Why We Need Islamization of Science

amit,

..... i don`t want to get into this debate between you and our resident intellectual and expert on everything, but when you say that, ``What is certainly necessary is to remove the misconceptions in a lot of people`s minds that supporting secularism is the same as going against Islam`` , you clearly demonstrate that you don`t really know much about islam ............ in islam there is no separation of mosque and state so the question of secualrism does not arise ......... even in the most enlightened islamic state you will remain a ``dhimmi`` - a second calss citizen with first class rights ............. most muslims consider the state established by muhammad and in-laws as the perfect model of government and you will find very little open dissent on this issue ................

....... carry on ...........

Amit #457: ``There is no reason, why Pakistan with its growing middle class, cannot form secular, progressive parties led by educated professionals. What is certainly necessary is to remove the misconceptions in a lot of people`s minds that supporting secularism is the same as going against Islam.``

I think those who oppose secularism don`t consider it against religion. They are just unwilling to give up the public aspects of religion, which secularism demands. Much like voters in the USA are unwilling to give up the public aspects of religion around marraige..........This is a point which many supporters of secularism as the only solution, do not consider, and in many cases, do not even accept..........Secularism does demand that the public aspects and injunctions of religion be considered invalid.........Do you agree with that?

There are actually a couple of middle/upper-middle class secular parties in Pakistan, that do have an urban following. At the top of this list is MQM, from Karachi. They are the only major secular party, with a non-feudal/non-tribal leadership. It is probably the fourth or fifth biggest party in Pakistan. And it is extremely anti-feudal and anti-maulvi. It is fighting against PPP and Jamaat-i-Islami for a hold of Karachi politics.

There is another one that I supported. That was the party led by a philanthrapist named Omar Asghar Khan. He would have made an excellent Prime Minister. Better than Imran Khan. His father was laid the foundations of the Pakistan Air Force, and did an excellent job of it. Unfortunately, his father had an extremely unsuccessful politician. Perhaps because he was too honest (and perhaps too secular for Pakistani politics). Interestingly, his father is the only politician I have seen in Pakistan, who openly comes out and states his party to be secular. All the other ones beat around the bush, like PPP, ANP. Secularism amongst politicians in Pakistan, as a word, is like, ``liberal`` as a word in US politics. Even the political leaders who believe in secularism, do not openly state it.

Secularism, as you are viewing it, will probably not take root in Pakistan. At least, not in my lifetime. I think that kind of secularism is even slowly disappearing even in the USA. It is thriving in Canada and Europe, only. And exists in none of the Muslim countries. Turkey had forced it on its populace, which rejected it by electing an Islamic party into politics, twice (the first time it was banned by Turkey`s Generals and courts, even though it won the elections). In fact, even in India, with the rise of BJP, I am not sure how long it will last. Though my knowledge of Indian politics is limited.

There is no party in Pakistan that I know of, which will ever elect a non-Muslim as its head. This to me is the ultimate test for a secular party in third world countries (while gay marriage is the test for Western countries). Secondly since the secular spectrum has such bankrupt politcal feudals/tribals leading it, it will continue to get a bad name in Pakistan. In fact, much of the leaning towards MMA etc. is not due to the popularlity of MMA. But due to the failures of more secular parties in providing good governance (and US bombing of Afghanistan).

My guess is that Pakistanis will support anyone who can provide the highest standard of living and not suffocate the society culturally, without much regard for their religious or secular tendencies. This is why there are no street protests against Musharraf, even though so many parties oppose him. Other than that, it will eventually end up with a Turkish like govt., i.e. people with religious inclinations, but without beards, who wear three piece suits.........Someone like an Imran Khan.........

And in the big scheme of things, I don`t think that would be that bad. It would not be supported by those who demand outright secularism. But even they draw the line on secularism at gay marriage. So, they have somewhat of a double-standard of their own. It may actually be the best and most stable solution, considering the dynamics of the country..........Because, such a group, will probably lead the quickest to humanism.........Anything else may lead to a strong backlash, like what happened to the Shah, or what has started in Turkey, or even the rise of the BJP in India........

Re:Kamran Meer

Can you provide some concrete examples of what you are trying to explain to us? So far, you are talking in vague generalities about quantitative vs qualitative frameworks, which sounds like a lot of mumbo-jumbo. You remind me of this Deepak Chopra guy, who talks for 2 hours at a stretch about qualitative stuff couched in scientific language. At the end of 2 hrs, you are left wondering what was all that BS about? But Deepak Chopra and other such Indian ``gurus`` make millions fooling the gullible goras who have romantic notions of Indian mysticism, so I suppose there may be some quantitative result at the end of all this :-).

Re:Romair#447

I understand your point about choosing lesser of two evils in Pakistan. My belief is that secularism is necessary to provide equality to everyone but it is not sufficient to build a progressive, humanist society. Being an outsider, the only thing I can suggest is that you should eventually support secular parties that have strong progressive agenda. There is no reason, why Pakistan with its growing middle class, cannot form secular, progressive parties led by educated professionals. What is certainly necessary is to remove the misconceptions in a lot of people`s minds that supporting secularism is the same as going against Islam. That is is a wrong thought process because secularism will actually be better for Pakistan and better for Islam itself in the long run.

horizontal vs. vertical science,

......... horizontal science teaches you that if you step off a high bridge the law of gravity will come into play and you will die; verticle science tells you that your soul will ascend vertically to the seventh heaven @ 9.8m/s/s and within 340 seconds you will be land in paradise - never mind that your brains are splattered all over the pavement ...........

kamran meer: you write `` it would be appropriate if you first tried to understand what this language is about and how it presents proofs of religion, before dismissing it.``

I am well aware of what your ``language`` is. As I said, it is superstition and paganism masquerading as religion.

I challenge you to present just ONE of your magical symbols and tell me how, through any stretch of common sense, you can call it the message of the Quran.

Re: # 16
bharatvaasi,
Thanks for bringing my earlier article (1997) to readers` attention.--Kamran Meer

Re: # 451
Mantolives,
I have not advocated nor laid claims to any novel ``method``. I have only described the framework and perspective that informed the science practised by Muslims. It was a framework that included both qualitative (or ``vertical``) and quantitative (or ``horizontal``) dimensions, hence was a better representation of reality, as opposed to the framework of modern science which is purely quantitative, and therefore is only a partial and incomplete observation of reality.

Perhaps Averroes (Ibn Rushd) and Avicenna (Ibn Sina) wrote most on the subject of Aristotelian ``rationality`` but what modern historians miss is that these Muslim philosophers, like Aristotle, always acknowledged rationality to be only a partial truth. Neither Aristotle nor Plato nor al-Farabi, al-Kindi, Ibn Rushd etc. ever claimed that rationality is the only or the supreme mode of knowledge. In fact Hamid Al-Ghazali`s ``Incoherence of the Philosophers``, written in the early 12th century, lays bare the errors of pure rationalistic thought.

The modern scientists rely only on pure rationalism to describe the universe, and they consider ``rationality`` to be supreme, and this way they have therefore fallen into error. Muslim scientists have clearly acknowledged ``kashf`` and ``tasawwuf`` as a superior form of gaining knowledge and ``rationality`` as a secondary method. Perhaps the most eloquent exposition of these concepts can be found in the 8th century works of Jabir Ibn Hayyan and in the 13th century works of Ikhwan-al-Safa, who relied on the system of science developed by Pythagoras, who himself goes back to the Alexandrian sciences, which were the predecessor to Islamic sciences.

Re: # 449
tahmed,
1. I have never advocated mixing religion with politics. So please don`t associate this thought with me.

2. Regarding your comments about the language of symbols, I think it would be appropriate if you first tried to understand what this language is about and how it presents proofs of religion, before dismissing it.

``My upcoming articles will shed more light on such topics.``

There are going to be more? Kamran Meer... why must you continue to insult Islam and the intelligence of Muslims?

Do you think Al-Razi, Al Kindi, Avicenna, Averroes, Ibn-e-Haitham, Al-Khawarzimi etc were the greatest scientists of that period because they followed your method.

They didn`t have any fanciful notions of ``Islamizing`` science. So get a life... and stop misleading people.

Romair,

There is nothing civil about the way you argue. You try and bully others with your concocted figures and weird theories... and when you are unable to answer very direct questions... you become a cry baby.

I asked you a very direct question. Plus I showed you that you are wrong and contradictory in your definition of secularism... no answer.

Just goes to show that you have admitted defeat as usual. I suppose being from the Pakistan`s military... that bit comes easy to you.

kamran meer: you would do well to heed the wise words from Amit: by not trying to link religion with politics or science, you in fact are able to focus on what is true religion. by mixing religion with science and politics you debase both. just as by bringing politics into science, you make the latter weak.

thus, your debased view of religion is apparent in your statement `` if one wants to understand proofs presented by religion, one must first learn the language of symbols`` and you continue to say ``It is amazing that readers not familiar with the concrete symbolic language of religions feel qualified to mount criticism on the subject. `` It is YOU and your irrational points that are being criticized, not religion. So dont try to hide behind religion.

This view that religion is some esoteric subject that is clearly indicated in your statements above is in fact promoted by maulvis and priests in all religins - and it is in sharp contrast to the repeated call sin the Quran for the indiviudal to use his own head, trust his own judgement, and respectfully deny even that which his parents have taught him. Your superstitions (which I have long held is not islam or any other religion - just paganism) teach the opposite - for an individual to follow the wishes of the high priest regardless of what how much it violates common sense. Your slavish character makes you deaf to such calls even when they are clearly stated in the Quran. What are we ordinary mortals going to do when you are deaf and blind even to the message of the Quran.

Amit #444: ``When you have millions of people all over the earth chafing under theocracries, religious discrimination, communal holocausts and the only superpower becoming a christian fundo nation the last thing to stop us from seeking religious non-discrimination should be gay marriage.``

I am not saying opposition to gay marriage should be used to stop secularism. As I have stated before, I am not opposing secularism. I just don`t believe in giving it exclusive rights over humanism.......... For example, in many, probably most, Arab nations, the dictatars are more secular, while the forces fighting for genuine democracy and in many cases a system of social equality of some sort - one not dominated by the elite - are religious forces (Egypt, Iraq, Iran - under Shah, Syria, Algeria, Turkey). While in some cases, it is the other way around.........

As for gay marriage, what I am saying is that one would like to see those who support secularism outrightly, support gay marriage also. I am just challenging them on that, and trying to figure out why they believe in mixing religion with State at that point? While they argue against it, before that point..............

``I will tell you that if Israel is totally peaceful for 30 years, you will see the same kind of rot set in over there too. Also if this republican rule continues for 30 years in the US, it will become a christian fundo nation and China will take over the leadership of the world.``

I completely agree with you on this...........Israel acutally already practices religious apartheid, even though its govt. system is secular. If you are not Jewish in Israel (i.e. Christian or Muslim) you are divided into three groups of people. One group has the same rights as Jews (almost). The other two have far less rights than Jews. The second category cannot buy property. Need special passes to travel. They cannot even build an extra room onto the house that they have owned for hundreds of years in Jerusalem. The third category, which lives in the occupied terroritories (which being occupied are the responsibility of Israel) your house can be bulldozed anytime, without any judicial review available. In addtion, your land can be taken over for settlements, specifically for Jews, which can only be accesed by roads, on which only Jews can travel............I have never been to Israel, but this is information I have gotten from some Palestinian Christian friends..........

The average religious minority living under Israel`s govt., thus, is far worse off than the average religious minority living in Pakistan. Even though Israel is under a secular system. However, its interpretation and execution is not based on humanism.

On the other hand the average religious minority (like me) living in a secular Canada is far better off than the average religious minority living in Pakistan..........

It would be interesting to see a discussion (seriously) between you and hamidm on this. Both of you are generally arguing the same solution, except when it comes to Israel and USA, where your views are 180 degrees opposite to his............

Amit #444: I think every area has its own experiences with secular and religious forces. As long as one keeps humanism as the core criteria one is safe. And I stick with this as my main principle. Also I stick with the fact that one should never allow either religion or secularism to claim sole monopoly over humanism.

This is what one sees a lot of............and I think that can be dangerous.......

If one allows religion to take sole ownership of humanism then what you have stated about religious bigotry happens. However, you may want to consider the fact that secular forces can also use, ``secularism`` to hide their crimes, as well.

You may not have seen this in the USA or in India. But I have certainly seen it in Pakistan. If you ever get a chance to study the Pakistani political scene, along the lines of secularism and religion, you will notice an interesting situation. The religious side is dominated by the theocracy, as expected. But the secular side is dominated by feudals and tribals.

The Baluch tribal leaders and Sindhi and South Punjabi feudal leaders, form the largest political force supporting secularism in Pakistan. They bring with them all the evils of a feudal and tribal society. For example, these area are the center of honor killings, marraiges to the Quran to keep property with the family, etc.

Infact, the treatment of women in these areas is worse than treatment of women in areas where the theocracy dominates. Women are literally treated like cattle in these areas. Their literacy rates are between 3-10% etc. The daughters of these leaders themselves, of course, study at Harvard etc. (like Benazir). But the rest of the population, specifically women, have the lowest HDI figures in Pakistan........

In this sense, these people use secularism for political purposes. Much like the theocracy uses religion. Neither is interested in using religion or secularism to bring about any kind of humanism in the society. They use it to get elected by portraying themselves as a counter to the other.

Many people vote for the religious parties, just because they push religion. Simiilarly many people vote for the secular feudals because they scare people of what will happen if the maulvis take over..........Both groups are generally bankrupt, at an ethical level, which can be well seen in the type of people who sit as the heads of these groups........

As I stated earlier, I actually support a non-secular party. Actually I supported two philanthrapists. One led a secular party, but died. The other is Imran Khan, who leads a non-secular party. The leadership of both parties is quite progressive. Meither would support honor killings etc. It consists of upper-middle class professionals; dentists, lawyers, beaurecrats, doctors, expats, businessmen etc.

So, one really has to keep the atmosphere in mind, as well. And I think people actually do that, perhaps without realizing it. In India I would support Congress, which is very secular. In Canada I support the second most secular party, not the most secular one (which outrightly supports gay marraige). But in Pakistan, I support a non-secular one. In the USA, if the more secular party said it was going to bomb the crap out of a third-world country, and the more religious one stated it was not going to do that, I would support the more relgious one, and vice-versa..........

In all these decisions, I have humanism as the criteria............At the same time, my lack of support for gay marriage collides with humanism...........So there are no clear answer..........I don`t think one can define an absolute yes or no.............But humanism comes the closest, and one should not allow anything or any ism to claim ownership of it exclusively............in my opinion, at least..........

Mantolives #435,
Glad that you liked what I wrote.

Amit,
I agree with you that secularism is good for religion too. Take the USA, for example- the first migrants were very religious people but they were often people who were persecuted in their home country. SO when they came to the USA, they wanted a society where the govt. stayed away from their religion and hence even today the conservatives in the society want as little govt. involvement in their life as possible.

While discussing we should also not forget a valid point from Manto, about what happens when the majority is intolerant towards other faith, is it the govt. role to teach them tolerance or go by the majority?