Islam and the History of Science
Mohammad Omar Farooq, PhD
May 2001
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.Introduction
The Denial and the Acknowledgment
The Arab/Muslim Confusion
The Western Debt to Islam
Reflections on some misconceptions
From those trailblazing Muslim scientists/philosophers
The Inspiration Factor - Let's ask Ibn KhaldunFor quite some time, I have not responded to any messages from Mr. Masudur Rahman. Most often, I don't quite understand his kind of logic. Some of you might remember in this context my earlier write-up Destination: Sense vs. Non-Sense on this forum. That I very frequently fail to understand his kind of logic is probably my own inability and failure. For examples, Taleban's coercive enforcement and prosecution in regard to the Hijab issue is wrong, with which the vast majority of Muslims, including myself, agree; however, using his kind of logic and rationality, he can easily rationalize the coercive enforcement and prosecution of Hijab-wearing women in a Muslim-majority country under secular fundamentalist regime of Turkey. Breaking statues is Afghanistan is wrong, and the vast majority of Muslims in the world agree; however, the Qur'an-burning is not of the same level or kind of wrongdoing, according to his kind of logic and analysis.
Most of us do know that there are variations in kind and degree of wrongdoing. However, when someone's kind of logic seems to have a consistent pattern that so easily find wrong with Islam and Muslims, and yet so adept at rationalizing almost everything that Muslims find hurtful and discriminatory, is disturbing at best. I have pointed out this pattern before and there is no point in dwelling on this at greater length.
In his most recent message "Re: Standard and Islam", in response to Dr. Al-Faruque (there are now quite a few active authors of varying spelling 'Farooq' on this forum - myself 'Farooq', Dr. Al-Faruque at Stanford University, and Mahmud Farooque.), Mr. Rahman made some compelling comments that prompted me to hit the keyboard. Instead of dealing with so many of his points separately, there are a few key areas that I would like to focus on in this series, which will be reinforced with some articles of others. Anyone who wishes to comments on this series, I hope would be conscientious enough to go through those readings first.
In regard to Dr. Faruque's mentioning of names such as Khwarizmi, Ibn Sina, al-Farabi, al-Hawazin, al-Biruni, Banu Musa, Mr. Rahman wrote: "All the names mentioned above, were scientists and scholars by dint of theor critical mind and thinking, being inspired by Greek, Indian and Babylonian civilizations. It was not DUE to Islam that their talent flourished and shone. There is no Islamic gene. Rather their achievements can be characterized as DESPITE Islam. ... All these scientists, physicians were champions of reason and critical thinking, they never credited the scripture for their success or for inspiration. ... It is well known that talents thrive in an open atmosphere, when no divine restrictions are imposed on the pursuit of knowledge." [all emphases are of Mr. Rahman, unless especially noted]
Indeed, every single sentence in the above excerpt represents one of the two possibilities: either these opinions are uninformed (the best possible scenario) or these are prejudiced (worse possible scenario). For the benefit of doubt, I will assume the best possible scenario. I am being candid (more appropriately, blunt) in my suggested scenarios because this is not the first time we have encountered similar statements and assertions from him. As in the past, I am committed to stand corrected, improve my own knowledge and understanding, and publicly acknowledge so, if warranted.
I am not "dumbfounded" any more at such comments from Mr. Rahman, as this is his line of thinking and views. As much "preaching" as we hear about logic, rationality, objectivity, science, empiricism and so on in each of his messages, unfortunately, little do we see in terms of improvement in terms of the learning curve, which is partly explained probably by a fundamental lack of self-scrutiny (i.e., challenging one's own preconceived notions, biases and dogmas - even in the garb of "scientific", "rational", "free-thinking" spirit, etc). Our love and hatred should be informed. Otherwise, devotees of certain idea/view/faith/philosophy/theories can be entrapped in their own blind alley. The same is true about those who harbor uninformed animosity. Thus, blind followers of religions, including Islam, can cause a great deal of harm to themselves and also to the society. The same is true about those do not believe in religions, or those who harbor antipathy toward religion(s), whether inspired or guided by secularism or scientism. Uninformed love or hatred can become a terrible breeding ground for prejudice.
Another problem of these lovers of religions and uninformed haters of religion is that they rarely do their homework. Thus, one might say that the value of doing homework might be learned after the first time or the second time or the third time or the fourth time (by time, I mean the opportunities of exchanges we had and the reminder of self-scrutiny/homework), but how unfortunate is that so many among us - followers of religions and followers of secularism/science/rationalism - seem to be frozen in their dogmatic frame of mind.
Otherwise, one would expect that at least those who claim to have scientific bent of mind, should be more careful (or at least, learn to be more careful) in not making global, illicitly-generalized, unfounded and uninformed statements. It not only disserves the cause of science, it also has other harmful effects and implications that I hope to highlight in this series.
Last year when I applied for tenure, I sought a letter of reference from Dr. Thomas Hockey, an American professor of Astronomy, a non-Muslim, from another university to shed some light on my non-academic/community services with which he was familiar. He knew me as a Muslim and a Bangladeshi. Quite enthusiastically he wrote a letter addressed to the personnel committee. Generally speaking, many among us from Muslim background don't really feel very comfortable or secure about public knowledge of our faith and convictions. In my case, of course, my university knows me well. Yet, I was quite surprised at the very last sentence of his letter. "If it was not for Islam, the West might yet linger in the dark ages." I wasn't sure how the personnel committee deciding about my tenure would take this unsolicited statement, but, regardless, I was personally gratified for the whole thing. The tenure process went smoothly, and some of his observations, including the sentence I have quoted, stuck to my mind.
Is Professor Hockey's observation an isolated, uninformed, unfounded exaggeration? I won't answer in yes or no. I hope to deal with some pertinent aspects on the basis of which readers can decide for themselves. In deciding to write this series, my purpose is not to educate anyone else, but I felt that I could use some self-education as my own substantive reading of this particular subject has been more than fifteen years ago, and this would give me an opportunity to add, upgrade or improve my own knowledge and understanding of this subject. Thus, if there is something beneficial for others to learn or benefit, that would be simply serendipitous. [Note: I won't respond to any reply to this series until I have completed the series.]
Since I would like to keep each part of this series within a reasonable length, I would touch upon only one aspect of Mr. Rahman's uninformed assertion in this part.
"Rather their achievements can be characterized as DESPITE Islam."
I would deal with those names of the classical period in a later part. Let me first acknowledge the stagnation in the Muslim world, particularly in the field of science and technology. More than any other factor, the reasons for such stagnation is internal to the Muslim society, especially due to orthodoxy, imitative thought, traditionalism, and fundamental disconnect with the nature. But just like Islamic traditionalism or orthodoxy is a version of Islam, NOT Islam itself, so is the scientific/rationalist heritage of Islam. Mu'tazilites were not giving an intellectual hard-time to the A'sharites because Mu'tazilites considered themselves outside the pale of Islam. Rather their challenge was motivated as well as guided from within Islam, enriched by everything else in the world (note: this seeking of the enrichment from the world-shelf was also inspired by Islam). I will elaborate on this issue later. For my views in regard to science, technological change, rationality/reasoning, critical thinking, etc., readers may read some of my scattered articles written for general readership:
1. Mind-Building: A Neglected Dimension of the Prophetic Heritage
2. Change and Continuity: The Dynamics of Institutional Behavior in Islam
3. Cat's Eye or Red Rose: What's in a Name?So, Mr. Rahman thinks that the achievements of all those people, Al-Biruni, Khwarizmi, Ibn Rushd, Ibn Sina and so on "can be characterized as DESPITE Islam"? Let me begin with our contemporary time when there is a serious and fundamental disconnect between Muslim societies and science/technology. Yet, even now, there are people of highest scientific echelon whose life, works and words categorically repudiate such views.
Let's take the case of Professor Abdus Salam, the Nobel Laureate in physics. L. Wolpert and A Richards quote Prof. Salam in their book A Passion for Science [1988] as cited in Hutchinson Family Encyclopedia, "One eighth of the Koran is an exhortation to the believers to study nature and to find the signs of God in the phenomena of nature." [Link]
Mr. Rahman might like to read the short biography of Prof. Salam at the site of Nobel Laureates as the entire world knows about the Islamic root and mooring of Prof. Salam and his scientific bent. "Abdus Salam is known to be a devout Muslim, whose religion does not occupy a separate compartment of his life; it is inseparable from his work and family life. He once wrote: 'The Holy Qur'an enjoins us to reflect on the verities of Allah's created laws of nature; however, that our generation has been privileged to glimpse a part of His design is a bounty and a grace for which I render thanks with a humble heart.'" [http://www.nobel.se/physics/laureates/1979/salam-bio.html]
During his visit to OIC's Research Center for Islamic History, Art and Culture (November 6, 1986), Prof. Salam made the following comments (emphases are mine) to rekindle the scientific spirit among the younger generation:
"It is a great experience to discover kindred souls with similar ideas but worked out in a scholarly way on the history of scientific thought of Islam. May Allah bless your work and it may succeed even more ... May your work spur the younger generation to emulate their distant past and engage in developing sciences today." [http://www.ircica.org/views%20and%20impressions.htm]
One of the major problems of reading selective materials of our choices is that our information and understanding become fragmented and myopic - just like we have seen in the case of Nazrul, where people have the habit of making statements based on uninformed impressions, rather than on knowledge and study of Nazrul in his own words. [We had a similar exchange on this last year, involving Mr. Rahman's comments.] Mr. Rahman invited others to read an "excellent essay" of Parvez Hoodboy. I wholeheartedly concur that the readers read that article, but also read another of Parvez Hoodboy's essay "ENCOUNTERS WITH SALAM", where Hoodboy wrote: "Sometime in the 80's he [Salam] began signing himself as "Mohammed Abdus Salam". At the one level he sought peace, tranquility, and inspiration in contemplation and prayer. He became persuaded that the Holy Qur'an demands man to seek scientific truth, and that man has been uniquely empowered to solve the deep mysteries of the universe."
So, achievements of these people "... can be characterized as DESPITE Islam"? Just like religious dogmatism tends to flatten this not-so-flat earth, it seems that there are other kind of uninformed dogmatism that flattens the not-so-flat history of science in Islam. In the next part, we will deal with the fact that the way religion was interwoven (non-compartmentalized) in the life, thought and works of Prof. Abdus Salam, it was NO DIFFERENT in the works of earlier Muslim scientists.
II. The Denial and the AcknowledgmentI mentioned about Prof. Thomas Hockey's statement - "If it was not for Islam, the West might yet linger in the dark ages" - merely to illustrate that there are even otherwise-ordinary academicians here who know and conscientiously as well as eagerly acknowledges the debt the modern West owes to Islam. But that would be purely anecdotal. Won't it? I hope no one thinks that I am using it as a corroborating evidence or argument for anything. Rather, except what can be produced directly from the works of those great Muslim scientists in reference to their lives and works, assertions of anyone like me, Mr. Rahman, or Prof. Hockey is hardly of any meaningful weight.
In this series I will attempt to produce pertinent materials directly from the works of these great people. However, first let me move this discussion from ordinary academicians, like me or Prof. Hockey, who are not from the field or specialization in history or history of science, to those who are authorities in this field.
One needs to recognize the historical context that there has been a strong trend in the West, particularly among the Orientalists, to deny the fundamental and critical debt of the West to Islam. Many of them have a tendency to directly trace the root of the Western Civilization to the Greco-Roman civilization as there was hardly anything worthy mentioning in between, such as Islamic civilization. Those who are somewhat "generous", might passingly mention the role of the Muslim or Arab "translators" of the original works from the Greek and Roman civilizations. Then, there are others, who could not really honestly avoid the acknowledgement of the intervening civilization or its contribution, but they would simply assert that there was nothing "Islamic" or "Muslim" about it. That's what is echoed in statements, such as: "All the names mentioned above, were scientists and scholars by dint of their critical mind and thinking, being inspired by Greek, Indian and Babylonian civilizations." Not only no need to mention the name or role of Islam, but also a straightforward denial! Al-Biruni, Ibn Sina, Al-Khwarizmi - ALL inspired by ONLY "Greek, Indian and Babylonian civilizations"! Islam had NOTHING to do with it! Even a "no comment" from me here would be redundant. And, such is also done in the name of "critical thinking", "scientific spirit", "objectivity" and so on.
In this part, let us take a look at the perspectives and views from some of the foremost authorities in the world pertaining to this subject. How about if we begin with George Sarton? Being informed about people like him is critically valuable as he is regarded as the father of a new field, "history of science" and identified with a new philosophy he introduced: 'The New Humanism'. "In 1960, the History of Science Society, under the auspices of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) established the George Sarton Memorial Lecture", which honored many a notable people as the Memorial Lecturers, including Thomas Kuhn. [see the work of Eugene Garfield, the editor of The Scientist magazine; http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/essays/v8p248y1985.pdf].
According to Tore Frängsmyr and John L. Heilbron in Uppsala Studies in History of Science, "George Sarton (1884–1956) the Belgian polymath ... did more than anyone else to establish the history of science as a respectable academic discipline." [http://www.shpusa.com/books/hosahoc.html] He is proudly quoted by the atheists too [http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/quote-s1.htm]. [Incidentally, I had the privilege of reading one of his books Life of Science - I think that's the one - in its Bangla translation, more than twenty years ago before coming to the U.S.] His monumental work The History of Science, which was to be completed in nine volumes, but did not get completed due to his untimely death, was what earned him the status and the recognition as the father of "history of science". It came out as Introduction to the History of Science. Need I say more about the kind of credential he carried in his field - or actually, the field he fathered?
Well, what does/did he have to say about the role of Islam/Muslims in the history of science as well as the development of the modern West? I invite everyone to read at least his "Introduction to the History of Science" [Krieger Publishing, 1975]. Actually, I am kidding when I am inviting you to read this. This Introduction is merely 4358 pages [no typos]. But even browsing through it can be deeply enlightening and enriching. Now, what did he say/write? Let me produce here some relevant excerpts.
From George Sarton in the "Introduction to the History of Science"
[emphases are mine]
"During the reign of Caliph Al-Mamun (813-33 A.D.), the new learning reached its climax. The monarch created in Baghdad a regular school for translation....""The Muslim ideal was, it goes without saying, not visual beauty but God in His plentitude; that is God with all his manifestations, the stars and the heavens, the earth and all nature. The Muslim ideal is thus infinite. But in dealing with the infinite as conceived by the Muslims, we cannot limit ourselves to the space alone, but must equally consider time.
"The first mathematical step from the Greek conception of a static universe to the Islamic one of a dynamic universe was made by Al-Khwarizmi (780-850), the founder of modern Algebra. He enhanced the purely arithmetical character of numbers as finite magnitudes by demonstrating their possibilities as elements of infinite manipulations and investigations of properties and relations.
"In Greek mathematics, the numbers could expand only by the laborious process of addition and multiplication. Khwarizmi's algebraic symbols for numbers contain within themselves the potentialities of the infinite. So we might say that the advance from arithmetic to algebra implies a step from being to 'becoming' from the Greek universe to the living universe of Islam. The importance of Khwarizmi's algebra was recognized, in the twelfth century, by the West, - when Girard of Cremona translated his theses into Latin. Until the sixteenth century this version was used in European universities as the principal mathematical text book. But Khwarizmi's influence reached far beyond the universities. We find it reflected in the mathematical works of Leonardo Fibinacci of Pissa, Master Jacob of Florence, and even of Leonardo da Vinci."
"Through their medical investigations they not merely widened the horizons of medicine, but enlarged humanistic concepts generally. And once again they brought this about because of their overriding spiritual convictions. ... If it is regarded as symbolic that the most spectacular achievement of the mid-twentieth century is atomic fission and the nuclear bomb, likewise it would not seem fortuitous that the early Muslim's medical endeavor should have led to a discovery that was quite as revolutionary though possibly more beneficent."
"A philosophy of self-centredness, under whatever disguise, would be both incomprehensible and reprehensible to the Muslim mind. That mind was incapable of viewing man, whether in health or sickness as isolated from God, from fellow men, and from the world around him. It was probably inevitable that the Muslims should have discovered that disease need not be born within the patient himself but may reach from outside, in other words, that they should have been the first to establish clearly the existence of contagion."
"One of the most famous exponents of Muslim universalism and an eminent figure in Islamic learning was Ibn Sina, known in the West as Avicenna (981-1037). For a thousand years he has retained his original renown as one of the greatest thinkers and medical scholars in history. His most important medical works are the Qanun (Canon) and a treatise on Cardiac drugs. The 'Qanun fi-l-Tibb' is an immense encyclopedia of medicine. It contains some of the most illuminating thoughts pertaining to distinction of mediastinitis from pleurisy; contagious nature of phthisis; distribution of diseases by water and soil; careful description of skin troubles; of sexual diseases and perversions; of nervous ailments."
"We have reason to believe that when, during the crusades, Europe at last began to establish hospitals, they were inspired by the Arabs of near East....The first hospital in Paris, Les Quinze-vingt, was founded by Louis IX after his return from the crusade 1254-1260."
"We find in his (Jabir, Geber) writings remarkably sound views on methods of chemical research, a theory on the geologic formation of metals (the six metals differ essentially because of different proportions of sulfur and mercury in them); preparation of various substances (e.g., basic lead carbonatic, arsenic and antimony from their sulfides)."
Ibn Haytham's writings reveal his fine development of the experimental faculty. His tables of corresponding angles of incidence and refraction of light passing from one medium to another show how closely he had approached discovering the law of constancy of ratio of sines, later attributed to snell. He accounted correctly for twilight as due to atmospheric refraction, estimating the sun's depression to be 19 degrees below the horizon, at the commencement of the phenomenon in the mornings or at its termination in the evenings."
"A great deal of geographical as well as historical and scientific knowledge is contained in the thirty volume meadows of Gold and Mines of Gems by one of the leading Muslim Historians, the tenth century al Mas'udi. A more strictly geographical work is the dictionary 'Mujam al-Buldan' by al-Hamami (1179-1229). This is a veritable encyclopedia that, in going far beyond the confines of geography, incorporates also a great deal of scientific lore."
"They studied, collected and described plants that might have some utilitarian purpose, whether in agriculture or in medicine. These excellent tendencies, without equivalent in Christendom, were continued during the first half of the thirteenth century by an admirable group of four botanists. One of these Ibn al-Baitar compiled the most elaborate Arabic work on the subject (Botany), in fact the most important for the whole period extending from Dioscorides down to the sixteenth century. It was a true encyclopedia on the subject, incorporating the whole Greek and Arabic experience."
"'Abd al-Malik ibn Quraib al-Asmai (739-831) was a pious Arab who wrote some valuable books on human anatomy. Al-Jawaliqi who flourished in the first half of the twelfth century and 'Abd al-Mumin who flourished in the second half of the thirteenth century in Egypt, wrote treatises on horses. The greatest zoologist amongst the Arabs was al-Damiri (1405) of Egypt whose book on animal life, 'Hayat al-Hayawan' has been translated into English by A.S.G. Jayakar (London 1906, 1908)."
"The weight of venerable authority, for example that of Ptolemy, seldom intimidated them. They were always eager to put a theory to tests, and they never tired of experimentation. Though motivated and permeated by the spirit of their religion, they would not allow dogma as interpreted by the orthodox to stand in the way of their scientific research."
George Sarton also writes in detail in his Introduction to the History of Science about Razi as "the greatest physician of Islam and the Medieval Ages."
I hope the readers, the conscientious ones, who do not mind calling a spade "spade" and recognizing people in an unprejudiced manner for their contribution, regardless of their background and convictions, would find this information helpful. Indeed, the father of "history of science" goes further in an eye-opening fashion in the ACKNOWLEDGEMENT of the Western debt to Islam and the Muslim world.
"[T]he foundations of science were laid for us by the Mesopotamian civilizations, whose scholars and scientists were their priests, and to them we owe foundations of medicine, navigation, astronomy and some mathematics. The second development came through the Greeks as taught in the traditional way in Western schools and colleges. The third stage of development, however is to be credited to the dazzling rise of Islam, whose Abbasid caliphs drank avidly at the foundation of the ancient Persian and Hindu as well as Greek sources of knowledge. For nearly four hundred years Islam led the world of science. From Spain to India, the great body of past knowledge was exchanged between her scholars and the torch carried forward with new discoveries. Scholars of Christendom from about the eleventh through the thirteenth century, were mainly occupied with translating books from Arabic to Latin. Thus, Islam paved the way for the renaissance which in turn led to science's fourth great development in the modern western world".
[quoting George Sarton from his book Life of Science, Ayers Publication, 1977, http://www.markaz.org/conference/page/meet-HR.html]George Sarton, in his quest for establishing the new field, "history of science", held the view: "The past cannot be separated from the present without grievous loss. The present without the past is insipid and meaningless; the past without the present is obscure. The life of science, like the life of art, is eternal, and we must view it from the point of view of eternity." [The Scientist, December 12, 1993; http://www.the-scientist.com/yr1993/dec/comm_931213.html]
Any attempt to create a disconnect between the past and the present and to deny the undeniable of the history is most unfortunate. The comments of Mr. Rahman that prompted me to write this series were offending because those uninformed and unfounded comments were being presented as more than "informed", while it was not. He was staking categorical claims with emphasis that Islam had nothing to do with those great people, while it is Islam that inspired and produced this most extraordinary group of people. Yes, they imbibed knowledge and wisdom from the entire world shelf. But that exactly is the guidance of Islam too. The Prophet Muhammad said: "Hikmah (wisdom; philosophy; rationale) is the lost treasure of a believer. Wherever one finds, one should avail it." [Sunan Ibn Majah, #4169] And, yes, those Muslims who understood and appreciated this aspect did avail without any bias or prejudice against the world shelf, whether Greek, Indian or Babylonian civilizations. Muslim world is facing a stagnation now (and since several centuries) and it needs to be overcome. Through such uninformed, unfounded and biased assertions we definitely do not further any positive cause other than reinforcing stereotyped viewpoints and prejudices. I will deal with this in more detail in another part.
Just in case, someone harbors the notion that the view of George Sarton might be an isolated case, we will have platefuls to dispel such notion. By the way, what I call homework is, of course, reading/research of ordinary people like us. George Sarton was a scholar of most extraordinary capability and commitment. "Sarton also knew some Hebrew, Chinese and Portuguese, and was familiar with Latin and Greek. He was fluent in French, English, German, Italian, Dutch, Flemish, Swedish, Danish, Turkish and Spanish." What kind of original work really could he produce and how first-hand such research of Sarton could be? Eugene Garfield, the editor of The Scientist, informs us: "During the course of his labors on the Introduction, Sarton found his work hampered by his lack of knowledge of Arabic. Spending the academic year 1931-32 in the Near East, he eventually taught himself the classical and modern Arabic." [http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/essays/v8p248y1985.pdf] In Bangladeshi context, this would be like learning the language of the Mullahs and the Madrasahs!
III. The Arab/Muslim ConfusionThe assessment and appreciation of Islam and its role in the emergence of the modern West by George Sarton is not unique. This issue is important for Muslims as well as non-Muslims. For Muslims it is important because they need to understand the dynamics of rise and fall of nations to which Muslims are and were not immune. The primary factors behind the decline of the Muslim world were internal, even though there were external, competitive forces at work in causing the shift of the center of civilization. For non-Muslims it is important to recognize and understand that the modern west did not emerge in a vacuum. Even though there were military conflicts between the world of Islam and the west, there were deeper factors that were positively received and utilized by the west not only to reconnect itself to the Greco-Roman root, but also to imbibe fundamentally important and pivotal contributions of Muslims.
Anyone who suggests that "Islam (through its practice in most of history), did act as antithesis of modernity" is simply not informed about this issue. If someone would like to say that those among Muslims who represent the dogmatic or traditional side act as antithesis of modernity, or if someone would say (instead of, their achievements can be characterized as DESPITE Islam) that the achievements of the great Muslim scientists can be characterized as DESPITE the traditional/dogmatic segments among Muslims, then it would altogether different and perfectly valid. But that was not the way it has been stated, and now there is a desperate effort to wiggle out of the earlier assertion, which can be amended by simply acknowledging that the earlier statement was not what the author meant and should state what exactly meant. When some general statement is made referring to Islam, without identifying the dogmatic/traditional and rationalist/scientific segment WITHIN Islam, then it would be taken and understood as general.
Anyway, when Islam led the world, it led the process of modernity too. When it was weakened by the stranglehold of the orthodoxy and other internal factors, it could not compete with the newer leaders of modernity. Of course, modernity should not be (mis)understood here as everything new, because everything new does not mean good or better. Also, the fact that Islam was not an anti-thesis of modernity is not based on one's interpretation of "the Islamic scriptures in [one's] favoured way". It is a historical fact, recognized even by the western scholars.
In this context, I would like to clear up another confusion. Those who can't think about Islam without thinking it as "Arab imperialism" would never understand why the British imperialism did not survive in the subcontinent and the people - almost invariably - regard it even now as no less than imperialism. Yet, at the same time many Muslims probably do not even remember that this part of the world - the subcontinent - was not always Islamic. Thus, people can harbor all sort of misunderstandings as exemplified in the comments of Mr. Rahman, based on, once again, biased "impressions".
In the last twenty years in America, living in a pluralistic society where even Muslims face pluralism within their own, I myself have experienced some "fringe" cases that might have regarded non-Arab Muslims as less than the Arab Muslims. But consistently I have experienced, people from Morocco to Bahrain, from Egypt to Yemen, they have treated non-Arabs as no less. Indeed, such confusion and misunderstanding are probably another prejudicial impression based on lack of interaction with the Muslim community. The fact of the matter is that in eight different Muslim communities that I have lived in, interestingly, Bangladeshi Muslims have been at leadership role in various capacity in seven out of those eight communities. I have also visited 50+ communities in 24+ states in the U.S. as guest speakers. Almost invariably, these invitations were arranged through Bangladeshi or non-Arab contacts. Therefore, using "fringe" examples to make gross and prejudicial generalizations seems to be quite common among some authors, even though they can quickly list ten different fallacies in others' writings.
Indeed, most of those prominent Muslim scientists were not Arabs. Let's take a look at these: al-Khwarizmi (Uzbekistan); al-Tabari (Tabristan); al-Razi (Tehran); al-Farabi (Turkistan); al-Biruni (Khwarizm, Uzbekistan); Ibn Sina (Bukhara, Central Asia); al-Ghazzali (Khorman, Iran); Ibn Rushd (Cordoba, Spain) and so on. Even in the area of Hadith, one of the canonical foundations of Islam, the leading Imams were from non-Arab parts of the world. The two most respected Hadith compilers, Imam Bukhari and Imam Muslim, were non-Arabs from Uzbekistan and Nishapur respectively. These were not people conquered by Arab imperialism that forced them to adopt Arabic as their language of scholarship. Well, in a sense they were conquered - their hearts were conquered such that they wrote almost everything in Arabic. When al-Biruni did end up in India, imbued with the dynamic and the winning spirit and attitude of Islam, he learned Sanskrit and wrote books on Indian history, while many others learnt Greek and other languages
Thus, this Arab-Islam issue is a confusion in many minds of which there is another important aspect. Even though in the past two centuries, there has been new impetus to talk about Arabism and Arab civilization, history does not really record any separate Arab civilization either before the advent of Muhammad (p) or after. Of course, once the leadership of the Muslim world shifted from Arabs to non-Arabs, in recent centuries, there has been emphasis on the Arab/non-Arab issue, which was accentuated by the Arab secularists. Yet, there is is/was really no separate Arab civilization. Thus, many references in the books of history of Islam, of Arab world or of history of science and Islam, Arabs and Muslims appear interchangeably. Many of those great scientists and scholars might be confused as Arabs because they wrote in Arabic and were inspired by (according to some ethocentrists) the greatest of all Arabs, Muhammad (p). Quite fortunately, this "greatest of all Arabs" to some, nipped Arabism in the bud, when in his famous farewell sermon of the last Hajj proclaimed: "There is no superiority of Arabs over non-Arabs, or non-Arabs over Arabs." One can call it anything else since then, but not Arab imperialism. Of course, people still can use such characterization, but that may be due to the fact that they HAVE an objective, not because they ARE objective.
This universalism was not in words, but in deeds. Shattering all the foundations of such tribalism, racism or ethnicism, he appointed the freed Ethiopian black slave Bilal as the Muazzin of the mosque in Madinah.The Salman of Isfahan, Persia (Salman al-Farsi) was one of the leading companions of the Prophet, who played critical role as a military advisor in the battle of Trenches. Shuyaib, a slave who grew up in Byzantine background (Shuyaib ar-Rumi - of Rome) became a leading personality of the Muslim society. In this egalitarianism and pluralism was buried Arabism or any potential for a separate Arab civilization.
This is such a basic fact about the history of Islam and Muslims/Arabs, yet so easily confused or misunderstood. Thus, commenting on physicist-philosopher Pierre Duhem's suggestion that "There is no Arabian science", David Lindberg, professor of history of science at the University of Wisconsin, Madison alerts the readers in parenthesis: "There is no Arabian (read "Islamic") science." [The Beginnings of Western Science, University of Chicago Press, 1992, p. 175] To realize how interchangeably Arabs/Arabians and Muslims are used, the next sentence of Duhem is enough. After saying, "There is no Arabian science", Duhem continues, "The wise men of Mohammedanism were ...". We know what is Mohammedanism. Don't we?
In regard to the anti-modernity characterization, George Sarton would beg to differ with Mr. Rahman. The very same group of people, about whom Sarton said "Though motivated and permeated by the spirit of their religion...", he also had something to say about their "modernity." "The best Arabic [remember to read Muslim or Islamic] scientists were not satisfied with the Greek and Hindu science which they inherited. They admired and respected the treasures which had fallen into their hands, but they were just as 'modern' and greedy as we are, and wanted more." [A Guide to the History of Science, p. 28]
For all those who live in the past - as the counterpart of religious fundamentalists - and see the ghost of Arab imperialism, they would never appreciate the fact that Arabic at one time was not merely the language of a revealed scripture, but it was the lingua franca of the first order. Sarton writes: "For centuries the Latin scientific books hardly counted; they were out-of-date and outlandish. Arabic was the international language of science to a degree which had never been equaled by another language before (except Greek) and has never been repeated since. It was the language not of one people, one nation, one faith, but of many peoples, many nations, many faiths." [p. 28]
Indeed, how important is it to understand Arabic/Islamic culture to understand Sarton's own culture? [parenthetical insertions are mine.] "When we try to explain our own culture we may leave out almost completely Hindu and Chinese developments, but we cannot leave out the Arabic [read, Islamic] ones without spoiling the whole story and making it unintelligible. ... The Arabic [read, Islamic] story helps us to understand our own because it is an intrinsic part of it. ... It is one of the paradoxes of history that the abyss cloven between the two halves of Christendom was bridged by the Asiatic representatives of another FAITH, speaking an alien language absolutely unrelated to their own. The Latins would not read Greek, the language of the Orthodox church, but they were obliged to read Arabic, the language of ISLAM. ... At that time, we should remember, Arabic [read, Islamic] science had not yet blossomed." [pp. 30-31] [Note: This part of Sarton's comment can be misunderstood unless his works are read thoroughly. There are many other places where he paid glowing tribute to the great contributions of the Indian/Hindu and Chinese civilization. Here, his comment was particularly in the context of the development of the western scientific tradition as it has mingled with Arabic/Islamic heritage. Indeed, monumental work Introduction to the History of Science has plenty of material dealing with valuable contributions of other civilizations, including Indian/Hindu and Chinese civilization. Indeed, as a "new humanist" - the way he wanted to identify himself - he was deeply interested in the relationship between the scientific contributions and traditions of both the West and East, including Indian and Chinese civilizations and urged everyone to be respectful of the heritage of the entire humanity.]
That's why on one hand thinking about all these great scientists as having nothing to do with Islam can be regarded as a possible Arab/Muslim or Arabic/Islamic confusion, but it is still unacceptable to make such uninformed statements in the face of the existing body of knowledge and research. There are people who would be afraid to be honest about the assessment of the history of science in Islam. Because in today's time of decadence of the Muslim world, under the stranglehold of the orthodoxy, traditionalism and blind faith, they are afraid that true knowledge about the history might once again reawaken the rationalist/scientific/experimental dimension of Islam and with it who knows what else is going to reawaken. Therefore, better let the Muslims know that all those scientists and scholars were inspired only by "Greek, Indian and Babylonian civilizations" and that the world has moved forward without being positively and fundamentally touched by Islam.
Once someone rises above the Arab/Muslim confusion and prejudicial attitude to judge everything one does not like in a negative manner, one can take a more dispassionate look at the issue of the Western debt to Islam. This is important for Muslims to grasp because now many Muslims see the West as nothing more than the anti-thesis of their dear Islam. West is their nemesis: it must be disclaimed, disinherited, disowned. They have nothing to do with the West. They must protect themselves from the evils of the West. This is the hate part of their feeling about the West. On the other hand, the vast majority can't simply deny and distance from the West. Rather they are enamored with it. They admire the prosperity, power, stability, technology, political systems, etc of the West. Many Muslims with nostalgic love and devotion for Islam also find themselves inseparable from the West. This is a classic love-hate relationship: they love to hate the West and hate to love the West. But it's intertwined. As I will elaborate in this part, the fact of the matter is, Islam and the West are related: quite intimately.
The other reason why this issue is important is because the love-hate relationship of Muslims vis-à-vis the West is exacerbated by many uninformed and/or prejudiced minds that would like the disoriented Muslims to believe that, yes, the West is the nemesis of Islam and therefore, they have to choose one way or the other. More importantly, some callous people go to the extent to deny the historical reality by which the contemporary societies have been shaped and the continuity (or perceived discontinuity) that affect all of us so deeply. Instead of affirming the historical contribution and heritage of the one-sixth of the humanity and reminding of the bridge-building role they have played in the continuum of the human civilization, so that they can be connected to or draw on what they are usually inspired by, the usual approach is clear: deny them their heritage and contribution.
Well, despite the deep-rooted malice against Islam that has been shaped by the European/Christian campaign of Crusade and more, and the subsequent systematic denial, denigration and demonization of Islam (notwithstanding the fact that there have been many genuine problems and excesses by Muslims parallel to their contribution to human civilization) in general in the hands of the so-called Orientalists, there are still powerful voices - conscientious and informed - in the West that recognize the Western debt to Islam.
I have referred to George Sarton before, but that is merely for illustrative purpose. He mentioned: "Islam paved the way for the renaissance which in turn led to science's fourth great development in the modern western world". [quoting from The Life of sciences, http://www.markaz.org/conference/page/meet-HR.html] In this part, I will focus on the broader Western recognition of the Western debt to Islam. I will discuss its implications in subsequent parts. It is also important to note, contrary to Mr. Rahman's assertion, the Western recognition that those great contributions were inspired by Islam as part of the broader Islamic civilization. The debt is not to the Arabs in a narrow ethnic sense, but to the ISLAMIC CIVILIZATION (which did/does not require an Islamic gene though, as claimed by Mr. Rahman). I have listed pertinent comments from various people with brief information about their background. Emphases are mine.
Clifford Edmund Boswroth
[Renowned Historian]"Although perhaps alienated cousins, Christendom and Islam could have nearly equal claim as standard bearers of "Western Civilization," and the revival of European learning after the 11th Century undeniably owed a heavy debt to what ISLAM had been doing with Classical philosophy and science in the previous centuries."
Clifford Edmund Bosworth's The New Islamic Dynasties [Edinburgh University Press, 1996].
http://www.friesian.com/islam.htmChristopher Dawson [1899-1970]
[Christian historian; Oxford University]"We are so accustomed to regard our culture as essentially that of the West that it is difficult for us to realize that there was an age when the most civilized region of Western Europe was the province of an alien culture ... At a time when the rest of Western Europe was just emerging from the depths of barbarism, the culture of MOSLEM Spain had attained complete maturity and surpassed even the civilization of the East in genius and originality of thought ... All of this brilliant development of culture is completely ignored by the ordinary student of medieval European history. It is as though it were a lost world which had no more to do with the history of our past than the vanished kingdom of the Atlantis. (pp., 230-231).
Dawson, Christopher. The Making of Europe. Sheed and Ward, New York. 1952Alfred Guillame
[Professor of Oriental Languages, Princeton University and University of London, UK; 1888-1965]"Islam is the parent that beget and nourished European civilization.... We may be sure that those who accuse Moslem scholars of lack or originality and of intellectual decadence have never read Averroes or looked into al-Ghazali, but have accepted second-hand judgments. The presence of doctrines of Islamic origins in the very citadel of Christianity, the Summa of Aquinas, is a sufficient refutation of the charge of lack of originality and sterility. ... When all the rich material in European libraries has been brought to light it may yet be seen that the abiding influence of the Arabs [read: Muslim] on medieval civilization is much greater than has hitherto been recognized." (pp., 239 and 281-82).
Guillaume, Alfred. "Philosophy and Theology," in The Legacy of Islam. Thomas Arnold and Alfred Guillaume (Editors), Clarendon Press, Oxford, England. 1931
Leonard Liggio
[Professor, Institute for Humane Studies at George Mason University]"When Islam arose it adopted (especially in Syria) the Hellenistic culture which Byzantium and Europe were rejecting. Islam carried logic, philosophy and science beyond the Hellenistic legacy. Eventually Islam passed on the classical intellectual tradition to Europe....Europe built on the shoulders of the Islamic part of that tradition. Similarly, Islam built on the capitalism and commerce of Hellenistic tradition and for centuries was far ahead of Byzantium and Europe. Later, Islam was burdened by the domination of Ottoman rule. In a sense, Islam became like Byzantium--one large empire rather than the European continuity of the Islamic tradition of many different political centers...."
[Quoted by Antony Sullivan of U. of Michigan in http://zeus.townhall.com/phillysoc/sullivan.htm]Maria Rosa Menocal
[Professor, Yale University]Explaining the "Myth of Westernness", Menocal writes: the great difficulty in considering the possibility that they [Western Europeans] are in some way seriously INDEBTED to the Arab [read: Islamic] world or that the Arabs [read: Muslims] were central to the making of the medieval Europe. .. The resistance to a consideration of this different story of our parentage, of a displacement of our conception of our fundamental cultural lineage, is quite deep rooted. ... The Arabic component of our paradigmatic view of the Middle Ages has always remained incidental; it has never been systemic. (pp. xii-xiii).
The Arabic Role in Medieval Literary History: A Forgotten Heritage. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, Penn. 1987Colin Ronan
[Astronomer and historian of science; 1920-1995]"Too often science in Arabia has been seen as nothing more than a holding operation. The area has been viewed as a giant storehouse for previously discovered scientific results, keeping them until they could be passed on for use in the West. But this is, of course, a travesty of truth." (p, 203).
Ronan, Colin A. Science: Its History and Development among the World's Cultures. Facts on File Publishers, Hemlyn Publishing Group Limited, New York. 1982Anthony Sullivan
Professor, Center for Middle Eastern and North African Studies, The University of Michigan"One might argue that an important source of the Western rediscovery during the Renaissance of the dignity and rights of man was through an Arab Muslim as uncovered and promulgated by the Italian humanist Pico della Mirandola in his "Oration on the Dignity of Man."
[The West, Mediterranean Islam, and the Search for a New Beginning, Read to the Annual Meeting of The Philadelphia Society, April, 1999, http://zeus.townhall.com/phillysoc/sullivan.htm]Montgomery Watt
[Professor Emeritus of the Department of Arabic and Islamic Studies at the University of Edinburgh]"For our cultural INDEBTEDNESS to ISLAM, we Europeans have a blind spot. We sometimes belittle the extent and importance of Islamic influence in our heritage and sometimes overlook it altogether. To try to cover it over and deny it is a mark of FALSE PRIDE ... When one keeps hold of all the facets of medieval confrontation of Christianity and Islam, it is clear that the influence of Islam on western Christianity is greater than is usually realized ... not merely did it stimulate Europe intellectually, but it provoked Europe into forming a new imagine of itself ... Because Europe was reacting against Islam, it belittled the influence of Saracens [read: Muslims] and exaggerated its dependence on its Greek and Roman heritage. (pp., 2 and 84). [note: This is exactly what Mr. Rahman did.]
Watts, W. Montgomery. Islamic Surveys: The Influence of Islam on Medieval Europe. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, U.K. 1972Fred Wilson in History of Science: Islam
(Professor Emeritus of Science, Teaching and Society program, Rochester Institute of Technology)"In contrast to Chinese and Hindu science, Islamic science came to exert an immense influence on the West, partly because of the geographical proximity of the two cultures and partly because both cultures shared a common Greek heritage. ... Islamic science and philosophy emerged, in large part, in response to the Islamic theological assumption that nature contains "signs," and the unearthing of such signs would bring the believer closer to God."
[http://www.rit.edu/~flwstv/islam.html; The entire article is worth reading especially by Muslims, not for any eulogy, but for excellent analysis of the decline of the Islamic civilization]By no means, this is an exhaustive narrative of the Western recognition of the Western debt to Islam. This is merely a glimpse of the vast literature on this subject. The more recent these references are, the more explicit and articulate is this recognition. This is probably due to the fact that the new generation of scholars have realized the weaknesses of the prejudiced foundation of classical Orientalism, and these conscientious scholars are finding impossible to deny the historical reality in the process of understanding the Western civilization.
Mr. Rahman made another frantic attempt to deflect the discussion by stating: "Was it ever suggested that "THERE WAS NO CONTRIBUTION TO SCIENCE BY MUSLIM SCIENTISTS EVER" or that "NO ONE BORN IN ISLAM CAN EXCEL IN SCIENCE"?
The fact of the matter is that he has not been challenged as uninformed and prejudiced on this subject because he claimed as such. Rather the uninformed and prejudiced statement from him that has been challenged (if he himself had forgotten): "All the names mentioned above, were scientists and scholars by dint of theor critical mind and thinking, being inspired by Greek, Indian and Babylonian civilizations. It was not DUE to Islam that their talent flourished and shone. ... Rather their achievements can be characterized as DESPITE Islam". While attributing "straw-man fallacy" to me might be an easy way out, the readers can judge for themselves if there is any straw-man fallacy on my part.
V. Reflections on some misconceptions
So far, there has been only two response to my series. One from Mr. Masudur Rahman and lately from Dr. Sen. Before I continue with the presentation of the pertinent material related to the series theme, in this part, I would like to make some pertinent comments on Dr. Sen's "Science, Empiricism and the Religious Doctrines", which was written in response to my four parts of the series published so far.
Physicians, doctors of a different kind, play such a vital role in our life. They help the patients with their pain and suffering. Some doctors can even make a few of their patients laugh or at least cheer them up - and I have seen a few myself. Thus, when Dr. Sen found my "honest effort" "hilarious", it is gratifying, because doctors too sometimes can use such uplifting or cheerful experience.
a. Those trailblazing Muslim scientists generally weren't doctrinaires
Unfortunately, almost the entire response of Dr. Sen is misplaced, based on a basic misunderstanding of what I have presented so far. Let me begin with his title: "Science, Empiricism and the Religious Doctrine". The title itself encapsulates his misunderstanding. NOWHERE in my series I have said or implied that "religious doctrines" are the sources of inspiration for these Muslim scientists. Indeed, the people who made these scientific contributions were not doctrinaires. The vast array of religious doctrines, including in Islam, represents human understanding and formalization that are rarely required on the part of the adherents, except from the stand point of the orthodoxy and traditions.
Thus, for some Muslims, whether the Qur'an is created or it is eternal (co-existing with God) is a doctrinal debate. As a Muslim I may have an opinion on this, but Islam does not require adhering to any such doctrine one way or another. For some Muslims Abu Bakar (r) is the most superior among the companions of the Prophet, while some other might consider Ali (r) as the most superior. It is a doctrine to them. As a Muslim I am not required to uphold it as a doctrine. Indeed, doctrine, doctrinaires and indoctrination have been an impediment to not just change, but also progress. If that's the point Dr. Sen was trying to make, then we have more to agree than to disagree.
Unfortunately, his attempt comes across differently. If the whole world knows that Muslims made original contributions in the continuum of the progress of human civilization and the world of science - and this is inspired by their faith, while enriching themselves from all corners of the world as they found appropriate - then one would have expected that Dr. Sen himself would have one or two words about the inappropriateness of Mr. Rahman's observations. However, complete silence about him, while enjoying the hilarity my effort has offered, may induce others to think that Dr. Sen IS in complete agreement with Mr. Rahman's assertions, which do run contradictory to the scholars and experts in the field of history of science.
Anyway, these trailblazing Muslim scientists were acutely aware of the problem of orthodoxy and traditionalism, and most often their life and work fully reflect this non-adherence to such doctrinal aspect. The same applies to theology, a term too narrow to understand or describe Islam and its ethos or spirit that can motivate and inspire people. Doctrines or theology did not make these contributions possible. I am aware of this too and my writings are careful enough to avoid that pitfall. Thus, unless Dr. Sen can show from my writing that I have articulated my thought in terms of doctrines or theology, much of his comments is misplaced.
b. Dr. Salam, Qadiani/Muslim, and the "logical problem"
Dr. Sen has found "logical problem" in my reference to Prof. Salam in my series. I guess I have never been that good in logic. Was I? I am gratified that he did not find twenty different logical problems or fallacies as Mr. Rahman routinely finds in everyone's writing. After all, anyone believing in God must have some logical problem to begin with, which we are repeatedly reminded with the great weight of the majority of great contemporary scientists and intellectuals. Therefore, when secularists find "bismillay galod", then I guess we are doomed to the intellectual low life mired in "logical problems". I have become quite accustomed to such attribution of "logical problem" as it is not an uncommon finding. I am afraid that in such exchanges we can rarely go anywhere unless my secularist friends, the sober ones and the fundamentalist ones, would accord a little bit more respect toward others' writings and thought and also would resort to stronger doses of humble self-scrutiny. As Syed Mujtaba Ali wrote, "A finger before the eyes can hide even a mountain."
Anyway, I must respectfully submit that whether Prof. Abdus Salam is Qadiani or whether he was banned in Saudi Arabia is quite irrelevant to the context of our discussion. The whole world can deny whether he was a Muslim or not, many Muslims may deny whether he was a Muslim or not. We still have to deal with the fact that Prof. Salam considered himself as a Muslim. In the same book that Mr. Rahman continues to refer to as reference for his views and understanding about Prof. Salam, it is mentioned that Prof. Salam: "became persuaded that the Holy Qur'an demands man to seek scientific truth, and that man has been uniquely empowered to solve the deep mysteries of the universe."
Now, did he become "PERSUADED that the Holy Qur'an demands man to seek scientific truth" or did he not? In the very same book the preface of which was written by Prof. Salam, the author says that "the Holy Qur'an demands man to seek scientific truth". Why is their reluctance to accept this reality? The example of Judaism and Christian in case of those great scientists of Jewish and Christian background is irrelevant here because none of them drew such connection between Bible and their source of inspiration, but Prof. Salam did; none of them were practicing followers of Judaism or Christianity. But the world knows and it is recognized even by his fellow scientists that Prof. Salam was a practicing Muslim. The Nobel Foundation, its official site, his colleagues don't have any qualm when he mentions Qur'an in front them and even refers to a few verses. But some of us can't hold our peace in this regard.
Let's try to understand through a dramatization the implication of what Dr. Sen is finding as a logical problem that to the Nobel Foundation or many of his esteemed Nobel-winning colleagues has not been any problem. If there is a logical problem, we better present it to Prof. Salam! Suppose we are at the meeting with dear friend Dr. Sen and others such as Mr. Masudur Rahman present where Prof. Salam is a guest speaker and honoree at the Nobel prize award ceremony. [Please forgive my indulgence with imagination.] In keeping with what the world already knows, the award-granting hosts at Nobel Foundation comments in introducing Prof. Salam (just as it is presented at the official Nobel site for which I have already provided citation): He is "a devout Muslim, whose religion does not occupy a separate compartment of his life; it is inseparable from his work and family life ... [furthermore, according to him] 'The Holy Qur'an enjoins us to reflect on the verities of Allah's created laws of nature; however, that our generation has been privileged to glimpse a part of His design is a bounty and a grace for which I render thanks with a humble heart.'"
At the end there is a question/answer session. Dr. Sen and Mr. Rahman both jumps at the first opportunity and pop the question: "Prof. Salam! You seem to have a logical problem. You identify yourself as a Muslim and even extol the Qur'an in your supposedly uncompartmentalized life and thought. But don't you know that as a Qadiani Saudi Arabia as well as many Muslims don't recognize you as a Muslim?"
Unfortunately, we can't quite recreate this past event and pose this question directly to Prof. Salam and receive his answer. But we do know how he did not receive the minimum courtesy in Pakistan and how Saudi Arabia has treated him. However, the answer to all what he received from his homeland Pakistan and elsewhere would probably not be like this: "Oops! Thank you Dr. Sen and Mr. Rahman. I did not think of this logical problem. I see your point. From now on I will not describe myself as a Muslim anymore. Nor would I refer to the Qur'an or its verses." Rather, his life might be an answer to this question, and it is right from the favorite author of Mr. Rahman whom he uses to support his position about Prof. Salam. Parvez Hoodboy writes:
"Salam never accepted this excommunication [as in Pakistan and elsewhere]. It clearly drove him into becoming more religious. Regrettably so, in the opinion of some, but that is not for me to comment upon. Subsequently ..., he developed an intense pride in his heritage and did what no one else -- Muslim or other -- had done. From dry and dusty history books he rescued the scientific and intellectual achievements of Muslim intellectual giants of a thousand years ago and turned them into symbols of cultural pride. The crucially important thing is that he emphasized these achievements as belonging to the realm of the rational." [http://www.chowk.com/UniversityAve/hoodbhoy_jan0598.html]
c. Convictions and creeds are not necessarily fully convergent
Another problem many non-Muslims and secularists have in regard to this internal Muslim/non-Muslim schism is that the domain of religious orthodoxy has hardly spared anyone from such "logical problem". Jamaluddin Afghani was not spared. Iqbal was not spared. Nazrul was labeled as Kafir. What else could be appropriate for a person who says "Khodar ashon arosh chhediya"? He embraced such label quite animatedly. But he also took on a label himself: "Khademul Islam". I am sure Dr. Sen finds a logical problem there. But just like regarding him as a Muslim does not mean that "Bhogoban buke eke dei podo chhinho" must be valid according to Islam, so is the problem with Dr. Sen's discovery of "logical problem" in this case of Prof. Salam that regarding him as a Muslim must also mean validating of all the details of the creeds. Just like Nazrul's own convictions (and that he refused to accept anyone else's judgment in this world as, in his view, God is the ultimate judge) carry a special significance without validating his lack of traditional respect for "Khodar ashon arosh", so is the case with Prof. Salam's own conviction about what he was and what it meant to him.
Indeed, all the things that I say or write, who knows where would I measure up in the balance of religious orthodoxy!
d. Attempts to delink Islam and rationality
What is often misunderstood, as is the case with Mr. Rahman, when he quoted Parvez Hoodboy: "the validity of a scientific truth can be adjudicated only according to criteria internal to science and not by appeal to religious, metaphysical, or aesthetic considerations" is that (even though this is not a statement of Prof. Salam, rather of Hoodboy's description of Prof. Salam's thought), it does not contradict the other part "he became persuaded that the Holy Qur'an demands man to seek scientific truth..."
How? Well, as reflected in the lives and works of Prof. Salam and earlier generations of scientists, the Qu'ran creates a mindset that motivates them to explore the nature and pursue the truth; yes, not accepting anything blindly. In such pursuit, the Muslims should travel the farthest corner of the world, observe how the world works, seek verification of their thought and hypothesis, and do all these with utmost enthusiasm and devotion - both as a worship of God (because in Islam learning, earning livelihood for the family, cleaning the road, and even sexual union with the spouse are all worship) and for the benefit of others.
However, the Qur'an does not teach how 2+2=4 or water is a mix of hydrogen and oxygen, or "ceteris paribus, there is a negative relationship between price and quantity demanded." Thus, when it comes to identifying a hypothesis or scientifically testing the Law of Demand, a mathematical theorem or physical properties of nature (such as whether earth is flat or not-so-flat), people should not be constrained at all by religious faith. That some people thought that the earth was flat was a misunderstanding of the Qur'an, because the Qur'an is not a book of science and it speaks keeping all people in mind. Whether the earth is flat or is it at the center of the universe, the Qur'an invites the probing mind to explore and determine, not accept anything as religious faith or dogma - as Qur'an does not categorically say one way or the other.
Once the frame of mind and the supporting environment are present, the scientific spirit flourishes and takes hold. The scientific approach, which pertains to nature or the world of creation, does not require that at the most basic or the highest level we need to recognize God or be Godless. God is not necessarily subject to scientific experiment as is done in a laboratory. Indeed, many great scientists probably would never find God; rather many of them would be atheists. This is so because they are subject to the pitfall that science can't be applied to find God. You can't find him at the farthest end of the telescope; nor can you find him at the farthest end of the microscope. He is not amenable to mathematical equation or chemical formulas. You can't find him in the land of Oz either.
This misunderstanding is accentuated in Dr. Sen's writing as well as in the title of his article, where he mentioned and discussed the issue of doubt and empiricism. Doubt and empiricism are not incompatible with Islam. Rather they are integral part of Islam. Those Muslims who understood and appreciated it are among those who made those great contributions in the history and in the continuum of human civilization. Experimentation and empiricism can play the critical role as it did in the lives and works of those Muslim scientists, about whom Sarton wrote: "Though motivated and permeated by the spirit of their religion, they would not allow dogma as interpreted by the orthodox to stand in the way of their scientific research."
This is where the secularists go haywire, inappropriately claiming that embracing secularism is indispensable for scientific progress. Orthodoxy and traditionalism are adversaries of such progress, but being secularist is not indispensable for this purpose. That's the reason, Islam and science are in perfect harmony as articulated by Prof. Salam. "One eighth of the Koran is an exhortation to the believers to study nature and to find the signs of God in the phenomena of nature. So Islam has no conflict with science." [L Wolpert and A Richards A Passion for Science 1988.] The religious orthodoxy can suggest or claim as they want, and so can the so-called secularists and rationalists, but this is an important point to understand and recognize that ISLAM HAS NOT CONFLICT WITH SCIENCE.
If thoughtful persons, such as Dr. Sen, want to get their point across about religious orthodoxy or traditionalism, we have more to agree than to disagree. Unfortunately, confusing religious orthodoxy and traditionalism with Islam itself or taking a general position about "organized or institutionalized" religion is a major pitfall. By the way, using the word "organized" is a plain redundancy, because religion IS organized as it attempts to help life get organized - maybe sometimes unacceptably over-organized.
If thoughtful people such as Dr. Sen would come to grip with the fact that every writing articulating Islam and setting some record straight is not being "inflexible and fatalist", or an exercise to become "first class apologist", or giving preference to "tradition over common sense, faith over reason", etc., there is a chance that there might be some better mutual understanding. In this regard, I find the viewpoints and attitude of some my secularist friends are as fossilized, rigid and intractable, which is comparable to only the traditionalism and orthodoxy that they claim to abhor.
Once this absence of conflict as far as Islam is concerned is understood and recognized, then the following thought of Prof. Salam can be better appreciated. In contemplating the good and bad side of modern science, "Salam does not offer a solution. He does believe, however, that the combination of religious faith and scientific discipline that guide him would serve others and give science a better direction." [In The Role Of Physics, The Scientist, http://the-scientist.com/yr1988/jul/rahman_p25_880711.html]
Can this be further adduced to directly (or first hand) from the works of those great Muslim scientists and intellectuals, such as Al-Biruni, Ibn Sina, Al-Khawarizmi or Ibn Khaldun? Of course! Let me take that up in the next part.
VI. From those Trailblazing Muslim Scientists/Scholars (Ulama)
Based on what Dr. Sen wrote in Re: [Shetubondhon] Islam and the History of Science : A prize from Dr. Farooq, I would have liked to take my hat off to Dr. Sen. Unfortunately, I don't wear any. I would have at least taken off my Toupi. But the first time in wonder I kept looking up the floors of the one of the tallest buildings of the world, I did not realize when my Toupi has fallen off as my head was tilting backward. I haven't taken on another toupi since. Nevertheless, I would like to recognize the remarkable wizardry Dr. Sen has shown by eking out a self-serving prize from nowhere for himself and for his secularist and the rationalist comrades (no specific color is implied!). Of course, there was no prize to begin with, but if the acceptance of this prize is an indirect recognition that rational thinking is not the exclusive domain of the secularists, and people like us have our due share, then my friend, the prize is all yours. I am tempted, however, to ask Dr. Sen if he has thought of switching his career? Magicians and wizards make good money too. Besides, they are out and out hilarious!
Anyway, the fact is that Dr. Sen could have taken the high road and concurred that Mr. Masudur Rahman's statement were actually unfounded, biased and uninformed. Instead, he tried to find some contradiction in my statement where there wasn't any. Also I did not suddenly arrive at the Truth. All my writings going back nearly two decades ago have the same articulation. And, if there is any truth in this context, it wasn't I who arrived at it and facilitated this award-giving extravaganza. Rather, I invite my friends, including Dr. Sen, to do their homework and update their studies in the pertinent field, where virtually all major contemporary Muslim academic scholars have articulated quite similarly about these pertinent issues.
So far I have not cited a SINGLE Muslim source in this series. But just for the starter, try Seyyed Hossein NASR, INTRODUCTION TO ISLAMIC COSMOLOGICAL DOCTRINE (Harvard University Press, 1964). Recommending this as a reading does not mean that I concur with every aspect of these writings.
Now let me turn to the major aspect of this part: presentation of thought directly from those trailblazing Muslim scientists. Remember that the issue is not whether Muslim scientists/philosophers made any contribution or not, rather Islam had anything to do with these contributions or whether Islam played any meaningful role behind their contributions.
Ibn Rushd (Averrhoes):
He is regarded as the Great Commentator of Aristotle. He was a ranking Faqih of Maliki jurisprudence of his time, a Fatwa (legal verdict)-giving Qazi in Cordova, Spain. Reconciling religion and philosophy was a constant theme in his works. That he was fascinated by the Greek tradition and philosophers, especially Aristotle, should not confuse anyone in regard to his mooring in Islam - in his thought, works and life.
Beside denying any link between the contributions of these Muslim scholars, Mr. Masud also wrote that scripture did not play any role in their works or referring to scriptures such as the Qur'an was not their habit. He wrote: "All these scientists, physicians were champions of reason and critical thinking, they never credited the scripture for their success or for inspiration."
Has Mr. Masud or Dr. Sen read any of Ibn Rushd's book? Actually, have they read a SINGLE book written by any of these scholars? For example, On the Harmony of Religions and Philosophy, in Arabic Kitab fasl al-maqal? This is also available online as part of Fordham University's Medieval Source collection. The first paragraph of the introduction should put to rest Mr. Masud's unfounded, uninformed and/or prejudiced statement. What is the objective of philosophy according to Ibn Rushd?"We maintain that the business of philosophy is nothing other than to look into creation and to ponder over it in order to be guided to the Creator -- in other words, to look into the meaning of existence. For the knowledge of creation leads to the cognizance of the Creator, through the knowledge of the created. The more perfect becomes the knowledge of creation, the more perfect becomes the knowledge of the Creator. The Law encourages and exhorts us to observe creation. [note: guess what is law here. How about Shariah!] Thus, it is clear that this is to be taken either as a religious injunction or as something approved by the Law. But the Law urges us to observe creation by means of reason and demands the knowledge thereof through reason. This is evident from different verses of the Qur'an. For example, the Qur'an says: 'Wherefore take example from them, you who have eyes' [Qur'an 49.2]. That is a clear indication of the necessity of using the reasoning faculty, or rather both reason and religion, in the interpretation of things. Again it says: 'Or do they not contemplate the kingdom of heaven and earth and the things which God has created' [Qur'an 7.184]. This is in plain exhortation to encourage the use of observation of creation." [http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/1190averroes.html#Introduction]
Why did he take up writing that book? "The purpose of our writing this book is now completed. We took it up because we thought that it was the most important of all purposes -- connected with God and the Law." Also especially notice "The Law encourages and exhorts us to observe creation." Their intellectual and scientific quest was inspired by their mooring in Islam. Any further question about it?
Ibn Sina (Avecina):
The modern West had a disconnect with the Greco-Roman civilization. It was the Ulama (scholars/philosophers/scientists) such as Ibn Sina who helped build that bridge. When they looked for knowledge and learning, they turned to all corners of the world as they responded to what the Prophet taught: "Hikmah (wisdom; philosophy; rationale) is the lost treasure of a believer. Wherever one finds, one should avail it." [Sunan Ibn Majah, #4169] .
"For Ibn Sina the study of the body of man is intricately related to that of the human soul because, in his words, 'The body and soul form one complete whole - one single being.' The science of the human body, therefore, is also concerned with and leads to the science of the origin of things.' (quoting Ibn Sine's The Canons of Medicine, up. 12, in Nash's Islamic Cosmological Doctrines) ... Life, according to Ibn Sina, pervades the whole Universe. 'Life and every perfection and every good for which creatures are destined, comes from nothing but the Prime Most High Truth - the source of all good, and from the Strong Desire ever proceeding there.' (up. 534 ) ... 'Allah Most Beneficent has furnished every animal and each of its members with a temperament which is entirely the most appropriate and best adapted for the performance of its function and passive states.' (up. 65) These are from Nash's work quoting Ibn Sine's The Canons of Medicine, which has served as almost THE text in his field for centuries, even in the West.
All those who think that people like Ibn Sina were from the narrowly-defined rationalist side and they made their contributions DESPITE Islam should read and learn about some of those contributions first hand, instead of making stereotypical and prejudiced statements about them without any knowledge.
Ibn Khaldun:
The modern West regards him as the father of sociology. One of the reasons why his work is recognized by the modern West is that his work, such as al-Muqaddimah, represents the first sociological work of its type in the finest tradition of dispassionate and objective scholarship. The Western scholars who are experts on the works of Ibn Khaldun are uncanny about recognizing his contribution in terms of empiricism, on one hand, and his mooring in Islam, on the other. His innovative, trailblazing and pioneering works were inseparable from his life as a Muslim and his Islamic world view.
"It is attention to Ibn Sheldon's Muslim environment which then allows the readers to understand his uniquely ambivalent attitude toward religion. Truth is inseparable from Islam as ultimate Truth, yet empirical observation and deductive reasoning compelled Ibn Khaldun to use familiar terms in new ways and also to advocate speculative theses. To impute to him unorthodox or, worse, non-religious views is a misreading of the complexity which informs his approach to Islam. For him, Islam is as multivalent as the intersecting circles ...There are four circles of Islam - history, behavior, culture and faith. They overlap without being reducible to any one as primary and hence determinative for the others."
... For Ibn Khaldun, religion was Islam, and Islam was religion. ... Islam, to him, was the historical articulation of a divine plan than was RATIONAL and, therefore, could be interpreted 'revealed'. He was convinced that there was a divine intent in history, and that Islam, the Arabs and Arabic had been the superior vehicles for its implementation. By the same line of reasoning, however, pursuits of the divine intention was a human responsibility. The shortcomings of Muslim dynasts, such as the late Umayyads and the late Abbasids, reflected their failure to apply Islamic guidelines rather than a failure of those guidelines.
... It seems likely that Ibn Khaldun was compelled by his faith, not by his absence of faith, to postulate that Allah might beyond the realm of Arab Muslim power to reaffirm the truth of Muslim revelation through non-Arab, putatively Muslim nomadic warriors. ... It would be false to pursue the task of defining what kind of historian Ibn Khaldun was, or wanted to be, without first acknowledging that history was not, for him or his predecessors, an independent discipline. Rather, history formed one branch of the primary mode of Muslim cultural self-expression, adab. M. Cooke's article investigates Ibn Khaldun's perception of himself as an adib, applying and expanding A. Miquel's theoretical analysis of this seminal category in Muslim scholarship. Her essay, together with F. Rosenthal's biographical overview and K. Bland's examination of Ibn Khaldun and Judaism, make it possible to understand the seeming rational empiricist as a Muslim scholar who recasts the study of history in ways that remain firmly, inalterably reflective of his Islamic world view." [pp. 7-9]
[Bruce Lawrence, "Introduction: Ibn Khaldun and Islamic Ideology" in Bruce Lawrence (ed.), Ibn Khaldun and Islamic Ideology, Netherlands: E. J. Brill, 1984] The author is a professor at Duke University.
"In his view, religious beliefs, while outside the realm of the intellect, have to be approached rationally. ... The conviction that God's gift of the intellect to man gives him superiority over all other living beings was firmly established in Islam. It is, however, worth noting that it serves as the theme for the Muqaddimah's long sixth chapter on the sciences, which includes the religious sciences. Religion for him is not restricted to Islam, although it took on peculiar forms in Islam."
[Frantz Rosenthal, "Ibn Khaldun in his Time: 1332-1406" in Bruce Lawrence (ed.), Ibn Khaldun and Islamic Ideology, Netherlands: E. J. Brill, 1984] The author is a professor at Yale University.
Al-Biruni:
Ifrad al-maqal fi amr al-zilal (The Exhaustive Treatise on Shadows) is one of the books of Al-Biruni. It is a "compendium of shadow lore. Its opening chapters deal with the geometrical optics of shadows. The trigonometric tangent and cotangent relations were originally defined in terms of shadows, so al-Biruni has a great deal of material on the history, properties, and applications of these functions. But most of the book's thirty chapters are taken up with the solutions of numerous astronomical problems for which shadows may be used: meridian determinations, time-keeping, the determination of terrestrial and celestial distances, and so on."
Why did he become interested in this subject? What sparked his interest in the study of shadow and timekeeping? Although no exclusive connection can be made, but from Al-Biruni's own words in the aforementioned book, this is an issue that deals with a central ritualistic aspect of Islamic way of life: Salat (prayer).
"... the times for two of the five prayers daily incumbent upon every Moslem are defined in terms of shadows. Hence, it was natural that a treatise on shadow written by a Moslem should include this topic also. ... The Qur'an does not clearly specify the times of prayer. Passages from it quoted by al-Biruni have a spotted by us in compartments on the chart which seemed more or less appropriate. The earliest stratum of precise injunctions concerning prayer stems from tradition (Hadith). This corpus was systematized by jurists of the legal schools ...
The tables alluded to above, used for putting the prayer curves on instruments, were calculated with great elegance and precision. In the event of cloudy weather there was no escape, except by guesswork, from the use of clepsydras. Even so, there would remain the problem of converting from shadow length for a particular day and locality to seasonal or ordinary hours. The transformations involved entail a deep knowledge of spherical astronomy and the behavior of the trigonometric functions. Work along these lines resulted in the ilm al-miqat [science of timekeeping], a subject only now being systematically explored. The achievements of its practitioners are impressive by any standards." [Edward Kennedy, "Al-Biruni on the Muslim Times of Prayer," pp. 83-94], in in Peter Chelkowski (ed.) The Scholar and the Saint: Studies in Commemoration of Abu'l-Rayhan al-Biruni and Jalal al-Din al-Rumi, New York University Press, 1975]. Professor of Mathematics at American University in Beirut. One should also read the Qur'anic verses as well as Hadith referred to in this work of al-Biruni that became the parameter for Al-Biruni's quest for advancement in the science (ilm) of timekeeping.
This work is another example how the scientific developments and pursuits by these trailblazing scientists were inspired and motivated by their life in which faith and reason or spiritual and material pursuits were integrated, not compartmentalized. Since there was neither any real nor any perceived conflict between Islam and science, as argued by Prof. Salam in our time and all those Muslim scientists in earlier generations, believing in God, in the Qur'an, and in Islam as a way of life that commands its adherents to take interest in nature and the workings of various dimensions of human life, these praying, fasting, pilgrimage-making, halal-caring, afterlife-believing, turban-wearing, beard-keeping people also could take the lead of human civilization. It is that balance which is essential.
Al-Khwarizmi:
I hope that no special introduction is needed for him. Here is from the preface of his Algebra (trans.). In the preface and introduction of his book on Algebra, al-Khwarizmi wrote:
"Praised be God for his bounty towards those who deserve it by their virtuous acts: in performing which, as by him prescribed to his adoring creatures, we express our thanks, and render ourselves worthy of the continuance (of his mercy), and preserve ourselves from change: acknowledging his might, bending before his power, and revering his greatness! He sent Mohammed ( on whom may the blessing of God repose !) with the mission of a prophet, long after any messenger from above had appeared, when justice had fallen into neglect, and when the true way of life was sought for in vain. ... Praised be God our Lord! and may his glory increase, and may all his names be hallowed - besides whom there is no God; and may his benediction rest on Mohammed the prophet and on his descendants!
That fondness for science, by which God has distinguished the Imam al Mamun, the Commander of the Faithful ..., that affability and condescension which he shows to the learned, that promptitude with which he protects and supports them in the elucidation of obscurities and in the removal of difficulties, has encouraged me to compose a short work on Calculating by (the rules of) Completion and Reduction, confining it to what is easiest and most useful in arithmetic, such as men constantly require in cases of inheritance, legacies, partition, law-suits, and trade, and in all their dealings with one another, or where the measuring of lands, the digging of canals, geometrical computation, and other objects of various sorts and kinds are concerned relying on the goodness of my intention therein, and hoping that the learned will reward it, by obtaining (for me) through their prayers the excellence of the Divine mercy: in requital of which, may the choicest blessings and the abundant bounty of God be theirs ! My confidence rests with God, in this as in everything, and in Him I put my trust. He is the Lord of the Sublime Throne. May His blessing descend upon all the prophets and heavenly messengers!
... Praise God the creator who has bestowed upon man the POWER TO DISCOVER THE SIGNFICANCE OF NUMBERS. Indeed, reflecting that all things which men need require computation, I discovered that all things involve number and I discovered that number is nothing other than that which is composed of units. Unity therefore is implied in every number. Moreover I discovered all numbers to be so arranged that they proceed from unity up to ten...." pp. 45-46, 67. These are from L. Karpinski's (U. of Michigan) English translation of Robert Chester's Latin Translation of al-Khwarizmi's Algebra, University of Michigan Press, 1933.
Readers should notice: (a) As an indication that their pursuit of science, knowledge and truth had no conflict with their faith. Thus, is their acknowledgment of God and his revelations in their life. Development of Algebra, Trigonometry or Geometry is neither dependent upon having faith in God, nor is it impeded by such faith - provided that pursuers have struck that balance in their pursuits. (b) Whether al-Khwarizmi was right or wrong in his assertion, he clearly acknowledges that his interest in numbers was inspired what he believed to be the power bestowed by God to discover the significance of numbers. In addition, there was socially-relevant and problem-solving consciousness behind his treatise. Practice and implementation of Islamic way of life, which is not and can't be completely at the personal level for the Muslims, in regard to inheritance and other matters required better framework to more efficient calculations or computations. Another clear case repudiating the assertion of Mr. Masud.
For anyone suggesting that the lives of these scholars/scientists/philosophers (Ulama) were compartmentalized in their pursuits of knowledge, science and truth, or that Islam did not play any role, or the list of the source of their influence was Byzantine, Greek; and Mesopotamian - well, as I have already stated: such positions are UNFOUNDED, UNINFORMED AND/OR PREJUDICED. The mooring of these scholars/scientists was in Islam and being inspired by Islam they imbibed from and embraced the shelf of the knowledge the entire humanity had to offer. To them, there was no us vs. them, when it came to knowledge and its pursuit. Despite their mooring in Islam, they were scientific in their approach, perspective and methodology. Just as George Sarton stated: "Though motivated and permeated by the spirit of their religion, they would not allow dogma as interpreted by the orthodox to stand in the way of their scientific research. Thus, what role Islam played in their works? Central. Pivotal. Crucial.
Muslims are not, and these Ulama were not, "rationalists", i.e., adherents to narrow Rationalism. But rational thinking is as much internal to Islam as is traditional orthodoxy. It has been unfortunate for Muslims as well as for the humanity that traditionalism and orthodoxy have taken the hold, but that is a human factor. These Ulama's intellectual and scientific pursuits were based on their unflinching and EXPLICIT faith that Islam is a way of life that human beings should seek in pursuit of a balance between all the contending tendencies. In this regard, in some respects they were just as orthodox as anyone could be, and in other respects, they put up the fiercest challenge against the orthodox establishment.
VII. The Inspiration Factor - Let's ask Ibn KhaldunIn his rejoinder under the title "Pride and Prejudice", Dr. Kaushik Sen commendably narrowed down the discussion in the following statement. "The central disagreement was on a set of completely opposite hypotheses. While some authors (Drs. Omar Farooq, Saiful Islam and Muhammad al-Faruque) held that Islam was the prime inspiration for the scholars of that period, others (Drs Masudur Rahman and myself) believed that those contributions were independent of their religious belief (does not mean that the scholars were non-religious) and much of those works were actually adopted from non-Islamic sources." Dr. Sen then discussed the contribution of several such Muslim Ulama (scientists/philosophers/scholars) and also posed a number of specific questions.
First, let me clarify a few pertinent aspects before I deal with the Inspiration Factor.
1. Adoption of knowledge from non-Muslim sources is not an issue here
In hypothesizing their (Masudur Rahman/Kaushik Sen) position, Dr. Sen mentioned "much of those works were actually adopted from non-Islamic sources". This is not a moot aspect of the discussion, and therefore it is not part of their hypothesized position. Indeed, these scholars/scientists avidly turned to the world shelf of knowledge and imbibed themselves from all corners of the world. This is not part of the dispute. Rather, I have pointed out that when it comes to knowledge/science, neither humanity does/should nor Islam does/should consider contributions of any specific people or source as forbidden or unworthy. "Hikmah (wisdom; philosophy; rationale; scientific knowledge) is the lost treasure of a believer. Wherever one finds, one should avail it." [Sunan Ibn Majah, #4169]. It may have or must have taken some time for this message to sink in the minds that were being shaped by the nascent Islamic civilization, but once it did, the results are hardly unpredictable or puzzling.
2. It's NOT Theology! It's NOT Theology! It's NOT Theology!
Dr. Sen also mentioned "While all authors have agreed that during the so called ‘Middle Age’ the Islamic scholars contributed immensely for both 1) maintenance of continuity of the classical knowledge and 2) creation of new ideas and original contributions, they have expressed differences regarding the specific role of Islamic theology in such contributions."
This is a part about which I am quite disappointed because at least from my side, I have made it quite clear that there is no issue of "Islamic theology" involved here. I wrote in Part 5: Reflections on Some Misperceptions "Anyway, these trailblazing Muslim scientists were acutely aware of the problem of orthodoxy and traditionalism, and most often their life and work fully reflect this non-adherence to such doctrinal aspect. The same applies to theology, a term too narrow to understand or describe Islam and its ethos or spirit that can motivate and inspire people. Doctrines or theology did not make these contributions possible. I am aware of this too and my writings are careful enough to avoid that pitfall. Thus, unless Dr. Sen can show from my writing that I have articulated my thought in terms of doctrines or theology, much of his comments is misplaced." [Note: I had that "theology" in bold face in that earlier write-up.]
I said I am disappointed because either Dr. Sen is not reading my writing carefully or else. If I am not making contact, then I am not sure how else I can be more clear than saying once more that "Doctrines or theology did not make these contributions possible." Indeed, I have a feeling that this is one of the stumbling blocks in the understanding of both Dr. Sen and Mr. Rahman because they might be thinking that what I and others have tried to articulate are in terms of Islamic doctrines or theology, while IT IS NOT. Indeed, this might also explain why Dr. Sen was elated to receive "A Prize from Dr. Farooq" as he wrote: "Dr Farooq wrote 'Indeed, the people who made these scientific contributions were not doctrinaires" which is the most important message that I myself always wanted to convey and could never do it so boldly. Indeed men of Science do not belong to any creed, they are merely outstanding examples of humanity.'"
As far as the part that they were not doctrinaires, it simply means that the