Adding to that, the volumes of knowledge, medical,mathematical, philosophical etc, that were translated from Arabic into Latin and other languages after the plunderings are the foundations of modern science and medicine. They are still thought. And their writers and commentators were Muslims.
Virgins anyone???
- Thread starter Vega
- Start date
Firstly, I seriously doubt that over a "billion" Muslims can presently even read - little own read the Qur'an. Of the percentage that can read I wonder how many read and study it.
The fact is most of these people were raised to be Muslim. Ergo they are Muslim. It's as simple as that. They didn't spend some large portion of their lives investigating all the various philosophies of the world and then settle on Islam because of it's superior intellect. Their parents told them when they were children they were to believe such and such and so they do.
It's as simple as that.
The fact remains Universities do NOT in any way shape or form suggest that the Qur'an is some great work of literature. It just isn't so. I'm pointing this out as a fact because it is a fact.
Philosophers dedicate their lives to the study of knowledge. They ponder questions of ethics, what sorts of things exist, what counts as genuine knowledge, what are the correct principles of logic. Well guess what, as they ponder these questions they come across works by the ancient Greeks or ancient Chinese and they think so highly of their insights that they then teach these philosophies in University. And have done so for 1000s of years.
YET, for some weird reason this "PERFECT" book just didn't appeal to them? Slipped under the radar????
The Qur'an has been read and studied by scholars dating back a thousand years in countries as diverse as China, Korea and Japan to England, France and Germany. Yet nothing.
Why is that the case???
Watch closely:
The 15 basic books by Ron Hubbard are "perfect" according to Scientologists.
The Qur'an is the perfect book according to Muslims.
The Book of Mormon is the perfect book according to Mormons.
Guess what all these have in common - no one else thinks their books are "perfect". Huh? Funny that? One must assume, oh I don't know, maybe each person is biased towards their belief?
The fact stands, the Qur'an, the 15 books of Ron Hubbard and the Book of Mormon are in NO WAY considered serious works of philosophical endeavor by anyone outside of the people who are of those faiths. To those philosophers, who dedicate their lives to pursuing knowledge, well, they don't seem to think they are anything worthwhile - certainly not "perfect". This is reflected in the FACT that Universities don't study the books (outside of comparative religion).
Michael
PS:
The translation into Latin by a Christian or Jew of an Arabic translation (by a Christian or a Jew) of a Syriac translation (by a Christian or a Jew) of a Greek text obtained by a medieval Muslim as he conquered parts of Byzantine 'Christendom' that contained the libraries and monasteries in which it was kept is really not such a great point to make SAM. A third, fourth, or fifth—hand version of a stolen Greek text.
Geee great.
Also, what of the great classics of Rome? Caesar, Cato, Catullus, Cicero, Horace ... ... ...
NOTE1:
As far as I know 'The Republic' is the ONLY work of Plato translated into Arabic.
NOTE2:
Peter Dronke's A History of Twelfth—Century Western Philosophy:
'most of the works of Aristotle were translated directly from the Greek, and only exceptionally by way of an Arabic intermediary.'
Everyone seems to forget that the Roman's had a VERY close relationship with the Greeks. They worshiped the same Gods and considered Greek a language of the upper class. They were part of the same Empire for millennia.
Perhaps you should take a closer look at your theory on how "Islam saved the West". I've said before the Europeans (Greeks Romans) had already developed the most advanced civilization known to humanity (Chinese aside) they certainly could do it again with all the books and marble buildings and statues around them.
Ever read - Averroes's commentaries on Aristotle? You'd be reading a Latin translation not an Arabic one. That one was lost along with many many many other works of philosophy as Islam took a turn to where its at today around the 12th century..
It is sad that you cant see the flaws in your own argument. "A uni has not said its special so dammi its not!" What the hell does a University have to do with the Quran?
Also, im not saying they were all from Arabic, but denying that a large part of the foundations of modern science and medicine come from the Muslims is denying history. Im saying nowhere that Islam saved the West.
Also, im not saying they were all from Arabic, but denying that a large part of the foundations of modern science and medicine come from the Muslims is denying history. Im saying nowhere that Islam saved the West.
Tell me Arsalan - is the Qur'an a "Perfect" book? If so then how so? If not then how is it not?
It is the perfect book because it contains the moral and societal guidance to make the world a better place. It shines new light on religion as we know it by declaring that not only one religion was revealed by God. Some of its teachings may seem hard to swallow at first but their results are always good. The fact that Islamic empires flourished in almost every area shows that it is not due to a defiency in the book but due to humans. that is the short of it. If you want to read my post on the concepts then youll find that in that other topic from ages ago.
And I know Muslims that converted to Xitianity and Atheism.
One must wonder this: Why make a law against prosteizing in Islamic countries? Why? If the Qur'an is so inherently and obviously and self evidently "perfect", then why do Muslims leave Islam?
Michael
Arsalan, think to yourself, you know a Scientologist who is telling you his book is "perfect". You know damn well it's all bullshit as there is no Xenu The Intergalactic Warlord. How do you get the point across to them that there is no such thing as a "perfect" book?
There is no law against leaving Islam. I assume you mean an apostate right? There is no law against people leaving Islam. People are free to do whatever they wish in matters of religion. They can choose or deny the truth, that is free will.
Also, you cannot complare Scientology to Islam. Islam and the Holy Prophet were foretold by the other religions. Scientology was a bet between science fiction writers.
Also, you cannot complare Scientology to Islam. Islam and the Holy Prophet were foretold by the other religions. Scientology was a bet between science fiction writers.
Some day I will open a thread on why this just isn't so.
But to just make a point. Could you name ALL of the works by Plato that were translated from Greek into Arabic by Islamic scholars? Other than "The Republic" - as I already mentioned that one.
Last edited:
Where do I get my virgins?
As do All religions. But tell me Arsalan is there some novel moral principal in the Qur'an? Or is it a rehash of other people's ideas? If there is could you list it?
Not only one religion? Please Arsalan. Islam ends with Mohammad. It's intollerant of any other new beleif.
Tell me, is Mormonism acceptable in Islam? What about Baha'i? How about polytheism?
If No No No then what is your point? Let's not paint Islam as open and accepting of other people's religious beliefs if it isn't.
Tell me Arsalan, is there a chance that Mohammad was not the last Prophet and the Baha'i are correct?
And this would be what?
We've already been through this. "Islamic" Empires flourished no more than other Middle Eastern Empires and less than the polytheistic Greek Empires. Yes people who were Muslim made a few discoveries but lets not over state it.
Anyway, the Greeks, the Chinese, the Japanese, the Romans, they all had flourishing Empires and none of them were even monotheistic.
In short you can provide no evidence that suggests the Qur'an is "perfect". It's perfect to YOU in exactly the same way the 15 books of Ron Hubbard are "perfect" to a Scientologist.
The fact remains, the Qur'an is not seen by Chinese or Japanese or Europeans or anyone outside of someone who is Muslim as "perfect".
It seems only logical that if any human were to come across the "perfect" book such "perfection" would be so self-evident as to be undenyable. Yet, while Buddhist wittings flourished in China and Japan, the Qur'an did not. While Plato's wittings are taught in China and Japan - Mohammad;'s are not. While philosophers teach Kent in University to teach morality and ethics - the Qur'an is not.
Making sense?
Michael
I didn't say that. I said: isn't is surprising that so many Muslims read the "most perfect book created in humankind" yet walk away thinking it was a big waste of time?
Odd isn't it?
It's almost as if it isn't a "perfect" book.
Two questions:
(a) Can God do anything?
(b) Which is more perfect a book so perfect it's message can be effortlessly translated into any language or one that can only be "truly" understood in one language?
Did Shinto foretell of Mohammad??? No.
It's called ad hoc.
Anyway, Scientologists surely have all their bullshit lined in a row as well. Just like you they think their belief is the only true belief and just like the Qur'an their holy books aren't studied at University to gleen any insight into humanity, outside of perhaps comparative fantasy writings, and just like Muslims, Scientologists have an answer for everything because surely as the sun rises - Xenu is the intergalactic bla bla bla... ....
Michael
You make the statement that the Qur'an is "PERFECT" - to me this means that scholars who study ethics, morality, logic, knowledge, ... have at their disposal the World's ONLY PERFECT BOOK - WOW Lucky Them! Anyone interested in such things would LOVE to get their hands on the World's ONLY PERFECT book - you know, so as to benefit from it's pages of DEEP INSIGHT and WISDOM.
But they don't bother with the Qur'an do they Arsalan? You want to know why they don't bother with it? Because it's simply a waste of their time. If not, I can guarantee - they'd read it. Ergo. it is not a Perfect Book.
This is just rich.
The Muslims stole the Europeans works as they conquered them and somehow now the Muslims laid the original foundations of civilization? Pleeeease. The foundation of modern science is the Scientific Method.
Last edited by a moderator:
Its unfortunate that you are unable to grasp the meaning of evolution in Religion. Islam is not a new religion, rather it is the message that was given to Moses and Jesus as well, in its final form. Why do you think the Arabs in pre-Islamic Mecca worshipped Allah? Because the Kaaba was built by a certain famous person in the Arbahamic religions
Just because Islam is the final divine law does not mean its intolerant of other beliefs. Its tolerant but it wont just accept another belief. There is a difference between tolerance and acceptance you know.
Mormonism and and Bahaism have their cores in Christianity and Islam respectively. They are not new laws, just interpretations of the other religions. And once again, every religion is tolerated and respected.
Muslims wont just accept a nother belief because they believe that Islam is the right religion. Doesnt mean they dont respect other peoples beliefs.
From this I conclude that you did not read my post where I stated that I as a Muslim dont believe that the Prophet was the lsat prophet ever. I believe new Prophets will come, but that they will come from the Muslims.
Almost any teaching thats copied and pasted from hate sites. Also, because Islam is one of the few religions that actually accepts that there will be conflict between people at one time or another and lays down guidelines for it, somehow it advocates violence
Were not talking about monotheistic and polytheistic empures now are we?
The major proof I can provide is its teachings. Ofcourse Scientologists think that way. Just as Christians. And Jews. And almost everyone else.
And are there any teachings from those regions which are found laughable or not seen as perfect or serious outisde that area? Jeez, how could that be? Its like saying that people on this side of the world and on the other side of the world have no difference between them whatsoever.
Buddhist teachings flurished in the region it was revealed?!!
Just like Islamic teachings flourished in the region it was revealed?!! Wow there msut be some kind of connection there. Yet you refuse to see it. Mohammeds writing? Dont let his inability to write put you off Haha! So every Muslim that converts to another religion (And there are few that do) does because he thinks its a waste of time?
There are very good translations of the Quran. It can be understood in many different languages and is done. I for example am not that experienced in Arabic and use the Dutch and Englih translations which are very helpful.
Its a bit hard to conclude this from a religion which has no written scriptures about iself and which was heavily influenced by Buddhism.
Once again, The Quran or any other religious book has no place in lessons about English for example or engineering. Let me make it a bit clearer: I would prefer a pilot flying my plane instead of a religious scholar. Also, how do you know these people havent read it in their personal time? Because, after all, religion is personal.
Deny all you want, the Arabs and Muslims are entitled to recognition of their great deeds.
Why not look up how Aristotle came to West Europe? I even gave you a hint: Thomas Aquinas.
Imagine, were it not for Muslims, you would never have heard of Aristotle.
Mohammed is widely acknowledged as the most influential man in history. Whether you accept/acknowledge it or not, does not change anything.
Last edited:
This simply is not true.Why not look up how Aristotle came to West Europe? I even gave you a hint: Thomas Aquinas.
Imagine, were it not for Muslims, you would never have heard of Aristotle.
SAM you seriously need to read some history. Muslims like to live in a two fold fantasy a) that Islam magically heralded this wondrous period of peace an prosperity for all which never existed and b) that Muslims magically preserved Greek philosophy.
Both of which are pure crap.
Firstly, Greek philosophy was "lost" well an truly before Islam. WAY before. Way back during the time of the Roman Empire. Greek Philosophy collapsed with the collapse of the polis. Once the Greeks were a part of an Empire the Athenian fire blew ITSELF out. Major thinking moved to Rome and Egypt.
So, unless Islam was around about 500-600 years before Mohammad - it did nothing "preserve" Greek literature.
Secondly, Plato was THE Greek philosopher - especially in the Hellenistic world and neoplatonism was THE dominate philosophy. Aristotle was for the most part simply ignored and when he wasn't ignored he was interpreted in a neoplatonic fashion so that any of his differences with Plato were submerged and his unique contribution to philosophy destroyed.
AGAIN, this was all WELL and TRULY before the invention of Mohammadism.
Thirdly, when Islam conquered the Christian lands in Asia - part of the spoils of war were small centers of Hellenistic scholarship preserved by Nestorian Christians - mainly in Alexandria. Xians and Jews translated NEOPLATONIC works into Syriac and Arabic. Like I said, the ONLY work by Plato translated into Arabic was The Republic. And The Republic was already translated into Latin directly from the Greek work. So the Europeans having Plato's The Republic had NOTHING to do with Arabs or Islam. As for anything else by Plato - NOTHING else if his was translated from Greek into Arabic.
In case you missed it I will say again, the NEOplatonic works were "preserved" like this: Translation into Latin (by a Christian or a Jew) of an Arabic translation (by a Christian or a Jew) of a Syriac translation (by a Christian or a Jew) of a Greek text - obtained by Muslims when they went on a killing rampage and conquered the South Eastern and North African parts of the Byzantine Empire - here they LOOTED the Christian and Jewish libraries and monasteries where such literature was kept.
WOW - what a great preservation!
In short - a third, fourth, or fifth hand version of a stolen Greek Neoplatonic text.
Fourthly, maybe you need to read a little of the Philosophy because it's runs counter to the basic principals of Islam. Neoplatonism is fundamentally incompatible with Islam. Neoplatonism is esoteric and merged with Gnosistics - these people held the basic belief in emanation - this is completely counter to the idea that things are created by the will of a God. Greeks had evolved well past the primitive notions monotheism and Gods. For them things are not created - including the eternal Universe. Now here's the good part - because of this (and many many other examples of incompatibility) the few intelligent Greek-leaning Arab Philosophers that there were, were snuffed out of existence by other Muslims who could simply accuse them of blasphemy against the teachings of Mohammad and against the "perfect" Qur'an. You can thank Al—Ghazali and his idiotic belief in occasionalism for much of that. Why do you think the Qur'an is "perfect"? Thank these arse holes. Why do you have an intolerance for other beleifs - thanks these arse holes. Because together with a specific interpretation of the Qur'an, he was able to discredit Avicenna and Averroes (whom both pushed for a severely watered down Islam and emphasized a Hellenistic Neoplatonic view of reality). Hell, who knows, maybe he crushed the only good chance Muslims had at truly achieving something akin to the greatness of the Hellenistic Age?
Today Muslims such as yourself would think totally differently if not for that imbecile.
Fifthly, as I posted above, most of the works of Aristotle were translated into Latin directly from the Greek - only exceptionally by way of an Arabic intermediary.
Get it?
If not let me summarize:
The whole notion that the West learned of Aristotle via Arabic is simply not true - please see the BOOK I linked in the last post and read it for yourself. It's another one of these Islam myths of which there are many: like the one were Islam invented modern medicine, where Islam initiated the European Renaissances in Italy (but, funny enough - not in the ME), where Islam invented modern science and all discoveries in Europe, where Islam invented zero, where Islam had this great Golden Age were everyone lived in perfect harmony under the leadership of the righteous Caliphs, you know, where Islam invented democracy, where in not thanks to Islam we would have never went to the moon - you know, Muslims discovered and harnessed electricity too, and oh yes, Arabic is God's, language, Arabs God's chosen people and the Qur'an is the "perfect" book....
And lets be CLEAR - there was no rescue of "Plato" either.
The West had the Greek texts of Aristotle and had already translated most of them into Latin. Did you really think that the Romans, who loved most everything Greek somehow never thought to, in 1000 YEARS, to OH I don't know translate some of that stuff into Latin??? Of those that were lost, which there is only but a few, almost all of the work of translation was done by Christians and Jews living under Muslim rule NOT by Muslims!
One last point, Averroes, who is considered one of the Greatest Arab Philosophers, was a) crushed by that idiot Al—Ghazali and b) We only know of his commentaries on Aristotle by means of Latin translations!
Latin.
So I fail to see just how in the hell Islam preserved something that wasn't around to preserve and how Xian and Jew translators using Muslim stolen texts has anything at all to do with Islam.
Michael
Why don't you look up Gerard of Cremona? And William of Moerbeke?
Oh and western scholars themselves have vindicated the Muslim scholars - the "lies" you attribute to the Muslims actually came from those western scholars who rejected anything that came from the "filthy Moors"
Plato: there were Arabic translations of the Laws, the Sophist, the Timaeus and the Republic.
Oh and western scholars themselves have vindicated the Muslim scholars - the "lies" you attribute to the Muslims actually came from those western scholars who rejected anything that came from the "filthy Moors"
Plato: there were Arabic translations of the Laws, the Sophist, the Timaeus and the Republic.
Last edited:
But, without trying to sound too rude... Those islamic empires all seem to be full of mudhuts and camels. Flourished?
Whatever.
I suppose if we want to examine a claim to it's flourishing nature we should simply ask how many muslims seek a life in western countries vs how many western people seek a life in islamic ones.
Post colonially so was India.
Probably because when we go to other countries we contribute to their culture and knowledge and prosperity rather than destroy it.
With all due respect, but the only muslims well known in my country are those that spend the majority of their time preaching hate for us and burning our flags in our own cities. Us, being the nice people that we are, allow them to do so. Tell me, how far would I get if I burnt an islamic nation flag in an islamic nation? As a further question out of interest, how far would my wife get if she wore a mini-skirt and asserted her own independence, that she deserved a status equal to or above that of men?
Probably not very far, but then, there was a time not 60 something years ago when demanding self determination from a Brit in your own country would result in being hanged.