Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 
Send Topic Print
Islam and science (Read 19508 times)
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: Islam and science
Reply #75 - Sep 29th, 2008 at 11:58am
 
But it's all Allah's will, so why bang on with this 'we was robbed' nonsense?

It is a commonplace observation that Islam is "fatalistic". Muslims typically conclude any statement about the future, eg, "I'll see you at work tomorrow morning," with the qualifier, "Insha'Allah", "God willing". Because God is everywhere and in every action, acting without intermediate causes, the Judeo-Christian concept of divine providence is inconceivable in Muslim terms. Rather than providence, Islam believes in the old pagan fate, the summation of the innumerable capricious acts that Allah in his absolute transcendence performs at every instant.

Allah is everywhere, which is to say that Allah is nowhere in particular. Allah's world is indistinguishable from the primeval world of paganism, in which the "colourfully contending pantheon" of nature-gods arranges a chaotic and incomprehensible show at every moment. The world without Allah would look not much different; if Allah acts in a whimsical manner without the constraint of laws of nature, we cannot tell the difference between Allah's actions and chaos.

The absolute transcendence of Allah in the physical world is the cognate of his despotic character as a spiritual ruler, who demands submission and service from his creatures. The Judeo-Christian God loves his creatures and as an act of love makes them free. Humankind only can be free if nature is rational, that is, if God places self-appointed limits on his own sphere of action. In a world ordered by natural law, humankind through its faculty of reason can learn these laws and act freely. In the alternative case, the absolute freedom of Allah crowds out all human freedom of action, leaving nothing but the tyranny of caprice and fate.

The empty and arbitrary world of atheism is far closer to the Muslim universe than the Biblical world,
in which God orders the world out of love for humankind, so that we may in freedom return the love that our creator bears for us. Atheism is an alternative to Islam closer to Muslim habits of mind than the love-centred world of Judaism and Christianity and their off-spring, Western liberal secularism. ?



Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 53324
At my desk.
Re: Islam and science
Reply #76 - Sep 30th, 2008 at 12:13pm
 
Abu, can you comment on Soren's post? Does Islam differ fundamentally in it's view of the world in a way that may stifle scientific enquiry? is it more than just political conservatism at the root of the problem?

I don't think modern day Muslim states actively suppress science and the work of scientists, they just don't fund or encourage it. Do you mean in the Ottoman period?

Of course they don't. The practical benefits of science, and the absence of a genuine threat to their ideology, is too obvious these days. However, I think burning down an observatory under the advice of a religious leader, and whatever else they did to prevent another one for 300 years, counts as actively suppressing science. It's not even regarded as 'legendary' or whatever, it's just the way things were there.

You left out the prosperity part. Pretty hard to make scientific discoveries if you can't even manage to feed a good proportion of your people.

Europe had the same problem. Starving people, the black plague etc didn't seem to halt scientific research. In fact it motivated a lot of it.

Agreed, but I don't think you actually understand the difference. You seem to be under the impression that it was a difference that permitted them to implement something other than Islam or that was somehow related to liberal-secularist ideas?

No. I think that while people were free to question, criticise or even create the religion, then all else was also open to total freedom of thought. It wasn't until it was ingrained in the culture that only those with appropriate religious qualifications could do certain things that other 'conservative' limitations on rational enquiry could creep in. Something made the people go from being able to contribute to their own religion to not being able to look at the stars.

Criticism of Islam was never permitted in those times. Your fantasy of Islam as some experimental counter-culture is just that, a fantasy. The Muslims in the early days, the most prosperous days, were the strictest in their adherence to Islam. Orthodoxy was very solidly adhered to and adopted by the state.

Except that they still hadn't 'finalised' what that orthodoxy was. If there is no agreed final version of the orthodoxy, then you cannot criticise the orthodoxy, but you can criticise someone else's suggestion of how it should be put together. There is an inevitable freedom of thought that goes along with it. That freedom spawned the golden age.

There's  several means. The first is obviously through classification and restriction of technologies. For example restriction on export of cryptography, which prevented most of us not that long ago even being able to download a version of Netscape Navigator with a decent encryption level.

Secondly is through providing 'incentives' for foreign scientists to migrate to the US, otherwise known as 'intellectual poaching' or 'brain drain'.

You can horde researchers, but not the knowledge. With a few minor exceptions, it all gets published. Cooperative research cannot work unless scientists are allowed to openly communicate with each other. You can't stop the knowledge from escaping.

And you can try to deny that the colonialist powers put them into this position exactly to fulfill this job, but history just slaps you right in the face and contradicts it. They did put them there, and they continue to fund them to do that, because it's very beneficial to their interests. You can cast it off as "Muslims always putting the blame on someone else", but just study a little of the history, it's all there. Now that doesn't in anyway relieve the Muslims of the responsiblity of the changing the situation, not in the least, Muslims must work 10 times harder to change this situation. But you must at least recognise who devised it and who continues to support it, to the tune of billions of dollars a year.

You still need local Muslims to take advantage of each other. If a state is weak, it is inevitable that foreigners will interfere in the local affairs. That doesn't mean that the interference is the cause of the weakness. No amount of money or weapons could stop the people overthrowing their oppressors if that's what they really wanted. But they don't. Their whole ideology is called submission. It doesn't seem to bother them whether they are submitting to a 'real' Islamic overlord or a 'fake' one. There probably isn't a whole lot of difference. I guess 'a slightly different form of submission!' just doesn't have the same ring to it as 'freedom! liberty!'
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
abu_rashid
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Aussie Muslim

Posts: 8353
Re: Islam and science
Reply #77 - Sep 30th, 2008 at 2:30pm
 
Please freediver, if you can use quote tags.

Quote:
Abu, can you comment on Soren's post? Does Islam differ fundamentally in it's view of the world in a way that may stifle scientific enquiry? is it more than just political conservatism at the root of the problem?


If you wish to see any answer to something specific quote it. Soren's posts are usually just cut/paste jobs with very little content that's worthy of a response. So if it's something in particular, quote him, and I'll attempt to answer for you.

Quote:
However, I think burning down an observatory under the advice of a religious leader, and whatever else they did to prevent another one for 300 years, counts as actively suppressing science


It sounded like an isolated incidence to me, not a common practise of the time. Can you provide any other example of such activities by the Ottoman government? It's a well known fact the Ottoman Caliphate neglected knowledge of all kinds, but that hardly qualifies as making them anti-Science. And even if they were anti-Science, it would only just indicate that as they got further and further from Islam, they also abandoned things like science, which Islam always encouraged. If they claimed a scholar told them to do it, that doesn't make it Islamic. Islamic texts clearly promote knowledge and seeking of knowledge, and Islamic civilisation in it's strongest days adhered to that.

Quote:
Europe had the same problem. Starving people, the black plague etc didn't seem to halt scientific research. In fact it motivated a lot of it.


As I stated, I think the fact they gained political independance, and were not really subject to any outside influence. A client-state is hardly in a position to advance in anything, and you know it. The global dynamics changed a lot over the last 500 years, and it went in the favour of the Europeans and against the Muslims.

Quote:
No. I think that while people were free to question, criticise or even create the religion, then all else was also open to total freedom of thought.


But they just simply weren't. This is a fallacy and I really can't see where you got it from.

Blasphemy for instance was a capital offence in islam from day one. Caliph Abu Bakr (May God be pleased with him) waged war on and executed a huge amount of entire tribes of apostates, simply because they said "Zakat isn't payable to you". Please give an example of what you believe to be 'freedom to criticise religion' in the early days of Islam.

Quote:
Except that they still hadn't 'finalised' what that orthodoxy was. If there is no agreed final version of the orthodoxy,


The Islamic creed was finalised. The ijtihad that occured mostly just occured in matters of novelty. New issues that arose, either way there was still no freedom to criticise Islam. Provide one single example, of someone criticising Islam and it being acceptable.

Quote:
You still need local Muslims to take advantage of each other.


Agreed, we had traitors amongst us, and we had weak faith. That's why we were demolished. Simple as that.

Quote:
Their whole ideology is called submission.


Everyone submits to something. The Islamic ideology is "Submission to nobody but God".

Back to top
 
abu_rashid  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 53324
At my desk.
Re: Islam and science
Reply #78 - Sep 30th, 2008 at 3:15pm
 
Quote:
If you wish to see any answer to something specific quote it. Soren's posts are usually just cut/paste jobs with very little content that's worthy of a response. So if it's something in particular, quote him, and I'll attempt to answer for you.


I guess the 3 themes that
*Islam is fatalistic - to a significantly greater extent than Christianity
*Muhammed is despotic in nature as a spiritual ruler
*Islam is closer to atheism than Christianity in it's 'habits of mind'

The following paragraph makes a lot of interesting points:

The absolute transcendence of Allah in the physical world is the cognate of his despotic character as a spiritual ruler, who demands submission and service from his creatures. The Judeo-Christian God loves his creatures and as an act of love makes them free. Humankind only can be free if nature is rational, that is, if God places self-appointed limits on his own sphere of action. In a world ordered by natural law, humankind through its faculty of reason can learn these laws and act freely. In the alternative case, the absolute freedom of Allah crowds out all human freedom of action, leaving nothing but the tyranny of caprice and fate.

It sounded like an isolated incidence to me, not a common practise of the time. Can you provide any other example of such activities by the Ottoman government?

It's not so much the single act that is interesting, but the 300 year gap that followed. Also, is this act 'infamous' or is it an obscure part of history?

If they claimed a scholar told them to do it, that doesn't make it Islamic.

How did the rest of the Muslim world react? Did they speak up to condemn it? This plays into whether the incident became infamous. Our society uses one or two examples from history to illustrate the risk of giving to much power to religious leaders. Do Islamic societies do the same with this or any other cases?

Islamic texts clearly promote knowledge and seeking of knowledge, and Islamic civilisation in it's strongest days adhered to that.

But what sort of knowledge? Mans knowledge, or greater understanding of God's law? I suspect that the dedication of Islamic universities to studying God's law above all else has undermined there ability to contribute to science. Perhaps this played a far stronger role once science progressed to the stage where 'part timers' were less able to make a contribution. Perhaps it was the advancement of science that put it out of the reach of Islamic researchers.

As I stated, I think the fact they gained political independance, and were not really subject to any outside influence.

But Europe was never a single entity in the same way the Muslim lands were. They were constantly invading each other. From a historical perspective, there is no justification for drawing a line around Europe and saying you can separate it out and consider it as a cohesive group. At least, not since the fall of Rome. It's like saying that Africa or the Americas had political independence. The middle east gained great advantage from being at the crossroads as well as disadvantage. Which one it turned out to be was largely dependent on their internal strength to withstand external influence. The advantage and disadvantage was an outcome, not a cause.

The Islamic creed was finalised. The ijtihad that occured mostly just occured in matters of novelty.

Wouldn't that novelty include scientific research? Isn't it openness to novelty that leads people to value new discoveries?

Everyone submits to something.

Not to the extent promoted in Islam.

The Islamic ideology is "Submission to nobody but God".

How can you submit only to God, while submitting to a political ruler? Isn't Islam about law and the state? Doesn't it link God with the state? Thus the submission inevitably involves submission to other people. Like with those infidels who refused to pay tax and were slaughtered.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: Islam and science
Reply #79 - Oct 1st, 2008 at 11:41am
 
On 18 September 642, Omar (the second Caliph) conquered Alexandria, Egypt, and destroyed the Library of Alexandria, the largest in the world at the time.
Omar (or Umar) waged a great offensive war to increase the size of Dar al-Islam, and to forcibly convert non-Muslims to Muslim by the sword.  He conquered Mesopotamia (Iraq) and Persia (Iran), and destroyed the Zoroastrian Sassanid empire.  He also conquered Palestine, Syria, Egypt, and Algeria, thereby taking them from the Byzantine empire.  It was also Omar who first decreed that non-Muslims were not to be allowed into the holy, holy cities of Mecca and Medina (the very heart of the Religion of Peace™) upon penalty of death.
During his conquest of Egypt his troops, under the command of Amr Ibn Al Ass, conquered the city of Alexandria (Al-Iskandariyya).  The Library of Alexandria contained a million scrolls, and included works by Aristotle, Eratosthenes, Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euclid, Ptolemy, and Euripides.  Al Ass sent a messenger to ask Omar what to do with the massive collection.  Omar sent his reply:

“[…] concerning the books that you have mentioned, if they contain things in accordance to Allah’s Book [the Koran] then Allah’s Book is enough. And if they contain things that contradict what is found in Allah’s Book, then we do not need them.”



Aslo see my recent post in the History of Science: Setting the record straight thread

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1218803024/60#61



Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Lestat
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 1403
Re: Islam and science
Reply #80 - Oct 1st, 2008 at 7:11pm
 
Soren wrote on Oct 1st, 2008 at 11:41am:
On 18 September 642, Omar (the second Caliph) conquered Alexandria, Egypt, and destroyed the Library of Alexandria, the largest in the world at the time.
Omar (or Umar) waged a great offensive war to increase the size of Dar al-Islam, and to forcibly convert non-Muslims to Muslim by the sword.  He conquered Mesopotamia (Iraq) and Persia (Iran), and destroyed the Zoroastrian Sassanid empire.  He also conquered Palestine, Syria, Egypt, and Algeria, thereby taking them from the Byzantine empire.  It was also Omar who first decreed that non-Muslims were not to be allowed into the holy, holy cities of Mecca and Medina (the very heart of the Religion of Peace™) upon penalty of death.
During his conquest of Egypt his troops, under the command of Amr Ibn Al Ass, conquered the city of Alexandria (Al-Iskandariyya).  The Library of Alexandria contained a million scrolls, and included works by Aristotle, Eratosthenes, Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euclid, Ptolemy, and Euripides.  Al Ass sent a messenger to ask Omar what to do with the massive collection.  Omar sent his reply:

“[…] concerning the books that you have mentioned, if they contain things in accordance to Allah’s Book [the Koran] then Allah’s Book is enough. And if they contain things that contradict what is found in Allah’s Book, then we do not need them.”



Aslo see my recent post in the History of Science: Setting the record straight thread

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1218803024/60#61



hehe...ridiculous claim from Soren which can rather easily be discredited. Once again your lazy Soren..you clearly search for anything your fellow bigots and Islamophobes might come up, and regurgitate it...you don't actually research the rubbish you post. If you did..you'd save yourself from being exposed as a fool...again, and again, and again.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.bede.org.uk/library.htm

First the legendary account:

The Moslems invaded Egypt during the seventh century as their fanaticism carried them on conquests that would take form an empire stretching from Spain to India. There was not much of a struggle in Egypt and the locals found the rule of the Caliph to be more tolerant than that of the Byzantines before them. However, when a Christian called John informed the local Arab general that there existed in Alexandria a great Library preserving all the knowledge in the world he was perturbed. Eventually he sent word to Mecca where Caliph Omar ordered that all the books in the library should be destroyed because, as he said "they will either contradict the Koran, in which case they are heresy, or they will agree with it, so they are superfluous." Therefore, the books and scrolls were taken out of the library and distributed as fuel to the many bathhouses of the city. So enormous was the volume of literature that it took six months for it all to be burnt to ashes heating the saunas of the conquerors.

The leader of the Moslem forces that took Egypt in 640AD was called 'Amr and it was he who was supposed to have asked Omar what to do about the fabled library that he found himself in control of.

There are only a few sources that we need to examine. They are very late The first of the two late sources dates from the 12th century and is written by Abd al Latif (died 1231) who, in his Account of Egypt while describing Alexandria, mentions of the ruins of the Serapeum. The problems with this as historical evidence are enormous and insurmountable. He admits that the source of his information was rumour and the fantasy about Aristotle does not bode well for the veracity of the rest of the piece.

In the thirteenth century the great Jacobite Christian Bishop Gregory Bar Hebræus (died 1286), called Abû 'l Faraj in Arabic, fleshes the story out and includes the famous epigram about the Koran. Again there is no clue as to where he found the story but it seems to have been one doing the rounds among Christians living under the dominion of the Moslems. Gregory is happy to record plenty of far fetched tales about omens and monstrosities so we must treat this story with the greatest suspicion. As it is not even included in the original version of his history but only in the Arabic version that he translated and abridged himself very late in life, he may not have known the story when he first put pen to parchment. In The Vanished Library, Canfora mentions a Syriac manuscript published in Paris at the end of the nineteenth century by François Nau. It was written by a Christian monk in the ninth century and details the conversation between John and Caliph Omar. After help from email correspondents, I have finally been able to find this elusive document in its French translation and ascertained that it makes no mention of any library and appears to be an example of a theological dialogue between two representative individuals. In other words it is not historical and has no pretensions to be.

continued...
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Lestat
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 1403
Re: Islam and science
Reply #81 - Oct 1st, 2008 at 7:14pm
 
The verdict on Omar

The errors in the sources are obvious and the story itself is almost wholly incredible. In the first place, Gregory Bar Hebræus represents the Christian in his story as being one John of Byzantium and that John was certainly dead by the time of the Moslem invasion of Egypt. Also, the prospect of the library taking six months to burn is simply fantastic and just the sort of exaggeration one might expect to find in Arab legends such as the Arabian Nights. However Alfred Butler's famous observation that the books of the library were made of vellum which does not burn is not true. The very late dates of the source material are also suspect as there is no hint of this atrocity in any early literature - even in the Coptic Christian chronicle of John of Nikiou (died after 640AD) who detailed the Arab invasion. Finally, the story comes from the hand of a Christian intellectual who would have been more than happy to show the religion of his rulers in a bad light. Agreeing with Gibbon this time, we can dismiss it as a legend.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Who exactly destroyed the Library of Alexandria remains a hystorical mystery...however, all the evidence indicates that by 391AD, the library had been destroyed....3 centuries before the advent of Islam.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: Islam and science
Reply #82 - Oct 1st, 2008 at 8:18pm
 
Muslims (and Bernard Lewis) deny that Al As (great Muslim name!) destroyed the library on Omar's orders, describing it as Christian Crusader propaganda.  The account of the destruction of the library comes from mainly Muslim historians, such as  Abd Al Latif, Al Qifti, Al Makrizi, Ibn Al Nadim, Georgy Zeidan, and Ibn Khaldun.

Either way, the books were deemed unimportant, being part of Jahiliyyah, the time of pre-Islamic ignorance. Much like the Budddha statues in Taliban Afghanistan.

You may be seated, Sancho.


Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: Islam and science
Reply #83 - Oct 1st, 2008 at 9:47pm
 
Islamic scieence breakthrough -men will not need hankies in Muslim  Paradise

29/09/2008 - SEX CLEARS THE NOSE


A bizarre study has claimed sex could be a better treatment for nasal congestion than pharmacy-bought drugs.

Iranian neurosurgeons have suggested a blocked nose and the male ejaculation are both controlled by the nervous system, making an orgasm a potential treatment.

"Ejaculation can be used as a potential treatment of nasal congestion [for men] because its emission phase provides a sympathetic stimulation and subsequent vasoconstriction and nasal decongestion," Dr Sina Zarrintan wrote in the journal Medical Hypotheses.

Dr Zarrintan said sex would avoid the rebound effects of decongestants, and suggests "it can be done time-to-time to alleviate the congestion".

"The patient can adjust the number of intercourses or masturbations depending on the severity of the symptoms," the doctors' news bulletin 6minutes reported.


http://www.medicalsearch.com.au/News/A_brief_roundup_of_issues_which_could_affec...


Nothing for the ladies, as usual.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
easel
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 3120
Re: Islam and science
Reply #84 - Oct 2nd, 2008 at 1:51am
 
Isn't masturbation sinful in Islam? The Iranians are saying you can do it. Maybe only for a blocked nose though and no other reason...
Back to top
 

I am from a foreign government. This is not a joke. I am authorised to investigate state and federal bodies including ASIO.
 
IP Logged
 
abu_rashid
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Aussie Muslim

Posts: 8353
Re: Islam and science
Reply #85 - Oct 2nd, 2008 at 10:23am
 
Quote:
The account of the destruction of the library comes from mainly Muslim historians, such as  Abd Al Latif, Al Qifti, Al Makrizi, Ibn Al Nadim, Georgy Zeidan, and Ibn Khaldun.


Interesting, out of all those names, the only one recognisable to me as a Muslim historian is Ibn Khaldun.

Georgy?? Doesn't sound too Muslim to me.

Anyway doesn't sound too convincing, and if even Bernard Lewis disputes it, then I don't know how you can continue to claim it's true. After all Bernard Lewis believes anything against Islam that has the remotest possibility of being true.
Back to top
 
abu_rashid  
IP Logged
 
Yadda
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 22968
A cat with a view
Re: Islam and science
Reply #86 - May 28th, 2009 at 10:31am
 
This morning, someone emailed me this, regarding....





Islam and the “Golden Age” of Scientific Discovery



The Myth:

Muslims often claim that their religion fostered a rich heritage of scientific discovery, “paving the way” for modern advances in technology and medicine.  On this topic, they usually refer to the period between the 7th and 13th centuries, when Europe was experiencing its “Dark Ages” and the Muslim world was conquering new populations and culture.

The Truth:

Although there is no arguing that the Muslim world was more advanced during this period than the “Christian” world, the reasons for this have absolutely nothing to do with the Islamic religion (other than its mandate for military expansion).  In fact, the religion actively discourages knowledge outside of itself, which is why the greatest Muslim scholars throughout history tend to be students of religion rather than science.

First, the Muslim world benefited greatly from the Greek sciences.  To their credit, Muslims did a better job of preserving Greek text than did the Christians of the time, and this became the foundation for their own knowledge.

Secondly, many of the scientific advances credited to Islam were actually “borrowed” from other cultures conquered by the Muslims.  The algebraic concept of “zero”, for example, is erroneously attributed to Islam, but it was, in fact, created by the Hindus and merely introduced to the West by Muslims - along with the products of other cultures that were found to be useful to their new rulers.

In fact, conquered populations contributed greatly to the history of “Muslim science” until gradually being decimated by conversion to Islam (under the pressures of dhimmitude).  The Muslim concentration within a population is inversely proportional to the decline of scientific achievement.  It is no accident that the Muslim world has had little to show for itself in the last 600 years or so, since running out of new civilizations to cannibalize.

Third, even the great Muslim scientists and icons were often considered heretics at the time, sometimes for good reason.  One of the greatest achievers to come out of the Muslim world was the Iranian scientist and philosopher, al-Razi.  His impressive works are often held up today as “proof” of Muslim accomplishment.  But what the apologists often leave out is that al-Razi was denounced as a blasphemer, since he followed his own religious beliefs – which were in obvious contradiction to traditional Islam.

Fourth, even the contributions that are attributed to Islam (often inaccurately) are not terribly dramatic.  There is the invention of certain words, such as alchemy and elixir, but not much else that survives in modern technology that is of any practical significance.  Neither is there any reason to believe that such discoveries would not have easily been made by the West following the cultural awakening triggered by the Reformation.

As an example of this, consider that Muslims claim credit for coffee, since the beans were discovered in Africa (at the time, an important source for Islamic slave trading) and first processed in the Middle East .  While this is true, it is also true that the red dye used in many food products, from cranberry juice to candy, comes from the abdomen of a particular female beetle found in South America .  It is extremely unlikely that the West would not have stumbled across coffee by now (although, to be fair, coffee probably expedited subsequent discoveries).

In fact, the litany of “Muslim” achievement often takes the form of rhapsody, in which the true origins of these discoveries are omitted - along with their comparative significance to Western achievement.  Scientific, medical and technological accomplishments are not something over which Muslim apologists want to get into a pissing contest with the Christian world.  Today’s Islamic innovators are known merely for turning Western technology, such as cell phones and airplanes, into instruments of mass murder.

To sum up, although the Islamic religion is not entirely hostile to science, neither should it be confused as a facilitator.  The great achievements that are said to have come out of the Islamic world were made either by non-Muslims who happened to be under Islamic rule, or by heretics who usually had little interest in Islam.  Scientific discovery tapers off dramatically as Islam asserts dominance, until it eventually peters out altogether.

The Myth:

Muslims often claim that their religion fostered a rich heritage of scientific discovery, “paving the way” for modern advances in technology and medicine.  On this topic, they usually refer to the period between the 7th and 13th centuries, when Europe was experiencing its “Dark Ages” and the Muslim world was conquering new populations and culture....






The article continues.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/Myths-of-Islam.htm#science




Back to top
 

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 
Send Topic Print