History: Controversial Debate Challenge

My sincerest apologies about missing round two. Two rounds may not due justice to this debate, and so I ponder if my opponent would like to continue further in a sequel debate? It has been most enjoyable. I tend to concur that my opponent can't possibly attempt to rebut my arguments, but I intended only to provide some preliminary counterarguments to his claim before he assumed the burden of the proof and formulated a focus to this debate. I will address his rebuttals briefly: 1. The Carolingian Renaissance was one of, "...a whole series of minor renascences that terminated the few centuries of what really were 'the Dark Ages,'.... Each of these rebirths, consisting of a revival of learning and centering on Roman and to a lesser degree Greek antiquity, had altered and revitalized only the rather restricted milieus of the educated inside and outside of the monasteries..." (pg. 83, German 20th Century Philosophical Writings by Wolfgang Schirmacher). In no way did the Carolingian Renaissance alone eradicate the "Dark Ages", but the knowledge gained and the information stored assisted tremendously with the emergence of Europe into the Renaissance at a much later date. Art, architecture, literature, music and even legal reforms were created by Charlemagne and his successors, and some of them are still appreciated or utilized in this era. 2. Muslim expansion My opponent is attempting to avoid the very fact that Islam wouldn't have spread to North Africa and Europe if it hadn't been for brutal conquest. He does this by issuing a challenge and creating the proverbial, "straw man." Indeed, Moslems did, occasionally, migrate peacefully, as have people of all religions, and nobody could possibly have misinterpreted by statements to include minor peaceful movements of the occasional settlers. However, he also asked, "What army conquered West Africa?" The answer to that question is not one army, but various coups and violent uprisings or attacks on what had been a peaceful order, "In 1802, Uthman Dan Fodio, a Fulani scholar, led a major jihad. With the help of a large Fulani cavalry and Hausa peasants, Uthman Dan Fodio overthrew the region's Hausa rulers and replaced them with Fulani emirs. The movement led to centralization of power in the Muslim community, education reforms, and transformations of law." and many other examples can be found, " In the 1850s, Umar Tal returned from pilgrimage claiming to have received spiritual authority over the West African Tijani Sufi order. From the 1850s to 1860s, he conquered three Bambara kingdoms." (2.) I think my opponent will find that West Africa was not wholly Moslem until the 1800s, far beyond the remnants of the "Golden Age," and therefore his protestations are irrelevant. 3. Origin of the Renaissance My opponent apparently proclaims that the "scientific achievements" that we have today were influenced moreso by Moslems then by the European scholars and scientists, many of whom I have already named, and none of whom had contact with any Moslem predecessor (if there was a predecessor). In essence, Moslem technology benefited mostly Moslems, if it even benefited them. For example, my opponent claims that Moslems perhaps influenced navigation, sailing and flight. I therefore researched further into the history and came across a single man named Abbas Ibn Firnas, who claims to have attempted to glide in an attempt at aviation. His feeble attempt included this, "He covered himself with feathers for the purpose attached a couple of wings to his body, and, getting on an eminence, flung himself down into the air, when according to the testimony of several trustworthy writers who witnessed the performance, he flew a considerable distance, as if he had been a bird, but, in alighting again on the place whence he had started, his back was very much hurt, for not knowing that birds when they alight come down upon their tails, he forgot to provide himself with one." (3). The Greeks were the first to experiment with flight, including a man called Archytas, who supposedly flew two hundred metres - farther than Abbas and his feathers. He probably obtained the idea from another Greek, Daedalas. In the fifth century, the Chinese experimented with hot air balloons. Eilmer was the first reported European to glide over two hundred feet (4), and he was an English monk with no prior interaction with Moslems. Navigation and shipbuilding was not a Moslem strength. In fact, the Moslems were terrible ocean goers - at a time when most European powers had heavy, ocean going vessels with cannon (galleons, cogs, caravels etc.), they still relied on the ancient galley and the various versions of that design. The Ottomans could never assert naval dominance over any European country. The Tripoli pirates and the Barbary corsairs were seafaring types who dared not to venture from the safety of their coasts and the Mediterranean Sea. When engaged by far superior European and American navies, they completely collapsed. It was not Moslems who enabled exploration. Medicine Though I can't disprove each of my opponent's points, I do contend that he is incorrect about the first pharmacy, which was reportedly Sumerian in 4000 B.C. (5, 6) The Egyptians also had a fine medicinal practice, and it is reported that they were able to operate on cataracts, puncturing a small hole in the eye of the patient with a hollow instrument, and the Indians had their own technique in 6th century BCE. (7) "The earliest recorded shop dealing with sales of medicines in London was opened in 1345." (8) Cough syrup can't have been "pioneered" in Europe, either, as each nation had a distinct recipe - many involving a quantity of Chinese opium. I ask that my opponent at least same some of his "pioneers" - particularly the one regarding the bayonet mount, since bayonets themselves had no use on the hand cannons that the Mamluks purportedly utilized against the Mongols (a weapon the Mongols may have obtained from China), Therefore, while I have no doubt that the Moslems revelled in a glorious era filled with innovation and advance, they certainly were not key to Europe's emergence from the Dark Ages. If that were to be the case, then why did they themselves stumble at about this time? My opponent makes the ludicrous claim that the Visigoths were tired of King Roderick and actually invited the Moslems to conquer. This claim is simply ludicrous, though various historians do consider it as a possibility. If the Visigoths were so pleased, why did it require a seven year campaign led by Tariq ibn-Ziyad himself to conquer the Peninsula? Why didn't they launch a coup, depose Roderick and then invite the Moslems through their border? This was certainly possible at such a volatile time. I might mention that Christians and Jews did coincide peacefully during this time, but the Moslems made it amply clear that if they were not leading the nations of Europe, they would not reside peacefully under the reign of a Christian ruler. Therefore, the Moslems themselves caused the friction between religious factions. Due to room constraints I can't add much else - I do hope that you concur that we should continue the debate with at least two more rounds, though, Mirza. : ) Cheerio, thanks for a good debate! It has been most enjoyable and thought provoking (and it's always enjoyable to delve into history!). 2.http://spice.stanford.edu... 3. http://en.wikipedia.org... 4. http://en.wikipedia.org... 5. http://www.uic.edu... 6. http://www.rpharms.com... 7. http://en.wikipedia.org... 8. http://www.rpharms.com...