Religion versus Science in Islam: A Past and Future Question Author(s): C. A. O.

Van Nieuwenhuijze Reviewed work(s): Source: Die Welt des Islams, New Series, Vol. 33, Issue 2 (Nov., 1993), pp. 276-288 Published by: BRILL Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1570955 . Accessed: 23/04/2012 04:32
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Die Welt des Islams.

http://www.jstor.org

Die WeltdesIslams33 (1993), ? E.J. Brill, Leiden

RELIGION VERSUS SCIENCE IN ISLAM: A PAST AND FUTURE QUESTION

BY

C.A.O. VAN NIEUWENHUIJZE

Den Haag

I
At first blush, the topic of "Islam: Religion and Science" intrigues for at least two reasons. One is the word 'and', which, far from denoting an addition or a conjunction, suggests a relationship which is not self-evident, perhaps a dilemma. The other is that in common occidental usage the nexus 'religion and science' connotes a host of related combinations, such as 'faith and reason', or 'metaphysics and the empirical realm'. Jointly they evoke a mood of debate, a need of clarity. Looking more closely one realizes that in both regards the topic reflects an occidental mode of problem identification. The inclination towards dilemmatic ordering of concepts is part of the occidental style of expression.1 The use of paired notions, occasionally several pairs combined, is not exclusively occidental. It occurs as well in islamic civilization. Still this particular one is specifically occidental, dating from before the Scientific Revolution. It seems appropriate, then, to inquire into the pertinence of the nexus of religion and science to a broadly islamic context, or, should this be too crass a phrasing, to ask whether in the islamic context the same nexus or its equivalent is recognized and debated as an issue; and if so, how it is being dealt with. There is especial cause for this caution in the case of the occidental student of Islam, who is inevitably at pains to account for his/her natural, often unconscious, ethnocentrism. Given this aim, some quick reminders on the occidental scene will have to precede an attempt at inspecting the islamic. This exercise is by no means academic only. For one thing, occidental

dans arabe.Paris: Anthropos, 1967. J.P. Charnay, ed., L ambivalence la culture

MISZELLEN

277

science has, directly or indirectly, achieved a global sway of sorts, which shows no sign of waning. All other civilizations, including the islamic, are somehow affected. This may, among other things, lend renewed topicality to Toynbee's thesis on the disruptive effect of the grafted splinter.2 Besides, it is generally held that the occident's advantage over other civilizations, so far as it goes, is due mainly to the upsurge of science, and more immediately of technology as applied science (rather than its precursor and catalyst). Science in turn is deemed to owe its upswing to liberation from the shackles of religious dogma and ensuing constraints, in other words to secularism and secularization perceived as positive factors. By contrast, islamic civilization is sometimes said to have lost its scientific appetite in the course of time, to its enduring disadvantage. The facile conclusion from such reasoning is that non-occidental civilizations, including the islamic, would be well advised to become more 'scientific', whatever this may mean.3 The question arising is whether to say that islamic civilization suffers from scientific blockage or lag4 provides a workable point of departure, whether for argument or action. Some will argue that such a verdict ignores the civilization's selfhood: if judgment there is to be, it should be on its own terms ratherthan in comparison with an alien model. This argument loses much of its bite on account of the historical links, in particularregard to science, existing between the two civilizations as the successive heirs to classical Greek science and philosophy. There is more at play than mere comparison. Besides, the effects of the colonial system and its sequel, the budding One World, weaken the argument even more. In envisaging their prospects Muslims, alike any other non-occidentals, cannot ignore the global impact of occidental economic-technological might backed up by science. This is not to say that the assumption of scientific lag working as a defect of islamic civilization will stand. It is undermined in a different manner and, surprisingly to some, from the other side. For one thing, doubts are arising in the occident itself concerning the prospects of its achievements. These jeopardize its global role as the model to emulate. For another, more 2 A. Toynbee,TheWorld theWest. OxfordUP, 1953, and London: Cumberlege, Ch. V. 3 Not a very clear notion in the occidentallanguages:'Wissenschaft' and 'science'have different meanings. 4 The term 'cultural stemsfromW.F. Ogburn,Social With Change, Respect lag' to toCultural Original and Nature. 1922;repr.NewYork:Dell, 1966.It refers therelaof tiveretardation oneaspector segment a totalsociocultural of entityunderconditions of overall change. The fact (often overlooked in development studies using this notion) that external comparison plays no role makes it more interesting for present

purposes.

278

MISZELLEN

important in the present connection, it is not as if in the occident science reigns supreme, relegating faith and religion to insignificance, because it has the better answers and all the answers.5 Unresolved issues about the true purport of science remain and are being debated. To the nonoccidental civilizations this means that in setting their targets they cannot ignore their own resources: lag or no lag. II The possibility of issues arising around something like science depends on that 'something' being experienced and indeed handled, by those concerned, as a distinct notional entity. It must have a recognized and recognizable meaning: a unit of thought for circulation. Besides, the modalities of their emergence are conditioned by the prevailing conceptual frame of reference. In the case of the monotheisms this is quite explicit. It is the field of tension between creator and creature, determining the perception of the universe, reality as cosmos, on the one hand, and of man as integral yet distinct part of it, on the other. The inevitability of science turning out to be a problematic proposition follows from the fact that it stands for a conceptual approach to realitythat is, for a way of making reality intelligible-not strictly founded upon revelatory data. This is hardly the occasion to retrace the development of occidental science,6 from its pre-christianorigins, through what to the occident is its islamic interlude, up to the present. Two observations must suffice. Firstly, scientists, once having taken the path of science, appear to pursue a self-propelling or inner-directed7course, without much long-term foresightas to where it leads them. There is an element of groping that has, retrospectively, been signalled in the title of Koestler's description of the Scientific Revolution: The Sleepwalkers.8This observation applies in particular to the philosophic-theologicalimplications of scientific reasoning, notably its inherent secularization. Once the human mind, identified as reason, takes over, questions about God are bound to arise, not so much residually as by way of counterpoint and occasionally conflict. The other observation is that the Achilles heel, in this regard, of science is cosmology. A good deal of science can be pursued without awkward questions of a fundamental nature arising. Cosmology however gives the
5 A dated example of such rationalism is B. Russell, ReligionandScience.1935. repr. London: Cumberlege, Oxford UP 1947. 6 To the extent this is part of the occidental history of ideas, G. Gusdorf's Les sciences et humaines la pensee occidentale, vols. Paris, Payot, 1966-) is a gold-mine. (13 7 D. Riesman, et al., TheLonelyCrowd (New Haven: Yale UP, 1961). Distinguishing inner-directed from other-directed has for a time been fashionable in sociology. 8 A. Koestler, TheSleepwalkers. London: Hutchinson, 1959.

MISZELLEN

279

game away. Einstein is reported to have said, in a moment of deep disagreement with others, that "God does not play dice"9-a striking shortcircuiting of two modes of perceiving reality. Clearly wary of this hazard, Rutherford has said, "Don't let me catch anyone talking about the Universe in my laboratory."10 The tension between science and religion may be latent, but it is alive. Even to its protagonists, the beginning of the Scientific Revolution occurred in an intellectual climate which remained thoroughly Christian. Of the secular nature of the emerging world view there was little more than an, occasionally violent, premonition (Bruno burned 1600, Galilei recanting 1616, 1632). It did not appear until later, in retrospect. By then, it was not so much a vital as an academic problem. Besides, in the apparenterosion of religion, science is not the prime culprit. Rather more important is science's presuppositionand corollary, the view of man as demiurge which emerges in the Renaissance and culminates in Modernity."IThe fact that this view could emerge at all has to do with the Christian notion of creature. This avoids-as it must-letting creature be crushedby the creator's absoluteness. It does so not so much by attributing 'free will'12as by deviously instilling in man, through his inability to fulfil the absolute divine commandment as summed up in the Sermon of the Mountain, an element of directedness away from God, a posture in reality regardless of God. This indeed is the autonomy which terminated the paradisiaccondition and which constituteswhat in theological parlance rates as original sin. Rather than a defect it is an ontological condition. This is secularism as a fundamental fact of life; secularizationis its historical appearance. As it happens, humanism provides the setting for science to thrive in. Both pretend to do without religion, but they fail to overcome it. The view of reality which came to be characteristicof science has forever begged the question as to its relationshipto faith in God, notably as rationally expressed in theology. The current instalment of the ongoing debate between scientists and
9 S. Hawking,Une Paris:Flamdu Du aux noirs. breve histoire temps, bigbang trous marion, 1989, p. 80. (Orig. A Brief History of Time. New York: Bantam, 1988.) 10 Bernard Lovell, "Into the cosmic depths", The Times Literary Supplement

4610, Aug. 9, 1991,p. 7.

in 1450-1800. of Defenders theText,TheTradition Scholarship an Ageof Science, of

11 Another way of identifying this basic trait is by singling out "the importance of scepticism as scientific method. The systematic doubting of all received opinion is the common factor that unites the various worlds of philology, theology, philosophy and science in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries." (Oswyn Aug. 16, 1991, p. 5, reviewing A. Grafton, Murray, The TimesLiterary Supplement,

Cambridge MA: Harvard UP, 1991.) 12 A problematic construct occurring in Islam as well and good for endless debate on both sides. Three recent books are reviewed by R. Kane in TheTimesLiter4613, Aug. 30, 1991, p. 23. arySupplement

280

MISZELLEN

theologians, enriched now as ever by the circumstancethat occasionallythe two disciplines coexist in one person, refers to the variants of cosmology emerging in the wake of the Big Bang theory.13In this debate each discipline features in its own right. In addressing the same fundamental subject matter they are yet deemed to employ approachesso radicallydifferent that the danger of a deaf man's dialogue looms large. The assumption that they are intellectuallyequivalent is weakly upheld, as an indispensable requirement for dialogue. In fact some precedence is often attributedto science. As a result, a salient question is what theology has to offer if its role is to be more and better than to provide stop-gap answers to questions with which science is still struggling. Who and where is God in the cosmos as portrayed by science, if he is not just another With science in the lead, theology seems to be on the defenhypothesis?14
sive.

This is an unfinished debate. Indeed it seems endless, not to say inconclusive or futile. This could raise the question whether the problem is correctly identified if put in terms of striving for accord between the two approaches. The debate may have to be inconclusive so long as science is taken to be unassailable in its premisses.15 Currently science's conspicuous offshoot, technology, is increasingly exposed on account of unforeseen effects so adverse as to make the survival of mankind depend on their correction. This concern will eventually reflect on science and its underlying vision of man as a sovereign agent free from constraints. For a fresh round of debate, cosmology may no longer be the most promising bone of contention. A less esoteric yet equally fundamental issue, widely recognizable as vital, will have to come into focus.16As this 13 W.B. Drees, Beyond Big Bang,Quantum and the Cosmology God.La Salle Ill.: the Open Court, 1990. The authorsummarizes three main variantsof current or scientific cosmology (Linde, Hawking,Penrose)in view of theirsignificance, he the for couldone say, implications, theology; reversing approach subsequently cosmolto of reviews broadselection recent a referring scientific theological writing like ogy, muchof it by scientists-theologians himself,in an attemptto settlefor a I someof his keyquestions. of position his own(p. 200ff). In thisparagraph reflect 14Askedby Napoleon aboutGod'splacein his system,the astronomer Laplace answered he had "no need of thathypothesis". that (Russel,o.c. p. 58.) 15 G. Holton, in: L. Baeck,G. Holton, H. Kayser,E. Schr6dinger, es Gibt Zurich:Rhein, 1947. I. Prigogine,I. Grenzen Naturforschung? Reden, der Eranos 1979. Paris:Gallimard, dela Alliance, Mitamorphose science. Stengers,La Nouvelle 16 In this connection C.P. Snow'sconcernabouttwo worldsapartresurfaces: Revolution. and Scientific aretheythetwainthatwillnevermeet?(TheTwoCultures the UP, 1959.) Russell(o.c. p. 202) wondersaboutthe true relationbeCambridge de In tween 'physiology' 'psychology'. his recentbook (Histoire Lynx.Paris: and writes,"De la faconla moinsattentue,c'est le diaPlon, 1991),C. Levi-Strauss
logue avec la science qui rend la pensee mythique de nouveau actuelle." Asked for

an explanation 8.10.91, p. 2) he observes, by (interview R.-P. Droit, Le Monde siecleau moins,la chancedes sciences'dures'a ete que dix-neuvieme "Jusqu'au

MISZELLEN

281

renewed debate will shape up, theologians will, in preparationfor joining it, once more be rethinking God. Theirs, it seems, is the problem of "a world suffused by the presence of an absent god".17 III It would be reckless to lift the polarized construct of religion versus science out of its occidental context in order to project it without more ado upon the islamic. The intervening question as to relevance is not to be circumvented. There are several ways of pinpointing it. For one, take the matter of reason or rationality. In the occident, faith and reason have not always been on the best possible terms; witness, for example, Anselm's effort, in his thesis "fides quaerit intellectum", to make them work in tandem. The circumstance that theology is a rational pursuit means little in the conceptual struggleto sort out the respective significances of creator and creature in the perception of reality. On the other hand, to the extent the islamic revelation claims to be in "clear Arabic",18the mysterium seems to cede pride of place to rationality almost in advance. This appears to have favoured the cluster of dogmatics and law-at once rational and 'founded'-in its competition with philosophy and science, and to have caused the curious position, of marginality combined with indispensability, of mysticism.19 The upshot is that if there exists in islamic civilization something like a tectonic fault, it does not run between faith, in the sense of a well-defined, formal dogmatic-legal orthodoxy plus orthopraxis, on the one hand, and some sort of natural science or philosophy of nature on the other. In part it runs between orthodoxy and mysticism, with philosophy20 leursobjetsfurent consideres commemoinscomplexes les moyensdontl'esprit que est dispose pourles etudier.Laphysique que quantique en trainde nousapprendre entreles differentes celan'estplusvraiet qu'acet egardune convergence apparait sciences(ou pretendues telles)". This howeverdoes not push him into religion:
"... notre facon d'accepter l'existence ne peut etre qu'une sorte de compromis entre l'appetit du savoir, la conquete laborieuse des connaissanceset, d'autre part, la conviction que, vus de loin ou en nous pla;ant a un niveau plus profond, ces efforts sont depourvus d'un sens dernier." The question, then, is whether such resignation, as yet far from uncommon, is the final word.
17 Valentine Cunningham in The Times LiterarySupplement4611, Aug. 16 1991,

p. 6.

18 Quran 26: 192-195, 43: 2, 44: 58. 19 C.A.O. van Nieuwenhuijze, Samsu 'l-din van Pasai, Bijdrage tot de kennis der

Sumatraanse mystiek Contribution to the Knowledge of Sumatran Mysticism). (= Leiden: Brill, 1945, Ch. 4. 20 The standing occidental judgment is that philosophy has never recovered and from the onslaught by al-Ghazzali. Comp. A.J. Arberry, Revelation Reasonin
Islam. London: Allen & Unwin, 1957, Ch. 3.

282

MISZELLEN

and science increasingly relegated to the margin. One hears of the occasional mystic paying the ultimate penalty for the attempt-ill-advised even to by his own yardstick-to express unutterable religious experience;21 my knowledge scientists have hardly been found to qualify for such martyrdom. For another part, there is the nexus (rather than contrast) between 'founded' reasoning and norm-abiding conduct. What is in the occident the complementarity between the distinct theoretical and practical domains, between science and technology (including experiment), is remotely parallelled in Islam by the nexus (rather than dichotomy) of orthodoxy and ensuing orthopraxis. In both situations the realm of ideas has precedence. In the occident practice keeps a measure of autonomy in that it sets, up to a point, the limits to the viability of ideas; in the islamic context this kind of countervailance, if it exists at all, will rarely arise as an issue. One may once more discern the issue of relevance in the absence, in Islam, of a standardoppositional pair of notions in which science confronts some concept referringto faith, though the latter occurs saliently in the islamic vocabulary (imdn, tawakkul).For one thing this is a matter of the preference, already referred to, for nexus, not seldom ambiguity, over dilemma. For another, it has to do with the fact that the set of notions roughly equivalent to 'science'- Cilm and its near-synonyms22-is perceived by and large as an elaboration, by dint of human effort, of the realm staked out by revelation, i.e., by the established sources of Islam.23At the peril of overrating, it is intriguing to note here the difference between the Adam of the Old Testament, who names the things he finds around him, and the Adam of the Qur'an,whom God teaches the names of things.24
21 L. Massignon, La passiond'al-Hallaj.Paris, 1922. Transl. ThePassionof alof Hallaj, MysticandMartyr Islam. Princeton: UP, 1983. 22 F. Rosenthal's inventory of meanings of Cilm related concepts (Knowledge and
Triumphant, The Conceptof Knowledgein Medieval Islam. Leiden: Brill, 1970) does not

really go beyond showing the shadings of meaning occurring in a notional complex anchored once and for all on revelatory ground, essentially conceived in terms revelatory. The question he has not asked, and which yet seems crucial in the present connection, is whether this linkage may be shown to be variable, perhaps occasionally tenuous. In ignoring it he is of course in good company: it is the Muslim position. 23 Given his broader and deeper interest, M.G.S. Hodgson in The Venture of Islam(3 vols, Chicago: University Press, 1974) comes closer to this question. Yet he too leaves the impression that the 'foundedness' of any speculative effort is forever presupposed. This reticence is understandable. From a Muslim viewpoint, raising it would surreptitiouslylead into a discourse from which heresy cannot be
far. 24 Gen. 2:20. Qur'an 2:29. Comp. J. Sublet, Le Voile du Nom, Essay sur le nom propre arabe. Paris: PUF, 1991, p. 7.

MISZELLEN

283

In this context there is scant room for polarization between types ofalways monotheistically informed-mental-intellectual postures. At best there may be some ranking, inevitably contested, between intellectual pursuits in terms of central versus peripheral. The element of contest, in introducing the historical dimension, is significant. Whereas science in the occidental sense has come into its own by riding the crest of an incoming wave during the Scientific Revolution, the makings of the same science have become subject, in Islam, to marginalization, to the point of withering away, no longer on account of opposition but of neglect.25 Whereas in the occident the Scientific Revolution and its aftermath attract relentless study and debate, the constraining factors at play in Islam remain, to my knowledge, to be clarified more assiduously. Hitherto there has been insufficient stimulus for an attempt to do so. Altogether a tantalizing state of affairs. The provisional conclusion is that to speak of religion versus science in Islam requires circumspection. There is religion, there is science; neither is what it is in the occident; though problematicin both settings, their relation is not the same in each. IV Besides the retrospectivequestion there exists a prospectiveone, already mooted in the opening section. What of science, now and later, in Islam as a religiously imprinted complex? The current state of affairs may be described in terms of two observations. One refers to the scientific tradition of Islamic civilization.26It has, as just stated, been held in check, for some four centuries at least, by competing intellectual orientations and practicalpursuits, with their vested interests. Current upheaval being dominated by revitalization of religion as reinstitutionalization,science is, as yet, not a hot issue: other bones of contention prevail. Nonetheless the nature of the currenttransition is such that it may well-indeed should-occasion questions concerning science's real nature and significance.
25 Hodgson (o.c. vol. 2, p. 329) argues that the occidental and islamic civilizations are comparablefrom the 12th to the end of the 16th century; after 1600 there is a parting of ways. In the trackof H. Corbin's L 'imagination creatrice le soufisme dans d'IbnArabi(Paris: Flammarion, 1958), Y. Jaigu, then Director of France Culture, has opened a symposium in Cordova with an arresting tale in which the parting of ways is localized there, and personalizedin Ibn Rushd and Ibn al-CArabi. (Science de et conscience, deuxlectures l'univers.Paris: Stock, 1980, p. 21.) Les 26 M. Plessner, "Die Geschichte der Wissenschaften im Islam", Philosophie und
Geschichte Tiibingen 1931. Idem, "Die Bedeutung der Wissenschaftsgeschichte 31,

und fiurdas Verstehen der geistigen Welt des Islams", Philosophie Geschichte 82, Tilbingen 1966.

284

MISZELLEN

The apologetic overtones in the prevailing Muslim approachto the outside world make for self-vindication based on early events. Whether this can keep the actual questions locked up indefinitely remains to be seen. The other observation is to repeat that Islamic civilization, along with most of mankind, has over time undergone the impact of occidental science, technical implements in the forefront. Its mental-intellectual climate is vaguely surmised and ambiguously appreciated rather than fully understood. This has two implications. One, Muslims from all over the world partake-albeit in limited numbers-of occidental science more or less intensely, more or less successfully, whether by occidental standardsor their own. The fact that they do so has as yet little impact upon the ongoing struggle for revitalization. Two, the presence of occidental science in the world of Islam introduces a prisoner's dilemma. Resuming the thread of traditional science as revitalizationdemands, or at least taking it into account, raises more questions than it can answer. On the other hand wholesale adoption of modern science is equally problematic. Whatever the comparabilityof islamic and occidental science in the Middle Ages, present occidental science is, on account of the leap forward made since, alien to the prevailing islamic climate, if not in outlook then in its secular inspiration. This may explain the fact that a real involvement of a number of Muslims with occidental science goes hand in hand with the virtual lack, in islamic society, of debate on the part to be played by science in ongoing revitalization, whether expressly announced as islamic or merely as sociocultural-political. The apparent ease with which certain Muslims engage upon modern science, if discussed at all, is mostly explained by referenceto the universality claimed on its behalf. This claim flies into the face of the specificallyoccidental origin and nature of modern science. Even in dealing with the universe, science is a loose and variable configuration of time-and-placeconditioned, never-definitive constructs of the human mind. The universality claim is at root nothing but the self-assertionof occidental ethnocentrism. Adopted by Muslims and other non-occidentals, it begs a scrutiny to which it is unlikely to stand up. Few seem ready to undertake it. Revitalization, in its ambiguous posture towards the outside world, is hardly conducive. Besides, questions arising do not spell instant trouble. There is no evidence as yet of the recipient complex dramatically rejecting the graft, Toynbee's concern notwithstanding. Instead, appeasing evidence of islamic congeniality to science is readily proffered.The hadith on seeking 'ilmknowledge/wisdom/science-even in China is quoted ad nauseam.27Still,
27 G.H. tradition choixde h'adiths. musulmane, L'authentique Bousquet, El Bokhari, Paris: Fasquelle, 1964, p. 341.

MISZELLEN

285

to the observer this and similar injunctions are little more than first moves to what may eventually become more incisive analysis and debate.28This debate, to be sure, will occur between Muslims. Exchanges on these issues between Muslims and non-Muslims are subsidiaryat best. Besides, the significance of debate is not to be overrated. It is an accompaniment to the overall change process at work: neither more nor less. It is worth noting the contrast, in current islamic discourse, between the near-absenceof debate about science-both science in general and the significance of modern science in particular-and the salience of the engagement upon philosophy, more precisely occidental philosophy, in which even the staunchest islamistsjoin eagerly.29This may have to do with the more immediate relevance of philosophy to problems experienced in the public domain. At the same time it may relate to a differencein the intensity of marginalization suffered by each at the hands of the orthodoxy. To delve into these fascinating matters is beyond the present scope.30
V

Given this state of affairs, the prospect of science in the islamic context appears to have certain distinct determinants, by no means in harmony with one another. We had a first glance at them in the prisoner's dilemma just mentioned. First, the mood of revitalizationconcurs with the classicistic tradition of islamic thought31in that it requires a manifest or at least ostensible rejoining with the past, deemed glorious for science as in all other respects. Whether it can also be normative is then the question. Secondly, modern science, that distinct and decisively different branch from the stem to which also islamic science belongs, demands to be adopted; a significant number of Muslims are effectively conversant with it (rather, perhaps, than with classical islamic science); to ignore it is out of the question. Still to adopt it wholesale, as may seem inevitable if one does adopt, is, to an islamic viewpoint, hazardous to say the least and also, in view of current occidental debate, unwarranted. Thirdly, inasmuch as revitaliza28 AbdusSalam,L 'Islam la scienza, NaArmoniaconflitto? o Roma:Accademia e zionaledei Lincei, 11 Maggio 1991. 29 G. Kepel, Y. Richard,dir., Intellectuelsmilitants l'Islam de et contemporain. in Transition theMiddle East.Leiden: Paris:Seuil, 1990. 5. Mardin,ed., Cultural Brill, 1993(forthcoming).

30 In apparent contrast one notes the conspicuousness of engineers in the revitalizationstruggle and during the phase leading up to it, notably in its islamistic wing (not vanguard). The fact that these exponents of the typically 19th century, mechanisticbent of mind should now more than ever play a role needs explanation. Comp. N. Gole in Kepel, Richard, o.c., p. 167 ff.
31 G.E. von Grunebaum, in R. Brunschvig, G.E. von Grunebaum, eds., Clas-

dans I'histoire l'Islam. Paris, Besson*Chantemerle, 1957, de sicismeet declinculturel

p. 2 ff.

286

MISZELLEN

tion carries an islamic label, the presence of science in an islamic context may require renewed clarification on both sides: a multidimensional and by no means innocent issue, bound to enhance the strife marking revitalization.

The second determinant is liable to cancel out the first, thereby undermining an indispensablefoothold. Left to its own devices it risks wreaking havoc. The third threatens to usher in an instant replay of the process in which science has been marginalized in the past, unless it were to backfire in as yet unforeseeablemanner. A gloomy conjectureindeed, no doubt because it is overly schematic. A more true-to-life prospect may be achieved by regaining the realm of history. An encounter today between islamic civilization and modern science as part of occidental civilization could be compared with that in Damascus and Baghdad between Islam in its formative stages and Byzantine civilization, notably philosophy and science. The comparison may seem far-flung. What speaks for it is that in both situations Islam is avid for self-assertion both inward and outward yet aware of lacking certain means. Another considerationin favour is that during that first encounter, as during the second in Spain, the foci of interactionand eventual adoption (involving adaptation) were eclectically chosen (with express avoidance of religion proper, notwithstanding the expansive mood of the believers): a formula fit for replay. In the present round of osmosis there is less eagerness to embrace science, no doubt due to its eclipse in islamic civilization during the interval. This seems bound to be outbalanced by the actual influence of modern science. In this comparison, one key element differs. The readiness on both sides to interact, whether by seeking intercourse or by responding to it, is not the same. Today, the totalistic rigidity of islamism may appear as a factor hampering, indeed preventing, interaction. Whether it is a decisive obstacle remains to be seen. A conceivable scenario sets out from the realization that an encounter between modern science and islamic orthodoxy, as distinct world views, is unlikely to be instigated by orthodoxy. It is for science, as an effort by Muslims jointly with their colleagues in the occident and elsewhere, to initiate. In this regard the present encounter does differ from the first. There are two reasonswhy such an encounter might move beyond mutual aloofness and develop into interaction, and why interaction need not spell instant conflict. One is that revelatoryscripturecan but be favourable to science inasmuch as the adoration of God will entail admiration of and interest in His creature.32The other is that lack of consonance between the 'foundedness' which determines orthodoxy and the never-definitive nature of scientific verities-as-hypothesesdoes not amount to incompati32 Quran 50:2-11.

MISZELLEN

287

bility. The door to interaction is ajar. The question remains whether it will prove possible to avoid its being ultimately shut on account of the 'nonfoundedness,' i.e., secularism, which seems basic to science.33 In this perspective, the two successive encounter situations of the past (Damascus/Baghdad, Spain) appear to be marked by the fact that one party-the occident first, Islam in the second instance-held out to the other a world view thoroughly different from its own. For one reason or another the potential conflict has in both cases been obviated, clearing the way for transaction, however eclectic, and for enrichment of the receiving party as a result. Is it too far-fetchedto envisage a third encounter along comparable lines?34 Additional reason for this expectation may be found in the rearguard nature of islamism. Vitiated as it is by imposing a categorical answer to problems it is loud in denouncing but lax in analyzing,35it has yet one merit. It brings out into the open that basic and vital questions require appropriatecare. In so doing it should make them debatable. Its very inability to provide and effectuate an adequate answer may usher in a further instalment of the revitalization effort. In this, modern science, duly reassessed, could conceivably play a part. This argument can be spelt out a little further. The prospectof islamism, a deviation in which Islam is reduced to the status of ideology in the occidental sense, is to miss its goal of restoration. In its Iranian, Pakistani, Sudanese and further variants it has not delivered the goods-indeed values-promised, nor does it seem likely to in the foreseeablefuture. The tragedy of islamism is that due to its very claim to be the monopolist of truth it cannot have, within the confines of Islam, a valid counterpartfor clarifying dialogue on current issues. Internal diffractionis bound to consume it. What appears to be its power is ultimately its weakness. The strident insistence upon rigid orthopraxis-always according to the islamists' own prescription-as the panacea for all the world's ills touches virtually everybody's bad conscience. The ensuing coercion stands to be facilitated by prevailing custom with regard to authority. Few will object, even though they might take shelter in the-otherwise oft-quoted-Qur'anic injunction that "there is no compulsion in religion."36 Thus, such resistance as the islamists are nonetheless bound to face is-by their own yard33 In practice maymeanthatcertainscientific this specialisms provemore may betweenpastand presententhanothers.A curiousdifference readilyadoptable in was counter maybe thatwhereas the pastastronomy/astrology highlyregarded in islamicscience,cosmology now may at firstglanceelicit reservations. 34 This ideahas alsobeenmootedbyJ. Vernet,inJ. Schacht, C.E. Bosworth, eds., TheLegacy Islam,2nd ed. Oxford:Clarendon,1974, p. 488. of 35 Two titlesout of many:G. Kepel,LeProphete Pharaon, mouvements et Les isLa 1984.E. Sivan,RadiParis: Decouverte, lamistes dansl'Egypte contemporaine.

and Politics.New Haven: Yale UP, 1985. cal Islam, MedievalTheology Modern 36 QurPan 2:257.

288

MISZELLEN

stick as naturally reinforced by terror-faceless and also meaningless because misguided. By the same token, however, it eludes them to the point that they cannot hope to overcome it. The retrenchmentand repressionislamism has imposed by way of corrolary to an outward posture ofjihdd as conflict can ultimately but revert to internal strife. To the extent this will shape up as debate rather than violence, it will require an element of countervailance to the complex of orthodoxy and orthopraxis, if only to rescue the latter from virtual fossilization in islamism.

To this purpose a sociopolitical opening, of predominantly philosophical-ideological nature, has been hesitantly tried for about a century now: to little avail. It turns out to be a small step from borrowedoccidental ideology to neo-oriental-despotism.Saddam Hussain is far from being the only one to prove it. Certain variants of islamism are also cases in point. A conceivable alternative is an emergent debate between, on one side, spokespeople for modern science, among whom those looking from an islamic vantage point, and, on the other, exponents of what will, for the purpose, rate as the establishedislamic frame of reference, or more exactly, a fair range of its variants. In such a debate the islamic heritage will no doubt stand firm, which is something else than remaining unaffected.37 This may surprise. In fact it is what has happened throughout the history of Islam: so much so that the proper description of this history should be in terms of encounters wherever Islam has gone, from the beginning up to the present. Islamism being what it is, the answer to the question whether the door that now stands ajar will open up and stay open for dialogue depends on the way the Muslim scientist envisages his/her position and role in the islamic context: whether those of a mental expatriate or not. This problem is not new.38 Its crucial significance stands out now more clearly than ever.
37 That this is an exercise far beyond what one person can hope to tackle in one blow transpiresin the attempt of Z. Sardar, Thefuture muslim civilization. London: of Croom Helm, 1979. Comp. Sd. M.N. al-Attas, Islam, Secularism thePhilosophy and of theFuture.London: Mansell, 1985.

38 A. Laroui,La crise intellectuels des ouhistoricisme? Traditionalisme Paris: arabes,

Maspero, 1978.