Boris Johnson’s recently-unearthed observation that Islam kept Muslims centuries behind the West prompted a series of letters to The Guardian taking issue with this, claiming instead that the West owed an “immense debt to Islam.”
The first and most indignant letter, representative of many, was from Dr. Colm Gillis, an “independent scholar” who appears to have no background in Islamic studies:
Johnson is painfully ignorant of the immense cultural, economic, and scientific contributions of Muslims (Islam kept Muslim world centuries behind the west, Johnson claimed, 16 July). Western civilisation owes an immense debt to Islam, whether in the form of algebra, the saving of ancient Greek heritage or the free-market economics of Ibn Khaldun.
Let’s start with “algebra,” which always heads the list of “Muslim” contributions to civilization. The word “algebra” comes from the Arabic “al-jabr.” From that we are expected to believe that “algebra” was first developed by Muslim Arabs. The word “sugar” also comes from the Arabic, (“sukkar”), but this does not mean that Muslim Arabs discovered sugar. Algebra was not invented by Arabs or Muslims, but in India, by Sanskrit mathematicians. Muslims then translated and commented on these Indian works. The word “al-jabr” was first used in the treatise Book on Addition and Subtraction after the Method of the Indians, written by the 9th-century Persian mathematician Muhammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī. In the very title of his book we find acknowledgement of the Indian origins of algebra — “After the Method of the Indians.” But this information continues to be ignored by those who still insist on claiming that algebra was invented by Muslims.
Many of those who like to claim “algebra” for the Muslims also insist that “Arabic numerals” were invented by Muslim Arabs, but here, too, it is the Indian mathematicians who came up with these numerals. They were transmitted from India to the West by the Arabs — hence their misnomer “Arabic numerals.”
Often cited as examples of the inventiveness of Muslims are paper and gunpowder. But both were invented by the Chinese and then brought to the West by Muslims, who are often credited with inventing what they merely transmitted.
What about Muslims’ “saving of ancient Greek heritage”? That’s a fantastic claim. Muslim rulers, in Baghdad, Toledo, and Cordoba, commissioned the translation of certain Greek works — not the entire “ancient Greek heritage.” Works of rhetoric, poetry, histories, and dramas were not translated into Arabic, since they were viewed as serving political ends which were potentially dangerous in the eyes of such rulers. Instead, philosophical and scientific works were almost the entire focus of translation into Arabic. The translations were done not by Muslims, but by Arabic-speaking Christians (including Nestorian, Melkite, and Jacobite monks in Palestine and, later in Baghdad, and by Catholics in Cordoba and Toledo), and Jews in Cordoba,Toledo, and Baghdad. Al-Mansur, the 2nd Abbasid caliph, was the most important Muslim ruler to commission these translations. The most significant works that were translated were those of Aristotle — but not even all of his corpus. The word “saving” implies that these Greek works from classical antiquity would otherwise have disappeared. But that misstates the case. Translation did not “save” that heritage, but made these Greek texts more accessible, for once they had been translated from Greek into Arabic (sometimes being put first into Syriac, and then from Syriac into Arabic), they were then made accessible to a large Arabic-speaking, but not necessarily Muslim, population. They could then be translated yet again, by these Christian and Jewish translators, from the Arabic into Latin, and these Latin texts would then be transmitted to the West. There was no “debt to Islam” for “saving ancient Greek heritage.” The debt was to those Christian and Jewish translators for first producing Arabic translations of Greek philosophical and scientific works, and then to still other Christians and Jews who translated those Arabic texts into Latin, thus making them more accessible to scholars in the West.
As for the third claim, so casually tossed-off, about the “free-market economics of Ibn Khaldun,” there are a handful of articles online — by Muslims — that describe Ibn Khaldun as an economist who prefigured Adam Smith’s “free-market” economics. But there is nothing in ibn Khaldun about the “free market” or the Invisible Hand; he did point out the economic benefits of the “division of labor,” whereby an item is most efficiently and inexpensively manufactured when each worker concentrates on manufacturing only one part. Ibn Khaldun took this observation and applied it not only to what went on in rudimentary factories, but also among countries: hundreds of years before Ricardo, Ibn Khaldun noted that if one country had a comparative advantage in producing a particular good, it made sense for it to specialize in making that good and for other countries to buy it from them. Ibn Khaldun also made some remarks about how increasing taxes could lead in the end to less revenues for the government; some may see this as prefiguring supply-side economics and the Laffer curve. But he did not, unlike Adam Smith, provide a unified and coherent economic theory; his were disjointed observations. But most significant was that they had no effect in the West, were not part of any “debt to Islam,” because these economic observations found in his Muqaddimah remained unknown in the Western world and could not have influenced Adam Smith, David Ricardo, or any other classical economists of the 18th and 19th centuries. There is no “debt to Islam” in the West for Ibn Khaldun’s economic writings because they became known only long after Western economists had elaborated their own free-market theories. They made no use of, and therefore had no debt to, Ibn Khaldun.
Uriah Sheep says
Another useful idiot who will no doubt get executed after his pals take over and implement their tolerant way of life. Nevermind, he’s most likely pocketed a pretty penny for writing that shite. Enjoy it while you can, Colm. Islam is coming.
Thanks to twats like you!
Terry Gain says
Why would Muslims kill an idiot who will lie for them? This is his life insurance policy.
James Lincoln says
True enough, Terry.
By feeding the crocodiles, he’ll just be the last one eaten.
J D S says
I would say that Muslims invented murder….but they didn’t….murder was invented in early Biblical times By one brother upon another…These were blood brothers but today’s mankind brothers have taken murder to a much further realism than could ever be imagined.
Yosef Manachem says
Dunning-Krugger phenomea at it’s “best”
w says
I believe that when the Muslims took over Alexandria, the sultan of the day (I forget whom) was asked
what to do with all the books. He is supposed to have replied, if they are before the Quran they are heresy
and if they are from after the Quran was written they are of no importance as all knowledge is in the Quran
So they burnt them.
James says
And also, something that Bill Warner points out, the Muslims have a long history of destroying the cultural achievements of other cultures. The latest outrages were the Islamic state’s destruction of archeological treasures of the West, and the Taliban destruction of the Afghan Buddha statues, or the destruction of artifacts in museums in Egypt and Iraq. The Muslims think they should destroy any signs of culture before Islam or non-islamic cultural achievements. So the contibutions to the West include perhaps that they did not destroy everything non-Muslim, at least not yet.
Anjuli Pandavar says
James, “So the [Islamic] contibutions to the West include perhaps that they did not destroy everything non-Muslim, at least not yet.”
—-
This is a good point, and as you intimate, they’re on it.
gravenimage says
Very true, James. Muslims conquered and occupied Greece, parts of France and Italy, all of Anatolia, the Levant and Magreb–how much did they destroy?
Scholars fleeing Constantinople after the Muslim conquest brought some knowledge and books they could carry to the West–but how much was lost outright?
Buraq says
I wonder if Colm Gillis knows this piece of writing by Ibn Khaldun (1332- 1406)?
“In the Muslim community, holy war [jihad] is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and the obligation to convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force. The other religious groups did not have a universal mission, and the holy war was not a religious duty for them, save only for purposes of defence. But Islam is under obligation to gain power over other nations.”
Taken from ‘The Muqaddimah’ (Arabic: مقدّمة ابن خلدون) a book written in 1377 which is still read and admired throughout the Islamic world.
J D S says
Three tools of islam…FORCE, FEAR and the APOSTATE LAW…and of course …without the APOSTATE LAW Islam would have vanished into obscurity eons ago.
Robert Anderson says
Really, we should thank the Muslims for killing an estimated 270 million people in its 1400 years of conquering other nations and beheading non-Muslims that they run into in the process. Visit http://www.politicalislam.com or watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wugWj42pLI&t=151s
John Bosley says
Wow, more than a quarter of a billion souls.
They did a better job than Mao, Stalin, Hitler and a whole host of lesser madmen.
There is a coming final Crusade to rid the world of this pox on humanity.
And it will be brutal.
Abraham Fox says
This guy is so full of GUVNO that it is coming out of his mouth!!
lebel says
“The debt was to those Christian and Jewish translators for first producing Arabic translations of Greek philosophical and scientific works, and then to still other Christians and Jews who translated those Arabic texts into Latin, thus making them more accessible to scholars in the West.”
Who paid them to do this work? Christians and Jews?
As for Algebra, Muslim mathematicians used and improved what was discovered before them by others (Egyptians, Persians, Indians and Greeks). Scientists of the renaissance used what was conserved and improved by Muslim scientists. They also cited their sources as even you acknowledge.
That’s how it has always worked but what you are doing is trying to minimise any contributions as negligible at best because of your hatred for Muslims.
Anjuli Pandavar says
Iebel, it’s the desert, init. You mislaid all that great knowledge in the desert somewhere many centuries ago. It makes it hard to keep up with your own knowledge that way and sneaky infidels overtake you. Infuriating, I know. Makes you end up ignorant, superstitious and frightened, as is well proven every single day. My heart bleeds, man. Calculus, quantum mechanics, oceanography, biochemistry, even nuclear physics, the West took it all from you and your originals are all lost in the desert. But hey, look on the bright side. That same desert gave you the perfect religion. 100,000 Nobel Prizes can’t top that. Alhamdulillah.
Angemon says
“Who paid them to do this work?”
This is, obviously, the wrong question. the question should be “why” – why were they paid to do this work? Was it a gesture of selflessness, an altruistic desire to spread knowledge around? Or was it a self-serving intent behind it? In any case, as Frederick Copleston wrote in “In A History of Philosophy”: “it is a mistake to imagine that the Latin scholastics were entirely dependent upon translations from Arabic or even that translation from the Arabic always preceded translation from the Greek (…) translation from the Greek generally preceded translation from the Arabic”. And according to Peter Dronke’s “A History of Twelfth-Century Western Philosophy”: “most of the works of Aristotle, however, were translated directly from the Greek, and only exceptionally by way of an Arabic intermediary (…) translations from the Arabic must be given their full importance, but not more”.
Dr. Jonathan David Carson also wrote that ““the great rescue of Greek philosophy by translation into Arabic turns out to mean no rescue of Plato and the transmission of Latin translations of Arabic translations of Greek texts of Aristotle, either directly or more often via Syriac or Hebrew, to a Christendom that already had the Greek texts and had already translated most of them into Latin.””
“what you are doing is trying to minimise any contributions as negligible at best because of your hatred for Muslims.”
I don’t see you disproving anything Mr. Fitzgerald wrote. Unless, of course, the attribution of a motivation – in this case, your alleged hatred for muslims – is supposed to rend historically accuracy null and void… And, of course, there’s the elephant in the room: despite of what islamic apologists say, whatever muslims added to the geniuses before them was added in spite of, not because of, islam. How is anyone supposed to believe that a culture that gave us occasionalism also gave us breakthroughs in science? How can there be science without the notion of cause and effect?
Hugh Fitzgerald says
Thank you, Angemon, for providing those quotes. Wonderful stuff, which I will certainly make use of from now on.
Angemon says
?
End PC says
The real pioneer of modern algebra and of algorithms was Diophantus with his famous 13 books called Arithmetica that (600 years before al- Khwārizmī) introduced symbolic manipulations. Al- Khwārizmī used only words in sentences to contribute fairly minor results about what amounts to certain 1st and 2ond order equations. See for instance
http://www.math.wichita.edu/history/men/diophantus.html
Not that contributions to science were not made under Islamic suzerainty but they were done despite Islamic dogmatism. It came to an end under the authority of conservative Muslim scholars like Al-Ghazali. See book ” The Closing of the Muslim Mind” by Robert R. Reilly.
owensgate says
It’s NOT about a hatred of moslems, it’s about Hatred of ISLAM.
gravenimage says
lebel’s implication that Jews and Christians would not have translated anything into Arabic unless they were paid to do so by Muslims is absurd.
And yes–he carefully sidesteps the issue of why it was that with the spread of Islam most of this work was lost, and Islamic societies stagnated.
The fact is that most intellectual work was done by Infidels or new converts. Once Islam became entrenched, scholarship–save of Islam itself–generally stopped.
Want to see a new “Islamic Golden Age”? Just allow Muslims to conquer the West. There might even be a couple of hundred years of feeding off our rich corpse before Europe and North America would turn into another Somalia…
lebel says
“This is, obviously, the wrong question. the question should be “why” – why were they paid to do this work? Was it a gesture of selflessness, an altruistic desire to spread knowledge around? Or was it a self-serving intent behind it? ”
But what would change it there was a self-serving intent? as you know not all science arises out of a pure altruistic desire to spread knowledge around. It is usually a combination of reasons. Scientists often work for the love of knowledge but those who commandeer the work have a multitude of reasons. I find it very interesting that instead of burning all those books – which is exactly what you would expect if Islam is what jihadwatch says it is – they not only preserve the work but translate it and help spread it.
Angemon says
“But what would change it there was a self-serving intent?”
Something would change – that is why you’re trying to avoid the answer…
“I find it very interesting that instead of burning all those books – which is exactly what you would expect if Islam is what jihadwatch says it is”
And there you go again, pretending “jihadwatch” is a monolithic group with ideals set on stone. But it’s funny you mention book burning. The caliph Omar is reported to have burned all volumes in the library at Alexandria in Egypt (200 thousand, give or take). He is reported to have said “If these writings agree with the quran they are superfluous; if not they are worthless and ought to be destroyed.” Those volumes provided six months’ fuel to warm the city’s baths.
“they not only preserve the work but translate it and help spread it.”
Ah, I see that you ignored all my quotes and sources saying that Western Europe didn’t need the arabic translation because they had better, more readily available sources – that does throw a wrench into your precious little narrative, doesn’t it?… Here, allow me to refresh your memory:
As Frederick Copleston wrote in “In A History of Philosophy”: “it is a mistake to imagine that the Latin scholastics were entirely dependent upon translations from Arabic or even that translation from the Arabic always preceded translation from the Greek (…) translation from the Greek generally preceded translation from the Arabic”. And according to Peter Dronke’s “A History of Twelfth-Century Western Philosophy”: “most of the works of Aristotle, however, were translated directly from the Greek, and only exceptionally by way of an Arabic intermediary (…) translations from the Arabic must be given their full importance, but not more”.
Dr. Jonathan David Carson also wrote that ““the great rescue of Greek philosophy by translation into Arabic turns out to mean no rescue of Plato and the transmission of Latin translations of Arabic translations of Greek texts of Aristotle, either directly or more often via Syriac or Hebrew, to a Christendom that already had the Greek texts and had already translated most of them into Latin.””
lebel says
“Something would change – that is why you’re trying to avoid the answer”
so what would change?
Angemon says
Your little narrative, of course.
lebel says
““I find it very interesting that instead of burning all those books – which is exactly what you would expect if Islam is what jihadwatch says it is”
And there you go again, pretending “jihadwatch” is a monolithic group with ideals set on stone. But it’s funny you mention book burning. The caliph Omar is reported to have burned all volumes in the library at Alexandria in Egypt (200 thousand, give or take). He is reported to have said “If these writings agree with the quran they are superfluous; if not they are worthless and ought to be destroyed.” Those volumes provided six months’ fuel to warm the city’s baths.”
And why do you think that happened? Do you know that many people from Julius Caesar to Theophilus have been blamed. But the Omar claim is a little outrageous because of the over the top claims about fueling bathouses:
“So, allegedly, all the texts were destroyed by using them as tinder for the bathhouses of the city. Even then it was said to have taken six months to burn all the documents. But these details, from the Caliph’s quote to the incredulous six months it supposedly took to burn all the books, weren’t written down until 300 years after the fact. These facts condemning Omar were written by Bishop Gregory Bar Hebræus, a Christian who spent a great deal of time writing about Moslem atrocities without much historical documentation.”
https://ehistory.osu.edu/articles/burning-library-alexandria
I suggest you read Bernard Lewis’s “The Arab Destruction Of The Library Of Alexandria: Anatomy Of A Myth”
https://brill.com/view/book/edcoll/9789047433026/Bej.9789004165458.i-259_015.xml?lang=en
Angemon says
“Do you know that many people from Julius Caesar to Theophilus have been blamed.”
i know that muslims have repeated the story of Omar’s destruction of the library of Alexandria in a proud way, apocryphal as it may be. FYI – and I know you’re not exactly very smart, nor are you a good reader – there was a reason I specifically wrote “is reported to”. Now, why is it that muslims throughout history consider that to be a good thing?…
Angemon says
BTW, despite your supposed contention with the assertion that whatever advances in science made by muslims were done in spite of Islam, not because of it, you have yet to offer any sort of rebuttal to it. I guess it must be wrong because it portrays islam in a bad light, historical evidence be damned…
gravenimage says
The spirit of Islamic bookburning and hatred of knowledge is still very much alive today, despite lebel’s sneering.
Wellington says
First-rate rebuttals to lebel, Angemon. My compliments.
And again can be seen that any attempt to inculcate in non-Muslims an appreciation of Islam is largely if not entirely destroyed once the truth, no ally of Islam to be sure, is revealed, whether by you, Angemon, or by Hugh Fitzgerald, Robert Spencer, Ibn Warraq, Bet Ye’or, et al.
Gary Fouse says
Don’t forget the suicide vest. A very important contribution .
James Lincoln says
+1
lebel says
“In any case, as Frederick Copleston wrote in “In A History of Philosophy”: “it is a mistake to imagine that the Latin scholastics were entirely dependent upon translations from Arabic or even that translation from the Arabic always preceded translation from the Greek (…) translation from the Greek generally preceded translation from the Arabic”. And according to Peter Dronke’s “A History of Twelfth-Century Western Philosophy”: “most of the works of Aristotle, however, were translated directly from the Greek, and only exceptionally by way of an Arabic intermediary (…) translations from the Arabic must be given their full importance, but not more”.”
I would not necessarily disagree with that statement. I think there were definitely plenty of works which did not go through the “Arabic intermediary” and that’s fine. As Mr. Copleston says “translations must be given their full importance, but not more”. That seems to me a balanced approach with a lot less ideology then what Fitzgerald or Carson wrote.
what I read from Fitzgerald is, its ALL bad ALL the time. Nothing ever good came out of Islam and if by chance something did in was in spite of Islam. Of course this is also your opinion.
Angemon says
“what I read from Fitzgerald is”
Yes – what you read. You, that have accused him of having hatred for muslims. You, who have accused him of calling for ethnic cleansing. One might start to think you have something against Mr. Fizgerald…
“ if by chance something did in was in spite of Islam”
Is that assertion wrong in any way or fashion? Can you name one 10 advancements in science done by muslims who said that they have achieved what they have achieved because of the teachings of islam? 5? Even one? And what to say of the fact that virtually all freethinkers and rationalists in islamic history were at odds with islamic orthodoxy and often faced persecution for that? As historian Ibn Khaldun noted: “It is strange that most of the learned among the Muslims who have excelled in the religious or intellectual sciences are non-Arabs with rare exceptions”. Meaning that most of the “muslims” who actually achieved something in the field of science had a rich, pre-islamic culture to draw from. Case in point: Al-Razi, a Persian physician who lived in the ninth and early tenth century and made contributions on several fields. He also despised islamic doctrines and considered the uoran to be a mash of incoherent fables.
Averroes was a 12th century Andalusian muslim philosopher. He was a jurist in the Maliki school of sharia law that supported the traditional islamic view that apostates should be killed. He attempted to combine Aristotelian philosophy with islam. While he was regarded favourably by Western scientists of his era, he had zero influence on the development of Islamic philosophy. One of the reasons for this was the school of occasionalism I previously mentioned, a school created by al-Ghazali, widely considered the most important muslim after muhammad. Ghazalia argued that Greek philosophy was logically incoherent and an affront to Islam.
You disagree with the assertion that whatever muslims added to science was done in spite of islam , not because of it (as evidence point to)? Very well – please explain, with examples, why that’s not the case.
lebel says
““ if by chance something did in was in spite of Islam”
Is that assertion wrong in any way or fashion? Can you name one 10 advancements in science done by muslims who said that they have achieved what they have achieved because of the teachings of islam?”
well we have to consider such scientists as Al-Khwarizmi whose work on Algebra was partially motivated because they had run into problems with Islamic inheritance laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_ibn_Musa_al-Khwarizmi
We also have Ibn al-Nafis who discovered pulmonary circulation and “used his discovery as evidence for the orthodox Islamic doctrine of bodily resurrection” https://curate.nd.edu/show/cz30pr78k14
Fancy, Nahyan A. G. (2006), “Pulmonary Transit and Bodily Resurrection: The Interaction of Medicine, Philosophy and Religion in the Works of Ibn al-Nafīs (d. 1288)”, Electronic Theses and Dissertations, University of Notre Dame: 232–33
One of the best examples however is Ibn Khayyam, sometimes called “the father of modern optics”. This is what said regarding his inspiration to study study philosophy and science: “I decided to discover what it is that brings us closer to God, what pleases Him most, and what makes us submissive to His ineluctable Will.” https://fountainmagazine.com/2008/issue-63-may-june-2008/ibn-al-haytham-first-scientist
He is often credited for establishing the scientific method so definitely not a lightweight.
Angemon says
“well we have to consider such scientists as Al-Khwarizmi whose work on Algebra was partially motivated because they had run into problems with Islamic inheritance laws”
Islamic inheritance law is based on the quran, which is supposedly error free but fails in simple math. As for why you consider that trying to fix the mess islam created counts as a muslim attributing an achievement in science to islam is beyond me. “Partially motivated”, you say? As in “well, since I’m doing this I might as well do that”?
“We also have Ibn al-Nafis who discovered pulmonary circulation and “used his discovery as evidence for the orthodox Islamic doctrine of bodily resurrection”
So he found something then used it to claim islam was right all along – exactly the opposite of what I asked.
“One of the best examples however is Ibn Khayyam, sometimes called “the father of modern optics”.”
That would be Ibn al-Haytham, not Ibn Khayyam. Ibn Khayyam was a mathematician that disagreed with islamic doctrine – he believed in cause and effect as opposed to all that happens being dependent on the will of allah.
“This is what said regarding his inspiration to study study philosophy and science: “I decided to discover what it is that brings us closer to God, what pleases Him most, and what makes us submissive to His ineluctable Will”
Again: not what I asked for. None of those was impossible to achieve for someone without any knowledge of the islamic cult. Something closer to what I asked you would be that Arab scientist that discovered a potential use for parasites inside flies (or something like that, I read that article years ago) and attributed his research to the Fly Hadith: “If a house fly falls in the drink of anyone of you, he should dip it (in the drink), for one of its wings has a disease and the other has the cure for the disease“. While it seems nothing came of it, at least the guy started looking into it because of what islam teaches.
gravenimage says
The way lebel speaks so casually about the destruction of thought under Islam is just chilling.
Angemon cites al-Ghazali, who only learned enough about Greek thought to condemn it as un-Islamic. He is known–proudly, by Muslims–as the “Destroyer of Philosophy”.
This is what pious Muslims have planned for the entire world.
Anjuli Pandavar says
Iebel, “I find it very interesting that instead of burning all those books”
—
I would’ve said, “you need to read some books,” but thought better of it. I’ll just suggest you look up what happened at Nalanda when the Muslims turned up.
More,
“…which is exactly what you would expect if Islam is what jihadwatch says it is”
I’m certain that no one at JW claims to have discovered what Islam is. We learned that from Islam itself. Studying something is always a smart move; highly recommended.
More,
“they not only preserve the work but translate it and help spread it.”
Please name any of the great translators/commentators who did not end up falling foul of the ulema. May I suggest starting with the ones Muslims boast about the most, ibn Sina and ibn Rushd. What did Islam do to them? The answer to that should tell you why they did not “spread it”, as you claim, but *dispersed it*.
lebel says
“I would’ve said, “you need to read some books,” but thought better of it. I’ll just suggest you look up what happened at Nalanda when the Muslims turned up.”
Bit of a freebee insult but I’ll let that pass. So here the point is that what happened at Nalanda is in line with Islamic teachings? logically then would you say that the fact that this did not happen in Baghdad means that the rulers were not applying Islam?
Anjuli Pandavar says
It wasn’t an insult. I was trying to push a pun too far.
So what happened at Nalanda?
Angemon says
Anjuli Pandavar, a heads up on lebel: his MO includes an “all or nothing” approach in defending islam from criticism. If you mention something bad done by muslims he’ll imply – or outright say – something along the lines of “you mean that’s because of islam? if so, why didn’t this muslim here do the same? clearly this bad thing waas not the fault of islam, you bigot”.
gravenimage says
Yes, there were lax Muslim rulers at times–either those who had an un-Islamic interest in learning themselves, or who merely failed to crack down on the Infidels. But these lapses seldom lasted for long, nor had lasting effect.
Is lebel pretending that Baghdad is still a seat of classical learning or innovation today?
Anjuli Pandavar says
Thanks Angemon. I’m aware of that and am just having a bit of fun.
lebel says
“Pease name any of the great translators/commentators who did not end up falling foul of the ulema. May I suggest starting with the ones Muslims boast about the most, ibn Sina and ibn Rushd. What did Islam do to them? The answer to that should tell you why they did not “spread it”, as you claim, but *dispersed it*.
How about Al-Kindi, who came before them? a devout Muslim, philosopher and scientist.
Anjuli Pandavar says
Man, it says, “who did not end up falling foul of the ulema.”
lebel says
Did he end up falling foul of the Ulema? I was not aware of that.
Anjuli Pandavar says
Iebel, “Did he end up falling foul of the Ulema? I was not aware of that.”
—
Sorry, I can’t be held responsible for that.
lebel says
“Yes – what you read. You, that have accused him of having hatred for muslims. You, who have accused him of calling for ethnic cleansing. One might start to think you have something against Mr. Fizgerald…”
Yup, and I provided evidence. You rejected it for obvious reasons. Here is a good one where Mr. Fitzgerald says that Muslims are collectively responsible for the actions of some Muslim:
“”The enemy here is a doctrine, and those who adhere to that doctrine of Jihad and support violence as the best instrument. But even those who support other means, or who continue to identify themselves in a way that makes clear that despite everything they will think of themselves in the end as adherents of Islam, are no more immune to retribution than were inhabitants of Tokyo, or Dresden, or other cities, during World War II.””
Of course you won’t see this as a call for collective punishment. Of course if we replaced Muslims by Jews, you would immediately see it for what it is.
Angemon says
“You rejected it for obvious reasons. ”
Yes – the obvious reasons being that you were lying. Case in point:
“ Here is a good one where Mr. Fitzgerald says that Muslims are collectively responsible for the actions of some Muslim:”
No source – oh dear, doesn’t bode well, does it?
“Of course if we replaced Muslims by Jews, you would immediately see it for what it is.”
Are Jews waging jihad for the sake of allah? Was it Jews that flew planes into buildings? Was it the Jewish State that called on Jews worldwide to murder infidels, whether by stabbing or running over them? Was it, lebel? Is it Jewish doctrine that reads “slay the unbelievers wherever you find them”? Is it Jewish doctrine that reads “fight those who do not believe in allah or in the last lay and who do not consider unlawful what allah and his messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture – [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled”?
lebel says
“Are Jews waging jihad for the sake of allah? Was it Jews that flew planes into buildings? Was it the Jewish State that called on Jews worldwide to murder infidels, whether by stabbing or running over them? Was it, lebel? Is it Jewish doctrine that reads “slay the unbelievers wherever you find them”? Is it Jewish doctrine that reads “fight those who do not believe in allah or in the last lay and who do not consider unlawful what allah and his messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture – [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled”?”
If they did, It still would not justify collective punishment.
Angemon says
“If they did”
As they aren’t, your comparison is pointless at beast and disingenuous at worst.
“It still would not justify collective punishment.”
Who, exactly, called for collectivise punishment?
lebel says
““ Here is a good one where Mr. Fitzgerald says that Muslims are collectively responsible for the actions of some Muslim:”
No source – oh dear, doesn’t bode well, does it?”
Do you honestly think that I am inventing these quotes?
This was written by Hugh Fitzgerald on jihadwatch. A couple of years ago, all this stuff was cleaned up by RS so that all we have are screen shots.
Angemon says
“Do you honestly think that I am inventing these quotes?”
Are you daft? Do you forget who you’re talking to? You’ve presented a supposed quote from me and left the building when I asked you to link to the source or stop lying. It’s clear you have no problems pulling “quotes” out of your ass – almost as obvious as your willingness to read things where they aren’t written to begin with…
gravenimage says
Note that lebel does not say how those who adhere to the vicious creed of Islam are supposedly not supporting it.
Then he applies projection–pretending that pointing out the violence of Islam is–somehow–itself calling for violence. He ignores the fact that Jihad Watch has never called for violence–while Islam both calls for it and practices it in perpetuity.
A_M_Swallow says
The West had its own sources of ideas. For instance I am pretty certain hydraulic mining had nothing to do with the Arabs. They are permanently short of water.
Stang Water Monitor Cannon on Mining Skid
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grZGoxxq42A
gravenimage says
The Muslims world is largely intellectually stagnant today–and has been for centuries.
CRUSADER says
Israel has water reserves, and diverse energy source potential!
That’s why Syria and Iran and Russia are chomping at the bit.
Terry Gain says
Thank you Hugh Fitzgerald for sharing your erudition and for demolishing these ludicrous claims – the first two of which were peddled by President Trump’s Closet Muslim predecessor..
Giving Muslims their due, has their been any other ideology that excelled as well or better at lies and propaganda? I frankly don’t know, but surely no other ideology has excelled as well at misappropriation. And I am not referring to the misappropriation of the three subject matters in this article, nor the stealing (and raping) of women, nor even the theft of the Angel Gabriel but the theft of Abraham, Moses and Jesus and the insulting claims that they are prophets of Islam.
Muhammad invented an ideology whose tenets are the polar opposite of Christianity and then claims that Jesus is a prophet of his execrable invention.
Terry Gain says
there, not their
CRUSADER says
There! There!
CRUSADER says
Former Senator McCain, now Ex-Human,
lost his seat as a maverick patriot and became
a lazy doltish doofus when he apologized
to Islam, in effect — when he defended
Huma Mahmood Abedin on the floor of
the US Congress, and when he defended
MObama, during presidential campaigning,
for not being “a Muslim”, when he should
have proclaimed that MObama behaved in
ways which bolstered Islamist agendae;
and also when he (McCain) should have
exposed that Dhimmirat and those close
connections to the Muslim Brotherhood
within the US Government!
He (ironically) undermined American attempts at defeating Islamism
in the way that Jane (clueless, narcissistic traitor) Fonda had — during
the drawn-out Vietnam conflict — undermined American attempts to
halt Communist spread of dread.
People look to leadership for guidance, and people will follow along.
So the correct type of leadership is crucial!
The CRUX of the matter!
+ + +
James Lincoln says
CRUSADER,
You’re right about Sen. McCain.
I respected him, however, as a US Naval aviator and POW.
But…
Somehow that never translated into him becoming an effective US senator. I attribute it to him being naïve about Islam. I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt on that, but maybe I’m wrong…
Mixed feelings.
CRUSADER says
Given that McCain was a warrior, in position of power and influence
as a well-known and outspoken US Senator, lived in Arizona where
incursions across the US southern border occurs frequently, had
understood how the Left could undermine American interests, and
thought US forces had to be in Afghanistan multiple generations —
for 100 years — in order to create much of a difference there….
….one would expect a whole lot more awareness from the old salt!
CRUSADER says
Islam DISTORTS everything it associates with,
as any work by Shaytanic influence would….
lebel says
“FYI – and I know you’re not exactly very smart, nor are you a good reader ”
Cheap and shows you have no argument so you resort to insults.
Angemon says
“Cheap and shows you have no argument so you resort to insults.”
Oh, no – insults! Oh, the humanity – and, of course, good, old lebel has never insulted anyone here. No sir, good old lebel has kept his nose clean all the tie… In any case, I have plenty of arguments. That you refuse to address is on you, not me… For example, I gave quotes and sources about how unnecessary arabic translations of Greek material were. And I challenged you to rebut the assertion that whatever muslisms added to science was done in spite of islam, not because of it. But no – I point out the obvious (that you are not very smart), therefore I have no arguments. Got tit – now run along, and go play in traffic…
lebel says
“For example, I gave quotes and sources about how unnecessary arabic translations of Greek material were.”
I have addressed those. I have even said I agreed with one of the quotes. Are you annoyed because you were looking for a fight?
Angemon says
“I have addressed those. I have even said I agreed with one of the quotes.”
Ah, more of your sand-tossing. And lies. Let’s start with the sand tossing. As anyone following the posts can see, you accused me of having no arguments. I pointed out the arguments I gave. I gave you several sources that pointed out how necessary islamic translations were and that I challenged you to rebut the assertion that whatever advances in science made by muslims were done in spite of Islam, not because of it. You have yet to do so. I have also challenged you to name 10 advancements in science done by muslims who said that they have achieved what they have achieved because of the teachings of islam. You have yet to do so. That your answer to “rebut this assertion you clearly disagree with” is “I addressed the quotes you gave” is very telling of how you argued yourself into a corner. As for the lies – you didn’t said you agreed, you said, and I quote, “I would not necessarily disagree with that statement“.
So, lebel, what’s it going to be? Are you going to rebut the assertion that whatever achievements muslims made in science were done in spite of, and not because of, islam? Are you going to name 10 advancements in science done by muslims who said that they have achieved what they have achieved because of the teachings of islam? Or are you going to keep acting like the problem is not with you and your ignorance but with the lack of ethic/morals/etc., on the other side, as you always do?
Norger says
@ Angemon
Good stuff. He starts crying that you’ve “insulted” him (boo hoo!) and claiming you “have no argument” after he’s lost the argument on the merits. Tiresome, but amusing.
lebel says
““Do you honestly think that I am inventing these quotes?”
Are you daft? Do you forget who you’re talking to? You’ve presented a supposed quote from me and left the building when I asked you to link to the source or stop lying. It’s clear you have no problems pulling “quotes” out of your ass – almost as obvious as your willingness to read things where they aren’t written to begin with…”
I am talking to an asshole, that is very clear now.
Angemon says
“I am talking to an asshole, that is very clear now.”
And you write this after writing:
Like I said, you’re not exactly very smart… In any case, you don’t deny what I said – that you’ve attributed me a quote and, when asked for the source, you left the building. You fabricate quotes, that’s a fact. Now. lebel are you going to address my challenge? Are you going to refute the assertion that whatever muslisms added to science was done in spite of islam, not because of it? Are you going to counter what I wrote about the translations of Geek into arabic being unnecessary? Or are you going to complain about how being insulted is a sign of lack of arguments right before you insult someone?
gravenimage says
lebel regularly insults the people who call him on his bs. Despite being somewhat more intelligent than the average “Defender of Islam”, he seldom has anything of substance to work with.
lebel says
“Who, exactly, called for collectivise punishment?”
Mr. Hugh Fitzgerald, in an article called “war and collective punishment” that I am reproducing below:
“War and Collective Punishment
In war punishment is inflicted on a collective enemy. Nazi Germany and
Imperial Japan both contained populations of people mostly sympathetic to
the war aims of the Nazis and of Kodo militarists, but even those who were
not sympathetic were made to suffer in the general infliction of ruination
on both countries. And when the tolerant and advanced state of
Czechoslovakia under Edouard Benes and Jan Masaryk instituted the “Benes
Decrees,” including the most important of them by which, in 1946, 3 million
ethnic Germans were permanently expelled from Czechoslovakia in order to
safeguard, for the future, that state from German aggression and agents
within the country who identified with Deutschtum, one understood.
The enemy here is a doctrine, and those who adhere to that doctrine of
Jihad and support violence as the best instrument. But even those who
support other means, or who continue to identify themselves in a way that
makes clear that despite everything they will think of themselves in the
end as adherents of Islam, are no more immune to retribution than were
inhabitants of Tokyo, or Dresden, or other cities, during World War II.
The Israeli method of pin-point targetting is not, in the long run,
effective, and certainly is not a model of what the American government
should do, or should think it is limited to doing. Its aim is to protect
its people, their legal and political institutions, their physical
security. All naive beliefs about how We All Want the Same Thing and so on
are just variants on the bomfoggery that has its place, no doubt, in
Christian preaching, but won’t do as a guide to ensuring the survival of
the less primitive — made less primitive, no doubt, because of many
factors including the beliefs that animate, or once animated, their
ancestors — when menaced by the more primitive.”
Angemon says
“ that I am reproducing below:”
Again: no source – oh dear, doesn’t bode well, does it?
So. lebel are you going to address my challenge? Are you going to refute the assertion that whatever muslisms added to science was done in spite of islam, not because of it? Are you going to counter what I wrote about the translations of Geek into arabic being unnecessary?
lebel says
I keep posting it:
A good example is Ibn al-Haytham sometimes called the “father of optics” and viewed by many as the pioneer of the scientific method. He was a devout Muslim and said that it was religion that inspired him to study philosophy and science: “I decided to discover what it is that brings us closer to God, what pleases Him most, and what makes us submissive to His ineluctable Will.”
Source: https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Ibn_al-Haytham
Source: https://fountainmagazine.com/2008/issue-63-may-june-2008/ibn-al-haytham-first-scientist
Excerpt from one of his works: “The characterization of the eye by this property is one of the things that show the wisdom of the Artificer, great be His glory, the skilfulness of His work and the successful and skilful manner in which nature has arranged the instruments of sight…” (Ibn al-Haytham, 1989:103)
Source:
https://archive.org/stream/A.I.Sabraed.Trans.TheOpticsOfIbnAlHaythamBooksIIIIOnDirectVision.TranslatedWithI/A.%20I.%20Sabra%20%28ed.%2C%20trans.%29-The%20Optics%20of%20Ibn%20al-Haytham%2C%20books%20I-III%2C%20On%20Direct%20Vision.%20Translated%20with%20introduction%20and%20commentary%2C%20in%202%20volumes.%20I%2BII-The%20Wa_djvu.txt
lebel says
I keep posting it:
A good example is Ibn al-Haytham sometimes called the “father of optics” and viewed by many as the pioneer of the scientific method. He was a devout Muslim and said that it was religion that inspired him to study philosophy and science: “I decided to discover what it is that brings us closer to God, what pleases Him most, and what makes us submissive to His ineluctable Will.”
Source: https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Ibn_al-Haytham
Source: https://fountainmagazine.com/2008/issue-63-may-june-2008/ibn-al-haytham-first-scientist
Excerpt from one of his works: “The characterization of the eye by this property is one of the things that show the wisdom of the Artificer, great be His glory, the skilfulness of His work and the successful and skilful manner in which nature has arranged the instruments of sight…”
lebel says
Source:
https://archive.org/stream/A.I.Sabraed.Trans.TheOpticsOfIbnAlHaythamBooksIIIIOnDirectVision.TranslatedWithI/A.%20I.%20Sabra%20%28ed.%2C%20trans.%29-The%20Optics%20of%20Ibn%20al-Haytham%2C%20books%20I-III%2C%20On%20Direct%20Vision.%20Translated%20with%20introduction%20and%20commentary%2C%20in%202%20volumes.%20I%2BII-The%20Wa_djvu.txt
WPM says
It was translated from Latin to Arabic or was it translated from Greek to Arabic to Latin so the original work was not done by Moslems. The optic of what the eye truly sees at a distance was explain in the Koran the book of” truth “the sun sank into a muddy pool at the end of each day? Any advancement in the Islamic world was done in spite of Islam or in conflict with Islam .A study done in 1989 finance by the country of Kuwait ,why not sight a study finance by German government in 1939 about racial superiority of the Northern European people over all other races?
Angemon says
“Excerpt from one of his works: “The characterization of the eye by this property is one of the things that show the wisdom of the Artificer”
Let me see if I can follow your “logic” – saying “this thing is so perfect it could only have come from allah” is evidence that he set out to study something because of what the teaching os islam say?
CRUSADER says
**** Bomfoggery is from relativistic “BOMFOG”:
“Brotherhood of Man and Fatherhood of God.”
(This term should become some muddled poster’s moniker…)
Peter B says
On the other hand, where would the US Navy be without maritime jihad?
CRUSADER says
Aye!
Good point on the compass!
Huzzah!
gravenimage says
Colm Gillis: The West Owes “an Immense Debt to Islam” (Part 1)
…………………………
If you’ve got a good hankering for being oppressed and persecuted by experts, then yeah–otherwise, not so much…
Armin Kaspar says
How about the muslims start paying compensations to of the victims of terrorism and other damages they’ve caused.
lebel says
I don’t know why it won’t post:
A good example is Ibn al-Haytham sometimes called the “father of optics” and viewed by many as the pioneer of the scientific method. He was a devout Muslim and said that it was religion that inspired him to study philosophy and science: “I decided to discover what it is that brings us closer to God, what pleases Him most, and what makes us submissive to His ineluctable Will.”
Source: http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Ibn_al-Haytham
Source: fountainmagazine.com/2008/issue-63-may-june-2008/ibn-al-haytham-first-scientist
gravenimage says
al-Haytham was threatened by the Fatamid Caliph Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah, and had to go into hiding for many years.
tim gallagher says
What an idiot this Gillis character is. As commenters up above have pointed out, Islam has destroyed so many mainly Christian areas of the world (Egypt, the areas of the Byzantine empire, etc) and dragged them back into the dark ages, and Islam has slaughtered 270 million people throughout its miserable history.. It is such an evil force and contains nothing that any non-Muslim should feel any gratitude for. When this idiot Gillis mentions algebra as something we should celebrate, I think, so what, to my mind that’s like saying that we should feel gratitude for the Nazi regime because it was so advanced in rocket technology during WWII. If an ideology like Islam or Nazism has evil aims and aims to oppress and kill us (as the Koran so clearly calls for) then who gives a damn if they had advanced technology or science in some area of life. Islam has evil intent to all of us non-Muslims. Islam is just evil and barbaric, that’s all there is to it. It’s always a danger to all of us non-Muslims. Gillis is complete f*ckwit. An “independent” scholar! Certainly independent of having any intelligence.
dumbledoresarmy says
“When this idiot Gillis mentions algebra as something we should celebrate, I think, so what, to my mind that’s like saying that we should feel gratitude for the Nazi regime because it was so advanced in rocket technology during WWII. If an ideology like Islam or Nazism has evil aims and aims to oppress and kill us (as the Koran so clearly calls for) then who gives a damn if they had advanced technology or science in some area of life.”
Precisely.
CRUSADER says
Lebel Cosmetics | Shampoo :
Natural Hair Soap with Seaweed Shampoo 720ml (Japan Import)
Apparently, Lebel is offered for purchase on Amazon….
Jennifer says
In his very interesting Muqaddimah, Ibn Khaldun, a Persian, was very critical of the ignorant and barbaric Arabs and their Islam. These illiterate, uncultured Muslim Arabs in fact learned from the Persians and the Jewish and Christian nations which they invaded. The learned men of these countries were in fact put in charge of running the show for the ignorant Muslims. The Qur’an and Hadith prove that even Muhammad, who was illiterate, envied the Jews, Christians and Persians for their learning and culture, and relied on them for his own teachings and revelations.
So much for the West’s ‘debt to Islam’.
Read it all!
lebel says
“In his very interesting Muqaddimah, Ibn Khaldun, a Persian, was very critical of the ignorant and barbaric Arabs and their Islam.”
No he was a Tunisian.
Angemon says
“No he was a Tunisian.”
He was Arab.
lebel says
Right so not a Persian.
A Gnostic Agnostic says
Islam is the root of socialism, fascism and nihilism. It pathologically projects its own characteristics onto whoever their adversary is and deceives people into “believing” the adversary of Islam is the enemy, when in reality, Islam is an enmity to humanity. The Qur’an is forged from Christian strophic hymns; Mecca did not even exist in the time of Muhammad (it was Petra) and Muhammad is just about the *worst* example for all of humanity. He was an infidel man who had perpetual enmity and desire to spill blood. The same is true with Muhammadans, because they worship his idol.
Vann Boseman says
I am not sure that Ibn Khaldun is the dead end portrayed. He may have played a tertiary role. Certainly Adam Smith was not anywhere near as original as most people think. To the relatively small area of economics that he was original in, he has been thoroughly discredited. What about Cantillon? What about Turgot? What about Adam Smith’s teacher Francis Hucheson? Especially, what about Spanish scholastics? There were so many obvious instances of Smith using others’ works that Murray Rothbard considered him a plagiarist.
I wonder about Francisco Suarez of the late school of Salamanca. Certainly the influence of Plato and Thomas Aquinas is there. But there is evidence that Suarez in his journey to the East was somewhat influenced by Master Mo, the ancient Chinese philosopher. Because Suarez could read Arabic and wrote commentaries on Arabic texts, it is entirely plausible that Suarez read, and was influenced by Khaldun too.
The truth can be found not in considering Khaldun as necessarily a historical dead end and Adam Smith alone as an original thinker coming up on his on with Wealth of Nations. The truth is that Adam Smith can easily be seen as using the works of other people and claiming the origination as his own. The ideas in Wealth of Nations originated from many people that could include a minor or tertiary contribution of Khaldun.
lebel says
““Excerpt from one of his works: “The characterization of the eye by this property is one of the things that show the wisdom of the Artificer”
Let me see if I can follow your “logic” – saying “this thing is so perfect it could only have come from allah” is evidence that he set out to study something because of what the teaching os islam say?”
The first quote, which you ignored, does that quite well
“I decided to discover what it is that brings us closer to God, what pleases Him most, and what makes us submissive to His ineluctable Will.”
The other quote makes it clear that he’s a believer and is interested in the creation of the creator. A creation wherein he can detect the wisdom of the creator. This is obviously not someone who is doing work in spite of Islam as you claim.
You understood all that of course, you’re just interested in being deliberately obtuse. Don’t worry I know that you don’t care about evidence, I am providing it for lurkers and the jihadwatchers who can be objective/
So time to move the goalpost methinks?
Angemon says
“The first quote, which you ignored”
Except, you liar, I didn’t. As I pointed on my Jul 22, 2019 at 12:39 pm post:
“This is obviously not someone who is doing work in spite of Islam as you claim.”
Oh, really? Would that quote – assuming it wasn’t simply uttered to keep his most devout coreligionists out of his back – apply to any other religion? Of course it would. And, of course, if that was said by a Christian instead of a muslim you would immediatly see it like that ;P Or are you gong to argue that here’s something in islam that teaches that looking at the anatomy of the eye makes one closer to God? No, I gave you a possible example of what would actually be a discovery done because of islam, not in spite of it.
“Don’t worry I know that you don’t care about evidence, I am providing it ”
Still waiting on that source for the quotes you attribute to Mr. Fitzgerald…
“So time to move the goalpost methinks?”
What, you’re going to rant about the Jews again?
lebel says
“Again: not what I asked for. None of those was impossible to achieve for someone without any knowledge of the islamic cult. Something closer to what I asked you would be that Arab scientist that discovered a potential use for parasites inside flies (or something like that, I read that article years ago) and attributed his research to the Fly Hadith: “If a house fly falls in the drink of anyone of you, he should dip it (in the drink), for one of its wings has a disease and the other has the cure for the disease“. While it seems nothing came of it, at least the guy started looking into it because of what islam teaches.”
You keep moving the goal post and when provided with a quote you tell me “Would that quote – assuming it wasn’t simply uttered to keep his most devout coreligionists out of his back ”
That would go for any evidence or any quote I could possibly produce. That little element you introduce after the fact is called being dishonest in a debate when provided with evidence.
I met your challenge, we have a devout Muslim who started involving himself in science because he was a devout himself. Yes a Christian and a Jew might have had the same calling for the same reasons. How does that invalidate Islam. It simply shows that religions, including Islam, are not necessarily an impediment to knowledge and science.
Angemon says
“You keep moving the goal post ”
Or so you say. No the first time you accuse me of something I didn’t do…
“nd when provided with a quote you tell me “Would that quote – assuming it wasn’t simply uttered to keep his most devout coreligionists out of his back ””
Was that what I said? I distinctly remember writing more than that. Which I did. And you pretend I didn’t. And you asked “Do you honestly think that I am inventing these quotes?” – it’s clear you can’t be trusted when quoting someone else…
“That would go for any evidence or any quote I could possibly produce. ”
Except I gave you an example of something tht was actually done because of islam – that Arab scientist that discovered a potential use for parasites inside flies (or something like that, I read that article years ago) and attributed his research to the Fly Hadith: “If a house fly falls in the drink of anyone of you, he should dip it (in the drink), for one of its wings has a disease and the other has the cure for the disease“. While it seems nothing came of it, at least the guy started looking into it because of what islam teaches. That you are unable to provide anything along those lines is on you, not me.
“That little element you introduce after the fact is called being dishonest in a debate when provided with evidence.”
Ah, so explaining why you’re wrong is “being dishonest”. The guy who was repeatedly caught lying is accusing me of “being dishonest”. Cant make that up, folks…
“Yes a Christian and a Jew might have had the same calling for the same reasons. How does that invalidate Islam.”
Ah, more dishonesty from the guy who accused me of being dishonest. Did I say that was my criteria to “invalidate islam”? No.
“It simply shows that religions, including Islam, are not necessarily an impediment to knowledge and science.”
And more sand-tossing by means of moving the goalposts, which, ironically, was what he accused me of doing…
Islam is not an impediment to knowledge and science, you say? Perhaps you’d like to explain to Boris Johnson why he’s wrong when he says that Islam kept Muslims centuries behind the West, which is a clearly observable fact…
lebel says
“Good stuff. He starts crying that you’ve “insulted” him (boo hoo!) and claiming you “have no argument” after he’s lost the argument on the merits. Tiresome, but amusing.”
Thanks Norger! it’s good to see that you approve of insults in debates. Of course we know that it is only acceptable one way.
Norger says
Mr. Morally Superior, who regularly insults all JW readers in “debates,” now wants to pretend he’s also above resorting to insults, along with all of his other morally superior traits? Do tell. That’s just too rich for words. And for the record, you can keep insulting to your heart’s content.
I give you credit for posting here, but you need thicker skin.
Anjuli Pandavar says
Er, Iebel, just a gentle reminder. You still haven’t told the good readers of JW what happened at Nalanda. Remember? Something about Islam not burning books?
Angemon says
“ it’s good to see that you approve of insults in debates.”
Says the guy who can be seen here insulting someone else…