Gunny's Thread on Religion

[Kalam]

Can you do me a favor? If you're going to use Arabic words in your posts, can you provide a translation? You might have called them fools, devils, naive, heretics, blasphemers, or any number of things here.

Yeah, my bad, I did that non-consciously. A mushrik is a person guilty of shirk, the association of anything physical with God or any belief in multiple gods. You'll probably see it rendered as "polytheist."

As do their.s, in the same sense. You both twist and interpret to gt the desired result. We've discussed in the past the fact that your interpretation is not literal, mainstream, the original, or otherwise demonstrably anything other than another case of people picking, choosing, and interpreting to get the desired result- just like modern neochristians, many sekt of Judaism, and both jihadist and 'revisionist' Muslims.

Ours is arguably one of the original interpretations; it has existed since the 8th century AD.

How so? That prophet was speaking of a singular deity. To claim that prophet is to claim the god of which that prophet spoke. You can disagree on the nature of that deity or whether another is correct in their understanding, but the dishonest one ios he who claims a prophet and then claim,s the prophet spoke of a god other than the prophet spoke of. El, YHWH, and Allah are all the same god, for they all claim the same prophets and therefor the one god that prophet spoke of is being claimed.

While the god itself may be technically the same, conceptions of God vary widely between Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, as well as within each religion. Simply stating that the same God is worshiped without acknowledging the significant theological differences between each religion is not accurate.

Islam is ultimately nothing more than a Jewish sekt who claims a prophet the other sekts deny and therefore have a different understanding if the God in which they believe. When they realize this, it will be possible for them to live in peace and understanding., It is the denial of this fact that has (among other factors) led to such bloodshed in the past, as they see eachother not as simply failing to understand or recognize a prophet of God, but of having the wrong god altogether. By distancing themzwelves and refusing to acknowledged that which they have in common, they are fueling the problems that have plagued the region for so long.

I harbor no enmity towards Jews or Judaism, nor am I unwilling to acknowledge what the two religions have in common. To claim that Islam is a Jewish sect, though, is wildly inaccurate.

You're confusing yourself. The same god and the same understanding thereof are not equal statements. One could argue than many christian sekts don't believe in the same understanding of God, despite sharing the same texts, prophets, and messiah.

Conceptions of God vary more distinctly between religions than they do within them, particularly between Judaism/Christianity and Islam.

As well as redefining the nature of God, who 'his people' are, and much of his nature. The outgrowth of Islam is not ultimately that different, despite many years of distancing one from the other.

The development of Islam was fundamentally different from the development of Christianity. Christianity is built on top of Judaism; Islam was constructed on a foundation of its own.

And my most Christians, who claim that 'God's People' are those who find him through the christ. You're no so different, if you are willing to see it.

Christians do so while ignoring the Bible and the admonition against preaching to Gentiles. Yes, there are some similarities. You may want to share your kumbaya message with Team Jesus here, though, rather than me, seeing as how they're the ones who find it necessary to repeatedly assure everyone that Islam and Christianity are nothing alike (because Islam is evil and Christianity is perfect.)

Which is almost exactly the same as the Christian tradition, which claims that the Jews lost God's favor and now the gentiles, as well, may find his favor through his son. Change 'son' to 'prophet' and you pretty much have what you have cited. All three traditions focus too much on their differences. That's a huge part of the problem.

It was Paul who acted against the teachings of the Messiah by preaching to gentiles. True Christianity was intended for the people of Israel and noone else. Islam was intended to be a religion for all types of people from its inception.

They make the exact same claims as you do.

They make the same claims about the bible, most especially Revelation and other prophesies. Heck, now they make that claim about Eden and the creation...

Yet are unable to support those claims, because their scripture does not tell them to interpret it non-literally.

-and the other half can be spun to support the opposite claim, and oft is. I'm sure we'll see this play out in my latest thread if we wait.

Cognitive dissonance at its finest, eh?

Thereby making your earlier statement meaningless.

If you say so.

 

[JBeukema]

anything physical with God or any belief in multiple gods[/B]. You'll probably see it rendered as "polytheist."

'Idolatry' sounds more accurate, if I'm understanding correctly. I find it interesting that Christians cite the 10 commandments, yet have crucifixes and crosses (graven images).

Ours is arguably one of the original interpretations; it has existed since the 8th century AD.

Over 150 years after Muhammad? How is that 'the original' in any sense? What about the interpretations and understandings in the first 150 years- let alone when Muhammad was alive? The 'original interpretation' is that of those who lived with Muhammad. Aisha and (I forget the name of her rival) can claim to b the two 'originals'. Your interpretation, you just said, came later and is therefore heresy if anything, comparable perhaps the the Gnostic Heresy that sprung up in the centuries after Jesus.

While the god itself may be technically the same, conceptions of God vary widely between Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, as well as within each religion.

That's what I said,. To say that Islam has a 'different' god is like saying Baptists and 7th Day Adventists have different gods. They worship the same god. They merely understand that god differently and disagree on who His prophets were. Surely, you would agree that focusing in the differences lends too the intolerance in the region and all would be wiser to focus on their shared beliefs and heritage, yes?

Simply stating that the same God is worshiped without acknowledging the significant theological differences between each religion is not accurate.

I've been saying this whole time that they have very different understandings of God and His will. It is you who was being inaccurate atr best by denying their shared heritage and faith and instead attempting the distance them form one another as much as possible and define them as wholly distinct faiths without recognizing their relations to eachother.

I harbor no enmity towards Jews or Judaism, nor am I unwilling to acknowledge what the two religions have in common. To claim that Islam is a Jewish sect, though, is wildly inaccurate.

They are as much a Jewish cult as Christianity is. Both grew out of Judaism and can ultimately trace their births to a disagreement over the nature of one character.

Judaism + no more prophets remains Judaism in all its denominations and sekts

Jews (and later gentiles) who recognized jesus as the Messiah became Christianity in all its forms

Jews who recognize Muhammad as God's prophet became Islam in all its forms

Each then split further as various theological and political disputes took place throughout history.

Conceptions of God vary more distinctly between religions than they do within them, particularly between Judaism/Christianity and Islam.

I disagree. Islam and Christianity both open the doors to gentiles, while Judaism in its truest form remains a strictly racist religion open only to the Israelites and their decedents. Judaism still keeps the Moseanic Covenent while both Christianity and Islam hold that living up to the old Law is near impossible and hold that men can still find mercy in the eyes of God despite their failings (though they disagree on how). If Christianity ignores its most insane fundamentalists and we look at Islam without the fanatical jihadist element (uin other words, look at the sane people on each side), they have much in common. If it weren't for extremists in both camps and the West's support of the Zionist occupation (itself a discriminatory concept that ignores the underlying issue of intolerance and instead set the stage for the ME conflict because Europe still didn't want to accept the Jews and found it easier to cater to the Jewish nationalists than to address the problems that led to the Holocaust in the first place), perhaps the two faiths could have been in harmony instead of engaged in this ideological conflict that had led to so much bloodshed and threatens to lead to more...

The development of Islam was fundamentally different from the development of Christianity. Christianity is built on top of Judaism; Islam was constructed on a foundation of its own.

I disagree on the second half of that. Christianity was built on top of Judaism whereas Islam sought to fix the foundation before building the house and declare the olld law corrupted so that they could, in a sense, start over. Christianity's approach has led to a number of internal contradictions and theological arguments attempting to reconcile the OT and the NT. Had Jesus merely declared the Moseanic Law corrupted or ended, Christianity might have made more sense.

Christians do so while ignoring the Bible and the admonition against preaching to Gentiles.

The Jesus character seems quite confused...

Kumba ya? Shit, if I had my way, they'd both disappear and Judaism with them... and pretty much every other religion

Buddhism can stay, though. They don't cause problems..

Yet are unable to support those claims, because their scripture does not tell them to interpret it non-literally.

the other side of that coin- spinning it in the other direction, it never says it's not allegory Accept, you know, for Jesus' claims of decent through David through a man not his father and a female whose lineage is traced through four women (one of whom lists no father) all known in the bible for being, well... whores, harlots, and sexual deviants..

 

[AllieBaba]

"Idolatry" is only idolatry if you worship the thing more than God. I've discussed this with pastors. For example, praying to Mary or graven images (the golden calf) is idolatry. Worshipping money can be idolatry. Being more enamored of intellect than God is idolatry.

But enjoying art in the form of symbolic references, that's not idolatry. Wearing jewelry which identifies you as a member of your faith is not idolatry, unless you're worshipping the crucifix or cross itself.

 

[JBeukema]

It says you shall not make for yourselves any graven images nor shall you bow down to or worship any graven image

Exodus

4 "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth nor in the waters below the earth. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand {generations} of those who love me and keep my commandments.


From Deuteronomy 4


15 You saw no form of any kind the day the LORD spoke to you at Horeb out of the fire. Therefore watch yourselves very carefully, 16 so that you do not become corrupt and make for yourselves an idol, an image of any shape...

 

[Kalam]

'Idolatry' sounds more accurate, if I'm understanding correctly. I find it interesting that Christians cite the 10 commandments, yet have crucifixes and crosses (graven images).

The Biblical God instructs his followers not to take any gods before him. Perhaps the worship of other subordinate deities is permissible under Mosaic law.

Over 150 years after Muhammad?

A bit under 100 years. Muhammad died in 632; Wasil ibn Ata was born in 700 CE.

How is that 'the original' in any sense? What about the interpretations and understandings in the first 150 years- let alone when Muhammad was alive? The 'original interpretation' is that of those who lived with Muhammad.

As recorded and preserved where? Islamic tradition as recorded in most hadith collections is of highly questionable accuracy. All 6 major Sunni hadith collections were compiled in the 9th century.

Aisha and (I forget the name of her rival) can claim to b the two 'originals'.

Aishah raised and led an army against Ali at Basra when he was kalifah. The dispute was purely political and had nothing to do with religion; Aishah wanted justice brought to the assassins of the previous kalifah, Uthman.

Your interpretation, you just said, came later and is therefore heresy if anything,

comparable perhaps the the Gnostic Heresy that sprung up in the centuries after Jesus.

Hardly. Gnosticism was syncretic and had little basis in scripture.

That's what I said,. To say that Islam has a 'different' god is like saying Baptists and 7th Day Adventists have different gods. They worship the same god. They merely understand that god differently and disagree on who His prophets were. Surely, you would agree that focusing in the differences lends too the intolerance in the region and all would be wiser to focus on their shared beliefs and heritage, yes?

Not if that involves inventing connections and "heritage" where there is none. You are exaggerating the extent to which Islam is based on Judaism. I'm willing to acknowledge what the religions actually do share.

I've been saying this whole time that they have very different understandings of God and His will. It is you who was being inaccurate atr best by denying their shared heritage and faith and instead attempting the distance them form one another as much as possible and define them as wholly distinct faiths without recognizing their relations to eachother.

In spite of what we share, we are wholly distinct religions. Islam is unlike any other religion or way of life.

They are as much a Jewish cult as Christianity is. Both grew out of Judaism and can ultimately trace their births to a disagreement over the nature of one character.

You make this statement out of ignorance. You'd do well to study Islamic scripture and early history if you're going to make claims such as this.

Judaism + no more prophets remains Judaism in all its denominations and sekts

Jews (and later gentiles) who recognized jesus as the Messiah became Christianity in all its forms

Jews who recognize Muhammad as God's prophet became Islam in all its forms

That's horribly inaccurate and oversimplified. The first Muslims were former pagans, not Jews. Their exposure to Judaism would have been limited, unlike the early Christians, who for the most part were Jews.

I disagree. Islam and Christianity both open the doors to gentiles, while Judaism in its truest form remains a strictly racist religion open only to the Israelites and their decedents.

Christianity in its true form would be the same. Islam, unlike Christianity and Judaism, was founded with the intention of having its message spread to all people, regardless of ethnicity.

Judaism still keeps the Moseanic Covenent while both Christianity and Islam hold that living up to the old Law is near impossible and hold that men can still find mercy in the eyes of God despite their failings (though they disagree on how).

Islam rejects Mosaic law on the basis that its source, the Bible, is fundamentally unreliable. We abide by our own Qur'anic system of laws and regulations.

If Christianity ignores its most insane fundamentalists and we look at Islam without the fanatical jihadist element (uin other words, look at the sane people on each side), they have much in common. If it weren't for extremists in both camps and the West's support of the Zionist occupation (itself a discriminatory concept that ignores the underlying issue of intolerance and instead set the stage for the ME conflict because Europe still didn't want to accept the Jews and found it easier to cater to the Jewish nationalists than to address the problems that led to the Holocaust in the first place), perhaps the two faiths could have been in harmony instead of engaged in this ideological conflict that had led to so much bloodshed and threatens to lead to more...

The conflict will fade away when the West ceases interfering in Israel as well as in the affairs of Muslim nations.

I disagree on the second half of that. Christianity was built on top of Judaism whereas Islam sought to fix the foundation before building the house and declare the olld law corrupted so that they could, in a sense, start over.

Which is really close enough to what I said, is it not?

Christianity's approach has led to a number of internal contradictions and theological arguments attempting to reconcile the OT and the NT. Had Jesus merely declared the Moseanic Law corrupted or ended, Christianity might have made more sense.

The Jesus character seems quite confused...

Kumba ya? Shit, if I had my way, they'd both disappear and Judaism with them... and pretty much every other religion

Buddhism can stay, though. They don't cause problems..

Burma.

the other side of that coin- spinning it in the other direction, it never says it's not allegory Accept, you know, for Jesus' claims of decent through David through a man not his father and a female whose lineage is traced through four women (one of whom lists no father) all known in the bible for being, well... whores, harlots, and sexual deviants..

As I said, the Bible seems indefensible.

 

[JBeukema]

As recorded and preserved where? Islamic tradition as recorded in most hadith collections is of highly questionable accuracy. All 6 major Sunni hadith collections were compiled in the 9th century.

In spite of what we share, we are wholly distinct religions. Islam is unlike any other religion or way of life.

Really? Islamic nations seem to be little different that the state of Isra-El described in the Jewish histories included in the Bible.

Islam, unlike Christianity and Judaism, was founded with the intention of having its message spread to all people, regardless of ethnicity.

The Bible states that it is for the gentiles. It claims that jesus let the gentiles in on salvation after the Jews failed repeatedly.

The conflict will fade away when the West ceases interfering in Israel as well as in the affairs of Muslim nations.

Not unless also the fundamentalists within Islam are silenced and pushed aside in favor of more reasonable persons. So long as the extremists are such a loud and domination minority, there will be no peace no matter what the West does, just as there will be no peace no matter what the Muslims do if the West doesn't stop interfering.

There is no party who can claim to still be innocent in this debacle.

Burma.

When was the Junta ever based in Buddhism?

As I said, the Bible seems indefensible.

When hae I ever attempted to defend it?

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

http://books.google.com/books?id=pj...sult&resnum=2#v=snippet&q= mu tazilah&f=false

 

[Kalam]

Really? Islamic nations seem to be little different that the state of Isra-El described in the Jewish histories included in the Bible.

I'd contend that a truly Islamic nation hasn't existed since 632. No nation that has honored Islam as its state religion is truly governed by shura, consultation, as specified in the Qur'an.

The Bible states that it is for the gentiles. It claims that jesus let the gentiles in on salvation after the Jews failed repeatedly.

If I recall correctly, Jesus himself said nothing to this effect. Rather, Peter and Paul defied the Messiah's instructions by preaching to the Gentiles and declaring the OT null and void. Their heresies were, hilariously enough, included in the Bible.

Not unless also the fundamentalists within Islam are silenced and pushed aside in favor of more reasonable persons. So long as the extremists are such a loud and domination minority, there will be no peace no matter what the West does, just as there will be no peace no matter what the Muslims do if the West doesn't stop interfering. There is no party who can claim to still be innocent in this debacle.

That's true, but you have to remember that most support for extremist ideologies is attributable to dissatisfaction with Western hegemony. The differences between so-called moderates and radicals in terms of religiosity and devotion to worship are negligible.

See: http://www.muslimwestfacts.com/mwf/File/109477/Mainstream_Extremist_Views.pdf

When was the Junta ever based in Buddhism?

I guess that was a poor example. That those who consider themselves Buddhists are responsible for religiously-motivated violence, though, is undeniable.

Sinhalese Buddhist nationalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

When hae I ever attempted to defend it?

I was agreeing with you.

 

[Kalam]

Moslem Schisms and Sects - Being the ... - Google Books

Troll (Internet) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[JBeukema]

I'd contend that a truly Islamic nation hasn't existed since 632. No nation that has honored Islam as its state religion is truly governed by shura, consultation, as specified in the Qur'an.

Doesn't sound like Shura is ev required, so much as merely approved. If it's only mentioned twice in the entirety of the Qu'ran, how important could it be? From what bit I've read, it seems to be yet another political split with little or no real basis in theological concerns. Much like Christianity, Islam quickly collapsed and fractured when its founder was gone. In this regard, it is like most entities of influence, from large businesses to political empires, which tend to experience great schisms during the power grab after a strong leader has passed.

If I recall correctly, Jesus himself said nothing to this effect.

Matthew 28:18-20

18And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

20Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.​

Interestingly, this is after the resurrection, rather than during his life when their would have been other people about.

That's true, but you have to remember that most support for extremist ideologies is attributable to dissatisfaction with Western hegemony.

Fundamentalist hatred for the West and Western hatred for Islam can be traced back at least to the Crusades and the wars over the Holy Land. Regardless of their political implications, they were dressed in religion, just like Constantine's unification of the fractured Roman empire under his neo-christian creation (now known as the 'Universal' Catholic church) and Muhammads bloody caravan raids (pillaging, thievery, and looting)

When was the Junta ever based in Buddhism?

I guess that was a poor example.

Yes. Yes, it was.

Sinhalese Buddhist nationalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

hmmm..

political ideology which combines a focus upon Sinhalese culture and ethnicity

Like saying the KKK acts out of their Christianity instead of their racism and xenophobia when they lynch a black man Even your source doesn't contend that they cite the teachings of Siddhartha Gautama as justification for their actions, unlike Jihadists citing the Qu'ran or how Christians easily can cite the bible.

Bad example, Kalam, bad example. The difference is that Abrahamists of all flavors can cite their holy book in support of their actions and claim to emulatte their mythological heroes. Buddhists can claim to emulate and can cite none of Siddhartha's recorded action sand must go against the teachings Buddhism in order to commit atrocities. If a 'Buddhist' is a piece of shit, that's on the individual. If an Abrahamist is a piece of shit, they act in accordance with their faith.

 

[BrianH]

There's a difference between religion and spitituality...the belief in God does not mean a belief in religion...

Good point as I fall under your description. I have a dislike for organized religion, i dont follow any one religion, but I have a strong belief in a higher power.

Im a big Karma guy too.

I don't necessarily dislike religon, I just don't particularly believe that I have to be "accepted" by a religion in order to be close with God. I believe that going to church is a good thing, I just don't feel like I need to become a member to here the word of God. IMO, we're all trying to get to the same place, we just do things a little differently. People get so mixed up in the specifics of it and forget the more important things. Sure, Catholics, Babtists, Lutherans, Methodists, Muslims, Jews, Non-Denominations do things differently and have different rules, but ultimately, they're trying to achieve the same objective--Going to Heaven.

Our military uses this logic...We ally with others that we have differing views with simply because they may have the same "objective" that we have.

And to respond to Avatar--I should have clarified "organized religion."

 

[Avatar4321]

I don't necessarily dislike religon, I just don't particularly believe that I have to be "accepted" by a religion in order to be close with God. I believe that going to church is a good thing, I just don't feel like I need to become a member to here the word of God. IMO, we're all trying to get to the same place, we just do things a little differently. People get so mixed up in the specifics of it and forget the more important things. Sure, Catholics, Babtists, Lutherans, Methodists, Muslims, Jews, Non-Denominations do things differently and have different rules, but ultimately, they're trying to achieve the same objective--Going to Heaven.

Our military uses this logic...We ally with others that we have differing views with simply because they may have the same "objective" that we have.

And to respond to Avatar--I should have clarified "organized religion."

Maybe that's half the problem. They have the wrong goal.

 

[Kalam]

Doesn't sound like Shura is ev required, so much as merely approved. If it's only mentioned twice in the entirety of the Qu'ran, how important could it be? From what bit I've read, it seems to be yet another political split with little or no real basis in theological concerns.

Nothing else concerning politics and governance is really mentioned in the Qur'an. Thus, any government that is truly rooted in Islam must go with what the Qur'an does say and base its rule on mutual consultation.

Much like Christianity, Islam quickly collapsed and fractured when its founder was gone.

To some extent, yes. In spite of some enmity between political and ideological factions, though, Islam was at the forefront of political power and scientific discovery for centuries.

In this regard, it is like most entities of influence, from large businesses to political empires, which tend to experience great schisms during the power grab after a strong leader has passed.

Perhaps.

Interestingly, this is after the resurrection, rather than during his life when their would have been other people about.

Sounds like it could be phony to me.

and Muhammads bloody caravan raids (pillaging, thievery, and looting)

Necessary raids carried out by Muslims against the very people who had oppressed them and deprived them of their livelihoods to begin with. In his position, I would have done exactly the same thing.

Yes. Yes, it was.

Enjoy it. It's a rare occurance.

hmmm..
political ideology which combines a focus upon Sinhalese culture and ethnicity

Sinhalese Buddhist nationalism has a fractious relationship with other religious communities like Christianity and Islam in Sri Lanka, with violent protests often being organized by Buddhist nationalist organizations against the perceived interference of Christians and Muslims in the country.

Sounds religiously motivated to me. Does it matter if their actions can be justified with scripture as long as their religion is a motivator? While Buddhism may not encourage violence, Buddhists are just as prone to it as everyone else.

Like saying the KKK acts out of their Christianity instead of their racism and xenophobia when they lynch a black man Even your source doesn't contend that they cite the teachings of Siddhartha Gautama as justification for their actions, unlike Jihadists citing the Qu'ran or how Christians easily can cite the bible.

Bad example, Kalam, bad example. The difference is that Abrahamists of all flavors can cite their holy book in support of their actions and claim to emulatte their mythological heroes. Buddhists can claim to emulate and can cite none of Siddhartha's recorded action sand must go against the teachings Buddhism in order to commit atrocities. If a 'Buddhist' is a piece of shit, that's on the individual. If an Abrahamist is a piece of shit, they act in accordance with their faith.

The only correct interpretation of "Abrahamist" teachings are those that motivate followers to act like pieces of shit? I'm afraid I disagree.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

, Islam was at the forefront of political power and scientific discovery for centuries.


.

Stealing other cultures accomplishment and claiming them in the name of allah is not an real accomplishment,
Islam created no real science.
Only in the west did alchemy become chemistry.
only in the west did astrology become astronomy.
only in the west did freedom become free enterprise.
Wherever Islam conquered science died, innovation died.
Muslims claimed accomplishments by cultures they conquered, they never innovated.

 

[Kalam]

Stealing other cultures accomplishment and claiming them in the name of allah is not an real accomplishment,
Islam created no real science.
Only in the west did alchemy become chemistry.
only in the west did astrology become astronomy.
only in the west did freedom become free enterprise.
Wherever Islam conquered science died, innovation died.
Muslims claimed accomplishments by cultures they conquered, they never innovated.

Muslims pioneered the scientific method of experimentation and most of the things you listed.

Muhammad ibn Jābir al-Harrānī al-Battānī - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"One of his best-known achievements in astronomy was the determination of the solar year as being 365 days, 5 hours, 46 minutes and 24 seconds.

...

"His work, the Zij influenced great European astronomers like Tycho Brahe, Johannes Kepler, etc. Nicholas Copernicus repeated what Al-Battani worte nearly 700 years before him as the Zij was translated into Latin thrice."​

Geber - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jabir is mostly renowned for his contributions to chemistry. He emphasised systematic experimentation, and did much to free alchemy from superstition and turn it into a science. He is credited with the invention of over twenty types of now-basic chemical laboratory equipment, such as the alembic and retort, and with the discovery and description of many now-commonplace chemical substances and processes – such as the hydrochloric and nitric acids, distillation, and crystallisation – that have become the foundation of today's chemistry and chemical engineering.​

Al-Kindi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As an advanced chemist, al-Kindi was the first to oppose the practice of alchemy; he debunked the myth that simple, base metals could be transformed into precious metals such as gold or silver. He wrote two treatises on the refutation of alchemy: Warning against the Deceptions of the Alchemists and Refutation of the Claim of Those Who Claim the Artificial Fabrication of Gold and Silver.​

Furthermore, please demonstrate that all of this was "stolen":

Inventions of the Islamic Golden Age - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Downplaying the accomplishments of men infinitely more intelligent than you? Bad form. Admitting that you're a moron would be appropriate at this time.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Just list the Islamic periodic chart of the elements.
What muslim discovered gravity?
Fatwa.

Q
Does gravity exist or is it made up?
A
We do not understand your question as everything existing is made up.
And Allah Ta'ala Knows Best

Mufti Ebrahim Desai
FATWA DEPT.

 

[gautama]

As I stated some time ago:

Replace all this religious bullshit with just one sentence:

"Do unto as you would have them do unto you."

And, if y'all are not fucking masochists then everything will be honky-dory.

But no......you religious freaks want the Heaven, Hell, and Divinityy crap.

And then, as History shows from the begining of Mankind, you fucks slaugter each other in the name of your wonderful "religions"

 

[Avatar4321]

As I stated some time ago:

Replace all this religious bullshit with just one sentence:

"Do unto as you would have them do unto you."

And, if y'all are not fucking masochists then everything will be honky-dory.

But no......you religious freaks want the Heaven, Hell, and Divinityy crap.

And then, as History shows from the begining of Mankind, you fucks slaugter each other in the name of your wonderful "religions"

We simply want the truth. We arent prepared to just announce that no one can know and declare that everyone should listen to our uninformed opinion.

But then that requires sacrifice. It requires that we go to God in humility and a Spirit of Repentence so that we can learn from Him. Its not something everyone is prepared to do. But anyone who is can do and get answers.

 

[Kalam]

Replace all this religious bullshit with just one sentence:

"Do unto as you would have them do unto you."

The ethic of reciprocity is already present in nearly every religion.

 

[Kalam]

Just list the Islamic periodic chart of the elements.
What muslim discovered gravity?
Fatwa.

Q
Does gravity exist or is it made up?
A
We do not understand your question as everything existing is made up.
And Allah Ta'ala Knows Best

Mufti Ebrahim Desai
FATWA DEPT.

When confronted with factual information, do you always respond nonsensically?