> I encourage that you write a better refereed article on tide prediction
Why don't you do that? I'm apparently very ill-informed of Muslim scientific history, so you already have a step ahead. I've pointed you to the entirety of my knowledge of the relevant Chinese history, so I've no advantage there.
A Google Scholar search finds Cartright's article "On the origins of knowledge of the sea tides from antiquity to the Thirteenth Century", which appears to cover at least some of the topic. All you need to do is fill in the details.
There are other papers on the topic too. Are you sure that what you want hasn't already been written?
> Muhammad is considered by muslim as the last messenger and prophet
Yes, we learned that in 9th grade.
He's also considered a false prophet by quite a few Christians. The Bible warns about false prophets.
For that matter, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints consider Moroni to be the last prophet, and in the the Baháʼí Faith, Baháʼu'lláh was a prophet - we even have photographs of him, unlike the earlier Abrahamic prophets.
You are doing exactly what just about every Christian apologetic does - you give a bunch of details as if they are supporting evidence, then when someone looks into it and finds the evidence seemingly lacking or stating the opposite of what's claimed, instead of addressing the issue directly you instead jump to something else, or start tone policing, or when all else fails, proselytize.
I asked you about what additional information should be in the essay which would be relevant to the goal and readership of the essay. You haven't. That tells me you are not serious about the actual history or scholarship, which makes me want to pigeonhole you into the third part of the forest I mentioned earlier.
>He's also considered a false prophet by quite a few Christians. The Bible warns about false prophets.
The Bible also warned against worshipping others false God beside God including worshipping fellow human or worshipping other prophets, but most Christians are doing exactly that by worshipping Jesus via the misleading concept of Trinity formalized by the Council of Nicea [1].
>I asked you about what additional information should be in the essay which would be relevant to the goal and readership of the essay. You haven't.
I've given the many relevant additional information but you did not accept the facts that were presented to you.
The only way to settle the contention is by me or you writing the refereed article on tide prediction with proper historical knowledge lineage to setting the record straigth. Since none of us not is willing to do that then it's pointless of you replying to this thread anymore unless you want to waste your time.
The bottom line is that according to me the OP article lack proper references and citations of the prior arts from Arab and muslim scholars contributions between the Greek and Renaissance era. If you think otherwise you are entitled to your opinions.
Why don't you do that? I'm apparently very ill-informed of Muslim scientific history, so you already have a step ahead. I've pointed you to the entirety of my knowledge of the relevant Chinese history, so I've no advantage there.
A Google Scholar search finds Cartright's article "On the origins of knowledge of the sea tides from antiquity to the Thirteenth Century", which appears to cover at least some of the topic. All you need to do is fill in the details.
There are other papers on the topic too. Are you sure that what you want hasn't already been written?
> Muhammad is considered by muslim as the last messenger and prophet
Yes, we learned that in 9th grade.
He's also considered a false prophet by quite a few Christians. The Bible warns about false prophets.
For that matter, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints consider Moroni to be the last prophet, and in the the Baháʼí Faith, Baháʼu'lláh was a prophet - we even have photographs of him, unlike the earlier Abrahamic prophets.
You are doing exactly what just about every Christian apologetic does - you give a bunch of details as if they are supporting evidence, then when someone looks into it and finds the evidence seemingly lacking or stating the opposite of what's claimed, instead of addressing the issue directly you instead jump to something else, or start tone policing, or when all else fails, proselytize.
I asked you about what additional information should be in the essay which would be relevant to the goal and readership of the essay. You haven't. That tells me you are not serious about the actual history or scholarship, which makes me want to pigeonhole you into the third part of the forest I mentioned earlier.