They cured polio, flew to the moon, perfected the heart transplant -- wait, no, scratch that. But they did do absolutely everything else.
There is a certain sadness to this kind of ridiculous triumphalism, for it just begs the question of why, then, is the Islamic world so mired in misery today?
But that question, of course, brings us right back to Zionist Crusader paranoia. It's too bad Muslim scientists haven't discovered a cure for that.
"‘All modern discoveries are by Muslim scientists,’" from the Daily Times (thanks to Writer Mom):
LAHORE: Muslim scientists have made all discoveries of the current age, said University of Columbia’s Arabic and Islamic Studies prof George Saliba at a seminar at the Government College University (GCU) on Monday. The seminar, titled The Problems of Historiography of Islamic Science, was held at Fazl-e-Hussain Hall. Saliba gave a critique of the standard classical accounts of the rise of Islamic science. He detailed problems in the accounts and explained alternative historiography that described the rise of an Islamic scientific tradition as a result of social and political conditions within the nascent Islamic empire. He said Muslim philosophy was the impetus behind Islamic science that had contributed to various disciplines including botany, zoology, algebra, trigonometry, physics, chemistry, astronomy, physics, chemistry, physiology and mathematics in the pre-industrial era. He said the use of decimal fractions was not a Western invention and that it was discovered by a Muslim scientist. He said the binary system, on which the computer was based, was also invented by a Muslim scientist. He said Arab/Islamic science was not an intermediary between Greek science and European science, but was rather the Renaissance that integrated the Islamic science with European science....
I guess that is why 165 Jews have won the Nobel Prize, compared to 6 Muslims.
Saliba? George Saliba? The very one who got into a hysterical huff about the work of the historian of science Toby Huff, and Huff's daring to suggest in his excellent study on the rise of modern science (in the West, Islam, and China) that there was something about Islam that prevented such development?
The same George Saliba who describes the science, often the product of Christians and Jews and Zoroastrians, or of those who were only a generation or two away from being Christians and Jews and Zoroastrians, and were formed by that non-Muslim milieu), under Islamic rule, as either "Islamic science" or, as in one of his books, as "Arabic science"? That George Saliba?
The same George Saliba whom a student charged with bullying and intimidating her in class, claiming that she couldn't possibly be an "Israeli" who had a claim to a sliver of territory in the Middle East because her eyes were not brown, as his were, and only brown-eyed people, apparently, could truly claim descent from Middle Easterners?
That George Saliba?
Never heard of this guy before. Sounds a tad unstable.
...also, he is dead wrong about the moon landing. Doesn't he know the whole thing was a hoax?!
The Global Islamic population is approximately 1,200,000,000, or 20% of the world population.
They received the following Nobel Prizes:
Literature
1988 - Najib Mahfooz.
Peace:
1978 - Mohamed Anwar El-Sadat
1994 - Yaser Arafat
Physics:
1990 - Elias James Corey
1999 - Ahmed Zewail
Medicine:
1960 - Peter Brian Medawar
1998 - Ferid Mourad
The Global Jewish population is aproximately 14,000,000 or about 0.02% of the world population.
They received the following Nobel Prizes:
Literature:
1910 - Paul Heyse
1927 - Henri Bergson
1958 - Boris Pasternak
1966 - Shmuel Yosef Agnon
1966 - Nelly Sachs
1976 - Saul Bellow
1978 - Isaac Bashevis Singer
1981 - Elias Canetti
1987 - Joseph Brodsky
1991 - Nadine Gordimer World
Peace:
1911 - Alfred Fried
1911 - Tobias Michael Carel Asser
1968 - Rene Cassin
1973 - Henry Kissinger
1978 - Menachem Begin
1986 - Elie Wiesel
1994 - Shimon Peres
1994 - Yitzhak Rabin
Chemistry:
1905 - Adolph Von Baeyer
1906 - Henri Moissan
1910 - Otto Wallach
1915 - Richard Willstaetter
1918 - Fritz Haber
1943 - George Charles de Hevesy
1961 - Melvin Calvin
1962 - Max Ferdinand Perutz
1972 - William Howard Stein
1977 - Ilya Prigogine
1979 - Herbert Charle s Brown
1980 - Paul Berg
1980 - Walter Gilbert
1981 - Roald Hoffmann
1982 - Aaron Klug
1985 - Albert A. Hauptman
1985 - Jerome Karle
1986 - Dudley R. Herschbach
1988 - Robert Huber
1989 - Sidney Altman
1992 - Rudolph Marcus
2000 - Alan J. Heeger
2004 - Aaron Ciechanover
2004 - Avram Hershko
Economics:
1970 - Paul Anthony Samuelson
1971 - Simon Kuznets
1972 - Kenneth Joseph Arrow
1975 - Leonid Kantorovich
1976 -! Milton Friedman
1978 - Herbert A. Simon
1980 - Lawrence Robert Klein
1985 - Franco Modigliani
1987 - Robert M. Solow
1990 - Harry Markowitz
1990 - Merton Miller
1992 - Gary Becker
1993 - Robert Fogel
Medicine:
1908 - Elie Metchnikoff
1908 - Paul Erlich
1914 - Robert Barany
1922 - Otto Meyerhof
1930 - Karl Landsteiner
1931 - Otto Warburg
1936 - Otto Loewi
1944 - Joseph Erlanger
1944 - Herbert Spencer Gasser
1945 - Ernst Boris Chain
1946 - Hermann Joseph Muller
1950 - Tadeus Reichstein
1952 - Selman Abraham Waksman
1953 - Hans Krebs
1953 - Fritz Albert Lipmann
1958 - Joshua Lederberg
1959 - Arthur Kornberg
1964 - Konrad Bloch
1965 - Francois Jacob
1965 - Andre Lwoff
1967 - George Wald
1968 - Marshall W. Nirenberg
1969 - Salvador Luria
1970 - Julius Axelrod
1970 - Sir Bernard Katz
1972 - Gerald Maurice Edelman
1975 - Howard Martin Temin
1976 - Baruch S. Blumberg
1977 - Roselyn Sussman Yalow
1978 - Daniel Nathans
1980 - Baruj Benacerraf
1984 - Cesar Milstein
1985 - Michael Stuart Brown
1985 - Joseph L. Goldstein
1986 - Stanley Cohen [& Rita Levi-Montalcini]
1988 - Gertrude Elion
1989 - Harold Varmus
1991 - Erwin Neher
1991 - Bert Sakmann
1993 - Richard J. Roberts
1993 - Phillip Sharp
1994 - Alfred Gilman
1995 - Edward B. Lewis
Physics:
1907 - Albert Abraham Michelson
1908 - Gabriel Lippmann
1921 - Albert Einstein
1922 - Niels Bohr
1925 - James Franck
1925 - Gustav Hertz
1943 - Gustav Stern
1944 - Isidor Issac Rabi
1952 - Felix Bloch
1954 - Max Born
1958 - Igor Tamm
1959 - Emilio Segre
1960 - Donald A. Glaser
1961 - Robert Hofstadter
1962 - Lev Davidovich Landau
1965 - Richard Phillips Feynman
1965 - Julian Schwinger
1969 - Murray Gell-Mann
1971 - Dennis Gabor
1973 - Brian David Josephson
1975 - Benjamin Mottleson
1976 - Burton Richter
1978 - Arno Allan Penzias
1978 - Peter L Kapitza
1979 - Stephen Weinberg
1979 - Sheldon Glashow
1988 - Leon Lederman
1988 - Melvin Schwartz
1988 - Jack Steinberger
1990 - Jerome Friedman
1995 - Martin Perl
The Jews are not demonstrating with their dead on the streets, yelling and chanting and asking for revenge, the Jews are not promoting brain washing the children in military training camps, teaching them how to blow themselves up and cause maximum deaths of Jews and other non Muslims. The Jews don't highjack planes, nor kill athletes at the Olympics, the Jews don't traffic slaves, nor have leaders calling for Jihad and death to all the Infidels.
The Jews don't have the economical strength of the Petroleum, nor the possibilities to force the world's media to see "their side" of the question. Perhaps if the world's Muslims could invest more in normal education and less in blaming the Jews for all their problems, we could all live in a better world.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1456395/posts
Yeah, how do those muslims really have time to study, invent and improve the world. Praying five times a day, blowing up stuff, recruiting for jihad, protesting in the streets, beheading, raping, etc. It's a busy life.
If they're so great why are their countries such cesspools?
"Yeah, how do those muslims really have time to study, invent and improve the world. Praying five times a day, blowing up stuff, recruiting for jihad, protesting in the streets, beheading, raping, etc. It's a busy life."
Exactly, too busy tryin to bring the rest of the world down to their level.
Lets for arguements sake, lets agree that its true. So why did the West progress and the Islam world regress?
Just play along and weaken them by reinforcing their fantasies.
...Muslims have discovered it is far easier to kill people than it is to discover the cure for the diseases that kill people....ooops...Islam is a disease that kills....
Ban Muslim Immigration...
In my dreams, I get to polarise the world.
Everyone who wants to worship islam and kow-tow to the muslim "scientists" goes that a way.
And everybody else lines up behind me. Think about that....
Honestly, is there a claim too outrageous for mohammedans to make?
The mother of all whoppers:
"Islam means peace"
If they're so great why are their countries such cesspools?
It's the fault of the JOOOOOS!!
(Except when it's the fault of the Crusaders.)
Okay, Huge, sing along with us now:
"Anything you can do, I can did better,
Anything you have done I can did first."
Look at all those Jewish physicists on Ynkedoodl2's list. I always knew physics was a Jewish plot. And chemistry. And medicine. And literature. And worst of all, peace! And Al Gore is a co-conspirator!
The explanation is simple; since everyone is born a muslim and islam actually predates everything else, all the people who really discovered things were muslims.
See, it's easy if you take your brain out!
Conversely of course, this professor is a worthless lying moron whose sucking up to the worthless and incompetent muslims would not fool a three year old.
islam; inventor of misery since 700AD.
‘All modern discoveries are by Muslim scientists’
...and islam is religion of peace.
...and women are protected under islam.
...and dhimmis are protected under islam.
...and muhamad was in Jerusalem...
...riding the burak...
...and angels are afraid of dogs...
the list is endless.
So, is Al Gore muslim?
Since Al Gore created the internet....Al needs to come out of the closet on islam.
Or was Al lying and didn't create the internet.
I would like to have the address to the muslim that created the bikini and the thong. I would like to thank him.
alaskan1000,
I would like to thank the Muslim that invented the ham sandwich. :-)
Physics must be very important since they mention it twice!
Saliba's claims are far-fetched and frankly, unbelievable. But suppose that we were to believe him. What then?
Why is it seemingly acceptable for Saliba to use the label "Muslim" in this regard, as in "Muslim scientist," whereas it would be considered offensive for the media to report favourably on "Christian scientists" or "Jewish Nobel prizewinners"?
Why are we to accept that Saliba's identification of certain individuals as "Muslim" and his linking of that characteristic to certain of their achievements carries any validity at all? Isn't it possible that they achieved in spite of their religion, that it was qualities of personal drive and intelligence which motivated them -- qualities which are so often suppressed within Islam? In other words, Saliba assumes that the characteristic of "Muslimness" was the salient factor in their achievements -- an Islamocentred view of the world, which of course, is exactly what he intends.
The 165 to 6 is a very revealing comparison. The Islamic world is mired in its own victim psychology where never assumes any blame or self-responsibility. What a failed culture.
http://grizzlymountain.blogspot.com/
What Muslim scientists???
Please read this clarifying exchange of letters between an Assyrian scientist and Hewlett Packard: http://www.ninevehsoft.com/fiorina.htm
Academic misconduct recently got one left-wing loon removed from a tenured position. Maybe this guy can be the next name under a similar headline?
This ain't new; the same kind of crap was being spread in 1982 at the World's Fair in River City, aka Knoxville, by the Saudis.
Good read there Osmund.
I presume when Al Gore invented the internet he used the Rhythm method. Or what has become known as the Al Gore Rhythm.
When you have a whole death cult founded on the Big Lie, then the lies will proceed happily apace from thence...
I miss the Iraqi Foreign Minister.
I don’t think so. I don’t and never have blamed the victims. I blame governments that intentionally marginalize any people and then have the balls to be shocked by the backlash. I also take issue to the thought that in Europe Islam is some how the sole source of anti-Semitism. I am more than willing to look at Muslims living in poverty and understanding both negative and positive actions by them. Understanding is not the same as condoning.
http://in2thefray.wordpress.com/2007/11/07/in2-the-valley-taking-it-personal/#comments
My new favorite dhimmi
GrizzlyMountain, you said:
Especially since it took only about ten million Jews to produce the 165 Nobels, but it took over a billion Muslims to produce 6 Nobels.
That works out to about 1 Nobel for every 70,000 Jews, and 1 Nobel for every
200 million Muslims.
And if you work that out a little further, it means Jews have been getting at least 2000 times the number of Nobels per capita that Muslims get. If there were a billion Jews, at the current rates they would win not 6 Nobels, but more like 12,000 Nobels.
This should factor in to our understanding of the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Jews culturally favor free thought and education.
Muslims culturally favor closed thought and the belief that Allah supplies them with all knowledge.
Jewish Nobels 165. Muslim Nobels 6.
Here on Earth this all makes perfect sense.
Elias James Corey and Peter Brian Medawar
are of Lebanese Christian origin. Their website does not say anything about being Muslim. Even their kid's names are Christian.
Hey, didn't this guy play Chekhov on "Star Trek"?
Well, let's see. Naguib Mahfouz (whom I love) essentially invented the Arab novel, but he did so by relying very heavily on Western literature. Ahmed Zewail (whose autobiography is quite interesting to read) did his work at Cornell. Abdus Salam also worked in the West, though I don't recall precisely where; he was an Ahmadi and made to feel VERY unwelcome in his native Pakistan. All of these men are, at best, nominal Muslims. Mahfouz was more influenced by Sufism, as his later works show; Zewail doesn't strike me as religious at all. You get the idea.
Muslims DID have a good scientific heritage, way back in the day. Of course, things are a tad different since all those centuries have passed--yet they continue to live in the past. (the ones who don't, like Nasr Abu Zayd and Fazlur Rahman, are hounded).
They are attempting to, quite literally, re-write history. What's next? Leonardo da Vinci was secretly a Muslim? The Stonehenge is actually the remnants of an ancient mosque? The Roswell Incident actually involved alien Muslims from other worlds crashing in the desert? (an intergalactic pilgrimage of sorts). First they attempted to hijack Jesus by claiming him for themselves, and now this?
*sigh* "Pathetic" doesn't begin to describe it.
I think George Saliva needs to go back to school.
P. B. Medawar was born of a British mother and a Lebanese Christian father -- a father who had ended up in Brazil because he was fleeing the pressures on Christians in Lebanon and elsewhere, that became acute as the decrepit Ottoman Empire was forced to formally make concessions to the European powers, and agree to treat its non-Muslim subjects equally. Of course this did not happen, but the mere fact of such ferment led to such things as the massacre of the Maronites in Damascus in 1860, and later massacres of the Assyrians, and then still later, of the Bulgarians, and then, for the first attack, that of 1894-96, on the Christian Armenians, which was followed by the full-scale genocide that began in 1915.
The letter by Peter BetBasoo, an Assyrian-American, to which a link is given at 3:04 p.m. above, should be quoted in full.
Here it is:
November 7, 2001
Carly Fiorina
Hewlett-Packard
3000 Hanover Street
Palo Alto, CA 94304-1185
Dear Madame Fiorina:
It is with great interest that I read your speech delivered on September 26, 2001, titled "Technology, Business and Our way of Life: What's Next" [sic]. I was particularly interested in the story you told at the end of your speech, about the Arab/Muslim civilization. As an Assyrian, a non-Arab, Christian native of the Middle East, whose ancestors reach back to 5000 B.C., I wish to clarify some points you made in this little story, and to alert you to the dangers of unwittingly being drawn into the Arabist/Islamist ideology, which seeks to assimilate all cultures and religions into the Arab/Islamic fold.
I know you are a very busy woman, but please find ten minutes to read what follows, as it is a perspective that you will not likely get from anywhere else. I will answer some of the specific points you made in your speech, then conclude with a brief perspective on this Arabist/Islamist ideology.
Arabs and Muslims appeared on the world scene in 630 A.D., when the armies of Muhammad began their conquest of the Middle East. We should be very clear that this was a military conquest, not a missionary enterprise, and through the use of force, authorized by a declaration of a Jihad against infidels, Arabs/Muslims were able to forcibly convert and assimilate non-Arabs and non-Mulsims into their fold. Very few indigenous communities of the Middle East survived this -- primarily Assyrians, Jews, Armenians and Coptics (of Egypt).
Having conquered the Middle East, Arabs placed these communities under a Dhimmi (see the book Dhimmi, by Bat Ye'Or) system of governance, where the communities were allowed to rule themselves as religious minorities (Christians, Jews and Zoroastrian). These communities had to pay a tax (called a Jizzya in Arabic) that was, in effect, a penalty for being non-Muslim, and that was typically 80% in times of tolerance and up to 150% in times of oppression. This tax forced many of these communities to convert to Islam, as it was designed to do.
You state, "its architects designed buildings that defied gravity." I am not sure what you are referring to, but if you are referring to domes and arches, the fundamental architectural breakthrough of using a parabolic shape instead of a spherical shape for these structures was made by the Assyrians more than 1300 years earlier, as evidenced by their archaeological record.
You state, "its mathematicians created the algebra and algorithms that would enable the building of computers, and the creation of encryption." The fundamental basis of modern mathematics had been laid down not hundreds but thousands of years before by Assyrians and Babylonians, who already knew of the concept of zero, of the Pythagorean Theorem, and of many, many other developments expropriated by Arabs/Muslims (see History of Babylonian Mathematics, Neugebauer).
You state, "its doctors examined the human body, and found new cures for disease." The overwhelming majority of these doctors (99%) were Assyrians. In the fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries Assyrians began a systematic translation of the Greek body of knowledge into Assyrian. At first they concentrated on the religious works but then quickly moved to science, philosophy and medicine. Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Galen, and many others were translated into Assyrian, and from Assyrian into Arabic. It is these Arabic translations which the Moors brought with them into Spain, and which the Spaniards translated into Latin and spread throughout Europe, thus igniting the European Renaissance.
By the sixth century A.D., Assyrians had begun exporting back to Byzantia their own works on science, philosophy and medicine. In the field of medicine, the Bakhteesho Assyrian family produced nine generations of physicians, and founded the great medical school at Gundeshapur (Iran). Also in the area of medicine, (the Assyrian) Hunayn ibn-Ishaq's textbook on ophthalmology, written in 950 A.D., remained the authoritative source on the subject until 1800 A.D.
In the area of philosophy, the Assyrian philosopher Job of Edessa developed a physical theory of the universe, in the Assyrian language, that rivaled Aristotle's theory, and that sought to replace matter with forces (a theory that anticipated some ideas in quantum mechanics, such as the spontaneous creation and destruction of matter that occurs in the quantum vacuum).
One of the greatest Assyrian achievements of the fourth century was the founding of the first university in the world, the School of Nisibis, which had three departments, theology, philosophy and medicine, and which became a magnet and center of intellectual development in the Middle East. The statutes of the School of Nisibis, which have been preserved, later became the model upon which the first Italian university was based (see The Statutes of the School of Nisibis, by Arthur Voobus).
When Arabs and Islam swept through the Middle East in 630 A.D., they encountered 600 years of Assyrian Christian civilization, with a rich heritage, a highly developed culture, and advanced learning institutions. It is this civilization that became the foundation of the Arab civilization.
You state, "Its astronomers looked into the heavens, named the stars, and paved the way for space travel and exploration." This is a bit melodramatic. In fact, the astronomers you refer to were not Arabs but Chaldeans and Babylonians (of present day south-Iraq), who for millennia were known as astronomers and astrologers, and who were forcibly Arabized and Islamized -- so rapidly that by 750 A.D. they had disappeared completely.
You state, "its writers created thousands of stories. Stories of courage, romance and magic. Its poets wrote of love, when others before them were too steeped in fear to think of such things." There is very little literature in the Arabic language that comes from this period you are referring to (the Koran is the only significant piece of literature), whereas the literary output of the Assyrians and Jews was vast. The third largest corpus of Christian writing, after Latin and Greek, is by the Assyrians in the Assyrian language (also called Syriac; see here.)
You state, "when other nations were afraid of ideas, this civilization thrived on them, and kept them alive. When censors threatened to wipe out knowledge from past civilizations, this civilization kept the knowledge alive, and passed it on to others." This is a very important issue you raise, and it goes to the heart of the matter of what Arab/Islamic civilization represents. I reviewed a book titled How Greek Science Passed to the Arabs, in which the author lists the significant translators and interpreters of Greek science. Of the 22 scholars listed, 20 were Assyrians, 1 was Persian and 1 an Arab. I state at the end of my review: "The salient conclusion which can be drawn from O'Leary's book is that Assyrians played a significant role in the shaping of the Islamic world via the Greek corpus of knowledge. If this is so, one must then ask the question, what happened to the Christian communities which made them lose this great intellectual enterprise which they had established. One can ask this same question of the Arabs. Sadly, O'Leary's book does not answer this question, and we must look elsewhere for the answer." I did not answer this question I posed in the review because it was not the place to answer it, but the answer is very clear, the Christian Assyrian community was drained of its population through forced conversion to Islam (by the Jizzya), and once the community had dwindled below a critical threshold, it ceased producing the scholars that were the intellectual driving force of the Islamic civilization, and that is when the so called "Golden Age of Islam" came to an end (about 850 A.D.).
Islam the religion itself was significantly molded by Assyrians and Jews (see Nestorian Influence on Islam and Hagarism: the Making of the Islamic World).
Arab/Islamic civilization is not a progressive force, it is a regressive force; it does not give impetus, it retards. The great civilization you describe was not an Arab/Muslim accomplishment, it was an Assyrian accomplishment that Arabs expropriated and subsequently lost when they drained, through the forced conversion of Assyrians to Islam, the source of the intellectual vitality that propelled it. What other Arab/Muslim civilization has risen since? What other Arab/Muslim successes can we cite?
You state, "and perhaps we can learn a lesson from his [Suleiman] example: It was leadership based on meritocracy, not inheritance. It was leadership that harnessed the full capabilities of a very diverse population that included Christianity, Islamic, and Jewish traditions." In fact, the Ottomans were extremely oppressive to non-Muslims. For example, young Christian boys were forcefully taken from their families, usually at the age of 8-10, and inducted into the Janissaries, (yeniceri in Turkish) where they were Islamized and made to fight for the Ottoman state. What literary, artistic or scientific achievements of the Ottomans can we point to? We can, on the other hand, point to the genocide of 750,000 Assyrians, 1.5 million Armenians and 400,000 Greeks in World War One by the Kemalist "Young Turk" government. This is the true face of Islam.
Arabs/Muslims are engaged in an explicit campaign of destruction and expropriation of cultures and communities, identities and ideas. Wherever Arab/Muslim civilization encounters a non-Arab/Muslim one, it attempts to destroy it (as the Buddhist statues in Afghanistan were destroyed, as Persepolis was destroyed by the Ayotollah Khomeini). This is a pattern that has been recurring since the advent of Islam, 1400 years ago, and is amply substantiated by the historical record. If the "foreign" culture cannot be destroyed, then it is expropriated, and revisionist historians claim that it is and was Arab, as is the case of most of the Arab "accomplishments" you cited in your speech. For example, Arab history texts in the Middle East teach that Assyrians were Arabs, a fact that no reputable scholar would assert, and that no living Assyrian would accept. Assyrians first settled Nineveh, one of the major Assyrian cities, in 5000 B.C., which is 5630 years before Arabs came into that area. Even the word 'Arab' is an Assyrian word, meaning "Westerner" (the first written reference to Arabs was by the Assyrian King Sennacherib, 800 B.C., in which he tells of conquering the "ma'rabayeh" -- Westerners. See The Might That Was Assyria, by H. W. F. Saggs).
Even in America this Arabization policy continues. On October 27th a coalition of seven Assyrian and Maronite organizations sent an official letter to the Arab American Institute asking it to stop identifying Assyrians and Maronites as Arabs, which it had been deliberately doing.
There are minorities and nations struggling for survival in the Arab/Muslim ocean of the Middle East and Africa (Assyrians, Armenians, Coptics, Jews, southern Sudanese, Ethiopians, Nigerians...), and we must be very sensitive not to unwittingly and inadvertently support Islamic fascism and Arab Imperialism, with their attempts to wipe out all other cultures, religions and civilizations. It is incumbent upon each one of us to do our homework and research when making statements and speeches about these sensitive matters.
I hope you found this information enlightening. For more information, refer to the web links below. You may contact me at keepa@ninevehsoft.com for further questions.
Thank you for your consideration.
Peter BetBasoo
Is there a Nobel Prize for Lying?
___________________________________
I know one thing Muslims invented:
video beheadings.
Corey and Medawar are not Muslims, as has been noted, but of Lebanese Christian ancestry (in Medawar's case, only through his father). Also, Corey, as well as Zewali, won for Chemistry and not Physics. Finally, Mourad's father was an Albanian Muslim but not his mother, and he was raised a Christian.
The 6 Muslim Nobelists are in fact:
Literature
1988 - Najib Mahfooz (Arab; he was attacked by an Islamist for blasphemy, so he is clearly not a Muslim's Muslim.)
Peace
1978 - Anwar El-Sadat (Arab)
1994 - Yasser Arafat * (Arab)
2003 - Shirin Ebadi (Iranian)
Chemistry
1999 - Ahmed Zewail (Arab)
Physics
1979 - Abdus Salam (Pakistani)
http://www.jewishmag.com/99mag/nobel/nobel.htm
Where's the University of Columbia?
Mahfouz's crime was that he published a books called Children of the Alley (Awlad al-Haratna) in which religious figures were allegorically porgrayed. This was, I think in the late '60s. In 1994, he was stabbed in the neck and nearly killed by a fanatic at the instigation of the one and only Omar 'Abd al-Rahman. Not surprisingly, the Islamist who made the attempt on his life never actually read the book. His writing hand was paralyzed for a while, but he eventually regained the use of it and continued writing (and, when his eyesight finally failed him, dictating) pretty much up until his death last year. A remarkable character, all the more so considering how close Islam came to killing him.
Where's the University of Columbia?
Posted by: darcy at November 7, 2007 6:14 PM
In the mind of one of those brilliant Muslim inventors.
But seriously, don't these claims sound familiar? Sounds like the USSR, circa 1955.
By the way, does Dhimmi Carter count as a Muslim Nobel winner for peace? If not, he should.
I think Carter was co-winner alongside Sadat.
Profitsbeard,
There is one other thing that Arabs invented beside the videobeheading and it is toilet!
Yes!
The infidels only modified it slightly by adding the hole and flush.
Comic relief, anyone?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAVEfUzkG20
From the article:
These are the only two statements that are specific and coherent enough to even allow a refutation.
Decimal fractions were first used by the Indus Valley Civilization in 2600 B.C., approximately 3000 years before the birth of Islam. It is odd that Muslims would take credit for discoveries made during jahiliyya, the pre-Islamic time of ignorance.
The binary number system was first used by Gottfried Leibniz in the 17th century in his article "Explication de l'Arithmétique Binaire". In case it is necessary to explicitly say so, Leibniz was not a "Muslim scientist".
The rest of his statement is just triumphal chest-beating gibberish.
Oh, and as for the computer, George Boole created boolean logic that is the basis for binary arithmetic. John Von Neumann conceived of the theoretical model of a general purpose computing device. J. Presper Eckert and John William Mauchly built the first working general purpose calculating device, ENIAC. Boole, Von Neumann, Echkert, and Mauchly were not "Muslim scientists".
Now I understand why Muslims stick to vague assertions ("violence is against Islamic principles") instead of the specific quotations that the jihadists give; or why they make vague assertions about Islamic accomplishments ("Muslims invented science"). Giving the slightest bit of specificity allows even the most lazy fact-checker to easily disprove the claim.
Whenever you read a Muslim scholar discussing the Islamic contribution to scientific development, at some point the awful truth dawns on you that the guy doesn't really know what science is.
Things as simple as proof, evidence, dispassionate observation and a desire to arrive at the truth seem to be beyond these people, let alone anything more sophisticated.
what next,
'we invented time!!'
'we've already landed men on mars!!'
'muslims won WWII!'
'we invented peace!! OMGZ!'
oh yeah, and those dang Jews, they just had to go and make the world a BETTER place.
thomas h.-
"...Muslims invented the toilet..."
Infidels also added toilet paper to that mix, instead of rocks.
The most famous Muslim "contribution" to math and science is the work algebra, which comes from Al-Jabr, meaning "the reunion of broken parts." However, the Muslim contribution to is complex and to a large extent transmitting what the Greeks had done and hosting non-Muslim scholars: this from "Highlights in the History of Algebra" (http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~sxw8045/history.htm):
Rewriting history eh? How will they EVER explain all those Jewish Nobel winners?
I rest my case.
Saliba may have left one major discovery out: Saliba himself is a big-time moron.
Osmund Bindalen, I read that letter, and it was very articulate and well researched. i enjoyed it immensely. thank you
....and if my aunt had balls....she'd be my uncle.
In terms of Nobel prizes for science, there are only two known Muslim winners in the entire history of Nobel prizes: Abdus Salam (Physics in 1979) and Ahmed Zewail (Chemistry in 1999).
There have been others of Arab Christian or partial Muslim ancestry but who were not raised as Muslims. It is unlikely that Islam played any role in their discoveries, and they could in no way be called Muslim scientists.
Of "political" Nobel Prizes, there are four Muslim winners:
Najib Mahfooz/Mahfuz (Literature in 1988) was stabbed by an Islamist for blasphemy and so clearly viewed by some as an apostate.
Anwar El-Sadat (Peace in 1978) was obviously assassinated by Islamists, specifically, the Muslim Brotherhood, members of which founded the Muslim Student(s') Assocation and sundry other subversive Islamist groups in the West and since merged with Al Qaeda.
Yasser Arafat (Peace in 1994) - Need anything more be said?
Shirin Ebadi (Peace in 2003) is an Iranian women's and children's rights activist who is not much loved by the Iranian theocrats.
So since 1901, the first year Nobel Prizes were awarded, only two known Muslims were awarded the Prize for scientific research. Their religiosity is unknown, nor is it known it Islam played any part in their discoveries.
I would thus conclude that in the last hundred years, the "Muslim" contribution to science has been close to negligible. We cannot go back in time and adequately verify what Muslims may or may not have contributed in the Middle Ages, but it is certain that in the modern age, Muslims have contributed almost nothing to science.
George Saliba has an agenda:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Saliba
Most of those names listed as Nobel prize winners are German names. Germany had very good schools.
Islamic schools don't teach much except islam.
Muslim parents value jihad. Jewish parents value education.
How can you be sure those prize winners were all Jewish? Wikipedia and blogs? Wikipedia is unreliable. The Nobel website does not mention if the winners were Jewish.
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/
I looked at a few on Wiki just to see, like Burton Richter and didn't see any mention of his heritage. But Max Bonn, listed on Wiki as Luthern of Jewish ancestry, is Olivia Newton-Johns grandfather. Who knew?
Borg:
This site actually does some research into the question and has copious footnotes.
http://www.jinfo.org/Nobel_Prizes.html
Saliba has written one book, in which he makes the usual exaggerated claims, and I suppose the observatory at Maragha somehow comes into it, as well as stuff about optics (the only area where Muslim claims stand up), and of course the theory that some Muslim managed to beat Copernicus (a professor of canon law) to the punch. I remember that he did what Muslims always like to do, which is to quote, or misquote, or misinterpret and misquote, a non-Muslim on behalf of Muslim claims. I think in Saliba's case it was Neugebauer, and possibly one other non-Muslim historian of science, but I read the book years ago and cannot recall very much.
The rest of Saliba's slim -- nearly nonexistent --output -- consists of lists of holdings in various European libraries, of Arabic-language manuscripts having to do with science -- which of course Saliba identifies as "Islamic" or, still worse, "Arabic" science.
One assumes that a professor of biology at Columbia who started to teach creationism would be relieved of his duties. Here is Saliba, apparently making absurd ahistorical claims for "Islamic science." He is no longer a scholar, if he ever was, and his teaching would constitute educational malpractice, and the university might find itself on the wrong end of some student's lawsuit. If I were Columbia, I'd try to ensure that Saliba were somehow relieved of his duties, or put in charge of Arabic-language training, or something. How much embarrassment can Columbia's Middle Eastern department, and consequently the university, be expected to endure?
"I guess that is why 165 Jews have won the Nobel Prize, compared to 6 Muslims."
Those 6 Muslims probably won by bribing the panel.
Hugh:
Regardless of what happened in the fuzzy and impenetrable recesses of history, Saliba is merely providing diversion from a more immediate and important question:
Why is that scientists in Muslim countries have contributed virtually nothing to science in the last couple hundred years?
Even if there was a contribution to science in the past, why have Muslim societies become utterly unable in the post-Enlightenment era to make any contribution of note at all?
Even the putative historical contributions of Muslim societies are questionable in that it is hard to argue that modern science would be even a few years behind where it is now in 2007 without these contributions. The same conjecture of "what-if" outcomes leads to far more depressing conclusions if you ask: what if ancient Greece not fragmented or (particularly in more engineering and technology-related areas) what if the Western Roman Empire not fallen? There a much more substantial case can be made that we the actual contributions were so significant and the promise of more contributions so compelling that we can indeed lament that perhaps we'd be hundreds of years ahead in technological and scientific development had these societies at their prime continued.
It is hard to argue that Muslim societies contributed on their own anything that had a big impact on the development of science as we know it today. One can argue that the Baghdad of the Middle Ages helped keep old Greek learning alive and brought in Indian ideas, but so did Byzantium (the Eastern Roman Empire), which was almost killed off and thrown into decline by the Crusaders and then finally destroyed by the Turks. For that matter, what of the role of monasteries in transcribing and preserving ancient thought? Islamic cultures in this context were just one of a number of cultures and institutions that may have preserved the ancient.
Another problem for those who claim that Islamic societies have contributed in an important way to science is that science as we know it is a very, very recent thing. Physics and astronomy have older roots, but even classical physics and much of mechanistic astronomy started with post-Middle Ages Europeans who more-or-less started from scratch with little influence from the past. If we move to chemistry and biology or modern physics, we see almost no influence of the ancients at all. Most of that happened in the last 200 years.
So the "where would be if Muslim scholars had never existed" and the "what have you done for me lately" both lead to the same conclusion:
Islam has had little to no influence on the progress of science and technology.
In fact, if anything, one can make the argument that Islamic jihad, from the inception of Islam, has had a negative impact on science through diversion of resources, conquest and killing. One could more credibly make the argument that we would be a few hundred years ahead scientifically and technologically if Islam had not been assaulting the West for 1,300 years now.
When one runs down the short list of those inaccurately called the flower of "Islamic" or "Arabic" science, most turn out to be Christians or Jews or, if Muslims, then only a generation or two away from being Christians or Jews or Zoroastrians. That explains why "Islamic science" disappeared so quickly. Once a sufficient number of those Christians and Jews had converted to Islam, and the milieu was islamized to a greater extent than before, it was no longer possible for the enterprise of science to be undertaken. Advances could be, and were, borrowed from India (those Sanskrit mathematicians) and China, but what, really, can be attributed to purely Muslim mathematicians and scientists? And of that handful, how many were, like Rhazes (al-Razi), the most famous of them, freethinkers who were scarcely orthodox in their Islam?
But a final question remains, always to be asked when someone starts prating about what may or may not have been achieved more than a thousand years ago, by this or that individual. And that question is one we all know:
What Have You Done For Us Lately?
Not much.
Hugh-
If a Muslim "beat Copernicus to the punch" (about the sun-centered solar system theory), the Greek Aristarchus of Samos (circa 270 B.C.) beat them both by 1600+ years.
He also theorized that the Earth rotates on its axis, causing day and night, and that its axis was "inclined", causing the seasons.
Probably 90% of what Muslim "science" claims as its own was lifted from Greek, Roman, Assyrian/Babylonian, Hindu and Hebrew texts that fell into their hands as they conquered infidel lands, and then "got credit" for the work because their translations reached the West before the originals were rediscovered.
Only in some medical advances, as with innoculation and the etiology of symptoms of disease, do Muslim "scientists" hold their own ....in centuries past long past.
Today... no so much.
Hugh-
If a Muslim "beat Copernicus to the punch" (about the sun-centered solar system theory), the Greek Aristarchus of Samos (circa 270 B.C.) beat them both by 1600+ years.
He also theorized that the Earth rotates on its axis, causing day and night, and that its axis was "inclined", causing the seasons.
Probably 90% of what Muslim "science" claims as its own was lifted from Greek, Roman, Assyrian/Babylonian, Hindu and Hebrew texts that fell into their hands as they conquered infidel lands, and then "got credit" for the work because their translations reached the West before the originals were rediscovered.
Only in some medical advances, as with innoculation and the etiology of symptoms of disease, do Muslim "scientists" hold their own ....in centuries past long past.
Today... no so much.
If Allah so blessed them how come they couldn't figure out:
1. what was beneath their feet. (took western technology)
2. How to get it out of the ground. (took western technology)
3. Build the refineries. (took western technology)
4. What to do with it once it was out of the ground ie. make it usefull. (took, well you know the story)
A friend of mine had a great idea for Iraq. Let's just secure all the oil infastructure we built, draw a line in the sand and say "their ya go, everything else is all yours! enjoy!"
LAHORE: Muslim scientists have made all discoveries of the current age, said University of Columbia’s Arabic and Islamic Studies prof George Saliba ..."
...If you were a student in his class and you wrote a paper that contested his teachings...you would have received a failing grade....no doubt about it....Muslims hate it when the Infidels know the truth about Islam..
Ban Muslim Immigration...
Abdus Salam, from Pakistan, belongs officially to the Ahmadiya sect (everyone must declare himself something in these places; I believe he is a non-believer); in Pakistan, he must register as a non-Muslim. In doing this toting-up business, I wouldn't put him in the Muslim column. That leaves exactly one Muslim Nobel Prizewinner, in the sciences, the only categories where they conceivably make sense. About Zewali I know nothing.
You can contact the Professor ....
George Saliba
Professor of Arabic and Islamic Science
Department of Middle East and Asian Languages and Cultures
Columbia University
1140 Amsterdam Ave, Room 604
New York, NY 10027
Tel: (212) 854-4166
E-Mail: g.saliba@columbia.edu
"in the pre-industrial era"
even if it where true, which it isn't. But for a moment lets all enter the Muslim parallel universe, he himself admits, the discoveries were a long time ago. You'd still have to ask why the West ran with the ideas, while the Muslim nations achieved nothing but a bit of goat herding.
Instead of contacting Saliba, surely one ought to contact the President and Trustees of Columbia, and ask if they think once one acquires tenure, one can get away with scholarly murder, spouting nonsense and lies to one's students. It happens a lot. That is no excuse. And the institution of tenure, at this point, is something that ought to be untenured.
"Hello George Saliba? Hey George, I just got an inside on the sale of a bridge. Are Ya interested?"
Hugh notes in relation to Saliba:
"One assumes that a professor of biology at Columbia who started to teach creationism would be relieved of his duties."
While I have little time for creationism in its science-denying forms, I think the wild over-reaction to it of the Council of Europe (below) is well worth watching. There seems to be a great deal going on under the surface, not least an EU attempt to straightjacket all thought and expression, and a frantic even hysterical recourse to, and further manufacture of, "human rights".
The surprising EU depiction herein of Islam as containing many Muslims sharing a hard-line Christian perspective on creation needs further comment and analysis. There seems more to this Resolution than just a crude anti-American and anti-Christian animus?
The Dangers of Creationism in Education
Resolution 1580 (2007) (1)
http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=/Documents/WorkingDocs/Doc07/EDOC11297.htm
--------------------------------------------------
1. The aim of this report is not to question or to fight a belief – the right to freedom of belief does not permit that. The aim is to warn against certain tendencies to pass off a belief as science. It is necessary to separate belief from science. It is not a matter of antagonism. Science and belief must be able to coexist. It is not a matter of opposing belief and science, but it is necessary to prevent belief from opposing science.
2. For some people the Creation, as a matter of religious belief, gives a meaning to life. Nevertheless, the Parliamentary Assembly is worried about the possible ill-effects of the spread of creationist ideas within our education systems and about the consequences for our democracies. If we are not careful, creationism could become a threat to human rights which are a key concern of the Council of Europe.
3. Creationism, born of the denial of the evolution of species through natural selection, was for a long time an almost exclusively American phenomenon. Today creationist ideas are tending to find their way into Europe and their spread is affecting quite a few Council of Europe member states.
4. The prime target of present-day creationists, most of whom are Christian or Muslim, is education. Creationists are bent on ensuring that their ideas are included in the school science syllabus. Creationism cannot, however, lay claim to being a scientific discipline.
5. Creationists question the scientific character of certain items of knowledge and argue that the theory of evolution is only one interpretation among others. They accuse scientists of not providing enough evidence to establish the theory of evolution as scientifically valid. On the contrary, they defend their own statements as scientific. None of this stands up to objective analysis.
6. We are witnessing a growth of modes of thought which challenge established knowledge about nature, evolution, our origins and our place in the universe.
7. There is a real risk of a serious confusion being introduced into our children’s minds between what has to do with convictions, beliefs, ideals of all sorts and what has to do with science. An “all things are equal” attitude may seem appealing and tolerant, but is in fact dangerous.
8. Creationism has many contradictory aspects. The “intelligent design” idea, which is the latest, more refined version of creationism, does not deny a certain degree of evolution. However, intelligent design, presented in a more subtle way, seeks to portray its approach as scientific, and therein lies the danger.
9. The Assembly has constantly insisted that science is of fundamental importance. Science has made possible considerable improvements in living and working conditions and is a not insignificant factor in economic, technological and social development. The theory of evolution has nothing to do with divine revelation but is built on facts.
10. Creationism claims to be based on scientific rigour. In actual fact the methods employed by creationists are of three types: purely dogmatic assertions; distorted use of scientific quotations, sometimes illustrated with magnificent photographs; and backing from more or less well-known scientists, most of whom are not specialists in these matters. By these means creationists seek to appeal to non-specialists and sow doubt and confusion in their minds.
11. Evolution is not simply a matter of the evolution of humans and of populations. Denying it could have serious consequences for the development of our societies. Advances in medical research with the aim of effectively combating infectious diseases such as AIDS are impossible if every principle of evolution is denied. One cannot be fully aware of the risks involved in the significant decline in biodiversity and climate change if the mechanisms of evolution are not understood.
12. Our modern world is based on a long history, of which the development of science and technology forms an important part. However, the scientific approach is still not well understood and this is liable to encourage the development of all manner of fundamentalism and extremism. The total rejection of science is definitely one of the most serious threats to human rights and civic rights.
13. The war on the theory of evolution and on its proponents most often originates in forms of religious extremism which are closely allied to extreme right-wing political movements. The creationist movements possess real political power. The fact of the matter, and this has been exposed on several occasions, is that some advocates of strict creationism are out to replace democracy by theocracy.
14. All leading representatives of the main monotheistic religions have adopted a much more moderate attitude. Pope Benedict XVI, for example, as his predecessor Pope John-Paul II, today praises the role of the sciences in the evolution of humanity and recognises that the theory of evolution is “more than a hypothesis”.
15. The teaching of all phenomena concerning evolution as a fundamental scientific theory is therefore crucial to the future of our societies and our democracies. For that reason it must occupy a central position in the curriculum, and especially in the science syllabus, as long as, like any other theory, it is able to stand up to thorough scientific scrutiny. Evolution is present everywhere, from medical overprescription of antibiotics that encourages the emergence of resistant bacteria to agricultural overuse of pesticides that causes insect mutations on which pesticides no longer have any effect.
16. The Council of Europe has highlighted the importance of teaching about culture and religion. In the name of freedom of expression and individual belief, creationist ideas, as any other theological position, could possibly be presented as an addition to cultural and religious education, but they cannot claim scientific respectability.
17. Science provides irreplaceable training in intellectual rigour. It seeks not to explain “why things are” but to understand how they work.
18. Investigation of the creationists’ growing influence shows that the arguments between creationism and evolution go well beyond intellectual debate. If we are not careful, the values that are the very essence of the Council of Europe will be under direct threat from creationist fundamentalists. It is part of the role of the Council’s parliamentarians to react before it is too late.
19. The Parliamentary Assembly therefore urges the member states, and especially their education authorities:
19.1. to defend and promote scientific knowledge;
19.2. strengthen the teaching of the foundations of science, its history, its epistemology and its methods alongside the teaching of objective scientific knowledge;
19.3. to make science more comprehensible, more attractive and closer to the realities of the contemporary world;
19.4. to firmly oppose the teaching of creationism as a scientific discipline on an equal footing with the theory of evolution and in general resist presentation of creationist ideas in any discipline other than religion;
19.5. to promote the teaching of evolution as a fundamental scientific theory in the school curriculum.
20. The Assembly welcomes the fact that 27 Academies of Science of Council of Europe member states signed, in June 2006, a declaration on the teaching of evolution and calls on academies of science that have not yet done so to sign the declaration.
--------------------------------------------------
(1) Assembly debate on 4 October 2007 (35th Sitting) (see Doc. 11375, report of the Committee on Culture, Science and Education, rapporteur: Mrs Brasseur). Text adopted by the Assembly on 4 October 2007 (35th Sitting).
Wonder how much further along science would be had not the mahometans murdered 250 million Hindus, Christians, Jews, and others along the way? How many diseases cured, how many discoveries, how many artistic achievements would these people, murdered in the "prophet's" filthy name, would have made?
Not to defend the indefensible, but perhaps not as much as you might think. Societies without challenges tend to stagnate (see Japan and China), and it is indisputable that Islam has placed Nietzschean pressures upon civilization.
Cholera was a challenge, met by advances in sanitation. Polio was a challenge, met by advances in vaccines. It's a pity that we cannot simply sanitize or vaccinate against dogmatic thinking; non-fundamentalist Christianity, Buddhism and a host of other religions would still exist, but Islam would vanish (along with Marxism and its P.C. ofshoots).
Some articles are just too difficult to get through without laughing.
Hysterically!
"One assumes that a professor of biology at Columbia who started to teach creationism would be relieved of his duties."
Hugh.
Not if he is a mohammedan.
As far as I can tell about Zewail from reading his autobiography (I think it's called Voyage Through Time--a good read, although the scientific jargon gets kind of dry), he's a nominal Muslim at best. He does the usual amount of complaining about how past Arab scientists don't get the recognition he deserves, but does so as an Arab rather than as a Musim. He also expresses support for Mubarak, which no Muslim in his right (or wrong, as it were) mind would do. All of which only goes to show that Islam is hostile to knowledge, regardless of what some claim about how "The ink of scholars is more precious than the blood of martyrs," or whatever the supposed hadith says.
Wimbledon Womble wrote:
In terms of Nobel prizes for science, there are only two known Muslim winners in the entire history of Nobel prizes: Abdus Salam (Physics in 1979) and Ahmed Zewail (Chemistry in 1999).
There have been others of Arab Christian or partial Muslim ancestry but who were not raised as Muslims. It is unlikely that Islam played any role in their discoveries, and they could in no way be called Muslim scientists.
Hugh wrote:
Abdus Salam, from Pakistan, belongs officially to the Ahmadiya sect (everyone must declare himself something in these places; I believe he is a non-believer); in Pakistan, he must register as a non-Muslim. In doing this toting-up business, I wouldn't put him in the Muslim column. That leaves exactly one Muslim Nobel Prizewinner, in the sciences, the only categories where they conceivably make sense. About Zewali I know nothing.
...........................
Also, Abdus Salam did most of his work at Cambridge, not in Pakistan.
Ahmed Zewail was born in Egypt, and initially studied at the University of Alexandria--one of the most Westernized of Universities in the Muslim world. Even so, he had at this time not even heard of the Nobel Prize.
He did the bulk of his scientific learning, research, and teaching in the US, first at the University of Pennsylvania, then at Berkeley (he was studying at Berkeley when I was there). He is currently teaching at Caltech.
Here is a short excerpt from his autobiobraphy wihich might be of interest to readers at JW:
"(when I first came to America) I did not speak or write English fluently, and I did not know much about western culture in general, or American culture in particular. I remember a "cultural incident" that opened my eyes to the new traditions I was experiencing right after settling in Philadelphia.
In Egypt, as boys, we used to kid each other by saying "I'll kill you", and good friends often said such phrases jokingly. I became friends with a sympathetic American graduate student, and, at one point, jokingly said "I'll kill you". I immediately noticed his reserve and coolness, perhaps worrying that a fellow from the Middle East might actually do it!"
Saliba attacked a Jewish girl who had green eyes for not being Semitic or truly of ancient Jewish ancestry. I don't know what percentage of Arabs have green eyes, but I believe that there are quite a few. Anyhow, Bashar Assad, fuehrer of Syria, has BLUE eyes. Does that mean that Assad Junior, the darling of the apologists for Arab nationalism in the West, is not a true Arab? How about Fuad Siniora of Lebanon? His skin is awfully pale, much paler than mine. Can we dissect Bashar Assad to determine his exact percentage of ancient Semitic blood? If his percentage is wrong, can we behead him? Just how does George Saliba feel about Assad Junior anyway?
It's quite ironic that someone whose family name [Saliba] means "cross" is so slavishly, so dhimmifically, pro-Muslim as George Saliba. But it apparently pays well. The profs and other staff at Columbia do quite well by their wallets, I do believe.
Here is Toby Huff's reply to George Saliba:
http://baheyeldin.com/history/toby-huff-1.html
George Saliba has been Professor of Arabic and Islamic Science at Columbia University since 1979. His professorship (if you can call it that) is funded by Saudi money.
He who pays the piper calls the tune!
Please tell Mr. Saliba that "If it isn't Scottish, it's crrrap!
Sorry, I am Mr. Arbroath, after all.
Cheers all!
"botany, zoology, algebra, trigonometry, physics, chemistry, astronomy, physics, chemistry, physiology and mathematics in the pre-industrial era. He said the use of decimal fractions was not a Western invention and that it was discovered by a Muslim scientist. He said the binary system, on which the computer was based, was also invented by a Muslim scientist. "
Uhm, its called Aristotle dope and anyone who works in Late Antiquity would know this. the binary system is derived from formal logic, again, from Aristotle up through Kant to Whitehead and Russell, or you can trace it through the Hindu's as well to a large degree. Formal logic depends on Greek, Persian and Egyptian medical theory and that on Mesopotamian diviniation and semiotics.
People who think they know it all are especially annoying to those of us who do.
While Huff's reply to Saliba deserves to be read in full, an early paragraph in his reply should not be missed:
"At the outset, one must say that there is a defensiveness in Professor Saliba’s essay, which, as it unfolds, repeatedly begs the question that was at the centre of my original inquiry. In addition, Saliba rather surprisingly opposes the idea that past and present human communities, institutions, governments and so on ought to grant greater freedom of expression, inquiry and action to their participants. This is surely counter-intuitive."
Defensiveness, often becoming hysterical, about Islam is not merely the mark of Saliba, but of all kinds of Muslim academics whose attitude is hardly that of the disinterested scholar. One can see this defensiveness, for example, in the work of Ekmelledin Ihsanoglu, a Turkish historian of science who was deliberately chosen, as a supposedly respectable academic figure, caused him to be made the Secretary-General of the Organization of the Islamic Conference. But see Ihsanoglu's description of the dhimmi condition and his rapturous version of the status of the "Protected People." And when it comes to science, or "Islamic" science as Saliba would have it, Ihsanoglu's explanations as to why, for example, horology never developed in Islam though one would think that Muslims, with their five daily prayers, would have been keenly interested in devising ways to tell time as accurately as possible, turns out to be pure apologetics, and that can be picked up merely from one of the reviews by another Muslim apologist, the bizarre Ziauddin Sardar, who reviewed one of Ihsanoglu's works for an English magazine.
Defensiveness, and hysteria -- we've seen a lot of that (e.g., with Tariq Ramadan, once you pierce his superficial calm and phony sweet reasonableness), and we will be seeing much more of it. It's a permanent state, for those who find themselves having to explain the non-achievements, for the last thousand years, of Islam. It's not something that Muslims, who are history-haunted, like to do. They prefer not to discuss it, or to make up a fictional history that soothes them, and that they hope, if they repeat often enough, ignorant non-Muslims will swallow. Sometimes it works. There's a whole lot of ignorance, you see, going around.
While Huff's reply to Saliba deserves to be read in full, an early paragraph in his reply should not be missed:
"At the outset, one must say that there is a defensiveness in Professor Saliba’s essay, which, as it unfolds, repeatedly begs the question that was at the centre of my original inquiry. In addition, Saliba rather surprisingly opposes the idea that past and present human communities, institutions, governments and so on ought to grant greater freedom of expression, inquiry and action to their participants. This is surely counter-intuitive."
Defensiveness, often becoming hysterical, about Islam is not merely the mark of Saliba, but of all kinds of Muslim academics whose attitude is hardly that of the disinterested scholar. One can see this defensiveness, for example, in the work of Ekmelledin Ihsanoglu, a Turkish historian of science who was deliberately chosen, as a supposedly respectable academic figure, caused him to be made the Secretary-General of the Organization of the Islamic Conference. But see Ihsanoglu's description of the dhimmi condition and his rapturous version of the status of the "Protected People." And when it comes to science, or "Islamic" science as Saliba would have it, Ihsanoglu's explanations as to why, for example, horology never developed in Islam though one would think that Muslims, with their five daily prayers, would have been keenly interested in devising ways to tell time as accurately as possible, turns out to be pure apologetics, and that can be picked up merely from one of the reviews by another Muslim apologist, the bizarre Ziauddin Sardar, who reviewed one of Ihsanoglu's works for an English magazine.
Defensiveness, and hysteria -- we've seen a lot of that (e.g., with Tariq Ramadan, once you pierce his superficial calm and phony sweet reasonableness), and we will be seeing much more of it. It's a permanent state, for those who find themselves having to explain the non-achievements, for the last thousand years, of Islam. It's not something that Muslims, who are history-haunted, like to do. They prefer not to discuss it, or to make up a fictional history that soothes them, and that they hope, if they repeat often enough, ignorant non-Muslims will swallow. Sometimes it works. There's a whole lot of ignorance, you see, going around.
While Huff's reply to Saliba deserves to be read in full, an early paragraph in his reply should not be missed:
"At the outset, one must say that there is a defensiveness in Professor Saliba’s essay, which, as it unfolds, repeatedly begs the question that was at the centre of my original inquiry. In addition, Saliba rather surprisingly opposes the idea that past and present human communities, institutions, governments and so on ought to grant greater freedom of expression, inquiry and action to their participants. This is surely counter-intuitive."
Defensiveness, often becoming hysterical, about Islam is not merely the mark of Saliba, but of all kinds of Muslim academics whose attitude is hardly that of the disinterested scholar. One can see this defensiveness, for example, in the work of Ekmelledin Ihsanoglu, a Turkish historian of science who was deliberately chosen, as a supposedly respectable academic figure, caused him to be made the Secretary-General of the Organization of the Islamic Conference. But see Ihsanoglu's description of the dhimmi condition and his rapturous version of the status of the "Protected People." And when it comes to science, or "Islamic" science as Saliba would have it, Ihsanoglu's explanations as to why, for example, horology never developed in Islam though one would think that Muslims, with their five daily prayers, would have been keenly interested in devising ways to tell time as accurately as possible, turns out to be pure apologetics, and that can be picked up merely from one of the reviews by another Muslim apologist, the bizarre Ziauddin Sardar, who reviewed one of Ihsanoglu's works for an English magazine.
Defensiveness, and hysteria -- we've seen a lot of that (e.g., with Tariq Ramadan, once you pierce his superficial calm and phony sweet reasonableness), and we will be seeing much more of it. It's a permanent state, for those who find themselves having to explain the non-achievements, for the last thousand years, of Islam. It's not something that Muslims, who are history-haunted, like to do. They prefer not to discuss it, or to make up a fictional history that soothes them, and that they hope, if they repeat often enough, ignorant non-Muslims will swallow. Sometimes it works. There's a whole lot of ignorance, you see, going around.
..Muslims have discovered it is far easier to kill people than it is to discover the cure for the diseases that kill people....ooops...Islam is a disease that kills....
Ban Muslim Immigration...
Posted by: exsgtbrown [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 7, 2007 1:16 PM
ROFLMAO, Funny AND true!
The Nobel peace prize was founded my Mr. Nobel out of guilt for developing a better explosive and unleashing such a destructive force upon the world.
Kinda ironic that the Islamics can't win the prize, but are VERY adept at using the product!
They didn't do $&*#.
LMAO @ topic
besides the fact he's repeating the same garbage as calypso louie farrakhan of he nation of islam (as if),
obviously he hasn't read the book:
"How the Scots invented the modern world: The True Story of How Western Europe's Poorest Nation Created Our World & Everything in It" by Arthur Herman
http://www.amazon.com/How-Scots-Invented-Modern-World/dp/0609809997
Boy, he's gonna be in for one helluva rude shock!
He'd be VERY upset...then again, it's amazing how he got a degree at all, considering that spew he just made...LOL