Even the Christians revered Saladin for his chivalry. Considering that the Saracens were defending their homes against a foreign, barbarian invader (comparing the two civilizations, the Christians were certainly the barbarians) I also admire their efforts.
I think you are right to say that a strict reading of the Koran is necessary for the reader to find scriptural support of killing infidels (and thanks for the clarification on usage). Islam is a religion of peace, according to most Islamic thinkers, anyway. Many of the excerpts you give do not seem to point to the killing or even the dislike of infidels. Only a particularly callous reading of some of the excerpts would lead someone to draw such a conclusion, especially as these lines are found along side calls for peace, love and charity. I think social context is vitally important; Muhammad, as you know, was providing a new mythos for a brutal society. The language, in order to capture the attention of hearers, must reflect this brutality. It seems to me that much of the violent language is a way to convert tribal struggles into struggles on behalf of God, which for Islam certainly includes proselytism.
Additionally the Muslims of the time did not see it in the crude nationalist terms of todays muslims, this idea they had a 'right' to control the region, as they had taken it by force not so long ago.
a very large proportion of the populace under Islamic rule were christian and it was not a case of Muslims being attacked by an outsider, but different groups vying for control of a diverse region.
Amusingly the Muslims of the time did not revere Saladin for his chivalry, feeling he was too weak a leader.
The Christians were not foriegn or barbarian, as you, the history major, should know.
You honestly suggest that the Western Christian Crusaders were somehow not foreign invaders in the Holy Land?
As for the issue of barbarism, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the term. History is filled with examples of civilizations falling at the hands of more warlike barbarians.
Further, the Byzantines were most certainly not the most advanced civilization of the time. You may be thinking of the Chinese or the Muslims. By the time of the Crusades, Byzantium had already begun her long slide into collapse. Oh, and trying to reduce the cultural achievements of the Muslim world of the time as mostly inherited opens up a nasty door - we could say that the civilization of the west was inherited from the Romans, and that the Romans inherited theirs from the Greeks and so forth.
Muslim learning in every field was far more advanced than the western Christians. Muslims had even eclipsed the Byzantines in most areas by the time of the First Crusade. The Muslims would continue to be more advanced than the Christians until the Renaissance. And we can thank the Muslims, in part, for the Renaissance given that much of the western learning upon which the Renaissance relied came from Muslim scholars.
There wasn't such a large Christian population in the Holy Land until after Jerusalem was sacked during the first crusade, the Muslim (and Jewish) population forcibly converted / killed / driven out, and the establishment of a crusader state leading to immigration from Europe. It's grossly misleading to portray that region as THAT diverse before the first crusade, and it's similarly misleading to say that people had been vying for it. The only groups that had been vying for control of the Holy Land before the first crusade were different Muslim groups.
The one contested place that DID have a large Christian (and pagan) population was Asia Minor, but that shrank as the Seljuks encroached and the Byzantines collapsed.
Not in the sense that you spoke of, no.
Certainly, but most of these civilisations add somthing significant on top of it. There was development in scince and medicine, but in few other areas.
What are you reffering to here? There was the rediscovery of Classical knowlage if that is what you are refering to?
As to the Byzantines, they remained as one of the most advanced civilisations in europe even during their decline in a similar fashion to their western counterpart.
And in what sense was that? The Crusaders came primarily from Western Europe to the Holy Land, a place where they did not live. They were foreign invaders, in the same way the European colonial powers were foreign invaders in Africa and Asia. Foreign, as in from another place.
And philosophy, art, literature, law, mathematics. Add these five to science and medicine and you've basically covered all the bases.
I was referring to many different things - that Muslim learning was more advanced than western Christian learning in every respect until the Renaissance, that the Muslim world was beginning to surpass Byzantium in 1095 and would continue to make the gap wider and wider until Constantinople fell in the 1400's, and that the Renaissance relied on not only the rediscovery of classical texts, a rediscovery made possible by Muslim scholars, but that Muslim scholars also made immense contributions to learning which made the Renaissance possible.
You have to remember, the Islamic world did more than preserve the classic texts lost to the west. Islamic scholars also made giant leaps in studying these classic texts which had immense influence on the study of classic texts in the west. Further, the Islamic scholars did more than just comment on classic texts, they also wrote their own, made scientific advancements, and so forth, all of which contributed to the Renaissance of Europe.
Why do you think the Renaissance began in Italy? Simple: the Italian traders made immense fortunes trading with the wealthier Islamic states, and by trading with these wealthier states also encountered Islamic learning and art which they brought back to Italy.
The colonial aspect. Attempts to link it with later colonialism are all purely artistic, as nobody at the time viewed it in those terms.
As for law what about Scandavia? I am not trying to claim that Muslims did not have a wonderful and advanced culture, but that it is not strictly speaking an Islamic one, as much of what we consider Islamic culture is so reminicent of Persian and Roman decadence as to be utterly at odds with Islam's ascetic tenets.
hence "sound, pitch;" L. tendere "to stretch," tenuis "thin, rare, fine;" O.C.S. tento "cord;" O.E. thynne "thin"). Connection notion between "stretch" and "hold" is "to cause to maintain." The modern sense is probably because tenet was used in M.L. to introduce a statement of doctrine.
Italys socio-political make up was the reason for its being the launchpad for the renaissance.
As to the art being imported, what basis is there for that? What posssible link can you draw between Islamic and renaissance art? I would like examples
As to the preserved knowlage, that is undoubtably true, but it is perhaps telling that Europe took it further than its previous keepers.
Many truly horrifying conflicts have broken out that have been termed as religous, such as the 30 years war, the crusades, many a jihad, and of course simply day to day violance and tension between those of differing faiths.
But are they all religously motivated or is that just superficial? Are some religions more prone to it than others? Can they ever be justifed? What do they mean for the modern world?
I would again to see what people think about this.
