In the West, a few scholars know about Indian contributions in mathematics – (which were actually quite immense in themselves) but know little else about what else was picked up. Much of “Arab” science and knowledge came from Hindu Brahmins and other scholars who were force converted and brought to Baghdad and other Arab cities to serve as accountants, doctors, food inspectors and so on. To this day, Indian professionals provide signficant manpower to Saudi Arabia and the Sheikhdoms of the Gulf.

Secondly, when it comes to art and architecture, much of it ought to be credited to some Sufis – who would never be recognized or accepted as true Muslims by Quranic Muslims.

The achievements of Quranic Islam are almost NIL. While one can attribute certain cultural achievements to some Sufis, it would be most inappropriate to describe these as “Islamic” achievements.

Islam was a medieval fascist idealogical system that could only sustain itself through brute force and tyranny. That is why every nation that was ruled by Islam fell prey to European colonization.

And that is also why Asian nations like Japan and Korea (who escaped the vissictudes of Islam) developed very rapidly and have now become some of the world’s most advanced nations.

Take away their oil wealth, and it is almost certain that the Islamic nations would be the world’s most backward.

There is virtually no developed Islamic nation that is not rich in oil or other precious resources.

Islamic states are parasitic states, and Europe finds a way to collaborate with such states because it hasn’t fully gotten over its colonial mentality.

For instance, colonial Britain systematically used Islamic treachery and violence to put down nationalist Hindus in India.

It is one thing to be for democracy in ones own country – it is quite another to also support it in a country you wish to exploit and hold down.

Nations that refuse to acknowledge their hidden colonial (or racist) attitudes will never really unite to fight Islamic terror.

That is the sad but unvarnished truth.

So you don’t question Obama’s legitimacy. Good to know at least one of y’all is tuned in to the real world.

Don’t you find it suspicious that you’re too dumb to know when I’m not being serious?

If you gotta ask…

All of that being said, making blanket statements about this (or any other) speech he’s made, if the statements aren’t correct, is probably a bad thing. One commenter assures us that all of the inventions of the Muslim era were actually conceived by Christians, Jews, and others who were forced to convert to Islam. I’m now in the uncomfortable position of pointing out that Christian societies from Western Europe tended to do the same thing (check out how the Catholics acted in Latin America, where they typically enslaved the natives, and worked them to death). At least the Muslims allowed people, after they converted, to participate in the daily life of their countries.

The difficulty with a discussion like this is several fold. Saying that “the Muslims” did something overlooks the fact that while some Muslims did something, others perhaps did something else. Every Western historian on the left wants to put forward the provinces in Spain because of their tolerant and multi-cultural societies, and of course they put forward the fact that some Jews fled the Inquisition and wound up in Muslim territory, because they were treated better there than among the Catholics.

There are several points to be made from this. For one thing, the Muslim provinces in Spain were short-lived (about 75 years, if memory serves correctly) in their tolerant regimes. Much of the rest of Islam, then and obviously now, was/is nowhere near as tolerant. Acting as if they hadn’t existed, or acting as if they were representative of Islam’s rule of non-Muslims, is pretty stupid. History happened: trying to twist, exaggerate, or obliterate it for your own purposes just upsets people, and generally doesn’t work.

Interestingly, no one has questioned my central point: the United States’ longest-standing treaty is with a Muslim country. It’s true; you can look it up.

Oh, and by the way; to the one idiot who said I am parotting what I learned in school, all I have to say is you obviously don’t know me. I learned nothing in high school, beyond how to type, fill out an income tax form, and avoid bullies. Never went to college, but I’ve read thousands of books, and am essentially self-taught. One thing I learned a long time ago is to never make assumptions about people you don’t know…they’re often wrong, and you wind up looking like a fool as a result.

I just recounted all of this to my wife, and she laughed uproariously at the idea of me defending Obama in any context. She’s the family liberal, and thinks I’m the conservative scourge of humanity. That being said, I still think if you call someone on something they say, they ought at least to be incorrect.

I told you: I believe EVERYTHING I see on TV. If it isn’t on TV, it doesn’t exist; if it is on TV, it must be important, and the more I see something on TV, the more important it is. From losing the Iraq War to all those majestic mountain ranges in ANWR, from the importance of Michael Jackson to the unimportance of Obama’s black separatist church. EVERYTHING is television based, and oh so accurate. What else is there?

Sheesh. Some people are just so obtuse ….

Don’t you find it suspicious that no reputable Republican leaders question Obama’s legitimacy? Are they all part of the conspiracy too?

Don’t you find it suspicious that you’re too dumb to know when I’m not being serious?

Sheesh. Some people are just so obtuse ….

Obama does not care one whit about history. He is an idealist who believes that “change” occurs even when it follows precedent. This is not the first time in history where a President believes that he has fresh ideas, only to be shown that they are stale and banal. Obama lacks the perspective to see that policies similar to his have failed in the past (Carter’s policies are only one example).

Greg:

“So, why do suppose the Swiss aren’t getting a phuked-up view of history like the liberal Americans? Do they shoot left wingers?”

The Swiss have a very nationalistic view of history, which often conflicts with reality (one such conflict is the Swiss understanding of their relationship with the Nazis in WWII.) However, that reality does not have to catch up with them because they are financially well off. Financial stability tends to lead to conservative politics, and politics that are very low-key. Low-key politics does not require politicians to use an abnormal amount of rhetorical flair to “motivate” change (like Obama.)

“Hey! He went to Harvard. He’s in the club, man. It doesn’t matter what he says. I hope I live long enough to see his face on Mt. Rushmore.”

LMFAO! Oops. Better be careful. I almost LITERALLY laughed my ass off. OUCH

Do you ever question FOX News? Don’t you find it suspicious that no reputable Republican leaders question Obama’s legitimacy? Are they all part of the conspiracy too?