Could Christianity Have flourished without islam?
- Thread starter Constantinople
- Start date
Excuse me whilst I laugh
I am suggesting that the Byzantines copied them themselves.
Only it is clearly emerging in the early 11th century.
The phrase is "kill them all. God will know his own" it comes from the Albigensian crusade.
Actually not relevant as we have earlier cross-references to check
and misses the point that you claim that Islam removes barriers between man and God.
The widow Danelis.
Matilda.
Theodora wife of Theophilus
No, they are the monks in Belgium and North Italy who are at the heart of various growing trades.
Your depiction of the priestly classes is absurd and inaccurate. If you study any medieval source you will generally find that it is the leading church figures arguing against murder, superstition and bigotry - see for example St Bernard's condemnation of attacks on Jews.
Hendryk
Banned
There was nothing remotely mind liberating about medieval Christianity. One may in fact argue that it was the most intolerant and intellectually backwards major religion of its time. As Leo said--and I know this is difficult to get across to people who take for granted that Islam = obscurantist fanaticism--it was in the Muslim Middle East that religious tolerance and intellectual pluralism flourished. In China too, of course (there was nothing stagnating about Chinese civilization until the late 18th century).
"Mind liberating". Hah!
I would say that Christianity certainly would have flourished without Islam, but the course of history would be vastly different. Without Islam, there would likely have been earlier and more schisms in the church.... one reason Islam succeeded where it did was that the people there were already unhappy with the church for various reasons. Islam was Christianity's greatest rival, so it's absence would certainly keep the church going. But... no Crusades, no Islamic golden age, no Reconquista in Spain.... history in Europe would be so vastly different, it's hard to say just how it would go...
One has to thing of Najaf and Karbala when considering the tolerant aspects of Islam.
Anyone who bothers to read about history book will realise that Christianity is the forward thinking element in Europe. Committed to learning and freedom of thought - the way different churchmen take different sides in the Investiture contest is interesting for example.
NapoleonXIV
Banned
The early Christians didn't burn "pagan" books? That's the laughable statement.
I have heard the Albigensian attribution, but I heard it said of the First Crusaders also
Maybe it was emerging then, the Crusades gave it much greater impetus.
I wasn't trying to make that point here, only pointing out that both sides burned their own holy books.Certainly, there were many strong women who rose to prominence even under early Christianity, doesn't change the status of most of them
That's very interesting, and I had not known of that. Could you point me to a further reference, much thanks.
I don't see as how it's absurd and inaccurate to say that the same priesthood that founded the Inquisition was somewhat stultifying to innovation and free thought in general for a long time. I have admitted they were often brilliant scholars as well. Its certainly no worse than some of the other posts here, which seem to confuse the worst of modern Islamofascism with the flowering of culture that occurred in Damascus and Baghdad more than a thousand years ago.
Max Sinister
Banned
One has to think of (old) Baghdad and Cordoba when considering the intolerant aspects of Islam. Every thing has two sides.
There's a joke about the (post-WW2) German army: "What is it good for? For holding against the Reds at the border until a REAL army takes their place." Same about scholastics: It's only good as long as there's no real science. It's kind of ironic, but the Christians could only become masters of the world, after the power of the church was cut back several times during the centuries. At first there was the long philosophical conflict between "Realists" (who would rather believe that this material world isn't real, but only Platon's ideas are) and Nominalists, then worldly universities had to take over and do a better science and education, then the princes had to take worldly power from the church, and even later the enlightenment had to win to get the religion somewhat out of the heads of the people. And that's still an incomplete list.
There's a joke about the (post-WW2) German army: "What is it good for? For holding against the Reds at the border until a REAL army takes their place." Same about scholastics: It's only good as long as there's no real science. It's kind of ironic, but the Christians could only become masters of the world, after the power of the church was cut back several times during the centuries. At first there was the long philosophical conflict between "Realists" (who would rather believe that this material world isn't real, but only Platon's ideas are) and Nominalists, then worldly universities had to take over and do a better science and education, then the princes had to take worldly power from the church, and even later the enlightenment had to win to get the religion somewhat out of the heads of the people. And that's still an incomplete list.
I will have to check, but I may forget.
Most societies are stultifying to innovation and free thought one way or another. Largely illiterate peasant societies particularly so.
The achievements of early Islamic society are clear enough, but they do not need to come at the expense of a cliched, witch burning, view of the Medieval world. It was a lot more complicated. The Christian church particularly so.
I find the whole debate between fashionable Islamophilia and "Mah granddaddy weren't no monkey" Christendom apologetism vaguely amusing, I must say. Anybiody who takes a good, close look at medieval Christianity will quickly see that it has nothing to do liberating anyone (from what? The spiritual desert of Gnosticism? The thoughtless superstition of the Presocratics? The unethical libertinage of Socrates? The inhuman emotionlessness of Seneca?). Similarly, anyone who thinks of the Caliphs and the Muslim armies conquering the known world as enlightened lovers of tolerance and wisdom needs to read more. Unfortunately, it appears people are by and large unable to conceptualise a historical period without good and bad guys.
Medieval Christianity was not an advanced faith slowly lifting a continent out of barbarism.
Medieval Islam was not an enlightened polity under which sciences and philosophy prospered.
There is *some* truth in both statements, of course, but I think it is salutary to recall that both sides were perfectly happy to burn books and torture and kill people in the name of their faith.
Medieval Christianity was not an advanced faith slowly lifting a continent out of barbarism.
Medieval Islam was not an enlightened polity under which sciences and philosophy prospered.
There is *some* truth in both statements, of course, but I think it is salutary to recall that both sides were perfectly happy to burn books and torture and kill people in the name of their faith.
Redbeard
Banned
I didn't mention MEDIEVAL Christianity as especialy mind liberating but underlined that the proces seriosly started at the time of the Reformation and Counterreformation. But still, despite the mind-cumbersome medieval church, Christianity all through held the basic elements needed to feed the mental revolution happening when people take responsibility (try and read the New Testament, and you need not see it as a religious revelation but rather as a philosophical textbook).
I can't see any of those elements in Islam and that is perhaps why the mind braking elements in Christianity (the Church) were brought under control and the scientific/invoative elements (science/culture) were the elements braked in Islam.
Regards
Steffen Redbeard
I think that the Eastern Roman Empire became a Greek empire after it lost Egypt , Syria and Palestine to the Arabs. If the Empire hadn't suffered from the Arabian invasions it could have kept and maybe expanded it's territories in Italy.
In this case , the papacy might not become as powerfull and influent as it was in OTL.
Also , the Christian world would have been more diverse , because without Islam , the Christian sects from the Middle East and North Africa might have survived and the pope wouldn't have been so powerfull.
Leo Caesius
Banned
Actually, if I'm not mistaken, even Greece at this point (meaning the territory of the modern Hellenic Republic) was predominantly Slavic. The Byzantines also had a huge Anatolian population of diverse origins.
They did survive, you know. 64% of the Arabs in the US are Christian from various ME denominations. At least 1 in 10 Arabs is Christian. The only ones that died out were ironically the ones most fiercely persecuted by the Orthodox, and even many of them are still around (Nestorians, Monophysites, etc.); I suspect that many of the ones that disappeared welcomed Muslim rule and probably didn't need any excuse to convert.
Max Sinister
Banned
What elements?
The problem of Islam is, IMO: Their political-religious system gives all power to the Caliph. Which gives a strong, smart Caliph the opportunity to make more possible then a European king, but also a bad one the opportunity to screw up things even more. And there are more bad than good rulers around.
Second problem, ironically: Islam makes things very clear. There no god but Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet. OTOH, Christianity is theologically confusing (which I read some Muslims saying too): There's One God, but at the same time he has three personalities? Is Jesus all god, all man, or half-and-half? Does the Holy Ghost emerge only from God, or from god and the son? What's the role of Mary? Since we don't have hard facts at hand, we can speculate to no end. Finally people came to the right conclusion: Religion doesn't make you omniscient. This leading to the advance of science and enlightenment.
That is a very interesting point and one I never thought of. If you're Christian, you may think of God as smiling wryly at you and saying, "So you think you can understand the Trinity? Fat chance. Try to understand My Creation instead." In Islam, however, you know that Allah is God and Muhammad is his prophet, and you don't need to know anything else.
Redbeard
Banned
From reading the New Testament I think it is pretty clear that Christianity was a rebellion against docmatic and simple rules (Pharisees etc.), and although the Catholic Church almost ruined that the main point remained each individual remaining responsible before God - and just performing rituals wouldn't be enough. Secondly, and that might be even more important, Christianity provided a splendid basis for secularization (give the Emperor what belongs to the Emperor...).
In Islam you are so far from secularization that you are not really allowed to even make laws, they are given beforehand and from 7th century Arabia! That of course must put up a tremendous barrier for any society in a world that didn't stop in the 7th century. Just imagine how many laws have been passed in a standard western country since 7th century! I know that not all Muslims are seeing Sharia as uninterpretable, but I actually agree with the fundamentalists that from reading the Koran (sp?) it is very difficult to avoid the Sharia as fundamental - if you are a Muslim.
The role of the Caliph IMHO wasn't significant, and anyway the "Divine Right" he possesed was shared by a lot of enlightment age European Monarchs. The difference was in the attitude of their subjects.
I agree that Christian theology can be quite complicated compared to many other religions, and I guess that also was a cause for the Catholic Church to "popularize" by introducing saints, Mary and all that. That might of course have contributed to the "liberation" from simple thinking, but just being confused isn't enough.
Regards
Steffen Redbeard
Leo Caesius
Banned
Actually, there are four schools of jurisprudence dedicated to... you guessed it... interpreting sharia.
These schools are universal. They're found throughout the Muslim world, to varying degrees. Interpreting sharia is not only considered possible by most Muslims, but a necessity. Throughout most of Islamic history, there was an entire class of society - the ulema - dedicated to this very thing.
Sharia just means "the way," as in a way of life. It comes from the same root as the word for "street" in Arabic, which it closely resembles. There is no book entitled "Sharia" that gives all of its particulars. It is more like a constitution than a law code - the constitution of the Islamic commonwealth, which is now defunct. For that reason alone, it should no longer apply in its traditional form.
In any case, sharia deals more with interpersonal relations and community law than anything else. Births, weddings, funerals, prayer, that sort of thing. It's not all cutting off hands and heads, you know.
Actually, if you bother to read the Qur'an, you'll find very little that answers to what we tend to think of as sharia. The sharia famously prescribes stonings for adultery, but this punishment does not appear in the Qur'an - instead, the Qur'an recommends beatings for both men and women, and suggests that both should be let off the hook if they repent, because God favors repentance above all other things.Redbeard said:
When you hear modern Muslim theologians talking about a practicing a version of Islam based solely upon the Qur'an, they are usually arguing for a more liberal interpretation of the religion, one without what you might consider sharia.