Bringing Muslims back to science

[Hawdian]

The most important rule in Islam is "judgment on anything is a branch of conceptualising it". To determine whether a belief can be accepted by a Muslim or not, this is the first and most often repeated principle. However, when it comes to matters scientific, this indispensable rule for correct judgment is paradoxically the most disregarded one.

 

Ever since the decline of the Islamic civilisation and the end of its Golden Age, Muslims have ironically taken up superstitious and irrational thinking habits they had previously dropped when they originally accepted the Message of Prophet Muhammad. The ideas that the sun could eclipse for the death of someone, that certain numbers have magical powers, or that birds flying in a certain direction indicates an omen of some kind were among superstitious beliefs explicitly pointed out by Prophet Muhammad and in verses in the Quran for their irrationality. Unfortunately, it seems that Muslims have gone full circle. Out of the top 20 countries in overall science output, Turkey is the sole Muslim representative, barely sneaking in at number 19.

 

Overly simplistic explanations of this phenomenon have pointed to Al-Ghazali (c 1058-1111), one of the most influential Muslim theologians. His work, The Incoherence of Philosophers, is cited for its negative impact on Muslim thinking. This, however, is a grave misrepresentation of Al-Ghazali, his attack on contemporary philosophers, and the Islamic civilisation as a whole.

 

Contrary to how it is popularly misconstrued, Al-Ghazali's attack against the philosophers was not an attack against science. The Incoherence is viewed as one that defended Islamic theology from what was considered an unjustified encroachment of science onto it. It is worthy to note here that although Al-Ghazali aimed to refute the turning of science into theology, he acknowledged empirically valid claims as such and did not prescribe for Muslims to ignore them.

 

 

As for the Muslim scientific and intellectual decline being attributed to Al-Ghazali, this claim is overly speculative and one-dimensional. No civilisation deserves to be called a civilisation, if the works of a single individual, regardless of who it is, can bring it crashing down. The decline of a civilisation is a complex process that is influenced by numerous factors. Oversimplification in this regard is disingenuous and can further a people's stagnation because it prevents proper assessment of where the problems lie.

 

The problem Muslims have with regard to the relationship between science and religion today is in their reliance on people who are not professional scientists or theologians. It is not uncommon to see Muslims rely on professional debaters to learn about science and the "Islamic" position on matters such as the theory of evolution. Furthermore, when they do direct their questions at scientists or theologians, most Muslim scientists and theologians do not respect the limits of their expertise and regularly speak of matters they know little about.

 

When Prophet Muhammad migrated to Medina, he moved from a business hub in Arabia to an agriculture-based society. He was not familiar with farming practices and upon observing how cross-pollination took place he voiced his wonder. Human intervention to manipulate outcomes in nature was counter-intuitive to him.

 

Most Muslim scientists and theologians do not respect the limits of their expertise and regularly speak of matters they know little about.

 

The companions misunderstood the Prophet's wonder to be a religious decree not to cross-pollinate their palm trees. Upon realising a very poor crop yield, they approached him to ask for a metaphysical reason. Prophet Muhammad's response was, "You know the affairs of your worldly matters better". In other words, the reasons for the poor crop yield are to be sought in physical practices.

 

It is a relatively modern phenomenon to see Muslims in mass turn Scriptural sources into scientific textbooks. In fact, a careful reading of traditional texts of Islamic theology would reveal to the reader that imposing a scientific interpretation on Scripture is a form of heresy. The consequences of such a practice will always be negative for Scripture not due to an inherent problem within it, but a problem with the reader.

 

What is desperately needed for modern Muslims is to come to terms with the fact that progress is not going to come from theological debates. Many spend their time in reproducing Christian apologetics as Muslim arguments, or attempting to "refute" that we evolved. What are currently perceived as conflicts between science and Islam are misguided constructs imposed by people who should not be engaged in these discussions in the first place.

 

It is ironic that Al-Ghazali, falsely accused for the decline of Islamic civilisation by superseding religion over science, warned against bringing religious discourse where it does not belong. He compared religious discourse to medicine, only needed in certain contexts, and scientific discourse to food, always needed for sustenance. If Al-Ghazali were around today, he would assert that Muslim religious discourse on matters scientific is poisonous, killing the scientific aspirations of the religious, and the religious aspirations of the scientists.

 

There is no such thing as an "Islamic" position on the validity of a scientific theory. In fact, scientific theories have no concern with any religious or non-religious positions on them. Empirically unsubstantiated claims, even if they sound perfectly logical, are not fully accepted until they survive the rigor of experimentation. No amount of philosophical refutations or Scriptural references will change facts. Scientific progress is not based on its congruency with Scripture, or whether the scientist believes or disbelieves in God. It is based on resolving conflicts between hypotheses and experimental data.

 

It may be difficult to accept for many Muslims that questions in science are areas of inquiry where one is not allowed to appeal to God. But this is a product of how they have been cognitively conditioned with regards to this issue. Ironically, some of the most spiritually elated people are scientists who identify themselves as atheists. This is because they do not approach science assuming they have all the answers.

 

The universe is truly magnificent, and for a religious person to appreciate it as a Creation in the broad sense of the word, they have to negate their presumptions. If there is an Islamic position on science, it is that when you do not invoke God as an explanation that His magnificence unfolds in your quest to understanding His Creation.

 

Mohamed Ghilan is a neuroscience PhD candidate at the University of Victoria, Canada, and a student of Islamic jurisprudence.

 

The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.

 

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/04/bringing-muslims-back-science-2014410113352736430.html

[Coofle]

dp

[Coofle]

Recently while watchin a documentary about Big bang theory, fellow Somalis denounced the idea suddenly!.. so is many Muslims around the world, some people even still believe the moon landing was staged by MAraykanka and Earth is flat by literally quoting Quran without the depth of understanding required to interpret....I presented a verse from the quran and explained to them although Islamic scholars do not completely agree with Hubbles law, there are similar notions mentioned in the quran about the creation of universe...

 

This is just one example of medieval ideas circulating among muslims. The biggest group to blame are the Muslim scholars, except for few most of them are irritated by the mention of science. A taabi' once said "Don't live beside a reciter! , If I say something that pleases for he will kill me and If I recite with beauty he will envy"... point is scholars should start encouraging the muslims to pursue knowledge not the other way.

[Tallaabo]

How can the Muslims get past the elephant in the room- the theory of evolution by natural selection, before we can think about anything else? Is there a logical way for us to refute this very convincing scientific idea which is gaining evidence by the day?

[Allyourbase]

<cite>

@Coofle

said:</cite>

Recently while watchin a documentary about Big bang theory, fellow Somalis denounced the idea suddenly!.. so is many Muslims around the world, some people even still believe the moon landing was staged by MAraykanka and Earth is flat by literally quoting Quran without the depth of understanding required to interpret....I presented a verse from the quran and explained to them although Islamic scholars do not completely agree with Hubbles law, there are similar notions mentioned in the quran about the creation of universe...

 

This is just one example of medieval ideas circulating among muslims

. The biggest group to blame are the Muslim scholars, except for few most of them are irritated by the mention of science. A taabi' once said

"Don't live beside a reciter! , If I say something that pleases for he will kill me and If I recite with beauty he will envy"

... point is scholars should start encouraging the muslims to pursue knowledge not the other way.

 

Well, if they follow a medieval text then there is no escaping the pollution of medieval ideas I am afraid

 

<cite>

@Tallaabo

said:</cite>

How can the Muslims get past the elephant in the room- the theory of evolution by natural selection, before we can think about anything else? Is there a logical way for us to refute this very convincing scientific idea which is gaining evidence by the day?

 

There is no passing that. You either completely 'submit' to science or you dont.

[Abu-Salman]

 

 

the moon landing was staged by MAraykanka and Earth is flat by literally quoting Quran without the depth of understanding required to interpret

 

 

That happened to me too, and was declared "misguided", bullied for a while; still, the more learned or cautious replied to them, as they trust him, that there is another interpretation to this "Earth flatness".

Thus, the issue is the ignorance and therefore the critical thinking applied to how to understand the stillness or expansiveness of Earth; besides the very concept of movement is a relative one as an object movement or stillness vary according to the reference frame in basic physics (eg, a train is not moving if the reference is another train at similar speed or the passenger inside etc...).

 

Regardless, it's often misunderstood that science does not equal truth but a constant struggle to have more accurate, encompassing theories albeit how evident flaws may be.

For instance, at the most basic level, how coorect is Newton mechanics now that quantum mechanics theories are available? What to do about epigenetics now that traditional genetics seems more and more grossly naive, with genes expression moduled by the environmental context rather than being fixed once and for all?

 

The fact that Atheism gained ground in some ccountries at certain times of anti clergy sentiment (feudal exploitation and other abuses linked to the church etc) or that others could be more "scientific yet much more deeply "religious" is not a coincidence (eg, French revolutionaries compared to the current USA, still deeply Christian) is by no means a coincidence.

 

Ideally, one would be equally litterate in science and religion, but being aware of the uncertain and temporary nature of scientific theories as well as the cultural context (science does not happen in a vaccuum but within the prevalent culture taht set its focus, priorities and paradigms) just like religious learning require scholarship (eg, Aramaic, Hebrew etc to study both testaments or ancient texts).

 

 

 

[Khayr]

 

 

But this is a product of how they have been cognitively conditioned with regards to this issue. Ironically, some of the most spiritually elated people are scientists who identify themselves as atheists. This is because they do not approach science assuming they have all the answers.

 

What does term cognitively conditioned mean?

 

- It denotes that someone lacks cognitive freedom i.e. Intellectual freedom

 

- It means that muslims are "backwards" in thinking by holding on to "medieval" ideas

[pre-evolution era]

 

- It means that muslims are anti-intellect.

 

- It means that muslims have not adopted modern norms and values.

 

As if the "google"'crowd haven't been conditioned to accept what google search gives them

on the first page of a query.