The Arab/Muslim Confusion

The assessment and appreciation of Islam and its role in the emergence of the modern West by George Sarton is not unique. This issue is important for Muslims as well as non-Muslims. For Muslims it is important because they need to understand the dynamics of rise and fall of nations to which Muslims are and were not immune. The primary factors behind the decline of the Muslim world were internal, even though there were external, competitive forces at work in causing the shift of the center of civilization. For non-Muslims it is important to recognize and understand that the modern west did not emerge in a vacuum. Even though there were military conflicts between the world of Islam and the west, there were deeper factors that were positively received and utilized by the west not only to reconnect itself to the Greco-Roman root, but also to imbibe fundamentally important and pivotal contributions of Muslims.
Anyone who suggests that "Islam (through its practice in most of history), did act as antithesis of modernity" is simply not informed about this issue. If someone would like to say that those among Muslims who represent the dogmatic or traditional side act as antithesis of modernity, or if someone would say (instead of, their achievements can be characterized as DESPITE Islam) that the achievements of the great Muslim scientists can be characterized as DESPITE the traditional/dogmatic segments among Muslims, then it would altogether different and perfectly valid. But that was not the way it has been stated, and now there is a desperate effort to wiggle out of the earlier assertion, which can be amended by simply acknowledging that the earlier statement was not what the author meant and should state what exactly meant. When some general statement is made referring to Islam, without identifying the dogmatic/traditional and rationalist/scientific segment WITHIN Islam, then it would be taken and understood as general.