What is Islamization of Science?

``I like Islam, it is a consistent idea of religion and open-minded``

(Kurt Godel as quoted by Hoo Wang in ``A Logical Journey: From Godel to Philosophy``, Hao Wang. The MIT Press. 1996. Cambridge Massachusetts)


Here is a ref site http://godel.rationalreality.com

There is this strange notion among muslims that whatever scientific discovery or truth is brought to light somehow it was already available to us by reading the Quran. Now I am not sure how the zeolots are going to justify certain scientific ideas that may go against popular muslim opinions, but one thing is given, the Quran is like many other holy books written in several different levels and therefore open to interpretation. I may be accused of saying this tongue and cheek, but I just think that if Mr. Gil looks hard enough he will find Mr. Newtons ideas clearly imbeded in the Quran. Now we at the present time do not know how to decode those particular passages, where newtons gravitation law is given as a clear mathematical formula, nor are we aware of those passages where Newtons ideas on Opticks are clearly spelled out. But the believers assure me that all such formulas are imbeded in this one work. Think about Liebniz and his monodology. each monad reflects the whole universe. So if we want to learn about the Universe all we have to do is study the individual monad. I would even go as far as to say that Mr. Newton was sent on a mission from God, given access to these formulas, and all he had to do is occasionally check the reference book, the Quran. (of course unlike us he knew exactly where to look for them) and yes he did not footnote as well as Mr. Gill

observer2005:

You have made some very good points. Scientific knowledge though limited is quite certain compared with the metaphysical assertions which are usually without any empirical support. A scientist would simply say ``I don`t know`` if he didn`t have an answer to a particular question. On the other hand, a metaphysician would give you the answer but you, as well as the metaphysician, wouldn`t know if that was correct or not. I have emphasized this point in some of my articles at chowk.

We don`t need Islamization of science, we need its acquisition. Wishing you well,

Mohammad Gill

Re: # 52
``What ``natural laws``? What makes ``laws`` natural, by the way? And what is ``nature``?Twentieth-century physics went through a radical change, in any case. ``

Thabet, I think you are missing the point completely. I will come to your question later, but first when Newton expounded his ``science`` he had various motives. One of them was a pure curiosity of mind to know about the world he experienced, light being a fundamental and everyday part of it, as was the night sky and its planets and stars. But his other motives were to satisfy his religiosity and perhaps even greed in his attempts to pursue alchemy. But we ``tolerate`` his suprstitions about the latter because in the process of pursuing his superstitions he actually advanced our knowledge of this world termendously.

Now, our comtemporary Muslims on the other hand also pursue some of these superstitions (such as trying to extract energy out of the Jinns - a paper on this was read in a science conference in Pakistan during the reign of General Zia). I will be willing to tolerate this idiocy if these so called Islamic scientists actually do good science in the pursuit of these aims. But they don`t do that, broadly speaking, as vouched but our abysmal state. They only pursue these idiotic aims and ignore the rest.

So to pursue ``Islamic Science`` when just some basic science is needed to advance the umma in its economic, social and military goals, is refelctive of our collective ignorance and Islam-soaked psyche.

Now to your question: to answer them would require tomes by the gretest of world`s scientists and then they would fail, and I am only an ignorant layman. The fact is that science does not have all the answers and where it ends, metaphysics and faith takes over. That boundary has been shifting and science has beeb gaining but nevertheless we still cannot answer questions about thinghs we do not know. But the ONLY way we can even try to answer these questions is to begin with simple science and slowly creep towards an ever shiftign goal. If we do that colelctively as a nation or umma, we would be Ok as then we would be progressing rather than regressing as we are doing now.

Dear Mohammad Gill,

Whether you or I understand western science and its philosophical foundation is not the question here and I did not intend to say that you are not familiar with the field. Of course your article reflects how much you know. The question is whether we are able to apply this knowledge to elicit soultions to the problems we all face together.

The important thing to note is that no science, medieval, modern, chinese, hindu, Muslim, agnostic or atheistic is devoid of certain philosophical/theological assumptions. This is precisely the case with the modern science as well, just like any other science. Scholastic, Baconian, Galilean, Cartesian, Kantian, Newtonian or Einsteinian whichever science we want to talk about we need to comprehend the philosophical assumptions that form its basis. When we think about a question we should also pay attention to why one question dominates the discourse and not the other. What intellectual penchants emphasize one question over another. Are our questions philosophically neutral? From the philosophical/theological specualtion on Nature as the window to knowledge of the Ultimate Reality (say God) to make use of it for our needs and wants (these are two different things, one legitimate and the other illegitimate that caused the environmental crisis we all face today) it is important to note why this change of attitude towards nature occured. Answer might be found in Bacon`s works but I hope we see the relevance of this point. At the expense of repeating myself, I want to emphasize that even our questions are never neutral of our assumptions. So is the case with technology which is nothing but application of a science that sees itself morally neutral and of a philosophy of science that is materialistic in its worldview. I would recommend those interested to read Technopoly by Neil Postman who convincingly argues against any notion of ``technology is philosophically neutral.`` No physics could be done without a metaphysics that holds it.

Islamization means to be able to evaluate whether the underlying metaphysical worldview of contemporary science could be reconciled with and `successfully` integrated into the Islamic universe and if so to what extent. In what we refer to as Middle ages, Muslims were able to integrate sciences as diverse as Greek, Hindu, Zorostrian and Chinese and yet what resulted from it was thoroughly Islamic view of science. This process could be called Islamization of Greek Science or of Hindu science and so on. Nasr makes an interesting analogy of this process with the process of Digestion of food, where some food is digested and becomes part of the body and some is ejected out because it does not belong to the body (or would be harmful for it). A proper understanding of Islamic worldview and its philosophy of science and that of western science would enable us to properly digest a science that though claims to be agnostic or areligious, yet both explicitly and implicitly holds materialistic worldview (in its most technical sense). Scientism and Logical Poistivism all bear witness to this fact. Furthermore, the encounter of Western Science with Christianity and what resulted from it - we all know that it is precisley scientific revolution that played a huge part in taking people away from the religion - provides us with a lesson to be conscious of what is at stake here.

On a different note I am glad to have seen you and other people taking interest in these questions which are of immense import for us. Disagreement is fine so long we are sincere in our quest to confront the questions we all face today. Salams.

PS: Just curious to know if you are familiar with the works of Wolfgang Smith?

Mr. thabet:

You have digressed from my basic thesis. I was writing about “Islamization of Science.” I said in my article I do not understand what it is. I had also raised the questions as to who is going to do it (if he, she or they know what they need to do without messing up the essence of science) and how?

Your longwinded post does not address these questions. Other things that you have mentioned are relevant for a developing society, Islamic or non-Islamic, and they can be appropriately discussed in a separate article devoted to these issues. I had also mentioned in one of my posts that “Islamization of Applied Science” has some meanings and what you have written belongs in there. Who is going to decide what kind of applied science should be Islamized because this is a political decision not a religious one. Was the development of nuclear bomb in Pakistan a part of “Islamized Science?”

The Islamic world is lagging behind in basic sciences; the need is to educate the people in them and produce scientists of good quality as well by providing them facilities. Once a basic scientific infrastructure is in place, the high quality applied and basic research can be undertaken. Scientific culture needs to be cultivated in the Islamic world. The issues like “Islamization of Science” are non-productive because even those who are promoting these issues have no basic understanding as to what they are promoting. The philosophers can not Islamize science because they don’t understand science and scientific method.

I am reproducing your item # 5 hereunder. Read it in the context of my article. You say “Islamization of Science” is misleading. I am saying the same thing.

5. Within an Islamic context this might be called ``Islamisation``. Personally, I avoid this term, because it is misleading. I would use the following question: How can we enable a rigorous, robust, science to emerge from an Islamic context?

What is rigorous and robust science? Science does not emerge from a religious context. Science is independent of religion. God does not interfere in science and God is almighty in religion. You may not like it but this is what it is. Pick up any book on physics or chemistry for instance, you wouldn’t find God in them anywhere. I had described an anecdote to underline this fact in one of my posts.

Wishing you well,

Mohammad Gill

Freethinker,

You`ve totally missed vertex`s points. You point out Heisenberg. That`s interesting because he said ``one has to remember that every tool carries with it the spirit by which it has been created...`` (You must have come across this in Muzafar Iqbal`s writings.)

When the Soviets beat the US in the early part of the space race and launched Sputnik, what was the response of the US? Did they simply say ``oh well, our scientific method is better than those dialectic materialists because we`re ``neutral`` in our observations``? (When Stalin was in charge, for example, he had ``directed`` his scientists to show how enviromental factors outweigh biological ones.) No. They responded by PUMPING MORE MONEY INTO THE SPACE PROGRAMME. Condi Rice -- hardly a rabid PoMo fanatic -- admitted as much once. What if, all those millions and billions had been used to research, oh I don`t know, drugs for various diseases. Or perhaps try and solve problems related to clean water in poor parts of the world. Or solutions to alternative forms of energy. Or ways to reduce emissions. Or... you get my picture. What about all those universities that offered degree subjects in the sciences that were not remotely related to the Space Race? Or the bright and able-bodied students who wanted to pursue higher education or careers in academia? Did this have an effect on their choice? My brother is a pharmacist. You think the industry he works in -- which is worth billions -- is going to produce drugs at free or for cost price? What makes them research drug A as opposed to drug B? Alturism? It is simply how science in the modern world operates -- cash is an important factor (though not the only one to produce good quality science). And so the development of science must also depend to a degree on how ``society`` wants to spend the money.

There was a time in the late 19th-century and early part of the 20th-century when eugenics was a correct and definite science. None other than The Fabian Society and many left-leaning scientists and philosophers thought eugenics was the way forward for ``progressive`` societies. Scientific racism has a long and (in)glorious history in European science. Where do you think leaves geneticists nowadays who wish to discover the biological basis for differences between, say, Western Europe and Western Africa? Political philosophies here do directly impinge directly on science from following this ``path``; and they at least stop this science from being utilised. (Whether this is good or bad is another debate.) At one time some scientists even believed they were a special ``caste``. Seriously, this is true.

And both you, Gill, and observer below, will have to contend with issues like making something ``value-free`` (a claim for modern science) is itself a ``value-laden`` move. I mean after there is nothing that says value-free is axiomatic. If you say this you are making a philosophical argument about a number of issues.

Advocates of science -- and I count myself part of them -- do themselves a diservice by summarily dismissing real and valid concerns. Yes some of these ``critiques`` are nonsense. And can be exposed (a la Sokal). But some are real. What I believe vertex was alluding was this:

1. Islamicate societies are scientifically-illiterate (for the most part -- Iran and Turkey are a real hope though).
2. Good, rigorous science, of a high-calibre, needs to be reintroduced into Muslim societies, and indeed the Islamic education system. Ideally (one which may never reached) a mufti should be at home deriving some fiqh from Ibn Abidin or al-Shatibi, as he (or even she) is at articulating how nominalism affects the practice and development of science, or what the latest neurological findings say about our ideas of epistemology.
3. The way to rekindle science in Muslim societies is to make the concerns of society relevant to science.
4. But also one needs money. And has to decide how to spend it, and where to spend it and when. These are all practical concerns, if not abstracted to a `philosophy`.
5. With in an Islamic context this might be called ``Islamisation``. Personally, I avoid this term, because it is misleading. I would use the following question: How can we enable a rigorous, robust, science to emerge from an Islamic context?

Once there was just such a rigour in the sciences. And we could quote names (like al-Haytham). Nowadays we think science means the nuclear bomb in Pakistan, tall shiny buildings in the Gulf, and weapons to kill those we hate in mosques and churches because they belong to a different religion (and weapons which we procure with a such a lust, that if I were a psychoanalyst I`d have a field day). My hope is that in 50 years, as well as Pinker, Hawking, Gould and Einstein, we can cite a Muhammad, an Iqbal, an Ashraf or even a Gill! This is naive, I know. But I can at least dream....

There are other points, but maybe some other time.

Btw, Feyerabend was a trained scientist, so he knew what he was talking about to some degree.

*****************
Observer:
``When Newton shone light thru a prism...``

Why did he chose a prism to shine light through? And why concentrate on light? Why not study something else? What was it about light that fascinated him? And how did Newton ``know`` what he was seeing? More importantly, who said Newton was a scientist? He was a natural philosopher, studying the Revelation that was called Nature, an area of study usually subaltern to theology.

``But we remember him so for his ``scientific`` works which were nothing more than explanations of natural laws...``

What ``natural laws``? What makes ``laws`` natural, by the way? And what is ``nature``?Twentieth-century physics went through a radical change, in any case.

And how do ``natural laws`` contend with the ``probablisation`` of everything we do, from our personal lives and choices, to government policy making, law, politics, human rights, even to the modern disciplines including the sciences? I mean I`m an mechanical engineer by training who is involved in integrity issues. Engineering is associated with hard, fast, clean facts that are placed into a slot-machine formula and codes to produce a solution. Yet I have to use statistics and sample data to solve many problems. No perfect ``natural laws`` here found because I shone light through a prism. Just a mass and stream of data which we can make fit various known mechanical properties. Number, numbers, numbers. Where does all this leave ``natural laws``. Might I accuse you of having a very 18th-century view of reason and science in your ceaseless search for ``natural laws``?

******************
Believe me I can understand the frustrations of Gill and observer, and I was deliberately being extreme in my views to observer, but only to remove an illusion from your eyes. But Gill and observer fail to contend with the SIMPLE fact (nothing fancy here) that science IS a social practice. I mean where do scientists work? Mars? Under rocks? In seculsion? No. They work in societies which either love them or loathe them, give them money, pay for their research etc. There is nothing controversial here. Only scientists sensiblities becoming offended because the ideallic vision of the scientist searching for ``objective truth`` is not really so (though this doesn`t means scientists are not important and do not perform important work). But all this DOES NOT make the outcome, the ``results`` which you`re so concerned to protect (and I`d protect too), is any less ``real``.

Enough of my rambling.

salaam

Re: # 46 Mr Jaffery wrote ``There is no science without an underlying vision of the world. ``

I disagree respectfully. We can take a body of scientific work and try to wrap a philosophy around it but it is hard to justify wasting time on the philosophy of ``Islamic Science`` when no such modern body of work (or even concept) exists.

When Newton shone light thru a prism and saw its constituent colors, he was doing science at its simplest and best, i.e. making conclusions based on verifiable facts (verifiable by putting in front of the spectrum another prism and reversing the constituent colors into white light). No philiosophy was needed to do that science. In fact Newton was highly superstitious in other matters and also indulged in such non-scientific endeavors as alchemy and making sense out of Biblical text. But we remember him so for his ``scientific`` works which were nothing more than explanations of natural laws and phenomenons, which is what science is in essence.

Therefore, I think all this discussion about philosophy of science or Islamic science are a waste of time for a people for whom science means so little (collectively) anyway.

Re: # 46 Mr Jaffery wrote ``There is no science without an underlying vision of the world. ``

I disagree respectfully. We can take a body of scientific work and try to wrap a philosophy around it but it is hard to justify wasting time on the philosophy of ``Islamic Science`` when no such modern body of work (or even concept) exists.

When Newton shone light thru a prism and saw its constituent colors, he was doing science at its simplest and best, i.e. making conclusions based on verifiable facts (verifiable by putting in front of the spectrum another prism and reversing the constituent colors into white light). No philiosophy was needed to do that science. In fact Newton was highly superstitious in other matters and also indulged in such non-scientific endeavors as alchemy and making sense out of Biblical text. But we remember him so for his ``scientific`` works which were nothing more than explanations of natural laws and phenomenons, which is what science is in essence.

Therefore, I think all this discussion about philosophy of science or Islamic science are a waste of time for a people for whom science means so little (collectively) anyway.

Interactors:

The following cut and paste news item may be of some interest to you.

The Abdus Salam
International Centre
for Theoretical Physics
© 2005
http://www.ictp.it — home > newsICTP News22/12/2004

New Templeton PrizesFiled under: Prizes— editor @ 3:59 pm
The John Templeton Foundation, headquartered in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA, has announced that it will fund five new awards designed to recognize and assist young ’scholar-leaders’ who have vigorously examined the ‘creative interface’ between traditional Islamic culture and modern science. The Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics (ICTP) in Trieste, Italy, has been asked to administer the programme. Each prize will carry a cash award of US$20,000.

“In these difficult times,” says Charles Harper, the John Templeton Foundation’s executive director and senior vice president, “we are pleased to sponsor a series of prizes that we hope will help promising young scholar-leaders better establish themselves as opinion makers within their own countries and regions. We also hope our efforts will help these young scholar-leaders build ties with their peers worldwide.”

“Our aim,” adds Barnaby Marsh, who directs the Foundation’s Venture Philanthropy Strategy and New Programs Development, “is to support scientists engaged in exploring the critically important challenges posed by the intersection of the worlds of science and religion in a critical part of the world.”

The five prizes, to be given annually, include the:
• Abdus Salam Prize for Leadership in Islamic Thought and the Physical Sciences.
• ICTP Prizes (2) for Leadership in Islamic Thought and the Applied Sciences.
• Ahmed Zewail Prize for Leadership in Islamic Thought and the Biological and Chemical Sciences.
• Ahmed Zewail Prize for Leadership in Science and Islamic Life.

Pakistani-born Salam, founding director of the ICTP and Egyptian-born Zewail, professor of chemistry at the California Institute of Technology, are the only two scientists from the Islamic world to have won the Nobel Prize.

“We are delighted that the Templeton Foundation has decided to launch this initiative,” says ICTP director K.R. Sreenivasan, “and we are happy that it has chosen the Centre to implement the programme. The goals of the initiative fit well with the Centre’s expanding agenda to not only assist individual scientists, which it has done so well over the past 40 years, but also to improve the environment for research in their home countries. The ultimate aim is to ensure that science becomes an integral part of the larger agenda for economic and social development not only in the Islamic world but throughout the developing world.”

Candidates will be selected on their ‘demonstrated’ ability to insightfully and sensitively examine the relationship between Islamic culture and modern science both in scholarly and popular writings. The hope is that recipients of the prize will have displayed—and will continue to display—the talent and drive necessary to engage their colleagues and the larger public in exploring this complex issue, especially their colleagues and the public in the Islamic world.

“This initiative,” says Harper, “builds upon several recent exploratory workshops and conferences that the John Templeton Foundation has convened in France and Morocco over the past few years that have focused on religion and science in the Islamic world. Our ultimate objective is to develop a core group of scholars and scientists who can emerge as experts and intellectual trend-setters both within their own countries and regions and throughout the world.”

Comments (0)
15/12/2004
Gabriel Olalere Ajayi (1941-2004)Filed under: General— editor @ 5:22 pm
Gabriel Olalere Ajayi, an ICTP Associate 1992-2004, died on 12 December 2004, in Abuja, Nigeria. He was 63.
Ajayi played an essential role in developing ICTP’s activities for the advancement of information and communication technologies in Nigeria and he lectured regularly at the Centre’s annual schools on digital radio communication. A former professor at Obafemi Awolowo University in Ile-Ife, Nigeria, Ajayi was the Director General and Chief Executive Officer of the National Information Technology Development Agency, Federal Ministry of Science and Technology. His professional experience covered a wide range of activities in telecommunications, broadcasting and computers, including teaching, training, research and development. His friends at ICTP extend their condolences to his family and colleagues.

Gabriel Olalere Ajayi at ICTP’s 40th Anniversary Conference

Comments Off
9/12/2004
Strings in NYTFiled under: Science Media— editor @ 11:19 am
A feature article in the New York Times (7 December 2004) has examined the state of string theory 20 years after the concept was first introduced as a theoretical construct depicting the make up of the universe as intertwined strings and not single points. The scientists quoted in the article have been among the most active participants in ICTP high energy research and training activities over the past two decades: former SISSA (International School for Advanced Studies) director Daniele Amati; Dirac Medallists Michael Green (Cambridge), David Gross (Kavli Institute, Santa Barbara), John Schwarz (Caltech) and Edward Witten (Institute of Advanced Study); and course directors Brian Greene (Columbia), Robbert Dijkgraaf (Amsterdam), Juan Maldacena (Institute of Advanced Study) and Cumrun Vafa (Harvard). Of the 24 scientists mentioned in the article, 19 have visited ICTP.

Comments Off
Faheem Hussain RetiresFiled under: General— editor @ 11:17 am
Faheem Hussain, head of ICTP’s Office of External Activities from 1998 to 2004, will retire on 15 December. Born in India and educated in the United Kingdom, Hussain first came to ICTP in June 1970 to attend a summer school in high energy physics. During the 1980s, he became a frequent visitor to the Centre, initially as an Associate and then as a visiting scientist in the High Energy Physics group. In 1990, he was hired as a permanent staff member and given the task of helping to launch the Diploma Programme while continuing his research. He was a representative of ICTP’s staff union for two terms. Hussain will also be remembered for organising weekly cricket matches on the Carso for visitors and staff. Hussain will be relocating to Pakistan to teach physics. He will be missed.

Comments (0)
8/12/2004
Canada’s Science Advisor Visits TriesteFiled under: Visits— editor @ 11:38 am
Arthur J. Carty, the Canadian government’s National Science Advisor, visited Trieste’s scientific institutions on 6 December to discuss possible avenues of international scientific cooperation, especially in nanotechnology. Carty learned about the full range of scientific research in Trieste through a series of presentations that included talks by ICTP director, K.R. Sreenivasan, and AREA Science Park president, Maria Cristina Pedicchio. He also toured the Synchrotron Light Laboratory and the Centre for Molecular Biomedicine in AREA Science Park. The last stop on his day-long tour was ICTP on the Miramare campus.

Comments Off
2/12/2004
Minister of Science at ICTPFiled under: Visits— editor @ 5:50 pm
Pius Yasebasi Ng’wandu, Minister of Science, Technology and Higher Education of Tanzania, met with ICTP officials and staff on 30 November. He was accompanied by his Private Secretary, Sylvester A. Matemu. Discussions focused on ways ICTP could be of even greater help to sub-Saharan Africa. The Minister acknowledged the enormous contribution that ICTP had made to the physics and mathematics communities throughout the region. But he believes that more can be done, especially in areas where science can be put to use to improve the lives of the region’s most impoverished citizens.

Pius Yasebasi Ng’wandu, Minister of Science, Technology and Higher Education of Tanzania, and Claudio Tuniz, Special Assistant to the ICTP Director

Comments Off
ICTP, Iran Ministry Sign MOUFiled under: Visits— editor @ 5:48 pm
Jafar Towfighi Darian, Iranian Minister of Science, Research and Technology, visited ICTP on 22 November to sign a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the Centre that calls for (1) the creation of two joint postdoctoral positions cosponsored by ICTP and the Ministry in basic physics and mathematics; (2) the expansion of the existing federation agreement between ICTP and Isfahan University of Technology to include an additional university; and (3) the admission of up to two Ph.D. students each year in a ’sandwich’ programme funded jointly by ICTP and the Ministry. ICTP and the Ministry also agreed to explore the establishment of cooperative regional activities.

Comments (0)



©2005 ICTP || news.ictp.it || site statistics || Powered by WordPress

Interactors:

Let us not beat about the bush. The unification of fundamental forces/interactions is the most challenging problem of our times. Some of the brightest brains of the world are engaged in it. I haven`t seen any name from Pakistan who may have contributed significantly in this field. But then I may be wrong. I have come across a couple of Muslim names from some other countries who are contributing in this field.

Those of you who are young and thinking of making a career in science should take it as a challenge. Make this as the project of your life. Remember Heisenberg and Dirac were not even thirty years old when they won the Nobel Prize for their work. Einstein was less than 30 when he published his theory of special relativity. Those of you who are living in the US and Europe have the facilities to at least try to attain this goal I wish you luck.

Mohammad Gill

Mr. razijaffery:

Thanks for your input.

I have been dabbling in the philosophy of science for the last ten years or so. I do not claim that I am quite uptodate with it; I have read some topical works in the field. So I am not totally ignorant of this field of knowledge.

Three of the many stalwarts in this field in the twentieth century were Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn, and Paul Feyerabend. Popper tried to set up rules for checking the veracity of a scientific theory. He is known for his theory of falsification. Kuhn is very well known for his almost classical ``The Structure of Scientific Revolution`` and he introduced the nomenclature of `paradigm.` He and Feyerabend muddied the waters quite a bit and Weinberg defended physical science and responded to Kuhn`s criticism in his ``Facing Up.``

If your assumption was that my criticsm was superficial and lacked depth, may I suggest that you might have been mistaken. In my article, the opening line indicated that it took me some ten years to sit down and write this article.

I have several books dealing with the philosophy of science in my personal library and I assure you that I`ve read them. Just for the sake of specificity, I am looking at the ``contents`` of ``Philosophy of Science`` by John Losee. The book does not have a chapter on Christianity and its influence, good or bad, on science. Its index does not even include the word ``religion`` in it.

It is good if more and more Muslims devote their time to the study of philosophy and philosophy of science. They will realize then how ignorant most of us are. I am pleased to know that you are taking a course in it (Philosophy of Science). My intention was not to degrade ourselves but what I am suggesting is that there is no reason for us, at the same time, to feel good about our ignorance.

I still believe that Islamizing science is nothing but waste of time; instead we should grasp the mastery on science. It needs hard work; it doesn`t come easy. If we are good in science, there won`t be any need for us to Islamize it.

One of my elder brothers was a poet. One of his verses is as follows:

Aik hum hain keh liya apni hee surat ko biga`ad. Aik woh hain jinhain tasweer ban`a a`ati haiy.

If our philosophers do not have anything worthwhile to do, I wish them good luck. With regards,

Mohammad Gill

There are few things that I would like to share:

1. The question of Islamization of science does not start with the islamization of hard sciences but a philosophy that works behind it and supports it. Commonly this field is called the ``Philosophy of Science`` in regards to what there is no paucity of sources. To understand the debate properly, one needs to read the western philosophy of science and how it unfolded in history. The dilemma of Muslim intellectuals has been that though they became great scientists, doctors and competent engineers, they never paid attention to the worldview that dominates these sciences. Get hold of Crombie`s Medieval and Early Modern Science, or Alexander Koyre`s numerous works to understand these worldviews and see if they can be reconciled with Islam. Nasr`s Religion and the Order of Nature and Man and Nature are also important works. Pervez Hoodbhoy`s Islam and Science is also a good source though it lacks deeper understanding of western/modern philosophy of science.

2. The author`s comment ``Science in itself is not good or bad. The humans who use it make it good or bad`` , so popular among Muslims has long been discarded buy historians and philosophers of science. If you need sources, please write me an email. There is no science without an underlying vision of the world. Science is not without its own assumptions. I can elaborate more on this point if anyone is interested.

3. I will repeat if someone is really interested to know what science is, one needs to familiarize oneself with the history of modern/western science. Then and only then we will be able to do some comparative stuff. A starighforward introduction to this very important debate is Nasr`s speech delievered at Harvard: http://web.mit.edu/mitmsa/www/NewSite/libstuff/nasr/nasrspeech1.html

I will be happy to provide more sources as this has been my area of interest for quite sometime now and right now I am taking a graduate level course in the Philosophy of Science.

Attempts at ``Islamizing`` science are truly a waste of time and energy of a people who are so far behind in science and technology. This would be true even if there was such a thing as Islamic science. When interacting with highly educated people (in North America where I reside), I am appalled at their misunderstanding of the scientific method and lack of critical thinking. A favorite attack on science is on the subject of Darwinian evolution and I would not be exaggerating if I said that I have yet to meet more than two Muslims who understood (or even attempted to) it. When you visit their homes, you hardly find any books or magazine on science (apart from textbooks). And I am talking about doctors and other professionals. It is sad to see the dearth of rationalism in our people and it goes to explain our dismal economic and military state in the world, both of which rely on a scientifically literate populace to man the industries that produce economic and military power. We should think hard about how best to address this deficit.

The whole concept of medivial or ancient religions being ``updatable`` to modern science is nonsense. The religious theology seeks to make people believe, science makes people think and question, both have different goals. The Islamic theology and its official interpretations make rigid adherence and unquestioning belief the cornerstone of religion. Then there is army of strict textualists, who will not allow any but official interpretation. Now, to take Koranic ideas and somehow make them gel with science or take scientific theories and strech them in tune with religious ideas is an exercise in futility. The ``true believers`` do not need Quantum theory to practice their religion, hence why the need to Islamize the religion? Just do it ! Just believe in theology.

Then there are two other schools of religious science clowns. One seeks to bask in reflected glory and perceived stealing of knowledge from the golden years of Islam when science and thought florished in the middle east. This school of religious science clowns have only remorse, wails and anger when asked how the modern cellular phone they use or computer they use is not a product of the ancient science? This applies equally well to Hindu rightwingers in India who believe that all that was worth discovering is already in the Vedas, but later on stolen by the western world.

The second school of religious science clowns seeks to show if you look carefully in the deepest meaning of the religious dogma all basic scientific concepts are already revealed. Like Quantum theory is already revealed in the dance of shiva (See Fritjof Capra`s books).

Western science and the glorious applied technologies developed from it are a result of vast experimentation and theorization. Christians dumped their religious beliefs early because they knew a lot of it is just hogwash. Muslims and Hindus will follow once their life is dependent on science, economics develops in their and, and not only rely on holy books.

Nadia_Zehra:

(By the way, Ghalib is my favorite poet)

It is good to remeber our history but we should not get stuck in the past. My essay was not about the past; it was about our present condition.

Nonetheless, I am glad that you researched the Muslim history of Science and shared your results at the Chowk. We should move on. The Muslim history of science is almost blank for the last 800 years. I was disappointed and frustrated at the same time that instead of encouraging our growing generation to learn science and develop it further, our philosophers and non-scientist scholars are finding short-cuts to gain some reflected glory instead of actually promoting science.

I ask you to read ``Islamization of Knowledge`` for yourself and see if it makes sense. We cannot advance in science by putting down and denigrating the so-called ``western science.`` Our redemption is in acquiring the western science and developing it further for our material needs.

Wishing you well,

Mohammad Gill

Mr. Gill,

Your post # 41 remindes a famous shair by Ghalib:

Har ek Baat pe kehte ho tum ke `Tu kya hai` ?
TumheeN kaho ke yeh andaz-e-guftgoo kya hai ?

[Not a clever remark intended.]

Anyways,

Below posts of mine were a chronological attempt of compiling Scientific studies in Islamic Era which are refrenced to the topic you have I think might havce put forward in this discussion Forum.
And I am here to sharpen my ideas and idealogies by reading and studying thought provoking research by people like you.

Nadia-Zehra:

Th`hay tau woh a`aba hee tumhaarey magr tum khud kya ho
Haath per haath dharay muntazar-e- farda ho
(Iqbal)

Wishing you well,

Mohammad Gill

Muslim Scientists in History and Islamization:
Jabir Ibn Haiyan, the alchemist Geber of the Middie Ages, is generally known as the father of chemistry. Abu Musa Jabir Ibn Hayyan, sometimes called al-Harrani and al-Sufi, was the son of the druggist (Attar). The precise date of his birth is the subject of some discussion, but it is established that he practised medicine and alchemy in Kufa around 776 A.D. He is reported to have studied under Imam Ja`far Sadiq , The holyImam Ja`far as.-Sadiqwas the sixth in the succession of the twelve Apostolic Imams. His epithet was Abu `Abdillah and his famous titles were as-Sadiq, al-Fadil and at.-Tahir. He was the son of Imam Muhammad al-Baqir, the Fifth Imam.
Imam Ja`far as-Sadiq was brought up by his grand- father, Imam Zaynu `I-`Abidm in Medina for twelve years and then remained under the sacred patronage of his father Imam Muhammad al-Baqir for a period of nine- teen years.
Imamate: After the death of his holy father in 114 AH, he succeeded him as the Sixth Imam, and thus the sacred trust of Islamic mission and spiritual guidance was relayed down to his custody right from the Holy Prophet through the succession of the preceding Imams
Teacings of Imam Jaffar Sadiq (a.s)
The versatile genius of Imam Ja`far as.-Sadiq in all branches of knowledge was acclaimed throughout the Islamic world, which attracted students from far-off places towards him till the strength of his disciples had reached four thousand. The scholars and experts in Divine Law have quoted many ahadith (traditions) from Imam Ja`far as.-Sadiq. His disciples compiled hundred of books on various branches of science and arts. Other than fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence), hadith (tradition), tafslr (exegesis of the Holy Qur`an), etc., the Holy Imam also imparted mathematics and chemistry to some of his disciples. Jabir ibn Hayyan at.-Tusi, a famous scholar of mathematics, was one of the Imam`s disciples who benefited from the Imam`s knowledge and guidance and was able to write four hundred books on different subjects.
It is an undeniable historical truth that all the great scholars of Islam were indebted for their learning to the very presence of the Ahlu `I-Bayt who were the fountain of knowledge and learning for all. Allamah ash-shibli writes in his book Siratu`n- Nu`man: ``Abu Hanifah remained for a considerable period in the attendance of Imam Ja`far as-Sadiq, acquiring from him a great deal of precious research on fiqh and hadith. Both the sects - Shi`ah and Sunni - believe that the source of Abu Hanifah`s knowledge was mostly derived from his association with Imam Ja`far as-Sadiq.`` The Imam devoted his whole life to the cause of religious preaching and propagation of the teachings of the Holy Prophet and never strove for power. Because of his great knowledge and fine teaching, the people gathered around him, giving devotion and respect that was his due. This excited the envy of the `Abbasid ruler al-Mansur ad-Dawaniqi who fearing the popularity of the Imam, decided to do away with him.
Al Hayan`s Work:
Al-Jabr Ibn Hayyan (d. 815) regarded as the father of chemistry, said: all matters can be traced to a simple, basic particle composed of a lightning-like charge and fire, which serves as the smallest indivisible unit of matter.

He discovered as many as 19 elements and is credited with correct measurements of specific weights. He perfected chemical processes such as distillation, crystallization and sublimation.

Ibn Hayyan was the first to distill vinegar into acetic acid. He introduced the relative solubility or insolubility of substance in solutions. He was the first to use glass tubes, tubes, and bottles on a large scale.

He mastered the use of chemical purification processes: distillation, sublimation, precipitation. Along with al-Jaber, they were regarded the founders of Chemistry as an exact science.

Dr. David Werner writes: In most places in India, people believe that these diseases are caused because the goddess is angry with their family or their community.
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Don`t know who Dr. Werner is, but he is merely reporting on superstitions held by the uneducated.

Actually, vaccination was a well known treatment in the Ayurvedic system of Ancient India; it was re-discovered by Jenner.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smallpox the Wikipedia entry on smallpox:
``Smallpox is described in the Ayurveda books. Treatment included inoculation with year-old smallpox matter. The inoculators would travel all across India pricking the skin of the arm with a small metal instrument using ``variolous matter`` taken from pustules produced by the previous year`s inoculations. The effectiveness of this system was confirmed by the British doctor J.Z. Holwell in an account to the College of Physicians in London in 1767.``

Jenner gave vaccination a scientific basis, though Ayurvedic physicians were close to the truth http://www.sulekha.com/expressions/column.asp?cid=305881 ``Smallpox, Germs and Memories`` . Note that the Ayurvedic physicians did not attribute smallpox to the wrath of some goddess.
``This is how Holwell described the explanations offered to him by Ayurvedic vaidyas:
...
The immediate (or instant) cause of the smallpox exists in the mortal part of every human or animal form; that the mediate (or second) acting cause, which stirs up the first, and throws it into a state of fermentation, is multitudes of imperceptible animalculae [microorganisms] floating in the atmosphere; that these are the cause of all epidemical diseases, but more particularly of the smallpox; that they return at particular seasons in greater or lesser numbers…

It is significant that the spread of disease was taken to be due to the imperceptible animalculae (microorganisms). This was ahead of the germ theory of disease of Pasteur, Lister and Koch that arose in the 1860s and 70s.

Scholars now believe that the cure for smallpox arose in India sometime before 1000 AD. From India, the method of inoculation spread to China, western Asia and Africa and finally, in the early 18th century, to Europe and North America. The evidence for the cure reaching China comes from Imperial Chinese records.

Interesting questions arise from the Holwell account. Was the idea of the treatment derived from agada-tantra, one of the eight branches of traditional Ayurveda that deals with poisons and toxins in small dosages? ``

However, this does not imply that there is a ``Hindu`` medicine.

Fight against Myths and Disease
Al-Razi was the first ever physician to investigate the cause of smallpox. His book helped Edward Jenner to discover the vaccination.

SMALLPOX is considered one of the dangerous diseases in the world. It is a highly contagious disease, characterised by fever and the appearance of small spots leaving scars in the form of pits. The symptoms include chill, headache, and backache. The spots appear about the fourth day. This is a fatal disease. Even if one survives the attack, the skin in scarred permanently. According to present records, this disease was identified in Egypt in 1122 B.C. and is also mentioned in ancient Indian books written in Sanskrit. In the past, this disease gripped many countries in the form of dangerous epidemics. Thousands of people fell prey to it. As far back as 1156 B.C. this disease was taking its toll of human life, there being visible evidence in the pock marked face of the mummy of the Egyptian Pharaoh, Ramses V, who died in that year. (His embalmed body was found inside a pyramid). Even then, it took thousands of years for this dreaded disease to be investigated scientifically. Now we know that smallpox is a contagious disease resulting from virus infection, and such remedies have been discovered as can ward off attacks, provided suitable precaution are taken in advance. But it was not until the end of the ninth century, subsequent to the emergence of Islam, that this medical fact was unearthed for the first time.

Prior to scientific study by the Muslims, smallpox was attributed to wrath of deities and patients were left to die

The first name which became prominent in history in this connection was that of the well-known Arab physician, Al-Razi (865-925), who was born in Ray in Iran. In search of a remedy for the disease, he investigated it from the purely medical standpoint and wrote the first book on the subject, called, Al-Judri wa al-Hasba. This was translated into Latin, in 1565 in Venice and later into Greek and thus spread all over Europe. Its English translation, published in London in 1848, was entitled, A Treatise on Smallpox and Measles. Researchers have accepted that this is the first medical book on smallpox in the whole of recorded history. Prior to this, no one had ever done research on this topic.

After reading Al-Razis book, Edward Jenner (1749-1823), the English physician who became the inventor of vaccination, was led to making a clinical investigation of the disease. He established the connection between cowpox and smallpox. In 1796, he carried out his first practical experiment in inoculation. This was a success, and the practice spread rapidly, in spite of violent opposition from certain quarters, until, in 1977, it was announced by the UN that for the first time in history, smallpox had been eradicated.

Now the question arises as to why such a long time had elapsed between the initial discovery of the disease and the first attempts to investigate it medically with a view to finding a remedy. The reason was the prevalence of shirk, that is, the holding of something to be sacred when it is not, or the attribution of divinity to the non-divine. Dr. David Werner writes: In most places in India, people believe that these diseases are caused because the goddess is angry with their family or their community. The goddess expresses her anger through these diseases. The people believe that the only hope of a cure for these diseases is to make offerings to please her. They do not feed the sick child or care for him because they fear this will annoy the goddess more. So the sick child becomes very weak and either dies or takes a long time to get cured. It is essential that the child be given plenty of food to keep up his strength so that he can fight the infection.

Islam banished such superstitions about disease announcing in no uncertain terms that none except God had the power to harm or benefit mankind. The Creator was the one and only being who had such power. All the rest were His creatures and His slaves.

When, after the advent of Islam, such ideas gained ground, people began to think freely and independently of all superstitions. Only then did it become possible to conduct medical research into diseases in order to discover appropriate remedies.

Only after this intellectual revolution had come to the world did it become possible to make smallpox the subject of inquiry. Only then did it become possible for such people as Abu Bakr Razi and Edward Jenner to rise and save the world from this dreaded disease by discovering a remedy for it.

The real barrier to finding a cure was the generally accepted body of superstitious beliefs based on idol worship; these beliefs were swept away for the first time in history by Islam.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

786 is al-lah`s area code and the sooner we islamize science the sooner we will be able to figure out the rest of the number, give him a call on his cell phne and put this controversy to rest once and for all ............. kafir science will not allow us to communicate with the maer unless we can actually build one of those machines that jody foster travelled on in the movie `contact` .......... astagfirullah !

............ but before we do all this it might be a good idea to put in indoor plumbing and get abdul to take a bath and use deodrant once in a while .............. get real, guys ! ........ the ummah has yet step out of the seventh century - all this idle talk about science sounds kind of out of place ...... let the civilized world worry about it

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

khurram and vertex:

If you really know what you guys (and Faruqi and Nasr) are planning to do and it is worthwhile, I wish you best of luck. May be after seeing the results of your efforts, I will one day, if it is not too far off in the future, also understand the essence of Islamisation of Islam. Or probably it will not matter much if I understand it or not. Wishing you well and Eid Mubarak,

Mohammad Gill

emthree1:29
As John Searle once said something to the effect that by and large any subject ending with the word science is NOT science. ....

---

O what a spiritual aura, after all the dust-devils here. Thanks!

and let me parody that:
``.... effect that by and large any subject beginning with the word free is NOT free.

This ``article`` by the author, is itself like a series of surreptious visits to the unwitting CHOWK headshrinkers. These ``scientists`` , Hoodbhoy fashion, are getting nightmares thinking of the DoomsDay. They want thier ``unbelief`` to be somehow , someway, be ratified by a show of hands.

These blind in one eye want to extoll the virtues & value of being a one-eyed wonder to the rest of humanity.

If they were so much interested to do SCIENCE they would be spending their time among lab-coats and NOT among those who achieve results only by thinking and not by experimenting (empirical or inductive)

SCIENCE is just SCIENCE, nothing else. There is no need to give some lustre by elevating it to philosophy, poetry, music and LAST but MOST IMPORTANT of THEM ALL:

R E L I G I O N.

freethinker,

If you wish to draw a distinction between the ``applications`` (or the social forces behind, influences of, and consequences of) science and the practice of science itself, then I agree. However, that`s simply a matter of semantics, and so then if we talk about the ``Islamization of science`s applicaiton`` then I would expect no argument.

Except....

``Islamising (applications) of Science is probably what you are thinking about. What good is that?``

It`s plenty good even if it has the only net affect of producing Jammat`s of Physicists at the local Madrassah. Further, why can`t other agendas tacked onto science (like Ecological ones) fall victim to the same kind of ``what good is it`` attitude? It`s plenty good, I`d say.

You also wrote:

``You are trying to socialise science in the same way that the postmodernists tried to do. The basic concept is wrong.``

I wouldn`t go that far. I`m simply taking a look at WHO is doing science and what drives them, rather than the scientific results and methodologies themselves. It is a seperate from the field of study, and I`m not nearly as bold with posmod critiques of science are.

Studying, say, a group of astronomers and their dynamics and the way they work is not the same as studying astronomy. Now, are you telling me NASA and so the US government has no impact on the field of astronomy as a whole? Are you telling me the fact that a person who specializes in solid state physics is much more likely to gain employment than a person in, say, enviromental physics has no impact on what course science as a whole is taking? Are you telling me that the environmental sciences had been established without some kind of public concern? Or that the push in nano-research has no venture capatilists and major corporations behind it? Or that advances in medical treatments have no influence from the Pharmaceutical industry?

Neither good, nor bad..but that`s how it is. Science is a social process...that does not mean to say that the artifcats (theories, etc) produced by science are `subjective` or ``islamizable``. Further, I still would go on to say that there is much more to this business of science than the artificats alone. So in a sense, there`s plenty of room for Islamization insofar as there is indeed a ``westernization`` of science, most dramatically represented by the university-military-industry triad which has perhaps a monopoly on all science produced in Western societies, and heavily influence each other. Contrast that to the patronized science of the 1700`s, and you see a very different kind of ``application of science``, as you put it.

Science is neither prestine, nor can it be simply reduced to it`s results (which you would call ``real`` science). It has a huge social component, and that in turn drives what is being researched and for what purpose.

In any case, science (as you would define it) will not

a) win mindshare by itself
b) fund itself
c) propogate itself
d) build institutions for itself

So I`d say that Science is in dire need of something like ``Islamization`` is Muslim countries to get some traction...or rather Muslim countries need something like Islamization to get the Science spirit...

Dear Mr Gill,

``Science cannot work with fuzzy and subjective description you`ve provided.``

I think you completely missed my point. As I said, Islamization of science (the real one) is a philosophical and theological enterprise. It is NOT science. The goal is NOT to interfere in science or tell scientists what to do. Isn`t there a secular disciplne called Philosophy of Science? Does that mean philosphers are interfering in science? Is that fuzzy or subjective? Do scientists care? What Nasr/Faruqi are doing is an attempt to develop an Islamic philosophy of science.

``If you want to apply science the way you`ve described, it will be totally subjective.``
Application of science (i.e. what to do with the knowledge acquired) has always been subjective. This does NOT imply that the results of science are so.

``Islamization of science is not a fundamental issue as I see it. dissemination and development of science in the Muslim world is fundamental.``

Islamization of science (again, not the pseudo version) IS an attempt to encourage dissemination of science in the Muslim world. If muslims can see that science is a truly Islamic activity they would be more passionate about pursuing it.

Eid Mubarak
Khurram

Vertex Post # 27:

Vow! You have written so much and I still do not understand the objective of Islamisng science. You have written, ``If indeed science is secular, is it a prerequisite to secularise society in order to practice science?`` Now there are really two different issues herein. Science is secular in as much as it does not need religion for its progress and well-being. Science doesn`t need necessarily to secularise the society. Secularization of society is a political concept. Science doesn`t care if the society is religious or secular; it`s about finding laws to understand the natural phenomena. Whenever there was a confrontation between religion and science, religion had to backtrack because science is verified by actual observations and measurements. You are trying to socialise science in the same way that the postmodernists tried to do. The basic concept is wrong.

The cliche of Islamising of Science is misleading. Islamising (applications) of Science is probably what you are thinking about. What good is that? If for instance, manufacturing of nuclear weapons is ethically wrong and an Islamised science wouldn`t allow it, are you going to persuade Pakistan to demolish its nuclear weapons? Dr. Khan who is now a pariah in the western world is regarded indeed as the savior of Pakistan in Pakistan. I am one of them who thinks the development of nuclear weapons by Pakistan in the political climate of 1990s saved it being overrun and colonized by India.

What I am saying is that science is an independent discipline which flourishes well without intervention from religion. The application of science is a political issue. If you can Islamise politics, you might Islamise applications of science. The bottom line is you cannot Islamise science. Whosoever is trying to do so is wasting time and creating confusion where none should exist. Has anybody Islamised any science so far? I would like an example to see how good is it and to understand what Islamisation indeed is.

Wishing you well.

As John Searle once said something to the effect that by and large any subject ending with the word science is NOT science.

So concepts like social science, political science, christian science, islamic science are all non-science concepts, some trying to gain (in my view unnecesseraliy and unsuccessfully) some sort of intellectual credibility.

sattar, vertex

You are on the same page. `Fofo-gibberish,` be it aboubt the weight of angels, three-winged creatures, or giant tortoises supporting the earth, remains gibberish. Nobody should call this gibberish philosophy or religion

Freethinker, khurram:

``Science cannot work with fuzzy and subjective description you`ve provided. If you want to apply science the way you`ve described, it will be totally subjective.``

For the most part, as I understand it, no one is talking about the methodologies of science, or bringing in the notion of devine intervention into sciences. Rather, the focus has been on the social aspects of science. It`s not Islamizing the results or theories of science...it`s Islamizing the concept of getting together and doing science...the proponents of Islamization argue that this may be necessary in order for wide-spread acceptance and ownership of science among the masses. If indeed science is ``secular`` is it a prerequisite to secularize society in order to practice science? Or does it ultimately depend on following the methodology and being guided by results and reasons, ambivalent to ideological concerns? I think the latter is true, and the former not...however I also think that`s not the complete picture.

Are you telling me modern science has no agenda (not necessarily a malevolent one)? Are you telling me that, say, industry and big business has no influence on what science is being performed? I may not agree with the suggestions the Islamization crowed come up with from time to time, but I agree with the notion that science is not all about the ``facts``, and driven in part by social and cultural concerns is simply true.

In particular, the acceptance of science as an indispensable endeavor at a societal level has nothing to do with the methodology and practice of science itself. I would argue that if science were nothing but abstract concepts which had no direct applicability, it would simply be the pass time of a select few eccentrics. However science has profound applications that permeate Western culture, and that`s a desirable thing to have in Islamic ones too - and who better to guide it than Muslims and consistant with their own cultural context. I don`t think science is ``Western`` and in order to practice it, a prerequsite is to ``Westernize``. Certainly, there are many dead ends and false starts along the Islamization ``path``. however I think at some level it needs to be done.

``The theologians invariably fail to reach a consensus on any religious issue in which they believe they`re the ultimate authority, how will they reach any agreement on scientific issues of which they don`t know any thing.``

Mr. Gill...please...there IS objectivity in science in terms of empirical results, and verifiable statements. SOME in the Islamization crowed may think otherwise, most probably don`t.

``What is the objective anyhow?``

The spread and ownership of the pursuit of science within Islamic societies...the argument being that ``secular`` approaches are too alien and foreign and hence the source of Muslim ambivalence towards the sciences. That may or may not be true, however that is the operating thesis and the impetus towards ``Islamization``. The idea is to push a pro-science agenda by recasting it in traditional terms, and hence making it a part of the religio-cultural discourse which dominates. To some, the fantasy is to have Mullah`s switch between talking about rituals and differential equations. Not in the same breath, nor even to draw the link between the two, but to have these concepts seem near and familiar to us as religous ones.

That`s it so far...at a high level it makes sense, however there are clear issues as to the consequences of this approach, or even the validity of the premise. However, I personally don`t see a danger of some trying to ``Islamizing`` e=mc^2 or the scientific method in general...I don`t think that`s a goal...

What I find disturbing is the idea of bringing science under the control of a select group of ``religious`` scholars, and how the practice of science should somehow be done by the guidance of some kind of elitist ideology, rather than on practical need or simply for the sake of learning (well, we could argue Science conducted under the military is even worse). I also think the Islamization crowed is getting confused between science and technology (crudely, the application of science)...but then I`ve also seen the advocating of the ``ideal`` of having religious scholars and scientists being equivalent as well...

``Science is best if it is left alone and not tampered with by the non-scientists.``

Tell that to the business leaders and politicians, who pretty much have the final word in what gets researched or not. This is not the 1700`s where one can do ``science`` in their study...not for the most part at least. It`s an expensive enterprise, whether we`re talking about the supercollider or NASA. What gets funding is what is deemed relevant. Or tell that to the citizenry who are allegedly so against stem-cell research. Science exists and is perused in the context of society at largea and society will only support it and foster it if they think it`s useful...you can`t divorce the two. That may be ideal, but that`s not realistic.


``The Muslim world is really backward in science. There are no modern scientific traditions in the Muslim world and there is no respectable science culture in it. ``

And so your answer is to simply dismiss what is perhaps the only real effort in fostering a tradition in the Muslim world? Or are you saying there is no real ``tradition`` per sae, but rather a set of results that define what science is? Or are you saying that there is only one possible tradition, and that`s exactly what we have in the West?


``Islamization of science is not a fundamental issue as I see it; dissemination and development of science in the Muslim world is fundamental.``

The way I see it, the two are the one and the same...

Mr. Gill,

The interpretation of Hadis itself could be taken a scientific statement. As Hazrat Muhammad (P.B.U.H) said:

``Ana Madina tul Ilm Wa Ali un Babuha``
- Mai.n Ilm ka Shehar hoo aur Ali (a.s) us ka Darwaza.

Now Prophet was a knowledgeable person and he recommended Hazrat Ali to be followed if to get benefit from his intellect genuinely.

These things are still confused in human minds as we can`t gulp the two terms, Islam and science together.
I could recall a shair which very accurately points this aspect:

Insaan ko Bedar to ho lainey do
Har Qaum pukarey gi, Hamarey hai.n Hussain.

#10 by echoboom on January 20, 2005 6:49am PT
The Scientific World Is Turning to God


I do not think Antony Flew extending the various arguments for the proof of God is a good way to convince people of theism................there are 1000 more hilarious arguments propounded by idiots on this earth to prove the existence of god.................and again......the Christian God is different..............

vertex (Re #22):

... world on the back of an elephant, which sits on a giant tortoise? Hmmmmm ...

You may be on to something here ... but I am not sure if I am following you. I mean, what is the tortoise standing on ...? On the 4th wing of gabriel?

Kidding aside ... where are you going with this …?

Dear khurram:

You`ve muddled the issue some more. You say there are 2 kinds of ``Islamization of Science.`` They have failed to describe lucidly even one of them; two are more confusing.

If you read your post again you`ll see the source of my frustration. Science cannot work with fuzzy and subjective description you`ve provided. If you want to apply science the way you`ve described, it will be totally subjective. The theologians invariably fail to reach a consensus on any religious issue in which they believe they`re the ultimate authority, how will they reach any agreement on scientific issues of which they don`t know any thing. What is the objective anyhow? What concrete results are we going to gain and how will they be satisfying, meaningful, and productive?

Science is best if it is left alone and not tampered with by the non-scientists.

I have all respect for Prof. Nasr but he was only an under-graduate in physics. His forte was philosophy particularly Islamic philososphy. The intricacies of science are not such as can be grasped easily.

Let me give you an example. I have published papers on some other(more authoritative) website also and a couple of them attracted good attention. The longest time it took me to publish a paper (a paper dabbling in philosophy) was 2-3 months. The first paper that I published on sediment transport (my specialization) took almost 3 years. The shortest time to publish a technical paper for me was 9-12 months. And I could publish only if I had some original (literally original) work. Some of the work that I have published, I`m really proud of that because it`s beautiful. Why the hell (pardon me) am I indulging in self-praise? Becaue I want to reassure you that I am speaking from scientific experience.

The Muslim world is really backward in science. There are no modern scientific traditions in the Muslim world and there is no respectable science culture in it. We should concentrate on the fundamentals. Islamization of science is not a fundamental issue as I see it; dissemination and development of science in the Muslim world is fundamental.

Wishing you well.

Mohammad Gill

sattar2,

Yet when we have suggestions of the world being held on the back of an elephant, which itself sits on a giant tortoise...it`s all about ``philosophy``?

Right...

sattar2,

Yet when we have suggestions of the world being held on the back of an elephant, which itself sits on a giant tortoise...it`s all about ``philosophy``?

Right...

---

khurram,

Tell `em, but take my word for it...they just don`t listen...they see the ``I`` word and can`t seem to look past it...

Mr Gill,

There are 2 kinds of ``Islamization of Science`` .

One is the crude & pseudo-scholarly version. This tries to judge scientific theories by literalist interpretation of Scriptures. Or worse, it tries to come up with pseudo-scientific theories that conform to literalist readings of the Quran. Creationism, is an example of this.
Maurice Bucaille, I think, belongs to this school, since he claims existence of scientific facts in the Quran that were not humanly known at the time.
Your article here, and earlier ones, do a good job of debunking this point of view.

This is not, however, what Nasr and Faruqi are trying to do. They are trying to ground the scientific enterprise in the basic Islamic doctrine of Divine Unity. This is essentially a philosphical and theological endeavour. It will not change existing scientific theories or judge them by extra-scientific criteria. It will change the meaning, significance and perhaps application of science. For the muslim scientist this will produce a holistic worldview that will enable him not to compartmentalize different aspects of his life. This is very much a work in progress in its early stages.

Your article is not about this point of view , since you frankly admit that you don`t understand it.

There are people who dont hesitate to say that the Tsunami was Allah`s way of punishing people who are moving away from Islam.People who talk of Islamization of Science are not different.Pictures are being posted on various websites showing mosques to be the only surviving structures in the Tsunami hit areas.Those who claimed few years ago that idols of Ganesha have started drinking milk belong to the same genre.About 20 years ago eagles were worshipped in ome of the gurudwaras in Punjab as the priests(granthis) had announced that they were Guru Gobind Singh`s eagles.Such people exist in all the religeons and rationalists often nhave tough time in dealing with the influence they have among common people.They are worse than faith healers.

Re Romair (#13) ...

… Naqshbandi and Urstruly et. al., for all their divisive and bigoted religious views … still believe that e-mc(2) and to every action there is an equal and opposite reaction...

… except that all the physics went out the door when muhammad flew to heavens with gabriel to meet god … when moses parted the ocean … and this will be blissfully repeated in the future when a two-thousand year old prophet descends from the skies on shoulders of two angels … to fight the one-eyed monster riding a giant, fire-breathing donkey. What e=mc2 are you talking about here …????

Mainstream muslims have drifted far from making any sense ... and it is somewhat reasonable to be skeptical of books that employ terms like “Islamization of science”. For talking straight with fellow Muslims … I quickly get branded as a “scientific positivist” (what does this mean anyway …I remain unclear), an obstructionist, a heretic … or to sum it all up … a plain ol’ ahmadi. If I recall correctly, Naqsh thinks that western science is very “speculative” … apparently because it has failed to calculate the weight of an angel in kilograms … and Urstruly, before he started feeling embarrassed in discussing Islam with me in public … would insist that people practiced magic in days of moses … (how about if we practice it again … today ... and put an end to california’s budget crises …?).

… of course, evidence of all this fofo-gibbrish is found in the book of Allah, delivered to a dervaish by the three-winged chief angel … so who am I to argue with the jamiat maulvis you studied with ...

I think the problem that believers in theology have with modern science has to do with the fundamental axiom of the latter that there is an objective, knowable truth out there that can be apprehended by pure inquiry alone. It negates god by rejecting an a priori view of the universe. Everything needs to be discovered ab initio. The problem that post modernists have with the scientific approach is whether we, the inquirer, can separate ourselves sufficiently from the rest of the universe to be able to apprehend it objectively. Their critiques, I believe, are different.

A well-written inquisitive article!

If everything developed by West was labelled as ``Christian science`` and rejected by Muslim masses, they would still be carting off the camels, instead of basking on petro-dollars.

Science is the way of the future. If any religion tries to control or confine science, it`s inevitably doomed.

BTW, looking at one book(koran or bible) and re-interpreting generalities in it to conform with new scientific findings is akin to theft.

Gill Sahib, I am an avid reader of your articles. I would like to invite you to an e-group of Pakistani rationalists.

Could you please let me know how I may be able to contact you.

Please send me an email at abbas.adeel@gmail.com

It`s amazing to me how people will simply take the phrase ``Islamization of Science`` and start commenting when a) they most likely haven`t bothered reading all of this article and b) not knowing squat about the origins and actual usage of the phrase by those who coined it.

Yup, just throw in ``Islam`` and right off the bat a red flag is raised and you got people who don`t like it. Not because they understand it, but just because.

Is, ``Islamization of science`` really an issue? Or is it just being blown out of proportion, because people need to find another point to push a political agenda. I have studied with maulvis and Jamiat members. For all their views on religion, I don`t recall a single one who actually presented any of the ideas that are presented in this article.

They may have had differing views on co-education and Shariah and what not. They may have considered Abdus Salam a non-Muslim, but they didn`t have any issues with his theories. They also, all seemed to agree with Newton and Einstein and Bill Gates on what was going on in science, as well...........

Asif Naqshbandi and Urstruly et. al., for all their divisive and bigoted religious views, and hypocritical residencies in Dar-ul-harb of UK and USA, do, to the best of my knowledge, still believe that e-mc(2) and to every action there is an equal and opposite reaction...........At least I hope they do........

The mixing of religion & science is not always a bad idea. If humanity benefits from it then so be it.

http://portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/09/02/wcow02.xml


A gift from the gods: bottled cow`s urine
By Julian West in New Delhi
(Filed: 02/09/2001)

HINDU nationalists in India have launched a marketing exercise to promote cow`s urine as a health cure for ailments ranging from liver disease to obesity and even cancer.



The urine, which is being sold under the label ``Gift of the Cow``, is being enthusiastically promoted by the government of Gujarat, one of three states in India dominated by Hindu nationalists.

The urine is collected daily from almost 600 shelters for rescued and wounded cattle set up by the Vishwa Hindu Parisad (VHP), or World Council of Holy men, as part of a government cow-protection programme to save the country`s sacred, but often maltreated, beasts.

Advertised as being ``sterilised and completely fresh`` it is available for 20 rupees (30p) a bottle at about 50 centres run by the VHP in Gujerat, from 200 of their outlets in neighbouring Madhya Pradesh, and at fairs and religious festivals throughout India.

It also comes in tablets or a cream mixed with other traditional medicinal herbs. Demand is currently outstripping supply.

Dr Jadi Patel at the VHP`s headquarters in Ahmedabad said: ``It`s very popular because the results are very good, but we`ve got a shortage.`` He explained that the cow protection centres had been formed after the last grand gathering of saddhus, or holy men, to save cows from ``unofficial slaughter by Muslims``.

Killing cows is illegal in most Indian states but there are an estimated 32,000 illegal abattoirs and 13.7 million cows are believed to be slaughtered by Muslims for the leather industry.

Animal rights activists in India also claim that the doe-eyed, hump-backed white Brahma cattle that are to be found on almost every Indian street are subjected to various abuses, including forced pregnancies to produce more milk.

The cow protection commission was set up to protect the holy cows, and research conducted by doctors involved in the project revealed that the cows` urine had medicinal properties.

The idea of using it came from the central Indian headquarters of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), the powerful Hindu nationalist ideologues behind the country`s Bharata Janata Party (BJP), where five scientists are researching its beneficial effects.

Like all devout Hindus, RSS members believe that all cow products are sacred. Ghee, or clarified butter, is used in Indian cooking and to light lamps during temple ceremonies, and milk is commonly poured over sacred idols as an offering.

The healing properties of cow dung and cow`s urine are also mentioned in ancient Hindu texts. The research conducted by doctors at the cow-protection commission indicates that the urine can cure anything from skin diseases, kidney and liver ailments to obesity and heart ailments.

Although most Indian doctors view the medicines as eccentric, several advocates of the treatment have come forward in Gujarat, have come forward to support the doctors` claims.

They include Vidhyaben Mehta, a 65-year-old woman with a cancerous tumour on her chest who has been taking cow`s urine for the past three years. She says she is no longer in pain and has survived in spite of medical predictions that she would die two years ago.

So enthusiastic is the Gujarat government about its cows` urine medicines that it has asked the Indian Institute of Management to compile a database of traditional cures and verify the Hindu nationalists` findings.

The academics have also discovered that cow`s urine is an extremely effective pesticide and plant fertiliser and are now developing for human consumption new drugs that contain the ``gift of the cow``.

Prof Anil Gupta at the institute said: ``This isn`t just a religious thing. If it`s useful we shouldn`t stop it simply because we think it has religious connections.``

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

I think that the concern, ``Islamization of science`` is not reasonable. Neither scientific applications of religion is useful. The purpose of science is to understand objective reality within the limit of empirical verification. On the other hand religion also provides a theological explanation of Nature but in a different language and with a different intention. Science keeps pace with inquiry and religion adresses the relationship of human with the macro reality. Both are inadequate because of the simple fact that both use the same measuring device, which is ``the human mind``. We use our minds blindly enough that we can make within it a universe of our own. Religion and Science are nothing more than two modes of thinking practiced by us to understand Nature and to make relationship with it but a relationship without understanding and an understanding without a relationship give room to nonsense. I think that humankind needs to think afresh about the issues of religion and science by focusing on the present condition of the mind along with its mechanics, and its possible and certain shortcomings.

The Scientific World Is Turning to God
HARUN YAHYA

``As people have certainly been influenced by me, I want to try and correct the enormous damage I may have done.`` (Anthony Flew)

The newspapers these days are echoing with these regret-filled words by Anthony Flew, in his time a well-known atheist philosopher. The 81-year-old British professor of philosophy Flew chose to become an atheist at the age of 15, and first made a name for himself in the academic field with a paper published in 1950. In the 54 years that followed, he defended atheism as a teacher at the universities of Oxford, Aberdeen, Keele and Reading, at many American and Canadian universities he visited, in debates, books, lecture halls and articles. In recent days, however, Flew has announced that he has abandoned this error and accepts that the universe was created.

The decisive factor in this radical change of view is the clear and definitive evidence revealed by science on the subject of creation. Flew realised, in the face of the information-based complexity of life, that the true origin of life is intelligent design and that the atheism he had espoused for 66 years was a discredited philosophy.

Flew announced the scientific reasons underlying this change in belief in these terms:

``Biologists` investigation of DNA has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce [life], that intelligence must have been involved.`` (1)

``It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism.`` (2)

``I have been persuaded that it is simply out of the question that the first living matter evolved out of dead matter and then developed into an extraordinarily complicated creature.`` (3)

The DNA research which Flew cites as a fundamental reason for his change of opinion has indeed revealed striking facts about creation. The helix shape of the DNA molecule, its possession of the genetic code, the nucleotide strings that refute blind chance, the storage of encyclopaedic quantities of information and many other striking findings have revealed that the structure and functions of this molecule were arranged for life with a special design. Comments by scientists concerned with DNA research bear witness to this fact.

Francis Crick, for instance, one of the scientists who revealed the helix shape of DNA admitted in the face of the findings regarding DNA that the origin of life indicated a miracle:

An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.

Based on his calculations, Led Adleman of the University of Southern California in Los Angeles has stated that one gram of DNA can store as much information as a trillion compact discs. (5) Gene Myers, a scientist employed on the Human Genome Project, has said the following in the face of the miraculous arrangements he witnessed:


``What really astounds me is the architecture of life… The system is extremely complex. It`s like it was designed… There`s a huge intelligence there.`` (6)

The most striking fact about DNA is that the existence of the coded genetic information can definitely not be explained in terms of matter and energy or natural laws. Dr. Werner Gitt, a professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology, has said this on the subject:

A code system is always the result of a mental process… It should be emphasized that matter as such is unable to generate any code. All experiences indicate that a thinking being voluntarily exercising his own free will, cognition, and creativity, is required… There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this. (7)

Creationist scientists and philosophers played a major role in Flew`s acceptance of intelligent design, backed up by all these findings. In recent times Flew participated in debates with scientists and philosophers who were proponents of creation, and exchanged ideas with them. The final turning point in that process was a discussion organised by the Institute for Metascientific Research in Texas in May, 2003. Flew participated together with author Roy Abraham Varghese, Israeli physicist and molecular biologist Gerald Schroeder, and Roman Catholic philosopher John Haldane. Flew was impressed by the weight of the scientific evidence in favour of creation and by the convincing nature of his opponents` arguments, and abandoned atheism as an idea in the period following that discussion. In a letter he wrote for the August-September, 2003, edition of the British magazine Philosophy Now, he recommended Schroeder`s book ``The Hidden Face of God: Science Reveals the Ultimate Truth`` and Varghese`s book ``The Wonderful World.``(8) During an interview with the professor of philosophy and theology Gary R. Habermas, who also played a major role in his change of mind (9), and also on the video ``Has Science Discovered God?,`` he openly stated that he believed in intelligent design.

The ``Intelligence Pervading the Universe`` and the Collapse of Atheism

In the face of all the scientific developments outlined above, the acceptance of intelligent design by Antony Flew, famous for defending atheism for many years, reflects a final scene in the process of collapse being undergone by atheism. Modern science has revealed the existence of an ``intelligence pervading the universe,`` thus leaving atheism out of the equation.

In his book ``The Hidden Face of God,`` Gerald Schroeder, one of the creationist scientists who influenced Flew, writes:

``A single consciousness, a universal wisdom, pervades the universe. The discoveries of science, those that search the quantum nature of subatomic matter, have moved us to the brink of a startling realization: all existence is the expression of this wisdom. In the laboratories we experience it as information that first physically articulated as energy and then condensed into the form of matter. E