Even though there might be Americans who still deny Evolution or espouse Creationism, they are still not allowed to dominate the public discourse. American constitution, a 250 year old document, is still one of the finest achievement of rational thought and not even the fundies can do anything about the freedom it provides. This is not the case in most Islamic societies. My point is, we can not measure how rational a society is by the number of religious or irreligious people constituting it, rather how much religion and dogma influences that country's policies. Islamic societies still practice witch-hunts as they did in the middle ages, just recently a man was executed for being a witch in SA. Islam being a religion that was created in the middle ages and being the most dogmatic is the root cause here.
Americans who deny evolution or espouse Creationism are very much present in mainstream public discourse. Almost all members of the Republican Party believe that God created the universe, and many, including Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, Michelle Bachmann, and even doctors like Ron Paul, openly reject evolution. These are not fringe radicals but mainstream politicians, and all of them were possible presidential candidates at the Republican primary last year. As for religion influencing the policy of a country, George Bush was a certified religious loon who believed that God spoke to him and told him to invade Iraq; I wish I was kidding, but I am not.
Anyway, let us not deviate to far from the point at hand. You said that "dogma was still pervasive" during the medieval Islamic world. It might have been, but it did not prevent rationalists and freethinkers inside the Islamic world from speaking their views or denouncing Islam, just like it did not hinder European scientists and rationalists in the 16th-17th centuries. They were not killed for their views, as they would have been in Taliban-ruled Afghanistan or probably in modern Saudi Arabia. It is true that the medieval Islamic world did not have constitutional freedoms like modern America does, but then I was never claiming that the medieval Islamic world was more liberal and open-minded than modern America; I simply claimed that it was more liberal and open-minded than much of the modern Islamic world. In fact, it was quite remarkable that there was so much tolerance of dissent even when the medieval Islamic world lacked an equivalent to the Constitution.
Of course, it was this lack of an equivalent to the Constitution that eventually enabled the Traditionalists to impose their dogmas over the Rationalists. In America, even if the government was full of religious loons and nutjobs, it would not be possible for a section of society to impose their religious views on other sections of society, because the Constitution protects individual freedoms of speech and religion. Even though these freedoms largely existed in the medieval Islamic world, the problem was that they were not protected by a permanent rule of law, as they are in America, so these freedoms could be overturned when more intolerant and dogmatic factions gained power and influence (which is what happened historically).
Regarding rationality and scientific achievement of early Islamic societies, I think it is only logical that the societies following a relatively young religion would find it easier to reconcile to contemporary knowledge. This does not reflect upon how free their society was, only that they were following a religion in it's infancy and science had not deviated so far from it to cause contradiction.
I don't understand this logic. How does following a young religion make a society more open-minded?
Apostates still exist in Islam. People still criticize Islam.
An apostate or someone who criticized Islam in the former Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, or the modern Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, would very likely be killed. Al-Ma'arri and other rationalists were
not killed.
Al- Ma'arri did not only criticize Islam but all religions, hence it was not seen as an attack on Islam.
?????
Are you saying that an atheist in Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan who openly criticizes Islam, but also criticizes other religions, would
not be perceived as attacking Islam? Do you think his views would be tolerated in such places?
Further, we can not compare it with the public reaction of today, when information travels so fast, to back then. His was time before there even was printing press, how famous/ widespread was his literature at time?
Al-Ma'arri was one of the most famous of the medieval Arab poets, and is widely known among Syrians even today. He was also reasonably well-traveled for the time, as he traveled throughout his homeland of Syria and also spent two years in Baghdad, which was the capital of the Abbasid Caliphate and the political and cultural center of the medieval Islamic world. From what I could find, he did not face any harassment, discrimination, or threats during any of his travels. Rather, he was well-received at Baghdad and acquired considerable fame and followers.
Also, I should mention that al-Ma'arri was by no means the only person in the medieval Islamic world who criticized Islam. There were many others too, including al-Warraq, al-Rawandi, and al-Razi. Here is a good book on the latter two:
Freethinkers of Medieval Islam: Ibn Al-RawÄndÄ«, AbÅ« Bakr Al-RÄzÄ« and Their ... - Sarah Stroumsa - Google Books
I only used heliocentric model and evolution as an example. It is true that Indians failed to elaborate on Aryabhatta's incomplete heliocentric model but my contention is, even then Aryabhatta's model was not met with opposition or criticism on the grounds of religion.
The heliocentric model was not met with opposition or criticism on the grounds of religion in the medieval Islamic world either.
Regarding evolution, I have not met many Muslims who accept evolution as fact. This is a personal observation, however this study seems to support it
Religious Differences on the Question of Evolution (2009)
The study says that the percent of Muslims who agree that evolution "is the best explanation for the origins of life on Earth" is about the same as the percent of Americans overall who agree with that statement (45% vs. 48%), and about twice that of Evangelical Protestants (24%) and Mormons (22%), both Christian sects. Does this mean that Muslims are twice as liberal and open-minded as these Christian sects? Even the more "mainstream" Christian groups don't score much higher.
If a modern Muslim rejects evolution on the ground of religion, then it shows that he is less intellectually sophisticated than his 14th century forebear.
Islam today is not different from Islam of the middle ages, it's image is amplified since the rest of the world has moved on. There is no way that Islamic society can go back to being as rational as of 1000 years ago because it never evolved from it. Since, a book that was written in the middle ages is considered unquestionable truth in Islam, there is no scope for a change either unless the change is fundamental.
It's ironic that you mention this, because there was a prominent school of thought in the medieval Islamic world - the Mu'tazila school - which believed that the Quran was a human creation, and rejected the idea that it is the infallible, unquestionable "word of God" (as believed by most orthodox Muslims today). This school of thought is almost extinct now, but it was very influential in the 9th-10th centuries.
sadly the vote bank politics is silently killing the country.
