Premise

The premise of this website is to educate about those thinkers of the mid Islamic Golden Age, around the 10th and 11th centuries, but the question remains, why should we be educated about these figures, or this period? What is so important about them? Are they wrongfully absent from the curriculum? This page seeks to answer those questions, and pose my argument for their representation in curricula, both in university and below.

Why are these men so important?

The works of the Islamic scholars is a clear departure from the philosophy of the Greek thinkers, with the introduction of a preliminary scientific method that placed emphasis on experimentation and consistencies. It was criticisms of the works of Ptolemy and Aristotle that distinguished the Islamic sciences from their Greek predecessors, allowing them to think more critically about topics involving space, optics and mechanics. This introduction, in my opinion, serves as the first time that we can truly distinguish science from philosophy, a turning point often associated with enlightenment thinkers like Boyle, Newton and Descartes. I hope this website has shown that this is not the case, and that these Islamic thinkers should serve as a great stepping stone to be taught about during science education.

On top of this, the discoveries of these men are important in the history of physics. Whilst not all the discoveries here were ground breaking, many of them served as very important foundations for later work. Without Ibn al-Haytham and his work on optics, it is unlikely that Witelo would have written Perspectiva, which was largely based on Kitab al Manazer, and Kepler's work on optics was shaped around the work of Alhazen. On top of this, his method of thinking, that the heavens should be bound by physics was one introduced by Al-Haytham in his 'epitome of astronomy' and as such, he was likely an influence on Kepler.

Are they wrongfully absent?

The Arabic Scholars that we have covered, as well as many more, often go unrecognised, at least in north-western Europe. For example, at my university, there is a physics module on Electromagnetic waves and optics, and whilst the histories of these fields are not heavily taught, there are dozens of mentions of "Snell's Law". Given Ibn Sahl's effective discovery of these laws centuries before Snellius, this seems unreasonable, considering his name is not mentioned once in the syllabus. I am also aware that many other universities in the UK are the same, with lectures from UCL, Oxford, QMUL and more all referring to this as Snell's Law, which is common practice in much of western Europe and North America. However, it is true that much of the work of Muslim scholars would be heavily built upon by the European scholars of the pre-enlightenment period, such as Witelo or Bacon, and it is these evolutions that are often focused on. It is my belief as a physicist that first steps are important, and that the teaching of them, and their background, will encourage students to become better thinkers, as they learn to understand where these thoughts come from and how they developed.

Unfortunately, even when history is taught, such as my "our universe" module in my first year of university, these men are often left out of the picture. We were taught the discoveries of Galileo, Kepler and Eratosthenes, But not of the work of al-Biruni, a key stepping stone, or of Alhazen, a core predecessor.

So Why Aren't We Taught About Them?

In my research, I have come to a few conclusions about about this particular question.

First of these is that it seems to me that the key reason for the lack of discussion here is that, in the English speaking world, there is a lack of cultural significance behind these men. This is shown in a few ways. One way this is shown is in the vast array of content available in Spanish and French on these men. From a Spanish perspective, this makes sense, as much of modern Spain was under the rule of the caliphates, and there is a shared cultural heritage when it comes to scientific endeavour. French, on the other hand, I believe stems from colonialism. Much of the French territory in Africa was religiously Muslim, and so many of the modern French speaking nations in Africa have a cultural reason to be interested in these figures. As a quick example, the difference between the French and English Wikipedia entries on Kitab Al Manazer are vastly different, with the French language entry being far larger and more detailed, and with far more citations, likely due to a wider array of interest in the topic.

The second of these is more scientific in nature. Much of the work of these scholars, whilst ground breaking in their time, was either wrong, incomplete, or built upon by later European scholars. As such, much of it has lost its relevance in favour, and has instead been replaced in the curricula by the later, more advanced work of the enlightenment. Take the difference between Newton and Alhazen and their work on prisms. Whilst Alhazen discusses the fixed angles of the new dispersed light in Kitab Al Manazer, Newton writes in depth about the many calculations involved, as well as many experiments in his 'Opticks'. However, the fact that these theories may have been wrong doesn't mean we shouldn't hear about them. We still hear about Lamarck's theory of evolution as well as Darwin's, and we are still taught about heliocentrism alongside the proven geocentric model of the solar system.

So, what should be done?

It is my opinion that the way forward is to begin including these men in discussions of the history of science when covering topics such as optics, astronomy and geodesy. This should not be limited to the figures discussed here, in fact, I advocate for the introduction of history to scientific curricula in general, as a basis to learn where ideas come from, as it is my belief that understanding the setting behind an idea can make us better thinkers.

A good way to include these figures may be to offer their stories up when discussing the history of a field. For example, mentioning Al-Biruni alongside Eratosthenes when discussing early geodesy, or Ibn al-Haytham alongside Newton and Galileo when discussing optics. Another may be to mention them in smaller ways, like mentioning Ibn Sahl's law as an alternative to Snells law.