As usual with these kinds of books, there is no mention of the work done by Muslim astronomers hundreds of years before either Copernicus or Kepler. Do you actually think these two astronomers and other scientists just came up with their results? That's not how science works.
Unfortunately many Western historians casually ignore or at best minimize the impact the Islamic scientific movement had on many fields such as philosophy, mathematics, physics, chemistry, and astronomy. Instead they jump from the Greeks to the pre-Renaissance era. "If Europe was in a state of academic decline, so was everyone else". As the saying goes, the winner gets to rewrite history.
Thabit ibn Qurra (850 CE): number theory, infinite series, length of year to within 2 seconds, non-Euclidean geometry, paved way for integral calculus, philosopher on the side [2][3]
Al Hasan ibn Al Haitham (1000 CE): optics and visual perception, one of the first theoretical physicists, developed the scientific method 200 years before Renaissance, number theory esp. congruences [4]
In addition, it is agreed that if not for the Graeco-Arabic translation movement, most of the works of the Greek philosophers would have been lost.
There is no reason to believe that Khayyam discovered Pascal's triangle, it's much older. Heliocentrism was discussed by the ancient Greeks and predates Khayyam by over 1000 years [2].
Number theory predates Qurra by almost 3000 years [3]. Infinite series were known to ancient Greek Archiemedes [4]. The history of non-euclidean geometry is complicated: the ancient Greeks already knew about some geometrical objects that we now recognise as being non-euclidean. The first to recognise non-euclidean geometry in a nearly modern form might have been Gauss, but he didn't publish this material because he didn't think he had hit on the full story.
I'll stop here.
the Graeco-Arabic translation movement,
The preservation of the Greek is probably the main achievement of the medieval islamic scholars.
We must remember that almost all Greek material is lost. For example nothing in the existing ancient Greek material tells us that the ancient Greeks were capable of building something like the Antikythera mechanism, which was found on ship carrying mundane goods, so it's unlikely to be the best the ancient Greeks had achieved in regards to automata.
I suspect that like Renaissance Europeans, medieval islamic scholars were at pains to cover up just how much they got from ancient Greece.
No, I do not possess deep historical knowledge. I was asked a question, which I answered using facts I've gathered from my reading, with some Googling added into the mix. Disproving examples provided by an amateur does not amount to much I'm afraid.
Still, I will attempt to respond to your rebuttal using what little knowledge I have.
> There is no reason to believe that Khayyam discovered Pascal's triangle, it's much older.
A cursory glance at the article you linked shows that Khayyam was the first to formally define Pascal's triangle. However, the main issue in my view is that everyone still refers to it as Pascal's triangle, even though as you say there is evidence which proves that Pascal was not the first to discover it.
> Heliocentrism was discussed by the ancient Greeks and predates Khayyam by over 1000 years
Yes, I was aware that the Greeks tackled the issue of heliocentricity, but I added that point in the context of Copernicus. In addition, I did not state that he was the first.
> Infinite series were known to ancient Greek Archiemedes
> the ancient Greeks already knew about some geometrical objects that we now recognise as being non-euclidean. The first to recognise non-euclidean geometry in a nearly modern form might have been Gauss
I like how you perform the same jump in time I talked about in my original comment. So essentially, when it comes to the development of non-Euclidean geometry, Greeks -> nothing -> Gauss. Are you really saying that that's how it developed?
> We must remember that almost all Greek material is lost [...]
Why did you need to write a whole paragraph on how much of the Greek's work was lost? That's irrelevant; the only thing that matters is that the Islamic scientific movement preserved Greeks works. I kind of feel you added that just to undermine your previous statement.
> I suspect that like Renaissance Europeans, medieval islamic scholars were at pains to cover up just how much they got from ancient Greece.
Regarding attribution, on the contrary, Muslim scientists were actually quite open about how extensively they based their work on that of the Greeks, especially in the field of philosophy. The same definitely cannot be said about the early Renaissance scholars.
> the main issue in my view is that everyone still refers to it as Pascal's triangle, even though as you say there is evidence which proves that Pascal was not the first to discover it.
This is fairly common. It even has a name: Stigler's law of eponymy. Which, incidentally, was originally stated by Robert K. Merton.
> Do you actually think these two astronomers and other scientists just came up with their results? That's not how science works.
Sometimes it does, see Calculus.
Moreover, coming from western Europe, I seldom met history teachers or erudites that would casually dismiss another culture's teaching and discoveries.
No, I wouldn't say they actively discuss it. But it's certainly not censored or dismissed.
But frankly it's a stinky debate. I recently found myself between an Indian and a Tunisian arguing over who invented the zero. Wikipedia, other sources, nuanced opinions and historical facts fell on deaf ears.
Jim Al Khalili has a gripping and informative BBC documentary on just this, he shows that books by Copernicus had the same errors as certain earlier Arab texts going back to Alhazen.
He delves further and explores the book of doubt the first post greek published work to question the Ptolomaic cosmology. This was written at the hilltop fortress of the order of Assassins which ensured a golden age of peace by a network of espionage. Marco Polo famously described the Garden's there. Ibn al-Ḥaytham, Alhazen continued his work under the patronage of the Mongols.
It is all very well presented by Al Khalili.
How about calling them Arab or south-west Asian people? Depending on the epochs and the country borders the religion trends changed a lot in that area.
No, most of the great scientists were not Arab. Many people mix the two up. In addition, most of the funding came from the Islamic caliphate itself, especially during the Abassid Caliphate. One of the caliphs at the time gave scientists who wrote books on a scientific topic its weight in gold. The Abu Musa family paid salaries for translators to work full-time translating works from Greek, Syriac, and Persian to Arabic.
Do you have any evidence that all the Middle Eastern scholars from the Middle Ages (no pun intended) have been practising Muslims? Did they work in complete isolation from Europe? How so?
Also, what exactly do you mean by „the winner” in this case? Do you imply that the Middle East has lost something particular due to external forces and hasn't been developing up to its potential? If so, what is that and what were those external forces? Did they come from Europe? How so? Even Eastern Europe? Even the parts of it that were forcefully joined to a Middle Eastern fiercely expansionist country like the Ottoman empire? How so?
1. Yes, quite a few of them were regarded as scholars in Islam. Some have seminal works on different aspects of Islamic science. During a certain period, memorizing the Quran and learning the essentials of Islamic science was a prerequisite to further pursuing study in the natural sciences. Keep in mind that this is not the rule, and depends on the specific time period, region, and "flavor" of Islam the scientist followed.
2. Just after the decline in power of the Ottoman Empire (around 1500 AD or so), Europe began to flourish. The Ottomans were not able to keep up, and were overpowered both in military might and scientific advancement. This worsened with the expansionary period in Europe (1600s-1700s), and reached its peak with the colonial period.
The colonization of the entire Arab World and the fall of the Ottoman Empire together were just too much - Muslims were lost. Unfortunately, they put the blame on Islam while the blame was simply on lack of unity, general decadence of the ruling elite, and pursuit of material gain rather than scientific advancement. In addition, the colonial powers themselves made sure their subjects didn't get much done. Even after they left, the effects remained for quite some time. So scientific development was put on the side, and that's where we are now.
As an example, in 2013, South Korea (pop. 50 million) was granted 120,000 patents. The entire Arab World (360 million) was granted only 7,000. We are just too far behind.
The past is the past. No use complaining about it. The Americas were also raped by European colonialism but it makes no sese to dwell in it. Work towards the future.
Yes, that's true. My biggest aim is to contribute in any way possible to bringing back Muslims to the forefront of scientific development.
But remember that America has overcome and far surpassed its conquerors, so it's not a fair comparison. Once you reach that point, your troubled history becomes a strength.
My suggestion would be to try and strengthen your region regardless or religion. The Middle East never was purely Muslim and I bet that nowadays there are a lot of atheists there just as we have a lot of them in Europe.
Don't get me wrong, though. Go to mosque if you want to, read the Qur'an if this is your thing. Just, for the sake of humanity, please keep it separate from your scientific work. Thanks!
You've got it backwards. We as Muslims believe that Islam comes first and is our main identity. Nation, region, and race come second. I'm Muslim first, then Tunisian, then Arab.
I never said I'm going to mix circuit design with Islam. I will follow Islam, and I will make it my goal to further Islam and its status through my contributions to whatever field I'm working in.
They are relevant to the comment I replied to. If you think that scientific progress is not a valid technique to improve the standing of one's nation or religion, then I think you've got it wrong.
Surely it is a noble goal for a state or a religious community to fund scientific endeavours. But in absolutely no way they should be connected by content.
Even in the western world, I am not aware of a single example where a religious community is funding research without taking influence and without using it to advance their own goals. There surely is no shortage in dubious research institutes funded by christian sects or even more moderate entities.
There is little disagreement in the scientific community about keeping science separate from religion and preferrably even the state.
Someone else already addressed your second point, so I will give my two cents on the first one.
I am perfectly aware of all this and I don't want to underestimate the importance of Islam in the Middle Ages. This was basically school education before we had our modern systems in place. In Europe all universities were innately Christian, in Western Asia and Northern Africa all madrassas were equally so Muslim in nature, so deep knowledge of the respective holy scriptures was of utmost importance there.
However, we live in a globalised world nowadays and religion, save for religious studies, has no place in science. You may need to work with Christians, Jews, Muslims from the other side of the Sunni-Shi'a split, Buddhists, Taoists, Hindus, agnostics, or even outright atheists. All of them may be great specialists in their fields and you shouldn't dismiss potential collaboration with any based on prejudice. If you are a true believer, you should know that we are no ones to judge others since the power for this lies solely in the hands of God. If you are not, this is irrelevant for you altogether - just try to live a decent life and improve your community through hard work.
I am fully aware of that. The guy asked a question about a specific time period, and I tried to answer it.
Islam is not at all like Christianity when it comes to science. That's why Muslims were way ahead at their peak. For example, most philosophical works produced my Muslim scholars were based on that of the ancient Greeks, who were polytheists.
Do you actually think it would make sense to reject someone else's work or not work with people because of a difference of belief?
> As usual with these kinds of books, there is no mention of the work done by Muslim astronomers hundreds of years before either Copernicus or Kepler.
Same logic applies for the Arabic/ Islamic Golden age astronomers who were dependent on previous Indian, Greek and other mathematicians to further translate/ popularize , improve upon and invent what was the state of the art in those times.
Take a brief look at the wiki page for a continuity and cross-pollination of ideas across[1]. What matters is a conducive/ peaceful period where ideas flourish and new inventions are made.
The historic progression of ideas is thus: (remember, there will be ideas cross-translated across individual years within this broad sub-periods, and isolated inventions which were independently/ semi-independently discovered).
Babylonia (1800 BC) -> Egyptian (1800 BC) -> Greek (600 BC to 150 AD) -> Chinese (300 BC) -> Indian (200/500 BC to 1200/1400 AD) -> Islamic (1050 AD - 1400 AD) -> Medieval European (12th century) -> Renaissance (1400 AD) -> Modern Mathematics.
Also, see [2] for Al-Khwarizmi's On the Calculation with Hindu Numerals (ca. 825), and Al-Kindi's four volume work On the Use of the Indian Numerals (ca. 830)
> Unfortunately many Western historians casually ignore or at best minimize the impact the Islamic scientific movement had on many fields such as philosophy, mathematics, physics, chemistry, and astronomy. Instead they jump from the Greeks to the pre-Renaissance era.
On the same token, one might be making the same mistake if the Indian influence of the Islamic golden age thought process is not acknowledged. By reason, the influence of Greeks on Indian thoughts and so on and so forth. Please take a look at [3]
> Same logic applies for the Arabic/ Islamic Golden age astronomers who were dependent on previous Indian
Yes, but bookstores are not filled with books written by Muslim historians. There is only side to the story being presented, and that's what annoys me.
> Yes, but bookstores are not filled with books written by Muslim historians. There is only side to the story being presented, and that's what annoys me.
When you are annoyed that modern historians/ authors omitted - Islamic Golden Age (IGA) - in the history of Mathematics and directly jump from Greek -> Renaissance[0], you are only singling out IGA and not calling out the omission of Indian (Aryabhatta, Bhaskara et al - pls refer to [2]) or Chinese (The Nine Chapters on the Mathematical Art,Pascal's Triangle[3]) contributions. You might yourself be doing a non-willful omission and adding to the biases further. ("Greek -> IGA -> Renaissance" vs "Greek -> Chinese -> Indian -> IGA -> Renaissance")
[0] which may have been true earlier but I don't think it's true anymore - as one comment confirms that US schools have it in their curriculum, also Indian schools have in their curriculum.
As another commenter said, it's time to move on. In wikipedia, modern text books and elsewhere, this discrepancy is being/ has been set right and credit is given where credit is due.
[2]
Baudhayana - Śulba Sūtras- 800 BCE
Pāṇini (c. 520–460 BCE)
Aryabhata 476-550 CE
Varahamihira 505-587 CE
BrahmaGupta 598 CE
Bhaskara 600-680 CE
[3]
Jia Xian - Pascal's Triangle - 1010 CE
Zhoubi Suanjing c. 1000 BCE-100 CE -Astronomical theories, and computation techniques -Proof of the Pythagorean theorem etc.,
I'm a Muslim, so that's why I brought only the Islamic contributions up. However, I agree with you 100% that any region, religion, or entity that contributed to some field deserves recognition. Historical omission and/or rewriting is unacceptable in all cases.
I highly recommend Arthur Koestler's 'Sleepwalkers'. It's a detailed history of Copernicus, Brahe and in particular Kepler, but is also about how new models of knowledge gain traction. So it goes way beyond simplistic 'lone genius' analyses but still celebrates the great achievements of individuals. A wonderful read.
The Discovery of Dynamics by Julian Barbour explains Kepler's work on Mars with enough technical detail and historical context that it made me think: holy crap, Kepler was a genius, or very lucky in some of his inspirations, like the guess that led to the equal-area law (it was meant at first to be an easier-to-compute approximation to another idea); along with the mathematical talent he worked really hard and earned that luck; and nobody else seemed to be thinking about the problems in the same way leading to Kepler's laws. I'd guess they'd have taken decades more without him, and appeared in stages.
>There is nothing in astronomy, science, and math, that requires the presence of a Muslim for work to be done.
True, if snarky ;-)
However rather than simply a hollow cheerleading of Islam, perhaps parent was referring to the fact that several of the mathematical/astronomical devices that Copernicus employed bear a remarkable similarity to those of earlier Muslim astronomers such as Urdi and Ibn al-Shatir (who had rejected Ptolemy several hundred years before).
Indeed, the similarities are so strong that some scholars suggest that Copernicus simply MUST have been directly influenced by this earlier work.
Now it surely remains possible that Copernicus independently discovered all this, and never read Urdi or Ibn al-Shatir. But I believe it's beyond dispute that many aspects of what eventually became Heliocentrism, originated earlier, in the geocentric theories of the Maragha school of Islamic Astronomy.
47 comments
[ 4.4 ms ] story [ 119 ms ] threadUnfortunately many Western historians casually ignore or at best minimize the impact the Islamic scientific movement had on many fields such as philosophy, mathematics, physics, chemistry, and astronomy. Instead they jump from the Greeks to the pre-Renaissance era. "If Europe was in a state of academic decline, so was everyone else". As the saying goes, the winner gets to rewrite history.
Omar Khayyam (1100 CE): binomial theorem, Pascal's triangle, heliocentricity [1]
Thabit ibn Qurra (850 CE): number theory, infinite series, length of year to within 2 seconds, non-Euclidean geometry, paved way for integral calculus, philosopher on the side [2][3]
Al Hasan ibn Al Haitham (1000 CE): optics and visual perception, one of the first theoretical physicists, developed the scientific method 200 years before Renaissance, number theory esp. congruences [4]
In addition, it is agreed that if not for the Graeco-Arabic translation movement, most of the works of the Greek philosophers would have been lost.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_Khayyam
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Th%C4%81bit_ibn_Qurra
[3]: http://www.trincoll.edu/depts/phil/philo/phils/muslim/qurra....
[4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alhazen
I'll stop here.
The preservation of the Greek is probably the main achievement of the medieval islamic scholars.We must remember that almost all Greek material is lost. For example nothing in the existing ancient Greek material tells us that the ancient Greeks were capable of building something like the Antikythera mechanism, which was found on ship carrying mundane goods, so it's unlikely to be the best the ancient Greeks had achieved in regards to automata.
I suspect that like Renaissance Europeans, medieval islamic scholars were at pains to cover up just how much they got from ancient Greece.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_triangle#History
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentrism
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_theory#Origins
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Series_(mathematics)#Developme...
Still, I will attempt to respond to your rebuttal using what little knowledge I have.
> There is no reason to believe that Khayyam discovered Pascal's triangle, it's much older.
A cursory glance at the article you linked shows that Khayyam was the first to formally define Pascal's triangle. However, the main issue in my view is that everyone still refers to it as Pascal's triangle, even though as you say there is evidence which proves that Pascal was not the first to discover it.
> Heliocentrism was discussed by the ancient Greeks and predates Khayyam by over 1000 years
Yes, I was aware that the Greeks tackled the issue of heliocentricity, but I added that point in the context of Copernicus. In addition, I did not state that he was the first.
> Infinite series were known to ancient Greek Archiemedes
I was not aware of Archimedes' work with infinite series'. This would have been a better reference though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Series_(mathematics)#Developme....
> the ancient Greeks already knew about some geometrical objects that we now recognise as being non-euclidean. The first to recognise non-euclidean geometry in a nearly modern form might have been Gauss
I like how you perform the same jump in time I talked about in my original comment. So essentially, when it comes to the development of non-Euclidean geometry, Greeks -> nothing -> Gauss. Are you really saying that that's how it developed?
> We must remember that almost all Greek material is lost [...]
Why did you need to write a whole paragraph on how much of the Greek's work was lost? That's irrelevant; the only thing that matters is that the Islamic scientific movement preserved Greeks works. I kind of feel you added that just to undermine your previous statement.
> I suspect that like Renaissance Europeans, medieval islamic scholars were at pains to cover up just how much they got from ancient Greece.
Regarding attribution, on the contrary, Muslim scientists were actually quite open about how extensively they based their work on that of the Greeks, especially in the field of philosophy. The same definitely cannot be said about the early Renaissance scholars.
This is fairly common. It even has a name: Stigler's law of eponymy. Which, incidentally, was originally stated by Robert K. Merton.
There's a fun list of examples on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_examples_of_Stigler%27...
Sometimes it does, see Calculus.
Moreover, coming from western Europe, I seldom met history teachers or erudites that would casually dismiss another culture's teaching and discoveries.
But frankly it's a stinky debate. I recently found myself between an Indian and a Tunisian arguing over who invented the zero. Wikipedia, other sources, nuanced opinions and historical facts fell on deaf ears.
He delves further and explores the book of doubt the first post greek published work to question the Ptolomaic cosmology. This was written at the hilltop fortress of the order of Assassins which ensured a golden age of peace by a network of espionage. Marco Polo famously described the Garden's there. Ibn al-Ḥaytham, Alhazen continued his work under the patronage of the Mongols. It is all very well presented by Al Khalili.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qL41gX0fJng
Having said that not just muslims but a lot of ancient Egyptians,Sumerians, Greeks,and Hindus contibuted to it.
Also, what exactly do you mean by „the winner” in this case? Do you imply that the Middle East has lost something particular due to external forces and hasn't been developing up to its potential? If so, what is that and what were those external forces? Did they come from Europe? How so? Even Eastern Europe? Even the parts of it that were forcefully joined to a Middle Eastern fiercely expansionist country like the Ottoman empire? How so?
2. Just after the decline in power of the Ottoman Empire (around 1500 AD or so), Europe began to flourish. The Ottomans were not able to keep up, and were overpowered both in military might and scientific advancement. This worsened with the expansionary period in Europe (1600s-1700s), and reached its peak with the colonial period.
The colonization of the entire Arab World and the fall of the Ottoman Empire together were just too much - Muslims were lost. Unfortunately, they put the blame on Islam while the blame was simply on lack of unity, general decadence of the ruling elite, and pursuit of material gain rather than scientific advancement. In addition, the colonial powers themselves made sure their subjects didn't get much done. Even after they left, the effects remained for quite some time. So scientific development was put on the side, and that's where we are now.
As an example, in 2013, South Korea (pop. 50 million) was granted 120,000 patents. The entire Arab World (360 million) was granted only 7,000. We are just too far behind.
But remember that America has overcome and far surpassed its conquerors, so it's not a fair comparison. Once you reach that point, your troubled history becomes a strength.
Don't get me wrong, though. Go to mosque if you want to, read the Qur'an if this is your thing. Just, for the sake of humanity, please keep it separate from your scientific work. Thanks!
I never said I'm going to mix circuit design with Islam. I will follow Islam, and I will make it my goal to further Islam and its status through my contributions to whatever field I'm working in.
Even in the western world, I am not aware of a single example where a religious community is funding research without taking influence and without using it to advance their own goals. There surely is no shortage in dubious research institutes funded by christian sects or even more moderate entities.
There is little disagreement in the scientific community about keeping science separate from religion and preferrably even the state.
I am perfectly aware of all this and I don't want to underestimate the importance of Islam in the Middle Ages. This was basically school education before we had our modern systems in place. In Europe all universities were innately Christian, in Western Asia and Northern Africa all madrassas were equally so Muslim in nature, so deep knowledge of the respective holy scriptures was of utmost importance there.
However, we live in a globalised world nowadays and religion, save for religious studies, has no place in science. You may need to work with Christians, Jews, Muslims from the other side of the Sunni-Shi'a split, Buddhists, Taoists, Hindus, agnostics, or even outright atheists. All of them may be great specialists in their fields and you shouldn't dismiss potential collaboration with any based on prejudice. If you are a true believer, you should know that we are no ones to judge others since the power for this lies solely in the hands of God. If you are not, this is irrelevant for you altogether - just try to live a decent life and improve your community through hard work.
Islam is not at all like Christianity when it comes to science. That's why Muslims were way ahead at their peak. For example, most philosophical works produced my Muslim scholars were based on that of the ancient Greeks, who were polytheists.
Do you actually think it would make sense to reject someone else's work or not work with people because of a difference of belief?
Same logic applies for the Arabic/ Islamic Golden age astronomers who were dependent on previous Indian, Greek and other mathematicians to further translate/ popularize , improve upon and invent what was the state of the art in those times.
Take a brief look at the wiki page for a continuity and cross-pollination of ideas across[1]. What matters is a conducive/ peaceful period where ideas flourish and new inventions are made.
The historic progression of ideas is thus: (remember, there will be ideas cross-translated across individual years within this broad sub-periods, and isolated inventions which were independently/ semi-independently discovered).
Babylonia (1800 BC) -> Egyptian (1800 BC) -> Greek (600 BC to 150 AD) -> Chinese (300 BC) -> Indian (200/500 BC to 1200/1400 AD) -> Islamic (1050 AD - 1400 AD) -> Medieval European (12th century) -> Renaissance (1400 AD) -> Modern Mathematics.
Also, see [2] for Al-Khwarizmi's On the Calculation with Hindu Numerals (ca. 825), and Al-Kindi's four volume work On the Use of the Indian Numerals (ca. 830)
> Unfortunately many Western historians casually ignore or at best minimize the impact the Islamic scientific movement had on many fields such as philosophy, mathematics, physics, chemistry, and astronomy. Instead they jump from the Greeks to the pre-Renaissance era.
On the same token, one might be making the same mistake if the Indian influence of the Islamic golden age thought process is not acknowledged. By reason, the influence of Greeks on Indian thoughts and so on and so forth. Please take a look at [3]
And lastly [4]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_mathematics
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Hindu%E2%80%93A...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indian_mathematicians#...
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_on_the_shoulders_of_g...
Yes, but bookstores are not filled with books written by Muslim historians. There is only side to the story being presented, and that's what annoys me.
When you are annoyed that modern historians/ authors omitted - Islamic Golden Age (IGA) - in the history of Mathematics and directly jump from Greek -> Renaissance[0], you are only singling out IGA and not calling out the omission of Indian (Aryabhatta, Bhaskara et al - pls refer to [2]) or Chinese (The Nine Chapters on the Mathematical Art,Pascal's Triangle[3]) contributions. You might yourself be doing a non-willful omission and adding to the biases further. ("Greek -> IGA -> Renaissance" vs "Greek -> Chinese -> Indian -> IGA -> Renaissance")
[0] which may have been true earlier but I don't think it's true anymore - as one comment confirms that US schools have it in their curriculum, also Indian schools have in their curriculum.
As another commenter said, it's time to move on. In wikipedia, modern text books and elsewhere, this discrepancy is being/ has been set right and credit is given where credit is due.
[2]
Baudhayana - Śulba Sūtras- 800 BCE Pāṇini (c. 520–460 BCE) Aryabhata 476-550 CE Varahamihira 505-587 CE BrahmaGupta 598 CE Bhaskara 600-680 CE
[3]
Jia Xian - Pascal's Triangle - 1010 CE Zhoubi Suanjing c. 1000 BCE-100 CE -Astronomical theories, and computation techniques -Proof of the Pythagorean theorem etc.,
I would like to add it also features a nice introduction to greek astronomy.
Of course his work was not done in a vacuum.
Yes.
There is nothing in astronomy, science, and math, that requires the presence or knowledge of a Muslim for work to be done.
True, if snarky ;-)
However rather than simply a hollow cheerleading of Islam, perhaps parent was referring to the fact that several of the mathematical/astronomical devices that Copernicus employed bear a remarkable similarity to those of earlier Muslim astronomers such as Urdi and Ibn al-Shatir (who had rejected Ptolemy several hundred years before).
Indeed, the similarities are so strong that some scholars suggest that Copernicus simply MUST have been directly influenced by this earlier work.
Now it surely remains possible that Copernicus independently discovered all this, and never read Urdi or Ibn al-Shatir. But I believe it's beyond dispute that many aspects of what eventually became Heliocentrism, originated earlier, in the geocentric theories of the Maragha school of Islamic Astronomy.