What happened to the Islamic Culture?

[manualman]

On another thread it was recently pointed out to me that the Islamic culture was, for quite some time, far more advanced than western culture in things like science, math and architecture.

I’d be interested in hearing people’s theories about what happened. Perhaps it is my cultural bias, but I don’t perrceive the Islamic world as being on the cutting edge of ANY of these cultural achievements today. How did the tables get turned?

I have a theory. It is my theory that a culture can only be as healthy as the worldview that underlies it. When a culture has a correct understanding of Natural Law and strives to live according to it, it thrives. When it embraces principles opposed to Natural Law, it founders. It all takes time, mind you. Humans are conservative creatures and the nature of families ensures that values usually take centuries to change significantly (the last 100 years notwithstanding). I wonder if the achievements of the ancient Islamic world are ACTUALLY the result of the cultural momentum of the eastern christian world that was conquered by Islam. Did Islam essentially loot the cultural heritage of our eastern orthodox brethren and use it to achieve their greatness, but then eventually founder as those tenets of Islam that are incompatible with Natural Law undermined their achievements until they became mostly third world nations?

Did on the other hand, western christendom advance beyond the Islamic world in science, math, art, architecture, etc (in spite of their head start) because of the innate superiority of our cultural values?

If not, how DID Islam go from dominant world power to what they are today?

 

[Jake_Ellison]

On another thread it was recently pointed out to me that the Islamic culture was, for quite some time, far more advanced than western culture in things like science, math and architecture.

I’d be interested in hearing people’s theories about what happened. Perhaps it is my cultural bias, but I don’t perrceive the Islamic world as being on the cutting edge of ANY of these cultural achievements today. How did the tables get turned?

I have a theory. It is my theory that a culture can only be as healthy as the worldview that underlies it. When a culture has a correct understanding of Natural Law and strives to live according to it, it thrives. When it embraces principles opposed to Natural Law, it founders. It all takes time, mind you. Humans are conservative creatures and the nature of families ensures that values usually take centuries to change significantly (the last 100 years notwithstanding). I wonder if the achievements of the ancient Islamic world are ACTUALLY the result of the cultural momentum of the eastern christian world that was conquered by Islam. Did Islam essentially loot the cultural heritage of our eastern orthodox brethren and use it to achieve their greatness, but then eventually founder as those tenets of Islam that are incompatible with Natural Law undermined their achievements until they became mostly third world nations?

Did on the other hand, western christendom advance beyond the Islamic world in science, math, art, architecture, etc (in spite of their head start) because of the innate superiority of our cultural values?

If not, how DID Islam go from dominant world power to what they are today?

I’d say your theory is probably almost totally wrong. Its all reletive. Culture has been developing for thousands of years. Some times scientific development moves forward, and sometimes we lose vast amounts of knowleage from eariler times. Civilisations rise and fall. Non are spesifically more superior in their world veiw then others.

Take the Greeks or Romans for example. Even in a prechristian era their technology and scientific understanding was ‘ahead of its time.’ But there were no good Christians for them to steal the knowlege off.

No culture is innately more superior or in tune with natural law then another. If our ‘western’ culture is so clued up and instep with natural law then why exactly would God be supporting the pollution of our planet? Why would He want us to be creating technologies that kill other people? Are only the scientific advances that havn’t come at the expense of human and animal suffereing counted? Because its not like the West has been a perfect example of pure clean science purely developed in peace and happiness.

I’d like to hear what a Muslim has to say, because I imagine they’d no more about the history of their scientific culture then I do. I imagine there are likely to be contributions that you and I take for granted ,that probably had their basis, if not in Islam, then in an Arabic root. They’d probably also be very insulted, but hey.

 

[Montalban]

If not, how DID Islam go from dominant world power to what they are today?

I think in part it’s the basis of that culture. They gained much by conquest - including coming into closer contact with the Greco-Roman world, and the Hindu civilization. As well, they adopted intellectual thought from the peoples they’d conquered - so that Jewish and Assyrian science, and medicine became ‘Islamic’ science and medicine.

However at the heart of Islam is the Koran. It’s own take on science is absurd. A clash between its claims and those from common sense and observation were set to collide.

And when they did, they chose the Koran.

 

[Pacbox]

Apparently, no one had thought to look at world history. It was actually the Mongols invading and destroying everything in their path that destroyed Islam and Islamic culture as world power. The region was devastated for centuries. There were a few areas that managed to turn things around but really, the Mongols destroyed everything. The Mongols would have taken Europe but had to go back to their homelands to determine a new ruler.

Though the opulance and wealth that the particular dynasty had at the time plus all the corruption in the government wasn’t exactly helpful either.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

I think the Moslems took over a great culture from the Persians. It is not clear that they added to it. Empires can thrive for a long time on their inheritence, but if they do not cultivate it eventually it runs out.

 

[Montalban]

Apparently, no one had thought to look at world history. It was actually the Mongols invading and destroying everything in their path that destroyed Islam and Islamic culture as world power.

That’s false. The Mongols never took Egypt nor Arabia - the heart of Islam.
Georgia was taken over by the Mongols but restored fully by George V “the Brilliant”.
The Mongols took China, but Chian’s civillization wasn’t destroyed.

By the way, the Turks had captured Persia and held it (1037–1219)

Here’s the Mongols in Persia…
In 1295, after Ilkhan Mahmud Ghazan converted to Islam, he renounced all allegiance to the Emperor Chengzong of Yuan China who had recently succeeded his grandfather Kublai Khan as Great Khan. **The Ilkhans patronized the arts and learning **in the fine tradition of Iranian Islam; indeed, they helped to repair much of the damage of the Mongol conquests.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Empire#Mongols_and_their_successors_.281219.E2.80.931500.29

The region was devastated for centuries.

Not correct

 

[Hubriss]

Wow… you guys are just… wow.

The Muslims did not gain all their scientific advances and knowledge by conquering other people. They had learned from regions around them including the Greeks. In fact, we have come to know much of the ancient Greek philosophers’ writings BECAUSE they were stored and studied by the Muslims. The Muslims for their first several hundred years were very interested in how the natural world worked. They developed algebra and the West had gotten their knowledge of these things like math and philosophy from them. Then during the Crusades, Muslim philosophers began to take a more strict literal and fundamental view of their religion and decided that a scientific view of the world was not as necessary as their spiritual. Hamid al-Ghazali was one of these prominent philosophers. He had a great influence on many western philosophers including Thomas Aquianus. But he believed that Muslim philosophy was the only good philosophy, and proposed the discardment of other peoples’ philosophy solely because they were not Muslim (Like Greek and of course Christian philosophy). These ideas prompted the Muslim world to seclude themselves from the rest of the world largely on the intellectual basis, and as a result they fell behind.

Contrary to all your theories like, “Oh Christianity is so great and true that the christian west developed because it had greater morals and were obviously smarter, blah blah blah.” The Western dominantly Christian world developed far greater than their eastern counterparts precisely because of the fact that they were not God centered, peaceful, intellectual people. We developed faster because we were divided. Feudal system societies were largely divided and in conflict with each other constantly. There were always wars between feudal lords and small developing countries. This constant conflict, this competition, promoted growth in technological developements because everyone was always in a race to conquer each other. As the west advanced due to constant competition, the parts of the world where people secluded themselves and devoted a greater amount of their focus to culture (this includes all those godless commies in China) fell behind. And eventually once Europe became too small, they ventured out, discovering America, and conquering more until today.

 

[Montalban]

The Muslims did not gain all their scientific advances and knowledge by conquering other people. They had learned from regions around them including the Greeks.

Arabia was in contact with the Greeks for millenia. How many great Arab scientists were there in the pre-conquest period?

The Muslims for their first several hundred years were very interested in how the natural world worked. They developed algebra and the West had gotten their knowledge of these things like math and philosophy from them.

The west already had maths and philosophy!

Then during the Crusades, Muslim philosophers began to take a more strict literal and fundamental view of their religion and decided that a scientific view of the world was not as necessary as their spiritual. Hamid al-Ghazali was one of these prominent philosophers. He had a great influence on many western philosophers including Thomas Aquianus. But he believed that Muslim philosophy was the only good philosophy, and proposed the discardment of other peoples’ philosophy solely because they were not Muslim (Like Greek and of course Christian philosophy). These ideas prompted the Muslim world to seclude themselves from the rest of the world largely on the intellectual basis, and as a result they fell behind.

Moslems had already secluded themselves when they followed the Koran’s injunctions that all Christians and Jews are liars.

Contrary to all your theories like, “Oh Christianity is so great and true that the christian west developed because it had greater morals and were obviously smarter, blah blah blah.” The Western dominantly Christian world developed far greater than their eastern counterparts precisely because of the fact that they were not God centered, peaceful, intellectual people.

How can you prove this? The east was dominated by Islam, so they weren’t as free to practice.

We developed faster because we were divided. Feudal system societies were largely divided and in conflict with each other constantly. There were always wars between feudal lords and small developing countries. This constant conflict, this competition, promoted growth in technological developements because everyone was always in a race to conquer each other.

That’s simply false. Unified China had warships far more advanced than the west and were exploring Africa, and maybe even America and Australia

If the ‘we’re always at war = progress’ worked, why didn’t the barbarians have greater technology than Rome?

 

[thedavidwilson]

On another thread it was recently pointed out to me that the Islamic culture was, for quite some time, far more advanced than western culture in things like science, math and architecture.

I’d be interested in hearing people’s theories about what happened. Perhaps it is my cultural bias, but I don’t perrceive the Islamic world as being on the cutting edge of ANY of these cultural achievements today. How did the tables get turned?

I have a theory. It is my theory that a culture can only be as healthy as the worldview that underlies it. When a culture has a correct understanding of Natural Law and strives to live according to it, it thrives. When it embraces principles opposed to Natural Law, it founders. It all takes time, mind you. Humans are conservative creatures and the nature of families ensures that values usually take centuries to change significantly (the last 100 years notwithstanding). I wonder if the achievements of the ancient Islamic world are ACTUALLY the result of the cultural momentum of the eastern christian world that was conquered by Islam. Did Islam essentially loot the cultural heritage of our eastern orthodox brethren and use it to achieve their greatness, but then eventually founder as those tenets of Islam that are incompatible with Natural Law undermined their achievements until they became mostly third world nations?

Did on the other hand, western christendom advance beyond the Islamic world in science, math, art, architecture, etc (in spite of their head start) because of the innate superiority of our cultural values?

If not, how DID Islam go from dominant world power to what they are today?

Please read these articles. Islam did not create much new. It acted as a storage house for ancient knowledge and a conduit from east to west. Islam is based on blind obediance and route memory. This does not foster free thinking. It was the Catholic Church that developed science and learning.

Part I
jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/018190.php#more

Part II
jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/018278.php#more

 

[thedavidwilson]

If not, how DID Islam go from dominant world power to what they are today?

Nothing from the devil will last…See Nazism, Communism, etc.

 

[Hubriss]

The west already had maths and philosophy!

Well yeah sure they did, but it was the Muslims who greatly developed algebra theorems, methods, geometry and whatnot.

Moslems had already secluded themselves when they followed the Koran’s injunctions that all Christians and Jews are liars.

No not quite. They had still involved themselves greatly in warfare and the exchange of ideas with other nations. Crusades anyone? They studied the philosophies of the Greeks and used them largely until said thinkers like the one I mentioned above convinced Muslim leaders otherwise.

How can you prove this? The east was dominated by Islam, so they weren’t as free to practice.

Well first of all I can’t see the sense or point you’re trying to make with your second sentence there. But what I mean is the fact that the constant flaring of wars did not reflect the christian notion of peace, nor did being Christian simply make them more intelligent than others. But yes, Christianity opposed to the more fundamental Islam that Hamid al-Ghazali proposed allowed the Christian people to be far more free, but that was the mistake of Muslim philosophers.

That’s simply false. Unified China had warships far more advanced than the west and were exploring Africa, and maybe even America and Australia

If the ‘we’re always at war = progress’ worked, why didn’t the barbarians have greater technology than Rome?

First of all Rome was already a powerful state long before Christianity came along. But how do you think Rome became so big? Their technology and strategy grew vastly as they continued to conquer more and more territories. And notice that I did not only say warfare promoted growth, but also the exchange of ideas. Although there may be fighting between regions, there had always also been a heavy amount of trade in the Roman empire as Italy was right on the Meditteranean Sea (before it became an empire as well). Even in Europe during the Feudal years and after, there was still trade and ideas exchanged. Trade and the sharing of ideas gave seperate nations and peoples the ability to maximize their resources, knowledge, and overall developement. And also Rome was eventually conquered by Barbarians.

As for China, for the most part in its history it was divided, but united a bit before 0 AD/BC under the Han Dynasty until I don’t know how long. Nevertheless it was still in a state of warfare at moments with the Mongols. It likely far exceeded all other societies after the fall of the Roman empire in terms of strength and developement. And China is/was huge. Like the Roman empire there was constant trade between distant regions, and it did trade with Europe and the Mediteranean areas along the infamous Silk Road. It was very prosperous up until the beginning of the 19th century when Britain was still considered the dominant force in the world. After Marco Polo had arrived at and lived in China for a while, the west had decided to trade more directly with it. They basically plundered China around the time of the whole Opium Wars, afterwhich China largely cut itself off from the rest of the world. It had closed its ports for a long time, and then reopened to allow only a small amount of trading, and thus it fell behind the rest of the world. Yes It likely was the most prosperous and powerful country at one point, but it did eventually fall simply because it did not interact with the rest of the world as much.

Anything I miss…?

 

[Montalban]

Well yeah sure they did, but it was the Muslims who greatly developed algebra theorems, methods, geometry and whatnot.

Geometry itself is a word that comes from Greek. So the Greeks must have had it too! Ever heard of Euclid?

Whilst al-gebra has its name from the Arabs. Ever heard of Diophantus of Alexandria? (hint: “Father of Algebra”)

And, for good measure Algebraic geometry comes from Descartes!

No not quite. They had still involved themselves greatly in warfare and the exchange of ideas with other nations. Crusades anyone?

The crusades should have spurred them to great heights - given your ‘war = progress’ theory.

They studied the philosophies of the Greeks and used them largely until said thinkers like the one I mentioned above convinced Muslim leaders otherwise.

That’s a neat theory that ignores pre-Islamic Arabic contribution to science, philosophy and culture (ie. nil)

Well first of all I can’t see the sense or point you’re trying to make with your second sentence there.

You talked about comparing the west to the east. And how the west progressed whereas the east didn’t. Given that the east was, for a large period of time dominated by Islam (or rather Islamic powers) I don’t know how you can compare the two as they’re not both free.

But what I mean is the fact that the constant flaring of wars did not reflect the christian notion of peace, nor did being Christian simply make them more intelligent than others. But yes, Christianity opposed to the more fundamental Islam that Hamid al-Ghazali proposed allowed the Christian people to be far more free, but that was the mistake of Muslim philosophers.

SO your argument here then is Islam is the cause of Islam’s demise. Then I agree with you.

First of all Rome was already a powerful state long before Christianity came along. But how do you think Rome became so big?

By ruthlessness… and adopting philosophy, culture, etc as it saw fit - thus Greek became like French or Latin was to us more recently.

Their technology and strategy grew vastly as they continued to conquer more and more territories. And notice that I did not only say warfare promoted growth, but also the exchange of ideas.

Well Islam was at the cross-roads of three continents. What stopped the ‘exchange of ideas’? If you want more relative isolation, try Scotland that produced many great thinkers.

Although there may be fighting between regions, there had always also been a heavy amount of trade in the Roman empire as Italy was right on the Meditteranean Sea (before it became an empire as well). Even in Europe during the Feudal years and after, there was still trade and ideas exchanged. Trade and the sharing of ideas gave seperate nations and peoples the ability to maximize their resources, knowledge, and overall developement. And also Rome was eventually conquered by Barbarians.

And Mecca was on a caravan route.

As for China, for the most part in its history it was divided

Even when there were separate kingdoms, each one alone was quite significant. The period I was reffering to - the one of exploration, was under the united kingdom run by the Ming Dynasty - that’s post Mongol!
Have a look at wiki’s article about their exploration, and then turn to isolation
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ming_Dynasty#Exploration_to_isolation

Anything I miss…?

Just a point. You seem now to accept Islam’s at fault for its own demise.

 

[JohnPaulTwoToo]

That’s false. The Mongols never took Egypt nor Arabia - the heart of Islam.
Georgia was taken over by the Mongols but restored fully by George V “the Brilliant”.
The Mongols took China, but Chian’s civillization wasn’t destroyed.

By the way, the Turks had captured Persia and held it (1037–1219)

Here’s the Mongols in Persia…
In 1295, after Ilkhan Mahmud Ghazan converted to Islam, he renounced all allegiance to the Emperor Chengzong of Yuan China who had recently succeeded his grandfather Kublai Khan as Great Khan. **The Ilkhans patronized the arts and learning **in the fine tradition of Iranian Islam; indeed, they helped to repair much of the damage of the Mongol conquests.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Empire#Mongols_and_their_successors_.281219.E2.80.931500.29

Not correct

Islamic scholars I know consider Islam’s cultural rise to have peaked just before the Mongol conquest. The center of this culture was Bahgdad. When Bahgdad was sacked, all the western regions fell into chaos. The fragmentation of the Mongol empire also further fragmented the conquered Muslim lands. The so-called “Golden Horde”, the Islamicized Mongols, was a military empire not unlike the post-Enlightenment European colonial empires; only religious on the surface. So long as they could expand and pillage, they thrived. Expansion did not procede further west because of the inhospitability of the Arabian and Egyptian deserts. The Golden Horde then turned north, toward the richer lands in Europe.

The original Islamic culture may have survived as a remnant in the various Sufi schools, which have often had to go underground. The temporal power in Muslim lands have mostly suppressed them. Here is an interesting article on these two sides of Islam:

Why the Real War Is Inside Islam

 

[Jake_Ellison]

Nothing from the devil will last…See Nazism, Communism, etc.

Doesn’t really answer the question does it? Completly off topic. Anyway I doubt the devil would have had much to do with communism. Its actually great in theory, just humans mess it up. Don’t you think may be Nazism and Comunism just came from people?

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Doesn’t really answer the question does it? Completly off topic. Anyway I doubt the devil would have had much to do with communism. Its actually great in theory, just humans mess it up. Don’t you think may be Nazism and Comunism just came from people?

Naziism and Communism are both heaven designed to government specifications. What happens when man goes it alone.

 

[thedavidwilson]

Doesn’t really answer the question does it? Completly off topic. Anyway I doubt the devil would have had much to do with communism. Its actually great in theory, just humans mess it up. Don’t you think may be Nazism and Comunism just came from people?

Communism does not recognize the value and capability of each individual which endowed by God. It artificially sets everyones capability to the same and artificially sets the value of things; so things like art will never increase in value when the artist dies. This is counter to the way the world works and the only way for Communism to work is to force people to value things a certain way; e.g. factory work or farm work has value but not intellectual pursuits and it is the State that sets this value. Whereas in Capitalism it is the people and the free market that sets the values of things. This is why Communism and Maoism are inherently flawed. If it works great on paper then you are ignoring a whole lot of opression and killing to make it work in the real world.

Nazism looked great on paper in the 1930’s (i.e. the trains ran on time) but that paper did not include the murdering of “inferior” races and starting WWII.

 

[Hubriss]

Just a point. You seem now to accept Islam’s at fault for its own demise.

-Montalban

You make it sound like you convinced me of something (golf clap?). Of course I think that the Islamic religon contributed to the lagging of their societies behind the west in all areas, but it was not the only factor, probably not even a major one. Other factors far more important are ones I mentioned above. The west had far more potential and inclination to develope due to its wars and Greater amount of the exchanging of ideas. Like JohnPaultwotoo said, both areas of the world had societies that were expansionists, but as you’d no doubt agree, the West had far greater potential in that area too as they had the vast amount of basically untouched territories in the Americas that they could expand into.

It’s just that people like you and thedavidwilson and the OP seem to think that they declined because their religion is from the devil or something, and Christianity is so much more truthful and supported by God that it prospered so much more. Far from the truth. I can quote a whole list of ignorant statements made here. Religion is but one factor to societies and human life, and is definitely not the determinant.

 

[Montalban]

-Montalban

Hello?

You make it sound like you convinced me of something (golf clap?).

Not at all. I just see you don’t have a point. I don’t know what golf clap? means either.

Of course I think that the Islamic religon contributed to the lagging of their societies behind the west in all areas, but it was not the only factor, probably not even a major one. Other factors far more important are ones I mentioned above. The west had far more potential and inclination to develope due to its wars and Greater amount of the exchanging of ideas.

Yes, I realise you say this other part is a factor - which is why I’ve asked you to think about other peoples/places and you’ve not considered them. I’ve mentioned how Georgia bounced back immediately after the Mongols, and in fact how the Mongol rulers of Iran promoted art - things I’ve evidenced. To which you simply repeat your opinion.

Like JohnPaultwotoo said, both areas of the world had societies that were expansionists, but as you’d no doubt agree, the West had far greater potential in that area too as they had the vast amount of basically untouched territories in the Americas that they could expand into.

So did China.

It’s just that people like you and thedavidwilson and the OP seem to think that they declined because their religion is from the devil or something, and Christianity is so much more truthful and supported by God that it prospered so much more.

Not at all. Had you bothered to look a little harder you’d have found that I’m not ‘western’ but ‘eastern’. I’m Orthodox. The fact that the west is richer than the east in no way lends me to fear that my own faith is less based in Jesus. You just like projection.

Far from the truth. I can quote a whole list of ignorant statements made here.

In which of your posts?

Religion is but one factor to societies and human life, and is definitely not the determinant.

That’s simply another projection - of how you view religion.

Islam is a fully comprehensive faith - more so than in Orthodoxy, and even so compared to Protestantism and Catholicism.

They quibble about every little detail of life. For example…
What is the Shari ruling regarding standing while urinating?
islamqa.com/index.php?ref=9790&ln=eng

That is a level of detail that has got them stuck in legalism that the west does not come close to. That is the freedom of Christianity. Islam doesn’t allow any lee-way. Islam tells its believers how to think. It confines thought through its limitations on reason. And reason clashes with it in matters of “Islamic science” and the many contradictions in Islam.

Islam forumlates ‘rights’ and ‘obligations’ on men, women, non-Moslems, etc. It tells you when to fight, how many slaves you can have, etc.

So in summary your replies are full of indignant projections about what you feel others motives are and your opinion of religion (you’ve a well-chosen UserName). You make statements I’ve refuted, and referenced.

You come back with more indignation and projection - and to repeat your opinion. And that’s simply not very convincing.

 

[JohnPaulTwoToo]

There seems to be a presumption in this thread that the West still possesses a Christian culture. I’d like to ask, What happened to Christian Culture:

Operation Parricide: Sade, Robespierre & the French Revolution

Maybe this explains the following:

At Guantanamo, a chaplain’s story

 

[Montalban]

There seems to be a presumption in this thread that the West still possesses a Christian culture.

Christianity still influences western laws.

In law when you wish to sue over a faulty product, you take an action of tort against the maker of the product. You can do this because Lord Atkin applied the “Good Samaritan Principle” (when he asked “Who, in law, is my neighbour?”)

The law of Torts of negligence stems from the decision of Lord Atkin in Donoghue v Stevenson (1932)

Lord Atkin said… “The rule that you are to love your neighbour becomes in law, you must not injure your neighbour; and the lawyer’s question, Who is my neighbour? receives a restricted reply. You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omission which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Who then, in law, is my neighbour? The answer seems to be - persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question.”
leeds.ac.uk/law/hamlyn/donoghue.htm
maloufsolicitors.com.au/services/compensation.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donoghue_v._Stevenson
tortreforminstitute.com.au/about.html
“Lord Atkin himself apparently agonised over the decision, and I recall that his daughter wrote that he discussed the decision with his family, and told them that he was intending to apply the Parable of the Good Samaritan to the facts of the case.”
Margaret A McGregor Vennel, Senior Lecturer in Law, University of Auckland
[1990] New Zealand Law Journal 383-384
reprinted in Latimer, P (Ed.), (1997), “Commercial Law Workbook” (2nd ed), p477