NationStates Jolt Archive

During the expansion of Islam, Islam made advancements in science and technology while Europe was dragging itself in the Dark Ages. However I've met some people that deny this completely. Did Islam play a part in the resurgence of Europe?

Of course it did, especially in Spain. Spain flourished until the Muslims were kicked out... That might tell you something.

Yes.

Europe came out of the dark after the Crusades, which happened due to Muslims, and resulted in Muslim interaction with Christians in the area of the Crusades, which resulted in the emergence of long distance trade, which resulted in trade of new ideas, which in turn took Europe out of the dark. ;)

Absolutely.

Whilst the evolution of Islam into a major religion challenging Christian Europe played a role, it is one of several factors involved, albeit not the most influential (I'd credit the most influential factor in cracking Europe the reformation and the divisions it caused.) Some strokes of pure luck were also involved, such as the genius of Leonardo, the voyages of Columbus and Polo, and the growing European addiction to spices. (want curry...)

Islam played a role, but the role it played was not dominant.

much of the technological and scientific knowledge of the ancient Greeks and Romans was kept alive by Islamic scholars and much was employed in their cultures. arguably the renaissance happened because of this lost knowledge being re-imported into Europe. so i say, yes Islam did bring Europe out of the dark.

(or at least thats one of the arguements i read somewhere, but i agree)

Beyond that, the recession of the plague also played a crucial role in lifting the veil of the dark ages from Europe.

Most undoubtedly. Before the Crusades, the most of Europe was about as backward is the known world was, and scientific expansion was almost nonexistant. Practically nothing at all changed from the beginning to the end of the Dark Ages.

However, after the Crusades, trade with the Middle-East flourished, largely due to Italian traders backing most of the the crusades, and new ideas and phylosophies were introduced. Practically every area of science exploded due to the introduction of eastern ideas, from Mathematics, to Astronomy, to Medicine, and much more. If the Muslim society had not been introduced to Europe, it is quite possible that the Dark Ages may never had ended.

Basically, without the introduction of Islam to Europe, the world would be a far worse off place than it is today.

Definitely

As well as the technological development that it kicked off, driving out Islam from southern europe was a factor in the reformation. If the Vatican hadn't been so busy being nasty to Jews and Muslims they'd probably have squashed it and then the middle ages would have dragged on for another 500 years or more.

Don't forget about the Byzantine empire. They were far ahead of the rest of Europe, mainly because their nation wasn't controlled by a centralised church that dictated everyday processes. They were even trading partners with the Arabs.

Contact with Islam brought about change by introducing new technologies and ideas, reintroducing old ideas from ancient Greece and Rome, and by forcing Europe to progress rapidly in order to prevent being overrun by muslim armies. European progress didn't really take off until the enlightenment though. When science and reason became more highly valued than blind obedience to church and king Europe began to surpass the muslim world, and has only widened the gap since.

If I remember it was the Protestant work ethic which led to the introduction of capitalism, which in turn lead to new democratic thoughts that brought Europe out fo the dark.

this kinda begs the question: how & why did Europe surge so far forward so quickly, if the Islamic world had been holding onto this lost knowledge for so very long...

this kinda begs the question: how & why did Europe surge so far forward so quickly, if the Islamic world had been holding onto this lost knowledge for so very long...
At a guess...population concentration?

also the muslims drastically increased trade. the europeans kept the trade levels high after islam receded from europe

this kinda begs the question: how & why did Europe surge so far forward so quickly, if the Islamic world had been holding onto this lost knowledge for so very long...

The Ottoman Empire collapsed. The Ottomans conquered most of the Middle East and had a vast empire that was relatively tolerant of other religions and cultures. Butduring the 1800s the Ottomans began to collapse in on themselves like most empires are prone to do, they fought a couple of wars in the Balkans. The European powers began colonizing Africa, Asia, and the Middle East. In WW1 the Ottoman empire joined the central powers and was carved up by the victorious British and French, who then drew arbitrary borders throughout the former empire. When they left their colonies there was a power vacuum which was filled by theocrats and despots and voila, Islam sunk back.

In Europe the Protestant work ethic led to the rise of capitalism which led to progress in most areas. Capitalism led to new enlightenment thinkers and democratic thought. This caused Europe to grow rapidly. Aided by resources from colonies they continued to develop rapidly.

At a guess...population concentration?
could be, yeah

they also say neccessity is the mother of invention. neccessities such as the potential threat of a rising Islamic power in the east, and the escalating warfare between European powers - a big old fashioned arms race - maybe

this kinda begs the question: how & why did Europe surge so far forward so quickly, if the Islamic world had been holding onto this lost knowledge for so very long...
Perhaps the Europeans built on the knowledge more agressively. I read a book by Bernard Lewis titled What Went Wrong?. One part of the book related the story of a muslim ambasador to a European country (I forget which one) who was shown some scientific discoveries. His impression was that they were meaningless curiosities. The Europeans, however, saw the potential in new technologies that weren't usefull now, but might be usefull in the future.

It seems the same problem plagues some parts of the muslim world now. In some parts of the middle east universities graduate more students of Islamic studies than science or engineering.

Yes and no. No, because it was the plague that ended the feudal system and resulted in the dominance of the free laborer and guilds. The Church, ironically enough, also helped because its massive commercial investments and expenditures prompted the Renaissance despite its attempts to repress science. The Crusades also helped because they launched a twofold benefit: backlash against thes secular Church and contact with the Near East was established firmly.

Yes, because the Islamic states kept trade, literature, and the sciences alive during the Dark Ages, and also contributed a considerable amount during the same period. They created modern mathematics (something I am grateful for) and made great leaps in astronomy. Thus, when Europe had finally reasserted itself, the Islamic world provided the knowledge to propel them forward. Remember, they never had a Dark Age, but rather blistering success up until the 16th century.

It is likely that neither force would lift Europe from the Dark Ages by itself, and their working together was what set the modern world in motion.

If I remember it was the Protestant work ethic which led to the introduction of capitalism, which in turn lead to new democratic thoughts that brought Europe out fo the dark.

Neither of those really played much of a role, as the Dark Ages had already ended, or the Dark Ages was in it's death-throws. They may have contributed, but their effect wasn't that great.

Protestants didn't become a major force until about the 1500's, long after the Dark Ages actually ended. Also, Capitalism played a large role, mainly through the traders, but it being of direct effect was minimal. Democratic thoughts also were rather minimally effectual, as they were not wide spread or effectual.

More proof to the Islam Connection is the fact the Renaissance started in Italy, which had received the majority of the benefits from the Crusades. They traded the most with the Muslims, and received the most ideas and technology from them.

As a side note, all Europeans have a great deal to thank the Islamic people for during the Dark Ages. Without them, Europe would have been overrun by the Mongols, as the Turks acted as a wall against them. Of course, most people don't know this, but meh.

Islam, the religion, had very little to do with Europe's resurgence. Contact with people who happened to practise Islam, like the Crusades and the Turkish invasions, which led to exchanges of knowledge, did. Also the fact that people in Europe didn't want to deal with Muslims, leading to the exploration age in search of newer, more direct trade routes to the Orient.
Mansa Musa's gold, the Plague, gunpowder and the printing press contributed more than the Islamic religion did.

Thumbs up to Vetalia.

Absolutely not. The question itself is quite absurd. It's like "is Christianity bringing the Islamic world into a modern age"?

Religions, especially medieval religions such as Christianity and Islam are inheritly tyrannical and against science or any other form of progress. They would prefer to keep everything as is, and smother all innovation. Islam has been and still is the same anti-scientific and anti-everything-but-us hateful ideology.

But, people living under an Islamic tyranny may have had a slight influence on the collapse of the Christian tyranny in Europe. Like, algebra was a product of a man called Al-Jabr, not the religion of Islam.

Absolutely not. The question itself is quite absurd. It's like "is Christianity bringing the Islamic world into a modern age"?

Religions, especially medieval religions such as Christianity and Islam are inheritly tyrannical and against science or any other form of progress. They would prefer to keep everything as is, and smother all innovation. Islam has been and still is the same anti-scientific and anti-everything-but-us hateful ideology.

But, people living under an Islamic tyranny may have had a slight influence on the collapse of the Christian tyranny in Europe. Like, algebra was a product of a man called Al-Jabr, not the religion of Islam.

Ah, of course. I think he meant "Muslims", which refers to the people, instead of "Islam" which refers to the religion.

Ah, of course. I think he meant "Muslims", which refers to the people, instead of "Islam" which refers to the religion.

Yes, and... If you're talking about the thread creator... Roshni is a "she".

And, look at it this way: The Catholic Church didn't allow people to do much of anything in the way of science. Islamic nations allowed their citizens to do pretty much whatever they pleased.

As an Iberian I say













MYRTH!

Yes, but I put other because it was not the only factor. Other stuff, such as the plague, helped pull Europe out. Also, if you want to get technical, it wasn't Islam itself, but the Islamic nations.

The Crusades and the meeting of the Islamics, however, was extremely crucial to saving Europe. Anyone who says otherwise is just embaressed they needed help.
(I'd credit the most influential factor in cracking Europe the reformation and the divisions it caused.)
That was in the 1600's. The Dark Ages are considered over by the year 1300 (the Renaissance began in the 1200's and spread). That was more a spark of the Enlightenment.

When the Roman empire fell apart and the Ancient days ended, Europe preserved the memories of Plotin, and his neo-platonic mysticism. That influenced European theology (pretty much the only science for a long time), but basically declared the real world pointless.
The Muslims conquered Alexandria and got the remains of the library, including most of the works of Aristotle. And that was a huge bonus for them, scientifically they were vastly more advanced than Europe for pretty much the entire Middle Ages.
The renaissance began mainly because the crusades ended and Italian traders brought the ideas of Aristotle back home. Science, Humanism and so on redeveloped then in response.

That was in the 1600's. The Dark Ages are considered over by the year 1300 (the Renaissance began in the 1200's and spread). That was more a spark of the Enlightenment.
Please choose an "official" date:

1453
End of the 100 years war
Fall of Constantinople

1492
Discovery of America
Fall of Grenada

During the expansion of Islam, Islam made advancements in science and technology while Europe was dragging itself in the Dark Ages. However I've met some people that deny this completely. Did Islam play a part in the resurgence of Europe?

Islam itself did not, but the Arab's did. Their contributions to science, technology, etc. are inestimable.

Without them, Europe would have been overrun by the Mongols, as the Turks acted as a wall against them. Of course, most people don't know this, but meh.

Would you care to elaborate? That Western Europe was spared, as I understand it, was more attributable to the death of the Great Khan Ogedei (which compelled Batu to break off his seige of Vienna in order to dispute the succession).

Would you care to elaborate? That Western Europe was spared, as I understand it, was more attributable to the death of the Great Khan Ogedei (which compelled Batu to break off his seige of Vienna in order to dispute the succession).

This is essentially true. The Mongols were in present day Russia at the death of the Great Khan, and the only thing that seemingly prevented them from continuing all through Europe was the return to Mongolia to name the new Khan. Nothing from the conflicts between the Mongols and Europeans suggested that the Mongols would not be utterly successful.

...Nothing from the conflicts between the Mongols and Europeans suggested that the Mongols would not be utterly successful.
The only people who ever defeated the Mongols in an open field battle were Egyptian Mamelucks...but that was later

The only people who ever defeated the Mongols in an open field battle were Egyptian Mamelucks...but that was later

Correct. But they were hardly in a position to prevent the Mongols from enterring Europe.

I'd say yes. From what I've read in history, I'd say that without Islam, the progress of humanity before the dark ages would have been entirely forgotten. While in Europe Aristotle was heresy because he was not a Chrisitain scholar, the Caliphates held onto the knowledge the Greeks and Romans had given the world, often expanding on it, while developing other key technologies and ideas as well. The Islamic invasion into Europe foricibly expanded the scope of Europe's world, and the Crusades, though ultimately defeated, brought back much knowledge from the Near East, and opened the doors for overseas trade.

This whole thread is predicated on the idea that the middle eastern civilizations existed only and uniquely because of their religion. This is rather like asking whether Christianity is responsible for the microchip. Certainly the retention and development of knowledge and understanding in the middle eastern civilizations helped Europe later on. The attribution of this to the religion of those civilizations is highly doubtful.

If you are referring to the period known as the Dark Ages, then you are quite mistaken in claiming that Islam had a major role in bring Europe out of them.

The Dark Ages (so called because there are virtually no documents or chronicles that detail this era of history) came about once the Roman Empire collapsed. They ended roughly at around 800, due to the priestdom being spread throughout Europe.

The medieval era (1000 to 1500 roughly) is well documented and we have a large understanding of it and the people it was made up of. Thus it was not part of the Dark Ages.

The 1500s are certainly not part of that time - this is what we could define as "Early Modern" history. Many of the changes that occured during this era were due to the publication of the Bible in languages other than Latin. This allowed many to interpret the Bible with their own ideas and thus produced ideals such as Lutherianism and Puritanism. Also records from this era are trully excellent - they are so good that we know a huge amount about that era.

The reason Europe emerged from this Dark Age (definition as above) was largely due to the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church was far less corrupt in it is earliest days and far more full of zeal. Its priests were among the few literate people in Europe and as such it is them that historians rely on for information. The greater the presence of the Catholic Church, the greater the presence of records. This is why the Medieval ages are fairly well documented. Also priests would educate the nobility and royalty of the time, thus creating a literate social elite which also helped towards documentation.

Whilst the evolution of Islam into a major religion challenging Christian Europe played a role, it is one of several factors involved, albeit not the most influential (I'd credit the most influential factor in cracking Europe the reformation and the divisions it caused.) Some strokes of pure luck were also involved, such as the genius of Leonardo, the voyages of Columbus and Polo, and the growing European addiction to spices. (want curry...)

Islam played a role, but the role it played was not dominant.

But, it was contact with the great Muslim empires that sent Polo on his quest to find new overland trade routes to India and China. Columbus and other seafarers went west because of Ottoman control of Mediterranean and Indian trade, they hoped to find a new route that was not yet under Muslim control.
Addiction to spices came about because of trade opened during the Crusades.

So, not to say that Europe did not do great things on thier own, but we can trace many of thier origins to Muslim 'competition.'

The reason Europe emerged from this Dark Age (definition as above) was largely due to the Catholic Church...
But in the first few hundred years after Odoaker took over there was no Catholic Church as organisation. Much information was lost before documentation ever started.
Saracens had the luck of taking over Alexandria, and a better organised group of chroniclers (???) right away.
As for why Europe managed to get back from Barbarian status, you probably have to thank Charlemagne, who established a system of government, and the Chruch throughout most of Western Europe.

What we call "Dark Ages" is actually relevant ONLY in Great Britain (exluding Ireland). These guys were in disarray. This was a scary period in England; society had TOTALLY collapsed, there were invasions, they lost religion (!), and not a single stone building was built till 1066.
But in continental Europe (and Ireland), not everything was destroyed at this time.
Ireland was sending monks to Byzantium; they were bringing back knowledge and arts.
In southern France, society went on, with some small fortified cities getting through.
In northern France and Gesmany, royal power established itself quickly: Merovingians, Carolingians. By year 800, germanic Europe was back on track.
To the east, Byzantium was still a major intellectual center, bringing religion, architecture, arts to the South Slavics, the Bulgarians, the Russians.
Spain was unlucky. As soon as the Wisigoth dynasties were starting to build something worthy, they were overrun by the Arabs+Bedouins. But look at their legacy: castles, architecture, irrigation, orange trees, and important .
Spain was the place where the Islamic, Christian and Jewish philosophy, science, medecine and astronomy would intermix. The other "centers of the universe" (Constantinople, Bagdhad, Ispahan) weren't as multicultural.

So anyway, this "Dark Ages" thing is very Anglo Saxon. But I understand; these were extremely harsh times on the island.

Otherwise, keeping the "official" dates of [476-1453] for the Middle Ages seems relevant to me. Starting to argue about such fundamentals would be stupid; dates are as arbitrary as words.

Please choose an "official" date:

1453
End of the 100 years war
Fall of Constantinople

1492
Discovery of America
Fall of Grenada

While both of those were towards the end of the Dark Ages, it is difficult to place exactly the date of the Dark Ages. The Dark Ages(Or Middle Ages) began to end with the Italian Renaissance, and spread throughout. Some could argue the Dark Ages ended much earlier, while others argue it lasted in some areas well into the 1500's. Basically, the Dark Ages didn't just end. It slowly waned out.


Would you care to elaborate? That Western Europe was spared, as I understand it, was more attributable to the death of the Great Khan Ogedei (which compelled Batu to break off his seige of Vienna in order to dispute the succession).


Gladly. The Seljuk Turks inhabited a great deal of the near east(Turkey, Uzbekistan, Turkistan between the 11th and 14th century. During that time they staved off many mongol invaders, and acted as a barrier between, the mongols and the rest of Europe. Had they not been there, the mongol invaders would have easily crushed the Europeans at the time. Note, I'm not necessarily talking of expansions of the Mongol army, but various mongol invaders.

Basically they were a wall during a good part of the Dark Ages.

Once nations rose, it is just natural that international relations come about, not just politics (that came far later anyway), but trade, war and culture. Hardcore international relations already began with the advent of the Silk Road.

EDIT: Not nations, then, peoples, cultures, of different places. So we had all sorts of different things and different customs we could share with each other.

Without Muslim Arabs there wouldn't be the Europe today, and without the Europeans the Muslims Arabs couldn't be here either.

Once nations rose, it is just natural that international relations come about...
The actual nation didn't come about until the French Revolution. Previous to that, there were only kingdoms, which is not the same as "nations" in my opinion.

The Mameluke's victory over the Mongols was hardly something to be happy over. Helagu, after smashing all of middle east with relative ease, had to withdraw for the naming of the new khan and internal issues. We're talking something like a rearguard of 30,000 Mongols against a force of 120,000 Egyptians. And even then the Mongols still managed to rout a great part of the Egyptian army. That battle was only won because the Mongols were intent on winning anymore.

Once the Mongols defeated Persia and the Myriads of the Chinese Kingdoms, nothing in the world aside from internal issues (death of Ogedei) and natural barries (the sea in the case of Japan) could have stopped them.

In short, the Mongols were the most fearsome power in that time in the entire world without any other group of people even coming close.


And i agree with what somebody said earlier about the Europeans taking the advantage of science where as other cultures tend not to. Conservative cultures like Christians, Confucianism, Islam....and pretty much all religions, all despise change. Thus the only way to bring about progress in society and civilisation is to seperate the church from the state. In my opinion, the church should only be a figurehead of the state so that the general populace doesn't all out rebel, but all real power MUST rest within the state. There should be no compromise. Go too far as to removing the church, and you get Stalin, give the church control and we fall into another dark ages....


Even better is to make the church work in favor of you, (By now you can probably tell I'm not religious, I'm agnostic because i believe in god but hate religious dogmas and institutions for their corruption) because in reality the church should serve or at least fit in with the state and the people, NOT the other way around, the people and the state should not have to compromise in my opinion.

Just a note: the Dark Ages ended hundreds of years before Protestantism even existed.

this kinda begs the question: how & why did Europe surge so far forward so quickly, if the Islamic world had been holding onto this lost knowledge for so very long...

There was no Islamic world that held on to any vast knowledge.

As the Islamic armies spread outwards conquering everything in its path following Muhammed's death, it picked up ideas from the Persian, Indian and other such civilisations and passed them around to other civilisations that it contacted / went to war with, like European christendom.

Since muslims themselves became very dogmatic and dare I say unscientific, they did not use those ideas and develop on them, whilst Europeans, by shaking off the dogma, could develop on these "heretic" ideas.

If Vienna had fallen and/or the Franks had lost at Tours, Europe would have been overrun and would kinda resemble the morass that is middle east today.

-snip-
I disagree. The Sultanate of Bagdad was a hugely advanced country, and peaceful too for long years. Some technologies were indeed acquired from the East, but much was also developed there.
And they did for example held on to the works of Aristotle (one could argue the basis of modern science), which were pretty much unknown in Europe.

Gladly. The Seljuk Turks inhabited a great deal of the near east(Turkey, Uzbekistan, Turkistan between the 11th and 14th century. During that time they staved off many mongol invaders, and acted as a barrier between, the mongols and the rest of Europe.
...
Basically they were a wall during a good part of the Dark Ages.

Nevertheless, by the late 13th century, the premier Seljuk sultanate of Rum (decisively defeated at the Battle of Kosedag) survived only as a vassal state of the Mongols.

Had they not been there, the mongol invaders would have easily crushed the Europeans at the time. Note, I'm not necessarily talking of expansions of the Mongol army, but various mongol invaders.

Indeed - Lublin, Sandomir, and Krakow, in early 1241, perished "in flames". It was Duke Henry the Pious of Silesia who, along the periphery of the Holy Roman Empire, confronted the Mongols with an army (a motley slew including Hospitallers, Templars, and Teutonic Knights) reputedly 100,000 in number - only to be routed, at the loss of some 40,000 troops, near Lignitz. (Henry himself was decapitated, his head paraded about to terrorize the citizenry.)

But a single day later, the Mongols shattered the Hungarians near Mohi - the first recorded use of gunpowder in Europe. One contingent, having seized the sole bridge spanning the river Sajo, advanced behind a rolling barrage whilst the other constructed a pontoon of logs downstream. An estimated 65,000 defenders were slain.

Another branch of Batu's army surged west, taking the Danube port of Pest (not yet joined with Buda) in three days, burning the Dominican monastery and slaying the 10,000 who had sought refuge within it. According to Thomas of Split, the Mongols 'heaped the bodies of the butchered multitudes on the river banks' and 'skewered small children on their spears and carried them on their backs like fish on spits up and down the embankments'.

During the summer of 1242, the Mongols established a basic administration over these newly conquered lands, and even minted some coins, encouraging the peasants to plant and tend crops. However, but after the harvest, many of these same-some peasants were slaughtered as of no further utility.

However, the death of Ogedei - news of which reached Batu by June - ensured his withdrawal.

I disagree. The Sultanate of Bagdad was a hugely advanced country, and peaceful too for long years. Some technologies were indeed acquired from the East, but much was also developed there.
And they did for example held on to the works of Aristotle (one could argue the basis of modern science), which were pretty much unknown in Europe.

What is the time period of this Baghdad Sultanate ?

IIRC, it was under the caliphate at Baghdad, the invasion of Sindh by Bin Qasim and as a consequence the conquest of India began.

The core of Islamic empire in Arabia was flourishing as long as Islamic armies were winning in North Africa, Europe and Indian subcontinent and slave labor, loot and booty and ideas and technology from these civilisations flowed into the core.

The confluence of ideas into this Islamic empire was just a consequence of Arabia being situated in the middle of the route between Indian subcontinent, Europe and Africa. It is clear that they themselves made not much use of it, else they would have gone ahead and be a scientific power now. They just transmitted the ideas and got credit for it, like the number positioning system from India being credited to the Arabs.

Islam itself had no insituitional encouragement of knowledge since Koran declares that whatever a muslim needs to know is already in the Koran. Hence muslims never really absorbed the thought process behind the sciences and just used the technology. Islam discourages critical inquiry and debate for the fear that it will cause "fitnah" (Straying From the True Way) and lead to a state of "jahilya" like before the pre-islamic arabia. Hence the belief that "technology can be imported and used and we will become a scientific nation" which you can find in the psyche of Arab nations.

Many of the "muslim" scholars of this so-called golden period were only nominally muslims and would be considered heretics and some of them were. Also, many such "muslim" scholars were originally from areas which already had a base in science and tech and they societies were overrun by Arab armies.

For ex, noted muslim thinkers al-Kindi, al-Farabi, and Avicenna were all persian and persia possessed intellectual sophistication of its own right and to give Islamic empire the credit for what persians and scholars from the remnants of other cultures and societies achieved is like crediting the Red Army for the survival of Beethoven in East Berlin under Walter Ulbricht.

All this shortcomings were compensated with the enormous wealth and slave labor and trade etc generated by the muslim conquests. When the empire could no longer expand due to defeats in Europe and India and natural barriers like the Himalayas blocking China and Sahara saving rest of Africa, it started degenerating into the morass it is today.

Islamic golden age of science was despite Islam, not because of Islam.

What is the time period of this Baghdad Sultanate ?

IIRC, it was under the caliphate at Baghdad, the invasion of Sindh by Bin Qasim and as a consequence the conquest of India began.

The core of Islamic empire in Arabia was flourishing as long as Islamic armies were winning in North Africa, Europe and Indian subcontinent and slave labor, loot and booty and ideas and technology from these civilisations flowed into the core.

The confluence of ideas into this Islamic empire was just a consequence of Arabia being situated in the middle of the route between Indian subcontinent, Europe and Africa. It is clear that they themselves made not much use of it, else they would have gone ahead and be a scientific power now. They just transmitted the ideas and got credit for it, like the number positioning system from India being credited to the Arabs.

Islam itself had no insituitional encouragement of knowledge since Koran declares that whatever a muslim needs to know is already in the Koran. Hence muslims never really absorbed the thought process behind the sciences and just used the technology. Islam discourages critical inquiry and debate for the fear that it will cause "fitnah" (Straying From the True Way) and lead to a state of "jahilya" like before the pre-islamic arabia. Hence the belief that "technology can be imported and used and we will become a scientific nation" which you can find in the psyche of Arab nations.

Many of the "muslim" scholars of this so-called golden period were only nominally muslims and would be considered heretics and some of them were. Also, many such "muslim" scholars were originally from areas which already had a base in science and tech and they societies were overrun by Arab armies.

For ex, noted muslim thinkers al-Kindi, al-Farabi, and Avicenna were all persian and persia possessed intellectual sophistication of its own right and to give Islamic empire the credit for what persians and scholars from the remnants of other cultures and societies achieved is like crediting the Red Army for the survival of Beethoven in East Berlin under Walter Ulbricht.

All this shortcomings were compensated with the enormous wealth and slave labor and trade etc generated by the muslim conquests. When the empire could no longer expand due to defeats in Europe and India and natural barriers like the Himalayas blocking China and Sahara saving rest of Africa, it started degenerating into the morass it is today.

Islamic golden age of science was despite Islam, not because of Islam.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/scislam.html

the muslims invented hand grenades, catapults,generall more advanced weaponry and showers :)

They had universities and hospitals while we were still living in mud huts. Th4e round city of Baghdad is a good example.

Yet Islam itself has nothing to do with the mathematics, the hospitals, etc.

Islam itself, in fact, in particular the Sunni form, is responsible for the incredible social, political, and scientific stagnation of Arab culture.

Yes, contact with Arab culture helped Europe. But so did contact with the Mongols. Even under negative circumstances.

But the gifts of that culture were not the product of Islam.

That would be like saying that Galileo's discoveries were the product of the Catholic Church. Or that Darwin's theories were the product of the Southern Baptist Church.

What we call "Dark Ages" is actually relevant ONLY in Great Britain (exluding Ireland). These guys were in disarray. This was a scary period in England; society had TOTALLY collapsed, there were invasions, they lost religion (!), and not a single stone building was built till 1066.
But in continental Europe (and Ireland), not everything was destroyed at this time.
Ireland was sending monks to Byzantium; they were bringing back knowledge and arts.
In southern France, society went on, with some small fortified cities getting through.
In northern France and Gesmany, royal power established itself quickly: Merovingians, Carolingians. By year 800, germanic Europe was back on track.
To the east, Byzantium was still a major intellectual center, bringing religion, architecture, arts to the South Slavics, the Bulgarians, the Russians.
Spain was unlucky. As soon as the Wisigoth dynasties were starting to build something worthy, they were overrun by the Arabs+Bedouins. But look at their legacy: castles, architecture, irrigation, orange trees, and important .
Spain was the place where the Islamic, Christian and Jewish philosophy, science, medecine and astronomy would intermix. The other "centers of the universe" (Constantinople, Bagdhad, Ispahan) weren't as multicultural.

So anyway, this "Dark Ages" thing is very Anglo Saxon. But I understand; these were extremely harsh times on the island.

Otherwise, keeping the "official" dates of [476-1453] for the Middle Ages seems relevant to me. Starting to argue about such fundamentals would be stupid; dates are as arbitrary as words.

Yes things were very unpleasant in Britain at the time. Im not sure that Britain was, however, the only place where the Dark Ages struck. When the Roman Empire was overrun by its various barbarian enemies and neighbours, all of western europe was stranded in a period of complete anarchy for several hundred years. The emergence of the Carolingian dynasty and Charlemagne's dominion was only as the result of years of tribal warfare. Many areas of northern Europe remained in the same state they had been before this period began.
To claim that the Anglo-Saxon period was a time of total mayhem, where there was no order whatsoever, would be inaccurate. Many meaningful and intelligent systems were formed from the saxon period. Positions such as Alderman come directly from this period. The Vikings also pioneered many advances, creating things such as the Manx parliament, the Tynwald. In some ways, Britain was far ahead of the rest of western Europe.
Also, there were many stone buildings constructed before 1066. There are many examples of saxon stone churches and the ruins of many prominent saxon buildings around our country. Im not sure where you heard that but it is quite wrong. Saxon society was no less adavnced than any other in Europe, it was simply different. And despite the great turmoil in Britain, the Dark Ages were not something that were uniquely here.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/scislam.html


Roshni,

I have seen many such links which say such stuff.

As the cliche goes, the proof is in the pudding.

What has this "Description of Knowledge in the Qur'an and by the Prophet" and "Relationship Between the Qur'an and Modern Science" has done for the muslims of today or of the yester years ?

I am not denying the "glory" of the islamic empire. I am saying that this "glory" had nothing to do with Islam, primarily because

1. Many "muslim" scholars were just nominally muslim and their ideas were hertical. This is also a reason why critical thinking and scientific temper diminished in muslim world as Islam became codified and rigid and dogmatic, that is when Islam became Islam.

2. A lot of the ideas that this glorious islamic empire is credited is borrowed stuff from the societies / cultures it contacted with during its period of expansion by conquest. For ex, Europe did not have direct contact with India and the India number positioning system is wrongly credited to Arabs just becase Europe received it from Arabs.

3. Many muslim scholars were from societies / cultures which already were intellectually sophisticated like in Persia and India and just because political Islam overran these societies, the scientific achievements of people from these societies cannot be credited to Islam. look up the Red army analogy above.

4. Islam itself , AFAIK, discourages critical thinking and questioning. A climate evolved wherein it was taken as truth that everything that is needed to know for a muslim is in the Koran and you cannot question the Koran anyway, it being the direct word of God and all. Reason why you cannot tell a devout muslim about evolution. He will simply shut you out or worse punish you for blasphemy.

The "glory" was due to conquests and all was fine until booty and slave labor flowed into the empire.

Conquests stopped , decline began.

Still no critical inquiry and debate, decline is unarrested.

the muslims invented hand grenades, catapults,generall more advanced weaponry and showers :)
Didn't the Romans have catapults? Didn't the Chinese have crude throwable gunpowder bombs?

4. Islam itself , AFAIK, discourages critical thinking and questioning. A climate evolved wherein it was taken as truth that everything that is needed to know for a muslim is in the Koran and you cannot question the Koran anyway, it being the direct word of God and all. Reason why you cannot tell a devout muslim about evolution. He will simply shut you out or worse punish you for blasphemy.
Ehm, yeah that's the part where the link is for. Islam encourages the pursuit of knowledge and expanding the human understanding of the universe.

Ehm, yeah that's the part where the link is for. Islam encourages the pursuit of knowledge and expanding the human understanding of the universe.

Yes, that explains why in Iran, when a physics professor began a lecture on the non-deterministic nature of quantum physics, he was beaten to death by the students who claimed he was teaching blasphemy.

Yes, encouraging the pursuit of knowledge. Yep.

Yes, that explains why in Iran, when a physics professor began a lecture on the non-deterministic nature of quantum physics, he was beaten to death by the students who claimed he was teaching blasphemy.

Yes, encouraging the pursuit of knowledge. Yep.
So a bunch of crazy students represent Islam? I've been really missing out.

So a bunch of crazy students represent Islam? I've been really missing out.

They must have, as they were hailed as holy by the clerics afterwards.

The fact that Arab traders brought mathematics from India (concepts from algebra to the zero) to Europe has nothing to do with Islam.

They must have, as they were hailed as holy by the clerics afterwards.

The fact that Arab traders brought mathematics from India (concepts from algebra to the zero) to Europe has nothing to do with Islam.
The clerics are nuts, dude. Wake up.

The clerics are nuts, dude. Wake up.

Nope. A majority of Iranians says... No!

Ever wonder why it's so hard to find a nuclear physicist in an Arab country who can design an atomic weapon on their own?

Hm?

Ever wonder why Pakistan had to hire Chinese physicists to help them surmount the final problems, including simple engineering problems, to get a working bomb?

Ever wonder why the typical US physics graduate with a bachelor's degree already possesses this capability, without access to any secrets?

Because the state of education in the areas of science is STIFLED in Islamic countries precisely because of Islam.

That's why.

Nope. A majority of Iranians says... No!

Ever wonder why it's so hard to find a nuclear physicist in an Arab country who can design an atomic weapon on their own?

Hm?

Ever wonder why Pakistan had to hire Chinese physicists to help them surmount the final problems, including simple engineering problems, to get a working bomb?

Ever wonder why the typical US physics graduate with a bachelor's degree already possesses this capability, without access to any secrets?

Because the state of education in the areas of science is STIFLED in Islamic countries precisely because of Islam.

That's why.
Is it maybe because universities in many muslim countries graduate more people with degrees in Islamic studies than people with degrees in science?

Is it maybe because universities in many muslim countries graduate more people with degrees in Islamic studies than people with degrees in science?

Although many "Christian" nations gradually became secular over time, and through the 19th century allowed more freedom of scientific thought, thus producing breakthroughs that are completely anathema to religion (evolution, quantum physics, etc.), Islamic nations, with the exception of Turkey, have made little progress in separating their religion from their politics or educational system.

To understand how to build a nuclear weapon, you have to understand quantum physics.

To understand quantum physics, you have to accept non-deterministic behavior as fact. This is blasphemy in Islam - where an all-knowing God wills all things. Naturally, in a society where everyone takes a mental bath in that sort of water since birth, you're not going to have a lot of takers for classes where they teach "dangerous" ideas.

Pakistan admitted that was the root of their problem when they approached the Chinese for help.

Nope. A majority of Iranians says... No!

Ever wonder why it's so hard to find a nuclear physicist in an Arab country who can design an atomic weapon on their own?

Hm?

Ever wonder why Pakistan had to hire Chinese physicists to help them surmount the final problems, including simple engineering problems, to get a working bomb?

Ever wonder why the typical US physics graduate with a bachelor's degree already possesses this capability, without access to any secrets?

Because the state of education in the areas of science is STIFLED in Islamic countries precisely because of Islam.

That's why.
These same clerics that are against science are the ones that are okay with murder?

Last time I checked murder wasn't 'okay' in Islam.

Didn't some guy named al-Jabr "create" algebra? Also, the number system we use today (much, much better than the Roman Numerals once used) are Arabic Numerals. I'd say that those are two Islamic influences on European/Western mathematics, and we all know that mathematics is the foundation on which a society is built, right? :) Anyways, yes, but that doesn't mean that Islam is better than Christianity. (My personal belief is that they're both awful but that's for a different forum).

Plus, I think it would be better for you to say that "The arabs" made it better instead of "The muslims". But, that's just me. I think it's more the geographical area than the religion that was the reason.

Yes, that explains why in Iran, when a physics professor began a lecture on the non-deterministic nature of quantum physics, he was beaten to death by the students who claimed he was teaching blasphemy.

Yes, encouraging the pursuit of knowledge. Yep.

I have heard more outrageous stories about harnessing the power of the Jinns (mythical demons, of course unseen) for electricity from "educated" muslims :D


Roshni,

Ehm, yeah that's the part where the link is for. Islam encourages the pursuit of knowledge and expanding the human understanding of the universe.

No religion encourages pursuit of knowledge since religions like to monopolise knowledge which *discourages* pursuit.

let's have a look at the link you gave,
The Description of Knowledge in the Qur'an and by the Prophet (saas)

There are plenty of references to knowledge and the pursuit of knowledge in the Qur'an. The general feeling they leave the reader with is that the possessor of knowledge or wisdom has been given a very powerful gift, and that the pursuit of knowledge is something which should be done actively by everyone. Here are a few verses on the subject:

[96:1-5] Read! In the name of your Lord who created - Created the human from something which clings. Read! And your Lord is Most Bountiful - He who taught (the use of) the Pen, Taught the human that which he knew not.

These five verses make up the first passage revealed from the Qur'an to mankind through the Prophet Muhammad (saas). It is interesting that of all the things which Allah chose to begin His revelation with is related to the actions of reading and writing, especially the latter. The ability to write and store information is described by Professor Carl Sagan in his book COSMOS: "Writing is perhaps the greatest of human inventions, binding together people, citizens of distant epochs, who never knew one another. Books break the shackles of time, proof that humans can work magic." [21]

What knowledge did I gain from that ? How does this makes Koran as encouraging pursuit of knowledge ?

and here
C. - On the dual nature of iron

[57:25] ...And We sent down iron in which is mighty harm, as well as many benefits for mankind...

Iron is one of two metals found abundantly on the earth (aluminum being the other). It was known to many ancient civilizations, and is the most important metal we use today. The general description of it in the Qur'an was accurate in the time of the ancients, and it is even more so today: iron is the basis for most weapons of war and most of the everyday tools which we work with.

well Duh !!

How is that supposed to get me off my behind and pursue knowledge ?

Your link was so lame and boring.Here's a challenge.

Tell me of one scientific fact said in Koran in clear and unambiguous terms that was not know to the Arabs at that time.

Koran is not a scientific treatise, it is a story book believed to be word of God by muslims.

It does not encourage "pursuit of knowledge and expanding the human understanding of the universe".

Proof is muslim citizens who study in muslim countries.

Last time I checked murder wasn't 'okay' in Islam.

Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't apostates punishable by death ?

Maybe we need to define a few things here.

By "contact with Islam" I don't mean the religion, but the various Islamic empires that bordered and traded with Europe during the middle ages. The Caliphate (not Sultanate, but it was midnight, please forgive me) was one of those.

Fact is also that during the entire middle ages, standard of living and use of technology (invented or adopted) was greater in the Arab world than in Europe.
The Renaissance started when much of that knowledge was moved over through trade after people had stopped killing each other on sight. People like da Vinci spent long years working out how Arab telescopes (the ones made of glass balls) worked.

As I stated about three times, the works of Aristotle (which are the basis of modern science) were only preserved in the Arab world.

The mistake the Arab world made was that they failed to see the potential in some technologies, and that they didn't get the chance to grab huge chunks of the new world to exploit. Why that is I don't know, I'm not a sociologist nor an anthropologist.

To suggest though that Islam is less favourable to science than Christianity is stupid though. They are essentially the same religion, apart from the language, and a few bits about veils and pork (although I'm pretty sure early Christians were veiled and didn't eat pork either...).