Contemporary Issues in Islam and Science

Volume 2

Muzaffar Iqbal, Muzaffar Iqbal

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• ISBN:
  9781351949156
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Islamic Studies
• Index: Social Sciences

The articles selected for this volume explore emergent issues in the contemporary relationship between Islam and science and present studies of eight major voices in the discourse. Also included is a section on the operationalization of Islamic science in the modern world and a section on studies in traditional Islamic cosmology.

Part I
Formulating Questions on
Islam and Science Nexus

[1]
Where’s Where? Mapping Out The Future of Islamic Science (Part-I)

Ziauddin Sardar

Intellectual Studies Foundation
London

While examining various schools of thought in the contemporary discourse on Islamic Science» the author refers to four schools and discusses their ideological positions and intellectual stands. In this part of his essay the author elaborates on Guenon/Schuon school of thought represented by S.H. Nasr. It is infact a fusion of the Ismaili esoterism with the Guenon/Schuon philosophy based on esoteric and sapiential teachings of Platonismi Vedanta, Sufism and Budhism. The author’s stand is that their views have nothing to do with Islam as claimed by their protagonists in the literature produced by them.

In the development of every discipline, from time to time, points are reached when it becomes necessary to critically examine the stock of accumulated ideas, look at the parameters within which the discourse on the discipline has meaning and significance and study the direction towards which the discipline is moving The nascent discipline of Islamic science has, over the last decade, produced a body of ideas and criticisms as well as cherished positions and metaphysical expositions which need to be examined throughly if the direction that the discipline is taking is to be delineated. At this juncture in the hisotry of the contemporary development of this discipline, scholars find themselves in a circular bind: the same arguments are repeated again and again, positions are restated without regard for the counterarguments and the weight of evidence that is brought against them, and an overall sense of direction is only conspicuous by its total absence.

In this paper, I intend to examine the ideas of various contemporary ‘schools of thoughts’ which are taking part in the discourse rather loosly defined as Islamic science’ and delineate the future direction towards which I think the discourse and discipline should be moving.

Ticket to Ride

At least three recent papers have tried to develop a typology of positions within the discourse in Islamic Science.¹ However, these typologies attribute beliefs and positions by drawing similarities between the approaches of various authors without making their positions clear or developing appropriate correlation between their approaches. If we attribute beliefs simply by drawing superficial similarities between authors we end up producing strange assimilations. For example, because Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Parvez Manzoor, Munawar Ahmad Anees and myself consider western science to be culturally biased and value-laden, Mohammad Zaki Kirmani assumes that the approaches of Nasr and the other three are the same;² in fact, the differences between these approaches are so fundamental that they constitute two totally different ways of looking at science, indeed even the notion of science in the two approaches are totally different. Again, M. Kaleemur Rahman assumes that because both Nasr and I have justified the use of the term Islamic science’ we are in fact talking about the same thing³; not just our justifications come from radically different perspectives, but the mould in which we cast Islamic science are also totally different.

The imputation of beliefs should be based on a critical examination of the text of an author, indeed, not just a single work but where possible an entire ouvre. Creative minds do not remain static, they grow, they learn not just from their own experience but more so from the arguments and evidence brought forward by others. An ouvre of an author therefore may reveal changes in position. However, much more interesting than attributing beliefs to individual authors, is the imputation of beliefs to group of authors⁴. Our imputation of beliefs to group of scholars or schools of thought assumes that individuals, and their affirmations and utterances, express intellectual positions which are borne by the group to which they belong. While there is no such metaphysical entity as a group mind which thinks over and above the heads of the individual, or whose ideas the individual merely reproduces, nevertheless it would be false to deduce from this that all the ideas and the sentiments which motivate an individual have their origin in him alone, and can be explained solely on the basis of his own life-experiences.

Can we attribute positions to a group of scholars randomly or is there a more reasonable way of ascribing intellectual stands? One obvious criterion is where the members of the relevant group are willing to affirm the attributed position as their own and demonstrate the use of ideas in their work. This criteria is met by two groups of scholars who are taking an active part in the discourse on Islamic science. The first consists of Hossein Nasr and his followers, most notably Osman Bakar, who have produced a corpus of literature; I shall refer to them as the ‘Guenon/Schuon’ school of thought as they derive most of their ideas from the scholarship of Rene Gueon and Fritjof Schuon. The second school of thought describes itself as the group otljmal: the root work jml conveys the ideas of beauty on the one hand and wholeness on the other; Ijmal captures the substance of synthesis with the style of aesthetics. The name suggests this group seeks sythesis within a particular framework. On the discourse on Islamic science, three Ijmalis are well known: S. Parvez Manzoor⁵, Munawar Ahmad Anees⁶ and myself. The names of four others are also familiar to those who are aware of the existence of a new trend in muslim intellectual thought first introduced by the now defunct journal, Inquiry:Gulzax Haider⁷ Merryl Wyn Davies⁸, Mohmmad Iqbal Asaria⁹ and Ibrahim Sulieman¹⁰. While the Ijmalis are a heterogeneous group, their intellectual position is united by a methodology of conceptual analysis, that can be seen in all their works, which aims at synthesis and future-oriented expressions of the values of Islam in all aspects of contemporary thought and life.

Group identity is not fixed to declared intellectual positions, objective interests and stated goals. It can also arise by the connection of a group of scholars to a particular institution. Scholars affiliated to an institution tend to work on similar problems and even though their individual positions may be different there is an overall unity to their work which comes from regualr interchange of ideas and constant criticisms from colleagues. Thus in the sociology of knowledge, we have the noted Edinburg school of thought, attached to the University of Edinburg, which works on the relativist account of science, and at the opposite end the hisotric Vienna Circle which produced the original logical positivist stance on science. In the discursive field of Islamic science this position is held by the Aligarh school, based at the Centre for Studies on Science in Aligarh, India, and consists of the group of scholars who contribute regularly to the MAAS Journal of Islamic Science. Once again the positions within the group vary, but there is unity in the overall concerns and emphasis of the group: the Aligarh is essentially a school of criticism of science, and most of its original ideas have emerged from criticisms of established positions, with a dominant concern for methodology. This group includes Mohammad Zaki Kirmani, Mohammad Riaz Kirmani, M. Kaleemur Rahman and Rais Ahmad.

Finally, group identity can also emerge as an outcome of discursive processes in the world at large. Different scholars may express their positions in different ways, articulate their thoughts using different concepts, may emphasise different areas of discourse, but their underlying, fundamental epistemological positions may be the same. As Foucault says,

“the frontiers of a book are never clear cut: beyond the title, the first lines, and the last full stop, beyond its internal configuration and autonomous form, it is caught up in a system of references to other books, other texts other sentences: it is node within a network.”¹¹

Many authors who have contributed to the discourse of Islamic science, are part of the network of western science. However they may couch their thoughts, whatever values they may seek to protect, whatever beliefs they may confess, they are essentially propagating the dominant, positivist and realist view of science. This view, or ideology, sees science as a universal, objective pursuit of Truth. Muhammad Abdus Salam, Ali Kettani, S. Waqar A. Husaini, Z. R. al-Nejjar and Jamal Mimouni belong to this school, but most Muslim scientists hold this belief.

I intend to critically examine the positions of each of these schools and then suggest some positive ways in which the discourse on Islamic science can move forward.

Nowhere Man

Let me begin with Nasr and his followers. To understand where Nasr is taking the discourse, and through his prolific output Islamic science itself, we must appreciate where he is coming from. One needs to understand his world-view, not because one wishes to make cheap sectarian points, but because his distinctive outlook permeates everything he writes; indeed, his whole ouvre is an extended apologia for his rather specific and circumcised outlook.

I am not concerned here with Nasr’s personal beliefs; the brand of Islam he follows is his own affair. I am concerned with his published views; and a reading of his ouvre reveals that he is heavily influenced by Ismaili thoughts and is a strong—this is probably an understatement—supporter of the Guenon/Schuon school of thought. To understand Nasr’s whereabouts, it is important to appreciate both Ismaili thought and Guenon/Schuon worldview which form the basis of his own Weltanschauung. I will explore both by looking at a representative segment of Nasr’s ouvre; and where necessary I will provide that amount of background and historic information which is essential to the argument.

Ismailism branched off from the mainstream of Islamic thought around the latter part of the eighth century. Its main dispute with mainstream Shia orthodoxy concerned Ismael, son of Imam Jafar Sadiq, the sixth Imam, who they believed should have been designated the seventh Imam of the Shia. They emphasise the internal and symbolic teachings of the Qurʿān, from where—along other sources to which we shall turn shortly—they derive a distinct body of esoteric teachings and particular cosmology. As Hakim Mohammad Said and Ansar Zahid Khan point out,

“the Abbasid period saw this branch of Shiism developing regional and ethnic affiliations. It was able to gain Yemen and North Africa to its cause. At one stage coinciding with the decay of the Abbasids, the Ismaili beliefs nearly overwhelmed the whole Muslim world. The tenth century witnessed the greatest period of glory for these beliefs under the Fatimids (909–1171 AD.) with their new capital at Qahira (Cairo founded in 969 A.D.). In the east their movement was characterised by two developments. In Iran and Transociana where the Abbasids had been successful, they developed a rational and philosophical style while in Sind they closely identified the idea of redeemer with that of the awaited incarnation of Vishnu. The former gave birth to Ikhwan al-Safa, while the later resulted in Dasa-avtar, one of the canons of modern Ismailis”.¹²

Thus Hindu philosophy, particularly the notion of reincarnation any cyclic time became part of Ismaili doctrines at a very early stage.

The Ismaili doctrine has two main facets: the zahir, or the outwardly, which is essentailly similar to the Shia theology and practices; and the batin, or the hidden, an esoteric system of philosophy and science, amalgamated with some notions of the Qxir’an and serving as a guide to its inner content, providing religious prescriptions and, in its original formulation, intended to prove the divine origins of the institution of the Imamate and the exclusive rights of the Fatimids to it. The most prominent elements of this system are the gnostic traditions of the Greeks, including the mystical teachings of Pythagoras, the neo-Platonic philosophy, the natural philosophy of Aristotle, aspec...