The Muslim Golden Age you are referring to was ending around the time when the Crusades started. The Muslims philosopher Al-Ghazali was refuting the Aristotelian tradition in Islam, and the Turks were destroying the political tolerance that previously characterized the Muslim world. It is true to say that the Muslims had been more Western than the West for a while–I would rather have lived in Baghdad in the year 800 than anywhere else at the time!–but it was temporary blip, which they have not duplicated it in all subsequent history, while the West has been consistently progressive.

Thanks for your thoughts.

There’s no question that the West–especially back during the Middle Ages–has always suffered from contradictions in its culture, and these contradictions definitely complicate things.

Still, I would say that at this time Europe’s leaders, including its feudal lords, could and should have completely ignored the Muslims and instead focussed on strengthening the central authority in their kingdoms, as a necessary step towards instituting the rule of law. If Germany’s kings, for instance, had not wasted their efforts abroad, they *might* have strengthened their kingdom, and thus avoided drawing out the anarchy of feudalism there.

The Crusades are definitely an example of “the West” getting entangled in a relationship with the Middle East that distracted it from exploring options in its true self-interest.

I would suggest that one of the most important elements of such a study, at least when done on one’s own, is distinguishing the following terms/ideas (all used in the post above): “The West”; “Western civilization”; “Western Europe”; “European civilization”; and “the most progressive elements in Western civilization” (emphasis added).