Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

A Disturbing Essay on Islamic Scientific Development

page: 7
48
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 07:42 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 

I think religions are like vehicles,or set of policies which can perform multiple tasks depending on who is operating them at the time....There has been numerous bloodshed in the name of all religions all throughout the history...I also think only people and nations contribute to humanity,not the systems or religions....Einstein is not the fruit of a certain faith,he is representing a nation or a race or the whole humanity in general....We have all created the world as it is today no matter where we came from or what god we supposed to have been worshiping.




posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 07:57 AM
link   
reply to post by something wicked
 

Dear something wicked,

Very good points. It's a nice post to wake up to, thanks. But go easy on me. Disingenuous?

lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically ingenuous; insincere.
I'm trying to play it straight here.


I find it interesting that the Muslim winners listed in wiki are all in Muslim states - are they definitely Muslim, or is that an assumption based on their location?
Good point, I don't know. If they do count everyone in a Muslim state, that would include however many non-Muslims are living there. Wouldn't that tend to increase the chances for a Nobel? Anyway, here's a source for the count of Muslim prize winners: en.wikipedia.org...
I don't know, but I would think that if a Prize winner was Muslim, the world would be told about it.

Personally all that I can see from the Nobel list is that it historically has been won typically by white western males. I'm not sure if that says more about the nomination process than anything else, but I have a suspicion it does.
You're absolutely right about the type of winners. Prejudice and conspiracy? Maybe, but that's not the first thought that comes to my mind.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 08:16 AM
link   
Something wicked encouraged me to do a little more looking outside of the essay, and I think I found some interesting things.

What appears to be a Muslim website has some comments on the question of Muslim Nobel Laureates:

I don't believe we should count our success or failure down to petty worldly awards how many peace loving real people are hailed or even recongnised, these statistics aren't a true reflection on Muslims as a whole.

Strive for gaining rewards from Allah and helping the community around you, if you look for Worldly recognition you will be only rewarded on this earth and not where it truly matter which is in the hereafter.

We really don't care, winning the nobel prize was never on our priority list.

I do think Islamic interpretation does not allow for excellence as it is perceived as being too attached to this World, we are encouraged to abandon this World for the next. The problem with that thought is that we have become the Worlds punching bag, and have no real autonomy over World decisions. God has never intended us to become enslaved to people so that we can be oppressed, hence why there have been many wars in Early Islamic history.

Ofcourse then we will always feel secondary to a powerful productive nation like the USA or UK; and it has become a confidence issue with us. Learning is good it allows appreciation of Gods' bounty, and will help towards more equal treatment in the World. But who are these people that can achieve such heights being restrained in lack of opportunties and lack of resources.

The Nobel prize is an achievment in Dunya. When we start making achievments in Deen, then maybe Allah (swt) will honour us with achievments in Dunya also. When we're not true to our deen, Allah (swt) will not honour our dunya.

In my opinion I think that we have become so attached to the dunya and far less attached to the Sunnah of RasoolAllah Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam that we have forgotten our purpose in life. Its like we are so concerned about winning these awards that we forget why we are here. There have been many great men of Islam in the past who were appreciated by non Muslims and how many great Muslims are out there today ? If we were to come back to the Sunnah of RasoolAllah Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam and do things perfectly we would be winning awards everyday without thinking twice about it.
Muslim comments on the Prize disparity.

It seems, at least for these posters, that the Nobel Prizes in Science are pretty low on their "Things to do" list. Which is fine, it's their call. But then there's this:

Moscow: Iran, which only has one Nobel Prize laureate, announced the inception of a rival award intended solely for outstanding scientists of the Islamic world, the country's news agency Fars said on Saturday.

The Great Prophet World Prize will be bestowed biennially on "the Muslim world scientists in three technological fields in which Iran has also made outstanding progress," said Iranian Vice President for Science and Technology Nasrin Soltankhah.

She did not identify the fields covered by the Great Prophet World Prize, but said it would help prepare Muslim scientists for tighter competition over global awards such as the Nobel Prize, identified in the report as "the Noble prize."

The only Iranian to win it so far has been human rights activist Shirin Ebadi, now living in London, who received the Nobel Peace Prize in 2003.
www.ndtv.com...

I could be wrong, but it seems as though Muslim countries want the awards, realize that they're not winning as many as they'd like, and a goodly number are saying "Fine. We didn't want those Prizes anyway. Besides we have our religion which is far more important."

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 08:30 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


The first link is basically saying, "Yeah. We never win that award. Besides, who wants that stupid award anyway".


The second link kind of supports that view. "You don't want me in your club, i will go make my own club".

From a scientific viewpoint, Iran is quite a bit ahead of its neighbors, however.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 09:06 AM
link   
Neil deGrasse Tyson has an amazing talk on this very subject. It is here:


It's very interesting around 23 minutes if doesn't want to watch the whole thing, but I recommend it.

He brings up some really valid points and really made me think about the whole thing. I personally don't agree with the author from the OP ...

The author tries to take away achievements from 'Muslims / Islam' and attribute them to something else, but how is this any different from American Christians? American Christians claim that their entire society is informed by Judeo-Christian values or some such and point to 'Christian Philosophers' ... except hundreds of years ago, every single person was Christian almost because it was a terrible idea not to be.

Voltaire was received harshly at times just for being skeptical, and even those speaking out for freedom of speech and thought *still* agreed that excluding Atheists was a good idea. Religion is complex ...

Societies and cultures are a billion times more complex than the author seems to imply. You can't just blame Islam for a decline in scientific progress alone, because there are so many other factors that influence how a society thinks - education levels especially.

I simply don't believe many countries in Europe and places like America can go back to being exclusively driven by religious logic, but I do believe other cultures are recovering from epidemics of 'lack of understanding' which leads to religious thinking.

It's not something to gloat over. It doesn't make Christians and Jews 'okay' and 'right' but Muslims 'evil' ... I'm inclined to believe most religious thinking is wrong, and you're just lucky if you're in a country where you don't have to obey it.

One thing I would say ... what a lot of Christians who take shots at Muslims don't realize is ... once Muslim (and some other) faiths are scratched off the list, do you know who's next? (For anyone thinking I'm being threatening to religious faiths ... unfortunately you don't need to worry, we will have invented another 20 religions by then!)



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by something wicked
 

Dear something wicked,

Very good points. It's a nice post to wake up to, thanks. But go easy on me. Disingenuous?

lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically ingenuous; insincere.
I'm trying to play it straight here.


I find it interesting that the Muslim winners listed in wiki are all in Muslim states - are they definitely Muslim, or is that an assumption based on their location?
Good point, I don't know. If they do count everyone in a Muslim state, that would include however many non-Muslims are living there. Wouldn't that tend to increase the chances for a Nobel? Anyway, here's a source for the count of Muslim prize winners: en.wikipedia.org...
I don't know, but I would think that if a Prize winner was Muslim, the world would be told about it.

Personally all that I can see from the Nobel list is that it historically has been won typically by white western males. I'm not sure if that says more about the nomination process than anything else, but I have a suspicion it does.
You're absolutely right about the type of winners. Prejudice and conspiracy? Maybe, but that's not the first thought that comes to my mind.

With respect,
Charles1952




Hi Charles,

As always your post is thoughtful and thought provoking - trust me I wasn't referring to you as being disingenuous, rather the actual concept to which you referred that as a rule, a list such as Nobel prize winners was anything other than a list of Nobel prize winners. Many things could be derived from it, but is that seeing a real conspiracy, or more looking to find one?

It is of course open to further questions - if I should convert to Islam tomorrow and win the Nobel prize (little chance of either at the moment), I would show in that wiki link as a Muslim Nobel prize winner - but it kind of shows how little value can be gained from making any assumptions based on that information.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 11:42 AM
link   
Hey Charles!

I have to admit, I only read the first page of your thread, 7 pages is a lot to wade through. However, some thoughts of mine.

As Mideast mentioned, that the author of the article you quoted is biased is undeniable. However, the next question,would be, is what he said TRUE?
His clear implication (or more accurately, your implication from what you quoted off the article) is that Islam contributed nothing to the sciences, and everything from there was rehashed stuff from earlier civilisations.
This can be said to be patently, obviously, emphatically false.
I suppose it could be said that there is nothing new under the sun, and every single idea on earth is a rehashing of an older idea. If however, you don't subscribe to such an extreme position, it is again undeniable that Islam (in your sense of the word, meaning the culture) contributed TREMENDOUSLY to the development and advancement of the sciences. It did it directly, in that such "Islamic" scholars came up with so many new things (I could provide a list several feet long from just wikipedia, of all the "Islamic" scientists and their achievements, that even the author of your article would not be able to tackle), as well as through a redirection of the approach to sciences, and in providing a society and situation where such scientific thought and discussion would flourish.

I've discussed on here with dontreally before, and he has an interesting focus on how the esoteric and metaphysical aspects of some branches (or even specific people) of Islam are a reflection of the entirety of Islamic thought and motivation, which I don't consider true at all, but he's brought up Ghazali before, which I find interesting. Dontreally brings him up because of Ghazali's opposition to Plato, and Aristotle, and the entire Greek Philosophical movement, (Ghazali penned a book titled "The Incoherence of the Philosophers"), and uses that as a basis to show that Islam discards logic and rational thought and science.
The interesting thing is that it is this VERY OPPOSITION to those philosophers that reframed the mindset of these "Islamic" scientists, and lead to the very concept of the "scientific method"!
Ghazali spoke against the greek philosophers in terms of their approach to science. That they would approach a problem purely through logic, find a "logically sound" solution that was mentally pleasing, and then be satisfied and move on to the next one.
It is interesting that most of the founding fathers of the empirical scientific method are all "Islamic" scholars. They performed experiments, made theories, tested those theories out in their experiments, etc.

Heck, even historically, comparing arabs before and after Islam, negates and disproves the author completely.

It certainly is a disturbing article, if only for how the author takes such an insanely revisionist approach to history, perhaps because of a desire for some sort of assertion of superiority based off either bigotry or in an attempt at desensitisation and dehumanisation of muslims and islam to justify some political or idealogical mindset.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by babloyi
 


and all that under the relative stability of the Byzantine Empire.

Without such a stable system....has the same held true? Iran is an example of a nation that has flourished on its own (often in spite of itself, and usually in spite of western desires).



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by babloyi
 

Dear babloyi,

You honor me with your presence. May I ask a favor? I, also, have trouble reading through multi-page threads, but the posters in this one are unique. I know ATS is a swamp with only a few nuggets, but the guys in this thread have created a big nugget. Everybody is adding something and there is no screaming, even though this is a controversial topic. Please read it, just to see how good ATS can be. (And yes, I include your contribution as well.)

His clear implication (or more accurately, your implication from what you quoted off the article) is that Islam contributed nothing to the sciences, and everything from there was rehashed stuff from earlier civilisations.
This can be said to be patently, obviously, emphatically false.
From what I've seen, it's not as clearly false as one might think. A fair case can be, and indeed has been made, that Islamic contributions have been minimal.

As Bernard Lewis explains in his book What Went Wrong? the Moslem Empire inherited "the knowledge and skills of the ancient Middle east, of Greece and of Persia, it added to them new and important innovations from outside, such as the manufacture of paper from China and decimal positional numbering from India." The decimal numbers were thus transmitted to the West, where they are still mistakenly known as "Arabic" numbers, honoring not their inventors but their transmitters.

Furthermore, the intellectual achievements of Islam’s "golden age" were of limited value. There was a lot of speculation and very little application, be it in technology or politics. At the present day, for almost a thousand years even speculation has stopped, and the bounds of what is considered orthodox Islam have frozen, except when they have even contracted, as in the case of Wahabism.
archive.frontpagemag.com...


as well as through a redirection of the approach to sciences, and in providing a society and situation where such scientific thought and discussion would flourish.
Does that society and situation still exist? It seems that it does not.

Is it correct to say that the pre-Islamists were not experimenters? No. Is it fair to say that that Islamic scholars provided the basis for most of the disciplines in scientific method? Again, no.

An Egyptian medical textbook, the Edwin Smith papyrus, (c. 1600 BC), applies the following components: examination, diagnosis, treatment and prognosis, to the treatment of disease, which display strong parallels to the basic empirical method of science and according to G. E. R. Lloyd played a significant role in the development of this methodology. The Ebers papyrus (c. 1550 BC) also contains evidence of traditional empiricism.


By the middle of the 1st millennium BC in Mesopotamia, Babylonian astronomy had evolved into the earliest example of a scientific astronomy, as it was "the first and highly successful attempt at giving a refined mathematical description of astronomical phenomena." According to the historian Asger Aaboe, "all subsequent varieties of scientific astronomy, in the Hellenistic world, in India, in Islam, and in the West – if not indeed all subsequent endeavour in the exact sciences – depend upon Babylonian astronomy in decisive and fundamental ways.


In the 3rd and 4th centuries BC, the Greek physicians Herophilos (335–280 BC) and Erasistratus of Chios employed experiments to further their medical research; Erasistratus at one time repeatedly weighing a caged bird, and noting its weight loss between feeding times.
en.wikipedia.org...


It certainly is a disturbing article, if only for how the author takes such an insanely revisionist approach to history, perhaps because of a desire for some sort of assertion of superiority based off either bigotry or in an attempt at desensitisation and dehumanisation of muslims and islam to justify some political or idealogical mindset.
Wow, pretty strong stuff there. I'm not convinced that his arguments are so irrational.

Anyway, please check the rest of the thread, you'll be well rewarded.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by mideast
reply to post by LABTECH767
 


What can I say ?

If you want the truth about Islam , dig deeper for yourself.


I know the truth , i been there ( several islamic countries), i dont need a book to see and know they have horrible society .



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 08:57 PM
link   
the validity of this source must be questioned considering it has completely overlooked the relative religious tolerance of ancient Islamic empires, in comparison to that of Jewish, Christian, Pagan and other monotheistic civilizations.

Consider, that when Christian empires, like the one in Constantinople, and Zoroastrian empires, would conquer regions, they would force upon them a uniform religion (i.e. the state religion) and widely persecute and slaughter non-believers.

On the other hand, Islamic empires were far more tolerant. Yes they would persecute Pagans, even though their tribes were once Pagan, however, the people of the book (Christians, Jews, and to my surprise most other monotheistic religions including Zoroastrians despite the fact they are actually not people of the book) were tolerated and protected. They had to pay taxes to the Ummah, but they were not slaughtered and were permitted to create their own laws and govern themselves within the framework of their own religion. They were permitted to own their own property (of course some empires would violate this during different stages).



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 12:40 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 

Perhaps the results you discovered have something to do with the assassination of Palestinian doctors, teachers, scientist, etc. Ya think?
Don't suppose they have the same records archived from twenty or thirty years ago before having more than an eighth grade education made one a target for Mossad.
I will concede the last statement might make me sound a bit biased but it is only a question. The archived information would be a collection of objective numerical data.
That is, assuming it is neither stored or presented by Israeli archivist.
But if my memory is correct and they did have the highest per capita rate in the world before a few thousand assassinations were carried out, the fact that these people have been murdered and are not alive today does not invalidate my point. Thank you.



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 01:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Puck 22
 

Dear Puck22,

Thanks for writing back, but it doesn't really clear things up for me. I must be a little slow.

It sounds as if your saying that huge numbers of Palestinian intellectuals were killed by Israeli spies, and that's why the Islamic world is not writing scientific articles or winning Nobel Prizes. Is that what you meant?

If so, why would the Palestinian scientists be the world's best, and those from surrounding Islamic countries be among the world's least productive? Is it possible that the Palestinian scientists moved out of Palestine and did their work in more favorable countries? If so, I think that is the author's point.

If Palestine had thousands of serious, productive, scientists, wouldn't Egypt or Saudi Arabia have many times more? I'm just a little confused.

With respect,
charles1952



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 02:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by xavi1000

Originally posted by mideast
reply to post by LABTECH767
 


What can I say ?

If you want the truth about Islam , dig deeper for yourself.


I know the truth , i been there ( several islamic countries), i dont need a book to see and know they have horrible society .

i hope you did not go with a gun and military boots!!
That is kind of a spoiler to know muslim society.
Maybe you also find them horrible because you didnt get your beer!
So tell me why you had to go to these horrible places?



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 02:53 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 





It sounds as if your saying that huge numbers of Palestinian intellectuals were killed by Israeli spies, and that's why the Islamic world is not writing scientific articles or winning Nobel Prizes. Is that what you meant?

i guess it means that the author in your OP and you as you posts it are over simplifying observations to reach an already desired conclusion.

Its like you claim Afghanistan lacks academics/intellectuals and infrastructure and thats because they are muslims!
What about being ravaged by wars repeatedly?
Lets see how many PhDs america produces after being destroyed and occupied for 12 years.

The majority muslim countries were colonised till the middle of 20th centuries and the colonisers don't seem eager to leave even now and came back in the name of 'war on terror'!!

To prosper intellectually the basic requirement is peace.
Islamic golden age provided that and caused an exponential increase in the study of academic fields,
till christian kings and queens destroyed the peace and later crusaders and now the 'peace keepers' with their depleted uranium bombs.
So before we produce scientists and PhDs, we need to kick out the military and economic neo-colonisers/neo-crusaders and don't worry Charles we'l do it!



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 05:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by buster2010

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
reply to post by charles1952
 


I believe he makes quite valid points. Considering the deplorable conditions in many Islamic countries today, it would be difficult in the extreme to call them "advanced". One place my husband deployed, he told me the locals were doing their laundry in a nasty, muddy water hole that literally had sewage in it.


And what is the main reason behind a lot of the deplorable conditions? It couldn't be because many of these places have been bombed to death over the last few decades? And if your husband was deployed there it wasn't for a picnic was it?


Do you think people were deployed there just because? We went because people in those areas have been attacking people in other countries for decades. I was aware of this as a teen, and that's some time back. The conditions are that way because they don't do anything to improve them, and didn't before any bombs were dropped. In fact, some are better off now, with improvements made since we have been there.

Not all cultures are equally advanced. And, yes, i know not all there are terrorists. Some that my husband talked to, that he worked with, were very nice people. They didn't understand why the radicals do what they do, either.



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 05:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by MrInquisitive
reply to post by charles1952
 


Check out this ATS thread that shows a 4th-grade Christian school science quiz, if you want to see evidence of a stupefying religion:

www.abovetopsecret.com...


That quiz seems like it is a hoax. There is just no way that 1 quiz would have every single question relating to creationist talking points while ignoring everything else.


Well, as one that home schools, and has used Christian-based curriculum, I can tell you that is total BS. That isn't even on a level for a first grade quiz, and as you pointed out, there isn't anything there at all, other than creation. That isn't how science is taught. You are right - it's a hoax.



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by logical7
reply to post by charles1952
 





It sounds as if your saying that huge numbers of Palestinian intellectuals were killed by Israeli spies, and that's why the Islamic world is not writing scientific articles or winning Nobel Prizes. Is that what you meant?

i guess it means that the author in your OP and you as you posts it are over simplifying observations to reach an already desired conclusion.

Its like you claim Afghanistan lacks academics/intellectuals and infrastructure and thats because they are muslims!
What about being ravaged by wars repeatedly?
Lets see how many PhDs america produces after being destroyed and occupied for 12 years.

The majority muslim countries were colonised till the middle of 20th centuries and the colonisers don't seem eager to leave even now and came back in the name of 'war on terror'!!

To prosper intellectually the basic requirement is peace.
Islamic golden age provided that and caused an exponential increase in the study of academic fields,
till christian kings and queens destroyed the peace and later crusaders and now the 'peace keepers' with their depleted uranium bombs.
!


And it reminds me of US govt which I hear them talk about other nations to justify their cruel actions.

Otherwise

Why do they just keep on criticizing Islam ?

Why they don't criticize other religion ?

Why do they just see dark side of Islamic societies ?

1-The answer is that they want resources of Islamic nations

2-So they decide to divide these countries

3-Oncs they divide and rule them , they don't care what these people believe

4-They are mad at Islam because Islam is not letting occupiers take over their homes and resources in any name.

5-They are wolves and hyenas to Islamic nations and Muslims are divided fat sheep.

6-They are afraid of division of Muslims people because it is the key to their failure.

 

7- Peace and god bless be to you and your family.



So before we produce scientists and PhDs, we need to kick out the military and economic neo-colonisers/neo-crusaders and don't worry Charles we'l do it


I wish they could read the codes.



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 08:52 AM
link   
reply to post by xavi1000
 


Know one is asking or begging other to convert to Islam , so you don't have to attack on Muslism society.

Muslims society is made of very similar people in any society.

I know about their problems and I know western society problems ,too.

The main difference between Islamic and none Islamic societies is that at least many Muslim people have some criterion to live their lives living by it , but western society is mostly made of western close minded scientists who are playing the role.

And the other fact is that Muslims respect and moving toward science but western societies are stuck in their arrogance toward religion.

And modern history of West is one of the most horrible eras on the earth.

I couldn't find any similar facts like these facts in the history

west killed thousands of people by pushing one single button in Japan
west used agent orange on Vietnamese and turn some them into semi-human beings
west used depleted Uranium on Iraqi people in gulf war.
west has one finger in every little coup all around the world.
west told that "god told him to invade Iraq"
west has been planning to divide middle eastern countries to rule them easily.
west is planing to take over resources of middle eastern countries (and almost every country)
west corrupts hearts and minds by the MSM by ...
west is where you find new conspiracy almost every day.
west is where people are afraid of UFO while they nuke nations
west is were they use chemical weapons while they fear others have them
west is................

And you are coming to teach me civilization and the bless in west ? Should I accept it ?

US govt is like old Empire in history unless those empires were not able to kill people in the pace that US govt is killing.

So , you see in west , religion is almost dead , west invades every country they wish , they kill innocents for democracy that they don't have , they justify their wrong actions by MSM ,

And now you tell me Muslims countries have many problems.

So , you see your west is red-handed and caught in act many times.

We should spend days talking about west and Islam but I advise you be a little modest and honest.

So , next time , come with one bit fairness.
edit on 25-4-2013 by mideast because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by logical7

Originally posted by xavi1000

Originally posted by mideast
reply to post by LABTECH767
 


What can I say ?

If you want the truth about Islam , dig deeper for yourself.


I know the truth , i been there ( several islamic countries), i dont need a book to see and know they have horrible society .

i hope you did not go with a gun and military boots!!
That is kind of a spoiler to know muslim society.
Maybe you also find them horrible because you didnt get your beer!
So tell me why you had to go to these horrible places?


Tell me about it

Those Muslims don't even have half naked women

They don't have porno movie shop

They cover their body

And they defend their homes and their resources

I mean , how covers her body these days ?
edit on 25-4-2013 by mideast because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
48
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join