6 ms·

There were excellent scholars in the early Islamic culture (700 - 1000) before the religious dogmatists started dominating the intellectual sphere. https://en.

by fsloth 8y ago

There were excellent scholars in the early Islamic culture (700 - 1000) before the religious dogmatists started dominating the intellectual sphere. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Kindi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Kindi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avicenna https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avicenna Etc. We who've read our history form western sources just aren't generally aware of them because we usually write the names of the most famous ones in latin form (e.g. Avicenna).

pbhjpbhj 8y ago
Was it in Islamic or, was it in Middle-Eastern culture? What particularly about Islam, or the particular individuals faith/religious practice made their science a part of religious development? It's fascinating to see the interplay of science from different geographies - that Al-Kindi started by learning and translating Greek science and then that we primarily know him through others translation of his works to Latin. Al-Kwarizmi is a well known name in the West from the same Persian scientific community (I think he was perhaps head of the House of Wisdom whilst Al-Kindi was there).
- Cyph0n 8y ago
  It is referred to as Islamic science because: a) Scientists came from a wide variety of backgrounds, but were usually of Muslim faith. For example, the term "Middle East" would not be accurate since many scholars were Persian and West Asian. b) Scholars were typically funded by patrons who were associated with the Muslim empire/caliphate. c) To a lesser extent, many of the prominent scholars first learned Islamic science and philosophy -- typically at a young age -- before delving into the natural sciences.
  - pbhjpbhj 8y ago
    It's interesting we don't [in the UK nor in English language sources online] refer to the likes of Kepler as being part of Christian science, despite the characters often being trained priests in one denomination or another [Copernicus, say, was a doctor of canon law], often being funded by Church patrons. There's an interesting divergence in the perceptions; I'm interested in whether that's a modern issue or if it represents something inherent in the mode of the science being performed? Wikipedia mentions scientists who were historically - and are elsewhere - known for their Christian faith, priests and such but without mentioning that they were Christian believers but with scientists who were living in Islamic countries [I don't know the history to know if they, for example were Imams or wrote religious treatise] they're flagged as Muslims. Copernicus/Kepler/Brahe [I didn't check further] aren't claimed to be Christian, Al-Kindi is claimed in the first sentence as a Muslim amongst Muslim scholars, in a Muslim World, etc.. Any input on historic differences, IYO, that lead to these different characterisations?
    - Chris_Jay 8y ago
      Interesting question! My guess is that a part of the difference was actually doctrinal - Christianity is largely a religion for revolutionary times, more concerned with overturning a corrupt order than administering a just one. I believe that despite many of the reformers of the enlightenment coming out of the church system, they were described as revolutionaries against the monarchic system and the church that supported it because that is the sort of person idealized by the Christian religion and embodied by its founder. Islam on the other hand is not a religion concerned with changing the existing order - its founder was not a martyred revolutionary but a successful political entity. Where Christianity advocates separation of church and state, Islam sets forward a system for religious governance. Therefore, while both Christian and Islamic scholars generally got their education in their respective religious traditions, I think Christian scholars were seen as breaking with the past in part because that kind of behavior is celebrated in Christianity, while Islamic scholars were seen as being involved in their political processes because that is celebrated in Islam.
      - cat199 8y ago
        > Christianity is largely a religion for revolutionary times, more concerned with overturning a corrupt order than administering a just one. I believe that despite many of the reformers of the enlightenment coming out of the church system, they were described as revolutionaries against the monarchic system and the church that supported it because that is the sort of person idealized by the Christian religion and embodied by its founder. This is a hugely low-church protestant viewpoint. That 'monarchic system' you refer to was indeed intended to be the administration of the 'just order' which was founded by the 'revolutionary figure' of Jesus. Just because the protestants viewed the western Christian regime as corrupt, doesn't mean it wasn't at least philosophically aligned with such a viewpoint (see also "Holy Roman Empire", etc.). And although the reformers are happy to paint those adhering to this regieme as non-christian, it doesn't mean they actually were not so (either in reality or philosopically, according to ones analysis) > Islam on the other hand is not a religion concerned with changing the existing order Isn't a major tenet of islam restoring the people of god from the apostasy of the jews and of christians, etc? > Where Christianity advocates separation of church and state, Again, hugely post-enlightenment protestant viewpoint. Non-protestant Christianity, not just in the west under the roman pontiff (again, holy roman empire), but everywhere that it was not dominated by the islamic conquest viewed church and state as two distinct entities administering to the two different aspects of a single society (spiritual and temporal) in concert (see also 'holy russia', etc).

by fsloth 8y ago

pbhjpbhj 8y ago

Was it in Islamic or, was it in Middle-Eastern culture? What particularly about Islam, or the particular individuals faith/religious practice made their science a part of religious development? It's fascinating to see the interplay of science from different geographies - that Al-Kindi started by learning and translating Greek science and then that we primarily know him through others translation of his works to Latin. Al-Kwarizmi is a well known name in the West from the same Persian scientific community (I think he was perhaps head of the House of Wisdom whilst Al-Kindi was there).

Cyph0n 8y ago
It is referred to as Islamic science because: a) Scientists came from a wide variety of backgrounds, but were usually of Muslim faith. For example, the term "Middle East" would not be accurate since many scholars were Persian and West Asian. b) Scholars were typically funded by patrons who were associated with the Muslim empire/caliphate. c) To a lesser extent, many of the prominent scholars first learned Islamic science and philosophy -- typically at a young age -- before delving into the natural sciences.
- pbhjpbhj 8y ago
  It's interesting we don't [in the UK nor in English language sources online] refer to the likes of Kepler as being part of Christian science, despite the characters often being trained priests in one denomination or another [Copernicus, say, was a doctor of canon law], often being funded by Church patrons. There's an interesting divergence in the perceptions; I'm interested in whether that's a modern issue or if it represents something inherent in the mode of the science being performed? Wikipedia mentions scientists who were historically - and are elsewhere - known for their Christian faith, priests and such but without mentioning that they were Christian believers but with scientists who were living in Islamic countries [I don't know the history to know if they, for example were Imams or wrote religious treatise] they're flagged as Muslims. Copernicus/Kepler/Brahe [I didn't check further] aren't claimed to be Christian, Al-Kindi is claimed in the first sentence as a Muslim amongst Muslim scholars, in a Muslim World, etc.. Any input on historic differences, IYO, that lead to these different characterisations?
  - Chris_Jay 8y ago
    Interesting question! My guess is that a part of the difference was actually doctrinal - Christianity is largely a religion for revolutionary times, more concerned with overturning a corrupt order than administering a just one. I believe that despite many of the reformers of the enlightenment coming out of the church system, they were described as revolutionaries against the monarchic system and the church that supported it because that is the sort of person idealized by the Christian religion and embodied by its founder. Islam on the other hand is not a religion concerned with changing the existing order - its founder was not a martyred revolutionary but a successful political entity. Where Christianity advocates separation of church and state, Islam sets forward a system for religious governance. Therefore, while both Christian and Islamic scholars generally got their education in their respective religious traditions, I think Christian scholars were seen as breaking with the past in part because that kind of behavior is celebrated in Christianity, while Islamic scholars were seen as being involved in their political processes because that is celebrated in Islam.
    - cat199 8y ago
      > Christianity is largely a religion for revolutionary times, more concerned with overturning a corrupt order than administering a just one. I believe that despite many of the reformers of the enlightenment coming out of the church system, they were described as revolutionaries against the monarchic system and the church that supported it because that is the sort of person idealized by the Christian religion and embodied by its founder. This is a hugely low-church protestant viewpoint. That 'monarchic system' you refer to was indeed intended to be the administration of the 'just order' which was founded by the 'revolutionary figure' of Jesus. Just because the protestants viewed the western Christian regime as corrupt, doesn't mean it wasn't at least philosophically aligned with such a viewpoint (see also "Holy Roman Empire", etc.). And although the reformers are happy to paint those adhering to this regieme as non-christian, it doesn't mean they actually were not so (either in reality or philosopically, according to ones analysis) > Islam on the other hand is not a religion concerned with changing the existing order Isn't a major tenet of islam restoring the people of god from the apostasy of the jews and of christians, etc? > Where Christianity advocates separation of church and state, Again, hugely post-enlightenment protestant viewpoint. Non-protestant Christianity, not just in the west under the roman pontiff (again, holy roman empire), but everywhere that it was not dominated by the islamic conquest viewed church and state as two distinct entities administering to the two different aspects of a single society (spiritual and temporal) in concert (see also 'holy russia', etc).