[Victoribus Spolia]

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

I never denied any of this, I just denied that the West would not have had Aristotle had it not been for the Arabs, which is my whole point.

The Arabs conquered the regions where Christians already had these primary sources in their possession.

Your insinuation on the matter is like saying I should thank a thief for giving my stuff back as if I wouldn't had it if it weren't for the thieves.

I said that because I knew it'd likely impress upon you, but my point was that I really don't fancy Islam,

Don't make the mistake that I am accusing you or anyone on here for being Islamic or pro-Islamic. Indeed, most who advocate for post-colonial revisionism are typically atheists.

My point is that the "retelling" of the west's cultural heritage and events like the Crusades is simply inaccurate and reeks of self-loathing. Westerners hating their heritage.

Islam just serves as but a means to make their case, indeed, for many of these thinkers every civilization tribe, or custom that was ever displaced or attacked by the west was itself superior to the western one that replaced it. These same intellectuals will equally extol the boundless virtues of the Aztecs, Chinese, Amazon tribes, and Congolese pygmies. ANYTHING but the west.

That is my point.

[Albert]

From my understanding classical knowledge was around in Medieval Europe. Dante and St. Thomas Aquinas for example were all acquainted with classical works. The latter quoted Aristotle consistently. Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus a Roman military manual was studied in Medieval Europe. So for me the narrative that somehow the knowledge of classics was brought back to Europe again, I believe is quite silly. Not to mention continental Europe had to possess classical works well before even the collapse of Roman Empire. I mean Rome and Athens was still in Europe for crying out loud. They were never occupied by the Muslims. The latter only being conquered by the Ottomans in 1458. That is almost 1000 years after the initial Muslim invasion.

This is why for me the narrative of Greek or Arab inspiration to Renaissance is questionable. Perhaps the collapse of Constantinople inspired people to seek classical knowledge again and the invention of printing press made it more available. I personally believe Renaissance was an Italian inspired movement in Europe in itself, perhaps there were influences upon it, but all in all it was Italian responsibility.

[noir]

Now at social media.

Not many Westerners aware that Islam sees Moses and Jesus as Islamic prophets. According to @ingliz verses it shows their tolerance and inclusiveness. No wonder Europe is in such mess.

Daily seen in UK. A Da'wah or proselytizing, preaching of Islam

[Prosthetic Conscience]

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

You specified the period yourself: "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"

This is about the period long before scholasticism. The Byzantine Empire, and Rome-centered scholars, had the opportunity to examine and expand on earlier Greek philosophy. They didn't need to go through the Muslims. They just weren't interested, and neglected their own copies.

[noir]

For those who believe that French unrest is just 1789 style discontent.

[Victoribus Spolia]

This is about the period long before scholasticism. The Byzantine Empire, and Rome-centered scholars, had the opportunity to examine and expand on earlier Greek philosophy. They didn't need to go through the Muslims. They just weren't interested, and neglected their own copies.

Scotus is an EARLY scholastic and he wrote in the 9th century in spite of Islamic expansion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholasti ... olasticism

Get your dates right.

In fact, I might have been TOO pessimistic if anything.

[Victoribus Spolia]

the collapse of Constantinople inspired people to seek classical knowledge again and the invention of printing press made it more available. I personally believe Renaissance was an Italian inspired movement in Europe in itself, perhaps there were influences upon it, but all in all it was Italian responsibility.

An influx of refugees from Constantinople that could read and write in Greek directly couldn't have hurt.

This was a common issue, even the commissioning of the Latin Vulgate, centuries before, was grounded on a population that no longer spoke greek (in the first century, koine greek was a lingua franca).

This issue likely only became worse during Islamic expansionism and after the East-West schism. So, when the saracens sacked Constantinople scholars and thinkers who read and wrote greek directly flooded the west, especially Italy. I do think this helped spurn the renaissance on, but it does not negate the fact that had Islam never expanded from desert nomads in the 7th century, the west would have hit its intellectual stride much earlier (this of course, saying nothing about the Mongol and Viking expansions, the little ice age, and the black death).

Indeed, Christendom was given what might be considered the worst hand imaginable, so for idiots on this thread to argue that Christians just didn't like knowledge or prosperity is absolutely asinine and the proof, ultimately, is in the pudding.

The world has been defined by the West's might, both intellectually and politically and Christianity is the most popular religion amongst mankind.

few more proofs are needed beyond this.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

@Victoribus Spolia , I freely admit to never having heard of Johannes Scotus Eriugena. But it seems strange to say that 3 of the 4 'founders of scholasticism' were 11th-12th century, while the other was 9th century. It's almost as if he was in a completely different era, and didn't lead to much more. As that Wikipedia article says, scholasticism is dated from around 1100 onwards. And it credits Arab work on kicking this off.

Your hypothesis still doesn't hold water. Christian scholars had all the Greek work there was until around 650, and did hardly anything with it. They then lost access to Alexandria, but there was still the Byzantine Empire (or Romans, as they saw themselves) in a significant part of the rest of the eastern Mediterranean. And more western Christians weren't forbidden from contact with them either. There's no reason to think they were pining for access to one city to get at Greek sources. Christian scholars just weren't interested, for centuries. And while that happened, the Arabs advanced the state of learning.

[Zamuel]

Now at social media.

Not many Westerners aware that Islam sees Moses and Jesus as Islamic prophets. According to @ingliz verses it shows their tolerance and inclusiveness. No wonder Europe is in such mess.

Daily seen in UK. A Da'wah or proselytizing, preaching of Islam

Nothing new here, Looks just like the kiosks the Christian missionaries set up all over the world to distribute Bibles/New Testaments.

Islam has several problems that are causing a lot of turmoil in the world at the moment. But realistically this Jihad stuff is a very small part of the religion. Much of Islam is very attractive and sensible. Like REAL Christianity REAL Islam does aim to be a religion of peace.

The subversion of Islam into jihadi extremism is a regrettable fact. But Christians must realize that their religion went through the same distortion and perversion.

The Basic Islamic premise is that Jesus brought the word to the world, but man distorted it (into the holy roman empire) and so God gave Islam to the prophet Mohamed in order to restore his intention for a world of peace. It's an easily understood concept that appeals to all those who dislike the discipline and bureaucracy of Christianity.



Zam

[ingliz]

Arabs advanced the state of learning.

An example being Thomas Aquinas, himself, who devoted the lion’s share of his scholarly attention to wrestling with theological and epistemological quandaries stemming from Arab philosophy. Was knowledge of God in fact inaccessible to the human mind, as Ibn Sina maintained? Was Absolute Truth ascertainable through reason in addition to revelation, as Ibn Rushd averred?

[noir]

@Zamuel

Nothing new here, Looks just like the kiosks the Christian missionaries set up all over the world to distribute Bibles/New Testaments.

The missionaries are doing it in the Islamic world? Da'wah is peaceful jihad. They are conquring the public space, among other means, like street prays etc.

Visibility is everything.

[skinster]

Pamela Geller.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Was knowledge of God in fact inaccessible to the human mind, as Ibn Sina maintained? Was Absolute Truth ascertainable through reason in addition to revelation, as Ibn Rushd averred

Except St. Basil and St. Augustine basically dealt with these issues, stemming from Platonic thought, centuries before Islam even existed.

Christian scholars had all the Greek work there was until around 650, and did hardly anything with it.

First of all, the Christian west had probably the most robust platonic tradition in the world thanks to St. Augustine's heritage, and once again, that Arab learning came to the west and spurned great intellectual growth IS NOT the point of contention, I am personally a fan of Al-Ghalzali's occasionalism, but that is not the debate.

The debate is whether or not Christian intellectualism owes something to the Islamic world, and like I said, that would be like saying I am indebted to the thief who returned the goods which he stole from me in the first place.

it is an asinine proposition from the start.

ALL of the theological debates starting since the Fall of Rome in the west are indebted to the Greco-Roman heritage so saying that the west "did nothing with it," is ridiculous, and further, as I have argued already once before, the West's "rediscovery" of Aristotle through Islamic sources was eventually undermined by strongly anti-Aristotelian nominalist thought which led to both the enlightenment and the reformation which then in turn led to an absolute and unqualified western supremacy unto the present day.

Lets not "overplay" what "benefits" we got from the muslims returning western thought back to the west, for like I said, in the end, the proof is the pudding and history has already made its verdict regarding Western v. Islamic supremacy.

[Zamuel]

The missionaries are doing it in the Islamic World?

Missionaries go wherever god sends them as I understand it. They've been going to Arabia for well over 1,000 years. some of them are pretty famous.

Zam

[Zamuel]

the pudding and history has already made its verdict regarding Western v. Islamic supremacy.

What a ridiculous conclusion … Philosophy as a competitive exercise … ? Neo-barb clap trap.

Zam

[Oxymandias]

@Victoribus Spolia

Except St. Basil and St. Augustine basically dealt with these issues, stemming from Platonic thought, centuries before Islam even existed.

The difference is that St. Basil and St. Augustine sought to make it compatible with Orthodox Eastern Christianity while Ibn Sina and Ibn Rushd sought to make it compatible with Islam. That alone makes it unique.

First of all, the Christian west had probably the most robust platonic tradition in the world thanks to St. Augustine's heritage, and once again, that Arab learning came to the west and spurned great intellectual growth IS NOT the point of contention, I am personally a fan of Al-Ghalzali's occasionalism, but that is not the debate.

That's like me saying that the Islamic world has the most robust platonic tradition in the world due to Aviennca's heritage. Furthermore, platonism has more of a presence in Islamic theology than Christian theology down to it's origins. The written works of Zaid, one of the prophet's companions, and his wife Theodora, a Coptic scholar who became a Muslim, heavily incorporated platonic concepts into early Islam and Mohammed himself was a Nestorian merchant prior to forming Islam who was reported to have read books of philosophy in his spare time and, mostly likely, created Islam out of having a theological dispute with Christianity. There are high chances of these books of philosophy being Greek given that Sassanid Persia was nearly unheard of by the Arabs in the East and the due to how popular the Byzantines were with early Muslims. Christianity on the other hand, banned Hellenistic thought and killed all the pagans who were influenced by it. While Christians did end up utilizing platonic works, you'll be hard pressed to find any philosophers out right stating publicly to have drawn inspiration from them as that would've been heresy.

The debate is whether or not Christian intellectualism owes something to the Islamic world, and like I said, that would be like saying I am indebted to the thief who returned the goods which he stole from me in the first place.

It is a common myth that Muslims merely preserved Greek documents and only used them without expanding on them at all. I wish to dash this myth. What the West received were not mere translations of platonic works nor were such translations even that popular amongst the thinkers during the renaissance. What the West recieved were interpretations of Plato and Aristotle and expansions of those interpretations. It was the original works of Averroes, Aviennca, Omar Khayyam, Al-Farabi, Al-Kindi, Ibn Arabi, Sabin, Khaldun, and Suhrawardi by which Christian intellectualism had it's foundations. Leibniz, Aquinas, Hegel, and Kant all draw their foundations upon the original contributions of these Islamic philosophers and it is through them that they were capable of writing their works. Furthermore, the birthplace of intellectualism in the West or the college was taken from the idea of the madrasa. It was from that concept by which universities were founded on.

Now you may state that interpretations and expansions upon those interpretations aren't original thought. But you forget that Platonism and all Greek thought are influenced by and interpretations of Egyptian, Persian, and Babylonian thought. I don't think you would call Plato or Aristotle thieves for taking an idea and thinking about it in a new way. This is because ideas can't be owned by anyone.

ALL of the theological debates starting since the Fall of Rome in the west are indebted to the Greco-Roman heritage so saying that the west "did nothing with it," is ridiculous, and further, as I have argued already once before, the West's "rediscovery" of Aristotle through Islamic sources was eventually undermined by strongly anti-Aristotelian nominalist thought which led to both the enlightenment and the reformation which then in turn led to an absolute and unqualified western supremacy unto the present day.

To be frank, this anti-Aristotlism was partially due to Islamic sources and commentaries on Aristotle almost always criticizing him. If you've read any Arabic commentary on Aristotle or Plato, you would see countless criticism of their ideas and this anti-Aristotlism also lead to an Enlightenment in the Islamic world otherwise known as the Islamic Golden Age. Also history isn't one big line. In no way did the enlightenment or reformation lead to Western dominance because Western dominance relied heavily on other factors which are remarkably luck based. I mean the Middle East had an enlightenment and Islam theologically is very similar to what kind of Christianity Luther advocates but then the Mongols took that away.

Lets not "overplay" what "benefits" we got from the muslims returning western thought back to the west, for like I said, in the end, the proof is the pudding and history has already made its verdict regarding Western v. Islamic supremacy.

I think the benefits aren't overplayed enough. Not enough people are aware of what Muslims have given to the West. Like, I am not even scratching the surface here. Furthermore, I don't think you have a good grasp on history given that you think the Reformation lead to Western dominance. A lot of people overplay the Reformation as this big liberating force that swept Europe when in actuality it was just a really big civil war that destabilized most of Europe.

I also contest the notion that if the Caliphate didn't arise, the West would've been more intellectually advanced. The Byzantines could not have possibly done it given their mentality that anyone outside of the Byzantine Empire was a barbarian and wasn't worth the time to trade with (with the exception of the Sassanids who historically were seen as on par with Rome). Furthermore, the platonic and philosophical texts that the Byzantine Empire had was safeguarded and only accessible by Byzantine scholars and not to the general public so even smuggling is out of the question. Combined with the fact that the Byzantine Empire was extremely authoritarian for it's time and it's overwhelming bureaucracy and this makes distribution of documents outside of the Constantinople nigh impossible. In other words, I curious to see how you think Greek documents can somehow reach the rest of Europe.

[noir]

Missionaries go wherever god sends them as I understand it. They've been going to Arabia for well over 1,000 years. some of them are pretty famous.

Zam

Today colonialism is one sided and Europe granted them the right to do it under the label of multiculturism.

[Godstud]

@Oxymandias Stop it! Don't you know that you're only allowed to use Twitter posts as sources in this thread?

[Crantag]

I never denied any of this, I just denied that the West would not have had Aristotle had it not been for the Arabs, which is my whole point.

The Arabs conquered the regions where Christians already had these primary sources in their possession.

Your insinuation on the matter is like saying I should thank a thief for giving my stuff back as if I wouldn't had it if it weren't for the thieves.

The way it was relayed to me is that scholars fled the Byzantine Empire and brought the texts with them. This is quite different from your seemingly somewhat contrived view that the texts fell into Arab hands through the conquest of previously Christian lands. I'll play my own devil's advocate and say that the Byzantine Empire was under siege by Islamic powers for centuries, so possibly you have a worthwhile interpretation. I don't really see the use in lamenting on it though. The cards fell as they did.

[ingliz]

the Christian west had probably the most robust platonic tradition in the world

Philosophy is the special province of the unbelievers: we have it all from them.

Roger Bacon, Operis maioris pars septima - Moralis philosophia in the Opus Majus

ALL of the theological debates starting since the Fall of Rome in the west are indebted to the Greco-Roman heritage.

Wrong!

Peter the Venerable commissioned Robert of Ketton (Roberto Ketenensi de Anglia, qui nunc Pampilonensis ecclesiae archidiaconus est) to translate the Quran into Latin. With its publication in 1143, serious students of Islam no longer had to rely on Scripture or myth; they could read the competing sacred text firsthand.

Greco-Roman heritage.

I learnt from my masters, the Arabs, to follow the light of reason, while you are led by the bridle of authority.

Adelard of Bath (1080 – c. 1152 AD)