Abbey of Chelles which she had founded near Paris. Relics at Chelles. Feast, 26 January; Paris, 30 January"

And, lastly, please see:

http://acct.tamu.edu/smith/ethics/BP_Chris...and_Slavery.htm

Sorry, one more, I would suggest that you familiarize yourself with the notion of propaganda. To take just one example, the Spanish Inquisition. Any number of people have used the same to bash the Roman Catholic church and/or Christianity since before I can remember. The truth? See http://www.vancouver.anglican.ca/Portal/De...ry&StoryId=161:

"Of the oft-recounted bad influences and institutions, the Spanish Inquisition is the one most reviled, still is, to the point of Monty Python caricature. Yet, as Prof. Stark writes: “apart from a few specialists, most historians still seem to assume that the Spanish Inquisition burned large numbers of heretics, witches, Marranto Jews, and other deviants in public autos-da-fe, and that to have fallen into the hands of the inquisitors was an almost certain sentence of death. All false!”

Inquisition records, apparently far better kept than studied by historians, show that trained civil lawyers, not clergy, administered most trials. Inquisition evidentiary standards were recognizably modern, with most of its sentences for offences such as witchcraft “mild in the extreme.” Special leave was required for a maximum of ten minutes torture. Leave was seldom granted; the inquisition considered testimony taken under torture unreliable.

Hyperbolized beliefs about the Spanish Inquisition among English-speaking peoples grew out of English war propaganda spread when England was at war with Spain. This already exaggerated propaganda was maintained and further inflated by anti-Catholic prejudice. Anti-Catholic historians, evidently relying on the same sources as Monty Python’s scriptwriters, conflated these mistaken beliefs with their own prejudices and gave them their academic seal of truth. In the process, students have been misled and prejudices fed for generations."

And recall again the title of that book, Lies My Teacher Told Me. We've been told plenty.

AuthorMusician, what I meant by saying that religion did (indirectly)influence scientific development, is that during most part of world history religions tended to dictate and influence human thought. Religion was an intricate part of the character of mankind. Thinking outside the "religious" box was something a lot of great scientists never really did. True, their discoveries could lead to a changing mentality or a weakening of the religion, but this was never their goal. Most of the time they remained as pius as before. Their religious mentality most of the times guided them in their research. For instance a lot of great thinkers during the Renaissance committed themselves to unite Christianity with the Classical philosophies.

Religion itself, because of her traditional conservative nature, always was sceptical towards scientific research and tried to control it as much as possible. Religion by itself did contribute little to science, but did influence strongly the mentality of scientists in those times.

KivrotHaTaavah, I do not completely understand your arguments here. We were discussing the contribution of the Islamic world to human knowledge, weren't we? If I am correct you state that the Islamic culure contributed almost nothing to the world, thereby marginalizing the impact of the Islamic civilization. But the facts you give to support your theory are in many ways deficient and misleading.

Your whole story about the Byzantine culture is accurate, but for what purpose? It is a long way from our original subject. It is true that during the Western Middle Ages the Byzantine empire was still rather strong and influential and for long formed a buffer for Christian Europe against the Islamic world, defeating the armies of the Caliphate in 717 AD. Eventually the Byzantine Empire was in 1071 AD heavily defeated by the Seljuk Turks, the newly risen dominant Islamic empire of that time. Twenty years later, in 1096 AD, the first Crusade was begun.

Of course the Byzantines had a civilized society and played an important role influencing and protecting the Christian world. But eventually it was defeated and conquered by the Islamic world. And it is exactly because of the social and cultural developments during the period 700 - 1100 BCE that the Islamic world could produce such a strong and centralized Empire.

But I still don't see any relation between your earlier statements and the above mentioned. But maybe you can explain it to me?

KivrotHaTaavah, your long, rambling post presents us with an avalanche of accusations, denials, half-truths, full truths, falsehoods, inconsistencies, irrelevancies, and digressions. If logical discussion creates an orderly structure like a building, then you have presented us with a gigantic pile of bricks. Standing knee-deep in those bricks, I see little to respond to.

Here's a perfect example of what I mean:


I pointed out that our name for the star Aldebaran is an Arabic word; you responded by providing a completely irrelevant quote about Fomalhaut and proving that Aldebaran also had a Persian name. And then you insinuate that the Arabs foully changed the "true" name for Tascheter to Aldebaran. This is just silly, without any relevance or substance; it is arguing for the sheer joy of arguing.

Your slanders of Will Durant only redound to your own discredit. "The Story of Civilization", his opus magnus, is considered one of the great classics of historical writing, and is still widely read. I strongly urge you to read the series; it will broaden your horizons and soften the hard edges of your thinking.

Alright, so I'm new, but I think I can bring something to the discussion - a viewpoint of an actual Muslim, something that seems to be missing in all of this.

Did Islam make significant contributions to human knowledge during the period 700 - 1100 AD?

... I found this to be a simple question. Why this tangent brought up by KivrotHaTaavah is still discussed being off-topic is beyond me.

But did Islam itself make contributions? Not directly in the realm of science or art. Yet, unlike the stereotypical 'big religion,' Classical Islam was very tolerant, and before the advent of Hadith and Sunnah as law (Shariah), fostered the quest for knowledge.

Promising an incredible literacy rate also helped - which was of course caused by the spread of Islam and its need to be able to read the Qur'an for oneself.

Already there are names, passages, and references in the past few pages showing the different accomplishments of the Islamic Golden Age. I think it's unfair to assume that a civilization must have completely original works to be considered great. I assume the Romans must have been nothing but leeches because of the Greek influence?

However, Islam managed its own achievements alongside ones borrowed from other places. Which is itself a major contribution to the world. People here have been crying out that the Greeks were the first to develop Algebra, but not publish it. Yet, none has realised that had Islam not been there, had the environment for advancement and thinking not been there, these same Greek and Roman works would have been destroyed and lost to time. Many important classical works only exist because the Islamic world preserved them for the future. (the Catholic Church would have seen to the destruction of such works, I'm sure)

Is that not in itself a contribution to humanity? If the Dark Ages had consumed Homer's Iliad and Odyssey and I saved them by spreading it around other places, would I have not made a contribution to humanity?

Islamic contributions during its earlier stages are many. The most important of them are in the field of science. The word Algebra comes from the Arabic word "El Cebir" (I am not sure of the syntax). Instead of the hard Roman numbers, we use the Arab number these days. If you can write 13 instead of XIII, it is because of the Islamic contributions to science.

This really is a lot of conflict for a very little bit of misunderstanding.

Did Islam make significant contributions to human knowledge during the period 700 - 1100 AD?


The answer is an unequivical, yes.

But probably not for any reason mentioned here. I see a lot of people arguing about the root form of words and wether or not Islam could contribute because it's dark destructive nature in conquest.

The truth is that Islam is like any other civilization. At times bloody and and imperial, other times magnificent and true to humanity as a whole.

The reason you will find so many English words rooted in Arabic and the reason we came to use Arabic numbers (aside from their ease) is because of Islam's greatest contribution to society and that is the keeping of nearly all Western knowledge during the Dark Ages.

During the Dark Ages when western civilization had nearly forgotten it's entire history and lost it's capacity to read and write the Islamic Empire preserved all the great libraries of the world, because after all, the only existing copies of the world's most important texts that had not been burned, were within the walls of this Empire. Only later would we get these treasures back (through bloody warfare) and again re-learn our history which would from then on be invariably linked to Islam forever.

Arabs didn't invent algebra or geometry, we know these things existed for purposes of commerce and agriculture at least 4,200 years before Islam itself, but they preserved the knowledge when Barbarian culture no longer could.

Nor did they make bloodier wars, or act any more immoral than the rest of civilization at one time or another. They're just people like we are. They have wacko's like we have wacko's. They just seem to have a culture prone to producing more of them, and that culture is a culture of dictators and opressors which of course is where President Bush see's his greatest idea: Democratize the Middle East, ruin the culture from which these radicals seem to be produced by the millions.

It's all history, and Virtigo seems to get that.

Edited for spelling as usual.