Islamic Enlightenment ?

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.

The concept of human progress, spurred by development of rigorous thought from first principles, was alive in both science and philosophy at this time. Many prominent thinkers were involved in both fields for this very reason. It is no coincidence that the scientific revolution, the Enlightenment and the industrial revolution began in quick succession and in the same parts of the world.

OP is clearly asking for a movement to occur in the Islamic world similar to that of the Jewish Enlightenment, whereby principles of tradition and revelation are rejected in favour of scientifically observed evidence and logic-based reason.
 
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.

China could be said to have non-deity based religion.
 
If there is such a thing as the enlightenment, we need to move past the idea that it was strictly a European phenomenon. All the "enlightenment values" were happening amongst philosophers globally, but colonialism and occupation made politically acting upon those values quite difficult. I'm not on my own phone at the moment, but if pressed I will go into the many interesting examples of what I mean by this.
 
China could be said to have non-deity based religion.
Secularized as in "clerics and religion have no impact on governance".
The concept of human progress, spurred by development of rigorous thought from first principles, was alive in both science and philosophy at this time. Many prominent thinkers were involved in both fields for this very reason. It is no coincidence that the scientific revolution, the Enlightenment and the industrial revolution began in quick succession and in the same parts of the world.

You're conflating the Enlightenment with other results of the Great Divergence, which is better explained by economic and geopolitical factors than anything else. I'd say that the OP is guilty of doing the same thing as well. Simply because they occurred at around the same time, it does not imply that subsequent developments were caused by it. Philosophers around the world have been polymaths since the time of Plato and Aristotle, so there is nothing special about figures in the Enlightenment also being involved in fields such as science.
 
Last edited:
if anything, couldn't you argue tht the elighenment lead to the opposite, as the domain of knowledge expanded to the point where it was impossible to master everything quickly.
 
Secularized as in "clerics and religion have no impact on governance".


You're conflating the Enlightenment with other results of the Great Divergence, which is better explained by economic and geopolitical factors than anything else. I'd say that the OP is guilty of doing the same thing as well. Simply because they occurred at around the same time, it does not imply that subsequent developments were caused by it. Philosophers around the world have been polymaths since the time of Plato and Aristotle, so there is nothing special about figures in the Enlightenment also being involved in fields such as science.

I am conflating them because they were conflated. Applying rigorous principles of logic was done in the same way to science, philosophy, governance and industry by the same people in the same places at the same time. The people involved would actively use the same terms ("scientific management" etc) to describe what they're doing.
 
The enlightenment had been over for half a century before Taylor was even born, and it would have been over for more than a century by the time he penned his book. Yet you believe you're not conflating things?

"The Enlightenment included a range of ideas centered on reason as the primary source of authority and legitimacy and came to advance ideals like liberty, progress, tolerance, fraternity, constitutional government and separation of church and state.[4][5] In France, the central doctrines of the Enlightenment philosophers were individual liberty and religious tolerance, in opposition to an absolute monarchy and the fixed dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church. The Enlightenment was marked by an emphasis on the scientific method and reductionism, along with increased questioning of religious orthodoxy—an attitude captured by the phrase Sapere aude, "Dare to know"."

If you think that finished in the early 1800s, you really don't know much about history.
 
"The Enlightenment included a range of ideas centered on reason as the primary source of authority and legitimacy and came to advance ideals like liberty, progress, tolerance, fraternity, constitutional government and separation of church and state.[4][5] In France, the central doctrines of the Enlightenment philosophers were individual liberty and religious tolerance, in opposition to an absolute monarchy and the fixed dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church. The Enlightenment was marked by an emphasis on the scientific method and reductionism, along with increased questioning of religious orthodoxy—an attitude captured by the phrase Sapere aude, "Dare to know"."

If you think that finished in the early 1800s, you really don't know much about history.
Nice non-argument. None of this proves that the Enlightenment, a distinct academic movement in philosophy, actually continued, as opposed to merely influencing later, divergent, movements.

Applying rigorous principles of logic was done in the same way to science, philosophy, governance and industry by the same people in the same places at the same time.
The scientific revolution is generally held to have began in 1543, and The Principles of Scientific Management was published in 1911. Your definition of "at the same time" literally amounts to "within 400 years". Furthermore it's not like adhering to observable reality was some sort of noel idea even back in the 1500s, as evident by earlier events such as the Condemnations of 1210-1277, so really it's a lot more than 400 years. Additionally the claim that enlightenment philosophy was somehow more logical than its predecessors is an odd claim, given that so much of it is outright nonsense.[1][2][3][4]

[1] see: "noble savage"
[2] see: conspiracies involving the Jesuits trying to take over the world
[3] see: Joseph II rigidly applying enlightenment philosophy durring his reign and nearly destroying his state as a direct result
[4] see: the French Revolutionaries actually destroying their state in their attempts to reorganize society in accordance with enlightenment philosophy

The people involved would actively use the same terms ("scientific management" etc) to describe what they're doing.
People use the wrong terminology all the time. It's called being dumb.
 
Last edited:
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.
Even in Christianity, the ideas of distinction between church and state were arguably already there.
 
OK, but why?
Whilst I don't speak for John, we seem to share the same view so I will try to adress this.

In short, the Islamic Golden Age narrative is nonsense because the breaking of said Golden Age in no way was an indicator of slowing down technologically in the Islamic world. It can at best be described as Turks taking over the dominant paradigm, but then there are uncomfortable implications to that.

The end of the Islamic Golden Age included the rise of some really interesting states which Europe would emulate in its own fashion, the "gunpowder empires" being celebrated for their cohesion, advancements in political spheres and of course leading the way in combat (being gradually slowed down as both colonialism and absurdly large continuous territories made rule challenging). There could perhaps be a case for expanding the definition of the Islamic Golden Age up to the eventual decline of these states, but no historian really does this.
 
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.

There's a very good book about this, it's called A History of the World through Muslim eyes by Tamim Ansary. In there he answers this exact question.

In short, the circumstances and details of Muslim society were such that there was no "church" to rebel against. There was no Pope. No clergy. No single, centralised religious authority. Unlike the Protestant reformation.

Also, the Muslim world was organised into just three big empires: Ottomans, Safavids and Mughals. Europe was divided into hundreds of competing states. This favoured innovation more.

Also, Europe was a more individualistic society and Christianity arguably a more individualistic faith, whereas Islam is more community based. Even irrespective of religion that is still the case. Ie northern Europe is more individualistic than southern Europe and less community focused.

Also, the incentive to industrialise arose from specific social circumstances involving the development of private capital, competitive long distance trade, the discovery of the new world and the Atlantic slave trade, as well as intense competition between all sorts of different social models.

None of that existed in the Muslim world, mainly for reasons of politics, geography, religious and social development. The incentives and mechanisms at play were different.
 
There's a very good book about this, it's called A History of the World through Muslim eyes by Tamim Ansary. In there he answers this exact question.

In short, the circumstances and details of Muslim society were such that there was no "church" to rebel against. There was no Pope. No clergy. No single, centralised religious authority. Unlike the Protestant reformation.

Also, the Muslim world was organised into just three big empires: Ottomans, Safavids and Mughals. Europe was divided into hundreds of competing states. This favoured innovation more.

Also, Europe was a more individualistic society and Christianity arguably a more individualistic faith, whereas Islam is more community based. Even irrespective of religion that is still the case. Ie northern Europe is more individualistic than southern Europe and less community focused.

Also, the incentive to industrialise arose from specific social circumstances involving the development of private capital, competitive long distance trade, the discovery of the new world and the Atlantic slave trade, as well as intense competition between all sorts of different social models.

None of that existed in the Muslim world, mainly for reasons of politics, geography, religious and social development. The incentives and mechanisms at play were different.

I disagree with those points.
1. A centralized religious authority to rebel against isn't needed for religious change, Islam does not have a centralized authority and has many sects regardless, also alot of changes within Christianity has been initiated by that centralized religious authority.

2. Well, one of those powers was in direct competition with those innovative Europeans, so I mean it can't just be that. Also I doubt the correlation between the the number of competing states and innovativeness, I do think that there is a relationship but not as closely related as people make it out to be.
3. Really, never mind the fact that religion in general stifles individuality by getting people to act a certain way, was Europe really more individual before the modern period than the middle east. Also I think the idea that somehow southern europe is less individualistic is just a vain attempt at trying to rationalize why southern europe has weaker economies than northern Europe with no actual basis.
4. The incentive to industrialize came from the fact that the greater wealth that comes from those enterprises allowed for the development of important machines and services that allowed for further innovations, as well as a change of mindset, the industrial revolution was sparked by the large amounts of wealth coming from those enterprises not because of those enterprises. Also long distance trade was a new thing for Europeans but the Muslims have been sailing the Indian ocean for centuries, they have also been trading slaves for centuries as well.
 
Both the Confucian and Islamic cultures were very self confident in their culture and their rich bodies of literature and art. They regarded European culture as dangerous at worst or briefly amusing at best so they didn’t really feel the need to reform. People often say well they should have implemented these cultural changes and these political changes based on what they could see happening in Europe if they wanted to stay modern but even in Europe there were massive divisions of opinion and large groups disagreed with the changes, so for one of these civilisations to adopt those changes would have seemed absolutely suicidal, as if they were abandoning the cultural and historical base that had seen both civilisations rise to such heights. By the time they noticed that they weren’t quite as superior as they thought, it was for the most part too late to avoid domination, although Egypt made a heroic effort to allow western culture in and modernise their industrial base.
 
If by packed you mean "contains some minority communities of ...", also two of the groups you mentioned are Arabs.


How are you even defining Arabs? because if it's by language then I think you're in for a shock.
Dispersi%C3%B3n_lengua_%C3%A1rabe.png
Definitely not by language, I consider the Tuareg and Maghrebi people, as well as the Somali people to be different from Arabs, I only consider Egypt an "Arabic" Country.
Despite my definition of the Arab world, my point still stands regarding the Arabian Peninsula, North Africa, and the Fertile Crescent.

Edit: I only consider Egypt as the only Arabic Country (in Africa)
 
Last edited:
Also, I wouldn't call Egypt underpopulated, either, then or now.

And Arab Christians are, shock-horror, Arab! Heck, a lot of them were responsible OTL for Arab nationalism since it was an identity they did share with their Muslim neighbors.
Sure, Egypt isn't underpopulated, but compared to the European cities of the Italian Cities States and France, I believe my point still stands.
Also I separate arab christians from arab muslims because this is asking about an Islamic Enlightenment. Our Enlightenment in OTL was overwhelmingly in the "Christian World" so I consider that to the be Enlightenment for all followers of the Christian faith, including Christian Arabs.
 
Top