However, a recent book, Islamic Science and Making of the European Renaissance, by George Saliba calls these arguments into question. This book prompted me to think more critically about this long, accepted argument. Can this prominent scholar of Islam or his famous book, Tahafut al-Falasifah, be held responsible, single handedly, for causing an age of decline in the scientific activities in the Muslim World?

Many orientalists argue that Ghazali’s Tahafut is responsible for the age of decline in science in the Muslim World. This is their key thesis as they attempt to explain the scientific and intellectual history of the Islamic world. It seems to be the most widely accepted view on the matter not only in the Western world but in the Muslim world as well. George Saliba, a Professor of Arabic and Islamic Science at Columbia University who specializes in the development of astronomy within Islamic civilization, calls this view the “classical narrative” (Saliba, 2007). However, interesting discoveries in the second half of the twentieth century by historians of science challenged many of the assertions of this classical narrative. An example of such discoveries is the strong connections between Ibn al-Shatir, a famous Damascene astronomer of the fourteenth century, and the Renaissance astronomer Copernicus (Roberts, 1957). If Ghazali had killed science in Islam in the twelfth century, then al-Shatir’s work from the fourteenth century could not have been so influential on Copernicus’s work. Saliba challenges almost all of the major tenets of the classical narrative on the basis of (1) a critical examination of historical evidence, some of which is quite recent, and (2) the results of his own long-term research in Islamic astronomy.

Saliba’s response to the question

In making his argument, Saliba first notes that most of the orientalists operate under the assumption that there must be a sharp conflict between religion and science. This paradigm is probably based on their European experience. To them, al-Ghazali represents the orthodox tradition in Islam and with Tahafut, written in the late eleventh century (between 1091 and 1095), they assume that orthodox religious thought won a decisive victory over rational, scientific thought. From that point on they assume that science in Islam declined, and the Islamic world did not produce anything significant in terms of scientific advancements.

Saliba argues that both of these assumptions are false. First, the European paradigm of conflict between religion and science does not really apply to the Islamic world. The religion of Islam encourages rational and scientific inquiry. Therefore, Muslims see no insurmountable contradictions between their faith and natural laws. Hence, studying religion and studying natural sciences does not create a conflict for Muslims.

Secondly, many of the scientists in the Islamic world were also religious authorities at the same time. A few examples among such scholars are Ibn al-Nafis, Nasir al-Din al-Tusi, Qutb al-Din al-Shirazi ,and Ibn al-Shatir who lived in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries and made important contributions to such diverse scientific disciplines as mathematics, astronomy, medicine, physics and philosophy. In fact, these scholars were regarded primarily as religious figures by the general public with side interests in sciences. Early Muslim scholars did not hesitate to acquire scientific knowledge wherever they could find it, whether it be in Indian civilization, in Greek civilization, or in Persian civilization. Not only did they acquire these sciences through translation, but they also critically examined them in a comprehensive way. Making corrections and improvements and even introducing new disciplines, they showed a high degree of ownership and maturity. This led to a remarkable period of creativity and rapid advancements in many scientific disciplines in the Islamic world beginning as early as the eighth century (Saliba, 2007).

Contrary to the classical narrative, scientific advancements in the Islamic world did not stop or even slow down after Ghazali. Saliba gives many examples of sophisticated scientific achievements in the Islamic world well after Ghazali. Based on his life-long research in the area, he concludes that the golden age of Islamic astronomy was in the post-Ghazali period from the thirteenth to the sixteenth century. Discoveries by Western historians of science in the second half of the twentieth century show that there are surprisingly strong connections between Copernicus (sixteenth century) and Muslim astronomers from the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, such as Nasir al-Din al-Tusi and Ibn al-Shatir (Roberts, 1957; Saliba, 2007). These discoveries were shocking to many in the scholarly community who did not expect to find any transfer of knowledge from the Islamic civilization to Europe in the post-Ghazali period. Unfortunately, this new information has not been sufficiently digested by today’s scholars and does not yet generally appear in secondary sources.

Saliba also provides examples from other disciplines, such as medicine, that show that a high level of scientific production took place in more than one discipline in the Islamic world in the post-Ghazali period. How is it that such important scientific materials could have been overlooked by the experts? According to Saliba a major reason for modern historians of science to have missed the large amount of scientific production in Islamic world in the post-Ghazali period is the damage caused by the classical narrative. Most historians simply weren’t looking for it because the classic narrative stipulated that science in Islam was dead after Ghazali. Even though some new discoveries have been made, there are still many scientific works waiting to be studied from that period. As an example of these omissions, Berggren, the author of Episodes in the Mathematics of Medieval Islam, says that he used this title for his book as opposed to The History of Mathematics in Medieval Islam simply because “Such a book could not be written yet, for so much material remains unstudied that we do not know enough of the whole story” (Berggren, 1986).

The Content and the Method of the Tahafut

Even though Saliba’s arguments and evidence are quite convincing to doubt or reject the common narrative, I wanted to go straight to the source-the Tahafut-and have a closer look to see if it might be a book that can be held responsible for killing the science or scientific thought in Islamic civilization.

In Tahafut, Ghazali refutes twenty philosophical doctrines. Using a scientific, or in this context philosophical, method, he first explains those philosophical doctrines before criticizing them. His explanations were so comprehensive and so clear that he made them accessible to non-philosophers, and thus, his ideas became generally better known in the Islamic world. Next, he gave arguments to refute those doctrines. In doing so, he used the very same logical and philosophical principles and arguments that philosophers used in the first place to support their claims. Ghazali mainly argues that the philosophers who proposed the doctrines that conflict with religious principles failed to provide valid and rigorous proofs for their propositions. Hence, he attacked their methodologies using their own tools and principles.

An important point Ghazali makes in Tahafut is that he has no problems with the philosophers’ mathematics, astronomical sciences, or logic. He says (Marmura 2000, p. 11):

Regarding mathematical sciences, there is no sense in denying them or disagreeing with them. For these reduce in the final analysis to arithmetic and geometry. As regards to logical sciences, these are concerned with examining the instrument of thought in intelligible things. There is no significant disagreement encountered in these.

Therefore, it is clear that his views could not be used to justify a position against the study of mathematical sciences.

To give the reader a sense of what kinds of philosophical doctrines the Tahafut is concerned with and aims to refute, a selected few out of the twenty are listed below (Marmura 2000, p. 10, 11). The list shows that the questions discussed in Tahafut concern some of the most fundamental issues in theology, particularly in the Islamic theology.

The first problem: On refuting their doctrine of the world’s pre-eternity.

The sixth: On refuting their doctrine denying the divine attributes.

The tenth: On showing that upholding a materialist doctrine and the denial of the Maker is a necessary consequence [of what they hold].

The twentieth: On refuting their denial of bodily resurrection and the accompanying bodily pleasures and pains in paradise and hell.

Concluding Remarks

When I discuss the question given in the title of this article with my colleagues, and I argue that it would be unfair to hold Ghazali or Tahafut responsible for the decline of science in Islam, I sometimes hear the objection that “perhaps the content or the method of Tahafut may not justify this conclusion, but this is not how people understood it.” But then, one must consider the evidence given by Saliba that there is a large amount of sophisticated scientific production in the Islamic world well after Ghazali, and there is still much more to be discovered. Considering the content of Tahafut and the scientific advances in post-Ghazali period, I have a hard time convincing myself that the classical narrative is the ultimate truth on the matter. This position is supported by the fact that it is usually not realistic to try to explain most major social and historical transformations in terms of a single person, a book, an event, or the like. According to Saliba, the decline in Islamic science was the result of a combination of many internal and external reasons that took place several centuries after Ghazali.

Finally, one may wonder why this question is important or relevant. After all, these things happened a long time ago, and we have to deal with the current realities. One answer would be that there are many lessons to be learned from the history. And of course if the correct version of the history is not available, conclusions will be flawed. If anybody is interested in reviving science and scientific activities in a society, there is much that can be learned from the early Islamic period when there was a remarkable rapid and widespread rise in science, as well as lessons from the later periods of Islamic history when the Islamic world fell behind in scientific production. Some researchers are beginning to realize how much damage the classical narrative has caused in understanding the general history and the development of the modern science. It is always useful to have a critical mind to question and reevaluate assumptions when they do not conform to the evidence.

References

• Berggren, J. L. 1986. Episodes in the Mathematics of Medieval Islam, New York: Springer-Verlag.
• Marmura, Michael E. (translator). 2000. Al-Ghazali The Incoherence of the Philosophers (Tahafut al-Falasifah) Provo: Brigham Young University Press.
• Roberts, Victor . 1957. “The Solar and Lunar Theory of Ibn al-Shatir: A pre-Copernican Copernican Model,” Isis 48:428-432.
• Saliba, George. 2007. Islamic Science and Making of the European Renaissance, Cambridge: MIT Press.

Therefore, holy war can be an element of jihad, but is restrained by strict rules. Many modern interpretations of jihad are not congruent with classical jihad and many physical aggressions by Muslims today cannot be classified as the specific kind of holy war that is legitimized by the Qur’an.

The Prophet Muhammad described jihad as the “apex of lofty Islam.” Jihad literally translates to struggle or striving in English and it is derived from the root Arabic word jahada—to strive, strain, or exert oneself to the utmost. Jihad is a very important duty of Islam; some even consider it the sixth pillar of Islamic faith. Jihad encompasses many types of struggles that Muslims are meant to overcome throughout their daily life in different forms. In the Qur’an, jihad is striving in the name of Allah through four stages: jihad against the soul, jihad against Satan, jihad against disbelievers, and jihad against dissemblers. Jihad against the soul is meant to solidify firm belief within a person while jihad against Satan will create tenacity. For jihad against disbelievers, Muslims are meant to strive by pen, tongue, hand, media, and only if inevitable, with arms. Jihad against disbelievers is not purely peaceful and at times, the use of arms is inevitable in this stage, described in the Qur’an as qital, or fighting.

Contrarily, jihad against dissemblers is by the tongue, through educated arguments and persuasion. Therefore jihad is much more than physical aggression, and far greater emphasis is placed on striving by all other means before war. The most important struggles for Muslims will come from inside themselves, which will be a lifelong jihad of following Allah and living by his way. Jihad should then be described as the striving journey of Muslims to become aware and learn the injunctions of Islam, teach them to others, and make constant practice of them in their life while encouraging others to do the same. It is also the act of calling others to Islam and dealing with any obstacles that may arise from fulfilling this journey. This journey will encompass many obstacles that do not relate to physical violence and emphasize the importance of striving by other means throughout one’s life. Jihad with the tongue is viewed as very important because Muslims are meant to be peaceful in their struggle if possible and it is important to be expressive verbally rather than resorting to violence immediately. However, when words are not sufficient and qital, physical fighting, is necessary within jihad, there are strict guidelines that must be followed in the aggression. Not every war fought by Muslims can be defined as jihad; not every jihad can be generalized as holy war. In order for physical jihad to be legitimate, the opposing side receiving the aggression must be in a state of war against Islam, or a large group of Muslims, or non-Muslims who have had their personal freedoms and civil rights violated. A classical interpretation of jihad from the Qur’an clearly outlines that any physical jihad must be conventional warfare, with ambush fighting and the killing of civilians prohibited. There have been many examples of physical jihad in history that were legitimate in the eyes of the Qur’an, and exemplify the rules that limit aggression, as well as the circumstances necessary for a holy war to be considered jihad.

In Islamic history there are many instances when jihad was a holy war. This can partially be explained by the era. Arabia was engulfed in constant warfare throughout the Prophet Muhammad’s time, and for the centuries of empire rule that followed. Muslim tribes were often provoked by aggression and forced into numerous defensive jihads with their surrounding neighbors. The original physical jihad originated from Muhammad’s migration from Mecca to the city of Yathrib, modern day Medina, in 622. The Prophet and his Muslim followers were met with violent pilfering by the Meccans and Muhammad delivered verses from the Qur’an authorizing the Muslims to fight against the Meccans. The Muslim war with the Meccans began Muhammad’s career as military commander, a title that he had to carry in the remaining years of his life. This jihad follows the rules outlined by the Qur’an because it was in defense of Muslim land that was being physically threatened; it also follows the rules of jihad by keeping the warfare traditional and targeting only those directly involved in the aggression. Muhammad had decided physical jihad was necessary and fought in the name of Islam. But upon returning from battle he said, “We have returned from the lesser jihad to the greater jihad,” underlining the importance of a believer’s internal struggle against his or her carnal self. While the time demanded physical jihad from the Muslims for their very survival, the significance was placed on the other forms of jihad, most importantly those within the hearts of each Muslim. In addition to Prophet Muhammad’s own view of physical jihad, Muslim scholar Said Nursi supported physical jihad in response to physical aggression but also believed in continuing jihad through the written and spoken word. When he was required to fight, his jihad was with his pen. Nursi highlighted the shift between pre-modern civilization and modern civilization and believes jihad should follow this shift. Pre-modern civilization was plagued by violence and conquests from Islam’s neighbors and required defensive war in response. Modern civilization has seen the rise in science and reason, secularism and materialism, and therefore the most appropriate jihad is one that persuades hearts and minds. Muslims are called to fight a cultural and economic war through ideas and thoughts, not arms.

The battles fought by Muhammad and Nursi are historical examples of jihad as holy war used to protect Islam and guarantee its growth within the world. There is a physical aspect in battle, but the focus on Islamic law as derived from the Qur’an is never ignored in jihad. Jihad includes, but is not encompassed by, legitimate, defensive warfare against aggressive enemies, which contrasts with the modern usage of jihad among a minority of Muslim laymen and mainstream society. Most conflicts engaged in by some Muslims today are a crime under Islamic law, and jihad is defined solely as war, with its other aspects ignored. Today in Muslim-majority countries, and in non-Muslim media and discussion around the world, jihad means war. The usage in Muslim countries can be interpreted as rationalization, that all wars their governments involve themselves in are just, similar to the justification most countries do that any war they are involved in is just.

Though it is debatable whether a war is just and follows Islamic law, the more troubling factor is the shift of the entire meaning of the word jihad. Jihad has evolved from meaning struggle, usually internal, sometimes external by the written or spoken word, to simply being a synonym for war. This semantic evolution has perpetuated misunderstandings of Islam as a violent religion, with war and physical aggression central to its tenets. Jihad has evolved from struggle in classical Islam, with the occasional legitimate war, to representing necessary, continuous physical aggression within modern Islam. This linguistic shift has created a grave misunderstanding of jihad around the world, and its sole definition as holy war in popular culture.

Jihad has come to hold a new meaning with the general population because of the differing interpretations of jihad by classical and modern Muslim scholars. Without background knowledge of jihad’s origins in the Qur’an, most people would believe that jihad is a holy war without rules or guidelines, based on modern scholars and media portrayal. Most laymen are not aware that classical jihad explicitly prohibits aggression towards civilians, and must be limited to conventional war tactics. This misconception of jihad is a result of the rise in world terrorist attacks carried out by Muslims who claim their actions as jihad in the name of Allah and the Qur’an. The misinterpretation of jihad by a small group of Muslims has spread around the world because of globalization and effective media coverage. This misinterpretation has resulted in the current perception. Some modern Muslim scholars and popular figures within Islam who have catalyzed this new definition, refer to jihad as, “war against oppressors, particularly those who oppress Muslims.” Osama bin Laden said in many of his speeches that Americans resemble the medieval Crusaders, with the desire to subjugate the Muslim world in a colonial war. Therefore, bin Laden believed that Muslims are currently fighting a defensive jihad against the West in response to their actions. The West as an enemy is described as similar to the Christian knights of the Crusades who also attacked Muslim civilization. Egyptian Islamist Adb al Salam Faraj called for a new jihad against the subjugation of the Muslim world, and Osama bin Laden has expanded on the ideas of a new jihad to legitimize terrorist attacks against the West that result in the death of civilians. In addition to Faraj, the Muslim scholar Maududi’s thesis on the change in Muslim society has also been viewed as spawning the modern interpretation of jihad. Maududi believed that because not all Muslim societies were ruling based on Sharia law, there was a decline in the society as a whole, and the only viable response was to wage a jihad against this dark age. In order to confront the decline of Muslim society and loss of Muslim lands, Sharia law and the doctrine of jihad had to be reinterpreted and applied both internally within Muslim societies as well as externally to the West for its role in seeking Muslim land and fighting against Muslim civilization. Muslim countries have witnessed an internal “jihad” through the removal of leaders classified as un-Islamic based on an unwillingness to impose Sharia law within their nations. This internal “jihad” has taken place historically with the Iranian Revolution’s removal of Muhammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, the assassination of Egyptian President Anwar El Sadat, and the overthrow of Sudanese President Jaafar Nimeiry. External “jihad” against foreign occupiers of Muslim lands has taken place many times throughout history, recently in the Afghan fight for independence against Soviet occupation and Palestinian and Lebanese liberation movements against Israeli-occupied territories. Modern “jihad” has become a war with the goals of reshaping Islamic society by ridding it of Western influence and presence, economically and politically.

What has been described as jihad, and then reported by worldwide media, is far removed from classical jihad described in the Qur’an. Terrorist attacks that aim at killing large numbers of civilians, including women and children, are unilaterally condemned under Sharia law. Their fights do not comply with the rules outlining when physical jihad can take place and how it may be fought. It is not wrong for people to believe jihad can be violent, but it is wrong to only hold this belief without an understanding of the other aspects of jihad. Some modern Muslims have provided this misinterpretation and perpetuated the fear that Islam as a violent religion able to wage wars at any time, on any grounds.

Jihad is popularly misunderstood in today’s world as a synonym for holy war. This misunderstanding has been prevalent for decades but has become more widespread because of a handful of terrorist attacks being labeled as jihad against America and Europe by radical Islamists. By examining jihad, as defined by the Qur’an, and analyzing historical accounts of jihad, it becomes clear that jihad can involve physical violence if all the rules outlined by the Qur’an are followed, including only the use of conventional warfare and killing of combatants. The modern interpretation of jihad does not consider the context of the Qur’an or classical Islamic law, and it ignores the other aspects of jihad. Jihad is the internal struggle Muslims face to fight off evil, the striving effort to become a better person, a more pious follower of Islam. Jihad focuses primarily on internal struggles, with external struggles such as warfare being secondary, and only if physical force is necessary and legitimate. It is very unfortunate that the true meaning of jihad has become lost in today’s society. Jihad is one of most admirable and good-natured duties within Islam, from which many could learn from to better themselves and their lives.

References

• Ali, Afroz. Overcoming Misunderstandings: Understanding Jihad http://alghazzali.org/resources/articles/jihad.pdf, accessed 20 May 2010.
• Bonner, Michael. Jihad in Islamic History, Princeton, 2006, p. 39.
• Bonney, Richard. Jihad: From Qur’an to Bin Laden, New York, 2005, p. 27.
• Chittick, William and Murata, Sachiko. The Vision of Islam, St. Paul, 1994, p. 21.
• Esposito, John L. “VIOLENCE AND TERRORISM.” In What Everyone Needs to Know About Islam. Oxford Islamic Studies Online, http://www.oxfordislamicstudies.com.ezproxy.lib.monash.edu.au/article/book/islam-9780195157130/islam-9780195157130-chapter-5 accessed 25 May 2010.
• Gerges, Fawaz. The Far Enemy, New York, 2009, p. 43.
• Greenberg, Karen. Al Qaeda Now, New York, 2005, p. 213.
• Kelsay, John. Arguing the Just War in Islam, Boston, 2007, p. 41.
• Muhammad, Noor. “The Doctrine of Jihad: An Introduction,” Journal of Law and Religion, vol. 3, no.2, 1985, p. 395
• Napoleoni, Loretta. “Modern Jihad: The Islamist Crusade,” SAIS Review, vol. 23, no. 2, 2003, p. 53.
• Tibi, Bassam. Political Islam, World Politics, and Europe. New York, 2008, pp. 41-42.
• Vahide, Sukran. Jihad in the Modern Age: Bediuzzaman Said Nursi’s Interpretation of Jihad, at http://www.nur.org/en/nurcenter/nurlibrary/Bediuzzaman_Said_Nursi_s_Interpretation_of_Jihad_168, accessed 22 May 2010.

There are seven chapters in the book. The first chapter summarizes the basic tenets of the classical narrative, then criticizes it listing many questions which the classical narrative cannot satisfactorily answer. Islamic civilization’s contribution to the development of modern science is so immense that it is impossible to completely ignore this part of the history in any serious discussion of the general history of science or civilization. The problem arises in assessing the importance and the nature of Islamic science. Generally accepted views of the classical narrative go something along these lines: Islamic civilization was a desert civilization and began to develop scientific thought only when it came in contact with more advanced civilizations (Persian, Indian and Greek and most importantly Greek). A vital component of the rise of science in Islamic civilization was the remarkable translation movement that took place during the early period of Abbasid times (750–900 CE), in which many important scientific books of other civilizations, particularly those of ancient Greeks, were translated into Arabic. The classical narrative says by learning Greek science through this translation activity, Islamic science reached its golden age while Greek science was neglected under Byzantine rule. Adherents of the classical narrative generally assume that Islamic civilization did not go much beyond translation, did not make original contributions to scientific knowledge or produced any new science of its own. They also assume this period of the golden age did not last long and came to an end with Ghazali’s “attack” on philosophers in his major work Tahafut al-Falasifa (The Incoherence of Philosophers). They assume that Islamic science began to decline with Ghazali while there was an awaking in Europe, sometimes called the Renaissance of the twelfth century, when Europeans began to translate major Arabic philosophical and scientific texts into Latin. Some of these texts had already been translated from much earlier Greek and Sanskrit texts into Arabic. So, they reconnected with their Greco-Roman legacy. The classical narrative says from that point on Europe had no need for Islamic science, hence the role of Islamic civilization was to simply translate and preserve the ancient Greek science and make it available to Europeans later. Thus, according to this view all the roots of modern science were European. The classical theory also attempts to explain the process by which the acquisition of Greek science by the Muslim world occurred. There are a few versions of this proposal which are called “contact theory,” “pocket transmission theory,” and “translation through Syriac medium first.”

In this first chapter of the book, Saliba argues that the classical narrative is an oversimplification of what actually happened in reality and fails to answer many fundamental questions. The first problem is about origins. He argues none of the proposed methods of translation is convincing to explain the reasons why, how, and when Muslims acquired Greek science. In terms of the nature and quality of translations, Saliba gives examples of sophistication and maturity exhibited by the Muslim scientists that is well beyond what would be expected from an early generation of translators who are struggling to understand a foreign science. Moreover, already in the early period of the translation movement Muslim scientists produced original new science such as algebra by al-Khwarizmi (830 CE), remarkable advances by Habash a-Hasib (850 CE) in the field of trigonometry and mathematical projections that go far beyond what was known from Indian and Greek sources, and developed decimal fractions. He argues such advances could not happen suddenly. There must be a longer tradition of scientific activity in the Islamic world and real motivations for the rise of science which cannot be explained by the classical narrative.

Not only does the classical narrative fail to explain beginnings but also more recent developments as well. Saliba gives many examples from various scientific disciplines to show that the Islamic science did not decline after Ghazali. Astronomy is a perfect counterexample to this thesis of the classical narrative, and it is not the only one. In fact, there were so many advances in astronomy in the Islamic world after Ghazali that Saliba calls the post-Ghazali period as the golden age of Islamic astronomy. Recent research in the second half of the twentieth century shows that astronomy has particularly interesting connections to the European Renaissance. Saliba comments that post-Ghazali works by the Muslim scientists were not sufficiently considered by the adherents of the classical narrative because of their pre-supposition that no significant science of any interest could have been produced in this period. This caused unfortunate damage in terms of understanding the post-Ghazali period in the Islamic world as well as the European Renaissance itself.

In the second chapter, Saliba proposes an alternative thesis/narrative to the classical narrative in terms of the beginnings of the rise of scientific activities in the Islamic world. His thesis is based on the writings of Al-Nadim (full name Abu al-Faraj Muhammad b. Abi Ya’qub Ishaq al-Nadim) who wrote about intellectual history of the early Islamic period. Saliba also supports his thesis with well known historical facts. In summary, the alternative narrative proposes that there was already a significant amount of interest and activity in the nascent Islamic civilization before the translation movement began. Rather than learning science from others (Greeks) just because they came into contact with them, the Islamic world actively sought those sciences because of a keen interest to advance their own scientific knowledge. Unlike the classical narrative, the alternative thesis argues that Muslim scientists already had a high level of knowledge and maturity when the translation activities began. This is evidenced by the high quality of translations of highly technical materials, and corrections of errors in the original sources. The main societal factors for the rise of science in the new civilization are listed as a) the need for people (bureaucrats) with a high level of scientific knowledge in administrations, and b) competition between those people to acquire higher levels of scientific knowledge to be able to advance in the ranks of governments.

In the next chapter, Saliba gives detailed examples, mostly from astronomy, to show how critically Muslim scientists received and reacted to the Greek science. They noticed observational errors and internal inconsistencies in Greek texts. They also pointed out more philosophical and foundational errors and contradictions. Muslim scientists showed a high level of sophistication, maturity and critical spirit. They had a comprehensive look at the Greek texts they translated and studied them in relation to one another. Saliba argues that it is not possible to explain these phenomena with the classical narrative. Moreover, Muslim scholars went beyond just criticizing these errors and made many novel contributions to exact sciences. In the process, they realized the proper place of mathematics in the natural sciences. Saliba also comments that Muslim scientists continued to make original contributions to astronomy and other mathematical sciences long after Ghazali, when the classical narrative would preach the death of Islamic science.

In chapter four, Saliba gives examples of critical innovations by Muslim astronomers. He remarks that the interest of the Islamic society in astronomy was very strong due to many religious requirements that need to be answered by astronomy, such as visibility of the moon, daily prayer times, and qibla (direction of worship) etc. Such problems were not considered by Greeks before. Muslim astronomers could not ignore absurdities in Ptolemaic astronomy where mathematical models in Almagest violated the fundamental cosmological assumptions in Planetary Hypotheses. Although Ptolemy’s mathematical models usually made good predictions computationally, it was not satisfactory for the scientists in the new civilization to allow those models to violate the physical properties of the celestial bodies. They took it upon themselves to propose alternative mathematical models that satisfied both requirements. They were highly successful in that quest. The solution of this problem required some new mathematical theorems. Two of the most important of such theorems were Urdi’s Lemma and Tusi couple invented by Urdi and Nasir al-Din al-Tusi in the thirteenth century. Both of these were fecund and fundamental theorems that were used repeatedly by many astronomers who followed them for a long time. Renaissance astronomer Copernicus was among those who made use of these theorems. Also noted in this chapter is Shams al-Din al-Khafri’s understanding of the role of mathematics in describing the physical phenomena.

The title of chapter five is “Science between Philosophy and Religion: the Case of Astronomy,” wherein Saliba considers the relationship between the religion of Islam and scientific developments in astronomy. He explains that religious motivations led to the creation of new disciplines such as ilm al-hay’a (science of configuration) and advances in trigonometry. He states that astronomy and trigonometry are the best examples which demonstrate the intersecting interest between the practice of a religion and scientific thinking that need to be developed as a result of that practice. Many important scientists in medieval Islam were at the same time religious authorities. A few examples among such scholars are Ibn al-Nafis, Nasir al-Din al-Tusi, Qutb al-Din al-Shirazi and Ibn al-Shatir. Saliba also notes that the European paradigm of conflict between science and religion does not exist in the Islamic world.

“Islamic Science and Renaissance Europe: The Copernican Connections” is the title of chapter six. Researchers in the second half of twentieth century first realized that many of the astronomical models of Copernicus were identical to that of Ibn al-Shatir from three centuries earlier. This surprising discovery, which contradicted the view that Renaissance science was a European self-contained creation, opened the door for further investigations which revealed more surprising outcomes. The mathematical theorem called the Tusi couple that is mentioned above plays an important role in Copernicus’s model. Copernicus stated the theorem and proved it in 1543 without mentioning that he invented a new theorem or saw it in any other source. The theorem was first invented and proved by Tusi in the middle of the thirteenth century. By comparing the two proofs, W. Hartner noticed in 1973 that Copernicus’s proof was identical to Tusi’s. He even used the same letters for essential geometric points. That is where Tusi used the Arabic letters “alif,” “ba” etc. Copernicus used the corresponding Latin letters “A,” “B” etc. This discovery makes it pretty certain that Copernicus knew about Tusi’s work.

Saliba shows Copernicus’s case is not an isolated instance and gives more evidence in this chapter of the phenomenon that “there are much too many coincidences of ideas appearing first in Arabic texts usually written between the 12th and 15th centuries, which reappear, without much explanation, in Latin sources of the 16th and 17th centuries.” Saliba’s explanation of this phenomenon is that by the Renaissance time men of science themselves learned Arabic and no longer needed translations. There are many examples that show European reliance on Arabic sciences in the post-Copernicus period when the whole worldview was supposed to have been changed by him. Renaissance men of science had a high regard for the Islamic sciences and were looking to the Islamic world for the latest in scientific activities rather than the classical Greek sources.

In the last chapter Saliba discusses the age of decline in Islamic science. He starts by rejecting the two main reasons proposed by the advocates of the classical narrative and argues that it did not start after Ghazali (eleventh century) or the destruction of Baghdad by Mongols in 1258. Saliba says that those who believe the first reason look at the Islamic civilization as a source of religious thought only and operate under the assumption that the European paradigm of conflict between religion and science applies to Islamic world as well. Saliba argues that this assumption is not true for the Islamic world and that scientific activities did not decline after Ghazali. Those who think the main reason was the destruction of Baghdad by Mongols saw the Islamic civilization mostly in political terms and paid little attention to its intellectual history. Saliba gives many examples of high quality and sophisticated scientific production in the Islamic world, mostly in astronomy but in other areas as well, well after both of these events. He says those examples were ignored or not properly read by the adherents of the classical view who did not expect to find any important scientific production in the Islamic world after the thirteenth century.

There still remains the problem and timing of decline of science in the Islamic world. When did it happen? Saliba notes that decline is a relative concept. What actually happened was the European science advanced more rapidly than the rest of the world after the sixteenth century. Hence it looked like science declined elsewhere, including the Islamic world. According to Saliba the main reason for these rapid developments in science in Europe was related to the discovery of the “new world.” He argues that the wealth and resources obtained by Europeans as a result of discovery of new lands helped them fund scientific activities. Europe witnessed the rise of royal and scientific academies where most educated men of the time were assembled and engaged in scientific research without having to worry about financial needs. Healthy competition among these institutions led to new scientific discoveries. Western superiority in science continues to this day and the constant brain drain that feeds the West at the expense of the developing and third worlds does not help to change the balance.

In summary, this book presents fundamental challenges to many of the commonly held views about the intellectual and scientific history of the Islamic world and proposes alternative explanations. The science of astronomy is used as a template to test and justify these claims. The author invites researchers to subject his proposals to the test of historical data in other disciplines as well. This book is highly recommended to all interested in the general history of science, and that of the Islamic world and the Renaissance period in particular.

Nuh Aydin is an associate professor of Mathematics at Kenyon College, Ohio, USA.

The numerous movements of the past 150 years, characterized almost without exception as ‘Islamic movements’, have had little if anything to do with the resurgence of religious faith as such. Most of these have actually been political movements, with leaders whose underlying goal has been to solve a specific problem: the problem of the perceived backwardness of the Muslim peoples and their subservience, politically and culturally, to the West.

While none of the groups that operate within the definitional matrix of ‘Islamic movements’ can claim to be identifiable primarily as a faith movement, various individuals have appeared sporadically with the avowed aim of fostering renewal of belief – often to the extent of dedicating their whole life’s work to that aim – and around some of these individuals, movements of considerable size and import have accreted. The Turkish Muslim scholar Bediüzzaman Said Nursi (1877/8–1960) is one such individual.

Progenitor of the ‘service of belief and the Qur’an’ movement, Nursi is arguably the most influential, if woefully under-researched, Muslim thinker of the twentieth century. While the ‘service of belief and the Qur’an’ movement, a faith-based movement consisting of millions of followers worldwide, does not – strictly speaking – fulfill the definitional criteria of a New Religious Movement, it stands out from other contemporary Muslim religious and ideological groupings not only for its uncompromising focus on the renewal of individual rather than collective faith, but also for its eschewal of any kind of religiously-legitimized violence or militancy for the sake of politico-ideological ends.

Although often stereotyped as the pioneer of reform of an Islam declining under the pressures inflicted on it by the Kemalist secularization policy of the Turkish state, almost half a century after his death, Nursi continues to defy any attempts to locate him precisely within the generally accepted milieu of ‘Muslim scholars’. While his magnum opus, the Risale-i Nur, is for all intents and purposes a commentary on the Qur’an, it is not a work of exegesis in the technical sense of the word, although he was clearly an accomplished exegete. And while Nursi was well-versed in the principles of scholastic theology (kalām), devoting the lion’s share of the Risale to what he claims are rational proofs for the unity (tawhīd) of God, it is not a work of traditional theology either.

In fact, on one level, the Risale is as resistant to compartmentalization as the Qur’an itself, which it claims to mirror and to elucidate. And if, as Nursi often asserts, the aim of the Qur’an is to guide man to belief, then the teachings of the Risale should be seen as consonant with that aim.

The three supreme matters in the worlds of humanity and Islam are belief, the Shari’a, and life. Since the truths of belief are the greatest of these, the Risale-i Nur’s select and loyal students avoid politics with abhorrence so that they should not be made the tool to other currents and subject to other forces, and those diamond-like Qur’anic truths not reduced to fragments of glass in the view of those who sell or exploit religion for the world, and so that they can carry out to the letter the duty of saving belief, the greatest duty.

Part of Nursi’s appeal lay in his uncompromising belief that it is belief (īmān) which must be renewed and protected, and that all other endeavors must be approached with the primacy of belief in mind: the fact that, unlike many of the popular Muslim thinkers of his own epoch, he repudiated the dubious art of politics – and, more importantly, the dubious art of politicking that is buttressed by religion – earned him respect and conferred on him a sense of authenticity that would perhaps be found wanting in so many other Muslim thinkers. Another part of his appeal lay in his shrewd interpretation of the forces ranged against him. For Nursi, unlike many of the Muslim scholars, leaders and ideologues who came later, realized that if there is a conflict between Islam – or belief – and modernity, it is not a conflict fought over issues of government or technology, over science or democracy. As Nursi’s own evaluation of the problems facing the Muslim world shows, the conflict is ultimately over transcendence, with the post-Enlightenment experiment claiming a centrality in the universe’s affairs for man that Islam, with its emphasis on the dependence of man on God, cannot countenance. Man is faced with a choice: belief in the sovereignty of God or belief in the sovereignty of man, with all that such a choice entails. For Nursi, the way to salvation consists solely in choosing the Other over the self, and it is in the dynamics of this choice that the key to an understanding of Nursi’s take on spirituality and man’s place in the cosmos may be found.

Renewal and reform, then, do play a central role in the Nursian Weltanschauung, but, unlike so many of his coevals, it is the renewal of belief and the reform of the individual that constitute his primary and overriding concern. In this respect, he is one of few Muslim thinkers in the twentieth century who has little if anything to say about the socio-economic or political externalia of Muslim life. Over the past century and a half in general, and the last twenty-five years in particular, ‘Islam is a complete way of life’ has been the mantra of choice for the vast majority of Muslim movements. As a corollary, emphasis has been largely on the ‘implementation’ of Islam at the socio-political level, with debate and discussion focusing mainly on issues such as Islamic law, Islamic education and the concept of the Islamic state. As such, the lion’s share of Muslim movements can be said to adopt an ‘externalist’ approach to the Islamic revelation, seeing in the strict adherence of Muslims to the shari‘a – and, where necessary, the imposition of such adherence through legislative means – the key to the formation of the ideal Muslim society. For the ‘externalists,’ reform has come to mean chiefly the reform of society, the underlying aspiration of which must be to return to the ‘golden age’ of Islam typified – for the externalists at least – by the community-state of Medina during the lifetime of the Prophet. These ‘dreams of Medina’, and the concomitant desire to share – or, even, impose – those dreams on others, are responsible in part for the current Western perception of Islam as more political ideology than divinely-revealed religion. The relative merits and demerits of ‘Islamism’ or ‘political Islam’ as terms by which to describe this over-politicized approach to Islam need not occupy us here. Suffice to say that in the last analysis, this approach rests on the fulcrum that is the return of ‘Islamic rule’, the transformation of the Muslim world into an umma analogous to the community-state of Medina and, wittingly or otherwise, the reduction of the Islamic revelation to the single issue of governance. While Islam made political and transformed into ideology is a relatively recent phenomenon, the ‘externalist’ approach to Islam which informs it is almost as old as Islam itself. However, whereas for the likes of ‘non-externalists’ such as Ghazali in the twelfth century and Mulla Sadra in the seventeenth it was the nomocentrism of the externalist scholars and the over-emphasis on fiqh (jurisprudence) which constituted the greatest obstacles to the health of the Muslim community, for the Ghazalis and Sadras of today – of whom Nursi is undoubtedly one – it is the over-politicization of religion which is the danger.

Arguably the most important common denominator among Islamic/Islamist groups and leaders of the past fifty to one hundred years has been the tendency to favour the use of force to change ‘religiously suspect’ regimes in the Muslim world and bring about Islamic revolutions. And it is precisely on this point where one sees a fundamental difference between Nursi and his contemporaries. For not only is Nursi distinguished by his staunch opposition to any kind of uprising or revolution in the name of Islam, but also he stands on account of his aversion to politics in general, and the politicization of Islam in particular. Nowhere is Nursi’s ideological departure from the majority of his contemporaries delineated more sharply than on the highly contentious issue of jihād. As emphasized above, for Nursi, the way to salvation consists solely in choosing the Other over the self, and it is in the dynamics of this choice that the key to an understanding of Nursi’s take on spirituality and jihād may be found.

There are many for whom it is clear that humanity is in a precarious position. We are told on a daily basis that we live under the threat of pollution, global warming, terrorism, famine and a thousand and one different ills. Our time is, we are told, a time of global crisis. Yet few are able to fathom the real cause of this crisis. It is not that we do not understand the problems around us. Our crisis – the crisis of modernity – is that we do not understand ourselves. Indeed, postmodern thought – if such a thing exists and is not really just another name for the confused ideas of late modernity – nurtures a scepticism in which the very possibility of understanding anything is called into question.

Most people, Nursi claims, have been reduced to hardship and misery by the demands and dictates of modern times. Man’s innate nobility has also been marred, he says, as the gradual divorce from religious values has opened the floodgates of ‘dissipation’, encouraging dissolute living and the ‘appetites of the flesh.’

Socio-economic inequalities are also the hallmark of this modern civilization, Nursi adds, with the Western attitude being “So long as I am full, what is it to me that others die of hunger?” and “You work so that I can live in ease and comfort’. By allowing the rift between the classes to widen, the West has engendered so much strife and sedition that it is on the brink of bringing humanity to its knees, giving rise to the struggle between capital and labor – itself the precursor of two World Wars and bloodshed and disorder on a hitherto unknown scale.

One could go on, but surely the point has been made: it was impossible for Said Nursi to approve of a civilization in which the negative aspects outweighed the positive so decisively. For Nursi, the only way forward for man is to embrace a civilizational form which brings true happiness and prosperity – and if not for all, then at least for the majority.

Human beings are faced with a choice: belief in the sovereignty of God or belief in the sovereignty of man, with all that such a choice entails. For Nursi, the way to salvation consists solely in choosing the Other over the self, and it is in the dynamics of this choice that the key to an understanding of Nursi’s take on the ‘true civilization’ may be found.

For Said Nursi, for man to be truly human, he must establish for himself not an Islamic state, but an Islamic state of mind. If, in secular shorthand, ‘civilization’ is the highest thing towards which man as a social being can aspire, let us see how Said Nursi redefines the term to make it truly meaningful for limited, impotent man, giving it the ability to ‘confront the awesome silence of the grave’ in a way that no other civilization is able. Comparing Western civilization with the ideational entity known as Islamic civilization, he locates the source of the former in human artfulness (daha) and that of the latter in Divine guidance (huda). These sources, he holds, impact in very different ways on society in general and the individual in particular.

Artfulness, writes Nursi, functions in the mind and confuses the heart. It looks to the material and to the corporeal, considering the body and the evil-commanding soul, which it seeks to nurture. It develops the potentialities of the nafs while making of the ruh a servant or slave. In its love of this world, which is the only world it recognizes, it turns man into a satan, worshipping deaf nature and, in its blindness, drawing a veil of ingratitude over the face of the earth. It sees the bounties before it as ownerless booty, which it usurps like a common thief.

Guidance, on the other hand, works in the heart and lights up the spirit. It develops man’s potentialities and spiritual capacities and, in so doing, illuminates nature. It makes of the soul and the body and in so doing produces happiness in this world and the next. It sees Divine art everywhere, and the wisdom and power of God in all things. It worships Allah, the possessor of art and power. It is both seeing and hearing, and as it benefits from Divine bounties, it scatters the light of thankfulness all around it.

In Nursian terms, then, to be truly civilized, man must be truly human, and to be truly human, his goal is not the kind of khilafa that engenders power but the kind of khilafa which engenders worship – namely the nurturing of each individual soul into its true state as khalifat Allah fi al-ard, vicegerent on Earth. This, for Nursi, marks the true civilization to which man should aspire.

Dr. Colin Turner from Durham University, UK, is the co-author of Said Nursi, 2009, Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies and IB Tauris, London, New York.

In his studies, (1993, 1996) Huntington suggests alternative explanations to understanding conflicts and disputes in the post-Cold War period. To him, “culture and cultural identities, which at the broadest level are civilizational identities, are shaping patterns of cohesion, disintegration, and conflict in the post-Cold War” (Huntington 1996, 20).

The purpose of this paper is to test Huntington’s argument (1996) by addressing the following question: “Does a civilizational difference cause militarized interstate dispute?” The significance of the answer to this question is obvious: if Huntington’s claim is empirically supported, then dominant theories of international politics, which do not base conflicts on civilizational differences, have to be revised. And, therefore, Huntington’s theory will be useful in understanding the emerging world-order and explaining militarized disputes and conflicts that have occurred in the post-Cold War era.

Literature review

There were many responses and objections to Huntington’s argument that resulted in an extensive debate. Many of them claimed that the civilization theory is unable to explain the causes of conflicts and international order. In spite of the great number of responses and studies, few of these have been supported by quantitative research.

One of the important studies that evaluated Huntington’s argument and which deserves close attention was conducted by Russett, Oneal, and Cox in 2000 (in Triangulating Peace 2001, 239-305). The main question to be answered was “Does a difference in civilization increase the likelihood that a pair of states will become involved in a militarized interstate dispute?” (Russett et al 2001, 248). To perform their study, they used the University of Michigan’s Correlates of War (COW) database that provided Militarized Interstate Disputes (MID). In their view, limiting their analysis to MID that occurred during the 1950-92 period was appropriate, because “Huntington addressed events in these years when he first presented his argument in 1993” (249). Variables of liberal and realist theories were also added to their analysis in order to observe which theory had had higher explanatory and predictive power. Results of logistic regression indicated that variables of liberal and realist theories had much more influence on the probability of conflict than on civilization theory. Belonging to different civilizations increases the risk of dispute between two states only by 12 percent with .30 level of statistical significance. (255).

Huntington (2000, 609) replied to Russett et al, suggesting that they retest their argument as it was dealing with the post-Cold War period. Russett et al (2000, 611), in turn, argued that Huntington (1993) had used many disputes and conflicts that had not occurred in the post-Cold War era to justify and support his argument. That was the reason why they used MID of the 1950-92 period.

Another study to test Huntington’s argument was conducted by Jonathan Fox in 2001. He tried to examine whether conflicts between civilizations, particularly Western and Islamic conflicts, had increased with the end of the Cold War (Fox 2001, 459). He used the Minorities at Risk (MAR) dataset for his quantitative research and came up with interesting results. From a global perspective, the ratio of non-civilizational conflicts to civilizational conflicts had not changed significantly after the end of the Cold War. From an Islamic civilization perspective, there had been little change in the amount of conflicts among Islamic and other civilizations. However, from the perspective of Western civilizations, the proportion of conflicts between Western and Islamic civilizations had significantly increased since the end of the Cold War. Fox concludes that the findings illustrate that it is important which perspective one looks at conflicts from. If one looks from the Western perspective, they will find an increased amount of conflicts between Western and Islamic civilizations, which supports Huntington’s argument. But from the global and Islamic civilization perspective, little evidence can be found for a “clash of civilizations” in the post-Cold War period (459).

Although Fox’s study deserves attention, it does not examine conflicts among the other seven civilizations, but only focuses on the Western versus Islamic civilizations. Furthermore, his units of analysis are conflicts within states, not interstate. Interstate disputes are important in analyzing Huntington’s argument, because a nation as a whole has specific civilizational characteristics. According to Huntington’s map (1996, 26-27) of civilizations, each nation belongs to one of the nine civilizations and conflicts mostly arise among these. Conflicts that occur within states are only one minor part of Huntington’s argument.

Many other scholars have qualitatively criticized Huntington’s clash of civilizations theory. Ali Mazrui (1997) finds three major problems in Huntington’s argument. First, there is a “factual fallacy.” “It may not be factually true that the main lines of conflict of the future, following the Cold War, will be lines of clash of civilizations. It could be states or economic blocs” (Mazrui in Rashid 97, 27). Second, there could also be a “conceptual fallacy” in Huntington’s argument. Mazrui suggests a “clash of races” as an alternative to the clash of civilizations (27). Thirdly, there is a “temporal fallacy,” which means that inter-civilizational conflicts are not phenomena of the emerging world, but rather that they have been the most important issue of the world for at least the past four to five hundred years; within these conflicts we can include the Crusades, the “trans-Atlantic slave-trade, and European colonization of much of the world” (29).

In response to his critics (Foreign Affairs 1996, 67), Huntington stated that none of these scholars had come up with a better alternative to explain the conflicts of the new era. To him, the clash of civilizations remains the most powerful theory to understand disputes in the post-Cold War period.

In this context, this paper is of a crucial importance because 1) it will focus on militarized disputes of the post-Cold War period; 2) the disputes are among the states and civilizations they belong to; 3) and the study will conduct a quantitative method to analyze the clash of civilizations. Thus, this paper takes into account the weaknesses of previous studies and establishes a strong critique to Huntington’s argument.

Research design

This analysis uses the Correlates of War (COW) project’s Militarized Interstate Disputes (MID). The COW provides MID starting from 1816 to 2001. As Huntington (2000, 609) claims, the clash of civilizations theory is helpful in understanding conflicts that occurred after the end of the Cold War, specifically after 1989 (Huntington 1996, 21; Huntington 2000, 609). The COW project had MID reaching up to 2001, so I chose those MID which occurred from 1989 to 2001. Although the number of disputes in this period seems to be small to test any theory, it should be quite enough to evaluate Huntington’s argument, as post-Cold War disputes were the basis of his theory. I had 620 militarized interstate disputes in total. Each dispute occurred between at least two states; one state in side A, and another on side B. The sides are coded as 0 and 1. I had information on which pair of states had disputes. Some disputes had more than two sides. I rearranged these coalitions as if they had disputes separately as dyads. For instance, if there were two states on side A and two states on side B in a dispute, than there would be four dyads involved in the same dispute.

States in these disputes belong to one of the nine civilizations, which are Western, coded as 1, Latin American (2), African (3), Islamic (4), Sinic (5), Hindu (6), Orthodox (7), Buddhist (8), and Japanese (9). Huntington (1993, 1996) does not explicitly specify the number of civilizations. In his article (1993) he mentions about “seven or eight major civilizations.” To him, Buddhism “has not been the basis of a major civilization.” (Huntington 1996, 48). Also Japan has not founded any civilization as there are no nations that share the same religion, language, or cultural values with Japanese culture. However, map 1.3 (The World of Civilizations: Post-1990) in his book (1996, 26-27) shows that there are nine civilizations in the world, including Buddhist and Japanese. I used nine civilizations as shown in the map. Russett et al (2001, 251) used eight, excluding Japanese. I wonder how they dealt with disputes that had Japan on one of the sides.

Having nine coded civilizations and many more states in the dataset, I coded all states as any of the nine civilizations they belonged to, according to map 1.3. (Huntington 1996, 26-27). I had difficulties, as did Russett et al (2001, 251), in classifying some states, because the map was not clear and Huntington did not explicitly mention them in the text. For example Nigeria, according to the map is separated into two civilizations, Islamic and African. Since religion is the most important factor that distinguishes each civilization, I have used the CIA’s World Factbook to find out the proportion of religion in Nigeria, and classified it as Islamic. India is shown as a state of both Islamic and Hindu civilizations, but I have classified it as Hindu. Sri Lanka was classified as Buddhist in relevance with Russett et al (2001). The Philippines, in my classification, go into Sinic civilization, but Russett et al (2001) classify it as Western. The most interesting problem that occurred in classification was to which civilization Israel belongs. The question is significant, as Israel has had many disputes with its neighboring states. Huntington thinks Israel is an Islamic civilization according to the map. It is ironic that Israel is considered as an Islamic civilization, first because it has nothing to do with the religion of Islam, and second because such an approach decreases empirical support for Huntington’s argument. Although it does not make sense, I classified Israel as Islamic, strictly adhering to the map.

To answer my research question I had to use civilization dyads and observe if these dyads are prone to clash or not and how frequently they have disputes. Thus, I arranged these nine civilizations in dyadic form and came up with 45 civilization dyads, extracting each one of the same dyads as 1,2 v. 2,1. A dyad is labeled 0 if the civilizations in it are the same and 1 if the civilizations are different. After arranging civilization dyads, I plugged each dispute into one of the dyads and totaled it in regard to the 45 civilization dyads. Then I arranged the number of disputes in each dyad according to the proportion to the total number of disputes.

Huntington’s main hypothesis is that civilizations have mattered and have had positive impact on disputes in the post-Cold War period. I have my doubts about his argument and hypothesize that civilizations do not matter in interstate.

Data analysis

After running my Probit model, I have found that difference in civilizations had negative impact on interstate disputes with relatively small statistical significance (10). The findings of this paper contradict what Huntington (1993, 1996) suggests as his explanation for the causes of interstate disputes in the post-Cold War era. In other words, civilization differences do not cause interstate conflicts.

There have been a total of 620 militarized interstate disputes during the 1989-2001 period, according to the COW dataset (see Table 1). Some of civilization dyads did not have any disputes, whereas other dyads conflicted several times. Huntington’s argument that different civilizations clash does not find support with the results of this study. We can see from Table 1 that 19 dyads that consist of different civilizations have not had any militarized dispute since the end the Cold War. How can Huntington explain this phenomenon on the basis of his clash of civilizations argument? Can interstate disputes be explained by civilizational differences? The answers to these questions are obviously negative. Different variables of realist and liberal theories may explain the findings, but that is not within the scope of this study.

Limitations

One of the important limitations is the absence of a clear list of civilizations and states in these civilizations. If Huntington had provided these data then there would be no dissimilarities among the scholars who tried to test his argument. Some studies used eight civilizations while others used nine. Some states, like Israel and the Philippines were placed in different civilizations in different studies. This may influence the results of these studies, as these states have had many militarized disputes.

Conclusion

This study shows that Huntington’s argument is insufficient to explain conflicts in the new world order. As he argues, “culture and cultural identities, which at the broadest level are civilizational identities, are shaping patterns of cohesion, disintegration, and conflict in the post-Cold War” (Huntington 1996, 20). However, he did not carry out a quantitative analysis of the argument. He provided only case studies and offered qualitative analysis as support. Many studies, including this one, have been conducted in response to his clash of civilizations argument, with the conflicts of the post-Cold War period being analyzed quantitatively. None of these studies has found evidence to support Huntington’s argument. The finding of this study illustrates that a difference in civilization is not sufficient on its own to understand what causes conflicts these days nor does it have a positive impact on militarized disputes.

References

• Foreign Affairs. 1996. Samuel P. Huntington’s the Clash of Civilizations? The Debate. New York: W.W. Norton & Company,
• Fox, Jonathan. 2001. Two Civilizations and Ethnic Conflict: Islam and the West. Journal of Peace Research 38(4): 459-472.
• Huntington, Samuel P. 1993. The Clash of Civilizations? Foreign Affairs 72(3): 22-49
• If Not Civilizations, What? Foreign Affairs 72(4): 186-94, 1993.
• The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. New York: Simon and Schuster. 1996.
• Try Again: A Reply to Russett, Oneal & Cox. Journal of Peace Research 37(5): 609-610, 2000.
• Rashid, Salim. 1997. The Clash of Civilizations? Asian Responses. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Russett, Bruce M. and John R. Oneal. 2000. A Response to Huntington. Journal of Peace Research 37(5): 611-612.
• Triangulating Peace: Democracy, Inter dependence, and International Organizations. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2001.

As it has been remarked, there are many questions confronting us daily:

• How did the endless universe we live in come into being?

• How did the equilibrium, harmony, and order of this universe develop?

• How is it that this Earth is such a fit and sheltering place for us to live in?

Questions such as these have attracted attention since the dawn of the human race. The conclusion reached by scientists and philosophers searching for answers with their intellects and common sense is that the design and order of this universe are evidence of the existence of a supreme Creator ruling over the whole universe.

At this point, it is beneficial to reflect on these questions from an Islamic perspective. As it has been observed, In His holy book, the Qur’an, God states that He has created the universe when it was not, for a particular purpose, and with all its systems and balances specifically designed for human life.

In the Qur’an God invites people to consider this truth in the following verse:

Are you stronger in structure or is heaven? He built it. He raised its vault high and made it level. He darkened its night and brought forth its morning light. After that He smoothed out the earth… (Naziat 79:27-30)

Elsewhere it is declared in the Qur’an that a person should see and consider all the systems and balances in the universe that have been created for him by God and derive a lesson from his observations:

He has made night and day subservient to you, and the sun and moon and stars, all subject to His command. There is certainly Signs in that for people who pay heed. (Nahl 16:12)

In yet another verse of the Qur’an, it is pointed out:

He makes night merge into day and day merge into night, and He has made the sun and moon subservient, each one running until a specified time. That is God, your Lord. The Kingdom is His. Those you call on besides Him have no power over even the smallest speck. (Fatir 35: 13)

The Fallacy of Materialism

Nursi has made extensive reference in his writings to the defects of materialism. He notes that the materialists, whose use of reason is limited to what is immediately apparent to them, have, in their nonsensical philosophies, based on futile foundations, taken the transformation of particles, a thing they regard to be the result of coincidence, to be the fundamental basis of all their principles and have shown that divine works and creatures result from those transformations. Anyone with a grain of intelligence would know how unreasonable it is to attribute the creation adorned with infinite examples of wisdom to something based on a purposeless, meaningless coincidence, which is quite without order.

Furthermore, as has been remarked, even if we leave out the human values, lofty truths, ideals, and spiritual happiness, which have all been sacrificed for the sake of material development, modern civilization based on scientific materialism has caused mankind much harm.

The products of science are usually exploited in favor of the great world powers to consolidate their dominion over the world. In addition, developments in genetics, biology, physics, and chemistry threaten the very life of humanity on the earth. Modern civilization, as pointed by Said Nursi is founded upon five negative principles:

*It is founded and rests upon power; power tends to oppression.

*It aims at the realization of individual self-interests; pursuit of their self-interests causes people to rush madly upon things in order to possess them and gives rise to pitiless rivalry and competition.

* Its understanding or philosophy of the nature of life is struggle; struggle causes internal and external conflicts.

* It seeks to unify its people on the basis of racial separatism, fed by swallowing up the resources and territories of “others”; and racism leads to terrible collisions between peoples.

* The service it offers to people is satisfaction of the novel caprices or desires it arouses in them (whether the satisfaction is real or not); this service brutalizes people.

Modern materialistic civilization stimulates consumption and therefore gives rise to new, artificial needs and increases them daily. Through the power of propaganda and advertisements to exploit some disprovable human tendencies, such as “keeping up with the Jones’,” materialism imposes its demands upon people. As a result of this way of life it necessarily leads to producing to consume and consuming to produce, upsetting people’s balance and causing extraordinary increases in mental and spiritual illnesses. In such a way of life there is left room for neither spiritual profundity nor true intellectual activity. For intellect is put under the command of pragmatism and always earning more.

Another disaster that materialistic science has brought upon mankind is the destruction of nature and environmental pollution. “What a pity it is that nature, this magnificent book, this charming exhibition, which God, the infinitely Merciful One, has created and presented to us to observe and study and to be exhilarated by, is no longer given any more care than is given to a heap of junk or rubbish. Worse than that, it is more and more becoming a wasteland and like a dunghill. Today, air, that magnificent conductor of Divine commands, is a suffocating smoke and a perilous ‘whirlpool.’ Water, that source of life and other Divine bounties, is either a hazardous flood or is altogether absent to form desolate expanses of desert. And the earth, that treasure of Divine Grace and Munificence, is a wilderness that is no longer safely productive and whose ecological balance has been ruined.”

The five essentials of Islamic civilization

* It should rest upon right, not upon power; right requires justice and balance.

* It should aim to encourage people to virtue, which is a spur to mutual affection and love.

* Its understanding or philosophy of the nature of life is not struggle but mutual help, which leads to unity and solidarity.

* It should unify people on the basis of a common belief, shared values and norms, which can lead to internal peace and brotherhood.

* It should guide people to the truth. Therefore, in addition to encouraging them towards scientific progress, it should elevate them, through moral perfection, to higher ranks of humanity.

This civilization is that which the Qur’an proposes to mankind and urges them to establish.

The following passage by Nursi, written at the beginning of the 1930s, is most illuminating:

Reality and the wisdom [purposiveness] in the existence of the universe require that the heavens should have conscious inhabitants of their own as does the earth. These inhabitants of many different kinds are called angels and spirit beings in the language of religion.

It is true that reality requires the existence of angels and other spirit beings because the earth, although insignificant in size compared with the heavens, is continually being filled with and emptied of conscious beings. This clearly indicates that the heavens. . . are filled with living beings who are the perfect class of living creatures. These beings are conscious and have perception, and they are the light of existence; they are the angels, who, like the jinn and mankind, are the observers of the universal palace of creation and students of this book of the universe and heralds for their Lord’s kingdom.

The perfection of existence is through life. Moreover, life is the real basis and the light of existence, and consciousness, in turn, is the light of life. Since life and consciousness are so important, and a perfect harmony evidently prevails over the whole of creation, and again since the universe displays a firm cohesion, and as this small ever-rotating sphere of ours is full of countless living and intelligent beings, so it is equally certain that those heavenly [realms] should have conscious, living beings particular to themselves. Just as the fish live in water, so those spirit beings may exist in the heat of the sun. Fire does not consume light, rather, light becomes brighter because of fire. We observe that the Eternal Power creates countless living beings from inert, solid substances and transforms the densest matter into subtle living compounds by life. Thus it radiates the light of life everywhere in great abundance and furnishes most things with the light of consciousness. From this we can conclude that the All-Powerful, All-Wise One would certainly not leave without life and consciousness more refined, subtle forms of matter like light and ether, which are close to and fitting for the spirit; indeed He creates animate and conscious beings in great number from light, darkness, ether, air and even from meanings and words. As He creates numerous species of animals, He also creates from such subtle and higher forms of matter numerous different spirit creatures. One kind. . . are the angels, others are the varieties of spirit beings and jinn.

Nursi on Decadent Civilization and Virtuous Civilization

As it has been observed, for the last three centuries Islamic scholars have debated what the attitude of the Muslim world should be towards Western/Christian civilization. Nursi found himself in the middle of this debate at the critical moment in the 20th century, when the westernization/modernization currents were rapidly gaining strengths. Today, once again, given the global situations, it seems, the Muslim world is asking pertinent questions with regard to its cultural/economic relationship with the west. Given the significance of these questions and their serious potential consequences on world affairs, globalization and inter-cultural/religious understanding and dialogue, I will attempt to shed some light on what can be offered on this, and at times troubled, relationship: Islam and the west; Islam and modernity/westernization. In contrast to those rejecting western civilization all together, Nursi distinguished between two Europe, representing two civilizations. The first Europe ‘follows the sciences which serve justice and right and the industries beneficial for the life of society through the inspiration it has received from true Christianity’. He called this ‘virtuous civilization.’ The second Europe, whose source is philosophy rather than religion, which claims that mankind can find happiness only in vice, Nursi called the ‘decadent civilization’. It is because this second Europe is characterized by its encouragement of vice that Nursi rejects capitalist culture and decadent civilization. Nursi observes that ‘absolute vice’ is being called civilization. He is very critical of this ‘decadent civilization’.

In a letter Nursi calls it ‘low’ civilization and elsewhere he says that it cast humanity down to the level of animals: …its alluring service is to excite lust and the appetites of the soul and facilitate the gratification of whims, and their result is vice. The mark of lust and passion is always this: they transform man into a beast, changing his character; they deform him, perverting his humanity. If most of these civilized people were turned inside out, you would see their characters in form of apes and foxes, snakes, bears, and swine. Nursi moreover states that the goal of decadent civilization is ‘mean self-interest instead of virtue’, while virtue is the basis of Qur’anic virtuous civilization. Virtuous civilization takes all man’s subtle faculties into account, causes him to progress spiritually, and to rise higher than angels. In Nursi’s words: Its aim is virtue instead of self-interest… Its service takes the form of guidance and direction instead of lust and passion. And the mark of guidance is progress and prosperity in way benefiting humanity; the spirit is illuminated and perfected in the way it requires. In my view, Nursi’s thoughts on decadent and virtuous civilizations are extremely significant and timely. They establish the bankruptcy of those who promote the clash amongst civilizations, in particular between Christianity and Islam. The clash is not between civilizations, but between decadent and virtuous civilizations. True Christianity and Islam form the front in virtuous civilization, while secularism, laicism, and capitalism are the three allies on the front of decadent civilization. Therefore, Nursi’s writings and reflections on these matters could serve to promote Muslim-Christian dialogue at these troubled global times. In all, Nursi sees the following contrast between the ‘second’ European and Qur’anic civilization. In Seeds of Reality Nursi clearly summarizes some elements of difference between the two visions. Nursi observes that, the Qur’an, which is a mercy for mankind, only accepts a civilization that comprises the happiness of all, or at least of the majority.

He then remarks that, modern civilization has been founded on five negative principles:

1. Its point of support is force, the mark of which is aggression.

2. Its aim and goal is benefit, the mark of which is jostling and tussling.

3. Its principle in life is conflict, the mark of which is strife.

4. The bond between the masses is racialism and negative nationalism, which is nourished through devouring others; its mark is collision.

5. Its enticing service is inciting lust and passion and gratifying the desires.

But lust transforms man into a beast. However, the civilization Islam comprises and commands is this: its point of support is truth instead of force, the mark of which is justice and harmony. Its goal is virtue in place of benefit, the mark of which is love and attraction. Its means of unity are the ties of religion, country, and class, in place of racialism and nationalism, and the mark of these is sincere brotherhood, peace, and only defense against external aggression. In life is the principle of mutual assistance instead of the principle of conflict, the mark of which is accord and solidarity. And it offers guidance instead of lust, the mark of which is human progress and spiritual advancement.

According to Thomas Michel S.J. the contrast is clear; the Qur’an proposes very different principles. In the civilization envisioned by the Qur’an (and the teachings of the earlier prophets):

1. It is truth, not might, which makes right.

2. Virtue, non self-interest, is the proper motivation for human acts.

3. Unity rather than conflict should be the basis for social relations, and

4. Mutual assistance instead of cutthroat competition.

5. It upholds divine guidance rather than human whims as the norm for ethical behavior.

A society built on such principles Michel S.J. remarks, will be characterized by values like justice, harmony, love, peace, brotherhood and solidarity. It will attract others by virtue of its own good qualities, rather than by imposing its views or by dominating and looking down on others. When a civilization accepts the principle of ‘might makes right,’ the result is injustice. This, as well as the ‘cherished’ principles of conflict, competition, and enmity, valued in ‘second’ Europe, will inevitably result in war and destruction. Even a casual look at the state of our world today, will clearly show how correct Nursi has been in his observations.

This article has been extracted from Dr Kamran Mofid’s paper ‘To Heal Our Broken World: Bringing Economics, Religions and Spirituality together for the Common Good’ presented at the International Conference on Spiritual Dimensions of Said Nursi’s Risale-i-Nur, in Istanbul, August 2005.

Qur’anic Perspective

At this point it would be interesting to look at what Ali Unal has to say as to why no past civilization could resist decadence and time’s corrosive power. His approach refers more to the individual and free will, rather than visible causes:1

. . . [C]ontrary to the fatalism of all other philosophies, including even Ibn Khaldun’s, the Qur’an stresses the individual’s free choice and moral conduct. Although the Divine Will, as emphasized in the Qur’an, could be regarded in some respects as the counterpart of Hegel’s Geist or as other philosophies’ absolute and irresistible laws of history, the Qur’an never denies human free will

. . . . Ibn Khaldun, Toynbee, Spengler, and other philosophers of history formed a mistaken conception of history because they did not try to discover the real dynamics of historical movements. Rather, they sought to explain the apparent causes behind a civilization’s establishment, flourishing, and decay. Whoever looks to the past will arrive at the same conclusions. But just because no community has remained at its peak this does not mean that this is an inevitable end or a determinist grip on the fate of each nation. Past civilizations collapsed because they did not heed the warnings of what had happened to earlier peoples. Accepting historical determinism causes us to nullify free will and consider the warnings and advice found in the Divine Scriptures and social sciences as useless and absurd.

This is strongly confirmed by the Qur’an in the following verses:

. . . surely God does not change the condition of a people until they change their own condition. (Rad 13:11)

. . . God never changes the grace He has bestowed on any people until they first change that which is in their hearts. (Anfal 8:53)

Theories concerning the collapse of civilizations

There are many theories concerning the collapse of civilizations, but of course, if a theory does not conform to reality, it is worth nothing. In this article, I will first give a brief account of widely held beliefs about the collapse of civilizations, explain the weaknesses of these theories, and then give a rationale that I believe better explains the historical data we have. As for most social problems, we will perhaps never know the truth about why societies collapse. However, the stakes at hand are so high that we must make every effort to understand, and to an extent, solve this problem.

The most common explanation for such collapses is some insurmountable natural disaster, like an epidemic, hurricane, drought, or earthquake that leads to the demise of a civilization by killing the population and crippling the economy. Widely-cited examples are the eruption of the volcano in Thera that preceded the collapse of the Minoan civilization, the malaria epidemic in the Roman Empire or earthquakes in Mesoamerican societies. These arguments, which are very appealing to our human nature, that desires simple explanations for all questions, are in fact very unsound. Societies constantly experience such disasters, yet survive them. The potato blight in Ireland in 1845 halved the island’s population but there was no cease of sociopolitical complexity as a result of the disaster. It is strange to think that the Roman Empire, which survived many disasters before, including the eruption of Pompei in AD 79, fell to malaria. We should consider that complex civilizations are designed to absorb such disasters, and they do. Just recalling the constant earthquakes in Japan added to the loss of a world war with two nuclear bombs exploding in the heart of two large cities will sufficiently prove this notion. Japanese civilization did not collapse. On the contrary, it is one of the strongest economies in today’s international arena. It is peculiar then that some civilizations are no longer able to fight such disasters. However, an act of God can certainly collectively destroy any civilization, as it did in the past like Sodom and Gomorrah. This is clearly narrated in the divine scriptures.

The other common explanations for such collapses are intruders and competition with other civilizations. The barbarian tribes, which brought the end of Rome in the fifth century, and the Mongolians that invaded Baghdad in the thirteenth century are clear examples of the intruder argument. This argument suffers from the realization that civilizations are attacked by outsiders throughout their existence, yet for some reason they cannot defend themselves near the time of their collapse. Competition with other societies however, is in principle expected to lead to growth and expansion instead of collapse. There is no end to the examples from this category too, like the competition of the Ottoman Empire with Persia, which indirectly weakened its western front. But the competition argument is both intuitively confusing and it fails to account for major cases, like the fall of the Roman Empire.

Another widely held belief about such collapses is that at a certain point in the life of a civilization a resource is depleted and the civilization that depends on this resource is prone to collapse. The Romans and the Ottomans both depended on military expansion for their economy, and when the relatively weak nations around them were engulfed or when they were barred from further expansion by geographical limitations, such as seas or large mountains, they were no longer able to use this resource. There seems to be some truth and lessons in this argument. To the uninformed, it is a very curious fact that the cradle of civilization was Mesopotamia, where modern day Iraq is. How is it possible that the superpowers of that era, the Sumerians (~3000 BC) and the Babylonians (~1000 BC) chose to live in these deserts? How is it possible that they irrigated the land, raised armies, and built world wonders in these sand dunes? These questions actually are easily answered when we realize that Mesopotamia was not a dessert in that era after all. It is now a generally accepted theory that this place had a fragile ecosystem, which was destroyed after thousands of years of environmental pressure. The potential for these lands to accommodate great civilizations was lost after this fragile ecosystem was slowly destroyed by its inhabitants.

However, the argument of resource depletion inherently asserts that the elite of a civilization facing resource depletion passively waits for the predictable demise. I will argue below that this case, although strange, is true. Another difficulty of the resource depletion argument is that in some instances of collapse resources were never depleted. The fertile lands of Mesopotamia still remained green until later than 1000 AD, while many civilizations experienced collapses. The Romans, who used irrigation as a resource, kept farming till the very end. Finally, one may wonder why societies aim at possessing a higher amount of resources all the time. Population increase is only a partial answer to this question. We can easily imagine a society whose population stays the same; it is not a far-fetched hypothesis that this society will naturally also try to increase its resources to fend off a variety of calamities it may experience, such as intruders and catastrophes. I believe herein lies an interesting rationale that brings together the mentioned theories that are flawed. To understand this, we first have to appreciate a law in economics, called the “law of diminishing returns.”

It is very rare in economics and in general social sciences that some series of observations can be identified as a “law.” However, the “law of diminishing returns,” first put forward in 1965 by Ester Boserup, is so comprehensive in its nature and explains such a variety of trends that it is now universally accepted. It goes: The return for an investment in a particular activity is great at the beginning, and then it gradually decreases. At a point, further investment brings no further benefits. At this point, the facility (a person, a group, a society, a factory) can no longer increase its returns, however much they would invest in that activity.

A simple example will clarify the law. Suppose we have a piece of land that we want to use for irrigation. In the beginning, we would just disperse seeds and wait for the crops to grow. Notice that our investment is minimal (say 1 unit of investment), and we get some food for our investment (again define this to be 1 unit of return). Then, if we want to increase the amount of crops we have, we may dig some canals for watering. It is straightforward to recognize that the canal digging is a lot harder than just dispersing seeds (say 5 times harder). However, it is again straightforward to recognize that although now we make 6 times more investment, we probably will not get 6 times the crop. Nevertheless, we want to maximize our return, so we still dig the canals. The next step would be to use motorized vehicles, which is maybe a 10 times increase in investment, but everybody will surely accept that it is not possible to get a crop that is 16 times greater than our original from the same plot of land. (Readers who may object that once the investments of canals and vehicles are made they will provide constant returns are reminded of the maintenance costs of these investments.) A further increase in returns may require genetically engineered crops that will require years of expensive research (more investment). The return per investment will always decrease for a certain type of activity, in this case irrigation.

This law is everywhere in life: If one week of studying suffices a result of 80 on one exam, in order to get 90, you need to study two more weeks. Most healthy people can run 100m in 20 seconds; to run it in 10 seconds you need years of exercising. Depending on one’s abilities (which determine an individual’s possible investment) these may even be impossible for many people. A vivid example is the heating problem in England during the nineteenth century. Heating, which was primarily carried out by burning wood from forests, with the increase in population had to be switched over to the burning of coal. The mining and distribution of coal, which is much more difficult than simply getting some wood from a nearby forest, was made even more difficult when the easily mined surface coal was rapidly depleted and deeper tunnels with lighting and airing problems had to be developed. It is intuitive why this law is in effect: Obviously, always, the easier solutions are adapted first, then the harder ones. Mining coal when you have easily available and plentiful wood is not reasonable. Consequently, we have a decline for our returns per investment.

The resources that civilizations use are no exception. A civilization that uses irrigation as a resource is bound to be limited by a certain level of return. Resource does not have to be depleted; it just cannot produce a return more than at a certain level. Another civilization that is dependent on taxation, mercenary or military expansion can achieve no more return after a certain level, no matter what adjustments it makes to its existing policy. Having said this, we can understand why a civilization that depends on a certain type of energy or resource cannot expand its influence beyond a certain level. Moreover, when energy becomes scarce, the civilization can become less agile in terms of trying new resources and new ways to produce returns, since agility and innovation mostly depend on using some of the surplus resources on strategies that will most probably yield no returns. Hence the rise of large architectural structures and many inefficient military operations are carried out during the ascent of a young civilization. These activities, which are easily buffered by the large returns that come from initial investment on the main resource of a civilization become impossibly costly later when the returns from the same investment is declining.

One last piece of the puzzle completes the rationale as to why civilizations collapse, and this piece is an easily accepted assumption: A civilization is like a dinosaur. It is large and strong, but it is adapted to the conditions into which it was born. The conditions change, however, the dinosaur cannot change its behavior. It helplessly tries to maximize the returns for the type of resource that it is adapted to use, and after a point, it simply cannot, thanks to the universal and unforgiving law of diminishing returns. At this point, another civilization, that primarily uses another superior resource, will have larger returns, build a larger army to invade the former civilization, build larger ships to cut off the trade routes, and produce goods to cripple its economy… This is just a matter of time, and it is unavoidable (see Figure 1b). The strength of the civilization in its golden age is now its weakness. In such a weakness, since there is no extra resource to fight new problems-all resource is either used up by the population, or goes toward defense costs-even a natural disaster can bring an end to a civilization that once seemed to be indestructible.

The Ottoman Empire’s strength in its rise was its perfect hierarchical organization which led to the accumulation of all power under the Sultan. Its main resource was military expansion and taxation of trade. These adaptations, which were ideal for the time between the thirteenth and fifteenth centuries, led to one of the most powerful empires that have ever reigned. However, by the sixteenth century, these strategies had become burdens: Due to the strong hierarchy, an intelligentsia that supported science and art as in the West could never develop. Military expansion had to stop. Taxation could no longer work since the Mediterranean Sea was no longer used for trade. The strategies were not abandoned though, instead, more investments were made in order to increase the returns, which as we saw above is a nonviable alternative. Eventually, other civilizations that used better resources brought about the end of the Empire. A similar order of events can be observed for other civilizations that collapsed. The great Arab historian Ibn Khaldun of the fourteenth century likens the lives of civilizations to the natural lifespan of individuals. They are born, they grow old, and they die. In my view, a civilization does not die because it gets old; it dies because it cannot compete with a stronger civilization.

The natural question to ask is if our current civilization will collapse. From the analysis above, we can conclude that there are two reasons for the collapse of a civilization: 1) Dependence on a certain type of investment and failing to adapt to the new conditions. 2) The invention by another competitor civilization of a new type of investment with higher returns. In today’s world, both of these reasons are in some ways different than those that existed in the past. First, with the advancement of science, the current civilizations are flexible in the resources they utilize, the options are constantly evaluated, the heating in United Kingdom does not collapse when wood is depleted; instead, coal, then gas, then nuclear power is used. The return for the investment made for some utility is similar to the curve shown in Figure 1c: whenever the return for a type of investment declines, we can shift to the next resource. Second, by the immense advancement in information processing and communication, the whole world is aware of the types of investments other societies are using, and a leading civilization that follows the developments in other countries is very unlikely to be threatened by a sudden development in a rival civilization. Third, because of progress in international trade, the old sense that any other civilization is an enemy has lost its significance.

Notwithstanding these reasons, only a few decades ago, at the height of the cold war, we witnessed the possibility of the immediate collapse of our civilization. Global warming and the depletion of petrol reserves were only two of the many alarming cues that we may have turned to declining returns for our investment curve. It is imperative to remember again that the stakes are very high. The next civilization to fall may bring about the fall of the human species.

Notes

1. Tainter, J. (1988). The Collapse of Complex Societies, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 1988.
2. Grigg D. Ester Boserup’s theory of agrarian change: a critical review. Prog Hum Geogr. 1979; 3 (1): 64-84.
3. Unal, Ali, Islam Addresses Contemporary Issues, Kaynak, Izmir:1998, p. 142.

“None of the great figures of history is so poorly appreciated in the West as Muhammad.”
W. Montgomery Watt

Michael Hart received much heated criticism from some of his readers when he listed Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, as the most influential person of all times in his book entitled The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History.

While Hart’s criteria for selection was fairly objective, for most people seeing the name Muhammad ahead of names like Mahatma Gandhi or Jesus was startling, if not outright disturbing. For people of the western world who are trying to understand Prophet Muhammad, his human character, his ethnic background, and negative stereotypes unjustly associated with him sometimes present a barrier that needs to be overcome. One of the common stereotypes about Prophet Muhammad is to view him as a pious man who dedicated his life to saving his community, the pagans of the Arabian Peninsula, from their wretched lifestyle by claiming prophethood. This view, while appearing innocent at first glance, seriously overlooks his lifetime achievements and his impact on the history of humanity.

The Implications of Two Views

It must be emphasized that being a pious person and trying to save a community by declaring prophethood is not the same, in any way, as being a real messenger of God. The first case implies that the person is essentially a liar. While many adjectives have been associated with Prophet Muhammad, “liar” has never been one of them. Indeed, he was known by his community as their most trustworthy member, al-Ameen in Arabic. Disbelievers accused him of being a magician or a crazy person, but never of lying. In the words of Montgomery Watt:

“His readiness to undergo persecutions for his beliefs, the high moral character of the men who believed in him and looked up to him as leader, and the greatness of his ultimate achievement – all argue his fundamental integrity. To suppose Muhammad an impostor raises more problems than it solves. Moreover, none of the great figures of history is so poorly appreciated in the West as Muhammad.”¹

Prophet Muhammad lived for 23 years after receiving the first revelation. His companions continuously observed the minute details of his life. Their acquaintance with him only increased their devotion to him. If there had been the smallest sign of insincerity, they would have noticed and would have abandoned him. This never happened. The early Muslim community that started with his wife Khadija and his cousin ‘Ali ibn Abu Talib (may God be pleased with them) in Makka numbered over 140,000 by the time of his death, 23 years later. Some companions were so fond of him that they even saved pieces of his beard and kept them as valuable mementos.

The issue of the authenticity of Prophet Muhammad’s message is a two-sided issue. The two sides in this case are infinitely distant from one another. On the one side is the view that he was a genuine messenger of God. On the other is the position that he was a pious person who worked to save his community from ignorance by declaring his prophethood when indeed this was not the case.

If one views the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, superficially, in the light of what history books narrate of the beginning of his life, one will not be able to perceive him and appreciate his worth or recognize his character fully. However, the religion of Islam and the world civilization of Islam have flourished from him. One should consider the narrations of history and biography books as a thin cover. This cover can be split, just as the Prophet split the moon into two with a single gesture of his finger, and this shows him as the seed and founder of this civilization. One should regard what one sees of the merely human dimension of the Prophet as being the outer covering of the seed from which the blessed tree of Prophet Muhammad has grown. It is a tree that has been watered by Divine blessings and has flourished continually through time with the help of Divine favors. Whatever one hears of the beginning of his life, of his merely human qualities and states should not lead one to get stuck there. Rather, one should immediately direct one’s attention to the degree of greatness he attained at the final point of his greatness, impossible to perceive without recognizing the hand of the Lord of the Universe.

The Fruits of the Tree of Muslim Civilization

Indeed, if we examine what fruits the tree of Islamic civilization bore, we can make the following observations: The polytheist Arabs of the Arabian Peninsula had many despicable habits that were ingrained in their culture. For instance, they used to bury their daughters in order to be saved from the embarrassments these girls might bring on the family when they grew up. Usury, adultery, racism, oppression of the weak, the worshipping of idols, oppression of women and the elderly, rampant drinking, and tribal feuds were the norm of this era. In place of these habits, Prophet Muhammad established virtues, such as charity (to the needy and the relatives), strong family bonds, universal brotherhood of humankind, truthfulness, kindness to the elderly and especially to one’s parents, caring for orphans, the observation of freedom of choice in religion, respect for animal rights, among others. His success in eliminating the vices of racism from his people’s consciences was noted by the famous British historian Arnold Toynbee:

“The extinction of race consciousness as between Muslims is one of the outstanding achievements of Islam, and in the temporary world there is, as it happens, a crying need for the propagation of this Islamic virtue.”²

It is well known to behavioral scientists and social workers that a minor habit, such as cigarette smoking, in a small community can be removed permanently only by a powerful authority with great effort. But Prophet Muhammad was able to remove numerous ingrained habits from great nations that were intractable and fanatical in their beliefs with slight outward power and little effort over a short period of time. In their place he established exalted qualities, virtues common to most world religions, which mingled firmly with their souls. He achieved many extraordinary feats like this. Thus, the Arabian Peninsula of Prophet Muhammad’s time stands as a challenge to those who refuse to see the testimony of the blessed age of the Prophet. If we were to take a hundred philosophers, go there, and strive for a hundred years, would we be able to carry out in that time one hundredth of what he achieved in a year?

Thomas Carlyle was amazed as to “how one man single handedly, could weld warring tribes and wandering bedouins into a most powerful and civilized nation in less than two decades.” He further commented:

“The lies, which well-meaning zeal has heaped round this man (Muhammad), are disgraceful to ourselves only.”³

While Prophet Muhammad performed many miracles, his greatest miracle given to him, the Qur’an, continues to inspire and guide over a billion Muslims in their lives. Many non-Muslim translators and the commentators of the Qur’an have praised it as a masterpiece of Arabic literature.

The Mirror and the Source

Another pitfall that awaits someone who is studying Prophet Muhammad”s character with a doubting or idle curiosity is that they may be unable to distinguish between the subject and the object, the source and the mirror. Such a person may not be able to distinguish between a letter of the alphabet, which has no meaning in itself and therefore draws attention to others than itself, and a word which, having a meaning in itself, attracts attention to itself. He may not be able to distinguish between what is essential to or inherent in the Divine Being and what is disseminated or manifested by Him. The Messenger of God, peace and blessings be upon him, is purely a created servant of God Almighty, one much more advanced than anybody else in worship and servitude to Him. We must view him as one who is the object of Divine manifestations. Whatever perfections he displays are from his Almighty Lord. No created thing, whether big or small, can be, of itself, the real source or origin of anything. But, the tiniest particle can, like a mirror, contain even the stars of the heavens, reflecting what is manifested in it of God”s magnificence. Those who are heedless of this fact may fall into the trap of viewing each thing in respect of itself, and not in respect of the origin of the light reflected in it. Prophet Muhammad was a mirror that reflected the light of the Lord of the universe. To see him otherwise is to deny the historical record of the magnificence of Islamic civilization.

Conclusion

In these difficult times of the early 21st century, people of the world have found a renewed interest in the life and teachings of Prophet Muhammad. The unbiased seeker of truth has to understand the motives of those sources who present him as a pious man who lived in the 7th century Arabian Peninsula and tried to uplift his community by declaring propethood. This seeker should raise his sight from the broken egg, which is the human and ethnic background of Muhammad and view the magnificent peacock that is the servant of God who led his people from darkness to light, and continues to inspire billions. And they need to raise their sights from the seed that is the human Muhammad to the magnificent tree of Islamic civilization with its many fruits. Many enlightened intellects have done exactly this. In his work entitled Historie de la Turquie, the famed French author Lamartine wrote: —Philosopher, orator, apostle, legislator, warrior, conqueror of ideas, restorer of rational dogmas, of a cult without images; the founder of twenty terrestrial empires and of one spiritual empire, that is Muhammad. As regards all standards by which human greatness may be measured, we may well ask, is there any man greater than he?—⁴ His view was echoed repeatedly by many well-known names of the world, such as Goethe, Bismarck, Thomas Carlyle, G. Bernard Shaw, and Gandhi during the subsequent centuries: —I become more than ever convinced that it was not the sword that won a place for Islam in those days. It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the Prophet, the scrupulous regard for pledges, his intense devotion to his friends and followers and his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and in his own mission. These and not the sword carried everything before them and surmounted every obstacle— (Ghandi, Young India, 1922). In response to the western labeling of —anti-Christ,— the Nobel laureate George Bernard Shaw said: —I have studied him, the wonderful man and in my opinion far from being anti-Christ, he must be called the Savior of Humanity. I believe that if a man like him were to assume dictatorship of the modern world, he would succeed in solving its problems in a way that would bring it much needed peace and happiness.—⁵ The name Muhammad derives from an Arabic root which means —love.— In the Qur’an, God mentions him as a —mercy upon humankind.— But this image strikes a sharp contrast with his current image in the West in the light of recent developments. The true image of the messenger of God is shadowed by historical and recent negative associations that have created a temporary blindness to the magnificent achievements of his lifetime and to 14 centuries of Islamic civilization. To quote again the words of Montgomery Watt, —none of the great figures of history is so poorly appreciated in the West as Muhammad.— Therefore, the unbiased seeker of truth of the 21st century has a duty to study the life and the message of this great messenger with an open mind, going beyond stereotypes.

Footnotes

1. Watt, W. Montgomery, Mohammed at Mecca, Oxford, 1953, p. 52.
2. Toynbee, A.J., Civilization on Trial, New York, 1948, p. 205.
3. Carlyle, Thomas, Heroes and Hero-worship, p.19.
4. Lamartine, Historie de la Turquie, Paris, 1854, Vol. II, pp. 276-277.
5. Shaw, George Bernard, The Genuine Islam, Singapore. Vol. 1, No. 81936, Ref. 7-p16.

The various eras

The prehistoric era is considered an unknowable time inhabited by primitive and brutal humans. This era ends with the beginning of Antiquity, which saw the rise of ancient civilizations in Egypt, Mesopotamia, India, and China. However, the West downplays them, as if they somehow damage its ego and pride.

Then comes late Antiquity, the era of classical Greece and Rome, a sort of golden age during which the West was enlightened by such philosophers as Socrates, Aristotle, and Plato, as well as by beautiful artistic and literary creations. However, these people worshipped deities, did not obey any moral codes, and also had a great thirst for stories about bandits. The Greeks of this time, however, failed to comprehend the reality of the miraculous incidents in nature and so worshipped the sun, wind, fire, and forests. Rome, a civilization based upon law, categorized people into social classes varying from superior to slave. In 380, it adopted Christianity as its official religion. Antiquity ended after the empire’s division into two and the collapse of its western portion not too long after the division.

The next approximately 1,000 years are known as the medieval era. It started off by destroying Antiquity’s intellectual and artistic works and forbidding independent thought. The Christian church, after closing down Athens Plato Academy in 529, turned toward monasticism and rejected Greek philosophy. Monasteries soon gained a monopoly over education, thought, and meditation. This is why the times became dark, for the clergy monopolized science, culture, art, literature, and thought. Religion, which provides people with peace, happiness, and security, was distorted and, assuming a personalized form, became a means of torment, oppression, and harassment through the above-mentioned bans, church taxes, and the Inquisition.

During this era, which considered such moral values such as equality, justice, love, and respect outdated, people were classified as clergy, which produced nothing but confiscated and controlled everything; nobles, who owned and exploited the land and treated the peasants as serfs; peasants who worked but could only silence their hunger; and slaves. The medieval era ended with the advent of the Renaissance (rebirth or revival), which began in northern Italy in the late fourteenth century and spread north thereafter. Antiquity’s thought, art, and culture were revived, and people tried to free themselves from feudalism and church authority.

What really happened during the dark ages?

The Dark Ages are often ignored. However, this was the time when Europe rediscovered Antiquity’s accomplishments and thought due to its contacts with Muslim Spain and Byzantium. Given this reality, why does the typical timeline skip over this period, especially since it was far from dark outside of Europe? One case stands out: the Arabian peninsula, where a new religious movement (Islam) and the beginnings of its civilization had appeared by 610. In stark contrast with Europe, it proclaimed that people were obligated to seek knowledge, fight ignorance, and improve their condition in life.

Islam’s Prophet, Muhammad, accepted Judaism and Christianity as true and set about re-establishing belief in God’s Oneness. He preached the freedom of conscience and religion by declaring there is no force in religion and that people should embrace Islam only if they sincerely believed in its truth. The Qur’an rejected all humanized angels and rejected Original Sin by stating that people would be rewarded or punished only for their own deeds in the afterlife.

The security of life, goods, and honor were accepted as basic human rights, and thus guaranteed protection. All people, without exception, had specific property rights. Each person’s rights were guaranteed by being considered halal (lawful) or haram (unlawful), with various gradations in between. Social solidarity was ensured by zakat (obligatory charity) and sadaqah (voluntary charity). This also prevented the formation of social classes and any possible class hostility. Addressing humanity as O people to show their equality, the Qur’an rejected medieval Europe’s social stratification by proclaiming that superiority depended upon belief, God-consciousness, good conduct, and helping others.

In the pre-Islamic period, women were viewed as property and daughters were considered a source of shame for their fathers. Islam made them revered spouses and beloved daughters, superior to men in being mothers, and equal in obtaining property and justice. Islam sought to abolish slavery, a universal norm at the time, gradually by introducing various sanctions. First of all, it recognized slaves as full human beings who had to be treated according to the dictum Let them eat what you eat, and let them wear what you wear. Moreover, God ordered the freeing of slaves to atone for some sins.

Islam emphasized the wrongness of medieval Europe’s social stratification by stating that everybody was equal before law. The principle of freedom from obligation, which states that everybody is essentially innocent until proven guilty, was also established. All of these practices, which have existed from the first day of Islam, have not been cancelled just because many Muslims have not observed them.

Conclusion

While Europe remained in the dark on all of the above issues, the sun of Islam was beginning to illuminate many other areas of the world. Thus, humanity’s progress toward real civilization was led by Islam during an era that was supposedly dark. As Islamic history shows, that classification betrays some obvious personal or civilizational bias.

Europe’s Dark Age was a time of great intellectual ferment in the Islamic world. Many philosophical, mathematical, medical, astronomical, and medical works produced by classical Greece and Rome, as well as India and other civilizations, was translated into Arabic by Muslims, Jews, and Christians. Among them were the works of Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, Hippocrates, Euclid, Galinos, Ptolemy, and Archimedes. Such translations had a major impact upon Europe when they finally reached its shores, for they were instrumental in starting the Renaissance.

The present division of history into certain eras is based upon a Western view of history and what is important. The church rejected Antiquity’s accomplishments and caused it to be forgotten in Europe for many centuries. However, religion cannot be condemned for this, for the people who did such things deviated from its teachings. While Europe was lost in darkness, Muslims were busy creating an Islamic civilization that first enlightened their own lands and then spread outwards Spain (Andalusia). Muslim Spain eventually became a bridge between the Islamic world and Christian Europe.

Greek civilization established the beautiful, Romans established the law, and the Semites contributed religion. The Chinese actualized the useful, India gave humanity its imagination and mysticism, and Europe gave science. Islamic civilization assumed its rightful place among the world’s civilizations by exhibiting an intrinsic and original style in areas such as thought, science, art, culture, and literature. Such a magnificent civilization, if it is to be divided into eras, should be divided according to its own history, and not by the West’s criteria. Just as the West arose again, thanks to Islamic civilization, so will the Islamic world rise again, God willing.

But it was not always this way. Centuries ago, when most of Europe was enduring the appalling ignorance and superstitions of its Dark and Middle Ages, when not even the thought of America existed, Islamic civilization burst upon the international scene. Like a magnificent rose unfolding layer upon layer of petals in the form of religious and scientific insights, scientific discoveries and progress, and a passion for justice and improving life for everyone, it flourished in lands that had never had a high civilization, such as the Arabian peninsula, Central Asia, and Spain.

Absorbing the accumulated knowledge of Greece, Rome, and the earlier civilizations that came under Islamic rule, Muslim, Jewish, and Christian scholars and scientists working within the Islamic worldview translated their works and absorbed their useful knowledge. However, contrary to popular Western belief, those scholars and scientists did not just transmit this knowledge to Europe. Rather, they built upon it, developed methods of observation and experimentation unknown to the earlier civilizations and now considered ‘modern,’ and made original contributions in many scientific fields. In other words, the West based its modern scientific foundation and Renaissance upon the knowledge it acquired from the Islamic world.

Unfortunately, due to the hostile relationship between the Catholic church in Rome and the newly emerging class of European scientists, much of modern science was based upon a materialistic worldview. The resulting side effects are still with us: a terribly polluted environment; the belief that science should progress regardless of the resulting controversy (e.g., cloning, developing nuclear and other horrifying weapons, and genetic engineering); and the illusion that humanity has no need for God.

Our main article discusses the contributions of those scientists who worked within Islamic civilization and its worldview regardless of their ethnicity or religion. The author relates some of their accomplishments and how they laid the groundwork for Europe’s Renaissance. This topic is supplemented by several other scientific articles, each of which shows us the amazing nature of life and the universe, thereby reminding us that humanity does need God.

Another article shows us the reality behind the cliché: ‘It’s a small world.’ In these days of fear and pain in many lands, we would be well-advised to take its message to heart: Between any two people, there are, on the average, only six steps of separation. Thus, we are not separate from a starving child, a dying man, or a grieving woman, regardless of any artificial man-made considerations. All of us form one large extended family interconnected by interweaving ties of blood, acquaintance, friendship, and love. All revealed religions know this truth and call their followers to live according to it so that peace, love, and personal and social well-being will prevail.

Having recognized this truth, we should turn to God and implore Him to enable us to live as individuals overflowing with love and concern for their family members and neighbors, working together to ensure that everyone enjoys modern society’s benefits, and to help us to prepare for our eternal existence in the next world. Our first article, ‘Time to Pray,’ is an eloquent appeal for us to petition God to enable all of us to do exactly that.

A little note for our online readers. The Fountain’s new web site is ‘www.fountainmagazine.com’.