Customer Reviews

The Rise of Early Modern Science: Islam, China and the West

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Until the 14th century, science in the Muslim lands and China was more advanced than in Western Europe. Astronomers in Timurid Iran (of all places!) improved on the Ptolemaic system with epicycles mathematically equivalent to those used by Copernicus much later (although they were still geocentrist). That China was more technologically advanced than Europe still at the time of Marco Polo is well-known. Yet, around the 14th century, science in both the Muslim lands and China went into decline, while the erstwhile little backwater of Western Europe eventually developed modern science.

What went wrong? Or, from a European perspective, what did we do right?

That's the subject of Toby E. Huff's book "The Rise of Early Modern Science". Huff is a British professor who also worked at scholarly institutions in Malaysia (a Muslim nation) and Singapore (a Chinese nation). He writes in the tradition of well-known German sociologist Max Weber, who is most known for his thesis that the ethos of Calvinism somehow gave rise to capitalism. Weber also analyzed other religious traditions and their impact on society. As for Huff, his argument is complex and only a short outline is possible in a review like this. Like the other reviewers, I will concentrate on the chapters dealing with Islam and the West.

Huff doesn't deny that Muslim science was, for centuries, more advanced than European science. Indeed, there was virtually no science at all in the Latin West during the Early Middle Ages. Huff also points out that Muslim science was innovative, the most dramatic example being the previously mentioned astromomical observatory at Maragha in Iran. The eventual decline of Muslim science (except in the field of military technology) cannot therefore be a result of brain drain, lack of innovative thinkers, etc. Something else must be at work here.

What factors could have impeded the rise of modern science in the Muslim caliphates? The author points out that the natural sciences were always seen as "foreign" in the Muslim lands. Many ulama (Muslim scholars) were deeply suspicious of the "foreign" sciences. Muslim jurisprudence, not science, was at the center of Muslim institutions of higher learning. Even Muslim theology (!) was sometimes seen as suspect, since the most conservative ulama feared that it might lead to philosophical reasoning independent of the Quran and the sunna. Eventually, the natural sciences were assimilated with Islam, but as subordinate parts of a largely religious whole. Thus, astronomy was accepted since it could be used to compute the qibla to Mecca, and astronomers became mosque officials. The natural sciences couldn't develop independently.

There were several kinds of colleges in the Muslim world, the madrasas being the most important. However, they didn't function as European universities. The madrasas were religious institutions concentrating on Muslim jurisprudence. Scientific education *did* take place at the madrasas, but not as part of the public curriculum. Rather, instruction in the sciences was given by the teacher in private, often at his own house. A tradition of dissimulation developed, both in regard to science and Greek philosophy. Rather than spreading scientific or philosophical ideas far and wide, they were kept within small, almost esoteric circles. (Jews such as Maimonides had a similar attitude.) Also, instruction at the madrasas was highly personalistic. There was no faculty, and hence no set corporate standards for exams or degrees. Essentially, the student got his degree if and when his personal teacher felt he was ready for it. With the exception of medical science under some rulers, there were no attempts to standardize the degrees over a larger territory.

Huff believes that Muslim society was personalistic and heterogenous. This prevented the rise of the universalist spirit necessary for objective science. In Western Europe, the Roman law was considered binding on all. In the Sunni Muslim lands, there were at least four different schools of jurisprudence, and non-Muslims had their own laws. Since Muslim laws were based on the Quran, the sunna and the consensus among the ulama, innovation was difficult or even prohibited. Since the madrasas concentrated on teaching Muslim law, the ethos of these institutions was one of traditionalism and particularism. It was difficult to develop a universalizing, innovative spirit. Huff further points out that Muslim law didn't recognize corporations as legal persons. A corporate institution with a faculty, such as the European university, couldn't develop under these conditions.

Huff then points out that there was a de facto secular sphere of society in medieval Western Europe, something sadly lacking in the Muslim lands. This secular sphere was created after the investiture conflict, when the papacy and the temporal power had to compromise with each other. Another important factor was the re-discovery of Roman law, which was often seen as secular. The university of Bologna, where Roman law was taught, was purely secular. In the Muslim society, there was no distinction between "church" and state, and hence no neutral space (a central concept for Huff) for potentially subversive scientific exploration and speculation. In Huff's opinion, the Western European universities provided such a neutral space. They were independent corporations, with their own laws and jurisdictions, and some of them were purely secular. Temporal rulers and church authorities did attempt to interfere with the free flow of ideas, to be sure, but the institutionalized independence of the universities made this difficult. Also, high and late medieval society at large was a complex web of guilds, communes, and independent cities, making it well-nigh impossible for a strong, authoritarian center to assume control. In this situation, it was easier for free inquiry to thrive, despite occasional setbacks (the fate of Abelard and Galileo comes to mind). Huff also writes that the science education at European universities was public, rather than secret or semi-secret as in the Muslim territories. Indeed, universities sometimes had lectures open to non-students, at which members of the public at large could ask questions to the professors. This was a far cry from Muslim (or Jewish) esotericism.

Since the author of "The Rise of Early Modern Science" is a Weberian, he naturally believes that religious or ideological factors played an important role in the process. The natural choice would be to contrast Christianity with Islam. However, Huff seems to believe that the crucial ingredient was a rationalist form of Platonism. There was a Platonist renaissance of sorts during the 12th century, and in Huff's opinion it was strongly influenced by Plato's dialogue "Timaeus". From "Timaeus", the philosophers of the Latin West drew the conclusion that the universe is rational, that it follows strict natural laws of cause and effect, and that humans are endowed with a rational mind that can learn to grasp these laws. The analogy between the universe and a machine was used already during the High Middle Ages. Of course, medieval West Europeans still believed that God could miraculously intervene in his creation, as when Jesus was born from a virgin, but this was seen as an entirely different order of events. Under normal circumstances, the universe worked like clock-work according to natural laws graspable by scientific inquiry. Huff also points to the Christian idea of a conscience as a further source of inspiration for the notion that humans have a rational mind, but he admits that Paul might have gotten this idea from popular Platonism. Later, the works of Aristotle would enter the picture as well.

By contrast, Muslim theology was occasionalist. According to this concept, the universe does *not* follow self-contained natural laws created by God at some point in the beginning. Rather, God controls everything directly, from moment to moment. Thus, there is no real causality. That effect necessarily follows cause is an illusion. God wills a certain effect to follow a certain cause at any given moment. He might have willed otherwise. Trying to discover self-contained natural laws (even self-contained natural laws originally created by God) is meaningless. Occasionalism became an insurmountable barrier to modern scientific development in the Middle East.

The Muslims had access to more or less the same empirical facts as the Europeans, as shown by the astronomers of Timurid Iran whose epicycles were mathematically equivalent to those of Copernicus. Indeed, many Muslim libraries were endowed with tens of thousands of books, some of them obviously scientific. Yet, the Muslims never proposed heliocentrism. In Europe, the idea that the natural world wasn't directly dependent on the will of God, but functioned independently, made it possible to propose daring new paradigms such as the Copernican one, even when this seemingly contradicted the literal meaning of Scripture. The neutral space of the universities made it possible for such ideas to get a hearing, especially since education was a public, corporate effort. And since the universities weren't directly controlled by church or state, kings or popes couldn't simply close them down.

In Muslim lands, ulama could issue a fatwa against independent-minded scholars, while a Catholic attempt to stop "heresies" at the university of Paris (the condemnation of 1277) proved ineffectual. The ulama could also mobilize the common man against scholars not of their liking, while universities in Europe were protected by legal privilege from interference by outsiders. In the Latin West, a metaphysical leap to modern science was possible (another central and complex point made by the author), while this proved impossible in the lands of Islam.

"The Rise of Early Modern Science" is well-written, interesting and well-worth pondering. Indeed, I ordered several of the books referenced in the footnotes.

Yet, one question remains. If the Muslims were so bad, how could they develop science for centuries? How was it possible for this non-secular, ulama-ridden, particularistic Muslim society with its wackie jurisprudence to be scientifically leading for 500 years? Indeed, Huff believes that Muslim civilization at its zenith was better even than China!

Why did it work so well for so long? Why did the decline take place during the 14th century? Why not earlier? These are important questions, yet Huff never really answers them. He does suggest some answers in passing, however. One is the ironic observation that science started to decline at the precise moment that it was finally "Islamized". Thus, as long as there was a creative tension between "foreign" science and "Muslim" science, advances were made. The moment "foreign" science became a subordinate part of a non-secular whole, progress stopped. At another point, Huff suggests that al-Ghazali and a 14th century Sufi revival are to blame. However, the theme isn't explored further.

Be that as it may, I give the book four stars.

PS. The chapters on China are, of course, equally interesting.

Huff sees science as a social practice which cannot flourish without a social niche for the person who would investigate nature, and covers a long span of history looking at the ways societies create or fail to create those social roles. I have read a good many books on this subject, and Huff's is the most fair-minded, cogent and satisfying. Recommend highly.

I have read Dr. Huff's book, and also read the 1st edition. The 2nd edition is after 9/11. Dr. Huff's main thesis appeared to me very self-evident. Let's examine the crux of the case of Islam vs. Modern Science, as examined masterfully by Dr. Toby E. Huff, a Chancellor Professor of Sociology at University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth.

Dr. Huff's latest edition, which is better referenced than his earlier (1st) edition, contains a total of NINE (9) chapters. For understanding the role of Islam in the development of Science, the casual reader at least needs to read thoroughly chapter 2 (Arabic Science and the Islamic World), chapter 3 (Reason and Rationality in Islam and the West), Chapter 5 (Madrassas, Universities and Science). These chapters help explain the most important theme: WHY ISLAM FAILED TO GIVE BIRTH TO MODERN SCIENCE, EVEN THOUGH IT HAD ONCE GENERATED THE BEST OF THE INTELLECTUAL DEVELOPMENTS IN SCIENCE.

The author has done a very masterful job in supporting his views by extensively citing noted researchers like Max Weber, Joseph Needham, George Makdisi, Ignaz Goldziher and others, in addition to referring to his own research papers and books about the comparative analysis of scientific development and its universal spread (globalization).

Going to chapter 5, the reader finds that the madrassas were aimed at teaching two classes of science(s),and legal systems (or jurisprudence with associated logic/analysis/metaphysics). There were "Prophetic sciences" and "foreign sciences". The former was actually based on logic systems whose boundaries were very clearly drawn: the prophetic sciences were in line with the concept of upholding "divinity" as revealed by the Quran. The foreign sciences, on the other hand, were those analytical body of knowledge that were at odds with the Quranic traditions and the theological propositions.

The bedrock reason that explains the failure of Islam to usher modern science is articulated very well by Dr. Huff in his book, page 158, that reads as follows:

"It was even essential to Islam, ..., because the 'method was part and parcel of the Islamic orthodox process for determining orthodoxy. Where it failed ws in the creation of a set of objective standards of law, against which all other laws and principles could be judged. Since the legal principles of Islamic law had been given once and for all, in the Quran and the sunna, and in the principles of fiqh worked out by al-Shafi'i, the only task left was to use logic in the narrow sense, to uncover faulty reasoning and thus preserve the doctrinal status quo...."

This explains clearly, as one finds that application "freethought" was arrested and persecuted by the dictates in the theological canons of Islam, why modern science did not take birth from the womb of Islam, but rather took firm foothold in the European rennaisance ushering the birth of quantum (wave) mechanics and modern science.

The book is a must reading simply because of sheer amount of research that has been done by Dr. Huff to explore this aspect. It would be an asset for anyone doing research and wishing to include comparative aspects of Islamic societal functions into the research.

This is a HIGHLY RECOMMENDED book for a serious reader.

This is an honest, deep, and well footnoted description of why the Middle East and China did not develop the full power of science, philosophy and technology for the full service of mankind like Western Europe did. I read the book as part of my on-going effort to understand what drives Middle Easterners to act the way they do on the World Stage. I learned that after about 1200 AD, Middle Eastern Islamic scholarly denial of the concept of cause and effect made and makes the scientific method null and void for the people of the Middle East. This prevents them from creating for themselves the body and soul enriching fruits of advanced science, philosophy and technology. For reasons predating the Renaissance, Europe had and has no such fear of accepting the scientific method. This includes accepting critical examination of the historical accuracy of Holy Scripture, and also learning in exquisite detail how God runs His Universe. I'm now reading in the book about China.

Really, it's an excellent read. Well documented. I love books debunking the Dark Ages, showing how they lit the light on the future.

Although it's very "sociological" in the early part, to Huff's credit, he largely succeeds in tightening up the weak definitional / conceptual framework he has inherited from some of his less disciplined peers. Some very weak concepts there. And, though I enjoyed the historical exposition in the intervening pages, I found it strange that he didn't introduce the powerful new analytics from institutional economics (Douglass North et. al.) and economic history until near the end of the book. I would have given it five stars, but for that.

Not delving into the thesis over and above written above for fear of spoiling the entirety for future readers. Huff outlines numerous aspects of societal advancement, and the causes or hindrances to advancement, reflective towards the creation of Modern Science within the West, Arabic/pseudo-Islamic and Asia societies; namely China. Although over validation of the "Arabic" or pseudo-Islamic society, Oswald Spengler showed the opposite - modern flaw - of Huff within his "Decline of the West". Huff further outlines the various historical cultural, religious and social differences that spawned evolutionary thought and creativity within the West that had not appeared, or allowed to appear, within the East. Huff's work here tends to supply validation to other related works by authors in other fields in both a historical and modern nature like that of Hanson's "Carnage and Culture" or "Intellectuals" by Paul Johnson. Theo-Politically speaking, Huff's efforts show an aspect that provides a foundation to those written by Ibn Warraq, Robert Spencer, Andrew Bostom and Bat Ye'or efforts relating to the historical and modern interactions between Islam and the non-Islamic world especially that of the Arab-Israel conflict as expounded by the fabulously documented tome by Joan Peters' "From Time Immemorial". Socio-Politically speaking Huff's outline of the development of different paths of thought and social progress in the West give credence to the works by such authors as William Gairdner's "War Against the Family" and "The Book of Absolutes", Zygmund Dobbs' "The Great Deceit" and "Keynes at Harvard", W. Cleon Skousen's "Naked Commun/Capitalist", Rose Martin's "Fabian Freeway", Antony Sutton's various works and of course much within the nightly utterances of News Talk Radio host and author of such works as "Death of the White Male; the Case Against Affirmative Action" and "Trickle Up-Poverty" by Dr. Michael Savage. All of the aforementioned deal with the bi-products and influences of Huff's positions stemming from ancient to modern-day problems in realpolitik. Huffs work is a very well laid out and documented effort that suggests the base differences in differing development and advancement of differing societies. A1.