Was Muslim Astronomy the Harbinger of Copernicanism?

My dearest Dr. Gill.

This one did not shape out like they mostly do! You kept the topic too narrow, did some half-hearted pretend fishing around and finally ended the article with a really cautious remark (what’s the matter – you don’t feel young, brash, and bold any more, or did all that poking around Einstein’s love life leave you with a sense of having missed out on too much?)– all of which leaves the reader almost as befuddled at the end as in the beginning – enough to make the average reader cringe with revulsion, light up in anger, and become mad enough to chase the author with a stick – for playing a cat-and-mouse game with the reader. (Not me, though! (Please note that certain readers are not to be mistaken for the “average” reader by a long shot (in fact, this janitor is so far below the average that he doesn’t even register on the scale.)))

I am still waiting for that article from you about why the subcontinent has produced so little original scientific thought (and don’t give me that cop-out answer consisting of highlighting those few-and-far-between luminaries – it will not work – a few “mashaals” here and there don’t light up the skies! Why is the ROAD so dark?) – and is there a possible connections to the way we bring them up?

Note:
[The answer is probably both yes and no.]
Maybe so (which is probably a better answer), but as far as YOUR answers are concerned, I think the politicians have beaten you to it – a long time ago, and on all topics!

Dear BeeJay:

This was a trial article. I might do a more comprehensive article on this subject if I found the time.

As to both ``yes`` and ``no``, I thought I had explained the rationale for that situation in the article. The answer is yes, because the mathematics and the model that Copernicus used in his book was based on the work of the preceding Muslim astronomer(s), particularly Ibn-al-Shatir, even though he placed the stationary sun at the center (helionentric system) and the Muslim work used the Ptolemaic stationary Earth system. The answer was no because the Muslim astronomers didn`t use helioentric system which was the basis of the susbsequent Copernican revolution althugh Copernicus did not create it. For Copernican revolution, the credit goes to Galileo and Kepler.

Toby Huff wrote in his book ``The Rise of Early Modern Science``, ``The Arab astronomers and mathematicians working in the Maragha observatory in western Iran, and especially the Damascene timekeeper Ibn-al-Shatir (d.1375), had improved the Ptolemaic system so that it was mathematically equivalent to the Copernican system (though still geocentric). Or more accurately stated, the planetary models of Copernicus, appearing 150 years after the time of Ibn-al-Shatir, are actually duplicates of the models developed by the Maragha astronomers.``

About your comment as to the scaricity of scientific developments in India, I think, the main reason is probably our own ignorance of such works. According to Wikipedia, ``In the 5th century AD (apparently independent of Aristarchus), the Indian astronomer Aryabhata also proposed a heliocentric universe. As his work was not translated into Latin until after Copernicus had written De revolutionibus..., his theories were apparently unknown in the West.`` I am presently digging into the source material pertaining to Arab astronomers; I`ll start looking for sources identifying Indian contributions afterwards. Aryabhata is said to have also contributed to algebra but the greatest contribution in algebra was the use of symbols which is due to Arab mathematicians. They used ``la (nothing or unknown)`` and the western mathematicians started using ``x`` for ``la.`` It is a shame that most of us are unaware of our heritage; even for this knowledge we have to go to the western sources.

Wishing you well,

Mohammad Gill

Dear Dr. Gill,

Just to clarify, my #1 was a “funny” response. You can stop shaking with fear – I have no intention of chasing you with a stick – or any other tool of violence (I am a peace lover (not a peacenik, though)). In seriousness, I think your article was quite good for the limited objectives that you were shooting for.

About the other issue, I really hope you will not restrict your search to just India – but cover the whole subcontinent – the cultural similarities far exceed the superficial differences (in my opinion). In view of the seriousness that I attach to it, I hope you will REALLY take the time that this topic deserves, and dig a LOT deeper and longer than wikipedia! I have a feeling it will be a worthwhile effort – especially for a site like this. (I wish I could find the time necessary to do such a project myself. If you wish me to review (prior to publishing) anything, or be of any other assistance, I’ll be very happy to help in any way I can. My e-mail address (not for the faint-hearted) is CD.LION@gmail.com. I also have another hotmail address, but it is likely to disappear soon.)

Thanks for all the positive things you try to accomplish on this site!

Sincerely,
BeeJay.

Dear Dr Gill Saheb,
Nice informatory article on history.. However I have a small issue with identifying achievements with religion. Perhaps Ibn-al-shatir`s achievement should be considered an arab achievement.

Religion of Egyptian pharaohs has disappeared. Islam may also disappear after 4000 years. Will Ibn-al-shatir still be identified by his religion?

Dear friend:

Many (probably most) scientists who are generally called Arab were not really Arabs although they wrote in Arabic (Arabic was the lingua franca at that time); they were Iranians. Ibn-al-Shatir was an Arab though. Tusi who founded Maragha observatory was an Iranian. I called them Muslims because they were Muslims. Even if Islam disappears as you think, they will still be known as Muslims. I have Islamic heritage and by writing this article, I tried to trace my scientific roots. I did not overblow the Muslim achievements; in fact all the source material that I quoted in the article is of non-Muslims`. There is nothing wrong in it.

Wishing you well,

Mohammad Gill

Gill, you being a freethinker seem a little too defensive and apologetic. Please, they don`t throw people in the bin for science anymore, so relax. And for heavens sakes, enough of how great us Muslims were when we gave a shite about science. I respect what you say and how you say it, but let`s have a piece on what science means to Muslims today, apart from our obsession with Dr. Qadeer. That`s mad science.

Beejay : ``why the subcontinent has produced so little original scientific thought``

read Jared Diamond`s `guns germs and steel. maybe itll make things clearer.

Dr Gill
Religion is something that can be changed. Can a aborginal christian living in Australia benefit from or bask in the glory of progress made by Swedish scientists because of ``christian science``? How can science be bound to a religion? IMHO, progress of science generally gets localized to regions where enough brilliant minds are available to stimulate each other. If religion is directly responsible for stimulating scientific progress than Laos, being a buddhist country, would have resulted of similar scientific progress as Japan.

Let us consider an example, though not in field of science
A R Rahman is a great music director. He was a hindu that converted to Muslim religion when he was in his twenties. Is his achievement due to his religion (which one)? or is it due to overall stimulation he got in South India that has a strong tradition of cultural activities?

Gillsaab

I have a few friends in sailing community, and they clearly see a strong link in science and sea-faring. Sea going folks were one of the highest demanders of applied science from astronomy to use of pulleys to weather and geography. they were always using small crew, as a result needed gadgets to accompish tasks. overall, they seem to have (even today) contempt forland-lubbers. land based farming communities on the other hand were traditionalists and feudal. manpower and hierarchichal control was always cheap way of accomplishing tasks. so they evolved feudal and caste based systems (my belief), and had little use for applied science except for military campaigns, but even here, manpower was always plentiful.

revival in europe for marcantile seafaring activity beyong calm medeiterrenean among the prtuguese, spanish , dutch etc was the strongest imepetus for applied science demand. contrast that with the ottomans, who had relatively little interest as they were status-quo land based overlord society. same is the reason for interest among the arabs since they were the seafaring traders of earlier times.

friend,
Religion is one of the things that humans identify themselves with. There is nothing wrong with the term ``muslim astrologers`` just like nothing`s wrong with Einstien being called a Jew. I don`t think Mr.Gill means that individual achievements are due to religion, but that these achievers can be classified together as belonging to a common religion.

There is enough data that survived various European and subsequently American cleansing to leave more than ample room to re-confirm that much of what we call astronomy and therein the linkages to navigation emerged from ``Al-Hind`` and the environs therein. If we take ``Al Hind`` to encompass most lands between, say, Aden on one side and Cochin-China (Vietnam) on the other, and extend it to the ports and coasts of much of Africa.

Whether these were Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist is better understood when we go walk about in the islands of the Pacific Ocean. Especially the ones between Australasia and Asia.

Or for that matter, even the observatories in Jaipur, Delhi, Ujjain and elsewhere. No one religion can lay claim to the science that went into setting them up.

Similar records on these sciences were reputed to have filled the libraries of Africa before the dawn of European civilisation. Again, the religion was not very clear or relevant.

Did Vasco de Gama and Christopher Columbus use navigators from our part of the world? Well, records in kerala and Goa suggest that Vasco de Gama sure did, apparently picking them up from what is today known as Angola.

And more . . .

Vivek
Einstein`s example is a good one. Can we divide today`s astronomy in compartments of christian astronomy and Jew astonomy. Should Chandrasekhar be trated as an achievement of hindu astronomy? Or Ramanujan`s mathematics feat as something belonging to hindu mathematics?

Somehow, I am not able to understand this concept of boxing science within context of religion.

Dear friend:

Unfortunately I failed to see your point.

I was not talking in my article of any aboriginal scientists; I talked about Ibn-al-Shatir, al-Tusi, al-Haitham, Ibn-al-Rushd, etc. Of them al-Tusi was Iranian and others were Arab but all of them were Muslims and none of them changed his faith. So if I called them Muslim, it was not a wrong statement. There was nothing more to it.

Religion if used negatively is reprehensible. Professor Salam (Nobel laureate in physics) was proud he was a Muslim (in the broad sense; I do not want to start a debate on Ahmadism here), so is Professor Ahmad Zewail (another Muslim Nobel laureate, in chemistry) and there are several other prominent living Muslim scientists also. Some of them draw inspiration from their faith, others don’t.

I was inspired to write this article by a paper, “Islamic Astronomy,” by Harvard professor Owen Gingerich and by Howard Turner’s book, “Science in Medieval Islam.” I felt a natural bond with Ibn-al-Shatir and al-Tusi whose work they applauded. These Muslim scientists are my progenitors. There is nothing wrong with discovering one’s heritage, cherishing it and writing about it. I am not much of a believing and practicing Muslim myself but I have roots in Islam. I am not ashamed of it. Vivek also clarified this point in his post.

I have roots in the subcontinent also and do not miss a chance to adulate the sub-continental scientists. This is quite natural. My own professional career was built on the works of the western scientists and engineers and some of them provided invaluable guidance to me. I appreciate them too. Science is unifying and not divisive.

Jang and vereesh:

Unfortunately, I have no personal experience of sailing. Your feedbacks are interesting but I cannot add anything to them. Thanks for your positive views.

Mohammad Gill

Dear Dr Gill
My point or contention is that while it is alright to be proud of one`s heritage, one can not put science in religious compartments. Mayans or Egyptians made great advances in some fields. If I need feel happy about what Egyptians did with their pyramid, I should do that with trying to say that `oh they are of so and so religion and I am also from so religion, and that`s why I am happy`

Of course everyone is free to find his own reason for feeling proud of something..)

I am out of this discussion now.. thanks for listening

Dear friend:

When you read astronomy as a science, it is without religion and culture. It`s pure science. But when you consider astronomy in historical perspective, there is room for religion and culture in it. Wishing you well,

Mohammad Gill

friend,
Science cannot be compartmentalised, but the scientist can be. Also we are talking of science in history over here. Back then science was not global to the extent as it is today, hence can be compartmentalised into regions.

Mr. Gill,
Was science in the middle east institutionalised?