The Instigator
xxx200
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
marcuscato
Con (against)
Winning
32 Points

muslims have no contribution towards the progress of human civilisation

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/15/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,343 times Debate No: 18802
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (7)

 

xxx200

Pro

first lets define:

muslim = a believer of islam

contribution = the part played by a person in bringing about a result

progress = development or growth

civilisation = the social process whereby societies achieve an advanced stage of development and organization.


source :http://www.thefreedictionary.com...


muslims have not contributed anything towards the progress of human civilisation because:

1] sharia expressedly forbed the practice of science/ philosophy and things which ignites doubt.no progress can be made without science or philosophy.

2] sharia expressedly forbed the practice of all sorts of arts. without arts there is no beauty.


now one thing i wanna make clear:

argument like not all muslim follow koran and sharia literally, will not be entertained because a believer in islam is supposed to follow koran and sharia literally, so people who did not follow koran and sharia literally, are not muslim within the meaning of the defination.

marcuscato

Con

I will attempt to show that muslims have made a contribution toward the progress of human civilization.
This does not mean that I am going to prove that Islam has made a contribution toward the progress of human civilisation.

The size of the contribution is immaterial. The contribution may also be only toward a particular country. The contribution need not have benefitted the entire world.

I accept!
Debate Round No. 1
xxx200

Pro

my dear friend

your argument:

"I will attempt to show that muslims have made a contribution toward the progress of human civilization.
This does not mean that I am going to prove that Islam has made a contribution toward the progress of human civilisation."

it shows that muslim and islam are two separate things. but in reality these 2 things are not separable. islam is a belief system of which muslims are followers.its like you and your identity. you are not separate from your identity viz. name, shape etc. just like the same way, muslim are no separate from islam. without islam there is no muslim and vice versa.


your second argument:

" The size of the contribution is immaterial. The contribution may also be only toward a particular country. The contribution need not have benefitted the entire world."

i agree with you here.
marcuscato

Con

Science:
The Banū Mūsā brothers ("Sons of Moses"), namely Abū Jaʿfar Muḥammad ibn Mūsā ibn Shākir (before 803 – 873),Abū al‐Qāsim Aḥmad ibn Mūsā ibn Shākir (803 – 873) and Al-Ḥasan ibn Mūsā ibn Shākir (810 – 873), were three 9th-century Persian scholars of Baghdad who are known for their Book of Ingenious Devices on automata (automatic machines) and mechanical devices.

Most notable among their achievements is their work in the field of automation, which they utilized in toys and other entertaining creations. They have shown important advances over those of their Greek predecessors.[1]
Their Book of Ingenious Devices describes 100 such inventions; the ones which have been reconstructed work as designed. While designed primarily for amusement purposes, they employ innovative engineering technologies such as one-way and two-way valves able to open and close by themselves, mechanical memories, devices to respond to feedback, and delays. Most of these devices were operated by water pressure.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

The non-manual crank appears in several of the hydraulic devices described by the Banū Mūsā brothers in their Book of Ingenious Devices predates its appearance in Europe by over 5 centuries.

They are credited with “the first known use of conical valves as automatic controllers.
^ a b c Donald Routledge Hill, "Mechanical Engineering in the Medieval Near East", Scientific American, May 1991, pp. 64–69. (cf. Donald Routledge Hill, Mechanical Engineering)

The double-concentric siphon and the funnel with bent end for pouring in different liquids, neither of which appear in any earlier Greek works, were also original inventions by the Banu Musa brothers.

Banu Musa (authors), Donald Routledge Hill (translator) (1979), The book of ingenious devices (Kitāb al-ḥiyal), Springer, p. 21, ISBN 9027708339

In 1206, Al-Jazari's Book of Knowledge of Ingenious Mechanical Devices described many hydraulic machines. Of particular importance were his water-raisingpumps. The first known use of a crankshaft in a chain pump was in one of al-Jazari's saqiya machines. The concept of minimizing intermittent working is also first implied in one of al-Jazari's saqiya chain pumps, which was for the purpose of maximising the efficiency of the saqiya chain pump.[12] Al-Jazari also invented a twin-cylinder reciprocating piston suction pump, which included the first suction pipes, suction pumping, double-action pumping, and made early uses of valves and acrankshaft-connecting rod mechanism. This pump is remarkable for three reasons: the first known use of a true suction pipe (which sucks fluids into a partialvacuum) in a pump, the first application of the double-acting principle, and the conversion of rotary to reciprocating motion, via the crankshaft-connecting rod mechanism.

1. ^ Donald Routledge Hill, "Mechanical Engineering in the Medieval Near East", Scientific American, May 1991, pp. 64–9 (cf. Donald Routledge Hill, Mechanical Engineering)
2. ^ Ahmad Y Hassan. "The Origin of the Suction Pump: Al-Jazari 1206 A.D.". Retrieved 2008-07-16.
3. ^ Donald Routledge Hill (1996), A History of Engineering in Classical and Medieval Times, Routledge, pp. 143 & 150–2

Hunayn ibn Ishaq (809–873) was one of the most important translators of the ancient Greek works into Arabic. He was also a physician and a writer on medical subjects. His translations interpreted, corrected and extended the ancient works. Some of his translations of medical works were used in Europe for centuries. He also wrote on medical subjects, particularly on the human eye. His book Ten Treatises on the Eye was influential in the West until the 17th century.

^ Masood, Ehsan (2009). Science and Islam A History. Icon Books Ltd. pp. 47–48, 59, 96–97, 171–172.

Agriculture:
Harsh desert climate and availability of resources has allowed the Mid-East to experiment with different agricultural techniques.
Saudi Arabia is experimenting with aeroponic farms. These are farms which use no soil, no pesticides and no sunlight. Even though the majority of scientific data regarding aero-farms is not of Islamic origin, the research into these farms is possible due to viability in Saudi Arabia.

http://inhabitat.com...

Muslims have also contributed to the field of translation.
Science is defined as:
The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

My opponent claims Sharia forbade science, I await a substantiation of the same.
Debate Round No. 2
xxx200

Pro

it seemed to me that my opponent did not understand my defination.

i said people who follow sharia and koran literally is called muslim, all other things become irrelevant. merely having a muslim name such as Banū Mūsā or Abū al‐Qāsim Aḥmad ibn Mūsā ibn Shākir or anything else does not make a person muslim.

sharia clearly forbades science and philosophy. it is written in sharia:

sharia, book A: sacred knowledge

a7.0 SUBJECTS THAT ARE NOT SACRED KNOWLEDGE
a7.1 (Nawawi:) Having mentioned the categories of Sacred Knowledge the subjects it excludes are
those that are unlawful offensive, or impermissible.
a7.2 Unlawful knowledge includes:
(1) learning sorcery (dis: p3), since according to the most reliable position, it is unlawful, as the vast
majority of scholars have decisively stated:
(2) philosophy (dis:w10);
(3) magic (Sha`badha, meaning sleight of hand, etc.);
(4) astrology (dis:p41);
(5) the sciences of the materialists (dis:w11).
(6) and anything that is a means to create doubts (n: in eternal truths), Such things vary in their
degree of unlawfulness.
a7.3 Offensive knowledge includes such things as post-classical poetry which contains romance and
uselessness.
a7.4 Permissible knowledge includes post-classical poetry which does not contain stupidity or anything
that is offensive, incites to evil, hinders from good; not yet that which urges one to do good or helps one
to do it (n: as the later would be recommended) (ibid., 1.27).

source:reliance of the traveller by AHMAD IBN NAQIB AL-MISRI (Died 1368 AD)

you can download the free ebook from here:
http://www.4shared.com...

now come back to the point. you clearly see how sharia forbade science. those who practice science does not follow sharia literraly. then they are not muslim within the meaning of my defination of muslim no matter if they had a muslim name.

one thing more. those website that promotes muslim faith often lies about islam. thats why they should not be admitted as evidence in any debate.

thank you very much.
marcuscato

Con

I did realize that the main sticking point would be whether or not science is forbidden by Islam. I still have to complete my brief of showing contribution of Muslims.

People can contribute to the society in a variety of ways; I have chosen to limit the scope of this debate to science, agriculture and translation (of literature).

I have already mentioned contributions; my opponent must demonstrate that these contributions violate the principles of Islam. I will now attempt to demonstrate that these contributions do not violate the principles of Islam (sharing of burden of proof).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some information related to this debate, the reader should read the un-italicised part even if they are familiar with the italisized part.

Wiki:

Sharia, shariah, sharīʿah or shariat[1] (Arabic: شريعة‎ šarīʿah, IPA: [ʃaˈriːʕa], "way" or "path") is the code of conduct or religious law of Islam. Most Muslims believe sharia is derived from two primary sources of Islamic law: the precepts set forth in theQuran, and the example set by the Islamic prophet Muhammad in the Sunnah. Fiqh jurisprudence interprets and extends the application of sharia to questions not directly addressed in the primary sources by including secondary sources. These secondary sources usually include the consensus of the religious scholars embodied in ijma, and analogy from the Quran and Sunnah through qiyas. Shia jurists prefer to apply reasoning ('aql) rather than analogy in order to address difficult questions.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Legal scholar L. Ali Khan claims that "the concept of sharia has been thoroughly confused in legal and common literature. For some Muslims, sharia consists of the Quran and Sunnah. For others, it also includes classical fiqh. Most encyclopedias define sharia as law based upon the Quran, the Sunnah, and classical fiqh derived from consensus (ijma) and analogy (qiyas). This definition of sharia lumps together the revealed with the unrevealed. This blending of sources has created a muddled assumption that scholarly interpretations are as sacred and beyond revision as are the Quran and the Sunnah. The Quran and the Sunnah constitute the immutable Basic Code, which should be kept separate from ever-evolving interpretive law (fiqh). This analytical separation between the Basic Code and fiqh is necessary to dissipate confusion around the term sharia."

^ "The Second Era of Ijtihad". 1 St. Thomas University Law Review. 341.

Fiqh:

Fiqh (Arabic: فقه‎ [fiqh]) is Islamic jurisprudence. Fiqh is an expansion of the code of conduct (Sharia) expounded in the Quran, often supplemented by tradition (Sunnah) and implemented by the rulings and interpretations of Islamic jurists.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

What applies within one school of Sharia law does not necessarily apply in the other schools. For example, the Maliki Law School accepts evidence of pregnancy as proof that an unmarried woman has either committed adultery or been raped. The other schools "... do not recognize evidence of pregnancy as proof of Zina [Adultery]."

http://www.religioustolerance.org...

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The basic point is that we need to restrict ourselves to the basic immutable code as laid down in the Koran and Sunnah.

That being said, I will now proceed to analyze your argument.

If you notice, the examples given by me did not fall into any of the categories of unlawful “knowledge”.

I do not see how Sharia forbids all forms of science.

The Banu Musa also worked in astronomical observations established in Baghdad by the Abbasid Caliph al-Ma'mun.

The Abbasid Caliphate or, more simply, the Abbasids (Arabic: العبّاسيّون‎ / ISO 233: al-‘abbāsīyūn), was the third of the Islamic caliphates.

The term caliphate "dominion of a caliph ('successor')" (from the Arabic خلافة or khilāfa, Turkish: Halife), refers to the first system of government established in Islam and represented the political unity of the Muslim Ummah (community).

http://en.wikipedia.org...

The banu musa brothers worked in astronomical observations established by an Islamic system of government, is it not reasonable to assume that they would have to work within the framework established by the third Islamic caliphate (around 200 years after the death of the prophet)?

If not, I await you to prove otherwise.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My opponent needs to point out the exact violation of each of the examples provided by me (you can start with the double concentric siphon and agriculture, if you prove that, we can move onto translation).

Kindly post in a format like this:

Double concentric siphon- <insert violated principle here> - <insert relevant text from Koran> -<insert source here>

Debate Round No. 3
xxx200

Pro

when i say sharia i do mean the original sharia, unmodified unedited sharia.i do not mean different version of sharia, commentary on sharia, diffent opinions on sharia etc. my opponent here shows different version of sharia, commentary and opinion on sharia to prove his point.

all of example given by my opponent are on the progress of astronomy, mechanics, medical science etc.

these astronomy, mechanics, medical science etc.are science and therefore according to sharia is forbidden knowledge.

secondly,if any person violates sharia, then he is not muslim according to koran.if this person is a caliphet, then the caliphet will not be considered a muslim according to sharia.

i told before and i am telling now again that anybody violating koran and sharia is not muslim.those who follow koran and sharia is muslim.this is the defination of muslim set at the begining of debate.

therefore merely having muslim name(banu musa,Abū al‐Qāsim Aḥmad ibn Mūsā ibn Shākir,Al-Ḥasan ibn Mūsā ibn Shākir), merely having an administrative position in the muslim world (caliphet etc.) will not make a person muslim.

the personsn in all your examples, sir, violates koran and sharia by allowing practice of all sorts of science and therefore they are not muslim.they merely have a muslim name or position.much like in america, people having christian name are not christian( pagan, atheist etc.).

please sir, next time please understand my defination of muslim which i set at the begining of the debate and try to understand my argument.
marcuscato

Con

It seems my opponent has resorted to rhetoric.

I showed that Sharia has two sources, the Quran and the Sunnah and fiqh. I preferred to restrict this debate only to the
primary sources because the secondary sources have resulted in different versions.

My opponent has said he means the "original" sharia, this is a vague statement. My opponent has failed to demonstrate the violation of principles in examples stated by me.
I suggested an easy to understand format to ensure accuracy in the previous round, my opponent has failed to answer in the suggested format(or any other for that matter).

I have never claimed that having a muslim namae makes a muslim person. I am saying they are islamic because they have been called "Islamic" scholars. My opponent has failed to prove violation of islamic principles.

It is reasonable to assume that an islamic caliphate would try to follow islamic principles.
More importantly, it was an observatory established by the third islamic caliphate, what is the significance of being the third caliphate?

The precise meaning of Khalifa is "representative". The first four Caliphs: Abu Bakr as-Siddiq, Umar ibn al-Khattab, Uthman ibn Affan, and Ali ibn Abi Talib are commonly known by Sunnis, mainly, as the Khulafā’ur-Rāshideen ("rightly guided successors") Caliphs. Each Caliph was a close companion of Muhammad during his prophethood.

Caliph is translated from the Arabic word khalifa (خليفة alīfah/khalīfah) meaning "successor", "substitute", or "lieutenant". It is used in the Qur'an to establish Adam's role as representative of Allah on earth. Kalifa is also used to describe the belief that man's role, in his real nature, is as khalifa or viceroy to Allah.[2] The word is also most commonly used for the Islamic leader of the Ummah; starting with Muhammad and his line of successors.

http://en.wikipedia.org...




Debate Round No. 4
xxx200

Pro

violation of principle of sharia:

sharia forbades science. your example shows appreciation of science.

thus your example violated sharia.

and one thing more..

people called somebody muslim does not make them muslim.

since these people violated sharia, they cannot be called muslim.

our debate is if muslims have contributed anything .....

sharia-abiding true muslims can never contribute anything to the world because sharia forbade means of contribution i.e. science.

thayts all..
marcuscato

Con

My opponent has merely re-iterated that sharia forbades science.

Back in round3 I said:

Kindly post in a format like this:

Double concentric siphon- <insert violated principle here> - <insert relevant text from Koran> -<insert source here>


My opponent has failed to provide relevant text from the Koran(or other relevant source) to back up his claim. It is therefore impossible for us to evaluate the merit of his claim("sharia forbade science").

My opponent had stated various forms of unlawful knowledge in round 3, the double concentric siphon(or the other examples provided)does not fall into any of the types of unlawful knowledge provided by my opponent, the reader is encouraged to verify the same.

In conclusion:
1.I showed the contribution of muslims.
2.I showed that the banu musa(islamic scholars) worked under the 3rd Islamic Caliphate who is known as the one of the "rightly guided successor" .
3.My opponent failed to provide a violation of Islamic law in the given examples.



Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by waylon.fairbanks 5 years ago
waylon.fairbanks
I hear you Jibby. What an idiotic resolution. Algebra anyone?
Posted by darris321 5 years ago
darris321
I can't vote until I have my 3rd debate, but I would like the contender to know that he/she won on all counts.
Posted by darris321 5 years ago
darris321
I can't vote until I have my 3rd debate, but I would like the contender to know that he/she won on all counts.
Posted by googlemabob 5 years ago
googlemabob
The pro is doomed to failure because of the wording of the resolution. If he had said 'Islam has done nothing to contribute to society', there'd be some argument at least. But because he said 'Muslims', the resolution implies that there is no person that has ever lived who has considered themselves a believer in Islam that has made any contribution whatsoever toward the progress of human civilization, which is obviously untrue.
Posted by Jibby_page 5 years ago
Jibby_page
How can you think of such topics? Where do we get such clowns from anyway??
Posted by gerrandesquire 5 years ago
gerrandesquire
I guess what he's arguing is that the Muslims that did that did not follow the Koran. The key point in the debate would be if the Koran does say not to accept science and contribute to art. Never read the Koran so dont really know.
Posted by Lordknukle 5 years ago
Lordknukle
lets not forget that muslims invented the decimal system.
Posted by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
Muslims have also contributed to the field of science, with the description of how light is received by the eye encouraging the creation of telescopes and lenses, astronomy, medicine (Have you heard of Avicenna?)...

So....
Posted by Mikeee 5 years ago
Mikeee
Islamic people contributed to the invention of Arabic numerals, algebra, and medicine. They played an important part in conserving knowledge during the middle ages, if somethings in a history book, it's probably important....
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 12 months ago
dsjpk5
xxx200marcuscatoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Being older than six months old, the statute of limitations is up on vote reporting. I vote Con because I like puppies.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
xxx200marcuscatoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's case was pure nonsense; refusing to even define what constituted the secondary source of the shariah, Pro resorted to word games, playing with the definition of "Muslim" and constantly repeating that the shariah forbids advancements in science. Con alone offers examples of Muslim contributions and Pro's narrow understanding of what a Muslim/the Shariah is cost him the debate even further.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
xxx200marcuscatoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con kept abusing the definition of "muslim" each round making Pro refute his arguments from a different perspective every round.
Vote Placed by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
xxx200marcuscatoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con not only showed contributions made by Muslims but also showed how those contributions do not violate the principles of Islam. Pro just repeats his assertion that Cons contributions violate Islam and dropped every subsequent argument Con made, trying to go backwards and redefine what a Muslim is. As instigator he had his chance to define the word Muslim in round one. That is the only chance he gets.
Vote Placed by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
xxx200marcuscatoTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pros belief that a muslim and extremist islam law are inseperable really cost him. Muslims live from the Quran which allows science and all those things. Con debunked every argument Pro gave but Pro just kept running in circles. Con had a ton of sources too
Vote Placed by Lordknukle 5 years ago
Lordknukle
xxx200marcuscatoTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Do I seriously need to provide an RFD?
Vote Placed by smileydodge 5 years ago
smileydodge
xxx200marcuscatoTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: Muuslims have certain beliefs; that is not bad. They can contribute to the process of human civilization no matter what their religion.