![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
Abstract
That Islam and science enjoy a harmonious relationship is frequently endorsed in learned as well in popular debates. Amongst the first scholars who have studied such ideas and their diffusion from an external perspective are Leif Stenberg and contributors to the special issue of Social Epistemology, both published in 1996. Drawing on Stenberg’s study, I argue that we can identify the emergence of a “new generation” of authors considering conceptual shifts at work in some contemporary authors. In the first section, I recall the ideas commonly evoked in order to substantiate the claim that Islam and science are in harmony, and their entanglement. In the second section, I reconstruct Stenberg’s analysis. In the third section, I trace a picture of the contemporary landscape; I linger on the two most systematic criticisms so far levelled at the advocates of the harmony between Islam and science, those of Hoodbhoy and Edis. In the fourth section, I narrow the expression “new generation” by referring to four specific authors, here taken as paradigmatic. Their works share substantial traits. I regard each one of these traits as a necessary but not sufficient condition to belong to the “new generation”, and their possession as demarcating the “new generation” both from older contributions and those that presently just extend them. In the fifth section, I touch upon challenges for and of the new generation: three sets of intertwined difficulties faced by the authors belonging to the “new generation” itself and by the scholars interested in studying the debate from a neutral point of view.
Acknowledgements
A previous version of this paper was presented at the American University of Sharjah during the conference Belief in Dialogue (21-23 June 2011). That occasion crowned a period of research, which, besides armchair and keyboard work, led me to learn and discuss their ideas with Oktar, Golshani, Altaie, El-Naggar, Guessoum, Guiderdoni, and Sardar during one-on-one conversations. I warmly thank them for their hospitality and patience. I am also grateful to two anonymous referees who steered me away from some serious mistakes. My research, previously supported by a generous grant by the Excellence Cluster EXC-16 (Constance University), is currently carried out within the Centre for Middle Eastern Studies (Lund University), in the framework of the programme MECW. I have profited greatly from intellectual exchanges with Leif Stenberg and Reza Arjmand, and the whole CMES staff, as well as with Rainer Bromer (with an umlaut over the o), Salman Hameed and Anne Ross Solberg. I was greatly encouraged by friendly and enlightening remarks regarding my work by M. Riexinger and T. Huff. I warmly thank Helen Avery and Darcy Thompson for their accurate corrections, and Christa Salamandra, who, with Darcy, boosted my motivation during weekend working sessions. These pages are dedicated to Eva Picardi.
Notes
[1] Where not otherwise specified, the term “science(s)” is used as a short form for “natural science(s)”. The notion of “science” can of course mean a great number of things, depending on the language, the historical period and the context. In the present paper, this question will not be pursued in any depth. Instead, the discussion will be based on the various thinkers’ own use of the word in English, as it appears in their writings. I am well aware that this is somewhat problematic, particularly when texts have been translated. Analogous considerations hold for the adjective “scientific”.
[2] Cf. Stenberg (1996a, 15).
[3] The centrality of Stenberg’s analysis should not induce us to overlook the fact that other authors, between the nineteenth and the twentieth century, had been developing influential theories on the interrelatedness of Islam and science as a result of the impact of the Muslim society with science embodied in the technological superiority of colonial powers. Among such authors we should mention at least the Indian Khan (1817–1898), al-Din Al-Afghani (1838–1897), and the Egyptians M. ‘Abduh (1849–1905) and Rida (1865–1935), on which focuses, for example Furlow (1996). Another figure not treated by Stenberg (1996a) but who can be regarded as an influential predecessor is the Turkish scholar Nursî (1878–1960). Further, Stenberg (1996a) does not focus neither on the activities of the Malaysian scholar bin Ali Al-Attas (b. 1931), nor on the Turkish author Gülen (b. 1941), contemporary of the authors his monograph investigated. The limitations of this investigation are justified in Stenberg (1996a, 20–1). For an alternative and more inclusive classification of the same figures investigated by Stenberg (1996a) see Furlow (1996). For other classifications provided by authors who are also involved in the debate, see Ghamari-Tabrizi (1996); Inayatullah (1996); Kirmani (2000); Golshani (2004, 45–79) (which curiously lists Stenberg (1996a) among the participants in the debate, cf. 47); Bagir (2005); Iqbal (2002, 2007); Nasr and Iqbal (2007, 1–26); Bakar (2008(2), xviii–xliv); Deuraseh, Termizi and Husni (2011); Guessoum (2011, 101–72).
[4] See Stenberg (1996a, 41–96). For an overview of the principles listed by the ijimalis see Furlow (1996, 268).
[5] Cf. Stenberg (1996a, 97–151). For a synthetic comparative presentation of Sardar and Nasr see also Stenberg (1996b).
[6] See Stenberg (1996a, 153–219). The passage is quoted from the IIIT official website: http://www.iiit.org/AboutUs/AboutIIIT/tabid/66/Default.aspx
[7] Cf. Stenberg (1996a, 221–67).
[8] E.g. Nasr has contributed to Sardar (1989). Al-Faruqi makes an appearance in The book of signs, a film (Dom, Malayisia, 1986) dedicated to Bucaille’s theses.
[9] See Stenberg (1996a, 269–96). A lively account of the discussion between Sardar and Al-Faruqi can be found in Guessoum (2011, 122–5).
[10] For a reconstruction of the way in which the new media have contributed to substantial changes in the Muslim intellectual landscape, and a description of the “new intellectuals” of Islam consistent with Stenberg’s analysis see Eickelman and Piscatori 2004, 4–45.
[11] Cf. Stenberg (1996a, 269–337). From the point of view of Islamology, it might be equally sound to speak of their theories as aimed at a “scientification of Islam”.
[12] Nasr’s accomplishments are celebrated and scrutinized in Hahn, Auxier, and Stone (2001). For an updated overview of Sardar’s ideas see Sardar and Masood (2006). For Sardar’s bibliography, see http://ziauddinsardar.com/bibliography/.
[13] See Markon (2006).
[14] Three examples of universities that had declared new objectives concerning the relationship between Islam and science in a broad sense are the Umm Al-Qura university in Saudi Arabia (established in 1981), the International Islamic University in Islamabad, Pakistan (established in 1980) and the International Islamic University in Malaysia (established in 1983).
[15] A stern defender of Nasr’s philosophy, with a practical bias for the implementation of such ideas in university curricula (that rather reminds one of Al-Faruqi) is the Malaysian scholar Bakar (b. 1946). See Bakar (2008(2), in part 257–66). Other observers and participants to the debate sympathetic with Nasr (See Nasr and Iqbal (2007)) are the Pakistani Iqbal (b. 1954), founder of the Center for Islam and science in Alberta, Canada, in 2000 (see http://www.cis-ca.org/), and the US-Pakistani scholar Haq (see Haq 2002).
[16] See Wielandt (2002) and Dallal (2011, 169–76).
[17] The term “Bucailleist” has a negative connotation. Nevertheless, we can assume it here in a neutral sense.
[18] Bucaille’s work, in its turn, enjoys excellent health, the French edition of his most famous book (Bucaille (1976)) having reached the 15th edition. A documentary movie on Bucaille has recently been produced: Maurice and the Pharaoh. The Bucaille report (2010; written, produced and directed by Abdul-Aziz. Kuwait/Egypt/US: Manara Communications Inc.).
[19] See Nkrumah (2005) for a sympathetic, journalistic portrait of El-Naggar. To catch a glimpse at El-Naggar’s ideas, methodology and style see his official website http://www.elnaggarzr.com/en/index.php.
[20] See El-Naggar (2008, 2010). Analogous to El-Naggar is the figure of the Indian preacher Naik (b. 1965), who holds a bachelor in medicine and surgery (see Samuel and Rozario 2010).
[21] Cf. El-Naggar (2008, 55). It is to be noted that El-Naggar endorses a terminological shift, with his usage of “scientific precision” instead of “miracles”.
[23] Cf. http://www.elnaggarzr.com/en/aboutus.php.
[24] The best starting point for knowing Yahya is his constantly updated website: http://www.harunyahya.com/. For a short reconstruction of Yahya’s ideas and activities in a more general frame see Numbers (2006(2), 421–27). See also Schneider (2009), as well as Samuel and Rozario (2010) and Dallal (2011, 168). For Oktar’s legal troubles see Edis (2008) and Arda (2009) (a thorough journalistic inquiry).
[25] “I think of Harun Yahya as a brand, and Oktar as the public face of the brand” (Edis 2008, 4).
[26] It is enough to take a look at the occurrence ot the term “miracle” associated to natural phenomena in the list of Yahya’s books (available at: http://www.harunyahya.com/en.m_book_index.php). Janson (2003) rightly emphasizes the Bucailleistic character of Yahya’s ideas (cf. 103–104).
[27] Huff (1996) provides another overall confutation.
[28] Hoodbhoy (1991, 138).
[29] Hoodbhoy is inspired by the views of the Pakistani Salam (1926–1996). Salam, Nobel laureate in physics in 1979, was both a devout Muslim and an advocate of the universality and neutrality of science (which, in turn, ensures its harmony with religious beliefs, but of course of a deeply different kind than the one advocated by the “Islamizators”). Salam has indeed written a supportive foreword to Hoodbhoy (1991, ix–xii). Stenberg mentions Salam as opposed to the authors he investigates without treating his ideas at length, because of the scanty number of his publications (cf. Stenberg (1996a, 21)).
[30] This emerges clearly from Edis (2002, 2006). However this analogy does not hold if we take as a defining trait of the “new atheists” (e.g. Dawkins and Dennett) their aggressive style, which Edis does not share. Edis advocates indeed a fair criticism of Muslim debates (cf. Edis (2007b)).
[31] It is true that in at least one passage of An illusion of harmony Edis hints at the possibility that “liberal versions of Islam” would “allow scientific investigation wide latitude but also firmly block scientific intrusions on religious territory” (207), but this is rather a functional move. On the other hand, Hoodbhoy views might also be easily interpreted as a disguised atheistic position.
[32] Cf. Edis (2007a, 19–20); Hoodbhoy (1991, 28–49).
[33] Hoodbhoy warns against the risk of mixing up modernization with Westernization (cf. Hoodbhoy (1991, 136) and emphasizes that the material success of a religion is not a sign for or against its truth (cf. Hoodbhoy 1991, 138). Edis concludes An illusion of harmony with the observation that “(...) in the scientifically advanced West we have our own illusions of harmony, our own myths that help us strike a balance” (251).
[34] Cf. Edis (2007a, 81–114); Hoodbhoy (1991, 140–54).
[35] Edis (2007a, 101).
[36] Cf. Hoodbhoy (1991, 65–85); Edis (2007a, 165–88, 205–09).
[37] Cf. Hoodbhoy (1991, 93–117, 85–108); Edis (2007a, 33–52).
[38] Golshani has published, so far, a short monograph (Golshani 1997), two collections of essays (Golshani 2003, 2004), and he edited a volume collecting the answers given by different scholars on the relationship of religion and science (62 in the third edition: Golshani 2004(3)). Altaie has entrusted his views to different papers (Altaie 2005, 2006a, 2006b, 2008a, 2008b, 2008c). Guiderdoni’s production on Islam, science and mysticism is mainly in French; he has produced, so far, one essay in English (Guiderdoni 2005). In 2008 he has delivered the James Gregory lecture on science and religion at the university of St. Andrews (UK) and the Paul Tillich lecture at the university of Harvard (US), the latter available at: http://www.jamesgregory.org/downloads/Bruno_Guiderdoni/lecture/Bruno_Guiderdoni_lecture.pdf Guessoum has published a paper mainly focussed on the “scientific interpretation of the Qur’an” (2008) and published an overarching monograph on Islam and modern science (Guessoum 2011). Golshani, Altaie, Guiderdoni and Guessoum are very active in setting up and participating in international conferences on religion and science. Their ideas are expressed also in interviews published in collective volumes (cf. Golshani 2005; Guessoum 2010; Guiderdoni 2001).
[39] Cf. Altaie (2008a, 3–5, 2008b, 14–16); Golshani (2003, 75, 2005, 80–82); Guessoum (2011, 63–5); Guiderdoni (2001, 75).
[40] Cf. Golshani (2003, 11, 2005, 77–78); Guiderdoni (2005, 131); Guessoum (2011, 63–5).
[41] Cf. Golshani 2001 passim; Guiderdoni 2001 passim; Guessoum (2011, xiii–xxvi).
[42] Sardar, who is often defined as a “polymath”, has studied physics and Information science; Nasr received his B.S. in physics at MIT, then studied geology and geophysics at Harvard, where he also obtained his Msc and PhD in the history of science and learning. Al-Faruqi received a MSc and PhD in philosophy and conducted post-doctoral research in Islamic studies. An interdisciplinary background also characterizes Bucaille, a surgeon who was versed in Arabic and Egyptology. El-Naggar combines his scientific education (he received a PhD in geology from the University of Wales) with his discussions of the Qur’anic and the Sunnah. Even the texts by Harun Yahya, besides being characterized by an approach, which might be deemed more lyrical, and rhetoric than scientific in an academic sense, display a certain eclecticism (Oktar has studied philosophy and interior design. Nevertheless, the books published under the name “Harun Yahya” are to be considered a collective enterprise and it would therefore be misleading to refer to Oktar’s own academic background alone).
[43] Cf. Golshani (2003, 311–17).
[44] Cf. Altaie (2006a); Golshani (2003, 292–310).
[45] Cf. Altaie (2008a, 2008b, 2008c); Golshani (2002); Guessoum (2011,179–218; Guiderdoni 2005).
[46] Cf. Guessoum (2011, 219–70).
[47] Cf. Guessoum (2011, 243–70).
[48] Cf. Golshani (2004, 60–4, 143–44); Guessoum (2011, 219–242, 271–324).
[49] Nasr rejects the debate over evolution as ideological, and regards the changes in scientific debates as a sign of science’s weakness (cf. Nasr and Iqbal 2007, 85 and Chp. 6). Sardar seems rather elusive on Darwinism in Sardar (2011), where he interestingly rejects the debate on Creationism as “Western” and leaves the door somehow open to Darwinian evolution by claiming that the Qur’an presents a “dynamic picture” of creation. Vis-à-vis contemporary articulated discussions and defences of Darwinian concepts like those of Dennett and Dawkins such a move proves interesting, but weak (cf. Sardar (2011, 359–62).
[50] Here we should recall as an example of this retrieval at least Nasr (1964).
[51] To this task is especially dedicated Golshani (1997).
[52] The term mutakallimūn applies to many thinkers and theologians mainly divided into two schools (Mu’tazilites and Ash’arites) who appeared during the eigth century CE and lasted until the tenth. Altaie tends to refer to them collectively. Cf. Altaie (2005, 2008a). Altaie draws also upon Al-Ghazali and Ibn Rushd (cf. Altaie 2006b).
[53] Guiderdoni (2005) passim.
[54] Cf. Guessoum (2011, xiii–xxxvi). It is to be noted that Guessoum’s reference is based on his original reading of Ibn Rushd.
[55] Cf. Stenberg (1996a, 302–03).
[56] Bucailleism is apparently kept at arm’s length. Golshani warns against the treatment of the Qur’an as an encyclopaedia of scientific facts (cf. Golshani 2003, 147–51); Altaie encourages a “mature and cautious treatment of the scientific terms that appear in the Qur-an” (cf. Altaie 2008c); against Bucailleism (seen however as an intellectual enterprise carried out bona fide) is the entire Guessoum (2008); cf. also Guessoum (2011, 141–42, 361–63); Guiderdoni (2001, 80–1). The “new generation” seems also not hostile to the idea that specific verses or passages of the Qur’an might be obscure.
[57] For instance, Bucaille 1976 is not only dedicated to the scientific concepts of the Qur’an, but also to emphasizing the contradictions and errors that can be found in the Old and New Testament if read in the light of modern science. El-Naggar still subscribes to this approach and endorses the idea of a falsification of the Jewish scriptures. In such vein he could publish a work such as El-Naggar 2005.
[58] Following the analysis of Stenberg (1996a, cf. in particular 299–337) one can also claim that de facto this approach resulted in a multicultural, typically post-modern product. To a Muslim readership these discourses offered new perspectives on Islam, a new way of living one’s Muslim identity. To a non-Muslim readership they appeared as holistic approaches to a large array of the problems of modernity, which could be compared with movements such as the “New Age”.
[59] It is true, for instance, that Al-Faruqi was an advocate and promoter of interfaith dialogue (cf. Al-Faruqi 1986(2)), and the same can be said of Nasr. Nevertheless, I see a latent tension between this laudable approach and the tenets of the Islamization. Nasr, for instance, states that one has to “(…) study other religions sympathetically without losing the sense of absoluteness in one’s religion” (Nasr 1993, 61). Al-Faruqi emphasizes the peaceful relationship between monotheistic religions which would be attained by the pax Islamica (cf. Al-Faruqi 1995(3), 9), but then he underlines that the Hebrew-Jewish tradition means particularism (cf. Al-Faruqi 1995(3), 79), whereas there is no particularism in Islam (cf. Al-Faruqi 1995(3), 96), and particularism has to be fought (sic - cf. Al-Faruqi 1995(3), 106). The Ummah, in his words, is a “monolithic system”, and divergence from it is “heresy”; “to allow religious-moral diversity within Islam is to renounce Al-tawhid” (Al-Faruqi 1995(3), 117). He also claims that the “breakdown of ideal after World War II” was due to “the machinations and manipulations of Zionism and neo-colonialist imperialism” (Al-Faruqi 1995(3), 108). Sardar (2011), instead, seems in tune with the approach of the “new generation” (cf. Chps. 32 and 33), but his claims are rather invitations than fully developed arguments.
[60] Most notably, Golshani has promoted dialogue on common issues between scholars of different religions; this is at best condensed in and represented by his successive publications of Can science dispense with religion? Altaie has been especially engaged in inter-faith philosophical debates, as Altaie (20008b, 2008c) testify. Last but not least, Guessoum clearly states: “This [the investigation of the harmony between scientific cosmology and religious concepts] can apply to any and all religious traditions; here I only take the Islamic tradition because it is my own and I feel the need to draw attention to its rich areas as well as to some of the misguided ventures performed under its title” (Guessoum 2011, 216).
[61] Guessoum however tends to reject the concept of supernatural. He rather reconceptualizes the miraculousness of the Qur’an as the text’s inexhaustible openness to new interpretations (cf. Guessoum 2011, 50–3).
[62] Cf. Guessoum (2011, 327–45).
[63] Misrepresentation of Islam and “new atheism” go sometimes hand in hand. S. Harris’ The End of Faith (2004) begins for instance with the fictional description of a Muslim terrorist.
[64] http://physics.sharif.edu/~golshani/ (Golshani); http://www.cosmokalam.net/ (Altaie); http://nidhalguessoum.org/ (Guessoum)
[65] See for example Altaie’s channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/Baseltai?ob=0&feature=results_main and Guessoum’s numerous interventions on various topics in different channels.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Stefano Bigliardi
Stefano Bigliardi is a researcher at the Center for Middle Eastern Studies (CMES), Lund University. Correspondence to: Stefano Bigliardi, c/o CMES, Finngatan 16, Lund 22362, Sweden.