Originally written by Maxi Schwarz-Bastami on October 31, 2009 12:31 PM Anyway, at some point Islam starts, and at some point Byzantium is conquered.  The religious climate at that time pushed for learning, science and such, so the conquering Arabs got busy studying all the scientific and philosophical material in Byzantium.  They transcribed the Greek writings into Arabic, spread the information, and their scientists etc. got busy working on those various things.  The ended up holding this knowledge and expanding it.

This is essentially correct and can be verified by reading Karen Armstrong's The Battle for God: A History of Fundamentalism.

Here, an excerpt: http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/a/armstrong-battle.html

Nanna

Nanna, I can't access the article.  I would have to subscribe.

Maxi

I've looked up Karen Armstrong.  She is a former Catholic nun, and spent some time in Jerusalem.  I don't see any sign of her having studied Islam or the history of Islam, though - not sure about Judaism, though she write about both.  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_Armstrong  So I'm not sure that I would use her article as a resource to verify what I studied from authentic sources written by experts.  But perhaps what those sources say could help verify what Ms. Armstrong has written, if I could get at the article.  Maybe I'll subscribe (sigh).

Maxi

Originally written by Maxi Schwarz-Bastami on October 31, 2009 1:17 PM I can't access the article.  I would have to subscribe.

The NYT archives are open to the public in exchange for registration, not subscription.

The opening line for starters:

One of the most startling developments of the late twentieth century has been the emergence within every major religious tradition of a militant piety popularly known as "fundamentalism."

Originally written by Maxi Schwarz-Bastami on October 31, 2009 1:22 PM  if I could get at the article.  Maybe I'll subscribe (sigh).

Sorry, Maxi. I am registered at the NYT, but you need only do that, not subcribe.

Bill Moyers interviews Karen Armstrong:

BILL MOYERS: She was a spark plug in my PBS series on Genesis, her books are best sellers, "The History of God", "The Battle for God", "Jerusalem". She's written a biography of Buddha, and a short history of Islam. Soon we'll have her new memoir of her life after the convent where she spent seven years as a nun. Joining me now is one of the world's foremost students of religion, Karen Armstrong. 

http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_armstrong.html

Nanna

Edited since I've read Nanna's other link.  She's reaching out to what is common in the three religions.  However the original thing about the study of material found in Byzantium and the link to Enlightenment is not found in either of her articles.  She also writes about "fear of rationalism", while the things studied in that period were very rational and very scientific.  Generally speaking the idea of fear of rationalism makes no sense to me, at least in my limited knowledge.

Addendum: What is nice in her writings is her search for positive constructive elements such as compassion which she she sees present in all three religins.

Maxi

Maxi,

My original reference to Karen Armstrong's books is based on my own reading. I have read and own several of her books. I am glad you could use the links.

Nanna

Originally written by Nanna Mercer on October 31, 2009 1:47 PM She's written ... a short history of Islam.

Not only that, but also Muhammad: A Biography of the Prophet, Muhammad: A Prophet for Our Time and Holy War: The Crusades and their Impact on Today's World. Wikipedia does have, as usual, a section with criticism of those works, but the fact remains, as mentioned by Maxi, that Karen Armstrong's contribution, even if "casual", to bridge the gap between religions is remarkable. "She points out that religious fundamentalism is not just a response to but, paradoxically, a product of contemporary culture. "We need to create a new narrative, get out of the rat-run of hatred, chauvinism and defensiveness...." (Wikipedia)

The knowledge that had been tucked away in Byzantium got spread back into Western Europe. They made extensive use of the Arab Muslim scholars who had transcribed and then worked with that knowledge. When this information came to be in main Europe, the "Enlightenment" also happened. There's a documentary that suggests there is a link. Now - if the Enlightenment involved acquiring the ideas and knowledge which was held in Byzantium, and which the Arabs were acquiring and expanding on, then there is no sense to the idea tha the Arabs needed to subsequently acquire what they had already acquired.

I got interested in Maxi's chronology and possible origins of Enlightenment which took place in the 1700s while the major Arabic contribution to the Western culture happened at least 500 years earlier(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_contributions_to_Medieval_Europe). While the Islamic influence on the Renaissance is widely known (see the link above), it was less obvious for me in the case of the Enlightenment, yet the names such as John Locke or Isaac Newton confirm the connection mentioned by Maxi.

What interested me was the part that was less obvious.  When Constantinople was regained, Western Europe avidly studied the texts written by Greeks and I supposed continued by those in Constantinople.  However, many of the scholars they retained to  understand the Greek material were the Arabs.  So this isn't even the direct Arab contribution, but the Greek and Eastern contribution.

There is a British series,  I think with Monte Python, which is bitingly humourous.  That might have been my source.

This is a very, very different mentality than what we have in the West 

And I would leave it alone.

It is naive to think we can ignore Iran and assume they will pursue their logical self interests. They are zealots of islamo-totalitarianism... perpetuating tyranny of religion and over women, imprison journalists, and agressively stir up Lebanon's fragile Christian-Muslim balance. They are continously support the murderous work Hezbollah and Hamas.

It is naive to believe volatile tyrants like Kim Dung Il and Ahmadine-wackjob can be trusted with nuclear weapons. I doubt they would use them against the West, but I can easily imagine them slipping some goodies to some of our subterranean enemies, and believe me, there are plenty of them still out there.