₦airaland Forum

mazaje:
if i say that corruption has been endemic in nigeria since[b] from [/b]independence, what does that tell you?. . . .

It doesn't tell me anything as it's not grammatical.

You can have either "since" or "from" but not both in the same sentence.

You've also got to remember that "slain" is a past verb whereas "corruption" in your sentence is a noun so you can't make a comparison with your own sentence and the Bible passage as they are incompatible.


Grammatically, the only way the Bible passage can make sense is in the way I've defined it in my first post - Christ was destined to die from the beginning.


Incidentally, my own personal opinion is that Revelation is a crock of shit. A view shared by a large number of the clergy who never wanted it included in the Bible in the first place - the time it is "prophesising" passed long ago with the Roman Empire and it is now utterly irrelevant. I see it as no more than the carrot and the stick book that gets all of the idiot fundamentalists frothing at the mouth.

oyb:
events a thousand years ago are irrelevant to the present time?

Yes, you pathetic cretin. They are totally irrelevant to this topic.

This thread is about civilisations now. Not civilisations a thousand years ago. Not past achievements of any civilisation.


So before you start blathering, how about actually reading the thread and answering the question I have asked time and time again in the context it was given. slowpoke.

@ Huxley.

The passage doesn't say what you think it does.

Read it again.

It says "slain from the creation of the World". Not "slain at the creation of the world".

Put another way it could read "slain as a result of the creation of the World". It has nothing to do with a specific time period. It's saying that once the World was created, the Lamb was destined to die.

@ OLAADEGBU

See what happens when you dump copy and paste into the bin of forgetfulness?

You can actually make sense sometimes.

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=256484.msg3771173#msg3771173 date=1240502591]Not everyone should interpret the Bible. That's why the Lord left his Church on earth to be the guiding light. The authority for interpreting the Bible lies in the Church, the members of the Church cannot apply their own personal opinions.[/quote]I have to admit that I didn't read all of your drivel. I got as far as the quote above and felt I had to comment.

"Not everyone should interpret the Bible"?

Hang on. This is God's word you're talking about here. Yet you're saying that God's word is not free to all? You're saying that God's word is only for an elite?


It only goes to show how peurile and brain-washed you really are if you think that only an exclusive group of people has the right to examine God's word.

"the members of the church cannot apply their own personal opinions"?

You must be force-fed other people's opinions? You can't make your own mind up?

And you wonder why people look upon the Catholic church with such disdain.

going by the noise we have come to expect from dawoda nackson, medieval Christendom must have been seriously retarded/backward, considering how many years Jerusalem lay in the firm grip of Islam.

What does that make Islam today? After all Jerusalem now lies in the firm grip of the Jews.

As for your pathetic copy and paste, maybe you should study your source material. There is no proof that Geber even existed let alone discovered everything the statement claims.

Also, why keep harking back a thousand years? This thread is concerning modern day Islam and modern day Christianity. Events a thousand years ago are totally irrelevant.
Of course, I understand that you guys have to harp on about "past glories". After all, you don't have much to harp on about these days apart from backward societies living under tyrannical dictators.

As no answer has been bought forward for the question that I have asked 3 or 4 times, let me answer it myself.



Where is there an Islamic Civilisation in the world today?

Answer: There isn't one.

How can a death be funny, Huxley?

Would it have been as funny if an atheist had died doing the same thing?

The excuse the Somali pirates use is the same crap that the 419 boys use when they try to justify their crimes.

If it's all about Somali waters being raped then why are the little bastards hijacking ships in other countries' national waters - ie: Dubai, Kenya, etc? And what about the large percentage of those seized ships' countries that have had nothing to do with dumping or fishing in Somali waters?
It's like saying a Yank murdered my grandfather in Africa, so to get revenge, I'm going to go to China where I will kill the first person I run across.

Utter bullshit.

I have shown that only one word means fool.
The others mean foolish.
Go look up the translations yourself.

I have explained the difference in context between doing something foolish and being a fool.
Go look up the definitions yourself.

It's not a "claim" as you state. It's just common sense.

So the onus is no YOU to show why they mean something else and whether contemporary translator have rendered said passages in the sense which you consider is more correct.

I have already pointed out that at least one of the passages you've posted does not even use the word "fool" as you state but "foolish" in English.
Go look it up in the KJV yourself.

This isn't to say Islam is a religion of bliss but muslims did have a contribution to society.

DID!!!!

I'd dispute that it had as much impact or was as wonderful as some state it was but that's irrelevant. The question here is where is Islamic civilisation now?

Leaving an imprint on a civilisation or culture is not the same as being a civilisation. The title of this thread is "The West Civilisation V. The Islamic Civilisation".

I ask again - What Islamic Civilisation? Where is it?

Who says I'm a Christian?

Also be aware that anyone can call themselves Christian yet have widely differing views from other Christians.

Or do you suppose that everyone has to be a robot kowtowing to the party line?


BTW. Don't Shia Muslims just love Sunni Muslims?

Triumphalist?

No.

Can you show me any contemporary translation that detracts from this view?

Not only should the onus be on you to provide the proof as you're the one who made the original claim but asking others to prove a negative is pretty silly, don't you think?

And to tell the truth, I'm past caring what you think on this particular subject and have no further wish to debate it.

huxley:
How the hell did you get this meaning out of the Matt passage.  If anything, this was an injunction against insulting others with hurtful and demeaning epithets.    How did you go from there to "hatred in your heart for someone is "evil"" ?  This is an adhoc conclusion without a shred of evidence connecting them together.

Don't be so obtuse, Huxley. I don't believe for one moment that you are taking the passage in isolation and haven't looked at the whole chapter.

21Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:

22But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

23Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee;

24Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.

25Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.

26Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.

Verse 23 begins with the word "therefore". It is a continuation of 22. 22 does not stand alone as you are implying. " rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee" and "first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come offer thy gift" would be pretty illogical if it was only referring to name-calling wouldn't it?

"Hey nigger".
"Get bleeped".
"Sorry. Here's a present."

That's basically what you are stating it says.

My reading of it is that it goes like this:

"I hate you".
"Get bleeped".
"I'm sorry. I didn't mean it. I love you".

If you're assuming it's literal when it plainly isn't we'd have to say that the Jews used the British currency of the Farthing too, wouldn't we?

Then, as if Jesus had forgetten about his statement in Matt 5:22, he goes ahead in Luke and uses words that have similar effect, as you say, ignoramus.   Had he forgetten that he just forbade people from using such in Matt 5: 22?  What a jerk!

That's simply not true Huxley and both myself and PastorAIO have pointed out the difference between the Greek and Latin words, as well as the KJV which refers to foolishness and does not call anyone a fool.
I've also given you an example of context so there's no excuse for your beligerence on this one.

I could also point out to you that the word "moros" that PastorAIO translated as fool also can be translated as "godless". If this is the case (and there's no reason why it isn't) that would also blow your claim out of the water.

Also, you ask - "why have bible translators through the ages, translated "afrone" as "fool" when they could have used an alternative word?". A lot of the contradictions we see in there are due to translations and some of those are completely out there and change whole meanings. Remember we're taling about a massive book being translated from one language to another to yet another in a time when the vast majority of people couldn't even read or write. They also wouldn't have had any awareness of cultures, societies, contexts, history so is it any wonder things get screwed up? Personally, I'm amazed that there's anything that agrees between any of the books in the NT!! Does that make the original scripture wrong though? Does everyone have to pay for these contradictions even if they're aware of them and can see past them?

As you know Huxley, I rarely try to defend the indefensible - it simply isn't worth the bother. But in this case, you are wrong. Logic and the translations prove you to be so.

MRbrownJAY:
brother there are many contradictions in the bible, and if you search hard enough , you will find them all. but beware that there will always be someone to come up with a reason or excuse.

Although I agree with you that there are many contradictions in the Bible, there are also times when passages just need a little bit of clarification - this being one of them.

The 3 passages Huxley posted are not contradictory in any way as both myself and PastorAIO have shown. The Greek and Aramaic show that Jesus was not a hypocrite in this instance.

As I've already stated, one has to be careful. The fact that you might not believe in Christianity does not mean that the pages of the Bible are riddled with lies and deceit. Sure, believe what you want to believe but you should always base that belief on a logical thought process - otherwise you're no different from the average extremist.

For you, Huxley.  

The Luke translations in Latin:

stulti nonne qui fecit quod de foris est etiam id quod de intus est fecit

The two words we're looking at are "stulti nonne". "Stulti" is foolish and "nonne" means "not" or "don't". They translate as "Dont be foolish".

et ipse dixit ad eos o stulti et tardi corde ad credendum in omnibus quae locuti sunt prophetae

Again, "stulti" which refers to foolishness and not the actual accusation of being a fool.
The copy of the KJV I'm looking at translates it as:

Then he said to them: O foolish and slow of heart to believe in all things, Which the prophets have spoken.

The Matthew translation has a totally different word:

ego autem dico vobis quia omnis qui irascitur fratri suo reus erit iudicio qui autem dixerit fratri suo racha reus erit concilio qui autem dixerit fatue reus erit gehennae ignis

What we're looking at here is "fatue". It's root is the word "fatuus" and it's the extreme way of saying fool in Latin.


Edit: Note I was writing this without even seeing Pastor AIO's Greek (glad he did it and not me!!!).
It shows we are both in agreement and that my original assertion was correct.

Come on now. You can read. It's plain that the passages are in different contexts. Even plainer still is the fact that Jesus wouldn't have even used the word "fool". Do you really need me to go digging for the original Latin and Aramic/Copt versions that it was translated from?

Let me give you an example of how the two passages differ by giving you two imaginary conversations that someone emailed you.

Charles: What do you think of Huxley?
Bastage: Huxley is nothing but a fool.

Huxley: Jesus was a hypocrite.
Bastage: With that assertion you are being a fool.

See the difference in relevance and context? In the first, I'm stating that I have a very low opinion of you. In the second I'm merely stating that I have a low opinion of your assertion. They're two totally different things and, like I said, that's not even taking into account that I probably used a different word than fool in at least one of those conversations.

This kinda smacks of the approach so beloved of the religionist faith-heads.

Heh!! And you know me better than that.
But use your own words as an example there. You're not actually calling me a "faith-head" there. You're saying that I "sound" like one. Different context and therefore different impact of the word "faith-head", see?

It's like me accusing you of being out and out fanatical instead of merely stating that you're starting to sound fanatical as I did above. The word "fanatical" has a different impact. Used in the context I've used it in my first sentence it does not give you the impression I don't like you, right? But if I'd have started out just saying "Huxley, you're a fanatic", wouldn't your impression be that I don't have much time for you?

Finally, let's not forget that the same words can have different meanings - fool itself is an example:

1. a silly or stupid person; a person who lacks judgment or sense.
4.     an ardent enthusiast who cannot resist an opportunity to indulge an enthusiasm

Would you say that 1 and 4 are descriptive of the same thing?

Don't let your dislike of religion cloud your view of the Bible, Huxley. It's just a book. Sometimes we can see things that aren't there (just as religionists do). The Bible can't take your freedom away - only other men can do that. Remember that.

Huxley. You're starting to sound like the very people you despise - fanatical.

The passages are totally different from each other.
Bear in mind for a start that they are English translations and that fool has a different meaning in them and a differing value of relevance.

In Matthew, it's basically saying that having any hatred in your heart for someone is "evil".
In Luke, it's used as an admonishment to describe ignorance. It's not used in hatred. The word used could just as well have been "ignoramuses".

There is no contradiction or hypocrisy. It's just the way you read it.
A strange way to read it when you are totally aware that Jesus didn't speak English and that you also know semantics of English words in the Bible are a waste of time arguing over and also why I accuse you of being a little fanatical.

@bawamolo.

The passage you've posted talks crap.

Spain didn't sink into ignomy. In fact, after it kicked out the Muslims it became one of the greatest empires on the planet. That crap has simply been written by some idiot Muslim sympathiser (which was basically what Lane-Poole was).
Statements like "Spain set all Europe a shining example of a civilized and enlightened state" are just peurile dross.
One should bear in mind that it was also written over a hundred years ago. At that time, the West was engaged in a fascination with Islam and the East that had never been seen before and has never been seen since. Everything Islamic was in and Islam could do no wrong (probably because in those days any terrorist was summararily executed and they didn't have to put up with the shit that we do nowadays). Anything Egyptian was loooked upon in the same way and in fact, Lane-Poole also wrote books on that subject too.

Even so, the Moors in Spain was how many hundreds of years ago? What relevance does that passage have now?
How does Christian Spain fare against Islamic countries now? Which one is the civilisation?

Where did the Bible get its authority from?

LMAO. The Bible has no authority. It is a book. An inanimate object has no authority whatsoever. The only person who can really judge it's importance is the individual. Perhaps you're too dumb to understand that though? After all, you have to have other men interpret it for you and tell you what it says.

SO YOU ARE A HYPOCRITE BECAUSE YOU ARE A CHRISTIAN? IN THAT CASE CHRISTIANS ARE MURDERS, MOLESTERS, 419ERS, ADULTERERS, LIARS, THIEVES, FORNICATORS, AND MUCH MORE.

LMAO again. Sure they are. A really terrible and misleading argument from you again but won't get any disagreement from me. Christians through the ages have committed some of the worst atrocities known to mankind. But dya know which section of Christians were responsible for the majority of those crimes? CATHOLICS.

BUT NOT JUST THAT BUT BECAUSE YOU ARE A CHRISTIAN, THAT MAKES YOU A MURDERER, A MOLESTER, 419 AN ADULTERER, A LIAR, A THEIF, A FORNICATOR, AND MUCH MORE.

LOL. What sort of logic is that you dipshit. If atrocities are sanctioned or carried out by clergy within the Catholic Church, it's way different from a normal worshipper carrying out the same atrocity. I dunno if you noticed in your drunken daze, but the worshipper is a follower. The clergy are the leaders. They set the standard. But like I said, there are plenty of followers who have acted like blood-thirsty barbarians on the orders of their leaders. Guess what? Most of those followers were CATHOLICS. BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

I really have to laugh in your face.

IT IS RATHER EASY TO IGNORE THE TRUTH AND ATTACK A PERSON, BUT IT ONLY SHOWS YOUR IGNORANCE AND THAT YOU DON'T WANT TO FACE THE TRUTH.

Nope, it doesn't show my ignorance. It shows I enjoy attacking idiot mugu imbeciles like you!!!

All apart from your last two statements are examples from the Jewish Old Testament.
Ask almost any Jew if "God is Love" and they'll probably tell you "No. That's a Christian thing".
Personally, I do not dispute any of those verses and in fact, the author could probably have added at least a hundred more examples.

But as for your last statement about killing his only son?

If Christ was God, according to the NT, he sacrificed himself for mankind. If Christ was not God then Christ sacrificed himself by his own actions. There can be no misreading that.
Therefore that is the only example you have given that can really be construed as Love.

Regarding Ananias and Sapphira, the Bible does not say that God killed them. It states that they just fell down dead. There is no way that we can attribute their deaths to God. That verse is therefore misleading and irrelevant.

They're nutjobs.
What more do you want?

Scientology = Crank cult.

Give Chavez a few more years and he'll be no different from any other South American strong-man.
At the moment, he's got most of the electorate in his hands by feeding them anti-US sentiment but when that runs dry, he'll have to resort to good old fashioned dictatorship.
He's based his whole economic regime around a strong price for a barrel of oil. If he doesn't get it, his economy is screwed and all of the promises he's made to his people will go down the pan.

I give him 3 or 4 years. Then people will start "disappearing". He's already going down the road of nullifying competition by going after his opponents on what truly appear to be bogus charges.

@Richy.
Chavez calls himself socialist but truly he's closer to a state capitalist. Nothing is in the hands of the people - it's all tightly controlled by him alone. I believe that he had the chance to truly do something great in Venezuela but like all leaders, the results of his blind grab for total power means that he's leftist in name only.

[quote="bucky 1979"]Above all, ROF is well connected to people in REAL WORLD and UNDERWORLD. They have international affiliate regarded as FREEMANSONS.[/quote]Quite simply that is not true.
Freemasonry has nothing whatsoever to do with the ROF.
The only link is that the ROF has stolen some of Freemasonry's ritual.

Freemasonry does not and never has recognised the ROF.

I understand the word perfectly.

Why won't you answer? If a great Islamic civilisation exists today it should be simple for you to reply with an example.

So I ask you again:

Where in the world is there a great Islamic civilisation?

Don't run and hide.

Answer the question:

"Where in the world is there a great Islamic civilisation?"

I hear you but there are some differences there.  The Essenes did not interact with the world and get involved with politics.

The fact is that we simply can't make that statement with certainty. We only have a couple of accounts and they only describe two of the Essene sects. There were a minimum of seven. The Essenes also weren't as seclusive as many believe - according to Josephus, the Essenes had settled "not in one city" but "in large numbers in every town". They are considered to have had "headquarters" at Qumran and Engeda.

Personally, I don't see it as a huge step for Jesus to be an Essene and decide to spread their message. Remember, we're looking at a guy who stepped outside the box.
When we take a look at the message, we see that it is much, much more compatible with the teachings of Jesus than with the teachings of the Pharisees or Saduccees.

The main factor to take into account is that the Essenes were amongst the only Jews who were messianic.
Then take into account their attitude to wealth, their pacifism, their attitude to divorce, their abstinence from worldly pleasures, their attitude to commerce, their rituals of baptism and a myriad of other similarities to the Christian message and they look by far the likeliest candidate to have produced Jesus.

We can also take into account the description of John the Baptist (that certainly seems to describe an Essene) and even the word used to describe one certain sect of Essenes - Nazarean. The latter is the word that may clear up the confusion over Nazareth - a town that didn't even exist in Jesus' time.

Luke 4 would seem to be describing Jesus' relationship with the Essene sect that raised him and how he came to preach. It would also explain their reaction to his preaching. I believe that we can swap the word "Nazareth" for "town of the Nazareans". The verse can't be describing Nazareth anyway - as I've said, it didn't exist and Verse 29 says: "And rose up, and thrust him out of the city, and led him unto the brow of the hill whereon their city was built, that they might cast him down headlong."
Nazareth wasn't built on a hill. It was built in a valley. In contrast, the Essene towns of Qumran and Engeda were both built on hills.

BWHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

The Church as a whole did not commit those sins, people in the Church committed those sins.

LOL. The government isn't corrupt. It's the people in the government who are corrupt.
The army doesn't kill people. Soldiers kill people.
The courts don't send people to jail. The judges do.
The Church doesn't commit atrocities. Popes, bishops and priests commit those atrocities.
LMAO. Take some responsibility, bitch.

And I suppose the Pope is in the habit of going around apologising for nothing then? I mean, if it was "only the people" it's not his problem is it? But he's such a generous guy in the habit of apologising for things that aren't his responsibility, heck, you just gotta love him. I can't wait for him to apologise for Abacha or OBJ. They may not be his problem but shit, the dude's giving out apologies, right? LOL


Do you realise how pathetic you are? What do you think a Church is you cretin? Without the people it wouldn't exist - it's just a word. The people make it the Church. "Oh no Bastage. The Church is innocent, it's those pesky people who are the problem!." LMAO.

You stupid, stupid mugu. By distancing yourself from the people, you're distancing yourself from the Church you're telling us is so great. LOL. The people are the Church, you pompous twit.
Hide behind semantics all you like you dipstick. Those links prove you to be a liar and a charlatan.

Thanks for the laugh!!!

I'm laughing my ass off at your ridiculous post.

Let's just answer one of your pathetic questions:

1900 of catholic atrocities that were not really catholic atrocities. can u name me one atrocious thing that was pronounced from the chair of peter?

Even your own Pope recognises the crimes that the Catholic church has committed.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000307_memory-reconc-itc_en.html#The%20Problem:%20Yesterday%20and%20Today

Argue with it all you like. It was written by the Vatican.


Shhh, let's not even talk about these (all just in the last century. I'm not even going to bother going back further or I'll be typing all night):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1671540.stm
http://www.enotes.com/genocide-encyclopedia/catholic-church
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4263426.stm
http://libcom.org/library/role-catholic-church-yugoslavias-holocaust-se-n-mac-math-na-1941-1945
http://warcrimes.foreignpolicyblogs.com/2007/10/16/argentinas-catholic-church-linked-to-human-rights-abuses/
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/sex-crimes-and-the-vatican/
http://www.speroforum.com/a/15761/Australia-Pope-apologizes-for-churchs-sex-crimes
http://www.concordatwatch.eu/showtopic.php?kb_header_id=6151
http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/appropriation9.htm


Read 'em and weep, dipshit.

My personal take on it is that Jesus was much more likely to have been an Essene rather than a Pharisee.

http://latter-rain.com/Israel/essenes.htm

This is an oxymoron, there is none and then perhaps there was. In the field of history the islamic civilisation is acknowledged.
civilization: the social process whereby societies achieve an advanced stage of development and organization .
Now how can any intellectual say there is no islamic civilisation.

It's no oxymoron. The only slowpoke around here is you.
Tell me where this great civilisation exists. Let me phrase the question so that you understand it and there can be no mistake:

"Where in the world is there a great Islamic civilisation?"

Now how can any intellectual say there is no islamic civilisation.

Only a fool would suggest that an Islamic civilisation exists.

Could you show me an islamic reference or justification for the statement in bold. This is categorically wrong. The extreme teachings of some of the taliban regarding schools has noplace in islam

It has no place in Islam? it's down to the "extremist excuse" again. Sorry pal, that just won't wash. The Pakistan state, an Islamic government ceded a vast swathe of territory to the Taleban. Are you telling me that they didn't know that the Taleban was going to close schools?

. I urge u to please take that word back "islam forces women out of school" you could put taliban and i care less.

Not a chance. Are you saying that the Pakistan government is not Islamic? They're as guilty as the Taleban for the destruction of those schools.

Saudi arabia for example has several universities for women, Many of the gulf countries do and in Iran 65% of undergraduates are women so what are we saying here.

Do you know why Iran has such a large proportion of women graduates? It's because men don't have the chance to go to university - they are swallowed up by the Iranian army and the state before they get the chance to get that education. If there are no men going to university of course the figure for women is going to be higher you dolt.

Aisha RA was a scholar and transmiteed thousands of hadith, there have been may women scholars in islam, women hold significant place in islam and the cultures of some people should not be the basis to judge islam

Oh yeah. Pray do tell - where are these women now? Again you hark back to ancient history to give your ridiculous argument some sort of cretinous foundation.

This has been the culture of many races since time immemorial lets be objective please.

Other cultures did it in the past so that justifies it? They don't do it now. Islam does. Raped your wife lately? I forget. You can't. A Muslim can't rape his wife even if he forces himself on her. She'll get a good beating though won't she? I suppose that's not in the Q'ran or that it's non-Islamic too isn't it?

Islamic civilastion had a resurgence around the 40's and particulalrly in the 70's

Simple question - Where?

Lets focus this debate on islamic civilisation vs western civilisation in this century and we could move the debate foward.

LMAO!!! What Islamic civilisation of this century!!! The only one you seem to be able to use in your argument is the one which existed hundreds of years ago!!!

A civilisation in the islamic world when europe was leaving in the dark ages , a civilisation that was spread to europe through andalus. A civilisation english people learned from the andalusians and general spanish and pportugeuese people.

This is the usual argument used by the ignorant appeasers of Islam.
Where is this civilisation you talk about now? The events you are burbling about took place over 600 years ago!!!
We may as well talk about how great the Roman Empire is. Or Babylon. They have just as much relevance to our lives today.

There is no Islamic civilisation. Perhaps there was in the past but it doesn't exist now.
Even then, I would state the "civilisation" is a loose term to use about Islamic forced colonisation. You may claim that Islam was great for science but you totally fail to mention that most of the scientist were not Muslims - they were the native people in their own conquered lands. The claim that Islam birthed much of science is a fallacy - it merely helped to encourage a climate where scientists could work. But is it doing that now??!!! Emphatically no!!! Islam forces women away at schools, insists that teaching has to be compatible with dogma and in Pakistan alone is responsible for the destruction of thousands of schools. Get real!!! Living on so-called past victories whilst the Islam of today is slowly destroying them is hypocritical, ignorant and just plain false.

Burble on all you like about "great Islamic civilisation" but show me one instance where it survives today. Statements like "it was responsible for creating this or that 600 years ago" are not only misleading but totally irrelevant to the times we live in today.