World would have been better off if Islam conquered Europe (My title)

Failure Magazine ^ | Jack Stesney

[SoCal Pubbie]

Your thoughts?

[SoCal Pubbie]

Don't shoot the messenger! I didn't say I agreed with the article!

[Sursum Corda]

Just two thoughts:

1) The author has no interest in matters of civility, morality or human rights.

2) The author has not noticed that much of Islam is still mired in the 12th century.

Aside from these two observations, this is truly a piece of work. ;-)

Sursum Corda

[Publius]

Shortly before his death, Louis L'Amour, the dean of American Western writers, wrote a book, The Walking Drum, that takes place in Europe a century after Tours.

It's fiction, but it's one of the best books about this era I've read. He brings the differences between Moslem Spain and Dark Ages France alive and does it with genuine brilliance.

[Rightwing Canuck]

Let me see if I understand this guy correctly (and since it's past midnight here I might not) - he thinks that just because a culture is more advanced than another scientifically that the 'inferior' culture should submit and let itself be conquered? That they should cast off whatever values and belief they possess and just convert to Islam (since the Arabs would've forced all, or at least the majority, to convert by the sword)?

Thanks, but no thanks. They are many standards with which to judge a culture, science being just one of them. Compassion for your fellow man, humanitarianism, respect for life. Using these standards, Europe beat the Islamic world hands down.

[Uglywhiteguy]

Mohammed was studying to be a cleric, when his tutor died..he went out on his own and rewrote the Bible to suit himself...Arabs DID NOT advance algebra!! Look at them now: where is the intellect? Advancements?? Posh on this article!!

[meatloaf]

f you're going to blame Charles Martel you need to equally blame the Khazars who repeatedly stopped the Arabs from entering and conquering Europe from the East.

[KellyAdmirer]

The Renaissance really began with the sack of Constantinople in 1204 by the Venetians and Franks, when they transported the knowledge and artifacts of the Roman Empire back to Italy and Germany (the famous horses of St. Marks Church in Venice were among the prizes). The Arabs never made a dent on New Rome's defenses (which fact was the REAL salvation of Europe, Tours being almost a sideshow in comparison). Even the much more powerful Ottoman Turks couldn't take the Byzantine capitol down until 250 years after the "backward" Crusaders, in 1453.

Thus, if the Arabs somehow had wiped out the Franks at Tours with their desert robes and weapons (and continued their looooooong, circular back door journey East back to the Bosphorus), Constantinople wouldn't have released its treasures for another couple of centuries, the Internet wouldn't be around today (and not for another two centuries), and we'd all still be writing with quills and wearing cocked hats.

This analysis is at least as valid as the crock posted above.

[Vince Ferrer]

There is good and bad in every culture at any point in history, so it is certainly possible to write an article about good things Muslims did in that time. But this article completely ignores the bad effects of Islam during the same period.

Far from saving Europe from the Dark Ages, Islam was one of the major causes of it. Its spread caused a multi-century economic depression when they blocked trade along the ancient trade routes between Europe and Asia. What finally got Europe out of the depression, and back into the lead, was the successful strategy to go around Islam and re-establish trade. The great voyages of discovery, including Columbus' voyage to the new world, were part of that plan, and saved Europe.

[ninonitti]

No thoughts - only a geographic quibble: I've always been told that the battle was fought near what is now (and was)Poitiers not Tours which is about 100 kms north.

I share the author's view that Islamic thought has turned inward and backward resulting in the bizarre behavior we witness today.

Anyone who has traveled in the Arab world can tell you they are different

[x]

We are very fortunate that Europe was able to hold back the Islamic tide. At the same time, knowledge of Islamic cultures high level in those years can make us less conceited about our own subsequent successes.

As for the article, I think the author gets too caught up in his own fantasy. The Internet in 1800? Would that make the world better or worse than it actually was? Would a Muslim victory have meant a moon landing in 1769? And all the horrors of the 20th century happening in the 18th century? With industrial pollution, resource exhaustion and overpopulation reaching a crisis about the time when they actually began to take-off? Look at things from too far away and you can lose all bearings. There are far too many other factors involved to justify such simplistic conclusions.

The author looks like a very superficial person, who doesn't consider the downside of technological progress or the close relationship between Christianity and our culture. Muslim rule wasn't the greatest of evils, but if one looks more closely at the Balkans or the Caucasus, the Near East or Russia's years of the "Tatar yoke," the most likely conclusion would be that the West was lucky that it turned back the Islamic tide.

[Robear]

So what happened to Islam afterward? Why didn't they invent integral calculus, flight, etc. What you've described happened well over 1000 years ago. What caused their apparent MASSIVE stagnation. In the worlds of the Church Lady... Could it be perhaps... ISLAM?

[mississippi red-neck]

Since they hate all this modern culture ane science. We would not have these things. Judging from the condition of their countries now, instead of flying two air planes into the towers they would have had to crash two camels into a dung heap.

[Peter Libra]

I do so respect earnest scholarship. The fact that I wish to get my reply in quickly before the interest fades, prevents me from doing the essay justice. I rushed to my prized book - "The Fifteen Decisive Battles Of The World" by Sir Edward Creasy (1851). Creasy quotes historian Gibbon vis: "The events that rescued our ancestors of Britain,and our neighbours of Gaul,from the civil and religious yoke of the Koran". Well, having surveyed that culture, as a raw conscript British soldier, I may say I was fascinated; to the utter contempt of my fellow comrades. No,(hesitating) I think I would prefer my own decadent Western Civilization thank you. Never could understand them fellows smoking the old ubley bubley and praying all over the bloomin' place.

[WOSG]

Some good history there, but some key history is *missing*, that makes this conclusion 100% wrong.

In a nutshell, he author exhibits the Western European bias that civilization in Europe was dead from 400AD to 1500AD. Let me explain why he is wrong:

The West "forgets" that half the Roman Empire was still around as of 640 AD, its capitol was Constaninople, and it along with an advanced Persian Empire, ruled the same lands that Alexander the Great, ruled. Byzantium was Christian (pre-schism of 1000AD the Orthodox Church was truly united and Catholic). The Persians were Zorastrian, with perhaps some Jews and Christians.

Much of both advanced empires were lost quickly to the Muslims forces, the Saracens, who were ruled under the Caliphs. Political/religious reasons for the loss of Empire - yes a schism, in particular Nestorism/Mononphysite schism; political reasons: the Byzantines just fought debilitating was against Persians. Both empires were weak and were asking for high taxes to pay for the wars. From 630 to 640 the new force came and in a few blows knocked off the Persians and much of Byzantium. In some cases the invaders had aplan to tax in a discriminatory way all non-Muslims. eg in Egypt. This "tax" was over time so debilitating to the Copts of Egypt that by 1500AD they were a minority and their language had been changed from Coptic to Arabic. In Persia, the Muslims were brutal and efficient in killing all who opposed their religion. They knew no other way of ruling.

Yes, Islam transmitted the learning of the Greeks. Key question: *How* did the Caliph of Baghdad learn from the Greeks??? Not directly. There was an empire in the way - Byzantium or Roman Empire centered at Constaninople. The answer is by assimilation of conquered people's culture. The Saracens invaded Persia, Egypt, Syria and North Africa, places populated by CULTURED CHRISTIANS, like the Assyrian Christians, the Coptic Christians of Egypt. The Caliphs got their knowledge from the cultures they conquered, in particular from the Christian subjects, like the Assyrians, who were earlier part of Byzantium, which was were advanced and withThe Islamic/Arab culture merely hijacked the existing advanced cultures and their existing learning.

This is as if Islam took over America today and then claiming Islam itself was responsible for the advances in our nation. The flowering of Arabian culture for a few centuries under the Abbasid Empire. But it ended ...

END -945 CE: Early Islam - A Shiite band invades Baghdad, and the Abbasid Empire becomes a powerless symbol of unity and legitimate government to the Muslim community. Until the sixteenth century, rule of Islamic civilization is decentralized and different sects are ruled by different rulers.

After about 1000 AD there was no real advances in Islamic culture. Did the Ottomans contribute to world-wide technology? "Arabic" numerals? Taken from Indians. In other respects, Europe 'learned' from Arabs things that Arabs learns from Eastern civilizations.

Over time, the Christian communities in places like Iraq, Syria, Turkey, Egypt, that once were almost entirely Christian, had their Christian heritage wiped away. There are still small Christian communities in Iraq, the Armenians, Assyrian, and Lebanese Maronite, plus Palestinian Christians, are but a small reminder that the "Fertile Crescent" was both advanced and civilized even before the birth of Mohammed.

The real mark of a civilization is whether it can contribute new things to the world, not merely be a vessel of ancient knowledge. For a time, Islamic Empires did that. But only for a time. It is a religions and belief system that is in our terms "Medieval" and has yet to advance. Contrary to the articles contention, it is quite possible that had Islam taken over Europe, our economies and politics would today be more like Syria, Iraq, and Iran - or maybe the Ottoman Empire circa 1600AD.

BTW, this may have something to do with why the Islamic Emprie ceased to be an advanced one, and slipped over time into decay:http://aina.org/martyr.htm

"During the reign of Caliph Qadir, the Muslims sacked the houses of the Christians in Baghdad, and destroyed and burned down many of their churches. The Caliph, at the same time, destroyed the church of the Resurrection in Jerusalem, and other churches in the same city. The Caliph ordered the town criers or heralds in each place to announce that, according to the will of the ruler, all his subjects should embrace his religion. The Christians and the Jews who did so should be rewarded; if they resisted, and did not change their religion, they should be punished. They were not allowed to have rings on their right hand, nor ride on a horse (only on donkeys). If they disregarded the order, their whole property was forfeited to the state, and they were expelled from the country. Many Christians emigrated to the Roman territory, others embraced Islam, but a great number remained and defied the ordinance. They wore crosses of gold and silver around their neck to show their religion. The Caliph ordered that every Christian who wore a cross of gold or silver should have it exchanged for a wooden one, weighing 4 pounds. If they resisted, they should be put to death. "

[SoCal Pubbie]

I am glad to see that others find this topic as interesting as I do. I have always been taught that the Arab world was responsible for saving ancient Greek and Roman culture during the Dark Ages. On the other hand, why was there never any renaissance in the Islamic world? There must be a reason that the West passed the Islamic world, as well as the Chinese who invented so many things long ago.

I would be interested to learn more specifics of how the Dark Ages were not so dark.

[Storm Orphan]

Veddy interesting.

[WOSG]

Timeline of Assyrian History

MY contention: THE ASSYRIAN CHRISTIANS (as well as Coptic Christian Egyptians) are the MISSING LINK from the tranmission of Greek/Byzantine culture to Islam, then to the Moors, then to Western Europe.

More information on the Assyrian culture, and the Assyrian Christian church. There are reasons why the Arabist/Muslim propogandists and European-centric historians would both neglect this cutlure and people. Consider this tidbit: 80 million Christians lived in what is today mostly Muslim lands:

1200 A.D. (5950) The Church of the East is at its largest, larger than the Greek Orthodox and Roman Catholic combined, with eighty million members, from Egypt to Japan.

Here is the method of transmission of Culture ... A story FORGOTTEN BY MOST OF HISTORY:

358 A.D. (5350) The School of Nisibis is Established, the first university in the world. 400 A.D. (5150) The great translation movement. Assyrian monks, because of their close ties with Greek Christianity, translate the significant body of Greek knowledge into Assyrian, including all the great works of religion, medicine, philosophy, science, and mathematics. These works are eventually translated into Arabic and brought to Spain by the Moors, where they are translated from Arabic to Latin and distributed through Europe, igniting the Renaissance.