I was not being sarcastic I was giving you honest advice. I tried to get you to do some research but you seem to think you know better as you "did a course".

Here is just a small randomly chosen aspect of what you're missing.

"The Islamic legal system was far superior to the primitive legal system of England before the birth of the common law. It was natural for the more primitive system to look to the more sophisticated one as it developed three institutions that played a major role in creating the common law. The action of debt, the assize of novel disseisin, and trial by jury introduced mechanisms for a more rational, sophisticated legal process that existed only in Islamic law at that time. Furthermore, the study of the characteristics of the function and structure of Islamic law demonstrates its remarkable kinship with the common law in contrast to the civil law. Finally, one cannot forget the opportunity for the transplant of these mechanisms from Islam through Sicily to Norman England in the twelfth century."

John Makdisi “The Islamic Origins of the Common Law”, North Carolina Law Review June 1999.

I presented my qualification to have an opinion. What is yours?

These courses don't include everything. On the topic of this thread I seem to know more than you as you appear to be unwilling to learn anything new.

You didn't answer the question and in general do not offer much in substance. Instead you resort to comments like "unwilling to learn".

I've given you a source to follow. There are many more if you care to use "google". I am not going to waste any more time bickering with you so unless you have something to offer that's the end of this dialogue.

Thank you.

Dude. You are becoming the Gamblor of bizarro world.

What is it that you disgree with ? Islam had a considerable influence on the development of European law. It was all "trial by ordeal" and similar nonsense in Medieval times.

The problem with the "but they don't teach you this in school" argument is that there are a lot of things they don't teach you in school that they shouldn't teach you in school because it's truly a minority opinion without a lot of support.

There is a guy who know who thinks there is a huge conspiracy to hide the fact that Muslims were trading and marrying with Native Americans for centuries before Columbus because Westerners want to denigrate Muslims and elevate the West. He can cite a few quotes from this or that Islamic historian about a voyage that sailed far distances, cites 2 or 3 books published by people and thinks it's solid proof of Orientalism.

I think if someone's ignorant of Islam, Islamicate history, art, philosophy, etc then they should start getting a broad overall knowledge of the history and religion. You'll probably find that Islam and Islamicate history is far better than what its ignorant detractors say, and not as perfect as its (sometimes equally ignorant) advocates would like.

That is just a minor random example. There is plenty of support for the general view that Islam influenced both the European justice system and enabled the Renaissance to happen.

All religions are equally bad and fear based. As it comes to culture, Muslims are prety ok, they are just very poor, but if you look at rich muslim countries it's quite bizzare and living standards are probably even superior to western society.

Actually, if you check my posts again, you'll not that I didn't define any wars being religious. Instead, I (correctly) pointed out that WWII was not a religious war.

Well i think we may agree on one thing. America should stay out of the middle east and just leave them alone. As far as comparing american soldiers to terrorist are american soldiers running into Muslim schools with bombs and screaming praise Jesus?

No they do it from air-conditioned helicopters or use drones and nobody calls them terrorists.

I wasn't referring to the content of the argument.

Well the Old Testament has this to say:

Deuteronomy 21:18-21

"18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:

19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;

20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.

21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear."

Yes, you're probably a racist.

why would it be racist if it has nothing to do with race?

I'm not saying you're not racist but Islam is not a race

But there is a colour associated with Muslims and that colour is brown as most of them are brown. The colours brown and black in people are particularly hated by some white racists. We even had a political party in the UK which banned brown and black members.

The colour most associated with Muslims/Islam is green.

You're in the UK?

The precise colour is immaterial it's different so it's racist. The far-right used to get clobbered for racism here so they swapped anti-black and anti-Semitic racism for anti-Muslim racism. There's a loophole in the law which allows this.

But Islam spreaded peacefully of course? All of Islam's expansionary movements were purely 'peaceful', from the very start, right? Mohammed only defended himself, always, he never was the aggressor, right? Amazing how one can criticize invaders, and not see that one defends other past invaders.

And if the op doesn't have a problem with brown and black Christians?

Good to see actual knowledge applied to answer falsehood.

The deity typically associated with "western" law systems isn't even from the Abrahamic religions, it is a roman deity. 'Nuff said.

Ignorance from the pair of you actually. I gave one random source there are many many others but you and the other poster seem to prefer ignorance. You can lead a horse to water.....