Earlier this month I wrote a post detailing seven admirable things about Islam. Though the actual idea was my colleague Mike Parker’s idea, I thought it necessary for several reasons:
1. True Latter-day Saints know that there is good in every religion.
2. I wanted to show that LDS opinion on Islam was knowledgable and even-handed. Most Latter-day Saints I know are not willing to accept the worst of Islam just because some loudmouth says so.
I would suggest reading Brother Spencer Palmer’s book, Mormons and Muslims, for a more thorough scholarly treatment.
3. Many people that I know, both LDS and non-LDS, seem to conflate Islam with its virulent cousin, what David Horowitz calls “Islamo-Fascism.” I felt that I had to properly define Islam before I could define Islamo-Fascism in contra-distinction. The two are different.
4. Perhaps most important, I am aware of attempts by people like Jon Krakauer and Timothy Egan to define the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints by its worst elements–especially those who were cut off from the mainline Church long ago. The Church shouldn’t be defined by apostates who were excommunicated long ago; Christianity as a whole shouldn’t be defined by the behaviour of medieval knights a millennium ago; and certainly, Islam shouldn’t be defined by those who violently pervert it.
There are several differences between the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormons) and its apostate cast-offs, such as the FLDS:
1. Though both accept the principle of polygamy, the Mormons–according to its law-abiding principles (See D&C 98:5-6 and AF 1:12)–discontinued the practice after the US Supreme Court declared its outlawing constitutional. The FLDS–to this day–lives in defiance of the relevant laws.
2. Even during their polygamy period, the Mormons limited the practise to those who could otherwise legally be married. The age of consent was lower during the 19th century, but as it rose, the so did the age of plural wives. Whether it is the first wife or the 25th, marrying underage women means excommunication. On the other hand, it is reported that the FLDS still forces 14-year-old women into marrying.
3. Related to #2, among the Mormons, polygamy was entirely voluntary. Not only must the intended husband and wife consent, so must every other wife. The FLDS, to the contrary, leaves no choice regarding who marries whom.
4. The Mormons did NOT require the practise. There is a story about Elder Reed Smoot, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, who was facing expulsion by the US Senate because of the Church’s polygamy. Like the woman taken in adultery [John 8:3-11], Senator Smoot was dragged to the GOP Senate leader. Spotting a few adulterers in the midst, the leader bellowed, “I would rather have seated beside me in this chamber a polygamist who doesn’t polyg than a monogamist who doesn’t monog.” The FLDS tend to shun men who refuse to partake.
I will leave distinguishing extremists from normative Christians to the Apologetics Index, which declares, “The Westboro Baptist Church, of Topeka, Kansas, is a hate group masquerading as a Christian church.” Over the past two and a half centuries, the USA has been working on the art of marginalising extremist Christians. While we are still imperfect, the fact remains that the denizens of Topeka, Kansas need not worry about getting slaughtered by Westboro Baptists.
For the sake of those of us who must fight Islamo-fascism, and normative Muslims who wish to obey Allah’s will, rather than some mullah’s, I now distinguish the former from the latter:
1. Devout normative Muslims care about morality; Muhammed Atta and his ilk were seen in strip clubs on 10 September 2001.
2. Islamo-fascist state Iran executed a 16-year-old rape victim for “crimes against chastity.” Devout normative Muslims believe that it is the rapist who should be executed (Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 38, Number 4366).
3. As my colleague, Dr. Greg Smith, pointed out, to a mainline Muslim, Jihad means to wage war against one’s sinful desires. To the Islamo-fascist, it means, “Kill the Infidel!” or, more accurately, “Kill anybody not like me!”
4. To the Islamofascist, possessing the Bible is worthy of death; normative Muslims want to possess the Bible to better understand their Christian neighbours. Moreover, mainline Muslims know that the Qur’an commands that Muslims study the Bible [Al-Baqarah, 2:121].
5. To the Islamofascist, Christians and Jews are infidels to be killed. To normative Muslims, they are “People of the Book,” and thus, allies in the fight against godlessness [See, for example, Qur’an, Al-Imran, 3:79-80].
6. As I said in my earlier post, Islam preserved and extended knowledge. Islamofascists prefer that we all live in the stone age.
7. Normal Muslims see honour in being good hosts. Killing Nick Berg, as the Islamo-fascists did–and prefer to do, is NOT hospitality!
Unfortunately, all this gets lost when, as commenter Rudy said in responding to my previous post, “moderate groups like CAIR” defend not only Muslims in general, but even extremists. It is one thing to say that one abhors killing; one must also move to ostracise the extremists, or risk being tied to those extremists.
I think that Islam could take a lesson from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It excommunicated Samson Avard and his Danites before they could do much damage. Unfortunately, that may have been too late to avoid Missouri’s extermination order.
Furthermore, the Church excommunicated not only the main perpetrator of the Mountain Meadows Massacre (John Lee), it excommunicated local authorities who were present at the atrocity–and did nothing to stop it. While Brigham Young was removed as Utah’s Governor, the excommunications probably prevented the US Army from continuing its quest to detroy the Church.
Why is there no overarching Muslim authority that condemns Islamofascist Jihad? One possible answer is that normative Islam is no more monolithic than Christianity. Not only is there a difference between Sunni and Shia Islam, each major group has many subsets. Osama bin Laden is the leader of an extremist group in the ultra-conservative Wahabbi sect of Sunni Islam, the Qutbists.
Perhaps the normative Muslims are afraid of the extremists…. That is entirely possible, seeing that many of us won’t help protect the good ones from the bad….
The good Muslims need our prayers; the bad ones need to receive exploding daisy-cutters.
UPDATE: There is a correction in the third from last paragraph. Hat tip to Ray Agostini.
Why is there no Muslim authority that condemns Islamofascist Jihad?
You may be interested in this link:
http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php
You’re right. I should have said, “… no overarching Muslim ….”
I’ve made the correction. Thanks.
I think that Islam could take a lesson from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It excommunicated Samson Avard and his Danites before they could do much damage.
Perhaps someone with more expertise on the subject could correct me on this, but it is my understanding that Muslims don’t have anything analogous to excommunication, they believe that Allah decides who is a true Muslim and it isn’t a person’s place to judge in that regard. Also, the lack of a clear hierarchical structure as we have in the LDS church makes it difficult to kick people out. Sure clerics can denounce someone or some group, but it would be kind of like one bishop saying that a ward in his neighboring stake has gone apostate–that’s not really his call, it’s up to a general authority or someone with stewardship over the other ward. The bishop in one ward can’t excommunicate someone in another ward, and since Muslims don’t have general authorities it makes things difficult in this regard.
Also, Islam is like Christianity–it is made up of many, many different factions and sects, as you correctly pointed out. If Mormons excommunicate someone, that doesn’t make them no longer Christian, it just makes them no longer LDS. So even if Sunni Islam somehow excommunicated Osama bin Laden, he could still claim to be a Muslim.
Thank you though for pointing out all the wonderful things that normative Muslims believe and differentiating them from extremists. My Islam and the Gospel teacher once shared a story about being in a taxi in a Muslim country and telling the driver that he was Christian. The cab driver couldn’t believe it, because he thought all Christians were weird people who liked to hold poisonous snakes and speak in tongues after seeing a story about one such Christian church in America. I think it’s similar with how many Americans view Muslims–we only really hear about the crazy ones who do stupid stuff, not the good, honest, normal ones who worship God according to the dictates of their own conscience and allow all men the same privilege.
austin s wrote:
I think it’s similar with how many Americans view Muslims–we only really hear about the crazy ones who do stupid stuff, not the good, honest, normal ones who worship God according to the dictates of their own conscience and allow all men the same privilege.
Too true. Although I’ve mixed with some Muslims since 2001, it was only a year and a half ago that I became closely acquainted with their culture and beliefs (at least in Australia), and was able to associate with them, and as I previously mentioned my boss is a devoted Muslim. One thing I also admire about them is that whether they are believers or unbelievers, they have little tolerance for “evil speaking” of The Prophet or Islam. This may seem like a bad thing to many, and the seed of extremism, but even in unbelieving Muslims there’s respect for the religion, because they recognise the good in it, and many of them still observe Ramadan for cultural reasons. I am careful not to say anything derogatory about Islam, though it’s obvious I don’t believe it. They are not a back-stabbing community, and personal honour is held in high regard. In jest I once asked a lapsed Muslim friend to teach me some swear words in Arabic, and he refused, because he said, anyone could use those words against him or his religion (though he was non-practising), and to hear curses in Arabic would be too much. I think there is certainly a place for criticism, but not mockery in any form. This doesn’t arise from literal beliefs, but out of respect for their culture. I once asked another Muslim friend, who told me he’s really atheist, what Muslims do in mosques. His jest-ful reply was “plan how to blow up buildings”. This was of course healthy mockery of the stereotype. After 9/11 Muslims in Australia were treated with suspicion and even antagonism (“they are all like that”), and this friend, though an unbeliever, was taunted at work about this, and he ended up nearly losing his job after threatening to “knock the block off” anyone else who taunted him or his religion. How different we often are, where for some nothing is held sacred, and even the name of the founder of Christianity has become a common swear word. Some former Mormons also hold their erstwhile religion in total public mockery. How can anyone respect that? “Er, excuse me, but you were once a true believer yourself, and you now mock beliefs you once held sacred? Not sure if I can trust you as a friend, because you’re likely to turn on anyone or anything.” There is something universally odious about traitor-like characteristics, hence Judas’ universal infamy (even to unbelievers). Not merely unbelief, not mere criticism, but actively turning on those you would once have died for. Perhaps I’m only in one end of the ball park and my view is skewed, but I haven’t seen this among Muslims I associate with, and I respect that.
The most frequent complaint I hear about the young generation today (in my country) is that they have “lost respect”. Should this surprise us? If we have set the example by openly mocking our religious traditions, upon which the country was founded (and believe it or not, using the name of the Deity was once a criminal offence in Australia), why should they hold anything in respect – including us?
The problem with this term is that modern Islamic extremist movements have almost nothing in common with fascism, which is a statist, totalitarian political philosophy based usually on racism or nationalism. Horowitz invented the word to rally Americans to his neoconservative position that Islamic fundamentalism must be fought with no-holds-barred military force. (After all, we fought fascism in WW2, therefore we should as eagerly engage “Islamofascism.”) This perjorative construct for purely political means is both disturbing and misguided.
You know, I seem to remember Jesus saying that in the Sermon on the Mount. 😉
The problem is that even precision-guided bombs have what the military euphemistically calls “collateral damage”, and all too frequently hit the wrong target — or the right target based on wrong intelligence. (In fact, the first bombs of the 2003 Iraq war, dropped by F-117s over Baghdad, hit innocent civilians instead of miltary targets.)
The United States rarely apologizes for such mistakes, and even more rarely compensates victims’ families. The result is that we create more anti-American extemists than we destroy, as the living now wish to avenge their dead.
In 2001 George W. Bush could have responded to the 9/11 attacks with a “police action”-style limited engagement to apprehend or kill al-Queda’s top leadership. Instead he foolishly listened to people like David Horowitz, and now we find ourselves with a million dead Iraqis and four million more displaced, on the verge of attacking Iran, and having enflamed tens of millions of Muslims against us.
As ye sow, the apostle Paul warned, so shall ye reap. Sow daisycutters, reap the whirlwind.
Mike,
Perhaps you ought to rethink your praise of my honour!
First, you are mistaken in saying that fascism is racist, per se. While Hitler and Tojo were indeed racist, Mussolini and Franco were not. Former Columbia University Professor Robert O. Paxton says that:
“Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victim-hood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion.”
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism.
I’ll comment more later.
Steven,
Please note that I said fascism is “based usually on racism or nationalism.” In other words, fascism is a common component, but not a required one. I haven’t done a survey, but I would strongly suspect that nationalism is far more common in fascist societies than is racism.
And yet neither are found in Islamic extremism. The Muslim nations of the Middle East are thoroughly fractured and extremely unlikely to give up their individual sovereignty to a greater Islamic caliphate. Their mutual mistrust is based largely on extensions of tribal or family power structures, as well as rifts between Sunni and Shi’ia, and Arabs and Persians.
With regard to Paxton’s quote, you’ll note that there is a lack of “part[ies] of committed nationalist militants” within Middle Eastern countries that have any ties to al-Quaeda extremism. Nor have they “abandon[ed] democratic liberties” (they never had them to begin with) or “pursue[d] with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion.” A huge logical stretch is required to argue that nations like Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt are “fascist,” and without a nation, military, or power structure, disparate groups like al-Quaeda cannot be considered “fascist” in any sense.
Like I said, “Islamofascism” is a polemical term devised to rally support for a wrongheaded and failed war policy. It is very much like the application of “cult” when applied to Mormonism — designed to stir up feelings to achieve an end, not to accurately describe the group.
Certainly not. I appreciated your last post, and while I disagree with your conclusions in this post, my disagreement with you doesn’t make you any less honorable.
I’ve been hesitant to comment on this or the original post on this topic because I haven’t had much experience with non-extremist Muslims. Since my context is admittedly one-sided, I’ll refrain from arguing one point or the other. Instead, let me ask a question (that isn’t intended to rile anybody, though it surely will)
“By their fruits ye shall know them.”
What has greater Islam contributed to modern society (aside from ancient innovation and record-keeping)? World’s fastest growing religion- an ideology with over a billion adherents. What has Islam given us? What does it give us today? What are the fruits of Islam?
D.Sirmize:
What has Islam given us?
Historians of Islam would be best qualified to answer that. I think Dr. Peterson could also give a good summary.
What does it give us today? What are the fruits of Islam?
I think it gives us what just about every religion does: An “answer” to the meaning and purpose of life. And I say “answer” because everyone receives this “answer” individually, and people born in countries where a specific religion dominates tend to accept that religion. Every religion that I know of has progressed and accommodated to modern views in some aspect, some more than others. Who could ever believe that Catholicism would go from burning heretics to officially accepting evolution, and offering an apology to Galileo? This same religion which tied Giordano Bruno to a stake and burned him for his philosophical and scientific ideas, one of which was the vast plurality of the universe and the possibility of other inhabited worlds, has just issued a media release speculating about how and to what extent the mediation of Jesus Christ might cover aliens in other worlds. Marvels never cease. Before 1890 the Mormons were implicit that polygamy would never change, and suffered persecution and imprisonment for it. The penalty for this failure to change is now seen in the FLDS abuses and the heartache that polygamy really causes.
The critics of Islam have a leg to stand on when they criticise extremists. But “mainstream” Islam extends the same benefits that most religions do – it tends to make people more civilised, more honest, and to deal justly and mercifully with others. Maybe others don’t see this, but to me it’s all too obvious (53 year old turtle speaking here). Like the sun shining at midday. There is one purpose in which I would join with both Mormons and Muslims, and that is to stop the tide of apparently growing belief that atheism is sound, or healthy, or “natural”. Religions need to stop fighting each other, and join in this common cause. There is plenty of room for dialogue here, but none with the hardcore, pro-active atheists a la Hitchens and Dawkins and Shermer. The extremists and fundamentalists in any religion aren’t going to help this cause, they will only give the gold medal to the proactive atheists by default. This isn’t to say fundamental beliefs shouldn’t be kept, in fact that might be necessary to preserve any religion. It’s when we resort to “my God can beat up your God”, then we are in for trouble.
Mike:
I stand by my request that you rethink my honour.
Why? Let’s say, for the sake of argument that you’re right about US policy in the Middle East–and the nature of those I call “Islamofascists.” According to you, the USA is engaged in mass murder of innocents. I would submit that anybody who condones such mass murder–let alone _supports_ it–is utterly undeserving of the adjective honourable. Moreover, justice would demand that such dastardly villains be executed in the method that would inflict the greatest agony–and get a one-way ticket to the hottest part of the lake of fire in the outer darkness of hell, to be poked by infinite numbers of demons with pitchforks.
Now, let us suppose that, even though you are still right about US policy, I am right about the Islamofascists. While that is not as severe as mass murder, it is still vigilante justice, still a sin, and still dishonourable.
Leaving your distaste for US policy aside, in my view, you DO wrongly conflate Islamofascism with Islam. While you may be right that fascism is usually racist, that doesn’t mean that Muslim extremists cannot be fascists. Though mainstream Islam certainly does treat races equally, this doesn’t apply to the fringes. For example, one reason the extremists hate Jews is their being of a “European” race, rather than the “Middle Eastern” one. By the by, this is also a reason why enslavement of Blacks existed–even into the second half of the twentieth century–in many Muslim lands; Blacks weren’t of the “Middle Eastern” race. I know–I asked them.
Your conflation of Islamofascism with Islam illustrates exactly why I wanted to differentiate the two. Attacking those who criticise the extremists puts the moderates on very poor ground to marginalise those extremists, and it gives outsiders, who see the threat but not the difference, a false picture of who our friends and foes are. Ray, I think, very eloquently detailed the benefits of normative Islam, which would be lost if we cannot distinguish the mainstream from the virulent fringe. That could lead to killing MORE innocents than if we had a clear view of both and the distinction of the extreme fringe from the mainstream, and the threat of the former.
Mike, if you think that removing both the USA and Israel from existence (If we don’t exist, we cannot butt into their affairs or do harm to them!) would make everything “peaches and cream,” you are in dire need of being awakened from that Utopian dream. Normal Muslims would still be existing in squalor, under the thumb of their extremist oppressors–and those oppressors would find some other scapegoat.
That, Sir, is human nature.
Furthermore, I would submit that, if not for US intervention (and before that, British intervention), slavery of Blacks–and others, would still flourish.
Steven,
I wish I could convey to you how frustrating it is to dialog with you, simply because you frequently misstate my position, thereby creating a straw man that you can easily knock down.
For the record:
1. I do not “conflate Islamofascism with Islam.” I clearly see a distinction between the vast majority of practicing Muslims who are good, kind, and honorable, and the tiny minority of Muslims who are evil, brutal, and thuggish.
2. My disagreement with you is not about the existence of extremism within Islam, it is how to label that extremism. As I have previously argued, “Islamofascism” is a term that should not be employed because (a) Islamic extremism is not fascist by the dictionary definition and (b) the term is purely pejorative with the goal of inciting Americans to support jingoistic military and foreign policies.
3. I certainly do not believe that “removing both the USA and Israel from existence…would make everything ‘peaches and cream.'” But it is quite evident to everyone but neoconservatives that Islamic nations have legitimate grievances against the United States, and that by talking to them, treating them as sovereign nations, and not using our military to intimidate them, we will get much better progress toward constructing a mutual peace. This does not apply to extremist NGOs, of course, but even there we could be smarter about how we deal with them. The Bush administration has employed a very blunt approach to the Middle East that has been an abject failure and made the United States less safe.
4. My respect for you is not diminished by the fact that you hold a different paradigm about the use of U.S. military force. I accept the fact that your view is a legitimate one; I simply think it is the wrong one. Your honor remains intact.
Mike, we seem to be frustrated with each other. Maybe we can fix it by being more clear.
You said:
**I do not “conflate Islamofascism with Islam.” I clearly see a distinction between the vast majority of practicing Muslims who are good, kind, and honorable, and the tiny minority of Muslims who are evil, brutal, and thuggish.**
I am glad you see that distinction. I had wondered when you implied that bin Laden, et al., would not attack the USA if we were to completely pull out. Of course, that is untenable; Indonesia hasn’t supplied troops for either Afghanistan or Iraq, yet, Bali was bombed. Moreover, Nick Berg, who was there to PROTEST the Iraq War, was beheaded.
You said:
**My disagreement with you is not about the existence of extremism within Islam, it is how to label that extremism. As I have previously argued, “Islamofascism” is a term that should not be employed because (a) Islamic extremism is not fascist by the dictionary definition**
They used Hitler’s playbook. Even now, various spokesmen for the extremists claim that Hitler’s only flaw was his failure to kill ALL of the Jews.
I would happily use the term “extremists,” but they (and some normative Muslims–and normative LDS and other Christians!) would consider it a compliment, since one cannot be too extreme is obeying Allah!
You said:
**the term is purely pejorative with the goal of inciting Americans to support jingoistic military and foreign policies**
There you go again! America is ALWAYS wrong, isn’t it?
For the record, the last time the USA intended on permanently occupying conquered foreign territory was in 1945, when we occupied Micronesia, and that was because _they_ freely voted to ask us to do so!
While we have been expansionary and jingoistic, the American empire (if you could call it that) is decidedly different from the Roman, Mongol, Japanese, or even the British one.
You said:
**I certainly do not believe that “removing both the USA and Israel from existence…would make everything ‘peaches and cream.’”**
I didn’t say that you did. I apologise if I gave that impression. I wanted to show that, since that extreme pullout into non-existence won’t solve the problem, neither will the less-extreme withdrawal to our shores fix things.
You said:
**But it is quite evident to everyone but neoconservatives that Islamic nations have legitimate grievances against the United States**
You have called me a neo-con. Am I an idiot?
By the by, maybe you should pay more attention to just what it is that neo-cons advocate–before you attack their intelligence or character.
It is true that they have legitimate grievances against us. But we have some legitimate grievances against them, as well. But that is beyond the scope of my posts up to now.
You said:
**by talking to them, treating them as sovereign nations, and not using our military to intimidate them**
We DO talk to them. From my view, they still act as they do because we reward them by treating them as equals, rather than pariahs.
Moreover, I don’t think they were ever intimidated by our military; they were too busy trying to intimidate their subjects, each other, or Israel. If Saddam Hussein were intimidated by the US military, they would have pulled out of Kuwait in 1990.
Furthermore, we had some peace agreements–at Israel’s expense. This was ONE instance where we HAVE intimidated another nation, and the Extremists’ response was an intifida aimed at getting a radical Palestinian state to replace Israel, rather than just the 95% of their stated demands we pressured Israel to give in to.
You said:
**does not apply to extremist NGOs, of course, but even there we could be smarter about how we deal with them.**
Agreed, but I am unconvinced that your way is smarter.
You said:
**The Bush administration has employed a very blunt approach to the Middle East that has been an abject failure and made the United States less safe.**
Frankly, Mike, I don’t see how.
Look here, Mike, if we are clear that terroristic adventurism will result in overwhelming force applied against it, terrorists are less likely to “do their thing,” because the costs are too high. The reason they did attack the WTC in the first place was that they were convinced that we wouldn’t impose a cost on that terrorism.
You said:
**My respect for you is not diminished by the fact that you hold a different paradigm about the use of U.S. military force. I accept the fact that your view is a legitimate one; I simply think it is the wrong one. **
That got lost among all the negative character-driven thing you said about a policy that I support. Jeremiah Wright was quite clear that he thought that the American character–NOT just its policies–was irredeemably beyond the pale. Since you averred agreement with him–using similar, if not identical words, I concluded that you must have something against MY character, as well. Hence, the request to reconsider, since you consider what I suport to be wrong-hearted, as well as wrong-headed.
I hope this clarifies.
Um, if I can get a word in edgewise. Sorry for interrupting this little spat, but I’d like to bring us back to my original question, which Ray tried thoughtfully (though unconvincingly- sorry) to address. FLDS “gives people answers.” Wicca “gives people answers.” Should I respect Islam any more than these? (for the record, I respect neither).
What are the fruits of greater Islam in modern times?
Hi D. Sirmize!
Pardon me, but asking that question is like asking the Indianapolis Colts what did they do lately. 😛
More seriously, that question could be asked of virtually every group at one time or another. 1000 years ago, Christianity could have been asked the question of what did they do lately besides rape and pillage en route to conquer lands from relatively peaceful Muslims. Atheists and other skeptics are asking similar questions today!
(Of course, a good answer is that we Christians spent the last century or two forcibly eradicating the scourge of slavery!)
To answer your question with an example that comes foremost to mind: Islam provides the moral framwork and discipline for denizens of the USA’s inner cities to emerge from that toxic environment of poverty and promiscuity and disease and violent criminal activity.
That, I think, is worthy of esteem!
Resurrecting this old thread, forgive me. It’s been four weeks since anybody commented on it.
Someone asked what Islam has given the world. Allow me to respond, as a mathematics teacher.
Some of the greatest mathematicians ever were Greeks. You’ve doubtless heard of Euclid. These Greek mathematicians wrote books, volumes and volumes of books, on mathematical subjects. Until a few years ago, modern geometry textbooks followed the pedagogical pattern first outlined in Euclid’s “Elements” around 300 B.C.
As the centuries went by, these Greek books were copied and passed around. One of the most complete sets of them was found in the library at Alexandria, Egypt. During the Dark Ages, many of these books disappeared or were destroyed, and the knowledge that they contained was lost.
… or would have been lost, were it not for the Arabic scholars of that same age. To oversimplify things, the Dark Ages affected Christian lands, but not Muslim lands. In the countries where Islam was the dominant religion, intellectual growth was not stifled, but actively encouraged. Muslim scholars collected as many of these Greek texts as they could, copying them and translating them into Arabic.
The greatest example of this Arabic preservation of Greek mathematical works is a 13-volume work, called “The Great Treatise,” written by Ptolemy around 147 A.D. It was translated into Arabic in the 9th Century, long after it had been lost in Europe, and was commonly referred as the “Almagest,” an Arabic transliteration of its Greek name.
The Almagest finally made it back to Europe, starting with a Spanish version in the 12th C. and a back-translation into Greek in the 15th C. If it hadn’t been for the Islamic love of learning (from all sources) and their preservation of the Almagest, Europe would no longer have these writings of Ptolemy and would have lost the knowledge that they contained.
As I have said, the Almagest is only one example of the scientific texts that the Muslims preserved, while the European Christians were destroying them.
In addition to preserving texts, Islamic scholars made some original contributions to mathematics. The Persian scholoar Muhammed bin Musa al-Khwarizmi published a book called (loose translation) “A complete discussion on the way to solve mathematical problems.” One word from the title, “Al-Jabr,” was Latinized into “algebra,” which is essentially a system of rules that can be used to solve mathematical problems.
Either in his book or in addition to his book, Al-Khwarizmi asserted that any mathematical problem can be broken down into a series of steps, which can be codified and learned by anyone. This methodical breakdown of a problem into a series of definable steps has come to be known as “the Al-Khwarizmi method,” or, if you want to Latinize his surname, an “algorithm.”
Now, depending on your personal feelings towards mathematics, geometry, algebra and algorithms, you may consider this fruit to be good fruit or evil fruit. But bear in mind that it came from Islamic countries, as a result of their openmindedness, love of books and love for learning — at a time when practicing Christians had none of these three qualities.
As for fruits of Islam in modern times, I will offer two fruits.
First, partly in jest but more in seriousness, I offer you your own gas tank. The largest portion of the fuel in your tank comes from the Middle East, not from Venezuela, Russia, Nigeria, Canada, Indonesia or even the good old U S of A. And most of that Middle Eastern petrochemistry comes from the non-Islamofascist Islamic states of the Middle East. They demonstrated in 1973 that they could shut off our oil supply without hurting themselves very much, and they could repeat the demonstration today. But they’re good businessmen, and at least as honest as Western businessmen.
Second, their defense of polygamy (ironically). Unfortunately, it seems to have disappeared from Google, but the best defense of polygamy I have ever read was written by a Muslim woman, who either was a polygamous wife or intended to become a polygamous wife, of an Arab businessman. Her essay roundly condemned the West’s denunciation of polygamy, pointing out the hypocrisy of the West and the West’s lack of understanding of what polygamy entailed. I believe that this essay was the first one to use (or at least to shout from the rooftops) the term “serial polygamy” to refer to the West’s cycle of marriage and divorce. Her essay also pointed out how this cycle of marriage and divorce served to take away the rights and dignity of Western women, far worse than the West’s caricature of polygamy could do. She also described the real benefits to Muslim women of living in a polygamous relationship. And she emphasized, as the Mormons must emphasize over and over, that polygamy wasn’t about the sex.
Sorry I can’t find that essay on Google anymore.
(By the way, I’m not the same Ray that D.S. was replying to earlier.)