What is Islamization of Science?

Mohamad Gill,
Excellent and thought provoking article. It is very refreshing to see a muslim(assumed,since you have a muslim name) start questioning Koran, Islam and the holy cow Mohamad. You have hit the nail bang on, in your analysis of the failure of Muslims and their lies about Koran being a ALL-KNOWING book of science, politics, moral guide and divine prophecy. I am simply amazed how such obvious book of BS like Koran has survived the 20th century. The only explnation is the muslim backwardness. I think by the end of this century Muslims will be more evolved. There is hope with more muslims like you coming out and taking on the Mullahs in their propaganda and lies.

Just and wait and see how many Pakistani muslims come out and call you as traitor to Islam. Rational thinking and critical analyzis is anathema to the muslims since that will de-mythify mohamad and bring him crashing down to what he really is, a megalomaniac delusional arab warrior. But the sooner Mohamad comes crashing down, the better, coz that will save many thousands of innocent lives killed by the Jihadis in the name of Koran and Mohamad.

Keep up the good work.

Mr. Gill,

First, and most important, the concept of Islamization of Knowledge, of which Islamization of Science is an offshoot, is a concept in it`s inception. It is also a concept that has little attention in the Muslim world or among Muslim academics. So really, let`s not blow this out of proportion, or be impetuous in our judgment on something that is clearly in the `brainstorming` phase.

You are correct, no hard-set ideas have come from the movement, and many still born ideas are clearly present in the current discourse. Your analysis, however, seems to jump the gun, commenting on the movement as if it claims to have solid ideas, ready for implementation.

I`m interested in some of the ideas from the movement, and currently that`s all it claims to provide...a set of ideas to seed others. But like I said, there are few takers. Some of the ideas I actually consider positive are:

* Extending the concept of `scholar` or `ulema` to include scientists and have them participate in a larger Islamic discourse (hence the name- Islamic Science - this is critical to understand).
* Also extending core religious concepts, like Jihad in a pro-Science way (a bit of a stretch, but the notion of a martyr as one who dies in the pursuit of knowledge is admirable)
* The idea that in order for Science to take seed in the hearts and minds of Muslims, who are by far and wide traditional, that a superposition of traditional (and familiar) ideas onto the modern ones will help in endearing Science not only to the layperson, but especially to the Ulema who are thus far highly suspect of it. Here there is an implicit acknowledgement that there is a “western” character to science that needs to be altered to fit into Muslim societies. Again, not the core ideas or methodologies, but rather the containing culture. And I think there is a culture to science that is dissociated from the results that it produces…you can go on about the objectivity of science but the fact is sometimes the process of doing science is not exactly objective…there are principles of simplicity, economic concerns as to what is actually studied, consensus building, etc. that we deal with…there’s much more than empirical results, and even the empirical results are not conclusive.

Personally, I’m fine with “Islamization” so long as it’s done on the “light” (some go too far in their ideas of Islamization) and not tied to any political ideology. Similarly, I’m comfortable and interested in criticism of this movement, so long as it’s not done simply to preserve a perceived assault on the secular, or simply dismisses the movement as a front for some ideological movement (a claim some liberals make).

Mr Gill,

It seems like you have not understood Seyyed Hossein Nasr`s ideas. He does not talk about Islamizing Science in the way you have understood it to be. And before i move any further, I would like to inform you that Seyyed Hossein Nasr is not only a philospher by education. He went to MIT and completed his undergrad in Physics.

He talks about the purpose of science in Islam. How Ibn Sina, Ibn Jabr etc viewed their research. For what purpose they conducted it. And what their mind set was. He is simply stating that we have lost that connection. Modern day science does not have that same foundation and philosophy. Today we will spend millions to research how to pollute our land, we will build and develop without thinking about the consequences of our research and action. And before i conclude, Ibn Sina and his like always had the concept of a Divine creator whose works they studied and pondered upon.

I looked at your refrences and there is not one book! of Seyyed Hossein Nasrs that you referred to. And here you are trying to analyze his works. You actually used Leif Stenberg`s understanding to build your argument. Please read Dr Nasr`s works itself to know the man and his ideas.
Peace!

``Conclusion

The methodology for Islamizing science as postulated by various Muslim scholars is not clear. Their discourse is muddled and inaccurate. These proposals are at best a theological discourse having no relation to the hard sciences. At their worst, they are the result of confused and emotional but ambitious wishes and desires. At best, they fantasize a utopian adventure leading nowhere. ````

Agreed. But the issue of Islamization is about a political theology trying to subdue the freedom of the individual scientists to think new hypothesis which contradict the theological basis of these theocratic political movements...............the issue is about intellectual freedom and why no political theology should enter our academic institutions.................

Mr. Gill,

A very accountable effort towards a topic which had been a source of contradictions and controvercies in all sects of Muslims. But I am really amazed to read your research.
People believe that Islam is a religion and Science is a progress and Islam is rigid code of life leaving all of its roots and propagation in ethics in very conservative manner. And development in thought process has been stagnant in its believers. However its true when we see that West without concentrating to ` Label of Religion ` has worked for the benefit of mankind. And this puts questions in our minds that why not muslims induldge in care of even the basic human rights. Sir Alexander Fleming discovered Pencillin and saved thousands of lives but till his last times was a humble person saying that any mould from a housewife`s kitchen flew to my laboratory and made by discovery.
We Muslims, stress too much on our identity and ``Haqooq ul Allah`` in general, however ``Haqool ul Ibaad`` in our religious are more rewarding in Allah`s court. What stops us from Growing, organizing , liberation and development are our own prejudices. We have made our lifestyles in such manner that hinder our developments.
Just look around in Pakistan, people are overloaded in transports with pathetic means to travel. Women are in worse situation. We are an agriculture currency and we could make a vertical growth in this field but we don`t put forward ``Land Reforms`` for benefit of farmers and to produce more products. But our Jagerdaars and Politicians need Latest Models of Honda Civic, Toyota Corrolla. There is no atmosphere for a person to feel free. The Labour in Pakistan is such degrading circumstances that its really to cry on their plights. Science is to make efforts to make livings better for a common man in development stages. Then when common man takes part in progress of a country then the horizons become broader and necessities come to become more customized and you come in a cycle of inventions and research in ares critical in those times fullfilling needs making needs selling them and making other feel them.
Religion never stops us to teach our daughters higher education and work in R&D organizations.
Science needs a platform to grow. And this platform is built by common people who enjoy fruit of their labour. The scientists are working day and night they are not in search of God but they are utilizing their brains which teases them to work in multidimensions and one day they will discover the God. Then the religion will be decided.

It is unclear what exactly do you mean by Islamization of Islam. What is your understanding of this concept? I have read a few of Syed Hossein Nasr`s books and I was left with the impression that when he talked about Islam and Science, he was referring to the contributions Muslims scientists have made to the general body of science whether it be Medicine, Astronomy, Biology, Botany, Physics, Chemistry or Mathematics. Now if you claim that the Canon of Avicenna was used in European universities for seven hundred years and is the basis of modern medicine, would that mean that Medicine is being Islamicized? You claim Professor Nasr`s discourses on this subject were foggy and philosophically enigmatic. I, on the other hand found his explanations succinct and easily comprehensible. Would you please give an example from any of his works regarding the Islamization of science that presents this subject as unclear. You claim that science, atleast Physical Science is totally diferent from Islam. What do you mean by such a statement? Let us consider the physical sciences such as Chemistry and Physics, so how do they exist outside the scope of Islam. As far as I can tell, the sciences are inside the fold of Islam.
I was extremely fortunate to have Dr. Anthony M. Alioto as a teacher of history, whose book “ A History of Western Science” is a brilliant scholarly work taught at many American universities.
“ Their ( The Muslims) obsession was not to understand the cosmic garden for itself, but rather to find within its workings evidence of the divine gardener.`` [120]

“.Like the Christian, the Muslim accepts the reality of the transcendental world, yet unlike Scripture, the Koran makes no pretense at a cosmological system. When stories are related, even those from the Judeo-Christian tradition, they are meant to emphasize the power of Allah and the fearful price of refusing to submit. Therefore, the science of the visible world is, on the whole, unencumbered by revelation. In fact, the faithful are commanded by Allah to study nature, for nature is His metaphor. Reason could, of course, run afoul of religion, and Islam did have its Tertullians. But the command to study nature and the underlying concept of its unicity reflecting the oneness of God stimulated a keen interest among Muslims in science. (115)

“Note the religious assumption behind Islamic science: ``There is a natural hierarchy of knowledge from the physics of matter to the metaphysics of cosmological speculation, yet all knowledge terminates in the Divine. All phenomena are creations of Allah, His theophanies, and nature is a vast unity to be studied by believers as the visible sign of the Godhead. Nature is like an oasis in the bleak solitude of the desert; the tiny blades of grass as well as the most magnificent flowers bespeak of the gardener`s loving hand. All nature is such a garden, the cosmic garden of God. Its study is a sacred act.`` (114f.)

Mr. Gill, I strongly agree with Talha. I urge you to read some of Professor Nasr`s books and if you have read them, then please quote specifics. I am sure you would find Dr. Anthony M. Alioto`s, “ A History of Western Science” a fascinating read. Perhaps reading Dr. Nasr and Dr. Alioto would clarify the very questions you raise in your article.

God is Truth.

There is nothing called ``Islamic Science`` or ``Hindu Science``. I am sure they are Arab contributions to Mathematics and Science. I doubt their work was in any way influenced by Quran. In any case the contributions of ancient Arabs is dwarfed by the amount of knowledge generated in the past century.

Gill - thanks.

Knowledge has no religion.

Just as Ghalib had said that `Laddo` or `Burfi` are not hindu or muslim when some one objected to his eating `Laddos` which had come from a hindu family.

nhk

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. Every particle, every being, from atom to human, appears to represent a level of information, of wisdom.`` (10)

Scientific research into both the functioning of the cell and the subatomic particles of matter has revealed this fact in an indisputable manner: Life and the universe were brought into being from nothing by the will of an entity possessed of a superior mind and wisdom. There is no doubt that the possessor of that knowledge and mind that pervade the universe at all levels is Almighty Allah. Allah reveals this truth in the Qur`an:

Both East and West belong to Allah, so wherever you turn, the Face of Allah is there. Allah is All-Encompassing, All-Knowing.`` (Qur`an, 2:115)

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.

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

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.``

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........

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.

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

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.