A few wrote to remind him [Pope Benedict] that, as far as “reason” was concerned, it was Arab rationalists like Avicenna and Averroës who, with their commentaries on Aristotle, had saved Greek thought from obliteration during Europe’s undeniably dark Dark Ages. ~Jane Kramer
Via Reihan
This would be nice, if it were true. Yes, Muslims preserved the Greek learning that they found in the lands they conquered, but it wasn’t as if Greek thought was ever in danger of “obliteration,” since the vast majority of Greek literature and history was preserved by the, er, Greeks in Byzantium. Muslims were especially keen on philosophy and scientific texts, and these they made use of and recopied down through the centuries, which then facilitated their introduction into western Europe. But they had little use for the playwrights, poets and historians, whose works we have primarily because of the Byzantines, who were also preserving the philosophical and scientific texts at the same time.
It might also be worth noting that Avicenna and Averroes were notoriously “unorthodox” by the Islamic standards of their day with beliefs about the eternity of the world and the like standing in direct contradiction to Islamic revelation. One of these philosophers felt the need to imagine truth as running on two tracks that did not intersect very often: the truths of reason and revelation were both true, but they were not going to fit together or be reconciled. Even when Islam had a place for philosophy, it was never as a “handmaid” to theology, but usually more in the role of a scullery maid who would be allowed to scrub the floors as long as she made sure to stay out of the master’s way. The obvious points would be that al-Kindi, Avicenna and Averroes represent a limited phenomenon that rather underscores and proves Pope Benedict’s Regensburg observation about the nature of Islam. These three, with perhaps a couple others, represent the greatest achievements of Islamic philosophy for its first six centuries, but they are relatively few in number and ultimately had much less significance for the overall development of Islamic thought than the jurists and mystics had. There was a moment when a kind of actually Islamic rationalism was on the rise, and it was squashed in the ninth century and never really fully reappeared. Even then, it was a highly eccentric movement within Islam and one deemed to be wrong on fundamental questions of theology, as indeed it would have to have been if the divinity of Qur’anic authority was going to be confirmed.
7 comments
Comments feed for this article
April 18th, 2007 at 11:31 am
cyrus
Will this myth ever die? Or are we doomed to bear the recycled “truths” of the philosophes anti-Catholic propaganda for another three centuries?
April 18th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
razib
i agree with the general thrust of your comment…but, i think one should be careful about assertions about “about the nature of Islam.” there is a central tendency, and then there are the other moments about the distribution. e.g., i assume by ‘rationalists’ you mean the mutazilites, and yes, their thought has been dismissed and rejected by the major sunni schools of thought, but its ideas remain acceptable within shiism.
April 18th, 2007 at 1:59 pm
ShanghaiLil
Em…Actually, Cyrus, the Byzantines weren’t actually Catholic, as they would be the first to remind one.
April 18th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Daniel Larison
Thanks, Razib, for those points. I should have been more precise about what I meant. I was referring to the central tendency, and I was jumping over some of these distinctions since I believe the “rationalists” being cited in Ms. Kramer’s piece both came out of a generally Sunni milieu. You’re quite right that Shi’ism remains much more open to those ideas, and unless I am mistaken I believe there was a god deal of prosopographical overlap between Mutazilites and proto-Shi’ites/’Alids in the 9th century. As I think you have pointed out before, the “doors” of ijtihad never closed in the Shi’ite world, even if those doors acquired approved guardians.
I think Cyrus’ point was that the circulation of the Islamic “Golden Age”/”Islam saved Greek philosophy” idea was the work of philosophes who sought to discredit the intellectual legacy of Catholic Europe by saying that Christians owed everything they knew about the classical tradition to the Muslims. This was not done so much to praise Islam as it was to make the Catholic Church look bad and to undermine its claims to authority. This was combined with Voltairean love-letters, so to speak, to the Ottomans about how tolerant and noble they were. The image that many people have of a generally enlightened Islamic middle ages comes directly from an Enlightenment and deliberately anti-Catholic, liberal telling of medieval history.
Of course, there were moments of intellectual and cultural flourishing in different Islamic centers in Umayyad Spain, just as there were anti-intellectual backlashes under the Almohads and Almoravids; the relatively more cultured Abbasids gave way to the much less cultured Seljuks; the Seljuks then established themselves in Anatolia and became patrons of culture. The Islamic world produced Rumi and the Kharijites–two more opposed types you could scarcely imagine. It is not an undifferentiated wasteland by any means, but with respect to the existence of “rationalism” the story is much more bleak (or happier, depending on your perspective), so it is a little strange that Muslims today want to insist on vindicating what was always a relatively weaker part of their tradition.
April 18th, 2007 at 2:39 pm
razib
i think another reason that al-andalus might be weighted heavily is the percolation of the influence of ‘the commentator’ (averrores) amongst the thinkers at the university of paris. italy was much more powerfully and directly affected by the byzantine emigration, but france & england to my knowledge benefited from this indirectly and without conscious attribution.
April 18th, 2007 at 2:47 pm
cyrus
Yes, I know the Byzantines weren’t Catholic.
The myth I referred to was the one, stemming from the Enlightment and repeated by Ms. Kramer, of a Europe submerged in Papist, or more broadly, merely Christian (there was no distinction through most of the period), darkness from roughly the conversion of Constantine the Great until the Renaissance. Ms. Kramer knows her liberal mythology well, and doesn’t miss the opportunity to remind us of how Christendom would have remained in darkness were it not for the lovely, advanced, and oh-so-tolerant Muslims who treasured the full spectrum of Greek achievement while Europeans were living in filth. The truth, as Mr. Larison points out, is somewhat different.
Insofar as the myth originated with the specifically anti-Catholic philosophes, and insofar as it is from them through anti-Catholic liberals of the 19th and 20th centuries that it arrives in the minds and on the fingertips of today’s New Yorker writers, it is not unfair to call it anti-Catholic. But, I can see how I was unclear, and I’d rather not belabor the point. Never mind.
April 18th, 2007 at 2:48 pm
cyrus
Well, Mr. Larison has gone and defended me more ably than I could have myself.