Leauki Leauki

Science and Maths in Islamic Countries

Science and Maths in Islamic Countries

In the past

(This is a reply to a question asked in the comments section of a previous article about Creationism. Question asked was about examples of scientific research in Islamic countries in the past.)

I am neither a religious scholar nor an expert on Islamic history. :-)

But I do know the word "algebra" comes from Arabic and comes to us via a book written in Islamic Persia over a thousands years ago that describes algebra (as we know it).

Similarly the word "algorithm" is based on the name of another Islamic (Persian?) scholar who wrote a book about using Indian numerals (0123456789).

In fact, almost all of our mathematics (which is not technically a science, I assume) is based on research done in the Muslim world a thousand years ago, which is why we still read and write numbers right-to-left.



Don't believe me? Try these experiments:

Read the following word (spaces between letters are for effect), letter by letter. Hold a hand over the letters you are not yet reading:

C O M P U T E R

Notice how you read it from left-to-right, just like English (and the Latin alphabet) is supposed to be read?

Stay with me, I am coming to a point. Read the next word, from left-to-right:

M A T H E M A T I C S

It works again. Not try both words from right-to-left.

It doesn't work. Apparently English is read from left-to-right. We knew that.

Now try numbers. Using the same method, read the following number from left-to-right:

3 1 4 1 5 9 2 6 5 4

Yes. There is no decimal point in the number. They came later.

Can't tell what the value of the number is? Is it millions? Tens of millions? Hundreds of millions? Billions?

Something doesn't work here.

Try reading the number again, this time start on the right. You know what each digit means because of its position relative to the right side of the number.

3 1 4 1 5 9 2 6 5 4

Now you know if its 3 billions and something or not.

Reading the number from right-to-left works, from left-to-right does not.

Now use these two numbers:

3 1 4 1 5

9 2 6 5 4

And add them up. You can write them down (since you are copying them either right-to-left and left-to-right will work) and write the result under them, under a line, like this:


  3 1 4 1 5

  9 2 6 5 4

-----------

1 2 4 0 6 9

Did you find yourself writing the result from right-to-left?

Do you notice how our number system, which we got from Arabic-speaking Muslims, follows the direction of Arabic (and Hebrew) writing rather than Latin (and Greek) writing?

Now, Roman numerals are written and read from left-to-right, like Latin (and English) text:

M M V I I I

Although, since in contrast to words and Arab numerals the positions are not important, you can also read it right-to-left (or from the inside out, if you make sure to start at a good position).

In modern Hebrew, Arab numerals are used, as in English. But they are easier to read, because you don't have to skip incoming ndigits and read the number backwards to find out what they mean:

"There are 10000 fish in the sea."

"Yesh 00001 dagim baYam." (I reversed the number to simulate right-to-left writing.)

Note that unless you can immediately grasp how many zeroes there are in the number in the English text, you have to skip to the end of the number and read it right-to-left to know which number it is.


Muslims have (back then) made major advances in astronomy and architecture as well, but astronomy is really complicated and I really don't know anything about architecture. They were very advanced in the field of medicine, came up with the theory of bacteria causing diseases, found treatments, basically invented what we now know as dental surgery, and the use of anesthesia. Their books, translated into Latin formed the base of medical science in Europe for centuries.

Of course, many of the "Muslim" researchers were Jews. But the environment in which they worked allowed to scientific advancements unseen in the western (or Christian world) until, well, the age of humanism.

13,514 views 54 replies
Reply #26 Top

Were you just trying to get in touch with your tribe?


What's the matter with you? Why does the story have to be so complicated with you? There is nothing tribal about it. Hebrew is just a language spoken by six million people. I have books and DVDs in Hebrew. It is like English or French or German.

Here's an example (with subtitles):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mvhuh3Un2-g

And here's a picture of a Tintin comic book in Hebrew, just taken on my desk:

http://www.netneurotic.net/bin/tintinh.jpg



I don't understand why you would quit a job to attend a religious school if you didn't have religous aims.


Who said anything about a religious school? I was at the University of Haifa (as I said).

http://www.haifa.ac.il/index_eng.html

And, yes, I did quit my job to go there. But don't worry, I am not unemployed now. I got the same job back. (I am not only interested in and eager to learn religion, languages, and biology but also networking and debugging.)

I have studied at a university in Germany and a college in Ireland as well.


And you even said you learned Hebrew so you could read God's words more accurately.


Yes, I did. And it worked. It was one of the best things I have ever done in my life.

But what I'm not getting is why you deduce from that that I would have to be ignorant of biology. In my experience people, including myself, who are eager to study one subject are usually equally eager to study other subjects as well.

Incidentally, I did meet many people (from the US) in Israel who did quit their jobs to go to a religious school. I cannot see why that would be surprising or shocking.

Isn't that what religion is supposed to do?

Reply #27 Top
In case you are curious, the title of the Tintin book reads:

"Otsro shel Raqham HaAdom"

"His treasure of Rackham the red" = "The treasure of Rackham the Red"

That's "adom" as in "Adam", both based on "adama", meaning the red soil or clay.

I have a German edition of the book as well. :)
Reply #28 Top
In my experience people, including myself, who are eager to study one subject are usually equally eager to study other subjects as well.


Tell that to lulapilgrim.

And it's just totally false. English teachers usually hate math, and computer scientists usually hate body building.
Reply #29 Top

"In my experience people, including myself, who are eager to study one subject are usually equally eager to study other subjects as well."

Tell that to lulapilgrim.


Lulapilgrim does not strike me as someone eager to study any subject.

We talked about studying the Bible a bit and she told me that a superficial view of it is enough for her.

Specifically she said, if I recall correctly, that knowing that "Elohim" is plural is enough for her and she didn't need to know that it is a majestic plural treated as a singular in the Bible and not the right plural (Hebrew has two plurals) for what she wanted to understand it as. She was also not interested in what the words in the Bible really mean, what other words they are related to, or what the roots of the words mean.

But you haven't explained what the connection is between studying Hebrew and not knowing biology.




And it's just totally false. English teachers usually hate math, and computer scientists usually hate body building.


I said "people who are eager to study one subject", not "English teachers". Most people have a profession, but that doesn't even imply that they are eager to study (that subject or any subject).

When you say "English teachers" it is clear to me that you and I have a totally different idea of what type of people we are talking about (an English teacher is not a particularly typical example) and when you say "body building" it is clear to me that we are not talking about the same when we speak of "studying".

What I mean is that people EAGER TO STUDY one subject are usually also eager to learn other subjects. Most of those are probably not into doing sports so much, certainly not body-building (in fact, that would be the opposite steretype). And very few of those become humanities teachers.

But I think you will find that someone who isn't an English teacher and who has an interest in linguistics and is knowledgable will very probably be similarly interested in and knowledgable about other subjects as well. Being interested in anything is a skill one learns while being interested in something specific. You can observe that even in parrots.
Reply #30 Top
We talked about studying the Bible a bit and she told me that a superficial view of it is enough for her.


She was also not interested in what the words in the Bible really mean, what other words they are related to, or what the roots of the words mean


Leauki,

You've come to the wrong conclusion about me. I'm most interested in tudying the Holy Bible and God willing, it will be something I do for the rest of my life.

Specifically she said, if I recall correctly, that knowing that "Elohim" is plural is enough for her and she didn't need to know that it is a majestic plural treated as a singular in the Bible and not the right plural (Hebrew has two plurals) for what she wanted to understand it


This is going back to our discussion about the Blessed Trinity, a doctrine revealed by Christ and defined by the Catholic Church. In God there are three Persons in one divine Essence, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, really distinct, equal and of one substance. The Father is Unbegotten, the Son Begotten of the Father, and the Holy Ghost Proceeds from the Father and the Son.

No disrespect intended, but it's you Leauki, who is coming up short in understanding how the plurality of persons is implied in the Hebrew name of God---Elohim--which is plural in name, though used with a singular adjective and verb.

Let's go over it again.

Just like the upholders of Jewish monotheism, Catholics dogmatically believe in One God, the One Divine Being, having One Divine Nature. This ought not be an obstacle to Jewish belief in a plurality of persons, the Father, Son and Holy Ghost (Holy Spirit)is implied in the plural name of God--Elohim. This is hinted at in the OLd Testament and more fully revealed in the New.

Let's start with Genesis 1:1. If we were to translate Genesis 1:1 literally, according to the plurality and oneness of Elohim, it would translate as such: "In the beginning the Gods, He created heaven and earth." Following this, would it not be as incorrect to charge Jews with believing in a plurality of Gods becasue they designate God by the plural name Elohim (which btw is used 2,570 times in the OT) as it is to charge Catholics with believing in a plurality of Gods because they worship the One true God--the same God the Jews worship--in a tri-unity of persons?

As we've already discussed, not only do we find the plurality of persons involved in the name Elohim, but this one God is spoken of in Genesis 1:26 as if the Father were conferring with the Son and the Holy Ghost: "Let us make man in our own image and likeness." Here are 3 other quotations which imply the same plurality of persons:

"Behold Adam is become as one of us" Genesis 3:22.
"Come ye, therefore, let us go down, and there confound their tongue." Genesis 11:7.
"Whom shall I send, and who will go for us" Isaias 6:8.

Leauki, the Christian concept of monotheism, that is, oneness in substance and triuneness in persons alone can explain the plural sense in which the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob speaks to us through the Testament of the Jews.

Christians are fortified in their belief in the Trinity, for we have the Word of Almighty God: "There are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one." 1St.John 5:7. It is "in the name of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Ghost" (and not in the names of these persons), three in ONe, that Christ sends forth His Apostles to teach and to baptize.

Pax Christi.
Reply #31 Top
Genesis 3:22

"v'omer YHVH elohim hen k'echad m'menu lda3at tov v'ra"

"And said (Singular) the Kord Elohim behold as one of (from) us does he know good and evil"

As usual G-d is a grammatical Singular and who refers to Himself in the Plural, as is grammatically correct for Hebrew in that situation.

Nothing in that verse or the surrounding text implies in any way that anybody was conferring with exactly two others.


Let's start with Genesis 1:1. If we were to translate Genesis 1:1 literally, according to the plurality and oneness of Elohim, it would translate as such: "In the beginning the Gods, He created heaven and earth."


No.

Genesis 1:1 is

"B'reshit bara Elohim et haShamayim v'et haAretz"

This translates to, literally:

"In the beginning _ created (third person singular) _ gods (unspecific plural, i.e. not the one Hebrew would use for a number intrinsic in the thing) _ the heavens (plural) _ and the earth (singular, really means "land")"


[...] Jews with believing in a plurality of Gods becasue they designate God by the plural name Elohim (which btw is used 2,570 times in the OT)


No, because "Elohim" is a singular name and a plural word. Like my Latvian friend "Arnolds". The verb form used is always singular. The Bible never says "Elohim say" but always "Elohim says". (In fact it always uses past tense, but in English the difference is only preserved in present tense: I say, thou sayest, he says.)

This is not uncommon, btw. The Latin for "Athens" is "Athenae", which is plural. Yet the Romans did not believe that Athens was more than one city.

The only thing we really deduct from the word "Elohim" is that it is NOT a trinity as you describe it, because such a trinity would be intrinsic and the plural used is non-intrinsic. (In Hebrew "two legs" or the "four legs of a dog" use a different plural than "two cars".)
Reply #32 Top
Lula posts:
Here are 3 other quotations which imply the same plurality of persons:

"Behold Adam is become as one of us" Genesis 3:22.



Genesis 3:22

"v'omer YHVH elohim hen k'echad m'menu lda3at tov v'ra"

"And said (Singular) the Kord Elohim behold as one of (from) us does he know good and evil"

As usual G-d is a grammatical Singular and who refers to Himself in the Plural, as is grammatically correct for Hebrew in that situation.

Nothing in that verse or the surrounding text implies in any way that anybody was conferring with exactly two others.


I'm pointing to the word "us" in the English translation, and you seem to agree in your Hebrew version.

This has been a good discussion which I enjoyed very much.

Pax Christi
Reply #33 Top
We talked about studying the Bible a bit and she told me that a superficial view of it is enough for her.


You know. You might have something here that I hadn't considered. I just made an assumption that no one would talk so much about something if they didn't know much about it. How can you feel that strongly about something you don't understand?
Reply #34 Top
Back from Germany, where I had been for a week...


I'm pointing to the word "us" in the English translation, and you seem to agree in your Hebrew version.


The word "us" (or Hebrew "m'menu" = "from us") doesn't seem to imply more than one person speaking, since the verb "said" is in the Singular.

If my friend Arnolds (only one person) said "let us have lunch", I would assume that he included the people he spoke to in the "us". There is no reason to assume that Arnolds would refer to himself as a Trinity if he had said the same in Hebrew.



How can you feel that strongly about something you don't understand?


You know... you still haven't explained what you are actually talking about and why you asssume that an interest in and knowledge of one subject somehow imply that there cannot be interest in or knowledge of another subject.

It seems to puzzle you that someone would study Hebrew _and_ read biology books. Plus I don't understand your statement about English teachers usually hating maths (what does it have to do with us?).

In fact, I just brought my copy of The Blind Watchmaker back from Germany where I had left it five years ago. And just to confuse you further, perhaps, I also brought a (German original) copy of "Die Syro-Aramaeische Lesart des Quran", a book by a German professor of Semitic languages and Islamic history that requires the reader to understand English, French, German, and Latin (because of the Quran translations the author refers to) AND be able to read Aramaic and Arabic as well as Syro-Aramaic (the last I cannot do).

I don't know if an English translation exists of the book. But it is very interesting so far. I will investigate the theory further. (The theory is that Muhammed, since he was from a rich merchant family, was likely to have used many Aramaic words if not spoken Aramaic at home anyway and that hence the Quran has to be understood based on Aramaic roots when a word or sentence doesn't make sense in Arabic.)

Reply #35 Top
Good day to you....Welcome back to JU land.

Leauki posts:
Genesis 3:22

"v'omer YHVH elohim hen k'echad m'menu lda3at tov v'ra"

"And said (Singular) the Kord Elohim behold as one of (from) us does he know good and evil"


Lula posts:
I'm pointing to the word "us" in the English translation, and you seem to agree in your Hebrew version.


Leauki posts:
The word "us" (or Hebrew "m'menu" = "from us") doesn't seem to imply more than one person speaking, since the verb "said" is in the Singular.


Leauki, it appears with this that you are coming around to my way of thinking how the plurality of persons is implied....used with a singular verb....

earlier I said:

No disrespect intended, but it's you Leauki, who is coming up short in understanding how the plurality of persons is implied in the Hebrew name of God---Elohim--which is plural in name, though used with a singular adjective and verb.


I don't know if an English translation exists of the book. But it is very interesting so far. I will investigate the theory further. (The theory is that Muhammed, since he was from a rich merchant family, was likely to have used many Aramaic words if not spoken Aramaic at home anyway and that hence the Quran has to be understood based on Aramaic roots when a word or sentence doesn't make sense in Arabic.)


Hmmm...interesting theory about Muhammed...I hope you will share what you discover by this exercise.

Reply #36 Top
You know... you still haven't explained what you are actually talking about and why you asssume that an interest in and knowledge of one subject somehow imply that there cannot be interest in or knowledge of another subject.


You said earlier that body building and studying are almost polar opposites. But Arnold Shwartz... nevermind that spelling. The governor of California is a body builder who studied at Wharton. You didn't defend your position solidly then, so I know you know what I mean. Many english teachers are dried up old sexist prunes who hate their jobs for having to grade paper after never-changing paper and who believe the source of their problem to be a deficit of mathematical inclination. Furthermore, religion is in a conspicuous conflict with science at the moment, given that the fool theories of religion do not match the rational precision wrought through calculation and experimentation. Being a democrat makes you less likely to hold a conservative belief. Studying one subject makes you less likely to be interested in opposing subjects. That is about as clear as I can make it, though I suspect you already understood, given your intense linguistic knowledge.

I will state this one more time. I thought it unlikely that you were a science guy because of your extreme religous nuttiness. For example, you studied all the semetic languages so you could better understand what God was telling you. I see know where I erred in calculation. Jews have an uncanny ability to succeed, and that success stems from a cultural or perhaps biological drive to learn. You learned all that foolishness, and then you learned everything else, too.

One last thing. The War of 1948 was not a miracle. Those don't exist. 40% of the world's Jews live in Isreal, and they had to come from somewhere. Jews from all around the world flooded Isreal at its inception, and with them came the money that they had aquired. Rome was not built in a day. But, then, Romans perhaps did not have the money. Right now, Jews are the largest Washington lobby in the USA and fully 1/5 of our foreign aid. And they are such a small portion of the population! It is really remarkable, but it is not a miracle.
Reply #37 Top

You said earlier that body building and studying are almost polar opposites.


Actually, it was you who said that "computer scientists usually hate body building". You said it to contradict my statement about individuals who are eager to study one subject being equally eager to study other subjects as well.



But Arnold Shwartz... nevermind that spelling. The governor of California is a body builder who studied at Wharton.


So there you have an individual who was eager to study one subject and was apparently equally eager to study another as well.



You didn't defend your position solidly then, so I know you know what I mean.


I don't think you are aware of what my position was, given that you refer to your position as mine now. But you are right, it was indeed not "defended solidly". You never did explain why you thought that my statement was wrong.




Many english teachers are dried up old sexist prunes who hate their jobs for having to grade paper after never-changing paper and who believe the source of their problem to be a deficit of mathematical inclination.


That may be, but what, pray, do they have to do with my statement about individuals eager to study one subject and others???




Furthermore, religion is in a conspicuous conflict with science at the moment, given that the fool theories of religion do not match the rational precision wrought through calculation and experimentation.


Really? Which calculation and experimentation disproves the existence of a god or gods?

Do you even know enough about science and religion to make such a statement?




Being a democrat makes you less likely to hold a conservative belief.


What about Jefferson Davis or current copperheads who value "stability" in the middle east over violent democratisation?

You can agree or disagree with the Republican position on, say, Iraq; but it is certainly less conservative than Obama's (who didn't want to invade and would have preserved the status quo of pre-2003).



Studying one subject makes you less likely to be interested in opposing subjects. That is about as clear as I can make it, though I suspect you already understood, given your intense linguistic knowledge.


I understand that you believe that, but I don't understand why; especially since you never explained your reasoning, gave an example that demonstrates that the opposite is true (Arnold Schwarzenegger), and my own experience tells me the opposite.



I will state this one more time. I thought it unlikely that you were a science guy because of your extreme religous nuttiness.


My "extreme religious nuttiness"?

Can you please explain what you are referring to?

Can you please also explain why you called me a "radical Jew" in a comment on an article that praises Islamic history?



For example, you studied all the semitic languages so you could better understand what God was telling you.


No. I studied _one_ Semitic language (Hebrew) so I could better understand (it, and G-d). My Hebrew isn't excellent and the other Semitic languages are hit-and-miss. If the root of the word is the same as in Hebrew, I might understand. I cannot even read Arabic fluently.



I see know where I erred in calculation. Jews have an uncanny ability to succeed, and that success stems from a cultural or perhaps biological drive to learn. You learned all that foolishness, and then you learned everything else, too.


How do you know it is foolishness, if you don't understand it?



One last thing. The War of 1948 was not a miracle. Those don't exist. 40% of the world's Jews live in Isreal,


That is the miracle. Give me two other examples of countries that were revived 2000 years after their destruction.




and they had to come from somewhere. Jews from all around the world flooded Isreal at its inception, and with them came the money that they had aquired. Rome was not built in a day. But, then, Romans perhaps did not have the money.


You think Jews in the 1940s had lots of money? American Jews were still mostly poor at the time, compared to Anglo-Saxons (and I am not blaming anyone), European Jews were mostly dead and the survivors were desperate and certainly not rich, Arab Jews were expelled from Arab countries without their property.

What money are you talking about? How rich do Jews get from being killed and expelled?



Right now, Jews are the largest Washington lobby in the USA and fully 1/5 of our foreign aid. And they are such a small portion of the population! It is really remarkable, but it is not a miracle.


Right now... right now and 1948 are two different points in time. It is not in the US' interest to allow another Holocaust. It also goes against America's Christian (and secular) values to allow such a crime to happen again.

The number 1/5 I cannot verify and I don't care if it's true.

Jews do the same for other minorities that the US does for Israel, luckily. Israel does support the Kurds in Iraq and did allow refugees from Sudan to enter Israel and receive work permits (a slow process, unfortunately).

SOMEBODY has to do something.

Reply #38 Top

Leauki, it appears with this that you are coming around to my way of thinking how the plurality of persons is implied....used with a singular verb....


Right. Except I just said the exact opposite; that the plurality is not implied.

I also told you that "Elohim" is the wrong plural for a "Trinity".



You've come to the wrong conclusion about me. I'm most interested in studying the Holy Bible and God willing, it will be something I do for the rest of my life.


Well, you are studying a translation and focus on translated terms and words that are not in the original.

I recommend you get a parallel Bible with the Hebrew/Aramaic text on one side and the English text (with explanations) on the other. The same should be available for the Greek text.
Reply #39 Top


I thought it unlikely that you were a science guy because of your extreme religous nuttiness.



Well, I am not a "science guy". I am a system engineer and programmer. I never studied biology. The closest subject I did study was toxicology. (I have the cert.)

My "extreme religious nuttiness" interests me though. Could you tell me what my extreme religious nuttiness is? Give me three statements of mine in order of nuttiness and we'll see whether anybody here agrees that those statements are religiously nutty (and from what point of view they would be).

The "radical Jew" I think I believe you, although I find it funny that you would bring that up as a comment under an article of mine about the virtues of Islam. I just don't know what you think a "radical Jew" is. I am not even religious.

May I ask, instead perhaps, who and what you are that you make so many general statements about Jews and nuttiness, about science and religion, and about people you hardly know?


Is this a "radical Jew"?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=zS22vyUodoo


Reply #40 Top
Lula posts:
Here are 3 other quotations which imply the same plurality of persons:

"Behold Adam is become as one of us" Genesis 3:22.
"Come ye, therefore, let us go down, and there confound their tongue." Genesis 11:7.
"Whom shall I send, and who will go for us" Isaias 6:8.



Right. Except I just said the exact opposite; that the plurality is not implied.

I also told you that "Elohim" is the wrong plural for a "Trinity".


These use of the word "us" translated in both Hebrew and English, definitely imply plurality. The concept of monotheism as explained in the doctrine of the Holy Trinity--oneness of substance and triuness in persons--alone explains the plural sense in which God is speaking to us through the Old Testament.

In the end, Catholic doctrine upholds monotheism the same as Jewish monotheism. The plurality of Persons was implied in the Old and made more clear in the New Testament.

Besides that, the principle of 3 in 1, the tri-unities are seen all about us which we know are facts, yet we don't know why the 3 manifestations of the one thing are facts.

In science, every known object, every one thing has 3 identities so to speak...its length, breadth and width or thickness. Looking at the object itself, we see it as one whole, but to establish identity one must contrast one thing with another. Added to this, the triunity of time, space and motion is inseparately associated with the object as well.

Electricians will tell us that electricity is one in nature and three in manifestation, motion, light and heat. The electric car depends on electricity for its usefullness. One Electricity has three uses....propels the car, lights the car, and heats the car.

Would you say it's three electricities? Probably not, any more than Catholics believe in 3 Gods. God is One Substance--three in Persons--Father, Son and Holy Ghost.









Reply #41 Top

These use of the word "us" translated in both Hebrew and English, definitely imply plurality.


Yes, but I don't see how it implies plurality on account of the speaker, who _speaks_ (Singular).

We, you and I, have been discussing this for a while. Do you understand that I just said "we" without implying that I am more than one person?


In science, every known object, every one thing has 3 identities so to speak...its length, breadth and width or thickness.


What about its colour and its life time?
Reply #42 Top
We, you and I, have been discussing this for a while. Do you understand that I just said "we" without implying that I am more than one person?


Yes.

In this usage, "We" implies more than one person.

If it were just one person, then the word "I" would be used.
Reply #43 Top

Yes.

In this usage, "We" implies more than one person.

If it were just one person, then the word "I" would be used.


So this is why you read that sentence so differently than I.

Sorry, but I find it extremely hard to believe that you think that _I_ would be more than one person just because I can include _you_, the person I am talking to, in a sentence I say about _us_, you and I.

Using your grammar, how could _I_ (one person) speak of you and me without implying (to you) that I am more than one person?

How could I talk to my friends and say "let us eat" without you understanding that as an admission that I am more than one person?

Reply #44 Top
An excellent piece. The real reason for the shadow of Islam falloing heavily onMathematics is thye fact that several jewish scholars escaped percecution by emigrating to Granada and even Sicily when it was under Umayad rule. The place value system as you quite correctly point out is an Indian innovation. There was a time when Islam was indeed the intellectual force to contend with:alas, now it is no longer the case.
Reply #45 Top

An excellent piece. The real reason for the shadow of Islam falloing heavily onMathematics is thye fact that several jewish scholars escaped percecution by emigrating to Granada and even Sicily when it was under Umayad rule. The place value system as you quite correctly point out is an Indian innovation. There was a time when Islam was indeed the intellectual force to contend with:alas, now it is no longer the case.


Thank you.

When I studied in Israel some of the brightest students I met were Arab Muslims. My father, who teaches at a college in Berlin in Germany also tells me that Turkish girls are among the best students and that their families are very supportive of their studies.

Islamic culture must do something right when it comes to the attitude towards science.

The Christian world was never famous for its contributions to science, until secular humanism replaced Christianity in Europe.

The reason Islam is no longer an intellectual force is because Islam is now longer a force. The religion has been largely replaced with Arab nationalism and weird fundamentalists sects like the Wahabis in Saudi Arabia, the "Muslim" Brotherhood in Egypt and Gaza, and the Khomeini idolisers in Iran.

But not everybody follows the loonies.
Reply #46 Top
The reason Islam is no longer an intellectual force is because Islam is now longer a force. The religion has been largely replaced with Arab nationalism and weird fundamentalists sects like the Wahabis in Saudi Arabia, the "Muslim" Brotherhood in Egypt and Gaza, and the Khomeini idolisers in Iran.


History has shown us that when true God and His true precepts are taken out of a culture, that culture declines and Chaos moves in.
Reply #47 Top
The Christian world was never famous for its contributions to science,


Ha, ha, ha.  :LOL: 
Reply #48 Top

History has shown us that when true God and His true precepts are taken out of a culture, that culture declines and Chaos moves in.


Give three examples and explain why the Muslims were so far ahead technologically during the time Europe was 100% Christian.



Ha, ha, ha.


Ok. Give three examples of major contributions to science coming from the Christian world BEFORE the rise of atheism and by a scientist who was NOT punished by the church for his work.

Reply #49 Top
Leauki posts:
The Christian world was never famous for its contributions to science,


Ok. Give three examples of major contributions to science coming from the Christian world BEFORE the rise of atheism and by a scientist who was NOT punished by the church for his work.


Christopher Columbus...sea voyager and expert in reading and drawing maps and charts
Louis Agassis....on glacial geology and ichthyology
Charles Babbage....actuarual tables, calculating machine, foundations of computer science
Francis Bacon....scientific method of research
Robert Boyle...chemistry, gas dynamics
Louis Pasteur...bacteriology, biogenesis law, pasteurization, vaccination
Gregor Mendel...genetics
Carl Linn (Carolus Linnaeus)..classification system, systematic biology

Reply #50 Top
Give three examples and explain why the Muslims were so far ahead technologically during the time Europe was 100% Christian.


In comparison to the rest of the world, I don't believe the Muslims were ever far ahead technologically at any time.


History has shown us that when true God and His true precepts are taken out of a culture, that culture declines and Chaos moves in.




Do you know it was the New England Jesuits who founded Al-Hikma so the Chaldean Catholics of Iraq could have higher education and that it was the Boston Jesuits who introduced solar heating to Iraq?

Do you know that General Hassan al-Bakr and Saddam Hussein, his then assistant, stole the university?