Hi.

Previous page 1 23 4 5 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
- Baal
- Arab Slave Overlord
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: Hi.
Reply #30 - November 29, 2009, 08:45 AM

the non-arab civilizations that early muslims conquered had invented and produced for millenias before islam. It is only normal that they should continue to produce for couple centuries after islam shows.

In fact, those non-muslim civilizations produced even when they did not have a golden-age. Even in the Dark-Age of Europe, buildings and inventions were produced just like in the golden age of islam.

The amount of invention, might be considered a 'golden age' for islam, because, it was the best time to be a muslim in. But for the rest of the world, it was not a 'golden age'. The library of alexandria, The library of persia. That damage took centuries to correct.

It is an exercise in futility and self-gratification, to take credit for the works of civilizations that you had just conquered. You want to take credit? and as you say, you want to take credit for the works of non-muslims under muslims? Then take credit for what was accomplished once islam settled in. Show me One society that benefited from islam. You will find a long line of 'merdeux' after another till our current day.

What is it about that book that, whenever someone adopts it, they slow down then move stagnate? Please, pour l'amour de dieu, do not give me such a book. It is not a good book.

"Ask the slave girl; she will tell you the truth.' So the Apostle called Burayra to ask her. Ali got up and gave her a violent beating first, saying, 'Tell the Apostle the truth.'"
- Rubaiyat
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Hi.
Reply #31 - November 29, 2009, 09:58 AM

Quote
It is an exercise in futility and self-gratification, to take credit for the works of civilizations that you had just conquered. You want to take credit?

My sentiments too after looking at this.

But scientific endevour is a accumulative one.

It's a collective effort of all humanity.

Challenge All Ideologies but don't Hate People.
- pakman
- Ex-Muslim
- Come into my Life
- offline
Re: Hi.
Reply #32 - November 29, 2009, 10:34 AM

I think it is unfair to call certain scientific discoveries or technological inventions the 'Islamic contribution'. There was nothing necessarily Islamic about any of it. It just happened to take place under Muslim rule. But as soon as orthodoxy kicked in, such breakthroughs stopped. So they were in spite of Islam not because of Islam.

Take the Pakman challenge and convince me there is a God and Mo was not a murdering, power hungry sex maniac.
- doubtfool
- Member
- offline
Re: Hi.
Reply #33 - November 29, 2009, 10:58 AM

I would agree with Omar and Kodoque. Listen to this R4 link for a balanced appraisal of the muslim contribution to civilisation in spain from a Jew Christian and Muslim

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00548l1
- doubtfool
- Member
- offline
Re: Hi.
Reply #34 - November 29, 2009, 11:01 AM

It is such a shame a balanced theistic holistic approach to say science is not in place now when we need it the most
- kodoque
- Member
- offline
Re: Hi.
Reply #35 - November 29, 2009, 11:14 AM

Quote from: pakman on November 29, 2009, 10:34 AM
I think it is unfair to call certain scientific discoveries or technological inventions the 'Islamic contribution'. There was nothing necessarily Islamic about any of it. It just happened to take place under Muslim rule. But as soon as orthodoxy kicked in, such breakthroughs stopped. So they were in spite of Islam not because of Islam.

Again, Islamic culture provided an unifying framework for the cross fertilization of tought. I mean arab was obviously needed for the comprehension of the Quran, hence shcolar from all the islamic world could communicate with each other (Yeah I'm captain obvious). As for the " orthodoxy kicked in" always this phantasm of the pure innocent and progressist truth demolished by obscurantism. Al ghazali , who is usually considered the "bad guy", when criticizing philosophy and logic, did not rejected it , in fact he used it strongly for his jurisprudential work and encouraged strongly medicine and mathematical study, he just stated that reason should not dominate revelation, wich in a muslim point of view he's perfectly coherent.
- Rashna
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: Hi.
Reply #36 - November 29, 2009, 11:22 AM

Quote from: kodoque on November 29, 2009, 11:14 AM
Again, Islamic culture provided an unifying framework for the cross fertilization of tought. I mean arab was obviously needed for the comprehension of the Quran, hence shcolar from all the islamic world could communicate with each other (Yeah I'm captain obvious). As for the " orthodoxy kicked in" always this phantasm of the pure innocent and progressist truth demolished by obscurantism. Al ghazali , who is usually considered the "bad guy", when criticizing philosophy and logic, did not rejected it , in fact he used it strongly for his jurisprudential work and encouraged strongly medicine and mathematical study, he just stated that reason should not dominate revelation, wich in a muslim point of view he's perfectly coherent.

If it was Islam which provided this impetus, then the Muslim countries with the greatest scholarship & achievements would've been the regions of Saudi & Yemen, the two places which were Islamized right by Muhammad. Obviously they weren't.

The lands where Islam made certain achievements-persia, Mesopotemia, Egypt were all ancient superpowers, they didn't require this Arab faith to suddenly invent, they were doing all this for the last 3500 years before Islam.

Muslims benefitted from conquering these ancient successful lands, took stuff like 0 & decimal positioning from India, slowly as these lands were majority Islamized, around the 16th century, Islamic science died out.

Its like if Islam manages to takeover USA, Europe & Japan today, they'd still be innovating for some years till the pre Islamic ethic lasts-but that won't be due to Islam but for the pre Islamic ethics & ideas, then they'd become Islamized & perhaps as backwards as Saudi & Yemen.Just like Egypt, Persia, Mesopotemia etc.

World renowned historian Will Durant"...the Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex order and freedom can at any moment be overthrown..."
- Rashna
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: Hi.
Reply #37 - November 29, 2009, 11:28 AM

Quote from: doubtfool on November 29, 2009, 11:24 AM
did you listen to the R4 link it puts paid to such a silly assertion such as that you have just made. Please think more deeply before posting

Hey doubtfool, have you figured out why its neccessary to marry one's daughter in law in order to teach people to tell their adopted children that they're adopted? :DWhy not tell your followers to simply tell their adopted children that they're not biological kids?

Or how, with the brilliant ideas of Islamic "genetics & inbreeding" they didn't prohibit cousin marriages but prohibited milk sibling harmless marriage? Why first cousin marriages are rampant but people who've been suckled by the same wet nurse are ordered to divorce?

Please think more deeply before trying to convince people with your extremely silly assertions about inbreeding.

World renowned historian Will Durant"...the Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex order and freedom can at any moment be overthrown..."
- kodoque
- Member
- offline
Re: Hi.
Reply #38 - November 29, 2009, 11:42 AM

Quote from: Rashna on November 29, 2009, 11:22 AM
If it was Islam which provided this impetus, then the Muslim countries with the greatest scholarship & achievements would've been the regions of Saudi & Yemen, the two places which were Islamized right by Muhammad. Obviously they weren't.

The lands where Islam made certain achievements-persia, Mesopotemia, Egypt were all ancient superpowers, they didn't require this Arab faith to suddenly invent, they were doing all this for the last 3500 years before Islam.

Muslims benefitted from conquering these ancient successful lands, took stuff like 0 & decimal positioning from India, slowly as these lands were majority Islamized, around the 16th century, Islamic science died out.

Its like if Islam manages to takeover USA, Europe & Japan today, they'd still be innovating for some years till the pre Islamic ethic lasts-but that won't be due to Islam but for the pre Islamic ethics & ideas, then they'd become Islamized & perhaps as backwards as Saudi & Yemen.Just like Egypt, Persia, Mesopotemia etc.

Are you a specialist of both Islamic and middle eastern history? Are you aware, the various internal strife between school of tought, opposition between the mutazilah and acharism, various invasion that this part of the world had to endure?

Because reducing IC (i'll guard this acronym to talk about this civ) to just " took stuff like 0 & decimal positioning", and to its decline to just "the bad guy finally won" seems a bit uninformed to me.

Regards,
- Saif Rahman
- Ex-Muslim
- Je suis Haram
- offline
Re: Hi.
Reply #39 - November 29, 2009, 11:53 AM

Quote from: pakman on November 29, 2009, 10:34 AM
I think it is unfair to call certain scientific discoveries or technological inventions the 'Islamic contribution'. There was nothing necessarily Islamic about any of it. It just happened to take place under Muslim rule. But as soon as orthodoxy kicked in, such breakthroughs stopped. So they were in spite of Islam not because of Islam.

+1

My Book
My Blog
- kodoque
- Member
- offline
Re: Hi.
Reply #40 - November 29, 2009, 12:07 PM

Ah technological determinism. Science and technological development doesn't come from they sky, they are grounded in socio-economical realities. Scientists and scholar like Al farabi, Ibn sinna or Ibn Khaldoun produced breakthrough-level work and were declaring themselves muslim , working on religious matters too .This in an Islamic context.

That's fact.
- Kenan
- Cultist
- Pub Regular
- Hwee cap-toored eet fohr kay-ohss !!!
- offline
Re: Hi.
Reply #41 - November 29, 2009, 12:12 PM

Quote from: kodoque on November 29, 2009, 11:14 AM
...he just stated that reason should not dominate revelation...

If this statement alone doesn't give you an instant headache then I'm afraid you live in a parallel reality.

Funny though, your "reasoning? reminds me of the "old" me. A few years ago I would have had a lot more understanding for your position; have you read any books written by Ziauddin Sardar perchance?
- Baal
- Arab Slave Overlord
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: Hi.
Reply #42 - November 29, 2009, 12:15 PM

Quote from: pakman on November 29, 2009, 10:34 AM
I think it is unfair to call certain scientific discoveries or technological inventions the 'Islamic contribution'. There was nothing necessarily Islamic about any of it. It just happened to take place under Muslim rule. But as soon as orthodoxy kicked in, such breakthroughs stopped. So they were in spite of Islam not because of Islam.

I disagree due to fairness in context of this conversation. If we accuse islam of stagnating discoveries, then we should give islam credit for discoveries made under islam.

"Ask the slave girl; she will tell you the truth.' So the Apostle called Burayra to ask her. Ali got up and gave her a violent beating first, saying, 'Tell the Apostle the truth.'"
- Baal
- Arab Slave Overlord
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: Hi.
Reply #43 - November 29, 2009, 12:25 PM

Hi Kodoque,

Quote from: kodoque on November 29, 2009, 11:14 AM
Again, Islamic culture provided an unifying framework for the cross fertilization of tought.

Words. We are more interested in the result of the cross fertilization of language and thought. There was Two super-powers, they each had their own major language. It is not like there was 20 different influential language. Did this 'unification' and 'orthodoxy' of thought, yield good results? Are we judging a tree by its fruits?

Quote from: kodoque on November 29, 2009, 11:14 AM
I... he just stated that reason should not dominate revelation, wich in a muslim point of view he's perfectly coherent.

That statement does make my head hurt. I will transfer some of that hurt to you and I apologize. So Ghazali made that statement, and that statement got applied. Also Ghazali did not start a movement with his statement. His statement was quite mainstream at the time.

Good. So was that a good thing? When we look back and try to judge the tree by its fruits, did Ghazali yield good fruits?

"Ask the slave girl; she will tell you the truth.' So the Apostle called Burayra to ask her. Ali got up and gave her a violent beating first, saying, 'Tell the Apostle the truth.'"
- kodoque
- Member
- offline
Re: Hi.
Reply #44 - November 29, 2009, 12:28 PM

Quote from: Kenan on November 29, 2009, 12:12 PM
If this statement alone doesn't give you an instant headache then I'm afraid you live in a parallel reality.

Funny though, your "reasoning? reminds me of the "old" me. A few years ago I would have had a lot more understanding for your position; have you read any books written by Ziauddin Sardar perchance?

I don't know him, I will look his work, if my procrastination don't kick in. As for reason, my tought was that for it to function it must work on basic intuition of what is right or wrong, but reasonably this choice must be itself under scrutiny , but itself too, and so on... so basically it never ends. I then decided arbitraly to choose Islam as an axiomatic set from wich I could develop my tought. Simple.
- Baal
- Arab Slave Overlord
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: Hi.
Reply #45 - November 29, 2009, 12:30 PM

Quote from: Rubaiyat on November 29, 2009, 09:58 AM
My sentiments too after looking at this.

But scientific endevour is a accumulative one.

It's a collective effort of all humanity.

Each sentence you are saying makes sense, I just do not understand the entire paragraph put together.

"Ask the slave girl; she will tell you the truth.' So the Apostle called Burayra to ask her. Ali got up and gave her a violent beating first, saying, 'Tell the Apostle the truth.'"
- kodoque
- Member
- offline
Re: Hi.
Reply #46 - November 29, 2009, 12:38 PM

Quote from: Baal on November 29, 2009, 12:25 PM
Hi Kodoque,
Words. We are more interested in the result of the cross fertilization of language and thought. There was Two super-powers, they each had their own major language. It is not like there was 20 different influential language. Did this 'unification' and 'orthodoxy' of thought, yield good results? Are we judging a tree by its fruits?
That statement does make my head hurt. I will transfer some of that hurt to you and I apologize. So Ghazali made that statement, and that statement got applied. Also Ghazali did not start a movement with his statement. His statement was quite mainstream at the time.

Good. So was that a good thing? When we look back and try to judge the tree by its fruits, did Ghazali yield good fruits?

Sir, I ask you proof, because the acharism from wich AG ideas came were violently persecuted by the dominating mutazilah, wich were putting reason at the forefront, and it was their biggest error (the persecution) considering how big the backlash was against not only them but the use of reason , wich AG actually defended to a certain mesure, a quote from him:

"The second drawback arises from the man who is loyal to Islam but ignorant. He thinks that religion must be defended by rejecting every science connected with the philosophers", and the philosophers then suppose that Islam must be based on ignorance. "A grievous crime indeed against religion has been committed by the man who imagines that Islam is defended by the denial of the mathematical sciences".

I think that our main point of disagreement here is that you seem to consider reason as something inherently good, where I consider it only as a tool.
- doubtfool
- Member
- offline
Re: Hi.
Reply #47 - November 29, 2009, 01:52 PM

Kodoque, He is only playing with you. It is well known on here that Muslims regard metaphysical proofs to be of a higher order than physical proofs.
- Rubaiyat
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Hi.
Reply #48 - November 29, 2009, 02:00 PM

Quote
Kodoque, He is only playing with you. It is well known on here that Muslims regard metaphysical proofs to be of a higher order than physical proofs.

Metaphysical Proofs?

How does that work?

Challenge All Ideologies but don't Hate People.
- doubtfool
- Member
- offline
Re: Hi.
Reply #49 - November 29, 2009, 02:04 PM

It doesn't there is no point trying, apples and pears. How do you measure the immeasurable? You put away the ruler and contemplate
- Rubaiyat
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Hi.
Reply #50 - November 29, 2009, 02:08 PM

Quote
How do you measure the immeasurable?

Give me an example of the "immeasurable"?

Quote
You put away the ruler and contemplate

You mean lets imagine the Great Elephant Tree in the Sky? and the colour of the eggs it lays?

Challenge All Ideologies but don't Hate People.
- kodoque
- Member
- offline
Re: Hi.
Reply #51 - November 29, 2009, 02:12 PM

I said that I chosen Islam as my axiomatic set of Value, by definition I don't need to proof it.
- Rubaiyat
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Hi.
Reply #52 - November 29, 2009, 02:15 PM

Quote
I said that I chosen Islam as my axiomatic set of Value, by definition I don't need to proof it.

When you say "I believe"

It's the end of discussion.

There is no point in particpating debates.

Challenge All Ideologies but don't Hate People.
- Rubaiyat
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Hi.
Reply #53 - November 29, 2009, 02:17 PM

Quote
Say that if you want but dont keep running behind someone saying please answer my question which is a silly one to you but please please do answer.

You are under NO obligation to answer anything here.

But what you say will be challenged.

Challenge All Ideologies but don't Hate People.
- doubtfool
- Member
- offline
Re: Hi.
Reply #54 - November 29, 2009, 02:19 PM

Dear Rubaiyat ,
why would that be. You only want to ask one question. Can you (muslims) logically prove God exists? I personally have said to you more than once. No not to your satisfaction but yes to as well as you could prove the opposite. Thats the nature of trying to understand the metaphysical in physical terms. Hence mans recourse to metaphor. I don't think that can be stated more clearly.

But just in case, No I can't logically prove God to you.
- doubtfool
- Member
- offline
Re: Hi.
Reply #55 - November 29, 2009, 02:21 PM

Are you really saying you can you prove to me with evidence that God does not exist?
- kodoque
- Member
- offline
Re: Hi.
Reply #56 - November 29, 2009, 02:40 PM

Quote from: Rubaiyat on November 29, 2009, 02:15 PM
When you say "I believe"

It's the end of discussion.

There is no point in particpating debates.

Not necessaraly, you too must have core inital value. But You could answer me*:

"But those initial core values could be subject to further analysis and modified depending on observable facts, including discussion with the like of you"

But this statement is actually, correct me if I'm wrong, a core initial value too, and it can be subject to himself, and made false by itself. It is such undecibality that pushed me to accept arbitrarily Islam as an immuable set, this one and not others for practical reason. But I'm still open to discussion on any tought I derive from this set.

And you seem to be sombedy quite interesting, it would be a shame that our debate end there.
- Kenan
- Cultist
- Pub Regular
- Hwee cap-toored eet fohr kay-ohss !!!
- offline
Re: Hi.
Reply #57 - November 29, 2009, 03:19 PM

Quote from: kodoque on November 29, 2009, 02:12 PM
I said that I chosen Islam as my axiomatic set of Value, by definition I don't need to proof it.

At least you are frank and upfront with this. Hopefully you also see the issues with this dogmatic stance and possible repercussions of it.
- Rubaiyat
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Hi.
Reply #58 - November 29, 2009, 03:19 PM

Quote
Not necessaraly, you too must have core inital value. But You could answer me*:

But those values are not accepted without evidence.

It is not "I believe" values where you accept something without evidence.

When you say "I believe " - you accept things without evidence and therefore there is no room for a discussion.

But if you say "I believe" but I am open to discussion. Then you are a skeptic and not a true believer.

Quote
And you seem to be sombedy quite interesting, it would be a shame that our debate end there.

No it does not have to end here.

We can discuss whatever you like here.

See you around the forum:-)

Challenge All Ideologies but don't Hate People.
- Stardust
- Founder of Neo-Hippiism
- Ex-Muslim
- Beneath The Veil
- offline
Re: Hi.
Reply #59 - November 29, 2009, 03:31 PM

Hi, Kodoque

Here's my thought on why reasoning > belief

In the past while science wasn't as developed and most things were based on superstitious beliefs such as the existence of witches, ghosts, curses, gods, fairies at the back of the garden etc.

Then as science developed through logic and reasoning, we have electricity, tv, computers, cars, trains running on superconductivity, safer bridges. Understanding of genetics leading to understanding why some people are born with learning difficulties rather than place it down to that person being possessed by the devil etc. Better medical care and the list goes on.

So does it not logically follow in your mind that developing science (which ultimately relies on reasoning and logic) will lead to better understanding of the universe, where we come from etc, than going 180degrees and following path of "belief in fairies"

This is how i see your line of thought; think of a linear graph with development in science leading to increasing knowledge and hence better judgement of the world, there is a trend, but instead of following it (as the next logical step) you choose and arbitrary point which you take as the point from which you derive your core beliefs.

I've heard of the so called "science in the quran". When you find me a complex theory that is derived from what it written in the quran, rather than seeing what science has already found and then going to the book to pick out bits to fit with science, then I'd probably start doubting my atheism. These days people such as Zakir Naik (sp?) are trying to make a link with science because they know that most people think that science is top dog - even if people don't fully understand science.

God is not a 'special concept' of the abrahamic religions, the idea of god and gods existed way before them. Know why? because people were developing reasoning/logical thinking abilities. They knew there must be a reason, a cause for thunder storms, for why crops grow well certain times of the year etc, they put it down to some powerful thunder god and god of fertility etc back then.

With develop in science, increase in knowledge, people realise many gods will mean conflict, and that those gods will be less powerful, than one god encompassing all power. Also you have people forced to believe, by bullies.

Now we have realised (through logic) that the so called god who we only know of through word of mouth and a book written by some people some 2000 years ago (A book which seems to show god's traits as some what suspiciously human like)...is hardly a powerful god.

A god who allows a child to be sexual abused by his father and has his life ruined because of the trauma of it...Why? because god wants to 'test' this innocent child? This all mighty and poweful god wouldn't save him from that evil? - That is something i call cruelty. And I won't worship a cruel so called god (actually, if that god existed, he'd be an evil god). Crap, I'm angry at islam again (well all religions actually), can't really be angry at an ideology i guess...

"Between stimulus and response there is a space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and our freedom." - Viktor E. Frankl

'Life is just the extreme expression of complex chemistry' - Neil deGrasse Tyson
Previous page 1 23 4 5 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »