Monday, October 3, 2011

Muslims and making Jews disappear

From Matthew Knee at Legal Insurrection:

UNESCO Edits The Jews Out Of History (Again)
Posted by Matthew Knee Saturday, July 23, 2011 at 9:45am
A recent United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) report on Arab contributions to science has declared Moses ben Maimon (also known as Maimonides or Rambam), generally considered the greatest of medieval Jewish philosophers and theologians (and incidentally, among the most prominent physicians of his day) to have been a Muslim named Moussa ben Maimoun.
For those who are skeptical, or who note that Maimonides, who lived under Muslim rule, was also called by that Arabic name, Elder of Ziyon has tracked down the original document in French. I double-checked his translation with a friend from France and with Google Translate, but then also realized that changing the “_fr” to “_en” in the URL would probably get me to the English version of the file, which it did. The English version contains the following passage:
“From AD 1100–1350 – during the first half of the European Middle Ages (AD 1100–1543) – the names of a few European scientists appear in scientific literature alongside a string of Muslim scientists, whose numbers include Ibn-Rushd, Musa Bin Memoun, Tusi and Ibn-Nafis.”
This is not the first time that UNESCO has changed history to replace Jews with Muslims. They have been prolific in Islamicizing sites long considered to have religious and historical importance to the Jewish people. Last year, Rachel’s Tomb, traditionally considered the burial place of the Jewish matriarch Rachel, was declared by UNESCO to be a Muslim historical site called “Mosque of Bilal Ibn-Rabach,” and the Cave of the Patriarchs, where most of the other Jewish patriarchs and matriarchs and a number of important later figures are said to be buried, to be an Islamic holy site called the “Al-Haram Al-Ibrahami” (“The Mosque of Abraham”).
The West has made no effort to prevent this rewriting of history, in part because these holy sites are located in areas currently controlled by the Palestinians, and neither Obama nor the Europeans have any interest in defending Jewish historical claims to those sites. In Judaism, the greatest curse one can utter is Yemach Shemo (“May his name be blotted out”). The worst thing that can happen to a person or a people is to be not only annihilated but forgotten, not only disempowered, but so thoroughly defeated as to have no legacy, no lasting impact on the world. To be as dust to the ages.
Erasing Jewish history and contributions – whether its holy sites or its heroes – is not only an attempt at delegitimizing the Jewish claim to their historical homeland, but an act of great violence, and one that must not continue.
Anti-semitism is alive and well among Western elites. The quislings recognize the rise of Islam, just as they recognized the rise of Nazi paganism, and they are happy and willing to sell out Jews and Christians to advance the Muslim ad campaign. Whole Islamic cultures celebrate the murder of Jewish civilians and shamelessly call for a new Holocaust.

Obviously, the Islamic world today is an intellectual sewer, a stew of anti-Semitic venom and crude Islamic boilerplate. Islamic science and scholarship are rare pickings. Even the little glimmers of Islamic enlightenment have origins outside of Islam.

The references to an 'Islamic Golden Age' omit the fact that much of the scholarship from Muslim lands a thousand years ago derived from the Christian and Jewish dhimmi trapped in the dar-al-Islam. Sociologist/historian Rodney Stark has pointed out that in most civilizations overrun by Islamic armies, it took 250-300 years before even half of the population was actually Muslim.

Crediting much of the science in Muslim-conquered lands in the Middle Ages to Islam is akin to crediting the theory of relativity to German nationalism.

For many centuries after the Muslim conquests, most of the citizens in the Muslim world weren't Muslims. By the 14th century, when most subjects of the dar-al-Islam were Muslims, the "Islamic Golden Age" ended.

The Islamic Golden Age ended... when it became Islamic.

The reasons that Islam is a science-extinguisher are many: Islamic governance is theocratic, and intrinsically suppresses independent secular endeavor. There is traditional Muslim opposition to explication of natural laws because ulma declared such laws 'blasphemous' because they restrict 'Allah's freedom to act'. There is no "Render unto Caesar... Render unto God... "in Islam. There is only 'Render'.

Islamic theology depicts Allah as radically willful, capricious, without intrinsic reason. There is no 'Logos' theology in Islam. Islam means "submission", which is no prescription for science (except maybe for evolutionary biology).

Islam is a crude religion, a warlike political cult, utterly lacking in original scholarship. But imams know how to cultivate dhimmis. Western elites know where the money and the fatwas come from, and are only too happy to sell Jews (and Christians) down the creek to curry favor with the caliphate. 


  1. Dr. Egnor, as you accuse others of racism, you don’t seem to be aware how racist you are yourself.

    Should I conclude you believe there is good racism and bad racism ?

  2. "Islam means "submission", which is no prescription for science (except maybe for evolutionary biology)."

    I lol'd.

  3. Michael,

    Golly ... One line in a UNESCO document published in 2005 earns a lengthy diatribe from you.

    The document isn't particularly complimentary about Islamic science in general. Muslims wouldn't get much pleasure from reading the document.

    As an exercise, I went back and mentally replaced 'Islam' with 'Christianity' in your diatribe, and it makes almost as much sense.

    Christian Europe didn't do much good science until after 1350 CE. Before then, Christianity was the dead hand on progress.

    I have read that Christian Europe only progressed because the Black Death in 1347 killed off so many of the monks and priests, who were the educated in the medieval population, that it encouraged alternate methods of thinking. The traditional methods of treating disease passed down unquestioned for centuries had failed to stop the progress of the Black Death, so people started to look for alternate methods that had empirical success. In effect, the Black Death was the start of the scientific method.

    It's a bit rich claiming that since Western European science has been successful for 600+ years, that it's due to Christianity. Countries rise and fall. Western Europe had a lot of independent countries, with access to the North Atlantic and therefore to the rest of the world, with extensive forests to construct large oceangoing fleets. As a result there was a strong incentive to explore, trade and colonize. If one country didn't do it, then others would.

    There's also no reason for assuming that western science will maintain its primacy. You have to work at it to maintain your dominance.

    I find it ironic that Michael Egnor, with his anti science bias, is so ready to scoff at Islamic science, warranted though it might be. And ID isn't science.

  4. @Mike,
    Excellent post once again. This kind of Revisionism is rampant, particularly when concerning the Jews. It seems the secular west has written them off. Cowardice is what it comes down too. I do think the money is a part, but fear is the real motivator. The carrots are puny compared to the cane...

    "Dr. Egnor, as you accuse others of racism, you don’t seem to be aware how racist you are yourself. "
    Who has Dr Egnor accused of Racism? Nazis? Communists? They generally are!
    Besides, Iko - Islam is not a race!
    It is a religion, or more precisely a replacement ideology. This is not a an issue based on race. There are as many races in Islam as there are in Christianity.
    Dr Egnor is what the left describes as a 'cultural elitist'. So am I. In our own lexicon this is known as 'exceptionalism'.
    We believe our cultures are exceptional, and better than the other slaving, theocratic or communist regimes.

    Whatever wrote:
    "Islam means "submission", which is no prescription for science (except maybe for evolutionary biology)."
    Islam does mean 'submission' and Islam is a creationist creed, Oh defender of the Faith.(not!)
    If you think they buy into your determinism and abiogenesis.... well anyway, they are do not and will not. If they should ever wrestle the influence of Christianity away, you will accept their creed. You will be a Muslim. No two ways.
    I have seen it in action. Mr Secular will find himself in the Mosque at LEAST twice a day. Getting stoned just wont be the same for people like him...a lot bumpier.
    He will not DARE speak against Islam as he did against the Jews and Christians. Islam bites back, you see.
    You see yourself there, Anon/Whatever?
    Maybe then you can switch from defending infanticide to clitorechtomies?

  5. @Bach
    "Christian Europe didn't do much good science until after 1350 CE [SIC]. Before then, Christianity was the dead hand on progress. "
    Nonsense. Utter revisionist nonsense.
    You missed the entire Middle Ages and late Roman/Byzantine period. Reads like Victorian fiction. You're scientism is showing, Bach.
    You would no doubt concede the Medieval Christians (people in general) were warlike and exported that art into the Muslim world... successfully.
    But what of that? How could they do so? SCIENCE. Metallurgy. Blast furnaces. Steel.
    Refined weapon-smiths. Brilliant tactical developments and fortifications. By WHO? Christians in the EARLY middle ages.
    Atzecs? Muslims? Sure they did a bit too, but NOTHING like Christendom. Why? FREEDOM.
    According to you Christendom was a 'dead hand'. Nobody managed any good science.
    Nobody built or invented new agricultural techniques like deep/heavy wheeled ploughs. No new breeding techniques were developed. No new trade routes (like the silk routes) were explored.
    Nobody developed grinding mills, especially ones that worked on tidal or wind force. No one developed new methods to keep time, like our glasses and the first primitive clocks... and while you sip it - nobody developed liquor. But don't go and look it up, because your reading glasses are also a medieval European invention too.
    Sorry, Bach. There is no comparison.
    Fuedal China and Japan made some big leaps, but the Islamic world could NOT be compared to Christendom in terms of NEW or original advancement.
    What I will give select Muslim conquerors is that they preserved and translated much of the Greek works they looted from Monasteries and learning centres in the Byzantine world. Much like the Conquistadors in the Americas, we ironically owe them a debt for keeping (some of) the ancient traditions from the pyre. Their physicians were also renown for being open to trying new techniques. Arabic scholars of the period were meticulous...but just as biased as their Christian counterparts.
    I will also give them this: The Muslims have contributed MORE to humanity in the form of culture and law in 1400 years than Atheism has in 3500.
    I say that as a staunch opponent of that submissive creed.
    The argument of comparison you put forward is baseless; without foundation.
    But to the point: Why? Why ignore/defend the erasure of Jewish scholarship from the record by pretending NOBODY did anything important for a thousand years?

  6. "ID isn't science."
    If pattern recognition and purpose is not an aspect of science, it is only logical to assume that pattern blindness and randomness is not either.
    DETERMINISM, MATERIALISM, 'NATURALISM', ATHEISM is are NOT science either, then....
    Goose and gander, old Bean.

  7. crusadeRex –

    Jews also aren’t a race, even if we employ the word ‘racist’ for those who stand against them. They are a very diverse group of people that follow a particular religion.

    They could be blond blue eyed from Ukraine just as dark skinned from Morocco, which maybe came from one place a hell of a long time ago, just maybe, because, No, I don’t believe, and neither do my Jewish friends, including Rabbi’s, that each and every Jew can trace their lineage back to Israel.

    .. but still, yes, Islam isn’t a race. I should have said Arabs. I feel it doesn’t change much from Dr. Egnor’s point of view,.. am I wrong ?

    And also, in my book, ‘exceptionalism’ is the intellectual synonym of racism.

  8. Iko,
    "in my book, ‘exceptionalism’ is the intellectual synonym of racism."
    You need a new book.
    In my world racism is a universal tick. A human eccentricity that all cultures and groups must deal with.
    Bigotry is the real issue. But that is another matter/subject.
    I also have Jewish friends. Many, actually.
    In fact I just spent a few weeks with one who lives just south of the Lebanese border. One of my oldest friends (and brother in arms) he is a self described 'Bad Jew.' Meaning he is rather secular, but not without faith or tradition.
    He stood as Godfather for my oldest son. I have attended several Seders at his home(s), and he and his children have come for Christmas and Thanksgiving at my own.
    We both, Tzvi and I, have Muslim friends and colleagues. We are both believers in exceptionalism. Neither of us are racial bigots. His daughter in law is an Ethiopian Jew, for example. He DOTES on her. (It helps that she is drop dead GORGEOUS... but, you get my point, I am sure.)
    I should also note most Muslims are NOT Arabs.
    Most Muslims come from the Asian continent and there is no short supply of Eurasian and African Muslims. MOST Muslims are the descendants of conquered peoples, not the conquerors or even their proxies. Indonesia is the most populous Muslim nation on Earth - not an Arab land.
    The Arabs may hold cultural hegemony over Islam, and are known to be the founders of the 'Sunnah', while Persia and Persians are largely credited for the modern face of Shiah...but that was 1400 years ago. Much has been assimilated since then. Even modern secular states have been assimilated in to the Dar-Al-Islam. More to come, I am sure.
    But, I digress...
    My point is this: Islam no more equates to Arabs than Christianity equates to ethnic Jewish tribes or Greek / Roman converts or Christ's apostles.
    So, in short, NO: I don't think Dr Egnor is referring to Arabs, even in the medieval context.
    I think he is referring to Islam as a whole. Islam as an ideology; Not individuals or races of Muslims. It is in this context the doctor's comments make sense.
    I know I am not referring to Arabs. I served in two theatres against the Jihad, and I have seen people from ALL over the world in my sights. They speak German, English (with accents), Slavic, Urdu, Malay... you name it. The one group I never did see in SWA was African/black.
    It was explained to me by our 'terp' that that is because they are considered 'animals' by the Pashtun and Paki/Haqqani tribesmen. He directed me to the Hadith, where there is a saying about blacks being fit only for slaves, and this was the basis for the racism.
    Needless to say, this was not a big hit with the single black NCO I had under my command. He was met with racist slurs at every turn. 'Dog', 'Mongol pig', 'monkey', 'raisin face' all sorts...
    I am sure the equal opportunity desk at Al Queda must be overflowing with Human Rights complaints over this travesty. I can see it now: "They made me go to that back of the bus before I could detonate my suicide belt." They have no such racial qualms in Africa.
    There that particular Hadith is ignored.
    So, to sum it up, I would suggest you have mistaken Dr Egnor's position for that of the EXCUSES made by European fascists - also an inducement of SP policy in the EU.
    Those fascist groups use the excesses of Islam to justify their own excesses. These groups DO have racist agendas. Islam is seen as 'racial threat' to them. But WE are not THEM.
    That fascistic solution is not what is being suggested here. In fact, I know (from previous convos) that Dr Egnor agrees with me that the Fascist response to Islamification is an evil one. It is a second wrong, and does not make it all right.
    What is being suggested is history is being rewritten in favour of Islamic revisionism at UNESCO.
    I agree and further suggest this is a sign of the impotence of the modern Academe in the face of Islamic pressure.

  9. @iko:

    The racism card is desperation. Islam isn't a race. It's a religion, a creed and a culture. Muslims, like all men, are generally kind and decent people.

    My critique is of Islamic culture, which is toxic. It is a huge threat to Christian civilization.

  10. crus:

    [The Muslims have contributed MORE to humanity in the form of culture and law in 1400 years than Atheism has in 3500.]

    So true. I'd rather live under the Caliphate than under the Politburo.

  11. @crusadeREX, mregnor

    Seriously, how did you escape from your padded cell?

  12. Iko,
    I had written a LONG and personal response to your comment, and it seems it has disappeared.
    Perhaps nailed by the spam filter. >.<

    I will be more brief this time, in hopes it does not censor me :P

    First, you state: "Jews also aren’t a race, even if we employ the word ‘racist’ for those who stand against them. They are a very diverse group of people that follow a particular religion. "
    Racism? A social tick we all (cultures) suffer from.
    BIGOTRY is the real issue.
    The term 'Anti-Semitic' is used for the people who stand against them. They are a 'people', much more than a single race.
    I also have many Jewish friends, Iko.
    One of my oldest friends, brother in arms, and Godfather to my son is a Jew. He now lives in Israel, near the Lebanese border.
    Our family have attended Seder with them, and they Christmas with us...and BOTH of have attended the Eid banquet of our mutual Muslim friends.
    We both believe in the exceptional nature of Western civilization. We both wish to see it preserved and were willing to make great sacrifice to do so.
    Neither of us are racial bigots. One of my favourite NCO's under my command is a black man of impeccable standards and unquestionable courage. His daughter in law (who he dotes over) is an Ethiopian Jew.
    We are not 'racists'.
    Nor is Dr Egnor.

    " in my book, ‘exceptionalism’ is the intellectual synonym of racism."
    You need a new book.
    We see our civilization as the 'best yet'.
    We simply give credit where it is due.
    This is not about cranial capacity, muscle structure, or skin tone. RACE, hereditary, genetics, geography, determinism etc all have NOTHING to do with what is being suggested.
    This is about IDEAS.
    Hence the error.
    I am afraid you have mistaken our ideas for those of European Fascists.
    I understand they use similar language and make use of Islamic excesses to justify their own. I understand they DO have racial agendas. I know some of the make pretensions about religion, science, and culture.
    But, you must understand WE are not THEY.
    Neither I nor Dr Egnor relish the idea of a fascist revival in the EU. We have discussed this matter on this very blog.
    For my own part, I see two wrongs (Islamification and Fascist back-lash) and NO right.
    I see BOTH ideologies as a result of the impotent secular vacuum that is modern Europe.

    So in short, yes you're wrong, Iko.

    Neither myself or the Doctor are pushing a racial agenda.
    Quite the contrary.
    I am suggesting open and tolerant societies produce good science and philosophy and that the historic record backs this view.
    The Doctor's post, as I read it, is suggesting that the UN is facilitating Islamist revisionism; and that facilitation is due to the fear and greed of anti-Semitic capitulators within the Academe and UN.
    I think he is right, but I tend to put more emphasis on the fear and less on the greed.
    Still...two VERY powerful / potent motivators.
    Make sense?

  13. "Seriously, how did you escape from your padded cell?"
    We faked conversion.
    We stood before the grand citizen magistrate (The High Chair of Piltdown) and howled "Darwinu Akbar! Darwinu Akbar! Darwinu Akbar!"
    I even kissed the bearded statue of the great one and sang the hymn of the blessed archaeopteryx and the prayer of protoplasm. We were soon released.
    Luckily with my military training we were able to tunnel safely out of Utopia and back freedom.
    The Doctors medical contacts were able to nurse us back to health.
    We of course repented our false conversions and were absolved by our respective religious authorities.
    It is quite a tale.
    How did you manage to type that comment so deep inside Plato's Cave? A methane flame perhaps?

  14. Puppy-kickin' atheistOctober 3, 2011 at 2:50 PM

    >We stood before the grand citizen magistrate (The High Chair of Piltdown) and howled "Darwinu Akbar! Darwinu Akbar! Darwinu Akbar!"

    Apparently you're still there.

  15. @whatever
    No one could ever accuse you of having a sense of humour.

  16. Ever since Cain killed Abel we are all of the race of Cain! Sorry for this sad comment but just read what has be said regarding this post and tell me where there is a shade of love.

  17. CrusadeRex,

    A recent book 'God's Philosophers' by James Hannam, published in 2009, attempts to make the same point that you do; that medieval science in Europe wasn't as backward as is usually made out to be.

    I wasn't impressed when I read it last year. I'm not impressed by it rereading it again. Before 1350 Christian Europe produced very little that was original. The compass came from the East, as did gunpowder and paper. The Roman empire had metallurgy. The Romans were trading with China. The Silk Road was run by the Turks. What science and mathematics they got from the Ancient Greeks they got indirectly through the Arabs when they reconquered Spain and gained possession of the Arab libraries there.

    Europeans produced the plough, the stirrup, the mechanical clock and spectacles. Useful inventions perhaps but hardly great science.

    And I wasn't actually defending Islamic science. Why don't you go back and reread what I wrote? Better still, why don't you read the 18 page UNESCO document published in 2005 written by a single author, who was also the PM of Jordan? In it, the author laments the deplorable state of Islamic science, and makes suggestions as to how the situation can be improved. There was less than one line referring to a Jewish philosopher erroneously as Muslim that earned Michael's rabid rant.

    Pattern recognition and purpose aren't aspects of science. So why is it logical to assert that the opposites also aren't? But anyway, you're wrong. Pattern recognition is useful because it allows hypotheses to be be made, and once you have a hypothesis, then you can make predictions about unknown cases, and if your predictions come true, then your confidence that your hypothesis is true is strengthened.

    ID proponents attempt to ape this hypothesis-prediction testing to claim ID is science. For example, appendix A in Stephen Meyer's 'Signature in the Cell', with its 12 predictions, all of which are nonsensical, mostly untestable. One actually makes 2 contradictory predictions (design is perfect, if it isn't then it's due to the Fall).

    Purpose, as 'God's Philosophers' points out, is a medieval concept. The lion's purpose is to kill antelopes, so God provides it with claws and teeth. The evolutionary biological explanation is much better. You need to read a bit wider.

    Atheism isn't science. Atheism is just the assertion that there's no evidence for the supernatural. All science is done with the assumption that the supernatural won't intervene in the middle of experiments and the supernatural won't cause inventions to function, or not, contrary to expectations. Airplanes are designed to stay up in the air because of scientific principles, not as a result of miracles.

    All science, all history is 'atheistic' because miracles are assumed never to occur. The Battle of Poittiers was won because French Christians decided to fight effectively, not because a mythical God decided to intervene on their side. The Miracle of Mons was a newspaper invention, for propaganda reasons.

  18. Pepe (sorry for the lack of accents),

    Ever since the mythical Cain killed the mythical Abel we are all members of the mythical race of Cain? ...

    You aren't meschugge, are you? ...

  19. @bach...
    Pepe (sorry for the lack of accents),

    Ever heard of cut and paste?

  20. Bach,
    My first dissertation on the Subject was on the role of Military Orders in Outremer.
    The history of the middle ages was the focus of my first degree, and a lifelong passion of mine, my father, and my grandfathers. I have books on my shelf dating back to the 19th century on the subject. Those oldest books echo your position.
    I did not base my outlook on the middle ages or early European history on a single book or series of works. Nor is it based on my religious considerations.
    As a Physician did you base your entire view on medicine on a single work by a popular author? I certainly hope not.
    But to the substance of your comment:
    Sorry, I don't buy your quaint Victorian view of progress.
    Much like the concepts Orientalism and noble savages, the 'Dark Ages' just don't jive with the archaeological reality and the record. Further modern advancements are founded on those of the past. Our present position is indicative of MUCH more progress, openness, and trade.
    Let's face it. The same men who gave us the dreaded Dark ages and who wrote hagiographies of Muhammed and Genghis Khan are the men who DENIED the existence of Troy, making the same inferences about the minds of the Bronze Age peoples.
    They were wrong about the Greeks (terribly so) and they are wrong about the Middle Ages.
    In fact, many people outside the discipline are STILL trying to portray the Great Greek minds as simplistic and superstitious.
    Witness the pathetic arguments against Aristotle on this page.
    Decades of archaeological and forensic work. Centuries of research....all indicate HIGH civilization during these periods so often called the 'Dark Ages'. Anyone who has stood under the grand arch of Chatres (or any other remaining period cathedral) can FEEL that civilization.
    No degree or letters required. Just a heart and a sense of culture.
    But it is all about using the right tools.

  21. CNTD from above

    To understand the mind of the Medieval, one must leave their own little comfort zone. This requires a very good imagination, or to ACTUALLY leave it.
    If you could imagine the WORST camping trip you have ever been on, without ANY luxuries you are used to - with a good case of sunburn or poison oak you can do NOTHING about - then you will start to appreciate the day to day struggle of our ancestors.
    That is the first step.
    The second is to learn to understand the sources.
    The language, style, and expressions of the period.
    Tricky little concepts like irony and sarcasm can be lost without proper understanding of terms, ideas, and common metaphor.
    Then you need real sources.
    There are lots of excellent modern works on the period. Some are very popular interpretations. But the real deal is always preferred.
    An example?
    When studying the Norse settlements (Approx AD800-1000) in Iceland, Greenland, and Newfoundland it is necessary to read the sagas, but also to locate and study and other period records. Luckily in this specific area we have a few good examples of records of property and 'court cases' heard by the 'Thorness' or high court of Iceland. This a boon, and allows us insight into the DAILY affairs of the men involved in these expeditions.
    The light such records shine (with proper understanding, as noted above) clearly indicates the 'Dark Ages' were a whole lot more than just dark. They were an age of incredible contrasts. Highs and lows. This is literally visible in the period's art and audible in their sags, ballads, songs, and poems.
    Another necessity is to GO there.
    To see what the land looks like today and compare that to the record. See the shift, and how the folks there have adapted. What you folks with the Darwin obsession would call 'transitory stages'.
    In this specific case you can clearly see a shift from a colonial agrarian society to a more resource based and eventually industrial one as the culture, trade networks, and climate change.
    Medieval thinking ALLOWED for that shift in that very rapid time frame.
    Specifically CHRISTIAN medieval thinking in this case.The brittle nonsense you write about would and could NOT. Much of the Islamic world is a good comparison in contrast.
    Further, medieval philosophy is not all about form and function, although that aspect IS miles ahead of your much abused and banal interp ('shit happens') of an over simplistic theory of physical evolution. It is also based in Greek thinking and is by far still the most popular method of looking at the Universe.
    So, by your estimation WE ( AD2011 ,שנה5772, AH 1432 , Year of the Golden Rabbit, 152CE/AC) are no better.
    We humans still see form, purpose and reason despite over 200 years of scientific pretensions made by positivism.
    You seriously under-estimate your ancestors and contemporaries.
    Your faith, it seems, is ALL in the future and the works of future men and women.
    I prefer the HERE and NOW and MY faith lies elsewhere...outside of time.

  22. and on to the snide conclusion:
    "The Battle of Poittiers was won because French Christians decided to fight effectively, not because a mythical God decided to intervene on their side. The Miracle of Mons was a newspaper invention, for propaganda reasons."

    They were Frankish knights, actually. This is the late Carolingian period. It was a regional and religious effort akin to the reconquest, not a nationalist struggle with religious undertones. Also you'd be hard pressed (punny) to find a newspaper in 8th century Europe. No newspaper tricks in those days. I also wonder HOW these 'French Christians' got so good at war, and HOW they got such good equipment that they could defeat an enemy with near 20:1 odds? Maybe because they had some sort of ideological advantage? NAH!

    But wtf, I'll take your word for it, Bach.
    You're a soldier and know all about battlefield miracles, lights at night, strangeness in a dead zone etc. You have seen all that first hand. Also you were there at Tours.
    AND it is a given would know ALL about medieval Europe being Australian and so close.
    Just remember to call me when you need a script for flu.

  23. crusadeRex,

    You are a specialist on the Middle ages, but I am one on Roman civilisation, as were both my parents and grandparents too. After the fall of Western Rome in the 5th century, European culture not only grounded to a halt, it retreated drastically. Most of Rome’s great achievements were done without Christianity, and some even argue it fell because of it.

    Charlemagne was illiterate, as were most noblemen. Vast amounts of knowledge were lost. The Arab culture was reaching its zenith. You speak of standing beneath Chartres. Have you ever been to Granada ?

  24. If God is real, why does he allow /b/ to exist?

    Yeah, thought so.

  25. "You are a specialist on the Middle ages, but I am one on Roman civilisation, as were both my parents and grandparents too."
    My father was curator at the Roman Museum in Chester when I was a boy. My first holiday I can remember properly was to poke around ruins near Hadrian's wall on some jaunt of my Dad's. I enjoy classical period history too. My son LOVES the Roman period.

    "After the fall of Western Rome in the 5th century, European culture not only grounded to a halt, it retreated drastically. "
    No. It transforming into something new. A new ideological world had been born. New freedoms and new lines of inquiry open, old ones close and abandoned.
    New enemies and new partners.
    The world changed when the Western Empire fractured. It changed again when the Eastern Empire was DEVOURED by Islam.

    "Most of Rome’s great achievements were done without Christianity,"
    That is a subjective statement.
    What constitutes 'great'? I think the GREATEST thing Rome ever did was issue the Edict of Milan. That was a (THE) Christian Emperor in the 4th Century. Also, the achievements of Rome were generally in the form of imports and conquest.

    "... and some even argue it fell because of it."
    A Christian Rome fell to Christian Goths. That would be like blaming Pagan Mayapan's fall to Pagan Mexica (Aztec) on Paganism. It is a silly argument.

    "The Arab culture was reaching its zenith."
    'Zenith'? As in Apex?
    Why was it's ZENITH in Europe and not Arabia, then? Who or what was rubbing off on them? 'Zenith'? Then it must now logically be in decline? Please explain what you mean by Zenith, Iko. Culture? Military power? Religious fervour? Not sure whether I agree. Depends on what you mean.

    "Charlemagne was illiterate, as were most noblemen."
    The Franks still won out, regardless of Old Chuck's literacy or illiteracy. He could sure read maps and men's strategy.
    Roland STILL blew his horn and the song is still sung. WE read about Charlemagne. That is what is important.

    "Vast amounts of knowledge were lost. "
    True...and grand new discoveries made, while ancient wisdom was recovered and made popular.

    "You speak of standing beneath Chartres. Have you ever been to Granada ?"
    Yes. I love medieval period stuff, especially sites that echo of even earlier periods like the Alhambra. I like Spain, and can speak passable I like it a lot :P
    In fact we plan to go to Spain when our new son is old enough, and the Alhambra will DEFINITELY be on our list, as will Toledo.
    I have been blessed with seeing some of the most beautiful sites in Europe and the Middle East.
    By far the most impressive stuff is of the Gothic variety.
    The mystery and wonder imbued into the very cut of those vast structures can only truly be compared to the works of the ancients and pyramid builders.

    Iko, I would not argue Rome and the classical civilizations are not important or their emperor worship or paganism was/were a 'dead hand' on progress. Such an argument would be ludicrous. The same applies to any such statement with Regards to Christendom.
    Over 1000 years of history cannot be so easily dismissed.
    I sincerely think you should take another wander through that period with a more sceptical approach to the Orientalism the literature is steeped with. It would be very rewarding to a specialist in Classical period.

  26. CrusadeRex,

    I wasn't actually talking about the so called 'Dark Ages'. I was talking about the medieval period. The Battle of Poittiers was thrown in in reference to science and history being atheistic in assumption. Miracles and the supernatural aren't a part of either history or science. The 'miracle of Mons' obviously was well and truly modern.


    Cut and paste doesn't work on an iPad, and your comments are never worth turning on a laptop.