What's new

Why So Few Nobel Prizes For Muslims? Why Are Muslims Killing Each Other?

Good point, but I think British may have lobbied against it in the Nobel committee. The Nobel prizes are heavily favorable and bias towards western persons either way.

i don't know why indian and pakistanis hate each other so much.

i have much more hate for these goddamn prisoner of b8tch queens.i especially hate that fat b@stard churchill.
i mean we should hate each other but before it we should hate brittania for the atrocities they did against us.

Then where did they come from, outerspace? :crazy:
Between Rajasthan and Sindh border there are people who are Rajput and speak Rajasthani in Sindh, close to the border.

This is not that apparent in Punjab-Rajasthan border though.

so you mean to say all the rajputs came from sindhi???
i know there are some rajput converts like jadejas and khanzadas but i am sure my roots are in rajasthan,gujrat and u.p
 
To claim the paradigm "Muslims aren't peaceful/bright/industrious but others aren't, too" doesn't prove anything, but it strengthens the opposition's case. It just shows that not only are the Muslims dim-witted, they choose to blame others when it comes to their shortcomings.

No, it shows the "dim-wittedness" of people who can't follow logic.

If five people rob a bank, and you say "black guy robbed a bank" while ignoring the other culprits, it means you have a bias against black guys specifically.

The statistics on Nobel prizes show a closer correlation with poverty, West v/s East and other indicators than with religion. Only people with a specific agenda will highlight a religious correlation while ignoring all the other statistics.
 
Why do Muslims keep arguing in the same fashion? To claim the paradigm "Muslims aren't peaceful/bright/industrious but others aren't, too" doesn't prove anything, but it strengthens the opposition's case. It just shows that not only are the Muslims dim-witted, they choose to blame others when it comes to their shortcomings.

In addition to what Developereo said: all the peoples of all the different regions of the world have gone through this, which means that it is a natural progression and comes with being people. When the others were killing themselves the Muslims were building and creating stuff that looked like magic to the west. In fact its not a progression but a cycle; Middle ages -> prosperity -> world wars, you get the idea.

Because religion and science are in conflict with each other, so you have to choose one!

More importantly religion kills innovation. Most of the so-called Islamic Golden age scientist were Iranian and didn't even believe in god. I always wondered about the extent religious people, especially Muslims and Christians are willing to go to strengthen their own faith by trying to forcefully make a particular historical figure approve of their beliefs by fabricating documents! This just shows their own lack of belief!

The Church and science are in conflict. It would even be wrong to say that Christianity and science are in conflict. There are many detailed accounts of ancient western historians and travelers who came to the middle east and were amazed to see science, not co-existing with, but being encouraged by the religion i.e. Islam. This was around the time the Church was burning anyone who picked up a pen.

Pick up a book and start reading. Almost all the ancient Muslim mathematicians who's work I have studied were Arabs and definitely not Iranians. Some of their works and lives are well documented not just by other Muslims and themselves but westerners who came seeking their knowledge. Also, these scholars were spread form Morocco to Iraq.

What is the funniest is the extent to which some peoples are willing to go to strengthen their own ancient racial superiority syndromes by fabricating claims out of thin air about things which they do not know of and have never read. This just shows their sense of inferiority, and I'm talking to a lot of people here on this thread.

Decimal number is Indian. Even Algebra of Arabs was based on Indian mathematician.

Algebra is based on the work by Indian mathematicians just as much as numerical analysis, combinatorics and linear programming is based on the concept of solving simultaneous equations through substitution (addition/subtraction method not included). And I'm not talking about Linear Algebra or Abstract Algebra. Just the basic Algebra which I'm sure you studied at school. The numerals are geographically ancient Indian but had different input from different areas of ancient geographic India, just as the number zero did. The decimal has a similar story but was further expanded into what we see today by the Arabs.


The statement "Muslims killing muslims" is being responded to by saying Gandhi (Hindu) was killed by a Hindu etc.

the point of "Muslims are killing Muslims" is that Muslims are killing other Muslims because of religious intolerance. And that has not happened as much in other religions as it is happening with Islam.

Let me introduce you to a few subjects, namely, World History, Religious Anthropology, Western History, European History, Muslim History, Middle Eastern History, South Asian History and the World Wars. This should be sufficient for a few days.

The Indus Valley Civ's writings are not deciphered yet. Where did you get it that they developed the Numerals?

BTW - your textbooks have disowned the history and culture of the land. You are either mongols/arabs or indians. If you are descenddent of IVC (as you claim) and then embraced other cultures/civilizations, atleast respect it and own it completely. Can you point me to any historian/text that is taught in schools/ univs where I can read a continuous chain from IVC to present day pakistan? I thought the "idea of pakistan" originated somewhere in 7th century AD (after Islam came into the world)

I was hoping you'd ask. Hmmm...actually there are quite a few. When I took the World Civilizations-I course I was subjected to 3-4 quite heavy books. Made us read pretty much everything; IVC, Ashoka, Chandra Gupta Mauria, etc., etc. Don't remember most of it now though. So obviously, what you thought is of no value or consequence :)

ps: At least in my Uni proffs weren't limited to any curricula. They pretty much decided on what they wanted to teach, made their own course packs from articles and readings from all over the place, then gave "supplementary readings" which were even thicker books. Then they offered the course with details and let the students decide if they wanted to take it. You see my madrassah believed that knowledge did not come with set curricula and so it got all sorts of people to teach us; some proffs there were atheists, come socialists, some feminists, some religious, some nothing but mathematicians,so on and so forth.

The Muslims should create their own version of the Nobel, especially when Obama received it. :lol:

Anyway...The annual prize, whatever its name, will be for the Muslim judged by a panel of mullahs to be the most creative in interpreting scientific discoveries and inventions according to the Quran, thereby diluting the prestige of the Nobel.

Naaah...the previous scientific discoveries mentioned in the Quran were discovered and told by western scientists, who incidentally converted after that. We can't do it since we don't know much about the Quran or the sciences, we'll just leave it to the West again.
 
No, it shows the "dim-wittedness" of people who can't follow logic.

If five people rob a bank, and you say "black guy robbed a bank" while ignoring the other culprits, it means you have a bias against black guys specifically.

The statistics on Nobel prizes show a closer correlation with poverty, West v/s East and other indicators than with religion. Only people with a specific agenda will highlight a religious correlation while ignoring all the other statistics.

I was specifically raising an objection to the flawed assumption that seems to be raised by many Muslim apologists(including this particular submission) these days:

You can't successfully argue that Islam is a religion of peace by demonstrating other religions are violent as well. That simply strengthens the proposition that Islam is an inherently violent religion, no different than the rest . The same way, it's ridiculous to try and disprove Muslim backwardness or barbarity by citing parallels with other communities.

I agree with the rest of your post on bias, although that may only be true with the Nobel Peace prize. There is no reason to suspect that the rest of the nominations are politically influenced.
 
I was specifically raising an objection to the flawed assumption that seems to be raised by many Muslim apologists(including this particular submission) these days:

You can't successfully argue that Islam is a religion of peace by demonstrating other religions are violent as well. That simply strengthens the proposition that Islam is an inherently violent religion, no different than the rest . The same way, it's ridiculous to try and disprove Muslim backwardness or barbarity by citing parallels with other communities.

I agree with the rest of your post on bias, although that may only be true with the Nobel Peace prize. There is no reason to suspect that the rest of the nominations are politically influenced.

My comment was specifically about the Nobel prize, not violence.

As for evolution of religious thought, the claim that Islam needs to evolve like other religions is also false. All religions, including Islam, already have a breadth of interpretations. What is happening is that the countries which have adopted a more laissez faire interpretation to (any) religion have progressed scientifically. We can discuss the causality and correlation of this phenomenon, but the single most important correlation with scientific advancement is rule of law, governance, and protection of personal rights, including intellectual property. All countries -- Muslim or not -- which lack the above attributes have remained backwards.

An intellectually honest assessment would highlight rule of law, governance, and personal rights -- not religion -- as the determinant of scientific progress.
 
I was specifically raising an objection to the flawed assumption that seems to be raised by many Muslim apologists(including this particular submission) these days:

You can't successfully argue that Islam is a religion of peace by demonstrating other religions are violent as well. That simply strengthens the proposition that Islam is an inherently violent religion, no different than the rest . The same way, it's ridiculous to try and disprove Muslim backwardness or barbarity by citing parallels with other communities.

I agree with the rest of your post on bias, although that may only be true with the Nobel Peace prize. There is no reason to suspect that the rest of the nominations are politically influenced.

What you did not get in his post is that by ignoring and not acknowledging the violence being enacted in other countries, societies, religions, etc. of present or past, you are falsely correlating the violence prevalent in the Muslim world with them being Muslim. This in Mathematical Modelling is called scope and tightening. What you are doing is taking a result (violence) and cherry picking an attribute/variable (Islam) of the equation (Muslim world). First you are ignoring all the other attributes/variables in the Muslim world which would obviously lead your model to exhibit a false correlation between the two. This is further compounded when you do not acknowledge the violence prevalent in other parts of the world in different periods of time because if you had then you would realize that there are other attributes/variables which account for the result (violence) and not the variable or at least not just the variable that you had selected (Islam). Its pretty simple really. If you know that I am a moron, then knowing nothing about me except for the country and location flags you will judge that I am a moron because I'm a Pakistani living in Pakistan. If then you came to know that Developereo is also a moron then using the same criteria you'll conclude that all Pakistanis (living abroad and in the country) are morons. But if then you also realized that you too are a moron then either you'll conclude that all PDF members are morons or that there's something more than a member's nationality that determines his intellectual prowess. For that you'll have to go check with an Austrian who's living in Brasil and does not participate in any fora and then see if he's a moron or not. And if indeed he is not then it falls on you to further investigate if there are any other commonalities in the population which would be the cause of the said moronic behavior. The last part is usually done with a proof by contradiction. All this is basic scientific research methodology. *Note the irony when the man talking about the scientific backwardness of the Muslim world is substantiating his claims with unscientific methods, so to speak.
 
Decimal number is Indian. Even Algebra of Arabs was based on Indian mathematician.

Decimal is not just indian, in fact you were late to the party. The first decimal fraction with power of 10 was first developed in China.

The Babylonians and the Greeks were first to came up with Algebra. Your took Algebra from the Greeks.
 
No such thing as copy right back then, Arabs spread it to the rest of the world so they got the credit. Next time do not hide knowledge from the world and then cry when someone else brings it to attention Indian. :lol:

Prove it. :cuckoo:

There is difference between spreading and claiming to invent it. :lol:


The numeral system is known as Arabic-Hindu numeral system. The arabs did improvise on the original, so it's not just spreading it.
But even "spreading" aka marketing, is equally important, otherwise the west would not have adopted it. No product/ideal sells by buy itself.
 
Decimal is not just indian, in fact you were late to the party. The first decimal fraction with power of 10 was first developed in China.

The Babylonians and the Greeks were first to came up with Algebra. Your took Algebra from the Greeks.

The Babylonians were absolute geniuses.

http://www.ias.ac.in/resonance/August2003/pdf/August2003p27-42.pdf

This evidence of a Babylonian in° uence on Greek and Indian mathematics reveals the exaggeration in the assertions of the `great est contributions' of India in mathematics (e.g.[6] \ the invention of the decimal notation and creation of modern arithmetic; the invention of the sineand cosinefunct ions leading to t hecreation of modern trigonometry and creation of algebra") and places the post-Vedic Indian contribution t o mat hematics and astronomy in the proper historical context. As in modern academics, in theancient Chinese, Greek and Indian studies we ¯nd a continuity which is built on earlier works from other civilizations and other cultures.
 
Decimal is not just indian, in fact you were late to the party. The first decimal fraction with power of 10 was first developed in China.

The Babylonians and the Greeks were first to came up with Algebra. Your took Algebra from the Greeks.

Current decimal system used by the world is Indian numerals, your Shuzhou numerals wasn't enough for simple mathematical calculations, thus abacus was employed.

Can you prove that Greeks introduced Algebra to India. Greeks and Indians independently developed Algebra which together became the further deveoplment of Algebra in the middle East.
 
The numeral system is known as Arabic-Hindu numeral system. The arabs did improvise on the original, so it's not just spreading it.
But even "spreading" aka marketing, is equally important, otherwise the west would not have adopted it. No product/ideal sells by buy itself.

Only improvement done by Arabs was changing the script of numerals to suit Arabic language. Europeans named it Arabic numerals because they didn't know Arabs learnt it from Indians.
 
Current decimal system used by the world is Indian numerals, your Shuzhou numerals wasn't enough for simple mathematical calculations, thus abacus was employed.

Can you prove that Greeks introduced Algebra to India. Greeks and Indians independently developed Algebra which together became the further deveoplment of Algebra in the middle East.


LOL, Abacus was the ancient equivalent of a calculator, it was invented for simple arithmetic. Nothing to with Shuzhuo numeral, which came the older Counting Rod system. The first decimal fraction with power of 10 was Chinese!

Either you're a poor student of history or just another indian suffering from delusion of grandeur. Greek mathematician Diophantus was "the father of algebra". To deny Algebra came babylonians and the Greeks is as good as denying Hinduism came from India.
 
Back
Top Bottom