Were there any great Muslim scientists?
Rational thought in the Muslim world developed during the reign of liberal Muslim rulers of the Abbasid dynasty. However it was after the rise of scholars like Al-Ghazali that all scientific reasoning came to an end in the 13th century
As we remain enamored by our past achievements in the sciences, we forget that there is very little “original” we as Muslims can celebrate and be proud of.
It was during the reign of Abbasid caliphs, particularly Mamun-ur-Rashid (around 813 CE) that in his Dar-ul-Hikmah (the house of wisdom) in Baghdad, the Muslim scholars would begin translating the classic Greek works, primarily toeing the Aristotelian tradition. In addition, they were heavily relying on Persian and Indian sources. They also penned huge commentaries on works by Greek philosophers. However, the Muslim translators were small in number and were primarily driven by curiosity. More than ninety nine percent Arabic translations of works of Greek philosophers were done by either Christian or Jewish scholars. It is interesting to note that Islamic astronomy, based on Ptolemy’s system was geocentric. Algebra was originally a Greek discipline and ‘Arabic’ numbers were actually Indian.
Most of these works were available to the West during 12th century when the first renaissance was taking place. Although Western scholars did travel to Spain to study Arabic versions of classical Greek thought, they soon found out that better versions of original texts in Greek were also available in the libraries of the ancient Greek city of Byzantium.
However, it would be unfair not to mention some of those great Muslim scholars, though very few in number, who genuinely contributed in the development of philosophy and science.
Al-Razi (865 – 925 CE) from Persia, the greatest of all Muslim physicians, philosophers and alchemists wrote 184 articles and books, dismissed revelation and considered religion a dangerous thing. Al-Razi was condemned for blasphemy and almost all his books were destroyed later.
Ibn-e-Sina or Avicinna (980-1037CE), another great physician, philosopher and scientist was an Uzbek. Avicenna held philosophy superior to theology. His views were in sharp contrast to central Islamic doctrines and he rejected the resurrection of the dead in flesh and blood. As a consequence of his views, he became main target of Al-Ghazali and was labeled an apostate.
Ibn-e-Rushd (1126-1198 CE) or Averroes from Spain was a philosopher and scientist who expounded the Quran in Aristotelian terms. He was found guilty of heresy, his books burnt, he was interrogated and banished from Lucena.
Al-Bairuni (973-1048 CE), the father of Indology and a versatile genius, was of the strong view that Quran has its own domain and it does not interfere with the realm of science.
Al-Khawarazmi (780-850 CE) was another Persian mathematician, astronomer and geographer. The historian Al-Tabri considered him a Zoroastrian while others thought that he was a Muslim. However nowhere in his works has he acknowledged Islam or linked any of his findings to the holy text.
Omar Kyayyam(1048-1131 CE), one of the greatest mathematicians, astronomers and poets was highly critical of religion, particularly Islam. He severely criticized the idea that every event and phenomena was the result of divine intervention.
Al-Farabi(872-950 CE), another great Muslim philosopher, highly inspired by Aristotle, considered reason superior to revelation and advocated for the relegation of prophecy to philosophy.
Abu Musa Jabir- bin- Hayan or Geber (721-815 CE) was an accomplished Muslim alchemist cum pharmacist. Althouigh he was inclined towards mysticism, he fully acknowledged the role of experimentation in scientific endeavors.
Ibn-ul-haitham or Hazen (965-1040 CE) was an outstanding physicist, mathematician, astronomer and an expert on optics. He was ordered by Fatimid King Al-Hakim to regulate the floods of the Nile, which he knew was not scientifically possible. He feigned madness and was placed under house arrest for the rest of his life.
As we go through the life history of these great men we find that they were influenced by Greek, Babylonian or Indian contributions to philosophy and science, had a critical and reasoning mind and were ‘not good’ Muslims or even atheists. A significant number of them were reluctant to even reveal the status of their beliefs for fear of reprisal from the fanatics. They never ascribed their achievements to Islam or divinity. And they were scholars and scientists because of a critical mind which would think and derive inspiration from observation and not scriptures which set restrictions on free thinking and unhindered pursuit of knowledge.
Hence bringing in Islam to highlight achievements of Muslim scientists is nothing but sheer rhetoric as these men did not derive their achievements out of Islam or flourished due to Islam. And we find that whatever little contribution to science was made can be owed to ‘imperfect Muslims’.
However it was the ‘perfect Muslim’, the Islamist, from the 12th century who was to give the biggest blow to scientific thought in the Muslim world. Imam Ghazali (1058-1111 CE) who still occupies a centre stage among Muslim philosophers openly denounced the laws of nature and scientific reasoning. Ghazali argued that any such laws would put God’s hands in chains. He would assert that a piece of cotton burns when put to fire, not because of physical reasons but because God wants it to burn. Ghazali was also a strong supporter of the Ash’arites; philosophers who would uphold the precedence of divine intervention over physical phenomena and bitterly opposed the Mu’tazillites; the rationalists who were the true upholders of scientific thought.
In other words Ghazali championed the cause of orthodoxy and dogmatism at the cost of rationality and scientific reasoning. Today we find that all four major schools of ‘Sunni’ Islam reject the concept of ‘Ijtehad’ which can loosely be translated as ‘freedom of thought’. Hence there is absolutely no room for any innovation or modification in traditional thought patterns. We also find that as Europe was making use of technology while transforming into a culture of machines, the acceptance of these machines was extremely slow in the Islamic world. One prime example is that of the printing press which reached Muslim lands in 1492; however printing was banned by Islamic authorities because they believed the Koran would be dishonored by appearing out of a machine. As a result, Arabs did not acquire printing press until the 18th century.
It also stands established that science is born out of secularism and democracy and not religious dogmatism. And science only flourished in places where religion had no role to play in matters of state. Hence there is an inverse relationship between religious orthodoxy and progress in science. Rational thought in the Muslim world developed during the reign of liberal Muslim rulers of the Abbasid dynasty who patronized the Mu’tazillites or rational thinkers.
However it was after the religious zealots’ compilation of the ahadis and the rise of scholars like Al-Ghazali that all scientific reasoning came to an end in the 13th century.
As a consequence the Muslims contributed almost nothing to scientific progress and human civilization since the dawn of the 13th century. And while science and technology flourish in the modern world, a vast majority of Muslims, engulfed by obscurantism, still find solace in fantasies of a bygone era------the so called ‘golden age’ of Islam.
| Waseem Altaf is a social activist. |




Comments
Now a days I am reading "Lost History" by Michelle Hudson.
It is on the same topic.
Whereas' I agree to Waseem sb' yet would like to add that Knowledge is not a heritage of any community. It is the result of collective human experience which he acquired through a constant struggle and need to survive against brutal forces of nature. Even Greeks and Indian must have collected bits and pieces of knowledge from other parts of the world.
Good effort, keep it up,
Dear Dr. Sadar,
Thank you for gracious reply. I offer a few clarifications to my words:
1. You are absolutely correct that one need not know Arabic to comment on the state of scientific research in that language in recent and contemporary times, including when you did your PhD.
2. However, the original article is commenting about the state of science, philosophy, thought in the early, medieval, and late medieval periods of Islamic civilization. Almost all works in this period were written in Arabic, and hence not knowing that language would severely impair a person's ability to know what was written and make it impossible to read for themselves and decide freely whether such works have a spirit of inquiry or not. As you are an academic, as am I, you should know that no university (including yours) would grant a BA in Islamic History or the History and Philosophy of Science in Islamic Civilization, unless the student knew Arabic. This is a standard in all academia, you are free to dissent but should have some rational and justifiable basis for doing so.
3. The absolute absence of work in Arabic in your field does not really prove anything that the article is trying to. Consider:
a) I am sure you also did not find any articles in Hindi either (which is the majority language of Hindus, even though surely some non-Hindus may write in that language). Are we then justified in suggesting that Hinduism hinders science?
b) As you rightly point out, English is the dominant language today. The reason for this is what has been argued by Foucault and others: language is the discourse of power and the West has been the superpower for the past few centuries. At one point the Islamic world was the superpower and even European scientists wrote in Arabic. Neither of these historical facts proves anything in the article either way.
c) many Muslims, yes believing and practicing ones, have obtained PhDs and MDs in the past 50 years, and write and publish research in English. Clearly, then, religious belief or practice is not an obstacle to scientific knowledge and research.
4. The oft-repeated mantra in circles such as viewpoint authors and readers as that "no Muslim has received a Nobel Prize" and the answer immediately offered is Islam. I have a question: tens of thousands of Pakistanis have obtained degrees in science in the past 40 years, and thousands of them are atheist, or agnostic, or non-practicing, or label themselves as enlightened moderates. In other words, will state that religion has not in any way inhibited their PhD studies or postdoctoral pursuits. I am sure you would also state this last sentence about yourself. So...if that is the case, then if none of you have obtained Nobel Prizes it must be due to some reason other than religion, no? I am wondering (I don't have the data), how many Hindus have one a Nobel Prize in Science? Global Muslim population is 1.2 billion, and Global Hindu population is 1 billion.
5. Lastly, as far as my comments on intolerance and illiberalism. These two phenomena certainly exist. You and I may differ who is guilty of such sentiment. I will offer a rational justification for my stance: I had offered two options to the author and commenters, either of which would qualify in my view as a liberal, tolerant, academic approach: 1. Properly study medieval Muslim history and contributions to science in philosophy through primary sources in Arabic OR 2. Rely upon objective academic works written in the English language that are based on these sources.
Anyone who rejects both of these options and insists on baseless armchair commentary and stereotyping, such as the author and many of the commenters, is in my view taking an illiberal, intolerant, and polemical approach rather than a liberal, tolerant, and academic one.
You are free to disagree, and I am honored and grateful that you agree with my right to express opinions that are unwelcome and unpublished on most such websites but thus far have been allowed on viewpoint.
Dar Mr. Ahmed:
I have always believed that the comment section of the Viewpoint Online is meant for expressing freely different views. Hence you have every right to disagree with me or any one else.
However, it serves no useful purpose to label those who have different opinion as 'illiberal and intolerant minded'.
I find it is hard to understand as to why one has to be ' literate in the Islamic langauge of scholarship' ( Arabic) to comment on the state/nature of scientific research and technological advancements during a specific Muslim rule or period.
Understandably, Arabic is the language of the Holy Quran. It was the ONLY language Prophet Muhammad ( p.b.u.h) could speak or understand. Consequently, the divine message had to be delivered in that language only.
Similarly each previous prophet ( Abraham, Moses, David, Solomo etc. etc.) received such messages in the language each one of them knew and could understand.
Please also note that:
In countries such as Lebanon, Egypt, Syria, Jordan etc. there are significant number of non-Muslim people with Arabic as their mother tongue. They have been speaking this language since long before the arrival of Islam about firteen hundreds years ago.
Also, a number of prominent Arabic writers and scholars belong to other faiths and especially Christianity.
It is no secret that almost every major scientific discovery and resultant technical innovation which has happened during the past three centuries was made by those having a European mother tongue especially English, German, French and Russian.
Consequently, a great bulk of the scientific literature exists in English and other major European languages.
In addition,all terminologies and technical names are coined and used around the world in one of these language, primarily in English.
For instance, the term " computer" cannot even be written in the Arabic language since there is no alphabet such as " P". That is why Arabs call even Pakistan as Bakistan.
In short, it may be good to learn Arabic for reading the Holy Quran but being 'literate' in it has absolutely no relevance or benefit for studying any branch of science or for doing scientific research of any kind.
I did received my master's degree in Analytical Biochemistry 1970 and Ph.D. Physical Organic Chemsitry two years later.
Believe me, during my pains taking and thorough literature search, I did not come across a single published article written in Arabic.
It is no wonder that these days,many countries such as People's Republic of China, Brazil, India and even highly developed nations such as Germany and France are investing heavily in teaching English to their younger generations.
Moreover, most universities in the world including those in the Arab/Islamic countries are using English as the teaching medium.
Every human being, Arab or non-Arab, Muslim, Christian, Jew or a non-believer in God, has the capability and capacity to contribute to science (any branch of knowledge). However, being able to read Quran, Bible or Torah is not an essential requirement to do so.
Primary sources are in Arabic, and none of you are even basically literate in the Islamic language of scholarship, which by Western academic standards makes you fundamentally unqualified to comment on Muslim history and thought.
Some of the many factual inaccuracies, or frauds, in Waseem's article:
1. More than 99% of Graeco-Arabic translation was done by non-Muslims. Absolutely incorrect. Ibn Sina was a prolific author in this movement, especially in erudite commentary which is more important than rote translation. Ghazali himself authored a number of works n pure philosophy (perhaps Waseem should read Ghazali's maqasid al-falasifa and qistas, but alas none of you have even heard of these works).
2. He mentions that the number of Muslim scholars who contributed to philosophy and science was "very few in number." Many works have been written in Arabic by Muslim historians documenting the vast contribution of Muslims to medieval science, as none of these are accessible to you, I pointed out the many Western English language works that are based on these original sources. But again, none of the unenlightened readership is aware, interested, or even genuinely openminded.
3. Similarly, many primary sources in Arabic written by Muslims document Ghazali's contribution (yes) to philosophy, since you cannot read them, I pointed you to Western English language works. One translation of Ghazali's Qanun al-Tawil exists in English, if you bothered to read Ghazali for yourself (the true academic approach) rather than blindly follow illiberal polemics, then you would read that he places aql (reason) as equivalent to naql (revelation).
4. The hadith were all textualized in the 2nd century, and the presently more well-known collections were compiled by the 3rd century. All of the medieval Muslim contributions to science took place after this, so Waseem is factually incorrect when stating that hadith led to the downfall of science, whereas historical fact is that almost all of the science research and innovation took place in the centuries after hadith compilation.
5. If you were to peruse primary sources in Fiqh and Usul (classical, medieval, or contemporary) all will speak about the continuing validity of ijtihad as a source of law.
There seems to be little more going on here on viewpoint than preaching to the blindly faithful illiberal secular. Pakistan desperately needs academic tolerant liberal pluralist writers so that people of varying degrees of religiosity can peacefully coexist and work together for the real problems facing Pakistan (which contrary o the blame the maulvi/religion for everything crowd, have nothing to do with religion): Feudalism, Elitism, Elite oppression of poor in paying sub-minimum wages to their own maasees, drivers, gymkhana butlers, etc.., Poverty, Drug and Alcohol Abuse among the educated elites which leads to horrific wife and child abuse, etc.
Instead, we have one-sided English language media and websites, censored comments and articles where freedom of expression is curtailed, and a level of illiberalism and intolerance not found anywhere else.
Quoting Sheikh Sarmad:
1. First you wait for a scientific invention/discovery .
2. Once Its Done , Try to read Qu'ran again and find some verse which in some way or the other Can be related to it . ( Doesn't Need to be definitive , Ambiguous is good and it is almost always Ambiguous) . For e.g. if stones are mentioned co-relate it to planets and dust to interplanetary particles , wind to Solar wind etc . I hope you are getting the point .
3. Start massive Spam and Facebook Spam Campaigns spiced up with "Mashallah" and Claim Islam is the only True Religion from god .
4. Mission Brainwash in terms of Science Accomplished .
P.S. I respect every religion till they keep it between themselves and their Gods and their Scriptures and don't Try to Indulge in Politics , Social Life and Science .
Dear Omar, Thoroughly enjoyed your comment. Indeed rational, enriching.
Its misleading to refer to a purported golden age of rationality and science in the Middle East about a thousand years ago. For example (quote from a "nature" piece on "Islamic Science"), asking Muslims to “reclaim… a great Islamic past in which new knowledge was valued and scholars were free to pursue all lines of enquiry”. The reality is much more complicated than that. Islam as a religious tradition is not unusually open to outside influences. Like all other religious traditions, it absorbed much from the older traditions that existed in its area of influence, but it was rarely willing to openly admit such cultural borrowing and the doctors of Islam (like their counterparts in other traditions) tended to do their borrowing surreptitiously . The civilization that resulted was not especially enlightened by modern standards though for a time, the culture was vibrant and creative and amidst the usual medieval cruelty and caprice, individuals (not all of them Muslim) made multiple original contributions to human knowledge.
Why is “Muslim science” a reasonable unit of analysis, but not “Hindu science”, “Buddhist science” or even “Christian science”? We are talking about 50 countries with little in common beyond the allegiance of varying proportions of their population to one somewhat heterogeneous religious tradition. It may be (as the most extreme detractors and most extreme adherents of Islam are equally eager to claim) that there is something special about the adherents of Islam and in their case (and their case alone), it makes sense to define them by religion rather than by geography, culture, ethnicity or any other criterion. But this is a fraught and complex debate and not usually covered in that complex fashion by Islamists (or Western Liberals) touting "Islamic Science".
The idea that Islamic nations were once powerful because of some significant technological advantage and devotion to science is open to question. One can easily argue that when it came to making war, the Islamic caliphate never reached the technical or organizational level of the Romans, but then again, neither did their opponents. Even the Romans repeatedly suffered defeats at the hands of technologically inferior opponents because the difference in war-making technology between barbarian and advanced civilization was not decisive in those times (and may not be decisive in some ways even today).
the idea of a “golden age” that is responsible for all progress in the modern world is simply the mirror image of the idea that Muslims are irredeemable barbarians who contributed nothing worthwhile to the world. Medieval Islamicate civilization, while in many ways "civilized" and progressive by the standards of the age, was not especially enlightened by modern standards. Slavery and torture were widespread, religious minorities faced discriminatory rules, the caliphate suffered repeated dynastic squabbles and civil wars, legal protections were minimal, women were kept out of public life and free enquiry was frequently suppressed at the whim of one or the other absolutist ruler. We should avoid the temptation to treat today’s Muslims as children who may get upset if you don’t throw them a few lines about the “golden age”. The intentions behind such “positive lying” are undoubtedly benign, but we should stick to verifiable claims and (relatively) objective data.
I also wrote about traditionalism and rationalism in 2009 here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/nov/27/islam-science-ghazali