Islam Stuff: For LCD2YOU
Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 12:01 am
I'm dragging this over here because I can't keep up with all the Islamic stuff in various threads, and I hate repeating myself.
Astronomy was invented by Muslims post 7th century? Wow. That must be news to historians who readily acknolwedge its existence in ancient Greece. The scientific revolution which forms modern science today took place in the west during the renaissaance. Saying Islam gave us astronomy is nothing short of absurd. Newton, Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo were all individually far more important to modern astronomy than the whole lot of Muslim astronomers who believed in a geocentric understanding of the universe.
As Serge Trifkovic once said,
"Moslems overran societies (Persian, Greek, Egyptian, Byzantine, Syrian, Jewish) that possessed intellectual sophistication in their own right and failed to completely destroy their cultures. To give it the credit for what the remnants of these cultures achieved is like crediting the Red Army for the survival of Chopin in Warsaw in 1970! Islam per se never encouraged science, in the sense of disinterested enquiry, because the only knowledge it accepts is religious knowledge."
Actually, Avicenna's work was gradually supplanted and improved upon by more advanced medicine, beginning in the 17th century. That's before the United States existed, and you call this "modern"?
According to Bernard Lewis, Islam inherited "the knowledge and skills of the ancient Middle east, of Greece and of Persia, it added to them new and important innovations from outside, such as the manufacture of paper from China and decimal positional numbering from India." The decimal numbers were thus transmitted to the West, where they are still mistakenly known as "Arabic" numbers, honoring not their inventors but their transmitters.
To say Islam gave us numbers is beyond absurd. It is downright stupid.
Yes, individuals did achieve under Islamic rule, but as Robert Spencer points out, "in almost every case the Islamic scholars were building on what had been established by Jews, Christians, or others." And as Rodney Stark points out, "Islamic scholars achieved significant progress only in terms of specific knowledge, such as certain aspects of astronomy and medicine, which did not require any general theoretical basis. And as time passed, even this sort of progressed ceased."
Sure, but this eventually died out. No civilization is created in a vaccum. You think that Islam benefited nothing in its recent conquests of Christian terroitories? It took the advancements accomplished by those they conquered and built upon them. It had just wiped out more than two thirds of what was then known as the Roman Empire, or otherwise, "Christendom." The West was constantly struggling to survive the Islamic onslaught. Scientific innovation was among the least of its problems.
Christianity brought itself out of the dark ages once Islam failed at its last mad dash to take over. By contrast, Islam remains in the dark ages. Why? Because it is no longer taking over enlightened territories and taking credit for its accomplishments.
That would be an ahistorical piece of absurdity. I thought you were supposed to be the history expert. So how is it you know virtually nothing about Islamic history? Do you even know why teh crusades were necessary? It was a belated Christian attempt at self-defense.
Actually your entire sentence would be correct if you excluded the words after Muhammad. Islam by its very nature is radical, militant and intolerant. Its founder cannot hold a candle to Christianity's founder. Muhammad ruled by the sword, killed and tortured his enemies, took slaves and legislated rapes and piracy. He implemented the open ended comand to kill all unbvelievers, which is the lynchpin scripture for Islamic calls to kill all infidels.
Blaming Wahhabisn is a trick Daniel Peterson likes to pull. Too bad for you guys, Osama bin Ladin is no Wahhabist. In fact he is an anti-Wahhabist if there ever was one.
You clearly do not understand the true purpose of the inquisition, which was by all accounts, the most enlightened judicial system during the day. You are obviously a fan of myth and legend, which I find shocking given your claim to historic expertise.
This is refuted by the Aquinas citation above. Aquinas was a Catholic priest who spoke obsessively about natural laws fixed, and he lived several centuries before the Renaissance. And you still haven't explained why progress in teh Islamic world came to a complete standstill. Again, when Al Ghazali gained influence he crystallized Islam's universal rejection of philosophy and science.
I said, "I'm saying that only in a Christian civilization could modern science emerge as it has, thus giving atheists the free will to operate as freely as they do." To which you responded:
It is called the reality in which you live. The fact is modern scienced did emerge from Christian civilization. You have offered no valid explanation as to why it happened in Christian Europe instead of under Islamic rule. I have. So everything you offer now is belied by modern history.
Well Islam gave us just a few things like these: Astronomy
Astronomy was invented by Muslims post 7th century? Wow. That must be news to historians who readily acknolwedge its existence in ancient Greece. The scientific revolution which forms modern science today took place in the west during the renaissaance. Saying Islam gave us astronomy is nothing short of absurd. Newton, Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo were all individually far more important to modern astronomy than the whole lot of Muslim astronomers who believed in a geocentric understanding of the universe.
Algebra
As Serge Trifkovic once said,
"Moslems overran societies (Persian, Greek, Egyptian, Byzantine, Syrian, Jewish) that possessed intellectual sophistication in their own right and failed to completely destroy their cultures. To give it the credit for what the remnants of these cultures achieved is like crediting the Red Army for the survival of Chopin in Warsaw in 1970! Islam per se never encouraged science, in the sense of disinterested enquiry, because the only knowledge it accepts is religious knowledge."
Modern Medicine
Actually, Avicenna's work was gradually supplanted and improved upon by more advanced medicine, beginning in the 17th century. That's before the United States existed, and you call this "modern"?
Numbers
According to Bernard Lewis, Islam inherited "the knowledge and skills of the ancient Middle east, of Greece and of Persia, it added to them new and important innovations from outside, such as the manufacture of paper from China and decimal positional numbering from India." The decimal numbers were thus transmitted to the West, where they are still mistakenly known as "Arabic" numbers, honoring not their inventors but their transmitters.
To say Islam gave us numbers is beyond absurd. It is downright stupid.
Yes, individuals did achieve under Islamic rule, but as Robert Spencer points out, "in almost every case the Islamic scholars were building on what had been established by Jews, Christians, or others." And as Rodney Stark points out, "Islamic scholars achieved significant progress only in terms of specific knowledge, such as certain aspects of astronomy and medicine, which did not require any general theoretical basis. And as time passed, even this sort of progressed ceased."
In 1000 CE the learning and progressive center of the world was the Islamic world.
Sure, but this eventually died out. No civilization is created in a vaccum. You think that Islam benefited nothing in its recent conquests of Christian terroitories? It took the advancements accomplished by those they conquered and built upon them. It had just wiped out more than two thirds of what was then known as the Roman Empire, or otherwise, "Christendom." The West was constantly struggling to survive the Islamic onslaught. Scientific innovation was among the least of its problems.
While Europeans were still in the dark ages
Christianity brought itself out of the dark ages once Islam failed at its last mad dash to take over. By contrast, Islam remains in the dark ages. Why? Because it is no longer taking over enlightened territories and taking credit for its accomplishments.
One could argue the crusades by the Christians to "free the holy land", where we got that famous phrase from a Catholic Bishop, "Kill them all, let God sort them out", help lead to the radicalization of Islam.
That would be an ahistorical piece of absurdity. I thought you were supposed to be the history expert. So how is it you know virtually nothing about Islamic history? Do you even know why teh crusades were necessary? It was a belated Christian attempt at self-defense.
The real Islamic fanatics started in what was to become Saudi Arabia under Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab.
Actually your entire sentence would be correct if you excluded the words after Muhammad. Islam by its very nature is radical, militant and intolerant. Its founder cannot hold a candle to Christianity's founder. Muhammad ruled by the sword, killed and tortured his enemies, took slaves and legislated rapes and piracy. He implemented the open ended comand to kill all unbvelievers, which is the lynchpin scripture for Islamic calls to kill all infidels.
Strange thing is that looking at modern Christian leaders, the approach they use, reject all that is not "Christian", etc., looks very much like Islamic Wahhabism, only "Christian".
Blaming Wahhabisn is a trick Daniel Peterson likes to pull. Too bad for you guys, Osama bin Ladin is no Wahhabist. In fact he is an anti-Wahhabist if there ever was one.
An atheist is a heretic and heretics were burned at the stake.
You clearly do not understand the true purpose of the inquisition, which was by all accounts, the most enlightened judicial system during the day. You are obviously a fan of myth and legend, which I find shocking given your claim to historic expertise.
It wasn't until the Renaissance and a realization of the natural world that Europe pulled out.
This is refuted by the Aquinas citation above. Aquinas was a Catholic priest who spoke obsessively about natural laws fixed, and he lived several centuries before the Renaissance. And you still haven't explained why progress in teh Islamic world came to a complete standstill. Again, when Al Ghazali gained influence he crystallized Islam's universal rejection of philosophy and science.
I said, "I'm saying that only in a Christian civilization could modern science emerge as it has, thus giving atheists the free will to operate as freely as they do." To which you responded:
Where'd you get this?
It is called the reality in which you live. The fact is modern scienced did emerge from Christian civilization. You have offered no valid explanation as to why it happened in Christian Europe instead of under Islamic rule. I have. So everything you offer now is belied by modern history.