What if the Islamic golden age of science had continued?

hello, recently I've been reading a lot about the Islamic world and one that fascinates me was the golden age period and the vast amount of knowledge made in that period.
Scholars broadly agree that for much of the medieval period Islamic societies led the world in both technology and science. During the Golden Age, many Muslims adhered to an interpretation of Islam based on reason which has been viewed as a precursor to the ‘natural religion’ espoused by some Enlightenment thinkers.
What was it that prevented Islamic nations from continuing to remain scientifically productive?
Some say it was the Mongols, Turkish invasions, the fortification of the Ulma and Sufis together with the destruction of the Falsafa.
Others that a surge in the political power of religious leaders. This increase in political power was accompanied by the spread of institutions such as madrasas (educational centers where Islamic law was taught) that decreased the relative payoff to producing scientific knowledge.
That newly empowered religious leaders worked to limit the study of scientific topics because they believed that the unrestricted study of science led Muslims to both embrace rationalistic interpretations of Islam and to disregard their teachings. Thus, religious leaders altered the institutional framework in order to develop an education system that both discouraged scientific research and rewarded obedience to authority.
These religious leaders discouraged these rationalistic interpretations and worked to define a new ‘orthodoxy’ emphasizing obedience to authority, mysticism and faith. This suggests that religious leaders preferred this new interpretation because it enhanced their societal influence.

Ps: I discovered Muslims who cannot paint living things and create statues, so how do you study medicine and biology? Regarding statues, Andalus had several statues and some paintings of living things, what is the reason for this?
 
I discovered Muslims who cannot paint living things and create statues, so how do you study medicine and biology?
You give the answer yourself. Research on dead bodies was initially more restricted in the christian world.
Regarding statues, Andalus had several statues and some paintings of living things, what is the reason for this?
Also this rule of not making images of living creatures or even humans was never absolute or universal. There are thousands of examples of this. Persian art, Turkish art, etc.

as for your main question, i don't believe study of science really stopped, but it didn't renew it's methods of spreading knowledge and that atrofied science in the long run. Thinking her of the impact of the printing press, that was only introduced around 1800, and then only through the state.
 
I'd dispute the notion that it was 'Islamic Science'. The burst of technology and scientific understanding (in my opinion) had a lot less to do with theology than the confluence of ideas and thinkers from across the former Roman, Hellenic, Persian and Indian civilisations which had hitherto been quite disjointed.
There are many elements of Islamic theology which are deeply irrational. For instance its belief in a flat earth, geocentric model, miracles, flying horses etc.
 
I'd dispute the notion that it was 'Islamic Science'. The burst of technology and scientific understanding (in my opinion) had a lot less to do with theology than the confluence of ideas and thinkers from across the former Roman, Hellenic, Persian and Indian civilisations which had hitherto been quite disjointed.
There are many elements of Islamic theology which are deeply irrational. For instance its belief in a flat earth, geocentric model, miracles, flying horses etc.
Eh. The mix of all those came together precisely through the medium of Arabic Muslim culture, which was able to absorb all those civilizations through a common tongue and faith. The irrational elements of Islamic theology are no more irrational than, say, the Buddhist and Hindu mythologies surrounding the Buddha and the Vedas/Upanishads. They are ornaments to the main messages of these traditions.

And so, one could argue that the message of justice and submission to the will of a single creator and master of the universe is as inherently rational as the quest to escape suffering in a world inherently defined by it.
 
Last edited:
Eh. The mix of all those came together precisely through the medium of Arabic Muslim culture, which was able to absorb all those civilizations through a common tongue and faith. The irrational elements of Islamic theology are no more irrational than, say, the Buddhist and Hindu mythologies surrounding the Buddha and the Vedas/Upanishads. They are ornaments to the main messages of these traditions.

And so, one could argue that the message of justice and submission to the will of a single creator and master of the universe is as inherently rational as the quest to escape suffering in a world inherently defined by it.
Certainly not claiming that Islam is especially irrational. Your point about a common tongue also perhaps demonstrates the more appropriate name for this era, which would be the 'Arabic Golden Age'. Obviously Islam is the reason for the spread of Arabic, but that doesn't mean that the content of the creed advanced the pursuit of science. Afterall, Christendom already had such a monotheistic world view, yet the Golden Age of science and technology in the Christian world wouldn't come until Christianity had been attenuated somewhat by the Renaissance.
 
Certainly not claiming that Islam is especially irrational. Your point about a common tongue also perhaps demonstrates the more appropriate name for this era, which would be the 'Arabic Golden Age'. Obviously Islam is the reason for the spread of Arabic, but that doesn't mean that the content of the creed advanced the pursuit of science. Afterall, Christendom already had such a monotheistic world view, yet the Golden Age of science and technology in the Christian world wouldn't come until Christianity had been attenuated somewhat by the Renaissance.
Hm, perhaps. Though I'd consider Classical Arabic difficult at best to extricate from the Islamic culture that established itself over the regions conquered by the Caliphate. Islam did serve for better or worse to unify and assimilate these disparate cultures of Rome, Persia, India, China, and Arabia into a synthesis that can only be called Islamic, even if the peoples who contributed to that culture were varied and not themselves Muslim. The only reason these cultures came together in the way they did was perhaps because Islam served as a new culture to define themselves against their vassals, rather than the various Arabic tribes just assimilating into their host nations and their cultures and religions like the Amorites did.
 
Hm, perhaps. Though I'd consider Classical Arabic difficult at best to extricate from the Islamic culture that established itself over the regions conquered by the Caliphate. Islam did serve for better or worse to unify and assimilate these disparate cultures of Rome, Persia, India, China, and Arabia into a synthesis that can only be called Islamic, even if the peoples who contributed to that culture were varied and not themselves Muslim. The only reason these cultures came together in the way they did was perhaps because Islam served as a new culture to define themselves against their vassals, rather than the various Arabic tribes just assimilating into their host nations and their cultures and religions like the Amorites did.
That I can’t refute.
 
I'd dispute the notion that it was 'Islamic Science'. The burst of technology and scientific understanding (in my opinion) had a lot less to do with theology than the confluence of ideas and thinkers from across the former Roman, Hellenic, Persian and Indian civilisations which had hitherto been quite disjointed.
There are many elements of Islamic theology which are deeply irrational. For instance its belief in a flat earth, geocentric model, miracles, flying horses etc.
I just used the term, but I agree it's not Islamic but an amalgamation of different groups.
Define the "science" here
rational study of things in general or of some specific subject, based on facts and method
 
Ps: I discovered Muslims who cannot paint living things and create statues, so how do you study medicine and biology? Regarding statues, Andalus had several statues and some paintings of living things, what is the reason for this?
Because different people held different traditions at different times. There are, for instance, paintings and illustrations of a group of people, but the face of Mohammed is not visible (either shown from behind, or his face is obscured) - in other cases, they got around it by having calligraphy that was in the shape of animals.

Similarly, there are plenty of Muslims that drink alcohol.
 
Last edited:
al ghazali published the inconsistency of the philosophers that weakened the rationalist group and was only disputed in al andalus with the book the Incoherence of Incoherence by the Andalusian Muslim Averroes.
In this book the author defends the use of Aristotelian philosophy within Islamic thought. It was written in a dialogue style against Al-Ghazali's thinking, which criticizes Neoplatonic Islamic thought. in it, the creation of a harmony between faith and philosophy is attempted. Perhaps the survival that al andalus united with the umayyad would allow for a greater center of science in the Islamic world?
the breakdown of this discovery of science was not completely his fault but he/his works together with the Seljuks kind of broke the rationalist part. at least from what i read.
so maybe the collapse of all centers of knowledge at more or less the same time that caused this stagnation?
 
Because different people held different traditions at different times.
Islam is not Christianity, it is much more restricted in its malleability. With various prohibitions and directions in life, which were written by the prophet of religion. Jesus did not leave a book with an outline of what a righteous life should be. It was written by others and therefore could be more adaptable and questioned. it doesn't matter that there are different groups, in theory they have to live the same. Obviously this did not happen completely. As in alcohol consumption.
There are, for instance, paintings and illustrations of a group of people, but the face of Mohammed is not visible (either shown from behind, or his face is obscured) - in other cases, they got around it by having calligraphy that was in the shape of animals.
paintings of normal people is allowed?
handwriting similar to an animal, I've never seen it must be different. yes the andalusus for example were inveterate drinkers
Similarly, there are plenty of Muslims that drink alcohol.
yes the andalusus for example were inveterate drinkers
 
Islam is not Christianity, it is much more restricted in its malleability. With various prohibitions and directions in life, which were written by the prophet of religion. Jesus did not leave a book with an outline of what a righteous life should be. It was written by others and therefore could be more adaptable and questioned. it doesn't matter that there are different groups, in theory they have to live the same. Obviously this did not happen completely. As in alcohol consumption.
Traditions shift over time
paintings of normal people is allowed?
As an example, here is a painting by Persian court artist Kamāl ud-Dīn Behzād, dating to the first half of the 16th century.

Behzad_advice_ascetic.jpg



More examples here:


handwriting similar to an animal, I've never seen it must be different.
The tradition carries on to this day. Google "zoomorphic caligraphy". There's some more here:

 
When the Islamic Mongols destroyed Baghdad in 1258, the river by the great library there ran black with the ink of destroyed books. They also destroyed aqueducts etc.

Baghdad's ruler was into poetry and sherbet. It's the kind of set of priorities a peace-loving society would elevate.

It feels like the Mongol invaders wanted to prove once and for all that we cannot have nice things.
 
It feels like the Mongol invaders wanted to prove once and for all that we cannot have nice things.
mongols the scourge of civilization.
indeed, one of the reasons for the European dominance in science onwards is partly due to the lack of contact with the Mongols in my opinion.
perhaps there is a division of the Sunni world with the Western Muslims (Andalusus and Maghreb) not having experienced this nightmare
 
Last edited:
mongols the scourge of civilization.
indeed, one of the reasons for the European dominance in science onwards is partly due to the lack of contact with the Mongols in my opinion.
perhaps there is a division of the Sunni world with the Western Muslims (Andalusus and Maghreb) not having experienced this nightmare
I was going to say something about European religiosity and science but this seemed a lot more nuanced than anything I would have said,



Edit: I wonder how much the Black Death had to do with science in Europe having more prominence or something like that. I could be wrong.
 
The problem here is that there’s little reflection over why this age ended in the first case.
mongols the scourge of civilization.
indeed, one of the reasons for the European dominance in science onwards is partly due to the lack of contact with the Mongols in my opinion.
perhaps there is a division of the Sunni world with the Western Muslims (Andalusus and Maghreb) not having experienced this nightmare

Where was the great library of Europe? I think the fact that knowledge was hold more decentralized in Europe was far more important.
 
The problem here is that there’s little reflection over why this age ended in the first case.


Where was the great library of Europe? I think the fact that knowledge was hold more decentralized in Europe was far more important.
Well Islam prior to 13th century was at it's zenith in khorassan, that's where you had most of the scientist, scholars, artist come from. We often forget the role southern half of Central Asia played in golden age of islam, it was this region that was at the cross road of Chinese, Indian and Persian civilization. Baghdad yes played a role but it wasn't the only centre, i maybe a bit biased here but i think khorassan region was better than Baghdad ever was, all the works and scholars mentioned herein before were from khorassan, modern Persian language developed in khorassan. When that region was first destroyed by Mongols, then by the black death and finally by Timur who decided that he just needs to kills everyone at sight, although he did not kill scholars. But he destroyed the root of the social system, after that any person worth his salt in khorassan went to Iran and India. Turkic tribes were partly responsible, lion's share goes to Timur and the Mongols.
It's like the US government in the 1980s decided to destroy the California, some people were saved from the destruction yes but it's not the same as before
 
Last edited:
Top