Using the analytical skills he undoubtedly acquired as a distinguished physicist, Pervez Hoodbhoy hits the nail on its head with his elegant analysis of a complex societal issue not readily susceptible to logical exploration.
I agree with everything Hoodbhoy wrote except one item in which he appeared to dismiss the lack of democracy as a primary reason for science’s decline in the Islamic world. Hoodbhoy did mention in the same paragraph how denying freedom of inquiry or dissent can cripple science. He also countered the argument by correctly stating that science survived and perhaps even thrived under Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin. The apparent contradiction is readily explained by differentiating between two types of dictators: those who grandiosely fancy the expansion of their virtual or physical territories, and those who focus their wrath on their own people.
Islam’s Golden Age in the 9th–13th centuries coincided with the empire’s rapid expansion. Emperors and khalifs who aspire to conquer typically pay attention to science and technology as means to strengthen their armies. On the other hand, contemporary Islamic dictators, with few exceptions, care only about prolonging their rotten, corrupt, inefficient, brutal regimes. They do not care if their people are healthy, happy, and prosperous, or even if their countries are strong, as long as they stay in power. So science and technology are lowest on the dictator’s list of priorities. In those cases lack of democracy is a prime suspect for the decay of science, and of everything else in the society. Common people are busy feeding their families and attending to their day-to-day miseries. The people are in a deep state of apathy, and science and even education in general are the least of their problems. And no one, including Western governments, cares if such non-hegemonist despots stay in power for another 100 years. A dream state for any dictator.
