Europe submits voluntarily

[Bomb#20]

Muzziphile Talking Heads Headed for a Beheading

Biff: Make like a tree and get out of here!

Older wiser Back from the Future Biff: It's leave, you idiot! Make like a tree and leave! You sound like a damn fool when you say it wrong!

 

[Bomb#20]

I'm not sure what you're arguing for with respect to the original dispute. Do you mean

1. The religious wars would have happened anyway, with or without the Reformation, because of the printing press,

...
So the Reformation would inevitably have happened because of the printing press. And then the religious wars would have been due to that. Root cause is still the printing press.

I don't disagree; but that doesn't make angelo wrong about the Reformation. You can stop tracing a chain of cause and effect anywhere you please but it doesn't stop the chain. It was inevitable that western culture would adopt the printing press because of the Renaissance and because movable type was already in use in China and Korea. The root cause of the Renaissance was the Crusades; the root cause of the Crusades was...

2. The Enlightenment would have happened anyway, with or without the religious wars, because of the printing press,

Yes. That is the logical next step.

It may seem that way to us in retrospect, but that's because the Enlightenment is part of our cultural pedigree. But Islam didn't undergo an enlightenment of its own even though Muslims have had printing presses for centuries. If it's really the logical next step, why didn't their culture take it?

The trouble with Islam from this perspective is that it was in effect Protestant from the get-go. Anybody who could read was allowed to read the Quran. There was no Meccan Catholic Mosque organizing everyone's life and being corrupted by its own power and wealth for contrary religious thinkers to launch reform movements against. The Sunni/Shia dispute is more political than theological; the Sunni theocrats and the Shia theocrats are pretty much in agreement as to what to order the Muslim in the street to believe about God. In that sort of conceptual universe there isn't as much place for the notion that each person is entitled to decide for himself what to believe about God to gain a foothold.

 

[angelo]

So the immigration department report is hogwash is it? I see! There are figures and there are damn figures! Join the two together and you come up with an idea that the islamasation of Australia is good for us and the country, even though almost every week there's another terrorist attack. We're just supposed to ignore, that as like Bilby said, there's more chance of one getting run over by a bus than by dying at the hands of a terrorist.

That is raving nonsense.

I have no idea how you interpreted my post as implying that the SONA report is 'hogwash'. I can only assume you haven't read it, and perhaps haven't even viewed the document.

"Figures and damn figures"? Well there are the figures that Angelo makes up or blindly copies from his favourite opinion columnist, and then there are the figures provided by the ASRG for the Department of Immigration. It's fairly clear that the former are the 'damn figures' you're referring to.

As Dystopian has pointed out, your fears regarding the Islamisation of Western World are based on ignorance and really poor math. Firstly, the Muslim population is not growing nearly as fast as you fantasise. Secondly, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that Muslims are capable of reversing the increasing proportion of irreligious people in the world. Islam will never trump atheism/agnosticism in the Internet Age, when knowledge is widely available and the political concept of personal liberty has taken root. Sharia law doesn't stand a chance in the West.

It is cowardly to exaggerate the threat of terrorism in order to prevent refugees from settling in Australia. It is unbelievably stupid to complain that settled refugees are expensive to support when the camp on Manus Island costs more by an order of magnitude.

The vast majority of the followers of the pedophilic, so called prophet wish to live their lives peacefully in Australia, as well as in other Western nations. The problems arise when this immigration is left unchecked, because among them there will be many extremists and hate preaching anti Western imams who incite violence such as happened in Paramatta only days ago, and the latest astrocities in Istanbul Turkey. Mind you, Turkey has a an extremist islamic PM in Erdogan atm.

 

[DrZoidberg]

...
So the Reformation would inevitably have happened because of the printing press. And then the religious wars would have been due to that. Root cause is still the printing press.

I don't disagree; but that doesn't make angelo wrong about the Reformation. You can stop tracing a chain of cause and effect anywhere you please but it doesn't stop the chain. It was inevitable that western culture would adopt the printing press because of the Renaissance and because movable type was already in use in China and Korea. The root cause of the Renaissance was the Crusades; the root cause of the Crusades was...

There is fundamental disagreement IMHO. Correlation and causation and all that. I think the religious wars of the Reformation are just a side effect of other stuff. It wasn't the main act. And in retrospect irrelevant in the big picture, even though it propelled Sweden from Arctic outpost to a major world power as well as brain draining England to USA.

2. The Enlightenment would have happened anyway, with or without the religious wars, because of the printing press,

Yes. That is the logical next step.

It may seem that way to us in retrospect, but that's because the Enlightenment is part of our cultural pedigree. But Islam didn't undergo an enlightenment of its own even though Muslims have had printing presses for centuries. If it's really the logical next step, why didn't their culture take it?

Yes. I agree totally. It was the logical next step in Europe, thanks to other factors being present.

The trouble with Islam from this perspective is that it was in effect Protestant from the get-go. Anybody who could read was allowed to read the Quran. There was no Meccan Catholic Mosque organizing everyone's life and being corrupted by its own power and wealth for contrary religious thinkers to launch reform movements against. The Sunni/Shia dispute is more political than theological; the Sunni theocrats and the Shia theocrats are pretty much in agreement as to what to order the Muslim in the street to believe about God. In that sort of conceptual universe there isn't as much place for the notion that each person is entitled to decide for himself what to believe about God to gain a foothold.

Yup. The Muslims were held back by having a very effective central government more concerned with staying in power than progress and innovation. They were all about stability. Same deal in China and India. Anything that could threaten the status quo was shut down.

 

[dystopian]

he he. What do you think women's lib is? It wasn't a question.

You're completely off in fantasy land. Why would it follow that property being in the name of a woman, that she would have any control over it?

Why does it follow that the opposite is true? We have a number of historical matrilineal societies where we know for a fact women held power and control; claiming that it was 'just in name only' is historical revisionism and transposing a western lens onto the rest of the world.

You are completely and absolutely wrong. We don't know that for a fact. What we know for a fact is the opposite. I think it's you who are revising history. It's just racist exotism IMHO.

Yes, we do know that for a fact. We have ample historic writings to back this up. There are *always* historical exceptions to be found when describing human cultural behaviors and organisational forms; these are never structures that are found to be utterly universal. As for 'exotic racism'; you're projecting. It's actually what you're doing; the imposition of western interpretations and western modern history in terms of women's rights onto the entirety of the world's history; which is a kind of racism. You clearly do not have enough knowledge of the world's cultures and history to determine that there were no societies where women held power; indeed, no single person could hope to have that kind of knowledge given the vast variety of human cultures that exist today and have existed over the course of our history; yet you arrogantly declare that there never were and then try to discredit the person who'se listing exceptions as being informed in his views by outdated psychiatrist even though he has given you exactly zero reason to suspect this to be the case and doesn't ascribe to those views at all.

Your tendency to think in black and white absolutes is an enduring problem for you it seems; you frequently make these sort of grand, sweeping statements that you declare as universal fact, without being in a position to actually do so.

 

[Tammuz]

And in retrospect irrelevant in the big picture, even though it propelled Sweden from Arctic outpost to a major world power

Off-topic, but this is quite a bit of exaggeration on your part.

 

[DrZoidberg]

And in retrospect irrelevant in the big picture, even though it propelled Sweden from Arctic outpost to a major world power

Off-topic, but this is quite a bit of exaggeration on your part.

he he... yeah. Quick on the keyboard.

 

[dystopian]

And in retrospect irrelevant in the big picture, even though it propelled Sweden from Arctic outpost to a major world power

Off-topic, but this is quite a bit of exaggeration on your part.

Sweden was never a major "world" power; it's colonial posessions were negligible and quickly taken over by others (and set up with extensive foreign help to begin with). It had little power outside of Europe. Nonetheless, it *was* considered a Great Power for a while due to being quite powerful (but not quite dominant) in Scandinavia and the Baltics in the 17th and 18th centuries. However, its power/expansion was severely curtailed by Denmark and the Dutch Republic with the end of the 2nd northern war in 1660; and the end of its status as a great power was secured with the Russian victory at the battle of Poltava in 1709.

/even more OT

 

[DrZoidberg]

You are completely and absolutely wrong. We don't know that for a fact. What we know for a fact is the opposite. I think it's you who are revising history. It's just racist exotism IMHO.

Yes, we do know that for a fact. We have ample historic writings to back this up.

All mythic. There are many traditions of inventing matriarchies in the kingdom "next door" in some hidden valley. This is quite common, and interesting in itself. Also all clearly devised as cautionary tales against letting women get a say in matters. But we've yet to find a culture that describes itself as such. The fact remains that humanity has never before seen the degree of female empowerment found in the West today. Fact!

The belief you hold academia also held until researchers actually took the time to study these stories. They all proved to be bullshit.

There are *always* historical exceptions to be found when describing human cultural behaviors and organisational forms; these are never structures that are found to be utterly universal.

This statement is far to general for me to be able to comment on. In what way, and how? Yes, there are differences. But the similarities far outweigh the differences. Fundamentally human physiology and psychology are the same regardless of region, eon or culture. We tend to repeat the same power structures everywhere and make the same dumb ass mistakes all the time. The similarities concerning gender are striking all over the planet and the patterns they follow are actually universal.

Male fear of female power seems to be a universal for humanity. It can be better or worse managed. But women have never been allowed to take power anywhere. The are rare examples of women seizing power in history but when they do, they never do anything about changing gender roles. Those kingdoms stayed just as patriarchal with a female ruler, and the existence of a female ruler didn't act to encourage women to take power from then on. They're just rare blips on a flat curve. Hatshepsut even went so far as to insist she was a man. And there are modern examples. Thatcher was a female ruler. As far as being a reformer for women she sucked compared to the male rulers before and after her.

As for 'exotic racism'; you're projecting. It's actually what you're doing; the imposition of western interpretations and western modern history in terms of women's rights onto the entirety of the world's history; which is a kind of racism. You clearly do not have enough knowledge of the world's cultures and history to determine that there were no societies where women held power; indeed, no single person could hope to have that kind of knowledge given the vast variety of human cultures that exist today and have existed over the course of our history; yet you arrogantly declare that there never were and then try to discredit the person who'se listing exceptions as being informed in his views by outdated psychiatrist even though he has given you exactly zero reason to suspect this to be the case and doesn't ascribe to those views at all.

People have actually studied this stuff. I'm the first to change my mind when confronted with new evidence or a better argument. Going with what the scientific community says isn't being arrogant. It's being humble. In this case it's been studied. Yes, I know I should add a link or two to research now. When I get around to it Yes, I know I said I shouldn't answer any more. Itchy fingers... second smiley

 

[dystopian]

Yes, we do know that for a fact. We have ample historic writings to back this up.

All mythic. There are many traditions of inventing matriarchies in the kingdom "next door" in some hidden valley.

Wrong yet again; and calling them all mythic is yet another example of how you declare things to be true without having enough information to do so. It isn't even inventing such traditions in the kingdom next door. For instance, we know certain societies in modern-day Indonesia at the time of European colonization (such as the Minangkabau) were highly matriarchical societies because many of these societies came to be part of the territory of the VOC; VOC employees at times even married into these matrilineal clans. Can't describe that as a tradition of inventing shit in some hidden valley.

But we've yet to find a culture that describes itself as such.

Bullshit. Many matrilineal societies describe themselves as female dominated or matriarchical; including the Minangkabau I mentioned above, the Padaung, the ancient Vietnamese, the Hopi, the Mosuo, and others.

The fact remains that humanity has never before seen the degree of female empowerment found in the West today. Fact!

Wow, so the only way for you to accept that a historical society had liberated women, well developed gender equality, or advanced matriarchical aspects to it, is if that society had exactly as much female power as our society does today?

The belief you hold academia also held until researchers actually took the time to study these stories. They all proved to be bullshit.

Here you go again, trying to discard what I'm saying by pretending like I hold some position that A) I don't hold and that B) isn't current anymore. You're referring, of course, to the notion that prehistoric societies were all matriarchical; which isn't even remotely close to anything I've said or believe in. But nice try.

This statement is far to general for me to be able to comment on. In what way, and how?

In every way. Pick just about any aspect of human culture beyond; 'this culture eats and has sex of one variety or another' and you will be able to find cultures that don't incorporate it.

Yes, there are differences. But the similarities far outweigh the differences. Fundamentally human physiology and psychology are the same regardless of region, eon or culture. We tend to repeat the same power structures everywhere and make the same dumb ass mistakes all the time. The similarities concerning gender are striking all over the planet and the patterns they follow are actually universal.

By that logic we could not possibly have the degree of gender equality/empowerement that we have today, because it conflicts with 'fundamental human physiology and psychology'. Of course, the fact that we have an exception to the historical trend here, today, should really open your eyes to the possibilities of similar exceptions elsewhere. But then, accepting that would mean invalidating your original claim that women's were only possible because of industrialisation, wouldn't it? Couldn't have you do that.

People have actually studied this stuff.

Yes, they have. Guess what, many of them do actually agree with what I'm saying. This shit isn't binary; contrary to whatever you may have read, there is no consensus about this issue other than the notion that there are no (known) societies in history where the matriarchy was *total*. Which doesn't really matter anyway since nobody claimed otherwise.

I'm the first to change my mind when confronted with new evidence or a better argument.

 

[angelo]

I don't disagree; but that doesn't make angelo wrong about the Reformation. You can stop tracing a chain of cause and effect anywhere you please but it doesn't stop the chain. It was inevitable that western culture would adopt the printing press because of the Renaissance and because movable type was already in use in China and Korea. The root cause of the Renaissance was the Crusades; the root cause of the Crusades was...

There is fundamental disagreement IMHO. Correlation and causation and all that. I think the religious wars of the Reformation are just a side effect of other stuff. It wasn't the main act. And in retrospect irrelevant in the big picture, even though it propelled Sweden from Arctic outpost to a major world power as well as brain draining England to USA.

2. The Enlightenment would have happened anyway, with or without the religious wars, because of the printing press,

Yes. That is the logical next step.

It may seem that way to us in retrospect, but that's because the Enlightenment is part of our cultural pedigree. But Islam didn't undergo an enlightenment of its own even though Muslims have had printing presses for centuries. If it's really the logical next step, why didn't their culture take it?

Bullshit!!! China was and is a contributor to humanity with their many discoveries and achievements. Today even though ruled by a socialist/communist moderate regime, it's the largest economy on earth. Compare that to Islamic countries who need outside multinational companies to operate their oil wells. Muslims are too busy praying five times a day to achieve anything!

The trouble with Islam from this perspective is that it was in effect Protestant from the get-go. Anybody who could read was allowed to read the Quran. There was no Meccan Catholic Mosque organizing everyone's life and being corrupted by its own power and wealth for contrary religious thinkers to launch reform movements against. The Sunni/Shia dispute is more political than theological; the Sunni theocrats and the Shia theocrats are pretty much in agreement as to what to order the Muslim in the street to believe about God. In that sort of conceptual universe there isn't as much place for the notion that each person is entitled to decide for himself what to believe about God to gain a foothold.

Yup. The Muslims were held back by having a very effective central government more concerned with staying in power than progress and innovation. They were all about stability. Same deal in China and India. Anything that could threaten the status quo was shut down.

Bullshit. China was and is a contributor to humanity with there many discoveries and achievements. Today even though a communist regime, its the largest economy on earth with a growing living standard for all Chinese.
Compare that to any Islamic country which has lagged way behind in making any kind of progress, in fact some are still living in the sixth century. Muslims are too busy praying five time per day to achieve anything!

 

[Juma]

Bullshit. China was and is a contributor to humanity with there many discoveries and achievements. Today even though a communist regime, its the largest economy on earth with a growing living standard for all Chinese.
Compare that to any Islamic country which

It is hard to find a islamic country that treats its citizens and the environment as bad as china does.

 

[skepticalbip]

Bullshit. China was and is a contributor to humanity with there many discoveries and achievements. Today even though a communist regime, its the largest economy on earth with a growing living standard for all Chinese.
Compare that to any Islamic country which

It is hard to find a islamic country that treats its citizens and the environment as bad as china does.

As far as treatment of its citizens, that would be hard to defend. I haven't heard of women being stoned because they were raped in China or the execution of gays.

As far as the environment, yes China is bad but I don't know of any Islamic nation that has a rapidly growing economy that has a growing demand for energy.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Bullshit. China was and is a contributor to humanity with there many discoveries and achievements. Today even though a communist regime, its the largest economy on earth with a growing living standard for all Chinese.
Compare that to any Islamic country which

It is hard to find a islamic country that treats its citizens and the environment as bad as china does.

I would disagree. I worked for 2 companies during my time and interacted with others. China's main problem with the environment is that it is a very large but also rapidly expanding economy. I saw my own colleagues start as cyclists or using the company bus to purchasing 2 cars and more than one apartment for cash. Salaries nearly tripled in a period of ten years. Beijing has a community of 10,000 very peaceful Muslims (as extremists tend to get executed once convicted). China lacks human rights but the government is not dumb. In order to preserve the status quo it has to deliver. I have been working in Islamic countries since then for the past six years.

 

[Juma]

It is hard to find a islamic country that treats its citizens and the environment as bad as china does.

As far as treatment of its citizens, that would be hard to defend. I haven't heard of women being stoned because they were raped in China or the execution of gays.

That is not common in muslim countries. Thus that is not a muslim custom.

China definitlt is very harsh on political opposition and the working conditions are abyssmal.

 

[Will Wiley]

There is fundamental disagreement IMHO. Correlation and causation and all that. I think the religious wars of the Reformation are just a side effect of other stuff. It wasn't the main act. And in retrospect irrelevant in the big picture, even though it propelled Sweden from Arctic outpost to a major world power as well as brain draining England to USA.

2. The Enlightenment would have happened anyway, with or without the religious wars, because of the printing press,

Yes. That is the logical next step.

It may seem that way to us in retrospect, but that's because the Enlightenment is part of our cultural pedigree. But Islam didn't undergo an enlightenment of its own even though Muslims have had printing presses for centuries. If it's really the logical next step, why didn't their culture take it?

Bullshit!!! China was and is a contributor to humanity with their many discoveries and achievements. Today even though ruled by a socialist/communist moderate regime, it's the largest economy on earth. Compare that to Islamic countries who need outside multinational companies to operate their oil wells. Muslims are too busy praying five times a day to achieve anything!

The trouble with Islam from this perspective is that it was in effect Protestant from the get-go. Anybody who could read was allowed to read the Quran. There was no Meccan Catholic Mosque organizing everyone's life and being corrupted by its own power and wealth for contrary religious thinkers to launch reform movements against. The Sunni/Shia dispute is more political than theological; the Sunni theocrats and the Shia theocrats are pretty much in agreement as to what to order the Muslim in the street to believe about God. In that sort of conceptual universe there isn't as much place for the notion that each person is entitled to decide for himself what to believe about God to gain a foothold.

Yup. The Muslims were held back by having a very effective central government more concerned with staying in power than progress and innovation. They were all about stability. Same deal in China and India. Anything that could threaten the status quo was shut down.

Bullshit. China was and is a contributor to humanity with there many discoveries and achievements. Today even though a communist regime, its the largest economy on earth with a growing living standard for all Chinese.
Compare that to any Islamic country which has lagged way behind in making any kind of progress, in fact some are still living in the sixth century. Muslims are too busy praying five time per day to achieve anything!

Thankfully recent Australian government have been pointed to a solution, and they gaily followed (gaily in the old sense). You bomb them.

 

[Jokodo]

There is fundamental disagreement IMHO. Correlation and causation and all that. I think the religious wars of the Reformation are just a side effect of other stuff. It wasn't the main act. And in retrospect irrelevant in the big picture, even though it propelled Sweden from Arctic outpost to a major world power as well as brain draining England to USA.

2. The Enlightenment would have happened anyway, with or without the religious wars, because of the printing press,

Yes. That is the logical next step.

It may seem that way to us in retrospect, but that's because the Enlightenment is part of our cultural pedigree. But Islam didn't undergo an enlightenment of its own even though Muslims have had printing presses for centuries. If it's really the logical next step, why didn't their culture take it?

Bullshit!!! China was and is a contributor to humanity with their many discoveries and achievements. Today even though ruled by a socialist/communist moderate regime, it's the largest economy on earth. Compare that to Islamic countries who need outside multinational companies to operate their oil wells. Muslims are too busy praying five times a day to achieve anything!

The trouble with Islam from this perspective is that it was in effect Protestant from the get-go. Anybody who could read was allowed to read the Quran. There was no Meccan Catholic Mosque organizing everyone's life and being corrupted by its own power and wealth for contrary religious thinkers to launch reform movements against. The Sunni/Shia dispute is more political than theological; the Sunni theocrats and the Shia theocrats are pretty much in agreement as to what to order the Muslim in the street to believe about God. In that sort of conceptual universe there isn't as much place for the notion that each person is entitled to decide for himself what to believe about God to gain a foothold.

Yup. The Muslims were held back by having a very effective central government more concerned with staying in power than progress and innovation. They were all about stability. Same deal in China and India. Anything that could threaten the status quo was shut down.

Bullshit. China was and is a contributor to humanity with there many discoveries and achievements. Today even though a communist regime, its the largest economy on earth with a growing living standard for all Chinese.
Compare that to any Islamic country which has lagged way behind in making any kind of progress, in fact some are still living in the sixth century. Muslims are too busy praying five time per day to achieve anything!

GDP growth rates in some of the most populous Muslim majority countries of the world:
Indonesia: 5.20
Pakistan: 4.10
Malaysia: 5.90
Bangladesh: 6.20
Egypt: 2.20 (essentially the same as Canada)
Iran: 1.50 (same as Germany)
Saudi Arabia: 3.60
Morocco: 3.50

For comparison, Australia: 2.80.

Facts are for losers, aren't they?

 

[angelo]

There is fundamental disagreement IMHO. Correlation and causation and all that. I think the religious wars of the Reformation are just a side effect of other stuff. It wasn't the main act. And in retrospect irrelevant in the big picture, even though it propelled Sweden from Arctic outpost to a major world power as well as brain draining England to USA.

2. The Enlightenment would have happened anyway, with or without the religious wars, because of the printing press,

Yes. That is the logical next step.

It may seem that way to us in retrospect, but that's because the Enlightenment is part of our cultural pedigree. But Islam didn't undergo an enlightenment of its own even though Muslims have had printing presses for centuries. If it's really the logical next step, why didn't their culture take it?

Bullshit!!! China was and is a contributor to humanity with their many discoveries and achievements. Today even though ruled by a socialist/communist moderate regime, it's the largest economy on earth. Compare that to Islamic countries who need outside multinational companies to operate their oil wells. Muslims are too busy praying five times a day to achieve anything!

The trouble with Islam from this perspective is that it was in effect Protestant from the get-go. Anybody who could read was allowed to read the Quran. There was no Meccan Catholic Mosque organizing everyone's life and being corrupted by its own power and wealth for contrary religious thinkers to launch reform movements against. The Sunni/Shia dispute is more political than theological; the Sunni theocrats and the Shia theocrats are pretty much in agreement as to what to order the Muslim in the street to believe about God. In that sort of conceptual universe there isn't as much place for the notion that each person is entitled to decide for himself what to believe about God to gain a foothold.

Yup. The Muslims were held back by having a very effective central government more concerned with staying in power than progress and innovation. They were all about stability. Same deal in China and India. Anything that could threaten the status quo was shut down.

Bullshit. China was and is a contributor to humanity with there many discoveries and achievements. Today even though a communist regime, its the largest economy on earth with a growing living standard for all Chinese.
Compare that to any Islamic country which has lagged way behind in making any kind of progress, in fact some are still living in the sixth century. Muslims are too busy praying five time per day to achieve anything!

GDP growth rates in some of the most populous Muslim majority countries of the world:
Indonesia: 5.20
Pakistan: 4.10
Malaysia: 5.90
Bangladesh: 6.20
Egypt: 2.20 (essentially the same as Canada)
Iran: 1.50 (same as Germany)
Saudi Arabia: 3.60
Morocco: 3.50

For comparison, Australia: 2.80.

Facts are for losers, aren't they?

Why have they this GDP? Isn't it because multinational companies have set up manufacturing in these low wage countries?

 

[untermensche]

Some think the only Muslim countries are Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan.

And what can never be forgotten is that Iran was a secular democracy in 1950, moving away from this religious nonsense, until US and British interference destroyed that democracy which led to a takeover by religious fundamentalists.

Who knows what would take over in the US if some foreign power was able to destroy it's democratic structures?

The Christian fundamentalists that are all over the place?

 

[Jokodo]

There is fundamental disagreement IMHO. Correlation and causation and all that. I think the religious wars of the Reformation are just a side effect of other stuff. It wasn't the main act. And in retrospect irrelevant in the big picture, even though it propelled Sweden from Arctic outpost to a major world power as well as brain draining England to USA.

2. The Enlightenment would have happened anyway, with or without the religious wars, because of the printing press,

Yes. That is the logical next step.

It may seem that way to us in retrospect, but that's because the Enlightenment is part of our cultural pedigree. But Islam didn't undergo an enlightenment of its own even though Muslims have had printing presses for centuries. If it's really the logical next step, why didn't their culture take it?

Bullshit!!! China was and is a contributor to humanity with their many discoveries and achievements. Today even though ruled by a socialist/communist moderate regime, it's the largest economy on earth. Compare that to Islamic countries who need outside multinational companies to operate their oil wells. Muslims are too busy praying five times a day to achieve anything!

The trouble with Islam from this perspective is that it was in effect Protestant from the get-go. Anybody who could read was allowed to read the Quran. There was no Meccan Catholic Mosque organizing everyone's life and being corrupted by its own power and wealth for contrary religious thinkers to launch reform movements against. The Sunni/Shia dispute is more political than theological; the Sunni theocrats and the Shia theocrats are pretty much in agreement as to what to order the Muslim in the street to believe about God. In that sort of conceptual universe there isn't as much place for the notion that each person is entitled to decide for himself what to believe about God to gain a foothold.

Yup. The Muslims were held back by having a very effective central government more concerned with staying in power than progress and innovation. They were all about stability. Same deal in China and India. Anything that could threaten the status quo was shut down.

Bullshit. China was and is a contributor to humanity with there many discoveries and achievements. Today even though a communist regime, its the largest economy on earth with a growing living standard for all Chinese.
Compare that to any Islamic country which has lagged way behind in making any kind of progress, in fact some are still living in the sixth century. Muslims are too busy praying five time per day to achieve anything!

GDP growth rates in some of the most populous Muslim majority countries of the world:
Indonesia: 5.20
Pakistan: 4.10
Malaysia: 5.90
Bangladesh: 6.20
Egypt: 2.20 (essentially the same as Canada)
Iran: 1.50 (same as Germany)
Saudi Arabia: 3.60
Morocco: 3.50

For comparison, Australia: 2.80.

Facts are for losers, aren't they?

Why have they this GDP? Isn't it because multinational companies have set up manufacturing in these low wage countries?

You were contrasting China with "any Islamic country". Couldn't the same be said of China?