Islamic science

Recently there have been a few posts, most notably by Zack Ajmal, discussing evolution [1] and its place within Islam. This has led to the more general comments of science, and its relationship with Islam, as faith.

We are always informed that Islam encourages a 'scientific' attitude in the discovery of the natural world. I am not sure this can be rejected. But sadly, most of these attempts seem to concentrate on the issue of trying to 'prove' the Qur'an and/or the ahadeeth material, in the hope that the Muslim faith may be vindicated. [2]

But, it is patently obvious, that even these writings on 'Islam and science' are often of a poor standard. Forgive me for being so bold and damning in my assessment, but I believe the main problem we have is that there appears to be a distortion of science. This has led to a creation of a whole edifice of an 'Islamised' psuedo-science, which is wholly unacceptable.

I am not in favour of the 'Islamisation' of knowledge thesis. This can lead to the very distortion of the 'facts' to the point where the endeavour ceases to be 'science'. The main thrust, in my humble opinion, ought to be in 'Islamising' the ethos, or the significance of these 'facts'.

Let me cite Fazlur Rahman, who, in discussing the prospects for developing a modern Islamic education system, writes:

"One approach [to reforming Islamic education systems] is to accept modern secular education as it has developed generally speaking in the West and to attempt to "Islamize" it - that is, to inform it with certain key concepts of Islam [...] [I]f nothing is done to imbue the fields of higher learning with an Islamic orientation, or if attempts to do so are unsuccessful, when young boys and girls reach the higher stages of education their outlook is bound to be secularized, or they are very likely to shed what ever Islamic orientation thy have had [...]

""Imbuding higher fields of learning with Islamic values" is a phrase whose meaning must be made more precise. All human knowledge may be divided into what are called "natural" of exact sciences, whose generalisation are called the "laws of nature", and the fields of learning which have been called "laws of nature", and "social sciences". Although the content of physical or exact sciences cannot by definition be interfered with - else they will be falsified - their orientation can be given a value character. Sometimes certain ideological attitudes try to intefere with the content of these sciences as well, as, for example, when Stalin ordered Russian biologists to emphasize the influence of enviroment at the expense of heredity. Under such influences or pressures, science must become a mockery, but it is possible and highly desirable for a scientist to know the consequences of his investigations for mankind. It is also equally, indeed, urgently important for scientific knowledge to be a unity and to give an overall picture of the universe in order to answer the all-important questions, "Does it mean anything? Does it point to a higher will and purpose?" Or is it [...] "a mere hurrying of material endlessly, meaninglessly"?" [3]

That is to say, Muslims need to develop a proper relationship between their faith and the contents of science, and to ascertain what is means. No amount of science will ever prove God, for surely, the relationship between God and man is on a plain much deeper than science can ever hope to answer.

Certainly, what can, and ought, to be criticised is the ideological baggage carried around by much of modern science, whether this be Islamic, secularist, and so on. Indeed, the extreme 'scientism' of some of the Anglo-American philosophical tradition (or the 'analytic' tradition), seems to develop a culture and worldview which must surely be the very antithesis of the central Qur'anic message.

Notes
[1] See Zack Ajmal, "Muslims and Evolution", 19 August 2003, "Harun Yahya", 20 August 2003, "Evolution: Another Viewpoint", 22 August 2003, "Evolution Discussion Continued", 23 August 2003, "Thermodynamics and Evolution", 24 August 2003; Aziz Poonawalla, "creationary evolution", 23 August 2003.

[2] I have already discussed some criticism of modern 'scientific apologetics' by Muslims, in an earlier post, "Against Muslim apologetics", 27 May 2003.

[3] Fazlur Rahman, Islam and Modernity: Transformation of an Intellectual Tradition, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1984, pp. 130-131.

Comments

[M. Simon]

The problem religion always has with science is that they are based on what are fundamentally opposite mental constructs.

Science is based on eternal doubt. Religion on eternal revealed truth and faith.

Christianity has had 500 years or so to come to grips with this and there are still some branches that are not at all comfortable with doubt/science.

Islam for the most part has been able to put off it's reckoning between faith and doubt. Now the crisis will have to be dealt with in a very short time span, one or two generations at most.

I think the key is that science can give methods. Religion must give meaning.

You are correct that the meddling of faith in method ultimately gives falsehood. But method when it gives us pictures of far away stars or the atoms of the hand can also assist with meaning.

Ultimately though faith can inform human interactions, I think no faith can stand up against doubt in the long run. At least there is none I'm aware of. What may be left is a faith that is stripped of so many parts once considered essential. When the advances in understanding how the brain works become more fully understood this will be doubly so.

====================================

BTW I enjoyed you comments on Winds of Change but I think you need to explain some of the threads you weave better as most Westerners are not familiar with the nuances of Islamic thought. I found your blog by researching some of those threads so your effort was not in vain but the more casual reader may not be willing or able to make the effort. I do think that the interchange between Islam and the West needs to be more main streamed so that views like those of Little Green Footballs are not the only ones available. Charles Johnson says he is looking for a 21st Century moderate Islam. Perhaps you could show him some.

[Thebit]

Thanks for your comments, M. Simon.

You're right; science is different from religion. Yet, I believe the reduction of human life to a few laws of nature, means the end of "humanity". John Gray's "Straw Dogs" is the logical conclusion of 'scientism'. Of course religiom, especially one like Islam, which relies heavily on the distinction of 'good' from 'evil', cannot accept that such concepts are the mere result of 'nature'. The irony is that religion, for so long the 'enemy ' of humanism, will end up saving it.

As to issue wrt to Mr. Johnson, I hope you don't mind if I make no comment. When I comment on a blog or a website (which I rarely do in any case), I usually do so in a post of my own so it is clear for everyone. And, I leave a note in the persons inbox or comments section.