Religion vs Science in Islam-A Past and Future Question

7/31/2019 Religion vs Science in Islam-A Past and Future Question

1/14

Religion versus Science in Islam: A Past and Future Question

Author(s): C. A. O. Van NieuwenhuijzeReviewed work(s):Source: Die Welt des Islams, New Series, Vol. 33, Issue 2 (Nov., 1993), pp. 276-288Published by: BRILLStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1570955 .

Accessed: 23/04/2012 04:32

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toDie Welt des Islams.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=baphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1570955?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1570955?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bap


2/14

Die Weltdes Islams33 (1993), ? E.J. Brill, Leiden

RELIGION VERSUS SCIENCE IN ISLAM:A PAST AND FUTURE QUESTION

BY

C.A.O. VAN NIEUWENHUIJZEDenHaag

IAt first blush, the topic of "Islam: Religion and Science" intrigues forat least two reasons.One is the word 'and', which, far from denoting an addition or a con-

junction, suggests a relationship which is not self-evident, perhaps adilemma.The other is that in common occidental usage the nexus 'religion andscience' connotes a host of related combinations, such as 'faith and reason',or 'metaphysics and the empirical realm'. Jointly they evoke a mood ofdebate, a need of clarity.

Looking more closely one realizes that in both regards the topic reflectsan occidental mode of problem identification. The inclination towardsdilemmatic ordering of concepts is part of the occidental style of expres-sion.1 The use of paired notions, occasionally several pairs combined, isnot exclusively occidental. It occurs as well in islamic civilization. Still thisparticular one is specifically occidental, dating from before the ScientificRevolution.

It seems appropriate, then, to inquire into the pertinence of the nexusof religion and science to a broadly islamic context, or, should this be toocrass a phrasing, to ask whether in the islamic context the same nexus orits equivalent is recognized and debated as an issue; and if so, how it is be-ing dealt with. There is especial cause for this caution in the case of the oc-cidental student of Islam, who is inevitably at pains to account for his/hernatural, often unconscious, ethnocentrism. Given this aim, some quickreminders on the occidental scene will have to precede an attempt at in-specting the islamic.This exercise is by no means academic only. For one thing, occidental

1 J.P. Charnay, ed., L ambivalenceans a culture rabe.Paris: Anthropos, 1967.


3/14

MISZELLEN 277science has, directlyor indirectly, achieved a global sway of sorts, whichshows no sign of waning. All othercivilizations, includingthe islamic, aresomehow affected.This may, among otherthings, lend renewedtopicalityto Toynbee's thesis on the disruptiveeffect of the grafted splinter.2Besides, it is generally held that the occident's advantage over othercivilizations, so far as it goes, is due mainly to the upsurgeof science, andmore immediatelyof technologyas appliedscience(ratherthan its precur-sor and catalyst). Sciencein turn is deemed to owe its upswingto liberationfrom the shackles of religious dogma and ensuing constraints, in otherwords to secularism and secularizationperceived as positive factors. Bycontrast, islamic civilization is sometimes said to have lost its scientificappetitein the courseof time, to its enduringdisadvantage.The facile con-clusion from such reasoning is that non-occidentalcivilizations, includingthe islamic, would be well advised to become more 'scientific', whateverthis may mean.3

The question arising is whether to say that islamic civilization suffersfrom scientific blockage or lag4 provides a workable point of departure,whether for argument or action.Some will argue that such a verdict ignores the civilization's selfhood:ifjudgment there is to be, it shouldbe on its own terms ratherthan in com-parison with an alien model. This argument loses much of its bite onaccount of the historicallinks, in particular regardto science, existing be-tween the two civilizationsas the successive heirs to classical Greekscienceand philosophy.There is more at play than mere comparison.Besides, theeffects of the colonial system and its sequel, the budding One World,weaken the argument even more. In envisaging their prospectsMuslims,alike any other non-occidentals, cannot ignore the global impact of oc-cidental economic-technologicalmight backed up by science.This is not to say that the assumptionof scientificlag workingas a defectof islamic civilization will stand. It is undermined in a different mannerand, surprisinglyto some, from the other side. For one thing, doubts arearising in the occident itself concerning the prospectsof its achievements.Thesejeopardizeits globalrole as the modelto emulate. Foranother, more

2 A. Toynbee,TheWorldnd heWest.London:Cumberlege,OxfordUP, 1953,Ch. V.3 Not a very clear notion in the occidental anguages: Wissenschaft' nd'science'have differentmeanings.4 Theterm 'culturalag' stems romW.F. Ogburn,SocialChange,WithRespecttoCulturalndOriginalature.922;repr.NewYork:Dell, 1966.It refers o therela-tive retardationf oneaspectorsegment f a totalsocioculturalntityunder ondi-tions of overall change. The fact (often overlooked in development studies using this

notion) that external comparison plays no role makes it more interesting for presentpurposes.


4/14

278 MISZELLENimportantin the present connection, it is not as if in the occident sciencereigns supreme, relegating faith and religion to insignificance, because ithas the better answers and all the answers.5Unresolved issues about thetrue purport of science remain and are being debated. To the non-occidental civilizationsthis means that in setting their targetsthey cannotignore their own resources: lag or no lag.

IIThe possibility of issues arising around somethinglike science dependson that 'something' being experiencedand indeed handled, by those con-

cerned, as a distinct notional entity. It must have a recognizedand recog-nizable meaning: a unit of thought for circulation.Besides, the modalities of their emergence are conditioned by theprevailing conceptual frame of reference. In the case of the monotheismsthis is quite explicit. It is the field of tension between creatorand creature,determiningthe perceptionof the universe, reality as cosmos, on the onehand, and of man as integral yet distinct part of it, on the other.The inevitabilityof science turning out to be a problematicpropositionfollows from the fact that it stands for a conceptual approachto reality-that is, for a way of making reality intelligible-not strictlyfoundeduponrevelatorydata.This is hardly the occasion to retrace the development of occidentalscience,6from its pre-christianorigins, throughwhat to the occident is itsislamic interlude, up to the present. Two observations must suffice.Firstly, scientists, once having taken the path of science, appearto pur-sue a self-propellingor inner-directed7course, without much long-termforesightas to whereit leads them. There is an element of gropingthathas,retrospectively,been signalled in the title of Koestler's descriptionof theScientific Revolution: The Sleepwalkers.8This observationappliesin par-ticular to the philosophic-theological mplications of scientific reasoning,notably its inherent secularization. Once the human mind, identified asreason, takes over, questions about God are bound to arise, not so muchresidually as by way of counterpoint and occasionally conflict.The otherobservation is that the Achillesheel, in this regard,of scienceis cosmology. A good deal of science can be pursued without awkwardquestions of a fundamentalnature arising. Cosmology however gives the

5 A dated example of such rationalismis B. Russell, Religionand Science.1935.repr. London: Cumberlege, Oxford UP 1947.6 To the extent this is part of the occidental history of ideas, G. Gusdorf's Lessciencesumainest lapensee ccidentale,13 vols. Paris, Payot, 1966-) is a gold-mine.7 D. Riesman, et al., TheLonelyCrowdNew Haven: Yale UP, 1961). Distin-guishing inner-directed from other-directed has for a time been fashionable insociology.8 A. Koestler, TheSleepwalkers.ondon: Hutchinson, 1959.


5/14

MISZELLEN 279game away. Einstein is reported to have said, in a moment of deep dis-agreement with others, that "God does not play dice"9-a strikingshort-circuitingof two modes of perceivingreality. Clearly wary of this hazard,Rutherford has said, "Don't let me catch anyone talking about theUniverse in my laboratory."10The tension between science and religion may be latent, but it is alive.Even to its protagonists, the beginning of the Scientific Revolution oc-curredin an intellectual climate which remainedthoroughlyChristian. Ofthe secular nature of the emerging world view there was little more thanan, occasionallyviolent, premonition(Brunoburned 1600, Galilei recant-ing 1616, 1632). It did not appearuntil later, in retrospect.By then, it wasnot so much a vital as an academic problem.Besides, in the apparenterosion of religion, scienceis not the primecul-prit. Rather more importantis science's presuppositionand corollary,theview of man as demiurgewhichemergesin the Renaissance andculminatesin Modernity."IThe fact that this view could emerge at all has to do withthe Christiannotion of creature. This avoids-as it must-letting creaturebe crushedby thecreator's absoluteness.It does so not so muchby attribut-ing 'free will'12as by deviously instilling in man, throughhis inability tofulfil the absolute divine commandment as summed up in the Sermon ofthe Mountain, an element of directedness away from God, a posture inreality regardlessof God. This indeed is the autonomy which terminatedthe paradisiaccondition andwhichconstituteswhat in theologicalparlancerates as original sin. Rather than a defect it is an ontological condition.This is secularism as a fundamentalfactof life; secularization s its histori-cal appearance. As it happens, humanism providesthe setting for scienceto thrive in. Both pretendto do without religion, but they fail to overcomeit. The view of realitywhich came to be characteristicof science has foreverbegged the questionas to its relationshipto faithin God, notablyas ration-ally expressed in theology.The current instalment of the ongoing debate between scientists and

9 S. Hawking,Unebreveistoireu emps, ubigbang ux rous oirs.Paris:Flam-marion, 1989, p. 80. (Orig. A Brief History of Time. New York: Bantam, 1988.)10 Bernard Lovell, "Into the cosmic depths", The TimesLiterarySupplement4610,Aug. 9, 1991,p. 7.11 Another way of identifyingthis basic trait is by singling out "the importanceof scepticismas scientific method. The systematicdoubting of all received opinionis the common factor that unites the various worlds of philology, theology,philosophy and science in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries." (OswynMurray, The TimesLiteraryupplement,ug. 16, 1991, p. 5, reviewingA. Grafton,Defendersf theText,The Traditionf Scholarshipn anAgeofScience,450-1800.Cambridge MA: Harvard UP, 1991.)12 A problematicconstructoccurring in Islam as well and good for endless de-bate on both sides. Three recent books are reviewedby R. Kane in TheTimesLiter-ary Supplement613, Aug. 30, 1991, p. 23.


6/14

MISZELLEN

theologians,enriched now as ever by the circumstancethatoccasionallythetwo disciplines coexist in one person, refers to the variants of cosmologyemerging in the wake of the Big Bang theory.13In this debate each dis-cipline features in its own right. In addressingthe same fundamental sub-ject matterthey areyet deemed to employ approachesso radicallydifferentthat the danger of a deaf man's dialogue looms large.The assumptionthat they are intellectually equivalent is weakly upheld,as an indispensablerequirementfor dialogue. In fact some precedence isoften attributed to science. As a result, a salient question is what theologyhas to offer if its role is to be more and better than to provide stop-gapanswers to questionswith which scienceis still struggling.Who and whereis God in the cosmos as portrayed by science, if he is not just anotherhypothesis?14With science in the lead, theology seems to be on the defen-sive.This is an unfinisheddebate. Indeed it seems endless, not to say incon-clusive or futile. This could raise the questionwhether the problemis cor-rectly identifiedif put in terms of strivingfor accordbetween the two ap-proaches. The debate may have to be inconclusive so long as science istaken to be unassailable in its premisses.15 Currently science's cons-picuous offshoot, technology, is increasingly exposed on account of un-foreseen effects so adverse as to make the survivalof mankind depend ontheircorrection.This concernwill eventuallyreflect on scienceand its un-derlying vision of man as a sovereign agent free from constraints.For a fresh round of debate, cosmology may no longer be the mostpromisingbone of contention. A less esoteric yet equally fundamental is-sue, widely recognizable as vital, will have to come into focus.16As this

13W.B. Drees,BeyondheBigBang,QuantumosmologyndGod.La SalleIll.:OpenCourt, 1990.The authorsummarizeshe three main variantsof currentscientific osmologyLinde,Hawking,Penrose)n viewof theirsignificance, rcouldonesay,implications,ortheology; eversingheapproach e subsequentlyreviews broad election f recentheological riting eferringo scientificosmol-ogy, muchof it by scientists-theologiansikehimself, n anattempto settle oraposition fhisown(p. 200ff).Inthisparagraphreflect omeof hiskeyquestions.14AskedbyNapoleon boutGod'splace n hissystem, he astronomer aplaceanswered hathe had"no needof thathypothesis". Russel,o.c.p. 58.)15G. Holton,in: L. Baeck,G. Holton,H. Kayser,E. Schr6dinger,Gibt sGrenzenerNaturforschung?ranosReden,Zurich:Rhein, 1947. I. Prigogine,I.Stengers,La Nouvellelliance,Mitamorphosee ascience. aris:Gallimard, 979.

16In thisconnectionC.P. Snow'sconcernabouttwo worldsapartresurfaces:are hey he twain hatwillnevermeet? TheTwoCulturesnd heScientificevolution.CambridgeUP, 1959.)Russell o.c.p. 202)wondersaboutthetrue relationbe-tween'physiology' nd 'psychology'. n his recentbook(HistoireeLynx.Paris:Plon, 1991),C. Levi-Strauss rites,"De la facon a moinsattentue,c'estle dia-logue avec la science qui rend la pensee mythiquede nouveau actuelle." Asked foran explanationinterviewby R.-P. Droit,LeMonde .10.91, p. 2) he observes,"Jusqu'audix-neuviemeiecleaumoins, a chancedessciences dures'a eteque

280


7/14

MISZELLEN

renewed debate will shape up, theologianswill, in preparationforjoiningit, once more be rethinkingGod. Theirs, it seems, is the problem of "aworld suffused by the presence of an absent god".17

IIIIt would be reckless to lift the polarized construct of religion versusscienceout of its occidental context in orderto projectit withoutmore adoupon the islamic. The intervening question as to relevance is not to becircumvented. There are several ways of pinpointing it.For one, take the matter of reason or rationality. In the occident, faithand reason have not always been on the best possible terms; witness, forexample, Anselm's effort, in his thesis "fides quaerit intellectum", tomake them work in tandem. The circumstance that theology is a rationalpursuitmeans little in the conceptual struggleto sort out the respective sig-nificances of creatorand creature in the perception of reality.On the other hand, to the extent the islamic revelation claims to be in"clear Arabic",18the mysteriumseems to cede prideof place to rationali-ty almost in advance. This appearsto have favouredthe cluster of dogmat-

ics and law-at once rational and 'founded'-in its competition withphilosophyand science, and to have causedthe curiousposition, of margi-nality combined with indispensability, of mysticism.19The upshot is that if there exists in islamic civilization somethinglike atectonic fault, it does not run betweenfaith, in the sense of a well-defined,formal dogmatic-legal orthodoxy plus orthopraxis,on the one hand, andsome sort of natural science or philosophy of nature on the other.In part it runs between orthodoxy and mysticism, with philosophy20leursobjets urent onsideresommemoinscomplexes ue esmoyensdont 'espritdisposepour es etudier.Laphysique uantiquest en traindenousapprendre uecelan'estplusvraiet qu'acetegarduneconvergence pparaitntre esdifferentessciences ou pretendueselles)".This howeverdoes not pushhim intoreligion:"... notre facon d'accepter l'existence ne peut etre qu'une sorte de compromisentre l'appetitdu savoir, la conquetelaborieuse des connaissanceset, d'autre part,la conviction que, vus de loin ou en nous pla;ant a un niveau plus profond, ces ef-forts sontdepourvusd'un sens dernier." The question, then, is whether suchresig-nation, as yet far from uncommon, is the final word.17 Valentine Cunningham in The Times LiterarySupplement4611, Aug. 16 1991,p. 6.18 Quran 26: 192-195, 43: 2, 44: 58.19 C.A.O. van Nieuwenhuijze, Samsu 'l-din van Pasai, Bijdrage tot de kennis derSumatraanse ystiek= Contribution to the Knowledge of Sumatran Mysticism).Leiden: Brill, 1945, Ch. 4.20 The standing occidental judgment is that philosophy has never recoveredfrom the onslaught by al-Ghazzali. Comp. A.J. Arberry, Revelation ndReason nIslam. London: Allen & Unwin, 1957, Ch. 3.

281


8/14

MISZELLEN

and science increasinglyrelegatedto the margin. One hears of the occa-sionalmysticpaying the ultimatepenaltyforthe attempt-ill-advised evenby his own yardstick-to expressunutterablereligiousexperience;21o myknowledge scientists have hardly been found to qualify for such mar-tyrdom.For another part, there is the nexus (rather than contrast) between'founded' reasoning and norm-abidingconduct. What is in the occidentthe complementarity between the distinct theoretical and practical do-mains, betweenscienceand technology (includingexperiment), is remote-ly parallelledin Islam by the nexus (ratherthan dichotomy)of orthodoxyand ensuing orthopraxis.

In both situations the realm of ideas has precedence. In the occidentpractice keeps a measure of autonomy in that it sets, up to a point, thelimits to the viability of ideas; in the islamic context this kind of counter-vailance, if it exists at all, will rarely arise as an issue.One may once more discern the issue of relevance in the absence, inIslam, of a standardoppositionalpairof notions in which scienceconfrontssome concept referringto faith, thoughthe latter occurs salientlyin the is-lamic vocabulary (imdn,tawakkul).For one thing this is a matter of thepreference, already referred to, for nexus, not seldom ambiguity, overdilemma. For another, it has to do with the fact that the set of notionsroughly equivalent to 'science'- Cilmand its near-synonyms22-is per-ceivedby andlargeas an elaboration,by dint of human effort,of the realmstakedout by revelation, i.e., by the establishedsourcesof Islam.23At theperil of overrating, it is intriguingto note here the differencebetween theAdam of the Old Testament, who names the things he finds around him,and the Adam of the Qur'an,whom God teaches the names of things.24

21 L. Massignon, La passiond'al-Hallaj.Paris, 1922. Transl. The Passionof al-Hallaj,MysticandMartyr f Islam. Princeton: UP, 1983.22 F. Rosenthal's inventoryof meanings of Cilm nd relatedconcepts (KnowledgeTriumphant,The Conceptof Knowledge n Medieval Islam. Leiden: Brill, 1970) does notreally go beyond showingthe shadingsof meaning occurringin a notionalcomplexanchored once and for all on revelatory ground, essentially conceived in termsrevelatory. The question he has not asked, and which yet seems crucial in thepresent connection, is whether this linkage may be shown to be variable, perhapsoccasionallytenuous. In ignoring it he is of course in good company: it is the Mus-lim position.

23 Given his broader and deeper interest, M.G.S. Hodgson in The VenturefIslam(3 vols, Chicago: University Press, 1974) comes closer to this question. Yethe too leaves the impression that the 'foundedness' of any speculative effort isforeverpresupposed.This reticence is understandable.From a Muslim viewpoint,raising it would surreptitiously ead into a discoursefrom which heresy cannot befar.24 Gen. 2:20. Qur'an 2:29. Comp. J. Sublet, Le Voile du Nom, Essay sur le nomproprearabe. Paris: PUF, 1991, p. 7.

282


9/14

MISZELLEN

In this context there is scant room for polarizationbetween types of-always monotheistically informed-mental-intellectual postures. At besttheremay be some ranking, inevitablycontested, between intellectualpur-suits in terms of central versus peripheral.The element of contest, in introducingthe historicaldimension, is sig-nificant. Whereas science in the occidentalsense has come into its own byridingthe crest of an incoming wave during the ScientificRevolution, themakingsof the same science have become subject,in Islam, to marginaliza-tion, to the pointof witheringaway, no longeron accountof oppositionbutof neglect.25Whereas in the occident the Scientific Revolution and itsaftermath attract relentless study and debate, the constrainingfactors atplay in Islam remain, to my knowledge, to be clarifiedmore assiduously.Hitherto there has been insufficient stimulus for an attempt to do so.Altogether a tantalizing state of affairs.

The provisionalconclusion is that to speakof religion versus science inIslam requires circumspection.There is religion, there is science; neitheris what it is in the occident;though problematic n both settings, their rela-tion is not the same in each.IVBesides the retrospectivequestionthere exists a prospectiveone, alreadymooted in the opening section. What of science, now and later, in Islamas a religiously imprinted complex?The current state of affairs may be described in terms of two obser-vations.One refers to the scientific traditionof Islamic civilization.26It has, asjust stated, been held in check, for some four centuries at least, by com-peting intellectual orientations and practical pursuits, with theirvested in-

terests. Currentupheavalbeing dominatedby revitalizationof religion asreinstitutionalization,scienceis, as yet, not a hot issue: other bones of con-tentionprevail. Nonetheless the nature of the currenttransition is suchthatit may well-indeed should-occasion questions concerning science's realnature and significance.25 Hodgson (o.c. vol. 2, p. 329) argues that the occidental and islamic civiliza-tions are comparablefrom the 12thto the end of the 16thcentury; after 1600 thereis a partingof ways. In the track of H. Corbin's L'imaginationreatriceans esoufisme

d'IbnArabi Paris: Flammarion, 1958), Y. Jaigu, then Director of FranceCulture,has opened a symposium in Cordova with an arrestingtale in which the partingof ways is localizedthere, andpersonalized n Ibn Rushd and Ibn al-CArabi.Scienceetconscience,es deux ecturese l'univers.Paris: Stock, 1980, p. 21.)26 M. Plessner, "Die Geschichte der Wissenschaftenim Islam", PhilosophiendGeschichte 1, Tiibingen 1931. Idem, "Die Bedeutung der Wissenschaftsgeschichtefiur das Verstehen der geistigen Welt des Islams", Philosophie nd Geschichte2,Tilbingen 1966.

283


10/14

MISZELLEN

The apologeticovertonesin the prevailingMuslim approachto the out-side world make for self-vindication based on early events. Whether thiscan keep the actual questions locked up indefinitely remains to be seen.The other observationis to repeat that Islamic civilization, along withmost of mankind, has over time undergone the impact of occidentalscience, technical implements in the forefront. Its mental-intellectualcli-mate is vaguely surmised and ambiguously appreciatedrather than fullyunderstood. This has two implications.One, Muslims from all over the world partake-albeit in limitednumbers-of occidental science more or less intensely, more or less suc-cessfully, whetherby occidentalstandardsor theirown. The fact that theydo so has as yet little impact upon the ongoing strugglefor revitalization.Two, the presenceof occidental science in the world of Islam introducesa prisoner's dilemma. Resuming the thread of traditional science asrevitalizationdemands, or at least takingit into account, raises more ques-tions than it can answer. On the otherhand wholesaleadoptionof modernscience is equally problematic.Whatever the comparabilityof islamic andoccidental science in the Middle Ages, presentoccidental science is, on ac-count of the leap forward made since, alien to the prevailing islamic cli-mate, if not in outlook then in its secular inspiration.

This may explain the fact that a real involvement of a number of Mus-lims with occidentalscience goes hand in hand with the virtual lack, in is-lamic society, of debate on the part to be played by science in ongoingrevitalization,whetherexpresslyannounced as islamic or merely as socio-cultural-political.The apparent ease with which certain Muslims engage upon modernscience, if discussedat all, is mostlyexplainedby referenceto the universal-ity claimed on its behalf. This claim flies into the face of the specificallyoc-cidental origin and nature of modern science. Even in dealing with theuniverse, science is a loose and variable configurationof time-and-place-conditioned, never-definitiveconstructsof the human mind. The univer-salityclaim is at root nothing but the self-assertionof occidental ethnocen-trism. Adopted by Muslims and other non-occidentals, it begs a scrutinyto which it is unlikely to stand up. Few seem ready to undertake it. Revi-talization, in its ambiguous posture towardsthe outside world, is hardlyconducive.Besides, questions arising do not spell instant trouble. There is no evi-dence as yet of the recipient complex dramatically rejecting the graft,Toynbee's concernnotwithstanding.Instead, appeasingevidence of islam-ic congenialityto science is readily proffered.The hadith on seeking'ilm-knowledge/wisdom/science-even in China is quoted ad nauseam.27Still,

27 G.H. Bousquet, El Bokhari,L'authentiqueraditionmusulmane,hoixde h'adiths.Paris: Fasquelle, 1964, p. 341.

284


11/14

MISZELLEN 285to the observer this and similarinjunctionsarelittle more than first movesto what may eventually become more incisive analysis and debate.28Thisdebate, to be sure, will occur between Muslims. Exchangeson these issuesbetween Muslims and non-Muslimsaresubsidiaryatbest. Besides, the sig-nificance of debate is not to be overrated. It is an accompanimentto theoverall change process at work: neither more nor less.

It is worthnoting the contrast, in current islamicdiscourse,between thenear-absence of debate about science-both sciencein generaland the sig-nificance of modern science in particular-and the salience of the engage-ment upon philosophy, more precisely occidental philosophy, in whicheven the staunchest islamistsjoin eagerly.29This may have to do with themore immediate relevance of philosophy to problems experienced in thepublicdomain. At the sametime it may relateto a difference n the intensi-ty of marginalizationsufferedby each at the hands of the orthodoxy. Todelve into these fascinating matters is beyond the present scope.30V

Given this state of affairs, the prospectof science in the islamic contextappears to have certain distinct determinants, by no means in harmonywith one another. We had a firstglance at them in the prisoner'sdilemmajust mentioned. First, the mood of revitalizationconcurs with the classicis-tic tradition of islamic thought31 n that it requires a manifest or at leastostensible rejoining with the past, deemed glorious for science as in allotherrespects.Whether it can also be normative is then the question. Sec-ondly, modern science, that distinct and decisively different branch fromthe stem to which also islamic science belongs, demands to be adopted; asignificant number of Muslims are effectivelyconversant with it (rather,perhaps, than with classicalislamic science);to ignore it is out of the ques-tion. Still to adopt it wholesale, as may seem inevitable if one does adopt,is, to an islamic viewpoint, hazardousto say the least and also, in view ofcurrentoccidentaldebate, unwarranted. Thirdly, inasmuch as revitaliza-28AbdusSalam,L'Islam lascienza, rmoniaconflitto?oma:AccademiaNa-zionaledei Lincei,11Maggio1991.29 G. Kepel, Y. Richard, dir., Intellectuelst militants e l'Islam ontemporain.Paris:Seuil, 1990.5. Mardin,ed., CulturalransitionntheMiddleEast.Leiden:Brill,1993(forthcoming).30 In apparent contrast one notes the conspicuousness of engineers in therevitalizationstruggleandduringthe phase leading up to it, notablyin its islamisticwing (not vanguard). The fact that these exponents of the typically 19th century,mechanistic bent of mind should now morethan ever playa roleneeds explanation.Comp. N. Gole in Kepel, Richard, o.c., p. 167 ff.31 G.E. von Grunebaum, in R. Brunschvig, G.E. von Grunebaum, eds., Clas-sicismeet declinculturel ans I'histoire e l'Islam. Paris, Besson*Chantemerle, 1957,

p. 2 ff.


12/14

MISZELLEN

tion carries an islamic label, the presence of science in an islamic contextmay require renewed clarification on both sides: a multidimensionalandby no means innocent issue, bound to enhance the strifemarkingrevitali-zation.The second determinantis liable to cancel out the first, thereby under-mining an indispensablefoothold. Left to its own devices it riskswreakinghavoc. The third threatens to usher in an instant replay of the process inwhich science has been marginalizedin the past, unless it were to backfirein as yet unforeseeablemanner. A gloomy conjecture ndeed, no doubtbe-cause it is overly schematic.A more true-to-lifeprospectmay be achievedby regainingthe realm ofhistory. An encounter today between islamic civilization and modernscience as part of occidental civilization could be compared with that inDamascus and Baghdadbetween Islam in its formativestages and Byzan-tine civilization, notably philosophy and science. The comparison mayseem far-flung.What speaks for it is that in both situations Islam is avidfor self-assertion both inward and outward yet aware of lacking certainmeans. Another consideration n favouris thatduringthat firstencounter,as duringthe secondin Spain, the foci of interactionand eventual adoption(involving adaptation)were eclecticallychosen (with expressavoidanceofreligion proper, notwithstandingthe expansive mood of the believers): aformulafit for replay. In the presentround of osmosis there is less eager-ness to embrace science, no doubt due to its eclipse in islamic civilizationduringthe interval. This seems bound to be outbalancedby the actual in-fluence of modern science.In this comparison,one keyelement differs.The readinesson both sidesto interact, whether by seeking intercourseor by respondingto it, is notthe same. Today, the totalisticrigidityof islamismmay appearas a factorhampering, indeed preventing, interaction.Whether it is a decisive obsta-cle remains to be seen.

A conceivable scenario sets out from the realization that an encounterbetween modern science and islamicorthodoxy, as distinct worldviews, isunlikely to be instigated by orthodoxy. It is for science, as an effort byMuslims jointly with their colleagues in the occident and elsewhere, toinitiate. In this regardthe present encounter does differ from the first.There are two reasonswhy such an encountermightmovebeyond mutu-al aloofness and develop into interaction, and why interaction need notspellinstant conflict.One is that revelatoryscripturecan but be favourableto science inasmuchas the adorationof God will entail admirationof andinterest in His creature.32The other is that lack of consonance betweenthe 'foundedness' which determines orthodoxy and the never-definitivenature of scientific verities-as-hypothesesdoes not amount to incompati-

32 Quran 50:2-11.

286


13/14

MISZELLEN

bility. The doorto interaction is ajar.The questionremains whetherit willprove possible to avoid its being ultimately shut on account of the 'non-foundedness,' i.e., secularism, which seems basic to science.33In this perspective, the two successive encounter situations of the past(Damascus/Baghdad, Spain) appear to be marked by the fact that oneparty-the occident first, Islam in the second instance-held out to theother a world view thoroughlydifferentfrom its own. For one reason oranotherthe potentialconflict has in both cases been obviated, clearingtheway for transaction,howevereclectic, and for enrichment of the receivingparty as a result. Is it too far-fetched to envisage a third encounter alongcomparablelines?34

Additional reason for this expectation may be found in the rearguardnature of islamism. Vitiated as it is by imposing a categoricalanswer toproblems it is loud in denouncing but lax in analyzing,35 t has yet onemerit. It bringsout into the open that basic and vital questions require ap-propriatecare. In so doing it should makethem debatable. Its very inabil-ity to provide and effectuate an adequate answer may usher in a furtherinstalment of the revitalizationeffort. In this, modern science, duly re-assessed, could conceivably play a part.This argumentcan be speltout a little further.The prospectof islamism,a deviation in which Islam is reduced to the status of ideology in the oc-cidental sense, is to miss its goal of restoration. In its Iranian, Pakistani,Sudanese and further variants it has not delivered the goods-indeedvalues-promised, nor does it seem likelyto in the foreseeablefuture. Thetragedy of islamism is that due to its very claim to be the monopolist oftruth it cannot have, within the confines of Islam, a valid counterpartforclarifying dialogue on current issues. Internaldiffractionis bound to con-sume it. What appearsto be its poweris ultimatelyits weakness. The stri-dent insistenceupon rigid orthopraxis-always accordingto the islamists'own prescription-as the panacea for all the world's ills touches virtuallyeverybody'sbad conscience. The ensuing coercion stands to be facilitatedby prevailing custom with regard to authority. Few will object, eventhough they might take shelter in the-otherwise oft-quoted-Qur'anicinjunctionthat "there is no compulsion in religion."36Thus, such resis-tance as the islamists are nonetheless bound to face is-by their own yard-

33Inpracticehismaymean hatcertain cientificpecialismsmay provemorereadilyadoptablehan others.A curiousdifference etweenpastandpresent n-countermaybe thatwhereasnthepastastronomy/astrologyashighlyregardedin islamic cience,cosmologynowmayat firstglanceelicitreservations.34This ideahas alsobeen mootedbyJ. Vernet, nJ. Schacht,C.E. Bosworth,eds., TheLegacyfIslam,2nded. Oxford:Clarendon,1974,p. 488.35Two titlesoutofmany:G. Kepel,LeProphetetPharaon,Les mouvementss-lamistes ans 'Egypte ontemporaine.aris:LaDecouverte, 984.E.Sivan,Radi-cal Islam,MedievalTheologynd ModernPolitics.New Haven: Yale UP, 1985.36 QurPan:257.

287


14/14

MISZELLEN

stick as naturallyreinforcedby terror-faceless and also meaningless be-cause misguided. By the same token, however, it eludes them to the pointthat they cannot hope to overcome it.The retrenchmentandrepression slamismhas imposedby way of corro-lary to an outwardpostureofjihddas conflict can ultimately but reverttointernal strife. To the extent this will shape up as debate rather than vio-lence, it will requirean element of countervailanceto the complex of or-thodoxy and orthopraxis,if only to rescue the latter from virtualfossiliza-tion in islamism.To this purposea sociopoliticalopening, of predominantly philosophi-cal-ideologicalnature, has been hesitantly tried for about a century now:to little avail. It turns out to be a smallstepfromborrowedoccidentalideol-ogy to neo-oriental-despotism.Saddam Hussain is far frombeing the onlyone to prove it. Certain variants of islamism are also cases in point.A conceivable alternative is an emergent debate between, on one side,spokespeople for modern science, among whom those looking from anislamic vantage point, and, on the other, exponents of what will, for thepurpose, rateas theestablished slamic frameof reference,or moreexactly,a fair range of its variants. In such a debate the islamic heritage will nodoubt stand firm, which is something else than remaining unaffected.37This may surprise. In fact it is what has happened throughoutthe historyof Islam: so much so that the proper descriptionof this history should bein terms of encounterswherever Islamhas gone, fromthe beginning up tothe present.Islamism being what it is, the answerto the question whether the doorthat now stands ajarwill open up and stay open for dialogue depends onthe way the Muslim scientist envisages his/her position and role in theislamiccontext: whetherthose of a mental expatriateor not. This problemis not new.38 Its crucial significance stands out now more clearly thanever.

37 That this is an exercise farbeyond what one personcan hope to tacklein oneblow transpires n the attemptof Z. Sardar, Thefuturefmuslim ivilization.London:Croom Helm, 1979. Comp. Sd. M.N. al-Attas, Islam,Secularismnd thePhilosophyof theFuture.London: Mansell, 1985.38A. Laroui,La crise es ntellectuelsrabes, raditionalismeuhistoricisme?aris:Maspero, 1978.

288

Religion vs Science in Islam-A Past and Future Question

Documents