This isn't a very fair or accurate statement given that many of the greatest scholars of Islam weren't Arab (a large number were Persian for example). There were multiple centres of scientific endeavor throughout Islamic history including (but not limited to) Baghdad, Damascus, Al-Andalus (i.e. Islamic Spain) and Africa.
Much of the Islamic scholarship at the time revolved around gaining a greater understanding of the creation of God as a means to draw nearer to God.
In addition a lot of scholars in the major Islamic centres weren't even Muslim. For example, the conquest of the Iberian Peninsula (welcomed by the local Jewish population) ushered in a Jewish Golden Age which produced Maimonides, one of the greatest Jewish scholars of the time.
Right, a Muslim scholar in Persia could be seen as a Persian scholar or a Muslim scholar. However, Arabs often end up looking at their contributions as Islamic Contributions, or rather Arab-Islamic dismissing non-Muslim Arabs. To your point, there were many non-Muslim Arab scholars.
My point isn't that there are many non-Muslim Arab scholars, it's that a lot of the greatest Muslim scholars at the time weren't actually of Arab origin. e.g. Ibn Sina and Al-Ghazali were both of Persian origin (although the lingua franca was Arabic).
Islam was the catalyst of change in the 7th century, I don't see how that could be denied. Yes, it was predominately Arabs that brought it outside the Peninsula but the scholarly achievements weren't Arab achievements, because, again, many of the scholars weren't Arabs. Heck, the most important book in Sunni Islam after the Qur'an was compiled by al-Bukhari, a non-Arab from Bukhara in modern-day Afghanistan.
If you look into it, Islamic scholarship didn't really kick off until the Abbasid Dynasty was established. Non-Arabs played a large role in allowing the Abbasids to come into power in the first place.
The jizya (tax on non-Muslims) was a higher fee than the zakat (religious tax on Muslims). As more and more non-Arabs started to embrace Islam, the Umayyads were getting less and less tax revenue because the new Muslims were playing zakat instead of jizya.
As such, they stated (against the laws of Islam) that non-Arab converts to Islam still need to pay the same amount as they were paying before they embraced Islam. Naturally, this led to a lot of resentment amongst the new non-Arab Muslims who would later support the Abbasid rebellion against the Umayyads.
The Abbasids would go on to employ many non-Arabs, especially Persians, into high positions in government.
"As such, they stated (against the laws of Islam) that non-Arab converts to Islam still need to pay the same amount as they were paying before they embraced Islam. Naturally, this led to a lot of resentment amongst the new non-Arab Muslims who would later support the Abbasid rebellion against the Umayyads."
First the Jizya was not a Tax payed because they weren't Muslims. It was payed for everyone who didn't participate in Islamic military. Think of it like a Latino living in the US and paying a fee (passport fees, green card fees..etc) for not participating in US military. Non-Muslim benefited from the same as Muslims in terms of public social help.
Secondly, Zakat can be sometimes higher than the Tax paid by non-Muslims. Depending on how much you own.
The jizya was payable by non-Muslims dhimmis living in an Islamic state. I don't know of any requirements that had to do with participating in the military, as there were non-Muslims citizens who fought alongside the Muslims (e.g. Christians battling in the Ottoman armies). The only thing I've heard is that the jizya is to refunded if the Muslims fail to defend the non-Muslims paying jizya if they're attacked. Not sure how accurate that is though.
Any of the ones living in pre-islamic Egypt/Babylon/Sumeria/Persia? Unless you don't believe the Egyptians/Babylonians/Sumerians/Persians were scientists and their innovations required no science or mathematics.
Arab can be a very generic and overly used term in many conversations. Please define who you think are Arabs.
Also the link this whole thread is about on wikipedia is about a Scientist from Turkey, not Arabia.
> "Badi'al-Zaman Abū al-'Izz ibn Ismā'īl ibn al-Razāz al-Jazarī (1136–1206) (Arabic: بديع الزمان أَبُو اَلْعِزِ بْنُ إسْماعِيلِ بْنُ الرِّزاز الجزري) was a Muslim polymath: a scholar, inventor, mechanical engineer, craftsman, artist, and mathematician from Jazirat ibn Umar (current Cizre, Turkey), who lived during the Islamic Golden Age (Middle Ages)."
Arab is not really generic. It is an ethnicity. An Arab does to have to be living in Arabia. Cizre at that time, was inhabited by Arabs. Al Jazari was an Arab, living in Cizre (Jazeera Ibn Amr in Arabic). It happens that this city today is a Turkish city.
Cizre is in modern-day Turkey very close to the current borders of both Iraq and Syria. A person born at that time and in that region could be from a multitude of different races.
I'm pretty sure we still find plenty of use in the ideas much older than that... Do we not still teach the ideas of Pythagoras et al?
I'm pretty sure what you're trying to say is religion has no place in the 21st century.
Also fun fact, the early days of Islam saw huge steps forward for women's rights, more so than pretty much any other culture at the time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_feminism#Early_reforms_...). I'm curious why you Mohammed was a misogynist and what that has to do with Islam?
What a hateful comment. How can one judge a man who lived in the 7th century by today's standards?! Objectively speaking, a warlord he might have been but a misogynist and a pedophile surely he wasn't.
Much of the Islamic scholarship at the time revolved around gaining a greater understanding of the creation of God as a means to draw nearer to God.
In addition a lot of scholars in the major Islamic centres weren't even Muslim. For example, the conquest of the Iberian Peninsula (welcomed by the local Jewish population) ushered in a Jewish Golden Age which produced Maimonides, one of the greatest Jewish scholars of the time.