mm. Mhm. Mhm. Yeah. Yeah. Mhm. If
you are a follower of the program, if
you're not should that if you are please
consult our website for future lectures
coming up in the spring, the lecture series
will resume. You've been to any of the
previous lectures, you know the format
will have about 50 55 minutes from our
speaker tonight and then the rest of the
time until 7 30 open for questions, answers
and discussions at some point at or before
7 30 we will break and reconvene those
of us who would like to at a nearby restaurant,
probably the Dog and Duck. But if you
are interested in coming to that and you
would like a ride or an offer a ride please
come down front at the end of the questions
and answers and we will arrange. Okay,
so I'm extremely happy to be able to welcome
this particular speaker, Rizwan Zamir
to speak with us tonight. For one thing,
he's a scholar who attempts to do what
we in great books programs do best, which
is to work across disciplines, straddling
two or more worlds. In his case, the
world's involved are ones that could benefit
from more contact. I think the world of
western universities and the world of traditional
Islamic learning in the United States.
Rizwan has studied with a number of major
muslim scholars, the most recent one being
Abdulaziz such Adina at the University
of Virginia. He's also studied seriously
in such places as Qom Iran, which many
would say is the center of muslim learning
in the world today, I think also in Lahore
and Islamabad in his native Pakistan.
His intellectual interests range widely,
including not only questions of Islamic
theology, but a good bit of work on dialogue
with thinkers and the other two abrahamic
religious traditions, Christianity and
Judaism is engaged in the work of what
I find a very hopeful international venture
called the Society for scriptural reasoning,
which brings muslim jewish and christian
thinkers together to read each other's
scriptures side by side as a starting point
for interreligious dialogue. This one
also has a long standing interest in questions
about religion and the natural sciences,
which is the context in which I first met
him about three years ago and the realm
from which his talk tonight will start.
I should finally mention that in his spare
time Rizwan is currently editing two books.
One concerns inter religious dialogue within
Islam. It's a collection of essays by
muslim scholars who attempts to mind the
resources of Islamic mysticism, super
sufi tradition, as a way of overcoming
impasses in communication between Sunni
and shi branches of Islam. The other contains
the proceedings of the conference held
last summer at Cambridge University on
the early 20th century poet and philosopher,
Mohammad Iqbal, also a man who hailed
from what would later become Pakistan,
who adopted an intellectual home in the
west and to argue persuasively for the
continuing validity of the muslim intellectual
tradition as one independent of that which
has developed in the west, though not
necessarily antagonistic to it. In other
words, a worthy partner in an ongoing
dialogue under a single human horizon.
It is in that spirit that I hope you will
join me in welcoming Rizwan Zamir to speak
with us tonight on the topic of muslim
responses to Western science and technology
increased. All right, uh can I please
ask if the if people can move forward and
take the empty spaces? So I don't have
to scream too much, I wanted to ask you.
Yeah. Mhm. All right, thank you very
much. Thank you john and thank you for
the uh the organizers of the event. I'm
really happy to be here. This is my first
time in texas. And uh I did not know until
until two days ago that how big Austin
is a school coming from Virginia. It's
kind of scary actually. Um but nevertheless,
let me begin by first saying why I'm talking
about this topic, what my personal interest
is in this subject. I've been a uh intellectually
involved in debates on tradition and modernity,
and that characterizes a lot of work that
I do, and the debates that go on in the
Islamic world, very hot topic. But I
found generally that the topic is addressed
in very broad terms. Uh and I found it
useful to look at one particular strand
of thought or an issue within the Islamic
world uh that have has come to create a
lot of uh antagonism debate conversations,
and what I find unique about this topic
of muslim responses to uh Western modern
science and technology is that there's
uh in comparison with other debates like
feminism, women rights, human rights
and democracy, political philosophy and
other things, there hasn't been more consensus
than in this particular subject. So,
for example, if you have uh fundamentalists
or I'm using these terms little loosely
here, but just I think they're useful,
but they break down certain points. But
what we call what we will call reformists
and the fundamentalist or modernist and
fundamentalist positions, they seem to
agree and have agreed for a long time on
this particular question of how to deal
with modern science and technology. Uh
it's it's uh it should be surprising to
some that some of the most industrialized
and modernized cities in the Islamic world
are what in in in countries where the fundamentalist
uh interpretation sort of prevails I have
in mind areas like girls Saudi Arabia,
uh other places like that. So, uh even
though in other areas of debate in of modernity
and tradition, they seem to disagree on
a lot of issues. So that's why I think
this topic is very interesting and it's
my way of addressing the broader debate.
But I would not draw conclusions on about
that debate in this talk. I just want
to give a more descriptive account of what
has happened and what Muslims have been
and continue to say on the subject. Okay,
this being said, let me give you just
a brief plan of the talk. I'll make some
remarks on uh who is researching this subject,
Who has researched this topic, the topic
of the relationship between Islam and science
and and and and I don't mean I don't want
to give her an account of which I'm not
qualified to from the beginning of Islam,
how this discussion has proceeded. I know
a little bit here and there, but more
interestingly, in recent times, in modern
times. And when I say modern times, I
I mean the colonial period which begins
roughly in 18th century. Uh I don't there's
no exact date that you can say, but colonial
period when french british dutch came to
occupy a certain Muslims land where they
used to be in power and the crisis begins
there. Okay, so, so first who research,
who has researched this topic and I'll
try to explore why they have researched
this subject. Then I turned to the actual
responses and in my view, what is more
interesting is not what they are saying,
but why they're saying what they're saying.
And I think there's something to learn
from that. So I look at different responses
and also give a context of why those responses
were made in this particular manner. And
finally, I'll give some concluding thoughts,
which I'm not making any huge claims here.
But I think uh might you can see it as
a footnote of the conversations that's
been happening, the future direction of
this debate. And also I think what? So
I've been witnessed two dialogues among
christians Muslims. There was a conference,
International Congress on Religion and
Science back in 2000 and six where I presented
a paper and in which scholars in the field
of religion and science, very thriving
field in last 2030 years, so much has
been written, christian scholars went
to Iran and uh there were muslim scholars
coming from all over the Islamic world
and speaking to each other. So I hope
we'll have some time to discuss that and
maybe in the question answer session.
So I'll make a few comments about that.
Okay, this being said, let me turn to
the first part, which is who has been
interested in the debate and from what,
why and from what point of view now? Um,
I just begin with the court from one of
the western scholars to be her who wrote
a book, The Rise of Islam, The Rise of
Islamic Science. I think that's the correct
title. And he says there is strong evidence
that Arabic science contributed the most
intellectual capital to the breakthrough
to modern science in the West in the 12th
and 13th centuries and thereafter and thereafter.
The problem of Arabic science and I want
to put it in court. The problem of Arabic
science has at least two dimensions. One
concerns the failure of Arabic science
to give birth to modern science. The other
concerns the apparent decline and retrogression
of scientific thought and practice in Arabic
Islamic civilization after the 13th century.
Okay, so from this point of view, the
interest and this is not uh half is not
alone in making these claims. This is
a representative of a larger conversation
or claims which have been made in last
good 200 years from Western scholars.
And uh and I would try to break this statement
down uh on the one hand, what we see here,
what uh bobby huff is seeking and other
historians and philosophers of science
have been seeking are the contributions
that Muslims have made to modern science.
So that's one part the contribution part
in looking at if and the perspective that
is involved here. Uh sees Islamic science
as a chapter of modern Western science.
So something like if we have if this is
the linear evolutionary progress of science,
you have Greeks, uh, say Egyptians,
Greeks, Hindus chinese and Muslims kind
of taking some space and then we get to
modern science. And then the questions
are posed why uh Islamic science didn't
give rise to the modern science. So I
call it like evolutionary view of science.
So that's one part how they've come to
see it. And the second, which uh I call
kind of a value judgment and which is assumed
sometimes made implicit sometimes comes
out very explicitly is decline of science
means decline of civilization. And this
perspective also prevailed for a long time.
And we can talk about it afterwards if
we need to. But there's a reason why I
what I'm talking about this because it
will have influence this perspective will
have an impact on the way Muslims will
come to see their own intellectual tradition
and also their own history or history when
they will go about doing their history
of science. Okay, so what her, as I
said, decline of science means failure
of the civilization uh since Muslims failed
to give birth to modern science, uh they
have failed uh as a civilization. What
is missing in this discussion in this evolutionary
view of science is ah important question.
The integrity of the science, Muslims
did, why they did that? What point of
view they had? How did they see the world?
What's different? So not so much the contributions
that they have made to get to where they
are, where we are right now. But how
did they see the world and what role that
science played in that intellectual uh
scientific universe? So that question
wasn't asked and will be asked later on
by Muslims. And they'll contest. And
I think some Western historians of science,
like uh thomas schooling himself, would
object to that. Okay, so that's one.
And the second important issue is the inherent
conflict between religion and science,
which was assumed by Western historians
of science and sociologists and philosophers.
It goes back to enlightenment and and I'll
just give some quotations here, Ernest
Renan, the 19th century french philosopher
and also was interested in studying some
civilization. His course are Islam is
the scorn of science, the removal of the
civil company. It is a terrible simplicity
of the Semitic, my spirit narrowing the
human brain, closing it with any delicate
idea, any fine feeling, with any rational
research to put it opposite an eternal
tautology. So what he calls rational thought,
her canon, that cultural historical context
be seen as scientific thinking or scientific
thought. He also says Little science and
philosophy that Muslims had produced was
the result of uh the little science and
philosophy that Muslims had produced was
the result of a rebellion against Islam.
So this antagonism between Islam as a religion
which resists any scientific rational thought
and scientific uh and rationality, reason,
enlightenment, thinking and so on and
so forth. The orient another court oriental
mind mind is incapable of rational thought
and philosophy and was responsible for
blocking the development of science and
learning in the muslim world. Okay, so
uh this gave rise to uh certain strands
of scholarship in which dissident voices,
Certain people who were Mohamed Zakariya
razi, a very famous 10th 11th century
figure uh was considered an amazing uh
physician and his books were taught in
the Legal West as well, became one of
those figures. So you look in history
to find people who were criticized by what
people are calling Orthodox or the marc
Klaas, and they were used as examples
for how religion is inherently opposed
to any scientific inquiry. Okay, so this
being said, the Western side of things,
but let me turn to now Muslims and what
they have been saying, what they have
said. Now, before I begin to talk about
the actual responses, let me say a few
words about the origins of the debate,
the regions of the debate when it began,
how, why, what was the social historical
context? And I think in my view, as I
have said before, it's not so much the
responses that came out, but why the responses
came out a particular way. That's more
interesting. Okay, so original of the
debate are, again, as I said in the colonial
period, 18th century, when most of the
muslim world came to be colonized and this
colonization, from the point of view of
Muslims was a surprise and surprise. They
saw it as if something has gone wrong in
their history, What happened, we were
at the top of the world, we have these
three empires, the Sotheby's and the Ottomans
and the moguls, and all of a sudden they're
all collapsing and losing, losing. And
eventually, uh for example, british,
only 60,000 british historians tell us
at the peak of uh their power were in India.
So when they ask themselves what made that
colonization possible and the answer was
uh technology, military technology, to
be more specific, uh naval uh naval power,
artillery, cannons, doesn't that? So
this looking at the situation, then we
see uh Muslims really seeking for the first
time Very, I mean, not, I won't say
for the first time, but in this particular
context, the notion of power becomes extremely
crucial. How do we get out of our colonial
uh subjugation? That's the question which
they have in mind. That's the question
that haunts uh many and uh there's some
other developments which I'll get to later
on, but for now, this is important that
only an experience meant power moment,
uh seeking power to resist it and to overcome
it. Okay, so what we see then under the
impact of uh colonialism or challenge from
the western imperial powers, uh first
one, to respond the Ottomans by introducing
the period is called the transition period
in which they introduced Western sciences
to the curriculum of schools. Foreign
teachers of science were invited to teach
the up to the theories and practices of
science and uh almost modern scientific
thought had become indispensable for them.
But again, the aim was technological breakthrough
and in the military domain, primarily,
ah it wasn't that science is really rational
and wonderful and amazing that we have
to get it and that would, it's more how
do we fix our situation? Okay, so, uh,
and uh, this is also the period when we
see a rise of a new elite, new elite,
uh many figures, I would refrain from
giving you the names because we can talk
about it afterwards if you want a particular
references, but they will be uh, they'll
all be concerned about the issues of learning
education, relationship of science and
Islam and so on and so forth. Uh, they
many of them like afghani and Abdul. I
just, I just did it give you a name,
but uh, they posited that there is really
no dichotomy between islam and science.
They are very compatible. Uh, cinemacon
in India, he used modern science as the
systemic foundation for his chronic communities
Koran, the scripture of islam. So if
we have to understand it, you have to
understand it in in line with or uh inconsistency
with the findings of the modern science,
Newtonian science to be really sure at
this point. Ah again in Egypt and other
places, uh many other figures, but they
all seem to agree that science technology
progress rationality, they're all very
compatible and they actively and aggressively
argued for it because for them, this is
the most indispensable and uh much needed
uh thing at this moment. Okay, so now
what is characteristically uh different
in this particular period is this this
epistemology, this epistemology of trying
to find a reconciliation between science
and Islam. Ah but this this is really
unique in the sense that before uh if you
look at uh pre 18th century normative theories
of knowledge in any of the text, people
like Nasiruddin to seize our new g uh Islamic
philosophers like Alfa Robbie, every Sina
al Ghazali, uh Oh Putin Shirazi. Many
people who have discussed uh knowledge,
what is knowledge? Why knowledge? These
kinds of the big questions, none of them
uh saw it in the way uh these reformist
new elite people saw it why? Because for
them knowledge was stigma. That's the
term, which is used as a chronic term,
which means wisdom, it also meant. And
then they related to the size of the science
of the soul, meaning uh knowledge as means
for happiness, for perfection of the soul
and so on and so forth. So, normative
accounts did not include any relationship
with power with worldly power. So it's
not a theory which assumes that knowledge
is a mean to get to worldly power that
was out. Uh so that we're talking about
pre 18th century, but here, starting
18th century, we actually find Muslims
arguing aggressively these people and they
have a very special role because this will
be the new intellectual elite and this
will drive the, the civilization or muslim
cultures forward uh when when the state
formation happens and these people would
have a lot of impact and their disciples
would be, for example, Pakistan, the
country I come from was set up and was
run uh early generation was the illegal
movement. I just named one person said
Adam Mahan, who try to reconcile Koran
with with the Newtonian physics. So this
is the Aligarh movement, the people from
the illegal movement will be in power and
will be the early presidents and prime
ministers and they will form the policies.
Okay, so I think that's very crucial uh
despite extremely crucial that the normative
account of knowledge, why is he acknowledged
why knowledge is needed has changed in
this moment and this will be contested
later on. But uh this is a fundamental
paradigm change from the point of view
of Islamic intellectual tradition. Okay,
so, um here's the here's the court from
one of the uh this book came out 1992 and
it resonates the same idea uh that I'm
presenting the new normative theory of
knowledge. He says there is no clearer
statement on the subject than this. No
longer is science, as in the splendid
course of haroon and Mahmoun, simply entertainment
for enlightened princess or a subject for
the exchange of polemics between scholars.
Instead, it has become the very means
by which for better or for worse, the
entire human civilization is being irreversibly
transformed, military strength, Political
power and economic prosperity have become
contingent upon upon the ability of modern
nations to understand control and create
modern science. So I haven't found such
a flash style statement from a reformist
camp saying very clearly, it's all about
power. And if you want power, social
influence economic prosperity, you need
science or else you can. So it's a very
pragmatic concerns. Goes back to the colonial
period and it enters the normative theory
of knowledge and that I think is unique.
Okay, so, um, and thus begins what one
of the historians of ceramic science calls
the catching up syndrome. So, from the
colonial period, Muslims are catching
up the West, catching up the West in science,
technology and military. Uh, and it's
it's a search for power, its search for
independence and that colonial, which,
from their point of view post independence,
when the nations were independent of the
imperial powers, they still think we haven't
really gotten quite gotten there. So it
just continues. This trend continues and
continues. Okay, now, what is also important
to note here is that the philosophical
underpinnings of modern science were really
far from muslim intellectual repertoire.
At that point, most people who were these
so called the so called reformers had no
training whatsoever, neither in modern
Western science or scientific history of
science and philosophy of science. At
the same time, this new elite class was
not trained in traditional seminaries.
Many of the major figures, except for
Abdul who would be be an exception. Most
of them were independent scholars, not
trained to a seminary to be really acquainted
with the traditional philosophy like Islamic
philosophy or Islamic theology or Islamic
sciences of nature and so on and so forth.
So, uh their response, so on the one
hand, not familiar with Western intellectual
history, on the other not being familiar
with Islamic intellectual history, but
yet the concern was very real and very
pragmatic. We have to do something about
this. So I I call it the pragmatic concerns
and pragmatic view of knowledge uh which
which is driving the whole enterprise.
Okay, so and at the same time, uh here
is uh here's another problem that is that
was also unique in that period that when
encountered with Western science and technology
uh in this manner and uh languages were
introduced like uh Western style universities
were introduced there, there was this
emergency situation in which they had to
respond. It was not that you can sit back
and take your time and figure out what
are the implications of holding on to this
point of view. If you study Western science
and Western science and if you if you uh
incorporate Western technology into your
uh framework, how would it really play
out? So this because this is a colonial
context. So, so you can say short care
solutions were made. But here's something
interesting that Shagan draws out and I
think it's really crucial to see the mindset
of Muslims of 18th 19th century uh and
what they were going through, let us imagine
a hypothetical individual clamped in the
jaws of this split in the interior of his
or her soul, and wrestling with the contradictory
double fascination, the enchanted vision
of a world still infused with the euro
of collective memory, which is tradition,
and the equally compelling allure of the
new and the unknown which you can call
modernity or modern science. Such a person
would feel strongly alienated both by the
shock of the radical changes affecting
him and buy a pervasive nostalgia uh made
doubly pregnant by the progressive withdrawal
from the world stage of the universe to
which it refers leaving everywhere the
signs of it. It's imminent disappearance.
This hypothetical individual with reason
more or less as follows. So this hypothetical
individual is a muslim of an 18th 19th
century. The new ideas are selling me.
The new objects I see range before me in
all their depth and solidity are wholly
alien to me. I have neither appropriate
words nor adequate mental imagery to understand
them properly. There's something inaccessible,
surging suddenly into my field of knowledge.
It is true that I perceive them, that
I make use of them, that I exercise command
over them as well as having to endure them.
But somehow they remain apart suspended
in abeyance amid the flux of my memory.
I cannot trace their genesis, nor was
I present at their birth. I played no
part in the succession of crisis which
preceded their fabrication or in the moors
of production which made them possible.
They are strange, outlandish things that
I cannot avoid. Things that upset my habits
and constrain me in in inescapable ways.
But there's something in them which I find
seductive, which attracts me, something
whose support I can hardly do without.
Even by making every effort in the West
revolutions caused by scientific and technical
upheavals produced paradigm shifts which
moulded consciousness to the imperatives
of each new way of looking. This has not
occurred to, in my case, as a result
of continual bombardment. I'm susceptible
to the irresistible attraction of new things,
but their genealogy and archaeology remains
remains unknown to me. New ideas strike
me with full force stamp their imprints
on my mind, leaving indelible traces,
but hardly managed to alter the content
of a memory which refers stubbornly to
its own genealogy. So that's the kind
of mindset we're talking about here and
the rift and I think it's very characteristic
of that period of Islamic history and is
witnessed in all regions, not, I wouldn't
say all regions, but in the central lands.
And also uh the the aftermath. Of course
the Ottoman Empire stuff, bits and in
the mogul India, that's what I focus on
in this paper. Okay, so it is only in
the light of this tension and its social
and psychological consequences that the
early reactions of the muslim intellectuals
to the challenges of modern science and
technology could be understood. The ignorance
of the Islamic intellectual elite about
the Western civilization. Uh Since then
has persisted. These people rejected tradition,
not finding it helpful for one thing,
never encountered it in the first place.
Why? And then you see there on many,
many, many Muslims who are scientists,
uh, wonderful doctors, engineers, and
so on, and so forth. But have no background
in either the Islamic intellectual thought
or in the Western uh intellectual history
or philosophy of science or history of
science. So, uh, what came out of that
are two things. Uh, and that goes back
to the first section of the talk with the
most the Western interests and their responses.
First, this narrative of the evolutionary
science was accepted. Yes, we did something
and then we just gave it up. It all went
to the west and our work is just another
chapter. It's again this view of Islamic
sciences, A chapter of modern science
was accepted. That's one the other and
more interesting aspect that antagonism
between religion and science was also accepted.
Many, many, many works were written,
which very staunchly and aggressively criticizing
the the so called orthodoxy, the drama
class, the scholarly class, people who
are the carriers of the tradition, so
to speak, saying that you have all you've
all gone wrong and you are the reason for
the decline of our civilization. So that
pieces decline of science equals decline
of civilization. And it is because of
orthodoxy that it has happened. This view
was accepted. Uh, here's a here's a uh,
afghanis response, he's writing to run
in. And actually, it's funny that he
this response didn't go out to Muslims.
It was in the private correspondence and
later discovered, and he says, if it
is true that the muslim religion is an
obstacle to the development of sciences,
can one affirm that this obstacle would
not will not disappear someday? How does
the muslim religion differ on this point?
For, from any other religion, all religions
are intolerant each one in its way. So
uh this this this narrative is also accepted
that there is an inherent conflict between
islam and scientific research, rationality,
reason, progress, all of that, all the
men were criticized for their backwardness.
The gates of fish to hot. It's uh it's
a term which is a very legal term actually,
but broadly construed as reasoning if the
heart is independent reasoning to look
for new rulings in Islamic Sharia. So
it's a gate service to hardware closed
since the death of rationalism of the most
of the light thought, which was back in
the 10th century. So after 10th 11th century
Muslims stop thinking because the gates
of its hardware closed. Castle, I mean
called Islam itself a source of hindrance
to the progress of Islamic civilization.
Since true progress is due to signs and
signs alone. And that is why europe has
advanced in every sphere of life from philosophical
social morals, hard and practice. So
not only signs is a means to uh progress,
but it also means of moral progress, spiritual
progress and all the other kinds of progresses.
Okay, so uh the question of the rise and
fall of Islamic civilization was tied directly
to the rise of scientific enterprise in
the Islamic world. This narrative, as
I'm trying to show, was not indigenous
but was a borrowed one. Uh One of the
key essays written by goals er this uh
uh I think the jewish orientalist wrote
an essay in 1960. Uh The attitude of Orthodox
Islam to science, I think that's the title
of it. Uh that became the standard for
the narrative, saying everything except
religious. Orthodoxy was always opposed
to foreign sciences, and by foreign goes
there meant Hellenic traditions, uh all
the Hellenic heritage that Muslims borrowed
or integrated in the ninth and 10th and
11th centuries. So that was uh that orthodoxy
was always opposed to that. And that narrative
was accepted by all Muslims who are now
more in tune with the Western scholarship
on Islam than being trained in a seminary
to see things from within, so to speak.
Okay, so, uh I'll just give you in the
end what uh the title of a book that I
early got it is called came out in 1992
by Parachute Boy. He's a nuclear physicist
and he his book is titled Islam and Science
Religion Religious Orthodoxy and the battle
for rationality. So this this is 1992
and we're talking about 19th century from
19th century all the way up till now,
this is with us and this debate is with
us and this tension between uh assume tension
between religious orthodoxy ulama and science
is with us until today. Okay, now, to
the actual responses, I think this is
this is a good background to now see what
they actually were saying first is what
I broadly called accommodation and approval
response. Uh we've talked about it all
these figures that I've named and why these
figures are more important because they
were more, as I said, more influential
in determining the policies that will be
made and the broadly broadly how muslim
societies will move forward uh practically
engaging. Even today, Most money is thrown
out for science than for humanities, social
sciences and other stuff in all parts of
the Islamic world. It's not true for one
or the other place, but it's common to
all of them um, now, so the kinds of
responses they give, as I said, they're
trying to reconcile Islam and Science because
there's attention so they have to respond
to that. And they will say, uh, if you
study science, you pray, you love, I
mean you love God obey the laws of Sharia,
everything is fine. There is no problem.
That's one way of seeing it. Second,
Science was our property. Until this time
it went to the West. We need to reclaim
our heritage. Science is our heritage.
We need to reclaim it. And which means
do more Science. Do more science. You
can reclaim your heritage. Uh and the
and the third, which as I said, the normative
account of knowledge is for the first time
changes completely. The equated ILM,
which is a traditional Arabic word for
not only science, wisdom and ill religious
sciences, secular science, we call them
sacrifices, but all sciences are called
a loom, which means science. Simple science.
Now L'm term means nothing else but science,
None of these other philosophy is not not
elm even religious sciences. And as much
we need them. Yes, we do uh study them.
But it was reduced to like almost equated,
the knowledge is equated with knowledge
of what knowledge of modern science and
technology, what results from. Okay,
so major figures of Ronnie Mohammed Abdul
his disciples, a democrat. As I said,
a legal movement. Many other people are
legal movement gradually and others. Uh,
even to some extent, Iqbal basketball
is somewhat different. I think. Uh I
shouldn't lump him here, but I have sorted.
Okay, so from this point of view, uh,
it was not science that that had to be
chronic in character. But Koran has to
be scientific, Koran has to come out come
across as a very scientific document.
And what would happen more than any uh
in this genre of literature on relationship
between islam and science, You won't find
more literature written on active, uh,
active attempts to reconcile particular
verses of Koran with particular findings
of modern science. There's a book called
it's the Koran the bible and science,
I think it's been transferred into every
Islamic language probably 10 times and
it's red and Muslims like, yeah, see,
Koran is so scientific, we have it all.
And so it's always this attempt back again
and again to show that every new finding,
here we go. Here's another verse which
is exactly saying what the science is saying.
So that's one then the other one which
probably some of us are familiar with what
we call the mostly literalist or fundamentalist
approach. Complete rejection. Uh, sometimes
seeing it as an alien for science because
it's coming from the west. It's seen with
suspicion. Maybe there's a hidden agenda
and all of that. Uh, so, or it just
seems ungodly this kind of stuff. Now,
I remember a very funny story back in sixties,
my father told me about this dad when Neil
Armstrong went to the moon and uh, this
uh, preacher in South Dakota city in Pakistan.
Uh, he he was preaching very larry like,
like, yeah, it was the, you know, the
full moon. That's why that's why he was
able to step on it. If it was the mood
of the first, he would have fallen. So,
uh, things like that. So, I mean, you
know, but at the same time, it's important
to realize that this position, uh, is,
remains on the march remains marginalized.
So here and there, they can get some people
do not study modern science. The resist
modern science is being taught to kids
in institutions, but largely from the
state schooling and other uh state schooling.
And what really determines how the society
moves forward. It has nothing to do with
them. So it's a marginalized position.
Okay. Uh, and then the third position,
which I call the absent third is a position
which uh, only recently, some people
are trying to formulate and formulation,
uh, and why it hasn't been noticed so
far. I think it's uh, it's a problem
with the scholarship. People like me and
others who have focused on more extreme
positions. One position. Both positions
seem very um, what's the right word here?
Well, sensational. So we look for the
sensational, generally. So fundamentalist
people in the streets are screaming, don't
publish Darwin's, you know, original
species that makes, makes it to uh, scholarship.
And then, on the other hand, if you say
people completely, uh, people who go
out on the streets and really trying to
resist so called orthodoxy and the dissident
voices, they make it to the scholarship.
But the third, and actually, tell me
one of the 20th century scholars recently,
an essay came out in which he which which
the uh scholar shows that how he tried
to respond not so much from uh not so much
from this pragmatic point of view of how
we can interpret it, but from a philosophical
point of view and engagement with modern
science. And it's it's philosophical,
metaphysical presuppositions. So that
literature is still missing of what the
traditional Obama or seminary class has
or had said about these issues. They were
generally seen as though they were just
opposed to this whole uh science thing.
And they were so they were always lumped
to the fundamentalist camp, which now
scholarship, I think is trying to be more
careful and show no, there were intelligent
engagement and responses from them. Not
simply kind of fundamentalist rejection
is account. Ah Okay. So that these are
the 33 responses. Uh We can also, another
scholar, I liked his way of categorizing
them. One is more looking, calls it the
ethical puritanical response. Where you
have science technology tv this and that
you just do try to be ethical and it's
all fine, no problems. The other one
is more epistemological, which is which
looks at the epistemological consequences
of the of the uh scientific theory and
tries to account for it or sometimes used
postmodern critique of scientific thought
and scientific worldview and bases its
critique on that, uses that. And the
third, which is more metaphysical, what
he calls metaphysical, which is which
started I think for the first time in 19
fifties, unless the traditional response
and people like tom we are explored and
more, we hear more about them. So this
third response sees the metaphysics, the
metaphysical framework within which science
operates implicit assumptions made fully
fleshed out. And then compares it with
the traditional Islamic philosophy, Sufi
metaphysics and so on and so forth. And
sees where we meet, where we don't meet
and what needs to be. Where do we need
to work hard and find a way to reconcile
the findings of the model Like quantum
physics. So, quantum physics, what do
we do with that? And how does it impact?
Are not so much too pragmatic concerns?
How do we get power? But what are the
real serious theological implications of
quantum physics for us that we need to
address? That response has only recently
started. And uh we're 2030 years people
like Nasser and his disciples, Many Osman
bucker, he's the Malaysian scholar, Ibrahim
Kalin, uh many other names, but largely
influenced by uh san Jose Nasser who's
in George Washington University. Okay,
now, having said all of this, this was
the narrative of what has happened in the
200 years Now, as I said, I don't have
grand conclusions to what to make of all
this, what to make of what what to give
you here. It's like here's something that
you can take maybe and that I'm interested
in maybe in the question answer session,
you want to make some comments when you
hear this story, what comes out for you,
what do you here? And uh it might be helpful
for me uh in my own thing. Now personally,
this divide between the pragmatic, this
pragmatic concerns, which is with us for
like 200 years has been is extremely dangerous
now and now we're witnessing the ecological
crisis. We are more aware of it. And
if this persists which it has persisted.
Uh I remember one of the, one of the scholars
he came to Pakistan and he questioned this
drive for technology. So see that now
the equation is very simple. We want to
be more powerful than information in the
world. For that we need power which could
be economic or political, which would
mean more industrialization, generalization
would mean more ecological crisis and so
on and so forth. So this particular scholar
questioned this what we have done in last
so many 50 60 years and the president of
Pakistan got extremely upset with him and
he refused to talk to him. He said you're
undermining everything. We do all are.
There's a you know, uh certain institutes
for the promotion of science and technology.
They send people abroad to get more science.
So you come back and you give us more science
and we, you know, we develop our science
will get more powerful so they even refuse
to talk to those people. So uh so I think
personally I would like to see more normative
account of uh really, what do we understand?
How do we understand the epistemological
and metaphysical claims of science or the
assumed uh, assumed assumptions? And
how do we then uh respond to them from
a more philosophical point of view? Philosophy
of nature has been completely Muslims Philosophy
of nature, meaning, how do we see nature
has a huge consequence? How do we treat
it? So it used to be, for example, in
the traditional accounts, it's a sign
of God. It's a cacophony of God. It's
a partner of God. Uh sorry, it's a cacophony
of God, is a partner with men and needs
to be seen that way. It links you, you're
part of the universe, you're part of this
nature group. Now it's there to be abused.
As I said in the reform from the reformist
camp, they looked for verses of Koran
which would sanction the abuse of nature.
So that industrialization and so on could
be made possible. And so that worries
me and many other people. Uh, and that
it has been a lot of discussion. I don't
want to say it's just this happening because
there's a lot of discussion about the theological
uh, theological issues involved, uh,
metaphysical issues involved. And in that
some conversations like that in Iran,
I mentioned the beginning of my talk where
Muslims met christians and they're trying
to learn from them to see what they have
said and what they, because their engagement
with issues of modern science and the challenges
that pose poses to theology is much longer
and historically, than ours, ours is
a new phenomenon. And so that conversation
is happening uh at the same time, uh the
government and do what they do. And uh
they largely see it. They haven't come
to see things any different. So this drive
for more power continues and I think continues
to hurt us, actually. All right, that's
all I have to say. Thank you. Yeah.
Mhm. Yeah. Yeah.