Not really, it started dissipating in the reign of the Ottomans. I think a surfeit of abuse of power tends to dilute the creative and scientific accomplishments of a culture.
Here's plenty of Quran assisted science. For example: "The sun ... runneth unto an appointed term." The sun (according to the Quran) orbits the earth. 13:2 http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/science/long.html
The proper interpretation of whatever Golden Age, is an Age in which Life is Good, close to being Heaven on Earth.
Here's what I call a typical Western scholarly POV of Islamic science's Golden Age: "One of the most interesting histories of what comes of rejecting science we may see in Islam, which in the beginning received, accepted, and even developed the classical legacy [of Greek science]. For some five or six rich centuries there is an impressive Islamic record of scientific thought, experiment, and research, particularly in medicine. But then, alas! the authority of the general community, the Sunna, the consensus ...cracked down. ...And so it was that, just when the light of Greek learning was beginning to be carried from Islam to Europe--from c. 1100 onward--Islamic science and medicine came to a standstill..." --Jeremy Campbell 1973
A fine quotation; but how is it islamic? How is Western medicine and science then not "Christian"? What is the fundamental difference?
Jeremy Campbell is an example of a Western historian, so I quoted him. Really though, it was the people who used the consensus of the people, who did Islamic science in. Those were the ones who ended up running everything, all men too. The Sunna and what resulted might have been a reaction to the inherent freedoms afforded to women by Islamic science, who knows? What does "Christian science and medicine" mean, to you? Where do you think the West got it from?
Damn it, you had her cornered but you didn't stay on it. SAM, you're crazy. You can't attribute all the good acts done by every Muslim to all of Islam and all the bad acts to only the one person. It makes no fucking sense. Why can you not fucking understand this :bawl:
BoH, I'm not trying to drum Sam out of the forum, but to reach some kind of agreement. Although maybe I could drum myself out of the forum. Anyway - there's the temptation to say "no, that was bad, that wasn't islamic", but at the same time there is that element of islam to it. Dhimmis are dhimmis because the Quran says so. Apostates are murdered because it's in al-Buhkari, Dayud and a couple others (and arguably in Sura 2). There's good as well, of course; but I can't deny either that homophobia is and has been in Christianity; sexism too. Isn't it better to admit it (the admission of less-than-perfection being the issue around which all objection to reform in islam stems, since it seeks to emulate that uswa hasana, that insan-al-kamil perfect-type chap, Mo) and change it than to deny it? Or even to just admit it? Admitting you have a problem is the first step to recovery, they say. Let's hope there exists some courage for that first step.
Forget that the opinion of some Islamic scholar or the presence of some Hadith [minus its isnad] is not incumbent on all Muslims. Ultimately, no Muslim government is obligated to follow any of the above, only the Quranic principles. No Muslim is responsible for what another Muslim does, but can follow any Muslim he/she considers is doing right, as long as the motive is to do good. All other Muslims can hold an opinion about this without intervention in the point of religion. Until you realise this important fact about Islam, you'll keep comparing it to Christianity and beating your head against the wall.
Sam, I think you're beating your own head against the wall. Whether no muslim government is incumbent to follow any of the above (and I'd like to see your evidence for that, incidentally, since much generally gets made by islamists of Christians/secularist types "cherry-picking" religion, BTW Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!), many do and have. It isn't an issue of all muslims taking responsibility for all others (although the concepts brotherhood, body of believers and religious consensus in islam do spring to mind) but rather whether the islamic "Golden Age" was a) "golden" for everybody and b) whether or not the advances of the "Golden Age" really sprung from islamic theology and which element of that theology they came from. Frankly, in your rhetoric about obligation and religion in politics, what you've described is the modern Christian perspective on religion and politics, by all evidence I can think of. I think in banging your head, you may have rattled your brains loose. Can you try again?
Like I said, you need to separate religion and state when addressing Muslims. Otherwise, lookee here, no one gives a rats ass. For Islamic Golden Age, go read a book, I'm not interested in dissecting why historians have named it the Islamic golden age.
Propaganda, it influences the way you think about things, maintaining an illogical view, like, "Islamic" Math.
Algebra was used 4000 years ago by the polythist Babylonians. Must be Babylonian polythistic-math. The worship of many Gods as a philosophy is credited with that math. Is this correct SAM? Babylonian Panthonistic Algebra, ever do some of that SAM? Starting to sound stupid yet?
Not really, I leave that to you. You do "clueless" so well. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Meaning what? Look, the issue is whether or not the age was "Golden" for everyone. Islam itself doesn't separate religion and state (nor will you find the same anywhere in dar-al-islam; how is this a meaningful response? Then why did you get on the thread? :shrug:
The historical period, and its "islamness". Otherwise why call it that? And how does "islamic science" work? Is any of it related to your religion then? Why use the term at all, if we must differentiate the religion and reality? With no evidence? Well spotted.
