I have an autographed copy of his "60 Memorable Games".

Very nice. I was studying it madly while in high school. Great book.
Cheers

I heard it's harder work becoming Master at chess than earning a PhD ,your prespective?

Becoming a Grandmaster would probably be more difficult, but I do not really know. I think dedication and study together with a decent mind is enough to play at an advanced expert or master level (that is around 2250 elo rating or so).

I just read through this thread--some interesting stuff. Here's my question:

I am familiar with various Christian and Jewish sects and their institutional structure. What are the largest or most significant institutions and/or religious authorities for American Muslims?

Were you saddened by his descent into antisemitism in later years?

A bit yes...But I never saw him as a political figure really.

For what its worth, I think you are greatly exaggerating here. If you use a bit of charity, I think you should realize that damaci's argument is only meant to show that it can't be Islam simpliciter that caused science to decline in the Middle East. After all, if that were the case, then Islam should always cause science to decline. But of course it doesn't. Sometimes, it is just not that powerful. Or sometimes, it actually contributes to the rise of science. So it would be false to say that "Islam" (referring to the religion as a whole) caused science to decline in the Middle Ages.

Of course, just because some variations of Islam promote science does not mean that all do. In fact, it is possible that a particular iteration of Islam can contribute to the decline of science, and perhaps even did so in this case. But notice that because Islam can manifest in different ways it is not satisfactory to claim that it was religion or Islam that caused science to decline. Rather, we would have to give an explanation of why that particular anti-scientific variant of Islam arose and became popular in order to understand this story.

As for whether this is actually what happened, I'll defer to damaci's expertise.

Difficult to answer... In principle, there is no clergy in Islam, or a central church or a similar institution for that matter. And I do not think that American Muslims are terribly organized. I mean, there are, according to some estimates, around five million Muslims in the US, and in general they are (especially the immigrant Muslims in the US) more educated and they earn more than the average income in the US. Their level of religiosity may vary and their organizational level might depend on the particular mosque they would normally attend, I guess. I know that there are "Muslim Student Associations" in American universities and I think they have some sort of a national umbrella organization. I did not make any serious research on this issue, and I may be a bit off base here.

What did you meant when you said, you consider Islam with Zen to be the only universal religions?
Did you meant the more deep mystical Sufi approuch,
in which case it becames universal because ,cultural differences became less important than the inner truth ?

I actually give Damaci more credit than you did above ( if it were only religion involved we'd likely all be dead, there must be other factors). You're either oversimplifying his argument or straw manning the opposition ( or thinking he was).

The presence of factor M in a mix of many factors at two or more different times, with outcome Y only occurring in some cases says nothing worthwhile about M's contribution to Y. It could even be that M is the only mandatory factor that must be present for Y to occur but needs some catalyst ( of possibly several that will do ) or tipping point for it to trigger Y.

Damaci has made much fuller arguments ( a book would be needed for a proper one) in the constraints of a forum that present his views. This was ( I think ) a failed attempt at a summary of sorts. He, like you, thinks his precise subject matter is of interest to me in this issue. shrug.

Sigh.

It absolutely does. It means it is unlikely that Y is highly dependent on M. Adding sound explanations to what other factors M could be dependent on diminishes this likelihood into not worthy of consideration.

Let's say I'm growing fish in a tank, I add a new fish, the other fish keep doing great for months but then die. Did the new fish cause the other fish to die? Probably not.

Let's say I change something my diet and keep at it for five years and am doing absolutely great, but then suddenly my health plummets. Did the change in the diet cause my health to plummet? Probably not.

Let's say a restaurant changes their policy, keeps at it for five years and is doing absolutely great, but then suddenly profits go down the drain. Did the change in policy cause the bancrupcy? Probably not.

Jesus. How much of a nit can a person be.

Goddammit I was too late to edit... Not only that, but there was actually a massive IMPROVEMENT of science after islam came about. Add a big improvement to all these cases, and then plummeting.

Actually, I'm quite aware that his subject matter is not of interest to you. I was pointing out that your claim that his argument was poor is incorrect. What I am suggesting is that since you seem to think that his argument is so bad that he should literally quit his job that perhaps you have misinterpreted it.

Think about it this way. Perhaps Damaci is claiming, not necessarily that Islam didn't cause science to decline, but that it was not the reason science declined. That is, if I win the lottery, the cause of my being wealthy would be buying the correct lottery ticket. But the reason I am wealthy is just positive variance, i.e. there is no reason.

So if, by hypothesis, Islam did cause science in the Middle East to decline, we would still have to say that the reason it declined was just random variance since there is no necessary causal relationship between Islam and the decline of science (as shown by the co-existence of the two prior to the decline).

As a social scientist Damaci will understandably not be satisfied by that answer, but will try to find a more fruitful hypothesis, one that posits a strong causal relationship, not just randomness. Now, it might be that there is no reason it happened, in which case there is no correct hypothesis. But that is extremely difficult to show, and so would be improper to assume from the outset.

What is the religious basis for the Muslim objection to airport body scanning and does this objection include medical proceedures such as MRIs and CAT scans?

How does Islamic theology deal with the problem of the existence of suffering and evil in a world created by a loving God?


What is Islam's take on the Christian theology involving the fall of man, original sin, and need for a special kind of savior to "wash away" that sin?

Thanks,


PairTheBoard

More or less, yes. Both Islam (especially the non-fundamentalist, Sufi variant) and Zen have incredible theological flexibility and willing to accept the followers of other faiths as they are, caring more for the underlying deeper truth they see common to all beliefs.

Huh? Do they object to that on religious grounds? That is news to me. Would you care to give some pointers or links?

OK, heavy-duty question. I do not have enough time in my hands right now, but I will make sure to visit the thread later to answer this question. It is an important question.
Alright, folks, take care for now. I will try to return later to answer the question above as well as other questions, so post away.
Cheers

http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/mi....Body.Scanners

It's on several news sites but the first I found is above

do you hate women?

Ahhh, so it was about nudity. Interesting. Thanks for the link.
Cheers

Is this a joke, or are you completely ******ed?

Obviously, a very difficult question to answer. Not every school of thought in Islam gives the same answer to this question, but I will try to summarize the point of view of the mainstream theologians.
In general, Islamic theologians posit a difference between "doing" (or action) (fa'al) and "creating" (khalq). They argue that God's creating process is never evil, although the particular actions "done" by human beings may be evil. Let me try to explain by giving a rather dramatic example. So, let us say, during the World War II, a Nazi official puts a gun to the head of a young Jewish boy. The boy, realizing the official's intention begs him not to kill, but nevertheless the Nazi pulls the trigger and the boy drops dead.
Now, let us investigate what happens from an Islamic theological perspective. The Nazi, performing an evil act clearly condemned by God, goes to hell. The young Jewish boy (like all dead children, according to Islamic belief, regardless of the religion of their parents) goes directly to heaven. But why did God let such an evil action to happen?
The God ultimately "created" the action by letting the natural laws (such as controlling the bullet and such) to follow their usual course and by not intervening to rescue the boy. On the other hand, the Nazi "did" the action by essentially a conscious choice. Now, the "creation" of an action by God, regardless of its good or bad characteristics, is seen as essentially good by Islamic theologians. The God binds itself, so to speak, by the very natural laws he created and do not, in general, intervene in the human affairs. Why not? Because, "from the human perspective", the God's purpose in creation is a "moral test" on earth where there would be good and evil actions done by the free choices of the humans. The Nazi officer obviously fails this test. However, "from the divine perspective", so to speak, the purpose of creation is not a moral test because God's in his infinite wisdom already knows the results even before they happen. God is "timeless". He is the very creator of time and therefore any action that would happen in the present, past or future is known timelessly by him (that by the way, is the correct understanding of Qadar, destiny, in Islam). God's timeless knowledge of these things, on the other hand, does not "force" in any way the humans to act in a certain way. What is the purpose of "creation" from the God's perspective then? In one of the verses of the Qur'an, God says that he created the humans and other conscious beings so that they would worship (ibadah) him. Worship here does not mean simple praying or anything like that. It means to know and appreciate. In a tradition attributed to Muhammad, God says that he was "a hidden treasure" and that he wished to be known. That is to be known by other conscious beings. So, this is the purpose of the creation from the divine perspective, and this creative process, is never evil, although the particular human actions may be.

Regarding Islam's take on the "original sin" and fall, first of let me emphasize that these concepts do not exist in Islam. In the creation story in the Qur'an about Adam and Eve, they indeed eat the forbidden fruit as it is told in the Bible (in the Qur'an, it is not Eve who persuades Adam though, they both, together, were deceived by the Satan, so there is no misogynistic note in the Qur'an). After they eat the fruit, Adam and Eve became regretful and ask for forgiveness from God. And, guess what. God forgives them. Simple as that. However, God also informs them since they ate the forbidden fruit, they could not stay in the paradise no more, and instead spend their lives on Earth. So, it is not a punishment, but more like a change of place really. Hence, there is no "original sin" that should be carried by all human beings. In fact, the mistake that Adam and Eve did, is not even called a "sin" in the Qur'an, it is called a "zalla", literally a stumbling or a minor mistake.
Since there is no original sin, there is also no belief about the "fall". The earthly existence is essentially good and there is nothing "damned" or "fallen" about it. Since, there is no original sin or a fall, there is also no need for redemption. That is why the Muslims believe that Jesus Christ, a beloved messenger of God, was not killed on the cross, but was taken "alive" directly to heaven by God and continues his existence in that spiritual realm. In the Muslim belief, Jesus literally "lives" because he was never killed in the first place.
I hope that was helpful.
Cheers

Thanks for that detailed reply. That seems to cover the existence of evil in the foul deeds of humans. What about the existence of suffering due to natural causes like disease, famine, natural disasters, etc?

PairTheBoard