Fjordman: To President Obama: Regarding Islam and
Science
Jihad Watch
Monday, June 08, 2009
"Is there even a single truthful statement in this
entire paragraph? Perhaps Muslims had some decent calligraphy, and a few of
their scholars made contributions to algebra, but apart from that it's almost
total nonsense." Read on to find the truth... In his latest essay,
Fjordman examines what Barack Obama called "civilization's debt to
Islam."
US President Barack Hussein Obama’s speech delivered at Cairo University
in Egypt
on June 4 2009 contained so many half-truths, distortions or plain lies that it
is almost impossible to deal with all of them adequately in a single essay. I
will concentrate on the science part in particular here. Take this quote:
“As a student of history, I also know civilization's debt to
Islam. It was Islam – at places like Al-Azhar
University – that carried the light of
learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe's
Renaissance and Enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities that
developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation;
our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and
how it can be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring
spires; timeless poetry and cherished music; elegant calligraphy and places of
peaceful contemplation. And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through
words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.”
Is there even a single truthful statement in this entire
paragraph? Perhaps Muslims had some decent calligraphy, and a few of their
scholars made contributions to algebra, but apart from that it's almost total
nonsense. The magnetic compass was invented by the Chinese, and possibly by
Europeans independently. Printing of books, too, was invented by the Chinese,
and was stubbornly and persistently rejected by Muslims for a thousand years or
more due to Islamic religious resistance. They liked the Chinese invention of
gunpowder a lot more.
No direct link has ever been proven between Gutenberg’s
printing press and printing in East Asia, although it is conceivable that the
basic idea of printing had been imported to Europe.
In contrast, we know with 100% certainty that Muslims were familiar with East
Asian printing but aggressively rejected it. Scholar Thomas Allsen in his book
Culture and Conquest in Mongol Eurasia has described how the authorities in Iran under
Mongolian rule in 1294 attempted to introduce Chinese-style printed banknotes
but failed due to popular resistance:
“Certainly the Muslim world exhibited an active and
sustained opposition to movable type technologies emanating from Europe in the fifteenth century and later. This
opposition, based on social, religious, and political considerations, lasted
well into the eighteenth century. Only then were presses of European origin
introduced into the Ottoman Empire and only in the next century did printing
become widespread in the Arab world and Iran. This long-term reluctance,
the disinterest in European typography, and the failure to exploit the
indigenous printing traditions of Egypt certainly argue for some kind
of fundamental structural or ideological antipathy to this particular
technology.”
It is likely that due to trade, Middle Easterners were
familiar with printing centuries before this incident, yet because of Islamic
religious resistance they did not adopt this great invention until a thousand
years or more after it had been invented in China. Minorities such as Jews or
Greek and Armenian Christians were the first to use printing presses in the
Ottoman realms. The first book printed in the Persian language was probably a
Judaeo-Persian Pentateuch.
As for music, Greek theory on the subject evolved from
Pythagoras before 500 BC. The Church was the dominant institution in post-Roman
Europe and drew on Greek philosophy and
musical theory. Some elements of Christian observances may derive from Jewish
tradition, too, chiefly the chanting of Scripture and the signing of psalms,
poems of praise from the Book of Psalms. Christians integrated music into their
liturgy. In the Western
Church, Gregorian chant
and the development of polyphonic music was valued as decoration, a concept
central to medieval art and architecture. According to A History of Western
Music, Seventh Edition, by Donald J. Grout, Peter J. Burkholder and Claude V.
Palisca, “Polyphonic performance heightened the grandeur of chant and thus of
the liturgy itself.” This gave rise to a musical tradition which led to Bach,
Mozart and Beethoven. Nothing similar happened in the Islamic world, despite
the fact that Muslims initially had access to much of the same material. I have
described this in my essay Why Muslims Like Hitler, but Not Mozart.
Historian Bernard Lewis writes in The Middle East: A Brief
History of the Last 2,000 Years:
“Since Muslim worship, with the limited exception of some
dervish orders, makes no use of music, musicians in the Islamic lands lacked
the immense advantage enjoyed by Christian musicians through the patronage of
the Church and of its high dignitaries. The patronage of the court and of the
great houses, though no doubt useful, was intermittent and episodic, and
dangerously subject to the whims of the mighty. Muslim musicians devised no
standard system of notation, and their compositions are therefore known only by
the fallible and variable medium of memory. There is no preserved corpus of
classical Islamic music comparable with that of the European musical tradition.
All that remains is a quite extensive theoretical literature on music, some
descriptions and portrayals of musicians and musical occasions by writers and
artists, a number of old instruments in various stages of preservation, and of
course the living memory of long-past performances.”
There are those who are critical of Mr. Lewis as a scholar
and consequently believe that he shouldn’t be quoted as an authority. You
should always maintain a healthy criticism of any writer, but I know from other
sources that the above mentioned quotes are largely correct.
Many forms of music are banned in Islam. The Reliance of the
Traveller by Ahmad Ibn Lulu Ibn Al-Naqib and Noah Ha Mim Keller has been
formally approved by al-Azhar in Egypt, the highest institution of
religious learning among Sunni Muslims. It quotes a number of ahadith,
authoritative sayings of Muhammad and his companions which form the core
Islamic texts next to the Koran, among them one which says that “There will be
peoples of my Community who will hold fornication, silk, wine, and musical
instruments to be lawful …” Another quote says that: “On the Day of
Resurrection, Allah will pour molten lead into the ears of whoever sits
listening to a songstress.” The scholarly conclusion is that “All of this is
explicit and compelling textual evidence that musical instruments of all types
are unlawful.” Another legal ruling says that “It is unlawful to use musical
instruments – such as those which drinkers are known for, like the mandolin,
lute, cymbals, and flute – or to listen to them. It is permissible to play the
tambourine at weddings, circumcisions, and other times, even if it has bells on
its sides. Beating the kuba, a long drum with a narrow middle, is unlawful.”
While I certainly do disagree with Mr. Lewis sometimes, in
my experience he occasionally errs by being too positive when writing about
Islamic culture, not too negative. If you believe Lewis, “The earliest
specifically anti-Semitic statements in the Middle East
occurred among the Christian minorities, and can usually be traced back to
European originals.” This view fits well with the anti-European, Multicultural
bias of modern media and academia, yet it is completely and utterly wrong, as
Dr. Andrew G. Bostom has conclusively demonstrated in his extremely well-researched
book The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism.
I wouldn't say that absolutely no scholarly achievements
were made in the medieval Islamic world, only that they are greatly exaggerated
for political reasons today. Let us divide scholars into three categories:
Category 1 consists of those who make minor contributions, category 2
medium-level ones. Category 3 consists of scholars who make major, fundamental
contributions to an important branch of science or found an entirely new
scholarly discipline. Examples of the latter would include Isaac Newton, Albert
Einstein, Nicolaus Copernicus, Aristotle, René Descartes or Galileo Galilei.
Not a single scholar of this stature has ever been produced in the Islamic
world even at the best of times. Finding some medieval Muslim scholars who made
minor contributions to mathematics or alchemy is not very difficult, and I can
probably name half a dozen to a dozen individuals who might qualify under
category 2.
The highest-ranking contribution of any Muslim scholar in my
view came from Alhazen (Ibn al-Haytham) in optics. The mathematician Muhammad
al-Khwarizmi did not “invent” algebra; the ancient Egyptians, Mesopotamians,
Indians, Chinese and others had early forms of algebra; the most important
pre-modern scholar was arguably Diophantus of Alexandria in the third century
AD, and modern algebra was created in Europe.
Nevertheless, just like you cannot write a history of optics without mentioning
Alhazen, you cannot properly write a history of algebra without mentioning
al-Khwarizmi. In historiography, Ibn Khaldun could be mentioned, although he
shared the contempt for all non-Muslim cultures which hampered the growth of
history, archaeology and comparative linguistics in the Islamic world. Muslim
scholars did not seriously study other cultures with curiosity and describe
them with fairness, al-Biruni’s writings about India being one of very major few
exceptions to this rule.
Geber (Jabir ibn Hayyan) did good work in alchemy for his
time and may have been the first person to create some acids, but he falls far
short of Antoine Lavoisier and those who developed modern chemistry in late
eighteenth and early nineteenth century Europe. The Persian Omar Khayyam was a
creative mathematician, and fellow Persians Avicenna (Ibn Sina) and well as
Rhazes (al-Razi) were capable physicians for their time, but Khayyam was at
best a highly unorthodox Muslim and al-Razi didn't believe a single word of the
Islamic religion. Whatever contributions they made were more in spite of than
because of Islam. Moreover, while I do consider al-Razi to have been a
competent physician, the greatest revolution in the world history of medicine
was the germ theory of disease, championed by the Frenchman Louis Pasteur and
the German Robert Koch in late nineteenth century Europe. They were aided in
this by the microscope, which was an exclusively European invention.
It is true that some texts were reintroduced to Europe via
Arabic translations, at least initially before they were supplemented by
translations directly from Byzantine Greek originals, and that these have left
traces in certain words. For instance, quite a few stars in modern European
languages have Arabic names or Arabized versions of older Greek names. However,
it is important to remember that astronomy in the Islamic world, with certain
exceptions due to influences from India,
was based on a Ptolemaic Greek theoretical framework, just as it was in Europe. After the translation movement, it is striking to
notice how fast Europeans surpassed whatever scholarly achievements had been
made in the Middle East.
The best Muslim scholars could be capable observational
astronomers, above all Ulugh Beg. A few of them made some adjustments to
Ptolemaic astronomical theory, among them Nasir al-Din al-Tusi and Ibn al-Shatir,
but none of them ever made a huge conceptual breakthrough comparable to that
provided by Copernicus in 1543 when he put the Sun, not the Earth, at the
center of our Solar System. With the work of Tycho Brahe and Johannes Kepler
afterward, Ptolemaic astronomy was in reality outdated in Europe
even before Galileo and others introduced telescopic astronomy in 1609. In
contrast, Muslims resisted Copernican heliocentrism in some cases into the
twentieth century. Scholar Toby E. Huff explains in his excellent book The Rise
of Early Modern Science: Islam,
China and the
West, second edition:
“In the Indian subcontinent, Sayyid Ahmad Khan (1817-98) was
at the forefront of intellectual reform in India,
encouraging India
to adopt Western educational standards. In his early career of the 1840s, he
had defended the Ptolemaic view against Copernicanism, believing that this was
incumbent upon the devout Muslim. As he studied the matter more, he realized
the need to adopt heliocentric view and to reconcile its metaphysics with
traditional interpretations of the Quran. Soon after he moved to adopt the
heliocentric position, he ran into overwhelming opposition, especially Jamil
al-Din al-Afghani's (d. 1897) attack of the early 1880s. At that point Ahmad
Khan fully recognized the clash between the worldview of modern science and
traditional Islamic thought. His efforts to articulate a new synthesis fell on
hard times.”
Among the major regions on the planet, the two with the most
similar medieval starting point were the Middle East and Europe.
Greek geometry was unknown in East Asia in
pre-modern times. This constituted a major disadvantage for Chinese, Japanese
and Korean scholars in optics and astronomy. The only regions in the world
where clear glass was extensively made were the Middle East and Europe. Clear glass was used by Europeans to create
eyeglasses for the correction of eyesight, and later for the creation of
microscopes and telescopes and thus the birth of modern medicine and astronomy.
The Mayans in pre-Columbian Mesoamerica did
not know how to make glass and could not have made glass lenses for microscopes
or telescopes. Middle Eastern Muslims could have done so, but they didn't.
Likewise, medieval Europeans invented mechanical clocks while Muslims did not, despite
a similar starting point.
Muslims had access to Greek optical theory, which is why
Alhazen could achieve what he did. It is puzzling that his Book of Optics,
possibly the greatest original scientific work ever written in the Arabic
language, was largely ignored in the Arabic-speaking world, yet was studied
with interest in Europe. It was written in Cairo, Egypt,
but was not studied at al-Azhar close to where Alhazen lived for many years.
Ibn al-Nafis in Cairo
described the pulmonary circulation of the blood in the thirteenth century, yet
his discovery was not followed up, despite the fact that he lived and worked in
one of the major cities of the Islamic world.
Even though al-Azhar was a center of education in the
Islamic world, it was a center of religious learning and sharia law, not
secular learning and science. In contrast, Greek natural philosophy and secular
learning was taught at medieval European universities in addition to religious
subjects, which is why optics was studied by scholars at European universities.
The excellent historian of science Edward Grant explains this in his book
Science and Religion.
While university-educated people were a miniscule fraction
of the total European population, their cumulative influence should not be underestimated.
A striking number of the leading scholars in early modern Europe, from
Copernicus to Galileo and Newton,
had studied at these institutions. Although the Scientific Revolution began in
the seventeenth century with the systematic use of the experimental method and
a more critical view of the knowledge of the ancients, exemplified by
individuals such as Galileo, the initial institutional basis for these
developments was laid with the natural philosophers of the medieval
universities.
I have encountered few if any institutions outside of Europe that I would call “universities” in the Western
sense before modern times. Among the best candidates is the Great Monastery of
Nalanda in India,
which was a Buddhist institution. It was not built by Muslims; it was destroyed
by them, as were so many cultural treasures in India
and Central Asia. Al-Azhar was created in the
tenth century AD and is often hailed as one of the oldest “universities” in the
world. Yet in the early twentieth century, the blind Egyptian author Taha
Husayn complained about the total lack of critical thinking he encountered at
the institution:
“The four years I spent [at al-Azhar] seemed to me like
forty, so utterly drawn out they were....It was life of unrelieved repetition,
with never a new thing, from the time the study began until it was over. After
the dawn prayer came the study of Tawhid, the doctrine of [Allah's] unity; then
fiqh, or jurisprudence, after sunrise; then the study of Arabic grammar during
the forenoon, following a dull meal; then more grammar in the wake of the noon
prayer. After this came a grudging bit of leisure and then, again, another
snatch of wearisome food until, the evening prayer performed, I proceeded to
the logic class which some shaikh or other conducted. Throughout these studies
it was all merely a case of hearing re-iterated words and traditional talk
which aroused no chord in my heart, nor taste in my appetite. There was no food
for one's intelligence, no new knowledge adding to one's store.”
Taha Husayn was the kind of intellectual who found
absolutely no room for free inquiry at this leading Islamic madrasa. He
enrolled at the secular Cairo University, founded after European models in 1908,
and continued his education at the Sorbonne in Paris. Although best know abroad for his
autobiography Al-Ayyam (The Days), he created a controversy in Egypt by daring
to suggest that some passages of the Koran should not be read literally, and
for claiming that some pre-Islamic poetry had been forged to give credibility
to traditional Islamic history. For this he was accused of heresy. Had he lived
in the more aggressively Islamic atmosphere a few generations later, he might
well have been killed. Egyptian writer Naguib Mahfouz was stabbed in the neck
and almost killed by enraged Muslims in 1994.
The Greek texts that were translated into Arabic were
usually copied from manuscripts by Greek-speaking Byzantine Christians. As
Timothy Gregory writes in A History of Byzantium, “It is often pointed out that
the Arabs made use of the writings and ideas of the ancient Greek philosophers,
mathematicians, and scientists, and they played a significant role in the
transmission of that knowledge to the medieval West (in the twelfth century).
What is not always recognized is that to the Arabs these works were
'Byzantine,' and they borrowed the books from Byzantine libraries, where the
manuscripts had been preserved and copied, and translated them into Arabic as
an important foundation for their own science and culture.”
Muslims rejected most of the Roman heritage and many aspects
of the Greek one, from wine, sculpture and pictorial arts to theater; the only
aspect of Greco-Roman civilization that was more compatible with Islam than
with Christian culture was slavery. I have explained why in my essay Why
Christians Accepted Greek Natural Philosophy, But Muslims Did Not.
In medicine, there is the phenomenon of “transplant
rejection,” which happens when an organ is transplanted into another body and
that body's immune system rejects it as an alien intrusion. This is a useful
analogy to keep in mind when assessing how Muslims and Christians treated Greek
natural philosophy during the Middle Ages. Muslims did engage the Greek
heritage, but only parts of it, and eventually even this limited acceptance was
rejected by theologians such as al-Ghazali. The immune system of Islamic
culture considered Greek philosophical ideas to constitute an alien intrusion
into its body, fought them and ultimately rejected them. In contrast, for
Christian culture, the Greek philosophical heritage did not constitute
something alien. Christians did not accept all parts of the Greek heritage as
valid for them, but most of them didn’t consider Greek logic, modes of thinking
and philosophical vocabulary per se to be something alien and hostile. We could
say that Christianity was a Jewish child, baptized in water steeped in a Greek
philosophical vocabulary and raised in a Greco-Roman environment. This new
synthesis was personified by Saint
Paul, a Greek-speaking Jew, a follower of the
teachings of Jesus of Nazareth and a Roman citizen.
French writer Rémi Brague believes that Muslims in
particular usually lacked the European instinct for self-criticism and
appreciation of “the Other.” They, or rather non-Muslims under their rule, did
translate scientific works from Greek and a few other languages into Arabic,
but they usually didn't bother to preserve the originals. This made
“renaissances,” the act of going back to the sources to reinterpret them,
impossible in the Islamic world. It also made it impossible for anything
resembling the linguistic scholars of modern Europe
to emerge.
European scholars not only translated texts from Greek, and
later from Persian and Sanskrit; they proceeded to explore and explain how
these languages came into existence in the first place, which was far beyond
what any Muslim scholar had even contemplated doing. Greek shares a common
history with Persian and Sanskrit: They are all Indo-European languages, as are
Germanic languages such as English. The Indo-European family is the largest and
most influential language family in human history, and it all traces back to a
single, hypothetical Proto-Indo-European language which must have existed
thousands of years ago.
Between 1600-1200 BC you could find horse-drawn chariots in
use throughout Eurasia, from the border regions of Shang Dynasty China via Egypt
and Anatolia to Northern Europe. This
corresponds to the period of the ancient Vedas and the emergence of Vedic
Sanskrit in India.
Peoples speaking Indo-European languages played a vital role in the diffusion
of wheeled vehicles. The Proto-Indo-European language which has been
reconstructed by leading European and Western linguists over the past two
centuries contains words for a technological package which probably did not
exist before 4000 BC, possible not even before 3500 BC. PIE must accordingly in
all likelihood have been a living language in the fourth millennium BC.
It is likely that a very early form of PIE existed before
4000 BC and a very late form slightly after 3000 BC. Before 3000 BC, PIE was
rapidly expanding geographically, probably aided by early forms of wheeled
vehicles, and gradually broke apart into what would soon emerge as different
Indo-European branches. Scholars J. P. Mallory and D. Q. Adams tell the tale in
The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European
World:
“[I]ndividual Indo-European groups are attested by c. 2000
BC. One might then place a notional date of c. 4500-2500 BC on Proto-Indo-European.
The linguist will note that the presumed dates for the existence of
Proto-Indo-European arrived at by this method are congruent with those
established by linguists' 'informed estimation'. The two dating techniques,
linguistic and archaeological, are at least independent and congruent with one
another. If one reviews discussions of the dates by which the various
Indo-European groups first emerged, we find an interesting and somewhat
disturbing phenomenon. By c. 2000 BC we have traces of Anatolian, and hence
linguists are willing to place the emergence of Proto-Anatolian to c. 2500 BC
or considerably earlier. We have already differentiated Indo-Aryan in the
Mitanni treaty by c. 1500 BC so undifferentiated Proto-Indo-Iranian must be
earlier, and dates on the order of 2500-2000 BC are often suggested. Mycenaean
Greek, the language of the Linear B tablets, is known by c. 1300 BC if not
somewhat earlier and is different enough from its Bronze Age contemporaries
(Indo-Iranian or Anatolian) and from reconstructed PIE to predispose a linguist
to place a date of c. 2000 BC or earlier for Proto-Greek itself.”
Before Islam, Greek was still a major language throughout
the Eastern Mediterranean and beyond, including in Anatolia or Asia Minor, now
occupied by Turkish-speaking Muslims and called “Turkey.” Muslims have spent 1400
years wiping out Greek-speaking communities throughout the entire region, a
process that has continued into the twenty-first century at the island of Cyprus, yet they now want credit for
“preserving the Greek cultural heritage.” When the Ottoman Turks gradually
conquered the Greek heartland, the Balkans and the Near
East, they showed no serious interest in studying the culture and
history of their new subjects.
As Bruce G. Trigger writes in A History of Archaeological
Thought, second edition, “Serious archaeological work did not begin in Greece, however, until after that country’s
independence from Turkey
in the early nineteenth century.” Ibn Warraq explains in his well-researched
book Defending the West why archaeology was invented by Europeans in the
post-Enlightenment period. Muslims, despite the fact that they controlled the
cradles of the most ancient civilizations on the planet, were indifferent or
actively hostile to their remains. Austen Henry Layard, who was active in
Mesopotamia (Iraq) in the
mid-nineteenth century, recounts this story of Claudius Rich, a pioneer of
field archaeology and British Resident in Baghdad:
“Rich learnt from the inhabitants of Mosul that, some time previous to his visit,
a sculpture, representing various forms of men and animals, had been dug up in
a mound forming part of the great inclosure. This strange object had been the
cause of general wonder, and the whole population had issued from the walls to
gaze upon it. The ulema [religious scholars] having at length pronounced that
these figures were idols of the infidels, the Mohammedans, like obedient
disciples, so completely destroyed them, that Mr. Rich was unable to obtain
even a fragment.”
Following the brief Napoleonic expedition to Egypt around 1800, a new fad for ancient Egypt began in nineteenth century Europe. This took the local Muslims completely by
surprise, as they could not understand why anybody would be interested in
worthless infidel stones. The lavishly illustrated book Egyptian Treasures from
the Egyptian Museum
in Cairo
elaborates:
“Initially the Egyptians were unaware of the motives behind
the Westerners’ interest in what for them were simply stones emerging from the
ground. A rumor then began to circulate that these stones concealed untold
treasures. The inhabitants of the villages in the vicinity of archaeological
sites began to attack statues, tombs, and temples in the vain hope of
extracting jewels and precious objects. Soon, however, Egyptians came to
realize that the foreigners were interested in the stones themselves rather
than anything they were rumored to contain. While they did not themselves see
the attraction of a lump of carved rock, they became masters in the search for
and discovery of antiquities. When they were short of authentic relics they had
no hesitation in producing fakes, so well made as to fool even the
Egyptologists of the era.”
The French expedition to Egypt in 1798-1801 brought many
scholars to catalogue the ancient monuments, thus founding modern Egyptology.
The trilingual Rosetta Stone, discovered in 1799, was employed by the great
French philologist Jean-François Champollion to decipher the Egyptian
hieroglyphs in 1822. He made use of the Coptic language to achieve this. Arab
and Turkish Muslims had controlled Egypt for more than a thousand
years, yet had apparently never managed to decipher the hieroglyphs nor for the
most part displayed much interest in doing so. Europeans did so in a single
generation after they reappeared in force in Egypt,
and they did so with the help of the liturgical language of the Copts, the
Egyptian Christians, a direct link to ancient Egypt that the Arab invaders hadn't
managed to completely eradicate.
The French scholar Auguste Mariette during a stay in Egypt became
convinced that the country needed more effective legislation regarding the
conservation of its monuments. He was responsible for the constitution of the
Egyptian Antiquities Service and the foundation of the first Egyptian Museum
in Cairo. He
was buried in the garden in front of this museum, and his remains rest within a
stone sarcophagus that resembles those of ancient Egypt.
It is not a coincidence that the Islamic world was often
slow at adopting cultural inventions from the outside world. Muslims tend to be
indifferent at best toward non-Muslim cultures, past or present, at worst
actively hostile. An attack on statues at a museum in Cairo in 2006 by a veiled woman screaming
“Infidels, infidels!” shocked the outside world. She had been inspired by the
Egyptian Grand Mufti Ali Gomaa, who quoted a saying by Muhammad that sculptors
will be among those receiving the harshest punishment on Judgment Day.
According to the extremely influential Egyptian scholar Yusuf al-Qaradawi at
his website Islam Online, “Islam prohibits statues and three-dimensional
figures of the living creatures,” except dolls made for children. “Therefore,
the statues of ancient Egyptians are prohibited.”
The great Bamiyan Buddhas in Afghanistan were demolished by the
Taliban regime in 2001, aided by Pakistani and Saudi engineers, who decreed
that they would destroy images they deemed “offensive to Islam.” It is tempting
to conclude that the only reason why the famous pyramids of Egypt have
survived to this day is because they were so big that it proved too
complicated, costly and time-consuming for Muslims to destroy them. Otherwise
they might well have ended up like countless Hindu temples in India and Buddhist statues in Central Asia, or
Christian and Jewish places of worship from Indonesia to Kosovo. The smallest
of the three Giza Pyramids outside of the modern city of Cairo did in fact suffer visible damage after
an attempt by a medieval Muslim ruler to dismantle this infidel monument.
US President Obama claims that “throughout history, Islam
has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious
tolerance and racial equality.” In reality, it is rather difficult to find such
examples from any region in the world with a significant Islamic presence.
Islamic doctrines specifically state that Muslims are not supposed to consider
non-Muslims to be their equals; they are supposed to wage war against them
until they convert or submit. I recommend that Mr. Obama reads the great work
of scholar Bat Ye’or on this subject. Sir Jadunath Sarkar, the pre-eminent
historian of Mughal India,
wrote this about dhimmitude, the humiliating apartheid system imposed upon
non-Muslims under Islamic rule:
“The conversion of the entire population to Islam and the extinction
of every form of dissent is the ideal of the Muslim State.
If any infidel is suffered to exist in the community, it is as a necessary
evil, and for a transitional period only.…A non-Muslim therefore cannot be a
citizen of the State; he is a member of a depressed class; his status is a
modified form of slavery. He lives under a contract (dhimma) with the State.…In
short, his continued existence in the State after the conquest of his country
by the Muslims is conditional upon his person and property made subservient to
the cause of Islam.”
This “modified form of slavery” is now frequently hailed as
the pinnacle of “tolerance.” If the semi-slaves rebel against this system and
desire equal rights and self-determination, Jihad resumes. This happened with
the Greeks, Serbs, Bulgarians and other Christian dhimmi subjects of the Ottoman Empire, who were repressed with massacres,
culminating in the genocide by Turkish and Kurdish Muslims against Armenians in
the early twentieth century.
Even for those regions which were not under Islamic rule,
endemic Jihad raids disrupted normal communications between many regions of
Europe and the Byzantine Empire, where
Classical texts were still preserved. As historian Ibn Khaldun proudly
proclaimed about the Early Middle Ages: “The Christian could no longer float a
plank upon the sea.” Dr. Mahatir, the outgoing Prime Minister of Malaysia,
during an OIC (Organization of Islamic Conference) summit in 2003 wished for a
return to the glory days when “Europeans had to kneel at the feet of Muslim
scholars in order to access their own scholastic heritage.”
Jihad piracy, slavery and attacks on European countries were
a constant menace from the seventh century until the Barbary States of North
Africa in the nineteenth century. Some would argue that it is resurfacing now.
I have explained this in my online essays Europeans as Victims of Colonialism
and Fourteen Centuries of War against European Civilization, which is included
in my printed book Defeating Eurabia.
Paul Fregosi in his book Jihad in the West: Muslim Conquests
from the 7th to the 21st Centuries calls Islamic Jihad “the most unrecorded and
disregarded major event of history. It has, in fact, been largely ignored,”
although it has been a fact of life in Europe, Asia and Africa
for almost 1400 years. As Fregosi says, “Western colonization of nearby Muslim
lands lasted 130 years, from the 1830s to the 1960s. Muslim colonization of
nearby European lands lasted 1300 years, from the 600s to the mid-1960s. Yet,
strangely, it is the Muslims…who are the most bitter about colonialism and the
humiliations to which they have been subjected; and it is the Europeans who
harbor the shame and the guilt. It should be the other way around.”
If we look at the post-Roman period as a whole, a picture
emerges where Europe was under siege by
hostile aliens for most of the time, yet succeeded against all odds. Already
before AD 1300, Europeans had created a rapidly expanding network of
universities, an institution which had no real equivalent anywhere else, and
had invented mechanical clocks and eyeglasses. It is easy to underestimate the
importance of this, but the ability to make accurate measurements of natural
phenomena was of vital importance during the Scientific and Industrial
Revolutions. The manufacture of eyeglasses led indirectly to the development of
microscopes and telescopes, and thus to modern medicine and astronomy. The
network of universities facilitated the spread of information and debate and
served as an incubator for many later scientific advances. All of these
innovations were made centuries before European colonialism had begun, indeed
at a time when Europe itself was a victim of
colonialism and had been so for a very long time. Parts of Spain were still under Islamic occupation, an
aggressive Jihad was being waged by the Turks in the remaining Byzantine lands,
and the coasts from France
via Italy to Russia had
suffered centuries of Islamic raids.
It is true that the transatlantic slave trade is a dark
chapter in Western history, but one of the reasons why it was possible to
establish this trade was that it could tap into the large and well-established
Islamic slave trade in this region. All the way back to ancient Egypt, slavery was an important component of Africa’s trade with other continents. Yet according to
Robert O. Collins and James M. Burns in A History of Sub-Saharan Africa, “The
advent of the Islamic age coincided with a sharp increase in the African slave
trade.” The expansion of the trans-Saharan slave trade was a response to demand
in the markets of Muslim North Africa:
“The moral justification for the enslavement of Africans
south of the Sahara by Muslims was accepted by
the fact they were ‘unbelievers’ (kafirin) practicing their traditional
religions with many gods, not the one God of Islam. The need for slaves,
whether acquired by violence or by commercial exchange, revived the ancient but
somnolent trans-Saharan trade, which became a major supplier of slaves for North Africa and Islamic Spain. The earliest Muslim
account of slaves crossing the Sahara from the Fezzan in southern Libya to
Tripoli on the Mediterranean coast was written in the seventh century, but from
the ninth century to the nineteenth there are a multitude of accounts of the
pillage by military states of the Sahel, known to North African Muslims as
bilad al-sudan, (‘land of the blacks’), of pagan Africans who were sold to
Muslim merchants and marched across the desert as a most profitable commodity
in their elaborate commercial networks. By the tenth century there was a steady
stream of slaves taken from the kingdoms of the Western Sudan and the Chad Basin
crossing the Sahara. Many died on the way, but
the survivors fetched a great profit in the vibrant markets of Sijilmasa, Tripoli, and Cairo.”
Unlike the West, there never was a Muslim abolitionist
movement since slavery is permitted according to sharia, Islamic religious law,
and remains so to this day. When the open practice of slavery was finally
abolished in most of the Islamic world, this was only due to external Western
pressure, ranging from the American war against the Barbary Pirates of Muslim
North Africa to the naval power of the British Empire.
Slavery was taken for granted throughout Islamic history and lasted longer than
did the Western slave trade. Robert Spencer elaborates in his book A Religion
of Peace?: Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn’t:
“Nor was there a Muslim abolitionist movement, no Clarkson,
Wilberforce, or Garrison. When the slave trade ended, it was ended not through
Muslim efforts but through British military force. Even so, there is evidence
that slavery continues beneath the surface in some Muslim countries — notably Saudi Arabia, which only abolished slavery in
1962; Yemen and Oman, both of which ended legal slavery in 1970;
and Niger,
which didn’t abolish slavery until 2004. In Niger, the ban is widely ignored,
and as many as one million people remain in bondage. Slaves are bred, often
raped, and generally treated like animals. There are even slavery cases
involving Muslims in the United
States. A Saudi named Homaidan al-Turki was
sentenced in September 2006 to twenty-seven years to life in prison for keeping
a woman as a slave in his Colorado
home. For his part, al-Turki claimed that he was a victim of anti-Muslim bias.”
There are several names in use for Iran, Iraq,
Jordan and Syria. One is
the “Near East.” Another is “West Asia,” which
excludes Egypt,
a country with strong historical ties to this region. I prefer the term the
“Middle East” because it is a reminder that this region is in the middle of Eurasia. It was the only region that had regular contacts
with all major civilizations in the Old World, from Mediterranean Europe via India to East Asia.
The Chinese had little exposure to Greek mathematics and natural philosophy
whereas Muslims were well familiar with Greek ideas and geometry. Europe
suffered the worst disadvantages by having little direct contact with South,
Southeast and East Asia, largely cut off by
Muslims. The favorable geographical position of the Middle
East is demonstrated by the early access to Chinese paper and the
Indian numeral system, to name but two important inventions. Europeans
eventually greatly outperformed Muslims in science, despite having a
significantly weaker starting point.
In addition to this, the Hajj, the pilgrimage to Mecca and one of the five pillars of Islam, could have
been a great opportunity for exchanging scientific and technological
information to and from all regions of the Old World.
This did happen occasionally; some inventions were transferred to sub-Saharan West Africa in this way. Primarily, however, it served to
spread information on how to conduct Jihad against infidels or to implement
sharia law.
Muslims enjoyed a favorable geographical position, ruled
over significant numbers of non-Muslims and had access to the accumulated
learning of many of the oldest civilizations in the world. The challenge here
is not to explain why there was a brief burst of creativity in the earliest
centuries of Islamic rule; the challenge is to explain why this didn’t last.
Islam's much-vaunted “Golden Age” was in reality the twilight of the conquered
pre-Islamic cultures, an echo of times passed in a region that was still, for a
while, majority non-Muslim.
The Greater Middle East was the seat of the oldest known
civilizations on the planet and the source of many of the most important
inventions in human history, including writing and the alphabet. It is surely
no coincidence that the first civilization in the Indian subcontinent arose in
the Indus Valley in the northwest, close to Sumerian Mesopotamia, just as it is
no coincidence that literate European civilizations took root in lands that
were geographically close to Egypt and the Fertile Crescent: The Minoan
civilization of Crete, later Greece and the Balkans, then Rome. Contrast this
with modern times, when the Balkans is Europe's
number one trouble spot. So is the seat of the first Indian civilization, in Pakistan and Kashmir.
I've recently re-read the bestselling book Guns, Germs, and
Steel by the American evolutionary biologist Jared Diamond. What strikes me is
how Diamond, with his emphasis on geography and diseases, fails to explain the
rise of the West and especially why English, not Arabic, Chinese, Sanskrit or
Mayan, became the world’s lingua franca. His most important flaw is his failure
to explain how the Middle East went from being
a global center of civilization to being the global center of anti-civilization
it arguably is today. This was not caused by smallpox or because zebras are
more difficult to domesticate than water buffaloes; it was caused by Islam,
which remains the main cause of the backwardness of this region.
Posted by GS Don Morris, Ph.D. at 9:13 PM
http://docstalk.blogspot.com/2009/06/fjordman-to-president-obama-regarding.html
