Islamic Enlightenment ?

[Dude_guy]

We all know the European enlightenment, the reëmergence of art like the Renaissance, major scientific advancements by Newton and Galileo and many others, and way later the first industrial revolution, and secularism replaces religion in politics.

But why didn’t this happen in the Muslim world ?

The Muslim world had the Islamic golden age, scientific discoveries was being made by khwarizmi and others, had a fair amount of different school of thoughts.

And how can a timeline where the Muslim world has it’s own enlightenment effect the region today ? And how will it happen ?

This is the question of this alternate history.

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

First, you would need to prove the Islamic Golden age occurred. Further, you assume the enlightenment was some natural occurrence that could occur anywhere if certain measures are met. I disagree with this assumption fundamentally.

 

[GlobalHumanism]

All this orientalist-speak has me somewhat uncomfortable...

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

We all know the European enlightenment, the reëmergence of art like the Renaissance, major scientific advancements by Newton and Galileo and many others, and way later the first industrial revolution, and secularism replaces religion in politics.

You are conflating the Italian renascence, scientific revolution, and enlightenment (which was strictly philosophical).

Additionally whether any of these were actually radical events (as they are often portrayed) or merely the further development of Medieval thought is its own matter of debate.

 

[The Professor]

With regards to secularism it seems to me that the religious schisms/wars discredited religion in politics helped along by the early separation of church and state.
Neither really existed in the Islamic world to the same extent as in the Christian one.

 

[Dude_guy]

First, you would need to prove the Islamic Golden age occurred. Further, you assume the enlightenment was some natural occurrence that could occur anywhere if certain measures are met. I disagree with this assumption fundamentally.

I’m pretty sure it happened, fine we’re not going to call it the “ Islamic Golden age”.

But it’s well known that during that time that the Muslims countributed to advances in science and partly philosophy, so why can’t an enlightenment of some sorts happen ?

Europe at the time was just as zealous as the Middle East with strong Christian influence on society, yet the enlightenment happened.

 

[Dude_guy]

You are conflating the Italian renascence, scientific revolution, and enlightenment (which was strictly philosophical).

Additionally whether any of these were actually radical events (as they are often portrayed) or merely the further development of Medieval thought is its own matter of debate.

Well weren’t they all connected to some extent ?

Excuse my ignorance.

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

I’m pretty sure it happened, fine we’re not going to call it the “ Islamic Golden age”.

But it’s well known that during that time that the Muslims countributed to advances in science and partly philosophy, so why can’t an enlightenment of some sorts happen ?

Europe at the time was just as zealous as the Middle East with strong Christian influence on society, yet the enlightenment happened.

Why do you assume religiosity= lack of scientific progress? Further, was the enlightenment connected directly to technological innovation? From what I gather, it was more a cultural and philosophical movement.

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

Well weren’t they all connected to some extent ?

Excuse my ignorance.

As this was before specialization of expertise was a big thing you see a lot of overlapping names (da Vinci being a big name in both science and art), but I don't think there's much reason to believe that a shift in tastes towards retro art styles and a few scientific advancements* actually have anything in common beyond taking place in the same time period. The Enlightenment occurred far later and as such was clearly influenced by the other two, but was itself a distinct trend which did not begin until after the end of the Thirty Years War**.

*which is all we can say for certain the scientific revolution was, there's a very strong argument to be made for it being a direct continuation of Medieval trends.

**meaning that the whole history of the Reformation and Counter-Reformation stands between the start of the first two and the start of the Enlightenment (that's kinda a big gap with rather big implications).

 

[Windows95]

Unless you're talking about the Mu'tazalis, then there is no of Islamic "Enlightenment" to speak of.

 

[Dargonaut]

Same reason why there wasn't a Chinese enlightenment even though the Chinese were initially very big drivers of innovation

 

[Max Sinister]

Same reason why there wasn't a Chinese enlightenment even though the Chinese were initially very big drivers of innovation

Despite the fact that enlightenment philosophers (eg Leibniz) liked Confucius and the "rational" Chinese state.

 

[Max Sinister]

With regards to secularism it seems to me that the religious schisms/wars discredited religion in politics helped along by the early separation of church and state.
Neither really existed in the Islamic world to the same extent as in the Christian one.

No schisms? What about Sunni/Shia, the various schools (Hanafi, Hanbali, Malaki...)?

 

[LSCatilina]

No schisms? What about Sunni/Shia, the various schools (Hanafi, Hanbali, Malaki...)?

It's true, but in the same time different schools were really mutually permeable, and the Sunni/Sh'ia distinction wasn't as relevant as it became after the rise of Fatimids and after the Sh'ia revival in early modern period. Much less cloisoned, in a sense, than Catholic/Orthodox/Protestant and more like divisions among Protestant and Evangelical churches.

This permeability is what could allow an alternate Mut'azili survival trough different schools, such as Ismai'lism or even trough Fatimid ulamas if getting rid trough butterflying, of the most mystical aspects.

(Copy-pasting from an earlier post)
Idrissids are simply too marginal, IMO, to have a lasting influence. A pity, as Zaidi schools are probably more close of Mu'tazilism than Isma'ilism (mostly because they cut out from main Orthodox schools before the great theological definitions, and keep most of shared features. Which without a radical distinction between Sunnism and Shi'a, was maintained trough centuries).

Best of both worlds would be having a Berber dynasty pulling a Fatimid, but being more influenced by Zaidi Islam or having an Isma'ilism more close to to Zaidi. Once in Egypt, permeability to a less militant Mu'tazilism (without Mu'tazili being radically opposed to the cult of Imam and Alist pretentions)...It could work

(Thanks to @St. Just for the inspiration)

 

[water123]

Hot take: The Renaissance never happened and life actually became overall far more shitty for people during this time period when compared to the Medieval era.

 

[Max Sinister]

"cloisoned"?

 

[LSCatilina]

"cloisoned"?

Firmly separated

 

[Averrhoes]

But why didn’t this happen in the Muslim world?

This line of thinking honestly needs to stop. As other people have said, religiosity =/= stagnation. China had been more or less secularized since the time of the Han dynasty, yet they also fell behind.

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

@LSCatilina To what degree do you claim the distinction between Ahl Sunnah wa-Jama’ah between Shi’a was lower than today? The evidence points to the exact opposite...

It should be noted that during much of the Abbasid period, it was nearly impossible to be a freely practicing Shi’a.

 

[Flashman]

Additionally whether any of these were actually radical events (as they are often portrayed) or merely the further development of Medieval thought is its own matter of debate.

Could you elaborate?