Not a day passes by when we don’t hear about the Islamic threat and the impending doom that awaits us. Although the contention between Islam and West goes back a thousand years, it has been reignited in recent times with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Islam is viewed by West as increasingly ‘problematic’ or desperately struggling at best. History on the other hand reveals an altogether different picture of the early Islamic civilization. We see a thriving culture of arts and sciences with centers of learning throughout the empire. Islam was a formidable force in its younger days, reaching its peak around the 13th century AD. This article presents an overview of this age-old conflict between Islam and the West, while the next one focusses on a key philosophical issue which brought the Islamic Civilization to its knees.
Much of our views on contentious issues today are based on information dished out by the news media. We can safely state that news media which gives priority to capital will always produce news that sells better rather than one that is based on facts. For the truth to have a fair chance, financial incentives must be removed from the equation. Perhaps this will be possible in the future with initiatives like public journalism and open-source news taking off.
The land area controlled by the Muslim Empire by 750 AD
The views on Islam’s vitality are similarly mired by skepticism but luckily there are some historical facts that are widely agreed upon. While Europe found itself in the Dark Age (500-1500 AD), the Islamic civilization was amongst the greatest of its time. Some facts about the level of development in early Islamic Civilization (750-1250 AD) are below:
- By 4th century of Islamic Era (century starting 912 AD) there were 5 fully functioning hospitals in Baghdad, 3 of which had active medical schools attached to them. Hospitals offered services free of charge and were open to all.
- The 10th century library of Al-Hakam II in Muslim Spain was one of the largest libraries in the world (400,000 volumes) with the catalogue of library books itself taking up 44 volumes.
- There were close to a 100 bookstores in Baghdad the end of 9th century [1].
- By the end of 11 century AD, there were 250 schools around Al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem [2].
- Islamic scientists made key contributions in mathematics, astronomy and medicine.
Endowments are great means of ensuring sustainable development in the developed countries today. The early Muslim society used a similar concept called ‘Waqf‘ starting in the 600′s. Following are some of these endowments:
- Women: Endowments existed for helping women who were divorced (in Baghdad, Cairo, Damascus) or widowed (Mecca).
- Public places: As early as 790 AD, there existed land endowments for public places like parks and libraries.
- Special needs: Endowment existed for helping the blind.
- Animals: Even endowments for taking care of injured birds and stray dogs in Damascus and Baghdad.
Overall the history of interaction between Islam and the West can be divided into 3 phases:
1. Early days of Islam and expansion/conflicts (622-750 AD)
Arab Painting: Socrates in dialogue with his students
Early years of Islam were characterised by religious passion and the lure of monetary gains from war booty. The Arabian Peninsula was an insignificant stretch of sand and desert. The opulence of the more settled lands of the Tigris, Euphrates and Nile valleys were all too charming for the nomadic Arabs. By 750 AD the Muslims had conquered lands stretching from Spain in the west to the Indus river (Pakistan) in the east. The resulting Muslim Empire enjoyed a diverse cultural and religious mix consisting of Muslims, Christians, Jews and various faiths. This diversity would play a vital role during the subsequent Islamic Golden Age (750-1258 AD) as knowledge would be actively shared amongst the various groups. The expansion of Islam in the early days threatened the European culture, specifically the Byzantine Empire from whom bordering lands had been wrestled away.
2. The Trade competition:
Islam forbids usury or the taking of interest on money lent. Trade was therefore encouraged as a means of making profit. The holy city of Mecca being an important trade center, the Arabs naturally took up trading. With the expansion of Islam and the new lands acquired by 750 AD, the Muslims were well poised to control important routes on the Silk Road. Trade caravans passed through their territories and so the Muslims acted more as a middlemen between Europe and China. Trade profits were used in building local agrarian economies by improving the canal system. Islamic centers in Iraq, Spain and Egypt saw a blossoming of culture and sciences. Greek literature on philosophy and sciences was translated into local languages and Muslim scientists made advances in fields of mathematics, astronomy and medicine.
The Silk Road was in fact a mesh of trade routes over land and sea.
There was considerable concern in Europe regarding the diminished profits from supporting the Muslim middleman. Europeans increasingly sought alternate routes for trade, eventually succeeding by the late 15th century. The discovery of Americas by Christopher Columbus (1492) and circumnavigation of Africa by Vasco de Gama (1498), provided Europe with the much needed alternate trade routes. Muslims weren’t very happy with these new maritime routes but did not succeed in stopping the European engagements. The final nail in the coffin came much later with the digging of the Suez Canal in 1860s. As a result, the Muslims cities along the old Silk Route were wiped out, putting further strain on an already ailing Muslim Ottoman Empire.
3. Islamic decline and ascendancy of West:
The Mongols seized Baghdad in 1258 AD, destroying the House of Wisdom and slaying the populace. The waters of river Tigris are said to have turned black with ink, from the books that were tossed into the river. Though some would attribute the decline of the Islamic Golden Age to this catastrophic event, the actual reasons were much more subtle and had started centuries earlier. The Islamic society had seen a steady decline in the creative force which had been responsible for their achievements during the Islamic Golden Age. In short, they went from being ‘creators’ to ‘followers’. The spirit of inquiry disappeared and lead to the fateful demise of a previously impressive society.
Empires which have maintained their essential vitality have always bounced back from catastrophic events with greater vigor. For the Muslims it was not to be and though the lands were regained by subsequent conquests, the creative spirit was lost altogether. The West was able to come out of the Dark Ages by tapping into their creative potential and led the world into the industrial age.
- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - -
The current state of the Muslims around the world can be seen as that of an insecure people. They have the belief and idealism of an important message (the Quran) but lack dynamism in face of a more alluring message of the West. The subsequent article will root case this lack of dynamism in the Muslim societies and present steps to correct it.
Related Readings:
[1: A Short History of Islam, Mazhar-ul-Haq]
[2: An Islamic Model of Sustainable Development by Dr. Hatem Bazian]
(Claim Token for Technorati: UWAPZBW6YUFC )
A good read, very informative, except the final section. It is a common narrative, oft repeated on television, that Islam’s golden age crashed headfirst after the Mongol invasions, but that is factually incorrect. Three of the greatest post-Mongol, pre-modern empires were the Safavid, Ottoman and Mughal empires, two surviving well into the nineteenth and twentieth century. No doubt the Mongol invasions were a catastrophe for the Muslim strongholds, especially given the fact that the black death followed quickly on the Mongol’s footsteps, but the Mongols usually assimilated themselves into the conquered cultures, than the other way round. Indeed the Mongol rulers in Muslim conquered lands adopted Islam and Muslim culture. In that sense the Mongols were not as disruptive a cultural force as other invaders have historically been.
Another observation about the final section pertains to the title chosen for the section. Although not explicitly stated, reading the section feels like the writer is implying the common enough ‘narrative of defeat’ employed by defeated cultures throughout history. Basically, the vanquished nations would retrospectively identify things that they didn’t do right, as compared to the conquering nation, the assumption being that ‘if we did what they have done’ then we would not have been defeated, as if that was the ‘right thing to do’.
It’s a natural enough instinct, but a anybody who’s studied history knows that this is not how history works. The ascendency of European was not due to something that everyone was supposed to have done, but that only the Europeans were able to do. India, China, Africa and the American Empires were doing fine and didn’t need to change. On the other hand, it is not accurate to say that the Europeans were ‘able to come out of the Dark Ages by tapping into their creative potential and led the world into the industrial age’. It would be more accurate to say that:
1. The Europeans Kingdoms were pushed against the wall when the Ottoman Empire gradually expanded to cover most of the eastern Eurasian landmass, thereby effectively cutting off the Europeans from the lucrative overland trade routes via the silk roads. This pushed the Europeans to undertake sea expeditions in search of routes to Asia (remember, China was the trade powerhouse back in those days, dejavu
, and Indian coastal cities were also busy trading hubs).
2. Europe in those days had a huge trade deficit with Asia, as it had nothing to offer to Asia, but prized the textiles, earthenware and spices of Asia.
3. Fatefully, Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain were talked by Columbus into financing his expedition to sail to Asia from across the Pacific but instead stumbled upon the Americas. The story of the eventual colonization of the Americas has as much to do with biological factors and luck as it has to do with cunning and superior firepower.
4. The colonization of the West Indies and the North and South American continents, and the silver mining colonies established there were the only thing that enabled the Europeans to offer something to Asia in exchange of Asian wares (silver coins had by then become the official currency of the Chinese Empire).
5. The wealth flowing in from the ‘New World’ strengthened the European Kindgdoms, and the perpetual rivalry between various Kingdoms meant that most of the wealth was spent into developing more destructive militaries.
6. In the meantime, advances in maritime technologies and navigation techniques (a lot coming from the Muslims), enabled sailors to circumnavigate around the horn of Africa, and thus all but rendered the overland trade routes redundant, and enabled maritime trade from the West to the East, bypassing the old trading hubs altogether. This stung not only the Mulsim lands, but also old trade cities like Venice.
7. The points 4,5 and 6 eventually led to the ascendency of Europe (and eventually the neo-Europes) enabling them to militarily force open trade in the old world for European access, and eventually to colonize much of the old world.
8. The industrial revolution, or revolutions, came much after Europe had established its supremacy in global affairs. It only accelerated the process.
Rambling aside, the question isn’t as much as why the rest of the ‘old world’ didn’t do what Europe did, but how Europe came do do what it did that led to its preeminence in the global world. The answer is not as simple as ‘creative potential’, and leads one to the realization that empires and civilizations are driven more by forces and circumstances surrounding them than their own innate potential. The way things eventually play out are just one of many possibilities, and there are always bigger obstacles to change in more established empires with little incentives to change, than there are for the underdogs who naturally have more of an incentive to change. Just review the ‘fall of the West’ that we are experiencing in our own lifetimes. It’s a natural cycle that has been dictating the rise and fall of civilization and empires since ancient times.
It’s not that the Europeans just lost their creative potential in the twenty first century, but that there are bigger forces at work.
Mohammad Mansoor, thanks for the detailed comment. Here is an attempt to summarize the points:
- Causes of Islam’s Decline
– Question of Mongol invasion as a cause of Islamic Decline
– Tendency of post-decline emulation of conquerors
– Circumstances of civilizations more important than innate potential
- Reasons for ascendancy of West
– Choking of trade routes
– The factor of New World resources (silver etc)
– Role of industrial revolution
These points are handled here:
- Causes of Islam’s Decline
– Question of Mongol invasion as a cause of Islamic Decline:
The article doesn’t attribute the decline of Islamic Civilization to the Mongol invasion. To the contrary it suggests that there were other factors (loss of spirit of enquiry): “Though some would attribute the decline of the Islamic Golden Age to this catastrophic event, the actual reasons were much more subtle and had started centuries earlier.”
– Tendency of post-decline emulation of conquerors
The article doesn’t really suggests emulating the conquerors, rather to go back to the factors which caused the rise of the Islamic empire in the first case (i.e. innovation and dynamism due to free and unhindered (from religion) spirit of enquiry)
– Circumstances of civilizations more important than innate potential
That point is debatable. If historians were to get historical amnesia and forget Islam ever existed, no one would be able to predict (from circumstances of the Arabian peninsula) that within a couple hundred years the Arab would dominate regions from Spain to river Indus.
- Reasons for ascendancy of West
– Choking of trade routes
This is a very interesting point. Did the choking of trade route happen during the Ottoman Empire (post 1300 AD) or much earlier as suggested by this article. This definitely needs to be looked into.
– The factor of New World resources (silver etc)
A previous article (http://sosailaway.wordpress.com/2012/12/11/seeds-of-progress-debunking-the-creative-gene-theory/) talks about it briefly: “Europe might have seen secondary factors of economic growth, like influx of vital resources from the colonies, but those only accelerated an already burgeoning and vibrant economy. Europe would still have come out in front and continued to be a strong player in the world market, without these external factors.”. The idea is that progress was well on its way because of a culture of innovation in Europe.
– Role of industrial revolution
Agreed, industrial revolution was an effect and not the cause. That wasn’t implied here. Again the previous article (link above) talks about this in detail, attributing the success to the innovations, which were a result of tapping into their creative potential of the people. Again the whole article should be read, as it does not assume that only Europe had the creative potential.
—————–
Your present your views very well, especially on underdogs having lesser hurdles (relatively) and more incentives, as compared to advanced nations/empires.
West’s decline is a relative decline; it’s basically the world that is catching up in a hurry. West is still vibrant and as long as they innovate and are willing to change with the circumstances, they will remain a powerful force.
As to the Islamic world’s decline starting much earlier than the Mongol invasion, I already shared evidence to the contrary, arguing that it came much later. Our most brilliant Empires came after the Mongol invasions, and lasted into the twentieth century.
I apologize that I wasn’t clear in distinguishing the formulation of a narrative of defeat, from the notion of emulation of the conquerors. I don’t think the Islamic world was ever into this. I can’t think of any example except Mustafa Kamal of Turkey. At least not like the Japanese did later.
We do, however all subscribe to the narrative that our leaders fell into revelries (which they did), while Europe was building universities and being creative. Correlation doesn’t necessarily imply causation. There were entirely unique reasons for why Europe did what it did, which the rest of the empires didn’t encounter.
To start off with, to quote the article, Europe’s rise to power and Islam’s initial cause of success is ‘innovation and dynamism due to free and unhindered (from religion) spirit of enquiry’ is not supported by evidence.
The Islamic world never separated science (in the bigger sense) and politics from religion as a discipline. On the flip side, Islam as a religion never hindered free inquiry as it did not carry the baggage that Christianity did regarding certain dogmatic beliefs (age of the world, centrality of the earth in the universe etc.). The whole argument that religion fetters scientific inquiry makes sense when you realize that it traces back to evolution in the Christian world from the fetters imposed by Christianity. What is really ironic is that it was actually the excesses of Christian religion that triggered the scientific revolution in the first place.
Centuries of religious conflicts in Europe, the Protestant reformation and counter-reformation, the Spanish inquisition, all served to dramatically drive public opinion away from religion. This opened the way for the cultural Renaissance, and eventually the ‘Enlightenment’. It is actually the ‘Enlightenment’ era that professed to do away with religion and champion the free and unhindered (from religion) spirit of inquiry. But this is roughly into the Eighteenth century, and well after the European colonization of the Indies and Americas. The following scientific and industrial revolutions were a natural effect of the Enlightenment ideals, and wholly predictable. This is really where Europe sowed the seeds for their eventual domination of the rest of the world, and the following centuries would see the gap widen between them, but what enabled to Europeans to get to this stage were reasons very unique to Europe. In fact, much of Enlightenment thought went towards criticizing contemporary local conditions, mixed with a belief in the universality of the Enlightenment ideals.
The fact that the Europeans now had the wealth flowing in from the New World (again, due to reasons entirely disconnected from free inquiry or science), meant that Europe was now able to amalgamate Empire and colonization with science. That is a very interesting topic, but much of science owes its existing to empire, colonization and war. More on that another time. Another very important factor that we’re ignoring is the interdependency between financiers and innovators. The state chartered trading companies, with monopolistic trading rights became magnets for huge capital as joint-stock companies, and eventually the limited liability joint stock companies gave way to a new elite class alongside the merchant elites, the financiers. They in turn financed innovators and tinkerers. This was a very powerful combination. The Boulton & Watt steam engine is a quintessential example of the financier-innovator/tinkerer combination. I think this is the only thing that is keeping the USA atop in technology with its Googles and Facebooks. The ‘enterprising environment’ and not just an enterprising spirit.
About the relative contribution in nations’ fate of innate potential versus circumstances, it’s always going to be a relative scale, but I have found circumstances much more important historically. The way the centers of power shifted even within Europe from Portugal, Spain and Italy ever northwards towards France and Britain, had much more to do with geography and internal and world dynamics, than French and Britain’s ‘spirit’ vs. the southern spirit. Just my two cents.
Pingback: “Reason-Revelation Balance” – Revival of the spirit of enquiry in Islam | So Sail Away