Jump to content
Islamic Forum
Sign in to follow this  
StarLight

Junk History

Recommended Posts

:D

 

"Junk History"

 

By Mark Glenn - June 21, 2003

 

Next to "junk science," which claims that the earth is warming to the point that we will all be burned to a crisp within just a few years, the one thing that I hate most about the age in which we live, an age that renders little to no critical thinking as pertains important issues, is the area of "junk history." There are, more so today than at any other time I think, a few things that invariably pop up in discussions that demonstrate how easy it is to sway a society's thinking on a given topic with just a few well placed and misleading items repeated over and over again.

 

As someone who taught history for many years, I cannot describe how irritating it is to hear that Abraham Lincoln fought the "American Civil War" in order to free the slaves, that FDR saved this country from the Great Depression, that the first amendment to the US Constitution guarantees the right to publish pornography, and that "assault weapons" have been the greatest source of crime and violence in the US during the last century. And yet, it is easy to see how well-intentioned people, who have not yet grasped the extent to which they have surrendered to media and government types the ability to think for themselves, can buy into these notions. They are packaged very cleverly, with bits and pieces of information that are verifiably true. And let's not forget to consider those mouthpieces doing the convincing-very impressive. All kinds of advanced degrees from this school or another, a book tour, a radio or tv show, you name it.

 

Although a little late in the debate, nothing exemplifies the topic of junk history better than the made-for-mass consumption notions concerning Islam and its relationship to the "Judeo-Christian West", and the fact that since September 11, we in the US have been treated to a daily dose of propaganda surrounding this topic that has obviously led to momentous policies, in particular, the perpetual war in the Middle East.

 

From the beginning that "they," the architects and authors of this junk history, decided that the Muslims were going to take the fall for the events on that day, (justly or not) we have been served a buffet of lies surrounding the religion of Islam and its history with the West. Not just out of government mouthpieces, but virtually the entire "conservative" talk show parade as well as almost every big-name Christian evangelist. Their message has been common and crude: The religion of Islam teaches hatred for all other faiths, most notably the Christian and Judaic. They point to history as proof of this, citing the "fury" with which the Muslims swept across the Mediterranean lands, forcing the conversion of Christians and Jews at the point of a sword. And now, these sirens maintain, they are attempting it again.

 

This is a theme over which I am constantly battling with the peoples in my circle. For the purposes of posterity I must reveal here that I am not a Muslim, but a conservative Catholic. By a conservative Catholic, I hold to the notion that there is only one faith, and therefore one would assume that it would be in my interest, given these leanings, to jump on that same religion bashing bandwagon that many of my co-religionists have. The problem is that it would be a lie for me to maintain such a notion, as much as it would be a lie for me to maintain that it is illegal to possess a bible in public school, due to the restraints placed on religion by the first amendment, a notion, like those presently spewed against Islam, that has been illicitly conceived and perpetrated for the purposes of misinforming the public in pursuit of another agenda.

 

According to the readings I have done, (and I have done more than a few) the facts concerning the Muslims are these.

 

1 Within the religion of Islam, Christians and Jews are not considered "infidels" as we have been led to believe. In fact, a cursory study of the Quran will reveal that Christians and Jews are referred to as "peoples of the book," since we are all monotheistic and trace our roots back to Abraham. The term "infidels" is reserved for pagans, or those who do not believe in the One God.

 

2. Christians and Muslims were not "converted by the sword" as is commonly taught and believed. Christians and Jews were allowed to keep and practice their religion within those areas where the Muslims had gained hegemony. Indeed, it was in the interest of the various Muslim leaders and other secular authorities to keep it this way, since non-Muslims were taxed at a higher rate than Muslims. Obvious proof of this tolerance exists today in the fact that in many Islamic countries, including Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Turkey, and Lebanon, there are millions of Christians, and who knows how many churches.

 

3. The conquest of Islam was not a conquest of religion, but, rather, was done in the same vein as many of the Crusades, i.e., a conquest initiated for the acquisition of territory and political power. In fact, many of the Arabs that fought within the Muslim armies in these wars of conquest were Christians and Jews.

 

4. The conquest of lands that had been Christian was not the blood-soaked struggle it has been taught to have been. Due to dynastic infighting within the Christian lands over who would rule, as well as problems involving the incompetence, high taxes and corruption within many of the Christian governments, the Christian subjects themselves many times welcomed the Muslim invaders who promised them lower and fairer taxes, more efficiency, and more stability.

 

5. Those particular passages of the Quran that deal negatively with the Christian religion deal specifically with the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. It is due to the complete devotion to monotheism that the Muslims view the idea of 3 persons to be contradictory and unacceptable.

 

These items are not difficult to find. Get yourself a history book on the subject, and irrespective of the religious affiliation of the writer, (excepting those authors with the last names of Falwell, Swaggert, Graham, Wolfowitz, Perle, Limbaugh, Savage, or Sharon) the information will be about the same.

 

There are other items for my Christian friends to consider here as well.

 

-In many Muslim countries, it is illegal to profane the name of Jesus or of his Blessed Mother. Further, one should consider that in several countries within the Christian West, movies made depicting Jesus in a blasphemous way have been shut down because of the public outrage exhibited by, not the Christians, but the Muslims.

 

-The Muslims believe in the Virgin Conception of Christ and venerate his Blessed Mother more so than do most Christians, particularly those of the Protestant faiths.

 

-The Muslims believe in the miracles of Christ, including his raising of the dead, healing the sick and blind, and that he was the greatest of all Prophets.

 

-Mohammed, the founder of Islam, considered Christians to be the greatest of friends to the Muslims, for in his words, the Christians were "free from pride, and had priests and monks among them."

 

There is enough evidence lying around that even the most barely educated among us should be able to see that this "Islamic hatred of everyone not Islamic" is a sham. The mouthpieces who claim this fail to consider (or reveal) many glaringly obvious pieces of evidence. They would like us to believe that there is something organic about Islam that makes it seek to dominate the "Judeo-Christian" West. So let's just do a short run of some evidence that reveals this as a fallacy.

 

Firstly, there hasn't been a war between the Muslims and the West for many centuries. Even more importantly, since it was in the US that the attacks of 9/11 happened, consider this: From 1776 until September 11, 2001, there were roughly 10 major wars that involved the US and a foreign power: The American War for Independence, The Quasi War, The War of 1812, The Mexican War, The Spanish American War, WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, and the Gulf War.

 

Based on this short list, it looks to me like we were fighting Christian nations, (excepting Iraq, whom we attacked first,) and that we weren't attacked by the Muslims once. True, there was this issue with pirates from Libya attacking American ships after 1776, but it was an issue of piracy, and not an attempt to forcibly convert the nascent American nation to the religion of Mohammed.

 

Many would say to these things, "So what? The war is over now, what good does it do us to hash over all this now?" To which I would say

 

1. You're a fool if you think that it is all over. It is just beginning, and

 

2. Even if it were all over, your reluctance to learn the truth, truth that would have prevented you and the rest of this nation from being conned by a bunch of propagandists is nothing more than an attempt to hide your willful ignorance, as well as an attempt to pretend that you had nothing to do with the prosecution of an illegal and imperialist war that has wrecked the lives of millions of people today, as well as millions more tomorrow.

 

So why do we hash over all this now?

 

Because what people believe leads to policies being enacted, and when people believe lies, as in the case of junk history, disastrous consequences can occur. The fact that we have attacked another nation that has not attacked us, destroyed its government and infrastructure, laid waste to its institutions, caused incalculable suffering to innocent men, women, and children, and that one of the pretenses offered in justifying this action was this non-existent war between Islam and the Christian West that began in the 7th century and has gone on ever since should indicate to everyone involved that there is great danger to be found in believing junk history, although, in this case, it would be better to categorize the current propaganda not as junk history, but rather as just plain garbage.

 

My advice to fellow Christians in the US would be this: Turn off Peter Jennings, Falwell, Robertson, Limbaugh, and Hannity, get yourself a few decent history books, and try thinking for yourself for a change.

 

Mark Glenn, American and former high school teacher turned writer/commentator, is a frequent contributor to The March Media Resouces and other online independent media sources.

 

Wassalam!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds

:D

 

:D for the post, you're very right about this junk-history. I think the problem is that these people who clasp the other faiths with iron-fists realize the power of the message of Islam...and they are afraid.

 

Not afraid of the people who commit terror in the name of Islam, but afraid of the ramifications that Islam can have on the current socio-economic power structure.

 

I think that's why it's always "Muslim/Islamic/Islamist terrorists are suspected in (insert the most recent violent crime here)." This in addition to the junk history you discussed about.

 

It's ok though, people are going out and seeking the truth because they KNOW the media is lying to them. Insha'Allah we can practice the faith properly and guide these seekers to the proper sources of knowledge...the Quran & Sunnah.

 

:P

AS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peace.

 

Junk history is pretty prevailent in America, where most people never study history past High School and High School history courses and textbooks are specifically designed to foster nationalist pride. The result is an incoherent history that fails to recognise the flaws in American society, or to tell the truth about how some of those flaws came to be corrected. It leaves people both ignorant and unaware of the power ordinary people have to change the course of the world. It doesn't reveal to them the roots of current problems, or give them any clue as to how to solve them.

 

I would say that certain Islamic histories that are occassionally presented on IF are similarly junk. Presenting 'The Golden Age of Islam' as a perfect utopian period is politically expedient for Muslims and fosters Muslim pride, but it's not the truth and it does not help people to perfect their culture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greetings Kale,

 

I couldn't agree more with your first paragraph.

:P for the way you put it

:D for the people that won't change it

 

I don't know enough to fully agree with your second paragraph, but you're probably right...no perfect society has yet been reached on this planet. Else, it should have remained in tact.

 

To go on with your first paragraph, as far as:

most people never study history past High School and High School history courses

I think you're absolutely right. Educated people, in general, would be a threat to the current power structure...not to mention the fairness of widespread Islam in particular.

 

For these reasons, I believe, the popular-american-television-media keeps people too distracted with the pursuit of worldly posessions and events to educate themselves; and the anti-islamic-terrorism propaganda has the goal of keeping people from desiring to learn about Islam.

 

It's not working :D

 

Peace,

AS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peace, Allah's Slave.

 

You're very right. The powers that be don't want people educated, or empowered, or thoughtful, or active in shaping society. They want people to buy what they're selling. Populations of people are no longer peoples. They're markets. You and I, we are no longer citizens. We're consumers. It's totally ugly, and terribly bad for humankind as a whole.

 

If you haven't read a book called Lies My Teacher Told Me by James W. Loewen, check it out. It's a course in American History in itself, and a good one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peace,

 

I don't know which schools you guys went to but I was taught that Lincoln freed the slaves with the Emancipation Proclamation, but for political reasons. I was never taught that FDR freed us from the Great Depression. I don't remember anything about assault weapons being taught in school. I was never taught that Muslims forced their religion on anyone.

 

I was taught many examples of how people could change what they thought was wrong.

 

I was constantly taught the flaws of Americans throughout its history. I was taught them so as to be able to recognize and avoid them in the future.

 

I don't know what schools you went to, but I guess you should have gone to the public schools that I did.

 

This isn't some big conspiracy. It's the relative ignorance of many of the people who teach history. This ignorance exists all over the world. In all corners of the globe civilizations concentrate on the golden era of their culture. The smart ones are also taught their flaws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Sulemaan

Assalaamalaikum,

 

That was a very good post indeed, Starlight. Jazakallah Khairan!

 

I would say that certain Islamic histories that are occassionally presented on IF are similarly junk. Presenting 'The Golden Age of Islam' as a perfect utopian period is politically expedient for Muslims and fosters Muslim pride, but it's not the truth and it does not help people to perfect their culture.

 

Could you give an example of this on IF, Kale? I would very much appreciate it and seek to correct if I find the wrong.

Edited by Sulemaan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peace.

 

Hi, Sulemaan.

 

Oh, that controversial conversation between marantha and kadafi on an old thread here, I think it was 'how did Islam spread' is a fine example. It comes up fairly often. It's not generally overt.

 

Hi, Livius.

 

You either had great teachers or are unaware of how much you weren't told. Check out the book I mentioned. It's an easy and interesting read. I'm afraid I don't actually recollect anything I was taught in High School history classes. I've read too much history since then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Sulemaan
Peace.

 

Hi, Sulemaan.

 

Oh, that controversial conversation between marantha and kadafi on an old thread here, I think it was 'how did Islam spread' is a fine example. It comes up fairly often. It's not generally overt.

 

 

Assalaamalaikum,

 

Kale, Kadafi is the last person you can accuse of spreading Junk History. I went through that thread and the reason why I didnt' contribute was because Kadafi was there, and he happens to be far more knowledgable and resourceful in this regard than any person on this forum.

 

All his posts contain historical references, and not just 'some' but many well-known historians from both sides of the world.

 

In fact in that thread, it was your post which was apparently spreading misinformation. And you also failed to provide your references. Kadafi presented an overwhelming evidence contrary to your post.

 

I can understand our different perspective on history because our different sources. However, a brother like Kadafi presents his argument from sources that are widely acknowledged as authentic. Again, in that thread, it is mostly non-Muslim making unsubstantiated claims or emotional rantings. Sorry, but the more I read Kadafi's posts in that thread the more clearer it is to me that far from Junk History it was he who was trying to establish true facts of history with quotes and excerpts from major historical sources.

 

Regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peace,

 

Sulemaan, while not junk history it is selective and the "Golden Age" is presented as a Utopian.

 

You either had great teachers or are unaware of how much you weren't told. Check out the book I mentioned. It's an easy and interesting read. I'm afraid I don't actually recollect anything I was taught in High School history classes. I've read too much history since then.

 

Kale, I actually have the book you mentioned and have read it. In junior and high school there is, of course, much more that students aren't told than they are told. The same with any subject. No matter what the teachers concentrate on, and how good they are, there is just too much history to teach all of it in the time allowed. One must continue to read and learn outside of school to get a bigger picture. Even the most learned man in the world knows only a fraction of history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peace,

 

Sulemaan,  while not junk history it is selective and the "Golden Age" is presented as a Utopian.

Kale, I actually have the book you mentioned and have read it.  In junior and high school there is, of course, much more that students aren't told than they are told.  The same with any subject.  No matter what the teachers concentrate on, and how good they are, there is just too much history to teach all of it in the time allowed.  One must continue to read and learn outside of school to get a bigger picture.  Even the most learned man in the world knows only a fraction of history.

 

 

Asalamu'alaikum Livius,

 

I must say, friend, that what you offer here is wisdom. The vast scope of written history is beyond any one man and any one man will gravitate to that which pleases him most and at such time he reveals his own folly in clinging to the bias of others and of himself.

 

Wasalaam,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greetings Kale,

 

Peace, Allah's Slave.

 

You're very right. The powers that be don't want people educated, or empowered, or thoughtful, or active in shaping society. They want people to buy what they're selling. Populations of people are no longer peoples. They're markets. You and I, we are no longer citizens. We're consumers. It's totally ugly, and terribly bad for humankind as a whole.

 

If you haven't read a book called Lies My Teacher Told Me by James W. Loewen, check it out. It's a course in American History in itself, and a good one.

 

I usually don't quote whole posts but I was so pleased with this one that I figure everyone on this board deserves a chance to read it 2wice :D

 

What you said about people being markets, we can thank capitalism for that. Notice how the enemy of our [American] system of civilization is always the people with an ideology that threatens capitalism.

 

Che Guevara is one example, a better example would be the system for re-distribution of wealth in Islamic Sharia. I don't think the rich and powerful could cope with giving their money to help the less fortunate. Particularly because they know that if everyone helped the less fortunate, there would eventually be no ruling-elite...from a financial standpoint anyway.

 

I will put that book on my bookstore wish-list, thanks!

 

Peace,

AS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peace.

 

Sulemaan, Kadafi's posts were not lies. Not that I want to get into an argument about this again, but. They did present the Golden Age as Utopian. They failed to address evidence contrary to a thesis of benign conquest. Anybody who wants to can go out and read Ibn Kaldun talking about how Islam must be spread around the world by coercion or by force, anybody who wants to can read the accounts of the Muslims who actually fought in those battles 'for liberation' and see that their motives were not so very very pure. Kadafi wasn't presenting bad 'facts' or falsehoods. He just wasn't presenting the whole story. Disingenious history is junk.

 

As for my posts, I checked up and found that this 'Pact of Umar' thing is generally agreed to be a forgery, but there are more reliable historical records providing examples of things similar or the same. Was this the misinformation I was spreading? I am sorry, I cannot cite references to everything I say. Eventually, I have to take books back to the public library. Nobody ever seems very happy when I start with the page numbers anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:D

 

"Junk History"

 

By Mark Glenn - June 21, 2003

 

Next to "junk science," which claims that the earth is warming to the point that we will all be burned to a crisp within just a few years, the one thing that I hate most about the age in which we live, an age that renders little to no critical thinking as pertains important issues, is the area of "junk history."

[...]

As someone who taught history for many years, I cannot describe how irritating it is to hear that Abraham Lincoln fought the "American Civil War" in order to free the slaves, that FDR saved this country from the Great Depression, that the first amendment to the US Constitution guarantees the right to publish pornography, and that "assault weapons" have been the greatest source of crime and violence in the US during the last century. According to the readings I have done, (and I have done more than a few) the facts concerning the Muslims are these.

 

1 Within the religion of Islam, Christians and Jews are not considered "infidels" as we have been led to believe. In fact, a cursory study of the Quran will reveal that Christians and Jews are referred to as "peoples of the book," since we are all monotheistic and trace our roots back to Abraham. The term "infidels" is reserved for pagans, or those who do not believe in the One God.

 

2. Christians and Muslims were not "converted by the sword" as is commonly taught and believed. Christians and Jews were allowed to keep and practice their religion within those areas where the Muslims had gained hegemony.

What you say is true, but not particularly relevant. I wish it were. Because the people with the least amount of knowledge of history are the Muslims that are causing the trouble. You know, the people who perpetrated 9/11.

 

When the Wahabbist fanatics rampaged through Saudi Arabia asking "Are you a Christian" and beheading those who answered in the affirmative, I doubt that they were particularly interested in conversion, by the sword or otherwise. What they did that day was no more Islamic than the Sack of Magdeburg was an example of true Christian belief.

 

Today, on other parts of this forum, you're more likely to have this quoted at you:

 

5:51

O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.

 

rather than this:

 

2:62

Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve.

 

or even this:

 

5:82

Certainly you will find the most violent of people in enmity for those who believe (to be) the Jews and those who are polytheists, and you will certainly find the nearest in friendship to those who believe (to be) those who say: We are Christians; this is because there are priests and monks among them and because they do not behave proudly.

 

As for the Dhimmi Christian minorities in various Islamic lands, just go there and ask about what happened to the Jews - also "peoples of the book". Or go to Aceh province in Indonesia, and look at the Christian villages that have been devastated. Or go to Nigeria, where the northern provincial government has recently decreed that all Churches be raised.

 

None of this is according to anything in the Koran. It is, howver, in accordance with many of the Hadiths. There is a lot more to Islam than just the Koran, just as there is a lot more to Catholic Theology than what is in the Bible. And there is more disputation about which Hadiths are "authentic" than you'll find between the various doctrinal disputes between Copts, Marionites, Waldenses, Othodox (Serbian), Orthodox (Greek), Orthodox(Russian), Lutherans, Catholics, Calvinists, Congregationalists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Anglicans, and so on.

 

The point is that it's the Muslim equivalent of Calvin and Zwingli that have the money and the guns. Islam is undergoing its own attempted radical Reformation by the Wahhabi sect, and unless we can have some contact and conversation with the great bulk of Islam, we're in for a replay of the 30 years war.

 

And just as Calvin had influence a long distance from Geneva, and amongst both governments and popular opinion that were not Calvinist but were receptive to radical purification and reform, so the Wahabbi and Taliban have had a great deal of influence a long way from Afghanistan and Saudi. Just as there were many good, just and righteous individuals whose very Godliness made them fanatically anti-Catholic, you'll find righteous individuals on this forum who are convinced Taliban supporters who see the West as Evil Incarnate. Occidens Delenda Esse.

 

At one time, the Caliphate was the most economically and morally advanced, the most tolerant, and the most scientific of the world's civilisations. Given the competition, that's not saying much, and it was far less perfect than some writers have made it out to be. But you have to judge it by the relative standards of the time as well as an objective standard. By the former, it was exemplary, by the latter, no worse than many regimes today, and far better than some. About the same as the Sultanate of Muscat and Oman?

 

But the West has advanced a bit beyond the standards of the third Crusade. And, for that matter, the 30 years war. We've eliminated the scourge of National Socialism that attempted to put back the clock. But the Muslim world has not. We should no more tar them all with the same brush than "the West" should be associated with Nazism. But neither should we ignore the growing canker in their midst, one which is growing with the help of many well-meaning and God-fearing Muslims. Just as in 1938 there were many in the West who thought that Mussolini made the trains run on time, Hitler was a great leader, and Stalin was the Greatest Man in History, and so gave them covert or overt support.

 

Still, it never hurts to learn a little history - we should at least be original in our mistakes. And, as you say, much of what is popularly believed is Junk. (how many Americans realise Lincoln freed the slaves all right - but only in the Confederacy, not the ones in the Union?) You just have to realise that the current situation is more like Europe circa 1630 than the Ayyubids, Fatamids, Abbasids, Seljuks or Ottomans. IMHO.

 

Regards, Alan E Brain, Canberra, Australia (Systems Engineer and sometime Military Historian)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sulemaan, Kadafi's posts were not lies. Not that I want to get into an argument about this again, but. They did present the Golden Age as Utopian. They failed to address evidence contrary to a thesis of benign conquest. Anybody who wants to can go out and read Ibn Kaldun talking about how Islam must be spread around the world by coercion or by force, anybody who wants to can read the accounts of the Muslims who actually fought in those battles 'for liberation' and see that their motives were not so very very pure. Kadafi wasn't presenting bad 'facts' or falsehoods. He just wasn't presenting the whole story. Disingenious history is junk.

 

Peace,

 

I have cited numerous fragments from the most esteemed historians. One that comes to mind is Gibbon, who is recognized as the greatest historian. He wrote concerning the expansion of Islam:

 

one of the most memorable revolutions which has impressed a new and lasting character on the nations of the globe

 

Historians are baffled how Islam spread so fast and yet didn't force the inhabitants of the conquered lands to convert to Islam. But the most prominent historians unanimously agree that Islam never forced the people to convert as Allah SWT said in the Holy Qu'ran:

"Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from error". We're here talking about the early Muslim Ummah and how pious leaders they had such as Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali, Saladin etc.

 

There is not even one single event recorded in history that Muslims used coercion, and it's only repeated by the orientalist Islamophobics (enemies of Islam).

 

Huston Smith who is one of the most respected and beloved authorities on world religions wrote in "The Religions of Man":

...and the Near East, Christians, Jews, and Hindus lived quietly and in freedom under Muslim rule. Even under the worst caliphs, Christians and Jews held positions of influence and in general retained their religious freedom.

 

If the Caliphs really used coercion as the early medieval Christians did, then they would have atleast wiped out Christanity as easily as what happend to Islam during the reign of Ferdinand and Isabella in Al-Andalus.

 

Let's use some logical reasonin'. The Christians and the Jews and any other minorities fled to the Islamic Empire when they were persecuted by the Church to seek justice. Now why on earth would they jeopardize their lives in order to seek justice by the "merciless" Muslims who use the forced conversion method in order to gain adherents. Not only does history state the contrary but it goes against one of the main teachings in Islam. This is observed by a Non-Muslim author Ira Zepp Jr who wrote "A Muslim Primer":

It is unfortunate that Islam has been stereotyped as the 'religion of the sword' or that Islam was 'spread by the sword.' The historical reality is that the expansion of Islam was usually by persuasion and not by military power. In any case, Islam cannot be forced on anyone; if profession of the shahadah [i.e. the declaration of Islam] is forced on someone, it is not true Islam.

 

As the famous historian Thomas Arnold wrote in "the Spread of Islam in the World":

We have never heard about any attempt to compel non-Muslim parties to adopt Islam or about any organized persecution aiming at exterminating Christianity.

 

As Washington W. Irving wrote in "Tales of the Alhambra":

As conquerors [Muslims], their heroism was equaled only by their moderation, and in both, for a time, they excelled the nations with whom they contended. Severed from their native homes, they loved the land given them as they supposed by Allah and strove to embellish it with everything that could administer to the happiness of man. Laying the foundations of their power in a system of wise and equitable laws, diligently cultivating the arts and sciences, and promoting agriculture, manufactures and commerce, they gradually formed an empire unrivaled for its prosperity by any of the empires of Christendom . . . The cities of Muslim Spain became the resort of Christian artisans, to instruct themselves in the useful art. The Universities of Toledo, Cordova, Seville, Granada, were sought by the pale student from lands to acquaint himself with the sciences of the Arabs and the treasure lore of antiquity.

 

Let me close with the famous quote of the noted historian Thomas Carlyle who pretty sums it up and simultaneously abolishes the misconception:

The sword indeed, but where will you get your sword? Every new opinion, at its starting is precisely in a minority of one. In one man's head alone. There it dwells as yet. One man alone of the whole world believes it, there is one man against all men. That he takes a sword and tries to propagate with that, will do little for him. You must get your sword! On a whole, a thing will propagate itself as it can.

 

 

 

aebrain wrote:

5:51

O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.

 

rather than this:

 

2:62

Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve.

 

Instead of quoting translated text that bears many inconsistencies, let's look at the original source and the tafsir (interpretation)

 

The original Arabic text, the verse directs that the Muslims should not take the Jews and the Christians as awliyaa which stands for "leaders". This is again one of the many mistranslated mistakes in the translation of the Qu'ran. The original meaning of the verse is a political advice to the Muslims not to take non-Muslims as leaders, guides, or descision makers, which is actually wise and logical enough. Which nation, whether Muslim or Non-Muslim has ever offered its leadership to strangers?

 

As for the second verse, Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid from Islam-qa perfectly explains it in simple terms:

What you refer to in your question is mentioned in two similar aayaat in the Qur’aan. The first of them is the aayah (interpretation of the meaning): “Verily, those who believe and those who are Jews and Christians, and Sabians, whoever believes in Allaah and the Last Day and do righteous good deeds shall have their reward with their Lord, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.� [al-Baqarah 2:62]

 

The second is the aayah (interpretation of the meaning): “Surely, those who believe, those who are the Jews and the Sabians and the Christians – whosoever believed in Allaah and the Last Day, and worked righteousness, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.� [al-Maa’idah 5:69]

 

In order to understand these aayaat correctly, we need to refer to the scholars of Tafseer (Qur’aanic commentary). The great Imaam Ismaa’eel ibn Katheer, may Allaah have mercy on him, said in his tafseer of the aayah from Soorat al-Baqarah:

 

“Allaah, may He be exalted, points out that whoever of the previous nations did well and was obedient, will have a good reward, and this will be the case for everyone who follows the Unlettered Prophet [Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) until the Hour comes – he will have eternal happiness, and they will not fear what they are going to face, nor will they grieve for what they have left behind. As Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): ‘No doubt! Verily, the awliya’ of Allaah [i.e., those who believe in the Oneness of Allaah and fear Allaah much, and love Allaah much], no fear shall come upon them nor shall they grieve.’ [Yoonus 10:62]. And Allaah tells us what the angels say to the believers at the time of death (interpretation of the meaning): ‘Verily, those who say, “Our Lord is Allaah,� then they istaqaamu [stood straight, i.e., truly followed Islam], on them the angels will descend (at the time of their death) (saying): “Fear not, nor grieve! But receive the glad tidings of Paradise which you have been promised!�’ [Fussilat 41:30]

 

As far as the Jews are concerning, their faith meant believing in the Tawraat (original Torah) and following the way of Moosa (peace be upon him) until ‘Eesa came, after which whoever continued to follow the Torah and the way of Moosa, and did not leave this and follow ‘Eesa, was doomed. As far as the Christians are concerned, their faith meant believing in the Injeel (original Gospel) and following the laws of ‘Eesa; whoever did this was a believer whose faith was acceptable to Allaah, until Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) came, after which whoever did not follow Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and leave the way of ‘Eesa and the Injeel that he had been following before, was doomed.

 

The aayah (interpretation of the meaning), “And whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers� [Aal ‘Imraan 3:85] is a statement that Allaah will not accept any way or deed from anyone, after sending His Final Messenger, except those that are in accordance with the laws of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). Prior to this, however, anyone who followed the Prophet of his own time was on the Straight Path of salvation. So the Jews were those who followed Moosa (peace be upon him) and referred to the Tawraat for judgement at that time. When Allaah sent ‘Eesa (peace be upon him), the Children of israel were obliged to follow him and obey him, and so they and others who followed him became Christians.. When Allaah sent Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), as the Final Prophet and a Messenger to all the children of Adam, all of mankind was obliged to believe in him and obey him, and refrain from what he prohibited. Those who did so are the true believers. The ummah (nation) of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) are called the believers because of their deep eemaan (faith) and conviction, and because they believe in all the past Prophets and in the prophesied events that are yet to come.�

 

Commenting on the aayah in Soorat al-Baqarah, Ibn Katheer (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:

 

“What is meant is that every group believed in Allaah and the Last Day, which is the appointed Day of Reckoning, and did righteous deeds. But after Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) was sent to both mankind and the jinn, true belief can only be in accordance with the way of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). Whoever follows his way will not fear the future or grieve for what they leave behind.

 

Please do not try to interpretate the verses to merely to what you've perceived from the translated version of the Qu'ran, espcially since you haven't studied the basic tenets of Al-Islam.

 

None of this is according to anything in the Koran. It is, howver, in accordance with many of the Hadiths. There is a lot more to Islam than just the Koran, just as there is a lot more to Catholic Theology than what is in the Bible. And there is more disputation about which Hadiths are "authentic" than you'll find between the various doctrinal disputes between Copts, Marionites, Waldenses, Othodox (Serbian), Orthodox (Greek), Orthodox(Russian), Lutherans, Catholics, Calvinists, Congregationalists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Anglicans, and so on.

This is simply incorrect and and a gross assertion. Therefore, I want you to state the exact Hadith quotes without taking them out of context. There is not even ONE single Hadith that directs Muslims to force their beliefs on others.

 

As for the "disputed" authencity of the Hadith assertion. This again is simply incorrect and it demonstrate your lack knowledge concernin' the science of the Hadith.

 

Perhaps this link, who convers the simply basics, will broaden your knowledge regarding the compilation of Al-Hadith.

 

"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/scienceofhadith/atit.html"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/h...adith/atit.html[/url]

 

I'm not going to conver the indepth and comprehensive science of Al-Hadith, however, I will address one point. The isnad (i.e chain of narration) used for authenticating the integrity of the Qu'ran and the Hadith has never been used for the Bible. There is not even one decent isnad of the Bible going back to the time of Prophet Muhammad (P) let alone Prophet Jesus (P). We all know that Isnad is part of the religion as Abdullah b al-Mubarak , one of the teachers of Imam al-Bukhari, said:

The isnad is part of the religion: had it not been for the isnad, whoever wished to would have said whatever he liked

 

And, for that matter, the 30 years war. We've eliminated the scourge of National Socialism that attempted to put back the clock. But the Muslim world has not

 

What do you expect. The Islamic Empire never toke a advantage to conquer and massacre whole populations. This is evident when the Mongols literally massacred millions of Muslims, or the miedval Christians who not only massacred the Muslims but also burned the Jews. Additionaly, a bunch of attacks have been executed on the Muslim economy that set the Muslims back. It was never the intention for Muslims massacre inhabitants based on their faith, colour, or appearance. This is barbaric and since Muslims didn't use these methods, they had to face the conquences from the Crusaders and the barbaric Mongols for being tolerant.

 

Peace!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:D

 

Jazaka'Allah Khairun brother Suleyman for reconigzing that the history I cited is far from junk.

 

Unfortunaley, even to this day, people will reject the contribution made by the followers of Al-Islam and how they changed Europe, Africa and Asia.

 

Wa'salaam bro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peace.

 

I have cited numerous fragments from the most esteemed historians.

 

Yes. You have. However, if you say my dog bit your daughter and I show you and the court numerous photographs of my dog not biting anybody, this does not prove that my dog did not bite your daughter. At most, it proves that my dog does not bite everybody.

 

I never said that Islamic civilisation was a reprehensible biting dog. I have freely said that Islamic civilisation was the absolute best thing going during the Golden Age of Islam. I happily acknowledge the wonderful and stunningly rapid advancements made in that period. I'm likely to even go so far as to say that it was the greatest period human history has ever known, and well fit to beat the ancient Greeks and the European Rennaisance.

 

 

But the most prominent historians unanimously agree that Islam never forced the people to convert

 

Maybe Islam didn't, but Muslims did, on many occasions, and prominent historians agree on that. Possibly you have a much more specific definition of 'forced' than I. I would call the Ottoman's practice of devshirme force. This began in the 1390's and involved taking young Slavic Christian boys as slaves, converting them to Islam while they were still children, and training them for positions in the heirarchy of the government. And, as I have observed before, the treatment of non-Muslims was not truely equal. This would not precisely force people to convert, but it would certainly cooerce them to.

 

...and the Near East, Christians, Jews, and Hindus lived quietly and in freedom under Muslim rule. Even under the worst caliphs, Christians and Jews held positions of influence and in general retained their religious freedom.

 

Huston Smith's writing is so simplistic as to be useless except as a beginning volume, very basic. And yet even he has that troubling "in general" in there. In general, yes. Absolutely, as you claim, no.

 

If the Caliphs really used coercion as the early medieval Christians did, then they would have atleast wiped out Christanity as easily as what happend to Islam during the reign of Ferdinand and Isabella in Al-Andalus.

 

You're right, but it's beside the point. I think everyone will freely agree that the Caliphs were far better rulers than their Christian contemporaries. Not using coercion and violence as much as somebody next door does not mean that your actions are free of coercion and violence.

 

As the famous historian Thomas Arnold wrote in "the Spread of Islam in the World": We have never heard about any attempt to compel non-Muslim parties to adopt Islam or about any organized persecution aiming at exterminating Christianity.

 

As Washington W. Irving wrote...

 

I don't know much about Thomas Arnold, but I do know that he died in 1842. Washington Irving died in 1859. In 1828 Irving wrote a biography of Columbus which includes the first appearance of the lie that Columbus was a scientific genius who knew the Earth to be round when everyone else believed it to be flat. (The shape of the Earth has been common knowledge for thousands of years. If you look out to sea or over flat lands, you can see that the Earth is round. Ships' dissapear over the horizon hulls first, topsails last. Columbus knew it, but so did everybody else. The legend of Columbus as scientific innovator was something that Irving just made up.)

 

During the lifetimes of Thomas Arnold and Washington Irving, there was considerable affection for and romanticisation of Islamic culture among English speaking intelligencia. Probably this had to do with Ralph Waldo Emerson's obsession with Hafiz (Shams-ud-din Muhammad, 1320-1389) and his translations of the Persian poet's works, and the appearance of other Arabic and Middle-Eastern literature in English libraries.

 

Anyway. I have read none of these histories. I have read several much more recent ones, and many of them were written by Muslim historians. They tell a similar story of a glorious civilisation, far better than any of its time. But they also report its flaws.

 

Charles Valentine Riley (1843-1895) was the greatest entomologist of all time. He made fantastic advancements in the field. A modern graduate student in entomology knows everything Riley knew, and more.

 

Historians have similarly improved.

 

I am not saying that Islamic culture in the Golden Age wasn't great. It was great. I am not rejecting the contributions made. They were fantastic. Our world would be better today if the Golden Age had persisted. I have said that on this forum many times.

 

I am saying that it wasn't as perfect as you say it is. Claiming it was perfect invites people to seek to recreate its flaws. It prevents people from seeing the errors made by human beings throughout history. If people cannot see errors, they cannot correct them.

 

Islam's history is great enough. Muslims have every reason to feel proud of their history, even if they face the fact that the Golden Age wasn't a utopia. There is no need to ignore and deny the flaws and injustices that happened during that period. It is destructive to do so. To deny a need for improvement is to prevent improvement. History is not meant to make you feel good, or superior. It is meant to help humanity advance.

 

Peace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I never said that Islamic civilisation was a reprehensible biting dog. I have freely said that Islamic civilisation was the absolute best thing going during the Golden Age of Islam. I happily

 

acknowledge the wonderful and stunningly rapid advancements made in that period. I'm likely to even go so far as to say that it was the greatest period human history has ever known, and well fit

 

to beat the ancient Greeks and the European Rennaisance.

 

Dear Kale,

 

I'm happy that you concede the contributions that the Ancient Muslims made durin' age of ignorance (i.e Dark Ages) but I simply disagree that Muslims forced their belief on others. This is simply incorrect and no decent historian would regard that claim as factual. It's clearly said in the Qur'an and the Hadith that Muslims shouldn't compell non-muslims to adopt their beliefs. And we all are aware that these Muslims were also more faithfull when contrasting the current state of the Ummah.

 

Maybe Islam didn't, but Muslims did, on many occasions, and prominent historians agree on that. Possibly you have a much more specific definition of 'forced' than I. I would call the Ottoman's

 

practice of devshirme force. This began in the 1390's and involved taking young Slavic Christian boys as slaves, converting them to Islam while they were still children, and training them for positions in the heirarchy of the government. And, as I have observed before, the treatment of non-Muslims was not truely equal. This would not precisely force people to convert, but it would certainly

 

cooerce them to.

 

Could you cite any prominent historians apart from the bigoted orientalists?

 

The status of the janissaries been misunderstood and misrepresented by Orientalist historians for centuries. The exact same tactic is used to defame Islam and its adherents. The janissaries WERE NEVER forced to convert to Islam. They were encouraged but _never_ forced. The treatment of non-muslims equal like I stated in my previous posts backed with authentic evidence. The first janissaries were captives of war but later extended to children. These children in fact futureless and slaves. They were offered a chance to receive the highest education possible at that time ( no other than the janissaries received these types of educations). Some of them became vizirs while others went to the military education. They enjoyed high living standards, were exempted from taxes and earned a respected social status. Many of them became administrators and scholars. Retired and invalided janissaries even received pensions. The military ones even received pay. They even had the possibility to work as law-enforcers or as tradesmen in peaceful conditions.

 

Would you deny them these rights and let them continue live as slaves?

 

A good book to read (nonbiased) titled Muslim Military History: The Janissaries by David Nicolle (credible historian).

 

 

You're right, but it's beside the point. I think everyone will freely agree that the Caliphs were far better rulers than their Christian contemporaries. Not using coercion and violence as much as

 

somebody next door does not mean that your actions are free of coercion and violence.

 

Again my friend, you fail to present any evidence for these "forced conversion". Wouldn't it be wise and isn't the main essence of debatin' to present references?

 

During the lifetimes of Thomas Arnold and Washington Irving, there was considerable affection for and romanticisation of Islamic culture among English speaking intelligencia. Probably this had to do with Ralph Waldo Emerson's obsession with Hafiz (Shams-ud-din Muhammad, 1320-1389) and his translations of the Persian poet's works, and the appearance of other Arabic and Middle-Eastern literature in English libraries.

 

Quite the contrary. Edward Said, the Arab Christian author of the monumental work Orientalism states:

With regard to Islam and the Islamic territories, for example, Britain felt that it had legitimate interests, as a Christian power, to safeguard. A complex apparatus for tending these interests developed. Such early organizations as the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge (1698) and the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts (1701) were succeeded and later abetted by the Baptist Missionary Society (1792), the Church Missionary Society (1799), the British and Foreign Bible Society (1804), the London Society for Promoting Christianity Among the Jews (1808). These missions "openly" joined the expansion of Europe.

 

These orientalists started a campaign against their no1 enemy; Islam. For example, Sir William Muir was an active missionary and author of several books on Islam. Presumely, his work is nowadays perceived as being biased but yet are often used for receferences. Any individual who had studied the history of orientalism in Europe since the advent of Islam would affirm that most of their work was based on defaming and fabricating. Only a few fair-minded invidiuals such as the greatest historian Ed. Gibbon and Thomas Arnold would see through the bias and correct it.

 

Here, Edward Gibbon said in ‘History of the Saracen Empire':

It is not the propagation but the permanency of his religion that deserves our wonder, the same pure and perfect impression which he engraved at Mecca and Medina is preserved after the revolutions of twelve centuries by the Indian, the African and the Turkish proselytes of the Koran....The Mahometans have uniformly withstood the temptation of reducing the object of their faith and devotion to a level with the senses and imagination of man.

 

Perhaps this is the most quoted statement by De Lacy O’Leary but yet so true:

History makes it clear however, that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of the sword upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myth that historians have ever repeated.

 

 

I am saying that it wasn't as perfect as you say it is. Claiming it was perfect invites people to seek to recreate its flaws. It prevents people from seeing the errors made by human beings throughout history. If people cannot see errors, they cannot correct them.

 

When the Laws of God are implemented on earth, it automatically becomes a utopia. Islam showed the world that the laws are workable, that they are not mere utopia but a practicable code of life.

 

Like I stated in my previous threads (before the forum went down). There were a few despots like Mahmud of Ghazna or Muhammad bin Qasim (India) but they never forced the inhabitants to convert to Islam since they were spiritual dead (psuedo muslims).

 

Sir Alfred C. Lyall wrote in Asiatic Studies:

The military adventurers, who founded dynasties in Northern India and carved out kingdoms in the Dekhan, care little for things spiritual; most of them had indeed no time for proselytism...and to check the gathering of tribes into nations; but so far were they from converting India, that among the Mahommedans themselves their own faith never acquired an entire and exclusive monopoly of the high offices of administration.

 

Thomas Arnold writes regarding Bin Qasim who was spiritually dead:

That the conversion were in the main voluntary, may be judged from the toleration that the Muslims, after the first violence of their onslaught, showed towards their idolatrous subjects. The people of Brahmanabad, for example, whose city had been taken by storm, were allowed to repair their temple, which was a means of livelihood to the Brahmans, and nobody was to be forbidden or prevented from following his own religion, and generally, where submission was made, quarter was readily given, and the people were permitted the exercise of their own creeds and laws.

 

Even under the worst leaders, they attained the right to practise their religion freely.

 

The conclusion stands that no record has been recorded that Muslims forced their beliefs on other. That is a myth which is unfortunaley propagated by many Western thinkers. The prejudice and biasedness still exists 'till this day.

 

Peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Sulemaan

Hello Kale,

 

I don't agree with your dog bit daughter analogy (or is it paraphrasing?). However, to continue your analogy (even though I find it offensive) we are not challenging that the dog didn't bite your daughter, we are saying that the dog is the best dog in the neighborhood and we have sufficient proof of it. It may or may not have bit your daughter...perhaps your daughter was teasing it.

 

Charles Valentine Riley (1843-1895) was the greatest entomologist of all time. He made fantastic advancements in the field. A modern graduate student in entomology knows everything Riley knew, and more.

Here again, you err in comparing scientists to historians. Historians study the past, scientist study what is yet unknown. In science, the further ahead you are in time, the greater you know, while in history, the farther back you are in time, the closer you are to the facts.

 

Also note that for certain historical facts, modern historians have no other means but the older historians. Modern historians heavily rely on older historians. On the other hand, modern scientist have all the facts, and everyday the come up with new ways and methodology which obliterates older scientists.

 

Older historians had access to manuscripts that are now lost. Some of them have first or second hand accounts of historical facts. SOme even witnessed them. This is the advantage the older historians have. To match this, the modern historians have scientific means to research and study on a much larger scale. I'd say they are quite even, but in no way can you compare older scientist to modern ones. I think you are way off the mark in this comparison.

 

Regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peace, kadafi.

 

As I said, I think we differ in our definition of what is force. I am not claiming that Muslims came along and forced non-Muslims to choose between converting to Islam and death. This did not happen. The only reference I can find for it happening was very recently and regarded by Muslims and non-Muslims alike as a crime. The legend of Muslims sweeping across the world and converting people at swordpoint is indeed a lie and I never said it was true.

 

Yet again:

And, as I have observed before, the treatment of non-Muslims was not truely equal. This would not precisely force people to convert, but it would certainly cooerce them to.

 

I have sited time-periods and places. You can do the research. I read Islamic history for my pleasure and do not take notes on it. Nor am I keen to play trial-and-error games to discover which historians you find bigoted and which you do not. I suspect this game will have rules that state that those who agree with you are unbigoted and those that do not are bigoted. So, no point to that.

 

Edward Said, by the way, claimed to have no religion. I trust his scholarship. However, there is no reason to suppose that a widespread anti-Islamic sentiment and an affection for Islam among intellectuals cannot occur at the same time. Look at the US today -- more converts to Islam, and yet a broad hatred of it. Ralph Waldo Emerson was well respected during his lifetime. He was influential. He loved Islamic culture.

 

When the Laws of God are implemented on earth, it automatically becomes a utopia. Islam showed the world that the laws are workable, that they are not mere utopia but a practicable code of life.

 

There's the rub. You, and others, want to say that the Golden Age was perfect. This supposedly proves that Islamic law is perfect. The conclusion we are supposed to make is that this system should be re-created. Admittedly, it was the best thing going during the Middle Ages. But I don't want to live under it now. I am not a Muslim, and I would suffer a considerable loss of rights and liberties in any historical Golden Age society I have read of. Even those dhimmi laws that IF posters freely admit were used make non-muslims second-class citizens. In the Golden Age, second-class citizenship was far, far better than the treatment most people recieved under other rulers. But in the modern era, it doesn't look so nice. This is rendered even more displeasing by the fact that you claim that the Muslims of those times were more faithful. I suspect if I could transport you back to that period you would not find them so -- a history I read of the social life of that period described a society that seemed far more 'secular' than IF posters seem to imagine.

 

Peace, Sulemaan.

 

I am sorry to offend you.

 

To carry on with this offensive analogy, and to repeat myself yet again, I have admitted that your dog was the best dog in the neighborhood. You have more that sufficient proof of this. But I still insist that it did bite people occasionally. There is sufficient proof of that, too.

 

As for historians vs. scientists: Modern historians have not only older historians, but the science of archeology to work with. While some old sources have been lost, those that were used by older historians (unless you want to go way back to the Roman historians) continue, for the most part, to be preserved. Modern historians can read the works of older historians. Modern historians have better translations, more sophisticated and accurate means of making translations, more sophisticated and accurate ways of dating original document sources, and more sophisticated and accurate ways of detecting forgeries. Also, they are now much more firmly grounded in the use of the scientific method. Unlike Washington Irving, modern historians cannot make stuff up and expect it to be accepted as fact. They are not equal, because the science of history has improved. Which book is more likely to give you a more accurate picture, a collection of Josephus, or a modern history written by a historian who used Josephus as one source, but also looked at other original sources from the period?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Sulemaan

Dear Kale,

 

I don't think anybody denied that Islamic Civilization which lasted for more than 700 years never saw bad rulers or bad times. I think I already made that clear. But what brother Kadafi was trying to prove was the big picture, that it was the best, and as I mentioned before, when we judge anything we take into account the rule not the exception.

 

I agree to the fact that moderon historians have at their disposal the technology. But I still believe that both modern and older historians are evenly balanced unlike in science, where there is no comparison between modern scientists and their predecessors.

 

History is of two kinds. Ancient history, or history of lost and forgotten civilzations is definitely found in modern times rather than older ones. As you have pointed out in your post. However, recorded history is a different matter. Here the older historians were very close to the truth, and it is such historians that are still referred by modern historians. One may accuse older historians of bias and it is true in some cases, but the same could be said of modern ones. The only difference is in the reasons - if it was religion and race in older times, it is politics today. India is the best examples. The five years the BJP (Hindu Nationalist) pary ruled, the made every effort to change the country's history according to their whims and fancies.

 

I still think comparison of historians to scientist was a far cry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peace, Sulemaan.

 

:D

 

I think we can stand to differ about the relative improvements in the fields of history and of science. Certainly modern historians and ancient ones are much more on par with one another than modern and ancient scientists.

 

Kadafi doesn't need to claim that things that sometimes happened never happened in order to prove that Golden Age Islamic civilization was the best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:D

I have to agree with little-mahdi. cuz he is rite about the wisdom part. :D

:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×