> The centrality of scripture and its study in the Islamic tradition helped to make education a central pillar of the religion in virtually all times and places in the history of Islam.[50] The importance of learning in the Islamic tradition is reflected in a number of hadiths attributed to Muhammad, including one that instructs the faithful to "seek knowledge, even in China".[50] This injunction was seen to apply particularly to scholars, but also to some extent to the wider Muslim public, as exemplified by the dictum of al-Zarnuji, "learning is prescribed for us all".[50] While it is impossible to calculate literacy rates in pre-modern Islamic societies, it is almost certain that they were relatively high, at least in comparison to their European counterparts.[50]
I don't think this is enough to conclude that "it is almost certain that they were relatively high." I don't have numbers unfortunately but anecdotally I don't think Arabic literacy rates in non-Arabic Muslim-majority countries such as Pakistan or Malaysia are very high, even though it's accorded a special place in the constitution of Pakistan.
The literacy and respect for learning was very high in early centuries of Islam. For some first hand relation, I recommend reading Ibn Sina’s autobiography, who described lively market for books in even minor towns, huge libraries maintained by kings, the reception and great respect he received from them etc. For comparison, literacy and development in 11th century Europe was really rather low, as it only started to recover from the civilizational collapse after the fall of the western Roman Empire.
However, respect for learning in Islamic world started to deteriorate around the time of the fall of the caliphate, while it kept increasing in Europe, and by the time of reformation in 16th century, Europe was significantly ahead: spread of reformation was both dependent on widespread literacy, and it also was responsible for its spread.
> who described lively market for books in even minor towns
Yep, this is stronger evidence. I'm more sold.
Respect for learning itself though IMO is fairly weak (though nonzero) evidence. Historians have wildly differing estimates (admittedly with gigantic error bars given the difficulty of studying literacy rates) for the literacy rates of different time periods of Imperial China despite a near-constant "respect for learning."
Back then, an education was limited to basic math and arithmetic for business, a knowledge of Arabic literature and a study of the Quran, so it's very likely that people were very educated in the cities back then. Once the Abbasid Empire fell (the Islamic Golden Age period), none of the successor civilizations pursued such studies further - and none of them were Arabian empires, so that left the Arab world to stagnate.
Malaysia had a strong Chinese influence coupled with an Islamic tradition, so they most certainly spoke a lot of Arabic before Dutch rule. Even during Dutch rule, Arabic was used to announce royal decrees, until Malay took over with a sense of national identity.
As for Pakistan, the Western provinces are largely influenced by Afghan-Iranian culture (Pashto and Baluchi), while places like Sindh and Punjab had large Hindu populations before independence. So the study of Arabic wasn't as actively encouraged except for religious purposes. On the contrary, many Pakistanis today still stick to regional dialects and languages such as Pashto, Sindhi, Kashmiri and Punjabi, even though the official language is Urdu. Such non uniformity makes things way harder.
> Once the Abbasid Empire fell (the Islamic Golden Age period), none of the successor civilizations pursued such studies further - and none of them were Arabian empires, so that left the Arab world to stagnate.
This might give the misleading impression that Arabs were a large part of the intellectual ferment of the Islamic Golden Age. They got it started by forming an enormous new empire but it was the work of their subjects, not themselves. Same with the Mongols.
> It is notable that most of the intellectuals who were patronized and shone under the Abbassids in the decades after 800 A.D. were not Muslim Arabs. There were even some oddball characters, such as Tabit ibn Qurra, a pagan Syrian from Haran. One reason al-Kindi was the “Philosopher of the Arabs” is that he was a tribal Arab. But more typical were Iranians such as Avicenna and al-Razi. If you accept S. Frederick Starr’s argument in Lost Enlightenment and Christopher Beckwith’s in Warriors of the Cloisters Iranians disproportionately from Turan, modern Central Asia, were particularly influential in shaping the high culture and intellectual tone of the world of Islam after 800 A.D.
Wholly agree. A lot of work was done by Persians and North Africans. But the difference between the Abbasid and the Ottoman/Mughal/Safavids was that the Abbasid Empire encouraged such studies, since they were a relatively liberal kind. Except in theological matters.
> Back then, an education was limited to basic math and arithmetic for business, a knowledge of Arabic literature and a study of the Quran, so it's very likely that people were very educated in the cities back then.
My point is that this is still legally mandated as the standard in e.g. Pakistan and Arabic literacy rates (even in cities I think) still aren't very high. Just reading the Pakistani constitution I would've assumed high Arabic literacy rates which isn't the case. I think government decrees are weak evidence in favor of higher literacy rates, but I don't think it's enough to conclude "with near certainty" that literacy rates among the general populace would've been significantly higher as a result.
> Even during Dutch rule, Arabic was used to announce royal decrees, until Malay took over with a sense of national identity.
An analogous situation held in Medieval Japan and Korea with respect to Classical Chinese and IIRC scholars don't think the general population was very literate in Classical Chinese as a result.
Pakistan wasn't part of the Arab World proper, even in those times. My comment specifically pertained to Arabic in the Arab World in those times. Pakistan wasn't even Muslim at the time, save for Western Sindh, and rule was largely relegated to Brahmin administrators.
What makes me mad is my mom learned about Ibn Shatir in Damascus at school in Karachi but not one word about al Biruni measuring circumference of Earth at Nandana in Punjab or say Bakhshali manuscript.
This is pertaining in particular to the Islamic world of the 8th to 14th centuries, which has been called the 'Golden Age' of Islam. I think, relatively speaking by contemporary standards, you'd be hard pressed to say modern Pakistan is in a golden age. But this is well outside any of my areas of expertise, so I could be wrong.
One of my biggest takeaway from the 20th century study of history has been a wariness of using the words "Golden Age" or "Dark Age" alone to draw conclusions about what life was like for people outside of the elite.
As such I'm don't think the presence of a Golden Age is itself a particularly strong argument for literacy among the general populace.
This point cannot be stressed enough.