stats

Saturday 6 March 2010

I*SLA*M 2.

When Muhammed died in 632 he could look back on a life of remarkable achievement.  Orphaned early in life and without an education, he had united the disparate factions and squabbling tribes of Arabia into a semblance of religious and political unity.  He had imposed on his compatriots a revolutionary faith that claimed to be the the final prophetic revelation of Allah.  They accepted him as the supreme prophet and apostle and the Koran as the infallible and authoritative word of God.  He was very far from being the simple impostor that earlier European historians described.  He was obviously a very remarkable man, skilful in diplomacy, engaging in social life, but all the while having a streak of ruthlessness when necessary.  This was shown in the destruction of 800 males of the Jewish Quraysh tribe after the Battle of the Trench outside Medina.


After his death there occurred the most amazing example of military expansion the world has ever seen, one that rivals that of Alexander, but with the added bonus of permanence.  Within two years of his death, Damascus had been taken by the Arabs, Jerusalem a few years later, and the  whole of Egypt by 642.  By 711 the Muslim empire stretched from  Spain in the West to Afghanistan in the East.  With the sole exception of Spain, the lands conquered at that time remain Muslims lands to this day.  How  were all these victories achieved?  These are the main reasons.  The Muslim armies were fired by a zeal that they were inspired by Allah to bring salvation to a benighted race. Secondly, the two major powers in the prosperous lands to the north of Arabia had been squabbling and fighting for years.  Both the Byzantines and the Persians had reached a point of exhaustion.  Thirdly, the Semitic Christians in Syria and Palestine were sick of the corrupt and oppressive Greek-speaking rulers in Constantinople. They thought that Muslim rule would probably be milder and fairer than what they were experiencing.


In 732 Muslim armies based in Spain crossed the Pyrenees and advance towards Paris. At Tours one of the most important of world battles took place.  Charles the Hammer of France defeated the Muslim armies and they retreated back to Spain.


The next few centuries are fondly looked upon by most Muslims as their Golden Age.  They translated and meditated on the Greek classics and in the royal courts Muslim and Jewish  and Christian scholars studied and discussed basic problems in science and mathematics.  As one contemporary Muslim scientist writes,  "Between the the 9th and the 13th centuries the only people doing decent work in science, philosophy, or medicine were Muslims."
Then, in the early 12th century,  a book was published by a very learned Sufi scholar that has had a deep influence on I*slam.  Al Ghazzali, concerned that the writings of Plato and Aristotle were far too popular and there was a consequent decline of faith among Muslims as a result, published his book, The Incoherence of the Philosophers.  In it he strove to highlight the contradictions found in Greek philosophers.  In it he championed revelation over reason and predestination over free-will.  One of his doctrines was what is known as occasionalism.  It is an attack on the basic assumption of all science- the concept of cause and effect.  For example, take petrol, fire and oxygen.  Moderns believe that if you put these three together you will get an explosive reaction without exception.  The known properties of the three items mentioned makes an explosion inevitable. Ghazzali said that God directly intervenes in all the observable cases because it is His will, not because of the intrinsic certainties involved. Most say you cannot have a science based on the momentary arbitrary will of something external to matter.  A lot of Muslim intellectuals believe that it is from this period that Muslim science declined.  While the West pursued Scientific enquiry at an ever increasing rate the Muslim world retreated back in a rigid orthodoxy that has continued to this day.
In the terrase cafes of Cairo, among the intellectuals who meet there, one of the perennial topics of conversation is the backwardness of Arab and Muslim states in general. They admit that Islamic nations are scientifically and economically far behind Western nations. One Pakistani physicist has done a survey on scientific papers published in the past few years.  Less than 2% are produced in the whole of the Muslim world,  a figure which is a slightly lower  than that of Spain.
There are more books and scientific papers published in Israel than in the whole of the surrounding Arab states put together.  Muslim scientists are eternally wary of offending the current religious orthodoxy. The spirit of free enquiry is stifled.

4 comments:

  1. A good intro...can I make a couple of points - being led by revelation is an aspect of the faith-filled walk that many Christian believers have to wrestle with humbly (especially as the human tendency is to believe that our personal 'revelation' is the true one). That we do this is essential. Mohammed believed his revelation sufficiently powerfully to lead an entire people-group into believing it too. So obviously did Ghazzali whose work effectively closed the door to questioning that revelation. However, people must be allowed to question any revelation without fear.
    The New Testament recommends that any revelation be weighed and tested and then 'witnessed to' by the wider believing body. These checks and balances were deliberately put in place to prevent so-called 'revelation' being acted on inappropriately or taken out of context. In this way, prophetic revelation is given publicly, examined in the light and openly discussed. If it is true, it will prove to be life-filled, challenging, releasing, blessing and freeing to all. For example, Paul wrote his thoughts/revelations openly in letters to the wider ekklesia - it proved to be wisdom and led to positive results in people's lives.
    Secondly, I know there are those who say that it was the church which held back scientific discovery (and in some parts of history there are examples of that) but we need to remember it was men like Newton, faithful believers, who responded to revelation, doing the reasoning work they were expert at, and bringing about more positive outcomes than negative. A bold, sensible and loving approach where revelation and reason work together does bring positive outcomes. An imbalance one way or the other can be catastrophic. Free enquiry, whether scientific, philosophical or political, allows imbalances to be teased out. It is time for Christians to consider speaking out again for free enquiry.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yes, Walker, it is true that the wider body should weigh individual revelation without fear and hopefully discard error. Unfortunately, militants will always shout loudly and bully others into following their views. Wasn't Napoleon just a "little corporal" before he got going? We see this militancy in Islamic fundamentalism that would seek to destroy the "other" and also, sadly, in Christian fundamentalism where a misplaced desire for a return to the good old days of Christian Britain is being used by some to stir up a holy war against Muslims. I believe their characterisation of muslim Britain as militant is far from the truth.

    Most Muslims in Britan, I am sure, are liberal and generous spirited, as are most Christians. The fundamentalists would call them "nominal". If you want to characterise an entire body of believers by what is said in their holy writings then we should remember that "Death to the infidel" is just as often found in the old testament of the bible as it is in the Q'uran. Thankfully, most Christians take no notice of the "leave none of them alive" biblical texts any longer and Christianity is seen as a religion of peace.

    If some in Islam do want to pursue Jihad then they will have to answer to God for that. I will not fight them. I am called to love my enemy. I will help them build their mosques and try to promote my own revelation of God as a loving father and faithful friend.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The command to kill is without doubt in the OT, but I have never met anyone, Christian or Jew, who takes this seriously. Many Islamists do take the Koranic verses seriously, however.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I have no desire to return to the ways of 'good old Christian Britain' because, as a historian, I don't think it ever existed. People went to church but that's not the same thing at all. In Victorian times, when Christian Britain was supposed to have existed, there was extreme poverty, anguish, a damaging class system and an imperial spirit. It is all credit to Shaftesbury and others such as Fry and Wilberforce, that anything was done at all. No, I don't look back to that!
    I too am called to love my enemy - that is the call of the kingdom - but I also wish to be wise about seeing the reality within which they exist - and acknowledge it is not one, like Rome, with which I can agree. Like the early Christians, we have to remember that if we don't tell the 'Romans' about Jesus, they won't get to know him but also, we need to be realistic about what system operates behind them.

    ReplyDelete