Posted on 09/18/2001 10:25:47 PM PDT by GOPcapitalist
I am posting the following excerpt off of a university website about the history of Islamic philosophical thought in hopes of providing anybody who is interested a better understanding of the cultural and religous development of the islamic world. It may surprise you, but in its early years, Islam was highly western in its thought. Literally, if it were not for Islam, much of Aristotle (perhaps the greatest and most well known western/european philosopher) would not have survived the fall of Rome and would have been lost to history all together! Yet an Aristotle immursed Islamic world with heavy western ties is hardly what we know today. How did such a drastic change come about? Here are few excerpts on the subject, plus a few of my comments at the end.
ISLAMIC THOUGHT IN THE MIDDLE AGES
When Emperor Justinian closed the schools in Athens in 529, many of the teachers moved east to Syria, taking their books with them. There the works of Aristotle and many of the Neoplatonists were translated into Syriac and, later, into Arabic. These works were to return to Western Europe centuries later in the hands of Islamic thinkers.
FOUNDATION OF ISLAM
The religion of Islam began with Muhammad (571-632), an Arab from the town of Mecca. Repelled by the polytheism of his day and believing himself to be called as a prophet, Muhammad taught that there is no God but Allah. According to Islam, over a period of twenty-three years Muhammad received messages from Allah, which he wrote down in the Qur'an (or Koran). These sacred writings taught an uncomplicated message of submission (which is what the word "Islam" means) to the will of Allah, expressed in a life of obedience and in deeds such as prayer, alms-giving, periods of fasting, and a once-in-a-lifetime Hajj or pilgrimage to Mecca. Through the work of Muhammad and his immediate successors, Islam spread quickly throughout the Arabian peninsula. Within a century Islam was the dominant religion in the Middle East, Northern Africa, and even European Spain. Throughout this expansion, Islam was relatively tolerant of Christianity and Judaism, holding that the adherents of these monotheistic religions were also "people of the Book."
ISLAMIC THOUGHT IN THE MIDDLE AGES
The Islamic culture of this period was very sophisticated and cosmopolitan--especially when compared to that of Western Europe. When Western Europe was largely illiterate, the Muslims (adherents of Islam) were making advances in astronomy, mathematics, and medicine. There was also a group of Muslim thinkers known as falyasufs ("philosophers") who studied and applied the manuscripts of Aristotle and the Neoplatonists that had come through Syria. As Islamic thinkers worked with these texts, they encountered the problems their colleagues in the West knew well: how to reconcile philosophy with sacred texts; how to combine reason and faith. The falyasufs were centered in two different regions and times. An early group, around Baghdad, included al-Kindi (ca. 800-870), al-Farabi (870-950), al-Ghazali (1058-1111) and, most prominently, Ibn- Sina (or Avicenna, his Latin name, 980-1037). A later group in Spain included Ibn Bajjah (d. 1138), Ibn Tufayl (ca. 1100-1185), and, most prominently, Ibn Rushd (or Averroes, 1126-1198).
It was through Islamic philosophers that Aristotle was reintroduced to the West, an event that radically changed the course of medieval philosophy.
AVERROES (1126-1198)
BIOGRAPHY
Ab al-Wald Muhammad Ibn Ahmed Ibn Rushd, better known as Averroës, was born into a prominent family of jurists in Córdoba, Spain. Moving in high society, Averroës made the acquaintance of the sultan of Marrakesh and, through the sultan's favor, became a qadi, or judge, serving first in Seville and later in Córdoba. The sultan also expressed an interest in philosophy and commissioned Averroës to write three sets of commentaries (short, intermediate, and long) on each of Aristotle's writings. These commentaries were to become so influential in Western Europe that Averroës became known simply as "The Commentator."
In addition to the thirty-eight commentaries he produced on Aristotle, Averroës also wrote books on politics, religion, logic, astronomy, and medicine. His expertise in medicine led to his being called to Marrakesh to serve as the sultan's personal physician in 1182. He remained in that post until 1195 when he was forced to leave for religious reasons (apparently because of his glorification of Aristotle). He regained his standing and returned to Marrakesh shortly before his death in 1198. Soon after his death, Islamic culture in Spain virtually disappeared; and even though his thought continued to influence Latin Europe, Averroës had surprisingly little impact on the Muslim world.
BASIC THOUGHT
Through his writings, Averroës sought to counter two misconceptions. First, he wrote his commentaries to rid Aristotle of the misinterpretations of Avicenna and others. For example, Averroës rejected Avicenna's doctrine of the immortality of the soul. Instead he agreed with Aristotle that individual souls cannot exist apart from a body. But in agreement with the teachings of the Qur'an, Averroës also taught that there is a bodily resurrection. According to Averroës, after death we receive new bodies that "emanate from the heavenly bodies." In this way he denied Avicenna's immortality of the soul and managed to agree with both Aristotle and the Qur'an.
Averroës was opposed to several of Avicenna's teachings, but he was even more opposed to Avicenna's chief critic, al-Ghazali. Al-Ghazali (1058-1111) had opposed Avicenna's three controversial positions (see the previous introduction to Avicenna), claiming that Avicenna had put philosophy above the Qur'an. In his major work, The Incoherence of Philosophy, al-Ghazali had argued that philosophy led to disbelief in Allah. In his rejoinder, The Incoherence of the Incoherence, Averroës sought to refute al-Ghazali by dividing people into three classes. The majority of people can understand truth only in imaginative form. For them philosophy would, indeed, be dangerous and they must take the Qur'an literally. A smaller group of people, the theologians, can understand dialectical arguments and draw probable inferences from the Qur'an. But the elite, the philosophers, are capable of understanding truth in its pure, rational form. For them, the Qur'an can be read for its "deeper" allegorical meanings.
As Averroës' teachings reached Christendom, this last (allegorical) conviction was taken to mean he advocated a "double truth": Truth in philosophy might be entirely different--even opposite--from truth in religion. Averroës himself denied this, claiming that there is only one truth, but that there are many ways to access this truth. Unfortunately for Averroës' reputation, the work that made this clear, his Decisive Treatise Determining the Nature of the Connection Between Religion and Philosophy, was lost to the West until the Renaissance.
It may be first hand, but there's nothing preventing first hand knowledge from being narrow in scope.
where yours is second hand.
Not entirely. In fact, I studied several islamic philosophers first hand in college. That's more than you've ever done. And more recently, i've been taking some time to read passages from islamic texts like the koran in hopes of learning more about them.
You have learned what you know from material interpreted by this group
BZZZT! WRONG! I have not learned what I know about islam here - i learned it in university studies. If anything, I have shared what I know about Islam and taught several readers of this group, and several of them have written me and thanked me.
The truth must lie somewhere in between.
Potentially it could, but _must_? Nope. It does not necessarily lie anywhere in between. There's an equal possibility that one of us could be flat out wrong. And based on who has posted documented fact and who has posted vague rhetoric between us, I think we both know who that wrong person is.
Please re-examine and doubt those pieces of information you have that demonize me and my heritage.
The only ones that demonize your heritage are the ones your heritage invites demonization over, as they are areas where your heritage has screwed up and acted like a tyranny.
Much of that is in fact propaganda.
Care to specify any particular examples? Didn't think so - you prefer vague generalizations. That's all you ever post.
2. You are a sinner and are separated from him - Because God is holy.
Yes. And you are too. You will be held accountable for your sins. I don't care how many times you were reborn.
You are incorrect. I am not held accountable for my sins. The penalty was already paid (see #3) and they are not held to my account.
3. He sent his Son to pay the price for your sin (as well as the sin of the rest of the world.) He was the only blood sacrifice that could be sufficient - because He (Christ) is God and He is sinless!
God sent the Messiah who is all that, but did doubt - 'coz he's not God.
You're dead wrong.
4. Accept this FREE GIFT now and God will welcome you into his family. His Holy Spirit will dwell in you and guide you.
But Russ, I am. Why do you think I am bothering with this?
Wrong again. You are not bothering me.
5. Once you accept Christ as your Savior, by faith, God will never go back on his promise. There is not possibility that he will change what he has already done. You will have eternal life! Add to that that I must be sincere, and not just pretend to have accepted Christ.
You are correct
From that would follow that I cease to sin.
You are wrong. No man in the flesh has "ceased from sin." The difference is that a Son of God has power to turn away from sin. I am not perfect in the flesh. I am made perfect before the Holy God because He did what I could not do.
How can I have accepted Christ and be so judgmental? Maybe you can explain.
I am sure I could, if only your question made sense.
... finally - here is the important point: Jesus' grave is empty!
Russ
To find all articles tagged or indexed using Islamic_Violence
Click here: Islamic_Violence
Go here: OFFICIAL BUMP(TOPIC)LIST
and then click the topic to initiate the search! !
This is very misleading piece of propaganda:
1.
At that time Syria was part of the Roman/Byzantine Empire and the eastern neighbour was Persian/Sassanid Empire.
2.
Some offended scholars moved to the Persian court invited by Persian king who was interested in philosophy. But later , not being able adjust to Persian way of life they returned.
3.
Muslims conquered Syria and Persia more than hundred years later.
4.
Some Muslim conquerors got acquainted with Greek learning from conquered Christian Greeks over the later centuries. Indeed part of the classic knowledge was transfered to Western Europe through Spain but other parts were brought either directly from Constantinople or was never lost (in Italy or Ireland). After the decrease and impoverishment of non-Muslims the remnants of Greek culture were lost to the Muslim.
5.
BTW, the closure of pagan Academy did not signify the decline of learning in Eastern Christian Empire - the Athens were at at this time increasingly provincial and University of Constantinople founded in a previous century by Theodosius was becoming the leading center of scholarship.
"(a) prior to Islam, what is now Turkey was NOT Islamic"
if abyone cares, I find this to be an adequate example of a tautology.
by the way, If I was intending to imply that GOPCapitalist was hiding behind a plain and simple truism, I just did that, and didn't bring anything else of relevance to the discussion.
TWICE now!
"c'mon baby the laugh's on me" - Dancing in the Dark by Bruce Springsteen
REALLY??
Then all that stuff about a free pass to Paradise, and virgins waiting to serve, and victims being available as slaves for someone who kills infidels is just a bunch of hooey?
I realize there are different approaches to Islam, just as there are different approaches to Christianity, but I've yet to encounter any modern Christian thought that says you can go out and sacrifice innocent people and be immediately welcomed into Heaven.
Any particular reason you are replying to posts made four years ago?
no
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.