Boris Johnson claimed Islam put Muslim world 'centuries behind'

[Abdullah719]

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...slam-muslim-world-centuries-behind-2007-essay

Boris Johnson has been strongly criticised for arguing Islam has caused the Muslim world to be “literally centuries behind” the west, in an essay unearthed by the Guardian.

Writing about the rise of the religion in an appendix added to a later edition of The Dream of Rome, his 2006 book about the Roman empire, Johnson said there was something about Islam that hindered development in parts of the globe and, as a result, “Muslim grievance” was a factor in virtually every conflict.

Johnson’s argument was described as disconcerting and problematic by Tell Mama, which monitors anti-Muslim hate and said he had demonstrated a lack of understanding of the religion. The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) said many people would like to know if the favourite to become the next prime minister still believed “Islam inherently inhibits the path to progress and freedom”.

Last year, Johnson was accused of dog-whistle politics after he used a Telegraph column to liken women wearing the burqa to “letter boxes” and “bank robbers”.

In an essay titled And Then Came the Muslims, added to the 2007 edition of his book, Johnson wrote: “There must be something about Islam that indeed helps to explain why there was no rise of the bourgeoisie, no liberal capitalism and therefore no spread of democracy in the Muslim world.

“It is extraordinary to think that under the Roman/Byzantine empire, the city of Constantinople kept the candle of learning alight for a thousand years, and that under Ottoman rule, the first printing press was not seen in Istanbul until the middle of the nineteenth century. Something caused them to be literally centuries behind.”

The Conservative leadership frontrunner wrote that the inhibitor of progress was “a fatal religious conservatism” and the further the Muslim world had “fallen behind, the more bitterness and confusion there has been, to the point where virtually every global flashpoint you can think of – from Bosnia to Palestine to Iraq to Kashmir – involves some sense of Muslim grievance”.

The MCB said: “We of course are of the view that Islam has a role to play in progress and prosperity, be that in the Muslim world or here at our home in the west.”

Mohammed Amin, a former chairman of the Conservative Muslim Forum, said Johnson’s analysis risked “actively promoting hatred of Muslims”. Amin was expelled by the forum in June after criticising the party leadership’s response to reports of Islamophobia and comparing Johnson’s popularity to that of Adolf Hitler in the 1930s.

In the book, published after the airing of a TV series with the same name, Johnson likened the Roman empire to the EU, marvelling at the former’s ability to create unity across continents.

The essay was written as negotiations for Turkey to join the EU were under way and Johnson argued Ankara should be allowed to become a member, creating “once again a Roman economic community” and “reuniting the two halves of the Roman empire around the shores of the Mediterranean”.

He said the country’s “far from perfect” record on human rights was “one of the most important reasons for keeping the Turks on the tram tracks to EU membership, surely, that we thereby help the progressive forces in Turkey and stop the country drifting backwards”.

The MCB said: “Many of us would be interested to find out whether Mr Johnson still believes that Islam inherently inhibits the path to progress and freedom, and whether he still thinks Turkey should be admitted to the European Union, especially after the extraordinary and false claims made about Turkish and Muslim immigration during the Brexit campaign.”

During the EU referendum campaign, Johnson argued a leave vote would allow the UK to “end uncontrolled immigration”. He was a figurehead for the Vote Leave campaign, which issued a controversial poster claiming Turkey was joining the EU, despite talks to this end having long since stalled.

In the essay, Johnson acknowledged Christianity had a history of “disgusting cruelty”, writing: “It wasn’t so long ago that we were burning books and heretics ourselves.”

He added: “These Muslims are not some alien species.” Johnson criticised newspaper editors who thought an “Islamo-panicky headline [was] good for sales” and “politicians hungry for votes” who made the same calculation.

He said his great-grandfather Ali Kemal, a Turkish politician, had been a Muslim, and so he hoped he would not be accused of Islamophobia for quoting Winston Churchill’s claim that there was “no stronger retrograde force” in the world than Islam.

“It is time to get deep down and dirty and examine the central charge made by everyone from Winston Churchill to the Pope, namely that the real problem with the Islamic world is Islam,” Johnson wrote. “We must be honest and accept that there is more than a grain of truth in Churchill’s analysis of the economic and social consequences of the religion.”

After describing the beauty of the Sistine Chapel, Johnson wrote: “There is nothing like it in Muslim art of that or any age, not just because it is beyond the technical accomplishment of Islamic art, but because it is so theologically offensive to Islam.”

Tell Mama said the essay portrayed Muslims as “a wave or horde … who had little time for the intricacies and legacies of civilisations like that of Rome”.

Johnson’s words gave the impression Muslims were somehow “mentally constrained by Islam”, they said. “That shows a lack of understanding of Islam, and there are many Muslims whom Islam has inspired to produce some of the most beautiful art forms in their love for life and beauty. We hope Johnson works to support all communities in the future, and we are here to assist and support that.”

Johnson’s campaign did not respond to a request for comment.

 

[sweep_shot]

Poor stuffs from Boris. He should be better than this.

How can you take this guy seriously?

 

[AdamM97]

Of course Boris likes murdering maniac Winston Churchill. Wannabe Trump.

 

[The_Odd_One]

Completely agree. Islam discourages free thinking. You are not supposed to use your brain and follow a book written 1400 years ago no matter how out of touch it is with the current time.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Completely agree. Islam discourages free thinking. You are not supposed to use your brain and follow a book written 1400 years ago no matter how out of touch it is with the current time.

Boris is also a racist, he wont like you either. One of the important principles of Islam is to seek knowledge but of course anti Muslim bigots wont know this.

 

[WC-Passion]

Coming from a guy who happily will call black people piccaninnies (which for those of you who don't know, the word is basically an ancient version of the n-word) and said that Malaysian women went to university purely because they wanted to find men to marry. I think it's obvious to see who really is backwards.

 

[PakLFC]

That coming from a Britisher whose country was built on looting the subcontinent and Africa doesn't sound good. Islam is open to textual criticism as well for those who are talking without knowledge here. I as a Muslim defend the right of Boris to say whatever he wants within reason. Shashi Tharoor's book will rub his nose on the ground as well.

 

[AdamM97]

That coming from a Britisher whose country was built on looting the subcontinent and Africa doesn't sound good. Islam is open to textual criticism as well for those who are talking without knowledge here. I as a Muslim defend the right of Boris to say whatever he wants within reason.

He idealizes Winston Churchill, a guy who murdered 4 million Bengalis. What else can you expect from Boris "Trump Wannabe" Johnson.

 

[Angrez Pakistani]

The demise of Muslim world coincides with the European (Spanish to be precise) conquest of the new world. Europe was able to fill its coffers with gold and silver worth trillions of dollars (by modern standards) and in return it was able to solve its own issues and focused on furthering its colonial agenda across the globe.

In other words, it was not Islam that put 'Muslim world centuries behind' (as our dear friend Boris Johnson would have us believe) but it was the rise of Europe on the back colonialism and slavery that broke the back of Muslims.

That is not to say that Muslims did not contribute to their own demise but it is not fair to assume that Islam, per say, had a hand in the demise of Muslims.

 

[KingKhanWC]

The demise of Muslim world coincides with the European (Spanish to be precise) conquest of the new world. Europe was able to fill its coffers with gold and silver worth trillions of dollars (by modern standards) and in return it was able to solve its own issues and focused on furthering its colonial agenda across the globe.

In other words, it was not Islam that put 'Muslim world centuries behind' (as our dear friend Boris Johnson would have us believe) but it was the rise of Europe on the back colonialism and slavery that broke the back of Muslims.

That is not to say that Muslims did not contribute to their own demise but it is not fair to assume that Islam, per say, had a hand in the demise of Muslims.

It's no coincedence when the Muslims of Spain were finally defeated the Europeans started to expand. They took all the knowledge from this area and made it their own, helping them to navigate the world and at which point their European renaissance really took off. So to put it simply, Europeans only started to do really well after taking knowledge from Muslims.

 

[Napa]

It's no coincedence when the Muslims of Spain were finally defeated the Europeans started to expand. They took all the knowledge from this area and made it their own, helping them to navigate the world and at which point their European renaissance really took off. So to put it simply, Europeans only started to do really well after taking knowledge from Muslims.

Your theory begs the question "If the Muslims already had the knowledge, why did they not get to the New World first and make scientific breakthroughs like Newton's Laws of Motion?"

I assume you will have some complicated answer proving that it was the Europeans' fault that the Muslims could not do it.

 

[Robert]

It's no coincedence when the Muslims of Spain were finally defeated the Europeans started to expand. They took all the knowledge from this area and made it their own, helping them to navigate the world and at which point their European renaissance really took off. So to put it simply, Europeans only started to do really well after taking knowledge from Muslims.

The scholars of the Caliphates had built on the learning of the ancient Greeks, who in their turn had built on the Egyptians.

It’s fair to say that from 800-1200 CE the Islamic civilisation was the most advanced on Earth with developments in optics, medicine, astronomy and metallurgy. But that great culture started to decay from inside as intellectual curiosity gave way to fundamentalist religion.

In Europe it went the other way as the Enlightenment kicked in and fundamentalism gave way to scientific inquiry. And then Europe overran the world. The shift in European culture went too far though, giving rise to exterminations, state slavery and catastrophic famines due to an almost religious faith in capitalism.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

The scholars of the Caliphates had built on the learning of the ancient Greeks, who in their turn had built on the Egyptians.

It’s fair to say that from 800-1200 CE the Islamic civilisation was the most advanced on Earth with developments in optics, medicine, astronomy and metallurgy. But that great culture started to decay from inside as intellectual curiosity gave way to fundamentalist religion.

In Europe it went the other way as the Enlightenment kicked in and fundamentalism gave way to scientific inquiry. And then Europe overran the world. The shift in European culture went too far though, giving rise to exterminations, state slavery and catastrophic famines due to an almost religious faith in capitalism.

I think that is a fair assessment. Islam itself is not fundamentally different from Judaism or Christianity, but a big difference seems to be the power of the theocracy remained entrenched in Muslim countries, whereas it has been neutered and capped in most other parts of the world. I found the battle between the faith and the crown angle particularly interesting in the Game of Thrones for that reason.

Not that it has all been bad, much of western jurisprudence was initially modelled on Sharia implementation in application at least, even if religion became a much lesser factor. This is all subjective of course, could be that many Muslims prefer their way of life so prefer to be centuries behind.

 

[The_Odd_One]

Boris is also a racist, he wont like you either. One of the important principles of Islam is to seek knowledge but of course anti Muslim bigots wont know this.

Everyone saying anything against Islam or a colored person immediately becomes racist.

Koran, the word of God in Islam, is the ultimate source of truth and knowledge. Everything that goes against it can go to a trash can. Won't you agree?

If Islam promotes knowledge then why is it that not even a single Muslim country has a world class university that can compete with the ones in the US and Europe?

 

[Napa]

The scholars of the Caliphates had built on the learning of the ancient Greeks, who in their turn had built on the Egyptians.

Actually a lot of that mathematics came from India. For example, almost 1,200 years before the arrival of Islam Panini was using Boolean logic and Pingala's work also contains the basic ideas of Fibonacci numbers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_mathematics

The Egyptians built buildings, they didn't advance theoretical mathematical knowledge. The Greeks developed mathematical theory.

It’s fair to say that from 800-1200 CE the Islamic civilisation was the most advanced on Earth with developments in optics, medicine, astronomy and metallurgy. But that great culture started to decay from inside as intellectual curiosity gave way to fundamentalist religion.

The Caliphates were always religious and always at war. Whether scientific development took place depended upon whether the current ruler was interested in sponsoring scientists, similar to medieval Europe. Later science took off in Europe in conjunction with capitalist development as it was seen that science could actually be very economically profitable. This freed it from the need of sponsorship from the feudals.

The Islamic countries on the other hand did not experience the same capitalist development as the feudals were too strong and did not want competition for power from the capitalists. Hence there was not the associated progress in science.

 

[AdamM97]

Actually a lot of that mathematics came from India. For example, almost 1,200 years before the arrival of Islam Panini was using Boolean logic and Pingala's work also contains the basic ideas of Fibonacci numbers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_mathematics

The Egyptians built buildings, they didn't advance theoretical mathematical knowledge. The Greeks developed mathematical theory.



The Caliphates were always religious and always at war. Whether scientific development took place depended upon whether the current ruler was interested in sponsoring scientists, similar to medieval Europe. Later science took off in Europe in conjunction with capitalist development as it was seen that science could actually be very economically profitable. This freed it from the need of sponsorship from the feudals.

The Islamic countries on the other hand did not experience the same capitalist development as the feudals were too strong and did not want competition for power from the capitalists. Hence there was not the associated progress in science.

A lot of these Indian mathematicians and philosophers like Panini and Chanakya were actually from modern day Pakistan .

 

[The_Odd_One]

Whenever scientific contributions are mentioned, Muslims have to go back 1200 years in the past which shows how less they have contributed in the field of science since then.

 

[Asim_khan]

Whenever scientific contributions are mentioned, Muslims have to go back 1200 years in the past which shows how less they have contributed in the field of science since then.

But what a contribution eh? Just imagine you do something so great that not only is it remembered 1200 years later, but they're named after you.

Anyway, it's swings and roundabouts, we'll be back.

 

[The_Odd_One]

But what a contribution eh? Just imagine you do something so great that not only is it remembered 1200 years later, but they're named after you.

Anyway, it's swings and roundabouts, we'll be back.

Law of gravity, laws of thermodynamics, the atomic model, quantum mechanics, discovery of radioactivity, theory of relativity, the big bang theory, theory of evolution, the human genome project, etc.

These theories changed the world and none of them came from the Muslim world.

 

[AdamM97]

Law of gravity, laws of thermodynamics, the atomic model, quantum mechanics, discovery of radioactivity, theory of relativity, the big bang theory, theory of evolution, the human genome project, etc.

These theories changed the world and none of them came from the Muslim world.

Without the Islamic Golden Age, none of those theories would’ve been discovered. Most of the Greek, Persian and Hindu writings would’ve been lost if it weren’t for muslims.

All things rise and fall. The pendulum is swinging and it’s swinging away from the west.

Stop focusing on the Islamic World. While you focus on hating on Islam, China is busy trying to dominate the US. Enjoy the western dominance while it lasts.

 

[Halaribo]

Everyone saying anything against Islam or a colored person immediately becomes racist.

Koran, the word of God in Islam, is the ultimate source of truth and knowledge. Everything that goes against it can go to a trash can. Won't you agree?

If Islam promotes knowledge then why is it that not even a single Muslim country has a world class university that can compete with the ones in the US and Europe?

It's clear your western education hasn't taught you that it was a Muslim woman who founded the first university.

So the question you should be asking is if Islam is against the promotion of knowledge, why did it take a Muslim to create one?

Your tone comes across as rabid. I can almost sense the frothy spittle dribbling from the corners of your mouth.

 

[Halaribo]

Oh and on topic, Boris is a charlatan, a fraud and would sooner walk over your carcass than provide equality or justice.

 

[troodon]

The demise of Muslim world coincides with the European (Spanish to be precise) conquest of the new world. Europe was able to fill its coffers with gold and silver worth trillions of dollars (by modern standards) and in return it was able to solve its own issues and focused on furthering its colonial agenda across the globe.

In other words, it was not Islam that put 'Muslim world centuries behind' (as our dear friend Boris Johnson would have us believe) but it was the rise of Europe on the back colonialism and slavery that broke the back of Muslims.

That is not to say that Muslims did not contribute to their own demise but it is not fair to assume that Islam, per say, had a hand in the demise of Muslims.

Looting only cannot make a country strong. Looting without Scientific approach will never progress.

Europe progressed because they put church on the back burner and did not let it rule their daily lives. They gave priority to scientific thought and progress.

Middle Eastern and Asian countries are stuck in blind faiths and myths. We did not make any scientific progress and our lives would have remained like we were in 15th century of not for white Europeans sharing their scientific knowledge.

 

[troodon]

It's clear your western education hasn't taught you that it was a Muslim woman who founded the first university.

So the question you should be asking is if Islam is against the promotion of knowledge, why did it take a Muslim to create one?

Your tone comes across as rabid. I can almost sense the frothy spittle dribbling from the corners of your mouth.

A Muslim women found the first university, yet Muslim women are either illiterate or barely educated.

 

[Halaribo]

And furthermore, anyone who does say something discriminatory based on the colour of someone's skin, is in fact a racist.

Boris only says certain things because of the difference in racial qualities. At worst he's a racist, at best he's an ignorant, prejudicial ****.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Whenever scientific contributions are mentioned, Muslims have to go back 1200 years in the past which shows how less they have contributed in the field of science since then.

Which would suggest that 1200 years ago something changed. Perhaps down the centuries Islam became more constrained by theologians who insisted that life from the 6th century was ideal version of Islam and thus fixed for all time. You can imagine it would have a similar effect on the western world if the priests didn't have their power restricted as time went on.

 

[Asim_khan]

A Muslim women found the first university, yet Muslim women are either illiterate or barely educated.

As are Hindu women, despite a Hindu woman having been CEO of Pepsi. What gives?

 

[Halaribo]

A Muslim women found the first university, yet Muslim women are either illiterate or barely educated.

So is the issue with Islam or with Muslims?

If you're given instructions, and don't follow them, is that the fault of the instructions?

Also, the Muslim women I know aren't illiterate or barely educated.

My sister alone is more educated than 99% of PakPassion, myself included.

There's some very basic errors of analysis being made in this futile argument where separate issues are being conflated as cause and effect.

 

[troodon]

Which would suggest that 1200 years ago something changed. Perhaps down the centuries Islam became more constrained by theologians who insisted that life from the 6th century was ideal version of Islam and thus fixed for all time. You can imagine it would have a similar effect on the western world if the priests didn't have their power restricted as time went on.

Every civilization contributed something in the past. Greeks, Indian, Chinese... all of them contributed. As Arabs conquered these places, they took the knowledge from those places and made some improvements. As you said, Islamic civilization could not progress further because of your holy Texts. You cannot go against the teachings without getting killed.

Europeans are smart. They have smashed the church to the ground and put their priorities right. With atheism growing in Europe, Church will never play any kind of dominant role ever again.

 

[troodon]

So is the issue with Islam or with Muslims?

If you're given instructions, and don't follow them, is that the fault of the instructions?

Also, the Muslim women I know aren't illiterate or barely educated.

My sister alone is more educated than 99% of PakPassion, myself included.

There's some very basic errors of analysis being made in this futile argument where separate issues are being conflated as cause and effect.

You tell me. You are the Muslim.

The religious heads of Islam do not encourage female education after primary education. Very few aspire for higher education due to lack of support from their families.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Your theory begs the question "If the Muslims already had the knowledge, why did they not get to the New World first and make scientific breakthroughs like Newton's Laws of Motion?"

I assume you will have some complicated answer proving that it was the Europeans' fault that the Muslims could not do it.

New World? If you mean America, they did. Columbus wasn't the first person to 'discover' America, this a lie fed to schoolchildren. Muslims were in the process of making many more breakthroughs in science and much of the knowledge waken taken by the Europeans. They built their science from Muslim works.

The scholars of the Caliphates had built on the learning of the ancient Greeks, who in their turn had built on the Egyptians.

It’s fair to say that from 800-1200 CE the Islamic civilisation was the most advanced on Earth with developments in optics, medicine, astronomy and metallurgy. But that great culture started to decay from inside as intellectual curiosity gave way to fundamentalist religion.

In Europe it went the other way as the Enlightenment kicked in and fundamentalism gave way to scientific inquiry. And then Europe overran the world. The shift in European culture went too far though, giving rise to exterminations, state slavery and catastrophic famines due to an almost religious faith in capitalism.

Robert, ignore the nonsense you were taught at school, European white people bought enlightment, the brown barbarians were savages, columbus discovered America etc. Sure Muslims used previous discoveries but most of their works were new discoveries. There were more books in one library of the Muslims than all the libraries in Europe. Remember while people in the UK were having a bath once a year , the Muslims were washing their streets with soap and rose water. Europe advanced after taking knowledge from Muslims, this is a fact.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Everyone saying anything against Islam or a colored person immediately becomes racist.

Koran, the word of God in Islam, is the ultimate source of truth and knowledge. Everything that goes against it can go to a trash can. Won't you agree?

If Islam promotes knowledge then why is it that not even a single Muslim country has a world class university that can compete with the ones in the US and Europe?

lol Only a Trump fan would come up with this. Do you know who built the first university? Have a guess, hint no redneck from Alahbama.

 

[Halaribo]

You tell me. You are the Muslim.

The religious heads of Islam do not encourage female education after primary education. Very few aspire for higher education due to lack of support from their families.

Who are the religious heads of Islam?

The point is this.

Where in Islam is education for females forbidden?

Where in Islam does it say to prohibit the seeking of knowledge?

Where in Islam does it say you cannot be educated?

I really don't understand the points being made.

If you're going to accuse the Islamic faith of prohibiting knowledge and education for its followers, then at least provide evidence.

Don't take a point of doctrine and theology and then start using complex sociological topics to make facile assertions.

I'm assuming you would not lay poverty and lack of education in the west at the feet of secularism and atheism?

 

[sweep_shot]

Arguing with a Trump fan is like arguing with a tree. It is a massive waste of time.

It is very important that Democrats keep their differences aside and join as one. Democrats easily outnumber Republicans and can beat Trump in 2020. Fingers crossed.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

As are Hindu women, despite a Hindu woman having been CEO of Pepsi. What gives?

That raises some uncomfortable questions for Indians. They cannot blame Islam for their backward mentality, and what is worse, they are voting in droves to elevate Hindutva, which is the Indian version of theological state. So one must conclude that they admire aspects of Islamic states that they are looking to replicate them.

 

[JaDed]

Arguing with a Trump fan is like arguing with a tree. It is a massive waste of time.

It is very important that Democrats keep their differences aside and join as one. Democrats easily outnumber Republicans and can beat Trump in 2020. Fingers crossed.

I feel you , I feel the same arguing with religious people as wel.

 

[slipcatch]

Completely agree. Islam discourages free thinking. You are not supposed to use your brain and follow a book written 1400 years ago no matter how out of touch it is with the current time.

I am Muslim and I am a free thinker.

and here is a free compliment, you are making up argument out of your rear end.

Islam never discourage me being interested in science, start a business, enjoy modern cars, modern mods of transportation, didn't discourage my sis from becoming a doctor and countless other female, didn't discourage my bearded Physics professor from getting his PHD in Physics, didn't discourage my father to become an Electrical Engineer, etc.

So when and where did Islam discourage anyone from free thinking?

Provide your stupid explanation because it is entertaining and nothing more.

 

[Napa]

It's clear your western education hasn't taught you that it was a Muslim woman who founded the first university.

What? The Indian universities of Nalanda and Taxila were founded long before Islam was founded.

 

[Napa]

A lot of these Indian mathematicians and philosophers like Panini and Chanakya were actually from modern day Pakistan .

You are fooling yourself if you believe any of the culture of the times of Panini and Chanakya remain in Pakistan. If anything, the Pakistanis aggressively reject their Hindu ancestry and culture.

 

[AdamM97]

What? The Indian universities of Nalanda and Taxila were founded long before Islam was founded.

Taxila is in Pakistan

 

[AdamM97]

You are fooling yourself if you believe any of the culture of the times of Panini and Chanakya remain in Pakistan. If anything, the Pakistanis aggressively reject their Hindu ancestry and culture.

They’re still more related to Pakistanis than an Indian from say Bengal or Maharashtra. Hindu or not, they’re from present day Pakistan.

Hindu Nationalists seem to love King Porus as well these days. Too bad he was a Punjabi from Pakistan

 

[Napa]

New World? If you mean America, they did. Columbus wasn't the first person to 'discover' America, this a lie fed to schoolchildren. Muslims were in the process of making many more breakthroughs in science and much of the knowledge waken taken by the Europeans. They built their science from Muslim works.

You remind me of those African nationalists who claim that Africans discovered everything, including America.

https://www.lahc.edu/studentservices/aso/bsu/knowyourhistory/10PiecesofEvidenceThatProve.pdf

 

[JaDed]

You remind me of those African nationalists who claim that Africans discovered everything, including America.

https://www.lahc.edu/studentservices/aso/bsu/knowyourhistory/10PiecesofEvidenceThatProve.pdf

He is living in Uk and calling their education false clearly there is something missing here..

 

[Napa]

They’re still more related to Pakistanis than an Indian from say Bengal or Maharashtra. Hindu or not, they’re from present day Pakistan.

Completely wrong. The genetic profile of Indian Punjabis from the educated communities is close to that Indian Bengalis and Marathis from the educated communities. There isn't much difference in the appearance of Kohli, Ganguly and Rohit.

The two great Indian empires of the Mauryas and the Guptas were centered around the Indo-Gangetic plains. Any differences in the ethnicity of Pakistani and Indian people is more likely due to later Arab and Mongol invasions.





Also culture is important. Modern Pakistanis may have descended from Panini and Chanakya, but they have lost their culture.

 

[AdamM97]

You remind me of those African nationalists who claim that Africans discovered everything, including America.

https://www.lahc.edu/studentservices/aso/bsu/knowyourhistory/10PiecesofEvidenceThatProve.pdf

Columbus wasn’t the first one to discover the Americas tho. That honor goes to Leif Eriksson.

 

[Gabbar Singh]

He's claimed more than that, this is what he wrote post 2005 London bombings....

He clearly doesn't like Islam, nothing wrong with that if you're Joe Bloggs but not sure the next Prime Minister of Britain should be holding such views given so many million Brits follow the ideology in question.

If we were Israelis, we would by now be doing a standard thing to that white semi-detached pebbledash house at 51 Colwyn Road, Beeston. Having given due warning, we would dispatch an American-built ground-assault helicopter and blow the place to bits. Then we would send in bulldozers to scrape over the remains, and we would do the same to all the other houses in the area thought to have been the temporary or permanent addresses of the suicide bombers and their families.

After decades of deranged attacks the Israelis have come to the conclusion that this is the best way to deter Palestinian families from nurturing these vipers in their bosoms, and also the best way of explaining to the death-hungry narcissists that they may get the 72 black-eyed virgins of scripture, but their family gets the bulldozer.

No doubt there are some people in Britain — I can think of at least one Daily Mail columnist — who would approve of such tactics; but we are not Israelis, and we are novices not just at dealing with suicide bombers, but with suicide bombers as British as the fish-and-chip shops in which they grew up. They were born in our NHS, these killers. They were coddled by our welfare state, they were fed on our butties and our Spangles, they played cricket on our glum and bemerded streets. They were washed by the rains and blessed by the suns of home. They have in their houses (or, perhaps, scattered in fragments at four London Transport crime scenes) documents in which Her Britannic Majesty’s Principal Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs requests and requires that the bearer be given all the deference and precedence that is the due of a British national.

They were not metics, or the second-class citizens of the Occupied Territories. We cannot build a wall against them, or erect turnstiles on the way into London, foul-smelling pissoirs of the kind that connect the West Bank and Israel. So we have to focus — in the way that only this kind of slaughter can make us focus — on what we should do now to stop people like them hating us so much that they want to kill us. Something so scorched these fools in their young male psyches that they were prepared — in at least one case — to leave wife and child, and to take their own lives and the lives of dozens of other Britons.

In groping to understand, the pundits and the politicians have clutched first at Iraq, and the idea that this is ‘blowback’, the inevitable punishment for Britain’s part in the Pentagon’s fiasco. George Galloway began it in Parliament; he was followed by Sir Max Hastings, with the Lib Dems limping in the rear. It is difficult to deny that they have a point, the Told-You-So brigade. As the Butler report revealed, the Joint Intelligence Committee assessment in 2003 was that a war in Iraq would increase the terror threat to Britain. Anyone who has been to Iraq since the war would agree that the position is very far from ideal; and if any anti-Western mullah wanted a text with which to berate Britain and America for their callousness, it is amply provided by Fallujah, or the mere fact that Tony Blair cannot even tell you how many Iraqis have been killed since their liberation — only that the number is somewhere between ten and twenty thousand.

Supporters of the war have retorted that Iraq cannot be said to be a whole and sufficient explanation for the existence of suicidal Islamic cells in the West, and they, too, have a point. The threat from Islamicist nutters preceded 9/11; they bombed the Paris Métro in the 1990s; and it is evident that the threat to British lives pre-dates the Iraq war, when you think that roughly the same number of Britons died in the World Trade Center as died in last week’s bombings.

In other words, the Iraq war did not create the problem of murderous Islamic fundamentalists, though the war has unquestionably sharpened the resentments felt by such people in this country, and given them a new pretext. The Iraq war did not introduce the poison into our bloodstream but, yes, the war did help to potentiate that poison. And whatever the defenders of the war may say, it has not solved the problem of Islamic terror, or even come close to providing the beginnings of a solution. You can’t claim to be draining the swamp in the Middle East when the mosquitoes are breeding quite happily in Yorkshire.

The question is what action we take now to solve the problem in our own country, and what language we should use to describe such action. The first step, as we swaddle London and Yorkshire with Police/Do Not Cross tape, is to ban the phrase ‘war on terror’, as repeatedly used by G.W. Bush, most recently on 7 July in Edinburgh, with Blair nodding beside him. There is nothing wrong in principle in waging war on an abstract noun; the British navy successfully waged a war on slavery, by which they meant a war on slavers. But if we continue to say that we are engaged in a war with these people, then we concede several points to the enemy, and set up a series of odious false equivalences.

For 30 years we fought something called the Irish Republican Army, and it was always an axiom of our anti-terrorist strategy that we did not accept the self-description of these thugs as ‘soldiers’. This wasn’t a war, we said; this was murder. They weren’t soldiers, these men whose apologists now draw parliamentary expenses (so showing an interesting partiality in our ‘war on terror’). They were just killers, we said; not military figures, but criminals. So why do we now call it war? Why glorify the actions of these Yorkshire maniacs? Why do we hand them this right to be recognised as belligerents, when we do not even understand their war aims?

At least the IRA had comprehensible geographical objectives: to reverse the partition of Ireland. What do these folks want? Do they really want British troops out of Iraq, when most people I met in Baghdad secretly or openly want them to stay and help fight the insurgency? Is it really the injustices of Palestine that get their goat? Is that what makes a young cricket-loving Beeston lad go and top himself? Is it the continued existence of the house of Saud? Or were they all so seriously maladjusted to modern Britain, and found it so hard to get girlfriends that they went down the Tube in search of the hur, the 72 black-eyed ones of paradise that some Islamic scholars believe to be correctly identified not with virgins but with raisins?

If we are baffled by them, it may be that they find our own motives equally puzzling and suspicious, and that, too, is why it is a bad idea to talk of a general ‘war on terror’. There are plenty of people in Iraq who think Britain did a wonderful thing in helping to get rid of Saddam Hussein, and it is still too early to reach a final verdict on the success of the Iraq war. But it was surely a mistake to continue, in spite of all the evidence, to present this invasion as part of the ‘war on terror’. It became obvious to everyone that Saddam did not possess weapons of mass destruction, and it is easy to see why Muslims might suspect that there must be another explanation.

To the paranoid Muslim mind, the evident bogusness of the ‘war on terror’ — in so far as it applied to Iraq — suggested that the war was really about something else: about oil, about humiliating and dominating the Islamic world; and because they make no separation between religion and politics, the bogus ‘war on terror’ seemed to imply an undeclared war on Islam, and that was an impression that neither Bush nor Blair properly corrected. If the neocon project means democracy throughout the Middle East, and Starbucks, and women being able to drive, then I am an ardent neocon. Just don’t call it war.

There has been a fatal elision between the ‘war on ter
ror’ and the campaign to democratise the Arab world, and many Muslims can be forgiven for thinking that this is really a war to democratise the Middle East in the interests of General Motors, evangelical Christianity, Hollywood and global pornography. No wonder they dislike it; and if we use the vocabulary of war, it gives the maniacs all the more excuse to wage war on us. When Bush said, ‘If you are not with us, you are against us,’ and then invaded Iraq on charges that were frankly trumped-up, he co-opted tens of millions of Muslims into the camp of his enemies, even though they might loathe Saddam. They had nowhere else to go.

To keep talking of war plays on militant Muslim paranoia, and, incidentally, since it is a key point of Islamic theology that the suicide bomber may not be called a martyr, and therefore entitled to his ration of virgins/raisins, unless he dies in ‘war’, we are by our own vocabulary offering these people an incitement to murder and a laissez-passer to paradise. Above all, misplaced talk of ‘war’ is a distraction from the real disaster, which is that we have a serious and long-term security problem, not in Iraq but in this country, among young men who speak with Yorkshire accents. This is a cultural calamity that will take decades to correct.

We — non-Muslims — cannot solve the problem; we cannot brainwash them out of their fundamentalist beliefs. The Islamicists last week horribly and irrefutably asserted the supreme importance of that faith, overriding all worldly considerations, and it will take a huge effort of courage and skill to win round the many thousands of British Muslims who are in a similar state of alienation, and to make them see that their faith must be compatible with British values and with loyalty to Britain. That means disposing of the first taboo, and accepting that the problem is Islam. Islam is the problem.

To any non-Muslim reader of the Koran, Islamophobia — fear of Islam — seems a natural reaction, and, indeed, exactly what that text is intended to provoke. Judged purely on its scripture — to say nothing of what is preached in the mosques — it is the most viciously sectarian of all religions in its heartlessness towards unbelievers. As the killer of Theo Van Gogh told his victim’s mother this week in a Dutch courtroom, he could not care for her, could not sympathise, because she was not a Muslim.

The trouble with this disgusting arrogance and condescension is that it is widely supported in Koranic texts, and we look in vain for the enlightened Islamic teachers and preachers who will begin the process of reform. What is going on in these mosques and madrasas? When is someone going to get 18th century on Islam’s mediaeval ***?

It is time that we started to insist that the Muslim Council of Great Britain, and all the preachers in all the mosques, extremist or moderate, began to acculturate themselves more closely to what we think of as British values. We can’t force it on them, but we should begin to demand change in a way that is both friendly and outspoken, and by way of a first gesture the entire Muslim clergy might announce, loud and clear, for the benefit of all Bradford-born chipshop boys, that there is no eternal blessedness for the suicide bombers, there are no 72 virgins, and that the whole thing is a con and a fraud upon impressionable minds. That might be a first step towards what could be called the re-Britannification of Britain.

There is much more to be done, not least in the treatment of women. But we should not call it a war, whether cultural or military. The language of a ‘war on terror’ may help the government to pass its illiberal measures, such as the ID cards that would have been of no assistance whatever against last week’s bombs, but it is profoundly dishonest. Britain is not at war. Even if you include last week’s fatalities, the number of deaths from terrorism is falling across the world; indeed, the world has seldom been more peaceful since the age of the Antonine emperors. The more we talk of war, the more we big up the terrorists, inflame suspicions across the Muslim world, and give power-crazed politicians the chance to force through some liberty-eroding measure. Last week’s bombs were placed neither by martyrs nor by soldiers, but by criminals. It was not war, but terrorism, and to say otherwise is a mistake and a surrender.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2005/07/just-dont-call-it-war/

 

[AdamM97]

Completely wrong. The genetic profile of Indian Punjabis from the educated communities is close to that Indian Bengalis and Marathis from the educated communities. There isn't much difference in the appearance of Kohli, Ganguly and Rohit.

The two great Indian empires of the Mauryas and the Guptas were centered around the Indo-Gangetic plains. Any differences in the ethnicity of Pakistani and Indian people is more likely due to later Arab and Mongol invasions.

View attachment 93789

View attachment 93790

Also culture is important. Modern Pakistanis may have descended from Panini and Chanakya, but they have lost their culture.

Genetics > Culture.

India still has Aryabhatta and other scientists/mathematicians so what’s the big deal.

 

[Napa]

He is living in Uk and calling their education false clearly there is something missing here..

I would find life tough if I lived in a country where I rejected the education I was receiving and instead spent my time on conspiracy theories.

 

[KingKhanWC]

You remind me of those African nationalists who claim that Africans discovered everything, including America.

https://www.lahc.edu/studentservices/aso/bsu/knowyourhistory/10PiecesofEvidenceThatProve.pdf

Im not here to read your links. You dont remind me, you show me you just eat what is fed to you.

There are various findings which show others arrived before Columbus inc tools of Vikings and even maps from other cultures. Even if you reject these, the first people didn't walk across the north pole but used boats to enter this land. It's pretty stupid to think Columbus was the first to arrive on ship when travelling by water had been around for many centuries beforehand.

Let me guess, you believe the Hindus were the first to use stem cell research?

 

[Napa]

Genetics > Culture.

India still has Aryabhatta and other scientists/mathematicians so what’s the big deal.

The point that you are missing is that as Pakistan and Maharashtra were united into one kingdom in 250 BC under the Maurya Empire and many other empires, there would have been movement between the regions and an unified genetic pool.

Conquests follow massacre of existing male populations and lead to massive changes to the genetic pool. This fact has been pretty much established by modern population genetics which shows that the presence of the Indo-European Y-chromosome R haplogroup occurs at very low frequencies in Greece, Turkey, Iran etc.

If there are differences in the Pakistani gene pool and the Marathi gene pool in the modern age, it is the result of Arab and Mongol conquests.

 

[AdamM97]

The point that you are missing is that if Pakistan and Maharashtra were united into one kingdom in 250 BC, then there would have been movement between the regions and an unified genetic pool.

Conquests follow massacre of existing male populations and lead to massive changes to the genetic pool. This fact has been pretty much established by modern population genetics which shows that the presence of the Indo-European Y-chromosome R haplogroup occurs at very low frequencies in Greece, Turkey, Iran etc.

If there are differences in the Pakistani gene pool and the Marathi gene pool, it is the result of Arab and Mongol conquests.

Indians and Pakistanis aren’t an homogeneous group.

A Marathi or a Bihari can’t claim Chanakya as their own, the same way a Punjabi can’t claim Aryabhatta as their own.

 

[Napa]

Let me guess, you believe the Hindus were the first to use stem cell research?

No I don't. Obviously there are many Hindus who are irrational, but I am not one of them.

Next question?

 

[AdamM97]

Most Arabs are not related to Afghans, even if they have lived under the same empires on some occassions.

Just because Marathis and Punjabis have lived under the same rule on multiple occassions doesn’t mean that they have the same genetic pool.

 

[Napa]

Indians and Pakistanis aren’t an homogeneous group.

<b>A Marathi or a Bihari can’t claim Chanakya as their own</b>, the same way a Punjabi can’t claim Aryabhatta as their own.

A Marathi or a Bihari can definitely claim Chanakya as their own and they have descended from the same ethnic group as Chanakya. I repeat, as these countries were part of the same nation two thousand years ago, they also had the same gene pool.

Any observation about the difference in the modern people inhabiting these countries is due to later invasions.

Your argument basically is:

1) Pakistanis and Biharis are different.

2) Chanakya was a Pakistani.

3) So Biharis cannot claim Chanakya.

The fallacy in your argument is that you are basing 1) on what you see now. At the time of Chanakya, 1) was not true as Pakistanis, Marathis and Biharis all belonged to the same nation.

 

[The_Odd_One]

Without the Islamic Golden Age, none of those theories would’ve been discovered. Most of the Greek, Persian and Hindu writings would’ve been lost if it weren’t for muslims.

All things rise and fall. The pendulum is swinging and it’s swinging away from the west.

Stop focusing on the Islamic World. While you focus on hating on Islam, China is busy trying to dominate the US. Enjoy the western dominance while it lasts.

When will you guy stop living in the past. Muslims and Islamic world may have done 1000 world changing things a millenia ago but they have contributed nothing to the modern world.

Tell me about it when UN shifts their headquarter to Beijing, when China has the best universities in the world, when China has media companies like Disney.

 

[troodon]

Indians and Pakistanis aren’t an homogeneous group.

A Marathi or a Bihari can’t claim Chanakya as their own, the same way a Punjabi can’t claim Aryabhatta as their own.

Indians are Australoids mixed with various degrees of Central Asian admixture.

Pakistanis are Central Asians with various degrees of Australoid mixture.

Bottom line is, both Indians and Pakistanis are Australoids.

 

[KingKhanWC]

No I don't. Obviously there are many Hindus who are irrational, but I am not one of them.

Next question?

Why believe Columbus 'discovered' America?

 

[AdamM97]

A Marathi or a Bihari can definitely claim Chanakya as their own and they have descended from the same ethnic group as Chanakya. I repeat, as these countries were part of the same nation two thousand years ago, they also had the same gene pool.

Any observation about the difference in the modern people inhabiting these countries is due to later invasions.

Your argument basically is:

1) Pakistanis and Biharis are different.

2) Chanakya was a Pakistani.

3) So Biharis cannot claim Chanakya.

The fallacy in your argument is that you are basing 1) on what you see now. At the time of Chanakya, 1) was not true as Pakistanis, Marathis and Biharis all belonged to the same nation.

Firstly, i never claimed Chanakya was a Pakistani, all i said was that he was from present day Pakistan therefore non-Punjabi Indians have no right to claim him. Chanakya was most likely a Punjabi or Pothwari from Taxila.

Lol, no Marathis and Punjabis aren’t part of the same ethnic group, they’re TWO DIFFERENT ethnic groups. Come on man, basic stuff.

 

[The_Odd_One]

Which would suggest that 1200 years ago something changed. Perhaps down the centuries Islam became more constrained by theologians who insisted that life from the 6th century was ideal version of Islam and thus fixed for all time. You can imagine it would have a similar effect on the western world if the priests didn't have their power restricted as time went on.

Islam did not evolve with time. For majority, whatever was applicable and useful 1200 years ago is still the best way of living. That is the problem. Galileo was tried for heresy but the Christian church evolved. They moved away from the Ptolemaic Model of the solar system to the current model in which earth is not the center of solar system even if went against their books. Islam needs similar change.

 

[AdamM97]

When will you guy stop living in the past. Muslims and Islamic world may have done 1000 world changing things a millenia ago but they have contributed nothing to the modern world.

Tell me about it when UN shifts their headquarter to Beijing, when China has the best universities in the world, when China has media companies like Disney.

I only brought up the past because you claimed muslims have never done anything good. First you ask for answers, then you ask me to stop bringing up the past when i do give answers.

 

[The_Odd_One]

lol Only a Trump fan would come up with this. Do you know who built the first university? Have a guess, hint no redneck from Alahbama.

Still living the in the 800s AD? Move on. It happened more than a thousand years ago!

 

[troodon]

Firstly, i never claimed Chanakya was a Pakistani, all i said was that he was from present day Pakistan therefore non-Punjabi Indians have no right to claim him. Chanakya was most likely a Punjabi or Pothwari from Taxila.

Lol, no Marathis and Punjabis aren’t part of the same ethnic group, they’re TWO DIFFERENT ethnic groups. Come on man, basic stuff.

Chanakya may have been a Pakistani. If he would comeback to life now, he would kill himself seeing what happened to subcontinent.

 

[The_Odd_One]

I only brought up the past because you claimed muslims have never done anything good. First you ask for answers, then you ask me to stop bringing up the past when i do give answers.

I think the Muslim contribution during their golden age is well known to the world. I am critical of their contribution in the last 1000 years.

 

[AdamM97]

Still living the in the 800s AD? Move on. It happened more than a thousand years ago!

I mean you like Trump, a guy that wants to use medieval military ways of conducting war ”You have to take out their families” and ”bring back torture”. You have no right to ask others to stop living in 800 AD.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Still living the in the 800s AD? Move on. It happened more than a thousand years ago!

Ok today. Why does Dubai have a lower crime rate, less poverty, less trash on streets than any American city?

 

[Napa]

Most Arabs are not related to Afghans, even if they have lived under the same empires on some occassions.
Just because Marathis and Punjabis have lived under the same rule on multiple occassions doesn’t mean that they have the same genetic pool.

Unlike Afgans tribals, people who lived in the Indian empires married mainly according to their profession. The Kshatriya's daughter married a Kshatriya, a Brahmin's daughter married a Brahmin etc. Given that there are no natural geographical barriers between Punjab, Maharashtra and Bihar, there is reason to believe that over the thousands of years the populations would have integrated.

The arrival of later Arab and Mongol conquerors could have led to a difference appearing.

 

[AdamM97]

Chanakya may have been a Pakistani. If he would comeback to life now, he would kill himself seeing what happened to subcontinent.

You’re p*ssed off, i love it. Here let me p*ss you off further: India got it’s name, civilization and culture from present day Pakistan.

 

[The_Odd_One]

I am Muslim and I am a free thinker.

and here is a free compliment, you are making up argument out of your rear end.

Islam never discourage me being interested in science, start a business, enjoy modern cars, modern mods of transportation, didn't discourage my sis from becoming a doctor and countless other female, didn't discourage my bearded Physics professor from getting his PHD in Physics, didn't discourage my father to become an Electrical Engineer, etc.

So when and where did Islam discourage anyone from free thinking?

Provide your stupid explanation because it is entertaining and nothing more.

As a biologist, if you see enough evidence for evolution, will you be willing to accept that God did not create humans?

As a cosmologists, if you find a proof that the universe did not need a creator, will you be willing abandon your God?

According to Islam, some people were turned into monkeys and pigs as a punishment. Do you believe in this ridiculous claim? Do you believe in the claim that Noah built an ark that carried a pair of every species of animals?

As a Muslim, you will because it is mentioned in the Koran which proves that you are not free to exercise critical thinking if something goes against your religion.

 

[The_Odd_One]

I mean you like Trump, a guy that wants to use medieval military ways of conducting war ”You have to take out their families” and ”bring back torture”. You have no right to ask others to stop living in 800 AD.

The difference between me and you is that I am not using it as a valid argument.

 

[AdamM97]

The difference between me and you is that I am not using it as a valid argument.

I’m not using it as an argument, i’m merely pointing out your hypocrisy.

Have a good day sir, off to sleep!

 

[The_Odd_One]

Ok today. Why does Dubai have a lower crime rate, less poverty, less trash on streets than any American city?

What kind of weird logic is that?

Anyway, New York is the greatest city and capital of the world. Even Chicago wipes the floor with Dubai. Just because Dubai has oil and residents are rich, it does not become better than the likes of London, Tokyo, Beijing, Hong Kong, etc.

By this logic, Jeddah must be the greatest city in the world as Saudi laws are even more strict.

 

[Mr.T]

I think the Muslim contribution during their golden age is well known to the world. I am critical of their contribution in the last 1000 years.

Well said

 

[Mr.T]

Why believe Columbus 'discovered' America?

My 10 year old son goes to school in nyc and nephew who is 11 in dallas. Both are taught that columbus DID NOT discover America. Columbus day parade is looked at in bad tatste. So there that

 

[Mr.T]

As a biologist, if you see enough evidence for evolution, will you be willing to accept that God did not create humans?

As a cosmologists, if you find a proof that the universe did not need a creator, will you be willing abandon your God?

According to Islam, some people were turned into monkeys and pigs as a punishment. Do you believe in this ridiculous claim? Do you believe in the claim that Noah built an ark that carried a pair of every species of animals?

As a Muslim, you will because it is mentioned in the Koran which proves that you are not free to exercise critical thinking if something goes against your religion.

You are talking to a lost cause

 

[The_Odd_One]

My 10 year old son goes to school in nyc and nephew who is 11 in dallas. Both are taught that columbus DID NOT discover America. Columbus day parade is looked at in bad tatste. So there that

I agree. Columbus is regarded as a greedy, callous, authoritarian bully by a large number of people.

 

[troodon]

You’re p*ssed off, i love it. Here let me p*ss you off further: India got it’s name, civilization and culture from present day Pakistan.

I am not a kid to get upset.

Yes, India and got its name from Sindhu river. This is what Arabs/Greeks saw when they encountered Kumars from the Sindh region. They called everyone Sindhus aka Hindus(Arabic/Persian).

The culture, religion was from people who immigrated from modern day Pakistan. They were all Hindus at that time. Your country disowns all of that. Hence it is ours.

 

[Napa]

My 10 year old son goes to school in nyc and nephew who is 11 in dallas. Both are taught that columbus DID NOT discover America. Columbus day parade is looked at in bad tatste. So there that

The ancestors of modern Native Americans came over the Bering Strait land bridge. Apparently there were already some humans in South America when that happened.

Vikings preceded Columbus to North America.

However, all this doesn't mean that the Africans actually built ships and reach America, just like "Muslims were in the process of making many more breakthroughs in science".

If Muslims were indeed in the process of making many more breakthroughs in science, then they only have themselves and not someone else to blame that it did not happen. Which of course means that they were not in the process.

 

[Napa]

I agree. Columbus is regarded as a greedy, callous, authoritarian bully by a large number of people.

Men who achieve great things and are focussed on their work, often treat others badly. No excuses for his behavior, but Columbus has no doubt had a great impact on the modern world.

 

[StreetSmart]

Islam didnt put any contry behind the problem is contries are not following Islam.

 

[Napa]

Islam didnt put any contry behind the problem is contries are not following Islam.

This is exactly the argument used by die-hard communists.

"Communism didn't fail, it is just that the Soviet Union did not follow the principles of communism correctly."