I'm not sanguine about the epithet "Dark Ages". Most people treat this period of European time well like, "darkness". Perusing the art of those times at the Met or reading and understanding the mystical/alchemical/Aristotelian science( the real one which considers qualitative factors) can shed a different light upon our prejudices. From one perspective, these times were 'dark" because we can't understand what was happening but when the Renaissance came we could understand for that is exactly how we think at the present time. We find many and multitudinous ways to deny the science and art of the Medieval Ages but at root is that we simply don't understand.

I don't disagree with much of what you have to say but I'm having difficulty with the parochial and condescending approach of OP. If he wants to make jokes about Islam then he should have at it but if he jokes and denigrates, for instance, the Crusaders, as he did, then the line is drawn. And hell, I don't even know a Crusader.

The thing about Islam being a counterpoise to advanced knowledge being given to people who aren't ready for it comes about through esoteric studies. I don't think I can explain it properly for I really haven't earned the ability to do so. And so, I apologize for a sensational statement and hope that someday this can be approached appropriately by someone, not necessarily me. Peace.

I respect you and your field of study and so I place wiki/philosophy/medieval and ask anyone who reads this thread to examine and see if somehow our western culture is an Islamic offshoot as he seems to imply or explicitly state. Grandiose statements of" living within Islam" makes me wonder if they also invented the toaster oven.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_philosophy

And oh yes, wiki could be lacking here also but its not the point.

It's more or less linked to the fate of the world in the 14th century, since the Black Death killed between 1/3 and 1/2 of everyone in Europe, the Middle East, and China and basically destroyed the nascent system of trade and cultural exchange that was developing, thanks in part to Mongol expansion. Islamic society "recovered," and even expanded into Europe after 1453, but the void that was left in the trade system of the Indian Ocean (and the Silk Road, which nearly collapsed without political unity under the Khanate) was largely filled by the Portuguese (and then other Europeans) by the end of the 15th century.

No, I'm actually not suggesting that our Renaissance (another term I don't care for along with "Dark Ages," "Enlightenment" and so on) is an offshoot of Islamic culture. Rather, contact with Islamic societies renewed interest in certain ideas that were "Western" in origin. European thinkers borrowed a lot of ideas from Islamic scholars, but they went in very different directions after the 1400s, largely for reasons that have little or nothing to do with the impact of ideas.

Thank you. This is basically correct. Are you a sociologist or historian, if I may ask?
Cheers

Again, very good, and I completely agree. Why do you think that many people in this thread are so obsessed with "ideas" and not pay enough attention to broader sociological or economic parameters which defined the context in which ideas played out their roles. This is truly perplexing to me.

Basically I was fed up with the guy's constant pestering about a minor, mostly literary, flourish that I used at the end of one of my posts. I also did not like the fact that he created an entire new thread on that minor point in another forum....Completely ridiculous.
I opened this thread for an honest and open exchange of ideas, not for a pissing contest. That is why I decided to ignore him.
Cheers

Would you care to explain the redeeming quality of the Crusaders please? And, why should I not have a condescending approach towards one of the purest campaigns of pillage and plunder in the entire world history?

I'm a graduate student in History.

Because that is the traditional narrative of history. Rome falls, Europe falls into total darkness for 1000 years, then a bunch of northern Italians decide for no reason to paint some really nice art and everyone decides classical culture rules and is happy again. Then of course Europe gets "civilized" and learns how to be "tolerant" (whilst colonizing other people and destroying their traditions) and "secular" (having killed each other by the millions in the 1500s and 1600s over whether Jesus is really present in the Eucharist and other such business) and gets to have an "Enlightenment" which of course produces us at the pinnacle of history. It's a really narrow interpretation but commonly held by most people who haven't studied historians of the last 50 years in much depth.

I've been primarily an Intellectual Historian by training but I tend to take a lesser view of the role of ideas in society as causing societal change the way more traditional people in my field have, at least until recently (with the exception of the Marxists, who have their own issues).

Thank you. Good luck in your studies.

The Crusades were expeditions undertaken, in fulfilment of a solemn vow, to deliver the Holy Places from Mohammedan tyranny.

The Catholic source:http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04543c.htm

Now, since you brought it up I would suppose you would like to fight to defend your honor which is entirely lacking in these posts. I would think that a dispassionate approach to all of these matters is in order but you've decided to be a mocker and denigrate that which some of us find worthwhile.

An economic approach to history is nothing more than a modern prejudice and is found seriously wanting when the motivations of peoples are involved and in fact it is pathetic.

I won't speak to you again which will be good for both of us.

I've been enjoying this thread so far, but dude, you are the one who asked for questions about Islam. You presumably did so because you assumed people would be ignorant of these issues and wished to educate. You didn't start this as a conversation thread. So attacking posters for being undereducated in the matter of Islam is kinda douchy, IMO.

Fine for me. It is good to know where your posts were coming from, and I am glad that you finally made your intentions clear.
I have absolutely no intention to "fight to defend my honor" as I am neither a zealot nor a soldier. I am an academician.
Take care

Thanks for the answer ,damaci,
And i appreciate your time and effort.

I think you are right. I was perhaps unnecessarily disappointed with the low quality of some posts.
Cheers

No problem at all. I am glad that I could help.
Cheers

I read through the entire thread and thought it was a rather impressive performance. However I think you would do yourself and your students a favor by looking into the biological basis of religion. It is not enough to say that religion has produced art (and destroyed art), that it has or has not fostered the growth of science while making contributions to human cultures, or that is has been both good and bad. That misses the point entirely. The biological basis of religion is in how it contributes to the cohesiveness of the tribe, especially in terms of warfare. You cannot understand religion unless you see how it has been adaptive in a biological sense.

To dismiss the literal words of the Qur'an that Rize presented as minority interpretations (most Muslims are peaceful, was your main counter, I believe) also misses the point. In any society most people are peaceful. The two most war-like religions on the planet, historically speaking, as you well know, are Christianity and Islam. In all that you wrote there was not a hint of that truth (as regards Islam, although you did point to the Crusades by Christians).

You wrote: "On a side note, i consider Islam and Buddhism (especially the eastern interpretation, the Zen) as the only truly 'universal' religions."

I don't see how Islam is more "universal" than Christianity or Hinduism, but it may be that I don't know what you mean by "universal."

As for Buddhism being a "universal" religion I am at a loss. And in particular Zen, which really is a reaction to the over-intellectualism of Buddhism (inspired by Daoism, by the way) certainly is very far from what I could consider universal. Perhaps you mean that Islam and Buddhism are most able to adapt to various cultures. If so I would say, you are half right.

I also think you were disingenuous in your response to the question about the way women are required to dress in some Islamic societies. The plain fact of the matter is that all three of the Abrahamic religions have as part of their basis the control of women for the biological purpose of attempting to control paternity. Restricting the freedom of women is one of the tactics in this regard.

I suspect that you invested the several hours as part of a book you are writing or as some kind of lesson for your students. This is all to the good and you are to be commended.

This is by no means clear and personally I do not think it is the case at all. It is the biological basis of ideologies, which may or may not include supernatural or deeply philosophical components. Specifically the supernatural component I believe to be a byproduct of a) gullible tendencies of the human mind and b) the emotional reactions certain beliefs generate, making them viral considering a). Ideologies that fill your proposed biological role however can be as simple as "us good, them bad, cowardice lame, courage cool", and in fact I think majority of human evolution they have been mostly something like that.

OP, can you speak or write in Arabic or any other languages? Just curious.

My command of Persian, Turkish and Ottoman Language (it is a dead language, a complex combination of Turkish, Persian and Arabic) is better than my Arabic. But, yes.

This "by-product" theory of religion has been recently argued by evolutionary psychologists and anthropologists like Pascal Boyer and, especially, Scott Atran. I basically agree with them.
Read everything you can by Atran about religion and Islam, the guy is absolutely first class.
Cheers

Could you very briefly summarise some of his main points which you consider particularly agreeable and insightful?

An introduction to Altran's approach is an easy read through an "EDGE" Reality Club exchange that followed a 'Beyond Belief' Conference at the Salk Institute in 2006. The posts are in reverse order, so starting at the bottom helps. You can perhaps form a tentative opinion from it.
This forum would be split on him I suspect.

The link given above is a good place to start. His "In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion" is very good.
Cheers

Is there any particular reason why your avatar depicts Bobby Fischer?

I am a master level chess player and I like his games.