Book idea : THE MYTH OF ISLAMIC SCIENCE.

Posted by: RED at July 30, 2005 1:25 PM

There is a good deal that could be written about the exaggerated claims made for "Islamic" science, or as the inimitable George Saliba of Columbia calls it, "Arabic" Science. One might begin with Rodney Stark, who has devoted a book to investigating why it was that modern science developed in the West, the Christian West, and not elsewhere. Stark explains a good many things, including the view Christians had of God as starting the universe going, according to laws which could be sought for, and found, and the Muslim view of Allah, who is a creature unhindered by any laws, even laws of his own making, a whimsical god, a god who comes in whenever and wherever he feels like, without rhyme or reason -- or at least the Muslim task is simply to submit, and not to question his ways.

Another scholar to consult is Toby Huff, whose exchange with the increasingly hysterical and ad-hominem attacks of George Saliba (it does not take much to get Saliba to drop the pose of a Western scholar -- he just can't maintain it, can't keep it up for very long) can be found simply by googling "Toby Huff" and "George Saliba."

One might also be amused by the large claims made by a bizarre figure, Ziauddin Sarkar. Sarkar, in turn, was somehow permitted to review, in the pages of the British journal "Nature," the large claims made on behalf of "Ottoman" -- i.e., "Islamic" science - by Dr. Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, a historian of Ottoman science, some of whose attempts to explain why such things as the clock did not develop in the East but only in the West (you see, since the early clocks were not sufficiently accurate for Muslims to rely on them for knowing when it was time for prayers, they did not think it worth using them, or trying to improve them) raise far more disturbing questions about the Muslim mind-set than Dr. Ihsanoglu apparently realizes.

Why did an editor at Nature give the job of reviewing Ekheleddin Ihsanoglu's book to the apologist Ziauddin Sarkar? And who at Science allowed the puff-piece about "Islamic science," with every cliche that no historian of mathematics, or science, or technology -- not Giorgio di Santillana, not Crombie, not Charles Singer, not a hundred others -- would have permitted.

What is happening when standards, supposedly so rigorous at "Science" or at "Nature" are so obviously non-existent, and both journals become, rightly, the object of ridicule? This kind of thing cannot be allowed to go on. Who, in the world of science, will demand some kind of investigation into how, if not Sarkar's absurd review, then at least Wasim Masiak's bit of propaganda for some Self-Esteem Studies Department at Al-Azhar University, or the King Abdul Aziz Institute of Advanced Islamic Sciences, is discussed, both its contents, and how it ever was allowed to grace the pages of what is supposed to be a serious and "peer-reviewed" journal.

Who were Masiak's peers who reviewed him? George Saliba?

Posted by: Hugh at July 30, 2005 1:36 PM

There is a good deal that could be written about the exaggerated claims made for "Islamic" science, or as the inimitable George Saliba of Columbia calls it, "Arabic" Science. One might begin with Rodney Stark, who has devoted a book to investigating why it was that modern science developed in the West, the Christian West, and not elsewhere. Stark explains a good many things, including the view Christians had of God as starting the universe going, according to laws which could be sought for, and found, and the Muslim view of Allah, who is a creature unhindered by any laws, even laws of his own making, a whimsical god, a god who comes in whenever and wherever he feels like, without rhyme or reason -- or at least the Muslim task is simply to submit, and not to question his ways.

Another scholar to consult is Toby Huff, whose exchange with the increasingly hysterical and ad-hominem attacks of George Saliba (it does not take much to get Saliba to drop the pose of a Western scholar -- he just can't maintain it, can't keep it up for very long) can be found simply by googling "Toby Huff" and "George Saliba."

One might also be amused by the large claims made by a bizarre figure, Ziauddin Sarkar. Sarkar, in turn, was somehow permitted to review, in the pages of the British journal "Nature," the large claims made on behalf of "Ottoman" -- i.e., "Islamic" science - by Dr. Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, a historian of Ottoman science, some of whose attempts to explain why such things as the clock did not develop in the East but only in the West (you see, since the early clocks were not sufficiently accurate for Muslims to rely on them for knowing when it was time for prayers, they did not think it worth using them, or trying to improve them) raise far more disturbing questions about the Muslim mind-set than Dr. Ihsanoglu apparently realizes.

Why did an editor at Nature give the job of reviewing Ekheleddin Ihsanoglu's book to the apologist Ziauddin Sarkar? And who at Science allowed the puff-piece about "Islamic science," with every cliche that no historian of mathematics, or science, or technology -- not Giorgio di Santillana, not Crombie, not Charles Singer, not a hundred others -- would have permitted.

What is happening when standards, supposedly so rigorous at "Science" or at "Nature" are so obviously non-existent, and both journals become, rightly, the object of ridicule? This kind of thing cannot be allowed to go on. Who, in the world of science, will demand some kind of investigation into how, if not Sarkar's absurd review, then at least Wasim Masiak's bit of propaganda for some Self-Esteem Studies Department at Al-Azhar University, or the King Abdul Aziz Institute of Advanced Islamic Sciences, is discussed, both its contents, and how it ever was allowed to grace the pages of what is supposed to be a serious and "peer-reviewed" journal.

Who were those "peers" of Wasim Masiak doing that "peer-reviewing"? Ziauddin Sarkar? George Saliba?

Posted by: Hugh at July 30, 2005 1:37 PM

James Burke also conveniently ignores that Averroes's work was subsequently marginalized in Islamic societies by al Ghazali's influence. His influence in Europe was much greater than his influence in Islamic societies, and his proposition that there was no conflict between philosophy and religion had no real influence on Islamic societies.

I wish that Jonathan Carson's great article had pointed out that the often used term "Islamic sciences" does not equate to "science" in the inductive/falsification sense. Rather, "Islamic sciences" is really synonymous with the term "theology." I've seen MSM outlets laud scholars of the "Islamic sciences" as if the term meant the same as what Messrs. Newton, Einstein, Copernicus et al were doing in the West. If I remember correctly, the Arabic word "ilm" could mean either "science" in the Western sense, or "Islamic science" as described above (I guess that's a topic for another article).

Posted by: Darius LaMonica at July 30, 2005 1:40 PM

Hold on a second, no one has ever gotten the art of rock throwing down to a science like the Muslims have. Let's put credit where it's due.

Posted by: DCWatson at July 30, 2005 1:47 PM

I here re-post the conclusion to Part Two of my three-part piece "Islam for Infidels" for it contains just a telling bit more about the distinguished Turkish historian of Ottoman science, and Secretary-General of the Organization of Islamic Countries. Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu's apointment was unusual, for he is not a political figure, and he is a Turk. But it was apparently felt that as a "distinguished intellectual figure" in the Islamic world he would set a new, a dignified, an appropriate tone, to things -- for image-makeover for Islam is in the works, apparently. Well, perhaps his histories are not without value. But after reading what he said, describing the wonders of the dhimmi status, the status of being those ominously-named "protected peoples," one may wonder if Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu is an historian of science like I. Bernard Cohen, or Gerald Holton, or W. Crombie, or Charles Singer -- or whether he is not really of that company at all.

Indeed, one may wonder whether he is best thought of the way we think of that "Palestinian" writer Mahmoud Darwish, a recent winner of the Lannan Prize awarded this year to that profound intellectual Cornel West, Darwish himself most famous for his propagandistic doggerel directed at those wicked Israelis, and at his "memories-of-lost-Palestine" shtick. (If you think describing him as a writer of propagandistic doggerel is too harsh, ask Adonis. Ask the ghost of Mutanabbi.)

Here are the final paragraphs of Part Two of "Islam For Infidels":

"Dr. Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, a Turkish historian of Ottoman science, who is now the Secretary-General of the Organization of Islamic Countries, helpfully explained in a recent address to an audience of American Infidels, that the “privilege of becoming a protected minority via an act of dhimmiship was given only to the followers of a prophet to whom a sacred book was revealed.”

In defining “dhimmiship” as the “privilege of becoming a protected minority” Dr. Ihsanoglu did his best. But those who are so solicitious of the public image of Islam and of Muslims in mind realize that it should not be left up just to NPR, or the BBC, or Le Monde; we all have to pitch in, and do our bit. It might be better if “dhimmi” were to be jettisoned altogether. The word upsets Infidels, and it does nothing for Muslims, either.

Instead of “dhimmis” why not call them “Friends With Benefits”?

Posted by: Hugh at July 30, 2005 1:47 PM

Hyping, revisionism and shifting blame for Islam's martial philosophy is the soup du jour.

Here is another fine example:

_____________________________

We should admit our mistakes by Charley Reese
http://www.sanfordherald.com/articles/2005/07/30/news/editorial/edit03.txt

_____________________________

The following statement made by Mr. Reese, "What's wrong with saying to the American people: "The terrorist attacks against us have nothing to do with Islam. They are a response to our policy of supporting Israel and the Arab governments we like, our military presence in the Persian Gulf, and our decision to attack Iraq.", only underscores his blatant ignorance concerning the historicity of Islam and its stated goals via Qur'an and Sira.

Jihad, as sanctioned by Allah, is a physical war waged upon infidels in order to make Islam dominant and Shari'a the law of the land. Once the Caliphate is installed (or in our day - restored), the peoples of the book (Jews and Christians) become "protected" peoples (the dhimma) who are compelled to convert to Islam because of an exorbitant poll tax (jizya) and a system of humiliating rules which render the "dhimmi" a second class citizen. This is the goal of Islamic terrorists, past and present.

The previous paragraph concisely descibes the history of Islam and illustrates its continuing practice to this day. Mr. Reese would do better by doing a little homework before making such outrageous claims. I would like to know how Mr. Reese explains the continuous jihad warfare waged by Muslims 1100+ years prior to the inception of the United States? Did the non-existent nations of the USA and Israel contribute to the slaughter of 70 million Indian Hindus by Muslim invaders? Did The Great Satan and its Zionist ghost-minion start the jihad genocide perpetrated by Turkish Muslims against their Armenian subjects - who just happened to be Christian? How does Mr. Reese explain the acts of murder and destruction committed by Muslims against infidels and their property in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Phillipines, Thailand...etc.?

Ridding the "lands" of Muslims is a priority for Mr. bin Laden, but this is not a novel concept for the contemporary Islamic terrorist. Taking the planet in its entirety is the goal of Islam. The proof and plan is in Qur'an and Sira. Mr. Reese should heed the explanation he gives about Hitler's, "Mein Kampf," and READ Islam's holy book.

What a maroon!

Posted by: Skeet Street at July 30, 2005 2:18 PM

"What's wrong with saying to the American people: "The terrorist attacks against us have nothing to do with Islam."
-- from Charley Reese, quoted in a posting above

There's nothing wrong with it -- but it just happens to be flatly wrong. That's what's wrong with it. And Reese meant it, you see, as somethinig to be forthrightly acknowledged, even as we would continue to do those very things that make the Muslims mad -- support Israel and our "friends" in the Arab world. In other words, he was not, is not, preaching appeasement -- he's preaching let's do whatever we wish to do, even if it makes Muslims mad.

But he's got it wrong. And by further inveigling people into believing that it is something "we" do --whether "we" are in Washington, London, or Madrid, or Rome or Paris, he will continue to help us misunderstand Islam. If he refuses to see that Muslim aggression and murder committed by Muslims, against non-Muslims, in southern Sudan and Nigeria, in Pakistan and Bangladesh, in Kashmir and the Philippines, in Indonesia and in Thailand, and indeed wherever Muslims feel strong enough to be the aggressors against those local non-Muslims, whatever the kind of non-Muslimness they exhibit, they will be.

He has it wrong. His intentions may be goodheared, or brave-hearted, but he's got Islam wrong. And getting it wrong is dangerous.

Posted by: Hugh at July 30, 2005 2:34 PM

"Why did an editor at Nature give the job of reviewing Ekheleddin Ihsanoglu's book to the apologist Ziauddin Sarkar?"

Because the West has undergone a change of Zeitgeist in the last 50 years.

"And who at Science allowed the puff-piece about "Islamic science,"..."

Anybody there, who has simply been breathing the PC oxygen.

"What is happening when standards, supposedly so rigorous at "Science" or at "Nature" are so obviously non-existent, and both journals become, rightly, the object of ridicule?"

What has happened (not what "is happening" -- it's a done deal) is that the West has undergone a change of Zeitgeist in the last 50 years.

Posted by: metaxy at July 30, 2005 4:12 PM

It's really sad when Muslims have to lie about their history to sell Islam to the more educated free thinking westerners , yes it was Islamic societies that brought about many sciences and knowledge about advanced math,BUT what they don't tell you is that it was the minority Jews and Christians within the Caliphate that gave THEM the knowledge that they now pawn off as there own.

One of the most advanced mechanical devices
found during escavations was a metal object cased in hardened mud and dirt, after careful cleaning it was revealed as a complicated set of gears like a RWD car differential and the dials and plates had etched graduation on them and icons of the moon and sun.
With all that percision and knowledge it was wondered about why the object was built during a time of limitted skills and labour intense manufacturing methods, finally the watch-like set of mechanical gears was recognized as a portable astronomers Star chart and Muslims used it to work out the prayer times and predict the phases of the moon.
Living near Mecca made it easy to hear the prayer calls from the towers or watch the crowds flow to a Mosque ,but when you travelled across longitudes and didn't own a watch or calender it was the gears that allowed you to plan the trip and know exactly when Ramadan started and in how many days it would occure.

That obsession with rules and rituals consumed their time with pleasing Allah and not using knowledge to better the lives of the poor
or make the work of the mothers less labourous by mechanical systems that reduced physical demands to lift or transport water and other basic needs.
Even today we see donkeys pulling carts and some areas outside the main cities that cart in water or have primitive housing conditions, Islam
seems attractive because once you get used to the Hell-on-Earth living conditions under Sharia Law, death starts to look pretty good and 72 virgins in paradise can drive those losers to die for Allah cause.

Posted by: ala-sux at July 30, 2005 4:30 PM

I have posted this link before and it seems the topic of this thread demands another review of this most excellent letter written by Peter BetBasoo to then CEO of Hewlett Packard, Carly Fiorina. There are some interesting links at the bottom of the letter.

What Arab Civilization?
http://www.ninevehsoft.com/fiorina.htm

Posted by: Skeet Street at July 30, 2005 4:48 PM

" It's really sad when Muslims have to lie about their history to sell Islam to the more educated free thinking westerners..."

The problem is less that Muslims lie -- that's to be expected. The problem is that the PC West laps up their lies.

Why does the PC West lap up their lies?

Because the West has undergone a change in Zeitgeist over the last 50 years. The vast majority of Westerners -- of all types, not just "elitists" and "leaders" -- are psychologically incapable of criticizing Islam, much less condemning it.

Posted by: metaxy at July 30, 2005 5:52 PM

I am since en few months studying in depth the so-called Islam Arab contribution to science and in particular to mathematics as a start. I can already confirm most of the above and also:

- Islam Arab mathematics were the result of the translation form Greek, Persian, Indian and Chinese mathematics performed by Syrians, Jews, Persians, etc. towards Arab that was the IMPOSED language.

- Subsequently there was hardly any Arab involved in mathematics as most of the well-known mathematicians were either Persians, Berbers, Christian Syrians or Jews, etc… a lot of them even not being Muslims.

- There was hardly any development in mathematics by these scientists that was of any importance: algebra by Al Khawarismi was mainly a follow-up if the work of Diophantus
(http://turnbull.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Diophantus.html)
several centuries before. Trigonometry was already developed a lot a few centuries in India by Aryabhata, and Brahmagupta in the 6th and 7th century.
(http://turnbull.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/HistTopics/Trigonometric_functions.html)

- There is in mathematics, as far as I know, not 1 formula neither 1 proof that has the name of an Islam Arab mathematician. The names are mainly either from Greek mathematicians till Pappus and later from western mathematicians starting with Leonardo Pisano Fibonacci. Only a few words such as Algebra and Algorithm come from the Arab language, although they are due to a Persian.

- When on looks into more detail the “development” of the so-called Islam Arab mathematics, then it becomes quite obvious that their “original” work besides the translation, copying and some synthesis from the several sources is not much more than what we call today exercises in school or variants of previous copied work.

Though there may be some minor cases were above statements would not held, I challenge anybody to proof the wrongs of my remarks.

Also I want to share with you a political-correct statement used in the History of Mathematics Course of the Open University:

“You may feel in the light of the studies of this section (Islamic mathematics) that less than justice has been done here to the achievements of Islamic mathematicians. However, it may be fair to suggest that Islamic mathematics developed less, relatively, compared with Greek mathematics or with subsequent developments in Europe. The surrounding Islamic culture was often not generally favourable to mathematical and scientific advances – as witness the religious opposition to a reform of the calendar. The work of mathematicians was very largely dependant on the individual patronage of rulers and nobles. There was perhaps less opportunity for experimental thinking than in Greek times or in the West following the Reformation. While, therefore, it is clearly wrong to say ‘the Arabs made no significant advance in mathematics’, it is not entirely unreasonable to suggest that, had they lived in a different political and religious milieu, their contribution might well have been even greater than they were.”

A very very diplomatic statement!

Posted by: nadineken at July 30, 2005 6:01 PM

And according to the UN Arab Human Development Report [2002], "the accumulated total of translated books since the Caliph Maa'moun's time [9th century] is about 100,000, almost the average that Spain translates in one year." So in the span of more than a thousand years the entire arab world has translated into arabic only as much material as Spain translates in a single year. In case you are wondering, this UN report was written entirely by arab scholars.

The Arab Human Development Report 2002: Creating Opportunities for Future Generations, sponsored by the Regional Bureau for Arab States/UNDP, Arab Fund for Economic and Social Development.

Posted by: Hulegu Khan at July 30, 2005 6:29 PM

I agree with the above posters, and sum it all up in an unintellectual way as:

The worship of death brings nothing but misery and death.

Islam is the worship of death.

How is it that the Jews who make up less than 2% of the worlds population, manage to have a huge impact on world science? Manage to win the lions share of Nobel prizes?

The Muslims, according to the Muslims, make up one of the worlds largest populations, yet in order to get an education, they have to flock to the west like the parasites they are (on Western cilvilisation). Yet the Muslims call Jews monkeys (see the ex Malaysian PM who got a standing ovation from Muslims when he made such comments)hmmmmmm.......go figure????

The Budhist and Hindu civilisations are also way more advanced than any Muslim civilisation. And before any Muslim starts shreeking at me about some of the oil rich countries, all their technology comes off the back of oil money, which they use to buy foreign non Muslim workers to build their nations for them. Who has the brain like a monkey then? Muslims certainly act like animals when their stupid book is defaced.

Just like Allah the impotent can't even remove a few million Jews from the Middle East, Allah can't even inspire his followers to be orginal when it comes to using one's intellect.

A pig is one of the most intelligent animals on the planet. A pig is more intelligent than Allah.

Posted by: 3rdtimelucky at July 30, 2005 6:47 PM

I wish Hugh or some more knowledgeable than myself would take on this Muslim claims about Science
Setting the Record Straight it has all of the earmarks of the same revisionism of the Soviet Union, which claimed that the Russians first invented everything. Quite the modus operandi of people, and cultures, with an inferiority complex.

Here's a sample "What is Taught: The first mention of man in flight was by Roger Bacon, who drew a flying apparatus. Leonardo da Vinci also conceived of airborne transport and drew several prototypes.

What Should be Taught: Ibn Firnas of Islamic Spain invented, constructed and tested a flying machine in the 800's A.D. Roger Bacon learned of flying machines from Arabic references to Ibn Firnas' machine. The latter's invention antedates Bacon by 500 years and Da Vinci by some 700 years."

This is ludicrous, Roger Bacon was literate in many languages, but not Arabic so thus could have learned nothing from an Arab scholar, and who is this Ibn Firnas, a mythical muslim?

Here's some Rebuttals to Science in the Qur'an From Answering Islam.

The sad part of this whole episode is that it proves just how ignorant and unscientific The American Association for the Advancement of Science, and Science Magazine are.

They should rename themselve to the American Association of Retarded Scientists and Ignorant Dhimmi's.

Posted by: Giaour at July 30, 2005 7:38 PM

"and who is this Ibn Firnas, a mythical muslim?"

Let's not in our important anti-Jihadist project get silly and provide ammunition to our critics. Ibn-Firnas was real and he really experimented with flight in the 9th century. The historian of technology Lynn White, Jr., researched this and wrote about it, and Lynn White is a source one implicitly trusts.

The more pertinent point is that, while Islamic culture had a brief period of power and hegemony over great expanses of the Ecumene -- and therefore could not avoid fostering pockets of luxury here and there for individuals to experiment with proto-clocks and (al)chemicals and philosophy -- we can see the "progress" of Islam as having a trajectory that plummets ethically and spiritually downward over the centuries, leading from an ibn Firnas leaping off a mountain in Cordoba with his glider (one glimpses here a fleeting moment in time when at least a few Muslims could do something with their time & imagination other than fanatically spread totalitarian Islam) to the Muslims who hijacked the astonishingly superior manifestations of the improvement on medieval speculations on flight which only the modern West has been capable of -- and crashing them in wicked Islamic terror into buildings to mass-murder thousands of innocent people.

Posted by: metaxy at July 30, 2005 8:17 PM

metaxy,

Exactly! If the list Giaour provided is true in every one of its statements (which I seriously doubt), what of it?

What has the Islamic "civilization" accomplished in the past one thousand years?

Posted by: Skeet Street at July 30, 2005 8:23 PM

Yes skeet, that's the point that so many who cite the supposed "Golden Age" of Islam miss.

But they do more than miss it. They do what I call the "Leftist Two-Step":

1) "Well, Muslims had a Golden Age that shows they are just as good, maybe better (look at the wonderful tolerance and cultivation of philosophy of Islamic Spain!) than the West..."

[You point out to them the complete Regress of Islam since that supposed Golden Age]

2) "Well, Muslims have been on a downward course because the evil West has been oppressing them first through evil Colonialism, and recently through evil American foreign policy actions..."

Posted by: metaxy at July 30, 2005 9:00 PM

Couldn't be said that Islam is a parasitical civilisation, that once it was prevented from gaining an influx of fresh hosts, it began it's decline. Let's face it, it's only resurgence has been due to oil and immigration to the West where they are once again gaining frest hosts. Isolate Islam and it will wither of it's own accord.

Posted by: Terrahawk at July 30, 2005 10:13 PM

Giaour:

Your second link didn't work on my computer. Was this the "rebuttal" website you were referring to?

http://apostatesofislam.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=811&sid=b4ce3bdc6529105990f421f60140fc77

Posted by: Darius LaMonica at July 31, 2005 12:52 AM

This need for muslims to claim a glorious scientific and intellectual history reminds me of two other, similar claims.

About ten years ago, some blacks began to claim that Cleopatra of Egypt was black, and suggested that she was an example of the past black glory that the West was trying to ignore. This concept got a lot of press at the time. But it became evident to anyone who picked up a history book or an encyclopaedia that Cleopatra was descended from Macedonian Greeks. Well and good, but the lie had such wide publicity that I still hear it voiced from time to time.

The other example is from NAZI Germany. I should say "examples" because the Nazi's built up a huge historical mythology about their origins. Of course, most of that died with the movement.

The lies about one's origin always identify the bastards in the end. In the meantime, there are always plenty of people who want to believe. Some people will accept anything that is anti-western in some way or another.

Posted by: texan at July 31, 2005 1:27 AM

Islam definitely perfected one scientific discovery: the blind spot.

They have been refining it for a thousand years.

It allows them to overlook their own failings, and to simultaneously miss the decency in others.

A truly amazing 'natural instrument', honed and polished and ground exceedingly fine.

A moral, psychological and spirituallens, behaving like a black hole in the mind.

Posted by: BigSleep at July 31, 2005 2:18 AM

reminds me of the 60's and soviet revisionism.

Soviet; you know, WE invented baseball

it was a running joke for years. dress it in a turban and beard and stick a pair of wild eyes between them and it's still laughable, still fun.

which brings up a point, we don't utilize NEARLY enough humor in this war we are in.

we need to fund a battalion of trained laughers and send them out under cover of being reporters, potential converts, whatever personna will get a muslim frothing and preaching. i am dead(yes, dead) sure that if we respond to some of the ludicrous statements made by islamics by collapsing into fits of sidesplitting, fingerpointing, teary-eyed, gasping, uncontrolable hysterics, it would subject them to the ridicule they are so feverishly try to avoid, at the least, and may well provoke them to drop their cultivated image of a "peaceful religion" and expose them for the hatemongers they are. then we laugh some more.
pure public ridicule. not aimed at the murderous intentions, we all take that seriously,
but aimed at the infantile rationalizations, the patently absurd revisionist histories, the mindboggling convolutions of logic, and my personal favorite, the hallucinogenic dichotomy of standards.

Posted by: t-ham at July 31, 2005 7:08 AM

They are nothing and they have nothing to show for their "civilization"- The pyramides were build by intelligent people and not by marauding Arabs.

There is no achievement in science, medicine, art: Nothing. Yes, perhaps, there were times when Islam was "tolerant" towards the Dhimmies, and allowed them to diddle with architecture, science, medicine for brief periods.

But no more than that. The obsession with Allah, Jihad-warfare and booty as well as slavery didn't allow for more.

And to claim credit for what they don't own, that is just the nature of the beast.

As for somebody jumping off a cliff with some kind of wings, I believe humans have tried that as far as 5000 years ago. Why should we care whether an Arab in occupied Spain tried the same?

Remember Malcolm X?

In one of his sermons, he claimed that blacks were living in palaces and were wearing silk and satin 5000 years ago. I think by joining the Muhammedan cult one automatically must be deluded and become a lier in order to cope with this fantasy world.

Posted by: Terminator at July 31, 2005 7:27 AM

Thanks to Dhimmi Watch for posting the link to my essay in The American Thinker, and thanks to everyone who read and commented on it.

I am also grateful to The American Thinker for publishing it in the first place. Its editor, Thomas Lifson, informed me that Dhimmi Watch had posted the link.

That was the first time I had heard of Jihad/Dhimmi Watch, so I'm new to the site. I've enjoyed browsing it and expect to be a regular from now on.

Posted by: Jonathan David Carson, Ph.D. at July 31, 2005 11:40 PM