Discuss Arab Cultural Achievments and/or Inferiority

[PenguinHunter]

. . . and, if you want, the value of such a discussion. . .

I decided to start a new thread for this. It came from: http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=9936


To be honest, he is right, Arab nations have contributed very little to the lot of mankind, even if we include early developments in math and philosophy. Since that society crumbled the Arab world has been locked in theocracy, despotism, feudalism etc. Those societies and the values which their people live under have proven themselves distinctly inferior to alternatives, stunting development and oppressing freedom.


Wow. I don't want to derail this thread but seriously. . . So the Arab world is oil and turbans?

If it weren't for Arab scholars over the past 1000 years there would essentially be no copies of ancient texts from the Middle East, Europe and to some extent even Asia. They were desperately preserving Ancient Greek texts as these same texts were being banned and burned in Europe. That in itself, let alone specifically Arab contributions, is an enormous contribution to "the lot of mankind." A lot of this still haven't been translated back into European languages. These days the occasional Western scholar heads to the Middle East and makes a "discovery" because (s)he can translate some ancient work (out of Arabic) that the Arabs have had for a couple of thousand years.

I don't even know where to begin with the other massive generalizations. . . I just thought this should be flagged at least. "Oppressing freedom?" Heh, nice, nice.


Lee wasn't suggesting there was no contribution, but that there is little modern contribution. I also think you'll find that all cultures are respopnsbile for destorying the texts of the past. Or at least the ones that disagree with their veiw. I shall have to look into this charge that Europeans were destoying anceint texts on mass, cosidering the veiw of the world that they held was that the past was better, it seems highly unlikely....

Ok, I phrased that misleadingly, but the point still stands. I wouldn't say that Europeans were generally actively destroying knowledge (and yes, bannings happen everywhere) but certainly, with the end of the Roman Empire and the beginning of the Middle Ages a lot of texts were lost or destroyed. The burning of the great library in Alexandria for example. Simultaneously, there was a stagnation in European intellectual development for the next thousand years (give or take. . . and yes, that is unfair as well; many argue that the Middle Ages was rockin' time. . . but still, for the most part my assertions are accurate). A paper I just picked up about Arabian Medicine: http://www.globalcomment.com/science&technology/article_14.asp

#2: http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/S/science/society/islamicscience.html

And fair point about lack of modern contribution? I don't really think so. How do you even judge that? And even if that is the case how can one put that down to an inferior culture/society? You have to consider economics, geography and political developments. One can easily argue that most of the difficulty faced by parts the Arab world (and a lot of the 3rd world) came with the artificial division of this part of the world into nation-states based on a European mindset and initially guided by hand-picked despots. Not to mention a century of resource sapping. Thanks to oil-wealth (note, also economics + geography) many parts of the Middle East are developing significantly. Similar to Europe one/two hundred years ago?

[dubbeltop]

I think there are no european arab or american contributions anyway. See the thing is that there are allways very special individuals with a certain vision who tend to make a product or idea which then is adopted / representative of a culture. So today America dominates the scene because a lot of education and more freedom than other countries and oil dollars have made innovations by american individuals possible which benefit the ENTIRE world. So..thats my view.

[kuranes]

I think one of the coolest and most telling features about the Arab world is that some of their bankers ( all of them ? ) do not charge interest on a loan to another person trusted in the network.

Check out the Sufis too. I've been listening to some Sufi music lately, and read a little of their philosophy.

It is a drag though, with all these guys psyching each other up for beheadings etc. I can understand the "Let's cut the chit-chat here and get down to it" sort-of charged feeling to the air.

[PenguinHunter]

I think one of the coolest and most telling features about the Arab world is that some of their bankers ( all of them ? ) do not charge interest on a loan to another person trusted in the network.

Check out the Sufis too. I've been listening to some Sufi music lately, and read a little of their philosophy.

Heh, yeah Sufis and Islamic banking. . . good times.

I saw, whirling dervishes in Konya (Turkey) when I was 15. My mom got some fantastic photos. Always fascinated me but Sufism is one of the subcultures of the Arab world I know the least about. I remember reading about Al Ghazali this Christmas because my mom was looking at him as part of her thesis, but now I can't remember much of that even. Wikipedia time.

[distraction tactics]

Inferiority, in my view, simply comes up in their method of government - that Islam provides a decent, respectable, nay, practical approach... I just don't see it.

[coffeezombie]

Inferiority, in my view, simply comes up in their method of government - that Islam provides a decent, respectable, nay, practical approach... I just don't see it.
I think all forms of government are inferior that don't include a plurality of ideas. Only through the intelligent debate of ideas can the best solution be found. Governments that put a religion (theocracy), an individual (monarchy/dictatorship) or a concept of state (fascism) on a pedestal don't allow for enough evolutionary change and the civilizations that possess these governments are ultimately going to "fall behind" other civilizations.

[charred_heart]

To say Arabs is misleading as most scientific achievements during Islam's golden age came from central asian muslim scholars. Arabs were more into poetry and politics. I do know that:
Algebra and Algorithms were the work of Al Khawarizmi (Latin: Algorithmius) who also introduced the decimal system in the muslim world (but I'm not sure if he invented it)
Ironically, it was muslims who identified the chemical found in intoxicating drinks and gave it the name alcohol (arabic Al kuhul).
There are a few architects, astronomers and physicians, but I'll need to look them up.
This was a thousand years ago ofcourse so it's not surprising that muslims don't appear to have contributed anything, but you have to admit that algebra was not a small contribution.

[ApeTheDog]

So today America dominates the scene because a lot of education and more freedom than other countries and oil dollars have made innovations by american individuals possible which benefit the ENTIRE world. So..thats my view.

I hate this.

No. America does not have better education and more freedom than other countries. It has better education and more freedom that most countries.

American developments don't benefit the entire world either. They don't benefit africa. They don't benefit any of the countries you've dropped bombs on.

[Dom]

To say Arabs is misleading as most scientific achievements during Islam's golden age came from central asian muslim scholars. Arabs were more into poetry and politics. I do know that:
Algebra and Algorithms were the work of Al Khawarizmi (Latin: Algorithmius) who also introduced the decimal system in the muslim world (but I'm not sure if he invented it)
Ironically, it was muslims who identified the chemical found in intoxicating drinks and gave it the name alcohol (arabic Al kuhul).
There are a few architects, astronomers and physicians, but I'll need to look them up.
This was a thousand years ago ofcourse so it's not surprising that muslims don't appear to have contributed anything, but you have to admit that algebra was not a small contribution.

Yes I think it is important to define this rather dodgy discussion, are we talking about Islamic contribution or specifically Arab contribution?

No one here is denying the contributions mentioned in the quote above, so are we discussing in general or the reference to a later period? say the last 500 years?

The Dark and Middle ages in Europe may very well be why the innovations came from the Muslim world. The sudden vaccum made by the fall of the western roman emprie was huge. Please lets note, that the Dark ages are called dark, not because we think people were stupid etc, but because we know little about them they left few written records behind than the Roman Empire did. Europe may have come up with the above systems, if they hadn't been busy trying to carve out their own states from the wreckage of Pax Romana.

Alas for the burning of the great library, however, apart from this, my understanding of the Middle Ages in Europe inc England, was that the ancients were increadably well respected. Accusation of whole sale wanton destruction of their work is not paulsable, the burning was a mob action taken during an assult in a siege, it's akin to the rapes, and murders that follow an assult.... It was very regrettable, but probably the action of a battle crazyed mob, than an order handed down from on high.

[Zephyrus055]

I think all forms of government are inferior that don't include a plurality of ideas. Only through the intelligent debate of ideas can the best solution be found. Governments that put a religion (theocracy), an individual (monarchy/dictatorship) or a concept of state (fascism) on a pedestal don't allow for enough evolutionary change and the civilizations that possess these governments are ultimately going to "fall behind" other civilizations.
Actually, my experience with ideology is that they lack empirical foundation and reflect the values and standards of the society the intellectual lives in. It's the intellectual who is empirical and beyond the standards who is enabled to contribute much of anything.

But I agree with you to the extent that a government that doesn't foster an environment of excellence is a state that will significantly minimize its growth potential. But this is not a consequent of autocracy, however. Monarchs such as Augustus Caesar and Alexander The Great were very much concerned about personal excellence, and thus their power was optimized.

[charred_heart]

Alas for the burning of the great library, however, apart from this, my understanding of the Middle Ages in Europe inc England, was that the ancients were increadably well respected. Accusation of whole sale wanton destruction of their work is not paulsable, the burning was a mob action taken during an assult in a siege, it's akin to the rapes, and murders that follow an assult.... It was very regrettable, but probably the action of a battle crazyed mob, than an order handed down from on high.
I remember reading something about the church trying to ban roman and greek philosophy because of it's 'heathen' origins.

[Dom]

I remember reading something about the church trying to ban roman and greek philosophy because of it's 'heathen' origins.

Yeah they may have banned the leyity from reading it, but they really destoryed such things, they would try to keep them, but only in their libraries, and monastic libraries etc... The idea being that people they deemed suitable would be permited to read what they like but the layity no...

Also it rather depends on when and where you are, after all by 16th 17th century England has escaped (along with the rest of protestant europe) form the churches clutches, and certainly university course where full of aristotlian learning.

[joft]

has anyone mentioned the theory about the cultural tradition of cousin marriages increasing the benefits of clannish familial alliances and making more opportunity for nepotism, thus undermining attempts at democracy or fair government?

http://www.isteve.com/cousin_marriage_conundrum.htm

i'm too lazy to read both threads and see if this has already been mentioned. but, at least in one way it means to me that they aren't "inferior", they got screwed over by ending up with a culture that marries cousins instead of one that produces movies like Deuce Bigalow 2: European Gigalo

[Lee]

has anyone mentioned the theory about the cultural tradition of cousin marriages increasing the benefits of clannish familial alliances and making more opportunity for nepotism, thus undermining attempts at democracy or fair government?I believe this is very true.

However, a lack of effective and consistent law enforcement and upholding of individual rights alse make nepotism a more appealing choice. One of central purposes of law enforcement is to make our stranger to stranger interactions trustworthy, but without an adequate uncorrupt and fair judicial and law enforcement system, people more frequently turn to family to family transactions which are more trustowrorthy.

The knock-on consequence is that insular tribal-like systems, the first step to warlords, honour cultures and feudalism.

European cultures have slipped in and out of this at various times, but also managed to effectively solve it numorous times. The question is what conditions are necessary in order to break this societal arrangement? I do not think Arabian people are inherently inferior, circumstance has played the biggest part in this.

Whatever people may think about the current war in Iraq, I certainly hope America succeeds in implementing democracy and the rule of law, even if it takes years, to give up now would likely be a far worse tragedy.

[booyalab]

Everyone's casually interchanging between Arabs and Muslims when talking about the Golden Age, but those advancements were always in spite of Islam. When the Arabic world had copied what it could from Persia and Byzantium and when enough Jews and Christians had been converted, the intellectual stagnation commenced.

[Dom]

Whatever people may think about the current war in Iraq, I certainly hope America succeeds in implementing democracy and the rule of law, even if it takes years, to give up now would likely be a far worse tragedy.

Totally Agree,

Actually, could the Arabs preservation of ancient texts actually have coem down to a period of relative stability were as europe was in almost total turmoil?

[BILLER]

Everyone's casually interchanging between Arabs and Muslims when talking about the Golden Age, but those advancements were always in spite of Islam. When the Arabic world had copied what it could from Persia and Byzantium and when enough Jews and Christians had been converted, the intellectual stagnation commenced.

I disagree. The Arabs before Islam were simply roaming the deserts on their camels. They could not have achieved what they did without Islam. Even those achievements were not Arabic as most people think. As charred heart rightly noted, most of the achivements were made by Asians.

Secondly, the stagnation began when they completely abandoned the Islamic model.

[PenguinHunter]

Yes I think it is important to define this rather dodgy discussion, are we talking about Islamic contribution or specifically Arab contribution?

No one here is denying the contributions mentioned in the quote above, so are we discussing in general or the reference to a later period? say the last 500 years?

I think it's fair to discuss either. The reason I chose "Arab" was because that was the context Lee used in reference to modern nation states. That was my main purpose, as few disagree with the contributions of Arab and Islamic scholars and a debate about the modern world tends to foster more discussion. Nevertheless, it is still interesting to hear about the origins of a lot of ideas, some of which I may not think to look up on my own. In short, discuss whatever you want to, but I agree that the words Islamic and Arab should be used correctly. You can talk about modern Malaysia if you want.


I think all forms of government are inferior that don't include a plurality of ideas. Only through the intelligent debate of ideas can the best solution be found. Governments that put a religion (theocracy), an individual (monarchy/dictatorship) or a concept of state (fascism) on a pedestal don't allow for enough evolutionary change and the civilizations that possess these governments are ultimately going to "fall behind" other civilizations.

The problem with this argument is that many Middle Eastern countries do have a plurality of ideas in government but it is derived differently than in the West. Especially in the smaller Gulf States you find (as I have argued here before) a higher level but different kind of democracy, no less efficient or effective than the US for example. On top of this, many of these countries are developing western forms of democracy in coordination with their current governments. This takes time though.

A second problem is that it doesn't consider the fact that a nation like Iran has been marginalized by the international community. Can we say for sure that they have "fallen behind" because of an inferior system when a significant portion of the world has ostracized them? (aside from the argument that it is an inferior system because it leads to marginalization of course) Having been there I don't even know if I would agree that they have "fallen behind" anyway. How do we measure that?

A third problem is time. We haven't given these countries much time to develop and see where they emerge. (I keep using the UAE as an example because that is what I know best) I would hardly say that the Emirati government is stunting development. Even with its ridiculously extravagent projects, the government is making sure that the previous heavy reliance on oil money is being phased out.

(I have to go to school, but I look forward to this later)

[Nemesis]

The Arabs invented calculus and gave us the number system based on 10, according to my math teacher.

[booyalab]

I disagree. The Arabs before Islam were simply roaming the deserts on their camels. They could not have achieved what they did without Islam. Even those achievements were not Arabic as most people think. As charred heart rightly noted, most of the achivements were made by Asians.

Secondly, the stagnation began when they completely abandoned the Islamic model.

what are you talking about?
So just because Islam and the Golden Age overlapped, the advancements were BECAUSE of Islam?! Even though the theology of the religion discourages almost every artistic and scientific endeavor? Allah and anything having to do with him, like his creation, is beyond reason. Kharazmi may have come up with the algorithm, but it was the West that did anything with it. Muslims may have had their hands on chemistry, but...again, did NOTHING with it. Guess who did.
And when, may I ask, did the middle east abandon the Islamic model?

[booyalab]

The Arabs invented calculus and gave us the number system based on 10, according to my math teacher.

Yes, technically they did give us that number system, after taking it from the Hindus

and I'm pretty sure neither Leibnitz nor Newton were Arabic, much less Muslim

[ptGatsby]

Yes, technically they did give us that number system, after taking it from the Hindus

and I'm pretty sure neither Leibnitz nor Newton were Arabic

Arabs, as far as calculus goes, developed the requirements for calculus. They were far more advanced up until ~ 800AD; after that, it was a give and take environment. Most of what we think was developed in Europe had roots and/or more advanced concepts already developed in the arab world.

This includes practical as well as theoretical (astronomical to navigation to number theory)

If you go far enough back, places like Egypt developed formulas that Europe didn't couldn't develop (and had tried) thousands of years apart.

--

Islam was a unification of the Arab world, no different than Christianity was in Europe. It allowed a theological (read: scientific) community when knowledge was still mystical and protected. With a breakdown of religion and beginning of scientific reasoning, the requirements for religion is now largely broken down. This was generally true in some form, be it in guilds, religion or government. The circumstances differ for each.

I'll quote here;


Science was considered the ultimate scholarly pursuit in the Islamic world, and it was strongly supported by the nobility. Most scientists worked in the courts of regional leaders, and were financially rewarded for their achievements. In 830, the Khalifah, al-Ma'muun, founded Bayt-al-Hikman, the 'House of Wisdom', as a central gathering place for scholars to translate texts from Greek and Persian into Arabic. These texts formed the basis of Islamic scientific knowledge.


The greek philosophers and the Islamic scientific community were like two 'schools' that traded concepts and explanations of the world around them.

It is also why they advanced much quicker, as best as I can tell. What happened during 1000-1500 is unclear to me still, and why they have fallen behind now seems more to do with why europe managed to advance so fast. I suspect it has to do with more open borders; it did not develop on the majority of the landmass in the world but was suddenly triggered. (That has been a topic I've been interested in for a long time, which is why I know something about it.)

[Lee]

Everyone's casually interchanging between Arabs and Muslims when talking about the Golden Age, but those advancements were always in spite of Islam. When the Arabic world had copied what it could from Persia and Byzantium and when enough Jews and Christians had been converted, the intellectual stagnation commenced.But who are we to say that peoples values are superior to any others? how can we pass judgement on people when ultimately all cultural values are just a matter of perspective, I think it is unfair to try and pretend any culture is superior to any other culture and we should respect other peoples right to do as they please.

It seems to me that political oppression, genocide and nepotism are just the way these cultures are, it is not for us to say whether they are right or wrong, if their culture demands that a holy jihad be waged against us, then who are we to object? it's all a matter of perpective in the end, reality isn't even real anyway.

[Purple-Silver Fox]

...
It is also why they advanced much quicker, as best as I can tell. What happened during 1000-1500 is unclear to me still, and why they have fallen behind now seems more to do with why europe managed to advance so fast. I suspect it has to do with more open borders; it did not develop on the majority of the landmass in the world but was suddenly triggered. (That has been a topic I've been interested in for a long time, which is why I know something about it.)
The benefit of the Islamic world were its huge trade networks and political stability that allowed people to get their stuff done with relatively low risk. You could travel from Cordoba to Zanzibar to China without much trouble. When religious/political (the same in this case) differences lead to conflict, their advantage dwindled.

[Prozac]

But who are we to say that peoples values are superior to any others? how can we pass judgement on people when ultimately all cultural values are just a matter of perspective, I think it is unfair to try and pretend any culture is superior to any other culture and we should respect other peoples right to do as they please.

It seems to me that political oppression, genocide and nepotism are just the way these cultures are, it is not for us to say whether they are right or wrong, if their culture demands that a holy jihad be waged against us, then who are we to object? it's all a matter of perpective in the end, reality isn't even real anyway.

Greetings..

Is this finally the truth of how you feel when "arriving" at this conclusion?

Remember the "chinese owl" crack I jokingly tossed in your direction re: setting sail on a boat to China to protest the abortion policy? it was infact a retort to your suggestion (mini-thesis) on deduction

Cultural relativism is now supported by you whereas you had earlier - in that thread - said it was a bunch of wrongs all wrapped up in wrongness

Curious..

[Lee]

Curious..I wrote that response for booyalab, she'll get what I really mean.

[joft]

are there any implications for any of this anyway? that a certain eastern religion may not have produced anything western standards deem worthy? that a certain "race" may be genetically inclined toward inferior intelligence or something?

does any of it matter? are we going to do anything differently because of any of it, like, convert all muslims to christianity, or conduct genocide on arabs?

in short, what's the fucking point?

edit: i think my question is warranted because this doesn't seem like casual shooting the breeze or having a debate for the sake of fun. maybe i'm wrong in this case, but like my response to booya's thread on something like this before, i'm fed up with christians staking blatant claims to cultural or spiritual superiority (and "correctness" exclusivity)

[booyalab]

Arabs, as far as calculus goes, developed the requirements for calculus. They were far more advanced up until ~ 800AD; after that, it was a give and take environment. Most of what we think was developed in Europe had roots and/or more advanced concepts already developed in the arab world.

This includes practical as well as theoretical (astronomical to navigation to number theory)


'developed the requirements for calculus'? Arabs used algebra to write down calculations in place of using an abacus, and there's really not much more to calculus than that? Newton and Leibnitz just sat on their butts and took all the credit?
Number theory was developed by the Hindus, I'm pretty sure I already said that.
I'm not saying the Golden Age should be renamed the Crap Age, but if you compare the advancements of the West independent of ..and because of discoveries from Islamic scholars with what the middle east has contributed in total..the Golden Age was only a step up from the Dark Ages. If our culture wasn't trying to brainwash us into this global diversity, relativistic hogwash...we wouldn't even be discussing this. The Renaissance, "The Age of Reason", and even Ancient Greek civilization had obvious roles in the world we live in today, The Golden Age..not so much.

[Pooja]

in short, what's the fucking point?



exactly!

This reminds me of all of dinnertime conversations with my parents... My dad, who I believe is an Indian-supremecist in denial, will be like, "Indians invented everything". Then, I'll have to argue with him, and the whole thing ends with me being (jokingly) accused of being racist against my own race... Anyway, it doesn't really matter which race/religion produced what. What matters, is that Indians did not invent everything.

[Dr. Haight]

Allow me to quickly drop my two cents in here:

As far as I can recall, the greatest contribution (in terms of mathematics) by Arabs was the concept of zero. That is the number 0, and all it's implications. Less than one was a problem that had been worked on for a long time, yet the Arabs discovered the zero number concept.
Other than that, I don't know...so...I'm out.

[booyalab]

edit: i think my question is warranted because this doesn't seem like casual shooting the breeze or having a debate for the sake of fun. maybe i'm wrong in this case, but like my response to booya's thread on something like this before, i'm fed up with christians staking blatant claims to cultural or spiritual superiority (and "correctness" exclusivity)

you would probably say that cultural superiority is subjective right? so my opinion is as valid as anyone else's. not that i believe it's subjective, i'm just humoring you
spiritual superiority has nothing to do with this, we're discussing the ramifications
and you put that last comment in parenthesis but the point underlies everything else you said. Like it or not, correctness IS exclusive.

[booyalab]

Allow me to quickly drop my two cents in here:

As far as I can recall, the greatest contribution (in terms of mathematics) by Arabs was the concept of zero. That is the number 0, and all it's implications. Less than one was a problem that had been worked on for a long time, yet the Arabs discovered the zero number concept.
Other than that, I don't know...so...I'm out.

Hindus are usually said to have invented the zero. But that's also been attributed to the Babylonians and the Mayans

[charred_heart]

And when, may I ask, did the middle east abandon the Islamic model?When they became a group of backward and poor nations?
Could you tell me what exactly IS the islamic model according to you?


what are you talking about?
So just because Islam and the Golden Age overlapped, the advancements were BECAUSE of Islam?!
You do realise we're not talking about the renaissance here right?
That's not just speculation, it's a fact that during the golden age of Islam the many cultures that converted to Islam started a revival in the pursuit of knowledge. It showed that religion and science can coexist, and it was muslims who believed that knowledge is universal, not the property of any country race or civilisation. They translated works from various origins and languages into Arabic thereby simplifying the process of preserving knowledge. This also allowed scholars to actually work on their projects rather than travelling to the scattered libraries around the old world and finding a way to translate their tomes.
Seriously, did you expect algebra and astronomy to develop under the beards of the taliban? You seem to think muslims were always like them all through time.


Even though the theology of the religion discourages almost every artistic and scientific endeavor? Allah and anything having to do with him, like his creation, is beyond reason.
and I hate teachers. Now what do my feelings about them have anything to do with this?
You should have used capital letters for more effect. So lame.

[Dr. Haight]

Hindus are usually said to have invented the zero. But that's also been attributed to the Babylonians and the Mayans

OK...I should probably look for the book I learned that in--you know, to try to help the Arabs out in this debate--yet, I feel pretty lazy right now...I think I should take a nap.
Later.

[Prozac]

I wrote that response for booyalab, she'll get what I really mean.

hopefully.. and thats not a knock on booyalab either

what i mean is, reading this board makes communication complicated indeed, much moreso than in person - the complexity is softened by what the participants framing and metamessaging (assumptions and defaults, etc) with the "context" also settling in as a foundation

concrete statements, metaphors, analogies, similes, so on

so universally, you may be painting a picture of the truth according to Lee, in a certain arena, however it happens to be only bits and fragments of the truth .. also subject to change, of course

many of your posts are detail-oriented (and well written) and the accrual of the details may appear as if by presentation you are narrowing down the choices when if fact it may be expanding or even falsifying others - even omitting, yikes

i do far more lurking than posting.. anyhoo back to your regularly scheduled programming...

[Dr. Haight]

Oh, one more thing...as a Jew, I appreciate the religious tolerance of the ancient Arab culture. They let us do our own thing (build synagogues and maintain religious rituals) and allowed us to thrive in the areas that they dominated--ie Egypt, North Africa, Morocco, Spain, etc. I am speaking of pre-Inquisition, and or, pre-Isabella and Ferdinand.

[ptGatsby]

'developed the requirements for calculus'? Arabs used algebra to write down calculations in place of using an abacus, and there's really not much more to calculus than that? Newton and Leibnitz just sat on their butts and took all the credit?


Please don't put words in my mouth.

Arabs developed the basic concepts that led to the development of calculus. They never progressed beyond the concept of limits... they did, however, develop them first.

Calculus was properly accredited to those that did (well, suffice to say, to the right 'people', in a generic sense).



Number theory was developed by the Hindus, I'm pretty sure I already said that.


I meant number theory, as in number theory, not the symbols that represent them. They were the first to remove the geometric requirements previously hampered development of pure number theory (ie: monomials were developed by them first - and the rules that go with that definition). Concepts like perfect numbers and the like were also developed by them, along with those proofs.



I'm not saying the Golden Age should be renamed the Crap Age, but if you compare the advancements of the West independent of ..and because of discoveries from Islamic scholars with what the middle east has contributed in total..the Golden Age was only a step up from the Dark Ages. If our culture wasn't trying to brainwash us into this global diversity, relativistic hogwash...we wouldn't even be discussing this. The Renaissance, "The Age of Reason", and even Ancient Greek civilization had obvious roles in the world we live in today, The Golden Age..not so much.


I have a hard time parsing this paragraph.

I'm not interested in 'relativistic hogwash'. They contributed as much as they did when they did.

Everything is woven together. Until the renaissance, Europe was nothing special. The discovery of new lands were dependent upon the Sextant - something the arabs built... based on the astrolabe, a greek thing. Everything matters, everything contributes. The most recent big advancement was the Renaissance. The biggest technological change was the Industrial revolution. The current one is probably the Information revolution. In time, the renaissance won't matter. The American culture will (as it has done) spread instead. Just as the contributions from past civilizations contributed to the golden age, which we barely even acknowledge, so will the golden age, so will every other phase. So will every other event, and every historical person.

[Dr. Haight]

This is starting to remind me of my favorite line:
"If history had been written by mice, it would be mostly about mice."
Get my drift?

[Prozac]

Oh, one more thing...as a Jew, I appreciate the religious tolerance of the ancient Arab culture. They let us do our own thing (build synagogues and maintain religious rituals) and allowed us to thrive in the areas that they dominated--ie Egypt, North Africa, Morocco, Spain, etc. I am speaking of pre-Inquisition, and or, pre-Isabella and Ferdinand.


this post is for Claverhouse

[PenguinHunter]

From the other thread:


I mentioned that Arab cultures had contributed and I recognise European cultures have not been much better at times, but besides preserving some ancient texts and early mathematical works, the arab world has contributed very little to the lot of mankind, especially in more mordern times. The recent history of the Arab world has been of despotism, theocracy and a distinct lack of freedom for its people, feudalism and tribalism is characteristic of much of the Arab world and its cycles of honour and vengeance are something which needs to be dealt with.

It's not that I think there is anything inherently inferior about the arab people, I think most of history's fortunes have been dispersed unevenly due to geography, I am an optimist about the future when it comes to the Arab world.

I'm at a loss as to where you see feudal structures in modern Arab society. The most recent government that used something that could possibly (though incorrectly) be perceived as feudal was under the Ottoman Empire. Even then, it was no more feudal than the seigneurial system in Canada around the same time. You've said this twice now and you should back it up.

Next up this pesky theocracy term. There is only one arab nation that might be conceived of as a theocracy (Iran) and even then, I don't necessarily see this as accurate. Iran is certainly in a form of dictatorship at the moment but never forget that it came about through a popular revolution. I'm not trying to get into a right to rebel argument and so on, but is the concept of a theocracy so terrible. Let's say Iran develops a kind of democratic theocracy, where you have an elected religious government. (A weird but not impossible outcome) Would that still be blacklisted in your mind? One also needs to note some things about the Iranian constitution and revolution.

Ayatullahs Khomeni and Taleqani did not have traditional, conservative, religious bases of support (from both clerics and the masses) in cities like Qom and Mashhad (more religious centres of Iran) but rather in Tehran. Their support was built largely from university students and prisoners convicted under the shah. There is more in the Iranian constitution from people like Fanon than from the Qoran. Mostly because the Qoran doesn't really have much to say about nation building and political structure. So when you say theocracy, what issues do you feel to hold a theocracy back? Or is it just another way of crying despot?

Tribal identities have not been a part of Middle Eastern culture since the 1920s. Afghanistan might be an exception but for the most part this too is an inaccurate assertion.

Cycles of honor and vengence? Algeria maybe? I just really struggle to see where you are coming from on a lot of these issues. (See my last post as well for some comments stagnating development)

[BILLER]

It seems I missed a lot while I was hunting. ;)

what are you talking about?
So just because Islam and the Golden Age overlapped, the advancements were BECAUSE of Islam?! Even though the theology of the religion discourages almost every artistic and scientific endeavor? Allah and anything having to do with him, like his creation, is beyond reason....

You cannot simply explain away the 'overlapping' of the golden age with Islam as a coincidence. And contrary to what you think, Islam does encourages the pursuit of knowledge especially Science. Artistic, yes but scientific endeavour, a very big NO.


...And when, may I ask, did the middle east abandon the Islamic model?



Oh, one more thing...as a Jew, I appreciate the religious tolerance of the ancient Arab culture. They let us do our own thing (build synagogues and maintain religious rituals) and allowed us to thrive in the areas that they dominated--ie Egypt, North Africa, Morocco, Spain, etc. I am speaking of pre-Inquisition, and or, pre-Isabella and Ferdinand.

booyalab, there's your answer. That Arabia was more Islamic than today's. Muslims were not always like the taliban, you know.

[Lee]

I'm at a loss as to where you see feudal structures in modern Arab society.Most countries in the middle east have poor law enforcement, ethnic tensions, unelected leaders and a lack of human freedoms.

Iraq until very recently had been under a prolonged despotic dictatorship, Palestine is quite a mess, Afghanistan has been under the grip of warlords and theocracy, Saudi Arabia, Iran etc.

These nations have screwed up their economies and years of similar problems through history are why they are behind much of what we commonly refer to as the west. Much of the culture is still hostile to knowledge and the idea of individual rights, but I do not think they're doomed by any means, the idea that political and economic development is lagging behind the west seems fair, hopefully they can catch up, but some people are going to be real stubborn about change.

Cultures throughout history have been fickle, shamlessly absorbing technology and techniques from others whenever they find something that works, religion can be a damper on the process, but I am confident it'll change eventually.

As for who has the best culture, I still maintain that the liberal democracy of Europe, North America and Australia trumps anything in the middle east, in much the same way that I think it trumps the cultures of Europe a couple of hundred years ago.

[tinribz]

Most countries in the middle east have poor law enforcement, ethnic tensions, unelected leaders and a lack of human freedoms.

------------------------------

As for who has the best culture, I still maintain that the liberal democracy of Europe, North America and Australia trumps anything in the middle east, in much the same way that I think it trumps the cultures of Europe a couple of hundred years ago.
Looking back 100 years ago what did western culture have to look forward to:

First world war total casualties - 37,508,686 .
WWII casualties - 18,684,727 military, 40,892,800 civilian.

Not the best pedigree.

I'd say it were safer to say they are about 40-50 years behind culturally on the human rights front.

And IMHO this is all about culture, race is incidental and irrelevant, something even the western culture can't seem to let go of completely yet.

Cultural change is slow and impeded by politicians with an agenda. One day the world will all be instep, in as much as say the G7 are. The perfect model has yet to be found, but I think it will be more of a cultural-less one.

What I think I'm saying is this discussion is pointless because the difference between cultures is slowly over time diminishing in size and moving towards the truth of them being completely irrelevant and dated.

Like most sexist remarks discussions like this make a lot more sense when you substitute words like western, middle Eastern, Muslim, Arab or Christian, with 'some people'.

[Carebear]

The Islamic countries haven't exactly been able to work out modern forms of government etc in peace and solitude. How can you hope to get any positive outcome when western countries have been meddling in their internal affairs the last 100 years ++, supporting dictators, forcing modernisation etc.? Of course you'll get counter movements when democracy, modernization etc is viewed as western control mechanisms to allow them to exploit you even more thoroughly?

From Wikipedia:


Following the Constitutional Revolution, in 1921, Reza Shah Pahlavi staged a coup against the Qajar dynasty. A modernizer, Reza Shah made plans to develop industry, build railroads, and establish a national education system. However, his autocratic rule created discontent among many Iranians. During World War II, the Shah was forced to abdicate by the Allies in favor of his son, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, whom the Allies hoped would be more supportive of them.

In 1953, Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh, was removed from power in a plot orchestrated by British and U.S. intelligence agencies to protect their oil interests (dubbed "Operation Ajax").[citation needed] The operation was conducted following the Prime Minister's nationalization of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. It reinstated the Iranian monarchy, handing power back to Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.

Following Dr. Mosaddegh's fall, the Shah's rule became increasingly dictatorial, particularly in the late 1970s. With strong support from the USA and the UK, the Shah further modernized Iranian industry but crushed civil liberties. His autocratic rule led to the Iranian revolution in 1979. An Islamic republic was soon established under Ayatollah Khomeini.

The new theocratic political system instituted some conservative Islamic reforms as well as introducing an unprecedented level of direct clerical rule. It also engaged in an anti-Western course due to Western support of the Shah. In particular Iranian-American relations were severely strained after the Iranian seizure of U.S. embassy personnel in 1979, Iran's subsequent attempts to export its revolution, and its support of anti-Western militant groups such as Lebanese Hezbollah.

In 1980, Iran was attacked by neighbouring Iraq and the destructive Iran-Iraq War continued until 1988. The struggle between the reformists and conservatives over the future of the country continues today through electoral politics and was a central Western focus in the 2005 elections, which resulted in the election of conservative Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.



Western support for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war has clearly been established. The United States, the Soviet Union, West Germany, France, many western companies, and Britain provided military support and even components of Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction program. The role the United States played in the war against Iran however, although present to some degree, is not as well known.

After the revolution, with the Ayatollahs in power and levels of enmity between Iran and the U.S. running high, early on during the Iran-Iraq war, realpolitikers in Washington came to the conclusion that Saddām was the lesser of the two evils, and hence efforts to support Iraq became the order of the day, both during the long war with Iran and afterward. This led to what later became known as the Iraq-gate scandals.





Iraq was granted independence in 1932, though the British retained military bases and transit rights for their forces in the country. Iraq was invaded by the United Kingdom in 1941, for fears that the government of Rashid Ali might cut oil supplies to Western nations and because of his strong leanings towards Nazi Germany. A military occupation followed, ending on October 26, 1947.

The Hashemite monarchy was reinstalled by the British and lasted until 1958, when it was overthrown through a coup d'etat by the Iraqi army, known as the 14 July Revolution. The coup brought Brigadier General Abdul Karim Qassim's government to power (which withdrew from the Baghdad Pact and established friendly relations with the Soviet Union) from 1958 till 1963. In 1963, he was overthrown by Colonel Abdul Salam Arif. Salam Arif died in 1966 and his brother, Abdul Rahman Arif, assumed the presidency. In 1968, Rahman Arif was overthrown by the Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party with CIA backing. The Ba'ath's key figure became Saddam Hussein, who acceded to the presidency and control of the Revolutionary Command Council (RCC), Iraq's supreme executive decision making body, in July 1979, killing off many of his opponents in the process.




Opposition against, and conflict within, the series of communist governments that followed, was considerable. As part of a Cold War strategy, the US government began to covertly fund and train anti-government Mujahideen forces through the Pakistani secret service agency known as Inter Services Intelligence or ISI, which were derived from discontented Muslims in the country who opposed the official atheism of the Marxist regime, in 1978. In order to bolster the local Communist forces the Soviet Union - citing the 1978 Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Good Neighborliness that had been signed between the two countries in 1978 - intervened on December 24, 1979. The Soviet occupation resulted in a mass exodus of over 5 million Afghans who moved into refugee camps in neighboring Pakistan and Iran. More than 3 million alone settled in Pakistan. Faced with mounting international pressure and the loss of approximately 15,000 Soviet soldiers as a result of Mujahideen opposition forces trained by the United States, Pakistan, and other foreign governments, the Soviets withdrew ten years later, in 1989. For more details, see Soviet war in Afghanistan.

The Soviet withdrawal was seen as an ideological victory in the US, which ostensibly had backed the Mujahideen in order to counter Soviet influence in the vicinity of the oil-rich Persian Gulf. Following the removal of the Soviet forces in 1989, the US and its allies lost interest in Afghanistan and did little to help rebuild the war-ravaged country. The USSR continued to support the regime of Dr. Najubullah (formerly the head of the secret service, Khad) until its downfall in 1992. However, the absence of the Soviet forces resulted in the downfall of the government as it steadily lost ground to the guerrilla forces.

Just some examples of Islamic history where outside factors have meddled. And this is just the open, direct meddling. You also have all the money under the table to influential people etc. Meddle to much, and the fanatics gets support. Secular muslims are looking more and more like secular jews or secular christians, while the fanatical muslims resemble fanatical christians and jews through the ages.



To be honest, he is right, Arab nations have contributed very little to the lot of mankind, even if we include early developments in math and philosophy. Since that society crumbled the Arab world has been locked in theocracy, despotism, feudalism etc. Those societies and the values which their people live under have proven themselves distinctly inferior to alternatives, stunting development and oppressing freedom.

That's simply wrong. Granted, very little has happened after the end of the middle ages, but during the dark ages we got almost all that triggered the enlightenment and the renesance, from Islam; the greek philosophy, medical science, technology (e.g. the water wheel), military improvements like mounted warriors, mathmatics and the notion that the world might not be flat, etc etc.

It's ok to think that Islamic countries today are backward and repressive, but to think that has always been the case is simply ahistorical and arrogant.

[Lee]

That's simply wrong. Granted, very little has happened after the end of the middle ages, but during the dark ages we got almost all that triggered the enlightenment and the renesance, from Islam; the greek philosophy, medical science, technology (e.g. the water wheel), military improvements like mounted warriors, mathmatics and the notion that the world might not be flat, etc etc.:lol:

I didn't even claim that the Islamic world hadn't contributed at all, but you just told me what the greeks did and what Arabs was nice enough to write down. Of course all advancements through human civilisation have been built on discoveries of the people before them, and I have never claimed that the Islamic world has done nothing! but while we can list these achievements, lets not forget how they pale in comparison to the net achievements of western nations over the years.

I am not supposing middle eastern people to be inherently backward and warlike, I think the religion of Islam reflects the circumstances which their culture developed as opposed to shaping the culture. You know there are reasons why when European man first landed upon the soils of Australia the Aboriginies were living simple hunter-gathering lives, and these reasons do not require that we deem all Aboriginies intellectually inferior, innately savage or backwards.

I suspect a similar causal relationship between geography, political and economic development can be found to explain why much of the middle east lagged behind Europe.

Part of the problem I suspect was the collapse of the fertile crescent, the birthplace of full blown agriculture, the well-spring of early civilisation. The fertile crescent is simply not so fertile anymore, the environmental circumstances which made the area a success diminished, neighbours in Europe absorbed farming and animal domesication techniques and with closely packed groups, better technology and techiques were capable of spreading more expediently, either through trade or war.

Much of the middle east does not seem condusive to such development, one of its main natural resources was either unknown, impractical or of little use i.e. oil. The fortunes of Europeans were mostly about being in the right place at the right time.

[Carebear]

:lol:

I didn't even claim that the Islamic world hadn't contributed at all, but you just told me what the greeks did and what Arabs was nice enough to write down.

Well, not simply write down, but also further develop.



The fortunes of Europeans were mostly about being in the right place at the right time.

... and being insensitive and scheeming enough to keep what they found even if it meant destabilizing an entire region for a century or more, contributing to the corrupted soil Islam has been growing in.

[PenguinHunter]

Sorry it took so long to get back to you. I haven't been around the past few days.


Most countries in the middle east have poor law enforcement, ethnic tensions, unelected leaders and a lack of human freedoms.

This does not equal "feudal." Feudal (in extremely basic terms) implies a chain of lords and oaths of fealty to defend the lord above you combined with a system of peasants at each level who manage the agricultural side of life. The word feudal cannot be used to describe any Middle Eastern nation at present. Not even Afghanistan and that is the closest you could come.


Iraq until very recently had been under a prolonged despotic dictatorship, Palestine is quite a mess, Afghanistan has been under the grip of warlords and theocracy, Saudi Arabia, Iran etc.

What do you consider to be "etc."? You named four nations. I don't think Palestine/Israel really belongs in this discussion. The problems there have very little to do with Arab cultural deficiency. The dictatorship in Iraq was derived dictatorship after the British Mandate. The country was simple passed on or the government was overthrown until one day Saddam came in to work and declared himself president. I don't really see that as a cultural issue either. Right now ordinary Iraqis are doing their best to move into a form of liberal democracy but that is a whole different discussion. . . In Saudi you find a conservative government and a relatively progressive population (in comparison). The government is what stunts the growth not the "inferior societal values" to which you refer. Right now, oil money props them up and there's not much the people can do about it. Countries in the West are the a big part of the problem here. I could just as easily say that societal values in Western nations dictate that lack of freedom in Saudi is a price a fair price to pay for a good economy at home (requiring oil).

I'm not going to try and make excuses for Afghanistan; however, I will say that it should not be grouped with countries like the UAE, Jordan and Oman when you talk about "stunted development" and "oppressed freedom." It's a third world country. It's a red herring. It's certainly not part of the Middle East I don't think you would attach it to the "Arab World" either. It is the Islamic World for sure, but so are Malaysia and Indonesia and by this point the usefulness of any attempt at generalization is severly limited.


These nations have screwed up their economies and years of similar problems through history are why they are behind much of what we commonly refer to as the west. Much of the culture is still hostile to knowledge and the idea of individual rights, but I do not think they're doomed by any means, the idea that political and economic development is lagging behind the west seems fair, hopefully they can catch up, but some people are going to be real stubborn about change.

Hostile to knowledge? What? That makes no sense. Sorry. Ditto for individual rights, whatever that means. You're basically just operating on stereotyoes here without providing any useful information.


Cultures throughout history have been fickle, shamlessly absorbing technology and techniques from others whenever they find something that works, religion can be a damper on the process, but I am confident it'll change eventually.

As for who has the best culture, I still maintain that the liberal democracy of Europe, North America and Australia trumps anything in the middle east, in much the same way that I think it trumps the cultures of Europe a couple of hundred years ago.

I welcome you to try to provide a new angle to the debate I had with Johnny about UAE vs USA "democracy" and governance. We sort of worked our way to a standstill on one small but necessary point.

http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=6664

That is my response to the bold statement above; do with it what you will.

[Johnny]

I welcome you to try to provide a new angle to the debate I had with Johnny about UAE vs USA "democracy" and governance. We sort of worked our way to a standstill on one small but necessary point.

That was a fun debate and I got to learn quite a bit about UAE's governing system there.

Dang that was a long time ago

[CosmicDust]

They named a lot of the bright stars in Northern constellations, like Betelgeuse, Rigel, Algol, and Aldebaran. (The last two are definitely Arab names, and I think the first two are too.)

[PenguinHunter]

That was a fun debate and I got to learn quite a bit about UAE's governing system there.

Dang that was a long time ago

Yeah for sure. I definately enjoyed myself.

[wildcat]

You can see relics of Arab architecture in Spain and California. It is certainly far better than elsewhere in America, apart from Lousiana of course.

That is it.