I hadn't heard of Gouguenheim but his ideas seem rather absurd. He seems to believe the Islamic golden age never occurred, and I can't find how he tries to explain where something like Liber Abbaci came from. His objectivity seems far more suspect than this piece.
The chemistry progressed a lot during that time. Several preserved Arabic works contain a much improved classification of the known chemical substances, better than anything that existed before them.
That chemical classification was improved only in the 18th century, by several generations of Swedish chemists, leading eventually to the modern chemistry based on the notion of chemical elements, which was created by Lavoisier and his French colleagues, shortly before the French Revolution.
Attempting to deny the essential Arabic/Islamic contributions to the evolution of the sciences shows just ignorance or bad intentions.
For further reading:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages_(historiography)#Mod...
That's a sickening statement to see here and running into things like this makes me ashamed of this site.
Needless to say, religious flamewar is a bannable offense on HN. No more of this, ever, please.
I wish Rumi were here so we could all see what a sweet and learned response he would supply, but unfortunately we have to make do without him.
What is referred to as "Islamic" culture did not come from Arabia/modern day gulf countries. It came from Iraq, the Levant, Egypt and North Africa. The Caliphates' capitals were based in Damascus, Baghdad, Egypt or south of Spain. These were diverse societies and "Islamic" progress was diverse by people from different religions and races.
Also, the Ottomans never occupied Arabia/the Gulf. They stopped at the Levant. Because there was simply nothing to occupy in an empty desert.
You're confusing Arabia, Levant, Iraq, Egypt and North Africa. Arabia has a very distinct culture and different languages & history.
The Levant, Iraq, Egypt and North Africa are far far from "still a desert with no social, architectural or technological progress". They don't even have oil, apart from Iraq.
> Also, the Ottomans never occupied Arabia/the Gulf. They stopped at the Levant. Because there was simply nothing to occupy in an empty desert.
AFAIK Ottoman ruled up to Mecca yet it remained undeveloped. Seems a little bit strange that they had made advancements in architecture yet did not develop the holiest place.
Mecca was never important. It was symbolic but that's where it ends. Ignore the Ottomans, even the first few Caliphs, the minute they left Arabia, no one cared about Mecca beyond symbolism.
That you see espoused as "religious" is almost always BS. Its all politics and economics. You cannot develop anything in a desert. Why would you focus on a desert when you can focus on much richer areas by the Mediterranean with already a lot of culture and resources and wealth?
> Dharmic (Hindu) scholars kept precise time by observing and calculating the cycles of Surya i.e. the sun, moon and the planets. These calculations about the sun appear in various astronomical texts in Sanskrit, such as the 5th-century Aryabhatiya by Aryabhata, the 6th-century Romaka by Latadeva and Panca Siddhantika by Varahamihira, the 7th-century Khandakhadyaka by Brahmagupta and the 8th-century Sisyadhivrddida by Lalla.[24] These texts present Surya and various planets and estimate the characteristics of the respective planetary motion.[24] Other texts such as Surya Siddhanta dated to have been completed sometime between the 5th century and 10th century present their chapters on various deified planets with stories behind them.
Hindu India have names for time scale ranging from 10e-17 to 10e22 long before Greece and Arabia[2].
Laughable revisionism already thoroughly debunked by Sylvain Gouguenheim many years ago. A real shame as it makes me doubt the objectivity of the entire article.