1. Islamic Conception of Knowledge
I start with a well-known tradition from the Prophet Muhammad (SA) that :
“Acquisition of knowledge, ‘ilm , is incumbent on every Muslim.” (1)
Then the question arises as to what kind of knowledge is this tradition referring to ? One can argue from the Qur’an and the Islamic tradition that the word ‘ilm is used in the Qur’an a generic sense and it includes all that can be called knowledge, whether praiseworthy or blameworthy. For example, in the Qur’an, the Prophet Solomon talks about the fact that he had been taught the language of birds and he considers this as a blessing from God (27:16). Similarly ,in the Qur’an , God talks about teaching the Prophet David about the knowledge of making coats of mail to protect his people in wars (21: 78-80).
In the Islamic tradition too we see references to the broadness of knowledge.Thus, e.g. we have from our holy Prophet (SA) saying
“Seek knowledge even if it is in China ” (2)
and it is recommended to acquire knowledge even from unbelievers .
Of course, not every kind of knowledge is considered worthy of seeking. In fact, ,there is a strong recommendation that one has to seek “useful” knowledge. So the question arises about the criteria that define useful knowledge . Here one can infer from the Qur’an and the Islamic tradition that any kind of knowledge that brings one closer to God or serves humanity’s lawful needs is praiseworthy and is to be sought. There is a long tradition narrated from Imam Sadiq(A) in which he gives criterion for permissible kinds of knowledge:
“Any sort of knowledge and technique which takes care of man’s needs or is useful to God’s servants and helps them to continue their lives and meet their daily needs, is permitted by religion to teach or to learn Ƃut if such knowledge or skill could be used for vicious and sinful purposes as well as rightful and noble deeds such as writing which may be abused for strengthening oppressive rulers, it is also not forbidden… Teaching and learning such trades or receiving fees for their instruction, provided that it is to the benefit of God’s servant, is permissible; but their use in harmful or vicious ways is forbiddenƔhis is because God has forbidden us to go after anything which is totally corrupt and has no useful result. (3)
The Qur’anic verses and Islamic traditions indicate that, in Islam, the acquisition of knowledge is not confined to the learning of specifically religious sciences, as, e.g., China was not a proper place to learn Islamic teachings; rather, it was well-known for its industry.
Among the fields of knowledge recommended in the Qur’an are the sciences of nature which deal with the study of the natural world. The Qur’an refers to the phenomena of nature as signs of God in the natural world and frequently invites the believers to have reflection on these signs and to get benefit from what God has provided for mankind in the heavens and on the earth. These commendations were the main impetus for the Muslim scholars’ deep involvement with the sciences of nature in the glorious era of Islamic civilization. Those scholars emphasized that the motivation behind their seeking natural and mathematical sciences was to become acquainted with the signs of God in the universe. In their view, each one of these sciences shows one dimension of God’s creation, and they have an organic unity. Those Muslim scholars, however, put their study of nature within their religious world-view, of which the idea of the unity of the Creator and the harmony of the creation is a fundamental principle .Thus, there was no separation between science and religion, and the study of nature was considered to be an important kind of God’s worship. This is in fact what one can infer from the Qur’an and the Islamic tradition, as can be seen from the well-known saying of Imam Ali that:
“There is no worship like reflection on God’s creation . (4)
This can also be inferred from the explicit confessions of the distinguished Muslim scientists of the past. In the words of al-Biruni, one of the most distinguished Muslim scientists of the eleventh century:
“When a person decides to discriminate between truth and falsehood, he has to study the universe and find out whether it is eternal or created. If somebody thinks that he does not need this kind of knowledge, he is, however, in need of thinking about the laws that govern our world, in part or in its entirety. This leads him to know the truth about them, and paves the way for knowing the Designer of the universe, and His attributes Ů
This is, in fact, the kind of truth that God enjoined His knowledgeable servants to search for, and God spoke the truth when He said:
“Šand reflect upon the creation of the heavens and the earth [saying]: “Our Lord You have not created this in vain [3: 191].’ ” This verse contains what I explained in detail, and if one works according to it, he/she can have access to all branches of knowledge and cognition” (5)
Levy explains the outlook of those Muslim scientists elegantly:
“Apart from a small number of investigators inspired by Greek philosophic ideas, the Muslim who engaged in the pursuit of science did so Šin order to discover, in the wonders of nature, the signs or tokens of the glory of God. ” (6)
Furthermore, , as the eminent historian of science, George Sarton has mentioned in order to fully understand the motive behind Muslim scientists’ involvement with various scientific fields ,one should note the axial role of the Qur’an for them. (7)
2. Response of Muslim Scholars to Modern Science
Modern science entered the Islamic world in the early nineteenth century , at the time that natural and physical sciences were at their lowest point in the Islamic world. There came four kinds of reactions to it:
(1) Some Muslim scholars rejected modern science as foreign (corrupt) thought, and considered it to be incompatible with Islamic teachings. In their view, Islamic societies should develope their own science.
(2) Some Muslim intellectuals, advocated the complete adoption of modern science. In their view, the only remedy for the stagnant Muslim societies is the mastery of modern science and the replacement of religious world-view by the scientific world-view. They saw science as the only source of real enlightenment.
(3) Some Muslim scholars tried in various ways to adapt Islam to the findings of modern science. This group formed the majority of faithful Muslim scientists, and one can categorize them in the following subgroups:
(a) Some Muslim thinkers saw modern science as the continuation of the science of the Islamic civilization era, and tried to persuade Muslims to acquire modern science in order to safeguard their independence and to keep up with the developments in the Western world
(b) Some scholars tried to show that all important scientific discoveries had been predicted in the Qur’an and Islamic tradition, and by appealing to modern science one can explain various aspects of his faith. They believed that empirical science had reached the same conclusions that earlier prophets had mentioned more than a thousand years ago. The revelation had only the privilege of prophecy.
(c) Some scholars advocated a re-interpretation of Islam. In their view, one must try to construct a new theology that can establish a viable relation between Islam and modern science. The Indian scholar, Sir Seyyed Ahmad Khan, was after a theology of nature through which one could re-interpret the basic principles of Islam in the light of modern science.
(4) Finally, some Muslim philosophers separated the findings of modern science from its philosophical attachments. Thus, while they praised the attempts of Western scientists for the discovery of the secrets of nature, they warned against merely empiricistic and materialistic interpretations of scientific findings. Scientific knowledge can reveal certain aspects of the physical world, but, it should not be identified with the alpha and omega of knowledge. Rather, it has to be integrated into a metaphysical framework – consistent with the Islamic world-view – a framework in which higher levels of knowledge are recognized and the role of science in bringing one closer to God is fulfilled.
Contemporary Views
As we saw Muslim scientists of the past did not see any separation between science and religion. Rather, they considered the pursuit of knowledge a kind of religious duty (worship). With the development of modern science and the great impact of Western thought, there are currently various views concerning the relation of science and religion.
(a) Some scholars consider religion and science as two independent spheres of human activity. They deal with different aspects of life, e.g. personal versus social, or with different questions – science deals with “how” questions and religion with “why” questions. Thus, there should be no conflict between them, and any apparent conflict arises from the overstepping of one of these over the territory of the other one.
(b) Some intellectuals consider science and religion to be in conflict, and in their view one has to submit to the other. These constitute a minority group in the Islamic World.
(c) Some scholars believe that there are some common grounds between science and religion, and in these areas they can benefit from each other, presenting a richer perspective about the case. An interaction between the two can prevent misunderstandings, can help the believers to avoid superficial encounter with their religious texts and can help scientists to avoid extravagant claims.
(d) Finally, there are some scholars of philosophical attitude who believe that science and religion both have ontological and epistemological claims about the same world. Thus, we have to put our understanding of the universe within one unifying frame- e.g. the religious world-view.
Science is the study of nature through experimentation, observation and theoretical reasoning. Thus, on the surface science seems to be free of any non-scientific presuppositions. But, if this is true at the level of descriptions – like melting points of metals – or descriptive laws – like the law of extension of length due to heat – it is not true at the level of explanation. In fact, scientific activity consists of two parts. The first one deals with the collection of facts. The second part deals with the organization of facts, theoretical reasoning and the interpretation of the data. Now, the collection of facts could take place in a similar fashion in different parts of the globe. But, when we come to the introduction of concepts, theorizing and the matter of interpretation, metaphysical presuppositions, religious convictions and psychological and sociological prejudices may intrude. Thus, it is in the choice of theories and the interpretation of empirical data that the difference between various scientists often manifest itself, and this is especially true when we are dealing with universal explanatory theories. Here, a believer looks at the facts and assimilates them within a theistic context, while a non-believer interprets them according to his atheistic inclinations. Thus, to jump from the finite sphere of natural to the infinite domain of supernatural one needs a proper metaphysics that accommodates the supernatural. Ernan McMullin argues that Newton ‘s theistic world-view affected his theoretical work at the levels of inception, construction and development of his theory, and it shaped his theorizing:
“ŠNewton could not have developed his theories without metaphysical principles of some sort.
There had to be decisions about where to make the cuts in Nature, about where to seek causal agency, about what should count as explanation. Such decisions went a long way beyond the inductive warrant afforded by earlier successful science. ” (8)
Andre Linde, an eminent contemporary Russian cosmologist, concurs that:
” When scientists start their work, they are subconsciously influenced by their cultural traditions. ” (9)
These examples, among others, indicate that when we go beyond the descriptive level and begin to make cosmological inferences from the available data, commonalities end and the differences between the theist and the atheist become pronounced. Here decision making on the basis of science alone is not possible, and the metaphysical commitments of scientists intrude. Thus, although the observation, the logic and the theoretical tools of analysis could be the same for both, the interpretation could be different due to the deeper metaphysical commitments of the scientists involved.
Now, religion can provide a metaphysical framework for scientific activity. This inclusive world-view integrates science and ethics, and provides a ground for answering many questions of human concern. Of course, science gives a consistent and harmonious picture of the physical world, but it opens the door for questions which are beyond its reach. In the words of Roger Trigg, the eminent British philosopher:
“For science to explain everything, we need a reason for trusting science.” (10)
Some people claim that science and religion are basically different:
– Science is an objective enterprise, while religion is based on faith .
– In science you prove your statements, but in religion you simply accept some dogmas.
– Scientific theories are refutable, but religious claims are not so.
But, in fact, in science too we accept certain things on faith (like the comprehensibility of nature), and G
