Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald explains why corruption in states like Egypt is unlikely to result in larger-scale reform, and why Muslims who may oppose attacks on tourists and pre-Islamic monuments seem powerless to stop them:
Islam simplifies the Universe for the Believers: it reduces the world to Islam and nothing but Islam. The ongoing attacks on tourists in Egypt are not merely attacks on Infidels, and Infidel ways. They are also attacks on the Infidel state.Why is the state "Infidel"? Because Mubarak and his Friends-and-Family plan are corrupt. And for Muslims, everything must be reduced to Islamic terms. In India, a corrupt state governor might simply be called "corrupt"' and not "un-Hindu." A corrupt big-city machine in the United States might be called "corrupt" but there would be no need to identify the corrupt politician as "un-Christian." But in the world of Islam, everything must be reduced in the end to Islamic terms: Islamic and non-Islamic, Believer and Infidel. It is what neatly and simply divides the universe. That is why all rage at government corruption will, in Muslim states and for Muslim minds, unfortunately end up connected to the answer: the answer is even more Islam.
And since that Answer of More Islam has terrible consequences for non-Muslims both within the country in question and without, the effort of Infidels must not be to encourage those who, whatever else they promise, also promise more Islam. And as the Islamic Republic of Iran demonstrates, the clerics can be just as corrupt as the Al-Saud princelings and princelettes, or as the chocolate soldiers of Mubarak's army. Instead, efforts should be made to create conditions in which an enlightened despot (Ataturk or Bourguiba or the late Shah of Iran) can find enough support to either ignore or systematically limit the power of political Islam. Ataturk did this, but the beneficiaries (secular Turks) were outmaneuvered, and in some cases simply did not realize what kind of constant vigilance was necessary to foil the permanent threat of a renewal of Islam -- just look at Turkey now).Bourguiba's Destour Party ruled in Tunisia, where Ben Ali now rules the same kind of quasi-enlightened police-state -- a police-state that is nonetheless freer in many ways than other Muslim Arab states, save possibly for Oman, like Tunisia a place where an enlightened ruler (Sultan Qaboos) is able to keep things reasonably decent.
In Egypt, the sporadic, recurring attacks on tourists and tourist sites manifest several core assumptions:
1) Infidel lives are of no value.
2) Infidels bring corruption.
3) Those involved in serving the needs of Infidel tourists are themselves corrupt and offend against Islam.
4) The corrupt government derives benefits from the tourist trade, so that trade must be diminished.
5) Tourism keeps the minds of Egyptians on the monuments of the pre-Islamic period, monuments which have no value whatsoever -- save that of bringing in mere money. The pyramids, the Sphinx, all those mummies and mastabas, are of no interest.
Were the Bamiyan Buddhas worth preserving after 1,500 years? The Taliban did not think so. The Saudi and Pakistani advisers they called in to help deploy the 100,000 pounds of explosives didn't think so. The Muslims who destroyed everything they could of the Greco-Bactrian civilization of Afghanistan over many centuries did not think any of those artifacts, temples, manuscripts, stupas, monuments, were worth preserving. Why should they? The Muslims in India who built their first known mosque right over a Jain temple they destroyed, and then went on to destroy tens of thousands of Hindu, Buddhist, and Jain sites, did not think that non-Muslim sites were worth preserving. If the odd site has escaped such destruction, that testifies only to local syncretistic conditions or specific circumstances (as in Indonesia, where the predominately Hindu peoples and their civilization were conquered not outright by an invading army but through slow penetration, by military colonies established in the wake of trading outposts, and the conversion of important local rulers -- and hence of those they ruled).
Of course the indifference or hostility to pre-Islamic civilizations in Egypt is modified by the desire for the money that those monuments and artifacts bring in. But Muslims never displayed an interest in those artifacts for other reasons. It was Western students of Egypt's past who created Egyptology -- from the Rosetta Stone to the discovery of the Tomb of Tutankhamen, from Champollion through Lepsius to Howard Carter. It was Austen Henry Layard and other Westerners, right up to Henry Woolley at Ur, who discovered and recovered and collected and catalogued and studied the artifacts from the pre-Islamic past of Mesopotamia. The museums of Cairo and Baghdad were founded by Westerners -- the Cairo Museum was founded by a Frenchman, and the museum of Baghdad developed out of Gertrude Bell's Department of Antiquities. What museological coherence they now possess (as museums, rather than as mere warehouses) is due to Westerners. Those who have taken up the study of pre-Islamic artifacts (in Egypt, in Jordan, in Iraq) would likely have to be largely indifferent to the teachings and attitudes of Islam toward all non-Islamic things. But even these self-described "secular" or "cultural" Muslims may harbor a loyalty to Islam, either filiopietistic (memories of a pious grandmother or Iftar dinners), or one based on ethnic pride and identification (for the idea of an "Arab" is inextricably linked with the idea of Islam -- something that Arab islamochristians have been made to feel deeply). Will they be able to stand up to the destruction of the monuments, or will their Islamic loyalties dictate their acquiescence?
The answer to that question determines the fate of all Islamic reformers and attempts to clean up “corruption” in Islamic lands.
Sadly, there seems to be no seperation in the Muslim faith.
If this report is anything to go by, there is still plenty of support for secularism in Turkey:
Experience seems to show that this is the only possibility for a reasonably functioning and livable social life in such places.
Bernard Lewis seems to think otherwise:
This seems to be flying in the face of the evidence. I simply do not get it. For example, Lewis, being a Jew, would be najis in a shi'ite Islamic society. And he'd be darned likely to get badged up, were he living in such a society, if things go on as they are. And this is not something new - and not something to do with the importation of the notion of "revolution" or the "mass movement" from Europe - it is theologically based and in Iran goes way back:
This is religiously-based legislation. How do you stop this kind of thing but by breaking the power of the clergy and forbidding it? And that's just one example. How about the oppression of women? Is it supposed not to matter?
I suspect the same goes for natural history: it's not Islam, so it simply doesn't matter. A friend tells me that there is a fabulous volume called something like The Lepidoptera of Iraq. Predictably, it was written by a British Army officer.
The omnivorous curiosity of the West, it's capacity for valuing all sorts of things, seem to me to be one of its most attractive features.
You don't need a crystal ball to predict that Mubarak in Egypt & Mushi in Pakistan live on borrowed time and that time is running out...
Once they are deposed and a "non-corrupt, islamic" government introduces the sharia, then the fun begins in earnest...
"The Lepidoptera of Iraq. Predictably, it was written by a British Army officer."
Meinertzhagen -- that Meinertzhagen, of Palestine Mandate fame -- became a great expert on the Birds of Arabia.
Hugh says "But in the world of Islam, everything must be reduced in the end to Islamic terms: Islamic and non-Islamic, Believer and Infidel. It is what neatly and simply divides the universe".
Many say however though that the turks are different...that they have been away from Islam since 1924 when the Calipate style of government was so cruelly axed.
Well why not the acid test then....let turkey join the EU...this can only be good for turkey as a lot of liberlisation will flow into turkey.
A lot of turks too can make a difference to the EU too...look at the good that they have done in Germany.
Hardly a whimper about the cartoons in Turkey...
Several million turks in the eu will transform it. May allah show the light to the eu infedel leaders....bring back Jack Straw...let him head the eu presidency.
Remember...turkey is not just christmas....it is for the EU too.
a lot of liberlisation will flow into turkey
That won't be the direction of the flow. (A friend of mine once complained that the soles of her shoes were so thin that "the cold seeps in".)
turkey is not just christmas
Nice one.
"Well why not the acid test then....let turkey join the EU...this can only be good for turkey as a lot of liberlisation will flow into turkey."
--from a posting above
No doubt secularists in Turkey will be urging, are urging, such a course on the E.U. Sympathy for them, however, must not permit a great mistake to be made. Secularists in Turkey have a stake in diluting their own local Muslims in a larger, E.U.-wide community, and also to hope that European Infidels will somehow be able to ameliorate matters. This is not entirely different from the way in which largely westernized, secular, predominantly Shi'a exiles hoped not only to promote an American toppling of Saddam (mission accomplished, with great thanks to Mr. Chalabi and other Iraqis who told the Americans that many agreeable things would naturally follow, including that unshakeable gratitude to be displayed by the "Iraqi people"), but also to inveigle the Americans into "rebuilding" Iraq, that is, stayiing around to keep the mutually hostile ethnic and sectarian forces from inflicting much damage.
But there is not time, there is not money, there is not domestic support, for this crazed business of bearing the Infidel Man's Burden, and offering instant makeovers to Muslim countries. The poster above, an Ahmadiyya living in Pakistan, with all that that implies, sometimes gloats over what she pretends will be the final inevitable triumph of Islam, and at other times demonstrates reall worry, and no doubt a desire to have the Infidels more deeply involved in the Islamic world, so that those same Infidels could improve things. When she writes about Turkey, she has Pakistan in mind. No doubt she wishes the Americans would come to Pakistan in force, and take over, and help make her own position, as an Ahmadiyya, somehow more secure. Alternatively, she wistfully wonders if she might be allowed to move to the United States. In other words, she veers from Muslim triumphalism to obvious worry about the capacity of Muslims -- the "real," Qadiani-despising Muslims -- to get out of hand, and would like either to save herself, or to have the Infidels arrive to hold the most fanatical in check.
Turkey will not be admitted to the E.U. Secularists in Turkey should cease counting on that possiblity, and should also prepare now to have the blame attached, not to a "Christian club" or to "hysteria" over Islam, but to the behavior of many Muslims. In other words, the rejection, and ensuing resentment or even rage, should be used within Turkey to bolster Kemalism, not Islam. Should the Turkish army decide to behave as it has in the past, it should not be criticized on civil-liberties grounds, but backed, and any attempt to stamp out the Islamic party should be supported. So far Erdogan and his allies have been able to attack, and work to undo, the constraints that Ataturk systematically placed on Islam as a political and social force. Ataturk died too early (1938). hHs successors were far inferior as politicians, and his beneficiaries insufficiently vigilant and ruthless in promoting, among the remaining Turks still in thrall to the primitive belief-system taht had been deliberately replaced by another, slightly less primitive, and far less menacing to those Infidels outside of Turkey belief-system based on a manufactored history about the "Turk" (who appearently was always in Anatolia) and of course the cult of Ataturk, as an obvious subsitute for the cult of Muhammad.
The major source of conflict in India is that the muslim conquerers fell the big temples that are the equivalent of Vatican in Hindu religion. Two they destroyed completely (Ram Janmbhoomi at Ayodhya, and the Somnath temple). The Somnath was rebuilt by Hindus. There are tensions daily in Ayodhya as Hindus prepare columns for a new temple. Then the muslims built mosques adjoining the other two. The Krishna Janmbhoomi(birthplace) in Mathura, and Kashi Vishwanath in the city of Kashi. They want their mosques in place of temples. THAT tells us they want complete annihilation of any culture they come across.
In their aggression on India, the muslims also destroyed the University of Nalanda. It had vast libraries with books as old as 1500 years. They killed the teachers and the students and set fire to the libraries. Some students managed to escape with some books. Now these books and manuscripts are surfacing all over India. There was even a bill of lading (its equivalent in those times) for goods bound for Egypt. There were several great cultures then. And they shared resources with each other. But then the mos came around...
Yes. Let Turkey join the EU and drag Europe down to the third world status of the Mohammedan nations.
Yojimbo writes: "The omnivorous curiosity of the West, it's capacity for valuing all sorts of things, seem to me to be one of its most attractive features."
It was not always thus, as we know. Free inquiry was rare even in Europe during the Middle Ages, when the Christian Church held sway in most societies. We remember the fate of Galileo, Tyndale, plus there were many others not as well known. And even in more modern times, the conflict between Biblical fundamentalists and the theory of biological evolution by natural selection just refuses to go away.
But in Europe, the Church couldn't stem the rise of science and technology forever for one good reason--science and technology work. They produced real, immediate benefits, like feeding the hungry and central heating to keep from freezing during the winter.
The Muslim world today is culturally stagnant because it doesn't need to promote free inquiry in order to survive, let alone advance--with their fabulous wealth from selling oil to the West, they can outsource whatever they themselves can't do. There is no incentive to change because they think they're doing just fine as it is.
In the end, it all comes back to this. If the West could just stop trading with the Muslim world--stop buying their oil, withdraw our engineers and technicians, and force the Muslim world to live on its own two feet or else starve--either they would have to make the same hard choice that Europe did, and allow free inquiry even if it undercuts the primacy of their religion--or else collapse. Either way, we Westerners will be in much better shape than we are now.
Hugh, the Turkish Army has long been the bastion of secularism in Turkey. It has intervened in the past when things got too Islamic. There is said to be some Islamist blackballing past a certain level within the army, but I wonder how strong that 'firewall' still is? I wonder if the rank and file will continue to follow their more secular generals. At a certain level, the army will reflect Turkish society.
But, should the army intervene at some stage, Bush and Condi may well lodge a protest. One, such a move by the army will be viewed as anti-democratic--a violation of the democratic experiment. Two, better to curry favor within the Arab World by protesting such an anti-Islamic strongarm move.
Despite the protests within Turkey, just how many are protesting? Is their really a groundswell of support? Haven't the Islamist parties continued to improve their showing in each election? The secular represent the rich, the professional class, the aging; the Islamist represent the future of Turkey, the rural, and the teeming poor of the city.
The only hope for Turkey is not an early election or EU selection, but a forcefull crackdown by the army. This will strangle the Islamists and give Turkey a chance. The problem with Kemal was he was mortal.
For Yojimbo and others
A Vote of Thanks Is Expressed By Iranian Jews
Certainly, it goes back quite some way. Francis Bacon wrote essays on a pretty wide range of subjects. I'd say he, and his readers, would have had interest in them. The Elizabethans also made collections of curious and rare objects. (IIRC, there are some objects in the background in Holbein's painting The Amabassadors.) To be sure this was partly about rarity value - we mentioned collections of lepidoptera, and so far as I know, people were not obssessive and accurate cataloguers in the Vladimir Nabokov manner until relatively recently. But curiosity and interest is there for sure - going back a long way. Of course, these attitudes develop over time. What of it? We owe many of the scientific discoveries of the 18th and 19th centuries to English Anglican clergymen - the propensity for following where one's curiosity leads is also linked to the existence of a leisured and highly educated class. William Henry Fox Talbot never had to worry about his subsistence, and he had not just a fine mind, but the cultural and educational conditions in which his interests could thrive. It would seem that there was nothing such a man could not put his hand to. The West should talk more about such people. We've everything to be proud of.
Nariz,
Thank you. It's interesting that the article obssessively makes reference to the Nazis and misses the real historical background that Andrew Bostom gave in the American Thinker, isn't it?
This sloppiness seems all too typical of the MSM. It's quite clear that the badging was historically linked to the concept of the "uncleanliness" of infidels in shi'ite theology. And an ayatollah is quoted by Bostom saying:
The desired attitude of hatred seems possibly to have had the functional purpose of preventing Muslims from adopting infidel habits through intercourse with them. It also, of course, led to periodic "paroxysms of annihilationist fanaticism". All this is relevant to the story, yet we don't hear it.
Not to pay undue attention to the above poster(s), but if (s)he had her/his way about the triumph of Islam, it would ironically spell curtains for her community. Also, when she wonders whether she would be allowed into the US, the key to that is would she be willing to lie on her passport application about whether she considers Qadianis Muslims or not?
Note that she also cheers on the "Light unto Muslim Nations" project in Iraq. The underlying hope being that at some point, the US would similarly intervene in Pakistan on behalf of her Qadiani comrades. But if the US troops there do what she hopes - turn to Islam, that wouldn't improve her lot. On the other hand, if the US partitions that country (a la 1947 India) into Qadiani and non-Qadiani Pakistan (which would be the only way to assure that the likes of her will be safe), that would be amusing to watch. Then, who gets to claim Kashmir, confront India, et al?
While part of this post is a fantasy exercise on my part, I think that just as in Iraq, divisions between Sunni vs Shia, Saudi vs Iran, Kurd vs Arab should be exploited, similarly, in Pakistan, such divisions should be nurtured - Punjab vs rest of Pakistan, Sunni vs Shia vs Sufi vs Qadiani in each province, etc. Pakistan should be balkanized such that each of these sub-groups has its own homeland - that way, there would be up to 16 different countries in place of Pakistan. If this is acheived, the above poster can live in peace, and not harangue us about how we'll one day be reciting the Shehada.
Forgive my ignorance, but could someone take a little time out to explain to me the reasoning behind bringing Turkey into the EU. I may be mistaken, but I always thought that Europe as a cultural and geographical idea were constructed exactly around, and defined by the struggle against the expanding Islamic world, which includes Turkey. Wasn't Anatolia known as Asia Minor? I remember from school history that the lands to the West of the Sea of Marmara/Bosphorus were known in English-speaking diplomacy as 'Turkey in Europe', ie. south-eastern Slav lands occupied by the Muslim Turks. In antiquity the focus of our continent was a common Greco-Latin culture centred on the Mediterranean and then with the split and break-up of the Roman empire the new Christian culture which replaced took a shift northwards taking in the newly converted Celtic, Germanic and Slavic lands. The new Islamic empire took over the south and eastern Mediterranean with the Anatolian peninsula steadily being whittled away for Islam and Asia by the Arabs, the Seljuks and the Ottomans. I've nothing against the Turks, but by my reckoning they just aren't European in the same way a Chinese or an Indian or a Brazilian isn't. I'm all for friendly and co-operative ties with Turkey, but why invite them into the EU - Why not invite Russia or Morocco, or Syria or Mauritania?
Turkey was regarded as part of Europe for most of modern times (its border was on the Danube until, I think, the 1870's). Part of the reason there was a Crimean War was because Turkey was 'the sick man of Europe.'
Islam is a perpetual cycle of poverty (and evil for that matter since I would classify poverty in MOST cases as an evil curse, all other factors being equal). They cycle of Islam follows as this: A Muslim society follows Islam which Islam breeds a society of poverty, then the poverty-stricken Muslim society feels it necessary to go deeper into Islam, and the cycle continues of more poverty and more deeper into Islam. The Taliban is a prime example, the Afghans were poor and miserable when the Taliban took over. The Taliban brought the Afghans deeper into Islam and deeper into poverty and misery. The only things holding many Islamic societies together is one or more of the following: 1) Oil export revenues (Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc.) 2)Foreign Aid (Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan, etc.) 3) Military intervention and Aid (Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.) 4) A significant non-muslim minority that is the backbone of the economy, such as the ethnic Chinese in Malaysia.
Bangladesh is the poorest country in Asia, coincidentally Bangladesh also has the highest percentage of Muslims in all of Asia at about 98%. Indonesia is the 2nd most poorest nation in all of Asia, coincidentally Indonesia also has the 2nd highest percentage of Muslims in all of Asia at about 85%.
Even with all the oil export revenues, Saudi Arabia is plunging into poverty. In 1990 the average annual per capita income of Saudis was USD $21,000 and by the year 2000 it had plummetted to just USD $7,000. That is quite a pathetic statement for a country with the most devout sect of Islam and the world's most known oil reserves. Islam breeds poverty whereever it goes, and poverty is almost always an evil curse.
"If it does not agree with the Koran, we don't want it. If it does, we don't need it. Burn them all!"
The motto of The Classical Islamic Conqueror confronting a library in defeated city.
Which applies to all infidel culture, ultimately.
Our response needs to be the same toward the Koran:
If threatens our freedoms and our world, we don't want it.
Islam must reform...
-or it will destroy itself in a vain attempt to destroy everything unlike itself.
islam breeds poverty wherever it goes.
porkchops38
You are bang on target porkchops. They revel in being poor.
profitsbeard,
I have thought about the reform of islam for a long time. I am afraid islam cannot reform. muslims are RABID. They are parasitical and feed off societies that are free. I, myself think of them as virus. On the edge of the living and the unliving. Even bacteria is 100% life. But islam is virus that causes death and destruction only. What other alternative we have of saving our cultures ?
Arjun,
How ungrateful you are. Islam gave you the mugal empire...and it transformed India. They showed that muslims are capable of intense love too(e.g. the Taj Mahal was built as you will know because of a Muslim King's love for his wife).
They built the Sheesh Mahal (now in PaK) and lots of rich cuisine & culture, the odd bit of destruction was required I'm afraid...but the ungrateful locals didn't eat meat...so somethings had to change.
Lucknow...a town full of Islamic riches...I would love to see the rest of India take that model on.
Islam in India can be this way (in magnificence )again....all you need to do is offer Jizya and allow muslim soldiers (who would put their very lives on the line) to protect you.
You may have to pay for some other "small" institutions ...but with India'a wealth ...that would be tantamount to "beer money".
So...how about it...a small price to pay for such gain..
Hugh used the term "corruption" which is a favorite charge of Muslims who want to overthrow their own govts. For instance, when Nasser took over Egypt, his "Free Officers" group was described in the Western press, such as Time and Life magazines as being opposed to the "corruption" of the previous regime [king farouk]. Time and Life and other Western press outlets described the Free Officers in this way in order to build up sympathy for them. But what the average reader of Time and Life did not understand was that "corruption" has special meanings for Muslims that are lacking in the usual English meaning and connotations of the word. Farouk of course was corrupt by Western standards too. He was fat, little concerned with the welfare of his subjects, living in luxury while gross poverty was rampant in Egypt, constantly chasing young women, living a life of lechery, etc. But the Muslim usage of the notion of "corruption" overlaps yet goes far beyond that and has special Muslim meanings. Whereas an American might see corruption as a public official taking bribes to award a contract or other favor, a Muslim might see corruption as a state official not enforcing the dhimma code stringently enough on the dhimmis. Maybe Hugh can expand on this issue.
Naseem wrote:
"You may have to pay for some other "small" institutions ...but with India'a wealth ...that would be tantamount to "beer money". "
Naseem,
Why should Indians subsidize Muslim invaders.
Besides, what wealth? Googling "per capita income India" gives estimates ranging from about US$500 to $2500. That makes them "wealthy" only in comparison to most Muslim countries. The Indian economy is growing. And the Indians are doing it by work, not through a geological accident.
naseem,
you will find that varma has given a reply to all your comments on mughals and taj mahal in several threads on jihadwatch. You stole the taj mahal from Hindus. You can only make mosques and brick homes of the 650 A.D. architecture.
Naseem, I see you have scurried from the previous thread to this one. I remind you that by your own Quran you are required to defend Islam, something you failed to to on the other thread. I wouldn't want anyone to think you are like a rat deserting a sinking ship. I wonder how great the Indian empire would have become if it had not been touched by the blight of Islam. The Mohammedan soldiers you spoke of, they wouldn't be Janassaries would they? Interesting that Islam was incapable of raising up enough of its own fierce warriors, but that they had to conscript them from Christians whom they had conquered and then force the young men to become Mohammedans at the pain of death. Wasn't there something about "no compulsion of religion" in your unholy Quran in Sura 2:256? But then your cult is all about lies and deceit. After all, Mohammed declared war on the rest of the world when he placed it in the dar al-harb, right? And Mohammed said "War is deceit." And we know who Jesus Christ said is the Father of all lies.....
jay, compared to Pakistan where Naseem is from, that IS great wealth, lol! (GNI - Per Capita: $420)
"Poverty remains a serious concern in Pakistan. With a per capita gross national income (GNI) of $420, poverty rates, which had fallen substantially in the 1980s and early 1990s, started to rise again towards the end of the decade. According to the latest figures (for 1998-99), as measured by Pakistan’s poverty line, 33 percent of the population is poor. More importantly, differences in income per capita across regions have persisted or widened. Poverty varies significantly among rural and urban areas and from province to province, from a low of 16 percent in the northeastern areas to 44 percent in the North West Frontier Province." (Source: World Bank Group Country Brief)
Add to that the fact that most dogs in civilized (Western)nations are fed and treated better than most women in Islmaic nations, you begin to understand some of Naseems discontent......
ALL Mohammedan nations are third world nations with combined GDP's less than that of Spain. So much for the so called Islamic "superiority".
Arjun, those Mosques Naseems is so proud of trace their lneage to Byzantene cathederals which Mohammedans copied when they invaded North Africa and Turkey. The original Mosques were open, like their kaab in Mecca. They never learned that the same mathematics used to design the cathederals was also used in the construction of ship's hulls, so they never followed the West and became great seafarers and explorers. The so called "Arabic" number system was actually a Hindu invention which made higher mathematics possible. Mohammedan traders brought the numbers from India to Greek trained mathematicians who then put them to somewhat limited use. From a historical perspective the achievements of Islamic mathematicians was below that of the Greeks in Geometry and below that of the Hindus in Algebra. Islamic culture is great at stealing other technology, but very poor at creating their own. (As evidence show me any Islamic advancements made in the last 200 years.) Which probably explains why In Saudi and the other oil rich countries of the Arab world they buy machines and technology from the West and then have to hire Westerners to run them.
Bohemond,
Thanks for the info that the mosques derive from Byzantene cathedrals. I knew that the muslims stole the designs from some culture, but I did not know the name of the culture. They make all mosques in this style only. And, Bohemond, I would go so far as to say that there were no achievements by muslims. In mathematics or whatever. All the info is stolen. Else we would have heard about some mathematician or scientist through the 1350 years of this medievil. I could be wrong.
Arjun, I would say you are right, though I am still doing studies. From what I've seen so far, Islam has contributed nothing of value. One of he Caliphs even ordered all books except the Quran burned because if they supported the Quran they were superfluos, and if they contradicted it they were heretical. In mathematics, the Mohammedans invaded lands that had been Helenized by the Greeks when Alexander the Great conquered those lands centuries before Mohammed conceived Islam. (I'm sure you are aware of the fact that Alexander was stopped in his attempt to conquer the world in India.)
The domes of the Byzantine cathederals were supposed to represent a microcosm of the universe, so the churchgoer could get a sense of the awesome God of the universe. Conquering hordes of Mohammedans turned the Christian cathderals in Turkey and North Africa into mosques and, using captured Christian slave labor, built Mosque copies. That is how theygot their domes.
Islam is like mistletoe, a fungus that grows in the tops of trees. It is really a parasite that once lodged in the host tree, sucks the life out of it until the host dies. Because mistletoe is green,it hides well in the boughs and leaves of real trees. It masquerades as a beautiful green plant, but is in reality a deadly menace. Since Islam uses the color green a lot, I think the comparrison seems quite approporiate. Islam is good at taking over countries and cultures and then sucking the life out of them.
Bohemond,
It was not only one caliph that ordered this. Checkout
www.voi.org/books/negaind/ch2.htm
Checkout "Nalanda" at Wikipedia.
Arjun, thanks. Good link. It reminds me of the Nazi's in 1933 when Hitler had his book burnings. Of course the most a Mohammedan can ever hope to be is a slave, so they might be upset if they had to think thoughts other than those they are ordered to think. Best to remove any nasty temptations. Interesting too that the site mentions the "Blitzkrieg of the Muslim armies". Apparently the false prophet Mohammed (Pigs Be Upon Him) had a lot in common with Hitler. What part of india are you in or from? I have friends from Goa.
Bohemond,
I am from Madhya Pradesh. Central India. Very far from Goa. Where are you from ?
Texas, USA!
:-)
Bohemond, Ancient Greek writers in fact gave credit to Egyptians and Phoenicians for preceding them in Mathematics, and to Babylonians for preceding them in astronomy, as I recall. They gave credit to Jews for dream interpretation [before Freud]. Megasthenes gave credit to both Indian Brahmans and to Jews for preceding the Greeks in philosophy. Pythagoras was supposed to have studied in Egypt. Yet I don't know of any ancient Greek author who gave credit to the Arabs for any intellectual development.