Why Muslim Cultures Lag Behind


Pages: 1 2

Lack of empowerment of women. The future, no matter what form it may take, is almost certainly going to involve more technology, not less. How well equipped is a society for this future if half of its members are only (at best) grudgingly given their rights? In many Islamic countries, women are often illiterate and have no rights in essential critical life decisions, such as those involving child-rearing, marriage or education. And why should they? Various Quranic verses, age-old Islamic traditions, and core Islamic teachings render women as nothing more than chattel and the property of their male relatives—never the equal of men. And no one can ‘reform’ these teachings to something more enlightened—see the penalty for “bid’ah” above.

Lack of personal responsibility. Muslim leaders often lie to or deceive their own people, to subordinates, or to allies in order to advance their own personal agendas. Remember that most Muslim countries are a patchwork of tribes who barely tolerate one another in the best of times. Loyalty to one’s country as a whole is next to non-existent. So, the main objective of these leaders, whether at the top, middle or bottom, is to steal as much as they can, while they can, in order to enrich themselves and their families, clans or tribes—’national interest’ be damned. If you’re one of the rare incorruptible types, or are otherwise too stupid to steal when presented with the opportunity, then more the fool you are. Other tribes or groups are useful as scapegoats when the need arises or when blame must be deflected.

Lack of skilled labour. Rich, developed and successful countries like Germany, Japan and others do not just spring into existence. It takes the efforts of millions, skilled specialists toiling endlessly in dangerous and/or monotonous drudgery for decades, to build and also maintain the ever-growing complex web of systems that modern nations depend on to function. But Muslim countries, even the ones with trillions from oil revenue, have consistently failed to create large enough castes of technical specialists that modern nations must have. As there are never enough people willing or able to work within their own borders, Muslim nations are forced to outsource their labour needs. In Saudi Arabia and most Arab states, for instance, cleaners and maids come from India or the Philippines, while engineers and others in the technical trades come from America, Europe and increasingly east Asia. This trend is accelerating, paradoxically enough, at a time when the governments of the burgeoning Arab world are having an increasing problem just feeding their exploding populations.

Lack of meritocracy. The West has thrived not only because they have learned to hold people responsible for their actions, but also they have learned to give out rewards based on individual achievement. Hence higher–performing individuals tend to be eventually in charge and reap the most rewards (in prestige, rank, money, etc.). Westerners do not always manage to live up to these ideals, but the concepts themselves are not questioned. In the Islamic world, however, what counts is personal loyalty, personal connections, and tribal/sect membership. Incompetent leaders are preferable to competent ones, so long as they are properly loyal. Such a state of affairs makes for incredible inefficiency on a normal day and catastrophic consequences when any sort of crisis arises. Muslims are fond of saying “it’s God’s will” at difficult times, which for Muslims seems like most of the time. Actually, it’s not so much “God’s will” but more like the inevitable consequences of their dysfunctional culture.

If you’ve read up to this point, no doubt that you could add a few more things to this list. But remember, political correctness dictates that all cultures are somehow “equal,” and Muslims are convinced their cultures are somehow superior, never mind the reams of evidence to the contrary. So while I want to be optimistic, the smart money is not riding on the would-be reformers of the under-performing societies of the Muslim world. At least not yet.

The Anti-Jihadist is the pseudonym of a counter-jihad writer, activist and critic of Islam who resides in a majority Muslim country.  His work can also be found at Jihad Watch, Infidel Bloggers Alliance and Pedestrian Infidel.

Pages: 1 2

  • crackerjack

    The author is missing the point here. ALL religions, especially the monotheistc, suppress basic individual rights and stun scientific and economic groth. The West has the advantage that a few centuries of enlightment and civil revolutions have broken the power of the Christian churches and clergy and erected secular, constitutional administrations. Christendom opposed every step on the way with torture and murder. Christendom is just as backward as Islam and Judaism, from which it stemms.
    Looking at present day Israel, we see the secular state going down before unproductive, religious lunatics as Judaism returns to power.

    • MullahAssassin

      Religion has never been great at accepting reality, but you are missing a key point here.

      Islam is today where Christianity was 500 years ago or more, so i wouldn't necessarily draw an equivalence between them. Especially when Islam is willing to murder apostates, heretics and blasphemers by any means at hand in the 21st century. The Catholic Church did this indeed, but that is a past history. The West grows and learns. The Ummah stagnates.

      There is a difference between Islam and Christendom today. And its quite gaping.

      • Huffer115

        I believe you use "Christiandom" and "Christianity" incorrectly and this is why the truth is hard to find. The Catholic Church is not "Christianity" any more then Islam is. They practice 'man inspired' teachings with just enough hints at following YHWH and Christ to fool the follower's. Mary is was only blessed as a vassal for God's use. She is now dead and will be asleep until Christ's return. Satan uses the same tricks. He always throws in a piece of truth then finishes the story with lies!
        Put most "So Called" religions up against the word of God and you'll see a huge discrepancy.
        Remember: following Christ is voluntary and needs no force from others to make sure you do…! As a youngster, at home, it may be forced EXPOSURE under one's parents but afterward it is voluntary.

    • aspacia

      Not anymore. The Enlightenment changed most of Christianity and Judaism.

      When was the last time Christendom officially opposed advancement or tortured or murdered a person in the name of faith.

      Sure, there is thoughtful debate regarding embryonic stem cell research and capital punishment, but private industry may conduct this research using its own funds, and states may or may not choose to impose capital punishment.

      Frankly, you just fear all faiths. In contrast, I fear fanatics.

      • Reason_For_Life

        "When was the last time Christendom officially opposed advancement…?"

        1878 in Montreal. The local diocese had opposed vaccination as being contrary to the will of God. Plagues were God's way of punishing sin and to use earthly means to prevent plagues was against God's law. When smallpox broke out the children of Catholics died in massive numbers. The protestant children who had been vaccinated survived.

        There are probably more recent examples but that one stood out to me because of the horrible results of denying scientific advancement.

        The Enlightenment wasn't the end of religious fanaticism, it was only the first step in eliminating it.

        • Eastview

          What happened in a local diocese in 1878 is hardly representative of Christendom at large. Some small sects of Christianity (Seventh Day Adventists?) also resist treating diseases with drugs, and the Amish don't use electricity because it's the handmaiden of the Devil. None of these represent the larger frame of reference of Christianity today, so cherry picking them to make a point won't wash.

          • Grayzel

            What you write is correct but you made errors. Seventh Day Adventists have more nurses and doctors per population than any other denomination. They most certainly do not condemn the use of any drugs used for healing. As for your comment about the Amish you are half correct. Electricity, to them leads to distractions from the simple G-d driven life. It leads to television or radio. They might have a point about that if we think about how much time we waste on frivolous entertainment.

          • Reason_For_Life

            Montreal wasn't the only diocese the condemned vaccination. It was a highly controversial issue within the entire Catholic church. Many, if not most, early 19th century American churches condemned vaccination as defiant of the will of God. By 1878 this was a minority view.

            The Enlightenment was in the 18th century, a hundred years before the Montreal disaster.

            Today, there are Christian groups that oppose blood transfusions and other forms of medical treatment. As for vaccinations

            "In accordance with the Texas Education Code, Section 38.001, regarding exceptions to immunization requirements, we hereby certify that the administration of vaccine and other immunizing agents to our child, ______________________, conflicts with the tenets and practice of a recognized religion, of which we are adherents. We therefore request that our child be exempted from the school immunization requirements. "

            This is part of a form letter suggested by an organization the opposes vaccinations. It is the LAW in Texas that parents can get their children exempted from vaccinations for religious reasons.

            There is extensive opposition today to vaccination against human papilloma virus on the grounds that it might encourage young women to have sex. In fact vaccination against any STD has religious opposition.

            So this isn't "cherry picking". Whatever you may believe about compulsory vaccinations (I oppose compulsion in general) does not change the fact that even today, people refuse vaccinations for religious reasons.

            Returning to the comparison of Christianity and Islam, guess who the major opponents of vaccination are today. You guessed it — Muslims. Polio vaccinations are thought to be an American plot to sterilize Muslims. Several fatwas have been issued against polio vaccinations in Pakistan and by the government that the US helped create – Afghanistan.

            The extent to which people deny the validity of reason is the extent to which they will oppose scientific advancement. The more anti-rational that a religion is, the more deaths they will produce.

        • aspacia

          I tend to agree. Civilizations are still attempting to rein in fanatics. Worship a worm, I do not care, just do not infringe on my rights and freedoms.

          • Robert

            People don't need a religion to be fanatics.
            Think about the history of Communism or the devout SS soldiers of Hitler or some of the eco-nuts running around or whatever.

            Fanatical behavior is a human problem not a religion problem.

          • aspacia

            You are absolutely correct. Extreme behavior is part of certain individual's genetics. Look at the extreme sports too.

    • Sonshinepatriot

      Crackerjack: Your use of history and the suppression in Europe by the Rome Catholic Church ended nearly 350 years ago. Equating today’s Moslem believes with what happen 350 years ago still shows that there is a big gap between what has happened in most of the world verses what has not happened in the Islamic world. I think the Author hit the nail on the head; Moslems are a suppressed, superstitious group because Islam has never reformed as did Christianity some 350 years ago. We can thank Napoleon for that act; who can the Moslems thank?

      • aspacia

        There are few enlightened Muslims, but they are living in exile or persecuted or slandered or libel by extremist Muslims and liberals in the West and Israel.

        • SpiritOf1683

          The enlightened Muslims are those who became apostates.

    • MKS

      Actually, if you research the matter, I think you will find James Clerk Maxwell, Michael Faraday, Louis Pasteur, and a disproportionately large number of the scientists who actually accomplished something (more than merely an advanced degree and a reputation), were Christian or Jewish. Isaac Newton was known as one of the foremost Bible scholars of his century.

      George Washington was baptized by Baptist preacher John Gano. James Madison met with Baptist preacher John Leland at Orange, VA, to agree to put the Bill of Rights in the Constitution. Abraham Lincoln, who never joined a church, grew up working as the care-taker of the building of a Baptist Church where his father Thomas was a member. I think he kept some Shakespeare and a King James Translation on his desk as constant companions.

      My point: Bible believers have contributed more to real science and human rights than they have taken away.

      • Reason_For_Life

        George Washington attended a church where he was a vestryman. However, he never once took communion and after his death the church's rector stated categorically that Washington was a Deist.

        Newton's theological writings are so poor that you can't find copies of them. He was also a believer in the Arian heresy and dared not publish his true beliefs for fear of being killed. He was a brilliant mathematician but an abysmal human being, a person reviled by those who knew him personally.

        Newton's famous quote "If I have seen farther than other men it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants" was not the magnanimous statement it appeared to be. Newton was so jealous of Robert Hooke that he made that statement because Hooke was less than five feet tall. Newton's magnanimity was, in reality, a put down of a man whose scientific abilities were greater than Newton's–and Newton knew it.

        If Christianity is what made Newton a great mathematician, was it also Christianity that made him such a despicable human being?

        Christians and Jews have made great contributions but not because of their religious beliefs.

        • Tychicus

          @Reason_for_life: "Newton's theological writings are so poor you can't find copies of them"
          What are you talking about?
          Newton has been held up as pratically an oracle concerning his understanding of biblical prophecy! His two most well known works are "Optics" and "Observations upon the prophecies of Daniel". His beliefs may not have been orthodox, but that is beside the point (the atmosphere of the times demanded complete subscription to Anathansius Creed). Newton was completely opposed to atheists. He considered atheism to be a mental disease and the belief of oblivious fools.

          Please stop speaking nonsense!
          -Tychicus

          Observations upon the prophecies of Daniel http://www.archive.org/details/observationsupon00http://books.google.com/books?id=gG5BAAAAcAAJ&amp

          • Reason_For_Life

            I had never seen any of Newton's theological writings ever quoted so if you say that he's well known in Biblical prophecy circles then I yield to you on this issue.

            I don't consider anyone who believes in Biblical prophecy to be a serious scholar. The Bible has too many blatant falsehoods and contradictions. If Newton believed them, then it is proof that you can be talented in one area and an utter fool in others.

            If you want to see just how silly Biblical prophecy is then check out all of "end of the world" prophecies of just the last few decades. Jehovah's witnesses (world ended in 1975), "The Late Great Planet Earth " which in two editions has two different ends of the world. Hal Lindsay is on his, what, fourth version of the end of the world?

            There are thousands of times more people that have read these moronic prophecies than even know who Newton was much less have read his works.

            What next? Bible codes showing that the Mets would win the 1969 World Series?

          • aspacia

            Reason is correct regarding Newton's Arian belief. Remember, most scientists kept mum regarding their true beliefs because the church would find a way to persecute them.

        • welldoneson

          "reason", you obviously won't listen to reason!
          "Newton's theological writings are so poor that you can't find copies of them"?
          Wow, you're in your own little world. Are you Moslem?

          • Reason_For_Life

            If from my writing you conclude that I am a Muslim, then you are an idiot. Read the entire exchange between Tychicus and me.

      • aspacia

        You examples are correct, however there has been many religious individuals and leaders who have halted some scientific research. There are some Christian faiths that dangerously prohibit vaccinations, and schools must enroll these students because of religious freedoms. This endangers society.

        • Reason_For_Life

          Compulsory vaccination may well be unjustifiable in terms of human liberty. This might be dealt with by social ostracism of parents and children who refuse vaccination.

          I favor a completely private education system where individual schools could refuse any student that is not vaccinated. This is a completely reasonable stand for any school to take.

          The most difficult issue deals with whether or not a parent can be held responsible for the death of his child if the child dies of a preventable disease. Is it criminal neglect, or simply poor judgment?

      • Sonshine Patriot

        I agree the contributions to the rise of the US are trutly remarkable, but the aguement is like a dog chasing its tail; it never ends until the dog gets dizzy or tired. As a Christian I don’t need recognition or praise.

    • Reason_For_Life

      I'd agree with most of what you say but I don't understand your last line. What religious lunatics are destroying Israel? Muslims or Jews? The part about Judaism returning to power doesn't seem to make sense. Has Israel become a theocracy ruled by orthodox rabbis?

    • sedoanman

      Don't you just love it? One scientist has a disagreement with his church and suddenly ALL religion is against ALL science. Talk about taking one data point and extrapolating a whole universe, which is not very scientific at all.

      • aspacia

        Not all by a long shot, however, many scientists were persecuted by the various Christian sects.

        • Robert

          Many scientists have also been persecuted by atheistic regimes such as the Soviet Union, Mao's China and under Hitler. Many academics today work under the de facto regime of politically correct diversity police.

          Once again, people don't need a religion to be dogmatic, close minded fanatics.

          • aspacia

            Were they persecuted for their research or political beliefs?

    • Major Dick Bong

      Most scientists aren't atheists. How exactly does that fit into your worldview?

      As a life-long atheist myself, I'll always wonder what Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin asked in his prayers when he was up there.

      Oh, and Israelis gave us the 8088, and the Pentium-M, two of the most important developments in microprocessors in single-board computing. These are people you take into space with you.

      • aspacia

        These are secular Jews, and a poor example. Remember that secular does not mean absence of faith just the separation of church and state.

    • jasonz

      crackerjack your comparison of islam, judiism, and christianity is inaccurate. Sure all 3 had violent pasts. but islam is the onlyone that has decided and fought to stay there as a whole. you cant compare judism and chrisianity now to what it was 500 or a thousand yrs ago. its like night and day. however you can look at modern islam and past islam and see no change Next…all civilizations have had religions. from rome and greece to present day. they still grew and expanded. ancient rome and greece were more advanced than muslim cultures, not only in technology, but in social issues as well. in muslim cultures religion is everything. and innovation is not only frowned upon, but punished severly. if muslim cultures did not take things by force they would have died out centuries ago. lets face it religion is not what keeps muslim nations from advancing. ISLAM is what keeps them the way they are.

      • aspacia

        Jasonz, get real. crackerjack can make the comparison if he or she chooses, whether he or she is correct is another question.

    • jtjtjtjt

      You my friend are the epitome of a useful idiot. you regurgitate what you hear or read on progressive, left leaning blogs and pass it off as truth. Stupid is as stupid does.

      • aspacia

        Fallacious ad hominem attack. Now who is stupid?

        • welldoneson

          you

          • aspacia

            You responded with a fallacy, and did not refute the claim, which makes you the ignorant fool

          • aspacia

            welldoneson, I was responding to jt, not you. I have been forced to Newton during my undergrad years and he was not wrong and very clear.

      • tzx4

        Yes because it is absolutely black and white.
        "Left" & "Lib" are all 100% incorrect, evil, and stupid.
        All people who are "conservative" are 100% correct, noble, and good.

    • libsequaljoke

      LMAO

    • ebonystone

      "ALL religions, especially the monotheistc (sic), suppress basic individual rights and stun (sic) scientific and economic groth (sic)."

      So how does one explain the fact that for the last 2500 years or so (i.e. since the emergence of the great monotheistic religions), the parts of the world where they predominate — Europe, the Mediterranean, and the Near East — have consistently been among the richest, most advanced, and most civilized areas of the world? (Along with the non-mono-theistic China and India). Australia, sub-Saharan Africa, and the Americas were not "stunned" by monotheistic religions until fairly recent times. So where is their economic and scientific growth?
      And the very idea of "basic individual rights" is largely a Christian one.

    • Steve

      With the Enlightenment, the totalitarian oneness of religion/politcal power/art was no longer the case. Each of these endeavors were free to go their own way without interference from the other. See Ken Wilber's "Up From Eden" for an indepth discussin of this matter.

    • SpiritOf1683

      Crackerjackass, if Christianity and Judaism are so bad, then why are you still living here. Shouldn't you be living in Iran, Saudi Arabia etc instead? But then again, if you lived there and said the same about those countries as what you say about the West, your head wouldn't stay long on its shoulders. However, that would be no detriment to your I.Q.

    • Jeannette Gravett

      Crackerjack, WhAAAAAAt?1????

    • Lu, Kang Sung

      Great advances were achieved by believers; from Galileo to Einstein.

    • winoceros

      What is typical of these anti-religion types is the simple ignorance that most scientific development and research councils in Europe were not only sponsored by the church, who had the money to pursue such things, but much of the work was being done by the clergy themselves, often monks, who had time to pursue the lengthy work without private patrons.

      They point to a few councils where the theology was at odds with the scientific development and the political fallout as some kind of indicator of "Christianity's" approach to science, bolstered by an American experience of living around a few creationists in America who get a lot of press. Most Christians are comfortably at peace with science and religion, hand in hand, and perpetuating this "dark ages" myth of religion is anachronistic and incorrect.

      Sorry to break it to you, but science was progressing nicely long before "constitutional administrations" came along. Do you ever read histories?

  • rawesley747

    I don't know what it means to "stun scientific and economic groth," but I do think it is important to note the contribution of Protestantism to the development of individual rights in politics and economics. It has been a long time since I took Western Civilization in college, but if I remember correctly, the Reformation occurred from within Christianity, not from without.

    No purely secular philosophy guarantees individual rights. French Code law, based on positivism, guarantees that the State can never be wrong. Utilitarianism guarantees that there is no individual right that cannot be trumped by the rights of the many. And Marxism–well, I can't stop laughing at that thought.

    • aspacia

      It was both internal and external beginning with the early Renaissance. Actually, look at the advancements made during Medieval Times. Huge architectural advances occurred during the late Dark Ages.

  • Ed Elliott

    Crackejack, where are your facts? Christianity founded and funded science for hundreds of years. If you live in the USA you are the benefactor of that largese. Were you to say that in the former Soviet Union or in Moslem countries you would no longer be breathing air. Contrary to common beleif atheists do beleive in God – and hate him.

    • aspacia

      The Catholic Church targeted scientists and nearly put Galileo on the stake for Copernican heresy.

      • fmobler

        Not really. He was never in danger for his life. And the controversy, surely the Church's error, was not over what you call a Copernican heresy. The controversy was not about which extra-biblical, mechanistic model was right (Copernicus; or Ptolemy's). It was about whether Galileo has the authority to teach *that* his view was the truth. Add to that some stupid petty intrigue and you've got the Galileo affair pretty well summed up. It is not a story that , if you understand the facts, helps your theory of a war between Christendom and science.

        For that matter, which other scientists did the Catholic Church target? One inaccurate example coupled with a shift to the plural is a nice bit of rhetorical bootstrapping. Nice try.

        • fmobler

          First. You didn't answer my question. Second, you seem to have missed my point, perhaps by not actually reading what I wrote. This time, not such a nice try.I'll try one more time. The Galileo controversy was not about heresy, it was about internal politics and who had the authority to speak authoritatively. There was never a question of whether he was allowed to speculate, and even advocate for a different position.Also, I called you, and still do, on your game of citing one case (a bad one) and then shifting to plural references as if that's just the tip of an iceberg. It's an old trick. As for why you sent me a link to aifdemocracy, I can't imagine, unless I missed their section on logic.—

          • aspacia

            According to you, Galileo threatened the church's authority and was not a heretic. During this time, when an individual threatens the Catholic Church's authority this was considered heresy, and if found guilty that person faced the stake.

            Here is your entire comment "Not really. He was never in danger for his life. And the controversy, surely the Church's error, was not over what you call a Copernican heresy. The controversy was not about which extra-biblical, mechanistic model was right (Copernicus; or Ptolemy's). It was about whether Galileo has the authority to teach *that* his view was the truth. Add to that some stupid petty intrigue and you've got the Galileo affair pretty well summed up. It is not a story that , if you understand the facts, helps your theory of a war between Christendom and science.

            For that matter, which other scientists did the Catholic Church target? One inaccurate example coupled with a shift to the plural is a nice bit of rhetorical bootstrapping. Nice try."

            I provided the list of scientists who suffered from the Christian religious authority to prove that religion, throughout its history has targeted scientists and their research. Sure, there are exceptions, but this fact remains.

            AIFD was sent to ahmadnb, sorry if I accidentally sent it to you.

          • fmobler

            Let me recommend Adam Frank, The Constant Fire: Beyond the Science vs. Religion Debate. Frank doesn't deny that there have been serious episodes of tension — even persecution, but he pretty well demolishes your claim that “religion, throughout its history has targeted scientists and their research. Sure, there are exceptions, but this fact remains.”Surely we know by now the difference between fact and agenda-driven interpretation.—

          • aspacia

            LMFAO! Can't you refute my claim. I provided a rather extensive list of scientists Christians targeted, and this is your refute????

            The fact remains, and is still true, that scientists have been targeted by some Christian religious leaders.

          • fmobler

            Sorry to read that I am the cause of your recent ass loss. The fact that is was a F&ing one is not my business.Look, earlier you sent a link to something completely unrelated. My “refute”, as you so literately put it, was not a refutation. It was a recommendation to read something other than a punch list.Now that you have sent the link you seem to think you sent a while ago, I can have a look.By the way, the claim (not disputed by me) that some scientists have been targeted by some Christian leaders is not exactly a proof that Christianity, over all, is either ideologically or culturally at odds with science. Nevertheless, I'll certainly read the list you sent.—

          • aspacia

            Again, during the Galileo's time, to disagree with the Church's teachings was heretical, and lead to the stake. If he did not disclaim his findings he did face execution.

            Your claim is that his opposition what a simple disagreement about the church's authority and his claim, when it fact, it was a dangerous stance for any individual to take.

          • aspacia

            Here is more: Galileo's championing of Copernicanism was controversial within his lifetime, when a large majority of philosophers and astronomers still subscribed to the geocentric view that the Earth is at the centre of the universe. After 1610, when he began publicly supporting the heliocentric view, which placed the Sun at the centre of the universe, he met with bitter opposition from some philosophers and clerics, and two of the latter eventually denounced him to the Roman Inquisition early in 1615. In February 1616, although he had been cleared of any offence, the Catholic Church nevertheless condemned heliocentrism as "false and contrary to Scripture",[10] and Galileo was warned to abandon his support for it—which he promised to do. When he later defended his views in his most famous work, Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, published in 1632, he was tried by the Inquisition, found "vehemently suspect of heresy", forced to recant, and spent the rest of his life under house arrest.[11][12]

          • aspacia

            Again, a list of scientists targeted by Christian leaders. It is cited:
            http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-sciencechristiani

          • Reason_For_Life

            That site has a pretty good summary of Andrew White's work. White and his friend Ezra Cornell founded Cornell University because of the bigoted practices of religious colleges. These included things like a Baptist college refusing to hire a Methodist to teach math.

          • fmobler

            Thanks. This is not “again” since you sent a wrong link before. Anyway, I'll look at it. —

          • fmobler

            Sorry for the delay. I've been traveling — settling in to Oxford for the summer to a little scientific collaboration as it happens.The link you sent me obviously puts me in a bind. As a Christian who makes his living doing scientific research I seem to be stuffed. But before I start a program of self-persecution, let me ask some questions about link you sent me.Q1: Who wrote it? The article does not indicate an author. As Brother Richard Dawkins reminds us, mere appearance of design is not proof of a designer. The thing certainly gives the appearance of having been written. So perhaps you will grant me a tiny “intellgient Design” moment and agree that it is an intentional piece of anonymous work.Sarcasm aside, it is generally not a good idea to send a citation whose authorship you don't know.By the way, clever users of the web can often get clues about anonymous authors simply by erasing the last bits of a url. In this case, we come to the web site of one “Steve Kanga”. On the site we learn that Steve is a liberal, and has taken up a lucrative job in Las Vegas, no doubt for a non-profit of some sort. We also learn that he runs an award winning liberal web site that seems not to have been maintained much since 1998 or so. What we don't find is a link to the article you cite. Odd. Either Steve stole the article or did not wish it to be attributed to him (that'd be my inclination if I were him) or the article spontaneously produced itself (I know, we dispensed with that possibility). So let's just refer to the author as Author X.Q2: Did you read it to the end? Author X uses end notes — a sure sign of a good pedigree. Anyway, end note 1 admits that almost all historic anecdotes in the article have a single source: Andrew White's The Warfare of Science with Theology (1895).Now this is pretty funny, since the book I cited to you is in a part a thorough dismantling of White. I've asked a couple of (non-Christian) historian friends about this. White is never cited today, except for the purpose of discussing the controversy of a “war against science”. I suggest you find some modern scholarship on the subject, not a silly anonymous undergraduate essay.By the way, one reason White is not cited any more is that he included some now provable false stories as well, such an anti-Copernicus quote wrongly attributed to Calvin. It turns out White was a better polemicist than he was a scholar. I'm not what that says about Author X or someone who would cite a person who cites White.Q3: Did you read any of it?Here is a typical passage: “Shortly after publishing Revolutions of the Heavenly Bodies, he died of old age, and was thus spared their angry response. But they got their revenge anyway, by burying him in a grave that marked none of his great accomplishments,…”Damn those churchmen for what their angry response that never happened. They showed him by giving him a church burial.In all cases cited in the article except Bruno, no one was killed. In both of those cases, it is simply not honest to claim that their deaths were a result of their scientific beliefs. In fact, in both cases a good case can be made that they adopted the specific in Copernican cosmology because they believed it was better suited to their rejection of orthodox Christianity, not the other way around.Q4: Do you know who Bertrand Russel was? The idea that Bertrand Russel suffered for his beliefs is risible. Many people suffered for his beliefs (ask T.S. Elliot), but Russel was on among them. In addition to being a brilliant philosopher of mathematics, he was a horn dog. His “liberated” beliefs about sex did include omnisexuality (hump anything available). The charges against him (homosexual acts, libertinism, etc.) were factually correct. If you think that constitutes persecution of a scientist qua scientist by the church, you need might consider reading a text by one of Russel's last students, Anthony Flew. The book is How to Think Straight. I often assign it to my students. Q5: Do you know who Campanella was?White, bless his heart, claims he was “tortured seven times by the Inquisition for a number of heresies, one of which was writing Defense of Galileo.” Not so.He was imprisoned in 1600 for heresy (probably actually for promoting political revolution and tortured after that. He wrote Defense of Galileo while in the Naples prison, after the torture, in 1616 (or so) and published it in 1622 while in prison for the heresies). He died of natural causes in Paris under the protection of Cardinal Richelieu living on a pension from the king. Before that he was variously a serious political trouble maker, advocate of community held wives, astrologer to Pope Urban VIII. Once again, selling Campanella as a story of persecution of a scientist by the church requires that you not actually bother to find out who he was.The myth of church persecution of scientists lives on through shoddy scholarship.—

          • aspacia

            You are correct, and I believe I did mention it is cited, and was hesistant to use this site because of the lack of authorship. You are correct regarding Kanga, and he has zero credentials in science and history, hence he is talking out his a$$, except for the fact that Sin City is a hell hole that I also live in for employment/medical benefits.

            Yes, I have perused Russel while attending an university history class. He was typical of many elites who turned liberal and communist., just as many U.K., and US elites often tend to lean. So what? Who cares about his sex life? I sure don't, just as I did not care about Clinton's sex life, albeit what I care about is perjury.
            http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/campanella/
            Ah, an interesting character who challenge the church regarding their Aristotelian mindset being too connected to magic/faith/belief rather that rooted in facts. He was indeed denounced to the Inquisition for heresy which is opposition to the church's claim they have the truths, which he refutes. Fascinating, I was not aware of him. Similar to Luther, he was a courageous man.

            Now, I will do further research regarding formal religions' attack on scientists.

          • fmobler

            Good luck with the research. I mean that, not sarcastically. Reasonable people can differ in their interpretations of history. But I really do object to using sloppy scholarship to back it up. As for Campanella, I think you are being too kind to him. I'd compare him more to Guevara than to Luther — except that he wound up being protected by church elites rather than assassinated by a follow atheist.RE: Russell. Mostly I agree that I don't care about his sex life. I do care about his ideological life, and in Russell the two are inextricably linked. He very aggressively went out of his way to hurt people who simply did not want to join by acting out his ideologically of sex. It is pretty well known in Oxford that he was a first rate prick, who used sex as a weapon. That, I think, is worth objecting to.Also, I hope you did not just read “Why I am not a Christian” and think that is representative of his best work as a philosopher. He was a brilliant philosopher of mathematics — an area I know quite well professionally. Not so, a philosopher of religion. That seems to be the consensus among philosophers, not just my admittedly predisposed opinion. —

          • aspacia

            I have been on vacation, but I believe this definition will suffice regarding heretic and the persecution of those who disagree with religious dogma:
            Definition of HERETIC
            1
            : a dissenter from established religious dogma; especially : a baptized member of the Roman Catholic Church who disavows a revealed truth
            2
            : one who dissents from an accepted belief or doctrine : nonconformist
            See heretic defined for English-language learners »
            See heretic defined for kids »
            Examples of HERETIC

            The church regards them as heretics.
            <Galileo was condemned as a heretic for supporting Copernicus's thesis that the earth revolves around the sun and not vice versa.> (Webster). Oh, and please do not use "me Mum's favorite slam "Americaneeze."

            That is, I stand by the list of scientists persecuted by the church.

          • fmobler

            Fine. But one point of logic needs to be made. It is one thing for a person who happens to be a scientist to also happen to be a heretic. It is quite another to be declared heretical for your scientific views. Galileo falls into the later category clearly. Most of the rest of the list (which I still wouldn't accept merely on White's and Kanga's authority, if I were you) do not. Certainly, Russell does not.—

          • aspacia

            Regardless of the issue, if a person differs from the church regarding any issue, especially 300+ years ago, they usually ran afoul of the church and faced the stake.

            Why do you play the semantics game regarding facts? Many scientific breakthroughs have been made by religious folk, especially Mendel, Pasteur and those wonderful monks who messed up a batch of wine and gave us gratfeul folk Champagne. Regardless, during the course of human history a fair share of humans have been targeted by religious leaders for heresy, and this dates back to the Egyptians polytheists and probably is an even more ancient practice.

            I understand that you are religious and a scientist attempting to protect you beliefs, albeit this is fruitless.

            Again, religious leaders have targeted others as heretics when these heretics opposed their faith's tenets.

        • Reason_For_Life

          "He was never in danger for his life."

          Are you insane? Bruno was burned at at the stake for heresy only a few years before! Had Galileo not recanted he would have certainly been put to death.

          • fmobler

            Not sure about my sanity, but lots of other people seem to think I'm OK. At least they say I'm OK. Anyway, thanks for your concern.As for your trying to draw an analogy between Bruno and Galileo, let's at least try to be clear about the facts. Several others believed and even advocated for the Copernican model. None of them were executed. Bruno was indeed executed for the heresy of pantheism, but not for his Copernican cosmology. In fact, my reading of his own writing, I think can be interpreted the other way around. Namely, his pantheism, hardly a scientific point of view, seemed to be bolstered by Copernican cosmology. He didn't like pantheism because of Copernicus; he liked Copernicus because of pantheism. I know plenty of folks have tried to elevate his case as a “martyr for science” story, but more recently cooler heads have taken that story down several pegs. See Adam Frank, The Constant Fire: Beyond the Science vs. Religion Debate, for example.Galileo, again, does not ever seem to have been under mortal threat. To be fair, he might have thought he was, but that seems pretty unlikely to me. Though the Copernican model was indeed declared to be a heresy, the actual ruling of the Inquisitiion was that he was strongly suspected of heresy. That would not have been enough for a capital offense. In truth, Galileo remained a pious Catholic throughout the whole mess. I think a fair reading is that he was quite convinced that the Church was in error and made an honest, if a bit sarcastic, attempt to convince the Church of this, but that he never seriously challenged the teaching authority of the Church. —

          • Reason_For_Life

            Revisionists have been pushing the idea that Galileo was never in mortal danger but simply irritated the Pope with his "Dialogue" by putting the Pope's words into a character named "Simplicius". The Pope over responded a tad but would never have actually harmed Galileo.

            That argument doesn't stand up to analysis. Either Galileo was in no danger in which case he could easily have maintained his position that the earth moved or he recanted out of fear of being executed for heresy.

            Remember, Galileo recanted and he received a life sentence of house arrest. How can anyone maintain that nothing worse would have happened to him had he not recanted?

            Galileo could not travel, could not lecture and could not write on the subject of astronomy as a part of his sentence. What would have happened to him had he done these forbidden things? He was not even allowed to travel to see his daughters.

            It's true that he never openly challenged the teachings of the church and he was quite familiar with the fate of those who did. When most heretics and witches were burned at the stake the fire rarely reached their bodies before they were dead. Merciful executioners used moist wood that produced fumes that killed the victims before the fire ravaged them. Bruno was executed with extremely dry wood. He was quite conscious when the flames seared his flesh.

            The others who "advocated" for the Copernican model did no such thing. To do so was heresy and heresy was punishable by death. The other writers, like Galileo himself, produced arguments for and against the sun centered system but always avoided taking a heretical position themselves. Galileo's argumentation was too strong so he found himself in court.

            His life was on the line, he knew it, his prosecutors knew it and his prosecutors dared not fail. To charge a man with heresy and be wrong about it carried severe punishments. When it became clear that Galileo had not technically committed heresy, since he did provide both sides and didn't take a heretical position himself, the prosecutors struck a deal. Galileo would live if he recanted. The severe conditions of his sentence was gradually relaxed but when he died he was still under house arrest.

          • fmobler

            There is not much more to say here, since you've poisoned the well by calling the people who have argued the other side “revisionists”. I do understand your position. I don't think it is unreasonable. But it it hardly the only reasonable one. And serious scholars who dissent don't deserve to be sneered at. OTOH, you can sneer at me all you want.As for standing up to analysis, the false dichotomy you give to Galileo is not worthy of him. He might have recanted for lots of other reasons. But you know best, and hence give him exactly one motive for taking the path he took. I do not claim to know him so as well as you do.Your non-revisionist story does not provided a scrap of evidence, say an actual threat, that he was in danger for his life. Instead you imagine that he must of been under an actual threat or he would not have recanted. QED, I guess.As for your little anecdote about the details of the nasty way Bruno was executed, I have nothing to say since it has a considerable possibility of being apocryphal. By the way, Galileo was critical of Bruno himself. I don't know whether Galileo put himself in the same class as a person whom he knew had deeply misunderstood Copernicus. You seem to think he did.—

          • Reason_For_Life

            Perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps Galileo decided that the earth was the center of the universe. Perhaps Galileo thought it was a fun prank to recant. Perhaps the pope offered Galileo a date with his sister if he recanted. Perhaps…perhaps….perhaps.

            Galileo might have had a thousand reasons to recant, but the facts of the case only support one reason – fear of torture or death.

          • fmobler

            Aren't you the sort who values skepticism? Anyway, belittling the idea of other motivations (dates with the pope's sister! seriously) is not a way to convince me to reconsider my position. So as long as we are imparting motives to people, I'd say you are arguing with me not to convince me of anything, but only to establish your superiority. Since this is not a game I need to play, I quit.I will simply end this be repeating my earlier suggestion that you read scholars with whom you disagree. Read Stanley Jaki, Frank, John Polkinghorn, Stephen Barr, Ronald Numbers, Michael Polanyi, for example. They may not change your mind, but they might at least leaven your sense of surety. One good place to start isGary Ferngren (editor). Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002. It includes good scholars on all sides (there are not just two).—

    • Reason_For_Life

      Atheists do not believe in God. That's why they're called atheists.

      No atheist hates what he doesn't believe in. They hate the religious fanatics that invoke a deity to justify cruelty and murder.

    • tzx4

      Wow ED . . . "Contrary to common beleif atheists do beleive in God – and hate him"

      In your world, in your mind, is that really a truth?

    • crackerjack

      Christianisty latest "battleground" agains science is "Intelligent design".

      • Robert

        Yes, we must remember that if it isn't Darwin, it isn't science.

        Repeat that mantra 500 times. Then go to sleep.

        • Jim_C

          Darwin, at least, IS science.

          Look under the rock that is "Intelligent design" and you'll see hundred of moronic "creationists" (our very own Taliban!) crawling around. This has been proven in realm of science and found to be so in courts of law. I used to have respect for the airy, impressionistic notion of "intelligent design." Then I looked into how it has played out in courts, and found it an infuriating cover for pure ignorance. At least it is the type of ignorance against which history has prevailed time and again.

          Of course Darwin himself saw a divine hand behind the mechanism of his theory–as do I. But I'm sure as hell not going to call that "science."

          • winoceros

            Please show instances of where believers in intelligent design behave as the Taliban do.

  • tanstaafl

    Crackerjack – Islam is 90% political and only 10% religious. All other religions have some form of the Golden Rule, Islam does not. Most, if not all, religions have some form of tolerance towards other religions. Islam divides the world into believer and unbeliever. It is halal (permitted) for believers to do ANYTHING they want to unbelievers. That includes murder, rape, assault, theft and enslavement.

    • aspacia

      Their Golden Rule is to treat Muslims as they would treat themselves. However, they butcher each other far more than any Western or Israeli source.

    • aysha

      idont think you understand islam will ,,,God will punish if we believers killed unbelievers it is wrong infromation you have…

      • tanstaafl

        So the Qur'an, the aHadith, centuries of Islam exegesis and history are all wrong?!? Are you some new prophet, who has a new message which abrogates the words of Allah, told to the angel Gabriel and then transmitted to Mohammed?

        All heed the words of aysha! The new prophet of Islam!

  • Chezwick_mac

    FROM THE ARTICLE: "The West has thrived not only because they have learned to hold people responsible for their actions, but also they have learned to give out rewards based on individual achievement."

    That was once the case, but racial quotas, identity politics, political-correctness, race-baiting and class warfare (social justice) have eroded our meritocratic culture to a point that it scarcely exists anymore.

    • tzx4

      And I would also reply that was once the case, but the plutocratic oligarchy has drained so much wealth from the rest of society that meritocracy no longer exists for that reason either.

  • jacob

    To those believing there are "MODERATE" Muslims, I would like to ask whether
    they consider "MODERATES" those dancing and giving out candy in the streets of Queens, N. York while people were jumping to their deaths from the WTC windows
    in 9/11…

    Whether people likie CRACKERJACK may disent (and who to me they are either
    Muslims or Judeophobes) I stick to what YOSHIRO SAGAMORI once wrote :

    "ANY PRACTICING MUSLIM IS A TERRORIST.
    IT IS WHAT HAS BEEN HAMMERED INTO HIS HEAD FROM CRADDLE TO GRAVE
    AND IT IS WHAT HIS "RELIGION" EXPECTS FROM HIM"….

    And I dare anyone to prove to me her words were wrong

    And as to culture, take even a PhD of theirs and, if you would be able to somehow
    peel off the varnish of culture he might have acquired, you'll find underneath the
    same fanatic, superstitious, ignorant person as the lowest of their peasants might
    be…

  • Obamaisatraitor

    There is a reason America was the first and perhaps last of its kind. Our Founders came from a background where they could see the church and the King were things to avoid here. The Constitution and Bill of Rights were written to defend individual freedoms from the Government or Church which comprised the history of Europe. Freedom and personal responsibility built this country. Individuals were rewarded for innovation by financial freedom. Now we have generations who, like overpaid football players thinking they are 'slaves,' believe someone owes them something. The imposition of Sharia law going on in the U.S. today will take us where we have never been before. Whether it is socialism or Sharia, this totalitarian/elitist government mentality has the same result: The end of innovation (Muslim heresy). When we the People are punished by our government for success, we will all 'Go Galt', depriving those who live off of us.

  • StephenD

    Scroll back over most of these posts here and you'll see many responding to "crackerjack" and his accusations rather than the article. He got you with this: "The author is missing the point here." How can the Author be missing the point? The author MADE the point he wanted to make. Crackerjack is attempting to draw you away from the truth of this point and many of you went with him down that side road. There is no refutation of the authors "points." How can there be when it is the truth?

  • Raymond in DC

    Ibn Warraq in "Defending the West" notes three characteristics of Western civilization, none of which are present in Arab/Muslim cultures: universalism, rationalism, and self-criticism.

    The first stems from the Judeo-Christian tradition that we are all "created in the image of God". But in Islam, as tanstaafl notes, there is no equivalent to the Golden Rule because there's a fundamental distinction between "believer" and "non-believer", with each deserving of distinct treatment and privileges.

    The second stems from the notion that "Allah is not fettered", and all that happens is "insh'allah" – by the will of Allah. Jews (and by extension Christians) assume that God created a world governed by laws, ethical and natural. And it is for us to understand His works via reason. It's why the Assyrian Christians maintained the scientific works of the Greeks, and why at one point the majority of physicians in the Islamic world were Jews.

    What the author describes as "lack of personal responsibility" is in line with the absence of self-criticism. If the Muslim is superior to the "non-believer" (and Arabs are the finest Muslims) then when they encounter failure the blame must lie elsewhere – on "Crusaders", the West, the "colonialists" or (their favorite excuse) the Jews. It is a form of cognitive dissonance for which there's no proper cure.

    • Reason_For_Life

      "Jews (and by extension Christians) assume that God created a world governed by laws, ethical and natural."

      There is nothing in the Old Testament to suggest that this is true. Laws were God's arbitrary edicts to be obeyed under penalties imposed by God. For early Christians the entire physical world was the devil's domain and the greatest prize offered to Christians was the chance to leave it and "dwell in the house of the Lord, forever".

      The Assyrian Christians preserved the ancient works but did little to extend them. The writings were treated more or less like sacred texts to be studied but not to be improved upon except insofar as they could be interpreted in a way consistent with the ultimate sacred text – the Bible.

      "And it is for us to understand His works via reason." Is this the same "reason" that Martin Luther referred to as "a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has"? Reason and science were the handmaidens of theology, not an independent path to knowledge. Any conclusion contrary to dogma was heresy.

      Understanding God's works through reason was a basic belief of Deists, not pre-Renaissance Christianity. Even Aquinas, perhaps the greatest of the Catholic church's philosophers, always had reason as a second fiddle to faith although he did believe that reason afforded mankind a wonderful and satisfying way to appreciate God's works.

      The Muslim world is what the Christian world was before the Renaissance and the Enlightenment. The question that must be asked is why was the Muslim world impervious to these developments? Historian of ideas Wilhelm Windelband noted that Greek ideas never really penetrated Arabic culture despite several solid philosophical writers like Avicenna, Averroes and Maimonides. (Yes, that's Rambam. He wrote his philosophical texts in Arabic, his more religious texts in Hebrew).

      There is something so viciously irrational in Muslim cultures that reason and science cannot make much headway. Find what that is and develop a way to penetrate it and you will change the world.

      • Eastview

        Good post.

      • winoceros

        Your dismissal of Jewish understanding of God is unfounded and completely unsupported. You offer your opinion as support.

        You likewise dismiss the good works urged by early Christians amongst its adherents; leaving the earth was not even close to their first priority or you'd have waves of mass suicides, right?

        You deal much with Christianity in its political aspects, and don't really speak to theology because you simply don't have any idea what you're talking about.

        Christianity in the "dark ages" was far and beyond Muslim thinkers at all stages in its existence.

        • Reason_For_Life

          "Understanding" God is like understanding Hobbits. There can be no knowledge of things that don't exist. There can be fables and myths, some of which may be valuable as metaphors but I am not speaking metaphorically of understanding.

          If the "Jewish" understanding of the Bible is so clear then why are there orthodox, conservative and reform branches of Judaism? Why were there a thousand years of commentary on the Torah? Why did many Jews abandon the old covenant in favor of the New Covenant and become Christian? Was the old covenant no longer valid? Or are Christians merely fallen Jews?

          Was Christ's death at the hands of the Romans (and at the behest of the Sanhedrin) the murder of the Son of God or the execution of a heretical Jew?

          Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire in 313 AD. By 370 AD pagan temples were being burned and their priests put to the sword. How does that jibe with the "good works" you claim for early Christians? Or was the fourth century too late to be called early Christianity?

          Christ said the there were men present who would "not taste death" before "my Father's Kingdom is at hand". Men abandoned their families, ignored their responsibilities and went off on road trips with Christ because they believed that the end of the world was imminent. Were these also "good works"? Was Christ wrong about the end of the world? Or are some of his early followers still alive?

          Do people ever actually read their sacred texts making at least some attempt to understand the words? Or do they just recite without understanding passages like Numbers 31: 17-18? What kind of monster god has his chosen leader, Moses, send soldiers back to the scene of a massacre to slaughter the surviving women and children? What kind of god countenances having the commanders spare the virgins to keep for themselves?

          All this over the "matter of Peor"?

          And you talk of "Jewish understanding" of God!

          • winoceros

            My…all the vitriol. I meant "understanding" as in how ancient Jews perceived the intent of their God. You have decided how he was for them, but you ignore how they felt about him themselves. I'm merely pointing out that you like to be all facty and stuff, but interpolate your opinion when giving "history". I didn't say God existed, I just disliked your opinion stuffed into the middle of your diatribe.

            I don't really have a dog in that hunt. You can believe as you like in my book. But, my, such zeal over practices that don't exist, a religion that's moved on, and disbelievers who haven't…

  • Linda

    I suggest that you all read The Life and Religion of Mohammed written in 1912 by Rev. J. L. Menezes. It is pure history and fact backed up by footnotes. You will be amazed at what is written! Your eyes will open! Hurry and read it before it's too late!

  • Reason_For_Life

    Since I've never been to Malaysia I don't know if what the author said is true, but it certainly makes sense considering the lack of initiative shown by Muslims.

    His analysis of the problems in Muslim countries is among the best that I have ever read. By showing the connections between superstition, tribalism and Islamic beliefs he makes the actions of Muslims intelligible and shows clearly why democracy will not improve Muslim countries but rather will intensify the tribal loyalties and the superstitious beliefs of the populace.

    A culture where magical causes abound, where wealth is a matter of accident and rewards are based on tribal loyalty is one that has not been touched by the Enlightenment and will never leave the darkness that engulfs it.

  • nemomil

    Even for an avowedly bigoted site this is over the top. Do you bigots really think this sort of unfettered bile goes unnoticed and has no effect ? perhaps if you were familiar with the history of the past 2000 years you would see the ebb and flow of civilizations instead of making arrogant and resentful statements about an era.

    • coyote3

      What is bigoted about the truth? I am considered a "minority", but from what I have seen most third world cutures, and even some second world culture, basically stagnated. When those areas were totally undeveloped, and the western Europeans, and British came, they were unable to effectively resist colonization, even if they wanted to do so. The reply is often, "oh, but the western nations had technology, e.g., ships, firearms, artillery, and later machine guns, airplanes". Well, that is just the point the western nations developed many of those things, before they went into their former colonies, and the indigenous people of those former colonies had no such ability. They were living, in many cases, as they had lived for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. Now, this situation was not exclusive to Moslem parts of the world, but it did include many of those areas. The mere fact that the westerners were able to colonize like they did is proof of their superiority. That is just a fact.

      • Chezwick_mac

        I remember seeing a panel on TV discussing the problems in the Muslim world…and one of the panelists made the point that the Muslim world fell behind as a result of the injustices and depredations of colonialism. No one had the inclination to point out what you just did…that our ability to colonize the Muslim world (excepting Turkey and the Saudis) was itself proof that we had superseded their civilization.

        In other words, it wasn't colonialism that set the Islamic realm back (as the apologist insisted), it was the indigenous culture born, bred, and perpetuated by Islam. The colonization of such a realm was a symptom of its backwardness, not the cause.

        • Reason_For_Life

          The Greeks, despite being far advanced of the Romans in science, still fell to them. Archimedes' weaponry was so advanced that the Roman general who gave the order to capture Archimedes said that under no circumstances was he to be harmed. That general wanted Archimedes to work for him. The stupid soldier who killed Archimedes when he resisted capture was put to death in turn.

          Superior military forces does not imply a superior civilization. Sparta, the most depraved Greek city-state defeated the far more sophisticated Athens.

          The real difference between the Greeks and the Arab world was that Greek culture came to dominate Rome. Rome triumphed militarily, but Greece triumphed culturally.

          Is the US strong enough culturally to resist the lunatic ideas of Islam? This may seem like a silly question but Islam is a totalitarian philosophy of complete submission to the will of Allah. It loathes any kind of individual freedom. Islam is the natural ally of anti-capitalists and environmental wackos with it's extreme anti-individualist philosophy.

          • coyote3

            I only used the military/weapons example, because it was most clear. There are many other clear cut examples of western superiority. Manufacturing, production, medical, that gave the west the edge. This was most evident in the new world. I admit, I did omit some things. The Indians had loyalty to their tribe, and did not in most cases have the same concept of land ownership that the Europeans had. This concentration on tribal loyalty was partly the cause of their downfall.

    • Steve

      Is the phrase "avowedly bigoted site' codeword for "I agree with everything that was written?

    • winoceros

      Sorry…resentful? Tee hee…

  • Alex Kovnat

    Sometimes I wonder if Islam is actually an environmental religion. If I were a Muslim (which I very definitely am NOT!) I might say something like this:

    "Listen white man, it wasn't us who created the problem of global warming. It wasn't us who created the problem of AIDS. It wasn't us who fouled the ozone layer with ozone-destroying chemicals. Listen white man, all we ask is that you respect our way of life and stop trying to tell us how to live. We don't want your culture. We don't want your sexual revolution. We don't want to work our buns off to afford the latest computer, only to have it become obsolete in only six months. We don't want to live to consume goods for which a demand has to be created by advertising"

    • Eastview

      Then get off the Internet, shut off your computer, and stop bothering us. I'm sure you'll be much happier.

    • voted against carter

      is your asshat on to tight AGAIN???

    • Steve

      "Listen White Man, you provided all the great scientifc advances to humankind including those leading to the virtual eradication of the major scourges humankind has been plagued with for millenia. Listen White Man, you gave the world the political freedoms that have created nations all humankind wants to live in. Listen white man, I bow down to you with great reverance and deep gratitude."

    • Mike M

      We just want your guns & money… and your little boys and girls too.

    • winoceros

      Right. Because Muslims don't know anything about male-on-male unprotected sex.

      But you are right that Islam is using an environmental PR campaign to advance its da'wa. Check out their sites claiming it's a "green" religion.

  • Qasim

    Its a shame really, as when the "West" was going through the dark ages – the "Islamic world" was advancing in all fields, especially science and mathematics. But now the roles have been reversed.

    There is however a skilled workforce in the Islamic world but almost all leave their homelands to work elsewhere. But the other points raised have merit – it seems they seem to have abandoned the aims of their religion – which placed high importance on knowledge and education, and are more focused on their culture of laziness and "God's will".

    • ObamaYoMoma

      Its a shame really, as when the "West" was going through the dark ages – the "Islamic world" was advancing in all fields, especially science and mathematics. But now the roles have been reversed.

      What really is a shame is that in this day and age you can still be so ignorant with respect to Islam and the history of Islam. I hate to rain on your clueless and naïve parade, but the only times the Muslims prospered came as a direct result of jihad conquest, whereby the Muslims like parasites lived off of the affluence and largess of the non-Muslim people they conquered and rendered into the harsh and degrading institution of dhimmitude. In any event, after several generations the vast majority of those non-Muslim dhimmis eventually converted to Islam exactly because of the harsh and degrading institution of dhimmitude, and as the institution of dhimmitude worked its magic by forcing non-Muslim dhimmis to slowly convert to Islam, Islamic society slowly degraded back into backwardness accordingly until the next period of jihad conquest.

      Moreover, most of the discoveries narrow-minded myopic leftwing historians credit the Islamic world for developing and the Islamic world proudly takes the credit for creating, were actually the products of the non-Muslim dhimmi peoples subjugated into the harsh and degrading institution of dhimmitude and were not created and invented by innovative Muslims. In reality exactly because of Islam, Islamic society is incapable of producing anything productive. Which is why the primary products of Islamic society have always been totalitarianism, poverty, despair, hopelessness, hunger, murder, mayhem, and lots and lots of misery. And to the very small degree that stuff was actually invented and created by innovative Muslims, those Muslims were in reality really blasphemous apostates. In other words, they weren’t really Muslims at all, which is why they became innovative.

      Indeed, Islam is far closer to being a totalitarian ideology like Communism than it is to being a religion, as exactly like Communism Islam seeks world domination and the end result of Islam exactly like Communism is totalitarianism, and totalitarian societies are always characterized by lack of innovation, poverty, despair, hopelessness, etc. exactly because of the absence of personal and individual freedom.

      it seems they seem to have abandoned the aims of their religion – which placed high importance on knowledge and education, and are more focused on their culture of laziness and "God's will".

      What are you smoking? According to Islam all knowledge is contained in the Koran and the Sunnah. Hence, Islam expressly discourages all innovation, and the main aim and fundamental mission of Islam has always been the subjugation of the world into a very draconian form of Islamic totalitarianism via the imposition of Sharia. It is very obvious, you exist in a fantasy based world not even close to reality.

    • winoceros

      All advancement was due to domination and absorption of other cultures after conquests, and stymied once those minds were used up and the population became Islamic. Or, the philosophical and scientific minds that are claimed by Muslims now were considered heretical or outcasts or closet thinkers at the time because then, like now, real science doesn't comport with the closed gates of itjihad. But I agree with your other points, and the export of Muslims to study science in the West is purposeful. All the West is to be used for Muslim gain.

  • Jerry

    And to add to this list what is to a great extent the underlying problem, is that the religion they embrace is a sham. It is not from nor inspired by the true God who revealed Himself to the Jews & Christians. It is at best a man made religion and at worse a satanically inspired one. No, this is not discussed by the mainstream media, but the horrible things they embrace both in thought and action are not of any god who truly is God. And it keeps them fearfully locked in the prison of their crippled culture, all the while hoping and dreaming that the rest of the world join them. God help us that it will never happen!

  • ijc

    The issue that most muslims are non-violent doesn't matter at the end of the day. Moderates will never die for moderation. Whether you call them extremists or real believers – at the end of the day they will die for what they believe in and that is why they will ALWAYS be in charge. No one EVER dies for moderation or plurism or any of that. Whether anyone likes that or not, that is the truth.

  • Solinkaa

    Yes, this was based on dhimmi knowledge and dhimmi scholars who converted to islam.

    • Eastview

      Exactly so. Islam claims credit for a lot of things that they simply appropriated from the cultures they conquered. Unfortunately, Muslims are brainwashed to think that somehow Islam should be given credit for a prior invention made by a pagan or infidel who was forced to convert to Islam under penalty of death. Somehow it is thought that the supposed enlightenment afforded by Islam made the invention possible. Until recently there was no one to challenge this belief among the Muslim faithful, but with the Internet it is no longer possible to keep their heads buried in the sand.

  • Reason_For_Life

    "The question is, can Islam learn Aristotle (logic) and undertake their own reformation and enlightenment?"

    They rejected it before in the 12th century. I doubt that things have changed much for them despite remarkable material advances. It took several hundred years after Aquinas resurrected Aristotle (whom he referred to as "the Philosopher") for the idea of reason being a path to knowledge to spread throughout Christendom.

    The works of Aristotle were available to Arabs for nearly a millennium before Mohammad conquered Arabia. There is no historical evidence to suggest that it ever had an impact before Mohammad and none after Mohammad either. There were a few Aristotelian scholars throughout Arabia but their thoughts never penetrated the deeply superstitious and tribal culture of the Arabs.

    Superstitious and tribal. Not much has changed if the author of this article is correct.

    • winoceros

      The ones who were fans, for example Ibn Sina, were run from town to town looking for Islamic patrons and lands who would allow him to live in peace and study. He was imprisoned for his heretical studies as well.

  • http://www.freedomradiorocks.com Pat

    Thousands of years of intermarriage don't help a lot either.

    • Eastview

      Indeed. To see how bad the problem is, check out http://www.consang.net/index.php/Global_prevalenc… . Places like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have an incidence rate of cousin marriage that exceeds 50%. Presumably this has been going at least since the time of Mohammad, which would be more than 50 generations ago.

  • jasonz

    good artical, but I can sum it all up even additions by saying the sole problem with muslims is Islam

  • Steve

    Very interesting, especially the references to concepts not existent in the Muslim world. All the phenomena described are typical of the tribal social mind set in which an Enlightenment has yet to take place. See Ken Wilber "Up From Eden" for a detailed, sophisticated examination of the evolution of cultural/social organizations.

    • fmobler

      I prefer Kipling's "Just So Stories" to Wilber's. Kipling is a better writer, and just as grounded in science.

    • Grayzel

      I found this quote the other day, I think it is appropriate. Tribalism

      Tribalism (which is the best name to give to all the group manifestations of the anti-conceptual mentality) is a dominant element in Europe, as a reciprocally reinforcing cause and result of Europe’s long history of caste systems, of national and local (provincial) chauvinism, of rule by brute force and endless, bloody wars. As an example, observe the Balkan nations, which are perennially bent upon exterminating one another over minuscule differences of tradition or language. Tribalism had no place in the United States—until recent decades. It could not take root here, its imported seedlings were withering away and turning to slag in the melting pot whose fire was fed by two inexhaustible sources of energy: individual rights and objective law; these two were the only protection man needed. Ayn Rand "The Missing Link" Philosophy: Who Needs It, 42

    • Chezwick_mac

      What does it say about Islam that an "Enlightenment" hasn't occurred? Muslims and their apologists (yourself included) give credit to Islam regarding all that is good about the Islamic world, but somehow exonerate it completely when confronted with what is bad (i.e., it's all about "tribalism").

      In truth, Islamic doctrine and theology sanction the following:

      1) the stoning of adulteresses for adultery (Hadith)

      2) the killing of those who convert out of the faith (Hadith)

      3) amputation of limbs for theft (Quran)

      4) female circumcision (Hadith)

      5) wife beating (Quran)

      6) legal liabilities based on gender (Quran)

      7) denigration of women: "Deficient in intelligence and religion" (Hadith)

      8) no compensation needed for killing one's children (Umdat al Salik)

      9) violence against and/or subjugation of non-believers (Quran. Hadith)

      10) prohibitions on friendship with Jews and Christians (Quran)

      None of this has a thing to do with tribalism.

  • fmobler

    Not even nothing. The idea that we can regard "none" as a number which we know call zero was an insight of Hindu mathematicians.

    In fairness, some Muslims did make some interesting advances in algebra — but not what they are often credited with. in particular, they did not invent algebra, though the modern western world "algebra" is a latinization of part of the title of a treatise on the subject.

    They also did a bit of descriptive astronomy and some stuff in medicine. In neither area did they advance theory by a jot.

  • Danny Haszard

    Harold Camping sounds like he plagiarized Jehovah's Witnesses.
    Jehovah Witnesses are a spin-off of the second Adventist which all came from the Millerite movement.American war of 1812 army captain William Miller is ground zero for Jehovah's Witnesses.
    Yes,the "great disappointment" of Oct 22 1844 has never died out… it lives on in the Jehovah's Witnesses.
    The central CORE doctrine of the Watchtower,yes the reason the Watchtower came into existence was to declare Jesus second coming in 1914.When the prophecy (derived from William Miller of 1842) failed they said that he came "invisibly"..

    Danny Haszard been there

    • mlcblog

      how is any of this relevant here?

  • tarleton

    We take logic and reason for granted and assume that it's natural to the human condition , but it's not , superstition and irationality IS…it has only been since the begining of state sponsered compulsary education that critical thinking skills have became common and mainstream..before that, irrational superstition was ''normal'' and fundamentalist religion was the main culprit
    More than anything else , fundamentalism is the deadly enemy of the scientific process

    • Grayzel

      Logic

      All thinking is a process of identification and integration. Man perceives a blob of color; by integrating the evidence of his sight and his touch, he learns to identify it as a solid object; he learns to identify the object as a table; he learns that the table is made of wood; he learns that the wood consists of cells, that the cells consist of molecules, that the molecules consist of atoms. All through this process, the work of his mind consists of answers to a single question: What is it? His means to establish the truth of his answers is logic, and logic rests on the axiom that existence exists. Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification. A contradiction cannot exist. An atom is itself, and so is the universe; neither can contradict its own identity; nor can a part contradict the whole. No concept man forms is valid unless he integrates it without contradiction into the total sum of his knowledge. To arrive at a contradiction is to confess an error in one’s thinking; to maintain a contradiction is to abdicate one’s mind and to evict oneself from the realm of reality. Galt’s Speech, For the New Intellectual, 125 Ayn Rand

  • voted against carter

    ' TAQIYYA '
    Do your own research about it if you don't know what this means.

    Islam IS EVIL. PERIOD.

    Islam strives for world domination.

    The Quran commands Muslims to exercise jihad.

    The Quran commands Muslims to establish shariah law.

    The Quran commands Muslims to impose Islam on the entire world.

    Islam is NOT a religion, it IS a totalitarian ideology.

    Islam wants to dominate all aspects of life, from the cradle to the grave.

    Shariah law is a law that controls every detail of life in a Islamic society.

    From civic- and family law to criminal law.

    It determines how one should eat, dress and even use the toilet.

    Oppression of women is good, drinking alcohol is bad.

    The core of the Quran is the call to jihad.

    Jihad means a lot of things and is Arabic for battle.

    Islam means submission, there cannot be any mistake about its goal.

    Islam and freedom, Islam and democracy are not compatible.

    They are opposite values.

    Mohamed's "wife" was six years old.

    That makes Mohamed a PEDOPHILE!!!

    And you want to base a "Religion" on this a z z -holes rantings?

    Are you INSANE?

    • Reason_For_Life

      "Mohamed's "wife" was six years old"

      Yes, but being a gentleman he didn't deflower her until she was nine.

  • WilliamJamesWard

    Why would so many Nations of Islamist culture lag behind, why would
    they not advance as people with the rest of the World, leftist societies
    excluded. The answer could be……………"stupid gene"………….
    or it is possible the rabies virus has transmuted into a culturally
    inherited phenomena, indwelling and as the full moon changes
    the werewolf, normal people make them criminally crazy……………..William

  • Marian

    The "personal responsibility" section sounds just like obama…

    • Maryam

      Exactly wat i was thinking!lol

  • kafir4life

    If islam were to reform, it would cease to be.

  • Vermont Yid

    "Why Muslim Cultures Lag Behind" Huh? Look at the picture at the top of this article. Got any questions?

  • mlcblog

    Insightful and informative. Thanks.

  • winoceros

    Faith is not the negation of logic and observation. For a fan of logic, this one sure falls short.

    You know nothing of Dark Ages history.

    Islam cannot, inherently, use Aristotlian logic. I've tried. They see no problem with the duality in their thinking.

    • ObamaYoMoma

      Not only are you clueless with respect to the Middle Ages, but apparently you are also clueless with respect to Islam as well, as Islam is not even a religion. The reality is Islam is a totalitarian ideology that masquerades as being a religion to dupe gullible useful idiots.

      Thus if you want to morally equate Islam with anything, morally equate it to a totalitarian ideology like Communism, as like Communism, Islam seeks to dominate the world, and the end result of Islam exactly like Communism is totalitarianism, poverty, despair, hopelessness, hungers, and lots and lots of misery.

  • winoceros

    Great, please support where moronic Creationists have behaved as the Pakistani and Afghanistan Taliban.

  • Jaladhi

    Put simply – it's the religion, stupid! No further explanation needed !

  • Reason_For_Life

    As much as I despise most religions I would never countenance a law restricting the doctrines that can be taught to children. Giving that kind of power to the state is far more dangerous than any religious teachings could ever be.

  • Love Freedom

    Excellent, cogent article! — And as Ayaan Hirsi Ali, an ex-muhammedan and victim of FGM, has rightly stated, …"the basic tenets of Islam and the basic tenets of Western liberal democracies are incompatible."
    http://www.icjs-online.org/indarch.php?article=11http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-54202653

  • Love Freedom

    All of us who are now fully informed about the threat to modernity that islam is know there is no easy, quick solution to resolve the clearly-evident problems caused in Western, Free countries by allowing so many backwards, superstitious, muhammedans to live amongst us.

    "Reforming islam" means returning to the violent jihadist way that muhammed and his followers actually lived. — The "separation of mosque and state," as some mohammedans in the West are trying to achieve, is doomed to fail because they have no religious authority to change 1400 years of islamic teachings and to actually change islam.

    I predict there will be an inevitable, violent push-back against the muhammedans in Western countries, due to them finally being fed up w/ the rapes, harassment, and jihadist type attacks they so frequently do.

    I do believe that the Free People of the West will NOT endure forever these violent, islamic threats w/o finally reacting to it.

  • http://Care2NewsNetwork Drivin Russell

    Few consider the vast CHASM between Islam & ALL OTHER religions, esp. with regard to their respective PHILOSOPHIES!

    Islam’s RACIST, HATE-BASED tract, the Koran, is SET like CONCRETE upon the CORE philosophical idea that “Allah” continuously, second-by-second, creates & maintains ALL creation/existence by his “will”; that is, His hand is never thwarted by laws of physics, chemistry, etc.!

    “He [Allah] was thus not bound to govern the universe according to consistent and observable laws. He cannot be questioned concerning what He does” – Koran 21:23

    “The hand of God is chained up, claim the Jews. Their own hand shall be chained up–and they shall be cursed for saying such a thing.” – K. 5:56-64

    In contrast, Judeo-Christianity’s animating & informing philosophy is based on the understanding of the well-defined, pattern- or order-based laws (that have, so far, been slowly “discovered” by humans) that govern ALL nature (see the creation myth early in the OT: Genesis 1:3-2:4), yet YHWH may “transcend” them without violating any of them to accomplish His purpose (see the OT myth of the Israelites’ prophet Joshua halting the movement of the sun/moon during their battle w/ the Amorites: Joshua 10:14)!

    When your deity-forced-upon-you-from-birth creates the Universe out of His own all-encompassing “will” from second-to-second for ALL eternity, the importance of understanding such basic ideas as the boiling-point of water at sea level (YOU know, USING the SCIENTIFIC METHOD!) may easily seem to be at least unnecessary, OR presumptuous, OR stupid, OR even down-right BLASPHEMOUS!

    Since 632 AD, Islam has “accomplished” all it has by its EAGER willingness to conduct MURDEROUS PARASITISM via “JIHAD” (it got its M.O. from the ancient Assyrians, who CONQUERED the Israelites in 722 BC), SEX-ENSLAVEMENT (of both women & children) & its follow-up program of long-term OPPRESSION (“DHIMMITUDE”) & extortion (“JIZYAH”).

    The Greeks, Arabs & Persians “borrowed” from the HINDUS’ Vedas and passed off many of its contents as their own creations!

    Algebra being wrongly credited to Arabs is a falsehood perpetrated by us Westerners, since Arabs NEVER originally claimed to have invented it!

    Well, copyright & plagiarism laws didn’t exist back then, which is understandable!!

    I think that IF early on the West had successfully sequestered Islam’s population & refused it of our COUNTLESS billions in tribute, Islam as a CULTURE would have collapsed by 1700 AD!

  • Keko

    you guys are saying that he was a pedofile? JEWISH PEOPLE CAN HAVE SEX WITH GIRLS WHO ARE 3 YEARS AND 1 DAY ACCORDING TO Said Rabbi Jozef..

    till 1973 the law in delaware allowed that girls may marry when they are 7 years old

    till the end of the 19 sentury almost in every state in america it was allowed to marry a 10 year old..

    so can some one explain me then why is everybody just talking about the prophet Mohammed (saw)?

  • aspacia

    You argue that the scientists used to validate my claim were prosecuted because of heresy. What is the difference between challenging the church's authority regarding truth, and using their research to validate their claim.

    You argue that there is a difference between heresy and their claims and/or research, I fail to see the difference.

    All who oppose an authoritarian government or religion are considered heretics regardless of what forms the challenge. What about this don't you understand?

    This includes most of the Middle-East, and previous practices of most Christian sects.

    Again, you are playing a semantics game, heresy is not the same as individuals who happen to be scientists with facts challenging the church's authority. Sorry, but heresy is any person who challenges authority.

    You are mincing words.

  • Reason_For_Life

    I am not offended by nativity scenes or crosses, heck, I have a Christmas tree every year. I just object to having my taxes go to pay for someone else's religious propaganda. How would you feel about government funded signs saying "God is a Hoax"? I would object to that even more than I object to government funded nativity scenes because I don't want anyone to think that I would be behind such a thing. Freedom of religion means freedom for everyone.

    As for the pledge, I abhor it in its entirety, not just the part about "under God". School children should not be pledging allegiance to the state. Government is our servant, not our master. Legislators and executives should be pledging their allegiance to the law and to protecting our rights. They owe that to us, we don't owe them anything.

    • aspacia

      Just a side note; Luther started the Xmas tree.

      I agree, citizen's tax dollars should not fund any faith, including faith based, private schools. Hum, should tax dollars go to pay for our failing secular schools? Should we have a replica of the Tenth Commandments on our courthouses? Most of our laws replicate many of these laws? Thou Shalt Not Murder. Thou Shalt Not Steal.

      The pledge is to the federal government, not the state, and you are correct regarding the fact we are the sovereigns.

      • Reason_For_Life

        The first commandment is "I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt have no other gods before me". It's pretty hard to argue that this is not a fundamentally religious precept that would constitute a violation of the establishment clause.

        The state has arrogated to itself control over education. Because of this fundamental usurpation of power parents are denied choice in education, in particular, religious parents who wish for their children to be educated in the ideas of their religion.

        Until the state is out of the education business entirely I would favor a tax credit and/or means tested voucher system in which the parents receive the money and they decide where to educate their children.

        Although I am an atheist who considers the Catholic church to be the longest lasting criminal conspiracy in human history, I would rather that Catholic parents be able to send their children to the school of their choice instead of the present system in which children's education is dictated by the state.

  • aspacia

    You claim: "ago
    Truth and science are simply not the same things. Once again, and probably for the last time, it is you who claim that "most Christian sects" in the past fought against scientists. I have every right to challenge such a claim. Bruno was a believer in what we would call now pantheism. Not science. Campanella was convicted for politics. Not science. Russel was harangued for his sexual politics. Not science. Several of the scientists White cites including Copernicus himself was not persecuted in any way."

    They were all convicted of heresy, opposing church doctrine. Regardless if it was the science, which is usually was, or politics, or philosophy (locke) they faced huge sanctions or death because of their opposition.

    THIS IS NOT DISINGENUOUS, JUST AN ATTEMPT TO CLARIFY THE DEFINITION BY ANALOGY

    oh, BTW, a Deist is not an atheist.

    • fmobler

      Sorry for the delay. I was on holiday in Scotland. The north coast is amazingly beautiful — and light on tourists. If you like hikes along a coast, try it out.You done it again [my underlines added]:”They were all convicted of heresy, opposing church doctrine. Regardless if it was the science, which is usually was, or politics, or philosophy (locke) they faced huge sanctions or death because of their opposition. “[Note: if very definitely usually was not science. We should at least be able to agree on that.]and “All who oppose an authoritarian government or religion are considered heretics regardless of what forms the challenge.”Which is it, heresy as opposition to church doctrine or as opposition to any authority? If you really mean the latter, your beef is with human political authority not with the theological claims of about 2 billion of your fellow humans (that Jesus is the Christ, that you are made in the image of God and hence have inherent rights and are deserving of my respect, etc.). If you reject Christianity, it must be for some reason other than the topic of our conversation.As for the distinction between an atheist and a deist, I certainly do know the difference. If you mean to tell me you that you consider yourself a deist, I apologize for not picking that up earlier.—

      • aspacia

        Yes, we are on the same line of thought. My beef is against all who persecute another for having different beliefs and prevent others their freedom. Believe as you wish, but do not impose you beliefs on another. This is what the church did to many, and is what many in Islam do to many.

        BTW, Grandfather Heggie was born in Aberdeen. I am 1/8 Scots.

  • Jim

    Islam is disgusting.

    • Maria

      how? and in wat way, may i ask?

  • Ashley Hale

    Many people wont recognize Muslim culture, even though they see it almost every single day. That’s right. Every time you see a news story about Muslims in any part of the world, you are seeing some aspect of Muslim culture.

    It’s in the way we eat.

    It’s in the way we talk.

    It’s even in the way we dress.

    Many of these similarities are present in most, if not all, Muslim societies.

    Even though there are over a billion Muslims throughout the world. Even though we speak hundreds of different languages. Even though we live in dozens of different countries. We still share a common Muslim culture.

    This culture is embedded in our common beliefs that there is no God but Allah and that Muhammad is His messenger.

    For instance, have you noticed how Muslim women tend to wear similar clothing? Even though the hijab is mandated by the Quran, it’s surprising to see that so many Muslim women voluntarily choose to cover their hair. Yes, in some countries wearing the hijab is mandatory. But that’s the exception, not the rule.

    Another example of almost universal Muslim culture is that most Muslim men wear beards. Now, if you live in the west (or Egypt) you probably won’t see this as often. But in most Muslim countries, the men don’t shave their beards off.

    Now here’s one aspect of Muslim culture which you would probably never see unless you happen to be Muslim also. Muslims always eat with their right hand! Even left-handed Muslims eat with their right hand.

    As for the left hand – that’s generally relegated to bathroom use. Hence, we don’t use our left hand to eat with.

  • http://www.pedestrianinfidel.blogspot.com The Anti Jihadist

    This shows how Muslims are incapable of solving their problems. They are hopelessly deluded in thinking that the only solution to their problems is 'more Islam' … which is like telling a drowning man that the only way to save himself is to 'head to deeper water'.

    Additionally, Mr Nabi, your dawah is not appreciated here. Take your Islamic proselytizing elsewhere.

  • kafir4life

    I checked it out. It's nonsense, even from an islamic perspective. It never mentions that islam was invented by a pedophilic madman whose only purpose was to kill, steal, rape, and (as the moon god worshippers put it) make mischief throughout the land. Not once does it speak of the intestinal distress suffered by mohamat, the inventor of islam and leader of muslims, following sex with, and later a meal of his favorite female swine (there's some controvery amongst islamic scholors over the gender of the pig), when led to the shatting of the most noble terror guide the koran. So it's not really an accurate web-site. Nice try tho'!!