14th Century blunder!!

For the worst of beasts in the sight of Allah are the deaf and the dumb― those who understand not.” (Quran 8:22)

It is significant that the desire to create an alternative world, to modify or augment the real world through the act of writing is inimical to the Islamic worldview. The Prophet of Islam (saw) is he who has completed a world-view; thus the word heresy in Arabic is synonymous with the verb ‘to innovate’ or ‘to begin’. Islam views the world as a plenum (full), capable of neither diminishment nor amplification.” Thus Edward Said rationalises the absence of the novel in Arabic literature, in his book Beginnings, intention & method. Said considered novels to be – among other things – “aesthetic objects that fill gaps in an incomplete world”. And according to him, Arabic stories like those in the Arabian nights are merely “ornamental, variations on the world, not completions of it; neither are they… designed to illustrate… ways in which the world can be viewed and changed”.

The Arabic word for ‘beginning’ is al ibitida; for ‘innovation’ is al ibtidaa or al bidaa; and for ‘heretic’ is al mubtadiaa. Many Muslim thinkers agree with Said’s etymological explanation. But can one extend Said’s argument from literature to science, and draw a similar conclusion: that the desire to create an alternative world, to modify or augment the real world through scientific innovation is against the Islamic worldview? On the contrary, the common view is that, Islam emphasises the acquisition of ilm (‘knowledge’) and there is no conflict in the acquisition of new (novel) knowledge and the practice of Islam.

Speaker at a panel discussion on ‘What is holding back science in Muslim countries’, however, has a different opinion. “You are urged to acquire knowledge. Not to create it,” he says. He reasons that Muslims are asked to discover knowledge that is already there, in the Book. They are not urged to create new knowledge outside the Book. Like Said, this speaker refers to Islam’s completed worldview, and uses it to rationalise the absence of a tradition of innovative science.

To these thinkers, though, the distinction between discovery and creation of knowledge is cosmetic. For them, one creates knowledge in that one brings it from unknowing to knowing. One discovers it in the sense that all knowledge belongs to Allah. A secular scientist of my acquaintance uses a similar explanation: knowledge lies in nature; we create models to understand nature; models are creations of the human mind, which in turn is a creation of nature. So one could argue that the mind is actually acquiring knowledge, not creating it from nothing. The two words – acquiring and creating – become mere word play, or a difference in outlook.

So if creating and discovering knowledge come to the same thing, where lies the problem with science and learning in the Muslim world? Perhaps it’s in the method and scope of enquiry that is permitted and encouraged. In an ideal Islamic polity, life is mediated by scripture – the Quran, Sunnah and Hadith, where Sunnah is the traditions of the Prophet Muhammad’s (saw) life, and the Hadith are his narrations and approvals. Muslim life is informed by these sources; no action or information can depart from their prescriptions, everything must subscribe to the perfect worldview in the Quran.

So the critical issue for Muslims is not whether the scriptures ought to be interpreted literally or metaphorically, but whether they allow other worldviews that explain the nature and functioning of the universe. In other words, do they allow exploration beyond the worldview of the Quran?

Today most Muslim countries are far from the world view of the Quran, they enforce a limiting orthodoxy, yet this was not always the case with Muslims. During the heyday of Islam, in the 7-13th centuries AD, the principles of Islamic scriptures were a subject of debate by Muslim thinkers, Ijtihad was a common practice, and the political stability allowed intellectual elevation. In this time Muslims were the main innovators of science, philosophy and medicine in the world. At such crucial time an erroneous decision was made to close the doors of Ijtihad and debate in order for the one particular orthodox view to prevail, without realising the impact. With this, much of the Arab world’s innovation in science and technology came to an end. They generated a fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) based on taqlid (imitation), suppressing the stress on ijtihad -which allowed open inquiry, and other views whether erroneous or valid . They did not reject ijtihad amongst the learned, but they discouraged its application by the public. The loss of the application of ijtihad in law indirectly led to its ebb from philosophy and science. Most historians now think that this caused Muslim societies to stagnate, of which the symbolic moment came in 1492, with the final fall of Muslim Spain.

The regression of Muslim intellectual life continues unabated. Where they lost, the West gained. From current situation, it is clear that the West stands as the dominant power. From the onset of Capitalism, the West experienced the Renaissance and Enlightenment, a period of tremendous scientific and intellectual growth, which culminated in the Industrial Revolution. Similarly, what is often overlooked is that, under the Islamic civilization when Islam was implemented as a system of life and the Shariah was the dominant system, science and technology flourished. This progress came as a result of the ability of the Muslims to understand the relationship between science and Islam. Nowadays, this relationship has been misunderstood because the the term ”science” has become synonymous with progress and advancement, whereas religion is viewed as something backward that stifles progress and is counterproductive to reasoning. In order to promote the idea of Secularism among the masses, the West is attempting to sell the idea that science and knowledge are one and the same, that intellect/knowledge and religion exist in two mutually exclusive spheres, and that scientific and technological progress is a direct result of the Western Capitalist ideology.

It was reported in a hadith that a group of people came to the Prophet (saw) asking him about the pollination of dates. He instructed them not to pollinate the date palms themselves since the wind may carry the seeds. That year there was no harvest; they informed him of this, and he told them, ‘‘You know best regarding your worldly affairs,” referring to scientific research. Also, Imam Muslim reported that the Prophet (saaw) said:

”I am a human being like you, but I receive the revelation. If I instructed you on something related to the Deen, then take it, but if I instructed you on something related to your worldly affairs, then you know best.”

Islam clearly distinguished between the scope of science and technology, which is the lab and the physical universe, and the scope of the Deen, which is the life affairs and the systems governing the relationships and issues that human beings are confronted with. In spite of this distinction, there are so many so called Islamic “Scholars” issuing fatwas on scientific issues based on their understanding of some ayahs and hadiths, such as the rotation and shape of the earth, the atom, the fetus and its development, and many other scientific issues. In addition, many Muslims are busy digging into the Qur’an and the Sunnah for a cure for cancer or diabetes rather than conducting the necessary research in the lab. The problem with such an approach is that those scientific fatwas may become part of the Deen itself, the way it happened with the Church during the European Middle Ages. Such a trend could lead either to not accepting any scientific theory or conclusion unless a fatwa exists supporting it, or a potential conflict between the Deen and science if the scientific research proves the error in any fatwa.

Hundreds of years ago Muslims opted to follow the orthodox teachings based on Taqleed over Ijtihad. Is it now time to review unproductive choices? To reinstate ijtihad over taqleed, and encourage ‘free’ intellectual transgressions over forced containment?