Why We Need Islamization of Science

Re:Romair #429

You may find this odd, but I believe that secularism is actually good for religion itself. Why is that? A secular society offers a free market for religions. By not preferring one religion over the other at a state level, you let the religious ideologies compete to attract people. This competition prevents religion from getting abused/hijacked by the mullahs, brahmins etc. and avoids abominations from creeping into a faith. The faith also becomes dynamic in the sense that its practice becomes more relevant to the needs of the regular people as their life changes. The state sponsorship of a religion is analogous to a closed economy in a socialist state. Due to the government subsidy, there is no incentive for growth or dynamism in the faith. In fact, various vested interests try to push their agenda under the garb of religion to exploit people. In the end, the religion itself becomes weak and full of abominations, which ultimately turns off people from the religion.

For e.g. if hinduism becomes state religion of India, what will happen? Various elements from VHP, Bajrang Dal and other elements will try to bring in their own distorted views under the garb of promoting hinduism. You will see curbs on women`s dresses, valentine`s day, what you can eat, what you can wear etc. Of course, since it is the state religion, no once can dare reject it in the fear of going against the state . The result will be that hinduism will become distorted over time. The minorities will live in fear and as second class citizens. The country will be fragmented with no sense of unity.

If you look at the situation in Pakistan since the 70s, when Islam came into the public sphere, the religion has been badly hurt by various charlatans who came and started imposing their hudood ordinances, blasphemy laws, sectrian hatred and all sorts of absurd things in the name of religion. In fact, I will say that Islam has been hurt in Pakistan by the events of the past 30 years as compared to the previous 1000 years when it was established in the areas of Pakistan. Today you have various communities like Ahmedis, Shias and even sub-sects among Sunnis, who are feeling alienated and second-class citizens. How can you build a modern society or a humanistic society on such a foundation? In fact, if you look at other religious societies like Saudi Arabia, you see the same phenomena. I will tell you that if Israel is totally peaceful for 30 years, you will see the same kind of rot set in over there too. Also if this republican rule continues for 30 years in the US, it will become a christian fundo nation and China will take over the leadership of the world.

As far as gay marriage is concerned, let me ask you something. Will you oppose civil rights for people just because it will lead to gay marriage? Because any kind of equality for people will ultimately lead to gay marriage, so we should never support equality for women, blacks, religious minorities. Do you see that this is absurd? When you have millions of people all over the earth chafing under theocracries, religious discrimination, communal holocausts and the only superpower becoming a christian fundo nation the last thing to stop us from seeking religious non-discrimination should be gay marriage.

#432 by ayaan2002 on March 5, 2005 10:14am PT


I am not a Luddite nor opposed to technological change. But I would like to limit the scope of technology only to useful or wholesome applications and eliminate killing machines that have proliferated in modern times.


And who decides that research is only useful for building killing machines and what research is ``wholesome``...Nuclear technology used to cure cancer can also be made into some gamma ray weapon in the near fugure...A knife, when used for hunting, was essential to the survival of the caveman...Yet the same knife was used to chop Daniel Pearl`s head off..


This can only be achieved by re-introducing principles of traditional religious sciences into the modern world.


Maybe you need to peddle your religious BS to the people who use the science in the way you don`t like...The people who built the nukes weren`t the people who dropped them...

Science is like speech....either you have free speech or you don`t...there is no such thing as ``wholesome`` speech...free speech has some restrictions...just like there are restrictions in scientific research....

While I expected criticism of this article by sceptics, it seems that many chowkies are simply allergic to the mention of the word ``Islam`` or ``religion``.

Nevertheless there are many proofs of how religion leads to true and useful knowledge. However, these proofs will have to be dealt with in another series of articles, because before presenting such proofs, sceptics first need to be re-taught the language of religions, which is essentially the language of symbols.

Just like if one wants to understand the laws of physics (that describe only the physical universe), one must first learn quantitative math or else will not understand those physical laws, in the same way, if one wants to understand proofs presented by religion, one must first learn the language of symbols, which is essentially what all revealed scriptures teach, whether the scripture be the most ancient Upanishads or the most recent Qur`an. The cosmology I described in my article hints at only a few such symbols. My upcoming articles will shed more light on such topics.

It is amazing that readers not familiar with the concrete symbolic language of religions feel qualified to mount criticism on the subject. This is nothing but another example of modern extremism. While a major reason for this modern extremist thought is the decadent modern materialistic culture, part of the problem is also that such language is no longer taught in modern secularized schools. Many modern religious schools (including Islamic schools) have also axed this subject from curricula of madrassas without understanding that neglect of this science leaves many Islamic teachings (and religious teaching) often looking like empty shells.

The series of articles of which this was the first, aims to correct this neglect and bring out the inner meaning inherent in the signs of nature and in every religious dogma (religious dogma is itself a symbol). But I do not wish to ``conquer`` modern science in any kind of battle, as some of my critics have suggested here. My objective is only to appraise modern science for what it is (it has both positive and negative aspects but the negatives are greater) and remind people of more useful and beneficial modes of knowing, with God`s permission, Insha-allah.

Had it not been chowk`s editorial requirement, I would have hidden my identity. I wish to be known only through my writings and not through my personality. Nor am I presenting any thing new or original, but only reminding modern people of a forgotten mode of gaining knowledge that survived and thrived for several thousands of years before modern science destroyed it in only the last 150 years, thus marking the point at which human civilization on earth begins its final rapid decline (and ultimate dissolution). And God knows best.

Vivek & Amit #431: This is turning into an interesting disucssion. It is good to finally be able to discuss this in a mature manner, with someone.

I think people need to shoot for humanism, and not specifically for religionism or secularism, as a final goal. And accept the fact that neither secularism nor religionism has a monopoly on humanism. I think in practical terms this is what people do. For example, hardly anyone would pick a secular Saddam over a theocrat Sistani in Iraq. While a lot of people would consider a more secular Congress a better option than a non-secular BJP. There is no way to explain this phenomenon than to accept that under different conditions, differnt systems and invidiuals are prefered, by everyone, i.e. they set aside their absolutist positions on religion and secularism.......

``Gay marraige will not open the gates for accepting paeudophillia, but would require a major adjustment from society.``

I agree gay marriage will not open the doors to pedophillia. Since that is based on age, not sexual orientation. As long as the age rule is applied evenly to males and females of all religions, and sexual orientation, it will not violate secularism............

However, as you said there will be other major adjustments........

As stated earlier, gay marriage is the last unconquered frontier of secularism. Actually the issue is not gay marriage. That is just the catalyst. The real issue is the right of the State to define marriage on a religious basis. As it currently does. Once the State loses this right (which it should not have in the first place, if it is secular), then a lot of things will change.....

The core social structure of the society might change. Much like it changed when the law-making authority was taken away from the clergy. Other than religion, there is no other reason defining, marriage to be between an unrelated (or non-sibling) male and female.

This is what people are afraid of. What will happen if any adult can get into a union with any other adult? And the State is forced to treat it as equal. The main criteria being, what you do in your own bedroom is your own business. There is nothing biologically restricting such unions. And as long as they are in one`s own private life, why should the State worry about it. That will sound, ``sick`` to many people, but so does gay sex or inter-religion sex (at one point) or pre-marital sex (at one point).............

The other issue will be the affect on all govt. funded institutions. They will, by law, have to show gay and straight unions to be equally valid and correct options. Kids will have to be taught that Jack and Jill went up the hill, but so did Jack and Bill, and Jill and Jane. And they will have to be shown gay marriage as a viable, ``correct`` option equal to straight marriage.

Obviously, various individuals will object. Personally, I would not want my children to be taught that. However, that objection has a basis only in religion. Not in anything else. A gay couple has as much right as a straight couple or an inter-racial couple to have his views be taught as, ``correct.`` And not be dictated to by the religious beliefs of the majority. That is what secularism dictates.............

This is why gay marriage is the hottest topic in this debate in the West (just like Ahmedi issue and Shariah law is the hottest topic in this debate in Pakistan). Decisions on taking the State`s rights away in defining marriage, based on the Christian Biblical beliefs, will have huge impacts on society............way beyond just gay marriage......

And I have a strange feeling that, at this point, most of the secularists will turn religious, i.e. they will ban certain types of unions, based on their religious beliefs.........i.e. they will want some religion in their State, as they currently do..........

Re: # 434
Its a universal fact that human life-span has a finite limit on earth. This means humans must limit cultivation of knowledge only to what is useful and to what contributes to their goals.

The problem is that today we are unable to define what should be the goals for human society because we have been seduced by Darwin`s unsubstantiated theory of unending evolutionary progress which is essentially goal-less. Hence modern mentality is in pursuit of ``unlimited`` knowledge so much so that it is extremist and unbalanced.

Modern mentality is so extremist that it refuses to acknowledge the ``unseen`` world, which is more real than the physical world (although our dreams at night, which even atheists experience, are a small glimpse into this unseen world).

There are many proofs of the truth of religion, but will have to be dealt in another article, because before presenting such proofs, sceptics first need to be re-taught the language of religions, which is essentially the language of symbols. Just like if one wants to understand physical laws, one must first learn math or else she will deny physical laws, in the same way, if one wants to understand proofs presented by religion, one must first learn the language of symbols, which is essentially what all revealed scriptures teach, whether the scripture be the most ancient Upanishads or the most recent Qur`an. My upcoming articles will shed more light on such topics.

Re: # 188
You may want to read my responses to posts #15, #23, #32 to better understand my argument, which is directed at the claims of modern science. I am not proposing that the applications of science, that is, technology, has a religion. This would be absurd.

Re: # 136
ardeshir_haider,
Thanks for your comments. I am not disheartened by the negative comments and plan to continue writing on this subject, insha-allah.

I have also responded to posts #15, #23, #32 to further elaborate my argument.

Re: # 146
yes its the same Kamran Meer

Re: # 3
According to your logic, all knowledge must be ``bullshit``. Why do you then imbibe any knowledge at all?

Please read my responses to posts #15, #23, #32 to better understand my argument.

Vivek...

You are right....

Being religious people doesn`t mean the state that was designed by the founding fathers of the US was not secular. Very soon after the ratification of the constitution... America passed the first amendment forbidding the elevation of any religion above the other.

You have provided the answer to all the questions asked. It proves that Secularism almost without exception emerged out of homogenous societies.... and not societies where there were conflicting and warring groups.

Thus a religious nation can quite happily make a secular homeland i.e. Israel.

ayaan2002 #432,
There is no limits to science. Science defines its own boundaries. Just like the state should not define religion, religion should not try defining science.

PS: Romair...

I just read your cop out on the issue of the US Constitution...

I am still waiting for you to produce the word ``secular`` in the US constitution... or alternative declare it to be ``non-secular``.

The problem with you is that YOU never answer a direct question. Your ``statistics`` are always misleading and turn out to be concocted. If the 2/3rds people of Pakistan want to trample on the rights of minorities than it is the duty of every conscientious Pakistani to try and educate them. That bit escapes you doesn`t it...

I am still unable to understand what you have against having equal rights for all Pakistanis regardless of religion caste creed, gender ... and that means the access to the highest office in the land in theory.

Re: # 32
Amrita,
I am not a Luddite nor opposed to technological change. But I would like to limit the scope of technology only to useful or wholesome applications and eliminate killing machines that have proliferated in modern times. This can only be achieved by re-introducing principles of traditional religious sciences into the modern world.

There is also the all-important question of salvation in the life of the here-after. Modern science tells us there is no such thing. Traditional science will bring back this focus for humans because it is grounded in and believes in this crucial religious teaching. In short, I am in favor of traditional science because it can correct the errors modern science has fallen into.

Regarding your comment: ``And then - What happens when Islam comes across a scientific precept it is not willing to accept? Religions do that, you know. Who wins?``

My answer: The real question is, what are the limits to scientific knowledge? Religions (including Islam) deliver essential knowledge necessary for survival on this earth and in the hereafter. If people want to find new symbols to describe existing behavior (which is essentially what modern science does), they should be free to do so but such ``progress`` will always come at a cost which people must be aware of. The important thing is to know that modern science is ``correct`` only on its own plane, which is the limited plane of the physical, sensual and material.

Romair #429,
You are right about US law and religion. The founding fathers of USA were definitely religious, and interpreted law based on the bible. Thus USA is a secular nation but does have a religious connotation to it. In India unfortunately the state was constructed on an artificial basis negating religion.

Amit,
Gay marraige will not open the gates for accepting paeudophillia, but would require a major adjustment from society.

Romair...

Your theorizing about PTI, the PPP, the BJP and the Congress Party has one major problem... your basic definition of secularism that you apply in the first instance contradicts the definition you put up vis a vis Amit`s argument...

In any event ... Secularism simply means a separation of church and state, in my opinion.... and your definition of secularism is also close : exclusion of religion from the public space (an accurate definition that you don`t accurately interpret).

Now going by this definition... PTI is non-secular (especially since it defines itself as a Modern Islamic party)... but it is far more relatively secular than the ``Liberal Secular PPP``... consider.. PPP is responsible for the 1973 constitution which established Islam as a state religion, the council of Islamic Ideology, and 1974 amendment pertaining to the ``Ahmadiyya community``. So please do inform me how according to you PPP is secular and Liberal. PTI on the contrary stands for equal rights for all Pakistanis regardless of religion caste or creed... and considers for all practical purposes the 1974 amendment an aberration.

Similarly your definition of secular parties of India is problematic. First of all both the Congress Party and the BJP are more secular than any Pakistani party at present. But what is even more problematic is that if one goes by the defintions given above, BJP is actually more secular than the Congress. The Congress Party we know supports separate Muslim family Laws in India... and the BJP supports a secular uniform code for all Indians.
By your definition logically BJP should be secular... though its components are Hindu Nationalist... and the Congress Party is Non-secular despite the fact that it believes in Composite national identity of India.

And then you define the AKP of Turkey as an Islamist party akin to MMA ... even though AKP is completely committed to a separation of Church and state... and if anything they define themselves as Turkey`s version of Christian Democrat Party of Germany.

This is where you run into difficulty. You are thoroughly confused about secular and non-secular and what these words entail. Which is why you were unable to answer my challenge about the usage of the word ``secular`` in the Constitution of USA... The word secularism or secular are not used in the US Constitution, yet it is a completely secular document...

-YLH

Amit #423: ``On your second point, I do not see secularism as a negation of religion.``

This is correct. However, in my opinion, not completely correct. Here is why. And my explanation has nothing to do with my own personal opinion on the issue. I am just discussing it as a philosophy.......

Religions have two aspects (at least Islam does, my knowledge of other religions is limited): 1) private aspect 2) public aspect. Islam has laws that cover both. The Quran has injunctions on both personal and public life.

Secularism involves discarding the public laws, while keeping the personal laws. And replacing the public laws with man-made laws. In a sense, it is religion at the personal level, but athiesm at the public level. It expects the individual to accept that the public aspect of his/her religion is incomplete, inefficient, incorrect etc. to handle present day multi-relgious or scientifically advanced society. For a religious person, it demands that they accept the fact that their God did not get it right when he lay down the public aspects of their religion. Since they are now outdated........

They have to, thus, discard the x% (lets say 50%) of their religion that covers the public sphere. I am not saying they should not do that, if it is the only way to achieve humanism. But this is why certain countries, including Pakistan, have such high ratios of people who do not support secularism. Either they are just not concerned too much about non-Muslims. Or they think that they can provide non-Muslims equal rights (i.e. achieve humanism) through some interpretation of Islam, itself.......But prmiarily their relationship with Islam, does not easily allow them to discard x% of what they think is their God`s public laws........i.e. they cannot accept that their God was not quite able to lay down perfect public laws when he described the religion.............laws, which in their opinion, are for all time......i.e. they are unwilling to accept man-made laws at the public level, instead of religious laws....

``The problem with gay marriage is quite different from the rights of religious minorities. When religious minorities get equal rights, that does not diminish the rights of the majority. ``

This one I completely disagree with. Gay marriage is currently the defining battle between religious and secular thought in the West. Any kind of secularism diminishes the rights of the majority to some extent, i.e. they have to at least give up their right to use the public aspects of the their religion, in favor of a religious minority, by using man-made laws at the public level.

Gay marriage is the same.........

The only major area where the State is still mixed in with religion is marriage, in the West. As I stated, it is the last frontier, yet to be conquered by secularism. And its conquest will lead to major changes in Western societies, specifically at the family level. Perhaps equivalent to the changes that occured when man-made laws started replacing religious laws at the state level.

In a secular/religious debate, marriage is completely a religious phenomenon. It should have absolutely nothing to do with the State. It should be the private business of the individual. Yet the State defines it, legislates on it, gives tax breaks on it, tells you who can and cannot get married, etc. The State is legislating on a religious phenomenon, based on religious thought.......It is discriminating, based on the religious belief of the majority population.....

Under Secularism, whether the rights of the majority`s relgious or other type of beliefs are affected becomes immaterial. It is the minority rights that are more important. In fact the most important thing is that the State not get into religion to begin with, i.e. it secularize itself.

The wave in secular socieites is now towards allowing gay marriage. The USA is perhaps the only Western country where it is fiercely opposed. In Canada, it is legal at the State level, in some provinces, and should be legal at the Federal level, anytime........

You are correct that allowing gay marriage will open up the floodgates. The next thing to be legalized will be polygamy. There are already cases being prepared in Utah to legalize it at the federal level. Then who knows what. But if you take the religion out of the State, then marriage has to become an individual and personal affair. Because it is religious. In many USA states, marriage amongst cousins is illegal. While in Canada it is legal. And in Pakistan, it is the norm. All that will go away, once the State gets out of defining Marriage..........

This is one of the reasons, I do not consider myself secular. Because at a certain stage, I would have to mix up my beliefs, since I don`t belive in gay marriage. Specifically due to the floodgates it will open. At the same time, based on my religion, I believe in cousin marraiges being legal, even though many States have defined them illegal.

If you get a chance, do go to http://www.umanitoba.ca/faculties/arts/anthropology/tutor/marriage/usa-ncst.html and see how marriage law in the USA is designed. Much of it is directly interpreted from the Bible. Which is a mixing of State and Religion, obviously..............

If one is going to support secularism, then one has to believe in it as a philosophy. Not merely, as a way of sidelining the mullahs and BJP (or declaring Ahmedis Muslims etc.). One cannot support just those aspects of it, that one wants. This is specifically the thinking many poeple in Pakistan use, when they say, we are willing to give Christians equal rights, but not to Ahmedis. Similarly, people will say we are willing to give Ahmedis secular rights, but not to gays. One cannot stop half way, or make exceptions on when religion can be mixed with the state and when it cannot.