3. The idea that Islamic nations were powerful because of some significant technological advantage and devotion to science is open to question. One can easily argue that when it came to making war, the Islamic caliphate never reached the technical level of the Romans and neither did their opponents.

3. The idea that "colonialism" somehow destroyed classical Islamic science is laughable. By the time the colonial powers arrived, there was no scientific tradition in any part of the Middle East.

C. In November 2006, "Nature" published a special on "Islam and Science" that was breathtaking in its superficiality (http://www.nature.com/news/specials/islamandscience/index.html). For example:

1. The issue was introduced with repeated references to "Muslim science". Why is "Muslim science" a reasonable unit of analysis, but not "Hindu science", "Buddhist science" or even "Christian science"? We are talking about 50 countries with little in common beyond the allegiance of varying proportions of their population to one somewhat heterogeneous religious tradition.

2. The contributors repeatedly refer to a purported golden age of rationality and science in the Middle East about a thousand years ago. For example, asking Muslims to "reclaim... a great Islamic past in which new knowledge was valued and scholars were free to pursue all lines of enquiry". Islam as a religious tradition is not unusually open to outside influences. Like all other religious traditions, it absorbed much from the older traditions that existed in its area of influence, but it was rarely willing to openly admit such cultural borrowing and the doctors of Islam (like their counterparts in other traditions) tended to do their borrowing surreptitiously. The civilization that resulted was not especially enlightened by modern standards though for a time, the culture was vibrant and creative and amidst the usual medieval cruelty and caprice, individuals (not all of them Muslim) made multiple original contributions to human knowledge.

4. They state that in Iran and Pakistan, the rise of political Islam has been accompanied by increases in university education and scientific activity. What (if any) is the causal connection between these events? What would have happened to universities without the rise of political Islam? Again, is "Islam" even the correct unit of analysis in this case? Can the particular histories of Pakistan, Chad and Saudi Arabia be described by one common descriptor, "Islam"? One article displays a figure showing the greatest increase in scientific output has occurred in Iran and Turkey. Since one is avowedly "Islamic" and the other avowedly "secular", an intelligent observer may be excused for wondering if something other than "Islam" explains or links these results. But the editors of "Nature" seem to have made a policy decision to divide the world into the "house of Islam" and the "house of unbelief" and having boxed themselves in, they end up making nonsensical comparisons between apples and oranges.

The article is perpetuating just about every myth in existence. Never mind that, as I wouldn't know where to start.

What does merit immediate comment, is that Taner Edis throughout the interview refrains from pointing out that - as a person of Turkish descent - he has no relation whatsoever with the so-called Islamic Golden Age, which was an Arab affair. The Turksish tribes didn't come on the historic scene in Asia Minor till well after this Golden Age, about the 13th century. Not pointing that out, is - to say the least - dishonoust. But it is not unusual. The historic patrimonium of Turkey (Asia Minor) consists for a major part of accomplishments of conquered peoples, for example Greeks and Armenians. Turkey passes is off as its own. This is Turkeys contribution to civilization.

I think the answer must be no.

Feminism is many things, a philosophy, a way of life, a political theory, a survival strategy.

But if I disagree with feminism, in what sense am I a bigot?

If I disagree with feminism, but treat women as equals in marriage, work, and outside life, am I a bigot?

If I disagree with feminism, but strive to mentor women in my field, and hire them, and treat them as equals and partners, am I a bigot?

What about women that disagree with feminism? Are they bigots too?

I find it sad how much modern Broadsheet feminism shares with authoritarian and religious cultures. Intolerance towards differing viewpoints seen as a virtue.

:(

I don't see that anyone has called you any names.

Since I very politely told you that your calling other people names like racist and trolls was unhelpful, I will let you know I haven't to the best of my knowledge posted ANYTHING anti-Muslim.

But again, if you see something racist, I think that instead of shouting at people for not giving you an email address, or calling them racists, or saying they are children, I think you should actually post examples of what it is that you think is racist and explain how and why that is racist.

That's called reality based dialogue. You're probably more familiar with Broadsheet feminist based shouting.

The former is what adults engage in. The latter, sadly, has worked far too well in the short run, but it is definitely why young women flee from the label of feminists these days. Think about it!

Try again, Anonymous. If you're so intent on spamming your anti-feminist, anti-Muslim bigotry everywhere, you could at least provide a working e-mail. (Oh, and nice avoidance of the actual issues in my letter.)

Back to the grownups here:

Seven hundred years ago, Europe, the Middle East, and Asia (including and especially China and Japan) were all mired in various forms of feudalism that kept their societies from embracing change of any sort, as it was rightly seen as a threat to the folks at the top of the pecking order (blue bloods/mandarins/bushi/etc.). It was this feudalism, rather than any religious philosophy, that held back these cultures.

Then the Black Death came, and devastated a European population and feudal social structure already weakened by a long famine. 70% of England's population died, with (as in the rest of Europe) the peasant population being the hardest hit.

But the Black Death, in severely reducing England's population of serfs and other unfree peoples, gave tremenous leverage to the surviving peasants: They could get more for their labor from their lords, and there was now more land freed up for them to use. In places such as Poland and Russia, where the plague's bite was less severe and the feudal structures stronger, serfs and peasants became less free, not more so, over the next half-millenium.