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."

179 of 1,034 comments (clear)

  1. But... by tsa · · Score: 5, Informative

    Mohammed lived a few hundred years after Jesus, so the Islam can never be more than 1.5 thousand years old!

    --

    -- Cheers!

    1. Re:But... by stupidfoo · · Score: 2, Informative
    2. Re:But... by caliph_salahuddin · · Score: 5, Funny

      Actually Islam didn't start with Mohammed. This is a fairly common misconception. It actually started with Adam & Eve. Mohammed didn't 'found' Islam, he is merely the last Prophet and perfected it.

    3. Re:But... by arvindn · · Score: 5, Funny
      Islam can never be more than 1.5 thousand years old!

      Come on! A thousand years from now, Islam will clearly be more than 1.5 thousand years old ;^)

      [I'm actually surprised no one beat me to it.]

    4. Re:But... by pnewhook · · Score: 5, Informative

      No, Mohammed didn't create the religion, he's just the last prophet.

      Similarly, Jesus didn't really create Christianity, he was Jewish. The Jews that became Christians decided that Jesus was the son of God as foretold in the old Testament, while the rest of the Jews decided that he was just another prophet and the true son of God hadn't come yet.

      Christianity traces its roots to before Christ, just as Islam traces its roots to a time before Mohammed.

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    5. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      >> perfected

      Yeah. Perfect.

    6. Re:But... by v0x0j · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Mohammed didn't 'found' Islam, he is merely the last Prophet and perfected it.
      Yeah, like Bobby Henderson did not 'found' Flying Spaghetti Monster - FSM actually found Bobby Henderson. Or L. Ron Hubbard did not start scientology, it started when Xenu thrown thetans into hawaiian volcanos or did something equaly fscked up.
    7. Re:But... by mtdnelson · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Good point, well made. I just wish I had mod points right now.

      --
      Michael Nelson
    8. Re:But... by c_forq · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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
    9. Re:But... by jcr · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Jesus's teachings went beyond the messiah prophesied by Isiah, and he did start a new religion

      I find it just as likely that Christianity as we know it was created by Saul of Tarsus, who morphed Jesus's teachings into something useful to the Romans.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    10. Re:But... by fatphil · · Score: 5, Interesting

      No, exactly not like that.

      Islam, as its holy tracts, includes (some subset of*) the Hebrew and the Christian testaments. Mohammed added very little, volume-wise, to the corpus. Bugger all, in reality, as it was people 100-200 years after Mohammed who were the creative ones** in their compilation of FoaF-attested Suras.

      FP.
      [* Likewise, Judaism only accepts a subset of the books into its current version of the official list; and Christianity only accepts a _tiny_ subset - there are several dozen Gospels that have bubbled into and out of popularity over the last 2 millennia, not just 4, for example.]
      [** Just like Christianity.]

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    11. Re:But... by tenchiken · · Score: 2, Interesting

      As a slightly tangential point (but one that I think is interesting). Christians claim that Jesus was the Messiah. Many Jews rejected this claim because a) He also claimed that he was the Son of God and b) He wasn't a political or religous leader.

      I think that if Jesus had bit a bit more like Muhammad (ie, a millitary and political leader) he might have gotten a better reception when he claimed to be the Messiah.

    12. Re:But... by w3woody · · Score: 2, Informative

      (Taking comment seriously despite "funny" modifier)

      By this definition all religions are "timeless". However, as I understand it, Islam (submission) is the third "covenant" after the Old and New Testaments, which makes the religion (as an organized set of beliefs driven by a document defining God's revealed plan to Mohammad) around 1.5 thousand years old.

    13. Re:But... by jdray · · Score: 2, Informative

      Islam started with Mohammed, who lived in the late 500's (date uncertain, evidently even to Mohammed, who was an orphan, though 545 is the "official" date) and died in 632. I'm not expert on Islamic history, but I'm reading an excellent book entitled "No god but God" by Reza Aslan. It's a very approachable look at the history (that's as far as I've gotten) of Islam and the culture of the Arabic world around Mohammed's time.

      --
      The Spoon
      Updated 6/28/2011
    14. Re:But... by Zenmonkeycat · · Score: 4, Informative

      Why is this "funny?" I think that's one of the fundamental ideas behind Islam. If I remember correctly, Adam and Eve were both supposed to have been the first "muslims," living under God's (Allah's) laws before the fall, and Mohammed simply rediscovered those laws and made people follow them again. Whether or not you believe it is a matter of faith, but I wouldn't consider it "funny."

      --

      *****
      Dear Mary,
      I yearn for you tragically,
      A.T. Tappman, Chaplain, U.S. Army.

    15. Re:But... by NitsujTPU · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    16. Re:But... by enjerth · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    17. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      I love how religious threads like this are populated by people who think they have universal knowledge (I deal with computers, so therefore, I know all about other religions because they read a webpage somewhere. As evidence above. A tremendously good apologetic for Paul's take on Jesus' teaching is 'What Saint Paul really said' by N.T. Wright, a british theologian, http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0802844456/sr=8-1 0/qid=1142270602/ref=pd_bbs_10/103-6213093-7503824 ?_encoding=UTF8available at Amazon. Basically, Paul was the right guy at the right time; he was a Jewish elder who because of his extensive knowledge of the old testament extrapolated Jesus' teaching to tie in the Jewish religion and effectively show Jesus as the Messiah and fulfillment of the Jewish tradition.

    18. Re:But... by jdray · · Score: 3, Funny

      Right. And what have the Romans ever done for us?

      --
      The Spoon
      Updated 6/28/2011
    19. Re:But... by dual_boot_brain · · Score: 2, Funny

      Jesus was Jewish!?!?!?! I thought all them Mexicans were Catholic?

      --
      There is no reset button in life; however, there are bonus levels.
    20. Re:But... by operagost · · Score: 5, Informative

      The other "Christian gospels" were left out because they are historically inaccurate and contradictory. Also, some may be called "Christian" but they were really created by Gnostics who predate Christianity and modified some Christian concepts for their own uses, much like Mohammed did.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    21. Re:But... by operagost · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.
    22. Re:But... by samkass · · Score: 2, Informative
      The other "Christian gospels" were left out because they are historically inaccurate and contradictory.


      So says the modern Catholic church. We'll never know, because they were not just "left out", they were ordered completely destroyed in antiquity, and only accidental incomplete findings of the texts survive. As for the historical accuracy of the existing New Testament, almost none of it can be archeologically verified, including the actual authors of the remaining gospels, which were assigned their "authors" hundreds of years later.

      In any case, as to the topic at hand, I don't think one can claim a religion predates its differentiator (ie. the person who caused the religion's followers to differentiate themselves from others.) The belief structure can go back to antiquity, just like you could claim that much of Judeo-Christian-Muslim thought goes back to the addition of "good" and "evil" to Western religious dogma in Zoraster's time.

      --
      E pluribus unum
    23. Re:But... by a.d.trick · · Score: 2, Informative

      As for your last comment, it's actually a very good thing they ownly accept a subset of what has been written as scripture. In making up the cannon, they wanted to maintain a very high standard of reliability. In the Christian New Testament all the books had to be writen by an eyewittness of the man Jesus or a very close associate of one (Paul is counted as an eyewittness because of the Damascus incedent). That alone cuts out the bulk of the stuff, not to mention all the apocryphal literature that had popped up (the Gnostics were particularly miscevious). Also the stuff had to have been accepted by the church as a whole (democracy at work). Finally, it had to be relevant (i.e. the kind of content that belongs in scriptures).

      Don't think that the inclusion of a book in scripture was just a willy nilly decision. It was considered with all the weight that such a question should have. Since then, they have goon though plenty of literary and historical critisism. The New Testament is, hands down, the most citisied (here critisim isn't nessisarly bad) book in history. That's a really good thing. The Hebrew Scripture have definetly recieved their fair share too. Unfortunatly the Islamic scriptures have been largely ignored, probably because taking an objective look at them usually ended up with someone losing a head.

    24. Re:But... by really? · · Score: 3, Funny

      ...aqueducts...

      --

      "Consistency is contrary to nature, contrary to life. The only completely consistent people are the dead." A. Huxley
    25. Re:But... by Frodo420024 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I think that if Jesus had bit a bit more like Muhammad (ie, a millitary and political leader) he might have gotten a better reception when he claimed to be the Messiah.

      That's interesting. The Jews expected that, and Satan (or was that really Judas?) tempted Jesus to do just that. My brother quoted an esoteric scripture stating that if Jesus rejected being a political leader, people would turn against him. Which is sortof what happened.

      All speculation of course, but just wonder if he had accepted that challenge...? Would have been an extremely interesting twist of history. Jesus (IMO) had the compassion to become a great leader, had he bothered to get his hands dirty. Then perhaps there'd be no opening for Mohammad to set his bloody precedents, either.

      OK, that was pretty hypothetical :)

      --
      I'm in a Unix state of mind.
    26. Re:But... by ultranova · · Score: 2, Funny

      Before the war of Independence America was under British rule and everyone here were British subjects.

      And now Britain is under American rule and everyone there are American subjects through governor Blair. Nice symmetry there ;).

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    27. Re:But... by ultranova · · Score: 2, Insightful

      AFAIK, Muslims consider Jesus and Abraham to be great prophets, and to them, Mohammed is just another prophet. Well, okay, not "just another prophet"; they consider him the greatest one. He certainly had a lot of really smart things to say.

      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.

    28. Re:But... by Petrushka · · Score: 2, Interesting
      because they are historically inaccurate and contradictory

      ... just like the canonical ones, then.

    29. Re:But... by enjerth · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

  2. Okay, I'll bite by voice_of_all_reason · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Party happy long time boom boom belt" is in the top 20, right?

  3. Computer Science 101 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Remember we owe the "Algorithm" to a dude who was writing 'programs' 800 years before Ada Loveleace and Alan Turing were about.

    1. Re:Computer Science 101 by Burb · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not quite. The dude in question was a talented mathematician, one of those responsible for introducing the concept of hindu-arabic numeration to the middle east and, later, to the west. But the attribution of a corruption of his name to the concept of algorithm is a historical accident. From wikipedia: "The word algorithm comes from the name of the 9th century Persian mathematician Abu Abdullah Muhammad bin Musa al-Khwarizmi. The word algorism originally referred only to the rules of performing arithmetic using Hindu-Arabic numerals but evolved via European Latin translation of al-Khwarizmi's name into algorithm by the 18th century. The word evolved to include all definite procedures for solving problems or performing tasks."

      --

    2. Re:Computer Science 101 by Otter · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And, while we're bursting politically correct bubbles -- there's no evidence that Ada Lovelace "wrote programs" either. She contributed a bit to Charles Babbage's work, but the idea that she was the coder behind his enterprise is pure myth.

  4. It's sad . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    . . . 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).

    1. Re:It's sad . . . by teslar · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Let's hope we don't end up going down the same route here in the States.
      What, like ending up with leaders who claim that God told them to go to War with other countries?
    2. Re:It's sad . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      . . . 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.

      You are pretty out of touch to compare relgious fundamentalism in the US with islamic fundamentalism...When was the last time someone had their throat slit for Jesus?

    3. Re:It's sad . . . by chill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What, like ending up with leaders who claim that God told them to go to War with other countries?

      Yes, but in the United States we can vote him out because a U.S. President is limited to two four-year terms. Contrast that with those in power in most of the Middle East and Africa, not to mention several places in Asia, Cuba and S. America. How long was Saddam in power? How many countries in Asia, the M.E. and Africa have had peaceful transitions of governments?

      At least with G.W. Bush you know he'll be gone after 2008.

        -Charles

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    4. Re:It's sad . . . by slashname3 · · Score: 2, Funny

      And the latest invention on the list is the suicide vest bomb?

      Actually I am sure they have made some significant contributions. But like most things it gets over shadowed by the negative, which is what is normally reported by the media.

    5. Re:It's sad . . . by scheme · · Score: 5, Informative
      You are pretty out of touch to compare relgious fundamentalism in the US with islamic fundamentalism...When was the last time someone had their throat slit for Jesus?

      It was just a few years ago that abortion clinics and doctors were being firebombed and shot in order to protect the sanctity of human life.

      --
      "When you sit with a nice girl for two hours, it seems like two minutes. When you sit on a hot stove for two minutes, it
    6. Re:It's sad . . . by dfgchgfxrjtdhgh.jjhv · · Score: 3, Insightful

      yeah, but he'll be replaced by someone with the same policies, so its really no different.

    7. Re:It's sad . . . by gnuyarlathotep · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Less than 10 people in all of US history have been murdered by moronic anti-abortionists. Over 200 people were hacked to death when muslims in Nigeria were "offended" by a remark by a reporter about a beauty contest. (it was something like "Muhammed may have chosen a wife from the contestants.")

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/2671229.stm

      Plenty more died there after the Danish cartoon episode. Course Blair and Bush both sided with the Islamofascists saying how hurtful and wrong it was to print the cartoons!

      It's a sad day when the French and other continentals print the cartoons in solidarity with Denmark and free speech, but the UK and USA cower from the rage of Islamofascists. The French have to defend our honors because we are too scared too. Very sad. Hopefully this will end the stupid French surrender jokes.

    8. Re:It's sad . . . by Minwee · · Score: 2, Interesting
      "Yes, but in the United States we can vote him out"

      That's what you all said two years ago.

      "At least with G.W. Bush you know he'll be gone after 2008."

      And then it will be eight years of President Cheney. I feel so much better now.

    9. Re:It's sad . . . by penguinoid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It was just a few years ago that abortion clinics and doctors were being firebombed and shot in order to protect the sanctity of human life.

      And a few years before that, the Nazi concentration camps were desroyed and the "workers" there punished. And only because they were wholesale slaughtering a few million people. (If you don't see an analogy, maybe ypu should compare numbers and consider that some people consider humans of any "age" to be human.) /Godwin>

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    10. Re:It's sad . . . by Gryle · · Score: 5, Funny

      Cheney's not so bad. He'll always shoot straight with you. Or straight at you, as the case may be.

      --
      Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not entirely sure about the universe - Einstein
    11. Re:It's sad . . . by NitsujTPU · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That was pretty much what he said. Sheesh, you know Slashdot's gone down the toilet when an anti-Bushism nagging that another Anti-Bushism wasn't quite anti-Bush enough gets modded insightful.

      I wonder if we'll ever talk about technology on this site again.

    12. Re:It's sad . . . by JohnFluxx · · Score: 3, Informative

      Tony blair said this:

      The statement was released this morning after Mr Blair spoke by phone to his Danish counterpart.

      "We understand the offence caused by the cartoons depicting the prophet and of course regret that this has happened. Such things help no one," Mr Blair's spokesman said. "It is always sensible for freedom of expression to be exercised with respect for religious belief. But nothing can justify the violence aimed at European embassies or at the country of Denmark.

      "The attacks on the citizens of Denmark and the people of other European countries are completely unacceptable, as is the behaviour of some of the demonstrators in London over the last few days.

      "We also strongly welcome the statements of Muslim leaders here who are themselves tackling the extremists who abuse their community's good name."

      This hardly fits what you say about Blair. Please give links to back up your side. It seems that Blair has, once again, given an intelligent statement about the situation.

    13. Re:It's sad . . . by jaoswald · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So the Koran that Saddam had written in his own blood was a secular Koran? If Iraq was such a secular state, then why did the minority Sunnis have all the poltical power? Coincidence?

      The secular nature of the regime was much stronger before the first Gulf war and the sanctions and bad governance that screwed up the Iraqi economy. The education of women and their participation in political and economic life, the prevalance of a largely secular middle class, and the fact that Christians (like Tariq Aziz) could hold political power are evidence of secular nature of the regime.

      The fact that Saddam felt he had to polish his Islamist credentials to bolster his power does not change the basic secular orientation of his Baathist regime. Baathism was/is a pan-Arab socialist ideology, pretty much devoid of Islamic pretensions. Compare to Egypt and Syria, which are relativly secular regimes.

      The concentration of power among Sunnis is primarily due to the tribal nature of Saddam's power (he was Sunni, his clan was Sunni, his region was Sunni), and also because Shiites were poorer, felt to be less loyal to his regime, and more likely to fall under Iranian influence.

      Also, if Shiite's were allowed to hold power, the presence of the Shiite holy sites in Iraq would given Shiite imams an independent source of legitimacy, which the Sunni's could not match (because their holy sites are in Saudia Arabia and Israel.)

    14. Re:It's sad . . . by Alaska+Jack · · Score: 2, Informative

      This is pretty funny. Would it be out of place for me to point out that the "quote" is a paraphrase from the Palestinian Prime Minister, given two years after Bush supposedly said it? And even then, you don't get it right -- you say Bush said "God told me to go to war with other countries." The closest thing the story actually says is that the Palestinian PM says that GB said "God told him to fight terrorism in Afghanistan and end the tyranny in Iraq." You simply chose to interpret the story in the most anti-Bush way you could.

      (Note that, according to the quotees, Bush also supported the establishment of a Palestinian state).

            - AJ

    15. Re:It's sad . . . by Wavicle · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You can expect to be asked about how often you attend church during a job interview

      Wow, that would be a lazy person's dream state:

      1) Apply for a job in Oklahoma, claiming to be a devout atheist
      2) Sue them in federal court for violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
      3) Profit!

      --
      Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
      Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
    16. Re:It's sad . . . by Alaska+Jack · · Score: 2, Informative

      Oh one more thing, which I just add because you might be interested. A year or so ago there was a quote which made all the usual rounds, in which Bush supposedly said (IIRC it was at a meeting in Pennsylvania) that God "speaks to him" or somesuch. Of course this was used to show what a raving religious loony Bush is.

      I researched it a little -- it set off my BS detector because it just seemed too damn convenient -- and found that not only was the reporter who reported this not at the meeting, but the guy who *TOLD* the reporter about it wasn't at the meeting either! The reporter said, basically, that someone told him that someone told HIM that Bush said something like that at the meeting. And yet of course people jumped all over it, because it met their preconceived ideas of what Bush must have said.

      Just kind of an interesting aside. There truly is no stronger human impulse than to believe what we want to believe!

              - AJ

  5. Nothing after 1300 by LeonGeeste · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Nothing on the list came from after 1300 CE/AD. What does that tell you?

    --
    Rank my idea: http://www.sinceslicedbread.com/node/531
    1. Re:Nothing after 1300 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That the Crusades were rather effective at destroying a civilisation?

    2. Re:Nothing after 1300 by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 3, Funny

      The Mongols.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    3. Re:Nothing after 1300 by MemoryDragon · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The crusades did nothing to the islamic civilization, it was minor compared to other things. The crusades are highly exaggerated nowadays in their impact, back then they were even considered

      so minor that a german/roman emperor could lease the holy land for a lifetime (and having a clash with the pope over this back then)

      The main problem for the downfall of the arabic civilization might be the in islamic wars, which mainly was triggered by the turkish people slowly but surely taking over the islamic empire and in islamic wars between various countries.

      The impact on the eastern roman empire was severe however, they sped up its downfall which was more or less unavoidable anyway.



      In the end the islamic civilisation basically was fruitful due to knowledge inheritance of the occupied eastern roman empire parts, and being hilghly tolerant to christians and jews in the occupied areas. Culture could only thrive in this tolerant area.

    4. Re:Nothing after 1300 by stupidfoo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      For 50 points, complete the following sentence: The crusades were a response to...
      (hint: starts with a J, ends with an "ihad")

    5. Re:Nothing after 1300 by ednopantz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      >That the Crusades were rather effective at destroying a civilisation?

      You do realize that they won the crusades, don't you? It is inconvenient for the "blame the West for everything" worldview, but my ancestors got their asses kicked.

      The total failure of the Islamic world to produce any worthwhile contribution to human civilzation in the last 500 years is mostly a case of relative decline: what happens in Europe and America after 1500 is nothing short of amazing. Even if they didn't actually slow down their rate of cultural/technological production, they got blown out of the water by the competition. Still, it is striking how little that part of the world has been able to come up with in the last half-millenium.

      You can't read an Arab magazine without seeing a list like this once a week. The fact that the British press is now getting into the act of praising 1000 year old inventions and ignoring the last thousand years of stagnation is telling.

    6. Re:Nothing after 1300 by Valdrax · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Wake me when the radical Islamic world demonstrates...
      -tolerance of others
      -respect for others
      -respect for human life


      Look back only 300 years in Western civilization to see people being burned at the stake for being accused of not being a faithful Christian. Look back only 200 years ago to see people brutally enslaved by Western civilization with plenty of people twisting the Bible to support it. Look back only 100 years ago to see large portions of the globe carved up in the name of bring "Christendom" to the heathens. Look back only 50 years ago to see the end of a European purge of members of a particular faith. Look back only 20 years ago to see the end of a war between Catholics and Protestants that included terrorist violence.

      "Western civilization" has only been out of the grips of madness and poor civilization for a very short time itself. Give the Middle East a couple of centuries to sort themselves out too. I'm not saying that we should give up on holding them to a higher standard but that we should be a little more honest about how much effort it took us to get here and to be careful about our own recent backsliding.

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    7. Re:Nothing after 1300 by larkost · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually... if you read the list over, several of those inventions (the numbering system, gunpowder, etc..), and much of the governmental systems (especially the ideas of meritocracies and tolerance) were brought to the region by the Mongols. The Mongols did not invent those things, but

      They were very effective warriors, and ruthless to those they thought were not cooperating or playing by the rules, but they were also the most effective governors the world had know to that point.

    8. Re:Nothing after 1300 by OwnedByTwoCats · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Wake me up when the United States shows
      -tolerance of others

      -respect for others

      -respect for human life

      50,000 civillian casualties isn't respect.
    9. Re:Nothing after 1300 by Ayaress · · Score: 3, Informative

      The collonial period is why the West has advanced so much faster than any civilization before it. The Chinese didn't expand, and eventually stagnated in their own beauracracy at home. The Arabs expanded slowly, and didn't progress that far - they moved into India and North Africa, but that was about it.

      Europe, however, expanded with astonishing speed. From their emergence onto the world stage, it was less than two hundred years before they'd colonized the Americas. By the end of the 1800's, nearly the entire world was under some degree of control of European states. Even standing governments, like China, were being trivialized by European authority in their own lands. They had an immense amount of space to fill up, so their population exploded like nothing the world's seen in recorded history. Add in the American and French revolutions and the Napoleanic Wars, which between them sealed the fate of the old forms of government that had held civilizations back for thousands of years, upending the social order and replacing them with new and highly progress-driven governments.

      The West managed to create a civilization that had a rapidly growing population, access to every resource they could ever want, plenty of space to grow, and a lot of available money (since most of the wealth was no longer going to the glorification of kings). Advancement was no longer something that just "happened" like it had in Arabia and China, it was an end unto itself that people spent their whole lives chasing.

    10. Re:Nothing after 1300 by mnmn · · Score: 3, Funny

      How offensive.

      --
      A Mongol.

      --
      "Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
    11. Re:Nothing after 1300 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Give the Middle East a couple of centuries to sort themselves out too.

      We can't really afford to do that. Especially not when they demand nuclear weap^H^H^H^Hpower.

    12. Re:Nothing after 1300 by chill · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Unfortunately a few political extremists are sullying the name of approximately 1.3 billion people on Earth, and many westerners are lapping it up eagerly.

      Actually, the big issue many people in the West have is that 1.3 billion people on Earth justify, excuse, aid, abet and harbor those few political extremists. Those extremists don't operate in a vacuum and would be stopped in a heartbeat if those they live among didn't tolerate their hate and violence. How about when one of those "political extremists" publicly calls for the MURDER of an author, playwright or cartoonist simply because of SOMETHING THEY SAID OR WROTE those 1.3 billion people stand up and say "sit down, shut up and ignore those idiots -- they will go away".

      Until such time, ponder the quote "All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing."

        -Charles

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    13. Re:Nothing after 1300 by mc6809e · · Score: 2, Insightful

      For 50 points, complete the following sentence: The crusades were a response to...
      (hint: starts with a J, ends with an "ihad")


      They were also a response to the persecution of Christians by Muslims in the Middle-East.

      The middle-east was once full of Christians. Christian Monasticism actually began in Egypt, for example.

      When Islam came, the more passive Christians were easily subjugated.

    14. Re:Nothing after 1300 by jadavis · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Exactly my feelings. Every time a non-Muslim does something horrible in the name of their religion, there are widespread denouncements of that person's actions among other members of that religion. When a Muslim does something horrible in the name of there religion, there are widespread excuses and defenses of their actions.

      --
      Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.
    15. Re:Nothing after 1300 by crawling_chaos · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Europeans just go around assimilating and killing throughout history - Microsoft is the pinnacle of this.

      Oh, please. This remark is so ignorant that your diplomas should be revoked and you should be forced to repeat your education beginning with the third grade. Microsoft ain't the pinnacle of Western imperialism. As far as I know they lack the army and the record of dead bodies that the true contenders for that title share.

      --
      You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day, no matter how rich you are.
      -- Colonel Adolphus Busch
  6. Flying machine, eh? hilarious. by MyDixieWrecked · · Score: 3, Funny

    That's hilarious that they had this to say:

    Baghdad international airport and a crater on the Moon are named after him.

    about the muslim who attempted to build a flying machine.

    --



    ...spike
    Ewwwwww, coconut...
    1. Re:Flying machine, eh? hilarious. by robbkidd · · Score: 2, Funny
      That's hilarious that they had this to say: Baghdad international airport and a crater on the Moon are named after him. about the muslim who attempted to build a flying machine.

      Though, to be fair, Abbas ibn Firnas did build a flying machine. It just wasn't good at being a landing machine as well.

  7. Re:Makes me laugh. by tsa · · Score: 2, Funny

    I made it to number 8, then I moved on to newer, more interesting news.

    --

    -- Cheers!

  8. Re:Yeah yeah yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This letter that was sent in response to HPs CEO in late September of 2001 would disagree with this, and it has a lot of sources to back it up. Check it out here http://www.ninevehsoft.com/fiorina.htm

  9. Those inventions aren't Islamic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Those inventions aren't Islamic by tjic · · Score: 5, Informative

      Islam is merely a religion


      Islam is not *merely* a religion; it is a combined religion, culture, and political system, in a way that western religions are not. The Bible has been translated into hundreds of languages - the Koran is *inherently* an Arabic document, and - it is argued -can not be translated, but only glossed in other languages. Christianity and Judaism speak to morality and salvation, but do not specify the political system. Islam does, and specifies crimes, punishments, etc.

      From time to time other Western religions have taken control of the apparatus of governments, and resulted in theocracy. In Islam, this is not an abberation - it is a key tenet of the politico-religious philosophy.
    2. Re:Those inventions aren't Islamic by uradu · · Score: 5, Insightful

      > Christianity and Judaism speak to morality and salvation, but do not specify
      > the political system. Islam does, and specifies crimes, punishments, etc.

      I beg your pardon? I guess you haven't read the Bible much, especially the Old Testament. It does very much outline the framework of a political and social system, complete with excruciating detail regarding crimes and their punishment. That we choose not to structure our societies according to those rules ANYMORE is an entirely different matter. Christianity and Islam are a lot similar than you would like to think, and were even more so before the Reformation. Islam merely haven't had their Martin Luther (yet).

    3. Re:Those inventions aren't Islamic by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Those inventions were created by people, not by Islam.

      The point is merely that these were created by a society in which Islam was the predominant religion. That's historically and sociologically interesting, demonstrating that in the general case Islam is not incompatible with an inventive society, and raising questions like "How the hell did things get so screwed up over there?", "Can the same sort of screwing-up happen to societies where Christianity is the predominant religion?", and "What is the world going to look like if and when the Islamic world gets un-screwed-up?"

      There's a common unspoken belief that somehow Christian-dominant Eurpoean/North American culture has "won" history and "ended up" on top and therefore proven superior. But if you asked a guy in Persia five or six centuries ago, he might have told you how Islam-dominant Arabic/Persian culture had "won" history. In five or six centuries you might have to ask that question in Chinese.

      Islam is merely a religion, and hence useless and incapable of anything at except stroking peoples emotions (for good or bad).

      A proper religion is a means of enhancing our relationships with ourselves and with the universe. In all the mess of dogma, superstition, political corruption, and worthless metaphysics, there remain a few threads of actual wisdom teachings; worthwhile inspiration can be found in some forms of Buddhism, Sufism, Quakerism, Hinduism, the more philosophical strains of Judaism and Taoism, in some of the various "primitive" or "ahistorical" nature religions, and in some parts of the Neopagan revivial. Yes, you have to sift a lot of crap to find the diamonds.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    4. Re:Those inventions aren't Islamic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Christianity is based upon the New Testament. So GP was completely correct.

    5. Re:Those inventions aren't Islamic by OwnedByTwoCats · · Score: 4, Informative

      Your thesis is interesting.

      Unfortunately, the nations with the most muslims are not places where arabic is spoken. India is number one, Indonesia is number two, and Pakistan is number three.

    6. Re:Those inventions aren't Islamic by uradu · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > that does not mean they have no use for it. It was written for their benefit!

      Dude, in that context "Judaism" means the Jewish Religion, and implying that they OUGHT to value the New Testament because it was written "for their benefit" is so deeply cynical that one has to wonder whether you are one of those who believe that the Jews had it coming because "they killed Jesus."

    7. Re:Those inventions aren't Islamic by KDingo · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Islam merely haven't had their Martin Luther (yet).
      That very much may well be Wafa Sultan. She has appeared on Al-Jazzeera debating with an imam and siding with the Jewish people.

      She has wikipedia article, and has since appeared on Israeli public radio.
  10. Not Surprising At All by briancarnell · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  11. So what did they invent recently? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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 ?

  12. #'s 1002 and #1003 by jcostantino · · Score: 5, Funny
    Flying carpet

    Magic Lamp

    (rimshot)

    --
    Reviews with a twist! http://www.sardonicbastard.com
  13. So... by Otter · · Score: 2

    To sum this up, even if myth is treated as fact, the Muslim world has accomplished essentially nothing in the last 500 years. I'd regard this as less "surprising" than depressing.

  14. Islamic? by thenetbox · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Islamic? by radtea · · Score: 3, Insightful


      The religion of the inventor had nothing to do with these inventions.

      The religion of the inventor doesn't matter so much as the culture they lived in, which is completely unrelated to the predominant religion. This can easily be demonstrated empirically.

      Culture in the sense I mean it has far more to do with the specific beliefs and institutions that dominate a given society, not the abstract generalizations that a word like "Islam" or "Christianity" captures. There have throughout history been "Christian" nations that have been violent, oppressive, belligerant totalitarian states (consider the England of Elizabeth I), and "Christian" nations that have been peaceful, enlightened and liberal (consider modern Denmark). Islam has been the dominant religion in a similarly diverse set of cultures, from the relatively enlightened caliphates of the middle ages to dark age tribal societies like Afghanistan under the Taliban.

      Empirically, religion has literally nothing to do with culture.

      But culture certainly has something to do with intellectual achievement. 20th century Russia was a major force in mathematics not so much because Russians had a genetic proclivity for mathematical prowess (as certain crazed pseudo-evolutionists might want to argue) but because it was a lot harder to get into trouble with Communist Party doctrine as a pure mathematician than as a physicist (who might wind up using "Jewish physics" like relativity or quantum mechanics) or as a biologist (who might run afoul of Lysenko).

      And all that "Jewish physics" was done by Jews in part because it was easier for them to get chairs in theoretical physics in early 20th century Europe than in experimental physics, because theoretical physics just wasn't seen as being all that important or interesting.

      On the more positive side, I've always felt that Newton was archetypally English, for his time--he had the grandiose sweep of Contential intellectuals combined with the practical, detail-oriented, hair-splitting obsessiveness of the great medieval English logicians and experimentalists. And the world he grew up in was one where all the walls had been torn down, where a king had been beheaded in living memory, where any kind of radically intellectual restructuring must have seemed possible.

      But while culture and poltics can contribute to an inventor's success, it is the individual who matters in the end.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
  15. Re:Kurt Vonnegut Jr. Quote by Derek+Pomery · · Score: 4, Informative

    http://home.c2i.net/greaker/comenius/9899/indiannu merals/india.html
    Numbers is a poor example.
    Credit where credit is due.

    --
    -- perl -e'print pack"H*","6e656d6f406d38792e6f7267"' /. ate my old sig. Bastards.
  16. Shouldn't these be called... by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ARABIC, and not ISLAMIC inventions?

    1. Re:Shouldn't these be called... by billbaggins · · Score: 4, Interesting

      No, chess was developed by the Persians. Don't call Persians Arabs if you want to make any friends in Iran.

      --
      "The best argument against democracy is a five minute chat with the average voter."
      --Winston Churchill
    2. Re:Shouldn't these be called... by thenetbox · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not Arabic because lots of these inventions are Persian, Indian, Chinese etc.

      These inventions were created by intelligent, open minded people who happened to be Muslim and weren't living under oppresion of crazed power hungry lunatics who consider technology to be the tool of satan.

      I lived in Pakistan for a few years and all the so called "muslim scholars" of today are uneducated trash who happened to brain-wash enough poverty stricken people in order to get power. These morons are the face of Islam these days and that's sad.

      Hopefully, the few remaining educated sane muslims will be able to over turn this growing trend.

    3. Re:Shouldn't these be called... by LS · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually, Indians invented chess, then called Chaturanga, in what is now the Pakistani province of Sindh. The Persians made a more modern revision, called Shatranj.

      Do moderators just click at anything that sounds historical?

      LS

      --
      There is a fine line between being a cultivated citizen and being someone else's crop. - A. J. Patrick Liszkie
  17. Lots of innovation (a long time ago) by syphax · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Arab/Muslim societies produced some fantastic engineering in their day, much of which is described in the dry but quite informative A History of Engineering in Classical and Medieval Times.

    For reasons that I don't understand, the Christian and Muslim worlds seem to have flip-flopped regarding the dominance of religion vs. rational thought somewhere in the past 200-500 years. Of course this is a great over-simplification, but it's worth remembering that there was a time when the Arab world was the center of learning and enlightenment in the non-eastern-Asian world (I phrase it like that b/c I don't want to flamebait the Indians or Chinese).

    --
    Simple Unexpected Concrete Credible Emotional Stories
    1. Re:Lots of innovation (a long time ago) by Frangible · · Score: 5, Insightful
      The reason is the relative age differences in each religion; Islam right now is about the same relative age of Christianity during the Dark Ages. Teachings have strayed far from what the prophet Mohammad wrote, and the various formal organizations have placed their word above that of the Koran and prophet. Much was the same in the case of the Catholic church, at the same point in Christianity's relative age, until Martin Luther worked to change that by denouncing the Church's "interpretive" teachings, returning to a more Biblical viewpoint, aiding the understanding of the common man with the small catechism, and those of the clergy with the large catechism.

      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.

    2. Re:Lots of innovation (a long time ago) by radtea · · Score: 2, Insightful


      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.
    3. Re:Lots of innovation (a long time ago) by Ugmo · · Score: 3, Informative

      For reasons that I don't understand, the Christian and Muslim worlds seem to have flip-flopped regarding the dominance of religion vs. rational thought somewhere in the past 200-500 years. Of course this is a great over-simplification, but it's worth remembering that there was a time when the Arab world was the center of learning and enlightenment in the non-eastern-Asian world (I phrase it like that b/c I don't want to flamebait the Indians or Chinese).

      I, too, find this an interesting observation and have recently read a great deal about the mediteranean world between the fall of Rome and 1000 A.D, during which Islam became a powerful force, culturally and politically and Europe declined. This period was followed by the Crusades, when European contact with Islam brought about an infusion of many of the ideas and inventions mentioned in the article. The period 1000-1500 seems to be a point at which the European and Islamic cultures were neck and neck after which the Europeans pulled ahead during the Rennaisance and the Enlightenment.

      During the first period, The Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantium) suffered from some early defeats due to un-preparedness and bad policy decisions. Also a sort of hubris. They thought, "We're the ROMAN EMPIRE, a bunch of desert tribes can't mess with us, they'll go away if we pay them off". What happened next is key, I believe. It became a popular idea in the Eastern Roman Empire that the reason they were repeatedly defeated by the Muslims was because they had strayed from the favor of God. This is an idea they got from the Old Testemant of the Bible which on a number of occasions said that Israel was defeated (e.g. the Babylonian captivity) because the people had strayed from proper religious observance. In Byzantium people decided that icons, for example, were a violation of the rule against idol worship and that by destroying icons they would regain the favor of God thereby turning the tide and begin winning battles against the Muslims. In reality, the iconoclastic movement caused civil war further weakening Byzantium.

      The tide began to turn against Islam, about 1500 ironically, just after the complete defeat and capture of Byzantium. Actually, Islam was as strong and as healthy as ever at that time but Europe began to grow and expand through exploration and experimentation and this lead to their advancement and Islam's RELATIVE decline. They began to think like the former Eastern Roman Empire. They had just conquered Constantinople (now Istanbul), their goal for 700 years, the greatest city in the world (in the Turk's mind). The rest of Europe were a bunch of barabrians by comparison and would fall eventually.

      In more recent times, as you mention the last 200 years, Islam has fallen behind (really they just never advanced, they stagnated). Currently, they are looking around and saying. "Why are we not as great as we once were?" and some are coming up with the same answer the Byzantines did. Some believe that they are not religiously observant enough and that if they get fundamentalist enough they will win back the favor of God and start to defeat the West.

      After 9/11 some of the American fundamentalist preachers tried to pull the same B.S. They said that 9/11 was a punishment by God because we listen to Rock and Roll and try to legalise gay marriage etc. We also have been trying to restrict the free flow of people (locking out foreign students) and ideas (the fight against teaching evolution in schools, though this is not directly connected 9/11). The point is, a resting on our laurels attitude and a turning away from cultural growth and economic expansion and towards ignorance, stagnation and fundamentalism could weaken the U.S as much as it did the Byzantine and Ottoman Empires before it.

      The Byzantines, the Muslims and the American fundametalists were all wrong. What wins in the long run is openess to new ideas, economic expansion and not resting on your former glory.

      Religious fundamentalism and internal fighting only weaken cultures. God won't come to our rescue if we all become vegitareans. God helps those who help themselves.

    4. Re:Lots of innovation (a long time ago) by Frangible · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

  18. Anything in the last 30 years??? by mikejz84 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Anything in the last 30 years??? by daviddennis · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Many people have accused NASA of major stagnation, so that might not be the best example to support your case. As a good example, see How the West wasn't won.

      That being said, it seems pretty obvious that within the last 250-odd years, the Islamic world has generated very little in the way of innovation, while Westerners have created a world of technology that's completely transformed people's lives. In fact, others have pointed out that in the 600-odd years Islam has existed, the Islamic world has produced very little compared to the innovative west. It seems like there is a fairly precise correlation between when Islam started growing and when innovation slowed to a stop.

      This is not really surprising considering that Islam itself says that the Prophet Mohammed has said everything that needs to be said. It's a bit tough to innovate when you're told everything has already been discovered!

      D

    2. Re:Anything in the last 30 years??? by TwinkieStix · · Score: 2, Informative

      So, what percent of US Citizens are part of these groups? There's a chart on page 13 of this pdf for reference.

  19. From TFA by obender · · Score: 4, Informative
    The windmill was invented in 634 for a Persian caliph

    The moslems only attacked Persia in 638. It seems to me that at least one of these inventions have nothing to do with Islam.

    1. Re:From TFA by AfricanImpi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

  20. Odd, shows how little I know about the world by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Because I could have sworn that Islam isn't thousands of years old.

    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.

    1. Re:Odd, shows how little I know about the world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Your basic argument is that Muslims are inconsistent in their reasoning when compared with Westerners. Lets have a look:

      Is Democracy good for the goose (the West)? Why can't the Muslims have it (see: Iran before the Shah)?

      Is a free press good? Sure, just not if you're al-Jazeera.

      Was Woodrow's ethnic nationalism good? Sure, for Europe. The Arabs were carved up into rival states and a chunk was given to Europeans (holocaust survivors, sure, but Europeans nonetheless).

      I am the first to admit that the Arab nations (and Muslim nations generally, with minor exceptions being Turkey and Malaysia) have HUGE problems. But this conceit that the inability to understand the whole goose/gander thing is an exclusively Muslim failing is ridiculous to the extreme.

  21. Not very well researched either... by MadTinfoilHatter · · Score: 5, Informative

    From TFA: 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 fact that the Earth was round (contrary to popular belief) was not big news in the 9th century. The ancient Greeks knew very well that the Earth was a sphere, and they too had calculated the circumference with surprising accuracy several centuries B.C. (not to mention before Mohammed). Also Galileo wasn't controversial because he claimed the Earth was round - it was because he claimed that the Earth revolved around the sun, and not vice versa. Sigh.

  22. Re:Discrimination by mmkkbb · · Score: 2, Insightful

    White people get recognition every day. You're just used to it.

    --
    -mkb
  23. Re:Discrimination by GauteL · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "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.

  24. The earth is round! (and the greeks knew it) by l2718 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  25. Noticed also. by alexhs · · Score: 5, Insightful

    For one it is yet another misleading headline, briefly checking in TFA those inventions came later than Mahomet.

    However it doesn't make sense to me to associate those inventions from Arabs, Persians, Ottomans, ... to some religion, especially as these articles do not seem to cover other culture and civilization aspects and influences at all.

    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.
    1. Re:Noticed also. by tabdelgawad · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The association of these inventions to a religion comes from the fact that Islam was the uniting force that led to the formation of an empire. This probably resulted in economic growth and the formation of markets that made these inventions possible.

      Some of the inventions may have been spurred directly by religious motives. I'm sure the interest in astronomy had to do with the adoption of a lunar calendar and the need to determine prayer times, for example. Other inventions probably had more to do with what I mentioned in the first paragraph: the existence of a growing, stable economy in the empire.

      --
      Imposing Libertarian views on everyone online since 1992.
    2. Re:Noticed also. by eck011219 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Agreed. However, I suspect what's happening here is that the exhibit curators are trying desperately to remind people that now-Muslim peoples are not just terrorist monsters. I think it's probably a quite sloppy and amateurish but very well-meant attempt by academics to use what they have at their fingertips (a bunch of antiquities and information) to prove to the western world that people we now think of as Muslims are not all simply religious fundamentalists or zealots.

      Again, I do think it's sloppy and misleading. But if we (the West) are in a fight to prove or disprove the validity of a category of millions of individuals with a religion and region in common, is it any less valid to paint with a broad brush in response to broad-brush racism and discrimination? I know they're academics and should stick to ONLY facts (don't get me started about the Hollywood-inspired silliness that even invades the exhibits at the Field Museum here in Chicago), but we're at a bit of a turning point in the relationship between the West and the Middle East. Maybe the thought was that in the current climate it couldn't hurt to pump up the beauty of a region of people.

      It's still dumb and kind of lazy, but I think the idea behind it may well be good. In the U.S., we're living in completely irrational fear of nineteen hijackers who are already dead (and one apparent moron who is currently on trial). In the UK, they/you are living in somewhat irrational fear of a relatively small number of past and future subway and bus bombers. The fear is real (as much as I want to be dismissive of it, I would be lying if I said I didn't think about September 11 every time I go downtown to the tall buildings or go to the airport), and perhaps the curators are simply trying to tap into something interesting and thought-provoking to counter it. I know I'd be tempted to if I had a basement full of things that proved that Muslims aren't fundamentally bad people.

      It would be even better if they had put more thought and energy into the angle taken by the name of the exhibit (and maybe they have - it's too far [eight hours by plane] for me to go see it). But the semantics of the exhibit may simply be a combination of what will draw people to the exhibit and what will explain (if a bit clumsily) one global value of a VERY large and diverse group of people.

      --
      It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
    3. Re:Noticed also. by jedidiah · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yup. Then these enlightened people promptly subject themselves to their own dark ages.

      At least Xianity can blame the Germans.

      The fact that those parts of the world were civilized 500 years ago doesn't tell you much about what to expect out of them now. Rather than publishing these sorts of stories in english language newspapers, perhaps Al-jazeera should be at this. Then perhaps modern Egyptians will be more prone to take up civil engineering.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    4. Re:Noticed also. by The+Cydonian · · Score: 4, Insightful
      There's a huge tract of scientific literature out there that credits a pan Greco-Chaldean (that's Greeks, Romans, Bactrians, ancient Persians, Indo-Greeks some of who may or may not have been Muslim; the Indo-Greeks of Gandhara, or Kandhahar, as the city is now known, were Buddhist, for instance) tradition with most of the astronomic contributions lately. For instance, it was the Greco-Chaldeans who introduced solar measurements into Indic astronomy, with the result that South Asians stopped following a five-year yuga-cycle, and instead started following the solar-yearly samvatsara instead.

      As such, to account for Al Kharismi's genius and Omar Khayyam's literary talent to their religion is as short-sighted as saying Einstein was brilliant because he was a Jew. At their respective zeniths, Islamic centers of excellence such as Istanbul, Baghdad or Kabul weren't solely Muslim; they were uniquely multi-cultural unlike the west European centers of power then. Civilizational excellence knows no religion, only regional decay does.

    5. Re:Noticed also. by mnmn · · Score: 4, Informative

      I agree.

      I'm Muslim, but I'm certainly not an Arab. For some reason Muslims are always associated with Arabs. Most Muslims are NOT Arabs.

      My ancestor civilization was associated with the invention of guns and paper money, but since they were not Arab, those inventions will not be listed as Muslims.

      OTOH Arab inventions since before the time of Mohammed are listed. To really know Muslims, you have to travel to Indonesia, Pakistan, Iran, Central Asia, Africa and Turkey as well as Arabia.

      --
      "Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
    6. Re:Noticed also. by fatphil · · Score: 3, Informative

      And it's also, in part, an exercise in bullshitting.
      e.g.
      "He is also credited with being the first man to shift physics from a philosophical activity to an experimental one."

      Only by people who don't consider measuring the diameter of the earth to be physics.

      Or by people who don't consider measuring the weight of displaced water by floating and immersed bodies physics.

      Or by people who generally don't realise quite how brilliant some of the Greeks, some of whom predate the era being talked about by over a thousand years, were.

      Don't get me wrong - at other times I praise highly the incredible advances made in the region we now call the middle east in ancient times, in particular in my favourite field - discrete mathematics. But I simply think that you shouldn't tarnish an otherwise good report with unverifiable or refutable fabrications.

      FP.

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    7. Re:Noticed also. by iocat · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Are there sources for any of this stuff?

      12 The technique of inoculation was not invented by Jenner and Pasteur but was devised in the Muslim world and brought to Europe from Turkey by the wife of the English ambassador to Istanbul in 1724. Children in Turkey were vaccinated with cowpox to fight the deadly smallpox at least 50 years before the West discovered it.

      Anyway, what's sad to me is all these "inventions" are hundreds of years old. It paints a picture of Islam as a stagnant culture, which is probably the opposite of the good intentions that the curators had.

      --

      Dude, I think I can see my house from here.

    8. Re:Noticed also. by NeoOokami · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's fairly note worthy historically to remind us that while the West was in it's period lovingly referred to as the dark ages, where where we'd lost most of our Greek heritage (such as the works of Aristotle) and religion was maintaining a stranglehold on free thought; Islam was fostering a period of intellectual thinking, and scientific progress. Of course it's also worth mentioning that as the dark ages broke into the Renaissance, Islam entered a sort of decline leading to their own dark ages with the exact same problem of religion dominating free thought.

    9. Re:Noticed also. by SilicaiMan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's just about a book with fancy colours illustrating inventions from parts of the world where Islam is the main religion now.

      I'm not a Muslim, but let's be honest. Islam's role in spreading knowledge is very under-rated, and is just as important as creating knowledge. What's the use of a theory that can generate power from dust, if no body knows about it? The fact of the matter is that Muslim rulers until the 1800s AD valued education, and set up huge libraries to translate every bit of knowledge from around the world into Arabic. The world's major "high-tech" cities at that time were Baghdad and Alexandria, and people from all over the planet flocked to them. It is a very well-known secret that Newton, Fermat and other luminaries from the Middle Ages travelled to Alexandria and Andalusia (modern day Spain) to study math, physics and astronomy. Still, Arabs did invent many things in math, astronomy and medicince. Some inventions that come to my mind, and that I haven't seen in TFA are the book (before that, people used to roll parchments of paper), and medical stitching. Many of Euler's and Fermat's conjectures had been known to Arab mathematicians before, but history before the Middle Ages kind of falls in murky waters, and history after it was written by Europeans.

      But, I agree that attributing inventions like the zero to Arabs is wrong, but you have to give the credit of spreading this invention. It made calculations so easy that anybody could do it. It is also sad that the modern Middle East is in such a state of chaos. The fact of the matter is that Islam is in its Middle Ages right now, where fundamentalism is prevailing over common sense. There are many reasons for that, but if history is any indication, then we might be seeing the light at the end of the tunnel. But the path won't be devoid of bloodshed.

    10. Re:Noticed also. by The+Cydonian · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I also stated that religion may have provided the direct motive for certain inventions.
      And I was trying to demonstrate that, at least with regards to the calendar, there isn't much of an evidence to say so. In fact, I'll even add to say that prayer timings aren't really determined by astronomical calculations; Islam is, incidentally, unique here in that it follows a purely lunar calendar coupled with observational rules to determine the exact date of Eid-ul-Fitr, to take an example. Clearly, astronomical accuracy wasn't really a priority for whoever designed this calendar; it'd be a very hard argument to suggest that astronomy benefitted greatly because of the creation of this calendar. This, naturally, is not to say that Persian/Arab astronomers were all bunkum, the benefits of a clear desert night-sky over a cloudy tropical one cannot be understated, just saying that religion wasn't their primary driving force as you stated.

      Now, otoh, had you suggested that, say, the construction of the Blue Mosque at Estefan led to an improvement in architectural technologies, for example, I'd have granted you the point (which is more of an analoy to the pyramids). As it stands, the list on the website is a steaming pile of crap; there's absolutely nothing inherently Islamic about coffee or tulips or fountain pens, to cite three random items from the website.

      I used the term Islamic centers of excellence as a short-hand to distinguish Ottoman and Persian products described here from those produced in Western spheres of influence. While I appreciate the fact that there has been a civilizational excellence in most of what's now called the Middle East, to label those (and to confusingly jumble those with wholly un-connected ones in North Africa and South Asia) as being "Islamic" is doing a disservice to the ethnic diversity and inclusiveness that these cities stood for. Surely, in these Clash-of-Civilization times, that's a better message than hyping "Islamic science"?

    11. Re:Noticed also. by DissidentHere · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You make a great point - that many of the discoveries were not directly or solely 'muslim' - but yet they were.

      As you point out, many of of the key cities that fostered discovery were the locus of many ideologies, that were allowed to coexist. And that is the key point, at the height of the Muslim world the Muslim world was tolerant of local ideas, and learned from them, assimilated them, wove them in to their writings and scientific understanding, grew them in to something more.

      It is dangerous to view any culture as an island unto itself. At least any culture that isn't isolated on an island. The truth is that Islamic cultures, like others, went through varying times of acceptance and rejection of other ideas. And like other cultures, the times of acceptance led to the times of greatest innovation, while the times of isolation and rejection led to war and stagnation. A number of Karen Armstrong's books lend great insight.

      Makes you think a little about where the US is.

      --
      "None of us are as dumb as all of us." - meeting mantra
    12. Re:Noticed also. by The+Cydonian · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The question here is whether the inventions or discoveries stated in the website, or in this thread, were directly caused by, as it were, Islam. My contention here is that they aren't; certainly, I'd assert that the Arabic translations of Greek classics were a result of a society that was uniquely open-minded for its age, and that it is this open-minded-ness, not any single religion, that was the reason there was so much discovery and invention.

      Or are you suggesting that we equate "Arab" with "Muslim"?

      As for Omar Khayyam... well, I liked (the English translation of) The Rubiyat, and given its praise of wine, women and fun, I've always thought it was un-religious. Would love to read any spiritualization, if I may use the term, of his works, if you have any references.

  26. This is not an Islamic discovery by Hays · · Score: 4, Insightful

    From their list:
    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/ eratos1.html

    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.

  27. "qamara" obscura by ebcdic · · Score: 5, Informative

    I'm very doubtful of the claim that the term "camera obscura" comes from an Arabic word "qamara", since it is a Latin phrase meaning "dark chamber", and the Latin word comes from the Greek "kamara".

    1. Re:"qamara" obscura by pavera · · Score: 2, Funny

      ROFL
      You do know this is slashdot right?
      If everybody did read the articles, and then only qualified scholars commented there'd be like 3 posts per article.

    2. Re:"qamara" obscura by martian265 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "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.

  28. Re:Discrimination by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Whoops, I overstated this.

    Yes, you did, and even in your latest post, you're still overstating it -- and providing the answer to the question in your original post. 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.) Really, it's a matter of a pendulum swing; give it some time, and things will settle down. In a perfect world, we'd give everyone credit for their accomplishments without even noting their sexual preference, race, religion, sex, national origin, disability status, age, veteran status, height, weight, hair color, absence or presence of hair, musical tastes, et bloody cetera ... but we're a long way from that right now.

    --
    The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
  29. Those are Arabs, traditionally. by Grendel+Drago · · Score: 2, Informative

    In the Muslim mythology, Ishmael is the legendary ancestor of all Arabs, like Isaac is the legendary ancestor of... well, of Jacob, who's the legendary ancestor of all Jews. And yes, this conflates religion and ethnicity, but I suppose it wasn't such a problem back in the day.

    --
    Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
    1. Re:Those are Arabs, traditionally. by Surazal · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Not only is it possible that those statements you made are true, we have direct evidence, through DNA testing (voluntary of course) that showed common ancestery across vast swaths of populations. It does teeter on the edge of "dangerous" discussion, but it's true that if you go far back enough we're all related to each other somehow. Isaac and the rest of the people you mentioned have lived long enough ago for them to be true ancestors, so to speak.

      What does it mean in the long run? In my opinion, not a whole lot. Other people's opinions may differ from mine.

      Here's an example for the curious.

      --
      --- Journals are boring; Go to my web page instead
    2. Re:Those are Arabs, traditionally. by Scarletdown · · Score: 2, Informative
      In the Muslim mythology, Ishmael is the legendary ancestor of all Arabs


      If I remember correctly, that belief is also held in both the Jewish and Christian mythologies.

      --
      This space unintentionally left blank.
  30. Re:Discrimination by kniLnamiJ-neB · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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!
  31. Hmmm, might have to do with... by bjk002 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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);
  32. Re:Obl: Star Trek Russia quote by Eccles · · Score: 4, Funny

    You have not experienced these inventions until you have seen them in the original Klingon.

    --
    Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
  33. Seventy-two, rather. by Grendel+Drago · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  34. Re:Discrimination by mdwh2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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".

  35. Re:Discrimination by ExE122 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The truth, of course, is that the vast majority of all historical accomplishments were achieved by straight, white, Christian males.

    You can't overlook the reasons behind this. Being straight, white, Christian, and male has nothing to do with inventions. The reason for this is that "straight" (I'd question the validity of this), white, Christians were the financial/military leaders over the past 200 years. Do you expect a black man to have been able to invent the ligthbulb from his slave quarters? Do you think a Pagan could have gotten funding from a catholic society to do medical research without being burned at stake? Do you think women had the educational opportunities to go forth in a male dominated society and been accepted as credible scientists? Do you think Leonardo DaVinci could have really come out of the closet?

    The truth is that African-Americans were enslaved and oppressed, Africans themselves were plagued with civil wars and apartheid, the jews were being eradicated in a hollocaust, the Japanese were getting a-bombed, the middle-east was still being bombarded with countless "cruisaides", women were raped, beaten and sent to the kitchen, and the straight, white, aryan, Christian males were sitting on top of their pile of money with guns drawn reaping all the benefits of being the "master race".

    Now I know you're not a bigot, I just think you're disreguarding the fact that you are indeed a majority in every way. You might ask why there's black history classes, but no white history classes... because the "history" that you had in school is white history.

    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.

    And not that I think its relevant, but I'm also a straight, white, Christian male.
    --
    Capitalism: When it uses the carrot, it's called democracy. When it uses the stick, it's called fascism.
  36. Correction on several inaccuracies by kh+ln · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I read the "Top 20" article and found the following inaccuracies that warrant clarification:
    3 A form of chess was played in ancient India but the game was developed into the form we know it today in Persia. From there it spread westward to Europe - where it was introduced by the Moors in Spain in the 10th century - and eastward as far as Japan. The word rook comes from the Persian rukh, which means chariot.
    The Indian game mentioned is Pachisi , precursor to the Americanized Parcheesi "Royal Game of India"
    14 The system of numbering in use all round the world is probably Indian in origin but the style of the numerals is Arabic and first appears in print in the work of the Muslim mathematicians al-Khwarizmi and al-Kindi around 825...Algorithms and much of the theory of trigonometry came from the Muslim world.
    The system of numbering commonly called "Arabic Numerals" is now deprecated, and in fact, reads Hindu Arabic Numerals as the article alludes to. Trigonometry was first discovered much earlier (by nearly 1000 years) by the Indians ,Egyptians, & Greeks. Arab scholars recognized it as a distinct branch 2000 years later.

    I note a trend: the Arabs, perhaps because of their geographic location at the crossroads of the East and West, are bound to discover many new and exciting ideas and teaching from their neighbors. They were in pretty good company (Greco-Roman thoughts to the West, Indian thoughts to the East) so they are bound to pick up something.

  37. What have you done for me lately? by amightywind · · Score: 2, Informative

    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).

    Yet the relative social order and stability brought about by the Baghdad caliphate was sufficient to allow some branches of science advance. That order ended with the Abbasid dynasty in 1200's with the Mongol invasions. Since then much of the middle east has been a backwater. The Sharia no longer serves Muslim civilization well.

    --
    an ill wind that blows no good
  38. Re:Their best invention. by Blorgo · · Score: 2, Informative

    Close... but a 'petard' was a primitave (Elizabethean) anti-personnel land mine.

  39. Why isn't there a mod option for "patronizing"? by Reality+Master+201 · · Score: 2, Interesting
    You've allowed the scientific achievements to be overshadowed by religious fundamentalism. The average person is neither a fundamentalist nor a scientist, both in the "western" and Islamic worlds (Islam comes from the same part of the world as Christianity and Judiasm, so calling them western as opposed to whatever Islam presumably is seems silly and/or historically illiterate).

    Yes, the "muslim world" (again, a useless term in this regard, since it's large and heterogenous; take it to mean the "Arab world", which is still too vague) has fallen from where it once was in terms of intellectual prominence. That's unrelated to either the naure of Islam per-se or to the presence of religious fundamentalists.

    Also, nobody's gonna attack you or your family because you post on slashdot. You stupid little bedwetting jackass.

    1. Re:Why isn't there a mod option for "patronizing"? by JohnFluxx · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > 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?

  40. Re:ARABIC not ISLAMIC by mqduck · · Score: 2, Funny

    All Arabs are not muslims

    I'm pretty sure that at least a few are.

    --
    Property is theft.
  41. Re:Kurt Vonnegut Jr. Quote by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 2, Funny
    Well I do know XII / 2 is VII.

    Won't that cause a compiler error with the mismatched variable types? And you should really use integer division (\) there.

    "Error MMCMLXVIII: An un-oracled error as been handed down unto you by the gods. All hail Ceasar!"

    Oh, and the answer is wrong. It's VI. Now write it 100, er, C times or I'll cut your balls off.

  42. Re:As well... by beantherio · · Score: 2, Funny

    "And don't forget the ever popular "Method and device for destroying infidel skyscrapers"." As was mentioned earlier: Tom Clancy holds the patent to this invention.

  43. Re:Discrimination by Uber+Banker · · Score: 2, Informative

    ...proud of straight, male, caucasian heritage... and were achieved by straight, white, Christian males

    I dispute your casual assumption of causasian and Christian being equivalent.

  44. From TFA: by PFI_Optix · · Score: 2, Informative

    One of the top 20 was Chess.

    First of all, Persian != Islamic. Second, Chess predates Islam.

    --
    120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
  45. Uh, no... by Dh2000 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Jews did not and do not believe a "son of God" is coming back. Some do believe in a messiah, but that's completely different.

    Christians like to read a lot into the Old Testament that isn't there.

    1. Re:Uh, no... by tverbeek · · Score: 3, Funny
      Jews did not and do not believe a "son of God" is coming back. Some do believe in a messiah, but that's completely different.

      Mod parent up: Informative. This is correct info.

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    2. Re:Uh, no... by yurnotsoeviltwin · · Score: 2, Funny

      d00d, u need to let go of ur h8 and let jeezus into ur 3

    3. Re:Uh, no... by blincoln · · Score: 2, Informative

      Jews did not and do not believe a "son of God" is coming back. Some do believe in a messiah, but that's completely different.

      I don't know if it's a common viewpoint among Jews, but a good friend of mine who is Jewish once said that she thought the idea of Jesus being special because he was "the son of God" was offensive - the idea being that in Judaism we are *all* the sons and daughters of God.

      --
      "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
    4. Re:Uh, no... by operagost · · Score: 2, Informative

      No, it's not. It's a belief. There are many, many prophecies in the Old Testament regarding the Messiah and many of them could not possibly predict a mere human being-- unless he had a death wish, because ascribing those qualities to oneself was blasphemy and punishable by death. And that's pretty much what happened.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    5. Re:Uh, no... by pizzaman100 · · Score: 2, Informative
      Isaiah 9:6 is one such prophesy:

      For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

    6. Re:Uh, no... by duffahtolla · · Score: 2, Interesting
      -- Jews did not and do not believe a "son of God" is coming back. Some do believe in a messiah, but that's completely different.

      No, it's not. It's a belief.

      Are you Jewish?

      I ask because I've asked one of my 'Jewish' friend about this and he says he agrees with the first quote. You seem to think differently, but is this as a Jew or as a Christian?

      My friends take on this is that the Romans were persecuting the Jews so they were looking for a Messiah/Saviour to lead them out from under the Romans, much like Moses did with the Egyptians.

      To me, this makes sense. If the jews were expecting Jesus to lead them away, I bet they were severly dissapointed if not downright pissed off with the whole 'turn the other cheek' thing. Enough for Judas to turn him over to the Romans to make way for a real leader and enough for the Jews to pick a criminal to release rather than Jesus as some serious payback for false hopes.

    7. Re:Uh, no... by fatphil · · Score: 2, Funny

      Let Jesus into my bum?

      Someone didn't preview :-)

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
  46. Re:Discrimination by phlegmofdiscontent · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "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.

  47. Chris Rock and Colin Powell by LS · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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
  48. Re:Theism undergirds science by Thangodin · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  49. vote him out?? by Comboman · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Yes, but in the United States we can vote him out because a U.S. President is limited to two four-year terms.

    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.
  50. Re:FYI... by tenchiken · · Score: 2, Informative

    Try again, there are plenty of documented evidence that the people in Jerusalem were treated horribly (as were the others who were captured early on during the periods of expansion). At a minimum Jews, Christians and anyone else who lived in Muslim lands were second class citizines (just as Jews were in Europe). There were many incidents, because one was a oppressor, one was oppressed.

  51. Re:Discrimination by jcr · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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."
  52. Vaccination claim for Islam is WRONG! by Tsu+Dho+Nimh · · Score: 4, Informative

    " Children in Turkey were vaccinated with cowpox to fight the deadly smallpox at least 50 years before the West discovered it."

    This is just plain WRONG! The practice of deliberately infecting people with SMALLPOX (not cowpox) from a mild case to make them immune (variolation) was a process developed sometime around the 10th century in China and/or India. It involved taking pus from the pox of someone suffering from smallpox, or the scabs from the pox, and inoculating healthy people with it. Usually a mild case of smallpox developed, giving lifelong immunity afterwards. The first written account of variolation describes a Buddhist nun practicing around 1022 to 1063 AD. She would grind up scabs taken from a person infected with smallpox into a powder, and then blow it into the nostrils of a non-immune person. Another method, more common, involves rubbing the pus from the pox into a scratch in the skin of the non-immune person.

    By the 1700's, variolation was common practice in China, India, and Turkey, where it was carried to England by a diplomat's wife. In the late 1700's European physicians used this and other methods of variolation, but reported "devastating" results in some cases. Overall, 2% to 3% of people who were variolated died of smallpox, but this practice decreased the total number of smallpox fatalities by 10-fold. However, a variolated patient could transmit genuine smallpox and could even start an epidemic!

    Jenner, on the other hand, was the first to use cowpox (vaccinia virus) instead of live smallpox ... hence the name of "vaccination".

  53. Many are Chinese Inventions by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Islam only refined them, popularized them, and maintained the knowledge.

    Or let's look at the invention of the Zero, which is actually an Indian invention (as in India), and is documented in their ancient texts.

    We in the West pay more attention to where we got it from, not from where it originated. Possibly because we are too lazy to actually do the research required.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  54. What is is about Islam by kindbud · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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
  55. Re:Turkey has plenty of problems by DJCF · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I should have read the rest of your post before replying. You obviously don't know much about the Troubles, or else you are part of them. The UK held a referendum in Ireland. Southern Ireland decided they wanted out, the UK let them go. Northern Ireland decided they wanted to remain part of the UK, so we let them stay part of the UK.

    Or don't you respect people's choice in the matter?

  56. Agreed by Billly+Gates · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  57. Accuracy? by hacksoncode · · Score: 2, Informative
    One of the inventions mentioned in the lazy man's summary is the discovery by the 9th century that the Earth was round and its approximate circumferance. If this is an example of the accuracy of this list, I'm not impressed.

    Eratosthenes discovered this (include the circumference to about the same error) in the 3rd century BC using the same method.

  58. An Atheist's Guide to Mohammedanism by watermodem · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Time for a little honesty! An Atheist's Guide to Mohammedanism http://www.atheists.org/Islam/mohammedanism.html

  59. The Crusades?! by Grendel+Drago · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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
  60. Obligatory (abridged) Monty Phyton quote by xPsi · · Score: 3, Funny
    What have the Muslim's ever done for us?

    Reg: They've bled us white, the bastards. They've taken everything we had, and not just from us, from our fathers, and from our fathers' fathers.

    Stan: And from our fathers' fathers' fathers.

    Reg: Yeah.

    Stan: And from our fathers' fathers' fathers' fathers.

    Reg: Yeah. All right, Stan. Don't labour the point. And what have they ever given us in return? (he pauses smugly)

    Xerxes: Coffee.

    Reg: What?

    Xerxes: Coffee.

    Reg: Oh. Yeah, yeah. They did give us that. Uh, that's true. Yeah.

    Masked commando #1: And the camera.

    Stan: Oh, yeah, the camera, Reg. Remember what photography used to be like?

    Reg: Yeah. All right. I'll grant you coffee and the camera are two things that the Muslims have done.

    Matthias: And algebra.

    Reg: Well, yes, obviously algebra. I mean, algebra goes without saying, doesn't it? But apart from coffee, the camera, and algebra...

    Masked commando #2: Chess.

    Xerxes: Surgical instruments.

    Masked commando #3: Windmill.

    General audience: Ohh...

    Reg: Yeah, yeah. All right. Fair enough.

    Masked commando #1: And the fountain pen!

    General audience: Oh, yes! True!

    Francis: Yeah. Yeah, that's something we'd really miss if the Muslims left, Reg.

    Masked commando #4: The three course meal!

    ...

    Reg: All right, but apart from coffee, the camera, chess, surgical instruments, the windmill, the fountain pen, and the three course meal, what have the Muslims ever done for us?

    ...

    --
    i\hbar\dot{\psi}=\hat{H}\psi
  61. What about India and China? by teetam · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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!
  62. Islam (the religion) did not invent by mhollis · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  63. Re:Discrimination by Cleetus+Freem · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "...the Japanese were getting A-bombed..."? Huh? What? The Japanese were engaging in a rascist orgy of murder, destruction and enslavement throughout the far east and south pacific. The white guys (whom the Japanese had attacked) simply stopped them (and then propped up the government, funded the regrowth of their industry, secured their borders and basically gave them the tools necessary to become the economic power that Japan is today)... and the a-bomb, which saved the lives of a lot of those savior white guys, was instrumental in that. Don't ignore all the bad things that the white guys have done but don't apply your B.S. filter to the good things either. The a-bomb was a bullet to the head of a racist international, rapist-murderer.
    Oh, and if you still think the a-bomb was a bad thing, ask some elderly Chinese or Koreans (i.e. people who actually lived through what the Japanese did) what they think about it. Might find they wish the white guys had had a few dozen more a-bombs to drop.

  64. Galen -- Roman Doctor by Impotent_Emperor · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I noticed that the article indicated that some surgical tools (notably for eye surgery) were invented in the time of Islam. But this probably isn't true because Galen, a doctor in the Roman Empire had created such a tool and used it in eye surgery.

    There's going to be a ton of errors with this exhibit because it neglects to remember that there were strong, prosperous, and clever civilizations of the Middle East before Arab domination. Egypt, Mesopotamia, and the Persian Empire all laid the groundwork for learning and inventing. Additionally, the whole Middle East was a crossroads for that allowed knowledge, technology, and goods to flow to it.

  65. Huh? by Grendel+Drago · · Score: 2

    An enormous fluff piece on the centuries-old accomplishments of a religion now better known for its murderers than anything else, and you take it as evidence of anti-Muslim sentiment? Can I score some of what you're smoking?

    --
    Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
  66. Christian definition of Jewish Messiah by burndive · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "By Christians' definitions, Jesus _cannot_ be the Jewish messiah."

    That's a pretty controversial statement to make without support. Perhaps I just don't follow your logic, since the previous sentence seems to mistakenly use "Christian" twice in stead of "Jewish" (in one of those places, though I'm not sure which one).

    I would appreciate it if you would clarify this.

    Also (and please forgive me for any misconception, as I have already stated that I don't understand what you were trying to say), what is your operating Christian definition that excludes Jesus from being the Jewish Messiah?

    I say this because I am a Christian, and I believe that Jesus was, is, and will be the Jewish Messiah. It's just that he was rejected by his brothers the first time around (much like Joseph, Moses, and David), and so he was sent to the gentiles (much like Joseph, Moses, and David) for a time, but (much like Joseph, Moses, and David) will return to his people Israel and be their deliverer. The fact that this has not yet happened does not (especially in the eyes of Christians) make him any less the Jewish Messiah.

    So, if you would, please clarify your statements in the light of this.

    --
    ...because "hacker" sounds way sexier than "code drone."
    1. Re:Christian definition of Jewish Messiah by pnewhook · · Score: 2, Interesting
      The Christian Christ is the son of God and divine.
      The Jewish Messiah is just a mortal man and not divine
      But Christ died and was therefore mortal. And the Romans labeled him "King of the Jews" which implies may Jews believed him to be the messiah.
      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    2. Re:Christian definition of Jewish Messiah by burndive · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "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."
  67. This only proves the point... by JRHelgeson · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I'm willing to accept every item listed here prima facie while others may desire to dispute the finer points of "so and so thousands of miles away came up with the idea 5 minutes/years before the muslims did". So What!

    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.
  68. Re:Discrimination by CycleMan · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Geez, everybody, just be "human" and get over yourselves.

    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.

  69. And not by coincidence ... by xihr · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ... these were all invented before 1001 A.D. Go figure.

  70. Soviet physics by tetromino · · Score: 2, Interesting

    it was a lot harder to get into trouble with Communist Party doctrine as a pure mathematician than as a physicist (who might wind up using "Jewish physics" like relativity or quantum mechanics)

    You are mixing up Communists and Nazis. Nazis banned relativity and quantum mechanics as "Jewish physics". By contrast, Soviet leaders (despite being antisemitic) recognized that Jewish physicists and physics were absolutely vital for building nukes and missiles.

    The real reason Soviet physics started to fall behind the West was that
    a. an enormous number of talented European Jewish physicists had fled to America in the 1930's, while nobody wanted to flee to Stalin's welcoming arms;
    b. for some time in the 1940s-1950s, computer science was considered to be anti-Soviet, which meant that Soviet computer technology (vital for physics!) remained a decade or so behind the West all the way to the end of the Cold War;
    c. too large a percentage of Soviet physicists were put to work in the military industrial complex, and many of their discoveries were classified. By contrast, in the post-WW2 West, most physicists tended to do unclassified work in the universities.

  71. History, or commentary on modern society? by thedletterman · · Score: 2, Insightful
    From the article: Fourteen centuries ago, God sent down the Qur'an as a guide to all humanity. At the time the Arab society was in a state of complete degeneration, chaos and ignorance. They were a barbarous people who worshipped idols of their own making, believed warfare and bloodshed to be virtuous and were even capable of killing their own children. They had little interest in intellectual matters, let alone a scientific outlook to the natural world.

    What's the word to describe this? Not irony.. but?

    --
    Any fool can criticise, condemn, and complain, and most fools do. - Benjamin Franklin