Bill Muehlenberg's commentary on issues of the day...

Islam and Science

Jul 6, 2010

It is often claimed by Islamophiles that the Muslim world contributed greatly to science and learning. As but one recent – and rather silly – example, US President Obama has instructed the head of NASA to reach out to Muslims, and rehearse their supposed achievements.

NASA chief Charles Bolden said that the “foremost” task President Obama has given him is “to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with predominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math, and engineering.”

What is one to make of such claims? The historical record shows that there is a small bit of truth to all this, but not much. Indeed, many scholars argue that Islam in fact impeded the development of modern science, and that it was essentially Christianity which helped to give rise to it.

Much has been written on this topic. Here I simply seek to provide a brief and sketchy overview. For a much more detailed examination, one should consult works such as Toby Huff’s The Rise of Early Modern Science: Islam, China and the West (Cambridge University Press, 2003). In that volume Huff “examines the long-standing question of why modern science arose only in the West and not in the civilizations of Islam and China”.

Historian Rodney Stark has also addressed this issue. In his important 2003 volume, For the Glory of God, Stark notes that Islam certainly did seek to pass on earlier Greek learning. Indeed, classical Greek manuscripts did reach Christian Europe through Islam.

But, “it is also true that possession of all of this ‘enlightenment’ did not prompt much intellectual progress within Islam, let alone eventuate in Islamic science. Instead, as the devout Muslim historian Caesar E. Farah explained: …‘[Muslim philosophy chose to] enlarge Aristotle rather than to innovate. It chose the course of eclecticism, seeking to assimilate rather than to generate, with a conscious striving to adapt the results of Greek thinking to Muslim philosophical conceptions’.”

Stark explains that in Islam, Allah is capricious, doing whatever he pleases. “Consequently, there soon arose a major theological bloc within Islam that condemned all efforts to formulate natural laws as blasphemy insofar as they denied Allah’s freedom to act.”

This is in contrast to the Christian concept of God. For example, Descartes “justified his search for natural ‘laws’ on grounds that such laws must exist because God is perfect and therefore ‘acts in a manner as constant and immutable as possible,’ except for the rare occurrence of miracles.”

As Stanley Jaki wrote, the “Muslim notion of the Creator was not adequately rational to inspire an effective distaste for various types of pantheistic, cyclic, animistic, and magical world pictures which freely made their way into the Rasa’il [encyclopaedia of knowledge].”

The result, says Stark, “was to freeze Islamic learning and stifle all possibility of the rise of Islamic science, and for the same reasons that Greek learning stagnated of itself: fundamental assumptions antithetical to science.” He continues, “As a result of all this, Islamic scholars achieved significant progress only in terms of specific knowledge, such as certain aspects of astronomy and medicine, that did not necessitate any general theoretical basis. And, as time passed, even this sort of progress ceased.”

Robert Spencer concurs, “The main coup de grace to Islamic scientific and philosophical inquiry may have come from the Qur’an itself. The holy book of Islam portrays Allah as absolutely sovereign and bound by nothing. This sovereignty was so absolute that it precluded a key assumption that helped foster the development of science in Europe. Jews and Christians believe that God is good, and that His goodness is consistent. Therefore, He created the universe according to rational laws that can be discovered, making scientific investigation worthwhile.”

As Ibn Warraq states, “Arabs did not play a great part in the original development of Islamic science.” He quotes Ibn Khaldun: “It is strange that most of the learned among the Muslims who have excelled in the religious or intellectual sciences are non-Arabs with rare exceptions; and even those savants who claimed Arabian descent spoke a foreign language, grew up in foreign lands, and studied under foreign masters.”

Indeed, not only on the scientific front, but on the broader cultural front, a lot of hype about Islam’s Golden Age needs to be carefully reconsidered. As Spencer argues, “Islam was not the foundation of much significant cultural or scientific development at all. It is undeniably that there was a great cultural and scientific flowering in the Islamic world in the Middle Ages, but there is no indication that any of this flowering actually came as a result of Islam itself. In fact, there is considerable evidence that it did not come from Islam, but from the non-Muslims who served their Muslim masters in various capacities.”

Consider the Muslim translation of Greek scientific works. Says Warraq, “the initial impulse for the translations was practical – the need for medical and astronomical knowledge.” It was not a result of a general openness to learning or philosophy. And “most of the translators were Christians”.

Spencer offers a number of examples. Consider the architectural design of mosques. These were “copies from the shape and structure of Byzantine churches”. Indeed, the seventh-century Dome of the Rock was copied from Byzantine models and even built by Byzantine craftsmen.

Consider more examples: “The first Arabic-language medical treatise was written by a Christian priest and translated into Arabic by a Jewish doctor in 683. The first hospital in Baghdad during the heyday of the Abbasid caliphate was built by a Nestorian Christian.”

Many of the great cultural and scientific achievements were in fact achieved by non-Muslims. Many other examples can be produced here. The truth is, Islam is a worldview which is hostile to learning, philosophy and any thinking not directly involving the Koran.

As Serge Trifkovic summarises, “Whatever flourished, it was not by reason of Islam, it was in spite of Islam. In Islam’s ‘golden age,’ there was a lot of speculation and very little application; and for almost a thousand years, even speculation has stopped. The periods of civilization under Islam, however brief, were predicated on the readiness of the conquerors to borrow from earlier cultures, to compile, translate, learn, and absorb. Islam per se never encouraged science, meaning ‘disinterested inquiry,’ because the only knowledge it accepts is religious knowledge.”

As Spencer says, since the Koran is seen as a perfect book, and Islamic society seen as the perfect civilisation, most “Muslims didn’t think they needed knowledge that came from any other source – certainly not from infidels.” Real advances made by Muslims have often been those who rebelled against the straightjacket of Islamic fundamentalism.

One wonders if NASA will be sending this message out as it seeks to reach Muslims.

[1132 words]

9 Responses to Islam and Science

  • Don’t forget the absurdities in the Quran itself. For example, it says; “and We have designed them (the lamps) as a means of stoning the devils.”

    So God stones immaterial devils with physical meteors?

    Bill, have you read Robert Reilly’s ‘The Closing of the Muslim Mind: How Intellectual Suicide Created the Modern Islamist’? It has received some superb reviews.

    From a review;

    ‘Reilly (a dear friend of mine, by the way) contends that Islam suffers from a flawed metaphysic that deforms its theology. It rejects reason and exalts will.

    It has no room for natural law: Murder is not wrong by definition but only because Allah chooses to forbid it. If he’d decided to enjoin it, it would have become our duty.

    Islam understands his omnipotence to mean that he is superior to reason itself (thus, if he said that two and two make five, so it would be). Allah’s will is the direct cause of everything; no need to look for secondary causes. No wonder, given this primitive conception of nature, Islam rejects Western science. Allah’s will accounts for everything that happens. The world continues to exist because he recreates it continuously from moment to moment. He could decide to annihilate it at any time.’

    Damien Spillane

  • Thanks Damien

    No I don’t have that one yet. Thanks for the tip.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • I recall Patrick Sookhdeo spoke on the recent spate of books falsely claiming that Western society needs to be grateful for Muslim intellectual and technological achievements. Unfortunately this demonstrable nonsense is accepted without scrutiny from either the leftist intelligentsia who do everything they can to denigrate Western and Christian achievements and with the Koranic worldview which promises that Muslims will be the most successful in everything.

    On a lighter note, perhaps this latest directive of Obama for NASA to reach out and learn from Muslims does have some merit though. Mark Durie in his latest book ‘The Third Choice’ recalls a question he received from a Muslim about how the Apollo astronauts could have reached the moon when the heavens are guarded by Allah’s angels. Why hadn’t the astronauts reported encounters with these angels?

    Well, now with Obama’s new scheme NASA can ensure that their astronauts are briefed on such likelihoods so that they can pass unhindered through space and also perhaps paint big Koranic verses on their space probes so as to guarantee them free passage. 🙂

    Mansel Rogerson

  • Thanks for alerting me to your excellent article via Facebook Bill. Just as I suspected:

    As Serge Trifkovic summarises, “Whatever flourished, it was not by reason of Islam, it was in spite of Islam.

    A repressive dictatorship type of religion like Islam doesn’t want to educate the masses. Keeping them ignorant under their propaganda allows them to brainwash and rule over their people.

    It’s really sad that so many millions of people have been duped by this false religion.

    Christine Watson, California, USA

  • Much of the intellectual achievements lauded by Islam actually came from the Byzantine empire, which was a developed, civilized Christian empire developed directly from the Greco-Roman world.

    When Byzantium fell to the Turks in early 10th century times, the information acquired was disseminated throughout other Muslim conquest due to the dominance of the Turks at the time.

    When people speak of the achievements in Islam, it is the borrowed feathers and trophies of the violent conquest of a civilised nation.

    Lennard Caldwell, Clifton QLD

  • There is also the confusion of religion and culture in this discussion. Whatever gifts come to us via peoples whose religion is Islam have no necessary connection with the Islamic religion. The Bible teaches that God gives gifts to nations (the kings of the earth bring “the honour and glory of the nations” into the New Jerusalem at the end). But those are gifts which come from the peoples and their cultures, not the Islamic religion they adhere to.

    Indeed those gifts are only truly released by the gospel and a biblical worldview. Any other faith hinders them, as we see in Islamic cultures.

    Ed Sherman, Holland

  • Thanks Ed

    Yes, quite right. The doctrine of common grace can be appealed to here as well.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • “It’s really sad that so many millions of people have been duped by this false religion.” (Christine Watson) – But this is always a bit of a problem, to me (an orthodox Christian), since we see time and again that “error rots” (bad/mad religious movements die out (how many Swedenbourgians are there left?)), but why not Islam? why does it go on for centuries, getting seemingly stronger?

    “Allah’s will accounts for everything that happens.” (Damien Spillane) – Yes indeed. Some Christians (wrongly, I think) also reject chance/accident, and believe that everything that happens (or doesn’t happen) is because God ordains it. God does cause some things to happen indeed, I consider, but there is chance/free will also.

    John Thomas, UK

  • That’s a fair point, John Thomas. However, God’s Word informs us that He would make Ishmael’s line into “a great nation.” Great can mean large – but does not necessarily always mean good. Other verses tell us that like Ishmael, (described as a wild donkey) his descendants would continually be against the Jewish line of Isaac. This prophesy has been proven true over the centuries.

    Islam is against the “apple of God’s eye” – Israel. Only those who escape the lies of Islam and accept Christ as Lord and Savior will be reconciled back unto God.

    I hear that there are a lot of conversions to Christianity going on in Iraq today.

    The book of Jude informs us that there will be a great falling away (due to heresy and apostasy), But the Bible also informs us that those genuinely sealed in Christ – the elect – will not be fooled.

    Mat 24:24 For false christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.

    Mar 13:22 For false christs and false prophets will rise and show signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.

    Christine Watson, USA

Leave a Reply