What is Islamization of Science?

``I like Islam, it is a consistent idea of religion and open-minded``

(Kurt Godel as quoted by Hoo Wang in ``A Logical Journey: From Godel to Philosophy``, Hao Wang. The MIT Press. 1996. Cambridge Massachusetts)


Here is a ref site http://godel.rationalreality.com

There is this strange notion among muslims that whatever scientific discovery or truth is brought to light somehow it was already available to us by reading the Quran. Now I am not sure how the zeolots are going to justify certain scientific ideas that may go against popular muslim opinions, but one thing is given, the Quran is like many other holy books written in several different levels and therefore open to interpretation. I may be accused of saying this tongue and cheek, but I just think that if Mr. Gil looks hard enough he will find Mr. Newtons ideas clearly imbeded in the Quran. Now we at the present time do not know how to decode those particular passages, where newtons gravitation law is given as a clear mathematical formula, nor are we aware of those passages where Newtons ideas on Opticks are clearly spelled out. But the believers assure me that all such formulas are imbeded in this one work. Think about Liebniz and his monodology. each monad reflects the whole universe. So if we want to learn about the Universe all we have to do is study the individual monad. I would even go as far as to say that Mr. Newton was sent on a mission from God, given access to these formulas, and all he had to do is occasionally check the reference book, the Quran. (of course unlike us he knew exactly where to look for them) and yes he did not footnote as well as Mr. Gill

observer2005:

You have made some very good points. Scientific knowledge though limited is quite certain compared with the metaphysical assertions which are usually without any empirical support. A scientist would simply say ``I don`t know`` if he didn`t have an answer to a particular question. On the other hand, a metaphysician would give you the answer but you, as well as the metaphysician, wouldn`t know if that was correct or not. I have emphasized this point in some of my articles at chowk.

We don`t need Islamization of science, we need its acquisition. Wishing you well,

Mohammad Gill

Re: # 52
``What ``natural laws``? What makes ``laws`` natural, by the way? And what is ``nature``?Twentieth-century physics went through a radical change, in any case. ``

Thabet, I think you are missing the point completely. I will come to your question later, but first when Newton expounded his ``science`` he had various motives. One of them was a pure curiosity of mind to know about the world he experienced, light being a fundamental and everyday part of it, as was the night sky and its planets and stars. But his other motives were to satisfy his religiosity and perhaps even greed in his attempts to pursue alchemy. But we ``tolerate`` his suprstitions about the latter because in the process of pursuing his superstitions he actually advanced our knowledge of this world termendously.

Now, our comtemporary Muslims on the other hand also pursue some of these superstitions (such as trying to extract energy out of the Jinns - a paper on this was read in a science conference in Pakistan during the reign of General Zia). I will be willing to tolerate this idiocy if these so called Islamic scientists actually do good science in the pursuit of these aims. But they don`t do that, broadly speaking, as vouched but our abysmal state. They only pursue these idiotic aims and ignore the rest.

So to pursue ``Islamic Science`` when just some basic science is needed to advance the umma in its economic, social and military goals, is refelctive of our collective ignorance and Islam-soaked psyche.

Now to your question: to answer them would require tomes by the gretest of world`s scientists and then they would fail, and I am only an ignorant layman. The fact is that science does not have all the answers and where it ends, metaphysics and faith takes over. That boundary has been shifting and science has beeb gaining but nevertheless we still cannot answer questions about thinghs we do not know. But the ONLY way we can even try to answer these questions is to begin with simple science and slowly creep towards an ever shiftign goal. If we do that colelctively as a nation or umma, we would be Ok as then we would be progressing rather than regressing as we are doing now.

Dear Mohammad Gill,

Whether you or I understand western science and its philosophical foundation is not the question here and I did not intend to say that you are not familiar with the field. Of course your article reflects how much you know. The question is whether we are able to apply this knowledge to elicit soultions to the problems we all face together.

The important thing to note is that no science, medieval, modern, chinese, hindu, Muslim, agnostic or atheistic is devoid of certain philosophical/theological assumptions. This is precisely the case with the modern science as well, just like any other science. Scholastic, Baconian, Galilean, Cartesian, Kantian, Newtonian or Einsteinian whichever science we want to talk about we need to comprehend the philosophical assumptions that form its basis. When we think about a question we should also pay attention to why one question dominates the discourse and not the other. What intellectual penchants emphasize one question over another. Are our questions philosophically neutral? From the philosophical/theological specualtion on Nature as the window to knowledge of the Ultimate Reality (say God) to make use of it for our needs and wants (these are two different things, one legitimate and the other illegitimate that caused the environmental crisis we all face today) it is important to note why this change of attitude towards nature occured. Answer might be found in Bacon`s works but I hope we see the relevance of this point. At the expense of repeating myself, I want to emphasize that even our questions are never neutral of our assumptions. So is the case with technology which is nothing but application of a science that sees itself morally neutral and of a philosophy of science that is materialistic in its worldview. I would recommend those interested to read Technopoly by Neil Postman who convincingly argues against any notion of ``technology is philosophically neutral.`` No physics could be done without a metaphysics that holds it.

Islamization means to be able to evaluate whether the underlying metaphysical worldview of contemporary science could be reconciled with and `successfully` integrated into the Islamic universe and if so to what extent. In what we refer to as Middle ages, Muslims were able to integrate sciences as diverse as Greek, Hindu, Zorostrian and Chinese and yet what resulted from it was thoroughly Islamic view of science. This process could be called Islamization of Greek Science or of Hindu science and so on. Nasr makes an interesting analogy of this process with the process of Digestion of food, where some food is digested and becomes part of the body and some is ejected out because it does not belong to the body (or would be harmful for it). A proper understanding of Islamic worldview and its philosophy of science and that of western science would enable us to properly digest a science that though claims to be agnostic or areligious, yet both explicitly and implicitly holds materialistic worldview (in its most technical sense). Scientism and Logical Poistivism all bear witness to this fact. Furthermore, the encounter of Western Science with Christianity and what resulted from it - we all know that it is precisley scientific revolution that played a huge part in taking people away from the religion - provides us with a lesson to be conscious of what is at stake here.

On a different note I am glad to have seen you and other people taking interest in these questions which are of immense import for us. Disagreement is fine so long we are sincere in our quest to confront the questions we all face today. Salams.

PS: Just curious to know if you are familiar with the works of Wolfgang Smith?

Mr. thabet:

You have digressed from my basic thesis. I was writing about “Islamization of Science.” I said in my article I do not understand what it is. I had also raised the questions as to who is going to do it (if he, she or they know what they need to do without messing up the essence of science) and how?

Your longwinded post does not address these questions. Other things that you have mentioned are relevant for a developing society, Islamic or non-Islamic, and they can be appropriately discussed in a separate article devoted to these issues. I had also mentioned in one of my posts that “Islamization of Applied Science” has some meanings and what you have written belongs in there. Who is going to decide what kind of applied science should be Islamized because this is a political decision not a religious one. Was the development of nuclear bomb in Pakistan a part of “Islamized Science?”

The Islamic world is lagging behind in basic sciences; the need is to educate the people in them and produce scientists of good quality as well by providing them facilities. Once a basic scientific infrastructure is in place, the high quality applied and basic research can be undertaken. Scientific culture needs to be cultivated in the Islamic world. The issues like “Islamization of Science” are non-productive because even those who are promoting these issues have no basic understanding as to what they are promoting. The philosophers can not Islamize science because they don’t understand science and scientific method.

I am reproducing your item # 5 hereunder. Read it in the context of my article. You say “Islamization of Science” is misleading. I am saying the same thing.

5. Within an Islamic context this might be called ``Islamisation``. Personally, I avoid this term, because it is misleading. I would use the following question: How can we enable a rigorous, robust, science to emerge from an Islamic context?

What is rigorous and robust science? Science does not emerge from a religious context. Science is independent of religion. God does not interfere in science and God is almighty in religion. You may not like it but this is what it is. Pick up any book on physics or chemistry for instance, you wouldn’t find God in them anywhere. I had described an anecdote to underline this fact in one of my posts.

Wishing you well,

Mohammad Gill

Freethinker,

You`ve totally missed vertex`s points. You point out Heisenberg. That`s interesting because he said ``one has to remember that every tool carries with it the spirit by which it has been created...`` (You must have come across this in Muzafar Iqbal`s writings.)

When the Soviets beat the US in the early part of the space race and launched Sputnik, what was the response of the US? Did they simply say ``oh well, our scientific method is better than those dialectic materialists because we`re ``neutral`` in our observations``? (When Stalin was in charge, for example, he had ``directed`` his scientists to show how enviromental factors outweigh biological ones.) No. They responded by PUMPING MORE MONEY INTO THE SPACE PROGRAMME. Condi Rice -- hardly a rabid PoMo fanatic -- admitted as much once. What if, all those millions and billions had been used to research, oh I don`t know, drugs for various diseases. Or perhaps try and solve problems related to clean water in poor parts of the world. Or solutions to alternative forms of energy. Or ways to reduce emissions. Or... you get my picture. What about all those universities that offered degree subjects in the sciences that were not remotely related to the Space Race? Or the bright and able-bodied students who wanted to pursue higher education or careers in academia? Did this have an effect on their choice? My brother is a pharmacist. You think the industry he works in -- which is worth billions -- is going to produce drugs at free or for cost price? What makes them research drug A as opposed to drug B? Alturism? It is simply how science in the modern world operates -- cash is an important factor (though not the only one to produce good quality science). And so the development of science must also depend to a degree on how ``society`` wants to spend the money.

There was a time in the late 19th-century and early part of the 20th-century when eugenics was a correct and definite science. None other than The Fabian Society and many left-leaning scientists and philosophers thought eugenics was the way forward for ``progressive`` societies. Scientific racism has a long and (in)glorious history in European science. Where do you think leaves geneticists nowadays who wish to discover the biological basis for differences between, say, Western Europe and Western Africa? Political philosophies here do directly impinge directly on science from following this ``path``; and they at least stop this science from being utilised. (Whether this is good or bad is another debate.) At one time some scientists even believed they were a special ``caste``. Seriously, this is true.

And both you, Gill, and observer below, will have to contend with issues like making something ``value-free`` (a claim for modern science) is itself a ``value-laden`` move. I mean after there is nothing that says value-free is axiomatic. If you say this you are making a philosophical argument about a number of issues.

Advocates of science -- and I count myself part of them -- do themselves a diservice by summarily dismissing real and valid concerns. Yes some of these ``critiques`` are nonsense. And can be exposed (a la Sokal). But some are real. What I believe vertex was alluding was this:

1. Islamicate societies are scientifically-illiterate (for the most part -- Iran and Turkey are a real hope though).
2. Good, rigorous science, of a high-calibre, needs to be reintroduced into Muslim societies, and indeed the Islamic education system. Ideally (one which may never reached) a mufti should be at home deriving some fiqh from Ibn Abidin or al-Shatibi, as he (or even she) is at articulating how nominalism affects the practice and development of science, or what the latest neurological findings say about our ideas of epistemology.
3. The way to rekindle science in Muslim societies is to make the concerns of society relevant to science.
4. But also one needs money. And has to decide how to spend it, and where to spend it and when. These are all practical concerns, if not abstracted to a `philosophy`.
5. With in an Islamic context this might be called ``Islamisation``. Personally, I avoid this term, because it is misleading. I would use the following question: How can we enable a rigorous, robust, science to emerge from an Islamic context?

Once there was just such a rigour in the sciences. And we could quote names (like al-Haytham). Nowadays we think science means the nuclear bomb in Pakistan, tall shiny buildings in the Gulf, and weapons to kill those we hate in mosques and churches because they belong to a different religion (and weapons which we procure with a such a lust, that if I were a psychoanalyst I`d have a field day). My hope is that in 50 years, as well as Pinker, Hawking, Gould and Einstein, we can cite a Muhammad, an Iqbal, an Ashraf or even a Gill! This is naive, I know. But I can at least dream....

There are other points, but maybe some other time.

Btw, Feyerabend was a trained scientist, so he knew what he was talking about to some degree.

*****************
Observer:
``When Newton shone light thru a prism...``

Why did he chose a prism to shine light through? And why concentrate on light? Why not study something else? What was it about light that fascinated him? And how did Newton ``know`` what he was seeing? More importantly, who said Newton was a scientist? He was a natural philosopher, studying the Revelation that was called Nature, an area of study usually subaltern to theology.

``But we remember him so for his ``scientific`` works which were nothing more than explanations of natural laws...``

What ``natural laws``? What makes ``laws`` natural, by the way? And what is ``nature``?Twentieth-century physics went through a radical change, in any case.

And how do ``natural laws`` contend with the ``probablisation`` of everything we do, from our personal lives and choices, to government policy making, law, politics, human rights, even to the modern disciplines including the sciences? I mean I`m an mechanical engineer by training who is involved in integrity issues. Engineering is associated with hard, fast, clean facts that are placed into a slot-machine formula and codes to produce a solution. Yet I have to use statistics and sample data to solve many problems. No perfect ``natural laws`` here found because I shone light through a prism. Just a mass and stream of data which we can make fit various known mechanical properties. Number, numbers, numbers. Where does all this leave ``natural laws``. Might I accuse you of having a very 18th-century view of reason and science in your ceaseless search for ``natural laws``?

******************
Believe me I can understand the frustrations of Gill and observer, and I was deliberately being extreme in my views to observer, but only to remove an illusion from your eyes. But Gill and observer fail to contend with the SIMPLE fact (nothing fancy here) that science IS a social practice. I mean where do scientists work? Mars? Under rocks? In seculsion? No. They work in societies which either love them or loathe them, give them money, pay for their research etc. There is nothing controversial here. Only scientists sensiblities becoming offended because the ideallic vision of the scientist searching for ``objective truth`` is not really so (though this doesn`t means scientists are not important and do not perform important work). But all this DOES NOT make the outcome, the ``results`` which you`re so concerned to protect (and I`d protect too), is any less ``real``.

Enough of my rambling.

salaam

Re: # 46 Mr Jaffery wrote ``There is no science without an underlying vision of the world. ``

I disagree respectfully. We can take a body of scientific work and try to wrap a philosophy around it but it is hard to justify wasting time on the philosophy of ``Islamic Science`` when no such modern body of work (or even concept) exists.

When Newton shone light thru a prism and saw its constituent colors, he was doing science at its simplest and best, i.e. making conclusions based on verifiable facts (verifiable by putting in front of the spectrum another prism and reversing the constituent colors into white light). No philiosophy was needed to do that science. In fact Newton was highly superstitious in other matters and also indulged in such non-scientific endeavors as alchemy and making sense out of Biblical text. But we remember him so for his ``scientific`` works which were nothing more than explanations of natural laws and phenomenons, which is what science is in essence.

Therefore, I think all this discussion about philosophy of science or Islamic science are a waste of time for a people for whom science means so little (collectively) anyway.

Re: # 46 Mr Jaffery wrote ``There is no science without an underlying vision of the world. ``

I disagree respectfully. We can take a body of scientific work and try to wrap a philosophy around it but it is hard to justify wasting time on the philosophy of ``Islamic Science`` when no such modern body of work (or even concept) exists.

When Newton shone light thru a prism and saw its constituent colors, he was doing science at its simplest and best, i.e. making conclusions based on verifiable facts (verifiable by putting in front of the spectrum another prism and reversing the constituent colors into white light). No philiosophy was needed to do that science. In fact Newton was highly superstitious in other matters and also indulged in such non-scientific endeavors as alchemy and making sense out of Biblical text. But we remember him so for his ``scientific`` works which were nothing more than explanations of natural laws and phenomenons, which is what science is in essence.

Therefore, I think all this discussion about philosophy of science or Islamic science are a waste of time for a people for whom science means so little (collectively) anyway.

Interactors:

The following cut and paste news item may be of some interest to you.

The Abdus Salam
International Centre
for Theoretical Physics
© 2005
http://www.ictp.it — home > newsICTP News22/12/2004

New Templeton PrizesFiled under: Prizes— editor @ 3:59 pm
The John Templeton Foundation, headquartered in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA, has announced that it will fund five new awards designed to recognize and assist young ’scholar-leaders’ who have vigorously examined the ‘creative interface’ between traditional Islamic culture and modern science. The Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics (ICTP) in Trieste, Italy, has been asked to administer the programme. Each prize will carry a cash award of US$20,000.

“In these difficult times,” says Charles Harper, the John Templeton Foundation’s executive director and senior vice president, “we are pleased to sponsor a series of prizes that we hope will help promising young scholar-leaders better establish themselves as opinion makers within their own countries and regions. We also hope our efforts will help these young scholar-leaders build ties with their peers worldwide.”

“Our aim,” adds Barnaby Marsh, who directs the Foundation’s Venture Philanthropy Strategy and New Programs Development, “is to support scientists engaged in exploring the critically important challenges posed by the intersection of the worlds of science and religion in a critical part of the world.”

The five prizes, to be given annually, include the:
• Abdus Salam Prize for Leadership in Islamic Thought and the Physical Sciences.
• ICTP Prizes (2) for Leadership in Islamic Thought and the Applied Sciences.
• Ahmed Zewail Prize for Leadership in Islamic Thought and the Biological and Chemical Sciences.
• Ahmed Zewail Prize for Leadership in Science and Islamic Life.

Pakistani-born Salam, founding director of the ICTP and Egyptian-born Zewail, professor of chemistry at the California Institute of Technology, are the only two scientists from the Islamic world to have won the Nobel Prize.

“We are delighted that the Templeton Foundation has decided to launch this initiative,” says ICTP director K.R. Sreenivasan, “and we are happy that it has chosen the Centre to implement the programme. The goals of the initiative fit well with the Centre’s expanding agenda to not only assist individual scientists, which it has done so well over the past 40 years, but also to improve the environment for research in their home countries. The ultimate aim is to ensure that science becomes an integral part of the larger agenda for economic and social development not only in the Islamic world but throughout the developing world.”

Candidates will be selected on their ‘demonstrated’ ability to insightfully and sensitively examine the relationship between Islamic culture and modern science both in scholarly and popular writings. The hope is that recipients of the prize will have displayed—and will continue to display—the talent and drive necessary to engage their colleagues and the larger public in exploring this complex issue, especially their colleagues and the public in the Islamic world.

“This initiative,” says Harper, “builds upon several recent exploratory workshops and conferences that the John Templeton Foundation has convened in France and Morocco over the past few years that have focused on religion and science in the Islamic world. Our ultimate objective is to develop a core group of scholars and scientists who can emerge as experts and intellectual trend-setters both within their own countries and regions and throughout the world.”

Comments (0)
15/12/2004
Gabriel Olalere Ajayi (1941-2004)Filed under: General— editor @ 5:22 pm
Gabriel Olalere Ajayi, an ICTP Associate 1992-2004, died on 12 December 2004, in Abuja, Nigeria. He was 63.
Ajayi played an essential role in developing ICTP’s activities for the advancement of information and communication technologies in Nigeria and he lectured regularly at the Centre’s annual schools on digital radio communication. A former professor at Obafemi Awolowo University in Ile-Ife, Nigeria, Ajayi was the Director General and Chief Executive Officer of the National Information Technology Development Agency, Federal Ministry of Science and Technology. His professional experience covered a wide range of activities in telecommunications, broadcasting and computers, including teaching, training, research and development. His friends at ICTP extend their condolences to his family and colleagues.

Gabriel Olalere Ajayi at ICTP’s 40th Anniversary Conference

Comments Off
9/12/2004
Strings in NYTFiled under: Science Media— editor @ 11:19 am
A feature article in the New York Times (7 December 2004) has examined the state of string theory 20 years after the concept was first introduced as a theoretical construct depicting the make up of the universe as intertwined strings and not single points. The scientists quoted in the article have been among the most active participants in ICTP high energy research and training activities over the past two decades: former SISSA (International School for Advanced Studies) director Daniele Amati; Dirac Medallists Michael Green (Cambridge), David Gross (Kavli Institute, Santa Barbara), John Schwarz (Caltech) and Edward Witten (Institute of Advanced Study); and course directors Brian Greene (Columbia), Robbert Dijkgraaf (Amsterdam), Juan Maldacena (Institute of Advanced Study) and Cumrun Vafa (Harvard). Of the 24 scientists mentioned in the article, 19 have visited ICTP.

Comments Off
Faheem Hussain RetiresFiled under: General— editor @ 11:17 am
Faheem Hussain, head of ICTP’s Office of External Activities from 1998 to 2004, will retire on 15 December. Born in India and educated in the United Kingdom, Hussain first came to ICTP in June 1970 to attend a summer school in high energy physics. During the 1980s, he became a frequent visitor to the Centre, initially as an Associate and then as a visiting scientist in the High Energy Physics group. In 1990, he was hired as a permanent staff member and given the task of helping to launch the Diploma Programme while continuing his research. He was a representative of ICTP’s staff union for two terms. Hussain will also be remembered for organising weekly cricket matches on the Carso for visitors and staff. Hussain will be relocating to Pakistan to teach physics. He will be missed.

Comments (0)
8/12/2004
Canada’s Science Advisor Visits TriesteFiled under: Visits— editor @ 11:38 am
Arthur J. Carty, the Canadian government’s National Science Advisor, visited Trieste’s scientific institutions on 6 December to discuss possible avenues of international scientific cooperation, especially in nanotechnology. Carty learned about the full range of scientific research in Trieste through a series of presentations that included talks by ICTP director, K.R. Sreenivasan, and AREA Science Park president, Maria Cristina Pedicchio. He also toured the Synchrotron Light Laboratory and the Centre for Molecular Biomedicine in AREA Science Park. The last stop on his day-long tour was ICTP on the Miramare campus.

Comments Off
2/12/2004
Minister of Science at ICTPFiled under: Visits— editor @ 5:50 pm
Pius Yasebasi Ng’wandu, Minister of Science, Technology and Higher Education of Tanzania, met with ICTP officials and staff on 30 November. He was accompanied by his Private Secretary, Sylvester A. Matemu. Discussions focused on ways ICTP could be of even greater help to sub-Saharan Africa. The Minister acknowledged the enormous contribution that ICTP had made to the physics and mathematics communities throughout the region. But he believes that more can be done, especially in areas where science can be put to use to improve the lives of the region’s most impoverished citizens.

Pius Yasebasi Ng’wandu, Minister of Science, Technology and Higher Education of Tanzania, and Claudio Tuniz, Special Assistant to the ICTP Director

Comments Off
ICTP, Iran Ministry Sign MOUFiled under: Visits— editor @ 5:48 pm
Jafar Towfighi Darian, Iranian Minister of Science, Research and Technology, visited ICTP on 22 November to sign a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the Centre that calls for (1) the creation of two joint postdoctoral positions cosponsored by ICTP and the Ministry in basic physics and mathematics; (2) the expansion of the existing federation agreement between ICTP and Isfahan University of Technology to include an additional university; and (3) the admission of up to two Ph.D. students each year in a ’sandwich’ programme funded jointly by ICTP and the Ministry. ICTP and the Ministry also agreed to explore the establishment of cooperative regional activities.

Comments (0)



©2005 ICTP || news.ictp.it || site statistics || Powered by WordPress

Interactors:

Let us not beat about the bush. The unification of fundamental forces/interactions is the most challenging problem of our times. Some of the brightest brains of the world are engaged in it. I haven`t seen any name from Pakistan who may have contributed significantly in this field. But then I may be wrong. I have come across a couple of Muslim names from some other countries who are contributing in this field.

Those of you who are young and thinking of making a career in science should take it as a challenge. Make this as the project of your life. Remember Heisenberg and Dirac were not even thirty years old when they won the Nobel Prize for their work. Einstein was less than 30 when he published his theory of special relativity. Those of you who are living in the US and Europe have the facilities to at least try to attain this goal I wish you luck.

Mohammad Gill

Mr. razijaffery:

Thanks for your input.

I have been dabbling in the philosophy of science for the last ten years or so. I do not claim that I am quite uptodate with it; I have read some topical works in the field. So I am not totally ignorant of this field of knowledge.

Three of the many stalwarts in this field in the twentieth century were Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn, and Paul Feyerabend. Popper tried to set up rules for checking the veracity of a scientific theory. He is known for his theory of falsification. Kuhn is very well known for his almost classical ``The Structure of Scientific Revolution`` and he introduced the nomenclature of `paradigm.` He and Feyerabend muddied the waters quite a bit and Weinberg defended physical science and responded to Kuhn`s criticism in his ``Facing Up.``

If your assumption was that my criticsm was superficial and lacked depth, may I suggest that you might have been mistaken. In my article, the opening line indicated that it took me some ten years to sit down and write this article.

I have several books dealing with the philosophy of science in my personal library and I assure you that I`ve read them. Just for the sake of specificity, I am looking at the ``contents`` of ``Philosophy of Science`` by John Losee. The book does not have a chapter on Christianity and its influence, good or bad, on science. Its index does not even include the word ``religion`` in it.

It is good if more and more Muslims devote their time to the study of philosophy and philosophy of science. They will realize then how ignorant most of us are. I am pleased to know that you are taking a course in it (Philosophy of Science). My intention was not to degrade ourselves but what I am suggesting is that there is no reason for us, at the same time, to feel good about our ignorance.

I still believe that Islamizing science is nothing but waste of time; instead we should grasp the mastery on science. It needs hard work; it doesn`t come easy. If we are good in science, there won`t be any need for us to Islamize it.

One of my elder brothers was a poet. One of his verses is as follows:

Aik hum hain keh liya apni hee surat ko biga`ad. Aik woh hain jinhain tasweer ban`a a`ati haiy.

If our philosophers do not have anything worthwhile to do, I wish them good luck. With regards,

Mohammad Gill

There are few things that I would like to share:

1. The question of Islamization of science does not start with the islamization of hard sciences but a philosophy that works behind it and supports it. Commonly this field is called the ``Philosophy of Science`` in regards to what there is no paucity of sources. To understand the debate properly, one needs to read the western philosophy of science and how it unfolded in history. The dilemma of Muslim intellectuals has been that though they became great scientists, doctors and competent engineers, they never paid attention to the worldview that dominates these sciences. Get hold of Crombie`s Medieval and Early Modern Science, or Alexander Koyre`s numerous works to understand these worldviews and see if they can be reconciled with Islam. Nasr`s Religion and the Order of Nature and Man and Nature are also important works. Pervez Hoodbhoy`s Islam and Science is also a good source though it lacks deeper understanding of western/modern philosophy of science.

2. The author`s comment ``Science in itself is not good or bad. The humans who use it make it good or bad`` , so popular among Muslims has long been discarded buy historians and philosophers of science. If you need sources, please write me an email. There is no science without an underlying vision of the world. Science is not without its own assumptions. I can elaborate more on this point if anyone is interested.

3. I will repeat if someone is really interested to know what science is, one needs to familiarize oneself with the history of modern/western science. Then and only then we will be able to do some comparative stuff. A starighforward introduction to this very important debate is Nasr`s speech delievered at Harvard: http://web.mit.edu/mitmsa/www/NewSite/libstuff/nasr/nasrspeech1.html

I will be happy to provide more sources as this has been my area of interest for quite sometime now and right now I am taking a graduate level course in the Philosophy of Science.

Attempts at ``Islamizing`` science are truly a waste of time and energy of a people who are so far behind in science and technology. This would be true even if there was such a thing as Islamic science. When interacting with highly educated people (in North America where I reside), I am appalled at their misunderstanding of the scientific method and lack of critical thinking. A favorite attack on science is on the subject of Darwinian evolution and I would not be exaggerating if I said that I have yet to meet more than two Muslims who understood (or even attempted to) it. When you visit their homes, you hardly find any books or magazine on science (apart from textbooks). And I am talking about doctors and other professionals. It is sad to see the dearth of rationalism in our people and it goes to explain our dismal economic and military state in the world, both of which rely on a scientifically literate populace to man the industries that produce economic and military power. We should think hard about how best to address this deficit.

The whole concept of medivial or ancient religions being ``updatable`` to modern science is nonsense. The religious theology seeks to make people believe, science makes people think and question, both have different goals. The Islamic theology and its official interpretations make rigid adherence and unquestioning belief the cornerstone of religion. Then there is army of strict textualists, who will not allow any but official interpretation. Now, to take Koranic ideas and somehow make them gel with science or take scientific theories and strech them in tune with religious ideas is an exercise in futility. The ``true believers`` do not need Quantum theory to practice their religion, hence why the need to Islamize the religion? Just do it ! Just believe in theology.

Then there are two other schools of religious science clowns. One seeks to bask in reflected glory and perceived stealing of knowledge from the golden years of Islam when science and thought florished in the middle east. This school of religious science clowns have only remorse, wails and anger when asked how the modern cellular phone they use or computer they use is not a product of the ancient science? This applies equally well to Hindu rightwingers in India who believe that all that was worth discovering is already in the Vedas, but later on stolen by the western world.

The second school of religious science clowns seeks to show if you look carefully in the deepest meaning of the religious dogma all basic scientific concepts are already revealed. Like Quantum theory is already revealed in the dance of shiva (See Fritjof Capra`s books).

Western science and the glorious applied technologies developed from it are a result of vast experimentation and theorization. Christians dumped their religious beliefs early because they knew a lot of it is just hogwash. Muslims and Hindus will follow once their life is dependent on science, economics develops in their and, and not only rely on holy books.

Nadia_Zehra:

(By the way, Ghalib is my favorite poet)

It is good to remeber our history but we should not get stuck in the past. My essay was not about the past; it was about our present condition.

Nonetheless, I am glad that you researched the Muslim history of Science and shared your results at the Chowk. We should move on. The Muslim history of science is almost blank for the last 800 years. I was disappointed and frustrated at the same time that instead of encouraging our growing generation to learn science and develop it further, our philosophers and non-scientist scholars are finding short-cuts to gain some reflected glory instead of actually promoting science.

I ask you to read ``Islamization of Knowledge`` for yourself and see if it makes sense. We cannot advance in science by putting down and denigrating the so-called ``western science.`` Our redemption is in acquiring the western science and developing it further for our material needs.

Wishing you well,

Mohammad Gill