Yeah, the problem has GOT to be Islam. Because it couldn't possibly be enlightened western Christians completely dismantled the educational systems of the Muslim world when they had the opportunity, systematically looted Muslim countries of their wealth, and supported (and still support) brutal and despotic regimes that force talented and educated Muslims to leave their homes in search of better opportunities as cab drivers or 7-11 clerks in countries that despise them.

Nope. It's all gotta be their weird religion. So what if Muslims invented algebra, chemistry, or modern medicine before there was a Nobel Prize to win (or a Trinity College for that matter)? None of that counts because... uhm... er... we'll have to think of something there.

Not going to read the whole thread, but do any of you "Islam is the problem" proponents have an explanation for why there were fewer Muslim Nobel Prize winners during the 'western secular modernist' period in the Muslim world of ca. 1920-1978 vs. the 'regressive fundamentalist' period of 1979-present?

"Yeah, the problem has GOT to be Islam."

you and your Orthodox Christian fundamentalism. I can tell you're serious as the word got is in capitals, simple detective work.

Tolstoy I think you have misunderstood what Richard Dawkins has said. He is not offering a theory as to why "the West rules for now" (to borrow the title of Ian Morris's book). His comments have nothing to do with the historical forces that may have led the Islamic world to possibly stagnate with regards to technological progress in the last few centuries leading up to modern times. I don't think he blames Islam for that, no more than he would credit Christianity for the development of the enlightenment in Europe. Rather Dawkins argues that Islam is presently holding back the Islamic world and this is consistent with his belief that religion in general is pernicious.

To make my point a bit clearer... in the west religion is politically weak, and this weakness is good for science.

"What Dawkins seems to fail to take into account is that the Muslim world was turned upside down by colonization by the Europeans, who did all they could to keep the countries behind so that they could maintain control."

The Ottoman Empire wants a word with you. The situation was also far more complicated than you're presenting. The rise of the European empires was a factor but not the only factor in the decline of the 'Muslim' world in the last 500 years. Blaming Europe for everyone's modern ills is a popular thing to do but that doesn't mean it's correct.

^Agreed Hereward! It's America!

(^Joke)

"Not going to read the whole thread, but do any of you "Islam is the problem" proponents have an explanation for why there were fewer Muslim Nobel Prize winners during the 'western secular modernist' period in the Muslim world of ca. 1920-1978 vs. the 'regressive fundamentalist' period of 1979-present?"

There were no Muslim Nobel prize winners (for science) 1920-1978. Since then there have been two, making a total of two Nobel prize winners. One went to a Pakinstani physicist and the other to an Egyptian-American chemist. The main reason I would guess that there are so few is that countries like Pakistan are developing countries.

The Pakistani physicist, Abdus Salam, was awarded his prize in 1979 - so he would have done the work for that some years before.

@Tolstoy,
Lest you think you came up with the idea first, I will quote myself,

"Some might conclude that Muslims make poor scholars. Others might conclude that the Nobel selection committee is religiously prejudiced. Still others might conclude that the Nobel Prize emphasizes areas of study that are not prioritized in Muslim cultures, or perhaps that Trinity College has deeper systematic connections to the Nobel Committee. More might conclude that political interest makes the committee hesitant to award prizes in conflict zones or in nations with agendas contrary to Swedish political interests. In other words, the one fact is objective, but to draw deeper connections invites significantly more conjecture."

That said, I didn't say it until page 4, so I'm sure somebody said it before me, too, but like you I had no desire to read the whole thread to find out.

By the way Abdus Salam was a member of a minority Muslim sect that was declared by the Pakistani government to be non-Muslim and he because of this he left the country in protest. Apparently he has not received much recognition in his home country because he is a member of this sect, the Amhadies.

http://www.amazon.com/Cosmic-Anger-Abdus-Muslim-Scientist/dp/0199697124/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

@Tolstoy, i'm not sure who the 'islam is the problem' people are, only that you didn't read the thread, so you're mostly fighting ghosts. People who didn't say what you think they said.

Abdus Salam sounds awesome! But he wasn't a muslim :p

' The epitaph on his tomb initially read "First Muslim Nobel Laureate". The word "Muslim" was later erased on the orders of a local magistrate, leaving the nonsensical "First Nobel Laureate" ' -wikipedia

Apparently his sect of Islam is non-Muslim, according to his local legal system.

Interesting sect actually, though not the first pro-science religious group i've come across: " Ahmadis believe that science is the study of the acts of God and religion is the study of the word of God and the two cannot possibly contradict each other. They believe that Adam, the prophet, was simply the first Prophet and not the first human on earth, as understood by them being in the Qur'an. Ahmadis do believe in the theory of biological evolution, albeit guided by God." - wickedpedia

Sure we can always blame the west,and if not,the otomans,colonialism, or perhaps the politicians.
Yes if you are speaking of the time before, let's say ww2. So what happened since?
Didn't they get their independence approximately around the 50'? So what went wrong ? And don't tell me that 60 years is not enough. Israel is a good example of 60 years of progress. So you can say it's a question of resources but most of the muslim states states have oil and some have many minerals and even manpower.
So my theory is simple....Corruption! Wich leads to bad resources management. Scientists won't sacrifice their entire life and their families wealth just for the love for science, they want money so they prefer to go west and be the lion's tale instead of the dog's head.

@Taos - you have a simple explaination to a complex problem; which tends to be wrong by default.

Muslim theocracy's inability to engage the scientific revolution and the enlightenment constitutes the root cause of the inability of Muslims to achieve a representative Nobel level of excellence. Islam did not learn to coexist in a productive way with the secular, commercial society that emerged out of those two intellectual movements.

"the lion's tale instead of the dog's head"

I'd take the dog's head, thanks. Have you ever smelled lion scat? The stuff that comes out of that end is just, WOW!

That said, coming west doesn't mean they give up their faith. Quite the opposite. They have *more* freedom of religion and therefore can continue in their faith if they so choose.

@orathaic it is just a theory.
in case i was missunderstood ; the lion's tale instead of the dog's head means they are not the ones to get the nobel price ,they just contribute behind the scene.

It was a joke, taos. I was poking fun of where the tail is located versus where the head is.

@taos, as far as theory goes, it may be a contributing factor.

But Tolstoy would be sure to bring up several complicating factors regarding colonialism. I like to put it in terms of Iraq; you can't just go in and build a nation and expect it to function - ok eventually, 10 years later, it only has a small number of bombs going off each month... If a revolution happens on it's own terms (like, let's say the american war of independence) then it has the legitimacy that they overthrew the previous system - if someone else comes in and overthrows your system then you are working with a pretty big disadvantage.

What *that* comes down to is belief - people need to believe in their country, their system, to make it work. And changing a system which works takes a lot of effort and time. The American war of independence didn't setup a brand new country, it created a system from what was already there and working. People believed in the colonies, and that they worked....

Anyway, i'm ranting off topic a bit... I love to talk about Russia aswell. Simple idea that it didn't change much in the last 200 years. It started out with an Authoritarian Tzar, who was followed by an Authoritarian Stalin, who was eventually followed by an Authoritarian Putin. Same country different 'system' but it is similar in many ways.

Rooting out corruption in most places would be as hard as making Russia not Authoritarian... systems which people believe in carry a lot of inertia, historical interia if you will.

So what Islamic nations are today is what history has lead them to be, what people believe in largely depends on what has worked in the past; colonial powers managed to work a system in many places which remains (just under new management) And it is possible they didn't value education - and where education was provided it was Christian Missionaries whose goal was to convert the population...

Anyway, corruption may still exist, and it may have been a legacy left by previous colonial powers. An education deficit my likewise be left-over from colonial governments which couldn't afford to invest in it.

There is a whole raft of reasons which there are fewer Noble prizes, and i can see European Colonialism getting the blame for a number of them...

Anyway, enough ranting. I really don't know enough about this stuff...