Why does the Muslim World Lag behind in the Sciences??
First a couple of preambles : Recall that in it's original sense "secular" referred to a world view of the world without reference to the "religious" but with reference to the "scientific" in the sense of the study of the physical world.
In other words, the alternate of the religious was a world view based on the study of the physical world.
Now before you can study anything you must have a system with which you justify that which you know, i.e. epistemology - the science or study of KNOWLEDGE.
In recent years, in Islamia we have opted to be deluded that the alternate of "religious" is "godlessness" -- whereas the alternate of the religious is "ILMANIYAT” -- ILM
Now if we justify what we know as being only religious, how can we even begin to ask why we lag behind in science??
See, at the core of this question is the question "WHAT IS THE NATURE OF KNOWLEDGE"? Is it human, man made or Divine?? -- Is there just one type of KNOWLEDGE?? In other words, is there a single epistemology??
The so called "Islamist" as opposed to the "Muslim" will have us believe that there is but one source of KNOWLEDGE, that which is their INTERPRETATION.
However; the Muslim does not negate that the unique field of "religious knowledge" may have a separate epistemology.
The Muslim acknowledges that KNOWLEDGE is an entirely human Endeavour and that KNOWLEDGE changes and EVOLVES, it is in different era of time, like the waves of the ocean upon the coast, it crests, expands and in other times, it recedes -- now if KNOWLEDGE does change, does expand, does recede, is this not proof of it's entirely human origin??
On the other hand if one argues as the so called Islamist, does that all that is knowable is already known, that there exists nothing to discover, because all is already known -- what then is the need for greater study, exploration, innovation and leaps of imagination??
Indeed - is this not the reason Islamia lags behind in the sciences??
Now, some argue that if this were indeed the case, how do we explain that Islamia were once leaders in the fields of science? Those who would pose such a obvious question are invited to review the kinds of ideas about KNOWLEDGE that existed in madaress then and the kinds that exist now - indeed a more productive course may be to study and evaluate the role, in particular of the beloved, benevolent and learned Imam Al-Ghazzali in the turning away of Islamia from the course of reason into obscuritanism, along with events mentioned above, such as the Mongol Invasion and crusades and a awareness of the law of unintended consequences would be helpful.
The Heart of the Matter is the question of KNOWLEDGE, of Epistemology. Today we lag behind in the sciences, whereas once we were leaders in the fields, today we close ourselves from the world, whereas once we were open to the world such was the hunger that we translated all manner of works and studied them and improved upon them, we built the house of KNOWLEDGE, today we reject it and find it only a utility in the furtherance of one interpretation of one kind of science, namely religious knowledge as understood by Islamist.
This narrow view of science, of KNOWLEDGE and its nature and of its genesis is at the root of our inability to joyously, wondrously, purposefully trek the path to reclaim and disseminate as benevolence, our patrimony of developing knowledge.