A Disturbing Essay on Islamic Scientific Development

Originally posted by mideast
Tell me about it

Those Muslims don't even have half naked women

They don't have porno movie shop

Admittedly that's because of laws which prevent all kinds of things from jean shorts to having non-Islamic religious symbols.

There is also the issues of police corruption, human trafficking, blantant racism, and misreported statistics from major organisations over looking these things. The moral high ground that some countries attempt to occupy comes at a terrible price to free thought and speech.

(Free expression as well of course ... I wouldn't get 10ks from the airport in some Middle Eastern countries without being given an escort to a local embassy, hospital, or morgue.)

Wow this tread really has taken off got some reading and catching up to do

We have made definite progress. As far as I can tell from the recent posts of mideast and logical7, they agree that science in countries under Islamic rule has been retarded. Now their area of disagreement seems to be related to the cause of that retardation.

That's worth looking into, but I have real trouble believing the Crusades had anything to do with it, One, they ended, what, 700 years ago? And two, the Islamic world was nowhere near savaged by them. They were largely ineffective, and the Crusades' limited success was largely in briefly recapturing Jerusalem. (If I remember correctly.)

Why shouldn't France, Germany, the UK, and Russia be considered even more destroyed in the twentieth century than Islamic countries were in the thirteenth.

But in any event, I'm wide open and delighted to be part of this.

reply to post by charles1952


As mentioned earlier, there's a roadblock to rational inquiry in the Muslim world.

In the Muslim world, people fall into 3 basic categories: Secularist, Reformist, Fundamentalist.

The first two support scientific inquiry, because simply put, they have modified seasoned Islamic thinking to support (and encourage) study of the sciences.

The fundamentalists on the other hand would seemingly prefer the dark ages than tweak some aspects of Islamic belief to support scientific inquiry. As mentioned before, Al Ghazali and the Asharite school of thought unequivocally disavows the existence of 2nd causes, which, as you know, is what science is all about. Gravity, electromagnetism, the two nuclear forces, exist independent of Gods will. They occur invariably enough for us to call them "laws" and "fundamental forces". But Al Ghazali argued that second causes - the stuff of Aristotelean thought (which he sought to refute) are illusory: in fact, they are "arbitrary" acts of Allahs Free will. A Quranic parable captures the Islamic distaste for "natural" explanations for physical events: "And the Jews say: The hand of Allah is tied up! Their hands shall be shackled and they shall be cursed for what they say. Nay, both His hands are spread out, He expends as He pleases; ". By the 8th century CE, Jewish theology - as found in the Talmud and Midrashim - saw God as "bound" by the laws of his creation. Not in a negative way, I might add. As the Abraham, Sodom/Gamorrah episode relates, the significance of natural law is alive with moral implications. Because we are able to understand the world, God has made man responsible for his actions. As such, God cannot kill someone without their being good reason. Murder is always wrong - even if God did it. The Talmud goers so far as to reprimand God for the harsh treatment the Jewish people has had to endure.

The Quran responds to this Jewish belief with moral disgust. How can God be limited, when God, by definition, is unlimited? In the Asharite school of thought, and in Al Ghazali, the view that Allah is beyond all human constriction - and thus responsible for seemingly all acts, even acts that appear to be ruled by cause and effect - in fact, such acts are really Allah.

The craziness of this belief is that it actually discouraged inquiry into natural law. To even do so implied that one acknowledge the existence of natural law, which in Sunni Islam, is tantamount to disbelief. That Gods "hand" is bound, as it were, by an objective morality, by gravity, by electromagnetism, etc.

Al Ghazalis philosophy, and the civilizational backwardness of the Islamic world, will probably never be corrected until Islam makes some hard but necessary changes in the way it understands the world. Inevitably, this entails self contradiction. They can't both accept Al Ghazalis ethos and embrace science without deceiving themselves. At the same time, its downright impossible for them to deny the advantage bequeathed by modern technology and science. So, what I'm trying to get at is this: Islam can't stay the same, it has to change. Otherwise, they will continue lagging behind the rest of the world, not because of the rest of the world, but because of their own stubbornness and cultural egotism.

I'm not an expert by any means on this subject, but I think the Jews (despite their being hated by most Muslims) would serve as an apt analogy for them, since Judaism and Islam, structurally speaking, are very similar. The Shari'a must either be eliminated or adapted to modern sensibilities. For example, Ramadan isn't economically feasible. No sane corporation, or investor, will invest in a country where the citizens take 1 month off for fasting. It may be good spiritual etiquette, but economically it is disastrous. Same with interest. It's a well accepted fact that charging interest is integral to economic stability. Until Islam accepts this - which given its scriptural prohibition, doesn't bode well - Muslim countries will likely continue to struggle in economic competition with the West and East.

reply to post by dontreally


If you understood Islam and the teachings of the Koran you would know that just about every aspect of Modern Western society is against Islamic law. You are suggesting that the Shi'a should be eliminated for simply following their belief systems. I find that insulting. Maybe the Westernised Sunni's should be eliminated for being traitors to the very book the come in the name of?

reply to post by DarknStormy

If you understood Islam and the teachings of the Koran you would know that just about every aspect of Modern Western society is against Islamic law.

uh huh

You are suggesting that the Shi'a should be eliminated for simply following their belief systems. I find that insulting.

I didn't say anything about Shia Islam. Although that is a whole 'nether can of worms.

Vali Nasr (a respect Iranian political analyst) believes that the west should 'subsidize' Shia interests in Iraq and elsewhere, since apparently contradiction is less a problem for them than it is for the Sunni.

Whether that is true or not, I do not know. Iran has the most developed scientific infrastructure of any Islamic country, but at the same time, it is ruled by dangerous fanatics. If you can get the current regime out of power, and introduce more moderate/liberal social policies, Iran could very well become a shining example for the rest of the Islamic world to follow.

It seems only those countries which have experienced a long-term secular government, like Turkey and Iran, are the ones most able to liberate themselves from the shackles of outmoded medieval theories. But then again, Shia have never been too in love with Al Ghazalis views on science.

reply to post by charles1952

their area of disagreement seems to be related to the cause of that retardation. That's worth looking into, but I have real trouble believing the Crusades had anything to do with it, One, they ended, what, 700 years ago? And two, the Islamic world was nowhere near savaged by them. They were largely ineffective, and the Crusades' limited success was largely in briefly recapturing Jerusalem.

Indeed the Crusades were practically a failure.

The disagreement however is not limited to the reason science took a backseat in the muslim world, it also includes the contribution of Islamic Golden age, as any academic historian with credentials would easily disprove your author Mike Konard. That being settled
here's a paper that gives the same idea that i posted before,
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1702418

When
Russian, American, or European
leaders condemn Muslim terrorism and
terrorists, they rarely if ever mention the behavior of Russia and European
countries towards Muslim ones in the
seventeenth, eighteenth, nineteenth,
and twentieth centuries. Almost every Muslim country on the
planet was conquered and colonized
by Europeans or Russians. Most of
those countries became free of the
colonizer only since the end of World
War II, with many gaining independence in the 1960s. In every
Muslim country that experienced
colonization, there are still substantial
numbers of the populace living today
who also lived under colonization.
Although most Muslims living today were born after World War II (and
even after 1980), colonization has cast
a long, dark shadow. Just as abolishing de jure
discrimination has not eliminated de
facto racial discrimination in the United
States, the simple act of becoming
independent does not immediately
eliminate the attitudes, customs, and institutions of either the colonizer or
the colonized. After casting off the
yoke of white minority rule in South
Africa, the government is nonetheless
finding it particularly difficult to
grapple with the issues of unemployment and
underemployment, economic
development, and the AIDS pandemic,
not to mention transitional justice.
Nelson Mandela’s declaration that the
new South African constitution put to rest the 500 years of colonization
starting with the Portuguese has not in
and of itself made South Africa a stable
or a prosperous country. The United States never colonized a
Muslim nation. But US policy in the
Middle East since World War II - its
support for the dictatorial regimes in
the oil states, its single minded anti-
communist policies, and its support of Israel - made the United States appear
to Muslims as a quasi colonial power.

also,
islamicsystem.blogspot.com...

At one end of the debate is a small
group of liberal elite – consisting of
members who are impressed by the
West’s extra-ordinary material
progress. They have attributed
Western progress to the evolution in Western political, social, and
economic thought during the
Renaissance period. They believe
that for the Muslim World to achieve
the same progress, it needs to
divorce religion from public life as the Europeans did in the Post Middle Age
era. They want the Muslim World to
adopt Western ideals of secularism,
pluralism, women empowerment,
rights of minorities, nationalism,
human sovereignty, private ownership, free markets, free
speech, religious and personal
freedom (libertarianism), and
democracy.

It is worthwhile to note that
the West encourages and insists on
the same. So Western government
and non-government organizations
routinely issue progress reports,
sharing their assessments about how civilized or uncivilized the Muslim
World is based on its performance
which is judged in line with these
ideals.

So,
what the liberals want to do is to
borrow the intellectual experience of
16th and 17th Century Europeand
apply it to the Muslim World without
regarding the particular factors which gave birth to European
Secularism. And herein lies the
superficiality of their approach.
Firstly, in charting out the intellectual
path for the Muslim World, the liberals
did not study Muslim society and its realities; rather, they were content
with the idea that European
Secularism is not “European” but
“Universal” and they insisted on its
implementation throughout the
Muslim World. They ignored the fact that European secularism is a
reactionary political ideology which
is a direct result of the repressive
Christian rule which governed much
of Europethroughout the Middle
Ages (or as they are now called). It was when the European population’s
frustration and anger at their
miserable socio-economic and
political conditions exploded into a
fierce struggle with the incumbent
political authority, which happened to be the Church, that secularism
emerged as “the new” thinking. The
idea was to deprive the Church from
its political power by depriving it of
its legitimacy, “divine inspiration”. So
the liberals (free thinkers) of the time severely attacked religion, arguing it
is without a factual foundation, that
human reason triumphs over divine
thinking, and thus, should be the
only source of legislation. So at the
heart of Europe’s intellectual revolution was the idea of the
sovereignty of the human mind and
the rejection (or relegation) of the
divine which claimed, and was till
then considered, the sovereign
authority. Describing the liberal temperament, political philosopher
John Gray claimed, “It (liberalism)
has been inspired by skepticism and
by fideistic certainty of divine
revelation.” (Fideism is an epistemological theory which
maintains that faith is independent of
reason, or that reason and faith are
hostile to each other and faith is
superior at arriving at particular
truths).

Secondly, the liberals totally ignored the history of the Muslim World in their attempt to repeat the European experience. The European experience with religion was in sharp contrast to that of the Muslim World. Muslims under the banner of the caliphate enjoyed stupendous progress in all realms of collective and individual life and the Islamic state from the time of the second Caliph Umar bin Khattab till the great Osamni Caliph Suleiman Al Qanooni. Although it was a state which was governed by divine laws, science and technology prospered, the economy thrived, and the basic rights of its citizenry – of food, clothing, shelter and health, education and security – was guaranteed. As for knowledge and education, the Islamic State was renowned for its excellent centers of learning and the Islamic State directly supervised and encouraged intellectual discourse and learning. Jonathan Lyons in his book The House of Wisdom, How Arabs Transformed the Western Civilization states: “Throughout much of the period in question, Arabic served as the global language of scholarship, and learned men of all stripes could travel widely and hold serious and nuanced discussions in this lingua franca. Medieval Western scholars who wanted access to the latest findings also needed to master the Arabic Tongue or work from translations by those who had done so.” So unlike Christian Europe, there existed in the Muslim world, no frustration or anger with the divine, neither any desire to get rid of its rule nor any massive uprising against the Islamic character of the caliphate. There were of course feuds, uprisings and disputes within the Islamic State, but none were aimed at challenging the divine basis of the state. Even when the caliphate was finally abolished, Mustapha Kamal used fierce Turkish nationalism and brute force to achieve it and it is no secret that this could not be achieved without the direct help and supervision of the allies (France andBritain).

To summarize,
the parameters used to assess progress and the path to go towards it is very different in the Western(Christian) world and the Islamic world.
The West had to discard religion to advance scientifically while the Islamic world has no problem in integrating both and it have been proved during the Golden Age.

Only read the 1st page, and am enjoying this thread immensely! Good points for and against the essay in question. OmegaLegos, Ive a question: Regarding mosiacs, (& pardon my naivete) IS there any other way they CAN be done? Besides perfectly? I mean, unless it's a pattern which may be repeated, inteelocking within itself, it isnot mosaic in the form we mean, & just a tile collage.
Point being, perfection of mosaic, something which CAN be achieved if only through dogged persistance, may have lent itself well to the Muslim culture and now is used as evidence of the culture's relevancy in the history of the sciences.It is pattern-making. (Very beautiful & important work, in the ART world.) Please inform me, thank you.

reply to post by charles1952

Hey Charles!

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by babloyi

 

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.

It is pretty false, articles from biased right-wing hate-rags (frontpagemag and David Horowitz and his foundation were the centre of an expose on this group of right-wing nutters making money off peddling islamophobia and muslim-hatred) notwithstanding. It is pretty hilarious that the author of your article quoted Bernard Lewis, when Bernard Lewis's own words in the book he quoted from (What Went Wrong?) support the idea of an Islamic Golden Age with all the discoveries and studies and emphasis on scholarship and investigation and fostering an atmosphere of learning.
Look at it this way. It is as if you're suggesting that all of the contributions the Greeks made ever were totally irrelevant and useless, because everything they ever did was already done before them by isolated Babylonians or Ancient Egyptians or Chinese or something. A ridiculous and absurd assertion.

Originally posted by charles1952

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.

It are strong, yes, and with good reason. Bybyots might leave off accepting that the wheat will be separated from the BS, but here is me doing it. The author of the original article, and the frontpage article, and in fact, I'd go as far as to say ALL such authors who seem so dedicated in disproving or mythifying the idea of an "Islamic Golden Age" (especially in such random periodicals as americanthinker and frontpagemag), are certainly not historians of the subject at all (feel free to prove me wrong, of course). In fact, Srđa Trifković, author of the frongpagemag article was banned entry to Canada for his anti-semitism and islamophobia as a supporter of Srpska's actions against the bosniacs.
The ENTIRE purpose of this attempt to downplay the Islamic Golden Age by fringe right-wing elements is to dehumanise and discredit muslims for political purposes.

reply to post by babloyi

Dear babloyi,

For there to be this much confusion between us, I must be doing something terribly wrong.

The ENTIRE purpose of this attempt to downplay the Islamic Golden Age by fringe right-wing elements is to dehumanise and discredit muslims for political purposes.

I disagree, of course, with the characterization of "fringe right-wing," but no matter, it's only inflammatory rhetoric and it's often used. We can leave that aside for now.

If I were asked what the purpose was, it would be to show that societies controlled by Islamic laws and cultures tend to retard the growth of science and creative arts. There is certainly no attempt to dehumanize Muslims, this entire thread has been free of that kind of name calling. We are in the middle of discussing whether retarding science is good or bad. People leaving Islamic societies have done well in more tolerant countries. Individuals are not being attacked.

Nor is any one claiming that Islam did not have a golden age. There are a lot of questions about what brought it about, and what stopped it so thoroughly that there hasn't been anything resembling it for 700 years.

Please reconsider your understanding of what's going on here.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952

Originally posted by charles1952
I disagree, of course, with the characterization of "fringe right-wing," but no matter, it's only inflammatory rhetoric and it's often used. We can leave that aside for now.

Well, it is my hope that their bigotry and hatred are fringe. Because if they are mainstream, then there is a much more dangerous and insidious problem at hand. Frontpagemag (and David Horowitz and his foundation), and Serge Trifkovic have a proven track record of being bigots and hate-mongers. To be honest, I do not know much about the American Thinker magazine, but considering it counts such "luminaries" as Ann Coulter, Robert Spencer and Michael Savage among it's writers, you'll excuse me for also including it in the "fringe right-wing" rhetoric I used. Probably deserves something stronger.

Originally posted by charles1952
If I were asked what the purpose was, it would be to show that societies controlled by Islamic laws and cultures tend to retard the growth of science and creative arts.

Is that YOUR purpose? Why are you trying to show that? Have you suddenly gotten this understanding in your head after reading directed and biased articles off 2 websites? Or did you mean it is the purpose of the article you initially posted? Because that is not their purpose, that would be their method. They are trying so hard to prove this, for exactly what I said...dehumanising and "otherising" the muslim community, for political benefit.
Unfortunately, history is totally against them, in a way that they unfortunately cannot whitewash, no matter how hard they try.

Originally posted by charles1952
There is certainly no attempt to dehumanize Muslims, this entire thread has been free of that kind of name calling.

I will take your word on that, still not having read the whole thing, unfortunately. I was talking about the authors of those articles, and others who seem to have a vested interest in attempting to disprove the Islamic Golden Age. While perhaps no one in this thread is saying such a thing, the article you quoted certainly is. But does this mean that you were talking about the purpose of your thread, rather than the articles you quoted?

Originally posted by charles1952
We are in the middle of discussing whether retarding science is good or bad.

Are we? Who is? I'm afraid I missed it where it was shown to be a foregone conclusion that Islam retards science. Islam - culturally (as you were taking it), or historically, or even scripturally, does the exact opposite of retarding science.

I guess you DO have me confused . What is the purpose of this thread? What is being discussed? In what sense are you quoting the two articles you quoted? In what sense is the article in the OP "disturbing" to you?

reply to post by babloyi

Dear babloyi,

Sorry for the confusion, let me summarize briefly. I'll expand whatever you'd like. I believe the author's point is best expressed in these two paragraphs.

This is a constant pattern of Islam. It invades a society where, for a century or two, there is enough remaining pre-Islamic genius to echo on for a while. Over time, coerced conversions increase with the accruing stupefaction of national intellect. As the light dims and goes out, the Muslims, now thoroughly in charge, take the credit for the former flame lit by others.

Whatever genius does come out of Islam is the echo of a pre-Islamic past. The Golden Age of an Islamic Conquest is actually the Last Hurrah of the former civilization. After conquest, the creative period remaining is brief, and after two or three centuries of Muslim rule, senility and reversion set in.

My feeling after looking at various sources including the World Bank Database and other sources, leads me to believe that the scientific progress of Islamic countries over the last 150 years has been far slower than what one might expect, and slower than the rest of the educated world.

Part of the purpose of this thread is to determine whether that's true and, if so, find an explanation for it.

The author believes the scientific advancement achieved during the golden age was obtained from captured peoples and cultures absorbed by the great wave of Muslim conquest at that time. That seems reasonable. I was hoping it would be discussed. That is another goal of this thread.

A third question is why did the golden age stop? The third goal of this thread. Someone, apparently a Muslim wrote this:

Why did it all end?
Why did Islam's Golden Age come to an end? What forces shifted both political power and learning from the Islamic Empire to Christian Europe? Like all historical trends, the explanations are complex; yet some broad outlines may be identified, both within and without Muslim lands. With the end of the Abbasid Caliphate and the beginning of the Turkish Seljuk Caliphate in 1057 CE, the centralized power of the empire began to shatter. Religious differences resulted in splinter groups, charges of heresy, and assassinations.

Aristotelian logic, adopted early on as a framework upon which to build science and philosophy, appeared to be undermining the beliefs of educated Muslims. Orthodox faith was in decline and skepticism on the rise.

The appeal by some erring theologians turned the tide back, declaring reason and its entire works to be bankrupt. They declared that experience and reason that grew out of it were not to be trusted. As a result, free scientific investigation and philosophical and religious toleration were phenomena of the past. Schools limited their teaching to theology. Scientific progress came to a halt.

robtshepherd.tripod.com...

My purpose was to have a free discussion of those three issues and find truth. No one is denying the existence of the golden age, rather I was hoping to find an explanation for it. Nobody is dehumanizing Muslims. Their leaders apparently chose the "sciences" of Philosophy and Theology over Physics. Was that a good choice or bad? Arguments have been presented for each position in this thread.

It is not a foregone conclusion that Islamic countries and cultures retard science. There is evidence pointing that way, some has been presented here. Something seems to be retading it, even mideast and logic7 seem to agree. The question is what is retarding it?

In large part, describing the article as disturbing was predictive. I thought it would be disturbing and I believe it has been shown to be such. It was very surprising to me. It also deals with basic portions of a culture's identity and pride. That's always disturbing.

I'm glad you're here, babloyi, and I hope to continue to learn from you in a friendly and respectful relationship.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952

It is not a foregone conclusion that Islamic countries and cultures retard science. There is evidence pointing that way, some has been presented here. Something seems to be retading it, even mideast and logic7 seem to agree. The question is what is retarding it?

There is no evidence pointing that way, its your desired conclusion by interpreting the facts in a twisted way!
I guess that the purpose of this thread is to prove what you already believe blindly because when you are given proofs to the opposite you try to twist them in favour of your view and it looks insincere and then you act vague and sincere to 'just know the truth'

There is a BBC documentary about science and Islam, maybe you should watch it before continuing to hold your view.

The muslims who move away from muslim countries do better academically not because they 'escaped' Islam it was because they have access to better infrastructure thats missing in native war torn countries and dictatorial regimes.
Muslim americans both men and women have higher percentage of graduate degrees than the general population.
Muslims in america have not left Islam as you can see by the growing number of masjids. Muslim women go to universites yet practice islamic dress code.

So the simple reason for retardation of science that you want to know is lack of opportunity and infrastucture. The reason for that is west backed wars and dictators to whom educated masses are a danger.

reply to post by charles1952


I could use some clarity as to what, or when, you propose the 'Golden Age' of Islam to have been. If you are looking for specifics, causes and effects, then it would help if you were, yourself, more specific.

As I have already explained, there was during the Classical Greek period, a system of intellectual exchange, no conquest needed and later, particularly following the fall of the Roman Empire, the Muslim traders filled the vaccum, and subsequently the Near East prospered through trade, providing for ample resources to facilitate the arts and sciences. Around the ninth century, when Europe once again began to emerge as an International Trade power, much those resources were redirected into defensive strategies to protect trade posts, and they became more protective of their technological developments and the highly desired products, such as glassware, that they produced.

The author of the article seems intent on pointing the finger at Islam, when all Islam has done, or did, is what any other nation with imperial ambitions has done. Do we dismiss the impact of Greek and Roman culture because their empires were built upon the consumption of smaller, weaker states and the domination of trade. The Muslims fulfilled a vital role in maintaining the trade routes set up by Rome, and had very, very little part in the fall of the Roman Empire. Their success in trade enabled then to seek to establish settlements that facilitated the efficiency, and protection, of that trade, just as the Greeks did,the Romans, the Venetians, the French, the Dutch, the Spanish, the British, and so on and so forth. And with such settlements comes the exchange of ideas and cultures, as well as people and produce.

So to answer my own question about the Golden Age, it lasted from the 7th century, until the 13th. It gained wealth through trade domination, flourished, and due to the trade it facilitated, it helped bring wealth and prosperity to Europe, in turn, European City states thrived, accumulated wealth, and gained enough momentum to want to cut the middle-man out and increase their profit margin by taking control of mediterranean trade, it used religion as the basis for doing that. The subsequent contraction of the Muslim world meant that arts and sciences were no longer a priority, but just as had happened in Greece, the written word, the oral traditions, passed into Europe, via trade routes, and inspired the minds and intellectualism that was emerging there. To negate the role of Islam in the creation of artistic expression and scientific progression because it did not originate there, is to entirely misunderstand how such things ebb and flow way above the concerns of territorialism and economic dominance. Besides, it seems to me, highly ungrateful, given how much we gained, we could very well still be living in the dark ages had it not been for all that the Christian world took from the Muslims, financially, spiritually, artistically and scientifically.

Should we be like the Christian leaders of the Middle Ages and forbid all knowledge and understanding that has been 'tainted by the Infidel', or should we realise that all ideas are borrowed from a higher source and we are all mere custodians?

Originally posted by mideast
I truly doubt that this isn't a bashing Islam thread.

+ here is a list of Iranian Muslms scientists

As about the era of 6th Imam , when the pressure on him was less than ever , he could teach about 4000 students. muslims could gather and establish schools. I know Iranian figures such as Abu ali sina(Doctor , philosopher) , abu rayhan biruni (Chemistry scientist ,discovered Alcohol) , Knaje nezamul molke tusi (made a observatory and wrote books on position of stars) , Mulla sadra (philosopher) , Sheikh bahayi(artist and philosopher) were living on the shining era of Iranian Muslims pioneering in science , religion and art.

Islam is different than what your MSM tells you it is. It is different than extremists do.

sheikh bahayi

َAbu ali sin - also know as ibne sina

khaje Nasir al-Din al-Tusi

Khaje nezal al mulk e tusi

Khayam neishaburi

Mulla sadra

Abu rayhan biruni

and here is the opinion of a Muslims philosopher who is alive today :

my reference Ayatollah Javadi Amoli.

He says " all the knowledge is religious. And the only science which can think about this is philosophy."

He says Qur'an tells us to think about events like "13:4
and in the earth are tracts (diverse though) neighbouring, and gardens of vines and fields sown with corn, and palm trees - growing out of single roots or otherwise: watered with the same water, yet some of them we make more excellent than others to eat. behold, verily in these things there are signs for those who understand!"

And there are more like : " 3:190-191

behold! in the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the alternation of night and day,- there are indeed signs for men of understanding,

such as remember allah, standing, sitting, and reclining, and consider the creation of the heavens and the earth, (and say): our lord! thou createdst not this in vain. glory be to thee! preserve us from the doom of fire."

old reply

Islam is neither a culture . neither a lifestyle. It is a comprehensive religion that has instructions for human beings since they are born to the moment they are buried.

Most embarrassing is the success of those Arabs who have left the Islamic world. Ecuador has had three Arab presidents. Colombia has had one Arab president. El Salvador, one. Honduras, one. Argentina, one. The Dominican Republic, two. I won't even list the vice-presidents. Even non-Latin Jamaica had a Lebanese President, Edward Seaga.

Islam is not for Arabs although the language is Arabic since it is most accurate. Islam is not about any particular race or color.

The twisted minds with some personal agenda + bigotry is covering the eyes to interpret the truth like this article does.

I hope your govt stop propaganda about Islam and we see a fruitful relationship between Islam and west (west is west , it is not Christianity)

In the west we still try to maintain the social contract as originated by Hobbes: we surrender some of our freedoms(to act as a judge) and submit to the authority of the ruler or magistrate (or to the decision of a majority), in exchange for protection of our remaining rights. Only if that magistrate has authority, is legit and representative.
This only works if groups in society have shared interests. In the Netherlands the dominant(still) culture does not have shared interests with groups trying to advocate Sharia law, though yet to be codified, we think different about the freedom of speech, the position of gay people in society, the position of women in society, or even secular (or other religions)people for that matter. Sooner or later this will usher problems and clashes between cultures, and we already see that happen, political murders such as Theo van Gogh. The only solution for muslim groups here is to adapt, practicing to our dominant western norms and values and forget the idea that we have to convert to Islam, what they do in their country is their responsibility. Only look at Egypt, Iran, Afghanistan, Somalia and how those societies are corrupted under so called Arabic/muslim spring or upheaval.
I hope a truly period of enlightenment will take place for your religion.

reply to post by Foppezao

The only solution for muslim groups here is to adapt, practicing to our dominant western norms and values and forget the idea that we have to convert to Islam, what they do in their country is their responsibility. Only look at Egypt, Iran, Afghanistan, Somalia and how those societies are corrupted under so called Arabic/muslim spring or upheaval. I hope a truly period of enlightenment will take place for your religion.

i am sorry to break your hopes but it won't happen the way it happened with the church. Thats not enlightenment, you may call it that to feel better but going away from God does not equate to enlightenment.

Muslims are not frustated with their religion, we don't have an oppressive church that we want to overthrow.
We are frustated at not being able to practice our faith freely and outsiders like you telling us whats better for us.
How can u advice to impose your values on us and in the same breath say that you won't like anyone forcing their values on you?
Unless ofcourse if you think your values are 'superior'!!

reply to post by logical7


Yes and we miss to see blessed western people.

Religion is almost a dead walking in west and the govt has no boundary for itself.

The govt may have provided many enlightenment for you but at prize of clashing and invading other nations.

Other nations will not be silenced.

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................

being fair is #1 rule in every religion , but west is not fair to Muslims and even to it's own people.

We won't adapt being divided (like Iraq is divided into two states)
We won't adapt being rubbed from our resources

And we will kick invaders out of our soil one day.

Every one will wake up , whether truth or tombstone will wake them up.

Iran is not Arabic country and what we experienced in 2009 was velvet revolution.

And I am sure when those Egyptian people occupied Israel embassy , they were continuing their revolution.

Every one will wake up , whether truth or tombstone will wake them up.

Originally posted by logical7
reply to post by Foppezao

 

The only solution for muslim groups here is to adapt, practicing to our dominant western norms and values and forget the idea that we have to convert to Islam, what they do in their country is their responsibility. Only look at Egypt, Iran, Afghanistan, Somalia and how those societies are corrupted under so called Arabic/muslim spring or upheaval. I hope a truly period of enlightenment will take place for your religion.

i am sorry to break your hopes but it won't happen the way it happened with the church. Thats not enlightenment, you may call it that to feel better but going away from God does not equate to enlightenment.

Muslims are not frustated with their religion, we don't have an oppressive church that we want to overthrow.
We are frustated at not being able to practice our faith freely and outsiders like you telling us whats better for us.
How can u advice to impose your values on us and in the same breath say that you won't like anyone forcing their values on you?
Unless ofcourse if you think your values are 'superior'!!

I don't see enlightenment as moving away from god per se, though i do think most religious institutions are corrupt, but more as moving towards good reason, science, and humans as factors of .importance.

Here is why Dawkings

You say you are frustrated at not being able to practice your faith freely, where do you life?
In my town mosques and minarets are popping out of the ground like mushrooms, and most of those imams can preach freely, also about how our women are (dressed like) whores and gay people should be thrown of buildings.
Last winter i was in Dubai, and did i see any church over there? hell no, wouldn't even bother to look or try thinking about building one..No most tolerance is over here, and that tolerance is importing a religion with radical and hateful elements, the more tolerant we are towards the religion the more ground it gains and the more we loose our own identity, with that identity we build a great open and free society, it took us a couple hundred years to do so...

reply to post by Foppezao

the more tolerant we are towards the religion the more ground it gains and the more we loose our own identity, with that identity we build a great open and free society,

if your society and ideals are so great let them get tested and either win or get replaced. Right? Or you'l break your own ideals to preserve them? Kind of a catch 22 situation. No?