This Arab woman criticises Islamic civilization on Al Jazeera

[gorah_pindu]

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=1296126090432829344 Discuss.

[varun]

Damn u like opening a can of worms don't u. I believe this clip was posted before though.

[CC1981]

I dunno what to think, honestly. I admire her intentions and her courage for trying to show Islam its true face...As Neitzche once wrote, (paraphrasing) - the true devils are those who believe in a devil and an opposing God in the first place. But i also feel a bit frustrated by her indulgence in polemics. She really does over-toot the west's horn to get her point across...no, most of what we 'have today' arnt western sciences- they are sciences either re-discovered by the west or imported by the west...until the last 200 years. When giving example of tolerance and secularist society, she should've picked India and not the west... Then she goes into a bit of hyperbole about the Jews being leading scientists of last century- true, they had some many high profile ones, but really, the jewish science community wasnt that huge either...lots of non-jewish scientists around too,far more in fact. Equally influential, though not as high profile ( Einstien is a bit over-inflated. I don't see why Heisenberg or Plank were any less than him) due to a Jewish PR campaign post-WWII. I don't think this issue can be successfully gotten across with such rampant use of polemics. (and that is the whole point, isnt it ? the ultimate objective is to get muslims to realise the error in their ways, not to just gloat/toot our own horn) Using so much polemics will be easily shot down in a 'high profile' debate with seriously qualified audience. But her intentions and conclusions are pretty solid.

[CC1981]

What is actually far more high-impact statement Wafa Sultan made elsewhere(though not in that clip but in a Time magazine interview) : She said that she doesnt believe in Islam but she is a muslim. This is pretty much as damning as she can get of Islam ( technically speaking, muslim means 'believer in God/creator'). Oh and i think i should post this clip too- it is only fair to hear what these guys come up as their rebuttal to her (even though i think this dood is using pretty erroneous stuff and categoric falsehoods propagated as myths in Islam): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztXaNwbbJQU&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eturntoislam%2Ecom%2Fforum%2Fshowthread%2Ephp%3Ft%3D13040 The rebuttal starts off very well with telling her the facts of Islam's much more civilized existance in the middle ages compared to Europe...though that is true ONLY in the Europe-middle east interaction...they were just as brutal in afghanistan/india/central-asia. And both of them forget that the REAL civilization that existed for THOUSANDS of years of harmony and NO serious infighting or crusading is INDIA. So ultimately, Wafa is right though she uses the wrong example (thats the trouble..few outside of India/indophiles in the west know of India and its real history). But unfortunately, this guy completely falls off the rocker the moment he stops talking about Muslim Andulusia.

[gorah_pindu]

Some of her assertions were wrong - for instance the Islamic world has contributed to the sciences - and others could have applied to Christianity as much as Islam - but the basic points she makes, such as 'defining people as us and them' are indeed legitimate.

[Zap_Brannigan]

is she dead yet?

[CC1981]

is she dead yet?

Not yet..she resides in the US and opened her mouth AFTER 9/11..ie, after it became insanely harder for two-bit terrorists to go 'kaboom' in mainland US. still, she's recieved many phone threats and hate-mail from the 'religion of truth & peace' fanatics.

[Ram]

Initially , I thought she was singing !

[The Outsider]

Equally influential, though not as high profile ( Einstien is a bit over-inflated. I don't see why Heisenberg or Plank were any less than him) due to a Jewish PR campaign post-WWII.

Einstein overinflated? Man, you need to get hold of a book on General Relativity.

[CC1981]

Einstein overinflated? Man, you need to get hold of a book on General Relativity.

I've read it...my whole point was, as great as Einstien was, he wasn't exactly 'a class ahead' of the field or 'the most brilliant man' of the century as he gets credited for...i cannot see why Plank of Heisenberg were any less 'genius' than Einstien.

[The Outsider]

I've read it...my whole point was' date=' as great as Einstien was, he wasn't exactly 'a class ahead' of the field or 'the most brilliant man' of the century as he gets credited for...i cannot see why Plank of Heisenberg were any less 'genius' than Einstien.[/quote'] CC, I admire your know how on a very broad spectrum of things but please don't go around proclaiming the expert of everything. The thread we were discussing the observable universe is still awaiting your response. But coming back to this brings me to an earlier question about how you quickly categorized theoretical Physicists and upon being asked how much theoretical Physics have you studied you came up with a very basic answer, which in itself is superb for someone who is an Engineer. So lets start all over, how much General Relativity do you know after proclaiming yourslef as knowledgable in it.

[Gaurav]

A German "friend" of mine always used to say that chacha Einstein was a very cr@p scientist :hysterical:

[CC1981]

The thread we were discussing the observable universe is still awaiting your response.

Its a pointless discussion...coz you arnt seeing where i am comming from. To use an analogy, if the universe is likened to the Indian ocean...we only 'see and know of' the bay of bengal...we have no idea how big the Indian ocean is and therefore, all our extrapolations based on observing the bay of bengal and applying it carte blanche to the Indian Ocean is flawed...and this is the flaw of astro-physics. Making claims it has very little right to when it comes to the WHOLE UNIVERSE. Since we have NO IDEA how big the full universe is, we have no basis on saying that the Entire universe we inhabit is the product of big-bang. Its a baseless assessment without knowing how big the universe is, whether there was only ONE big bang event or is big bang a 'one of many' event that occurs astronomical distances away from each other but inside the same universe...All this fundamentally impacts the big bang theory in which theoretical physics is not completely honest or straightforward in declaring their limitations. It only hides behind 'well all physicists know this' but the common public's interpretations, which most physicists are completely aware is a product of deliberate minimalist spiel of theoretical physicists when it comes to spelling out the limitations of their conclusions. And i never claimed to be an expert on astro-physics. Its not my field, i dont even know Raman effect properly. But i do know of all the techniques used by astro-physicists to make their observations ( doppler effect, CBR, neutrino-collectors, etc) and i do know the limiations of those tech. I don't have to be a physicist to reason. We engineers arn't exactly 'devoid of reasoning ability' either. And it is obvious that astro-physics is making baseless claims when it comes to universe starting from big bang being an absolute fact. They simply dont know enough about the universe to start talking about OUR material universe in absolute terms. Only thing we have is the observable universe. We have no idea of knowing if this observable universe is 1% or 100% or 0.00001% of our physical universe.

So lets start all over, how much General Relativity do you know after proclaiming yourslef as knowledgable in it.

How do i quantify this ? I have taken a gen. relativity course that is 3rd year physics. But my perspective in this case is one that is common amongst engineers and theoretical physicists : Einstien is over-inflated because he gets far far too much credit compared to equally brilliant and influential scientists like Plank or Heisenberg. As far as i am concerned, without plank's theory or Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, there is no particle physics....their theories and extrapolations are no less weighty than theories of general relativity. Yet we all know that to the common psyche, Einstien is the beacon of 'ultimate scientists' while most outside of pure sciences havnt even HEARD of Plank or Heisenberg. My point was to underline this huge disparity, not diss Einstien. Its not that Einstien wasnt a smart dude- he was very smart and one of the best scientists ever. Its just that he gets far more credit than he deserves compared to other great scientists- like Rutherford, Plank, Heisenberg, etc etc. in the public psyche. Einstien is the Bradman of scientists in public psyche while Plank and Heisenberg are no more than debutants...this is what i speak of as a biassed opinion in favour of einstien.