The early Islamic period witnessed the appearance of a new astronomical disci-pline, ʿilm al-hayʾa (science of the configuration’ of the universe), which had no Greek equivalent per se. In an effort to determine the conditions underlying this development, the paper argues that its main impetus was a rejection of the discipline of astrology, which was conceived to be an integral part of the imported Greek astronomical tradition and which was opposed by social forces sufficiently influential to compel the principal intellectuals of the day to dissociate themselves from it. Astrology’s opponents were not only religious figures, but included, among others, physicians and even astronomers who, in the end, created a new discipline that was free of the stigma attached to Greek astronomy. The evidence for these developments comes from the work of a contemporary author named Abū Maʿshar al-Balkhī (AD 787-886), whose famous astrological work, Al-Madkhal ilā ʿilm aḥkām al-nujūm (Introduction to the science of the judgements of the stars), devotes a full chapter to the opponents of astrology, which included most sectors of society, even those considered the discipline’s natural allies. In order to corroborate Abū Maʿshar’s assessment, recourse is made to the well-known, but relatively later Muʿtazilite author, ʿAbd al-Jabbār (d. AD 1025/26), whose famous work, Tathbīt dalāʾil al-nubuwwa (Confirmation of the signs of prophecy), contains a full attack upon astrology and all those associated with the foreign sciences in Islam. The paper concludes by asserting that the identification of astrology with Greek astronomy and its consequent denigration in the newly-emerging Islamic environment left practicing Islamic astronomers with no option but to dissociate themselves from both disciplines and to create a new astronomy that may be called Islamic. In order to distinguish this new astronomy from its Greek antecedents, it was given a new name: ʿilm al-hayʾa.
“This paper begins with a brief outline of two major positions on the question of whether the ancient (or ‘rational’) sciences were excluded from Muslim madrasas and cognate teaching institutes. In the section that follows, I take up positions formulated by Jonathan Berkey and Michael Chamberlain, who both stress the importance of networks, rather than schools, for Muslim education in the post-classical period, to show that these networks integrated the teaching and studying of mathematics, astronomy, astrology, philosophy, logic and/or the occult sciences into the Muslim educational landscapes. In the third and fourth sections of the paper, I talk about the differences between the ancient and the ‘rational’ sciences and about partnerships between the religious and philological sciences, on the one hand, and the ‘rational’ sciences, on the other. In section five, I discuss the inimical attitudes of religious scholars toward the ancient and ‘rational’ sciences and illustrate some of their strategies to deal with them. Finally, in the conclusion, I claim that the much-debated decline of the ancient sciences did not result from their exclusion from the religiously-dominated Muslim educational landscapes, but rather from their integration into them.