Iraqi Shias protest against US troops

[Michael]

So you believe that Muslims travelled the world and researched Sanskrit, Greek and Chinese philosophy, science and medicine and still believe they destroyed the Persian culture? That they spent a thousand years studying these subjects and contributed nothing?

Again, just to make these two points one last time

(1) The ME people, who some happened to be Muslim, made some advances. Compare it with the ancient Egyptians, Romans, Greeks and Persians and you will see that with this hindsight, they were relatively slight improvement or even going backwards. And that is after 1000 years.

If I am wrong simply show the Greeks who postulated the atom, formalized mathematics using proofs, made the first computer, created the Olympics, formed the bases of playwriting, made sculptures that even today can not be replicated, and formed the bases of medicine, were all in a couple hundred years, were outdone?

Sam, you yourself said the Arabs greatest accomplishment was to preserve the Greek wittings? What exactly did you mean with that Freudian slip?


(2) I'm not Persian, I'm telling you what my Persian friends have said about the Arab Golden Age, the one where they lose their religion, culture, language and control over their government. They seem to have a different outlook? Funny That???

Michael

 

[S.A.M.]

The war is political, not religious? Of course. I must have been confused by the following excerpts from the link I posted that you didn't read:



Yes. A political conflict.

Islam is at least much political as it is religious, if not more.



Rather, my understanding, and your ad hominem.

Best,

Geoff

Yup, political.

Might want to find out what else happened in Bangladesh at that time.

 

[Michael]

On the side,

I asked my Persian buddy just yesterday, Do you think Iran would be better or worse of if it were Christian. He said: We'd probably be the same as Europe definitely more liberal and probably more modern. I suppose we be better.

And this is from an Atheist? (note I personally don't much like Xianity - but was curious nonetheless to ask).

 

[S.A.M.]

Sam, you yourself said the Arabs greatest accomplishment was to preserve the Greek wittings? What exactly did you mean with that Freudian slip?

The freudian slip is in your mind.

The European Renaissance would not have happened without the Muslims.

(2) I'm not Persian, I'm telling you what my Persian friends have said about the Arab Golden Age, the one where they lose their religion, culture, language and control over their government. They seem to have a different outlook? Funny That???

It tells me that your friends are sorely ignorant about the history of their country, or perhaps being atheists they are diverted from seeing facts that do not conform to their preconceived notions.

 

[S.A.M.]

On the side,

I asked my Persian buddy just yesterday, Do you think Iran would be better or worse of if it were Christian. He said: We'd probably be the same as Europe definitely more liberal and probably more modern. I suppose we be better.

And this is from an Atheist? (note I personally don't much like Xianity - but was curious nonetheless to ask).

Tell him to move to America. They are so modern, they kill people only for profit, never for religion.

 

[leopold]

On the side,

I asked my Persian buddy just yesterday, Do you think Iran would be better or worse of if it were Christian. He said: We'd probably be the same as Europe definitely more liberal and probably more modern. I suppose we be better.

And this is from an Atheist? (note I personally don't much like Xianity - but was curious nonetheless to ask).

Tell him to move to America. They are so modern, they kill people only for profit, never for religion.

a fine example of sams intellectual dishonesty.

 

[Michael]

OK FINE my head is in my arse - its probably not the first time and will not be the last

Maybe I am Grecco-Roman-centric? I do like the past history.

I hold the opinion that monotheism is what held back Europe (that and a minor ice age). So I see with monotheism's rise in Europe the beginning of the dark ages and with its fall, the beginning od the Renaissance. They did not need Islam in the year 500BCE to make such advancement so I see no reason to postulate they would need it to simply repeat their past acheivments? Why Islam? Many things were totally rediscovered - take calculus for example.


Anyway, it is a moot point because we'll each have our own opinion. I'll speak again with a Persian buddies this weekend. Specifically about the Islamic Golden Age.


I see you've moved away from the "Arab" achievements. That's probably because most of the most noteworthy achievements were made by Persians and Indians.

You see Sam, I understand that Arabia was kind of nomadic. You say Mohammad (whom you really do think we speaking to a God) was a reformer. I say: Were Persia and India so blood backwards they needed to be reformed (the former by the sword?). Who is to say that they would not have advanced 100 times more had they not been conquored? Again, the biggest advancements were not made by Arabs...


THAT is why I'm reminded of Mongolians and China.
I thought poinantly so? Was I mistaken?


So about that list - can you produce one if we remove the word "Arab"? I'd be happy to look into each example.

Michael

 

[S.A.M.]

a fine example of sams intellectual dishonesty.

Well Americans do murder each other at a greater rate than almost every other nation and its a modern Christian country so it cannot be for religious reasons.

 

[S.A.M.]

I see you've moved away from the "Arab" achievements. That's probably because most of the most noteworthy achievements were made by Persians and Indians.

Michael

I said Islam ushered in the Golden Age for Arabia. And it did, because they went from scattered tribes with NO government and rudimentary justice systems based on one on one interaction, from abusing women and killing female children, to an organised society with an impact that was felt worldwide.

Indians?

Indian Muslims are good actors, good poets, even good theologists. The most famous Indian Muslim was Mirza Ghalib and he was probably half Persian. And most Indians became Muslims by choice.

Lets see how well you research.

 

[leopold]

Well Americans do murder each other at a greater rate than almost every other nation and its a modern Christian country so it cannot be for religious reasons.

almost? you mean there are other countries more passionate than the US?

 

[Michael]

Indian Muslims are good actors, good poets, even good theologists. The most famous Indian Muslim was Mirza Ghalib and he was probably half Persian. And most Indians became Muslims by choice.

Lets see how well you research.

Well that's one category - what about all the other?

 

[Michael]

Indians?

wakarimasen?

I don't understand?

I was under the impression that Indians and Persians were very close both culturally and linguistically in the past.


You know, I am not so sure that Arabs really changed their culture. It is my view,simply from common sense, that Arab culture was probably the same after Islam as it was before. Sure there was probably a lead War Lord, call hims Mohammad and at some point he was almost diefied, but other than that I don't see much "culture" coming out of Arabia. I think when you make a list you'd be hard pressed to find and Arabs out of Arabia. My guess is they will all be from the conquered peoples.



I wondered do you think that the Mongolian conquest of the ME was a good thing for the ME? It united the Mongolian tribes after all? The had a Mongolian Golden Age, after the killing stopped.


Michael

 

[GeoffP]

Yup, political.

Might want to find out what else happened in Bangladesh at that time.

Well, the Pakistani army went in, with the help of islamic militias, and started massacring Hindus. I don't think that requires too much context; if you're endorsing the context it may require even less.

 

[GeoffP]

The freudian slip is in your mind.

The European Renaissance would not have happened without the Muslims.

I'm not so sure. I mean, islamic culture doesn't seem to have invented any of the advances Michael is talking about. And the "Fool's Golden" age was basically only fair if you were a muslim. So...kind of hard to believe, really. I've heard this one before and I'd sort of accepted it, but given the actual evidence it seems pretty unlikely, really.

It tells me that your friends are sorely ignorant about the history of their country, or perhaps being atheists they are diverted from seeing facts that do not conform to their preconceived notions.

Well, Sam, to use your own argumentative style: they should know better than you because a) they're Persians, which you are not and b) they don't seem to have any specific bias, which you do.

I'm sorry if you feel your religion is under attack here, Sam, but given the kind of assumptions and leaps you're making it's hard to simply accept them prima facie.

Geoff

 

[GeoffP]

I said Islam ushered in the Golden Age for Arabia. And it did, because they went from scattered tribes with NO government and rudimentary justice systems based on one on one interaction, from abusing women and killing female children

Instead, concentrating on abusing people not of their faith. How do you know there was no government? Was one needed? Could not the indigenous peoples of Arabia simply be left to their own devices, instead of trying to impose external values through conquest? (Actually, that last bit almost reminds me of something.)

to an organised society with an impact that was felt worldwide.

*cough* Well, that would be one way indeed to put the effects of political islam.

As for your claim of choice: other authors disagree with your interpretation of islam's advance in the subcontinent.

Geoff

 

[S.A.M.]

I'm not so sure. I mean, islamic culture doesn't seem to have invented any of the advances Michael is talking about. And the "Fool's Golden" age was basically only fair if you were a muslim. So...kind of hard to believe, really. I've heard this one before and I'd sort of accepted it, but given the actual evidence it seems pretty unlikely, really.



Well, Sam, to use your own argumentative style: they should know better than you because a) they're Persians, which you are not and b) they don't seem to have any specific bias, which you do.

I'm sorry if you feel your religion is under attack here, Sam, but given the kind of assumptions and leaps you're making it's hard to simply accept them prima facie.

Geoff

I have decided atheists are the most irrational people I have ever met, they completely ignore reality and facts for their foolish notions.

 

[S.A.M.]

I
As for your claim of choice: other authors disagree with your interpretation of islam's advance in the subcontinent.

Geoff

Sure they do, after all they are educated, just like you and know everything so no one can teach them different.

 

[GeoffP]

I have decided atheists are the most irrational people I have ever met, they completely ignore reality and facts for their foolish notions.

Yes: in stark contrast to the completeness of the proofs associated with the belief in an absolute, invisible, all-powerful and all-seeing deity that can never quite decide who's on the naughty list and who's on the nice list.

Quite.

 

[GeoffP]

Sure they do, after all they are educated, just like you and know everything so no one can teach them different.

Well, that's easier than arguing the claims, I guess.

 

[S.A.M.]

Well, that's easier than arguing the claims, I guess.

In some cases, yes. One can only argue so much with an extremist.