Slashdot Mirror
1001 Islamic Inventions
pev writes "There's a new traveling exhibition in the UK entitled 1001 inventions. It contains some of the most interesting inventions from the past few thousand years. The common theme, however, is that they all came from the Islamic world and not the west. In some cases [the list is] quite surprising. For the lazy, the Independent newspaper in the UK printed their top 20 from the exhibition."
"By the 15th century they had invented both a rocket, which they called a "self-moving and combusting egg", and a torpedo - a self-propelled pear-shaped bomb with a spear at the front which impaled itself in enemy ships and then blew up."
Now introducing the new and improved vest o' dynamite model!!
I know it's a knee-jerk comment, and no I didn't RTFA but isn't it funny how the main function of western media is to condense everything to top-10 type lists to accommodate shrinking attention-spans?
Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast.
. . . when a group of people lets all of their scientific achievements throughout history become overshadowed by religious fundamentalism. Let's hope we don't end up going down the same route here in the States.
(It's even more sad when I have to post anonymously for fear that people who disagree with my post might interpret it to be against their version of Islam and harm myself and my family).
Nothing on the list came from after 1300 CE/AD. What does that tell you?
Rank my idea: http://www.sinceslicedbread.com/node/531
Those inventions were created by people, not by Islam. Islam is merely a religion, and hence useless and incapable of anything at except stroking peoples emotions (for good or bad).
Those are human inventions.
Odd that the person who submitted this is surprised that the inventions are from the Islamic world. Anyone who knows anything about the history of the regions whose inventions are included here knows there were a lot of innovations created in the first 500-600 years after the founding of Islam.
The problem is that such inventiveness and scholarly pursuits largely stopped/stagnated as Muslim countries and culture turned inward.
Everything on the top-20 list comes from antiquity. So tell me, what great things did the muslim world invent more recently than, say, 1950 ?
I don't know why the word "Islamic" is attached to this article.
Just like terrorism isn't "Islamic", these inventions aren't necessarily Islamic either.
The religion of the inventor had nothing to do with these inventions.
ARABIC, and not ISLAMIC inventions?
I looked over the sites, and i find something intresting: The complete lack of any modern innovations. This project has completely backfired, instead of trying to promote Islamic society, it has proven the harsh reality that the middle-east is centeries behind the developed world.
While it is difficult to spot exactly where the islamic fate starts in history most people seem to assume it starts with the prophet Muhammad.
Who came a good 700 years after Jesus Christ who himself came from a fate even older. If you go back several thousand years the only bible fate around that is still around (as far as I know) are the Jews.
Wich means that most of the inventions claimed here are in fact not made by muslims but either by their predecessors (christians or jews) OR one of the many other fates that used to exist in the world.
It always suprises me when people talk about the rich history of the middle east and attribute it to Islam when in fact islam had next to nothing to do with it. Just check islamic attitudes to the great pyramids.
When an article already makes a basic mistake by attributing achievements to a fate that happened hundreds of years earlier I smell propoganda. Would be like attributing the Great Wall to the Chinese Communist Party.
Same region, same ethnic people but totally different nonetheless.
Basically this whole things sound to me like, thousands of years ago when the world was totally different some guy invented a thing wich was kinda of usefull so now a whole group of religious freaks must be liked despite the fact that everything they say and do is exactly against the believes of that guy thousands of years ago.
No thanks. I just judge muslims by the ones I meet in daily life.
My greatest problem with the muslims in general is that they never seem to have heard of the saying "what is good for the goose is good for the gander" (what goes for you goes for me). Take the recent riots over those danish cartoons. Arab media have spouted hate for decades but that is alright. One rule for the muslims, another for the rest of the world. No thank you.
The only thing I know that in holland a mere 3-4% of the population seems to be in the news 80% of the time. You can turn on the tv without some program about them. Enough already.
Oh, and those who think that hatred against muslims is extreme right. Consider this. What do nazi's hate? Homosexuals, equal rights for women, jews, etc. What do muslims hate?
Those lefties defending muslims bashing gays and supressing womens mystify me. Sometimes the enemy of your enemy is your enemy as well. Just because your against Bush doesn't mean you have to be pro muslim.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
White people get recognition every day. You're just used to it.
-mkb
"The truth, of course, is that the vast majority of all historical accomplishments were achieved by straight, white, Christian males"
The vast majority of all historical accomplishments? You even use terms like "the truth" and "of course", making it sound ridiculously assumptious.
If I was to believe such a claim, I would require proof. European and American history is Eurocentric, so we know far more about European history than we do of Chinese, Arabian, Japanese, Indian, African or native american history. The Chinese and Japanese have for instance an extremely rich history full of accomplisments, lots of which are not well known by westeners. The same goes for most other civilisations.
Also, just because the white, christian male conquered large parts of the world, does not mean we were culturally superiour. We just happened to better at killing than them.
At #18, the Guardian notes that by the 9th century Muslim astronomers knew the Earth was round and had measured the circumference. The writer conveniently omits to mention that more than a thousand years before, the greek philosopher Eratosthenese has already done that. Certainly Muslim astronomy of the 9th century was far more advanced than European astronomy of the same time, but this article smacks to me of an attempt to say "everything was invented by a Islam". This is strengthed by #14 where they say "the zero was invented in India, but we use arabic numerals". I submit that the shape of the numerals is not very important, while the decimal notation and especially the concept of zero are the major invention here.
For one it is yet another misleading headline, briefly checking in TFA those inventions came later than Mahomet.
... to some religion, especially as these articles do not seem to cover other culture and civilization aspects and influences at all.
However it doesn't make sense to me to associate those inventions from Arabs, Persians, Ottomans,
It's just about a book with fancy colours illustrating inventions from parts of the world where Islam is the main religion now.
I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of killer sig, which this margin is too narrow to contain.
...as much as the next person. But this exhibition is ridiculous. Herdsment from the desert conquer the civilized world and take credit for civilization. OK OK
From their list:
/ eratos1.html
18) By the 9th century, many Muslim scholars took it for granted that the Earth was a sphere. The proof, said astronomer Ibn Hazm, "is that the Sun is always vertical to a particular spot on Earth". It was 500 years before that realisation dawned on Galileo. The calculations of Muslim astronomers were so accurate that in the 9th century they reckoned the Earth's circumference to be 40,253.4km - less than 200km out. The scholar al-Idrisi took a globe depicting the world to the court of King Roger of Sicily in 1139.
But as I understand it, the Egyptian Eratosthenes had discovered this same thing 11 centuries earlier:
http://outreach.as.utexas.edu/marykay/assignments
Galileo was responsible for many great discoveries, but I've never seen anyone claim that he discovered the Earth was round. Many argue that a round world was common knowledge in Europe, despite what their maps might make us believe.
As a fellow straight white male, I salute you. It's like reverse racism... rather than putting another race down, it's now appropriate to glorify one's own by celebrating "holidays". It still accomplishes the same purpose... one is viewed as exalted over the other(s). Pride in one's race/orientation/wtf-ever is still racism, no matter how you cut it. Whether you're a limey white or the darkest black, it doesn't matter at all... it's about what you do with the time you're given to live. Geez, everybody, just be "human" and get over yourselves.
Windows isn't the answer... it's the question. NO is the answer!
The fact that the MAJORITY of the Earth's population was centered in that region during the time period the article uses???
I love how one can use data to shape any point they wish to make. Hang the author for submitting flamebait trash.
Opinion:=TMyOpinion.Create(Me);
You know the real problem you'll find is, as you build your list of "straight white christian male" inventor-heroes, you'll find a disturbing number either aren't straight (e.g. Turing), or aren't christian (e.g. Einstein)...
(not implying you were hoping for either of those on your list...)
It's seventy-two houris, according to the Hadith (kinda like the Islamic Talmud--commentary that they take quite seriously, but it's not The Book). On the other hand, "houri" might mean "white raisin" or "juicy fruit". So it's really a hilarious toss-up.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
but I wonder if I'll live to see the day when it's considered "acceptable" to be proud of straight, male, caucasian heritage. That's not to say I think there's anything to be proud of, but rather that it's interesting how we have all these parades, celebrations, "history" months, and special exhibits for the accomplishments of all the various configurations of gender, race, and religion, except straight, white, Christian male.
Did I wake up in some parallel universe today where there's a stigma attached to being straight or Christian? Last time I looked, there was still stigma attached to homosexuality, and bisexuality is mostly ignored or assumed not to exist. Atheists are often thought of as immoral, and given none of the protections and exceptions that religious people - yes, including Christians - get.
There may be no "parades" and so on, but that's because your types are celebrated, or even forced upon us, all the time anyway. In the UK, even though I went to a state school, we had to celebrate your religion every morning. In most countries, same sex couples are not permitted to have legal recognition for their relationship. Perhaps there'd be less parades if they were allowed to celebrate in the same way that heterosexuals can?
The truth, of course, is that the vast majority of all historical accomplishments were achieved by straight, white, Christian males.
Emphasis on the word historical. The number of Christian scientific developments is far less in the last century.
Having said that - I agree that it's silly to start rating which-group-of-people-did-what (although you yourself fall into this trap with the above paragraph). But for the most part, things like "parades" are not about this anyway, they're about raising awareness against discrimination. I disagree with your claim that it's not acceptable to be proud of straight, male, caucasion or Christian heritage.
while straight white males stand at the sidelines with their mouths shut, lest they be considered racist, sexist, homophobic, or just generally discriminatory.
No one is stopping you from celebrating achievments of straight white males. The problem is that you seem to want to also say "...and we're better than all the rest".
Or indeed anything to do with Arabs. The Persians are, well, Persian. They're about as genetically different to Arabs as Europeans are. For that matter, I think chess was also a pre-Islamic practice in Persia, Islam again had nothing to do with it.
You know, when you think about it, it's awfully humiliating when not only are the collaters of this data forced to adopt non-Islamic era inventions as "Islamic", but that it cannot find anything more recent than 1300CE worthy of being called a notable invention.
If anything, this exhibition should not be about Islamic pride. It should be a wake-up call to the Muslim world that the innate creativity and resourcefulness of the Arab and Persian peoples has been stifled by modern Islam.
How about the military uses of teenagers with explosive belts? That seems to be a rather recent invention too.
And unfortunately I think the fallout of this is becoming all too appearent. The Koran records Mohammad as stating:
Only argue with the People of the Book in the kindest way - except in the case of those of them who do wrong - saying, 'We have Faith in what has been sent down to us and what was sent down to you. Our God and your God are one and we submit to Him. (Surat al-`Ankabut; 29:46).
Islam at various points in history was actually much more tolerant than Christianity during its day. Mohammad did indeed show tolerance to Christians and Jews, and for a while even Jews were shown acceptance, reversing a long conflict that began over land before Islam existed. Saladin during the Crusades was not only a brilliant commander, but a very reasonable and tolerant guy, and those kind of values actually spurred the rise of chivalry in Europe.
Unfortunately it seems the "people of the book" are still a long ways off from following it, but the British have done good work here and it is exactly these type of things that can help reverse the dehumanization of our fellow man that has taken place lately. Hopefully as Islam ages, they will abandon many of the precepts created by man as was the case during the great schism in Christianity, but it is a two-way street, and more Christians will also have to think more like Jesus and Tom Fox than we have been. I think that within each religion of the "people of the book" lies a path to peace, the question is how many more deaths it will take before we can all find it.
Good point, well made. I just wish I had mod points right now.
Michael Nelson
"If you wanna be proud of anything, be proud of the fact that you are part of a race, sexuality, gender, and religion that has not been publicly ridiculed, tortured, eradicated, and had their ass kicked six ways from sunday for the past x-hundred years."
Yeah, tell that to the Irish, and the Italians, and the Poles, and the Dutch, and the Scots etc, etc. Being straight, white, Christian, and male is no proof against discrimination. Being straight, "white", agnostic and male myself, I can vouch for the fact that it's not a guarantor of wealth, either.
As others have commented, this list should probably be described as Arabic inventions, and not Islamic.
Also, I notice that the tone of the Slashdot story and the comments in this article is rather antagonistic and condescending. I am reminded of Chris Rock's standup routine, when he talks about how white people viewed Colin Powell's possible run for presidency:
"Whenever Colin Powell is on the news, white people give him the same compliments: 'How do you feel about Colin Powell?', 'He speaks so well! He's so well spoken. I mean he really speaks so well!' Like that's a compliment, shit. 'He speaks so well' is not a compliment, okay? 'He speaks so well' is some shit you say about retarded people that can talk. What do you mean he speaks so well? He's a fucking educated man, how the fuck you expect him to sound, you dirty motherfucker? 'He speaks so well.' What are you talking about? What voice were you expecting to come out of his mouth? 'Imma drop me a bomb today', 'Imma be Pwez o dent!'."
LS
There is a fine line between being a cultivated citizen and being someone else's crop. - A. J. Patrick Liszkie
Now let's compare it with the Top 100 Jewish, Christian, Buddhist and Hindu inventions.
No matter how you slice it, from a comparitive standpoint the Islamic world hasn't contributed jack sh*t in the last 500 years.
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
The principles of simplicity, elegance, and order are aesthetic, not religious. The appreciation of beauty is not in any way dependent on belief in God. In fact, the primary rationale for atheism is Occam's Razor. God has never been proven to be required to explain anything, and therefore the assumption that he exists is unnecessarily complex and inelegant.
The belief that the world is illusory or unimportant is actually a common religious belief, probably the one that sceintific atheists despise the most. If you follow the arguments of religious conservatives these days, they are based on epistemological relativism. Fundamentalists have co-opted postmodernism to exploit its slippery evasions of logic and evidence. This is why Evolution is "just a theory" to them--there is no truth, only opinion. There is no reality. The inconsistency of such arguments, coming from the mouths of absolutists, is mind-boggling, but then, they don't hold reason in very high regard.
And the primary argument of supernaturalists (theists) is that God can change or suspend the laws of physics at will. So the laws of physics apply... except when they don't. Given this assumption, science becomes impossible. This is what the current war between science and religion is about--political religion is intent on eradicating the naturalistic world view, and science in the process.
Everything you said in your post was completely wrong.
Jesus didn't really create Christianity
I would have to disagree with this. Jesus's teachings went beyond the messiah prophesied by Isiah, and he did start a new religion (you know those stories about new wine and old wine skins, and you know that whole this third cup is a new cup now thing).
rest of the Jews decided that he was just another prophet and the true son of God hadn't come yet.
This is very telling. One of the main reasons that Jesus was dismissed by many as the messiah is because of his claim to be the son of God. The prophesies of the messiah say nothing about it being God's son. The jews are waiting for the messiah, not for God's son.
Christianity traces its roots to before Christ, just as Islam traces its roots to a time before Mohammed.
Christianity traces its roots to Christ. Before Christ it is judaism, and it is not Christian history but Jewish history. Now Jewish history is important to Christianity, but labeling it as christian roots is a bit like labeling British history as American roots (which while is important to America there are many more influences then just the British).
Computers allow humans to make mistakes at the fastest speeds known, with the possible exception of tequila and handguns
What do term limits have to do with voting someone out? I agree, term limits are a good thing and unfortunately the only thing that will get rid of Bush (since he has been able to fix the last two elections), but they have nothing to do with voting. That's why they work so well; they require no effort on the part of the lazy, uninformed electorate.
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
The reason that people who aren't straight, white, Christian males feel the need to celebrate the accomplishements of $DEMOGRAPHIC_GROUP is because although straight, white, Christian males have accomplished a hell of a lot, they haven't accomplished as large a proportion of everything as a lot of people (like you) seem to think they have; and those who are not swCm's feel justifiably aggrieved at having their accomplishments downplayed (or, in many cases, having the credit stolen outright.)
It's really far more general than that. Collectivists (including racists), lacking in individual accomplishments of their own, like to cite accomplishments of people from their race/religion/country as if this somehow ennobles them personally. Whether it's David Duke bragging about the Wright brothers, or Jesse Jackson bragging about the great University of ancient Timbuktu, it's the same bullshit of trying to attribute prestige to a group, rather than the individual.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Teachings have strayed far from what the prophet Mohammad wrote,
Actually, they haven's strayed far enough. The Reformation was lead by people who claimed to be returning to the gospel of Christ, but in fact what they were doing was pulling a particular thread from a complex and varied tapestry.
You cite the Koran saying Muslims should argue nicely with other "People of the Book", although you gloss over the caveate "except those that do wrong" (or "evil" in some translations.) The Koran does say this, and many other things that could be taken as fairly liberal: "There shall be no compulsion in religion", for example. But it also says things like (9:123) "Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Deal firmly with them. Know that God is with the righteous."
With regard to women, the Koran is vastly more retrograde than (Paul's) Christianity, which is saying something. A "return to the words of the prophet" would be a return to sub-medieval treatment of women. "Women are your fields--go then into your fields whence you please" (2:223) "Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because God has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them, forsake them in beds apart, and beat them. Then if they obey you, take no further actions against them. Surely God is high, supreme." (4:34, emphasis added.)
The last thing this world needs is an Islam that is closer to the words of the prophet. It needs a more liberal, relaxed Islam that has thrown off the yoke of the scriptures just as mainstream Christianity has in the past century, to become a spiritual and social movement that has none of the oppressive trappings that were so clearly expressed by its central prophet and even moreso by his most successful apostle. Early Islam, with it's "itjihad" ("questioning") culture demonstrates that liberal thought is not incompatible with people who call themselves Muslims, just as post-Reformation Christianity has shown that liberal thought is not incompatible with a kind of Christianity. But in both cases it is necessary to ignore a great deal of the foundational texts to do so.
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
> That's unrelated to either the naure of Islam per-se or to the presence of religious fundamentalists.
That seems to be a pretty big assumption. One that goes against the evidence too.
> Also, nobody's gonna attack you or your family because you post on slashdot. You stupid little bedwetting jackass.
I'm sure the danish cartoonist wasn't expecting a $16,500,000 price put on his either. For that matter have you even been following the reasons why he drew the cartoons in the first place?
Mod parent up.
I'm surprised that you're informative rather than funny.
Just think of all of the Slashdot readers who don't realize that a year from now, they'll be a year older.
I suppose that gives me ground to claim that Christianity started with Adam & Eve, too. Judaism, as well.
But we don't say that. Instead, we go by what history shows. Is there any historical support for a thing called "Islam" existing prior to Muhammad?
And to you moderators, that isn't a commedy routine. The guy is serious.
What is it about Islam that inspired these inventions, assuming they are all "Islamic" inventions.
Is the nuclear bomb a Christian invention? The automobile? What gives? Why call something "Islamic" if Islam had nothing to do with it. You might call these inventions non-provacative to Islam, or compatible with Islam, but that's about it. They were not invented because of Islam, they were likely invented despite Islam, just like all the Western advances were achieved while dragging the Catholic and Protestant Christian churches kicking and screaming into the future.
Edith Keeler Must Die
Or don't you respect people's choice in the matter?
Only the Gospel of Mark appears tailored for a Roman audience, and scholars believe it predates Saul's transformation. And considering that it took over 300 years for the Roman Empire to officially accept Christianity, I'd day Saul must have done a terrible job.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
It is true that the Reformation, and Lutheranism, was indeed a particular interpretation of Christianity, but the overall goal and point behind the Augsberg Confessional was the Catholic Church's "additions" to the religion that Luther took great objection to; regardless of his individual beliefs, it paved the way for a great deal of freedom from the then more or less exclusive interpretations of the Catholic and Orthodox traditions. I don't think it is reaching too much to ask if what many people consider objectionable about Islam is more the hadiths than the Koran, and wonder if that doesn't parallel Christianity at the same relative point just a bit.
The "infidels" bit comes from when Mohammad was being persecuted, and it is important to note it is regarding a specific instance at a specific point in time, and keep things in context, which sometimes followers have difficulty doing. The same is true for Paul's letters in the NT as you reference later. Also, even if one does interpret them to apply universally, "infidel" does not and never has applied to other "people of the book", so that would not be a valid justification for Christian/Jewish conflict. As a further point, the word used for war sometimes, "jihad", means struggle, not necessarily violence or physical in nature.
There are certainly things in the Koran we Westerners will tend to disagree with, particularily regarding women, and you make some excellent points there. However, as a counterpoint, many of the mistreatments of women ascribed to Islam actually predate it, and come from tribal traditions in that area; in many cases Islam's treatment of women is much better than how they were treated, and how they are treated in many areas of the world, including some of the Middle East, to this day.
The particular passage you cite is considered by some to be an incorrect translation; the word "beat", is actually "idribûhunna", and is used in the Koran only to denote separation or travel, not violence. The translation to "beat" comes from usage outside of the context of the Koran.
I don't want to go into too much of a semantics debate, but the overall things I'd like to stress are that at the time the Koran's instructions were a vast improvement in women's rights to the world as a whole, especially to the Middle East, and that the Islamic countries are making faster advancements relative to the birth of the religion towards women's rights than we in the US did; women's suffrage and the struggles of Susan B. Anthony are of our very recent past. Many urbanized areas in Islamic countries are within 100 years of us in terms of women's rights.
I agree with the former, but not latter part of your last paragraph. I think either religion is quite compatible with peace and enlightenment as history has shown, the question is in the interpretation. And I think you'll find that is not the fault of Jesus, Mohammad, God, or even Paul, but rather the institutions we have constructed today.
I do agree fundamentalism can be dangerous in any case though. Abandoning the hadiths entirely does not guarantee a positive change, it still very much depends on how the words of the prophet are interpreted. And they are interpreted outside of the hadiths through the lens of society. That has very much changed and evolved since the Arab and Muslim rural tribal societies in which Islam was born, and will continue to change and grow into the future.
But that still does not free the followers of individual responsibility; of my fellow Christians, they have no prophet telling them to kill anyone, and many still manage to justify hatred and violence to themselves. If we want followers of Islam to be less violent, more forgiving, and more peaceful, perhaps we should attempt to do the same instead of bombing them in the future. For despite all of the "progress" we have made in the West, we are for the most part guilty of precisely what we judge of those we hate. And I'm not entirely sure bombing them is going to elevate them to some lofty standard of peace and enlightment we cannot reach ourselves.
Look at his name? It sounds kind of arabic so my guess is he could be a muslim.
I am not a muslim but I do hear them talk about allah being with mohammed with x, and then with noah with y, just as he was with adam.
Its part of their belief structure to incorporate islam as the extension of judiasm after it became corrupt(muslim belief).To a muslim its the truth and mohammed came to be set the true faith again.
http://saveie6.com/
"And all words in Arabic, Latin, Greek, and English are all ultimately derived from some Indo-European root language group. Languages don't grow in a petri dish son."
You really should've researched this before blathering on. While Latin, Greek and English are all derived from the Indo-European root language group, Arabic is not. It is of course a member of the Afro-Asiatic root language group, which of course is not related to the Indo-European group. While they may share some pre-historic parent language, most linguists are reluctant to accept this theory (as are most arabs interestingly enough).
The original term was camera obscura, which is of course latin in origin (obscura of course being entirely latin). This is easily explained as latin was already in use in the "scientific" fields as the language of choice. Which explains why an Arab man like Ibn al-Haitham would use latin to describe his invention.
Also the text in the article is completely ridiculous. It was not the common theory that eyes emitted light, that was a theory of 2 Greek scientists. And it was refuted by Aristotle, which became the common theory.
The article is an obvious Arab apologistic treatise. Several of the "inventions" mentioned are not inventions at all. And the vast majority are actually inventions from other lands and peoples.
Wait, the Islamic conquests of Europe pretty much ended with the Battle of Tours in 732. What sort of "response" takes three hundred and fifty years or more to happen? Are you suggesting that the French knights suddenly felt bad for the subjugated Middle Eastern tribes?
Look, I know it fits nicely into the modern "savage Arabs bad!" viewpoint, but you're going to have to back up your "the Crusades were the Arabs' fault!" with something more than "jihad" as an answer.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
It is amazing how many of these "inventions" are of following form - "Even though such-and-such was probably invented in India or China, it was the muslims who [wrote it down/polished it/revealed it to the west].
The truth is, until Vasco De Gama discovered the sea route to India, Arabs were the conduit for all communication and trade between the West and India. Hence, many inventions and goods that are actually Indian are often misnamed as Arabic. The so-called "Arabic numeric system" is an excellent example.
One would think, after all these years, there would be more clarity on this issue.
All your favorite sites in one place!
I have read a lot of history about the Islamic empire that stretched from India to Iberia. This is largely an extension of my desire to understand Spanish history.
To say that Islam created these wonders is to ignore what was actually happening in the society that was the Islamic empire. The empire was tolerant of all religions and beliefs, including people "not of the book," which would include persons that were not Jews and Christians. This empire preached tolerance and benefitted from having non-believers because the government taxed non-believers more (which may have influenced the less-firm in their beliefs to convert).
The end result was a polycultural society that valued innovation, high art and wonderful architecture. And I would argue that it's not the dominant religion that was responsible but the society.
If you look at the last century, you'll see lots of Nobel Prize winners in the sciences coming from America (that would be The Great Satan to many Islamic societies -- especially Iran). Could it be that a polycultural society with vast natural resources is what helps in the creation of these innovations?
I look at these monocultural and intolerant societies as non-creators of advancements. For examples, one merely needs to look at Afghanistan under the Taliban, Iran and China under the Cultural Revolution.
I agree that it is important to look to history and appreciate those innovations and inventions that came before but to suggest that a religion created these is to ignore what really happened.
I should note that, when Iberia turned monocultural and intolerent under the Kings of Castile and Aragon, they created and innovated such wonderous examples as the Spanish Inquisition, the expulsion and forced conversion (and further persecution) of Jews and the encomienda system of tributory labor that was used to enslave and destroy Native American nations and civilizations. [sarcasm]It's a shame these innovations happened so long ago; they surely would have been awarded Nobel prizes for them.[/sarcasm]
I do not wish to detract from the religion that is Islam. I know a great number of practicing muslims and they are good people with whom I have very good friendships. I believe that people should get along with their neighbors and appreciate them more by striving to understand them. But the article seems to gloss over the fact that the culture probably begat the advancements rather than the religion.
Gods don't kill people, people with gods kill people.
You crticize the Bible and the worst that will happen is a Christian will try to refute the criticism (sometimes doing a good job, sometimes coming off as a nutcase). You critize the Qu'ran and the least that will happen is all of the Muslim world delcaires a fatwa on you and your country (always coming off as nutcases).
Bungo!
What contradictory trash.
On the one hand, your civilization goes back 5000 years.
On the other hand, the Muslims "forcibly converted" their conquered peoples.
If that were really the case, your community wouldn't still be around!
How stupid do you think we are?
To overcome evil with good is good, to resist evil with evil is evil.
Good advice. Pity it has about as much influence in the actual behavior of muslims as turning the other cheek and loving ones neighbour has with christians.
Sometimes I wonder what the world would be like if, instead of killing for their religion, people would actually follow it.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Muslims were a great influence on math and science, thousands of years ago, but name for me ONE SINGLE INVENTION OF ANY SIGNIFICANCE to come out of a muslim country in the past 200 years. There isn't one.
These 1001 inventions are ALL from the glory days of Islam, and therein lies the problem. The Muslim religion has KILLED all crativity. They got left behind at the industrial age and THIS IS THE VERY REASON THEY ARE BITTER TODAY.
They got so full of their success that they became complacent, and the world passed them by. When they woke up to this fact, in the early 20th century, it was too late. People whom they used to "rule" over had surpassed them in every fashion because they chose to live in such a closed society within their Ottoman Empire.
When they realized that they were falling behind, they decided to force anyone (male) with any potential into one of two fields - medicine and engineering. They would send them abroad to attend the finest schools and then bring them back to try and bring any knowledge back into their folds. Think about it: Osama Bin Laden is an Engineer; Ayman al-Zawahiri is a doctor. Neither chose their profession, they were just recognized as having a few brains in their head and given one of two choices.
However, none of this changed the fact that the religion of Islam rejects modernity in every form, so this new influx of knowledge did nothing to stem the tide, the downward spiral of their entire culture. So they did a little introspection to try and figure out why they were failing as a culture. They decided that they needed to return to their 7th century roots, which is exactly the wrong approach.
Muslims are embarassed by the fact that they are so pathetic, and for good reason. The only answer for them is to embrace modernity. Until then, they can drive on the roads we've designed, sell the oil that we pumped for them, live in the buildings that we showed them how to build, using tractors and construction equipment purhcased from us. They'll continue to drive around in thieir German/European/Italian/American cars. They can continue treating their patients in their hospitals using medical textbooks written by the hated Christians and Jews, using techniques learned in Medical colleges that they attended outside their countries. And they can continue to resent us for this until they decide to wake up to modernity.
Good security is based upon reality and common sense. Common sense is a function of having common knowledge.
I am inclined to believe the above statement is contradictory. From my observations, being human seems to require inflating your self-worth and belittling others. Humans have always separated and stratified over distinctions of marginal or dubious value. Yet the depth to which they clung to these distinctions made Paul so radical when he wrote "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3:28) This idea is still radical today, as parent attests to. Cultural "progress" and civilization "advances" haven't rooted out human nature. Paul proposed that under Christ this could be achieved, which made the message of Christianity highly attractive to everyone who wasn't a Powerful Wealthy Senatorial Male (PWSM) in Greco-Roman times.
Your faith (Islam) claims foundation upon the faith of Abraham. Islam, as a recognized religion, does not preceed Christianity and Judaism, which both make the same claim. But Islam does claim that it's progression is even from Judaism and Christianity, and that Judaism and Christianity (as a general rule) have fallen away. Right? Therefore, in the era when Islam considered Judaism as pure, it would be equally correct to claim that Adam and Eve were Jewish? And when Christianity was considered pure, it would also be correct to claim that Adam and Eve were Christians? Therefore, Adam & Eve were just as jewish and christian as they were muslim.
That was only one critical aspect of my post. The other critical aspect is that it's dishonest to credit something prior to it's appearance in history. Islam does not appear in history prior to Muhammad.
The Quran commends those "people of the book" (christians and jews) who do not stray from the purity of monotheism or something to that effect, right? Would you also say that those faithful "people of the book" are truly muslims? You'd have to, if you wish to claim that Adam, Even, Abraham and Jesus were muslim. To include one for reason of faithfulness and exclude another despite faithfulness is dishonest.
That's the jist of it.
... these were all invented before 1001 A.D. Go figure.
"The Jewish Messiah is just a mortal man and not divine."
The issue in question is not whether the Jews think that their Messiah is divine. We are talking about your statement, "By Christians' definitions, Jesus _cannot_ be the Jewish messiah." We are therefore using Christian definitions both for the Jewish Messiah and the Christian Christ.
You have argued that becuase Jews don't believe that their Messiah is God-become-man (i.e., he is no less God for becoming human, and no less human for being God--as Christians believe) that this makes the Christian belief internally inconsistent. However, Christians do not arrive at their idea of a Jewish Messiah from the Talmud, or any other account of Jewish beliefs, apart from the Scriptures contained in the Old and New Testaments.
The idea of Christ in Christian theology is a superset of the idea of Messiah _in Christian theology_. Jewish theology did not anticipate that the Messiah would also be God himself in human form. This is not to say that the evidence is not there in the scriptures: upon reading the Scriptures, a Christian concludes that Jewish theology _should have_ anticipated (or at least allowed for) a divine Messiah, but did not.
You quoted an expert who stated, "The Talmud nowhere indicates a belief in a superhuman Deliverer as the Messiah." That is a statement about what the Jews believe, not the Christians. Even then, it does not approach your assertion that "The Jewish Messiah is just a mortal man and not divine." Your quoted expert provided us no information useful to answer the question, "Is the Messiah divine?"--except to say that the Talmud is not the place to look. If "the Talmud nowhere indicates a belif in a superhuman Deliverer as Messiah," then we learn nothing from the Talmud about the divinity of the Messiah, we only gain information about the authors of the Talmud.
If what you're saying is that the Christian's idea of Christ is inconsistent with the Jew's idea of Messiah, then, depending on which Christians and Jews you ask, you might be right, but this would not, as you try to do, prove that Messiah Jesus is an oxymoron.
...because "hacker" sounds way sexier than "code drone."
What's the word to describe this? Not irony.. but?
Any fool can criticise, condemn, and complain, and most fools do. - Benjamin Franklin