Hyping Islam ’s role in the History of Science

no... what is this nonsense? Islam was in no shape or form proponent of science, it was the atmosphere within society created during the golden age of the Caliphate in which science prospered, many advancements were made and much was rediscovered from the ancients, much that may have otherwise been lost to the world at that time.

The Caliphate was a mould for the knowledge that existed at that time within Byzantium, Iran and India.  Many of the said translations were simply continuations of works that were ongoing at the Sassanian academy of Gondashapur which during the Islamic age came into its own as a truly international centre for learning.  Already, there were Christian as well as many other scholars there researching. They migrated from their native society because of the taboo against scientific research.

The caption of a picture of Avicenna in the article in Science says that he helped bring about the Renaissance by

�advocating the use of reason and logic as the way to gain knowledge.�

If this means that Avicenna believed that reason and logic were the way to gain knowledge, he was not a Muslim. If he believed that they were a way to knowledge, with whom was he arguing?

I could quote many references from the Koran that advocates reason and logic. Avicenna would, therefore, be following the dictates of his religion. I fail to see the problem that the author of the article sees. Unless the author(s) had another agenda in his mind. Or maybe he feels that muslim history does not hold a wealth of important scientific discoveries.

pretty much it I think; a historically worthless article.

Wow, it is a women who has been the only one to attempt a refutation of the article!  I'm impressed. 

Bosnians knowing their own language seems rational enough, those dictionaries were the works of Bosnians, not Turks.  And I don't think a Turkish Vizier of Bosnia knowing how to speak Bosnian qualifies as a "Muslim scholar or man of letters before the eighteenth century who sought to learn a western language."

it didnt clear up any misconceptions, its nothing but pure "stormfront" type of debate which is based on whities and christianity being the superior race and religion.

whatever that means

Medieval Islamic opinions on uncivilised Europeans who allegedly became more intelligent than the rest of humanity due to the alleged harshness of their climate:

i found more posts from the same author,

Your query searching for Jonathan David Carson returned the following result(s):


The Established Religion of the United States
October 7th, 2005 

Liberals and Islamofascists
September 29th, 2005 

Original American Sin
September 12th, 2005 

We could lose everything
August 30th, 2005 

The not-so-golden age of Islamic philosophy
August 19th, 2005 

Hyping Islam 's role in the History of Science
July 29th, 2005 

 i think this guy's phD is in misleading and misinterpretation of others work and articls.

oh really?

how come the first civilizations in the world aren't european?

where were the europeans 1000s of years BC? what civilization did they do?

about Islamic Civilization i would say you need to read more and see what did Islamic civilization add or did.

and as Maju and other said you better replay to the people who replayed to your post, then start stating what you call "Facts" which is obviously without any sources nor proofs.

Like Azimuth said, surely if Western Europeans were so superior then howcome they do not have any significant civilization to speak of past 1200 years?  They too, like every civilised people before them accomplished off the back of others' achievements.