Decline of Science in the Muslim World

Dost Sahib:

Ancient hindu thoughts developed quite well.

Interesting thing is that Al-Baruni and other Arabs took concepts to the West but put down ancient hindu thoughts in their writing. The Chinese scholars learned and glorified them. Some of the best write-ups on old Indian thoughts still exist in scrolls in South China and Tibet. Chairman of Tatung a very large Taiwanese electronic company, a few years ago showed me some of his personal collections of old Sanskrit and Pali scrolls.

After creating mathematical, geometrical and trignometry (trikone-miti) abstractions, Ancient Hindu thoughts moved into clausal logic whereas the Arabs took these abstractions, zero, decimal system to the west. The West evolved powerful and more concise mathematical tools to study and express scientific thought.

Whereas Indians uses 80 old grammar meta rules of Sanskrit laid out Panini. MIT`s computer science department in 70s and early 80s had done very interesting research on this aspect. No doubt Sanskrit has a very prescie grammar, and its applications in romance to court, to scriptures. But the ``rishis`` started becoming very lazy and started dropping the context of their expressions and that created confusion. If you read Sanskrit literature whether it is Kalidasa`s Meghdoot or even Geeta you can see several meanings. With Sanskrit, precise grammar, about 25 years ago, a couple of my American colleagues who were quite expert in computer language and Sanskrit, we tried to write a simple program in Sanskrit to see how difficult will be to express solution simple algeraic identities as against thru algebraic notations. The amount of steps involved was exponentially different.

Interestingly, especially South Indian brahmins have carried the tradition of remembering Sanskrit Gardhaan and Shlokas, which are like the foundation of Computer language notations and abstractions too. While Chinese build a vocabulary of 20,000 character recognition, like Geshtalt. Such pattern recognition in Chinese is so amazing, that they obviously became some of the best chip designers, while Indians thru clausal logic became good in software. Indeed if you talk to some these Indian software engineers they will readily tell you that they visualize a complete fabric of the software like symphony in their mind. There is very interesting book written on Godel, Escher and Bach about this phenomena in human intelligence.

Dost Sahib, it was not Buddhism that destroyed the old traditions in India. In fact Nalanda and Taxila are indeed examples to the contrary. It started with subsequnt Brahmin revolution that four Shankaracharyas started to reassert Hindu authority in India, the slide later continued with the arrival of Muslim thought of believing in one absolute power, one book and one institution that caused further decline very contrary to the ancient hindu thoughts.

Godot Sahib:
Rig Vedic hindu thought is full of idle curiosity that according Carl Sagan it is the only ``religious`` which poses a question ``Is Man the Best Creation of the God, or is the God the Best Imagination of Man?`` Such tradtion of questioning and evolving was called ``Shashthrarth``. Jews have similar tradition of question. Any upcoming scholar could challenge even his Guru, if the Shishya prevailed, the Guru was supposed to retire and leave for Vanprasth.

Gill sahib:
I beg to disagree, religion and science cannot mix. Infact they are two opposite sides of the same coin. As humans we may need both. But their can never be Muslim Science, Christian Science or Hindu Science to mean anything other than implying application of probity to study religion.

Religion at its core prevents you to question its foundation. The foundation of Science is to probe and question everything. One is based on belief and faith, the other is based on probe and question.

Anil Kapuria

Re: # 121 Freethinker

Gill sahib,

Very good post.

I agree that non-separation of state and religion is one of the major impediments.

I will submit that there are at least two additional reasons that I can think of for the stagnation.

1. Oil money – Saudi Arabia has been a major contributor to retardation of scientific thought processes due to its financial stranglehold on Ummah. You see, India and other poor countries had to earn survival money and the only way to do it was technology and hard work. Saudis have used their petrodollars to keep muslim orthodox strain in control of decision making authorities in many of the muslim countries. If the Saudis had the modern outlook, they could have used their 800 pound gorilla power to seed science and technology farms rather than madrassas.

In addition, muslim civilization has really not touched the bottom in terms of defeat and humiliation which forces introspection and brings to power new voices that were ignored and suppressed before (Turkey did suffer that fate in 1917 and they came out better from that experience. Pakistan suffered the 71 debacle but unfortunately the defeat was just rationalized away without any revamping of the system). I will say that Oil money has again repeatedly cushioned serious shocks throughout the last 50-60 years that perhaps would have forced any ordinary people to face the hard facts.

2. Coward intellectuals - I also think that muslim intellectuals have not shown courage like Chinese and Indians in facing their orthodox compatriots in a sustained manner. Chinese of course followed their Commie model and executed as many people as they had to and outlawed the religion. Indian reformers ridiculed and taunted the orthodoxy and/or outlawed what was necessary. This reform process started at least 100 years ago and is a work in progress with no doubt about its direction. Question is why there are no muslim real liberal leaders who are willing to take the matters in their hands, and suffer personally and physically if necessary, in order to ensure prouder future for their children.

May be Chinese and Indians got lucky that those gutsy folks were not allowed to immigrate at that time like now, and they didn’t have corrupt super rich saudi cousins who co-opted the “troublemakers” way ahead of time.

Regards.

godot:

``My point being is that while the Chinese and the Indians worried about life, death and God, the West was most curious about the mundane, why was it the way it was and how it worked.``

You have summed up very well the reason for the lack of scientific progress in India. It`s not that they did not have idle curiousity, but that it was not directed towards ``mundane`` matters. The question is why? My speculation is that Buddhism may have something to do with it. It seems that most of the progress in India in the scientific, mathematical, medical (ayurvedic), even statecraft (arthshastra) was done up to the Gupta period. And then came Buddha who de-emphasised attachment to materialistic pursuit of life. Buddhism was not so much defeated by Hindu religion in India as absorbed by it. Not only was Buddha made into a Hindu avtar of God, his message of renunciation (Vaanprasth, Sanyas), vegetarianism, etc. became an integral part of the Hindu religion and society.

I am quite ignorant about the Chinese civilsation; though Buddhism affected China, too, it was a different strand of Buddhism that went there but if the Tibetan Buddhism is any guide, the effect could have been similar. Moreover, the colonial influence may also have dampened the entrepreneurial spirit of a people who lay claim to almost every original invention from ink to paper to noodles.

The case of Islam is probably easier to study. Dr. Gill seems to grope in the right direction but is not willing to make the logical conclusion. Yes, blasphemy is a big hurdle; but once blasphemy is removed, the effect will not only be to question Darwin`s theory but the very basis of the quran itself. Is it a coincidence that Muslims who contributed most to scientific advancement also questioned whether quran was revealed or created?

The thing about the ``idle curiousity`` is that it doesn`t stop with the study of natural phenomenon. Some Hindus may start to question whether Ram and Krishna were reincarnations of God, ordinary mortals or even fictional characters. The same would be true of other religions. I think that christians succeeded because they were allowed to question the deepest held beliefs of their religion. It did not end the faith, those who believe in virgin birth still do and jews who believe that Moses got tablets of ten commandments still do. But those who pooh-pooh such concepts are allowed to express their opinions freely. In case of Islam, it would mean that the whole concept of blasphemy would be blasphemous, not merely whether it is in conformity with ``true`` Islam.

Godot,

That a plausible explanation, and certainly a possibility.

My chief objection to assigning uniqueness to European culture is that we ignore the effects of time: we compare the most recent European phenomena with those of much earlier periods in human experience - over a thousand or two thousand years ago.

Re: # 125

Kaalchakra

My point being is that while the Chinese and the Indians worried about life, death and God, the West was most curious about the mundane, why was it the way it was and how it worked. Idle curiosity, if you will. They not only thought about it, they documented their thoughts, the ducmented knowledge upon which the future generations could build. The Chinese or the Indians did neither. That`s the basis in their difference, that`s what made the West what it is today.

re: Science in Pakistan
There is not much honesty in any scientfific endeavour in Pak. It only seems to prove that it is better than India, so it goes to the extent of pilfering nuclear secrets from abroad to build a nuclear arsenal, and missile technology from China. It never acknowledges that it has borrowed from outside. A nation that has no scientific institutions of any repute is able to build cruise missiles? The world knows and perhaps hopes that this pathetic country will go the way Prussia and many countries of soviet block went: into oblivion and as it does, it hopefull wont leave a stench around it.
When u believe in a book written many centuries ago for basically bedouin population and try to find some scientific truths in that book, then u have gone too far. It is the scientific spirit that is important. The rest follows.
Sridhar

BeeJay:

I wrote ``sail through`` in reference to loss of power by the Church after its debacle with Galileo. That was a great milestone in the history of western science. The Muslim world is still entangled in that intellectual trap.

There was one Dr. Sheikh in Pakistan who was sentenced to death on a blasphemy charge. I don`t know about his fate now. The last that I heard of him was that he was still in prison under the death sentence. A history professor (a Ph.D.) in Iran was sentenced to death on blasphemy charge because his comments were taken out of context by the theocratic government. His death sentence was relaxed but he was still in prison when I last heard of him. There was another scholar similarly condemned in Egypt; I am forgetting the details of that case.

I was asked to write articles for a reputed Pakistani newspaper. In one of my articles I had quoted some verses from the holy Quran very respectfully and made some references to the Biblical text. All those references were deleted and the truncated article that was published lost its continuity. The editor explained to me that they had received violent threats for a similar article and that he couldn`t take the risk. My references were quite general and did not discuss any contentious theory or concept; they were simple, truthful, and matter of fact quotations.

The blasphemy threat in the Muslim world is real. Probably Islam is okay and it can be reinterpreted in harmony with the existing realities but the way the fundamentalist orthodox are adamant to adhere to the words and not the spirit is the root of the problem. And this is not new. Ibn-e-Rushd some 800 years ago had developed a doctrine of double truth to avoid this conflict between reason and Islamic revelation. His doctrine did not lead anywhere; the Muslims stuck to the letters and not to the spirit.

Mohammad Gill

godot

I didn`t have specifically you in mind regarding the bias. I was thinking, most importantly, of Max Weber, some of whose writings I had read a few years ago.

Regarding the rest, the whole point is that various claims are assertive. It is difficult to evaluate them for their accuracy. In your example, not everyone in the West wondered about the apple. And Indians and Chinese could have wondered about many other things.

Again, the point being, that we do not have sufficient information (at least I don`t about Chinese culture, history, or scientific advances).

Re: # 120

Kaalchakra

“Are we confident that China and India did not have idle curiosity, while the West did?”

Did the Chinese or the Indians ever wonder why an apple falls to the ground from the tree? If they did, did they document it for the future generations to ponder?

“Is `idle curiosity` the driving force in advancing civilizations on the path of science?”

Yes it is.

“Most such statements are made without an adequate knowledge of the cultures and the histories involved, and carry a certain degree of bias.”

Whatever.

#121 by freethinker

[These hurdles are simiar to the ones through which the Christian world has managed to sail through.]

Dear Dr. Gill, I would not myself rate 2,000 years exactly a “sail-through” time-frame. The reality is that at the time of Galileo, the Roman Catholic church was just as much rigid on every dogma as any ``beauties`` the present day Mullahs can serve us with. (For example, I would respectfully submit that gently lowering tied up bodies into boiling liquids is just as much in a league of its own as the chopping off of errant hands.)

It’s true that, as you say, the perils of debate of reason vis-a-vis revelation are more real and palpable than many readers realize – at least at this time – and for the society. However, perhaps it’s also the first time that intellectuals (from the INSIDE) are also showing the necessary guts to question that rigid mindset. Therefore, the picture ought not to be considered so bleak.

How widespread (across Muslim countries) is the blasphemy law (or analogous laws)? Do you believe that real, grassroot introspection of such rigid barriers are already starting, are aound the corner, or are even at least likely to occur in our lifetime? Or in our children’s?

Also, what about the “contemporary editions” of what the likes of Iqbal represented? Will that lot ever shape up? Are there steps which can be taken to address such backtrackers - who are perhaps mere opportunists?

re: freethinker # 121

That is the nub of the problem: is science allowed to question, even displace, religion, or is science mandated merely to serve/confirm religion?

In # 18, this is the point I too was trying to make (more than pointing out the outright lying by Samirfs). Does a society encourage the investigation of truth for its own sake? Or, is truth collectively held hostage to maintaining an imagined glory of religion?

For instance, a single statement like ``there was no quest for knowledge in the pre-Islamic Arabia,`` if left uncontested, would be sufficient to demolish years of efforts at inculcating scientific temper among people.

And, as far as I know, few individuals dare question these assertions publicly.

The problems impeding the progress of science in the Muslim world, in my opinion, are different from those in other societies. These hurdles are simiar to the ones through which the Christian world has managed to sail through.

The perils of debate of reason vis-a-vis revelation are more real and palpable than many readers realize. At individual level, it`s no big deal; at the level of the whole society, it is. The progress of science in general is impeded by the blasphemy law which remains in force in the Muslim world. It is usually nothing more than a fatwah by a mullah who even may not understand at first hand what he is ruling against. Once a mullah has ruled that a certain concept is blasphemous, it becomes nearly impossible to roll it back.

For example, there is no chance for a healthy discussion on Darwin`s theory of evolution in the Muslim world. You can say and write whatever you want against it but nobody is allowed to assert it`s a worthwhile theory. Even if the theory turns out to be wrong in the long run (of which there is little chance; it has been reinforced rather than weakened during the last one hundred fifty years of its lifetime), it should be allowed space to live like any other scientific theory. Nearly all scientific theories are adjudged on religious grounds. If there is even a hint that it might falsify a divine revelation (or a part of it), it together with its formulator are doomed. Science does not prosper in such an apocalyptic ambience.

Ghazli had ruled that anybody believing in the eternity of the universe is kafar and punishable by death. I don`t know if any body was so punished but then nobody asserted that the universe was eternal. Nobody in the Islamic world has ruled against him.

The other factors that were hinted in the article and are outlined in more detail in hindvi`s feedback are also real but none of them is so threatening as the blasphemy law. The intellectual impediment (reason versus revelation) remains difficult to overcome in the Muslim world unless the hold of religion on the societal psyche is released. Religion and state need to be separated. The blasphemy law should be deleted from the constitution. The religious authority should not be ubiquitous.

Mohammad Gill

Godot, just to highlight the kind of pitfalls I was speaking of in #117,

Suppose we define something called `idle curiosity.` Then,

Are we confident that China and India did not have idle curiosity, while the West did?

Is `idle curiosity` the driving force in advancing civilizations on the path of science?

Most such statements are made without an adequate knowledge of the cultures and the histories involved, and carry a certain degree of bias.

Why Did the West Advance…

The old civilizations, ie, China and India, because they were so advanced at one point in time, should be ruling the world today. Why don’t they?

That’s because the West had something they did not, and the West did something they did not. What the West had was idle curiosity and what the West did was to store that knowledge for posterity.

re: Pardesi # 116

Again, one must specify the kind of change one is trying to achieve/commit to/ask for - incremental change or radical change, changes at the edges or changes within the core. These have different dynamics, trajectories, and destination points.

Analyses of historically unique events suffer from a major handicap: there is no easy way of verifying claimed relationships between various antecedents and their purported consequences.

One solution is to break down the unique event into more or less uniform subevents. Another is to broaden the focus of inquiry and then adjust for unique effects.

The first approach suggests arriving at conclusions only after studying the separate histories of as many Muslim countries as possible. The second approach would begin with the probing of the larger question: why/when do civilizations lose the spark of creativity?