Sixty years ago, the UN composed a document setting out a Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It lists a set of basic principles, such as that everyone should be treated equally, torture and slavery are forbidden, and everyone has the right to life, liberty and security. It's a lovely set of ideals, but it also has a set of enemies. To name just one: fundamentalists hate it. And, unfortunately, fundamentalists, especially Islamic fundamentalists, are quietly working behind the scenes to undermine it.
A commission from Islamic nations composed a new Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights, which they claim to be complementary, but looks more like a competing declaration. It is, of course, full of religious language, but also does sneaky things like change the declaration of equality of rights for all people to equality of dignity and obligations, and limit rights to those given within the shari'ah. This isn't a declaration of human rights at all, but a devious demand for the imposition of religious tyranny.
Austin Dacey and Colin Koproske have dissected the UIDHR, and it certainly looks like a slimy proposal from the mullahs. They also carry out devious tactics, like providing English translations that water down the religious restrictions imposed in the original Arabic. Here's one example:
English: Every person has the right to express his thoughts and beliefs so long as he remains
within the limits prescribed by the Law. No one, however, is entitled to disseminate falsehood
or to circulate reports that may outrage public decency, or to indulge in slander, innuendo, or
to cast defamatory aspersions on other persons.Arabic: Everyone may think, believe and express his ideas and beliefs without interference or
opposition from anyone as long as he obeys the limits [hudud] set by the shari'ah. It is not
permitted to spread falsehood [al-batil] or disseminate that which involves encouraging
abomination [al-fahisha] or forsaking the Islamic community [takhdhil li'l-umma].
Those are slightly different, I think; one is general and secular, the other is prioritizing a set of specific limits defined by discriminatory religious law. Note that many Islamic fundamentalists believe that one is justified in killing apostates, and the Arabic version permits that to continue.
Dacey and Koproske really tear into this dishonest attempt to reduce support for genuine human rights, and you really should read the whole thing. Here's their conclusion:
It is clear that if the ideals of the Universal Declaration are to be realized, nations and
peoples committed to human rights must take it upon themselves to reverse the present
trends toward the compartmentalization of rights and censorship of free speech. Therefore,
we join with many civil society organizations around the world in opposing the Islamic human
rights movement and denouncing the unnecessary, unwise, and immoral developments at
the United Nations Human Rights Council and the restrictions on freedom of expression being
entertained by the General Assembly.The noble purpose of the International Bill of Rights and the United Nations is not to close any
one matter off from discussion within society, but to open all societies to free, public
discussion of every matter. Liberal rights are not guaranteed; we must constantly defend
them against those who would trade our liberties for security, order, control, or conformity. A
common standard of achievement, and not special cultural or religion rights, is the best
guarantor of equal freedom and mutual respect.
This new version is really nothing but an open attempt to protect the privilege of religion to violate human rights in the name of imaginary gods.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
I'm first!! Sorry couldn't resist! Anyway great article, keep up the good work PZ!
Islamic fundamentalism makes me literally sick to my stomach. This sneaky underhanded attempt at imposing Islamic 'rights' on everyone frightens me to my very core.
Hows about this? Fuck off!
Things like this are so disheartening.
A concerted effort by a militant religion backed by over a billion people who don't know any better.
It's not like you can ignore this.
The Muslim desire to destroy human rights and impose their own religious dark ages on us.... how do you combat that?
Sometimes you have to wonder why religion still exists at all. It's so frustrating to see so much hatred and intolerance validated by such ridiculous claims.
Just when you think you've seen all religulous dumb-asses, another (or, in this case, several others) will pop up and take it even further.
It's religious crap from one side to the other. How DARE THEY try to smack this on all of us by watering it down?
Whoever wrote these are just... scum. Yea, there's no other words. That was slimy!!! They want to take our very human self and put it at the service of their fake buddy! They're control FREAKS.
To anyone considering Islam as anything else than a bronze age patriarchic misogynistic barbaric sham,I recommend googling "stoning of woman" ,these people are subhuman barbaric animals,I have no respect for islamic males whatsoever,and dont give me the generalization bullshit here,I work with these people on a daily basis.Look at one vid of an islamic mob stoning a 16yo girl,and the males filming on their mobile,and you are cured of Islam for life.
"No one, however, is entitled to disseminate falsehood"
Whoops.
This is like any "academic freedom" bill that stipulates only the teaching of "scientific alternatives to evolution."
Orwellian, yes, but also self-defeating in a court of law.
For further evidence of the Islamic nations' support for human rights, consider the incident this past summer, when they demanded the Netherlands extradite anti-Islamic politician Geert Wilders and turn them over to him for punishment. Not that Wilders had ever been to any of their countries, oh no; they just think they should have jurisdiction over the entire world to punish anyone who says anything uncomplimentary about Islam.
Brought to you by the same godbotherers who still condone slavery.
clinteas, you've crossed a line to racist. I don't like the generalities like "Islam is a religion of peace" and that BS. But, calling anyone "subhuman barbaric animals" is just racism plain and simple. The fact you "work with these people" doesn't excuse it. Southern racists used the same language for centuries to defend slavery, lynchings, and segregation.
If anyone can deconstruct this, I trust Austin Dacey.
His book The Secular Conscience is essential reading for atheists and secularists. After seeing him last winter at the CFI here in Toronto, I think he is a clear, unflappable intelligent speaker.
Check out this story
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/23/malaysian_blogger_detained/
Proof again, if such were needed, that the eigenlies of religion provide a basis for evil.
The report linked to is excellent (with a single caveat - their discussion of ethical relativism is poor). On the other hand this from clinteas:
these people are subhuman barbaric animals,I have no respect for islamic males whatsoever,and dont give me the generalization bullshit here,I work with these people on a daily basis
is racist crap. I work and have worked with Muslims too, and they are not "subhuman barbaric animals". That's the kind of thing the Nazis said about those they had lined up for genocide.
To anyone considering Islam as anything else than a bronze age patriarchic misogynistic barbaric sham...
But Arabia wasn't a bronze age culture when Islam was invented...
penn,
lets watch some stoning vids together shall we.
These are people that hold jobs,have families,pray,like Cricket,and will at the same time willingly participate in murder,because their religion tells them to.Oh,and btw,a religion founded by a pedophile.
Sorry,call me racist,which is rubbish because Im not talking about race,but whatever,I stand to my views.
Penn,
clinteas isn't being racist; Islam is not a race, but a religion, an ideology. Certainly if you wish to accuse clinteas of being prejudiced (pre-judging) a whole culture, that may make for fair discussion. But please don't mix-up racism and disliking an ideology.
Disliking a culture, a nation or a religion is fair game because they are choices about how to live a life people are making with their minds and actions. Racism is wrong because it is blind to the importance of actions + choices and focuses not on a person's character, but on the colour of their skin.
Yeah Godwin's law, I know, but still:
Cue Germany 1933-1945.
They are as human as you are. It's a cultural thing, not a "race" thing.
And calling other humans "subhuman animals" is racist rhetoric, simple and plain. The universal declaration of human rights, after all, IS universal and also works for such humans who do such cruel acts.
And there is nothing to discuss about that.
Many muslims choose to emphasize the more positive aspects of the koran, just as liberal christians read the same scripture as the irreverand Fred Phelps.
Nick,
im sorry,but this is not about race ! Its about religion and the things that happen in the name of religion,I am not prejudiced against a particular race at all,this is about islamists and the pain and suffering they inflict,not race.
clinteas,
I will say I think you are pre-judging far too much of the human race. I agree there are horrible, insane actions with cultural and religious reasons often as the driving factor: but the simple fact is that "Muslims" are not one homogenous group. They are made up of individuals, each with interpretations that vary from each other.
Others in this thread are wrong to label you "racist". I think it's fair in this instance to say you are being highly pre-judgemental however.
OK. What can we do to stop this, before the Universal declaration of human rights becomes meaningless. I would have thought that the media of all countries that support the human rights declaration should be galvanised into action, that politicians who love freedom should put their heads above the parapets and stop this creeping Islamisation or the act will die the death of a thousand cuts. What can ordinary people do, and who can we email or write to? This is serious stuff and we need to arrest it now.
Right on Vaal!
Both the 'States and Canada are having elections now; it's hard to derail the talking points, but perhaps it's not too late?
clinteas wrote...
...an astounding generalisation of all Muslim men.
One of my best friends is a muslim and he's one of the nicest guys you could ever meet.
He's ok with gay people and atheists, so I think your characterisation is quite off the mark.
clinteas
As student_b says, calling people "subhuman animals" is racist rhetoric - after all, subhuman animals are born that way, they don't have a choice about it - and you are not the sole judge of whether or not you are racist. "I'm not racist, I'm just against Islam" is exactly the crap British Nazis are now coming out with. I notice also you've deftly slipped from "Islamic" to "Islamist" in an effort to make your claim of non-racism more plausible. It won't wash: what you were doing is claiming that all those describable as Muslim, from bin Laden to atheists with a lingering cultural veneer of Islam, the vast majority of whom are non-white, are subhuman.
Clinteas #6:
As for surprising results of googling, I googled this morning the phrase "breast feeding for men". Not for some fetish, but because my wife is in the Bristol way, went to an information session on breast feeding yesterday, and hinted that there were ways of involving me in the moo-cow process (I have made it clear that I will not be wearing any fake-boob and tubes on a chest harness thing).
Aaaaaanyway, the first page of results already showed several websites dealing with the question of breast feeding adult men as relates to Islam. I don't know if it's a big problem over there, or encouraged, I didn't dare click further...
Clinteas didn't say Muslim. He said Islam and males. I don't know if he's racist; he may be. I don't think he's the one prejudging.
On topic: I love how they managed to jam "universal" and "Islamic" into the title of a single document. Obviously it is meant to apply "universally" to Muslims, harmlessly enough, but I get a sticky brown feeling that they would like it to apply really universally, i.e. to non-Muslims as well. See the above-referenced story on Wilders.
Maybe it's time for PZ to desecrate an Arabic language Koran to make the point that they can't force Shariah on a free society, and their attempts deserve no respect.
PZ, do you know of any evo-devo scientists (or any scientists in fields that reflect non-scriptural versions of the universe) in the Islamic part of the world? It must be an incredibly hard job in that milieu.
Nick,
you are right,my terminology was not ideal,second language,remember.I did not want to invoke any racist hatred at all.
I dont know anything about British Nazis to be honest,and the difference between Islamic and Islamist wasnt so clear to me,I can see it now after you mentioned it.
My point on Islam and what it does to people stands.
Clinteas #6,
Are you suggestng that all islamic males stone women as a habit ?
Do you have any statistics on how prevalent this horrible crime is in islamic cultures ?
I recommend you do a google search of "lynching", these people are subhuman barbaric animals,I have no respect for Christian males whatsoever,and dont give me the generalization bullshit here,I work with these people on a daily basis. Look at one vid of a Christian mob lynching a 16yo african american boy,and the males filming on their mobile,and you are cured of Christianity for life.
clinteas@31,
OK, I don't disagree concerning Islam. I'd forgotten English is not your first language.
Yes! Exactly!
How hard can it be? Read so-called holy book. See what 'holy book' says. Agree or disagree with what 'holy book' says. For me, see, I disagree with almost everything that the Bible, or the Quran, says, and think all people who do not are amoral assholes. Oh, and dumb, too.
So yes, all people who don't agree with me are dumb amoral assholes :P (not exactly true - if you disagree with me, on say, that it's ok to do animal testing, you're {probably} not an amoral asshole...but if you disagree with me that it's not ok to stone children to death for disobedience, you are...)
#22:
Perhaps it's already meaningless. Take a look through the articles of the declaration and note how many of them are routinely violated, even by comparatively liberal states, apparently without the violators suffering any negative consequences - torture being just the obvious headline example.
Wow. There's something truly ironic about Muslim nations claiming that Muslims have rights,
because the entire nature of Islam (and religion in general) is one of complete and utter masochism.
It's really pretty stupid, but that's what you get when religions start to attempt to imitate secular politics without violating their laws.
JStein wrote: the entire nature of Islam (and religion in general) is one of complete and utter masochism
At least that's true for Abrahamic based religion. If you haven't been there, go to Europe, visit a couple of churches, look closely at the benches (yes, the ones people sit on during mass) and you can see what I mean.
> "I'm not racist, I'm just against Islam" is exactly the
> crap British Nazis are now coming out with.
I don't know about Britain, but Nazis in Germany or most other places of continental Europe have a double standard about Muslims: They cheer for the most radical Jihadists when they blow up Jews or Americans in faraway parts of the world, but at the same time they hate the Arab or Turkish immigrants in their home town. Generally, Nazis have neither a quarrel with Islam in general or with radical Islamism in peculiar, they are prejudiced against all non-white people, regardless of their religion (and of course there is a long history of collaboration between German right-wingers and political Islam that dates back to WW I, and predates the rise of Nazism and modern Islamism by several years).
This said, the only Islamist that I had the dubious honor of knowing personally was an Albanian thug that tried to blackmail the firm I was working in, and that guy was anything but an antiracist. In fact, he was constantly bragging about his grandfathers service in Waffen-SS Division Skanderbeg and how many 'blacks' he had killed back home. As there are not many people of sub-saharan African origin in the Kosovo or Macedonia, I guess the 'blacks' were Roma.
One of the more dangerous sentiments I've heard expressed is that progress is inevitable, and we can always expect our society to be more free, more wealthy, etc., as time progresses. Unfortunately this leads to an apathetic approach to threats against our freedoms and social institutions. The truth is, over time society has had major setbacks. Things like this remind us that we must always be vigilant in protecting the society that we value.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_Progress
johannes,
Yes, similar in the UK. The hardcore Nazis are still primarily antisemitic, with a secondary hatred for all non-whites. However, they recognise that open antisemitism and racism can make them liable to prosecution, and antisemitism will drive away some who would otherwise support them, so attacking Muslims and claiming it's nothing to do with race is tactically useful.
Much like Christians, Muslims can be good members of global society only to the extent that they ignore their own holy book, or cherry pick it, in preference to more modern and more secular values.
Anyone living to the letter of the bible or the koran will become a monster.
This is disgusting. I'm so sick of religion, sick of hearing about religion, sick of these deranged assholes wanting to shove their ogga booga down other people's throats, sick of hearing about the abominations they perform on others because of their adherence to these lunatic notions. And that goes not just for the wackaloon Islamic followers, but those of every other stripe too. Some days I just want to scream.
How is humanity ever going to survive when a majority of the world's population is mired in some kind of superstitious belief? We have real problems to solve, and all this does is get in the way.
But it's not just the Mullahs. Look at the neocons. Sarah Palin: a better looking Taliban.
I do some editing work for a guy (coincidentally named Osama, which would be like saying his name was John if he wasn't from Syria) who's a liberal religious Muslim. I'd be really interested in seeing his take on this; I might forward him the article. He suffers from the delusion that religion is the only foundation for morality, but otherwise seems like he's got a good head on his shoulders -- his article positing that the leaders of the G8 countries should attempt to observe Ramadan for a day in order to experience hunger and give to charity was a tremendously interesting argument, if nothing else.
I'm currently not holding that "religion = morality" thing against him; he doesn't talk religion at all (the only reason I know he's religious is that he writes for liberal Islamic magazines, and I edit his work), and I'm willing to bet he doesn't know that he knows any nonreligious people. I suspect he thinks I'm Jewish, actually.
The new Muslim version may be no great shakes, but the UN's declaration has some significant flaws as well.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 29, paragraph 3. These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
IOW, Human rights for all, unless we don't like what you're doing with 'em.
@negentropyeater
FYI: http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/shipp/lynchingyear.html
Fun fact: 1/4 of people lynched were White.
Couldn't find any rock hard numbers on stoning, I'm afraid. Pun intended. :)
I think the major problem with it (other than the obvious barbarism) is that it is actually written into the law in a number of Islamic nations. Lynching in the US was, as far as I can tell, always extrajudicial.
There might be something here:
http://stop-stoning.org/node/9
Odd how substituting "Christian" for "Muslim" did not have quite the effect I think you were looking for, neg. I mean, if you were trying to illustrate that clinteas was wrong in this, because my only reaction to your version is "yes, exactly, Christians are just as bad".
The only problem is that while it was Christians doing the lynchings and thumping Bibles at the same time, it wasn't the Bible commanding their racism. Whereas the stoning of women in Islamic societies is explicitely prescribed by the Koran. And so we condemn those Christians for being racists not for being Christians, but the Muslims that stone women we condemn for being Muslims (for following their holy book too literally).
I have to admit, I'm leery about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Not because I don't agree with most of it, but because universality among nations is neither enforceable, nor a reality. Universality seems to have done little more than encourage a war between competing visions of what aught to be universal. It seems to me that a declaration of rights must operate within an opt-in framework, to be supplemented by a framework that manages relationships between nations who haven't opted into the same declarations. Universality emerges when everyone has opted in (by everyone, I mean a consensus within each participating nation), not when we attach the word universal to a document and wave our fingers at those who offend it. That really is imperialism (and what most of the world is talking about when they invoke the word).
I don't think universality is the solution to our problems.
after all, subhuman animals are born that way, they don't have a choice about it
I disagree 100%.
Humans are animals by birth and are only defined apart from the animals by how they act - a person can reduce himself/herself to being a subhuman animal through his/her actions or can elevate himself/herself to full humanity by the same path.
First, we must remember that the Muslim world is not monolithic nor do all Muslims interpret the Qur'an and shar'ia the same way.
What we have here with the "Islamic" Declaration of Human Rights is an attempt by one religion to impose itself on the whole idea of what defines human rights. Many Muslims believe that human rights were laid down in the Qur'an and in the teachings of the Prophet Mohammed. They are entitled to that belief and to exercise their own political and human rights within that framework, but they are not entitled to impose that framework on the rest of the world.
Since few Westerners know anything about Islamic law, it is deceptive to use shar'ia as a limiting factor when it comes to human rights. How would the average American or European know what was or what was not haram (permitted under Islamic law)?
Any international declaration of human rights must be written in a broad and expansive way so that the fullest spectrum of rights are recognized. Any limits within those rights can only be imposed by the individual upon himself. Muslims can choose to not exercise a right recognized under the declaration if they choose - as can Christians, Jews, Hindus, and everyone else.
Using one religion as the standard by which international rights are to be recognized is absurd. Fundamentalists of any stripe - Islamic, Christian, etc. - are out of line when interjecting their own religious beliefs into laws and standards that are supposed to apply to everyone, no matter who they are or where they happen to live.
But don't turn this into an "us against them" thing or assume that all Muslims are greedily awaiting an opportunity to force Islam on everyone else. Neither of these is true.
Any Muslim who believes that Islam can be forced on others is in conflict with his own faith and its tenets. In the Qur'an and in the traditional sayings (hadith) of the Prophet Mohammed it is very clear: There can be no compulsion in religion. It is repeated several times that people cannot be compelled to believe. Only those who are completely ignorant of the Qur'an and Mohammed's teachings would believe otherwise.
PZ said:
I agree that it is a good set of ideals, but do our own fundagelicals really hate it? They usually pay, at least, lip service to supporting stuff like the UDHR. Does anyone have any specific examples of the christianists rejecting the UDHR (with the exception of Westboro Baptist)?
-DU-
Gotta disagree with SteveM. A lot of the people who were involved in lynchings no doubt believed the Bible did justify their violence, believing such nonsense as the Mark of Cain and the Curse of Ham being specific condemnation of Africans and those of African descent.
There was a similar controversy with some undemocratic East Asian regimes and their apologists claiming that there was something called "Asian values" which valued the collective, authority, and tradition more than the rights and freedom of the individual. Individual rights were dismissed as "Western values" rather than universal human rights.
These Islamic and Asian values critiques of universal human rights are reminiscent of Marx's opposition to "bourgeois freedom" and Mussolini's attack on individualism. But they are more sophisticated since they invoke the rhetoric of values and rights to attack the principles of universal human rights, which are derided as Eurocentric cultural imperialism.
If I weren't an atheist, I'd say nuke 'em all and let Allah sort 'em out.
In this case the idea in the English translation is worse than that in the Arabic. While having one's freedom of expression and belief constrained by shari'ah law is bad, at least they are limiting the damage to that known quantity. The English version allows any law to override one's rights -- that includes shari'ah, Christian Dominionists, secular authoritarianism, and any random blue-nose or corporate influence peddler who manages to get some political power.
blockquote>Gotta disagree with SteveM. A lot of the people who were involved in lynchings no doubt believed the Bible did justify their violence, believing such nonsense as the Mark of Cain and the Curse of Ham being specific condemnation of Africans and those of African descent.
You missed my point. While they may have tried to use the Bible to justify their belief that blacks were not human, (or should not mix with whites) there is nothing in the Bible explicitely commanding them to be killed. (BTW, the "mark of Cain" was a sign of divine protection, that no man should harm him). That is, there is no verse in the Bible saying "if a son of Ham should gaze upon a daughter of Israel, he shall be hanged forthwith", or some such gibberish. Whereas there are passages in the Koran describing when a woman should be stoned and are used to justify stonings today.
But... Bill Donohue says PZ wouldn't dare go after Islam (Koran in garbage notwithstanding). WHAT'S GOING ON???
A relevant and pithy saying: You can be a good man and a bad Muslim, or a bad man and a good Muslim, but you can't be a good man and a good Muslim. Same goes for Christians.
There are TWO Islamic Declarations of "Human Rights". The article doesn't really make that clear.
There is the 1981 "Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights"
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/gods/islam_universal.htm
and the 1990 "Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam"
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/gods/islam_cairo.htm
They are both bad, but in June 2000, the Organization of the Islamic Conference officially resolved to support the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam.
My links above give clause-by-clause commentaries on the English versions that I wrote a few years ago.
They effectively say: "you don't have Human Rights; you have instructions from Allah to do what Shariah Law requires, and permission to act within the limits of Shariah Law".
Many Muslims were dismayed that most Islamic states had signed up to the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In fact, Saudi Arabia didn't when it was released, and I can't find a record that they ever have done.
Even if that means a significant portion of the population is oppressed? Many white South Africans had certain beliefs about human rights, but that still didn't make apartheid acceptable.
SteveM @ #47:
Minor correction: It's in the Hadith. The Qur'an never even mentions stoning, to say nothing of explicitly prescribing it.
Incidentally, the Bible and Torah DO often prescribe stoning, or other forms of execution, often for what seem to me to be either minor infractions, or not infractions at all. But most modern Christians and Jews have found their own convenient excuses to ignore these laws. They've excised some of the more uncivilized laws from their religious practice. Of course, this doesn't stop them from being otherwise uncivilized people much of the time (e.g. the lynchings negentropyeater was referring to).
Jonathon said
The Koran is as ambiguous, contradictory and as open to interpretation as the Bible. There are as many passages that imply that unbelievers should convert or else as there are that don't. Try telling an apostate that there is no compulsion. Or women. What about the special laws for non-moslems who live under Islamic law - dhimmitude?
I'll note that I'm not suggesting the Hadith isn't part of Islam (indeed it's a huge part of the practice). That's why I said it was only a minor note.
I think there's no question that, on the whole, "Islamic societies" are less civilized than extant Christian, Jewish (and of course secular) ones.
The Koran teaches that they are entitled to do exactly that. Not just entitled, but obligated. That is a problem for the rest of us.
Sorry, but Islam has already done this. You cannot stop it by ignoring it.
This is simply not true. The verses commonly quoted to support this claim have been contradicted by later verses, and thus "abrogated". They are no longer valid.
Yet the Hadith state "He who changes his deen [religion], kill him." This is written into modern apostasy laws.
With a little resolve and moral clarity.
The USA defers to religion way too much. The public is not going to stand for removing all the preferences for religion in general, but the political system of Islam makes an easy target. The public will figure out that political Christianity needs its tax exemptions pulled too, but that will take time.
Rabid dogs are inhuman. Barbarians are human, but evil. Both are extremely dangerous, and neither should be tolerated.
Both of which are contrary to Islamic law. Your friend is not in a position where his co-religionists make him choose between tolerance and Shari'a. Choosing tolerance can get him killed. When push comes to shove, do you know which he would choose?
That is exactly what Shari'a does; non-Muslims have a choice between conversion, death, or (for the ahl al-kitab, or "people of the book") life as a dhimmi, with essentially no legal or civil rights.
#41
However, they recognise that open antisemitism and racism can make them liable to prosecution, and antisemitism will drive away some who would otherwise support them, so attacking Muslims and claiming it's nothing to do with race is tactically useful
-----
And you are helping them, by accepting their redefinition and then applying it to others. Just because some racists couch their language in religious terms, does not justify redefining those terms as 'racist'. Racist is a specific thing. Criticism of religion is a different thing.
Why should freedom of religion apply to religions that themselves do not recognize freedom of religion, and explicitly call in their holy book for murders based entirely on the victim's religion?
Here's an idea: make it a capital offense to possess a copy of the Koran without those passages crossed out. Require all Muslim immigrants to sign a pledge to oppose all religious-based violence and kill all violators by feeding them to herd of pigs like in HANNIBAL or force-feeding them ethanol until they die.
jayh,
Where do I "accept their redefinition", and of what?
Carelessness about how criticism of religion is phrased, so it can be interpreted as racist, is what helps racists. They love it.
SoMG,
Thanks for providing a fine example of the sort of stinking crap I was referring to @67.
feeding them to herd of pigs like in HANNIBAL
Wow, someone else read that?
@ SoMG #66
Wow. Highly inappropriate. I'm not sure if that was meant as a joke or not... but seriously. Not cool.
Escuerd:
Lern2anthropology. There's a reason that anthropologists haven't been using the continuum of savagery to barbarism to civilization for decades. For one thing, it's bad science to go into a study of a civilization with the idea that some are just better than others. For most English anthropologists this meant that England was the pinnacle of civilization, and the best service they could perform for these poor savages and barbarians was to help them become as English as possible.
I assume you can understand why this is condescending, so I'll concentrate on why this is bad anthropology (read: bad science). If your goal is supposed to be to understand a culture, the more preconceptions you walk in with, the harder your job is going to be. The only thing anthropologists can do is to acknowledge their cultural biases and call them what they are: cultural biases. If an anthropologist isn't willing to trace their own views and blind spots back to their culture, they'll never be able to move beyond them. This is why the belief that one's own culture is at the head of some kind of cultural evolutionary continuum is bad. It means that an anthropologist has accepted as objective truths the things that have been taught to him/her as part of a particular culture, and that means he/she will never really be able to get their head around what other cultures are taught.
Now, there are people nowadays who still cling to the old colonialist "we're replacing barbarian cultures with GOOD ones!" mentality, but stop short of actually calling their own culture superior to anyone else's. For these people it's hard to see why social scientists look at them like they're arguing from complete ignorance, because they're not coming out and saying that they're better. They're just saying other people are worse. That's different, isn't it?
No, it's not. For a social scientist that is a distinction without a difference. I see someone labelling some nations as more or less cultured or civilized than others, as if "culture" or "civilization" was a scarce quality that some nations have more of, and some have less. It doesn't necessarily mean that you have no idea what you're talking about. It's just what any social scientist reading your comment will believe, because we're taught early on that such distinctions get in the way of understanding. Anyone who holds onto those distinctions is going to have handicapped understanding, and is showing their ignorance.
So I'm not going to bring up all the "civilization" that has come to us from Muslims. I'll just briefly mention algebra, our numerical system in general, the preservation of a lot of western philosophy by the Muslim Middle East during a time when we hated our own intellectuals, or the fact that European civilization only grew to the stature it did because Muslim traders kept a steady trade moving to Europe from Asia (h/t Jared Diamond). This isn't the time or space to go into too much depth (as it's a bit off-topic), but perhaps you should lern2history as well.
Wow, the spittle-flecked loonies are out in force, eh?
Now, as for Reality Czech, my response to you is a link. Before you start getting up in arms about dhimmi status in Muslim nations, remember that America has a privileged religion, too. Anyone else is reduced to the status of dhimmi: tolerated but not embraced.
The real difference here is that Islam has codified that dhimmi citizens are not to be simply wiped out, whereas Christianity has no such protections. Neither does Hinduism. Neither do most world religions. Islam is actually ahead of the game here. Even if we might wish that Muhammad had been more of a pluralist cultural relativist, we can't fault him for not doing it. Not really. He was more progressive than one might expect given his cultural background and that has to be enough. Otherwise you are left complaining that a centuries-old religion is not postmodern enough.
Yes, we need to move beyond putting anybody at dhimmi status. But the fact that Islam had codified such a status puts them ahead of other religions from the time... not behind.
Cobalt said
That was true, 700 years ago. Western civilisation bounced back and the Islamic world stagnated. Many Islamic countries are clinging desperately to a medieval world view now.
BTW, we still hate our intellectuals.
Shane said:
Yes, it was true. Key word being "was." But because we owe so much of our own progress to the fact that Muslim traders were way ahead of us, I won't hear them called ignorant barbarians who've never progressed beyond their own unfortunate savagery. Imagine what Europe would look like now if that had ever been the case.
I agree with PZ on this human rights issue completely, but I won't see it used as an excuse to bash Muslims as ignorant savages. Particularly since the conservative swing they're having in that area was really really not helped by the colonialist practices of Europeans (and later Americans).
I agree that they shouldn't be doing a lot of the things they're doing, but attributing it to their essential savagery and not (at least in part) to a fundamentalist flame Europe and America helped fuel by being imperialist dicks... it's dishonest. And it ignores too much history.
Cobalt, fair enough that it is bad anthropology to say a civilisation is better than others.
But, the "superiority" of one society over another is quantifiable though. Of course that will be from point of view my western cultural bias.
Shane said:
It's quantifiable in the sense that you can make a claim that's logically consistent. If your criterion for "superior" is met by some cultures and not others, then that's a valid way to form a personal opinion. It does not, however, necessarily reflect reality outside your head. It also does not necessarily get you any closer to understanding that reality, which is the goal of science (even social sciences).
Cobalt, sounds suspiciously like cultural relativism?
Well, yes. To a degree. Social scientists who depend on their own perceptions and evaluations (like anthropological fieldworkers) need to be ready to admit that their perspective isn't the total picture.
That means that I can say, "I would rather live in Iceland than in Italy," but that doesn't mean my criteria have anything to do with some objective standard of which cultures are better than others. If there were such a thing, no single human (or group of humans) has access to it.
To bring it back on topic, I may say, "I would rather live in America than Saudi Arabia," but that doesn't mean I have access to the grand objective truth about who's a dirty dirty savage, and who has a culture that can be ruled cosmically and objectively "good."
Re: Both Cobalt and shane #78 and 79:
You'd think that people who, as a whole, don't believe in religious assertions that there exists objective morality would not have trouble with the idea there's no such thing as objective "culturedness."
There are things that are usually considered to be "bad"--oppression, in any form, is a nearly universally accepted example. I personally do not want to live in an oppressive society and I think I would be a terrible person for helping perpetuate one (and that people who are already doing so are also terrible).
So if we are going to say that being more cultured essentially means that they are less oppressive, and the reason that we are saying this is because we think oppression is morally wrong, aren't we really saying that cultured societies are more moral societies? And in order for one society to be "more moral" than another, doesn't there have to exist an objective scale of morality?
Note, before I am quoted and horrifically misrepresented, that I don't believe in objective morality either. But I also think that it is inconsistent to say there exist things such as "objective culture" and "objective barbarism" if you don't think there are such things as "objective good" and "objective evil."
Cobalt @ 71:
I wasn't speaking as any kind of anthropologist, I was speaking of my personal value judgments. Yes, of course these are informed by my cultural biases, and are not scientific.
If all that you're telling me is that my opinions aren't an objective truth, then I agree with you.
Luckily, I hold no such belief. That I hold some cultures in higher regard than others (this is an opinion, or value judgment, and distinct from a belief about these cultures) does not mean I believe this is a reflection of any kind of objective truth. I also think murder is wrong, but don't think that my morals are anything but a mixture of cultural biases and evolutionary propensities. I can understand that, say, a psychopath may have no moral qualm with murder, but it doesn't mean I can't judge him or her for it based on MY morals.
One can understand something and still make value judgments about it. E.g. I know something about how odorant receptors work, for example, and there's no objective sense in which any odor is inherently "bad", but I still continue to make judgments those I smell. Is making such judgments bad science? Well, more than that, I'd say it's not science at all, but it's not supposed to be. Ideally it ought to be orthogonal to the science.
Your point that our judgments can distract us or cloud our minds when trying to ascertain objective truths is correct, but I think the correct course of action is to try to be aware of the distinction between truth and value judgment rather than trying to abolish the latter altogether.
It's a good thing you're not going to bring it up, since it's irrelevant to what I think about extant Muslim culture as a whole.
Yep, correct, but not relevant to anything I was saying.
Sort of. The western "Arabic" numerals and the actual Arabic ones are both descended from a pre-Muslim Indian system. But Muslim traders could certainly see that it was a useful tool for computation (certainly compared to the naive European and Hebrew type systems that used letters as numbers), and they are the reason it spread west.
All agreed there, but it bears repeating that this is all orthogonal to my opinions.
I'm always up for learning more, but still maintain that understanding doesn't preclude judgment.
One should consciously and carefully distinguish between the two, but this certainly doesn't entail that one should try to eliminate the latter.
N.B. @ #80:
If morality is really a property of the society, then yeah, it'd imply that, but let's be reasonable about language. We can say a flower is pretty or a kind of food tastes bad without thinking that "prettiness" and "badness" are actually properties of these objects independent of the subjective opinions of the observer, right?
Escuerd said:
Simply stating that you're not speaking as a social scientist doesn't prevent me, as a social scientist, from evaluating your social analysis like you are.
You may not be intending to play into the thoughtless colonial approach to other cultures (where they're quantifiably good or bad based on one person or culture's criteria), but that's how it comes across.
I'm not saying that you can't have your personal criteria, but you should be aware when you are not clearly distinguishing between what you believe as an individual and what you could reasonably argue as a social scientist. If it's an unreasonable thing for a social scientist to say, perhaps you should be more careful to hedge it by stating that you're not trying to teach anybody anything about the universe we're experiencing in common, just about your perspective on it.
Your perspective is still obviously worthy of mentioning, since it's as interesting as anyone else's as a way to learn about you and people who share your view. It just seemed like you were trying to convince us of more than that, and weren't supporting it the way you'd need to.
Again, it was an opinion, not an analysis, and was never intended to be the latter, though it might have come across as such.
Perhaps I should have, but I usually assume (perhaps wrongly) that most people can easily distinguish for themselves between what's opinion and what's not. Likewise, if someone else expresses something that's clearly an opinion, unless they indicate in some way that they are conflating it with truth, I will tend to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Clearly my opinion is more interesting than anyone else's (yes, that's only a joke, given our current subject of discussion). :)
Escuerd @ #80
Yeah, and I agree with you, as far as I can discern. Morality is really a property of individuals, not societies; societies dictating what is moral, after all, is not the same as societies "being moral."
The primary issue I had (have?) with shane in #78 is that he seemed to be invoking the phrase "cultural relativism" as some sort of bogeyman. I am not an anthropologist (IANAA?), but here's how I understand things.
Cultural relativism is a tool intended to permit you to get inside the head of somebody who is not from your culture and examine things from their perspective to get a better idea of what's actually going on. The extreme alternative on the other end of the spectrum is to not bother trying to think like you're a member of that culture and decrying them as barbarians without further analysis, which is an awfully regressive way to study other human beings. "Putting yourself in someone else's shoes" isn't empirical, but it beats the alternative, which is being lazy and not thinking about the issue at all beyond a knee-jerk.
Cultural relativism is not intended to be used as a shield to defend reprehensible practices. It is a gross misuse of the term for Muslim countries (or any countries) to say, "ah, but you aren't allowed to judge us, because you're limited to a Western perspective." That's not the point of the tool, and it pains me to see it used that way.
I see cultural relativism misappropriated in my own field quite frequently; the statement is often made that "our Western science" is somehow unable to adequately assess the value of "traditional folk medicine," which is utter BS. You can't exempt "folk remedies" from scrutiny--as far as their medical value, that is--just because they're a cultural artifact. You do have to consider the value of some medical practice within its cultural context and how it affects people in a specific society, but once we start talking about whether some treatment actually works or not empiricism is the only way to get any worthwhile answers.
My main point is that trying to blow the whistle and say "cultural relativism!" as some sort of get-out-of-jail-free card with respect to human rights abuses is abominable. But that doesn't give anybody, no matter what culture they're from, the ability to place other cultures on some sort of objective scale from best to worst. All you can do is place them on a scale based on how much you'd like to live within them.
Hm. Like the subtle difference between the otherwise analogous statements, "All men are created equal" and "All men must supplicate themselves to Allah. And yes by 'men' we mean men, women being less than dirt."
These throwbacks couldn't care less about human rights, and its disgusting.
Hm. Like the subtle difference between the otherwise analogous statements, "All men are created equal" and "All men must supplicate themselves to Allah. And yes by 'men' we mean men, women being less than dirt."
These throwbacks couldn't care less about human rights, and its disgusting.
That's nice. I'm an atheist, I don't enjoy this privilege. But my vote counts as much as anyone's, which beats Islam's menu of immediate conversion or death.
Let's make a little list.
Do I have the right to vote? Yes.
Is my testimony allowed in court against Christians? Yes.
Do I have to pay discriminatory taxes because I'm not Christian? Arguable WRT "places of worship", but mostly no.
Am I allowed to defend myself against physical attacks from Christians? Yes. If someone took violent exception to my open atheism and attacked me, I could lawfully shoot him in self-defense.
Contrast Egypt, where Copts are harassed and beaten, Christian converts from Islam are denied identity documents with their new religion (and often killed by their families) and Bahai's are considered a threat to public order.
Yes, there are things I would change to eliminate favoritism toward theists, but your attempt to create moral equivalence fails. There is nothing more unfair than the equal treatment of unequal things.
Tell it to the tens of millions (estimate of 60-70 million) of Hindus murdered by Muslims because they were not "people of the book". This total dwarfs the sum of the victims of the European and Asian conflicts of the 20th century.
Most of which came from conquered infidels, including the architecture. The Muslims have long played the same game as the Soviets, but laughing at the Muslims is now considered "insensitive".
And I'll briefly mention Brahmagupta, a non-Muslim.
Also Hindu. "Arabic" numerals are not used in Arabic.
Western philosophy eventually got the originals which were preserved and studied in Byzantium, which the Muslims had long been trying to destroy. They eventually succeeded.
The trade was difficult, expensive and dangerous precisely because of Muslims and the example of their founder, who made his fortune by raiding caravans.
No revisionist history for me, thanks.
The rest of us were just having a conversation about personal judgment versus scholastic analysis. I remember that conversation. It was nice.
But I guess now we'll go back to hating on the nasty savage brown people again.
Maybe there should be a poll posted asking people on the internet if the new UIDHC is something they would support or not. I would rather like to see the result of that and have it e-mailed to the UN
It's true that in the middle ages Islamic science was ahead of European science, but it should not be forgotten that all of Islamic mathematics and physical sciences were dedicated to answering only one question, "Given any point on the surface of the Earth, which way is Mecca?".
Once this question was answered Islamic sciences stagnated until recent times.
Richard @ #90:
I would think that, if you read Pharyngula, you wouldn't suggest a plan that ever involved the words "internet" and "poll" in the same sentence.
the fact that European civilization only grew to the stature it did because Muslim traders kept a steady trade moving to Europe from Asia (h/t Jared Diamond).
Every Middle-Eastern Empire has tried to dominate the trade routes from the Persian Gulf and Central Asia into the Mediterranian since the time of Sargon.
Its not surprising that Science and Math did well during the Islamic golden age - rich empires that span important trade routes usually are the places both where ideas from all over come together and where kings have the money to give grants to scholars.
Meanwhile, to put the Europe bashing into perspective, it's not like the Europeans just decided to "turn on" their intellectuals. There were SERIOUS and MAJOR invasions from both the East (Avars, Magyars, etc.), South (Moors) and the North (Vikings) which seriously f-ed with Europes stability and internal trade.
In fact, there were arguably a major impetus towards the aggressive xenophobic mindstate seen during later centuries, after Europe finally achieved stability and was able to go off on expeditions like the Crusades. I'd bet that 400 years of constant invasions, with only brief periods of stability before a new wave of foreigners came through burning villages, collectively traumatized Europe as much or more as the ex-colonial nations were traumatized by 19th century European colonialism.
Of course, today's myth is that Europeans were always actors and never acted upon. We can chalk Islamist terrorism up to social factors eminating from our doorstep, but the crusades ... we'll that was just white christians being assholes.
To clarify:
I'm not claiming, in any way, that the Crusades were "defensive".
They were an aggressive project launched by people who had just emerged from 400 years of being on the receiving end of aggressive invasions of others.
I'll say one thing in defense of Islamic countries today. Usury and predatory lending are civil -- often capital -- crimes. If the chairman of Lehman Bros. lived in Riyadh instead of New York, he'd have an appointment with the headsman instead of his travel agent.
Something to contemplate about when you're facing foreclosure and bankruptcy, and watching your pension and 401K vanish into the ether.
Don't forget, the Crusades were a re-conquest of the Holy territories conquered by Islam. They were indisputably counter-offensive.
"But I guess now we'll go back to hating on the nasty savage brown people again." - Cobalt
Yes, yes, denounce the strawman.
You know, we can all read back through the comments to note that the first person to invoke race as the pivotal issue is you. Just a word of warning, in case you don't know, "brown people" is code for white people. Generally it's used as a disingenuous veil for a vague, implicit, racist accusation. It's really a special kind of douche-baggery. Just so you realize what you're saying.
Reality Czech@88,
You're seriously wrong about the Islamic contribution to science. Muslims in the 9th-13th centuries made major original contributions to astronomy, optics, chemistry, mathematics and scientific method, to mention the areas I'm most familiar with. Google ibn al-Haytham for a start. You're also partly wrong about where western Europe got its Greek philosophical and scientific works: the capture of Toledo in 1085 made many previously unavailable works available, for example (Adelard of Bath and Gerard of Cremona had them translated from Arabic into Latin, mainly by Jews).
"Given any point on the surface of the Earth, which way is Mecca?".
Once this question was answered Islamic sciences stagnated until recent times. - LightningRose@91
Where on Earth did you get that piece of rubbish?
Ah, but I bet you wouldn't say that about musli...errr...
head assplode!!!!!
signed Bill Donohoe and the league of crafty catholic fatwah enviers
Nah. The Crusaders were from places that had never owned the "holy" territories in the first place.
Reality Czech@96,
I suggest you actually read a bit about the Crusades. The First Crusade, admittedly, was a response to the Seljuk Turks' advance in Anatolia, and specifically the battle of Manzikert in 1071, but it involved planting west European colonies in areas not ruled from Europe since the 4th century - plus of course, the usual massacre of Jews along the way. The Fourth Crusade ended up attacking the Byzantine Empire instead of the Muslims, and colonising most of Greece. There were also Crusades against "heretics" (the Cathars in France, the Bogomils in the Balkans), and pagans in north-east Europe. The original 7th-8th century Muslim conquests of previously Christian-ruled parts of Africa and Asia were widely welcomed by the Christian (as well as the Jewish) inhabitants, because the Monophysite Christians of Egypt and the Nestorians of western Asia were much better off as dhimmis than as "heretics".
Sorry: "not ruled from Europe" should be "not ruled from western Europe" @101. They had of course been ruled from Constantinople.
I was reading about Roger Bacon, and I note that he based his work on optics from the above (who was also called Alhazen).
Whilst it is correct that various muslim scholars made useful contributions to human knowledge, and preserved an entire corpus of philosophy and suchlike, which was then passed on to the West, this is effectively irrelevant to the issue at hand, namely the human rights issues.
Different countries, cultures and societies have each contributed different things to our current culture, physical standard of living, and modern science and philosophy. Trying to compare contributions is irrelevant to the current issue. Perhaps the best way to think of it is that the search for knowledge is a torch, passed on from various cultures and groups of people over the millenia, and we are merely the current holders, previous ones having included the ancient Greeks, aforementioned Muslims, and (mostly) men of science in enlightenment Europe.
Which, by the way, is evidence in support of the thesis put forth by Hector Avalos that the very idea of the sacred leads to more violence (not less, as often claimed by religious apologists).
Granted. But some of the above comments are overboard in wishing to deny some very basic human rights to Muslims, and are indulging in revisionist historical claims about Muslims as a vastly overgeneralized and monolithic group in order to strengthen their bigoted points.
Owlmirror #106- that is correct, I merely felt like writing a nice mature sensible comment requesting a return to sensible discussion of the topic.
(I'm not always this sensible sounding)
You don't consider Vikings European? Either way, let's consider those of the invading Vikings that settled in France and 'evolved' into the Normans. Normans went on to invade other parts of Europe and were significant participants in the Crusades. In light of your theory, Normans were so eager Crusaders because... they were so traumatized by the invading and pillaging they themselves had been engaging in? Collective PTSD?
Islamic countries are pushing hard to criminalize criticism of Islam or it's founder, Muhammed, through the United Nations.
Very scary indeed, considering, they have people who are willing to cut people's heads off bringing the fear. (of course Islamic leaders continously deny they are a part of Islam all along as they go about blasting and beheading from southeast Asia to Beslan, Russia to southern Sudan etc etc)
So... RealityCzech maintains that Arabic doesn't use Arabic numerals but doesn't want any "revisionist history"? Looks like the yahoos are out in force tonight
So... RealityCzech maintains that Arabic doesn't use Arabic numerals but doesn't want any "revisionist history"? Looks like the yahoos are out in force tonight
LOL @ #13, by Emmet Caulfield: "Proof again, if such were needed, that the eigenlies of religion provide a basis for evil."
Yay for math nerds! :p
Quoth Nick Gotts:
If I may digress to address this point, it was the subject of a section in "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades" by Robert Spencer. He noted that the Muslim daily routine revolves around saying prayers at the correct times, but Muslims never invented accurate timepieces.
So why was that? One theory I've never seen anyone rebut convincingly: all the scientfic and other advances from the Dar al Islam came either from recently conquered non-Muslims or recently converted peoples whose mental habits were not yet Islamized, whose previous culture still existed. Once the habits of mental submission and insh'allah fatalism were ingrained, advances ground to a halt. If you can tell the time by the stars, who needs a clock? That explains perfectly why the Islamic world's last point of leadership was 800+ years ago.
Today, Saudi money is pushing the entire Islamic world into conformity with Wahhabi doctrine. We can expect to see the same results as before.
Who brought these works to Toledo? Was it also Jews, who have fought to maintain their non-Islamic identity under Muslim oppression for 14 centuries? We owe them much. To Muslims, who tout the likes of Averroes to infidels while reviling them as "revisionists" among themselves, we owe nothing (and outrages from the piracy of the Barbary states to 9/11 give the West grounds to demand payment of damages). None of our laws or freedoms owe any debt whatsoever to Islam, and the utter contradiction between Sharia and the UDHR (or the US Constitution) says all that needs to be said.
I found this quote from the book online:
"In fact, Islam was not the foundation of much significant cultural or scientific development at all. It is undeniable that there was a great cultural and scientific flowering in the Islamic world in the Middle Ages, but there is no indication that any of this flowering actually came as a result of Islam itself."
Well, that's great because no one is claiming that any advances came from Islam itself. That's what we always say about Christianity, too.
I don't know what you mean by "accurate timepieces" - no one invented accurate, portable timepieces until rather late in history - but apparently Muslim engineers experimented with clocks, here's one example:
Al-Jazari constructed a variety of water clocks and candle clocks. These included a portable water-powered scribe clock, which was a meter high and half a meter wide, reconstructed successfully at the Science Museum (London) in 1976. Al-Jazari also invented monumental water-powered astronomical clocks which displayed moving models of the Sun, Moon, and stars.
I have no problem with recognizing that some cultures and religions may be more stagnant than others, but it's hard to rebut such vague essentialist statements. It's like Steve Fuller's theory that scientific advancement is the result of Christianity. Even if we now see unbelievers doing successful science, that just proves that their mental habits must not be completely non-Christianized yet. Do you agree with Fuller on this?
I would have thought that the most important thing in the context of scientific discoveries, is that the Islamic period exploration and transmission of older texts was stifled and lost because of the imposition of fundamentalist adherence to their religion.
Kinda like what some people in Christianity and Hinduism want to do these days...
> They were an aggressive project launched by people who
> had just emerged from 400 years of being on the receiving end of aggressive
> invasions of others.
They were an opportunistic project - use the collapse of Byzantine, Seldjuk and Fatimid authority for the foundation of colonies - by people like the Normans of Sicily and the Italian city republics, who had just invented modern ideas about economy and statehood.
> the capture of Toledo in 1085 made many previously
> unavailable works available, for example
What made Toledo such a center of science and learning was the immigration of so many refugees, Jewish, Christian and Muslim, from the Almoravid occupation of southern Spain.
Whatever postmodernism has to say about barbarism and civilisation, a medieval Andalusian considered himself civilised, and veiled man that came from places far, far away, spoke uncoprehensible languages and were mounted on strange beasts barbarians. Seeking refuge at the Castilian side of the border was the logical conclusion; the king of Castilia might have been a Christian, but at least he was a fellow Spaniard, not an Alien from the dark side of the moon.
>(Adelard of Bath and Gerard of Cremona had them translated from Arabic into Latin,
> mainly by Jews).
From Arabic into Castilian vernacular, and from that into Latin.
reverted @#112,
Thanks. I'm glad at least one person got it.
johannes is quite right about the Almoravids. The Islamic world declined intellectually from around the 11th century, when the Almoravids invaded Muslim Spain, and the Seljuks Anatolia. Both were Muslim, but nomadic herders rather than city people, and despised the latter and their "decadent" sophistication. The Mamlukes and Mongols continued the destruction of Islamic high culture, with the latter, for example, slaughtering the population of Baghdad. I hadn't realised the translation of Arabic into Latin went via Castilian.
and outrages from the piracy of the Barbary states to 9/11 give the West grounds to demand payment of damages - Engineer-Poet
Perhaps these might be considered once Europeans have returned all the ill-gotten gains of the Great European Land Grab - including, of course, the Americas, Australia and New Zealand.
@windy, #108:
For 400 years, Islamic imperialism was considered an existential threat to Christian Europe, and the Battle of Tours and the conquest of Sicily lent a lot of weight to that notion. It didn't stop after the Crusades either, as the Ottomans consistently tried to gain (or already had) a foothold in Western Europe up until the 19th century.
So in the late 11th century, after four centuries of fearing the Saracen bogeyman, when the opportunity came to deliver some payback the Europeans were eager to do so. Also, the First Crusade came about because the Byzantine Emperor Alexios I asked the Western Church for help--and to the Byzantines, Islamic expansion was an everpresent existential threat which had already grabbed large parts of the Byzantine Empire.
There were other reasons for the Crusades, of course. For two centuries the Church had been foundering with a weak Papacy. Competing secular rulers would advance their own candidates for Pope and denounce their rivals' choices as antipopes. In the 11th century, the Papacy finally saw a succession of strong Popes who didn't want to be pawns of the secular authorities any longer. The best way to keep the secular nobles weak was to send them and their knights overseas to fight "enemies of the faith". An alternate, and slightly more charitable explanation, is that the Papacy believed it was better for Christendom's warriors to kill non-believers rather than each other, which is what they would resort to without a unifying external threat.
Let's be careful not to simplify the Crusades as just a Christianity vs. Islam conflict, even though that was the stated purpose: both societies were early feudal, meaning deference to a central authority was often tenuous and land equalled power. Individual Christian nobles would cut deals with Muslim leaders against their Muslim rivals, and Muslims would do the same in Christian vs. Christian conflicts, as Juan Cole noted in his review of Kingdom of Heaven.
Let's be frank--imperialism was the way of things in most of Eurasian and North Africa from Sargon I of Sumeria to World War II. Historically speaking, I don't think it fair to single out the Crusades for being an example in a long line of imperialist actions in the region, when really the only thing distinguishing the Crusades from the rest of them is the utter military and political failure they were.
"I do some editing work for a guy (coincidentally named Osama, which would be like saying his name was John if he wasn't from Syria) who's a liberal religious Muslim. I'd be really interested in seeing his take on this; I might forward him the article. He suffers from the delusion that religion is the only foundation for morality, but otherwise seems like he's got a good head on his shoulders -- his article positing that the leaders of the G8 countries should attempt to observe Ramadan for a day in order to experience hunger and give to charity was a tremendously interesting argument, if nothing else.
I'm currently not holding that "religion = morality" thing against him; he doesn't talk religion at all (the only reason I know he's religious is that he writes for liberal Islamic magazines, and I edit his work), and I'm willing to bet he doesn't know that he knows any nonreligious people. I suspect he thinks I'm Jewish, actually."
This is the most depressing thing I have ever read.
Hating every religion does not make you a racist. How could you be!? What colour skin/race would be left?!?!
But....but....I thought that all religions were exacly the same, and all aimed at the same thing!
Hello guys
Do not attack any religion like that.
Go back to the history all of it and read. I which part of this history human lived as long as possible in peace together all religions men where were the justice and equality.
DO NOT, ask someone read by you self and beside.
I will stop attacking religions when the followers do not strip away rights from others.
You are being a sniveling apologist for tyrants. Do not say anything else to any of us.
Janine,
I saw this post earlier,but it was so garbled that I just couldnt make sense of it.Drive by godbot,a dime a dozen...
Clinteas, it is not like I put much time in it. I just felt a need to insult.
Also, good luck getting through the next few days. It sounds like it has been rough and will continue to be so. Hope you get enough rest.