A little late, but as promised.

Freediver Wrote
Quote:


Not quite. To clarify what I said and meant, science is stifled in the modern islamic world, and has been for quite some time. This is quite different to saying "islam" stifles science in the modern world. Just to clear that up to start with.

Right, so I don't think its a huge revelation that science suffers in the modern islamic world - and furthermore neither it is a great revelation that this is due to science being stifled by various forces in the islamic world. I will open the discussion by articulating a couple of broad geo-political mechanisms by which I think this happens.

1. The geo-political context and the rise of reactionism

For various reasons, reactionism - especially within the sunni sphere - has taken root in the islamic world. While the causes of this may be debated, there seems to be a commonality in the way this reactionism finds its expression: by dividing the world into the "liberal" and immoral west and the righteous and moral islamic world - and attacking anything that resembles the former.

Two ways this affects the pursuit of science:

a) science perceived to represent western liberal ideals:
There are some fields such as genetics, biology and psychology that many islamic reactionaries would perceive as being against the teachings of islam (mostly those who are not expert in those fields). However mostly this attitude relates to the fact that modern science and technology is overwhelmingly patronised by western governments and institutions. Scientific institutions and funding are centred around North American and European models, and for non Europeans/Americans to "get ahead" in the pursuit of science would necessarily mean studying in the west and/or obtaining funding and assistance from western institutions and governments. In short - collaborating with the west. The problems that would arise for islamic reactionaries attempting to distinguish themselves from the west and western ideals should be clear. This unfortunately becomes a vicious cycle which just puts the islamic world who are under the thumb of these reactionaries further and further behind in the scientific stakes.

b) Oppression of women:
Potentially 50% of scientific contributions can come from women. Unfortunately, the barriers placed on women in many parts of the islamic world is well known. This is not really referring to bans on education (very few islamic regimes actually place bans on islamic education - contrary to popular myth), but more the indirect restrictions placed on women that affects their pursuit of science. The best example is in the rich kingdom of Saudi Arabia, where women are amongst the best educated in the world - but have the highest unemployment rates. It is not hard to imagine why - given things like the ban on driving (though unique to Saudi Arabia), the prohibition of women going anywhere outside the home unescorted by a male relative, and strict rules mandating women's interactions with non-male relatives. Not surprisingly this would create enormous practical limitations to a woman's pursuit of a scientific career - and would therefore be a huge waste of their potentially enormous scientific contribution.


2. Undemocratic Traditions

Contrary to popular perception, autocracy and suppression of democracy in the islamic world has not been islamic, but rather secular. Whether its Baathists in Iraq and Syria, military dictators in all of North Africa or US clients in Indonesia - most non-democratic regimes in the modern islamic world have overwhelmingly been secular, and usually anti-islamic in nature.

Suppression of science in these regimes would work the same as suppression of knowledge in any autucratic regime. Including, no freedom of pursuit - the scientific community is beholden to the regime's agenda, and must pursue only what is in the interests of the regime; the regime is the sole appointee of board positions and other institution positions, and as history has shown, such regimes invariably undervalue and underfund the sciences.

Iran hasn't attacked any nation for over 200 years

The USA has invaded and/or attacked 38 nations without provocation since the end of WW2 alone that has resulted in over 23 million civilian deaths. The USA has thieved their resources and/or established military bases on their soils

Who is threatening the world with Tyranny again?

Refresh our memories please with fascist apologetical spin

Yadda wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 8:42pm:




To the moslem [whether he is Shia, or, Sunni] the ummah, is 'the nation' of moslems   -   no matter where on earth those moslems [those moslem communities] may reside.


Google;
no-go areas for non-muslims, in europe

Chimp_Logic wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 8:54pm:





Chimp,

Do you remember what that word 'ummah', describes ?



Chimp,

Is there a legitimate/lawful 'ummah' of Shia moslems, in the world ?




Quote:




Chimp,


http://thereligionofpeace.com/


I'll bet that there are many Sunni AND Shia moslems, attacking and murdering 'disbelievers', in the ROP list, which is a litany of atrocities committed by moslems.

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 9:23pm:


The west loves fascism and its despotic tyrants

As long as they do as they are told and control their masses with force and propaganda fear

Baronvonrort wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2013 at 3:02pm:


Because the thread is specifically about the modern era - not the 8th century.

Baronvonrort wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2013 at 3:02pm:


Sure, the Shah may have had some positive influence on Iranian society, but he was a western puppet, specifically placed in power to serve western economic interests. How enlightened and modern would Iran have been if its fledgling democracy was allowed to flourish? That seemed quite enlightened and open as well - and most importantly it was pursuing a course of national economic independence.

Baronvonrort wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2013 at 3:02pm:


I agree 100%. I wonder what your point is? Its almost as if you think I support the current theocracy.