Australian Politics Forum - aboriginal muslim scholars of the 1600's

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49400
At my desk.

aboriginal muslim scholars of the 1600's
Jul 9^th, 2012 at 8:39am

falah wrote on Jul 8^th, 2012 at 3:19pm:

Quote:

Tamarind

"Tamarind seed" refers to the careful introduction of a fruit tree species. This was not done lightly, in the same manner as the European introduction of thousands of exotic pests that now cost the government four billion dollars each year to control. Scholars, farmers and botanists from the two cultures tested, examined and exchanged extensive knowledge about the Tamarind and its habitat before deciding to introduce it. It was carefully integrated with the local ecology over time, then interwoven with the lore of the place, and became a component of the agricultural industry and economy in northern Australia to such an extent that it is now regarded as a native plant by Aboriginal peoples. The first tree was planted on the beach, at the site of the Macassan embassy. It is still there.

http://suite101.com/article/macassancrew-a923

Falah can you tell me a bit more about these aboriginal scholars please? In particular, which crops and livestock did they reject on behalf of the aborigines and on what scientific basis did they make these decisions?

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: aboriginal muslim scholars of the 1600's
Reply #1 - Jul 9^th, 2012 at 10:26am

Kenoath, no wonder the education system is upshite creek when even the planting of a tree is now regarded as scholarly activity.

Scratching your arse - dermatology
picking yer nose - keyhole surgery
bothering ants with a stick - entomology
not having an aphabet or any form of writing - advanced communication
hunting and gathering - agricultural industry

Back to top

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 96462

Re: aboriginal muslim scholars of the 1600's
Reply #2 - Jul 9^th, 2012 at 11:46am

freediver wrote on Jul 9^th, 2012 at 8:39am:

falah wrote on Jul 8^th, 2012 at 3:19pm:

Quote:

Tamarind

"Tamarind seed" refers to the careful introduction of a fruit tree species. This was not done lightly, in the same manner as the European introduction of thousands of exotic pests that now cost the government four billion dollars each year to control. Scholars, farmers and botanists from the two cultures tested, examined and exchanged extensive knowledge about the Tamarind and its habitat before deciding to introduce it. It was carefully integrated with the local ecology over time, then interwoven with the lore of the place, and became a component of the agricultural industry and economy in northern Australia to such an extent that it is now regarded as a native plant by Aboriginal peoples. The first tree was planted on the beach, at the site of the Macassan embassy. It is still there.

http://suite101.com/article/macassancrew-a923

Falah can you tell me a bit more about these aboriginal scholars please? In particular, which crops and livestock did they reject on behalf of the aborigines and on what scientific basis did they make these decisions?

Freediver, this is a really interesting historical issue. I'm not sure why you feel compelled to attack. I understand that you've come to hate all things Islamic, but I don't really see how this is an Islamic issue - it's an historical one. It's good to see you put Falah's thesis under the microscope, but why the overt hostility?

History is a mess of competing stories about the past. Whether we like it or not - whether we think that it's true or not - people pass their stories down. From what I've read, there is a rich oral tradition of stories in the far-north about Indonesian traders. This, I think, deserves to be accounted. It's a viable part of Australian history.

I'm not sure what you're trying to do here - deny any pre-European influence on Aboriginal Australia; or slam anything to do with Islam.

I like the discussion, but it isn't served by the dumb point-scoring and tit-for-tat. It makes your critique come across as vengeance. Personally, I think this would read better as a discussion than an out-and-out ideological war. The Islam versus the West crusade is not an issue here - I haven't seen any evidence of Islam in far-north Australia. Sea trade, yes - mosques, no.

Falah's thesis deserves to be placed under scrutiny. But to what end? I'd be interested to know your own motives here.

Back to top

IP Logged

JC Denton Gold Member Offline Posts: 5471 Gender:	Re: aboriginal muslim scholars of the 1600's Reply #3 - Jul 9^th, 2012 at 11:51am inventing the stick- engineering
Back to top	IP Logged

Sir Spot of Borg

Gold Member

Offline

WE ARE BORG

Posts: 26513
Australia

Re: aboriginal muslim scholars of the 1600's
Reply #4 - Jul 9^th, 2012 at 12:19pm

freediver wrote on Jul 9^th, 2012 at 8:39am:

falah wrote on Jul 8^th, 2012 at 3:19pm:

Quote:

Tamarind

"Tamarind seed" refers to the careful introduction of a fruit tree species. This was not done lightly, in the same manner as the European introduction of thousands of exotic pests that now cost the government four billion dollars each year to control. Scholars, farmers and botanists from the two cultures tested, examined and exchanged extensive knowledge about the Tamarind and its habitat before deciding to introduce it. It was carefully integrated with the local ecology over time, then interwoven with the lore of the place, and became a component of the agricultural industry and economy in northern Australia to such an extent that it is now regarded as a native plant by Aboriginal peoples. The first tree was planted on the beach, at the site of the Macassan embassy. It is still there.

http://suite101.com/article/macassancrew-a923

Falah can you tell me a bit more about these aboriginal scholars please? In particular, which crops and livestock did they reject on behalf of the aborigines and on what scientific basis did they make these decisions?

Did you read the article? It doesnt say.

SOB

Back to top

Whaaaaaah!
I'm a
Moron!

- edited by some unethical admin - you think its funny? - its a slippery slope

IP Logged

Kat Gold Member Offline Socialism IS the answer. Posts: 17709 Everywhere and no-where Gender:	Re: aboriginal muslim scholars of the 1600's Reply #5 - Jul 9^th, 2012 at 12:39pm Not attacking. Simply calling 'Bullshyt!' on it.
Back to top	IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: aboriginal muslim scholars of the 1600's
Reply #6 - Jul 9^th, 2012 at 12:46pm

Karnal wrote on Jul 9^th, 2012 at 11:46am:

freediver wrote on Jul 9^th, 2012 at 8:39am:

falah wrote on Jul 8^th, 2012 at 3:19pm:

Quote:

Tamarind

"Tamarind seed" refers to the careful introduction of a fruit tree species. This was not done lightly, in the same manner as the European introduction of thousands of exotic pests that now cost the government four billion dollars each year to control. Scholars, farmers and botanists from the two cultures tested, examined and exchanged extensive knowledge about the Tamarind and its habitat before deciding to introduce it. It was carefully integrated with the local ecology over time, then interwoven with the lore of the place, and became a component of the agricultural industry and economy in northern Australia to such an extent that it is now regarded as a native plant by Aboriginal peoples. The first tree was planted on the beach, at the site of the Macassan embassy. It is still there.

http://suite101.com/article/macassancrew-a923

Falah can you tell me a bit more about these aboriginal scholars please? In particular, which crops and livestock did they reject on behalf of the aborigines and on what scientific basis did they make these decisions?

Freediver, this is a really interesting historical issue. I'm not sure why you feel compelled to attack. I understand that you've come to hate all things Islamic, but I don't really see how this is an Islamic issue - it's an historical one. It's good to see you put Falah's thesis under the microscope, but why the overt hostility?

History is a mess of competing stories about the past. Whether we like it or not - whether we think that it's true or not - people pass their stories down. From what I've read, there is a rich oral tradition of stories in the far-north about Indonesian traders. This, I think, deserves to be accounted. It's a viable part of Australian history.

I'm not sure what you're trying to do here - deny any pre-European influence on Aboriginal Australia; or slam anything to do with Islam.

I like the discussion, but it isn't served by the dumb point-scoring and tit-for-tat. It makes your critique come across as vengeance. Personally, I think this would read better as a discussion than an out-and-out ideological war. The Islam versus the West crusade is not an issue here - I haven't seen any evidence of Islam in far-north Australia. Sea trade, yes - mosques, no.

Falah's thesis deserves to be placed under scrutiny. But to what end? I'd be interested to know your own motives here.

The 'competition of stories' about the past is not a competition of equals. Treating oral history going back 300+ years as if it was of the same weight as written or material evidence is not competition but slant.
Falah talks it up because he wishes to present an Islamic slant, Islam as beneficient for aboriginese, against British and European deleteriousness. So Falah is not presenting scholarship but propaganda, built around a weak, constantly talked-up kernel of scholarship (there was contact betwteen Aboriginese and Indonesians).
That you don't see it is unsurprising.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49400
At my desk.

Re: aboriginal muslim scholars of the 1600's
Reply #7 - Jul 9^th, 2012 at 12:48pm

Quote:

Freediver, this is a really interesting historical issue. I'm not sure why you feel compelled to attack. I understand that you've come to hate all things Islamic, but I don't really see how this is an Islamic issue - it's an historical one. It's good to see you put Falah's thesis under the microscope, but why the overt hostility?

I'm sorry you feel that way. Can you explain which bit of my question came across as hostile? Regarding Islam, in the thread I quoted from Falah attributed all contact to Islamic traders and claimed the converted many aborigines. I assumed the aboriginal Universities and embassies were something to do with that influence.

A lot of it is probably down to me losing patience with getting Falah to acknowledge the reality of the farming potential of the area.

Quote:

From what I've read, there is a rich oral tradition of stories in the far-north about Indonesian traders. This, I think, deserves to be accounted. It's a viable part of Australian history.

The Macassan contact is well documented. The oral tradition is a reference to much earlier contact about which historians are less sure, and is apparently how rice ended up growing in the NT.

Quote:

I'm not sure what you're trying to do here - deny any pre-European influence on Aboriginal Australia; or slam anything to do with Islam.

I am merely trying to get a handle to the reference to aboriginal academics, universities and embassies. I am aware of the earlier contact, but that is way beyond the sort of influence I had imagined.

Quote:

I haven't seen any evidence of Islam in far-north Australia.

Falah attempted to attribute all pre-european contact to Muslims, including the introduction of rice. He claimed many aborigines were converted and that social conservatism was introduced in places. He used Islam as a reason why pigs would not have been brought over.

Quote:

Falah's thesis deserves to be placed under scrutiny. But to what end? I'd be interested to know your own motives here.

I just found the claims he made about agricultural potential quite outrageous, especially for someone who claimed to have written a thesis on it. I've never been to the NT and I'm hardly an expert on farming, but even to me it was obviously BS from the start. So far all the evidence has contradicted Falah.

Quote:

Did you read the article? It doesnt say.

Yes I did have a read of the article, and there is more there about aboriginal universities and embassies. For some reason it triggered my BS detector. Perhaps Falah has some reason for taking the claims seriously. He claims to have written a thesis on it so he should have an idea of whether the claims are accurate.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

Sprintcyclist Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 40769 Gender:	Re: aboriginal muslim scholars of the 1600's Reply #8 - Jul 9^th, 2012 at 12:55pm abbo sholars of the 1600's what did they invent ? they already had stick throwing and mud spitting onto a rock down pat. Was it the video, running sewerage or maybe electricity they came up with? 'parrently not. they were cave dwellers when we got here.
Back to top	Modern Classic Right Wing IP Logged

longweekend58 Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 45675 Gender:	Re: aboriginal muslim scholars of the 1600's Reply #9 - Jul 9^th, 2012 at 1:10pm You knew it ws a fabrication when it mentioned 'aboriginal scholars'. for a culture that invented absoltuely nothing and didnt have a written language, becoming a scholar must have take 10 minutes. pure fabrication.
Back to top	AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..." IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 96462

Re: aboriginal muslim scholars of the 1600's
Reply #10 - Jul 9^th, 2012 at 1:22pm

Soren wrote on Jul 9^th, 2012 at 12:46pm:

Karnal wrote on Jul 9^th, 2012 at 11:46am:

freediver wrote on Jul 9^th, 2012 at 8:39am:

falah wrote on Jul 8^th, 2012 at 3:19pm:

Quote:

Tamarind

"Tamarind seed" refers to the careful introduction of a fruit tree species. This was not done lightly, in the same manner as the European introduction of thousands of exotic pests that now cost the government four billion dollars each year to control. Scholars, farmers and botanists from the two cultures tested, examined and exchanged extensive knowledge about the Tamarind and its habitat before deciding to introduce it. It was carefully integrated with the local ecology over time, then interwoven with the lore of the place, and became a component of the agricultural industry and economy in northern Australia to such an extent that it is now regarded as a native plant by Aboriginal peoples. The first tree was planted on the beach, at the site of the Macassan embassy. It is still there.

http://suite101.com/article/macassancrew-a923

Falah can you tell me a bit more about these aboriginal scholars please? In particular, which crops and livestock did they reject on behalf of the aborigines and on what scientific basis did they make these decisions?

Freediver, this is a really interesting historical issue. I'm not sure why you feel compelled to attack. I understand that you've come to hate all things Islamic, but I don't really see how this is an Islamic issue - it's an historical one. It's good to see you put Falah's thesis under the microscope, but why the overt hostility?

History is a mess of competing stories about the past. Whether we like it or not - whether we think that it's true or not - people pass their stories down. From what I've read, there is a rich oral tradition of stories in the far-north about Indonesian traders. This, I think, deserves to be accounted. It's a viable part of Australian history.

I'm not sure what you're trying to do here - deny any pre-European influence on Aboriginal Australia; or slam anything to do with Islam.

I like the discussion, but it isn't served by the dumb point-scoring and tit-for-tat. It makes your critique come across as vengeance. Personally, I think this would read better as a discussion than an out-and-out ideological war. The Islam versus the West crusade is not an issue here - I haven't seen any evidence of Islam in far-north Australia. Sea trade, yes - mosques, no.

Falah's thesis deserves to be placed under scrutiny. But to what end? I'd be interested to know your own motives here.

The 'competition of stories' about the past is not a competition of equals. Treating oral history going back 300+ years as if it was of the same weight as written or material evidence is not competition but slant.

It doesn't matter if it's slant or not. People will continue to tell their own stories and believe what they want.

Postmodern bunkum? I'm including the biggest story in our tradition: the gospels of Jesus the Christ. There is no written or material evidence that predates them. Still, people continue to believe what they want.

It's clear that Falah is telling a pro-Muslim story. In a way, he's re-colonising the past. He is, however, quite up-front with his telling. I'm not sure if Freediver is - he just seems willing to cut down what he sees as a pro-Muslim story.

With the exception of Falah's perspective, I can't see what Indonesian sea traders have to do with a Muslim meta-narrative. Sure they were Muslims, but from what I can see, their story is more about trade than any Islamic influence or colonisation. After all, there are no Aboriginal mosques, but plenty of Aboriginal churches.

Which raises a very interesting question - Islam exists all through South-East Asia. Why DIDN'T it take off in Australia or, for that matter, the Pacific?

I'd suggest it had a lot to do with the motives of the traders, along with the economic conditions and traditions of far-north Aboriginals. And Falah has touched on this in his thesis.

Anyway, I'm getting off-track. My point is that if you create a historical diatribe - a set of history wars - peope stop listening. They merely retreat into their own ideological fortresses.

That you do this is unsuprising.

Back to top

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 96462

Re: aboriginal muslim scholars of the 1600's
Reply #11 - Jul 9^th, 2012 at 1:42pm

freediver wrote on Jul 9^th, 2012 at 12:48pm:

Quote:

Freediver, this is a really interesting historical issue. I'm not sure why you feel compelled to attack. I understand that you've come to hate all things Islamic, but I don't really see how this is an Islamic issue - it's an historical one. It's good to see you put Falah's thesis under the microscope, but why the overt hostility?

I'm sorry you feel that way. Can you explain which bit of my question came across as hostile? Regarding Islam, in the thread I quoted from Falah attributed all contact to Islamic traders and claimed the converted many aborigines. I assumed the aboriginal Universities and embassies were something to do with that influence.

A lot of it is probably down to me losing patience with getting Falah to acknowledge the reality of the farming potential of the area.

This I understand. You actually raise good points - it's the relentless attempts to corner your prey that make this seem less like a discussion, and more like an ideological war.

We expect this from posters like Sprinty and the old boy. They wouldn't even read the op before they demonstrated their unique insight on the stick. They see this as a strength - they believe they know all the answers and anyone stupid enought to read something places themselves at risk of being ideologically tinted.

Such righteousness is self indulgent. It merely preaches to the choir. If you wanted to make someone change their mind, you use different tactics to needling and bludgeoning. No one is persuaded if they feel cornered.

Back to top

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: aboriginal muslim scholars of the 1600's
Reply #12 - Jul 9^th, 2012 at 2:49pm

Karnal wrote on Jul 9^th, 2012 at 1:42pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 9^th, 2012 at 12:48pm:

Quote:

Freediver, this is a really interesting historical issue. I'm not sure why you feel compelled to attack. I understand that you've come to hate all things Islamic, but I don't really see how this is an Islamic issue - it's an historical one. It's good to see you put Falah's thesis under the microscope, but why the overt hostility?

I'm sorry you feel that way. Can you explain which bit of my question came across as hostile? Regarding Islam, in the thread I quoted from Falah attributed all contact to Islamic traders and claimed the converted many aborigines. I assumed the aboriginal Universities and embassies were something to do with that influence.

A lot of it is probably down to me losing patience with getting Falah to acknowledge the reality of the farming potential of the area.

This I understand. You actually raise good points - it's the relentless attempts to corner your prey that make this seem less like a discussion, and more like an ideological war.

We expect this from posters like Sprinty and the old boy. They wouldn't even read the op before they demonstrated their unique insight on the stick. They see this as a strength - they believe they know all the answers and anyone stupid enought to read something places themselves at risk of being ideologically tinted.

Such righteousness is self indulgent. It merely preaches to the choir. If you wanted to make someone change their mind, you use different tactics to needling and bludgeoning. No one is persuaded if they feel cornered.

for all you want to indulge this nonsense, it sounds more ridiculous the more you read. aboriginal UNIVERSITIES??? SCHOLARS??? studying what? they are already on record as being the single most prehistopric race on earth having invented nothing more than a stick and haveing no technology or literature to speak of.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 96462

Re: aboriginal muslim scholars of the 1600's
Reply #13 - Jul 9^th, 2012 at 3:01pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 9^th, 2012 at 2:49pm:

Karnal wrote on Jul 9^th, 2012 at 1:42pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 9^th, 2012 at 12:48pm:

Quote:

Freediver, this is a really interesting historical issue. I'm not sure why you feel compelled to attack. I understand that you've come to hate all things Islamic, but I don't really see how this is an Islamic issue - it's an historical one. It's good to see you put Falah's thesis under the microscope, but why the overt hostility?

I'm sorry you feel that way. Can you explain which bit of my question came across as hostile? Regarding Islam, in the thread I quoted from Falah attributed all contact to Islamic traders and claimed the converted many aborigines. I assumed the aboriginal Universities and embassies were something to do with that influence.

A lot of it is probably down to me losing patience with getting Falah to acknowledge the reality of the farming potential of the area.

This I understand. You actually raise good points - it's the relentless attempts to corner your prey that make this seem less like a discussion, and more like an ideological war.

We expect this from posters like Sprinty and the old boy. They wouldn't even read the op before they demonstrated their unique insight on the stick. They see this as a strength - they believe they know all the answers and anyone stupid enought to read something places themselves at risk of being ideologically tinted.

Such righteousness is self indulgent. It merely preaches to the choir. If you wanted to make someone change their mind, you use different tactics to needling and bludgeoning. No one is persuaded if they feel cornered.

for all you want to indulge this nonsense, it sounds more ridiculous the more you read. aboriginal UNIVERSITIES??? SCHOLARS??? studying what? they are already on record as being the single most prehistopric race on earth having invented nothing more than a stick and haveing no technology or literature to speak of.

I think you'll find archaeological evidence of a number of Aboriginal universities around this country - many of them with faculties of the stick.

True, evidence of any faculties of Pakistani Studies has not yet been discovered, but Falah is currently working on this.

"Prehistoric" refers to cultures without written histories. Outside Greeco-Roman, Semitic, Egyptian, Chinese, Vedic and a couple of American empires, everyone else is classed as prehistoric.

The history Falah is referring to - Australia prior to European settlement - could best be described as prehistoric.

That's what this debate is all about.

Back to top

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: aboriginal muslim scholars of the 1600's
Reply #14 - Jul 9^th, 2012 at 3:08pm

Karnal wrote on Jul 9^th, 2012 at 3:01pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 9^th, 2012 at 2:49pm:

Karnal wrote on Jul 9^th, 2012 at 1:42pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 9^th, 2012 at 12:48pm:

Quote:

Freediver, this is a really interesting historical issue. I'm not sure why you feel compelled to attack. I understand that you've come to hate all things Islamic, but I don't really see how this is an Islamic issue - it's an historical one. It's good to see you put Falah's thesis under the microscope, but why the overt hostility?

I'm sorry you feel that way. Can you explain which bit of my question came across as hostile? Regarding Islam, in the thread I quoted from Falah attributed all contact to Islamic traders and claimed the converted many aborigines. I assumed the aboriginal Universities and embassies were something to do with that influence.

A lot of it is probably down to me losing patience with getting Falah to acknowledge the reality of the farming potential of the area.

This I understand. You actually raise good points - it's the relentless attempts to corner your prey that make this seem less like a discussion, and more like an ideological war.

We expect this from posters like Sprinty and the old boy. They wouldn't even read the op before they demonstrated their unique insight on the stick. They see this as a strength - they believe they know all the answers and anyone stupid enought to read something places themselves at risk of being ideologically tinted.

Such righteousness is self indulgent. It merely preaches to the choir. If you wanted to make someone change their mind, you use different tactics to needling and bludgeoning. No one is persuaded if they feel cornered.

for all you want to indulge this nonsense, it sounds more ridiculous the more you read. aboriginal UNIVERSITIES??? SCHOLARS??? studying what? they are already on record as being the single most prehistopric race on earth having invented nothing more than a stick and haveing no technology or literature to speak of.

I think you'll find archaeological evidence of a number of Aboriginal universities around this country - many of them with faculties of the stick.

True, evidence of any faculties of Pakistani Studies has not yet been discovered, but Falah is currently working on this.

"Prehistoric" refers to cultures without written histories. Outside Greeco-Roman, Semitic, Egyptian, Chinese, Vedic and a couple of American empires, everyone else is classed as prehistoric.

The history Falah is referring to - Australia prior to European settlement - could best be described as prehistoric.

That's what this debate is all about.

i read that suite101 reference to aboriginal history. Surely you dont subscribe to any of that patent nonsense. It is pretty hard to take ANY of it seriously.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged