Please freediver, if you can use quote tags.
Quote:Abu, can you comment on Soren's post? Does Islam differ fundamentally in it's view of the world in a way that may stifle scientific enquiry? is it more than just political conservatism at the root of the problem?
If you wish to see any answer to something specific quote it. Soren's posts are usually just cut/paste jobs with very little content that's worthy of a response. So if it's something in particular, quote him, and I'll attempt to answer for you.
Quote:However, I think burning down an observatory under the advice of a religious leader, and whatever else they did to prevent another one for 300 years, counts as actively suppressing science
It sounded like an isolated incidence to me, not a common practise of the time. Can you provide any other example of such activities by the Ottoman government? It's a well known fact the Ottoman Caliphate neglected knowledge of all kinds, but that hardly qualifies as making them anti-Science. And even if they were anti-Science, it would only just indicate that as they got further and further from Islam, they also abandoned things like science, which Islam always encouraged. If they claimed a scholar told them to do it, that doesn't make it Islamic. Islamic texts clearly promote knowledge and seeking of knowledge, and Islamic civilisation in it's strongest days adhered to that.
Quote:Europe had the same problem. Starving people, the black plague etc didn't seem to halt scientific research. In fact it motivated a lot of it.
As I stated, I think the fact they gained political independance, and were not really subject to any outside influence. A client-state is hardly in a position to advance in anything, and you know it. The global dynamics changed a lot over the last 500 years, and it went in the favour of the Europeans and against the Muslims.
Quote:No. I think that while people were free to question, criticise or even create the religion, then all else was also open to total freedom of thought.
But they just simply weren't. This is a fallacy and I really can't see where you got it from.
Blasphemy for instance was a capital offence in islam from day one. Caliph Abu Bakr (May God be pleased with him) waged war on and executed a huge amount of entire tribes of apostates, simply because they said "Zakat isn't payable to you". Please give an example of what you believe to be 'freedom to criticise religion' in the early days of Islam.
Quote:Except that they still hadn't 'finalised' what that orthodoxy was. If there is no agreed final version of the orthodoxy,
The Islamic creed was finalised. The ijtihad that occured mostly just occured in matters of novelty. New issues that arose, either way there was still no freedom to criticise Islam. Provide one single example, of someone criticising Islam and it being acceptable.
Quote:You still need local Muslims to take advantage of each other.
Agreed, we had traitors amongst us, and we had weak faith. That's why we were demolished. Simple as that.
Quote: Their whole ideology is called submission.
Everyone submits to something. The Islamic ideology is "Submission to nobody but God".