Orientalism and Islam v. Science

Not at all, this ability to find this evidence was entirely based on Darwin being able to rely on a world wide system of trade routes dedicated to, and funded by, litterally ripping off the wealth of societies less able in the matter of naval affairs. Not only did they collect the worlds material wealth, but they also took the worlds ideas. Thus Darwin was able to compare multitudes of various examples, as well. You are seriously of the impression that this ability stems from the repression of "heretical" ideas in Islam, and not merely a fact of the processes of the evolution of imperial power and how this is shaped by geographic location?

The reality is that no Muslim rulers could benefit from the development of large seagoing fleets in order to be able to achieve what the British, and the Dutch and the Spanish, and other European powers were able to when motivated by the relatively easy picking in America. The basic needs of the Muslim rulers were defined by the fact that they were surrounded by land, and or shallow seas, and such naval development would have been a costly and wasteful misappropriation of funds needed to support the large land armies they needed to secure, and I daresay expand their borders. Overtime a consitent effort in this direction would have bankrupted the Sultanate.

The truth is that the Ottomans could easily of replicated Cortez's miraculous invasion of the America's had they had the means to get there. Their land army was of similar ability, and armed in the same manner, more or less.

Once discovered, the rapaicious European monarchies then jealoulsy guarded their new found source of power, from all comers, using the exploited wealth to expand that power.

If not for this unique ability Darwin's "ideas" would still just be "ideas," too. Empircal scientific method came into being in lock-step with this expanded world view, and the gathering of further information, as well as the aquisition of the obscene wealth needed to fund scientific endeavour.

[ 28 February 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
[b]

I dunno. Those facts could also support the hypothesis that the conquest of the Americas was a consequence of those breakthroughs, not a cause of them.[/b]

---

I think any student of "economics" would be aware of the huge boom in economic development that occurred in Europe in the wake of the discovery of America. In a period of 200 years, what had been thriving trade centers such as Constantinople, were dwarfed by the huge amount of wealth that started flowing through London Andalusia, Tago and Falndern. Butfuck little dutchies like Holland and Portugal became world powers overnight, just by licking up offal off the floor left by England and France and Spain at the big imperial feast.

Its amazing how the so called rationalist blindly assert the prophesy of their rationalist scientific method, without making and argument, or provide proof, or even a basic hypothesis to explain, in a rationalist manner, the sudden aquistion of the root knowledge to which they attribute their success. Indeed it would seem that rationalism was a revelation.

[ 28 February 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Yes. But only because he doesn't cloudy it up with a lot of distractive commentary, like I hate them all equally. His assertion was an exact example where the kind of generalization that you constantly make about Islam, directly targetting Islam, and its "backwardness," are part and parcel of a whole prejudiced discourse, which was neatly summed up by Stephen's statement.

I have tried to explain why constantly leaning on the concept that [b]"Islamic societies have not produced any good science in the [i]last few centuries,[/i]"[/b] is prejudicial, several times now. But you don't seem to be getting it.

I thought going into a detailed historical sociological anaylsis of the comparative factors impacting Islamic society in the last 400 years, and those operating in Christian European society, would help illuminate why such assertions are damaging, and I have challenged you by asserting that "era" is irrelevant to this discussion several times without a response.

I think Stephen's assertion neatly sums up why I reject this notion, as it shows precisely the kind of conclusions that are routinely made when people ask, and then answer the question why have [b]"Islamic societies not produced any good science in the [i]last few centuries?[/i]"[/b]

And Stephen came along and nailed it, because his conclusion is precisely the one that this question implies: [i]"Superior western rationalist thinking was at the heart of the rise of scientifc knowledge. The Muslim mind was blocked by Islam."[/i]

[ 28 February 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Well, clearly you just want to argue, but that is precisely the exact logical extension of this assertion by Stephen: "Those facts could also support the hypothesis that the conquest of the Americas was a consequence of those breakthroughs, not a cause of them."

I should think you would get that since that is the only thing that Stephen said, and my post was a reflection on his post, and your question.

He basicly cut my post in half then added a summary of the orientalist hypothesis, which was in my post already. It was funny. It's in quotes because I was quoting the part of my post that Stephen cut out, but what he said amounts to what I originally said, regardless.

[ 28 February 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Your question: "Why have Islamic societies not produced any good science in the last few centuries?" Is entirely tuned to the orientalist world view.

It speaks to Stephen's assertion that superior rationalist European "breakthroughs" are the cause of European ascendance. European cultural superiority. In the background is also the implied belief that "others" in this case Muslim people, since they are the topic at hand, are stupid, and that this has something to do with "Muslimness" in particular.

It is a very common part of the discourse, Muslim backwardness, our superior culture, etc. All spring from your question, wether you like it or not.

[ 28 February 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Now you are formalizing. You have asked this question repeatedly in one version or another over a series of threads, and selected it for special attention from various quotes:

Here:

quote:

---

originally (posted 24 February 2008 07:45 PM ) by Unionist:

[b]So Cueball - what was the name of that Islamic scientist again? That Islamic rйgime that promoted scientific endeavour [i]in the last half-millennium or so?[/b][/i]

---

quote:

---

originally (posted 27 February 2008 04:59 AM ) by Unionist:
Great, Cueball - so if they were beheaded for their philosophical rather than scientific theories, give me examples of science thriving in an Islamic theological framework.

[b][i]More recent than the 15th century[/i], if you don't mind, [/b]because there is no doubt that in the previous period, certain of the Muslim societies were far more tolerant of scientific, artistic and philosophical thought than the barbaric Christian societies which succeeded them in Spain and elsewhere.

---

[url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=21&t=001872]I... and Science[/url]

quote:

---

Originally ( posted 23 February 2008 04:51 AM ) by Unionist:

[b]I asked for evidence of a single Islamic ideologue, scholar, or rйgime [i]in modern times (last 600 years, say[/i]) which has promoted and favoured scientific discovery.[/b] I try to maintain an open mind on this, although it is (I admit) hard for me to understand how Islam (or the rest of the B.S. mythologies) can favour scientific discovery. Needless to say, not a single example is forthcoming. Instead, Cueball takes refuge in attacking science. More power to him. I think religion is shit, he apparently feels the same way about science.

---

[url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=21&t=001871]I... Creationism[/url]

None of these questions or assertions even come close to tendering the idea that there is anything other than "Islamic" backwardness behind the relative lack of scientific discovery in the Muslim world in recent times. There is not even a hint that this lack of scientific progress in Muslim societies, [i]in comparison to European rationalism as the standard by which progress is to be judged[/i], might have something to do with other objective factors other than the "Islamicness" of the society. No social analysis whatsoever, and in fact when I raised the issue of other possible factors, this was completely rejected as "irrelevant".

quote:

---

Originally ( posted 24 February 2008 07:07 PM ) by Unionist:
Go argue with yourself and convince yourself how the Ottomans were on the very verge of progress, science and Nirvana, but got screwed by someone else. I'm not playing, because it is utterly irrelevant.

---

After all this, and [i]only now,[/i] do we get a sotto voice submission from you that "...Muslim societies were for the most part the victims, rather than the beneficiaries, of colonial plunder and pillage..." done by European rationalists, among others. Up until then, Scientific backwardness was presented entirely in the light of Muslimness, [i]but with European rationalism as the standard of comparison[/i]. You demanded that the problems in Islam were to be considered entirely in and of themselves, as a result of Islamic supression of progress, and everything else was "irrelevant".

[ 29 February 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

And my point is that if you are going to use "western" standard as the baseline for your critique, then you should be open to analysis that points out how your baseline standard comes into existence because that is as much the cause of the [i]relative[/i] difference in progress, as anything happening with the subject of study.

If the sudden explosion in European wealth, and aquired knowledge had not happened then the standard you are using for comparison, would not have come into existence, and as likely as not technological development would likey have remained "flat" worldwide.

I think that around the 15th century humankind generally was more or less on the verge of making some critical advances, however, this process was accelerated for one specific group due to certain opportunities that appeared, and thus they accumulated knowledge, techology, wealth amongst themselves, and then this acceleration was increased exponentially by the aquisition of power that these advances allowed. Likewise, the sudden accumulation of overwhellming power within one group undermined the avancement of other societies, as they were forced to pay a lot of attention to defending themselves from the new and very powerful threat that has suddenly (in historical terms) appeared.

If this had not happened, your baseline standard, would not have appeared, either, and it would likely not be possible to make the comparison you are making, which [i]assumes[/i] the baseline standared, because it is likely that technological development would have remained "flat", more or less, globallly.

Your statement assumes the western standard as the norm, and by asserting that standard as a value to be applied in the context of Muslim society (or any non-European society) [i]only in terms of the internal social and political and religious dynamics within that society[/i], and not taking into account the factors that create the baseline standard you are applying prejudices the case.

Not entirely because the formulation of the question, in it various forms, as being relevant to "era", indirectly feeds the misconception. It is not either that Islam was repressing or not encouraging scientifc development, but that, as Fidel says in the case of Tusi: "he was disadvantaged by the very time in which he lived [i]and the state of overall scientific knowledge, communication barriers etc.[/i]"

"Era", and I daresay "religion" itself are irrelevant to the issue of [i]how much[/i] scientific study people are engaged in. And these two points, often surface as part of European self-justification for their rapid delvopment, in various propaganda tropes (read Gordon above), and I think we should be careful about that.

And there is also this, which I think you should take into account as a historical materialist:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Unionist:

Religion, as a whole, is a force for suppression, for enforced ignorance, for preservation of the status quo. [i]Marx said it was the opiate of the masses. Given an inch, it will put science to sleep as surely as it does the strivings for social change.[/i]

---

Narx nor Nengal's never said religion was a force for suppression or enforced ignorance. Engels's even said that "original sin" is the "first equality." Neither of them ever said anything about not giving it "an inch."

That is you.

He said the need for it will disappear when people no longer need the illusion of it, because it will be replaced by a material reality of their [i]real[/i] happiness. There would be no need for religion in that context, he proposed.
Yes, they said that religion was the opiate of the masses, but in the full context he said:

quote:

---

The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion. Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opiate of the people. [i]The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions.[/i] The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

---

I found your reference to Marx a little strange in this context, seeing as he never suggested the struggle against religion was at all central to his vision, because economy, and the matertial condition ruled his world view, and an outright attack upon religion, would be to miss the point in his view.

Even more clearly, Engels, in [url=http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/ch27.htm]An...ьhring by 1877[/url] argues against the "politically" anti-religious views.

quote:

---

But it does not matter what we want. What matters is what Herr Dьhring wants. And he differs from Frederick II in this, that in the Dьhringian future state certainly not everyone will be able to be happy in his own way. The constitution of this future state provides:

[i]"In the free society there can be no religious worship; for every member of it has got beyond the primitive childish superstition that there are beings, behind nature or above it, who can be influenced by sacrifices or prayers" {D. Ph. 286}. A "socialitarian system, rightly conceived, has therefore ... to abolish all the paraphernalia of religious magic, and therewith all the essential elements of religious worship" {D. C. 345}. [/i]

Religion is being prohibited.

All religion, however, is nothing but the fantastic reflection in men's minds of those external forces which control their daily life, a reflection in which the terrestrial forces assume the form of supernatural forces.... [cut for brevity]....[b]Mere knowledge, even if it went much further and deeper than that of bourgeois economic science, is not enough to bring social forces under the domination of society. What is above all necessary for this, is a social act. [/b] And when this act has been accomplished, when society, by taking possession of all means of production and using them on a planned basis, has freed itself and all its members from the bondage in which they are now held by these means of production which they themselves have produced but which confront them as an irresistible alien force, when therefore man no longer merely proposes, but also disposes — [b]only then will the last alien force which is still reflected in religion vanish; and with it will also vanish the religious reflection itself, for the simple reason that then there will be nothing left to reflect. [/b]

[b]Herr Dьhring, however, cannot wait until religion dies this, its natural, death.[/b] He proceeds in more deep-rooted fashion. He out-Bismarcks Bismarck; he decrees sharper May laws [127] not merely against Catholicism, but against all religion whatsoever; he incites his gendarmes of the future against religion, and thereby helps it to martyrdom and a prolonged lease of life.

---

The last thing the Marx and Engels proposed was an evangelical rationalist attack on religion. In fact, they never argued for the direct abolition of religion, at all, contrary to popular belief but believe that once people had taken control of their material lives it would wither away.

They felt the emancipation of man would simply remove religion as a spirtual need altogether. They would have opposed Attaturks anti-religious reforms on the basis that [b]"he incites his gendarmes of the future against religion, and thereby helps it to martyrdom and a prolonged lease of life."[/b]

And they would be right.

[ 29 February 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
[b]Geez. I saw three facts, and a conclusion drawn from those facts.

I have no dog in this fight. I was just pointing out that there was at least one alternate interpretation of the available evidence. Probably lots more than one.[/b]

---

And so Stephen, what was it about white Europeans that suddenly gave them access to this superior knowledge? Was is at revelation? A gift from god?

Or do you have some kind of emipircal theory of your own with a thesis and arguement, or is blind assertion good enough to get called a social-[i]scientist[/i] in the field of "economics" these days?

[ 29 February 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

And i'd say that any rationalist who comes to the conclusion that a complete and total powershift, with overhwhelming implications and effects is the result of "luck" has lost track of his primary thesis. Sure, I agree that "luck" can play a factor in social and historical events, but as the magnitutde of the number of people, and events increases, and then measured over a greater period of time the impact, statistically speaking, of random luck and individual will as elements in determining the grand scheme train of history is reduced sharply.

So, while we might say that Napoleon's decision to quit Moscow later in the year, combined with the lucky (or unlucky) circumstance of a particularly bad (good) winter, has a grave impact on the speediness of the collapse of his empire, geo-politcally speaking, his empire was doomed anyway.

The Protestant "free thinking" thing is really just part of the mythology. What really happened there was that the HRE could no longer hang on to the northern states as they solidified as social organism. There relationship with the Papacy put those Dutchies into a quasi-subservient position in relationship to the Hapsburgs because of the religious authority. Those states needed to break with the ruling religion, in order to fully establish themselves as independent states. Moreso, this comes as a direct response, chronologically speaking, to the ability of the Northern states, in particular the Dutch and the English to exploit new territories, and the consequent need to establish new rules for economy.

Lets not forget that a large body of Luther's "reform" target Catholic control of wealth, and the rules of the game, so to speak.

Regardless, of the fact that the Portuguese were more than adequate sailors, it should be noted that their travelling was strictly limited to plying the coasts of Africa, in the early part of their expansion, and their investment of South America came as hand baggage to the Spanish discovery of the Americas. You may remember their right was confirmed in the Treaty of Tordesillas, but an error was made because no one had considered the possibility of Portugal's westward exansion, only south.

Needless to say, were North America 3000 miles west of where it is, and thus 3000 miles closer to the Asian continent, it is very doubtful that any "discovery" of the America's would have happened in the 15th century given European sailing abilities of the era, and still doubful in the century after, and the probability is that large scale settlement and exploitation of North America would have been begun by the Japanese. The Chinese as well, as they were quite avid explorers. Both were more than capable of taking on the various indiginous Islander groups in the south pacific, and colonization went ahead at an astonishing pace.

At the very least, this would have meant that there would have been more card players at the table when North America was being carved up.

[ 13 March 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

No actually both the Japanese and Chinese were avid colonizers. Particularly the Chinese. What inhibited them was that there was no where to go. Taking over the Marshall Islands would hardly have been worth it for the Japanese while expanding into Siberia and Korea most certainly was. Taiwan was colonized.

Again saying things like "the Japanese tended to keep to themselves" is putting the cart before the horse, identifying the learned sociological behaviour as the cause, when in fact it is the outcome of the context.

Closure in Japan is clearly a result of the appearance of European influences -- I don't think there is an scholar who disputes this.

[ 13 March 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]