Scientism Issue
by Dr Jeffrey Abu Hassan

The call by Lacrema to choose either religion or science ( “Islam vs science :choose your side please” ; 10 Nov 2005 ) is as absurd as it is childish.

It reflects a lack of understanding of the philosophical foundations of modern science ( see our previous letter “science nothing more than a systematic study of the material world” ).

It typifies the naiveté of those – often with little or no scientific background – who are mesmerised by the achievements of modern science which are undoubtedly remarkable and beneficial to mankind.

Scientism embraces a positivist materialist vision of reality that denies a Transcendent reality and the cult of the self-sufficiency of man.

However, with the discrediting of modernism’s grand narratives of which includes scientism, there is today a sober evaluation on the limitations of modern science, a questioning of its epistemological premises and a concern over technology unrestrained by ethics and spirituality such that the unsustainability of the planet is a real, grave possibility.

Not that religion must dictate science, but the principle of the non-overlapping magisterium between the two is an out-dated dictum. Asking one to choose between science and religion reflects the silly arrogance of latter-day dogmatists of scientism, not science.

Dr Jeffrey Abu Hassan
Founding member
Muslim Professionals Forum
Suite 1810, 18th Floor, Plaza Permata (IGB Plaza)
Jalan Kampar, off Jalan Tun Razak
50400 Kuala Lumpur
Tel : 03-40426102
Website : http://mpf.org.my

Tudung Issue
by S.L. Pang @ Farah Abdullah

The Muslim Professionals Forum follows with interest the current debate on the ruling that requires non-Muslim female students at IIUM and parliament staff to don the tudung as initially raised in a Sunday Star editorial of 6 November 2005.

We agree with the Sunday Star editor’s objection to the ruling on parliament staff and commend the prompt intervention of parliamentary Speaker Tan Sri Ramli Ngah Talib.

However the IIUM ruling is a separate matter altogether. The autonomy of educational institutions to impose rules such as the dress code on their students must be respected. The IIUM is an Islamic academic institution. It would be most unusual not to expect a dress code that would reflect the teachings of Islam. For some 20 years non-Muslim students who freely choose to enroll into any of its faculties know this and duly comply with it.

Conversely Muslim students who choose to have their education in government supported mission schools must expect and comply with rules that they may not be comfortable with. This has nothing to do with fundamental human rights, of which there aplenty if the Sunday Star editor is genuinely concerned about them.

Let us not politicize this issue and leave it to the wisdom of the university authorities. Neither is this a polemic of whether the tudung is a measure of one’s Islamic piety as some quarters are so apt to raise whenever such an issue arises.

S.L. Pang @ Farah Abdullah Board Member
Muslim Professionals Forum
Suite 1810, 18th Floor, Plaza Permata (IGB Plaza)
Jalan Kampar, off Jalan Tun Razak
50400 Kuala Lumpur
Tel : 03-40426102
Website : http://mpf.org.my

Pluralism – a clear & present danger
by Dr. Musa Mohd. Nordin

The “many religions one god” truth claim as propounded by Ushiv et al sounds very appealing because it embraces religiosity with a mega dose of tolerance and mutual respect.

John Hicks, probably the icon for religious pluralism sums it lucidly when he writes ” …the great world religions constitute variant conceptions and perceptions of, and responses to, the one ultimate, mysterious divine reality”. It simply describes the different theophanies of the same truth.

On closer examination however, this pluralistic truth claim is in fact extremely problematic.

Firstly, it has undermined the absolute truth claims of all the religions on the world stage. It has relativised all the truth claims and have equated all religions as being relatively the same. Pluralism is degrading if not denying the absolute truth claims of these religions.

Secondly, it’s pluralistic-claim has inevitably added another “new ism on the block”, albeit man-made, to the phenomenon of religious diversity.

Ismail Faruqi wrote “The (truth) claim is essential to religion. For the religious assertion is not merely one among a multitude of propositions, but necessarily unique and exclusive”.

Thus any attempt to relativise the uniqueness and exclusivity of all religions, as Hicks et al has undertaken with their theology of religious pluralism, will inevitably add a new problem to the existing truth claims at best. Or at worst threaten the very existence of religions.

The pluralistic “all paths lead to the same summit” paradigm is not that benign, democratic and embracing as first perceived!

This “disguised enmity” of absolute religious truth claims is hardly surprising considering religious pluralism was gestated within the context of western secular liberalism; which had an innate abhorrence of anything metaphysical.

Wayne Proudfoot, in Religious Experience wrote “The turn to religious experience was motivated in large measure by an interest in freeing religious doctrine and practice from dependence on metaphysical beliefs and ecclesiastical institutions and grounding it in human experience”

Islam perceives religious diversity and plurality as a sunnatullah, the behest of the Al-Mighty. Hence, a religious truth claim, is an absolutist doctrine, must be respected as such, not simplified or relativised, let alone negated.

Islam accords special status to Judaism and Christianity, categorically calling their adherents, Ahl al-Kitab (People of the Book). It identifies itself with the People of the Book as the “Abrahamic family” within the Semitic Tradition (Hanifiyyah), the tradition of Abraham who is recognized as the father of the three Semitic religions.

References to other religions is however less straight forward. They are mentioned in a generic manner as implied by the Quranic injunctions on :

1. Universality of the prophetic mission; “And verily We have raised in every nation a messenger, (proclaiming) : Serve Allah and shun false gods …” (16:36)
2. And the unity of mankind (ummatun wahidah) ; “Mankind were one community, and Allah sent Prophets as bearers of good tidings and as warners, and revealed therewith the Scripture with the truth that it might help judge between mankind concerning that wherein they differed…” (2:213)

Islam allows the others to be fully others without any form of reduction, distortion or relativisation.

This unlike the wave of religious pluralism which deconstructs absolute truth claims, relativises religions and equates them within the parameters of human religious experiences of the Transcendental Reality. In short, it is unwilling to let others to be really others. Therein lies the clear and present danger of religious pluralism.

Dr. Musa Mohd. Nordin
musa@mpf.org.my
Consultant Paediatrician & Neonatologist
Damansara Specialist Hospital
119 Jalan SS 20/10
Damansara Utama
47400 PJ
Tel/Fax : 03-77293173

Science nothing more than systematic study of material world
by Dr Jeffrey Abu Hassan (Oct 10, 05 3:42pm)

Godeath’s letter Science, religion inimical to one another erroneously universalises medieval Europe’s bitter experience in the conflict between religion and science at the threshold of the scientific revolution.

That experience, particular to European Christendom, has led to the elevation of modern science as a totalising, absolutist worldview on the nature of reality in competition with religion. Thus giving birth to secular positivism and the idea of the inevitability of human progress.

It is little wonder that the theory of evolution is preached as the theological dogma of this new religion of scientism, quite often by non-scientists or those whose fields of sub-specialisation are not in the biological sciences.

But cutting through the halo built around it, science is nothing more than the systematic, empirical study of the material world whose instrument is man’s faculty of reason.

The vastness of what can be knowable of the material world – ie, the hard sciences – is such that one can only be truly learned in a very narrow, highly sub-specialised field.

Cognisant of this limitation, the honest scientist today, whether religious or otherwise, would not be so foolish as to make grand claims about modern science in the manner of 19th century secular priests of scientism.

In the authentic spiritual traditions, nature or the material world is the ‘other’ revelation, an open book whose study is praiseworthy.

Notwithstanding the vastness of what is knowable through empirical study, the material world is but one level of reality. Science as a way of understanding this reality through reason is but part of the religious worldview, which recognises a higher reality beyond the material world.

Reason together with revelation and the intellect (defined by traditionalists as a faculty for spiritual understanding) sets man in his exalted position as a priori, and not as something to ‘evolve’ into with all the capriciousness and uncertainties that such an evolutionary process entails.

In summary, yes, traditional religion is inimical to scientism as a secular positivist ideology. But science as a way of knowing the material world as one level of reality it is in harmony with it.

Had Bacon and Déscartes foreseen the threat to man’s continuing existence on this planet today, they would have tempered their pronouncements on science with a healthy dose of humility.

Religious Plurality : Myth or Reality by Dr. Anis Malik Thoha

Liberal Islam – The Indonesian Experience by Adnin Armas

Liberal Islam : Emerging Trends, Issues & Concerns by Muhammad ‘Uthman El-Muhammady

Sufi Thought and its Reconstruction by Elizabeth Sirriyeh

Scientists are not the enemies of God
by Helen Ang

Through the rise and fall of empires, many a thinking man has been browbeaten by a tyranny of the majority for adhering to ‘dangerous’ beliefs concerning Reason and Creation.

Two such early intellectuals sentenced to beatings (in the literal, painful sense of the word) for their ideas were rationalist philosophers al-Kindi (805-873CE) and al-Razi (865-925CE).

Reading Dr Syed Alwi Ahmad’s No scientific proof for special creation and the responses to his view published so far, I certainly hope that our own physicist will not be beaten over the head (figuratively speaking) until he retracts his belief in evolution.

Until one or the other is broken

But first, allow me share one of the saddest stories I’ve ever heard. It’s about a great name in mediaeval medicine, Abu Bakr Muhammad ibn Zakariya al-Razi, celebrated for his writings on the life sciences and considered one of the foremost scholars of Islam’s Golden Age.

Europe knew al-Razi as Rhazes. It could be that he took his name from his native city, Rayy, a few miles south of Teheran.

A clinical physician, al-Razi headed a hospital in Baghdad – at that time a world-renowned centre of learning – where he recorded his many breakthrough diagnoses. His case notes became the basis of encyclopedic work, among them the Arabic composition Kitab al-Hawi fi al-tibb (The Comprehensive Book on Medicine). Al-Razi’s medical references, translated into Latin in 1279, were in use as European textbooks until well into the mid-16th century.

Versatile and accomplished in many fields, al-Razi was a man of science, a revered teacher as well as compassionate physician. The good doctor’s only ‘fatal flaw’ could have been his rationalist views that were at odds with the Muslim orthodoxy of his times.

He believed in the existence of the five eternal principles: creator, soul, matter, time, and space. However, he refuted traditionalist dogma that the world was created out of nothing. Al-Razi was not averse to challenging tradition and his personal philosophy held that no authority was beyond criticism.

It is said that, a principled man, al-Razi lost his eyesight for his elevation of the power of Reason. According to some sources, al-Razi’s blindness resulted from his irking a conservative emir of Bukhara who ordered him to be hit on the head with his beloved book … until either the book or al-Razi’s head broke.

It is important to ascertain here that even as alleged that he lose his eyesight due his propagation of the elevation of the power of reason thus being hit by the manuscript till either one break, the thought process and arguments presented to elevate reason I take it here against revelation must be stated. To be fair the conservative Emir consternation must also be aired or Helen risk being selective and biased in her argument just to drive home a point. Freedom of thought and freedom to express it in public is a non issue, as if clearly al-Razi is in violation of a proven fundamental principle of Islam here the bigger danger is leading the nation astray and if unexacerbated for generations to come. I liken it though in a small and simple way to allowing a revered Maths teacher to teach the ignorants and the less vocal that 2+3=6.

It is worth to note that his punishment is in itself poetic justice. Notice that the Emir said to hit till either one break NOT untill al-Razi head broke which in itself probably invoking divine intervention and can be seen as showing his reverence and recognition for al-Razi other work. There’s only one Quran and no other books of revelation are in the same league thus Helen I believed if you are privileged enough to study its authenticity from a learned teacher of your choosing and reverence than perhaps you can understand why I claimed as above after having read the Old and New Testament, the Veda and Puranas and why the Emir and Muslims adhered to it with the grit of their teeth.

Rejecting remedial eye surgery, al-Razi replied: “I have seen enough of this world and I do not cherish the idea of an operation for the hope of seeing more of it.” But this poignant reflection could just be apocryphal, similar to Italian astronomer Galileo’s whisper, under his breath, that our Earth did indeed revolve around the sun, after the Christian Inquisition forced him to recant.

Courage of his conviction

Like al-Razi, Abu Yusuf Yaqub ibn Ishaq al-Sabbah al-Kindi was a man of many talents – physician, mathematician, musician and scientist.

Al-Kindi had received an appointment by the Abbasid caliph al-Ma’mun to the House of Wisdom in Baghdad where he translated Greek philosophical and scientific texts in addition to writing commentaries on a number of Aristotle’s works.

Although feted as a great philosopher, al-Kindi was unfortunately still not spared punishment when al-Ma’mun’s nephew, al-Mutawakkil Ala Allah Jafar bin al-Mu’tasim, succeeded to the caliphate.

Al-Mutawakkil was keen to involve himself in religious debates and had little tolerance for other schools of thought or for ‘unorthodox’ Muslims. A Sunni, he oppressed the general population of Shias and destroyed the shrine of Husayn ibn Ali. He also decreed that the synagogues and churches in Baghdad be torn down.

According to one version of events, al-Kindi was subjected, at the age of 60, to a public flogging for incurring al-Mutawakkil’s displeasure when he refused to accede to the caliph’s arguments.

One detail agreed on by historians is that his remarkable personal library – dubbed the Al-Kindiyah – was confiscated. It was a loss that broke the old philosopher’s heart, and from which he never recovered.

Deadly religious intolerance

In any closed society suffering from a deficit of freedom, there is never much leeway given to enquiring minds seeking and speaking impartial truths.

In fact, from recent displays of public keris-waving and the banning of books, I would venture to add that the might-is-right brigade, aided by a barrage of repressive legislation, has clearly demonstrated its will to out-shout and shut out any competing ideas. This approach does not augur well for our intellectual growth.

And there’s no other single source of contention that touches so many raw nerves as ideology surrounding the primacy of particular religions, and no other people more susceptible to zealotry than the religiously dogmatic.

We witness murderous clashes between Muslims and Hindus in India and Pakistan, Muslims and Christians in parts of Europe, Africa and Indonesia, including the breakaway East Timor (now Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste). In Sri Lanka, there have been deadly confrontations between the minority Tamils in the island’s north and the majority Sinhalese Buddhists.

Then there are killings occurring within the same religion, such as the Catholics’ long-running battle against the Protestants in Northern Ireland, only now tapering off, and the Sunni-Shia conflagrations in Iraq.

Very close to home, we see the bloodshed in southern Thailand claiming hundreds of Muslim and Buddhist lives.

But never in the history of human conflict have we seen fanatical bands of scientists taking up arms with the aim of “taking out” those opposed to them.

Room for progressives

Dr Syed Alwi is a scientist and I’ve been impressed with the progressive viewpoints he often sets forth in his series of letters to malaysiakini.

He, together with columnists like Salbiah Ahmad, Dr M.Bakri Musa, Dr Farish Noor and others – I have to add contributors AB Sulaiman and Umar Mukthar’s names to this list – have opened a broader perspective and added nuances to Malay and Muslim public discourse, to our collective benefit.

Their articles have shown that there is indeed a wider interpretation to Islamic tenets and teachings than what we would have gleaned from mainstream reading alone. On the domestic front, the newspaper religious columns by the ustaz-uztaz and Institute of Islamic Understanding (IKIM) officers – pious, learned men though they undoubtedly are – do not push the envelope in terms of exploring ideas, or ijtihad.

On my part, I write this comment piece as a small effort to keep a tiny wedge open in our thin corridor where liberal Malay-Muslim voices are heard. Quite frankly, should a non-Malay raise these issues, there’ll be hell to pay and the spectre of the Sedition Act and ISA immediately set on our heels.

For anyone in this day and age to support the theory of evolution is in itself nothing remarkable. What is out of the ordinary is that in our suffocating society and clouded climate, Syed Alwi has openly stated his stand. Given what we’ve seen of recent adverse developments in the sphere of public religion, he’s brave to have done so.

Under the circumstances, I feel that the least I can do is to let Syed Alwi know: “You have my moral support

Reponse to this article : Islam not hostile to science by Dr Rafidah H Mokhtar

Islam not hostile to science
by Dr Rafidah H Mokhtar (Sep 27, 05 3:56pm)

This article is in response to Scientists are not the enemies of God by Helen Ang

In my opinion, there are multiple flaws in Helen Ang’s article (Scientists are not the enemies of God) due to her cursory and superficial research methodology.

Her suggestion that al-Razi’s blindness was inflicted by an emir of Bukhara is disputable. Several biographies of al-Razi reported differently.

In A History of Muslim Philosophy, MM Sharif writes “…it began with cataract which ended in complete blindness…”

In Wikipedia; the following causative factor of his blindness was offered. “…The massive book thoroughly offended a Muslim priest whom Razi had apparently contradicted somewhere in its pages. The priest ordered that Razi be beaten over the head with the manuscript until one of them broke. Razi’s head broke while the manuscript remained intact. The result was permanent blindness for Rhazes…”

To therefore infer that al-Razi was a victim of an incompatible equation between religion (in this case Islam) and science is very misleading verging on slander.. Even if the event of the Muslim priest hitting al-Razi was true, it is an isolated event and should not be extrapolated as an adversarial Islamic policy towards science and research.

A thousand years ago, wedged between the late Roman Empire and the Renaissance, most of Europe gloomed in the “Dark Ages”. TB Irving writes: “The Islamic world never lived in the same Middle Ages as Western Europe …For 14 centuries the Islamic world has formed a vast cultural enterprise which gathered up and prolonged the legacy of antiquity and transmitted this into the European Middle Ages and Renaissance for use in modern times…”

The paragraphs on al-Kindi was a melodramatic piece with undue emphasis and piecemeal reports of tragic events missing the complete historical perspective.

Al-Kindi served at least four Abbasids caliphs, al-Ma’mun (813-833), al-Mu’tasim (833-842), al-Wathiq (842-847) and al-Mutawakkil (847-861). Caliph al-Ma’mun established the “House of Wisdom”, a pioneering academy where Greek philosophical and scientific works were translated. The succeeding two caliphs continued to facilitate this tradition of learning and research and became great patrons of scholars.

Al-Mutawakkil was however the exception. Unlike his predecessors, some reported that he persecuted non-orthodox Islamic scholars and minority groups.

Al-Kindi was an innocent victim in the bitter rivalries to earn the favours of the caliph. He held firmly to his belief that the pursuit of philosophy was compatible with orthodox Islam unlike the caliph’s conservative thoughts.

To generalise the “ill conduct” of al-Mutawakkil as reflective of the caliphate’s persecution of scholars is a poor reading of history.

And to further complicate historical analysis; others would contend that it was during the caliphate of al-Mutawakil that deviationist elements were purged from the works and writings of researchers in his endeavour to adhere strictly to the pristine teachings of the Quran and the traditions of the prophet.

History testifies that from the Atlantic to Central Asia, scholars were to be found in every city and excellent colleges existed in most of them. The great jami’at, madarsas and kulliyat which the Muslims fostered gave Europe its new word “university” as a loan of translation, meaning a place where ‘everything’ was ‘gathered together’ for study.

The statement “never in the history of human conflict have we seen fanatical bands of scientists taking up arms with the aim of ‘taking out’ those opposed to them”, is unnecessarily provocative. It only reflects a desperate attempt to conceal poor arguments.

The discourse in this forum has thus far been a healthy and constructional one. I similarly applaud the authors she had mentioned for invoking hitherto taboo subjects which is refreshing for our intellectual inquisitiveness within the framework of evidence based science and for Muslims, Shariah compliant too. Credit should also be given to the likes of Abdul Rahman Abdul Talib, Abu Mubarak and Steven Foong for their erudite pieces, thus affording the readers a more objective perspective.