The Middle East is Beyond Redemption

No he didn't. Why do you talk about things you have absolutly no idea about and keep making a fool of yourself?

Firstly, Al-Khwarizm systematized and corrected Pletomy. Secondly only his works were based on Persian and Babylonian astronomy, Indian numbers, and Greek mathematics. It's just how the indians/greeks based their works on what the babylons did. His advancements in the subjects were unmatched by his predecessors.

Thirdly, the title of "father of algebra" still belongs to Al-Khwarizm. It was actually first granted to the greek mathematician Diophantus, however in recent times based on the works and advancements that Al-Khwarizm made, the majority of Academics believe the title goes to Al-Khwarizm. The indians are nowhere in the running.


[INDENT]The Greek mathematician Diophantus has traditionally been known as the "father of algebra" but in more recent times there is much debate over whether al-Khwarizmi, who founded the discipline of al-jabr, deserves that title instead.^[8] Those who support Diophantus point to the fact that the algebra found in Al-Jabr is slightly more elementary than the algebra found in Arithmetica and that Arithmetica is syncopated while Al-Jabr is fully rhetorical.^[9] Those who support Al-Khwarizmi point to the fact that he introduced the methods of "reduction" and "balancing" (the transposition of subtracted terms to the other side of an equation, that is, the cancellation of like terms on opposite sides of the equation) which the term al-jabr originally referred to,^[10] and that he gave an exhaustive explanation of solving quadratic equations,^[11] supported by geometric proofs, while treating algebra as an independent discipline in its own right.^[12] His algebra was also no longer concerned "with a series of problems to be resolved, but an exposition which starts with primitive terms in which the combinations must give all possible prototypes for equations, which henceforward explicitly constitute the true object of study." He also studied an equation for its own sake and "in a generic manner, insofar as it does not simply emerge in the course of solving a problem, but is specifically called on to define an infinite class of problems."^[13]

This is almost as bad as when you tried to say "the early Muslims built mosques facing jerueselum". (Though never as bad as the ahmadiyaa 6000 year earth quote lmao)

A no they didnt

B yes, mohammed simply (over time) assembled a larger army than the jews and the polyeithists and took over thier lands, a pattern which his successors (the caliphs continued) later the mongils defeated the arabs and persians, then their successors the ottomans defeated them, then the british, french, italians took over. the ME is just a usccession of imperial conquests, of which the muslims were invloved form islams inception

Can Westerners get into and around Iran ok?

free to go around ok, just be wary of all the religious laws e.t.c. but I think they're pretty lenient if you're a foreigner anyway. Most Iranians are happy to please and help people, most of the accounts I've read the people have had no problems.

this^

more info:



But yeah, the point is, its not like some inaccessible, hostile, unsafe place. For the most part, it would be just like visiting any other country.

A) Okay generally when you disagree with someone's account of history you usually give counter-evidence too. No matter what the state of your ego, you do not posess the sort of reputation on this site not dare I say in real life that would make one automatically swallow your knowledge (read: what is conveniant to you in order to convey other views of yours).

Nonetheless, my statement was based on:

The promise was confirmed to Jacob at Genesis 28:13, though the borders are still vague and is in terms of "the land on which you are lying". Other geographical borders are given in Exodus 23:31 which describes borders as marked by the Red Sea, the "Sea of the Philistines" i.e. the Mediterranean, and the "River," (the Euphrates).
The promise is fulfilled at the end of the Exodus from Egypt. Deuteronomy 1:8 says:
See, I have given you this land. Go in and take possession of the land that the LORD swore he would give to your fathers—to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob—and to their descendants after them.
It took a long time before the Israelites could subdue the Canaanite inhabitants of the land.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promised_Land)

And also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conquest_of_Canaan

B) I don't know why you are saying this as I didn't say anything contrary to it, in fact I agree. My original point was to counter the notion that Islam and Muslims have always had a conflict with Jews and Christians when history shows that this just simply isn't the case. One beef I do have with your statement however is the idea that Islam was alone in harbouring imperialist ambitions. The conquest of Canaan and future victories of the Kingdom of Israel as well as the later imperialist ambitions of Christian countries show that every Abrahamic religion, whilst mainly being characterized through the worship of a single deity, also contained military elements to them.

They hope we do not know that muhamad sex with his dead aunt in the grave.

Also this one:

(14) Narrated Anas bin Malik: We were (in the funeral procession) of one of the daughters of the Prophet and he was sitting by the side of the grave. I saw his eyes shedding tears. He said, "Is there anyone among you who did not have sexual relations with his wife last night?" Abu Talha replied in the affirmative. And so the Prophet told him to get down in the grave. And so he got down in her grave. (Book #23, Hadith #374)