Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Haji 2003

Science: Islam's Forgotten Geniuses

Recommended Posts

So since one country has its issues, are you telling me that somehow the system of Islam itself is to blame?

My original statement was the Islamic position on the issue of science education. No matter what any self-described Muslim societies do to the contrary, I don't see why that discredits or creates any issues with the Islamic viewpoint. Simply put, just because humankind can't reach the high standards Islam puts forward for us, does not mean that Islam is not right.

I see you are someone who is interested in intellectual discussion, so please don't fall into the common trap of linking the actions/behaviors of Muslim people/societies with Islam itself. If you have issues of whether Muslim societies are following Islam properly, that is a separate debate and we as Muslims discuss this all the time. If you want to argue about whether Islam itself is not the right path for us, please bring your proof. We dare you.

You are dragging me in to an argument I didn't start and I don't want to participate in. What I originally wrote was:

Unfortunately other people don't see it the same way. With the rise of fundamentalism and wahabi-ism half the muslim population are being held back from higher learning (women) and the other half are being severely restricted in which circles they are permitted to study in.

I was never talking about Islam as a whole, I was talking about select view points within the Islamic nation (granted i should have said, "half the muslim population within the confines of the area in which these specific beliefs are being followed" but I thought it was unnecessary). I then gave Saudi as an example after you mistakenly thought I was talking about Iran. I don't see how you managed to squeeze an argument out of what is widely believed (even by Iran) to be fact.

The world is not perfect and the fact that 100% proper Islam is not practiced anywhere in the world simply proves that we humans are finite and flawed in our capacity, and that we as humans need Allah (swt) for support. If any society/individual was perfect, people would not need Allah and the entire religion of Islam would not be necessary. But obviously Allah didn't plan the world to be like this...

Just because we as humans are too finite and limited in our capacities does not discredit the fundamental and unchanging truth in anyway.

Again you are dragging me in to an argument I have no intention of participating in.

The rest of my post was about why Islam is different now than how it was 1500 years ago. (the reason was to do with science being more accepted in Muslim societies in the past as a whole as opposed to the disjointed acceptance you see today with some countries like Iran allowing it and other like pre-war Afghanistan suppressing it). I don't care about whether Islam is an unchanging truth nor was I ever tying to discredit it.

You have just said that 100% proper Islam is not practiced anywhere. The Prophet no doubt did practice 100% Islam and when he was ruling there was 100% Islam being practiced. Now it is on average different, hence not the same practices and rituals etc etc. You are agreeing with me without even realizing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
You are dragging me in to an argument I didn't start and I don't want to participate in.

I don't believe this. I have never seen anyone give arguments against things in Muslim societies without some kind of subtle attack on Islam itself as the motive. This happens all the time. I don't fall for it. I can't judge you personally, but this is at least my opinion. You get used to it when you hear so much anti-Muslim (but really anti-Islamic) nonsense.

I was never talking about Islam as a whole, I was talking about select view points within the Islamic nation (granted i should have said, "half the muslim population within the confines of the area in which these specific beliefs are being followed" but I thought it was unnecessary). I then gave Saudi as an example after you mistakenly thought I was talking about Iran. I don't see how you managed to squeeze an argument out of what is widely believed (even by Iran) to be fact.
Again you are dragging me in to an argument I have no intention of participating in.

Because you would probably lose.

The rest of my post was about why Islam is different now than how it was 1500 years ago. (the reason was to do with science being more accepted in Muslim societies in the past as a whole as opposed to the disjointed acceptance you see today with some countries like Iran allowing it and other like pre-war Afghanistan suppressing it). I don't care about whether Islam is an unchanging truth nor was I ever tying to discredit it.

You have just said that 100% proper Islam is not practiced anywhere. The Prophet no doubt did practice 100% Islam and when he was ruling there was 100% Islam being practiced. Now it is on average different, hence not the same practices and rituals etc etc. You are agreeing with me without even realizing it.

This is the lamest thing I have ever heard. Islam did not exist until the time of the prophet (pbuh), and his lifetime was needed to establish it. Over time, people have fallen short of living through the prophet's example in many spheres, but that in no way means Islam itself has changed. The Qur'an revealed back then is still the same as it is now.

I don't agree with you because while the way Muslims may practice Islam may have changed slightly (some deviations culminated over a long history), Islam ITSELF has not changed. The Qur'an and hadith books describe what Islam is supposed to teach, and anyone can look it up. So it's not lost.

So how could you make your argument without there being the motive to discredit Islam in some way? You are saying that since it has changed so much, that it somehow can't be the unchanging truth....I don't understand what conclusion I am supposed to reach with your argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't believe this. I have never seen anyone give arguments against things in Muslim societies without some kind of subtle attack on Islam itself as the motive.

--------

So how could you make your argument without there being the motive to discredit Islam in some way?

Quoted for the novelty.

You are saying that since it has changed so much, that it somehow can't be the unchanging truth....I don't understand what conclusion I am supposed to reach with your argument.

The conclusion you have to reach with my argument is that I am not talking about the truth of Islam. I am not talking about why it is a bad/good religion. I am not talking about why you are stupid in thinking what you do. I am not talking about why God exists or doesn't. I am not even taking an Atheist/Theist/Agnostic stand point. You somehow managed to drag out of thin air an argument against your belief system and state, which you have now vowed to defend till death due to your obvious insecurities and personal hatred towards any objective view points that fail to tally with your own. As with the common western view on Muslims, you have an inability to take criticism even if it is not directed towards you. You have a personal view that the entire world has a vendetta against you and your religion, whether it be through Jewish conspiracies or just an inherent hatred. You are the type of person that shames that vast majority of peace loving Muslims around the world.

The conclusion that you have to reach with my argument is that Islam is the interpretation of the Quran and the teachings of the prophet. These are different for different people and have changed over time as hadith have been favored and discredited, ergo Islam has changed over time.

oh and sorry for that rant....... but you did ask for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
You somehow managed to drag out of thin air an argument against your belief system and state, which you have now vowed to defend till death due to your obvious insecurities and personal hatred towards any objective view points that fail to tally with your own. As with the common western view on Muslims, you have an inability to take criticism even if it is not directed towards you. You have a personal view that the entire world has a vendetta against you and your religion, whether it be through Jewish conspiracies or just an inherent hatred. You are the type of person that shames that vast majority of peace loving Muslims around the world.

Wow, sir, I think you need to chill a little bit. I only gave my opinion and wanted clarification of what your opinions/intentions are, and you suddenly accuse me of being an insecure being filled with hatred and paranoia? Is this one of your "objective" viewpoints?

I have the right to provide my opinion when I feel Islam is being unjustly attacked or criticized. You call that paranoia and closed-minded hatred. I call it defending a religion that is dear to me. If being "objective" means I have to have no loyalty to any belief system or school of thought and have to be "outside" of everything to make a decent argument, on what notions is your "objectivity" derived from?

The common Western view on Muslims is about as narrow as what you accuse the Muslims of being (conspiracy theorists and people filled with hatred). Any intelligent Muslim can easily brush off the common Western misconceptions and can counter with a sound and substantial argument, and I believe (again just my opinion) is that these are the people who scare Islam's critics the most. As long as people don't see Muslims as knowledgeable scholars reading books but instead see them as just a bunch of angry and violent barbarians on the streets, then it can really be easy to discredit them as irrational beings, hence making the religious teachings themselves irrational and somehow the intellectual debate is "won" even without a single argument even being put forth.

If you really had a good Muslim who knows what he is talking about, people would not have the ignorance and prejudice they have of Muslims/Islam. That's the bottom line. But in who's best interest would this be? Only for Muslims/Islam obviously, and so this would obviously not benefit non-Muslims who claim the "objective" viewpoint, because they would then have to be on the defensive and give arguments about any alternative to Islam. But they can't do this. They can only attack others, but they have nothing to defend, hence that's why they can make the claim they are "objective" very easily.

This is not a conspiracy among any particular people or groups, but just my opinion on why an honest debate won't likely happen.

You are the type of person that shames that vast majority of peace loving Muslims around the world.

You speak for Muslims now? Does "peace-loving" in your view just mean we are complacent to "objective" people like you?

The conclusion that you have to reach with my argument is that Islam is the interpretation of the Quran and the teachings of the prophet. These are different for different people and have changed over time as hadith have been favored and discredited, ergo Islam has changed over time.

You said on a previous post that the religion is only as good as its followers. You therefore linked the religion to the followers and made no distinction between the two. If you are criticizing something that is going on in a Muslim society, how can you then claim you are not implying anything about Islam itself when you yourself just claimed there is no contrast between the two? Could you please clarify this for me?

And besides, even if people may practice slightly differently over the years, how does that change what the Prophet's teachings were? The interpretation changes but the teachings are still the same, regardless of what humankind does! Therefore Islam has not changed. My argument is that Islam and Muslims are two separate things, with a huge obvious overlap, but any gaps or differences are deficits in terms of us as Muslims, not on Islam itself. Muslims have changed. Islam has not. And even with this slight change for Muslims, it is hardly the huge changes that have happened for Christianity, Judiasm, etc. Do you agree with this?

oh and sorry for that rant....... but you did ask for it.

No I didn't, but I am sure you want to make it seem like I did so that the stereotype that I am an irrational bigot only looking for a fight would show. Nice try, I am too smart to fall for this trick. (Again only my opinion, I will not judge you like you did to me)

Edited by Shia Engineer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wow, sir, I think you need to chill a little bit.

Yes you are right I did go a bit overboard.

You speak for Muslims now? Does "peace-loving" in your view just mean we are complacent to "objective" people like you?

Why can't I speak for Muslims?

Is it not insulting when you see people who find a simple action and immediately assume that it is a full blown armada against their religion, protesting and threatening? The amount of times you read a newspaper and find some Muslim somewhere fighting to ban this or that just because it insults them at some oblique angle is astounding.

You said on a previous post that the religion is only as good as its followers. You therefore linked the religion to the followers and made no distinction between the two. If you are criticizing something that is going on in a Muslim society, how can you then claim you are not implying anything about Islam itself when you yourself just claimed there is no contrast between the two? Could you please clarify this for me?

Sure. I am not criticizing Islam, rather the sect that does this. That is why I specifically gave examples. An insult or criticism to a sect is just that. It has no implications to Islam as a whole unless you imply something that they all agree on. Say for example I claim prayer is stupid. That is insulting Islam as a whole. If however I say that the Wahhabis in Saudi are preventing their women from contributing to the Scientific community (sound familiar?), then I am not Insulting Islam.

And besides, even if people may practice slightly differently over the years, how does that change what the Prophet's teachings were? The interpretation changes but the teachings are still the same, regardless of what humankind does!

And the Interpretation is what makes the religion. What differentiates sects at a most basic level? Interpretation. When one group of people decide to change their interpretation it creates another sect. That constitutes to a change in the over all religion regardless what the initial teachings are.

Muslims have changed. Islam has not. And even with this slight change for Muslims, it is hardly the huge changes that have happened for Christianity, Judiasm, etc. Do you agree with this?

Each Muslim considers their Islam to be correct. Who is to say which is right? Islam is now just a collection of sects adhering to a fundamental belief in one God and a messenger with a book. The changes may not be the same as with Christians or Jew, I personally don't know, but the fact remains the changes exist.

No I didn't, but I am sure you want to make it seem like I did so that the stereotype that I am an irrational bigot only looking for a fight would show.

Is this not judging? If I was not provoked then you have a small problem. You must then come to the conclusion that my motives were external or that I am chaotic by nature. Either way means that whether you conform to the stereotype or not has no impact on what I write. Either way seems unlikely, so perhaps you did provoke it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Yes you are right I did go a bit overboard.

Don't worry about it.

Why can't I speak for Muslims?

If I can't even speak for all Muslims, why should you be able to?

Is it not insulting when you see people who find a simple action and immediately assume that it is a full blown armada against their religion, protesting and threatening? The amount of times you read a newspaper and find some Muslim somewhere fighting to ban this or that just because it insults them at some oblique angle is astounding.

I understand that you may perceive such actions to be overreacting and unwarranted. But you have to understand that unlike Christianity in the West, which is lampooned and made fun of constantly, Islam is still a very big deal for us and we take it VERY seriously. I guess people who have a more Western (non-Muslim) outlook don't understand why religion would be such a big deal, because Western culture itself has essentially abandoned the church and reduced it pretty much as a pawn of the secular society, with no real power or influence. Concepts like defending one's religion above all else just doesn't really resonate in the West...

I know you may perceive these things as paranoia, but you have to understand that Islam has had its great deal of battles over the years. Ever since the time of the Prophet (pbuh), people have tried to destroy the basics of Islam from outside and from within, whether intentionally or unintentionally, with either "good" intentions or with bad intentions. Islam cannot become what it's predecessors have become and must continue to thrive. Since it is indeed the truth and has survived all of its struggles to destroy it over the years, I say it is a system worth fighting for.

Sure. I am not criticizing Islam, rather the sect that does this. That is why I specifically gave examples. An insult or criticism to a sect is just that. It has no implications to Islam as a whole unless you imply something that they all agree on. Say for example I claim prayer is stupid. That is insulting Islam as a whole. If however I say that the Wahhabis in Saudi are preventing their women from contributing to the Scientific community (sound familiar?), then I am not Insulting Islam.

Fine, that's common knowledge the Saudis do this. But that's not an argument. That's just an observation.

And the Interpretation is what makes the religion. What differentiates sects at a most basic level? Interpretation. When one group of people decide to change their interpretation it creates another sect. That constitutes to a change in the over all religion regardless what the initial teachings are.

It's not the interpretation that makes the religion, it is the RELIGION that makes the religion. What Allah reveals to us is Islam, not what we humans (with our limited capacity) decide to make of it.

Each Muslim considers their Islam to be correct. Who is to say which is right? Islam is now just a collection of sects adhering to a fundamental belief in one God and a messenger with a book. The changes may not be the same as with Christians or Jew, I personally don't know, but the fact remains the changes exist.

This is an issue that must be dealt with using scholarly research and discussion. Studying Islam is just like researching any discipline, you go through all of the sources and make an informed decision on what you believe the message of Islam is trying to represent. Islam highly emphasizes logic and reason into the discussion, so it is through this principle where the research must be founded on. Studying Islam is first about making sense of it in your mind, and then subsequently making sense of it in your heart. Allah will guide those who aim to learn the truth and will guide whom he will. So I don't see the problem here.

Is this not judging? If I was not provoked then you have a small problem. You must then come to the conclusion that my motives were external or that I am chaotic by nature. Either way means that whether you conform to the stereotype or not has no impact on what I write. Either way seems unlikely, so perhaps you did provoke it?

You provoked me. I was the first one to post on this thread and it had nothing to do with you or what we're talking about now. You give unprofessional remarks based on something (I am not sure what it is), and then you tell me that I "asked" for it? How is this not judging?

But don't worry about it, I don't get caught up in these things :lol:

Edited by Shia Engineer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in america we don't forget our geniuses. we don't subsidize them eithere. just give them the freedom to do what they want and a sound economy so they don't starve doing it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recent Posts on ShiaChat!

    • I do not see the point with these polls. What is the benefit to us ?
      There could be disadvantages too, gathering information for the enemy,  
    • This site can’t be reached www.presstv.com refused to connect.   Search Google for presstv ERR_CONNECTION_REFUSED
    • I defs agree with you. I know back home we always had relatives coming over. However when we moved to Australia, both my parents got an opportunity to socialize more.
    • So I'm not sure based on what data you're suggesting that emotional dependence or love amongst partners in the East is more than the West? Where exactly are you getting this information that this is a western culture female issue? That's a specific example but actually for the most part I'd say females want to spend more time with their partners and need more attention than vice versa. To my knowledge, this has been supported by studies, hence, the stereotypical term "clingy" is used usually for females. Generally what we know about female psychology conflicts your specific example, so the trend is not what you say necessarily. Regardless, emotional dependence is very individual and couple dependent. Some people are more independent emotionally and others aren't. Thus, why two good people may not be compatible with each other in marriage. This is not evidenced supported but I actually think Western society can be more isolating (especially when you're Muslim) so it would logically make sense to turn to a spouse more. There's always something social happening in Eastern countries, if anything the men and women are socializing and spending time with other people that are not their partners more than in the West. 
    • I think it's English.  Give it a try.  [Edit] Anyone else thinks that fish got lip fillers? 
×