Persian Nationalist Forgery

[Badlun]

I am really surprised when Quran is presented as a miracle and a literary master piece. First you have to decide whether Quran is the word of God or written by a human being like Muhamamd. If it is the word of God then how can you present it as poetry, literature and art in human connection. God is perfect and his written word cannot be compared to a human one. Otherwise you have to declare Quran as a creation not direct word of the creator.

Second with one Quran in hand during 1400, do you think the work of Muslims is done. There is no need of any further literary or artistic work? Why music, dance, poetry, sculpture and other forms of art were forbidden. Why in the Chapter Shuara(poets), in Quran poets are condemned? Why except one IHassan bin Thabit we do not have nay famous poet amongst earlier Arab Muslims? Compare pre Islam poetry and post Islam poetry and you will find a huge difference.

Rumi and others were Persian(not Arab) poets who were more inspired from Sufism than the religion of Islam. Many like Firdousi wrote about pre Islam empires of Persia. Poets like Omar Khayam and Hafiz wrote much which may be declared kufr by traditional Islam. We even do not have an Arab poet compared to even Pashto poets like Khushal Baba and Rehman Baba.

Cyrus the Great was the greatest emperor of all the times. Alexandar had defeated Persians but Persians also ha defeated Greeks many times. Ups and downs are the part of the game of war. Rulers like Achaemenids, Awan, Simashki, Kidinuid, Epartid,Shutrukid etc are born once in history. Post Islam dynasties are dwarfs as compared to these ones.

Dance is art. Just read the definition of dance and you will find it amongst Fine arts.

If one call the brutal and cruel Ummayads, Abbasids and others as representatives of true Islam then God forbid this kind of Islam is a stigma on the face of humanity. Attaching people like Yazeed, Safak, Hajaj, Marwan and others to Islam will further defame Islam.

Keeping all these facts in mind let us conclude that Islam was used by Arabs for their political power. Islam has given spirituality to humanity and rest is only political power which resulted in barbarity, terrorism and violence because religion was mixed with politics.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Whether Qur'an is word of God is another debate. We're talking about QUr'an and the glory of Arabic language as you had argued. The Qur'an is the STANDARD of the Arabic language meaning that it advanced the sophistication of the Arabic language that was not known until its time. Art, Music, Poetry is all culminated in the Qur'an.

As for Rumi, he wrote in Persian but his writing was 100% Rooted in Islam and the Qur'an, he even says so himself in many of his poems that the Qur'an is the foundation for his writing. Therefore even with Sufis the root is always Islam

In fact Sufism is just the Esoteric aspect of Islam, that's why the ONLY True Sufis are Muslims, one cannot be a Sufi without Islam. That's why anyone who claims to be a Sufi without Islam is actually an imposter trying to justify their immoral and corrupt behavior under the disguise of Spirituality. LIke Osho, he's really a sexual predator and rapist. who used Jugglery of Words to manipulate others and violate and degrade women.

Alexander the Great was Macedonian, NOT Greek, The Persians actually never gained That deep of a conquest into Greece, Maybe some city states but never all of Greece, BUT Alexander went ALL THE WAY into Bactria and kept their influence with Seleucids until the 2nd Century A.D. That is why the Persians cannot be claimed to be Strong. Yes Cyrus was strong but Cyrus was nearly 1000 years before Islam. By the time Islam came Persians were a weak and broken people. Islam rescued them fro their degradation.

Lastly we drew a distinction between Ummayads , which was really a very short period. Abbasids were a great time of Islam, the Persians advanced and spread Islam during Abbasid time. This is where Islam did great things for the Persians and helped give them the tools to restore themselves as a power. In fact this is proof that when people follow Islam they regain their strength, When people disobey they lose. Someone who says it "dwarfs" is clearly ignorant of reality.Muslims ruled an area from Morocco to China. With Islamic rulership as the basis.

So keeping in mind these facts the claim that Islam was used as political power has been Disproven and is just an European Orientalist exaggeration based on the very short Ummayad period And the only people who carry on such myths are people who behave as agents of European colonial agenda and European Imperialists to keep MUslims diverted.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Islam is like a Medicine and The Prophet(saw) was the doctor. If People do not take their medicine as the doctor prescribed then it's the patient who is at fault for not listening to the doctor's orders. The Efficacy of Islam is independent on whether people choose to take it. Pashtuns chose Pashtunwali over Islam so they suffered, so now we need to remove Pashtunwali completely that even the word Pashtunwali is forgotten.

[Badlun]

This is fundamental to decide whether Quran is creation or direct word of creator. If you say it is creation then yes it is a great human literary piece and we have to specify who was the author. If it is the word of God then it is not achievement of Arabs (God is not Arab)and thus Arabs except political power, lose every where, in arts, science and humanity.

Read atrocities of Abbasids

When Abū al-ʿAbbās assumed the caliphate in 749, he began a campaign of extermination against the Umayyads, the ʿAlids, other ʿAbbāsid leaders who had become too popular, and all other claimants to power. He named himself as-Saffāḥ, “the blood-shedder,” because of his savage attacks.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/2058/Abu-al-Abbas-as-Saffah

The Abbasids lived up to their vow to take revenge on the Omayyads. A reign of terror was let loose. The Omayyad men were hunted like rabbits and slaughtered. Only old men, women and children were spared. The bones of the Omayyad rulers (except those of Omar bin Abdul Aziz) were dug up and burned. In Damascus, Abdullah bin Ali, coaxed eighty of the Omayyad princes to dinner on the pretext of amnesty. As the princes sat down, they were tied with ropes, wrapped in carpets and clubbed to death.

http://historyofislam.com/contents/the-age-of-faith/the-abbasid-revolution/

The new Caliph was not long in showing his cruel and vindictive nature. A couple of months had hardly passed before the Wazir, who under Al-Wathik's reign had treated him with contumely, was cast into prison, and his property throughout the Empire confiscated. For months the unfortunate man was subjected to the refined torture of being unceasingly kept awake

Even more violent was the reaction against the descendants of 'Ali, on whom such favour had of late been lavished. Al-Mutawakkil hated them, and their teaching also. In company with his boon companions he treated the memory of 'Ali the Prophet's son-in-law with indecent contumely. A bare-headed buffoon, with a pillow stuffed in front, dared dance before the Caliph, while they sang around, Behold the pot-bellied bald one, the Caliph of Islam.1 And Al-Mutawakkil, enjoying the scene, joined in laughter with the rest. Such ribald and profane contempt of that which was most dear and sacred to the Muslim heart, alienated his followers at large and met with reproaches from his own son.2 So far indeed did Al-Mutawakkil carry his hostility that he had the tomb of 'Ali's son Al-Hosein razed to the ground, ploughed over and sown with corn; and he even threatened with imprisonment any pilgrims who ventured to visit the shrine of Kerbala.

http://answering-islam.org/Books/Muir/Caliphate/chap68.htm

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Whether it is fundamental .....this is not relevant to your argument NOW which was the claim that Islam deprived Arabs of culture/glory etc.. That was your original argument. To change now means your original argument was weak. So let's stick to your points instead of trying to swerve and zigzag around hoping something will work. This makes you look desperate.

Also no one ever said it is the achievement of Arabs. What is being said is that Qur'an is in ARABIC so whether Qur'an is divine or not, It still remains the CENTRAL piece in Arabic language. Which disproves that Arabic literature/art/music declined in fact it was AFTER the Qur'an that Arabic literature blossomed since before there were very few Arabic books and after many Arabic book were written. It would be absurd to claim decline on that fact.

Encyclopedia Britannica is one of the most Agenda driven Imperialistic sources one could find. They're written by Orientalists which modeled the British restructuralization of the regions the British colonized to train/indoctrinate those under the British yoke

Answering-Islam is an Specifically Anti-Islam website who quotes books by William Muir, an Orientalist and Colonial Administrator. Nothing else needs to be said. But Worst off NONE of the statements have CITATIONS OR references. He quotes other European Orientalists.

As a rule of Thumb ANY citations by Orientalists is automatically unreliable because of their Colonial Agenda in writing most of their works.

The last link "History of Islam" is by Muslims and actually shows the Abbasids doing the righteous thing and punishing the Ummayahs for their injustices. They also spared the lives of the elderly, women and children. Which is very fair and just approach.

So only 1/3rd of your references are valid.

[Herat]

An untenable subterfuge it is but actually this age old polemic (and throat slitting) over the best brand of myth is pointless in the first place; so the Arabs produced a monotheistic variety of religion and we didn't, that's wonderful, good for them. The irony is that some of these platitude of posts in this very thread (most notably by RevolutionThroughReason) are the Muslim equivalent of your typical nationalist exaggerations and feel good delusions. Heres another example of this variety of the no true scotsman to add to your Islamic Golden Age caricature: the "communism has never been tried" idiocy: Bolshevik/Stalinist Russia was not "true" communism, and neither was Maoist China nor Khmer Rouge Cambodia. A "true", perfect and infallible brand of communism is just waiting to be "correctly" implemented that will usher in the original Marxist utopia. So too the theocratic nature of todays Saudi Arabia or Iran (each with their own sectarian brand)) has nothing to do with Islam but "true" Islam is waiting to be followed "properly" and implemented "correctly" that will no doubt usher in an age akin to this seemingly legendary "Golden Age"! The practice and persistence of social, economic and political policies and patterns formulated and rooted in the 7-10th century etc has absolutely nothing to do with Islam yet that modest (intellectual/scientific) achievement of the populations of the Islamic world in the middle ages had no doubt its first and final cause inextricably rooted in Islam. Why? Because.

RevolutionThroughReason, the scientific elite of today overwhelmingly do not subscribe to any organized religion, why don't you follow through your reasoning in this case (not that I am arguing this, just pointing out your special pleading). Whatever the Islamic world achieved in the past, it is now nevertheless undeniably clear that the west, in the past 400 years or so, has produced something far superior to anything that has come before. When a theocratic Islamic world produces something with the worth of virtually the entirety of modern Science and its derivatives then you may insinuate this fallacious argument that religion has any causal role in progress but until then this will remain nothing more than a meaningless platitude, not even a fallacious argument. And this debate over secularism is a red herring, first deal with the fact that your Islamic utopia as you seem to imagine it -never existed-, manifests "properly" indeed, socially and economically (take away the oil) if not politically, in the likes of Saudi Arabia / Iran and that Islamic theocracies clearly are not conducive to modern technological society. What alternative would work best and how that would be feasibly achieved is another issue entirely (although the supposed western for the west secularism is working quite well in the successful parts of the orient, i.e. Japan, South Korea and Singapore).
[MENTION=1772]BarakzaiAbdali[/MENTION]

[کیش]

An untenable subterfuge it is but actually this age old polemic (and throat slitting) over the best brand of myth is pointless in the first place; so the Arabs produced a monotheistic variety of religion and we didn't, that's wonderful, good for them. The irony is that some of these platitude of posts in this very thread (most notably by RevolutionThroughReason) are the Muslim equivalent of your typical nationalist exaggerations and feel good delusions. Heres another example of this variety of the no true scotsman to add to your Islamic Golden Age caricature: the "communism has never been tried" idiocy: Bolshevik/Stalinist Russia was not "true" communism, and neither was Maoist China nor Khmer Rouge Cambodia. A "true", perfect and infallible brand of communism is just waiting to be "correctly" implemented that will usher in the original Marxist utopia. So too the theocratic nature of todays Saudi Arabia or Iran (each with their own sectarian brand)) has nothing to do with Islam but "true" Islam is waiting to be followed "properly" and implemented "correctly" that will no doubt usher in an age akin to this seemingly legendary "Golden Age"! The practice and persistence of social, economic and political policies and patterns formulated and rooted in the 7-10th century etc has absolutely nothing to do with Islam yet that modest (intellectual/scientific) achievement of the populations of the Islamic world in the middle ages had no doubt its first and final cause inextricably rooted in Islam. Why? Because.

RevolutionThroughReason, the scientific elite of today overwhelmingly do not subscribe to any organized religion, why don't you follow through your reasoning in this case (not that I am arguing this, just pointing out your special pleading). Whatever the Islamic world achieved in the past, it is now nevertheless undeniably clear that the west, in the past 400 years or so, has produced something far superior to anything that has come before. When a theocratic Islamic world produces something with the worth of virtually the entirety of modern Science and its derivatives then you may insinuate this fallacious argument that religion has any causal role in progress but until then this will remain nothing more than a meaningless platitude, not even a fallacious argument. And this debate over secularism is a red herring, first deal with the fact that your Islamic utopia as you seem to imagine it -never existed-, manifests "properly" indeed, socially and economically (take away the oil) if not politically, in the likes of Saudi Arabia / Iran and that Islamic theocracies clearly are not conducive to modern technological society. What alternative would work best and how that would be feasibly achieved is another issue entirely (although the supposed western for the west secularism is working quite well in the successful parts of the orient, i.e. Japan, South Korea and Singapore).
@BarakzaiAbdali

all these words and your posts still makes zero sense.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Heres another example of this variety of the no true scotsman to add to your Islamic Golden Age caricature:

you're incorrectly invoking No True Scotsman. No True Scotsman can only correctly be applied when there is no reasonable recourse to criterion as to what distinguishes between correct vs. incorrect. It's derived from the notion that someone claims someone "Not a true Scotsman" because of some equivocal variable that's never been clearly defined.

Let's turn that around, When scientists Declare Creationists "Not true scientists", are they committing "No True Scotsman?"? Of course not because there's certain parameters for scientific method which determines a "science". LIkewise for Islam there are certain conditions/criterion when it comes to its application and practice. So we can learn if they did things correctly according to Islam or not.So you not only incorrectly invoked No True Scotsman, You've performed the logical fallacy of Faulty Analogy, Committed a Strawman Argument AND Appeal to Novelity/Antiquity As no one here argued simply from a model of Time Period but rather of consistency of defined conditions of what is set forth Islamically.

RevolutionThroughReason, the scientific elite of today overwhelmingly do not subscribe to any organized religion,

This is not evidence of anything, Scientists are also subject to the Zeitgeists of their culture. The question is was scientific analysis the Motive for the departure or was a Cultural Zeitgeist that cultivated it. This needs to be established first.

it is now nevertheless undeniably clear that the west, in the past 400 years or so, has produced something far superior to anything that has come before.

But the development seems more to do with brigandy than anything even according to their own historical analysis. So the current state of the West doesn't seem based on necessarily their superior science but their superior science seems a product more of their exploitative efforts in the last 400 years.

An Islamic Future could develop far superior things than the West has in 400 years and 400 years from now people will scoff the West in the same way you are Muslims. That's what people like myself are working to make happen. and we will.

that religion has any causal role in progress but until then this will remain nothing more than a meaningless platitude, not even a fallacious argument.

The difference is however is that these scientists themselves derived their scientific method from the Islamic Scriptures themselves thereby it would hve been exactly the causal role in progress. Read references regarding Ibn Haytham for example. He directly alludes to this.

And this debate over secularism is a red herring, first deal with the fact that your Islamic utopia as you seem to imagine it -never existed-, manifests "properly" indeed, socially and economically

Well technically this debate including your response to it is a red herring. The discourse here was about A Persian Nationalist Forgery, it was your Ailing Comrade whose miserable argument you're trying desperately to rescue that Steered the discourse With Red Herring. And in doing so you have committed a Straw-Man argument. No one in this debate for or against has ever claimed or is claiming an Islamic Utopia ever existed nor is anyone claiming it SHOULD exist. What has been argued here is that Muslims prospered when Islam was most accurately instituted in Society. Now were Muslims once the most prosperous and one of the most powerful collective entities in the world at one time? Absolutely. But this whole notion of utopia is irrelevant. If you were actually critically thinking instead of trying to Incorrectly invoke Logical Fallacies You'd have noted that the response was to what benefit Islam was to various current Muslim people. So in turn you are committing the RED HERRING in this debate.

are not conducive to modern technological society

Bedil, there's nothing that makes Technology/Science incompatible with an Islamic Society In fact I propose that if Muslims acquired such means, they'd be pretty much an unstoppable world presence. The Trick is to disassociate The Cultural Hooopoo that attaches Science to Secularism and re-attach it to the Islamic Paradigm. Citing Puppet Saudi Arabia and Post-Colonial Iran as examples is a red herring in itself.

What alternative would work best and how that would be feasibly achieved is another issue entirely (although the supposed western for the west secularism is working quite well in the successful parts of the orient, i.e. Japan, South Korea and Singapore).

Well this ties into something I wrote earlier. Western Brigandry gave Western society in general its Galvanization. The current states in East Asia are largely products of that as well. This is especially true of Japan and South Korea.The Mafia in America too was once a successful enterprise which commanded a lot of power that rivaled that of the Legitimate Government. This however didn't make The Mafia Establishment a superior entity. The same can me surmised on Western society in general.

[Badlun]

This is ridiculous s to say I do not agree what Britannica says because they have an agenda. What Britannica said above is that why he the first Abbasid Caliph called himself Saffak? Was he not Saffak? Why you do not refute the contents instead of attacking the source only. Was historically Mutawakil not that cruel? If a site is against Islam and says the historic truth , will you not agree with that?

You have to declare whether Quran is creation or word of creator. I know you being a Mutazelite, it is difficult for you to say this. If you say it is creation, you face criticism from traditional Muslims, if you say no, it is against Mutazelite's approach. This is important for this discussion because we are talking about achievements of ARABS not importance of Arabic.

This is not red herring because the topic is about Persian nationalism. I am in favor of every nationalism and I am proving with cogent arguments that Arabs used Islam for political power otherwise they were not good Muslims. How can you call Abbasids as representatives of Islam if they call people on dinner and then kill them. Why they desecrated graves? Is it Islam? Is it Islam that the son of the father will automatically become Caliph of the Muslims? Is there no policy of merit or election or selection at least.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Of course it is a red herring; the subject was about Persian Nationalists MAKING UP LIES just to make themselves seem more favorable. So trying to justify Persian Nationalism when the topic is about a fabrication is a total red herring. It means you used it as a tactic to divert focus from the main issue.

Your quote directly

"Even it stripped Arabs from its cultural and literary glory."

You said Literary Glory, the Qur'an is in arabic, thereby Qur'an actually helped Arabic language's literary glory. Since more books were written in Arabic after the Qur'an established the standard for Arabic literature. Ats,music and all such things blossomed. We know this because Islamic Art is considered a major Artistic medium.As for your issue about the "Createdness" of the Qur'an; this is an irrelevant issue for THIS debate. Thereby does not need to even be discussed here.

Your arguments about Arabs using Islam is not cogent because it has been disproven with Factual and Real Cogent arguments. If Arabs used Islam for their power then ALL Arabs would have used Islam not just Muslims, but the fact we have Non-Muslim Arabs who did not adopt Islam proves such an argument is invalid because it means that there was no collective Arab movement favoring Islam. For your argument to be true ARABS as a whole would have had to do that. Not just a handful of people.

As for the alleged cruelties of Abbasids much of these are exaggerations by British Orientalists to suit their Colonial Propaganda. We don't trust Britannica because the Orientailists had a stated goal that they wanted to use this information to subdue their colonies, thereby their bias is known. However even if we suppose it is true. Abbasids got 95% correct and maybe did 5% wrong things. Pashtuns only get 20% Correct and 80% wrong. IT is not All or none but proportion. Abbasids are more correct than Pashtuns and we can see their merits by their fruits. Pashtuns are backwards while Abbasids were enlightened. Islam is the only true way to gain enlightenment.

Islam is a medicine, if you take the medicine, you get better, if you ignore the doctor's orders, then you suffer more. That's what happened to Pashtuns.

[Badlun]

For the creation of Quran I will open a new thread and you are cordially invited there.

If Britannica says why he was called Safak so I should not believe in it because Britannica says it. Agreed!

Who was the non Muslim Arab in the armies of First 4 caliphs, Umayayds and Abbasids? Any name of any commander?

And except few in Syria, Lebanon and Egypt what is the percentage of non Muslim Arabs today?

Other than Quran what book you will present in Arabic as a literary master piece? Other than caliphs and invaders who were the famous other Arabs?

You have few names of Arab scientists. What is their contribution to humanity? Any famous invention? And do not mix non Arabs names with Arabs ones.

Arabs except their murders, invasions, forceful conversions, conquests , do not have nay thing at their credit so that humanity should be really proud of them.

I am for Persian nationalism and for clarifying the misconceptions and to tell the world that achievements of Arabs are not achievements of Islam. Arabs just used islam for their political glory. If you make those barbarities part of Islam, Islam will lose its good name of being a spiritual and religious system.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Britannica may state a few facts but in the end it mixes with Orientalist interpretation. If Orientalists have a stated goal, then we can't just use them as objective sources since ultimately the information is meant to defabricate their colonies.

The issue is not how many Non-Muslim Arabs there are today. The issue is how many Non-Arab Muslims when Islam started spreading outside of the Arabian Peninsula. In fact at this time MOST of the Arabs were non-Muslim Arabs and it took time many years before Islam became the majority religion among Arabs. so your claim that It was an Arab power grabbing strategy is false on every level.


Fayruz Al-Daylami, was Persian and sent to fight the False Prophet in Yemen, Badhan was a former Governor of The Sassanid Persians and he and his military contingent all converted to Islam and fought under the Khulafa. Salim Mawla Abu HUdhayfa was a Persian slave who was freedand he went to fought in Uhud, Badr, Azhab. Abu Muslim Khurasani. Of course I am listing some of the more famous ones. There are hundreds of lesser known ones. and I'm just covering the Persian ones.

Even if you repeat your statement over and over again 10000 times it won't make it true Badlun, your claim has been disproven already as false by cogent arguments.

Other than the Qur'an? Al Muqaddimah by Ibn Khaldun, Alf Laylat wa Layla, Futuh Al Makkiyah, Fusus Al Hikam. Ghayat Al Hakim. Al-Qanun Al-Tibb. al Ahkam Al Sultaniyah, Al Tahfut Al Tahafut, Kitab Al Kishaf. Al-Kashshaf.

I cannot list every book in Arabic, but these are some that come to my mind

Remember YOU SAID What did Islam contribute to Persians, so Arab and Non-Arab can be included. But a few notable Arab ones.
Ibn Haytham is the father of Modern Optics, he developed the scientific method as we see today.. Al Geber the father of Modern Chemistry, developed modern chemical distillation methods and chemicals with flame retardant properties.. Al Kindi was a pioneer of Spherical Geometry which he developed as a way to make Star Maps. In fact much of what we know right now about How to understand curves and Manifolds is due to his work in spherical geometry.


Being in favor nationalism, whether persian or Pashtun or Arab is an association and Collaborators with European Imperialists with hostilities towards Muslims and Islam.

[Badlun]

Britannica may state a few facts but in the end it mixes with Orientalist interpretation. If Orientalists have a stated goal, then we can't just use them as objective sources since ultimately the information is meant to defabricate their colonies.

The issue is not how many Non-Muslim Arabs there are today. The issue is how many Non-Arab Muslims when Islam started spreading outside of the Arabian Peninsula. In fact at this time MOST of the Arabs were non-Muslim Arabs and it took time many years before Islam became the majority religion among Arabs. so your claim that It was an Arab power grabbing strategy is false on every level.


Fayruz Al-Daylami, was Persian and sent to fight the False Prophet in Yemen, Badhan was a former Governor of The Sassanid Persians and he and his military contingent all converted to Islam and fought under the Khulafa. Salim Mawla Abu HUdhayfa was a Persian slave who was freedand he went to fought in Uhud, Badr, Azhab. Abu Muslim Khurasani. Of course I am listing some of the more famous ones. There are hundreds of lesser known ones. and I'm just covering the Persian ones.

Even if you repeat your statement over and over again 10000 times it won't make it true Badlun, your claim has been disproven already as false by cogent arguments.

Other than the Qur'an? Al Muqaddimah by Ibn Khaldun, Alf Laylat wa Layla, Futuh Al Makkiyah, Fusus Al Hikam. Ghayat Al Hakim. Al-Qanun Al-Tibb. al Ahkam Al Sultaniyah, Al Tahfut Al Tahafut, Kitab Al Kishaf. Al-Kashshaf.

I cannot list every book in Arabic, but these are some that come to my mind

Remember YOU SAID What did Islam contribute to Persians, so Arab and Non-Arab can be included. But a few notable Arab ones.
Ibn Haytham is the father of Modern Optics, he developed the scientific method as we see today.. Al Geber the father of Modern Chemistry, developed modern chemical distillation methods and chemicals with flame retardant properties.. Al Kindi was a pioneer of Spherical Geometry which he developed as a way to make Star Maps. In fact much of what we know right now about How to understand curves and Manifolds is due to his work in spherical geometry.


Being in favor nationalism, whether persian or Pashtun or Arab is an association and Collaborators with European Imperialists with hostilities towards Muslims and Islam.

Do you think your Muslim or Aran historians are more objective than Orientalists? Those historians writing history in the court of emperor presented the true picture while Orientalists are having agenda!

All the names you mentioned are Muslims and Persians. I requested for non Muslim Arabs. And these Persian Muslims worked for Arab Muslims in the beginning. Later on Non Arabs also took the power and started using Islam for their power as done by Persians, Ghaznavida and others like today's Taliban and Ikhwans.

All the so called Arab or Muslim scientists gave very few theoretical principles but I asked for any invention for the betterment of humanity not their Alchemia which put the human beings in a false way to search for gold. In 1400 years you have very few names.

This is really to ponder over not be jubilant by having just few names of scientists. Leanr to admit your pitfalls. Muslims and Arabs are miserably failed in all areas of knowledge. Let us revive the trend not be complacent with few names in many centuries. Let us separate religion from science and politics and then you will have your own Reformation and Renaissance.

[Herat]

you're incorrectly invoking No True Scotsman. No True Scotsman can only correctly be applied when there is no reasonable recourse to criterion as to what distinguishes between correct vs. incorrect. It's derived from the notion that someone claims someone "Not a true Scotsman" because of some equivocal variable that's never been clearly defined.

Let's turn that around, When scientists Declare Creationists "Not true scientists", are they committing "No True Scotsman?"? Of course not because there's certain parameters for scientific method which determines a "science". LIkewise for Islam there are certain conditions/criterion when it comes to its application and practice. So we can learn if they did things correctly according to Islam or not.So you not only incorrectly invoked No True Scotsman, You've performed the logical fallacy of Faulty Analogy, Committed a Strawman Argument AND Appeal to Novelity/Antiquity As no one here argued simply from a model of Time Period but rather of consistency of defined conditions of what is set forth Islamically.

No that's exactly it, the point is that virtually every Islamic hellhole on the planet is excluded from association with Islam on no basis other than the fact that they do not resemble this imaginary utopia "correct" adherence is supposed to bring (apparently the Islamic world has been practicing a wholly different religion ever since the passing of the golden age). Since Islam can have no negative characteristic or even conduce any undesirable state of affairs whatsoever (pretty much a tacit article of your faith), reality -that is virtually every Islamic hellhole today- must be disassociated with it.
If no state has ever practiced this imaginary "true communism", despite all those attempts (and they were lovely weren't they), then at the very least we must conclude that this thing is a quixotic ideal that cannot be feasibly achieved, and which does more harm than good. But of course that's not true (and you'd agree wouldn't you), in reality this is a form of self-deception on the part of your desperate modern Marxist. Similarly, if no Islamic state that satisfies your utopian expectations has come to exist since this mystical/legendary golden age then we ought to throw it in the same dustbin as "true communism".

This is not evidence of anything, Scientists are also subject to the Zeitgeists of their culture. The question is was scientific analysis the Motive for the departure or was a Cultural Zeitgeist that cultivated it. This needs to be established first.

I wasn't trying to contend that as evidence, I was merely pointing out your special pleading -you were going on about how all these Muslim scientists were "devout" Muslims, what were you trying to imply? However, now I will maintain that this is evidence of something: the scientific zeitgeist itself. The fact is that the scientific community is an intellectual "culture" in itself: it is characterized by a set of values that are actually not quite common amongst the general population even in those regions of the world it has influenced most even today (western Europe and the Anglosphere); most notably, for example, the American scientific community shares much more in common in worldview with the rest of the scientific community than it does with the American populace. And this isn't a modern phenomena: the geist of science was born out of what we now call the "enlightenment", it was a spirit whose creators were men like Francis Bacon, Descartes and Hume; a spirit whose essence is best characterized by its emphasis on reason over dogma/authority and empiricism/naturalism over mysticism/superstition/supernaturalism. It is no coincidence that this spirit often finds her enemy in religion -both historically and in the modern age- for religion in general thrives on the very opposite: unquestionable dogma and submission to authority. Even amongst the thinkers of your Islamic Golden Age, heresy and irreligion was probably more common as compared to the populace. Your Al-Farabi, Ibn Sina and Ibn Rushd, for example, inherited the spirit of the ancient Greek Philosophers -for which they (bar the last) were declared kafirs (and Im sure you know the punishment for apostasy) by your Sufi (Al Ghazali) as well as your Salafi (Ibn Taymiyyah). Their crime? Not even sparring Islam and Allah from reason. You see my friend, reason is one of those all or nothing things, you cannot give it bounds, this requirement does not sit well with religion.

An Islamic Future could develop far superior things than the West has in 400 years and 400 years from now people will scoff the West in the same way you are Muslims. That's what people like myself are working to make happen. and we will.

Right and a future communist state no doubt will usher in the true socialist utopia. Ill get back to you when that happens but until then, true communism will remain in the dustbin thank you.

The difference is however is that these scientists themselves derived their scientific method from the Islamic Scriptures themselves thereby it would hve been exactly the causal role in progress. Read references regarding Ibn Haytham for example. He directly alludes to this.

Ibn Haytham derived the scientific method was derived from the Quran? Hey thats cool, let me hear it so I can add it to wikis article on the history of the scientific method, go ahead.

Well technically this debate including your response to it is a red herring. The discourse here was about A Persian Nationalist Forgery, it was your Ailing Comrade whose miserable argument you're trying desperately to rescue that Steered the discourse With Red Herring. And in doing so you have committed a Straw-Man argument. No one in this debate for or against has ever claimed or is claiming an Islamic Utopia ever existed nor is anyone claiming it SHOULD exist. What has been argued here is that Muslims prospered when Islam was most accurately instituted in Society. Now were Muslims once the most prosperous and one of the most powerful collective entities in the world at one time? Absolutely. But this whole notion of utopia is irrelevant. If you were actually critically thinking instead of trying to Incorrectly invoke Logical Fallacies You'd have noted that the response was to what benefit Islam was to various current Muslim people. So in turn you are committing the RED HERRING in this debate.

No, you and Badlun turned this into the debate we're having. Fine, you don't believe in the golden age utopia (although the parlance you have used in this thread is typical of those, especially internet Muslims, who do believe in this imaginary utopia) but the debate remains as it is, you have changed the strength of the claim but it is essentially the same claim: that when Muslims "accurately institute" -whatever that means- Islam there will be prosperity for the Muslim world. And actually it is you who is throwing accusations of logical fallacies everywhere without warrant (except a definition of one at the beginning).

Bedil, there's nothing that makes Technology/Science incompatible with an Islamic Society In fact I propose that if Muslims acquired such means, they'd be pretty much an unstoppable world presence. The Trick is to disassociate The Cultural Hooopoo that attaches Science to Secularism and re-attach it to the Islamic Paradigm. Citing Puppet Saudi Arabia and Post-Colonial Iran as examples is a red herring in itself.

Perhaps I should have omitted the word technological so let me restate the point in a more direct manner: the Muslim world, no actually Afghanistan, wait scratch that naturally Im really only concerned about my own- the North/West region (lets face it, Afghanistan is a failed state that ought to go the way of Yugoslavia and partition along ethnic lines) will prosper when it emulates those social, economic and political models that have worked (such as the west or Eastern Asia) -not necessarily imitate but strive to create an organic version apt for our situation based on the principles of those models- and not cling to the 7th century (the Islamic state). And before you start accusing me of anything, let me preempt by saying that I don't endorse foreign intervention or even think it is even remotely helpful. I guess Im arguing with you here merely on principles. And again, whatever you don't seem to like you automatically disassociate with Islam.

But the development seems more to do with brigandy than anything even according to their own historical analysis. So the current state of the West doesn't seem based on necessarily their superior science but their superior science seems a product more of their exploitative efforts in the last 400 years.

Well this ties into something I wrote earlier. Western Brigandry gave Western society in general its Galvanization. The current states in East Asia are largely products of that as well. This is especially true of Japan and South Korea.The Mafia in America too was once a successful enterprise which commanded a lot of power that rivaled that of the Legitimate Government. This however didn't make The Mafia Establishment a superior entity. The same can me surmised on Western society in general.

Right, western philosophy and science was stolen from some secret civilization in Sub-Saharan Africa, no doubt. RevolutionThroughReason, these colonial/imperialism conspiracies of yours sounds like the claims of Afro-Centrists and other civilizational conspiracy theorists. Yes the west had its era of imperialism (whereas Islam not only was spread entirely by peaceful means but Muslims had no empires, expansions or wars), in fact the technologically superior west at one point virtually conquered most of the globe. That was because of its success, not the other way round.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

No that's exactly it, the point is that virtually every Islamic hellhole on the planet is excluded from association with Islam on no basis

And by saying this you commit a correlation/causation fallacy. Again the Utopia again is a Fabricated STRAW-MAN argument. To have to revert back to a failed point to rescue your point demonstrates how failed the argument is from you end. It's simple as stated before. These "Hellholes" aren't Islamic not because they don't resemble a Utopia, it's because they're not by definition Islamic end of story. When you can show that they do in fact meet the definitions of Islamic according to the institutional requirements of Islam then you can make this claim.

the ONUS is on you.

If no state has ever practiced this imaginary "true communism", despite all those attempts (and they were lovely weren't they),

And yet AGAIN You Commit a Logical Fallacy. This is one is the BANDWAGON Fallacy. Essentially the form of your fallacy is this "if the Communists claimed some type of Utopia, that means Muslims are claiming some type of Utopia thus since Communists were wrong , Muslims are too."

Firstly the Utopia Angle is a straw man, secondly someone else doing it doesn't validate or invalidate it. Trying to use that as a rebuttal is just intellectual smokescreening.

what were you trying to imply? However, now I will maintain that this is evidence of something: the scientific zeitgeist itself

.

This is a Converse Error, the Zeitgeist of scientists is not the same the Scientific zeitgeist. LOL Thereby you're on a red herring.

a spirit whose essence is best characterized by its emphasis on reason over dogma/authority and empiricism/naturalism

Which is true when it comes to empirical claims but has nothing to do with events which cannot be put under empirical measurements. And this statement alone pretty much deals with your other claims of this variety.

. It is no coincidence that this spirit often finds her enemy in religion -both historically and in the modern age-

This is more of an opinion statement than anything

by your Sufi (Al Ghazali) as well as your Salafi (Ibn Taymiyyah). .

And then you have Sufis like Ibn 'Arabi who were perfectly at harmony with Ibn Rushd who he studied deeply Ibn Rushd's works deeply. And the father of Modern Salafism, Muhammad 'Abduh who applied rationalism.

So your statement really demonstrates nothing except certain individuals were more rigid in their view of rationalism than others. Since other things on this topic rest on this point, they don't need to be addressed since the point itself was faulty.

Hey thats cool, let me hear it so I can add it to wikis article on the history of the scientific method, go ahead.

“I decided to discover what it is that brings us closer to God, what pleases Him most, and what makes us submissive to His ineluctable Will" - Ibn Haytham

No, you and Badlun turned this into the debate we're having.

No Badlun changed it, I'm only responding. The fact you did not pay attention to Badlun's red herring, demonstrates you're clearly one sided.

the same claim: that when Muslims "accurately institute" -whatever that

Nope two very distinct statements, Utopia and Accuracy are TWO differing concepts completely. In the same way 100% =/= 95% Now 95% is very close to 100 and very accurate\ but not identical to 100%.

You committed Fallacy of equivocation

North/West region (lets face it, Afghanistan is a failed state that ought to go the way of Yugoslavia and partition along ethnic lines) will prosper when it emulates those social, economic and political models that have worked (such as the west or Eastern Asia)

That can't happen because the circumstances dealing with both spheres are LInearly Independent and thus for the defacto variables already existing in the region there's no choice but to revert to an Islamic framework. Secularism simply won't work for our regions. The reason it seems very SUPERFICALLY speaking to "work" in East Asia is because East Asia was pretty much obliterated and rebuilt under a new model, that was FAVORED by these Western Hegemonists and thereby granted them some alleviation. However in reality East Asia the power dynamics even now is actually just a fraction of its original pre-Western secularist condition.

. And before you start accusing me of anything, let me preempt by saying that I don't endorse foreign intervention or even think it is even remotely helpful.

Well isn't that why the demarcations lines were first created under these artificial nation states, to prevent the need for European interventions to maintain their Hegemony? Of course that didn't work out well, but that's exactly why there's a chance to reinstate an Islamic system because the alternative has enough holes in it that it can be dissolved.

Right, western philosophy and science was stolen from some secret civilization in Sub-Saharan Africa, .

I didn't make that claim though, so this is your straw man once again. I argued their brigandry put them at a material position to galvanize their scientific enterprise because they sacked enough raw materials to do so.