[noir]

The Germans are masters in propaganda, the racist Nazis reinvented themselves as "anti racists" in just few years withouth changing in any of their believes. Today Europeans, brainwashed by totalitarian media, are afraid to call a spade a spade because they might be called "racists". One way or the other, this united Europe under German leadership with alliance with Islam was the Third Reich main planning for the New Order. The Germans achieved it finally in EU, because they manipulated what progressive means.

[Albert]

The Germans are masters in propaganda, the racist Nazis reinvented themselves as "anti racists" in just few years withouth changing in any of their believes. Today Europeans, brainwashed by totalitarian media, are afraid to call a spade a spade because they might be called "racists".

I believe as time goes by we will find out more as to what exactly happened. I suspect there is an attempt to establish a sort of "New Society", that is not rooted in ethnicity or nationhood, but sort of society that is "human". It is a noble idea but misguided and unrealistic. In turn we are all suffering the consequences of this misguided good intentioned idealism.

It will run its coarse, what troubles me is the fallout. There is the mess left to deal with that has no easy solutions, plus the long term consequences of healing the society from the damage done.

[noir]

They will not give up easily. The genious of their propaganda is the way they made it look moral and just cause. To say something against German-led EU alliance with Islam is "racism". Who want to be called racist?

[ingliz]

So?

The 'Little Renaissance'.

Europe's intellectual revival in the period 1050 to 1300 was only possible due to the translation and circulation on an extensive scale of both Greek works previously translated into Arabic and original works written in Arabic - Islam provided the materials for inquisitive minds to play with.

[noir]

The translators were probably Arabic speaking Greeks. According to Bernard Lewis "History of Islam", traditionally, the Greeks in the Levante held this profession. But for Euro Arab mechanism it means Europe owes to Muslims, hence the concessions and lax in Arab immigration. This population transfer has nothing to do with the Islamic Golden Age. The revesionist history is used for propaganda to serve a fixed German policy.

[Victoribus Spolia]

The 'Little Renaissance'.

Europe's intellectual revival in the period 1050 to 1300 was only possible due to the translation and circulation on an extensive scale of both Greek works previously translated into Arabic and original works written in Arabic - Islam provided the materials for inquisitive minds to play with.

The translators were probably Arabic speaking Greeks. According to Bernard Lewis "History of Islam", traditionally, the Greeks in the Levante held this profession. But for Euro Arab mechanism it means Europe owes to Muslims, hence the concessions and lax in Arab immigration. This population transfer has nothing to do with the Islamic Golden Age. The revesionist history is used for propaganda to serve a fixed German policy.

What is more irritating about this claim is the fact that Europe wouldn't have had to rely on Arab translators of ancient greek works if the saracens hadn't gone on a fucking rampage to conquer these places in the first place.

Its a terrible basis for an argument.

Had Islam not expanded through the levant and north africa, the "little renaissance" probably would have occured closer to A.D. 800 since those regions which were conquered by Muslims had previously been in Christian hands.

Thus, latin and greek translations could have been had directly within broader Christendom instead of waiting for a muslim like Averroes's work on Aristotle to be appropriated by Aquinas and his ilk in the 13th century.

what a bunch of disingenuous claptrap.

Christianity doesn't "owe" Islam for Aristotle, indeed, we would have had him sooner if the Muslims hadn't conquered the regions where his works were most disseminated.



We're lucky we got it back from those savages at all, who knows what else we lost to their conquests.

Praise God for Charles Martel.

[Albert]

The 'Little Renaissance'.

Europe's intellectual revival in the period 1050 to 1300 was only possible due to the translation and circulation on an extensive scale of both Greek works previously translated into Arabic and original works written in Arabic - Islam provided the materials for inquisitive minds to play with.

You have no shame.

There is no point in responding to Ingliz, his historical revisionism is comic in itself. It concentrates on few isolated moment and ignores rest of history. On these few isolated incident this new outlook is build on. To argue with him you basically have to recite all of history from the Muslim invasion to modern period.

So the best thing I can say in response is read history Ingliz, instead of your revisionist nonsense that might make you sound unique and edgy at first, but in the end it is foolish nonsense. The scary part is that people like are actually responsible for Europe's abysmal situation that it finds itself in.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

What is more irritating about this claim is the fact that Europe wouldn't have had to rely on Arab translators of ancient greek works if the saracens hadn't gone on a fucking rampage to conquer these places in the first place.

Its a terrible basis for an argument.

Had Islam not expanded through the levant and north africa, the "little renaissance" probably would have occured closer to A.D. 800 since those regions which were conquered by Muslims had previously been in Christian hands.

Thus, latin and greek translations could have been had directly within broader Christendom instead of waiting for a muslim like Averroes's work on Aristotle to be appropriated by Aquinas and his ilk in the 13th century.

That completely ignores Constantinople and its continuous access to the Greek works in question all through that period, and its access to the rest of the Christian Mediterranean at the same time. The problem was that Christendom just wasn't that interested in the original Greek works, for centuries. By the time that Western Christianity did get interested again, it had quarreled with Constantinople, and could just as easily go through the Arabs, who had not only preserved ancient Greek thought, but expanded on it.

[Crantag]

I took a minor in Middle East/Africa history in college, and what @ingliz described in terms of the transmission of scholarship to Europe from the Arab world and the influence which culminated in the Renaissance is exactly as I learned it.

I am no authority on the basis of a minor in Middle East/Africa history; the point was that I had formal education on the subject and it was described in just that way.

As it was relayed to me, the Byzantine Empire at one point became very oppressive and authoritarian, and many scholars fled, and brought the Greek texts with them, which were eventually translated into Arabic (by way of several other languages, such as Aramaic).

All that to say I think that the accusation of historical revisionism is unfounded.

[Victoribus Spolia]

The problem was that Christendom just wasn't that interested in the original Greek works, for centuries

This is entirely ignores the role of Plato in early scholasticism. What an absurd claim.

I took a minor in Middle East/Africa history in college, and what @ingliz described in terms of the transmission of scholarship to Europe from the Arab world and the influence which culminated in the Renaissance is exactly as I learned it.

Big shocker there. I bet they told you the Crusades were an exercise in racist european proto-colonialism too.

[noir]

^ Whether it's revesionism or not is secondery issue here. The main aspect is how it was used to push forward EU concessions to the Arab League, building one sided multiculturalism, only on the European side, which in fact led to Islamic colonialism of the West. This glorious history is used as propaganda tool to legitimize this policy. @ingliz himself states this in his pro immigration stand. Look on the beggining of this debate today.

[Crantag]

Big shocker there. I bet they told you the Crusades were an exercise in racist european proto-colonialism too.

Nope.

I in fact had a very capable professor. I attended a small university, with only one specialist on Middle East history. He was a very good professor; and you have it entirely confused.

Nice job with the cliched as hell cheap shot attempt there. Them damn liberal professors, right?

Inglitz presented a proper mainstream view which is familiar to many people, it seems. There's nothing wrong with a critical stance toward the mainstream, but it requires substance, and you completely lack any. That being said, I don't believe this particular matter is all that controversial, despite your feelings about it.

[SolarCross]

Nope.

I in fact had a very capable professor. I attended a small university, with only one specialist on Middle East history. He was a very good professor; and you have it entirely confused.

Nice job with the cliched as hell cheap shot attempt there. Them damn liberal professors, right?

Inglitz presented a proper mainstream view which is familiar to many people, it seems. There's nothing wrong with a critical stance toward the mainstream, but it requires substance, and you completely lack any. That being said, I don't believe this particular matter is all that controversial, despite your feelings about it.

What narrative did this "capable professor" have for the Crusades?

[Albert]

@Crantag You are an example of how universities are used to teach history from a certain bias perspective. These days they brainwash kids with this revisionist history narrative. When I was in Uni I learned that Renaissance happened because Greeks were fleeing Ottoman invasion and with the fall of Constantinople Latin knowledge that was forgotten was revived. Which in itself, for me, is questionable.

Professors are just people in the end, and some of them can have very wacky ideas. I find in general modern academia is broken these days. They do not teach history but indoctrinate a certain narrative.

[Victoribus Spolia]

and you completely lack any.

I presented the fact that most of the regions these islamic "scholars" were working (and where they got their resources), especially in regards to Greek works, were conquered from Christians.

Thus, it is factually dubious to insinuate that the renaissance of the west could only have happened thanks to the brilliant and gracious Muslim mind.

You can hardly get more substantive than that.

Averroes would NOT have been needed if his world had remained in Christendom and so theoretically the resurgence of Greco-Roman thought in the west could have happened even earlier had Islamic expansion never happened.

A perfectly reasonable claim in all truth.

Indeed, if the brilliance of the Islamic world was the catalyst of the western mind, then we would be talking about Islamo-Arab dominance in military, art, entertainiment, culture, norms, cuisine, music, etc. But we don't and not because of bias, but because the muslim world never created a Bach, a Locke, a Michelangelo, or nuclear bomb.

Indeed, middle-eastern history has become a footnote to the age of western empires and if the intellectual weight was really so in favor of the Islamic world, we should be speaking of the west as a footnote the history of Islamic colonialism.....Why Brazil speaks Portuguese instead of Farsi is a fucking case-in-point.

This is why this sort of crap isn't even worthy of the term "revision" because its only half-hearted. This is because you can only ever claim Islamic superiority to a point, and that point is where we conquered and subjugated their lands and that their borders today were drawn largely by the west. Indeed, even their being a threat to us today is only thanks to our own bad management of them.

Hence, even their "opposition" to us today (that everyone is so fearful of) is no more evidence of their superiority than how my neglecting of my own garden would imply that weeds are superior to me in their capabilities and accomplishments.

Indeed, these claims are indicative of a deep insanity derived from a social-masochistic attitude that has deluded itself into believing that the white man is the great villain of history and Christianity alone is the religion of fools.

This is popular, but it is also ahistorical. That the equivalent of the west has never sprouted up among any other people other than Christian-Whites is proof positive of just why the west owes it accomplishments to no one but itself and the Grace of God.....not Allah.

[Crantag]

What narrative did this "capable professor" have for the Crusades?

I guess it's a fair question. I remember going over the crusades in a different course (taught by a different professor). It wasn't something that was dwelled on that much. I recall bits and pieces of it, like the sacking of Jerusalem, wherein it was said that everyone in the city was slaughtered and horses became bogged down in the blood and corpses.

Given time limitations, his teaching style was to seek to present a coherent narrative which gave a sound general overview of events, in a way which was coherent and with evident linkages between events and periods. I don't recall a whole lot on the crusades, but maybe I just don't remember it.

The part which I enjoyed the most was learning about the Ottoman Empire.

I am also guilty of having taken a Sociology of Islam course, in which we read the Koran, as well as Satanic Verses, as well as two Said books (Orientalism and Covering Islam). The professor was a Bengali guy, who liked to assign way too much reading. I read them all. And was never sold on many of the things.

I didn't fully grasp Said at the time, and don't really remember much about his writing frankly, but I always had a somewhat good impression of him. But I don't care that much. I've never bought into the Religion of Peace line; to my reading the Koran seemed like a political propaganda piece, which was authored by the political body of a brutal empire. The idea that Muhammad authored it himself in a cave (although, since he couldn't write, he must have dragged a scribe along with him; or perhaps, that is part of the miracle!) really doesn't meet the laugh test.

The book is full of admonishments to followers to expand the abode of Islam and to slay the nonbelievers. It's not a book about peace, it's a militant screed.

I am pretty anti-religion though. I don't really think more highly of Christianity. To take a random example, I was disgusted when I read Robinson Crusoe, with its talk by the protagonist of bringing savages to the lord. It was somewhat eyeopening to me respective of the perception of past generations as it concerned their own rendition of 'convert or die', to somewhat over-simplify.

@Crantag You are an example of how universities are used to teach history from a certain bias perspective. These days they brainwash kids with this revisionist history narrative. When I was in Uni I learned that Renaissance happened because Greeks were fleeing Ottoman invasion and with the fall of Constantinople Latin knowledge that was forgotten was revived. Which in itself, for me, is questionable.

Professors are just people in the end, and some of them can have very wacky ideas. I find in general modern academia is broken these days. They do not teach history but indoctrinate a certain narrative.

I allowed in a previous post for the questioning of mainstream as something which is fine to do. But like I said, it requires substance. So, bring me some substance. Your feelings are irrelevant.

Did you consider the possibility that there has been progress on the matter at hand since you supposedly learned it that alternative way? That's at least as likely a possibility.

[Albert]

I presented the fact that most of the regions these islamic "scholars" were working (and where they got their resources), especially in regards to Greek works, were conquered from Christians.

Thus, it is factually dubious to insinuate that the renaissance of the west could only have happened thanks to the brilliant and gracious Muslim mind.

You can hardly get more substantive than that.

Averroes would NOT have been needed if his world had remained in Christendom and so theoretically the resurgence of Greco-Roman thought in the west could have happened even earlier had Islamic expansion never happened.

A perfectly reasonable claim in all truth.

Indeed, if the brilliance of the Islamic world was the catalyst of the western mind, then we would be talking about Islamo-Arab dominance in military, art, entertainiment, culture, norms, cuisine, music, etc. But we don't and not because of bias, but because the muslim world never created a Bach, a Locke, a Michelangelo, or nuclear bomb.

Indeed, middle-eastern history has become a footnote to the age of western empires and if the intellectual weight was really so in favor of the Islamic world, we should be speaking of the west as a footnote the history of Islamic colonialism.....Why Brazil speaks Portuguese instead of Farsi is a fucking case-in-point.

This is why this sort of crap isn't even worthy of the term "revision" because its only half-hearted. This is because you can only ever claim Islamic superiority to a point, and that point is where we conquered and subjugated their lands and that their borders today were drawn largely by the west. Indeed, even their being a threat to us today is only thanks to our own bad management of them.

Hence, even their "opposition" to us today (that everyone is so fearful of) is no more evidence of their superiority than how my neglecting of my own garden would imply that weeds are superior to me in their capabilities and accomplishments.

Indeed, these claims are indicative of a deep insanity derived from a social-masochistic attitude that has deluded itself into believing that the white man is the great villain of history and Christianity alone is the religion of fools.

This is popular, but it is also ahistorical. That the equivalent of the west has never sprouted up among any other people other than Christian-Whites is proof positive of just why the west owes it accomplishments to no one but itself and the Grace of God.....not Allah.

Arabs were nomadic barbarians from the desert. When they occupied the Christian lands in Egypt and Middle East they left the Greek academia and administration intact for a generation or two. This way the transfer of knowledge was made. After that they persecuted the Christian Greeks out or forced them to convert to Islam.

Most Greeks fled before the invasion though, but this the story of the ones that stayed.

I allowed in a previous post for the questioning of mainstream as something which is fine to do. But like I said, it requires substance. So, bring me some substance. Your feelings are irrelevant.

Did you consider the possibility that there has been progress on the matter at hand since you supposedly learned it that alternative way? That's at least as likely a possibility.

At university history is taught through secondary sources. It is always a perception and narrative of a historian. True history is discovered through primary sources. I went through the system I know how it is.

I'm not going to argue with you about the narrative you were to taught because just with simple wiki research that you can do yourself it can be disproved.

[Victoribus Spolia]

That a professor would assign Said's Orientalism (THE BOOK of post-colonial studies) is all the more proof I need that my assessment was in fact, quite correct.

[ingliz]

Averroes's work on Aristotle

A proper mainstream view:

"Western scholars were not wholly dependent on Arabic versions for the text of many of Aristotle's writings (indeed, Grosseteste was already reading him in the original Greek); but the text of Aristotle (as generations of students know) is not infrequently obscure, and it was chiefly for the sake of their commentaries that the Arabic works were prized, and above all the works of Avicenna and Averroes. The consequence of this confrontation of medieval Europe with Aristotle was the creation of scholasticism, exactly as four centuries earlier the same confrontation had produced Muslim scholasticism; and the first task of scholasticism was to assimilate Aristotelianism. As in Islam, so also in the west, Aristotle was inescapable as well in theological as in philosophical thought; and the theological problem was solved (on their own ground, of course) by Albert the Great and St. Thomas Aquinas - drawing partly on the works written with a similar object in relation to their religious systems by the Muslim al-Ghazali and the Jewish scholar Moses Maimonides. And all of them, Muslim and Christian alike, stand on the shoulders of those forgotten late Alexandrians and Syrians who first trimmed Aristotle into conformity with revealed theistic religion."

Sir Hamilton Gibb M.A., LL.D., F.B.A., Laudian Professor of Arabic in the University of Oxford

[Crantag]

That a professor would assign Said's Orientalism (THE BOOK of post-colonial studies) is all the more proof I need that my assessment was in fact, quite correct.

You misread me. That was a sociology class. I was actually saying that I wasn't swayed in that part of my post and do think Islam is bullshit. But I didn't actually understand Said very well at the time, and the Bengali professor of that particular course didn't help much, he merely assigned tons of reading, so I still don't understand him that well.

I said that because I knew it'd likely impress upon you, but my point was that I really don't fancy Islam, in fact. That sociology course might have been a little propagandistic, but sort of had the opposite effect on me. But the history courses were informative. I agree with the other poster on how history is taught through secondary sources. So therefore, I switched my second major from history to economics.