Nasr, Seyyed Hossein, Science and Civilization in Islam (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1968). Reviewed by Clara L. Austin (Hist 5040, Spring 1999)
In this book, Seyyed Hossein Nasr argues that the Islamic faith was the primary influence on science in the Muslim world in the Middle Ages. Nasr's intent is to prove that, when looked at properly, Islamic science did not stagnate, but was instead "stable." In order to fully explain the course of Islamic science, he says, one must understand the Muslim worldview and the place of science among the faithful. For Muslims, the universe has a single predominant characteristic, unity. The goal of all learning is to comprehend this unity, and science was a step in this process. In other words, Nasr is arguing that for most Islamic scientists of this time, nature was largely symbolic, and the study of nature brought man closer to God. Muslim science was holistic and gnostic, and was closely linked to religious faith, rather than being a rational, secular process which breaks nature down into its constituent parts. The holistic tendency of Muslim scientists is obvious from the large number of men who were experts in several different fields. For instance, Ibn Sina (Avicenna) was a noted physician, but he also wrote on logic, mathematics, natural science, minerology, geology, and philosophy. Another figure familiar to Westerners was Omar Khayyam, who was known primarily as a mathematician until his poetry was translated by Fitzgerald. The calendar he created in still in use in Persia. This volume is filled with such scientific figures working in the centuries between the birth of Islam and the Scientific Revolution.
Muslim cosmology was based partially on the Quran, which describes seven planets and seven heavens, which neatly corresponded with traditional Semitic division of the world into seven climates. There were two basic types of cosmology in the Muslim world. One was "macrocosmic," with five levels stacked like concentric circles. The innermost level was the physical world; the outermost was the "Divine Essence." This view corresponded with the symbolic view of nature which saw that "the physical world, for all its vastness, is but a small portion of the cosmos in its totality, and is enveloped and contained by it." (p. 94) the "microcosmic" view reversed the levels, placing the Divine Essence at the core and the physical world on the outside. In this way, man could be seen as a microcosm of the universe, with his gross, physical manifestation being most visible and his spirituality hidden. Muslim scientists, however they chose to view the universe, saw nature as a text or commentary on the Quran or on revelation. Nature was seen as a symbol.
Natural history and geography were important sciences in the Muslim world. This was the time of the Islamic voyages of discovery, which provided data for these studies. The "rapid consolidation of the Islamic world" allowed the development of a unique tradition in this area. (p. 109) This tradition combined the sacred and the secular. Muslim geographical treatises, for example, included sections on sacred geography, such as the place and description of the "central cosmic mountain" as referred to in the Quran. Muslim geographers and natural historians knew about geologic changes in the past, both gradual and sudden, and they extensively revised and updated the geography they inherited from the Greeks. The study of plants, animals, and minerals was important to other sciences such as alchemy and medicine. Nature for Muslims was both animated and a source of wonder and peace. "Nature thus did not play the negative and dark role that it did in medieval Christianity." (p. 125)
Medieval Muslim physics, like its Western counterpart, was concerned with "generation" and "corruption." Physicists used Aristotle extensively, but did criticize him. There was also an anti-Aristotelian tradition that encompassed Hermetical and Illuminatist (dealing with the sacred nature of light) philosophies. Most criticism of Aristotle, however, came from theologians working from the Quran.
Again, nature was a symbol for Muslim physicists. They experimented in optics, density, gravity, and so on, but experimental physics was always peripheral in the Muslim sciences. There was, however, a strong tradition of observation, and the astronomical observatory as a center for science was an Islamic innovation. Alhazen experimented in optics reflection, refraction, and so forth, and wrote a treatise on mirrors. Al-Biruni considered heliocentrism, but eventually discarded it because he could not work out the physics. However, he did accept the elliptical orbit as a possibility. Al-Khazini worked on momentum theory and the basis of impetus theory, as well as on hydrostatics and the balance. These scientists, according to Nasr, were "'progressive' while still remaining within a 'nonprogressive' world view." (p. 144) for them science was only one interpretation of nature.
For Muslim mathematicians, like the other scientists Nasr discusses, numbers were symbols and mathematics was a step to higher wisdom. This science encompassed arithmetic, algebra, geometry, astronomy, and music. Mathematicians considered the problems of the calendar and timekeeping, the direction of Mecca, horoscopes, and the motion of the heavenly bodies, but the point of math was always considered to be the perfection of knowledge. Indian numerals were introduced to the West through the work of Al-Khwarazmi, and are now called "Arabic" numerals here. Muslim mathematicians developed trigonometry, number theory, computational methods, decimal fractions, number series, and an algebra that combined Greek and Indian methods. Al-Khwarazmi's work was translated into Latin and introduced this kind of algebra to the West. Omar Khayyam's work on algebra was very influential in the Muslim world as was his calendar, and the mysterious Brethren of Purity produced clear and understandable commentaries on traditional works that helped to increase interest in the mathematical science in the Muslim world.
For centuries, the center of Islamic astronomy was Baghdad, where an observatory was built in 828. Muslim astronomers were influenced not only by the Greeks, but also by the Indians. With the observatory and Indian-influenced mathematics, astronomers were able to refine Ptolemaic astronomy, but they never broke away from it, despite growing dissatisfaction with the system. Ulugh Beg developed a star catalogue that was the first new catalogue since Ptolemy. Al-Biruni computed both longitude and latitude, and Ibn Yunus studied the periodic motion of the pendulum, which would influence the development of the mechanical clock. Nasr claims that "all that is astronomically new in Copernicus can be found essentially in the school of al-Tusi and his students." (p. 174) Significantly, Muslim astronomers changed the "abstract" heavens of the Greeks into "solid" or "physical" heavens without fully understanding the implications of this. Their cosmos was finite and limited, with no empty space.
Science and Civilization in Islam, while having an interesting thesis, has many problems. The most significant one is its vagueness. For instance, dates are rarely given. Changes in outlook are not pinpointed, merely hinted at. Works and achievements are not dated, nor are the lives of many of the principle figures. Nasr rarely gives examples of the ideas of his subjects, and instead settles for listing important figures and the names of their works. His explanations are often vague, and filled with abstract language that is undefined and difficult to follow. Nasr also tends to equate the search for any kind of knowledge (wisdom) with science.
The data in Science and Civilization is also unfocused. It is rarely connected with the thesis Nasr proposed in the Introduction. This makes it difficult to determine what Nasr's true intention is: to show that Islamic science did not decline, or to show that the Islamic worldview influenced Muslim science. If he wishes to show activity, then the sections of the book on the Islamic worldview, philosophy, and gnosticism should be greatly reduced. If his focus is on the influence of faith on science, he needs to integrate this idea for explicitly and directly into his discussion. Either way, Nasr's treatment of Islam and the Islamic worldview could be made muchmore accessible to the general reader. Terms must be defined, and basic tenets of the faith must be explained. Additionally Nasr should be more explicit in drawing connections between Islam and science.