Why We Need Islamization of Science

Echo...

in Other publications this news item was titled : ``MMA Leaders refuse to call Jinnah Quaid-e-Azam``

But the News was a little more hostile

The Shameless Sheerani of MMA

http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/mar2005-daily/03-03-2005/main/main20.htm

Echoboom...

It is rather sad when bigots who do all they can to subvert Jinnah`s Pakistan make an issue about the word Quaid-e-Azam. I am the last person who would have the objection to calling the Quaid-e-Azam ... Quaid-e-Azam. But you are wrong... Mustapha took on both Kemal and Ataturk as his legal names. His title was ``Ebedi Sef`` which means almost the same thing as the Quaid-e-Azam ...

However it is a non-issue because all liberals call Jinnah ... Quaid-e-Azam... but recently the MMA Leadership refused to call him Quaid-e-Azam... and the PPP raised a lot of hue and cry about it...

So lets not fib should we...

hamidm: kamran meer may sound like gibberish to you. but to me.......hmmmm....it sounds like gibbBerish. (stronger form of gibberish).

bbabu #414 i swear you defenders of indians run round and round and round the same damn tree longer in real life than you do in your bollywood movies. never fear, tahmed is up to the task: g..... (oops, i almost mentioned gujerat) and d..... (ooops, i almost mentioned the slaughter of sikhs). THOSE compare with 1947 (being mob attacks), not pakistan military actions (which compare with indian military actions in k....).

mahesh: your conclusions dont follow from what i wrote...but never mind. as i said, you are welcome to reflect upon those final thoughts.

mohar: take two aspirin and report to the psychiatrist on monday. Your services as my official camp follower require that you maintain a certain level of sanity.

Re: # 15
Mr. Gill,

My article already answers your first question, that is, what is Islamization of science. I have already explained in my article that Islamic science is a traditional science but of the Islamic variety, and like all traditional religious sciences, has its prime goal the reform of the soul and ultimate salvation in the hereafter. Its secondary goal is to produce technology applications, but never at the expense of the primary goal. (In fact my article title should have been ``What Is Re-Islamization of Science``).

The goals of modern science are actually hostile to that of a traditional science, although the methods of modern science descended from the secondary aspects of the traditional sciences. The primary goal of modern science is a vague concept called ``progress`` and ``advancement`` and the production of endless technology applications (my question is: do we need all of these applications and how do they help us save ourselves from damnation in the life of the hereafter?). Moreover some of these applications are extremely dangerous for the ecology and the planet itself, as is well known.

Your following comment is interesting:

``Mr. Kamran, for God`s sake, don`t take us back to the medieval times and medieval science. Stop looking backward. Look in the forward direction and spend your energies in making science popular and acceptable in the Muslim world. That is the only way of our salvation. ``

I have two questions:

(1) What do you mean by ``salvation`` here. For Muslims, salvation is through practice of shari`a and dhikr-allah so what will explorations into atomic structure yield in the way of salvation? Don`t you think Muslims should better spend their wealth creating an efficacious legal system that is sorely missing today, or in getting rid of corrupt practices in their governments?

(2) What`s wrong with looking at the good things in cultures or times that preceded ours? Why do you assume that our forefathers were less smart than us and did not understand the puurpose of life. In fact all great world traditions independently teach that the best or better way of life was in the past. There`s a lot to learn from our ancestors, provided we do not color history by equating medieval times with dark ages, which is a great error committed by modern historians based on the acts of a relatively few men.

2. Your second question is: ``Who`ll do Islamization of science? Will they be theologians, metaphysicians, or scientists?`` My answer is: It will be done by traditional scientists. In the Muslim world, these will be people qualified in the science of Tasawwuf. Its champions will probably not be the ulama-az-zahir, that is, scholars who only deal with the ritualistic and legal aspects of Islam, though in Muslim history, many ulama-az-zahir such as Ibn Taymiyya accepted Tasawwuf as a legal science, after having denounced it initially in their careers.

3. Your third question is: ``How will it be done?`` My answer is: First, people must decide what are the goals of their lives. If people decide that the goal of human life is to marginalize religion and keep moving on the road to progress (a progress whose methods and ends are uncertain and whose overwhelming result seems to be a continuous state of war between nations), then traditional science will stay where it is today, that is, it will remain forgotten. However, if the goal of human society is to live on earth in accordance with laws from above and ultimately attain salvation in the hereafter, then those same people will find resources to develop traditional sciences through a robust educational system. And although people might disagree which religious science is the most superior, but this question is irrelevant because several religions and religious sciences must co-exist till the end of time, and we can discuss the implications and methods of this co-existence separately if you wish.

In the new paradigm of religious science, modern science will also have its place, but it will be recognized as only one particular form of knowledge. When that happens, then public funds that are today lavished on and disproportionately skewed towards modern science will be better used on traditional religious sciences that will produce the following benefits. (1) increase opportunity for individuals to attain salvation in the hereafter, (2) reform the souls of individuals in society, the benefits of which are obvious and highly desirable, for example it will curtail oppression, cruelty, corruption, greed, anger and killing, and (3) only those technology applications and mental attitudes will be developed that are necessary and useful to attain the benefits (1) and (2) above.

Re:Romair 422

I agree that humanism is definitely the goal for any ideal society. In fact, achieving humanism is the premise behind setting up any society.

On your second point, I do not see secularism as a negation of religion. I view secularism as simply keeping religion a private matter for an individual and their community, and not make it a part of the political setup. Secularism means not using religious symbols and ideology in day to day governance, not promoting one faith over the other through government policies, not discriminating against people based on religion, not using religious issues to get political power and instituting a legal system that views everyone as equal. Secularism does not infringe on the right of a person to practice or promote their faith to the fullest. It is just that the government has no role in this process. A secular system can be inspired by religious beliefs but it cannot adopt the overt trappings of a particular faith.

While a secular system can provide a level playing field for people of all faiths, I just fail to see how a religious system can deliver the same result in a multi-religious society. By its very definition, someone who does not follow that particular religion will be a second class citizen. If the religion is very benign and its followers are all saintly perhaps it is possible, but in the real world it is impossible for a religious system to provide true equality to minorities.

The problem with gay marriage is quite different from the rights of religious minorities. When religious minorities get equal rights, that does not diminish the rights of the majority. However, legalizing gay marriage can actually impact regular marriage as the definition of what is marriage gets impacted. For e.g. if 2 men or 2 women can marry, why not 1 man and 2 women or 1 man and 1 kid? So it is a much more complex issue beyond just religion with social and cultural impact. It is unfair to view this issue as a posterchild of secularism and ignore the real motivation behind secular thought.

Amit/vivek #: I think now the discussion is going in the correct direction. Would it be correct to assume that both of you consider humanism to be the most important and ultimate goal for a society? And not secularism nor religion. This is what I have always believed in.......

The next point is, do you agree that secularism or religion, inherently, have no connection with goodness or evilness? The defintion of these two terms obviously have absolutely nothing that relates them to innately being good or bad, i.e. a secular system can be evil or good. And a religious system can be evil or good.

If you both agree with this, then I think I have placed my point across. Because these are the points I was trying to make, i.e. one cannot just allow secular or religious school of thought to claim monopoly over humanism. That would be a very dangerous phenomenon. It would allow either to get away with murder...........

The next point is to decide what is the best way to reach humanism. Is it through secularism, or is it through religionism? Or is it a third option, that is not dependent implicitly or explicitly on either secularism or religionism?

Amit has provided examples of people feeling left out or inferior if they are not in a secular system. Vivek has stated, like me, that humanism is independent of either...........This is what should be discussed (at least in my opinion), i.e. in and of themselves, neither secularism nor religionism is good or bad, hence they cannot and should not be the ultimate goals to shoot for, or be implicitly equated with good or evil. Humanism is the ultimate goal, and what is the best way to get there? And is there only one way to get there? Or many ways?

Can one say, like I do, that I am not going to look at how secular a party, or system, is, or how religious a party, or system, is. I am just going to look at how humane it is?

P.S. a true study of secularism as a philosophy cannot be complete if it is simply limited to rights of only religious minorities. This is what people in Pakistan (and India) limit themselves to. However, there are other non-religious minorities also. Currently, in the Western world, the biggest battles between secularism and religion are being fought in the area of gay marriage.

Obviously, marriage is an area where the State and Church are heavily inter-mixed. This is the last frontier to be conquered by secularism. One should discuss that also. One never finds any of the Pakisatni secularists supporting the rights of the gay minority, including marriage. Although I am quite sure there are far more gays in Pakistan, than say, Ahmedis..........And in the rest of the world..........The lack of desire of Pakistani secularists to support gay marriage, is one of the reasons why I have always doubted their actual belief in secularism, as a philosophy......They seem to want some church with the state, when it suits them............

kamran sahib,

.......... don`t flatter yourself ....... i can assure you there are exactly three people who actually read your gibberish and after the first 69 posts the rest were all discussing jinnah, tnt, secularism, etc. and were driven more by romair`s pathetic foibles rather than your scholarly treatise ..........

Re: # 23
Alephnull, the fact that only you and few others understand this articles contents is not surprising. The catcalls of the majority doesn`t bother me. My article has put the current fashionable dogmatic beliefs of the majority under threat so they are simply reacting like children whose toys are under threat of being taken away.

For all those who ``worship`` the technology applications of modern science, remember that there is a Truth ``out there`` but modern science does not lead us to it. However the Islamic Science of Tasawwuf or the Jewish science of Kabbala or the Hindu science of Jnana Yoga leads to it, if their prescribed experimental methods are followed.

Modern science does not have the same goals as religious sciences. Modern science is simply a system of relative symbols or it is just a language that describes phenomena in its own unique way, and then develops technology applications that work because they are within the framework of that language. But they do not lead us to the true nature of phenomena, which only authentic religions do. While the goal of modern science is to focus on the earth, the observable universe and their resources and embed all activity in a concept of man-made ``progress`` (without explaining what state it is that we are progressing towards), the goal of religious sciences is salvation and a ``balance`` of life on earth. Religious sciences remind us that the earth and the observable universe are only a part of, and subservient to, the larger universe.

Traditional religious sciences are presented as an alternative so that intelligent people can decide which science is to be more preferred, and which goals need to take a higher priority for humans.

This article had to be kept brief due to chowk editorial limitations. My upcoming follow-on articles should clarify many positions and concepts in my first. The fact that the first article has so far been read more than 11400 times (which must be a record of some kind on chowk) is enough motivation for me to develop this series in all its details. The subject is vast.

I promise much more intellectual stimulation and transformation to readers who admire this kind of discourse.

re:#403 by amit
Yes, the mullahs started the controversy but soon the rulers reacted too. I believe a Minister of culture has fined Meera for the episode. Tells u how much influence mullahs wield over the Pak rulers.
Sridhar

Amit,
Humanism is important but non-religous society is not neccessarily more humanist. Communist China is not more humanist than USA, and often religious people are humanist. Like your example of Gandhi, he was definitely more humanist than say Mao. We live in the USA and are not threatened by the overt religiousity that we see threatened by it. As long as the laws are secular and the judiciary goes by the law, minorities would be fine. Minorities on their part should also be accommodative.

But overall, you are right that humanism is what is the need for any society.

what happened to kamran meer ?......... just wondering

........ carry on , jaisay thaaaip !

Re:Romair#410 and Vivek

I think that Secularism is necessary but not sufficient for a society that wants to focus on humanism. Besides secularism, you obviously need a democratic setup with checks and balances, an independent judiciary and a good economic model etc. However, without secularism, it is hard to see how you can get a humanism oriented society. When you are member of a majority community like hindus in India, muslims in Pakistan or christians in US, it is easy to feel that being non-secular is no big deal. Why should minorities feel uncomfortable if we bring in a little religion in public life? But put yourself in the shoes of the minority and you will always feel like an outsider, that somehow you do not belong. If there is religious prayer at a state ceremony, the majority will think it is so natural. But the minority will feel uncomfortable and even scared. Just think of pre-partition India when Gandhi brought all the hindu symbols and prayers in the freedom movement. It seemed so harmless and normal and after all it was Gandhi. Still muslims were very uncomfortable and alienated with it.

The bottom line is that you cannot have real equality in your society without secularism. Without equality among all human beings, your society can never be truly humanism oriented. Of course, you do need other things besides secularism for success, but that is in addition. Without secularism, it is a non-starter. History also bears this out. Ashok was most successful after he adopted budhism and became tolerant of other religions. The Mughals were most successful with Akbar, while Aurangzeb caused the end of the Mughal rule. Maharaja Ranjit Singh was so successful as a secular leader. The West was backward till the renaissance when it was obsessed with religion. After it became secular, it achieved success that dwarfed anything the world has ever seen. After 1947, secular India has made more progress towards humanism than Islamic Pakistan. There is no example of a society that is theocratic or religious which has achieved humanism. And please do not quote Israel. It is reaping the results of what it sowed since 1947 and has little respect for human rights.

amit #406,
You can never seperate religion completely from politics. Remember, secularism gives you freedom to practise religion, not freedom from religion. USA was created as a nation with Judeo-Christian values, so any attempts to seperate faith from public life would never work. In India, on the other hand Nehru tried to create an artificial public life without religious ethos, ofcourse in the long run that would not work. So a secular country should always take the ethos of the majority of people into consideration.

tahmed32 #394

`` I say that 1947 was an aberration because there was nothing anywhere close to it in the past - before 1947, hindus, muslims and sikhs got along quite well in the panjab - according to people from my parents generation whom i have talked to on the subject. 1947 was also an aberration since it did not leave any lasting bitternesses - as you would have realized if you had read my post carefully where i mention sikh pilgrims coming to pakistan for decades and being almost invariably welcomed. That is all I am saying. ``

The role of the Pakistani state in 1971 and Taliban adventure in Afghanistan suggests to me that Pakistani Punjabi elite has not reconciled themselves to the horrors of partitions. Some of them seem hell bent on repeating the excesses of partition elesewhere.

Romair #410

`` If I were in India, I would vote for the secular Congress over the religious BJP. Much like, you would. However, in Pakistan, I would support the non-secular PTI (Imran Khan’s party) over the more secular PPP. In USA, I would support the more secular Ralph Nader over Democrat and far less secular Republican party. In Canada, I would support the Liberal party, which is more secular than the Conservative party, but quite a bit less secular than the NDP (which will not give anyone a ticket, if they do not support gay marriage)……….And in Iraq, I would support a theocratic Sistani, over a more secular Saddam, USA and Allawi………… ``

There are two kinds of people - ideal and practical. Only an idealist votes for Ralph Nader in USA. There are two real choices in USA - Dems or GOP. Your choice of PTI in Pakistan ignores the reality that the MMA, PML and PPP are the strongest parties. Your choice of Congress in India shows a practical side (or reveals a bias). An idealist wouldn`t vote for Congress given their past complicity in communal riots.