http://craigread.blogspot.com/2007/10/there-was-no-golden-age-in-islam.html
 

There was no Golden Age in Islam 

It is always amusing to hear sophisticates defend the indefensible, usually
while flicking their hair and laughing maniacally like Hillary Clinton while
intoning that they too read the Economist magazine. In the world of
liberal-relativity, where nothing matters, one man's suicide bomber is
another man's Islamic freedom fighter, yearning to cast off the yoke of
Jewish-American imperialism. In this disturbed world-view, the failed
cultural phenemona which is Islam, does not of course represent Muslim
society. Just as Hillary's makeup cannot hide what is underneath, so Islam
cannot hide its ideological construct - or the fact that it never had a
'golden age' of modernity and certainly not one that Islam itself created.

The only part Islam had to play in helping establish modernity was as a
trading zone stretching from Morocco to the borders of China. Trade with
Europe and the Far East was vital to allow the creation of wealth and the
flow of products across vast distances. Information travels with trade and
the main benefit to modernity from the various Arab, Turkish and Muslim
confederacies and satrapies which dominated the Islamic world for 1300 years
was in the exchange of ideas and specie. Beyond that in any other realm be
it in medicine, the arts, sciences, math, philosophy, economy or politics,
Islam has invented nothing of value.

Yet don't tell the sophisticates such a fact, they will scream, yell, call
you names, and imitate Tom Cruise.

The oft-repeated lie - that Islam was a vital part of creating the modern
world - is ridiculous. Islam's modern poverty in all matters secular and
ecclesiastical has been apparent since the beginning of Arab imperialism.
Arab culture created and spread Islamic doctrine. The Koran is the uber-tool
of Arab imperialism. Is it not curious that Muslims must chant in Arabic
when 80% don't speak the language? If that is not a bizarre form of
imperialism than what is it? [or do you really beleive that the moon cult
deity spoke a minor language to an illiterate pagan Arab circa 615 A.D.?].

Islamic apologists including respected academics like Bernard Lewis who is
portrayed as a crank and critic of Islam, always trot out the 'golden age'
of Islamic brilliance between 900 A.D. and 1100 A.D. when Europe was in the
'dark' ages and European civilisation apparently lagged so far behind that
of the conquering Arabs and Muslims. In this bizarre view, only the
Arab-Muslim world was rich, wealthy, educated and on the path to 'inventing'
modern medicine [wrong] and implementing the creation of the zero [a Hindu
invention], as well engaging in rapturous and learned enterprises of
literature, philosophy, astronomy, and resurrecting ancient Greek texts of
all varieties on all subjects.

It sounds so romantic and just - handsome bedouins in flowing robes with
papyrus texts earnestly discussing Aristotle over mocha coffee in a Baghdad
madrassa. Honest, caring Muslims, so accepting of all cultures, religions
and ideas, intent on furthering the powers of civilisation. Peaceful Arabs
striving to create modern science, modern economy, modern politics and the
theorems that underpin the modern world. How sweet and how ridiculous.

Islam was created by the Arabs as a tool of imperialism. The Arabs conquered
the Near East, North Africa, parts of Europe, the Sudan, southern Russia,
Persia, and parts of India and beyond. The Arabs by design and luck
conquered far richer empires and this wealth allowed the Muslim empire to
survive and thrive. It was not something that the Arabs invented or did that
made Islam wealthy. It was what they took that made them rich.

Byzantium, weakend by constant wars with Persia and 'barbarians' to the
north, was the richest and most cosmopolitan center of civilisation in the
world when the Arabs quickly defeated the weakened and poorly led state.
Though the city of Constantinople held out until 1453, the richest areas of
the Eastern Roman empire inexorably fell to the Arabs - including all the
loot, assets and trade of the key region straddling modern day Anatolia,
Lebanon, Syria and northern Iraq. Once shorn of its rich provinces the end
for Byzantium was a matter of time and only staved off through great
tenacity, military prowess and invention [including the use of Greek fire, a
pre-modern flame thrower], and control over the Black sea trade routes.

The same is true of Persia, a much more advanced civilisation than anything
the Arabs could imagine and a main conduit of east-west trade and commerce.
Vast irrigation, canal works, engineering feats and imposing cities with
running water dominated the Zoroastrian-Farsi culture. For 1500 years the
Persians had believed in the preachings of Zoroaster a man with similar
views to that of Christ, until the Arabs forcibly converted - on pain of
death or higher taxes - the Farsi elite to Islam. It must have been bitter
indeed for the Persians, once the conquerors of the Arabs and the world's
super-power, to submit to Islamic imperialism.

The Jewish and Christian states were likewise far more civilised and modern
than anything that the Arabs had ever seen. Straddling key trade routes
these states showing precocious urban and engineering development, but were
however, quite weak militarily and easy conquests for the Arabs. As with
Persia, Jewish-Christian wealth flowed to the new Arab leadership and the
Jews and Christians were either killed, taxed or deported [with their assets
stolen by Arabs]. In any event by 900 A.D. the richest areas of the Near
East and North Africa were in Arab hands. Such was the basis of the 'Islamic
Golden Age'. In modern parlance we call it 'squatting'.

The Islamic and Muslim empire was of course hardly monolithic. It stretched
across a wide area of the world. Arabs, Turks, Persians and others took
leadership turns or established regional empires or sub-empires. Yet just
because these states squatted on, and took advantage of pre-existing trade
routes, urban centers, engineering development, and all manners of learning,
does not make them 'enlightened' or advanced. Once the Arabs and their
successors took over these lands what happened? What was developed and
improved? What was invented? These are the key questions which are never
answered.

The short answer is not much. Science in the Muslim 'Golden Age', was
premised only on translated texts of ancient Greek thinkers - translated it
should be said by Nestorian Christians and Jews. No independent empirical
deduction existed in Islam. Francis Bacon I and others, during the supposed
'Dark Ages' of Europe, invented the scientific method. No improvement was
thus made on the ideas and 'laws' of the ancient Greeks. Pythagoras, Euclid,
Archimedes and others who existed 1300 years before the Golden Age of Islam,
were i do recall, Greek mathematicians and experimenters.

The Muslims were inferior to the Greeks in geometry, calculus, the basic
sciences, engineering [the Greeks were building domes and advanced arches
that the Arabs could never replicate], philosophy, history [see Herodotus],
and agriculture. They were also inferior to the Hindus in algebra where the
zero became a revolutionary and entirely Hindu creation. As well the Muslims
were far less advanced less the Zoraostrian Persians in matters of urban and
irrigation technology including the building of canals, irrigation systems
and even roads.

So in essence what was this mythical Muslim golden age? It appears likely
that the main Muslim commitment to helping develop the modern world was
three-fold. First they incorporated the learning, techniques and advances of
the more sophisticated empires which they conquered. This amalgam of various
influences can been seen in the development of Islamic society over the
period 800-1400 A.D. Second, they helped spread knowledge, abetted by the
Greek and Jewish translations of once forgotten Greek inventions and ideas.
Lastly, they provided the means of trade between east and west which
facilitated the exchange of everything from products to new military
technology.

This then is about the sum of the Arabic-Islamic 'Golden Age'. One should
also note this. The 'Dark Ages' in Europe were in reality not that dark.
They are called the dark ages because of the lack of information and
description about society at that time. Yet inventions aplenty populated
Europe during the rise of the Islamic empire. Agricultural techniques,
harnasses, new military technologies, medicine, urbanisation, the building
of roads and canals, all this and more dominated the so-called 'Middle
Ages'.

The Europeans took a thickly forested, difficult and rough land and turned
it, over a painfully long period, into the center of world civilisation.
They were also able to equip and send out vast expeditions of men to the
Holy Land, in a series of crusades designed to reclaim historical
Christendom from the Turk, as well as roll back the Islamic invasion of
Europe. Such a feat of logistics resulting in a 100 year occupation of the
Holy Land would not characterise a poor and muddled civilisation. The
Europeans learnt a lot from the Crusades about commerce, trade, building and
military techniques. The Muslims, never interested in kaffirs, learnt a lot
less. The decline of Islam was thus assured.

The Muslims and Arabs never advanced civilisation. They were content to
squat and let the 'dhimmis' in their midst engage in building modern
commerce; conduct inquiries and invent and create. The Koran as tool of
power might be effective in making people submit and stay submissive. It is
a tool of fascist-pagan oppression, designed to keep the masses ignorant and
the wealthy powerful. Melding church and state, not allowing inquiry or risk
[for instance disallowing biopsy or commercial interest], disavowing
individuality, not creating institutions of law, politics and free
expression - these defects and more reflect the anti-modern program of Arab
imperialism.

Since these factors were in play 1000 years ago, how could there ever have
been a Muslim 'Golden Age'? How does one explain this beautiful time of 300
million dead, due to racist and supremacist ideals? Even the divided and far
less populated Christian states of Europe, never united against Islam, and
in fact at times allied with it in their various internal wars, were in the
case of France, England or Northern Italy more than a match for the entire
Islamic world by 1300 A.D. Why was this?

The reasons should be obvious. Never forget that Islam was spread by the
sword. Conversions were forced, or taken by people to avoid the dhimmi
[apartheid] tax and social repercussions and oppression of being a 'kaffir'
[Arab word originally denoting a black slave]. In this vein Islam for many
centuries was concerned with power and with military force. The men involved
were originally pagan, and much preoccuped with original lusts - money,
land, and women. Higher culture was an afterthought. Creating the modern
world was a non-issue since the Koran ruled.

Islam is the ultimate pagan cult. Submission, rituals, chanting, and
non-thinking obedience, encased in an apartheid society, is the ultimate
goal of Islam.

There was no 'Golden Age' of Islam. If you think there was, then try this
exercise - list all the Islamic inventions that created the modern world.
The paper will be blank.

 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



--------------------------
Want to discuss this topic?  Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL 
PROTECTED]
--------------------------
Brooks Isoldi, editor
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

http://www.intellnet.org

  Post message: [email protected]
  Subscribe:    [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Unsubscribe:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]


*** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has 
not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of 
The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT 
YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the 
included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of 
intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, 
techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other 
intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes 
only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material 
as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use 
this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' 
you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
    mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Reply via email to