Australian Politics Forum - Islam stifles basic science

Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register

Forum rules, Recent posts (with text), RSS, Search options, Browse all uploaded images
Home, Articles, Green Tax Shift, Evolution,

Australian Politics Forum › Member Run Boards › Islam › Islam stifles basic science

(Moderator: polite_gandalf)

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 ... 21

Islam stifles basic science (Read 53537 times)

Soren Gold Member Offline Posts: 25654 Gender:	Re: Islam stifles basic science Reply #90 - Mar 16^th, 2013 at 11:20pm polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 16^th, 2013 at 9:40pm: the evidence disagrees with you. LOVE IT, LOVE IT, LOVE IT !!! The Granuiad as the authority mustered by Islam!! Abso-fooking-priceless!!!! (how do you say that in classical Arabic? Translatable?)
Back to top	IP Logged

Karnal Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 95295 Gender:	Re: Islam stifles basic science Reply #91 - Mar 16^th, 2013 at 11:25pm I say, FD, there’s a top 100 scientist list? The old boy must be pretty close to the top of that. His development of the scientific method will no doubt influence generations of open and inquiring minds. Never and never. I think we can all learn from that, eh?
Back to top	IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 95295
Gender: male

Re: Islam stifles basic science
Reply #92 - Mar 16^th, 2013 at 11:28pm

Soren wrote on Mar 16^th, 2013 at 11:20pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 16^th, 2013 at 9:40pm:

the evidence disagrees with you.

LOVE IT, LOVE IT,

LOVE IT

!!!

The Granuiad as the authority mustered by Islam!! Abso-fooking-priceless!!!! (how do you say that in classical Arabic? Translatable?)

Same as in Biblical Greek, innit.

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Islam stifles basic science
Reply #93 - Mar 17^th, 2013 at 9:27am

freediver wrote on Mar 16^th, 2013 at 11:07pm:

That's why I am asking you to explain why this guy would feel the need to pretend to be crazy. You brought him up. He is your example. The house arrest thing, pretending to be crazy, impossible engineering feats... It's not a good look, but I don't claim to be able to make sense of it. All I know is that every counterexample you bring up seems to undermine your own case, and this looks like going the same way.

picture me with a massive facepalm...

Can this discussion get any more absurd? You know FD, maybe - and I hope for your sake - you will look back on this debate one day and and think "oh dear God, did I really say that??"

This cute little anecdote has absolutely nothing to do with islam stifling science - its about (if its about anything), an engineer panicking after he realised he couldn't deliver what he had committed to delivering. One would expect this great 'stifling' islamic institution to, oh I don't know - actually *stifle* the work of this great scientist - instead of letting him thrive. I would expect this great science-stifling caliph to be rounding up scientists and demolishing their achievements - not open up a freaking centre of learning renound the world over Roll Eyes

freediver wrote on Mar 16^th, 2013 at 11:07pm:

I am not talking about what Baron said.

what Baron said is very revealing - he clearly tried to fob us off pretending that this house arrest had everything to do with apostasy. I want to highlight it, because its what you clown resort to - like your bald faced lying about what muslims claim about camel urine. Its clearly all you can do to maintain your incomprehensible argument.

freediver wrote on Mar 16^th, 2013 at 11:07pm:

Also, the article says nothing about him promising anything. He was ordered to do the impossible

wiki wrote:
Quote:

According to one version of his biography, overconfident about practical application of his mathematical knowledge, he assumed that he could regulate the floods of the Nile.[15] After being ordered by Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah, the sixth ruler of the Fatimid caliphate, to carry out this operation, he quickly perceived the impossibility of what he was attempting to do, and retired from engineering.

reading comprehension anyone?

Here's some accounts of Al Haytham that are actually relevant to our discussion:

Quote:

Using only logic like this and a few simple experimental materials – a pinhole in a curtain or a hollow straight tube – Ibn al-Haytham went on to deduce a great deal about modern optics. Light rays travel in straight lines. Light on flat mirrors is reflected in one set of ways, and on curved mirrors in others. Light is refracted (bent) when it moves from air to water.

Most importantly of all, Ibn al Haytham did all this good work using experiments and observations, writing out for his readers what they could do to show themselves the same evidence he had seen and reach the same conclusions

Quote:

Two hundred years passed after the death of the Arab scholar before a Christian monk took up a translated volume of the work and saw its value. Roger Bacon was our hero’s name.

Quote:

The reason science and engineering have been able to progress so much in our lifetimes is that the method of running experiments and testing results is enormously successful. But in the old world, it was far from clear that this approach would lead to the most sound results.

We owe Ibn al-Haytham and Roger Bacon a lot, not just for their good work on optics, but for recognizing the power of the scientific method that has given us so much today.

http://wsm.wsu.edu/discovery/index.php/tag/al-haytham/

Quote:

Ibn al-Haytham was the major ligure in the science of optics and the study of vision between Clas-sical civilization and the Renaissance.
...

later known in Europe as Alhazeni. His work represents the first major advance in optiœ after Euclid and Ptolemy of Alexandria and in visual physiology after Galen. We must wait until Kepler and Newton in the 17th and 18th Centuries for further fundamental understanding of the nature of light and until at
least Helmholtz in the 19th Century for further advances in understanding visual perception.

...

Like Leonardo, Ibn alHaytham was a polymath, contributing to astronomy, mathematics, philosophy as well as a variety of other subjects. Unlike Leonardo, who had little or no impact on suc-
cessive generations of scientists, Ibn al-llaytham’s influence was pervasive and usually recognized well into the 19th and 18th Centuries.

http://www.princeton.edu/~cggross/Bull_Islamic_Med_1981.pdf

Like I said, for the people who are actually expert in the relevant fields, the Al Haytham's of the muslim world are unquestioned as amongst the greatest contributors to scientific advancement.

Freediver on the other hand, derives his conclusions solely from wiki articles that are spoon fed to him - and he STILL can't even interpret those correctly. He definitely won't go out and find the information for himself.

You'll forgive me if I go with the experts on this one no?

« Last Edit: Mar 17^th, 2013 at 9:33am by polite_gandalf »

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Islam stifles basic science
Reply #94 - Mar 17^th, 2013 at 10:04am

freediver wrote on Mar 16^th, 2013 at 11:13pm:

If you think wikipedia is wrong, please enlighten us.

wikipedia may or may not be wrong (it can be written by anyone) - but you definitely are.

The relevant part of the article for our discussion is under the heading "legacy" - which I have quoted before:

Quote:

Max Meyerhoff states the following on Jabir ibn Hayyan: "His influence may be traced throughout the whole historic course of European alchemy and chemistry."[32]

The historian of chemistry Erick John Holmyard gives credit to Jābir for developing alchemy into an experimental science and he writes that Jābir's importance to the history of chemistry is equal to that of Robert Boyle and Antoine Lavoisier. The historian Paul Kraus, who had studied most of Jābir's extant works in Arabic and Latin, summarized the importance of Jābir to the history of chemistry by comparing his experimental and systematic works in chemistry with that of the allegorical and unintelligible works of the ancient Greek alchemists.

It may be all wrong, or it may be all right - amateurs like us can never really be sure. But the important point is that there are two sides of the story presented here - you refuse to look at both. You are never going to win any arguments being so selective.

freediver wrote on Mar 16^th, 2013 at 11:13pm:

I keep asking you for one that you think is most significant or who deserves to be on the top 100 list.

I have you three names already to include amongst "the greatest". They are obviously not the only ones though. Such giants of the scientific world are not denied their rightful status by anyone who actually knows what they are talking about. Like all the articles I have provided for you.

freediver wrote on Mar 16^th, 2013 at 11:13pm:

How about he didn't invent the hang glider, he just glued feathers to his arms and broke his neck?

Why do you keep saying he broke his neck? You are incredible - mocking me for supposedly embellishing the story and drawing baseless conclusions. What we can say for absolute certain is that none of the many sources testifying his successful flight, mention anything about him breaking his neck. If he broke his neck he wouldn't have lived for another 10 years.

freediver wrote on Mar 16^th, 2013 at 11:13pm:

These people squandered a golden opportunity, and the best that can be said about them is that they did not destroy too much knowledge.

Right - so says Freediver - the preeminent authority on the subject. Unfortunately, you just haven't been able to come up with any evidence that refutes the near-universal consensus amongst western experts (samples cited previously) that modern western science is indebted to the works of islamic scientists during the golden age.

Interestingly too - though not much discussed here, though I bring it up every now and then - you have failed to explain the existence of the greatest cities and learning centres of their time - namely Baghdad and Cordoba - amongst other great cultural centres like Cairo and Alexandria. And the fact that these centres thrived as great centres of knowledge and learning - including, significantly, between different religions and ethnicities - eg jews and muslims, as well as christians, and in Baghdad, where Persian knowledge and scholars were imported as part of the thirst for knowledge.

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48833
At my desk.

Re: Islam stifles basic science
Reply #95 - Mar 17^th, 2013 at 10:34am

Quote:

This cute little anecdote has absolutely nothing to do with islam stifling science

And yet we just found a second example (one of yours again) of a great scientist (note I did not say greatest) being put under house arrest. If I keep looking into your examples, how many more will I find?

Quote:

One would expect this great 'stifling' islamic institution to, oh I don't know - actually *stifle* the work of this great scientist - instead of letting him thrive

What do you think pretending to be mad is? Stifling or thriving?

Quote:

what Baron said is very revealing - he clearly tried to fob us off pretending that this house arrest had everything to do with apostasy.

Your explanation seems equally odd. You keep claiming he promised what he could not deliver, but the evidence suggests he was simply ordered by the Caliph to do the impossible.

Quote:

reading comprehension anyone?

Do you know the difference between an assumption and a promise? What about the difference between an order and a promise?

Quote:

Like I said, for the people who are actually expert in the relevant fields, the Al Haytham's of the muslim world are unquestioned as amongst the greatest contributors to scientific advancement.

Should they be in the top 100?

Quote:

Freediver on the other hand, derives his conclusions solely from wiki articles that are spoon fed to him

I am merely using your own evidence to contradict your argument.

Quote:

and he STILL can't even interpret those correctly. He definitely won't go out and find the information for himself

So what did the bird feather guy's invention look like? A hang glider? Angel wings? A helicopter?

Quote:

You'll forgive me if I go with the experts on this one no?

What if the experts disagree with each other? Would you still refuse to think for yourself? You could probably find experts to tell you that the bird feather guy invented the hang glider if you looked hard enough.

Quote:

It may be all wrong, or it may be all right - amateurs like us can never really be sure. But the important point is that there are two sides of the story presented here - you refuse to look at both.

But I am looking at both. That is how I am able to point out that every bit of evidence you have presented so far actually supports my argument that Islam stifles basic science.

Quote:

I have you three names already to include amongst "the greatest". They are obviously not the only ones though.

I can only look into one at a time. So far I have looked into whoever topped whatever list you provided, and the result has been far from good for Islam. Instead of me choosing them, I have suggested that you say who is the best example, but you refuse to do so.

Are you suggesting that instead of this, we accept your list at face value and look into none of them? Or that I look into every one before I comment on any of them?

Quote:

Why do you keep saying he broke his neck?

It is one of the many stories going round about him. Like you claiming he invented the hang glider.

Quote:

What we can say for absolute certain is that none of the many sources testifying his successful flight

You mean the single one line primary source from a poet who liked to mock him that mentions bird feathers and flying faster than a phoenix?

Quote:

mention anything about him breaking his neck.

They don't mention anything about hang gliders either. They don't say anything at all about his supposed flying machine, which is why Muslims have gone to town filling in the blanks with their elaborate fantasies that you swallow hook line and sinker. You admitted you are wrong about the hang glider. But now you insist his invention was identical to someone else's, even though there is no evidence for that either, and we don't actually know what that other invention looked like anyway. You go on and on about primary and secondary sources as if they back your claims up, but they don't. The existence of the source does not mean it supports whatever elaborate fantasy Muslims feel compelled to invent around a one line reference to a phoenix.

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Islam stifles basic science
Reply #96 - Mar 17^th, 2013 at 10:54am

freediver wrote on Mar 17^th, 2013 at 10:34am:

And yet we just found a second example (one of yours again) of a great scientist (note I did not say greatest) being put under house arrest.

um no its the same person, same story. Bit of a habit of yours - turning one example into two isn't it?

What was I saying about reading comprehension again? Explain to me again how I'm supposed to take anything you interpret from articles seriously? This on top of blatantly lying about what muslims say. You are an intellectual joke.

freediver wrote on Mar 17^th, 2013 at 10:34am:

What if the experts disagree with each other? Would you still refuse to think for yourself?

show me where any expert claims that islamic science made little or no contribution to modern science.

See "thinking for yourself" in fields you are not expert in, is about weighing up the consensus of what the experts say. I have only heard people giving the highest credit for islamic science, and acknowledging the contribution it made to modern science. I have not heard any of the experts saying otherwise - let alone seeing any sort of consensus. If you believe there is, please show me. Oh wait, that would mean researching for yourself - we can't have that!

freediver wrote on Mar 17^th, 2013 at 10:34am:

hang glider

wow thats really all you've got isn't it? Nothing about the curious existence of the greatest cities the world has ever known? Nothing about the cross-cultural, cross-cultural centres of learning that thrived during the time the Europeans were languishing in the dark ages? Nothing about the actual scientific contributions of the many prominent islamic scienctists in fields of physics, maths, medicine etc?

No, it all has to come back to the hang glider. I guess that literally is all you have - after the camel urine claim was exposed for the blatant lie that it is.

As if it matters, but it was a gliding apparatus, achieved by fixing wings to his hands - and possibly feet. Whether you call it a "hang glider" is rather irrelevant, the principle is the same. The only relevant point is that his apparatus - by all accounts - worked and he achieved flight. I simply can't see the logic of believing one flying account based on a single secondary source, but dismissing another that has several secondary sources, plus a primary account, as "obviously fabricated". Since it was the first documented flight, I don't see the problem with people - muslims as well as non-muslims (in fact I can't find anyone who really doubts the story - certainly not taking the absurd position that it was "obviously fabricated) hailing this as the "first known documented flight attempt".

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48833
At my desk.

Re: Islam stifles basic science
Reply #97 - Mar 17^th, 2013 at 11:12am

Quote:

um no its the same person, same story. Bit of a habit of yours - turning one example into two isn't it?

How many examples do you have of me doing this gandalf? One or two? When does it become a habit?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C4%81bir_ibn_Hayy%C4%81n

Jābir was placed under house arrest in Kufa, where he remained until his death.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alhazen

Fearing for his life, he feigned madness[1][16] and was placed under house arrest

Quote:

What was I saying about reading comprehension again? Explain to me again how I'm supposed to take anything you interpret from articles seriously? This on top of blatantly lying about what muslims say. You are an intellectual joke.

Don't get carried away Gandalf, you'll just make yourself look silly.

Quote:

show me where any expert claims that islamic science made little or no contribution to modern science

There are expert's who disagree with Kraus' assessment. They do so from a more informed position. You can hardly blame Kraus for taking Muslims at their word, it is a common mistake, but when the truth comes out it is a bit silly to cling to his original assessment.

Quote:

I have only heard people giving the highest credit for Islamic science, and acknowledging the contribution it made to modern science.

Except of course that not a single Muslim scientist made it onto the top 100 list, and your own evidence cites experts questioning the validity of the claims attributed to them.

Quote:

I have not heard any of the experts saying otherwise

I have pointed out to you where it says these things in your own evidence.

Quote:

let alone seeing any sort of consensus

There is no consensus because there is no real debate. For example there is no serious investigation into what the bird feather guy's invention was. It suffices to say that the only evidence over 700 years was a one line reference to bird feathers and a phoenix in a poem from an author who enjoyed mocking the guy. For most people, that is the end of the discussion.

Quote:

wow thats really all you've got isn't it? Nothing about the curious existence of the greatest cities the world has ever known?

I actually have referred to these many times throughout this discussion. Are you getting forgetful?

Quote:

As if it matters, but it was a gliding apparatus, achieved by fixing wings to his hands - and possibly feet.

Actually I think it does matter. Have you ever seen anyone fly with such an apparatus? Is it even possible, even with modern technology? Does the fact that it is not even possible undermine your argument?

Quote:

Whether you call it a "hang glider" is rather irrelevant, the principle is the same.

Have you gone back to claiming it is a hang glider? You claimed earlier that you invented this story.

Quote:

The only relevant point is that his apparatus - by all accounts - worked and he achieved flight.

By one account - a one line reference to vulture feathers and a phoenix from a poet who liked to mock him. BTW, the internet is full of 'secondary sources' that say it was a hang glider. Do they prove anything?

Quote:

I simply can't see the logic of believing one flying account based on a single secondary source, but dismissing another that has several secondary sources

Who is doing this?

Quote:

Since it was the first documented flight, I don't see the problem with people - muslims as well as non-muslims (in fact I can't find anyone who really doubts the story - certainly not taking the absurd position that it was "obviously fabricated) hailing this as the "first known documented flight attempt".

Gandalf, please explain to me the difference between attempting to fly and actually flying. This appears to be a sticking point for you.

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 95295
Gender: male

Re: Islam stifles basic science
Reply #98 - Mar 17^th, 2013 at 11:59am

You two will never uncover the truth back and forth like this. You need to learn from the old boy. He’s scientific. His maxim, "never ever", is quoted in schools and universities throughout the world. It comes from the Biblical Greek, paustos. Apparently the old boy’s an expert.

Over the years, the old boy has added to it. Never ever ever has entered the popular lexicon, a truism used by schoolboys throughout the non-tinted world. The old boy’s later maxim, "as every schoolboy knows", highlights this. Schoolboys, you see, are the experts in this field.

These theorum have been developed, of course, by Freediver’s "not it’s not". However, this has been rebutted by Gandalf’s "yes it is".

I’d stick to the old boy argument if I was you.

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Islam stifles basic science
Reply #99 - Mar 17^th, 2013 at 2:28pm

freediver wrote on Mar 17^th, 2013 at 11:12am:

How many examples do you have of me doing this gandalf? One or two? When does it become a habit?

Sorry, I must be getting confused by all the times you make up stories about what muslims say.

Yes, it seems that Mr Jabir also was put under house arrest. Seems he associated himself with the wrong noble family - and paid for this when that family fell from grace. Again, this is something totally unique to the muslim world, and absolutely never would have happened in "non-science-stifling" societies.

freediver wrote on Mar 17^th, 2013 at 11:12am:

Who? Where? Show me.

And Max Meyerhoff? And Erick John Holmyard? Those too? Funny, I didn't see any such informed disagreement.

But its hardly answering my question. I asked for a scientific consensus disputing the idea that islamic science had a significant influence on modern science. But you won't find one, because none exists.

freediver wrote on Mar 17^th, 2013 at 11:12am:

There is no consensus because there is no real debate. For example there is no serious investigation into what the bird feather guy's invention was.

Yes, because as you keep reminding us, Ibn Firnas's flight is the be-all and end-all of islam's claim to scientific contribution. That and the camel urine drinking - oh wait, you just made that up... oops - sorry to keep bringing that up, I know you hate to talk about that Embarrassed

But of course there is no real debate about the contribution of the likes of Al Haytham in contributing the knowledge we now have of optics, as well as developing the scientific method, the astronomer al-Battani who accurately calculated the length of the solar year, and al-Khwarizmi who developed algebra. There is no debate, because it is not disputed. Everyone except Freediver acknowledges these great contributions. I wonder why you never want to talk about these guys. Much more fun to nitpick the obscurities rather than to acknowledge the big picture I guess Undecided

.

freediver wrote on Mar 17^th, 2013 at 11:12am:

I actually have referred to these many times throughout this discussion. Are you getting forgetful?

I must be. Please bear with me and remind me again - how does the existence of the greatest cultural and learning centres the world had ever seen equate to "stifling" science? I really hope I don't miss this again, because it will be most interesting to solve this seeming paradox.

freediver wrote on Mar 17^th, 2013 at 11:12am:

Does the fact that it is not even possible undermine your argument?

Who says its not possible? Another imaginary scientific "consensus" is it? I'm calling bullshit on that one.

freediver wrote on Mar 17^th, 2013 at 11:12am:

Have you gone back to claiming it is a hang glider? You claimed earlier that you invented this story.

I guess I have. But you keep concentrating on these little details FD, don't you worry yourself with the important things like the consensus regarding islam's contribution to modern science.

freediver wrote on Mar 17^th, 2013 at 11:12am:

Gandalf, please explain to me the difference between attempting to fly and actually flying. This appears to be a sticking point for you

No, I have shown you all the sources that clearly state his flight was successful. The idea that he jumped off a roof and fell straight to the ground is entirely your invention. No one else is saying that. Please don't confuse your own fabrications to what the evidence actually says.

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

Adamant

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1892
Brisbane

Re: Islam stifles basic science
Reply #100 - Mar 17^th, 2013 at 3:12pm

show me where any expert claims that islamic science made little or no contribution to modern science.

Here You Go Gandalf.

Arabic philosophy is not important as original thought. Men like Avicenna and Averroes are
essentially commentators. Speaking generally, the views of the more scientific philosophers come
from Aristotle and the Neoplatonists in logic and metaphysics, from Galen in medicine, from
Greek and Indian sources in mathematics and astronomy, and among mystics religious philosophy
has also an admixture of old Persian beliefs. Writers in Arabic showed some originality in
mathematics and in chemistry--in the latter case, as an incidental result of alchemical researches.
Mohammedan civilization in its great days was admirable in the arts and in many technical ways,
but it showed no capacity for independent speculation in theoretical matters. Its importance, which
must not be underrated, is as a transmitter.

Yes they were transmitters of knowledge not the creaters of it.

http://www.ntslibrary.com/PDF%20Books/History%20of%20Western%20Philosophy.pdf

« Last Edit: Mar 17^th, 2013 at 3:17pm by Adamant »

In real life Gandalf is known as Mr 10%

IP Logged

Adamant Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 1892 Brisbane	Re: Islam stifles basic science Reply #101 - Mar 17^th, 2013 at 3:23pm This is the new age of Islamic scientists FD. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58_hsyJ0CdY Do you think that Camel Urine will kill the Devils Digit?
Back to top	In real life Gandalf is known as Mr 10% IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Islam stifles basic science
Reply #102 - Mar 17^th, 2013 at 3:59pm

Adamant wrote on Mar 17^th, 2013 at 3:12pm:

Here You Go Gandalf.

Yes, I have read Bertrand Russell as well. A great philosopher to be sure, but in many respects - such as his views on islam - he was a product of his time: he wrote that book in 1946, and those rather antiquated ideas about islam ("Mohammadans" as Europeans called them then), have well and trully been superseded by more contemporary works.

The record has been well and truly put straight.

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Islam stifles basic science
Reply #103 - Mar 17^th, 2013 at 7:27pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 17^th, 2013 at 3:59pm:

Adamant wrote on Mar 17^th, 2013 at 3:12pm:

Here You Go Gandalf.

Antiquated ideas about Islam in 1946? How has Islam changed since 1946?

1546?

1046?

732?

Has there been some updating of Islam in 1400 years? I have never heard of any. Has anyone else??

IP Logged

Adamant

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1892
Brisbane

Re: Islam stifles basic science
Reply #104 - Mar 17^th, 2013 at 8:21pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 17^th, 2013 at 3:59pm:

Adamant wrote on Mar 17^th, 2013 at 3:12pm:

Here You Go Gandalf.

Yes Gandalf the record is being put straight by many people who believe in the truth, no amount of rewriting history by the muslim can be tolerated. The truth about islam must be told. We as humans Must eradicate islam. Call it jihad if you like.

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property - either as a child, a wife, or a concubine - must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen; all know how to die; but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science - the science against which it had vainly struggled - the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient" Rome.

Read Winston Churchill as well have you Gandalf?

In real life Gandalf is known as Mr 10%

IP Logged

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 ... 21

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

« Forum

‹ Board

Top of this page