Marcus wrote:The Roman Catholic Church, after 1054 and the Papal Revolution, was the sole Christian institution in the West only. The Orthodox Church was nearly equally so in the East.
Because rival institutions were suppressed (Jews) or exterminated (Cathars).
Second, any impetus for education, science, and-and-and came not from Islam but from Islam's assimilation of Persia.
Aside from being easily refuted by the number of Arab scholars and mathematicians in history, this claim is also illogical. Consider that Persia did not produce any of these marvels of discovery or innovation during the centuries-long Parthian or Sassanid periods, then
suddenly produced all of this pivotal scientific and mathematical output once they became part of the Islamic world. Explain that.
Islam knows nothing of such matters, nothing beyond a bloody scimitar.
...say the man living on a continent that was invaded and largely depopulated by Christians, in a country that murders children with flying robots.
The same may be said of Islam's assimilation of Andalusia in that the greater influence flowed from West to East, not from East to West. Any so-called "golden age" of Islam is more properly understood as Persian and Christian as those social orders softened Islam's hard edges and illuminated its dark alleyways.
Find a serious historian or scholar who actually believes this. You're obviously repeating garbage you heard on websites. Muslims were the most advanced civilization in the world, with no competition from Christian Europe, and only nearly equaled in that era by China. Yet even though this was a millennium ago some people are so insecure about it they try to spread obviously false revisionist history motived entirely by racial and religious prejudice. Its laughable.
Third, Islam is parasitic, parasitic initially in its bastardization of Old Testament Judaism and Mosaic Law and secondarily of primitive Christianity.
Islam is the true and correct version of those partially corrupted texts/religions. Rather than being parasitic, Islam has given you basic mathematics without which you wouldn't have computers to type falsehoods on. It also protected Jews and Orthodox Christians from the violent and intolerant expansionism of medieval Christians insofar as it was able.
Islam offers nothing but a sort of fatalistic status quo disturbed only by the sword.
The fluidity of Islamic history and groundbreaking contributions of Islamic mathematics and science are an obvious repudiation to the false claim of both fatalism and status quo. As for "disturbance by the sword" a fine example of such was the pointless and destructive invasion by Western Christian barbarians that caused the deaths of so many innocent Muslims, Jews, and Orthodox Christians.
Many peoples and cultures, beginning with the Greeks, made scientific discoveries, but it was only in the Christian West that science as science became a sort of materialistic world-view, the world-view that ushered in the Enlightenment.
A rather sad supremacist fantasy.
Finally, however one wishes to define it, Islam is incompatible with contemporary, secular culture and must be reformed/readapted/reinterpreted/whatever.
Obvious prejudiced falsehood. The millions of Muslims living in modern secular societies being proof of such. Moreover, Marcus was talking earlier about Islams inability to reform, then described reforms that are actually redundant to Islam. He doesn't seem to know what he's talking about, but he knows what he hates.
The only thing that is currently retarding that cataclysm has been the Turkish and Western domination of Persia.
What does this sentence mean? Neither Turkey or "the West" has dominated Persia recently. Alexander is the last solid example.
As Iran is allowed to enter the world stage as an independent player in its own right, only then will Iran/Persia provide the context for the reformation of Islam.
Iran has been a player in its own right since 1979, and mostly what happened as a result is that Israel and the US threaten to attack them all the time. As for an Islamic reformation, I
just explained to you why that is redundant. Why did you ignore that explanation? Why do you base your claims on, exactly? As it stands, you don't appear to know what you are talking about. Without anything to support your claims, and so many of them obviously being false, its hard to see what you are doing except repeating second-hand propaganda.