posted 14 April 2005 02:26 PM            

Dr. Salah Zaimeche BA, MA, PhD;

Research Assistant, UMIST, Manchester, UK and Researcher at FSTC

If Duhem is to be followed, the Muslims are responsible for one thing, and for its total opposite, both at once. Indeed, according to him, the Muslims were fanatic, rampaging hordes, burners of Greek science, and also pale imitators, copiers of the Greeks. They cannot be both, though. How can you copy a book that you have burnt; or convey a science that you have destroyed on first contact? Incidently, both these conflicting opinions can be found not just with Duhem, but also with his crowd of followers, who pursue the same aberrations of history. More recent amongst these is another Frenchman, J.P. Verdet, who in a History of astronomy, manages to jump from Ptolemy to Copernicus, skipping nearly 1500 years, as if in his whole lifetime, and a scholar with access to tens of libraries, he never came across one single work dealing with Muslim astronomy.

Browsing through our modern means of communication, the web, also gives an early impression that the Muslims never looked at the sky, or put a pen on anything approaching that science called astronomy.

Thus at ‘http://w3.restena.lu/al/indivs/wajean/astronomy.htm’, what one finds is that Greek astronomy was transmitted to the Arabs; and although compiling new star catalogs, and developing tables of planetary motion, the Arabs made few useful contributions’ and that the Arabic translations of Ptolemy Almagest filtered into Europe. And that was it. On this last point, anybody without sufficient knowledge would believe that Ptolemy Almagest was the only work translated from Arabic into Latin. The Almagest was, indeed, one of hundreds of translations from Arabic into Latin by Christian assisted by Jews.

Amongst such translations that led to the awakening of Europe from its dark slumber were astronomical works of Al-Khwarizmi, Al-Battani, Al-Fargani, Mash’ Allah, Al-Zarqali, Al-Bitruji, Jabir Ibn Aflah, and so on. Moving further on the web, reveals other sites such as ‘http:..dmoz.org/Science/Astronomy/ History’. Nothing surprising here either. Out of the so many astronomical topics listed not a single reference to Muslim astronomy. Another site ‘http://homepages.tep.co.uk/~carling/astrhis.html’, and nothing again. The author just jumps from Ptolemy to Copernicus, skipping 1500 years. One would search in vain for a paragraph on the Muslims, or the Chinese (the greatest scientists of all times, and the other major victims of historical distortions) but nothing. The author, however, laments the burning at the stake of Giordano Bruno for adopting Copernican beliefs that were viewed with hostility by the Church.…

Like other scholars, who dealt with the history of science, Kevin Krisciunas could hardly fail to notice the generalized black-out imposed on Muslim astronomy. His opening statement of chapter two went as follows:

‘It is a common misconception that astronomical research fell into a dazed slumber lowing Ptolemy, not to reawaken until the time of Copernicus. I have briefly sketched in the previous chapter the efforts on the part of various Greeks in preserving their astronomical science. These efforts continued up to the time of the conquest of Egypt by the Arabs, who were not the book burning fanatics that some have made them out to be. Those who think that these Arabs made no contributions of their own have not investigated the subject.’

Kruisciunas then points that during the Middle Ages the principal astronomers were Muslims, Jews, and some Christians, and what they had in common was that they wrote in Arabic. This was the principal language of astronomy of the 9th through 11th centuries, just as English is today.

The Real Story

Yet against what has just proceeded, reality in relation to astronomy is considerably different. It will be impossible to go through even a summarized version of Muslim achievements here. The briefest of mentions will be made of different aspects of the science, some of which will hopefully be developed at a future stage. It also belongs to Muslims and others with minimal honest intentions to go through the abundant, old reference material, of primary and secondary sort, now being eagerly buried, and give a much truer picture of the Muslim contribution to this science, a reality that some try to hide for eternity.

Sources for writing on Muslim astronomy exist in large abundance in German in particular, the work of Germans and also of others who expressed themselves in German. Heinrich Suter, for one, has numbered over 500 Muslim astronomers and mathematicians, giving for each of these the titles of their works that are known, and their still extant manuscripts. Since Suter more have been added by Brockelmann and Sezgin (all in German). George Sarton in his voluminous Introndution to History of Science (already referred to abundantly) gives a very thorough picture, too, of the vast array of Muslim works in astronomy as in other sciences. Sedillot (in French) and Nalino (in Italian) have delivered plenty good information in the same field, too. Closer to us, David King, Julio Samso, George Saliba, E.S. Kennedy , W. Hartner and A.I. Sabra have added more regular contributions, King, in particular, providing a gigantic contribution to the subject. Other scholars have given very good summaries of Muslim astronomy, first amongs whom being Baron Carra de Vaux and Aldo Mieli, scholars of great repute from earlier in the century. Aldo Mieli founding one of the two greatest reviews on the history of science ARCHEION, (the other being ISIS by George Sarton). Incidentally, both De Vaux and Mieli are being pushed into oblivion by second or third rate modern scholars who today fill departments of history of science. Before leaving the subject on contributions, Rashed, again, managed in volume one of his Encyclopedia of Arabic science to gather a number of excellent contributions to this science, on top of providing an extensive bibliography at the end, very useful for whomsoever wishes to go deeper into the matter.

Before addressing other aspects of astronomy, and first and foremost, to the many pseudo historians who keep stating and re-stating that Muslim astronomers merely copied their Greek predecessors, no better evidence to the contrary than the many articled by George Saliba, following Sedillot, much earlier, dealing with the corrections made by Muslim astronomers to Greek astronomy. And for Braudel, Ptolemy’s errors were too glaring to escape Muslim scholars, who were better equipped with precision instruments.

To have a very thorough picture of the contribution of various ethnic groups to astronomy in general, the Chinese, above all, no better work than Sarton, of course, but also the more recent excellent work by Hetherington: A chronicle of pre-Telescopic astronomy. In it the author surveys each and every single achievement in the science, and every event of importance, year by year, from the very ancient times until our times; Hetherington, to his credit, not leaving thousand years from 500 to 1500 blank as is customary with others.

Observation of the sky and other observatories in Muslim times have been expertly dealt with by Sayili, following Sedillot, just cited. Kruiscinas, too, gave ample account of Islamic observations. Hartner, for his part, corrects Neugebauer’s remark that colossal observational instruments stood only at the end of the Muslim civilization (14th-15th century). These were already in use as early as Al-Mamun’s reign (9th century) and remained in use throughout the centuries. Hartner also notes that it was only in the 17th century, thanks to Brahe, that high standards of Islamic observation were reached again by the Europeans. On the specific point of instruments for observation it is useful to mention one amongst many contributions by R.P. Lorch on Jabir Ibn Aflah and the Torqum.

Nautical Astronomy
In nautical astronomy, and to correct the erroneous views so abundant in the field, no better source than Steinschneider, a source suffering constant attempts by modern writers to erase it. Joaquim Bensaude has kept Steinschneider alive, just for himself to be blotted out as well. Duhem, again, holds that the use of the baculus was introduced among the Portuguese navigators by the German scientist Behaim towards the end of the 15th century, whilst Bensaude (just cited) had demonstrated that the baculus was known in Portugal long before the time of Behaim. Dreyer also raises one of the so many contradictions proper to Duhem, that he (Duhem) quotes this book (Bensaude’s) in a footnote without noticing that it demolishes what he had just stated in the text. Also contrary to assertions made by Duhem, that some revival was begun in France, the studies of Bensaude have shown that the scientific light spread by the Arabs in Spain and Portugal had never been put out, which amongst others, impact considerably on navigation to the Indies and the New World. Another contribution of interest to this very subject is by Howse, and can be found in the Journal of Renaissance and Modern Studies.

The Astrolabe

The astrolabe is described as the most important astronomical calculating device before the invention of digital computers and was the most important astronomical observational device before the invention of the telescope. Its uses are varied, and not just in astronomy, but also in surveying and navigation. In astronomy, it was used to calculate the altitude and azimuth (an Arab term) of the sun, the moon, stars and planets. It was also used to measure distances and heights. Of all the works on the astrolabe, by far the best is by A. L. Mayer on Islamic astrolab-ists and their works. It describes and gives all names of those who made astrolabes through the ages of Islamic history, their places of birth and work, dates, and also the whereabouts of such astrolabes throughout the museums of the world and various international collections. Bibliographies about such makers and their works are also added, a very thorough work, indeed.

The Globe Earth

A point of crucial importance raised by Dreyer on a matter which is possibly the most blacked out of all, and that is the spherical shape of the earth, a notion which until the modern times led its authors to burning at the stake. In the world of Islam, Dreyer, however, holds, there was no such hostility to science, and there exists no record of any Muslim being persecuted for stating that the earth was a sphere that was capable of being inhabited all over, and that it was also very small compared to the size of the universe.

Final Remarks

In view of the so many sources just cited, the fact that books such as Verdet’s in the ‘90s, and the websites still ignore Muslim contribution to astronomy is beyond the credible. It just serves to show the darker side of ‘scholarship’ meant to be universal and devoid of prejudice. Harner had already noticed this a while back; stating that in the writing of history”

‘ Our time witnesses a most unfortunate tendency to write pretentious ‘syntheses’ on the basis of either of a wholly insufficient factual knowledge or of a preconceived theories-religious, phalluses, sociological maintained only by twisting and suppressing facts at the author’s pleasure.’

On the same matter, T. F. Tout has recognized that:

’ Our (Western-European-British) civilization is not merely national but world-wide, and that neither Great Britain, nor even Greater Britain, can be understood, unless we know something about our neighbors and associates, our enemies even more than our friends.’

Tout adds:

’It is from the Middle Ages that our civilisation proceeds. If we could understand modern civilization, we cannot make a fresh start a hundred or a hundred and fifty years ago’

And he concludes:

’Europe did not go to sleep in the Middle Ages, and then woke up, open her eyes, and see light at some date, previously marked out as 1453, 1492, or 1494 by eminent authorities. In the long story of European evolution the Middle Ages form an integral part, and unless you make allowance for them, you see modern history all askew. The men of the Renaissance, like the men of the Age of Reason, despised and ignored the Middle Ages. It is painful to find that there are still people who believe that you can hop straight from the Periclean or the Augustan ages to the times of Medici and Louis XIV…It is good to begin at the beginning, but we must on no account stop at an arbitrary time, jump over hundreds of years, and then start afresh’

posted 14 April 2005 02:29 PM            

Traditional Western History

The history of science and civilization according to traditional Western writing and narration, by an overwhelming majority, can be summarized as follows:

All Western, and hence our modern, civilization is derived from the Greek heritage (roughly 6th BC to 1st-2nd century AD). This heritage was lost during the Dark Ages (5th-15th AD), recovered during the Renaissance (16th-17th centuries), dusted off, and so was revived for our modern world.

As it was difficult to lain how such learning could be lost for nearly fifteen centuries, but recovered, Western historians gave that role to the Muslims: it was they, who, by chance, preserved it, keeping it for Western genius to arise again, before it was re-claimed and developed by that genius. One of the ‘illustrious’ historians to define this point, followed by hordes of modern ‘historians’ who today crowd history departments, is the Frenchman Duhem who states (posted earlier):

“The revelations of Greek thought on the nature of the exterior world ended with the “Almagest” (of Ptolemy) which appeared about A.D. 145, and then began the decline of ancient learning. Those of its works that escaped the fires kindled by Mohammedan warriors were subjected to the barren interpretations of Mussulman commentors and, like parched seed, awaited the time when Latin Christianity would furnish a favorable soil in which they could once more flourish and bring forth fruit.”

Some modern historians go further than Duhem, and even deprive the Muslims of this modest role of guardianship; one such historian , at a recent conference on the subject, seemingly able to interpret the unknown, confidently asserted that had the Muslims not preserved such heritage, it would have been recovered western scholarship anyway.

The Problem

Briefly, however, one or two comments on the previous statement on the Greek role to highlight how ridiculous such and argument can be made before moving on.

First and foremost, the learning recovered, or found, or available, at that Renaissance of 16th-17th (another illogically based notion of western history) bears no resemblance to anything left by the Greeks. The mathematics, the medicine, the optics, the chemistry, the astronomy, geography, mechanics etc, of the 16th is centuries ahead of that left by the Greeks. Any person with the faintest knowledge of any such subjects can check this by looking at what was left by the Greeks and compare it with what was available in the 16th century, and even with what was available centuries up to the 14th. Anyone can thus question this notion of Greek learning recovered during the Renaissance.

*Furthermore, even supposing the Greeks had made some contribution in some of the sciences cited, what is the Greek contribution to the invention of paper, printing, farming techniques, irrigation, windmills, the compass, industrial production, glass making, cotton production, the system of numerals, trade mechanisms, paper money, the cheque? Modern finance as a whole, gardens, flowers, art of living, urban design, personal hygiene, and many more manifestations that compose our modern civilization?*

As for the notion that Greek learning had disappeared, this is another preposterous point repeatedly made by western ‘historians’. Greek learning was available throughout the so-called Dark Ages in Byzantium and even in the ‘west’. Western historians never fail to insist that Muslims sought that Greek learning from Byzantine sources, and yet say that it has disappeared, which is impossible to square. Now, if such learning was available all along, why did ‘western scholars’ have to wait until they conquered Islamic lands in Sicily (11th), Toledo (Spain) (in the 11th) and in the east during the Crusades (11th -12th) before they started acquiring such ‘Greek’ learning? Why wait? And above all, why did Western translators of the 12th century, to whom we will return further on, chose to translate such sources? This is never explained by those historians who select miniscule or fragmentary pieces of evidence, often concoctions of their own, to build extensive theories [b](i.e. the Pirenne theory, the burning of the Alexandria library)

The Evidence

The real evidence from history shows that where the Greeks had left off, the Muslims had continued thus setting up the foundations of modern science and civilization. Before looking, albeit briefly, at some aspects of Muslim decisive influences, this author, like other Muslim historians, first and foremost, never ceases to acknowledge that, although the Muslims had made such contributions, the Islamic mind and soul that science and civilization are God given gifts to all people of equal abilities. The reason why the Muslims excelled at the time they did, and played the part they did is not due to any special status (as others appear to recognize as their own), but simply to circumstances current then, i.e., spur of Islamic values, which were very strong; driven by faith, Muslims were able to accomplish what they could never achieve under other circumstances as history has shown. Moreover, the Muslims had their own contributions but never denied their inheritance from other civilizations; particularly from the Chinese with whom they always had excellent relations…

…amongst the Muslims, only a number of such scientists were Arabs; most were instead Turks, Iranians, Spanish Muslims, Berbers, Kurds...thus a myriad of people and origins brought under the mantel of Islam, a religion open to all who sought to, and excelled in learning. And that was the first, and by far, the most multienthnic culture and civilisation that had ever existed, and not equalled in many respects, even today, not even in countires and institutions which keep adverstising their equal opportunity status. ..

Such observations are not conjured up by the present author to pursue his own agenda. They can be found amidst some of the best but often inaccessible and thus obscure ‘western historians’, or men of renown. Thus, Glubb states:

“ The indebtedness of Western Christendom to Arab civilization was systematically played down, if not completely denied. A tradition was built up, by censorhip and propaganda, that the Muslim imperialists had been mere barbarians and that the rebirth of learning in the West was derived directly from Roman and Greek sources alone, without any Arab intervention.”…

To go through Islamic impact on modern science and civilization in detail demands so vast a book that nobody has written yet, and it is much beyond the capability of this author to address this issue as extensively as he would wish. Notwithstanding, just some overall observations and points are raised here.

In order to highlight the true scale of Islamic impact, its crucial to look, however briefly, at the condition of western Christendom during those so-called Dark Ages, when, such were the contrasts, and such was the envy of western Christians of life in the Muslim world, that for Europeans, as Menocal puts it, ‘It must have at times appeared that wealth and comfort went hand in hand with the ability to read Arabic.’

Whilst universality of learning was a fundamental element in Islamic civilization, science was the ‘hobby of the masses, with paupers and kings competing to obtain knowledge…’ Whereas in western Christendom, as Haskins observes, ‘….relatively few could read and write, these being chiefly ecclesiastics and, save for the very moderate attainments of an individual parish priest, men of education were concentrated in certain definite groups separated from one another by wide stretches or rural ignorance. ‘

As Draper puts it, ‘Europe was hardly more enlightened than Caffraria is now, the Saracens were cultivating and even creating science. Their triumphs in philosophy, mathematics, astronomy, chemistry, medicine, proved to be more glorious, more durable and therefore more important than their military actions had been.’ Draper goes on to say that whilst ‘the Christian peasant, fever stricken or overtaken by accident, journeyed to the nearest saint’s shrine and expected a miracle; a knife of his surgeon.’ ‘The spurious medicine of ignorant and mercenary ecclesiastical charlatans. These operated by means of chants, relics, and incense; and their enormous gains were one of the chief sources of revenue to the parish and the monastery, and a corresponding burden on the people.’

Urbanity and wealth also belonged to the Muslims, at that time. In tenth century Cordova, there were 200,000 houses, 600 mosques, 900 public baths, the streets were paved with stones, and were cleaned, policed, and illuminated at night, water was brought to the public squares and to many of the houses by conduits, Islamic cities, as a whole with their mosque and madrassas, their churches, synagogues, and schools, their bathhouses, and other amenities, contained all that was needed for leading a religious and cultured life. Such Islamic cities boasted huge expanses of gardens.

Basra in Iraq was described by the early geographers as a veritable Venice, with mile after mile of canals criss-crossing the garden and orchards; Damascus with its 110,000 gardens, and in Turkey, Ettinghausen says flowers were a ‘devotion, if not mania.’ Whilst in Islamic towns and cities, trade flourished in all directions, and the wealth of its land were the objective of the preying and attacks of Christian pirates, the view from Western Christendom was hardly flattering. So big was the contrast, as Scott puts it, that the magnificent architectural works of ‘Arab genius were attributed to an infernal agency, as beyond the efforts of unaided human power,’ an opinion still enlightened by the Spanish peasantry, who firmly believe that the Muslim palaces ‘were constructed by evil spirits.’ This account by Draper tells that:

“As late as 16th century England, there were highwaymen on the roads, pirates on the rivers, vermin in abundance in the clothing and beds…The population, sparse as it was, was perpetually thinned by pestilence and want…” - Draper

As similar state of wretchedness prevailed everywhere else. Scott tells how:

“ In Paris there were no pavements until the thirteenth century; in London none until the fourteenth; the streets of both capitals were receptacles of filth, and often impassable; at night shrouded with inky darkness; at all times dominated by outlaws; the haunt of the footpad, the nursery of the pestilence, the source of every disease, the scene of every crime” - Scott

In the Spanish Asturias at the time of the Muslim arrival (early 8th century), Scott states that,

“The dwellings were rude hovels constructed of stones and unhewn timber, thatched with straw floored with rushes and provided with a hole in the roof to enable the smoke to escape; their walls and ceilings were smeared with soot and grease, and every corner reeked with filth and with vermin. The owners of these habitations were, in appearance and intelligence, scarcely removed from the condition of savages. They dressed in sheepskins and the hides of wild beasts, which unchanged, remained in one family for many generations. The salutary habit of ablution was never practiced by them. Their garments were never cleansed, and were worn as long as their tattered fragments held together.” - Scott

From this alone, it seems extremely odd how, instead of gratitude, western historians, including Albornoz and Spanish historians of his ilk, deny the Islamic influence.

The passing of Islamic Civilization to the West

Western scientific awakening and emergence out of barbarism mainly took place in the 12th century. Most historians now accept this. The idea of the 16-17th century Renaissance now belongs to either past history, or primarily to the mass media where amateur historians working for the BBC and similar channels occasionally delve in history as one would engage into enjoyable, but still far from mastered, hobby.

‘Universities, like cathedrals and parliaments, are the products of Middle Ages’, says Haskins, who adds that, ‘The Greeks and the Romans, strange as it may seem, had no universities in the sense in which the word has been used for the past seven or eight centuries.’

Also belonging to the 12th century, were the new architectural styles, windmills, hospitals, many sciences and scientific works, etc. In the 12th century, two major elements went into play, both linked to the Muslim world:

First: The Western Christians established into lands formerly Muslim, such as Sicily which had been re-taken from the Muslims during the last decade of the eleventh; Spain, where the Muslims lost their northern town of Toledo; and of course, the 12th century being (until the rise of Imad al-Din Zangi in the 1140s who inflicted the first major defeat on the Crusaders) a major period when the Crusaders followed their onslaught began in 1097, and conquered the whole of Palestine and nearly the whole of today’s Syria. From these three regions, as will be seen the Westerners derived plenty, or should one say, the essentials of what makes modern civilization.

Second: In the 12th century, took place the greatest translation efforts of sciences ever seen, and that was primarily of Islamic science in the town of Toledo, northern Spain.

“In the broadest sense, the West’s borrowing from the Middle East form practically the whole of basic fabric of civilization. Without such fundamental borrowings from the middle east, we should lack the following sorts of things amongst others (unless, of course, we had been quick and inventive enough to devise them all for ourselves): agriculture; the domestication of animals, for food, clothing and transportation; spinning and weaving; building; drainage and irrigation; road-making and the wheel; metal working, and standard tools and weapons of all kinds; sailing ships; astronomical observation and the calendar; writing and the keeping of records; laws and civic life; abstract thought and mathematics; most of our religious ideas and symbols…There is virtually no evidence for any of these basic things and processes and ideas being actually invented in the West” - Wickens

All sources: Courtesy of Foundation for Science Technology and Civilization

quote:

---

Thought Writes:

The Mediterranean region was essentially a melting pot, drawing in people from Africa, Asia and Europe. The populations and societies closest to this cross-road benefited from the economic and social exchange their geography facilitated. The Mediterranean eventually served as a vacuum sucking in the resources of Inner Asia, Inner Africa and Inner Europe. Ancient Egypt began as a Saharan-Sudanese civilization, centered around dessicating bodies of water just like Kerma, Punt (Mahal Taglinos), Dhar Tichitt, Aksum, Germa, the Sao, Ghana, Mali, and Songhai. Overtime the focus of AE shifted to the Mediterranean. Greece and is rooted in a neolithic diffusion process from SW Asia to the Balkins. The earliest Greeks were hybrid based upon the fact that a portion of the language (Bernal), skeletal remains (Angel) and genes (Semino et al.) can be traced back to the early Holocene in East Africa.

---

posted 14 April 2005 03:04 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
hummm...the Muslims were both in a sense. the did gard Greek scholarship but after a period of time they became more conservative and a little restrictive. That said, they never destroyed the classics and allowed it to exist even after the powers that be stopped sponsoring it. Greek thought would probably not have made it into Europe without them, and that , to me is clear.
they also produced some excellent work themselves.

---

There have been wild stories going on about how the Arabs supposedly destroyed Alexandrian learning center, in particular the burning of the Library. Closer inspection of historical facts, state otherwise.

Now, the whole point of these notes, is that not only did the Arabs preserve earlier ancient thoughts (not just the Greek, but others as well), but they also took these thoughts further and developed them into the state that can benefit modern civilization. They also introduced significant new thoughts, that didn't exist in ancient times. To say that the Arabs simply preserved ancient thoughts in their original form, and then Europeans later on received it as such, is a great stretch of reality. The Arabs did much more than that, and the developements that ensued from Arabic translations of Arab works, is testament to this. Overall, closer inspection of historical facts, show that the so-called Renaissance was an evolution or a continuum, and not an event of sudden awakening, as some try to portrait it, that was brought about through Arab/Muslim colonization of Europe. The Arabs (as did the Greeks) in turn, benefited from a continuum of cultural diffusion from ancient knowledge developed in the Nile and through western Asia, and from the other direction as well, South East Asia (Chinese and Indian civilizations).

quote:

---

…amongst the Muslims, only a number of such scientists were Arabs; most were instead Turks, Iranians, Spanish Muslims, Berbers, Kurds...thus a myriad of people and origins brought under the mantel of Islam, a religion open to all who sought to, and excelled in learning. And that was the first, and by far, the most multienthnic culture and civilisation that had ever existed, and not equalled in many respects, even today, not even in countires and institutions which keep adverstising their equal opportunity status...

---

posted 15 April 2005 01:19 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Keins:
Great post. It makes it clear the continuum and connectivity of anceint knowledge and scholarship that passed from one people, one continent, and one era to the next; like a relay team. All serious scholars who still talk of the Greek miracle should reconsider their education.

---

posted 15 April 2005 01:42 AM            

Ancient Egypt in Africa
Edited By David O'Connor and Andrew Reid

Reflections on Black Athena
By John North

"Like it or not, however, all this derives from an intellectual construction that attributed the primary responsibility for European and American culture to this particular ancient ethnic/linguistic group, percieved as co-members of the Indo-European race. In that sense, a great deal of 19th centruy scholarship must be seen as working towards this construction. It needs to be accepted: (1) that this was in some sense a racial construction, emphasizing the role of those percieved as co-race members and eliminating the apparent influence of those who were not; and (2) that the fact of the construction cannot be seperated from the process through which European nations were simultaneously establised imperial domination over other parts of the world."

posted 15 April 2005 02:37 AM            

quote:

---

Horemheb:
Greek thought would probably not have made it into Europe without them, and that , to me is clear.

---

This is one of the misconceptions that the introductory notes seek to address:

quote:

---

As for the notion that Greek learning had disappeared, this is another preposterous point repeatedly made by western ‘historians’. Greek learning was available throughout the so-called Dark Ages in Byzantium and even in the ‘west’. Western historians never fail to insist that Muslims sought that Greek learning from Byzantine sources, and yet say that it has disappeared, which is impossible to square. Now, if such learning was available all along, why did ‘western scholars’ have to wait until they conquered Islamic lands in Sicily (11th), Toledo (Spain) (in the 11th) and in the east during the Crusades (11th -12th) before they started acquiring such ‘Greek’ learning? Why wait? And above all, why did Western translators of the 12th century, to whom we will return further on, chose to translate such sources? This is never explained by those historians who select miniscule or fragmentary pieces of evidence, often concoctions of their own, to build extensive theories (i.e. the Pirenne theory, the burning of the Alexandria library)

---

posted 15 April 2005 03:18 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by BARBARIAN BERBER:
Arab propaganda, and exageration of what they have done, Modern Greeks in one year translate more books than Arabs in their whol 1500 years of "civilization". They were the most advance because there were no competitors, I'd say they were the least dumb.

---

posted 15 April 2005 06:29 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
The Arabs never burned Greek writings, at least not to any major degree.

---

There is no evidence that they did anything of the kind, in any degree. History shows that they did quite the opposite. They incorporated some knowledge from ancient times, developed them further to advance thinking, and introduced a whole set of new thoughts. This is why Arabic work was translated, rather than, using available classical work from ancient times.

quote:

---

Horemheb:
In the early years Muslim leaders embraced the classic text. The fundamental conflict between these writings and the teaching of Islam eventually led to the writings being pushed out of the spotlight in Muslim society.

---

Where is your evidence for this claim. Developments leading to, and the fact of the widespread European translations of Arabic sources stands in stark contrast to such claims.

quote:

---

Horemheb:
They remained in arab countries with Muslim leaders tolerating them, if not embracing them.

---

Historical facts do support this.

quote:

---

Horemheb:
verdet's leap from Ptolemy to Copernicus is accurate.

---

There is nothing to suggest that advanced thought available to Europeans from Arab work ressembles anything like what the Greeks had left:

quote:

---

Before addressing other aspects of astronomy, and first and foremost, to the many pseudo historians who keep stating and re-stating that Muslim astronomers merely copied their Greek predecessors, no better evidence to the contrary than the many articled by George Saliba, following Sedillot, much earlier, dealing with the corrections made by Muslim astronomers to Greek astronomy. And for Braudel, Ptolemy’s errors were too glaring to escape Muslim scholars, who were better equipped with precision instruments.

---

quote:

---

Horemheb:
The greek writings did not appear in Europe in latin until the high middle ages. They ran into trouble with the Catholic church for the same reasons they had trouble with Muslim religious leaders.

---

Where is your evidence to suggest that Greek writings disappeared from Europe?

You failed to address what was stated earlier:

quote:

---

As for the notion that Greek learning had disappeared, this is another preposterous point repeatedly made by western ‘historians’.

Greek learning was available throughout the so-called Dark Ages in Byzantium and even in the ‘west’. Western historians never fail to insist that Muslims sought that Greek learning from Byzantine sources, and yet say that it has disappeared, which is impossible to square. Now, if such learning was available all along, why did ‘western scholars’ have to wait until they conquered Islamic lands in Sicily (11th), Toledo (Spain) (in the 11th) and in the east during the Crusades (11th -12th) before they started acquiring such ‘Greek’ learning? Why wait? And above all, why did Western translators of the 12th century, to whom we will return further on, chose to translate such sources? This is never explained by those historians who select miniscule or fragmentary pieces of evidence, often concoctions of their own, to build extensive theories (i.e. the Pirenne theory, the burning of the Alexandria library)

---

quote:

---

Horemheb:
Much of the Greek writings were simply incompatable with Catholic and Muslim thinking at the time. The church was able to supress them to a degree for a couple of hundred years but the cat was out of the bag. From 1100 on the information was increasingly avilable.

---

Let the following speak for itself, in terms of highlighting the erroneous nature of your analysis:

quote:

---

A point of crucial importance raised by Dreyer on a matter which is possibly the most blacked out of all, and that is the spherical shape of the earth, a notion which until the modern times led its authors to burning at the stake. In the world of Islam, Dreyer, however, holds, there was no such hostility to science, and **there exists no record of any Muslim being persecuted*** for stating that the earth was a sphere that was capable of being inhabited all over, and that it was also very small compared to the size of the universe.

---

posted 15 April 2005 09:12 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by BARBARIAN BERBER:
Arab propaganda, and exageration of what they have done, Modern Greeks in one year translate more books than Arabs in their whol 1500 years of "civilization". They were the most advance because there were no competitors, I'd say they were the least dumb.

---

posted 15 April 2005 09:41 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
Super Car...you are beyond a doubt one of the most ignorant, hard headed people I have ever seen.

---

Why...because I don't buy the kind of piece of trash, a tramp like you has to offer?

quote:

---

Evidence for my points are everywhere, again its accepted standard scholarship.

---

Your comment is so full of contradictions, and nonsense, that you've tried to draw from fraudulent piece of information you managed to pick up from here and there.

That you weren't able to see these contradictions yourself, shows that you have no idea what the hell you are talking about.

quote:

---

Horemheb:
The problem is that you are so truly stupid that if I spread it all out for you I would hear some silly reason why it is incorect.

---

If you want to see a truly sick fat tramp in the mirror, try looking at yourself through one. Calling you simply stupid, would amount to praising you.

quote:

---

Horemheb:
It's like trying to have a conversation with a child.

---

If you had anything close to the logic a child has, you would consider yourself very lucky indeed. Your first step would be to get better, then try to measure up with your lover, Chrissy the dog, and perhaps in a 'distant' future, try to join humanity.

quote:

---

Horemheb:
Now, I'll be willing to do that IF you have enough intellect to understand it.

---

We have yet to see something from you, that suggests you aren't an ignorant ass.

quote:

---

Horemheb:
I'll discuss the subject in depth but I am not going to argue with a fool.

---

As I said elsewhere, I don't argue with tramps, I expose them first, and perhaps, if their brain can handle a tiny bit of logic, teach them along the way. Unfortunately in your case, there isn't anything in that empty vessel you call a head; and so, I'll just have to do with exposing a lousy tramp.

quote:

---

Horemheb:
On those terms , do you want the information or not?

---

The information I want is one with coherency, instead of the brainless nazi load of crap you call sense. You have not said anything that makes sense, much less challenge anything that has been thus far said. If you wish to try now, then I say, good for you.

posted 15 April 2005 09:49 PM            

He is somewhat right about the Arabs during their various periods of occupation of Magreb and Egypt. Most of the great thinkers in the areas of Al-Andulas were either Persians or Jews. Most of the architects,doctors,and scribes in Egypt were either Jewish,Mawali,or Christians. Mawali are non-Arab converts that had to become clients of Arabs and ultimately inferiors of Arabs. They were the indigenous populations.

The great center of learning in pre-Islamic Arabia was run by Sassanid Persians. Also alot of the Greco-Roman texts were preserved by Syriac Christians.

I would not say that Arabs made no original contributions because they did refine mathematics,optics,and sociology. All the great thinkers like Ibn Hazen,Ibn Khaldun..etc

Ibn Hazen's work on Optics was directly translated into Latin and read by many people including the modern founder of Science,Francis Bacon. Bacon used Ibn Hazen's work to further it more. Ibn Khaldun formulated sociology. He is considered by Arnold Toynabee to be the father of historical sociology.

People often ignore places like Northern India/Pakistan that had original Universities like Taxtila and Nalanda. Infact most of the scientific texts translated by the Arabs was done by the Abbasid caliph at the House of Wisdom in Iraq by Al Ma'mun. Most of these texts were sanskrit texts from Northern Indian universities like Nalanda and Taxtila.

posted 15 April 2005 10:16 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:

He is somewhat right about the Arabs during their various periods of occupation of Magreb and Egypt. Most of the great thinkers in the areas of Al-Andulas were either Persians or Jews. Most of the architects,doctors,and scribes in Egypt were either Jewish,Mawali,or Christians. Mawali are non-Arab converts that had to become clients of Arabs and ultimately inferiors of Arabs. They were the indigenous populations.

The great center of learning in pre-Islamic Arabia was run by Sassanid Persians. Also alot of the Greco-Roman texts were preserved by Syriac Christians.

I would not say that Arabs made no original contributions because they did refine mathematics,optics,and sociology. All the great thinkers like Ibn Hazen,Ibn Khaldun..etc

Ibn Hazen's work on Optics was directly translated into Latin and read by many people including the modern founder of Science,Francis Bacon. Bacon used Ibn Hazen's work to further it more. Ibn Khaldun formulated sociology. He is considered by Arnold Toynabee to be the father of historical sociology.

People often ignore places like Northern India/Pakistan that had original Universities like Taxtila and Nalanda. Infact most of the scientific texts translated by the Arabs was done by the Abbasid caliph at the House of Wisdom in Iraq by Al Ma'mun. Most of these texts were sanskrit texts from Northern Indian universities like Nalanda and Taxtila.

---

The second 'human' response, I have seen after Thought's post. Only a nazi beast on crack, like Horemheb, feels that 'make feel good' jibberish are a substitute for logic. Fact is, the so-called Dark Ages, are described as such, because this is a timeframe in which, low-life and savagery was the order of the day in Europe, while elsewhere, trade and cultural growth was taking place.

The so-called Greek thought never disappeared in Europe; it is an obvious poorly constructed lie, that is told in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Precisely, it was because the Muslims had developed advance modern science, that Europeans didn't seek the 'Greek' writing from areas in European where the so-called Greek thought was still available, and at a more immediate accessible language.

Stupid beyond description, is the idea that Muslim thought was "incompatible with Greek writing". Only a totally mentally devoid one would make a claim that the Muslims supposedly preserved Greek knowledge, and at the sametime, it (so-called Greek thought) was against Muslim "thinking".

posted 16 April 2005 12:23 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
What is that evidence goofball? Find me europeans who used Greek text after 400. There is one but you are too uneducated to even know who it was. Why did the Greek text disappear from the eastern empire? Do you know SC? Naturally you don't. What philosophy was medieval thinking based on?
What we have in Super car is arrogance combine with ignorance and that is a terrible combination.

---

Now, a nazi scumbag that cannot read, is what I call tripple jeopardy.

Being the very slow type that you are, you might want to have your caretaker, or your dog Chrissy to interpret this for you (the dog has a better chance of understanding human language):

quote:

---

As for the notion that Greek learning had disappeared, this is another preposterous point repeatedly made by western ‘historians’.

Greek learning was available throughout the so-called Dark Ages in Byzantium and even in the ‘west’.

Western historians never fail to insist that Muslims sought that Greek learning from Byzantine sources, and yet say that it has disappeared, which is impossible to square.

Now, if such learning was available all along, why did ‘western scholars’ have to wait until they conquered Islamic lands in Sicily (11th), Toledo (Spain) (in the 11th) and in the east during the Crusades (11th -12th) before they started acquiring such ‘Greek’ learning?
Why wait?

And above all, why did Western translators of the 12th century, to whom we will return further on, chose to translate such sources?

This is never explained by those historians who select miniscule or fragmentary pieces of evidence, often concoctions of their own, to build extensive theories (i.e. the Pirenne theory, the burning of the Alexandria library)

---

If you can actually address these points, rather than drooling all day long, you might get some where that makes sense.

BTW, time to change that diaper, it's starting to stink up the place.

posted 16 April 2005 12:59 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
who had it Super Car....??? You make these idoitic claims but you can't cite a single source where greek knowledge was avilable in the west. There is one avilable but only one so go scrambling around the net and see if you can find it.
Again, what was the basis of medieval philosophy? You have youself out on a limb now see if you can get off.

---

Mr. scumbag now wants references on the dark ages; here are but a few quotes:

'The so called Dark Ages were lighter than we sued to believe, and there was a constant interchange of knowledge and ideas between the supposedly hostile worlds of the Cross and the Crescent.' - Lowe

"To many students of medical history and medical science the Middle Ages, or Dark Ages as they have been called, implies a period of regression, of endless controversy, of fruitless arguments of scholasticism; and the mention of this period is met with disinterest, if not antagonism." - Whipple

Other references that you may get from your nearest local library:

"Sarton, Haskins, E. Kennedy, D, King, Wiedemann, Ribera, Hill, Mieli, Myers, Suter, Leclerc, Millas Vallicrosa, Sedillot, just to cite a few amongst the many, have put at the disposal of scholarship and audiences so much that is impossible to hide." -FSTC

The burden is really on you to prove that the so-called Greek writing disappeared from Europe, and hence out of the reach of Europeans.

What was the day that this 'Greek' writing suddenly disappeared? Name the time and place.

Show us how this 'greek' writing that you claim was revived from Arabic translations, resembles anything the 'greeks' left behind. The burden is on you.

Moreover, there were Latin versions of 'Greek' writings available in Europe; why translate the Arabic versions?

Only a jackass will claim that 'Greek' writing was incompatible with Muslim thinking, only to turn around, and state that they were the ones, who preserved it. How do you square the two?

posted 16 April 2005 01:07 PM            

Name a place in dark age europe where Greek knowledge was used?

posted 16 April 2005 01:12 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:

Tell us what the philosophical foundation of medival europe was????

---

Thought Writes:

Medival Europe had many "philosophical foundations". Europe was not and is not a monolith.

posted 16 April 2005 01:22 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
you are just trying to worm out of the position you put yourself in.

---

I'll leave that job to you.

quote:

---

Horemheb:
Name a place in dark age europe where Greek knowledge was used?

---

Already did. You should have called Chrissy to do the reading here:

"Greek learning was available throughout the so-called Dark Ages in Byzantium and even in the ‘west’."

quote:

---

Horemheb:

Name a place in dark age europe where Greek knowledge was used?

---

How could you say that the Europeans have lost so-called Greek knowledge, if they never had it? Tell us how, the place and exactly when the Greek writing disappeared?

You made that claim, you prove it!

posted 16 April 2005 01:36 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
Lets start with the Catholic church Thoughtless. That is a little clue that might move at least a couple of the brain cells in your racist head.

---

Thought Writes:

posted 16 April 2005 01:58 PM            

It would seem that the switch came with Descartes and a growing preference for abstract Platonism and the Hermetic writings of neo-Egyptian origins.

I guess the question is: were the ancient Greek writings first translated into Arabic then into Latin or did they go straight from Greek into Latin?
Recall that all the top intellectual guns in Europe wrote in Latin--from Descartes to Newton.

I also want to suspect that the term "Dark Ages" was an ex-post facto creation of the New Age Renaissance theorists who were eager to overthrow the dominant paradigm of "rational Christianity" according to Ausgustine and the Scholastics. Once "rational Chritianity" was overthrown Plato and Aristotle resurfaced again under the guise of the conflcit between rationalism and empiricism. That's my reading.

posted 16 April 2005 02:06 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
Where is it Super car? i asked a question you can't answer. I ever gave you a clue. Super car knows he's screwed on this, its why he won't answer the question.

tell us about Greek knowlede in Medieval Europe.

---

Don't tell me that Mrs. Horemheb, or shall I say Chrissy the dog, is not home. Look it 'up'.

So now, where are the answers to those questions? Entertain us with how, you can claim that 'Ancient Greece' is 'western' because of 'Greek thought', and at the same time claim, there was none in medieval Europe.

Surely, even a wrinkled nazi has to realize, that time isn't constant.

posted 16 April 2005 02:14 PM            

But that's why I used the term "rational Christianity". The term "unmoved mover" is not incompatible with the Scholastic conception of the Christian deity.

posted 16 April 2005 02:26 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
Well Mr. Brain every damn historian in the universe says its constant.
The facts say its constant.
You and your little click of racist radicals are the only ones that don't and you have no facts.

---

Of all the dumb things you've spewed here, the idea that time stays constant, has got to take the cake.

quote:

---

Horemheb:
Where is the data Super car?

---

Where is the answer to my question?

quote:

---

Horemheb:
Again...you made the assertion the other day now you should be able to come up with some evidence of greek thought in medieval Europe...wouldn't you say?

---

posted 16 April 2005 02:33 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
I win...you just gave up. when you start talking about me being dismissed you are really saying you have no answer.

---

Translation: I can't explain a nonsensical drivel about "Greek thought" supposedly being tied to 'western', and yet claim there wasn't any in 'medieval' Europe. I have to dance around asking a question on something that has been pointed out to me several times now.

Well, you are better off being silent. More posting, as you can clearly see, doesn't in the slightest help you. Its your only way out.

posted 16 April 2005 02:52 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
I don't need a way out...you made an assertion, you presented no facts. That is here for everyone on the board to see. You take a position opposed to every european history scholar and you cannot back it up. That is why you are a complete idiot.

---

Which historian claims that Greek writing wasn't available in medieval Europe, in both Greek and Latin?

That is your claim, and you haven't provided even a slight substantiation to that inaminate rational. What else can you expect from a nazi lunatic.

posted 16 April 2005 03:07 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
[B]All historians claim that. Richard Rubenstein just wrote a great book on that very subject, 'Aristotle's Children.'

---

Where is a direct quote from Rubenstein on an outrageous claim, such as Greek material not being available in medieval Europe, in the languages I referred to?

Where are the others, and their quotes?

quote:

---

Horemheb:
I have suggested it to you numerous times.
The fact that you asked "what historians" tells me your knowledge of european history is lacking.
You might also try a book by Richard Fletcher called 'The Barbarian Conversion.'
Fletcher's book deals with the spread of the catholic church after the fall of the western empire.

---

What Church suposedly did is understood; has no bearings on the lousy idea that 'Greek learning' suddenly disappeared in Europe.

posted 16 April 2005 04:12 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by lamin:

I guess the question is: were the ancient Greek writings first translated into Arabic then into Latin or did they go straight from Greek into Latin?

---

Greek writing was still available in Europe, and especially in Byzantium.

quote:

---

Lamin:
But here's my last question: who did the translations from Arabic into Latin for the benefit of the West Europeans? And why didn't people like Descartes and others just learn Arabic instead?

---

The Translators of Arabic science:

Scholars from all Christian lands rushed to that place to translate Muslim science, and thus start the scientific awakening of Europe.

Many of course were Spaniards: John of Seville, Hugh of Santalla, and those working under the patronage of King Alfonso; another translator was Herman from Damatia; two came from Flanders, Rudolph of Bruges and Henry Bate; many from southern France; Armegaud son of Blaise, Jacob Anatoli, Moses ibn Tibbon, Jacob ben Mahir, and from Italy: Plato of Tivoli, Gerard of Cremona, Aristippus of Catania, Salio of Padua, John of Brescia. From British Isles will arrive Robert of Chester, Daniel of Morley, M. Scot, and possibly Adelard (of Bath), and others, including the intermediaries who helped transfer Islamic science from Arabic into Latin or local languages.

Amongst such translators the most profilic of all was the Italian Gerard of Cremona, who translated about 87 works amongst which included the Todelan tables of al-Zarqali Canones Arzachelis and Jabir ibn Aflah's Islah al Majisti (correction of the Almagest of Ptlomey). His other translations include The Banu Musa's Liber trium fratrum, Al-Khwarizmi's : De jebra et elmucabala, Abu Kamil: Liber qui secundum Arabes vocatur algebra et almucabala,, - ABu'l Qasim Al-Zahrawi: Liber Azaragui de cirurgia (treatise on surgery), Al-Farabi: De scientiis, -Al-Kindi's works on physics and mechanics: De aspec; followed by De umbris et de diversitate aspectrum, Ibn al-Haytham's work on physics: De crepusculis et nubium ascensionibus, Al-Kindi's: De gradibus medicinarum (on medicine).

Amongst the translations made by the Jew truned Christian, John of Seville, are Al-Battani's Treatise on astronomy and other works; Thabit ibn Qura: De imaginibus astronomicis; Maslama ibn Ahmed al Majriti: De astrolabio; Al-Farabi: Isha al-Ulum; Abu Ma'shar: Al-Madkhal ila 'ilm ahkam al-nujum; Al-Ghazali: Maqasid Al-Falasifa; Al-Farghani: Kitab fi harakat al-Samawiya wa jawami'ilm al-nujum...

It is not necessary to list all the translations since they can be found in greater detail, together with their successive editions, and a vast bibiliography relating to them in G. Sarton's Introduction.- FSTC

----Now, a collection of interesting quotes:

"Lynn White JR (by no means a fervent admirer of Muslim science) recognises that

'The traditional picture of the Middle Ages (5th to the 15th) has been one of historical decline, particularly in the early Middle Ages, the so called dark Ages. Yet such a view of the Middle Ages is false when viewed from the standpoint of the history of technology.' - Lynn White Jr. "

"The so called Dark Ages were lighter than we sued to believe, and there was a constant interchange of knowledge and ideas between the supposedly hostile worlds of the Cross and the Crescent." - A. Lowe

"Islam had all along been the patron of physical science; paganising Christianity not only repudiated it, but exhibited towards it sentiments of contemptuous disdain and hatred." - J.W. Draper

"It was, indeed, between the 8th -13th centuries that most decisive scientific inventions were made, and the foundations of modern civilization were laid. Scientists and scientific discoveries in their thousands, artistic creativity, great architecture, huge libraries, hospitals, universities, mapping of the world, the discovery of the sky and its secrets, and much more. It was the time when Al-Biruni, Al-Khwarizmi, Al-Idrissi, Al-Kindi, Ibn Sina, Al-Razi, Ibn Khaldun, Ak-Khazin, Ibn al-Haytham, Al-Farabi, Al-Ghazali, Al-Jazari and hndreds more scientists shaped the modern sciences in such a way that in the mind of Briffault;

'science owes a great deal more to the Arab culture, it owes its existence.'- R. Briffault

And had not it been for such Muslim upsurge, modern European civilization, he pursues, would never have arisen at all; and 'would not have assumed that character which has enabled it to transcend all previous phases of evolution.' - R. Briffault. "

"The reason, mainly, why the dark ages had to be obscured is another matter that requires lengthy attention. In brief, the Middle Ages were indeed the times of Muslim superiority, and so they had to be darkened; blotted out preferably.

The process began with the Humanist movement of the late Middle Ages-early Renaissance. It has been pursued since, and refined by 'historians' specialists in re-constructing history (not just this phase of history, though, it must be reminded). Thus, any aspect of advance in science was skilfully removed from those 'dark' centuries.

It would have, indeed, been impossible for such historians to explain the role of the Middle Ages in the advance of civilization without referring to the Islamic role.

Some (Lynn White Jr, Duhem; Clagett...) did try to rehabilitate the Middle Ages, whilst still lessening the role of the foe (the Muslim).

Their works ended up with gaps and contradictions of horrendous dimensions that any person, however limited in skills could raise.

Besides, amongst the Westerners are scholars in the many who keep unearthing what others try very hard to blot out. Sarton, Haskins, E. Kennedy, D, King, Wiedemann, Ribera, Hill, Mieli, Myers, Suter, Leclerc, Millas Vallicrosa, Sedillot, just to cite a few amongst the many, have put at the disposal of scholarship and audiences so much that is impossible to hide. And so, the true place of Islamic science can be reclaimed. "

"The Jews had the most glorious pages of their civilization under Islam, too.

To name just a couple, Maimonides (philosopher-physicist) was Salah Eddin Al-Ayyubi's doctor, and Hasdai Ibn Shaprut, followed by his sons, held some of the most prominent positions in terms of learning and power in Muslim Spain. And The Ben-Tibbon family were the ones who played a most prominent role in scattering Islamic learning in all provinces other than Spain (such as the South of France). And nearly all Muslim envoys to Christian powers were Jews, too."

"Thus, some of Islam earliest and most prominent scientists at the Abbasid court, Ishaq Ibn Hunayn and Hanayn Ibn Ishaq were Nestorian Christians. Thabit Ibn Qurrah, the astronomer, was Sabean.

Moreover, amongst the Muslims, only a number of such scientists were Arabs; most were instead Turks, Iranians, Spanish Muslims, Berbers, Kurds...thus a myriad of people and origins brought under the mantel of Islam, a religion open to all who sought to, and excelled in learning."

"In a time when the movement of ideas was at a relative standstill, 'the Muslims came along with a new outlook, with a sense of enquiry into the old, and finally to a point where Western Europe could take over this thoroughly examined knolewdge and endow its ripeness with a completely fresh approach of its own." - Martin Levey

Sources: Courtesy of Foundation for Science Technology and Civilization.

Watch this space!

posted 17 April 2005 02:11 PM            

quote:

---

what are you talking about???? You should say western propaganda not arabs, if we arabs are dumb, what are you then????? You are dumb not us. You are idiot and uneducated. The berbers are mixed, even you find dark skin berbers. So you think all berbers are white???????? Are you one of this ignorant white people hates arabs???? If your answer is yes, sorry you are not a real berber. I can call you dumb and ignorant.

---

-I never said that arabs are dumb, I say that they were not that bright. My people the Berbers did nothing bright and we don't say the contrary.

-there are mixed Berbers that's a fact, I lived in the sahara and I know how they look..it's not you who will teach me the history and the physical appearance of my people, this said, I prefer to be a west african than an Arab... But the problem is that people here don't say Kabyles are black, they say that we are a mix of europeans and arabs who speak Berber.

[This message has been edited by BARBARIAN BERBER (edited 17 April 2005).]

posted 17 April 2005 02:19 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by BARBARIAN BERBER:

My people the Berbers did nothing bright and we don't say the contrary.

---

What about Apuleius among other Amazigh authors who wrote in
Latin as members of the Roman Empire?

posted 17 April 2005 04:49 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by BARBARIAN BERBER:

-I never said that arabs are dumb, I say that they were not that bright. My people the Berbers did nothing bright and we don't say the contrary.

---

Opinions are fine, but when dealing with history, its best to deal with substantiated claims. That is what this thread is intended to do, to put history into a perspective that is substantiated by facts. If there is something that you feel the FSTC hasn't gotten right, feel free to point it out, and it goes without saying, with solid corroboration.

You have to also understand, the Arab science in the middle ages, built strength from the intellect of a multi-ethnic base, under Arab influence.

I suspect that if one actually read the FSTC (introductory) notes with care, he/she would have noticed the mentioning of...

"…amongst the Muslims, only a number of such scientists were Arabs; most were instead Turks, Iranians, Spanish Muslims, Berbers, Kurds...thus a myriad of people and origins brought under the mantel of Islam, a religion open to all who sought to, and excelled in learning. And that was the first, and by far, the most multienthnic culture and civilisation that had ever existed, and not equalled in many respects, even today, not even in countires and institutions which keep adverstising their equal opportunity status..."

Unlike the European sense, as pointed out earlier, in the John North excerpt (from Reflections on Black Athena) on the racial-construction, that leaves out the contributions of others, who are excluded from the supposed racial group, here diversity is openly acknowledged and not attributed to one particular "race".

Dr. Zaimeche noted on how Kevin Kriscuinas pointed out that, during the Middle Ages, the principal astronomers were Muslim, Jews, and some Christians, and what they had in common was that they wrote in Arabic.

"This was the principal language of astronomy of the 9th through the 11th centuries, just as English is today". - Kevin Krisciunas

And...

"It is a common misconception that astronomical research fell into a dazed slumber following Ptolemy, not to reawaken until the time of Copernicus. I have briefly sketched in the previous chapter the efforts on the part of various Greeks in preserving their astronomical science. These efforts continued up to the time of the conquest of Egypt by the Arabs, who were not the book burning fanatics that some have made them out to be. Those who think that these Arabs made no contributions of their own have not investigated the subject" - Kevin Kriscuinas

The developments in the middle ages has an interesting way of exposing the outlook of the supposed state of science, as interpreted in being where 'the Greeks left it'...

"The so called Dark Ages were lighter than we sued to believe, and there was a constant interchange of knowledge and ideas between the supposedly hostile worlds of the Cross and the Crescent." - A. Lowe

Interesting roots of what became the tool of European imperialism...

Gunpowder:

The Chinese knew gunpowder in the 11th century, but didn’t know the right proportions of getting explosions and didn’t achieve the necessary purification of potassium nitrate. The first Chinese book, which details the explosives proportion, was in 1412 by Huo Lung Ching. [1]

Al-Rammah’s book is the first to explain the purification procedure for potassium nitrate and described many recipes for making gunpowder with the correct proportions to achieve explosion. This is necessary for the development of canons. Partington [ 3] says “the collection of recipes was probably taken from different sources at different times in the author’s family and taken down. Such recipes are described as tested.” Al-Razi, Al-Hamdany, and an Arabic-Syriaque manuscript of the 10th century describe potassium nitrate. Ibn Al-Bitar describes it in 1240. The Arab-Syriaque manuscript of the 10th century gives some recipes of gunpowder. It is assumed that these were added in the 13th century.

The Latin book “Liber Ignium” of Marcus Graecus is originally Arabic (translated in Spain) gives many recipes for making gunpowder the last four of which must have been added to the book in 1280 or 1300. “Did Roger Bacon derive his famous cryptic gunpowder in his Epistola of ca. 1260 from the crusader Peter of Maricourt, some other traveler or from a wide range of reading from Arabic and alchemical books”. References [1], [3], and Joseph Needham, doubt the correctness and effectiveness of the recipe of Bacon.

The German scientist Albert Magnus obtained his information from the “Liber Ignium” originally an Arabic book translated in Spain.

Evidence of the use of gunpowder during the crusades in Fustat, in Egypt, 1168 was found in the form of traces of potassium nitrate. Such traces were also found in 1218 during the siege of Dumyat and in the battle of Al-Mansoura in 1249.

Winter mentions, “the Chinese may have discovered saltpeter (gunpowder) or else that discovery may have been transmitted to them by the Muslims whom they had plenty of opportunities of meeting either at home or abroad. Sarton is referring to Arab-Muslim traders to China, as well as Arab inhabitants in China. As early as 880 an estimated 120,000 Muslims, Jews and Persians liven in Canton alone.”

Canons and Rockets:

There are four Arabic manuscripts (Almakhzoun manuscripts; one in Petersburg, two in Paris and one in Istanbul) in 1320 describing the first portable canon with suitable gunpowder. This description is principally the same as for modern guns. Such canons were used in the famous battle of Ain-Galout against the Mongols (1260).

The Mamlouks developed the canons further during the 14th century.

In Spain, Arabs used canons defending Seville (1248), in Granada 1319, in Baza or Albacete 1324, in Huescar and Martos 1325, in Alicante 1331 and in Algeziras 1342-1344. Partington says, “ the history of artillery in Spain is related to that of the Arabs”.

J.R. Partington mentions, “Arabic accounts suggest that the Arabs introduced firearms into Spain, from where they passed to Italy, from there to France, and finally Germany.”

“The Arabs, in any event, appear to have been the first to inherit (and possibly) originate the secret of the rocket, and it was through Arabic writings, rather than the Mongols -- that the Europeans came to know the rocket. The two notable examples of Arabic knowledge of the rocket are the so-called “self-moving and combusting egg” of the Syrian Al-Hassan Al-Rammah (d. 1294 - 1295), details of which may be found in Willey Ley’s popular “Rockets, Missiles, and Space Travel” and physician Yusuf ibn Ismail Al-Kutub’s description (1311) of the saltpeter (“they use it to make a fire which rises and moves, thus increasing it in lightness and inflammability”). - Frank H. Winter

Sources: Courtesy of FSTC

posted 17 April 2005 04:56 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri~:
What about Apuleius among other Amazigh authors who wrote in
Latin as members of the Roman Empire?

---

It's like saying that sub-saharan africans rule USA because condolizza rize has a good job in the american goverment.

posted 18 April 2005 12:21 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:

Super Car...Rubenstein's entire book deals with the subject of Greek knowledge and its absence from medieval Europe, and the impact it had once it reappeared. He not only makes that claim he lays out exactly HOW IT HAPPENED. It's the latest scholarship on the subject and well worth reading.

---

Horemheb, you are as good as being dismissed until you are able to do the following:

• 'Carefully' read the FSTC notes provided in the parent thread.

  The apparent need for you to attribute what was said, to me, was enough to reveal that you haven't able to do the most basic thing; read the introductory notes. These are words of scholars, not mine!

• Layout the points that you don't agree with, and tell us why. And of course, this goes hand in hand with solid corroboration.

  You have made claims, which even for someone without much knowledge in the subject, will find logically absurd. For instance, the burden is on you, to prove that so-called Greek material disappeared from Europe. Mere logic says that, if the said material was available in Europe for centuries, how can all of a sudden, this just disappear? Exactly when, where, and how did this happen?
  

My direct response to your last comment:

You claimed to have read Rubenstein's book. This is a discussion, and if you feel that he corroborates what you are saying, then go ahead and provide a direct quote that can be traced back to him, where he specifically says that the so-called Greek material disappeared from Europe.

Naturally, if Rubenstein made such a comment, he would fare no better than you are, in providing solid substantiation for such a questionable claim. The burden is on you, not me, to provide the specifics of that substantiation from Rubenstein.