Professional Documents
Culture Documents
by
Paper submitted to the 21st Annual Conference, Association of Muslim Social Scientists ,
East Lansing, Michigan , October 30 -November 1,1992 ; Jumada Al-awal 3 - 5,1413 .
1
I. INTRODUCTION
On the other hand, we have those Muslim scientists, active in the Islamic
Science movement, who may find the content of the paper (not its title) rather
objectionable, because it does not depart enough - for them - from the western
model of science. Islamic, they would argue, is synonymous with originality and
uniqueness. Islamic science is expected to detach itself completely from the
contemporary materialist , Western-minded, positivist/empiricist model of
science. Any convergence with that inherently defective model, even
inadvertently, would be detrimental to our pure Islamic version of the truth, they
would insist.
Despite the disparity between these two extreme positions, they both have
something in common, that is, a failure to see the innate "wholeness" of any true
search for the truth. Truth, according to general Islamic principles, should be the
judge of men. Men do not judge truth. Those who in modesty and sincerity
search for the truth shall be guided by God to ultimately find it. The first group
of objectors are to be reminded that search for verified knowledge (if that is what
science is all about ) is only another human activity pursued by the Muslim
scientist, which should be guided by the same Islamic values that guide his entire
life. Divine Revelation should be his main source of inspiration, particularly when
he deals with the world of the "unseen", which cannot be ignored in the study of
man. The second group of objectors are to be reminded that Islam is the final
word from The Creator of the universe, hence it bears guidance to all people.
2
Creating artificial boundaries that separate rather than integrate people does not
serve humanity nor serve the cause of Islam.
Mainly for the benefit of the first group of objectors, the first part of this
paper is devoted to a detailed critique of the traditional model of science. The
roots of its positivist/empiricist biases are laid bare. It is argued that the schism
between modern science and religious belief is as unnecessary as is artificial , is
ideologically inspired, only resulting from peculiar historical and geographical
nuissances. Our hope is that this expose may help the contingents of social
scientists who received their professional socialization within the prevalent
western paradigm to see the scientific method as it really is - nothing more than
one possible way of knowing the world, and one with many shortcomings and
flaws that cry for rectification.
It will be shown that the "traditional" view of science and of the scientific
method , which the social sciences inherited from the natural sciences, did indeed
thwart our efforts to understand man, or to improve the human condition. We
will also show how its positivist/empiricist biases had contributed immensely to
the poverty of the social sciences, by the arrogant dismissal as non-scientific , or
even as non-sensical , any reference to the spiritual/religious aspects of the
human being.
In the second part of the paper we suggest an alternative scheme informed by the
Islamic paradigm that aims at integrating the empirical and the non-empirical
aspects of man into a unified system of explanation of human behavior . Theory
building, from that vantage point, is explored, with an emphasis on the utilization
of revelation i.e. the Quran and Verified Hadith as a major source for plausible
hypotheses. This is not meant as a naive or simplistic attempt to superimpose
religiously derived concepts over the science of man without proof. It is rather a
deliberate attempt to bank on the rich insights derived from these transcendent
sources after subjecting propositions derived therefrom to stringent procedures
of verification . The proposed model does not in any way allow for unwanted
dogmatism, nor for unwarranted xenophobia which a priori rejects anything that
comes by way of non-Muslims. Verification is achieved through the good old
mechanisms for self-correction of the traditional model of science i.e. testing and
falsification, however with a different twist !
The genius (and maybe the proof of the truthfulness) of a true Islamic
science lies not in its exclusiveness or parochiality, but rather in its inclusiveness
and universality, and in its embracing and welcoming all "well-founded" truths -
irrespective of their original source. Islam is a religion for all humanity, not an
occult. Those ready to go to extremes in digging the esoteric aspects of Islamic
civilization, pretending they represented mainstream Islamic science only do a
disservice to Islam and to science. Nasr (1988) seems to have done just this
when he suggested that Islamic science should be based on the metaphysical and
cosmological doctrines of certain Sufis of his own selection, whose ideas
3
squarely fall outside the mainstream of Islamic thought. Sardar (1988) rightly
described Nasr as a traditionalist guilty of unnecessary violence to Islamic
science when he consistently ignores "non-Sufi traditions of Islam and offers his
variety of Sufism as the only complete solution to all problems". He also
declares that Nasr's insistence on "the methodology of the gnostic tradition, more
particularly Sufism, does not work", because we cannot "have access to it
independently or at will". (p.14). Add to that pronouncement the fact that
Islamic epistemology acknowledges the role played by the senses and the human
mind beside intuition as media for valid knowledge of the universe. Sardar
dismisses Nasr's formulations as inadequate and one-sided, advising us: "The
exponents of Islamic Science must go beyond gnosis to produce something that
is clearly distinguishable as science" (p.15).
Anees and Davies (1989) in contrast with Nasr, perceive of Islamic science
in a much broader perspective. They call for the revitalization of the concept of
ilm, which they describe as the Islamic concept of knowledge, the pursuit of
which is guided by the Islamic world-view. In Islam, knowledge "can be pursued
only within the framework of values". These values according to those authors,
guide Islamic science towards a healthy, "balanced interaction of revelation and
reason". The scientific endeavor should be "founded upon accountability and
social responsibility". They also argue that Islamic science "is not to be equated
with re-inventing the wheel. There is no subtle attempt to undermine or sabotage
the cumulative human labor of amassing wisdom" (p.253). A very wise piece of
advice indeed .
4
Although western science is clearly guilty of many errors of omission and
of commission (Capra, 1982; Augros & Stanciu, 1984; Alvares, 1988; Ravetz,
1988; Wilber, 1990), it still is worthy of and capable of overhauling. Its
methodology could be reconciled with broader world-views. Islam can provide
science, not only with a set of coherent values which could rid it of most of its
destructive consequences, but it could equally offer a more integrative, holistic
methodology commensurate with these valuative parameters. Sardar's work
described by Anees & Davies (p.p. 254-255) and Faruki's work (as edited by
AbuSulayman, 1989) provide us with a general framework of Islamic values with
a bearing on Islamic scientific thinking. This framework effectively sets up the
boundaries for the working Muslim scientist's job and provides him with
guidelines for doing his daily work. What we badly need is a framework for
theory building that would incorporate and express such framework in practical
terms. The model presented in the second part of this paper is proposed by way
of introducing a modest attempt to fill in this gap.
The strategy adopted here is based on doing our best to salvage any
elements deemed - after careful scrutiny - to be sound in the traditional scientific
method, to the extent that they would prove to be so. No element is a priori
discarded until it is judged without doubt to be worthless, flawed, or harmful;
with due process! Muslim social scientists can hardly afford the luxury (or the
foolhardiness) of throwing away - in exchange for ego trips - a legacy their own
ancestors helped bring into existence, even with the tears and twists it has
incurred at the hands of others. The overall criterion for omission or
commission of any aspects of the traditional scientific method is ultimately that
of compatibility with the tenets of mainstream Islamic thinking. In the proposed
model, the ontological and epistemological assumptions of Islam are assumed to
provide the general framework without which no discussion of methodology
would be valid.
5
One of the advantages of this strategy is that it allows us to start from
where we actually are today without loosing sight of the Islamic ideal, rather than
starting from where we should have been, had not Islamic history went awry.
Another advantage is that it allows for the utilization of the dire criticisms from
within the western scientific community itself - as far as these go. It is not
coincidental that we find most of these self-reevaluations of western science
pointing in directions that Muslims have always - throughout their earlier history -
held to be true. This, of course, does not mean that all the prescriptions of the
western new paradigmers are valid, from an Islamic point of view. Nor does it
mean that we stop where they did. Western critics of the traditional scientific
method seem very confused and perplexed themselves. It is time Muslim social
scientists extended a hand-once again - to help invigorate the scientific venture,
derailed ( while also served ) by others during centuries of stagnation of the
Islamic Ummah.
6
widespread disillusionment with the way it has been used and a loss of faith
in it as the cure for human ills" (p.95).
But how the messianic zeal with which the empiricists defend the senses as
the only source of acceptable "scientific" knowledge be explained ? And why
that vehement insistence on the complete rejection of all other possible sources
for attaining knowledge, especially revelation? It would have been interesting to
trace here the historical development of science and the scientific method to be
able to give detailed answers to these two questions. That, however, goes
beyond the scope of this paper. Fortunately, there exists a vast literature on the
subject, some of which is fairly accessible, to which the reader may be referred
(Levi, 1975; Ravetz, 1975; Sperry, 1988).
7
"In Western philosophy, there has been an ongoing search for a
foundation or ground upon which to secure true knowledge. After scriptural
authority and Descartes' clear and undoubtable ideas...were found wanting,
there was a general acceptance of sense experience as the base for certainty".
(p.418) [emphasis mine].
There seems to be general agreement today that the emergence of that biased
positivist/empiricist tradition, with its singleminded emphasis on human sense
experiences was only the bitter harvest of the unfortunate conflict between
church and science during the Renaissance and the Enlightenment . While
scientists were decidedly bent on breaking loose from church authority at any
price, it seems that they went on to throw the baby with the bathwater.
This empirical bias served its purposes very well when physical scientists
studied natural , non-human phenomena. The subject matter they dealt with, by
its nature, was amenable to observation through the senses and through
equipment designed to extend their reach. Verification of the findings was
guaranteed through replication of experiments. Certainty was easier to achieve, or
so it seemed - up to a point. This explains the exemplary success of the
"traditional" scientific method in the study of natural phenomena.
Hoping to achieve the same degree of success in the study of man, social
scientists (or rather philosophers) vehemently called for the application of the
same methods used in the natural sciences in their own field. But this was not the
only motive behind the call for emulating physical science. Scientists were also
keen to seal out any influence the church may still claim on the "scientific" study
of man. This is where Auguste Compte's positivism fits in, with its insistence
that "The methods of physical sciences are regarded as the only accurate means
8
of obtaining knowledge, and therefore the social sciences should be limited to the
use of these methods and modeled after the physical sciences". (Theodorson &
Theodorson, 1969: 306). Feigl (1975) points out the antichurch motive behind
this call when he states that "In its basic ideological posture, positivism is thus
worldly, secular, antitheological, and antimetaphysical" (p.877). But what did all
that mean for the social sciences, and to the helping professions? How did
nineteenth century views on the world and the methods of knowing about it held
by the physical scientists affect the study of man?
IN 1843 John Stuart Mill wrote: "The backward state of the moral (human)
sciences can be remedied by applying to them the methods of physical science,
duly extended and generalized." (Polkinghorne, 1984: 416). This advice was
scrupulously heeded by social scientists since then. Similar sentiments are still
being expressed by leading philosophers, such as Willard Quine, until recently.
(Wilber, 1990:25). The consequences of emulating the physical sciences proved
to be dire indeed. To appreciate the extent of the harm done through the
application of these same methods to the social sciences, let us examine the
character of science and its methods which were applied in the physical sciences
at that time and which still drag on up to this day. Authorities on the subject
would tell us that nineteenth century science could be described as materialistic,
mechanistic, and reductionist, reflecting conceptions of reality which were
prevalent in that era.
When the traditional scientific method was applied to the social sciences, it
carried with it this intellectual (?) baggage. Man was understood and has been
studied in the same mechanical, reductionist, and materialist terms. Research
methods and research designs reflecting these same ontological and
epistemological assumptions were used (Ford, 1984). All this was done without
9
serious reflection on how the subject matter of the social sciences differed in
very significant ways from that of the physical sciences. This type of confusing
very different phenomena is sometimes called a "category error" or a "category
mistake" , which "occurs when very different categories of phenomena are
treated alike" (Weick, 1987:222) . The effects were debilitating indeed.
The basic themes which run through most of these critical reviews revolve
around the fact that human beings are different in many ways from things,
machines or other living organisms. This fact should, accordingly, entail
corresponding modifications in the theoretical models and research methods
used to study those human beings. Howard (1985) puts it nicely when he says
that "...if humans possess characteristics that are unlike the characteristics of
subject matter studied by other sciences, then an appropriate science of human
behavior might need to be somewhat different from other extant sciences".
(p.p.259-260). Polkinghorne (1984) goes one step further by identifying five
areas in which the "human realm" is different, and suggesting the appropriate
research stance corresponding to each. The human realm is different in terms of
the following:
10
c) unfinished quality; the human realm is in flux, and has a history;
hence, correlations between elements may hold at one time but not at another.
d) composition, knowing humans is a "human" activity; hence, there is no
absolute point outside ourselves from which to investigate.
e) difficulty of access, the human realm is not directly observable from
the outside, is saturated with meaning, hence, we have to accept evidence
with a different nature other than observation.
According to Augros & Stanciu (1984) science has, since the beginning of
this century, undergone a series of exciting revolutions in physics, in
neuroscience, in cosmology, and in psychology. Capra (1982), a physicist,
documented these developments in detail, then followed through with a
description of their ramifications and consequences, and went on to map out
radical changes in our present culture which are clearly mandated by these
changes. He states that the "dramatic changes of concepts and ideas that has occurred in
11
physics...in our current theories of matter...[have] brought about a profound change in
our worldview; from the mechanistic...to a holistic and ecological view...[with] deep
insights into the nature of matter and its relation to the human mind...The
worldview implied by modern physics is inconsistent with our present society...A
radically different social and economic structure will be needed: a cultural
revolution in the true sense of the word." (p.p XVII-XVIII).
"shattered all the principal concepts of the Cartesian world view and
Newtonian mechanics. The notion of absolute space and time, the elementary
solid particles, the fundamental material substance, the strictly causal nature of
physical phenomena, and the objective description of nature - none of these
concepts could be extended to the new domains into which physics was now
penetrating" (p.62).
One of the most important consequences of the theory of relativity for example
was "the realization that mass is nothing but a form of
energy...Physicists...measure the masses of particles in the corresponding
energy units...Atoms consist of particles, and these particles are not made
of any material stuff. When we observe them we never see any
substance;...[only] dynamic patterns continually changing into one another -
the continuous dance of energy"(p.p 81-82).
12
The discovery of the dual aspects of matter has far-reaching consequences for
our understanding of the universe. As Neils Bohr wrote, "Isolated material
particles are abstractions, their properties being definable and observable only
through their interaction with other systems! Subatomic particles, then, are
not 'things' but are interconnections between 'things', and these 'things', in
turn, are interconnections between other 'things', and so on. In quantum
theory you never end up with 'things'; you always deal with interconnections.
This is how modern physics reveal the oneness of the universe".
(Capra: 69-70).
Contrast this with what the early nineteen seventies brought about. Sperry tells us
that with a remarkable suddenness, a revolution in the scientific treatment of the
relation of mind and brain was taking place. In his words:
"The new mentalist thinking brings basic revisions of causal explanation that
provide scientists with a new philosophy, a new outlook, a new way of
understanding and explaining ourselves and the world. The full range of the
contents and qualities of inner experience...are not only given a new legitimacy in
science but are also given primacy over the more physiochemical forces". (p.
608)
13
new, previously nonexistent, emergent properties, including the mental, that
interact causally at their own higher level, and also exert causal control from
above downward...over their constituent neuronal events - at the same time that
they are determined by them. Microdeterminism is integrated with emergent
determinism". (p.609).
The advocates of value-free social science would still argue that this
doctrine is meant to guarantee the objectivity of the scientist, who might
otherwise fall victim to his own biases. However, the new paradigm replaces the
idea of objectivity with that of intersubjectivity. "External reality, as existing apart
from the perceiver, simply cannot be objectively known. Shared realities are
intersubjectively valid, but their objective validity cannot be known"(Strong,
1984: 471). The exclusion of values would never solve the problem. Instead, the
cause of scientific inquiry may be better served if the particular values on which
14
any theoretical framework is founded were explicitly laid out. This renders them
open to criticism by others, instead of allowing them to operate sub rosa.
Man, according to the new paradigm, and also to the Islamic faith, is not
only his material being. He combines material, observable, empirical aspects
(body) with spiritual, non-empirical aspects (soul), in an integrated, indivisible
unity (as long as he lives). Human behavior is the resultant of the dynamic
interplay between these forces. Man according to both Islam and the new
paradigm cannot be understood when reduced to either of these components to
the exclusion of the other , or when "interaction" between the two components is
ignored. But this is where similarities between the new paradigm and Islam ends .
Islam does not stop with the vague idea that there are "spiritual" factors at work
on human behavior. Islam goes on to provide a coherent conceptualization of the
relationship between body and soul, the source of which is no less an authority
than the Creator of man, through authentic Divine Revelation . According to the
Quran and verified Hadith , before human beings were brought into this world, a
covenant was made between themselves (their souls) and their Creator, the One
God, where they all declared that He is their One and only Lord, their Sustainer .
This event is the original point at which human beings came to know about their
Lord, the point at which the spiritual relationship between man and God originally
started.
15
"When thy Lord drew forth from the children of Adam - from their loins -
their descendants, and made them testify concerning themselves saying : Am I
not Your Lord (who cherishes and sustains you) ? They said Yea! We do testify!
(This) lest ye should say on the Day of Judgment : we were never mindful. Or
lest ye should say : our fathers before us may have taken false gods, but we are
their descendants , after them : wilt thou destroy us because of the deeds of men
who were futile? " (Quran, 7:172-173).
Men are then born and brought up in human environments, where they may
keep their original spirituality (Fitrah) intact, or may become forgetful of their
God and his covenant and go astray. But God sends Messengers with scripture
containing prescriptions as to how to return back, to "remember" the original
covenant. Those who are sincere, who have kept their fitrah intact will
immediately follow the guidance of the Messengers. Those who became callous
and unmindful will not. So, God has decreed that those who maintain a strong
affinity with Him and who obey his commands will surely lead a "good" life in
this world, and will be saved and duly rewarded in the hereafter . And
conversely, those who dissociated themselves from their Lord will live a
miserable life now , and will be duly punished in the hereafter.
It is clear , then , that Islam assigns a very high place for spiritual factors
(i.e. the quality of the relationship between the human being and God) in
determining human behavior. So, we may conclude that in Islam , there can be no
true "science" of human behavior that excludes the spiritual aspects of man.
Man's relationship with his Creator is the most important influence on his life .
But how can social scientists could ever hope to achieve any such insights into
the "unseen" components of man or of the dynamics of the interactions among
the empirical and the "unseen" components - except through Divine Revelation?
But the inclusion of revelation as a source of verifiable social scientific facts -
side by side ( or should we say over and above) with sense experiences, and
mental processing introduces new challenges which Muslim social scientists have
to deal with in a rather unconventional fashion.
Normally, we should not expect to face any serious problems when the
focus of our study is on the observable and the empirical. After all, most of our
research methods and techniques in the past have been geared to the investigation
of empirical phenomena. Our "senses" provide the raw material for knowledge,
and "reason" is supposed to enmesh these together in a logical and in a
meaningful way. The big question is, how are we ever to study the
"nonempirical" aspects of our being? The soul, the spiritual aspects are by
definition not amenable to study through sense experiences. This aspect of
16
human existence is not space- or time-bound. The vehicle for understanding such
phenomena cannot be the sense organs. Nor could it be reason alone, for reason
can only process bits of data - sensory or otherwise - in accordance with its
innate rules.
But theories are based on certain assumptions, which "are not for testing",
while they limit the situations under which the theory applies. If a situation
violates the assumptions, "it is not legitimate to apply the theory" (Lin, 1976:16) .
How then do we appraise theories? . Howard asks, "What are the criteria
whereby choices among theories are made ? . McMullin held that the appraisal of
theory is in important respects closer in structure to value-judgement than it is
to...rule-governed inference"... (Howard:257). For this reason, assumptions upon
which a theory stands should be always explicitly laid out, even if they cannot be
tested. This makes it possible for others to agree or disagree with the
assumptions and to produce alternative assumptions that may prove more useful
when hypotheses based on them are tested .
17
But "all such conjectures should be subjected to the most severe and searching
criticism and experimental scrutiny of their truth claims. The growth of
knowledge thus proceeds through the elimination of error, i.e. through the
refutation of hypotheses that are logically inconsistent or entail empirically refuted
consequences" (Feigl, 1975: 880).
Informed by these insights one can hardly disapprove of Dawis's call for
allowing the largest number of theories:
In the same vein, Allen Bergin (1980) encourages us to examine our values,
admit that they are subjective, be clear and open. Then we state our values as
hypotheses for testing and common consideration by others, and subject them to
test, criticism, and verification (p.102). He goes on further to offer a few testable
hypotheses as examples. And, it should be always born in mind that "the
ultimate test of an epistemology is in the crucible of empirical or theoretical trials"
(Borgen, 1984: 458) . That is the limit of where the new paradigm can take us.
And this is where "revelation" fits into the general picture of theory
development in the social sciences from an Islamic perspective. If theories are
made possible in the traditional model through the creative use of our
imagination, then what do we loose if we substitute imagination with insights
gained from revelation? Homans tells us that "a leap of imagination" is required to
bring observations together in a meaningful way (Homans, 1980:19). Dubin
(1978) also asserts that "a theoretical model is limited in no way except by the
imagination of the theorist in what he may use as elements in building the
model...", then it is for research tests to decide on its reality. (p.12) .
We cannot make exemptions of these rules for the insights generated from
our understanding of what revelation stands for. Scripture is something, our
human understanding derived from it is another. So, the basic strategy suggested
here for the incorporation of religious insights into the scheme of theory
18
development in the social sciences - without loss in external validity - would
include the following:
2. To the extent that we correctly interpret the Holy Quran and understand
Verified Hadith, we would be able to generate plausible theoretical frameworks
which most probably will succeed in meeting the demands of rigorous testing in
the "total reality" .
19
geared to such phenomena is hermeneutics . "The hermeneutic approach seeks
to apprehend, interpret, and explain the objective truth of knowledge, reality,
people, and action in terms of subjective and intersubjective human meanings and
felt experience... [this] understanding...takes place in transactional processes of
mutual self-reflexivity and empathic acceptance...and open dialogical relations
between people". (Siporin, 1985:212) . Ford (1984) also calls for "different
research designs, different measurement approaches, and different mathematical
models for analyzing of data...to fit the nature of the phenomena being
studied". (p.p. 465-466) . The volume edited by Reason and Rowan (1981)
pro vide s info r mat io n o n a co llect io n o f suc h met ho ds.
20
We hope that the suggested strategy for including insights derived from the
Holy Quran and from Verified Hadith , in a systematic and testable way would
contribute to a better understanding and better utilization of religious insights in
the social scientific arena . The proposed strategy should help set the record right
with regard to the relationships between science and religion . A conscious effort
was made to keep our perspective within the boundaries of fairness and
straightforward- ness. The New Paradigmers proved to be useful in many
respects. But alas! Some of their contributions were found to be wanting and
incapable of going all the way to finish the task at hand. Some even offered views
which seem still shackled by the same old fetters. A case in point is Ken Wilber's
(1990) proclamation that
"The conflict between empirical science and religion is, and always has
been, a conflict between the pseudoscientific aspects of religion and the
psuedoreligious aspects of science . To the extent that science remains science
and religion remains religion , no conflict is possible - or rather, any conflict that
occurs can always be shown to reduce to a category error ..." (p.35) .
While Wilber's thoughts may sound an antidote against the views of those
scientists keen on inflicting their own godless religions on societies (remember
Auguste Compte?!) his vision still smacks of the compartmentalization of the
scientist's existence, from which the social sciences has suffered for long.
If our suggested strategy holds true, what Muslim social scientists need
most today is to develop more sophisticated research designs and more refined
data collection techniques capable of tapping the "unseen" aspects of the human
being. Such designs and techniques are rather in short supply today - with the
traditional focus on " the observable " ruling high. A growing literature, however,
seems to be leading the way towards achieving that goal. (Reason & Rowan,
1981; Howard, 1984; Polkinghorne, 1984)
21
Bibliography
Augros, Robert M. & Stanciu, George N. (1984) The New Story of Science
(Chicago : Gateway Edition ) .
Borgen, Fred (1984) "Are there Necessary Linkages between Research Practices
and the Philosophy of Science?" Journal of Counseling Psychology, 31,
p.p.457-460.
Capra, Fritjof (1982) The Turning Point: Science, Society, and the Rising
Culture (New York: Simon & Schuster).
Dawis, Rene (1984) "Of Old Philosophies and New Kids on the Block", Journal
of Counseling Psychology, 31, p.p. 467-469.
22
Ejlers).
Gouldner, Alvin (1970) The Coming Crisis of Western Sociology (New York:
Basic Books).
Howard, George (1984) "A Modest Proposal for a Revision of Strategies for
Counseling Research" Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 31, p.p. 430-441.
Kerlinger, Fred (1979) Behavioral Research (New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston).
23
Ravetz, Jerome (1975) "History of Science" Encyclopedia Britannica,
15th ed. Vol. 16, p.p.366-375.
Reason, Peter & Rowan, John eds. (1981) Human Inquiry: A Sourcebook of
New Paradigm Research (New York: John Wiley).
Wilber, Ken (1990) Eye to Eye : The Quest for the New Paradigm (Boston:
Shambhala) .
Winkel, Eric A. (1990) "A Reading of the ijmali Critique", Muslim Education
Quarterly Vol.8, No.1, p.p.57-62 .
24