The decline of the West & Islam

Discussion of Spengler's writings and ideas

Re: La Rabbia el'Orgoglio

Postby offcenter » Thu Nov 08, 2007 1:08 pm

Richard Greene wrote:
Pastaneta wrote:It reminds one of the Soviet Union where all discoveries were invented by Ivan Ivanovich Ivanov Richard... Wasn't true then... Even less true for Muslims... After all, some Soviet scientists* did get the Nobel prizes... :lol:


Orianna Fallaci made the same point in The Rage and the Pride.

*probably Jewish ones at that


Jumping in here -- blindly -- after a day of cold sweats and pacing from not posting.

Fallaci did nothing but rant -- I really don't see why she bothered to publish.
In our desire to impose form on the world and our lives we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there; and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. -- Colin Gunton
offcenter
 
Posts: 822
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2007 8:48 pm

Postby Dan » Thu Nov 08, 2007 2:50 pm

aferim wrote:Dan, nice impersonations.

If you're suggesting some of the voices on this forum are me, sorry - not so. Unfortunately there really are people like this out there.
User avatar
Dan
 
Posts: 1035
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 3:40 pm
Location: Right behind you.

Postby waxwing01 » Thu Nov 08, 2007 5:28 pm

Spengler wrote:Bayazid Bistami,

It isn't enough to selectively quote Qur'an and Hadith. One can find in the Gospel of St. John reasons to love the Jews ("Salvation is of the Jews") and reasons to hate them if one quotes selectively. Christians have decided to love or hate the Jews not because they parsed quotations differently, but because at different times they took a different existential stance with respect to the Jews.

That, by the way, is why I blasted Robert Spencer, who writes popular books about how dreadful Islam is, for selective use of quotations as well as history. Nor do I accept the same selective quotes from Karen Armstrong, or from you.


Yes!!! Very perspective Mr. Spengler! In rich times USA christain can speak like this John Hagee in defense of Isreal but if weealth is drained from USA reading words of John can have 10 John hagees speak about Isreal as John Hagee now speaks about Islam.

then use John's words in book of revelation say all evil comes from Jew in Jerusalem.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... ersion=65;

Trusting Truck stop Christain to be faith to Isreal when his rapture don't come and he finds himself in tribulation looking for someone to blame , imagine hearing these words below against Islam being preached against Isreal in that day by 10 truck stop preachers. This is not good

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jg-FlCIvWgk

take a lessen from Pat Robertson. One day he's against murdering millions of little babies in the womb the next day he's for politican advocating murdering millions of little babies in the womb. He claims he hears God's voice
waxwing01
 
Posts: 1502
Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2007 8:46 am

Postby Dan » Thu Nov 08, 2007 5:46 pm

offcenter wrote:Fallaci... I really don't see why she bothered to publish.


Because she had the courage to say what everyone quietly knows.

Ciao, bella!
Image
User avatar
Dan
 
Posts: 1035
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 3:40 pm
Location: Right behind you.

Re: La Rabbia el'Orgoglio

Postby Bayazid Bistami » Thu Nov 08, 2007 5:52 pm

Dan wrote:
offcenter wrote:Fallaci... I really don't see why she bothered to publish.


Because she had the courage to say what everyone quietly knows.


Racists and Nazis don't need courage - they have the ingrained ability to think they are always right and an attendant inability to understand other views and complex situations. Which is why they are what they are.

In fact they are innately cowards - they do not really give voice in civilized times but when the 'wind blows' - such as now in the post-911 environment - they do have a kind of genius in sensing when their hate will be tolerated, how far they can go, who to direct it to and when to crawl back under a rock.
User avatar
Bayazid Bistami
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 8:46 pm

Re: An interpretation of Spengler's position

Postby cassowary » Thu Nov 08, 2007 5:53 pm

NuruddinAbdulHaqq wrote:Thank you for your reply.
The fact that the Muslim world is in deep difficulty is obvious from all of the previous posts. That it has been in decline since the 13th century is also clear. It might be interesting to note that the language of the leaders of Islam changed in the 13th century from Arabic to Mongol/Turkish, so many of the important political leaders and people with disposable time and wealth probably couldn't read the copies of al-Ghazali or any of the other great Muslim scientists' work that survived.
To go back to Oswald Spengler for a moment, I find the idea that the Arabian civilization grew old, as all cultures do, and forgot itself, to fit up interestingly with the actual situation too. Under his theory, by the way, Philo would be Arabian, not Western- not that that is terribly important.
The history of demographics and living standards, then, shows neither Christianity nor Islam to be superior to the other. I converted to Islam because of its absolute monotheism and its acceptance of Jesus, may Allah bless him and give him peace, and I have remained a Muslim because of the comprehensiveness of the religion in terms of both metaphysics and ethics. I hold that these things make Islam a superior religion to Christianity; I'm sure we will disagree.
It is Salafism's metaphysical poverty that shew it out to be an innovation, if one believes Islam to be from God.
Sometimes it seems that the Muslims take all of the bad from the west, and none of the good- totalitarianism instead of pluralism, the technology and not the pursuit of pure knowledge, etc... Salafism, and Islamism generally, owes a rather substantial debt to Marxism- this is another instance of the phenomenon.
On this reason business, I really should study more. Is there a particular scriptural discrepancy between Islam and Judaism that separates Ghazali and Maimonides that you know of, or is it a matter of personal perspective between them? I wonder what the Kabbalists would say...
I'm not terribly concerned about this threat you speak of from Asia and Africa- if less than 100,000 believing Muslims can conquer the known world, we should learn that it is not breadth of faith that matters, but depth.

Thanks again


Many years ago, I came across some articles in Ali Sina's website on why and how Islam made Muslims backwards. In a nutshell, the author's thesis was that Islam was designed as a warrior's religion. It cultivates Muslims to become disciplined, obedient, loyal, fearless warriors. But while these qualities were invaluable in the first hundred years to facilitate Arab imperialism, the same qualities made them unfit for the modern world where other qualities are needed. For example, Islam's oppression of women is a major factor in the economic backwardness of Muslim countries. This fact was noted long ago by Averroes.

As in all warrior societies, women have a lower status because their survival depended on male warriors. In warrior societies, women's main contribution was to produce and raise more male warriors. Polygamy was encouraged because of the sex imbalance as a result of males killed in wars and the need to produce the next generation of warriors.

Anyway, the articles are an interesting read. If you are interested, here are the links:

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/Ohmyrus20808.htm
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/Ohmyrus20925.htm
User avatar
cassowary
 
Posts: 7968
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 9:20 pm
Location: Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy. - Churchill

Re: An interpretation of Spengler's position

Postby Bayazid Bistami » Thu Nov 08, 2007 6:07 pm

cassowary wrote:Many years ago, I came across some articles in Ali Sina's website on why and how Islam made Muslims backwards.


Yes, I suppose that must be the same 'backwards' that enabled Muslims to have street-lighting and house-heating while Europe struggled through the dark ages.

There is a whole section on these backwards savages if you Google "Islam Golden Age Wiki". It's quite unbelievable really....almost subhuman. You can read about the following idiots there:

Jabir ibn Hayyan (Geber) is considered the father of chemistry, particularly for introducing the experimental method in chemistry. He also established the chemical industry and perfumery industry.

The programmable automata of al-Jazari, the father of robotics.

Ibn al-Haytham (Alhazen) has been described as the "father of optics", the "pioneer of the modern scientific method", and the "first scientist". He also invented the camera obscura and pinhole camera, was the first to discover the principle of least time and first law of motion, and laid the foundations for telescopic astronomy.

Avicenna, considered the father of modern medicine, introduced experimental medicine, systematic experimentation and quantification into physiology, discovered the contagious nature of infectious diseases, introduced the methods of quarantine and clinical trials, and described many medical treatments, including anesthetics and medical and therapeutic drugs, in The Canon of Medicine.


Among the achievements of Muslim mathematicians during this period include the development of algebra and algorithms, the invention of spherical trigonometry, the addition of the decimal point notation to the Arabic numerals, the discovery of all the trigonometric functions besides sine, al-Kindi's introduction of cryptanalysis and frequency analysis, al-Karaji's introduction of algebraic calculus and proof by mathematical induction, the development of analytic geometry and the earliest general formula for infinitesimal and integral calculus by Ibn al-Haytham, the beginning of algebraic geometry by Omar Khayyam, the first refutations of Euclidean geometry and the parallel postulate by Nasīr al-Dīn al-Tūsī, the first attempt at a non-Euclidean geometry by Sadr al-Din, and numerous other advances in algebra, arithmetic, calculus, cryptography, geometry, number theory and trigonometry.


Yeah - real idiots!

:lol:

I'm so glad I found this forum. I never really knew the truth before. Now I am truly enlightened I too can gibber inanely about 'backwards savages'! I feel so free and well.....forward

:roll:
User avatar
Bayazid Bistami
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 8:46 pm

Postby Bayazid Bistami » Thu Nov 08, 2007 6:17 pm

Dan wrote:Because she had the courage to say what everyone quietly knows.


Or perhaps what you wish everyone believed.

Some of her greatest hits:

"I am angry at the Jews for many things... If you want to take the example of America, how they hold the power, the economical power in so many ways, and the press and the other kind of stuff... I never realized how it happened and they came to control the media to that point. Why?"

"I'm not crazy about them, the homosexuals. You see them here in New York, for instance, moving like this [makes a mincing gesture], exhibiting their homosexuality. It disturbs me. It's... I don't know... I just can't stand them."

"If you put a pistol against my head and ask which I think is worse, Muslims or Mexicans, I'd have to think a moment, then I'd say the Muslims because they've broken my balls."

"Muslims breed like rats."


It is not so much surprising that racists like this exist - it is a spectre that has haunted Europe since the Crusades - but that in the 21st century and all the hate and death of the last century they still have so much support.
User avatar
Bayazid Bistami
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 8:46 pm

Postby Pastaneta » Thu Nov 08, 2007 6:45 pm

Racists and Nazis don't need courage


Again false words... Oriana Fallaci was not a racist (Muslim isn't a race) nor a Nazi (she fought them)... Try again... She had the courage to say the truth about Islam!

Some of her greatest hits:


http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/0 ... rentPage=2

According to Fallaci, Europeans, particularly those on the political left, subject people who criticize Muslim customs to a double standard. “If you speak your mind on the Vatican, on the Catholic Church, on the Pope, on the Virgin Mary or Jesus or the saints, nobody touches your ‘right of thought and expression.’ But if you do the same with Islam, the Koran, the Prophet Muhammad, some son of Allah, you are called a xenophobic blasphemer who has committed an act of racial discrimination. If you kick the ass of a Chinese or an Eskimo or a Norwegian who has hissed at you an obscenity, nothing happens. On the contrary, you get a ‘Well done, good for you.’ But if under the same circumstances you kick the ass of an Algerian or a Moroccan or a Nigerian or a Sudanese, you get lynched.”


If only our worthless so-called "elite" had half her courage to call it as it is and to boot the Islamists out of the West!!!
Last edited by Pastaneta on Fri Nov 09, 2007 12:31 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Pastaneta
 
Posts: 6489
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 7:05 pm

Postby Bayazid Bistami » Thu Nov 08, 2007 6:49 pm

Pastaneta wrote:
Racists and Nazis don't need courage


Again false words... Oriana Fallaci was not a racist (MUlsim isn't a race) nor a Nazi (she fought them)... Try again...


Wrong.

Read the comments about Jews and Mexicans.

Her father was left-wing but she repudiated. She is well known for both her hatred of communism and her racist views.

The poster above spoke of courage - in a way she did have that to actually not care she was a racist. She was what she was.

You too should have that courage if you support her. The days of the KKK wearing hoods are gone. It is quite ok to be a racist now. Many will support you. I will not be one of them but you will not be alone.
User avatar
Bayazid Bistami
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 8:46 pm

Postby Pastaneta » Thu Nov 08, 2007 6:56 pm

Read the comments about Jews and Mexicans.

Her father was left-wing but she repudiated. She is well known for both her hatred of communism and her racist views.


Again false... You show a Muslim grasp of history...

http://tinyurl.com/37hah3

She wrote the J'accuse of our time

I find it shameful and see in all this the rise of a new fascism, a new nazism. A fascism, a nazism, that much more grim and revolting because it is conducted and nourished by those who hypocritically pose as do-gooders, progressives, communists, pacifists, Catholics or rather Christians, and who have the gall to label a warmonger anyone like me who screams the truth. I see it, yes, and I say the following. I have never been tender with the tragic and Shakespearean figure Sharon. ("I know you've come to add another scalp to your necklace," he murmured almost with sadness when I went to interview him in 1982.) I have often had disagreements with the Israelis, ugly ones, and in the past I have defended the Palestinians a great deal. Maybe more than they deserved. But I stand with Israel, I stand with the Jews. I stand just as I stood as a young girl during the time when I fought with them, and when the Anna Marias were shot. I defend their right to exist, to defend themselves, to not let themselves be exterminated a second time. And disgusted by the anti-Semitism of many Italians, of many Europeans, I am ashamed of this shame that dishonors my Country and Europe. At best, it is not a community of States, but a pit of Pontius Pilates. And even if all the inhabitants of this planet were to think otherwise, I would continue to think so.


http://www.biographybase.com/biography/ ... riana.html

Fallaci is an admirer of writer Gaetano Salvemini who warned against Fascism but was not believed because it was too early.
User avatar
Pastaneta
 
Posts: 6489
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 7:05 pm

Re: Come again

Postby Spengler » Thu Nov 08, 2007 6:57 pm

Richard Greene wrote:
NuruddinAbdulHaqq wrote:... Considering the "progress" that too often includes the rampant destruction of creation, I don't know how great it is to be "rational" anyway.



NuruddinAbdulHaqq:

With all due respect, from what planet do you hail?


This borders on flaming. Please temper your remarks.
User avatar
Spengler
Moderator
 
Posts: 5236
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 6:18 pm

Rosenzweig's summary of "continuing creation"

Postby Spengler » Thu Nov 08, 2007 7:10 pm

Regarding the "doctrine of continuing creation," Franz Rosenzweig in The Star of Redemption summarizes the classical Jewish (Maimonides) and Christian (Thomas Aquinas) view of normative Islamic theology. It is to this issue that Benedict XVI referred in his Sept. 12, 2006 Regensburg address when he observed that “for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality.”


Rosenzweig characterizes the Islamic view as "magic" (my translation):


This has been the doctrine of the ruling orthodox philosophy in Islam. The whole impact of divine creative power crashes into every individual thing at every single moment. It is not so much that every thing is “renewed” at every moment; rather, it is “created” with hide and hair. Nothing can save itself from Allah’s frightful, infinitesimally-split providence. The idea of “renewal” of the world [in Christian thought] maintains the connection between the individual thing and the one Creation, and thereby with the unity of existence, precisely because it comprehends it within the whole, and thus grounds Providence within Creation. But this [Islamic] interpretation of Providence as constant interference on the part of the creator destroys any possibility of such a connection. In the first case, Providence seen as the renewal of the act of creation through events is the fulfillment of what essentially is set into Creation; in this [Islamic] case, Providence – despite its intrinsic interference into creation at every moment and in every case – is a permanent competition between acts of creating and the unity of Creation, in fact, a competition between God the Ruler of the World, and God the Creator. It is magic, not a sign made by God the World Ruler for God the Creator. Despite its vehement and haughtily carried-forward idea of the unity of God, Islam slides into a monistic paganism, if one might use that expression; God competes with God at every moment, as if it were the colorfully contending gods of the pagan pantheon rolled into one.


Al-Ghazali remains the benchmark for normative Islam, according to such Muslim scholars as Tariq Ramadan. Again, the issue is not whether God renews Creation, which is Judeo-Christian doctrine as well, but whether He does so directly and immediately at very point in time and in any instance, or through a rational ordering of the Universe which He put in place and to which human reason corresponds.

Man does not live by bread alone, but man needs bread, and gets his bread through the exercise of reason. That may not occur to a country that lives as it were by miracle, that is, by allowing foreign engineers to pump oil out of the ground, such that none of its citizens actually work for a living.
User avatar
Spengler
Moderator
 
Posts: 5236
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 6:18 pm

Postby Pastaneta » Thu Nov 08, 2007 7:16 pm

You should read Patai's the Arab Mind Spengler... One of his findings is how Arabs hate to work and consider it beneath them...

The result of the Bedouin ethos embedded in Islam...
User avatar
Pastaneta
 
Posts: 6489
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 7:05 pm

Re: Rosenzweig's summary of "continuing creation"

Postby S-Quirkygod » Thu Nov 08, 2007 11:40 pm

Spengler wrote:Regarding the "doctrine of continuing creation," Franz Rosenzweig in The Star of Redemption summarizes the classical Jewish (Maimonides) and Christian (Thomas Aquinas) view of normative Islamic theology. It is to this issue that Benedict XVI referred in his Sept. 12, 2006 Regensburg address when he observed that “for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality.”


Rosenzweig characterizes the Islamic view as "magic" (my translation):


This has been the doctrine of the ruling orthodox philosophy in Islam. The whole impact of divine creative power crashes into every individual thing at every single moment. It is not so much that every thing is “renewed” at every moment; rather, it is “created” with hide and hair. Nothing can save itself from Allah’s frightful, infinitesimally-split providence. The idea of “renewal” of the world [in Christian thought] maintains the connection between the individual thing and the one Creation, and thereby with the unity of existence, precisely because it comprehends it within the whole, and thus grounds Providence within Creation. But this [Islamic] interpretation of Providence as constant interference on the part of the creator destroys any possibility of such a connection. In the first case, Providence seen as the renewal of the act of creation through events is the fulfillment of what essentially is set into Creation; in this [Islamic] case, Providence – despite its intrinsic interference into creation at every moment and in every case – is a permanent competition between acts of creating and the unity of Creation, in fact, a competition between God the Ruler of the World, and God the Creator. It is magic, not a sign made by God the World Ruler for God the Creator. Despite its vehement and haughtily carried-forward idea of the unity of God, Islam slides into a monistic paganism, if one might use that expression; God competes with God at every moment, as if it were the colorfully contending gods of the pagan pantheon rolled into one.


Al-Ghazali remains the benchmark for normative Islam, according to such Muslim scholars as Tariq Ramadan. Again, the issue is not whether God renews Creation, which is Judeo-Christian doctrine as well, but whether He does so directly and immediately at very point in time and in any instance, or through a rational ordering of the Universe which He put in place and to which human reason corresponds.

Man does not live by bread alone, but man needs bread, and gets his bread through the exercise of reason. That may not occur to a country that lives as it were by miracle, that is, by allowing foreign engineers to pump oil out of the ground, such that none of its citizens actually work for a living.

This theory of continuous recreation seems to me more the product of Eastern dualism than "magic". Flipping through "The Decline of The West" I have yet to find Nuruddin's exact quotes, but have found ample argument for a Muslim (shared of course in the world of O. Spengler with the other "Arabian" cavern dwellers; talmudic Judiasm and early Christianity) dualist mindset. This alone is adequate to explain the strategy of Taqqyia as well as Nuruddin's qualifications about the status of Allah as a God of love. The dualist will see Allah as both the God of love and the God of hate at once. In a similar way only a God whose existence circumscribed all aspects, good and evil, of creation could continuously recreate the entire world at every instance.

I suspect that the West evolved away from the tribal dualist mindset by first adopting an iterative dualism such as the "wheel of fortune" where one extreme replaces the other and then finally settled on the idea of the permanent succession of one extreme over the other as in Egyptology's succession of the Sun god over the Fertility God.

BTW - You have stated that you disagree with almost everything O. Spengler believed, yet I continually stumble over similiarities between your positions and his. Just what do you object so strongly to?
User avatar
S-Quirkygod
 
Posts: 606
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2007 2:27 am
Location: Bermuda or California

Re: Rosenzweig's summary of "continuing creation"

Postby NuruddinAbdulHaqq » Fri Nov 09, 2007 12:35 am

Spengler wrote:Regarding the "doctrine of continuing creation," Franz Rosenzweig in The Star of Redemption summarizes the classical Jewish (Maimonides) and Christian (Thomas Aquinas) view of normative Islamic theology. It is to this issue that Benedict XVI referred in his Sept. 12, 2006 Regensburg address when he observed that “for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality.”


Rosenzweig characterizes the Islamic view as "magic" (my translation):


This has been the doctrine of the ruling orthodox philosophy in Islam. The whole impact of divine creative power crashes into every individual thing at every single moment. It is not so much that every thing is “renewed” at every moment; rather, it is “created” with hide and hair. Nothing can save itself from Allah’s frightful, infinitesimally-split providence. The idea of “renewal” of the world [in Christian thought] maintains the connection between the individual thing and the one Creation, and thereby with the unity of existence, precisely because it comprehends it within the whole, and thus grounds Providence within Creation. But this [Islamic] interpretation of Providence as constant interference on the part of the creator destroys any possibility of such a connection. In the first case, Providence seen as the renewal of the act of creation through events is the fulfillment of what essentially is set into Creation; in this [Islamic] case, Providence – despite its intrinsic interference into creation at every moment and in every case – is a permanent competition between acts of creating and the unity of Creation, in fact, a competition between God the Ruler of the World, and God the Creator. It is magic, not a sign made by God the World Ruler for God the Creator. Despite its vehement and haughtily carried-forward idea of the unity of God, Islam slides into a monistic paganism, if one might use that expression; God competes with God at every moment, as if it were the colorfully contending gods of the pagan pantheon rolled into one.


Al-Ghazali remains the benchmark for normative Islam, according to such Muslim scholars as Tariq Ramadan. Again, the issue is not whether God renews Creation, which is Judeo-Christian doctrine as well, but whether He does so directly and immediately at very point in time and in any instance, or through a rational ordering of the Universe which He put in place and to which human reason corresponds.
Man does not live by bread alone, but man needs bread, and gets his bread through the exercise of reason. That may not occur to a country that lives as it were by miracle, that is, by allowing foreign engineers to pump oil out of the ground, such that none of its citizens actually work for a living.


This may actually be rather simple to resolve- If the universe is a discrete thing, then it is one of the things that Allah renews at every instant through the renewal of every particular part of it. Thus His rulership and his creativity are the same act, and are not in conflict with each other.I'm still not quite clear about one thing- if Allah's attributes are immutable, doesn't that make them open to rational inquiry?


On the issue of women, I am with ibn Rushd; by the way, a wife of the Prophet Muhammad, may Allah bless him and give him peace, led an army during one the civil wars, and there isn't any stricture against women working in Islam. Some say that the Muslims picked up many of their problematic views on women from the Byzantines and the Sassanids- purdah, for instance...


On Profit and Piety
"The third teaching of Islam that impeded progress was the prohibition of usury – the lending of money for interest. This helped the west to overtake the Ottoman Turks because the west (initially also prohibited from lending for interest) developed banks earlier." From the articles quoted above


Man does not live by bread alone, but man needs bread, and gets his bread through the exercise of reason


This might be interesting to think about- that worldly success may not go hand in hand all of the time with piety and truth. Banking is an important part of the West's superiority to the Muslim world, and it also manifestly contradicts Christianity and reason. Getting bread is not the same thing as world-domination for the sake of profit, and the Ottomans who resisted usury may be rewarded for it in the hereafter, even though their worldly empire was destroyed in part by their unwillingness to sink to the level of the Europeans' impiety.[/i]
NuruddinAbdulHaqq
 
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 1:57 am

Postby aferim » Fri Nov 09, 2007 12:47 am

Banking is an important part of the West's superiority to the Muslim world, and it also manifestly contradicts Christianity and reason.


:lol:
User avatar
aferim
 
Posts: 2350
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 9:12 pm
Location: East Coast

Postby NuruddinAbdulHaqq » Fri Nov 09, 2007 1:05 am

aferim wrote:
Banking is an important part of the West's superiority to the Muslim world, and it also manifestly contradicts Christianity and reason.


:lol:


Check out Aristotle's critique of usury in the Politics, (presumably the Economics too, though I haven't read it).
NuruddinAbdulHaqq
 
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 1:57 am

Re: Rosenzweig's summary of "continuing creation"

Postby NuruddinAbdulHaqq » Fri Nov 09, 2007 1:52 am

It is to this issue that Benedict XVI referred in his Sept. 12, 2006 Regensburg address when he observed that “for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality.”


With all due respect, I find this to be an incorrect statement with regard to Qur'anic doctrine. It may be an opinion of Muslim thinkers, but to call God "absolutely transcendent" without also calling Him "absolutely immanent" is to interpret away a very large number of verses and ahadith. For instance:
So wherever you turn, there is the Face of God 2:115
We are closer to him (man) then his jugular vein 50:16
On the authority of Abu Harayrah (may Allah be pleased with him), who said that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said: Allah the
Almighty said:

I am as My servant thinks I am. I am with him when he makes mention of Me.
If he makes mention of Me to himself, I make mention of him to Myself; and
if he makes mention of Me in an assembly, I make mention of him in an
assemble better than it. And if he draws near to Me an arm’s length, I draw
near to him a fathom’s length. And if he comes to Me walking, I go to him at
speed.

It was related by al-Buhkari (also by Muslim, at-Tirmidhi and Ibn-Majah).
NuruddinAbdulHaqq
 
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 1:57 am

Postby Spengler » Fri Nov 09, 2007 1:58 am

NuruddinAbdulHaqq,

The Western view (and this distinguises Plato's forms as well as Aristotle's universals from the "sunnah of Allah") is that the particular stands in a coherent relation to the whole of creation, and that this relationship is mediated by natural laws ("intermediate causes"). It is the difference (if you will permit a parable) between the President of the United States, who rules subject to Constitutional checks and balances, and hears the voice of the people through a system of representation, and a monarch whose subjects come up to him individually to whisper in his ear. If Allah individually and severally directs every event in all of creation according to wilfulness, there need not be any reason to look into the relationshi among these events, for they all arise from Allah's will, and Allah is ineffable. That may explain why Muslim science disappeared shortly after the triump of the theology of al-Ghazali .

The Syrian poet "Adonis" makes the same point, incidentally, about Muslim poetry. See

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IE08Ak05.html

I wish to make clear that I do not think Muslims are any less intelligent than Christians or Jews, but rather that normative Muslim theology paralyzes the sort of inquiry that leads to scientific discovery. A Kepler, Newton or Einstein would ask, "Just how did God order the universe?," and set out to discern the mind of God. That question itself would be blasphemous to al-Ghazali.
User avatar
Spengler
Moderator
 
Posts: 5236
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 6:18 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Spengler

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 6 guests

  • SIDEBAR
  • Latest Forum Topics