7 ms·

To use strokes so broad that any historian would like to harm me... what happened was basically that the Islamic world came up against the Crusades, and with Ca

To use strokes so broad that any historian would like to harm me... what happened was basically that the Islamic world came up against the Crusades, and with Catholics murdering them with terrible savagery, they decided to seal themselves off from the world. And in that seclusion they missed out on the most important development in human history - The Enlightenment. Possible the greatest achievement of The Enlightenment was driving a wedge between religion belief and beliefs about the material world. Prior to The Enlightenment, these two things were the same thing - a concept which is VERY difficult for people from post-Enlightenment cultures to understand. Seeing gravity as an expression of a gods will? Thinking it sensible to look for religious explanations to solve mechanical problems? No belief in an afterlife, but belief that the material world was a thing skin over the supernatural world which actually controlled everything? These things just don't make sense to post-Enlightenment folks. Those ideas are absolutely and totally required to support the idea of coexistence of peoples of different faiths. Otherwise, religious ideas about eternity and salvation trump any concerns. There is nothing which can outweigh the importance of eternity. And in their isolation, concerns for eternity (and self preservation) consumed the Islamic world. The division between modern 'moderate' Islamists and 'fundamentalist' Islamists is this exact divide solved by The Enlightenment. And the outcome is by no means a foregone conclusion. People are going to have to choose to believe that their religious beliefs are "just religious" and have no serious relevance to the material world (the exact notion their religion decries as the ultimate heresy) and join the modern world... or cling to their pre-Enlightenment system and be exterminated through violence by the rest of the world. Coexistence with pre-Enlightenment people in a world where technology gives individuals so much power of different kinds simply is not possible.

Scriptor 12y ago
> Catholics murdering them with terrible savagery I see what you're trying to get at, but you make it sound as though the Islamic world was brutally traumatized by the Crusades. The savagery was no more terrible than any war of that time. And they didn't really "seal themselves off from the world". They did, however, seal themselves off from Europe culturally and intellectually. Politically and economically there was still plenty of engagement. What the Crusades did do was to further hamper the adoption of European ideas in the Islamic World. While the Crusaders were happy to adopt both goods and knowledge from the Middle East, Arabs and Turks saw little reason to embrace any European customs and ways of thought. The Crusaders were invaders in their own lands and for that reason alone a typical Arab's perception of Europeans would've been much worse than a typical Frank's perception of "Saracens". Amin Maalouf gives an example towards the end of "The Crusades Through Arab Eyes" (decent book, by the way, though I liked "Arab Historians of the Crusades" better). As the Crusades progressed and Europe entered the high middle ages peasants in the West started to gain more rights and privileges as the feudal system continued to weaken. However, none of this was seen in the Middle East, where local lords ruled their holdings with an iron grip and peasant rights barely improved.
infinitone 12y ago
I see where you're coming from, but your conclusion is incorrect. Monotheistic religions, atleast the unfabricated, do not profess the idea that this material world is wholly bad. It professes balance, between the material and the spiritual, and that if you lose balance and become too materialistic (as what we see in today's 'depression' cases) you will fall astray. I think this idea is very true, and we see that both religious people and non-religious have tipped the balance too far on either side.
- maximumoverload 12y ago
  > Monotheistic religions, atleast the unfabricated Ummmm. Are there any unfabricated religions?
  - throwaway283719 12y ago
    I think the majority opinion is that there is exactly one unfabricated religion.
    - skrebbel 12y ago
      And on the sixth day, God fabricated man.
4891 12y ago
The Enlightenment is a direct consequence of the Protestant Reformation that preceded it a few centuries prior. The key ideas of Protestantism was that faith should be a) based on reason and b) involve a direct communion with God, without intervening priests, ritual or hierarchy. If this sounds appealing to you, you are basically a Protestant, possibly a post-God Protestant aka "atheist"/"agnostic"/"secular". In Catholicism, as with most religions, God (or gods or spirit) is intertwined with every aspect of life. The idea that religion is purely about beliefs is a Protestant idea - for most people, their religion is about community, ritual, and accessing deep emotions or altered states of consciousness. Protestantism rejected most of this in favour of a purely 'rational' faith, from where it's baby steps towards giving up faith entirely in favour of pure reason. (Evidence: atheism flourished in the traditionally Protestant countries of Northern Europe and the Anglosphere). "People are going to have to choose to believe that their religious beliefs are "just religious" and have no serious relevance to the material world (the exact notion their religion decries as the ultimate heresy) and join the modern world" Has no relevance to the material world === "not real"; in other words, people are going to have to give up their religions. "Those ideas are absolutely and totally required to support the idea of coexistence of peoples of different faiths." I.e., for people of different faiths to co-exist they have to give up their faiths (in favour of 'secularism' or 'moderate-ism' aka Protestantism). Much more on this idea here: http://unqualifiedreservations.wordpress.com/2007/09/26/how-dawkins-got-pwned-part-1/ http://unqualifiedreservations.wordpress.com/2007/09/26/how-... Related point: the West has 'Protestant-ised' several world faiths (in fact the concept of 'world religion' is arguably the creation of 19th century Protestant missionaries and scholars). e.g. Buddhism: http://meaningness.wordpress.com/2011/06/24/protestant-buddhism/ http://meaningness.wordpress.com/2011/06/24/protestant-buddh... And Hinduism: http://mitrailleuse.net/2014/08/08/the-westernization-of-hinduism-and-its-alienating-consequences/ http://mitrailleuse.net/2014/08/08/the-westernization-of-hin...
- tinco 12y ago
  Thanks for that angle, my fathers family is protestant, as most are in the north of The Netherlands, and I never identified much with any religion at all. I feel this held me back when trying to convey my belief system to theists. With the angle of protestant beliefs I can perhaps just convince them of their value, and let them figure out the rest on their own.
scottlocklin 12y ago
"what happened was basically that the Islamic world came up against the Crusades, and with Catholics murdering them with terrible savagery..." I think you mean the Mongols. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Baghdad_%281258%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Baghdad_%281258%29
davidw 12y ago
Another take on why Europe surged ahead economically: http://www.amazon.com/The-Long-Divergence-Islamic-Middle/dp/0691156417?tag=dedasys-20 http://www.amazon.com/The-Long-Divergence-Islamic-Middle/dp/... "Timur Kuran argues that what slowed the economic development of the Middle East was not colonialism or geography, still less Muslim attitudes or some incompatibility between Islam and capitalism. Rather, starting around the tenth century, Islamic legal institutions, which had benefitted the Middle Eastern economy in the early centuries of Islam, began to act as a drag on development by slowing or blocking the emergence of central features of modern economic life--including private capital accumulation, corporations, large-scale production, and impersonal exchange."
sspiff 12y ago
I think the crusades weren't as bad for Islamic development as we like to believe. The Mongol invasions which happened around the time of the last serious Crusades in the Middle East probably did more lasting damage. The cultured Islamic states were basically conquered by nomadic pagan hordes, while at the same time being battered by the crusades. For instance, look at the sack of Baghdad by Genghis Khan - a major center of science and learning at that time. Eventually the nomads - Mongols and Turkic tribes - eventually settled down and converted, but a lot was lost and the focus on discovery and science never reached the same level again. (Note: this is not historical revisionism where I'm trying to minimize the evil that were the crusades. I'm not saying the crusades weren't really really bad, they were. I'm just saying the Muslims were capable of repelling the Christian invasions and retake lost territories without being damaged beyond repair. At the same time, a lot of those who fell to Mongol expansion were wiped of the map for good or reduced to tributary kingdoms.)
guard-of-terra 12y ago
Islamic world was heavily based on trade. As such, it never sealed itself from customers. My take is - their world was destroyed by railroads, mass production, steam ships. Their skill set at hauling wares using camels and bazaars was no longer in demand, and trade routes went elsewhere.
thesz 12y ago
How was it possible for them to seal themselves from outside world where they controlled territory much bigger than Europe? I cannot agree with your attribution of Islam turn to itself to Crusades. I think that it is an inherent property of Islam. The only science allowed is one that prove existence of Allah. As most sciences are not concerned with existence of Allah, they gradually get shut down and only theology remains.
- 616c 12y ago
  So I have studied this stuff a great deal, and I am a convert (for full disclosure). Beyond your biased opinion, I would love to see examples specific to Islam (which is casting quite a wide net; I am fairly controversail in arguing that Islam is not a uniform religion and no "Muslim" culture, notice I did not say Islamic, is not the same, not even during the Crusades). I would say more accurately, as I have seen in my childhood and young adulthood in the US, that all science and knowledge-building is co-opted for political purposes, and religion is one of them, and perhaps the most common and obvious. This true of any socio-political movement, religion or not. See global warming, abortion, stem-cell research, gay marriage. Frequently a vocal minority of US society (which is, if you want to go with your unified bloc mindset, a Christian majoirty country) says that facts conflict with what they devine from God's message, and it is wrong, regardless of scientific endeavor involved. Does that mean all American culture, and all Western culture denies scientific progress because God says so? Of course not. They are minority groups of, in my biased opinion, idiots who drag society, all of it, down. I point this out because I, in my short life, have seen people paint Islam with a brush that is really a reflection of the elements of their own society they are oblivious to. And this is not a comment about you in particular, but all people. It is trend. So I say, rhetorically, look in the mirror. Islam is foreign to you and these kinds of observations, sadly, are you seeing yourself in high contrast because of the foreigness in your face. Sorry.
  - DCKing 12y ago
    > I point this out because I, in my short life, have seen people paint Islam with a brush that is really a reflection of the elements of their own society they are oblivious to. And this is not a comment about you in particular, but all people. It is trend. So I say, rhetorically, look in the mirror. Islam is foreign to you and these kinds of observations, sadly, are you seeing yourself in high contrast because of the foreigness in your face. Sorry. Don't try to paint criticism of Islam as irrational, because that is what you seem to be attempting here. Claiming that criticism of Islam happens because it is "unfamiliar" or "foreign" avoids proper discussion. You have minced your words, sure, but you are still calling people ignorant. And calling people ignorant without backing up that claim is incredibly rude. It is the exact same justification that underlies people screaming "Islamophobia" at legitimate criticism. Let me identify a number of problems in your argument. It is an unfair comparison. You are taking United States society as an example of western culture - but you'd have to be looking much harder to find problems of similar magnitude in many European countries or even some east Asian countries. Secondly, you assume that people do not criticize the idiots in their own society. This is so incredibly false that it almost feels insulting. Thirdly, you somehow equate the idiocy that happens within "Western" society to the idiocy that happens in "Islamic" society. The problem is that only very few idiots in Western society think that we should upturn society and live under early medieval law because their religion says so. This is much less of a fringe opinion in the "Islamic world" and even among Muslims in the Western world. Lastly, because Western society also has its fair share of problems does not disallow anyone from identifying problems in other societies. Hypocrisy or even claimed biases, despite being bad intentions, do not make the arguments made bad arguments by themselves. You still have to show a hypocrite or a biased person to be wrong after you have made an ad hominem about their intentions (justified or not). If a Westerner identifies problems within the "Islamic world" argue with him or her based on facts, and please do not be rude and attribute it to ignorance. If such criticism is truly ignorant, presenting facts should make enough of a difference. Imagine identifying problems in African societies and being called a racist for it.
ofeida_h 12y ago
> And in that seclusion they missed out on the most important development in human history - The Enlightenment. Two wrong conclusions in one sentence. Neither were the islamic world secluded (they were expanding beyond spain even after the crusades) nor did they 'miss' the so called enlightenment. In fact it can be argued that the european enlightenment was a result of the interaction of the dark age europeans with golden age of islamic spain (and other centers of learning during this time in the islamic world). So instead of religion being a hindrance to the "light of enlightenment" to the human race, religion had everything to do with it. Especially if enlightenment is given a broader meaning than just ways of acquiring material capabilities and means of pleasure.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > Two wrong conclusions in one sentence. Neither were the islamic world secluded (they were expanding beyond spain even after the crusades) nor did they 'miss' the so called enlightenment. In fact it can be argued that the european enlightenment was a result of the interaction of the dark age europeans with golden age of islamic spain (and other centers of learning during this time in the islamic world). I think you are confusing the Renaissance (for which that is a fair description) with the Enlightment (which was several centuries later, and for which that is not a really a fair description, except insofar as the Renaissance laid critical groundwork for the Enlightment, and the Renaissance was, as you say, largely a result of interaction with the Islamic world.)
nailer 12y ago
'Catholics' didn't murder anyone, since they didn't exist yet. The third crusade was hundreds of years before the protestant reformation. The Crusaders were simply Christians.

Scriptor 12y ago

> Catholics murdering them with terrible savagery I see what you're trying to get at, but you make it sound as though the Islamic world was brutally traumatized by the Crusades. The savagery was no more terrible than any war of that time. And they didn't really "seal themselves off from the world". They did, however, seal themselves off from Europe culturally and intellectually. Politically and economically there was still plenty of engagement. What the Crusades did do was to further hamper the adoption of European ideas in the Islamic World. While the Crusaders were happy to adopt both goods and knowledge from the Middle East, Arabs and Turks saw little reason to embrace any European customs and ways of thought. The Crusaders were invaders in their own lands and for that reason alone a typical Arab's perception of Europeans would've been much worse than a typical Frank's perception of "Saracens". Amin Maalouf gives an example towards the end of "The Crusades Through Arab Eyes" (decent book, by the way, though I liked "Arab Historians of the Crusades" better). As the Crusades progressed and Europe entered the high middle ages peasants in the West started to gain more rights and privileges as the feudal system continued to weaken. However, none of this was seen in the Middle East, where local lords ruled their holdings with an iron grip and peasant rights barely improved.

infinitone 12y ago

I see where you're coming from, but your conclusion is incorrect. Monotheistic religions, atleast the unfabricated, do not profess the idea that this material world is wholly bad. It professes balance, between the material and the spiritual, and that if you lose balance and become too materialistic (as what we see in today's 'depression' cases) you will fall astray. I think this idea is very true, and we see that both religious people and non-religious have tipped the balance too far on either side.

maximumoverload 12y ago
> Monotheistic religions, atleast the unfabricated Ummmm. Are there any unfabricated religions?
- throwaway283719 12y ago
  I think the majority opinion is that there is exactly one unfabricated religion.
  - skrebbel 12y ago
    And on the sixth day, God fabricated man.

4891 12y ago

The Enlightenment is a direct consequence of the Protestant Reformation that preceded it a few centuries prior. The key ideas of Protestantism was that faith should be a) based on reason and b) involve a direct communion with God, without intervening priests, ritual or hierarchy. If this sounds appealing to you, you are basically a Protestant, possibly a post-God Protestant aka "atheist"/"agnostic"/"secular". In Catholicism, as with most religions, God (or gods or spirit) is intertwined with every aspect of life. The idea that religion is purely about beliefs is a Protestant idea - for most people, their religion is about community, ritual, and accessing deep emotions or altered states of consciousness. Protestantism rejected most of this in favour of a purely 'rational' faith, from where it's baby steps towards giving up faith entirely in favour of pure reason. (Evidence: atheism flourished in the traditionally Protestant countries of Northern Europe and the Anglosphere). "People are going to have to choose to believe that their religious beliefs are "just religious" and have no serious relevance to the material world (the exact notion their religion decries as the ultimate heresy) and join the modern world" Has no relevance to the material world === "not real"; in other words, people are going to have to give up their religions. "Those ideas are absolutely and totally required to support the idea of coexistence of peoples of different faiths." I.e., for people of different faiths to co-exist they have to give up their faiths (in favour of 'secularism' or 'moderate-ism' aka Protestantism). Much more on this idea here: http://unqualifiedreservations.wordpress.com/2007/09/26/how-dawkins-got-pwned-part-1/ http://unqualifiedreservations.wordpress.com/2007/09/26/how-... Related point: the West has 'Protestant-ised' several world faiths (in fact the concept of 'world religion' is arguably the creation of 19th century Protestant missionaries and scholars). e.g. Buddhism: http://meaningness.wordpress.com/2011/06/24/protestant-buddhism/ http://meaningness.wordpress.com/2011/06/24/protestant-buddh... And Hinduism: http://mitrailleuse.net/2014/08/08/the-westernization-of-hinduism-and-its-alienating-consequences/ http://mitrailleuse.net/2014/08/08/the-westernization-of-hin...

tinco 12y ago
Thanks for that angle, my fathers family is protestant, as most are in the north of The Netherlands, and I never identified much with any religion at all. I feel this held me back when trying to convey my belief system to theists. With the angle of protestant beliefs I can perhaps just convince them of their value, and let them figure out the rest on their own.

scottlocklin 12y ago

"what happened was basically that the Islamic world came up against the Crusades, and with Catholics murdering them with terrible savagery..." I think you mean the Mongols. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Baghdad_%281258%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Baghdad_%281258%29

davidw 12y ago

Another take on why Europe surged ahead economically: http://www.amazon.com/The-Long-Divergence-Islamic-Middle/dp/0691156417?tag=dedasys-20 http://www.amazon.com/The-Long-Divergence-Islamic-Middle/dp/... "Timur Kuran argues that what slowed the economic development of the Middle East was not colonialism or geography, still less Muslim attitudes or some incompatibility between Islam and capitalism. Rather, starting around the tenth century, Islamic legal institutions, which had benefitted the Middle Eastern economy in the early centuries of Islam, began to act as a drag on development by slowing or blocking the emergence of central features of modern economic life--including private capital accumulation, corporations, large-scale production, and impersonal exchange."

sspiff 12y ago

I think the crusades weren't as bad for Islamic development as we like to believe. The Mongol invasions which happened around the time of the last serious Crusades in the Middle East probably did more lasting damage. The cultured Islamic states were basically conquered by nomadic pagan hordes, while at the same time being battered by the crusades. For instance, look at the sack of Baghdad by Genghis Khan - a major center of science and learning at that time. Eventually the nomads - Mongols and Turkic tribes - eventually settled down and converted, but a lot was lost and the focus on discovery and science never reached the same level again. (Note: this is not historical revisionism where I'm trying to minimize the evil that were the crusades. I'm not saying the crusades weren't really really bad, they were. I'm just saying the Muslims were capable of repelling the Christian invasions and retake lost territories without being damaged beyond repair. At the same time, a lot of those who fell to Mongol expansion were wiped of the map for good or reduced to tributary kingdoms.)

guard-of-terra 12y ago

Islamic world was heavily based on trade. As such, it never sealed itself from customers. My take is - their world was destroyed by railroads, mass production, steam ships. Their skill set at hauling wares using camels and bazaars was no longer in demand, and trade routes went elsewhere.

thesz 12y ago

How was it possible for them to seal themselves from outside world where they controlled territory much bigger than Europe? I cannot agree with your attribution of Islam turn to itself to Crusades. I think that it is an inherent property of Islam. The only science allowed is one that prove existence of Allah. As most sciences are not concerned with existence of Allah, they gradually get shut down and only theology remains.

616c 12y ago
So I have studied this stuff a great deal, and I am a convert (for full disclosure). Beyond your biased opinion, I would love to see examples specific to Islam (which is casting quite a wide net; I am fairly controversail in arguing that Islam is not a uniform religion and no "Muslim" culture, notice I did not say Islamic, is not the same, not even during the Crusades). I would say more accurately, as I have seen in my childhood and young adulthood in the US, that all science and knowledge-building is co-opted for political purposes, and religion is one of them, and perhaps the most common and obvious. This true of any socio-political movement, religion or not. See global warming, abortion, stem-cell research, gay marriage. Frequently a vocal minority of US society (which is, if you want to go with your unified bloc mindset, a Christian majoirty country) says that facts conflict with what they devine from God's message, and it is wrong, regardless of scientific endeavor involved. Does that mean all American culture, and all Western culture denies scientific progress because God says so? Of course not. They are minority groups of, in my biased opinion, idiots who drag society, all of it, down. I point this out because I, in my short life, have seen people paint Islam with a brush that is really a reflection of the elements of their own society they are oblivious to. And this is not a comment about you in particular, but all people. It is trend. So I say, rhetorically, look in the mirror. Islam is foreign to you and these kinds of observations, sadly, are you seeing yourself in high contrast because of the foreigness in your face. Sorry.
- DCKing 12y ago
  > I point this out because I, in my short life, have seen people paint Islam with a brush that is really a reflection of the elements of their own society they are oblivious to. And this is not a comment about you in particular, but all people. It is trend. So I say, rhetorically, look in the mirror. Islam is foreign to you and these kinds of observations, sadly, are you seeing yourself in high contrast because of the foreigness in your face. Sorry. Don't try to paint criticism of Islam as irrational, because that is what you seem to be attempting here. Claiming that criticism of Islam happens because it is "unfamiliar" or "foreign" avoids proper discussion. You have minced your words, sure, but you are still calling people ignorant. And calling people ignorant without backing up that claim is incredibly rude. It is the exact same justification that underlies people screaming "Islamophobia" at legitimate criticism. Let me identify a number of problems in your argument. It is an unfair comparison. You are taking United States society as an example of western culture - but you'd have to be looking much harder to find problems of similar magnitude in many European countries or even some east Asian countries. Secondly, you assume that people do not criticize the idiots in their own society. This is so incredibly false that it almost feels insulting. Thirdly, you somehow equate the idiocy that happens within "Western" society to the idiocy that happens in "Islamic" society. The problem is that only very few idiots in Western society think that we should upturn society and live under early medieval law because their religion says so. This is much less of a fringe opinion in the "Islamic world" and even among Muslims in the Western world. Lastly, because Western society also has its fair share of problems does not disallow anyone from identifying problems in other societies. Hypocrisy or even claimed biases, despite being bad intentions, do not make the arguments made bad arguments by themselves. You still have to show a hypocrite or a biased person to be wrong after you have made an ad hominem about their intentions (justified or not). If a Westerner identifies problems within the "Islamic world" argue with him or her based on facts, and please do not be rude and attribute it to ignorance. If such criticism is truly ignorant, presenting facts should make enough of a difference. Imagine identifying problems in African societies and being called a racist for it.

ofeida_h 12y ago

> And in that seclusion they missed out on the most important development in human history - The Enlightenment. Two wrong conclusions in one sentence. Neither were the islamic world secluded (they were expanding beyond spain even after the crusades) nor did they 'miss' the so called enlightenment. In fact it can be argued that the european enlightenment was a result of the interaction of the dark age europeans with golden age of islamic spain (and other centers of learning during this time in the islamic world). So instead of religion being a hindrance to the "light of enlightenment" to the human race, religion had everything to do with it. Especially if enlightenment is given a broader meaning than just ways of acquiring material capabilities and means of pleasure.

dragonwriter 12y ago
> Two wrong conclusions in one sentence. Neither were the islamic world secluded (they were expanding beyond spain even after the crusades) nor did they 'miss' the so called enlightenment. In fact it can be argued that the european enlightenment was a result of the interaction of the dark age europeans with golden age of islamic spain (and other centers of learning during this time in the islamic world). I think you are confusing the Renaissance (for which that is a fair description) with the Enlightment (which was several centuries later, and for which that is not a really a fair description, except insofar as the Renaissance laid critical groundwork for the Enlightment, and the Renaissance was, as you say, largely a result of interaction with the Islamic world.)

nailer 12y ago

'Catholics' didn't murder anyone, since they didn't exist yet. The third crusade was hundreds of years before the protestant reformation. The Crusaders were simply Christians.