Violence in Islam and Christianity: A Comparison - History Forum ~ All Empires

But does this really qualify fascinated's statement that Muslims today are chiefly taught Islam by Westeners?

It doesn't. Especially not in the context I understood he meant. I'm not defending his position, I'm just making an aside pointing out that we (as in western muslims) aren't dependent on foreign scholarship, and the language barrier makes it harder to access.

Is Darusalaam a relgious publishing company or just a normal one? If it is just a normal one, does the presence of English translate into Islam being taught to Muslims globally with a Western cultural slant?

Yes it is a religious publisher & wholesaler based in London. http://www.darussalam.com/. It by far dominates the english speaking market.
Western cultural slant gets itself into everything nowadays, so I won't be surprised if there isn't western cultural influence. In many respects this is good in my opinion and is probably a factor behind the rise in religiosity over the past 20 years, and fall in superstitions in the past 200. Positive aspects are being unconsciously adopted, while negative aspects are probably what fascinated is referring to.

Originally posted by fascinated

General Haj-Ali Razmara, the Shah’s choice, was approved as prime minister June 1950. On March 3, 1951 he appeared before the Majlis in an attempt to persuade the deputies against "full nationalization on the grounds that Iran could not override its international obligations and lacked the capacity to run the oil industry on its own." He was assassinated four days later by Khalil Tahmasebi, a member of the militant fundamentalist group Fadayan-e Islam.

Originally posted by fascinated

Looks like in 1951 still democracy is in effect in Iran. Let's keep going.

Hmmm....

Please explain relevance, otherwise I shall delete for being off topic.

"Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces".
Unknown.

Is "preemptive strike" a type of agression that the Quran accepts?

No.

Yeah I can't think of a case where it would be acceptable. The striked would have to have done something serious first.

No chance, man! I know for sure you, Fascinated, Seko and Omar (at least) have been creating elusive characters like WW and used him to deviate the threads. It's the crescent conspiracy on AE! I know there's a cross one too but my investigations only revealed JanusRook to be part of it! Not to mention Ulrich who is the leader of the Red Banner of the AE. I'm the only independent one here, you are all conspiring against me! Shame on you!

(Acording to Quran.) You can attack other countries without attacked first to protect innocents people against harsh rulers.. So I think you can attack iraq If Saddam rule it, but You cannot attack england.

Anyway, I think noone realy give any shit what holy books say about war. They attack acording to their benefits.

You are again failing to answer my question. You claim Christianity is plagiarsing Islamic values. I asked you to provide evidence. To prove this you need to demonstrate to me that Christianity was very different before Islam came along. You then need to show me that Christianity underwent a huge metamorohisis and also demonstrate that this was caused by Islamic influence. If you can't do that then you clearly are unable to defend your claim, and so others are totally justified in dismissing it as being without basis.

This is absurd. If I am not wrong, Some religious scientists of islam use both christian or jewish sources for commenting islam. Maybe we can say, Christianity effect islam but saying islam effected christianity hugely is a big joke.

Originally posted by Constantine XI

Ok after a very enjoyable weekend (in which alcohol was consumed in liberal quantities

), it is time to continue with this discussion (which I must apologise for having strayed so far from the original topic.

Originally posted by fascinated

Now, your response is one of the perfect example of what I call "Christian reasoning." This type of reasoning deal with the immediate and can not see a wider picture. While crticising my post you manage to answer the immediate without considering that you are causing another problem at another point. This is very similar the way Christians do their exegesis of the Bible.

Frankly I don't see why this religious group (of which I am not a member) should be portrayed as somehow less capable of long term conceptual tasks than others. Secondly if you want to demonstrate that my reasoning is so short term you will have to specifically say where.

You really are not aware what you did even if I showed you. This is really amazing. OK I will explain;

I said Science is improved by the westerners with greed for the money.

You gave me the example of Gallileo to disprove me.

I also said that scientific approach is usurped from Muslims by the westerners.

You wanted to show me that how Christianity is different.

Now, here we are Christianity resisting scientific improvement and Islam encouraging it.

While the church prosecuting Gallileo, Muslims are improving medicine. Ibn Sina without being prosecited disecting cadavers while church considering this as witchcraft.

You were trying to disprove my argument about science being practiced for money with the motive of greed, but you proved my point that Christianity was completely different towards its approach to scientific approach.

Hence you approaved that Christians usurped modern scientific thinking from Muslims.

This is your "short term" reasoning. Very similar to Christian way of interpreting the Bible. For example when they interpret the term Parakletos as Holy Spirit they are bringing the issue that Jesus being God in flesh did not have any connection with Holy Spirit. Since Holy Spirit as parakletos should come LATER to fill the gap of Jesus. In other words three personalties of God Father, Holy Spirit and the WORD can not exist as a unity at a given time and space. This seperates Holy Spirit from Jesus irreconcilibly, especially after jesus continue to exist in his material form due to resurrection.

I am not going to go thorugh the history but I will give you an example;

One of the forums I was discussing the issue of people coming out of Christianity due to "Loving God aloowing wars" etc. and christians can not find an answer to this in their book. One of the participant, who kept on telling that she does not want to read the Qur'An because Qur'An is filling her heart with rage, told me that it is not the God but humans cause those mischief.

Now, this expression is a direct quote from the Qur'An. When I told her that what she is preaching as Christianity is actually Islam and she asked me the quote and I posted it. She did not write for a while and then came back with the same mindset.

So when I ask you for the evidence of how Christianity allegedly usurps Islam the best you can do is try and justify yourself with an anecdote about some random person you chatted to on the internet. Sorry mate but that just isn't good enough, try harder. I want evidence, references and facts - not the ramblings of some random internet person.

An example is an example. Our conversation about the science issue actually is enough. My example supports it.

I give the example of Kant, you say that he could have thought of himself. I gave the example of Ibn Rushd, you say one person example is not enough. I gave the example of Ibn Sina, you pretend as if I did not say anything. You know what, humans might have six fingers as well.

So you are Christian to the core and you do it by adapting Islamic values into Christianity or western culture by stripping them from Islam. That hardly makes you Islamic. That makes you at best wanna be Islamic.

Again I would like to know how exactly other people came along and "stole" Islam from the Muslims. And furthermore, what qualifies as Islam. It may well be that non-Muslim societies developed systems of ethics independently of the Muslims. In the case of Christianity, this seems particularly likely given that this religion arrived 6 centuries before Muhammad. Christian societies in Europe also had a vast body of biblical and Roman law to draw upon for ethics development. And this is without going into detail regarding the long evolution of the common law system in the British Isles.

How about women's rights then? I gave you three major examples including the attitude in this very forum.

The values outlined in the Qur'An and the values that conform, reconcile, adapt, agree with these values qualifies as Islamic values. The whole message of Qur'An qualifies as Islam.

I also said Muslims are more Christian than being Islamic.

But what qualifies in your mind as 'Islamic' and what qualifies as 'Christian'?

Truth qualifies as Islamic, flexing, bending, stretching distorting to squeeze the facts into a theology that is described as Trinitarian qualifies as Christian.

For example; if you ask a Christian about the holistic healrs and their success he will tell you that satan does healing as well. If you ask a Muslim he will tell you that knowledge belongs to Allah the one and only God and He gives that knowledge to everyone regardless Muslim or not. So according to Christians good only comes from Christians, accroding to Muslims good could come from anyone, even from an atheist.

If you want to go into details we should try another thread.

I answered above. Here just as an explanation, if one message comes after the other the last one would be valid since that would be the updated message. Why Allah does this is a whole different issue, I know you have an urge to go there so for now keept it to yourself.

You are again failing to answer my question. You claim Christianity is plagiarsing Islamic values. I asked you to provide evidence. To prove this you need to demonstrate to me that Christianity was very different before Islam came along. You then need to show me that Christianity underwent a huge metamorohisis and also demonstrate that this was caused by Islamic influence. If you can't do that then you clearly are unable to defend your claim, and so others are totally justified in dismissing it as being without basis..

Christians were prosecuting scientists and the example given by you in the persona of Gallileo Gallilei Muslims were encouraging scientific thought.

For that matter here is another name for you, Ibn Khaldun. This Muslim actually established the principals of Sociology, long before August Comte. Of course August Comte could have done it of his own since Christians prosecuted scientists. Interestingly for a long time westerners argued over whether sociology could be a positive science or not. While Muslim scientists decided about this centuries ago.

Now, of course, for you these are not enough. You want something like a patent which will prove Muslims did this prior to western world and westerners since they keep on repeating that August Comte is the founder of modern sociology they can not be the one's who usurped this from somewhere else.

Because, Muslims learn Islam from westerners.

Really? I was under the distinct impression that Muslims went to their local mosque to pray, received theological lectures from members of their own local communities or sometimes a special guest. They read a book written in Arabic, by Arabs, with additional reading also largely supplied by Arabs. Infact the most important book is claimed to be only truly properly understood when read in the Arabic original. This makes it tough as most Muslims are not Arabs, but most seem to get by.

I don't recall the last time westerners were revising religious texts, setting up television Islamic lectures and forming the core of today's Muslim intelligentsia. The only culture I see playing a disproportionately dominant role in Islam is the Arab one, which is unsurprising when one understands the early history of the spread of Islam. I would love to hear your theory on how westerners have come to teach Islam to the Muslims.

Just like the way you are trying to do now. Arabs are westerners. The term Arab does is not mentioned in the whole Qur'An not in once in a positive context. Yet, you still try to bring ARAB = MUSLIM issue.

Or this topic, as Musilm I am learning that Islam is "inherently violant" from Christians. Not only that I have to accept it even though I bring contrary arguments.

Do I have to mention that Muslims of today are under exterem economical pressure and they can not even reach their own sources while western sources are made extremely available. Even the internet serves for such prupose. There is more but i want to keep this post shorter

I did not say Muslim=Arab, so don't put words in my mouth. Go back and read what I wrote, I simply said that the culture with the most disproportionate large impact on Islamic affairs is the Arab culture. Do try and read more carefully next time, as it makes a person look silly when they try to defeat a contention that no one is arguing.

As for the rest of what you said, no one is claiming many in the Islamic world are having a hard time.

But you did say Muslims are being taught Islam by westerners. I have asked you to qualify this and you have provided no evidence here either. You excuse the shortness of your response, claiming there is more to say. Well then say it. Provide evidence to support your contention - because you have not done so. The argument you produced was almost totally unrelated to the point we were discussing..

First of all, I did not say that you say Arab = Muslim. I said; YOU ARE TRYING TO BRING THE ISSUE THERE. It is rather different, isn't it. So before accusing me not reading your posts well (you keep on doing this but apparently you do not read my posts carefully) try to understand what I am saying.

Second I keep on giving example including this forum. I gave another above and how about Sufism for example. Many Muslims learn this as "Islamic Mysticism" from westerners. The lates usurped version of this so called sufism (there is no such a thing by the way as sufism) under the name of "SECRET." It is very funny that there is word in Tasawwuf that could be translated as secret but it means something else which you westerners could not get yet. That's why secret come up as some knowledge "hidden" for centuries. Yet basically what it teaches is something known by even non "Mystical" Muslims; Allah's attributes.

I observe many Muslims try to learn about secret as if it is something different other than distorted understanding of "Don't think about the self of Allah because your mind can not grasp Him, rather think about His attributes." So now, we are learning Islam (rather part of Islam) from westerners under a different label.

Not enough? Want more? Just make research about the history of Kabbalism.

Immanuel Kant borrowed his reasoning after 800 years.

How do you know that Kant wasn't smart enough to figure that out without Al-Ghazali? The Aztecs managed to work out agriculture just fine without any influence from the Egyptians, Mesopotamians, Indus Valley peoples or the Chinese.

I am not against what you are saying. However, when ueropean enlitghtenment comes after they started to interact with Muslims, A reinnecance painters paints Ibn Rushd among the all time biggest thinkers, the Muslims accept europeans as people of the book and don't keep their knowledge under patent for europeans not to use them or PAY for them, and live not far apart each other unlike Aztecs living accross an ocean, Al-Ghazali coming years before Kant makes it more likely Kant adopt Al-Ghazali into his philosophy. Also given that westerns has the tendancy to adapt many things and present them as their own makes this even more likely. In 1980's French came up with "Nuovel Cuisine" which was an exact copy of Japanese kitchen. Even the dogs of westerners are Christian.

Actually the Byzantines fleeing the Turkish conquest did far more to encourage the Renaissance than the Islamic world. The Renaissance was essentially largely cultural rather than technological, the people of Europe became more independent of church control and rediscovered a huge wealth of Roman-Byzantine architecture, law, art and a range of other things. Quoting the name of one prominent Muslim thinker is not sufficient evidence that the Islamic world caused the Renaissance.

Al Ghazali living years before Kant in no way proves Kant plagiarised Al Ghazali. Plagiarism is an extremely serious allegation in scholarly circles and you either provide some evidence or you can keep your baseless and defamatory claims to yourself.

As for cuisine, everyone borrows from other cultures. Your little 1980s kitchen example doesn't prove a thing. In fact, Japanese culture has borrowed far more from the West than the West has borrowed from Japan. But that doesn't change the fact that the Japanese deserve credit for being highly innovative and original. The West also deserves such credit - especially as the geopolitical part of the world which has been far more innovative technologically than any other for the past 5 centuries..

.[/quote]

Byzantines could not do anything where they were already? Actually, you are dead wrong since byzantine Christianity is called Greek-Orthodox (which akholoutos belongs) and Orthodoxy is synonimous with conservative understanding of anything.

The effect of Ottomans was the geographic discoveries and this created a new social class called merchants, to share the social power along with clergy and the noble.

Alright, I am not gonna go into this history lesson if you are really up to it you should learn more about it so that we can move on in communication.

One figure? really? I keep on mentioning names Ibn Rush I said Ibn Sina I said along with Al-Ghazali. A suggestion for you just make a google search by typing "Kant. Al-Ghazali" And you will find many names. For that matter, the reasoning I am talking about was brought to its most advanced form by Al-Ghazali. The rest, one way or another could only learn from him, unless of course if you are not going to start to defend that knowledge of humanity does not improve cumulatively and the westerners discovered everything of their own in every generation by simply densifying their thought process.

Creation and discovery can happen independently more than once.

Can Happen and did happen are two different things. Al-Ghazlai writes a book "The incoherence of the Phylosophers." Ibn Rushd writes an answer to his book "Incoherence of incoherence." 800 years later Proudhon writes a book "Philosphy of poverty" Marx repsond to that "Poverty of Phylosophy." Even this give and take is copycat much less discovering something.

The titles of the European and Islamic books arent even all that similar. This is your proof of rampant plagiarism? Comparing the titles of three books? Again that simply is not good enough, and it is not proof of plagiarism. How about you quote excerpts from the books and compare them. If you can show excerpts between the books which are strikingly similar, then your plagiarism allegation might have some basis. Otherwise, what you have provided is simply so weak it deserves to be dismissed.

I am seriously beginning to think that you are having problems to understand what I am saying.

I am not talking about titles, I am talking about the mentality, the approach.

I think I am beginning to understand what kind of proof you are talking about. For example, Al-Ghazali, for Kant to adapt his ideas I have to bring a piece of paper Kant possesses with Al-Ghazali's finger prints on it. May I ask how old are you?

Today, Muslims learn that reasoning from and Kant, and try to prove themselves that Islam is rational under the heavey bombardment of Islam being violant and irrational. Why is this happening this way? Because west accept today's Wahhabis as Muslims. And they are the enemies of Al-Ghazali and others.

It is certainly a shame that this perception of Islam has set in after the 9/11 attacks and the subsequent smaller ones which followed (London tube, Spain, Bali). Our media industry has a lot to answer for with its scare-mongering.

No. the 9/11 is the result of this perception. Christian and western libraries are full books that themsleves are full of lies about how violant Muslims were and converted people into Islam by sword which is in itself contradictory since christians tried this with Inquisition and failed big time and proved that faith can not be spread by force. Then they usurp the idea that "There is no compulsion in religion." And never stopped accusing Muslims about this issue ever.

No, 9/11 was caused by a bunch of fanatical terrorists who wanted to kill a lot of Americans. The Spanish Inquisition has nothing to do with it, and you are only diverting attention away from an awful catastrophe by trying to compare it with something horrible that stopped happening 400 years ago.

9/11 was caused by the mutual effort of the politicians and multi national companies. After Communism threat is gone to keep the wstern public in order they needed to create a new enemy. Muslim terrorist as conecpt already there by the Jewish owned media. There is no clear evidence who committed the 9/11 acts.

"One of the more puzzling mysteries of 9-11 is what ever happened to the flight recorders of the two planes that hit the World Trade Center towers. Now it appears that they may not be missing at all...

All four of the devices were recovered from the two planes that hit the Pentagon and that crashed in rural Pennsylvania. In the case of American Airlines Flight 77, which hit the Pentagon, the FBI reports that the flight data recorder survived and had recoverable information, but the voice recorder was allegedly too damaged to provide any record. In the case of United Airlines Flight 93, which hit the ground at 500 mph in Pennsylvania, the situation was reversed: the voice recorder survived but the flight data box was allegedly damaged beyond recovery.

But the FBI states, and also reported to the 9-11 Commission, that none of the recording devices from the two planes that hit the World Trade Center were ever recovered.

There has always been some skepticism about this assertion, particularly as two N.Y. City firefighters, Mike Bellone and Nicholas De Masi, claimed in 2004 that they had found three of the four boxes, and that Federal agents took them and told the two men not to mention having found them. (The FBI denies the whole story.) Moreover, these devices are almost always located after crashes, even if not in useable condition (and the cleanup of the World Trade Center was meticulous, with even tiny bone fragments and bits of human tissue being discovered so that almost all the victims were ultimately identified). As Ted Lopatkiewicz, director of public affairs at the National Transportation Safety Agency which has the job of analyzing the boxes' data, says, "It's very unusual not to find a recorder after a crash, although it's also very unusual to have jets flying into buildings."" (Dave Lindorff)

So, how can you say with your mind at ease that these acts were committed by a bunch of mad men. Do you have a proof for that? A proof similar to the one that you keep asking from me?

And this is also typical; multi standardedness. You have all the right to ask for proof the way you want them to be but we have to accept what you say as truth since you are a white skinned westerner.

When ever I start to speak with a westerner I see that they are in big ignorance about Islam and how the western culture usurped Islam thorugh the centuries. Modern sceintific thought originates to Muslims for example. You mat ask then why Muslims could not improve science instead of westerners. The answer is simple; because Muslims never considered science as money making tool, especially backed with a capitalist economy. Today sceince is about making money. Drug companies make researches with huge money not to cure patients but to treat them so that people should be depending on their products. That did not happen when Muslims were improving science.

Your reasoning is flawed. Gallileo faced the prospect of being burnt at the stake for announcing his findings regarding the solar system, luckily he avoided it. And how much money was he paid for his troubles?

Now, your reasoning flawed, you already said that Christianity and Judaism are more likely have similar values with Islam. Why what happened to Gallileo did not happen to anyone in Islam, say to Ibn Sina? He cut cadavers played with the dead people's bodies which was witchcraft in eurpoe when he did those things. Unless there is/was a huge value difference this issue could not even have come to as an issue, right ???

The point we were discussing was patenting and capitalism in relation to science. You claimed westerners have such advanced science because they are greedy capitalists. I made the point that many westerners were not compensated for their troubles early on and often had to fight quite hard to gain acceptance for their ideas. You have now diverted from our point and wish to talk again about value systems. So I must conclude that you accept my claim that non-Muslims often did have significant non-monetary interest in advancing scientifically.

I explained at the very beginning of this post; the point we are discussing is regardless to you nullify a thing you say with something you say later within the same post.

Regarding value systems, I simply claimed it was not surprising the three Abrahamic religions should share some core values. I didn't say they were identicial or that big differences did not exist. Because there are other influences on how a society behaves (politics, secular culture, economics) than just religion.

Then at least you agree that there are/were differences in practice. I claim Islam changed christian practice (to the least). If you say no you have to bring proof for that. I brought my arguments.

Through most of history most inventors in the west could expect fairly low levels of reward for their hard work. The real drive to reward genius began in the industrial revolution. America especially created strict patenting laws to maximise the amount an inventor could earn for their contribution.

Patenting is about monopilizing the wealth and information. Do you really think that poeple other than westerners are incapable of technological development or keep up with it? What is holding them? When America helped Japanese to invest in car industry Japanese started to make the best cars in the world. Westerners now are scared perhaps Arabs might make even better cars so they keep them in line with patent laws.

I never said people other than Westerners are incapable of economic development, so stop putting words in my mouth.

Patenting encourages designers and inventors to create a product, because they will be compensated for it. If patenting causes a society to become starved of knowledge, how do you explain the technological advancement of the West? Where patenting was so strongly enforced.

As for the Arabs making cars, how exactly is the West stopping them? Arab engineers know perfectly well how a car is designed and runs, so your theory that Westerners are somehow keeping these poor Arabs down with patenting laws is just silly. The reason Arabs don't make as many cars as the Japanese is they have oil - the Japanese have meagre natural resources and must compensate for that with a highly disciplined and technologically advanced workforce; the exact workforce which is ideal for efficient creation of autmobiles. Even India today is making their own ultra cheap cars to capture a niche in the market, and they had no help from the USA.

So Arabs have oil, how about Algerians? Palestinians (ooops! sorry they don;t evenb have land after all? or how about Iranians? Why Iranians using atomic power is an issue?

As I said I wnat to keep this post short so one last thing about alcohol.

If you want to drink and get oozy knock yourself out I gave my advice.

I am a conscious being and I am happy about it since that makes me human. I don't need any catalist or agent to feel good or to socialize such as alcohol. because what make me human is to be able to do these without the help of an agent. cutting short if you want to get rid of your conscious to feel good or socialize go for it, I would not dehuminize myself like that.

As I said, I don't want to knock myself out, just relax and enjoy the conviviality of responsibly consumed alcohol every one in a while.

I am a conscious being too, and still am one after a couple of drinks.

Are you a doctor? Or have you actually consumed alcohol over a significant period of time? Because if the answer to those questions is 'no' - then you aren't really qualified to be giving me medical advice. Having questioned my GP on my alcohol consumption habits, he told me that they are entirely healthy and will not result in any danger or impairment to myself.

The only one dehumanising themself is you. By arrogating yourself an air of sanctimonious 'holier than thou' attitude. Drinking responsibly is no less natural (or dehumanising) than having a cup of coffee or a high sugar treat. But I see you are in the habit of forming bold judgements on subjects you know little about, and can't produce evidence for. So as a gentleman I must excuse you, as I can see it will take you quite a bit of effort to reform such a deeply entrenched bad habit - Cheers!

Look, you better read my post carefully. I am not only talking about "getting drunk" I am also talking about "using alcohol as a catalyst "to enjoy life" "to socialize" "to feel good" etc. as a human being who is conscious and aware to be in need of such a catalyts is declaration of not being happy about the "human condition."

So, drinking responsibly is irrelevant. It is similar to say that using heroine or morphine responsibly.

According to Qur'An Khamr (veiling subtances) has benefits but also has harmful side. And the harmful side is greater than the benefitful side. Because of the harmful effects we should avoid them COMPLETELY.

As for my experience most likely I know about this issue a lot more than your GP by experience and by schooling about it. Tell your GP that even one single drop of alcohol (unless very low concentration less than 0.1% ) is harmfull, i.e. the moment you feel the effect of alcohol this means you ingested enough to give harm to your body.

Anyway just as I said whether you block your conscious out or just feel a "nice buzz" it does not make you more alert hence you can not expreience anything 100% to enjoy it fully as a human being. If you want to enjoy life as a conscious being you have to be sober and aware of each and every moment of it. Even this is not enough most of the time. So, if you want to drink go for it.

Me arrogating myself by bringing logical and meaningful explanations to what I say and why I say to you. So be it then I gave you a sound advice you arrogated yourself with a wink. Then you did not deny your legacy being a westerner and you got angry when challenged and actually proven wrong. That's exactly what I am talking about. Because you will never say that "you are right I am wrong" If necessary you will cover up what I say and one day in the future you come up as if you thought of these and will try to defend these to me. TYPICAL.

Originally posted by Constantine XI

Ok after a very enjoyable weekend (in which alcohol was consumed in liberal quantities

), it is time to continue with this discussion (which I must apologise for having strayed so far from the original topic.

Originally posted by fascinated

Now, your response is one of the perfect example of what I call "Christian reasoning." This type of reasoning deal with the immediate and can not see a wider picture. While crticising my post you manage to answer the immediate without considering that you are causing another problem at another point. This is very similar the way Christians do their exegesis of the Bible.

Frankly I don't see why this religious group (of which I am not a member) should be portrayed as somehow less capable of long term conceptual tasks than others. Secondly if you want to demonstrate that my reasoning is so short term you will have to specifically say where.

You really are not aware what you did even if I showed you. This is really amazing. OK I will explain;

I said Science is improved by the westerners with greed for the money.

You gave me the example of Gallileo to disprove me.

I also said that scientific approach is usurped from Muslims by the westerners.

You wanted to show me that how Christianity is different.

Now, here we are Christianity resisting scientific improvement and Islam encouraging it.

While the church prosecuting Gallileo, Muslims are improving medicine. Ibn Sina without being prosecited disecting cadavers while church considering this as witchcraft.

You were trying to disprove my argument about science being practiced for money with the motive of greed, but you proved my point that Christianity was completely different towards its approach to scientific approach.

Hence you approaved that Christians usurped modern scientific thinking from Muslims.

This is your "short term" reasoning. Very similar to Christian way of interpreting the Bible. For example when they interpret the term Parakletos as Holy Spirit they are bringing the issue that Jesus being God in flesh did not have any connection with Holy Spirit. Since Holy Spirit as parakletos should come LATER to fill the gap of Jesus. In other words three personalties of God Father, Holy Spirit and the WORD can not exist as a unity at a given time and space. This seperates Holy Spirit from Jesus irreconcilibly, especially after jesus continue to exist in his material form due to resurrection.

Laughable. You completely avoided qualifying your claim that somehow Christians are less capable of long term planning than other people. You threw in a completely irrelevant reference to the trinity also. Just because you can type words into a keyboard, that doesn't make your answer persuasive. You are obviously really struggling to justify your whole "my heritage is the greatest and everyone else is evil and in a big bad conspiracy against my people who are the best people ever" mentality.

I am not going to go thorugh the history but I will give you an example;

One of the forums I was discussing the issue of people coming out of Christianity due to "Loving God aloowing wars" etc. and christians can not find an answer to this in their book. One of the participant, who kept on telling that she does not want to read the Qur'An because Qur'An is filling her heart with rage, told me that it is not the God but humans cause those mischief.

Now, this expression is a direct quote from the Qur'An. When I told her that what she is preaching as Christianity is actually Islam and she asked me the quote and I posted it. She did not write for a while and then came back with the same mindset.

So when I ask you for the evidence of how Christianity allegedly usurps Islam the best you can do is try and justify yourself with an anecdote about some random person you chatted to on the internet. Sorry mate but that just isn't good enough, try harder. I want evidence, references and facts - not the ramblings of some random internet person.

An example is an example. Our conversation about the science issue actually is enough. My example supports it.

I give the example of Kant, you say that he could have thought of himself. I gave the example of Ibn Rushd, you say one person example is not enough. I gave the example of Ibn Sina, you pretend as if I did not say anything. You know what, humans might have six fingers as well.

Your example of the random internet person proves nothing and should be dismissed. Your other examples also prove nothing, as you make baseless assumptions about them. When I ask you for proof, you give me stuff that isn't evidence at all. As I said you are clearly getting desperate to prove your theory. Perhaps for your next argument you will prove to me that Mars is inhabited by quoting something your librarian said?

So you are Christian to the core and you do it by adapting Islamic values into Christianity or western culture by stripping them from Islam. That hardly makes you Islamic. That makes you at best wanna be Islamic.

Again I would like to know how exactly other people came along and "stole" Islam from the Muslims. And furthermore, what qualifies as Islam. It may well be that non-Muslim societies developed systems of ethics independently of the Muslims. In the case of Christianity, this seems particularly likely given that this religion arrived 6 centuries before Muhammad. Christian societies in Europe also had a vast body of biblical and Roman law to draw upon for ethics development. And this is without going into detail regarding the long evolution of the common law system in the British Isles.

How about women's rights then? I gave you three major examples including the attitude in this very forum.

Did you? What ones? And how do these qualify your claim that westerners 'stole' from the Islamic world? I think you are just making stuff up frankly.

The values outlined in the Qur'An and the values that conform, reconcile, adapt, agree with these values qualifies as Islamic values. The whole message of Qur'An qualifies as Islam.

I also said Muslims are more Christian than being Islamic.

But what qualifies in your mind as 'Islamic' and what qualifies as 'Christian'?

Truth qualifies as Islamic, flexing, bending, stretching distorting to squeeze the facts into a theology that is described as Trinitarian qualifies as Christian.

For example; if you ask a Christian about the holistic healrs and their success he will tell you that satan does healing as well. If you ask a Muslim he will tell you that knowledge belongs to Allah the one and only God and He gives that knowledge to everyone regardless Muslim or not. So according to Christians good only comes from Christians, accroding to Muslims good could come from anyone, even from an atheist.

If you want to go into details we should try another thread.

Your reasoning is childish. So in other words, Muslim = super wonderful good, and Christian = deeply cruelly evil? Get a life buddy, your bias and inability to reason impartially is so obvious that as a real scholar I refuse to make another reply to you after this post. You simply are so devoid of the intelligence, critical thinking, rational reasoning, and evidenced argument methods of a true intellectual that for me to even continue talking to you is an act of intellectual charity in the extreme which is totally unjustified.

I answered above. Here just as an explanation, if one message comes after the other the last one would be valid since that would be the updated message. Why Allah does this is a whole different issue, I know you have an urge to go there so for now keept it to yourself.

You are again failing to answer my question. You claim Christianity is plagiarsing Islamic values. I asked you to provide evidence. To prove this you need to demonstrate to me that Christianity was very different before Islam came along. You then need to show me that Christianity underwent a huge metamorohisis and also demonstrate that this was caused by Islamic influence. If you can't do that then you clearly are unable to defend your claim, and so others are totally justified in dismissing it as being without basis..

Christians were prosecuting scientists and the example given by you in the persona of Gallileo Gallilei Muslims were encouraging scientific thought.

For that matter here is another name for you, Ibn Khaldun. This Muslim actually established the principals of Sociology, long before August Comte. Of course August Comte could have done it of his own since Christians prosecuted scientists. Interestingly for a long time westerners argued over whether sociology could be a positive science or not. While Muslim scientists decided about this centuries ago.

Now, of course, for you these are not enough. You want something like a patent which will prove Muslims did this prior to western world and westerners since they keep on repeating that August Comte is the founder of modern sociology they can not be the one's who usurped this from somewhere else.

Another attempt by you to qualify your argument with a pathetic example. Ibn Kaldun did not invent sociology. A much better candidate for that is Aristotle. And since Aristotle lived nearly two thousand years before Ibn Kaldun, by your reasoning the Muslims actually stole sociology from Westerners.

I hope you can see through this example how obviously flawed your reasoning is.