polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 14^th, 2014 at 11:46am:


Ghandi from a Christian perspective would be termed a false prophet right along with mohammed so from that perspective their would be no surprises in his stamp of approval on another false prophet. It is interesting he also rejected Christianity citing Christians not Jesus as the fault but conveniently ignored every muslim on the planet  . For him to embrace Christianity meant losing his status. To embrace Islam no such loss, old Ghandi wasn't dumb. Just like mohammed and his book couldn't embrace Christianity.

James Michener doesn't speak for all modern scholars for starters.

Bernard Lewis clearly lacks knowledge of what the Quar'an actually says.

George Bernard Shaw clearly writes as though he is a muslim and is ignorant to many of the facts of mohammeds life and islam.


Most claimed to have studied, most clearly cherry pick and ignore the full story and writings. Making a claim to have studied is not a right of passage until one has. Claiming to speak on behalf of all modern scholars is just ludicrous.

All one has to do is look at its fruits according to its core doctrine.

Abbott Lies wrote on Jul 17^th, 2014 at 1:33am:


"If Mohammed were here now there is one thing he would be doing — fighting jihad in Syria and Iraq."

- Soren

Mattywisk wrote on Jul 17^th, 2014 at 1:42am:


Not all, but most. As he stated, no modern scholar accepts the simplistic "Islam spread by the sword" mantra.

Mattywisk wrote on Jul 17^th, 2014 at 1:42am:


This just comes across as sour grapes.  Shaw is a leading western authority on middle eastern and islamic history.

I never meant this as a "my quotes are better than yours" exercise - but in a thread about what non-muslims think about islam, it is relevant to give the opposing views. Herb clearly intended this thread to be about how all "men of repute" throughout western history, agreed with his version of what islam and muslims are about. My point was only to say that they demonstrably do not - not even close.

But, since you bring it up...

You say Shaw "clearly lacks knowledge of what the Quar'an actually says" - which is extremely rich, since you imply that his views are somehow less authoritative than say George S Patton or Carl Jung. Tell me, do you think Patton (a military leader) or Carl Jung (a psychologist) had a better knowledge of what the Quran says than a pre-eminent historian of islam? Laughable.

If it comes down to knowledge and understanding of the Quran and muslims, my boys win hands down 

Mattywisk wrote on Jul 17^th, 2014 at 1:42am:


Quote:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Lewis]

Matty you don't get to be an Emeritus Professor of Near Eastern Studies without at least a working knowledge of the Koran.  Your Christian bigotry has the better of your thinking but isn't unusual for you, now is it?   

Soren wrote on Jul 17^th, 2014 at 7:55pm:


We would be a lot closer to setting the agenda if non-muslim critics like your good self gave us some moral support rather than bagging us out all the time 

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 17^th, 2014 at 8:07pm:


Let me know when your next march is against Islamic fundamentalism and we will walk arm in arm.

Or why not start an anti-niqab/burqa campaign in Australia, like this guy in Britain.

"According to Dr Hargey, everyone in Britain, including Muslims, should oppose the insidious spread of the burka, which he says imprisons women, threatens social harmony, fuels distrust, has grave health implications and is a potent security risk"


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2695181/Why-I-Muslim-launching-campaign-...


Credibility, innit.

I think this quote sums islam up.

Arabic philosophy is not important as original thought. Men like Avicenna and Averroes arc essentially commentators. Speaking generally, the views of the more scientific philosophers come from Aristotle and the Neophitonists 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. Moham-
medan 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. Between ancient and modern
European civilization, the dark ages intervened. The Moham-
medans and the Byzantines, while lacking the intellectual energy
required for innovation, preserved the apparatus of civilization—
education, books, and learned leisure. Both stimulated the West
when it emerged from barbarism—the Mohammedans chiefly in
the thirteenth century, the Byzantines chiefly in the fifteenth. In
each case the stimulus produced new thought better than any
produced by the transmitters.

Bertrand Russell  "A History of Western Philosophy" pages 447 448.

Of course you'd think it sums Islam up.  Most knowledgeable historians know otherwise.