Islam and Science

This article is but old, and can be accessed here:

http://www.montrealmuslimnews.net/shafaat4.htm

The tone of the article is quite moderate compared to the typical "Islamic" articles. For example, unlike most of the"true believers", the author does not dismiss secular humanism as "devil's creation"; instead he begs it not to be taken as "the only way". He seems to be addressing "un-orthodox" audience.

This strict division between villains and heroes, as is often the case, proves to be mistaken under scrutiny. Thus one "orthodox villain" Ibn Taymiyah considered another "orthodox villain" al- Ghazali as misguided.

So what impact it has on the "orthodox" credentials of either IbnTaymiyah or Ghazali? "Orthodoxy" is hardly monolithic. "Orthodox" folks have strong divisions among themselves along confessional and sectarian lines but in spite of their mutual disputes, they DO share certain traits: authoritarianism, dogmatism, aversion torationality, patriarchal chauvinism, fear of diversity etc. Let's not go too far in history and take recent examples. Iran and Afghanistan (under Taliban) both were Islamic theocracies but they were at loggerheads and were about to go to war against each other.But their sectarian and political differences don't make any ofthem "un-orthodox".

The author claims that people like Ghazali and Allama Iqbal were not all opposed to rational methods and instead they widely employed rational methods in their discourses. He seems to miss the pointthat the "orthodox" don't reject rationality in toto, what theySTRONGLY reject is independence of rationality. Rationality, by itsvery definition, is opposed to authority. A "rationalist"concentrates at "what is that", not on "who said that". A "rationalist" entertains an argument based on facts and logic, not because they have been uttered by Mufti Einstein or Allama Stephen Hawking. On the other hand, the whole enterprise of "orthodoxy"rests on authority. What has been said by prophets and saints isimmutable and unchallengeable. You don't think first and conclude later, but you have a pre-determined faith-based conclusion in your mind and all you do is to seek rational justification for that.That's what is called "scholasticism". Scholasticism does not reject reason in toto, it rejects INDEPENDENCE of reason to seek facts. It is aimed at make rationality subservient to its belief-system.People like Iqbal and Ghazali were "scholastics", not "rationalists". Of course, Mu'tazilities were also not "rationalists" in modern sense but at least they were moving in the direction, which if left unhindered, would have established independence of rational thought in Muslim world.

The rationalists Mu'tazilites were in power when the "orthodox" Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal and others were tortured for their views on the nature of the Qur`an and eventually killed.

Yes, Mu'tazilities didn't prove to be beacons of tolerance either,but they remained in power only for a brief period during reign of Mamoon-ur-Rashid. Compare it with the long, long period "orthodoxy"had their share of power period -- before as well as after the reignof Mamoon.

Later, the "orthodox" were in power and they seized one Abd al- Sallam in whose house were found books on philosophy, witchcraft, astrology, cults of the stars, and prayers addressed to the planets. At least the orthodox did not physically torture him, much less kill him. They simply burnt the books in his possession.

Pretty generous of orthodoxy! There is an apocryphal account about Hitler that he killed/exiled some Jewish scientists but preserved their books. Our fundos did quite opposite. They preserved the man and burnt his books. Cool, cool!

BTW, this claim that "orthodoxy" didn't torture or kill thedissidents is not well-founded. Remember what they did to Mansur Hallaj? Al-Kindi was about to be "martyred" by a religious mob but was saved by the intervention of Caliph. Ibn Rushd, the greatSpanish philosopher who is often compared to Spinoza, was physically beaten by "true believers" at one time and later he was exiled and of course, his books were burnt. Burning books remains the favorite hobby of fundamentalists to this day.

Now comes the author's grudge against secularism. (Not unexpected,of course).

As for the list of the bloody battles in which followers of various religions have been involved, certainly secularism has not prevented people from similarly bloody wars.

Well, secular states can be war-mongering as well as pacifist,authoritarian as well as democratic but religious states are ALWAYS authoritarian. Yes, religion in its essence an authoritarianinstitution; it requires its followers to obey, not question its edicts. If you assign state the responsibility to enforce religion,then you get nothing but draconian authoritarianism in return. You can't have freedom of thought, freedom of religion, gender equality, and democratic pluralism in a religion-based state. Religion serves its purpose best ONLY when it is left up to common people to enforce its dictums in their personal lives. It has been proven as much from history as from present circumstances.

Islamic civilization, after its present ruin, will once again vibrate with life as an authentically Islamic civilization, not only overcoming some of its deep problems but also guiding humanity to a vastly better alternative to the existing world order.

Unfortuntaley the author does not provide any substantial evidence to support his claim. He is re-iterating the cliché I have listend to upteenth time, and have been listening to since my adolescence. I just need to say that actions speak louder than words and the proof of pudding is in the eating.