The Clash of Samuel Huntington and Amartya Sen

comrade masadi:

AL-whatzhisname or Ibn-whoever might invented some great scientific thingy but today`s muslim ``scientists`` are more concerned about how muslims will pray in space..

Heck..you disclaimed the one great modern muslim scientists, Nobel prize winner Abdus Salam, because he wasn`t muslim enough for you..

a small setback for Abdus, a giant step back for Islam

My Dear Gopalakrishnan -- regrading multiple identities -- Amartya Sen, a profound thinker and a giant of an intellectual -- has stated the obvious -- a concept the intellectuals have known for some time but never dared to state publicly --

that we are not who we claim we are -- at all times -- except for that moment when we say who and what we are..

it is inaccurate to consider that -- an individual has only ONE identity -- and of all things RELIGION defines it --

an individual is not an island -- an individual doesn`t exist in a vacuum -- he/she has many strings of identity attached to him or her that pull in various direction....

...as part of the family, clan, religion, ethnicity, politics, city, district, province, region, country, continent, and finally the world...the individual is pulled in every other direction

in fact I had mentioned on Chowk some years ago that our identities are like -- a closet full of various garments -- that we wear one at a time depending upon the occasion, need, mood, and the WEATHER.

yes of course if we get a suit or a saree that we really love and adore -- we may like to wear it EVERYDAY -- like Islam of the Hijabis -- but that is poor fashion and in poor taste.......

it also means that among the various garbs of possible identities of ours -- Religion occupies only I/12th fraction of space.......

there is nothing inherently evil in Islam -- Islam is not a ferocious monstrous carnivore concept --

Islam is just an ORDINARY medieval religion like any other ordinary religion -- all religions are ORDINARY and MEDIEVAL -- there is nothing SPECIAL about Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism or Shintoism -- including Islam --

they all were creation of medieval minds -- they were all EXTRA ordinary for the time they were born -- they are VERY ordinary from the standards of modern times......

,,,,Islam Included.

The violence associated with SOME practitioners of Islam is coincidental -- interpretational -- regional -- may be neurological -- but most likely political reactionals......

and that stupid clash of cultures farce is indeed a creation of a pathological reactionary delusional mind....

The author writes in #12
<<< Re: # 2

You call me damn bigot, and by implication anti-Islam. In that case, how could I have supported the Palestinian cause of regaining territories and criticised Israel?

We make a mistake when we say that science or mathematics or whatever is ``Islam`s`` contribution. Islam`s contribution is religion, the Koran, the Hadith, the Shariat. Stop! You cannot say that the electric bulb or thermometer or railway engine is Christianity`s contribution! (The inventor`s religion is immaterial!).One can therefore only say that further developments in science and maths were the contribution by ``Islamic countries`` during those concerned times. >>>

1. the Palestinian cause has nothing to do with Islam. You attribute ``Islam`` where Islam does not apply and take away from its credit, in the case of advancement in science, where credit is due. 2. Your point about Christianity is based upon historical ignorance. Christianity was an opposing force unlike a comparison of pre and post Islamic society in which Islam becomes a direct cause of the changes that occurred in outlook to learning and science and the scientific method. Later when Islam became Christianized and ``clergy-fied`` (If I am allowed to invent this word) did we see similar opposition and conflict between religion and science as we saw between the Christian clergy and science. In fact Christianity sets the standard for conflict between religion and science.

Re: # 2

You call me damn bigot, and by implication anti-Islam. In that case, how could I have supported the Palestinian cause of regaining territories and criticised Israel?

We make a mistake when we say that science or mathematics or whatever is ``Islam`s`` contribution. Islam`s contribution is religion, the Koran, the Hadith, the Shariat. Stop! You cannot say that the electric bulb or thermometer or railway engine is Christianity`s contribution! (The inventor`s religion is immaterial!).One can therefore only say that further developments in science and maths were the contribution by ``Islamic countries`` during those concerned times. It is likewise wrong to say that this and that is ``Arabic`` contribution. Arabic is only a language. Of course Arabic speaking people spread to North Africa and Spain after Mahomet`s time, and the conquered areas took over Arabic language. Maimonides, a Jew hailing from Cordoba, wrote not only in Hebrew but in Arabic. So, if one has to adopt a correct perspective, one can rightly say that such and such are the contributions of ``Islamic countries`` (implying the inhabitant people) but it is wrong to say that science or maths and such things are the contributions of ``Islam`` or are ``Arab contributions``! Look at today`s Arabia. Anything greatly intellectual? Look at other Islamic counties of today`s --like Iran, Egypt, Pakistan, Malaysia, Indonesia. They are full of science and progress.

Also please note that I had used ``Indian`` (in the context of science and maths) and not ``Hindu``, The religious belief is irrelevant!

the site I mentioned in # 10 is:
http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/sina/default.htm

Asadi, Bravo, Bravo... here is my nickel, you forgot to mention Ibn Sina, father of the medicine:
Avicenna was well known for his medical works as for his philosophical, with his Canon of Medicine serving as the foundation of medical learning in European universities for centuries. This was based mainly on Greco-Roman teaching, but incorporated some Arabic works and, to some extent, his own clinical experience.

And to you Arjun and babu, want to get yourself really familiarized with Avicenna, the Prince of Physicians, for his famous medical text ``Al-QANUN``, ``the canon``, just like lense came from lentil (adsa in arabic, was invented by arabs) go to this site to quench your thirst for more evidence

i do not think anyone was denying indian civilization, in evolution process things are borrowed, improved and invented same time...my good friends do not give the impressions: ``hey guys i m here too, give me atttention`` ...becasue there were chinese, greeks, persian, incas, african and others cvilizations not only indian and islamic, all contributed to the modern days science and technology and you guys did not mention of them. It smells like some kind of complex. I hope the smart asses from chinnai, banglore and hyderabad can do a good job with what bill gate and the rest of the western enterpreneurs have passed on to them to at least give the india its glory back, which was lost centuries ago... and make all of us happy and proud again in the sub-continent. Becasue in farsi they say``pidarum sultaan bood``, means my ancestors were kings, they were...what are you now?

Re: # 1

I am personally a very naive person in terms of trust. But here I am referring to ``intellectual naivete``.

``Multiple identities`` of an individual is not at all a helpful concept here, particularly when one introduces all kinds of things like ``vegetarian, tennis- fan ``etc etc. For that matter Sen could have added one hundred more identities of a person, like height, weight, skin colour, nose-picking habit, lack of cool temperament, sexual impotence, preference for blue colour etc etc! What is essential if you talk about identity in the overall context of humanity is culture, religion and major societal characteristics. That is why I thought that Sen`s multiple identities here is far-fetched and to that extent naive.

#6 by masadi on April 22, 2006 9:48pm PT


(quote) ``It is highly probable that but for the Arabs, modern European civilization would have never assumed that character which has enabled
That spirit and those methods were introduced into the European world by the Arabs.


So Arabs did all those things you claim...Islam had squat to do with it...In any case, the author`s point stands unrefuted..The ay-rabs DID gain a lot of knowledge from the Indian civilization..

In #6 read << does not mean their original contributions were none existance >>

as << does not mean their original contributions were non-existant >>

#5, bbabu writes

<<< Please tell us what were the advances by Muslims in Math and Science.
Tell me why those advances are related to Islam. >>>

Crack open some history books hmmm let me think off hand, optics, the germ theory of disease, the circulation of blood, c-section operations, that have saved countless lives, the modern university, the scientific methodology of experimentation, the modern hospital, checks to facilitate commerce, advanced mathematics based on original work as a field, historiography, sociology etc... You only need to look at their works, like the work of Ibn Khaldun which are filled with quotations from the Quran, which is both the source of their inspiration and unique insights as well. Just because they were smart enough to build upon what they could find of use in works of other civilizations (all knowledge progresses in this fashion) does not mean their original contributions were none existance. Only a damn fool and a historical idiot and bigot would deny that. I have already posted a couple of posts on this go thru my posts on your own time.

Here is a quotation by the historian Robert Briffault, in his ``The Making of Humanity`` which might ease your bigotry a little bit:

(quote) ``It is highly probable that but for the Arabs, modern European civilization would have never assumed that character which has enabled it to transcend all previous phases of evolution. For although there is not a single aspect of human growth in which the decisive influence of Islamic culture is not traceable, nowhere is it so clear and momentous as in the genesis of that power which constitutes the paramount distinctive force of the modern world and the supreme course of its victory-natural sciences and the scientific spirit... What we call science arose in Europe as a result of a new spirit of inquiry; of new methods of investigation, of the method of experiment, observation, measurement, of the development of Mathematics in a form unknown to the Greeks. That spirit and those methods were introduced into the European world by the Arabs.`` (end quote)

masadi #2

`` Taking the sum total of Muslim advances in methodology of science, mathematics and all fields of modern science, he reduces them to mere theft from the Indians. Now the problem with these damn fools is that in order to explain the miraculous spread of Islamic society, they say that it was because the surrounding empires had become decadent and weak, alright but then when you ask them about the scientific progress that happened under the Muslims, they will turn that on its head and say they were much too advanced before the Muslims made their appearance and the Muslims merely stole stuff. You cannot have it both ways and no historian worth the name will discount the Muslim contribution both as originator of methodology, advancement of all fields of science and as a transmitter of knowledge to the West, without which there would have been no rennaissance. If the progress that Muslims did in science can be discounted by the nonsense that this author is stating then ALL scientific progress since that time can also be discounted as ``borrowed`` from Islam. That is why I state that this author is a damn bigot who wants to deny Islam and the Muslim anything positive related to them, even when it is a fact and wants to push the negative, regardless of whether that negative is fictitious nonsense like the so-called ``clash of civilizations`` thesis. ``

Please tell us what were the advances by Muslims in Math and Science.
Tell me why those advances are related to Islam.

#2 by masadi on April 22, 2006 3:55am PT


Taking the sum total of Muslim advances in methodology of science, mathematics and all fields of modern science, he reduces them to mere theft from the Indians.


comrade masadi..you can`t steal ideas(unless they are patented)..if I have some knowledge and I share it with you, now we both are knowledgable..

The fact that muslims of the past were open to sharing ideas and knowledge from other cultures goes to their credit..Maybe the muslims of today should try that..If you wrote a kickass program in java that solved the muslim world`s problems, no one would credit bill joy..

Re: # 2
masadi you are absolutely right in your assessment of the author`s assertion about muslims contribution to the science and technolgy... one can argue the justification of spread of muslim empire by sword, but its rulers and scholars contributions cannot be minimized, because they borrowed the knowledge from the greeks or indians or chinese, did u hear of ave sina, SV?...at least one should be generous enough to admit that they did not drop the ball and held the batten of progress and run with it with god speed...
huntington is an idiot, sen is genious and authentic voice of the people...

The author of this article (who reveals himself to be a bigot in the end paragraphs) writes

<<< At first glance and without going into the arguments, it is fairly easy to perceive that both Huntington’s and Sen’s opposing positions are at different ends of extremism, the only commonality between them being utter naivete. It is difficult to say that the truth is somewhere in between them since historical progression has shown a totally different direction. >>>

It is easy to see that Huntington is an idiot who has forgotten that culture does not operate in a vacuum, the political economy, when these are the dominant institutions in society determine it more or less, using the lesser institutions like religion and family as means to their varied ends. ``Historical progression`` has reveald that quite clearly, but the author has no clue about that historical progression so he just throws it in as a distraction to legitimize his non-existant point. What is that in-between, just a convenient statement?

Then he lets the huntington cat out of his bag, when he states about Islam:

<<< The fact is that Islam merely transmitted to the west Indian mathematics and astronomy. The scholarship that evolved in the Islamic territories happened not because the post Mohammed conquering tribes were highly educated and civilized but because the centers such as Baghdad, Damascus, Cairo etc which came under Arabic Islam rule were already highly civilized. Sen has not handled the issue of Islamic Fundamentalism in depth and has not offered any suggestion as to the final destiny of the various types of fundamentalism, Islamic or Christian or whatever. >>>

Taking the sum total of Muslim advances in methodology of science, mathematics and all fields of modern science, he reduces them to mere theft from the Indians. Now the problem with these damn fools is that in order to explain the miraculous spread of Islamic society, they say that it was because the surrounding empires had become decadent and weak, alright but then when you ask them about the scientific progress that happened under the Muslims, they will turn that on its head and say they were much too advanced before the Muslims made their appearance and the Muslims merely stole stuff. You cannot have it both ways and no historian worth the name will discount the Muslim contribution both as originator of methodology, advancement of all fields of science and as a transmitter of knowledge to the West, without which there would have been no rennaissance. If the progress that Muslims did in science can be discounted by the nonsense that this author is stating then ALL scientific progress since that time can also be discounted as ``borrowed`` from Islam. That is why I state that this author is a damn bigot who wants to deny Islam and the Muslim anything positive related to them, even when it is a fact and wants to push the negative, regardless of whether that negative is fictitious nonsense like the so-called ``clash of civilizations`` thesis.

“ At first glance and without going into the arguments, it is fairly easy to perceive that both Huntington’s and Sen’s opposing positions are at different ends of extremism, the only commonality between them being utter naivete.” (author)

I agree with the author regarding Huntington`s fascists view on the clash of cultures among the world`s Seven Dwarfs -- as shallow and racist -- but to equate Sen` multiple identities theory as extremism based on naivete-- shows author`s own naivete and extremism .....

Sen is not only one of the sanest economists -- as a humanist his universal social concerns make him a foremost cultural ecumenist as well…