Technology

You know,

muslims are rightly proud of the scientific progress and technological marvels

that they made in the time they call the golden age,

but what they are less inclined to discuss

is the question of why did it stop there?

In the centuries that followed, muslim empires rose and fell,

each displaying its own cultural riches,

yet there seems to have been no resurgence of

those “golden age” glories.

Why is this the case?

What changed?

Where are the roots of this decline

in scientific and technological imagination and invention?

Ibn Khaldun writes of the central concept of "asabiyya"

or "social cohesion"

which rises spontaneously in tribes

and other small kinship groups,

but which can be intensified and enlarged by a religious ideology,

providing the motive force that carries ruling groups to power.

But this cohesion inevitably weakens,

due to a combination of psychological, sociological, economic and political factors,

bringing about the decline of a dynasty or empire

and preparing the way for a new one,

based on a group bound by a stronger cohesive force.

So it was that at the end of the golden age,

muslim arrogance and self-satisfaction were precursors to the overthrow of Baghdad in 656AH.

Hulagu and his Mongol army

didn't just slaughter its inhabitants in the tens of thousands,

but emptied its libraries into the river Tigris until it ran black

with the ink of all that scholarship it washed away.

But although the Mongols themselves eventually became muslim,

and other great muslim empires like the Mughals and the Ottomans flowered later,

with regard to science and technology

the intellectual power of the muslim world continued to decline

until the ummah was finally forced to submit

to the more technologically advanced British and European Empires.

But why that long decline?

Why did changes of dynastic power not renew former glories

with new scientific thought and technological expertise and invention?

It could be that the change came not with transfer of power

but the maintenance and reinforcement of a certain style of thought

from one dynasty to the next.

That way of thought,

recognisable from one end of the muslim ummah to the other

the Shari'a,

itself went through changes over the years,

changes that have themselves been blamed for the suppression of muslim thought and ingenuity.

It is often said that the muslim decline

was directly linked to the so called closing of the gates of ijtihad.

This was in fact the end of a process

during which ijtihad had been reduced to a technical legal term

that required qualifications to claim a right to practise,

and there were always those who rejected a situation

which required acceptance of an intermediary between worshipper and worshipped,

between a muslim and the focus of their worship.

At first shari'a was simply seen

as a way for an individual to understand and interpret God's Will,

searching out the guidance of those they considered knowledgeable.

State law and God's Law were seen as quite distinct,

even though the opinions of religious scholars may have been used as the inspiration for state laws.

But shari'a scholars were eventually co-opted into the state system,

and the two were soon seen as synonymous,

at which point

the Shari'a inevitably came under the control of the ruler of the state,

ultimately meaning that the political ruler now had the power to decide and define God's laws.

Along with this went the long standing attempts

to reduce Islamic law to a set of fixed rules,

unchallengable precedents

regardless of ossification,

and the rejection of anything considered to be innovation, Bid'ah,

with opinions applying to one time and place

being considered as applicable in all times and places.

This resulted in religious scholars

trying to ban the use of the printing press for about 200 years,

and more recent scholars

trying to forbid photography, movies and tv.

Of course eventually the proponents of such bans

tend to be overwhelmed by the world around them,

but there can be little doubt that regardless of the world around us there are some who are still trying.

Yet when the Messenger sent companions

to distant newly muslim communities

to guide them in their deen,

their opinions were welcomed and did not need to be enforced,

Having accepted the existence of God,

and the reading of God's words by the Messenger,

it was a communal effort to try to understand and follow God's Will,

rather than simply a set of prescribed laws and restrictions

being imposed on all aspects of life in the community.

Each member of the Messenger's community

had their own greater or lesser knowledge and understanding

of the Messenger's example

and his explanation of those parts of the Qur'an that they remembered

from what had so far been revealed,

and as they spread around the world

numerous different opinions formed around these specifics.

It was more than 100 years after the death of the Messenger

before the opinions and methods of Abu Hanifa and Malik ibn Anas

began to unify the vast range of legal perspectives on offer

into the legal schools that we recognise today,

and Shafi'i and ibn Hanbal didn't arrive until half a century later.

By the time another 400 years had passed,

the four Sunni madhahib were seen as canonical,

to the extent that in 631AH,

when the College of Mustansiriyyah in Baghdad was opened

it was built in 4 quarters,

one for each school,

with no other views permitted,

the teachers being told not to mention their own opinions,

and to confine themselves to the opinions of early masters.

And by 665AH in Egypt,

those four schools were officially recognised

as the only valid legal opinions,

with testimony not being accepted

from those who did not follow them.

With this came the growth of the mind-numbing doctrine of Taqlid.

This can be seen in the Shi'a understanding

as the general conformity of an unqualified lay person

to the teaching of a mujtahid,

and recognition of the Imams as

"secure from error and lapse".

In the Sunni tradition however,

Taqlid is more likely to be interpreted as a surrender of all personal judgement with regard to religious matters,

Taqlid as "blind imitation"

with a stagnation of intellectual effort

and an uncritical following of traditional religious interpretations,

formulated by those seen as religious authorities.

After the death of the Messenger,

for nearly two centuries

no-one had heard of madhahib,

and even after then, muslims enjoyed complete freedom

with respect to religious law and whose opinions they followed.

Since then however,

muslims have had a tendency to refer back to the companions and early muslims

as though they understood and spoke of Shari'ah in the same way as themselves.

A few ayats of the Reading stress the importance of communal rules of behaviour

with regard to ownership,

inheritance and sexual relations,

but when the Messenger was alive

there were no police, courts or prisons.

What later muslims see as the start of their legal system,

those early muslims didn't think of in such formal terms.

Humans tend to see history through cultural spectacles

transferring their own points of view backwards.

But looking backwards and forbidding innovation

or original thought

is antithetical to the scientific exploration

that is the motive force of technological progress

Of course it is recognised by scientists

that they stand on the shoulders of those that came before them,

but science is a world-view of "now"

the ever-changing view of the best theory of how the world works

that humans have come up with so far.

Perhaps by the time that someone reads this

the muslim world will once again be at the cutting edge of technological invention.

Change happens.

Which is why we need a way of life which recognises

that in a thousand years, our own theories of truth

will seem as quaint and foolish

as those of a thousand years ago appear to us now.

It is a temporary truth.

Only the Truth of God is unchanging.