[Fatema-the-resplendent]

Br Sunniskeptic

It is likely we will agree on something by the laws of probability!! lol
The subject of God is a broader spectrum, than self seeking Molvies.

Br Merazul

You've raised some very interesting points, but a thought entered my head whilst reading it, are we Muslims afraid or insecure of methods employed by the likes of Hitchens to reach a conclusion? Instead of saying that over secularised youngsters reject religious dogma based on this thinking, isn't it better to start equipping them with Islamic understanding which will stand the test of such questioning. When I watch Islamic channels I see zero attraction because singing and swaying is not going to answer old age questions of humans to do with purpose and existence. Why is it that people like Hitchens can say anything? they are free in their thoughts, everything that they say is their own mind speaking. We are bound from the minute we speak with Hadith and Quran, it isn't the fault of the Quran but our lack of understanding of it.

[sunniskeptic]

FTR,

You have inadvertently perhaps hit the nail on the head: religion--any religion--by its nature puts limits on a person's ability to think freely and act freely and this is also true of Islam, perhaps more so since it
is still followed relatively purely compared to other religions. Of course if you have Faith (imaan) you will accept these limits on thought -- or learn to justify them to yourself--or accept them for fear of Hell--but to deny
religion limits human thinking is a non-sequitur. There, I've said it.

There is a direct link between religiosity of a society and its material progress or lack thereof.
Why is it that since the Enlightenment and the gradual removal of Religion from public life that the West has rapidly progressed materially and technologcally far beyond any
comparison with any society in human history?

This question is an awkward one which I have never seen any maulana sahib or pir sahib adequately address except for the cliched, 'if only we were better practising Muslims this wouldn't have happened'.
But every generation has been saying that for a millenium.

[Qadri-Jilani]

Hitchens is not actually taken seriously by any of the great thinkers on religion, or philosophers of religion. He got pasted in a debate with William Lane Craig, and he actually admitted to being beaten by him too.

He had wit, yes, and this appealed to many lay people but not the intellectuals.

He was not so clever when it came to politics either and this is where he has been called a hypocrite. While claiming to be a man of morals and love for his fellow brothers in humanity he aligned himself strongly with George Bush and supported the Iraq war. This, a person who was a leftist-Trotskyist-socialist who left the Labour party over their support for the Vietnam war! That's probably sufficient to debunk his idea that he achieved morality without religion.

Check this:

American poet and critic Katha Pollitt in reply to a letter written by Christopher Hitchens in The Nation: "You've placed yourself quite forthrightly on the side of Bush, Cheney, Perle and Wolfowitz, whose plans to remake the entire Arab world long predate 9/11, and who seem completely unembarrassed by their own shifting rationales for invading Iraq. (Not even they, however, claim it has anything to do with opposing religious fanaticism. That is your own delusion.)
"These are your new friends, an Administration that supports with mad vigour everything you excoriated in Clinton – capital punishment, the drug war, punitive welfare reform, privatising the public realm, letting corporations run wild – while pandering to the Christian right, blasting the environment, withdrawing from international agreements from Kyoto to Cairo and remodelling the federal judiciary to resemble a meeting of the John Birch Society. I think I'll stay right here."

...and Noam Chomsky said this:

Linguist and philosopher Noam Chomsky in a series of exchanges with Christopher Hitchens over the September 11 attacks and the bombing of the Sudan: "Since Hitchens evidently does not take what he is writing seriously, there is no reason for anyone else to do so. The fair and sensible reaction is to treat all of this as some aberration, and to await the return of the author to the important work that he has often done in the past."

[Qadri-Jilani]

...regarding his views about religion, on which him and his brother had strong disagreement, see this:

"His brother Peter Hitchens: "Christopher describes how at the age of nine he concluded that his teacher’s claim that the world must be designed was wrong. "I simply knew, almost as if I had privileged access to a higher authority, that my teacher had managed to get everything wrong."
"At the time of this revelation, he knew nothing of the vast, unending argument between those who maintain that the shape of the world is evidence of design, and those who say the same world is evidence of random, undirected natural selection.
"It’s my view that he still doesn’t know all that much about this interesting dispute. Yet at the age of nine, he "simply knew" who had won one of the oldest debates in the history of mankind."

The debate with Tony Blair was rubbish. As if Tony Blair can in anyway be a representative of religion with his decadent moral standard (both Blair and Hitchens were advocates of the Iraq war). He only had one simplistic argument in this discussion and had no intellectual insight into the debates about theism and atheism.

[badman]

Salams,

We are very insecured people! The biggest tool we have to equip ourselves with (which we might be failing at) is to understanding who our Prophet S.A.W were , what He stood for, what His Message was, the true understanding and teachings of Islam - (Islam means peace - can we be at peace with our inner selves when we curse another to hellfire?) hellfire a place where you would not wish it on your worst enemy! (sorry to go on a bit) do we really realise what kind of a place 'hell' is? people have few problems in this life and we are quick to liken it to hell - that mindset is wrong - hell is not on earth but the next world (Unfortunately)

Living in the west we come across all kinds of people. on a personal level im always/mostly surrounded by people who profess no faith (I have very few muslim friends where i live, the majority of my interaction with muslims is on here - YaNabi.com, AlHamdulilah) dont know whether its a good thing or bad - I think its good because there is a reason why am surrounded by non-muslims (which only ALLAH Knows)
I have neighbours who have no faith but Al-Hamdulilah we get on really well (we like family) Have friends who question their existence 'why are they here'? we get on fine (try to talk reasoning with them, sometimes they understand sometimes they dont) reasoning with people is never easy, they have a mindset - which has been pre-programmed from a very young age by their parents or have had not a good experience with the religion they were born into.

Listen to Hitchens interview with Paxman He talks fairly highly of his parents he says his parents had a lot of influence on his thinking (His even surpassed his parents he says or something along those lines) The household we are born in to, our parents - they play a very vital role into what we can become. Parenting is very important. want to challenge (dont know if challenge is the right word, debate, 'Munazara'???) people like Hitchens? we cannot because they have already been pre-programmed with a mindset that 'might' not see another way the probabilty of another road, what we can change is our next generation (Lineage) in to giving them a mind that can see different opinions and guidance of Islamic Knowledge, speach and Manners above all, understanding 'The Prophet S.A.W - Who He was! Being Born in to a Muslim House is a very Big favour from ALLAH - He could have made us born in to a family which be practicing a different kind of faith - no faith, and there is nothing we could have done/do! The resposibilty is on us on what we can change because we have been given God's Most Merciful Prophet as guidance something that has not been given to even the intellects!

SunniSkeptic - av come to me Mum's last night she lives in Sunny Blackburn (right now, I can hear the radio downstairs its a naat played on the tune of bollywood song 'mere mehboob qayamat hogi' LolZ ) this is what we have come to!!!

We need to work with people outside of our boundaries if we are to progress. I was talking to an md of a pharmaceutical company some time ago, there was a a very big medical seminar going on in liverpool. got talking with this gentleman (never knew him from adam) he was from the U.S, we were talking about technology in general. He told me his firm was in partnership with some big korean company (pentax i think - cant exactly remember) who specialise in camera's. Along with them they were devoloping an orally taken tablet that would have a very small camera in it, instead of putting a camera down inthru peoples mouth to check inside patients lungs,stomache etc etc (dont know the technical term but you get the picture) a patient would take this tablet orally (tablet with a micro camera in it) the doctors would then be able to see the inside of the patient and after a few hours the tablet would get dissloved inside the stomache and come out naturally when the kidneys get flushed! its strange that a faith that made greek mythology into something that can one day be practiced, gave the world so much medical breakthrough today the same faith is going on about the breakthrough our predessors made nearly thousand or so years ago!

We're stuck in a timewarp where 1960's bollywood song made in to a naat gets praises of Subhan'ALLAH Subhan'ALLAH.

ALLAH Hu Akbar!!! what to say???? lost for words (even tho am not good with words)

[Tahir-Riaz]

Qadri-Jilani, on 18 December 2011 - 02:39 PM, said:

[font="Book Antiqua"][color="#000000"][size="3"]
He had wit, yes, and this appealed to many lay people but not the intellectuals.

That's a rather bold statement to make. As usual you can only offer remarks about his credibility or personal attributes. Post a link to the debate you claim he lost. I would love to see it.

[badman]

Salams,

@ Q.J - Yes, it would be better if you provided the links.

[Fekay]

Just Richard dawkins left now; I find him more funny then anything else...

[Qadri-Jilani]

You will not find Hitchens in any academic text that discusses the philosophy of religion. He is not cited as a critic against any of the arguments for the proof of God's existence. There are others but not him. He is very witty yes, but he struggles to deal with the core of the question and uses strategies of distraction to please the crowd, such as "free yourself from the dictatorship of a god" etc., - he's a bit of an Abid Jalali in one sense (not a direct comparison obviously, and sure he is a lot more eloquent than Jalali).

The same is for Dawkins, who has not even got the bottle to debate people like William Lane Craig (credit to Hitchens in this regard as he did not shy away).

In any case their arguments have not been considered on a serious academic level, this is the information you will get from academics who study and teach science and religion, the philosophy of religion and so on, and these are non-religious academics who are not out there to defend religion.

You can find the debate against Craig on youtube

[Qadri-Jilani]

[Malaaikah]

Fatema-the-resplendent, on 17 December 2011 - 05:28 PM, said:

...he obvioulsy wasnt that intelligent as he didnt believe in God'(Malaaikah)

Do only intelligent people believe in God? Are Atheists unintelligent people?

It is actually quite hard to PROVE the existence of God through rational argument, we believe in a God because we were lucky enough to be born into Muslim families and we feel God. You have those for whom discovering God is entirely their responsibility. I'm quite firm in my belief of God but I wouldn't know how to answer Christopher Hitchens or the likes of him because our emotional rhetoric is just not factual enough for a thinking mind.

I think intelligence is not a prerequisite for believing in God because look at the Molvies and Muslims around us, do they seem intelligent to you?

Its not upon us to judge who is intelligent and who is not so I wont delve into that right now, although I will explain my statement. I didn’t mean that all believers are intelligent neither did i mean that all non believers are unintelligent, i was merely refuting the argument against users who take his work as examples and apply it to their day to day lives. What I mean by this is that the best role model for us is RasoolAllah s.a.w and whatever situation we are in we can take guidance from the Seerah of RasoolAllah s.a.w. We just don’t need the likes of Hitchens to “shape” our thoughts, if anything it takes us away from Allah, we may not know it but on the inside thats what its doing. Everything that comes from him is from the devil and everything that has shaped him is devilish. We have to remember this is the enemy of Allah and if we choose to call the enemies of Allah talented or intelligent then God help us. Just remember Allah will be the Punisher on the day of judgement.

It is sad to see Muslims using atheists as examples or as people who inspire us, when we should be looking at RasoolALlah s.a.w or even the pious predecessors but no we would rather use non believers.

What is the world coming to.

[Qadri-Jilani]

Why Won't Richard Dawkins Debate William Lane Craig?

[Fatema-the-resplendent]

This is becoming an interesting debate.

@Malaaikah

I am just saying that Intelligence is not a prerequisite in recognising the existence of God. Hitchens was intelligent, remarkably so.

I think if we are unable to learn from non-Muslims because we think it is morally wrong then this needs to change. The man was bright, and had the ability to deconstruct a religious argument with ease. Yes he was wrong in his opinions and research because we believe in God. I don't think I was saying to look at him for moral inspiration, but rather to learn from his approach to rejection of God. I think he has created a big black hole of unanswered questions for the 'believers'. It is better to try to construct answers to his questions and admit that Muslim ulema are yet unready to debate the real academics.

@QJ

No one can deny that his popularity means that he has perforated the 'market' of religious debates, we are not concerned with his political views because we are more concerned with questions of God. I am going to watch the debate you've posted, I haven't seen it yet.

[sunniskeptic]

QJ,

Hitchens was not an academic specialising in the philosophy of religion therefore why would he be discussed in academic journals of that nature?
However he was an acknowledged intellectual polymath and his writings, for example, God is Not Great are very much worth reading and pose
questions which are --at least as far as I know--not adequately answered.He tends to critique religion on the basis of his Liberalism and the rules
of religion and the kind of society religions tend to produce in practise not on theology. He himself admitted that he was open to changing his mind
about religion and the existence of a God if someone provided him with strong enough evidence.

I have seen the Craig debate and I don't think he lost. They both were arguing from different points of view. Craig basically rehashed the philosophical First Cause
argument and explicitly said he was not debating the morality of the Bible etc. whereas Hitchens attacked the morality--or lack of found in the Old Testament etc.
Even though I am a Muslim I felt Hitchens got the better of it as his arguments made more sense. Kant dismissed the First Cause argument in his Critique of Pure Reason as
did, amongst others, Iqbal in his Revivication of the Sciences of Religion (or something.)

The only person I have seen who gave good convincing answers to Hitchens was Tariq Ramadan.
Peter Hitchens and his brother famously didn't get along for most of their lives. The quotes from Chomsky are just rhetoric and relevant to Hitch's latter politics when he supported
the Iraq War.

Hitch on the Guardian:
http://blogs.guardia...e/Blasphemy.mp3

[Tahir-Riaz]

Merazul, on 18 December 2011 - 09:32 AM, said:

I have to disagree with you there brother.

Atheists like Christopher Hitchens may have provided some fun and games for a small number of intellectuals and elites, but for the rest of us average folks, we simply see people insulting our Creator, ridiculing our pious predecessors, and in doing so, increasing the arsenal at the disposal of the atheists.

One does not require their views to be objected to strengthen and reconcile them.

If that is the case then why does the Holy Quraan address similar objections?

[Qadri-Jilani]

Craig employs the kalam cosmological argument that was articulated by Muslim philosophers/theologians such al-Kindi and later by Muslim scholars (and non-Muslim). Swinburne uses this very well too. The point I was making was that Hitchens is not cited (like others including Kant etc.,) as a proper critique to any of the arguments for God's existence. He has his random objections I know. He's certainly not a polymath, although he's widely read with good knowledge of history; being smart does not make you a polymath.

If you watch the debate Hitchens concedes quite a few points (or at least says they made him think) and usually answers with funny rhetoric that does not deal with the core of the question (typical of most atheists actually). He is on record stating that he did not win that debate, I'll have to find where I read it. A critical point is reached when he is asked if he has any conclusive proofs that God does not exist, to which he replies no. Craig contends then that in that case he might be an agnostic and not an atheist (most atheists are actually agnostics but are afraid to admit it).

His political views are very much relevant because it shows his stench hypocrisy when he talks about morality. The Iraq war was a "crusade" for Bush remember, perhaps not for Hitchens.

[Know-the-Ledge]

sunniskeptic, on 18 December 2011 - 01:22 PM, said:

FTR,

You have inadvertently perhaps hit the nail on the head: religion--any religion--by its nature puts limits on a person's ability to think freely and act freely and this is also true of Islam, perhaps more so since it
is still followed relatively purely compared to other religions. Of course if you have Faith (imaan) you will accept these limits on thought -- or learn to justify them to yourself--or accept them for fear of Hell--but to deny
religion limits human thinking is a non-sequitur. There, I've said it.

Salaam, I would have likely glossed over this comment simply for the fact I shouldn't be taking time out to bog down like this; but I can't cogitate the way you have essentially labelled a whole historical heritage as intellectually weak and tenuous in their academia.; the way you've signed off this highlighted part is insulting; you know why? Because the only person who seems to have their mind colonised and weakend is you yourself, you and FTR show one major thing, you seem to know more about European and western history and academia than about Islamic civilisation; the goal of the secualrist muslim, has become to be like the white eurpoean man and learn about their technoloigcal and material advancements so you can become like them. What do you know about the torrent of black African scholars that existed in the history of the islamic civilisation? There were thousands, with vast works; have you read any of it? Do you know anything about it?

You go to their institutes and you read their books and argue from a completely colonised perspective, yet have you studieded deeply the other side of the coin?

The general argument you and Ftr propound is that 'Islam' puts limits on free thinking and most of your rhetoric is based on what you have anecdotally seen on TV channels and in your own little worlds about Irfan Shah sb and his ilk; as well as the idiotic acolytes of pirs so on and so forth; it's just a completely distorted perspective of the actual erudition of islamic schoastic history.


SS said :- puts limits on a person's ability to think freely and act freely and this is also true of Islam,

What does freedom mean? The arabs used to have an idea of 'freedom' that it is when a slave becomes enslaved to a master, he becomes free from absolutely everything else! Meaning he only answers to his master, absolutely every other person or thing has no right over him. Yet in the modern western world, 'freedom' is encapsulated in the motif of 'thou shall do what thous wills'. The former is a tangible reality, the latter is just an illusion. The human condition is bound to slavery by the accident of his congenital nature; if not God, then whims, if not whims then society wagera wagera The salient point though, is whatever the human is enslaved to, he becomes emancipated from absolutely everything else and the shackles of armistice can't restrict him.

Because free-thinking is the enslavement to your capricious whims and ignorances, the consequences of free-thinking are then formed by your personal capacity; if the apparatus of your framework is corrupted, you become enslaved to a state complete disruption, under an illusion of your right to 'free think'; it's amusing that you both claim the right to free-think but then at the same time can have the audacity to have indignation over any other person in the world, you see Hitler in his free-thinking mind believed what he was doing was right.

You are trying to sell us a notion of free-thinkers being an intellectual force of innovative and productive human beings as a template, yet the reality is Jeremy Kyle. The underlying fact is, society needs an underlying foundation of parameters; this is what muslims believe that The Qur'an and sunnah appropriate us with, this merely results in a framework of limits over not our thinking, but guidance on our actions and in the way we conduct our human lives and predicate societies.

As muslims we have had our intellectual senses colonised; in federal research for the American government, they determined that there were two forms of resistance to intellectual oppression from the oppressed.

- Secondary resistance
- Primary resistance.

Secondary resistance is when the oppressed inculcate the frameworks and methdologys of the oppressor to try and defeat the oppressor. That's where I believe you are, you are imbibing their methodolgys and ending up in a twist, because they knows these frameworks better than you ever can and they can easily manage you; .The same research has also clearly stated that this is a minor threat. as you evidently display with, you seem to be an advert for secualrist thinking.

Primary resistence

This is when the oppressed take on a methodology which is alien to the oppressor and try to tackle the oppressor using this framework which is beyond their scope; the research has tallied that this is a very problematic form of resistence and needs to be annulled using severe force and do you know what methodolgy was listed as being the most problematic? Islam!! Even they know better than us how incredible the power of islam is.

Because wherever Qur'an has travelled to it has turned savagery into civilisation, the jahliya of the arabs was vanquished and the domino affect is too much to list, we're all familiar with it.


Lastly, you second unhighlighted point, is too much for me to respond to right now, though I will say, what you cherish as this great paragon, is simply glittering on the surface, in reality it is rotten to the core! It is the fire dressed as hell and there are intellectual exchanges that can be had about this, it's not just simply a matter of "if only we were better muslims".

This post has been promoted to an article

This post has been edited by Know-The-Ledge: 19 December 2011 - 03:14 PM

[Fatema-the-resplendent]

Br KTL

There are a barrage of charges, which ofcourse are not all true.

I have never said that past Scholars and academics in Islamic theology and philosophers are mundane, unlettered or intellectually weak. I have not made such a remark because to do so would be to challenge the foundations of the Islam I am convinced by. The arguments within Islam like the oneness of God, his infinite existence, The creation of the universe and the end of us on this world have competely convinced me. The Quran speaks of the magnificent God and manages to encompass and unravel all secrets of the Earth through endoresement of complete authority of the one God.

I am not judging Islamic redundancy of thought through the likes of Irfan Shah Saab, because for me he represents the fall from grace. He is what an Islamic Scholar should not be, he is inducing laughter and represents the decline of knowledge in Islam to do with real questions of God. He is perhaps a good Islamic historian, but his knoweldge of history is borrowed and regurgitates chewed words from writers whom he may not even fully understand. The logic pattern, and the rational of the arguments used by Mullahs of today is childish, and unrefined. They requires education in sciences which will help them unravel and reassemble the important parts of Islamic theology.

Christopher Hitchens and the Wiliiam lane Craig both represent a different thought and a dominant thought in the World in the academic circles. All I am saying is that 'living' Scholars of today need to answer those questions and construct arguments in the same powerful way they are doing. It has nothing to do with European, Secular white mentality but rather an emerging force of dialogue on Religion. Religion is mostly seen by academics today to be superstition, and fairy tales because no real answer has been formulated by us the 'believers'. I am not interested in a dead man talking to argue and debate these people but an intellectually able person who is eloquent, who is well versed in Philosopy amongst other Sciences to be able to turn their own arguments over on their heads; and most definitely alive.

Finally I agree with a lot of what you say, I am not arguing the case for free thought, as you understand it. Free thought is an advantage for the Atheist because he is not bound by actions or consequences but it is impossible for us. I have previously commented on the critical thought and illumination of thought as a way to accept or reject an idea. There is a real need, an emergency for this to be developed in the minds of learned islamic scholars or teachers of today. A seriously superior method of thought which is rampant today, rationality and logical deduction is the only weapon required to beat these arguments.

Surely this is not a point of contention but a point of unity for those who worry about Islam.

[Know-the-Ledge]

My post was wholly aimed at SS though I mentioned you only in a traceable way. My was specific reply was to the two quotes from SS.

I like you're elaboration though, it's mostly common ground and I agree that there are many issues in our own house that we need to fix which I've not touched up strongly, i'll revisit this thread properly when I get my chance on our communal laptop next time, whenever that will be. After reading your clarification, I see completely that this is a point of concern not schism, with you anyway, but I'm not so sure about SS.

I think there's so much for everyone to think about in here.

This post has been edited by Know-The-Ledge: 19 December 2011 - 04:02 PM

[sunniskeptic]

Broither KTL,

I am l a believing and practising Muslim; if I didn't believe in it or was not convinced why would I stay? But I have to say that it is not because of the rational or intellectual thoroughness of Islam but because it has produced in its civilisation saints ;like
Ghawth al Azam and Hallaj and Ghazali. i.e. for the spirituality.

I did not single Islam out--the same is true for all religions. It is not a case of 'trying to be like white Europeans' as you condescendingly put it; rather it is a serious attempt to analyse why, despite having a civilisation which at its time for a few centuries (during the time of the Ummayads in Spain and Baghdad circa Harun al Rashid and his sons) was undoubtedly the intellectual melting pot and centre of the world, we did not go on to produce a technological and societal revolution which the Europeans DID do which went on to produce the Enlightenment and then the Industrial Revolution as well as the ideas of modern democracy which we all benefit from. The irony
is that the works of Muslim polymaths like Ibn Rushd were instrumental in an indirect way of leading to the free-thought which led to the Enlightenment., As they say, the proof is in the pudding and we have to be honest and admit that for hundreds and hundreds of years Muslims have
intellectually been stagnant. What have we produced in terms of technology for centuries that has benefited mankind? I've been racking my mind and cannot think of a single thing. Yes, Ibn Sina invented the thermometer and the process of distillation and wrote the encyclopedia of medicine (The Canon) which was amazing FOR ITS TIME and
ibn Khaldun is the founder of sociology and Omar Khayyam did good work on calendars and in algebra and some of our philosophers of that time dabbled in other sciences especially medicine and maths but the supreme irony is that most of these great 'Muslim scientists' which we like to roll out to prove how great we were were either
condemned as heretics and kafirs and persecuted, chased out of the lands and in some cases killed. Ibn Sina who is arguably the greatest mind Islamic civilisation has produced --certainly in terms of science and philosophy and medicine--was condemned as a kafir by Imam Ghazali and the rest of orthodoxy has since shunned him if truth be told and also shunned his attempts to reconcile rationalism with Islam. He basically tried to show that the revealed truths were not incompatible with human intellectual striving. The result? Fatwas of kufr! Ibn Rushd was chased out of Cordoba and his books burnt many times. Abu Bakr Razi was called a straight kafir. Khayyam was condemned for his free thinking and for his being a philosopher after Ibn Sina's mind. Ditto al Farabi. The sad truth is that when these people were alive the orthodox mullahs and hence the public at large which has always been largely illiterate has followed them and condemned these people too. Mullah Sadra, a brilliant theoretical Peripatetic philosopher is considered a kafir because he was a Shia.
So there you have it? Since about the 12th century we have stagnated. Since then the great works have been commentaries and super-commentaries on the works of the predecessors--no longer much original thought going on. The original thinkers were condemned, not kosher! This led to the solidification of taqlid as a central aspect of our civilisation and mullahs were produced who made it a sin to to go against what Hazrat XYZ had saId. Boundaries were set up. Empiricism --which briefly flourished for a century or two--was slowly killed by this. You could not longer produce work or research which went agains what authority XYZ had said even if it was obvious. When the printing press was invented in Europe--one of the seminal moments in human intellectual history--and the Ottoman Sultan of that time--and intelligent and open minded leader--was dissuaded from allowing its use in the Ottoman lands because the mullahs said it was haram as it would lead to disrespect of the Koran and copyists would be left out of jobs!!

Don't get me wrong the Europeans at that time were as bad if not worse --held captive by the Catholic Church--but they gradually freed their minds whereas, for some reason, we never managed it. The result is for all to see.
You seem to think I have not read Islamic history--brother it is precisely because I have begun to read our history for myself from all sources -- both Muslim and non Muslim--and stopped relying on the preachings of the maulvis and pirs --whose reading tends to be limited to the medieval texts in the Dars Nizami and other syllabi--that
I have begun to learn all these things. Yes, Timbuktu and other places in Africa had great Islamic civilisations but they also only produced imitative works and nothing original. The only original works of great literature were those to do with poetry and Sufism. In mystical poetry the Islamic civilisation is --and remains--unsurpassed.
The rest of the great works were all works of a religious nature. Nothing to help in this world. The result is there for all to see.

Even if we ignore technology, what sociological advances did we make? The Arabs studied Greek philosophy during the Abbasid/Umayyad period and surely would have been aware of the idea of democracy as invented by the Athenians - Democritus. Yet we did not carry it further or apply it because our history has largely been
one absolute ruler getting overthrown by another . Absolute monarchy--or Caliphate--its only semantics--does not generally produce societies where people are free to engage and discover and invent because of the fear and the instability; Islamic empires have largely been feudal with the wealth at the top. Our history is sadly a very bloody
one full of internal fighting for power and money. Yes, the advantage of an absolutist system is if you get a great leader who is genuinely an embodiment of the Prophetic qualities such as Umar II then you get a system that works well but soon as he is killed or dies the next despot comes along.

It pains me to write these hard truths but wee need to know the reality and not the whitewashed version of our history painted by maulanas who have been taught it by rote in the madrassahs. I pray that the Islamic world is the leader again in the dunya. But I cannot see it happening. By stifling thought with threats of excommunication
and fatwas you do limit a person's ability to research and hence expand the boundaries of human knowledge and discovery. Until we become innovators and leaders in pure research we will be destined to be the world's whipping boys. I'm trying to wake our people up. The truth is bitter medicine.
I love my Muslim brothers and sisters and it pains me to see them killed and treated like this. But we have got only ourselves to blame. We cling on to this myth of 'pidaram Sultan bood' and the other myth of an Ummah. In modern nation states the idea of an Ummah doesn't really exist in practise nor did it for much beyond the first
few Caliphs. Salahuddin spent more time fighting his relatives for control of Egypt and killing Shias then he did in fighting the Crusaders. Allah bless him for saving Jerusalem but the truth needs be told otherwise we wont ever learn. If the Ummah was so strong a reality then --in our heyday--why didn't the Ottomans or the Khanates of Central Asia and Eastern
Europe come to the aid of the beleaguered Andalusian Muslims in the 15th century? They were praying and begging the 'Great Turk' to come and rescue them. Timur e Lang -- the great Tamerlane thought it was a good idea to fight and destroy the great Bayazid Sultan at a time when Bayazid was making serious
in-roads into Western Europe! Babur killed Ibrahim Lodhi to win power in Delhi. The lives for Abdul Average or Aisha Average was always hard--fuedal systems are like that. We often hear that Hazrat Umar started the first welfare state but why didn't his successors maintain it?
Why does Spain translate more books in a YEAR than have been translated in the enitrety of Ialamic history by all Muslim countries?

Yes, we were great once but we are stuck in the past and the reason for our succss then was the people were briefy allowed to think what they wanted and study without fear of fatwas etc. Then we lost it. The irony is those great Muslims are not considered role models for us to emulate by our pirs and maulanas
but as heretix.

wa salam