Even Europes Dark Age was (a lot) Brighter than Islam’s Mythical “Golden Age”

Islam Watch

Quote from this excellent article:

“An Islamic world of enormous cities endowed with all the wealth of antiquity and the plunder gathered in the Muslim wars of conquest.”

Now we all know why this period of history was called the Golden Age of Islam. This was because of the piles of ill-gotten gold from looted temples and churches, booty from the conquered and Jjizya (tribute) from infidels.  When the source dried up after they killed the Golden Goose, so did this Golden Age come to an end.

Popular history books tell us that Euruope’s Dark Ages (8-10th century) was Islam’s Golden Age — a Golden Age without any hard facts…

According to the history books, the Early Middle Ages, the period stretching roughly from the first quarter of the seventh century to the first quarter of the tenth, was a crucial time forEurope and the Middle East. For Europe, this was the very darkest phase of the so-called Dark Ages, an era during which the light of Classical Civilization was finally extinguished. However, for the Middle East, which from about 635 onwards became Muslim, it was a very different story. The next three centuries, far from constituting a “Dark Age”, became a veritable Golden Age. This was to be the high point of Islamic civilization: three centuries during which the Islamdom led the world in science, philosophy, wealth and culture. As Europe floundered in poverty and darkness, with cities abandoned and violence everywhere, Muslim rulers such as Harun al-Rashid and Al-Mamum presided over a flourishing and enlightened urban civilization.

Continue reading Europe’s Dark Age and Islam’s Golden Age: Two Facets of The Same Fiction?

Was this an act of abject dhimmitude, not of compassion for a dying man?

“Medical advice on Libyan bomber ‘in doubt,'” by David Maddox for The Scotsman, August 26 (thanks to JW):

JUSTICE secretary Kenny MacAskill was last night under pressure to reveal more details of the medical evidence that led to the release of the Lockerbie bomber, after it emerged that only one doctor was willing to say Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi had less than three months to live.
Labour and Conservative politicians have demanded the Scottish Government publish details of the doctor’s expertise and qualifications, amid suggestions he or she may not have been a prostate cancer expert.

Ghaddafi: Terrorism ‘Justified by Western Arrogance…“

• Burning Christians – and Others
• The Qur’an Challenge
• The Inhumanity of Being Humane to Terrorists

The parties have also raised questions over whether the doctor was employed by the Libyan government or Megrahi’s legal team, which could have influenced the judgment.

The evidence provided by the doctor is crucial as compassionate release under Scots law requires that a prisoner has less than three months to live….

THE decision by two Islamic alleged terrorists and their supporters not to stand when required in court was not based on religion but designed to make a political point, a magistrate says.

“It’s a sin to stand up for any person who is somehow related to an oppressive government.”

Obviously, they are misunderstanders of Islam who got their peaceful religion all wrong. Surely Solkhar would have no problem teaching them the real Islam:

Newscom

Continue reading "Oppression is terrorism therefore the Australian government is a terrorist government"

No doubt his apologies are genuine: Andrew Bolt has his picture is in the paper every day and his got kidz. Perhaps a representative of the Religion of Peace told him “we know where you live”…

Sammer and Hakan

Andrew Bolt

I’ve only now seen two comments that were sent in last week by Macca about regular commentators Hakan and Sammer. They were foul and have since been snipped. Macca has been banned – and this time for good. Creep.

The reason I draw attention to this is that I want to apologise to Hakan and Sammer (neither of whom actually complained to me, I should note). They have long been regulars here, arguing in defence of their faith and doing it often with a courtesy conspicuously missing in some of their critics. This alone gives them and their cause some credibility, and they do not deserve some of the criticism hurled at them.

I have long welcomed their contribution, and would like them to know that they are welcome still – while their worst detractors are most definitely not.

From Islam in Action:

NY Muslims:Ramadan is a Time of Jihad, the Jihad is Alive!~Video

Not to worry: I’m sure he just means peaceful inner struggle:

If this continues unchecked we are losing this war.

Because just like in Europe our government refuses to address Islam itself.

The Australian:

• ‘Monster attack’ planned on base
• Terror plot accused ‘hates Australia’

Other News:

• 80 Years Ago (Aug. 24) Arabs Ethnically Cleansed Hebron of Jews
• Glen Beck video; “Dancing with the Czars”. And I believe the WH has announced a new “brown shirt” unit that only answers to the
• Arab League seethes over Jewish prayer on Temple Mount

Ain’t that the truth! Not only does the Koran have no ethics, the Koran also doesn’t recognize the Golden Rule. The Koran is equally void of morals. Everything that spreads Islam: Good. Everything that opposes Islam: Baaaad!

Cathy Galvin/Times

THE bestselling author Sebastian Faulks has courted controversy by saying the Koran has “no ethical dimension”.

In an interview with today’s Sunday Times Magazine, he added that the Islamic holy scripture was “a depressing book”, was “very one-dimensional” and unlike the Christian New Testament had “no new plan for life”.

Faulks was speaking in advance of the publication of his novel, A Week in December.

Best known for historical works such as Birdsong and Charlotte Gray, his new novel addresses contemporary London. Its characters include a health fund manager, a literary critic and a Glasgow-born Islamic terrorist recruit. Researching the latter, he read a translation of the Koran which he found “very disappointing from a literary point of view”.

He also criticised the “barrenness” of the Koran’s message and the teachings of the prophet Muhammad, especially when compared with the Bible.

“Jesus, unlike Muhammad, had interesting things to say,” Faulks said.

“He proposed a revolutionary way of looking at the world: love your neighbour; love your enemy; the meek shall inherit the earth. Muhammad had nothing to say to the world other than, ‘If you don’t believe in God you will burn for ever’.”

Criticism of the Koran is regarded as blasphemous by Muslims.

The Pseudo-Golden Rule or Do Unto Which Others?

Bill Warner

Muslims are very sensitive about the lack of a Golden Rule in Islam. So, when you bring this up they always rush to assert that Muslims love everybody, in particular, Christians and Jews. And, of course, Islam has a Golden Rule.

In a past newsletter, I argued that Islam had no Golden Rule. Marcelle Sagan replied to my post on the website of the Royal Islamic Strategic Studies Center, a site sponsored by the royal house of Jordan. Given this source of funding, so you expect the highest quality of scholarship on Islam.

So let’s take a look at some of Mr. Sagan’s arguments, one at a time.

He makes the usual claims of Islam being the victim of ignorant Islamophobes and advances that anything a critic about Islam has to say never, ever, has any truth in it at all. This attitude comes directly from the Sunna of Mohammed. Mohammed was never wrong, Islam is perfect and anyone who does not believe this is a bigot. Mohammed was always the victim. When he attacked unarmed caravans in the sacred months, Islam was the true victim, not the murdered kafir (non-Muslim) Meccans.

Mr. Sagan argues that Islam is filled with statements about the Golden Rule. His first claim for the Golden Rule is this Koran verse:

83:1 Woe betide the unjust who, when others measure for them, exact in full, but when they measure or weigh for others, defraud them!

Giving Islam the benefit of the doubt, doing business in an honest manner could be construed as a very narrow, weak version of the Golden Rule. However, let’s examine this verse in its context and with a frame of reference. When Mohammed moved to Medina, he found that the Medinans routinely cheated when measuring out goods in a sale. When the Meccan Muslims complained that they gave good weight and were being cheated by their Medinan Muslim brothers, Allah gave Mohammed this verse. The actual case involves Muslims selling to Muslims.

Here is a quote from the Hadith with some ethical advice along the same lines:

Bukhari 9, 86, 109: […] the Prophet said, ‘In dealing with Muslims one should not sell them sick (animals) or bad things or stolen things.”
Does this sound like the Golden Rule? Where are the kafirs (unbelievers) in this morality?

Then Mr. Sagan quotes Mohammed:

None of you believe until you desire for your brother, what you desire for yourself.
But who is a Muslim’s brother? Humanity? Mohammed gives us his answer:

Bukhari 1, 2, 12: The Prophet said, “None of you will have faith till he wishes for his (Muslim) brother what he likes for himself.”

Bukhari 3, 43, 622: Allah’s Apostle said, “A Muslim is a brother of another Muslim, so he should not oppress him, nor should he hand him over to an oppressor. Whoever fulfilled the needs of his brother, Allah will fulfill his needs; whoever brought his (Muslim) brother out of a discomfort, Allah will bring him out of the discomforts of the Day of Resurrection, and whoever screened a Muslim, Allah will screen him on the Day of Resurrection. ”
What we see here is that there is a Golden Rule but only in an Islamic way. Muslims are to practice the Golden Rule, but only with other Muslims. This is ethical dualism.

Perhaps, Mr. Sagan missed the universal brotherhood hidden somewhere in the 6,800 hadiths of Bukhari. Do the math. There are 209 hadiths that mention the word “brother”. Of those 209 hadiths, 96 concern blood kinsman ship and the other 113, each and every one, are about spiritual brotherhood where a Muslim is a brother to other Muslims.

Then Mr. Sagan uses an outright deception. He states that in Mohammed’s farewell sermon, he said: “That which you want for yourself, seek for mankind.” These words sound good until you read Mohammed’s farewell sermon and find he says no such thing. In this sermon, Mohammed did say to treat your slaves well, that Muslims are brothers to each other, that your wives are your prisoners and to beat them if they disobey you. Oh yes! That is universal brotherhood, compassion and Golden Rule. The only times Mohammed ever said anything about humanity or mankind, it was that mankind had to submit to Islam.

Why did Mr. Sagan manufacture this quote? Because, Mohammed repeatedly advised Muslims to deceive the kafir if it would advance Islam:

Bukhari 5, 59, 369: Allah’s Apostle said, “Who is willing to kill Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?” Thereupon Muhammad bin Maslama got up saying, “O Allah’s Apostle! Would you like that I kill him?” The Prophet said, “Yes.” Muhammad bin Maslama said, “Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Kab). The Prophet said, “You may say it.” […]
And finally, let us examine the Golden rule in Mohammed’s life. Since he is the perfect moral example, his actions define morality. If we look in the Sira, Mohammed’s biography, we do find incidences where he treated the kafirs well, but the treatment was always part of seduction and persuasion to get them to submit to Islam. If that did not work, then he attacked them. In the end, Mohammed violently attacked each and every neighbor he had. He was the ultimate bad neighbor. The Golden Rule makes you a good neighbor. Islam’s dualistic ethics make Muslims the same kind of neighbor as Mohammed was.

The reason Muslims use deception about the Golden Rule is that they know not having it makes Islam look bad. Why do politicians, preachers, rabbis, educators and media commentators repeat the propaganda about how wonderful Islam is? Their duplicity or silence stems from fear and ignorance.

So, Muslims, preachers, politicians, rabbis, educators and media pundits are deceivers, but for different reasons. Muslims are following the example of Mohammed and our leaders are ignorant cowards. When seen in this light, even though they have been given no Golden Rule to follow, perhaps the argument can be made that Muslims are more admirable than these others.

Bill Warner, Center for the Study of Political Islam