the science and religion discourse

8/7/2019 The Science and Religion Discourse

1/9

The Science and Religion DiscourseWelcome Address by Professor Naquib al-Atas

Your Royal Highness Prince El-Hassan bin Talal of the Hashemite Kingdom Of Jordan,

Distinguished Scholars, Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen:

1. It is indeed a great pleasure and honour for me on behalf of the International Institute ofIslamic Thought and Civilization (ISTAC), to welcome you who have journeyed from all

over the world to gather in conference with us here to celebrate the lasting legacy of this

brilliant star in the firmament of Islamic thought, one who is among the greatest in the

galaxy of Muslim luminaries.

2. He was a man gifted with wisdom and adorned with authentic knowledge. The illuminationradiating from his sagacious intellect shed the light that separated and distinguished the true

from the false, the real from the illusory, the genuine from the counterfeit. His contributions

in the spiritual and intellectual domains of religion, in the realms of Islamic thought and

civilization as a whole, are of such magnitude as to be recognized and acknowledged by a

knowing and grateful Community throughout the ages. He lived at a time of great religious

and intellectual upheaval brought about by the challenges of an alien worldview

surreptitiously introduced into Muslim thought and belief by Muslim philosophers and their

followers, as well as by religious deviationists of many sorts. Ours is also a time fraught with

similar challenges posed by the secular modern Western philosophy and science, its

technology and ideology which seek to encroach on our values, our modes of conduct, ourthought and belief, our way of life, in order to bring about radical changes congenial to the

secular worldview. Even though our present predicament is more serious, widespread and

profoundly urgent in nature than that encountered by al-Ghazli in his time, yet the lesson

he taught and the remedy he indicated are eminently relevant.

3. The rise of the modernist movement, whose leaders were from among the ulamaof lessauthoritative worth, heralded not so much the emergence of a Muslim religious and

intellectual awakening and sobriety; it marked rather the beginnings of a widespread and


2/9

systematic undermining of past scholarship and its intellectual and religious authority and

leadership, leaving us to inherit today a legacy of cultural, intellectual and religious

confusion. They and their imitators and followers among traditionalist ulama, and scholars

and intellectuals who derive inspiration mainly from the West, are responsible for what I

have called the disintegration ofadab, which is the effect of the corruption of the knowledgeof Islm and the worldview projected by it, and for the emergence in our midst of false

leaders in all fields due to the loss of the capacity and ability to recognize and acknowledge

authentic authority. Because of the intellectual anarchy that characterizes this situation, the

common people become determiners of intellectual decisions and are raised to the level of

authority on matters of knowledge. Authentic definitions become undone and in their stead

we are left with vagueness and contradictions. The inability to define; to identify and isolate

problems; to provide for right solutions; the creation of pseudo-problems; the reduction of

problems to mere political, socio-economic and legal factors become evident. Pretenders

abound, effecting great mischief by debasing values, imposing upon the ignorant, and

encouraging the rise of mediocrity. It is not surprising if such a situation provides a fertile

breeding ground for the emergence of deviationists and extremists of many kinds who make

ignorance their capital.

4. It is with the rise of oriental studies aligned to colonial ideology that we first find al-Ghazlibeing insinuated as the efficient cause of Muslim intellectual stagnancy that gradually set in

over the centuries after he dealt a fatal blow to Greek philosophy. We can understand their

antipathy towards al-Ghazli seeing that in Western cultural history every chapter, be it of

logic, of science, of art, of politics and even of theology begins with the Greeks. Greek

philosophy is the very acme of all thought, the consummate personification of reason itself!

Western religious and orientalist thought, their scholarship and even their science have

always laboured against the Christian background of the problem of God: the problem of the

discord between revelation and reason, which is not a problem in Islm. Their claim that

everything philosophical in Islm is taken from the Greeks is far-fetched and must be

rejected. They do not see that many fundamental ideas in Greek philosophy itself were taken

by their philosophers from revealed religion or revelation, or to use ibn Rushds words

something resembling revelation; these ideas did not originate from their intellects or from

reason alone without the aid of revelation. This is why Muslim philosophers, theologians

and metaphysicians did not reject everything Greek in their thought, for a great many things

the Greek philosophers said in metaphysical, ethical and political matters they also found


3/9

already expressed in the Qurn. Al-Kindis remark in the book addressed to al-Mutasim

that he wanted to completewhat the Greek philosophers did not fully express points to the

fact that the Muslim thinkers did not look upon the Greek philosophers from the position of

imitators; on the contrary, even though they respected them for their rational endeavour and

achievements, they at the same time saw their errors and inadequacy in arriving at knowledge

about the ultimate nature of reality through the effort of reason alone. In fact the failure of

the rational endeavour of Greek philosophy to arrive at truth and certainty in knowledge

about the ultimate nature of reality is proof enough for those with understanding that reason

alone without the aid of revelation cannot attain to such knowledge. It ought to be clear that

al-Ghazlis attack on the philosophers, both the Greek and the Muslim, was not aimed at

philosophy as such, that is as hikmah, because hikmahas revealed in the Qurn is Gods gift;

and hikmah is what I think ibn Rushd meant when he referred to something resembling

revelation in his Fasl al-Maql. The application of reason with wisdom, not only in religion

but in philosophy and the sciences is commendable. It is significant to note that in the

Qurn the major Prophets were not only given the Book, that is al-kitb, but also the

Wisdom, that is al-hikmah, which I think explains our accord between revelation and reason.

What al-Ghazli attacked was the metaphysical and religious theories of the Greek

philosophers, and their belief and the claim of the Muslim philosophers with regard to the

primacy of the intellect as the sole guide to knowledge of the ultimate reality.

5. But the modernist Muslim thinkers and their followers and those of like mind becamecaptive to the subtle deception of orientalist scholarship and echoed their insinuations, and

they blamed al-Ghazli for the degeneration of Muslim thought and action even to this day.

They include not only Arabs, Turks and Persians, but other thinkers from the Indian

subcontinent notably Iqbal who was very much influenced by Western Christian problems of

religion and philosophy and confused them with those of Islm and the Muslims. They set

ibn Taymiyyah up as the relevant leader to emulate and reflected in their thought and action

the same contentiousness and contradictions. They failed to see that if al-Ghazali had not

existed it would have been impossible for ibn Taymiyyah to engage the Greek philosophers

and confront the Muslim philosophers, for a great deal of what the Hanbalite knew of logic

and effective methodology was derived from the lesson taught and demonstrated by al-

Ghazli. It was in fact ibn Taymiyyah who lashed at logic, denounced definition, stifled

syllogism, attacked analogical reasoning, so that if we are looking for someone to blame for

the degeneration of Muslim thought and action - although there are other causes for that -


4/9

then surely ibn Taymiyyahs influence is a major cause of our present intellectual confusion.

That is why the inability to define; to identify and isolate problems; to provide for right

solutions; the creation of pseudo-problems; the reduction of problems to mere political,

socio-economic and legal factors become evident today. Ibn Taymiyyahs influence is also

evident in the reduction of knowledge and correct perception of Islm and the worldview

projected by it to merely its ritual and legal aspects. In this way the meaning ofibdahhas

become restricted because the fundamental knowledge obligatory for all Muslims, that is the

fard ayn, has been reduced to its bare ritual and legal essentials and made static in fixity at the

level of immaturity. The intellectual and cognitive aspects of the fard ayn, that render right

balance in ibdahwhich requires them in order to reach full maturity, have been neglected.

The restriction of the meaning ofamalor activity to its physical aspects follows and leads to

the kind of activism that is productive of social, political and legal unrest and narrow-

mindedness. The modernists and their followers must see that the activism urged in the

activity of ibdah is not merely a physical one but also, in addition to that, an intellectual

one. The intellectual activism I mean is not of the modernist kind, and is not to be confused

with Iqbals notion of the search for rational foundations in Islm. The need for a rational

foundation in religion was made to be felt by intellectually westernized modernists who

unwittingly got themselves involved in the Western scholastic and intellectual context of

problems related to their religion. Religion according to us is not, on its doctrinal side,merely a system of general truths as defined by Iqbal echoing Whitehead and later adopted

by Fazlur Rahman; a system of general truths whose specifics must not remain unsettled.

That was Whiteheads understanding of what religion is based solely on his experience and

reflection of his own religion. There is no reason why such a definition of religion must be

applied to Islm. Moreover, Islm does not need, on its doctrinal side, a rational foundation

because a rational foundation is already built into the very foundation of the religion and the

worldview it projects.

6. Then again, encouraged by charges of inconsistency and even contradictions in al-Ghazli byibn Rushd followed by ibn Taymiyyah, orientalist scholars and their modernist disciples

among whom was the late Fazlur Rahman have made al-Ghazli out to be some sort of

scholastic enigma. Their failure to assign to him a definite place in their minds have made

them brand him as a difficult and even deceptive thinker. Was he really a theologian

masquerading as a philosopher?, was he Asharite and yet a f at the same time? - and so

they insisted on forcing their either/or attitude on one who defied such neat


5/9

compartmentalization. Yet their unfair charges of inconsistency and contradictions have

never been conclusively proven nor demonstrated to be true! Why should a man like al-

Ghazli not be philosopher, theologian, Asharite and f at the same time without being

inconsistent or being involved in contradictions? Indeed to Muslims generally al-Ghazli is

the embodiment of a synthesis of religion and philosophy, a synthesis whose great and

beneficial value is acknowledged by the various intellectual levels of the Community. But to

those who preoccupy themselves with philological exercises, textual criticisms, incessant

research to determine conceptual origins, they only speak to themselves among themselves in

their academic circles, and are oblivious or incapable of relating Ghazalis ideas to the

solution of modern problems. One is reminded of the story of the elephant and the four

blind pundits. Since they could not see with their eyes they had to grope with their hands to

feel and describe to their imagination the creature that stood before them. One stroked its

leg and declared: This creature is a pillar; No!, said another who grasped its twisting

trunk: It is a big snake; the third disagreed as he groped its broad back saying: It is a

throne; You are all in error, the last one contended feeling the huge ear: It is indeed a

carpet!. Afterwards they each wrote learned books disputing the other and affirming their

own imaginary vision of the creature to be the true one.

7. The problem of the corruption of knowledge has come about due to our own state ofconfusion as well as influences coming from the philosophy, science, and ideology of

modern Western culture and civilization. Intellectual confusion emerged as a result ofchanges

and restriction in the meaning of key terms that project the worldview derived from

Revelation. The repercussions arising from this intellectual confusion manifest themselves in

moral and cultural dislocation, which is symptomatic of the degeneration of religious

knowledge, faith, and values. The changes and restriction in the meaning of such key terms

occur due to the spread of secularization as a philosophical program which holds sway over

hearts and minds enmeshed in the crisis of truth and the crisis of identity. These crises, in

turn, have become actualized as a result of a secularized system of education that causes

deviations, if not severance, from historical roots that have been firmly established by our

wise and illustrious predecessors upon foundations vitalized by religion. One must see that

the kind of problem confronting us is of such a profound nature as to embrace all the

fundamental elements of our worldview that cannot simply be resolved by groping in the

labyrinths of legalism and struggling in the socio-political arena of activism which throbs in

the veins of Muslim modernism.


6/9

8. A most important and original idea of al-Ghazli that orientalist and Muslim scholars havenot given the attention it deserves, due to the fact that they have failed to discover it and to

realize its novelty and its great significance for our time, is the idea of how semantic change

and restriction in the Islamic key terms pertaining to knowledge in a science that is

considered as praiseworthy renders the science to become blameworthy; and this will

ultimately bring about confusion and corruption in knowledge. This is because the key terms

in the basic vocabulary of the Islamic language serve a conceptual network of interrelated

fields of meaning which ultimately project in the Muslim mind the worldview they are meant

to describe. Al-Ghazli pointed out in the Ihythat even in his time key terms such as fiqh,

ilm, tawhid, dhikr, and hikmah have been tampered with by change and restriction in their

original and authentic meanings. Similarly in the Tahfut he demonstrated that the

philosophers have changed the original and authentic meaning of the important concepts

conveyed by the terms filand filto suit their own ideas which contradict the teachings of

Islm with respect to the nature of God and of creation. We see that if even a few of Islamic

key terms were changed or restricted in their meanings, or were made to convey meanings

which are not authentic and authoritative - by which I mean whose intentions no longer

reflect those correctly understood by the early Muslims - then this would inevitably create

confusion and error in the minds of Muslims and disrupt intellectual and spiritual unityamong them. Moreover, it would render sciences once considered praiseworthy to become

blameworthy. Unity has two aspects: the outward, external unity manifested in society as

communal and national solidarity; and the inward, internal unity of ideas and mind revealed

in intellectual and spiritual coherence that encompasses realms beyond communal and

national boundaries. Understanding pertains to the second aspect, which is fundamental to

the realization of the first. The coherence of this second aspect depends upon the soundness

and integrity of concepts in language, the instrument of reason which influences its users. If

the soundness and integrity of concepts in language is confused, then this is due to a

confusion in worldview caused by the corruption of knowledge. I am not here suggesting

something that may be construed as not allowing language to develop, to unfold itself

according to its potential powers of tracing the rich tapestry of life as it unfolds, to evolve

with ideas as they evolve, to grasp reality-truth as it manifests itself in the fleeting passage of

time. I am only suggesting, deriving from the lesson al-Ghazli taught, that the basic

vocabulary in the Islamic language can only develop from its roots, and not severed from

them, nor can they develop from roots stunted in restriction. Secular and materialistic value


7/9

systems have their initial locus in minds, then they are translated into linguistic symbols, and

afterwards become manifest in the external world first in urban areas whence they spread like

a raging contagion to the rural masses. The problem related to language and semantic

change is not simply a matter of language as such, but a matter of worldview. Semantic

confusion as a result of misapplication of terms denoting key concepts in the Islamic basic

vocabulary does adversely affect Muslim perception of the worldview of Islm which is

projected by both al-kitb wa al-hikmah.

9. In the languages of Muslim peoples including Arabic, there is a basic vocabulary consistingof key terms which govern the interpretation of the Islamic vision of reality and truth and

which project in the Muslim mind the worldview of Islm in correct perspective. Because

the words that comprise this basic vocabulary have their origins in the Qurn and in the

Prophetic Traditions, these words are naturally in Arabic and are deployed uniformly in all

Muslim languages reflecting the intellectual and spiritual unity of Muslims throughout the

world. This basic vocabulary is composed of key terms denoting important concepts related

to one another meaningfully and altogether determining the conceptual structure of reality

and existence projected by them in conformity with the Qurn. Language reflects ontology.

Introducing key concepts foreign to a language involves not merely the translating of words,

but more profoundly the translating of symbolic forms belonging to the super system of aforeign worldview not compatible with the worldview projected by the language into which

such concepts are introduced. Those responsible for introducing them and advocating their

currency are the scholars, academics, journalists, critics, politicians and amateurs not firmly

grounded upon knowledge of the essentials of religion and its vision of reality and truth.

One of the main causes for the emergence of intellectual confusion and anarchy is the

changes and restrictions which they have effected in the meanings of key terms that project

the worldview of Islm which is derived from Revelation.

10. But the modernist thinkers and their immediate disciples and later followers which include

some traditionalists ignored authentic and authoritative usage of Quranic Arabic and violated

its etymological principles in order to introduce foreign meanings in the key terms involving

changes and restrictions which run counter to their original intentions and which displace

their purpose in the conceptual structure of the worldview of Islm. Respecting

interpretation of the Qurn, from which a new form of Arabic is derived, they have

consistently advocated hermeneutic methods whose character depended largely upon learned


8/9

conjecture and subjective speculation and the notion of historical relativism. They are

unaware that Muslims are now being confronted by the same challenges as in the past, albeit

more intensive and of greater magnitude, in having to grapple with foreign concepts and to

find suitable words and terms to denote them without violating the etymological and

semantic structure of Arabic words and terms and displacing their purpose in the Islamic

conceptual system. In their haste to assimilate foreign concepts without understanding that

they serve a different perception of reality and of truth, and unaware of their own perception

of worldview, the modernist thinkers and intellectuals have introduced into current Muslim

thought and linguistic usage rampant confusion. Their tampering of important terminologies

belonging to the conceptual system which depicts the worldview of Islm is made

widespread by being disseminated in their translations and interpretations of foreign terms

and concepts in dictionaries of modern Arabic, in Arabic dictionaries of the various sciences,

in modernist writings in Arabic literature, in journals and the writings of secular scholars and

intellectuals and their traditionalist counterparts, and in the mass media. The changes in

meaning that result are caused by (i), restriction or reduction of the original pattern of

meaning and its scope in its various meaningful contexts; (ii), introduction of new meaning

that goes beyond what is demanded by etymology and contextual precision; (iii), introduction

of key concepts from another worldview not compatible with that of Islm by means of

arabization and dissemination in current usage; (iv), introduction of a new interpretation ofworldview that is influenced by modern scientific developments; and (v), imitation by other

Muslim languages of what is current in modernist Arabic usage and thought. Their

arabization and introduction of concepts peculiar to secularization as a philosophical

program into contemporary Muslim thought, such as development, change, freedom,

progress, and secularity itself and other concepts aligned to them, have tremendously

contributed to the confusion in the Muslim understanding of the meaning of religion itself

and of the fundamental elements that project its worldview such as the nature of God, of

Revelation, of Prophecy, of man and the psychology of the human soul, of knowledge and

cognition, of ethics and its goal, of purposeful conceptualization of the meaning of

education. Muslims must realize that our dialogue today is with the powerful forces of

secularization as a philosophical program whose underlying philosophy and ideology have

created a separation between truth and reality and between truth and values. It is only

through thorough knowledge of Islm and its worldview, coupled with the knowledge of

Western thought and civilization and the understanding of its evolutionary history of

intellectual and religious development, that we can engage ourselves in this profound


9/9

dialogue with success, as al-Ghazli, under similar circumstances and in his own milieu, had

demonstrated.

the science and religion discourse

Documents