What's new

Islam and science: The road to renewal - ECONOMIST

With those fundamentalists dominating the so-called islam religion, I really think it is dream-talking here.

After centuries of stagnation science is making a comeback in the Islamic world

Jan 26th 2013

20130126_ird001_0.jpg


THE sleep has been long and deep. In 2005 Harvard University produced more scientific papers than 17 Arabic-speaking countries combined. The world’s 1.6 billion Muslims have produced only two Nobel laureates in chemistry and physics. Both moved to the West: the only living one, the chemist Ahmed Hassan Zewail, is at the California Institute of Technology. By contrast Jews, outnumbered 100 to one by Muslims, have won 79. The 57 countries in the Organisation of the Islamic Conference spend a puny 0.81% of GDP on research and development, about a third of the world average. America, which has the world’s biggest science budget, spends 2.9%; Israel lavishes 4.4%.

Many blame Islam’s supposed innate hostility to science. Some universities seem keener on prayer than study. Quaid-i-Azam University in Islamabad, for example, has three mosques on campus, with a fourth planned, but no bookshop. Rote learning rather than critical thinking is the hallmark of higher education in many countries. The Saudi government supports books for Islamic schools such as “The Unchallengeable Miracles of the Qur’an: The Facts That Can’t Be Denied By Science” suggesting an inherent conflict between belief and reason.

Many universities are timid about courses that touch even tangentially on politics or look at religion from a non-devotional standpoint. Pervez Hoodbhoy, a renowned Pakistani nuclear scientist, introduced a course on science and world affairs, including Islam’s relationship with science, at the Lahore University of Management Sciences, one of the country’s most progressive universities. Students were keen, but Mr Hoodbhoy’s contract was not renewed when it ran out in December; for no proper reason, he says. (The university insists that the decision had nothing to do with the course content.)

But look more closely and two things are clear. A Muslim scientific awakening is under way. And the roots of scientific backwardness lie not with religious leaders, but with secular rulers, who are as stingy with cash as they are lavish with controls over independent thought.

The long view

The caricature of Islam’s endemic backwardness is easily dispelled. Between the eighth and the 13th centuries, while Europe stumbled through the dark ages, science thrived in Muslim lands. The Abbasid caliphs showered money on learning. The 11th century “Canon of Medicine” by Avicenna (pictured, with modern equipment he would have relished) was a standard medical text in Europe for hundreds of years. In the ninth century Muhammad al-Khwarizmi laid down the principles of algebra, a word derived from the name of his book, “Kitab al-Jabr”. Al-Hasan Ibn al-Haytham transformed the study of light and optics. Abu Raihan al-Biruni, a Persian, calculated the earth’s circumference to within 1%. And Muslim scholars did much to preserve the intellectual heritage of ancient Greece; centuries later it helped spark Europe’s scientific revolution.

Not only were science and Islam compatible, but religion could even spur scientific innovation. Accurately calculating the beginning of Ramadan (determined by the sighting of the new moon) motivated astronomers. The Hadith (the sayings of Muhammad) exhort believers to seek knowledge, “even as far as China”.

These scholars’ achievements are increasingly celebrated. Tens of thousands flocked to “1001 Inventions”, a touring exhibition about the golden age of Islamic science, in the Qatari capital, Doha, in the autumn. More importantly, however, rulers are realising the economic value of scientific research and have started to splurge accordingly. Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah University of Science and Technology, which opened in 2009, has a $20 billion endowment that even rich American universities would envy.

Foreigners are already on their way there. Jean Fréchet, who heads research, is a French chemist tipped to win a Nobel prize. The Saudi newcomer boasts research collaborations with the universities of Oxford and Cambridge, and with Imperial College, London. The rulers of neighbouring Qatar is bumping up research spending from 0.8% to a planned 2.8% of GDP: depending on growth, that could reach $5 billion a year. Research spending in Turkey increased by over 10% each year between 2005 and 2010, by which year its cash outlays were twice Norway’s.

The tide of money is bearing a fleet of results. In the 2000 to 2009 period Turkey’s output of scientific papers rose from barely 5,000 to 22,000; with less cash, Iran’s went up 1,300, to nearly 15,000. Quantity does not imply quality, but the papers are getting better, too. Scientific journals, and not just the few based in the Islamic world, are citing these papers more frequently. A study in 2011 by Thomson Reuters, an information firm, shows that in the early 1990s other publishers cited scientific papers from Egypt, Iran, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Turkey (the most prolific Muslim countries) four times less often than the global average. By 2009 it was only half as often. In the category of best-regarded mathematics papers, Iran now performs well above average, with 1.7% of its papers among the most-cited 1%, with Egypt and Saudi Arabia also doing well. Turkey scores highly on engineering.

Science and technology-related subjects, with their clear practical benefits, do best. Engineering dominates, with agricultural sciences not far behind. Medicine and chemistry are also popular. Value for money matters. Fazeel Mehmood Khan, who recently returned to Pakistan after doing a PhD in Germany on astrophysics and now works at the Government College University in Lahore, was told by his university’s vice-chancellor to stop chasing wild ideas (black holes, in his case) and do something useful.

Science is even crossing the region’s deepest divide. In 2000 SESAME, an international physics laboratory with the Middle East’s first particle accelerator, was set up in Jordan. It is modelled on CERN, Europe’s particle-physics laboratory, which was created to bring together scientists from wartime foes. At SESAME Israeli boffins work with colleagues from places such as Iran and the Palestinian territories.

By the book

Science of the kind practised at SESAME throws up few challenges to Muslim doctrine (and in many cases is so abstruse that religious censors would struggle to understand it). But biology—especially with an evolutionary angle—is different. Many Muslims are troubled by the notion that humans share a common ancestor with apes. Research published in 2008 by Salman Hameed of Hampshire College in Massachusetts, a Pakistani astronomer who now studies Muslim attitudes to science, found that fewer than 20% in Indonesia, Malaysia or Pakistan believed in Darwin’s theories. In Egypt it was just 8%.

Yasir Qadhi, an American chemical engineer turned cleric (who has studied in both the United States and Saudi Arabia), wrestled with this issue at a London conference on Islam and evolution this month. He had no objection to applying evolutionary theory to other lifeforms. But he insisted that Adam and Eve did not have parents and did not evolve from other species. Any alternative argument is “scripturally indefensible,” he said. Some, especially in the diaspora, conflate human evolution with atheism: rejecting it becomes a defining part of being a Muslim. (Some Christians take a similar approach to the Bible.)

Though such disbelief may be couched in religious terms, culture and politics play a bigger role, says Mr Hameed. Poor school education in many countries leaves minds open to misapprehension. A growing Islamic creationist movement is at work too. A controversial Turkish preacher who goes by the name of Harun Yahya is in the forefront. His website spews pamphlets and books decrying Darwin. Unlike his American counterparts, however, he concedes that the universe is billions of years old (not 6,000 years).

But the barrier is not insuperable. Plenty of Muslim biologists have managed to reconcile their faith and their work. Fatimah Jackson, a biological anthropologist who converted to Islam, quotes Theodosius Dobzhansky, one of the founders of genetics, saying that “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”. Science describes how things change; Islam, in a larger sense, explains why, she says.

Others take a similar line. “The Koran is not a science textbook,” says Rana Dajani, a Jordanian molecular biologist. “It provides people with guidelines as to how they should live their lives.” Interpretations of it, she argues, can evolve with new scientific discoveries. Koranic verses about the creation of man, for example, can now be read as providing support for evolution.

Other parts of the life sciences, often tricky for Christians, have proved unproblematic for Muslims. In America researchers wanting to use embryonic stem cells (which, as their name suggests, must be taken from human embryos, usually spares left over from fertility treatments) have had to battle pro-life Christian conservatives and a federal ban on funding for their field. But according to Islam, the soul does not enter the fetus until between 40 and 120 days after conception—so scientists at the Royan Institute in Iran are able to carry out stem-cell research without attracting censure.

But the kind of freedom that science demands is still rare in the Muslim world. With the rise of political Islam, including dogmatic Salafists who espouse a radical version of Islam, in such important countries as Egypt, some fear that it could be eroded further still. Others, however, remain hopeful. Muhammad Morsi, Egypt’s president, is a former professor of engineering at Zagazig University, near Cairo. He has a PhD in materials science from the University of Southern California (his dissertation was entitled “High-Temperature Electrical Conductivity and Defect Structure of Donor-Doped Al2O{-3}”). He has promised that his government will spend more on research.

Released from the restrictive control of the former regimes, scientists in Arab countries see a chance for progress. Scientists in Tunisia say they are already seeing promising reforms in the way university posts are filled. People are being elected, rather than appointed by the regime. The political storms shaking the Middle East could promote not only democracy, but revive scientific freethinking, too.

Islam and science: The road to renewal | The Economist
 
That Twain quote applies to all, including you.

You have a narrow definition of what are the few 'bad eggs'. Mine is not merely the Al-Qaeda or Mumbai terrorists or even the larger Taliban. To me, the 'bad eggs' in the Islamic world includes the gent who persistently present the Quran as the never ending fountain of scientific knowledge. His kind is in every street corner in every muslim neighborhood, each seeking to out-Islamic the other, and urge others to do the same. Your Pakistan has the nuclear bomb and developed own jet fighter. Great. But not so great is the fact that those developments were externally driven, not internally compelled, as in out of intellectual curiosity. That scientific 'bad egg' in this discussion is why the simple microwave oven can never come out of the Islamic world.

On my days off, jazz plays throughout the day. Can the musical form of jazz come out of the muslim world? No. Can the inspiring Beethoven's Fifth come out of the muslim world? No. Can the beautiful Jackie Evancho sang and toured the way she did at age 10 in the muslim world? No. Can the duet of Brightman and Bocelli of 'Time To Say Goodbye (Con Te Partiro)' come out of the muslim world? No.

The list of not possible is long and people everywhere recognized it, including the very few muslims like Pervez Hoodbhoy, but brave souls like him are rare and easily drowned out by the likes of the 'bad egg' in this discussion. So you are wrong. There are no few 'bad eggs' among the muslims. There are plenty and they are everywhere.

I would have liked to attempt to clear up what I believe are your misconceptions about Islam. But as I started writing I realized, the fact that I would have to make said attempt even with the existence of large Muslim populations all over the world is far more telling than anything I could have written. There is truth to the idea that Muslims are misunderstood, but it is not any less of a stretch to claim that we have let ourselves down. Any perceived slight against Islam is reacted to in such an aggressive manner by many Muslims, that the slight itself tends to lose meaning and ends up coming across as the milder of the two sides. Against those who brandish knives and guns, preach hate and death, the word of reason is as useless as a bucket of water in an inferno. It is not so much the existence of an endless supply of bad eggs, but that those who represent such a viewpoint are more vocal in doing so. The black and white view of life that such people believe in results in sculpting the world into what they believe is good at all costs, since the only alternative is evil and bad. Force and aggression has long dominated those who just want to live another day

I prefer to not refer to the whole Muslim world as one group, since we aren’t all the same. Not in our beliefs or cultures or our aspirations in life. But I can understand why that stereotype is justified, since the only aspect of our cultures that we all seem to have in common is the continued presence of those extremists who believe that we are special. That the “west” is somehow infringing on our right to do as we please, even if it is at the expense of the wider world and at the expense of vast swaths of our population. I am a Muslim and never have had any interest in extremist thought, nor have I any need to indulge in hatred towards America or any other nation. In the end, it is not important that I am a Muslim, but that I am human. To most people, whether Christian, Jewish, Muslim or Hindu, what matters is everyday life. We live day to day, providing for our families, living for the happiness it provides and terrified of the sorrows it can cause. Geopolitics is far beyond a common man such as myself. Bad eggs exist in every nation and culture and there may be a larger percentage of them in the Muslim world than any other culture or religion. Conceding that, it makes it all the more incredible that people who oppose these view points do exist and openly defy these ideals. To go against the powerful and dominant; to actively disagree with the violent and misguided requires courage, bravery and such goodness of heart that very few men are found equal to it. So if we accept that we may have very many Muslim people that fall short in every way; we must also consider those that continue to try and swim against the tide, against odds so great that they seem insurmountable, are equally as impressive as extremists are condemnable.

In the same way that Muslims fail, they invariably produce those who must stand up in circumstances more trying than are faced by much of the world. As much as I hate the idea, I find I agree with your viewpoint. But then I feel it is important that the other side of the coin, whether small or large, is recognized as well.
 
I think by now we have discussed, defended and ofended the religious part of this discussion.


you all think we ought to concentrate on the OTHER important part of the thread i.e. Science.

I mean what the heck we should do to improve scientific knowledge in Pakistan.

Here we have a head start.

-- We are an English speaking nation. So it should be easy to read and understand pretty much 100% of scientific literature.


-- At least in cities, we have millions of young minds who are "schooled" in science and maths.


These two things may not be openly and easily available to many many many Muslim societies around the world.


So that's why I want to limit this discussion to Pakistan please.


Thank you.
 
There is truth to the idea that Muslims are misunderstood,...
I have a problem with that -- misunderstood.

How I am perceived by those outside my home and immediate circle of friends and associates depends on my behaviors and even facial demeanor. That is why we have things like communication classes at work -- to attempt to give us the tools to dispel what we believes to be misunderstanding of what we are as individuals. The burden of using those tools, or even to change, falls upon the individuals who behaves in ways that allows others to create those perceptions.

But it is the opposite with the Muslims.

Whenever the Muslims toss out the word 'misunderstood' at us non-Muslims, it is as if the burden of removing the 'mis' out of 'misunderstood' is ours and ours alone. The Muslims can say and do anything and we are supposed to suspend judgement and critical thinking. It seems to be our burden to allot time out of our busy daily lives to study the Quran to seek ways to justify for the Muslims in our minds regarding those sayings and actions.

Sorry, but it does not matter if I am a Christian, a Buddhist, a Wiccan, or a marijuana smoking Rastafarian. I have already devoted such study time before I became a Christian, a Buddhist, a Wiccan, or a marijuana smoking Rastafarian. I am too busy working, enjoying my friends, chasing women, gains physical comforts, or planning for when I am too physically decrepit to do those things, to study another religion, not to convert, but to make excuses for the behaviors of the believers of that religion. If the Buddhists do not make such demands of me, why should I make that allowance for the Muslims?

In the end, it is not important that I am a Muslim, but that I am human.
I respectfully -- disagree.

You may be human (hopefully) but being so make you no different to the rest of us in at least one aspect of humanity -- the overwhelming desire to attach one's self to a higher cause.

The US Marines say: Once a Marine, always a Marine.

As an aspiring airman once, I was never presented something like that at the local USAF recruiting office. To be a Marine is to attach one's self to a higher calling, cause, and organization -- The Corps. To be a Marine is just one degree below than the priesthood, that is how dedicated Marines see themselves and The Corps. Was it attractive? You bet. But in the end, the airplane won my loyalty.

To be a Muslim is to be more than merely existing to eat, drink, and procreate. As a Marine, I would satisfy my hunger, thirst, and sexual desire to create more Marines. Why should that be any different to you -- a Muslim? To be 'human' is to simply eat, drink, and procreate. But to be 'humane' or to be a part of 'humanity', you must be educated, have and exhibit passion, and willing to act in the name of humanity and religions are vital to the development of humanity. The moment you attached yourself a higher cause, calling, and a community of the same foundational values, you are much more than a biological construct.

To a Marine, he is a Marine. Not a soldier or even an ordinary label 'fighting man'. He believes himself to be the embodiment of everything that make up the US Marine Corps.

You are a Muslim first, a human being second.
 
Gentlemen the topic is : Islam and science: The road to renewal

Further violations will draw further infractions, none of you are allowed to turn this thread into a VS thread, please do that either in your head or somewhere else.

Regards
 
With those fundamentalists dominating the so-called islam religion, I really think it is dream-talking here.

Sir in first 600 years of Islam those Muslims who made progress in science were also very fundamentalist Muslims many were also teachers of Quran and Hadees and also developed Sciences further but than Muslim started deviating and they started getting involved in money issues spending on clothes and women and music and other things rather than focusing on spread of Science and Islamic subjects Quran and Hadees and fiqh and reach their low in 20th century but we now we are trying to get up but it will take time so we have to be patient and focused
 
I have a problem with that -- misunderstood.

How I am perceived by those outside my home and immediate circle of friends and associates depends on my behaviors and even facial demeanor. That is why we have things like communication classes at work -- to attempt to give us the tools to dispel what we believes to be misunderstanding of what we are as individuals. The burden of using those tools, or even to change, falls upon the individuals who behaves in ways that allows others to create those perceptions.

But it is the opposite with the Muslims.

Whenever the Muslims toss out the word 'misunderstood' at us non-Muslims, it is as if the burden of removing the 'mis' out of 'misunderstood' is ours and ours alone. The Muslims can say and do anything and we are supposed to suspend judgement and critical thinking. It seems to be our burden to allot time out of our busy daily lives to study the Quran to seek ways to justify for the Muslims in our minds regarding those sayings and actions.

Sorry, but it does not matter if I am a Christian, a Buddhist, a Wiccan, or a marijuana smoking Rastafarian. I have already devoted such study time before I became a Christian, a Buddhist, a Wiccan, or a marijuana smoking Rastafarian. I am too busy working, enjoying my friends, chasing women, gains physical comforts, or planning for when I am too physically decrepit to do those things, to study another religion, not to convert, but to make excuses for the behaviors of the believers of that religion. If the Buddhists do not make such demands of me, why should I make that allowance for the Muslims?

I think it is justified to feel that way and I expected as much when I made that comment. I realize that there are Muslims who have wholeheartedly earned what I believe is not representative of us all. I don't expect others to devote their life to understanding Muslims, but I don't agree with the assertion that all, or even most of us, project hatred and intolerance. In my time in Canada, Pakistan, and on this forum, I have met many who categorically and quite vocally reject the same people who you find so deplorable. There are many Muslims condemning Muslims for the same wrong doings you condemn them for. It is then, the idea that all Muslims are somehow intolerant of those around them, that I find misleading. To those of us who detest extremism as much as the next non-Muslim, we do feel we are misunderstood.


I respectfully -- disagree.

You may be human (hopefully) but being so make you no different to the rest of us in at least one aspect of humanity -- the overwhelming desire to attach one's self to a higher cause.

The US Marines say: Once a Marine, always a Marine.

As an aspiring airman once, I was never presented something like that at the local USAF recruiting office. To be a Marine is to attach one's self to a higher calling, cause, and organization -- The Corps. To be a Marine is just one degree below than the priesthood, that is how dedicated Marines see themselves and The Corps. Was it attractive? You bet. But in the end, the airplane won my loyalty.

To be a Muslim is to be more than merely existing to eat, drink, and procreate. As a Marine, I would satisfy my hunger, thirst, and sexual desire to create more Marines. Why should that be any different to you -- a Muslim? To be 'human' is to simply eat, drink, and procreate. But to be 'humane' or to be a part of 'humanity', you must be educated, have and exhibit passion, and willing to act in the name of humanity and religions are vital to the development of humanity. The moment you attached yourself a higher cause, calling, and a community of the same foundational values, you are much more than a biological construct.

To a Marine, he is a Marine. Not a soldier or even an ordinary label 'fighting man'. He believes himself to be the embodiment of everything that make up the US Marine Corps.

You are a Muslim first, a human being second.

That is an interesting take. I don't believe being a Muslim and a sane human being has to be mutually exclusive. Attaching one's self to a higher calling is not the issue. Why does this higher calling have to be a specific brand of extremist Islam? Of hate and intolerance? I have no problem identifying as a Muslim first, but why should that Muslim identity be the one you proposed? Can we not be peaceful and accepting of others?

Nothing that you have said, I can honestly disagree with, without escaping the realm of reality and reason. But what you identify as a Muslim is not the Muslim I am or the majority of those I have come across. That does not mean they don't exist, but there are saner individuals. My viewpoint may legitimately be clouded by my bias and firm belief in the goodness of Muslims and all other people. But I do hope, you meet saner Muslims in the future who will find themselves equal to the burden of creating a more positive perception.

Gentlemen the topic is : Islam and science: The road to renewal

Further violations will draw further infractions, none of you are allowed to turn this thread into a VS thread, please do that either in your head or somewhere else.

Regards

My apologies for derailing this thread, I did not realize how far off topic my ramblings were.
 
Sir in first 600 years of Islam those Muslims who made progress in science were also very fundamentalist Muslims many were also teachers of Quran and Hadees and also developed Sciences further but than Muslim started deviating and they started getting involved in money issues spending on clothes and women and music and other things rather than focusing on spread of Science and Islamic subjects Quran and Hadees and fiqh and reach their low in 20th century but we now we are trying to get up but it will take time so we have to be patient and focused
No. You are wrong.
Those scientists who embraced Islam did so for the teachings which they found enticing. That had nothing to do with their scientific pursuits. The problem began when Islam was (ab)used by powers-to-be for political purposes. And that exists to this present day.
 
No. You are wrong.
Those scientists who embraced Islam did so for the teachings which they found enticing. That had nothing to do with their scientific pursuits. The problem began when Islam was (ab)used by powers-to-be for political purposes. And that exists to this present day.
Sir I am telling you the were fundamentalist Muslims and also made progress in science and by the way Islam was part of government in that time Sir more than which is now a days
 
No. You are wrong.
Those scientists who embraced Islam did so for the teachings which they found enticing. That had nothing to do with their scientific pursuits. The problem began when Islam was (ab)used by powers-to-be for political purposes. And that exists to this present day.
Many of the muslim scientest were just muslims because they were born as one or it was the cool thing to do when you compare that much of the Europe at that time was in total darkness courtesy of fundamental christian clergy!

None the less, many of the scientist were Sufi or Shia which are rejected as heretics by mainstream Sunni. Such is the hatred against these "heretics" that the glorious Muslims would rather study and credit the infidel kaffir scientists than honor their own men of Islamic Golden Age.


Sir I am telling you the were fundamentalist Muslims and also made progress in science and by the way Islam was part of government in that time Sir more than which is now a days

How long before you declare Taliban as the world greatest civilization?
 
Many of the muslim scientest were just muslims because they were born as one or it was the cool thing to do when you compare that much of the Europe at that time was in total darkness.




How long before you declare Taliban as the world greatest civilization?
Sir those who made contribution most of them were hardcore Muslims and were also teachers of Quran and Hadess many many of them
 
Sir those who made contribution most of them were hardcore Muslims and were also teachers of Quran and Hadess many many of them

Tusi has about 150 works in Persian and Arabic.[9]



Kitāb al-Shakl al-qattāʴ Book on the complete quadrilateral. A five volume summary of trigonometry.
Al-Tadhkirah fi'ilm al-hay'ah – A memoir on the science of astronomy. Many commentaries were written about this work called Sharh al-Tadhkirah (A Commentary on al-Tadhkirah) - Commentaries were written by Abd al-Ali ibn Muhammad ibn al-Husayn al-Birjandi and by Nazzam Nishapuri.
Akhlaq-i-Nasri – A work on ethics.
al-Risalah al-Asturlabiyah – A Treatise on astrolabe.
Zij-i ilkhani (Ilkhanic Tables) – A major astronomical treatise, completed in 1272.
sharh al-isharat (Commentary on Avicenna's Isharat)
Awsaf al-Ashraf a short mystical-ethical work in Persian
Tajrīd al-iʿtiqād (Summation of Belief) – A commentary on Shia doctrines.
 
Sir I am telling you the were fundamentalist Muslims and also made progress in science and by the way Islam was part of government in that time Sir more than which is now a days

No. I disagree. So do most of the scholars who have studied this. Islam as a religion gained popularity for its principles. Not for anything else. People who were pursuing science as a hobby or carrier or otherwise did so out of their own accord. Religion (Islam) was NOT their motivation. And Islam and its principles were not as rigid then as it is today. Although Islam was part of government then, there was not this "Shariah" (in today's interpretation) then. When strict Christiandom stiffled European scientific progress, it was Islam's benevolence and lenience that allowed science to progress in the Arab lands. Unfortunately Islamic scholars followed their older Abrahamic brethern in stifling and controlling populations through their religion, thus leading to a decline in scientific progress.

All these attempts to link Islam with the scientific progress that occurred during the middle ages is a lame attempt to keep Islam relevant in today's time. Also this lameduck attempt to connect recent scientific discoveries to Islamic scriptures is ridiculous to say the least. Just FYI, there were advanced civilizations/cultures before the birth of Prophet Mohammed. They were very well versed and educated in the sciences of Astronomy, Medicine, Geography, Philosophy etc. So I really find this amusing, if not hilarious.
 
No. I disagree. So do most of the scholars who have studied this. Islam as a religion gained popularity for its principles. Not for anything else. People who were pursuing science as a hobby or carrier or otherwise did so out of their own accord. Religion (Islam) was NOT their motivation. And Islam and its principles were not as rigid then as it is today. Although Islam was part of government then, there was not this "Shariah" (in today's interpretation) then. When strict Christiandom stiffled European scientific progress, it was Islam's benevolence and lenience that allowed science to progress in the Arab lands. Unfortunately Islamic scholars followed their older Abrahamic brethern in stifling and controlling populations through their religion, thus leading to a decline in scientific progress.

All these attempts to link Islam with the scientific progress that occurred during the middle ages is a lame attempt to keep Islam relevant in today's time. Also this lameduck attempt to connect recent scientific discoveries to Islamic scriptures is ridiculous to say the least. Just FYI, there were advanced civilizations/cultures before the birth of Prophet Mohammed. They were very well versed and educated in the sciences of Astronomy, Medicine, Geography, Philosophy etc. So I really find this amusing, if not hilarious.

Sir it was always Shariah and they were nothing before HAZRAT MUHAMMAD SAW not made progress in science they were busy in drinking and burying girls and fighting with each other all the time and all other kind of evils after HAZRAT MUHAMMAD SAW they started focusing on development of education of all kinds
 
Back
Top Bottom