| The Islamization of Science
:
Four Muslim Positions Developing an Islamic
Modernity Leif Stenberg (Lund Studies in History of Religions, No. 6) Coronet Books: New York, 1996 pp,
364; ISBN: 9122017232
Modern Western scientific worldview, which grew out of the Age of
Enlightenment, Reformation and the Scientific Revolution of the 17th century is
now a dominant force in most of the world. This dominance has been achieved, in
large part, by the technological advances which have created an illusion of
reality apart from Reality in such a forceful manner that to most people the
marvels of the modern technological achievements appear as miracles: instant
transmission of voice across continents, live coverage of events as they take
place thousands of miles away, trips to the distant planets and the like are all
perceived as the fruits of the developments which have been possible because of
a fundamental transformation in the worldview of the pioneers of modern
scientific thought. Science, today, is not only limited to the study of nature,
rather it is attempting to replace traditional epistemological and ontological
foundations of knowledge. This encroachment of science in a domain traditionally
held by Religion has given rise to the debates about the relationship of science
and religion, their mutual points of convergence and divergence and other
related issues. These questions have been and are being debated by followers of
all religions as science keeps on encroaching further and further into the
belief systems of contemporary human beings through rapid advances in such areas
as biotechnology, embryology and genetic engineering. These are not merely
philosophical debates; these are real‑life issues forcing human beings to
make choices which affect the most fundamental aspects of existence. Modern
science has created a belief system in which there is no room for the Divine.
This belief system comes with its own values and ethics and attempts of create a
Weltanschauung parallel to and in competition with the religious worldview.
The discourse on the relationship between Islam and modern science is now
more than hundred years old if one takes the debate started by Ernest Renan
(d.1892) in Paris in 1883 as a starting point. Jamal-uddin Afghani’s (d.
1897) response to Renan’s polemic against Islam is the first Muslim response,
in the modern era, to the claim that Islam and science are incompatible. But
since then, the discourse has become far more complex. During the second half of
the twentieth century, Islam’s relationship with not only science but the
whole of modern knowledge along with its methodologies and premises has become
the focus of a discourse which has far-reaching implications because the
positions taken in this debate affect, replace or undermine the very foundations
of Islamic worldview. That this discourse is not merely a philosophical leisure
for some Muslim scholars is clear from the fact that the thrust of modern
science is not restricted to the technologically imposed images and sounds
brought to millions of Muslim homes but its myriad forms go much deeper and
penetrate the very fabric of the belief system on which Islam is based: Modern
science not only claims to provide answers to the physical phenomena it is also
claiming to provide “answers” to such fundamental doctrines as the origin
and destiny of the universe and human life.
Leif Stenberg’s book is the first attempt to provide a comprehensive
account of the recent developments in Islam and science debate. It is a
“descriptive and analytic undertaking”, written in a lucid language with
remarkable clarity of thought and intent. The study is based on the assumption
that the current debate on Islam and science can be presented through the
description and analysis of “Positions” centered around the ideas of
exponents. The four exponents whose Positions have each been presented in
separate chapters are: Syed Hossein Nasr, Maurice Bucaille, Ziauddin Sardar and
Ismail al‑Faruqi. Each of these four chapters have inter-related
themes and structures and a conscious effort has been made to use similar
headings so that analysis of comparative Positions is easy. By establishing
contacts with the exponents and/or their supporters, the author has been able to
include the most up-to-date information about the life and works of
the exponents and their supporters.
But the study is not merely a presentation of the debate; it attempts to
analyze the contours of emerging Islamic modernity through these four Positions.
The analysis, presented in a separate chapter, highlights the similarities and
differences of the four Positions. It also attempts to place these Positions in
the context of history of ideas and discusses the relationship between the
discourse and phenomenon of modernity.
Within this overall
framework, ideas of each exponent are presented through their works, personal
conversations and critique of their works. For an unspecified reason, Zia uddin
Sardar (b.1951) and a few other individuals who more or less share similar ideas
are introduced first in a chapter entitled “Reinterpreting IslamCSardar and the Ijmalis”. This chapter contains a concise
account of Sardar’s early life and works, as well as brief notes on Munawar
Ahmed Anees, Merryl Wyn Davies, S. Parvez Manzoor and Sardar’s “Maimonide”,
Jerome R. Ravetz. Although Sardar was associated with the Hajj Research
Centre, Jeddah for two years (1977‑79) and he has held a
part‑time position as Director at the Center for Policy and Future Studies
at the East-West University in Chicago during the early 1980s and at
present he is a visiting professor of science and technology policy at the
Middlesex University, England, he has generally remained outside the established
institutions as far as his career is concerned and has charted an independent
course for the expression of his ideas. By remaining outside the academic
institutions and other established forums, he has been able to view the problem
of science and the Muslim world as if from the edge. This has allowed him to
develop a unique understanding of the problems associated with both the
ideological as well as practical aspects of science in the Muslim world. His
fierce criticism of the fossil institutions and modes of thinking prevalent in
the Muslim world is also a reflection of this independence.
In the 1980s, the heterogeneous group of Sardar and his associates coined
the word Ijmali as a symbol of their ideas and approach to the questions
associated with the debate. The word, taken from Rumi’s Diwan-i Shams,
is used to reflect the holistic nature of their approach. Ijmalis’
position is characterized by the awareness that the West (its civilization,
culture, economic and military power) is a threat to the Muslim world. The claim
of universality of ideas produced by the Western civilization is seen by this
group as a threat to the Islamic worldview. Western science and technology are
seen as a tool for the propagation of West’s economic and political agenda.
This awareness is reflected throughout Sardar’s works which deal with a wide
range of subjects, encompassing science, technology, development issues, culture
and futurology. He is aware that “during the course of the development of the
discourse on Islam and Science, the term `Islamic Science’ has run into
problems because different exponents propagating the idea of Islamization of
science had different perceptions”. For Sardar, science is connected with the
scientist and his worldview. For him, science is not an objective phenomenon or
activity but a cultural activity. Modern science is seen as too deeply rooted in
the Western civilization which in turn is seen as a threat to the Muslim culture
and civilization. “The Ijmali position is similar to that of
al‑Ghazzali,” Sardar wrote in Explorations in Islamic Science
(1989), “the essence of Ijmali thought is reconstruction, complexity
and interconnection.”
Sardar and other members of the Ijmali group have more recently
used television as a tool for the expression of their ideas. Their activities
have also shifted locale during the course of this discourse. Now they are
partly based in Malaysia. There is also a shift in Sardar’s own interests; he
is now more interested in postmodernism, racism, futurology and
Muslim-Christian relations.
In the discourse on Islamization of science, Seyyed Hossein Nasr (b.
1933) appears as the foremost academician who has advanced the notion of a
“Sacred Science”. Author of more than twenty books in English and many
others in Persian, Nasr was born in Tehran and now lives and teaches in the
United States. Professor Nasr has untiringly advocated a reconstruction of
Islamic scientific thought on the basis of the revealed knowledge. His many
books attempt to outline the philosophical foundation of a sacred science which
will not be based on conquering nature but which will attempt to function within
the limits set by Divine Commands. Nasr’s sources of inspiration range from
the traditional sufi doctrines to the French traditionalists such as René Guénon
(d. 1951) and Frithjof Schuon.
In addition to the attempts at reconstruction of a science based on
Islam’s perennial teachings, Nasr has also written extensively on the malaise
of science in the Western world. Having lived in America for so long, he has
seen the affect of secularization of science from close quarters. Modern man’s
obsession with domination of nature and power has produced a science which has
clearly harmed the ecological system to the extent that the very existence of
planet is in danger. Nasr is one of the important Muslim thinkers of the
twentieth century who has consistently tried to make his Western readers aware
of the lack of spiritual aspects in that society. At the same time, Nasr is
aware of the inroads made by the western thought in the Muslim countries and he
has repeatedly written on the destructive affect of this penetration of secular
ideas in the Islamic polity.
Aware of the power of the Word in a traditional sense, Nasr is very
careful with his constructions. His works contain carefully crafted terms based
on the traditional meanings of the words. This usage has given his opponents a
basis for calling him elitist. However, Nasr is conscious of the fact that most
of the problems and confusions in modern thought have arisen from the misuse of
traditional terminology through a kind of corruption and secularization of
language.
Professor Nasr’s position is presented in the book through brief
summaries of the central ideas in his important works including his famous works
such as Science and Civilization in Islam (1987) and Ideals and
Realities of Islam (1979) as well as the more recent The Need for a
Sacred Science (1993). His use of certain Islamic terms in a modern context
has been pointed out time and again throughout the chapter.
The third Position discussed by Stenberg is that of Ismail Raji al‑Faruqi
and the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT). This Position is
borne out of the experiences and reflections of many professional Muslims
working in academic and research institutions in North America. Their formal
education and training was generally based on secular theories of knowledge and
their professional careers also developed in institutions which had very little
to do with their belief systems. This created an inner need to look into the
deeper issues involved and resulted in the establishment of several
organizations such as Association of Muslim Social Scientists (AMSS, established
in 1971/72), Association of Muslim Scientists and Engineers (AMSE) and Islamic
Medical Association (IMA). In 1983, Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) was
established as an umbrella organization.
IIIT was founded in 1981 following the Lugano Conference held in
Switzerland in 1977 and organized by AMSS. The Conference was attended by thirty
leading Muslim intellectuals and they unanimously agreed that “the
contemporary crises of the Ummah was intellectual C a crisis of thought C and that the remedy was to be found in that framework.” Thus IIIT was
founded in Herndon, Virginia, in 1981. This was followed by a series of
activities, which included, among others, a second conference held in Islamabad,
Pakistan in 1982 and the publication of a book, Islamization of Knowledge:
General Principles and Work Plan.
This Position is based on the premises that Muslim Ummah is in a state of
malaise; the roots of this malaise are to be found in influences from a world of
ideas based on a vision foreign to Islam. Exponents of this Position are more
concerned with social sciences than natural sciences and their inclusion in the
book is somewhat problematic. No doubt, there are some statements about the
natural sciences and how various branches, such as Biology, have theories which
are alien to Islamic worldview but on the whole, the main thrust of IIIT and
various scholars associated with the movement has been in the domain of social
sciences. However, since science cannot exist in a vacuum or in total isolation
of the historical and cultural conditions therefore Islamization of knowledge,
in a general sense, can be taken as including the Islamization of science as
well.
According to this Position, the fundamental premises for establishing an
Islamic science is based on the worldview which recognizes that the Word of God
is relevant in each and every sphere of human activity, that God has created
this universe with a purpose and he has made Man his viceregent for an appointed
term. The model and example to be followed is that of Prophet Muhammad (SAW).
Nature is not to be exploited but should be understood and treated as a trust
given to him by the Creator.
The inclusion of the IIIT’s Position in the book can be somewhat
justified on the basis that Science is, after all, part of Knowledge and the
Islamization of Knowledge project seeks to Islamize all branches of modern
knowledge but the inclusion of Maurice Bucaille’s Position in the book is more
problematic for Bucaille’s concern is not to find an Islamic epistemological
base for science nor is he concerned with moral or ethical issues of modern
scientific research. He is simply interested in correlating certain scientific
“facts” with the Qur’anic verses. Since the publication of the English
translation of his book, La Bible, le Coran et la Science (1976) as The
Bible, the Qur’an and Science (1978), Bucaille has, however, become the
pioneer of an unfortunate trend in modern times and several studies have been
devoted to “prove” the divine origin of the Qur’an on the basis that the
Qur’an contains certain scientific facts which were unknown to humanity
at the time of its revelation. As far as Bucaille is concerned, his work is
perfectly understandable. He grew up in an environment hostile to Islam and his
initial knowledge of Islam came from the ill‑informed critiques of the
French orientalists who declared that “Mohmet was the author of the
Qur’an”. He grew up to become a surgeon and retired as the chief of the
Surgical Clinic at the University of Paris. In his late forties, Bucaille became
interested in Islam, he learned Arabic and studied the Qur’an in its original
language. In due course of time, the miraculous nature of the Qur’an had its
affect on Bucaille and he became conscious of certain scientific facts mentioned
in the Qur’an which were not known to humanity until recently. This proved to
him that the Qur’an was the word of God and that it could not have been
written by the Prophet (upon whom be peace). On November 9, 1976, he presented
his ideas in a lecture entitled “Physiological and Embryological data in the
Qur’an” held at the French National Academy of Science. This lecture became
the seed from which La Bible, le Coran et la Science grew. Publication of
the English translation in 1978 made Bucaille famous in the Muslim world. Since
then the book has been translated into all major languages, it has also been the
basis of a film (The Book of Signs), Bucaille has been invited to various
Muslim countries by Kings and heads of states and many scientists have published
works on similar lines, finding all kinds of “scientific facts” in the
Qur’an. This unusual response is a good measure of the deep rooted malaise of
the crisis of the modern educated Muslims. Raised on secular education, these
Muslims have grown up with a shaky faith, inferiority complex about their
religious and cultural heritage and with a constant need to find reassurance of
their beliefs. And when such a “reassurance” comes through a Western who is
also a scientist, their “faith” seems to have been validated. As far as
Bucaille himself is concerned, his search for the true religion, his doubts
about the divine nature of Bible and his fascination with the Qur’an--all are legitimate facets of his own spiritual
quest. However, neither The Bible, the Qur’an and Science nor his other
works, Mummies of the pharaohs C Modern Medical Investigations (1987) and Réflexions
sur le Coran (1989) form the basis of a discourse on Islamization of Science
and inclusion of this Position in the book seems unjustified. Bucaille merely
represents a trend in the discourse, not a `Position’. In Bucaille’s own
words, his aim is to examine “the Scriptures themselves in the light of modern
scientific knowledge”.
The last two chapters of the book, “Communication and Interaction
Between the Positions” and “Analysis” present well-documented and
well-informed thematic links and points of convergence and divergence
among various Positions. The book is a valuable source for further research. Islamic Studies, Vol. 36, No. 3, 1997
|