What happened to the Islamic Culture?

  • Thread starter Thread starter manualman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
What I think people miss the target on in this topic is the fact that the Middle East was always a “middle man” in international commerce in Classical and Middle Age periods. The Middle East was (and still is) Islamic and garnered great wealth from people of Royalty and Lords of Feudal Europe. They demanded spices and silk from the Orient and anything that came from there was marked up by Islamic merchants.

This was the norm for centuries until one day a man named Columbus landed in Puerto Rico. From that day on Islam and the Middle East were cut out of the biusness they had taken for granted for so long. The middle man was eliminated and the need for Islamic merchants was gone. Without the money to back themselves up their culture and power degraded. Without a doubt, without the discovery of the New World, Islamic culture would still be thriving. It is only recently that the Middle East has begun to make a comeback because of oil. Someday even that will be gone for them and they will begin to decline again. The Muslims will blame the Crusades (they are wrong), it was really the New World and the fact Europe no longer needed them. Islam was left to history while Europe Reinassanced.
 
Abraxsis said:
This was the norm for centuries until one day a man named Columbus landed in Puerto Rico.
Click to expand...
You mean San Salvador in the Bahamas!
Abraxsis said:
The Muslims will blame the Crusades (they are wrong), it was really the New World and the fact Europe no longer needed them. Islam was left to history while Europe Reinassanced.
Click to expand...
Islamic ‘culture’ was already well falling behind before 1492!
 
“For the Christian Church, it was the legal affirmation of the basic moral precept that one should “love thy neighbour” or at least not to do anything to hurt him or her…”
Thooher, J “Still silvery on its diamond jubilee? On the trail of that elusive snail” in Law Institute Journal Vol 66 [1992] 382
JohnPaulTwoToo said:
Not all that much, anymore.
Click to expand...
Torts law is still used! Negliegence cases are still heard. Atkin’s rule still rules. It’s still being referred to…
“The modern law of negligence was established in the famous English case of Donoghue v Stevenson, in which Mrs Donoghue discovered the decomposed remains of a snail in her bottle of ginger beer, most unfortunately after she had consumed the greater part of its contents. Suffering from shock and gastroenteritis, she sued Mr Stevenson, the manufacturer of the ginger beer.
In what is arguably the 20th century’s most influential judicial decision to affect the lives of ordinary citizens, the biblical precept to love thy neighbour became in law — you must not injure your neighbour. Your neighbour is anyone you can reasonably foresee might be injured by your careless actions."
choice.com.au/viewarticleasonepage.aspx?id=104324&catId=100528&tid=100008&p=1
'On May 26, 1932, Lord Atkin rose at last, amid the splendour of the great chamber of the House of Lords, to deliver his immortal speech in Donoghue v. Stevenson.16
Lord Atkin reminded the House of the words of Lord Esher in Le Lievre v. Gould:17 “If one man is near to another, or near to the property of another, a duty lies on him not to do that which may cause a personal injury to that other, or may injure his property.” Using the thoughts he had expressed the previous autumn at King’s College, Lord Atkin then melded Lord Esher’s dictum with the parable of the good Samaritan. Neighbourhood was a mental rather than a physical state. It would be enough to impose on David Stevenson a duty of care such that those in the position of May Donoghue ought to have been in his mind when he was bottling the ginger beer. She was his neighbour in spirit.”
scottishlawreports.org.uk/resources/keycases/dvs/mrs-donoghue-journey.html
“**In Donoghue v. Stevenson, Lord Atkin said: **
“To seek a complete logical definition of the general principle is probably to go beyond the function of the judge, for the more general the definition, the more likely it is to omit essentials or to introduce non-essentials.”
The moral which I draw from these words is that simplism combines fatally with generalization in two ways: it so extends the general as to take insufficient account of the peculiar requirements of the particular; and it takes the particular as in every respect an exemplar of the general. That, in his paraphrase of the parable of the Good Samaritan, Lord Atkin himself exceeded his function is, in my respectful submission, implicit in the speech of Lord Simon of Glaisdale in Lupton v. F.A. & A.B. Ltd, where he refers to the distinction drawn in Farr v. Butters Bros & Co.”
ucc.ie/law/restitution/rdg/9912007.htm
“House of Commons Session 1997-98 Publications on the internet
Standing Committee Debates National Minimum Wage Bill
…
I must not digress into tales of Lord Chancellors, except to say that I think that Lord Atkin presided in the case of Donoghue v. Stevenson. He cited the parable of the good Samaritan in his rationale, by way of explaining what one’s duty ought to be from first principle.”
parliament.the-stationery-office.com/pa/cm199798/cmstand/d/st980210/pm/80210s01.htm

PS, what was it specifically in your cite “THE RULE OF LAW AND THE TINKERBELL EFFECT: THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS, CRITICISMS AND JUSTIFICATIONS FOR THE RULE OF LAW” that you were thinking was pertinent to the topic?
 
JohnPaulTwoToo said:
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:
Click to expand...
With regards the Christian influence in law and government there is a stream that flows back to the time of the Anglo-Saxons.
Alfred the Great’s oaths taken on Christian relics (I’ve given fuller citations at the bottom)
sunsite.berkeley.edu/OMACL/KingAlfred/part1.html
William the Conqueror’s statutes
yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/medieval/lawwill.htm
Henry II’s Constitution of Clarendon
fordham.edu/halsall/source/cclarendon.html
King John’s Magna Carta
yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/medieval/magna.htm

Other antecedents of the US Constitution cane be found with…
The other is through the English constitution and the English Bill of Rights of 1689
(constitution.org/bor/eng_bor.htm)
that lead to the
“The Declaration and Resolves of the First Continental Congress - 1774”
leftjustified.com/leftjust/lib/sc/ht/wtp/1cngrss.html

Further to that, one of the influences in this was Thomas Paine, and I showed the Christian influence in his writings (“Common Sense” specifically)
fordham.edu/halsall/mod/paine-common.html

I will mention two other antecedents; “The Declaration of Arbroath” (1320) and “The National Covenant” (1638) both of which are linked to the Declaration of Independence in their style of language by Duncan Bruce in “The Mark of the Scots” p39 ff - (undoubtedly an influence from the large number of Ulster Scots (or Scotch Irish) who flocked to the American and who were almost to a man anti-British). He also shows similarity of language between the “Preamble to the Constitution of the United States” and “The National Covenant and Act Ordaining it” (1639). He sets these documents out side by side and we can see the similarity in calls before God for equality before the law, and security and safety of persons from tyranny.
It is recognisable; the direct influence of the Magna Carta on the formation of the United States. Equally recognisable is the import of the Mayflower Compact.

Further, these examples up to this point quite unashamedly are Christian.

Thus when the “The Declaration and Resolves of the First Continental Congress - 1774” states
“That the inhabitants of the English colonies in North-America, by the immutable laws of nature, the principles of the English constitution, and the several charters or compacts, have the following RIGHTS:”
ushistory.org/declaration/related/decres.htm
they are referring to the laws established and exampled above; those that mention the Christian God.

Alfred the Great, one of the codifiers of the laws of England, swore treaties by God.
“With this army Alfred made a solemn treaty, to the effect that they should depart out of the kingdom, and for this they made no hesitation to give as many hostages as he named; also they swore an oath over the Christian relics, (21) which with king Alfred were next in veneration after the Deity himself, that they would depart speedily from the kingdom.”
sunsite.berkeley.edu/OMACL/KingAlfred/part1.html

William the Conqueror began his collection of statutes by saying “Here is shown what William the king of the English, together With his princes, has established since the Conquest of England.
Firstly that, above all things, he wishes one God to lie venerated throughout his whole kingdom, one faith of Christ always to be kept inviolate, peace and security to be observed between the English and the Normans”
yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/medieval/lawwill.htm

Henry II who codified the common law has his constitution of Clrendon state:
“The declaration of the above-mentioned royal customs and dignities has beenmade by the archbishops, bishops, earls, barons, and the nobler and older menof the kingdom, at Clarendon on the fourth day before the Purification of the Blessed Virgin Mary, lord Henry being present there with the lord king hisfather. There are, indeed, many other great customs and dignities of holymother church and of the lord king and barons of the kingdom, which are notincluded in this writing, but which are to be preserved to holy church and tothe lord king and his heirs and the barons of the kingdom, and are to be kept inviolate for ever.”
fordham.edu/halsall/source/cclarendon.html

con’t…
 
King John’s Magna Carta begins:
“John, by the grace of God, king of England, lord of Ireland, duke of Normandy and Aquitaine, and count of Anjou, to the archbishop, bishops, abbots, earls, barons, justiciaries, foresters, sheriffs, stewards, servants, and to all his bailiffs and liege subjects, greetings. Know that, having regard to God and for the salvation of our soul, and those of all our ancestors and heirs, and unto the honor of God and the advancement of his holy Church and for the rectifying of our realm, we have granted as underwritten by advice of our venerable fathers, Stephen, archbishop of Canterbury, primate of all England and cardinal of the holy Roman Church, Henry, archbishop of Dublin,”
yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/medieval/magna.htm

Now it is important to understand the Magna Carta in relation to US law making”
“It is impossible to understand the politics and activities of our day without an understanding of the history behind them. It is not only the right, but the responsibility, of a citizen to seek to understand one’s government, one’s relationship to it, and that government’s relationship to the larger world. All governments, and all societies, are based on a system of laws. A constitution is a formal charter stating the laws of a nation and communicating that nation’s structure, standards, and intentions, not only to its citizens, but to the larger world. The modern constitution is a device to express the foundations of the life and business of a political nation. It lends credibility to a government and defines how that government represents its people. Here is an exploration of recent documents that form our idea of what a constitution should be, and some of the constitutions that resulted.”
 
JohnPaulTwoToo said:
There seems to be a presumption in this thread that the West still possesses a Christian culture.
Click to expand...
Central to government is the constitution.
Canada
Whereas Canada is founded upon the principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:
solon.org/Constitutions/Canada/English/ca_1982.html
Australia
“Whereas the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and under the Constitution hereby established:”
aph.gov.au/senate/general/constitution/preamble.htm
Ireland
“We, the people of Éire,
Humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ, Who sustained our fathers through centuries of trial,”
taoiseach.gov.ie/upload/publications/297.htm
Denmark
(has religious equality, but states…)
The King shall be a member of the Evangelical Lutheran Church.
oefre.unibe.ch/law/icl/da00000_.html
Germany
Conscious of their responsibility before God and men, animated by the purpose to serve world peace as an equal part in a unified Europe, the German People have adopted, by virtue of their constituent power, this Constitution.
angelfire.com/mn2/reformclub/f/germanyconst.html
Switzerland
Preamble
In the name of God Almighty!
We, the Swiss People and Cantons,
Whereas we are mindful of our responsibility towards creation;
oefre.unibe.ch/law/icl/sz00000_.html
Greece, and the United Kingdom are democracies that have state-sponsored religion.
Greece
The prevailing religion in Greece is that of the Eastern Orthodox Church of Christ. The Orthodox Church of Greece, acknowledging our Lord Jesus Christ as its head, is inseparably united in doctrine with the Great Church of Christ in Constantinople and with every other Church of Christ of the same doctrine, observing unwaveringly, as they do, the holy apostolic and synodal canons and sacred traditions. It is autocephalous and is administered by the Holy Synod of serving Bishops and the Permanent Holy Synod originating thereof and assembled as specified by the Statutory Charter of the Church in compliance with the provisions of the Patriarchal Tome of June 29, 1850 and the Synodal Act of September 4, 1928.
2. The ecclesiastical regime existing in certain districts of the State shall not be deemed contrary to the provisions of the preceding paragraph.
3. The text of the Holy Scripture shall be maintained unaltered. Official translation of the text into any other form of language, without prior sanction by the Autocephalous Church of Greece and the Great Church of Christ in Constantinople, is prohibited.
confinder.richmond.edu/greek_2001.html
 
Montalban said:
Do *you *actually have an argument or is it your way to simply refer to pages of stuff done by others?
Click to expand...
Now that you’ve had a chance to reflect on what happened to Christian culture, you may be able to understand something about what happened to Islamic culture. The so-called “Enlightenment” effectively destroyed both cultures. Each lives on today as a remnant that doesn’t get much attention by the main stream media, academia, or the political powers. Lumping all Muslims together is as foolish as lumping all Christians together. B16 realizes this and seeks dialogue, between authentic Christians (not the cafeteria kind) and Muslims (re-read the link “The Real War is Inside Islam”). He sees the possibility of a co-operative defense against the onslaught of secular relativism. Christians will need to learn to stop shooting their friends and recognize their enemies for that to happen.
 
JohnPaulTwoToo said:
Now that you’ve had a chance to reflect on what happened to Christian culture,
Click to expand...
What ‘reflection’? I’ve posted you points of evidence of Christianity - just in the field of law. You’ve posted web-links to stuff that when I ask for more details you just post more web-links.

Specifically I said…
"Montalban:
PS, what was it specifically in your cite “THE RULE OF LAW AND THE TINKERBELL EFFECT: THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS, CRITICISMS AND JUSTIFICATIONS FOR THE RULE OF LAW” that you were thinking was pertinent to the topic?
Click to expand...
JohnPaulTwoToo said:
you may be able to understand something about what happened to Islamic culture. The so-called “Enlightenment” effectively destroyed both cultures. Each lives on today as a remnant that doesn’t get much attention by the main stream media, academia, or the political powers.
Click to expand...
Christian nations gained in power after the enlightenment. Islamic ones (if they had an enlightenment at all) have fallen away. Christian culture dominates the world. You can go to atheistic Communist China, and their dating system is based on ours… which was set by a pope. They have Christmas in non-Christian Japan - even though they don’t fully understand it, the affects of Christian culture permeate the world

What could be more dominating than setting time?
JohnPaulTwoToo said:
Lumping all Muslims together is as foolish as lumping all Christians together.
Click to expand...
That’s just post-modern deconstructionalist nonsense. There’s such a thing as a “Moslem” that must mean something in common no matter where you go, else the meaning has frankly no meaning.

Christians have coped with the modern world better than Moslems.
 
What a fascinating range of responses. Thanks to all who participated.

I should point out a few things I may not have said clearly. I believe culture determines history moreso than simple politics. Politics can influence culture, but only to a point. In the end, the people decide who they are and the powers above them have limited abillity to impose something else. This was the genius of John Paul II in his strategy for opposing communism. He KNEW that it was incompatible with the culture of Poland from his first hand experience and extrapolated that it was probably similarly incompatible with the cultures of many other nations saddled with it. So instead of confronting communism head-on, he judged that all he had to do was to nuture the catholic culture in Poland and trust that communism would self-destruct in time.

I don’t think anybody here has claimed that western culture is the pinnacle of perfection, that westerners are ‘smarter’ or we are inherently better people. That’s simply a straw man argument. What I DID say is that perhaps what lead to a rise of Western Civilization over its competitors was the bedrock of christian principles that influenced the behavior, organization and thought processes of the bulk of its peoples. Needless to say, history proves that there are plenty of rogues and knaves in our history - equal to or greater perhaps than in other cultures. As others have pointed out, NO culture is homogenous. But there ARE general characteristics shared by the majority that can be observed and described. That’s not stereotyping, its just observation (Stereotyping is to project the observation on ALL of the people or to presume it of any single person in the group).

I tend to think our current culture, best presented by Hubriss, believes that all cultures are roughly equal in value and that the interchange between them is where progress comes from. Frankly, I think that assumption that has been foisted on us by our educational system needs more critical examination. All cultures are NOT equal and mutually exclusive principles can NOT both be equally valid.

But I’ve got lots of interesting links to read. Thanks all.
 
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top