Less decadent Islamic world

As we know, the Christian-Islamic rivalry was marked by distinct periods when it comes to relative strength od economy/technology - first in early-mid Middle Ages the Muslim World had an advantages, then in late Middle Ages Europe catched up and from then onwards the disparity kept not only growing but growing at an ever-accelerating pace - so that by late 19th century the Muslim World pretty much fell into irrelevance and was torn apart by European colonial empires.

Could Muslims have prevented the collapse of the Caliphate and kept at least a parity with W. Europe in science/tech and economy while still keeping the strict ISlamic character in form of strict sharia? (in OTL the decline was so severe that after ca. 1400 AD no inventions and no valuable scientific works were published in any part of the Islamic world)

An aborted or less destructive Mongol invasion (and all its offsprings) might suffice. These not only de-populated and wreckled the Islamic World, but also gave way to Islamic gunpowder empires (Ottomans, Safavids, Mughals) which, critics will criticize, were extremely despostic, with ever-inneficient burocracies, and too much dependant on land plots and taxes. (if someone disagrees, please, feel free to do so. I'm poorly an expert at this area and I would like to hear another opinion).

Also, the Mongol Khanate made trade lanes safe enough for important technologies from China to filter to the West, which later would play an important role on its rise over the East. In the words of William Hardy McNeil in The Rise of the West: A History of the Human Community:

"Gunpowder, printing, and the compass, three critical factors in Europe’s ascension to world leadership after 1500, were Chinese inventions, and reached the Far West during the time when the political unification of northern Eurasia by the Mongols made movements back and forth across the whole continent unusually safe, frequent, and easy."

one problem is Muslim social system, Islam is less successful in preventing Tribalism in its member, during Caliphate era the vigor of new faith is enough to consolidate Muslim into undivided group, after that era, Tribalism resurface, Umayyad main strength is it tribal allies.

preventing resurgence of tribalism is very difficult, Christianity use no polygamy-celibate priest-consanguinity rule to weaken this, Confucianism use extremely strong state with exam selected bureaucrats. Islam need some way to do this. celibate mameluke/ghulam/slave soldier ? state owned camel-sheep herd, which chieftain is state appointed instead of hereditary ? strong ulama class based on education, celibate ulama ? survival of christian-zoroastrian bureaucrat, which not allowed to convert ? conscription of every young male Muslim to serve in Caliphate army ? age-set system ?

Vorbeck said:

Could Muslims have prevented the collapse of the Caliphate and kept at least a parity with W. Europe in science/tech and economy while still keeping the strict ISlamic character in form of strict sharia? (in OTL the decline was so severe that after ca. 1400 AD no inventions and no valuable scientific works were published in any part of the Islamic world)

Click to expand...

I would think that strict sharia and a literal interpretation of the Koran would probably exclude any meaningful (or at least, systemic) scientific advance. Conservative philosophers like al-Ghazali had posited that the idea of 'causation' was unsound, since it was Allah who chose to initiate events in sequence (so it was entirely possible for fire not to produce smoke, if Allah so willed it). To the beleaguered Islamic world of the 11thC, al-Ghazali's reasoning proved to be wildly popular and eventually emerged as the dominant form of reasoning over more Greek-influenced philosophers, like Averroes in Spain.

One could argue that this uncompromising version of Islam became popular due to the political uncertainty that followed the fracturing of the Abbasid Caliphate during this period - so preserving the unity of the Abbasids would have warded away this development. Given that the OTL size of the Caliphate was probably way beyond any pre-modern state's capacity to handle, a less expansive Caliphate focused on Arabia and its environs might have been a more viable long-term option.

"Decadent" is a somewhat rude way to put it, no? Put a more positive spin on it: "A more vigorous Islamic world" or "a more scientific Islamic culture" or some such.

Someone's been playing too much CK2.

The Muslim world would have needed to make use of the printing press for this to have a possibility. They had access to presses early on, but the leaders prevented Arabic being put into type until the early 19th century. By then it was too late. Had they been able to disseminate information at the same rate as the Europeans, the Industrial Revolution might not have caught them deep in their inkwells. Certainly Muslim scholars were top notch through many centuries.

The independent strength of the European states and the rivalries they had with their neighbors was also a strong component for European growth vs the more monolithic Muslim entities. Shia vs. Suni never developed into the tempering of armies and weapons as was seen with Catholic vs. Protestant wars.

Jellicoe said:

The independent strength of the European states and the rivalries they had with their neighbors was also a strong component for European growth vs the more monolithic Muslim entities. Shia vs. Suni never developed into the tempering of armies and weapons as was seen with Catholic vs. Protestant wars.

Click to expand...

Until today.

machine3589 said:

Until today.

Click to expand...

Does that means we'll be seeing the rise of Modern States in the Muslim world beyond Turkey? I hope so.

Also, a way to get a more scientifically oriented Muslim World is if they have a sort of rennaissance to coincide, or even be influenced by, European Enlightenment.

Jellicoe said:

The Muslim world would have needed to make use of the printing press for this to have a possibility. They had access to presses early on, but the leaders prevented Arabic being put into type until the early 19th century. By then it was too late. Had they been able to disseminate information at the same rate as the Europeans, the Industrial Revolution might not have caught them deep in their inkwells. Certainly Muslim scholars were top notch through many centuries.

The independent strength of the European states and the rivalries they had with their neighbors was also a strong component for European growth vs the more monolithic Muslim entities. Shia vs. Suni never developed into the tempering of armies and weapons as was seen with Catholic vs. Protestant wars.

Click to expand...

I highly disagree on the statement that Shia-Sunni or Sunni-Khawarij conflicts did not erupt like that of the reformation.. In many ways conflicts within the Ummah (it is contested whether Khawarij or Shia are even considered apart of the Ummah of the Muslim) where more vicious and dangerous over a large course of time than that which was seen in Europe (or at least as) and perhaps worse than modern Shia-Sunni conflicts.

As well many of the problems you will have in measurement is the practice by Khawarij of Kitman and the Shia tactic of Taqqqiyyah, to conceal their belief and thus assimilate into the population. Whenever Shia communities (not counting Zayydi, who are considered by most schools simply as deviant Sunni) where not in Taqqiyyah there would be conflict. Case in point, the Qarmatians, Fatimids, Hashashin, Safaviyya, Qara Qoyunlyu, etc... The Khawarij always caused trouble regardless of dissimulation.

As well what would compel Islam to adopt these presses? Not even the Mu'Tazila would condone (at first) a printing of the Quran or the Sunnah.

profxyz said:

I would think that strict sharia and a literal interpretation of the Koran would probably exclude any meaningful (or at least, systemic) scientific advance. Conservative philosophers like al-Ghazali had posited that the idea of 'causation' was unsound, since it was Allah who chose to initiate events in sequence (so it was entirely possible for fire not to produce smoke, if Allah so willed it). To the beleaguered Islamic world of the 11thC, al-Ghazali's reasoning proved to be wildly popular and eventually emerged as the dominant form of reasoning over more Greek-influenced philosophers, like Averroes in Spain.

One could argue that this uncompromising version of Islam became popular due to the political uncertainty that followed the fracturing of the Abbasid Caliphate during this period - so preserving the unity of the Abbasids would have warded away this development. Given that the OTL size of the Caliphate was probably way beyond any pre-modern state's capacity to handle, a less expansive Caliphate focused on Arabia and its environs might have been a more viable long-term option.

Click to expand...

While I understand your point one thing to note: innovation in Islam (Sunni/Salafi) or Biddah is permissible in cases of technological improvement. So if a Muslim has an idea of a new bridge system that is not found in the Quran, because it benefits the people, it is permissible to have such a bridge or Biddah. So this was the case in many early Biddah in the Caliphate in the early days of the Abbasid or Umayyad.

However, Biddah is forbidden in near all cases in traditional Sunni Islam in matters of religion, so saying that fire can be worshipped because it is an aspect of Allah, etc... Or Biddah in governing, usually called Taghut, is also not permissible especially in cases where the ruler has the ability to rule by the Shariah but decides not to making him a Taghut, case in point Ibn Taymiyyah in his takfir upon the Tartar of the Golden Horde/Crimea/etc.

Therefore when the state or the scholar makes a mistake or trips up in the eyes of the Ulema or Ummah is when he cross the line between Biddah in the practical into Biddah of that which is of the deen (religion). Therefore Al-Ghazali was popular because he confronted the decadence and Biddah of the Mu'Tazila, who crossed the line of practicality into Biddah of the deen, perhaps if this is limited; the Biddah of practicality is possible. However not everything has a cause and effect, in some cases things go south for a people, who then have a rebirth. Answering an earlier post, there is no reason to assume that the Ottomans could not have had the same success as any of the Islamic states before it, they simply declined in that area for a time. Basically I'm not sure that the decline of practical Biddah was one with a direct fixable cause but one of natural decline...

How to explain:

1. The declien of lands that weren't badly affected by the Mongols (Egypt)
2. The fact that lands conquered by the Mongols never recovered fully even after hundreds of years

Before roughly 1350-1400 Muslim world did produce some significant advances in science and tech (though nothing revolutionary really) but after that it fell into an intellectual come that pretty much lasts until today.

Europe had Da Vinci, Copernicus, Gelileo, Newton, Leibniz etc. as well as hundreds of lesser known individuals - how come that the mighty Ottoman Empire could not produce a single individual to rival them?

B_Munro said:

"Decadent" is a somewhat rude way to put it, no? Put a more positive spin on it: "A more vigorous Islamic world" or "a more scientific Islamic culture" or some such.

Click to expand...

Sounds to me like he's just channeling Ibn Khaldun, whose social theories fit the history of Islam v the West well enough for discussion. Though, like anyone trying to develop a Grand Theory of History, he has some shortcomings. It's still a damn good theory.

I don't know why I choose this word. I browsed by head for some synonym of "stronger" and "less decadent" simply came to my mind.

John7755 يوحنا said:

As well what would compel Islam to adopt these presses? Not even the Mu'Tazila would condone (at first) a printing of the Quran or the Sunnah.

Click to expand...

Why? It's simply a more effective method of reproducing text, a mechanical scribe if you will. Scribed Qurans were obviously permissible, why not a printed Quran? It is simply an efficiency in the practical method of reproducing the text, without touching on religious doctrine or practice, so it ought to be permissible as a practical innovation as you mention in your later post.

The distinction between "practical" and "governmental" or "religious" or, in a word, "theoretical" innovations is meaningless in reality, anyway, though. Advances in practice often require modification to theory, so that they might fall afoul of religious authorities who don't like what you're doing. Heck, even if you don't modify theory you could fall afoul of people who allege that you have. To some extent this was also present in Christian Europe, of course, but especially after the Reformation broke the religious unity of the greater part of the continent it was less doctrinalized and there were various refugees that thinkers could flee to and variations in what counted as an "innovation" and what didn't. Any notion that "innovation" of any sort is religiously forbidden is going to be highly corrosive to scientific progress in the long run.

If Islam is to advance as much as the west then it needs to undergo a reformation like the christian faith had too, to break the backward looking dogma.

Sior said:

If Islam is to advance as much as the west then it needs to undergo a reformation like the christian faith had too, to break the backward looking dogma.

Click to expand...

Do you mean "transformation"? Islam already has it's own reformation - it is called Salafism/Wahhabism.

Transforming Islam would require that a Baha'ullah-like figure emerges in the Muslim world in the at some point between 9th and 15th century and then gains enough followers to become a dominant religion in some powerful part of it - like Egypt, Persia etc. preferably fusing with rationalist philosophy. A mirracle would be needed for such chain of events to take place.

Workable Goblin said:

Why? It's simply a more effective method of reproducing text, a mechanical scribe if you will. Scribed Qurans were obviously permissible, why not a printed Quran? It is simply an efficiency in the practical method of reproducing the text, without touching on religious doctrine or practice, so it ought to be permissible as a practical innovation as you mention in your later post.

The distinction between "practical" and "governmental" or "religious" or, in a word, "theoretical" innovations is meaningless in reality, anyway, though. Advances in practice often require modification to theory, so that they might fall afoul of religious authorities who don't like what you're doing. Heck, even if you don't modify theory you could fall afoul of people who allege that you have. To some extent this was also present in Christian Europe, of course, but especially after the Reformation broke the religious unity of the greater part of the continent it was less doctrinalized and there were various refugees that thinkers could flee to and variations in what counted as an "innovation" and what didn't. Any notion that "innovation" of any sort is religiously forbidden is going to be highly corrosive to scientific progress in the long run.

Click to expand...

Of course printing of the Quran and the Sunnah is Halal and more accurately Mubah (where there is no ruling for or against), especially in the case of the King Fahd complex which produces most of the worlds Qurans. However, it took time for rulings to be made from the Ulema on whether this was Biddah of the deem or practical. In many ways it is more difficult to make this decision then with fear of perversion or Biddah.

The argument the Ulama made was using the Bible as a reason against the use of printing as well prescribing to Mustahabb (recommended, or according to the tradition that is not obligatory). According to Islam, the Injil was made corrupt due to its uncontrolled (supposedly corrupt) manner of transmission. The Quran by comparison was held in tight control to keep Biddah out of the book completely and to them ensuring its 'perfection'. Therefore, it was highly contested and if the Ulama is split on a issue, it will be forbidden or recommended against. So one will have to change the character of the Ulema to achieve this.

Vorbeck said:

Do you mean "transformation"? Islam already has it's own reformation - it is called Salafism/Wahhabism.

Transforming Islam would require that a Baha'ullah-like figure emerges in the Muslim world in the at some point between 9th and 15th century and then gains enough followers to become a dominant religion in some powerful part of it - like Egypt, Persia etc. preferably fusing with rationalist philosophy. A mirracle would be needed for such chain of events to take place.

Click to expand...

Don't be so quick to say that about the Salafi... To say this would require you to prove that these were not present (in the sense of their style of ruling and general understanding) in Islam the whole time. As well, Wahhabism can be a highly derogatory term to someone who considers himself a Salafi.

John7755 يوحنا said:

Don't be so quick to say that about the Salafi... To say this would require you to prove that these were not present (in the sense of their style of ruling and general understanding) in Islam the whole time. As well, Wahhabism can be a highly derogatory term to someone who considers himself a Salafi.

Click to expand...

Well, the general point is the same, regardless of what term you use (and to most non-muslims, the terms are interchangeable, other than far fewer are familiar with the term Salafi). The Reformation sought a strictir adherence to scripture. Broadly speaking, that is one of the hallmarks of this movement.