|
Many people blame
outside sources for the destruction of "Muslim Science".
However, a deeper study of the subject will reveal that it was the
attitude of the Muslims themselves that led to their demise. Being an
educationist myself, I have realized that the two most important
ingredients required for scientific and non-scientific progress are
missing from the Muslim psyche. These two things are:
1. Self criticism
2. Open questioning of "accepted" ideas
After the first few centuries, as Islam
became more dogmatic and its rituals started to be more man-made rather
than God-prescribed, the religion started to become more of a dogmatic
and ritualistic thing rather than a dynamic way of life. This attitude
of formalistic rituals and surrender to authority did not stay limited
to the religious life, but it spread into other spheres of their lives
also.
You will notice that around that time the religious dialog was mainly
limited to quoting authority - 'Imam so and so said this and hadith so
and so said this and shaikh such and such has this
interpretation..." etc. If you point to them that the Quran says
such and such, and if it is something that their scholars have not
thought about before, they will reply "so you are claiming to know
more than shaikh xyz and other millions of ulemas?"
This same attitude has been transferred
to other walks of life. If something is written in a book by a famous
scholar/scientist, the Muslim reaction is to accept it rather than
reject it unless proven right. The advancement of science depends on
skepticism of all ideas unless evidence and proof has been established.
Great names mean nothing if they are not accompanied by evidence.
For example, Newton was one of the greatest scientist and mathematician.
Had Einstein accepted Newton's laws of space-time geometry, he would never
have come up with new ideas, which if not entirely true are closer to
the truth than Newton's ideas were.
Similarly, Einstein himself was a great
scientist, but he was wrong about the quantum nature of small particles.
He also believe in something called "gravitational waves', which
have not been proven yet and therefore remain an intelligent conjecture
- but you won't see anyone making any law based on the concept of
gravitational waves.
I remember about 7 years ago when I
started to have debates with Muslims that I challenged a fatwa (religious
ruling) given by Imam Malik - the fatwa was about women's right
to choose her marriage partner. My evidence was based entirely on the
Quran. However, the people started replying to me with statements like
"so you know more than Imam Malik?", "he spend so much
time learning religion...how much time did you spend?", "who
did you learn Islam from?", "This has been accepted by
millions of Muslims throughout the centuries...do you mean to say that
they were all wrong?"
No one could reply to the Quranic
evidence...but they did not accept it. why? because Imam Malik said
otherwise. Believe it or not, this same attitude is transferred to
science also. For example, once I presented a hadith where people
allege that the Prophet told a few people to drink camel's urine. People
were trying to come up left and right that urine contains chemicals that
could be used to make medicine...? Of course...many things contain
chemicals that can be used to make medicine.. for example snake's poison
is used to make the medicine for heart patients...but that doesn't mean
people should start drinking snake's poison??
Yet, you will find thousands of Muslims who will defend this with their
lives. why? because "Imam Bukhari can't be wrong about the
Prophet."
Some people blame the Muslim condition on
the "West" and their policies. I thought about that and I felt
that was a weak excuse. India is one of the poorest countries in the
world. It too was colonized for centuries - first by the
Persians/Muslims and then by the British. Yet, today there are more
Indian scientists, researchers, Professors, doctors, software engineers,
etc in the world's top institutions than all the Muslim countries
combined together. Why?? The answer is that their education system,
which is secular, encourages questioning old beliefs and free
thinking. The Muslim countries on the other hand discourage questioning
old beliefs and authority. Herein lies the reason for the demise of the
Muslim science.
Part two - An answer to
"Norm's" question:
Dear Norm,
Peace,
You asked: "when you talk about the Muslim dogmatism that took
place that shunted aside science, what years are you referring to? I'm
trying to link up the causes timewise.
also, do you have links to sources about your views?"
If you study the Muslim History and analyze some of the things you can
get evidence that it was the dogmatism and lack of independent inquiry
that led to the downfall of Muslim science. I will site a few references
here. Let us start with the 4 official schools of the Sunni
thought. These four legal schools operative among Sunnis today are
unchanged from the time that they were founded, respectively, by Malik
ibn Anas (d. 795), Abu Hanifa (d. 767), Mohammed ibn Idris al-Shafi'i
(d. 820), and Ahmad ibn Hanbal (d. 855). The differences between them
stem entirely from the different weights they attach to various Quranic
verses and the degree of validity which is assigned to various Prophetic
traditions. Between these schools, all major problems of Islamic
jurisprudence had been resolved by the end of the 11th century. With
this the doors of Ijtihad (interpretation and independent
thought) were formally closed. In fact, it was Imam Shafi'i who formally
mentioned that the door of Ijtihad should be closed.
You can find evidence of this if you read Muslim stories about the norms
and excellence of learning in the 9th century onwards. You will notice
that a "great" scholar was always the one who could memorize
thousands of hadith and narrations. Traditional education, with
its emphasis on memorization, created its own standards of excellence
and role models. Among those who are quoted is Muhammad ibn-Ziyad al-Arabi
of AlKufah, who died at Samarra in 840 AD, and is said to have met with
a hundred pupils. ["Muslim Education In Medieval Times', Bayard
Dodge, Washington DC., The Middle East Institute, 1962, pg. 11.] He
dictated to them for ten years, during which time nobody ever saw a
manuscript in his hand. Such was his prodigious memory. As another
example, a 19th century author says with great awe that
Murarraj
had a better memory than other people. He caught a passage from me and
remembered it all night long, repeating it the next day, although it was
about fifty pages long.
Yet another folklore is about a scholar
who went from Baghdad to Sijistan to give a course of lectures. In order
to avoid carrying books, he memorized the traditions to which he wished
to refer. The story was that although he quoted thirty thousand
traditions about the Prophet (PBUH), the persons checking his lectures
were unable to find more than three mistakes.
Thus, the standards of scholarship were established not as
independent research and curiosity for new ideas - rather it was
established as memorization of traditional ideas by the
thousands. Because the teacher derived his power and authority from
unchallengeable sources, the style of traditional teaching was
inevitably authoritarian. In Moghul India - as in village schools even
today - the teacher muallim or ustad sat facing his
students arranged in rows of a semi-circle before him. At the end of a
dictation or commentary on a text, he would rise with the words
"and Allah knows best". Thereafter, the students would
reverently kiss his right hand and disperse.
Following the end of the Golden Age of Islam around the 13th century,
Muslim education had simply ceased to change. The curriculum was so
restricted in scope that even Aurangzeb, the arch-conservative Mughal
emperor, felt compelled to direct harsh words to his erstwhile teacher:
What did you teach me? You told me that the land of Franks is a small
island where the greatest king had previously been the ruler of
Portugal, then the king of Holland and now the king of England. You told
me about the kings of France and Spain that they are like our petty
rulers.... Glory be to God! what a knowledge of geography and history
you displayed! Was it not your duty to instruct me in the
characteristics of the nations of the world - the products of these
Countries, their military power, their methods of warfare, their
customs, ways of government and political policies" "You never
considered what academic training is requisite for a prince. All you
thought necessary for me was that I become an expert in grammar and
learn subjects suitable for a judge or a jurist..
[ S.M. Ikram, "Rud-i-Kawthar", (Karachi, 1951) p 424- 426,
quoted in "Islam" by Fazlur Rehman, (London, Weidenfeld and
Nicolson, 1966) pg 187. ]
What Aurangzeb was pointing out was the narrow scope of learning, which
more or less excluded general knowledge and the natural sciences.
Religious learning with grammar and literature as the supporting
instruments, totally dominated education. The teachers of an Emperor
were simply teaching him traditional knowledge that was outdated.
You can imagine the state of the rest of the Muslims.
This love for traditional values and a lack of curiosity coupled with
the Muslim hatred for anything related to the non-Muslims created an
atmosphere in the Muslim Ummah that prevented them from learning
new things. Let me site a few examples that show that it was the Muslim
clergy and ulema who were responsible in many ways for preventing
Muslims from learning new sciences.
AI-Ghazalli who was the most influential of the Asharites has been
quoted by Ibn Rushd (Averroes) for fervently denying the existence of
causal connections - he went so far as to say that a piece of cotton
does not burn merely because fire was put to it but, instead, because
God intervenes either directly or through his angels. Al-Ghazalli ends
one of his arguments on the subject, saying,
And
this refutes the claim of those who profess that fire is the agent of
burning, bread the agent of satiety, medicine the agent of health, and
so on
(Averroes, "Tahafut AI-Tahafut (The Incoherence Of The Incoherence)
translated by S. Van den Bergh (London: Luzac and Co., 1954), I,
pg 318. )
Then we see that Ibn Khaldun was aware that the Franks were learning
philosophy and sciences, but his attitude was not curious at all.
He says:
We learn by report that in the lands of the Franks on the north
shores of the sea, philosophical sciences are much in demand, their
principles are being revived, the circles for teaching them are
numerous, and the number of students seeking to learn them is increasing
(Ibn Khaldun, quoted in "The Arabs" by Peter Mansfield,
Penguin Books, 1987) pg 102.)
But lbn Khaldun did not see this as an alarming development or an
occasion for trying to emulate the Franks. On the contrary, he remained
bitterly opposed to the study of philosophy as well as alchemy. His
attitudes reflect the' mood of his time, which had lost the spirit of
free inquiry.
The same lack of curiosity was shown by subsequent generations of
Muslims. We see this in the attitude of the Turkish Ottomans who, in the
sixteenth century, had established an extensive and magnificent empire.
Ottoman rulers did recognize the utility of some recent technological
inventions of the West and they even appropriated some of these. But
they were not inclined to allow advances in thought or to recognize that
technology was a consequence of scientific thinking. This was observed,
for example, by Ghiselin de Busbecq, ambassador of the Holy Roman Empire
in Istanbul, in a letter dated 1560 in which he wrote that:
no nation has shown less reluctance to adopt the useful invention of
others; for example, they have appropriated to their own use large and
small cannons and many other of our discoveries. They have, however,
never been able to bring themselves to print books and set up public
clocks. They hold that their scriptures, that is, their sacred books,
would no longer be scriptures if they were printed; and if they
established public clocks, they think that the authority of their
muezzins and their ancient rites would suffer diminution
(Quoted in B. Lewis, "The Muslim Discovery Of Europe", New
York, W.W.Norton, 1982) pp 232-233 )
The general lack of interest among Ottoman Muslims in recently
discovered wonders of science is also reflected in an embassy report by
Mustafa Hatti Efendi, who went on a mission to Vienna in 1748. While he
was there, the Turkish entourage was invited by the Emperor to visit an
observatory where various strange devices and objects were kept. Efendi
and his group were not impressed:
....The third contrivance consisted of small glass bottles which we
saw them strike against stone and wood without breaking them. Then they
put fragments of flint in the bottles, whereupon these finger-thick
bottles, which had withstood the impact of stone, dissolved like flour.
When we asked the meaning of this, they said that when glass was cooled
in cold water straight from the fire, it became like this. We ascribe
this preposterous answer to Frankish trickery.
(Quoted in B. Lewis, "The Muslim Discovery Of Europe", New
York, W.W.Norton, 1982) pp 232)
Every thing associated with the Non-Muslims was viewed as "unIslamic".
Why? Because it was based on independent thinking and questioning of old
traditions - this we have seen is diametrically opposite to what Muslims
considered as scholarship - memorization and respect of traditional
narrations.
This thinly veiled anti-intellectualism -
is to be found aplenty in modern times as well. For example, the science
adviser to the late President Zia of Pakistan, Mr. M.A. Kazi, minced no
words on the subject:
In Islam there is no science for the sake of science and there is no
knowledge for the sake of knowledge. Everything is for an end, which is
using scientific knowledge for the good of humanity at large".
(M.A. Kazi in "Knowledge For What
(Proceedings of the Seminar on Islamization of Knowledge", Islamic
University, Islamabad, 1982) pg 31
What could be farthest from the truth? Being a mathematician myself, I
know that the most wonderful and useful results of mathematics as well
as other sciences were discovered not because people were looking
for these results to apply somewhere - rather, they were discovered
simply out of curiosity by the mathematicians and scientists. For
example, the concept of imaginary numbers was not discovered by
mathematicians because they knew in advance that they wanted to use this
concept in the building of transformers and radios. It was simply
discovered out of curiosity and independent questioning.
The present dominance of utilitarian values in Muslim society does not
augur well for the development of science. when people determine to care
for nothing except what is directly and obviously useful, they become
incapable of developing abstract thought and creating the intellectual
apparatus for science which, by necessity, must be far removed from what
is obviously visible or useful. An Iranian physicist succinctly states
the case:
Only true spiritual societies have been able to develop science ....
it is inherent in a utilitarian society that it is unsympathetic to true
spiritual values.... A nation which has no great philosophers will never
have any great scientists. Heidegger says that the philosopher is a man
who is always capable of wonder. This also characterizes the scientist.
The utilitarian man is not capable of wonder. Hence, it is doubtful
whether he can develop science
(Mohammad Hussein Saffouri in "Islamic Cultural Identity And
Scientific-Technological Development", Klaus Gottstein (ed.),
(Baden-Baden, Nomos, 1986) pg 92.
In India, when the British sought to introduce "European
Science", and a system of modern management and accounting into the
schools of the sub-continent. The two major communities, the Hindus and
the Muslims, reacted differently to this decision. The Hindus welcomed
it enthusiastically, and pressed the British to give more opportunities
for secular education and establish more colleges and schools. The
Muslims, on the other hand, looked upon the British decision with
suspicion and resentment. In part this was because the British had
forcibly put an end to centuries of Muslim rule in India. Hence,
"European Science" was seen as a ruse of the enemy for
subverting the Islamic religion and culture. A combination of hurt,
pride, defiance, and conservatism led the Muslims to reject modern
learning. The ulema were particularly hostile and, after
Macaulay's decision of 1835 to introduce modern education throughout
India, a petition was signed by 8000 ulema in Calcutta asking the
government to exempt Muslims.( Maulana Hali, "Hayat-e-Javed",
Lahore, 1957) pg 447.)
Rather than encouraging independent thought, the Muslim rulers and
authorities were so tied up with tradition that they did not want to see
even new forms of shoes being made. It is perhaps indicative of the
extent of control that in 1807 strict orders were issued to the cobblers
of Istanbul not to make boots, shoes, and slippers with pointed toes as
these were contrary to ancient tradition [H.A.R Gibb and H. Bowen,
"Islamic Society And The West", (London, 1950) v.1 pg 283.]
The ulemas told the people that instead of questioning authority,
they must submit to it, even if it is evil. This is so well articulated
by Al-Ghazali:
An evil-doing and barbarous sultan, so long as he is supported by
military force, so that he can only with difficulty be deposed and that
attempt to depose him would cause unendurable strife, must of necessity
be left in possession and obedience must be rendered to him, exactly as
obedience must be rendered to emirs Government in these days is a
consequence solely of military power, and whoever he may be to whom the
holder of military power gives his allegiance, that person is the caliph
[AI-Ghazalli in Ihya II, 124 (Cairn, 1352), quoted in "Studies On
The Civilization Of Islam", by Hamilton Gibb (Princeton, 1962), pp
142-143.]
These are just a few examples and you will see that they demonstrate
that the attitude in the Muslim ummah, starting late 9th century,
were that they must submit to tradition and reject new ideas. There is
no doubt in my mind that the seeds of the downfall of Muslim intellect
were sown by this attitude.
|