13.07.2015 Views

Eighth to the Sixteenth Century - Rashid Islamic Center

Eighth to the Sixteenth Century - Rashid Islamic Center

Eighth to the Sixteenth Century - Rashid Islamic Center

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

80 • The Making of <strong>Islamic</strong> Sciencenonspecialists, who have never <strong>to</strong>uched a real manuscript with <strong>the</strong>irhands and who have never looked at an <strong>Islamic</strong> scientific instrumen<strong>to</strong>f surpassing aes<strong>the</strong>tic quality and dazzling details displaying amastery of complex ma<strong>the</strong>matical <strong>the</strong>orems. The extent of <strong>the</strong>entrenchment of this view makes it almost an obligation of anyonewriting a new work on Islam and science <strong>to</strong> first examine evidencesupporting this view. When one makes that attempt one finds thatall roads lead <strong>to</strong> Ignaz Goldziher, <strong>the</strong> godfa<strong>the</strong>r of <strong>the</strong> “Islam versusforeign sciences” doctrine, who first enshrined it in a German papercalled “Stellung der alten islamischen Orthodoxie zu den antikenWissenschaften” (Goldziher 1916). It was translated in<strong>to</strong> English in1981 by Merlin Swartz under an inaccurate title, “The Attitude ofOrthodox Islam Toward <strong>the</strong> ‘Ancient Sciences’” (Swartz 1981). TheEnglish title is misleading, as Dimitri Gutas has pointed out, because“it omits <strong>the</strong> word ‘old’ (‘alte’) from <strong>the</strong> original title, eliminating eventhis minimal differentiation among <strong>the</strong> various epochs of <strong>Islamic</strong>his<strong>to</strong>ry…omitting <strong>the</strong> word ‘old’ in <strong>the</strong> English context makes all‘orthodox Islam’ appear opposed <strong>to</strong> <strong>the</strong> study of <strong>the</strong> ancient sciences”(Gutas 1998, 168).Among <strong>the</strong> 155 references cited by Goldziher, however, <strong>the</strong>re isnot a single reference <strong>to</strong> a scientist complaining about <strong>the</strong> “oppositionof <strong>Islamic</strong> orthodoxy” <strong>to</strong> his work a la Galileo. This glaring absenceof internal evidence has never been mentioned by any critique ofGoldziher’s position, although <strong>the</strong>re exist at least four importantcriticisms that have somewhat blunted its influence in recent years(Sabra 1987, Makdisi 1991, Berggren 1996, Gutas 1998).What is fundamentally problematic in Goldziher’s constructionis his conception of “orthodoxy” in Islam, as George Makdisi haspointed out:The use of <strong>the</strong> term “orthodoxy” implies <strong>the</strong> possibility ofdistinguishing between what is true and what is false. This termimplies <strong>the</strong> existence of an absolute norm as well as an authoritywhich has <strong>the</strong> power <strong>to</strong> excommunicate those whose doctrinesare found <strong>to</strong> be false or heretical. Such an authority exists inChristianity, in its councils and synods. It does not exist inIslam. (Makdisi 1981, 251)

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!