Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Why was Islamic science sacked?


Heisingtso

Recommended Posts

Why was Islamic Science sacked?

 

Islamic civilization was in golden age from 8th to 13 century. Most importantly, there was tremendous scientific development during this period and this paved the way for rise of modern science in Europe. But for Islam, the West might not get industrialized so quickly. Unfortunately, science was sacked in Islam afterwards. I think it is a historical mystery. Many theories have tried to explain this decline. Some say that the meaning for scientific research was totally different from that of modern science in Europe. Some say that Islamic science emphasized only on application and there was no basic theory. Others say that orthodox theology gunned down rationality in later period. Historians seem cannot give a convincing and satisfactory answer to this question. Islam is unlike India and China. In these two countries, rational science had been treated inferior to spirituality and humanities. During golden age, Islamic science was granted an official status and supported by Caliphs. If Islamic science was mainly in application, it should not decline since it could give great benefit to both the leader and the common people. For example, great advancement could be made in weaponry for defeating enemies, in improving agriculture, hygiene etc. Even orthodox theology could not resist such current. The decline of Islamic science alerts us a significant implication. If rationality could be sacked in history even after a long period of shining, will western rationality collapse in future?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There were many unclear points in your O.P.

But, Islamic science thrived. That's why we still enjoy those advancements today.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ijtihad

 

'Independent  reasoning' the door for this was closed in the 10th century. in other words religious dogma won out. The same thing happened in the west but dogma lost - after a bitter struggle that is still on going.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's only good (real) science and bad science.  Putting a religion/race/civilisation/era/whatever in front of it, suggests nothing to me except nonsense..  Woops I mean non-science.

.. or perhaps it is an attempt to claim credit for being first at doing something 'sciency'?  While trying to pin down who did something first may be fun, it more often than not tells us more about the environment that existed around those who got there first, than any inherent superiority.  

 

And yes, your post (and your point) is not at all clear, op.  How about you give examples...?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you read this?

 

LINK - islamic golden age

The Crusades put the Islamic world under pressure with invasions in the 11th and 12th centuries, but a far greater threat emerged from the East during the 13th century: in 1206, Genghis Khan established a powerful dynasty among the Mongols of central Asia. During the 13th century, this Mongol Empire conquered most of the Eurasian land mass, including China in the east and much of the old Islamic caliphate (as well as Kievan Rus) in the west. The destruction of Baghdad and the House of Wisdom by Hulagu Khan in 1258 has been seen by some as the end of the Islamic Golden Age.[74] Later Mongol leaders, such as Timur, destroyed many cities, slaughtered hundreds of thousands of people, and did irrevocable damage to the ancient irrigation systems of Mesopotamia. Muslims in lands subject to the Mongols now faced northeast, toward the land routes to China, rather than toward Mecca.  In the Iberian Peninsula, the Catholic Monarchs completed the Reconquista with a war against the Emirate of Granada that started in 1482 and ended with Granada's complete annexation in early 1492, which also marks, for some historians, the end of the Islamic Golden Age. The Ottoman conquest of the Arabic-speaking Middle East in 1516-17 placed the traditional heart of the Islamic world under Ottoman Turkish control. Starting in the 16th century, the opening by the European powers of new sea trade routes to East Asia and the Americas bypassed the Islamic economies, greatly reducing prosperity by the start of the 17th century.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Likely Guy said:

There were many unclear points in your O.P.

But, Islamic science thrived. That's why we still enjoy those advancements today.

 

 

Robert Spencer points out that the Islamic civilization thrived for a period and that civilization was built on the backs - read money and skills - of conquered peoples.  So did Islam ever stand as a basis for scientific advancement or did that advancement simply happen during a time of Islamic control?

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the possible answers to this mystery can be found in Oswald Spengler’s theory of historical psuedomorphosis. A younger culture cannot express and breath freely within the old mould left behind by older cultures. Spengler said “ instead of rearing itself up in its own creative power, it can only hate the distant power with a hate that grows to be monstrous.”  Arabian culture is an example. Therefore, when Arabic-Islam encountered Greek philosophy, it cannot fully absorb the rationality and inquiry spirit into its own consciousness. Instead Arabic culture developed a Magian Ego. “…epistemological methods resting upon the individual judgment, are …madness and infatuation, and its scientific results a work of the Evil One, who has confused and deceived the spirit as to its true dispositions and purposes.” ( Decline of the West, vol, 2, page 235). Consequently, rational science was sacked due to distortion effect from old moulds shaped by ancient Persian and Babylonian cultures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

There's only good (real) science and bad science.  Putting a religion/race/civilisation/era/whatever in front of it, suggests nothing to me except nonsense..  

Yes, the last time that happened was when the Nazis said there was German science and Jewish science. According to the Nazis, all Jewish Science was bad. Albert Einstein was Jewish, Neils Bohr was part-Jewish, Max Born was Jewish ... 

Edit: Oh dear, I haven't yet got hang of the new quoting system!

 

Edited by Derek Willis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Likely Guy (with a nod of agreement to and then)

Quote

But, Islamic science thrived.

Or, viewed differently, the already civilized conquered peoples remained civilized for several generations after their conquest. The peace that follows conquest, while it holds, is good for wealth creation generally. "Science" is a kind of wealth creation, as is progress in mathematics, medicine and other learned fields, not just natural science.


psyche

Occasionally, Jesus gets one right. Who lives by the sword, dies by the sword. The conqueror eventually became the conquered, all winning streaks end.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Science can be a 'double edged sword'. Science cuts through ideas unsupported by evidence and rational thought ...but it also cuts through beliefs that are unsupported by evidence and rational thought. This isn't good when ones major goal is unquestioning and total submission to ones religion.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, eight bits said:

Likely Guy (with a nod of agreement to and then)

Or, viewed differently, the already civilized conquered peoples remained civilized for several generations after their conquest. The peace that follows conquest, while it holds, is good for wealth creation generally. "Science" is a kind of wealth creation, as is progress in mathematics, medicine and other learned fields, not just natural science.

psyche

Occasionally, Jesus gets one right. Who lives by the sword, dies by the sword. The conqueror eventually became the conquered, all winning streaks end.

 

I'd like to cautiously disagree here.

I think the Muslim Golden Age saw scientific and technological developments in their own right, on top of what they absorbed from the Romans and Persians.

Those developments were mostly concentrated in Baghdad (the Abbasid Caliphate) and Cordoba (the revived Umayyad Caliphate), in cities which were at least the equal of Constantinople, which was by far the largest Christian city in Europe (and where other scientific and technological development took place).

However, Cordoba was sacked in a civil war early in the 11th century and the Caliphate split up between warring factions, most of whom were eventually conquered by the somewhat less civilised and more fundamentalist Almoravids.

Then, in 1258, Baghdad was sacked by the Mongols, bringing to an end the Abbasid Caliphate and ruining the land around the city.

In each of these cases I think it's reasonable to see that with a decimated population living among ruins, scientific and technological development is going to come to a screeching halt (just think of all those post-apocalyptic novels where the hardy and lucky survive, but civilisation pretty much comes to an end). Both Cordoba and Baghdad were sufficiently well destroyed that neither was likely to serve as a seed bed for future technological development - that was going to happen elsewhere, and happened to be most successful in Europe.

So unlike the OP, I see no mystery in the Golden Age coming to an end. The interesting question, though, is where it might have led if the cities hadn't been destroyed. I suspect it might not have led on much further than it reached, with technology being little more than a plaything for the rich rather than the economic force multiplier it eventually became. And I wonder if the underlying problem was a combination of slavery - or at least excessively cheap labour - and an undertaxed ruling class (in other words a very small but very rich ruling class and a very large but very poor lower class). I get the impression something like this was the difference between France and Britain in the 18th century, and again in the 19th century between the southern and northern states of the USA.

However, I'm no economist. Perhaps it might be worth getting someone with a background in economic history to examine what we know about these states.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is really simple: Science flourished in Islamic countries in the same proportion as it was tolerant. After the 11th century the Koran thumpers (or those who "only need one book") took over.... and the Christians became more and more tolerant. After that the race for domination of the sciences was won by the Christians.

There is no mystery here, just a lack of information on the part of those who pose the question.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, questionmark said:

That is really simple: Science flourished in Islamic countries in the same proportion as it was tolerant. After the 11th century the Koran thumpers (or those who "only need one book") took over.... and the Christians became more and more tolerant. After that the race for domination of the sciences was won by the Christians.

There is no mystery here, just a lack of information on the part of those who pose the question.

Fair enough to a point...though I think it's still worth exploring what led to the rise of both the innovators in the 8th century and the thumpers in turn later on, and why the innovators couldn't turn the tables on the thumpers for a second time. Also, Ottoman culture was a fusion of Greek and Muslim cultures centred on the old Constantinople. So why couldn't the Ottomans build on the scientific innovations of those earlier cultures, and instead in the 18th and 19th centuries fall behind the Europeans to their north and west?

It's also an issue worth exploring for its applicability these days...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peter

Quote

I'd like to cautiously disagree here.

I braced for a collision when I read that, but you and I don't seem all that desperately different on the major points.

Peace is good, a large area with a common business-administrative language is good, political stability is good, a heritage of civilization is good. "Progress" is transmitting more than was received. (From those to whom much is given, much is expected...)

How much credit does Islam get for all this? That's what is not so clear.


Lilly

Quote

but it also cuts through beliefs that are unsupported by evidence and rational thought.

Modern science does, but I'm not so sure proto-science did. Galileo was as recent as about 400 years ago, and left us a lot to read about his thinking. He thought his religious beliefs were supported by evidence and rational thought. If he thought of himself as a "liberator," it might have been liberation from Aristotle and his brand of paleo-science.

Then comes Newton, a very different man from Galileo, but he left us a lot to read, too. Newton was a Bible-based unitarian - out of step with official dogma, but hardly because of anything Richard Dawkins would call "evidence and rational thought."

It is not a proper contradiction to hold that revelation (the basis of both Islam and Christianity) is evidence of the will of God. Scientists of all religious opinions are apt to accept the word of mathematicians about the correctness of proofs. Scientists also accepted Euclidean geometry for a long time as the structure of real space. How is taking Euclid's word for that fundamentally different from taking Matthew's, Moses' or Mohammed's word for things they have a heavy rep for?

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, and then said:

Robert Spencer points out that the Islamic civilization thrived for a period and that civilization was built on the backs - read money and skills - of conquered peoples.  So did Islam ever stand as a basis for scientific advancement or did that advancement simply happen during a time of Islamic control?

 The same can be said for Rome, really. 

 Islamic mind ls built on the work of those that came before, and also benefited from the accumulation of knowledge through conquest. 

 Rome wasn't much different, neither are many modern countries. 

 

 People like to point to one thing being the cause for a civilization collapsing or regressing. I haven't studied Islamic culture like I've read about Roman or Egyptian culture but I wouldn't expect it to be very different. 

 There was invasion, there was mishandled power, there was destruction and disruption of organization. 

 Loss of resources, food and water. 

 And these causes don't stand alone, but play into each other. Religious fervency rises in times of strife, for example. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, shadowsot said:

 The same can be said for Rome, really. 

 Islamic mind ls built on the work of those that came before, and also benefited from the accumulation of knowledge through conquest. 

 Rome wasn't much different, neither are many modern countries. 

 

 People like to point to one thing being the cause for a civilization collapsing or regressing. I haven't studied Islamic culture like I've read about Roman or Egyptian culture but I wouldn't expect it to be very different. 

 There was invasion, there was mishandled power, there was destruction and disruption of organization. 

 Loss of resources, food and water. 

 And these causes don't stand alone, but play into each other. Religious fervency rises in times of strife, for example. 

With Islam it was more a shift of power, from the Umayyad to the Abbasids (by means of a revolution). While the Umayyad were pretty tolerant, both in their own behavior and that of others, the Abbasids switched to a pretty narrow world view, most of which was Fertile Crescent centric,  they were succeeded by the Fatimids who for a short time tried to return to the tolerant world view. Most notable in arts (and less in Science such as the Umayyad). After that the Islamic world fell apart, being ruled by several pretty narrow minded clans, if we exclude the Ayyubids, who furthered a general education and made great advances in medicine... but they also were taken over by several less open minded clans and that was... mostly, the end of the Islamic spring. After that it went downhill...fast.

 

Edited by questionmark
garble
Link to comment
Share on other sites

People can say it was the Mongols, or the Reconquesta, or whatever. But it seems to me that the scientific knowledge that was gained during the Islamic Golden Age was still there, ready to be built on. The fall of Islam into what some would call ignorance is, in my opinion, due to corruption of government and religion for the purpose of financial gain and increase of control. When the Caliphate broke up, the follow on leaders of the separate states needed to consolidate power, and keeping the people ignorant, rather then enlightened, is a very easy way to maintain control.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

People can say it was the Mongols, or the Reconquesta, or whatever. But it seems to me that the scientific knowledge that was gained during the Islamic Golden Age was still there, ready to be built on. The fall of Islam into what some would call ignorance is, in my opinion, due to corruption of government and religion for the purpose of financial gain and increase of control. When the Caliphate broke up, the follow on leaders of the separate states needed to consolidate power, and keeping the people ignorant, rather then enlightened, is a very easy way to maintain control.

Quite, and the fact is that European universities built on the Islamic knowledge and the knowledge Islamic countries had acquired from parts of the world Europe had scant access to like India and China. Heck, to this day we use Arabic numerals and Arabic terms, such as al jebr.... we tend to pronounce it algebra though.

That there was a hoard of knowledge that was suppressed when Islam fell into its dark ages (and for most of it, it still has not emerged from it) is as much a legend as that a hoard of knowledge was suppressed with  the destruction of the Great Libraries (no, there was not just one in Alexandria). That knowledge was in the Roman's Senate library at that time.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/25/2016 at 0:14 AM, Heisingtso said:

One of the possible answers to this mystery can be found in Oswald Spengler’s theory of historical psuedomorphosis. A younger culture cannot express and breath freely within the old mould left behind by older cultures. Spengler said “ instead of rearing itself up in its own creative power, it can only hate the distant power with a hate that grows to be monstrous.”  Arabian culture is an example. Therefore, when Arabic-Islam encountered Greek philosophy, it cannot fully absorb the rationality and inquiry spirit into its own consciousness. Instead Arabic culture developed a Magian Ego. “…epistemological methods resting upon the individual judgment, are …madness and infatuation, and its scientific results a work of the Evil One, who has confused and deceived the spirit as to its true dispositions and purposes.” ( Decline of the West, vol, 2, page 235). Consequently, rational science was sacked due to distortion effect from old moulds shaped by ancient Persian and Babylonian cultures.

It's not every day you see someone quoting Spengler. If I were going to quote century-old critical theory, I'd go for Frances Yates or Walter Benjamin.

--Jaylemurph

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

psyche

Occasionally, Jesus gets one right. Who lives by the sword, dies by the sword. The conqueror eventually became the conquered, all winning streaks end.

 

Damn.. Illusions of grandeur much?

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎25‎/‎05‎/‎2016 at 4:52 AM, Heisingtso said:

Why was Islamic Science sacked?

Islamic civilization was in golden age from 8th to 13 century. Most importantly, there was tremendous scientific development during this period and this paved the way for rise of modern science in Europe. But for Islam, the West might not get industrialized so quickly. Unfortunately, science was sacked in Islam afterwards. I think it is a historical mystery. Many theories have tried to explain this decline. Some say that the meaning for scientific research was totally different from that of modern science in Europe. Some say that Islamic science emphasized only on application and there was no basic theory. Others say that orthodox theology gunned down rationality in later period. Historians seem cannot give a convincing and satisfactory answer to this question. Islam is unlike India and China. In these two countries, rational science had been treated inferior to spirituality and humanities. During golden age, Islamic science was granted an official status and supported by Caliphs. If Islamic science was mainly in application, it should not decline since it could give great benefit to both the leader and the common people. For example, great advancement could be made in weaponry for defeating enemies, in improving agriculture, hygiene etc. Even orthodox theology could not resist such current. The decline of Islamic science alerts us a significant implication. If rationality could be sacked in history even after a long period of shining, will western rationality collapse in future?

This is an Islamic centric view of the world which isn't real.

Europe was more advanced during the Roman Empire with those ancient Italians inventing everything from concrete to false teeth. When it collapsed in on itself the dark ages descended upon Europe resulting in our peoples taking several centuries to find their footing again. We were in disarray and this is why there is nothing of significance from Europe during that time period.

The roots of the industrial revolution can actually be traced all the way back to ancient Greece because its those Greeks who invented steam power and railways. They didn't see much use for either by the way so didn't apply them in their city states. It was Britain, who upon founding its first overseas colonies, discovered it didn't have the means to move resources in and around its tiny little island fast enough to meet the needs of its population. So it put steam engines on railways and voila!

In the modern world the Islamic sphere of influence is behind the west in terms of science because we have more freedom. It results in higher levels of innovation as people are allowed to question, criticise and make their own minds up about things. Freedom also means a society utilises its intelligent females too meaning more inquisitive minds at universities. There is also a downside which is freedom makes it easier for people to engage in immoral behaviours but on the positive side our quality of lives in the West are much higher that across most areas of the Middle East.

China isn't going to be the next scientific, economic or military superpower because it doesn't have access to sufficient quantities of oil, ore, minerals and other material resources. We in the West already own most of what exists which we have used to build our modern societies on because we industrialised first. I think western civilization can safely assume it has hegemony for the next 500 years as things stand.

 

.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whilst it is reasonable to say Christendom was in disarray, people such as Roger Bacon, Albertus Magnus and later Giordano Bruno tried hard to advance science. Unfortunately the Church had other ideas. And we all know how Galileo fell foul of the Inquisition. Christians were not always pro-science. Indeed, Christians today in the form of "creationists" are anti-science.

If China harnessed nuclear fusion - rendering oil supplies unnecessary - would that alter the assumed hegemony for the next five hundred years, especially as they are gaining ever more access to the resources of Africa and South America?

As the Romans knew all too well, the assumption of unassailability usually comes just before the fall of empire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What the heck are you talking about? Albert von Boellstadt, later called Albertus Magnus, hardly did that much to advance science, in fact he threw a spanner in the works by advocating a geocentric earth, that later became catholic dogma. And all because the alternative models did not fit well with his favorite superstition: astrology.

Albert von Boellstadt (also called Albert from Cologne) was the church's ideas along with his pupil Tommasso d' Aquino. Both were beatified in recognition of their work creating "catholic science".

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Last night I watched .... part 5 ? .......  of a doco on the history of Spain.  Excellent example of what a 'warlord'  and his approach can do .  One  invades the biggest southern Islamic city in Spain, it is full of mosques, universities and libraries.  he goes into the libraries and universities and seizes their property and demands copies are made or takes copies.

And distributes them throughout Europe.

Years later, it happens again. This time the invader gathers up the books and documents as has them burnt in the street.

 

Yes folks, strangely enough  intelligent and enlightened people with a mind of inquiry  aid the spread of knowledge  And mad religious fundamental nuts supress it  (as, I suppose it threatens their false power base ? )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and by the way .... this new formatting has cut my ears off   !        <_<      Not impressed !

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.