Argue against the viewpoint that islamic civilization as as mainly a preserver and transmitter of culture, rather that a creator of culture.

One answer might be that culture, an exclusive, frivolous, leisure pursuit of the rich, their flunkies, and social climbers, requires elaborate security to defend its providers and consumers from the righteous anger of the people, whose hard-earned taxes, or lottery losses, are squandered on subsidising fripperies such as opera, ballet, theatre, concerts, and art shows with dead cows in aspic, to which la-di-dah people wear fancy clothes. Another, from the opposite side of the social divide, might say that cultural performances and artefacts embody the best in the spirit of the nation, thus belong to all the people, irrespective of who owns or attends them, and are a source of pride and prestige for all, which must be defended against attack by foreigners, terrorists, hooligans, and madmen. The former is the view of philistines, the latter that of culture vultures.

The Muslims had the concept of all of our regular numbers today, and when they had a huge empire, and it extended to Spain. People from Spain cam over here, and brought that concept with them.

Ifound this on google”the munich conference of 1938 was prompted by d. hitler's intention to take control of part of czechoslovakia. hitler sought to unite german-speaking people in a single nation and thus turned his sights on the sudetenland, a german-speaking region of czechoslovakia.” i hope it you