1001 Islamic Inventions 1034
pev writes "There's a new traveling exhibition in the UK entitled 1001 inventions. It contains some of the most interesting inventions from the past few thousand years. The common theme, however, is that they all came from the Islamic world and not the west. In some cases [the list is] quite surprising. For the lazy, the Independent newspaper in the UK printed their top 20 from the exhibition."
But... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:But... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:But... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:But... (Score:4, Funny)
Yeah. Perfect.
Re:But... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:But... (Score:5, Interesting)
Islam, as its holy tracts, includes (some subset of*) the Hebrew and the Christian testaments. Mohammed added very little, volume-wise, to the corpus. Bugger all, in reality, as it was people 100-200 years after Mohammed who were the creative ones** in their compilation of FoaF-attested Suras.
FP.
[* Likewise, Judaism only accepts a subset of the books into its current version of the official list; and Christianity only accepts a _tiny_ subset - there are several dozen Gospels that have bubbled into and out of popularity over the last 2 millennia, not just 4, for example.]
[** Just like Christianity.]
Re:But... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:But... (Score:4, Informative)
Agreed (Score:4, Insightful)
I am not a muslim but I do hear them talk about allah being with mohammed with x, and then with noah with y, just as he was with adam.
Its part of their belief structure to incorporate islam as the extension of judiasm after it became corrupt(muslim belief).To a muslim its the truth and mohammed came to be set the true faith again.
Re:But... (Score:5, Funny)
Come on! A thousand years from now, Islam will clearly be more than 1.5 thousand years old ;^)
[I'm actually surprised no one beat me to it.]
Re:But... (Score:4, Insightful)
Just think of all of the Slashdot readers who don't realize that a year from now, they'll be a year older.
Re:But... (Score:5, Informative)
No, Mohammed didn't create the religion, he's just the last prophet.
Similarly, Jesus didn't really create Christianity, he was Jewish. The Jews that became Christians decided that Jesus was the son of God as foretold in the old Testament, while the rest of the Jews decided that he was just another prophet and the true son of God hadn't come yet.
Christianity traces its roots to before Christ, just as Islam traces its roots to a time before Mohammed.
Uh, no... (Score:5, Informative)
Christians like to read a lot into the Old Testament that isn't there.
Re:Uh, no... (Score:4, Funny)
Mod parent up: Informative. This is correct info.
Re:But... (Score:5, Insightful)
I would have to disagree with this. Jesus's teachings went beyond the messiah prophesied by Isiah, and he did start a new religion (you know those stories about new wine and old wine skins, and you know that whole this third cup is a new cup now thing).
rest of the Jews decided that he was just another prophet and the true son of God hadn't come yet.
This is very telling. One of the main reasons that Jesus was dismissed by many as the messiah is because of his claim to be the son of God. The prophesies of the messiah say nothing about it being God's son. The jews are waiting for the messiah, not for God's son.
Christianity traces its roots to before Christ, just as Islam traces its roots to a time before Mohammed.
Christianity traces its roots to Christ. Before Christ it is judaism, and it is not Christian history but Jewish history. Now Jewish history is important to Christianity, but labeling it as christian roots is a bit like labeling British history as American roots (which while is important to America there are many more influences then just the British).
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:But... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:But... (Score:4, Funny)
Noticed also. (Score:5, Insightful)
However it doesn't make sense to me to associate those inventions from Arabs, Persians, Ottomans,
It's just about a book with fancy colours illustrating inventions from parts of the world where Islam is the main religion now.
Re:Noticed also. (Score:3, Insightful)
Some of the inventions may have been spurred directly by religious motives. I'm sure the interest in astronomy had to do with the adoption of a lunar calendar and the need to determine prayer times, for example. Other inventions probably had more to do with w
Re:Noticed also. (Score:5, Insightful)
As such, to account for Al Kharismi's genius and Omar Khayyam's literary talent to their religion is as short-sighted as saying Einstein was brilliant because he was a Jew. At their respective zeniths, Islamic centers of excellence such as Istanbul, Baghdad or Kabul weren't solely Muslim; they were uniquely multi-cultural unlike the west European centers of power then. Civilizational excellence knows no religion, only regional decay does.
Re:Noticed also. (Score:3, Insightful)
Again, I do think it's sloppy and mi
Re:Noticed also. (Score:5, Informative)
I'm Muslim, but I'm certainly not an Arab. For some reason Muslims are always associated with Arabs. Most Muslims are NOT Arabs.
My ancestor civilization was associated with the invention of guns and paper money, but since they were not Arab, those inventions will not be listed as Muslims.
OTOH Arab inventions since before the time of Mohammed are listed. To really know Muslims, you have to travel to Indonesia, Pakistan, Iran, Central Asia, Africa and Turkey as well as Arabia.
Re:Noticed also. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Noticed also. (Score:5, Insightful)
At least Xianity can blame the Germans.
The fact that those parts of the world were civilized 500 years ago doesn't tell you much about what to expect out of them now. Rather than publishing these sorts of stories in english language newspapers, perhaps Al-jazeera should be at this. Then perhaps modern Egyptians will be more prone to take up civil engineering.
Those are Arabs, traditionally. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Those are Arabs, traditionally. (Score:5, Interesting)
What does it mean in the long run? In my opinion, not a whole lot. Other people's opinions may differ from mine.
Here's an example for the curious. [charleston.net]
Okay, I'll bite (Score:5, Funny)
Seventy-two, rather. (Score:5, Insightful)
Computer Science 101 (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Computer Science 101 (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Computer Science 101 (Score:3, Interesting)
It's sad . . . (Score:4, Insightful)
. . . when a group of people lets all of their scientific achievements throughout history become overshadowed by religious fundamentalism. Let's hope we don't end up going down the same route here in the States.
(It's even more sad when I have to post anonymously for fear that people who disagree with my post might interpret it to be against their version of Islam and harm myself and my family).
Re:It's sad . . . (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It's sad . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, but in the United States we can vote him out because a U.S. President is limited to two four-year terms. Contrast that with those in power in most of the Middle East and Africa, not to mention several places in Asia, Cuba and S. America. How long was Saddam in power? How many countries in Asia, the M.E. and Africa have had peaceful transitions of governments?
At least with G.W. Bush you know he'll be gone after 2008.
-Charles
Re:It's sad . . . (Score:3, Insightful)
vote him out?? (Score:3, Insightful)
What do term limits have to do with voting someone out? I agree, term limits are a good thing and unfortunately the only thing that will get rid of Bush (since he has been able to fix the last two elections), but they have nothing to do with voting. That's why they work so well; they require no effort on the part of the lazy, uninformed electorate.
Re:It's sad . . . (Score:3, Interesting)
That's what you all said two years ago.
"At least with G.W. Bush you know he'll be gone after 2008."
And then it will be eight years of President Cheney. I feel so much better now.
Re:It's sad . . . (Score:5, Funny)
Re:It's sad . . . (Score:4, Insightful)
I wonder if we'll ever talk about technology on this site again.
Re:It's sad . . . (Score:5, Informative)
It was just a few years ago that abortion clinics and doctors were being firebombed and shot in order to protect the sanctity of human life.
Re:It's sad . . . (Score:4, Insightful)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/2671229.stm [bbc.co.uk]
Plenty more died there after the Danish cartoon episode. Course Blair and Bush both sided with the Islamofascists saying how hurtful and wrong it was to print the cartoons!
It's a sad day when the French and other continentals print the cartoons in solidarity with Denmark and free speech, but the UK and USA cower from the rage of Islamofascists. The French have to defend our honors because we are too scared too. Very sad. Hopefully this will end the stupid French surrender jokes.
Re:It's sad . . . (Score:4, Informative)
The statement was released this morning after Mr Blair spoke by phone to his Danish counterpart.
"We understand the offence caused by the cartoons depicting the prophet and of course regret that this has happened. Such things help no one," Mr Blair's spokesman said. "It is always sensible for freedom of expression to be exercised with respect for religious belief. But nothing can justify the violence aimed at European embassies or at the country of Denmark.
"The attacks on the citizens of Denmark and the people of other European countries are completely unacceptable, as is the behaviour of some of the demonstrators in London over the last few days.
"We also strongly welcome the statements of Muslim leaders here who are themselves tackling the extremists who abuse their community's good name."
This hardly fits what you say about Blair. Please give links to back up your side. It seems that Blair has, once again, given an intelligent statement about the situation.
Re:Theism undergirds science (Score:3, Insightful)
The belief that the world is illusory or unimportant is actually a common religious belief, probably the one that sceintific atheists despise the most. I
Nothing after 1300 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Nothing after 1300 (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Nothing after 1300 (Score:4, Funny)
--
A Mongol.
Re:Nothing after 1300 (Score:5, Interesting)
so minor that a german/roman emperor could lease the holy land for a lifetime (and having a clash with the pope over this back then)
The main problem for the downfall of the arabic civilization might be the in islamic wars, which mainly was triggered by the turkish people slowly but surely taking over the islamic empire and in islamic wars between various countries.
The impact on the eastern roman empire was severe however, they sped up its downfall which was more or less unavoidable anyway.
In the end the islamic civilisation basically was fruitful due to knowledge inheritance of the occupied eastern roman empire parts, and being hilghly tolerant to christians and jews in the occupied areas. Culture could only thrive in this tolerant area.
Re:Nothing after 1300 (Score:5, Insightful)
You do realize that they won the crusades, don't you? It is inconvenient for the "blame the West for everything" worldview, but my ancestors got their asses kicked.
The total failure of the Islamic world to produce any worthwhile contribution to human civilzation in the last 500 years is mostly a case of relative decline: what happens in Europe and America after 1500 is nothing short of amazing. Even if they didn't actually slow down their rate of cultural/technological production, they got blown out of the water by the competition. Still, it is striking how little that part of the world has been able to come up with in the last half-millenium.
You can't read an Arab magazine without seeing a list like this once a week. The fact that the British press is now getting into the act of praising 1000 year old inventions and ignoring the last thousand years of stagnation is telling.
Re:Nothing after 1300 (Score:4, Informative)
Europe, however, expanded with astonishing speed. From their emergence onto the world stage, it was less than two hundred years before they'd colonized the Americas. By the end of the 1800's, nearly the entire world was under some degree of control of European states. Even standing governments, like China, were being trivialized by European authority in their own lands. They had an immense amount of space to fill up, so their population exploded like nothing the world's seen in recorded history. Add in the American and French revolutions and the Napoleanic Wars, which between them sealed the fate of the old forms of government that had held civilizations back for thousands of years, upending the social order and replacing them with new and highly progress-driven governments.
The West managed to create a civilization that had a rapidly growing population, access to every resource they could ever want, plenty of space to grow, and a lot of available money (since most of the wealth was no longer going to the glorification of kings). Advancement was no longer something that just "happened" like it had in Arabia and China, it was an end unto itself that people spent their whole lives chasing.
Re:Nothing after 1300 (Score:5, Insightful)
-tolerance of others
-respect for others
-respect for human life
Look back only 300 years in Western civilization to see people being burned at the stake for being accused of not being a faithful Christian. Look back only 200 years ago to see people brutally enslaved by Western civilization with plenty of people twisting the Bible to support it. Look back only 100 years ago to see large portions of the globe carved up in the name of bring "Christendom" to the heathens. Look back only 50 years ago to see the end of a European purge of members of a particular faith. Look back only 20 years ago to see the end of a war between Catholics and Protestants that included terrorist violence.
"Western civilization" has only been out of the grips of madness and poor civilization for a very short time itself. Give the Middle East a couple of centuries to sort themselves out too. I'm not saying that we should give up on holding them to a higher standard but that we should be a little more honest about how much effort it took us to get here and to be careful about our own recent backsliding.
Flying machine, eh? hilarious. (Score:4, Funny)
Baghdad international airport and a crater on the Moon are named after him.
about the muslim who attempted to build a flying machine.
Those inventions aren't Islamic (Score:5, Insightful)
Those are human inventions.
Re:Those inventions aren't Islamic (Score:5, Informative)
Islam is not *merely* a religion; it is a combined religion, culture, and political system, in a way that western religions are not. The Bible has been translated into hundreds of languages - the Koran is *inherently* an Arabic document, and - it is argued -can not be translated, but only glossed in other languages. Christianity and Judaism speak to morality and salvation, but do not specify the political system. Islam does, and specifies crimes, punishments, etc.
From time to time other Western religions have taken control of the apparatus of governments, and resulted in theocracy. In Islam, this is not an abberation - it is a key tenet of the politico-religious philosophy.
Re:Those inventions aren't Islamic (Score:5, Insightful)
> the political system. Islam does, and specifies crimes, punishments, etc.
I beg your pardon? I guess you haven't read the Bible much, especially the Old Testament. It does very much outline the framework of a political and social system, complete with excruciating detail regarding crimes and their punishment. That we choose not to structure our societies according to those rules ANYMORE is an entirely different matter. Christianity and Islam are a lot similar than you would like to think, and were even more so before the Reformation. Islam merely haven't had their Martin Luther (yet).
Re:Those inventions aren't Islamic (Score:5, Informative)
Unfortunately, the nations with the most muslims are not places where arabic is spoken. India is number one, Indonesia is number two, and Pakistan is number three.
What have you done for me lately? (Score:3, Informative)
Those inventions were created by people, not by Islam. Islam is merely a religion, and hence useless and incapable of anything at except stroking peoples emotions (for good or bad).
Yet the relative social order and stability brought about by the Baghdad caliphate was sufficient to allow some branches of science advance. That order ended with the Abbasid dynasty in 1200's with the Mongol invasions. Since then much of the middle east has been a backwater. The Sharia no longer serves Muslim civilization we
Re:Those inventions aren't Islamic (Score:3, Insightful)
The point is merely that these were created by a society in which Islam was the predominant religion. That's historically and sociologically interesting, demonstrating that in the general case Islam is not incompatible with an inventive society, and raising questions like "How the hell did things get so screwed up over there?", "Can the same sort of screwing-up happen to societies where Christianity is the predominant religion?", and "What is the wo
Not Surprising At All (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is that such inventiveness and scholarly pursuits largely stopped/stagnated as Muslim countries and culture turned inward.
#'s 1002 and #1003 (Score:5, Funny)
Magic Lamp
(rimshot)
So... (Score:3)
Islamic? (Score:5, Insightful)
Just like terrorism isn't "Islamic", these inventions aren't necessarily Islamic either.
The religion of the inventor had nothing to do with these inventions.
Re:Islamic? (Score:4, Insightful)
The religion of the inventor had nothing to do with these inventions.
The religion of the inventor doesn't matter so much as the culture they lived in, which is completely unrelated to the predominant religion. This can easily be demonstrated empirically.
Culture in the sense I mean it has far more to do with the specific beliefs and institutions that dominate a given society, not the abstract generalizations that a word like "Islam" or "Christianity" captures. There have throughout history been "Christian" nations that have been violent, oppressive, belligerant totalitarian states (consider the England of Elizabeth I), and "Christian" nations that have been peaceful, enlightened and liberal (consider modern Denmark). Islam has been the dominant religion in a similarly diverse set of cultures, from the relatively enlightened caliphates of the middle ages to dark age tribal societies like Afghanistan under the Taliban.
Empirically, religion has literally nothing to do with culture.
But culture certainly has something to do with intellectual achievement. 20th century Russia was a major force in mathematics not so much because Russians had a genetic proclivity for mathematical prowess (as certain crazed pseudo-evolutionists might want to argue) but because it was a lot harder to get into trouble with Communist Party doctrine as a pure mathematician than as a physicist (who might wind up using "Jewish physics" like relativity or quantum mechanics) or as a biologist (who might run afoul of Lysenko).
And all that "Jewish physics" was done by Jews in part because it was easier for them to get chairs in theoretical physics in early 20th century Europe than in experimental physics, because theoretical physics just wasn't seen as being all that important or interesting.
On the more positive side, I've always felt that Newton was archetypally English, for his time--he had the grandiose sweep of Contential intellectuals combined with the practical, detail-oriented, hair-splitting obsessiveness of the great medieval English logicians and experimentalists. And the world he grew up in was one where all the walls had been torn down, where a king had been beheaded in living memory, where any kind of radically intellectual restructuring must have seemed possible.
But while culture and poltics can contribute to an inventor's success, it is the individual who matters in the end.
Lots of innovation (a long time ago) (Score:5, Interesting)
For reasons that I don't understand, the Christian and Muslim worlds seem to have flip-flopped regarding the dominance of religion vs. rational thought somewhere in the past 200-500 years. Of course this is a great over-simplification, but it's worth remembering that there was a time when the Arab world was the center of learning and enlightenment in the non-eastern-Asian world (I phrase it like that b/c I don't want to flamebait the Indians or Chinese).
Re:Lots of innovation (a long time ago) (Score:5, Insightful)
And unfortunately I think the fallout of this is becoming all too appearent. The Koran records Mohammad as stating:
Only argue with the People of the Book in the kindest way - except in the case of those of them who do wrong - saying, 'We have Faith in what has been sent down to us and what was sent down to you. Our God and your God are one and we submit to Him. (Surat al-`Ankabut; 29:46).
Islam at various points in history was actually much more tolerant than Christianity during its day. Mohammad did indeed show tolerance to Christians and Jews, and for a while even Jews were shown acceptance, reversing a long conflict that began over land before Islam existed. Saladin during the Crusades was not only a brilliant commander, but a very reasonable and tolerant guy, and those kind of values actually spurred the rise of chivalry in Europe.
Unfortunately it seems the "people of the book" are still a long ways off from following it, but the British have done good work here and it is exactly these type of things that can help reverse the dehumanization of our fellow man that has taken place lately. Hopefully as Islam ages, they will abandon many of the precepts created by man as was the case during the great schism in Christianity, but it is a two-way street, and more Christians will also have to think more like Jesus and Tom Fox than we have been. I think that within each religion of the "people of the book" lies a path to peace, the question is how many more deaths it will take before we can all find it.
Re:Lots of innovation (a long time ago) (Score:4, Informative)
I, too, find this an interesting observation and have recently read a great deal about the mediteranean world between the fall of Rome and 1000 A.D, during which Islam became a powerful force, culturally and politically and Europe declined. This period was followed by the Crusades, when European contact with Islam brought about an infusion of many of the ideas and inventions mentioned in the article. The period 1000-1500 seems to be a point at which the European and Islamic cultures were neck and neck after which the Europeans pulled ahead during the Rennaisance and the Enlightenment.
During the first period, The Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantium) suffered from some early defeats due to un-preparedness and bad policy decisions. Also a sort of hubris. They thought, "We're the ROMAN EMPIRE, a bunch of desert tribes can't mess with us, they'll go away if we pay them off". What happened next is key, I believe. It became a popular idea in the Eastern Roman Empire that the reason they were repeatedly defeated by the Muslims was because they had strayed from the favor of God. This is an idea they got from the Old Testemant of the Bible which on a number of occasions said that Israel was defeated (e.g. the Babylonian captivity) because the people had strayed from proper religious observance. In Byzantium people decided that icons, for example, were a violation of the rule against idol worship and that by destroying icons they would regain the favor of God thereby turning the tide and begin winning battles against the Muslims. In reality, the iconoclastic movement caused civil war further weakening Byzantium.
The tide began to turn against Islam, about 1500 ironically, just after the complete defeat and capture of Byzantium. Actually, Islam was as strong and as healthy as ever at that time but Europe began to grow and expand through exploration and experimentation and this lead to their advancement and Islam's RELATIVE decline. They began to think like the former Eastern Roman Empire. They had just conquered Constantinople (now Istanbul), their goal for 700 years, the greatest city in the world (in the Turk's mind). The rest of Europe were a bunch of barabrians by comparison and would fall eventually.
In more recent times, as you mention the last 200 years, Islam has fallen behind (really they just never advanced, they stagnated). Currently, they are looking around and saying. "Why are we not as great as we once were?" and some are coming up with the same answer the Byzantines did. Some believe that they are not religiously observant enough and that if they get fundamentalist enough they will win back the favor of God and start to defeat the West.
After 9/11 some of the American fundamentalist preachers tried to pull the same B.S. They said that 9/11 was a punishment by God because we listen to Rock and Roll and try to legalise gay marriage etc. We also have been trying to restrict the free flow of people (locking out foreign students) and ideas (the fight against teaching evolution in schools, though this is not directly connected 9/11). The point is, a resting on our laurels attitude and a turning away from cultural growth and economic expansion and towards ignorance, stagnation and fundamentalism could weaken the U.S as much as it did the Byzantine and Ottoman Empires before it.
The Byzantines, the Muslims and the American fundametalists were all wrong. What wins in the long run is openess to new ideas, economic expansion and not resting on your former glory.
Religious fundamentalism and internal fighting only weaken cultures. God won't come to our rescue if we all become vegitareans. God helps those who help themselves.
Anything in the last 30 years??? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Anything in the last 30 years??? (Score:3, Insightful)
That being said, it seems pretty obvious that within the last 250-odd years, the Islamic world has generated very little in the way of innovation, while Westerners have created a world of technology that's completely transformed people's lives. In fact, others have pointed out that in the 600-odd years Islam has existed, the Islamic world has produce
Re:Anything in the last 30 years??? (Score:3, Informative)
From TFA (Score:5, Informative)
The moslems only attacked Persia in 638. It seems to me that at least one of these inventions have nothing to do with Islam.
Odd, shows how little I know about the world (Score:3, Insightful)
While it is difficult to spot exactly where the islamic fate starts in history most people seem to assume it starts with the prophet Muhammad.
Who came a good 700 years after Jesus Christ who himself came from a fate even older. If you go back several thousand years the only bible fate around that is still around (as far as I know) are the Jews.
Wich means that most of the inventions claimed here are in fact not made by muslims but either by their predecessors (christians or jews) OR one of the many other fates that used to exist in the world.
It always suprises me when people talk about the rich history of the middle east and attribute it to Islam when in fact islam had next to nothing to do with it. Just check islamic attitudes to the great pyramids.
When an article already makes a basic mistake by attributing achievements to a fate that happened hundreds of years earlier I smell propoganda. Would be like attributing the Great Wall to the Chinese Communist Party.
Same region, same ethnic people but totally different nonetheless.
Basically this whole things sound to me like, thousands of years ago when the world was totally different some guy invented a thing wich was kinda of usefull so now a whole group of religious freaks must be liked despite the fact that everything they say and do is exactly against the believes of that guy thousands of years ago.
No thanks. I just judge muslims by the ones I meet in daily life.
My greatest problem with the muslims in general is that they never seem to have heard of the saying "what is good for the goose is good for the gander" (what goes for you goes for me). Take the recent riots over those danish cartoons. Arab media have spouted hate for decades but that is alright. One rule for the muslims, another for the rest of the world. No thank you.
The only thing I know that in holland a mere 3-4% of the population seems to be in the news 80% of the time. You can turn on the tv without some program about them. Enough already.
Oh, and those who think that hatred against muslims is extreme right. Consider this. What do nazi's hate? Homosexuals, equal rights for women, jews, etc. What do muslims hate?
Those lefties defending muslims bashing gays and supressing womens mystify me. Sometimes the enemy of your enemy is your enemy as well. Just because your against Bush doesn't mean you have to be pro muslim.
Re:FYI... (Score:3, Informative)
Not very well researched either... (Score:5, Informative)
From TFA: By the 9th century, many Muslim scholars took it for granted that the Earth was a sphere. The proof, said astronomer Ibn Hazm, "is that the Sun is always vertical to a particular spot on Earth". It was 500 years before that realisation dawned on Galileo.
The fact that the Earth was round (contrary to popular belief) was not big news in the 9th century. The ancient Greeks knew very well that the Earth was a sphere, and they too had calculated the circumference with surprising accuracy several centuries B.C. (not to mention before Mohammed). Also Galileo wasn't controversial because he claimed the Earth was round - it was because he claimed that the Earth revolved around the sun, and not vice versa. Sigh.
The earth is round! (and the greeks knew it) (Score:5, Insightful)
This is not an Islamic discovery (Score:5, Insightful)
18) By the 9th century, many Muslim scholars took it for granted that the Earth was a sphere. The proof, said astronomer Ibn Hazm, "is that the Sun is always vertical to a particular spot on Earth". It was 500 years before that realisation dawned on Galileo. The calculations of Muslim astronomers were so accurate that in the 9th century they reckoned the Earth's circumference to be 40,253.4km - less than 200km out. The scholar al-Idrisi took a globe depicting the world to the court of King Roger of Sicily in 1139.
But as I understand it, the Egyptian Eratosthenes had discovered this same thing 11 centuries earlier:
http://outreach.as.utexas.edu/marykay/assignments
Galileo was responsible for many great discoveries, but I've never seen anyone claim that he discovered the Earth was round. Many argue that a round world was common knowledge in Europe, despite what their maps might make us believe.
"qamara" obscura (Score:5, Informative)
Re:"qamara" obscura (Score:3, Funny)
You do know this is slashdot right?
If everybody did read the articles, and then only qualified scholars commented there'd be like 3 posts per article.
Re:"qamara" obscura (Score:4, Insightful)
You really should've researched this before blathering on. While Latin, Greek and English are all derived from the Indo-European root language group, Arabic is not. It is of course a member of the Afro-Asiatic root language group, which of course is not related to the Indo-European group. While they may share some pre-historic parent language, most linguists are reluctant to accept this theory (as are most arabs interestingly enough).
The original term was camera obscura, which is of course latin in origin (obscura of course being entirely latin). This is easily explained as latin was already in use in the "scientific" fields as the language of choice. Which explains why an Arab man like Ibn al-Haitham would use latin to describe his invention.
Also the text in the article is completely ridiculous. It was not the common theory that eyes emitted light, that was a theory of 2 Greek scientists. And it was refuted by Aristotle, which became the common theory.
The article is an obvious Arab apologistic treatise. Several of the "inventions" mentioned are not inventions at all. And the vast majority are actually inventions from other lands and peoples.
Correction on several inaccuracies (Score:5, Interesting)
I note a trend: the Arabs, perhaps because of their geographic location at the crossroads of the East and West, are bound to discover many new and exciting ideas and teaching from their neighbors. They were in pretty good company (Greco-Roman thoughts to the West, Indian thoughts to the East) so they are bound to pick up something.
From TFA: (Score:3, Informative)
First of all, Persian != Islamic. Second, Chess predates Islam.
Chris Rock and Colin Powell (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, I notice that the tone of the Slashdot story and the comments in this article is rather antagonistic and condescending. I am reminded of Chris Rock's standup routine, when he talks about how white people viewed Colin Powell's possible run for presidency:
"Whenever Colin Powell is on the news, white people give him the same compliments: 'How do you feel about Colin Powell?', 'He speaks so well! He's so well spoken. I mean he really speaks so well!' Like that's a compliment, shit. 'He speaks so well' is not a compliment, okay? 'He speaks so well' is some shit you say about retarded people that can talk. What do you mean he speaks so well? He's a fucking educated man, how the fuck you expect him to sound, you dirty motherfucker? 'He speaks so well.' What are you talking about? What voice were you expecting to come out of his mouth? 'Imma drop me a bomb today', 'Imma be Pwez o dent!'."
LS
Vaccination claim for Islam is WRONG! (Score:5, Informative)
" Children in Turkey were vaccinated with cowpox to fight the deadly smallpox at least 50 years before the West discovered it."
This is just plain WRONG! The practice of deliberately infecting people with SMALLPOX (not cowpox) from a mild case to make them immune (variolation) was a process developed sometime around the 10th century in China and/or India. It involved taking pus from the pox of someone suffering from smallpox, or the scabs from the pox, and inoculating healthy people with it. Usually a mild case of smallpox developed, giving lifelong immunity afterwards. The first written account of variolation describes a Buddhist nun practicing around 1022 to 1063 AD. She would grind up scabs taken from a person infected with smallpox into a powder, and then blow it into the nostrils of a non-immune person. Another method, more common, involves rubbing the pus from the pox into a scratch in the skin of the non-immune person.
By the 1700's, variolation was common practice in China, India, and Turkey, where it was carried to England by a diplomat's wife. In the late 1700's European physicians used this and other methods of variolation, but reported "devastating" results in some cases. Overall, 2% to 3% of people who were variolated died of smallpox, but this practice decreased the total number of smallpox fatalities by 10-fold. However, a variolated patient could transmit genuine smallpox and could even start an epidemic!
Jenner, on the other hand, was the first to use cowpox (vaccinia virus) instead of live smallpox ... hence the name of "vaccination".
What about India and China? (Score:4, Insightful)
The truth is, until Vasco De Gama discovered the sea route to India, Arabs were the conduit for all communication and trade between the West and India. Hence, many inventions and goods that are actually Indian are often misnamed as Arabic. The so-called "Arabic numeric system" is an excellent example.
One would think, after all these years, there would be more clarity on this issue.
Islam (the religion) did not invent (Score:5, Insightful)
I have read a lot of history about the Islamic empire that stretched from India to Iberia. This is largely an extension of my desire to understand Spanish history.
To say that Islam created these wonders is to ignore what was actually happening in the society that was the Islamic empire. The empire was tolerant of all religions and beliefs, including people "not of the book," which would include persons that were not Jews and Christians. This empire preached tolerance and benefitted from having non-believers because the government taxed non-believers more (which may have influenced the less-firm in their beliefs to convert).
The end result was a polycultural society that valued innovation, high art and wonderful architecture. And I would argue that it's not the dominant religion that was responsible but the society.
If you look at the last century, you'll see lots of Nobel Prize winners in the sciences coming from America (that would be The Great Satan to many Islamic societies -- especially Iran). Could it be that a polycultural society with vast natural resources is what helps in the creation of these innovations?
I look at these monocultural and intolerant societies as non-creators of advancements. For examples, one merely needs to look at Afghanistan under the Taliban, Iran and China under the Cultural Revolution.
I agree that it is important to look to history and appreciate those innovations and inventions that came before but to suggest that a religion created these is to ignore what really happened.
I should note that, when Iberia turned monocultural and intolerent under the Kings of Castile and Aragon, they created and innovated such wonderous examples as the Spanish Inquisition [rotten.com], the expulsion and forced conversion (and further persecution) of Jews and the encomienda system [answers.com] of tributory labor that was used to enslave and destroy Native American nations and civilizations. [sarcasm]It's a shame these innovations happened so long ago; they surely would have been awarded Nobel prizes for them.[/sarcasm]
I do not wish to detract from the religion that is Islam. I know a great number of practicing muslims and they are good people with whom I have very good friendships. I believe that people should get along with their neighbors and appreciate them more by striving to understand them. But the article seems to gloss over the fact that the culture probably begat the advancements rather than the religion.
Re:Makes me laugh. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Yeah yeah yeah (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Kurt Vonnegut Jr. Quote (Score:5, Informative)
Numbers is a poor example.
Credit where credit is due.
Re:Kurt Vonnegut Jr. Quote (Score:3, Funny)
Won't that cause a compiler error with the mismatched variable types? And you should really use integer division (\) there.
"Error MMCMLXVIII: An un-oracled error as been handed down unto you by the gods. All hail Ceasar!"
Oh, and the answer is wrong. It's VI. Now write it 100, er, C times or I'll cut your balls off.
Re:Shouldn't these be called... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Shouldn't these be called... (Score:3, Interesting)
Do moderators just click at anything that sounds historical?
LS
Re:Shouldn't these be called... (Score:5, Insightful)
These inventions were created by intelligent, open minded people who happened to be Muslim and weren't living under oppresion of crazed power hungry lunatics who consider technology to be the tool of satan.
I lived in Pakistan for a few years and all the so called "muslim scholars" of today are uneducated trash who happened to brain-wash enough poverty stricken people in order to get power. These morons are the face of Islam these days and that's sad.
Hopefully, the few remaining educated sane muslims will be able to over turn this growing trend.
Re:Discrimination (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Discrimination (Score:5, Insightful)
The vast majority of all historical accomplishments? You even use terms like "the truth" and "of course", making it sound ridiculously assumptious.
If I was to believe such a claim, I would require proof. European and American history is Eurocentric, so we know far more about European history than we do of Chinese, Arabian, Japanese, Indian, African or native american history. The Chinese and Japanese have for instance an extremely rich history full of accomplisments, lots of which are not well known by westeners. The same goes for most other civilisations.
Also, just because the white, christian male conquered large parts of the world, does not mean we were culturally superiour. We just happened to better at killing than them.
Re:Discrimination (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Discrimination (Score:5, Insightful)
Did I wake up in some parallel universe today where there's a stigma attached to being straight or Christian? Last time I looked, there was still stigma attached to homosexuality, and bisexuality is mostly ignored or assumed not to exist. Atheists are often thought of as immoral, and given none of the protections and exceptions that religious people - yes, including Christians - get.
There may be no "parades" and so on, but that's because your types are celebrated, or even forced upon us, all the time anyway. In the UK, even though I went to a state school, we had to celebrate your religion every morning. In most countries, same sex couples are not permitted to have legal recognition for their relationship. Perhaps there'd be less parades if they were allowed to celebrate in the same way that heterosexuals can?
The truth, of course, is that the vast majority of all historical accomplishments were achieved by straight, white, Christian males.
Emphasis on the word historical. The number of Christian scientific developments is far less in the last century.
Having said that - I agree that it's silly to start rating which-group-of-people-did-what (although you yourself fall into this trap with the above paragraph). But for the most part, things like "parades" are not about this anyway, they're about raising awareness against discrimination. I disagree with your claim that it's not acceptable to be proud of straight, male, caucasion or Christian heritage.
while straight white males stand at the sidelines with their mouths shut, lest they be considered racist, sexist, homophobic, or just generally discriminatory.
No one is stopping you from celebrating achievments of straight white males. The problem is that you seem to want to also say "...and we're better than all the rest".
Re:Discrimination (Score:5, Interesting)
The truth, of course, is that the vast majority of all historical accomplishments were achieved by straight, white, Christian males.
You can't overlook the reasons behind this. Being straight, white, Christian, and male has nothing to do with inventions. The reason for this is that "straight" (I'd question the validity of this), white, Christians were the financial/military leaders over the past 200 years. Do you expect a black man to have been able to invent the ligthbulb from his slave quarters? Do you think a Pagan could have gotten funding from a catholic society to do medical research without being burned at stake? Do you think women had the educational opportunities to go forth in a male dominated society and been accepted as credible scientists? Do you think Leonardo DaVinci could have really come out of the closet?The truth is that African-Americans were enslaved and oppressed, Africans themselves were plagued with civil wars and apartheid, the jews were being eradicated in a hollocaust, the Japanese were getting a-bombed, the middle-east was still being bombarded with countless "cruisaides", women were raped, beaten and sent to the kitchen, and the straight, white, aryan, Christian males were sitting on top of their pile of money with guns drawn reaping all the benefits of being the "master race".
Now I know you're not a bigot, I just think you're disreguarding the fact that you are indeed a majority in every way. You might ask why there's black history classes, but no white history classes... because the "history" that you had in school is white history.
If you wanna be proud of anything, be proud of the fact that you are part of a race, sexuality, gender, and religion that has not been publicly ridiculed, tortured, eradicated, and had their ass kicked six ways from sunday for the past x-hundred years.
And not that I think its relevant, but I'm also a straight, white, Christian male.
Re:Discrimination (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, tell that to the Irish, and the Italians, and the Poles, and the Dutch, and the Scots etc, etc. Being straight, white, Christian, and male is no proof against discrimination. Being straight, "white", agnostic and male myself, I can vouch for the fact that it's not a guarantor of wealth, either.
Re:Discrimination (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, you did, and even in your latest post, you're still overstating it -- and providing the answer to the question in your original post. The reason that people who aren't straight, white, Christian males feel the need to celebrate the accomplishements of $DEMOGRAPHIC_GROUP is because although straight, white, Christian males have accomplished a hell of a lot, they haven't accomplished as large a proportion of everything as a lot of people (like you) seem to think they have; and those who are not swCm's feel justifiably aggrieved at having their accomplishments downplayed (or, in many cases, having the credit stolen outright.) Really, it's a matter of a pendulum swing; give it some time, and things will settle down. In a perfect world, we'd give everyone credit for their accomplishments without even noting their sexual preference, race, religion, sex, national origin, disability status, age, veteran status, height, weight, hair color, absence or presence of hair, musical tastes, et bloody cetera
Re:Obl: Star Trek Russia quote (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Their best invention. (Score:3, Informative)