Our attitude concerning mockery of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon

[Michael]

I'm not sure if your interpretation of Islam is the same as Arsalan's. I don't recall you saying that Universalism was the central "message" in your belief?

 

[iceaura]

So let me see, if we say Jewish Noble Prize winners, that's wrong?

We say Muslim President for a Muslim president. Whats wrong with that?

We say Islamic country for countries where a majority are Muslims.

So far so good.

We say Islamic science for the science that was practised by the first or early Muslims. Its the defining characteristic of the scientists.

But defining a science by the religious beliefs of the scientists, regardless of the the place or time or culture in which they worked, is almost certainly misleading. Hitler called Relativistic Physics "Jewish science" - sound reasonable ?

We also say Greek Philosophy, Indian astronomy etc, but Muslims are ethnically diverse, so saying Arab science or Persian science is less informative than saying Islamic science.

On the contrary, it would probably be far more informative. It might at least supply a location.

Westerners labeling something "Islamic science" is an expression of bigotry or ignorance on their part - they can't be bothered, or have failed despite effort, to distinguish different Muslims, or different scientific traditions within the Islamic world.

Just because some Americans (Always a credible source) think that Bush is some kind of Jesus, doesnt make it so.

So can we mock all the prophets we don't think are real Prophets, or just some of them ?

 

[S.A.M.]

So far so good.

But defining a science by the religious beliefs of the scientists, regardless of the the place or time or culture in which they worked, is almost certainly misleading. Hitler called Relativistic Physics "Jewish science" - sound reasonable ?

If you can come up with a better definition of the scientists from the 7th century to the 14th century, from Arabia to Moorish Spain, be sure to inform the science historians.

On the contrary, it would probably be far more informative. It might at least supply a location.

Not really, Persian scientists may have done their work in Egypt. Egyptians in Moorish Spain.

Westerners labeling something "Islamic science" is an expression of bigotry or ignorance on their part - they can't be bothered, or have failed despite effort, to distinguish different Muslims, or different scientific traditions within the Islamic world.

Yeah, like Hinduism, native Americans, Aboriginals, Arabs, etc. So what do you propose we do about it?

 

[S.A.M.]

I'm not sure if your interpretation of Islam is the same as Arsalan's. I don't recall you saying that Universalism was the central "message" in your belief?

Its called Tawheed, its a difficult concept to explain to someone who is not familiar with Islam or only understands it through a western lens. The short version would be, your God is the same as my God, we all worship the same God. You call him Jehovah, Father, Brahman, Ahura Mazda, I call him Allah. Something like that.

 

[Balerion]

"Cultures, once tampered with, are nearly impossible to reclaim. "

Identity is a very powerful social barometer. Most Indians are conditioned to seeing themselves as the British saw them.

So then isn't it unfair to pick on the US, which was once the property of those very same British?

I'm just trying to understand why it's all "Aww, feel sorry for India" and "Fuck the Americans", when you could make the same argument for both.

 

[S.A.M.]

So then isn't it unfair to pick on the US, which was once the property of those very same British?

I'm just trying to understand why it's all "Aww, feel sorry for India" and "Fuck the Americans", when you could make the same argument for both.

You're confusing the settlers with the native Americans. The difference between India and America is, in India, the colonials left.

 

[Balerion]

You're confusing the settlers with the native Americans.

Bullshit. Answer the question.

 

[S.A.M.]

Bullshit. Answer the question.

I did. The damage the British did to Indian culture in India, they also did to Indian culture in the US. By redefining themselves as Americans or Australians, the British and other settlers replaced the native populations and almost exterminated their culture. I don't see what your comparison is supposed to define.

 

[iceaura]

If you can come up with a better definition of the scientists from the 7th century to the 14th century, from Arabia to Moorish Spain, be sure to inform the science historians.

Not my job. Theirs. I probably would not try to include all the scientists of 700 years and half a continent under one umbrella term, actually - not if I were trying to be informative.

On the contrary, it would probably be far more informative. It might at least supply a location.
”
Not really, Persian scientists may have done their work in Egypt. Egyptians in Moorish Spain.

Those are locations. There probably are (there normally are) differences in the concentrations, approaches, patterns of discovery, etc, between these different groups of scientists in these different locations during these different centuries. That is informative. See how that works ?

We have people coming to the US now to do science at Christian universities. We do not call what they do "Christian science", nor would such a label inform.

Its called Tawheed, its a difficult concept to explain to someone who is not familiar with Islam or only understands it through a western lens.

So far, it sounds quite similar to a concept familiar in various Christian schools of theology - the notion of various benighted peoples having good-hearted but flawed conceptions of the same One God the Christians have the true version of is not at all alien to various Christian traditions. The effort spent in telling Westerners the concept is mysteriously difficult to explain might be better employed in simply explaining it.

 

[S.A.M.]

Not my job. Theirs. I probably would not try to include all the scientists of 700 years and half a continent under one umbrella term, actually - not if I were trying to be informative.

You mean like the Rennaissance?

Those are locations. There probably are (there normally are) differences in the concentrations, approaches, patterns of discovery, etc, between these different groups of scientists in these different locations during these different centuries. That is informative. See how that works ?

What differences do you perceive that are defined by location and not by all of them living under an Islamic culture?

We have people coming to the US now to do science at Christian universities. We do not call what they do "Christian science", nor would such a label inform.

Maybe not, but its not the same circumstance is it? From 700 to 1400, Islam spread from Arabia to Indonesia, the culture was Islamicised, the language used was Arabic, Arabic script languages evolved in Asia, people were identified as Muslims for the first time. The common thread in all of them was they were born into a culture that was newly established by Arabs from a corner of the Asian subcontinent, that influenced immigrants from Turkic China who came over to the Middle East and established an Empire based on the religion, that lasted for 800 years.

 

[John99]

Let me take a crack at this.

SAM, part of the frustration lies in the fact that everything you are saying is based on your interpretation through bias and personal belief. TBH, i am not sure you believe halfof what you are saying yourself.

For example, wherever Western culture is located you claim it was ONLY due to this negative event or that negative event but where Islam, or what you sometimes refer to as Arab, it was just spreading. Reaching out for good etc.

Sure, this makes you feel nice but there were many wars fought and these people were not exactly happy about being conquered.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquests

You have to take the good with the bad and there has been a lot of bad. History doesnt lie and who considers the past to be full of roses?

 

[S.A.M.]

After the Rashidun, it was just an empire and was like any other empire. But I find it interesting that the people who do not want to define the scientists who were fostered under Islamic cultures as Islamic, they are all too willing to define all empire building by any Muslim [self professed, like the communist atheists or George W Bush, Christian extraordinaire] by their religion. Even though many of the "Muslim conquests" were of other Islamic states.

 

[CptBork]

Do you believe that Japan after WW2 up until present day has gone through a Renaissance? The term alone is very much associated with Europe but somewhat eaqual to it except more focused and less broad in terms of substituting art for technology. I would include Germany but Germany is more dependant and tied into the whole of Europe or at the very least associated with all of Europe.

Edit: When i imply of a modern day Japanes Renaissance i mean as much as possible in modern times where technology and advancements are more international.

I'm not quite sure what you mean here. If by Renaissance you mean catching up to and helping the advance of contemporary science, then I think Japan hit that mark some time in the second half of the 19th century. Really, it's amazing how fast Japan developed and industrialized after establishing permanent contact with the west. You should see some photos of Japan in the late 19th century, they had log cabins and horses, electricity, telegraphs, factories, all that stuff just like the old American west. Around 1905 there was a Japanese scientist named Nagaoka who was the first to propose an atomic model where the electrons orbited around the nucleus, and Ernest Rutherford built directly on that. Also around that time, Japan had a huge and powerful modern navy that smashed the crap out of the Russian fleet in the Russo-Japanese war. So Japan went through a complete modernization from medieval technology in a matter of mere decades, before they even began to think of conquering their neighbours.

 

[iceaura]

I probably would not try to include all the scientists of 700 years and half a continent under one umbrella term, actually - not if I were trying to be informative.
”
You mean like the Rennaissance?

No, not like the Renaissance.

What differences do you perceive that are defined by location and not by all of them living under an Islamic culture?

Not my field, no idea.

We have people coming to the US now to do science at Christian universities. We do not call what they do "Christian science", nor would such a label inform.
”
Maybe not, but its not the same circumstance is it? From 700 to 1400, Islam spread from Arabia to Indonesia, the culture was Islamicised,

But not all these Islamicized places produced science, did they ? Over 700 years, schools of various sciences sprang up (a common feature of emerging empires) here and there, now and then. Throwing them all into the same box is not informative, and naming that box according to the dominant religion of the communities involved postively obscures.

The common thread in all of them was they were born into a culture that was newly established by Arabs from a corner of the Asian subcontinent,

And the stuff about multiculturism is no longer operative in thsi context. Got it. But what does that have to do with the science ?

But I find it interesting that the people who do not want to define the scientists who were fostered under Islamic cultures as Islamic, they are all too willing to define all empire building by any Muslim [self professed, like the communist atheists or George W Bush, Christian extraordinaire] by their religion.

When empires establish theocratic states and base their legal, economic, and other institutions on religious edicts, labeling them by that body of edicts informs - you know something about them.

Sciences do not have religions, usually. Labeling certain advances or bodies of acquired knowledge in chemistry or algebra "Islamic" tells you absolutely nothing about them.

edit in: That's maybe not quite true. It tells you that they probably were acquired long ago.

 

[S.A.M.]

So you don't perceive there are differences because its not your field and yet you think science historians should have done better?

Based on what?

 

[iceaura]

So you don't perceive there are differences because its not your field and yet you think science historians should have done better?

I have no idea what the historians in general have actually been up to. I think you should do better than to

refer to the Muslim religion as, by its nature and due to its special theistic foundation, intrinsically engaged in fostering science, or

refer to some features of scientific inquiry, such as its reliance on imagination etc, as dependent on some theistic belief, such as Islam.

 

[Michael]

I did. The damage the British did to Indian culture in India, they also did to Indian culture in the US. By redefining themselves as Americans or Australians, the British and other settlers replaced the native populations and almost exterminated their culture. I don't see what your comparison is supposed to define.

I know a lot of people from Africa to Iraq that say they are Arabs and no longer speak their native tongues and no longer worship their native Gods. Hmmmm.... What do you think?

Certainly I know a lot of Persians who feel their culture was pilfered by Arab Muslims (raped was the exact term used). Do you think Persians have a point here? Or was it cotton candy and rose water?

 

[Michael]

If you can come up with a better definition of the scientists from the 7th century to the 14th century,

Middle Easterner colonists.

 

[Michael]

Islamic culture.

Islamic culture? Does India have Islamic culture or Indian culture?

 

[Michael]

RE: Tawhid

So how does the Muslim idea of Tawhid explain Xenu? I mean, do most Muslims take Xenu to be a facet of God? What about Goddesses? Does the Tawhid accept Goddesses? I always hear Muslims telling me that the Arab polytheists desecrated the "holy of holys" with their idols of God. Why is it that Muslims are perfectly happy with Indian Temples and Gods and would even be happy to build Indian Temples in Mecca yet I keep hearing that the Arab polytheists were in the wrong?