Na pravou míru: Nezázrak islámské vědy: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Na pravou míru: Nezázrak islámské vědy (view source)

Revision as of 00:13, 1 March 2016

16 bytes removed ,  1 March 2016
→‎Závěr
[checked revision][checked revision]
Line 301: Line 301:


==Závěr==
==Závěr==
The real purpose of this article was to re-balance some of these flawed views readers may encounter on other websites and forums which use the works (or derivations thereof) of Dr. K. Ajram. We do think the Muslim scientists in the Golden Age (whether true adherents of Islam or not) did make substantial strides in science and technology, which resulted in a significant contribution to the sum of human knowledge. Scientific accomplishments are often the culmination of accumulated knowledge, rather than lone "miraculous" discoveries by individuals because of their religious and cultural settings. It is a matter of public record that the western scientists who came after the scientists of the Golden Age, e.g. Roger Bacon and Sir Isaac Newton, were aware of their works and also learned from them. However, an analysis of the apologetic claims about their greatness shows some exaggeration. In his haste to exaggerate, Ajram appears to have maligned the contribution of other cultures, downgraded the greatness of non-Muslim scientists, or misappropriated their works.


This analysis also highlights the biggest flaw of the Islamic Golden Age. There were few ‘follow-up’ breakthroughs on the backs of the works of the great Muslim scientists. In effect, the Ummah allowed or encouraged these works to wither on the vine or die stillborn, even before the rise of mysticism at the expense of rational thinking, an event often attributed to al-Ghazzali around the turn of the 12<sup>th</sup> century. Therefore, Islam is not the cause of scientific progress during the Golden Age. Many people would say that the Golden Age scientific progress was made in spite of Islam, not because of it.  
Opravdovým účelem tohoto článku bylo vybalancova některé z těchto chybných pohledů se kterými se čtenáři mohou setkat na jiných stránkách a fórech, které používají díla (nebo díla odvozená) od Dr. K. Ajram. Myslíme si, že muslimští vědci ve Zlatém věku (ať už opravdoví stoupenci islámu nebo ne) udělali důležité kroky ve vědě a technologiích, což výrazně přispělo lidskému poznání. Vědecké úspěchy jsou často vyvrcholením nahromaděných vědomostí, spíše než samotné "zázračné" objevy lidmi, kvůli jejich náboženství a kultuře. Je zaznamenáno, že západní vědci, kteří přišli po vědcích zlatého věku, například Roger Bacon a Sir Isaac Newton, si byli vědomi jejich práce a hodně se od nich naučili. Nicméně, analýza tvrzení apologetů ohledně jejich významnosti ukazuje velké přehánění. V tomto spěchu přehánět, Ajram podceňuje příspěvky jiných kultur, podceňuje velikost ne-muslimských vědců, nebo přivlastňuje jejich práci jiným.
 
Tato analýza zároveň zvýrazňuje největší chybu islámského zlatého věku. There were few ‘follow-up’ breakthroughs on the backs of the works of the great Muslim scientists. In effect, the Ummah allowed or encouraged these works to wither on the vine or die stillborn, even before the rise of mysticism at the expense of rational thinking, an event often attributed to al-Ghazzali around the turn of the 12<sup>th</sup> century. Therefore, Islam is not the cause of scientific progress during the Golden Age. Many people would say that the Golden Age scientific progress was made in spite of Islam, not because of it.  


A prime example is the great philosopher-physician Ibn Sina (Avicenna) whose  work is constantly referenced by Ajram. It is true that Ibn Sina was one of the most influential medieval philosophers, but he was also one of the most frequently attacked. The Sunni Theologians opposed his ideas on the soul and creation. However, it was the aforementioned Algazali (Abu Hamid ibn Muhammad al-Ghazali, 1058 - 1111 AD) who was his chief opponent. In "The Incoherence of Philosophers", al-Ghazzali attacked Ibn Sina's Neoplatonic tendency to reject Allah's power over the events of the world, his disbelief in bodily resurrection, and his belief that Allah only knew the world of universals, (i.e. dog, tree, rational animality) not the individual self. He even used pig products in his scientific endeavours, <ref>Professor David J. Leaper - [{{Reference archive|1=http://web.archive.org/web/20071111074025/http://www.ewma.org/pdf/fall01/04-WoundClosure.pdf|2=2011-04-18}} Wound Closure Basic Techniques, Scientific paper presented at EWMA Stockholm 2000] - The European Wound Management Association</ref> something that is certainly not in-line with pious Muslim behavior. Today, unless propagating Islam as an incubator of science, some Muslims consider Avicenna to have been an [[atheists|atheist]].<ref>[http://www.islamweb.net/emainpage/index.php?page=showfatwa&Option=FatwaId&Id=87783 Claims about Ibn Sina being an atheist or Kafir] - Islam Web, Fatwa No. 87783, May 20, 2004</ref> No doubt many of the other great Islamic scientists would also be classed as heretical [[Islam and Apostasy|apostates]] for their beliefs.<ref>For proof of this, refer to the mainstream Muslim views and treatment of the [[Ahmadiyya|Ahmadis]] and [[Persecution of Bahais in Iran|Baha'is]].</ref>  
A prime example is the great philosopher-physician Ibn Sina (Avicenna) whose  work is constantly referenced by Ajram. It is true that Ibn Sina was one of the most influential medieval philosophers, but he was also one of the most frequently attacked. The Sunni Theologians opposed his ideas on the soul and creation. However, it was the aforementioned Algazali (Abu Hamid ibn Muhammad al-Ghazali, 1058 - 1111 AD) who was his chief opponent. In "The Incoherence of Philosophers", al-Ghazzali attacked Ibn Sina's Neoplatonic tendency to reject Allah's power over the events of the world, his disbelief in bodily resurrection, and his belief that Allah only knew the world of universals, (i.e. dog, tree, rational animality) not the individual self. He even used pig products in his scientific endeavours, <ref>Professor David J. Leaper - [{{Reference archive|1=http://web.archive.org/web/20071111074025/http://www.ewma.org/pdf/fall01/04-WoundClosure.pdf|2=2011-04-18}} Wound Closure Basic Techniques, Scientific paper presented at EWMA Stockholm 2000] - The European Wound Management Association</ref> something that is certainly not in-line with pious Muslim behavior. Today, unless propagating Islam as an incubator of science, some Muslims consider Avicenna to have been an [[atheists|atheist]].<ref>[http://www.islamweb.net/emainpage/index.php?page=showfatwa&Option=FatwaId&Id=87783 Claims about Ibn Sina being an atheist or Kafir] - Islam Web, Fatwa No. 87783, May 20, 2004</ref> No doubt many of the other great Islamic scientists would also be classed as heretical [[Islam and Apostasy|apostates]] for their beliefs.<ref>For proof of this, refer to the mainstream Muslim views and treatment of the [[Ahmadiyya|Ahmadis]] and [[Persecution of Bahais in Iran|Baha'is]].</ref>  
Prekladator
Editors, em-bypass-2
4,744

edits

Retrieved from "http://wikiislamica.net/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/114830"

Navigation menu