Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

Until the 14th century, science in the Muslim lands and China was more advanced than in Western Europe. Astronomers in Timurid Iran (of all places!) improved on the Ptolemaic system with epicycles mathematically equivalent to those used by Copernicus much later (although they were still geocentrist). That China was more technologically advanced than Europe still at the time of Marco Polo is well-known. Yet, around the 14th century, science in both the Muslim lands and China went into decline, while the erstwhile little backwater of Western Europe eventually developed modern science.

What went wrong? Or, from a European perspective, what did we do right?

That's the subject of Toby E. Huff's book "The Rise of Early Modern Science". Huff is a British professor who also worked at scholarly institutions in Malaysia (a Muslim nation) and Singapore (a Chinese nation). He writes in the tradition of well-known German sociologist Max Weber, who is most known for his thesis that the ethos of Calvinism somehow gave rise to capitalism. Weber also analyzed other religious traditions and their impact on society. As for Huff, his argument is complex and only a short outline is possible in a review like this. Like the other reviewers, I will concentrate on the chapters dealing with Islam and the West.

Huff doesn't deny that Muslim science was, for centuries, more advanced than European science. Indeed, there was virtually no science at all in the Latin West during the Early Middle Ages. Huff also points out that Muslim science was innovative, the most dramatic example being the previously mentioned astromomical observatory at Maragha in Iran. The eventual decline of Muslim science (except in the field of military technology) cannot therefore be a result of brain drain, lack of innovative thinkers, etc. Something else must be at work here.

What factors could have impeded the rise of modern science in the Muslim caliphates? The author points out that the natural sciences were always seen as "foreign" in the Muslim lands. Many ulama (Muslim scholars) were deeply suspicious of the "foreign" sciences. Muslim jurisprudence, not science, was at the center of Muslim institutions of higher learning. Even Muslim theology (!) was sometimes seen as suspect, since the most conservative ulama feared that it might lead to philosophical reasoning independent of the Quran and the sunna. Eventually, the natural sciences were assimilated with Islam, but as subordinate parts of a largely religious whole. Thus, astronomy was accepted since it could be used to compute the qibla to Mecca, and astronomers became mosque officials. The natural sciences couldn't develop independently.

There were several kinds of colleges in the Muslim world, the madrasas being the most important. However, they didn't function as European universities. The madrasas were religious institutions concentrating on Muslim jurisprudence. Scientific education *did* take place at the madrasas, but not as part of the public curriculum. Rather, instruction in the sciences was given by the teacher in private, often at his own house. A tradition of dissimulation developed, both in regard to science and Greek philosophy. Rather than spreading scientific or philosophical ideas far and wide, they were kept within small, almost esoteric circles. (Jews such as Maimonides had a similar attitude.) Also, instruction at the madrasas was highly personalistic. There was no faculty, and hence no set corporate standards for exams or degrees. Essentially, the student got his degree if and when his personal teacher felt he was ready for it. With the exception of medical science under some rulers, there were no attempts to standardize the degrees over a larger territory.

Huff believes that Muslim society was personalistic and heterogenous. This prevented the rise of the universalist spirit necessary for objective science. In Western Europe, the Roman law was considered binding on all. In the Sunni Muslim lands, there were at least four different schools of jurisprudence, and non-Muslims had their own laws. Since Muslim laws were based on the Quran, the sunna and the consensus among the ulama, innovation was difficult or even prohibited. Since the madrasas concentrated on teaching Muslim law, the ethos of these institutions was one of traditionalism and particularism. It was difficult to develop a universalizing, innovative spirit. Huff further points out that Muslim law didn't recognize corporations as legal persons. A corporate institution with a faculty, such as the European university, couldn't develop under these conditions.

Huff then points out that there was a de facto secular sphere of society in medieval Western Europe, something sadly lacking in the Muslim lands. This secular sphere was created after the investiture conflict, when the papacy and the temporal power had to compromise with each other. Another important factor was the re-discovery of Roman law, which was often seen as secular. The university of Bologna, where Roman law was taught, was purely secular. In the Muslim society, there was no distinction between "church" and state, and hence no neutral space (a central concept for Huff) for potentially subversive scientific exploration and speculation. In Huff's opinion, the Western European universities provided such a neutral space. They were independent corporations, with their own laws and jurisdictions, and some of them were purely secular. Temporal rulers and church authorities did attempt to interfere with the free flow of ideas, to be sure, but the institutionalized independence of the universities made this difficult. Also, high and late medieval society at large was a complex web of guilds, communes, and independent cities, making it well-nigh impossible for a strong, authoritarian center to assume control. In this situation, it was easier for free inquiry to thrive, despite occasional setbacks (the fate of Abelard and Galileo comes to mind). Huff also writes that the science education at European universities was public, rather than secret or semi-secret as in the Muslim territories. Indeed, universities sometimes had lectures open to non-students, at which members of the public at large could ask questions to the professors. This was a far cry from Muslim (or Jewish) esotericism.

Since the author of "The Rise of Early Modern Science" is a Weberian, he naturally believes that religious or ideological factors played an important role in the process. The natural choice would be to contrast Christianity with Islam. However, Huff seems to believe that the crucial ingredient was a rationalist form of Platonism. There was a Platonist renaissance of sorts during the 12th century, and in Huff's opinion it was strongly influenced by Plato's dialogue "Timaeus". From "Timaeus", the philosophers of the Latin West drew the conclusion that the universe is rational, that it follows strict natural laws of cause and effect, and that humans are endowed with a rational mind that can learn to grasp these laws. The analogy between the universe and a machine was used already during the High Middle Ages. Of course, medieval West Europeans still believed that God could miraculously intervene in his creation, as when Jesus was born from a virgin, but this was seen as an entirely different order of events. Under normal circumstances, the universe worked like clock-work according to natural laws graspable by scientific inquiry. Huff also points to the Christian idea of a conscience as a further source of inspiration for the notion that humans have a rational mind, but he admits that Paul might have gotten this idea from popular Platonism. Later, the works of Aristotle would enter the picture as well.

By contrast, Muslim theology was occasionalist. According to this concept, the universe does *not* follow self-contained natural laws created by God at some point in the beginning. Rather, God controls everything directly, from moment to moment. Thus, there is no real causality. That effect necessarily follows cause is an illusion. God wills a certain effect to follow a certain cause at any given moment. He might have willed otherwise. Trying to discover self-contained natural laws (even self-contained natural laws originally created by God) is meaningless. Occasionalism became an insurmountable barrier to modern scientific development in the Middle East.

The Muslims had access to more or less the same empirical facts as the Europeans, as shown by the astronomers of Timurid Iran whose epicycles were mathematically equivalent to those of Copernicus. Indeed, many Muslim libraries were endowed with tens of thousands of books, some of them obviously scientific. Yet, the Muslims never proposed heliocentrism. In Europe, the idea that the natural world wasn't directly dependent on the will of God, but functioned independently, made it possible to propose daring new paradigms such as the Copernican one, even when this seemingly contradicted the literal meaning of Scripture. The neutral space of the universities made it possible for such ideas to get a hearing, especially since education was a public, corporate effort. And since the universities weren't directly controlled by church or state, kings or popes couldn't simply close them down.

In Muslim lands, ulama could issue a fatwa against independent-minded scholars, while a Catholic attempt to stop "heresies" at the university of Paris (the condemnation of 1277) proved ineffectual. The ulama could also mobilize the common man against scholars not of their liking, while universities in Europe were protected by legal privilege from interference by outsiders. In the Latin West, a metaphysical leap to modern science was possible (another central and complex point made by the author), while this proved impossible in the lands of Islam.

"The Rise of Early Modern Science" is well-written, interesting and well-worth pondering. Indeed, I ordered several of the books referenced in the footnotes.

Huff doesn't deny that Muslim science was, for centuries, more advanced than European science. Indeed, there was virtually no science at all in the Latin West during the Early Middle Ages. Huff also points out that Muslim science was innovative, the most dramatic example being the previously mentioned astromomical observatory at Maragha in Iran. The eventual decline of Muslim science (except in the field of military technology) cannot therefore be a result of brain drain, lack of innovative thinkers, etc. Something else must be at work here.

theology and science worked together in harmony, reinforcing the scientific pursuits

Later political changes and the encroachment of what I call 'Mullahism'

But on the fact that the educational establishments were the best in the world at the time

Huff doesn't deny that Muslim science was, for centuries, more advanced than European science. Indeed, there was virtually no science at all in the Latin West during the Early Middle Ages. Huff also points out that Muslim science was innovative, the most dramatic example being the previously mentioned astromomical observatory at Maragha in Iran.

Essentially, the student got his degree if and when his personal teacher felt he was ready for it. With the exception of medical science under some rulers, there were no attempts to standardize the degrees over a larger territory.

Do you disagree with Huff on this fundamental point?

shafique wrote:theology and science worked together in harmony, reinforcing the scientific pursuits

'Virtually no science' in Europe at the time Islamic institutions were churning out polymaths.

Once we establish that science was indeed at its height under Islamic rule

then we can examine whether the institutions that produced these scientists were or were not copied by the later European universities.

BTW - do you know what he says were the reasons for China's decline?

So, the Muslim institutions did indeed issue degrees after all.

Huff doesn't deny that Muslim science was, for centuries, more advanced than European science. Indeed, there was virtually no science at all in the Latin West during the Early Middle Ages. Huff also points out that Muslim science was innovative, the most dramatic example being the previously mentioned astromomical observatory at Maragha in Iran.

Huff doesn't deny that Muslim science was, for centuries, more advanced than European science. Indeed, there was virtually no science at all in the Latin West during the Early Middle Ages. Huff also points out that Muslim science was innovative, the most dramatic example being the previously mentioned astromomical observatory at Maragha in Iran.

Essentially, the student got his degree if and when his personal teacher felt he was ready for it. With the exception of medical science under some rulers, there were no attempts to standardize the degrees over a larger territory.

That history thingie again. The Islamic world conquered civilized peoples who already had massive libraries. The Europeans had no such luck. In any event, civilization began to emerge in Western Europe starting in the ninth century and quickly matching the Islamic world in the twelfth.

The truth I think is something like this. There was undeniably a decline in scientific knowledge in the Western Roman Empire as it declined and collapsed but the roots of this can be traced to the pagan Romans. After 200 BC there was a fruitful cultural contact between Greeks and the bilingual Roman upper classes. This introduced a version of the classical tradition into the Roman Empire but it was a thin popularised version which was translated into Latin. Bilingualism and the conditions which favoured scholarship then declined rapidly after AD180 as the empire entered the 3rd century crisis. Roman citizens who were gradually becoming Christian were therefore limited to pieces of the classical tradition which had been explained and summarised by Latin authors.

Meanwhile the richer, more complete version of the classical tradition fell into the hands of the Muslims as they rapidly expanded across Asia and the Mediterranean.

It was then translated into Arabic, further developed and moved across north Africa to Spain.

As soon as Western Europe had recovered sufficiently it’s intellectuals travelled to Spain to translate the materials and bring them into medieval culture.

Essentially, the student got his degree if and when his personal teacher felt he was ready for it. With the exception of medical science under some rulers, there were no attempts to standardize the degrees over a larger territory.

The Romans conquered ancient Greece. The last time I looked, these guys were Europeans. The Romans were conquered/overun by other Western Europeans.

The Islamic Empire preserved and enhanced the knowledge of the Greeks - whereas the Europeans had to endure 'centuries' of 'virtually no' science.

It was then translated into Arabic, further developed and moved across north Africa to Spain.

The destruction of the library
...
In 1204, the library became a target of the knights of the Fourth Crusade. The library itself was destroyed and its contents burned or sold. The great part of the library that was saved later became absorbed into the Ottoman Sultan's library after the Muslim forces of Mehmed II captured Constantinople, Sultan of the Ottoman Turks, at the end of the siege of 1453.

shafique wrote:Isn't Spain part of Western Europe?

Weren't Plato, Aristotle etc all being read in Islamic Spain before the crusades? (Just asking )

Cheers,
Shafiuqe

shafique wrote:I'm not really interested in comparing Greek philosophers, to be honest.

I was just challenging you on your statement about Greek classics only being studied in the West after the 4th Crusade from Eastern Roman documents.

Islamic universities issued degrees

That the Greek classics were preserved by the Islamic Empire is standard historical fact (even allowing for the few works being translated by Irish monks)

shafique wrote:Finally, we now agree on the historical facts.

Huff doesn't deny that Muslim science was, for centuries, more advanced than European science. Indeed, there was virtually no science at all in the Latin West during the Early Middle Ages. Huff also points out that Muslim science was innovative, the most dramatic example being the previously mentioned astromomical observatory at Maragha in Iran.

'for centuries'; 'innovative' and 'advanced'. 'Virtually no science at all in Latin West'.

There are some loons who dispute these historical facts - I'm glad you disagree with them.

As for degrees:

Essentially, the student got his degree if and when his personal teacher felt he was ready for it. With the exception of medical science under some rulers, there were no attempts to standardize the degrees over a larger territory.

Huff is saying that European universities introduced standard degrees (equivalent of bachelor degrees), but does not agree with you that Islamic universities did not issue degrees. They did. You've been punked by your own quote. Again.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:Oh, I forgot to take you to task for your poor attempt at an excuse:

That history thingie again. The Islamic world conquered civilized peoples who already had massive libraries. The Europeans had no such luck. In any event, civilization began to emerge in Western Europe starting in the ninth century and quickly matching the Islamic world in the twelfth.

You really should get your money back from your Bible Camp history lessons.

The Romans conquered ancient Greece. The last time I looked, these guys were Europeans. The Romans were conquered/overun by other Western Europeans.

The Islamic Empire preserved and enhanced the knowledge of the Greeks - whereas the Europeans had to endure 'centuries' of 'virtually no' science.

Another loon theory/excuse exposed. Again.

(Indeed, your blogger punks your theory:

The truth I think is something like this. There was undeniably a decline in scientific knowledge in the Western Roman Empire as it declined and collapsed but the roots of this can be traced to the pagan Romans. After 200 BC there was a fruitful cultural contact between Greeks and the bilingual Roman upper classes. This introduced a version of the classical tradition into the Roman Empire but it was a thin popularised version which was translated into Latin. Bilingualism and the conditions which favoured scholarship then declined rapidly after AD180 as the empire entered the 3rd century crisis. Roman citizens who were gradually becoming Christian were therefore limited to pieces of the classical tradition which had been explained and summarised by Latin authors.

Meanwhile the richer, more complete version of the classical tradition fell into the hands of the Muslims as they rapidly expanded across Asia and the Mediterranean.

It was then translated into Arabic, further developed and moved across north Africa to Spain.

As soon as Western Europe had recovered sufficiently it’s intellectuals travelled to Spain to translate the materials and bring them into medieval culture.

http://bedejournal.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2010-04-03T13%3A54%3A00%2B01%3A00&max-results=10
)

QED

Makdisi also argues that the scholastic method of disputation and the titles of academic positions in the European West were borrowings from Muslim educational practice and the Arabic language. The fact is that the cultural elite of Arab-Islamic civilisation made an extraordinary commitment to all forms of learning.