Live data from Hacker News

Al-Jazari

en.wikipedia.org

101–110 of 127 posts

Re: Al-Jazari

#101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like they have been going for the last 700 years. Which makes me feel that the feelings of pride my Muslim friends feel are unjustified as they have very little in common with the world that made al-Jazari. Or perhaps more importantly, the rest of the world has advanced in 700 years, but they have staid behind.

Generally, I don't completely get why do humans feel pride for things they didn't have anything to do with? Probably has something to do with ego.

“Nationalism teaches you take pride in shit you haven’t done and hate people you’ve never met.”

You can probably substitute any us-and-them term for “nationalism”.

Re: Al-Jazari

#102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know what, it is. Also, Mohammad was a misogynist pedophile warlord. Ideas from medieval ages have no place in the 21st century. (Down-votes from PC folks welcome)

"Please don't bait other users by inviting them to downmod you." "Please avoid introducing classic flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say about them." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html (Interesting that your only other comment on this profile was a suggestion to someone else to read the guidelines.)

Interesting that his only other comment on that profile was also a reply to a comment of mine.

Re: Al-Jazari

#103
post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To use strokes so broad that any historian would like to harm me... what happened was basically that the Islamic world came up against the Crusades, and with Catholics murdering them with terrible savagery, they decided to seal themselves off from the world. And in that seclusion they missed out on the most important development in human history - The Enlightenment. Possible the greatest achievement of The Enlightenm…

How was it possible for them to seal themselves from outside world where they controlled territory much bigger than Europe? I cannot agree with your attribution of Islam turn to itself to Crusades. I think that it is an inherent property of Islam. The only science allowed is one that prove existence of Allah. As most sciences are not concerned with existence of Allah, they gradually get shut down and only theology re…

So I have studied this stuff a great deal, and I am a convert (for full disclosure).

Beyond your biased opinion, I would love to see examples specific to Islam (which is casting quite a wide net; I am fairly controversail in arguing that Islam is not a uniform religion and no "Muslim" culture, notice I did not say Islamic, is not the same, not even during the Crusades).

I would say more accurately, as I have seen in my childhood and young adulthood in the US, that all science and knowledge-building is co-opted for political purposes, and religion is one of them, and perhaps the most common and obvious. This true of any socio-political movement, religion or not.

See global warming, abortion, stem-cell research, gay marriage. Frequently a vocal minority of US society (which is, if you want to go with your unified bloc mindset, a Christian majoirty country) says that facts conflict with what they devine from God's message, and it is wrong, regardless of scientific endeavor involved. Does that mean all American culture, and all Western culture denies scientific progress because God says so? Of course not. They are minority groups of, in my biased opinion, idiots who drag society, all of it, down.

I point this out because I, in my short life, have seen people paint Islam with a brush that is really a reflection of the elements of their own society they are oblivious to. And this is not a comment about you in particular, but all people. It is trend. So I say, rhetorically, look in the mirror. Islam is foreign to you and these kinds of observations, sadly, are you seeing yourself in high contrast because of the foreigness in your face. Sorry.

Re: Al-Jazari

#104
post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To use strokes so broad that any historian would like to harm me... what happened was basically that the Islamic world came up against the Crusades, and with Catholics murdering them with terrible savagery, they decided to seal themselves off from the world. And in that seclusion they missed out on the most important development in human history - The Enlightenment. Possible the greatest achievement of The Enlightenm…

How was it possible for them to seal themselves from outside world where they controlled territory much bigger than Europe? I cannot agree with your attribution of Islam turn to itself to Crusades. I think that it is an inherent property of Islam. The only science allowed is one that prove existence of Allah. As most sciences are not concerned with existence of Allah, they gradually get shut down and only theology re…

Not really. The existence of God is a given. Science does nothing to prove or disprove His existence and probably never will. We are constrained after all by the limits of our universe. The purpose of science then is to help reveal the meaning of the Qur'an, (and the other religious texts) and by extension man's purpose.

So if we now know, for example, that the world was not created in 7 days, then what is it actually that the creation myth is trying to tell us? Moslem scientists were not afraid of these contradictions, they looked forward to them.

I'd say that what you're describing is a relatively recent western phenomenon. At some point western Christians fell into the trap of interpreting the Bible literally, and I think it's become an unwelcome distraction in recent times.

Re: Al-Jazari

#105
post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To use strokes so broad that any historian would like to harm me... what happened was basically that the Islamic world came up against the Crusades, and with Catholics murdering them with terrible savagery, they decided to seal themselves off from the world. And in that seclusion they missed out on the most important development in human history - The Enlightenment. Possible the greatest achievement of The Enlightenm…

The Enlightenment is a direct consequence of the Protestant Reformation that preceded it a few centuries prior. The key ideas of Protestantism was that faith should be a) based on reason and b) involve a direct communion with God, without intervening priests, ritual or hierarchy. If this sounds appealing to you, you are basically a Protestant, possibly a post-God Protestant aka "atheist"/"agnostic"/"secular". In Cath…

I think that you're describing a history that is very peculiar to the west. I don't think other faiths (even other Christian denominations) have this problem.

Re: Al-Jazari

#106
post #104
post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How was it possible for them to seal themselves from outside world where they controlled territory much bigger than Europe? I cannot agree with your attribution of Islam turn to itself to Crusades. I think that it is an inherent property of Islam. The only science allowed is one that prove existence of Allah. As most sciences are not concerned with existence of Allah, they gradually get shut down and only theology re…

Not really. The existence of God is a given. Science does nothing to prove or disprove His existence and probably never will. We are constrained after all by the limits of our universe. The purpose of science then is to help reveal the meaning of the Qur'an, (and the other religious texts) and by extension man's purpose. So if we now know, for example, that the world was not created in 7 days, then what is it actuall…

> The existence of God is a given. Science does nothing to prove or disprove His existence and probably never will.

That completely depends on what you define "God" to be. If you define "God" to be the being named as such described in the Quran then scientific knowledge most definitely contradicts with that.

> So if we now know, for example, that the world was not created in 7 days, then what is it actually that the creation myth is trying to tell us?

The problem is that the "What is it actually that the creation myth is trying to tell us?" is a textbook begging the question fallacy. The same fallacy that underlies all of the pseudoscience done under the theology umbrella. It is the wrong question to ask. Critical thinkers (which is a superset of scientists) should instead ponder the question "is the creation myth trying to tell us something in the first place?". Unfortunately, pondering that question is dangerous and answering it with "no" implies apostasy under nearly all religions. And every school of Islam teaches apostasy means death. I think that really does make Islam particularly unfit for being a good reference frame from which to openly engage in critical thinking. Note that nearly all forms of religion have a tendency to oppose critical thinking, but Islam has the additional problem of the threat of death.

Re: Al-Jazari

#107
post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point isn't that there are many non-Muslim Arab scholars, it's that a lot of the greatest Muslim scholars at the time weren't actually of Arab origin. e.g. Ibn Sina and Al-Ghazali were both of Persian origin (although the lingua franca was Arabic). Islam was the catalyst of change in the 7th century, I don't see how that could be denied. Yes, it was predominately Arabs that brought it outside the Peninsula but the…

"As such, they stated (against the laws of Islam) that non-Arab converts to Islam still need to pay the same amount as they were paying before they embraced Islam. Naturally, this led to a lot of resentment amongst the new non-Arab Muslims who would later support the Abbasid rebellion against the Umayyads." First the Jizya was not a Tax payed because they weren't Muslims. It was payed for everyone who didn't particip…

> First the Jizya was not a Tax payed because they weren't Muslims.

Not true.

See here:

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/304125/jizya

The additional clause or exemptions a "dhimmi" contract brings are explained here, including the exemption from military service.

Please note the clear difference between the above and the below versions.

Even then, it should be noted that "jizya" is enforced irrespective of if you own any assets or not. And failure to pay the same can lead to "refusal to pay Jizya by any non-Muslim subject in a Muslim state was a capital crime, punished by his family's arrest and enslavement. The women and girls of an enslaved family would become property of a Muslim master and serve as house workers and female sex slaves. In some cases, the family could escape this punishment by converting to Islam"

It is incorrect to equate with your above analogy of passport fees etc., It's not as innocuous as you try to portray.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jizya

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jizya#Comparison_between_Zakat_...

Re: Al-Jazari

#108
post #103
post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How was it possible for them to seal themselves from outside world where they controlled territory much bigger than Europe? I cannot agree with your attribution of Islam turn to itself to Crusades. I think that it is an inherent property of Islam. The only science allowed is one that prove existence of Allah. As most sciences are not concerned with existence of Allah, they gradually get shut down and only theology re…

So I have studied this stuff a great deal, and I am a convert (for full disclosure). Beyond your biased opinion, I would love to see examples specific to Islam (which is casting quite a wide net; I am fairly controversail in arguing that Islam is not a uniform religion and no "Muslim" culture, notice I did not say Islamic, is not the same, not even during the Crusades). I would say more accurately, as I have seen in…

> I point this out because I, in my short life, have seen people paint Islam with a brush that is really a reflection of the elements of their own society they are oblivious to. And this is not a comment about you in particular, but all people. It is trend. So I say, rhetorically, look in the mirror. Islam is foreign to you and these kinds of observations, sadly, are you seeing yourself in high contrast because of the foreigness in your face. Sorry.

Don't try to paint criticism of Islam as irrational, because that is what you seem to be attempting here. Claiming that criticism of Islam happens because it is "unfamiliar" or "foreign" avoids proper discussion. You have minced your words, sure, but you are still calling people ignorant. And calling people ignorant without backing up that claim is incredibly rude. It is the exact same justification that underlies people screaming "Islamophobia" at legitimate criticism.

Let me identify a number of problems in your argument. It is an unfair comparison. You are taking United States society as an example of western culture - but you'd have to be looking much harder to find problems of similar magnitude in many European countries or even some east Asian countries.

Secondly, you assume that people do not criticize the idiots in their own society. This is so incredibly false that it almost feels insulting.

Thirdly, you somehow equate the idiocy that happens within "Western" society to the idiocy that happens in "Islamic" society. The problem is that only very few idiots in Western society think that we should upturn society and live under early medieval law because their religion says so. This is much less of a fringe opinion in the "Islamic world" and even among Muslims in the Western world.

Lastly, because Western society also has its fair share of problems does not disallow anyone from identifying problems in other societies. Hypocrisy or even claimed biases, despite being bad intentions, do not make the arguments made bad arguments by themselves. You still have to show a hypocrite or a biased person to be wrong after you have made an ad hominem about their intentions (justified or not).

If a Westerner identifies problems within the "Islamic world" argue with him or her based on facts, and please do not be rude and attribute it to ignorance. If such criticism is truly ignorant, presenting facts should make enough of a difference. Imagine identifying problems in African societies and being called a racist for it.

Re: Al-Jazari

#109
post #108
post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So I have studied this stuff a great deal, and I am a convert (for full disclosure). Beyond your biased opinion, I would love to see examples specific to Islam (which is casting quite a wide net; I am fairly controversail in arguing that Islam is not a uniform religion and no "Muslim" culture, notice I did not say Islamic, is not the same, not even during the Crusades). I would say more accurately, as I have seen in…

> I point this out because I, in my short life, have seen people paint Islam with a brush that is really a reflection of the elements of their own society they are oblivious to. And this is not a comment about you in particular, but all people. It is trend. So I say, rhetorically, look in the mirror. Islam is foreign to you and these kinds of observations, sadly, are you seeing yourself in high contrast because of th…

> Don't try to paint criticism of Islam as irrational, because that is what you seem to be attempting here. Claiming that criticism of Islam happens because it is "unfamiliar" or "foreign" avoids proper discussion. You have minced your words, sure, but you are still calling people ignorant. And calling people ignorant without backing up that claim is incredibly rude. It is the exact same argument that underlies people screaming "Islamophobia" at legitimate criticism.

No, I did not say there is no such thing as "rational criticism of Islam." I quote your words because it depends on what you mean. Are there reasonable criticisms of Islam, not based in fear-mongering or stupid biases that largely based on political agendas? Of course there are. But again, to be fair, I do not think there is some rational method, in a scientific sense, that proves one element of any religion right or wrong. In my view (meaning this is me, trying to be objective), religion is not rational. There is no proof of God. There never will be one. You either believe in it or not, and looking for pseudo-science to get there is a fool's errand.

As for your secondary comment, I am not claiming he (the OP) is ignorant. I pointed out I, and all others, are guilty of frame of reference problems. The entire point of my response was what incited me to reply: the premise of the OP saying Islam does not encourage any science that does not support the notions of Allah and the tenets of the faith. My immediate response was: can you give proof of that? I showed examples how in American culture, outside of what many conceive to be Muslim (there are plenty of Muslim Americans, even if not a majority) science is co-opted and subjugated for an agenda. I would love to see a part of the world that does not have this problem. Later on, you mention Asia and Europe. Do you honestly believe, regardless of scale, that human endeavor does not see a repeat of this problem for a reason? I would have loved to meet the fathers of the European Enlightenment, because I am sure they would have a lot to say about this. If you disagree, that is fine. But if he were alive, Galileo would have loved to talk to you about how the Church ruined his life. Or how Turing eventually committed suicide because his contributions to society were not enough? Should we say Europe only tolerated science when it followed God, or positivist secularism? I think you would laugh at me.

Islam has problems. So do other religions. But if Islam has special religion status and special problems that proclude it from issues other religions avoided, I would love to hear them. I am not asking sarcastically. Try to explain them rationally. You will see how bleak that looks. I belive we have a name for that discipline though, it is anthropology. Humans are fun.

> First up, let me identify a number of problems in your argument. It is a false equivalence. You are taking United States society as an example of western culture - but you'd have to be looking much harder to find problems of similar magnitude in certain European countries or even some east Asian countries.

That is my point. I was giving counter-examples. And I doubt I would have to look very hard to find people biasing science in the name of religious politics in Europe, Asia, or Africa. This is not a localized phenomenon, and I have read one book (ironically in its Arabic translation), that goes into the phenomenon of why increased religiosity at the expense of other socio-cultural dynamics and why people embrace it. [1] I am not the only one who notices this stuff.

> Secondly, you assume that people do not criticize the idiots in their own society. This is so incredibly false that it almost feels insulting.

Take however you want. But if you said that idiot is an idiot because he is a moronic Christian, a rabid Jew, or terrorist Muslim, can you not see why slighting the individual for the group or vice versa was the source of my comment?

> Lastly, you somehow equate the idiocy that happens within "Western" society to the idiocy that happens in "Islamic" society. The problem is that only very few idiots in Western society think that we should upturn society and live under early medieval law because their religion says so. This is much less of a minority opinion in the "Islamic world" and even among Muslims in the Western world.

Case in point: there is no Islamic society. I encounter this viewpoint often. There is no Wetsern society. They are all societies that people decide to group together, or self-identify as. As someone on both sides of th line, I get it from all sides, politely or rudely, on a daily basis. And yes, in American society (if we want to falsely scope out that large for the sake of argument) there are definitely people who argue for such things, and they are on the fringe. Now, if you want to pretend the whole of Muslim society (and that is a lot of people, even the parts of it in the US) want to "live under early medieval law because their religion says so", I would love for you to show me where it says so. Lest you look ignorant, by your own definition, because I have yet to see a Quran citation from you. You can search many translations and present them to me. Everything outside of the Quran is irrelevant, and many Hadith are controversial. If you cannot provide me a quote beyond "because US news says so", you are proving my point. I am sure you are educated, but your bias shows. Shows me some facts or accept you have a bias, just like me and everyone else.

> If a Westerner identifies problems within the "Islamic world" argue with him or her based on facts, and please do not be rude and attribute it to ignorance. If such criticism is truly ignorant, presenting facts should make enough of a difference. Imagine identifying problems in African societies and being called a racist for it.

Trust me, the "Islamic World" has problems, but again, no one has shown me any problem to be unique to said world. Societies and cultures just stack and reorganize the same garbage elements of humanity.

You are not a racist, just misguided. I am misguided in a lot of stuff to, but dictating to me how the Islamic world is, as someone who lives in what you might traditionally consider this Islamic world, is the kind of insulting pejorative bullshit. It is why very needed help from "the West" goes unheeded. It is not the offer of help, guy. It is the tone of people like yourself who "know better" and are "not rude and ignorant, just know better than you and demand facts ironically I cannot provide."

I will not respond after this, because we are going down into a flame/troll scenario. But I hope you can accept both of us are right and wrong at the same time. I am confident you will not, but oh well.

[1] It is called Holy Ignorance. Sorry I had to go around looking for it on a bookshelf, couldn't find it, and my translation of the book's title into English was not good enough to find it on Amazon.

http://www.amazon.com/Holy-Ignorance-Religion-Culture-Columb...

Re: Al-Jazari

#110
By this point, most threads on anything vaguely arab have descended into flame wars and what not. I can't believe Hacker News has managed to keep the discussion (over 87%) civil. I am in awe.
Post reply on HN