Planck's Constant - Fighting World Terror
well,,, thousand years ago ... your nation whatever it was did not exist it actually evolved due to Arabs protection and influence .. this fact alone is enough . and whatever your nation is .... one day our successors will also say what did this nation add or contributed was centuries ago ... thats life ... empires rise and fall ... normal ... but for me being Arab whos forefathers introduced civilization to the west makes me a super human ... real super .. and you to me are subhuman.. fact as well though it might hurt
regards
****************************
This comment references the article The Arab Contribution to Civilization: Nothing Lately
****************************
Edited By Siteowner
Edited By Siteowner
Planck, you obviously don't know your facts. The following site contains a largely complete official list of inventions/patents according to the US government:
http://www.uspto.gov
If you bother to search for Muslim names on the site, you'll find thousands of modern inventions patented to them:
Ahmad OR Ahmed: 8838 patents
Mohammad OR Mohammed: 3721 patents
Muhammad OR Muhammed: 690 patents
Ali: 2798 patents
Shah: 2520 patents
Hussein OR Hussain: 1783 patents
Khan: 1130 patents
Karim OR Kareem: 717 patents
Abdul: 708 patents
Malik OR Maalik: 621 patents
Of course, there are many more Muslim names you can search for, with thousands more inventions patented to people with Muslim names. Whether you want to admit it or not, the fact remains that Muslims have contributed much to the world, just like any other major religion/culture.
Bravo Bernie..another winner!..
long time no see btw! Hope alls well..drop in sometime eh?
I fully agree with you. It is the religion that kills and I don't mean that just in the physical sense of the word. It kills creativity right at its roots because it does not allow its followers, or for that matter anyone else, to question and challenge its "holy" book and its practices. We must set a billion people free to be creative and contributing members of the world community.
Malaysia is a fine example. The government claims it is a modern Muslim state that practices what it calls Civilizational Islam. Yet, in recent times we have seen that it will not tolerate any apostasy though the national constitution guarantees the freedom of religion and the nation is member of the United Nations and subscribes to the human rights declaration of the UN.
If that is the modern Muslim state then it is clear that the Muslim world will continue to fall far behind the rest of the world and its contribution to human knowledge and well-being will continue to remain negligible even into the next century.
The non-Muslim world and all thinking Muslims cannot allow the Muslim world to continue with its intolerance and violence. It is time for the rest of humanity to examine the Koran as critically as we examine all other religious books. That, I think, is the only way to tear away the hold that Islam has on its billion people who live under the tyranny of its religious and political leaders.
I don't believe we can count on "thinking muslims" for anything. I really believe "all muslims" secretly enjoy the upper hand they believe they have over the world.
You Cocksucker Jew You Have invented nothing You Steal Ideas
Anonymous, you cowardly cur, you are afraid to even use a made-up name. Please give me an example of where I have stolen an idea, or were you referring to all Jews?
I agree, 100%, jf. The last thing Islamists can tolerate is a population of thinking, educated people. Ignorance is the oxygen that keeps Islam alive. Introduce any kind of learning and critical thinking into the population and the Islamist dies, which is why skewing timelines, history, facts, statistics and polls are all mechanisms of Islamist self preservation.
Omar, get off your high horse. You had no hand in the creation of The Great United States of America, and it is utter Muslim hubris of you to dare suggest otherwise. You didn't even know how to build ships to cross oceans and lakes; perhaps if you had, PERHAPS you would have discovered America, but the facts are, you weren't interested in discovering anything new, you were instead interested in conquering other cultures, their land , their women, and their booty. You lived off the coasts of the Barbary islands - hence the name Barbarians. You attacked ships of the United States Navy as far back as in 1793, when Algerians seized 11 U.S. merchant ships and enslaved more than 100 Americans. The Great United States of America was already a great nation while you committed your acts of terror. Since the sixteenth century, corsairs from the Muslim states of North Africa controlled the Mediterranean sea lanes by force. At the time the United States won its independence, the states of the Barbary Coast--Tripoli, Algiers, Morocco, and Tunis--had been preying on the world's merchant ships for three hundred years. You had no hand in creating our great nation, you only had a hand in destroying it. What it comes down to is that Musllims have been at war with Americans for more than three hundred years. THAT is your legacy: Terror, rape, piracy, thieving, pillaging and slaughter. THAT is what you have accomplished. For you to even suggest that you were benevolent in ANY civilized act towards our great nation is nothing short of grotesque mendacity and is the epitomy of Arab supremacy and arrogance.
Hey Smooth, subsitute the word "Republican" for "Islamist" and you'd be spot on!
You guys have no idea how much you mirror those Muslim extremists do you?
In the USSR you would have been good Communists.
In Germany you would have been good Nazis.
In Saudi Arabia you would be good Wahabis.
As it is, since you happen to be American, you are good Republican party hacks.
Well done.
Four legs good, two legs bad huh?
As for terror rape, etc, please read the Old Testament and see what your hero Moses and the "Fearless Jews" got up to in the name of Yahweh.
Glass house, Smooth Stone, glass houses.
Hahahah, Ruby makes me laugh. I see thinking going on here from everyone but the people on your side.
"Cocksucker Jew"
"Muslims built America"
and "In the USSR you would have been good Communists"
Are good examples of knee-jerk reactions.
Oh Nate grow up. Those quotes are not the same things and you know it.
"Cocksucker Jew" and Muslims built America" are foundless and reactionary accusations based on nothing but anger.
See once again you make the mistake of claiming that whoever made those statements is on "my side". Why do you guys have to insist that there are only two sides.? I don't agree with those statements. That's not my position. That person is certainly not on "my side".
But then I do notice that those statements sound incredibly similar to those coming from "your side".
That is what MY statement is based on. Observation.
Seriously, look at what that guy wrote and then look at what Smooth wrote and I beg you to tell me the difference.
And don't you dare accuse me of knee-jerk reactions. The whole of conservative America post 911 is one massive knee-jerk reaction.
Honestly, you say the dumbest things sometimes Nate.
"The whole of conservative America post 911 is one massive knee-jerk reaction."
The whole political system has been one of erecting little moats and turrets of what is right and wrong in people's minds for much longer than 9/11. Political correctness, for example. Then the parties can retreat behind these to defend their position. Any effective analysis is too much for most people and politicians know this, so they try to install absolutes in the populace's minds.
"Seriously, look at what that guy wrote and then look at what Smooth wrote and I beg you to tell me the difference."
Well, at least Smooth's wasn't based on some rationalization that his race is full of superior overlords.
"Why do you guys have to insist that there are only two sides.? "
"You guys have no idea how much you mirror those Muslim extremists do you?"
Okay you made no sense with that last bit whatsoever so I'll ignore it.
But I beg to differ about Smooth's comments. Smooth seems nothing if not of the opinion that the Jewish race is somehow superior to the rest of us mere gentiles. So do you come to think of it, in your effusive appraisal of Bernie's ridiculous, propaganda filled "Fearless Jew" post.
But you hit the nail on the head with this:
"Any effective analysis is too much for most people and politicians know this, so they try to install absolutes in the populace's minds".
So please Nate, since effective appraisals are not too much for you, keep that in mind when you read this:
"I agree, 100%, jf. The last thing _________can tolerate is a population of thinking, educated people. Ignorance is the oxygen that keeps __________alive. Introduce any kind of learning and critical thinking into the population and the _______ dies, which is why skewing timelines, history, facts, statistics and polls are all mechanisms of _________ self preservation.
Virtually any race/religion/ideology can be inserted in those blank spaces. Smooth, as an absolutist Jewish American, happened to insert the term "Islamist".
Had Himmler been given that speech it would have been "Jew". Had Chavez been giving that speech it would have been "American". Had Krushev been giving that speech it would have "Capitalist". In fact had Smooth himself given that same speech 20 years ago, the term undoubtedly would have been "Communist".
It is all rubbish and based on nothing but empty rhetoric. And you continue to defend such statements even when you know they have no merit.
With the quotes I was demonstrating your own use of separating people into groups.
For the rest,
STOP. SLOW DOWN. THINK.
What are you trying to do? You are trying to equate Western Democracies and Islam to win an argument, this is classic. This is just another little defense that is established and set up as a tool to win arguments.
Look at it objectively! The deception is and always will be there, the goals are different.
One employs this as a tool of complete subjugation in order to follow a wild interpretation of an arbitrary text.
The other is based on logic, and is able to be changed. They use this as a means to an academic end that most people wouldn't ever understand.
"So do you come to think of it, in your effusive appraisal of Bernie's ridiculous, propaganda filled "Fearless Jew" post. "
Because being weak and spineless got us really far - well if sympathy and blood are your goals.
"With the quotes I was demonstrating your own use of separating people into groups."
That's true, I did do that, but it was merely a response to your own group 'us" and "them" mentality.
"You are trying to equate Western Democracies and Islam to win an argument, this is classic".
No I am simply pointing out how similar people are, even or especially when they think they are polar opposites. I'm not saying American society is equivalent to Islamic society but extreme conservatives are as dogmatic and dangerous as extreme Muslims.
"The other is based on logic, and is able to be changed"
Haha good one. You guys still stick to the outdated second amendment even though the threat of the British is long gone and the Wild West is consigned to folklore. You guys are as incapable of real change as the Muslims are. That's why you piss the rest of us off so much.
"Because being weak and spineless got us really far - well if sympathy and blood are your goals".
So you should just go around killing other people then, just to avert the possibility that they may one day harm you? Firstly, i don't think the holocaust happened because Jews were being 'weak'. They were an easy target for Hitler because they were small enough in number to be a minority but large enough to be a scapegoat. Plus, they were already ingrained in the minds of other Europeans as the "other" so they were the perfect enemy. There really wasn't anything much they could do and Hitler knew that, that's why he attacked them. All those silly pictures Bernie posted were from a time that Israelites were a majority and thus were the ones who were doing the killing and torturing. Isn't it funny how humans seem to take it in turns to be the bad guy? We are all fucked underneath aren't we?
And the idea that Israel is spineless and mamby-pamby is hilarious. This is what Deputy Defense Minister Matan Vilnai said about the militants in Gaza:
"By intensifying the rocket fire and extending their reach they are bringing onto themselves a worse 'Shoah' [Holocaust] as we will use all means to defend ourselves"
Yes. That's right. A holocaust.
Oh, okay. I get it. I think I've finally figured you out Nate. Interesting.
But a little scary.
Quickly before I go to sleep, 'Shoah' means 'disaster' "HaShoah' means 'the disaster' as in The Holocaust. You've got some bad hebrew scholars feeding you information.
Yeah, yeah I've already seen the articles where the government has tried to backtrack and downplay his faux pas. Not buying it. It's like when Bush called the War on Terror a "crusade". Yes, that's what it is, but don't go actually saying it, you twit. Have to keep our reputation as the good guys, right?
Ruby, the word crusade does not have and has not had a Christian connotation to it in hundreds of years of American usage. The only time it refers to some Christian war against non-Christians is when used with a Capital 'C'. Just so you know. Perhaps in Australia it has a different meaning.
Droll Bernie, very droll.
When a country that markets itself as Christian as America does, to go into a war against Muslims and call it a "crusade", there really is only one logical conclusion, right?
Perhaps it was simply a poor choice of word on the part of the President. If that's the case, then he really is an idiot isn't he?
'That's true, I did do that, but it was merely a response to your own group 'us" and "them" mentality. '
You did it before I even commented. Don't just react and bullshit, think.
'You guys still stick to the outdated second amendment'
If anything, Iraq is an example of how the Second Amendment is still applicable today. Read some history about why the forefathers put it in the Constitution and then talk.
You don't seem to understand that you are just a dogmatic as anyone on here. You claim to figure things out for yourself, but the thing is you or some one else(for you) has decided which sources you even read objectively.
>So you should just go around killing other people then, just to avert the possibility that they may one day harm you?
What has this got to do with not being weak?
>Firstly, i don't think the holocaust happened because Jews were being 'weak'.
Because if they could have kicked Hitler's ass he would have targeted them? If they had the bomb would he then?
And of course you contradict yourself:
you say it wasn't because they were 'weak' and then you say -
"There really wasn't anything much they could do"
>"there really is only one logical conclusion, right?"
I suppose when the temperance movement went on an anti-alcohol "crusade" they burned down the holy land and killed Saracens! I suppose that when people describe Dr.King's movement as a crusade for justice and equality they mean that his people stormed the turrets of Acre!
You're full of it Ruby, just stop.
Ruby, its at the point now where there is no use arguing with you. Your arguments are so weak that people jump in here, leave a single comment, and ravage them. You're so backed into a corner ideologically that you refuse to even read or evaluate sources not on your side - even when they are sound scientific studies. And you fabricate and bring in irrelevant issues to the argument.
Okay, just a few questions before you get on your high horse and gallop away:
1. When did I refuse to accept a sound scientific study?
2. Using the word 'crusade' in regards to King and the temperence movements does not have the historical connotations that it does in the 'war on terror'. It didn't take long for the population to see it as a war between the West and Medieval East did it? A clash of civilizations, Islam vs Christianity. Please just read the comments on this very bog and other blogs such as Gates of Vienna! Bush's approach to this war had the explicit intention of installing Muslims as the "Other" in the minds of the population. And it worked a treat didn't it? As you say, it is all about installing absolutes in people's heads. Just stand back and witness the anti-Muslim hysteria...
3. I was just trying to say that Jews were targeted by Hitler because there were a minority, hence they are automatically weak, i don't understand what Bernie thinks they could have done differently to avoid that particular tragedy. I don't think it's because Jews have become 'fearful', they just were not in a position of power anymore as they were in the hey day of the Old Testament. I don't claim to be a genius Nate, if my words are not always clear, it doesn't mean that my underlying argument has no merit. I make an effort to distinguish between that in other people's comments, it wouldn't hurt you to do the same.
4. How does the Iraq war relate to the right to bear arms? How many American citizens are wandering around the streets of Baghad?
5. I'm not as dogmatic as you think. Ever heard the term "Devil's Advocate"?
I learned that the Crusades begin as retaliatory military campaigns.
Is that accurate?
Ruby,
Please find and watch the Brady Bunch episode titled "A Fistful of Reasons". Or read a transcript. Or find a Cliff's notes version.
Does the moral of that story apply to the GWOT?
Edited By Siteowner
You can get Cliff's notes for The Brady Bunch?
Awesome!
You see i thought about doing my thesis on season 2 of that show. But the sophisticated dialogue, the depth of the character development, the complicated story arcs, the dramatic climaxes and subsequent denouements all went way above my head.
But Cliff's notes! Wow! Now even I can partake in that particularly relevant social commentary.
Sorry...what was your question again?
My point is that most people learn that lesson as children. You are still struggling with it. Your approach to everything is the Cliff's notes version of the WRONG side of history.
Thesis? Yeah, right.
I can't believe that I am being treated with condescension by someone who believes there are millions of zygotes floating about in "heaven".
Now i have heard it all.
Ruby,
You still have no idea how idiotic you sound (and unfunny, even when you try to be). You spew garbage and grasp at any straw available to further your brand of logic (which is anything BUT logical).
Also, though you've lost every argument you've presented on this thread (and other threads), nobody has yet pointed out that you are also wrong about this: the U.S. doesn't "market itself as a Christian nation", Ruby.
We are a nation founded on Judeo-Christian principles and those are the principles we will fight to keep.
Thanks for setting me straight Kendra.
Pity you weren't around when the Founding Fathers said this:
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
Yes, that's the Treaty of Tripoli, clearly stating that the USA was not founded on Biblical principles, nor was it offended by the religion called Islam.
Come on Kendra. I know it's going to be a challenge, but if anyone can twist the words of Thomas Jefferson, I'm sure it will be you. You have the experience and the motivation but do you have the audacity this time?
By Grace, I believe that SOMETHING positive comes from such an utterly ugly and selfish decision. Bear in mind that I am specifically talking about such cases where the man involved has BEGGED her to go to full term and is willing and able to go it alone if necessary after delivery. To go foreward anyway is selfish and disgusting, but that soul goes to Heaven. It goes never knowing any more pain the world has to offer other than the pain of the abortion procedure itself. Don't get me wrong, it misses out. Never has a chance to be loved by a Dad. Never knows the love of an adoptive Mother. Never has ice cream. Etc, etc. Still, all in all, not a bad deal, really. At any rate, believe it or not, I am pro choice.
What is positive about the results of your sagacious advice, Ruby? That they remain sexually attractive. Yeah. You mentioned that before. That makes sense to you. For what? For procreation? Hell no. To continue the train wreck of the life wherein the men they attract (because of their indisposable feminine hotness) either cannot or will not defend the safety and well being of their own offspring. Well, better to kill all of the fetuses of that genetic dead end. Ya wanna live by the emerging secular zeitgeist code, die by it. Survival of the fittest, right?
We all know that the plan Carbon Atom Number 9,387,465,778,388,399,995,868,969,697,979 came up with when we decided to blow up the Singularity is working pretty good so far. The quest for perfect titties, he called it. I remember the lecture like it was yesterday. We'll grow hands. We'll grow eyes. Grow a tongue. Grow a way to smell. Develop a way to hear. Then we try to grow the perfect titties and sense them in every way possible. It took a bit longer than he theorized, but, wow, what a master plan...
The only thing I care about as far as abortion goes is that God loves those babies. I don't want ANYTHING else to do with it. By the way, how do you comfort women when they get "buyer's anxiety" following an abortion? Any riveting success stories? Or do your words of wisdom end up just adding to the body count? Just curious.
This has become an unrelated tangent from the original post. I piped in to see if you believe in defending anything that is being threatened with death. We know you don't give a shit about innocent human life. What about a sovereign nation of adult human beings? And it is important to know how the Crusades began. It matters who started them and why 1300 years ago. It is the longest war in history. One that a certain side has been waging (physically, mentally or spiritually) since commanded to do so by their founder so many centuries ago.
Ruby, you are an idiot. That is exactly what I just said to you-- we do NOT market ourselves as a Christian nation. We are FOUNDED on Judeo-Christian principles. We are NOT a Christian nation and do not market ourselves as such.
Ed,
I agree that it does matter, too. The Crusades were a belated military response to over THREE CENTURIES of Muslim aggression. Those that state otherwise-- that state that the Crusades' starting point was 1095 seem to ignore (either by ignorance or in an attempt to mislead or both) the entire three preceding centuries starting with when Muslims conquered 2/3 of the Christian world.
Well done Kendra, you have managed to twist the words of your own founding fathers! I have given you a quote, which in no uncertain terms states that the USA was NOT founded on the Bible and you still insist that it was. And you call me an idiot. Unbelievable. Have you actually read any of the letters and quotes of Jefferson and Smith and Washington? They deplored the Bible. I don't care what you think of me Kendra, but at least educate yourself before you denounce me.
Judeo-Christian principles? What are those exactly? Can you show me where any of the Founding Fathers claimed to be founding the USA as such?
And please, as much as I know you guys hate me and what I stand for is anyone else going to set this woman straight for once?
They did not deplore the bible at all. Even Thomas Jefferson who was a deist. Look it up.
Adams was a Puritan-- you can't get much more conservative Christian than that. Jefferson and Franklin were both deists. You can't get much more liberal than that.
Adams believed that God was active in daily life, Jefferson and Franklin, like all deists, believed that God created the earth and then left. They believed that God wasn't active in daily life.
So, yes, the founding fathers were all Christians. If you read ANY of the Founding Fathers, they always invoke Providence. That's because they were God-believing men.
If the Founding Fathers weren't Christian, as you suggest, than they were either another religion or athiests. If you can name one Buddhist, Jewish, animist, Pagan, Jewish, Muslim or Hindu founding father, I'd be very interested to know who that may be. As far as I know, there were no athiest founding fathers, either.
This is really a silly discussion, because it's based upon your complete ignorance on the topic. Actually, as soon as you enter these threads, they all become very useless discussions because you really don't bring any intelligent comments to the table. At all.
The Judeo-Christian PRINCIPLES I'm referring to ARE the Ten Commandments. We have a separation of Church and State, so we are OBVIOUSLY not a Christian country. However, it is CLEAR that the principles of Christianity GUIDED the Founding Fathers.
YOU claimed we market ourselves as a Christian nation. You said "When a country that markets itself as Christian as America does. . .". We do NOT market ourselves as a Christian nation. We have no state religion because we are NOT a Christian nation. We do not market ourselves as such.
You are wrong AGAIN.
Sigh. Kendra, do you realise that deism is not biblical right?
I am not going to argue with you on this issue as it is beyond ridiculous. A simple search on google will lead you to the truth about the Founding Fathers.
And, no I am not wrong when I say that America markets itself as a Christian country. That is the image you project onto the world, what with your evangelical presidents and their "one nation under God" mantra.
You may not see yourself that way, but that is how many of us in the rest of the world see you.
1. Vandit's studies.
2. You're being dumb, every war is by definition a clash of one civilization against another. Doesn't mean that Iraq suddenly becomes a holy war sanctioned by the Pope because you want it to be. In fact, the Pope doesn't even like the war.
3. "hence they are automatically weak", Not so. Are rich people automatically weak? Are whites weak on the global scale? Nope.
4. The founding fathers were scared shitless of the armed mobs that marauded during the Articles of Confederation like the Paxton boys. They gave us the second amendment so that we could defend ourselves from those kinds of people and defend ourselves from the event that unruly got control of the government. This kind of pretext - that the government is not infallible and can hurt you is what they're getting at. One of the strongest arguments for getting rid of the right to bear arms is "You can't do much against Tanks anyways"
Well, it turns out you can.
5. That sounds like it was straight out of "How to lose an internet argument."
1. Refresh my memory please. i have lost track of all the threads.
2. I never meant that it was a holy war sanctioned by the Pope. Only that it invoked the idea that this was a war between good (Christianity) and evil (Islam).
3. I don't even know why we are arguing over this. I guess I just found it off-putting that Bernie seemed to blame Jewish people for their own persecution? I fully concede that this is a silly thing to argue over.
4. I see your point. Not sure if I agree.
5. Believe it or not I do have a reason for my continued presence on this blog. I don't do it just do it for fun. Nothing sinister mind you, just acquainting myself with certain ways of thinking.
An excellent post!
In my upcoming interview with Robert Spencer, one of the topics on our list of items to discuss is Islamic accomplishments.
Islamic cuture and accomplishments have been stagnated for hundreds of years. And why is that? Maybe the following provide a clue:
http://alwaysonwatch2.blogspot.c...ists-
quran.html
and
http://ibloga.blogspot.com/2008/...ic-
science.html
Ruby, I know that deism is not biblical. I am explaining that the founding fathers did indeed believe in God. I find your arguments absolutely ludicrous. Although I do not agree we market ourselves as a Christian country, I will continue to argue that our country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. These principles are and were biblically based, Ruby.
It's crazy that you continue to argue this when you insist we market ourselves as a Christian country in the first place. We do not market ourselves this way-- we "market" ourselves as an open society that welcomes all others. However, if it seems to you that we do market ourselves as a Christian country, it's because we were founded on these principles, Ruby.
oh come on,why is this author comparing Jews with Arab??...Jews didn't even have a country to begin with for the past 1000's of years and they had only recently fought back their own land under the help of other western countries.
Jews had been heavily influenced by western world for the past thousands of years and the answer is obvious 'coz they didn't have country and they HAD to live with white people(so they are basically "white on the inside" if you know what I mean-they dress like white people, think like white people and speak like white people...etc). The fact of the matter is, MOST Jews are still living in western countries, so they are not technically making any scientific advancement on their own-in their own country, they work alongside with other white people and inside white countries in order to achieve greater scientific achievements.
What an inherently biased and paradoxical article. First you admit that Muslims made some of their foremost contributions to civilization during the Golden Age of Islam and then you say that the current decline is due to Islam!?! Also, Muslim have been very productive in math, science, philosophy, arts, and literature etc.. whether or not your biased Western View thinks so or not, we aren't here to prove anything to those with an inherently supremacist view. Oh and you made a mistake saying the Zero was borrowed from Hidus actually that was discovered by Khwarizmi, do more research next time instead of relying on supremacist sources. My God, is this what Western Fascism looks like? Thankfully not everyone is as hateful and ethnocentric as you in this country.
@Hazman, as to zero, the Arabic "zephirum" is based on the word as-sifr, which comes from the Sanskrit word and was used in India in the fifth century, a few hundred years before even the beginning of Islam. But nice try.
As for Arabic contributions to civilization, there is no contradiction, Islam indeed has held Arabs back. You obviously are not a careful reader: I wrote that Arabs made contributions "all wondrous and marvelous, but, under Islam, Arabs have not advanced for the past one thousand years."
I said that Arabs did wonderful things, not that Muslims did. In the beginning of Islam, the religion was much more lenient because it was trying to convert as many people as possible. But eventually Islam snuffed out the great light of learning that was done by ARABS, not Muslims.
Yes, they did it while living under Islamic rule, but only while Islam was ruled by lenient rulers. Unfortunately when rulers came along that actually applied the barbarism in the Quran, it spelled the end of Arab creativity.
As long as everyday Arabs ignored most of the Quran in the first few hundred years, they were able to live to their full potential.
Next time read carefully. I distinguish between Arab genius and Muslim ignorance.
Commenting by HaloScan
For Comment Guidelines, read Bernie's 8 Rules on Comments & Trackbacks
