Riggo-toni Posted May 23, 2002 Share Posted May 23, 2002 19.6 percent of the world's population (1.2 billion people) are Muslims. The following Muslims have won Nobel Prizes: Literature 1957 - Albert Camus 1988 - Najib Mahfooz Peace 1978 - Mohamed Anwar El-Sadat 1994 - Yaser Arafat Chemistry 1990 - Elias James Corey 1999 - Ahmed Zewail Medicine 1960 - Peter Brian Medawar 1998 - Ferid Mourad 0.2 percent of the world's population (14.1 million people) are Jews. The following Jews have won Nobel Prizes Literature 1910 - Paul Heyse 1927 - Henri Bergson 1958 - Boris Pasternak 1966 - Shmuel Yosef Agnon 1966 - Nelly Sachs 1976 - Saul Bellow 1978 - Isaac Bashevis Singer 1981 - Elias Canetti 1987 - Joseph Brodsky 1991 - Nadine Gordimer Peace 1911 - Alfred Fried 1911 - Tobias Michael Carel Asser 1968 - Rene Cassin 1973 - Henry Kissinger 1978 - Menachem Begin 1986 - Elie Wiesel 1994 - Shimon Peres 1994 - Yitzhak Rabin Chemistry 1905 - Adolph Von Baeyer 1906 - Henri Moissan 1910 - Otto Wallach 1915 - Richard Willstaetter 1918 - Fritz Haber 1943 - George Charles de Hevesy 1961 - Melvin Calvin 1962 - Max Ferdinand Perutz 1972 - William Howard Stein 1977 - Ilya Prigogine 1979 - Herbert Charles Brown 1980 - Paul Berg 1980 - Walter Gilbert 1981 - Roald Hoffmann 1982 - Aaron Klug 1985 - Albert A. Hauptman 1985 - Jerome Karle 1986 - Dudley R. Herschbach 1988 - Robert Huber 1989 - Sidney Altman 1992 - Rudolph Marcus 2000 - Alan J. Heeger Economics 1970 - Paul Anthony Samuelson 1971 - Simon Kuznets 1972 - Kenneth Joseph Arrow 1975 - Leonid Kantorovich 1976 - Milton Friedman 1978 - Herbert A. Simon 1980 - Lawrence Robert Klein 1985 - Franco Modigliani 1987 - Robert M. Solow 1990 - Harry Markowitz 1990 - Merton Miller 1992 - Gary Becker 1993 - Rober Fogel Medicine 1908 - Elie Metchnikoff 1908 - Paul Erlich 1914 - Robert Barany 1922 - Otto Meyerhof 1930 - Karl Landsteiner 1931 - Otto Warburg 1936 - Otto Loewi 1944 - Joseph Erlanger 1944 - Herbert Spencer Gasser 1945 - Ernst Boris Chain 1946 - Hermann Joseph Muller 1950 - Tadeus Reichstein 1952 - Selman Abraham Waksman 1953 - Hans Krebs 1953 - Fritz Albert Lipmann 1958 - Joshua Lederberg 1959 - Arthur Kornberg 1964 - Konrad Bloch 1965 - Francois Jacob 1965 - Andre Lwoff 1967 - George Wald 1968 - Marshall W. Nirenberg 1969 - Salvador Luria 1970 - Julius Axelrod 1970 - Sir Bernard Katz 1972 - Gerald Maurice Edelman 1975 - David Baltimore 1975 - Howard Martin Temin 1976 - Baruch S. Blumberg 1977 - Rosalyn Sussman Yalow 1978 - Daniel Nathans 1980 - Baruj Benacerraf 1984 - Cesar Milstein 1985 - Michael Stuart Brown 1985 - Joseph L. Goldstein 1986 - Stanley Cohen & Rita Levi-Montalcini 1988 - Gertrude Elion 1989 - Harold Varmus 1991 - Erwin Neher 1991 - Bert Sakmann 1993 - Richard J. Roberts 1993 - Phillip Sharp 1994 - Alfred Gilman 1995 - Edward B. Lewis Physics 1907 - Albert Abraham Michelson 1908 - Gabriel Lippmann 1921 - Albert Einstein 1922 - Niels Bohr 1925 - James Franck 1925 - Gustav Hertz 1943 - Gustav Stern 1944 - Isidor Issac Rabi 1952 - Felix Bloch 1954 - Max Born 1958 - Igor Tamm 1959 - Emilio Segre 1960 - Donald A. Glaser 1961 - Robert Hofstadter 1962 - Lev Davidovich Landau 1965 - Richard Phillips Feynman 1965 - Julian Schwinger 1969 - Murray Gell-Mann 1971 - Dennis Gabor 1973 - Brian David Josephson 1975 - Benjamin Mottleson 1976 - Burton Richter 1978 - Arno Allan Penzias 1978 - Peter L Kapitza 1979 - Stephen Weinberg 1979 - Sheldon Glashow 1988 - Leon Lederman 1988 - Melvin Schwartz 1988 - Jack Steinberger 1990 - Jerome Friedman 1995 - Martin Perl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golgo-13 Posted May 23, 2002 Share Posted May 23, 2002 Would I be totally of base to say that I'm looking for a point to this post? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrangeSkin Posted May 23, 2002 Share Posted May 23, 2002 I believe the point is that Muslims are jealous of Jews? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted May 23, 2002 Share Posted May 23, 2002 It is proof of the great conspiricy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atlanta Skins Fan Posted May 23, 2002 Share Posted May 23, 2002 This post implies jealousy on the part of Muslims toward Jews. I doubt that's true in general among Muslims. Jewish tradition prizes scholarship, in particular a kind of Aristotelian world view that focuses on the physical, material world and attempts to explain, document and master it. The scientific tradition that Aristotle (among others) set in motion can be understood by the root word "science", which means both to know and to cut or split. The idea, simply, is to cut open the world and understand it. Jewish tradition emphasizes this type of education and scholarship, which leads to Nobel prizes. The Muslim tradition is based on submission to Allah (God) and a view of the world and life as Allah's gift. It is an anti-intellectual world view, in that scientific progress is viewed somewhat as an insult to Allah -- focusing on mastering the material world instead of experiencing the joy of life and submitting oneself to Allah. Noticing that Jews make better scientists than Muslims is like noticing that dogs bark more than people. It's not that people can't bark -- they just don't want to. (Cleveland fans to the contrary.) I hope none of this explanation is insulting to Jews, Muslims, dogs, people or Cleveland. I'm just trying to explain a difference in priorities and world view as neutrally as possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted May 23, 2002 Share Posted May 23, 2002 Originally posted by Atlanta Skins Fan This post implies jealousy on the part of Muslims toward Jews. I doubt that's true in general among Muslims. Jewish tradition prizes scholarship, in particular a kind of Aristotelian world view that focuses on the physical, material world and attempts to explain, document and master it. The scientific tradition that Aristotle (among others) set in motion can be understood by the root word "science", which means to both to know and to cut or split. The idea, simply, is to cut open the world and understand it. Jewish tradition emphasizes this type of education and scholarship, which leads to Nobel prizes. The Muslim tradition is based on submission to Allah (God) and a view of the world and life as Allah's gift. It is an anti-intellectual world view, in that scientific progress is viewed somewhat as an insult to Allah -- focusing on mastering the material world instead of experiencing the joy of life and submitting oneself to Allah. Noticing that Jews make better scientists than Muslims is like noticing that dogs bark more than people. It's not that people can't bark -- they just don't want to. (Cleveland fans to the contrary.) I hope none of this explanation is insulting to Jews, Muslims, dogs, people or Cleveland. I'm just trying to explain a difference in priorities and world view as neutrally as possible. Dogs+people+Cleveland = Dawgpound and their insulted! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Punani2 Posted May 23, 2002 Share Posted May 23, 2002 Jews Baby!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blade Posted May 23, 2002 Share Posted May 23, 2002 This thread was initially posted on the main board and I rapidly moved it here. I think it is absurd to think that the Muslims are "jealous" of Jews or "hate" Jews based on this list of Nobel Prize winners. And the implied superiority of Jews over Muslims in this listing has an air to it that I find uncomforable. There is a cultural bias towards education and libertarianism in the Jewish faith, but there are far more impoverished Muslims on a per capita basis across the world than there are Jews. And poverty begets poor education and that wont get you any Nobel Prizes. To spin this topic a bit, what I find distressing is the sheer lack of support that Arab nations have given to other Arab peoples. Unlike Israel, who air-lifted thousands of Ethiopian Jews out of a starving and desolate Ethiopia to a new life & home in Israel, you never hear about Arab countries giving homes to thier fellow Arab peoples. Why didnt Jordan or Egypt (whose land is now considered "Palestinian territory" in the Gaza strip and West Bank) give land or homes to the "Palestinians" whose who were displaced when Israel became a state? Wouldnt this have solved the problem of the "refugees" and made this whole conflict non-existant? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atlanta Skins Fan Posted May 23, 2002 Share Posted May 23, 2002 Originally posted by Blade Why didnt Jordan or Egypt (whose land is now considered "Palestinian territory" in the Gaza strip and West Bank) give land or homes to the "Palestinians" whose who were displaced when Israel became a state? Wouldnt this have solved the problem of the "refugees" and made this whole conflict non-existant? Good point, Blade. I have to admit, that's a load off my mind. As it turns out, my house has been seized by the government and sold at auction, despite the fact that my family has lived here for many generations. It turns out some folks want to live here, because they've got some sort of diary saying this was their Promised House back in the revolutionary era. According to their diary, George Washington promised it to them, so there's no point in fighting it. Anyway, I'm really glad to hear your sentiments, because it means me and my extended family will be able to live in your house, since we're all Redskins fans. There's only about 200 of us all told, so we shouldn't be too much burden. Boy, this is *great* news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted May 23, 2002 Share Posted May 23, 2002 Religion = opiate of the masses I take my opiate Catholic style Blade - I think its safe to say that the Arab population is split into more factions than the Jewish population, and leave it at that. Perhaps Arab lands weren't/aren't opened up as easily to other Arabs because of the major religious differences in Islam between the Arab countries? I dunno... :gus: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo-toni Posted May 23, 2002 Author Share Posted May 23, 2002 My deepest apologies - The title was meant to be completely tongue in cheek, but I realized afterwards just how inflammatory it might seem. No, I don't think this has anything to do with anything, but someone sent it to me and I thought it was interesting. Actually, some of the responses vis a vis cultural attitudes towards science and eductation I found to be quite thoughtful and well-reasoned. Again, my apologies. It was a tough day and work and I guess my brain was fried.....:gus: :gus: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted May 24, 2002 Share Posted May 24, 2002 Somebody let me know when a group of Jews hijack a plane and kill innocent Americans with it. If the Muslim/Arab world cared so much for the Terrorstinians, why dont they offer real solutions and aid. The fact is, none of them really care about Terrafat and his legion of terrorists. They just hate the Jews. The "plight" of the PA ro PLO or "group of killers" is simply an excuse for the Muslim world to bash Israel and the US. Eff em. And for the record, the Jews were there centuries before there was even a person called a Palestinian, so the claim that the land is theirs is complete crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atlanta Skins Fan Posted May 24, 2002 Share Posted May 24, 2002 Originally posted by Kilmer17 And for the record, the Jews were there centuries before there was even a person called a Palestinian, so the claim that the land is theirs is complete crap. So by your logic, the U.N. should evict Americans from the United States and reinstate the Native American nations? Actually, your logic is very exciting to me, because it means I can get the U.N. to give me the house my grandmother grew up in. Sure, I never lived there, and there are people living there now, but my bloodline trumps their occupancy. Thanks for clearing that up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted May 24, 2002 Share Posted May 24, 2002 The strong do as they will. The weak do as they must.- Adam Smith. So your claims that the Terrorists should be allowed to stay in their homes is valid, but the truth that the Israelis have been there longer is not valid? Strange twist. The Palestinians have 2 choices. 1- Allow the Israelis to do whatever they want OR 2- Fight, but dont be suprised by the outcome. All borders exist today because 1 country took it from another. This is no different. The Israelis have offered over and over again to allow for a Palestinian state. The Muslim/Arab/Palestinian world has yet to reciprocate that offer with one of a recognized Jewish state. And try to stay on topic, your anologies are annoying and not pertinent to the discussion of the Jews vs Muslims. Actually, your logic is very exciting to me, because it means I can get the U.N. to give me the house my grandmother grew up in. Sure, I never lived there, and there are people living there now, but my bloodline trumps their occupancy. Thanks for clearing that up. Go right ahead and try. Just dont be suprised when the current occupants put up a fight. Or better yet, what happens when the current resident sends a homicide bomber to your kids school and blows up a few innocent children? Are they justified? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blade Posted May 24, 2002 Share Posted May 24, 2002 Originally posted by Atlanta Skins Fan Good point, Blade. I have to admit, that's a load off my mind. As it turns out, my house has been seized by the government and sold at auction, despite the fact that my family has lived here for many generations. It turns out some folks want to live here, because they've got some sort of diary saying this was their Promised House back in the revolutionary era. According to their diary, George Washington promised it to them, so there's no point in fighting it. Anyway, I'm really glad to hear your sentiments, because it means me and my extended family will be able to live in your house, since we're all Redskins fans. There's only about 200 of us all told, so we shouldn't be too much burden. Boy, this is *great* news. Your propensity to slide down slippery slopes and argue points based on analogy makes me shake my head in disgust... First off, I have no idea how you deduced anything I wrote to mean that the Israelis were in some way analogous to your above little parable. Furthermore, what peoples are the subject of your implication that their "family has lived here for many generations" and are therefore entitled to the land? (or NOT entitled?). Who can honestly say they were there first? The Jews, or the non-Jews? Your same weak-assed, inanely sarcastic statement regarding "Houses seized by the government" could apply to either side of this conflict. Since you decided to miss the point of my statement, I will restate it in words, logic, and history that you can more easily understand: The Israeli Declaration of Independence was a rather bloodless occurance. The UN thought it appropriate that the Jews of the world have a place to call thier own home, and recognized the creation of the state of Israel. The people who used to live on the land that is now called Israel and now call themselves "Palestinian refugees" mostly left by thier own volition and urging of OTHER Arab countries back in 1948. These same Arab "neighbors" scared these people into thinking that the Jews were blood-thirsty killers who would execute them if they did not give up thier homes (which is blatantly false, considering the numbers of non-Jews who remained and STILL remain in Israel and are valuable contributors to every aspect of the Israeli social, economic, and military structure). This is not meerly my own opinion but a statement of recorded history. Research it yourself if you do not believe me. My question and POINT of my statement is this: Why didnt these Arab states take in these people and give them assistance and a home? Do you really think that Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the many other wealthy Oil States couldnt afford to help out these fellow Muslims and Arabs? THESE are the important questions to ask in order to find a more global perspective on this subject. Hopefully this helps you to become less swayed by arguments based on illogical emotional rhetoric, rather than logic and history. I'd like to think you are above that kind of idiocy ASF; prove me right if you can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atlanta Skins Fan Posted May 24, 2002 Share Posted May 24, 2002 Originally posted by Blade Your propensity to slide down slippery slopes and argue points based on analogy makes me shake my head in disgust... I'd like to think you are above that kind of idiocy ASF; prove me right if you can. Well, Blade, I'm not sure why the Arab countries didn't fall over themselves to accommodate those folks who impertinently call themselves "refugees". I have some ideas that I tried to express by analogy, but obviously my analogies aren't welcome. Speaking of analogies, don't you hate it when the dogs don't eat the dog food? Tonight: two fresh cans of Alpo. A little sniffing around, but not a single bite. Drives me nuts. Anyway, nice party. Sorry if I caused a commotion. Promise to do better in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn X Posted May 24, 2002 Share Posted May 24, 2002 http://www.msnbc.com/news/639057.asp Newsweek's Fareed Zakaria sez: [American] carelessness is not enough to explain Arab rage. After all, if concern for the Palestinians is at the heart of the problem, why have their Arab brethren done nothing for them? (They cannot resettle in any Arab nation but Jordan, and the aid they receive from the gulf states is minuscule.) Israel treats its 1 million Arabs as second-class citizens, a disgrace on its democracy. And yet the tragedy of the Arab world is that Israel accords them more political rights and dignities than most Arab nations give to their own people. Why is the focus of Arab anger on Israel and not those regimes?Why, indeed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted May 24, 2002 Share Posted May 24, 2002 Why do the French hate the Jews? How about the Germans? They perfromed needed services by doing things (like banking) that the rest of the people found distasteful. How did a thread with humor turn in to a serious one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golgo-13 Posted May 24, 2002 Share Posted May 24, 2002 To say that the Islamic world doesn't prize knowledge isn't true. In the ancient world the Islamic universities were some of the greatest centers of learning in the western world. The library at Alexandria was one of the largest ever built. Sweeping generalizations can be a dangerous thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Posted May 24, 2002 Share Posted May 24, 2002 To say that the Islamic world doesn't prize knowledge isn't true. In the ancient world the Islamic universities were some of the greatest centers of learning in the western world. The library at Alexandria was one of the largest ever built. Sweeping generalizations can be a dangerous thing. The library at Alexandria was a creation of the Ptolemies, who gathered together the vast literary and scientific knowledge of the classical period and before. There were no Arabs at that time, and Islam was 7 centuries distant. That's not to denigrate Islamic learning and the centers for learning that they created. They did indeed exist, and it could be argued that a major push for the european rennaissance came from the knowledge gained by the interaction of europeans and the moslem world and it's learning. As for this thread, I notice a common trned - the use of 'moslem' or 'arab' monolitically and interchangeably, when in most cases that is incorrect. Not all moslems are arabs. Not all arabs are moslems. Not all arabs hate the jews, not all moslems hate the jews. There were more arabs killed by other arabs over the past 30 years than were ever killed by the jews, and more moslems killed by moslems, which bespeaks the differences between arabs and between moslems. I doubt that a moslem in Pakistan is as worried about Israel, or cares in any way that is more than abstract. But he's likely terrified of the Hindus accross the border in India, and that's likely the focus of his hatred. My guess is that the Emir of Kuwait could give a rat's *** about the jews, or the palestinians for that matter. Geogrpahically he's closer to India than Israel, and he has no trade or other economic reasons to care about palestinians. But his people are stirred up by the moslem clerics, so he has to pay lip service to the 'street'. He might even promote the 'street' in that regard, because it takes their mind of their own poverty and lack of control over their own lives. We really need to be more specific in these discussions, otherwise we could be stereotyping even more than we already likely do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted May 25, 2002 Share Posted May 25, 2002 Blade I do not wish to challenge the overall point of your argument / reply to previous statements made by ASF but the build up to the declaration of Independence for Israel was anything but a bloodless affair. I will always remember from an oral history account of the fighting between Arab and Israeli, that the eye witness talked about rivers of blood flowing from the houses involved in the battlescene. Neither side in other accounts disagreed with this version of events as basically both were committed to being 'the last ones standing'. I do actually agree with your argument and would extend it to other non-arab muslims. Witness the Kosovo Albanian Muslims and the support they have received from fellow muslim states re: their refugee status Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted May 28, 2002 Share Posted May 28, 2002 Originally posted by Terry As for this thread, I notice a common trned - the use of 'moslem' or 'arab' monolitically and interchangeably, when in most cases that is incorrect. Moslem and Arab are often the same. Of the two definitions of Arab acceptable to Moslem people, that is the broadest. In fact, one of the leading Persian Moslems in about 1100 AD (by the way, even our dating system is an insult), identified the Moslems and Arabs as the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Posted May 28, 2002 Share Posted May 28, 2002 Indonesia, one of the most populous countries on the planet, is mostly moslem. Are thery Arabs? Are the Afghani's Arabs? How about the Iranians, Uzbeks, Chechens, Khazaks, Pakistanis, and moslem Chinese? What about the Turkish moslems, Ukrainian moslems, and moslems in Croatia, Armenia, Bulgaria, Georgia, and Azerbaijan? I beleive that there are more non-arab moslems than arab moslems in the world In 1100 when most of these places didn't exist as named, it was probably correct that arab = moslem, although even then it wasn't completely true because Persians are not arabs. But it's a ridiculous statement at the beginning of the 21st century. ps: why is our dating system an insult? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted May 28, 2002 Share Posted May 28, 2002 Terry, The statement comes from a Turk. This is simply the broadest acceptable definition by the Moslems THEMSELVES. Many of the Moslems in Andulus considered themselves Arabs (they'd actually be Spanish or Portugese). The connection goes back to the very beginning of the religion. In some sects of the religion, Arabic is seen as almost defining Allah, so calling someone of the faith an Arab is the same as calling someone a Christian. Never define it as middle-eastern as that is seen as a western fiction. Our calendar is offensive because it is generally dated by the birth of Christ and breaks the months down by lunar cycle. It is seen as an domination of the pagan's will over Allah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Posted May 28, 2002 Share Posted May 28, 2002 Considering yourself an arab and being one are two different things. For the purposes of thisdiscusion I was seprating arabs and moslems as most of the world does, and I'd imagine most of the arabs and moslems do, your Turk notwithstanding. And since less than 10% of the worlds moslems are of arab ethnicity, it is fair to do. Our calendar is offensive because it is generally dated by the birth of Christ and breaks the months down by lunar cycle. It is seen as an domination of the pagan's will over Allah I thought that the moslems consider that Christ is a prohet of Allah. As such I don't see how he could be considered pagan. And the moslems divide their year into 12 lunar months in the Islamic calendar (Hijri). The calendar is based on the Qur'an (Sura IX, 36-37) and its proper observance is a sacred duty for Muslims (the Hajj is the 12th lunar month, and is when the pilgrimage to Mecca should conclude). It is known as a lunar calendar precisely because it contains 12 synodic months, and thus does not align with a calendar year. Over time it shifts with respect to the christian calendar. So I don't understand from where you get the pagan inference. And in that they have their own calndar, I don't see how ours is an insult to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.