DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
True Left
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Ancient World
*****************************************************
#Post#: 24586--------------------------------------------------
Re: Islamic Golden Age - Philosophy and Humanities
By: rp Date: December 26, 2023, 12:21 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I agree. The "Golden Age" (by which we mean the study of and
development upon Greek writings) alone cannot be attributed to
Turanian blood. It is merely the consequence of an advanced
literate society (Persia) gaining access to knowledge that they
previously did not have. I would even go so far as to say it is
not bad in and of itself. The specific types of developments
that are made (i.e. Aristotelian) are what matters.
#Post#: 24741--------------------------------------------------
Re: Islamic Golden Age - Philosophy and Humanities
By: rp Date: January 8, 2024, 2:51 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=90sRetroFan link=topic=417.msg24149#msg24149
date=1701069385]
But are you saying that they had these views because of contact
with Western ideas.? If so, you should at least include the part
of the enemy article which mentions Aristotle:
[quote]Ibn Khaldun also wrote: “Therefore, the Negro nations
are, as a rule, submissive to slavery, because Negroes have
little that is human and have attributes that are quite similar
to those of dumb animals.” Khaldun could have been quoting
Aristotle, who wrote that “[B]it is clear that there are certain
people who are free and certain who are slaves by nature,[/B]
and it is both to their advantage, and just, for them to be
slaves.” Aristotle also likened slaves to animals, calling the
ox the poor man’s slave.[/quote]
[/quote]
But wait, as Aryanists, don't we agree with the part in bold?
The only difference is that we would say this necessitates those
individuals to be prohibited from reproducing, unlike Aristotle
who would justify their enslavement and hence not seek to
prevent their reproduction (sustainable evil).
#Post#: 24745--------------------------------------------------
Re: Islamic Golden Age - Philosophy and Humanities
By: 90sRetroFan Date: January 8, 2024, 5:21 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hence:
[quote]Aristotle, who wrote that “it is clear that there are
certain people who are free and certain who are slaves by
nature, and it is both to their advantage, and just, for them to
be slaves.”[/quote]
To be more precise, however, we would add a category of people
who are naturally inclined to enslave others. Aristotle himself
would belong in this category. Our position is that this
category must be prohibited from reproducing first.
#Post#: 25274--------------------------------------------------
Re: Islamic Golden Age - Philosophy and Humanities
By: antihellenistic Date: March 1, 2024, 4:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Root of Iran's Racial Discrimination during the Ancient Time
The answer is obvious :
Rotten culture of Eurocentrism
[quote]Among the sources surveyed here, Nizami is unique in
crediting Alexander the Great with "inventing" slavery by
branding the Ethiopians as slaves. The episode in Sharafnamah
details the war between Alexander (here a follower of the
monotheistic Faith of Abraham) and heathen blacks composed of
Ethiopians, Nubians, and the Zanj. Having defeated the black
host, Alexander brands the Ethiopians as slaves and massacres
the rest.51
One episode near the conclusion of Darahnamah especially
reflects the Iranian feeling of superiority over blacks.
"Alexander in the Country of Egypt and the Land of Maghrib"
contains a battle against the uncivilized (vahshi) Zanj, who are
mystified by the bows and arrows Alexander's men use. Having
suffered some casualties, the Zanj retreat. "We saw a short
stick with an iron point," they complain to their king, "which
they would suddenly throw at us and it would, without leave,
enter our bodies and at once kill us." The king examines one of
the arrows and failing to throw it more than a few yards
concludes that the invaders work the arrows through sorcery (II,
565). The king is taken captive and brought before Alexander:
Alexander looked and saw a man large-limbed and black, wearing
red breeches, iron bracelets, a golden torque around his neck,
and ankle-rings like a camel's .... (II, 566)
"He resembles anything but a king," Alexander says
contemptuously, concluding that the man is destitute--why else
would he go about naked? Learning that the king is very rich,
Alexander demands a huge war tribute. The black king removes his
ankle-rings and places them before Alexander, as guarantee that
he will return with the booty. "That is some guarantee!"
Alexander laughs. "Unless I wear these ankle-rings no one will
call me king or will obey me," the king explains (II, 567-68).
The king is further ridiculed when he reappears later and jumps
up and down before Alexander "as children jump." Not recognizing
him, Alexander takes him for a mad man or a clown, until he is
told "that man is the king, and he has never honored anyone to
the degree that he has been honoring you" (II, 568).
...
While histories and travels report that the Zanj eat each other,
most literary sources picture them eating white people.
Cannibalism is not mentioned in Firdawsi's Habash episode (c.
1010). About 200 years after Firdawsi, however, cannibalism
becomes a prominent vice in Nizami's blacks in Sharafnamah
(1191). Here an army of Nubians, Ethiopians, and the Zanj attack
the Egyptians, who ask Alexander to come to their rescue. The
Zanj chief, who kills Alexander's messenger and drinks his blood
(p. 102), rules an army of "man eaters and man tormentors,"
"vipers who injure mankind." "The Zanj are not human, but verily
the devil [ahriman]" (p. 105). Heathens as well as cannibals,
the blacks suffer defeat at the hand of Alexander, "The Defender
of the Faith" (p. 96). Alexander massacres the black host,
except for the Ethiopians, whom he brands as slaves (pp.
131-32).
Battle against the infidel cannibal Zanj is prominent also in
Darabnamah, in the protagonists' adventures in the Sea of Oman
and its coastal areas (I, 63-145; II, 253-73), in Zangbar and
its nearby islands (II, 400-44), and in Egypt and the Land of
Maghreb, i.e., Morocco (II, 554-69). As in Nizami, the
protagonists are believers (Alexander is a Muslim here), enjoy
God's protection, and achieve victory through divine
intervention (e.g., I, 113; II, 270). When the Zanj devour some
2,000 of Alexander's men, he continues to press his men on, "for
we are in the right and they in the wrong" (II, 256). When
victory is won, God, not man, is credited with the achievement
(II., 259). The Zanj, who refuse to accept Islam, are put to the
sword (II, 271ff.). In another episode, the Zanj pretend to
accept Islam and are massacred when this falsehood is
discovered. Alexander views their dead bodies and offers many
thanks to God (II, 412).
In Iskandarnamah, the war against the Zanj begins when Alexander
goes to the rescue of a devout pious people who owe an annual
tribute of 1,000 men to the cannibal Zanj, who eat the men. A
Muslim in this romance also, Alexander fights the Zanj, bearing
an amulet containing the names of God. The war against the
formidable Zanj is long and hard (321-44, 420-96, 512-50,
566-68, 588-89, 668-71, 684-93, 697-700, 739-40). God gives
Alexander encouragement and even tactical advice through dreams
and through an angel. "[The Zanj] are all enemies of God, and
mankind is tortured by them. Killing them is considered penance
for sins," the angel tells Alexander (p. 337. See also p. 512).
It is God's will that the world be rid of them and their
progeny.
In addition to being accused of eating whites, in the literary
sources blacks are also charged with kidnapping whites. In
Iskandarnamah, black men abduct white princesse or maidens (pp.
340-44 and 415-17) either for themselves, or for their king's
harem. [/quote]
Source :
Minoo Southgate. (1984). The Negative Images of Blacks in Some
Medieval Iranian Writings. Iranian Studies, 17(1), 3–36.
HTML http://www.jstor.org/stable/4310424
#Post#: 27492--------------------------------------------------
Re: Islamic Golden Age - Philosophy and Humanities
By: antihellenistic Date: August 21, 2024, 9:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Western Progressivism in the Islamic Caliphate was not made by
Muslims, but by ancient Jewish and Christian intellectuals who
lived in the Muslim World. Therefore, the Golden Age was not
part of Islamic element
[quote]The “Islamic scholars” who translated “ancient Greece’s
natural philosophy” were a curious group of Muslims, since all
or almost all of the translators from Greek to Arabic were
Christians or Jews, as were the translators from Arabic to
Latin. Consider the astonishing statement of Bernard Lewis in
The Muslim Discovery of Europe:
We know of no Muslim scholar or man of letters before the
eighteenth century who sought to learn a western language, still
less of any attempt to produce grammars, dictionaries, or other
language tools. Translations are few and far between. Those that
are known are works chosen for practical purposes [philosophy
being considered a practical discipline] and the translations
are made by converts [who knew western languages before
conversion] or non-Muslims.
According to Franz Rosenthal in The Classical Heritage in Islam,
“Almost all of the translators [from Greek into Syriac or Hebrew
or from Greek, Syriac, or Hebrew into Arabic] were Christians.”
One possible exception is Masarjawaih, who may have been a Jew.
Another is Thabit b. Qurrah (ca. 834-901 A.D.), a “heathen”
Sabian from Harran.
Similarly, “Aristoteles latinus” by Bernard Dod, a chapter of
The Cambridge History of Later Medieval Philosophy, provides a
comprehensive list of medieval translations of Aristotle from
Arabic into Latin, none by Islamic scholars—unless by “Islamic”
one means “Christian or Jewish.”
...
Were not Avicenna and Averroes great? Great they were, and
philosophers too, but not exactly Islamic ones.
Islamic philosophy is a misnomer; at least, what we in the West
think of as Islamic philosophy is. It is not Islamic in the
sense of being rooted in Islam or even in the weaker sense of
being melded to it. It is based rather on those vaunted
translations from Greek and has a higher allegiance to
Neoplatonism than to Islam. It considered philosophy the highest
expression of truth, available only to the wisest, and Islam a
lower expression suitable for the masses. It believed that the
Koran is temporal, not eternal, and that God knows only
universals, not particulars. In short, it was in opposition to
what we and most Muslims think of as Islam.
In A History of Islamic Societies (Cambridge University Press,
2002), Ira M. Lapidus, Professor Emeritus at Berkeley, a mild
and genial apologist for Islam, admits that
[Islamic] philosophers did not truly reconcile Greek thought to
Islam; rather, they tried to rationalize their acceptance of
Greek philosophy in terms of Islam. Their metaphysical and
religious mentality was based on Greek opinions rather than
Quranic tradition. Philosophy, they thought, was a higher
vision, superior to the revealed but inferior version of truth
known as Islam.
They were “remote from the mainstream of Islamic religious and
cultural trends.”
...
To elevate Islam, Maziak even caricatures medieval Christianity.
in Science of medieval Christianity: Avicenna
“introduced medieval Europe to the principles of logic and their
use to gain knowledge and understanding of the universe”;
and Averroes
“reintroduced to medieval Europe the Aristotelian approach to
studying nature by observation and reasoning.”
The caption of a picture of Avicenna in the article in Science
says that he helped bring about the Renaissance by
“advocating the use of reason and logic as the way to gain
knowledge.”
If this means that Avicenna believed that reason and logic were
the way to gain knowledge, he was not a Muslim. If he believed
that they were a way to knowledge, with whom was he
arguing?[/quote]
Source :
Posted on August 1, 2005 Hyping Islam’s Role in the History Of
Science by Jonathan David Carson, American Thinker, July 29
HTML https://www.amren.com/news/2005/08/hyping_islams_r/
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page