I recently read the article titled Why The Arabic World Turned Away From Science written by Hillel Ofek. I found it very interesting and a stampede of thoughts and ideas rushed through my mind. Following are some random thoughts about it. I hope to organize them in a better way in future.
But there is another vantage point to it. The Greek science was not rubbish at all. Actually, if nothing else, modern days' scientific method has its roots in Greek Science. Consider the necessity of theorem proving, for instance. While contemporary world was also a lot more advanced, such as the engineering acumen of Egyptians, who raised monumental pyramids, only Greeks made the science flourish by necessitating the adoption of some scientific method. Greeks were genuine thinkers.
This is not to say that Muslims were not. Imam Al-Ghazali was a skeptic of sorts for a considerable period of his life. He eventually proposed occasionalism. The latter means that every single thing and action happens in the universe by the direct and immediate will of God (i.e. Allah, in an Islamic context). This means, for instance, that incidents like hurricane Sandy happen by the direct will of God. Western science states that laws of Physics dictate such events. Occasionalism suggests that laws of physics may be suggested as causes effecting such events. But at the core of them direct will of Allah is responsible for them and the laws of Physics are only used as covers to conceal the divine hand. West frowns upon such ideas. Indeed, even in the midst of such events one can hear Western intellect shouting that the idea that a divine will is responsible for all such events is ridiculous. I know Western skeptics say this even while they are dying. Muslims (and also Christians and possibly also Jews), on the other hand, suggest that the reason behind such events is moral decadency, such as homosexuality and lesbianism.
A belief in occasionalism also has a consequence for the Islamic belief system. This becomes evident when natural disasters like floods and earth quakes strike Muslims countries. In wake of such events, the Western intellect ridiculously asks the Muslims that why is this happening to Muslims and claims that there is no God. Surprisingly, the theology of Islam has an answer for this too; moral decadency of the society. And this is where the debate starts lurching into other extreme dimensions.
The question is whether Muslims should read philosophy or not. Our times suggest that we should do it. Imam Ghazali suggests that we should not do it. The main reason is that it can lead the Muslims away from piety. Indeed, the propensities of philosophers and the nature of the subject is such that it leads the pupil away from firm belief and lead to heresy. For, if a Muslim was not to pose and address the most arch-question of philosophy, "Does God exist?", he could be lured in to addressing the following question, "Does devil exist?". Or there could be other dodgy questions, investigation of which would at least sway the Muslim away from performing diurnal rituals.
West has a problem with the way religious people think. While the Muslims, for instance, use all the ifs and buts of logic to show the superiority of their theology, the Western intellect uses them to address the most primordial questions about existence of God. This causes a friction of ideologies. While a Muslim (or a Christian for that matter) would be highly inclined to circumscribe and direct his theses and arguments in a way that eventually find that God exists, philosophers and free thinkers have a genuine problem with that predisposed way of thinking which clearly inhibits free inquiry. This is absolutely understandable.
West has a problem with the way religious people think. While the Muslims, for instance, use all the ifs and buts of logic to show the superiority of their theology, the Western intellect uses them to address the most primordial questions about existence of God. This causes a friction of ideologies. While a Muslim (or a Christian for that matter) would be highly inclined to circumscribe and direct his theses and arguments in a way that eventually find that God exists, philosophers and free thinkers have a genuine problem with that predisposed way of thinking which clearly inhibits free inquiry. This is absolutely understandable.
No comments:
Post a Comment