Posted on 03/04/2017 9:57:23 AM PST by Perseverando
Do not bear false witness etc etc
Muzzys have: Tah-kee-ah - Lie to anyone to further Islam !
When there was still religious persecution in the West, there was much discussion about whether lying about religion was permissible. And even the Bible condones telling falsehoods under certain conditions. Not as much as Islam does, but still it's there if you want to look for it.
Thank you for posting. More people need to know the real history of Islam.
It has never been a religion of peace since Mad Mo launched his jihad in 622 A.D.
Worst lie ever uttered by a US President.
But that same scholasticism existed from the time of Constantine to 650 when muslim expansion began.
In that 300 years, the Roman Empire only declined.
So what was everybody waiting for?
Mohammad invalidated the First Given Half so you could throw those suras out (mostly plagiarized for the Bible and Torah) - which would leave only the ISIS Junior Varsity sort of Islam which accords with Mohammad’s motto of: Kill, kill, kill ...
The “renaissance” is more than economic prosperity.
> But that same scholasticism existed from the time of Constantine to 650 when muslim expansion began.
Scholasticism began around 750-800 under the Carolingians
And the Church is more about closeness to God, not temporal art appreciation.
The middle class and leisure time allowed the art to develop and be appreciated.
When capitalism is introduced, there is always a “bloom” within one generation. To ascribe it to the Church, you’re talking a thousand year lead time. Doesn’t make sense.
Considering the north being largely untouched by the muslim expansion, if the church brought about the Renaissance, you would’ve seen it in what’s now Germany, and much earlier.
The Renaissance was not that gradual.
If not for schools established by the Church/Carolingians/Holy Roman Empire there would be little Roman and even less Greek writings for the Italians to study. The renaissance is more than wealth or art, it is the rediscovery of ancient Greek writings, math, and science; the application of Scholastic methods; and the unique “commune” city-states that existed in Italy. They all played a part. Christianity can not be dismissed, it was essential.
Just. so. It is not possible to discern in the reading which suras were the early suras so the rule of thumb is if two suras are incompatible, the one that expresses peaceful intent is the Maka sura and is superseded by the violent one which is the Medina sura.
Too indirect for me. You may as well say the renaissance came about because of man’s ability to domesticate animals, use tools, or speak a language.
More direct: omit any part it doesn’t happen.
Some of the inferences are a bit of a reach:
Alexandria had already halted shipment of Papyrus as early as the second century bc... actually because of a rival library built in Pergamon, a Hellenic city in now Turkey... this gave rise to the use of Parchment and vellum as a substitute material and would have been easily obtained in Europe by the middle ages.
Correct. Though when I first read Sahih-al-Bukhari, the sheer inaneness made it hard to complete
it depends - the Germanic invasions did not destroy the economic base or cultural significance.
The Western Roman economic base was damaged after the Severan dynasty and destroyed by the 3rd century crisis when the money was debased.
The Goths etc. kept the senate, the local administration etc. - they just put themselves on top
The Byzantine Goth wars in Italy in the 6th century was bad, yes. But by 800 this was revered under the Carolingian renaissance
“The Fall of Rome and The End of Civilization”, Ward-Perkins, makes a compelling argument against this. Through an analysis of archaeological remains, including seemingly humble things like potsherds and rooftiles, he shows that there was a profound disjunct in quantity and quality in every sort of material element of human existence, timed to, almost precisely, the Germanic invasions. This was not just vis-a-vis the height of Roman culture, but also vs pre-Roman times. There was obviously a horrifying catastrophe in Western Europe that sent everything almost back to the Neolithic.
That’s a good book.
But look at the time-periods he compares - from 300 AD to 700 AD — the latter is AFTER the Byzantine-Sassanid war and the Islamic conquests.
If one looks at between 400 AD and 450 AD, there is no material change.
Between 450 and 500 there is a gradual decline, but not as abrupt.
It’s only when one compares across 400 years that the change is startling
IIRC, and I read it a few years ago, he says it is quite abrupt, in Western Europe. We are speaking of Italy, west and south Germany, Spain, Gaul and Britain.
It is not as abrupt, indeed not as significant at all, in most places in the Eastern Empire where the Islamic invasions mainly took place.
Best for both of us to have a look again.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.