More on the Decline of Islamic Science 

Neil Tyson on Islam & Science between 9th & 12th Century

Until the late Middle Ages, the Muslim Middle East was at least as economically developed as Europe. Then, beginning with the rise of the great Italian traders in the 14th century, Europeans pulled ahead, while the Islamic world gradually declined. By the 19th century, European economic influence had translated into political domination of the Middle East. 

…

What happened? 

…

Since 1997, Timur Kuran, an economist at the University of Southern California, has been investigating the connection between institutions and the economic decline of the Muslim Middle East. In a paper, ”The Islamic Commercial Crisis: Institutional Roots of the Delay in the Middle East’s Economic Modernization,” he proposes an answer: Islamic partnership law and inheritance law interacted to keep Middle Eastern enterprises small, never allowing the development of corporate forms. (A version of the paper can be downloaded at papers.ssrn.com/abstract_id=276377.)

In the Middle Ages, both Islamic and European law required that a partnership dissolve if one partner died or was incapacitated. That tended to limit the size of such arrangements. The typical partnership would be, say, two financial backers and one trader who brought merchandise to or from a distant locale. The more people involved, the more likely the partnership would have to dissolve in the middle of a venture.

In Europe, the consequences of a partner’s death could be limited. Inheritance law often allowed a person to designate heirs. So a particular son might inherit the partnership share. The partnership would still have to dissolve technically, but it could be immediately reconstituted.

As a result, European partnerships were able to expand over time, allowing more ambitious, better-financed ventures.

Under Islamic law, by contrast, inheritance was prescribed in rigid detail, with all sorts of family members — uncles, cousins, siblings, parents, and so on — getting pieces of the estate. There was no way to limit a stake to a single heir. These prescriptions were rooted in the Koran, which meant they were virtually impossible to alter. The fragmentation produced by inheritance law, combined with the strictures of partnership law, kept Middle Eastern enterprises small. That, in turn, limited the pressure to evolve new economic forms.

”Why did you get the joint stock corporation and the modern corporation in Europe?” Professor Kuran asked. ”Because as these partnerships expanded, they created problems that had to be resolved by putting pressure on the legal system to recognize new institutions.” For instance, partners who wanted to pull out and sell their shares needed a financially graceful way to do so, leading to transferable shares and stock exchanges.

”As these problems arise, the legal system responds,” Professor Kuran said. ”The same thing doesn’t happen in the Islamic world because the partnerships don’t grow.”

That difference did not matter for a long time, because the small partnerships were still extremely successful, and most of their trade was with Africa or Asia. Only in the 18th century, when trade with Europe became a big part of Middle Eastern commerce, did the difference between the systems become important.

At that point, Christians and Jews in Islamic countries also suddenly had a business advantage. As religious minorities, they had been able to choose whether to do business under Islamic law or, with mutual consent, under some other law. Although their own religions also provided laws and courts, they generally relied on Islamic law.

When Europeans started dominating Middle Eastern trade, however, they brought European courts with them. That gave Middle Eastern religious minorities a new option: to use European law. 

…

Since European institutions had evolved to better suit the scale of modern businesses, in which thousands of people may be involved as investors and employees, Christians and Jews using those laws began to prosper in comparison to their Muslim neighbors. Only in the 19th century did Middle Eastern governments begin adopting secular commercial laws that allowed Muslim-owned enterprises to grow.

Today, Professor Kuran says, Islamic inheritance law poses no problems to large-scale endeavors. The estate simply divides up the securities among the heirs, and the business goes on undisturbed. Secular corporate law lets religious inheritance law work in a modern economy.

”I’m not talking about blanket condemnation of Islamic law,” he said emphatically. ”That is patently false. I don’t believe it and I don’t argue it.” 

…

”When the inheritance law was put into place, the early Muslims in the seventh century were not thinking about the consequences for commerce with Europe 1,000 years later,” he said. They were addressing inequities in their own day, including the problems of daughters left with no inheritance. ”But in the process,” he said, ”they created another problem 1,000 years down the road.”

Source | NYT

But it is true that while Muslims established fruitful relations with Mongols, Greeks and Hindus, they remained utterly uninterested in the west. The great 14th-century traveller Ibn Battutah journeyed all over the known world, but never visited Europe. His contemporary, Ibn Khaldun, a historian and faylasuf (philosopher), dismisses the rumour that philosophy and science were developing in western Christendom: “God knows best what goes on in those parts.” Why this indifference? It springs, I believe, not from an inherent flaw in “one-text” Islam, but from the kind of superiority that, until recently, caused western people to dismiss Islam with such patrician disdain. In the early 16th century, when Fletcher ends his account, the Ottoman empire was probably the most advanced state in the world, and had no way of knowing that Europe, which had for so long been a backward region, was about to develop a civilisation that was entirely without precedent in world history, and which would have a catastrophic effect on the Muslim world.

…

Also this part:

…

He calmly and effectively disposes of the popular myth that Islam is an inherently violent and intolerant faith, while at the same time showing that Christians could not be expected to see it in any other way. He shows clearly that far from forcing their subjects to accept their religion at sword-point, Muslim rulers did not initially encourage conversion. There seems to have been much “good-mannered discussion” between Christians and Muslims in the Middle East, where, after centuries of Byzantine oppression, many of the churches flourished as never before.

Source | Karen Armstrong reviewing Fletcher’s book for Guardian

“it can also be argued that the NOI is in fact pseudo-Islamic—just as many Christians would argue that Mormons are pseudo-Christian (though wearing the trappings and emblems of Christianity, they deny certain of its basic tenets).

To illustrate: evangelical Christians would say that Mormons must possess more than the Bible, the name of Jesus, baptism, and good works to be considered genuine Christians. They also must not deny one of the fundamental essentials of Christianity, namely, monotheism. Since the Mormons believe in the existence of Creator-Gods both prior to and in addition to God the Father, this heresy alone is sufficient to exclude them from the circle of bona-fide Christianity.

In like manner, the NOI also has some polytheistic beliefs which deny the fundamentals of theistic religion. According to the Institute of Islamic Information and Education, “Islam and the so-called ‘Nation of Islam’ are two different religions. The only thing common between them is the jargon, the language used by the both.”[1] The Muslim Student Association at the University of Southern California affirms that the NOI is “misusing” the word Islam and is “in fact clearly and absolutely in violation of certain basic principles contained in the Qur’an and Sunnah.”[2] Many other orthodox Muslims would agree.

The principal heresy of the NOI that both Muslims and Christians find objectionable is Elijah Muhammad’s teaching on the nature of God. Elijah Muhammad taught that there are many Gods (polytheism); that some of these Gods had a beginning and later died; that one of them was Wallace D. Fard who literally was Allah; and that God is a man, the black man in general and Master Fard in particular. Throughout his teaching Elijah Muhammad gives credit to W. D. Fard (whom he also calls “Master Fard Muhammad, God in Person”) as the true and praiseworthy source for his teachings.

In many respects, Louis Farrakhan perpetuates these errors, though we acknowledge that Minister Farrakhan’s writings are noticeably less heretical than those of his predecessor. However, he maintains that Elijah Muhammad was a divinely commissioned Messenger of God, and to that degree he becomes culpable for promoting the errors of his spiritual father.”

Excerpts from Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam: Part Two.