Mosques takenover by hardliners
- Thread starter Atom
- Start date
What - Laocoön or one of his sons turning you on Chuush? If not then why the red saming ooo I mean herring
The almost complete loss of the human form in art doesn’t bother you? Hmmm that’s odd. What if there were a complete loss of Arab calligraphy? You’d think, Oh well, we have computers that print now – so what? What if it was because the commonly held belief was that calligraphy was an affront to Allah. Sinful.
Now with that in mind, think about the beautiful marble sculpture of Laocoön and then again at the Muslim on his horse.
No, I don’t loathe Muslims or Islam. Some of my closest friends are Muslims. My buddy Mo and I had drinks last weekend and I invited him and his Catholic girl-friend over for a BBQ the weekend before that.
When Ramadan rolls around I am always respectful not to bother him with shit he can’t have and I always make sure I have something on offer that isn’t pork if we go for dinner or I have a BBQ.
But, if he visited a Religious site on a Science forums I’d guess he wanted to discuss Religion in a logical manner. Therefore I’d discuss the topic with Mo exactly as I discuss with you or with SAM or anyone.
So what? The point is the loss of one of the, or the, most important inspirations of art. To find the nude human body a distasteful subject matter is very sad indeed. A symptom or psychosis?
Firstly, visit HERE and you can see I posted, in a now locked thread, pictures of Arabic, Middle Eastern and Persian art and my positive comments. I liked the vase.
The painting you posted is a nice peace of work no doubt. But my question was: How did "Islamic" painters inspire the Italian Masters who initiated the European rebirth. SAM seems to think that without “Islam” the Europeans would have never been able to .. .. .. get this… … repeat their own earlier works! (this even through the first time they did it from the ground up and this time they were surrounded with the remnants of what was possible). Regardless the painting you posted is from 16th century India and is therefore hundreds of years too late.
Also, I noticed AGAIN the odd man out. It’s as if there is a conspiracy to keep the Middle East in the Religious dark ages. Geesh. And here you and SAM etal. are cheer leading the whole thing along.
African Art
American Art
Ancient Near Eastern Art
Art of the Americas
Asian Art
Byzantine Art
Egyptian Art
European Art
Greek and Roman Art
Islamic Art
Medieval Art
Oceanic/Pacific Art
Prehistory
Lastly, I find it interesting that you choose the citadel Alhambra as an example of “Islamic” art??? First and foremost because it’s European - second because its an example of Andalusian art. Also, did you know that the the Muslim Nasrids were tribute-paying vassals to Christian Lords? Who do you think built the structure? Arab Muslims from the ME??? No way. What makes the Alhambra special is it doesn’t represent Islamic artists - who were relatively stagnate at that time. It's something new.
Needles to say, yes, it is an excellent example of European Architecture. Built by Europeans (many of whom where Muslim) just prior to the Renaissance and rebuilt again many times, one of which was in an Italian Renaissance style. The people who worked on it were Muslim and Jewish and Christian. Its a testament to the creativity unleashed by pluralistic societies. Much like I advocate. Which are much MUCH better than the stagnate Theocracies of Dark Age Europe or 13th century Middle East. Add to it a Democracy instead of hereditary rule via Monachy and you've got the basis of modern civilization. Too bad the Nasrids, like everyone else, thought more of their hereditary lineage then of the State and the people.
1 sentecne into it and it reads "These were Alexander the Greek conqueror ...." :bugeye: Alexander was Macedonian.
Oh, my personal beleif, agnostic atheist.
Michael
This is sarcasm
Again, while Greeks built work from Greece to Rome to Egypt many of which depict Greek Gods it called Greek. SAM seems to like to call the Middle Eastern Golden Age or Arab Golden Age the Islamic Golden Age - although no other Golden Age is referred to as the religous beleif of the people living at the time. Not to mention some scientists and artists were not Muslim.It's simply a perpetuation of many myths that Muslims have.
OK chuush, I had a question regarding morality.
I am specifically interested in the morality on display in a folk-tale. I first read the story on an Islamic Arabic News website. It was considered by the presenters a virtuous tale and morally apt. It's not uncommon for people to use tales to teach morality. Take Aesop's Fables for instance. We've all heard the phrase ".. and the moral of the story is..."
Therefor the folk-lore or tale or fable needn't be true itself to answer the question of morality. Ethics do not have to have anything at all to do with historic accuracy or even reality but only to do with morality.
Here is the tale as I originally heard it:
Arab News
"Abdullah ibn Khatal used to be a Muslim. The Prophet once sent him to collect zakah from people who lived far away. He traveled with another man and a servant of his who was a Muslim. At one stage on the way they stopped. He gave the servant orders to slaughter a big goat and prepare food for him while he himself went to sleep. When he woke up, he discovered that the servant had not done anything. He killed his servant and, fearing the Prophet’s punishment, reverted to idolatry. He also had two slave girls who used to sing for him and for his companions songs full of abuse of the Prophet. The Prophet’s instructions specified that the two slave girls should also be killed. The man was killed as he was actually holding on to the coverings of the Kaaba. Abu Barzah Al-Aslami and Saeed ibn Hurayth Al-Makhzumi killed him along with one of his slave girls. The other managed to flee until someone sought a special pardon for her from the Prophet, which he granted."
Here is an English Translation by
Alfred Guillaume of the original Historical work of Muhammad ibn Ishaq ibn Yasar who himself was (and is) considered a scholar and historian and whom many credit with witting the oldest Biograph of Mohammad.
Another was Abdullah Khatal of B. Taym b. Ghalib. He had become a Muslim and the apostle sent him to collect the poor tax in company with one of the Ansar. He had with him a freed slave who served him. (He was a Muslim.) When they halted he ordered the latter to kill a goat for him and prepare some food, and went to sleep. When he woke up the man had done nothing, so he attacked and killed him and apostatized. He had two singing-girls Fartana and her friend who used to sing satirical songs about the apostle, so he ordered that they should be killed with him.
My question:
Given only the information you have read Was the order to have the two singing-girls killed (Fartana and her friend) moral or immoral?
Why or why not?
Europeans would have, after conquering the various people they invaded, founded and built the cities of New York, Sydney, Hong Kong, Singapore, ...
So did the conquering Arab Muslims build cities like the Greeks (Alexandria) and Romans (London)?
How about Muslims in general? What are some major cities founded and built by Muslims?
So there's two scenarios
I'm curious,
Michael
This is sarcasm
It's simply a perpetuation of many myths that Muslims have.
The reason she calls it Islamic golden age is because it was not restricted to Arabs or to middle easterns. I mean there were Iranians, Turks, Indians, Africans and Andalusians... who contributed to the art and sicence of those times, so I suppose Islamic golden age is an all-embracing name which doesn't bother any name. And.. what's wrong if it is called that way, I won't bother if another broad name is used though., it is not a fındamental matter
About Al-Hamra, I suppose you forget the fact that Naserids were muslims rulers. It is the first time ever that somebody claims Al-Hamra was not an islamic artwork!!!
BTW, I suppose the discussion about the sculptures won't go anywhere; but I personally do not think that Islamic art revived the European art, it was Islamic science that revived the European one.
Well then why not refer to the Renaissance as the Christian Golden Age? After all back then there was no "European" identity that was all encompassing other than Christianity. Each Kingdom considered it's people a separate "race" - this line of reasoning continued right up until WWII. Italians were a different race than the French, who were also different than the Germans, etc... Not only that but the Russians and the English, neither classically considered "Europeans", also had major contributions to Science and Art. So, using your logic, and to be “all encompassing” it’d be better to say "Christian" Renaissance.
IMHO that’s preposterous as Christianity is what HELD BACK the Renaissance.
So, with this in mind, a Middle East or Near-East Golden Age is much more appropriate, to me. I think that Muslims like you and SAM like to say Islamic because it gives the false impression that “Islam” somehow initiated a Golden Age in the Middle East. Which is absolutely not true. It’d be like saying Shamanism initiated the Chinese Golden Age post Mongolian conquest!
Also, I will make note of this again below - in regards to science. Maybe then you can see how insidious the whole referring to non-religous things as "Isamic" is?
Then again - maybe not?!?!?!?
As you can see, I specifically said that the Muslim Nasrids were vassals of Christian overlords. I find it funny you choose Alhambra citadel because its (a) in Europe and was built by Europeans (Muslim Europeans as well as Christian and Jewish Europeans) and (b) is not “Islamic” art nor is it Middle Eastern Art it's an example of Andalusian art. It was built outside of the influence of the Islamic Middle East and (c) probably the only sure thing that is original and from that time period is the lion fountain. Which is unique as animals and humans are a lost art form during the “Islamic” Golden Age.
Then lets not pursue that topic.
But I’ll say this: I do agree that science (not “Islamic” science there is no such thing as “Islamic” science, there is just science - Geesh) as preserved by Middle Eastern people, many of whom were Muslims, did find it’s way into Europe and did make an impact on some of the individual scientists there. In some cases a crucial one. But the revival was possible because of Humanistic philosophers and this philosophy was possible because monotheism was on the wane.
Anyway, chuuush two more things if you don’t mind.
1) I did take the time to lookup and repost the question regarding morality. I would appreciate your response. So, what is it?
2) Regarding the founding and building of major cities:
- Considering the conquering Greeks founded and built many major cities (ex: Alexandria) and the conquering Romans founded and built many major cities (ex: London); Which major cities did the conquering Arab Muslims found and build?
- Also, you make a good point, not all Muslims are Arab. The above question was in regards to a specific time period, that of Muslim Arab conquest and expansion. Afterward, the Muslim Arabs settled down and ruled the various people they had conquered – so, after the dust settled and the Empire was administered to, which major cities were founded and build by Muslims?
Cheers,
Michael
Well, Michael you can call it Christian Golden Age if you like so, but I do not think Renaissance started with the positive impact of the religion. It was in fact a revult against the existing harsh religious authority, wasn't it? While what you call middle eastern golden age (which as I mentioned was not restricted to a certain geograqphical area only) was initiated with direct impact of Islamic teachings. You can go on claiming that Islam had nothing to do with it, but it sure had and this is a fact agreed upon by the historians, even if we rarely use the title Islamic Golden Age, or at least I didn't hear it much, but that's not the point here.
I'm not sure about your resources, but I have read the story of Andalusia and I do not remember any part which says Nasrids were vassals to Christians kings. Of course when the 19th king was defeated, they surrendered to Christians and soon muslims and jews were driven out of the country. Our difference is here that you do not want to accept that Andalusia was an Islamic state for such a long time with a majority of the population being muslims and living in peace with other religions. The fact that it is located in Europe does not mean that a prosperous Islamic empire was not once ruling here. You want to restrict Islam to the Middle East and maybe that's why you also do not accept the term Islamic Golden Age, which I also do not fully agree but for different reasons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasrid_dynasty
The Nasrid dynasty or Banu Nasri (Arabic: بنو نصر) was the last Muslim dynasty in Spain. The Nasrid dynasty rose to power after the defeat of the Almohad dynasty in 1212 at the Battle of Las Navas de Tolosa. Twenty different kings ruled Granada from the founding of the dynasty in 1232 by Muhammed I ibn Nasr until January 2, 1492, when Sultan Boabdil surrendered to the Christian Spanish kingdom.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alhambra
The Alhambra (Arabic: الحمراء = Al-Ħamrā'; literally "the red") is a palace and fortress complex of the Moorish monarchs of Granada, in southern Spain.... It was the residence of the Muslim kings of Granada and their court, but is currently a museum exhibiting exquisite Islamic architecture.
You have an obsession with middle eastern people. Science in the Islamic ruling era was also contributed to by non-middle easterns. Some of them were even non-muslims. But it was the muslim scientific thoughts, teachings and books that contributed to a revolution in the Europe that led to Renaissance. Examples are algebra, algorithm, medicine, chemistry, astronomy. European philosophy has visible traces from the Islamic philosophers like İbn Hazm, Ghazali, etc..
You misunderstood my point in mentioning Christianity. It was to say that Christianity was NOT responsible for the Renaissance - so we agree. As to the rest, if you want to think of "Islamic" science and "Islamic" Golden Age and "Islamic" math and that monotheistic "Islam" was the reason why Europeans advanced into the enlightenment then that is fine. It's very odd that the people in the middle east, being actual real live Muslims (whom were living every day in "Islam" - literally swimming in "Islamic" math, philosophy, sciences, art...) didn't similarly progress forward into an enlightenment themselves?!?! (I mean with all that "Islam" floating around.... but hey - quirk of history huh?).
We will agree to disagree.
That aside:
1) What of the story about morality? You specifically asked me to look up the reference which I did take the time to do this for you. So, was commanding the death of the singing girl a moral or immoral act?
2) Also, I am still curious as to the major cities that were founded and built by the conquering Muslim Arabs as well as those founded and built by Muslims in general.
Many thanks
Michael
We will agree to disagree.
That aside:
1) What of the story about morality? You specifically asked me to look up the reference which I did take the time to do this for you. So, was commanding the death of the singing girl a moral or immoral act?
2) Also, I am still curious as to the major cities that were founded and built by the conquering Muslim Arabs as well as those founded and built by Muslims in general.
Many thanks
Michael
Last edited:
This is a totally new story to me. I should first see about it. But the way you presented it, gave the impression that the girl was killed just because she was singing, but if she insults a prophet which means spread hatred against the message of God, I will be frank with you. I personally wouldn't bother much about her being killed. Why do you think so may muslims are ready to die than to have their sacreds be defamed.
Well, you didn't reply to me on which major cities were built by other relgious or irreligious groups. This seems a bit biased question given there are no counter examples supplied by you. Also some of the cities you named are consequences of discovery of new continents and some were not originally built by them out of scrap, but were results of development on existing settlements, like Hong Kong. Moreover how can I be sure that you wouldn't reject any examples as not islamic but middle eastern :shrug:. Take for example Baghdad, Samarkand, Andalusia, Kabul, Nishabur, Dares-Salam, Cairo...
The point is that Islamic society was already in its apex of development for its time, and that's why it has been called Islamic Golden Age by some. They were developed compared to their neighbours and other nations were underdeveloped in comparison. Then their excellence started to fade away as they ceased to do good and internal disputes grew. Like all events in history, they also had an upward ascending and then the fall when they were no longer that good. This is the nature of history. No single nation or group stays on top forever. Can you claim that Europe and U.S. will forever remain the leaders of the world, technologically, politically, militarily..??
REALLY???
I'm shocked. What do you think when people insult Jesus? It happens all the time on many TV, T-shirts, sitcoms, comedians, etc... people are always making fun of Jesus.
It is the same to you when Jesus is made fun of? or just Mohammad?
Well, Hong Kong was a very very very small fishing village. But Sydney only had migrating Aboriginal Australians, I believe the same is true of New York. Singapore was a Chinese fishing village.
I think Baghdad is an excellent example. Great post chuush. I always thought Baghdad was an ancient Babylonian city. That seals it then - Muslim Arabs did found and built major cities. I didn't know that.
Michael
Michael
how are you?
i suppose its not who built the city (ie its first house or whatever) but who made it great.. is what you need to look at maybe.
~~~~~
cheers
zak
I certainly do not think that USA or Europe or Japan will stay on top. Although I wonder if there really is going to be a "top" in the future - maybe just one big world? If there is a top I am sure China will be at it's helm soon enough - maybe in 50 to 75 years.
Contrary to SAM's beleif that I am anti-Islam, I'm not. I also think Religions had their time and their place - the Great Pyramids would never have been built for a bunch of Atheists! That's for sure. I don't rather care much for monotheisms though.
Also, there is no such thing in my mind as "religion-X" science. Science is science. Done. I persoally think Religion holds back scientific endeavor. For example: "Muslim" scientists had written treaties on Evolution well before Darwin. The whole idea had been around for some time. But they, like fanatical Xians, refused to accept humans could have evolved. So they missed the boat - all because of religion. Also, what happens when a Muslim scientist says: Look mate the moon was never split in two. Well, maybe someone will consider that an insult on the Prophet and cut the persons head off? Or maybe her career will be ruined? Again, holding back sciences. Well, all these little things add up and one day the World is passing you by.
And it did.
Oh, and SAM, again Chicky, I said the story need not be true! It's not like someone was there with a video recorder! Do I really think Alexander cut the Gordon Knot? Well who bloody knows - but its a well known story in some circles. So, anyway, I said I read it on an Arab News site first. I think it popped up on Google back when I was asking SAM if Mohammad had ever personally killed anyone, you know mono un mono. Actually, as a warrior and theist Mohammad reminds me of all of the other generals of the day. The Pharaohs were worshipped as in touch with the Gods, Alexander was in touch with the Gods, Julius was blessed and in touch with the Gods, Darius was a God, and so was Mohammad. The only difference is people still worship on Mohammad. Anyway, as I was saying (did I mention I've been at work for 18 hours - I'm starving!) so, regardless, the singing girl story popped up and it is a good point to debate. Which is the whole point. Speaking of which if I remember correct I have said on a few occasions not to take anything I say too heart. It's hard to defend FSM when we all know it's BS
I know I wouldn't want to try and do it. VERY difficult.OK, have a nice weekend, actually I have to come back here tomorrow
Cheers,
Michael
Good point
I think I'm going to go collapse now... need ... food....
What about some delicious macaroni full of vegetables plus yogurt, my new recipe
Well, maybe it is something inevitable in the western society given the grave mistakes committed by the Church in the pre-renaissance era which unfortunately distanced many people from the way of God. Yet again it is unthinkable for a muslim to accept a prophet of God (being it Jesus the Messiah, or Moses the Friend of God or Mohammad the Last Messenger of God) being insulted or disgraced. You may not believe in something and you criticize it, that's a human right, but you transgress the line when you insult the others believes. That's also correct when muslims talk about the atheists or the false Gods. 6:108- "Revile not ye those whom they call upon besides Allah, lest they out of spite revile Allah in their ignorance"
BTW, I couln't find the story you related in any Islamic text so far and I suppose basing a discussion over a false story is not a reasonable approach.
I have a question be the way. This should not be interpreted as a criticism or directed at a certain individual or as a reply to a specific case though. Many atheists and agnostics, etc. accuse muslims of blindly following without investigating for themselves. That's somehow correct for a lot of muslims, but while accusing muslims in this way, can you honestly say that when you talk about Islam or any other religion, you do it after enough study and research or it is just that you take something you read or hear somewhere or your personal biases to criticize and even attack. For example do you try to learn about the life of the prophet from a reliable source before talking about it.After all half a knowledge is a dangerou thing.
Last edited:
Well finally, after all this time, you admit that the action was immoral. I fail to see what was so hard in this?
Sounds good. But instead I went for fast food - chicken kabab with the Lot + humus & chiliWhat about some delicious macaroni full of vegetables plus yogurt, my new recipe
I did bake a loaf of banana bread last weekend. First time too. I used a silicon baking dish I bought a Kmart and it worked very well. Tonight I'm going to buy a silicon pie pan, maybe, and make a sweat potato pie
It depends on the question. I think Thomas Lippman sums up the manner in which I would view Mohammad.
“It seems safe to say that Muhammad was sincere, dedicated, courageous, generous, compassionate, and committed to social justice and reform. The uncritical admiration of him that one hears from ordinary Muslims, however, overlooks the evidence that the Prophet was also sometimes vengeful, spiteful, and duplicitous. He was, after all, human and ambitious too.”
Thomas Lippman, Understanding Islam: An Introduction to the Muslim World (New York: Penguin Putnam, 2002) p.52
Yet, in a debate, it’s basically up to me to defend my position.
For example, you Chuuush made a comment along the lines that Scientology is bullshit. (ok maybe you didn’t say BS, but we both know it is). Well, you are not an expert in Scientology are you? No. Yet, you were pretty confident in your assessment that Scientology is a crock of shit. (which I agree – it is). Well, we both know there is no more evidence that the moon split in two then there is that there is a God then there is that of Xenu of the Galactic Confederacy visited Earth. If you were to debate the point with a Scientologist I don’t think you’d have to be an expert in Scientology to do. But you would have to know something about it.
I have a another question. During the “Islamic” Golden Age; Who was the greatest mathematician? (in your opinion).
Thanks
Michael