I suggest Tarek Fatah's "Chasing A Mirage" as a textbook.

Perhaps including something they've invented in the last 400 or 500 years would make the lessons more relevant. Something like, uh......hmmm.........Well, let me get back to you on that.

This is comically ironic. Islam teaches Mohammedans that they are supreme creatures over we poor debauched filthy kaffirs. They have come to
"rectify us" as I have heard it called. I suppose a huge grant went to a Muslim organization to come up with this innovative concept. Good dhimmie practice.

PS It's un PC and very rude to point out that the majority of their claims are quite thin and unsubstantiated.

Any so-called 'Islamic' inventions certainly have nothing to do with the ideology. Through war and subjugation, Islam has resulted in less than zero. Their texts are abominable when it comes to reason and science. As an imperialist, desert, no nothing, savage culture, they simply stole, raided and pillaged their way through civilization and called the resultant booty Islamic.

Otherwise, why did their 'golden age', suddenly die one thousand years ago?

Even today, why is the entire GDP of OIC nations, minus petroleum, less than Finland - a population of 5 million?

Besides the point, is an airplane, computer, automobile, nuclear bomb, pretty much everything known to the modern world, etc., etc., referred to as Christian inventions?

Barbaric twats.

"This teaches children that it is crucial that they do not love the person they marry."

That is patently immoral.

something they've invented in the last 400 or 500 years

Coldly using children/mentally handicapped/family-threatened suicide bombers is an innovation in warfare, isn't it?

Also consider the ability to wire together unexploded American bombs and remote-detonate them at the appropriate time. Isn't THAT a form of invention and ingenuity?

It seems that the most passionate people in some parts of the world work to destroy rather than build.

But wait! Before building must come destruction!

I wonder what the monopoly-akin-minded muslim landlords think of this board game . . .

decisions, decisions.

kill kill kill the infidels!!!!

Why has Islam failed to rejuvenate itself in the 1,000 years that have elapsed since its so-called Golden Age? I think the reason is the relgion itself.

It does not lend itself to intropsection. Islam is a total way of life with no separation between relgion and state. If you question why things are, you are questioning the fundamentals of the religion itself and that is not allowed (apostates are to be killed so it is better to be incurious). Therefore Islam discourages the type of introspection that precedes progress.

In her book "Infidel", Ayaan Hirsi Ali describes what happens to people who ask questions, especially a woman. She eventually had to forsake her religion because she could not square its teachings and practices with the human freedoms she found so intellectually liberating when she became resident in a western country (Holland) after seeking asylum there to avoid an arranged marriage.

canadians have grown tired of hearing about islam. their seven day attention span has been exceeded.

I see no problem with teaching about scientific discoveries from the Middle Ages from the Middle East. It is true that during the Middle Ages, there was a strong scientific movement in the Islamic world that was not passed by Europe until the end of the Middle Ages.

A key point must be taught though. Islam only let scientific innovation advance so far before the nutcases reacted. The scientific movement in Europe overcame much of the religious opposition during the Renaissance. That willingness to overcome religious barriers was the key in the West developing to where it is today.

Hmmm, where are we again Ryan?

Teaching about history and accomplishments of the past is good. Warping it to fit the 'politically correct motivation of today' is not good.

Islam ... what have you done for us lately?

As Michelangelo was mentioned in the preamble, here is a bit of trivia for you. I've just returned from Chicago and there is a carved frieze around the Museum of Art there with letters 2 feet long at least, with the names of famous painters. MICHELANGELO is there and appears as
MICHEL ANGELO.

A thread on Islam.

Irwin Daisy parroting his usual talking points.

How surprising.

"Their texts are abominable when it comes to reason and science"

Many strands of Shi'ism are heavily influenced by Greek reasoning, particularly Pythagorean logic. Indeed it manifests itself in the geometric patterns that adorn many Persian style buildings.

Aristotle and Plato survived in Arabic when the Church banned them as pagan. Islamic scholars regularly discussed philosophy. Maimonedes, the great Jewish philosopher, practiced philosophy in Arabic in Islamic countries, learning under Arab scholars of the subject (Christian countries weren't welcoming of Jews or Philosophy). A lot of Arab scholars served as the link between Greek and Roman philosophy and 'enlightenment' philosophy. For what its worth, Averroes (Ibn Rashid) is considered the father of secular thought in Western Europe. Averroism was a major school of thought in Western Europe for quite a while. How different would history have been without him?

Sure they 'stole' it from the Greeks. Frankly they never tried to suggest that they wrote Aristotle's work, so I wouldn't call it stealing. What they did do is protect some very important philosophical works that eventually got back into the west. With their own arguments added on (Averroism). Odd how they did that, eh? Particularly when "Their texts are abominable when it comes to reason and science".

"Otherwise, why did their 'golden age', suddenly die one thousand years ago?"

Ask the Indians. Or the Chinese. They are in the ascent, but they have been up there before. Did you know that in 1500, India accounted for 25 percent of the worlds GDP. Yeah, I was surprised too.

"Barbaric twats."

Vintage Daisy. Still as angry as ever. But then again, I don't know anything about Islam.

And I bothered scrolling through the rest of the page. And noticed the usual conjecture. I've read a lot of philosophy, and a lot of you will be shocked by the way the dots line up. Averroes is of course the most important player because his work became an entire school of thought in Western Europe, but they have all, if only by preserving Aristotle, played a key role in the development of the west as the west.

We can only thank God that the folk running universities in Western Europe in the 15th and 16th century (when the foundation for enlightenment philosophy was being laid), were not as dismissive of Islam or Averroes work. It shaped Western Europe.

Don't know about the rest of Islam though. I only ever bother with philosophy. For fun, not professionally.

Dim: I think you miss the point of the post ... neither Socrates nor Sulayman have any effect on the modern barbarian ... nor who discovered "coffee" or "wheat". Classical education, in fact, is completely irrelevant ... especially fringe disciplines like philosophy of all things. Only those who are incredibly out of touch ... or living on the fringe, would think so. But, it does make one sound "above the fray" and highbrow to bring such into a debate that's about as bread butter as they get.

Yawn.

Islam has added nothing to the world in terms of democratic governance, human rights, and liberty ... it is on the whole; a negative and gives its angry fringe much comfort in its violent means.

Yes Paul, I was expecting something like that.

I think it is difficult in this day and age to appreciate the impact Averroes had on western philosophy at one of its most crucial junctures. The University of Paris, for instance, stuck to his school of thought. One of its most famous products - one Marsilius of Padua, is credited with bringing the Papacy down by advocating secular government and setting the stage for Martin Luther to challenge the Pope. Luther in turn led to democracy, which in turn led to western freedoms as we know it.

It really is amazing, the interplay. Marsilius was the right hand man of Louis of Bavaria, who was in conflict with the Pope. His secular treatises, along with those of the religious William of Ockham, broke the Papacy's back in popular opinion. Luther built on this two centuries later.

But you are right. Medieval philosophy in this day and age is a fringe thing. Still interesting.

"especially fringe disciplines like philosophy of all things. Only those who are incredibly out of touch ... or living on the fringe, would think so. "

I know there is a tendency to mock philosophy. I find it thoroughly interesting, particularly its evolution over time.

If you think philosophy is highbrow, you are greatly mistaken. In contemporary times, there are two philosophers who affect your life on a daily, even hourly, basis. John Rawls and Robert Nozick. Rawls defends big government. Nozick attacks it. All those arguments you hear for and against big government have come from them, not from the politicians. Not from average Joe on the street.

All the arguments that came out of Reagans and Thatchers mouth were straight out of Nozicks book. Much of what Obama says comes from Rawls' book. The arguments you are hearing are not devised by politicians. They are devised by philosophers who end up influencing the politicians. Thatcher used to carry Nozick's book to her meetings.

If you were a little less snooty in your lowbrowishness, you would get, and read these two books. And who knows, it might spark an interest in you. After all, philosophy is a living subject - it has evolved over time and the linkages are very clear. Of course those of us who have bothered, are all the more appreciative of the survival of Aristotle and Plato, particularly when they were banished.

And yes, they did shape the Western world. Marsilius was an advisor to the Bavarian king, not some guy writing a book somewhere.

There goes the Islamic apologist and historical revisionist again.

Averroes: "An apostate…is to be executed by agreement in the case of a man, because of the words of the Prophet, 'Slay those who change their din [religion]'…Asking the apostate to repent was stipulated as a condition…prior to his execution."

Hardly the father of western secular thought.

Oh, and during Averroes time - the Muslim occupation of Spain - Ibn Abdun also forbade the selling of scientific books to dhimmis, under the pretext that they translated them and attributed them to their co-religionists and bishops. This despite the fact that they were non-Muslim books to begin with. Whole Greek, Persian, Assyrian, Jewish and Christian libraries were translated, looted and/or destroyed - as evidenced by the words of a prominent Andalusian jurist, Ibn Hazm of Cordoba (d. 1064), who wrote that Allah has established the infidels’ ownership of their property merely to provide booty for Muslims.

On Maimonides, the Jews and the so-called 'Golden Age,' - How about the Granada pogrom? It was certainly incited, in part, by the bitter anti-Jewish ode of Abu Ishaq, a well known Muslim jurist and poet of the times, who wrote: "Put them back where they belong and reduce them to the lowest of the low..turn your eyes to other [Muslim] countries and you will find the Jews there are outcast dogs...Do not consider it a breach of faith to kill them...

Indeed, although you and other liars like to cite Maimonides as a paragon of Jewish achievement facilitated by the enlightened rule of Andalusia, his own words debunk this utopian view of the Islamic treatment of Jews: "..the Arabs have persecuted us severely, and passed baneful and discriminatory legislation against us...Never did a nation molest, degrade, debase, and hate us as much as they.."

Richard Fletcher's 'engaging Moorish Spain' offers these sobering, unassailable observations:

"The witness of those who lived through the horrors of the Berber conquest, of the Andalusian fitnah in the early eleventh century, of the Almoravid invasion- to mention only a few disruptive episodes- must give it [i.e., the roseate view of Muslim Spain] the lie. The simple and verifiable historical truth is that Moorish Spain was more often a land of turmoil than it was of tranquility...Tolerance? Ask the Jews of Granada who were massacred in 1066, or the Christians who were killed and/or deported by the Almoravids to Morocco."

Another non-Muslim often pointed out as perhaps the pre-eminent Islamic genius is Al Razi. But Razi was not an Arab or a Muslim but a Persion. In fact, he was so hostile to Islam that he wrote several books denouncing the ideology and upholding reason. For that, he had to live as a heretic. He considered the Quran to be an assorted mixture of "absurd and inconsistent fables."

But back to philosophy. Alkindus (Al-Kindi), the Arab mathematician who lived in Baghdad in the ninth century and was close to several Abbasid Caliphs, was one of the first to attempt reconciling Islam with Greek philosophy, especially Aristotle, a futile project that was to last for several centuries and prove ultimately unsuccessful.

It is true that some Greek and other classics were translated to Arabic, but it is equally true that Muslims could be highly particular about which texts to exclude. As Iranian intellectual Amir Taheri explains: "It is no accident that early Muslims translated numerous ancient Greek texts but never those related to political matters. The great Avicenna himself translated Aristotle's Poetics. But there was no translation of Aristotle's Politics in Persian until 1963."

In other words: There was a great deal of Greek thought that could never have been "transferred" to Europeans by Arabs, as is frequently claimed by revisionists, such as yourself, because many Greek works had never been translated into Arabic in the first place. Muslims especially turned down political texts, since these included descriptions of systems in which men ruled themselves according to their own laws. This was considered blasphemous by Muslims, as laws are made by Allah and rule belongs to his representatives.

It's preposterous to say that an imperialist, absurdist Arabic political ideology is responsible for any knowledge; to say that such and such is a Muslim invention. They simply stole ideas and knowledge and most often destroyed it (because it didn't agree with the unmitigated and uncreated word of Allah) from the people they conquered.

Quran 33:27, “And He made you heirs of their lands, their houses, and their goods, and of a land which ye had not frequented (before). And Allah has power over all things.”

Finally, you say to Paul: "If you were a little less snooty in your lowbrowishness..."

Rather, I charge that you are a condescending, pompous liar and a fool, or in your terms, "a snooty lowbrow."

Aristotlean thought is fundamentally incompatible with any religion that believes in an active personal and involved God (as opposed to the impersonal and uninvolved Deist God). Islam could not be reconciled with it because of that. Neither could Christianity or Judaism for that matter. It is more compatible with Hinduism, though.

Averroes, like it or not, founded the school of thought that was adopted by various western universities for centuries. One of its most prominent disciples, Marsilius of Padua, is famous for his secularist attacks on the religious role of the Church. The statemnt you put forth is akin to Galileo's profession of faith - more a product of context than actual belief.

Maimonedes pays equally vocal tribute to Arab schools of philosophy in his works. What you state there is in none of his major works, but I see no reason to not believe you. Islam has been cruel to Jews. That said, for some reason, Jewish philosophers in that age typically tend to be from Islamic, not Christian countries. I can only assume they felt they were better off in cruel Islam land than in Christian lands. They certainly practiced their philosophy in relative freedom.

"As Iranian intellectual Amir Taheri explains: "It is no accident that early Muslims translated numerous ancient Greek texts but never those related to political matters. The great Avicenna himself translated Aristotle's Poetics. But there was no translation of Aristotle's Politics in Persian until 1963."

Now that is factually incorrect. Aristotles Politics was incredibly hard to get a hold of. Many Islamic scholars used Plato's Republic in its absence. The Republic is an incredibly political book. And Aristotles Politics is not the be all and end all of Greek political philosophy. There were plenty of other authors who were actively debated in Islamic countries. Taheri needs to read up a bit.

On the rest, I am not a revisionist. I am not even a scholar. I have only read the works, and connected the dots. Read them, then talk. Don't engage in conjecture. You, I can say with complete certainty, have not read any philosophy (which would explain your poor understanding of Guillaume d'Occam's work). Willy of Ockham worked alongside Marsilius, insofar as he had the patronage of Luis of Bavaria too.

"these included descriptions of systems in which men ruled themselves according to their own laws. This was considered blasphemous by Muslims, as laws are made by Allah and rule belongs to his representatives"

Plato's Republic. Averroes has a widely available interpretation and discussion of it. How FOS are you? Making such grand statements without any factual basis whatsoever.

And don't worry about Paul. I am sure he can skewer me himself. I still think he should read Nozick and Rawls. You should, too.

"Marsilius of Padua, is famous for his secularist attacks on the religious role of the Church"

That should read political role, not religious role. Oops.

"Don't engage in conjecture."

followed by,

"You, I can say with complete certainty, have not read any philosophy"

You've got to be kidding me.

Once again, this is the point: "It's preposterous to say that an imperialist, absurdist Arabic political ideology is responsible for any knowledge; to say that such and such is a Muslim invention. They simply stole ideas and knowledge and most often destroyed it (because it didn't agree with the unmitigated and uncreated word of Allah) from the people they conquered."

"How FOS are you? Making such grand statements without any factual basis whatsoever."

The Islamic trilogy and all Islamic schools of jurisprudence serve as factual basis. You once again, have zero support for your assertions.

Political Islam is antithetical to Greek political philosophy and indeed, western democracy.

"You once again, have zero support for your assertions."

This is getting tiring. Here.

Averroes on Plato's Republic. Translated by Ralph Lerner.

Paperback: 176 pages
Publisher: Cornell University Press (May 31, 2005)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 080148975X
ISBN-13: 978-0801489754

Go read it. Might stop you from declaring

" many Greek works had never been translated into Arabic in the first place. Muslims especially turned down political texts, since these included descriptions of systems in which men ruled themselves according to their own laws. This was considered blasphemous by Muslims, as laws are made by Allah and rule belongs to his representatives."

I do find it amusing that I have become a de-facto defender of Islam despite having no affinity for that religion. That said, I don't see any point in denying the important role played by Muslim and Arab scholars in preserving and enhancing Greek thought, and Jewish philosophers who helped take this thought to Western Europe, where it enjoyed considerable success. But then again, one would need to know what the likes of Marsilius of Padua did, to fully appreciate it. Can't blame anyone here for not knowing - Medieval philosophy is a bit of an acquired taste.

So, Daisy, now that we have ascertained that Islam did not stop the discussion of various forms of government, what new claim are you going to come up with. Anything to critique Islam, eh?

Your postings become increasingly more lame.

Who cares what one Islamic jurist in Andalusia might have had an interest in. The fact is, he was an Islamist subscribing to the ethic of killing apostates, by his own admission. Hardly a secularist informing anyone, let alone the west.

Furthermore, did his co-religionists adopt any of his plagiarized findings? The answer then as now, no. This is due to the fact that, "these included descriptions of systems in which men ruled themselves according to their own laws. This was considered blasphemous by Muslims, as laws are made by Allah and rule belongs to his representatives."

So, dim, now that we've ascertained that you have no argument on this topic whatsoever, what will you come up with next?

Forget that, as before, I'm bored with your nonsense.

That jurist from Andalusia played a role in the development of Secular government is apparently beyond your comprehension. I would take his statements of faith about as seriously as I would Galileo's. Ignore the political and contextual compulsions at your own risk (Machiavelli's The Prince will make a lot more sense to you if you don't).

I don't think you quite understood what I am saying. But you can only take a horse to the water; you cannot make it drink.

This thread, you might note, is about teaching about the common histories. Averroes and Maimonedes and Avisenna etc etc were all products of Islam, all of whom have played a crucial role in incubating, and indeed enriching, Greek Philosophy. Plagiarizm? Again, I don't recall them ever taking credit for Greek philosophy. Like all philosophers, they have merely added to their comments.

These things are, sadly, beyond your comprehension. But your attitude is very revealing. I wonder what a day in Daisyland is like. I bet the first thing you say to your wife when you wake up is "Islam is evil". Its probably the last thing you say too. Islam is evil. Maybe you use it as punctuation. Fortunately, we will never know. But you might want to add some depth to your arguments. Mine are lame. Yours are always the same. If there is a thread on Islam (this board does have a strange affinity for such threads), Daisy will be there. And he will say what he always does. Islam is evil. Again. And again. And again. What a little energizer bunny you are.

Oh yes, it was Mohammad Al Boeing who invented the aeroplane. Mohammad al Newton who figured out the laws of gravity; mohammad al 'Ristocrates that systematised basic knowldege and philosophy; mohammad ibn galileo who figured out the structure of the solar system; mohammad al d'gamma who circumnavigated the world; mohammad ibn ... etc. etc.

This stuff is not only a joke; it is offensive to reason.

And don't forget, Mohammad al Edison ibn Frraday invented electricity.

Islam is not a belief system based upon reason. It is based upon revelation .. if you are lucky. Only one guy has received the revelation.

There is no requirement for the muslim god to behave any other way than arbitarily. The world doesn't need, or have, to make sense. The Christians say "God works in mysterious ways" but still assume he has a reasoned plan.

Muslims regard Allah's ways as unknowable and it is futile to know them; even a gross insult to presume that a human could comprehend Allah. This is why reason and philosophy and practical experimentation do not now, and have only briefly, existed in muslim cultures. Fatalism is the fate of this attitude.

"al d'gamma who circumnavigated the world"

Magellan, you mean.

"Islam is not a belief system based upon reason."

The only religion that MIGHT be able to claim any link to reason is Buddhism. Doubt any of the other majors can claim a basis in reason.

"It is based upon revelation .. if you are lucky. Only one guy has received the revelation."

Moses?

"There is no requirement for the muslim god to behave any other way than arbitarily. The world doesn't need, or have, to make sense. The Christians say "God works in mysterious ways" but still assume he has a reasoned plan.

Agree totally. Jehovah, God, and Allah seem to have a propensity for getting very angry over some pretty minor slights. God is the best, but even he insists on dividing mankind between people who acknowledge his son and those who don't (who are, of course, relegated to an eternity in a fiery hell). Not very loving, no. Very mysterious.

"Fatalism is the fate of this attitude."

Complete agreement. Sooner or later they will lose their appeal. Or die out. Particulalry when they start killing those who sympathise with them the most. These revisionist groups come every now and then, make some noise, and then disappear. I expect this lot will exhaust whatever is sustaining them within the next half century.