I was thinking of saying this people who killed the woman should be eaten alive by rats. But rats are actually Nice creatures who don't serve to be force-fed these people. Disgusting.
Just trying to figure out that if marrying for love will get you killed, what else gets you a death sentence?
It is still a third-world view of women being little better than property: why else would she be killed for so little but they did not dare attack the man.
It all boils down to how much control over another person a culture makes people feel "entitled" to.
It would end pretty quickly if everyone who participated was charged with murder. Then the cultural "worth" of that life is at least a few years in prison (priceless).
Cowardly bastards is about the best that can be said of the people that did this. There are not enough people in the world like Farzana and these oxygen thieves murdered her with no repercussians.
sing your life wrote: I was thinking of saying this people who killed the woman should be eaten alive by rats. But rats are actually Nice creatures who don't serve to be force-fed these people. Disgusting.
What the feth is with people and their torture execution fantasies? Execute them or don't. Why do you feel the need to do it in the most gruesome way possible?
sing your life wrote: I was thinking of saying this people who killed the woman should be eaten alive by rats. But rats are actually Nice creatures who don't serve to be force-fed these people. Disgusting.
What the feth is with people and their torture execution fantasies? Execute them or don't. Why do you feel the need to do it in the most gruesome way possible?
So that a message gets sent.
It doesn't nearly have the same impact if Bob just disappears as if he is ripped limb from limb by wild animals in a slow and painful death.
Just falling asleep is too good for these monsters.
sing your life wrote: I was thinking of saying this people who killed the woman should be eaten alive by rats. But rats are actually Nice creatures who don't serve to be force-fed these people. Disgusting.
What the feth is with people and their torture execution fantasies? Execute them or don't. Why do you feel the need to do it in the most gruesome way possible?
So that a message gets sent.
It doesn't nearly have the same impact if Bob just disappears as if he is ripped limb from limb by wild animals in a slow and painful death.
Just falling asleep is too good for these monsters.
I wonder why we don't perform executions like you describe currently.
I often find myself wondering what it would take for this country to live fully to it's stated values. Diplomacy is one thing but being party to enabling repression is something else.
Giving them zero would probably make things worse. So long as we're giving them something we have some leverage over them and the ability to say their domestically policy does involve us.
That there is a law on the books where the family of the victim - oftentimes also the family of the perpetrator - can officially forgive the perpetrator and it stops being a crime boggles my mind.
Why can't people give these threads logical titles?
Anyway, truly disgusting act, and I can't see any twisted justification for it. If they thought that she had been kidnapped by her husband, why kill her? I'll never understand some people.
Grey Templar wrote: Still doesn't address the fact we are giving money to these dirt bags.
We should be giving a big fat 0 to them.
If international aid was withdrawn what do you suspect would happen given that significant segments of Pakistani society, including government agencies, are already well on the road to extremism?
This is yet another example of the region being about 5 centuries behind the west in terms of social development, but there isn't a lot that we can do other than hope that they get their gak together.
I think we should stop giving to India effective immediately (rather than winding it down over 2 years) and perhaps raise the aid budget for Pakistan. I'd actually encourage the Pakistani government to go down a more extreme punishment method. Arranged marriage is fething ridiculous. I can believe some degenerate fethwit would rather kill his daughter than see her marry somebody else.
Grey Templar wrote: Still doesn't address the fact we are giving money to these dirt bags.
We should be giving a big fat 0 to them.
If international aid was withdrawn what do you suspect would happen given that significant segments of Pakistani society, including government agencies, are already well on the road to extremism?
This is yet another example of the region being about 5 centuries behind the west in terms of social development, but there isn't a lot that we can do other than hope that they get their gak together.
See, I don't think they'll ever get their gak together.
They have no reason to channel their energy into positive growth when they can just blame the West and Israel for their problems and foster a primitive culture of barbarity.
Us giving foreign aid to them or not certainly won't be the tipping point, we're well past that with them, might as well not waste the money when it could go to people who both need and want our help and aren't trying to commit genocide.
See, I don't think they'll ever get their gak together.
They have no reason to channel their energy into positive growth when they can just blame the West and Israel for their problems and foster a primitive culture of barbarity.
Us giving foreign aid to them or not certainly won't be the tipping point, we're well past that with them, might as well not waste the money when it could go to people who both need and want our help and aren't trying to commit genocide.
Eventually they will fall so far behind that they will have to do something.
We haven't really reached a tipping point yet, I'm not sure if there is one, but Pakistan has the potential to become a very dangerous place so its probably best to have as many levers as possible and aid money is a pretty big lever.
They have no reason to channel their energy into positive growth when they can just blame the West and Israel for their problems and foster a primitive culture of barbarity.
See, I think this is a gross and very wrong statement. I think you cannot just talk about “them” as a uniform mass of non-individuals. I think you ought to inform yourself on those that wish to reform and modernize their culture.And those that would plunge it back into the dark ages. And all the different movements and opinions, and the balance of power between them.
Well, Pakistan is probably developed enough to the point where they might be salvaged.
The rest of the Middle East isn't as... fortunate, I guess. They need to either be bombed back to the stone age and isolated, or forcibly brought in to line. Not that such a dream would ever happen realistically.
They have no reason to channel their energy into positive growth when they can just blame the West and Israel for their problems and foster a primitive culture of barbarity.
See, I think this is a gross and very wrong statement. I think you cannot just talk about “them” as a uniform mass of non-individuals. I think you ought to inform yourself on those that wish to reform and modernize their culture.And those that would plunge it back into the dark ages. And all the different movements and opinions, and the balance of power between them.
Those who do truly wish to modernize are marginalized and quickly becoming non-players. Overall, the Middle East is going down the drain and not much can be done to stop it.
Grey Templar wrote: They need to either be bombed back to the stone age and isolated, or forcibly brought in to line.
Because that has worked so well historically. Economic, social and diplomatic means may work, force certainly won't.
Force could work, if anyone had the guts to do it. I did say it was impossible given the current situation, but given adequate resources and damn public opinion we could level the area and start over.
We would literally have to burn most of the Middle East to the ground to do it. It would work, but as I said its not a realistic idea.
We would literally have to burn most of the Middle East to the ground to do it. It would work, but as I said its not a realistic idea.
What would the survivors be doing then? I guarantee you they won't be sitting around a camp fire singing kumbaya. Force begets force, if you really want to destabilise the world then a good place to start would be wrecking most of the middle east; Iraq and Afghan haven't exactly made the world a better place after all. Problems solved = 0, problems created = lots. Aside from the obvious political issues it would be morally abhorrent.
Grey Templar wrote: Well, Pakistan is probably developed enough to the point where they might be salvaged.
The rest of the Middle East isn't as... fortunate, I guess.
I have never been to Pakistan. I have been to Iran, though. Two times. I am pretty sure it is developed enough to be “salvaged”. Actually, given the news we regularly get from Pakistan, I would say Iran is way more developed and likely to be “salvaged”. The extremists in Iran are less extremists than those in Pakistan, the average people seems more progressive, women situation is better, the government actually controls the whole country, and all that.
Grey Templar wrote: Those who do truly wish to modernize are marginalized and quickly becoming non-players.
We would literally have to burn most of the Middle East to the ground to do it. It would work, but as I said its not a realistic idea.
What would the survivors be doing then? I guarantee you they won't be sitting around a camp fire singing kumbaya. Force begets force, if you really want to destabilise the world then a good place to start would be wrecking most of the middle east; Iraq and Afghan haven't exactly made the world a better place after all. Problems solved = 0, problems created = lots. Aside from the obvious political issues it would be morally abhorrent.
What would they be doing? What we make them do. We'd have to go in and basically rebuild a semi-modern society. And then indoctrinate them over several generations.
And yes, it would be morally abhorrent and politically impossible. But we have a gakky situation, which is only going to have gakky answers.
It would be nice if being nice and sending aid would actually change things, but so far it has failed.
I love dakka today. Genocide as an option because the other way is "too hard". Despite the fact that exterminating the entire population of the Middle East would cost far more than the aid budgets and have further lasting consequences.
What do you do with all Middle Eastern descent citizens of Western countries? Imprison them?
Never said anything about them, or implied we should do anything with them. Its the middle east thats the gak hole. Most of the people who have left are the kind of people who'd be worth saving.
Grey Templar wrote: Never said anything about them, or implied we should do anything with them. Its the middle east thats the gak hole. Most of the people who have left are the kind of people who'd be worth saving.
feth. THAT. STUPID. gak.
Are you seriously suggesting all those gaks that came to “the West” and decided that “homegrown terrorism” was an attractive career choice are more worth saving that reformers that fight to get their countries out of this stupid oppressive conservative mindset? Of course you are. Why am I even wasting time talking with you…
Grey Templar wrote: Never said anything about them, or implied we should do anything with them. Its the middle east thats the gak hole. Most of the people who have left are the kind of people who'd be worth saving.
feth. THAT. STUPID. gak.
Are you seriously suggesting all those gaks that came to “the West” and decided that “homegrown terrorism” was an attractive career choice are more worth saving that reformers that fight to get their countries out of this stupid oppressive conservative mindset? Of course you are. Why am I even wasting time talking with you…
ummm, no.
You seem to have completely misinterpreted my post.
I'll break it down for you.
Most of the people who have left are the kind of people who'd be worth saving.
Most of the people who have emigrated are not terrorists. Some certainly are, but not most of them.
The reformers who are trying to fix their countries are doing an admirable thing, but ultimately it is likely futile. The extremists are just too entrenched.
Grey Templar wrote: Far more of them are though. Or at least casually support or are apathetic towards them. Which is just as bad.
I do not think so. Certainly not by a huge margin, at least. And I do live in a country with a much, much bigger proportion of migrants from Islamic countries than yours.
You do know most migrants come for economic reasons, not political ones, do you? Not to mention that among those that come for political reasons… Well, a lot of Islamists come to European countries as refugee. Really.
Grey Templar wrote: Most of the people who have emigrated are not terrorists. Some certainly are, but not most of them.
Most of the people that stayed are not terrorists either, you would notice. That did not stop you from calling for their eradication, did it?
Far more of them are though. Or at least casually support or are apathetic towards them. Which is just as bad.
Actually a lot of terror groups do a bang up job recruiting domestically from disenchanted second generation immigrants from those areas. I'm not saying I either approve or disapprove of your somewhat controversial 'blow up the middle east' plan, but there isn't that huge of a difference. Good people stay in their countries sometimes, bad people move sometimes.
And I am fairly certain that there would be no peaceable conversion to western values amongst middle eastern immigrants if and when we blew up the middle east.
I actually don't mind us providing foreign aid. I think it would be an interesting experiment to see how the world would react if we just ignored some disaster in Algeria or something like that.
I actually don't mind us providing foreign aid. I think it would be an interesting experiment to see how the world would react if we just ignored some disaster in Algeria or something like that.
I think they grow a lot of "Medicinal weed" and Poppy
I actually don't mind us providing foreign aid. I think it would be an interesting experiment to see how the world would react if we just ignored some disaster in Algeria or something like that.
Foreign aid is used to buy political influence. A fair amount is also funneled into programs constructed by companies from the giving country. I think cincy ,it isn't as one sided as you think
I am certain the world would react if the US didn't help in some disaster in Algeria - the rest of us would use that opportunity to buy influence. You really don't think all this money comes with no strings attached do you?
Perhaps you have wondered why the US is allowed to run around invading countries with impunity? The answer my friend is foreign aid.
Also the answer to why so many countries let us drone strike their own territory with impunity with only a "that's so rude" in response. If we weren't giving so much aid to Pakistan, they'd have a much bigger problem with us invading them every other month, not to mention our aid is propping up a government more friendly to our interests than the one that would likely appear if we stopped, which isn't just a big deal for us but for India as well. Keeping Pakistan the way it is isn't ideal for the people in Pakistan but its very clearly better than the alternatives that are realistically possible.
Putting aside the Hadd (Islamic punishments) was not wholly unprecedented for the
Ottomans. In fact, the Hadd punishment for stealing had been suspended before by the 2nd
Caliph (leader) of Islam Umar ibn al-Khattab, a companion of the Prophet Muhammad
(pbuh):
The decision of `Umar ibn al-Khattab to suspend the hadd penalty (a penalty
prescribed by the Qur’an and the Sunnah) of amputating a thief’s hand during
a time of famine is an example of istihsan (juristic preference). Here the law
was suspended as an exceptional measure in an exceptional situation.
Istihsan is considered a method of seeking facility and ease in legal
injunctions and is in accord with Qur’an 2:185. This suggests that the
Companions were not merely literalists. On the contrary, their rulings were
often based on their understanding of the spirit and purpose of the Shari`ah.12
The Ottoman Sultans considered their decision to set aside the Hadd punishments to be in
the best interest of their subjects and a way to meet the challenges they were facing. For
example, ‘During the Ottoman administration of the Arabian Peninsula, the Hadd
punishments were not applied’13. It was only after Arabia became independent, and was
ruled by the Saudi Royal family, that the Hadd punishments put into force.
The duty of providing legal edicts all across the Ottoman Empire fell to the Shaykh ul Islam;
a system which had existed for over 500 years. The putting aside of Hadd punishments for
the benefit and in the interest of the people (Maslaha) was accepted by the Shaykh ul Islam
as being in accordance with Islamic theological reasoning......
Little known fact; Sodomy was decriminalised by the ottomans in 1858. Did you know that some US states still have sodomy laws?
LordofHats wrote: Keeping Pakistan the way it is isn't ideal for the people in Pakistan but its very clearly better than the alternatives that are realistically possible.
I think the US needs to stop believing this "helping countries" mantra , it's fine when this kind of stuff is said in diplomatic circles but to believe it? Let's face it countries do things to benefit themselves or to foil other countries, no one does things on an international scale because of philanthropic ideas. This is Real Politik , not fairyland.
I'm talking about real politik. Unsupported, Pakistan becomes Taliban Afghanistan 2.0, which is an obvious threat to us and the stability the region. Just because something doesn't immediately effect you doesn't mean its not going to kick you in the nuts years later, or even decades (the Saudi's have been such a beneficial long term ally, what with the whole Whabi thing).
Fairy land is only supporting countries that agree with our ideology. It's not about helping them its about helping ourselves and our interests. If anything we're too short sighted internationally as it is (Al Qaeda, essentially being a beast of our own creation, being a perfect example). We don't need to be more so. US foreign policy needs to be reworked, but if anything we need to take a more active and receptive stance to other nations, not one that is less so.
Isolationism is always an option, but I find that a shot sighted outlook that leaves us vulnerable. it worked for us before because there was no one with any interest in our limited economic and political position. Things aren't going to that way going further into the 21st century.
EDIT: What I'm saying is that this isn't about whether or not we should 'help' other nations, but rather its about how and when we help them. Right now we're not going about it the right way, but that's because we're allowing ourselves to be overly judgemental about what should be more practical and pragmatic decisions.
This story plumbs new depths with each revalation. Now the husband in the story admits to killing his first wife so he could marry his second one.
Somewhere in this country, there have to be some good people because if there weren't, I imagine it would have been a modern day Sodom ending played out in front of us for Pakistan.
Relapse wrote: Somewhere in this country, there have to be some good people because if there weren't, I imagine it would have been a modern day Sodom ending played out in front of us for Pakistan.
I'm just going to ignore the really stupid bigoted nonsense, just to make a simple point on foreign aid. Lots of people get really confused about the last part of the name - 'aid'. They assume that it means that because it is called 'aid' it is money being purely out of charity, because we love being kind to foreigners. But aid is actually very specifically directed, and always comes with a purpose attached. Most often aid is for development, but what people don't get is that it is all about directing the development of that country towards something we'd much prefer to have in the world. We fund schools in these countries because we'd much rather have the next generation to be more educated, as they will be easier to get along with and better trading partners, for instance.
Jebus we're still linked with them till after 2016 if we continue to use Karachi. Now I am really hoping the SOFA agreement goes south end of this year
Wow where the heck where the authorities when this happened!?
Seriously they should all have taste of their own medicine for what they did to the poor woman
The west has consistently backed backward radical fundamentalist factions over secular, moderate, tolerant peaceful Islam.
The first great irony of the 21st Century
No irony; It's an intentional strategy to keep cultures backwards, also to keep people in the dark about the history of Islam.
What you mean the history where the middle-east was technologically and scientifically superior to the entire world for A LONG time, untill some scumbag theologist started calling science the work of the devil and the entire thing went to gak? Why would you keep people in the dark about a history that paints them as gullible idiots?
The west has consistently backed backward radical fundamentalist factions over secular, moderate, tolerant peaceful Islam.
The first great irony of the 21st Century
No irony; It's an intentional strategy to keep cultures backwards, also to keep people in the dark about the history of Islam.
What you mean the history where the middle-east was technologically and scientifically superior to the entire world for A LONG time, untill some scumbag theologist started calling science the work of the devil and the entire thing went to gak? Why would you keep people in the dark about a history that paints them as gullible idiots?
Why do people get so upidity about this? Technically, no. But you can't really talk about Pakistan without talking about the Middle East, so getting annoyed every time someone mentions the Middle East in reference to Pakistan is as bizarre as getting annoyed every time someone mentions Europe in reference to Turkey.
Why do people get so upidity about this? Technically, no. But you can't really talk about Pakistan without talking about the Middle East, so getting annoyed every time someone mentions the Middle East in reference to Pakistan is as bizarre as getting annoyed every time someone mentions Europe in reference to Turkey.
Because you're using such a huge fething brush to talk about the "middle east" that you're slopping paint on other countries.
Know what the hell you're talking about or just sit this one out and let the grown ups talk.
Why do people get so upidity about this? Technically, no. But you can't really talk about Pakistan without talking about the Middle East, so getting annoyed every time someone mentions the Middle East in reference to Pakistan is as bizarre as getting annoyed every time someone mentions Europe in reference to Turkey.
Because you're using such a huge fething brush to talk about the "middle east" that you're slopping paint on other countries.
Know what the hell you're talking about or just sit this one out and let the grown ups talk.
Kronk you sexy beast, no need to get upset. Islamic countries would've probably be a better name for it. Though I have no clue what Pakistan's history is. My comment was aimed at the religion and culture derived from it.
Because you're using such a huge fething brush to talk about the "middle east" that you're slopping paint on other countries.
Right...
The problem with the statement you responded to was that it blamed theologists for the decline of the Islamic Golden age, which is bunk given that theologists were the ones who created it in the first place (which would seem to suggest having some theologists running around wasn't really the problem). Identifying Pakistan as culturally linked to the Middle East when is just a fact.
Know what the hell you're talking about or just sit this one out and let the grown ups talk.
Pretty much every poster in every thread about Islam except for like five people should probably take that advice, but they never do because they assume the entire history of the Muslim world can be described as "it has Mulsims." Given that the Abbasid movement that overthrew Umayyad rule drew a lot of its support from what is today northern and western Pakistan (and that's not mentioning the Ghaznavids later and earlier influence in Caliphate politics) I feel pretty confident I actually do know what I'm talking about when discussing Pakistan's Middle Eastern influenced culture and history. You try separating them from centuries of direct Persian influence. Let me know how that works out for you (it won't). Even today Pakistan has more culturally in common with Iran than it does other Central or South Asian states.
Instead of knee jerking over a wrong statement think about why its wrong. Its what grown ups should do
West keeps supporting savages to destabilise the region. These savages sell a false history of Islam. Thereby the west feeds the process. Do you not understand?
The west backs the biggest Islamofacists - the salafist saudis.
Because you're using such a huge fething brush to talk about the "middle east" that you're slopping paint on other countries.
Right...
The problem with the statement you responded to was that it blamed theologists for the decline of the Islamic Golden age, which is bunk given that theologists were the ones who created it in the first place (which would seem to suggest having some theologists running around wasn't really the problem). Identifying Pakistan as culturally linked to the Middle East when is just a fact.
Know what the hell you're talking about or just sit this one out and let the grown ups talk.
Pretty much every poster in every thread about Islam except for like five people should probably take that advice, but they never do because they assume the entire history of the Muslim world can be described as "it has Mulsims." Given that the Abbasid movement that overthrew Umayyad rule drew a lot of its support from what is today northern and western Pakistan (and that's not mentioning the Ghaznavids later and earlier influence in Caliphate politics) I feel pretty confident I actually do know what I'm talking about when discussing Pakistan's Middle Eastern influenced culture and history. You try separating them from centuries of direct Persian influence. Let me know how that works out for you (it won't). Even today Pakistan has more culturally in common with Iran than it does other Central or South Asian states.
Instead of knee jerking over a wrong statement think about why its wrong. Its what grown ups should do
If you are as enlightened as you claim, you would understand why people get tired of the less-than-enlightened using such broad brushes about "those guys over there!"
Why do people get so upidity about this? Technically, no.
1. I wasn't uppity. Go read my post again. Any malice came from your own mind.
2. My reply to you was coarse because of your post. By your own admission, you know that Pakistan is in the middle east, but seemed up in arms when someone else got corrected or asked to clarify their belief.
When you're wrong and someone calls you out on it, you don't lash out and say "Get over it!" You're the one that was wrong.
1. I wasn't uppity. Go read my post again. Any malice came from your own mind.
I don't assign malice to uppitiness.
2. My reply to you was coarse because of your post. By your own admission, you know that Pakistan is in the middle east, but seemed up in arms when someone else got corrected or asked to clarify their belief.
No by my own admission, I find it bizarre that in that statement you'd nitpick geography, and in a later post clarified that I found it odd because another side of that same statement was rightly false but instead you honed in on the one that's only false by an arbitrary or uninformed view of geo-history. The later I find equally odd given that you decided to hold up the "know the material before you speak" card.
Palindrome wrote: During the medieval period the Islamic world was significantly more advanced then 'the West'.
Not just that, but there's reason to suspect that the works of Islamic scholars greatly influenced later European scholars. George Saliba is a complete quack, but the man had a point when he held up Copernicus' model of the heliocentric universe and then held up one created centuries prior by a Muslim Cleric. The two drawings were nearly identical. Yeah, the clerics math was wrong, but the similarities in the diagrams does raise the brow.
The Islamic Golden Age basically created the distinction between Philosophy and Science. Al-Hazen was the first man to utilize the scientific method (while also being the father of Optics and the Law of Refraction centuries before any European really thought about it).
Ronin is commenting on the habit of Western powers throughout the last 300 years to back the more radical fringes of the Islamic religion, something the US does today by supporting the Saudi family (and earlier when it armed the men who became the Taliban and Al-Qaeda). We've played a bigger than small role in encouraging these elements in the Islamic world.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Was that true for India and China too? Genuine question, not a rhetorical one, by the way.
The Golden Age lasted a long time (EDIT: 7th Century to the 14th or 15th depending on who you ask). It's probably true for some of it but not all of it. The Tang Dynasty was going pretty strong when it started and the Tang Dynasty was a major high point for China. See Battle of Talas for one of the defining moments of history on the Asian continent. The battle played a role in the damage the Lushan Rebellion did to the Tang, a Rebellion that in turn, opened the gates for the conquests of Central Asia by the Caliphate. It's not completely wrong for one to say that the Muslim world helped topple the Tang Dynasty and start another bloody period of war in China (the bloodiest since the 3 Kingdoms Era) that would go on until the 13th century.
At the same time, the battle also played a roll in the rapid flourishing of Paper Making in the middle east, which of course eventually made its way to Europe.
Scientifically, I don't know much about India at this time period (I know they were part of the larger Islamic study and progress of Astronomy but that's it). Economically during the Middle Ages they were the most powerful economy in the world by some estimates, what with Tang collapsing.
The Islamic Golden Age is odd because it presents a radical jump forward for a region that even at the time looks backwards (researchers today are still trying to define exactly how it started in the first place). One could easily argue they were at the top for quite awhile, especially in the ninth and tenth centuries when the Golden Age was at its peak.
Thank you, this is interesting. I heard some talking that the Arabs basically got everything from Indians and ancient Greeks and stuff, but those were not exactly from the most objective and unbiased people, so I was curious about what of it was true. I also heard they got everything from Persians .
The Arabs definitely picked up a lot from the Greeks, contemporaries of their time and the older Hellenistic period. Al-Hazen, who I mentioned above, was frequently called Ptolomy the Second, for his numerous commentaries on the work of Ptolomy and his own breakthroughs in numerous field (you could say he was the first true Renaissance Man ).
Look up The Last Great War of Antiquity, a conflict between the Byzantine Empire and Sassanid Persia that so weakened the two empires the Muslim Conquests just walked through the front door. As a result, the destruction frequent in old timey conquest didn't occur, and much of the knowledge of the regions conquered remained in tact for later Muslim Scholars.
I can't speak as to the India connection. So much history, so little reading time
During the medieval period the Islamic world was significantly more advanced then 'the West'.
Duh... I know the oversimplified claim and narrative that he is talking about but what does that have anything to do with the context of my posts, which he was replying to?
The latter part of the claim is really just pure nonsense I.e (theologians shut development down),
What happened in the late middle ages was the Mongol Invasions which caused a net drift decline in science and technology with a reawakening only occuring in the times of Timur.In that same period, the early Ottomans were exchanging scholars between Anatolia and Samarkland. Timur's grandson, Ulug Bey (son of Shahrukh) was a great astronomer. After the Timurid dynasty fell, the scholars left for India or Anatolia. So it's clear to me that science and technology is linked to the character and realities of the ruling states rather than Islam and theology itself.
When the great states that backed science fell and moreover went into decline, science did too.
Pretty hard to keep your empire together when Cengiz han is at your doorstep, let alone keep libraries and scholarly institutions working.
.
