BF2S Forums Looking for Rush, Haninty counter Radio from the Left - Any Ideas ?

Spark wrote:

I'll rarely post on this topic nowadays, but...

That's some dodgy reasoning you got going there.

Because a few hundred  years ago whole armies did some truly fucked up shit, shit that made modern-day jihadists look like petty thugs, on a consistent basis over a long time in the name of Christianity and by extension the Bible. In contrast Islamic society was far and away the most enlightened, progressive and "modern" on the planet.

Neither the Bible nor the Koran have changed significantly in the intervening years. So could not we then argue that that period proves that Christianity is a religion fucked up beyond all imagining and Islam is a wonderfully enlightened, progressive religion centuries ahead of its time?

(Of course not, I merely point out the fallacy of arguing that actions taken in the name of something automatically means the action was justified according to the something, especially when the something is as broad, complex and open to interpretation as a religion)

That 'acceptable norms' in some Islamic countries - some - would not pass as such here is beyond doubt, but I'll also note that honor killings and the like are not a phenomenon restricted to Islamic countries.

Spark wrote:

You've missed my point.

My point probably would've been better served simply by looking at the Islamic Golden Age. If you take that as actions taken in the name of Islam - and many of them were - then in isolation using that stream of logic then Islam is a fantastically progressive, enlightened religion. Likewise if you take modern day jihadism and the actions taken blatantly in the name of Islam in isolation then you arrive quite obviously at your conclusion.

The Koran has not altered significantly in text in the intervening period. So there should be no reason to discount either as a less valid reflection on the true nature of Islam.

And so we have a contradiction. Islam is at once a tolerant, enlightened and progressive religion, and a backwards, violent, oppressive religion. Obvious nonsense, and hence my point that that line of reasoning is deeply flawed.

EDIT: And a "few" must be taken in context of the sheer scale of Islam's followers. Let's say that for sake of argument that 0.01% of Muslims display jihadist tendencies. One in every ten thousand, that's not many, is it? Only the small matter of between 100 000 and 200 000.

So "a few" must be taken into context. That's a massive number in raw terms, and obviously will cause no end of trouble. But is it really fair to characterise such a massive group, or its "controlling" ideology based on the actions of one in ten thousand?

EDIT: I repeat that was just for the sake of argument, if I had to guess, I'd say the actual figure would be significantly smaller.

Last edited by lowing (2011-01-27 06:27:21)

Spark wrote:

Because they are both used in a flawed manner.

I'm aware that many of the scientific discoveries they made were based on the fact that they (and only they) were studying classical Greek texts and etc. Archimedes would probably  have discovered calculus, a long long long time before Newton/Leibniz, had he been using the Arabic number system. With that benefit the Arab scholars got tantalisingly close.

However to characterise all their scientific discoveries as mere borrowings is intellectual dishonesty writ large. Alhazen's treatise on optics, for example, was a truly seminal work in science - in fact arguably he was the first true scientist, and certainly one of the first to employ what we call the scientific method. We could look at some of the social policies they employed, some of which were well ahead of thier time (and some of which most definitely weren't, but then again no one else was exactly pushing that envelope in any shape or form).

Anyway, the fact that they were studying Greek texts at all is pretty bloody enlightened for mine. Notice who wasn't doing that?

The point is moot anyway, as my main argument is that whether it be Christianity or Islam, to characterise the base religious text as espousing one overriding ideology or another based on the actions of a tiny minority taken in its name is not logically sound.

EDIT: As for the Crusades point, a fairer analysis would ask what proportion of soldiers went on the Crusades. You wouldn't get a peasant farmer to go seige cities in the Holy Land whether he wanted to or not, would you? Even that analysis is flawed, as basically there is only one person of any importance in this whole thing - the Pope. Whatever he said to do, everyone did. Simple as that.

lowing wrote:

Ok so you want to credit Islam for all of its fantastic scientific discoveries and not give the credit where it is due, the conquered lands of Islam. Well then the question then must be asked, where the hell has Islam and all of its inventiveness been for the last 800 years? Fact is Islamic inventiveness is only as good as the land it has conquered. I do not think it is a coincidence that the "Islamic golden age" dried up as its ability to conquer new lands dried up.

Spark wrote:

I'm aware that many of the scientific discoveries they made were based on the fact that they (and only they) were studying classical Greek texts and etc.

lowing wrote:

Yes I read what Spark wrote, it is the "HOWEVER", after what you quoted that I was mainly addressing.

now here http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~sxw8045/history.htm .

Algebra came a long way before it got to the Arabs.

" In the 7th and 8th centuries the Arabs, united by Mohammed, conquered the land from India, across northern Africa, to Spain. In the following centuries (through the 14th) they pursued the arts and sciences and were responsible for most of the scientific advances made in the west. Although the language was Arabic many of the scholars were Greeks, Christians, Persians, or Jews. Their most valuable contribution was the preservation of Greek learning through the middle ages, and it is through their translations that much of what we know today about the Greeks became available. In addition they made original contributions of their own.

They took over and improved the Hindu number symbols and the idea of positional notation. These numerals (the Hindu-Arabic system of numeration) and the algorithms for operating with them were transmitted to Europe around 1200 and are in use throughout the world today.

Like the Hindus, the Arabs worked freely with irrationals. However they took a backward step in rejecting negative numbers in spite of having learned of them from the Hindus.

In algebra the Arabs contributed first of all the name. The word "algebra" come from the title of a text book in the subject, Hisab al-jabr w'al muqabala, written about 830 by the astronomer/mathematician Mohammed ibn-Musa al-Khowarizmi. This title is sometimes translated as "Restoring and Simplification" or as "Transposition and Cancellation." Our word "algorithm" in a corruption of al-Khowarizmi's name.

The algebra of the Arabs was entirely rhetorical.

They could solve quadratic equations, recognizing two solutions, possibly irrational, but usually rejected negative solutions. The poet/mathematician Omar Khayyam (1050 - 1130) made significant contributions to the solution of cubic equations by geometric methods involving the intersection of conics.

Like Diophantus and the Hindus, the Arabs also worked with indeterminate equations".


I said nothing that was incorrect. Islam is not responsible for algebra, they're responsible for the fuckin name. big deal


Again the "golden age of Islam" was achieved, to a far greater extent, through the conquering of other lands, by scholars that were anything but Islamic.

lowing wrote:

as  said the "golden age of Islam",came about, TO A FAR GREATER EXTENT due to the conquering of lands MOST of the scientific discoveries were not made by Muslims. The article listed first of all the name, algebra, it then goes on to some secondary contributions. OR did you miss the quote that said, "their most valuable contribution was the preservation of greek learning..."?

The point is, everyone wants to hang their hats on the "Golden Age of Islam"  when in fact, keeping in line with Islamic history, the "golden age of Islam" came about due to conquering not discovery.

Dilbert_X wrote:

lowing wrote:

My opinions have nothing to do with what the bible or the Koran says.

Then just stop talking.

FatherTed wrote:

very few cultures/nations/individuals have 'discovered' something from scratch as you mean it lowing. Some recent examples, most of what we know about medical transplants and the early rocket technology was lifted and developed upon from Nazi scientists.

FatherTed wrote:

You could happily call it 'genius' to take an existing idea and take it one crucial step further... I'm sure for example people noticed water levels in a bathtub rising when they got in it, but until Archimides had his Euraka moment no-one understood (or cared to think about) the physics (and its implications) they were experiencing.

The nazi example was just that, an example

Hunter/Jumper wrote:

To sum it up
The muslims must be given credit for good things they did thousands of years back.
Christianity must be punished for bad things it did thousands of years back.
Christians must not be given credit for good things they do today.
muslims must not be held accountable for any bad things the do today

SenorToenails wrote:

lowing wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

Don't tell me I'm 'hanging my hat' on the golden age of Islam when all I'm doing is pointing out a fallacy of yours.  Islam made some advances, give them credit.  Dismissing what they've done merely because other people started the work in ages past is dishonest.  New knowledge builds on old knowledge, and the Arabs and those under them build upon what was there.  Apparently there was a hospitable environment to learning and thinking.  Was it a 'golden age'?  I don't know, and frankly I don't care.  I didn't argue that point.

and all I argued was, after the golden age of Islam non-sense was brought up, that it came about largely do to conquering, and not discovery of its own. That point is not wrong. I never said they contributed nothing, but the vast majority of their advancements came from scholars of lands they conquered and not from within Islam.

Ibn Sina, from modern day Afghanistan, wrote The Canon of Medicine, which is STILL considered one of the greatest medical scholars of the last millenium (and this text served as the basis for modern medicine).

Abu al-Qasim al-Zahrawi, from Moorish Spain, is considered one of the fathers of modern surgery.

Ibn al-Haytham, from modern day Iraq, wrote The Book of Optics, which is placed next to Newton's Principia as one of the most influential books of physics.  Some historians say he was the father of the rigorous modern scientific method. 

Several undoubtable muslims who made massive contributions to science and medicine.  They were not conquered.  I strongly doubt that any European renaissance would have happened had the muslims not translated, maintained and further developed Greek, Egyptian, Babylonian, and Indian works.  The Europeans didn't have much to work from.  Much of the critical basis of knowledge from the Greeks and even the Romans was missing, destroyed, or otherwise unavailable.  Without that, they didn't have a chance of keeping up, not to mention the society was not conducive towards secular scientific advancement.  Much like how the muslim countries were when the western world was rapidly advancing.