Anti-Islam march in German city of Dresden

[Morakot]

I am most definitely Islamophobic, in the truest sense of the world. I don't dabble in hate or such inferior emotions. I am subject to fear however, and I fear Shar'ia.

PTSD?

[arjunadawn]

I am most definitely Islamophobic, in the truest sense of the world. I don't dabble in hate or such inferior emotions. I am subject to fear however, and I fear Shar'ia.

PTSD?

No, but funny. Does a man have to be wounded to find in something else repugnance of conscience? I am among those on TV who kinda 1/2 object to the term islamophobia because it variously describes nothing, although sure enough some people just hate others, or because of their own supremacist beliefs think others suck or are bad. I don't hate, I just strongly object/oppose. Hate renders all intellect suspect and useless chatter.

I have spent many years in primarily muslim countries and not as a soldier. I have dealt with islamic extremists at the levels of the host nations themselves trying to manage these problems, while also trying to continue their own rule- advising, consulting, etc- a Sword of Damocles. I have also been an officer in an Arab army though am not Arab or muslim (few have this experience and it provides unique insight). I have a balanced and unusual perspective. I have rarely met a muslim man or woman I have not actually liked and generally have been treated kindly by all. (Gosh, years ago the leading imam of Indonesia's daughter was my girlfriend; that was awkward!). Yet I have this position which is well developed and unwavering as my homework has been exhaustive- regarding the threat posed by Islamic Shar'ia to the modern world. Why? Because it is factually true irrespective of the kind occasions I have had with muslims.

Shar'ia is antithetical to everything that makes a free life, the natural man, a secular world, and romance worth living. Shar'ia is simply slavery and in a peculiar sense muslims might poetically concede this point as "slaves of Al Lah" is an appellation that muslims may concur with. It is not a negative; when described in light of their love of their god and the relation to deity as servant (other traditions have used similar imagery as well). It is all fine for muslims, however sharia is invasive and binding on all to whom it touches, even peripherally. I don't want to be a slave to any god, or the representative on earth in the guise of caliph, emir, sheik, or imam.

Have you actually looked at the integration results of muslim immigrants in Germany and surrounding countries? A cursory look at the crime rates, incarceration numbers, recidivism rates, no go areas, and rape statistics are absolutely horrifying. "Anti-Islam march..." No, this is a "save our culture march."

[Tep]

The whole notion of a so called Golden age is suspect. Indeed I would go further and suggest that far from saving classical civilization from the dark ages it was Islamic conquest that stopped trade in the Mediterranean and hence brought on the dark ages. Whether or not there was a period of tolerance it is totally obliterated come the Wahabi and Salafist movements, which have been allowed to infest Europe and are eating away at its fabric like termites.

Recommended reading; Mohammed and Charlemagne revisited - Emmet Scott.

At least you cite some text. The other guy in the round robin just offers unsubstantiated, un-cited and unedited words, endlessly.

The thesis that the Arab expansion choked mediterranean trade and destroyed classical civilisation is new to me and interesting. However, the correlation between the Arab expansion and the termination of the 'islamic classical age' to me seems more tenuous. Scott cites archaeological evidence of the destruction of cities in the 7th century, but my understanding is that many of the achievements of that classical age were later, maybe around the 11th and 12th C; things like distillation, the translation and dissemination of greek medical texts and other things.

I would be concerned that the argument on the islamic golden age was being ideologically influenced to try and minimise the impact of historical and cultural achievements for political purposes. I also note with interest that Scott's work is based on the work of an earlier historian from Belgium in the 20's who was discredited in favour of the 'received wisdom' but now these theories are gaining traction - post 9/11, which is no coincidence.

What is the purpose of this debate? Is it to further understand history or is it to reach into history to attack and denigrate others? I am not a scholar of the islamic golden age. I am a scholar of classics and have an interest in the period after the Roman Empire known as the Dark Ages (or Early Medieval).

But if this is just revisionism for ideological purposes, then I think it is disgraceful and dangerous. How do we tell the difference?

Edited December 18, 2014 by Tep

[Steely Dan]

The whole notion of a so called Golden age is suspect. Indeed I would go further and suggest that far from saving classical civilization from the dark ages it was Islamic conquest that stopped trade in the Mediterranean and hence brought on the dark ages. Whether or not there was a period of tolerance it is totally obliterated come the Wahabi and Salafist movements, which have been allowed to infest Europe and are eating away at its fabric like termites.

Recommended reading; Mohammed and Charlemagne revisited - Emmet Scott.

At least you cite some text. The other guy in the round robin just offers unsubstantiated, un-cited and unedited words, endlessly.

The thesis that the Arab expansion choked mediterranean trade and destroyed classical civilisation is new to me and interesting. However, the correlation between the Arab expansion and the termination of the 'islamic classical age' to me seems more tenuous. Scott cites archaeological evidence of the destruction of cities in the 7th century, but my understanding is that many of the achievements of that classical age were later, maybe around the 11th and 12th C; things like distillation, the translation and dissemination of greek medical texts and other things.

I would be concerned that the argument on the islamic golden age was being ideologically influenced to try and minimise the impact of historical and cultural achievements for political purposes. I also note with interest that Scott's work is based on the work of an earlier historian from Belgium in the 20's who was discredited in favour of the 'received wisdom' but now these theories are gaining traction - post 9/11, which is no coincidence.

What is the purpose of this debate? Is it to further understand history or is it to reach into history to attack and denigrate others? I am not a scholar of the islamic golden age. I am a scholar of classics and have an interest in the period after the Roman Empire known as the Dark Ages (or Early Medieval).

But if this is just revisionism for ideological purposes, then I think it is disgraceful and dangerous. How do we tell the difference?

I hear what you are saying, ideological revisionism is always a danger, but who is to say that the detractors of Henri Pirenne weren't themselves driven by an agenda? The part I found most persuasive was the disappearance of the papyrus from the med; even the rustic Latin of the Vandals and Visigoths needed written record.

The question is a huge one though. We already know of two periods of jihad with hundreds of years of war and suffering. As moderate Muslim Zudhi Jasser argues we are now entering a third jihad. The parallels are there two as the Byzantiums and Persians weakened each other allowing the first jihad now we have vindictive squabbling between the U.S., Russia and China all taking their eyes off the ball and allowing infiltration by stealth.

[dragonfly94]

I have often heard some form of a term regarding a "golden age" of Islam as well; or, of their great gifts to the sciences, arts, etc., that Islam brought the modern world. Indeed, it is suggested that were it not for Islam nothing would have survived the dark ages of the western world. This point is nearly drilled into the student of the western world. Is it true? I do not find it true at all. In fact much of what is considered Islamic is/was not at all but rather belonged to other cultures, superior or defeated or both. Islam has had some remarkable lights, but this does not constitute a golden age in a manner, say, we would call the Age of Reason, or Enlightenment.

The real golden age for Islam was it's three centuries of expansion, the scientific advances strangely stopped along with that expansion- they merely took ideas from the countries they over ran. If Islam is so scientific where are all the Nobel prize winners and famous inventions from Islamic countries?, their 'Golden age' as far as science is concerned was mostly a myth, rather like the myth of a wonderful multi cultural Spain under Islamic rule. Not forgeting the myth of a man in a cave talking to God which has caused infinite suffering in the world.

Edited December 18, 2014 by dragonfly94

[Tep]

The whole notion of a so called Golden age is suspect. Indeed I would go further and suggest that far from saving classical civilization from the dark ages it was Islamic conquest that stopped trade in the Mediterranean and hence brought on the dark ages. Whether or not there was a period of tolerance it is totally obliterated come the Wahabi and Salafist movements, which have been allowed to infest Europe and are eating away at its fabric like termites.

Recommended reading; Mohammed and Charlemagne revisited - Emmet Scott.

At least you cite some text. The other guy in the round robin just offers unsubstantiated, un-cited and unedited words, endlessly.

The thesis that the Arab expansion choked mediterranean trade and destroyed classical civilisation is new to me and interesting. However, the correlation between the Arab expansion and the termination of the 'islamic classical age' to me seems more tenuous. Scott cites archaeological evidence of the destruction of cities in the 7th century, but my understanding is that many of the achievements of that classical age were later, maybe around the 11th and 12th C; things like distillation, the translation and dissemination of greek medical texts and other things.

I would be concerned that the argument on the islamic golden age was being ideologically influenced to try and minimise the impact of historical and cultural achievements for political purposes. I also note with interest that Scott's work is based on the work of an earlier historian from Belgium in the 20's who was discredited in favour of the 'received wisdom' but now these theories are gaining traction - post 9/11, which is no coincidence.

What is the purpose of this debate? Is it to further understand history or is it to reach into history to attack and denigrate others? I am not a scholar of the islamic golden age. I am a scholar of classics and have an interest in the period after the Roman Empire known as the Dark Ages (or Early Medieval).

But if this is just revisionism for ideological purposes, then I think it is disgraceful and dangerous. How do we tell the difference?

I hear what you are saying, ideological revisionism is always a danger, but who is to say that the detractors of Henri Pirenne weren't themselves driven by an agenda? The part I found most persuasive was the disappearance of the papyrus from the med; even the rustic Latin of the Vandals and Visigoths needed written record.

The question is a huge one though. We already know of two periods of jihad with hundreds of years of war and suffering. As moderate Muslim Zudhi Jasser argues we are now entering a third jihad. The parallels are there two as the Byzantiums and Persians weakened each other allowing the first jihad now we have vindictive squabbling between the U.S., Russia and China all taking their eyes off the ball and allowing infiltration by stealth.

I guess I have to put the book on the list and read up more. I am still concerned over timelines regarding the islamic golden age issue and will investigate further. You mention Byzantium. Have you considered the role of the religious schisms between Constantinople, the remaining sea power and trading empire in the Eastern Med and Western Europe that was still subject to the divinity of the Bishop of Rome, in the disappearance of the papyri in Europe?

It is interesting and something I will read more on but my concern is the issue of revisionism. A poster subsequent to yours offered some rationale for the golden age question but quickly devolved into the usual misanthrope. To understand where to draw the line between genuine historical debate and ideological revisionism, I think that trying to relate incidents from the past to current political events may be a step too far. To remain 'pure' perhaps the debate should be kept in its historical context.

Edited December 18, 2014 by Tep

[arjunadawn]

The whole notion of a so called Golden age is suspect. Indeed I would go further and suggest that far from saving classical civilization from the dark ages it was Islamic conquest that stopped trade in the Mediterranean and hence brought on the dark ages. Whether or not there was a period of tolerance it is totally obliterated come the Wahabi and Salafist movements, which have been allowed to infest Europe and are eating away at its fabric like termites.

Recommended reading; Mohammed and Charlemagne revisited - Emmet Scott.

At least you cite some text. The other guy in the round robin just offers unsubstantiated, un-cited and unedited words, endlessly.

The thesis that the Arab expansion choked mediterranean trade and destroyed classical civilisation is new to me and interesting. However, the correlation between the Arab expansion and the termination of the 'islamic classical age' to me seems more tenuous. Scott cites archaeological evidence of the destruction of cities in the 7th century, but my understanding is that many of the achievements of that classical age were later, maybe around the 11th and 12th C; things like distillation, the translation and dissemination of greek medical texts and other things.

I would be concerned that the argument on the islamic golden age was being ideologically influenced to try and minimise the impact of historical and cultural achievements for political purposes. I also note with interest that Scott's work is based on the work of an earlier historian from Belgium in the 20's who was discredited in favour of the 'received wisdom' but now these theories are gaining traction - post 9/11, which is no coincidence.

What is the purpose of this debate? Is it to further understand history or is it to reach into history to attack and denigrate others? I am not a scholar of the islamic golden age. I am a scholar of classics and have an interest in the period after the Roman Empire known as the Dark Ages (or Early Medieval).

But if this is just revisionism for ideological purposes, then I think it is disgraceful and dangerous. How do we tell the difference?

Opinions don't need citations. Words don't need edit[ing], per se. Opinions don't need the vague substantiation you refer to. Was a post like mine to meet the task order as outlined by you it would be an academic paper, not a forum opinion. Generally, I have found on TV, where an opposing view protests a point they ask for citation or reference to clarify. Regardless, all my points exist in the public domain and not particularly in obscure literature or books. My primary sources are the koran, hadith, and Bukhari. Every single comment I make unless otherwise noted has a source material.

If you prefer supporting or opposing points to have citations to lessen the deluge of material that needs to be current then simply request citations; this is positive and encourages people to defend their positions. I have no problem doing this. I write because I like to. I write on this topic because it is vital to me. There are really smart people here and the majority of them do not agree with me so I encourage being urged to back up my statements.

[Tep]

Opinions don't need citations. Words don't need edit[ing], per se. Opinions don't need the vague substantiation you refer to. Was a post like mine to meet the task order as outlined by you it would be an academic paper, not a forum opinion. Generally, I have found on TV, where an opposing view protests a point they ask for citation or reference to clarify. Regardless, all my points exist in the public domain and not particularly in obscure literature or books. My primary sources are the koran, hadith, and Bukhari. Every single comment I make unless otherwise noted has a source material.

If you prefer supporting or opposing points to have citations to lessen the deluge of material that needs to be current then simply request citations; this is positive and encourages people to defend their positions. I have no problem doing this. I write because I like to. I write on this topic because it is vital to me. There are really smart people here and the majority of them do not agree with me so I encourage being urged to back up my statements.

I do not refer to your commentary on islam. My apologies if you took it this way. I refer to your statements on historical events in post 120 specifically on trade. I do not ask for academic treatises. But if you make a statement about an historic event or offer a thesis for an event in history, there should be more to it than just the fact that it is you saying it. It does not need footnoting. It could be a reference to the received wisdom on the event or anything really.

I do not tackle you on your opinions on Islam. I have opinions. I also have experience working in Muslim countries. I tend to limit the expression of my opinions to situations where people use misinformation and stereotypes to attack other groups of people. I have an atheists view on religion. But watching people being attacked because of their religion disturbs me and this generally prompts me to speak out even though I do not agree with or support their beliefs or their practices.

I frequently edit my words. Change them. Revise them. Try to make them more concise and more meaningful. I have to admit avoiding many of your posts as I find that it takes too much effort to follow them. But that's my issue.

[arjunadawn]

Opinions don't need citations. Words don't need edit[ing], per se. Opinions don't need the vague substantiation you refer to. Was a post like mine to meet the task order as outlined by you it would be an academic paper, not a forum opinion. Generally, I have found on TV, where an opposing view protests a point they ask for citation or reference to clarify. Regardless, all my points exist in the public domain and not particularly in obscure literature or books. My primary sources are the koran, hadith, and Bukhari. Every single comment I make unless otherwise noted has a source material.

If you prefer supporting or opposing points to have citations to lessen the deluge of material that needs to be current then simply request citations; this is positive and encourages people to defend their positions. I have no problem doing this. I write because I like to. I write on this topic because it is vital to me. There are really smart people here and the majority of them do not agree with me so I encourage being urged to back up my statements.

I do not refer to your commentary on islam. My apologies if you took it this way. I refer to your statements on historical events in post 120 specifically on trade. I do not ask for academic treatises. But if you make a statement about an historic event or offer a thesis for an event in history, there should be more to it than just the fact that it is you saying it. It does not need footnoting. It could be a reference to the received wisdom on the event or anything really.

I do not tackle you on your opinions on Islam. I have opinions. I also have experience working in Muslim countries. I tend to limit the expression of my opinions to situations where people use misinformation and stereotypes to attack other groups of people. I have an atheists view on religion. But watching people being attacked because of their religion disturbs me and this generally prompts me to speak out even though I do not agree with or support their beliefs or their practices.

I frequently edit my words. Change them. Revise them. Try to make them more concise and more meaningful. I have to admit avoiding many of your posts as I find that it takes too much effort to follow them. But that's my issue.

No, its not your issue. I have been told this before. I mean well. I try to carefully walk a line where I offend none and don't get rebuked by moderators, and still try to make what is a point for me. I could do better. Your post reads quite mature and reasoned; I could do better and your words will encourage me to work smarter to say what is on my mind with more clarity, less verbosity- which I have rightfully been accused of. Thank you; really. These issues is important to me and as another poster, I believe Morch, pointed out, I would be more effective if I wrote more clearly. Again, your point is noted.

[Steely Dan]

So 75% of Germans agreed to some degree with the anti-Islam demo. The consensus is changing so markedly that politicians are going to be forced to act to keep in step with public opinion.

http://10news.dk/only-13-percent-of-germans-completely-disagree-with-anti-islam-demonstrations-75-percent-agree-fully-or-to-some-degree/

[Tep]

So 75% of Germans agreed to some degree with the anti-Islam demo. The consensus is changing so markedly that politicians are going to be forced to act to keep in step with public opinion.

http://10news.dk/only-13-percent-of-germans-completely-disagree-with-anti-islam-demonstrations-75-percent-agree-fully-or-to-some-degree/

For the sake of argument then, what would be the practical steps that the German government could take? I guess that they would have to define the objective first. Is the objective to stop Islam in Germany? Clearly one immediate step would be to stop new immigrants but I would also be interested in how that would be implemented on a practical level. But more importantly, I would wonder about what they would do with the Muslim people who are already in Germany. Even if they allowed them to stay and even if they allowed them to keep following their religion, then I would assume these people would have children, many of whom would follow their parents religion. There would also be cases of non-Muslim German nationals who may convert to Islam.

I am not a believer in the invasion by stealth theory. I think wider issues factor into migration patterns and it is better to understand these issues and work within the parameters of those issues. So I am not sure about how the German government would approach this task. History has shown what happens when governments attempt to tackle such 'problems' related to minority groups. Not just the obvious example of WWII but also more recent examples of the Balkans conflict.

I limit my comments on Islam because of the current hysteria on the issue. However, I have long been uncomfortable with the religion with a set of beliefs that is antithetical to my own secular and humanist views. But I do not proselytise against them. I am more interested in the practical issue of how to engage on these issues. I have argued that multiculturalism in Australia is an effective strategy to address the issue. This is not a popular view. So I am interested in what others think are effective and practical strategies that are not the usual 'stop all immigrants' or 'kill them all' kind of offerings.

Fighting against a concept is I think probably impossible. Wars on Terror. The 'Jewish' question in WWII. Stopping the 'Islamification of Europe' etc. The concept is so broad that you cannot define objectives clearly. I wonder how many of those 75% would agree to a mass deportation of Muslim people from Germany? They may be expressing a general concern about their uncomfortableness with Islam but once something is on the table, then I wonder what will be the level of support. I don't think Germany will be allowed to make that decision on its own anyway. Its history may not allow it to do so on such subjects.

[mitsubishi]

The whole reason there was a so-called 'golden age' was the arabs had stolen it from the Persians and Byzantines in the Levant and Egypt!