Well one day, when mormons start blowing shit up world wide in the name of their religion, and draw our attention, an apologist like yourself will come out of the wood work and start defending it and let us know about all the great things it took credit for 1000 years ago.Dilbert_X wrote:
So anyway, how many great scientific advances have come from the mormons?
Lowing, the blowing shit up Muslims are extremists and a minority.
When you learn that fact, you might not have such a grudge against Islam.
When you learn that fact, you might not have such a grudge against Islam.
Never get tired of the "few insignificant" argument, I especially love hearing it as yet another terrorist attack rocks some city.AussieReaper wrote:
Lowing, the blowing shit up Muslims are extremists and a minority.
When you learn that fact, you might not have such a grudge against Islam.
by the way, there were also a "few" Muslims, compared to the whole, that made scientific advances, yet this fact does not deter you from trying to use it as reference as to how great islam is as a whole. Try and stay consistent with your ratio arguing please.
Well, the mormons never did anything really so no.lowing wrote:
Well one day, when mormons start blowing shit up world wide in the name of their religion, and draw our attention, an apologist like yourself will come out of the wood work and start defending it and let us know about all the great things it took credit for 1000 years ago.Dilbert_X wrote:
So anyway, how many great scientific advances have come from the mormons?
We're not saying that, we're just saying they aren't all evil maniacs who want nothing more than to blow themselves up because their religion is fundamentally evil - something you can't apparently grasp.yet this fact does not deter you from trying to use it as reference as to how great islam is as a whole
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-02-02 04:13:02)
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Well you are the one bringing up the mormons, as if it had something to do with this discussion.Dilbert_X wrote:
Well, the mormons never did anything really so no.lowing wrote:
Well one day, when mormons start blowing shit up world wide in the name of their religion, and draw our attention, an apologist like yourself will come out of the wood work and start defending it and let us know about all the great things it took credit for 1000 years ago.Dilbert_X wrote:
So anyway, how many great scientific advances have come from the mormons?We're not saying that, we're just saying they aren't all evil maniacs who want nothing more than to blow themselves up because their religion is fundamentally evil - something you can't apparently grasp.yet this fact does not deter you from trying to use it as reference as to how great islam is as a whole
I never said they all were evil maniacs who want nothing more than to blow themselves up.......... Remember?
Last edited by lowing (2011-02-02 11:26:40)
No, they are not.lowing wrote:
Go back and read your source, just before you quoted.Bertster7 wrote:
Which other two empires were those then?lowing wrote:
Putting it in context Berster, from what I read they didn't welcome Islam the welcomed intervention between the other 2 empires tearing the lands apart on their own, nothing more.
The problems they had before were due to religious clashes, clashes which the Islamic acceptance of all religions put a stop to (hence them being glad to be invaded).Where did you read this? Care to post any evidence this was the case, since it completely contradicts all the quotes I've included above.lowing wrote:
Also from what I read the Islamic scholars and scientists were largely considered heretics by Islam. Hardly making Islam responsible for any discoveries and advancements. They were done so outside of favor from Islam and at risk of death, ( I suspect just like anything else done outside the Islamic faith)
Even looking at vehemently anti-Islamic sites such as Islam Watch, you see acknowledgement of the factors I've outlined which led to the Islamic Golden age being possible.http://www.islam-watch.org/SyedKamranMi … en-Age.htmIn conclusion, I can unambiguously summarize the fact that the so called Islamic Golden Age was not any product of Islamic scriptural knowledge, nor it was due to any degree of devoutness of religion Islam, rather it was due to short-lived opportunity of freethinking and rationalism induced by the famous Mu’tazillites and facilitated by the liberal minded Abbasid Kingdom.
What was the ideology of Mu’tazila which actually opened the window for rational thinkers? The defining philosophy of Mu’tazila was freewill, rationalism and scientific thought which was rooted in the Hellenic-age Greek philosophy. Mu’tazila ideology was greatly promoted during Abbasid Caliphate (8-13th century) but after that Islamic re-incarnation by Ahadiths collection by Muslim al –hajjaj, al-Bukhari, Abu daud, al-Timidi and rise of islamic zealots by the leadership of Imam Ghazali put the final nail to the coffin of defeated Mu’tazillites—leading to the end of enlightenment during 13th century and subsequently rise of Islamic devoutness (darkness of close minds and superstitions) in the Islamic world, which ended the so called Islamic Golden Age for good.
You can see the spin they try to put on it, to cast this golden age as a blip (a 6 century blip) in Islams otherwise bloody and intolerant history. But even they do not deny the clear facts, that the Abbasid caliphate (the area shown below) provided an environment where scientific and philosophical advancement were promoted.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c … ids850.png
It wasn't limited to the Caliphate either. Muslim Spain was extremely civilised and people of different religions all got along and prospered.The Andulasian golden age outlasted the golden age in the Caliphate (which ended in the 13th century, whereas this went on until the 15th century). This shows this was not a golden age brought about by a single ruling dynasty (the Abassids) as this was brought about by Amir Abd al-Rahman (certainly not an Abassid - in fact they clashed several times). There was a fair bit of religious freedom in Andulasia, not compared to todays standards, but in comparison to other countries in that era, the freedoms given to non-Muslims were very progressive:Islamic Spain was a multi-cultural mix of the people of three great monotheistic religions: Muslims, Christians, and Jews.
Although Christians and Jews lived under restrictions, for much of the time the three groups managed to get along together, and to some extent, to benefit from the presence of each other.
It brought a degree of civilisation to Europe that matched the heights of the Roman Empire and the Italian Renaissance.
* they were not forced to live in ghettoes or other special locations
* they were not slaves
* they were not prevented from following their faith
* they were not forced to convert or die under Muslim rule
* they were not banned from any particular ways of earning a living; they often took on jobs shunned by Muslims;
o these included unpleasant work such as tanning and butchery
o but also pleasant jobs such as banking and dealing in gold and silver
* they could work in the civil service of the Islamic rulers
* Jews and Christians were able to contribute to society and culture
Your paragraphs you highlite are a direct contradiction to what is not highlited.
"In conclusion, I can unambiguously summarize the fact that the so called Islamic Golden Age was not any product of Islamic scriptural knowledge, nor it was due to any degree of devoutness of religion Islam".
In one sentence that article admits that the golden age was due to the right conditions for civilisation to flourish being due to the openess and liberality of the caliphate, in the preceeding sentence they say this has nothing to do with Islam. This certainly does not detract from the fact that Islamic civilisation in general (as the caliphate included pretty much all Islamic civilisation and I've given examples of the other major Islamic civilisations and how they were also much more free and better at promoting scientific, agricultural and philosophical advancement in comparison to Christian nations) was able to advance more freely in this era than Christian civilisations were.
The point here is one of culture, not specifically religion (though you should certainly be wary of any sources which are not clear about that fact that in this period the two are intrinsically linked - which is the distinction the Islam Watch article makes).
Obviously they were not treated in the same way as Muslims, I did mention that in my previous post.lowing wrote:
Also,
"Although Christians and Jews lived under restrictions"... Tells me they were considered inferior to Islam. Tells me they were considered inferior to Islam, and that these discoveries and advancements were gunna happen with or without Islamic influence.
"There were many other important individual philosophers in the Islamic world during the period of the Abbasid Caliphate, and various esoteric schools. In this Islamic setting, philosophical ideas were frequently bound up with those of religion and politics, which often meant that it was expedient for groups of like-minded scholars to come together in secretive associations."
Now this does not take away from Muslim scholar contribution, but it does reflex their need to do so out of favor with Islam as a whole.
taken from http://www.patterninislamicart.com/back … tribution/
The important thing here is that they were miles ahead of their time. This is all comparative, not with modern day Western nations (that would be ridiculous), but with their contemparies (England, France, the Italian states etc.). They lived together with people of other religions in peace with some degree of mutual respect. This did not happen across the rest of Europe - at all. This mutual respect was extremely important when looking at academics. Muslim and non-Muslim scholars worked with each other, which again is something that would not have happened across Europe. Much of this philosophical progress took the form of Muslim and non-Muslim scholars debating with each other, trying to bring each other round to their way of religious thinking - so to ignore the influence of religion in that is clearly very wrong and to ignore part that the cultural influence of religion played in bringing about this golden age is equally naive.There was a fair bit of religious freedom in Andulasia, not compared to todays standards, but in comparison to other countries in that era, the freedoms given to non-Muslims were very progressive
So, recap on the main points:
1. The Abassid caliphate and Andulasian emirate provided environments conducive to advancement.
2. Conditions in the Abassid caliphate and Andulasian emirate were far better for non-Muslims than conditions in Europe were for non-Christians.
3. Religion was such an integral part of culture in the caliphate that to claim this did not play any part in creating the conditions that led to the Islamic golden age makes little sense.
On a side note, I find it quite ironic that the more radical Muslims wanting a return to the days of the caliphate are typically extremely right wing and could certainly not be described as liberal or promoting free-thinking and the free exchange of ideas - when those are the things that led to Islams greatest successes.
You seem to be forgetting that all of this came about AFTER Islamic conquering in the first place, not some olive branch extension and thirst for peaceful co-existense. You are actually trying to sell a point of how great Islam is based on how it treats its slaves. You also are not acknowledging that any progress happened out of favor with Islam itself, secretly. So please lets dispense with the look what Islam did for us rhetoric. If Islam was really sooo progressive and modern and flourished under a state of the art ideology, it would have continued to progress and not revert to what its culture has become. Truth is, Islam is hurting the progress of civilization.Bertster7 wrote:
No, they are not.lowing wrote:
Go back and read your source, just before you quoted.Bertster7 wrote:
Which other two empires were those then?lowing wrote:
Putting it in context Berster, from what I read they didn't welcome Islam the welcomed intervention between the other 2 empires tearing the lands apart on their own, nothing more.
The problems they had before were due to religious clashes, clashes which the Islamic acceptance of all religions put a stop to (hence them being glad to be invaded).Where did you read this? Care to post any evidence this was the case, since it completely contradicts all the quotes I've included above.lowing wrote:
Also from what I read the Islamic scholars and scientists were largely considered heretics by Islam. Hardly making Islam responsible for any discoveries and advancements. They were done so outside of favor from Islam and at risk of death, ( I suspect just like anything else done outside the Islamic faith)
Even looking at vehemently anti-Islamic sites such as Islam Watch, you see acknowledgement of the factors I've outlined which led to the Islamic Golden age being possible.http://www.islam-watch.org/SyedKamranMi … en-Age.htmIn conclusion, I can unambiguously summarize the fact that the so called Islamic Golden Age was not any product of Islamic scriptural knowledge, nor it was due to any degree of devoutness of religion Islam, rather it was due to short-lived opportunity of freethinking and rationalism induced by the famous Mu’tazillites and facilitated by the liberal minded Abbasid Kingdom.
What was the ideology of Mu’tazila which actually opened the window for rational thinkers? The defining philosophy of Mu’tazila was freewill, rationalism and scientific thought which was rooted in the Hellenic-age Greek philosophy. Mu’tazila ideology was greatly promoted during Abbasid Caliphate (8-13th century) but after that Islamic re-incarnation by Ahadiths collection by Muslim al –hajjaj, al-Bukhari, Abu daud, al-Timidi and rise of islamic zealots by the leadership of Imam Ghazali put the final nail to the coffin of defeated Mu’tazillites—leading to the end of enlightenment during 13th century and subsequently rise of Islamic devoutness (darkness of close minds and superstitions) in the Islamic world, which ended the so called Islamic Golden Age for good.
You can see the spin they try to put on it, to cast this golden age as a blip (a 6 century blip) in Islams otherwise bloody and intolerant history. But even they do not deny the clear facts, that the Abbasid caliphate (the area shown below) provided an environment where scientific and philosophical advancement were promoted.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c … ids850.png
It wasn't limited to the Caliphate either. Muslim Spain was extremely civilised and people of different religions all got along and prospered.
The Andulasian golden age outlasted the golden age in the Caliphate (which ended in the 13th century, whereas this went on until the 15th century). This shows this was not a golden age brought about by a single ruling dynasty (the Abassids) as this was brought about by Amir Abd al-Rahman (certainly not an Abassid - in fact they clashed several times). There was a fair bit of religious freedom in Andulasia, not compared to todays standards, but in comparison to other countries in that era, the freedoms given to non-Muslims were very progressive:
* they were not forced to live in ghettoes or other special locations
* they were not slaves
* they were not prevented from following their faith
* they were not forced to convert or die under Muslim rule
* they were not banned from any particular ways of earning a living; they often took on jobs shunned by Muslims;
o these included unpleasant work such as tanning and butchery
o but also pleasant jobs such as banking and dealing in gold and silver
* they could work in the civil service of the Islamic rulers
* Jews and Christians were able to contribute to society and culture
Your paragraphs you highlite are a direct contradiction to what is not highlited.
"In conclusion, I can unambiguously summarize the fact that the so called Islamic Golden Age was not any product of Islamic scriptural knowledge, nor it was due to any degree of devoutness of religion Islam".
In one sentence that article admits that the golden age was due to the right conditions for civilisation to flourish being due to the openess and liberality of the caliphate, in the preceeding sentence they say this has nothing to do with Islam. This certainly does not detract from the fact that Islamic civilisation in general (as the caliphate included pretty much all Islamic civilisation and I've given examples of the other major Islamic civilisations and how they were also much more free and better at promoting scientific, agricultural and philosophical advancement in comparison to Christian nations) was able to advance more freely in this era than Christian civilisations were.
The point here is one of culture, not specifically religion (though you should certainly be wary of any sources which are not clear about that fact that in this period the two are intrinsically linked - which is the distinction the Islam Watch article makes).Obviously they were not treated in the same way as Muslims, I did mention that in my previous post.lowing wrote:
Also,
"Although Christians and Jews lived under restrictions"... Tells me they were considered inferior to Islam. Tells me they were considered inferior to Islam, and that these discoveries and advancements were gunna happen with or without Islamic influence.
"There were many other important individual philosophers in the Islamic world during the period of the Abbasid Caliphate, and various esoteric schools. In this Islamic setting, philosophical ideas were frequently bound up with those of religion and politics, which often meant that it was expedient for groups of like-minded scholars to come together in secretive associations."
Now this does not take away from Muslim scholar contribution, but it does reflex their need to do so out of favor with Islam as a whole.
taken from http://www.patterninislamicart.com/back … tribution/The important thing here is that they were miles ahead of their time. This is all comparative, not with modern day Western nations (that would be ridiculous), but with their contemparies (England, France, the Italian states etc.). They lived together with people of other religions in peace with some degree of mutual respect. This did not happen across the rest of Europe - at all. This mutual respect was extremely important when looking at academics. Muslim and non-Muslim scholars worked with each other, which again is something that would not have happened across Europe. Much of this philosophical progress took the form of Muslim and non-Muslim scholars debating with each other, trying to bring each other round to their way of religious thinking - so to ignore the influence of religion in that is clearly very wrong and to ignore part that the cultural influence of religion played in bringing about this golden age is equally naive.There was a fair bit of religious freedom in Andulasia, not compared to todays standards, but in comparison to other countries in that era, the freedoms given to non-Muslims were very progressive
So, recap on the main points:
1. The Abassid caliphate and Andulasian emirate provided environments conducive to advancement.
2. Conditions in the Abassid caliphate and Andulasian emirate were far better for non-Muslims than conditions in Europe were for non-Christians.
3. Religion was such an integral part of culture in the caliphate that to claim this did not play any part in creating the conditions that led to the Islamic golden age makes little sense.
On a side note, I find it quite ironic that the more radical Muslims wanting a return to the days of the caliphate are typically extremely right wing and could certainly not be described as liberal or promoting free-thinking and the free exchange of ideas - when those are the things that led to Islams greatest successes.
The question is, how and when did Islam become so oppressive intolerant and violent? The answer is, it always has been.
You really have no grasp of history, do you? It really is incredible to watch you be so consistently flat out wrong on this issue.
Islam went backwards once the Mongols took over, essentially.
Islam went backwards once the Mongols took over, essentially.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Would you want to live under muslim rule ? Honestly ~ would it be a giant step backward ?
If I was living in 1100 I would give a few fingers to be living in Muslim lands if I was living in Europe or China.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Do we always have to go back 1000 years when talking about the positive things ? or negative things if we are talking Christianity. It seems to be a pattern.Spark wrote:
If I was living in 1100 I would give a few fingers to be living in Muslim lands if I was living in Europe or China.
What am I wrong about? Am I wrong that Islam conquered its way to "progress"? or that Islam held and holds non-muslims as inferior? Or that Islam did and does oppress based on sex race and religion? What is it that I am wrong about?Spark wrote:
You really have no grasp of history, do you? It really is incredible to watch you be so consistently flat out wrong on this issue.
Islam went backwards once the Mongols took over, essentially.
Lastly, what does the "Islamic golden age" have to do with current events regarding Islamic oppression discrimination violence and intolerance?
That during the period from 800-1200AD, the Caliphates were a notoriously intolerant and backwards society. The opposite is true. Culturally, scientifically, they were centuries ahead of their counterparts. Centuries.
Yes, the strength of the Caliphate was set up by its conquests but that's hardly relevant, is it?
Yes, the strength of the Caliphate was set up by its conquests but that's hardly relevant, is it?
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
I see, so we are gunna judge them not based on their conquering of lands, but on how well they treat those they oppress. Got it.Spark wrote:
That during the period from 800-1200AD, the Caliphates were a notoriously intolerant and backwards society. The opposite is true. Culturally, scientifically, they were centuries ahead of their counterparts. Centuries.
Yes, the strength of the Caliphate was set up by its conquests but that's hardly relevant, is it?
and this is relevant to Islam and its violence and intolerance and oppression today, how exactly?
yes, when discussing Islam the only thing that is relevant is 1000 years ago, when someone might actually be able to find a positive thing to say to about it. and even that positive is how they let those they conquered live under Islamic rule, apparently the high point for Islam. How peaceful and tolerant and non-violent Islam is/was, it is just misunderstood.Hunter/Jumper wrote:
Do we always have to go back 1000 years when talking about the positive things ? or negative things if we are talking Christianity. It seems to be a pattern.Spark wrote:
If I was living in 1100 I would give a few fingers to be living in Muslim lands if I was living in Europe or China.
Last edited by lowing (2011-02-02 23:56:28)
Positive is boring .. no matter the religion. It's fair to assume that is why we don't hear about the good people do.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
treating others fair, or as equals and not oppressing them really should not be headline news. Although with Islam, may be it should.Kmar wrote:
Positive is boring .. no matter the religion. It's fair to assume that is why we don't hear about the good people do.
No it shouldn't be headline news. However, since we aren't always hearing about it, it would seem that the balance of good v evil is completely off.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
no it reflects the true nature of the religion, which is, there is simply not much good to say about it. What there is an abundance of however, is news as to how it treats others in the name of Islam.Kmar wrote:
No it shouldn't be headline news. However, since we aren't always hearing about it, it would seem that the balance of good v evil is completely off.
Last edited by lowing (2011-02-03 00:28:02)
I don't pretend to know what I don't. Maybe you're researching all of the merits of Islam.. I sure as hell am not.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
I am taking Islam for what is done in its name, what it holds as moral and how it's laws are played out in a society. Just like every other culture, and to turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to all of what Islam instigates in this world is simply ignoring the realities of this religion/culture.Kmar wrote:
I don't pretend to know what I don't. Maybe you're researching all of the merits of Islam.. I sure as hell am not.
To have to look back 1000 fuckin years to find an ounce of positive in this religion is telling.
An ounce eh?
I take 'freedom' for what is done in its name, and all of what 'democracy' instigates in this world - maybe you should look at that.
I take 'freedom' for what is done in its name, and all of what 'democracy' instigates in this world - maybe you should look at that.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
you cant win an argument by deflecting to another issue. Islam is what it is, if you disagree with that, argue a point pertaining to that.Dilbert_X wrote:
An ounce eh?
I take 'freedom' for what is done in its name, and all of what 'democracy' instigates in this world - maybe you should look at that.
If you think "freedom" and "democracy" is a terrible stain on world civilization, by all means start a thread and lets discuss it.
You are batting a thousand dilbert, to argue, you employ weapons of deceit by misquoting, taking issues out of context, and now deflecting the issue to another. Any chance you will stand your ground with a argument that does not need deception to make a point?
lowing wrote:
To have to look back 1000 fuckin years to find an ounce of positive in this religion is telling.Kmar wrote:
I don't pretend to know what I don't. Maybe you're researching all of the merits of Islam.. I sure as hell am not.
Maybe that is why it is so hard to find?lowing wrote:
treating others fair, or as equals and not oppressing them really should not be headline news. Although with Islam, may be it should.
i'm just saying that maybe we don't always hear about things like Charity Week?
http://www.onecharityweek.com/cms/
Xbone Stormsurgezz
The problem is, you're taking the actions of a tiny minority, who claim to be acting for Islam but aren't, and staining all muslims. How ever many positive aspects of Islam are shown to you you ignore them, the same as you ignore negative aspects of other religions.lowing wrote:
you cant win an argument by deflecting to another issue. Islam is what it is, if you disagree with that, argue a point pertaining to that.Dilbert_X wrote:
An ounce eh?
I take 'freedom' for what is done in its name, and all of what 'democracy' instigates in this world - maybe you should look at that.
If you think "freedom" and "democracy" is a terrible stain on world civilization, by all means start a thread and lets discuss it.
You are batting a thousand dilbert, to argue, you employ weapons of deceit by misquoting, taking issues out of context, and now deflecting the issue to another. Any chance you will stand your ground with a argument that does not need deception to make a point?
You're a single issue nut who has already made up his mind to the exclusion of all other information.
As for "freedom", if thats the freedom to buy up and burn up the worlds resources in a few decades so a select few can live in opulence while the majority toil in poverty chasing the illusion of "freedom" then I don't buy it.
For "democracy" if the Hitlers, Bushes and Blairs can maneuvre their way into starting wars on my behalf in the name of "democracy" then I don't buy it either. One man's "democracy" is another's oppression.
So anyway lowing, do you give away 2.5% of your surplus wealth to charity, as muslims do, or 5% like the sharia?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zakat
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-02-03 01:09:13)
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!