Fellow-Human

I have to agree with Danielle here.

The point of my post was that the success of Jewish scientists had NOTHING to do with Judaism the religion. Most of them were secular. They sought ideas and inspiration from other SCIENTISTS and not from Jewish sages.

There is no Islamic or Jewish science. There is just science.

But Islam has made it difficult for Muslims to embrace the spirit of free enquiry that is an essential part of the science culture.

Islam extinguished a scientific culture that had existed for millennia in what are now Muslim lands.

Examples

It was the great Babylonian astronomers who first plotted the trajectories of the planets. They found that 235 lunar months = 19 tropical years. Their calendar forms the basis of the modern Jewish calendar with its 7 leap months every 19 tropic years.

Other great scientists from what are now Muslim lands included Eratosthenes (Libya and Alexandria) and Hipparchus (Turkey) and Claudius Ptolemaeus (Egypt)

The great Library of Alexandria, Egypt was the greatest collection of knowledge in antiquity. Ironically it was Christians who finally destroyed it as well as murdering the last librarian, Hypatia.

Fast forward to about AD 1500 and the observatory of Taqi al Din is destroyed on orders of the Mufti of Istanbul.

As Bernard Lewis put it.

"This observatory had many predecessors in the lands of Islam; it had no successors until the age of modernisation."

Even the Catholic Church at its worst was never as feral as that.

What you call great Muslim scientists are actually the tail end of a great PRE-ISLAMIC scientific tradition. Islam killed it off.

Today most of Dar-ul-Islam is a scientific dead zone. (But not necessarily a TECHNOLOGICAl dead zone. This is an IMPORTANT distinction)

Perhaps one day mainstream Muslim schools of thought will emerge that are compatible with a scientific culture and a spirit of free enquiry. That time is not now.

I know of only two Muslim Nobel laureates in science. Abdus Salaam (1979, physics with Steven Weinberg and Sheldon Glashow) and Ahmed Zewail (1999, Chemistry)

Who were the others

The key issue on any religious discussion is freedom of religion and, for secularists, freedom from religion.

Islamic countries would have far greater Christian populations if it were not for fear of retribution on conversion.

Even when some overcome that fear barrier, they are not permitted by law to convert.

This freedom to disavow or embrace faith is the litmus test of diversity. Of all the faiths, Islam scores lowest on this aspect.

Historically, other religions have (and still do in eg: India) prevent religious liberty. This can be by sheer weight of numbers or force (or combination of both).

All of us, religious or not, should encourage religious liberty. An involuntary assent of faith, based on fear, serves none of us well.

The lack of recipricocity in the Muslim world - where other faiths are either persecuted or frustrated by second class status - provides a validation of communities, like Camden in Sydney, refusing Islamic institutions.

It is hard to maintain tolerance when the other is perceived or in practice, is intolerant. In such circumstances, unity through diversity is a dangerous principle to work from.

Hi Steven,

Agree with you and Danielle. The below quote from Naguib Mahfouz lecture (Nobel prize winner 1988) is what I had in mind:

“As for Islamic civilization I will not talk about its call for the establishment of a union between all Mankind under the guardianship of the Creator, based on freedom, equality and forgiveness. Nor will I talk about the greatness of its prophet. For among your thinkers there are those who regard him the greatest man in history. I will not talk of its conquests which have planted thousands of minarets calling for worship, devoutness and good throughout great expanses of land from the environs of India and China to the boundaries of France. Nor will I talk of the fraternity between religions and races that has been achieved in its embrace in a spirit of tolerance unknown to Mankind neither before nor since.

I will, instead, introduce that civilization in a moving dramatic situation summarizing one of its most conspicuous traits: In one victorious battle against Byzantium it has given back its prisoners of war in return for a number of books of the ancient Greek heritage in philosophy, medicine and mathematics. This is a testimony of value for the human spirit in its demand for knowledge, even though the demander was a believer in God and the demanded a fruit of a pagan civilization"

The question I had is how did the Islamic civil of the 8th century was that enlightened and 6 centuries later we evoluted in the opposite direction. Its puzzling.

As for the Muslim Nobel prize winners, here is a list of all 11.

1. Chemistry: Ahmed Zweil 1999,
2. Physics: Abdus Salam1979
3. Medicine: Ferid Murad1998
4. Literature: Naguib Mahfouz1988, Orhan Pamuk2006
5. Peace: Mohammed EL Baradei2006, Anwar Sadat1978, Mohammed Unus2006, Shirin Abbadi 2003, and Yasser Arafat1994.

Danielle,

There are lots of urban myth invented by mere mortal scholars. If you watch Dr Gary Miller lectures on youtube the word Jihad is not even in the Quran.

Peace,

Fellow_Human,

Naguib Mahfouz was indeed worthy of his Nobel Prize - his writings are truly inspirational. Undoubtedly enlightened, an existentialist and influenced by Western writers. No one can deny that Mahfouz was exceptional, however, no one can deny he was not representative of his people - and, indeed, at what cost. Like Rushdie, whom he admired, he had a death warrant against him, even attacked, then placed under protection for the rest of his life. However, it gives his country credit that they gave him, I believe, when safely dead, a state funeral.

Yasser Arafat ... an unfortunate person to list among credible Nobel Prize winners, don't you think?

Fellow_Human, I always enjoy discussing things with you; and I always learn something more each time. We don't always agree on issues, but I think we basically come from the same place. I wonder how someone as enlightened as yourself would fare if you openly
professed, like others have - and suffered for it - some of your beliefs in Islamic countries.

I am still waiting for the explanation of the "post-mortem virgins". However, I doubt very much if the promise of these figure anyway in your conduct on earth, nor in your sense of the afterlife.

Pax

Fellow_Human,

You wrote:

"....in the the 9th century most new inventions in the fields of MEDICINE, CHEMISTRY and SCIENCE had a Muslim behind it." (Emphasis added)

You specifically emphasised Muslim contributions to SCIENCE.

I responded by saying there was no such thing as Islamic SCIENCE or Jewish SCIENCE.

You asked what had happened and I responded that "Islam happened."

I stand by what I wrote. Islam extinguished the pre-existing culture of science that had once existed in what are now Islamic lands.

When you mentioned 11 Muslim Nobel Laureates I inferred you meant SCIENCE laureates.

So far as I can see there are only the two I mentioned.

Ferid Murad, despite his name, is a Christian. He was born in Indiana. His father was a Muslim of Albanian extraction and his mother a Baptist. Ferid Murad himself was baptised as an Episcopalian while attending university.

In effect Ferid Murad is an apostate!

Here is a link to his Nobel autobiography.

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1998/murad-autobio.html

It's a very AMERICAN story.

You have said nothing that makes me change my opinion.

--Islam extinguished a tradition of scientific enquiry that had existed in what are now Muslim lands. ISLAM IS WHAT "HAPPENED."

--There is no such thing as Muslim or Jewish or Christian science. There is only SCIENCE science.

--It is hard for anyone to adopt the scientific culture. But it is harder for people who have been indoctrinated with Islam than it is for people who have received a more secular education.

Additional comments:

--A distinct anti-science culture seems to be developing in many Western countries. This leads me to wonder whether China and India will overtake "the West" in science.

--The Arab world along with much of the rest of Dar-ul-Islam (but not all of Dar-ul-Islam) is being left behind AGAIN.

--Mainly Hindu India may soon be home to a greater number of Muslim scientists than the whole Arab world.

--There may be more top-ranking Muslim scientists in Israel than in Egypt with 10 times Israel's population

Steven,

Apologies you are right re 10 prize winners not 11.

My point to Irfan was:
history shows that 9th and 10th century scientists (in Bagdad of the time) were inspired by their faith to innovate and invent. Ie their writing showed devotion to their faith and scientific innovation in parallel. Those days Muslims worked side by side with Christian and Jewish scientists to innovate. They saw no conflict between science and spirituality and they had no conflict with each other.

There are thousands PHDs in every country and many dedicate their life to their communities with little or no ambition in Nobel. Are they not scientists?

Danielle,

I enjoy our discussions too.

Naguib Mahfouz is liked and respected by Arabs and Muslims. His writings are bold and challenging and he had his day against the traditional religious institution in Muslims countries but he prevailed and most muslims supported him (as with Tefik AL Hakeem before him). I don’t put Rushdie in the same basket.

Re Arafat: I wasn’t discussing the merit of the prize but just listing them as I know them. I see your point but It’s against my belief to speak ill of the dead.

Re: ‘post-mortem-virgions’. Islam's concept of charity is that you give away your money, your time or your temptations as charity and whatever money or tempations you sacrifice you will get in the eternal life (after-death). Hence the teaching you mentioned was an incetive to men and and women who maintain their chastity and don’t commit adultery. The urban myth promoted by the likes of BinLaden and his fellowship have no foundation, although its a good front page catcher.

We might argue that most people do good because inherently humans can tell the difference between right and wrong regardless of religion, but I see no harm of messages like the above (whether Quranic or Biblical) to motivate the masses.

Don’t want to lecture you on my beliefs but there are a couple of good books “Islam for dummies” and “Quran for idiots”

Peace,