Hilliary vs. Trump: The 2016 US Presidental Election

Whilst I agree that it was around 100 that islam turned away from science at that time , I do believe that your falling into the academic trap of both naming the wrong person , please look for Nizam al-Mulk , and also ignoring the cause of the shift, which was little to do with Christianity.

 

If at first you fail...

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...travel-ban-muslim-majority-countries-refugees

 

Given the length of time from his first one getting struck down he may have actually consulted with legal experts and other departments on this one, although knowing Trump he probably only took the advise of people who agreed with him.

 

You state that " it was the work of muslim scholars like al-Ghazali around 1100 AD, who deemed mathematics the work of the devil and basically forbid all muslims to engage in science". I am providing a quote by the man himself to prove that fact incorrect.

So I am supposed to accept a general premise that you built around a single fact that is blatantly incorrect? Son, you'll have to try harder.

I will briefly step aside and let Terry Pratchett, a confirmed atheist himself, make the best argument for spirituality and faith that I have ever read (for those who don't know his works: Death, the grim reaper, appears as a skeleton in a black cloak and carries a scythe, TALKS LIKE THIS. Susan, currently employed as a nanny, is his adopted granddaughter (just read the story). The Hogfather is the Discworld's equivalent of Santa Claus, but closer to his darker, pagan origins).

Then again, it took science to develop the kind of technology to kill people on an industrially efficient scale and to cause global warming and pollution. I think that your dichotomous view of "science = all good" and "religion = all bad" (and, incidentally implied, Muslims = religieus, ergo Muslims = bad) is ludicrously simplistic, inaccurate and totally ignorant of how people work.

Yup. Let's ignore for instance the increased use of dissection in Islamic medicine during the 12th and 13th centuries which was influenced by the writings of (drum roll) Al-Ghazali, who encouraged the study of anatomy and use of dissections as a method of gaining knowledge of God's creation. This culminated in the work of Ibn al-Nafis, who discovered the pulmonary circulation in 1242.

Muslim scolars also posited that the Earth rotates around its axis (in the prevailing Aristotelian model it was stationary) and contemplated the existence of a multiverse.

According to many historians, science in the Muslim civilization flourished during the Middle Ages, but began declining at some time around the 14th century partly due to the Crusades and the invasion of the Mongol Empire.

 

It doesn't fit the "evil" white man narrative which is why it's mostly ignored.

At the time of the Crusades the Moslems were a house divided, had been for a long time, the infighting among themselves were the primary reason for their decline, not the Crusades. The Crusaders managed to gain a foothold using force, true, and hold it (Creating the Kingdom of Jerusalem which lasted ~200 years), but they didn't hold it using brute force, but using diplomacy, trade and religious tolerance whilst keeping Jerusalem open for all faiths. They were of course helped by the infighting among the Moslems which lasted for most of the Christian presence there, infighting which temporarily ceased after Saladin united them, only to be back in full swing again shortly after he was gone. It's still in full swing in certain regions.

Once united it was no longer possible for the small number of Christians to maintain control and one crusader state after the other fell.

The last stronghold was Malta, and it would last all the way up to the Napoleonic era.

 

You poor victim, you.

That rosy picture is much in dispute from contemporary accounts. In the cities, Muslims and Eastern Christians were free, although no Muslims were permitted to live in Jerusalem itself. They were second-class citizens and played no part in politics or law although in some cities they may have been the majority of the population. There were an unknown number of Muslim slaves living in the Kingdom. There was a very large slave market in Acre which functioned throughout the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. Although Christians, both Western and Eastern, were by law prohibited from being sold into slavery, the native Christians were often indistinguishable from the Muslim population and the Italian merchants were sometimes accused of selling them along with Muslim slaves.

Escape for prisoners and slaves was probably not difficult, as the inhabitants of the countryside were majority Muslim, and fugitive slaves were always a problem. The only legal means of manumission was conversion to (Catholic) Christianity. No Christian, whether Western or Eastern, was permitted by law to be sold into slavery

The nomadic Bedouin tribes were considered to be the property of the king and under his protection. They could be sold or alienated just like any other property, and later in the 12th century they were often under the protection of a lesser noble or one of the military orders.

21st century positions on the question of cultural integration or cultural apartheid remains debated. Interactions between the Franks and the native Muslims and Christians, though muddled, prevailed on practical coexistence.

 

The victimhood card is played by other races and minorities, and very much part of their "evil" white man narrative.

Not so much a rosy picture but a summary of what made it possible for the Christians to remain in control, not much in dispute, also a necessity for them to be able to remain in control as a minority whilst running four states. They couldn't use brute force, they had to resort to diplomacy, trade and religious tolerance. And of course, cultural appropriation to a certain extent.


Edit.
Speaking of rosy pictures, have you read, The Myth of the Andalusian Paradise: Muslims, Christians, and Jews under Islamic Rule in Medieval Spain, yet?

 

http://www.richardwarrenfield.com/Internet Column - Kingdom of Heaven Fact from Fiction.html

an interesting read

 

So you feel victimised by others' victimhood?

 

I was referring to a historical context being omitted which would help explain the crusades, and that omitting the context creates the “evil” white man narrative. In this case as the aggressor.

I then proceeded to point out that the victimhood card is played by other races and minorities, and very much part of the "evil" white man narrative.

 

"All Muslims are evil"

"I don't think that the facts support the interpretation that all Muslims are evil"

"Are you accusing white people of being evil?!"

 

People can be evil regardless if they are cis white male or mint green trans space kin.

 

"All white people are racist"

"I don't think that the facts support the interpretation that all whites are racist"

"Are you accusing brown people of being racist?!"

You can replace racist with evil.

 

But that has not been our conversation, has it? We've been hearing how Muslims are violent, and white right-wing extremists have only been violent in response to Muslim violence. Then there was an interesting foray into Islam as anti-science and backwards, based on evidence which turned out to be blatantly wrong.

The response to that? I'm"cherry picking" and apparently asserting that white people are evil. Nice straw man, but no prizes for trying.

 

You must be talking to jrs77 at this point, not me. You must be, because you're quoting him, not me.

We've had two discussions going simultaneously since post 2923, which was a response I made to jrs77 regarding the crusades and what led up to them, you then decided to respond to that post, and now all the sudden you backtrack BACK to a post that jrs77 posted and quotes he made.

 

I'm sorry, I thought that you were joining our conversation, but you're saying you're having a completely separate one?

That explains a lot. Carry on.

 

A lot of assumptions going on that western and middle east cultures developed in isolation which is frankly ridiculous.

 

I'm saying you and I had a separate discussion in his absence, and that you initiated it. Can't join your discussion when the guy isn't around.

It's ok, it's all good, Carry on.

 

Sorry, are you talking to me?