A Disturbing Essay on Islamic Scientific Development

reply to post by mideast


From 1808 onward following the decision to abolish the slave trade by the British parliament inspired by Christian reformists the royal navy performed regular anti slavery patrols of west Africa and the Atlantic as well as enforcing peace in the area an age known as the Pax Britannica (British Peace) but it was only as European powers pushed into Africa in search of raw material for the industrial revolution that the much older Islamic slave trade came to be under there scrutiny.
histclo.com...
Indeed the last British slave patrol was only cut due to funding in the 1960's and up to that time was still catching Arabian slave Skiffs with African's in chains, through the 1970s and 1980s there were numerous tales of Philippine women being hired as domestic cleaners only to have there passports taken from them upon arriving in Arabia and to be subjected to slavery.
It is part of your culture as Muhammad had a Christian as a slave and it still goes on even to this day so if you wish to compare cultural merit here I can pull out many more story's.

Here is a recent case from England of a Pakistani couple whom trafficked a poor deaf girl into the country and kept her as a slave in there cellar, sexually abused and forced to work from the age of 10 she was actually one of your own a Muslim child www.dailymail.co.uk...
And though we have our own they are deviants and are hated by society not accepted by it.

I've written and discarded this post three times. Words just don't seem to fit. Religion is a delicate subject and, although I didn't intend to, it appears that I have irritated some to the point of anger and irrationality. My sincerest apologies to you.

It seems that the reading I've done, here and on the Internet, points to a period in which the new Islamic world was seen as "Golden." That period is generally said to have ended by the mid 1200's, though some put it earlier. There is some controversy over what role to assign to the intelligentsia, knowledge, and culture absorbed by Muslim conquest. It seems more likely that the knowledge was taken rather than discovered, what else would account for such scientific effort among tribal nomads?

It is also clear that whatever the "golden age" was, it has been over for centuries. One theory advanced is that the Muslim countries have sufferred from the ravages of war for the last 700-800 years, and that stopped their science. That doesn't appear to be historically accurate.

Another theory is that the Muslim conquerors "used up" the scientists in the lands they had captured and were unable to produce more due to philosophical arguments about the nature of Allah and the World which discouraged many lines of scientific thought. This theory seems most logical to me. It also provides a possible explanation for the observation with which Westerners and Muslims seem to agree, that "Islamic science" is in a hole compared to the rest of the world.

Some ideas I've heard here are unbelievable in my opinion. "We will kill all the invaders and return to our glory," confuses me. The US is out of Iraq on the timetable President Bush established, and we have very little presence in any country other than Afghanistan. It is inconceivable to me that the Islamic world is waiting for Afghanistan to lead it back to the heights of scientific glory.

Then there is the idea that the destruction caused by wars, in general has stopped science. But haven't some of the wars in the Middle East in the last 50 years been initiated by the Islamic countries? Iran's attacks on Kuwait and Iraq, most of the Muslim world against israel in 1948 and the "October war," Syria with Muslims fighting Muslims, and so on.

Going back further, it was probably a big mistake for the Ottoman Empire to sign up with the German side in World War I. To the victors belonged the spoils, and the Arab countries remained controlled by the victors for varying periods of time up to 40 years.

In short, I haven't seen a case made for the idea "If this hadn't happened, the golden age would have kept going and Islam would be the source of leading edge science in every field." Instead of choosing Science, or Science and Allah, it appears that the chosen path is Allah alone.

reply to post by charles1952

The US is out of Iraq on the timetable President Bush established, and we have very little presence in any country other than Afghanistan

Yes , Us is out but www.abovetopsecret.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink">1600 people in IRaq embassy

And the sectarian war is not even organized by these people.

These are just mad people that grew up from land after the former Iraqi dictator was done.

And these 1600 people are working day and night in Iraq to bring democracy to the people.

These people have dedicated their lives to build a country for godbless , not any more.

And we are so naieve to accept that.

Iran's attacks on Kuwait and Iraq

The most informed sentence.

Saddam attacked Iran and Kuwait.

And all the planet helped him to destroy the Islamic republic at it's very beginning.

Iran–Iraq War
See also: Iraqi chemical warfare
Victims of Halabja poison gas attack in 1988.
Iranian soldiers had to use full PPE in front line of Iran-Iraq War

The Iran–Iraq War began in 1980 when Iraq attacked Iran. Early in the conflict, Iraq began to employ mustard gas and tabun delivered by bombs dropped from airplanes; approximately 5% of all Iranian casualties are directly attributable to the use of these agents.[citation needed]

Chemical weapons employed by Saddam Hussein killed and injured numerous Iranians, and possibly Iraqis. According to Iraqi documents, assistance in developing chemical weapons was obtained from firms in many countries, including the United States, West Germany, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and France.[52]

en.wikipedia.org...

ATS thread

reply to post by mideast


broken link

1600 people in Iraq embassy

reply to post by mideast

Dear mideast,

Thank you for pointing out my error. I was wrong and you were right. It was Iraq which was doing the attacking, not Iran. Completely my fault.

Perhaps I can clear up a couple of other errors. (No, not made by you, but found in your link to the 1600.) One is the claim that the US is selling $16 trillion worth of arms a year. From The New York Times:

WASHINGTON — Weapons sales by the United States tripled in 2011 to a record high, driven by major arms sales to Persian Gulf allies concerned about Iran’s regional ambitions, according to a new study for Congress.

Overseas weapons sales by the United States totaled $66.3 billion last year, or more than three-quarters of the global arms market, valued at $85.3 billion in 2011. Russia was a distant second, with $4.8 billion in deals.

www.nytimes.com...
The US hasn't sold anything close to $16 trillion worth of arms in its entire existence. The claim is about 240 times too high.

What about the 1600 figure? It turns out the interviewee was right the first time and the interviewer introduced the error.

BAGHDAD (AP) — A decade after the start of the war in Iraq, the American diplomatic footprint here is shrinking fast.

As recently as a year ago, the immense U.S. Embassy in Baghdad and other sites around the country were staffed by more than 16,000 personnel. Today, that number has fallen to about 10,500, U.S. Ambassador Robert Stephen Beecroft said this week.

By the end of the year, Beecroft said he expects to have just 5,500 employees in Iraq. Most of them will be security personnel and other outside contractors assigned to support the fewer than 1,000 diplomats who remain. More cuts are expected beyond the end of the year.

bigstory.ap.org...

Of course, if I was an American in a fixed, known location in the middle of Iraq, I'd want umptygazillion guards too.

But now, back to the science question. I'd really like to hear your comments on my post, here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


The kick out the invaders part refers to military bases in Saudi Arabia on account of it being the holy region - given your lengthy posts on the subject I would have thought you'd know - it's been a bone of contention for quite some time, gets referred to quite a lot.

Calling all of the Islamic Empire by the 1200's "a bunch of nomads" is also a bit disingenuous - it was pretty big by that point after all.

I think the central point premise of this whole debate is slightly flawed, simply by virtue of there being Islamic scientists in all fields of science : en.wikipedia.org...
Look down that list - there are Nobel prize winners - hence, they could be described as being at the top of their field. Ethnicity or culture doesn't prevent someone being talented.
It could also be argued that in the field of extracting oil, they've made some impressive moves - as shown by the rise in fortunes of state owned oil companies as compared to the waning influence of the 7 sisters.

Otherwise your point is quite interesting - I was always under the impression that the thing that did the Arabic Golden age in was the Mongols though? That's a brief run down, www.islamicity.com...
(I only know this because they're the reason the Assassins were destroyed as a credible power in the region )

reply to post by MaxSteiner

Dear MaxSteiner,

Another great post, I'm glad you're here.

given your lengthy posts on the subject I would have thought you'd know

I don't know if you're laughing at me, but I'm certainly chuckling. I have to clear up your miconception though. You're confusing the fact that I am long-winded and wordy with the assumption that I know something about this. Ha-Ha, I say. From the very start I've tried to make clear that this is a chance for me to learn. I knew absolutely nothing about it. Everything I've picked up has come from posters like yourself.

Calling all of the Islamic Empire by the 1200's "a bunch of nomads" is also a bit disingenuous - it was pretty big by that point after all.

You're absolutely right, I was sloppy. I understand that the correct phrase is "semi-nomadic herders." I didn't mean to refer to them as such in the 1200s. Where I was going was that before the "golden age" there was very little interest in Science, it seemed to pop up out of nowehere. One possible explanation is that, as they conquered lands, Islamic forces captured the writings and scientists of those lands and put them to work under a Moslem flag.

I think the central point premise of this whole debate is slightly flawed, simply by virtue of there being Islamic scientists in all fields of science

Oh, I agree, but aren't there some qualifiers? How many are current (as in from 1300 on)? How many were captured by Islamic armies? Is there any truth to the idea that Islam benefitted from conquered people for about two to three centuries, then the well ran dry? And so on.

Look down that list - there are Nobel prize winners - hence, they could be described as being at the top of their field. Ethnicity or culture doesn't prevent someone being talented.

Yes there are. There have been ten since the Prizes were begun over 100 years ago. Six of the ten won the Peace Prize. Two more won it for Literature. Of the remaining two in the Sciences, one was declared to be a "non-Muslim" by a Constitutional amendment by the Pakistani government, and his gravestone defaced to remove all evidence that he was a Muslim. The only "Muslim" winner left Egypt after he received his MS degree. He moved to the United States, had children, got his doctorate and post-doctorate, began teaching at Cal Tech, became a US citizen, and has lived here continuously since his arrival. He arrived in the US about 1970, became a citizen in 1982, and won the Prize in 1999.

I was always under the impression that the thing that did the Arabic Golden age in was the Mongols though? That's a brief run down

Thank you, that's interesting, and I don't think it's been mentioned before.
It seems complicated, not only because there are usually several factors which account for any major event, but also because different people weight each factor differently.

The Mongols attacked more than the Muslim empire, however:

Brian Landers has offered that, "One empire in particular exceeded any that had gone before, and crossed from Asia into Europe in an orgy of violence and destruction. The Mongols brought terror to Europe on a scale not seen again until the twentieth century." Diana Lary contends that the Mongol invasions induced population displacement "on a scale never seen before," particularly in Central Asia and eastern Europe. She adds, "the impending arrival of the Mongol hordes spread terror and panic."

The Mongols invaded and destroyed Kievan Rus', also invading Poland, Hungary and Bulgaria, among others. Over the course of three years (1237–1240), the Mongols destroyed and annihilated all of the major cities of Eastern Europe with the exceptions of Novgorod and Pskov.

en.wikipedia.org...

I agree that they were a factor, I just don't know if it was sufficient, by itself, to stop Science. Even your source Islamicity, mentions:

Under Tamerlane, the Mongol forces swept down on Central Asia, India, Iran, Iraq, and Syria, occupying Aleppo and Damascus and threatening - but not defeating - the Mamluks. Once again, however, the Muslims survived their invaders. Tamerlane died on his way to conquer China, and his empire melted away.

Politically and economically, the Mongol invasions were disastrous. Some regions never fully recovered and the Muslim empire, already weakened by internal pressures, never fully regained its previous power.

How significant were those "internal pressures," and were they related to Islam? I don't know. "The Muslims survived their invaders." How badly were they hurt, then? I don't know.

Thank you again for bringing this up.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by coruptedsector2


Don't ever lose hope, and I couldn't agree more.

FlyInTheOintment and dontreally have, between them, made this thread gourmet.

Great job Charles

I can't seem to shake the imagery of an entirely colourful and beautiful place (not that long ago) full of learning and experience, openness, open spirit, then something changed, and they became afraid of something, and closed shop, so to speak. Covered and withdrew.
Like they got a hint of the extreme in the other direction that that teaching would take, and decided to sit back and watch for a bit instead. Keep close, what was/is precious.

That wave of learning though, surged out and affected the growth of other societies everywhere, some of which, put no such boudaries on that education or information and it's usage.
Which to me, amounts to study without heart.
They took it willingly and were allowed to expand and reconcoct and remix and tamper, then finally to contaminate. There is only so many times you can splice a thing and rebuild before you have reached the end of the pattern, and something new is needed then.
Not sure what I'm trying to say here it's pictures and impressions and a willing leash, please don't flame me for saying so.

further to that - it's like 'it', Spiritual (nature) and/or religion - worded by man and a word I'm becoming more uncomfortable with) went through and followed many rivulates to find it's way all the way down here, gross material added and subtracted by the various cultural filters and laws of this country, that came in contact with it, added their own flavour and will send it on it's way again.
I have found though, that teaching that has even a smidge of improper is, and can be, just as detremental as the whole thing reaking of not right. One is just slower at causing dis-ease of an extreme.

Like the finest weave of the finest material, should not what eventuates be as fine as dust and just as insubstantial and soft, like talcom powder?
.....or am I just displaying further my naivety from a, somewhat romantic, idealist point of view.....?

I can understand why people have their misgivings and heartfelt concern, about the situation of the women.
It keeps coming up, but theirs is not the only culture to have such extreme attacks.
And thoughts of defence for all of them from outside of those countries (where they are so strict with their women) should only be seen as a sisterhood (backed by all the brothers) of reaching out to those we don't want to see harmed any longer.

-------
No one answered yet, my previous question, or I haven't read it answered yet, (perhaps none of you have been, or know, or aren't allowed to say ?) but i'll ask again and add a couple more questions if I may.
1. what direction do they move around mecca?
2. can the women ever have their faces, hair and skin in the sun unmolested? Are there places for that?

someone mentioned moon dancing? (bluesma was it you? sorry I forget) do they do this? what is this about?

reply to post by mideast


Just an observation, but you are showing a side of yourself that is thinly veiled and leans to
a desire for retribution in your tone (anger), I am suprised by this, from you.
I mean no offence

reply to post by AussieAmandaC

Dear AussieAmandaC,

You are absolutely right, the posters have made this thread. I am amazed at, and proud of, the quality here. These are probably the best non-conspiracy posters I've seen.

Would you mind if I give some half baked answers to your questions? I feel I have a certain responsibility.

Which way do they go around the Ka'bah? It looks counter-clockwise to me. You can look for yourself (and get more information on the other walks they have to take) here:
www.30-days.net...

I can answer the question of exposed skin with my favorite answer, "It depends." (My second favorite is "Yes and no.")

Still in the 1960s and 1970s veiling was not widely practiced by urban women in places like Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Egypt and the Palestinian territories. The custom made a come back with the revival of Islamic sentiments after the Iranian Revolution in 1979 and the Intafadeh in the Palestinian territories in the 1990s and was embraced more strongly when anti-Western sentiments grew after the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Veiling was institutionalized by Sharia (Islamic law). The way the body should be covered is based on the Hadiths. The wide variety of types of coverings in the Islamic world is a clear indication of how varied interpretations of the Koran and Hadiths can be. Men have a dress code too. The Koran forbids them from wearing saffron and silk or exposing skin from naval to knee.

The Koran specifically warns against literal interpretations. One of the reason why that so many restrictions are put on women is the belief among some Muslims that when God divided up sexual desire he gave women nine times more than men.

Women have nine times the sexual desire of men? Have I been travelling in the wrong circles.
factsanddetails.com...

I went to a website advertising Muslim women as marriage partners. The woman on the front page had no difficulty with exposing her head entirely, and more than just her hands. But no, it wasn't pornographic in any sense.
Muslim women partners

I also found an Islamic website that claims the covering requirement has nothing to do with Islam, only tradition.

North Africa is known for its Tribe that have the Muslim men wearing “Hijab” instead of women. Here the tradition has the Hijab in reverse. If wearing Hijab is the exclusive sign of a pious and righteous woman, why do we see so many women wear Hijab, completely disregarding other essentials of modesty, like wearing tight shirts and jeans, showing the body parts that must be concealed, plus immodest behavior? In brief, Hijab is a tradition and it has nothing to do with Islam.

www.ahl-alquran.com...

And, finally, I didn't have much luck with "moon dancing." Muslims in Trinidad "dance the moon," but I don't know if that's what you're thinking of.
www.triniview.com...

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


Wow thanks Charles, this threads has been a fantastic read and insight, from other peoples prospectives.
I hope for them all that what they need to rebuild and regroup for a brighter future inclusive of all who wander in, comes along for them soon.

"Women have nine times the sexual desire of men?"

Perhaps this is why they are so 'protective' of their women?

reply to post by AussieAmandaC

I can't seem to shake the imagery of an entirely colourful and beautiful place (not that long ago) full of learning and experience, openness, open spirit, then something changed, and they became afraid of something, and closed shop, so to speak. Covered and withdrew.

You got a way with words. A tad nondescript, but it flows nicely nonetheless.

Like they got a hint of the extreme in the other direction that that teaching would take, and decided to sit back and watch for a bit instead. Keep close, what was/is precious

The history of this transition has yet to be written, but I'm sure that who ever writes it will make it an intensely interesting read.

The main players are: Averroes and Al Ghazali. Al Ghazalis most famous work, 'the incoherence of the philosophers', and Averroes response in the "incoherence of the incoherence" would be an interesting place to begin: to outline, and explain just how and for what possible reasons Islam's leading thinkers chose the irrational "revelatory" power of the Quran over the tried and tested methodology of the Aristoteleans and Platonists.

If I remember correctly, basically, Islam, as elucidated by Al Ghazali, is centered around the concept of Allah's grandeur. There are specific narratives and traditions which the Quran (and Hadith) reference which allude to particular positions of the Jews and Christians. In the case of the Jews, the Quran says the Jews "bind Allah's hands". This is a metaphor for Judaism's theological understanding of divinity. The God of the Jews is bound by his works, because it is chiefly through His works that we come to understand Him. There's an aura of naturalism in this position. Not from the beyond, but in the mundane, does the law unfold. Islam, as understood by Al Ghazali, sees God as being absolutely transcendent, so much so, that this very world is perhaps best likened to a desert (which is why the Hajj, and the association of Gods abode - the qaaba - with a desert environment, possess such symbolic meaning). In short, Al Ghazali recommends a radical absolutism: all that exists is Allah, and Allah's will is only known through the Quran. Therefore, only through the Quran can man know anything about how things should work in the world. This position is consistent with the basic philosophic division of the known world into Dar Al Islam (house of submission), and Dar Al Harb (house of war). All things which lie outside the authority of Islamic law is at war with Allah, and so, (as understood by extremists in particular) at war with all Muslims.

Al Ghazalis revulsion of science is really a revulsion of reason. Reason, to Al Ghazali, is an audacious human prejudgement. To imagine that any secondary cause can be veritably "known" and manipulated for certain is to deny Allah's absolute free will. Therefore, not even morality, according to this line of reasoning (which helps us non-Muslims understand the apparent insanity of honour killings, where ones own children are murdered, stoning's, amputations, burnings, etc) can be performed by the reasoning mind. Only the Quran possesses intrinsic knowledge. Therefore, only a Quranic scholar can perform Fiqh (interpretation), to guide someone in how they should act. The consequences for this are pretty enormous. You have hundreds of hotlines (fiqh lines) helping everyday Muslims with moral decisions that for us westerners are carried out by our own working consciences. This sort of moral dependence certainly helps explain the prevalence of abuse in Islamic societies.

Despite all that I have written, I have great hopes that Islam will experience it's own reformation. It's impossible that it not happen.

.....or am I just displaying further my naivety from a, somewhat romantic, idealist point of view.....?

I think it's this one

Originally posted by AussieAmandaC
reply to post by mideast

 

Just an observation, but you are showing a side of yourself that is thinly veiled and leans to
a desire for retribution in your tone (anger), I am suprised by this, from you.
I mean no offence

Don't be surprised.

I am mostly mad at this because it is directed.

It is not a fair observation.

There are many good pints in history of Islam , many scientists , architects , poets and philosophers ,

Focusing on the current situation of Muslims words and blaming them like Church which was standing in front of science can have one of these reasons.

1- Islam = superstition
2- Islam = bigotry and retarded society
3- All religions = failure in development
4- We(westerners) should invade them

While both selective looking at dark sides of Islamic societies and unfair way of analyzing Islam is the points that were clear in the beginning of the thread.

In the beginning I thought that maybe that was because OP was ignorant about history of Islam , but after I commented , I saw that OP is still insisting on his stance.

This Charles from bluesma, sounds fabulous

Originally posted by Bluesma
I used to take part in all female get togethers at night, on full moons, when mostly Muslim women of all ages would come, grandmothers, mothers, little girls.... we'd all bring foods, and we would eat and dance all night. That was my first glance at the interesting life that occurs under that repression..... a bonding between women that I have NEVER seen in western women! It was awesome.

reply to post by dontreally

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by AussieAmandaC

 

You got a way with words. A tad nondescript, but it flows nicely nonetheless.

.....or am I just displaying further my naivety from a, somewhat romantic, idealist point of view.....?

I think it's this one

Thanks
I can't actually help myself, I've been irreparably distracted .....and
You 'got' a way with English but hey! thanks for the feed back, will breath it better next time, truly anything is possible, although I think the next chapter of history will be written more for real truth than to pander to the so the called winners.

In fact it IS written as it happens, stored and loved for the story that it is, in it's many colours and forms, no matter the/an outcome.

reply to post by mideast


Does islam understand people wanting to 'help' at all? You are no better or worse than any other religion on the planet, yet it still seems as though you have yourself 'above' those who haven't read your book, or who take an entirely different spiritual path, if my assumption of your attitude is wrong please forgive me, again I meant no offence.
but...
If I see a kid crossing the street, not watching for on-coming traffic, as a mother and a person, should I respect his individuality of independance even though he heads to the broken? Or should I speak out?

As a gentle man, Charles just wants your women freed, respected and unharmed (as THEY choose), is it really so much to hope for? (hope I'm not over stepping bounds here Charlie Brown), this is not such an invasioning thing. They don't want to steal your women. Can't say the same about your resources but you guys are smart, you'll work it out.
All good men stand/protect women (no matter who or what they are) and the weak, it is perhaps a Western thing you have missed in all their over indulgence and glitter.

reply to post by AussieAmandaC

As a gentle man, Charles just wants your women freed, respected and unharmed (as THEY choose), is it really so much to hope for?

an ignorant person with good intention can do more damage than a knowledgeable person with wrong intentions.
It would be like someone wanting to liberate nuns and get them married!
So the first thing to be done before wanting to help is to learn the Islamic philosophy and culture and realise that the parameters to judge progress and objectives in life of muslims are not the same.
Muslim women are not waiting to rip off their hijabs/niqabs and run in bikinis on beaches!
if someone refuses to acknowledge these differences and to respect them then its ignorance by choice and arrogance.

Hey, not laughing at you at all, I think you raise some valid points, I was just generally surprised you hadn't come across the Saudi Arabia thing before, or that people on this thread hadn't mentioned, it's mainly down to it being the location of Madina and Mekkah (which contains the Kaaba) as far as I'm aware.

It's easy to forget is what a reforming movement Islam was at the time, Mohamed stressed several times that race and origin didn't matter, I can't remember who said it but "whoever speaks Arabic is an Arab" - so as nations converted and learned the language they in theory became part of the unified culture, and unlike Christianity the holy book is in the language that people actually spoke and it's considered a requirement of the faith to learn to read it - so there was a massive increase in literacy in the region, as well as a fermenting of the disparate tribes and nations into a cohesive whole.
Also never forget how advanced some of the countries in the region were at the time, Ethiopia in particular was a power house!

As for the Mongol thing - you're right they also did a number on the Chinese and most of Europe, but they were largely burned out by the time they reached western Europe. I don't think it was the sole reason for the fall of the Arabic golden age (there was also the fact that multiple people were declaring themselves Cailif), but the Mongols were seriously hardcore - interestingly they didn't even know how to make battering rams when they started!

Gotta admit I'm not an expert on the subject by any means, but I did go out with a Muslim girl for 9 months, so I had to brush up on a few things

reply to post by AussieAmandaC

Charles just wants your women freed, respected and unharmed

1- Charles didn't say that in the OP
2-And even if he meant that , what does it have to do with science ? It is called propaganda and your govt seems an expert in.

I think that the ones who know little about Islam must not comment about it like they know it , other wise their words seem empty.

And our women should decide how they want to wear. So , if they want to cover every inch of their body , who are you to tell they must not.

And if you think that our women want to get naked , think again. Because it is your MSM telling you these lies. The very same MSM that you wake up every morning and find new conspiracy.

Your MSM finds minority groups of people in middle eastern countries and says that "all middle eastern women are like these women we interviewed"

And you don't seem even suspicious because you have always been trusting it.

reply to post by AussieAmandaC


Revisionist history has it's purposes now and again. I just finished reading a really interesting new take on Judaism and western history called "Anti-Judaism:the western tradition". As the name suggests, it's actually quite astounding how 'built around' Judaism the western tradition has been, starting from the ancient Greeks (which inherited their prejudice from the Egyptians), and going down through history, from the first Christians, Muslims, Middle Ages, Renaissance, Reformation and Enlightenment. Take for example the Jews in revolutionary France. They made up a mere .025 percent of the total French citizenry, yet the French parliament debated whether to make Jews citizens an astounding 32 times! How do you explain this obsessiveness? Well, the author David Nirenberg shows how its actually been the backbone of the western world from it's foundlings. "What are we?" they might ask themselves. And the answer involves contrasting itself with what it is not: Judaism. Martin Luther did it when he called the Catholic Church "pharisees", and the Church in turn threw back the same accusation.

I think it sheds some new and interesting light on the present day worlds acrimony towards Israel.

I think I might write up a thread on this.

First, my opinion on Islamic women's wear. (Yes, it's off the topic, but whatever you guys want. I'm your servant here.) Unlike Science in the Islamic world, I've thought about the covering Muslim women wear. It is a very good exercise to put yourself in a Muslim's place and consider their arguments for such covering. It has made me less certain of the universal applicability of my values. Less certain, but not unconvinced.

One universal principle is the value of the individual, and that individual's right to make choices. It is important for both society and religion. If someone decides to change their religious beliefs, they must have the right to with a minimum of criticism by society. If they can't, then society is determining what religion you must be. That, in my mind, is clearly, universally, wrong.

So, my position on covering? Tell the women they are free to wear what they want, without penalty. As a guide, they could look at the foreign women working in or visiting their country. They should then dress no more daringly than those women who have been allowed into the country.

Muslim women could be wrapped in cement if their belief required it, or they could wear jean shorts and a sleeveless shirt with no head covering if they wanted. No punishment either way, from husband, mosque, or state. Actual freedom to choose what they want to wear.

But one other thing that logical7 made me think about, the idea that we had to understand, respect, and, in general, not mess with Islamic ways and cultures. Why doesn't this apply to Muslims as well? Where are the millions of Muslims shouting "The West can do as it wants! We won't try to interfere or replace their beliefs!" I don't see it happening. That makes me think that Muslims feel they have rights superior to non-Muslims. BUT, all of this is off the subject of Science.

Mideast, I actually did start this thread with no idea about Islamic science, from what I've read and seen on this thread, I've formed some ideas. Yes, it appears that a society controlled by Islam is likely to have less scientific growth. Whether that's good or bad can be debated. Whether there are other factors involved is an illuminating discussion. But I haven't seen anything to persuade me that Islam supports science as much as any other religion or nation, or that it has had the worst luck in the world with outside events.