History: Controversial Debate Challenge

1. Influence My opponent makes a case for me, not for him. He says that the Carolingian Renaissance alone did not 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." He completely ignores the fact that this is the same case with the Islamic Golden Age. Muslims did not directly go through the start line to renaissance, but their works made great contributions. In fact, he has not met my challenge to cite any expert work on the matter of the Carolingian Renaissance as a main period contributed to eradicating the Dark Ages. On the contrary, I can link numerous sources, both Muslim and non-Muslim, confirming the fact that Muslims made splendiferous contributions to ending the Dark Ages. This is because their works were and are still used in many areas, hereby in science, too. They influenced Europe with their inventions. Con has not cited any source, not even an unreliable one, which says that the inventions of Muslims only benefited them. He asserts his own views. On the other hand, I have cited many sources which support my views. The societal prosperity of Muslims lead to political freedom during the European Renaissance. They put forth the best examples of how interreligious cultures could prosper, how science should be handled, and so forth. This should not be ignored. Con merely says, "It benefited Muslims only" while that is far from the truth. Their works were used to do further research in science. The book "The Canon of Medicine" by Ibn Sina, also known as Avicenna, was completed in year 1025. Although this happened a few centuries before the European Renaissance, the medal encylopedia of 14 volumes was reprinted dozens of times after the16th century. Avicenna contributed a lot to science and medicine, and there are very few disputes about that among historians. "The Persian text Qanun was translated into Latin as Canon medicinae (...) Its encyclopaedic content, its systematic arrangement and philosophical plan soon worked its way into a position of pre-eminence in the medical literature of Europe, displacing the works of Galen and becoming the text book for medical education in the schools of Europe. The text was read in the medical schools at Montpellier and Leuven as late as 1650, and Arnold C. Klebs described it as 'one of the most significant intellectual phenomena of all times.'" http://en.wikipedia.org... Sources are not a problem for me. Neither are facts. But, they are a problem to Con because he used neither of them properly in his arguments. Disregarding character space, I can probably cite hundreds of sources from various perspectives that deal with the Muslim influence on Europe before and particularly during the European Renaissance. 2. Muslim expansion I would like to say that I did not intend to write West Africa, but East Africa. Disregarding the mistake, my opponent went into the early modern history of West Africa, which is totally irrelevant even if I did want to talk about West Africa, but I did not want to. Nonetheless, Con again tries to portay the spread of Muslims and Islam as a bloody trip. He ignores the reasons for that. He ignores the fact that Muslims came to Asia and spread Islam because trade opened many ways for Muslims to connect with the rest of the world. They managed to spread Islam by accepting converts. Were some people forced to accept Islam? Perhaps. It does not mean much to the fact that there are always exceptions. And, Con also ignores the fact that even though Muslims sometimes fought for conquest, there were wise reasons for that. As I said before, sometimes they were asked for help. I made a case for the conquest of one of the most prosperous societies in the Medieval World, and that alone is significant for this debate. Furthermore, even if Muslims did fight many battles, and perhaps many of them were unjustified, remember that this happened all around the world, and not in all Islamic societies. Moreover, the United States influences the world in various ways today, even though it has troops all around the world, it wages wars in quite a few countries, and so forth. Does it mean that this country is not one of the most prosperous scientific and technological countries in our globe? No, it does not. Pros and cons do not have to eradicate each other. Therefore, Con's claims about Muslim "brutality" in no way negates the fact that Muslims made major contributions to driving the Dark and Brutal Ages out of Europe. 3. Origin of the Renaissance Once more Con asserts that Muslims "didn't have contact to European scholars and scientists. Do we have contact to Charles Darwin? Do we have contact to Aristotle? Do we have contact to Albert Einstein? Do we have contact to Isaac Newton? I think not. It does not mean that we cannot be influenced by their works. In various physics classes and categories you hear about Newton and Einstein. In various biology classes you hear about Darwin. Their works have been written down, preserved, and they are influencing our world this day today. Similarly, of course Muslims were not "required" to have "contact" with people who lived after them. But there is influence. There are books (Cordoba in Muslim Spain had more books in its libraries than any other city in Europe), and books help influencing generations upon generations, and so on. "In essence, Moslem technology benefited mostly Moslems, if it even benefited them" With due respect, that would not even be compatible with Soviet Russia jokes. Moving on, my opponent wrote some lengthy explanations and cited a few quotes on aviation. Considering I said, "e.g., aviation," I have no need of wasting character space elaborating on the point. I refer to "Flying's strangest moments: extraordinary but true stories from over 1000 years of aviation history:" http://www.worldcat.org... Additionally, Con negatively criticized my arguments for navigational technology. Yet again he keeps bringing up some historical points about e.g., the Ottoman Empire. What has that got to do with the Muslims having originated the caravel, which was very useful for sea travelling? It was brought to reality due to the invention of the qarib ship. Again, Con tries to negate my points by bringing up irrelevant history. That is not proper. What is more is that even though we can trace something back to very ancient history, it does not mean that something that came after didn't have an origin in more modern times. For instance, the idea of evolution was not thought of by Charles Darwin to begin with. However, he was the mastermind behind the theory, and he established the scientific evidence for it more than anyone else, and also included "Natural Selection." E.g.: http://en.wikipedia.org... However, it doesn't mean that we shouldn't give credit to Darwin for introducing the most significant and influencing part of evolution. Similarly, the first pharmacy in Baghdad was far more influencing than any alleged drugstores preceding it, hence my point stands. "If that were to be the case, then why did they themselves stumble at about this time?" I already answered that. Isabella and Ferdinand exterminated Jews and Muslims in Al-Andalus. Low on character space. See: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org... To conclude, I have made it evident that Muslims made phenomenal contributions to enlightening the Medieval Europe. My arguments are not refuted. Thanks to my opponent and the readers - the resolution is affirmed.