NO-2. Referred articles - DAWN Articles, Books and Author, August 31, 2008
Dr. Sabieh Anwer
Over the years there has considerable hype about Islam and science
in our academic and public circles and have books come out in the
limelight. Fortunately, there is consensus on three facts. Muslim
enjoyed a remarkable ascendancy in science for about five centuries,
an ascendancy that was unrivalled by any contemporary civilization.
Second science has now dwindled to frighteningly low stand in the
Muslim world and there is a critical need to rescue the Muslim culture
from complete intellectual annihilation that science and Islam are
compatible. Over and above these fundamental agreements, there is
considerable dispute.
One of the more influential articulations on the subject of science
and Islam, and the ongoing debate between the religious orthodoxy and
the rational intelligentsia has come from the camp of the modern
secularist, especially from the physicist, University professors and
social activists, Pervez Hoodbhoy in his book Islam and Science:
Religious Orthodoxy and the Battle for Rationality (Zed books, London
1991).
The book is written in clear and effective language and sets the
tone for the more reasoned debate on the subject within Pakistan. It
performs the much needed task of exposing Islam- inspired pseudo
scientists whose only claim to fame is giving scientific explanations
for miracles, lending credence to superstitions, proving that all
science is embedded in the Quran and of course reject the theory of
evolution.
THE BEATEN TRACK
Hoodbhoy's griping narrative is a classic example of the 'classical
narrative'. According to the classification picture, Muslim scientists
transcended in all major fields of scientific inquiry but there role
remained, at best, one of an intelligent postman. They took the
classic Greek sources and engaged in a massive translation and
commentary enterprise, mostly under the patronage of Abbasid Caliph
Mamum-ur-Rashid in his bait-ul-hikmah (House of Wisdom) around 830
C.E. The greatest translator of all times was Hunayn Ibn Ishaq, not a
Muslim but a Christian. After this translation movement, the end
product was bequeathed to the West at the time of the so-called first
Renaissance, around the 12the centaury. Science in the Islamic world
than became irrelevant.
There are, however, serious problems with this approach. First the
narrative assumes that Muslims by themselves were incapable of
originating any new scientific ideas. The first Muslims were
desert-dwelling Arabs, incapable of any scientific mode of thinking,
and only when they came in contact with the neighbouring Sasanian
(Iranian) and Byzantine (Roman) civilizations, were they exposed to
the majestic works of the Greek Intellectuals including Prolemy,
Plotinus and Aristotle.
The second misgiving is the supposition that the Muslim scientific
consciousness some how triggered woke up from dark languishing slumber
in the early Abbasid period (750 to 900 CE), but there was nothing
inherent in the Islamic belief system or in the uniquely Muslim
culture that could instigate such a complete reawakening. In other
words the impetus was all foreign. Allama Iqbal in his lecture 'The
Spirit of Muslim Culture' has also briefly addressed the
naturalization of ancient and Greek sciences into the Muslim
scientific spirit and the kind of value-addition they performed.
According to the post-philosopher, science flourishing in the Islamic
civilization marked an all out revolt against Greek thought. In the
book Islamic Science and Making of the European Renaissance (reviewed
in Books and Authors, Jan 13, 2008), George Salibah also knows with
several historical evidences that unique juridical requirements of the
Islamic fiqah provided the main thrust to the development of the exact
sciences. For example, the complicated inheritance laws gave birth to
the discipline of algebra; advanced computations of zakat and the
jizya resulted in the maturing of the numerical and fractional
sciences; and the requirements for prayer directions and timings laid
the foundations for theoretical models proposed by Prolemy. One could
note that this model of religion enriching science worked not only
Islamic, but also in other contexts.
For example, Babylonians, in a need to predict the appearance of different celestial phenomena as omens started developing mathematical astronomy around 2000 BCE and devised accurate tables around 500 BCE.
The third most object ional premise of the classical narrative,
championed by Hoodbhoy' approach is that the Muslim ascendancy in
science was the exception than the rule. The scientists were outcasts
living the fringes of a society that was under the grip of mullahs who
shunned and resisted scientific thought, openly calumniated human
reason, logic, deductive and were against all forms of art and music
and the subtler delicacies of free inquiry.
A ubiquitous figure in of all these debates is the theologian and
philosopher, Imam Abu Hamid Al-Ghazali (1058 – 1111) C.E. His over
arching stature in the Islamic religious tradition aside, he is also
considered to be one bitter enemy of the sciences. Several writers
would have us believe that Al-Ghazali strangulated human reason and
made it slavishly subservient to revealed knowledge and in the present
times we are still reeling the devastating below blow inflicted by
Al-Ghazali on human reason.
Not surprisingly, these acquisitions gain more credence when they
come from accomplished scientists. For example, the noble Laureate and
physicists. Steven Weinberg published a review on Richard Dawkin's
book The God Delusion (Ban-tam 2006) in the Times Literary Supplement
(January 17, 2007).
In his review Weinberg comfortably pronounced. 'Alas, Islam turned
against science in the 12th centaury. The influential figure was the
philospher Abu Hamid Al-Ghazali , who argued in The Incoherence of the
Philosophers against the very idea of the Laws of Nature, on the
ground that any such laws would put the God's hands in chains.
According to Al-Ghazali a piece of cotton placed in a flame does not
darken and smolder because of the heat, because God wants it to be
darken and smolder. After Al-Ghazali, there was no more science worth
mentioning in Islamic countries [emphasis added]'.
Furthermore Hoodbhoy very strongly claims, 'The most articulate and
effective opponent of physical casuality was Al-Ghazali. According
to Al-Gahazli, it is futile to believe that the world runs according
to physical laws.
This simplistic bifurcation into the reasoned and the unreasoned;
the rationalist group of the 'great heretics' typified by the
iconoclast, Ibne-e-Rushd and the camp of orthodox , with Al-Ghazali
being with most articulate representatives, serves Hoodbhoy et al very
well in their nifty compartmentalization schemes, but the division
seriously challenges the more serious and deep scholarship in this
field.
In numerous places throughout his vast numbers of texts, Al Ghazali
makes it very clear that his task is not to question the established
truths in the natural order. Disputing these facts of nature, far from
being disservice to the scientific method, will be a disservice to
religion itself. An instructive example is provided in the second
introduction to (Tahafat-ul-Falasifa(Incoherence of the philosophers),
where Al-Ghazali discusses the solar and lunar eclipses . After
stating the 'scientific' facts that the solar eclipse results from the
moon intervening the sun and the earth and the lunar eclipse from the
earth in between the sun and moon, he writes.
'Whosoever thinks in a disputation for disputing such a theory is a
religious duty harms religion and weakens it. For these matters rest
on demonstration, geometrical and arithmetical, that room no room for
doubt.'
Similarly, mathematics and arithmetic, in Al-Ghazali's view are
'exact' sciences with no connection with metaphysical and religious
principles. Therefore using mathematics to prove religious believes is
at best, absurd. These sciences are based on demonstrative proves and
their implications cannot be denied or affirmed in any religious
connotation. In 'Deliverance from Error', Al-Ghazali write, 'A
grievous crime indeed against religion has been committed by the man
who imagines that Islam is defended by the denial of the mathematical
sciences, seeing that there is nothing in revealed truth opposed to
the sciences by way of either negation or affirmation, and nothing in
these sciences opposed to the truth of religion.
Furthermore, Al-Ghazali claims that metaphysics and religion are not
in need of mathematics, just as poetry is not in need of mathematics,
or philosophy or grammar can be mastered by anyone who is totally
ignorant of mathematical sciences. Why did Gahzali then, at least
apparently discourage the learning of mathematics? In fact Hoodbhoy
uses this argument quite skillfully and alas, only erroneously in the
section of his book titled 'Al-Ghazali routs the rationalists'.
A careful analysis of this argument asks for a holistic picture of
Al-Ghazali's Weltanschauung. Al-Ghazali was not only a theologian ort
a scholar in the ordinary sense of the world; rather he was a 'public
scholar'. His main purpose was to safeguard the purely religious
beliefs of the believers from straying from the 'straight path'. The
average believers who were the addressees of Al-Ghazali's Deliverance
could not master mathematics or logic or geometry, mainly followed
what they were instructed in matters of religious opinion or the
otherwise. In the presence circumstances, philosophers were regarded
by many as men 'in possession of distinctive from companion and peer
by virtue of a superior quick wit and intelligence'.
These philosophers used the language of Aristotle, resorted to
apodictic proofs, employed syllogistic rules, for demonstrations and
wrote in a grammar that was mainly abstruse, high sounding and worded
and therefore, in accessible to common Muslim. The perception led to
the conclusion that 'the metaphysics being the most difficult sciences
for the intelligent minds'– could be deciphered only through the most
sophisticated tools of mathematics and logic, the expertise of the
philosophers. As a result the average minds incapable of delving of
complexities into the complexities of mathematics and logic by
themselves would be enticed into believing that the philosophers, who
apply their mathematical skills and astounding precision to matters to
physical world, must also be followed in matters of religion.
Al-Ghazali warns his readers that every discipline of study has its
experts, an expert in mathematics may not be an expert in grammar and
an expert in geometry may fail miserably when it comes to matters of
religion. In short, Al-Ghazali's truck is not with mathematics, but
with philosophers with mathematics, but with philosophers who could
potentially lead people to stray in matters of pure religion.
AL-Ghazali makes this very clear in the introduction to the
Tahafat-al-falsafia (not Tahafat-al-falsafa): he is not contradicting
philosophers on points of semantics and definitions, nor does he
disagree with them in issues with no religious significance (such as
eclipses); his major disagreements pertains to questions with
fundamental theological implications, and these are only three: a) has
the universe existed for ever, does God know all particulars, and c)
bodily resurrection possible! 'It is in this topic and its likes, not
any other, one must show the falsity of three doctrine.'
Far from all this, Al-Gazali considers mathematics and arithmetic
to belong to the category of the praiseworthy (mamduh) sciences. In
his book Revival of Religious sciences, Chapter 1 he writes,
'Science whose knowledge is deemed fard kifayah comprise [all]
sciences which are indispensable for the welfare of this world such
as: medicine which is necessary for the life of the body, arithmetic
for daily transactions and divisions of legacies and inheritances, as
well others besides. These are sciences which, because of their
absence, the community would be reduced to narrow straits.'
The science of mathematics is a community obligation and further
more delving into deeper into mysteries of mathematics and medicine
has also been regarded meritorious. In fact, Al-Ghazali laments the
fact that Muslims prefer a study of Islamic law over medicine and it
becomes hard to find Muslim physicians, yet jurisprudents abound and
often indulge in disputation, rancor, useless hair splitting and
vehement diatribes, adding to confusion and strife.
For example, an individual deciding in take study of fiqah when
there is a population in dire need of health care is some one 'who
neglects to give his attention to the calamity which has fallen a
group of thirsty Muslims [and] is like the person who devotes while
several fard kifayah duties remain neglected in town.'
A major problem of Al-Ghazali's time was that all forms of
knowledge had required religious significance and so, points of
intellectual disputes slip into bitter religious disagreements,
leading to branding of unbelief, excommunication and heresy.
Al-Ghazali addressed this situation by carefully proposing a
classification scheme of all common form of knowledge, placing Islamic
jurisprudence, one major source of contention, at the level of
'worldly disciplines', not too superior it as a collective duty of the
community rather than an individual obligation.
Such a ranking was in opposition to the generally held opinion of
the Islamic scholarship, and was considered a sacrilege towards the
religious merits of fiqah, but Al-Ghazali stuck to his position.
However irrespective of all this, Hoodbhoy in his book would us to
believe that,
'He condemns mathematics with vigour and without reservation,
rejecting the notion that any thing good can be contained in it.' In
fact George Saliba quite convincingly shows that the period after Imam
Al-Ghazali is marked by an increase in scientific production, at least
as far as astronomy is concerned. After all we have the names of Ibn
al-Shatir, Tusi, Urdi, Shirazi, Khafri, al-Baghdadi, (d.1152), Qushji
(d. 1474), Nizam-al-Din al-Nisapuri (d. 1328) and the famous potentate
astronomer Ulugh Bag (d.1449), who all flourished well nigh after Imam
Al-Ghazali.
The foundation stone of highly productive Maragha observatory was
laid in 1259, a year after the destruction of Baghdad. The golden age
in Arabic astronomy was certainly after Imam Al-Ghazali, not before
him.
----------------------------------------------------------
'exact' sciences with no connection with metaphysical and religious
principles. Therefore using mathematics to prove religious believes is
at best, absurd. These sciences are based on demonstrative proves and
their implications cannot be denied or affirmed in any religious
connotation. In 'Deliverance from Error', Al-Ghazali write, 'A
grievous crime indeed against religion has been committed by the man
who imagines that Islam is defended by the denial of the mathematical
sciences, seeing that there is nothing in revealed truth opposed to
the sciences by way of either negation or affirmation, and nothing in
these sciences opposed to the truth of religion.
Furthermore, Al-Ghazali claims that metaphysics and religion are not
in need of mathematics, just as poetry is not in need of mathematics,
or philosophy or grammar can be mastered by anyone who is totally
ignorant of mathematical sciences. Why did Gahzali then, at least
apparently discourage the learning of mathematics? In fact Hoodbhoy
uses this argument quite skillfully and alas, only erroneously in the
section of his book titled 'Al-Ghazali routs the rationalists'.
A careful analysis of this argument asks for a holistic picture of
Al-Ghazali's Weltanschauung. Al-Ghazali was not only a theologian ort
a scholar in the ordinary sense of the world; rather he was a 'public
scholar'. His main purpose was to safeguard the purely religious
beliefs of the believers from straying from the 'straight path'. The
average believers who were the addressees of Al-Ghazali's Deliverance
could not master mathematics or logic or geometry, mainly followed
what they were instructed in matters of religious opinion or the
otherwise. In the presence circumstances, philosophers were regarded
by many as men 'in possession of distinctive from companion and peer
by virtue of a superior quick wit and intelligence'.
These philosophers used the language of Aristotle, resorted to
apodictic proofs, employed syllogistic rules, for demonstrations and
wrote in a grammar that was mainly abstruse, high sounding and worded
and therefore, in accessible to common Muslim. The perception led to
the conclusion that 'the metaphysics being the most difficult sciences
for the intelligent minds'– could be deciphered only through the most
sophisticated tools of mathematics and logic, the expertise of the
philosophers. As a result the average minds incapable of delving of
complexities into the complexities of mathematics and logic by
themselves would be enticed into believing that the philosophers, who
apply their mathematical skills and astounding precision to matters to
physical world, must also be followed in matters of religion.
Al-Ghazali warns his readers that every discipline of study has its
experts, an expert in mathematics may not be an expert in grammar and
an expert in geometry may fail miserably when it comes to matters of
religion. In short, Al-Ghazali's truck is not with mathematics, but
with philosophers with mathematics, but with philosophers who could
potentially lead people to stray in matters of pure religion.
AL-Ghazali makes this very clear in the introduction to the
Tahafat-al-falsafia (not Tahafat-al-falsafa): he is not contradicting
philosophers on points of semantics and definitions, nor does he
disagree with them in issues with no religious significance (such as
eclipses); his major disagreements pertains to questions with
fundamental theological implications, and these are only three: a) has
the universe existed for ever, does God know all particulars, and c)
bodily resurrection possible! 'It is in this topic and its likes, not
any other, one must show the falsity of three doctrine.'
Far from all this, Al-Gazali considers mathematics and arithmetic
to belong to the category of the praiseworthy (mamduh) sciences. In
his book Revival of Religious sciences, Chapter 1 he writes,
'Science whose knowledge is deemed fard kifayah comprise [all]
sciences which are indispensable for the welfare of this world such
as: medicine which is necessary for the life of the body, arithmetic
for daily transactions and divisions of legacies and inheritances, as
well others besides. These are sciences which, because of their
absence, the community would be reduced to narrow straits.'
The science of mathematics is a community obligation and further
more delving into deeper into mysteries of mathematics and medicine
has also been regarded meritorious. In fact, Al-Ghazali laments the
fact that Muslims prefer a study of Islamic law over medicine and it
becomes hard to find Muslim physicians, yet jurisprudents abound and
often indulge in disputation, rancor, useless hair splitting and
vehement diatribes, adding to confusion and strife.
For example, an individual deciding in take study of fiqah when
there is a population in dire need of health care is some one 'who
neglects to give his attention to the calamity which has fallen a
group of thirsty Muslims [and] is like the person who devotes while
several fard kifayah duties remain neglected in town.'
A major problem of Al-Ghazali's time was that all forms of
knowledge had required religious significance and so, points of
intellectual disputes slip into bitter religious disagreements,
leading to branding of unbelief, excommunication and heresy.
Al-Ghazali addressed this situation by carefully proposing a
classification scheme of all common form of knowledge, placing Islamic
jurisprudence, one major source of contention, at the level of
'worldly disciplines', not too superior it as a collective duty of the
community rather than an individual obligation.
Such a ranking was in opposition to the generally held opinion of
the Islamic scholarship, and was considered a sacrilege towards the
religious merits of fiqah, but Al-Ghazali stuck to his position.
However irrespective of all this, Hoodbhoy in his book would us to
believe that,
'He condemns mathematics with vigour and without reservation,
rejecting the notion that any thing good can be contained in it.' In
fact George Saliba quite convincingly shows that the period after Imam
Al-Ghazali is marked by an increase in scientific production, at least
as far as astronomy is concerned. After all we have the names of Ibn
al-Shatir, Tusi, Urdi, Shirazi, Khafri, al-Baghdadi, (d.1152), Qushji
(d. 1474), Nizam-al-Din al-Nisapuri (d. 1328) and the famous potentate
astronomer Ulugh Bag (d.1449), who all flourished well nigh after Imam
Al-Ghazali.
The foundation stone of highly productive Maragha observatory was
laid in 1259, a year after the destruction of Baghdad. The golden age
in Arabic astronomy was certainly after Imam Al-Ghazali, not before
him.
----------------------------------------------------------
--
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle
radimersky on
No comments:
Post a Comment