George Saliba, author of "Islamic Science and the Making of the European Renaissance" discusses the cause, and more specifically the timing, of Islam's scientific and cultural 'decline'.
TL;DW? He points to the continued scientific output of Islamic nations up until the 16th century, and argues that the question shouldn't be "what went wrong with Islam" but: "what went right with Europe" around that time? Instead of trying to link an objective scientific decline to the Mongolian invasion, the Christian Crusades, or the teachings of al-Ghazali, which all came before the decline, we should instead acknowledge that every culture at the time experienced a huge relative decline compared with the extraordinary growth and development of Europe. At the time, Europe experienced unprecedented growth in wealth, trade, culture and territory, and this engine catapulted its scientific leadership to a position that the western world maintains today.
While some of his specific points can be debated, the overall picture seems far more robust than pinning the decline on a single individual, which non-historians like Neil DeGrasse Tyson or Salman Rushdie have attempted to do.
4 Comments
siftbotA particular take on what went wrong with Islam has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579 on that post.
poolcleanerI think it's just easier to simplify an argument when it's part of another society. Even George Saliba criticizes western civ by simplifying Copernicus, Galileo, and others into monopolizing crooks; something he warns his own, "morally just" Islamic society against.
Both Neil and George are railing against each other's society whIle acknowledging a truth.
Always good to hear both sides, and one from an actual historian, but honestly, none of this is news. Any time someone says "this" is why this happened, it's safe to call bullshit until you've seen a multitude of angles (deduction). It's like debating the multitude of reasons for the fall of Rome or the start of WWI. Nothing in history truly repeats itself because it's so convoluted there's rarely a single cause for rises and declines. It's just easy to find a historical pattern and then hold onto it as THE pattern of history and exclude things that are contrary.
Mongols have good bbq... Koreans have good bbq... Americans have good bbq... What does it all mean?!?!?!
JustSayingMeat is yummy?
...
Mongols have good bbq... Koreans have good bbq... Americans have good bbq... What does it all mean?!?!?!
vilIt wasnt al-Ghazalis fault that muslim society adopted his idea that math is evil and made it doctrine. He was long gone by the 16th century.
It was the fault of the muslim religous authorities, but you cant say that in one sentence, if you are a muslim, even today. You have to go on and on for half an hour, naming all the muslim famous scientists, just like you would have to name all the famous russian scientists if you were a russian professor talking to a russian audience.
Even if 17th century muslim society had a Newton or Leibniz or Kopernik or Kepler and they managed to publish, what impact would their discoveries have had if they could not be used in practice for religious reasons?
It hardly matters who invented the lightbulb, if you have to keep using candles for religious reasons.
Discuss...
Enable JavaScript to submit a comment.