I don't think you understand my point. I'm not saying Catholicism is "ev0l anti-science".
Your point was quite clear :
And throughout the Medeival Ages, Catholicism was fairly anti-science. And for good reason, this benefited the church.
Except if it's a case of bad wording (but you'd agree that it'd be extremly confusing and spectacular in this regard), it pretty much means : Catholicism was Anti-Science.
I'm saying that almost any religion can become conservative and rooted in the past given the right set of events. I use conservative Islam as an example because it's one many people know.
The big problem making this comparison is the anachronism and the sheer overgeneralisation on the relation between Islamism (as a modern anti-westernisation movement) and scientific fields.
Not only modern Conservative Islamism isn't "anti-science" : Iran is actively trying to jump on the nuclear bandwagon, and (quoting the Armenian Genocide) "Iran's scientific progress is reported to be the fastest in the world". That's not exactly a secular state we're talking about (and we could talk about other states dominated by conservative Islamism in a similar fashion)
Of course, you'll bring on the Afghani exemple. Fair enough. But as a part of the contemporary Islamism, it's far more a struggle against what is percieved as western (particularly obvious with Boko Haram, up to its name) mixed with conspirationism (as with vaccinations campaign reaction).
Considering their nature, as semi-guerrilla and war bands, it's extremly hard to take as a generalized stance their own when they lack the infrastructure ,etatic or economic, to have an actual scientific superstructure.
That's for the second point : even assuming there's some ground for it, it would be quite irrelevant.
I'd stress again that we're talking about a reaction against a western ideology, in a mix of post-colonialism (reaction to european cultural imperialism) and religious identity in need of reaffirmation in a diverse society (not exactly the only occurence, while the most mediatized).
These factors, obviously, didn't really existed in a medieval context whatever in Christiendom or Arabo-Islamic world. Even the struggle on mutza'ilism in the XIIIth century have to be understood as a political struggle on a theological stance on originalism (a bit like Investiture Controversy was at least as much a political struggle), while Zaydits (Yemen, Morroco, Tabaristan) while quite similar weren't that repressed because they were further from centers of power.
Religions aren't some form of eternal tought structure, but obviously depend on their background. In medieval times, you simply didn't had an "anti-science" school or structured tendency because it wasn't identified as a clear threat.
What was, and it was pointed out by other members, was the question of what dominated in the scientific methodology and suprastructure : theology (that was considered as much an human science than say sociology today , using quite a lot logical structuration) did.
It's why religious centers tended to harbour scientific centers (monasteries and cathedral schools/universities in western Europe; madrasas and librairies/Houses of Knowledge or Wisdom).
The reactions were against secularisation or revrse of this model in a period where religion not only formed social identity but political identity as well (and more or less seen as a lese-majesty aura around).
That was the background for the relationship of religious and scientific sphere : too importantly inter-mixed up to the aforementioned secularisation of political bureaucracies that you could have the ground for a staunch "anti-science" movement.