SCIENCE AND CIVILIZATION IN ISLAM
SEYYED HOSSEIN NASR
AND
"THE APPROPRIATION AND SUBSEQUENT NATURALIZATION
OF GREEK SCIENCE IN MEDIEVAL ISLAM:
A PRELIMINARY STATEMENT"
A.I SABRA
The period between late antiquity and the scientific revolu¬tion had previously been thought of as one of mere transmission of Greek thought via Islamic translations. As Seyyed Hossein Nasr argued in his Science and Civilization in Islam, Muslims not only translated vast amounts of ancient Greek work, but, also de¬veloped their own independent thought. The purpose of this book was to describe the science of Islam, from the eighth to the seventeenth centuries A.D., in the fields of the sciences, theol¬ogy, and philosophy. To enhance these descriptions, Nasr provided numerous and lengthy primary writings throughout the book. The goal of Islamic science was to attain spiritual perfec¬tion and to show the unity of all things. The concept of unity resulted in few speciaized studies as the great thinkers were concerned with all manner of knowledge. This knowledge was sought to help them defend their faith when confronted with religious debates by Christians or Jews. They used the logic and reasoning of the ancient Greeks to help them win these debates while also bringing them closer to spiritual perfection and God.
This idea was both a strength and a weakness. The connection of knowledge and spirituality allowed them to study and write numerous scholarly works, within the boundaries of their reli¬gion. This view of knowledge was not held by the Christians; and as a result, progress was slowed in the west by the belief in the divine truths of revelation. The sacred nature of knowledge was also a weakness because Islamic science was still guided by a supernatural or spiritual force. This would ultimately limit their capability to further develop science.
The book began with a chronological listing of the universal figures of Islamic science. The Hakims (wise men) began in the eigth century with Jabir Ibn Hayyan, who was the founder of Islamic Alchemy. He was followed in the ninth century by Al- Kindi, who was the first philosopher-scientist. Al-Khwarazmi was an outstanding mathematician and produced the first Muslim work in algebra. Al-Razi, in the tenth century, was the greatest clinical physician and was the "Galen" of his people. Ibn Sina (Latin Avicenna) arose in the eleventh century to be the most influential Islamic scientist. In the twelfth century, Ibn Rushad (Latin Averroes) became an influential commentator on Aristotle. The chronology ended in the seventeenth century with Al-Amili, who was a famous religious scholar.
The first learning center where the Hakims taught was the Bait al-Hikmah, which was built in Baghdad as a meeting place for scholars, scientists, and translators. In the tenth century, the Majlis was the main gathering place for learning. This was fol¬lowed one century later by the Madaris, which was a chain of colleges. The hospitals were also learning centers that taught clinical medicine to its students.
Nasr then discussed the individual scientific disciplines, topically, with chronological subdivisions by century. I will give an overview of some of his main topics. Islamic cosmology was derived from the Quran. Its main principles were the concept of unity and the graduation of being. There were five circles which represented the states of being; these were the divine essence, divine names, the world of psychic manifestation, the terrestrial domain, and the intelligible world. God represented the center of these circles, and the angels moved and guarded the planets.
Geography was the most studied of the Islamic sciences and was linked to astronomy which allowed the Muslim sailors to navigate by the stars. These sea voyages were described by geog¬raphers, such as Abu Abdallah al-Idrisi, who made an elaborate medieval description of the world. After the fourteenth century, geography began to decline.
Three qualitative scientists arose in the field of physics. The first was Alhazen in the eleventh century. He was the great¬est student of optics between Ptolemy and Witelo. His study of optics included experimentation, observation, and physical mod¬els. The second physicist was Al-Biruni, a compiler and scholar, who wrote letters to Avicenna and questioned the Peripatetic physics. The third was Al-Khazini, who made a twelfth-century study of mechanics and hydrostatics and created a science of balance which he used to measure the absolute and specific weights of objects.
Islamic mathematics, which reached its height in the four¬teenth to fifteenth centuries, was not only responsible for translating Greek mathematical ideas, but also for advancing new ones. The Muslims generalized the concept of number beyond what was understood by the Greeks and also developed methods of numer¬ical computation. They used a decimal fraction and developed trigonometry.
The main interest of the Muslims in astronomy was the nature of the heavenly bodies, and the motions, sizes, and distances of the planets. On the nature of the spheres, the Muslims felt that the planets were physical entities instead of abstract ideas as the Greeks thought. Al-Biruni's study of the planetary motion was much like Ptolemy's with a complex arrangement of eccentric and ecliptic circles. Al-Farghani, in the ninth century, made a table of the distances of the planets. Nasr provided a chart (183) which compared Al-Farghani's figures with those of today's.
Philosophy began, in Islam, in the ninth century, with translations of Greek works. Al-Kindi was the first of these philosophers, but Avicenna became the greatest. There were two schools of Islamic philosophy. The first, to which Avicenna be¬longed, was the Peripatetics which relied on the syllogistic method and reached truth by reason. The second was the twelfth- century Illuminationists who felt that intellectual intuition and reason coexisted within the path of discovery and insight.
The philosophy of Islamic medicine, according to Avicenna, was to restore the "state of equilibrium called health." He described the four humors and treated the body as a whole in keeping with the unitary theory. Avicenna was also the greatest physician in Islam. He was the first to give a description of drugs and diseases and to describe meningitis correctly. The cannon that he wrote became the final word on the treatment for all patients.
The book ended with a discussion of the Gnostic tradition. The pinnacle of knowledge in Islam was gnosis. Muslims felt that there was a microcosmic universe in every man. By a process of spiritual purification, man can know his own universe. By appli¬cation of this inner, self-knowledge, he can thereby know all things. Nasr gave no concluding statement or response to his initial thesis in this, his final chapter.
Nasr examined Islamic science on its own merits and made few comparisons with modern science. This diachronistic writing made it difficult to judge the success and achievements of the Islamic thinkers; for example, Nasr stated that Al-Zahrawi of Cordova wrote a great surgical treatise, but he did not qualify the statement.
Anachronistic explanations were insightful, but a rarity. Nasr discussed how the three great Islamic physicists would have fit into the twentieth century. This was an interesting compari¬son of the primarily qualitative, Islamic study as compared to the modern quantitative ideology of today. Nasr stated that his intention was not a modern but an Islamic point of view and said that was the reason more parallels were not drawn to modern science.
Reviews on the book were not favorable. Martin Levey in Middle East Journal (Vol. 74, Winter 69, p. 101) felt that Nasr neglected Arabic botany and medicine. F.E. Peters in American Historical Journal (Vol. 74, Feb 69, p. 1049) stated, as did Levey, that the omission of a discussion of an Arab Islam was "fundamentally misleading." Bruce S. Eastwood's review in Specu¬lum (Vol. 45, Jan 70, p. 150) was sympathetic to Nasr's attempt, but felt that chapters three through nine failed to satisfactori¬ly analyze his thesis. Eastwood thought the book should be read for the uncommon thesis, but felt the proof was yet to come.
My main criticism of the book was that it seemed to be more a compendium of facts and primary writings rather than a descrip¬tion of Islamic science. The primary writings were interesting but were not accompanied by a summary or description by the author. Nasr did not include any statement on the decline of Islamic science which should have been covered given the scope of the book.
Turning to A.I Sabra's article "The Appropriation and Subse¬quent Naturalization of Greek Science in Medieval Islam: A Pre¬liminary Statement," I found a more illuminating discussion on the civilization of Islam than any part of Nasr's book. Sabra's intent was to discount the kinematic account of the transmission of Greek thought which leads to a reductionism that portrays Islamic science as a mere reflection of the Greeks. The intent of Sabra and Nasr was the same- to explain Islamic science from an Islamic point of view of culture and civilization. It was Sabra who accomplished this and explained the forces behind the cross- cultural exchange of information.
Sabra began with a discussion of two descriptive terms- reception and appropriation, of eighth and ninth century Islamic translation. The idea of reception was a common one and indicated that Islam passively received or was given the knowledge of the Greeks. This was discounted in favor of the word appropriation because of a more aggressive connotation. The Muslims actively sought out knowledge from the Greeks and founded their own scien¬tific legacy with it.
The question of what caused this force of aggressive appro¬priation by the Muslims is generally ignored by historians of science. Instead, the medieval Islamic era is explained by the marginality thesis which treats Islamic science as a separate, noninfluential entity from Islamic culture and civilization. The marginality thesis was supported by three points. The first was that the sciences met opposition from Arabic culture and reli¬gion. The second was that the majority of the educated people were not taught science. Thirdly, the sciences were not useful to mainstream society.
Sabra refuted these points and disagreed with the marginali¬ty thesis. He said that the question of religious opposition to science was a complex issue. It is unknown whether or not reli¬gion was the downfall of Islamic science. There could be truth in the fact that science was kept out of normal educational curricu¬lum; but, individual teachers were able to add science to lesson plans, and many of them did. Finally, there were many practical uses of science. Physicians helped the sick, astrologers had positions as advisors, mathematicians held jobs as engineers and town planners, and astronomers helped to decide the five times for prayer during the day.
In place of the marginality thesis, Sabra suggested an assimilation of science that resulted in an Islamic naturaliza¬tion. He described a three-stage development period of the natu¬ralization process. The first was an acquisition of Greek thought through translation. The second was the emergence of a large number of philosophers in the Hellenistic tradition, and the third was the actual practice of the new philosophical and scien¬tific ideas by those of the Muslim faith.
The decline of Islamic science is a topic that is not fully understood. Many have asked the question as to why the seven¬teenth-century European scientific revolution did not effect Islam. There is no solution to this problem, yet Sabra offers a suggestion as to part of the reason why. He said that science was accepted and given a permanent place in society, but, it was only allowed to be studied on a level that was accepted by the instru¬mentalist's view. This view restrained scientific study to narrow and unprogressive areas. It was not allowed to expand to be a complete utilitarian interpretation of science and thus, was destined to be contained and uninfluenced by the European revolu¬tion.