Who "started" invadeing is not a concept that makes much sense.
It depends how far back you go and what you call an invasion. Further more there are many good reasons to inavade some one. i.e. the UK was the first to invade Germany in '44.
As for Persians, Assyrians and Greeks preteding to be scientists.....that just nuts and a few quick googles around will show you why! :doh:

[quote=Letum]Indeed, becasue that questions is very clearly answered. After having taken Palestine and controlling the Arbian peninsula, after Muhammad's death Islam turned on the Persian Sassanides in strength as well as Byzantium, stroke along the Northafrican coast and into Spain and central France, drove North and East until India and obliterated all local cultures and cults in it's way including the Indian one, conquered major parts of Greece, southern Italy, islands in the Mediterranean, the Balkan, then tried to push beyond Vienna, and felt as a innocent victim when europe partially decided to rrsist and defend and tried to recapture territories under former christioan adminsitration. While later crusades may have derailed into egoism and quests for wealth, land possession and influence, initially the motiavtion for the crusades was that of: defending against an attacking invader, and recapturing what he had been taking in former attacks and conquests. Northern Africa was under Byzantine administration and thus was orthodox Christian. It was not Islamic. nor were the european nations Islam attacked. India was not Islamic. Persia was not Islamic. If Islam really would have been peaceful and tolerant, it would not have stepped beyond the perimeter formed the the arabian peninsula - which was a side-by-side of many different cults and cultures and religions before Muhammad - after Muhammad was a sterile monoculture.

I have repeatedly adressed this thing of Islmaic inventions and said that before muhammad Arabia was superior in knowledge on certain scientific and mathematical fields. I do not repeat that again, since it seems to be wasted anyway. Fact is that within just 300 years, until rpughly the 10th century, the Islamic dogma had managed to successfully suffocate all scientific and philosophic creativity that promised to eventually become an alternative explanation of things that could coexist with Islam's dogma. Artist, philosophers, scientist were murdered, thrown into prison, intimidated until they were either dead, or submitted to Islam's dogmatic dominance. In doing so, Islam was far more unscrupelopus than the European inquisition, and it was far more successful than the church: for the churches had to give up to preserve their power this way, whiule islam was successful with this method untiol today. While many results of productive intellectual thinking still popped up after muhammad's death, this still must be seen as the fruits of a work that had not been done under Islam's rule, but derived from the time before islam came. Since this fundament was no longer supported, the Islamic culture started to fall back, while the blooming culture in Europe, especially after the influence of the churches was reduced step by step, led to the climax that we have seen in the not so far away past. the crusades have little or nothing to do with this stagnation in islam's develoepment. It is completely homemade. However, Islamic rulers were pragmatical enouh to opportunistally make use of the professionality and knowledge of those they had submitted, which is very obvious in the case of grenada, and the strange myth of Muslims having saved the christian heritage when preventing ancient scriptures of christian and Greek origin getting burned. But especially this episode I also have adressed SEVERAL times in the past three years. It was as much a peaceful coexistence between Muslim conquerers and subjugated Jews and Christians, as the propaganda ghetto in Warsaw was a paradise to live in.

Islam alwas was pragmatic enough to tolerate that mkind of intellectual research that led to undogmatic pragmatic results that could not question Islam'd dogma. however, all intellectual activites that could ask critical questions, was and is forbidden. sharia law says it quite clearly that all existential questions shall not be answered by independant thinking, but by believing in the Quran. Not obeying this command is threatened with death penalty. Sorry, but that is how it is, to be read by yourself in the Hadith.

Instead of continuing here, I cannot help myself and use a shortcut, which may seem dumb, but nevertheless has a message. It is about personalities, but you could compare science reaserach locations and universities as well. Muslim nations practically do not play any role in global comparisons, but the most famous, the Anzhar university in cairo, is a known breeding place of anti-Western hate-preachers, and islamic ultra-conservatism: and that is the sum total of it's international importance.

http://plancksconstant.org/blog1/200...el_prizes.html

@Skybird
So what you are saying is that Islam stopped all scientific, social, and cultural progress in what we now call the middle east? And the focus is conquest in the name of Allah?

PS Not trick questions>

Here's a decent interview on the subject

http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2...13/taner_edis/

The focus is to bring peace to all world by making sure the house of Islam defeats all of the house of war, since as long as house of war remaisn there cannot be real peace. A united Islamic world in which nothing exists that could rival or challange or querstion Islam- that is the Islamic undestanding of peace. Everything is just a beak, a cease-fire. Note that this descirpitioon features the magical words westerners love so very much: unity, peace.

For the "people of the book" special rules apply, it is enough if they accept to live as second grade humans under Islamic predominance and pay protection money and accept to have no equal rights in legal affairs as well as social life. It is a system of ordered discrimination. This freedom of the dhimmis not to get automatically killed, and accepting the superiority of islam, is the islamic understanding of "tolerance".

I further say, no, I refer to the historians who filled thiock books with the simpel facts is that most of reformers, mystics, alternative thinkers, philosophers that did not contribute to proove the superiority of islam, were killed, driven away, locked away, and that this persecution in principle lives until today, and that islam was successful in this persecution to a m uch wider degree than the inquisition or catholic churches ever was 8the latter effectively have lost their fight to keep their powers by persecuting "heresy").

This extraordinary successful "intelligencel-drain" from the creative fields of course had consequences that were to be felt. after the 10th, maybe 11th century, there were not coming enough intellectuals and independant thinkers anymore and in suffient numbers to make an impact in islamic society and culture. the dogma hardened, unchallenged. There are names, of course, which are remembered to have acchieved a certain level of tolerqance for alnternate ideas, but practically they did mostly fail to mark an enduring influence on the conservative dogma. The attack of the Mongoles, who were maybe the only ones to understand that in order to control Islam they need to shatter it, led to the loss of the mystical tradition as well (the destruction of Bagdhad), that was carefully trying to develope parallel to the conservative dogma ( I said in several threads why i have a problem with sufism being understood as the new Islamic "mystic"). Science and arts were allowed to develope as long as they were following paths that could not lead to results in contradiction with what the Quran says. That'S why you have pragmnatic, "tool-oriented" branches of academical research, but nothing that compares to what in german is named "Grundlagenforschung" and "Erkenntnistheorie". existential philosophies also is and was forbidden, for it could become a rival for allah being the cause of all things, and eventually could ask uncomfortable critical questions on statements in the quran. If you look at the ME and muslim world, you see almnost no innovation that is original - in fact, you see the massive copying of wetsern examples and technologies that had been developed elsewhere. That way they can hold a technical level - but they cannot develope beyond it, and when they buy the expertise they need to develope their indiustry, for example, or infrastructure, or media, or scientific centres, they buy the ability and training how to use the tools - they do not care so much for understanding how these tools were thought out, i mean the long tradition that leads towards a cultural cliomate in which a scientific progress is actively, creatively acchieved in a systemtical effort. On this level, Western and Russian and Chinese and Japanese and Korean "intelligence-centres" are superior, even India and Brazil should be mentioned.

In many muslim universities, if you study a nartural acinece, you spend half of your time with Quran studies. see the diffrence in approach on "studying"? compare that to the focussing on the pragmatic objective for example at Japanese schools. It is like me and my stereo equipemnt. I am clever enough to operate it and use the functionality, and i have some ver ybasic ideas on electricity, and radio waves. but in no way i am abale to build my own radio, or to repair ,my stereo when I oipen it. I can use it - but I cannot built it, and I cannot develope beyond it's current standard. If do not pay somebody to repair and to develeope it for me, I will always stay with this radio, and no newer one.

Now bring this picture to a global level, and the global challenges of environmental chnages and desaster. If the world would be run by islam, we would loose the abulity to adapt to future challenges. Historically, Islamic societies tend to fluctuate between to states: expansion into new territories whose ressources then are exploited, and stagnation. If all world is Islamic, there is only stagnation left of these two options. Islam lacks the newrgy and originality to renew itself and transform itself into something new, it can only always revoke its former self - that of the 7th century.

This does not mean that a muslim person is silly or stupid and has no brains. But in a Muslim nation he/she is rasied in a cultural climate where these natural abiltiies of man are supressed, get not fostered, are taught to be ignored and repalaced with the dogmatic, repetitive schemes of the Quran.

On the Quran and Muhammad I can cut it short and only say that it is like what Ron hubbard said: "If you want to make real big money, don'T write books - but found a religion." Te result was scientology. Here, it is Muhameddanism - a cult desgined to strnegthen Muhammad's claim for power and make him unattackable for critics and rivals. I see giant deficits in authenticity in Islam. To me, as I said, it is not even a religion, but nothing more than a personal cult focussing on and constructed by a powerhungry mobster, dressed into a system of rags and pieces that were loosely patched together with elements and details from other traditions of which Muhammad had no real understanding. Realising his deficits, in the end led to the war against the three Jewish tribes at medina, and the genocide to which the third fell victim. Talking of offended narcissism here.

Today'S Middle East consists of many states that are articifical creations that ignore cultural, tribal, and other realities on the ground, that's why they are so instabile and easily become "failed states", Iraq is just an example. Isliam ideology does not know the conception of our western national states, it is not important. a tyrannic rule is acceptable as long as the tyrant appearts tpo be strong enough to serve the goals of Islam and honours his basic muslim duties. That is one of the reasons, beside the strong tribal orientations in many of these countries, why demovcarcy as we understand it is not so much a priority. Ten years ago,m the young in iran,l for exmaple did not really wish for a democracy like the western exmaples, they wanted some more freedoms in some fields, press, modern media, etc, and not being policied so easily in their religious practioning. Nevertheless - they strongly sticked to orthodox Islam being the basis of a future Iran. They did not really want a democartic society to that degree as we understand this here in the West.

In other countries, afghnaistan for exmaple, trivbal structures and traditons play an even greater role. I see no chnace to ever bring democracy to such places from the outside. They need to debvelope themselves and form such a conception from within their own tradition.

No tricky question, WG? All this has been said so many times before, and I'm sure that at one or two occasions you at least took some note of it.

And that is enough on Islam from me. There are several potentially "hot" threads being started in recent days right now, so we do not wish to crowd the forum with this kind of stuff again.

Should have translated that interview instead, anyway - that guy is, was Muslim and then hid and became atheist and publishes under pseudonym out of fear for the life of his family. He does not differ between Islam and islamism, like me, and says if one wants to make a difference than one should see that islam is an ideology of militant aggression and intolerance, but that there are "Muslims" who are peacefull while violating Islam.

Worth to rememeber: if you violate Siddhartas's or Jesus' teaching, you turn away from peace and tolerance and become hateful and violant. If you violate Muhammad's teachings, you turn away from violance and hate, and become tolerant and peaceful. Any more evangelic parsons wanting to tell me that Jesus and Muhammad compare and essentially tell the same message? Such idiots tend to pop up on German pulpits here and there, occasionally. they should be chased out of town.

I'll take that as a yes to both questions.

Which for the first question is wrong (it is not total prohibition of sciences/culture, but extreme limitations to fields that cannot damage the dogma: religion rules over science/culture), and for the second question is right.

Nice concise answer. Thanks