By Mohammad Tariq Saeed
In response to the article published in Outlook magazine by Parvez Hoodbhoy
This is a very good article and the author deserves our commendation for its being published in a major national magazine. Serves to clear up quite a few misconceptions, especially prevalent in the sub-continent. Also presents a wealth of contemporary statistics, showing very plainly and truly the intellectual poverty of the Muslim world. However there are a few points which need further discussion:
First, the author’s contention that science came to Muslims because of a combination of Greek translations and Mutazilite rationalism is debatable (and one which has not been put forward by any other serious Muslims scholar). If this was truly the case then why was Christian Europe – with access to Greek knowledge and the Greek language for 1000 years before Islam – unable to benefit itself from the Greeks and bring about this scientific revolution in their own society? Why did Europe remain in the deepest of dark ages till the 14th century AD so much so that even basic acts of cleanliness like bathing were considered blasphemies? Why was Copernicus hanged in 1543 AD and Galileo imprisoned as late as 1633 AD for saying something which Muslims had already said a full 600 years earlier? The larger question, indeed, is – why did the entire human race remain ignorant of science till the advent of Islam, even though the same body of knowledge, the same Earth, water, heavenly bodies etc were present since the birth of mankind?
The truth is that most ancient/medieval societies considered the universe as an object of worship and veneration. The sun, the moon, planets, constellations, oceans, trees and even animals were considered holy, divine and worshipped for centuries before Islam. Complicated religious dogma were held dear, like the monastic belief that celibacy and self-denial, nay self-torture is the way to reach God, that the Earth on which God sent his ‘son’ cannot be but holy and has to be the centre of the Universe with every other heavenly body revolving around it! Beliefs that illnesses were caused by demons and ghosts and could only be cured by priestly exorcism. These dogmas were the cause of the backwardness of the whole human race, and the reason for scientific stagnation for thousands of years.
Islam broke these false chains and declared that nothing is worthy of worship but God alone. Nothing is holy but what God has declared to be so. The Qur’an explicitly declares the sun, stars, moon, earth, wind, the oceans etc are created by God for the use of mankind and it exhorts mankind to reflect on their creation. All of creation is for the service of man and under his field of critical observation, not for his worship. This is the revolutionary worldview that Islam gave to the world, the new way of looking at the universe which was behind every Muslim achievement, from the bold conquest of oceans to the meteoric rise of Islamic sciences. To be fair, Muslims borrowed much from Greek philosophy and art. But science? Greece had nothing to offer by way of any advanced science, all they had was a few scientific beliefs covered by a mass of cobwebs of saint-worship, creature worship and mythology.
On the other hand, the Mutazilites’ actual ‘contribution’ was not in science, it was limited to stretching the inherent rationalism of Islam too far, and claiming the supremacy of intellect over revelation in matters of belief, for eg they denied reward/punishment of the grave on the basis that it could not be perceived by human senses. If Mutazilites brought about the revolution in science, wouldn’t most of the early scientists have been Mutazilites? This is not the case as history shows plainly.
Second, the author asserts that the demise of science in Muslim societies was brought about by traditionists stifling science. Other scholars of Islam differ. The traditionalists held debates with Mutazilites (regarding their beliefs on Islam) and with philosophers, but philosophy is not science and history provides no evidence that Muslim scientists were specifically persecuted by traditionalists. There was never a Muslim Galileo or Copernicus. In fact, when the decline came, it was all-encompassing. Where interest in scientific learning was waning, there was a corresponding decline in religious learning too. Where after the 15th century Muslims could no longer produce scientific scholars like Ibn Khuldun, Idrisi or AlKhwarizmi, the Islamic world was also empty of religious scholars like Abu Hanifa, Imam Bukhari or Ghazali. The decline triggered by the Mongol sack of Baghdad was continued with the idling down of intellectual life in Islam, internecine political battles among power hungry kingdoms, the loss of Spain, the widespread enjoyment of luxuries of life, and the divorce of Islam from Muslim life. This has continued to our day, where rock bottom has been reached with some ill-informed Muslims preaching against scientific education and others equating Islam with backwardness and demanding the removal of Islam from public life!
Third, lets talk about prescriptions. Mr Hoodbhoy gives three, and Islamic scholars differ in one:
1. A social ethic of hard work: Very true, who could argue with that!
2. Rejecting fatalism: Again very true, Islam does not teach blind fatalism. It teaches the undertaking of the greatest endeavours with complete reliance in Allah as the foundation for success. It does NOT teach abandoning efforts thinking that Allah will take care of everything!
3. Rejecting Tradition: Far from rejecting tradition, Muslims need to revive the liberating theology of Tauheed. It is this tradition which brought about the greatest scientific revolution ever, and can do so again. It is our tradition which teaches us, “Wisdom is the lost property of a Muslim wherever he finds it” (Hadeeth). Muslims should take scientific learning from the West but at the same time reject its culture.
Please note, these are not my original views at all, but have been put forward by Scholars like Maulana Abul Hasan Ali Nadwi (r). This subject would require many volumes to actually do justice to it, but these were just some very rudimentary points. For those who are interested, some of the resources in the section below might prove useful.
REFERENCES / FURTHER READING (books can be found on Amazon.com or abebooks.com)
1. Philip K. Hitti: History of the Arabs
2. Geroge Sarton: Introduction to the History of Science (1937) – (He divides every century into two 50-year periods and names one personality as the towering achiever for each period. From the eigth to the 14 century, he names a Muslim scientist as the towering personality of each period.)
3. Abul Hasan Ali Nadwi: Islam and the World
4. www.muslimheritage.com/ : This is an unbelievable website. Discover a wealth of eye-opening info.
5. http://www.seerat.net/audio.html : Click on the lecture- “History of West and what East has given to West”. 23 hours of invaluable lectures in Urdu. Substantiated by a wealth of references. Another eye-opener!
6. Thomas Arnold and Guillaume: The legacy of Islam
7. Alfred Guillaume: The Making of Humanity