2
$\begingroup$

Well when it comes to Muslim scholars who had influence in medicine the major books and scholars which are referred to is ibn Sina and his Canon القانون في الطب.

But many other Muslim scholars have contributed in the field of Medicine. I want to ask especially about ibn Rushd and his book the Colliget الكليات في الطب al Kulliyat about general Medicine or medication in which he also refers to the work of his teacher, colleague and friend ibn Zuhr Kitab al-taysir التيسير في المداواة والتدريب = the book of simplification of (medical) treatment and diet sheet (May own translation -as i didn't find any- please take it with care) which has been translated into latin Rectificatio medicationis et regiminis.

Was ibn Sina the only Muslim physician who had some influence on modern medicine or to what extent have ibn Zuhr and ibn Rushd contributed to a modern medicine?

By modern medicine i mean a medicine or medication method that at least outlasted the middle-age a few centuries! As i read that the Canon was still a reference in the 18th Century. For example medication methods like diets and music therapy ...

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Wikipedia has an article on this very issue: Medical contributions from medieval Islam en.wikipedia.org/wiki/… $\endgroup$ – Conifold Mar 17 '16 at 2:43
  • $\begingroup$ Honestly i missed that article! But as said I'm more curious about the contribution of the works of ibn Zuhr and ibn Rushd as both grow up in al-Andalus and ibn Rushd is primarily known as a philosopher and a jurost/theologian! $\endgroup$ – Medi1Saif Mar 17 '16 at 6:20
  • $\begingroup$ @Conifold, the Wikipedia article, like most of what that site has to say about mediaeval Islamic science, is largely uncritical and excessively laudatory. There are (believe it or not) serious books about "Islamic" science. $\endgroup$ – fdb Mar 17 '16 at 12:06
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @fdb Perhaps you could mention some of them in your answer, especially since "developed largely out of the critique and rejection" does not imply "no positive input". $\endgroup$ – Conifold Mar 18 '16 at 3:25
2
$\begingroup$

As you yourself indicated, many works of mediaeval medicine from the Islamic world were translated into Latin, and they were indeed among the first printed books in Europe. Apart from Avicenna and the others mentioned by you there is (for example) ar-Rāzī (Rhazes) and his Liber continens. So obviously there was a strong influence of Muslim writers about medicine on mediaeval and early modern European medicine.

But if you are really asking about their influence on MODERN medicine, then we would have to admit that MODERN medicine (from around the end of the 18th century onwards) developed largely out of the critique and rejection of the theories of mediaeval Christian and Islamic medicine, and its main sources (the books attributed to Hippocrates and Galen) and in particular their theoretical basis, the doctrine of the four humours. In this sense, I would contend that “Islamic” medicine had no positive input into modern “scientific” medicine.

Of course, neither mediaeval nor modern medicine has solved the fundamental problem of human existence: we still all die in the end. In this sense, the whole history of medicine is ultimately the history of folly and deception.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Of course i knew about ar-Razi as a physician. Well honestly even modern medicine is not 100% scientific it's mostly assumption based and not that rarely trial and error. As we still don't know much about our human body. But of course nobody wants therapies like bloodletting for about any disease or die due to an infection during a simple surgical intervention! $\endgroup$ – Medi1Saif Mar 17 '16 at 6:36

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.