What's new

When the West Glorified Islam

Luffy 500

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Jan 2, 2012
Messages
5,562
Reaction score
2
christian-muslim.jpg


When the West Glorified Islam

Living in an era in which Islamic values and culture are chastised and ridiculed, it may seem unimaginable that there was a time in history when this was very different as was the case in the Early Modern period in particular. In light of our forthcoming discussion that speaks of largely consistent Islamic values and traditions, logic would dictate that Western standards and culture have taken a drastic change in direction following a huge shift in mind-set.

Today, countless aspects of Islām and its culture are showered with buzzwords: ‘backwards’, ‘oppressive’, ‘primitive’, ‘extremist’ to name a few. And whilst Muslims are tutored to ‘be proud of British History’, just a brief look at it shows a blinding inconsistency with current attitudes toward Islām. One could argue, in fact, that the rising negativity towards Islām is a new phenomenon.

In the Medieval era, contact between what would become “the West” and the Islamic world was minimal. Naturally there was a great deal of ignorance and both domains were far from interested in learning about one another. Through increased cultural contact and interaction between the Western and the Islamic World, dominated then by the influence of the Ottomans during the early modern period, a dramatic perceptual change was sparked. Europeans were finally given the opportunity to explore in greater depth the faith they long brandished as the evil ‘other’.

Initially, Early Modern Englishmen received the Muslims they first encountered by their developed preconceptions or populist fantasies. Sometimes their only sources were literary tropes from popular mystery plays that were aimed at tarnishing the image of Muslims at the time. According to Dr. Nabil Matar, a specialist in 17th century English religious literature, “Preachers dramatists and poets…invented images of the Muslims that had little or no relation to Islamic civilisation and religion.”[1]

With their growing familiarity with Islām, however, English writers could not help but marvel about what Islām actually truly had to offer. One aspect of Islamic theology that they found particularly mesmerising was how the Qur’ān seemed to advocate the idea that all prophets offered the same route to God. Many Scottish and English writers also admired how Muslims practised exactly what the Qur’ān preached, a reality absent from their own faith. William Biddulph, an English clergyman during the early 17th century, is famous for his writings about the Ottoman Empire during his travels. In it he extensively encourages English readers to compare their own lives to that of ‘Turkish’ men and women.

Englishmen were also massively impressed by the extensiveness of Islamic theology, in particular Islām’s teachings governing religious coexistence, in an era in which Christian minorities were violently persecuted, let alone members of ‘foreign’ faiths. He states,

“[In the Muslim World] all men are to be saved by their own religion; so that neither Christian, Turk, nor Jew can curse either’s faith, but, upon complaint to the magistrate, you may have them punished.”[2]

The principles of religious coexistence also had an impression on English Christians who were left to freely practice the tenets of their faith within Muslim lands. The Quakers were one such minority group which acknowledged the treatment Muslims leant to their minorities in comparison to the Anglican Establishment which violently persecuted them during the reign of Charles II.

Beyond the rules of coexistence, George Sandys, an English writer and traveller during the early 17th century revealed his admiration and appreciation of the respect Muslims showed their elders:

“The Turkes do greatly reuerence their parents (so commanded to do by their law) as the Inferior his Superior, and the young the aged, readily giving the priority to whom it belongeth.”[3]

Sandys himself acknowledged that this practice was derived purely from “their law”, in other words the Qur’ān.

The study of Islām and the Prophet Muḥammad (sall Allāhu ʿalayhi wa sallam) was on the rise during this time, especially since the Ottoman Empire was seen as a superpower to be reckoned with. Henry Stubbe (1632-1676), an English scholar and writer, as well as a devout Unitarian, particularly took it upon himself to study the Islamic faith and the Prophet Muḥammad (sall Allāhu ʿalayhi wa sallam). Stubbe went on to author a book called ‘The Originall & progress of Mahometanism’ in which he fervently defended Islām and the Prophet (sall Allāhu ʿalayhi wa sallam) in the face of spouted common misconceptions and prejudice.

Stubbe’s book was not just a cliché imaginary satire, rather it was a book produced as a result of thorough research, scholarly erudition and genuine admiration. It is difficult to know why Stubbe decided to defend Islām with such passion, but what is certain is that his zeal in shedding new light on the ‘newly discovered’ faith leant him the title of ‘the 17th Century Defender of Islam’ by contemporary writers.

From the very first pages of the introduction into the early life of the Prophet (sall Allāhu ʿalayhi wa sallam), Stubbe stated that the Prophet displayed:

“…pregnant signs of a Singular Nature, great Wit, and good behaviour,”[4]

suggesting that from his infancy the Prophet was destined to become a great and influential figure in human history. Stubbe also praised the treatment Muslims exhibited toward the Christians, especially amidst their relentless persecution at the hands of the Persians:

“The Christians who had been so persecuted by the Cosroes… according to the humours or interests of the Governours, were glad of his rise, and magnified his undertaking”[5], with Stubbe, portraying Prophet Muḥammad (sall Allāhu ʿalayhi wa sallam) as a liberator and his advent as being much-anticipated by Christians of that era. Not only did Stubbe speak in admiration of the Prophet (sall Allāhu ʿalayhi wa sallam), but he took a specific and notable interest in his companions such as ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib (raḍiy Allāhu ʿanhu), and heavily praised his person as, “…humble and affable: of an exceeding quick wit, and of an ingenuity that was not common [sic]”.[6]

During the Early Modern period, views on the gender roles of both Muslim men and women in particular stand out. There was a dissolution of moral and sexual restraint among their population in a time of political and economic unrest. The English believed that such cultural and societal change threatened Christendom and thus they began to present the “Turkes”, i.e. the Muslims, as an ideal model for how the English should conduct themselves. Alexander Ross (1590-1654), a Scottish writer and controversialist, writing during the mid-17th century praised the modesty of Muslims. Suddenly the Muslim moral code began to be seen as the saviour of western social construct and harmony,

“[We] are much taken with moral outsides, whereby the Turks exceed Christians; for they are more modest in their conversation generally than we; men and women converse not promiscuously, as among us.”[7]

After all, the Qur’ān, and thus the Islamic moral code, preserves the integrity of society through its protection of the family unit – guiding men and women to modesty and God consciousness.

“Tell the believing men to reduce [some] of their gaze and guard their private parts. That is purer for them. Indeed, Allāh is Acquainted with what they do.

And tell the believing women to reduce [some] of their gaze and guard their private parts and not expose their adornment except that which [necessarily] appears thereof…”[8]

From a brief outlook on the English Early Modern Period, which includes the ‘Age of Discovery’ —the cornerstone of the contemporary western system—we can conclude that Muslim men and women were seen as models to be followed and their modesty and matrimonial ideals admired. Commenting on this, Matar states that, “…by the second half of the seventeenth century, English writers and travellers began to realise that [the English] could never be moulded like their Muslim counterparts.”[9] So in the end, it was merely wishful-thinking, and the rapid societal change during this time made the consistent and reputable standards set by Muslim men and women impossible to meet.

Though it is evident that Islām was held in high esteem by some learned individuals during the Early Modern period, we must be fair and rational in saying that it was still demonised in places before, during and after that period.

“For example, take Lord Cromer, a British leader in Egypt, who accused the Egyptians of degrading women through veiling and seclusion, whilst he simultaneously worked to end the pre-existing Egyptian practice of training women to be doctors.”[10]

The reasons for this demonisation, however, are similar to today, rooting from the fear of otherness and culminating in reactionary self-preservation in the face of a powerful, wealthy and advanced Muslim World.

We could even go as far as saying that much vilification by other English authors was possibly out of envy. Perhaps, it is because Muslims preserved their ideals alongside their advancement and did not see their coexistence with the ‘other’ a cause for concern. Aside from the concerted vilifier of the religion, many historically illiterate observers will naturally blame what they see as the contemporary regression of the Muslim world on the values the Muslim’s hold. Ironically, the contemporary Muslims’ image as inferior and weak is thus blamed on their once-admired values and customs.

Today’s absence of the successful Muslim states (and communities) that sport these traditions further prevents some of the genuine attitudes towards Islām and the Islamic World developed during the Early Modern Period. The curiosity, interest, appreciation and respect during that interesting period is demonstrated by the sheer number of books written by English authors who travelled to the Middle East and North Africa, beyond those mentioned above. If this scratching of the surface of one period shows anything, it is that the hostility some seek to foster with Islām need not be taken for granted.



Source: www.islam21c.com

Notes:

[1] M, Nabil in Anti-Muslim prejudice: Past and Present – Edited by Maleiha Malik (Routledge, 2010) P. 8

[2] M, Nabil quoting Francis North (1637-1685), an English politician in Anti-Muslim prejudice: Past and Present, P. 21

[3] S, George. A Relation Of A Journey Begun (W. Barrett, 1621) P. 65

[4] S, Henry. An Account Of The Rise And Progress Of Mahometanism (Luzac, 1911) P. 73

[5] S, Henry. An Account Of The Rise And Progress Of Mahometanism, P. 87-88

[6] S, Henry. An Account Of The Rise and Progress Of Mahometanism P. 78-79

[7] R, Alexander. A View Of All the Religions In The World (London: Printed for M. Gillyflower…and W. Freeman, 1696) P. 176

[8] Al-Qur’ān, 24:30-31

[9] M, Nabil in Women And Islam – Edited by Haideh Moghissi (Routledge; 1 edition, 2004) P. 141

[10] https://zarafaris.com/2013/04/19/femen-feminisms-going-bust/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

@Iqbal Ali @war&peace @Psychic @Khafee @Apprentice @Banglar Bir @dsr478 @Zarvan @AUz @Dai Toruko @Verve @HAKIKAT @Arsalan @Samlee @Max @Khafee @jamal18 @Narendra Trump @mb444 @Mirzah @shah_123 @Avicenna
@Meengla @Lagay Raho @Dawood Ibrahim @simple Brain @Malik Abdullah @Mrc @Fledgingwings @tesla @Timur
 
.
Spot on Luffy,

Unfortunately Islamophobia has become a movement in modern times.

When in reality the Muslim world was known as one of the greatest places of human progress ever known.
 
.
Islamic nations compared to the Christian Europe they more better but in modern day muslims are zero compared to other nations
 
.
Islamic nations compared to the Christian Europe they more better but in modern day muslims are zero compared to other nations
Agreed Muslim countries today are behind the west and Eastern nations such as China and Japan in technology and education.

But now that is rapidly changing. It is just Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, and Libya which are in turmoil.
 
.
problem with christian west is it too kosher rothshcild influenced and it is seen as white christian but Jesus is middle easterner he would be deported or sent to Guantanamo if he traveled to west.
 
.
This was at a time when Islam was the beacon of progress and Ulema and leadership were actually worthy of their titles. Now the religious and political leadership of Islam is as bad as the ones in Europe during the Dark ages.
 
.
Then came the scientific revolution...(don't know if it has still reached the middle east)
 
.
Then came the scientific revolution...(don't know if it has still reached the middle east)
Where do you think it started from? HD Genghis Khan not wiped half the eastern world out, I am sure that there would have been the industrial age in the middle east and south Asia.
 
. .
Where do you think it started from? HD Genghis Khan not wiped half the eastern world out, I am sure that there would have been the industrial age in the middle east and south Asia.

The arab world sat on all that knowledge for 500 years and did nothing.By the time genghis came,the arabs were already in decline and the golden age was long over.Genghis just gave the death blow.The renaissance came to europe because the italian scholars read these texts and wanted to revive their ancient glory -one they had lost with rome.The arabs /middle eastern cultures had no such impetus,they already believed they were the greatest ever.

The industrial revolution is a combination of several factors -
Scientific revolution with technological advancement,rise of nation states in the west,agricultural revolution due to need for intensification to keep up with growing population food demand and 2 most important factors - 1)the discovery and mass use of a new cheap fuel source in coal( happened in england because the previous fuel source - charcoal had become scarce due to excessive felling of trees,and coal deposits were abundant and nearby) and 2)The discovery of the new world(which again was made possible by technological advancement in navigation and favourable geography).New world provided inexhaustible raw material resource base obtained for cheap as well as captive market.Falling behind in navigation and artillery tech is also why arabs lost control of global spice trade to the portugese,who despite being massively outnumbered could crush arab galleys aimed at ramming and boarding with very few but powerful sailing ships with rows of gun decks.Same reason why ottomans lost the war for the mediterranean.If they had won that war,they too could have reached the new world.At the decisive battle of lepanto in 1571,just six venetian galleases( a hybrid between the old galleys and the big gun deck sailing ships that were to come) destroyed 1/4 th the ottoman fleet of galleys with their guns,many galleys being destroyed even before they could make contact to ram and board the opposing battle line.

lol has the scientific revolution even reached India?

Ask ISRO.
 
.
Spot on Luffy,

Unfortunately Islamophobia has become a movement in modern times.

When in reality the Muslim world was known as one of the greatest places of human progress ever known.

Fobia is a fear which is not real. A lion comes in front of you and you get scarred is not a fobia. They know very well what happens to them if Muslims rises in population.
 
.
The arab world sat on all that knowledge for 500 years and did nothing.By the time genghis came,the arabs were already in decline and the golden age was long over.Genghis just gave the death blow.The renaissance came to europe because the italian scholars read these texts and wanted to revive their ancient glory -one they had lost with rome.The arabs /middle eastern cultures had no such impetus,they already believed they were the greatest ever.

The industrial revolution is a combination of several factors -
Scientific revolution with technological advancement,rise of nation states in the west,agricultural revolution due to need for intensification to keep up with growing population food demand and 2 most important factors - 1)the discovery and mass use of a new cheap fuel source in coal( happened in england because the previous fuel source - charcoal had become scarce due to excessive felling of trees,and coal deposits were abundant and nearby) and 2)The discovery of the new world(which again was made possible by technological advancement in navigation and favourable geography).New world provided inexhaustible raw material resource base obtained for cheap as well as captive market.Falling behind in navigation and artillery tech is also why arabs lost control of global spice trade to the portugese,who despite being massively outnumbered could crush arab galleys aimed at ramming and boarding with very few but powerful sailing ships with rows of gun decks.Same reason why ottomans lost the war for the mediterranean.If they had won that war,they too could have reached the new world.At the decisive battle of lepanto in 1571,just six venetian galleases( a hybrid between the old galleys and the big gun deck sailing ships that were to come) destroyed 1/4 th the ottoman fleet of galleys with their guns,many galleys being destroyed even before they could make contact to ram and board the opposing battle line.



Ask ISRO.
That is based on the assumption that the knowledge was already there for 500 years??
It is a rather biased view considering that the same accusation could be thrown at the scientific revolution saying they could have invented computers in the 1700s.

There was a large loss of knowledge and key personell during the mongol plunder of Baghdad. Hence that was never transferred over. Whatever was left was transferred over and all the way to the west, which due to their requirement of resources had greater motivation to develop science and technology compared to both Arabs(who were ruled by the ottomans) and South asia(ruled by foriegners as well) who actually had an abundance of resources and no motivation to innovate as the spur that existing during the 1st millennium due to both religion and excitement of discovery had died out.
 
.
Ask ISRO.
Is that why Indians are going to the Middle East to work and not the otherway around?

Is that why Middle Eastern countries are ahead of India (per capita-wise) in almost every single way?

You have a country of 500 million street shitters and you want to claim that the scientific revolution has reached India but not the Middle East.

The most malnutritioned, unhygienic, poverty-ridden country should not even compare itself to the region of Sub-Saharan Africa, let alone the Middle East.

@Arabi

@Saif al-Arab
 
.
Both muslim and non-muslim brothers & sisters reading the article should kindly note that, the article is NOT about scientific technological aspect of the Islamic golden era BUT it is talking about how the western world looked up to - with envy - the islamic moral codes regarding modesty, respecting elders, following God's commands, gender interactions and islamic matrimonial culture etc etc. Yes Muslims excelled in science and stuff and its important and all BUT that's NOT the topic that is being addressed in this article.


Then came the scientific revolution...(don't know if it has still reached the middle east)

even if it reaches the middle east, it won't matter much if middle easterners do NOT follow & live Islam to the letter. Muslims will forever be humiliated until or unless they can regain the moral code of conduct and the religiosity of their high achieving ancestors i.e 7th century fundamentalism. Only when we Muslims become islamically more practicing like the righteous generations can we collectively prosper.
 
.
Is that why Indians are going to the Middle East to work and not the otherway around?

Is that why Middle Eastern countries are ahead of India (per capita-wise) in almost every single way?

You have a country of 500 million street shitters and you want to claim that the scientific revolution has reached India but not the Middle East.

The most malnutritioned, unhygienic, poverty-ridden country should not even compare itself to the region of Sub-Saharan Africa, let alone the Middle East.

@Arabi

@Saif al-Arab

Low income migrants are going,as they are going from pakistan in huge numbers to get a better life.It happens to western countries too.The Indian middle class and rich are going nowhere and they are the ones that actually drive innovation and the economy.Rant all you want,we are already a substantial economic and military power and only growing while you are stagnant.Come visit Bangalore if you don't believe me.

Both muslim and non-muslim brothers & sisters reading the article should kindly note that, the article is NOT about scientific technological aspect of the Islamic golden era BUT it is talking about how the western world looked up to - with envy - the islamic moral codes regarding modesty, respecting elders, following God's commands, gender interactions and islamic matrimonial culture etc etc. Yes Muslims excelled in science and stuff and its important and all BUT that's NOT the topic that is being addressed in this article.

even if it reaches the middle east, it won't matter much if middle easterners do NOT follow & live Islam to the letter. Muslims will forever be humiliated until or unless they can regain the moral code of conduct and the religiosity of their high achieving ancestors i.e 7th century fundamentalism. Only when we Muslims become islamically more practicing like the righteous generations can we collectively prosper.

Irrelevant,prayers or faith won't win battles against drones and bombers.They won't stop the bomb or the bullet mid air.
Prayers won't create industries.
Faith won't innovate new technology or create jobs.
Get with the times.Religion should be kept to private sphere as personal belief.Mix religion with material affairs and you get a mess.

That is based on the assumption that the knowledge was already there for 500 years??
It is a rather biased view considering that the same accusation could be thrown at the scientific revolution saying they could have invented computers in the 1700s.

There was a large loss of knowledge and key personell during the mongol plunder of Baghdad. Hence that was never transferred over. Whatever was left was transferred over and all the way to the west, which due to their requirement of resources had greater motivation to develop science and technology compared to both Arabs(who were ruled by the ottomans) and South asia(ruled by foriegners as well) who actually had an abundance of resources and no motivation to innovate as the spur that existing during the 1st millennium due to both religion and excitement of discovery had died out.

The renaissance in Europe didn't actually derive much from anything the arabs created,except in mathematics which the arabs themselves had borrowed from Indians and greeks.The biggest contribution was that when the spaniards conquered toledo and cordoba during the reconquista in the 14th century with their libraries intact and before that during the fading days of al andalus from these same libraries they recovered fully intact original translations of greek and roman classics which had been lost to the west.These along with the texts brought by byzantine refugees fleeing the ottomans provided a knowledge base for the resurrection in italy.The scientific revolution came from western europe and after galileo the main men were the frenchman descartes and the biggest game changer - newton.They derived little to nothing from older texts ,their ideas were fundamental.
(Also the renaissance started from second half of 14 th century,ottomans didn't rule arabs until 1st half of 16th century.)
Agreed with the motivation to innovate and presence of resources point.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom